Select a commodity to get an overview of the risk profile for different countries.
Angola covers 12,467 million hectares of land area and has abundant and extensive forest resources and biodiversity with considerable economic potential. The extent of forest and other wooded land is estimated at 58,480 million hectares, 47% of the country's 12,467 million hectares of land area. Wood stock is estimated at a total of 4.5 billion m3. The Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) is approximately 500,000 m3. According to the Ministry of Economic Planning, Angola's timber resources are largely underexploited. It is argued that timber resources within the natural productive forest and plantation forest of approximately 57,450,000m3 could be harvested. If sustainable management principles are followed, in practical terms, an average of 1,210,000 m3 of logwood could be exploited throughout the forest, with 360,000 m3 from natural forest and 850,000 m3 from plantations. It is believed that the real size of forest in Angola is not known, as a national forest inventory has not been conducted. An ongoing national inventory is in development, making key data on the extent of forest resources available. By law, the government is the owner of all forests, including existing public plantations.
The country has recovered from a long period of civil conflicts (1975-2002), which affected the forest sector's development. The new era of stability and rapid development indicates a high-level commitment to sustainable forest management, improving livelihoods for the rural people who largely depend on forest resources. More importantly, there has been a recognition to diversify Angola's Oil-based economy. The forestry sector is identified as a key alternative sector and thus will receive greater attention than previously. However, as the forest policy and related legislation have been established and implemented after the civil conflicts, Forestry Development Institute, which is the executive arm of the forestry sector, is challenged by inadequate capacity for its mandate in terms of technical knowledge, skills, experience, and the number of professional staff. Consequently, the Forestry Development Institute cannot implement long-term forest concessions for forest management as established by law and instead depends on an Annual Forest Harvesting License, which awards timber harvesting rights based on specific species. However, this practice can deplete the forest of its high-valued timber species. Official sources state that current timber extraction is approximately 200,000 m3 or about 40% of the annual allowable cutting capacity. Official sources state that in 2018 54,891 m3 of round wood was harvested from the natural forest, and 34,000 m3 of round wood was harvested from in-forest plantations. Key legal authorities within the forest sector:
• The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MINAGRIF) is the responsible ministerial department for the agricultural and forestry Sectors6 and is responsible for policy formulation and defining the strategic direction for the forest sector regarding national development.
• The National Directorate of Forestry within the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MINAGRIF) has an advisory role responsible for proposing policies and strategies and related activities to develop the forestry sector.
• The Forestry Development Institute (IDF) is the regulator for the Forestry Sector and, in principle, the implementing authority of forest policy and related legislation, programs, and activities. The IDF is viewed as a major player in the decision-making on policy issues and the development of such policy.
The World Bank Governance Indicators provide the following scores for Angola in 2020:
Estimate
(-2.5 to + 2.5)
Percentile rank, 0-100
(0 lowest rank, 100 highest rank)
Government Effectiveness
-1.2
13
Regulatory Quality
-0.9
16.3
Rule of Law
-1.0
13.5
Control of Corruption
-1.1
The estimate and percentile score show that Angola faces challenges with the four governance indicators listed. On the Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, Angola scores 27 out of 100 (100 being least corrupt).
The low score on corruption, governance and the rule of law should be taken into account when evaluating risks related to the Angolan forest sector, transport, and trade. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 25 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Argentina for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Argentina.
The Republic of Argentina has 27 million hectares of forest, which cover about 10% of the country. The forest area has decreased at an average annual rate of 1% between 1990 and 2015 (FAO, 2015). Natural forests are classified according to the National Law for the Defence Forest Wealth into the following categories:
Land tenure is private in almost 90% of the national territory. Natural forests can be found in private and public lands, while plantations are mainly in private properties, except for the Provincia de Neuquén where there is a state corporation managing public plantations. Argentina produces 10 million tons of wood every year (54% pines, 32% Eucalyptus, 11% Salix, 3% other), this production exceeds the industry capacity (GAIN, 2013). Between 90-95% of wood exports come from forest plantations and the rest from natural forests.
Legality risks are present in timber supply chains in Argentina. The risks appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from Argentina you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 98 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Australia for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Australia.
17% (124 million ha) of Australia is covered by forests of which: About 4% is primary forest About 94% is naturally-regenerated forest About 2% is planted forest Roundwood production totalled 32.1 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed USD 7.7 billion to the country’s economy in 2011, or nearly 1% of its GDP. With the exception of sandalwood from the state of Western Australia, Preferred by Nature has evaluated Australia as low risk for illegally harvested timber.
Legality risks concerning the sourcing of sandalwood relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees and trade and transport. Companies sourcing sandalwood from Western Australia should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. Companies sourcing other timber from Australia should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Austria for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Austria. 46% (3.86 million ha) of Austria is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 17.5 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed USD 7.1 billion to the country’s economy in 2011, which was nearly 2% of its GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Austria as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from Austria should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Statement on the legality of timber originating from Belarus Updated 08 May 2022
A military conflict involving the Russian invasion of Ukraine has taken place with the support and collaboration of Belarus authorities. On 2nd of March EU Council published DECISION (CFSP) 2022/356 and COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2022/355. According to these, it is prohibited to: import, directly or indirectly, wood products into the Union if they originate in Belarus; or have been exported from Belarus. purchase (directly or indirectly) wood products which are located in, or which originated in, Belarus. transport wood products if they originated in Belarus or are being exported from Belarus to any other country to provide, directly or indirectly, technical assistance, brokering services, financing or financial assistance, including financial derivatives, as well as insurance and re-insurance, related to the prohibitions on imports, purchase or transport as described above.
The scope of wood products to which the prohibitions apply, includes all wood products as defined in Combined Nomenclature Code chapter 44, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87. Note that the ban does not apply to supply contracts concluded before 2 March 2022, as long as they are executed before 4 June 2022. Also, there are differences between the scope of sanctioned Belarus products (CN code 44 only) and the EUTR which includes wooden furniture (94) and Pulp and paper (47 and 48).
Companies should, however, be aware that due diligence still needs to be applied for wood-products not covered by the sanctions. Risk assessments should include consideration of the prevalence of armed conflict.
Recent statements from PEFC and FSC have stated that wood products sourced from Belarus can be interpreted as conflict timber, or at least that this risk exists. PEFC categorizes timber from Belarus as “conflict timber” while the FSC Controlled Wood Risk Assessment for Belarus states that “The intrinsic link between forestry and the Belarusian government means that the risk of forestry activities contributing to threats to national and regional security is significant…” and that there is a risk that “…Operators in the area under assessment are involved in conflict timber supply/trade”. Companies considering this topic, may also wish to consult the European Commission guidance on the prevalence of armed conflict and sanctions in Due Diligence Systems. FSC and PEFC-certified (or controlled) material will cease to be available from Belarus.
Given the situation and challenges described above, the prevailing views expressed by several EUTR Competent Authorities is that it would be extremely arduous for operators sourcing timber/timber derived products from Belarus to carry out a full risk assessment of illegality or to mitigate the non-negligible risk. Guidance: For companies based in the European Union: It is not possible to legally import wood-products covered by CN code 44 from – or originating from - Belarus.
According to the EU Timber Regulation, for products containing wood which are not covered by the ban, due diligence still needs to be applied. Companies must assess risks in relation to the prevalence of armed conflict, including the risk that funds derived from harvesting/trade fuel the outbreak - or continuation - of violent conflict or other gross violations of international humanitarian law. Companies must also evaluate the risk of sanctioned individuals or entities being owners or beneficiaries of forest industries in their supply chains. However, Operators are advised to heed the following guidance: The Ninth meeting of the Multi-Stakeholder Platform on Protecting and Restoring the World’s Forests, including the EUTR/FLEGT (29April22) concluded that, in the present circumstances, “it is impossible for operators – sourcing timber from [Belarus] – to carry out a full risk assessment and to effectively mitigate the non-negligible risk of acquiring illegally harvested timber”. The prevailing view of national (EUTR) competent authorities was expressed such that operators “refrain from placing on the EU market for the first time all timber harvested in [Belarus] and timber products from there” EC guidance on armed conflict and sanctions in Due Diligence Systems Summary record of the Eighth Meeting of the Multi-Stakeholder Platform on Protecting and Restoring the World’s Forests, including the EUTR/FLEGT (16March22) The purchase of wood-products and the related payment should not be making funds directly or indirectly available to one of the sanctioned entities or individuals. When a company is owned or controlled by a sanctioned individual or entity, no transactions should be carried out with the company as this would be considered as making funds indirectly available to this sanctioned individual or entity. Preferred by Nature notes that obtaining information on the ownership (including beneficial ownership) and corporate structure of suppliers and their affiliates – as well as understanding whether payments have been made to sanctioned individuals – is extremely challenging. For companies based outside of the European Union: Carefully monitor the situation, and exercise additional caution in their due diligence process, for wood-products sourced from Belarus. Although companies sourcing from Belarus may not be bound by the EU Timber Regulation or EU-imposed sanctions, other regulations (Lacey Act, Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Act, etc…) may apply. Also, wood-products from Belarus may be covered by sanctions imposed by other countries.
Robust due diligence requires that companies should still assess risks in relation to the prevalence of armed conflict, as well as the risk that sanctioned individuals or entities being also owners of forest industries. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Belgium for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Belgium. 22% (0.68 million ha) of Belgium is covered by forests, of which:
Roundwood production totalled 5.4 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector contributed US$ 2.7 billion to the country’s economy in 2011, which was nearly 0.6% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Belgium as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from Belgium should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 20 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Bolivia for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Bolivia. Forests cover 50% (54,764,000 ha) of Bolivia and have a high level of biodiversity, of which:
Sawn wood is the country’s main industrial wood product and most of the production is exported. In particular, doors and furniture are exported.
Several legality risks are present in Bolivian timber supply chains. The risks are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from Bolivia you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Brazil for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Brazil.
Brazil has 463 million hectares of forest. 98.5% of this is natural forest, while the rest is plantation (FAO, 2015). Brazil is a leading producer, processor and consumer of wood-based products. Roundwood production totalled 254.4 million cubic metres in 2015, and the forestry sector contributed USD 22.5 billion to the economy in 2011, which is approximately 1.1% of the GDP.
Brazil has experienced rapid deforestation, and while the deforestation rate fell significantly between 2004 and 2012, it has risen more recently (Wellesley, 2014). Illegal logging has long been an extensive problem in Brazil, and corruption, illegality and fraud remain widespread in the forest sector (Wellesley, 2014).
Several legality risks are present in Brazilian timber supply chains. The risks are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from Brazil you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 5 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Bulgaria for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Bulgaria. 34% (3.82 million ha) of Bulgaria is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 6.3 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed USD 482.1 million to the country’s economy in 2011, or nearly 1% of its GDP.
Several legality risks are present in Bulgarian timber supply chains. The risks relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities, third parties’ rights and trade and transport. Companies sourcing timber from Bulgaria should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in their supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Nearly half of Cambodia is forested. Forest cover decreased from 60% in the 2010 (FA, 2010) to 45% (8.1 million ha) in 2016 (REDD Secretariat of Cambodia, 2016). Unfortunately, different teams of government experts do not agree as to the definition of "forest cover"; with some arguing that rubber and oil palm plantations should be counted as part of the statistical forest cover. The Ministry of Environment (MoE) has stated, however, that the two types of plantations should not be considered forest cover (MoE, 2018). Natural forest cover is categorised as: 1) production forests (PF) and 2) protected areas (PA).
Protected areas cover 7.4 million hectares of land corresponding to 41% of the total forest cover. With regards to forest management, the production forest areas are official sources of timber (Forest Law, 2002), whereas the protected areas are strictly protected, although commercial activity is permitted in the Sustainable Use Zones of PAs (Law on Protected Areas, 2008, Article 11).
Data shows that between 2001 and 2018, Cambodia’s protected areas lost 557,000 hectares of tree cover, about 11.7% of the total protected area in Cambodia. Protected areas provide habitat for hundreds of species that are iconic to the region— some of which are threatened with extinction (Global Forest Watch, 2019). There are several reports and news articles reporting the illegal export of timber from Cambodia, specifically going to Vietnam and China.
Other sources of timber are Economic Land Concessions (ELCs) and hydro-power development areas. The ELC and hydro-power areas may be located within either PF or PA or both; and are designated for conversion of forest to other land uses. Forest governance Cambodia’s administration consists of following tiers: capital city, province, district, municipality, khan, commune, and village. Currently, the Kingdom of Cambodia consists of a capital city, 24 provinces, 165 districts, 26 municipalities and 12 Khans, 1646 communes and 14,073 villages. The national government has oversight of both legal and institutional frameworks of the provincial and local governments. Any regulations that are issued by the government, ministries, and other national bodies have a higher ranking than those of a local administration (ODC, 2015). However, it should be noted that Cambodia’s ongoing decentralization process is specifically intended to provide greater autonomy to the sub-national administrations, including matters of natural resource management. The majority of forest management is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) and the Ministry of Environment (MoE). The MoE has jurisdiction over protected areas while the remaining forest areas are under the jurisdiction of MAFF. Following Sub-decree No. 69 (Sub-decree ANK/BK No. 69, issued on 28 May 2016), a re-organization was put in place such that MoE became responsible for all Protected Area (PA) management; and MAFF responsible for production forests and investment such as Economic Land Concessions (ELCs). MAFF continues to oversee ELCs issued by MAFF, but also takes responsibility for ELCs located inside PAs, which the MoE had previously overseen. MoE is also mandated to be responsible for areas designated as biodiversity conservation corridors, which are newly proposed areas on either the existing production forests or on degraded forests suitable for corridors to allow wildlife crossing from one PA to another. The legislative framework includes the 2002 National Policy, Forest Law 2002, the Law on Protected Areas 2008, the Guidelines on Community Forestry 2006, and the Guidelines on Community Protected Areas (2017). Similarly, the National Policy on Development of Indigenous People (2009), Policy on the Registration and Right to Use of Land of Indigenous Communities, and the Sub-decree on the Procedure of Registration of Land of Indigenous Communities (2009) are relevant. Land types The 2001 Land Law introduced the current land classification system to Cambodia. There are three main categories: private land, state public land, and state private land.
• Private land is property that is legally owned or possessed either individually or jointly by persons or a company.
• State Public Land is all lands that have a public interest value. This includes land of natural origin (e.g. rivers, lake, mountains and forests), protected areas, archaeological and historical sites, and official property of the Royal Family.
• State Private Land is all property that belongs to the state but does not have any public interest value (i.e. does not come under any of the categories listed above). It can be sold or leased, including long-term lease and land concessions, but any such transfer must follow legal procedure.
The distinction between State Public Land and State Private Land is important as it affects how the land may be used and managed (Land Law, 2001). The Permanent Forest Estate is defined as natural and planted forest, including State and Private (Forest Law, 2002), and divided into:
• Permanent forest reserve
• Private forest (on private land) is forest plantations or trees, whether planted or naturally grown, on private land under registration and legal title pursuant to authorize legislation and procedures.
The Permanent forest reserve is state forest located on lands bearing no private ownership rights, which are further classified into production forests and forests of protected areas.
• Production forests (on state public land) have the sustainable production of forest products (and by-products) as their first function. Their protection function is a secondary function. Production forests also include forest areas of community forests (CF); that are granted under agreement between the Forestry Administration (FA) of MAFF and a local community, or organized group of people living, within or near the forest area, and depend upon it for subsistence and traditional use, in order to manage and utilize the forests in a sustainable manner.
• Protected forests (on state public land) have protection of the forest and its ecosystem as their priority. Permits are not issued for the harvest of forest products or by-products, although local communities have customary user rights to collect forest products and by-products so long as the impact is minor. Nevertheless, the Law on Protected Areas states that sustainable use zone could be granted as ELC for sustainable development. In this regard, almost all ELC sites of the protected areas had played main sources of timbers. • Conversion forestland for other development purposes. This is idle land, comprised mainly of secondary vegetation. Land which has not yet been designated for use by any sector shall be classified as permanent forest reserves until the Royal Government decide to use and develop the land for another purpose. Logging in natural forest and protected areas Since 2002 there has been a moratorium in place for timber from forest concessions in natural forests. The moratorium was put in place due to lack of control of timber harvesting in these concession areas. Up until the present time, the operations can be approved and resumed on forest concessions that are suspended but not formally cancelled. This can be done on the basis, that a revised contract agreement and management plan is submitted with a commitment to manage areas under sustainable forest management principles. However, to the present day, no entity holding a forest concession has attempted to resume its activity in this way. As of 2014, there were no records of timber being harvested from concessions in natural forest (Technical Working Group on Forestry Reform, 2014), and there is no information indicating that any new forest concessions have been established since the 2002 moratorium. It was noted during a technical workshop on the Timber Legality Risk Assessment report held in Phnom Penh on 4 October 2019, that not all concessions have been formally cancelled, but that the concessions are no longer in use. Legal timber, as defined by the 2002 Forest Law, can only come from production forests. Nevertheless, the Protected Area Law (2008) allows for the creation of ELCs within the protected area sites, and timber can also be accessed from these areas. The Protected Area Law (2008) is mandated to manage all types of protected area sites for biodiversity conservation. There are four zones that may be established in a PA: core, conservation, sustainable use, and community zones. Commercial activity is permitted within the sustainable use zone, raising the possibility of significant timber harvesting from the PA system in the future. One current reform under consideration is to provide communities with management rights including, rights to enter into contracts for commercial activities, within the sustainable use zone. See the discussion on “Collaborative Management” in the “Emerging Trends” section (Pp. 20). Note that MoE has stated that it will not allow any additional ELCs within PAs, although several mining concessions have recently been permitted, including in contravention of zoning standards in PAs that have completed zoning. Institutions in Charge The main involvement of official institutions can be classified into two: those are involved in domestic legalised timber flows and those involved in only international legalized timber flows.
