Print this page

2.0 Supply Chain Review

Supply Chain Review A sourcing organization seeking to become a responsible purchaser, with the full support of senior management, should assess its starting point - the baseline.

Key Points - Supply Chain Review

A supply chain review involves the following elements:

Understanding legal requirements that may apply with respect to the sourcing of forest products. 


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.


7.1 Defining Legal Timber

Environmental Status of SuppliesTo direct your organization's sourcing away from the products of illegal logging and toward those in favour of legal operators, you will need to define what you mean by "legal" or acceptable sources. That definition should exclude products or activities that fall within the scope of the problem defined in your policy. The scope of concern may be broad, and thus be difficult to comply with, or narrow, which would run the risk of not addressing key issues. A balance between these extremes needs to be struck.

Verifying that the timber in a product is from a source assessed requires the purchaser to obtain proof that, in addition to having the ownership and access rights, and a legal right to harvest, the harvesting entity complied with the law when harvesting the timber and that the timber was legally traded and exported or imported. The category also requires a higher degree of scrutiny over the chain of custody. Forest management certification systems that require independent chain-of-custody audits can also provide this level of assurance on legal compliance.

You should also be guided by any market based legislation (Lacey etc) – as these laws and regulations will provide more detail as to the scope of legislation they require must be considered. 

Which Laws Apply?

There can be challenges in determining what constitutes an illegal act and interpreting global definitions within the context of the legal system of a given producer country. These challenges include the following:

In many producer countries efforts are underway to better understand and then to define the laws that are relevant to forestry and associated trade. These processes are seeking to also address the apparent contradictions and to provide workable solutions using multi-stakeholder processes, often within international frameworks supported by the relevant Government agencies. A good example of this international process is the Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process. 

In many jurisdictions, rationalization and clarification of such issues are clearly needed to enable effective law enforcement. However, where laws are unclear, best practice for sourcing organizations, suppliers and auditors is to note the flaws in the relevant laws and state clearly the basis on which verification has been assessed, including, where possible, the rationale for the interpretation by the verifier.

In other countries, standards, criteria and checklists relating to legal compliance may have been developed for forest certification purposes. These can serve as useful reference points to interpret the forestry law of a given country.

Addressing "Bad" or "Unfair" Laws

Illegality in the timber extraction business is often a symptom of deeper underlying problems. A narrow focus on illegal activities may perpetuate inequities and corrupt resource allocation processes. Forest laws, or decisions made in purported application of the law, often reinforce unfair relationships or disregard customary forest rights. Arguably, such laws need to be reformed before their enforcement can properly serve the public interest.

The following are some examples of laws that may have undesirable results:

The key safeguard against associating with unjust but legal outcomes in a supplying country is to position your company's policy within the broader context of corporate social responsibility. Similarly, efforts to avoid the products of illegal logging should be embedded within a broader goal of promoting sustainable forestry.

Legal compliance is best seen as a factor that contributes to responsible forest management rather than as the end game. The GFTN Responsible Sourcing Guide deals with this by positioning legality as one step along the way toward achieving environmentally sound, socially beneficial and economically viable production and sourcing of forest products.

Another safeguard is to have an explicit policy on disputed or controversial decisions by officials—for example, alleged corrupt or improper allocation of forestry concessions. This would allow for the reality that many developing countries lack effective administrative law mechanisms such as complaints procedures; tribunals to review official decisions; and the allocation of permits, freedom-of-information provisions and independent watchdog institutions such as an ombudsman. Where such systems are weak or absent, aggrieved parties cannot easily challenge official decisions made improperly or at odds with legal requirements. Your sourcing policy could include a proviso, for example, that if your organization is made aware of a significant dispute over the process by which the forest manager secured the permit, it will inquire into the status of the dispute and not regard the forest as a legal source until the dispute is resolved.

Another issue to consider when formulating a policy is that illegal logging problems are greatest in countries where forest governance is poor. In such countries the task of strengthening governance and building local regulatory capacity will take time, even where there is the political will to improve.

In the transition phase, purchasers can contribute significantly to improved governance by awarding contracts to legitimate enterprises that are attempting to do a good job under difficult conditions. This helps keep the 'good' operators engaged. It is a more positive way forward than boycotting all business in the country. Such contracts, however, must encourage constant improvement, and contracts with organizations that fail to take positive steps should not be renewed. The stepwise approach to responsible sourcing advocated by WWF's GFTN allows flexibility for your company, encouraging your business to stay engaged and to drive reform in the places where the problems are greatest.


