MALACAÑAN PALACE

MANILA

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 23

DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON THE CUTTING AND HARVESTING OF TIMBER IN THE NATURAL

AND RESIDUAL FORESTS AND CREATING THE ANTI-ILLEGAL LOGGING TASK FORCE

WHEREAS, the entire country has been a witness to the ever-changing climatic conditions brought about
by the La Niña phenomenon;

WHEREAS, the destructive effects of the phenomenon on the environment are apparent in many regions
in the country and it is an accepted fact that the effects are worsened due to the continuous denudation of
the forest zones;

WHEREAS, the watersheds and the river systems supporting existing or proposed hydroelectric power
facilities, irrigation works or existing water facilities are in need of immediate protection and rehabilitation;

WHEREAS, it is the obligation of the State to protect the remaining forest cover areas of the country not
only to prevent flash floods and hazardous flooding but also to preserve biodiversity, protect threatened
habitats and sanctuaries of endangered and rare species, and allow natural regeneration of residual
forests and development of plantation forests;

WHEREAS, it is imperative to arrest the degradation, pollution and contamination of the river and water
systems and to stem the wanton destruction of the forest resources;

WHEREAS, Article XII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitutional provides that “the exploration,
development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the
State”.

NOW, THEREFORE, I BENIGNO S. AQUINO, III, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by law, do hereby order:

Section 1. Definition of Terms. For the purpose of this Executive Order, the following terms shall be
defined:

1.1 Forest Land – it includes public forest, permanent forest or forest reserves, and forest reservations.

1.2 Natural and Residual Forests- are forests composed of indigenous trees, not planted by man.

1.3 Plantation Forest – is a forest where the trees were planted pursuant to a management agreement
with the DENR.

1.4 Integrated Forest Management Agreement (IFMA) – is a production sharing contract entered into by
and between the DENR and a qualified applicant wherein the DENR grants to the latter exclusive right to
develop, manage, protect and utilize a specified area of forest land and forest resources therein for a
specified period consistent with the principle of sustainable development and in accordance with an
approved Comprehensive Development and Management Plan (CDMP).

1.5 Socialized Integrated Forest Management Agreement (SIFMA) – is an agreement entered into by and
between a natural or juridical person and the DENR wherein the latter grants to the former the right to
develop, utilize and manage a small tract of forest land consistent with the principle of sustainable
development.
1.6 Community-Based Forest Management (CBFMA) – is an agreement entered into by and between the
government and the local community in a locality, represented by a people’s organization as forest
managers, for a specific period wherein the local community is allowed to develop, utilize and manage a
small tract of forest land consistent with the principle of sustainable development.

1.7 National Greening Program – is a DA-DENR-DAR Convergence Initiative anchored on the

government’s goal of poverty reduction, food, security, climate change adaptation and mitigation.

Section 2. Moratorium on the Cutting and Harvesting of Timber in the Natural Forests – A moratorium on
the cutting and harvesting of timber in the natural and residual forests of the entire country is hereby
declared unless lifted after the effectivity of this Executive Order. In order to implement this policy, the
following are hereby instituted:

2.1 The DENR is henceforth hereby prohibited form issuing logging contracts/agreements in all natural
and residual forests, such as Integrated Forest Management Agreements (IFMA), Socialized Integrated
Forest Management Agreements (SIFMA), Community-Based Forest Management Agreement (CBFMA)
and other agreements/contracts with logging components in natural and residual forests;

2.2 The DENR is likewise prohibited from issuing/renewing tree cutting permits in all natural and residual
forests nationwide, except for clearing of road right of way by the DPWH, site preparation for tree
plantations, silvicultural treatment and similar activities, provided that all logs derived from the said cutting
permits shall be turned over to the DENR for proper disposal. Tree cutting associated with cultural
practices pursuant to the indigenous Peoples Right Act (IPRA Law) may be allowed only subject to strict
compliance with existing guidelines of the DENR;

2.3 The DENR shall review/evaluate all existing IFMAs, SIFMAs, CBFMAs and other forestry
agreements/contacts and immediately terminate/cancel the agreements of those who have violated the
terms and conditions of their contracts/agreements as well as existing forest laws, rules and regulations at
least twice. Furthermore, said agreements shall likewise be immediately terminated/cancelled if the
holders thereof engage in logging activities in any natural or residual forest or abet the commission of the
same;

2.4 The DENR shall strictly implement a forest certification system in accordance with the United Nations
standard/guidelines to ascertain the sustainability of legal sources and chain of custody of timber and
wood products, nationwide;

2.5 The DENR shall close and not allow to operate all sawmills, veneer plants and other wood processing
plants who are unable to present proof of sustainable sources of legally cut logs for a period of at least
five (5) years within one month from effectivity of this Executive Order:

2.6 The DENR through the DA-DENR-DAR Convergence Initiative, shall develop a National Greening
Program NGP in cooperation with the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher
Education (CHED) to initiate the educational drive campaign; the Department of Interior and Local
Government (DILG) to help in establishing communal tree farms for firewood and other purposes; the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to identify the upland farmers covered by the
NGP as priority beneficiaries of the conditional cash transfer program; the Department of Budget and
Management (DBM) to provide the funds for the production of quality seedlings for the NGP from
available funds of the government; and the private sector and other concerned agencies/institutions to
raise funds and resources for tree planting.

2.7 The Department of Education shall be given priority in the use of all confiscated logs.

Section 3. Creation of the Anti-Illegal Logging Task Force. To enforce the moratorium and lead the anti-
illegal logging campaign, an Anti-Illegal Logging Task Force is hereby created. The Task Force shall be
composed of the DENR Secretary or his duly authorized representative as Chairman and the Secretary of
the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the Secretary of the Department of National
Defense, the Chief of the Philippine National Police, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines of their respective authorized representatives , as members.

3.1 Mandate. The Task Force is hereby mandated to take the lead in the anti-illegal logging campaign and
ensure the implementation of this Executive Order under the supervision of the DENR. It shall also assist
the DENR in the enforcement of other environmental laws.

3.2 Support from Government Offices and Agencies. The Task Force may call upon the support of any
department, bureau and office of the executive branch to assist in the discharge of its functions, such as
but not limited to the provision of administrative or technical assistance, logistical support and detail of
personnel. The DENR shall provide the secretariat for the Task Force.

3.3 Budgetary Support. The Department of Budget and Management shall provide the DENR an initial
budget for the Task Force in the amount of Ten Million Pesos (P10,000,000.00) which shall be sourced
from the available funds of the government. Release of the additional amounts shall be subject to the
approval of the President.

Section 4. Repealing Clause. All executive orders, rules, and regulations and other issuances or parts
thereof which are inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby revoked, amended, and/or modified
accordingly.

Section 5. Implementing Guidelines – Upon its formation, the Task Force shall immediately formulate the
guidelines for the implementation of the policies set forth in this Executive Order.

Section 6. Effectivity. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately after publication in a newspaper
of general circulation.

DONE in the City of Manila, Philippines, this 1st day of February in the year of Our Lord Two Thousand
and Eleven.

(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

President of the Philippines

By the President:

(Sgd.) PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR.

Executive Secretary

Source: Malacañang Records Office

Republic of the Philippines

Congress of the Philippines
Metro Manila

Twelfth Congress

Second Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-second day of July, two thousand two.

[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9175]

AN ACT REGULATING THE OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, SALE, IMPORTATION AND USE OF CHAIN
SAWS, PENALIZING VIOLATIONS THEREOF AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Title. — This Act shall be known as the “Chain Saw Act of 2002”.

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. — It is the policy of the State, consistent with the Constitution, to conserve,
develop and protect the forest resources under sustainable management. Toward this end, the State shall
pursue an aggressive forest protection program geared towards eliminating illegal logging and other
forms of forest destruction which are being facilitated with the use of chain saws. The State shall therefore
regulate the ownership, possession, sale, transfer, importation and/or use of chain saws to prevent them
from being used in illegal logging or unauthorized clearing of forests.

SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Act, the term:

(a) “Chain saw” shall refer to any portable power saw or similar cutting implement, rendered operative by
an electric or internal combustion engine or similar means, that may be used for, but is not limited to, the
felling of trees or the cutting of timber;

(b) “Chain saw dealer” shall refer to a person, natural or juridical, engaged in the manufacture,
importation, distribution, purchase and/or sale of chain saws;

(c) “Department” shall refer to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources; and

(d) “Secretary” shall refer to the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

SEC. 4. Persons Authorized to Manufacture, Sell and Import Chain Saws. — Chain saws shall only be
sold and/or imported by manufacturers, dealers and/or private owners who are duly authorized by the
Department.

SEC. 5. Persons Authorized to Possess and Use a Chain Saw. — The Department is hereby authorized
to issue permits to possess and/or use a chain saw for the felling and/or cutting of trees, timber and other
forest or agro-forest products to any applicant who:

(a) has a subsisting timber license agreement, production sharing agreement, or similar agreements, or a
private land timber permit;

(b) is an orchard and fruit tree farmer;

(c) is an industrial tree farmer;

(d) is a licensed wood processor and the chain saw shall be used for the cutting of timber that has been
legally sold to said applicant; or

(e) shall use the chain saw for a legal purpose.

Agencies of the government that use chain saws in some aspects of their functions must likewise secure
the necessary permit from the Department before operating the same.

SEC. 6. Registration of Chain Saws. — Within a period of three (3) months from the effectivity hereof, all
persons who own or are otherwise in possession of chain saws must register the same with the
Department, through any of its Community Environment and Natural Resources Office, which shall issue
the corresponding registration certificate or permit if it finds such persons to be qualified hereunder.
Every permit to possess and/or use a chain saw for legitimate purpose shall be valid for two (2) years
upon issuance: Provided, That permits to possess and use chainsaw issued to non-commercial orchard
and fruit tree farmers shall be valid for a period of five (5) years upon issuance. For this purpose, the
Department shall be allowed to collect reasonable registration fees for the effective implementation of this
Act.

SEC. 7. Penal Provisions. —

(1) Selling, Purchasing, Re-selling Transferring, Distributing or Possessing a Chain Saw Without a Proper
Permit. — Any person who sells, purchases, transfers the ownership, distributes, or otherwise disposes or
possesses a chain saw without first securing the necessary permit from the Department shall be punished
with imprisonment of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years or a fine of not less
than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00) but not more than Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) or both
at the discretion of the court, and the chain saw/s confiscated in favor of the government.

(2) Unlawful Importation or Manufacturing of Chain Saw. — Any person who imports or manufactures a
chain saw without obtaining prior authorization from the Department shall be punished by imprisonment of
not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months and a fine of not less than One thousand pesos
(P1,000.00) nor more than Four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).

(3) Tampering of Engine Serial Number. — Any person who is found to have defaced or tampered with the
original registered engine serial number of any chain saw unit shall be punished by imprisonment of not
less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months and a fine of not less than One thousand pesos
(P1,000.00) nor more than Four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).

(4) Actual Unlawful Use of Chain Saw. — Any person who is found to be in possession of a chain saw and
uses the same to cut trees and timber in forest land or elsewhere except as authorized by the Department
shall be penalized with imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to eight (8) years or a fine of not
less than Thirty thousand pesos (P30,000.00) but not more than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) or
both at the discretion of the court without prejudice to being prosecuted for a separate offense that may
have been simultaneously committed. The chain saw unlawfully used shall be likewise confiscated in
favor of the government.

If the violation under this Section is committed by or through the command or order of another person,
partnership or corporation, the penalties herein provided shall likewise be imposed on such other person,
or the responsible officer(s) in such partnership or corporation.

If the offender is a public official or employee, in addition to the above penalties, he shall be removed from
office and perpetually disqualified from holding any public office.

The chain saws confiscated under this Section shall be sold at public auction to qualified buyers and the
proceeds thereof shall go to the Department.

SEC. 8. Reward. — Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery or confiscation
of an unregistered chain saw and the conviction of persons charged thereof shall be entitled to a reward
equivalent to twenty percent (20%) of the value of the chain saw unit(s). The Department is authorized to
include in its budget the amount necessary to carry out the purpose of this section.

SEC. 9. Authority of the Secretary. — To effectively implement the provisions of this Act, the Secretary
shall issue the implementing rules and regulations within ninety (90) days upon approval of this Act. He
shall likewise organize an office within the Department to ensure that the requirements imposed by this
Act may be complied with by qualified persons, within the shortest possible time, at the least possible
expense.
In the Province of Palawan, the provisions of this Act shall be implemented by the Palawan Council for
Sustainable Development pursuant to Republic Act No. 7611 or the Strategic Environmental Plan for
Palawan.

SEC. 10. Revocation of Registration and Permit. — The Secretary may revoke any Certificate of
Registration or permit previously issued to a person found violating the provisions of this Act, or the rules
and regulations issued pursuant thereto.

SEC. 11. Joint Congressional Oversight Committee. — To monitor and oversee the implementation of this
Act, including the approval of the rules and regulations issued pursuant hereto, there is hereby created a
Joint Congressional Oversight Committee to be composed of the Chairpersons of the Senate Committee
on Environment and Natural Resources and the House Committee on Natural Resources as Chairperson
and Co-Chairperson, five (5) members of each of the Senate and the House of Representatives who shall
be designated by the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives as members:
Provided, That the two (2) of the five (5) senators and two (2) of the five (5) House members shall be
nominated by the respective Minority Leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

SEC. 12. Transitory Provision. — In the interim while the Department is formulating the implementing
rules and regulations to effectively carry out the provisions of this Act, the Bureau of Customs is prohibited
from approving any chain saw importation without clearance from said Department.

SEC.13. Separability Clause. — If, for any reason, any part or provision of this Act shall be declared as
unconstitutional or invalid, such parts or provisions not affected thereby shall remain in full force and
effect.

SEC. 14. Repealing Clause. — All laws, executive orders, presidential decrees, letters of instruction, rules
and regulations, or parts thereof which are inconsistent with any of the provisions of this Act are hereby
repealed and/or amended accordingly.

SEC. 15. Effectivity. — This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in the
Official Gazette or in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation, whichever comes earlier.

Approved,

(Sgd.) JOSE DE VENECIA, JR.

Speaker of the House
of Representative

(Sgd.) FRANKLIN M. DRILON

President of the Senate

This Act, which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 1940 and House Bill No. 3994, was finally passed by
the Senate and the House of Representatives on August 14, 2002 and September 2, 2002, respectively.

(Sgd.) ROBERTO P. NAZARENO

Secretary General
House of Representatives

(Sgd.) LUIGARDO B. BARBO

Secretary of the Senate

Approved: NOV 07 2002

(Sgd.) GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO

President of the Philippines
Source: CDAsia

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 330

PENALIZING TIMBER SMUGGLING OR ILLEGAL CUTTING OF LOGS FROM PUBLIC FORESTS AND
FOREST RESERVES AS QUALIFIED THEFT

WHEREAS, public forests and forest reserves are important natural resources of the country which must
be preserved and conserved for future generations;

WHEREAS, public forest and forest reserves are the vital source of logs and other wood products so
essential to the national economy as principal dollar earner of the country;

WHEREAS, it is the solemn duty of every citizen to protect public forest and forest reserves from
indiscriminate logging, senseless denudation and wanton destruction to the detriment of the present and
future generations;

WHEREAS, there is need to discourage further forest destruction and denudation in order to conserve the
remaining public forest and forest reserves for the patrimony of the country;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers
vested in me by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines, and
pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1 dated
September 22, 1972, do hereby order and decree:

Section 1. Any person, whether natural or juridical, who directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes,
or smuggles timber, or other forest products, either from any of the public forest, forest reserves and other
kinds of public forests, whether under license or lease, or from any privately owned forest lands in
violation of existing laws, rules and regulation shall be guilty of the crime of qualified theft as defined and
penalized under Articles 308, 309 and 310 of the Revised Penal Code; Provided, That if the offender is a
corporation, firm, partnership or association, the penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or
officers, as the case may be, of the corporation, firm, partnership or association, and if such guilty officer
or officers are aliens, in addition to the penalty herein prescribed, he or they shall be deported without
further proceedings on the part of the Commissioned of Immigration and Deportation.

Sec. 2. All laws, rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

Sec. 3. This decree shall take effect immediately after publication in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation in the country.

Done in the City of Manila, this 8th day of November, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
seventy-three.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 54 November 16, 1972

PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL LOGGING

WHEREAS, Martial Law has been declared throughout the Philippines pursuant to Proclamation No.
1081, dated September 21, 1972;

WHEREAS, one of the objectives of said Proclamation is the restoration of peace, order and tranquility
throughout the country in order to give the peace loving inhabitants the chance to lead a peaceful,
healthy, progressive life, socially, morally, economically and politically;

WHEREAS, to attain such an objective, it is very necessary to protect the vital industries of the country
from economic saboteurs and opportunities;

WHEREAS, Philippine forest reserves, being among the most vital sources of logging and related
industries connected with the local and international economic life of the nation, must be protected not
only by the duly constituted authorities but by every citizen from being indiscriminately denuded or
destroyed; to the detriment of the present and coming generations;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, in my capacity as Commander-in-Chief of all the

Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972 and
Presidential Decree No. 1, dated September 24, 1972, do hereby order and decree; that any natural or
juridicial person who directly or indirectly cuts, declares, classifies, possesses or exports logs in violation
of existing laws, rules and regulations shall be penalized as follows:

1. Confiscation of the logs in question and payment of fine to be imposed in accordance with existing
laws, rules and regulations and suspension of the license and permit to operate for six months during the
cutting period, for the first offense.

2. Confiscation of the logs in question and payment of fine to be imposed in accordance with existing
laws, rules and regulations; and immediate cancellation of the license and permit to operate; and arrest
and detention of the offenders until ordered released by me or by my duly authorized representative, for
the second offense.

All laws, rules and regulations inconsistent herewith are hereby amended or modified accordingly.

This Decree shall take effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila, this 16th day of November in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
seventy-two.
Introduction

This paper describes what roles governments and NGOs can play at national and international
-particularly EU- level, and what legal and voluntary instruments they can apply, to combat the problems
of illegal logging.
Illegal logging is a pervasive and widespread problem, causing enormous damage to forests, forest
peoples and the economies of producer countries. No exact figures exist, but reliable estimates suggest
that over 50% of tropical timber imports into the EU are illegally sourced and between 10 and 20% of
timber from the boreal region. Costs to producer countries are high, ranging from 1.8 billion USD in the
Philippines to 3 billion USD in Indonesia, for instance.
Concern over the extent of illegal logging around the world has grown significantly in recent years, with
discussions taking place in many international forums, including the G8, the World Summit on Sustainable
Development, the WTO and the EU. This heightened awareness has developed, in part, as a response to
growing evidence of the destruction of forests and the accompanying serious loss of government
revenue. In part, it is an offshoot of the growing emphasis on ‘good governance’ in international policy.
And in part it reflects the increasing recognition of the role of consumer countries in fuelling demand for
illegal products.
Despite this growing concern, there is a clear lack of immediate and well co-ordinated action at national
and international level to address the problem. This paper lists strengths and weaknesses of different
options. It also examines the roles different stakeholders can and ought to play for any measures to be
effective. Existing agreements that can be used to address this problem, such as the OECD Convention
on Bribery, CITES, Money Laundering Legislation as well as forest certification schemes and standards
for the financial sector are surveyed; however, additional legislation is needed.
Last, this paper underscores that a revision of forestry laws in most timber-producing countries is an
essential condition to tackle the problem, as it has become clear that greater enforcement of forestry and
conservation laws has the potential to affect rural livelihoods negatively. That is because existing
legislation typically favours the timber industry over local people and often prohibits forestry activities such
as small-scale timber production, fuelwood collection, and hunting that millions of poor rural households
depend upon.

Chapter I: The problem of Illegal logging

1.1. Scale of illegal logging

There is no doubt that illegal logging is a pervasive problem, causing enormous damage to forests, to
forest peoples and to the economies of producer countries. Some estimates suggest that the illegal timber
trade may comprise over a tenth of the total global timber trade, worth more than $150 billion a year[1].
Although exact figures are difficult to obtain, given the illegal nature of the activity, reliable estimates
indicate that more than 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[2].
Activities constituting illegal logging include the harvest, transportation, purchase or sale of timber in
violation of national 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. Illegalities may also occur during transport,
such as illegal processing and export, fraudulent declaration to customs, and the avoidance of taxes and
other charges.
Although the clandestine nature of the illegal trade makes its scale and value difficult to estimate,
extensive unlawful operations have been uncovered wherever authorities have tried to find them. As the
World Bank observes, “In many countries, illegal logging is similar in size to legal production. In others, it
exceeds legal logging by a substantial margin … [P]oor governance, corruption and political alliances
between parts of the private sector and ruling elites combined with minimal enforcement capacity at local
and regional levels, all played a part”[3].
Illegal logging is the cause of widespread environmental damage and presents a grave threat to
biodiversity. In addition, the scale of illegal logging represents an enormous loss of needed revenue to
many countries. For example, a Senate Committee in the Philippines estimated that the country lost as
much as $1.8 billion per year from illegal logging during the 1980s[4]. The Indonesian Government
estimated in 2002 that costs related to illegal logging are $3 billion a year[5]. The substantial revenues
from illegal logging sometimes fund and thereby exacerbate national and regional conflicts, as in
Cambodia, Liberia and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Illegal logging: some facts

· A joint UK–Indonesian study of the timber industry in Indonesia in 1998 suggested that about 40%
of throughput was illegal, with a value in excess of $365 million.[6] More recent estimates, comparing
legal harvesting against known domestic consumption plus exports, suggest that over 70% of logging in
the country is illegal in some way[7].
· Over 80% of logging in the Amazon may be in violation of government controls[8].
· A World Resources Institute comparison of import and export data for Burma in 1995 revealed
substantial under-declaration of timber revenues, accounting for foregone revenue of $86 million –
equivalent to almost half of official timber export revenues[9].
· Studies in Cambodia in 1997 by the World Bank suggested that illegal extraction worth between
$0.5–1 billion, may be over 4 million m3 – at least ten times the size of the legal harvest[10]. If this level of
extraction continues, the country will be logged out within ten years of the industry’s official beginning.

The vast extent of the illegal timber trade distorts the entire global marketplace for a number of
key timber products such as logs and sawn timber. It robs governments of revenue, and undermines both
legal and sustainable management – which has to bear the additional costs of good husbandry and
proper tax declaration. As the World Bank reports, “widespread illegal extraction makes it pointless to
invest in improved logging practices. This is a classic case of concurrent government and market
failure”[11].

1.2. Trade liberalisation and illegal logging

Globalisation of trade, the elimination of barriers to trade and the increase of incentives to export have all
to some degree facilitated not only international timber trade generally – an intended effect – but also the
‘laundering’ of illegal timber by providing opportunities to disguise the true provenance of logs, and
facilitating transport. Trade in timber has grown from $29 billion in 1961 to $152 billion in 1999[12]. It is
widely argued[13] that trade liberalisation in the form of lowering tariffs on timber and timber products has
contributed to this increase. Although specific research regarding the impact of trade liberalisation on
illegal logging is lacking, it is clear that increase in illegal logging has gone hand in hand with increase in
international trade in timber and timber products. Furthermore the breaking down of border controls (such
as in the EU) and the increased transport of logs, sawn timber and paper and pulp from one producer
country to another have all facilitated laundering of illegally sourced timber.

Laundering illegal logs

One current example concerns Indonesia’s recent (summer 2002) moratorium on exports of its logs,
following on the temporary ban it had imposed in October 2001. Malaysia’s role in smuggling illegally
sourced timber from Indonesia has been clearly exposed[14]. To counter criticisms it was laundering
illegal logs, Malaysia ostensibly passed a ban on Indonesian logs[15]. However in May 2003 an
investigation revealed that Indonesian timber listed under CITES (the Convention on International Trade
in Endangered Species), was being smuggled into the port of Batu Pahat in Peninsular Malaysia. In
addition to disregard for CITES, the evidence proved that Malaysia’s own import ban of Indonesian logs
was being ignored: in the period of one hour, 32 Indonesian vessels loaded with illegal logs arrived at the
port of Muar in Peninsular Malaysia [16].

