Print this page

Defining “Illegal Logging”

WWF defines illegal logging, related trade, and corruption as occurring when timber is harvested or traded in violation of relevant national or sub-national laws or where access to forest resources or trade in forest products is authorized through corrupt practices.

This generic definition of the problem has three key elements:

1. Illegal harvesting. Timber cut or removed without the required license or in breach of a harvesting license or law. This includes logs that are stolen.

2. Illegal trading. Timber, or a product containing timber, bought, sold, exported, or imported and processed in breach of the laws, including laws implemented under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.

3. Corruption. Authorization to harvest or trade logs or timber products is secured through corrupt application of laws or administrative procedures.

Below is a selection of the many definitions from other organizations.

Other definitions of illegal logging

Organization

Definition

Reference

United States Government (Lacey Act)

“It is unlawful for any person … (2) to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce .... any plant—

(i) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State, or any foreign law, that protects plants or that regulates—
(I) the theft of plants;
(II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area;
(III) the taking of plants from an officially designated area; or
(IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization;

(ii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold without the payment of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees required for the plant by any law or regulation of any State or any foreign law; or

(iii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation of any State, or under any foreign law, governing the export or transshipment of plants

Amendments to the Lacey Act from H.R.2419, Sec. 8204 (1)

European Commission

'legally harvested' means harvested in accordance with the applicable legislation in the country of harvest;

'illegally harvested' means harvested in contravention infringement of the applicable legislation in the country of harvest;

'applicable legislation'  means the legislation in force in the country of harvest, covering the following areas of law: 

  • rights to harvest timber within gazetted boundaries;
  • payments for harvest rights and timber including duties related to timber harvesting;
  • timber harvesting, including directly related environmental and forest legislation;
  • third parties’ legal rights concerning use and tenure that is affected by timber harvesting; and
  • trade and customs legislation,

…. in as far as the forest sector is concerned.

European Commission 2009  (2)

Greenpeace

Illegal logging takes place when timber is harvested, processed, transported, bought or sold in violation of national laws. Laws can be violated at many different stages of the supply chain and can include:
• Obtaining concessions illegally (for example, via corruption and bribery)
• Cutting protected tree species or extracting trees from a protected area
• Taking out more trees and more undersized and oversized trees than is permitted or trees outside an agreed area 
• Illegal processing and export
• Fraudulent declaration to customs of the amount of timber being exported
• Nonpayment or underpayment of taxes
• Use of fraudulent documents to smuggle timber internationally.

Greenpeace 2005 (3)

Malaysian Timber Council

In Peninsular Malaysia, three categories are used to classify forest offenses.
Category 1 covers offenses involving logging without license, logging outside licensed area and unauthorized construction of infrastructure and forest roads. Category 2 covers encroachment of forest reserves for agricultural activities and settlement. Category 3 covers other forest offenses that involve felling of unmarked trees, cutting trees below the cutting limit, unlicensed workers, contractors with no valid sub-license, unregistered machinery plus other breaches of rules and regulations committed within and outside the forest reserve.

Malaysian Timber Council 2004. (4)

 

Russian Supreme Court

Illegal forest felling operation (cutting) is cutting of trees, bushes and lianas without a harvesting license, order or cutting with a harvesting license, order issued with abuse of the existing cutting-practice rules, as well as cutting carried out at the wrong site or beyond a site's borders, exceeding the set quantities; cutting of wrong species or of trees, bushes and lianas that are not subject to felling ticket, order, before and after logging period fixed in felling ticket, order, logging of trees, bushes and lianas that are forbidden to log according to Resolution No. 155 of the Government of the Russian Federation June 1, 1998, or after the announcement of the decision about temporary prohibition, restriction or complete discontinuance of forest user activities or the right to use forest area. 

Resolution No.14, Russian Federation Supreme Court 1998 (The definition is related to the application of Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).(5) 

World Business Council on Sustainable Development

• Sourcing of illegal wood takes place when unprocessed wood is procured in the absence of the seller’s legal right to sell or harvest.
• Illegal logging takes place when timber is harvested in violation of relevant forestry and environmental laws and regulations.
• Illegal forest products trade involves the procurement, processing, distribution and marketing of products made from wood that has been obtained by illegal sourcing or illegal harvesting and/or are not in compliance with relevant national and international trade laws.

WWF/WBCSD Joint Statement on Illegal Logging 2005. (6)

1. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/lacey_act/downloads/background--redlinedLaceyamndmnt--forests--may08.pdf
2. Taken from: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market; ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/.../flegt_timber_proposal_oct08.pdf
3. Lawless: How Europe's Borders Remain Open to Trade in Illegal Timber (Greenpeace Fact File, October 2005)
http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/lawless-illegal-timber.pdf.
4. Malaysian Timber Council www.mtc.com.my 
5. Resolution No. 14, Russian Federation Supreme Court from November 5, 1998 (The definition is related to the application of Article 260 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).
6. WWF/WBCSD Joint Statement on Illegal Logging for The Forest Dialogue (March 2005)
http://www.wbcsd.org/plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?type=DocDet&ObjectId=13627


7.3 Source Assessed in the Context of the US Market

Environmental Status of SuppliesMajor marketplaces in Europe and the United States have seen major changes with respect to market access requirements for producers and the role expected of those who import or trade forest products.

United States

In the U.S., the Lacey Act was amended in 2008 and seeks to eradicate trade in illegally sourced forest products—including timber and wood fibre based products (such as paper). The Lacey Act is only enforced within the boundaries of the United States. While the Lacey Act does not apply to other countries, it is of great importance to exporters of forest products who want to trade with US companies—as US-based customers are relying on their trading partners to help them demonstrate compliance with this law.

The Lacey Act has stiff penalties for US companies that commit offences. Penalties for US companies range from: a criminal felony fine (up to $500,000 for a corporation, $250,000 for individual, or twice maximum gain/loss from transaction); to a possible prison sentence of up to five years; forfeiture of goods, a criminal misdemeanor penalty (up to $200,000 for corporation, $100,000 for individual, or twice maximum gain/loss from transaction); to a possible prison sentence of up to one year, or a civil penalty fine from $250 to $10,000. The penalties applicable are linked to the degree of care taken (or not) and the nature of the crime, ranging from direct knowledge of illegal trade and falsified import declarations down to more inadvertent mistakes. What should be clear to all exporters is that US importers are almost entirely reliant upon their suppliers to help them demonstrate due care and are more likely to trade in the future with those who can assist them in this process. Increasingly, legal compliance will feature in contracts between companies and civil penalties may be sought where there are breaches.

U.S.-based forest products importers will be seeking assurances that the products they source from both the domestic market and from overseas have been harvested, possessed, transported, sold or exported without breaking any relevant underlying laws in the country where the tree was grown, even if it was processed in another country.

The laws which are regarded as relevant and which need to be complied with include those that relate but not limited to:

  1. Theft of plants;
  2. Taking plants from an officially protected area, such as a park or reserve;
  3. Taking plants from other types of "officially designated areas" that are recognized by a country's laws and regulations;
  4. Taking plants without, or contrary to, the required authorization;
  5. Failure to pay appropriate royalties, taxes or fees associated with the plant's harvest, transport or commerce; or
  6. Laws governing export or trans-shipment, such as a log-export ban.

Note: The reference to “plants” includes logs, timber, fibre, veneer and all other forms of product later derived from the harvested plant (i.e. a tree).

U.S.-Based Importer Requirements

The Lacey Act requires importers to provide a basic declaration to accompany every shipment of plants or plant products. The purpose of these declarations is to increase transparency about the timber and plant trade and enable the US government to better monitor the trade and assist in enforcing the law.

The declaration must contain:

  1. Scientific name of any species used
  2. Country of harvest
  3. Quantity and measure
  4. Value

Exporters can assist US importers in providing this basic information. This in itself is not enough. Exporters should also ensure that all forest products that are to be exported are compliant with the relevant laws of the countries where the wood was harvested and also with any laws regarding processing, export or taxes within the processing country.

Exercising "Due Care"

U.S. importers need to exercise "due care" when sourcing forest products to ensure that they comply with the Lacey Act. Due care is a flexible concept that has been developed over time by the US legal system. Due care means "that degree of care at which a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances. As a result, it is applied differently to different categories of persons with varying degrees of knowledge and responsibility" (Senate Report 97-123). Given the lack of certainty around how the court might view due care with respect to the Lacey Act provisions, for timber harvesting and trade, it would be prudent for companies dealing in forest and paper products to avail themselves of the wide array of tools, technologies and resources available for assessing and eliminating illegal wood from often long and complicated supply chains. Internal company policies and tracking procedures are a critical element.

Understanding and implementing a responsible sourcing programme for forest products is an example of a best practice that can contribute to exercising due care. The key with lacey Act compliance though is that the system should help to increase the confidence of the company in ensuring legal timber throughout its supply chain as prosecutions can brought even if a company felt it had done everything that is reasonable. The nature of the legislation allows penalties for selling illegally harvested or traded timber regardless of how hard a company tried not to do this.

Steps may also include bar-code or other tracing systems; legality verification; certification under third-party schemes; stepwise programs offered by various organizations and other innovative public-private partnership models.


3.2 Main Policy Elements

Unacceptable SourcesResponsible purchasers should develop an environmental policy or set of policies that exclude unwanted forest sources. The list of unwanted sources, and the precise terminology used to describe them, will vary according to the social and environmental issues of concern to the organization and its stakeholders.

Unwanted Sources

WWF recommends that, at a minimum, sourcing organizations regard timber or fibre as unwanted if the following conditions exist:

  1. The source forest is known to or suspected of containing high conservation values, except where the forest is certified or in progress to certification under a credible certification system, or the forest manager can otherwise demonstrate that the forest and surrounding landscape is managed to ensure that those values are maintained.
  2. The source forest is being converted from natural forest to a plantation or other land use, unless the conversion is justified on grounds of net social and environmental gain, including the enhancement of high conservation values in the surrounding landscape. More information on WWF's work concerning forest conversion can be found here.
  3. The timber was illegally harvested or traded.
  4. The timber was traded in a way that drives violent armed conflict or threatens national or regional stability (i.e. what is commonly called conflict timber).
  5. The harvesting or processing entity or entities, or a related political or military regime, are violating human, civil and traditional rights.
  6. The timber is from genetically modified trees.
  7. The source forest is unknown.

