 |
| Environmental law |
|---|
| Pollution Control and Remediation |
| Air Hazardous Substances Waste Water |
| Resource Conservation and Management |
| Fisheries Forests Historic Sites Minerals Oil & Gas Parks Species Water |
| Planning, Land Use and Infrastructure |
| Impact Review Municipal Planning Land use Transportation Infrastructure Energy Infrastructure |
| Related Topics |
| Administrative law Bankruptcy law Energy law Insurance law International law |
Illegal logging is the harvest, transportation, purchase or sale of timber in violation of laws. The harvesting procedure itself may be illegal, including using corrupt means to gain access to forests; extraction without permission or from a protected area; the cutting of protected species; or the extraction of timber in excess of agreed limits (see Box 1).
Illegalities may also occur during transport, such as illegal processing and export; fraudulent declaration to customs; and the avoidance of taxes and other charges.
Contents |
| Box 1. Logging in national parks: the case of Korindo (Indonesia) | |
| In March 2004, Greenpeace carried out a series of actions against a cargo ship transporting timber from the Indonesian company Korindo, which was being imported into France, UK, Belgium and the Netherlands.
Korindo is a company proven to be using illegal timber from the last rainforests of Indonesia. In May 2003, an Indonesian Government investigation confirmed that Korindo was receiving illegal timber from notorious timber barons known to obtain timber from an orang-utan refuge – the Tanjung Puting National Park.[1] Tanjung Puting National Park is a 4,000 square kilometre conservation area of global importance. It is recognised as a world biosphere reserve by the United Nations and forms the largest protected area of swamp forest in South-East Asia. |
|
Illegal logging is a pervasive problem, causing enormous damage to forests, local communities and to the economies of producer countries. Despite the economic importance of trade in timber and forest products, major international timber consumer countries, such as the EU, have no legal means to halt the import of illegally sourced forest products,[2] because the identification of illegally logged or traded timber is technically difficult. Therefore, a legal basis for normative acts against timber imports or other products manufactured out of illegal wood is missing. Currently, scientific methods to pinpoint the geographic origin of timber is under development.[3] Possible actions to restrict imports cannot meet with WTO regulations of non-discrimination. They must instead be arranged in bilateral agreements.
It is estimated that illegal logging in public lands alone causes losses in assets and revenue in excess of 10 billion USD annually. Formulation and Implementation of National Action Plans to Combat Illegal Logging and Other Forest Crime. Results of ENA-Fleg. World Bank Technical Paper. ISBN 978-83-88911-07-1. p.1. Although exact figures are difficult to obtain, given the illegal nature of the activity, reliable estimates indicate that more than a considerable share, in some cases more than the half of all logging activities in particularly vulnerable regions – the Amazon Basin, Central Africa, Southeast Asia, the Russian Federation and some of the Baltic states – is illegal.[4]
Available figures and estimations must be dealt with cautiously. Governments may tend to underestimate the situation. High estimates of illegal logging may constitute an embarrassment as these hint at ineffective enforcement of legislation or, even worse, bribery and corruption. On the other hand, environmental NGOs publish alarming figures to raise awareness and to emphasise the need for stricter conservation measures. For companies of the forest sector, publications providing high estimations can be regarded as potentially threatening for their reputation and their market perspective, including the competitiveness of wood in comparison to other materials. However, for many countries, NGOs are the only source of information apart from state institutions that probably clearly underestimate the situation. For example, the Republic of Estonia calculated an amount of 1% illegally harvested timber in 2003, whereas it is estimated to reach a maximum of 50% by the ENGO "Estonian Green Movement".[5] But if to rise Estonian Green Movement's methodology and standards into European level, then every Western European country would get much worse score, probably around 99.9% illegal cuttings, because Estonian greens have pushed so much bureaucracy into Estonian Forest Act, that no other country has such over regulated law, and most of Estonian 'illegal logging' comes from rules that are not known in other countries. In Latvia, the situation is comparable. Anecdotal evidence points towards 25%[6] of logging being illegal.
Illegal logging contributes to deforestation and by extension global warming, causes loss of biodiversity and undermines the rule of law. These illegal activities undermine responsible forest management, encourage corruption and tax evasion and reduce the income of the producer countries, further limiting the resources producer countries can invest in sustainable development. Illegal logging has serious economic and social implications for the poor and disadvantaged. Furthermore, the illegal trade of forest resources undermines international security, and is frequently associated with corruption, money laundering, organized crime, human rights abuses and, in some cases, violent conflict. In the forestry sector, cheap imports of illegal timber and forest products, together with the non-compliance of some economic players with basic social and environmental standards, destabilise international markets. This unfair competition affects those European companies, especially the small and medium sized companies that are behaving responsibly and ready to play by fair rules.