• The main official institutions involved in domestic legalized timber flows are: Forestry Administration (FA) and Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (PDAFF). The FA is a nationwide official institution covering all provinces of the country whereas PDAFF is mandated to only one province territory. Within the PDAFF, there are offices, one of those is Forestry Administration Cantonment (FAC). The FAC work under immediate supervision of the PDAFF and under indirect supervision of FA. The FAC is administratively supervised by PDAFF and technically and indirectly supervised by FA. • The main official institutions involved in international legalized timber flows are: Council of Ministers (of the Prime Minister level) (CoM), FA, MAFF, Ministry of Commerce (MoC), and General Department of Customs and Excise (GDCE) of the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF). Processes of Obtaining Permissions The technical activities required for obtaining harvesting rights depend on the source type and include: forest inventory, granting of log permit, establishment of log book A, timber cutting, transport of timber and sawmill activities. The forest inventories are conducted under FA technical supervision. The FA is mandated to grant the log permit to a businessperson, to enter into forestlands for establishment of log book A. The log book A is normally included timber volumes for royalty payment. In order to transport timber a permit must be obtained. Enforcement There are three ministries mandated to enforce the laws on harvests and trade of timbers:
1. MAFF is responsible for forest management and development on the areas of production forests. Forestry Administration (FA) and its provincial departments are technically responsible on behalf of the MAFF. Each province consists of provincial FA.
2. MoE is responsible for forest and biodiversity protection and conservation of the protected areas. MoE’s General Department of Administration for Nature Conservation and Protection (GDANCP) and its provincial departments are technically responsible on behalf of MoE and function with increasing autonomy. Each province consists of a provincial Department of Environment (PDoE).
3. Ministry of Commerce (MoC) is responsible for timber trade including export and import. Up to the time of writing, MoC’s main responsibility is to issue export permits of timber. Timber export and import are checked by custom officials at all official border check points in Cambodia. According to the Forest Law (2002) (article 76), forest offenses are criminal offenses, which are specially defined in this law. The Forestry Administration officials qualify as judicial police officials and have jurisdiction to investigate forest offenses and file cases and documents with the court.
Aside from the three main ministries in law enforcement of timber harvest and transport, General Department of Customs and Excise of the MEF plays an important role in tax collection prior to any export and import of timbers and timber related products. At all international border checkpoints, the General Department of Customs and Excise closely plays a role in ensuring that timber related products go through official tax payments prior to export and import. Emerging Trends This Assessment has been prepared during a time of dynamic change in the environment and natural resources sector in Cambodia. During the past four years, the following processes have been undertaken and remain underway to various extents:
• A major jurisdictional transfer between the Ministry of Agriculture Forests and Fisheries (MAFF) and the Ministry of Environment (MoE) occurred in 2016. This transfer saw major swathes of former FA-managed production forests and protection forests transferred from FA to MoE, while those ELCs under MoE jurisdiction were transferred to MAFF control. The overall intention of this transfer was to establish MoE’s primacy in conservation while consolidating MAFF’s jurisdiction for production (Sub decree 34, 2016);
• An ongoing process, led by MoE, to create a new Environment and Natural Resources Code. This intended to be a complete recodification of all Cambodian law related to environment and natural resources matters. The process begun in 2015 and to date spanning 11 drafts, the draft code during November 2019 is undergoing internal review at MoE;
• An ongoing process within MoE is to determine how to manage its expanded Natural protected areas system, that now covers 41 percent of Cambodia’s land mass. This includes the entirety of protected areas under MoE jurisdiction as well as the newly created Biodiversity Conservation Corridors (BCCs) (Sub decree 07, 2017);
• An ongoing process within the Forestry Administration is to redefine its scope and mission, including the characterization of its own current land holdings;
• A decentralization process that is accelerating devolution of key responsibilities for natural resource management to sub-national authorities (Circular 05, 2016). One aspect of this has been a years’ long effort led by the Ministry of Interior to create revisions to the Protected Areas Law, Forestry Law and Fisheries Law to accelerate decentralization and clarify new roles and responsibilities. As these reforms move forward, the information presented in this assessment represents the presently documented legal and policy framework. However, in the current rapidly changing environment significant changes should be anticipated in the next 1-3 years. Important potential shifts include the following: Forestry Administration: with much of its jurisdictional holdings transferred to MoE in 2016, FA has been engaged in a process to determine what lands and substantive matters still remain in its jurisdiction; for example, all ELCs in Cambodia (including those transferred from MoE in 2016) community forests and numerous small plot forestation and afforestation areas. FA is intent on developing a proper timber production sector from these holdings and has recently been formulating a new National Production Forest Strategic Plan that articulates these realities. Significant new procedures for timber production and licensing may be forthcoming as part of this plan. There may be other changes to FA’s jurisdiction forthcoming. The draft Environment and Natural Resources Code contains a title (equivalent to a law) on Sustainable Forest Management that represents a complete overhaul of current FA forest classification. Similarly, the Ministry of Interior’s efforts on decentralization may result in other significant changes to the Forestry Law. Meanwhile, although the practice of annual bidding coupes has not been officially annulled, there have been no documented coupes since 2013. Considering the changes that are underway at FA, it seems quite likely that this mechanism will no longer be used in the future. Finally, Cambodia is now formally participating in the FLEGT program - with Cambodia, the FAO, and the EU, agreeing to a FLEGT Roadmap in early 2019. This is expected to lead to an extended period of technical assistance and eventually leading to Cambodia’s own negotiation of a VPA (FAO 2019). Ministry of Environment: Following the 2016 jurisdictional transfer, MoE is still in the process of consolidating its jurisdictional control over the more than 7 million hectares (41 percent of Cambodia’s land mass) under its control (Sokha 2017). There are two relevant considerations as MoE goes through this process. First, while there is not yet any plan in place for the zoning and management of the BCCs, many of these particular areas are interlaced with private land holdings and would seem compatible with significant commercial forest production once proper systems are established. Secondly, while MoE’s holdings currently include 45 protected areas, only 4 of these have been properly zoned to date. MoE is planning a more aggressive effort to zone these vast PAs in the next few years. This is significant because many PAs contain extensive human settlements and the Protected Areas Law specifically allows “development and investment activity” within the sustainable use zone (PA Law, Article 11, 2008). Thus, it seems quite likely that as the zoning process accelerates many new portions of the PA system will be opened to commercial activity. In fact, in acquiring its new holdings in 2016, MoE officials explicitly acknowledged that significant areas of the PA system should be properly assigned to well-regulated commercial exploitation. MoE is now only beginning to come to terms with how to accomplish this. One approach that MoE is considering currently with its partners is the expansion of the jurisdiction of the current CPA system, through a series of reforms locally referred to as “collaborative management (CM).” Under the 2017 CPA Guidelines, CPAs may be established in either the community zone or sustainable use zone of protected areas (in practice, they are often established in PAs where no zoning has yet taken place). A community may enter into a CPA agreement for a 15-year renewable term. Typically, the CPA is on a small parcel of land, in the range of several hundred to typically no more than 3000 ha. Commercial activity within the CPA is limited to sale of NTFP, fishing and eco-tourism activities. The collaborative management (CM) approach would change many of these dynamics. Under CM, communities would receive more robust management rights, including: the right to participate in all management and planning throughout the entire PA; the right to exercise primary jurisdictional control throughout the entire sustainable use zone (as opposed to within a small delimited CPA); and the right to enter into contracts directly with private companies for a wide range of commercial activities throughout the zone provided such activities are consistent with zoning requirements and management plans. The communities are also provided with a proper use right in the form of a long-term rent-free lease, and the term of a CPA agreement (and thus the accompanying use right) is extended from 30 to 50 years. Legal text for this entire framework has been forwarded for inclusion into the code; a process to create a new CM Guideline is also underway. “Community empowerment and development team”, a local NGO, has been working with MoE on the text for the code and the development of the guideline, and it is also operating two pilot CM sites in cooperation with the MoE, sub-national authorities, and local communities. In addition, the MoE is the implementing partner for a new World Bank project, the Cambodia Sustainable Landscape and Ecotourism Project. This recently launched project will, among other things, identify 20 CPAs to be strengthened to conduct a range of ecotourism and community scale commercial activities, potentially including commercial timber production. This project may serve as a catalyst for further governance reforms. A key project priority is the establishment of sustainable conservation financing.
The legal framework of the environment and natural resources sector has recently been under various reforms such as the jurisdictional transfer to the Ministry of Environment, redefinition of Forestry Administration and decentralization process across the country. Significant changes should be anticipated in the next 1-3 years. Since 2002 there has been a moratorium in place for timber from forest concessions in natural forest. The moratorium was put in place due to lack of control of the timber harvesting.
Several legality risks are present in Cambodia timber supply chains. The risks are wide ranging and relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees timber harvesting activities, third parties’ rights, and trade and transport. If you are sourcing timber from Cambodia you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Outline of forest resources in Cameroon
Cameroon is an important biodiversity reserve hosting many endemic species of flora and fauna (Doumenge, C. et al., 2015). Cameroon's forests cover a significant portion of the Congo Basin. Their surface area amounts to about 20 million hectares, or 42% of the national territory (FAO, 2020). They consist of dense rainforests in which logging is practiced, and mangroves that are little or not exploited (FRMI, 2018). Dense forests can be divided into two main groups: (1) the Biafran forests, lowland coastal forests along the Gulf of Guinea and (2) the Guinean-Congolian forests in the south and southeast of the country (ETTF, 2016).
Cameroon has one of the highest rates of forest cover degradation in the Congo Basin, and its forest cover decreased by about 1% per year between 1990 and 2015 (FAO, 2015). The very high agricultural pressure contributes largely to deforestation. This is compounded by fuelwood collection, mining and illegal logging (ETTF, 2016).
Organisation of the forest estate
The forest policy, codified by law n°94/01 of 20 January 1994, divides the national forest estate into two distinct domains:
Timber harvesting can come from various types of permits and authorisations. Community forests and privately planted forests are also part of the non-permanent forest domain. The number of community forests has increased significantly since the 2000s. They reached an area of 2.1 million hectares in 2018 (WRI, MINFOF, 2018). The government also promotes the development of private plantations. However, this sector remains limited, with low annual production and a plantation area of around 17,000 hectares for the whole country (FAO, 2020).
Timber industry
According to estimates, the forestry sector contributes between 3% and 5% of Cameroon's GDP (e.g. see CIFOR, 2013). Cameroon's forest industry produces between 2 and 3 million cubic meter of logs annually (ETTF, 2016, FAO/CIFOR, 2015). About a third of this production is exported directly as logs (CED, 2019), and the vast majority of the wood undergoes primary processing before export (mainly into sawn timber and to a lesser extent veneer and plywood) (ETTF, 2016). Today, Cameroon’s legal timber production has reached approximately 3 million m3. As a result, Cameroon has become the leading exporter of timber products in Africa.
The timber trade involves a small number of species: the main species exported are Ayous, Sapelli, Tali, Okan and Azobé (ETTF, 2016, CED, 2019). The Asian market is the main recipient of timber exports, with China and then Vietnam accounting for around 54% of volumes, ahead of the European trio of Belgium, Italy and France (around 22%) (ETTF, 2016).
Institutional framework
The Forestry Code in force in Cameroon dates back to 1994 (Law n°94/01 of 20 January 1994). It concentrates implementation and control actions under one Ministry: the Ministry of Forests and Fauna (MINFOF). Although Cameroon has taken significant steps to improve forest policy and governance in the country to slow the high rate of deforestation, illegal logging remains a major concern in the country and is frequently documented at different stages of the timber supply chains.
The corruption perception index (Transparency International) remains very low (25/100 in 2020), and transparency in the forestry sector remains a challenge, although Cameroonian laws have attempted to strengthen public access to information (FAO, 2015). Civil society is also heavily involved in detecting cases of illegality through Independent Monitoring (IM) actions, notably under the External Independent Monitoring Standard System (SNOIE). Finally, for several years, Cameroon has been developing a Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the European Union. This was signed in May 2010. The country implemented the VPA negotiations through an innovative platform bringing together all stakeholders, including ministerial authorities, timber sector unions, NGOs and community-based organisations, members of the national assembly and international organisations. However, the effective implementation of the legality verification system is not yet operational.
The legality risks related to timber are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from Cameroon you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Canada for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Canada. 38% (347 million ha) of Canada is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 156 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 19.8 billion to the country’s economy in 2011, which was nearly 1.2% of its GDP. Preferred by Nature has evaluated Canada as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from Canada should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 22 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Central African Republic for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in the Central African Republic (CAR).
Forests cover 22.2 million hectares of CAR, or about 3 6% of the country, of which:
The CAR government is the main custodian and owner of all national forests. Forests are divided into:
The forest sector is very important to the country, contributing around 4% of GDP and 40% of the country's export earnings. Timber is mainly exported to Europe, China and North America and within Africa to Cameroon and Chad.
CAR has major governance problems preventing it from effectively implementing its laws and eliminating illegal actions. These include lack of harmonisation and inconsistencies within and between relevant legal texts, the persisting conflict between the statutory and customary tenure regimes, lack of capacity, and political instability.
Several legality risks are present in CAR timber supply chains. The risks are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from CAR you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 31 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Chile for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Chile.
Around 23 % (17.4 million ha) of Chile is covered by forests, of which:
The forestry sector contributed US$ 7.6 billion to the economy in 2011, which is about 3.3% of the GDP. In 2015, roundwood production totalled 58.8 million m3.
Several legality risks are present in Chilean timber supply chains. The risks relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities and trade and transport. If you are sourcing timber from Chile you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Please note: The Timber legality Risk Assessment relate to Mainland China only.
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in China. Forests cover about 23% of the country, of which:
Forest ownership refers to the ownership or use rights to forest, timber, and forest land. There are three types of ownership:
There are five key trends within Chinese forests:
China is the world's largest importer of timber, as domestic supply of industrial wood has failed to keep up with China's industrial manufacturing capacity. China faces increasing pressure to address its influence on illegal logging around the world, due to its growing demand and export of wood and wood products.
Some legality risks are present in China's timber supply chains. If you are sourcing timber from China you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 15 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Colombia for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Colombia.
51.3 % (58.5 million ha) of Colombia is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 12.7 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed USD 1.8 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 0.6% of the GDP.
Several legality risks are present in Colombian timber supply chains. The risks relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities and trade and transport. Companies sourcing timber from Colombia should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in their supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Republic of Congo's forest cover represents about 65% of the national territory and is particularly located in the North and South-West of the country (FAO, 2020).
There are fairly large disparities in the state of the Congolese forests: forests of the North are better preserved due to the low population and forests of the South more threatened by human activities as well as the selective and intensive exploitation of a few species (Okoumé and Limba) (ATIBT, 2019).
Forest exploitation contributes about 5% to the Republic of Congo's GDP (ATIBT, 2019), and is thus the second largest national source of income after the hydrocarbon sector. Most log production is destined for export markets, with Asia (and in particular China) being the primary export destination, followed by Europe (ATIBT, 2019).
Forest legislation
In the Congolese Constitution of 25 October 2015, the Congolese state solemnly reaffirms its permanent right of inalienable sovereignty over all national wealth and natural resources as fundamental elements of its development. The current Forestry Code was adopted in July 2020. The process of revising the previous Forestry Code, which dated from 2000, had started in 2014.
The Forest Code determines the overarching fundamental principles of forest management, the spatial distribution of the forest domain, the classification and declassification of forest land within the state-owned domain, the general conditions for the harvesting and processing of timber resources, the sale of timber products, reforestation, and access to forest genetic resources, etc. The ATIBT [International Tropical Timber Technical Association] notably reports that “the new forest code makes major breakthroughs, leading to progress or advancements in some cases, but restrictions to be lifted by implementing texts in others. In general, compared to the old legislation, the new forest code introduces several new concepts and greater definition of existing concepts (PES [payments for ecosystem services], certification, legality, factoring in of local communities, deforestation, climate change, carbon credits, occupancy tax, residue tax, forest or wild fauna inventory, FPIC, civil society, forestry subcontracting, etc.).” (ATIBT, 2020).
The new additions to the 2020 Forest Code “were driven by inadequacies reported during the application of the former law, and from experience acquired in sustainable forest management. They also include elements that adapt the law to the new sub-regional (Congo Basin) and international (tropical forests) context. That’s why they primarily focus on new topics (climate change, deforestation, carbon credits, certification, legality and traceability, payments for environmental services, etc.), taking into consideration the requirements of all agreements, treaties and conventions signed by the Congo (VPA-FLEGT, REDD+, CDB).” (ATIBT, 2020). It is important to note that some new elements in the 2020 Forest Code require additional implementing texts, particularly regarding matters like FPIC, forest communities, private forests, the running of the forest classification committee, the organisation of public tender procedures, and the exercise of user rights, etc. Various regulatory texts are explicitly provided for by this new law and are therefore expected to be developed in the near future.
Furthermore, other elements could create problems in terms of legal interpretation, such as the status (applicable or obsolete) of obligations arising from Decree n°437-2002 (Decree implementing the old Forest Code), which are not contrary to the new Forest Code.
Forest domain and logging titles
The Forest Code clearly distinguishes the state-owned forest domain from the private forest domain.
The state-owned forest domain is estimated at more than 20 million hectares, including 15 million hectares set as production forests, 3.9 million hectares for forest conservation and around 60,000 hectares for industrial plantations (FAO, 2020) (essentially made of Eucalyptus, Pine and Limba crops).
