Public procurement policies forlegal and sustainable timber
and recommendations for Japan
世界の違法伐採に対する政府の調達政策と日本の取組への期待
Presented by Federico Lopez-Casero,
Forest Conservation, Livelihoods and Rights Project,
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)at the International Seminar for Tackling Illegal Logging, 2007 II
in Yokohama, 4. Dec. 20071

Presentation Outline
1. Research background
2. Timber imports
3. National timber procurement policies globally
4. Research objectives
5. Analytical Framework
6. Initial observations on Japan’s policy
7. Overview of compared policies
8. Policy processes in selected countries
9. Comparative analysis
10. Elements of a robust procurement policy
11. Recommendations for Japan
12. Prospects of policy development
13. What this means for producer countries in the region21. Research background•

Roughly 6 million hectares of world’s primary forests lostor degraded each year (1990-2005) (FAO, 2006)•No indication of this rate slowing•

Major timber importing countries are acknowledging their
responsibility to contribute to combating illegal logging•They benefited through access to large volumes of highquality, cheap timber…

•…but at the cost of forests and forest governance inproducer countries•Some consumer countries have introduced public timber
procurement policies
32. Timber imports (tropical & all timber)a) by major consumer countries

plywoodsawnwoodlogs

Tropical timber share of total timber imports（2006）
UK
US
China
Japan
UK
US
China
Japan
UK
US
China
Japan

tropical timberother imports

05000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

1000 m3

Source: ITTO (2007)• Japan largest importer of tropical plywood (2.6 million m3 in 2006)4b) by countries with timber procurement policies

plywoodsawnwoodlogs

Tropical timber share of total timber imports（2006）
in selected consumer countries with procurement policies
UKNetherlands
FranceJapan
UKNetherlands
FranceJapan
UKNetherlands
FranceJapan

tropical timberother imports
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

1000 m3

Source: ITTO (2007)5c) Why timber procurement policies?
•In May 1998, the G8 launched its Action Programme onForests to address illegal logging (as one of 5 issues)•While the programme led to no substantial new strategies,
it provided momentum for later initiatives•

Public procurement estimated to have a 18% share oftotal G8 timber imports (Toyne, O’Brien and Nelson 2000)•In Japan, public procurement estimated at a 3% share•

Need for hard policy options to combat the trade in illegalwood•

Procurement policies may elicit a response from the private
sector6

3. National timber procurement policies globallyEnactment

Japan

Requirements presently

April (Oct) 2006 Legal timber(sustainability as factor for consideration)
December 2006 Legal and preferably sustainable timberA
P NZ
Australia Policy under consideration
NLFebruary 1997

Denmark June 2003

Legal and preferably sustainable timber
Sustainable timber (under revision)UK

January 2004

Legal and preferably sustainable timber

FranceApril 2005

Legal and/or sustainable timber

BelgiumMarch 2006

Sustainable timber

E Germany 2007 (old: 1998) Sustainable timber
USpainSwedenFinland
NorwayPolicy under consideration

Tropical timber excluded from public procurement74. Research objectives
1.

Describe and analyse the context and features ofJapan’s public timber procurement policy

2.

Assess the robustness of this policy

3.

Identify the essential elements of a robust public timber
procurement policy(to effectively distinguish legally verified and certified
sustainable wood)

4.

Explore and recommend options for strengthening
Japan’s policy8

5. Analytical Framework
1. Detailed description of Japan’s procurement policy andanalysis of the context in which it emerged
2. Juxtaposition of the policy against forest realities in one“high risk country” (Papua New Guinea) to assess whether
its modalities are likely to be effective
3. Comparison with procurement policies of other countries
to examine their different approaches and the relative
strengths and weaknesses of each
4. Identification of elements of a robust procurement
policy, and extraction of recommendations forstrengthening Japan’s procurement policy
96. Initial observations on Japan’s policy
Main focus on the private sector:• Granted wide autonomy to establish their own voluntary
codes of conduct for the verification of legality• Considered trustworthy by the Japanese government
Status of Japan Federation of Wood Industry Associations
Less focus on the public procurer:
Expected to require documentation for legality verificationin accordance with one of the modalities
No independent government/ 3rd party verification required
No major capacity building efforts or advice intended
Limited options for procuring agents to pay pricepremiums for certified products
107. Overview of compared policies
Policyenactment

Binding effect(date, instrument) Central

Gov. criteria for
Local

legality/ CoC/SFM standards

Recommended(focus: SFM, CoC)

Feb. 1997(since 10/2005
BRL guideline)
Denmark June 2003
Guidelines

Mandatory

To develop
own policies

Recommended

Germany 1998 (1/2007)

Mandatory

NoNL

UK
FranceBelgium(no paper)

