Print this page

14.3 Developing National Indicators, Verifiers and Guidance for the Common Legality Framework

In order to test the applicability of the Common Legality Framework in different legal settings, TRAFFIC led the development of national indicators, verifiers and guidance for a sample of countries including China, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, India, Cameroon, Russia, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of Congo and Gabon.

This work was undertaken through a partnership with national government agencies in two countries. In China, TRAFFIC’s partner in conducting this work was the China National Forestry Economics and Development Research Centre (CNFEDRC) of the State Forestry Administration. In Vietnam, TRAFFIC’s partner was the national Forest Protection Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD). In the other countries, the work was carried out by TRAFFIC staff and consultants.

The National Legality Frameworks were developed through a five-step process:

  1. Compiling the legal base
  2. Initial stakeholder consultation
  3. Drafting the national framework
  4. Subsequent stakeholder consultation and national framework revision
  5. Legal and audit expert review

The initial activity was the compilation of all available documents constituting the legal framework for the forestry sector in each of the countries. This was followed by individual 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, NGOs and donors. The consultation was aimed at conducting a needs assessment for a legality framework, and once agreed on the need for one, identifying the most important issues requiring attention while developing the Common Legality Framework.

The preliminary draft of the Common Legality Framework for each country was developed taking into account the results of the consultative process. Drafts were presented at a series of national consultative meetings and workshops organised with support from within each of the countries. Participants were tasked with examining the preliminary draft of the Framework and proposing amendments. National workshops were held in:

Each of the workshops was attended by approximately 30 participants from various government agencies (forestry, customs, environment and finance); national and international NGOs (e.g. IUCN, CIFOR, etc.), the private sector (timber concessionaires, processors, etc.) and assessors (independent auditors of forest certification and chain of custody). Stakeholder consultations gave guidance on the adequacy of the indicators and of the level of detail that should be included in the Common Legality Framework. In addition to the national consultation workshops in Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo and Republic of Congo, TRAFFIC and WWF-CARPO also reached out to key stakeholders in order to gather additional views on the comprehensiveness and accuracy of the Common Legality Framework.

In Gabon, the workshop was organised in close collaboration with the Gabonese Ministry of Forestry, the French Cooperation and the Delegation of the European Commission in Gabon. A main constraint of the activity in Africa was the lack of satisfactory stakeholder consultation despite efforts made to consult with all relevant stakeholders in each country. In particular, the industry sector in CAR, NGOs and industry in Gabon, NGOs in DRC and all stakeholders in RC. Therefore, TRAFFIC and WWF-CARPO decided to reinforce consultations with these groups in each country during the period of June to mid-July 2007.  This last consultation phase was through small meetings, bilateral consultations or submission of written comments.

In China, several consultation workshops were held. In May 2006, fourteen representatives from NGO communities, local government, forestry institute, forest industries and GFTN-China participants attended a workshop to discuss the needs assessment activities and the elements of a legal standard in China including possible difficulties of the task. Detailed discussions were subsequently held with the relevant organisations and agencies during field visits in Shanghai in August 2006. Another meeting was specifically held to discuss the Common Legality Framework at the GFTN-China annual meeting held on 9 November 2006. This second consultation included some of the existing and potential GFTN-China participants, forest industry, relevant government departments, academic institutions and national forestry commerce associations. In collaboration with the State Forestry Administration TRAFFIC organized a national workshop in April 2007 in Beijing. The workshop was designed to conclude the first round of peer review for the legality standard in China. Twenty-three participants joined this workshop, including participants from the State Forestry Administration, the China CITES Management Authority, the Beijing Forestry University, the Forestry Academy of China, the China Forestry Commerce Association, and WWF-China. After this workshop, TRAFFIC conducted ‘peer review field trip’ to several provinces in China to discuss the definition with the provincial forestry bureaus and other provincial-level stakeholders.

In Malaysia, national workshops were not held due to the existence of legality standards from the Malaysian Timber Certification Council (MTCC) which was developed through national and regional stakeholder consultations, and the on-going EU FLEGT VPA discussions which were starting to develop their own legality standard through a multi-stakeholder process as well. TRAFFIC built on the foundation set by MTCC but developed the Common Legality Framework as part of a larger harmonization process that cuts across the project countries. One-on-one consultations were held with relevant organisations and individuals in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak, including with forestry departments, MTCC, Malaysian Timber Industry board, Sarawak Timber Industry Development Corporation (STIDC), industry representatives and associations, auditors, and NGOs including environmental and social organisations.