1.3. Urgency of revision and reform of forestry laws

An immediate problem facing any attempt to control the trade in illegal timber and wood products lies in
defining what constitutes illegality. In many countries, forestry legislation is simply unclear and insufficient
in terms of legal certainty. For example, a 1998 review of Cambodian forest legislation by the White &
Case law firm found that the legislation was “difficult to obtain, difficult to analyse, provides few objective
standards for forest protection and provides no integrated guidelines or standards for forest
management”[17].
An overview of Indonesian forest governance in 2003 revealed that 90% of state forest lands have never
been legally transferred from traditional landholders to the jurisdiction of the Forestry Department,
meaning that most ‘legal’ forestry operations in Indonesia are in fact of dubious legality (see box below)
[18]. In Canada, also, the legal situation is complex. In large parts of British Columbia, indigenous peoples
hold the rights and titles to their ancestral lands; in a recent decision, the Supreme Court of Canada
upheld these rights. However, jurisdiction over resource management, including forest concessions,
remains in the hands of the government, creating an unclear legal situation that has led to sometimes
violent disputes over unceded lands[19].
Lack of clarity in the legal framework can be linked to a second problem that raises even more
fundamental questions: the perceived legitimacy of the legislation. As a recent study by CIFOR notes[20]:
“Many existing forests and conservation laws have unacceptable negative impacts on poor people, ethnic
minorities, and women, and in many places they are enforced in a fashion that is discriminatory and
abusive". Ways must be found to address the problems associated with illegal forestry activities that at
the very least do not aggravate the negative impacts of existing regulatory efforts on the rural poor. In
many cases that will mean a revision of forestry laws, taking into account local peoples’ traditional and
user rights.

Uncertain legal framework

In Indonesia, the 1945 constitution provides for state control over all forests. Building on this, the 1999
forestry law explicitly classifies indigenous peoples’ forests as state forests, giving the Ministry of Forestry
primary responsibility to manage these forest resources. As a result, logging, mining and plantation
companies have been granted rights over vast tracts of forest lands that local people consider to be theirs
– with forest destruction and human rights conflicts as a result.

The examination of global options for addressing illegal logging should therefore not be undertaken in a
vacuum, but rather with the understanding that underlying issues of clarity and fairness of the national
legal context, in addition to political commitment to implementing and enforcing such rules, are critical to
the success of any action.
Chapter 2: Existing measures to address the problem.

Effective control of illegal logging will require action across many policy areas: the promotion of good
governance, action to tackle corruption, land reform, industrial and fiscal policy reform, development
assistance and so on. This paper focuses principally on the control of imports of illegally produced timber
and the financial transactions surrounding the illegal timber trade. Even when thus narrowing the focus,
governments and civil society organisations face many hurdles when attempting to tackle the problem.
These include proving illegality and the question of co-operation with enforcement authorities in the
country of origin, which is in many cases poor or non-existent.
In addition, September 11 has had a resonating impact on global initiatives in almost every domain.
Currently, the international focus is on security and anti-terror measures and now, more than ever,
environmental issues do not appear to receive high priority. Under such circumstances, the greater
wisdom may simply be to try to work within the current international tendencies, in an attempt to make
these work to the environment’s advantage. A number of international measures exist that could be used
to address illegal logging as well as other environmental issues, despite the fact that they are not tailored
to the environment.
Moving from general to more targeted initiatives, here we briefly examine the OECD Convention on
Corruption, the EU Money Laundering Directive, measures targeting the financial sector, forest
certification schemes and CITES as CITES as it relates to timber species. The list is by no means
exhaustive; the examples are to be viewed as instruments that have the potential to be effective in
addressing certain contributing causes and auxiliary effects of the illegal timber trade. For instance, other
potential tools include stolen goods legislation and Guidelines for Multi National Enterprises, such as the
OECD guidelines. For a more general overview of these tools, please refer to "Options to Control the
Import of Illegally Sourced Timber" by FERN/RIIA[21].

2.1. The OECD Convention on Bribery[22]

The OECD Convention on Bribery is a legally binding instrument whose requirements must be
incorporated into or implemented in national legislation by its parties (OECD members[23] and other
signatory governments). The Convention makes it a criminal offence to bribe a foreign public official. As
illegal logging in a number of cases involves bribery, the OECD Convention clearly has a role to play in
controlling illegal logging. The problem often lies in proving that bribery has taken place. The Convention’s
effectiveness would increase if all parties to the Convention implemented the recommendations made by
the OECD, such as excluding companies that have been found guilty from bidding for public contracts

The globalisation of international trade has contributed greatly to international initiatives to tackle
corruption across governments and within industries[24], and in the past decade and a half such
initiatives have gathered momentum. Importantly, it is recognized that to be effective the fight against
corruption must be undertaken on a multi-lateral basis. Importantly also, the self-interest of the entities
involved is what generates this momentum. As stated in the Preamble of the OECD Convention on
Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, bribery “distorts
international competitive conditions”. The desire to compete on equal footing, a principal impetus behind
the Convention, may ultimately prove to be a significant factor in its success. Anti-corruption measures
will be more assiduously applied if the perceived interest of industry lies, for competitive reasons, in
eliminating the corrupt practices.
The purpose of the Convention is to deter bribery in international business transactions and to criminalize
the act of bribing a foreign official[25], to give ‘bite’ in the national penal system to provisions punishing
international corruption It approaches its goals with flexibility: States party are required to implement the
Convention’s objectives, yet can choose the means most suited to their national legal traditions.[26]

Globalisation and fair competition drive Bribery Convention

Previous suggestions to tackle corruption had lain dormant until, in 1989, the US suggested that the
OECD examine the issue of an international instrument criminalizing foreign corrupt practices. Again,
globalisation of trade and concern to have all players aligned at the starting post was at the heart of this
impulse; the US felt disadvantaged by the stringent requirements of its own Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
(Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 78dd-2), and urged the OECD to create a level playing field.
Adding to this, political change in Eastern Europe presented new opportunities in international commerce
and intensified concerns regarding the issue.

The Convention entered into force in early 1999. As of February 2003, 34 countries had ratified it,
including Chile, Brazil and Argentina. Obviously many countries in which illegal logging occurs are not
signatories to the Convention, such as Russia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, Cameroon, Gabon and
Congo. Nonetheless, the OECD secretariat has undertaken outreach efforts to raise awareness regarding
the Convention and its objectives[27], and it is hoped that, if the Convention proves successful in
addressing bribery generally, more members will be forthcoming.

Links between bribery and illegal logging

The OECD Convention clearly can play a role in controlling illegal logging and other illegal activities.
Simply put, without addressing pervasive corruption, efforts in almost any domain to combat illegal
logging will be thwarted. In the forestry sector, bribery and corruption occur regularly in several areas: for
example, in the allocation of a forest concession; in the setting up or operation of a pulp and paper mill
that does not respect standards of health and environmental protection or that cannot source sufficient
legal timber for its operations; in the procurement of official documentation legalising ‘illegal’ timber,
particularly export licences (e.g. CITES permits); in the illegal construction of logging roads. A recent
Greenpeace report on the timber industry in Indonesia is chilling: not only is corruption routine[28], but the
military is a tool of the illegal loggers, perpetrating human rights abuses in the process. Finally, other
official interests are complicit in the failure to prosecute crimes and human rights abuses committed by
timber companies[29].

As with any illegal activity, the problem often lies in proving that bribery has taken place. However,
because this Convention addresses the supply of bribes it adds a valuable dimension to efforts to
eradicate bribery. It does not rely solely on the will of the government receiving such income to address
the problem – e.g. under this Convention, a western company providing a bribe can become a target of
legal action.
The instrument is imperfect. For example, a weakness of the Convention is that foreign subsidiaries of
companies are not explicitly covered. This is a serious omission in that payments are often made through
subsidiaries[30]. That said, the Convention casts a wide net in providing criminal liability for complicity in
bribery (“incitement, aiding and abetting, or authorisation of an act of bribery”), and this could – and NGOs
would argue certainly should – be instrumental in covering the parent company[31].

One of the most interesting features, however, is the monitoring and follow up foreseen by the
Convention[32]. This incorporates a process of peer review to be carried out within the context of the
OECD Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, involving questionnaires that
governments must complete[33]. Both OECD and non-OECD parties gather to examine, in a first phase
the harmonization of national legislation with the Convention’s obligations. During a hearing that involves
a to-and-fro between examining countries and the State party under examination, the quality of the
transposition is assessed. In a follow-up, the country’s response to remedy shortcomings noted during the
phase one assessment is itself assessed.
The phase two evaluation implies an assessment of the Parties’ efforts on a practical level, including the
resources dedicated to the effort, the number and training of personnel, the structures in place for dealing
with cases, the identification of obstacles to initiating prosecutions. It may also include an on-site visit.
The procedure is open to members of civil society “who can, and have, contributed written
comments….publication of the reports is mandatory and they will also be available on the Internet”[34].

It is too soon to evaluate the effectiveness of the Convention’s implementation[35]. Where the
Convention’s existing provisions are not effective, they can be amended[36] given the political will to do
so. The procedure is in place to remedy and adapt with experience. The Convention may yet prove an
effective instrument in combating international corruption, with significant hopes for combating
international trade in illegal timber[37]. A difficulty, however, will be for the Parties to obtain sufficient
evidence to prosecute nationals for bribery offences. The Parties are obliged to co-operate and provide
each other with legal assistance in criminal investigations and prosecutions.
To support these investigations, guidelines that help identify the types of bribery or corruption that occur in
the forestry sector should be developed. Civil society exerts a watchdog role that is critical to uncovering
corruption-related offences. The confidence of “whistleblowers” in coming forward will be a determining
factor in the effectiveness of applying the Convention’s provisions and the possibility to denounce
corruption anonymously would be extremely helpful; a complaint procedure such as that available in the
EU or an ombudsman would be useful in this framework.
NGOs must continue to emphasise their role in providing and promoting information regarding the hidden
destruction of the forestry industry. A few high-profile criminal prosecutions early in the Convention’s
implementation could provide a critical boost to its effectiveness, as well as a deterrent to international
bribery; these would be a vital indication that the will to prosecute such crimes does exist.

In sum, one of the Convention’s strengths lies in the self-interest that generated it: the will of the
industries affected to eliminate the unfair competitive advantage gained and/or the cost of bribery from
business transactions. The initiative should be supported by the NGO community, since in the absence of
addressing the rampant corruption in the forestry sector, any other measures adopted to do so will come
to nothing. Increased efforts to encourage more timber-producing countries to become Parties could be
useful. Further, although not perfect, a solid peer-monitoring framework exists, covering implementation
on paper and on the ground, in which civil society can hope to be active participants. With genuine
monitoring and participatory procedures in place, even where substantive implementation is lacking, it can
be hoped that lessons taken from experience will be incorporated and used to improve performance.
Recommendations to Governments:
· Governments should develop – at national, international or regional level – forest sector guidelines
for tax inspectors and public prosecutors to help them identify the possible forms that bribery and
corruption can take in the forestry sector.
· Governments should send a questionnaire to all public prosecutors to ensure that they report on all
cases involving the application of bribery legislation to forestry sector-related crimes. Problems preventing
prosecutions should also be reported.

2.2. Money Laundering Measures

Every EU Member State and many other countries have legislation on money laundering – the disposal of
the proceeds of criminal activity. This legislation has the potential to be effective against the problem of
illegal logging, so long as the legislation is sufficiently broadly defined. If illegal logging and the trade in
illegally sourced timber are criminal offences under Member States’ law, then the proceeds of these
activities could be subject to money laundering legislation, provided they were deposited or disposed of
within the EU. The fact that the activities themselves may take place overseas and be carried out by non-
EU nationals is not relevant. To date, no EU country has attempted to use this legislation to tackle the
proceeds of illegal logging. Governments should alert banks, lawyers, accountants, etc. to the possibility
that clients with interests in the forestry sector, particularly in countries where illegal logging is
widespread, may be engaging in money laundering.

As with efforts to address international corruption, anti-money laundering efforts are another current
international focal point, following September 11; again, the challenge is to try to make an existing
instrument with broad-spectrum potential work for the specific purpose of addressing illegal activities such
as illegal logging. Money-Laundering provisions could provide an interesting tool with which to target the
illegal timber industry indirectly. Enhancing such provisions could eventually encourage, or even require
financial organisations to take a more pro-active approach to due diligence research regarding their
clientele. Certainly, companies known to be involved in illegal timber trade, or indeed in any illegal activity,
should be shunned by the legitimate financial and credit community.

Money laundering refers to the processing of the financial proceeds of crime in order to disguise their
illegal origin. At a global level, money laundering is a problem of vast proportions: one recent estimate
puts worldwide money-laundering activity at roughly $1 trillion per year; another, by a former IMF Director,
placed this at 2 to 5 percent of the world's gross domestic product, or between $800 billion and perhaps
as high as $2 trillion[38]. National legislation allowing authorities to tackle money laundering and seize the
proceeds of criminal activity has traditionally focused on the illegal trade in narcotics. Over the past
decade and more, however, the need to expand the focus was increasingly recognized.
Every EU Member State possesses legislation on money laundering. At EU level, the EU’s first Directive
on Money Laundering, which applied only to the proceeds of drug-related crimes, dates from 1991.[39] In
December 2001, a second Directive – Directive 2001/97 – was adopted[40] that extended the scope of
the 1991 legislation; it entered into force in June 2003.
To date, no EU country has attempted to use this legislation to tackle the proceeds of illegal logging.
Theoretically, such legislation has the potential to be effective against the illegal timber trade, so long as
the legislation is defined in a sufficiently broad manner and if the political will can be found at various
levels, among Member State authorities and co-operating institutions, to give substance to these
provisions. With sufficient awareness of the problem and the willingness to interpret provisions in a
manner applicable to the trade in illegally sourced timber, the proceeds of this trade could be subject to
seizure.
A challenge for the national NGOs, therefore, is to undertake awareness campaigns aimed at both
authorities and the affected institutions regarding the destructive consequences of the illegal trade in
timber, in terms of lives disrupted, loss of state revenue, and environmental devastation.

EU Directive on Money Laundering

Directive 2001/97 expands the institutions and persons subject to anti-money-laundering obligations to
include insurance companies, investment firms, currency exchange offices, as well as certain non-
financial businesses, such as casinos, real estate agents and in many cases legal professionals who
participate in financial or corporate transactions[41] (hereinafter “affected institutions and persons”). The
directive further expands the list of underlying offences that trigger its obligations. The definition of serious
crimes must include, “at least”, narcotics-related offences, those linked to organised crime, fraud,
corruption, and offences “punishable by a severe sentence of imprisonment” under the penal codes of the
Member State[42]. Furthermore, “Member States may designate any other offence as a criminal activity
for the purposes of this Directive”[43]. This is clearly a possibility to include activities surrounding the
illegal timber trade, particularly as Member States are to amend the definition of this last category of
‘serious crime’ by 15 December 2004[44].
Other obligations of interest in combating illegal logging include the fact that affected institutions and
persons are required to examine “with special attention any transaction which they regard as particularly
likely, by its nature, to be related to money laundering”[45]. Affected institutions and persons must
volunteer such information to relevant Member State authorities, and co-operate fully with those
authorities when they receive requests for information[46]. Stock, foreign exchange and financial
derivatives markets are also required to report to Member State supervisory bodies if they discover what
could be evidence of Money Laundering[47].

If the activity in question is illegal under Member State criminal law – as is the case with illegal logging in
the UK, and the Netherlands– then the proceeds of the activity could be subject to recovery, provided
they were deposited or disposed of within the EU. The fact that the activity itself may take place overseas
and be carried out by non-EU nationals does not preclude application of the directive’s provisions[48].
Using such legislation is not without difficulty. Setting aside the difficulties of proving that a shipment of
timber is illegal[49], there is a potential hurdle of political and institutional will. Not only must Member
State authorities be willing to take action to interpret the provisions in ways relevant to the forestry sector,
and to act when they receive reports of suspect activities/clients, but the institutions and persons subject
to the Directive’s provisions must also co-operate actively. Furthermore, in the case of offences committed
in foreign countries, the success of action taken under money laundering legislation will require co-
operation with enforcement and judicial authorities in the country of origin, which may not always be
forthcoming.
For the Directive to be an effective tool, institutions and persons subject to the Directive must alert the
appropriate Member State authorities of suspect activities. Therefore, on a very practical level, the
Directive’s effectiveness also hinges on the level of awareness of the institutions carrying out those
transactions – indeed, the directive is concerned with raising awareness[50]. It is likely that many of these
institutions are not familiar with the extent of criminal activity in the forestry sector. Information and
guidance are needed. The institutions that may handle the proceeds of the crime – banks, accountants,
lawyers, etc. – should be alerted to the possibility that clients with interests in the forestry sector,
particularly in countries where illegal logging is widespread, may be engaging in money laundering.
Indeed, a key to success in using any Money Laundering provision to combat illegal logging lies in
inspiring banks and other relevant institutions and persons to carry out assiduous due diligence reviews,
with a full awareness of the likelihood of certain clients’ involvement in such activities. They must also
alert authorities where they have reason to believe that their client may be engaged in criminal activities.
Given that the majority of logging activities in many countries are generally accepted as illegal, this should
be a strong signal to a bank that clients operating forestry businesses in those countries may be
committing forestry crimes. Such due diligence measures would in fact be good business practice, as
illegality, by definition, means increased risk. Nonetheless, banks and other institutions may well resist the
widening of the Directive’s reporting burden on them[51].
Here is an opportunity for NGOs to embark on an awareness-raising campaign targeting both
Government and financial industry officials with targeted information regarding the devastating
consequences of the illegal timber industry. Publicity of identities of wrongdoers and information
exchange regarding suspicious companies is critical. As with anti-corruption measures, international
efforts to address corruption (above) and money laundering can be expected to reinforce each other.
The Financial Action Task Force (FATF)[52] publishes an annual blacklist of Non Co-operating Countries
and Territories, which have critical deficiencies in their anti-money-laundering systems or a demonstrated
unwillingness to co-operate in anti-money-laundering efforts. As of June 2002,[53] four timber producers
were included on the list: Indonesia, the Philippines, Russia and Burma.

In sum, the main advantage of Money Laundering legislation is that the international pressure to eradicate
money laundering has increased recently. The significant disadvantage is that applying such provisions to
proceeds of the illegal timber trade involves not only problems of proof but is premised upon the
willingness of political and institutional actors to take meaningful action. This should not be ruled out; the
will already exists in those Member States that have provisions applicable to illegal logging in their penal
codes. A positive point is that lack of awareness of the illegal logging industry may be an obstacle that is
relatively easy to fix; in the right ear, targeted information provided by NGOs could bring concrete results.
As with anti-corruption measures, a few successful prosecutions could have genuine impact.

Recommendations to EU governments
· As Member States are likely to expand the list of offences in the third Directive on money
laundering, it is important: 1) that governments ensure that illegal logging falls within the revised
definition; and 2) that the burden of proof be shifted so that banks must report any activity they should
consider suspicious based on the information they have available.
· EU governments should inform and guide institutions that may handle the proceeds of crime –
banks, accountants, lawyers, etc. – about the possibility that clients with interests in the forestry sector,
particularly in countries where illegal logging is widespread, may be engaging in money laundering.
· EU Member States should investigate the possibilities for taking action against illegal imports under
national money laundering legislation; UK legislation in particular appears to allow for this.

2.3 Financial Institutions[54]

Finance from private sources – banks, investment and pension funds – can be an important source of
revenue for logging companies and other sectors of the forestry industry. Some, notably ABN-AMRO,
have already announced that they will not fund any forestry companies involved in, colluding with, or
purchasing timber from illegal logging operations. Other financial institutions should follow this example.
EU and Member State authorities should take action to encourage, and in due course require, financial
institutions to draw up policies and action plans to ensure that they do not finance companies involved in
illegal logging practices. This would also facilitate the implementation of any money laundering legislation.

The timber industry, the pulp and paper industry, the extractive industries (oil, mining) and agribusiness
(soya, oil-palm, etc.) all contribute to forest loss; linkages with illegal (logging) practices have been clearly
documented in all these sectors. The more capital intensive the industry, the more important is the
involvement of financial institutions. Capital-intensive sectors, such as pulp and paper, extractive
industries and agribusiness, all rely to some extent on financial institutions to enable them to operate.
These financial institutions can be either private financial institutions, including banks and institutional
investors or pension companies, or (semi) public financial institutions, including multilateral development
banks, foreign development agencies and export credit agencies.
A 2002 study by Profundo[55] identified 21 financial institutions prominently involved in financing logging
operations in the Congo Basin in Africa, including ABN-AMRO, HSBC, Credit Lyonnais and Deutsche
Bank. A study by FERN strongly links illegal forestry activities to the lack of due diligence in researching
proposed activities on the part of export credit agencies, as well as private financial institutions. The study
links the involvement of ten export credit agencies to illegal practices in Indonesia, Bolivia and Peru.
Without the financial backing of these institutions, many destructive and illegal activities would not be
possible. Despite this, the role of these institutions has been given very limited attention in
intergovernmental debates on illegal logging.

Financing destruction
A clear case of financial investors tumbling over each other to finance a environmental, social and
economic disaster concerns a fully unsustainable paper mill in Indonesia: the case of Asia Pulp and
Paper. Over 300 international financial institutions were heavily involved in providing finance and
guarantees to Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), inflating the company with a USD 13.4 billion debt. These
institutions failed to recognise that there was insufficient supply for the paper mill: the plantations that
were to feed the mill were not ready and by no means able to provide the supplies, leading to large
destruction of primary forests and human rights abuses. As a study by CIFOR points out, Indonesian pulp
producers may have obtained as much as 40% of the wood they consumed between 1994 and 1999 from
illegal sources[56].

Because of the lack of attention given to the financial sector in relation to illegal activities, few existing
regulations provide effective options to address the concerns. An international framework for risk
assessments, developed by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, was adopted in the Basel
Accord[57] – which is currently being renewed – but these do not include any reference to environmental
risks or risks related to illegal activities. Nevertheless, over the past few years the Committee has moved
more aggressively to promote sound supervisory standards worldwide. In October 2001, the Committee
published a report on Customer Due Diligence for Banks[58]. It has been suggested that the Basel
Committee on Banking Supervision will formulate criteria to guide credit ratings by credit rating agencies
and by banks. These criteria can play a crucial role in stimulating rating agencies and banks to give
sufficient attention to risks related to illegal activities in forest-related and other sectors[59]. NGOs have
been active in convincing export credit agencies to adopt binding standards, with some success: the
OECD has developed a non-binding agreement and is revising this agreement with the intention to
strengthen it[60].
In co-operation with NGOs, Dutch commercial banks developed in 2001 a set of minimum criteria for
financial institutions servicing the Indonesian oil palm sector. It specified that banks should not be
involved in clearing land by burning, deforestation, ‘illegal’ activities and activities that generate social
conflicts. Related discussions led four banks (ABN-AMRO, RaboBank, INGBank and Fortis Bank) to
adopt risk assessment policies that took these criteria into account. Some of the banks expanded the
scope of the proposed criteria to other sectors, such as the pulp and paper sector, while others weakened
the scope, by focusing exclusively on illegality[61]. A more comprehensive set of minimum criteria for was
developed by ABN-AMRO for forests and plantations.
Again, their genuine effectiveness on the ground remains to be seen, but these initiatives should be in
principle supported and carefully monitored by NGOs and the Banks. Adequate participation by NGOs
could help to give substance to such initiatives, encouraging their adaptation where needed to ensure that
they will have a positive contribution to halting illegality and supporting sustainability.

Making financiers pay

The first regulatory attempt to cast a very wide net in making polluters pay – and financiers co-responsible
for the environmental degradation caused by the (illegal or legal) activities of their clients – was the U.S.’s
forward-looking Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or
“Superfund” of 1980. The Act does not hold financiers explicitly liable, but in the famous Fleet Factors
court case in 1990, a bank was nevertheless held responsible for the environmental pollution of its client.
The outcome of this trial sent a shockwave thorough the US and international banking community. Banks
found liable were obliged to pay remediation costs and some banks even went bankrupt[62]. Some years
later the modifications limited the liability of financial institutions.
In the European Union, given the difficult history of attempts to adopt a stringent directive on
environmental liability, where the scope of proposals has steadily shrunk and liability has shifted from
strict to fault-based, it is unlikely that legislation will soon make financial institutions liable for financing
damaging activities. Though political will seems to stop increasingly short of imposing liability on financial
backers, accountability of financial institutions in a less legal sense must continue to gather momentum.

In sum, when addressing illegal practices, such as illegal logging, the role financial institutions play cannot
be overlooked. Private commercial banks as well as (semi) public export credit agencies appear to be
looking more seriously into risk assessments of their lending practices; however, more is needed. NGOs
have been at the forefront of confronting financial institutions with the impact of their financial activities
and must continue to monitor the positive steps certain banks have taken. Without continued NGO
interest and pressure, such initiatives may risk becoming paper tributes to a cosmetic public relations
exercise.