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


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.


 


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. 


8.4 Steps to Exercise Due Diligence

Environmental Status of Supplies

Key Points in Excercising Due Diligence

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

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

Step 1 - Assessing the Level of Risk

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

Risk rating consists of the following activities:

Requesting Suppliers to Complete and Return Questionnaires

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback to Suppliers and Monitoring for Continuous Improvement

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

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

Data Management

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

Step 2 - Make Further Enquiries Where Needed

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

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

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

Step 3 - Improve Traceability and Verify Legality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.


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.


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/


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).


5.2 Tracking Systems & Databases

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

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

The Minimum Recommended Content for a Database

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

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

11.0 Environmental Status of Supplies - Recycled Sources

Credibly Certified Source

The raw material used should be designated recycled if it is either a forest product made from post-consumer recycled fibre (for paper) or wood-based material that is sourced from a recovery process. The definition of recycled varies in different countries and markets. To ensure that the policy and definition used are robust, a sourcing organization should check with its stakeholder groups. In most countries the term recycled infers that the wood or fibre has been used previously by an end consumer (this is also termed "post-consumer" recycling).

It should be noted that not every sourcing organization will want to include recycled wood and fibre within its sourcing policy. For many sourcing organizations, however, and particularly those that have identified recycling as a key issue among their stakeholders, there is much value to be gained through the use of recycled materials. A number of organizations have developed systems to certify recycled materials and have developed certification standards, including the FSC. More information on standards and definitions of recycled materials is available at www.fsc.org.

More information regarding recycled paper and WWF’s support can be found here.

What Does Recycled Source Mean?

Criteria

 

Requirements


8.5 Strategies for Verifying Legality

Verifying Legality

Low-Risk Suppliers

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

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

High-Risk Suppliers

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

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

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

Supplier Warranties

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

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

Second-Party Audits

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

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

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

Legality and Third-Party Audits

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

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

Timber Legality Schemes

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

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

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

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

New Challenges

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

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

Definitions of Legality

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

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

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

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

Key Elements of Legality Verification Schemes

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

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

Legality Verification in Challenging Conditions

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

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

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

Issues with Audits

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

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


4.0 Communications

CommunicationsKey Points - Communications


3.0 Policy Development

Policy Development This section deals with the critical issue of how to develop a policy to promote responsible sourcing. This policy will dictate the activities that must be undertaken to deliver the objectives of the programme as a whole.


7.7 Source Assessed and Forest Law in Producer Countries

The types of information and documentation available will vary by country, as will their reliability. Specific guidance for several major exporting countries is given below.

Please Note: These documents are for educational and informational purposes only and are not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. Persons seeking legal advice on compliance with any law, regulation or requirement should consult with a qualified legal professional.

Country

For company use

For verifier's use

General guidance for this country

Brazil

   

X

Cameroon

 

X

 

Central African Republic

X

X

X

China

X

X

X

Democratic Republic of Congo

X

X

X

Gabon

X

X

X

Indonesia

X

X

X

India

 

X

 

Malaysia

X

X

X

Republic of Congo

X

X

X

Russia

X

X

X

Vietnam

X

X

X

       

General - Countries not listed

X

X

 
       

If the material is sourced from other countries, the sourcing organization should establish, through discussion with the supplier, WWF or other NGOs, or the relevant forestry department, which documents are required. Guidance on assessing the credibility of the documents and information supplied is covered in the next section.


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.


13.1 Improving Supply Chains and Supplier Performance

There are numerous ways by which to improve the supply chain. This section highlights some of the more common methods and their benefits.

The Same, But Better

Reviewing and Improving the  Programme

Working with an existing supply chain has the major benefit of keeping out new and unknown suppliers or materials, with all the risks that these can entail. If the chain has developed successfully, a degree of understanding and trust already exists among the organizations that make up the chain. Therefore, working with existing supply chains to achieve more responsible sourcing is a desirable option when heavy investment has been made in establishing the chain or in the timber it supplies; the suppliers involved have unique skills, technology, or sources of raw material; or a change in suppliers may have an adverse impact on business.

If working with existing supply chains is to be a viable option, they need to be able to demonstrate a commitment to, and acceptance of, the purchasing organization’s policy and targets; a willingness to improve transparency in sourcing; a commitment from the forest sources involved to achieve certification within an agreed-upon period; a commitment from the intermediaries in the supply chain to achieve chain-of-custody certification within an agreed-to period; and the commitment of forest owners to seek participation in a stepwise approach program (such as the GFTN) to otherwise attain credible certification.