In Vietnam, the national workshop in February 2007 was hosted by TRAFFIC and the Forest Protection Department. Further meetings were held with government institutes and organisations from the Vietnam’s forestry sector including Forest Inventory and Planning Institute (FIPI); Forest Science Institute of Vietnam (FSIV); Vietnam Timber and Forest Product Association (VIFORES), Vietnam Forestry Science Technology Association (VIFA); Vietnam Forest Corporation (VINAFOR); and Hanoi Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (DARD). Based on feedback from this round of consultative meetings, another draft was formulated. Further consultations on the draft were held with NGO stakeholders and industry (GFTN-Vietnam participants and applicants), with a new revision developed. Due to the difference in each individual’s and organization’s agenda, stakeholder consultation process in Vietnam was undertaken on a one-on-one basis.

Based on the results of the national workshops and various consultations, second and third drafts of the Principles, Criteria and Indicators (PC&I) were prepared. These subsequent drafts were reviewed by key representatives from each country and also by TRAFFIC to ensure the harmonisation of the Framework at the international level, at least to the level of Principles and Criteria.

The next step in the process was to utilize legal experts in each country to review the national PC&I to ensure that regulations referred to were current and relevant. In many of the countries there were few legal experts with the requisite expertise that were sufficiently knowledgeable and multidisciplinary in forestry, trade, conservation, environment and social issues. Therefore, it took some time to find suitable experts and complete the legal review.

A final process of harmonisation and review of the Common Legality Framework was conducted to determine possible applicability in terms of auditing and practicality of use of the verifiers. This was carried out by a consultant with expertise in conducting certification and chain-of-custody audits.

The process of developing and finalising the Common Legality Framework spanned two years, reflecting the time needed to consult widely; to take note of and accommodate the various political and administrative differences in each country; and then to harmonise the various national Criteria. It was completed in early 2009.

Due to differences in laws, procedures and implementation of the regulations, the generic Criteria may not all be applicable in every country. Each country’s Criteria and Indicators, where appropriate, may omit one or more of the Criteria, in which case the numbering sequence is also reordered for that country. For example, in some countries, there is limited legislation covering conservation or environmental issues. It is also important to note that the Criteria and Indicators are dependent on the regulations, and these regulations cover a wide range of conditions, in particular exemptions or stricter measures, usually established through contracts or agreements. The guidance notes attempt to clarify this with some details, but since the range of conditions in some Principles and Criteria is so varied between countries it may be necessary to check with the relevant agencies for greater guidance.

Some of the national verifiers identified through the above process do not refer in this document to specific regulations, but were raised during stakeholder consultations and approved for inclusion to address particular aspects of the trade or social, environmental and conservation issues, for example, contractual obligations. However, these are seldom used as the basis for the setting of indicators of the relevant country.

As legality is based on the laws and regulations of a country, including relevant departmental administrative circulars and contractual obligations, indicators and verifiers should be linked to specific regulations.  This should help to make it easier to update and keep the Framework current. Guidance notes and verifiers to assist auditors and companies in assessing compliance should be provided together with relevant regulations where possible. It is important to note that the Framework is a living document and will be updated on a regular basis to account for changes to the regulatory framework in each country.


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.


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.


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.


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

 


0.0 Introduction

IntroductionSince the Global Forest & Trade Network (GFTN) first published its Guide to Responsible Sourcing of Forest Products and the closely associated Keep It Legal manual as paper documents, there have been numerous developments that resulted in this revision. The main change is the development of these web pages, which are searchable and easier to maintain—allowing the GFTN to continue to offer the best advice available.

These pages contain numerous links to other websites, many of which are external. As such, we are not responsible for the content, but believe these sites to offer greater depth to the understanding of aspects of responsible sourcing of forest products.

There have also been numerous developments within the sphere of legality of forest products. Legislative processes in the US, Europe and Australia and developments within certification and chain of custody have all prompted us to enhance the advice available regarding legality.

The ability to print most sections of these pages and to search a number of key terms is intended to allow you as the user to both take in the overall concepts and easily find what you need on specific topics.