Note: The seven categories of unwanted sources eliminate most activities from the supply chain that preclude credible certification. These items also are closely linked to the requirements for the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Controlled Wood Standard.

This list is a minimum, and other elements should be introduced to reflect stakeholder concerns that are identified. More information on these categories is available here.

Acceptable Sources

The organization will also want to consider what is the minimum acceptable in terms of policy. Acceptable sources of wood or fibre, in descending preference might include:

  1. Material from credibly certified forests / recycled material
  2. Material from verified sources forests which has been 3rd party verified for basic social and environmental criteria.
  3. Material from assessed sources which have been evaluated for basic legality and traceability. 

In all cases compliance with all aspects of the purchaser's policy should be the desired state.

Examples of forest products sourcing policies can be found here.

Note for GFTN Participants: GFTN participant companies are required to agree policies that, as a minimum, cover these key elements.

Scope - What to Include

The scope of the policy may vary from one sourcing organization to the next—such as, the inclusion or exclusion of forest products intended for resale only, forest products sold under "own brand" or "store brand" only, forest products procured for service use and not for resale (for example, copier paper) and forest products used within the fabric of buildings (for example, wooden doors or floors in new offices or factories).

Therefore, the scope of the policy is flexible and can expand overtime. Best practice dictates that the scope of the policy be set to apply to the largest impact area of the business; for example, a retailer should consider its largest selling range of forest products before its office copier paper.

It would also be prudent to consider market based legislation, existingand evolving, to ensure that the policy at the very least covers material affected or potentially affected.

The policy should also include:

The policy and any associated documents should be the responsibility of senior management within the sourcing organization and should have the same level of endorsement as any other of the sourcing organization's policies (such as those on health and safety or discrimination).


15.0 Supporting Information

 

Glossary

Questionnaires


5.3 Questionnaires

Establishing TraceabilitySending out questionnaires can be a laborious and lengthy process. The number of suppliers that an organization uses and the complexity of the data required has a significant bearing on how long it takes to assemble the database. Three primary approaches can be used to gather the required data:

Examples of a questionnaire can be found here.


8.0 Environmental Status of Supplies - Reducing the Risk of Trading in Illegal Timber

Risk of Trading in Illegal TimberThe simplest way to reduce the risk of trading illegal timber is to buy and sell certified timber. For the majority of businesses involved in the timber sector, particularly those trading in tropical hardwoods, this is not an option because only modest volumes are currently available from countries or of some species.

Legal timber (that is not certified) is traded internationally every day of the year. For timber originating in countries with well functioning regulatory systems, the risk of trading in illegal timber is relatively low and stringent legal compliance auditing is not warranted. However, if the country of origin of the timber is uncertain, or the timber is known to come from a country with weak regulatory systems, the risk of trading in illegal timber is high. Addressing this risk requires commitment and vision by all those involved in the supply chain. In the US trading environment, this is known as exercising due care (with respect to Lacey Act compliance) and in a European environment this is known as practicing due diligence (with respect to EU Timber Regulation).

Timber legality can be viewed as a product quality issue. When you ask your suppliers to provide legal timber, you are requesting timber with a new quality: legality. If timber lacks proof of legality, it lacks the quality that you require. Timber can be attributed the quality, or status, of legality only in its forest of origin. It can maintain that legal quality only if it remains unmixed and is not diluted by illegal timber as it travels down the supply chain. Its legal quality can also be devalued by other illegal activities connected with its passage down the supply chain.

Two basic questions should always be at the back of your mind:

"Is the source legal?"
Where was the forest of origin? Were the ownership and access rights undisputed and free from the taint of illegality? Was the quality of the forest management and timber trades such that all timber purchased had the right 'legal' quality?

"How did it get here?"
Was the quality and traceability of the supply chain such that no illegal timber was introduced and the legal quality was not subsequently diluted?


2.2 Conducting a Baseline Assessment

Supply Chain Review A preliminary analysis of the organization's current sources of forest products must be undertaken to broadly categorize supplies according to the level of traceability and the environmental status of source forests. This analysis should include an investigation of key suppliers to identify any issues or concerns that will require further investigation. This analysis may form the basis for prioritizing certain supply chains or source countries when the fuller process of assessment commences.

The baseline assessment should match the information-gathering and assessment systems that are discussed in more detail within elements five and six: establishing traceability and determining the environmental status of supplies. This will help ensure that only one system will need to be developed and suppliers will not face a variety of different processes that will lead to confusion.

The baseline assessment is very likely to reveal gaps, sometimes major, in the picture of the supply chain. These gaps are the priority areas for future target setting and activity. The baseline assessment provides a snapshot of the current situation and may reveal large areas where transparency and policy compliance is poor. Without this assessment, it is impossible to identify targets for improvement in the short, medium and long term.

Note for GFTN Participants: Companies that are applicants to the GFTN will routinely be asked to complete a baseline assessment prior to developing their first action plan. A template of a GFTN baseline appraisal is available from your local GFTN manager.


14.4 National Legality Frameworks

The following National Legality Frameworks were developed by compiling all available documents constituting the legal framework for the forestry sector in each of the countries and conducting consultations at the national level with relevant individuals in the forestry sector including representatives of the forestry administration, government, research institutes, the private sector—including current GFTN members where appropriate, legal experts, NGOs and donors.

Please Note: The designations of geographical entities in this publication, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF, TRAFFIC or its supporting organizations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views of the authors expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the TRAFFIC network, WWF or IUCN. 


6.0 Environmental Status of Supplies

Stepwise Approach

Figure 1

Having established its data-gathering and storing mechanisms, the sourcing organization can now begin to assess the data received. It is likely that the data will be incomplete or difficult to understand, particularly after the first round of data gathering, but subsequent rounds should be able to address these problems (see here for more information).

Each source identified should be placed in one of the following environmental status steps:

The next sections discuss each of these categories in more detail to assist in the process of designation (see also Figure 1). The remainder of this section deals with the criteria and means of assessing whether a source meets an organization's sourcing policy and with categorization for sources that go beyond minimum compliance.


9.0 Environmental Status of Supplies - Source Verified

Source in Progress to Certification

Sources could be legal but still involved in unwanted activities which are in conflict with the corporate responsible sourcing policy. Source verified means that the forest source has been 3rd party verified for basic social and environmental criteria-

Criteria

Requirements


5.1 Traceability

Establishing TraceabilityThis section provides practical guidance on ways of gathering and assessing data on suppliers, species and timber origin. The purpose of gathering data on species and timber origin is to enable a detailed assessment of the sourcing situation.

 

 

The data gathered is more comprehensive than the initial review, permitting the sourcing organization to demonstrate how policy is being realized through the supply chain and how, over time, the sourcing organization is improving its profile and promoting responsible forest management.

 

 

Timber Origin (Traceability)

Achieving Traceability Defining the Environmental Status of the Material

From the time the policy is implemented and, specifically, to set a baseline from which progress and compliance might be demonstrated, a tracking system must be developed that identifies:

 

  • Forest(s) of origin of the timber or fibre (where the wood was harvested)
  • Species of timber or fibre
  • Volume and value of that timber or fibre
  • Description of the product

 

Each forest source should fall into one of the following categories:

 

  • Limited knowledge of forest source
  • Source assessed
  • Source verified
  • Credibly certified or recycled source

 


7.0 Environmental Status of Supplies - Source Assessed

Known Licensed SourceThe classification "Source Assessed" involves that the forest source has been evaluated for basic legality and traceability criteria-

Criteria

Requirements

Other inclusions

The sourcing organization should assess the issues and risks associated with the illegal harvesting and trade in forest products and develop policies and definitions that are a balance between stakeholder expectations, the level of risk and the practicality of enforcement.


4.2 Communicating Progress

Communicating Progress Towards Sourcing ResponsiblyHaving developed policies and associated activities to deliver them, the organization will then communicate its progress. The mechanisms for communicating progress are the same as for communicating policy.

It is strongly recommended that public reporting of progress against targets be conducted on an annual basis and be subject to some form of external verification. The report should indicate progress against targets, the general status of the supply base (using the stepwise approach advocated in this guide) and new targets for the next reporting period or longer if required.

Clear, accurate and truthful communication of policy and activity can be a valuable tool. The integrity of the organization and its supply chain are at risk if the nature, role, scope and achievement of the policy are poorly communicated.

Note for GFTN Participants: GFTN participant companies are required to report their performance against targets on a regular basis to GFTN. Public reporting of performance is encouraged.


6.3 Identifying Known Sources of Forest Products

Product Traceability

"Known" Source?

Detail and Improvements

Traceable to direct supplier. Supplier is not a forest owner or manager (not an integrated company).

No

Agree on an action plan with the supplier to deliver more traceability that will identify where the wood was harvested.

Traceable to secondary processor. Processor is not a forest owner or manager (not an integrated company).

No

Agree on an action plan with the supplier to deliver more traceability that will identify where the wood was harvested. If this processor also supplies material through another direct supplier, consider a direct approach to the processor for more information.

Traceable to primary mill. Mill is not a forest owner or manager (not an integrated company).

Maybe

If the mill has complete traceability for all sources and can identify the source for given batches of material, this is acceptable. If the mill cannot offer this degree of traceability, agree on an action plan with the supplier to determine (initially) the major suppliers to the primary mill and identify what plans the mill has to improve traceability.

Traceable to an integrated forest products company (a company that is involved in forest management and forest products processing).

Maybe

If the supplier can demonstrate that it has a good degree of traceability at all levels and that it sources only from its own forestry operations, this is an acceptable level of traceability. If the integrated supplier draws from beyond its own sources, it will need to demonstrate similar traceability. If it can, this is acceptable. If it cannot demonstrate such traceability, agree on an action plan with the supplier to identify (initially) its own suppliers and what plans the mill has to improve traceability.

Traceable to the forest management unit.

Yes

Documentation and confidence in systems is high, and all materials can be traced to this forest or forests.


3.4 Focusing Policy on Legal Compliance

Policy Development In defining the scope of its sourcing policy, your organization will need to understand the regulation affecting forestry and trade of forest products in the markets where you operate and source from. Your organization should also identify other legal issues of concern for your key stakeholders. Then your organizations will need to balance the range of legal compliance issues with teh need to contain auditing costs. Note legislation affecting the legal trade of forest products is increasing globally with examples such as the amendment of the Lacey Act in the US, the European Union Timber regulation and the Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill. You can find more information on legality in other sections in this guid that address this issue. 