Forest governance in the Congo
The forestry sector in the Congo has been the subject of major difficulties in terms of governance. Chatham House assessed Congo’s legal and institutional framework and law enforcement as “weak” (2018). Moreover, Chatham House evaluates that timber exports contain between 60% and 70% of illegal timber (2011 to 2014). In addition, artisanal or so-called “informal” logging is also fuelling illegal timber logging. Some recent progress has been made in the form of improvements to the legislative framework, traceability procedures as well as to the allocation of harvesting rights. The elaboration of a voluntary partnership agreement (VPA) with the European Union as well as the establishment of an Independent Monitor (IM) of forest law enforcement and governance within the VPA-FLEGT process were the main drivers behind this change. The Congo indeed signed its VPA - the first in the Congo Basin - in 2010, and it entered into force in March 2013. However, FLEGT licensing is still not operational, mainly due to difficulties in implementing the computer-based legality verification system.
An outline of the forestry sector in the Congo
Since the 2000s, State-based forest entities, which were very active between 1970 and 1980, have massively withdrawn from the forestry industry, leaving their place to private companies. There are currently around 30 forestry operators and 60 processing units in Congo (ATIBT, 2019). These supply the export market with logs and sawnwood. Despite the strategy to increase local processing, log exports continue to increase.
The informal and artisanal sector covers most of the domestic needs for wood products. A possible classification of logging companies (Duhesme, C., 2014; ATIBT, 2019) makes the distinction between:
Congolese bodies involved in forest management
Ministry of Forest Economy (MEF): Institutionally, the management of the country’s national forest resources is the exclusive responsibility of the Ministry of Forest Economy (MEF). The MEF is structured as follows:
Legality Risks
Several legality risks are present in the Republic of Congo's timber supply chains. The risks are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from the Republic of Congo, you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Congolese forests are composed of thick tropical forests, open forests and savanna woodlands. According to the FAO (2020), the DRC has around 126 million hectares of forest coverage, which makes up around 54% of the country’s surface area. Almost all of these forests are primary or naturally regenerated forests. Planted forests only account for 58,000 hectares. Around 8% of this forest area is allocated to logging operations (FERN, 2006, ATIBT, 2019). Most (70%) of the industrial forest concessions are located in the 3 Provinces of Tshopo, Equator and Maï-Ndombe (ATIBT, 2019). The Congo’s forest land has remained relatively unharmed, due to years of political instability following the collapse of Mobutu's regime (FERN, 2006). Its deforestation rate is around 0.8% per year over the last 10 years, representing roughly 1 million hectares deforested per year (FAO, 2020).
All forest and land is owned by the state. (Art. 9 of the Constitution, Art. 53 of Law n°73-021) and the right to use the land and forest can only be granted by way of a land concession. Granting a land concession to a private person also grants forest management and exploitation rights (Art. 8 of the Forest Code).
The forest is divided into three categories:
Aside from logging operations, the main causes of loss of forest cover are slash-and-burn agriculture, bush fires, the production of charcoal for local and regional markets, and livestock rearing. The DRC also presents some of Africa’s highest levels of biodiversity, and is notably home to around 10,500 plant species (including 750 forest species), as well as around 500 mammals, 1,000 birds and 350 reptiles (FAO, 2020). A significant proportion of those are endemic species (for instance the okapi, the Congolese peafowl and the bonobo). The DRC’s forests also provide the resources for numerous semi-nomadic indigenous populations, who maintain strong cultural links with this land (Fern, 2005).
Risk overview
According to Chatham house (2014), nearly 90% of logging in DRC is small-scale, illegal, or informal, intended to supply the domestic market and regional markets. According to the Forest Legality Initiative (2013), the informal market is estimated to be three to six times the volume of the formal sector, which was 300 000m3 per year between 2007 and 2009.
Illegal logging is a significant problem, but the government’s response to illegal logging and related trade has been poor (Chatham house, 2013).
The adoption of the most recent Forest Code in 2002 and its implementing provisions uncovered several issues and legal loopholes that the DRC is struggling to respond to. An important process has been converting old forest titles into titles provided for by the new Forest Code in 2002. The procedures put in place for this process were poorly respected by the administrations, both in terms of the technical and administrative requirements and the time frames stipulated. The widespread occurrence of semi-industrial logging operations in small areas by legal persons was repeatedly opposed by civil society and international NGOs before it was regularised in 2016. The acknowledgement of customary land rights and/or the implementation of agreements between the logging operators and the local communities (through social clauses) is also poorly respected. The country also faces challenges in terms of ensuring the traceability of the wood and streamlining administrative procedures in order to carry out checks and ensure the implementation of the regulations, notably in terms of respecting processing quotas and payment of taxes.
Several legality risks are present in DRC timber supply chains. The risks are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from DRC, you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or chains or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Thank you for your interest in this Timber Legality Risk Assessment
We are currently revising and updating this risk assessment, so it has been removed from the Sourcing Hub. We have removed it while we update it, because we have been made aware there can be important changes to the risk conclusions.
A few main points to note is that version 1.0 of the risk assessment dates back from 2017 and a new forest Code has been adopted in 2019 along with implementing legislation. Additionally, the current version does not provide detailed information on “forêts classées”, which is an important source type in the Ivory Coast and has a specific legal framework.
If you would like to discuss the Timber Legality Risk Assessment for Côte d’Ivoire, or you have questions about legality risks for Côte d’Ivoire, please contact us: sourcinghub@preferredbynature.org.
You can stay up to date with the Côte d’Ivoire risk assessment, and all other Preferred by Nature Sourcing Hub updates by subscribing to the newsletter here.
Overview of the forest sector
About 33% of Côte d'Ivoire is covered by forest (FAO, 2015).
The state holds management control over all forest lands and resources of the country. Logging takes place either in:
19% of the forest areas are state production forests and 78% of the forested areas are rural forest areas (PEF).
Most forests in Côte d'Ivoire are severely degraded or are at an early stage of secondary growth, except for some effectively protected areas (Timbertradeportal.com, 2016). The forest products industry is export-oriented, and this, coupled with poor forest governance, has encouraged the emergence of a clandestine sector of artisanal loggers to supply the local market.
The forest sector in Côte d'Ivoire is the subject of a new Forest Act (2014), which introduces major reforms to the sector including the granting of ownership of trees to landowners, the creation of the concept of community forests, etc. However, in the absence of decrees to implement the new Act, the former law still regulates forestry practice.
Several legality risks are present in Côte d'Ivoire timber supply chains. The risks are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from Côte d'Ivoire you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Czech Republic for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in the Czech Republic.
33.8% (2.66 million ha) of the Czech Republic is covered by forests which consists mainly of naturally regenerated forest.
Roundwood production totalled 16.2 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$3.5 billion to the economy in 2011, or nearly 1.8% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated the Czech Republic as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from the Czech Republic should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Denmark for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Denmark.
14.4% (0.61 million ha) of Denmark is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 3.4 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 1.5 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 0.5% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Denmark as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from Denmark should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 8 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Ecuador for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Ecuador.
Ecuador has approximately 12.5 million hectares of forest, which cover just over 50% of the country (FAO, 2015). Outside of the Galapagos islands, this is distributed among:
Ecuador has been reported to have one of the highest deforestation rates in Latin America during the last 20 years, with annual rates of 1.5% and 1.8% for the 1990–2000 and 2001–2010 periods, respectively (FAO, 2011).
Historic estimates of the level of illegal logging in Ecuador have also been very high. Two separate studies have estimated illegal logging to affect 70% of the timber harvested in Ecuador (Seneca Creek Associates and Wood Resources International, 2004 & World Bank, 2006).
Several legality risks are present in Ecuadorian timber supply chains. The risks are wide ranging and relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities, third parties’ rights, and trade and transport. Companies sourcing timber from Ecuador should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in their supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Equatorial Guinea is rich in wood resources: forest cover is estimated to be 2.5 million hectares, representing more than 90 percent of the national surface area. It has highly diverse ecosystems; from mangroves, coastal forests and grasslands on the coast, to subalpine formations and tall grasslands at the summits (FAO, 2020). In the continental region, vegetation is dense in the humid Guinean–Congolese lowland forest; while Bioko Island has different ecosystems due to the effects of altitude and the notable variation in rainfall. The forestry sector is one of the most important sectors for the national economy, with two-thirds of the population dependent on forest resources. Until recently, the main export product and main source of foreign currency in the country was derived through harvest of about a hundred commercial species. The contribution of the sector to the national economy between 1985 and 1992 represented more than 50% of the foreign currencies and over 20% of the direct income by taxes for the State. Since mid-2018, production and exportation were reduced as a result of new regulations put in place by the government. It is now forbidden for companies without a processing plant to harvest timber, and all permits have to be signed by the President of the Republic. Also, it is now forbidden to export logs, even though there are still a few valid approvals relating to the log piles in the port. This situation has greatly impacted the direct revenues of the State. Despite this extensive cover, the estimated rates of forest loss (deforestation plus forest degradation) show a worrying upward trend, particularly for forest degradation (FAO, 2020). Only nationals can own land in Equatorial Guinea. Foreign companies are permitted to harvest through:
1. Forest Harvesting Lease Agreement (Contrato de Arrendamiento por Aprovechamiento Forestal, CAAF) (national forests)
2. Contract Agreement with
a. private owners (privately owned forests) OR
b. communities (communal forests)
Since late 2018, all forest companies operating in Equatorial Guinea need to form a registered company in the country, to be able to apply for a CAAF in the national forests (Forest Harvesting Lease Agreement); and they are required to establish a processing industry. Also, individuals who wish to obtain a harvest permit need to establish microenterprises. In Equatorial Guinea, it is now forbidden to harvest a tree if the entity carrying out harvesting is not a registered company. (There are some exceptions for timber for subsistence purposes.).
Natural resources (forest and environment) management in Equatorial Guinea is mostly carried out by two ministries: Ministry for Agriculture, Livestock, Forests and the Environment and Ministry of Fishery and Water Resources Although the Ministry for Agriculture, Livestock, Forests and the Environment is the competent ministry in forest matters, the situation is not clear regarding protected areas; because the current laws state that both ministries are competent. Within the MAB (Figure 1), the National Institute for Forest Development and Management of Protected Areas (INDEFOR-AP) provides technical services (topography and cartography) to agents representing public and private projects, as well as those having an impact on production and conservation forests.
INDEFOR-AP was created by Decree No. 60/2002, dated 8 May, as a result of the Conservation and Rational Utilization of Forest Ecosystems in Equatorial Guinea (CUREF) project, financed by the European Union. According to the presidential decree, INDEFOR-AP is a “public entity with its own legal personality and with administrative and financial management autonomy” in the country. However, INDEFOR-AP is part of the MAB, it is not independent and does not have financial autonomy. It has a budget received from the government that is sufficient to cover the salaries of technical personnel, but not sufficient to carry out the programs and missions planned in the CUREF project, nor to update the cartography software supplied by the MAB.
The General Directorate of Forests is responsible for ensuring that forest legislation is respected within the privately owned forests and communal forests subject to harvesting by forestry companies.
The General Directorate of the Forest Guard (GF) intervenes in cases where it is suspected that the activities of a company exceed the limits of the Forest Harvesting Lease Agreement (CAAF), awarded by the government to authorized companies to log within a national forest. The GF also intervenes in other clandestine activities related to logging in free, unallocated State forests.
Forest management in Equatorial Guinea is regulated by Law No. 1/1997, dated 18 February, on the Use and Management of Forests (Forestry Law).
The Forestry Law stipulates that the National Forest Reserve (RFN, Reserva Forestal Nacional) “is permanent, inalienable and in the public domain and must be managed in accordance and under the concept of sustained performance” (Article 5). The Forestry Law divides the RFN into two major categories of the national territory: the production domain (PD) and conservation domain (CD) (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Organisation of the National Forest reserve
In 2013, RFN represented 50% (1,354,766 hectares) of the national territory and consisted of 83% of dense forests, 13% of mixed forests and 4% of other types of land use. PD represented 30% of the national area and consisted of 89% of dense forests, 8% of mixed forests and 3% of other types of land use. CD, on the other hand, represented 19% of the national area and comprised 73% of dense forests, 22% of mixed forests and 5% of other types of land use.
The general principles of Law No. 1/1997 establish in Article 1, the judicial, economic and administrative system that allows the rational and sustainable harvest of the forests and the country’s natural conservation, with an absolute respect to the natural laws that ensure its permanence and growth to benefit present and future generations.
In Article 3 of the Law on the Use and Management of Forests, it indicates that the forest administration is in charge of the guardianship, administration and management of all the forests in the country, including all natural and reafforested forests, wild flora, forest soils, as well as the wild, ground-dwelling fauna.
In Article 4, forest lands are those for which the main use is ‘forest’, when applying the regulation of land classification and use. Forest lands, either natural forests, wild flora or land reforested by humans, make up the National Forest Reserve (Reserva Forestal Nacional). National Forest Reserve is permanent, inalienable, and in the public domain; therefore, and it must be managed according to and under the concept of sustained yield (Article 5).
Law No. 1/1997, dated 18 February, on the Use and Management of Forests in Equatorial Guinea, establishes the National Forest Reserve in two domains:
1. The production domain (Article 12, Law 1/1997) which includes:
a) Privately owned forests: small patches of natural or reforested areas located within the limits of silvo-agricultural or rustic farms, and for which harvesting requires a harvesting permit (Autorización de Apeo) granted by the forest administration, and signed by the President of the Republic;
b) Communal forests: areas of natural or re-established forests that the State recognizes, limits and awards in permanent use to rural communities. For timber harvesting, a harvesting permit (Autorización de Apeo) is required, granted by the forest administration, and signed by the President of the Republic;
c) National forests: areas of natural or re-established forests that the State reserves for itself, to exploit directly and exclusively; or through third parties with the economic capacity to log, process and export wood. Harvesting activities are conducted through a Forest Harvesting Lease Agreement (Contrato de Arrendamiento por Aprovechamiento Forestal, CAAF) signed by the President of the Republic.
The production domain covers 1.5 million hectares. Few years ago, the total area of the awarded concessions (CAAF) was 217,940 ha, of which 194,800 ha have been exploited (WRI, 2013).
2. The conservation domain, which includes all the forests from the protected areas in the national system, and the protection forests; approved by the government and dedicated to the conservation and preservation of wild flora and fauna species, landscapes and unique ecosystems.
The export of logs from Equatorial Guinea has been prohibited since January 2018, to ensure that wood is processed within the national territory as a means of stimulating industry development within the country. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Estonia for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Estonia.
49% (2.22 million ha) of Estonia is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 7.8 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 846.6 million to the economy in 2011, which is nearly 4.3% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Estonia as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from Estonia should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 77 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Swaziland for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Swaziland.
33.8% (0.58 million ha) of Swaziland is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 2 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 64.5 million to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 2.0% of the GDP.
Several legality risks are present in Swaziland’s timber supply chains. The risks relate to legal rights to harvest, timber harvesting activities and trade and transport. If you are sourcing timber from Swaziland you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Finland for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Finland.
73.1% (22.2 million ha) of Finland is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 59.3 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 9.6 billion to the economy in 2011, or nearly 4.3% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Finland as low risk for illegally harvested timber. If you are sourcing timber from Finland you should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in your supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in France for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in France*.
30.8% (16.8 million ha) of France is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 52.6 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed USD 14.6 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 0.6% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated France as low risk for illegally harvested timber. If you are sourcing timber from France you should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in your supply chains.
* The risk assessment applies to metropolitan (mainland) France only; the CITES box applies to all of France VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 74 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Georgia for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Georgia.
Around 41% (2.8 million ha) of Georgia is covered by forests, of which:
Roundwood production totalled 0.64 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector contributed US$ 61.4 million to the economy in 2011, which is about 0.5% of the GDP.
Risk is present in Georgian timber supply chains. The risks relate to legal rights to harvest and timber harvesting activities. If you are sourcing timber from Georgia you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Germany for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Germany.
32.7% (11.4 million ha) of Germany is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 55.6 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 26.1 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 0.8% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Germany as low risk for illegally harvested timber. If you are sourcing timber from Germany you should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in your supply chains. VIEW LESS
Ghana has a forest area covering 7,985,000 ha Ghana’s forests are classified into;
The forests are mainly found in the high forest zone; and savannah woodlands zone. Forest reserves (production and protection forest), plantations in FRs, and protected areas (PAs) are on stool/skin lands but vested in Ghana’s president and managed by the forestry commission (FC).
Stools and skins refer to traditional leaders in Ghana (north and south). Traditional leaders or chiefs in the northern half of Ghana sit on the skin of animals. The northern part of Ghana is mainly savanna vegetation and has lots of wildlife and parks so by tradition the people use skin of animals. Traditional leaders in the southern half of Ghana which is the high forest zone sit on stools carved from the trees in the forest. ‘Stool land’ is used for both north and south land in Ghanaian laws. "Stool land" includes land controlled by a person for the benefit of the subjects or members of a stool, clan, company or community, and the land in the Upper and Northern Regions other than land vested in the President and accordingly "stool" means the person exercising that control or the authority or position of the traditional leader.
Submerged forest (SF) and private plantations on OFRs are owned by chiefs, families, individuals, and public institutions. Private plantations in FRs are under special benefit-sharing arrangements with investors, whereas plantations in OFRs are usually leased or established by landowners.
The Forest Services Division (FSD) monitors harvesting operations on-site, including stumpage fee computation, through harvest and post-harvest inspections by FSD technical officers. The Resource Management Support Centre and FC also conduct quarterly monitoring of field inspections.
Before harvesting in any FR compartment or OFR area, the FSD conducts an inventory of all trees. A tree information form (TIF) that captures details of each tree felled is prepared by the FSD technical officer. The company completes a log information form (LIF) to cover logs produced from each tree. A log measurement and conveyance certificate are prepared by the FSD for trucking logs from the forest to the processing site or point of sale. Transported logs are certified by the Timber Industry Development Division. For forest plantations, TIF and LIF are replaced by the Plantation production certificate.