Who Should Use These Pages

These pages are designed for use by a sourcing organization that wishes to develop a due diligence system for the legal and responsible sourcing of forest products. The guide lays out a generic approach for the development and implementation of a responsible sourcing policy, hereafter referred to as a responsible sourcing programme.

The guide is aimed at any medium-size or large enterprise, including primary mills, secondary processors, importers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, which purchase or procure forest products. In appropriate circumstances, it may also serve to guide smaller enterprises.

The guide outlines the various ways in which sourcing organizations can exercise due diligence and demonstrate compliance with best practice based on compliance with their own sourcing policies. It is based on both tried and tested mechanisms and extensive experience in the development of responsible sourcing programmes.

The principles outlined within this guide are in line with the GFTN Participation Rules; and as such, the guide should help GFTN Trade Participants meet their participation requirements. All GFTN Trade Participants are advised to refer also to the specific guidance issued by their local GFTN manager. Where advice is specific to GFTN participants, there are links to relevant documents or additional guidance.

The original paper versions of these two guides are still available as downloads (PDF) and the following pages are printable. Every effort has been made to retain the core information of the previous published documents and changes have only been made where circumstances, processes or legislation has changed.

The implementation of a responsible sourcing programme to demonstrate due diligence is a major undertaking for any organization and requires a high degree of commitment to achieve results. This guide outlines a set of processes and procedures by which a sourcing organization can begin to address the problems that are common to many supply chains.

The first two paper-based versions of this guidance have been widely distributed in a number of languages and are currently used by several hundred companies representing the whole supply chain from the forest floor to the retail store. The guidance has been adopted by companies sourcing products as varied as paper and plywood to sawn timber and furniture. Although designed primarily for companies that are participants in the Global Forest & Trade Network, it has also been welcomed by companies choosing to work outside this network.

Purchasers of pulp and paper based products are advised to also consult WWF’s guidance with respect to these products where further aspects of production, beyond fibre sourcing are addressed. Further information can be found here.


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.


14.1 Introduction

The overall aim for the Common Legality Framework is to support companies and where relevant, regulators in their efforts to improve governance of their forest resources and prevent illegal logging and timber trade through encouraging compliance with laws related to the forest sector at the national and international level. By providing information on a forest-focused sub-set of applicable laws and regulations in a clear and accessible manner, this legality framework can help both regulators and companies—particularly GFTN members in countries of export and import—to verify that timber and other forest products contribute to sustainable forest management.

A further aim is to support the development of a more consistent and common approach to considering legality of forest operations, timber processing and trade that would be broadly applicable across countries. This approach is considered important in order to reduce the potential confusion among industry and governments that could result from the proliferation of different legality frameworks.

In Africa, the Framework supports the work of the Commission des Forets D’Afrique Centrale (COMIFAC) in the Congo basin. In particular, the framework supports COMIFAC’s Plan de Convergence, including sustainable use and management of forest resources, certification, traceability systems and national plans against illegal use of forest resources.

The Framework will also directly support implementation of the EC Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) to: promote equitable and just solutions to the illegal logging problem that do not have an adverse effect on poor people; help partner countries to build systems to verify timber has been harvested legally; promoting transparency of information; promote policy reform; and build the capacity of civil society and partner country governments.


3.1 Where to Start

Responsible Sourcing Policy DevelopmentThere is no right, wrong or perfect set of policies to underpin the effort to achieve more responsible sourcing of forest products. However, it is important that the policy be aligned with SMART targets (these types of targets are discussed later).

It is also important that policy makers consider the consequences of their policy prior to its implementation. Strong policies, for example, may have a financial cost that renders them unsustainable; and weak policies may attract criticism from stakeholder groups. Therefore, a workable balance must be struck. It is important for the values of stakeholders to be reflected within the policies developed.


Glossary

Conversion -  Forests conversion involves removing natural forests to meet other land needs, such as plantations (e.g. pulp wood, oil palm and coffee among others), agriculture, pasture for cattle (e.g. around the Amazon region), settlements and mining. This process is usually irreversible.

Corruption (in the context of illegal harvesting) -  Authorization to harvest or trade logs or timber products is secured through corrupt application of laws or administrative procedures.

Credibly certified —Source category for FSC or other forest certification, with specified criteria and requirements.

Criteria

Verification requirements

Credible chain-of-custody certificationCertification of specified products as traceable back to raw material source by a third party (for example, an accredited certification body).

