The Role of CITES in Curbing Illegal Timber TradeThe Ramin Racket

Contents

Front cover photo: © Sam Lawson/EIA/Telapak.Back cover photo: © Sam Lawson/EIA/Telapak.

Executive Summary 1

The Illegal Logging Crisis 1

The Role of CITES 2

Ramin: A Suitable Case 3

The Effectiveness ofAppendix III 4

Malaysian RaminLaundering 6

Malaysia’s VanishingRamin Forests 8

The Case for Appendix II 10

The Importance ofProcessed Wood 11

Conclusions &Recommendations 12

AcknowledgementsEIA and Telapak would like to thank TheRichard and Rhoda Goldman Fund, TheSigrid Rausing Trust, and other donors fortheir generous support of our work,though it should not be implied thesegroups share the views expressed withinthis report.

EIA and Telapak would also like to thankthe many community groups, individualsand NGOs working together withEIA/Telapak on the ilegal logging issue.

This report was written and researched bySam Lawson. Additional research andediting by Arbi Valentinus, Dave Currey,Hapsoro, Julian Newman, MardiMinangsari, Pallavi Shah, Sascha vonBismarck, Vanessa Frey and Yayat Afianto.Picture research and report design byJoaquim Pereira.

Many thanks to Emmerson Press for theprinting of this report (Emmerson Press:+44 (0)1926 854400).

Printed on recycled paper.

September 2004.

The Environmental Investigation Agency(EIA) is an independent, international campaigning organisation committed to investigating and exposing environmentalcrime. Since 1984, EIA has used pioneeringinvestigative techniques all over the world toexpose the impact of environmental crime andto seek lasting solutions. EIA’s aims are to:

• Stop illegal trade in endangered species

• Gain lasting protection for species under threat

• Protect the shared environment of manand wildlife.

www.eia-international.org

Front cover:Raft of illegal logs on the Seruyan River,near Tanjung Puting National Park, Indonesia.

Back cover:Ramin dowels on sale in Italy

Left:Map of South-East Asia.

1

Executive SummaryThe world’s forests are being rapidly destroyedby a tidal wave of illegal logging, driven by anunregulated international trade in stolen wood.These forests are home to most of the specieslisted on the CITES Appendices. Though theinternational community has committed to takeurgent action to tackle illegal logging andassociated trade, listings on CITES are currentlythe only means by which consuming countriescan halt shipments of illegally sourced timberand wood products.

Indonesia’s Appendix III listing of ramin(Gonystylus spp.), an endangered tree beinglogged illegally in National Parks, has provedthat CITES can be a powerful tool in protectingforests from the scourge of timber theft.Though it is not the ultimate answer to theproblem, where appropriate CITES could - andshould - be doing much more. FurtherAppendix III listings of threatened tree speciesare justified and should be supported.Implementation and enforcement of AppendixIII must also be improved.

Despite the success of the current listing, raminremains under threat. The remnants ofMalaysia’s ramin forests are being exploitedunsustainably, despite nominal protection.Though ramin is banned from cutting andexport in Indonesia – the only other significantrange state – stolen wood continues to belaundered through neighbouring Malaysia inquantities which exceed the global annual legalsupply. Experts agree that ramin qualifies forinclusion on Appendix II, and such a listingwould provide much needed additionalprotection. This listing should be supported, asshould the inclusion of processed parts andproducts, which represent the vast majority ofinternational trade.

Illegallogging isrampant intropical andnon-tropicalforestsacross threecontinents.

© A

. Ruw

indrijarto/EIA

/Telapak

The Illegal LoggingCrisisOver the last century, many of the world’sancient forests have disappeared at the hand ofman. The urgent need to protect this vanishingresource has long been recognised, and aroundthe globe efforts and resources have beenpoured into halting the decline.

Yet in spite of these efforts, the destruction ofthe world’s forests continues, and in manyplaces is actually accelerating. The main reasonfor this continuing devastation is illegal logging,which is rampant in tropical and non-tropicalforests across three continents. More than threequarters of logging in Brazil and 50 per cent inCameroon is illegal.1 As much as a third ofRussian timber is stolen,2 while in Indonesia theillegal logging rate is estimated to be 80 percent.3

This is not about poor people being forced bycircumstances to take what they can to survive.This is illegal logging on an industrial scale,being carried out by large companies to feed anuncontrolled and burgeoning global demand forcheap timber and wood products. It is beingorchestrated by well-organised and powerfulcrime syndicates, whose bosses wear Rolexwatches and fly first class.

This anarchy is having devastating effects. InIndonesia, home to ten per cent of the world’sremaining tropical forests,4 the rate of forestloss is greater than ever before. An area offorest larger than Taiwan (Province of China) isbeing lost every year.5 Critically endangeredspecies dependent on these forests, like theorangutan, face imminent extinction.

Uncontrolled logging also leads to devastatingfires, landslides and floods, endangeringbiodiversity and wreaking havoc on forest-dependent communities. It is starvingdeveloping countries of money sorely needed tofund schools, hospitals and sanitation. Effortsby these countries to rein in the activities of thetimber barons are rendered futile in the face ofsystemic corruption, fuelled by the vast profitsbeing made.

