Each piece in Tanya’s ‘Africa East’ collection is hand carved from African blackwood.

Using Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)–certified wood ensures Tanya’s collection, which she designs under the name Candescent, features only wood from trees that are grown and the forests managed sustainably according to an international standard.

“My designs always begin with the environment and sustainability in mind,” Tanya says, “The narrative of culture, style, beauty and colour in my range are not compromised by my decision to use only fair trade materials – in fact this adds to the beauty.”

Fair trade fashion has risen in popularity over the past decade, but is still frequently overlooked.

London Fashion Week’s Good Fashion Show will feature 44 international designers, all with an ethical objective.

The Good Fashion Show is a new addition to London Fashion Week – and is unique in that it is open to the public.

The Good Fashion Show is on Saturday 18 February, and runs as part of London Fashion Week.

Under a regulation that will come into effect in the European Union next year, companies will have to verify the legality of timber from the harvest country onwards, said Chen Hin Keong, Global Forest Trade Programme Leader at TRAFFIC.

While the impact of this rule on illegal logging is unclear, there are already “certain developments you can see in the global markets: industries want to learn about the regulations,” said Chen.

The EU regulation follows the inclusion of timber in 2008 under the US Lacey Act, which bans sale of illegal plants and animals in the United States.

The EU and US are among the biggest markets for wood products from producing and processing countries in the Asia Pacific, like China, Vietnam and Indonesia.

TRAFFIC, an organization that monitors wildlife trade including timber, is helping to provide a tool to assess legality for small and medium enterprises and the timber industry to deal with the new requirements to track and verify the processes, documents and permits needed to prove timber legality.

“The idea is that with the legality framework, you can ask your suppliers the right questions and know what the right answers should be”, said Chen.

The emphasis in timber trade will move from legality to sustainability after these regulations are adequately absorbed and implemented, particularly with increased consumer awareness and demand for sustainably-harvested products.

“There will be more and more mechanisms in place in the next 10 years to continue to close the loopholes that are currently allowing illegal timber trade and illegal logging to continue.”

This interview was originally published on the CIFOR Forests Blog

An edited transcript of the interview with Chen is provided below.

Q: What will be the impacts of the new timber regulations?

A: The new regulations, especially the US-Lacey and the EU timber regulations, will have an impact on the timber trade from the Asia Pacific and elsewhere partly because the US and the EU are very significant markets, not only from the producer countries, but also processing countries, such as Vietnam and China, that transform those raw materials into higher value products like furniture.

The most important impact is that they require proof of legality. That means the companies cannot do business-as-usual, where they just buy the products and hope and expect them to be legal. Now they have to follow through and get verification of legality so that they do not fall foul of the law. They have to do a bit more work and not business-as-usual.

Q: How do the producers feel about that?

A: In terms of industry, there’s a lot of grumbling, of course, because they feel that now they have to do more to get the proof of legality. (This requires) not only time of their own staff, but also resources. They may need technical support to understand the timber trade and the forestry sector and may have to call in experts help to do that. All this increases costs.

On the government side, they think that this could be a form of imposition on their own people in doing business, because not many other countries have imposed such legislation. But we have to bear in mind that the EU and US legislation applies to their own citizens as well. From that perspective, this is not a (trade) barrier, because their own people have to follow it too.

Q: Buyers have said that there won’t be a premium price for the legal timber. Why is that?

A: The market is not paying a premium because by rights all companies should be dealing with legal products. It’s by law; you have to follow your law. What the market requires now is that you have to verify and to show proof that your timber products are legally obtained and sourced. To the buyers, this should be your suppliers’ job in the first place to meet the legal requirements of the country that you operate in, so there’s no reason to pay a premium.

In reality, there may be a premium because this depends on supply and demand. If (there are) not many companies that can supply verified legal timber, then there’s a good chance that there will be competition for those timber products and prices may go up. So it would depend on the market, the particular buyers and what products they’re looking for.

Q: How effective will these regulations be in preventing illegal logging?

A: Since the EU regulations have not been enacted yet, we do not really know how it’s going to impact illegal logging. But there are already certain developments you can see in the global markets: industries want to learn about the regulations; they want to see how they will impact operations and so on. So there is already some impact. We will know better once the legislation is up and running.

In terms of US-Lacey, it has been around since 2008, so there has been a concerted effort to create capacity building and awareness programs. TRAFFIC has done that as well. I’ve gone through 5 countries conducting training about Lacey as well as the EU regulation, training about 1,000 people. The only concern right now is that there are very few cases involving Lacey infractions so we don’t know how effective Lacey is as a deterrent to ensure more of the supply chains are legal.

Q: Will these regulations actually promote smuggling or sale to countries that don’t require such proof of legality?