A comprehensive approach to determining the legality of forest products could cover many issues beyond forestry. For example, the policy could explore adherence to laws relating to taxes, labour, health, corporations, transport, customs, pollution or money laundering;  ingredients besides wood (finishes, other materials, packaging) and phases of production (harvesting, hauling, milling, shipping, manufacturing, trading and end use). In addition, a full approach could address the procedures leading up to the grant of a timber permit, including adherence to planning laws, impact assessment requirements, tendering procedures, contractual "fairness" provisions and absence of any suspicion of corruption or collusion.

Your policies need to prioritize the legal compliance problems to be addressed; for example, is the focus on illegal logging or does it also include labour and pollution laws in factories further along the supply chain? The following approaches can be used to find this balance.

A key role of your policy on illegal logging is to establish the framework upon which a culture of legal sourcing can be built. A good policy will precisely define the issues that it seeks to address and will identify what is and what is not acceptable to your organization. The policy should clearly convey the values of your organization and show how these values will be upheld.

Although pervasive corruption is a major cause of poor forest governance, this manual focuses on illegal logging and related trade. Experience has shown that both illegal harvesting and related trade can be addressed directly through responsible sourcing, whereas pervasive corruption is a broader problem that generally requires a different set of responses. (For mechanisms to address corruption, go to Transparency International Web site at www.transparency.org.)

More information on the negative impacts of supporting the illegal trade in forest products can be found here.

Note for GFTN Participants: GFTN participant companies are required to agree a scope of their participation that at least covers their main impacts regarding sourcing of wood or fibre.


6.1 Dealing with Unknown and Unwanted Sources

Unwanted Sources

Unwanted Source

Unwanted sources may have a high degree of traceability or be simply unknown. Where the source is identified, the key information is that the source clearly does not comply with the requirements of the organization's policies, and there is no remedy for this situation. Where remedies can be identified, these should be included in action plans developed with the supplier. The progress of these action plans should then be reviewed periodically, and, if improvements are made, the source may be categorized as a limited knowledge of forest source or higher. If improvements are not made, the source remains unwanted.

Unwanted sources can be identified virtually at any stage in the assessment process and a source that was previously regarded as acceptable may on further investigation be regarded as unwanted. This may be through obtaining further information direct from the supplier or through other parties.

Limited knowledge of forest source may not be regarded as unwanted initially, but if the source remains of limited knowledge after SMART targets have been set, it must inevitably become regarded as unwanted and be dealt with accordingly.


13.3 Example of an Action Plan and Targets for a Responsible Purchaser

The initial assessment of the supply chain indicates the baseline from which annual targets have been set, as shown below:

Overall Performance Targets

Category  Proportion of Forest Products in Supply Chain Year 1 Target Year 2 Target Year 3 Target
Unknown/Unwanted 45% 0% 0% 0%
Step 1: Known Sources 25% 20% 5% 0%
Step 2: Known Licensed Sources 25% 50% 35% 10%
Step 3: Sources in Progress to Certification 5% 15% 30% 40%
Step 4: Credibly Certified Sources / Recycled 0% 15% 30% 50%

Based on this annual assessment and subsequent discussions with stakeholders, the following targets and actions are agreed to.

Year One Action Plan

Action No.

Action

Activities

Target Date

1.

Reduce unwanted sources to zero from 45%

  • Resend questionnaires to suppliers that have not responded.
  • Ensure that all suppliers that have responded have fully completed the questionnaire.
  • Re-source to known and managed operations any forest products that come from (1) HCVFs that are neither certified nor scheduled for certification or (2) inappropriate land clearance projects.
  • De-list suppliers that do not conform to this policy.

End of Year 1

2.

Reduce the known sources category to 20%

  • Require all suppliers with unknown sources to provide documents and assurances to confirm that their timber is from known sources.
  • Within six months, hold a seminar for suppliers (with the help of third parties such as WWF) to discuss methods of improving traceability to established a minimum of known sources.

End of Year 1

3.

Increase the "known licensed source" category to 50%

  • Require all current suppliers with known sources to provide documents and assurances to confirm that their timber is from known licensed sources.
  • Within six months, hold a seminar for suppliers (with the help of third parties such as WWF) to discuss methods of ascertaining the legality of forest products.
  • Fund research to identify legal compliance best practice for suppliers in key countries where issues have been raised.

End of Year 1

4.

Increase the "sources in progress to certification" category to 15%

  • Require major suppliers to bring pressure on their affiliates to join a stepwise certification programme such as GFTN.
  • Require medium-size suppliers to ensure that their sources proceed with certification. This will require that the secondary source first undergo successful preassessment from an independent certifier. All parties will enter into a contractual agreement on this basis.

End of Year 1

5.

Increase the "certified" category to 15% or more

  • Identify potential new suppliers of certified forest products and requesting that they tender for existing business.
  • Undertake new product development that permits the early consideration of the use of certified forest products.
  • Attend at least two major trade shows at which certified forest product suppliers are present.
  • Contact certified suppliers to identify potential opportunities for doing business with them.

End of Year 1

6.

Increase transparency and capacity

  • Publicly report data and performance year on year (in annual report/Web site)
  • Publicly report targets (in annual report/Web site)
  • Publicly report policies (in annual report /Web site)
  • Verify all externally presented data (using a third party)
  • Hold supplier and staff training and conferences (all trading and technical staff, 50% of suppliers, and two conferences)

End of Year 1 and on-going.


8.1 Certified Timber

FSC Certified Timber - The Least-Risk Option

The Least-Risk Option

The simplest way to answer the two questions is to buy timber that has been independently certified as coming from well-managed forests. Practically all forest certification standards require independent verifiers to confirm that the forest ownership, access and management is legal. Auditors will normally not carry out a “legality audit” as these are very specific assessments and can be complex and costly. During certification assessments the auditors will be making sure there is no evidence of significant breaches of the law. Chain-of-custody certificates answer the question, “How did it get here?” If purchasers can buy certified timber, the risk of trading in illegal timber will be managed and greatly reduced. The table below summarizes the various schemes’ ability to verify legality.

Certification Schemes as a Form of Verification of Legal Compliance

Certification Scheme

Checks Legal Right to Harvest and Significant Aspects of Legal Compliance

Achieves Traceability Through a Chain-of-Custody System

Requires Exclusion of Uncertified Material (From Potentially Illegal or Unwanted Sources) 

System for Controlling Uncertified Material (When Percentage Based Claims Are Used)

Value as a Form of Evidence of Legal Compliance

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

Yes

Yes 

Yes

Yes—Controlled Wood Standard

High – No Extra Legality Related Checks Required.

Cerflor (Brazil) 

Yes

Yes

No

No

High For 100% Certified—No Extra Legality-Related Checks Required.

Certfor (Chile) 

Yes

No

Yes

No

Verification Needed for Non-Certified Percentage

Lembaga Ecolabel Indonesia (LEI) 

Yes

No

No

No

Chain–of-Custody  System Required

PEFC* - Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes

 

Yes

Yes

Varies

No

High for 100% Certified—No Extra Legality-Related Checks Required.

Verification Needed for Non-Certified Percentage

Sources: Compiled from UK Central Point of Expertise on Timber Procurement's (CPET) website; Forest Certification Resource Centre—Certification Comparison Matrix (Link no longer available); Reports from the ProForest Field Test of the Questionnaire to Assess the Comprehensiveness of Certification Systems/Schemes.

For other certification information you may go directly to the certification programme’s own websites:

* Note: Countries using this scheme with national endorsement: Finland, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Austria, France, Latvia, Czech, Switzerland, Belgium, UK, Spain, Denmark, Australia, Italy, Chile, Portugal, Canada, Luxemburg, Slovakia, US, Slovenia, Estonia & Poland

Note: Forest certification schemes and associated chain-of-custody systems constantly evolve in terms of their requirements. This table is believed to be correct at the time of publication. Please check with each certification system for new developments to ensure ongoing accuracy.

Note: No system can give 100 per cent guarantee as proof of legality on its own. All certification systems are implemented by people who on occasion make mistakes or who occasionally seek to mislead. Good certification systems find and fix these errors. Always check the certificate for scope and for validity. Do not assume that because a company has a Chain of Custody certificate that material purchased from this company is automatically certified.

Percentage Claims
All forest management certification schemes examined for preparation of this manual require compliance with relevant forest legislation. Some also provide a relatively high degree of assurance that the material covered by their chain-of-custody system is legal. The situation is made more complex, however, by “percentage claims”.

Percentage claims are permitted when it is accepted that it is impractical to demand that 100 per cent of a product be certified. This is commonly the case for products in which raw wood materials from many forest sources are mixed during manufacturing (for example, paper or plywood). In such cases, the authorities responsible for the governance of the various certification standards acknowledge that some mixing with non-certified material is inevitable. Percentages are normally set, with some material coming from certified sources and the remainder coming from non-audited sources. Credit based systems do not use percentages but, when operated correctly, should ensure that the volume claimed as credit is in no way associated with material that is illegal.

Though many of the certification programmes specify that illegal timber must be excluded from the non-certified percentage. This is verified through auditing against their Controlled Wood Standard. The FSC Controlled Wood Standard seeks to provide a framework by which non-FSC-certified timber (which will be mixed with FSC-certified timber when making percentage-based claims) can be assessed for legality (amongst other criteria). Several certifying bodies (organizations that certify forest management against the standards listed in the table above) have created verification programmes to assess legality alone (i.e. excluding the non-legal aspects of the applicable standard).


2.3 Identifying Key Players That Need to Be Involved

Supply Chain Review It is essential to identify key roles within the sourcing organization that are critical to the success of complying with policy through delivering the programme. The roles will include senior management across a range of functions, including sourcing, environmental management, legal advisor, technical support and communications.

Without buy-in from across all levels in the organization, a successful responsible sourcing programme will be difficult to achieve. Therefore, it is essential to identify all key players early on in the process.