The Ghana FLEGT VPA Ghana entered into Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) with the European Union (EU) on 1st December 2009 under the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Programme. The FLEGT VPA is a legally binding agreement. It seeks to prevent illegal logging and improve forest governance by ensuring that timber exported to Europe from the partner country complies with all legal requirements of the country's forest laws. Ghana has since been implementing various aspects of the agreement. The forest sector now has been influenced largely by actions implemented as part of this agreement. Ghana’s VPA with the EU applies to both domestic and international markets. Under the VPA, Ghana has developed a Legality Assurance System (GhLAS) comprising Legality standard, verification protocols, wood tracking system (GWTS) and licensing system. All information required to demonstrate the legality of any volume of timber traded must be held in the WTS. Several legal reforms have also been carried out, resulting in Legislative Instrument (LI) Timber Resources Management and Legality Licensing Regulations, 2017 (LI 2254).
Among other initiatives to curb illegality within the forest sector, the Validation of Legal Timber Programme (VLTP) was designed in 2007 to tackle some of the identified gaps within the Ghana forest control system, including:
The GhLAS is implemented by the Timber Validation Department (TVD) of the Forestry Commission (FC), Forest Services Division (FSD) of FC, Timber Industry Development Division (TIDD) of FC, and Civil Society Organisations. Implementation is overseen by the Joint Monitoring and Review Mechanism, Multi-stakeholder implementation Committee, Ministry of Lands Forestry and Mines, and Timber Validation Committee. The GhLAS defines legal timber and provides a set of principles, criteria, and indicators, a performance standard used for auditing. The standard clarifies the evidence required to demonstrate compliance with all the Timber Legality Licence/FLEGT licence requirements. These requirements are provided in the Legislative Instrument, L.I. 2254.
The GWTS ensures that timber entering the supply chain originates from legal sources and that timber flows are controlled throughout the supply chain. The GWTS is predominantly electronic and used to monitor and track operators' compliance along the chain of custody of timber from the forest gate to the point of export or on the domestic market. The GWTS has been extensively and intensively field-tested during the roll-out exercise, which included a range of small-medium and large companies and was effective and efficient, providing real-time data reconciliation along the chain of custody.
The final report of Ghana and the European Union (EU) independent assessment of the legality assurance system described in the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) on FLEGT between Ghana and the EU, which was shared with both parties on 31 December 2020, concluded that the system was not ready due to several gaps, including the effective resolution of non-compliances associated with the supply chain. Ghana has an Independent Monitor (IM) that monitors the GhLAS to ensure that it functions effectively and is fit for its purpose. The IM’s work covers the entire timber supply chain, starting from the forest through to the domestic market, shipping at ports in Ghana, and the receiving points of competent authorities in the EU.
Since 2014, the IM has undertaken annual audits. Each audit report raises corrective action requirements, which helps enhance the robustness of the GhLAS. Since January 2018, the FSD of FC has been implementing the GWTS alongside the existing manual system, helping to identify challenges with the GWTS which need to be addressed before a total switch to the GWTS. When the system becomes fully operational, and issuance of the FLEGT License begins, the GWTS will help to check illegalities in the timber industry, such as discrepancies in the classification of species, wood qualities and quantities, and ensure the use of required timber rights or permits and implementation of social obligation requirements by operators.
Illegal logging is a considerable problem in Ghana. The chainsaw logging that supplies over 70% of the domestic market is considered illegal (EU FLEGT, 2015). Numerous problems are said to exist with logging permits (EU FLEGT Facility, 2015), harvesting levels significantly exceed the annual allowable cut (itself said to exceed a sustainable level), and a survey of experts' perceptions of the level of illegal logging resulted in an average estimate of 49% of total log production (Hoare, 2014). Several legal risks are present in Ghanaian timber supply chains. The risks are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from Ghana you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 18 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Guatemala for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Guatemala.
Guatemala has approximately 3.5 million hectares of forest covering almost one third of its total land area. Most of this forest is found in Petén, which accounts for 1.8 million hectares or 48.4% of the national total.
Natural or naturally regenerated forests account for 95% of the total forest area while the remaining 5% are plantation forests. Over half of the forest area is protected (FAO, 2015). The forestry sector contributed USD 462.4 million to the economy in 2011, which is approximately 1.0% of the GDP (GFW, 2017).
A large part of the natural forest estate in the highlands has been over-harvested, and development is proceeding rapidly in the Petén. The annual rate of deforestation was 1% for the period 2010-15 (FAO, 2015). Illegal logging is a widespread problem in the country and it has been estimated that it represents 30-50% of the annual harvested timber (PROFOR, 2017).
Legality risks in Guatemalan timber supply chains are wide-ranging and relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities, third parties’ rights, and trade and transport. If you are sourcing timber from Guatemala you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 0 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Honduras for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
Forest cover in Honduras is estimated to cover 48% of the country, of which:
With respect to planted forests, a total of 29,940 ha of plantations certified by the government of Honduras have been reported (about 0.5% of the total forest area).
The government manages the National Public Forest (Bosque Público Nacional) and regulates municipally-owned and private forests through the Institute for Forest Conservation, Protected Areas and Wildlife (Instituto de Conservación Forestal Áreas Protegidas y Vida Silvestre, ICF) and other relevant agencies.
Three types of land tenure for forest property are recognised:
Commercial harvesting is subject to a management plan, which is in effect for a minimum period equal to the rotation period, and an Annual operating plan.
Reportedly, Honduras is experiencing high levels of illegality throughout its forest sector, including both at the forest level and in the supply chain. This can undermine efforts to obtain robust information on the harvest-origin of wood products.
Several legality risks are present in Honduaran timber supply chains. The risks are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from Honduras you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
India has around 70 million hectares of forests, which covers 24% of the country. Around 15.7 million hectares are primary forest, 43 million hectares of otherwise naturally regenerated forest, and around 12 million hectares are planted forest. The total forest area is increasing by around 1 million hectares a year. About 85% of the forest area is publicly owned, and 15% privately owned (FAO, 2015). Most of the public forests are administered by the government, and some of them by communities and indigenous groups. India produced almost 50 million m3 of logs in 2014, of which only a small proportion was exported. The export value of primary timber products exceeded USD 80 million (ITTO, 2015). Illegal logging and trade of high-value timber is a major problem in many parts of the country. In 2009. the Ministry of Environment and Forests estimated that 2 million m3 of logs were illegally felled per year. Several legality risks are present in India, relating to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities, third parties' rights, and trade and transport. As India is one of the world’s largest importers of wood-based products, it is also a major consumer of illegal timber. The volume of illegal imports has increased, and in 2012 almost 20% of timber imports were estimated to be illegal. There has been limited acknowledgement of the problem within the country, and little response from the government (Chatham House, 2014). Companies sourcing timber from India should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in their supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
This page looks different to the other pages on the Sourcing Hub as material from Indonesia is licensed under the FLEGT licensing scheme. FLEGT licensed timber and timber products are considered to comply with the requirements of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), so you do not need to exercise due diligence on these products.
This means:
If it's valid, the FLEGT licence automatically meets the requirements of the EU Timber Regulation.
The United Kingdom's FLEGT Licensing Process
If you are an operator in the UK importing Indonesian timber, you must submit the electronic FLEGT licence for verification to Competent Authority via email to: flegtenquiries@beis.gov.uk before the timber arrives in the UK. The form to submit the licence can be found here, and further information is available on the Competent Authority's website. There is a £9.60 fee associated with the verification.
Other EU Member State Processes for FLEGT Licensing
The exact process in each member state is different, and you should check with your competent authority to be sure to comply. There is an IT system called FLEGIT that enables EU operators to submit FLEGT licences to Competent Authorities electronically. Some member states will have established their own electronic system for Operators to submit their licences through, check with the competent authority prior to using the FLEGIT platform.
We provide more information on forestry in Indonesia and the FLEGT scheme below, for those interested.
Forestry in Indonesia
Indonesia has been, for many years, one of the most significant players in the international trade of tropical timber. Nearly half of the country is covered by forests, and the timber extracted from this resources is converted into many products, including plywood, furniture, pulp and paper. Indonesia’s main export markets are China, the EU, Japan and Korea.
Forests in Indonesia are categorised as hutan negara (state forests) and hutan hak (forests subject to rights). Ownership is split between:
Indonesia was the first country in Asia to sign a voluntary partnership agreement (VPA) with the EU in 2013. In November 2016, the VPA came into full effect when the European Commission endorsed the country's timber legality assurance system, the 'Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu (SVLK)'. Since then, Indonesia has been able to issue FLEGT licenses to verified legal timber products it exports to the EU. The licenses are issued in the form of 'V-Legal Documents'.
Indonesia also applies the SVLK to exports to non-EU countries. These are also accompanied by 'V-Legal Documents'.
FLEGT Licenses for Indonesian Timber
V-Legal Documents are Indonesian export licences attesting legality. As the Indonesia-EU Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) has been fully endorsed, Indonesia now issues V-Legal Documents as FLEGT licences for timber bound for the EU.
Companies that comply with the timber legality assurance system (SVLK) need to attach a V-Legal Document to their consignments for export to any international market. The V-Legal Document specifies that the timber products being shipped comply with the legality and sustainability standard and the supply chain control requirements as stipulated in Indonesian regulations and the VPA. Thus the V-Legal Document provides assurance that timber or timber products are legal. V-Legal Documents are issued by bodies authorised by the Indonesian government to act as licensing authorities.
The FLEGT licence format is set out in Annex IV of the Indonesia-EU Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA). It looks similar to the V-Legal Document, but has ‘FLEGT licence’ clearly stated on the top right of the licence, in the box marked 'B'. V-Legal Documents continue to be issued for exports to other markets for the products covered in the VPA. Indonesia has developed an annex to the FLEGT licence that will be used if more than one product is shipped under one licence.
Indonesian legal framework
The Forestry Law (Law No. 41 of 1999) is the primary legislative instrument that governs forestry in Indonesia. It replaced the Basic Forestry Law (Law No. 5 of 1967) that had been in effect for more of the New Order period (1965–1998). The Constitution does not mention forests explicitly, but does refer to the state’s control over all natural resources of the country. Although the Basic Agrarian Law (BAL, Law No. 5 of 1960) purports to apply to all land in Indonesia, since 1967, the government has regarded all areas designated as forest as being regulated exclusively by these forestry laws.
There are three main administrative forest categories for state forests in Indonesia:
The following forest management permits are legal in Indonesia:
A moratorium on granting new concession licenses has been in place in Indonesia since 2011 (renewed in 2014). Harvesting on concessions is regulated according to these various types of Concession Permits and Licenses (IUPHHK), issued by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF), which defines boundaries, areas, duration and harvestable timber species. The Annual Work Plan (known as RKT) and Ten Year Work Plan (called RKUPHHK or simply RKU) – both of which have to be approved by the MoEF – specify harvesting volumes and logging areas. Receipts relating to tax payments as well as roundwood transport documents (SKAU) are retained by the company, as well as a registration number and the Forest Product Legality Documentation (FAKO) for processed logs issued by the District Forest Office.
Harvesting by State Forest companies requires Ten Year Work Plans, followed by Annual Work Plans, specifying harvesting block, a Stand Inventory Before Felling document (called ITSP “Inventarisasi Tegakan Sebelum Penebangan”) and a Logging Plan. For harvesting in Private Forests (known as HR “Hutan Rakyat” and defined as a minimum area of 0.25 ha), both land certificates as well as roundwood transport documents (SKAU) are needed. The type and volume of timber to be harvested has to be reported to the Chief of Village for approval and issuing of the SKAU.
Apart from the MoEF, the District Forest Office and the Chief of Village, mentioned above, there are technicians of Sustainable Forest Management, called GANISPHPL “Tenaga Teknis Pengelolaan Hutan Produksi Lestari”, who have 19 types of qualification (trained by the authorities) for writing standardised work plans, checking/approving harvesting plans, measuring logging volumes/area, etc. The Government employs experts, called WASGANISPHPL (15 types) for GANISPHPL supervision.
The VPA and the SVLK
There is a mandatory Indonesian timber legality verification system, called SVLK "Sistem Verifikasi Legalitas Kayu", which forms the basis of the ratified 2013 Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) between the EU and Indonesia – developed following the 2005 Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Regulation. This policy is mandatory for all businesses ranging from upstream to downstream sectors where regulatory compliance is verified by the acquisition of certificates based on criteria and standards appropriate to the type of business.
The Indonesian regulation on the “Standards and Guidelines on the Assessment of Performance of Sustainable Forest Management and the Verification of Timber Legality in the State and Privately-owned Forests” (Forestry Minister's Regulation P.38/Menhut-II/2009) establishes the Timber Legality Assurance System (TLAS). TLAS is the basic system used to assure the legality of timber and timber products produced in Indonesia for export to the Union and to other markets (EU/Indonesia VPA, Annex V).
The TLAS comprises the following elements:
The TLAS also includes the Indonesian sustainability scheme and targets to improve forest governance, to suppress illegal logging and the associated timber trade to ensure credibility and to improve the image of Indonesia's timber products (Council Decision 2014/284/EU and Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1158 known here after as the ‘EU/Indonesia VPA’, Annex V)
Key actors:
Operation of the SVLK
Indonesia’s SVLK is designed to verify the legality of timber from the forest or the point of import through the entire supply chain to the point of final sale or export. See Annex V of the VPA. The application of SVLK is mandatory for all forest management units and industries, traders and timber depots, and for all export destinations.
The VPA includes different legality standards for timber and timber products from different types of permits and rights holders. For each legality standard, the VPA lists criteria, indicators and verifiers that can be used to prove compliance. In addition, the underlying Indonesian legislation describes agreed upon verification methods. See Annex V of the VPA and the SILK website’s page on regulations.
Auditors called Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs) verify the compliance of timber producers, traders, processors and exporters with the relevant legality standard. Operators that pass the audit are issued with a legality certificate. The legality certificate is valid for three years for large companies and for up to ten years for small-scale operators or low risk operators. Surveillance visits take place every year (large companies) or every two years (small-scale operators or low risk operators).
Licensing authorities issue FLEGT licences to accompany each consignment of verified legal timber exports from registered operators that hold a valid legality certificate. This assessment and licensing are continuously monitored and informed by civil society actors acting as independent monitors of the timber legality assurance system.
In addition ‘periodic evaluation’ (termed ‘independent audit’ in other VPAs) assess the functioning of the legality assurance system at least once a year.
To get certified, timber-based industries, timber depots, traders including exporters, and small-scale privately owned (household or cooperative) forests must conform to the relevant legality standard.
An alternative procedure called Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) can be used to enter SVLK supply chains under certain conditions. This alternative procedure is only open to small and medium enterprises and smallholders who deal only with low-risk timber from privately-owned forests and/or SVLK-certified plantation timber from state-owned company (Perhutani).
A sustainability standard is also mandatory for state owned forests managed by companies (natural and plantation forest concessions). Companies must conform to this standard no later than the end of the three-year validity period of their first legality certificate.
All operators working on the basis of permits included in the VPA need to be SVLK certified (or provide a Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity), regardless of whether they export or place timber products on the domestic market. Only exporters need also to have a V-Legal Document for each consignment or a FLEGT licence if the export is destined to the EU (once FLEGT licensing starts). Public summaries of all audits and surveillance visits are available on the Ministry of Environment and Forestry’s SILK website and the respective sites of the Conformity Assessment Bodies.
Problems / issues raised with SVLK
Christine Overdevest & Jonathan Zeitlin in their 2016 report Experimentalism in Transnational Forest Governance: Implementing EU Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Voluntary Partnership Agreements in Indonesia and Ghana take a comprehensive look at the issues/shortcomings of the SVLK that have been identified and the actions taken to address these issues. We have extracted key points from this report:
Actions taken to address these problems/issues Overdevest and Zeitlin discuss, at length, the actions taken to address the issues mentioned above, in the lead up to the endorsement of the SVLK system by the EC.
The European Parliament resolution - Responding to criticisms of the SVLK raised by Human Rights Watch (whose report is explicitly cited) and the Anti-Forest Mafia Coalition (the publication of whose report was carefully timed to feed into the debate), the European Parliament resolution:
The Joint Technical Assessments - The VPA stipulates that joint technical assessments had to occur before SVLK timber could receive a FLEGT export licence. These assessments were intended to inform both parties about the fitness for purpose of the TLAS system, based on a review of implementation on the ground, including how information is shared among auditors, independent monitors, local government, and licensing authorities, resulting in recommendations for changes needed to the VPA and/or the SVLK regulation to ensure the credibility of FLEGT licences.
Stage I of the joint assessment, concluded in September 2013, involved field visits to three provisions, a stakeholder workshop, meetings with official representatives from both parties, and a report co-authored by experts from Indonesia and the EU. This assessment resulted in a joint Action Plan which identified 17 timetabled actions needed for Indonesia to move from SVLK certification to the issuance of FLEGT licences.
The Action Plan committed Indonesia to:
The Action Plan listed a number of specific areas needing additional discussion, including: ‘allocation of forest resources and permitting, environmental requirements, labor rights, and respect for use rights of other parties and application scope’ (Indonesian Ministry of Forestry 2014).
Stage II of the joint assessment, which took place in the fall of 2014, included a review of progress in carrying out these commitments as well as further field testing of the SVLK, and resulted in a revised Action Plan outlining the steps that still needed to be taken before FLEGT licensing could be approved.