The bulk of this illegal wood is exported, andmost finds its way onto shelves and into homesin the rich countries of North America, Europeand East Asia. The US, Europe, Japan, Canadaand Russia together consume 74 per cent of thetimber in global trade.6 Unless action is taken inthese markets to staunch the flow of illegallysourced wood, there is little chance the problemcan be solved.

Left:Illegal logger inGunung LeuserNational Park,Indonesia.

The Illegal Logging Crisis

The Role of CITESThe sheer scale of the illegal logging epidemichas prompted a range of political responsesover the last five years. Meetings of the G8group of major economies,7 the UNConvention on Biological Diversity8 and theInternational Tropical Timber Organisation9

have all seen announcements by nations of theirintention to work to halt illegal logging andassociated trade. The European Union (EU) hasproduced a landmark Action Plan to tackle theproblem,10 and the US has launched a‘Presidential Initiative’ on illegal logging.11 Atthe World Summit on Sustainable Developmentin 2002, the countries of the United Nationspledged to “take immediate action on domesticforest law enforcement and illegal internationaltrade in forest products”.12 A number ofbilateral agreements have since been signed.13

Unfortunately, these political pronouncementshave yet to produce meaningful actions.Endless studies have been commissioned whichserve only to reiterate what was known already.Meanwhile, the destruction continues. A majorreason for the failure to act is that consumingcountries do not have laws banning the import

of illegally sourced wood. Consequently, assoon as vessels carrying stolen timber and woodproducts reach international waters the cargo iseffectively legalised, and importing statescannot deny entry.

Consuming countries, led by the EuropeanUnion, are beginning to recognise this problemand consider new laws. Yet this is a terriblyslow process, while there is an urgent need foraction. In this evolving political context CITESoffers a mechanism for a rapid response, and iscurrently the only means by which importingcountries can seize illegally sourced wood.Recognising this, the EU Action Planspecifically commits member states tofurthering the use of CITES to tackle illegaltrade.

EIA/Telapak do not believe that CITESrepresents the only or the ultimate answer intackling the issue of illegal logging andassociated illegal trade, but until alternativemeasures are adopted CITES represents apowerful tool which should be used whereappropriate.

2

CITES iscurrently theonly meansby whichimportingcountriescan seizeillegallysourcedwood.

© E

IA/T

elapak

The Role of CITES

Ramin: A Suitable Case for CITES

3

Ramin: A suitable case for CITESRamin (Gonystylus spp.) is a blond colouredtropical hardwood, native to the fragile peat-swamp forests of Indonesia and Malaysia.These forests provide critical habitat for a hostof endangered species, including the orangutanand the Sumatran tiger. As the most valuablewood species in these ecosystems, ramin treesare usually the first target of illegal loggers, andselective logging of these trees is often the firststep leading to forest clearance and incursioninto National Parks.

Ramin is prized for its appearance, fine grainand easy working properties. Processed ramincan fetch up to US$1000 per cubic metre.14 Themajority of the international trade in raminwood is in semi-finished parts and products,and most ramin cut in Indonesia and Malaysiawill eventually find its way into homes in thelucrative markets of Europe, East Asia andNorth America in the form of picture frames,wood blinds, pool cues, furniture, tool handlesand decorative mouldings.

As a result of over-cutting, ramin has now beenlogged-out in most of its range, and thequantity in trade has declined as the species hasbecome increasingly scarce. Ramin regeneratespoorly in logged-over forest, and the species hasnever been successfully grown in plantations.Over the last two decades, much ramin habitathas been cleared to make way for oil-palmplantations. Ramin has been placed on theWorld List of Threatened Trees and is classified

by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) asvulnerable to extinction in the wild.15

In 1999, investigations carried out byEIA/Telapak revealed widespread illegal loggingof ramin in Indonesia’s protected areas,including the world famous Tanjung PutingNational Park, one of the last sanctuaries forthe endangered orangutan. Subsequentinvestigations showed how this illegal ramin issmuggled out of the country and on to theworld market.16

In response to growing concerns about illegallogging and trade, in 2001 the Indonesiangovernment banned all cutting and export oframin, except for a small quantity from aconcession certified as sustainably managed.Indonesia also listed the species on Appendix IIIof CITES. When the listing came into effect inAugust 2001, Malaysia entered an officialreservation against the listing of ramin partsand products other than logs and sawntimber,effectively refusing to implement the listing forthese items.

Ramin hasbeen loggedout in mostof its range.

Above:Raft of illegal logs in Tanjung Puting National Park,Indonesia.

Left:Illegal loggers are destroying the forest home ofcritically endangered species including the orangutan.

© K

irsten Tuson/T

he Orangutan Foundation

4

The Effectiveness of Appendix IIIDespite the Malaysian reservation, the listing oframin on Appendix III of CITES has shownthat CITES can be an effective tool in tacklingthe trade in illegally sourced wood.EIA/Telapak’s independent monitoring of thelisting’s effectiveness shows that, despite theintransigence of some Parties, it has had apositive impact where it matters most – in theforests.

