It is seven years since the government made a commitment that its central departments and their executive agencies would seek to purchase their timber and timber products from legal and sustainable sources, giving preference to sustainability.

During that time much has been achieved and the establishment of CPET (the government’s Central Point of Expertise on Timber) has enabled suppliers to source legal and sustainable timber with greater confidence.

There are now a number of certification schemes operating to a high standard, yet industry, NGOs and government all know that the policy and the practice have been far from seamless. There has not been the steep change in sustainability that was intended. From April 1, 2009 policy will be tightened. Only legal and sustainable timber or timber from a licensed Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) partner will be accepted for use on the government estate – appropriate documentation will be required to prove it.

The policy doesn’t stop there. From April 1, 2015, we will demand only legal and sustainable timber as the window for FLEGT will expire. This window is important. Government has invested a lot of time and resources into developing Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) that will give practical assistance and market incentives to developing countries who improve their forest governance, establish credible systems to ensure timber is imported legally and ultimately work to embed sustainable forest management in their country.

Right policy?

Many will chide government for leaving what they see as the FLEGT loophole. I believe that what matters is the effect of our policies on the ground. By moving the goalposts and insisting on sustainability now as the first VPAs are just being concluded we would have lost the leverage of market access to incentivise change and driven struggling producer countries further towards less scrupulous outlets for their timber.

The first question for government should always be “Is the policy the right one?”. I believe it is. No longer is it couched in the vague language of aspiration and preference. It sets hard standards that are either met or they are not.

But the right policy is only a necessary condition for achieving the right result; it is not sufficient on its own. Proper monitoring and enforcement is essential and Peter Latham’s remarks about enforcemen are apposite. That is why I have insisted that the new policy be launched along with a root and branch review of our monitoring systems and enforcement capacity. I hope that Peter and others in the wider construction industry will work with us to put in place systems and audit trails that are clear and robust without placing a disproportionate administration burden on suppliers.

One of the best ways of improving compliance is to improve understanding of why the policy is important in the first place. Thankfully, the debate about climate change means that very few people nowadays fail to understand the connection between sustainable forest management and global warming. But we need to explain that the costs of deforestation and illegal logging are not just in the 20% of CO2 global emissions; it results in an annual £10bn loss of revenue to some of the poorest countries on the planet – money that should be directed to healthcare and education that will take the world’s children out of poverty.

We need to explain that these diminishing forests are the habitat for some of the world’s rarest species and the scientific storeroom for thousands of our medicines of tomorrow. Lose this and we lose the ecosystem services on which all life is based.

Local government

We will continue to work to improve national policy and compliance by helping and encouraging local governments to adopt similar procurement policies. We will continue to work with our EU partners to reduce the import of illegal timber into the EU. We will work towards a successful conclusion of the G8 and 5 dialogue on illegal logging in Japan next year. One of your comments referred to this announcement as a “bombshell”. They were wrong. It is the start of a very long barrage.