{"id":25882,"date":"2025-05-30T19:13:34","date_gmt":"2025-05-30T09:13:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/woodcentral.com.au\/?p=25882"},"modified":"2025-05-31T21:18:13","modified_gmt":"2025-05-31T11:18:13","slug":"flawed-eudr-ratings-prioritize-politics-over-deforestation-risks","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/woodcentral.com.au\/flawed-eudr-ratings-prioritize-politics-over-deforestation-risks\/","title":{"rendered":"Flawed EUDR Ratings Prioritize Politics Over Deforestation Risks"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Widespread corruption and illegal deforestation still occur in countries classified as ‘low-risk’ under the EUDR’s country classification list, making a mockery of Europe’s commitment to rid supply chains of deforestation. That is according to Marigold Walkins, senior advisor at Forest Trends, who today spoke to Wood Central about the European Commission’s (EC) country classification list\u2014published last week\u2014which ranked 194 countries based on their risk of deforestation.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Tuesday,<\/a> Wood Central revealed that just four countries (Russia, Belarus, Myanmar, and North Korea) were deemed high risk, 49 standard risk, whilst the vast majority of countries, 141 in total, were classified as low risk: “Although the European Commission’s risk ratings are intended to support deforestation-free supply chains, they overlook critical factors such as illegal deforestation, corruption, and weak enforcement,” Walkins said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Countries with well-documented governance failures\u2014such as Congo and Papua New Guinea\u2014are classified as “low risk,” alongside Finland, Norway, and the United States. In contrast, four countries appear in the “high risk” category, all of which are already under EU Council sanctions for unrelated reasons\u2014raising concerns that this category was shaped more by diplomatic convenience than by actual deforestation risk.”<\/p>Marigold Walkins, senior advisor at Forest Trends, who spoke to Wood Central<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\"One
India has emerged as a major transhipment hub for trading timber between countries, with Forest Trends revealing that large amounts of high-risk products are re-exported from India, Singapore and China into European markets. Here, logs are unloaded at the Kandla Port Terminal, Kutch in Gujarat, India. (Photo Credit: 1643912476 via Shutterstock Images)
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Pointing to the Forest Trends Illicit Harvest, Complicit Goods<\/a><\/em> report, published in 2021, illegal deforestation and associated commodity trade are widespread in many countries now labelled as low and standard risk: “In fact, estimates suggest up to 50\u201390% illegal deforestation in some tropical countries\u2014a level of illegality that cannot be ignored when assessing risk,” according to Kerstin Canby, Forest Trend’s Senior Director of Forest Policy, Trade, and Finance Initiative<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

“This is not a minor oversight. More than a decade of implementing laws like the EU Timber Regulation, the US Lacey Act, and Australia’s Illegal Logging Prohibition Act has shown that corruption, weak governance, and limited enforcement capacity are some of the clearest signals of risk\u2014and essential for directing enforcement efforts where they matter most.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The
The European Union’s new deforestation regulation (the EUDR) is the European Commission’s most ambitious policy to stamp out deforested products in European supply chains. (Image Credit: Getty Images)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Singapore, India and China’s role in laundering deforested products<\/h6>\n\n\n\n

According to Canby, the risk is especially high when looking at global trade hubs: “The risk of laundering and obfuscating origin is real and well documented. Major re-export centres like China, India, and Singapore also receive low-risk labels despite their documented roles in transhipment processing and\/or re-exporting high-risk materials in ways that obscure the original country of harvest.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“Even more striking is that Turkey and Kazakhstan, which the EC itself has flagged for laundering banned Russian-origin plywood, remain listed as low risk\u2014a troubling disconnect. Without stronger safeguards, the current country classifications could further incentivise circumvention.”<\/p>Kerstin Canby, Forest Trend’s Senior Director of Forest Policy, Trade, and Finance Initiative<\/a><\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\"Russian
Russian logs continue to travel across Eurasia, as Putin’s linked oligarchs continue to get rich on selling birch plywood into European markets. (Photo Credit: Vladimir Grigorev \/ Alamy Stock Photo)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Walkins said Forest Trends IDAT Risk scores<\/a><\/a><\/strong>, built on global governance and legality indicators, “show a far sharper and more realistic picture.” Using data provided by the World Bank, UN agencies, the Economist Intelligence Unit, and various other sources, it classified 104 countries as high risk, 54 as medium risk, and 54 as low risk\u2014painting a very different picture from the data used to develop the Global Benchmarking System.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“For a regulation meant to be a gold standard for global deforestation-free supply chains, this first round of benchmarking is a missed opportunity,” Canby<\/a> said. “Because even if a country is rated low risk on deforestation, it doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s low risk on legality. Due diligence and enforcement targeting must be guided by a fuller picture.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n