In Indonesia’s protected forests, includingTanjung Puting National Park, illegal loggingof ramin has been reduced. While enforcementaction has been important, local sources notethat the increasing difficulty in transportingand selling stolen ramin overseas has alsoplayed a part.17 Though ramin is still targeted,loggers and traders have been forced to reduceand conceal their activities, adding cost andreducing profit margins. In some areas vesselsused to transport stolen ramin have been lyingidle, blocked by CITES controls from reachingdestinations abroad.18

These changes on the ground have beenincreasingly driven by implementation andenforcement of the ramin listing in consumingcountries. Gradually the market for illegal

ramin is being closed. This has been mostnoticeable in the key markets of Europe andNorth America. While ultimately consumingaround two-thirds of global raminproduction,19 countries in these regions alsotend to take the highest quality wood andprovide the best prices.

Despite initial problems, enforcement of thelisting in key consuming countries has beeneffective, as shown by a dramatic drop inreported imports (see graph). Successful seizuresof processed ramin wood and products havebeen made in a number of countries includingthe UK, Italy and the US.

In the US, shipments of dowels, mouldings,baby cribs and other products have beenstopped and companies fined. More than80 000 billiard cues from China, worth morethan US$1 million, have been seized over thepast two years.20 In 2002 UK customsintercepted thousands of metres of raminpicture frame mouldings which had arrivedfrom Indonesia without CITES permits under afalse species name. This was the UK’s largestever seizure of wood and the importingcompany had to pay £130 000 ($250 000) inforfeited goods and fines.21

Vessels usedto transportstolen raminhave beenblocked byCITEScontrolsfromreachingdestinationsabroad.

© E

IA/T

elapak

Right:Enforcement agentsbreaking up railsused to transportillegal ramin logs,Tanjung PutingNational Park.

The Effectiveness of Appendix III

5

The Effectiveness of Appendix III

It has been claimed that Japan and Taiwan(Province of China) do not implementAppendix III for imports,22 underminingAppendix III listings of timber species such asramin. In fact Japan has detailed procedures inplace to implement the ramin listing,23 whileTaiwan (Province of China) has also beenmonitoring ramin imports. Following an exposéby EIA/Telapak of illegal exports of raminfurniture, in August 2004 Taiwaneseregulations were amended in order to fullyimplement all Appendix III listings.24 Despitethe country’s reservation, Malaysia alsoregularly issues CITES documents for shipmentsof processed ramin because of import controlsin consuming states. This gives the lie toMalaysia’s claim that implementation of thelisting for such items would be impossible.

The most compelling evidence of theeffectiveness of the listing and subsequentseizures in reducing trade in stolen wood comesfrom the illegal traders themselves. Over thelast three years, EIA/Telapak have carried out aseries of undercover investigations into theramin trade across Asia, and in consumingcountries including the UK and Italy. Theseinvestigations have involved contacts with ahost of players - from Singaporean timbertraders to Malaysian shipping agents, fromAmerican cue importers to Italian picture framedealers, and from Taiwanese baby-cribmanufacturers to British wood blind retailers.25

In the months immediately following theAppendix III listing, EIA/Telapak found traderswere often ignorant of the new controls, whileothers were dismissive of the likely effects. Yetsubsequent seizures soon sent shock wavesthrough the industry, as shipments wereconfiscated or held up and customers lost. Oncethey started losing money, manufacturers andtraders of ramin timber and wood productsquickly took notice. While these investigationshave also uncovered continued instances of

illegal trade, the listing has clearly made adifference.

Soon after a spate of seizures of ramin babycribs in the US, EIA/Telapak investigatorsposing as buyers visited a major manufacturerof these products in China. The company toldhow they had been forced to legalise theiroperations: “If I use ramin and China [does]not give me these papers then we’re finished”,one executive said. “If you don’t submit yourpapers they just take the containers”.26

The effective reduction in the supply of raminto global markets as a result of the Indonesianban and CITES listing has also been reflected indramatic price rises. For instance, averagevalues for ramin sawn timber exported fromPeninsular Malaysia rose by almost 60 per centbetween August 2001 and December 2003,from $350 per cubic metre to $550.27

© Sam

Law

son/EIA

/Telapak

Above:Ramin picture framemouldings seized inthe UK, March 2002.

Left:Ramin imports intothe US, June 2000-October 2003 (datafrom US Port Import-Export ReportingService).

Malaysian RaminLaunderingThe Malaysian timber industry was founded onthe extraction and processing of ramin. As aresult, since the early 1960s almost all of thecountry’s ramin peat swamp forests have beenlogged over at least once, and regeneration hasbeen poor.28 Most of Peninsular Malaysia’soriginal peat swamp forests have long sincebeen cleared to make way for oil palmplantations and other development, and theremainder has reduced by a third in the last tenyears. The pattern has been similar in Sarawak,eastern Malaysia.29 Even the remnants ofMalaysia’s ramin forests, which are nominallyprotected, continue to be exploitedunsustainably (see page 8).

