Timber confiscations in Germany demonstrate that relying on official-looking documents alone for EUTR compliance can be dicey. Such documentation can rarely stand alone when the timber comes from countries with high levels of corruption.
Since the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) came into force on 3 March 2013, several cases have arisen that demonstrate official-looking documents should be treated with great caution when originating from countries with high corruption levels.
Congolese timber confiscated in Germany
Several German companies are at risk of incurring losses due to forfeit of logs of the high-value timber species Wengé. The German EUTR Competent Authority, the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food (BLE), has found that the companies imported the timber in violation of the EUTR.
The high-value Wengé logs were sourced from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) via a Swiss buyer and made their first entry into the EU via the Belgian port of Antwerp.
In August 2013, the German Competent Authority (BLE) seized 36 Wengé logs at two German company facilities.
In August 2013, BLE seized 36 Wengé logs at two facilities in Germany. The seizures were based on advice from the Belgian Competent Authority, followed by a tip-off from Greenpeace. Greenpeace originally raised suspicions that the timber was illegally harvested in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in April when the timber first arrived in Antwerp.
Following investigations, the BLE concluded that “official” certificates apparently issued by the Congolese authorities were forged. Unless the two firms file complaints within a four-week period, the two consignments will be confiscated and sold by the Federal Government.
A third German company reportedly also purchased a batch of the same shipment of Wenge logs, however in this case the purchased timber was shipped directly from Antwerp to a processing company in the Czech Republic. The BLE and the Czech Competent Authority are currently in contact to handle the situation.
Document evaluation critical
A statement from BLE highlights the need to be suspicious of documentation when timber is imported from countries with high corruption:
“This case shows that in the case of countries ranked as particularly susceptible to corruption, proof that timber has been legally harvested cannot solely rest upon the presentation of official documents. In addition, e.g. as part of the due diligence system, independent proofs, such as certificates (for example FSC or PEFC) or verifications of legality performed by third parties, can be employed. There also is the possibility that the operator himself, or an organisation he has authorised to do so, checks the legality of the timber on site and documents this by means of reliable records. Where such proofs cannot be provided, it is not possible to allow imports into the EU”.
According to the BLE, the German authorities are not going to prosecute the companies involved or inflict further penalties beyond the economic losses already incurred through the confiscations.
The BLE emphasises that the companies did have due diligence systems in place and were implementing these according to their understanding of the requirements.
BLE recognises that the case has helped provide a new level of clarity on the level of due diligence expected from companies. According to BLE, “naturally the bar will be raised in future based on the experience gained”.
Other cases underline the risk of dubious documents
The Wengé case recalls two related developments:
- The British BBC Panorama TV programme Jungle Outlaws: The Chainsaw Trail broadcast in July 2013 revealed how a shipment of dubious DRC Okoume timber entered the EU via the French port La Rochelle. Presenting evidence of illegal harvesting, the BBC raised doubts about the importers’ due diligence efforts and underlined the inadequacy of relying solely on harvesting and export licenses.
- In March 2013, the validity of CITES licenses was questioned by Greenpeace. The organisation shed serious doubts on the legal origin of a shipment of Afrormosia timber arriving at Antwerp from the DRC, although the consignment was accompanied by a CITES license. A CITES license exempts timber products from risk assessment under the EUTR. Following investigations, the timber was released by the Belgian authorities. However the Belgian CITES authorities conceded that the CITES system “needs a critical evaluation”. The Belgian Timber Importers’ Federation denounced CITES licenses as a guarantee of timber legality and urged its members to “analyse the legality of the timber themselves” instead of depending solely on CITES licenses.
“Both of these cases again underline that official-looking documents from countries with high corruption need to be treated with great caution by buyers who want to avoid potential association with illegal timber”, says NEPCon Forest Legality Programme Manager Christian Sloth.