6 out of 41 respondents replied “having sufficient knowledge about the Japanese system”, 18 “have heard of it, not in detail”, and the rest 16 “have not heard of it”. As for the opinions about the Japanese system, 9 replied “It is valuable to provide information.” but 26 “do not have any opinion”. This indicates that the recognition about the Japanese system is not high as those of EUTR and Lacey Act.
There is one response that “the Japanese system should be further improved”.
Do you know the Japanese system for legal wood verification?
|Yes, I have a sufficient knowledge about it.||5||1||0||6|
|Yes, but I only have heard of it.||6||11||1||18|
|No, I have never heard of it.||4||12||1||17|
What do you think about the Japanese system?
|It is valuable to provide consumers with reliable information.||5||4||0||9|
|The system is not reliable enough and should be improved.||0||0||1||1|
|I do not have any opinion.||9||16||1||26|
It can be said that each company is individually taking multiple measures to meet requirements of the EU Timber Regulation and the Lacey Act in the US. Many of them admitted that these requirements have had slight negative influences on their business, major one of which is an increase in cost. A few respondents replied that they had serious negative influences. It is assumed therefore that the companies who have replied to this survey have already established, to some extent, their own internal schemes to eliminate illegally-harvested timber/wood, and have fairly good understanding on the penalties stipulated in these regulation and act.
Regarding the Japanese measure, its recognition among the respondents is not as high as those for the EU Timber Regulation or the Lacey Act. However, the few respondents who are aware of the Japanese verification system place a certain level of value to the system.