Japan

DirectiveJan. 2004
Advice note &CPET guidelines
April 2005
Advice note
March 2006
Admin. circular
April (Oct) 2006
Guideline(focus: SFM, CoC)
No(FSC and PEFC)

Mandatory

Recommended

Mandatory

Recommended
Separate
guideline

Mandatory

No(focus: SFM, CoC)
Mandatory toExpectedNogive preference118. Policy processes in selected countriesa) Netherlands• April 1996: Keurhout Foundation jointly created with industry• Feb. 1997: “Minimum requirements” for sustainable timber• Oct. 2005: Multi-stakeholder Broad Consultations approve“National Assessment Guideline for the Certification of
Sustainable Forest Management and the Chain of Custody for
Timber from Sustainably Managed Forests” (BRL)• BRL to serve 2 functions:• Forest certification scheme in itself• System to assess certification schemes as “BRL equivalent”• However, none of six selected certification schemes passed
a test assessment (by July 2007)⇒ BRL system does not work in its present form12b) UK•

July 2000: Gov. announces procurement policy on timber•Jan. 2004: Timber Procurement Advice Note•

Consultancy ProForest assessed 5 certification schemes:
FSC, PEFC, SFI, CSA, MTCC•

Aug. 2005: ProForest commissioned to operate Central
Point of Expertise on Timber (CPET)•Tasks of CPET:−Develop frameworks (criteria) for assessing evidence−

Free consulting service (helpline) for public buyers & suppliers−

Training workshops for procurement agents−

Monitoring programme to assess policy implementation−

Reference Board: advances policy formulation/ implementation
13c) France•

March 2004: Permanent Study Group on Public Procurement for
Sustainable Development and the Environment establishedto guide public buyers and make specific recommendations•Jan. 2005: President J. Chirac announces that“the State will only use eco-certified timber for big building works. In
2010, the totality of public purchases will have to conform to this”•April 2005: Prime minister’s Advice note (“Circulaire”) on
public wood purchases for sustainable forest management•

Central state agents to demand evidence of legality and/or
SFM for procured products from 2 categories:
I. Timber, sawing, veneering products, and plywood
II. Secondary transformation products (particle boards, furniture, paper)149. Comparative analysisa) Verification through forest certification

NL

Prior
Accepted forest certification schemes
assessment
BRL scheme & equivalent schemes (future)
Keurhout validated schemes (past)
Currently 5 accepted schemes:
FSC, PEFC, SFI, CSA, (only legality:) MTCC

UKFranceNo

All schemes referred to by ITTO

JapanNoAll major schemes:
SGEC, FSC, PEFC, SFI, CSA, MTCC, LEI
15b) Government criteria on SFM standards
UK

F

J----

3. Forest health and vitality--

4. Productive functions of forests--

5. Protective functions of forests (soil, water)--

6. Biological diversity----

1. Legal, policy and institutional framework(incl. management plan)
2. Extent of forest resources (“conversion”:
degradation, deforestation, land-use change)

7. Socio-economic/cultural functions(Prior consent/ consultation/ participation/claims/ local economies of communities &indigenous people to be considered)

( )

NoNL

(underreview)
16c) Criteria for assessing certification schemes
UK
Certifica- Consistency with ISO
guidelines
tion

NL

62, 65, 66 or NEN-ENequivalent
ISO 14001

Stakeholder consultation

Accreditation
Chain ofcustody

FJ----

Info from certification
reports publicly available( )Consistency with ISO
guidelines

17011 orequivalent

NEN-ENISO 45012--

By accredited body/ audi- 65 ortor complying with ISO
equivalent

NEN-ENISO 45012--

Threshold for verified
sustainable wood

70%

----

Recycled material origin

Labelling Clear credible & nonmisleading rules

70%17d) Alternative Modalities
Modalities to verify legality /sustainability other than forest
certification

Requirement ofTo adopt UK’s criteria for
Category B assessment

( )

(No)

( )
(if concern)

No

Impartial
Supplier
monitoring accreditation(so far no modality, but Keurhout
Protocol for Legality Validation used)

Assessment of Category B
evidence against gov. criteria

4 alternative modalities (depend / ( )rely on private sector response)
2 alternative modalities (depend /rely on private sector response)

Monitoringby JFWIA &associations

No18e) Differences between alternative modalities
Evidence required for: (1) Legality
Legal origin
Chain ofCustody

Segregatedmgmt.