Credible forest certification—Certification by a third party that a forest is well managed, under a certification system requiring

Due care - US 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 U.S. 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, 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.

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.

Exporters can also follow this advice to ensure that they are also following due care to ensure that forest products are legal when sourcing materials that are to be used for export to the US market.

Showing you have taken due care as an exporter involves a number of activities leading to one result: being certain that the forest products supplied were legal. Activities that can assist an exporter to demonstrate that they have taken due care include the points below. Exporters need to consider which of these activities can be of most assistance and should adapt their management to include some (or even all) of them.

Due diligence the fair, proper, and appropriate degree of care and activity, has been practiced to demonstrate that the forest products in question have been legally obtained.

Environmental status—The source category designation of the timber in a given product.  WWF GFTN recognizes the following categories:

EU Regulation on Illegal Timber - The European Commission proposed a timber due diligence regulation to minimise the risk of importing illegally harvested timber/timber products to the EU. Under the regulation, operators trading in timber inside the EU  would be required:

Timber from VPA countries will be considered legal, and traders will not have to implement specific due diligence measures. This provides an incentive for timber-producing countries to sign VPAs.

Forest participant (in a Forest & Trade Network)—A participant who is a forest owner or manager. The participant may or may not possess credibly certified forest management units (FMUs).

Genetic modification – Credible forest certification prohibits the cultivation of genetically modified trees (GMOs). Forest products manufactured with GM content are not certifiable.

Harvesting charges—The charges due to the resource owner or official body, such as a regional or national government, arising as a result of the harvesting of forest resources.

High conservation values (as defined by the Forest Stewardship Council)—Any of the following values:

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.

Illegal logging (and related trade and corruption)—Harvesting or trading of in violation of relevant national or sub-national laws, or access to forest resources or trade in forest products that is authorized through corrupt practices.

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.

In progress to certification—Source category with specified criteria and requirements denoting environmental status of source.

Criteria

The source entity:

Verification requirements

Known source —Source category with specified criteria and requirements denoting environmental status of product source.

Criteria

Verification requirements

Known licensed source—Source category with specified criteria and requirements denoting environmental status of source.

Criteria

Verification requirements

Lacey Act - On May 22, 2008, the U.S. Congress passed amended a law intended to eradicate trade in illegally sourced forest products – including timber and wood fibre based products (such as paper). This amended law is known as the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act only applies to US-based companies as it only applies within the boundaries of the United States. Whilst 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 – US-based customers are relying on their trading partners to help them show they are complying with this law. US-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 to:

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

Legally harvested Timber that was harvested

Legally traded Timber, or products made from the timber, that was

Legal right to harvestAuthorization to harvest in the forest management unit

Protected area An area of forest especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.

Recycled - A forest product made from post-consumer recycled fiber (for paper) or wood-based material that is sourced from a recovery process.

Reclaimed - Wood material from municipal or industrial sources that has been previously used.

Resource owner(s)—The holder(s) of property and usufruct rights over the land and/or trees within a forest management unit, including legally recognized rights held according to customary law.

SMART targets Targets set within a company or with suppliers that are:   

Specific. Clearly relating to single issue that needs management.
Measurable.
Defined in measurable terms so that progress can be indicated.
Achievable.
The target is possible to achieve.
Realistic.
In the context the target is a realistic one.
Time bound.
The target has a deadline or series of milestones associated with it.

SourceA combination of the supplying entity and the place from which the timber in a product originates. The source comprises the location where the timber was grown and the entity that was responsible for harvesting the timber.

TimberWood, fibre, and other woody materials harvested from trees.

Trade participant (in the Global Forest & Trade Network)— A participant who is a processor, manufacturer, trader, specifier, or end user of timber or paper products.

Unknown source - Source category with specified criteria and requirements denoting environmental status of product source.

Unwanted sourceA source that falls within one or more of the following categories:

Verified legal —Source category with specified criteria and requirements denoting environmental status of product source.

Criteria

Verification requirements


6.2 Limited Knowledge of Forest Source

Known Sources

For the purpose of exercising due diligence, having knowledge of forest source is an important first objective. If the source is considered to be known, the purchaser knows where the timber was grown, and, as far as the purchaser is aware, the source is not unwanted (that is, at this stage there is no indication that the source does not comply with policy).

