The European Union’s landmark Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) was supposed to mark the end of the bloc’s complicity in global deforestation.
Instead, it risks being gutted from within.
A growing number of member states, led by Austria and Luxembourg, are pushing to introduce a “no-risk” category into the EUDR — an exemption that would in practice harm both the EU’s deforestation agenda and its sanctions on Russian and Belarusian timber.
The proposed exemption would exclude goods from “no-risk” countries from due diligence and geolocation checks.
In doing so, it would open a gaping loophole that allows deforestation-linked and sanctions-busting wood and other commodities to flow into the EU unchallenged. It would reward bad actors, punish responsible businesses and undermine our support for Ukraine.
An example: Earthsight investigations revealed earlier this year that more than €1.5bn worth of Russian and Belarusian birch plywood entered the EU after sanctions were imposed in 2022.
That’s roughly 20 container-loads of illicit birch ply arriving in the EU every single day. In just the past six months, we found a further €273m worth imported via China, Kazakhstan, Turkey, and Georgia.
These products are rebranded and relabelled in the laundering routes, and often accompanied by fraudulently issued certificates of origin claiming they were manufactured in those third countries.
During our undercover work, launderers regularly offered Earthsight the use of fake harvest location information to accompany these shipments too.
Exporters are openly naming countries like Bulgaria, Italy and Romania as key entry points.
In several instances, sales representatives from Russian timber firms, including firms linked to oligarchs sanctioned by the EU, explain exactly how to circumvent EU law using third countries. The deception isn’t subtle. It’s industrial-scale fraud.
While EU politicians are talking about the advantages of a “no-risk” exemption for European producers, the various resolutions and letters proposing this category make it clear it could apply to any country that has low deforestation rates and laws protecting its own forests.
This means that China — a well-documented hub for illegal timber from all over the world, not just Russia — and potentially other laundering hubs with low deforestation rates such as Kazakhstan, could be given a free pass.
Even if EU lawmakers could somehow navigate the diplomatic fallout (and likely WTO non-compliance) of an exemption that only applied to EU countries, exempting any area from geolocation creates opportunities for that area to be used for laundering — and we would simply see new and more creative ways of importing illegal timber.
What’s really happening is that lobbying from the timber and agribusiness sectors is now being dressed up as simplification
Eight of the 10 EU member states that have imported the most conflict timber are now backing the “no-risk” plan.
These include Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia and Croatia — countries that, in some cases, have explicitly acknowledged the problem of illegal Russian wood entering their markets.
The EUDR — like its predecessor, the European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR) — is an important tool for keeping Russian timber out of Europe.
So when politicians like Austrian MEP Alexander Bernhuber insist that all we need is stronger sanctions enforcement, that demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the system.
Sanctions on timber only apply to goods made in Russia or Belarus, not those processed elsewhere — a loophole currently exploited by launderers.
The EUTR bans all Russian and Belarusian wood, wherever it is processed, allowing EUTR authorities to use the law to crack down on Russian wood even if it was processed in a third country.
While EUTR enforcement has been notoriously weak, the EUDR has learned from those mistakes and offers authorities better tools that — if the law remains intact — will make it easier to debunk the fake harvest claims that launderers routinely proffer.
Supporters of the “no risk” exemption argue that it will reduce red tape and help small farmers and foresters.
But the regulation already includes tailored support for smaller operators, digital tools to ease reporting, and a phased implementation schedule.
What’s really happening is that lobbying from the timber and agribusiness sectors is now being dressed up as simplification.
Giving in to these demands would weaken the EU’s sanctions regime, allowing not just Russian and Belarusian firms — some with links to Kremlin oligarchs — but a wide range of unscrupulous actors to continue profiting from opaque timber flows.
It would signal that enforcement is optional. Responsible businesses that have invested in tracing or changing their supply chains over the last few years would be undercut by competitors exploiting weak oversight.
Let’s be clear: this is not about red tape.
It’s about whether Europe has the will to confront illegal practices in the supply chains of the products we consume. It’s a response to years of evidence showing that illegal and unsustainable commodities routinely slip through the cracks, wrecking the climate, violating human rights, and undercutting responsible businesses.
Anyone serious about enforcing sanctions, fighting deforestation and illegal logging or defending fair competition should reject the “no-risk” proposal outright. Anything less would be a gift to timber launderers and a blow to Europe’s credibility as a rule-maker.
This year, we turn 25 and are looking for 2,500 new supporting members to take their stake in EU democracy. A functioning EU relies on a well-informed public – you.
Tara Ganesh is the team leader for timber, sanctions and northern forests at Earthsight.
Tara Ganesh is the team leader for timber, sanctions and northern forests at Earthsight.