A: I don’t think there will be a backlash. The developed countries – in this case the US and the EU – are very significant markets for timber products. Most of the other countries are smaller, so in a sense, there’s not much choice of markets. You can try to develop your market outside the EU and the US but you can only develop a little bit. Individual companies may be diversifying, but the sector as the whole will find it more difficult.

Q: What do you expect will happen in the next 10 years in timber trade?

A: There has been a lot of pressure on companies and governments to ensure the timber supply is legal and sustainable. The emphasis now is in legality, but it will move on to sustainability. There will be more and more mechanisms in place in the next 10 years to continue to close the loopholes that are currently allowing illegal timber trade and illegal logging to continue. There will probably be more consumer awareness and demand for legal products and sustainably-harvested products. So it will still be a two-pronged approach: looking to change the mindsets of people and through enforcement and legislation.

The trend will go towards sustainability also in many countries that are producing timber because the governments and the people will want to make sure that their resources are preserved not only for timber but for other uses: recreational, water, soil protection etc. All those things will take precedence as there’s a squeeze on land as the human population grows and the forests get smaller and smaller. Those governments will want to keep the remaining forests that they’ve got, so a lot of timber production will come from plantation and there’ll be a shift. Whether that will happen in 10 years or not, or longer, I don’t know.

The Illegal Logging Prohibition Bill (2011), now being debated in Parliament, carries other significant penalties for importing illegally logged timber or processing illegally harvested domestic raw logs, including large fines.

Senator Joe Ludwig, Australian forestry minister, said the legislation showed how far the Australian government was prepared to go to stop illegal logging.

Illegal timber imports “directly threatens” Australian timber jobs by undercutting the price of legally logged timber, he said.

“This legislation will lead to an even economic playing field for the purchase and sale of legally logged timber products in Australia and will give consumers and businesses greater certainty about the legality of the timber products they buy.”

Importers of regulated timber products and processors of domestic raw logs will have to prove that the timber they source has not been illegally logged. There is now a two-year grace period while they establish their systems and processes.

To date, Australian industry has relied on self-regulation to verify the legal origins of imported timber through a mix of voluntary procurement policies and procedures.

The government said its law aligned itself with other similar international initiatives against illegal logging, such as the Lacey Act in the US and the EU Timber Regulation.

This article original appeared in the Timber Trade Journal

Particularly misleading has been the widespread suggestion that musicians could have their instruments seized on suspicion that they contain illegally harvested wood, even if those instruments were built many years ago.

Some commentators have even suggested that Michelle Obama could be arrested after giving France’s First Lady, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, a gift of a Gibson guitar during a recent state visit.

Peddlers of such myths fail to understand the fundamentals of the Lacey Act, most significantly the rule that in order for a prosecution to take place the buyer of wood must be aware of illegality.

For example, if Gibson can prove that they were unaware that the Madagascan rosewood they bought in 2009 was illegal in any way, they will be proved innocent.

This means that musicians will in most cases be entirely innocent: after all instrument manufacturers are rarely in the habit of sharing the finer wood purchasing details with their customers and only a fool would buy an instrument from a maker who told them that wood contained within it was illegal.

However, the above scenario is mostly hypothetical because the Lacey Act targets instrument manufacturers not individual musicians.

And in response to the hysteria whipped up in the blogosphere since the last Gibson raid on 24th August, US lawmakers recently sought to clarify this crucial distinction and put a stop to the nonsense debate.

In a letter addressed to US congresswoman, Marsha Blackburn, Republican representative for Tennessee, home of Gibson HQ, who has been leading the political assault on the Lacey Act in recent weeks, the Department of Justice and Department of the Interior sought to allay fears:

“People who unknowingly possess a musical instrument or other object containing wood that was illegally taken, possessed, transported or sold in violation of law and who, in the exercise of due care, would not have known that it was illegal, do not have criminal exposure.

“The federal government focuses its enforcement efforts on those who are removing protected species from the wild and making a profit by trafficking in them.”

The Department of Justice and Department of the Interior’s statement comes at a time when many music and wood industry representatives are starting to find their voices in support of the Lacey Act.

The Future Policy Award provides valuable international recognition of the Lacey Act as one of the world’s most inspiring and innovative forest policies.

This recognition comes at a time when the Lacey Act is under pressure from a coalition of musicians, instrument manufacturers and right-wing politicians and commentators as a result of the on-going investigation of Gibson guitars under the Lacey Act.

Neil Bridgland, Sound & Fair Campaign Manager, said: “It’s a real shame that the Lacey Act has become so politicised when it’s doing the job it was designed to do: force wood importers to a pay full attention to their supply chains and implement responsible purchasing policies.