Between September 2014 and January 2016, EU and Indonesian officials, accompanied by representatives of domestic civil society and private business, convened regularly in the Joint Implementation Committee to monitor the process and follow up on action items, supported by Joint Expert Meetings to evaluate progress on the SVLK and multi-stakeholder Joint Working Groups (JWGs) to resolve outstanding problems (Indonesia-EU 2014).
The participation of both EU officials and civil society representatives in the meetings ensured that sensitive issues raised by the EP Resolution and NGO reports would be addressed, including not only the roll-out of the SVLK itself, but also the availability of information, the effectiveness of independent monitoring, and the enforcement of certification requirements for all new conversion permits.
Conclusion
The review and endorsement of the SVLK system, undertaken over a number of years by the European Union has considered these issued specifically raised by stakeholders, concluded with the endorsement of the SVLK system by the EC.
Preferred by Nature will continue to monitor the progress of Indonesia very closely, and note the following conclusion of this report, completed in 2015 prior to the final endorsement of the SVLK by the European Commission, but still relevant today:
We found that the VLK legality standards consist of an easily auditable document checklist, and examined the implications of this approach for addressing the key issues of corruption and land and resource tenure. This revealed how the focus on documentation ignored the issue of whether concessions, plan approvals, or harvest or transport permits were issued through corrupt practices. This is perhaps not surprising, given the limited authority, capacity, and incentive for private auditors, hired by private companies, to uncover either government or private-sector corruption. Regardless of the justification, verifying operations as “legal” that have engaged in corruption obscures its significance relative to the issues that are covered in the standards, and risks further entrenching and legitimating that corruption (Abidah Setyowati & Constance L. McDermott, 2017). VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2019. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Ireland for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Ireland.
11% (0.77 million ha) of Ireland is covered by forests (as of 2017). In 2015 the distributon between distribution between naturally-regenerated and planted forest was:
Roundwood production totalled 2.9 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed USD 743.8 million to the economy in 2011, or nearly 0.4% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Ireland as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from Ireland should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 56 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Italy for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Italy.
31% (9.29 million ha) of Italy is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 5 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 15.0 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 0.8% of the GDP.
Several legality risks are present in Italian timber supply chains. The risks relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities and trade and transport. If you are sourcing timber from Italy you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 99 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Japan for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Japan.
68.6% (24.9 million ha) of Japan is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 21.3 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 39.0 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 0.7% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Japan as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from Japan should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 88 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Republic of Korea for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in the Republic of Korea.
63.5% (6.18 million ha) of the Republic of Korea is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 5.18 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 8.2 billion to the economy in 2011, or nearly 0.8% of the GDP.
Risk is present in Korean timber supply chains. The risks relate to timber harvesting activities. If you are sourcing timber from the Republic of Korea you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
The forest cover assessment undertaken by the Department of Forestry under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 2015, estimated the forest cover in Laos to be 13.7 million hectares or 58% of the total land area. This figure is down slightly from the 59.3% forest cover reported in the preceding assessment in 2010 . Existing Forestry Law recognises three forest categories: conservation (25%), protection (35%) and production (16%) forests, which together comprise 76% of the current forest area. The remaining forest area is unclassified. Thus, a significant share of current forest is located outside the three mentioned forest categories. Table 2 summarises the change in forest cover over a 10-year period from 2005 to 2015. This loss in forest cover has mainly been driving by the expansion of agricultural activities (including tree plantations), and clearing and conversions for hydropower, mining, and other infrastructure projects including urbanisation. Table 2: summary of forest cover change in Laos [1] . Forest classification Area in 2005 (ha) Area in 2005 (% total) Area in 2015 (ha) Area in 2015 (% total) Forest loss/gain (ha) Forest loss/gain (%) Protection forests 4,779,000 34% 4,619,000 35% -160,000 -3.35% Conservation forests (protected areas) 3,532,000 25% 3,470,000 26% -62,000 -1.76% Production forest areas 2,237,000 16% 2,142,000 16% -95,000 -4.25% Sub-total of the three forest categories 10,548,000 76% 10,231,000 77% -317,000 -3.01% Other forests outside the 3 3,328,000 24% 3,139,000 23% -189,000 -5.68% Overall total 13,876,000 13,370,000 -506,000 -3.65% All natural forests and forest land in Laos are state-owned and managed by state agencies at four levels of government (national, provincial, district and village), while individuals and organisations are not permitted to own natural forest, but may be able to lease such land. Foreigners do not qualify for land title in Laos but are eligible as foreign investors to lease degraded land or barren land from the state for agriculture and tree planting. Current legislation does not allow the allocation of concessions for commercial timber logging in natural forests. All intended timber harvesting in plantation and natural forests shall be included in the Annual Logging Plan approved by the National Assembly. The Annual Logging Plan is developed by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry based on applications provided by provincial offices of Agriculture and Forestry. Commercial timber harvest in natural forest is only permitted: a) To selectively cut timber in production forests in which inventory, survey and forest management planning have been conducted, and on the basis of a pre-logging survey (Article 23), or b) Conversion areas of forestlands for government-approved development projects (geological prospecting, mining, road and hydropower dam construction, establishment of agriculture plantations) on the basis of a complete and thorough pre-logging survey (Article 24) Commercial timber harvesting in natural forests shall be conducted in compliance with harvesting regulations under logging permits and logging contracts by special logging units that are officially established by approval of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry under administration of the agriculture and forestry authorities or are otherwise sub-contracted under supervision of government staff. Under the new Forestry Law, it is unclear whether non-government business can be registered as an enterprise for the purpose of logging in natural forests, as Article 134 of the Forestry Law states that businessmen cannot harvest or clear forestland ‘where is not allowed to do so by the agriculture and forestry sector’. All logging in natural forests must be undertaken with the approval, supervision and monitoring of government officials. The agriculture and forestry authorities are responsible for measuring and grading timber stacked on second log landing, and for making log lists. Timber harvested in natural forests is state property and shall be sold through a bidding process or negotiations with interested buyers so that the government can maximise revenue from this natural resource. Minimum costs (royalties) per cubic metre of timber bought from second log landing are set and updated periodically by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce according to species and grade. Beginning in the 2011/2012 logging season, the Lao government has not issued quotas on logging in production forest areas before a forest survey is undertaken and forest management plans are made. Thus, today, almost all permitted timber harvesting in Laos is conducted based on permits (quotas) for land clearances under government-approved development projects. Logging of plantation timber for commercial purposes may be conducted only where land-use rights have been granted, or forest-use zones for villages have been approved. Household use is permitted). Rights and other requirements, such as felling and registration are also prescribed under the new Forestry Law. Rights to establish a plantation can be granted under a concession or leased. Over 700,000 ha of concessions for rubber and eucalyptus plantations have already been granted; a government strategy set a target of 500,000 ha of tree plantations by 2020. According to official data, the cumulative plantation area reached 487,000 ha in 2015. At that time, rubber trees (Hevea brasiliensis for latex extraction) accounted for 61% of this area and Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp. for pulp and sawn wood) or Acacia for 15%. Of the remainder, 11% is teak (Tectona grandis), which is considered the most important species. In 2018, the Government directed the authorities to stop issuing new leases or concessions for the establishment of rubber plantations on government-owned lands. In 2019, Laos had a CPI of 29, indicating that the country has high corruption levels and a low degree of legal compliance. The issuing of PMO 15 (2016) and the funding and redirection of resource to it implementation was a clear demonstration of commitment to address existing shortfalls and provide time to establish more robust regulatory instruments as well as more effective enforcement and compliance responses. The GoL has developed legislation and policies that assign specific roles and responsibilities related to combatting forest based crime, including distinct authority to manage, monitor, investigate and enforce laws and regulations, to various ministries and departments, including Agriculture and Forestry (MAF), Natural Resources and Environment (MoNRE), Industry and Commerce (MOIC), Finance (MOF), Public Security (MOPS), Health (MOH), and the Ministry of Transport (MOT). Within these Ministries, individual departments, both at the national, provincial and district levels, have specific functions as defined in terms of reference. The roles of these departments are devolved to the provincial, district and village levels through the local administration. Agencies with a role in the enforcement of forest and wildlife crime include the Department of Forest Inspection (DoFI), the Environmental and Economic Police, the Anti-Corruption Agency, Customs, and the Armed Forces. The DoFI, established in 2008, falls under the MAF. It is the GoL’s lead agency for enforcement activities under the Forestry Law 2019, and the Wildlife and Aquatic Law 2007 No07/NA. Further to PMO15, the GoL has enacted important legal changes under the Criminal Procure Law in October 2018 (broadened and clarified authority to act for law enforcement agencies), instituted Prime Minister Order #5 and adopted a new Penal Code which enhanced penalties that includes provisions targeting transnational and organized criminal networks and the individuals who support them. The new Penal Code also address many previous inconsistencies and gaps under laws, including international agreements such as CITES and the objectives of the Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering (APG). This improved regulatory framework demonstrates the GoL’s commitment to protect its forests and wildlife resources and to meet its international obligations under CITES, the UN Convention Against Organized Crime, and the UN Convention Against Corruption. Donor organizations have also started to provide support to the Department of Forest Inspection (DoFI), Lao Wildlife Enforcement Network (Lao-WEN) and its partners. This support has resulted in the establishment of centralized investigation and enforcement systems to combat illegal forest-based trade. The GoL has operationalized a risk-based approach to law enforcement activities, referred to as the Strategic and Tactical Enforcement Patrol Program (STEPP), and is improving coordinated, multi-agency operational responses at a provincial, national or international level. However, these systems and processes are not, and practical experience is limited and disjointed. Despite these advances, forest management and law enforcement agencies, for the most part, still lack the expertise to fully implemented sustainable approaches, effectively monitor and investigate criminal networks and locate illegal forest products. They are also deficient in capacity to identify and properly distinguish certain products, especially at border crossings, and don’t have sufficient resources to undertake sustained enforcement actions. The following section provides further information on the hierarchy of laws and the interactions of various regulatory instruments and related authorities in Lao PDR and is designed to assist a reader in interpreting a particular instruments relationship in regard to other such instruments, whether higher, lower or similar. Hierarchy of Law The Lao PDR the hierarchy of Laws is implied in the Law on Making Legislation No 19/NA 2012 and consists includes the issuing of specific administrative instruments relevant to specific laws and responsible ministries, departments, organisations or individuals.
The general level of hierarchy is:
• The Constitution
• Laws
• Resolutions of the National Assembly
• Resolutions of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly
• Ordinances of the President of the Republic
• Decrees of the Government
• Resolutions of the Government
• Orders and Decisions of the Prime Minister
• Orders, Decisions and Instructions of the Minister and Head of a Government Authority
• Orders, Decisions and Instructions of the Provincial Governors and City Governors
• Orders, Decisions and Instructions of the District and Municipality Chiefs
• Village Regulations The Law on Making Legislation requires legislation be published in the Official Lao Gazette (https://laoofficialgazette.gov.la/) in order to be Effective (Article 80). This is the official source for all legally enforceable primary and subsidiary legislation of general application for Lao PDR at the national, provincial and capital levels. Districts / Municipalities and villages have the option to publish legislation on the Official Gazette and/or in other local media or post it in a way that people can access it easily. Note: The Lao PDR Trade Portal (https://www.laotradeportal.gov.la/) website provides information regarding importing/exporting goods into/from Lao, including information related to import/export process, regulations for specific products, and relevant laws. The Guide for Import-Export, on the right of this page provides a comprehensive set of information and guidelines in plain language, and the database is also designed for convenient search by topic. Importantly, Article 9. Contradiction of Legislation of the Law on Making Legislation states: “Legislation being developed shall be consistent with higher legislation.” Where a contradiction exists, legislation of the higher level shall be applied. If a contradiction of legislation at the same level exists, the later legislation shall be applied. If legislations at the same level contradict each other, the provisions of specific legislation shall prevail. However, contradictions may continue to exist after legislative changes and undermine the effectiveness of enforcement. The new 2017 Penal Code (Article 333) makes reference to CITES (“Any person importing, exporting, re-exporting, transhipping or transiting aquatic and wildlife including parts, organs and products of such aquatic and wildlife unlawfully with regulations relating to CITES, shall be punished by three months to five years of imprisonment and shall be fined not exceeding 10,000,000 Kip” as well as making it illegal to import, export, transport such items (Article 274, 282, 284 and 335). Authority Authority is defined under the Constitution, vested under laws, and codified under regulatory instruments issued via different administrative authorities. Administrative authority applies to those officials under direct responsibility chains. Under Article 5 of the Constitution, The National Assembly and other state organisations are established and function in accordance with the principle of democratic centralism: a term applied to policy defined by a ruling party. Importantly, Under the Constitution, Article 69, The government is the executive branch of the State. Under Article 73, the Prime Minister appoints senior government officials, including provincial Governors VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 88 / 100 in 2019. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Latvia for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Latvia.
52% (3.35 million ha) of Latvia is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 12.3 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 1.7 billion to the economy in 2011, or nearly 6.5% of the GDP.
Risk is present in Latvian timber supply chains. The risks relate to timber harvesting activities and trade and transport. If you are sourcing timber from Latvia you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Thank you for your interest in this Timber Legality Risk Assessment We are currently revising and updating this risk assessment, so it has been removed from the Sourcing Hub. We have removed it while we update it, because we have been made aware there can be important changes to the risk conclusions.
If you would like to discuss the Timber Legality Risk Assessment for Liberia, or you have questions about legality risks for Liberia, please contact: sourcinghub@preferredbynature.org. You can stay up to date with the Liberia risk assessment, and all other Preferred by Nature Sourcing Hub updates by subscribing to the newsletter here.
Liberia has 4.2 million ha of forest, covering 43% of its land area. This area has decreased at an average of 0.7% per year for the last 25 years. Primary or naturally regenerated forest comprises 99% of the total area, while the remainder is planted forest. All forests are owned by the state, except for those that belong to communities and those planted on private lands or deeded lands.
Most timber produced in Liberia is used domestically. Of the timber that is exported, most goes to China and small proportions go to other Asian countries and to Europe. Several legality risks are present in Liberia timber supply chains. The risks are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. I
f you are sourcing timber from Liberia you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 92 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Lithuania for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Lithuania.
34.8% (2.17 million ha) of Lithuania is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 6.4 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed USD 915.8 million to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 2.4% of the GDP.
Risk is present in Lithuanian timber supply chains. The risks relate to timber harvesting activities. If you are sourcing timber from Lithuania you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
As of 2018, Malaysia had 55% or 18.27 million ha of forest area, and from that 46% is situated in Peninsular Malaysia, 65% in Sabah and 62% in Sarawak (Malaysian Forestry Policy, 2021).
In Malaysia there are 3 geographical regions: Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak. The State governments of these three demarcations have jurisdiction over agriculture, land and soil conservation, rivers, water and forest resources. Forest Management-related issues are governed at the Federal level by two Ministries; the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment and the Ministry of Plantation Industries and Commodities.
In Peninsular Malaysia, the individual states have a fairly uniform set of laws and regulations for forest management; while Sabah and Sarawak are autonomous, and both have different laws and regulations. However, a common approach to forest management for the three regions was facilitated through the National Forestry Council (NFC). The NFC harmonised Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) policies and practices between Federal and State Governments. However, it must be noted that the National Forestry Council no longer exists and forestry matters are now incorporated into the meetings of the National Land Council. Generally, while forestry matters are managed by State governments, under the Constitution the Federal government can enact laws to harmonise and standardise State enactments. To this end, the National Forestry Act 1984 was formulated and later adopted by the individual States in Peninsular Malaysia.
Legally, land in Malaysia is divided into State land, Alienated land (for which private titles have been issued) and the Permanent Forest Estate (PFE which includes forest reserves, protected forests, National Parks/Wildlife & Bird Sanctuaries. All of these legal categories can include various types of forests including unlogged virgin forests, selectively logged forests, forests that have been cleared and regenerated naturally, and planted forests (including plantations of rubber, acacia and other exotic species).
Logging and land clearance/conversion is permitted on most State land and alienated land. Logging and land clearance is also permitted in those parts of the PFE that have been zoned for timber production, however the land must be replanted with timber species. No logging is permitted in those parts of the PFE that have been zoned for protection (including water catchment forests, national parks, wildlife reserves and bird sanctuaries). The state governments have the power to remove any area from the PFE should they wish to use the land for some other purpose.
On these land types, different use-permits and licenses can be issued, depending on the State. The main types are natural forest concession, plantations and agricultural use-permits:
In some cases, Malaysian law recognises the existence of native customary rights (NCR) over State land, alienated land and the PFE. In such cases, common law requires that the state get the consent of the holders of the native customary land rights. This is a grey area in the law and there remains significant ambiguities on the extent to which native customary land rights can be claimed. The majority of native customary land rights claims are not recognised by the state governments.
There are no specific restrictions in the statutes regulating the harvesting of timber on indigenous reserves or areas for where there are communal property rights. Consequently, the authorities manage such areas no differently from areas without such rights.
The forestry and timber agencies in Malaysia ('upstream') who issue harvesting permits, licenses and log transport documents are:
The licensing authorities issuing export and import licenses for timber products, as provided for under Schedule 2 of the Customs (Prohibition of Export) Order 2012 and (Prohibition of Import) Order 2012:
The Malaysian Timber Certification Scheme (MTCS) is a voluntary, PEFC-endorsed and state-supported third-party certification scheme for PRFs in Malaysia. It does not apply to State Land and Alienated Land.
In Sabah, the Sabah Timber Legality Assurance System (TLAS) is a third-party certification scheme made mandatory by Sabah state government for all timber licensees regardless of land type (PRF, State Land or Alienated Land) with annual audits taking place.
VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 17 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Mexico for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Mexico.
33.5 % (66.1 million ha) of Mexico is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 44.2 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed USD 7.0 billion to the economy in 2011, or nearly 0.6% of the GDP.