| Box 2. Loss of revenue to governments of producer countries | |
| The scale of illegal logging represents a major loss of revenue to many countries and can lead to widespread associated environmental damage. A senate committee in the Philippines estimated that the country lost as much as US$1.8bn per year during the 1980s.[7] The Indonesian government estimated in 2002 that costs related to illegal logging are US$3bn each year.[8] The World Bank[9] estimates that illegal logging costs timber-producing countries between 10 and 15 billion euros per year. This compares with 10 billion euros disbursed as EC aid in 2002.[10] | |
The AFLEG Ministerial Conference was held in Yaoundé, Cameroon in October 2003. The meeting drew together ministers and stakeholders from Africa, Europe and North America to consider how partnerships between producers and consumers, donors, civil society and the private sector could potentially address illegal forest exploitation and associated trade in Africa.
The Conference was the second regional FLEG, following East Asia, and resulted in the endorsement of a Ministerial Declaration and Action Plan for AFLEG, as well as a broad range of informal implementation initiatives.
The East Asia FLEG Ministerial Conference took place in Bali in September 2001. The Conference brought together nearly 150 participants from 20 countries, representing government, international organizations, NGOs, and the private sector. The event was co-hosted by the World Bank and the Government of Indonesia.
The meeting included detailed technical discussions of forest law enforcement in relation to governance, forest policy and forest management as well as ministerial engagement.
The Conference's primary aims were to share analysis on forest law enforcement; explore priority issues of forest law enforcement, including illegal logging in the East Asia region, among senior officials from forest and related ministries, NGOs and industry representatives; and commit to action at the national and regional level.
The ENA FLEG Ministerial Conference was held in Russia in November 2005. In May 2004, the Russian Federation announced its intention to host the Europe and North Asia Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (ENA FLEG) process, supported by the World Bank. A preparatory conference was, held in Moscow in June 2005, and the final Ministerial conference in St. Petersburg on 22-25 November 2005.
The conference brought together nearly 300 participants representing 43 governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. It agreed to the St. Petersburg Declaration on Forest Law Enforcement and Governance in Europe and North Asia. The Declaration includes an indicative list of actions, intended to serve as a general framework for possible actions to be undertaken by governments as well as civil society.
The conference took place as the UK prepared to pass the G8 Presidency to Russia. As Valery Roshchupkin, Head of the Federal Forestry Agency of the Russian Federation, confirmed, illegal logging would be of special importance for Russia as the G8 President and for the next G8 Summit, also scheduled to be held in St. Petersburg.
In May 2003 the European Commission presented an action plan on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT). This marked the beginning of a long process by which the EU aims to develop and implement measures to address illegal logging and related trade. The primary means of implementing the Plan is through Voluntary Partnership Agreements with timber producing countries.
The United States is the world’s largest consumer of wood products and one of the top importers of tropical trees. Many speculate that the United State’s high demand for timber is the driving force behind illegal logging worldwide. In terms of the United States there is very limited policy addressing the issue of illegal logging. The closest is the Lacy Act of 1900. The Lacy Act, originally signed in 1900, sought to protect the illegal poaching of wildlife and “plants” and selling them to other states. The wildlife portion of the bill is concrete however the plant section is littered with loopholes. The act states “Any wild member of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, and other parts thereof (but excluding common food crops and cultivars) which is indigenous to any State and which is either listed on an appendix to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, or listed pursuant to any State law that provides for the conservation of species threatened with extinction.” The flaw in this bill lies in the fact that the species of “plant” must be indigenous to that specific states and not one introduced from another territory. Furthermore the Lacy Act is only applicable when a state, i.e. Oregon, has specific legislation in place already protecting the “plant” in question. The bill was last amended in 1988 and as of then there are two levels of fines for violating the Lacy Act. For misdemeanor level crimes the maximum sentence could be up to one year in jail and a $10,000 fine. For felony level violations the maximum sentence could hold up to two years in jail and a fine of $20,000. The most recent attempt to revise the Lacy Act came in 2007. The two main points of the amendment were to redefine the words “take,” and “plant,” in an attempt to close any loopholes. The word “plant” would be redefined to mean any wild member of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts, and excluding any common food crop and species not listed in the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species. Also, the word “take” would be expanded to include the harvesting, cutting, logging, or removing of a plant. However, in spite of having numerous endorsements from numerous conservation groups and wide spread support from Democrats in Congress the bill failed to pass. In June 2009 Obama approved logging in the Tongass National Forest a 17 million acre rain forest in Alaska, the largest national rainforest in the U.S. The Obama administration allowed 4.4 million board feet of timber to be clear-cut, which was earlier prohibited due to the national conservation act. Furthermore, this action taken by the President contradicts his support for the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which prohibits the construction of roads in National Forests. However, the construction of roads is now a necessity in order to transport the newly logged trees out of the rainforest.
European Union
America
Asia
|
|
Wikis
Quiz
Map
Search