Illegal Logging and Related Trade: Measuring the Global Response

Sam LawsonIndependent ConsultantChatham Housesamlawson@earthsight.org.uk

Presentation for RIIA Illegal Logging Meeting 25th-26th January 2007

Are we wasting our time?

Are we wasting other people's money?

Is any of it making any difference?

Should we just go down to the pub?

Where do we start? Need to examine all phases

of response, not just end goal

Need to capture response in terms of role of consumer and processing countries as well as countries suffering illegal logging

DEVELOPMENT / ADOPTION

PUBLIC PRIVATE

IMPLEMENTATION

PUBLIC PRIVATE

AWARENESS

PUBLIC PRIVATE

OUTPUT / GOAL

REDUCTION IN ILLEGAL LOGGING

OUTPUTS/ EFFECTIVENESS

PUBLIC PRIVATE

Need to examine response by governments and by industry

Problems

Limited information available

Even less comparable information available for different time periods

Data collection methods not precise enough for change to be discerned reliably

Subjective information more plentiful but subject to bias

Different information available for different countries - not comparable

MRAG Illegal Fishing Estimates

TI Corruption Index

Uses surveys (subjective opinions turned into quantitative data) Secondary sources (surveys already conducted by others) Large datasets (19,000 people - mostly business analysts)

One-off measure (not designed to be repeated over time) Based on 'best guesses' of illegal fishing rates based on very limited

data and anecdotal information Figures then extrapolated using correlations with proxies Very unreliable; justifiable to get some kind of figure, but not precise

enough to measure change over time

such secondary sources don't exist

not enough knowledgeable respondents

How do other people do it?

First study - twenty 'indicators'

New study - summarised under four main headings:

Awareness

Government Policy Development & Implementation

Private Sector Policy Development & Implementation

Actual Levels of Illegal Logging & Trade

Structure of the Study

Stakeholder consultation meeting to be held in March to discuss draft

Dramatic increase in coverage But who exactly is it reaching? And what is it about?

Number of news articles with the phrase ‘illegal logging', 1997-2005

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Nu

mb

er o

f ar

ticl

es

Website usage (eg illegal-logging.info) Prevalence at international fora (eg CITES, ITTO) Activity of NGOs News coverage (general and specialist industry)

A: Awareness

Greatest coverage in Indo, UK, USA

Local language news coverage within focus countries

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Indo

nesia

Mala

ysia

Brazil

*

Ghana

†

China*

Vietnam UK

Germ

*

Nether

lands*

Franc

e*USA

No

. o

f ar

ticl

es

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Coverage growing in most countries, esp Indo, UK, Neth, China

Very little in France or Germany compared with UK, Neth

Qualitative analysis important (eg almost no US stories relate to domestic role, most on wire services and very few in major outlets)

Producer Countries Collect data against a set of standard criteria Boolean (yes/no), plus qualitative information eg: do forest laws recognise traditional rights?; are rules for

concession allocation publicly available?; is there formal inter-agency co-ordination?

Consumer / Processing Countries Use same method eg: have existing legislative options to control imports been analysed?;

are CITES controls for timber fully implemented?

1. POLICY DEVELOPMENT & IMPLEMENTATION

B: Government Actions

eg seizures, prosecutions, in producer countries

2. ENFORCEMENT & IMPLEMENTATION

Country

No. of Illegal Logging Cases

Amount of timber seized (m3 RWE) No of arrests

No. of successful prosecutions

Total fines imposed

Total fines collected

Collection Rate

IndonesiaMalaysiaBrazilGhanaCameroon

ideally possible to complete table such as below on annual basis

danger of giving false impressions even if provisos are supplied

more seizures etc could equally mean more or less illegal logging!

reality is that information is scattered across time and space and rarely comparable

Can measure policy progress against set of standard baselines Measuring implementation and effectiveness more difficult (only UK has

any data) Can get some indications using proxies (eg prices for certified timber)

3. PROCUREMENT POLICIES

Table 12: Consumer country procurement policy development, 2000 – 2006

2000 2002 2004 2006

Number of countries with policy in place 2 2 4 7

Number of additional countries developing policy 0 1 2 0

Number of policies which cover regional/local govt 0 0 0 0

Number of policies which are compulsory 1 2 2 2

Number of EU countries with policy in place 1/15 2/15 4/25 5/25

Number of countries monitoring implementation 0 0 1 0

Countries developing systems of monitoring imp 0 1 1 2

Well known that relevant spending by specific governments and multilateral organisations has grown