Table 1 outlines a hierarchy of steps that may be followed to establish whether a source can be described as known. 

A company has limited knowledge of forest source when:

Systems

No 2nd or 3rd party verification of information about source.


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

Checklist


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.


CITES-Listed Species

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) is a global response to concern over the trade of endangered species. CITES was enacted in 1975, and 160 countries have ratified the treaty. CITES regulates the trade in live animals, animal parts, ornamental plants, medicinal plant parts, and timber species. It seeks to identify threatened species and create increasingly strong legal barriers to their harvest and trade, depending on their conservation status (see also www.cites.org).

CITES lists threatened or endangered wood species under three classifications, known as the Appendices. The restrictions on trade within these appendices vary depending on the extent to which the species is threatened with extinction. The CITES listing includes species that are traded for timber, traded for medicinal purposes, and rare but not commercially traded.

More Information on CITES Timber Species

The following websites contain valuable and regularly updated information on CITES listed species.
WCMC Web site (www.unep-wcmc.org)
IUCN Web site (www.iucnredlist.org)
United States department of Agriculture

CITES Listing - Relevance for Responsible Purchasers

CITES Appendix I-listed species should be avoided at all times.

For Appendix II and III species, a high degree of caution must be exercised. First, there is a legal obligation on any importer and trader in these species that ensures that all imports and trades are registered with the relevant authorities. Penalties are often large for failure to register imports of Appendix II and III species.

The second question concerns the endangered nature of these species. Trade in these species may be legal, but it is important to recognise that, in many cases, it is trade that has led to the need and requirement for close monitoring. CITES-listed species are subject to being removed from trade (through removal to Appendix I or through a reduction in quotas), so in many cases there is no guarantee of the long-term availability of species on Appendices II and III.

Best practice with CITES species is to closely monitor the status of the species involved and ensure that all legislative requirements are met. Be 100 per cent certain of which species is being purchased.


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.”


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


High Conservation Value Forests (HCVFs)

HCVFs may be defined as one or more of the following:

Although in many cases it is not illegal to source forest products from an HCVF, in the context of responsible purchasing, such sourcing should be discouraged. Exceptions include where:

There is no definitive list of HCVFs, and it is accepted that it is difficult for purchasing organizations to assess whether or not forest products originate in such forests.

The HCV Resource Network has been established by a group of organisations who use the HCV approach, including environmental and social NGOs, international development agencies, timber and forest product certifiers, suppliers and buyers and forest managers. The Network aims to encourage collaboration, provide information and support on the evolving usage of HCV and ensure that a consistent approach to HCV is understood and applied throughout the world.

For practical purposes, purchasing organizations are advised to discuss the latest information regarding HCVFs with WWF and other environmental organizations working in this field. One approach would be to highlight key areas and regions in which it would be inappropriate to harvest forest products. A more positive approach, generally encouraged by WWF, would be to engage with the producer to assess the high conservation values demonstrated within a forest area and to manage the forest appropriately within the context of credible forest certification.

A developing resource for companies is the FSC Global Forestry Risk Registry. The Registry is a free tool providing information about the risk of sourcing controversial wood and other forest products from over 150 countries. The tool is currently under development by NEPCon, in cooperation with the FSC and the Rainforest Alliance. It is targeted towards companies wishing to conduct due diligence on the risks of sourcing raw material from forests and forest products operations in various countries.  


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.


4.0 Communications

CommunicationsKey Points - Communications


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?


7.2 Assessing a Source Assessed

Document Review to Assess Known Licensed SourceTo assess the credibility of the information from the supplier, the sourcing organization should consider the following:

Documents That Can Demonstrate a Source Assessed

A third-party verification aiming to demonstrate that a product contains "verified legal" timber must first check the source forest forest has the license of ownership adn access, and then the operation to confirm the timber was harvested legally. It must then also check that the timber was legally traded and not mixed with timber from illegal sources. This would require a review of at least the following documents:

A fuller guide to the required documents for a number of countries can be found here.

Proof that wood has been harvested and sold by a forest company from a known licensed source should include the demonstration of the legal right to harvest. Suppliers should provide the following:

A fuller guide to the required documents and processes that a third-party verifier would need to consider for a number of countries can be found here.