8.6 Choosing the Appropriate Status for a Source

Choosing the Appropriate Status for Your Source

The more an organization digs into the issues, the more information will come to light that may have a bearing on the status of the source. Sufficient information may be available at the initial baseline investigation to determine if a source is to be given the status “Unwanted”. Further rounds of information gathering may affect the status of a source previously categorized as “Limited knowledge” or “source assessed,” which will force a re-evaluation and perhaps a downgrading to “Unwanted”. In most cases, the process of gathering information, analyzing it and seeking clarification will take some time. However, it is important to make sure that this process does not become a method to delay making a decision on the future of the supplier and continue business as usual. It is therefore essential to set appropriate deadlines, agree on these with the supplier and clearly identify what will happen at that point.

The table below can be used as a checklist to identify whether a source is assessed, verified, unwanted or there is limited knowledge. It is also a useful checklist for compliance against the FSC Controlled Wood Standard.

Using information on an individual source plus information on the supplier of the material, work through the table to identify the most appropriate status. The table refers in some cases to “an agreed upon period” which is the period of time defined by the buyer and accepted by the supplier to meet this condition.

 

Policy Criteria

Limited knowledge of forest
Source

Unwanted
Source


Source Assessed

Source Verified

Legality:
The supplier knows where the timber was grown and can identify the harvesting entity.
The timber originates from an entity that has a legal right to harvest timber in the forest management unit where the timber was grown, and has been legally traded.

The supplier cannot identify where the timber was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

After an agreed upon period:
The supplier cannot identify that the harvesting entity has a legal right to harvest (has a harvesting permit and authorization from the resource owner).


The supplier identifies the harvesting entity and that the harvesting entity has a legal right to harvest and timber has been legally traded.

Same as source assessed

High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF):
Regarding whether the timber is harvested from forest areas where forest management activities maintain or enhance high conservation values.

The supplier cannot identify where the timber was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

After an agreed-to period:

If HCVs are only suspected or are not evaluated—
No special management to maintain or enhance is adopted for high conservation values.

If HCVs are identified—
(a) lack of willingness to recognize values, assess values, or engage in any form of HCV forest management; and/or (b) lack of willingness to adopt a precautionary principle for HCVs.

If HCVs are only suspected or are not evaluated—the precautionary approach shall be adopted and no timber shall be supplied until the presence of high conservation values (HCVs) has been credibly assessed and appropriate management (to maintain or enhance) can be planned accordingly.

 If HCVs are identified, evidence is provided that
(a) the forest is certified, or in progress to certification (and a comprehensive HCV forest assessment has been done and an action plan developed to ensure the maintenance and enhancement of the identified HCVs,
OR
(b) the forest manager can otherwise demonstrate that the forest and/or surrounding landscape is managed to ensure those values are maintained (usually this will involve a comprehensive HCV forest assessment in the site/landscape and a commitment to management actions and monitoring to ensure the HCVs are maintained and enhanced).

More information on HCVF here.

Unjustified Forest Conversion:
Regarding whether the known source is a forest that is being inappropriately cleared or converted, and/or timber that has been harvested from areas that have been converted from natural forest to plantations or nonforest uses.

The supplier cannot identify where the timber was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

After an agreed-to period:

No evidence is provided that

  • a transparent multi-stakeholder planning process has been conducted;
  • there are no outstanding conflicts with local and indigenous peoples regarding the clearance;
  • where the forest is classified or suspected as being of high conservation value these values are being maintained or enhanced;
  • an environmental impact study has been conducted and its recommendations implemented.
 

 Evidence is provided that

  • a transparent multi-stakeholder planning process has been conducted;
  • there are no outstanding conflicts with local and indigenous peoples regarding the clearance;
  • the forest is classified or suspected of being of high conservation value and these values are maintained or enhanced;
  • an environmental impact study has been conducted and its recommendations implemented.

More information on forest conversion:
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/ wwf_position_paper_on_forest_conversion.pdf

Conflict Timber:
Regarding whether the timber was traded in a way that drives violent armed conflict or threatens national or regional stability.

The supplier cannot identify where the timber was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

After an agreed-to period:

The source is clearly or strongly suspected of, originating from a country or operation that is not acceptable according to the sourcing policy.

 

Clear evidence is provided that the source is not listed as unwanted according to the sourcing policy.

More information on conflict timber here

Human Rights Issues: Regarding whether the harvesting or processing entity, is violating human rights.

The supplier cannot identify where the timber was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

Internal and external stakeholder concerns
identify specific issues, countries,
or companies that are extremely controversial
or out of step with generally
accepted practices.

 

Internal and external stakeholder concerns
identify specific issues, countries, or companies that are extremely controversial or out of step with generally accepted practices.

More information on human rights issues here.

Endangered Species:
Regarding whether the tree species involved is listed in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (or other schedules, as defined by the responsible purchaser’s policy) where trade is prohibited, or is listed in CITES Appendices II or III but the supporting certificates from the CITES management and scientific authorities in the country of origin are valid.

The supplier cannot identify the species of timber supplied or where it was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

After an agreed-to period:

Species is identified as CITES Appendix I.

CITES Appendix II or III trade (where permitted under the sourcing policy) is not backed by all relevant export and import documentation as required by relevant CITES management authorities.

CITES species that lack required documents can be consider “illegally traded” and thus should be regarded as unwanted under the “Legality” criterion.

CITES Appendix II or III trade (where permitted under the sourcing policy) is backed by all relevant export and import documentation as required by relevant CITES management authorities covering both export and import.

More information on CITES here.

Same as source assessed.

Genetic Modification (GM):
Regarding whether the known source is from a forest that does not use GM trees.

The supplier cannot identify where the timber was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

After an agreed-to period:

Evidence or a statement that the forest management enterprise does supply timber from GM trees.

 

Evidence or a statement is provided that the forest management enterprise does not supply timber from GM trees.

Local Conflicts:
Regarding whether the known source is a forest where there is no unresolved conflict concerning local or indigenous people or civil society groups.

The supplier cannot identify where the timber was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

After an agreed to period:

Absence of a process for conflict resolution
and absence of clear evidence that
demonstrates that a process has been developed.

 

 Clear evidence is provided that demonstrates
that a process for the resolution of the conflict
has been, or is being developed:
(a) identification of all local communities or traditional
and indigenous peoples in the forest management unit and adjacent area;
(b) documentation showing the forest management unit’s ownership or legal right to harvest;
(c) documentation recording traditional rights as identified by the communities and peoples
groups identified in (a);
(d) documented evidence of consultation with local communities or traditional and indigenous
peoples groups identified in (a);
(e) documented evidence of the process by which any disputes are being resolved, which has the broad support of the parties to the dispute, and which outlines an agreed-to interim process for addressing the dispute and for the management of the forest area concerned.

Documented evidence of any payments to local communities or traditional and indigenous peoples groups are fair, and obtained a Free, Prior and informed (FPIC) consent.

Traceability Issues:
Regarding the data supplied and its completeness.

The supplier cannot identify where the timber was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

After an agreed-to period:

The supplier has not returned the questionnaire or has failed to complete it sufficiently within the specified time.

Product is traceable to the forest management unit to a degree of precision that is commensurate with the risk that the source may be unwanted. More information on data issues and suppliers here.

A 3rd party has verified that the material does not contain unwanted sources.

Information Disclosure Issues:
Regarding confidentiality or willingness to disclose the source.

The supplier cannot identify where the timber was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

After an agreed-to period:

The supplier will not disclose the source (forest) of the forest product within the specified time.

Product is traceable to the forest management unit to a degree of precision that is commensurate with the risk that the source may be unwanted sourcing

More information on data issues and suppliers here.

 A 3rd party has verified that the material does not contain unwanted sources.

Integrity issues:
Regarding the integrity of the supplier and supplier data.

The supplier cannot identify where the timber was grown and cannot identify the harvesting entity.

After an agreed-to period:

Other sources of information continue to dispute the information provided by the supplier, and the supplier is unable to sufficiently refute these allegations to the sourcing organization’s satisfaction.

Product is traceable to the forest management unit to a degree of precision that is commensurate with the risk that the source may be unwanted sourcing

More information on data issues and suppliers here.

A 3rd party has verified that the material does not contain unwanted sources.”


8.5 Strategies for Verifying Legality

Verifying Legality

Low-Risk Suppliers

Low-risk suppliers are those that are unlikely to supply illegal timber. The level of objective evidence supplied for the risk rating process should already have been significant. Little more needs to be requested of these suppliers other than to ask them to complete a new risk-rating questionnaire each year or when you plan to purchase a new product category from them. However, you should ask them to inform you if their own upstream supply chain is altered significantly, and have them complete a new questionnaire. In the longer term, suppliers in the low-risk category need to be encouraged to work toward sourcing all their timber from credibly certified forest sources.

Low-risk suppliers should supply the following documents as evidence that the timber in their products originates from known licensed sources:

High-Risk Suppliers

Suppliers will fall into the high-risk category because they did not supply sufficient reassurances or objective evidence to prove that they could remove illegal timber from their supply chain. The range and types of objective evidence that suppliers can provide vary greatly from one country to another. The country guides cover the key issues for specific countries and the types of evidence you need from the forest and timber sector in that country. In addition a more general view of documentary requirements for timber from different countries can be found here.

In many cases, official government documentation alone is insufficient to guarantee legality, because the regulatory infrastructure may be corrupt and/or ineffective. In such circumstances, even "official letters" on government department letterheads (such as Certificates of Origin and so forth) claiming the legality of a shipment should be treated with the utmost suspicion. You will need to seek additional reassurances.

For suppliers and product lines rated as high-risk in an initial assessment, you can adopt various strategies to ensure that risk is mitigated to a lesser or greater extent.

Supplier Warranties

If a supplier is not willing to provide you with transparent information about its own suppliers, a way forward might be to obtain a supplier warranty from them. A supplier warranty is a written commitment from your supplier that it will supply you with products in accordance with the warranty. This will form a part of the commercial contract with your supplier.

You can ask the supplier to warrant that the products supplied will comply with your definition of legal timber. Your contract can specify the consequences of the supplier breaching the warranty, including termination of the contract for cause and consequent rights to damages. Genuine suppliers will develop their own Keep it Legal systems to ensure that they comply with this warranty and to keep you as a customer. A less committed supplier might sign the warranty but run a calculated risk that any illegal timber entering their supply chain will go undetected by you or others. Because the promise they make is not checked by an independent organization, the level of risk you would be taking on by relying only on a supplier warranty is relatively high. But it is a step in the right direction and you may be able to claim damages if you find out from a third party that the supplier's products contain illegal timber.

