CITES again... 500+ guitars seized

crunchman

Whitecat said:

crunchman said:

axisus said:

It does make sense to destroy stuff if it is illegal use. You can't say oh dear, the elephant is dead now, might as well flog the ivory, shame to not make a profit on it.

This rosewood is not illegal though.  With the correct paperwork, it would be fine.

A more proportionate response would be to send it back, and let them get the paperwork correct.  Wanton destruction of 500 guitars isn't helping anyone except some jobsworth bureaucrat with an inflated sense of his/her own importance.

I get why they don't though. Because chancers could easily game every single shipment, doing the bare minimum, and hope they don't get caught, and when they do, just "fix the papers." There's no incentive to follow the rules in the first place if there's always a free second chance.

The cost of shipping it back, resubmitting the paperwork, storing it while the paperwork is approved, and then shipping it again will be thousands.  I don't imagine they would do it a second time.

NelsonP

Destroying these guitars just seems plain dumb.

Out of interest, why can't they just plant more rosewood trees? And farm them sustainably? How much rosewood does the guitar industry need?

darthed1981

NelsonP said:

Destroying these guitars just seems plain dumb.

Out of interest, why can't they just plant more rosewood trees? And farm them sustainably? How much rosewood does the guitar industry need?

I suspect we have missed the boat on sustainably farming it.

What the industry could do is switch to another much more sustainable hardwood, and dye it if necessary.

However a lot of guitarists will be looking for that inspiring classic tone or whatever it's being called this week and turn their noses up at anything but the real deal?

Neil

ICBM said:

darthed1981 said:

I find myself rather agreeing with this.

There are two halves to it, and I feel there isn't much defense for the importing business.  Law across business for everything from tax to health and safety to copyright and employment law is complicated.  This leaves every business with the choice of hiring/training staff or employing third parties to ensure compliance.  If the business fails and takes a financial hit, it's harsh to blame the people enforcing the law for that.

The other half is the destruction of the instruments, which is very unfortunate.  Sad fact is though, were they to be gifted to charities then a lot of them would end up sold through third parties, and therefore HMRC would be enabling the "trade" in unpermitted rosewood.  It is possible an accomodation could be reached with a single charity, as Lee Anderton suggested, might still happen.

The background to this, remember, is the horrific destruction of forests and associated ecosystems worldwide, something that the international community is singularly failing to control and which will haunt future generations.  Maybe a bit of extreme punishment is needed for people to take the laws seriously...?

That's true, but destroying the guitars to make the point is actively counterproductive - it will simply cause more guitars to be made - from the same materials, just with more care taken over the documentation. Thus it will, even if only in a small way, contribute to further rosewood logging.

This is not the same as the case with elephant ivory since there is no legal trade in it, with or without documentation.

There is actually legal trade in ivory in the antiques market.

Any ivory pre 1947 is legal to deal in.

Whitecat

Neil said:

ICBM said:

darthed1981 said:

I find myself rather agreeing with this.

There are two halves to it, and I feel there isn't much defense for the importing business.  Law across business for everything from tax to health and safety to copyright and employment law is complicated.  This leaves every business with the choice of hiring/training staff or employing third parties to ensure compliance.  If the business fails and takes a financial hit, it's harsh to blame the people enforcing the law for that.

The other half is the destruction of the instruments, which is very unfortunate.  Sad fact is though, were they to be gifted to charities then a lot of them would end up sold through third parties, and therefore HMRC would be enabling the "trade" in unpermitted rosewood.  It is possible an accomodation could be reached with a single charity, as Lee Anderton suggested, might still happen.

The background to this, remember, is the horrific destruction of forests and associated ecosystems worldwide, something that the international community is singularly failing to control and which will haunt future generations.  Maybe a bit of extreme punishment is needed for people to take the laws seriously...?

That's true, but destroying the guitars to make the point is actively counterproductive - it will simply cause more guitars to be made - from the same materials, just with more care taken over the documentation. Thus it will, even if only in a small way, contribute to further rosewood logging.

This is not the same as the case with elephant ivory since there is no legal trade in it, with or without documentation.

There is actually legal trade in ivory in the antiques market.

Any ivory pre 1947 is legal to deal in.

Legal, but difficult, as you still need evidence of provenance.

Brazilian Rosewood pre-1992 is in almost the same boat.

guitars4you

NelsonP said:

Destroying these guitars just seems plain dumb.

Out of interest, why can't they just plant more rosewood trees? And farm them sustainably? How much rosewood does the guitar industry need?

India does and has done for many years now - they know it is an important export commodity and has such have nurtured it - But CITES is not run by 1 government - It is an ECO decision and appropriate countries sign up to protect it and act as the enforcer - China was simply buying to much rosewood so in their wisdom decided the answer was to create this ban

ICBM

Whitecat said:

crunchman said:

axisus said:

It does make sense to destroy stuff if it is illegal use. You can't say oh dear, the elephant is dead now, might as well flog the ivory, shame to not make a profit on it.

