Sustainability certifications have long been regarded as a cornerstone of responsible timber sourcing. Labels from internationally recognised certification schemes help businesses and consumers identify wood products that are expected to come from legal and sustainably managed forests. However, recent findings presented during Australia’s Senate inquiry into sanctions on the Russian Federation have raised fresh questions about whether documentation alone is enough to guarantee supply chain integrity.
At the centre of the discussion is Source Certain, an Australian forensic science company specializing in origin verification. The company has reaffirmed its findings that Russian timber fibre continues to appear in products sold in Australia, despite sanctions and the suspension of certification for all Russian timber under major certification schemes following the outbreak of the Russia–Ukraine conflict.
Scientific testing raises new questions
According to Source Certain, its forensic testing continues to detect Russian fibre in timber products available in Australia and other global markets. The concern is not only the presence of Russian-origin material but also that these products are often accompanied by documentation claiming they originate from certified, sustainable sources.
The company argues that such claims cannot be legitimate because all FSC and PEFC certificates associated with Russian forest operations were terminated after the conflict began. If products containing Russian fibre are still being marketed with certification documentation, it raises questions about the accuracy of supply chain records and product declarations.
Source Certain also states that some products show evidence of misdeclared timber species and country of origin, making it increasingly difficult to determine their true source through paperwork alone.
Senate inquiry highlights supply chain challenges
The issue has become part of Australia’s broader parliamentary inquiry into the effectiveness of sanctions against Russia.
Evidence presented during the inquiry suggests that Russian timber may continue to reach Australian markets after being processed or re-exported through third countries, potentially bypassing direct trade restrictions.
The discussion has gained political attention, with calls for stronger measures to prevent sanctioned timber from entering supply chains. Similar concerns have also emerged in New Zealand, where industry observers have questioned whether existing import controls are sufficient to verify timber origins.
Documentation Versus Verification
One of the central themes emerging from the inquiry is whether traditional due diligence practices are enough to detect high-risk timber.
Certification documents, supplier declarations, and chain-of-custody records remain important tools for demonstrating compliance. However, Source Certain argues that documentation alone cannot always identify timber whose origin or species has been incorrectly declared.
This conclusion aligns with findings from a report prepared by the company for Australia’s Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF). According to the report, around half of the imported timber products assessed did not match their declared origin or species, while every Australian-grown sample tested was correctly identified.
The company believes these findings demonstrate the value of complementing documentation with scientific verification techniques to strengthen supply chain transparency.
Why it matters for the timber industry?
The debate extends beyond sanctions.
Manufacturers, importers, builders, retailers, and certification bodies all rely on accurate information about timber origin to meet legal requirements and customer expectations. As environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting becomes increasingly important, businesses face growing pressure to demonstrate that wood products are legally sourced and responsibly managed.
The Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012 already requires importers to undertake due diligence before timber products enter the Australian market. Source Certain argues that scientific verification could become an additional safeguard where documentation alone cannot provide certainty.
Focus turns to engineered wood products
The company is also expanding its verification capabilities to cover engineered wood products, including laminated veneer lumber (LVL), plywood, and other composite materials.
These products present additional challenges because they combine multiple timber layers that may originate from different sources. According to Source Certain, new testing approaches are being developed to support large-scale procurement and compliance programmes while addressing the complexity of engineered wood manufacturing.
This is particularly relevant as engineered timber products continue to gain popularity across construction and infrastructure projects worldwide.
Looking ahead
Australia’s Senate committee is expected to release its findings in August, with further responses from witnesses still to be submitted.
Whatever recommendations emerge, the inquiry has already highlighted an important issue for the global timber industry: can certification documents alone provide sufficient assurance of timber origin, or is scientific verification becoming an essential part of responsible sourcing?
As supply chains grow more complex and regulatory scrutiny increases, the conversation is likely to influence not only Australian timber imports but also broader discussions around traceability, certification, and sustainable forestry worldwide.
Source: DAFF, Australian Senate
Get such more contents from: WOODWORD
Read more news on: forest products, forestry, timber industry, engineered wood, plywood
