In the very first criminal case based on the European Timber Regulation, two Dutch entrepreneurs have been convicted. They imported teak from Myanmar – controversial because of the deforestation in the country. A third timber trader involved was acquitted. The European Timber Regulation must ensure that no more illegal timber enters the European market.
The two convicts – Roelof B. and Arthur van der V. – imported teak from Myanmar via the Czech Republic in 2018 and 2019. Shortly before, the Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) had imposed an order subject to periodic penalty payments on B. because he imported wood from Myanmar. Then, with the help of Van der V. and with a different company name, timber import suddenly took a detour via the Czech Republic. In total, according to the Public Prosecution Service, teak wood was worth 2.5 million euros.
Although there are prison sentences of up to six years for ignoring the Timber Ordinance, the Public Prosecution Service had demanded three community service orders, each of 240 hours. The demand was lower, according to the officer, because the lawsuit has dragged on for years.
The court does indeed sentence B. to 240 hours because of the length of the trial, but in his case calls “unconditional imprisonment normally appropriate and required”. For Van der V., the court has given a lower sentence of 90 hours. A third timber trader who inspected the timber in Myanmar has been acquitted.
Research took a lot of time
The case took so long because the investigation, including the questioning of suspects from the Czech Republic and Myanmar, took a lot of time. It was also the first criminal case based on this legislation that started in 2013. The officer hopes that the criminal case will deter other entrepreneurs, and that other countries will also start criminal cases.
The case was not about whether the entrepreneurs’ wood had been illegally harvested. The court did not rule on that either. The European Timber Regulation states that timber imports must comply with a number of due care obligations. For example, entrepreneurs must ensure that the risk of deforestation in their wood is ‘negligible’. That is not really possible with teak from Myanmar, concluded an expert group from the European Union in 2017. There is so much corruption in the country that wood from controlled logging mixes with illegally harvested wood. In this case, the entrepreneurs have not done enough to eliminate the risk of illegal logging, the court ruled.
During the trial, the wood importers were outraged by the actions of the Public Prosecution Service, which raided, tapped telephone conversations, seized their containers with teak wood, but also their home, telephones and bills. They also pointed to competitors who still import teak from Myanmar to the Netherlands, for example via Croatia.
Rare
Within environmental law, it is still rare that entrepreneurs are subject to criminal proceedings. That has to change, says the Public Prosecution Service, which wants to take an increasingly strict look at illegal wood, among other things. The European Timber Regulation will also be expanded soon. Because trees are not only cut down for wood, but also for agricultural land, similar rules against deforestation will also apply to products such as soy, rubber, coffee and palm oil.
Teak wood is extremely popular in luxury yacht building, of which the Netherlands also has a large industry. Customers pay 600 to 800 euros per square meter for the wood, a wood merchant explained at the hearing. The golden-brown wood is not only seen as stylish, it is also strong and resistant to weather conditions and vermin. “Such a yacht should be able to get from the extremely hot Caribbean to the North Pole within a month, where it is -30 degrees,” said the trader. “Teak can do that.”
And the best teak, according to the entrepreneurs, comes from Myanmar. But the impact of illegal logging is significant, says the Public Prosecution Service. The judge also agrees. “Illegal logging is a serious social problem of major international importance. This contributes to deforestation and thus threatens biodiversity.” Entrepreneur B., according to the court, “has allowed his own commercial interest to outweigh the social interest.”