New Source, Same Suppliers

Manufacturers or processors supplying directly to the purchasing organization may have difficulty tracing the sources of their forest products, or it may become evident that these sources are illegal or include unmanaged high conservation values. Where the direct supplier demonstrates sufficient commitment and it is evident that the forest sources involved are unwilling to improve their practices, re-sourcing is the only option.

Re-sourcing while using existing suppliers offers the following benefits

All-New Supply Chains

Radically altering supply chains to improve the responsible sourcing of forest products can be the quickest way to ensure such improvements, but it is also the riskiest.

The following are potential risks:

The potential benefits include:

Other Ways of Improving

The ability to challenge, innovate and ultimately change can be extremely useful when pursuing the goal of responsible purchasing. Not every purchasing organization can change its sourcing or its products easily or quickly, but some purchasing organizations have this ability and can benefit from such changes.

The exploitation of alternative species of timber provides opportunities to source more responsibly, although if the purchasing organization lacks experience or familiarity with the timber some risks may be involved. As with all timber species, secondary (or nontraditional) species have inherent characteristics that can make them excellent substitutes for primary (traditional) species for some uses but unsuited for others. In fact, up to 70 per cent of output in some major producing countries consists of nontraditional species, and these species command considerably lower prices than the primary species. This potential provides a financial incentive to organizations able to develop markets for such timber species.

Initiating funding or research into the process of certification and the requirements of supply chains is an option for responsible purchasers. Not all purchasing organizations have the resources necessary for such work, but some major corporations have provided funding in the past. This type of initiative has direct benefits, not just to the donor organization but to all aspiring purchasers in a position to gain by using the findings of the research.


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.”


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


15.0 Supporting Information

 

Glossary

Questionnaires


Human Rights Violations

Internal and external stakeholder concerns may identify specific issues, countries, or companies that are extremely controversial or out of step with generally accepted practices. Sourcing forest products from such countries or companies does not so much raise questions of forest management practices; rather, it introduces the moral dilemma concerning support for regimes and practices that have a wider impact on civil society or human rights. In extreme cases, the United Nations will call for trade embargoes on such countries, as will individual national governments.

Individual responsible purchasing organizations will need to be aware of such issues and should be ready to adjust their purchasing policy accordingly.

Sources Linked to Human Rights Violations—Relevance for Responsible Purchasers

Examples of issues identified by the UN organizations that should be considered in a responsible purchasing policy include
- the systematic violation of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights;
- extrajudicial killing, rape, and other forms of sexual violence carried out by members of the armed forces;
- torture;
- political arrests and detentions, including those of prisoners whose sentences have expired;
- forced relocation, the destruction of livelihoods, and forced labor;
- denial of the freedoms of assembly, association, expression, and movement;
- discrimination on the basis of religious or ethnic background;
- wide disrespect for the rule of law and lack of independence of the judiciary;
- unsatisfactory conditions of detention and systematic use of child soldiers; and
- violations of the right to an adequate standard of living, in particular to food, medical care, and education.

This set of indicators can be used to identify specific regimes, countries, or companies which, if sourced from, would directly undermine the overall effort to source responsibly. Furthermore, sourcing from such entities or places may undermine the wider integrity of the organisation.

It is arguable that it is possible to source forest products responsibly from such places, but this would require that the purchasing organisation identify and prove the benefits of such trade to the people of the country involved, while at the same time proving that the trade does not directly support the regime under scrutiny. This may not be possible in practice. It is extremely important that a purchaser that would choose to source from controversial regimes or countries first consult its stakeholders to ensure that such a policy has the required degree of integrity and support. If this approach is adopted, it is extremely important that consulted stakeholders’ viewpoints be taken into account and acted upon.

Particular attention was drawn to Burma/Myanmar, where forest products were directly associated with many of the issues identified above.

Guidance note on sourcing forest products from Myanmar (Burma)

RECENT POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGES

Since holding its first elections for 20 years in 2010, Myanmar has moved from a military dictatorship to a democratic system and launched major economic reforms. Under the government of President Thein Sein, political prisoners have been freed, media censorship lifted, and civil freedoms reinstat¬ed. A raft of liberalising measures has included a managed currency float, greater budget transpar¬ency, a newly autonomous central bank, and the passing of new investment, agricultural and land laws. Despite facing some serious threats, notably ethnic conflicts in Kachin and Rakhine states, Myanmar’s reforms have won strong international support. The EU and US have lifted most of their sanctions, and Myanmar’s creditors have cancelled the bulk of its $11.3 billion foreign debt. A surge in overseas aid and investment has pushed GDP growth to 6.3% in 2012 and a forecast 6.5% in 2013.

