The “Assessment of lawful harvesting and sustainability of US hardwood exports” evaluates the risk of US hardwood products from illegally sourced timber being included in the mix of US exports.
It also assesses the risk of US hardwood products falling within one of five categories of wood that should be avoided according to the FSC Controlled Wood standard that applies to the non-certified portion of FSC “mixed” products.
These categories are: illegally harvested wood; wood harvested in violation of traditional or civil rights; wood harvested in forests where high conservation values are threatened by management activities; wood harvested in forests being converted to plantations or non-forest use; and wood harvested from forests where genetically modified trees are planted.
The report was prepared by independent consultants Seneca Creek Associates with a team comprising well-regarded and independent analysts and experts in the field of US forest policy and forest certification.
The report concludes that the weight of evidence strongly indicates that there is very low risk that US hardwood exports contain wood from illegal sources. It notes that, while timber theft occurs and is of concern to private landowners, it is not a pervasive or systemic problem. It is estimated that stolen timber represents less than 1% of total US hardwood production. The report concludes that there can be high confidence regarding adherence to national and state laws in the hardwood sector.
The authors also have a high confidence that hardwood procured from the US could be considered low risk in all five risk categories of the FSC Controlled Wood standard. Furthermore, they suggest that, while efficiencies and effectiveness can be improved, state programmes are responsive in promoting and ensuring sustainable forest practices. When considered in their totality, national and state forest programmes contribute to ensuring sustainable and legal hardwood supplies.
Qualifying evidence
The authors compiled comprehensive information on federal and state programmes, both regulatory and non-regulatory, that describe the frameworks and effectiveness of programmes that relate to timber theft and sustainable forest management. They suggest that this evidence should qualify under the Central Point of Expertise (CPET) Category “B” criteria as evidence from “programmes and initiatives other than recognised certification schemes”. Also, the authors are very confident that there is a very low risk that US hardwoods are produced from controversial sources as defined in the chain of custody standard of the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) schemes.
The authors suggest that, given the safety net of effective national and state regulations and programmes that address unlawful conduct and faulty forest practices, the need for traceability, independent chain of custody and/or controlled wood certification to demonstrate legality should not be crucial for US sourcing of hardwood products.
The report includes a series of recommendations for the US hardwood industry designed to enhance the level of transparency and environmental credentials of its products.
The report recommends that AHEC develops a wood procurement policy for its members to further assure that hardwood supplies derive from legal sources. Furthermore, it is recommended that AHEC supports a policy that requires exported wood shipments to include a clear indication of the country of origin (ie the US, unless the product is a re-export) and, if practical, the state or region in the US where the timber was produced.
There are also recommendations for AHEC and AHEC member companies to participate in public and private sector initiatives at the state and local level designed to address timber theft and other sustainable forestry challenges.