“In the past, few manufacturers were concerned with where wood came from, how it was harvested, were the correct fees paid, just as long as the quality was OK.

“The Gibson case is a game changer for the music industry and about time too.”

Environmental Investigation Agency Executive Director, Alexander von Bismarck, described the Lacey Act as: “a landmark act that has had such an extraordinary effect on the ongoing battle against illegal logging.

“With the Lacey Act, the US is closing the door on illegal wood, and sending a huge signal that our market power will support both good governance and forest protection”.

The amended Lacey Act is the first law in the world to prohibit trade in wood products made from trees that were illegally harvested.

As a result of the international effort to curb trade in illegal logging, the practice is estimated to have decreased by over 20% worldwide.

The Lacey Act of 1900 focused on wildlife trade and has been a leading tool in efforts to control smuggling of products derived from endangered species. The 2008 amendment added plants to this law, which made it applicable to the one trillion dollar global wood products industry.

The first enforcement action under the new law occurred in 2009, when a search warrant was executed on Gibson Guitars to investigate the import of ebony and rosewood from Madagascar.

Madagascar was at the time shown to be losing up to 300 trees a day from its national parks, the last habitat for unique species of Lemurs, birds, and chameleons.

Chris Martin, Chairman and CEO C.F. Martin Guitar, said: “I think it’s a wonderful thing. I think illegal logging is appalling. It should stop. And if this is what it takes unfortunately to stop unscrupulous operators, I’m all for it. It’s tedious, but we’re getting through it.”

And in a recent interview, Bob Taylor, the co-founder and president of Taylor Guitars, said: “The Lacey Act requires more due diligence on the part of the receiver of the wood than there was in the past. We can’t just take someone’s word that the wood we’re buying is legit. Even if your act was already clean, you’re going to have to clean it up even more.”

Taylor also had a response to those critics who question the relevance of the Lacey Act for instrument manufacturers: “We’re living through a time of transition from one type of economy to another economy. Many builders view the Lacey Act as flawed and more trouble than it’s worth. We’re at a tricky in-between stage, but the situation will become easier again in the future once we know what the rules are.”

“We should embrace it and go with the flow instead of trying to fight what we can’t change. If it’s good, we should see what we can do to make it better. This is just one more step toward working in a global world with a global mindset. Hopefully we can build some great guitars and do some good along the way.”

Chris Martin also commented on his company’s buying policy with regards to Madagascan rosewood, the purchase of which has caused so many problems for Gibson guitars: “What we heard was the international community has come to the conclusion that the coup created an illegitimate government. That’s when we said, ‘Okay, we can not buy any more of this wood.’”

Following a 2009 military coup which saw the overthrow of the environmentally progressive President Marc Ravalomanana, huge quantities of rosewood and ebony were stripped from Madagascar’s rapidly shrinking National Parks.

While Gibson guitars is claiming that they have legal export papers for the rosewood seized under the Lacey Act, there is little doubt that the most of the precious hardwood exported from Madagacar, post-coup, originated from protected areas and hence was illegally logged.

Quotes taken from articles in Guitar Aficionado and NPR.

GIBSON AND THE LACEY ACT – A GAME CHANGER IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY

The collection comprises sculptural pieces hand carved out of lustrous African blackwood, including a ring, pendant, earrings, brooch and bangle.

The pieces are imbued with pink rubies and 18ct gold.

The collection Africa East is so called as the African blackwood is sustainably harvested in Tanzania and the fair trade rubies are sourced from Malawi.

The collection evolved from a recent Candescent project, where founder and designer, Tanya Bowd, collaborated with Sound & Fair to celebrate the recent Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) certification of the African blackwood forests in Tanzania.

Normally used in the making of oboes and clarinets, a concert showcasing instruments crafted from FSC African blackwood featured alongside the Africa East jewellery collection, worn by the classical musicians.

FSC-certification ensures that forest dependent people in Tanzania now benefit directly from their natural resources whilst protecting the environment.

The pink rubies are from a fair trade mine situated on the summit of Chimwadzulu Hill in southern Malawi, and are of a rare quality, being naturally radiant and untreated.

Eco gold is used to add luminosity and contrast to the beauty of the wood, true to the Candescent name.

Further information:

Candescent

www.ecoluxelondon.org

In the absence of any legislation forcing such thinking, voluntary ethics have been conspicuous by their absence.

The Lacey Act, quite simply, is a game changer.

Now US manufacturers that operate opaque, third-party brokered supply chains risk seeing armed Federal agents seizing wood from their manufacturing plants.

Similar legislation will be introduced in EU countries in 2013, although it’s hard to envisage armed European agents enforcing the new ‘due diligence’ regulations.