STATUS OF INTERNATIONAL SANCTIONS
Most economic sanctions against Myanmar have now been lifted. Those that remain target arms exports, other forms of military assistance, and transactions with certain individuals and entities.
•    European Union: In April 2013, after a one-year suspension, the EU lifted all sanctions against Myanmar except for embargoes on arms and related materials. The EU has also reinstated My-anmar’s access to the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP).
•    United States: In August 2013, President Barack Obama issued an executive order rescinding a broad ban on imports from Myanmar. Restrictions on imports of certain products (notably jadeite and rubies) remain in place, as do an arms embargo and sanctions against certain individuals.
•    Others: Australia lifted all remaining travel and financial sanctions against Myanmar in 2012. Only an arms embargo remains in place. Canada suspended most of its economic sanctions in 2012, except for an arms embargo and financial sanctions against certain individuals and entities.

TIMBER PRODUCTION AND TRADE
Myanmar remains the only country in the world producing high-quality teak from natural forests. Over the past four years, however, harvest quotas for teak and other hardwoods have been scaled back in response to rapid forest decline. In 2012, the government announced a ban on log exports effective in April 2014, along with plans to increase support for domestic processing, draft a new forestry law, and strengthen law enforcement. The lifting of sanctions has reawakened interest in international timber markets and their requirements. A new and expanded committee has been set up to finalise a national forest certification scheme, and discussions are being held with the EU about possible FLEGT measures such as a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA).

These moves, although promising, will take time and political will to succeed. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that 85% of Myanmar’s timber exports are illegal. Logs from northern Myanmar continue to be trafficked overland to China in violation of a 2006 bilateral accord. Logs exported from Yangon port under the authority of the state-run Myanmar Timber Enterprise (MTE) – technically the only legal route – mostly come from natural production and conversion forests where controls are weak, allowing illegal timber to be mixed into supply chains. Systems exist to track timber from the forest of origin to the point of export, but they are complex and only patchily implemented. Recent assessments point to a lack of data on forest resources and production, limited management capaci¬ties, and fragmented and politicised decision making, as the main hurdles to ensuring legality.

India is currently the main buyer of Myanmar teak and other hardwoods. Other importing countries include, in descending order of importance, China, Thailand, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Taiwan, Malaysia and Singapore. There is evidence that teak from Myanmar is re-labelled in some regional importing countries as coming from domestic sources, allowing for processing and onward export without revealing its true origin. It is possible, though unknown, that this practice has declined now that sanctions have been lifted.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The lifting of economic sanctions means there is in principle no longer any legal barrier to trading in timber from Myanmar. However, some countries still prohibit dealing with certain Myanmar individuals and entities, some of whom may be involved in the timber trade. Buyers should contact their relevant government agency to check who is on the sanctions list before making any transaction. This advice applies to US buyers in particular, as the Myanmar Timber Enterprise is on the US government’s Specially Designated Nationals (SDN) list (see: http://sdnsearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=2994)

Myanmar’s new reforms promise to put its forestry sector on a more sustainable footing, but will take time to work. Evidence suggests that most of the timber Myanmar produces is illegally harvested or traded, or comes from natural forests being managed or converted without regard for broader conservation values. At this time, therefore, timber from Myanmar should be considered unwanted material unless stringent checks are made to ensure it has been legally harvested, traded, exported and imported; and that it is not the result of conversion, especially of high conservation value forests. Buyers are also advised to be vigilant when considering high-quality teak at competitive prices originating from countries other than Myanmar.