Recommendations to governments and financial institutions

· Financial sector regulators should issue specific industry guidelines for forestry sector activities
specifying that companies wishing to raise equity on financial markets must disclose potential risks linked
to forestry crime; this should encourage all financial institutions to adopt specific policies and guidelines
for investments in the forestry sector.
· Governments should ensure that export credit agencies apply best available environmental and
social rules and procedures to all their operations; they should increase the information disclosure
practices of their export credit agencies regarding basic project information and environmental, social and
human rights impact assessments and economic analyses; and they should implement independent third-
party monitoring of the projects against the above-mentioned rules, once in force.[63]

2.4. CITES

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) is currently the only worldwide
legal agreement that could be used to control a part of the trade in illegally logged timber. It is also the
only legal agreement to have been used by some Member States to halt the import of illegally sourced
timber. The big advantages of CITES are therefore that it is already in existence and is widely, if
imperfectly, implemented. Although the treaty has had some success in preventing the extinction of
particular endangered species, weaknesses in the verification of export permits have undermined its
ability to operate effectively. To extend its coverage to a substantial volume of international trade in timber
species seems unlikely to be feasible. However, it can and should be used as a safety-net mechanism in
protecting individual endangered tree species.

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, while not addressing illegal timber
specifically, is already a much more targeted (if limited) agreement. CITES is currently the only worldwide
legal agreement that could be used to control a part of the trade in illegally logged timber, targeting only
certain species. It is nonetheless extremely important, as it is currently the only legal agreement to have
been used by some Member States to halt the import of illegally sourced timber.

The 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) aims to protect endangered
species from over-exploitation by controlling international trade, employing a system of import and export
permits. Species are placed on different lists: Appendix I includes all species that are threatened with
extinction; trade in these species ‘must be subject to particularly strict regulation’ and is only authorized in
exceptional circumstances. Appendix II includes species that are ‘not necessarily threatened with
extinction, but in which trade must be controlled in order to avoid utilization incompatible with their
survival’; this further includes other species that must be subject to regulation in order to control the
targeted species effectively. Appendix III includes species that a party identifies as being subject to
regulation within its jurisdiction for the purposes of preventing or restricting exploitation, and where it
needs the co-operation of other parties in controlling trade. Amendments to Appendices I and II are
implemented by the Conference of the Parties, whilst Parties themselves can place species on Appendix
III[64].
At present, nineteen tree species are listed on CITES appendices. However, an evaluation of 255 tree
species carried out in 1998 against the CITES listing criteria found that about 15 new species could be
added to Appendix I and almost 100 to Appendix II, if there were the political will to do so.[65] Such
additions to the appendices would need to be agreed by the Conference of Parties, and any proposal to
add substantial numbers of new species, particularly those important in international trade, would almost
certainly rouse strong opposition. Even unilateral additions to Appendix III can produce perverse effects.

Unintended effects
Appendix III of CITES includes species subject to regulation only within the jurisdiction of a party and for
which international co-operation is needed to control trade. Indonesia, for example, listed its population of
ramin on Appendix III in April 2001, with a zero quota, and the measure became effective four months
later. An immediate side-effect was to increase the smuggling of ramin into Malaysia, which has entered a
reservation with regard to the listing.[66]

A key weakness of CITES is that the export and import permits effectively acquire a value, opening up
possibilities for fraud, theft and corruption. In theory, for an export permit to be issued, the Management
Authority of the exporting state must be satisfied that the specimen was not obtained in contravention of
the state’s laws for the protection of fauna and flora. On a practical level, lack of personnel and resources
to verify compliance with state rules is an impediment to adequate implementation of CITES rules.
Furthermore, corruption also frequently plays a significant negative role in the issuance of permits.
A further weakness lies in the cross-checking of the documents against each other. The World
Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC), part of UNEP, monitors the legal trade taking place under
CITES, receiving copies of all import and export permits issued. Simple inspection of the permits is
sometimes sufficient to reveal fraud. However, CITES lacks a comprehensive and independent system of
monitoring and for verifying the issuance and use of permits. Cross-checking of permits against actual
timber species presents further difficulties. Central reporting and cross verification of data would enhance
possibilities for verification that fraud has not occurred.
As elsewhere, the political will to devote resources to addressing these shortcomings is a critical
consideration. Since the events of September 11 in the U.S. for example, border resources have been
diverted from monitoring environmental rules to security concerns. To repeat a truism, in the clash
between global commerce and international environmental safeguards, the environment seldom comes
out on top.

Disappointing judicial review

The question of the validity of export permits has arisen in particular in recent months with regard to
exports of big-leafed mahogany from Brazil. The species is listed under Appendix III of CITES, and in
2001 the Brazilian government ordered a complete ban on logging and export. Nevertheless, exports to
Europe and North America continued in the first few months of 2002. Shipments reaching the U.S.,
Canada and a number of EU countries, including Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, were seized by
the authorities pending further enquiries. In March, the European Commission issued advice to EU
management authorities that they should not accept imports of Brazilian mahogany since reasonable
doubt existed over their legality.
The willingness of the Commission to take action was very welcome: in this case, the UK government
nevertheless declined to take action. The arguments in a subsequent court case brought by Greenpeace
against the UK revolved around whether the export permits had been validly issued and under what
circumstances the authorities in the importing state would be justified in delaying the shipments and
requiring further information on the validity of their export permits. Greenpeace lost their application for
judicial review in the Court of Appeal: in a ruling issued on 25 July 2002, two of the three judges
concluded that to allow importing countries to query the validity of export permits, even when some doubt
existed, would introduce too great a level of uncertainty into international commerce. The third judge,
however, dissented, accepting the argument that the survival of endangered species should take a higher
priority.

In sum, CITES cannot be expected to address the problem of illegal logging as a whole, but rather with
regard to certain tree species CITES’ track record has been proven over three decades, although
difficulties persist surrounding fraud in permits, listing of timber species and the willingness of authorities
to take action even when aware of problems. As with the Greenpeace case, NGOs must continue to insist
on the effectiveness of action taken under this Convention and maintain a high profile where this is being
undermined.

Recommendations for governments

· Governments should adopt a more coherent approach to checking the validity of CITES export
permits at the point of import;
· Governments should attempt to include more timber species on the CITES appendices generally, as
well as to encourage producer countries to list more timber species under Appendix III of CITES.
2.5. Forest certification

Forest certification is a tool to help consumers choose ethical and environmental products from
responsibly managed forests. The crucial link between forest certification and verification of legality lies in
the tracking of the production and movement of the timber and wood products. Only forest certification
schemes that have a rigorous chain of custody control from the forest to the point at which the product is
labelled, and that have a certification standard specifying legal compliance, will contribute to controlling
the trade in illegally sourced timber

More specifically targeting the trade in timber and timber products, governments have at their disposal a
range of instruments that can be used to increase the market share for products that can be positively
identified as having been legally produced. These include certification and government procurement
policies. Here we highlight the possibilities and problems of using forest certification schemes to combat
illegal timber. For a more detailed overview of these tools (including government procurement) please
refer to "Options to Control the Import of Illegally Sourced Timber" by FERN/RIIA[67] and FERN (2004)
[68].

Forest certification is a tool to help consumers choose ethical and environmental products from
responsibly managed forests. The process of certification involves the assessment of a particular forest
against publicly available criteria, and only if the forest meets these standards is timber certified. For
forest certification to work, consumers must be able to identify timber, wood products or paper that come
from well-managed forests. These products therefore need to be labelled. Once a forest is certified, the
forest owner obtains the right to label products from that forest with the certifier’s name or logo. There is,
however, a long and often complicated path from the forest to the point of sale: the product supply chain.
To be able to guarantee the consumer that a particular product comes from a well-managed forest, this
supply chain needs to be certified as well. The ownership and control aspect of the product supply chain
is referred to as the ‘chain of custody’.

Legal is not sustainable and sustainable is not legal

Certification of responsible forest management is different from legal verification. Legally sourced timber
may not come from well-managed forests – indeed, often does not. It is clear that ‘legal’ does not mean
‘sustainable’, as there are many further requirements linked with sustainability other than simply legality.
The award of a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certificate, for example, requires ten principles and
fifty-six specific criteria of good forest management to be met. Only the first principle relates specifically to
legal compliance – the others relate to other essential requirements of sustainability. Furthermore, illegally
harvested timber does not necessarily mean unsustainably produced. In countries where existing forestry
regulations are inadequate or unjust: many undesirable practices in the forestry sector – such as the
allocation of concessions on indigenous peoples’ lands – may in fact be legal, under existing laws. In
these cases, harvesting the timber in a sustainable manner by the local people is seen as ‘illegal’.

To use a label indicating that the forest product comes from well-managed forests as verification that the
wood is legally sourced, three conditions must be fulfilled: 1) the forest certification standard must clearly
require compliance with national laws (after a review of these laws, see chapter 1); 2) the standard must
be implemented effectively; 3) effective chain of custody control, from the forest to the point at which the
product is labelled, must take place.
In order to exclude non-certified content effectively, a credible chain of custody should include three main
elements: identification, segregation and documentation. Segregation requires clients to physically keep
certified wood separate from uncertified wood at all phases of transportation, production, distribution, sale
and export. Accurate records must be maintained for the production of certified products. To date only the
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) scheme, and possibly the Canadian Standards Associations’s (CSA)
scheme meet these requirements[69].
However as noted by the World Bank in a recent paper[70] “These ‘quality assurance’ [forest certification]
systems have not been designed as tools to enforce the law and to be made compulsory. They are not
based on regular and unannounced audits and on continuous sampling and they rely on paper-based
chain-of-custody systems that are possible to forge. Given this, certification schemes do not provide the
level of confidence that is likely to be required to demonstrate legal origin”. “By design, certification
cannot be used as a detection tool: although “respect of all national and local laws and administrative
requirements . . is part of FSC principles 1.1 to 1.5, certification audits do not involve probing, in-depth
investigation for fraud. Legality is not the primary concern: assessors are not policemen. Certification is a
quality assurance approach and demands trust and goodwill. Initial assessments and surveillance visits
are limited in time, frequency and area. Current chain-of-custody requirements and audit systems are
therefore vulnerable to abuse”.

In sum: Only forest certification schemes that have a rigorous chain of custody control from the forest to
the point at which the product is labelled, and that have a certification standard specifying legal
compliance (after a review of relevant national legislation), can contribute to controlling the trade in
illegally sourced timber. Even then, additional measures are needed. Most forest certification schemes do
not meet these requirements. Currently the FSC, and possibly the CSA, are the only exceptions.

Recommendations to governments

· Governments should ensure that all certification schemes operational within the EU have: 1) a
forest certification standard that requires clearly that national laws have to be abided by; 2) a system in
place to ensure that the standard is implemented effectively; 3) an effective chain of custody control from
the forest to the point at which the product is labelled. To date, only the FSC meets these requirements.
· A clear distinction should be made between certification and labelling for sustainable forest
management, and certification (possibly without labelling) for legal compliance. Legal compliance is not
and should not be an eco-label.
Chapter III
Need for new legislation

Despite the wide range of policies and measures briefly described above that could affect the trade in
illegally logged timber, none of them is precisely targeted at the problem. Undoubtedly, more could be
done with existing legislation, or with relatively straightforward adaptations of provisions. Drawbacks to
this approach include:
· Existing legislation requires close co-operation with enforcement authorities in the producing and
exporting countries, which may not always be forthcoming, for lack of capacity, corruption, intimidation,
etc.;
· Existing legislation requires the co-operation of enforcement and other authorities in the importing
countries, which, similarly, may not always be forthcoming under the current framework, given other
priorities such as the fight against terrorism and the drugs trade;
· Action that relies on judicial enforcement may take several years to show results, if a case is ever
brought.

While new legislation may suffer from similar difficulties, it can target the issue more directly. Therefore,
further options for legislation directly targeted at the problem of imports of illegal timber should be
considered. This new legislation could take two forms:
1) sanctions could be taken against goods that can be identified as illegal;
2) sanctions could be taken against goods that cannot be positively identified as legal, thereby closing
markets to all imports that are not proven to be legal (including those of ‘unknown legality’).
The first option is an EU version of the US Lacey Act that would outlaw the import, transhipment,
purchase, sale and receipt of timber obtained or sourced in violation of the laws of a foreign state or of an
international treaty. The second option is to establish a licensing system for imports of timber and wood
products, similar in principle to the approach adopted under CITES, with its requirement for a
transportation document (export and/or import permit) to accompany any consignment of controlled
species. The latter is currently being envisaged by the EU Commission[71], which intends to develop
legislation to establish such a system. Importantly, this does not represent a unilateral imposition of trade
controls by the EU on producer states. Not only would this probably fall foul of WTO rules, but it would be
almost impossible to operate effectively, as it would lack co-operation from the producer country
government in setting up and operating the necessary identification systems.
The new EU legislation establishing this system therefore must create a requirement that imports of
timber and wood products from participating producer countries be accompanied by a certificate of
legality (or licence) at the point of entry into the EU. The system is only possible with the co-operation of
the producer country; accordingly, bilateral or regional partnerships agreement are an essential part of
this system. Bilateral agreements between Indonesia and the EU are under development, a bilateral
agreement between Indonesia and Japan has just been finalised.[72]
Although it was expected that the EU would choose this path to address the influx of illegally
sourced timber, at least two potential problems arise with this approach. First, the bilateral or regional
agreements must be developed with full participation of all civil society groups, including local and
indigenous peoples, in order to avoid the problems outlined in Chapter 1: reinforcing unjust and/or unclear
existing laws will not address the problem and may endanger local peoples’ livelihoods. In many producer
countries, a revision or reform of forestry law is needed before any enforcement can take place. It is as
yet unclear if full civil society participation is foreseen in the development of these bilateral or regional
agreements.
Second, some – possibly many – producer countries may not want to enter into partnership agreements
with the EU, for a variety of reasons. The legislation currently foreseen would not be able to address this
issue, thereby perpetuating the current practice of laundering illegally sourced timber. In its Action
Plan[73] the Commission shows it is aware of this problem and states that “ the Commission will review
options for, and the impact of, further measures, including, in the absence of multilateral progress, the
feasibility of legislation to control the imports of illegally harvested timber into the EU, and report back to
the Council on this work during 2004. Member States should also examine how the trafficking of illegally
harvested timber is addressed under national laws”. For guidance, the Commission is expected to look
into the US Lacey Act and the Kimberley Process. The Lacey Act is described below, the Kimberley
Process in paragraph 4.2.

The import of stolen goods into the EU is not in itself a customs offence. In many ways, the simplest
option to control imports of illegally sourced timber would be to change the law to make these imports
themselves illegal as a ‘back-stop’ against imports of illegal timber entering from countries with which no
licensing system has been agreed. In this respect, the US Lacey Act, which makes it ‘unlawful for any
person … to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce
… any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any
State or in violation of any foreign law’[74] could provide an important model.
Timber is not covered by the Lacey Act, apart from species listed under CITES or identified as
endangered in a US state. There is, however, some current interest in the US about expanding the Lacey
Act to try to prohibit imports of illegal timber. A two-tiered penalty scheme exists, creating both
‘misdemeanour’ and ‘felony’ offences, partially dependent on the level of knowledge of the laws violated
on the part of the accused[75]. The penalties can involve imprisonment and/or fines, and forfeiture of
equipment involved in the offence. In each case, the defendant need not be the one who violated the
foreign law – the fact that the fish or wildlife were obtained illegally is the important point.
The Lacey Act also requires that shipments of fish and wildlife be accurately marked and labelled on the
shipping containers. Failure to do so (a ‘marking offence’) is a civil offence punishable by a fine. In all
cases, federal agents are authorised to seize any wildlife that they have reasonable grounds to believe
was taken, held, transported, or imported in violation of any provisions of the underlying laws. This is true
even if the defendant can show that they were not aware that the wildlife was illegally obtained. US
prosecutors make frequent use of the Lacey Act. In 1999, for example, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
was involved in almost 1500 cases[76].
The model provided by the Lacey Act is of obvious relevance to illegal logging or related illegal practices,
and could inform legislation outlawing the import, transhipment, purchase, sale and receipt of timber
obtained or sourced in violation of the laws of a foreign state or of an international treaty. Although
Justice and Home Affairs is not a matter of EC competence, the basic prohibition can be established at
EC level.
Proving the illegality would not always be straightforward, not least because of a lack of knowledge, or a
lack of clarity, about the foreign laws in question. US courts have interpreted the term ‘any foreign law’
broadly, including regulations as well as statutes, and not restricting the laws in question to those aimed
directly at wildlife conservation. In a Lacey Act proceeding, courts are given broad discretion because of
the general lack of availability of foreign law materials and expert opinion. Sources used by courts have
included affidavits and expert testimony from foreign judges, government ministers and lawyers; foreign
case law; law review articles and translations of foreign decrees; information obtained from foreign
officials; and the court’s own research and analysis.
As a cautionary note, this type of provision might be vulnerable to a producer country lowering the
threshold of illegality to get round the law (indeed, it might increase the incentive for countries to behave
in this way). Also, reliance on successful court cases to prove its deterrent effect could take years –
though the act of giving additional powers to customs to make seizures might have quite a rapid deterrent
effect.
Despite these caveats, there is obvious value in giving willing authorities a clear and logical mandate to
stop illegal products entering their jurisdiction. It provides a strong signal to participants in the market, and
shifts the balance of what is perceived to be acceptable behaviour.

In sum, new legislation aimed more directly at the problem of illegal logging should be envisaged. The
option currently under consideration by the EU Commission may prove effective, if only in the cases
where bilateral agreements have been adopted with full participation of civil society. Something must be
envisaged for illegal timber from countries that reject bilateral agreements – likely to be the worst
offenders. The US’s Lacey Act provides an interesting model for new legislation to give authorities a
mandate to stop illegal products from entering the market.

Chapter IV: Keeping an eye on parallels

4.1 Parallels with other trade control systems

In addition to CITES, several multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) have been agreed in order to
impose various controls on international trade in cases where the unregulated trade was causing, or was
likely to cause, significant environmental damage. Parallels exist with, for example, the Montreal Protocol
on ozone-depleting substances, which uses a system of import and export licences, adopted primarily in
order to reduce illegal trade; and the Basel Convention on transboundary movements of hazardous
wastes, which uses a system of ‘prior notification and consent’[77].

The purpose of these trade instruments is to establish a system in which either or both exporting and
importing countries (and in some cases countries of transit) must agree to the trade taking place before it
can proceed. Unregulated trade is theoretically eliminated – or at least made more difficult. The
shortcomings of CITES, involving susceptibility to fraud and inadequate cross-checking of permits, have
been outlined above. The Basel Convention suffers from similar problems: the vast majority of the illegal
trade in hazardous waste is believed to involve falsified documentation, and hazardous waste can often
be difficult to distinguish from non-hazardous waste (indeed, the two are sometimes deliberately mixed
together). Any system for controlling any part of the international trade in timber therefore needs to avoid
these problems.

4.2. The Kimberley Process

A relatively new process, the Kimberley Process, aims to identify and eliminate the trade in conflict
diamonds[78]. Spurred by concern about the role diamonds were playing in fuelling civil wars in some
African countries, the scheme had its origins in the decision of southern African countries, in early 2000,
to take action to stop the flow of conflict diamonds to the market while at the same time protecting the
legitimate diamond industry. The system came into effect 1 January 2003 and revolves, like CITES,
around the certification of exports; it intends to establish minimum acceptable international standards for
national diamond certification schemes.
Participants undertake to establish internal systems to implement and enforce the certification scheme,
including establishing suitable penalties for transgressions. The Process recommends, amongst other
things, that the names of individuals and companies convicted of breaches of the certification scheme be
made known to all other participants. Again, such transparency would serve to flag suspicious actors and
activities, and could reinforce efforts in the areas of anti-corruption and money-laundering. The diamond
industry has undertaken to introduce a system of self-regulation to support the Process, involving
warranties underpinned by the verification of individual companies by independent auditors and supported
by internal penalties set by the industry.
Obvious parallels exist between the aim of the Kimberley Process – to exclude conflict diamonds from the
legitimate diamond trade – and moves to exclude illegally sourced timber from legal markets. There are
also, of course, important differences: diamonds are traded in far lower volumes than is timber, and can
be sealed in tamper-proof containers; the number of countries involved in major imports and exports is
lower; and the industry is largely united, worldwide, on the desirability of the system.
Despite these differences, lessons can be learned from the Kimberley Process, and from the experience
of other MEAs with licensing systems. The Kimberley Process inspection scheme for certificates,
particularly in the EU draft Regulation, is far stricter than in CITES and other MEAs, and is expected to
avoid many of the weakness of CITES import and export permits. The co-option of the industry,
essentially through giving favourable treatment to organisations that promise to fulfil particular criteria, is a
useful precedent.
Developments should be watched. It was clear from the onset that adequate independent monitoring
should be an essential part of the scheme to ensure its effectiveness. NGOs working with the Kimberly
Process have stressed that without adequate monitoring no way of ensuring that countries are actually
halting the trade in conflict diamonds exists. "Without effective and regular monitoring of the Kimberley
Process it is difficult to evaluate that national regulations are worth the paper they are written on", stated
Global Witness[79].
Thus far, a signal was sent when countries such as Brazil and Ghana, which failed to pass necessary
legislation by the 31 July 2003 deadline, were excluded from the process: they will not be allowed to sell
to large markets such as the US and Europe or to diamond-processing countries such as Israel and India.
Disturbingly, however, countries embroiled in internal conflict such as the Congo have been authorised as
participants, leaving only Liberia out among African countries and thereby jeopardising the credibility of
the scheme[80].

In sum, existing environmental trade agreements offer useful insights into the potential pitfalls of efforts to
address the illegal timber trade. The Kimberley Process in particular demonstrates that when political will
and industry backing combine, solutions can be devised with surprising speed. At the same time, political
will seems to retreat before tough decisions (e.g. the decision to exclude the Congo from the Process).
Adequate independent monitoring and NGO participation are essential tools in “keeping them honest.”

V. Conclusions

As seen in chapter 1, illegal logging is a vast problem with considerable negative economic, social and
environmental consequences. Despite growing international concern, there is a clear lack of immediate
and well co-ordinated action at national and international level to address this problem. National
governments do not speak with one voice: authorities in one ministry have priorities that differ from their
colleagues’ in other ministries. Generally, however, environmental issues tend to end up low on the
hierarchy of these priorities. Given political realities, it may be fruitful to attempt to include environmental
(specifically illegal logging) issues within more general frameworks that are currently receiving attention
and resources.
As a general consideration, many existing forest and conservation laws have unacceptable negative
impacts on poor people, ethnic minorities, and women, and in many places they are enforced in a fashion
that is discriminatory and abusive. There is a clear danger, then, that focusing blindly on law enforcement
will backfire and have negative impact on local peoples’ livelihoods. Ways must be found to address the
problems associated with illegal forestry activities that, at the very least, do not aggravate the negative
impacts of existing regulatory efforts on the rural poor. In many cases that will mean a revision of forestry
laws, taking into account local peoples’ traditional land and user rights. Efforts to ensure that loggers and
other entities in the forestry industry comply with the laws and forestry regulations must go well beyond
the chain of custody system and examine the general legal environment.
An observation that can be made with regard to all the initiatives seen in this paper – from ensuring an
equitable legislative framework, to alerting officials to corruption, to providing targeted insider information
to authorities, to evaluating efforts frankly and encouraging reform in light of experience – is that
independent monitoring and effective participation of stakeholders and civil society are essential factors in
ensuring practical results from these efforts. Without watchdogs and true participation, international
initiatives may simply become elaborate and costly public relations exercises.
Another general consideration is that, without addressing the existing pervasive corruption in the logging
industry, efforts in almost any domain to combat illegal logging or any other illegal activity will be thwarted.
Efforts to ensure that loggers and other entities in the forestry industry comply with the laws and forestry
regulations must examine the general legal environment, and go beyond tracking systems or chain of
custodies. The forestry industry does not exist in a vacuum. If the underlying system is corrupt, it is likely
that forest governance is corrupt as well.