Since most commercially viable ramin standshave already been cut, ramin production levelshave dramatically declined – from 560 000cubic metres in 199030 to 75 000 cubic metresin 2003.31 Yet much of the Malaysian timberindustry remains geared toward the processingand export of ramin timber and woodproducts. To make good the shortfall in rawmaterials, in the late 1990s the industry turnedto neighbouring Indonesia. By the time theCITES listing came into effect, independentindustry experts were estimating that as muchas 60 per cent of the ramin being processed andexported from Malaysia was being sourcedfrom neighbouring Indonesia.32

Logically a drop in Malaysia’s ramin exportsshould have occurred after the CITES listing,but since 2001 sawn ramin exports fromMalaysia have actually increased,33 while thesupply of ramin from Malaysia’s own forestshas continued to decline.34

The reason for this conundrum is clear - illegalramin from Indonesia continues to be importedin large quantities, unhindered by the newcontrols or Malaysia’s CITES commitments.Since 2001, evidence has mounted of the role ofMalaysia in laundering illegally sourcedIndonesian ramin and other timber.EIA/Telapak investigators visiting Malaysiahave repeatedly discovered illegal Indonesianramin entering the country, each time obtainingvideo evidence and alerting the relevantauthorities.35 A steady stream of seizures istestament to the scale of the smuggling.36

Investigations in late 2003 uncovered raminlaundering on an unprecedented scale. Theactivities exposed span three Malaysian statesand every part of the industry, and involve aquantity of ramin which is greater than theentire world’s legal supply. This illegalIndonesian wood is being laundered on toworld markets as ‘origin Malaysia’.

6

Investig-ations inlate 2003uncoveredraminlaunderingon anunpreced-ented scale.

Below:Evidence ofMalaysia’s trade instolen Indonesianramin, June 2001-November 2003.

Malaysian Ramin Laundering

Transhipment FraudIn November 2003, EIA/Telapak visited themajor port of Pasir Gudang, at the tip ofPeninsular Malaysia near Singapore. In the portinvestigators uncovered the largest raminsmuggling operation yet seen. During a tour ofthe port they were shown three hugewarehouses stacked high with sawntimber,which port officials admitted was ramin fromIndonesia. It was explained how vesselscarrying the ramin from the nearby island ofSumatra arrive at the port daily. Once the woodhas air-dried, it is packed into containers andshipped onwards to Hong Kong, Taiwan(Province of China) and mainland China.37

A local shipping agent, Andrew Chew, actingon behalf of the Malaysian companies handlingthe shipments, told EIA/Telapak investigatorsthat all of the ramin is smuggled fromIndonesia and none of it has CITES permits.The stolen ramin is purchased from a wealthytimber baron in Sumatra known as the ‘RaminKing’, reputedly a leading member of anorganised crime syndicate.

Though he could not obtain Malaysian CITESdocuments for re-exporting the wood, the agentexplained how he obtains false paper trailsincluding Bills of Lading and standardCertificates or Origin disguising its origin. Healso claimed he could “buy” CITES re-exportpermits for the wood in China and Hong Kong.

An official of the privatised port authority toldhow he had brought the ramin transhipmentbusiness from Singapore in late 2002, and howsince then around 4500 cubic metres ofIndonesian ramin had been passing through theport each month. Annually this is almost twiceas much ramin as is legally produced in thewhole of Malaysia,38 and is greater than theentire global legal ramin supply.

False Permit Scam in SarawakIn the town of Sibu in Sarawak, the traditionalhome of Malaysia’s ramin business,EIA/Telapak also obtained further shockingevidence of the scale of ramin laundering. Onemajor ramin trader told investigators that about30-40 per cent of the ramin currently beingexported from Sarawak to Europe andelsewhere with CITES permits actually comesfrom Indonesia. This represents sales of timberand wood products worth more than $4 milliona year.39

The trader explained how the ramin arrivesfrom Indonesia to mills on the Sibu river and isrubber-stamped by the local authorities asoriginating in Malaysia. Local mouldingmanufacturers using these raw materials areallegedly only required to show that the timber

was purchased locally in order to obtain CITESCertificates of Origin for export. Customsrecords show that local companies are shippingmore than 6000 cubic metres of ramin dowelsand mouldings to the US alone each year.

Illegal Ramin Baby FurnitureTwins Furniture, a company based in the townof Kuantan in Peninsular Malaysia, is amongthe largest manufacturers and exporters ofwooden baby cribs in the world. Half the cribsit produces are made from ramin. Twins’products are on sale in major retail outletsaround the world, especially in the US andEurope.40

EIA/Telapak investigators visited Twins’ largefactory complex in November 2003. Thecompany owner told investigators that itregularly exports ramin cribs to Europewithout CITES permits, and falsely advised thatpermits are not needed at import. Investigatorsalso found illegal ramin from Indonesia at thecompany’s sawmill, which a worker said arrivesregularly by barge at a nearby port.

Such ‘supplementing’ has enabled Twins tobuild ramin stocks of more than 11 000 cubicmetres – almost one tenth of the annual legalworld production. In fact it has so much raminthat the company has developed a lucrativesideline selling its surplus of unprocessed wood.In May 2004 one such shipment supplied byTwins was bought by a timber merchant inJapan.41

Malaysian Ramin Laundering

7

Almost twiceas muchillegalIndonesianramin isbeinglaunderedthroughPasir GudangPort than islegallyproduced inthe whole ofMalaysia.

Above:Illegal Indonesianramin air-drying atPasir Gudang port,Malaysia, 17thFebruary 2004.

