New documentary investigates IKEA’s destructive logging in Romania

“IKEA loves wood.”

PHOTO Credit: All photos are screenshots from the documentary.

Romania has some of the last areas of old-growth forest in Europe. But Romania’s forests are severely threatened by logging. And much of the logging is illegal.

IKEA has been buying forest in Romania since 2015, and today IKEA is the country’s largest private forest owner with 51,000 hectares of forest.

The logging operations are certified under the Forestry Stewardship Council’s system and IKEA claims that its forest management is sustainable.

IKEA even claims in a promotional video that “responsible forest management helps to combat climate change”.

But a new documentary by journalist Tom Heinemann for DR (Danish Broadcasting Corporation) investigates IKEA’s destructive logging in Romania. The documentary is another shocking exposé of IKEA’s impact on Romania’s old-growth forests.

Last year, an Arte documentary titled, “How IKEA is plundering the planet” included an investigation into IKEA’s clearcutting of Romania’s old-growth forests, leaving a trail of destruction.

Gabriel Pãun, the founder of the Romanian environmental NGO, Agent Green, plays a major role in the new documentary which is titled, “IKEA loves wood”.

Pãun explains that,

“Big corporations, including global company IKEA, have chosen to come to Romania, a country which is home and synonymous with the definition of corruption and just have operations here. There is a blind, or turning eye in all the chain at all levels in Romania that you can get away with it.”

In Romania, IKEA works with the local forestry industry.

According to Romania’s Ministry of the Environment, 50% of logging in the country is illegal. The country’s president has described the problem as a national security issue. The authorities have introduced rules that all timber transports must be registered.

According to Transparency International, Romania is among the most corrupt countries in Europe.

The logging industry is violent

Six forest officers, responsible for supervising forestry operations, have been murdered. No one has been convicted.

Heinemann meets Tiberiu Boşutar founder of the NGO Legea Codrului (The Law of the Forest).

Boşutar was attacked by forest workers with sticks and axes. They forced him to strip while the forest workers filmed him. “I still have nightmares at night,” he says. “But the case is more important than the risk. What we work for is the future of our grandchildren.”

No one has been convicted for the attack on Boşutar.

Pãun has also been on the receiving end of violent attacks. In 2015, together with foreign journalists, he visited a state-owned forest. A forest vehicle arrived with six men. Pãun was badly beaten. His ribs were broken. He was left for dead. He no longer lives in Romania.

Even though the attack on Pãun was filmed, no one has been convicted.

Simon Henzell-Thomas: IKEA’s word salad chef

Heinemann spent several months writing to IKEA to arrange an interview with the company. He sent the film that the documentary team had shot so far in Romania to IKEA. Eventually, Heineman got an agreement to meet with IKEA in Romania.

Several IKEA employees met Heinemann and they visited several of IKEA’s concessions in Romania.

But only one IKEA employee speaks in the documentary: Simon Henzell-Thomas, director of Climate and Nature at Ingka Group (IKEA’s parent company, incorporated in the tax haven of the Netherlands).

Henzell-Thomas told Heinemann not to use any of the other IKEA employees’ answers in the documentary because of “security issues”. Heinemann asks Henzell-Thomas to explain.

“I don’t think it’s about danger necessarily,” Henzell-Thomas replies. “It’s more that we didn’t want them on camera, and there are various issue with that, including security issues, where we felt it was safer that I would be the spokesperson.”

This word salad is, unfortunately, typical of Henzell-Thomas’s replies to Heinemann’s questions throughout the documentary.

Târâtu

The documentary team travels with Pãun to Târâtu, where IKEA has a logging concession. “I am sitting in the middle of a clearcut, done by IKEA,” Pãun says, “right after they bought it.”

“The entire forest cover has been removed. So there is no more trees left. There is just one tree over there. And this is what they call FSC certified because they left a biotope tree. It’s not sustainable forestry, and it’s not sustainable product and furniture you are using right now if it comes from places like this.”

Suceava

Pãun takes Heinemann to IKEA’s Suceava logging concession, together with Dan Turiga, a forest engineer. “This is a clearcut,” Pãun says. “I feel dismayed to see such disarray.” Four clearcuts have so far been hacked into the forest. IKEA plans to cut down the entire forest.

Pãun says that,

“Everything will be gone. This wonderful, extremely mixed forest with various species, including giant cherry trees and oak trees will be put down in a blink of an eye. Everything nature created in centuries will be put down.”

IKEA claims that the forest is of low biological value, with only 10% oak trees. Therefore, the authorities have allowed the logging.

Pãun stands in the forest and points out one after another oak tree. “Oak is the dominant species,” he says. Pãun shows oak seedlings that had grown in the clearcuts, but had died.