Anti-corruption initiatives are an overriding international focus, at present, which may bode well for effects
of anti-corruption measures on the illegal timber industry. Also, anti-corruption measures will be more
assiduously applied if the perceived interest of industry lies, for competitive reasons, in eliminating the
corrupt practices; this appears to be the case with the OECD Convention on Bribery. This Convention
takes a fresh approach by addressing the supply side of such offences, and it seems to have laid the
foundations of an interesting peer-review process that incorporates practical implementation and permits
civil society participation. Although it is too early to judge performance, the framework to adapt to
experience appears to exist. Governments and civil society actors should be encouraged to give this
framework substance.
The desire to compete on equal footing has not been a principal impetus behind only the OECD
Convention on Bribery, but also behind the OECD process to develop standards for export credit
agencies and possibly behind guidelines to be developed for commercial banks. When addressing illegal
practices, the role financial institutions play cannot be overlooked. Private commercial banks as well as
(semi) public export credit agencies appear to be looking more seriously into risk assessments of their
lending practices; however, more is needed. NGOs have been at the forefront of confronting these
institutions with the impact of their financial activities and must continue to monitor the positive steps
some banks have taken. Without continued NGO interest and pressure, such initiatives may risk
becoming paper tributes to a cosmetic public relations exercise.
Activities of the financial sector link in clearly with international and national attempts to improve Money
Laundering legislation, as a key to success in using money laundering provisions to combat illegal logging
and other illegal activities lies in inspiring banks and other relevant institutions and persons to carry out
assiduous due diligence reviews, with a full awareness of the likelihood of certain clients’ involvement in
such activities. Given that the majority of logging activities in many countries are widely acknowledged to
be illegal, this should be a strong signal to a bank that any of its clients operating a forestry business in
those countries may be committing forestry crimes. Such due diligence measures would in fact be good
business practice, as illegality, by definition, means increased risk. Targeted information provided by
NGOs could be instrumental in initiating a few high-profile prosecutions. A clear task for the NGO
community is to provide this information.
CITES is the only existing international convention that can directly target timber trade, albeit in a
piecemeal fashion. Concerns surround political opposition to expanding the species protected in its
Appendices. Experience with CITES also offers useful lessons for similar endeavours: reliance on paper
certificates makes its provisions susceptible to fraud, theft and corruption. The permits are not adequately
cross-checked against each other or against the goods they are accompanying. Any system for
controlling any part of the international trade in timber must be mindful of these lessons.
The recent Kimberley Process has taken on board some lessons from the problems that affect CITES and
the Basel Convention. The Kimberley agreement establishes a certification scheme to control the
international trade in rough diamonds, and thereby to prevent ‘conflict diamonds’, or ‘blood diamonds’,
from entering the legitimate trade. Although also too young to judge adequately, it nevertheless bears
watching as it may yield useful lessons in achieving similar objectives. However, the Kimberley Process
may also yield negative lessons. Independent monitoring and transparency are often where political will
runs out – as the Kimberley Process, as young as it is, may be illustrating.
The European Commission has proposed to develop new legislation to allow for a licensing
scheme. This new legislation must create a requirement that imports of timber and wood products from
participating producer countries be accompanied by a certificate of legality (or licence) at the point of
entry into the EU. The system is only possible with the co-operation of the producer country; accordingly,
bilateral or regional partnerships agreements are an essential part of it. Although a welcome first step in
addressing the import of illegally sourced imports into the EU, one issue that needs to be seriously
considered is the requirement to develop these agreements with full participation of all civil society
groups, including local and indigenous peoples, in order to avoid the problems of reinforcing unjust and/or
unclear existing laws. It is as yet unclear if full civil society participation is foreseen in the development of
bilateral or regional agreements. It should further be noted that in many countries full participation of civil
society is simply not possible.

None of these options is free of difficulty. The effectiveness of all these initiatives requires the vigilance
and perseverance of NGOs and stakeholders in maintaining a frank dialogue with authorities. For their
part, authorities must be willing to interpret and apply these provisions in a manner that is generally
meaningful and, more specifically, that includes illegal logging within their scope. Authorities must be open
to exchanging information with NGOs and stakeholders. All committed parties must expect practical
difficulties and occasional breaches in political and institutional will to occur, and be ready to re-engage
their efforts to meet such challenges. Ultimately, even if political will falters and concrete results are long
in coming, efforts to bring the destruction of illegal logging to light can be considered partially successful if
the actors involved in the illegal timber trade – sometimes innocently – are made aware of their role in
financing and laundering the proceeds. If the consumers – not only of timber, but of financial and banking
services – take note of the link between their actions and destruction abroad, we are moving
incrementally forward.

[1] OECD Environmental Outlook (Paris: OECD, 2001), p. 122.

[2] For further details on illegal logging, see Duncan Brack and Gavin Hayman, Intergovernmental Actions
on Illegal Logging (Royal Institute of International Affairs, March 2001) and Duncan Brack, Gavin Hayman
and Kevin Gray, Controlling the International Trade in Illegally Logged Timber and Wood Products (Royal
Institute of International Affairs, February 2002); both available from
www.riia.org/sustainabledevelopment.
[3] World Bank, Forest Sector Review (New York: World Bank, 1999), p. xii.
[4] Debra Callister, Illegal Tropical Timber Trade: Asia-Pacific (Cambridge: TRAFFIC International, 1992).
[5] Natural Resources and Law Enforcement in Indonesia (ICG, December 2001).
[6] Indonesia–UK Tropical Forestry Management Programme, Illegal Logging in Indonesia, ITFMP Report
No. EC/99/03 (Jakarta, 1999).
[7] Neil Scotland and Sabine Ludwig, Deforestation, the Timber Trade and Illegal Logging (paper for EC
workshop on Forest Law, Enforcement, Governance and Trade, Brussels, 22–24 April 2002).
[8] Ibid.
[9] World Resources Institute, Logging Burma’s Frontier Forests: Resources and the Regime (Washington
DC, 1997), p. 15.
[10] Global Witness, The Untouchables: Forest Crimes and the Concessionaires – can Cambodia afford
to keep them? (London: Global Witness, 1999).
[11] World Bank, Forest Sector Review, p. 40.
[12] Hilary French, Vanishing Borders: Protecting the Planet in the Age of Globalization, WorldWatch,
2000
[13] Tim Rice, Chantal Marijnissen, Saskia Ozinga; Trade Liberalisation and the Impact on Forests;
FERN, UK 1999. Available at www.fern.org
[14] Environmental investigators Expose Laundering of Illegal Indonesian Timber by Malaysia and
Singapore. EIA/Telapak 15th May, 2003.
[15] See EU Forest Watch, Issue 65, July 2002 at www.fern.org
[16] Research carried out by the Indonesian NGO Telapak, jointly with the UK-based NGO Environmental
Investigation Agency.
[17] White & Case, Report to Senior Officials of Royal Government of Cambodia and International
Donors: Summary of recommendations (1999), p. 1.
[18] AMAB, WALHI and Rainforest Foundation: Implementation of principles 2 and 3 in Indonesia;
Obstacles and Solutions; August 2003
[19] The UN Human Rights Committee has twice condemned the Canadian government for undermining
indigenous peoples’ legal rights to land.
[20] David Kaimowitz; Forest Law Enforcement and Rural Livelihoods; CIFOR; not yet published
[21] Duncan Brack, Chantal Marijnissen, Saskia Ozinga; Options to Control the Import of Illegally Sourced
Timber; FERN-RIIA, December 2002. Available at www.fern.org
[22] For further reference:
Laurence Cockcroft, “Implementation of the OECD Convention – The Conditions for Success,” Working
Paper, Transparency International Canada, Vancouver, February 1999.
Gemma Aiolfi, Mark Pieth, “How to Make a Convention Work: The OECD Recommendation and
Convention on Bribery as an example of a new horizon in international law,” OECD Working Group on
Bribery in International Business Transactions (CIME), JT00122279.
Geoffrey R. Watson, “The OECD Convention on Bribery,” American Society of International Law, March
1998, www.asil.org/insights/ insigh14.htm.
[23] All EU Member States have ratified and introduced amendments to their legislation to implement the
Convention.
[24] See for instance: the OAS Inter-American Convention Against Corruption, 1996; the 1996
International Chamber of Commerce Revisions to its Rules of Conduct on Extortion and Bribery in
International Business Transactions.
[25] Article 1(1): Each Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish that it is a
criminal offence under its law for any person intentionally to offer, promise or give any undue pecuniary or
other advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, to a foreign public official, for that official or
for a third party, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of official
duties, in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international
business.
[26] In countries that already have the legal framework to prosecute their nationals for crimes committed
abroad (e.g. the USA), this existing legislation must be amended to include bribery offences. In countries
where the bribery of civil servants is listed as a criminal offence under money laundering legislation, this
legislation must be amended to include bribery of foreign civil servants. The Portuguese government
adopted an amendment to its money laundering legislation so that it now covers bribery both at home and
abroad.
[27] Cockcroft, p.6.
[28] “very little of the illegally felled timber that goes through Indonesia’s timber mills does so without
some form of official sanction – at some point in the production chain, ‘some official, or some official
document is misused in order to legitimize an illegal shipment of wood.’” Partners In Crime: A Greenpeace
Investigation of the Links Between the UK and Indonesia’s Timber Barons, June 2003, p.10.
[29] Ibid, p.12.
[30] Cockcroft, p.5.
[31] Article 1(2).
[32] Article 12
[33] These questions cover issues such as public procurement sanctions, export credit agencies,
blacklisting, codes of conduct, and accountancy provisions (such as clear and accurate reporting).
[34] Aiolfi and Pieth, op cit 23.
[35] Finland first country to have undergone both Phase 1 and 2 evaluations but has not yet prosecuted a
criminal case concerning bribery.
[36] Article 16.
[37] These include Article 3(3) providing for the seizure of the bribe and proceeds, or property of a
corresponding value; Article 8, prohibiting off-the-books accounts and other accounting chicanery; Article
9 on mutual legal assistance.
[38] http://www.fincen.gov/int_main.html
[39] Directive 91/308/EEC.
[40] Directive 2001/97/EC.
[41] Directive 2001/97/EC Article 1(1) and Article 1(2) adding Article 2a to the original directive.
[42] It should be kept in mind that that criminal matters remain within Member State competence in the
European Union.
[43] Directive 2001/97/EC Article 1(1)E.
[44] Directive 2001/97/EC Article 1(1)E: … “Member States shall before 15 December 2004 amend the
definition provided for in this indent in order to bring this definition into line with the definition of serious
crime of Joint Action 98/699/JHA. The Council invites the Commission to present before 15 December
2004 a proposal for a Directive amending in that respect this Directive.”
[45] Directives 91/308 and 2001/97, Article 5.
[46] Directives 91/308 and 2001/97, Article 6.
[47] Directive 2001/97 Article 1(9), adding a new paragraph to Directive 91/308, Article 10.
[48] Directive 2001/97, Article 1 specifies that ‘money laundering shall be regarded as such even where
the activities which generated the property to be laundered were generated in the territory of another
Member State or in that of a third country’.
[49] See Brack, Marijnissen, Ozinga; Options to Control the Import of Illegally Sourced Timber; FERN-
RIIA, December 2002. Available at www.fern.org.
[50] Article 1(10) replacing Article 11(1)b: Member States shall ensure that institutions and persons
subject to the directive “take appropriate measures so that their employees are aware of the provisions
contained in this Directive. These measures shall include participation of their relevant employees in
special training programmes to help them recognize operations which may be related to money
laundering as well as to instruct them as to how to proceed in such cases…”
Article 11(2) “Member States shall ensure that the institutions and persons subject to this Directive have
access to up-to-date information on the practices of money launderers and on indications leading to the
recognition of suspicious transactions.”
[51] To illustrate, the Fédération Bancaire de l’Union Européenne had sent a strong negative signal early
in the process of developing the new Directive; see Fédération Bancaire de l’Union Européenne,
“Observations on the Proposal for a Directive Amending the 1991 Directive on Prevention of the Use of
the Financial System for the Purpose of Money Laundering,” 20.1.2000
[52] A body created by the G-7 Summit in 1989 to examine methods of money laundering and to devise
recommendations for addressing this threat to the international banking system and financial institutions.
[53] See www.fatf-gafi.org/NCCT_en.htm
[54] Large parts of this paragraph are based on Van Gelder,J.W., Wakker, E, Richert W; Sources of
investment for forestry: preventing flows of finance to illegal activties. Discussion paper written on behalf
of the Royal Institute of International Affairs. August 2003.
[55] Jan Willem van Gelder, Profundo, “The financing of African logging companies”, the Netherlands,
May 2002.
[56] Chris Barr, “The financial collapse of Asia Pulp and Paper,” Asian Development Form-3, Bangkok.
[57] http://www.bis.org/bcbs/aboutbcbs.htm
[58] Key elements included thorough customer acceptance and identification practices, ongoing
transactions monitoring and a robust risk management programme. In September 2002, the International
Conference of Banking Supervisors, representing regulators from nearly 120 countries, recognised the
report as the agreed standard. See http://www.bis.org/publ/bcbs85.htm
[59] Jan Willem van Gelder,, Eric Wakker, Wolfgang Richert ; Sources of investment for forestry:
preventing flows of finance to illegal activties. Discussion paper written on behalf of the Royal Institute of
International Affairs. August 2003.
[60] NGO demands for binding environmental and social standards for ECAs, signed by over 60 NGOs.
See www.fern.org
[61] Jan Willem Van Gelder, Eric Wakker, Wolfgang Richert; Sources of investment for forestry:
preventing flows of finance to illegal activties. Discussion paper written on behalf of the Royal Institute of
International Affairs. August 2003
[62] Jan Willem Van Gelder, Eric Wakker, Wolfgang Richert, 2003, ibid.
[63] A coalition of over 60 European NGOs has presented a list of environmental and social guidelines for
ECAs, available at www.fern.org.
[64] See CITES Article II, Fundamental Principles; Article III, Regulation of Trade in Specimens of Species
included in Appendix I; Article IV, Regulation of Trade in Specimens of Species included in Appendix II;
and Article V, Regulation of Trade in Specimens of Species included in Appendix III; at
http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/text.shtml
[65] World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Contribution to an evaluation of tree species using the new
CITES listing criteria (WCMC, December 1998). The species evaluated were chosen to provide ‘a
reasonable representation of tree species from various regions, climates and grades of commercialisation
and conservation’ (p.2). The availability of information on individual tree species varied considerably.
[66] This means that Malaysia should be regarded, for the purposes of trade in the species concerned, as
a non-party to CITES.
[67] Duncan Brack, Chantal Marijnissen, Saskia Ozinga; Options to Control the Import of Illegally Sourced
Timber; FERN-RIIA, December 2002. Available at www.fern.org
[68]For more information on EU government procurement policies, please refer to Garforth, Mike; Timber
Procurement Policies in EU Member States, FERN, 2004. Forthcoming.

[69] For a more detailed analysis see: FERN/RIIA page 28,29,30 ibid and Ozinga, S.L.; Principles at
stake:
An assessment of forest certification schemes and their contribution to sustainable development; FERN
(2004); Forthcoming.
[70] SGS Global Trade Solutions (2003) “Legal Origin of Timber as a Step Towards Sustainable Forest
Management”, Final Draft, September 2002 – June 2003, World Bank/WWF Alliance

[71] Com (2003) 251 final, Communication from the Commission to the Council and Parliament, Forest
Law Enforcement Governance and Trade Proposals for an Action Plan, 21 May 2003.
[72] Available at www.illegal-logging.info
[73] Ibid.
[74] 16 USC; SS 3372(2a).
[75] Note: accommodation of the fact that criminal affairs are within the Member States’ competence must
be envisaged.
[76] Animal Welfare Institute Quarterly 49:4 (Fall 2000); it is difficult to acquire precise figures, as cases
may often be coded as import violations or CITES violations.
[77] About 20 of the 200 MEAs currently in existence contain trade measures (requirements, restrictions
or complete bans on trade).
[78] It adopted the definition of ‘conflict diamonds’ as meaning ‘rough diamonds used by rebel movements
or their allies to finance conflict aimed at undermining legitimate governments, as described in relevant
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolutions insofar as they remain in effect, or in other similar
UNSC resolutions which may be adopted in the future, and as understood and recognised in United
Nations General Assembly (UNGA) Resolution 55/56, or in other similar UNGA resolutions which may be
adopted in future’.[78]
[79] Global Witness Press release, “Kimberley Process Finally Agrees Membership List But Lack of
Monitoring Undermines Credibility,” 31/07/03.
[80] Nicol Degli Innocenti, “54 Countries Pass ‘Conflict Diamonds Test,” Financial Times, July 31, 2003.

Negative Effects of Illegal Logging

Bla Bla WritingNegative Effects of Illegal Logging
Thesis Statement: The illegal logging in the Philippines, which is perpetrated by criminal organizations
results to violence and human rights violations.
Negative Effects of Illegal Logging
Illegal Logging has a wide-range of negative environmental, social and economic impacts. Immediate
impacts include loss of biodiversity, erosion, subsequent water pollution, forest fires, flash flooding and
landslides (Lawson and Macfaul 9).

The Philippines has always been a part of the logging industry. During the 50’s to the 70’s, the Philippines
became the top exporter of logs. But because of the logging industry, three-fourths of the archipelago was
covered with forests in the 1950s. This figure shrank by half in 1972, and by 1988 only a quarter
remained, leaving a tiny fraction of virgin forest . Because of its negative impact on our environment, the
logging industry being controlled by Executive Order 23 slowly became smaller and smaller.

Convert knowledge to money?

Get started

One of the main reasons why logging is being controlled because forest destruction in turn contributes to
twenty percent of global carbon dioxide emissions in which it would speed up the process of climate
change. Illegal Logging and associated trade in illegally sourced wood products are important causes of
deforestation and forest degradation in many developing countries, but the destruction of our environment
is not the only issue here. Violence related to logging is also a big issue that needs to be tackled about
(Lawson and Macfaul 1).

During the 1990s, units of company guards, which in some areas amount to small private armies who are
hired by logging companies, have intimidated, arbitrarily detained, tortured, and in some cases killed
residents who are surrounding the land they are going to log. They use aggression to fend off tribes who
are residing in that area that they need. This is because they cannot pursue the logging activities unless
the said land is a “No Man’s Land” or no one is residing in that area. Sister Mary John Dumaog, a
Catholic nun, said that the members of Manpatilan’s Civilian Home Defense Force (CHDF) terrorized
Banwaon communities, murdering at least twenty six civilians, six of them by hanging. According to
indigenous peoples’ organizations, throughout this period the army and paramilitary groups regularly
abducted and killed residents, burned their houses and crops, and pillaged or destroyed their livestock
and possessions (The Philippines: Human Rights 19). It’s not only the residents who are being abused,
government workers and officials are threatened on a regular basis. In several areas, local government
authorities and members of the military involved in illegal logging have, in their official capacities,
harassed and punished officials and private individuals opposed to illegal logging.

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources Region X office in Cagayan de Oro regularly
received anonymous threats over the phone and in the mail. Those who turned down bribes to get illegal
hauls through found themselves facing death threats. During 1979 to 1994, at least sixty one forest
guards and environmentalists were murdered in the course of their work (The Philippines: Human Rights
8).

Because of the pursuance of logging even though it is being held off, many human rights violations and
violence related to logging are being committed throughout the year. President Aquino issued Executive
Order 23 in February 2011 halting all authorized logging operations in natural forests nationwide and
virtually stopping timber extraction of about 300 million board feet a year. If Illegal logging were to be
slowly brought to a complete end within the next ten years, between two to twenty two billion tonnes of
carbon dioxide emissions might be avoided (Lawson and Macfaul 6). The implementation by the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources of Executive Order 23 has drastically reduced the
illegal logging hotspots to 31 from a high of 197. The DENR also has deal with armed groups employed
by illegal loggers (Villanueva 14).
Between fifty to ninety percent of logging activities in tropical countries are mostly done by criminal
organizations (Steiner). The intensified campaign against illegal loggers was earlier ordered by DENR
regional executive director Maximo Dichoso targeting Bongabon and other hotspots such as the towns of
Carranglan, Gabaldon, Gen Tinio, Laur and Pantabangan. Many civilians and DENR officials have been
already hurt by the operations conducted by the DENR against Illegal Loggers, including the attacks on a
DENR forester (Galvez 16). According to line taken from Executive Order 23 “The Task Force is hereby
mandated to take the lead in the anti-illegal logging campaign and ensure the implementation of this
Executive Order under the supervision of the DENR. It shall also assist the DENR in the enforcement of
other environmental laws“. The anti-illegal logging task force (AILTF) has approved the reclassification of
the campaign against illegal loggers in Mindanao as “active military operations” and dissolved existing
civilian and retired military contingents of the task force, including the removal of retired general Renato
Miranda as head of the AILTF Kalikasan (Andrade 1).

Elements of Style
1. Do not take shortcuts at the cost of clarity: President Aquino issued “EO” 23 (EO for Executive Order)
2. Put the period after the parenthetical citation
Example: WRONG…retired General Renato Miranda as head of the AILTF Kalikasan. (Andrade 1)
RIGHT…. retired General Renato Miranda as head of the AILTF Kalikasan (Andrade 1). 3. In a series of
three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a comma after each term except the last. Example:
WRONG…who are hired by logging companies, have intimidated, arbitrarily detained, tortured and in
some cases killed residents who are surrounding the land they are going to log. RIGHT… who are hired
by logging companies, have intimidated, arbitrarily detained, tortured, and in some cases killed residents
who are surrounding the land they are going to log. 4. Place a comma before and or but introducing an
independent clause. Example: … causes of deforestation and forest degradation in many developing
countries, but the destruction of our environment is not the only issue here.

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 down of protected species; or the extraction of timber in
excess of agreed limits (see Box 1).

Illegality may also occur during transport, such as illegal processing and export; fraudulent declaration to
customs; the avoidance of taxes and other charges, and fraudulent certification.[1]

Contents [hide]
1 Overview
1.1 Scale
1.2 Consequences
2 Statistics on illegal logging
3 Political processes
3.1 East Asia
3.2 European Union
3.3 Africa
3.4 Saint Petersburg Declaration
3.5 United States
3.6 Australia
4 See also
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links
Overview[edit]
Box 1. Logging in national parks: the case of Korindo (Indonesia)
In March 2004, Greenpeace carried out 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 known 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.[2][3]
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 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,[4] 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. Scientific methods to pinpoint the geographic origin of timber
are currently under development.[5] Possible actions to restrict imports cannot meet with WTO
regulations of non-discrimination. They must instead be arranged in bilateral agreements. TRAFFIC,[6]
the wildlife trade monitoring network, strives to monitor the illegal trade of timber and provide expertise in
policy and legal reviews.[7]

Scale[edit]
It is estimated that illegal logging on public land alone causes losses in assets and revenue in excess of
10 billion USD annually.[8] Although exact figures are difficult to calculate, given the illegal nature of the
activity, decent estimates show that more than half of the logging that takes place globally is illegal,
especially in open and vulnerable areas such as the Amazon Basin,[9] Central Africa, Southeast Asia, the
Russian Federation.[10]

Available figures and estimates must be treated with caution. Governments tend to underestimate the
situation, given that high estimates of illegal logging may cause embarrassment as these suggest
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 in the forestry sector, publications making high estimates 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, which probably clearly underestimate the true
figures. For example, the Republic of Estonia calculated a rate of 1% illegally harvested timber in 2003,
whereas it was estimated to reach as much as 50% by the NGO "Estonian Green Movement".[11] In
Latvia, the situation is comparable; anecdotal evidence points towards 25%[12] of logging being illegal.

Consequences[edit]

Illegal logging continues in Thailand. This photograph was taken from the roadside in Mae Wang District,
Chiang Mai Province, in March 2011
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 with millions of dollars worth of timber
revenue being lost each year.[13]

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.
Statistics on illegal logging[edit]
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.[14] The Indonesian government estimated
in 2002 that costs related to illegal logging are US$3bn each year.[15] The World Bank[16] 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.[17]
A joint UK-Indonesian study of the timber industry in Indonesia in 1998 suggested that about 40% of
throughput was illegal, with a value in excess of $365 million.[18] More recent estimates, comparing legal
harvesting against known domestic consumption plus exports, suggest that 88% of logging in the country
is illegal in some way.[3] Malaysia is the key transit country for illegal wood products from Indonesia.[19]
In Brazil, 80% of logging in the Amazon violates government controls.[20] At the core of illegal logging is
widespread corruption. Often referred to as ‘green gold’, mahogany can fetch over US$1,600 m-3. Illegal
mahogany facilitates the illegal logging of other species, and widespread exploitation of the Brazilian
Amazon. Recent Greenpeace investigations in the Brazilian state of Pará reveal just how deeply rooted
the problem remains. No reliable legal chain of custody exists for mahogany, and the key players in its
trade are ruthless.[21]
The World Bank estimates that 80% of logging operations are illegal in Bolivia and 42% in Colombia,[22]
10 while in Peru, illegal logging constitutes 80% of all activities.[23]
Research carried out by WWF International[24] in 2002 shows that in Africa, rates of illegal logging vary
from 50% for Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea to 70% in Gabon and 80% in Liberia – where revenues
from the timber industry also fuelled the civil war.
WWF estimates that illegal logging in Russia is at least 20%, reaching up to 50% in its far eastern
regions.[25]
A 2012 joint study by the United Nations Environment Programme and Interpol states that illegal logging
accounts for up to 30% of the global logging trade and contributes to more than 50% of tropical
deforestation in Central Africa, the Amazon Basin and South East Asia.[26]
Between 50% and 90% of logging from the key countries in these regions is being carried out by
organised criminal entities.[27]
Political processes[edit]
East Asia[edit]

Signs of illegal timber poaching on the boundary of the protected area around the Cagua Volcano,
Cagayan, Philippines.
The East Asia Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (EA 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.