Several legality risks are present in Mexican timber supply chains. The risks relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities, third parties’ rights and trade and transport. Companies sourcing timber from Mexico should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in their supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 0 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Myanmar for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Myanmar. Forests cover approximately 48% of Myanmar (FAO 2015). Virtually all forests are public forests, apart from some village forests that have been granted to local communities. Myanmar’s wood production ranges from woodfuel to fine furniture. Around 98% of timber exports go to Asian countries.
Several legality risks are present in Myanmar timber supply chains. The risks are wide ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from Myanmar you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in New Zealand for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in New Zealand.
38% (10.1 million ha) of New Zealand is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled some 28.9 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 39.0 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 0.7% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated New Zealand as low risk for illegally harvested timber. If you are sourcing timber from New Zealand you should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in your supply chains. VIEW LESS
Nigeria is well endowed with forest resources but the excessive exploitation of these forest resources is a source of concern and threat to the economic, social and environmental importance. From 2002 to 2020, Nigeria lost 141kha of humid primary forest, making up 14% of its total tree cover loss in the same time period . Total area of humid primary forest in Nigeria decreased by 7.4% in this time period. An average annual deforestation rate of 3.5% occurred during that time – one of the highest rates of loss in the world. 99% of Nigeria’s forest cover is naturally regenerating forests, while plantations being only a small share of forest cover.
Forest ownership is split between two broad categories: public and private forests. Public forests are those owned by public organizations and include forest reserves and national parks. Forest reserves are mainly established by Nigeria’s states. While state forestry laws also allow the establishment of local government reserves to be owned by local governments and community reserves to be owned by communities, the general practice has been to establish forest reserves owned by states. In designating forest reserves, the state governments have recognised the roles of local governments and communities in forestry management, although these are subjected to the guidance and control of the State governments . Nigeria’s 13 national parks are managed by the Nigeria National Park Service (NNPS). Private forest owners include individuals, families, communities, private co-operatives, corporations and other business entities, private religious and educational institutions, pension or investment funds, NGOs, nature conservation associations and other private institutions.
It is estimated that the total forest area is 21 627 000 ha, while Forest reserves are 10,138,841 ha which is about 10.9% of the total land area of Nigeria.
It should be noted that forest within the forest reserves vary according to ecological classification, and forest reserves in the Savanna and Sahel regions have less timber resources than those in the lowland rain forest areas of southern Nigeria. Forest reserves are owned by the State Governments and managed the State Forestry Departments (SFDS) who have professional and technical staff. The reservation of land for forestry purposes was at its peak during colonial times. Efforts to increase the size of the reserves (forestry estate) since then have not been successful.
The bulk of the forestry products and services are obtained from the management of the forest reserves. Some of the major products include poles, sawn wood, veneer and fuelwood. However, these products are also obtainable from "Free Areas " of the country. Free Areas are forested areas that are not under strict management by the SFDs. However, permission to exploit trees from Free Areas still have to be obtained from SDFs. The total area in free forest areas in Nigeria is 12,14 million ha. Free Areas provide additional sources of forest products and services and considered to be very important for private forestry development. Some of the areas have been targeted as Potential Plantation Areas (PPAs).
Nigerian forests support a wide range of forest industries, including both the formal and informal sub-sectors. A vast majority of the Nigerian populace depend on these industries thus placing pressure on the forest resources of the nation. The formal sector is well-developed. It comprises mechanical wood industries, including sawmills, veneer and plywood manufactures, and particle board, paper, and paper board manufacturers. The informal forest sector is the country’s largest user of wood (most of which is burnt as fuel) and non-wood forest products. Forest industry is essentially controlled by the private sector in Nigeria.
Most of the sawmills have been fully depreciated, The major challenge facing the industry is that it lacks the capacity to process small diameter logs from forest plantations. Plantation wood will become more important as the large diameter trees become increasingly scarce. At present, the recovery rate of the sawmills is less than 53%.
Forest Management in Nigeria
Until recently, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (FMANR) played an important role in land use planning and forestry development through the Federal Department of Forestry. The Federal Department of Forestry is now a department of the Federal Ministry of Environment (FME) and under this arrangement, the FME operates through several Departments whose activities are coordinated at the National Council on Environment (NCE). The NCE is the highest environmental policy-formulating organ in the country and is chaired by the Honourable Minister of Environment. At Forestry level however, the National Forestry Development Committee (NFDC) is the highest organ and is responsible for policy initiation and co-ordination in the forestry sector of Nigeria
The Federal Constitution of 1954 gave forest management roles to the constituent regional governments; subsequently transferred to state governments upon their creation in 1967. A broader National Forest Policy was adopted in 1988 and encouraged states and local governments to develop their own forest laws and policies in the context. However, it was observed that most states and local government authorities (LGAs) failed to designate reserves
In 1899 the British colonial administration established the first Federal Department of Forest (FDF) to oversee forestry administration. However, the enactment of the Forestry Ordinance of 1938 led to the establishment of forest reserves by State governments, local governments and communities and provided the basis for sharing the management of existing forest reserves. The Federal Department of Forestry (FDF) was created in 1970 and co-ordinates forestry activities throughout the country. Its functions are to initiate and to formulate national forest policy and land use planning, foster forestry, and environmental development, promote and fund projects of national interest, co-ordinate and monitor State Forestry activities of Federal – foreign-funded projects and institutional development. To facilitate field operations under forest projects either by the Department or in collaboration with the State Forestry Services, a field office exists in all the 36 States.
The 1999 Constitution defines the roles of the three-tiers of government in the country but failed to assign forestry management to any tier of government. As forestry management is neither in the exclusive legislative list nor in the concurrent legislative list, the States have assumed the overriding power to legislate on forestry management as a residual matter. As a rule, the laws made by sub-regional governments must not conflict with Federal laws
In 1999, FDF was transferred from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (FMANR) to the Federal Ministry of Environment (FMoE) when it was created as a new Ministry. Today, although the Federal Government may not have forestry reserves, the roles for forestry management in the country are shared by the three-tier governments. These roles are examined briefly below.
Roles of Government and communities in Forestry Management
Federal Government: The Department of Forestry in the Federal Ministry of Environment has the mandate to formulate national policies on forestry, execute advice on State Forestry Departments (SFDs) on forestry management and is responsible for maintaining relationship with international development agencies. Its other functions include land-use planning; forestry development and environmental management; the formulation and funding of projects of national interest; the co-ordination and monitoring of forest activities arising from internationally funded projects; research, training and education; trade and industrial development; and institutional development. The Federal Government has no forest reserve but facilitates the administration of forest revenue in the eight (8) National Parks in the country.
State Governments: Since 1999, SFDs/ State Forestry Commissions became domiciled in the States’ Ministry of Environment but some are still under the State’s Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources (MANR) in States that are yet to establish their own Ministries of Environment as prescribed by the Federal Government. Regardless of their location, the roles of the SFDs include the enactment and implementation of forestry legislation, managing timber and wildlife resources and revenue collection from the forestry sector in their states. SFDs are faced with crippling financial resources to perform their functions. The challenge of funding and shortage of manpower prevents application of modern forestry management techniques. While southern states emphasize log harvesting; states in the north focus on establishment of tree plantation for firewood collection, environmental protection and livestock production.
Local Governments (LGAs): The National Forest Policy provides that Local Governments shall establish woodlots to protect watersheds and river courses; protect forests and farm trees in arable land against fire and illegal felling of trees; and protect wildlife against poaching. In the north and south regions, managing forest resources includes receipt of the revenues generated from forest produce. In the north, forest reserves are confined to Free Areas subject to supervision and control by the SFD and at times under the guidance and directives of the Chief Conservator of Forests for the state, who then takes responsibility for its proper protection, control and management.
Communities: The forestry laws also provide for the establishment of forests reserves for the communities, which must be held in trust for them by the state governments.
Nigeria is at present a wood deficit nation. In order to ameliorate the situation, the policy on forest resources management and sustainable use is aimed at achieving self-sufficiency in all aspects of forest production through the use of sound forest management techniques as well as the mobilization of human and material resources. The overall objectives of forest policy are to prevent further deforestation and to recreate forest cover, either for productive or for protective purposes, on already deforested fragile land. These policy objectives have been well enunciated and appear well meant and the means for achieving them have been well articulated. Indeed, one of the strategies for achieving the consolidation and expansion of the forest estate was the expansion of the forest estate from 10% to 20%. This so far has remained elusive. For the above policy or objectives to be achieved, significant legal and policy changes are needed.
Gaps and limitations in existing legal framework
Both federal and state laws have become outdated and cannot adequately address the development pressures such as alternative land uses, social change and increasing demand for forest products, including wood fuel. Even though the National Forest Policy is updated, the revised National Forest Act has not been developed yet.
A variety of deficiencies exists in the existing State laws and legislation. It will appear that there is need to review and modify existing forest laws as well as evolve new legislation to harmonise the overlapping responsibilities of the Federal and State Government, Local Councils and the various multi-purpose parastatals for forest resources.
Several legality risks are present in Nigeria's timber supply chains. The risks are wide-ranging and appear across all categories of law. If you are sourcing timber from Nigeria you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Norway for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Norway.
33.1% (12.1 million ha) of Norway is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 12 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 2.4 billion to the economy in 2011, or nearly 0.6% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Norway as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from Norway should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 3 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Papua New Guinea for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Papua New Guinea (PNG).
PNG has 33.6 million hectares of forested land, which covers 73% of the country (FAO, 2015). More than 90% of the forested area is primary or naturally regenerated forest, making it one of the most intact forest ecosystems in the world. The PNG forest industry produced about 5 million m3 logs in 2014, of which 74% was exported as roundwood (ITTO, 2015).
Illegal forestry practices are widespread in PNG and a key driver of deforestation. Available information (including independent reviews commissioned by the government, and surveyed views of private sector experts) suggests that the majority of timber production in PNG is illegal in some way (Lawson, 2014). Separate reports have estimated that 70% of the wood supply is affected by illegal logging (Seneca Creek Associates and Wood Resources International, 2004; World Bank, 2006; Hoare, 2015).
Several legality risks are present in PNG timber supply chains. The risks are wide ranging and relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities, risk that the implementation of harvesting regulation is lacking, third parties’ rights, and trade and transport. If you are sourcing timber from PNG you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 12 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Peru for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Peru.
The following percentages of the country are forested, making a total forest cover of about 56%:
Of the forests in Peru:
Legality risks in Peruvian timber supply chains are wide-ranging and relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities, third parties’ rights, and trade and transport.
Companies sourcing timber from Peru should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in their supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 91 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Poland for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Poland.
30.7% (9.43 million ha) of Poland is covered by forests, most of which is naturally-regenerated forest.
Roundwood production totalled 41.7 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 7.1 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 1.6% of the GDP.
Risk is present in Polish timber supply chains. The risks relate to taxes and fees, and trade and transport. If you are sourcing timber from Poland you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated.
Urgent update - Białowieża Forest
There is a current logging ban in the Browsk, Białowieża, and Hajnówka Forest Districts of Poland, as such, there currently no credible means of verifying low risk or mitigating the risk for materials sourced from this area.
On 13th July 2017, the European Commission (EC) called for immediate suspension of logging in Poland's Białowieża Forest (Browsk, Białowieża, and Hajnówka Forest Districts), referred Poland to the Court of Justice of the EU, and requested interim measures to stop logging operations in Białowieża Forest. According to the EC, the available evidence shows that these measures taken by Polish authorities are not compatible with the conservation objectives of the site and do not ensure the sustainable use of the forest.
On 28th July 2017, the European Court of Justice imposed an emergency ban on logging in Białowieża Forest. This effectively suspends the March 2016 decision of Polish Environment Minister Jan Szyszko, which allowed an increase of timber harvesting. This logging ban is effective until EU judges make a final ruling on the case.
Because there is no evidence to date that the logging ban is being, or will be, respected by the relevant forestry authorities, a precautionary approach must be applied. This means that the low risk conclusion legality in the National Risk Assessment for Poland cannot be currently confirmed in Browsk, Białowieża, and Hajnówka Forest Districts.
Considering the current ban on logging placed on the three districts, there is currently no credible means to confirm that the legal requirements at the Forest Management Unit level are met or the risk is effectively mitigated.
For FSC Controlled Wood, FSC has recommended that material from Browsk, Białowieża, and Hajnówka Forest Districts should not be sourced as controlled material, or sold as such with FSC Controlled Wood claims.FSC has requested that certification bodies inform their clients that there is currently increased risk that the controlled wood requirements for categories 1 and 3 are not met for wood harvested in this areas. FSC has recommended that material from Browsk, Białowieża, and Hajnówka Forest Districts should not be sourced as controlled material, or sold as such with FSC Controlled Wood claims. Depending on the decision by European Court of Justice, the risk assessment for category 1 (illegally harvested wood) as available on the FSC Document Centre may be formally revised by FSC to reflect the decision. Any formal changes to this assessment will be communicated accordingly. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 87 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Portugal for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Portugal.
34.8% (3.18 million ha) of Portugal is covered by forests of which: About 1% is primary forest About 71% is naturally-regenerated forest About 28% is planted forest. Roundwood production totalled 11.5 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$3.3 billion to the economy in 2011, or nearly 1.6% of the GDP.
Risk is present in Portuguese timber supply chains. The risks relate to timber harvesting. If you are sourcing timber from Portugal you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 39 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Romania for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Romania.
Forests cover about 30% of Romania (FAO, 2015). 65% of this is publicly owned, either at the national level (50%) or lower administrative level (15%), while the remainder (35%) is privately owned.
Several legality risks are present in Romanian timber supply chains, irrespective of whether they are publicly or privately owned. The contravention of applicable laws and regulations is widespread and relates to the abuse of harvesting rights, destructive harvesting practices and weak controls for timber transportation.
Independent assessments have estimated that timber harvested in Romania has a high risk of illegality (EIA, 2015). Companies sourcing timber from Romania should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in their supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Ban on trade in wood and wood-based products originating from Russia
25 February 2023
On 25 February 2023 the EU adopted its tenth package of sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine through the Council Regulation (EU) 2023/426 of 25 February 2023 amending Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine, prolonging the ban on custom codes for pulp, paper, wood products.
6 October 2022
As part of the 8th round of sanctions (6 October 2022), via Council Regulation (EU) 2022/1904 of 6 October 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine, the EU added additional pulp and paper customs codes to the list of prohibited products for import, as outlined in Annex XXI of the regulation. These include:
Prohibition of the new CN codes begins as of 7 October 2022, however it does not apply to contracts concluded before 7 October 2022, until 8 January 2023.
Russia enacted a ban on the export of certain goods outside the territory of the Russian Federation to a list of countries including the EU Member States. The ban covers four HS codes (4401 21, 4401 22, 4403 and 4408) and will be in force until 31st December 2022.
These products, imported from Russia, would be considered as illegal if placed on the EU market. A military conflict involving the Russian invasion of Ukraine has taken place with the support and collaboration of Belarus authorities.
08 April 2022
On 08 April 2022, the European Union approved a fifth round of sanctions against Russia, which includes specific product-import prohibitions. Wood-products are included as one of the products. The detail of the sanctions can be found in Council Regulation (EU) 2022/576 of 8 April 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine.
The list of wood-products to which the prohibition is applicable can be found in Annex XXI of the regulation, and includes the following EU Customs (CN) codes:
Chapter 44 is wide-ranging and includes customs codes for many wood-products, including round logs, sawn timber, biomass, plywood and composite boards, among others. 9403 is also a major customs code for many types of furniture. The scope of sanctioned products is similar to Annex 1 of the EUTR, although some customs codes in relation to pulp and paper products appear to be excluded. According to this regulation, it is prohibited to:
Additionally, the regulation (Article 3i, Paragraphs 2a/b) adds additional prohibitions to:
It is important to note that the prohibition on imports refers both to wood-products originating in, or exported from, Russia. Also, the prohibitions in paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply to contracts concluded before 9 April 2022, until 10 July 2022.
For wood-products excluded from sanctions, risk assessments for wood-products of Russian origin, should include consideration of the prevalence of armed conflict. Risk assessments should also take into account the possibility that individuals or entities which have been sanctioned by the EU, are owners or beneficiaries of forest-sector industries within the supply chain. The list of sanctioned individuals and entities is growing over time.
Recent statements from PEFC and FSC have stated that wood products sourced from Russia can be interpreted as conflict timber, or at least that this risk exists. PEFC categorizes timber from Russia as “conflict timber” while the FSC Controlled Wood Risk Assessment for Russia states that “…any forestry activities are inherently associated with violent armed conflict that threatens national and regional security…” and that there is a risk that “…Operators in the area under assessment are involved in conflict timber supply/trade”. Companies considering sourcing from Russia, may wish to consult the European Commission guidance on the prevalence of armed conflict and sanctions in Due Diligence Systems . FSC and PEFC-certified (or controlled) material will cease to be available from Russia.
Given the situation and challenges described above, the prevailing views expressed by several EUTR Competent Authorities is that it would be extremely arduous for operators sourcing timber/timber derived products from Russia, to carry out a full risk assessment of illegality or to mitigate the non-negligible risk.
Note on the EU export prohibition to Russia
Council Regulation (EU) 2022/576 also includes specific product-export prohibitions. Wood-products are included among the list of products subject to an export ban. This list can be found in Annex XXIII of the regulation, and includes selected customs codes from each of the following European (CN) Customs Code chapters:
Chapter 44 is wide-ranging and includes customs codes for many wood-products, including round logs, sawn timber, biomass, plywood and composite boards, among others. 9403 is also a major customs code for many types of furniture. This scope of products differs in some respects - and also extends beyond - Annex 1 of the EUTR.