Second-Party Audits

It is entirely possible that you will meet resistance from your supplier with regard to providing information on the business that supplies them. One likely reason for this reluctance is that they will fear that you want to eliminate them from the supply chain. If you are unable to persuade suppliers to provide this information, there are alternative solutions. You can engage an independent organization or second party to gather the appropriate information under strict confidentiality guidelines. This will prevent the revealing of any information that would identify an element of the supply chain. This is a more costly option, but it could prove cost-effective in the long run if it allows you to identify your forest sources and demonstrate that the timber you are using was legally harvested. This information can be used to target markets such as the US to meet the due care requirements of the Lacey Act amendment, the EU Timber Regulation, the Australia Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill, the public procurement sectors in some Western European countries or the US that are now asking for this level of assurance about their timber purchases. Some of the organizations that undertake second-party audits include:

Global Forestry Services - www.gfsinc.biz
ProForest - www.proforest.org
Tropical Forest Trust - www.tropicalforesttrust.com
Other organizations offer similar services.

Other organizations offer similar services and this list is not exclusive or confer a recommendation on any of the above organizations.

Legality and Third-Party Audits

Third-party audits are recommended by WWF’s GFTN for high-risk suppliers and are a key element of the verification requirements for the verified-legal timber classification. The third-party auditor must check both legal compliance in the forest and the integrity of the chain of custody to ensure against mixing with illegal timber.
Several independent verification organizations now offer legal verification services and third-party audits. These companies generally claim that their service is the only truly independent one because they avoid conflicts of interest by either not undertaking any consultancy work or, if they do, by keeping the work entirely functionally separate from their auditing work. To provide additional rigor to their auditing role, many such inspection bodies employ accreditation bodies that inspect them to make sure their independence is not compromised and that their work is of a consistently high standard. Organizations offering a form of legal verification include:
Bureau Veritas - www.bureauveritas.com
Certisource Timber - www.certisource.net
Double Helix - www.doublehelixtracking.net
Rainforest Alliance - www.rainforest-alliance.org
Scientific Certification System (SCS) - http://www.scscertified.com/nrc/legalharvest.php
SGS - http://www.forestry.sgs.com/timber-legality-traceability-verification-tltv
Soil Association - www.soilassociation.org/forestry

Other organizations offer similar services and this list is not exclusive or confer a recommendation on any of the above organizations.

Timber Legality Schemes

Within the forest sector the 1990s saw increasing use of private sector mechanisms to attempt to address deforestation and secure sustainable forest management, most notably forest certification. While certification has had beneficial effects, its uptake has been uneven. Unfortunately certification was least successful in the regions where the need for it was the greatest, in particular the Amazon, Congo Basin and Borneo.

Although a number of international efforts such as the World Bank’s Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (FLEG) and the European Union’s (EU) Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) have been made to address the issues, in particular illegal logging, many countries continue to have major problems within governance, corruption and maladministration. Due to its operational circumstances, the forest sector is often particularly prone to these issues and as a result many tropical timber producing countries are regarded as ‘high-risk’ in relation to forest management and the overall quality of governance.

It has become increasingly clear that while international efforts such as the EU FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) offer comprehensive solutions within its scope of agreement, the time when the first VPA-compliant timber is available remains many months or even years away. It will therefore be a very lengthy, process to roll out similar measures across the majority of high-risk countries, and given the voluntary nature of these agreements, it is likely that some countries can decline to participate at any stage.

At the same time, the pressure for responsible timber procurement has increased with measures such as the US Lacey Act and the EU’s Timber Regulation and the Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill. With certified timber supplies from high-risk countries still low, widespread improvement through international governance years away and still few examples of credible national government-led legality verification in high-risk countries, it has fallen to the private sector to develop and implement practical solutions. There has been increasing acceptance among commercial and NGO sectors that while credibly certified responsible forest management should remain as the ultimate goal, the use of ”legal timber” can be a useful interim measure on the road to achieving this.

New Challenges

As with the early days of forest certification, while the market takes time to understand the concept of legality, a number of private sector legality verification schemes have been set up. Similarly, a wide range of credibility, trustworthiness and integrity can be found among them. This means that timber buyers need to understand how these legality verification schemes operate to ensure they do not just automatically verify ”business as usual”, and actually guarantee certain minimum legal requirements are being verified and actually being met in the field.

To provide an acceptable level of reliability legality verification schemes have to operate in a credible manner and operate within a known framework. Key elements of legality verification schemes can be seen as:

Definitions of Legality

At the core of legality verification lies the definition of legality. Preparing a definition of legality can be a challenging task. Ensuring this is done through a multi-stakeholder process will help ensure the definition is credible and fair. However, there are some difficult issues to address nevertheless. Key to these is the scope of the legality definition. If one considers all the laws in force in a country that may be applicable to forestry companies, this can often run into a large number of individual pieces of legislation. When talking about forest legality, do we really mean all laws or just the most important ones for forestry, and which ones would they be?

The ”speeding logging truck” is often used as an example to illustrate the problem. If a logging truck is caught traveling over the speed limit (i.e. it has broken an applicable law), should we consider the logs to be illegal, even if they were harvested and transported in accordance with the laws up until that point? Many people would see this is absurd as it fails to address the core issues of illegal logging.

In reality given the complexity of existing legal frameworks, most legality initiatives have chosen to restrict legality standards to a critical sub-set of laws and regulations. These fall into two broad categories:

In addition, VLC often includes requirements for legal processing, including compliance with domestic processing quotas, guarantees against mixing with non-legal sources and payment of processing levies; and legal trade and export including export licensing, procurement of necessary CITES authorization and customs clearance.

Key Elements of Legality Verification Schemes

Depending on national context and the objectives of verification, a legality definition might include some or all of the above components. Therefore, it is very important to understand the scope of the legality definition used in a particular verification audit. Making sure the key elements are included in the legality definition and how this is verified will ensure the credibility of the verification.

In an effort to support the development of a more consistent and common approach to legality verification, the GFTN and TRAFFIC developed a forest-focused set of principles and criteria covering key legality issues – the Common Framework for Assessing Legality of Forestry Operations, Timber Processing and Trade. This legality framework can help both regulators and companies, particularly GFTN members in countries of export and import, to identify the key legal requirements for VLO and VLC.

Legality Verification in Challenging Conditions

The need for legality verification is derived from the incapacity or failure of governance structures to ensure the rule of law within the forest sector. However, legality verification can never be a substitute for competent forest governance and, to a certain extent, depends on the existence of functioning governance structures in order to operate. It is therefore necessary to always consider the background governance situation, and the weaker these are, the more carefully the verification process should precede. For example, while the legality verification schemes in operation have the potential to address the issue of corruption in the allocation of harvesting rights—uncovering corrupt practices is notoriously difficult, and forest legality verification teams are unlikely to obtain access to necessary information to investigate these.

Similarly, in many cases when conducting a legality verification audit, the objective evidence needed to verify compliance with a law is derived from the national governance system. For example, harvesting block closure authorization by the forest authority may be the means of verifying that harvesting complied with key forest laws. The question arises where forest governance is weak, should the verification body seek some triangulation of evidence from the field or accept the block closure approval as appropriate objective evidence? The weaker the governance, the less likely a verification based solely on this type of evidence will be credible. However, verifiers may find it very difficult to get access to corroborate authority-derived evidence.

Further information regarding governance in forest producer countries is available from Transparency International.

Issues with Audits

Second- and third-party audits are regarded as the best means of determining the legality of a supplier. However, there are issues to consider concerning the level of assurance provided. Auditors are only on site for the duration of the audit, maybe only two or three days. Many observers ask what happens when the auditors are not present, particularly with respect to high-risk suppliers. Evidence suggests that some suppliers put on a special "show" for auditors and then revert to normal practice as soon as the auditors have left the premises.

Your local trade body will probably be able to suggest a certification body with appropriate skills in the timber sector. It is also wise to ask for recommendations from NGOs, including your local GFTN manager.


12.0 Environmental Status of Supplies - Checklist for Working Through the Steps of Environmental Status

Checklist


10.0 Environmental Status of Supplies - Credibly Certified Source

Credibly Certified Source

The term "credibly certified forest product" refers to timber originating in forests that have been independently assessed and certified as being well managed; that is, they are managed in an environmentally responsible, socially beneficial, and economically viable manner. The independent certification process requires that standard setting, accreditation and auditing all be performed by different independent bodies. Forest certification inspections or audits are carried out by third party certification bodies. These certifiers in turn are accredited by an independent accreditation body. The forest audits must be site-specific and should assess management at the level of the forest management unit against measurable, recognized performance standards. These standards must include minimum thresholds for economic, social, and environmental criteria.

Final customers (purchasers of goods not for resale/consumers) seek assurance in the form of a chain-of-custody certificate that the timber products they are sourcing are from credibly certified forests. This form of certification requires that businesses that handle certified forest timber demonstrate that their certified timber and raw materials are produced under a credible chain-of custody system. Chain-of-custody certification can be coupled with a logo or label that can be used, where desirable, to identify timber from well-managed and certified forest operations. Independent forest certification and the associated market in certified forest products are both market-driven and stakeholder driven processes.

What Does Credibly Certified Mean?

Criteria

Requirements

Credible Forest Certification Systems

Forest certification aims to provide reliable information for end users and consumers of forest products, assuring them that the forests from which the timber originated are managed according to high environmental, social and economic standards. Over the last decade, various forest certification systems have developed to meet the requirements of different stakeholders.

To meet WWF’s basic requirements for a credible forest certification system, the system must:


Using the above criteria, WWF developed a tool called the Forest Certification Assessment Tool (CAT), which will continue to be used to assess a range of schemes and define an appropriate level of acceptability. Within the multi-scheme environment that exists today, WWF and the GFTN will support all schemes that reach a level of credibility as defined by the Guide or any future tools developed.

Recent assessments show that the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification system best meets WWF’s key requirements as described by CAT. Thus, while WWF acknowledges that several schemes may contribute to improved forest management, WWF will continue to use the FSC as the internationally recognized hallmark of responsible forest management.

The sourcing organization is urged to monitor developments in credible certification wherever possible to engage in debate, trials and discussions that will raise the level of understanding and long-term improvements in the credibility of schemes, leading to improved forest management practices.