European Union[edit]
Main article: EU FLEGT Action Plan
In May 2003, the European Commission presented the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and
Trade Action Plan (EU 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
EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) was adopted in 2010 and went into effect 3 March 2013.[28]
It prohibits the placing on the EU market for the first time of illegally harvested timber and products
derived from such timber;[28]
It requires EU traders who place timber products on the EU market for the first time to exercise 'due
diligence';[28]
Once on the market, the timber and timber products may be sold on and/or transformed before they reach
the final consumer.[28]
To facilitate the traceability of timber products, economic operators in this part of the supply chain
(referred to as traders in the regulation) have an obligation to keep records of their suppliers and
customers.[28]
A Greenpeace investigation published in May 2014 demonstrates that EU Timber Regulation is ineffective
if fraudulent paperwork is accepted at face value and there is not sufficient enforcement by EU
authorities.[9]

Africa[edit]
The Africa Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (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, consumers, donors, civil
society and the private sector could address illegal forest exploitation and associated trade in Africa.

The AFLEG conference, the second regional forest law enforcement and governance meeting after East
Asia, resulted in endorsement of a ministerial declaration and action plan as well as a variety of informal
implementation initiatives.

In 2014, the EU-FAO Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Programme[29] of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations published the study The Voluntary Partnership Agreement
(VPA) process in Central and West Africa: from theory to practice[30] to document and foster strategic
reflection in partner countries already engaged in negotiating a VPA - or those who will be entering into
such negotiations - by providing examples of good practices. These good practices were identified and
recorded following interviews with the main stakeholders in the eight VPA countries in West and Central
Africa, the European Forest Institute’s (EFI) EU FLEGT Facility[31] and the European Commission.

Saint Petersburg Declaration[edit]

See also: Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Program
The Europe and North Asia Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (ENA FLEG) Ministerial
Conference was held in Saint Petersburg, Russia on 22–25 November 2005. In May 2004, the Russian
Federation announced its intention to host the ENA FLEG process, supported by the World Bank. A
preparatory conference was held in Moscow in June 2005.

The Saint Petersburg conference brought together nearly 300 participants representing 43 governments,
the private sector, civil society and international organisations. It agreed to the Saint 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 United Kingdom 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 following G8 Summit,
also held in Saint Petersburg.

United States[edit]
Main article: Deforestation in the United States
In response to growing concerns over illegal logging and advice from TRAFFIC[6] and other
organisations,[7] on May 22, 2008 the U.S. amended the Lacey Act, when the Food, Conservation, and
Energy Act of 2008 expanded its protection to a broader range of plants and plant products (Section
8204. Prevention of Illegal Logging Practices).[32]
The requirements under the new Amendments are two-fold. First, the Lacey Act now makes it illegal to
import into the United States plants that have been harvested contrary to any applicable Federal Law,
State Law, Indian Tribal Law, or Foreign Law. If a plant is found to have been harvested in violation of the
laws of the country where it was harvested, that plant would be subject to seizure and forfeiture if
imported into the U.S. The Lacey Act also makes it unlawful, beginning December 15, 2008, to import
certain plants and plant products without a Plant and Plant Product import declaration.[33]

This Plant and Plant Product Declaration must contain (besides other information) the Genus, Species,
and Country of Harvest of every plant found in commercial shipments of certain products, a list of
applicable products (along with other requirements and guidance) can be found on the USDA APHIS
website.[33]

Australia[edit]
The Timber Development Association (TDA) welcomes on June 6, 2014's release by the Australian
Department of Agriculture of a position paper on the Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation and guidance
on how timber and wood products industry can comply on the Australian Government - Department of
Agriculture[34] official website. The release of the Government's guidance coincides with the release of
industry developed timber due diligence tools and information through the industry website of Timber Due
Diligence.[35]

The Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation applies to importers into Australia of "regulated
timber products" such as sawn timber, wood panels, pulp, paper products, and wood furniture. The
Regulation starts on 30 November 2014 and requires that before import of these products or processing
of raw logs, due diligence is undertaken to minimise the risk that the timber products or raw logs were
illegally logged or incorporate illegally logged timber.[36]

See also[edit]
Deforestation and climate change
Environmental crime
Environmental impact of roads
Environmental Investigation Agency
Environmental vandalism
Illegal logging in Madagascar
List of environmental issues
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD)
Timber mafia
United Nations Forum on Forests
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Jonathan Watts (24 August 2015). "Dawn timber-laundering raids cast doubt on 'sustainable'
Brazilian wood". The Guardian. Retrieved 24 August 2015. Most of the laundering was reportedly done
through the creation of fake or inflated creditos florestais, a document that defines how much timber a
landowner is entitled to extract from his property.
Jump up ^ "Protecting the Environment with Intelligence – EIA International". EIA International.
^ Jump up to: a b "Protect forests". saveordelete.com.
Jump up ^ With the exception of CITES which is only partly applicable.
Jump up ^ Kagawa A, Leavitt SW (2010). "Stable carbon isotopes of tree rings as a tool to pinpoint the
geographic origin of timber". Journal of Wood Science. 56 (3): 175–183. doi:10.1007/s10086-009-1085-6.
^ Jump up to: a b "TRAFFIC - Wildlife Trade News". traffic.org.
^ Jump up to: a b "TRAFFIC - Timber trade". traffic.org.
Jump up ^ "Havocscope Illegal Logging Market Value". Retrieved April 14, 2010.
^ Jump up to: a b "The Amazon's Silent Crisis: The EU Market and the EUTR" (PDF). amazoncrisis.org.
Green Peace. May 2014. Retrieved 25 August 2015. Nearly 80% of the area logged in Pará between
August 2011 and July 2012 was harvested illegally.
Jump up ^ For further details on illegal logging, see: Duncan Brack and Gavin Hayman (2001)
Intergovernmental Actions on Illegal Logging. Royal Institute of International Affairs; Duncan Brack, Gavin
Hayman and Kevin Gray (2002) Controlling the International Trade in Illegally Logged Timber and Wood
Products. Royal Institute of International Affairs.
Jump up ^ Estonian Green Movement (2004) Illegal forestry and Estonian timber exports
Jump up ^ WWF Latvia (2003)</rev> The features of illegal logging and related trade in Baltic Sea region;
WWF International (2002) The Timber Footprint of the G8 and China
Jump up ^ "TRAFFIC - Wildlife Trade News - Tanzania's disappearing timber revenue". traffic.org.
Jump up ^ Debra Callister (1992) Illegal tropical timber trade: Asia Pacific. TRAFFIC International
Jump up ^ ICG (2001) Natural Resources and Law Enforcement in Indonesia
Jump up ^ World Bank (2002) Revised Forest Strategy’’
Jump up ^ Annual report 2003 from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the
EC Development Policy and the implementation of External Assistance in 2002
Jump up ^ Indonesia-UK Tropical Forestry Management Programme (1999) Illegal Logging in Indonesia.
ITFMP Report No. EC/99/03
Jump up ^ Environmental Investigation Agency and Telapak (2004) Profiting from Plunder: How Malaysia
Smuggles Endangered Wood.
Jump up ^ WWF International (2002) The Timber Footprint of the G8 and China
Jump up ^ Greenpeace (2001) Partners in Mahogany Crime: Amazon at the mercy of gentlemen’s
agreements.
Jump up ^ World Bank (2004) Forest Law Enforcement
Jump up ^ The Peruvian Environmental Law Society (2003) Case Study on the Development and
Implementation of Guidelines for the Control of Illegal Logging with a view to Sustainable Forest
Management in Peru.
Jump up ^ WWF International (2002) The Timber Footprint of the G8 and China.
Jump up ^ WWF press release, 30 March 2004.
Jump up ^ Illegal Logging Trade Decimates Forests, Africa: AllAfrica.com, 2012, retrieved 18 October
2012
Jump up ^ Central Africa: Organized Crime Trade Worth Over U.S. $30 Billion, Responsible for Up to 90
Percent of Tropical Deforestation, Africa: AllAfrica.com, 2012, retrieved 18 October 2012
^ Jump up to: a b c d e "Timber Regulation". ec.europa.eu. European Commission. Retrieved August 25,
2015. Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010
Jump up ^ Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. "EU FAO FLEGT programme".
fao.org.
Jump up ^ The Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA) process in Central and West Africa: from theory to
practice (PDF). FAO. 2014.
Jump up ^ "Home - EU FLEGT Facility". efi.int.
Jump up ^ Khatchadourian, Rafi (October 6, 2008). "The Stolen Forests: Inside the covert war on illegal
logging". The New Yorker'. Retrieved July 7, 2010.
^ Jump up to: a b "U.S. Department of Agriculture Lacey Act Guidance". USDA APHIS. October 26, 2011.
Jump up ^ "Department of Agriculture Illegal Logging". daff.gov.au.
Jump up ^ "Timber Due Diligence". timberduediligence.com.au.
Jump up ^ "Australia: Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation position paper welcomed by the timber
industry". TDA. Fordaq S.A. 6 June 2014.
Further reading[edit]
Monbiot, George (1991). Amazon Watershed. Michael Joseph. ISBN 0349101620.
EIA and Telapak Indonesia (September 2001). "Timber trafficking: Illegal Logging in Indonesia, South East
Asia and International Consumption of Illegally Sourced Timber" (PDF). Environmental Information
Agency.
Ravenel, Ramsay M.; Ilmi M. E. Granoff; Carrie A. Magee (18 January 2005). Illegal logging in the tropics:
strategies for cutting crime. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-56022-117-3.
Sheikh, Pervaze A., ed. (9 June 2008). "Illegal Logging: Background and Issues" (PDF). Congressional
Research Service.
Tacconi, Luca (2007). Illegal logging: law enforcement, livelihoods and the timber trade. London:
Earthscan. ISBN 1-84407-348-3.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Illegal logging.
EU FLEGT profile on database of market governance mechanisms
The illegal logging info site
Forest Legality Alliance
Environmental Investigation Agency: News & Investigations into Illegal Logging - reports etc.
EIA in the USA: Reports etc.
DNA test could halt illegal logging (video) – BBC News
Illegal Logging data and statistics - Havocscope Black Markets
CIFOR site on illegal logging
Monograph on policy options to reduce illegal logging
Monograph on certification and illegal logging
European Union
Facing Reality: How to halt the import of illegal timber in the EU (2004)
Controlling imports of illegal timber: Options for Europe (2002)
The EU Action Plan on FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade)
Logging Off: Online Resource for Information on FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements, FERN
FERN Illegal Logging Campaign
Independent Forest Monitoring - Global Witness
Sommerauer, Markus. n.d. "A short reflection on EU FLEGT program," ForestIndustries.EU
America
U.S. Department of Agriculture Lacey Act Guidance
Illegal logging in Central America
Paper on Indonesian Illegal Logging
Asia
Illegal logging in Yunnan (Greenpeace China)

Forestry is the science and craft of creating, managing, using, conserving, and repairing forests and
associated resources to meet desired goals, needs, and values for human and environment benefits.[1]
Forestry is practiced in plantations and natural stands. The science of forestry has elements that belong
to the biological, physical, social, political and managerial sciences.[2]

Modern forestry generally embraces a broad range of concerns, in what is known as multiple-use
management, including the provision of timber, fuel wood, wildlife habitat, natural water quality
management, recreation, landscape and community protection, employment, aesthetically appealing
landscapes, biodiversity management, watershed management, erosion control, and preserving forests
as 'sinks' for atmospheric carbon dioxide. A practitioner of forestry is known as a forester. Other terms are
used a verderer and a silviculturalist being common ones. Silviculture is narrower than forestry, being
concerned only with forest plants, but is often used synonymously with forestry.

Forest ecosystems have come to be seen as the most important component of the biosphere,[3] and
forestry has emerged as a vital applied science, craft, and technology.

Forestry is an important economic segment in various industrial countries. For example, in Germany,
forests cover nearly a third of the land area,[4] wood is the most important renewable resource, and
forestry supports more than a million jobs and about billion in yearly turnover.[5]

A deciduous beech forest in Slovenia

Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 Background
1.2 Early modern forestry development
1.3 Forest conservation and early globalization
1.4 Mechanization
1.5 Early journals which are still present
2 Forestry today
3 Foresters
4 Forestry plans
5 Forestry as a science
6 Education
6.1 History of forestry education
6.2 Forestry education today
7 See also
8 References
8.1 Notes
8.2 Further reading
9 External links
History[edit]
Background[edit]
The preindustrial age has been dubbed by Werner Sombart and others as the 'wooden age', as timber
and firewood were the basic resources for energy, construction and housing. The development of modern
forestry is closely connected with the rise of capitalism, economy as a science and varying notions of land
use and property.[6]

Roman Latifundiae, large agricultural estates, were quite successful in maintaining the large supply of
wood that was necessary for the Roman Empire.[7] Large deforestations came with respectively after the
decline of the Romans.[7] However already in the 5th century, monks in the then Byzantine Romagna on
the Adriatic coast, were able to establish stone pine plantations to provide fuelwood and food.[8] This was
the beginning of the massive forest mentioned by Dante Alighieri in his 1308 poem Divine Comedy.[8]

Similar sustainable formal forestry practices were developed by the Visigoths in the 7th century when,
faced with the ever increasing shortage of wood, they instituted a code concerned with the preservation of
oak and pine forests.[8] The use and management of many forest resources has a long history in China
as well, dating back to the Han Dynasty and taking place under the landowning gentry. A similar approach
was used in Japan. It was also later written about by the Ming Dynasty Chinese scholar Xu Guangqi
(1562–1633).

In Europe, land usage rights in medieval and early modern times allowed different users to access forests
and pastures. Plant litter and resin extraction were important, as pitch (resin) was essential for the
caulking of ships, falking and hunting rights, firewood and building, timber gathering in wood pastures,
and for grazing animals in forests. The notion of "commons" (German "Allmende") refers to the underlying
traditional legal term of common land. The idea of enclosed private property came about during modern
times. However, most hunting rights were retained by members of the nobility which preserved the right of
the nobility to access and use common land for recreation, like fox hunting.

Early modern forestry development[edit]

Timber harvesting, as here in Finland, is a common component of forestry

Hans Carl von Carlowitz

Systematic management of forests for a sustainable yield of timber is said to have begun in the German
states in the 14th century, e.g. in Nuremberg,[9] and in 16th-century Japan.[10] Typically, a forest was
divided into specific sections and mapped; the harvest of timber was planned with an eye to regeneration.
As timber rafting allowed for connecting large continental forests, as in south western Germany, via Main,
Neckar, Danube and Rhine with the coastal cities and states, early modern forestry and remote trading
were closely connected. Large firs in the black forest were called „Holländer“, as they were traded to the
Dutch ship yards. Large timber rafts on the Rhine were 200 to 400m in length, 40m in width and consisted
of several thousand logs. The crew consisted of 400 to 500 men, including shelter, bakeries, ovens and
livestock stables.[11] Timber rafting infrastructure allowed for large interconnected networks all over
continental Europe and is still of importance in Finland.
Starting with the sixteenth century, enhanced world maritime trade, a boom in housing construction in
Europe and the success and further Berggeschrey (rushes) of the mining industry increased timber
consumption sharply. The notion of 'Nachhaltigkeit', sustainability in forestry, is closely connected to the
work of Hans Carl von Carlowitz (1645–1714), a mining administrator in Saxony. His book Sylvicultura
oeconomica, oder haußwirthliche Nachricht und Naturmäßige Anweisung zur wilden Baum-Zucht (1713)
was the first comprehensive treatise about sustainable yield forestry. In the UK, and to an extend in
continental Europe, the enclosure movement and the clearances favored strictly enclosed private
property.[12] The Agrarian reformers, early economic writers and scientists tried to get rid of the traditional
commons.[13] At the time, an alleged tragedy of the commons together with fears of a Holznot, an
imminent wood shortage played a watershed role in the controversies about cooperative land use
patterns.[14]

The practice of establishing tree plantations in the British Isles was promoted by John Evelyn, though it
had already acquired some popularity. Louis XIV's minister Jean-Baptiste Colbert's oak Forest of
Tronçais, planted for the future use of the French Navy, matured as expected in the mid-19th century:
"Colbert had thought of everything except the steamship," Fernand Braudel observed.[15] In parallel,
schools of forestry were established beginning in the late 18th century in Hesse, Russia, Austria-Hungary,
Sweden, France and elsewhere in Europe.

Forest conservation and early globalization[edit]

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, forest preservation programs were established in British
India, the United States, and Europe. Many foresters were either from continental Europe (like Sir Dietrich
Brandis), or educated there (like Gifford Pinchot). Sir Dietrich Brandis is considered the father of tropical
forestry, European concepts and practices had to be adapted in tropical and semi arid climate zones. The
development of plantation forestry was one of the (controversial) answers to the specific challenges in the
tropical colonies. The enactment and evolution of forest laws and binding regulations occurred in most
Western nations in the 20th century in response to growing conservation concerns and the increasing
technological capacity of logging companies. Tropical forestry is a separate branch of forestry which deals
mainly with equatorial forests that yield woods such as teak and mahogany.

Mechanization[edit]
Forestry mechanization was always in close connection to metal working and the development of
mechanical tools to cut and transport timber to its destination. Rafting belongs to the earliest means of
transport. Steel saws came up in the 15th century. The 19th century widely increased the availability of
steel for whipsaws and introduced Forest railways and railways in general for transport and as forestry
customer. Further human induced changes, however, came since World War II, respectively in line with
the '1950s-syndrome'.[16] The first portable chainsaw was invented in 1918 in Canada, but large impact
of mechanization in forestry started after World War II. Forestry Harvesters are among the most recent
developments. Although drones, planes, laser scanning, satellites and robots also play a part in forestry.

Early journals which are still present[edit]

Sylwan first published in 1820[17]
Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen first published in 1850.[17][18]
The Indian Forester first published in 1875.[17][19]
Šumarski list (Forestry Review, Croatia) was published in 1877 by Croatian Forestry Society.[17][20]
Montes (Forestry, Spain) first published in 1877.[17][21]
Revista pădurilor (Journal of Forests, Romania, 1881–1882; 1886–present), the oldest extant magazine in
Romania[17][22]
Forestry Quarterly, first published in 1902 by the New York State College of Forestry.
Šumarstvo[23] (Forestry, Serbia) first published in 1948 by the Ministry of Forestry of Democratic Federal
Yugoslavia, and since 1951 by Organ of Society of Forestry Engineers and Technicians of the Republic of
Serbia (succeeding the former Šumarski glasnik published from 1907-1921)[24]
Forestry today[edit]

A modern sawmill
Today a strong body of research exists regarding the management of forest ecosystems and genetic
improvement of tree species and varieties. Forestry also includes the development of better methods for
the planting, protecting, thinning, controlled burning, felling, extracting, and processing of timber. One of
the applications of modern forestry is reforestation, in which trees are planted and tended in a given area.

Trees provide numerous environmental, social and economic benefits for people.[25] In many regions the
forest industry is of major ecological, economic, and social importance. Third-party certification systems
that provide independent verification of sound forest stewardship and sustainable forestry have become
commonplace in many areas since the 1990s. These certification systems were developed as a response
to criticism of some forestry practices, particularly deforestation in less developed regions along with
concerns over resource management in the developed world. Some certification systems are criticized for
primarily acting as marketing tools and lacking in their claimed independence.

In topographically severe forested terrain, proper forestry is important for the prevention or minimization of
serious soil erosion or even landslides. In areas with a high potential for landslides, forests can stabilize
soils and prevent property damage or loss, human injury, or loss of life.

Public perception of forest management has become controversial, with growing public concern over
perceived mismanagement of the forest and increasing demands that forest land be managed for uses
other than pure timber production, for example, indigenous rights, recreation, watershed management,
and preservation of wilderness, waterways and wildlife habitat. Sharp disagreements over the role of
forest fires, logging, motorized recreation and other issues drives debate while the public demand for
wood products continues to increase.

Foresters[edit]
Main article: Forester

Foresters of UACh in the Valdivian forests of San Pablo de Tregua, Chile

Foresters work for the timber industry, government agencies, conservation groups, local authorities, urban
parks boards, citizens' associations, and private landowners. The forestry profession includes a wide
diversity of jobs, with educational requirements ranging from college bachelor's degrees to PhDs for
highly specialized work. Industrial foresters plan forest regeneration starting with careful harvesting.
Urban foresters manage trees in urban green spaces. Foresters work in tree nurseries growing seedlings
for woodland creation or regeneration projects. Foresters improve tree genetics. Forest engineers
develop new building systems. Professional foresters measure and model the growth of forests with tools
like geographic information systems. Foresters may combat insect infestation, disease, forest and
grassland wildfire, but increasingly allow these natural aspects of forest ecosystems to run their course
when the likelihood of epidemics or risk of life or property are low. Increasingly, foresters participate in
wildlife conservation planning and watershed protection. Foresters have been mainly concerned with
timber management, especially reforestation, maintaining forests at prime conditions, and fire control.[26]

Forestry plans[edit]
Foresters develop and implement forest management plans relying on mapped resource inventories
showing an area's topographical features as well as its distribution of trees (by species) and other plant
cover. Plans also include landowner objectives, roads, culverts, proximity to human habitation, water
features and hydrological conditions, and soils information. Forest management plans typically include
recommended silvicultural treatments and a timetable for their implementation. Application of digital maps
in Geographic Informations systems (GIS) that extracts and integrates different information about forest
terrains, soil type and tree covers, etc. using, e.g. laser scanning, enhances forest management plans in
modern systems.

Forest management plans include recommendations to achieve the landowner's objectives and desired
future condition for the property subject to ecological, financial, logistical (e.g. access to resources), and
other constraints. On some properties, plans focus on producing quality wood products for processing or
sale. Hence, tree species, quantity, and form, all central to the value of harvested products quality and
quantity, tend to be important components of silvicultural plans.
Good management plans include consideration of future conditions of the stand after any recommended
harvests treatments, including future treatments (particularly in intermediate stand treatments), and plans
for natural or artificial regeneration after final harvests.

The objectives of landowners and leaseholders influence plans for harvest and subsequent site treatment.
In Britain, plans featuring "good forestry practice" must always consider the needs of other stakeholders
such as nearby communities or rural residents living within or adjacent to woodland areas. Foresters
consider tree felling and environmental legislation when developing plans. Plans instruct the sustainable
harvesting and replacement of trees. They indicate whether road building or other forest engineering
operations are required.

Agriculture and forest leaders are also trying to understand how the climate change legislation will affect
what they do. The information gathered will provide the data that will determine the role of agriculture and
forestry in a new climate change regulatory system.[26]

Forestry as a science[edit]
Over the past centuries, forestry was regarded as a separate science. With the rise of ecology and
environmental science, there has been a reordering in the applied sciences. In line with this view, forestry
is one of three primary land-use sciences.[peacock term][dubious – discuss] The other two are agriculture
and agroforestry.[27] Under these headings, the fundamentals behind the management of natural forests
comes by way of natural ecology. Forests or tree plantations, those whose primary purpose is the
extraction of forest products, are planned and managed utilizing a mix of ecological and agroecological
principles.[28]

Education[edit]
History of forestry education[edit]
See also: List of historic schools of forestry
The first dedicated forestry school was established by Georg Ludwig Hartig at Hungen in the Wetterau,
Hesse, in 1787, though forestry had been taught earlier in central Europe, including at the University of
Giessen, in Hesse-Darmstadt.

In Spain, the first forestry school was the Forest Engineering School of Madrid (Escuela Técnica Superior
de Ingenieros de Montes), founded in 1844.

The first in North America, the Biltmore Forest School was established near Asheville, North Carolina, by
Carl A. Schenck on September 1, 1898, on the grounds of George W. Vanderbilt's Biltmore Estate.
Another early school was the New York State College of Forestry, established at Cornell University just a
few weeks later, in September 1898. Early 19th century North American foresters went to Germany to
study forestry. Some early German foresters also emigrated to North America.

In South America the first forestry school was established in Brazil, in Viçosa, Minas Gerais, in 1962, and
moved the next year to become a faculty at the Federal University of Paraná, in Curitiba.[29]

Forestry education today[edit]

See also: List of forestry universities and colleges and List of forestry technical schools

Prescribed burning is used by foresters to reduce fuel loads

Today, forestry education typically includes training in general biology, botany, genetics, soil science,
climatology, hydrology, economics and forest management. Education in the basics of sociology and
political science is often considered an advantage.