Six months after visiting the Suceava concession with Pãun and Turiga the documentary team returns, this time with IKEA.

Since the previous visit, IKEA has replanted the clearcut areas with oak seedlings in plastic tubes.

Henzell-Thomas denies that the forest has been clearcut. “In my understanding, this is a substitute cut not a clearcut,” he says.

“For the long term health of the forest we’re replacing what is more of an invasive species with oak, which is much better for the soil, it’s much better for the long term health of the forest.”

Heinemann asks two experts about “substitute cutting”: Torsten Krause, head of Lund University’s Centre for Sustainability Studies; and Jacob Heilmann-Clausen, a lecturer at the Department of Biodiversity in the University of Copenhagen.

Neither of them has heard the term “substitute cutting” before.

“If IKEA doesn’t call it clearcutting,” Krause says, “I think they’re trying to avoid the negative connotation that clearcutting has.”

The “invasive species” that Henzell-Thomas mentions are actually native to Romania. Krause explains that what IKEA wants is an oak monoculture plantation. The other tree species compete with the oak and are not as economically valuable to IKEA as oak.

“Oak is the most expensive wood on the market,” Pãun explains. He points to an oak tree and estimates that it could be worth “a couple of thousands of euros”.

Pãun notes that there are no “biotope” trees left in IKEA’s clearcuts in the Suceava concession. These are trees that are supposed to be left to grow old and eventually die, at which point they provide food and shelter for insects, birds, plants, and fungi.

IKEA’s forestry operations in Romania are certified under the Forest Stewardship Council’s system. “According to FSC rules in Romania, IKEA should leave a minimum of one to three large biotope trees per hectare,” Heinemann explains. “In the 12 hectares they have cut down, not a single one is left.”

Heinemann asks where are the biotope trees?

“The biotope trees are there,” Henzell-Thomas says. “If you looked around, you can see the biotope trees around at a landscape level, but not hectare by hectare.”

Krause points out that the FSC rules are very specific.

“You have to retain species of trees that are old, like veteran trees, that are providing shelter for birds for large predators. If there are hollows in the trees that are used by owls you cannot cut them down. When there are any nests on the trees, you have to maintain those, you cannot cut them down. But clearly the pictures from the drones are showing a very different image.”

Iasi

The documentary team travels to IKEA’s Iasi concession which covers almost 3,000 hectares, mainly of oak and beech trees. Parts of the area are protected under the EU’s Natura 2000 directive.

“No trees should be felled here without an environmental impact assessment,” Pãun says. “They haven’t done any environmental assessment.”

IKEA has permission for something called “progressive” felling. Under this system, the forest is logged gradually over a 30-year period.

Once again though, IKEA is clearcutting. Pãun points out that in the regrowth, there are neither oaks nor beech.

Six months later, Heinemann goes back to Iasi, with IKEA this time around. One week before the visit, IKEA had planted oak seedlings in plastic tubes.

This isn’t the first time that IKEA has attempted to fend off criticism by planting trees.

In 2021, Agent Green published a report documenting IKEA’s destruction of old-growth forest in Romania. It generated media coverage, including from the BBC.

IKEA rejected the criticism.

But IKEA did go back to the areas highlighted in the report and did what Pãun describes as a “face-lift”. IKEA planted oak trees in plastic tubes.

“I wrote to you on 16 December talking to you about all the things we found and suddenly we’re here three months later and look. Is that because we’ve been here?” Heinemann asks Henzell-Thomas, pointing at the plastic tubes.

“I think there’s a natural flow and a natural process and you came at one point, now we’re coming at another point. You see the process where it is now, you saw it where it was then,” Henzell-Thomas replies.

In the Natura 2000 protected area, the forest is supposed to regenerate naturally. That’s not what’s happening in IKEA’s clearcuts.

“In this case,” Henzell-Thomas says, “we’re absolutely relying on natural regeneration, but sometimes trees might not take, we might find the composition of that forest is not coming as it should and then we will do some interventions to make sure that the forest will regenerate in a way that is good for the forest.”

“That’s why you’ve used the plastic tubes?” Heinemann asks. “To get more oak trees?”

“I mean specifically this is about making, so, even natural regeneration needs a helping hand, right?” Henzell-Thomas says.

When Heinemann pushes the point, Henzell-Thomas says, “I can’t comment on the detail there.”

Cicanesti

The documentary team drive into Cicanesti, another IKEA concession. They drive past the private property sign. “You’re not supposed to drive in here,” Pãun says. “You’re not supposed to take photos. Practically everything that we’re doing, you’re not supposed to do.”

The documentary team finds logs left in a stream, and across tracks. Erosion is clearly a problem.

Dan Turiga, the forest engineer, explains that IKEA owns the forest and manages the forest. “IKEA is directly responsible for the entire forestry operation,” Turiga says.

