The EUTR exempts CITES licensed timber from risk assessment. However, recent Greenpeace exposures and investigations of dubious CITES timber arriving in Belgium showcase the weaknesses of the CITES system with regard to timber legality assurance.
On 25 March 2013, less than a month after the EUTR came into force, the Belgian authorities blocked two consignments of Afrormosia timber from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) at the port of Antwerp. The action was prompted by Greenpeace which claimed it had reason to suspect that CITES licenses accompanying the shipments were issued on false grounds.
Afrormosia is threatened by extinction and therefore protected under CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora).
The EUTR provides a “green lane” for products accompanied by CITES licenses, exempting the material from risk assessment.The green lane approach assumes that the CITES system effectively secures the legal origin of the timber.
Does CITES provide timber legality assurance?
Following investigations, the Belgian CITES authorities released the timber, worth an estimated 60,000 to 70,000 €. In a press release, the CITES department stated: “After extensive discussions with the DRC, the necessary evidence has been provided and all the information available to conclude that the timber has been legally harvested”.
Jonas Hulsens, campaigner at Greenpeace Belgium, comments: “The basis for this decision appears very dubious. For example, during this process the Congolese authorities provided three different explanations for the origin of the timber”.
Afrormosia hardly exists in the Badundu area of the concessions managed by the exporting company Tala Tina. The Belgian CITES authorities accepted the explanation that Tala Tina had purchased the timber from a local community possessing an "artisanal" logging license. “However, the Congolese CITES authorities failed to deliver the actual felling permit”, notes Mr Hulsens.
A recent Greenpeace report on the state of illegal logging in Congo DRC finds that “logging companies are getting around a moratorium on new industrial logging permits through the illegal use of artisanal permits […]”.
Following the release of the Afrormosia timber on 13 May 2013, Greenpeace Belgium filed a formal complaint with the legal authorities of Belgium. The complaint is currently being processed.
Importers: “CITES no guarantee under the EUTR”
According to Mr Hulsens, the EUTR’s green lane for CITES licensed timber is hard to justify given the high potential for “on-demand” issuance of such licenses in the DRC and other high-risk countries riddled by corruption.
President of the Belgian Timber Importers Federation Frédéric Cras recently echoed this concern in the Dutch timber industry magazine Houtwereld.
In an interview entitled “CITES no guarantee under the EUTR”, he said: “We told our members that a CITES-license is in itself not sufficient to ensure EUTR compliance […] apparently in many countries of origin there are too many irregularities […]. Until this changes, our members need to analyse the legality of the timber themselves”.
The Belgian CITES authorities also acknowledged that “the problem with the cargo timber Afrormosia seizures shows that this [CITES] system requires a critical evaluation” and indicated that “Belgium will follow up on this issue with all parties concerned”.
Greenpeace finds that the importing countries have a key role to play in handling the issuance of CITES import permits: “For a country such as the DRC, where corruption is rampant and forest law enforcement very weak, follow up questions are essential to verify legality. As long as there are reasons to believe an export permit is not valid, the import permit should be denied”.
Sources: Greenpeace (report, blog), Belgian Public Service – health, food chain safety and environment (press release), Houtwereld.