© T

elapak/EIA

Malaysia’s Vanishing Ramin ForestsOnly 190 000 hectares of ramin peat swamp forest remains in Peninsular Malaysia – less than a third of the670 000 hectares which existed twenty years ago.42 Most of the remaining forest lies in a near-contiguous blockalong the coast in the state of Pahang. This area lies within the remit of a United Nations DevelopmentProgramme Global Environment Facility (UNDP-GEF) funded $6 million project aimed at furthering theconservation of Malaysia’s remaining peat swamp forests.43 It is home to many endangered species includingtigers and Asian elephants.44

While 45 per cent of Pahang’s remaining peat-swamps are classified as ‘state land’ which is eventually destined tobe cleared, the remainder – 90 000 hectares – is designated as ‘Permanent Forest Reserve’ (PFE).45 This shouldmean that only sustainable logging is permitted, and the area must remain under forest. Yet a recent case hasshown that where Malaysia’s dwindling forests are concerned, the definition of ‘permanent’ is very flexible indeed.

During the last five years a giant swathe of this ‘permanent’ ramin forest 60 square kilometres in size has beensystematically destroyed.46 The huge oblong scar is clearly visible from space (see images below). In 1998 thistract of forest was controversially handed over to the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), Malaysia’sruling party, for them to log and convert into an oil-palm plantation, despite its PFE status.47 During the next twoyears companies working for UMNO stripped the area of thousands of valuable ramin trees. Between 1998 and2000 ramin log production in Peninsular Malaysia almost doubled as a result, reversing a long term downwardtrend in allowable cuts.48 Logging elsewhere in the peat swamp reserve is also reckoned to be unsustainable, andofficials admit that even the minimal regulations governing harvesting are widely flouted.49

Even ramin in National Parks in Malaysia is far from safe. The 11 000 hectare Loagan Bunut National Park inSarawak is also one of the three areas covered by the UNDP-GEF programme.50 Like Malaysia’s other two peat-swamp parks, the area was logged for ramin long before it was gazetted, and as a result large trees are rare. TheMalaysian Timber Council gives ramin density in Loagan Bunut as around one-tenth that of virgin forest, indicatingthat there are just 5000 ramin trees in the reserve.51 Despite legal protection, the remaining ramin stocks continueto be cut. In a single seizure at the end of 2003, local enforcement agents captured 3000 logs stolen from insidethe park.52

8

Before After

Above:Satelite photos of ramin forest in Malaysia, showing how one 60 square kilometre area of ‘reserve’ was recently cleared.

Malaysia’s Vanishing Ramin Forests©

Resource Stew

ardship Consultants

Malaysian Ramin Laundering

9

Woeful Response Detailed evidence from EIA/Telapak’sinvestigations was provided to the authorities inIndonesia and Malaysia. The findings weresubsequently published in February 2004 in adamning report - Profiting from Plunder: HowMalaysia Smuggles Endangered Wood -sparking worldwide attention and concern. Atthe CITES Standing Committee meeting thefollowing month, serious concerns wereexpressed by a number of Parties and aninvestigation launched.53

The Malaysian authorities made strenuousattempts to play down the report and criticiseits findings, but EIA/Telapak’s incriminatingvideo evidence could not be refuted. In ameeting in Kuala Lumpur attended by membersof the press, the Minister of Primary Industriesadmitted that illegal trade was occurring andcommitted to investigate.

Just two days later Malaysian enforcementofficials entered Pasir Gudang port. Theydiscovered 2317 cubic metres (1637 tonnes) ofillegal ramin, which they quickly confirmed hadoriginated in Indonesia and was notaccompanied by CITES permits.54 It was thelargest ever haul of illegal CITES listed timberin Asia.

The Malaysian Timber Council were quick tohail the seizure as proof of the country’scommitment to enforce,55 but it soon became

clear that it was little more than a publicrelations stunt. During the next two months allthe ramin was released without charge foronward shipment.56 Though warnings wereeventually faxed to the destination countries ofHong Kong, Taiwan and mainland China, theywere not sent until all the shipments wouldhave long since arrived.57

Malaysia has claimed that they were forced torelease the wood through a loophole inMalaysian law which means that CITES rulesdo not apply in Free Trade Zones.58 Such anomission is contrary to CITES Resolution Conf9.7, which specifically states that Parties shouldensure that their CITES implementinglegislation covers such areas.59 It also fails toexplain the delay in warning authorities in thedestination countries.

No action has been taken against any of theMalaysian companies or officials detailed in theEIA/Telapak report. Malaysia’s reservationagainst the listing of ramin parts and productscontinues to confuse traders and facilitateillegal trade, and the country’s Free TradeZones remain exempt from CITES controls.Neither has any action been taken by Indonesiato tackle the illegal exports and investigate thetimber baron involved. With such a woefullyinadequate response in both Indonesia andMalaysia, it is hardly surprising that the illegalramin trade continues.

Below:Belated fax sent bythe Malaysian CITESManagementAuthority warning ofthe release ofthousands of tonnesof illegal ramindestined for HongKong.

The Case for Appendix II

10

The Case for Appendix IIDespite the broad success of the currentAppendix III listing of ramin, the speciescontinues to be threatened by illegal andunsustainable exploitation across its range.Malaysia’s reservation against the listing ofparts and products, coupled with widespreadlaundering, have served to undermine currentCITES controls. Current levels of legal loggingof the species are clearly unsustainable, andeven ramin trees in protected areas are beingfelled.