While IKEA has done nothing to sanction the local company, the Romanian authorities have issued three fines for the logging operations: for building illegal roads; for removing too much timber; and for damaging standing trees.

When the documentary team visits the Cicanesti concession with IKEA, Heinemann points out that the local company had been fined for its logging operations.

“For me, that’s a flag that the system is actually working,” IKEA’s Henzell-Thomas replies.

Heinemann points out that the fines only happened because the NGO Agent Green had filed a complaint with the authorities. “Doesn’t this affect you at all?” he asks.

“I don’t know this company myself,” Henzell-Thomas replies. “But the overall process at Ingka is that we’re very strict with who we work with, so I think we wouldn’t tolerate that kind of behaviour.”

“So far, you have done so,” Heinemann says. “They are still here.”

Forest Stewardship Council

IKEA uses FSC certification as a guarantee that everything is sustainable. WWF also works closely with IKEA and FSC.

Pãun is not impressed.

“I think people should know that FSC certification doesn’t mean too much anywhere in the world. But in Romania, it’s even worse. It’s equal with nothing. FSC standard in Romania allows clearcuts, and even logging in virgin primary and old-growth forest, and inside national parks.

“And because the FSC standard allows it, IKEA accepts it.”

Heinemann speaks to Sam Lawson, CEO of Earthsight, a UK-based NGO. Earthsight has produced a series of excellent reports that highlight the failures of the FSC certification system.

Lawson tells Heinemann that,

“The systems and procedures that FSC has, and which IKEA relies on to a large extent, are flawed. Fundamentally flawed. And that’s something that needs to be addressed urgently.”

Earthsight has also investigated IKEA. Lawson says that,

“IKEA is the biggest consumer of wood on the planet. That’s something we calculated and something that they don’t deny. They consume 20, 21 million cubic metres of timber a year, and to put that in perspective, that’s one tree every second. That’s enough logs to go round the world seven times.

“So they are hugely influential in the world of sustainable timber.”

Earthsight’s reports have criticised IKEA for using illegally logged timber from Russia and Ukraine, and timber from prison camps in Belarus, where political prisoners are tortured. All of this was approved by FSC.

“That’s the bizarre thing,” Lawson says.

“It had all be green labelled. It had all been greenwashed. You see these same problems everywhere. FSC has been found to have been certifying illegal timber, certifying human rights abuses all over world, not just in IKEA supply chains.

“IKEA continues to rely very much on FSC’s certificates.”

IKEA’s response is to say that it does not accept illegal timber and that they work actively to prevent the problem.

IKEA’s Henzell-Thomas says that,

“The FSC is one of the tools that we use in responsible forest management. Our belief is that it’s one of the best systems around and we want to continue investing in that, and support that to make it even better and stronger.”

Torsten Krause of Lund University counters this argument:

“I think the FSC system has been critiqued for a long time. That it doesn’t really live up to what it is supposed to from the beginning when it was created some decades ago. It’s been corrupted by business interests. They also get paid by the companies that they’re certifying so there’s a clear economic, I would say, objective behind certifying as much as possible. So I do not think that FSC can reasonably claim to stand for sustainable forest management any longer.”

FSC declined to be interviewed for the documentary, but sent a response to the criticisms raised. FSC’s statement could hardly be more bland and FSC utterly fails to address any of the problems raised in the documentary:

FSC is a voluntary system and the standards must always reflect the local legislative requirements and conditions. At the same time, FSC’s core principles must be maintained.

We take feedback from experts seriously and continuously work to ensure that our standards are met. When credible concerns arise, FSC investigates the matter and requires corrective action if necessary.

FSC is member-driven and governed by stakeholders representing environmental, social and economic interests. The members are organized in such a way that no single group can dominate the decisions.

IKEA’s zero-tolerance and zero-reporting

While working on the documentary, Heinemann tried to find out whether IKEA has ever discovered and reported on either a breach of the rules or corruption. He asks Henzell-Thomas directly.

“I was super clear with you last time and I’ll be super clear again,” Henzell-Thomas replies. “We have a zero-tolerance approach for any corruption in our operations.”

“Have you reported that?” Heinemann asks. “Now I’m asking again.”

“So in any location,” Henzell-Thomas says, “whether it’s Romania, whether it’s somewhere else in Europe or around the world, we will respond to that.”

Heinemann doesn’t give up. “You’re still not answering my question,” he says.

Two of IKEA’s press team had been watching the interview from the sidelines. “You have received an answer to your question,” one of them interrupted.

“So you have not reported anything,” Heinemann concludes.

“I’d rather not get into individual cases now, but I’m telling you that our approach is a zero-tolerance approach to any form of corruption. If we find it we will report it and we will take action,” Henzell-Thomas says.