Which 10 bilateral product flows have most salience to future international effort against “Illegal Timber”? Statistics abstracted from 17/07/2006) Presented by James Hewitt (Independent business consultant) Illegal Logging Update & Stakeholder Consultation, Chatham House, 21/07/2006

Who knows how much Illegal Timber is traded? Failure of G8 under its 2005 President Blair to act on Civil Society request to measure and monitor trade in Illegal Timber World Bank’s US$10-15bi pa - now out of date; not subdivided by country FAO and UNECE - considering how to report on Illegal Timber Baltic 21 - focusing on transparent timber trade flows Estimated RWE volume and import value of trade in Illegal Timber during 2005: 70 million m3 (c5-10% greater than 2004) and US$13 billion Producer countries - are those who have power a major part of the problem?

Why estimate how much Illegal Timber is traded? 1) to identify which bilateral~product flows warrant international scrutiny 2) to optimise effort, devote 20% of scrutiny to the leading 80% of trade flows 4) to lobby for support 3) to design targets and appraise progress Fundamental to multi-national strategy against trade in Illegal Timber 5) to assess impact on legitimate trade (e.g. AF&PA) But risk of: denigrating timber vis à vis alternative materials for boats, building, furnishing, etc. However, those materials might be associated with illegality (and conflict)

Major concessions: visibility, management resources, export earning Failure to publish - implies illegality (corruption) State secrets? X Stewardship? √ Maintain a public register devoted to major concessions, giving details of: 1) location (GIS), ownership, duration, management plans, etc 2) annual log production Vs volume authorised 3) major court cases, judgements and any penalties actually paid Compile separately for conversion forest, permanent forest or plantation Transparency - a tool to inhibit illegality Maintain a public register devoted to persistent large mismatches between export and import declarations. Include notes on action taken, the shipping company, consignee/consignor, product, port etc - Indonesia/Malaysia/China Repackage the data, with annotations, to maximise its usefulness

Why not measure legality against specific parameters? Estimates of the percentage of timber exports that is suspect under the given heading In order to improve these “first iteration” estimates, please contact Modify these to reflect the range of likely sources supplying each bilateral flow

Top Ten bilateral flows of Illegal Timber products Top Ten = 35% (RWE volume basis) of trade in Illegal Timber (25mi m3 RWE & US$4.5bi cif)

Notes The estimates relate only to those imports which do not have credible chain of custody certification to forest stump (low cost Vs high benefit) The percentages should not be applied to trade from concessions which are - credibly - progressing towards FSC or equivalent certification One enterprise logs the great majority of China’s Illegal Timber from Congo (Bz), Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, PNG, & the Solomon Islands - whose Illegal Timber exports derive primarily from links to those in power The two flows shown for each of the USA and Japan probably account for half of those two countries’ Illegal Timber imports Economic crime (which is neither confined to the wood-based products sector nor to producer countries) accounts for much of the illegality FLEGT VPA’s would be appropriate for the EU trade flows shown - if established (or scrapped) by, say, 2008

Which single action would achieve most impact on these flows? Imports from China (especially by the USA): cease importing wood products made in China unless these are accompanied by a credible chain of custody back to forest stump for both: a) the species which accounts for most of the product’s volume and b) the species which dictates how the product is marketed (e.g. its surface veneer) Imports from South Western region of Congo (Brazzaville): urge prospective importers (in the EU and the USA) to not procure veneer and plywood from the mills being established by that region’s leading logging group – until independent public audits credibly confirm that that group’s concessions have been properly awarded, that it has (and adheres) to plans for the sustainable management of its concessions, and that it has paid all its arrears of applicable taxes and fines (e.g. relating to log exports) to the correct part of government Examples:

Illegal Timber imports during importing country by product Total roundwood equivalent volume: c70 million m3 30% 20% 15% 10% 25% Japan and USA would each import only 5% of world trade in Illegal Timber if their imports of plywood from Indonesia and Malaysia (Japan) and from China (USA) and wooden furniture from China (USA) were credibly certified back to forest stump

>?50% of China’s imports are used by its export-oriented industries Should consumer countries offer to help China minimise its illegal imports? If China can, so can India? Nip India’s Illegal Timber (& Paper) trade in the bud

Arrow width directly proportional to roundwood equivalent volume: 2 million cubic metres RWE 0.5 million cubic metres RWE Bilateral trade flows - “Illegal Sawn Wood” (2005) Showing flows greater than c100,000m3 RWE To be read in conjunction with Indonesia: export ban (but, gross import~export mismatch in prior years) Russia: address EU trade and apply the new norm to West Asia~North Africa

Demons in Central Asia cutting a tree - Muhammad Siyah Qalam c AD - Topkapi Saray Museum, Istanbul