Faced with the continued threat to the speciesfrom international trade, Indonesia hassubmitted a proposal to uplist ramin toAppendix II.60 The uplisting has been sought onthe basis that without strict regulation,harvesting for international trade will have adetrimental impact on the survival of thespecies in the long term. Experts from theWorld Conservation Union (IUCN),61 EuropeanUnion member states,62 the CITES Secretariat,63

and the wildlife trade monitoring network,TRAFFIC,64 are unanimous in their agreementthat the species merits inclusion on thesegrounds.

An Appendix II listing would raise the profileof ramin and bring increased resources andattention to control trade in the species thancurrently exist under the Appendix III regime.

This has been confirmed to EIA by customsofficers in major consuming countries.65 AnAppendix II listing would also bring the fullweight of CITES to bear on any Party failing toabide by the Convention.

Unlike Appendix III, an Appendix II listingwould also require exporting countries to assessand ensure the sustainability of their raminharvests, through non-detriment findings. Allthe available evidence shows that suchadditional regulatory measures are urgentlyneeded.

While the case for uplisting ramin is clear, itshould not be implied that Appendix IIIcontrols have failed. On the contrary, theexperience of the listing of ramin on AppendixIII has shown that given the crisis levels ofillegal logging such listings can be a powerfulemergency measure in tackling trade in illegallysourced timber. Though Appendix III listingsare often poorly implemented and understood,this is only because many Parties fail to takethem seriously. This must be addressed, andadditional Appendix III listings of timberspecies should be urgently considered. CITESmust not fail in its duty to do all it can to haltthe scourge of illegal logging which isthreatening the world’s forests.

© D

ave Currey/E

IA/T

elapak

Below:Peat swamp forestin Tanjung PutingNational Park.

Experts areunanimousthat raminmeritsinclusion onCITESAppendix II.

11

The Importance ofProcessed WoodThe vast majority of international trade inramin is in processed wood, while trade in logs,sawntimber, veneer sheets and plywood islimited.66 For this reason, Indonesia includedprocessed wood products (annotation #1) whenthe country listed ramin on Appendix III ofCITES in 2001. The proposal by Indonesia tolist ramin on Appendix II of CITES deliberatelyretains this annotation. Information collated byEIA/Telapak shows that this annotation is vitalif an Appendix II listing is to be effective.Evidence from seizures under the currentAppendix III listing also proves that CITEScontrols for processed ramin wood can beimplemented and enforced.

Ramin logs spoil quickly, and are almost nevershipped outside the countries of origin. Long-standing policies to encourage downstreamprocessing in range states have also served todramatically increase the proportion of trade ofsemi-finished and finished products. In 2000,the last full year during which ramin wood waspermitted to be exported from Indonesia, 90 per cent by weight of exports were of semi-processed wood such as mouldings anddowels.67 Though Malaysia only publishesfigures for export of ramin as sawn wood, thecountry is also a major producer and exporterof moulded wood products. Malaysia has noless than 334 wood mouldings factories68 andsuch items probably represent at least half of allramin wood exported.

In the key markets for ramin wood, the patternis even more striking. The US and Europe aloneultimately consume around two thirds of theworld’s ramin.69 More than 95 per cent of thiswood arrives in processed form.70 BetweenAugust 2001 and March 2003, for instance, USimport data records 540 shipments as includingramin wood.71 Only four - less than one percent - were of sawntimber. The rest wereprocessed products, including dowels,mouldings, picture frames, billiard cues, louvredoors and paint brushes.

Ramin trade figures collated from CITESannual reports by the UNEP WorldConservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC)appear to contradict the above, with 95 per cent of shipments recorded as ‘timber’or ‘sawnwood’.72 But close analysis byEIA/Telapak of available source data revealsthat the WCMC figures are dangerouslymisleading due to inadequate standardclassifications. In 2001, for example, WCMCrecord that the US imported 765 cubic metresof ‘sawn wood’. Yet CITES permits received by

US Customs clearly show that this 765 cubicmetres actually consisted of 15 shipments oframin dowels and mouldings – processedwood.73

The inclusion of all readily recognizable partsand products in the Appendix III listing hasprovided some new challenges to enforcementofficials. But where political will has beenshown these challenges have been overcome.Ramin wood is used in quite a limited range ofwooden items and products, and each of thesecomes in a small range of species.74 Slattedwood blinds, for example, are typically madeonly from either ramin or one other species –basswood – while ramin is the only lightcoloured wood used for the production ofcues.75 Armed with such basic knowledge,intelligent targeting has dramatically reducedthe potential burden on customs officials.Combined with an extensive array ofidentification guides and assistance madeavailable over recent years,76 this has enabledParties to successfully implement and enforcethe listing for processed wood without the needfor significant extra resources.

Successful seizures of processed ramin woodand ramin wood products have been made in anumber of countries including the UK andUSA.77 Prosecutions have followed, andimplementation of the listing for such items insource or manufacturing countries has alsoimproved as a result.78

Most importantly, given the nature of the tradeand the existing Appendix III listing, anAppendix II uplisting with a more limitedannotation than proposed would effectivelyreduce the current controls on trade. Such anaction would be detrimental to the survival ofthe species in the wild, and would run contraryto the aims of CITES.