GFTN will continue to monitor the situation in Myanmar with a view to updating this guidance within one year.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Australian Government (2013) Myanmar country brief. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (link)
Canby, K. (2013) International Markets for Verified Legal Wood Products. Presentation at Workshop on the EC FLEGT Action Plan: Challenges and Opportunities for the Forest Sector in Myanmar, 16–18 July 2013, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar. (link)
Canby, K. & Woods, K. (2012) Myanmar: Same Same, Burn-Out or Great Opportunity? Presentation at 19th Illegal Logging Update and Stakeholder Consultation, 9–10 February 2012, London, UK. (link)
Cho, B. (2013) Current status quo and issues of formulation of TLAS in Myanmar. Presentation at 3rd Sub-Regional Training Workshop on Timber Legality Assurance System (TLAS), 22–24 April 2013, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. (link)
Council of the European Union (2012) Burma/Myanmar: EU sanctions suspended. Press Release, 14 May 2012. (link)
Council of the European Union (2013) Council conclusions on Burma/Myanmar. Press Release, 22 April 2013. (link)
EIA (2012) Appetite for Destruction: China’s Trade in Illegal Timber. Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), London. (link)
Eleven Myanmar (2013) More illegally logged timbers from Myanmar trafficked to China. Eleven Myanmar, 31 March 2013. (link)
ETTF (2012) Seeds sown for Myanmar-EU timber co-operation. European Timber Trade Federation. (link)
European Commission (2013) EU re-opens its market to Myanmar/Burma. Press release, 18 July 2013. (link)
Government of Canada (2013) Canada-Burma relations. (link)
IMF (2013) Myanmar Takes Wide-Ranging Steps Toward Economic Reform. IMF Survey, 28 February 2013. (link)
IMF (2013) World Economic Outlook Database, April 2013 Edition. (link)
Ingles, A., Hurd, J. & Wardojo, W. (2013) Exporting legal timber products from the Asia Pacific region – it can be done. The Jakarta Post, 28 June 2013. (link)
ITTO (2013) Report from Myanmar. Tropical Timber Market Report 17 (14): 7, 16–31 July 2013. (link)
Kollert, W. & Cherubini, L. (2012) Teak resources and market assessment 2010. FAO Planted Forests and Trees Working Paper FP/47/E, FAO, Rome. (link)
Kurlantzick, J. (2013) Myanmar's Alarming Civil Unrest. Council on Foreign Relations, 9 April 2013. (link)
Kurlantzick, J. (2013) Too fast, too soon: Why Obama's embrace of Myanmar is putting the cart before the horse. Foreign Policy, 21 May 2013. (link)
Kurlantzick, J. (2013) Myanmar’s Religious and Ethnic Tensions Begin to Spread Across the Region. Asia Unbound, Council on Foreign Relations, 14 June 2013. (link)
Lawson, S. & MacFaul, L. (2010) Illegal Logging and Related Trade: Indicators of the Global Response. Chatham House, London. (link)
Myanmar Times (2013) Myanmar to enshrine central bank independence. Myanmar Times, 11 July 2013. (link)
Robinson, G. (2013) Myanmar signs deal with foreign creditors. Financial Times, 28 January 2013. (link).
Su Hlaing Tun (2012) Myanmar government plans log export ban, targets value-added growth. Myanmar Times, 5 November 2012. (link)
Turnell, S. (2013) Economic Reform in Myanmar: The Long Road Ahead. Asia Society, 6 February 2013. (link)
Turnell, S. (2013) Myanmar has made a good start to economic reform. East Asia Forum, 27 March 2013. (link)
U Shwe Kyaw (2013) Status of Myanmar's Efforts at Improving Timber Traceability. Presentation at Workshop on the EC FLEGT Action Plan: Challenges and Opportunities for the Forest Sector in Myanmar, 16–18 July 2013, Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar. (link)
UNODC (2013) Transnational Organized Crime in East Asia and the Pacific: A Threat Assessment. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Vienna. (link)
US Department of the Treasury (2013) Issuance of New Burma Executive Order. Press release, 7 August 2013. (link)
Win Myint (2011) An overview of teak resources and plantations in Myanmar. Presentation at Conferencia Mundial de Teca, 31 October – 2 November 2011, San José, Costa Rica. (link)
Woods, K. (2013) Political Economy of Timber Trade Flows in Burma / Myanmar. Presentation at 22nd Illegal Logging Update and Stakeholder Consultation, 8–9 July 2013, London, UK. (link)
Woods, K. & Canby, K. (2011) Baseline Study 4, Myanmar: Overview of Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade. Forest Trends for FLEGT Asia Regional Programme, Kuala Lumpur. (link)


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

Checklist


13.0 Reviewing and Improving the Programme

Reviewing and Improving the Programme

The sourcing organization should develop a series of annual targets to serve as steps toward achieving its stated policy goals. The use of annual or shorter term targets can ensure that activities and progress can be defined, measured and reported as required.

