Reducing demand for illegal timber

Abstract

"Most major consumer and importing nations — including China, Japan, the United States and member countries of the European Union — benefit from lowcost imports of timber from tropical countries, much of which comes from the Asia Pacific region. Efforts to conserve forests mean that legal supplies have decreased and are unable to meet the demand for cheap timber. This situation has increased the incentives and financial benefits of illegal logging and trade. Indeed, large scale illegal logging is driven by the international consumer market, without which there would be no illegal trade.1 This demand, coupled with weak law enforcement and forest management creates an environment conducive to corruption — a primary means of circumventing laws and regulations enabling logging beyond legal and sustainable levels. Paradoxically, importing countries often provide development assistance to forest-rich countries to promote better forest governance, without acknowledging that it is their demand for cheap wood products and own governance weaknesses that contribute to illegal timber imports. Indonesia, one of the world’s largest timber-exporting countries, introduced an export ban in 2001 on round-wood and squared logs to curb the destruction of its forests. Yet, it is estimated by the UN Environmental Programme that between 73 and 88 per cent of timber logged in the country in 2007 was illegally sourced.2 Even protected forests are not safe. According to the Indonesian government, timber is being illegally harvested from 37 of the country’s 41 national parks.3 Much of this timber winds up in international markets. In 2006, it is thought that ‘at least 786 shipments declared as Indonesian sawn timber and logs — more than 2 shipments per day — entered the US.’4 The United States is not alone, however. In China, between 1997 and 2005, the country’s total forest product imports more than tripled in volume from 40 million to 134 million m3, and more than doubled in value.5 China is now a key link in a vast global commodity chain, with tens of thousands of Chinese businesses responding to the growing demand for cheap wood-based products, especially furniture, by American, European and Japanese consumers. Despite this, there are remedies that can and have been pursued by the governments of countries that are driving demand. Public procurement, for example, is responsible for a significant amount of consumption, and changes in practice here can lead to positive steps by the private sector, including increased demand for verification and sustainability criteria. A number of public procurement policies have been designed to favour timber from legal and sustainable sources — in Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand and the UK. Yet this vital step requires long-term commitment and investment by governments.6 Unfortunately, this has not materialised, making the implementation of such policies slow.