The Importance of Processed Wood©

David Sim

s/EIA

/Telapak

Above:Ramin wood blindson sale in London,UK, August 2001.

The vastmajority ofinternationaltrade inramin is inprocessedwood.

12

Conclusions• Rampant illegal logging driven by an

unregulated international trade in stolenwood is rapidly destroying the world’sforests. The international community hasrecognised the scale and importance of thisproblem and made repeated commitments totake urgent action.

• While CITES does not represent the only orultimate answer to these problems, listings onCITES are currently the only legal mechanismby which importing countries can halt theflow of illegally sourced wood fromendangered timber species.

• The listing of ramin on CITES Appendix IIIhas shown that such listings can be a usefultool in empowering consuming countries tohelp tackle illegal logging and trade in stolenwood. Further listings are justified andshould be supported.

• Despite the success of the Appendix IIIlisting, ramin continues to be threatenedby illegal and unsustainable cutting andtrade. Large quantities of illegal Indonesianramin are being laundered through Malaysia.

• Ramin qualifies for inclusion on Appendix IIof CITES and this would provide muchneeded additional protection to the species.Parties should therefore support the proposalby Indonesia to uplist ramin.

• Malaysian opposition to the Appendix IIlisting should be considered in light of thecountry’s track record in deliberatelyundermining CITES controls on the species,and the reliance of the Malaysian timberindustry on a continued supply of illegalramin from Indonesia.

• The annotation to include all ramin partsand products is of critical importance tothe effectiveness of an Appendix II listing.The current Appendix III listing has shownthat implementation of such an annotation ispossible. An Appendix II listing with a weakerannotation would reduce current CITEScontrols and be detrimental to the species.

Conclusions & Recommendations

© D

ave Currey

RecommendationsAll CITES Parties

• Actively seek to make greater use of CITESto halt trade in illegally sourced timber andwood products, so protecting threatenedtree species and critical forest habitat.

• Improve implementation and enforcementof CITES timber listings, individually andcooperatively.

• Support the uplisting of ramin toAppendix II of CITES, including theannotation to include all parts andderivatives.

Range states

• Urgently consider listing additionalendangered timber species suffering fromillegal logging and associated trade onCITES Appendix III.

Consumer states

• Support the inclusion of additionalendangered timber species on Appendix IIIand encourage such listings by producercountries suffering from illegal logging.

References1. Royal Institute of International Affairs (RIIA), Controlling the International

Trade in Illegally Logged Timber and Wood Products, Feb 20022. ibid.3. Consultative Group on Indonesian Forestry (CGIF), Jakarta, Sept 19964. Jakarta Post, ,"Time to Get Realistic About the Forest Crisis", 17/1/035. Forest Watch Indonesia, as quoted in the Jakarta Post, 29th October 20036. Greenpeace, Against the Law: The G8 and the Illegal Timber Trade, 20007. Memorandum from the G8 Summit, Birmingham 19988. Report of the 6th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the

Convention on Biological Diversity, April 20029. International Tropical Timber Council, Report of the 31st Meeting,

November 200110. European Union, Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade: Proposal

for an Action Plan, May 200311. US State Department Press Release, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell To

Launch The President’s Initiative Against Illegal Logging, July 200312. Plan of Implementation of the World Summit on Sustainable Development

(Revised) 23rd Sept 200213. Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) were signed on the subject between

the UK and Indonesia in April 2002, between Indonesia and China inDecember 2002, and between Indonesia and Japan in June 2003

14. EIA/Telapak, Timber Trafficking, 200115. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species16. EIA/Telapak Indonesia, The Final Cut, 1999; EIA/Telapak, Final Cut

Update, 2000; EIA/Telapak, Timber Trafficking, 200117. Anonymous pers comms. to EIA/Telapak, 2002-2004 18. Anon., field report of investigative visit to Riau, Sumatra, June 200319. EIA/Telapak, International Ramin Wood Trade – The Importance of

Processed Wood, June 200420. Pers. comm., US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2002; US Public Access

to Court Electronic Records (PACER) electronic system, December 200321. Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise, “Customs settles case involving

importation of ramin wood”, press release, Feb 2003; pers.comms., HMCE,2002-2003

22. TRAFFIC SE Asia, Framing the Picture: An Assessment of Ramin Trade inIndonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, 2004; CoP13 Prop.50, Inclusion ofGonystylus spp. in Appendix II, with annotation #1

23. Pers. Comm., Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade & Industry, 4thOctober 2001

24. Pers. Comm., U.S. Taipei Cultural and Economic Office, Washington D.C.,USA, 17th August 2004

25. EIA/Telapak, confidential internal reports of field investigations andsurveys, 2001-2004

26. EIA/Telapak, confidential internal report, 2004 27. Statistics Department of Malaysia, as reported in MTIB Journal Maskayu,

2001-2004 28. Report of the Malaysia-The Netherlands Ad-Hoc Expert Group on Forest

Management, Jan 199629. United Nations Development Programme Global Environment Facility,

Project of the Government of Malaysia MAL/99/G31: Conservation andSustainable Use of Tropical Peat Swamp Forests and Associated WetlandEcosystems, June 2000.