Checking Whether a Source is Credibly Certified

The organization should ensure that it obtains a chain-of-custody certificate that is relevant to the timber or materials supplied. The authenticity or scope of the certificate can be checked either at the FSC website or, in some cases, at the website of the certification body.

More information regarding credible forest certification and WWF’s support can be found here.


7.6 Source Assessed in the Context of Exports to Australia

Aligned with international efforts, including measures developed by the United States and EU, Australia further strengthens its leadership position in the Asia-Pacific region in promoting trade in legally harvested timber and timber products by enacting the Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Act (AILPA) and enhancing international cooperation to combat illegal logging.

AILPA was passed in 2012, a draft Amendment was issued in May 2013 and is expected to enter into law November 2014. The aims of AILPA are to reduce the harmful environmental, social and economic impacts of illegal logging and affects to Australian timber importers and domestic processors of Australian raw logs.

The regulation does not require a due diligence system to be created for each transaction.  Rather, the regulation requires the establishment of a single due diligence system that can be applied to each import. For example, an importer may establish a due diligence system and apply it to a particular product from a particular source.  The outcome of this process will be an understanding of the information and documentation required to be obtained when importing that product from that particular source.

However the regulation that outlines the operational framework for importers and processors will come into effect after 30 November 2014.

In addition, the regulation also provides:

  1. civil offence and penalties.
  2. Infringement notice provisions.
  3. Administrative sanction provisions.
  4. Identity card requirements.

The law does not impose any Australian legislation on the source country, but uses the laws that are in placed in the country of origin to determine illegality of harvest and trade.

 

The list of regulated timber products is prescribed in a Schedule of the Regulation (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L00883). This list is closely aligned with the list of EU products, with some exceptions where the imports of those products to Australia are of low trade value and/or volume. It has fewer products than either the EU or US legislations and has an additional category relating to wooden framed seats.

Some products are exempted from the due diligence requirements of the Regulation. These include: timber products that are recycled material and any content of a timber products that are recycled material. Timber in a regulated timber product is recycled material if:

However, material in a regulated timber product is not recycled material if the material is the by-product of a manufacturing process. Examples: Sawdust or off cuts from sawn timber used to make particle board or plywood

 

Information the importer needs:

-          Evidence that the product has not been illegally logged

-          Information on whether the harvesting of that tree species from which the timber was derived is prohibited in the place of harvest or not

-          If the harvest of the timber in that place is authorised by legislation and regulation – proof that the requirements of the legislation been met for the harvest of that timber

-          If payment is required for the right to harvest the timber – proof that payment has been made

-          Information on whether the harvest of the timber was consistent with the law establishing or protecting the legal rights of use and tenure in the place of harvest or not 

 

Before importing a regulated timber product into Australia, an importer must have a due diligence system and retain a written record of that due diligence system. The requirements for a due diligence system may be summarised as a four step process to be put in place by an importer as set out below.

Step 1: Information gathering (section 10 of the AILPA)

  1. An importer must obtain as much of the prescribed information as is reasonably practicable. The Regulation includes a list of types of information to be obtained by an importer.

Step 2: Optional process - assessing and identifying risk against a timber legality framework (section 11) or a country specific guideline (once they are prescribed) (section 12)

  1.      ii.        Under the Regulation, in certain circumstances, an importer may elect to assess the risk that the timber in the product they are importing has been illegally harvested using either:

-          a timber legality framework that is prescribed in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Regulation; or

-          a country specific guideline (once they are prescribed in Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Regulation). The Regulation requires that, should an importer elect to use this optional process, they must:

  1. Should an importer elect to use this optional process and, in doing so, assess that there is a low risk that the timber product is illegally logged, then the requirements under section 13 do not apply. In circumstances where section 13 does not apply, risk mitigation (section 14) also does not apply.
  2. However, risk mitigation does apply in circumstances where the importer is required to use section 13 and the risk that the timber product was illegally logged, as assessed under section 13, is not a low risk.

Step 3: Risk assessment (section 13)

  1.       i.        Where an importer has not used the optional process set out in Step 2, or where they have used the Step 2 process but they have identified a risk that the timber is illegally logged and the risk is other than a low risk, an importer must undertake a risk assessment in accordance with section 13.
  1. The Regulation requires the importer, as part of this process, to identify and assess any risks by taking into consideration the risk factors that are referred to in subsections 13(2) and (3).

Step 4: Risk mitigation (section 14)

  1. Where an importer has, during Step 3, identified a risk that the timber was illegally logged and the risk was not a low risk, an importer must undertake a risk mitigation process in accordance with       the Regulation.  The Regulation requires the risk mitigation process to be adequate and proportionate to the identified risk.

 

Timber sourced from certified forests (*FSC or **PEFC) will automatically be determined to be “low risk by the AILPA.

The act requires a declaration about the timber legality at the point of import of each shipment. Importers of regulated timber products must have declarations, at the time of import, to the Customs Minister about the due diligence that they have undertaken.

Detailed information on the AILPA can be found here: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013L00883


8.4 Steps to Exercise Due Diligence

Environmental Status of Supplies

Key Points in Excercising Due Diligence

Because simple, objective evidence demonstrating legality is rarely available from countries with the highest levels of illegal harvesting, your organisation will need to identify which suppliers are most likely to be able to comply with your company's aims and which are least likely—that is, which suppliers present the lowest risk of supplying illegal timber and which suppliers present the highest risk.

Your organization will need to develop systems for assessing and rating risk (risk rating). Risk rating allows you to do the following:

Step 1 - Assessing the Level of Risk

Risk rating is used to assess the likelihood that a given non-certified product from a given supplier contains illegally sourced timber. Rating suppliers based on this risk considers a range of information from various sources, some of which is available in the public domain and some that is provided by the suppliers themselves.

Risk rating consists of the following activities:

Requesting Suppliers to Complete and Return Questionnaires

The first step in the risk rating process is to send questionnaires to your suppliers. A model questionnaire and guidance that can be adapted for use in your organization is available here.

Analyzing the returned questionnaires using scenario tables
The returned questionnaires need to be systematically analyzed so that suppliers can be rated between high-risk and low-risk. The risk of illegal timber being traded along a supply chain can be broken down into three broad elements.

  1. Country of origin of the timber. There are risks associated with the geographical source of the supply. If a supplier is based in a country from which high volumes of illegal timber are exported and that supplier is unable to provide objective evidence demonstrating legality, then the risk that the timber is illegal is high. The scenario tables indicate the type of regulatory infrastructure that is most likely to encourage trading in both legal and illegal timber. Ratings for some countries are suggested, based on estimated rates of illegal logging or "suspicious" sources in those countries.
  2. Supplier company's attitude. The way a supplier operates with regard to a range of issues, such as its own general sourcing policies, how it relates to stakeholders and its attitude toward local communities, has been shown to be strongly linked to that company's attitude to buying and supplying illegal timber. The questionnaire asks a number of questions in this respect.
  3. Supply chain complexity. The way a supplier sources timber from its own suppliers is key to the risk of it trading in illegal timber or timber products. The questionnaire requests various types of objective evidence to assess whether sufficient supporting documentation has been gathered. You can analyze these three elements using the scenario tables. The analysis uses three different scenario tables, which relate to different sections of the questionnaire. Although indexes tend to be difficult to justify in purely scientific terms, they provide a systematic means for analyzing questionnaires. For example, the UK Timber Trade Federation, which used scenario tables for field trials (using a very similar approach), showed that the tables were effective and the results were independently repeatable.

In an ideal world it would be possible to calculate a risk rating for each product that you purchase—that is, each product in your inventory that carries a unique product code would have an individual risk rating. In reality this may not prove cost-efficient because of the difficulty of gathering any meaningful information on a product-by-product basis. Experience has shown that a more practical approach may be to group products into product categories, such as redwood mouldings from company X, rather than rate each individual molding (with all their different dimensions) supplied by company X.

Any supplier that has not returned a questionnaire within the specified deadline is automatically classified as a high-risk. The assumption is that the supplier was either unable or unwilling to supply the required information or too badly organized to do it. The importance of receiving the supplier's objective evidence to support the questionnaire answers cannot be overemphasized.

Examples of objective evidence can be found here. A completed questionnaire without objective evidence is just a self-declaration. Experience suggests that self-declarations without supporting evidence cannot be relied on.

Feedback to Suppliers and Monitoring for Continuous Improvement

The analysis of the questionnaire to reach a supplier rating has the added advantage of identifying weaknesses in the supplier's responses. It is then possible to give suppliers feedback, explaining how their score was derived and the types of actions needed to reduce the score. It is therefore possible to provide practical advice (without necessarily being specific or an expert) on how they can reduce their risk rating—an additional benefit to the supplier for completing the questionnaire. The types of actions that will move suppliers from the high-risk to the low-risk category are discussed later in this section.

Some suppliers may rate as high-risk in terms of supplying illegal timber in the initial assessment but they may strive to improve by changing their practices so that on subsequent assessments their risk-rating score improves. Others' ratings may change very little over time. It is important to maintain records that demonstrate how suppliers have improved their performance and processes over time. Experience suggests that suppliers who are unwilling to make adjustments to comply with a buyer's sourcing policy requirements are potentially also those more likely to trade in illegal timber. Over time you may wish to stop trading with these suppliers and replace them with companies that seek to support your commitments.

Data Management

Managing the whole process of supplier assessment involves sending out the questionnaires, following up with suppliers to get them to respond, capturing their responses and the associated objective evidence, analyzing the returns, and then reporting the results to all relevant parties. This process can be demanding in terms of management time. You will need an electronic database system and/or well-organized manual filing system to maintain the process.

Step 2 - Make Further Enquiries Where Needed

Once you have assessed the risk associated with a given product range from a given supplier and decided what kind of verification process is required, the next step involves implementing that process and, over time, progressively eliminating sources that are unable to provide the verification required.

One key strategy will be to make follow-up enquiries with suppliers that have provided weak responses to the questionnaire. Suppliers rated through the questionnaire assessment as being high-risk are likely to have not provided any or enough supporting evidence; thus the questionnaire, if returned, will be largely a self-declaration. You will need to either ask the supplier to provide more evidence or investigate the timber
source directly.