The preceding sections have elaborated on a process that helps define where a sourcing organization is with respect to the policy commitments and targets that have been set. The picture will not be perfect:—not all sources will be categorized at the highest level, nor will all be certified. Stakeholders and management will be looking for the sourcing organization to show annual incremental improvements, with fewer unwanted or merely known forest products in the sourcing mix. Ultimately the goal should be to achieve full sourcing of certified forest products. It is important to prioritize planned improvements, addressing the whole spectrum of issues that are identified. Focusing solely on increasing the volume of certified material could undermine the overall effort, should the question of the legality of other sources be overlooked.


14.5 Guides to Legal Documentation

The following documents provide an overview to the typical areas that need to be covered when assessing the legality of forest products in a given country. In the absence of guidance for a specific country, the general guidance should be observed.

Please Note: These documents are for educational and informational purposes only and
are not intended and should not be construed as legal advice. Persons seeking legal advice
on compliance with any law, regulation or requirement should consult with a qualified
legal professional.


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.


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.


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.  


6.0 Environmental Status of Supplies

Stepwise Approach

Figure 1

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

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

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


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

 


8.2 Controlled Wood Standards

Environmental Status of SuppliesThere is a large overlap between the policy elements and the necessary compliance checks as seen under the sections Source Assessed and Source Verified and the Forest Stewardship Council “Standard for Company Evaluation of FSC Controlled Wood - FSC-STD-40-005 (V2-1) EN”. Organizations that want to explore compliance with this standard in order to achieve chain-of-custody certification to FSC standards should consult the FSC Controlled Wood Standard and related standards (www.fsc.org/cw.htm). Subject to confirmation from an accredited certifier, Controlled Wood Standard has a strong likelihood of meeting sources verified (as defined by GFTN). The following is adapted from the FSC standard.

What is Controlled Wood?
The primary objective of FSC Controlled Wood is to avoid mixing wood from ”unwanted” sources with FSC-certified material during the production of FSC Mixed products. FSC Controlled Wood is not the same as FSC-certified wood which has met all the requirements of the FSC Principles and Criteria.

FSC Chain-of-Custody certified companies who are mixing FSC-certified and non-FSC-certified wood in their FSC product groups must demonstrate that the non-FSC-certified wood has been controlled to avoid sources from the five categories listed below:

FSC Controlled Wood applies to wood based products and also to Non Timber Forest Products (NTFP’s).

The FSC standard for company evaluation of FSC Controlled Wood (FSC-STD-40-005) enables forest product companies to:

Steps for Controlling Wood Sources

The FSC Standard suggests there are three ways an FSC Chain-of-Custody company can control its non-FSC-certified wood sources:

  1. Purchase wood from forest enterprises that have been verified by an FSC accredited Certification Body to meet the requirements of FSC-STD-30-010 FSC Controlled Wood Standard for forest management enterprises;
  2. Purchase FSC Controlled Wood from suppliers holding a valid FSC Chain of Custody certificate which includes an FSC Controlled Wood registration code; and
  3. Internally verify its wood sources according to the requirements of FSC-STD-40-005 Company evaluation of FSC Controlled Wood.

FSC will phase-out the company-developed Risk Assessments to be replaced by FSC-approved National Risk Assessments for making risk designations. The original phase-out date of company-developed Risk Assessments was 31 December 2012. On 24 September 2012, the FSC Board of Directors approved the request of the chamber-balanced Technical Committee to extend the cut-off date for company Risk Assessments until 31 December 2014. In the meantime, where the company continues to internally verify its wood sources, the company needs to do the following:

For all three of these cases, the company needs to have written systems and procedures in place for controlling wood. The certification body and the company will then receive an exclusive FSC Controlled Wood registration code. This is only an option for companies who can trace wood back to its origins.

 

How the company follows up this evaluation.
The company will need to differentiate between high-risk and low-risk sources, where low-risk sources can be dealt with through a relatively simple approach, while high-risk sources are subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny.

Companies need to do the following:


4.1 Communicating Policy

CommunicationsOnce a sourcing organization has developed a responsible forest products sourcing policy and implemented a programme of work, it is extremely important that it widely disseminates the information about its policy and all associated activities. At the very least, the policy must be communicated to colleagues and staff (most crucially, the organization's buyers of forest products), and suppliers that will be affected by the policy.

The sourcing organization may also choose to communicate the policy to other stakeholder groups identified in the review. The mechanisms for communicating the policy are varied and are best determined by the issuing organization.

Examples of ways to communicate the policy include the following:

Note for GFTN Participants: GFTN participant companies are required to demonstrate publicly their sourcing policy and will be required to demonstrate how this has been communicated to the supply chain.




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