- Calls Grow for Tighter Controls on Central African Republic’s Timber Trade
The Central African Republic’s timber sector is facing renewed scrutiny after an investigative report alleged that weak enforcement, opaque ownership and irregular export approvals are allowing companies to exploit forest resources while short-changing local communities.
The findings have prompted calls for the European Union to reconsider its “low risk” classification of the country’s timber under its deforestation rules and for the EU, Britain and the United States to apply stronger checks to imports.
The debate concerns more than the legality of individual shipments: it tests whether trade controls can account for corruption, sanctions and weak governance, as well as forest loss.
The Sentry, a US-based investigative group, says nearly 40% of the Central African Republic’s commercial logging area is controlled by Russian-linked and Chinese timber interests.
Its report, Timber for the Taking, alleges that companies operating in the sector have violated national forestry laws and failed to deliver promised benefits to local communities.
Those allegations have not been independently established in court, and the companies and government named in the investigation did not respond to requests for comment cited in the report’s coverage.
The stakes are considerable. Forests cover about two-thirds of the Central African Republic, and logging concessions operated by foreign companies contribute to export revenues. The country also contains part of the Congo Basin rainforest, a region of global importance for biodiversity and carbon storage.
Poor oversight can therefore carry costs that extend beyond lost public income: it can undermine conservation, community livelihoods and the credibility of legal timber trade.
One of the report’s most serious allegations concerns timber species listed under Appendix II of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The Sentry says Central African authorities authorised more than 1,000 export shipments of these species without first conducting non-detriment findings.
Those studies are intended to assess whether international trade can take place without threatening a protected species’ survival. The group says some shipments went to Europe, where imports that breach CITES requirements could also raise questions under the European Union Timber Regulation.
The finding points to a weakness in the chain of trade controls. Export licences and customs paperwork may show that timber has been approved for shipment, but they cannot substitute for the scientific assessments required to establish that trade is sustainable.
If the necessary studies were not completed, authorities and importers may struggle to demonstrate that the timber was legally and responsibly sourced.
The report also focuses on the role of Bois Rouge, a timber company affiliated with Russia’s Wagner Group, which has operated in the Central African Republic since 2018. The US Treasury sanctioned Bois Rouge in 2024, saying the company sought financial gain from illicit natural-resource extraction.
Britain imposed sanctions on the company later that year. Yet The Sentry says concessions held by Bois Rouge have not been revoked. The Central African Republic’s government and Bois Rouge did not respond to requests for comment.
That gap raises a difficult question for governments enforcing sanctions: what practical effect do restrictions have if the underlying operating rights remain in place? Sanctions may limit access to finance, trade and other services, but they do not automatically resolve concession ownership, logging activity or the movement of timber through intermediaries.
Import authorities may need to trace not only the company named on export documents but also who owns, controls or benefits from the operation.
The Sentry is urging the EU to move the Central African Republic from “low risk” to “standard risk” under the EU Deforestation Regulation. A change would signal a greater likelihood that products from the country could be linked to deforestation and require importers to apply additional due diligence.
The group argues that the current classification does not adequately reflect the irregularities it describes, the presence of sanctioned actors and the lack of transparent data.
The debate highlights a potential limitation in country-risk systems. A rating can help determine the intensity of checks, but it is only as useful as the information and risks it captures.
If a classification mainly reflects historical deforestation levels, it may not fully account for weak rule of law, opaque company ownership, unlawful permits or non-compliance with conservation rules.
A low rating is not a guarantee that every shipment is legal; neither should it exempt buyers from examining warning signs tied to a specific supplier or shipment.
The report recommends that jurisdictions exercise enhanced due diligence on timber from the Central African Republic, investigate shipments that appear to violate applicable laws, and identify companies or individuals linked to sanctioned actors.
It also calls for full enforcement and updating of the country’s Forestry Code, including stronger identification and vetting of concession owners and mechanisms to protect public and community interests.
The community dimension is central to the allegations. The Sentry says logging companies have not fulfilled agreements to invest in local processing facilities, clinics and schools in exchange for access to valuable trees. If those commitments are not met, communities may bear the long-term costs of extraction while receiving little of the economic return.
That is not only a question of corporate responsibility: it also concerns whether the state can monitor obligations, publish compliance records and impose consequences when companies fail to deliver.
Stronger trade rules could help close the accountability gap, but changing a risk label alone would not repair domestic enforcement. Effective controls would require reliable shipment data, public records of concession ownership, independent checks on export permits and consequences for breaches.
Importing countries would also need to apply those safeguards consistently, rather than treating compliance as a paperwork exercise.
The Central African Republic’s timber exports provide revenue and economic activity. The question is whether that trade can be governed in a way that protects forests, respects sanctions and delivers promised benefits to the people living near concessions.
The investigation has placed pressure on both producer and consumer jurisdictions to show that timber entering international markets can be traced to lawful and sustainable operations. The credibility of the trade will depend on whether those checks can be verified and whether violations lead to action.