Gathering information from the upstream parts of the supply chain is frequently difficult. Traders are concerned about issues such as confidentiality, particularly if they occupy a "middleman" position in the supply chain. They are concerned that the objective evidence will reveal the identity of their supplier and that you may begin trading directly with the upstream end of the supply chain. Also, suppliers occupying an intermediary role may have great difficulty getting the information from those upstream from them, particularly if they only buy a relatively small percentage of their supplier's total production; that is, they have limited leverage. Sometimes the objective evidence you require just does not exist.

Step 3 - Improve Traceability and Verify Legality

Certified timber is tracked using inspected and verified chain-of custody systems that enable you to easily answer the question, "How did it get here?". Timber and timber products that supposedly originate from a certified forest but are not accompanied by a current and credible chain-of-custody certificate cannot be regarded as certified because the chain-of-custody has been broken and illegal product may have become mixed with the certified product. Chain-of-custody certificates apply only to timber and timber products from a certified forest. If a product comes from a verified legal forest, traceability is just as critical.

A key component of ensuring that timber is kept legal once it leaves the forest and enters the supply chain is to prevent illegal timber mixing with it. If legal timber and illegal timber are mixed, the whole product line can be "tainted". Once timber has left the forest, its legal quality can only be recognized if it can be shown to have come from that forest—in other words, traceability.

Without traceability, verification of the legality of forest management is largely a waste of time. The supply chain, or as some prefer to call it the demand chain, must have a dependable level of integrity. An efficient way of achieving this is to encourage suppliers to develop a system for tracing all timber and timber products from their own suppliers.

If you take the demand chain view, traceability should start at the downstream end of the chain and steadily be applied back upstream toward the forest. Traceability implemented in this manner will have a strong commercial orientation with a greater likelihood for successful implementation, with each business that forms a step along the demand chain benefiting.

Logs, timber and processed timber goods start their journey in the source forest and are then processed by primary and possibly secondary processing industries, exported, possibly transshipped and imported. All this may happen before the goods finally fall under your organization's control. Although it is critical to identify the source forest, it is also critical to make sure that the timber from that source forest is what you receive, rather than illegal timber that has infiltrated into the supply chain en route.

The traceability of the supply chain is vital for ensuring that you receive goods containing legal timber and that there is no "laundering" of illegal timber. In practical terms, it can be expensive and, in some cases, physically impossible to track timber down highly complex or fragmented supply chains. Complex supply chains will always be more likely to support the laundering of illegal timber.

The risk-rating system takes into consideration the potential for dilution of the supply chain by illegal timber. In high-risk situations that have a history of laundering timber, mixing legal and illegal timber to yield "legal" timber, the best option to ensure a clean supply chain is by tracking the timber from the source forest to the physical location where it comes under your organization's control. Without such tracking or traceability in their supply chains, your suppliers will be unable to meet your verification requirements for a verified legal or known licensed source or any other verification approach, such as those described below.

Traceability can be achieved through various combinations of paper- and technology-based tracking systems. In many countries where the trade in illegal timber is a problem, elaborate official paper-based systems have been implemented to theoretically track the movement of timber from the forest to the point of export. This has included the use of unique government certificates or permits covering the transportation and movement of timber in general. These documents are often linked with national forest legislation, and in many cases, it is illegal to transport timber without the necessary specific official permission accompanying the timber or timber products.

However, such systems can easily break down in countries where the regulatory capacity is weak because of a lack of resources or because of corruption, where the forest areas to be regulated are huge, or where the government has no means to manage data centrally. To make matters worse, modern printing technologies have made it relatively simple to corrupt paper-based systems with virtually indistinguishable false or forged paperwork.

Nevertheless, paper-based documentation is still the mainstay of traceability systems and is likely to be so for some time. A good understanding of the system that produces documentation, and familiarity with the "look and feel" of relevant documentation, will provide a measure of confidence and some safeguard.

To assist with this, WWF has produced a series of Keep It Legal Country Guides (in PDF format) for Brasil, China, Indonesia and Russia, for use in conjunction with this guidance, that describe how these paper-based systems operate in reality and their strengths and weaknesses.

The feasibility of tracking timber has increased significantly as Internet-related technologies and services have become more effective, cheaper and more accessible. Unreliable paperwork combined with scribed or painted identifiers on the end of logs are starting to be replaced by bar-coded tags and radio frequency identification devices (RFIDs) with the data capture carried out with handheld personal computers (PC). This enables the tree-related information to be scanned electronically and uploaded from the handheld PC directly onto the Internet, and from there it is stored in dedicated database systems. These modern technologies provide the opportunity to link individual standing trees in the forest with the logs produced from them in a much more secure manner than was possible in the past. These approaches rely on the standing trees in the forest being tagged and then the data on its position and main parameters (height, species and diameter) all being captured on a database. The systems are made secure by using uniquely identifiable tags that are linked to the key tree measurements and resultant log metrics through a record on the database. More information on timber tracking systems can be found below.

Any supply (or demand) chain has a number of critical control points along its length. Critical control points are locations at which the timber undergoes basic changes, for example, where the trees are felled, where the logs are loaded onto a log lorry and where the logs enter the sawmill. The Internet enables information from these critical control points along the supply chain to be aggregated in a single online database, no matter how remote the geographic locations of the critical control points are or what companies are involved. To manage all or part of a supply chain efficiently, you need information on how the product is moving along the supply chain. An Internet-driven system of the type described helps those collecting the information to benefit directly from their efforts as they receive reports containing key management metrics that are compiled and made available the instant any new "flow" information arrives at the database.

In an ideal world, in countries where the risk of illegality is high, the timber or timber product would all be tracked from the standing tree in the forest to the point where it enters your warehouse or comes under your organization's control. The reality is that, currently, little tracking of the types described is taking place. It is a new approach and is being adopted only by the more innovative and forward-looking operators.

Tracking, if appropriately implemented, should help a business operate more efficiently. Information from tracking can be useful for forest managers, in terms of monitoring the volumes and species being harvested from each location, mill owners, in terms of knowing what logs, species or timber products are coming out of the forest and when they may arrive at the mill, the regulatory authorities, in terms of being able to verify the legal right of a specific forest operation to transport timber and for estimation of revenues to be collected, independent auditors wishing to audit legality.

Many of the business benefits have yet to be fully realized. Currently, log and timber tracking is principally seen as a system of control that is used by government and verification organizations rather than as a business tool. Once these systems are more widely implemented and understood, it is likely their full value will be better appreciated. (For a more detailed review of timber tracking and chain of custody systems, see Dykstra et al., 2003, Technologies for Wood Tracking Verifying and Monitoring the Chain of Custody and Legal Compliance in the Timber Industry.) 

A promising recent technological advance is the use of DNA fingerprinting to prove the source and traceability of timber. Each individual tree has a unique genetic code (DNA) and code variations between individuals can be modeled to predict codes across a given geographical area. The primary use is to verify source by matching the DNA from samples taken from individual stumps in a source concession with the DNA from associated logs at a processing mill. The second, and possibly more powerful, method amalgamates the DNA data gathered from individual testing into a genetic database covering a geographical area.

The database allows samples taken from anywhere to be compared with known spatial DNA variations in order to pinpoint actual source to a geographical range. Certisource Timber has tested this technology in Southeast Asia and is currently able to undertake DNA matching for Merbau, Teak, Nyato, Mersawa and Matoa species.

Some companies that provide log and timber tracking services include:
Certisource Timber - www.certisource.net
SGS -www.sgs.com
TracElite - www.tracelite.com
Track Record - www.trackrecordglobal.com
Other organizations offer similar services.


Illegal Logging

Implications for Those Buying and Supplying Illegal Timber

Companies that buy products containing illegal timber may do so knowingly or because they have failed to exercise due diligence over their supply chains. Either way, the potential negative consequences of trading in such products include the following:

The global trade in illegally extracted timber is a multibillion dollar industry. Illegal logging occurs when timber is harvested, transported, processed, bought, or sold in violation or circumvention of national or sub-national laws. Although generally portrayed as a problem in tropical forests, illegality also occurs in developed countries and economies in transition.

Negative Impact of Illegal Logging

Illegal logging takes place in many countries on a small scale and has limited impact on the environment or society in general. However, in a significant number of countries, illegal logging is a major problem that poses a serious threat to forests, communities, and wildlife.

The negative impacts of illegal logging include:

Further information within the WWF website on the negative impacts of illegal logging can be found here.

Countries Where Illegal Harvesting Takes Place

Although exact figures are difficult to obtain (given the nature of the activity), recent estimates of the scale of illegal logging in some countries are provided below. Every effort is made to keep this table as up to date as possible, but it is suggested that the www.illegal-logging.info website is used as a starting point to obtain the latest information.

It is worth noting that all of the sources below have employed a variety of methodologies to derive the estimated figures. The most recent data available suggests that there may be some reduction in some countries though this is difficult to assess given the range of methods employed. What is clear is that nearly all of the countries highlighted have, and continue to experience, serious levels of illegal harvesting and illegal trade in their forest products industries and are therefore considered high-risk from the purchasers perspective.

Country sources of illegally harvested timber

Country

American Forest & Paper Association Estimates of “Suspicious” Timber

Other Estimates of Illegal Logging

Source of Other Estimates

Eastern Europe

Russia

15–20% of production
15–30% of exports

25% of exports

25–50% of exports

 

30% of production
(one-third)

 

20–60% of production

World Bank 2005 (1)

 

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service 2005 (2)

House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (UK) 2006 (3)

IUCN 2005 (4)

 

Estonia

 

50% of production

 

50% of production

Taiga Rescue Network 2005 (5)
Estonian Green Movement 2004 (6).

Latvia

 

20% of production

 

15–20% of production

Taiga Rescue Network 2005 (5)
WWF Latvia 2003 (7).

