Summary
• Governments, ENGOs and the timber industry share a commitment to eliminate illegal logging.
• Europe is leading the drive towards certification.
• US hardwood exporters could face a serious barrier to trade.
• AHEC commissioned a study to assess the risk of illegally sourced US hardwoods entering the supply chain.
Europe has set a course to ensure all wood supplies are legal and sustainable in order to remove the competitive advantage of illegal products entering the European market. A noble aim that, if successful, will go a long way towards further enhancing the environmental credentials of wood.
However, the reality of achieving this without overloading the wood chain with unnecessary burden and cost, or setting polices that unfairly discriminate against genuine supplies, is proving an immense challenge.
Ironically, the European wood industry, governments and ENGOs are all in basic agreement and share a commitment to eliminate the trade in illegal and non-sustainable wood. Governments see it as a vote winner, ENGOs as their ‘raison d’être’ and the industry as common sense for their long-term survival.
So, one would think they could all find a way to work together to achieve their aims. However, the reality is a confusion in the market place and real danger that poorly thought out polices will be imposed that could actually damage the long-term health and credibility of large parts of the wood sector.
Europe tends to equate sustainability with certification. While most of the viable international schemes such as FSC, PEFC and SFI work best for large land ownership, none of them has really been able effectively to address the issue of small forest owners in the US.
Softwood outweighs hardwood
Now we have a situation where large volumes of wood products are available certified (for example in the UK it is estimated at 60% of all wood product traded) – but most of it is softwood, not hardwood. Rather than effectively targeting the high-risk tropical supplies, there is real danger that genuinely legal and sustainable supplies could be discriminated against because they are not certified.
In addition, the EU’s creation of the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) initiative, with its Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) for high risk countries could lead to the imposition of “legality licensing” for all wood products from whatever origin. At the moment, of all the EU countries, only the UK seems even remotely interested in considering the Lacey Act approach taken by the US. The end result, if some EU politicians and ENGOs such as Greenpeace get their way, is legislation that could well mean all wood would be assumed to be ‘illegal’ unless covered by a licence.
The American Hardwood Export Council (AHEC) predicted some time ago that these developments could create a serious barrier to trade for US hardwood exporters and that it was essential the American hardwood industry actively engage in the process to protect its interests.
AHEC members have united behind this issue and enabled its officers to develop an action plan and network with the relevant stakeholders. Strong working relationships have been forged with key industry bodies in the US, such as the National Hardwood Lumber Association and the Hardwood Federation. And in Europe, AHEC has used its profile to enable the US hardwood industry to present its position to trade bodies, governments and the EU Commission.
Risk assessment study
Against this background, AHEC is developing a new approach to demonstrating the legality and sustainability of American hardwoods. It has commissioned a comprehensive data-based assessment of the risk that American hardwoods derive from illegal and other controversial sources.
The study, which was carried out by Seneca Creek Associates, is now complete and initial examination shows it provides a credible assurance of low risk. Before it is made available in the public domain it will go through a process of peer review and endorsement, but for a summary click here.
AHEC’s decision to undertake the risk assessment study forms part of a broader effort by the American hardwood industry to ensure that policy responses to illegal logging are efficient and proportionate to the scale of the problem. The underlying philosophy is that unnecessary additional bureaucracy and cost should not be imposed on suppliers in regions where illegal logging and unsustainable practices are not a problem. Time, resources, and requirements should be focused on areas and suppliers where problems do exist.
This message is proving hard to sell given the UK government’s determination to hold to its deadline of April 2009 for purchasing only wood products that are proven to be legal and sustainable – and, despite a lot of rhetoric about “other evidence”, what they really mean is certification.
As the European Union focuses on legality licensing as a possible solution, it is the European wood sector itself and the commitments it has made, that are driving demand for sustainable wood (and, by inference, certified wood), well beyond just the public procurement sector.
Many European companies that trade in hardwood simply cannot understand why, if US hardwoods are so sustainable, they are not certified. In this case the old adage “the customer is always right” is a particularly hard pill to swallow – especially for an industry that prides itself on a long history of forest stewardship.