In India, forestry education is imparted in the agricultural universities and in Forest Research Institutes
(deemed universities). Four year degree programmes are conducted in these universities at the
undergraduate level. Masters and Doctorate degrees are also available in these universities.
In the United States, postsecondary forestry education leading to a Bachelor's degree or Master's degree
is accredited by the Society of American Foresters.[30]

In Canada the Canadian Institute of Forestry awards silver rings to graduates from accredited university
BSc programs, as well as college and technical programs.[31]

In many European countries, training in forestry is made in accordance with requirements of the Bologna
Process and the European Higher Education Area.

The International Union of Forest Research Organizations is the only international organization that
coordinates forest science efforts worldwide.[32]

See also[edit]
icon Forestry portal
icon Trees portal
icon Botany portal
icon Gardening portal
Main article: Outline of forestry
Afforestation
Agroforestry
Close to nature forestry
Community forestry
Deforestation
Deforestation and climate change
Dendrology
Forest dynamics
Forest farming
Forest informatics
Forestry literature
History of the forest in Central Europe
International Year of Forests
List of forest research institutes
List of forestry journals
Lumberjack
Nonindustrial private forests
Sustainable forest management
Silviculture
Silvology
References[edit]
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ "SAFnet Dictionary | Definition For [forestry]". Dictionaryofforestry.org. 2008-10-22. Retrieved
2014-03-15.
Jump up ^ Young, Raymond A. (1982). Introduction to Forest Science. John Wiley & Sons. p. ix. ISBN 0-
471-06438-6.
Jump up ^ "ecosystem part of biosphere". Tutorvista.com. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
Jump up ^ Bundeswaldinventur 2002, Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und
Verbraucherschutz (BMELV), abgerufen am 17. Januar 2010
Jump up ^ Unternehmen Wald, forests as an enterprise, German private forestry association website
Jump up ^ compare Joachim Radkau Wood: A History, 2011
^ Jump up to: a b The Nature of Mediterranean Europe: An Ecological History, by Alfred Thomas Grove,
Oliver Rackham, Yale University Press, 2003, review at Yale university press Nature of Mediterranean
Europe: An Ecological History (review) Brian M. Fagan, Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Volume 32,
Number 3, Winter 2002, pp. 454-455 |
^ Jump up to: a b c T. Mirov, Nicholas; Hasbrouck, Jean (1976). "6". The story of pines. Bloomington and
London: Indiana University Press. p. 111. ISBN 0-253-35462-5.
Jump up ^ Buttinger, Sabine (2013). "Idee der Nachhaltigkeit" [The Idea of Sustainability]. Damals (in
German). 45 (4): 8.
Jump up ^ "Forestry in Yashino". City of Nara, Nara. Retrieved 2010-10-12.
Jump up ^ Beschreibung eines großen Rheinfloßes
Jump up ^ Radkau, Joachim. Nature and Power. A Global History of the Environment. Cambridge
University Press. 2008.
Jump up ^ Nature and Power, A Global History of the Environment, by Joachim Radkau, 2008, p. 72
Jump up ^ The end of the commons as a watershed' The Age of Ecology, Joachim Radkau, John Wiley &
Sons, 03.04.2014, p. 15 ff
Jump up ^ Braudel, Fernand (1979). The Wheels of Commerce: Civilization and Capitalism: 15th-18th
Century (Volume II). University of California Press. p. 240. ISBN 978-0-520-08115-4.
Jump up ^ Christian Pfister (Hrsg.), Das 1950er Syndrom: Der Weg in die Konsumgesellschaft, Bern 1995
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Petru-Ioan Becheru (Aug 2012). "Revista pădurilor online". Rev. pădur. (in
Romanian). 127 (4): 46–53. ISSN 1583-7890. 16819. Retrieved 2012-10-21.(webpage has a translation
button)
Jump up ^ szf-jfs.org
Jump up ^ "indianforester.org". indianforester.org. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
Jump up ^ Šumarski list (Forestry Review), with full digital archive since 1877
Jump up ^ "Revista Montes, with 12.944 free downloadable digital files from 1868". Revistamontes.net.
Retrieved 2014-03-15.
Jump up ^ Victor Giurgiu (Nov 2011). "Revista pădurilor (Journal of forests) 125 years of existence". Rev.
pădur. 126 (6): 3–7. ISSN 1583-7890. Retrieved 2012-04-06.(webpage has a translation button)
Jump up ^ "Časopis". SCIndeks. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
Jump up ^ "Udruženje šumarskih inženjera i tehničara Srbije - Istorijat". Srpskosumarskoudruzenje.org.rs.
Retrieved 2014-03-15.
Jump up ^ "Department of environmental conservation". New York State Department. Retrieved 2014-11-
29.
^ Jump up to: a b "PowerSearch Logout". Find.galegroup.com. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
Jump up ^ Wojtkowski, Paul A. (2002) Agroecological Perspectives in Agronomy, Forestry and
Agroforestry. Science Publishers Inc., Enfield, NH, 356p.
Jump up ^ Wojtkowski, Paul A. (2006) Undoing the Damage: Silviculture for Ecologists and Environmental
Scientists. Science Publishers Inc., Enfield, NH, 313p.
Jump up ^ "News of the world". Unasylva. FAO. 23 (3). 1969. Retrieved 2010-10-12.
Jump up ^ "SAF Accredited and Candidate Forestry Degree Programs" (PDF) (Press release). Society of
American Foresters. 2008-05-19. The Society of American Foresters grants accreditation only to specific
educational curricula that lead to a first professional degree in forestry at the bachelor's or master's level.
Jump up ^ "Canadian Institute of Forestry - Silver Ring Program". Cif-ifc.org. Retrieved 2014-03-15.
Jump up ^ "Discover IUFRO:The Organization". IUFRO. Retrieved 2010-10-12.
Further reading[edit]
Eyle, Alexandra. 1992. Charles Lathrop Pack: Timberman, Forest Conservationist, and Pioneer in Forest
Education. Syracuse, NY: ESF College Foundation and College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Distributed by Syracuse University Press. Available: Google books.
Hammond, Herbert. 1991. Seeing the Forest Among the Trees. Winlaw/Vancouver: Polestar Press, 1991.
Hart, C. 1994. Practical Forestry for the Agent and Surveyor. Stroud. Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-86299-
962-6
Hibberd, B.G. (Ed). 1991. Forestry Practice. Forestry Commission Handbook 6. London. HMSO. ISBN 0-
11-710281-4
Kimmins, Hammish. 1992. Balancing Act: Environmental Issues in Forestry. Vancouver: University of
British Columbia Press.
Maser, Chris. 1994. Sustainable Forestry: Philosophy, Science, and Economics. DelRay Beach: St. Lucie
Press.
Miller, G. Tyler. 1990. Resource Conservation and Management. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
Nyland, Ralph D. 2007. Silviculture: Concepts and Applications. 2nd ed. Prospect Heights: Waveland
Press.
Radkau, Joachim Wood: A History, ISBN 978-0-7456-4688-6, November 2011, Polity
Stoddard, Charles H. 1978. Essentials of Forestry. New York: Ronald Press.
[1]. Vira, B. et al. 2015. Forests and Food: Addressing Hunger and Nutrition Across Sustainable
Landscapes. Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.
External links[edit]
Media related to Forestry at Wikimedia Commons
Works related to Forestry at Wikisource
Forestry at DMOZ
[hide] v t e
Forestry
Outline Index Forest areas Ministries Research institutes Colleges Journals Arbor Day
Types
Agroforestry (dehesa) Analog forestry Bamboo forestry Close to nature forestry Community forestry
Ecoforestry Energy forestry Mycoforestry Permaforestry Plantation forestry Social forestry Sustainable
forestry Urban forestry World forestry
Ecology and
management
Afforestation Arboriculture Controlled burn Dendrology Ecological thinning Even-aged management Fire
ecology Forest informatics IPM inventory governance law old-growth pathology protection restoration
secondary transition Forest certification ATFS CFS FSC PEFC SFI SmartWood Woodland Carbon Code
Growth and yield modelling Horticulture (GM trees) i-Tree Reforestation (urban) Silviculture Sustainable
management Tree allometry breeding Tree measurement crown girth height volume
Environmental
topics
Acid rain Carbon sequestration Clearcutting Deforestation Ecological services Forest dieback Forest
fragmentation High grading Illegal logging Invasive species REDD Shifting cultivation chitemene slash-
and-burn slash-and-char svedjebruk Timber recycling Wildfire Wilding
Industries
Coppicing Forest farming Forest gardening Logging Manufacturing lumber plywood pulp and paper
sawmilling Products biochar biomass charcoal non-timber palm oil rayon rubber tanbark Rail transport
Tree farms (Christmas trees) Wood engineered fuel mahogany teak Woodworking
Occupations
Forester Arborist Bucker Choker setter Ecologist Feller Firefighter handcrew hotshot lookout
smokejumper River driver Truck driver Log scaler Lumberjack Ranger Resin tapper Rubber tapper
Shingle weaver Timber cruiser Tree planter Wood process engineer
icon Forestry portal WikiProject WikiProject Commons page Commons
Category Category by continent by country education events history initiatives lists organizations tools
equipment
[show]
Related articles
Authority control
GND: 4064356-6 NDL: 00569483
Categories: Forestry

Deforestation, clearance or clearing is the removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is
thereafter converted to a non-forest use.[2] Examples of deforestation include conversion of forestland to
farms, ranches, or urban use. The most concentrated deforestation occurs in tropical rainforests.[3] About
30% of Earth's land surface is covered by forests.[4]

In temperate mesic climates, natural regeneration of forest stands often will not occur in the absence of
disturbance, whether natural or anthropogenic.[5] Furthermore, biodiversity after regeneration harvest
often mimics that found after natural disturbance, including biodiversity loss after naturally occurring
rainforest destruction.[6][7]
Deforestation occurs for multiple reasons: trees are cut down to be used or sold as fuel (sometimes in the
form of charcoal) or timber, while cleared land is used as pasture for livestock and plantation. The
removal of trees without sufficient reforestation has resulted in damage to habitat, biodiversity loss and
aridity. It has adverse impacts on biosequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Deforestation has also
been used in war to deprive the enemy of cover for its forces and also vital resources. Modern examples
of this were the use of Agent Orange by the British military in Malaya during the Malayan Emergency and
the United States military in Vietnam during the Vietnam War. As of 2005, net deforestation rates have
ceased to increase in countries with a per capita GDP of at least US$4,600.[8][9] Deforested regions
typically incur significant adverse soil erosion and frequently degrade into wasteland.

Disregard of ascribed value, lax forest management and deficient environmental laws are some of the
factors that allow deforestation to occur on a large scale. In many countries, deforestation, both naturally
occurring and human-induced, is an ongoing issue. Deforestation causes extinction, changes to climatic
conditions, desertification, and displacement of populations as observed by current conditions and in the
past through the fossil record.[6] More than half of all plant and land animal species in the world live in
tropical forests.[10]

Between 2000 and 2012, 2.3 million square kilometres (890,000 square miles) of forests around the world
were cut down.[11] As a result of deforestation, only 6.2 million square kilometres (2.4 million square
miles) remain of the original 16 million square kilometres (6 million square miles) of forest that formerly
covered the Earth.[11]

Contents [hide]
1 Causes
2 Problems with deforestation
2.1 Atmospheric
2.2 Hydrological
2.3 Soil
2.4 Biodiversity
3 Economic impact
4 Forest transition theory
5 Historical causes
5.1 Prehistory
5.2 Pre-industrial history
6 Industrial era
6.1 Rates of deforestation
6.1.1 Regions
7 Control
7.1 Reducing emissions
7.1.1 Payments for conserving forests
7.2 Land rights
7.3 Farming
7.4 Monitoring deforestation
7.5 Forest management
7.5.1 Sustainable practices
7.6 Reforestation
7.7 Forest plantations
8 Military context
9 Public Health Context
10 See also
11 References
12 External links
Causes[edit]
According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat, the
overwhelming direct cause of deforestation is agriculture. Subsistence farming is responsible for 48% of
deforestation; commercial agriculture is responsible for 32%; logging is responsible for 14%, and fuel
wood removals make up 5%.[12]

Experts do not agree on whether industrial logging is an important contributor to global deforestation.[13]
[14] Some argue that poor people are more likely to clear forest because they have no alternatives, others
that the poor lack the ability to pay for the materials and labour needed to clear forest.[13] One study
found that population increases due to high fertility rates were a primary driver of tropical deforestation in
only 8% of cases.[15]

Other causes of contemporary deforestation may include corruption of government institutions,[16][17] the
inequitable distribution of wealth and power,[18] population growth[19] and overpopulation,[20][21] and
urbanization.[22] Globalization is often viewed as another root cause of deforestation,[23][24] though
there are cases in which the impacts of globalization (new flows of labor, capital, commodities, and ideas)
have promoted localized forest recovery.[25]

The last batch of sawnwood from the peat forest in Indragiri Hulu, Sumatra, Indonesia. Deforestation for
oil palm plantation.
In 2000 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that "the role of population
dynamics in a local setting may vary from decisive to negligible," and that deforestation can result from "a
combination of population pressure and stagnating economic, social and technological conditions."[19]

The degradation of forest ecosystems has also been traced to economic incentives that make forest
conversion appear more profitable than forest conservation.[26] Many important forest functions have no
markets, and hence, no economic value that is readily apparent to the forests' owners or the communities
that rely on forests for their well-being.[26] From the perspective of the developing world, the benefits of
forest as carbon sinks or biodiversity reserves go primarily to richer developed nations and there is
insufficient compensation for these services. Developing countries feel that some countries in the
developed world, such as the United States of America, cut down their forests centuries ago and
benefited economically from this deforestation, and that it is hypocritical to deny developing countries the
same opportunities, i.e. that the poor shouldn't have to bear the cost of preservation when the rich
created the problem.[27]

Some commentators have noted a shift in the drivers of deforestation over the past 30 years.[28]
Whereas deforestation was primarily driven by subsistence activities and government-sponsored
development projects like transmigration in countries like Indonesia and colonization in Latin America,
India, Java, and so on, during the late 19th century and the earlier half of the 20th century, by the 1990s
the majority of deforestation was caused by industrial factors, including extractive industries, large-scale
cattle ranching, and extensive agriculture.[29]

Problems with deforestation[edit]

Atmospheric[edit]

Illegal slash and burn practice in Madagascar, 2010

Deforestation is ongoing and is shaping climate and geography.[30][31][32][33][34]

Deforestation is a contributor to global warming,[35][36] and is often cited as one of the major causes of
the enhanced greenhouse effect. Tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world
greenhouse gas emissions.[37] According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
deforestation, mainly in tropical areas, could account for up to one-third of total anthropogenic carbon
dioxide emissions.[38] But recent calculations suggest that carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation
and forest degradation (excluding peatland emissions) contribute about 12% of total anthropogenic
carbon dioxide emissions with a range from 6 to 17%.[39] Deforestation causes carbon dioxide to linger in
the atmosphere. As carbon dioxide accrues, it produces a layer in the atmosphere that traps radiation
from the sun. The radiation converts to heat which causes global warming, which is better known as the
greenhouse effect.[40] Plants remove carbon in the form of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during
the process of photosynthesis, but release some carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere during normal
respiration. Only when actively growing can a tree or forest remove carbon, by storing it in plant tissues.
Both the decay and burning of wood releases much of this stored carbon back to the atmosphere. In
order for forests to take up carbon, there must be a net accumulation of wood. One way is for the wood to
be harvested and turned into long-lived products, with new young trees replacing them.[41] Deforestation
may also cause carbon stores held in soil to be released. Forests can be either sinks or sources
depending upon environmental circumstances. Mature forests alternate between being net sinks and net
sources of carbon dioxide (see carbon dioxide sink and carbon cycle).

In deforested areas, the land heats up faster and reaches a higher temperature, leading to localized
upward motions that enhance the formation of clouds and ultimately produce more rainfall.[42] However,
according to the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, the models used to investigate remote
responses to tropical deforestation showed a broad but mild temperature increase all through the tropical
atmosphere. The model predicted <0.2 °C warming for upper air at 700 mb and 500 mb. However, the
model shows no significant changes in other areas besides the Tropics. Though the model showed no
significant changes to the climate in areas other than the Tropics, this may not be the case since the
model has possible errors and the results are never absolutely definite.[43]

Fires on Borneo and Sumatra, 2006. People use slash-and-burn deforestation to clear land for
agriculture.
Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in developing countries has
emerged as a new potential to complement ongoing climate policies. The idea consists in providing
financial compensations for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation".[44]

Rainforests are widely believed by laymen to contribute a significant amount of the world's oxygen,[45]
although it is now accepted by scientists that rainforests contribute little net oxygen to the atmosphere
and deforestation has only a minor effect on atmospheric oxygen levels.[46][47] However, the incineration
and burning of forest plants to clear land releases large amounts of CO2, which contributes to global
warming.[36] Scientists also state that tropical deforestation releases 1.5 billion tons of carbon each year
into the atmosphere.[48]

Hydrological[edit]
The water cycle is also affected by deforestation. Trees extract groundwater through their roots and
release it into the atmosphere. When part of a forest is removed, the trees no longer transpire this water,
resulting in a much drier climate. Deforestation reduces the content of water in the soil and groundwater
as well as atmospheric moisture. The dry soil leads to lower water intake for the trees to extract.[49]
Deforestation reduces soil cohesion, so that erosion, flooding and landslides ensue.[50][51]

Shrinking forest cover lessens the landscape's capacity to intercept, retain and transpire precipitation.
Instead of trapping precipitation, which then percolates to groundwater systems, deforested areas
become sources of surface water runoff, which moves much faster than subsurface flows. Forests return
most of the water that falls as precipitation to the atmosphere by transpiration. In contrast, when an area
is deforested, almost all precipitation is lost as run-off.[52] That quicker transport of surface water can
translate into flash flooding and more localized floods than would occur with the forest cover.
Deforestation also contributes to decreased evapotranspiration, which lessens atmospheric moisture
which in some cases affects precipitation levels downwind from the deforested area, as water is not
recycled to downwind forests, but is lost in runoff and returns directly to the oceans. According to one
study, in deforested north and northwest China, the average annual precipitation decreased by one third
between the 1950s and the 1980s.[53]

Trees, and plants in general, affect the water cycle significantly:

their canopies intercept a proportion of precipitation, which is then evaporated back to the atmosphere
(canopy interception);
their litter, stems and trunks slow down surface runoff;
their roots create macropores – large conduits – in the soil that increase infiltration of water;
they contribute to terrestrial evaporation and reduce soil moisture via transpiration;
their litter and other organic residue change soil properties that affect the capacity of soil to store water.
their leaves control the humidity of the atmosphere by transpiring. 99% of the water absorbed by the roots
moves up to the leaves and is transpired.[54]
As a result, the presence or absence of trees can change the quantity of water on the surface, in the soil
or groundwater, or in the atmosphere. This in turn changes erosion rates and the availability of water for
either ecosystem functions or human services.

The forest may have little impact on flooding in the case of large rainfall events, which overwhelm the
storage capacity of forest soil if the soils are at or close to saturation.

Tropical rainforests produce about 30% of our planet's fresh water.[45]

Soil[edit]

Deforestation for the use of clay in the Brazilian city of Rio de Janeiro. The hill depicted is Morro da
Covanca, in Jacarepaguá
Undisturbed forests have a very low rate of soil loss (erosion), approximately 2 metric tons per square
kilometer (6 short tons per square mile).[citation needed] Deforestation generally increases rates of soil
loss, by increasing the amount of runoff and reducing the protection of the soil from tree litter. This can be
an advantage in excessively leached tropical rain forest soils. Forestry operations themselves also
increase erosion through the development of (forest) roads and the use of mechanized equipment.

China's Loess Plateau was cleared of forest millennia ago. Since then it has been eroding, creating
dramatic incised valleys, and providing the sediment that gives the Yellow River its yellow color and that
causes the flooding of the river in the lower reaches (hence the river's nickname 'China's sorrow').

Removal of trees does not always increase erosion rates. In certain regions of southwest US, shrubs and
trees have been encroaching on grassland. The trees themselves enhance the loss of grass between tree
canopies. The bare intercanopy areas become highly erodible. The US Forest Service, in Bandelier
National Monument for example, is studying how to restore the former ecosystem, and reduce erosion, by
removing the trees.

Tree roots bind soil together, and if the soil is sufficiently shallow they act to keep the soil in place by also
binding with underlying bedrock. Tree removal on steep slopes with shallow soil thus increases the risk of
landslides, which can threaten people living nearby.

Biodiversity[edit]
Deforestation on a human scale results in decline in biodiversity,[55] and on a natural global scale is
known to cause the extinction of many species.[6]{ The removal or destruction of areas of forest cover
has resulted in a degraded environment with reduced biodiversity.[21] Forests support biodiversity,
providing habitat for wildlife;[56] moreover, forests foster medicinal conservation.[57] With forest biotopes
being irreplaceable source of new drugs (such as taxol), deforestation can destroy genetic variations
(such as crop resistance) irretrievably.[58]

Illegal logging in Madagascar. In 2009, the vast majority of the illegally obtained rosewood was exported
to China.
Since the tropical rainforests are the most diverse ecosystems on Earth[59][60] and about 80% of the
world's known biodiversity could be found in tropical rainforests,[61][62] removal or destruction of
significant areas of forest cover has resulted in a degraded[63] environment with reduced biodiversity.[6]
[64] A study in Rondônia, Brazil, has shown that deforestation also removes the microbial community
which is involved in the recycling of nutrients, the production of clean water and the removal of pollutants.
[65]

It has been estimated that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to
rainforest deforestation, which equates to 50,000 species a year.[66] Others state that tropical rainforest
deforestation is contributing to the ongoing Holocene mass extinction.[67][68] The known extinction rates
from deforestation rates are very low, approximately 1 species per year from mammals and birds which
extrapolates to approximately 23,000 species per year for all species. Predictions have been made that
more than 40% of the animal and plant species in Southeast Asia could be wiped out in the 21st century.
[69] Such predictions were called into question by 1995 data that show that within regions of Southeast
Asia much of the original forest has been converted to monospecific plantations, but that potentially
endangered species are few and tree flora remains widespread and stable.[70]

Scientific understanding of the process of extinction is insufficient to accurately make predictions about
the impact of deforestation on biodiversity.[71] Most predictions of forestry related biodiversity loss are
based on species-area models, with an underlying assumption that as the forest declines species
diversity will decline similarly.[72] However, many such models have been proven to be wrong and loss of
habitat does not necessarily lead to large scale loss of species.[72] Species-area models are known to
overpredict the number of species known to be threatened in areas where actual deforestation is ongoing,
and greatly overpredict the number of threatened species that are widespread.[70]

A recent study of the Brazilian Amazon predicts that despite a lack of extinctions thus far, up to 90 percent
of predicted extinctions will finally occur in the next 40 years.[73]

Economic impact[edit]
Damage to forests and other aspects of nature could halve living standards for the world's poor and
reduce global GDP by about 7% by 2050, a report concluded at the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) meeting in Bonn in 2008.[74] Historically, utilization of forest products, including timber and fuel
wood, has played a key role in human societies, comparable to the roles of water and cultivable land.
Today, developed countries continue to utilize timber for building houses, and wood pulp for paper. In
developing countries almost three billion people rely on wood for heating and cooking.[75]

The forest products industry is a large part of the economy in both developed and developing countries.
Short-term economic gains made by conversion of forest to agriculture, or over-exploitation of wood
products, typically leads to loss of long-term income and long-term biological productivity. West Africa,
Madagascar, Southeast Asia and many other regions have experienced lower revenue because of
declining timber harvests. Illegal logging causes billions of dollars of losses to national economies
annually.[76]

The new procedures to get amounts of wood are causing more harm to the economy and overpower the
amount of money spent by people employed in logging.[77] According to a study, "in most areas studied,
the various ventures that prompted deforestation rarely generated more than US$5 for every ton of
carbon they released and frequently returned far less than US$1". The price on the European market for
an offset tied to a one-ton reduction in carbon is 23 euro (about US$35).[78]

Rapidly growing economies also have an effect on deforestation. Most pressure will come from the
world's developing countries, which have the fastest-growing populations and most rapid economic
(industrial) growth.[79] In 1995, economic growth in developing countries reached nearly 6%, compared
with the 2% growth rate for developed countries.”[79] As our human population grows, new homes,
communities, and expansions of cities will occur. Connecting all of the new expansions will be roads, a
very important part in our daily life. Rural roads promote economic development but also facilitate
deforestation.[79] About 90% of the deforestation has occurred within 100 km of roads in most parts of the
Amazon.[80]

The European Union is one of the largest importer of products made from illegal deforestation.[81]
Forest transition theory[edit]

The forest transition and historical baselines.[82]

The forest area change may follow a pattern suggested by the forest transition (FT) theory,[83] whereby
at early stages in its development a country is characterized by high forest cover and low deforestation
rates (HFLD countries).[29]

Then deforestation rates accelerate (HFHD, high forest cover – high deforestation rate), and forest cover
is reduced (LFHD, low forest cover – high deforestation rate), before the deforestation rate slows (LFLD,
low forest cover – low deforestation rate), after which forest cover stabilizes and eventually starts
recovering. FT is not a “law of nature,” and the pattern is influenced by national context (for example,
human population density, stage of development, structure of the economy), global economic forces, and
government policies. A country may reach very low levels of forest cover before it stabilizes, or it might
through good policies be able to “bridge” the forest transition.