UK Checklist 2:

FJ

Checklist 1:
1) Ownership/use rights
Supply chain2) Compliance with local & description, etc.
national laws
For Category I products:(1) Legality license (future FLEGT)
2) Attestation of management plan
3) Manager’s or 4) supplier’s compliancewith trade association’s code of conduct
For Category II: eco-label
Trail of documents through supply chain
Specified by codes of conduct of industry
federation/associations (modality 2) orindividual companies (modality 3)
Domestic schemes of exporter countries,
e.g. BRIK, SKSHH (Indonesia), SGS (PNG))(2) Sustainability
Checklist 3:
Must be welldefined andimplemented
Procedure
identical withthat forlegality

Procedure
follows thatfor legality –but not yet
developed inpractice19f) Means for policy implementation
UKNLFranceGuidelines(In preparation)

Advice noteTo procureExpert
ment agents
adviceonTo suppliers
demandConsidered-Considered By trade/industry
associations

Japan

By industry
associations,federation

Cooperation between
central & local govs.

Developingstrategy(support, No activeguidance)

Information
provided

Public-private
cooperation“verypositive”

Considered(with tradeassociation)

Traditionally

Monitoring of agents’familiarity & adherence Developing-In context ofGreen Procuremt. Law

Evaluation of policy
implementation

Research in- Exploratory
stitute CIRAD Committee

strategyintense20g) Main observations from comparative analysis

Similarities shared by all policies:• Mandatory for central state authorities• Accept forest certification as primary verification method• Stepwise approaches (legality focus in Japan ― social criteria in NL)• Have elicited responses from their private sectors

Differences in terms of:• Prior assessment of certification schemes (UK, NL)• Establishing government criteria for assessment (UK, NL)• Strong reliance on private sector (France, Japan)• Requiring third-party monitoring (UK, NL, France)• Institutional support for & capacity-building of buyers (UK)21

10. Elements of a robust procurement policy (1)1. Apply to major types of wood product from all regions
2. Contain generic definitions/criteria of legality & sustainability
3. If existing legality/sustainability assurance schemes accepted:
a. define adequate criteria for assessing theseb. employ a 3rd party to conduct and publicise assessments
c. allow freedom to pay price premiums
4. If the policy includes alternative modalities to existing
assurance schemes, these modalities should:
a. for legality assurance, cover legal origin/compliance & CoC
b. for sustainability assurance, include those criteria that arebroadly recognised by the international consensus(sustainable forest management C&I processes)
c. include neutral assessment of documentary evidence

22

Elements of a robust procurement policy (2)5. Monitoring of suppliers and 3rd party investigation whenconcern over legal origin/compliance, CoC or sustainability
6. Be mandatory to the extent possible
7. Provide sufficient guidance for procuring agents toimplement the policy
8. Encourage participation from all public administration levels,
both horizontally (government agencies and administrativebodies) and vertically (national and subnational)
9. Include internal monitoring of procuring agents’ familiarity
with and adherence to the policy
10. Include a participatory and transparent revision procedure
for policy strengthening
2311. Recommendations for Japana) “Low hanging fruit”
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

develop minimum legality/sustainability standards
participate in development of national legality standards
assess assurance schemes using these standards
assess and advise on the documentation systems foreach producer country
incorporate the minimum standards and the assessment
results into codes of conduct
provide expert support service for government suppliers,
for assessing documentary evidence
specify comprehensive, systematic and transparent
procedures to review documentary evidence when there
is concern over its accuracy or veracity
24b) “High hanging fruit”
1. involve procurement agents in case-by-case assessmentof legality/sustainability evidence
2. establish & employ professional support service to assist
in reaching “low hanging fruit” as well as:a. advise the case-by-case evidence assessments byprocurement agentsb. guide the implementation and strengthening of the policyc. handle grievance claims2512. Prospects of policy development
Recent & prospective developments
A JapanP
NZ

To shift toward favouring procurement of sustainable timberUK

To require legal and sustainable timber from 2009, withexception for FLEGT-licensed legal-only products until 2015

NL

UK criteria for legality; sustainable timber required from 2010;
Revision of BRL guideline to become workable

FranceTo require legal and sustainable timber from 2010

Belgium

Requires sustainable timber; review for autumn 2007

From 2008 sustainable timber?

EU Denmark Revised criteria for legal and sustainable timber pending
Germany New policy requires sustainable timber (FSC and PEFC)26

13. What this means for producer countries
Risks:• Possible increase in use of domestic timber andnon-environmentally friendly timber substitutes at theexpense of tropical timber imports• Shift in demand for timber from high to low risk countries• Demand for assurance of sustainability, but no willingness
to pay for costs
Opportunities:• Improve forest governance and reduce forest crime byimplementing chain of custody• Increase demand for certified timber• Promote sustainable forest management
27

Thank you!
ご静聴ありがとうございました。

http://www.iges.or.jp/en/fc/index.html
lopezcasero@iges.or.jp
28