According to this regulation, it is prohibited to:
Additionally, the regulation (Article 3k, Paragraphs 2a/b) adds additional prohibitions to:
The prohibitions in paragraphs 1 and 2 do not apply to contracts concluded before 9 April 2022, until 10 July 2022.
Guidance:
For companies based in the European Union:
According to the EU Timber Regulation, for products containing wood which are not covered by the EU prohibition on purchases or imports from Russia, due diligence needs to be applied on imports. Companies must assess risks in relation to the prevalence of armed conflict, including the risk that funds derived from harvesting/trade fuel the outbreak - or continuation - of violent conflict or other gross violations of international humanitarian law. Companies must also evaluate the risk of sanctioned individuals or entities being owners or beneficiaries of forest industries in their supply chains. However, Operators are advised to heed the following guidance:
For companies exporting to Russia:
For companies based outside of the European Union:
Timber Legalirt Risk Assessment for the European Part of Russia
The scope of the Risk Assessment includes the Central Federal District and the Northwestern Federal District of the Russian Federation.
The Central Federal District includes 18 constituent entities of the Russian Federation: Belgorod, Bryansk, Vladimir, Voronezh, Ivanovsk, Kaluga, Kostroma, Kursk, Lipetsk, Moscow, Oryol, Ryazan, Smolensk, Tambov, Tver, Tula, Yaroslavl regions and the city of Moscow.
The territory of the district is 650 205 km² or 3.8% of the territory of the Russian Federation. It is home to 39.43 million people (about 27% of the total population of the Russian Federation).
The Central Federal District is located on the East European Plain, in general, the territory of the district can be considered flat, the highest point is 347 m. The climate throughout the Central Federal District is moderately continental. The territory of the district is located in the zone of mixed and deciduous forests, steppe, and forest-steppe.
The Central Federal District accounts for about 8% of the Annual Allowable Cut (AAC) in Russia. The key activity of the timber sector of the Central Federal District is the production of high value added products: plywood, wood-based panels, furniture.
The Northwestern Federal District includes 11 constituent entities of the Russian Federation: Arkhangelsk, Vologda, Kaliningrad, Leningrad, Murmansk, Novgorod, Pskov regions, the Nenets Autonomous District, the Republic of Karelia, the Komi Republic, the city of St. Petersburg.
The territory of the district is 1 686 972 km² or 9.85% of the territory of the Russian Federation. The population of the district is 13.98 million people (9.53% of the population of Russia).
The district is located in the northern part of the East European Plain. A characteristic feature of the district's relief is a combination of flat areas with peaks in the western part and the northeast with heights of about 1000-1500 m.
The climate in the northern regions of the Northwestern Federal District is subarctic, in the southern ones it is temperate.
The territory of the district is located in the zone of mixed forests, taiga, forest-tundra, and tundra.
More than 17% of the AAC of Russia is concentrated in the Northwestern Federal District. The forestry complex of the Northwestern Federal District is represented by a full range of industries: logging, pulp, and paper industry, production of wood-based panels, and furniture.
Ownership and use of the forest resources
Forest areas within the lands of the Forest Estate are in state ownership. The concept of a forest is defined as an ecological system or as a natural resource, and, based on this, the use, guard, protection, reproduction of forests is carried out. A forest area is a land plot that is located within the boundaries of a Forest District and is formed in accordance with the requirements of land legislation and the Forest Code.
For forest areas within the lands of the Forest Estate, the following rights of its use are established:
Forest legislation regulates forest relations, and property relations related to the circulation of forest areas, forest stands, timber, and other harvested forest resources are regulated by civil legislation, as well as by the Land Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, property relations in the Forest Code of the Russian Federation are based on the concept of forest areas as land plots.
The rights to land, including the lands of the Forest Estate, are subject to state registration in accordance with the Federal Law on State Registration of Real Estate. The right to real estate (land plots) is entered into the Unified State Register of Real Estate.
The use of forests is carried out with or without the assignation of a forest area, with or without the establishment of an easement, a public easement, with or without the harvesting of forest resources. The Forest Code defines 16 types of forest use, for example, harvesting of timber, resin, harvesting and collecting non-timber forest resources, farming, hunting, carrying out religious activities, etc.
Forest management
The authorized federal executive authority is the Federal Forestry Agency (Rosleskhoz), which is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of the Russian Federation.
The Federal Forestry Agency carries out its activities directly, through its territorial bodies and subordinate organizations in cooperation with other federal executive authorities, executive authorities of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation, local self-government authorities, public associations, and other organizations.
The main territorial units of management in the field of use, guard, protection, reproduction of forests are Forest Districts, as well as Forest Subdistricts, which can be created as part of Forest Districts.
№
Level
Authority
1
Russian Federation
The Federal Forestry Agency
2
Federal district
The Forestry Department
3
Constituent Entity of the Russian Federation
The executive authority of a Constituent Entity of the Russian Federation in the field of forestry (for example, the Ministry of Forestry, Department, etc.)
4
Forest District
Authority of a Forest District
Forest legislation regulates the use, guard, protection, and regeneration of forests and afforestation (forest relations). In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the forest legislation of the Russian Federation is under the joint jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation. Forest legislation consists of the Forest Code, other federal laws, and laws of the Constituent Entities of the Russian Federation adopted in accordance with them. The main federal laws that are relevant to forests:
On the basis of and in pursuance of the Forest Code of the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation issued by-laws such as:
The planning of measures for the use, guard, and protection of forests is carried out for each Constituent Entity of the Russian Federation on the basis of a Forest Management Plan of a Constituent Entity (Forest Plan). On the basis of the Forest Management Plan of the Constituent Entity of the Russian Federation, a Forest District Management Plan is developed for each Forest District. On the basis of the Forest District Management Plan, Forest Concession Management Plans are developed for each leased forest area (concession).
Classification of forests
Forests located on the lands of the Forest Estate are divided into the following types:
Commercial forests are subject to development for sustainable, maximum efficient production of high-quality timber and other forest resources, products of their processing while ensuring the preservation of the useful functions of forests. In commercial forests, it is allowed to carry out all types of forest use provided for by the Forest Code.
Protective forests include forests that are of particular value, and in respect of which a special legal framework for the use, guard, protection, reproduction of forests is established. Protective forests are subject to development in order to preserve the environment-forming, water-protective, protective, sanitary-hygienic, recreational, and other useful functions of forests with the simultaneous use of forests for economic purposes, provided that this use is compatible with the intended purpose of the protective forests and the useful functions they perform. In protective forests, it is prohibited to carry out activities incompatible with their intended purpose and useful functions.
The following categories of protective forests are distinguished:
Reserve forests include forests in which timber harvesting is not planned for twenty years. It is allowed to use reserve forests without cutting forest stands. Cutting of forest stands in reserve forests is allowed after they have been assigned to commercial forests or protective forests, except for cases of felling of forest stands in reserve forests when performing work on a geological study of subsoil resources and wood harvesting by citizens for their own needs.
According to the Federal State Agency website for 2020, the share of protective forests in the Russian Federation is 24.9%, commercial – 51.9%, reserve – 23.2%.
How timber harvesting is regulated
Timber harvesting in forests is planned based on its intended purpose. In protective forests, harvesting is planned in order to preserve the environment-forming, water-protective, protective, sanitary-hygienic, recreational, and other useful functions of forests with the simultaneous use of forests, provided that this use is compatible with the intended purpose of protective forests and the useful functions they perform. In commercial forests – in order to meet the market demand for timber - the AAC of timber harvesting is established for each Forest District based on the availability of forests for different purposes, ages, species, geographical location, conditions of growing places.
Harvesting is planned in young stands, middle-aged stands (forest care), and felling of mature and over-mature stands. It is prohibited to harvest timber in an amount exceeding the size of the AAC. The purpose of planning is to achieve the optimal distribution of age groups of stands to ensure the uniform use of forest areas for a long-term period, to improve the species and quality composition of stands.
The AAC, alongside other target figures as part of the Forest District Management Plan of the Forest District, undergoes a state examination with the participation of interested parties and is approved by the executive authority of the constituent entity of the Russian Federation for 10 years.
The planning of the volumes of timber harvesting in forest areas assigned for long-term use for timber harvesting is also carried out. The sum of the volumes to be harvested under long-term use shall not exceed the AAC for the region.
Authority of a Forest District controls the assignment (allotment) of forest areas to felling for compliance with planning documents for the location, area, and volume of timber. After felling, users report on the harvested volumes of timber, each site where harvesting was carried out is inspected by the Authority of a Forest District for compliance with planning documents and regulatory requirements. All information about the volumes of allocated (planned for felling), harvested timber is placed in the Unified State Automated Information System (EGAIS), the operator of which is The Federal Forestry Agency.
Changes in the Russian legal framework
The legal framework covering forestry are currently being updated and the process is expected to continue over the next couple of years. This means that legal requirements are expected to change. This risk assessment has covered legislation up until February 2021. Some minor changes have occurred between February-October 2021, but the risk conclusions of this report are to our knowledge accurate as of the date of publication.
One significant current change concerns timber accounting and transactions. Until July 2021, companies and individual entrepreneurs created accompanying transport documents and reports on the forest use in the Unified State Automated Information System for Timber Accounting and Associated Transactions (EGAIS) (https://lesegais.ru/). It should be noted that from July 2021 to January 2023, some of documents must be submitted electronically through the State Services Portal or EGAIS. This applies to forest declarations, reports on the use and protection of forests from fires. Currently, companies and individual entrepreneurs have the right to prepare and submit most of the documents on paper. In the future, this possibility will be excluded (please see a link to the Federal Law of 04.02.2021 N 3-FZ below).
New regulations will also affect the storage and processing of wood. From July 2021 to January 2023, storage of wood after its removal from the cutting area, as a general rule, will be allowed only in warehouses, information about which was entered into the EGAIS. Processing will be possible only at the facilities specified in this system.
At the time of risk assessment, there is no practice of law enforcement for the newly introduced requirements.
Sources relevant to the introduction
Timber Risk Score: 88 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Slovakia for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Slovakia.
40% (1.94 million ha) of Slovakia is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 9 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 2.0 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 2.4% of the GDP.
Risk is present in Slovakian timber supply chains. The risks relate to legal rights to harvest, taxes and fees and timber harvesting activities. If you are sourcing timber from Slovakia you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in their your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 21 / 100 in 2018. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment for Solomon Islands contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Solomon Islands for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
A draft of the Timber Legality Risk Assessment for Solomon Islands was published for stakeholder consultation in July 2018. The purpose of the publication of the draft was to encourage stakeholders to provide feedback on its contents to improve the veracity of the findings. Preferred by Nature process for developing Risk Assessments can be found in the Preferred by Nature Risk Assessment Development Procedure.
During the development of the Risk Assessment for Solomon Islands, Preferred by Nature consulted with a number of experts in Solomon Islands, who's input and feedback was incorporated into the draft. Preferred by Nature did not recieve any feedback on the draft published in July 2018. As such, the Timber Legality Risk Assessment currently available on the Preferred by Nature Sourcing Hub is still considered a draft, and will be revised and finalised when further funding can be secured to carry out in-country stakeholder consultation.
Solomon Islands has a total land area of about 2.8 million hectares. About 87% of the land in Solomon Islands is under customary land tenure, with the Constitution guaranteeing customary control over the land and forests; i.e. with rights and ownership outside of government and formal legal systems. The majority of customary land titles are unregistered, meaning that there has been no formal survey and registering of boundaries or other characteristics. Solomon Islands has among the highest percentage of forest cover in the Pacific region. In 2015 the FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment estimated Solomon Island’s total forest cover to be around 78% (just under 2.2 million ha). However, other assessments have found that this figure is more likely to be around 76%, due to extensive logging in recent years (Pauku, 2009).
The area of planted forest is estimated to cover about 27,000 ha (FAO, 2015). Plantation forestry can be split into two main groupings:
Since the 1990s, round logs have been the most valuable export commodity for Solomon Islands (Allen 2011), with logging revenue contributing around 70% of export income (compared with 50% in 1994) and more than 15% of government revenue (CBSI, 2012).
Since the 1980s, the forest sector in Solomon Islands has been characterised by collusion between foreign logging companies and local politicians, systemic corruption and poor monitoring and enforcement (Allen 2011). A key causal factor behind this problem is the lack of alternative revenue sources for national and provincial governments, as well as for local communities. Numerous efforts to reform the flawed processes for allocating timber rights under the Forest Resources and Timber Utilisation Act in order to restrict the potential for local-level corruption in the grant of timber rights have all failed. Both the government and landowners have been deprived of revenues from the logging industry as a result of corruption and the inequitable distribution of revenues under logging contracts.
According to Transparency International, the Solomon Islands - as a developing small island state recovering from a period of political instability and civil unrest - faces several corruption challenges fuelled by: the size of the country and its geographic spread, low state penetration of the regions and weak central institutions (Transparency International 2017). In addition, it faces specific governance challenges associated with the under-resourced management of natural resources including, for example, the influence and perpetration of large-scale corruption by international logging companies (Transparency International 2017). VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in South Africa for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in South Africa.
8% (9.2 million ha) of South Africa is covered by forests, of which:
Roundwood production totalled 25.5 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$3.7 billion to the economy in 2011, which was about 1% of its GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated South Africa as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from Austria should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2022. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Spain for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
36% (18.4 million ha) of Spain is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 16.7 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 9.6 billion to the economy in 2011, or nearly 0.7% of the GDP.
Risk is present in Spanish timber supply chains. The risks relate to legal rights to harvest and taxes and fees, and trade and transport. Companies sourcing timber from Spain should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in their supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Sweden for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to Timber produced in Sweden.
68.7% (28 million ha) of Sweden is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 74.3 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 13.0 billion to the economy in 2011, or nearly 3.0% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Sweden as low risk for illegally harvested timber. If you are sourcing timber from Sweden you should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in your supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Switzerland for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Switzerland.
31.6% (1.25 million ha) of Switzerland is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 4.2 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 5.2 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 0.8% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated Switzerland as low risk for illegally harvested timber. If you are sourcing timber from Switzerland you should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in your supply chains. VIEW LESS
Our Timber Legality Risk Assessment for Thailand from 2017 forms the basis of our information available for Thailand. However, in collaboration with local forest legality experts we have identified changes in applicable legislation and updated the list of legality risks related to harvesting, trade and transport in Thailand to reflect the situation in the country as of 2021. These updates have been captured in our new toolkit for Thailand. which incude a List of Applicable legislation, Risk Mitigation Guide and a Document Guide. This country page for Thailand has been updated to reflect the newest changes captured in our toolkit.
Timber Risk Score: 28 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Thailand for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Thailand.
Thailand has approximately 16.4 million hectares of forested land, covering almost one third of the country, of which:
Thailand is a major exporter of wooden furniture, sawn timber, and paper, among other timber-based products. In 2012, 18 million m3 RWE, worth $4 billion, were exported. Most of the timber that supplies the processing industry either comes from domestic plantations (approx. 8.7 million m3) or is imported (approx. 10 million m3), mainly from Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar (Lawson, 2014).
Several legality risks are present in Thai timber supply chains. The risks are wide ranging and relate to legal rights to harvest, timber harvesting activities, and trade and transport. If you are sourcing timber from Thailand you should take care to ensure the extensive risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 43 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in Turkey for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in Turkey.
Around 15% (11.6 million ha) of Turkey is covered by forests, of which
Roundwood production totalled 24.6 million m3 in 2015, and the forestry sector contributed US$ 5.6 billion to the country’s economy in 2011, which is about 0.8% of its GDP.
Several legality risks are present in timber supply chains from Turkey. The risks relate to legal rights to harvest, timber harvesting activities and third parties’ rights. If you are sourcing timber from Turkey you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
A military conflict involving the Russian invasion of Ukraine has taken place with the support and collaboration of Belarus authorities.
A trade ban implemented by the Council of the EU on products from Crimea or Sevastopol due to the annexation of this part of Ukraine has existed since 2014. See Council Regulation (EU) No 692/2014 of 23 June 2014. Imports into the European Union of goods originating in the non-Ukraine controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts are also prohibited in line with Council Regulation (EU) 2022/263 of 23 February 2022.
Based on European Commission guidance on the prevalence of armed conflict and sanctions in Due Diligence Systems there is a risk that products sourced from some parts of Ukraine can be considered high-risk for legal non-compliance, due to the ‘prevalence of armed conflict’ in parts of the country. In these areas, it could be concluded that a de-facto lack of law enforcement in the forest sector may exist due to the armed conflict.
This guidance is mirrored in decisions made by important forest certification schemes:
Similarly, the summary record of the Ninth Meeting of the Multi-Stakeholder Platform on Protecting and Restoring the World’s Forests, including the EUTR/FLEGT (29April22) concluded the following guidance in relation to areas not subject to the prohibitions described above:
It is not possible to legally import wood-products from Crimea or Sevastopol, nor from the non-Ukraine controlled areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Preferred by Nature recommends that companies carefully monitor the situation, and exercise additional caution in their due diligence process, if timber is being sourced from the remainder of Ukraine. According to the EU Timber Regulation, due diligence needs to be applied on imports from Ukraine. Companies must assess risks in relation to armed conflict in zones where a de-facto lack of law enforcement in the forest sector may exist due to the armed conflict:
Carefully monitor the situation, and exercise additional caution in their due diligence process, if timber is being sourced from Ukraine.
