{"id":29220,"date":"2025-10-10T16:14:09","date_gmt":"2025-10-10T06:14:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/woodcentral.com.au\/?p=29220"},"modified":"2025-10-10T16:14:12","modified_gmt":"2025-10-10T06:14:12","slug":"50-of-australias-imported-timber-fails-traceability-testing-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/woodcentral.com.au\/50-of-australias-imported-timber-fails-traceability-testing-report\/","title":{"rendered":"50% of Australia\u2019s Imported Timber Fails Traceability Testing \u2014 Report"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Huge volumes of timber imported into Australia could be (unknowingly) illegal or ‘conflict’ timber, with a new report published by Australia’s Department of Agriculture under the Freedom of Information Act<\/a> revealing that 50% of all sampled products could not accurately verify the provenance of the wood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report, produced by Source Certain\u2014the body which last month revealed that up to 7.5% of all timber used in UK house building could be traced to Russian oligarch-controlled forests<\/a>\u2014revealed that whilst all known examples of Australian-grown timber were correctly labelled, 63% of import samples carrying private certifications were incorrectly labelled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

“This indicates a lack of ability of third-party certification to act as an assurance to support the integrity of a product that is carrying a claim within the consumer market and undermines the credibility of the certification mark itself. These findings indicate importers are likely relying too heavily on third-party certification as a solution to conclude the negligible risk of illegal provenance.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
Click here to view the report.<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

Source Certain combined market surveillance with lab analysis, to test more than 174 different items of timber-based products. The problems lie with imports: 37 of 74 imported items return results inconsistent with their claimed provenance or taxonomy, resulting in a failure rate of 50 per cent. Impacted import categories included oak, teak and birch products, a range of softwoods, and manufactured items such as veneers, engineered wood and plywood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"The
In one case study, Source Certain visited a retail outlet to buy graded pine and found practices that increase provenance risk. A sampler asked staff for pine from a specific Swedish supplier and was told multiple suppliers share the same item ID, so shelf placement does not indicate origin. When the sampler requested Swedish wood, a staff member replied that s 47G(1)(a) \u201cdo not care about the origin of their timber,\u201d a comment the report treats as indicative of weak staff training. The report warns that non\u2011segregated stock and shared item IDs make Baltic and Russian substitution feasible and leave retailers unable to verify or respond if declared harvest origins are wrong. It recommends supplier segregation, clearer labelling and warehouse process changes to restore traceability.. (Photo Credit: Vladimir Grigorev \/ Alamy Stock Photo)
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Wood Central understands that private certification schemes were frequently implicated, with investigators finding that imported products commonly displayed claims that were absent, expired, inconsistent with certifier records, or otherwise unreliable.<\/strong> By contrast, every tested sample of Australian\u2011grown timber matched its declared species and provenance, underlining a clear contrast in traceability between domestic and imported supply chains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Source Certain identified product groups and origins of particular concern, naming Burmese teak in rough\u2011sawn form and in composite goods such as doors; Russian plywood and laminated veneer lumber, including birch, larch and pine LVLs; veneers and plywood manufactured in China, notably Bintangor\u2011faced panels; and composite products from Southeast Asia such as Meranti\u2011faced marine plywood, doors and mouldings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And whilst it stops short of asserting that every mismatch equates to illegality, it warns that the scale of discrepancies materially increases the risk of timber with dubious provenance entering Australian markets. It also notes that the pattern aligns with enforcement experience in other jurisdictions with due diligence laws.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Gabon's
In another case study, a market surveillance operation conducted between June and October 2023 found products marketed in Western Australia and Victoria as \u201cFSC 100%\u201d for s 47G(1)(a) finger\u2011jointed panels (Item No. s 47G(1)(a)). Source Certain checked the factory\u2019s public FSC records and found the site listed Okoume (Aucoumea klaineana) under other product lines but not under W9.1 for finger\u2011jointed wood, creating a mismatch between on\u2011pack claims and certifier records. Okoume\u2019s only certified sources are in Gabon, a jurisdiction NGOs have repeatedly flagged for legal\u2011sourcing risks, so the discrepancy raises material provenance concerns despite the FSC claim and underscores the limits of documentation without targeted testing. (Photo Credit: manola72 – stock.adobe.com)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Source Certain frames the problem as systemic, saying industry reliance on paperwork and certification marks is frequently insufficient to manage provenance risk. The report recommends a shift to a test\u2011centred model of assurance that embeds routine taxonomic verification and forensic provenance testing into procurement and compliance, complemented by an enforcement capability and systems\u2011level controls to prevent illegal or conflict timber from entering the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Its practical recommendations target both industry and regulators and are designed to make traceability verifiable and scalable. They include clearer and simpler supply\u2011chain documentation, expanded unannounced second\u2011 and third\u2011party audits with a timber\u2011legality focus, and mandatory importer declarations supported by independent Certificates of Analysis. Source Certain also proposes a stepped testing regime to cheaply screen low\u2011risk consignments before escalating to forensic analysis, investment in laboratory capacity and faster, lower\u2011cost screening technologies, and stronger labelling standards\u2014ranging from improved product descriptions to QR codes or distributed\u2011ledger records that carry verifiable product histories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n