Exam time for verification schemes: Which level of assurance do they offer under the EU Timber Regulation? A new assessment, carried out by Proforest on behalf of the European Timber Trade Federation (ETTF), uncovers the state of alignment of different schemes with specific parts of the EU requirements. However, the report only provides a partial picture.
A new report assesses ten timber certification and verification schemes against several aspects of the EU Timber Regulation. Prepared by ProForest on behalf of the European Timber Trade Federation (ETTF), the report focuses on how the systems ensure compliance with applicable legislation as required by the EU Timber Regulation.
The analysis also looks at the schemes’ degree of transparency, auditing requirements, and chain of custody systems. However, the report does not assess the extent to which the schemes deliver compliance with the full set of due diligence requirements for information, risk assessment and mitigation.
Key findings
The report covers ten schemes: FSC, PEFC, BV Origin and Legality of Wood (OLB), Certisource Legality Assurance System (CLAS), GFS Wood Tracking Programme (WTP), Rainforest Alliance Verification of Legal Origin (VLO), Rainforest Alliance Verification of Legal Compliance (VLC), Soil Association Forest Verification of Legal Compliance (FVLC), SCS LegalHarvest Verification (LHV) and the final draft of the NEPCon LegalSourceTM Standard.
Of these, only FSC and PEFC are forest certification schemes, while the other schemes focus exclusively on timber legality.
Each scheme is scored as compliant, partially compliant or non-compliant for a number of criteria covering the above-mentioned aspects.
None of the assessed schemes are found to be in full compliance with all of the criteria. Only the Rainforest Alliance VLC, the NEPCon LegalSource, the Soil Association FVLC and the SCS LHV standards were found to be free of any non-compliance areas, however these still had areas of partial compliance.
The FSC and PEFC standards are only found to be non-compliant for a single criterion - inclusion of trade and customs laws; both schemes are currently working to address this.
Only a part of the puzzle
”The analysis provides a good overview of the usefulness of the schemes with regard to their coverage of applicable legislation, and we are pleased that our LegalSource standard has passed this exam with good marks”, says Peter Feilberg, CEO of NEPCon. “However, with the omission of the other key due diligence aspects, several major pieces of the puzzle are missing”.
Whilst the report offers a thorough analysis of the schemes’ inclusion of applicable legislation, its analysis regarding transparency and requirements for auditing and chain of custody appears quite succinct.
“This is very far from a full analysis of the schemes’ overall integrity and ability to deliver on the ground. The report includes useful analysis, but it is important to use it for what it is – a part of the puzzle. You need to add all the pieces in before you can see the full picture”, concludes Mr Feilberg.