Africa

Cameroon

30% of production

50–65% of production

25% of all production
(less in export oriented production)

World Bank/WWF Alliance 2002 (8)

Chatham House 2009 (19)

Equatorial Guinea

30% of production

 

 

Gabon

30% of production

 

 

Liberia

30% of production

100% of production

National Transitional Government of Liberia (NTGL) 2005 (9)

Ghana

30% of production

50% of production

The Forestry Commission of Ghana 2003 (10)

Asia Pacific

Vietnam

 

73% of imports from high-risk countries

Chatham House 2009 (19)

Indonesia

60% of production
55% of plywood exports
100% of log exports

80% of production

 

83% of production

40% of harvest

House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (UK) 2006 (3)

CIFOR 2004 (11)

Chatham House 2009 (19)

Malaysia

5% of production
70% of log imports

 

 

Papua New Guinea

20% of production

65% of log exports

Forest Trends 2006 (12)

China

30% of production
30-32% of export products

50% of production

 

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service 2005 (13)

Latin America

Brazil

15% of production
15% of export products

37% of production

Imazon 2005 (14)

Peru

 

70-90% of production

80%

 

> 90% of exports (mahogany)

ITTO 2002 (15)
The Peruvian Environmental Law Society, 2003 (16)

 

ParksWatch 2005 (17)

Ecuador

 

70% of production

Ecuador's Wood Industry Association 2005 (18)

 

 

 

 

Note: Note that illegal harvesting does not just occur in developing countries. It occurs to a limited extent across Europe and North America. Good regulatory systems that are enforced, however, ensure that it is kept to a minimum.

For more information on illegal logging go to www.illegal-logging.info. The site is maintained by the Energy, Environment and Development Programme of Chatham House in London, with funding from the UK Department for International Development (DFID).

(1) World Bank, 2005, Forest Law Enforcement Governance (FLEG) in Eastern Europe and Northern Asia (ENA-FLEG). p. 8.
(2) USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, 2005, Russian Federation Solid Wood Products Forestry Sector Continues to Struggle 2005. p. 4.
(3) House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, 2006, Sustainable Timber: Second Report of Session 2004-05. p. 12.
(4) IUCN Global Temperate and Boreal Forest Programme IUCN Office for Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States, 2005, The Beginning of the ENA FLEG Process in Russia: Civil Society Insights. p. 21.
(5) Taiga Rescue Network, 2005, Sweden: Forest Industry – Giant with Big Timber Footprints in the Baltic Region. p. 2.
(6) Estonian Green Movement, 2004, Illegal forestry and Estonian timber exports. p. 2.
(7) WWF Latvia, 2003, The features of illegal logging and related trade in the Baltic Sea region. p. 5.
(8) World Bank / WWF Alliance, 2002, Forest Law Assessment in Selected African Countries. p. 19.
(9) All logging concessions in Liberia were cancelled in Feb 2006 following a report by the Forest Concession Review Committee - Phase 3, 31 May 2005, which had found that no individual concession holder was able to demonstrate sufficient level of legal compliance. UN Security Council sanctions were re-imposed on Liberian timber exports in December 2005.
(10) The Forestry Commission of Ghana, 2003, Keynote Address by Hon. Prof. Dominic K. Fobi - Minister for Lands & Forestry.
(11) Tacconi L, Obidzinski K, Agung F, 2004. Learning Lessons to Promote Certification and Control Illegal Logging in Indonesia, Report for the WWF/TNC Alliance to Promote Forest Certification and Combat Illegal Logging in Indonesia, Centre for International Forestry Research.
(12) Forest Trends, 2006, Logging, Legality, and Livelihoods in Papua New Guinea: Synthesis of Official Assessments of the Large Scale Logging Industry Volume I.
(13) USDA Foreign Agricultural Service GAIN Report, 2003, People’s Republic of China Solid Wood Products Annual 2003. P. 5.
(14) Figure based on data from IMAZON (Amazon Institute of People and the Environment) and Brazil’s environmental agency Ibama. Imazon, 2005, Human Pressure in the Brazilian Amazon. P. 5.
(15) ITTO, 2002, Achieving the ITTO Objective 2000 and Sustainable Forest Management in Peru – Report of the Diagnostic Mission. P. 4.
(16) The Peruvian Environmental Law Society, 2003, Case Study on the Development and Implementation of Guidelines for the Control of Illegal Logging with a view to Sustainable Forest Management in Peru.
(17) ParksWatch, 2005, An Investigation of Illegal Mahogany Logging in Peru’s Alto Purús National Park and its Surroundings. The report confirmed nearly all of Peru’s exports of Mahogany were illegal.
(18) Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), 2005, Interim Environmental Review of the United States-Andean Free Trade Agreement.
(19) Chatham House, 2009, Illegal Logging and Related Trade: 2008 Assessment of the Global Response (Pilot study), Duncan Brack, Sam Lawson & Larry MacFaul.

 

Seneca Creek Associates and Wood Resources International, 2004, “Illegal” Logging and Global Wood Markets: The Competitive Impacts on the U.S. Wood Products Industry.” Prepared for American Forest & Paper Association. Available from www.afandpa.org.


 


5.2 Tracking Systems & Databases

Establishing TraceabilityFor large and complex supply chains there can be a similarly large and complex set of associated data. This leads to the need for a supply chain database, which can range from a simple paper record to complex software. Generally speaking, the more complex the supply chain (that is, the greater the number of suppliers and products involved), the greater the need for a database.

The most cost-effective way to proceed can often be through the adaptation or use of existing systems, such as quality control or accounting systems. The database should, through associated questionnaires, identify the species, source and volume or value of forest products for each product, supply chain and process. A database is only as good as the data entered. The best source of data for a purchaser of forest products is the supplier.

The Minimum Recommended Content for a Database

Effective monitoring of the sourcing organization's compliance with its policies requires that the following information be collated from the sourcing organization's direct suppliers:

Data field description Comment on data required
Supplier name Name or code used within the sourcing organization's accounting system
Supplier contact details Name of contact who supplied the requested data
Products supplied List of products obtained from this supplier, or generic description of products supplied
Forest sources used The name and location of the forest management unit (FMU) or major processing unit
Timber species used The trade name and Latin name of each timber species used
Evidence of forest management provided Information from first, second, or third parties that provides information on the quality of forest management
Policy compliance Confirmation that all the sourcing organization's policies are complied with
Chain of custody (COC) Information regarding use of third-party COC systems, including COC number(s)
Legal verification Information regarding use of third-party legal verification systems.
Status of forest sources One of the following:
  • credibly certified or recycled source
  • source verified
  • source assessed
  • limited knowledge of forest source
Volume and value of material supplied Measured in cubic meters, tons, other units and/or financial value supplied over a defined period, and give equivalent in cubic meters if other units are used (including conversion factor used)
Date information supplied To allow periodic reviews
Review date The date at which this information must be updated by the supplier
Action plan for this supplier Not every supplier will satisfactorily complete the questionnaire at the first attempt. Missing information should be obtained through an action plan, with timelines and deliverables, that is mutually agreed to with the supplier.
Action plan should contain targets in the SMART format. 
Risk rating or performance rating Based on the information supplied (or not), an assessment of the risk to the organization presented by the supplier.

Conflict Timber

“Conflict timber” is a term used to describe timber that is produced and sold to finance armed conflict. The definition used by the NGO Global Witness is “timber that has been traded at some point in the chain of custody by armed groups, be they rebel factions, regular soldiers, or the civilian administration, either to perpetuate conflict or to take advantage of conflict situations for personal gain”.

Conflict timber is not necessarily illegal, though this will depend on governmental sanctions that may be in place at any given time.

Conflict Timber—Relevance for Responsible Purchasers

Individual organisations need to be aware of the existence of conflict timber and should be prepared to adjust their purchasing policy accordingly. Where research or stakeholder interaction suggests that such timber may be present in the supply chain, it is recommended that the purchasing policy be reviewed and as necessary enforced to remove the source from the chain. NGOs and other stakeholders may be able to assist in identifying sources of conflict timber; the UN also may have information, for example, in the form of embargoes or other dialogue that may assist in identifying such sources.

Countries that have regional variations (i.e., the conflict is regional) need to use an extremely clear and detailed chain of custody to ensure that the supply chain involved is not associated with the region in conflict. The complicated nature of conflicts may undermine this process and not satisfy stakeholders that the issues can be sufficiently separated.

More information on conflict timber can be found here –

Global Witness www.globalwitness.org


5.4 Rating of Suppliers' Compliance with Policy

Establishing TraceabilityIn an ideal world, once an organization has defined a timber sourcing policy, it could present it to suppliers and they would then follow it. The outcome would be the delivery of products that fully comply with the organization's policies and specifications. However, the reality is that suppliers can find it difficult to comply with the most basic requests for proof of policy compliance for a number of reasons. Therefore, suppliers' compliance with the sourcing policy requirements may take considerable time and effort, and non-compliance may be the norm in the early stages of an organization's policy implementation.

Therefore, the first step for any buyer is to identify which suppliers are most likely to be able to comply with the policy, that is, those suppliers who present the lowest risk of supplying non-compliant products, and which suppliers are least likely to comply with the policy and therefore, present the highest risk of supplying non-compliant products.

By using systematic risk-rating methodologies, it is possible to develop future sourcing strategies based on the risk rating of suppliers, highlight actions that would help suppliers reduce their risk rating and monitor suppliers' progress toward being able to supply policy-compliant product.

In an imperfect world, rating suppliers based on risk presents the best way forward and the next step toward achieving full implementation of the sourcing organization's responsible sourcing policy.

More information on a risk-rating methodology, with a particular emphasis on legality, can be found here. Rating of suppliers is done using a range of information, some of it available in the public domain and some of it provided by the suppliers themselves. The rating process is really an assessment of the characteristics of a supplier that can be trusted to do its best to avoid noncompliant trading of products.

The basic system relies on the following actions:

  1. Sending a standardized questionnaire out to all suppliers
  2. Making sure the questionnaire is completed by the suppliers and returned
  3. Making sure that, where possible, suppliers provide appropriate objective evidence to support the questionnaire answers
  4. Using a straightforward and justifiable means of systematically assessing each returned questionnaire and giving the supplier a risk rating accordingly
  5. Giving suppliers feedback that lets them know what they need to do to improve their risk rating
  6. Implementing a means for monitoring continuous improvement, that is, whether or not suppliers are improving their rating over time
  7. Using a set of procedures that can be independently verified in order to underpin the thoroughness and credibility of the whole approach

This process helps send a clear message to suppliers as to what is important to you as a buyer. It gives them direction when they are probably receiving many mixed signals from the downstream end of the supply chain.

Note for GFTN Participants: GFTN participant companies are required to establish a programme that will ensure traceability over a reasonable period of time. It is a central component of GFTN participation.




This is an excerpt from WWF’s Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN) Guide to Responsible Purchasing. All rights reserved. © WWF. The full text can be accessed online at rpg.gftn.panda.org.
Print this page