2010 was a significant year for global efforts to tackle illegal logging. Here’s a look back on some of that progress.
Long a problem in many of the world’s forests, illegal logging has unsustainable impacts. It deprives governments of tax revenue. It puts law-abiding companies at a competitive disadvantage. And it negatively impacts forest-dependent peoples, not to mention the world’s biodiversity and climate.
But 2010 brought encouraging news on the illegal logging front, and from both ends of the supply chain.
Let’s start with wood-producing countries. In July, the world learned from a Chatham House report that illegal logging fell by 50-75 percent during the past decade in Indonesia, Cameroon, and the Brazilian Amazon, three forest-rich nations. Better law enforcement, improved forest monitoring and increased focus on the issue all contributed to these improvements. More recently, Indonesia announced that it will deliberate a bill to toughen penalties for those involved in illegal logging, while Malaysia revised its Forest Act to stiffen penalties for illegal logging.
These are significant reductions and actions. Governments, many in the private sector, and civil society should be congratulated for their respective roles in these accomplishments.
2010 brought good news from wood-consuming countries, too. The United States indicated that it is serious about using the amended Lacey Act to curtail trade in illegal wood. For instance, reports came to light of a U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service seizure of tropical hardwoods from Peru and of movement on the investigation into Gibson’s alleged purchase of illegal wood from Madagascar.
Likewise, the European Union (EU) approved the EU Illegal Timber Regulation in 2010. Similar to Lacey, the law prohibits the sale in Europe of timber logged illegally under the rules of the country of origin. Furthermore, the Australian government recently announced plans to introduce a Lacey-like ban on illegal timber products.
Climate agreements regarding “Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation in developing countries” (REDD+) have the potential to reinforce existing efforts to curtail illegal logging. The same is true for the visionary forest-climate bilateral agreements between forest-rich countries such as Indonesia or Brazil and nations such as Norway.
The groundwork, therefore, appears to be laid for another year of progress. If so, 2011 would take a further cut out of the illegal cut.
Craig Hanson, Director, People & Ecosystems Programchanson@wri.org+1 (202) 729-7624Craig is the Director of WRI’s People & Ecosystems Program. Craig is responsible for guiding the Program’s overall strategy, focus on results, financial development, and staff capacity.
4 Comments
The Chatham House report had
The Chatham House report had a narrow remit, as its text confirms – and should be interpreted with this in mind. The report’s text points out that wood-balance assessment concerns only one of many factors which contribute to the production of Illegal Timber (- it is also inherently sensitive to the analyst’s assumptions.)
The (1999) law requires that "permanent" forest in Indonesia is managed equitably and sustainably. However, very little logging in such forest is sustainable and most of the logging concessions which require gazettement have not been gazetted.
The possession and implementation of plans for the sustainable management of logging concessions should – because they are fundamental to sustainability - be a primary consideration when assessing indicators of Illegal Timber (as should gazettement).
The eligibility of an enterprise to operate logging concessions is another fundamental aspect of illegality. This should be a concern of those carrying out basic due diligence to exclude Illegal Timber from their supply chains, particularly in that part of the island of Papua which is controlled by Indonesia.
The volume of timber from forest now being used in Indonesia’s pulp mills (a major part of its Paper Sector) is not greatly dissimilar to that used by its Timber Sector. The financing of those mills and/or related activities appears to have been highly fraudulent – and if so, their output would presumably by illegal. Further, there have been frequent reports of widespread illegality in connection with a number of the four major pulp groups’ procurement of pulpwood.
It seems that most logging in forest in Indonesia now takes place where forest is being converted (often illegally). This is not harvesting.
The quantity of wood-based products exported from Indonesia would greatly fall if the national timber legality verification system (SVLK) takes into account the fundamental aspects of legality mentioned above.
If, in relation to efforts to minimise the production of (or trade in) “Illegal Timber” (including pulp and paper), policy makers prefer clarity over obfuscation, they should demand separate analysis of supply chains for the Timber Sector and the Paper Sector, and within these two sectors, supplies from “permanent forest”, “conversion forest” and plantations.
Tha Chatham House report was
Tha Chatham House report was complied without any of the authors visiting Indonesia to check out the reports filed with them.
Illegal logging has not declined because of any action by the government or NGO's. In the few locations where is has visually declined it is because all the easily accessible large trees have already been logged. Elsewhere, illegal logs are often given false papers to show them legal. The Chatham House report concerning Indonesia read like a work of fiction.
As the lead author of the
As the lead author of the Chatham House illegal logging report, I would like to respond to Sean White's comments on it. Though I did not visit Indonesia during the research, I have many years of field experience of studying illegal logging in the country. More importantly, the report used in-country partner consultants and surveyed numerous Indonesia-based experts from various stakeholder groups, all of whom have large amounts of direct field experience built up over many years.
In addition to the survey, the intensive two-year study used multiple other indicators to assess the extent and changes in illegal logging and related trade, including enforcement data, wood balance analysis, trade data discrepancies, and a review of illegal logging in a sample of key national parks. ALL of the indicators for Indonesia showed a significant reduction in illegal logging and related trade.
While Mr Whyte's unreferenced personal opinion may disagree with this conclusion, the fact remains that a large majority of NGO experts in Indonesia concur that the situation has improved (as our survey showed). I would suggest that it is somewhat arrogant of Mr Whyte to suggest that his own personal experiences of the situation in a few locations can be expected to be more reflective of reality than the views of the majority of local NGOs and the weight of data from multiple independent sources.
Mr Whyte's anger is also misplaced, since it appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the report's conclusions. Saying that illegal logging in Indonesia has reduced is not in any way to suggest that it is not still a major problem. Indeed, the Chatham House study provided fresh evidence and analysis to demonstrate that 40 to 61 percent of all harvesting in Indonesia is still illegal in some manner . By providing new evidence of the problem, we hope that the report's findings can provide fresh impetus to the fight to tackle it. The report's conclusions stress that efforts to tackle the problem must be improved and expanded, something Mr Whyte would no doubt agree with.
Sam Lawson
Associate Fellow
Chatham House
Hi Sean, I agree with your
Hi Sean,
I agree with your comments. How do we spread the word that illegal logging is still a huge problem, are you involved in any campaigns or groups?
Andrew