- Welcome to the Goho (=legal)-wood navigation page, provided by Council for Tackling Illegal Logging and Promotion of Goho-wood
World- World HOME >
- Topics >
- Research of Measures Taken to Illegal Logging Issues in Consumer Nations Survey Results (Outline)
Research of Measures Taken to Illegal Logging Issues in Consumer Nations Survey Results (Outline)
3.Results of Survey
(3) EU Timber Regulation
(A) Actions corresponding to “due diligence” survey (DDS) as an “Operator”(Multiple answers accepted, total number of respondents: 22 including 1 that has no answer)
19 out of 21 responded that they are “conducting periodical documents examinations” and 13 answered “visiting the suppliers for on-site inspections”. Others include “we are dealing in FSC/PEFC certified timbers”. Because this question accepted multiple answers, we can find from the results that companies are taking several actions to correspond to DDS.
| Answers | N.A. | EU | Others | Total |
| Conduct documents examination | 3 | 16 | 0 | 19 |
| Visit suppliers to conduct on-site inspection | 1 | 12 | 0 | 13 |
| Others | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5 |
(B) Influence on business caused by obligation of exercising “due diligence” in EUTR
The response of “considerably affected” stays low with only 2 respondents out of 21, 12 replied “slightly affected” and 7 said “not affected”. Many companies raised cost increase as a major influence of DD obligation.
| Answers | N.A. | EU | Others | Total |
| Due diligence considerably affected our business | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Due diligence slightly affected our business | 1 | 11 | 0 | 12 |
| Due diligence did not affected our business | 1 | 6 | 0 | 7 |
What were the considerable affects?
| Answers | N.A. | EU | Others | Total |
| Increased management workload/cost | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Changed items of marketing products | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Changed timber suppliers | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Changed customers | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Changed procurement policy | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Others | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
What were the slight affects?
| Answers | N.A. | EU | Others | Total |
| Increased management workload/cost | 1 | 11 | 0 | 12 |
| Changed items of marketing products | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Changed timber suppliers | 1 | 4 | 0 | 5 |
| Changed customers | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Changed procurement policy | 1 | 5 | 0 | 6 |
| Others | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
（C）Influence on business by meeting “traceability” requirement as a “Trader”
(Total number of respondents: 29 including 3 who have no answer)
3 out of 27 answered “considerably affected”, 12 replied “slightly affected”, and 12 replied “not affected”.
Cost increase seems a major negative affect by securing traceability.
| Answers | N.A. | EU | Others | Total |
| Traceability considerably affected our business | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Traceability slightly affected our business | 0 | 12 | 0 | 12 |
| Traceability did not affected our business | 4 | 8 | 0 | 12 |
What were the considerable affects?
| Answers | N.A. | EU | Others | Total |
| Increased management workload/cost | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Changed items of marketing products | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Changed timber suppliers | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Changed customers | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Changed procurement policy | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Others | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
What were the slight affects?
| Answers | N.A. | EU | Others | Total |
| Increased management workload/cost | 0 | 10 | 0 | 10 |
| Changed items of marketing products | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Changed timber suppliers | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| Changed customers | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Changed procurement policy | 0 | 5 | 0 | 5 |
| Others | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
(D) Penalty provided in EUTR
18 out of 28 respondents answered “yes, we know it.” and the rest 10 said “no.”
Even among the European respondents, 7 out of 22 replied “no, we do not know it.” Concerning the contents of the penalty 10 out of 28 think that “it is appropriate” and 14 have some other opinions, such as “it is not too strict and seems unfair from the viewpoint of companies who are seriously taking measures against illegal logging problems” and “penalty should be applied to timber exporters, not the importers”.
Do you know of the penalty stipulated in EUTR?
| Answers | N.A. | EU | Others | Total |
| Yes, I know it. | 3 | 15 | 0 | 18 |
| No, I do not know it. | 3 | 7 | 0 | 10 |
Opinion about the penalty in EUTR
| Answers | N.A. | EU | Others | Total |
| It is appropriate. | 2 | 8 | 0 | 10 |
| Penalty is necessary but this penalty is too strict. | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| Other opinions | 3 | 11 | 0 | 14 |
(E) FLEGT VPA (bilateral agreement)
The progress of FLEGT VPA is said to be very slow, however, this survey shows that 8 out of 28 respondents have already had timber trading with countries engaged in VPA, and 3 more are planning to do so. On the other hand, even among the European respondents, 7 replied “we do not know FLEGT VPA”.
| Answers | N.A. | EU | Others | Total |
| We are importing timber from countries engaged in VPA. | 1 | 7 | 0 | 8 |
| We are planning to do so. | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| We are not planning and will not do so. | 1 | 6 | 0 | 7 |
| We do not know about FLEGT VPA | 3 | 7 | 0 | 10 |
