State of Play in Denmark by: Christian Lundmark Jensen Ministry of the Environment

1. Illegal Logging Update and Stakeholder ConsultationRoyal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House19 – 20 January 2006Public Procurement of Timber State of Play in Denmark by: Christian Lundmark Jensen Ministry of the Environment Danish Forest and Nature Agency

2. Content • Framework & Milestones • DK model on timber procurement • Evaluation • Next steps

3. Framework & Milestones • 1991 Environment Protection Act: • ”Public institutions shall through procurement act in pursuance of the objectives of the Act” (i.e. prevent polution, sustainable dev...). • 1995 Government Circular on Procurement: • State institutions and state controlled companies shall include environmental considerations on equal footing with price, quality… • The institutions shall develop green procurement policies, action plans for implementation and reporting mechanisms • 1995 -> 50 product specific procurement guidelines • 2001 Parliament decision on Tropical Timber • 2003 Guidelines on public purchase of Trop. Timber

4. DK Model - considerations EU-directives EU FLEGT WTO/GPA Tropical Public Problem:NO Concensus on key elements Rio Forest Principles ITTO Legal Sustainable Phased approach... Solution: DK model seeking to meet international concensus as far as possible... Tools Guidelines Wood as material Wood products Certification Alternative documentation Criteria

5. Sustainably Produced Tropical Timber • Principles • Rio 1992 (Forest Principles) & ITTO 1998 (C&I for SFM, PDS 7) • Criteria for SFM • Legal framework clear and legality in place • Size of Forest ressource • Health and vitality • Production • Protection • Biodiversity • Socio-economic, cultural and spiritual commodities • Standards “.. should be developed in a consultative process, open to participation by all affected parties, including financial, environmental and social stakeholders” OBS: Different lauguage on standard development in certification schemes: ”with the participation of all interests involved, including indigenous peoples, unions, forest owners etc.” and should as far as possible be ”determined in unity in this group” Will probably be key focal area when/if rewriting DK criteria and guidelines

6. DK model - tropical timber 1. Legal and sustainable • FSC(100 %) or alternative documentation 2. Legal and progressing towards stainable • MTCCor FSC(< 100 %) or alternative documentation 3. Legal - minimum • alternative documentation Other certifictes: either considered insufficient to stand alone or not in use in the tropics (mid 2003) Alternative documentation: long list - recommend independent assessment

7. Tools • Guidelines on purchase of tropical timber • definitions, criteria, model description • purchasing tips (time, properties, lesser known species..) • “one size fits all” solution • no concrete examples, i.e. for contracts and invitations to tenders • Direct distribution to over 2.500 (assumed) users • Letter from env. minister to all colleagues and majors for local governments • Thematic web page • Workshops and seminars • Articles in relevant magazines etc.

8. Evaluation - background • Parliament proposal (B56) 2005: • binding rules for all public institutions for all timber • B56 voted down, but parliament called for evaluation: • Are the guidelines known, understood and used correctly? • Assess total public consumption of wood and wood based products • Assess consequences of binding rules and expansion to all timber • Assess judicial aspects • Draw on experience from UK, NL, France and Germany • Not directly included in evaluation: • Assessment of forest problems in and outside the tropics • EIA of DK timber procurement policy, guidelines and practice

9. Evaluation - Project designs A User survey and calculations of consequences of expansion to all timber and more binding rules B Comparison with timber procurement policies in UK, NL, France and Germany and a mapping of relevant certification schemes etc. CJudicial assessments of tools for more binding rules (if any) and analysis of ”grey zone” areas: • exclusive focus on legality • exclusive focus on tropical timber • inclusion of social criteria in requirements for ”sustainable” timber

10. Results Project A • Guidelines on tropical timber are NOT follow to a satisfactory level • Several improvements seem possible on a maintained voluntary basis, i.e. through: • More differentiated approach focussing on different user groups (harbour engineers, institutions, central procurement officers etc.) • More focus on relevance - purchasers role, meet their needs • Provide practical examples (contracts, tender invitations etc.) • Establish “hotline” • More binding rules may contribute further • DK Public timber purchase appr. 400 mio Euro / year

11. Results Project B • Very detailed comparison with policies in other countries • DK is the only country to focus only on tropical timber • Other countries have (more or less) binding rules for state institutions, none for local governments • Many differences in criteria for legal, sustainable and documentation. In order of level of detail: • NL, UK, DK, France • Different approaches to social criteria • Different approaches to ”phased approaches”

12. Results Project C • Exclusive focus on tropical timber and WTO/GPA….? • Exclusive focus on legality…? • Social Criteria? • In technical specifications? • As an objective in itself? • As a means for maintaining long term supply of timber? • Signal value • Need for more analysis on the specifics

13. Next steps • Steering Committee invited to provide recommendations, finalisation of reports • Publication of results • Political decision on follow up • Links to • General DK policy on Green Procurement • EU FLEGT • B17 • Bilateral exchange of experience, seek hamonised approaches (i.e. social requirements?, alternative documentation?)

14. Questions • What is in practice the least discriminating policy • a flexible ”soft language” model for tropical timber alone or • a rigid ”independent-third-party-focussed” model for all timber? • What are the long term impacts of not including social criteria • will it promote SFM or • encourage the development socially ignorant schemes?

15. Thank you clj@sns.dk www.sns.dk