This rosewood is not illegal though.  With the correct paperwork, it would be fine.

A more proportionate response would be to send it back, and let them get the paperwork correct.  Wanton destruction of 500 guitars isn't helping anyone except some jobsworth bureaucrat with an inflated sense of his/her own importance.

I get why they don't though. Because chancers could easily game every single shipment, doing the bare minimum, and hope they don't get caught, and when they do, just "fix the papers." There's no incentive to follow the rules in the first place if there's always a free second chance.

That's why the guitars should be seized and either given to charity or sold by the government and the money used for something worthwhile. That would achieve exactly the same as destroying them, other than creating the demand for another 500+ rosewood guitars.

Sending them back is another waste of resources.

WezV

guitars4you said:

NelsonP said:

Destroying these guitars just seems plain dumb.

Out of interest, why can't they just plant more rosewood trees? And farm them sustainably? How much rosewood does the guitar industry need?

India does and has done for many years now - they know it is an important export commodity and has such have nurtured it - But CITES is not run by 1 government - It is an ECO decision and appropriate countries sign up to protect it and act as the enforcer - China was simply buying to much rosewood so in their wisdom decided the answer was to create this ban

yeah, rosewood was nearly at the point you could consider some supplies as a renewable research.

I doubt there will be any more investment in making it truly sustainable 

Whitecat

ICBM said:

Whitecat said:

crunchman said:

axisus said:

It does make sense to destroy stuff if it is illegal use. You can't say oh dear, the elephant is dead now, might as well flog the ivory, shame to not make a profit on it.

This rosewood is not illegal though.  With the correct paperwork, it would be fine.

A more proportionate response would be to send it back, and let them get the paperwork correct.  Wanton destruction of 500 guitars isn't helping anyone except some jobsworth bureaucrat with an inflated sense of his/her own importance.

I get why they don't though. Because chancers could easily game every single shipment, doing the bare minimum, and hope they don't get caught, and when they do, just "fix the papers." There's no incentive to follow the rules in the first place if there's always a free second chance.

That's why the guitars should be seized and either given to charity or sold by the government and the money used for something worthwhile. That would achieve exactly the same as destroying them, other than creating the demand for another 500+ rosewood guitars.

Sending them back is another waste of resources.

But then they are "back in the system". At some point they have to draw a line.

Who "demanded" these guitars in the first place? Surely most of these would sit in a warehouse, eventually get sold on to dealers, languish on pegs for a surprising amount of time and then be sold at a discount covered in dust.

The kind of opportunistic consumerism that creates value in inexpensive Chinese-made instruments is sort of the problem in the first place, even if musical instruments are only a very very small part of the overall picture.

ICBM

Whitecat said:

But then they are "back in the system". At some point they have to draw a line.

Who "demanded" these guitars in the first place? Surely most of these would sit in a warehouse, eventually get sold on to dealers, languish on pegs for a surprising amount of time and then be sold at a discount covered in dust.

The kind of opportunistic consumerism that creates value in inexpensive Chinese-made instruments is sort of the problem in the first place, even if musical instruments are only a very very small part of the overall picture.

Yes, but if you destroy them then the same manufacturers will use more rosewood to make more guitars, get the paperwork in order and sell them to the same people who end up with them if they're seized and sold or given away.

Destruction serves no purpose and will only cause the same amount of rosewood to be logged again, as well as wasting that which already has been.

Whitecat

It's a warning shot though to others... get your paperwork right in the first instance or it'll cost you a lot of money. And maybe some will think "hey, this is a bad idea, we just lost £300k and we need to get our ducks in a row to do this again, maybe rosewood is not the way forward" - and they can switch to something more sustainable.

I'm not a fan of how a lot of all this has been implemented but again, I kinda get why they have to do what they are doing.

crunchman

Rosewood can be sustainable if it's plantation grown.

For me, the complete ban on Brazilian Rosewood is counter productive as well.  If that could be sold legally with the correct paperwork, then there would a huge incentive to grow it on plantations.

There would need to be some safeguards to make sure that it was plantation grown stuff, and not chopped down rain forest.  Having said that, in places the rain forest is just being chopped down and burnt for farmland, so CITES is really not working.  You have removed the incentive to preserve the species, but you aren't protecting the rain forest either.

When you get to the point that you can't sell a pre-CBS Strat because you don't have a 50 year old receipt, it is getting ridiculous.

The whole thing needs to be looked at urgently.

Whitecat

PRS is involved in some reforestation in Brazil... but it's a decades-long project, the trees are very slow-growing. 