A number of organizations are able to offer third-party verification of legal compliance and traceability, the precise scope of which differs from case to case. Verification may be restricted to compliance with harvesting regulations, for example, or may be much broader, including other legal requirements such as those pertaining to health and safety laws.


0.1 What Is a Responsible Sourcing Programme?

A responsible sourcing programme for forest products should aim to improve the environmental and social performance of the supply base by ending the purchase of products that contain timber or fibre from sources that do not comply with stated company policy. The programme should also continuously increase the proportion of forest products purchased that contain timber from credibly certified forests.

To achieve this transition, from whatever starting point, purchasers can use the GFTN's stepwise approach, which advances companies through a series of manageable actions. Assessment of the progress made from one step to the next requires that there be a high degree of traceability to the forest source, which will be discussed later in this guide.

A stepwise approach requires progression (from limited knowledge of source forest) through the following five suggested categories:


7.4 Source Assessed in the Context of Exports to the US Market

Exporters can greatly assist their US-based customers in demonstrating that due care has been taken to ensure no illegal timber enters the supply chain.

Showing you have taken due care as an exporter involves a number of activities leading to one result: being certain that the forest products supplied were legal. Activities that can assist an exporter to demonstrate that they have taken due care include the points below. Exporters need to consider which of these activities can be of most assistance and should adapt their management to include some (or even all) of them.

1) Develop a policy that is shared with all suppliers and customers stating that only legal forest products will be purchased.

A sourcing policy is an essential tool in defining what your company will and will not buy. A policy should be publicly available and be signed by the highest level of management within your company. A good policy will define exactly all of the issues it seeks to address and will identify what is and what is not acceptable to your company. A good policy will include a wide range of issues that your company wants to address in addition to simple legal compliance.

As an absolute minimum the policy should include reference to:
1. A statement that your company only wants to buy and sell forest products that have legal ownership and access, legally harvested, transported, traded and exported in compliance with the laws of the country where the wood was harvested, transported, traded or exported.
2. A statement that your company will understand and abide by all relevant laws within your own country that apply to the legal ownership, access and harvest, transport, trade, processing or export of forest products.

2) Train staff so they understand why the management of these issues are important to the business.

It would be a good idea to ensure that all staff that are involved in sourcing, sales or marketing of forest products understand what the legal requirements are within your country and for the countries where you might import timber.

A number of organizations are able to offer training or advice on training and these should be consulted.

3) Develop a traceability system that identifies where forest products where harvested.

All forest products purchased by your company should be traceable to the forest where they were harvested or to a primary saw mill that has a system that monitors the origins of all the logs that it purchases.

To achieve this, at the most basic level, a questionnaire or other form of tracking technology may be required. A database indicating what was purchased and which products is recorded will be useful to monitor the effectiveness of your policy and allow your company to answer enquiries from customers as to the origin of your raw materials.

A number of organizations are available to offer direct assistance or guidance in establishing a traceability system.

4) Check each order of materials (before it is delivered) to ensure it meets the minimum requirements to show legal compliance in the country where the wood was harvested.

Prior to making any purchase it is wise to check the legality of the materials. Understanding what documents should be available and obtaining these before purchase can reduce uncertainty and save time. Your company might consider changing purchase orders or purchase contracts to stress the need for legal timber products.

The tables within this document will be able to help your company for some countries. For other countries where guidance is not available as yet similar sets of documentation should be requested and verified where possible as forestry legislations of many countries usually have similar provisions. A number of organizations are available to offer direct assistance or guidance in this respect.

5) Use third parties to verify that forest products are legal (or sustainable as this usually covers legality as well).

Around 10 per cent of the forest products traded around the world are certified under a variety of certification schemes. These schemes, such as Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Certification Schemes (PEFC) have developed systems that certify the management of forests and certify that the wood from these forests is contained within a product - Chain of Custody (CoC) certification. All forest certification schemes when applied at the forest cover aspects of legality (such as the legal right to harvest and the legality of harvesting) and when used in conjunction with a CoC certificate can provide a high level of assurance that the product was harvested, transported, processed and exported legally.

A number of organizations are available to offer direct assistance or guidance with respect to certification of forests and CoC.

Specially designed legal verification systems exists to verify that forest products have been legally harvested, transported, processed and exported. These systems work in a similar way to forest certification and CoC but have a much narrower focus.

A number of organizations are available to offer direct assistance or guidance with respect to legal verification.