FT depicts a broad trend, and an extrapolation of historical rates therefore tends to underestimate future
BAU deforestation for counties at the early stages in the transition (HFLD), while it tends to overestimate
BAU deforestation for countries at the later stages (LFHD and LFLD).

Countries with high forest cover can be expected to be at early stages of the FT. GDP per capita captures
the stage in a country’s economic development, which is linked to the pattern of natural resource use,
including forests. The choice of forest cover and GDP per capita also fits well with the two key scenarios
in the FT:

(i) a forest scarcity path, where forest scarcity triggers forces (for example, higher prices of forest
products) that lead to forest cover stabilization; and

(ii) an economic development path, where new and better off-farm employment opportunities associated
with economic growth (= increasing GDP per capita) reduce profitability of frontier agriculture and slows
deforestation.[29]

Historical causes[edit]
Further information: Timeline of environmental history
Prehistory[edit]
The Carboniferous Rainforest Collapse[6] was an event that occurred 300 million years ago. Climate
change devastated tropical rainforests causing the extinction of many plant and animal species. The
change was abrupt, specifically, at this time climate became cooler and drier, conditions that are not
favourable to the growth of rainforests and much of the biodiversity within them. Rainforests were
fragmented forming shrinking 'islands' further and further apart. This sudden collapse affected several
large groups, effects on amphibians were particularly devastating, while reptiles fared better, being
ecologically adapted to the drier conditions that followed.

An array of Neolithic artifacts, including bracelets, axe heads, chisels, and polishing tools.
Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts
estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years.[84] Small scale
deforestation was practiced by some societies for tens of thousands of years before the beginnings of
civilization.[85] The first evidence of deforestation appears in the Mesolithic period.[86] It was probably
used to convert closed forests into more open ecosystems favourable to game animals.[85] With the
advent of agriculture, larger areas began to be deforested, and fire became the prime tool to clear land for
crops. In Europe there is little solid evidence before 7000 BC. Mesolithic foragers used fire to create
openings for red deer and wild boar. In Great Britain, shade-tolerant species such as oak and ash are
replaced in the pollen record by hazels, brambles, grasses and nettles. Removal of the forests led to
decreased transpiration, resulting in the formation of upland peat bogs. Widespread decrease in elm
pollen across Europe between 8400–8300 BC and 7200–7000 BC, starting in southern Europe and
gradually moving north to Great Britain, may represent land clearing by fire at the onset of Neolithic
agriculture.

The Neolithic period saw extensive deforestation for farming land.[87][88] Stone axes were being made
from about 3000 BC not just from flint, but from a wide variety of hard rocks from across Britain and North
America as well. They include the noted Langdale axe industry in the English Lake District, quarries
developed at Penmaenmawr in North Wales and numerous other locations. Rough-outs were made
locally near the quarries, and some were polished locally to give a fine finish. This step not only increased
the mechanical strength of the axe, but also made penetration of wood easier. Flint was still used from
sources such as Grimes Graves but from many other mines across Europe.

Evidence of deforestation has been found in Minoan Crete; for example the environs of the Palace of
Knossos were severely deforested in the Bronze Age.[89]

Pre-industrial history[edit]

Easter Island, deforested. According to Jared Diamond: "Among past societies faced with the prospect of
ruinous deforestation, Easter Island and Mangareva chiefs succumbed to their immediate concerns, but
Tokugawa shoguns, Inca emperors, New Guinea highlanders, and 16th century German landowners
adopted a long view and reafforested."[90]
Throughout most of history, humans were hunter gatherers who hunted within forests. In most areas,
such as the Amazon, the tropics, Central America, and the Caribbean,[91] only after shortages of wood
and other forest products occur are policies implemented to ensure forest resources are used in a
sustainable manner.

In ancient Greece, Tjeered van Andel and co-writers[92] summarized three regional studies of historic
erosion and alluviation and found that, wherever adequate evidence exists, a major phase of erosion
follows, by about 500-1,000 years the introduction of farming in the various regions of Greece, ranging
from the later Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. The thousand years following the mid-first millennium BC
saw serious, intermittent pulses of soil erosion in numerous places. The historic silting of ports along the
southern coasts of Asia Minor (e.g. Clarus, and the examples of Ephesus, Priene and Miletus, where
harbors had to be abandoned because of the silt deposited by the Meander) and in coastal Syria during
the last centuries BC.

Easter Island has suffered from heavy soil erosion in recent centuries, aggravated by agriculture and
deforestation.[93] Jared Diamond gives an extensive look into the collapse of the ancient Easter Islanders
in his book Collapse. The disappearance of the island's trees seems to coincide with a decline of its
civilization around the 17th and 18th century. He attributed the collapse to deforestation and over-
exploitation of all resources.[94][95]

The famous silting up of the harbor for Bruges, which moved port commerce to Antwerp, also followed a
period of increased settlement growth (and apparently of deforestation) in the upper river basins. In early
medieval Riez in upper Provence, alluvial silt from two small rivers raised the riverbeds and widened the
floodplain, which slowly buried the Roman settlement in alluvium and gradually moved new construction
to higher ground; concurrently the headwater valleys above Riez were being opened to pasturage.
[citation needed]

A typical progress trap was that cities were often built in a forested area, which would provide wood for
some industry (for example, construction, shipbuilding, pottery). When deforestation occurs without
proper replanting, however; local wood supplies become difficult to obtain near enough to remain
competitive, leading to the city's abandonment, as happened repeatedly in Ancient Asia Minor. Because
of fuel needs, mining and metallurgy often led to deforestation and city abandonment.[96]

With most of the population remaining active in (or indirectly dependent on) the agricultural sector, the
main pressure in most areas remained land clearing for crop and cattle farming. Enough wild green was
usually left standing (and partially used, for example, to collect firewood, timber and fruits, or to graze
pigs) for wildlife to remain viable. The elite's (nobility and higher clergy) protection of their own hunting
privileges and game often protected significant woodlands.[citation needed]

Major parts in the spread (and thus more durable growth) of the population were played by monastical
'pioneering' (especially by the Benedictine and Commercial orders) and some feudal lords' recruiting
farmers to settle (and become tax payers) by offering relatively good legal and fiscal conditions. Even
when speculators sought to encourage towns, settlers needed an agricultural belt around or sometimes
within defensive walls. When populations were quickly decreased by causes such as the Black Death or
devastating warfare (for example, Genghis Khan's Mongol hordes in eastern and central Europe, Thirty
Years' War in Germany), this could lead to settlements being abandoned. The land was reclaimed by
nature, but the secondary forests usually lacked the original biodiversity.

Deforestation of Brazil's Atlantic Forest c.1820-1825

From 1100 to 1500 AD, significant deforestation took place in Western Europe as a result of the
expanding human population. The large-scale building of wooden sailing ships by European (coastal)
naval owners since the 15th century for exploration, colonisation, slave trade–and other trade on the high
seas consumed many forest resources. Piracy also contributed to the over harvesting of forests, as in
Spain. This led to a weakening of the domestic economy after Columbus' discovery of America, as the
economy became dependent on colonial activities (plundering, mining, cattle, plantations, trade, etc.)
[citation needed]

In Changes in the Land (1983), William Cronon analyzed and documented 17th-century English colonists'
reports of increased seasonal flooding in New England during the period when new settlers initially
cleared the forests for agriculture. They believed flooding was linked to widespread forest clearing
upstream.

The massive use of charcoal on an industrial scale in Early Modern Europe was a new type of
consumption of western forests; even in Stuart England, the relatively primitive production of charcoal has
already reached an impressive level. Stuart England was so widely deforested that it depended on the
Baltic trade for ship timbers, and looked to the untapped forests of New England to supply the need. Each
of Nelson's Royal Navy war ships at Trafalgar (1805) required 6,000 mature oaks for its construction. In
France, Colbert planted oak forests to supply the French navy in the future. When the oak plantations
matured in the mid-19th century, the masts were no longer required because shipping had changed.

Norman F. Cantor's summary of the effects of late medieval deforestation applies equally well to Early
Modern Europe:[97]

Europeans had lived in the midst of vast forests throughout the earlier medieval centuries. After 1250 they
became so skilled at deforestation that by 1500 they were running short of wood for heating and cooking.
They were faced with a nutritional decline because of the elimination of the generous supply of wild game
that had inhabited the now-disappearing forests, which throughout medieval times had provided the
staple of their carnivorous high-protein diet. By 1500 Europe was on the edge of a fuel and nutritional
disaster [from] which it was saved in the sixteenth century only by the burning of soft coal and the
cultivation of potatoes and maize.

Industrial era[edit]
In the 19th century, introduction of steamboats in the United States was the cause of deforestation of
banks of major rivers, such as the Mississippi River, with increased and more severe flooding one of the
environmental results. The steamboat crews cut wood every day from the riverbanks to fuel the steam
engines. Between St. Louis and the confluence with the Ohio River to the south, the Mississippi became
more wide and shallow, and changed its channel laterally. Attempts to improve navigation by the use of
snag pullers often resulted in crews' clearing large trees 100 to 200 feet (61 m) back from the banks.
Several French colonial towns of the Illinois Country, such as Kaskaskia, Cahokia and St. Philippe, Illinois
were flooded and abandoned in the late 19th century, with a loss to the cultural record of their archeology.
[98]
The wholescale clearance of woodland to create agricultural land can be seen in many parts of the world,
such as the Central forest-grasslands transition and other areas of the Great Plains of the United States.
Specific parallels are seen in the 20th-century deforestation occurring in many developing nations.

Rates of deforestation[edit]

Slash-and-burn farming in the state of Rondônia, western Brazil

Global deforestation[99] sharply accelerated around 1852.[100][101] It has been estimated that about half
of the Earth's mature tropical forests—between 7.5 million and 8 million km2 (2.9 million to 3 million sq
mi) of the original 15 million to 16 million km2 (5.8 million to 6.2 million sq mi) that until 1947 covered the
planet[102]—have now been destroyed.[10][103] Some scientists have predicted that unless significant
measures (such as seeking out and protecting old growth forests that have not been disturbed)[102] are
taken on a worldwide basis, by 2030 there will only be 10% remaining,[100][103] with another 10% in a
degraded condition.[100] 80% will have been lost, and with them hundreds of thousands of irreplaceable
species.[100] Some cartographers have attempted to illustrate the sheer scale of deforestation by country
using a cartogram.[104]

Estimates vary widely as to the extent of tropical deforestation.[105][106] Scientists estimate that one fifth
of the world's tropical rainforest was destroyed between 1960 and 1990.[citation needed] They claim that
that rainforests 60 years ago covered 14%[citation needed] of the world's land surface, now only cover 5–
7%, and that all tropical forests will be gone by the middle of the 21st century.[107]

A 2002 analysis of satellite imagery suggested that the rate of deforestation in the humid tropics
(approximately 5.8 million hectares per year) was roughly 23% lower than the most commonly quoted
rates.[108] Conversely, a newer analysis of satellite images reveals that deforestation of the Amazon
rainforest is twice as fast as scientists previously estimated.[109][110]

Some have argued that deforestation trends may follow a Kuznets curve,[111] which if true would
nonetheless fail to eliminate the risk of irreversible loss of non-economic forest values (for example, the
extinction of species).[112][113]

Satellite image of Haiti's border with the Dominican Republic (right) shows the amount of deforestation on
the Haitian side
A 2005 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that although the
Earth's total forest area continues to decrease at about 13 million hectares per year, the global rate of
deforestation has recently been slowing.[114][115] Still others claim that rainforests are being destroyed
at an ever-quickening pace.[116] The London-based Rainforest Foundation notes that "the UN figure is
based on a definition of forest as being an area with as little as 10% actual tree cover, which would
therefore include areas that are actually savannah-like ecosystems and badly damaged forests."[117]
Other critics of the FAO data point out that they do not distinguish between forest types,[118] and that
they are based largely on reporting from forestry departments of individual countries,[119] which do not
take into account unofficial activities like illegal logging.[120]

Despite these uncertainties, there is agreement that destruction of rainforests remains a significant
environmental problem. Up to 90% of West Africa's coastal rainforests have disappeared since 1900.[121]
In South Asia, about 88% of the rainforests have been lost.[122] Much of what remains of the world's
rainforests is in the Amazon basin, where the Amazon Rainforest covers approximately 4 million square
kilometres.[123] The regions with the highest tropical deforestation rate between 2000 and 2005 were
Central America—which lost 1.3% of its forests each year—and tropical Asia.[117] In Central America,
two-thirds of lowland tropical forests have been turned into pasture since 1950 and 40% of all the
rainforests have been lost in the last 40 years.[124] Brazil has lost 90–95% of its Mata Atlântica forest.
[125] Paraguay was losing its natural semi humid forests in the country’s western regions at a rate of
15.000 hectares at a randomly studied 2-month period in 2010,[126] Paraguay’s parliament refused in
2009 to pass a law that would have stopped cutting of natural forests altogether.[127]
Deforestation around Pakke Tiger Reserve, India
Madagascar has lost 90% of its eastern rainforests.[128][129] As of 2007, less than 50% of Haiti's forests
remained.[130] Mexico, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Burma, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China,
Sri Lanka, Laos, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Guinea, Ghana and the Ivory
Coast, have lost large areas of their rainforest.[131][132] Several countries, notably Brazil, have declared
their deforestation a national emergency.[133][134] The World Wildlife Fund's ecoregion project
catalogues habitat types throughout the world, including habitat loss such as deforestation, showing for
example that even in the rich forests of parts of Canada such as the Mid-Continental Canadian forests of
the prairie provinces half of the forest cover has been lost or altered.

Regions[edit]
Main article: Deforestation by region
Rates of deforestation vary around the world.

In 2011 Conservation International listed the top 10 most endangered forests, characterized by having all
lost 90% or more of their original habitat, and each harboring at least 1500 endemic plant species
(species found nowhere else in the world).[135]

Top 10 Most Endangered Forests 2011

Endangered forest Region Remaining habitat Predominate vegetation type Notes
Indo-Burma Asia-Pacific 5% Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests Rivers,
floodplain wetlands, mangrove forests. Burma, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, India.[136]
New Caledonia Asia-Pacific 5% Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests See note for
region covered.[137]
Sundaland Asia-Pacific 7% Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests Western half of
the Indo-Malayan archipelago including southern Borneo and Sumatra.[138]
Philippines Asia-Pacific 7% Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests Forests over
the entire country including 7,100 islands.[139]
Atlantic Forest South America 8% Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests Forests along
Brazil's Atlantic coast, extends to parts of Paraguay, Argentina and Uruguay.[140]
Mountains of Southwest China Asia-Pacific 8% Temperate coniferous forest See note for
region covered.[141]
California Floristic Province North America 10% Tropical and subtropical dry broadleaf forests
See note for region covered.[142]
Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa Africa 10% Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests
Mozambique, Tanzania, Kenya, Somalia.[143]
Madagascar & Indian Ocean Islands Africa 10% Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests
Madagascar, Mauritius, Reunion, Seychelles, Comoros.[144]
Eastern Afromontane Africa 11% Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests
Montane grasslands and shrublands Forests scattered along the eastern edge of Africa, from Saudi
Arabia in the north to Zimbabwe in the south.[145]
Table source:[135]
Control[edit]
Reducing emissions[edit]
Main article: Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
Main international organizations including the United Nations and the World Bank, have begun to develop
programs aimed at curbing deforestation. The blanket term Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and
Forest Degradation (REDD) describes these sorts of programs, which use direct monetary or other
incentives to encourage developing countries to limit and/or roll back deforestation. Funding has been an
issue, but at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties-15
(COP-15) in Copenhagen in December 2009, an accord was reached with a collective commitment by
developed countries for new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through
international institutions, that will approach USD 30 billion for the period 2010–2012.[146] Significant work
is underway on tools for use in monitoring developing country adherence to their agreed REDD targets.
These tools, which rely on remote forest monitoring using satellite imagery and other data sources,
include the Center for Global Development's FORMA (Forest Monitoring for Action) initiative [147] and the
Group on Earth Observations' Forest Carbon Tracking Portal.[148] Methodological guidance for forest
monitoring was also emphasized at COP-15.[149] The environmental organization Avoided Deforestation
Partners leads the campaign for development of REDD through funding from the U.S. government.[150]
In 2014, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and partners launched Open Foris -
a set of open-source software tools that assist countries in gathering, producing and disseminating
information on the state of forest resources.[151] The tools support the inventory lifecycle, from needs
assessment, design, planning, field data collection and management, estimation analysis, and
dissemination. Remote sensing image processing tools are included, as well as tools for international
reporting for Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) and MRV[clarification
needed] and FAO's Global Forest Resource Assessments.

In evaluating implications of overall emissions reductions, countries of greatest concern are those
categorized as High Forest Cover with High Rates of Deforestation (HFHD) and Low Forest Cover with
High Rates of Deforestation (LFHD). Afghanistan, Benin, Botswana, Burma, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Liberia, Malawi,
Mali, Mauritania, Mongolia, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines,
Senegal, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Togo, Uganda, United Republic of Tanzania, Zimbabwe are
listed as having Low Forest Cover with High Rates of Deforestation (LFHD). Brazil, Cambodia,
Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Equatorial Guinea, Malaysia, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste,
Venezuela, Zambia are listed as High Forest Cover with High Rates of Deforestation (HFHD).[152]

Payments for conserving forests[edit]

In Bolivia, deforestation in upper river basins has caused environmental problems, including soil erosion
and declining water quality. An innovative project to try and remedy this situation involves landholders in
upstream areas being paid by downstream water users to conserve forests. The landholders receive
US$20 to conserve the trees, avoid polluting livestock practices, and enhance the biodiversity and forest
carbon on their land. They also receive US$30, which purchases a beehive, to compensate for
conservation for two hectares of water-sustaining forest for five years. Honey revenue per hectare of
forest is US$5 per year, so within five years, the landholder has sold US$50 of honey.[153] The project is
being conducted by Fundación Natura Bolivia and Rare Conservation, with support from the Climate &
Development Knowledge Network.

Land rights[edit]

Transferring land rights to indigenous inhabitants is argued to efficiently conserve forests.

Transferring rights over land from public domain to its indigenous inhabitants is argued to be a cost
effective strategy to conserve forests.[154] This includes the protection of such rights entitled in existing
laws, such as India’s Forest Rights Act.[154] The transferring of such rights in China, perhaps the largest
land reform in modern times, has been argued to have increased forest cover.[155] In Brazil, forested
areas given tenure to indigenous groups have even lower rates of clearing than national parks.[155]

Farming[edit]
New methods are being developed to farm more intensively, such as high-yield hybrid crops, greenhouse,
autonomous building gardens, and hydroponics. These methods are often dependent on chemical inputs
to maintain necessary yields. In cyclic agriculture, cattle are grazed on farm land that is resting and
rejuvenating. Cyclic agriculture actually increases the fertility of the soil. Intensive farming can also
decrease soil nutrients by consuming at an accelerated rate the trace minerals needed for crop growth.
[citation needed]The most promising approach, however, is the concept of food forests in permaculture,
which consists of agroforestal systems carefully designed to mimic natural forests, with an emphasis on
plant and animal species of interest for food, timber and other uses. These systems have low
dependence on fossil fuels and agro-chemicals, are highly self-maintaining, highly productive, and with
strong positive impact on soil and water quality, and biodiversity.

Monitoring deforestation[edit]
There are multiple methods that are appropriate and reliable for reducing and monitoring deforestation.
One method is the “visual interpretation of aerial photos or satellite imagery that is labor-intensive but
does not require high-level training in computer image processing or extensive computational resources”.
[80] Another method includes hot-spot analysis (that is, locations of rapid change) using expert opinion or
coarse resolution satellite data to identify locations for detailed digital analysis with high resolution satellite
images.[80] Deforestation is typically assessed by quantifying the amount of area deforested, measured
at the present time. From an environmental point of view, quantifying the damage and its possible
consequences is a more important task, while conservation efforts are more focused on forested land
protection and development of land-use alternatives to avoid continued deforestation.[80] Deforestation
rate and total area deforested, have been widely used for monitoring deforestation in many regions,
including the Brazilian Amazon deforestation monitoring by INPE.[48] A global satellite view is available.
[156][157]

Forest management[edit]
Efforts to stop or slow deforestation have been attempted for many centuries because it has long been
known that deforestation can cause environmental damage sufficient in some cases to cause societies to
collapse. In Tonga, paramount rulers developed policies designed to prevent conflicts between short-term
gains from converting forest to farmland and long-term problems forest loss would cause,[158] while
during the 17th and 18th centuries in Tokugawa, Japan,[159] the shoguns developed a highly
sophisticated system of long-term planning to stop and even reverse deforestation of the preceding
centuries through substituting timber by other products and more efficient use of land that had been
farmed for many centuries. In 16th-century Germany, landowners also developed silviculture to deal with
the problem of deforestation. However, these policies tend to be limited to environments with good
rainfall, no dry season and very young soils (through volcanism or glaciation). This is because on older
and less fertile soils trees grow too slowly for silviculture to be economic, whilst in areas with a strong dry
season there is always a risk of forest fires destroying a tree crop before it matures.

In the areas where "slash-and-burn" is practiced, switching to "slash-and-char" would prevent the rapid
deforestation and subsequent degradation of soils. The biochar thus created, given back to the soil, is not
only a durable carbon sequestration method, but it also is an extremely beneficial amendment to the soil.
Mixed with biomass it brings the creation of terra preta, one of the richest soils on the planet and the only
one known to regenerate itself.

Sustainable practices[edit]

Bamboo is advocated as a more sustainable alternative for cutting down wood for fuel.[160]
Certification, as provided by global certification systems such as Programme for the Endorsement of
Forest Certification and Forest Stewardship Council, contributes to tackling deforestation by creating
market demand for timber from sustainably managed forests. According to the United Nations Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), "A major condition for the adoption of sustainable forest management is a
demand for products that are produced sustainably and consumer willingness to pay for the higher costs
entailed. Certification represents a shift from regulatory approaches to market incentives to promote
sustainable forest management. By promoting the positive attributes of forest products from sustainably
managed forests, certification focuses on the demand side of environmental conservation."[161]
Rainforest Rescue argues that the standards of organizations like FSC are too closely connected to
timber industry interests and therefore do not guarantee environmentally and socially responsible forest
management. In reality, monitoring systems are inadequate and various cases of fraud have been
documented worldwide.[162]

Some nations have taken steps to help increase the amount of trees on Earth. In 1981, China created
National Tree Planting Day Forest and forest coverage had now reached 16.55% of China's land mass,
as against only 12% two decades ago [163]

Using fuel from bamboo rather than wood results in cleaner burning, and since bamboo matures much
faster than wood, deforestation is reduced as supply can be replenished faster.[160]
Reforestation[edit]
Main article: Reforestation
In many parts of the world, especially in East Asian countries, reforestation and afforestation are
increasing the area of forested lands.[164] The amount of woodland has increased in 22 of the world's 50
most forested nations. Asia as a whole gained 1 million hectares of forest between 2000 and 2005.
Tropical forest in El Salvador expanded more than 20% between 1992 and 2001. Based on these trends,
one study projects that global forest will increase by 10%—an area the size of India—by 2050.[165]

In the People's Republic of China, where large scale destruction of forests has occurred, the government
has in the past required that every able-bodied citizen between the ages of 11 and 60 plant three to five
trees per year or do the equivalent amount of work in other forest services. The government claims that at
least 1 billion trees have been planted in China every year since 1982. This is no longer required today,
but March 12 of every year in China is the Planting Holiday. Also, it has introduced the Green Wall of
China project, which aims to halt the expansion of the Gobi desert through the planting of trees. However,
due to the large percentage of trees dying off after planting (up to 75%), the project is not very successful.
[citation needed] There has been a 47-million-hectare increase in forest area in China since the 1970s.
[165] The total number of trees amounted to be about 35 billion and 4.55% of China's land mass
increased in forest coverage. The forest coverage was 12% two decades ago and now is 16.55%.[166]

An ambitious proposal for China is the Aerially Delivered Re-forestation and Erosion Control System and
the proposed Sahara Forest Project coupled with the Seawater Greenhouse.