Also, once forests have been clearcut for farms, trees won't grow there anymore... you can't replant...

http://www.prsguitars.com/news/story/prs_guitars_partners_with_atlantic_forest_reforestation_program_in_brazil

martinw

If the rosewood itself is not illegal, why not just fine the company reponsible for the paperwork error?

Destroying the guitars, as ICBM outlined, is worse for the environment overall, as all the production and shipping carbon emissions willbe duplicated.

Common sense required here; the wood is either ok to use or not. If it's ok to use, why cause further demand on scarce resources through the effort to reduce demand on scarce resources?

Jez6345789

I think the seizure destruction option is why we need small shippers to be handled on a risk assessment basis where when these things happen there can be a positive outcome. If you had a ranking points system where too many breaches you lose trusted importer status.

something they do in other countries and for large importers over here I think. Then yes you would get xxx knocked off your status and time to correct.

here it’s all or nothing when they want it to be.

it may be Selectron  has a poor import paperwork record and it has happened before. I am just totally surmising here and in no way know or implying that. I have seen customs in the past just get jacked off with an importer from poor paperwork permits etc and they give them a sharp shock to force them to get their house in order.

We are guessing at a lot of facts here.

Again I am not sure why anyone in the guitar industry importers could not be aware of what they needed to have in the way of permits

jpfamps

guitars4you said:

NelsonP said:

Destroying these guitars just seems plain dumb.

Out of interest, why can't they just plant more rosewood trees? And farm them sustainably? How much rosewood does the guitar industry need?

India does and has done for many years now - they know it is an important export commodity and has such have nurtured it - But CITES is not run by 1 government - It is an ECO decision and appropriate countries sign up to protect it and act as the enforcer - China was simply buying to much rosewood so in their wisdom decided the answer was to create this ban

Indeed, the Indian government were really not happy about the CITES ruling as they have made a real effort to make rosewood a sustainable crop.

nickb_boy

57Deluxe said:

we as a Forum/group should lobby a guitar-minded MP or ex MP...???

Go straight to the top, this fella might look a numpty but he obviously knows a thing or two about guitar:

octatonic

Whitecat said:

octatonic said:

So if I am leaving the country and taking guitars with me (via a commercial shipper) will I need to get CITIES clearance for my rosewood equipped guitars?

I don't have receipts for some of them because they were bought, well, here.

Yes.

You'll need export permits on this end, and import permits at your destination.

Not sure what to do about no receipts - possibly proof that a serial number dates it to a certain year might be OK.

Just bumping this with some clarification.

We are in discussion with UK authorities about what to do here and I have come across some legislation that might clarify some points relating to moving instruments from one place to another as part of an international relocation.

From:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/cites/pdf/cop17/implementation_of_cites_cop17_listing_of_rosewood_clean.pdf

3. Personal and household effect exemption
It should also be noted that the EU Wildlife Trade Regulations contain less strict provisions for trade in specimens that are considered as personal and household effects. The carrying of an item, such as a musical instrument, in personal luggage can in this regard be subject to less strict provisions if it meets the definition of a personal and household effect.

So, in my specific case I probably do not need to provide Cities documentation for instruments with rosewood on them as I am taking instruments that are personal or household objects.

I am also well under the 10kg weight limit, which is mentioned here:

4. The annotation to the listing of Dalbergia spp., as well as Guibourtia demeusei, Guibourtia pellegriniana or Guibourtia tessmannii, exempts from CITES controls non-commercial trade of a maximum total weight of 10 kg per shipment.
a. Does this weight limit of 10 kg apply to the entire shipment, or to the portion of the shipment made of wood of the species concerned?
It is recommended that this 10 kg weight limit is interpreted as referring to the weight of the portion of the shipment made of wood of the species concerned. This means in practice that any shipment weighing more than 10 kg, but which contains an overall weight of wood of the species concerned of less than 10 kg, is exempted from the documentary requirements foreseen under Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 if it is traded for non-commercial purposes. In other words, the 10 kg limit is to be assessed against the weight of Dalbergia/Guibourtia parts contained in the shipment, rather than against the total weight of the shipment.

Whitecat

It might be worth checking with the importing country then too - despite being personal/household, the exemptions you're talking about seem to me to be describing the "hand-carry" aspect only, which is where the 10kg limit comes in.

When carried by a third-party (ie, sent as freight), I can't see any such exemption for the permits...

octatonic

Whitecat said:

It might be worth checking with the importing country then too - despite being personal/household, the exemptions you're talking about seem to me to be describing the "hand-carry" aspect only, which is where the 10kg limit comes in.

When carried by a third-party (ie, sent as freight), I can't see any such exemption for the permits...

Yes we are doing that.
The valuable rosewood guitars are indeed now being hand carried- or at least going as part of our air shipment.