A key aspect of forest certification, CoC and legal verification is that the assessment for compliance is conducted by a third party. Third party assessments have high credibility within civil society.

6) Keep up to date with advice or initiatives that can help improve processes that are developed, such as new technology, interpretation and changes to laws and training opportunities.

Check with any trade associations or government departments that your company interacts with to ensure that your understanding of the laws and best practices is correct and up to date. Attend any training opportunities that arise and make sure that your company's understanding of legal issues both in your country and the US is current. Participate in programmes or initiatives that can assist with responsible sourcing of forest products.

A number of non-governmental organizations and trade associations have developed programmes that are designed to assist companies through a step-wise programme of improvements to their supply chain.

7) Understand what constitutes legal timber in your country and any country you import timber from.

What are the minimum legal requirements for exports?
The tables within this guide identify the key documents that should be obtained and checked to ensure a basic level of legal compliance within the country that would meet the minimum criteria to meet the expectations of an export customer needing to comply with the Lacey Act. Only what is legal within the country where the forest product is exported will meet the needs of the US-based importer.

More information can be found at these external websites:

US Customs and Border Protection
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/trade_programs/entry_summary/laws/food_energy/amended_lacey_act/lacey_act.xml

Environmental Investigation Agency
http://www.eia-global.org/forests_for_the_world/Lacey_Resources.html
http://www.wri.org/fla/


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.


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.


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).


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.


15.0 Supporting Information

 

Glossary

Questionnaires


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


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.


 


7.5 Source Assessed in the Context of Exports to the European Union

Known Licensed Sources in EuropeThe European Union's Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan represents the largest international attempt to use the power of timber-consuming countries to reduce the extent of illegal logging.

The European Commission published its Action Plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) in May 2003. Approved by the Council of the EU in October 2003, it included the following proposals:

The FLEGT and voluntary partnership agreements process is ongoing across a wide number of countries, mainly in Africa and Asia. The most recent developments, especially the latest information on where VPAs have been signed and where suitable licensing systems have been or are being developed can be found here.

VPA licensing systems have the potential to be a powerful and useful resource for responsible purchasers who can take advantage of sourcing products covered by such licenses. To date no such systems have become available and more advice will be available in 2013-2014.

The FLEGT Action Plan also prohibits the placing of timber from illegally harvested forests and products derived from such timber.  Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 adopted the EU Timber Regulation (EU TR) to do just that. The EU TR has specific provisions that:

Once products are on the market, requires traders of products to keep records of their immediate suppliers and buyers.

Who is affected by the EUTR?

Operators are those that place timber products in the EU market for the first time. Some examples of operators are importers, retailers or manufacturers that directly import wood based products, or forest managers that supply timber from an EU forest. It is prohibited to place in the EU market illegally harvested timber and operators need to apply a due diligence system to avoid the risk of such sources as well as keep records of their immediate customers.

Operators can either use their own due diligence system, use an already existing system or work with Monitoring Organisations. Independently of the due diligence system used, operators remain liable that no illegal timber enters the supply chain.   

Traders are those that buy and/or sell wood based products that were already placed in the EU market (by an operator). Traders need to keep records of their direct suppliers and their direct customer for all wood based products traded. Individual final consumers are not covered by the EUTR. The table below illustrates the specific requirements for Operators and Traders under the EUTR.

A “Due Diligence system” is a framework of procedures and measures to minimise the risk of placing illegally harvested timber, or timber products, on the EU market See the EU TR briefing note for more detailed information or visit the EC website


2.1 Setting the Bar

The initial review should identify what the expectations are of the organization from a variety of view points. To establish these expectations, at least five things must be considered:

  1. Regulation in the markets where the company operates
  2. The standards of best practice within the industry or sector;
  3. Stakeholder expectations of the organization, these can be internal as well as external;
  4. Any other relevant requirements or guidelines (e.g., Trade Association Codes of Conduct or the GFTN Participation Rules)
  5. An appreciation of the principles of due diligence and the standards expected in the operating environment

Once this information has been collected, it will be possible to define what needs to be achieved in terms of overall targets, policies and processes.

The review should include analyzing the expectations of the following stakeholder groups:

From this investigation, a set of draft policies that reflect the sourcing organization's values and stakeholder expectations can then be developed. These can be formalized through senior management support.


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. 




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