30. TRAFFIC SE Asia, 2004, op cit31. Malaysian Timber Council, “The Malaysian Timber Council rejects the

generalizations and grossly overstated claims made by the EIA andTelapak”, briefing document, February 2004

32. Anon., Malaysia’s peat swamp forests: a discussion paper, with particularreference to ramin, August 2001

33. Statistics Department of Malaysia, 2001-2004, op cit34. TRAFFIC SE Asia, 2004, op cit35. EIA/Telapak, confidential internal report of field investigation, Aug 2001;

EIA/Telapak, confidential internal report of field investigation, Apr 2003;EIA/Telapak, confidential internal report of field investigation, Nov 2003

36. Borneo Bulletin, 21st September 2001; SCTV News Indonesia, August2002; Batam Pos, 31st March 2003;Sarawak Tribune, 1st November 2003; MTC Press Release, 3rd March2004; Utusan Malaysia, 13th August 2004

37. EIA/Telapak, Profiting from Plunder: How Malaysia Smuggles EndangeredWood, Feb 2004

38. Malaysian Timber Council, 2004, op cit39. EIA/Telapak, Profiting from Plunder , 2004, op cit40. EIA/Telapak, Profiting from Plunder , 2004, op cit41. Pers. Comm., confidential, August 200442. Forest Research Institute of Malaysia, Rehabilitation of Logged-Over Peat

Swamp Forests in Peninsular Malaysia, presentation to InternationalWorkshop on Integrated Management and Rehabilitation of Peatlands,February 2004

43. UNDP GEF, June 2000, op cit44. ibid.45. ibid.46. Malaysiakini, “Satellite photos confirm widespread logging on Umno’s

land”, 7/8/0347. ibid.48. TRAFFIC SE Asia, 2004, op cit49. The Star, “Potential in peat swamp”, 20/1/04; The Star, “Save the peat

forest”, 24/7/0450. UNDP GEF, June 2000, op cit51. Malaysian Timber Council, 2004, op cit52. The Star, “Big seizure of illegal logs in national park”, 13/12/0353. 50th Meeting of the Standing Committee to CITES, 15th-19th March

2004,Summary Report

54. Malaysian Timber Council, “Illegal Indonesian Ramin Crackdown”, pressrelease, 3rd March 2004; Malaysian Timber Industry Board (MTIB), faxessent to CITES Management Authorties in Hong Kong, China & Taiwan,copied to EIA, 5th May 2004

55. Malaysian Timber Council, 3rd March 2004, op cit56. Malaysian Timber Industry Board, 5th May 2004, op cit 57. Malaysian Timber Industry Board, 5th May 2004, op cit; EIA pers. comms.

with CITES Authorities in Hong Kong, Beijing and Taipei, May-Aug 200458. Pers. comm., Secretary General , Ministry of Plantation Industries and

Commodities, 18th May 200459. CITES Conf. Res. 9.7, Transit and transhipment60. CoP13 Prop.50, Inclusion of Gonystylus spp. in Appendix II, with

annotation #161. IUCN/TRAFFIC, Analyses of the Proposals to Amend the CITES

Appendices, August 200462. Pers.comm., UK CITES Plants Scientific Authority, 2003 63. CITES, Provisional Assessments by the Secretariat to Amend Appendices I

and II at the 13th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, 200464. TRAFFIC, Recommendations on the Proposals to Amend the CITES

Appendices at the 13th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties, August2004

65. Confidential pers.comms., 200366. EIA/Telapak, June 2004, op cit67. BPS, Indonesian Export Statistics, published reports 1998-200168. Malaysian Timber Council, 2004, op cit69. EIA/Telapak, June 2004, op cit 70. US Port Import-Export Reporting Service data, 2001-2004; CITES permits

obtained from US Fish & Wildlife Service, July 2002; Pers. comm., UKDepartment of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2003

71. Port Import-Export Reporting Service data, 2001-200472. UNEP-WCMC Wildlife trade on-line database73. CITES permits obtained from US Fish & Wildlife Service, July 200274. EIA/Telapak, confidential internal reports of field investigations and

surveys, 2001-200475. ibid.76. eg Environment Canada, CITES Identification Guide – Tropical Woods:

Guide to the Identification of Tropical WoodsControlled under the Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies of Wild Fauna andFlora, 2002

77. Pers. comm., US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2002; Pers. comm., UKDepartment of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, 2003; US PublicAccess to Court Electronic Records (PACER) electronic system, December2003

78. EIA/Telapak, confidential internal reports of field investigations andsurveys, 2001-2004

References

13

EIA UK62-63 Upper StreetLondon N1 0NYUnited Kingdomukinfo@eia-international.orgTel +44 (0)20 7354 7960Fax +44 (0)20 7354 7961

EIA USP.O. Box 53343Washington DC 20009United States of Americausinfo@eia-international.orgTel +1 202 483 6621Fax +1 202 986 8626

TelapakJl. Palem Putri III No. 1-3Taman Yasmin Sektor VBogor, Indonesiatelapak@telapak.orgTel +62 251 7159902Fax +62 251 508375

www.eia-international.org www.telapak.org