The solution for manufacturers is simple: invest in and understand the supply chain for the product that is fundamental to your business.

The only way to ensure legality is to demand full traceability and transparency at all levels of the supply chain, a process that engenders faith that what you’re buying is what is claims to be.

FSC-certification is the first step: not FSC Controlled Wood which is merely a risk assessment in the country of origin, but fully transparent FSC-certification with its third-party verified assurances of environmental, social and economic sustainability.

However, FSC-certification on its own is not enough. Like any system, FSC-certification can be abused and as the Gibson case has shown there are legal nuances in countries of origin that may not be picked up under FSC.

So whilst demanding FSC-certified wood as standard, manufacturers need to develop close relationships with their wood suppliers, working together to develop faith that everyone is playing by the new rules.

Of course all this means more time and money, but the fact is that the cost of wood is a tiny proportion of the overall cost of an instrument such as Gibson guitar. The value is added in the workshop as the instrument takes shape.

A small price premium to guarantee legal and ethical wood is surely a small price for manufacturers to pay for peace of mind that the Feds won’t be knocking on their door?

Background on Gibson guitars and the Lacey Act

1. On 24 August 2011, Gibson guitars’ US premises were raided by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as part of an investigation into alleged breaches of the Lacey Act, a law requiring that all wood products imported into the USA come from legal sources.

2. The raid concerned Indian ebony and rosewood supplied under an FSC Controlled Wood certificate held by an Indian wood supplier, Atheena, Whilst the export of such wood from India is legal under certain circumstances, mistakes seem to have been made with the paperwork prepared by brokers, meaning that the wood was incorrectly labelled and this led to the seizure of wood from Gibson’s premises.

3. In a statement following the raid, Gibson said: “The wood the Government seized on August 24 is from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier and is FSC Controlled, meaning that the wood complies with the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council”. Gibson’s statement was misleading as the wood itself was not actually FSC-certified. The result was widespread misinterpretation by the press with numerous articles falsely claiming that the wood in question was FSC-certified.

4. FSC Controlled Wood entails a risk assessment of the source of supply without any independent verification or tracking to ensure compliance. In contrast, FSC-certified wood provides a fully transparent chain of custody, tracing wood back to its forest source with the added assurance of independent, third party verification to ensure compliance.

5. Following widespread misreporting, FSC-US subsequently issued its own statement: “While Gibson has shown important sector leadership by stimulating demand for FSC-certified wood, the federal investigation addresses the wood they use that is not FSC certified.  FSC-certification is a component of due care that companies can use, but unless 100% of the wood used is FSC certified, other mechanisms are required too. In this instance, it is the non-certified wood that is being questioned.”

6. Sound & Fair recognises Gibson’s genuine efforts to introduce sustainable practises in its supply chain. The company was after all one of the first music companies to become FSC-certified and the Gibson CEO was until recently a Board member of then Rainforest Alliance, a founding FSC partners. However, this case highlights the value for musical instrument manufacturers in aiming to source 100% pure, FSC-certified wood wherever possible from fully transparent supply chains.

7. In addition to originating from a traceable chain of custody, FSC-certified wood is independently verified as complying with the Forest Stewardship Council’s internationally recognised set of principles. These criteria provide buyers with an assurance of socially beneficial, environmentally appropriate and economically viable forestry management and manufacturers can promote their products with the FSC Logo.

8. FSC Controlled Wood offers no such assurances and wood sold in this way should never be misinterpreted as being in compliance with the strict ethical and legal standards required by FSC-certification.

9. Gibson is already under investigation in a separate Lacey Act case concerning the purchase of Madagascan rosewood. Wood was seized from Gibson’s USA premises in November 2009 and a prosecution under the Lacey Act is pending.

Munio is a Danish based design brand company which produces all of its products exclusively from FSC-certified wood under the Canopy Wood Code of Conduct.

Canopy Wood aims to maximize the forests’ economic potential through the sustainable use of lesser-known timber species so reducing pressure on more popular timber species and so helping to preserve the biodiversity.

The launch of the Munio range follows the showcase of the Candescent’s range of African blackwood jewellery that was modeled at the Sound & Fair Concert earlier this year.

The Candescent Project range will also be on display at the forthcoming London Fashion Week.

The FSC Outstanding Achievement Award was presented by Charles Thwaites, Executive Director of FSC-UK, and accepted on behalf of Sound & Fair by Makala Jasper, National Director of Mpingo Conservation and Development Initiative (MCDI), and James Lazier, MCDI Trustee.

The FSC Outstanding Achievement Award recognises the work carried out by Sound & Fair in establishing a Chain of Custody for FSC African blackwood and Hanson Clarinets in producing the world’s first FSC-Certified woodwind instrument.