Country overview
Ukraine has around 9.7 million hectares of forest land (FAO, 2020), representing 16.7% of the total land area. Only 60 thousand hectares (0.6%) are primary forests, 4.7 (49%) million hectares of otherwise naturally regenerated forest, and over 50%, 4.9 million hectares are planted forest. The Nature Reserve Fund (NRF) area covers 16.6% of the forests managed by SFRA. For forests managed by other entities, there are no summarized data at the national level. The protected forests of the SFRA (NRF objects) occupy one-third (33%) of the whole state Nature Reserve Fund (including other types of land, e.g., pasture).
Most forests (nearly 87 %) are state-owned, while 13% of forestry land plots are attributed to communal and private property. State Forest Resources Agency of Ukraine (SFRA) and other central government bodies manage the state-owned forest.
Part of the wood (not less than 25% of the monthly planned volumes of harvested wood) must be displayed on the electronic trading system Prozorrо. The pilot project provides an opportunity for FME to choose some from more than 40 electronic platforms to sell wood. A draft Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers was developed, which continued the experimental project but extended to 100% of the planned timber harvest. The decision has already been approved. There is no procedure for implementing the law, and it is not enforced yet.
State-owned and managed by SFRA
SFRA has 272 Forest Management Enterprises (FMEs) and manages 73% of Ukrainian forest. FMEs belonging to SFRA are responsible for the most significant part of the wood sold at the market (80-90%). FMEs from this category are under coordination of Regional Directorates for Forestry and Game Management which serve as the Agency’s regional bodies.
The main tasks of the State Forest Resource Agency are in coordination and support of the FMEs in:
State-owned and managed by other entities
State forest managed by other central government bodies includes forest belonging to the Ministry of Defence (12 FMEs) – the biggest group in this category, and forest belonging to several other agencies. The number of FMEs belonging to other agencies cannot be estimated, as there is no official statistic.
Auction system
From February 1, 2020, forests that are state-owned and managed by SFRA, as well as the FMEs which belongs to different ministries, are obliged to sell raw wood through electronic auctions, as well as to use an electronic timber accounting system, which will allow tracking the movement of available resources, i.e., purchase and sale. The pilot project provides an opportunity for all state-owned FMEs to choose electronic sites to sell wood. Part of the timber must be displayed on the Prozorro electronic trading system (no less than 25% of the monthly planned volumes of raw timber harvesting). Thus, a woodlot must be formed of wood of one assortment, in volume not less than 150 cubic meters or at the starting price of a lot no less than 200 thousand hryvnias. The FMEs can display all other volumes of wood on any other e-sites. Electronic auctions do not apply to the sale of wood in the following cases: for the population for heating; for the needs of individual construction and repair of buildings (for individuals); to meet the needs of budgetary institutions to meet the needs of national security and defence, overcoming the consequences of emergencies, natural disasters, following the Law of Ukraine "On Public Procurement," the use of which is provided by collective agreements of permanent forest users.
Communal forests
The actual owners of communal forests in Ukraine are local communities. In some provinces (oblasts), the management was united at the highest level - in communal enterprises, the founders of district and oblast councils. The number of FMEs belonging to local communities cannot be estimated, as there is no official statistic.
The existing communal forestry enterprises were established during 2000-2001, implementing the land reform (revised Land Code), legislation allowing local authorities to take in property forest areas from their territory that does not belong to other agencies.
The fragmentation of communal forests and the low economic value of many of them remain negative factors for managing these forests. Compared to state forest enterprises, forest use and protection efficiency is much lower, caused by several legal, managerial, and economic problems. Most utilities and manage forests inefficiently and with numerous violations of the law, resulting in deterioration of the ecological functions of communal forests and a lack of income for local communities (EPL 2020).
Communal FMEs are also obliged to sell raw wood through electronic auctions and implement an electronic timber accounting system, which will allow tracking the movement of available resources, i.e., purchase and sale.
Private forest
The share of forests in private property is less than 0.1% of the total forest area.
Typically, small-scaled private forests are not managed for commercial harvesting but used for recreational purposes. As exclusion, just the only FME could be mentioned - Kovel Specialized Forestry Private Joint-Stock Company "Tour" with the forest fund area 32.4 thousand hectares and 198 full-time employees. It has developed FMP and provides all forestry, hunting, and wood-processing activities according to the same rules as communal FMEs.
Agricultural land
Agricultural lands that have not been used for their intended purpose due to unattractive investment, lack of funds or other reasons are undergoing a process of self-afforestation. In Ukraine, there is no inventory of self-afforested areas on agricultural land. Still, according to the Land Directory of Ukraine, out of 41.4 million hectares of agricultural land, 2.9 million hectares are not cultivated (7%) (Land directory, 2020). Also, the self-afforestation of agricultural lands of state, communal and private property can be traced on orthophotos of the Public Cadastral Map of Ukraine.
There is a contradictory situation: according to Article 211 of the Land Code of Ukraine - non-use of land for its intended purpose is a violation of current land legislation, and according to the Forest Code of Ukraine, "all forests in Ukraine, regardless of which categories of land regardless of ownership, they constitute the forest fund of Ukraine and are under state protection.” Although legally, "self-seeding forest" does not correspond to the concept of "forest."
In Ukraine, work has begun to establish a legal foundation for regulating trees growing outside forest land. In particular, the Draft State Forest Management Strategy of Ukraine until 2035 states the following: "new private forests can be created only by granting the status of forest lands to existing self-seeding forests" (Ministry of Environment, 2021). Also, from July 24, 2021, in Ukraine, the type of purpose of the land use will be determined within the territory's relevant type of functional purpose, provided by a comprehensive plan of the spatial development of the territorial community or the master plan of the settlement. Thus, forests that grow on agricultural land can become forests in the legal sense.
Control agencies
The enforcement of legislation, regardless of the ownership at the level of forest management enterprise, is checked by the State Environmental Agency and State Service of Ukraine on the Work Issues.
State Environmental Agency
The Ministry of Environment Protection and Natural Resources of Ukraine is responsible for conducting Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and providing a conclusion (decision). Also, the Ministry of Environment Protection considers the establishment of new Nature Reserve funds (NRFs) objects in forests in case of its national importance, and Regional Departments on Environmental Protection - in case of the NRF objects of local importance.
Ecological Inspectorate periodically controls the fulfillment of the environmental requirements by the FMEs, including harvesting areas. Also, Ecological Inspectorate checks the availability of the EIA during the state control and if information from EIA complies with field observation.
State Service of Ukraine on Work Issues
State Service of Ukraine on the Work Issues regional departments take responsibility for controlling occupational safety and health regulations and legal employment.
The training on health and safety responsibilities for FMEs as well as for any other business entities is carried out by the State Enterprise "Main Training and Methodological Center of the State Service on Work Issues" as well as more than 40 other specialized organizations listed here: http://reg.asgop.com.ua
Critics of forest legislation
At this point, the forest legislation in Ukraine is quite complex. There are cases when legislation is unclear or in contradiction with other legislation. As it was agreed by the participants of the round table organized by the FSC on the problems of crisis in the forest sector (Note 2020), “bureaucratized, formalized and lengthy process and style of environmental impact assessment following the current legislation of Ukraine increases enterprise production costs, encourages loopholes in legislation and increases corruption risks. There is an urgent need to resolve this issue.”
Corruption in Ukraine
According to numerous sources (EUACI, 2018, NAPC, 2021), the risk of corruption is mentioned at different levels. The corruption perception index scores Ukraine with 33 out of 100, representing 117 out of 180 countries (CPI, 2020). This scope increased by 3 points from 2019-2020 and 7 points since 2012. The CPI can show the actual changes across the country rather slowly — sometimes, it takes several years. The score of 2020 indicates the positive development that has occurred in Ukraine in the last years, especially until the spring of 2020. It does not consider the events that have finally “completed the chain” of creating the anti-corruption infrastructure in Ukraine, namely launching the High Anti-Corruption Court with the appropriate jurisdiction and restart of the National Agency on Corruption Prevention.
Simultaneously, numerous publications (Earthsight 2018, Earthsight 2020, WWF 2020) provide countless detailed allegations of grand and petty corruption throughout all supply chain stages and affect various state institutions and private financial institutions. Numerous cases have been through the courts or are pending. There have also been numerous criminal prosecutions. The report concludes that corruption can happen at all levels of the supply chain and in all possible modes.
It is well known that grand corruption and corruption, in general, is quite impossible to identify if it is happening in a specific supply chain. Despite that, in case of clear evidence that corruption practices are linked with one company, it is recommended to take adequate measures. For instances where corruption practices cannot relate to a specific company, the mitigation options shall ensure that activities align with legislation requirements instead of proving that corruption is not happening. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2017. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in United Kingdom for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in the United Kingdom.
13% (3.14 million ha) of the UK is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 10.5 million m3 in 2015 The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed US$ 9.5 billion to the economy in 2011, or nearly 0.4% of the GDP.
Preferred by Nature has evaluated the UK as low risk for illegally harvested timber. Companies sourcing timber from the UK should still take care to ensure that risks are not present in their supply chains. VIEW LESS
Timber Risk Score: 100 / 100 in 2019. The Timber Legality Risk Assessment for the United States contains an evaluation of the risk of illegality in the United States for five categories and 21 sub-categories of law. We found:
This page provides an overview of the legality risks related to timber produced in the United States.
33.8% (309.8 million ha) of the United States is covered by forests of which:
Roundwood production totalled 413 million m3 in 2015. The forestry sector (including wood processing and pulp and paper) contributed USD 95.0 billion to the economy in 2011, which was nearly 0.6% of the GDP.
Risk may be present in US timber supply chains. The risks may relate to timber harvesting activities and trade and transport. If you are sourcing from the US you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains, or have been sufficiently mitigated. VIEW LESS
The forestry sector in Viet Nam contributed USD 12.5 billion to the economy in 2020. The forest sector is growing as Viet Nam becomes a major international manufacturing country.
Forest classification types
The 2013 Land Law classifies forest land as a type of agricultural land. Forests (including natural forests and planted forests) are divided into three main types based on the primary purpose of use:
According to the statistical data from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2020, the areas of each type of forest as of 2020 are as below:
Forest ownership and use rights
The Law on Forestry (2017) has institutionalized the concept of forest ownership (Article 7); accordingly, two categories of forest ownership are defined:
Besides, the new Law on Forestry (2017) defines "forest owner" as either an organization or a household, an individual or a local community to whom the State allocates or leases forest/ land for afforestation, restoration, development of forest by their own, who is transferred, donated, inherits a forest following legal provisions. There are 7 types of forest owners:
Forest owners can use forests allocated or leased to them and own planted production forests recognized by competent state agencies. Forest owners are responsible for managing, protecting, developing, the sustainable use of forests; and fulfilling financial and other obligations according to the law.
As of 2020, of the country's 14,677,215 ha of forests, natural forests account for about 70%, with the rest being planted forests, mostly for timber.
20% of the forests are managed by Communal People's Committees (CPCs). At the same time, the remaining forest have been allocated to groups such as forest management boards (35.5%), households/individuals (21.8%), economic organizations (except foreign-invested enterprises) (11.7%), village communities (8%), forestry-related science and technology, training and vocational education organizations (1.6%), armed units (1.3%) and foreign-invested enterprises (0.15 percent). This means that the private institutions of households and communities currently manage only just over 29 percent of forests, with the rest being dominated by state organizations.
Forest governance
Forest administrative management in Viet Nam is highly centralized. The Viet Nam constitution provides the fundamental and the highest-level law of the land. The government and the National Assembly issue all laws and policies. Currently, the forest management is governed by the Law on Forestry of Viet Nam, which was issued in 2017 and came into force on 1 January 2019, replacing the 2004 Forest Protection and Development Law (FPDL) . The new forestry law aims to improve forest governance, clarify the rights and responsibilities of different forest owners, provide for more extensive ownership for forest investors, and safeguard the rights of local communities to their spiritual or sacred forests. It will formalize the Payment for Forest Environmental Services (PFES) system policies and sustainable forest management and certification and restructure state management in the forestry sector.
Under the Law on Forestry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) is the focal point in performing the state management of forestry. Currently, the Viet Nam Administration of Forestry (VNFOREST) is the agency under MARD, advising and assisting MARD in state management tasks on forestry and managing and instructing public service activities under their management scope. MARD works closely with other ministries, including the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MONRE), the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of National Defence in forest management and protection, and preventing and combating illegal activities about forestry. There is also a hierarchical system from the central to the provincial, district, and communal levels to guide and oversee the implementation and compliance of the legislation.
Deforestation
Deforestation in Viet Nam is largely driven by infrastructure improvements to support a rapidly developing economy and to make room for agricultural cultivation to support rural communities, which make up 65.6% of the population. Viet Nam had a total loss of 9.3% (625,810 ha) of the primary forest between 2001-2018. The total loss of primary forest was approximately 28,632ha/year between 2001 and 2010 and 46,014ha/year between 2011 and 2018 . Further underlying causes are poor governance, lack of tenure rights for local communities, ineffective enforcement of laws, and increasing market demand for crops and monoculture products .
The Viet Nam Government has been imposing a partial logging ban in natural forests since 1993. The logging ban aims to minimize forest degradation and prevent the conversion of natural forest land to other uses. Although there have been different stages and methods of implementation so far, the logging ban is still in force and has been institutionalized in the new Law on Forestry. In 2016, the Prime Minister extended the ban to include FSC-certified forests in the Central Highlands, a deforestation hotspot. On January 12th, 2017, the Party Central Committee issued Directive No. 13-CT/TW on strengthening the leadership of the Party at all levels in forest management, protection, and development. In this Directive, emphasis is given to the restriction of forest conversion (except those projects that serve either national defense and security or other special purposes decided by the Government); the logging ban on the country's natural forest is active.
Despite the logging ban in natural forests, there have been thousands of reported cases of rampant illegal logging, especially in the Central Highlands and even in national parks . This is mainly due to ineffective law enforcement and weak monitoring systems.
Corruption and governance
According to Transparency International's 2020 Corruption Perceptions Index, which measures perceived levels of public sector corruption in countries around the world using a score of 0–100 (where 0 is highly corrupt and 100 is very clean), Viet Nam is ranked 104th out of 180 countries assessed. It scored a corruption index of 36, meaning it has a high perception of corruption . Viet Nam has performed consistently poorly on Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index, although there has been some improvement given Viet Nam ranked 123 out of 176 countries in 2012.
Given a high perception of corruption and middle-low overall governance according to the World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI), the risk of corruption on the forest sector is high, especially in the payment of forest environmental services (PFES), logging and conversion of forest use and forest land.
Corruption in forestry takes different forms: the participation and benefits from illegal timber logging and trading of state officials or the conversion of forest land usage to create personal benefits. Although Viet Nam has the legal framework and tools to control corruption, the lack of a monitoring system and transparent management tools for related forest resources leaves room for corruption. This also leads to most forestry-related complaints are about conflicts in land-use rights.
Illegal logging
Illegal logging and trade in illegal timber is a serious problem in Viet Nam and several legality risks are present in Vietnamese timber supply chains. It has been estimated that 30,000-50,000 forest violations are reported per year, and the volume of high-risk imports in 2013 was estimated to be 2.3 million m3 (18% of the country’s wood-based imports) (Chatham House, 2014). Risks of illegal timber produced in Viet Nam are wide-ranging and relate to land tenure, taxes and fees, timber harvesting activities, and trade and transport. If you are sourcing timber from Viet Nam you should take care to ensure the risks identified are not present in your supply chains or have been sufficiently mitigated.
Timber harvest and imports
Wood sourced from Viet Nam forests mostly originates from plantations. According to MARD (2019), the Viet Nam "mass" plantation forests (i.e., not including scattered trees) produced about 16 million m3 of logs in 2019, which is mainly used for processing by the domestic industry. Species most used in forest plantations are Acacia (Acacia spp.), Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.) , and rubber. Viet Nam imported more than 448 species of timber from over 100 countries and territories in 2020. In 2020, Viet Nam's wood processing industry imported round wood and sawn wood equivalent to nearly 5 million cubic meters.
Rubberwood in Viet Nam
Rubberwood is a major source of timber in Viet Nam. The amount of domestic rubberwood in Viet Nam meets more than 95% of the demand for rubberwood materials and about 6% - 14% of the total demand for timber from plantations in Viet Nam. Rubberwood also contributed up to 22% of total timber and timber products exports from Viet Nam in 2019. The rubber tree in Viet Nam is classified as a multi-purpose plant grown on forest land and other agricultural land. In 2019, the total rubber plantation area was approximately 941.3 thousand ha, 23.7% of which is on forest land, and the rest 76.3% is on another agricultural land.
Domestically harvested rubberwood originates from four producers: the state-owned Viet Nam Rubber Group (VRG); enterprises managed by Provincial People's Committee (PPC); households; and private companies. Among those, households (approximately 284 thousand households) are managing about 479.6 thousand ha of rubber plantations. In contrast, the other 461.7 thousand ha are managed by organizations (state-owned enterprises, private enterprises, and foreign direct investment (FDI) enterprises). The largest area of rubber plantations is managed by VRG (290,500 ha in 2019) and other state-owned enterprises (80.8 thousand ha in 2019). Private and FDI enterprises are managing the other 90.4 thousand ha of rubber plantations.
From 2016 to 2020, the annually harvested rubberwood was around 4.84 million m3 per year, and households contributed 28.2% to the total harvest. It is estimated that the annual supply of rubberwood for the period 2021-2025 will be 3.54 million m3 per year, based on the age of rubber plantations in the whole country. Regarding the legality of rubberwood, Viet Nam has no formal guidance in ensuring the legality of rubberwood. However, it is expected that the transportation, processing, and import/export of rubberwood/rubberwood products must comply with the same regulations relevant to other kinds of plantation timber. Rubber trees can be planted on either agricultural land or forest land (both are classified as a type of agricultural land), only the areas of plantation on forest land are required to comply with relevant legal requirements on forestry. VIEW LESS