Very little data exists with which to prove or measure this, however

Donors do not collate relevant figures and numbers are rarely annualised

World Bank - $310 million FLEG-related project expenditure (no assessment of change over time)

ITTO - non-project work increased from $100k in 2004-5 to $719k in 2005-6

4. FOREST GOVERNANCE DEVELOPMENT AID

1. TIMBER INDUSTRY INITIATIVES

C: Private Sector eg FSC, GFTN, TFT, TTAP

2. FINANCIAL SECTOR Similar issues (policy adoption info, but not implementation)

3. MARKET DEMAND (eg price premiums for cert timber)

good data on take-up showing increase over time of commitment by companies

particularly shows huge increase in numbers of Chinese companies taking action over last two years

BUT very little data collected to show actual implementation

eg. GFTN - no information collated; UK only scheme to provide data

eg. no data is collected on amount of FSC wood traded by CoC co's more info should be available in future (eg from TTAP)

1. Wood Balance Modelling

D: Actual Levels of Illegal Logging & Trade

often insufficient raw data different assessments use different methodologies and therefore can't

be comparedEstimates of Illegal Timber Production in Indonesia using Wood Balance modeling, 1997-2005

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Cu

bic

met

res

(mil

lio

ns)

Scotland (1999)

Tacconi et al. (2004)

NRM-Bappenas-MFP (2004)

Seneca Creek et al. (2004)

2. Timber Product Prices strong correlation between enforcement crackdown in Indonesia and

dramatic prices increases for tropical timber in Asia

Prices of Balau Logs, January 2004 – September 2006

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

190

Jan

-04

Ma

r-0

4

Ma

y-0

4

Jul-

04

Se

p-0

4

No

v-0

4

Jan

-05

Ma

r-0

5

Ma

y-0

5

Jul-

05

Se

p-0

5

No

v-0

5

Jan

-06

Ma

r-0

6

Ma

y-0

6

Jul-

06

Se

p-0

6

US

$ p

er

cu

bic

me

tre

Presidential Decree & Enforcement Operation in Indonesia

prices reaching record highs - rises exceed those of early 90s analysts conclude enforcement main factor behind doubling of share

values of listed Malaysian companies with access to legal logs knock-on effects felt on prices of African species

BUT other factors involved (eg demand in China, deforestation, Indo

sawntimber export ban) - difficult to separate out

econometric analysis needed - may give reverse estimate of scale of reduction in illegal logging in Indonesia

exceptional circumstances - unlikely to provide a useful indicator for other countries in future

2. Trade Data Discrepancies ITTO studies - can provide an indicator of illegal trade in some cases,

but other factors confuse the picture too much in most

Malaysia Tropical Log Trade Data Discrepancies, 1997-2004, volume (000 m3)

-500

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Vo

lum

e o

f Im

po

rts

in E

xces

s o

f R

eco

rded

E

xpo

rts

China

India

Japan

Only changes over time clearly correlated are those related to Indo/Mal log and sawntimber trade with major markets

Only potentially useful indicator where trade flow is large; perhaps most useful for assessing imports of illegally-sourced primary products by processing countries (eg China, Malaysia, Vietnam)

So, what about the pub?

Insufficient data in most cases

1. I'm not sure if I can give you an answer...

Studies often not repeated

Estimations rarely precise enough to be repeated and compared year-on-year

Extrapolating specific figures from best guesses would be unreliable and potentially misleading

Qualitative information needs to be captured better

Mostly impractical to collect primary data specifically for this purpose (though limited surveys may be worthwhile)

Best option may be annual 'country reports' which combine sparse quantitative data updates with qualitative analysis and survey results

?

2. But if you insist... Awareness has definitely grown across the board

So sorry, not just yet..

Definite improvement in commitment and policies in many countries

Actual implementation or effectiveness of policies less certain

Both things also true of private sector

Strong evidence of dramatic reduction in illegal logging and associated trade in Indonesia

Better information likely to be available in future

?

Illegal Logging and Related Trade: Measuring the Global Response

Sam LawsonIndependent ConsultantChatham Housesamlawson@earthsight.org.uk

Presentation for RIIA Illegal Logging Meeting 25th-26th January 2007