In Western countries, increasing consumer demand for wood products that have been produced and
harvested in a sustainable manner is causing forest landowners and forest industries to become
increasingly accountable for their forest management and timber harvesting practices.

The Arbor Day Foundation's Rain Forest Rescue program is a charity that helps to prevent deforestation.
The charity uses donated money to buy up and preserve rainforest land before the lumber companies can
buy it. The Arbor Day Foundation then protects the land from deforestation. This also locks in the way of
life of the primitive tribes living on the forest land. Organizations such as Community Forestry
International, Cool Earth, The Nature Conservancy, World Wide Fund for Nature, Conservation
International, African Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace also focus on preserving forest habitats.
Greenpeace in particular has also mapped out the forests that are still intact[167] and published this
information on the internet.[168] World Resources Institute in turn has made a simpler thematic map[169]
showing the amount of forests present just before the age of man (8000 years ago) and the current
(reduced) levels of forest.[170] These maps mark the amount of afforestation required to repair the
damage caused by people.

Forest plantations[edit]
To meet the world's demand for wood, it has been suggested by forestry writers Botkins and Sedjo that
high-yielding forest plantations are suitable. It has been calculated that plantations yielding 10 cubic
meters per hectare annually could supply all the timber required for international trade on 5% of the
world's existing forestland. By contrast, natural forests produce about 1–2 cubic meters per hectare;
therefore, 5–10 times more forestland would be required to meet demand. Forester Chad Oliver has
suggested a forest mosaic with high-yield forest lands interspersed with conservation land.[171]

In the country of Senegal, on the western coast of Africa, a movement headed by youths has helped to
plant over 6 million mangrove trees. The trees will protect local villages from storm damages and will
provide a habitat for local wildlife. The project started in 2008, and already the Senegalese government
has been asked to establish rules and regulations that would protect the new mangrove forests.[172]

Military context[edit]
See also: Environmental impact of war

American Sherman tanks knocked out by Japanese artillery on Okinawa.

While the preponderance of deforestation is due to demands for agricultural and urban use for the human
population, there are some examples of military causes. One example of deliberate deforestation is that
which took place in the U.S. zone of occupation in Germany after World War II. Before the onset of the
Cold War, defeated Germany was still considered a potential future threat rather than potential future ally.
To address this threat, attempts were made to lower German industrial potential, of which forests were
deemed an element. Sources in the U.S. government admitted that the purpose of this was that the
"ultimate destruction of the war potential of German forests." As a consequence of the practice of clear-
felling, deforestation resulted which could "be replaced only by long forestry development over perhaps a
century."[173]

Deforestation can also be one consequence of war. For example, in the 1945 Battle of Okinawa,
bombardment and other combat operations reduced the lush tropical landscape into "a vast field of mud,
lead, decay and maggots".[174] Deforestation can also be an intentional tactic of military forces.
Defoliants (like Agent Orange or others) was used by the British in the Malayan Emergency, and by the
United States in the Korean War and Vietnam War.[175][176][177]

Public Health Context[edit]

Deforestation eliminates a great number of species of plants and animals which also often results in an
increase in disease.[178] Loss of native species allows new species to come to dominance. Often the
destruction of predatory species can result in an increase in rodent populations. These are known to carry
plagues. Additionally, erosion can produce pools of stagnant water that are perfect breeding grounds for
mosquitos, well known vectors of malaria, yellow fever, nipah virus, and more.[179] Deforestation can
also create a path for non-native species to flourish such as certain types of snails, which have been
correlated with an increase in schistosomiasis cases.[178][180]

Deforestation is occurring all over the world and has been coupled with an increase in the occurrence of
disease outbreaks. In Malaysia, thousands of acres of forest have been cleared for pig farms. This has
resulted in an increase in the zoonosis the Nipah virus.[181] In Kenya, deforestation has led to an
increase in malaria cases which is now the leading cause of morbidity and mortality the country.[182][183]

Another pathway through which deforestation affects disease is the relocation and dispersion of disease-
carrying hosts. This disease emergence pathway can be called “range expansion,” whereby the host’s
range (and thereby the range of pathogens) expands to new geographic areas.[184] Through
deforestation, hosts and reservoir species are forced into neighboring habitats. Accompanying the
reservoir species are pathogens that have the ability to find new hosts in previously unexposed regions.
As these pathogens and species come into closer contact with humans, they are infected both directly
and indirectly.

A catastrophic example of range expansion is the 1998 outbreak of Nipah Virus in Malaysia.[185] For a
number of years, deforestation, drought, and subsequent fires led to a dramatic geographic shift and
density of fruit bats, a reservoir for Nipah virus.[186] Deforestation reduced the available fruiting trees in
the bats’ habitat, and they encroached on surrounding orchards which also happened to be the location of
a large number of pigsties. The bats, through proximity spread the Nipah to pigs. While the virus infected
the pigs, mortality was much lower than among humans, making the pigs a virulent host leading to the
transmission of the virus to humans. This resulted in 265 reported cases of encephalitis, of which 105
resulted in death. This example provides an important lesson for the impact deforestation can have on
human health.

Another example of range expansion due to deforestation and other anthropogenic habitat impacts
includes the Capybara rodent in Paraguay.[187] This rodent is the host of a number of zoonotic diseases
and, while there has not yet been a human-borne outbreak due to the movement of this rodent into new
regions, it offers an example of how habitat destruction through deforestation and subsequent movements
of species is occurring regularly.
A now well-developed theory is that the spread of HIV it is at least partially due deforestation. Rising
populations created a food demand and with deforestation opening up new areas of the forest the hunters
harvested a great deal of primate bushmeat, which is believed to be the origin of HIV.[178]

See also[edit]
icon Environment portal
Ecology portal
Earth sciences portal
icon Biology portal
icon Sustainable development portal
Assarting
Biochar
Clearcutting
Deforestation and climate change
Deforestation by region
All pages with titles containing deforestation in
All pages with titles containing deforestation of
All pages with titles containing land clearing in
Deforestation during the Roman period
Desertification
Ecoforestry
Economic impact analysis
Environmental issues with paper
Environmental philosophy
Extinction
CDM & JI A/R projects
Forestry
Overpopulation
Illegal logging
Intact forest landscape
International Year of Forests
Land use, land-use change and forestry
Lumberjack
Moisture recycling
Mountaintop removal
Natural landscape
Neolithic
Rainforest
Richard St. Barbe Baker
Satoyama
Slash-and-burn
Slash-and-char
Terra preta
Wilderness
World Forestry Congress
References[edit]
Notes
Jump up ^ "Un dizième des terres sauvages ont disparu en deux décennies" (Radio Télévision Suisse)
citing Watson, James E.M.; Shanahan, Danielle F.; Di Marco, Moreno; Allan, James; Laurance, William F.;
Sanderson, Eric W.; MacKey, Brendan; Venter, Oscar (2016). "Catastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas
Undermine Global Environment Targets". Current Biology. 26 (21): 2929. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049.
PMID 27618267.
Jump up ^ SAFnet Dictionary|Definition For [deforestation]. Dictionary of forestry.org (2008-07-29).
Retrieved 2011-05-15.
Jump up ^ Bradford, Alina. (2015-03-04) Deforestation: Facts, Causes & Effects. Livescience.com.
Retrieved 2016-11-13.
Jump up ^ Deforestation | Threats | WWF. Worldwildlife.org. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
Jump up ^ Oliver, C.D. (1980). "Forest Development in North America following major disturbances". For.
Ecol. Management. 3: 153–168. doi:10.1016/0378-1127(80)90013-4.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Sahney, S., Benton, M.J. & Falcon-Lang, H.J. (2010). "Rainforest collapse
triggered Pennsylvanian tetrapod diversification in Euramerica". Geology. 38 (12): 1079–1082.
doi:10.1130/G31182.1.
Jump up ^ Patel-Weynand, Toral (2002) Biodiversity and sustainable forestry: State of the science review.
The National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry, Washington DC
Jump up ^ Kauppi, P. E.; Ausubel, J. H.; Fang, J.; Mather, A. S.; Sedjo, R. A.; Waggoner, P. E. (2006).
"Returning forests analyzed with the forest identity". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
103 (46): 17574–9. doi:10.1073/pnas.0608343103. PMC 1635979Freely accessible. PMID 17101996.
Jump up ^ "Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet", The New York Times, 20 April 2009.
^ Jump up to: a b Rainforest Facts. Nature.org (2016-11-01). Retrieved 2016-11-13.
^ Jump up to: a b "Facts About Rainforests". The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved 2015-10-19.
Jump up ^ UNFCCC (2007). "Investment and financial flows to address climate change" (PDF). unfccc.int.
UNFCCC. p. 81.
^ Jump up to: a b Arild Angelsen; David Kaimowitz (February 1999). "Rethinking the causes of
deforestation: Lessons from economic models". The World Bank Research Observer, 14:1. Oxford
University Press. pp. 73–98.
Jump up ^ Laurance, William F. (December 1999). "Reflections on the tropical deforestation crisis" (PDF).
Biological Conservation, Volume 91, Issues 2–3. pp. 109–117.
Jump up ^ Helmut J. Geist And Eric F. Lambin (February 2002). "Proximate Causes and Underlying
Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation" (PDF). BioScience. 52 (2): 143–150. doi:10.1641/0006-
3568(2002)052[0143:PCAUDF]2.0.CO;2.
Jump up ^ Burgonio, T.J. (3 January 2008). "Corruption blamed for deforestation". Philippine Daily
Inquirer.
Jump up ^ "WRM Bulletin Number 74". World Rainforest Movement. September 2003.
Jump up ^ "Global Deforestation". Global Change Curriculum. University of Michigan Global Change
Program. 4 January 2006.
^ Jump up to: a b Alain Marcoux (August 2000). "Population and deforestation". SD Dimensions.
Sustainable Development Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Jump up ^ Butler, Rhett A. "Impact of Population and Poverty on Rainforests". Mongabay.com / A Place
Out of Time: Tropical Rainforests and the Perils They Face. Retrieved 13 May 2009.
^ Jump up to: a b Stock, Jocelyn; Rochen, Andy. "The Choice: Doomsday or Arbor Day". umich.edu.
Jump up ^ Karen. "Demographics, Democracy, Development, Disparity and Deforestation: A
Crossnational Assessment of the Social Causes of Deforestation". Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta Hilton Hotel, Atlanta, GA, 16 August 2003. Retrieved 13
May 2009.
Jump up ^ "The Double Edge of Globalization". YaleGlobal Online. Yale University Press. June 2007.
Jump up ^ Butler, Rhett A. "Human Threats to Rainforests—Economic Restructuring". Mongabay.com / A
Place Out of Time: Tropical Rainforests and the Perils They Face. Retrieved 13 May 2009.
Jump up ^ Susanna B. Hecht; Susan Kandel; Ileana Gomes; Nelson Cuellar; Herman Rosa (2006).
"Globalization, Forest Resurgence, and Environmental Politics in El Salvador" (PDF). World
Development. 34 (2): 308–323. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.09.005.
^ Jump up to: a b Pearce, David W (December 2001). "The Economic Value of Forest Ecosystems"
(PDF). Ecosystem Health. 7 (4): 284–296. doi:10.1046/j.1526-0992.2001.01037.x.
Jump up ^ Erwin H Bulte; Mark Joenje; Hans G P Jansen (2000). "Is there too much or too little natural
forest in the Atlantic Zone of Costa Rica?". Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 30 (3): 495–506.
doi:10.1139/x99-225.
Jump up ^ Butler, Rhett A.; Laurance, William F. (August 2008). "New strategies for conserving tropical
forests" (PDF). Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 23 (9): 469–472. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.05.006.
^ Jump up to: a b c Rudel, T.K. 2005 "Tropical Forests: Regional Paths of Destruction and Regeneration
in the Late 20th Century" Columbia University Press ISBN 0-231-13195-X
Jump up ^ "NASA – Top Story – NASA DATA SHOWS DEFORESTATION AFFECTS CLIMATE".
Jump up ^ "Massive deforestation threatens food security".
Jump up ^ Deforestation, ScienceDaily
Jump up ^ Confirmed: Deforestation Plays Critical Climate Change Role, ScienceDaily, 11 May 2007.
Jump up ^ Clearing Forests May Transform Local—and Global—Climate; Researchers are finding that
massive deforestation may have a profound, and possibly catastrophic, impact on local weather 4 March
2013 Scientific American
Jump up ^ Deforestation causes global warming, FAO
^ Jump up to: a b Philip M. Fearnside1 and William F. Laurance, TROPICAL DEFORESTATION AND
GREENHOUSE-GAS EMISSIONS, Ecological Applications, Volume 14, Issue 4 (August 2004) pp. 982–
986.
Jump up ^ "Fondation Chirac » Deforestation and desertification".
Jump up ^ IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis",
Section 7.3.3.1.5 (p. 527)
Jump up ^ G.R. van der Werf, D.C.Morton, R.S. DeFries, J.G.J. Olivier, P.S. Kasibhatla, R.B. Jackson,
G.J. Collatz and J.T. Randerson (2009). "CO2 emissions from forest loss". Nature Geoscience. 2 (11):
737–738. doi:10.1038/ngeo671.
Jump up ^ Mumoki, Fiona. "The Effects of Deforestation on our Environment Today." Panorama.
TakingITGlobal. 18 July 2006. Web. 24 March 2012.
Jump up ^ I.C. Prentice. "The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" IPCC
Jump up ^ NASA Data Shows Deforestation Affects Climate In The Amazon. NASA News. 9 June 2004.
Jump up ^ Findell, Kristen L.; Thomas R. Knutson (2006). "Weak Simulated Extratropical Responses to
Complete Tropical Deforestation". Journal of Climate. 19 (12): 2835–2850. doi:10.1175/JCLI3737.1.
Jump up ^ Sheila Wertz-Kanounnikoff; Laura Ximena Rubio Alvarado. "Why are we seeing "REDD"?".
Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations. Archived from the original on 2013-10-
13. Retrieved 2016-11-14.
^ Jump up to: a b "How can you save the rain forest. 8 October 2006. Frank Field". The Times. London. 8
October 2006. Retrieved 1 April 2010.
Jump up ^ Broeker, Wallace S. (2006). "Breathing easy: Et tu, O2." Columbia University
Jump up ^ Moran, Emilio F. (1993). "Deforestation and land use in the Brazilian Amazon". Human
Ecology. 21: 1. doi:10.1007/BF00890069.
^ Jump up to: a b R Defries; F Achard; S Brown; M Herold; D Murdiyarso; B Schlamadinger; C Desouzajr
(2007). "Earth observations for estimating greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation in developing
countries" (PDF). Environmental Science Policy. 10 (4): 385–394. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2007.01.010.
Jump up ^ "Underlying Causes of Deforestation". UN Secretary-General’s Report.
Jump up ^ Daniel Rogge. "Deforestation and Landslides in Southwestern Washington". University of
Wisconsin-Eau Claire.
Jump up ^ China's floods: Is deforestation to blame? BBC News. 6 August 1999.
Jump up ^ The book "Environment", 5th Edition, Raven and Berg, John Wiley & Sons, 2006, page 406.
Jump up ^ Hongchang, Wang (1998-01-01). "Deforestation and Desiccation in China A Preliminary
Study". In Schwartz, Jonathan Matthew. The Economic Costs of China's Environmental Degradation:
Project on Environmental Scarcities, State Capacity, and Civil Violence, a Joint Project of the University of
Toronto and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Committee on Internat. Security Studies,
American Acad. of Arts and Sciences.
Jump up ^ "Soil, Water and Plant Characteristics Important to Irrigation". North Dakota State University.
Jump up ^ Sten Nilsson, Do We Have Enough Forests?, American Institute of Biological Sciences, March
2001.
Jump up ^ Rainforest Biodiversity Shows Differing Patterns, ScienceDaily, 14 August 2007.
Jump up ^ "Medicine from the rainforest". Research for Biodiversity Editorial Office. Archived from the
original on 6 December 2008.
Jump up ^ Single-largest biodiversity survey says primary rainforest is irreplaceable, Bio-Medicine, 14
November 2007.
Jump up ^ Tropical rainforests – The tropical rainforest, BBC
Jump up ^ Tropical Rain Forest. thinkquest.org
Jump up ^ U.N. calls on Asian nations to end deforestation, Reuters, 20 June 2008.
Jump up ^ "Rainforest Facts".
Jump up ^ Tropical rainforests – Rainforest water and nutrient cycles, BBC
Jump up ^ Butler, Rhett A. (2 July 2007) Primary rainforest richer in species than plantations, secondary
forests, mongabay.com,
Jump up ^ Flowers, April. "Deforestation In The Amazon Affects Microbial Life As Well As Ecosystems".
Science News. Redorbit.com. Retrieved 12 March 2013.
Jump up ^ Rainforest Facts. Rain-tree.com (2010-03-20). Retrieved 2010-08-29.
Jump up ^ Leakey, Richard and Roger Lewin, 1996, The Sixth Extinction : Patterns of Life and the Future
of Humankind, Anchor, ISBN 0-385-46809-1.
Jump up ^ The great rainforest tragedy, The Independent, 28 June 2003.
Jump up ^ Biodiversity wipeout facing South East Asia, New Scientist, 23 July 2003.
^ Jump up to: a b Pimm, S. L.; Russell, G. J.; Gittleman, J. L.; Brooks, T. M. (1995). "The Future of
Biodiversity". Science. 269 (5222): 347–350. doi:10.1126/science.269.5222.347. PMID 17841251.
Jump up ^ Pimm Stuart L, Russell Gareth J, Gittleman John L, Brooks Thomas M (1995). "The future of
biodiversity". Science. 269 (5222): 347–341. doi:10.1126/science.269.5222.347. PMID 17841251.
^ Jump up to: a b Timothy Charles Whitmore; Jeffrey Sayer; International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources. General Assembly; IUCN Forest Conservation Programme (15 February
1992). Tropical deforestation and species extinction. Springer. ISBN 978-0-412-45520-9. Retrieved 4
December 2011.
Jump up ^ Sohn, Emily (12 July 2012). "More extinctions expected in Amazon". Discovery.
Jump up ^ Nature loss 'to hurt global poor', BBC News, 29 May 2008.
Jump up ^ Forest Products. (PDF). Retrieved 2011-12-04.
Jump up ^ "Destruction of Renewable Resources". rainforests.mongabay.com.
Jump up ^ Deforestation Across the World's Tropical Forests Emits Large Amounts of Greenhouse Gases
with Little Economic Benefits, According to a New Study at CGIAR.org, 4 December 2007.
Jump up ^ "New ASB Report finds deforestation offers very little money compared to potential financial
benefits". asb.cgiar.org.
^ Jump up to: a b c Chomitz, Kenneth and Gray, David A. (1999). "Roads, lands, markets, and
deforestation : a spatial model of land use in Belize". Policy Research Working Papers. doi:10.1596/1813-
9450-1444.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Ferraz, Silvio Frosini de Barros; Vettorazzi, Carlos Alberto; Theobald, David M.
(2009). "Using indicators of deforestation and land-use dynamics to support conservation strategies: A
case study of central Rondônia, Brazil". Forest Ecology and Management. 257 (7): 1586.
doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2009.01.013.
Jump up ^ "Stolen Goods: The EU's complicity in illegal tropical deforestation" (PDF). Forests and the
European Union Resource Network. 17 March 2015. Retrieved 31 March 2015.
Jump up ^ "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD): An Options
Assessment Report" (PDF). The Government of Norway. 28 March 2010. p. 16.
Jump up ^ Meyfroidt, P., Lambin, E.F. 2011. Global Forest Transition: Prospects for an End to
Deforestation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 36: 343-371.
Jump up ^ Taylor, Leslie (2004). The Healing Power of Rainforest Herbs: A Guide to Understanding and
Using Herbal Medicinals. Square One. ISBN 9780757001444.
^ Jump up to: a b Flannery, T (1994). The future eaters. Melbourne: Reed Books. ISBN 0-7301-0422-2.
Jump up ^ Brown, Tony (1997). "Clearances and Clearings: Deforestation in Mesolithic/Neolithic Britain".
Oxford Journal of Archaeology. 16 (2): 133. doi:10.1111/1468-0092.00030.
Jump up ^ "hand tool: Neolithic tools". Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Jump up ^ "Neolithic Age from 4,000 BC to 2,200 BC or New Stone Age".
Jump up ^ Hogan, C. Michael (22 December 2007). "Knossos fieldnotes", The Modern Antiquarian
Jump up ^ Jared Diamond, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, chapter "The world as a
polder: what does it all mean to us today?", section "Reasons for hope", Penguin Books, 2005 and 2011,
pages 522–523 (ISBN 978-0-241-95868-1).
Jump up ^ Encyclopćdia Britannica Online School Edition. School.eb.com. Retrieved 2010-08-29.
Jump up ^ Tjeerd H. van Andel; Eberhard Zangger; Anne Demitrack (2013). "Land Use and Soil Erosion
in Prehistoric and Historical Greece" (PDF). Journal of Field Archaeology. 17 (4): 379–396.
doi:10.1179/009346990791548628.
Jump up ^ "The Mystery of Easter Island", Smithsonian Magazine, 1 April 2007.
Jump up ^ "Historical Consequences of Deforestation: Easter Island".
Jump up ^ "Jared Diamond, Easter Island's End".
Jump up ^ Chew, Sing C. (2001). World Ecological Degradation. Oxford, England: AltaMira Press. pp. 69–
70.
Jump up ^ Norman F. Cantor (9 June 1994). The civilization of the Middle Ages: a completely revised and
expanded edition of Medieval history, the life and death of a civilization. HarperCollins. p. 564. ISBN 978-
0-06-092553-6. Retrieved 4 December 2011.
Jump up ^ F. Terry Norris, "Where Did the Villages Go? Steamboats, Deforestation, and Archaeological
Loss in the Mississippi Valley", in Common Fields: an environmental history of St. Louis, Andrew Hurley,
ed., St. Louis, MO: Missouri Historical Society Press, 1997, ISBN 978-1-883982-15-7 pp. 73–89.
Jump up ^ Duke Press policy studies / Global deforestation and the nineteenth-century world economy /
edited by Richard P. Tucker and J. F. Richards
^ Jump up to: a b c d E. O. Wilson, 2002, The Future of Life, Vintage ISBN 0-679-76811-4.
Jump up ^ Map reveals extent of deforestation in tropical countries, guardian.co.uk, 1 July 2008.
^ Jump up to: a b Maycock, Paul F. Deforestation. WorldBookOnline.
^ Jump up to: a b Ron Nielsen, The Little Green Handbook: Seven Trends Shaping the Future of Our
Planet, Picador, New York (2006) ISBN 978-0-312-42581-4.
Jump up ^ Victor Vescovo. (2006). The Atlas of World Statistics. The Caladan Press. Retrieved 2012-08-
03.
Jump up ^ Teja Tscharntke, Christoph Leuschner, Edzo Veldkamp, Heiko Faust, Edi Guhardja, eds.
(2010). Tropical Rainforests and Agroforests Under Global Change. Springer. pp. 270–271. ISBN 978-3-
642-00492-6.
Jump up ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2000). Land Use, Land Use Change and
Forestry. Cambridge University Press.[page needed]
Jump up ^ John F. Mongillo; Linda Zierdt-Warshaw (2000). Linda Zierdt-Warshaw, ed. Encyclopedia of
environmental science. University of Rochester Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-57356-147-1.
Jump up ^ Achard Frederic, Eva Hugh D, Hans- , Stibig Jurgen, Mayaux Philippe (2002). "Determination
of deforestation rates of the world's humid tropical forests". Science. 297 (5583): 999–1003.
doi:10.1126/science.1070656. PMID 12169731.
Jump up ^ Jha, Alok (21 October 2005). "Amazon rainforest vanishing at twice rate of previous
estimates". The Guardian.
Jump up ^ Satellite images reveal Amazon forest shrinking faster, csmonitor.com, 21 October 2005.
Jump up ^ Culas, Richard J. (2007). "Deforestation and the environmental Kuznets curve: An institutional
perspective" (PDF). Ecological Economics. 61 (2–3): 429. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.03.014.
Jump up ^ Environmental Economics: A deforestation Kuznets curve?, 22 November 2006.
Jump up ^ "Is there an environmental Kuznets curve for deforestation?".
Jump up ^ "Pan-tropical Survey of Forest Cover Changes 1980–2000". Forest Resources Assessment.
Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Jump up ^ Committee On Forestry. FAO (2001-03-16). Retrieved 2010-08-29.
Jump up ^ Worldwatch: Wood Production and Deforestation Increase & Recent Content, Worldwatch
Institute
^ Jump up to: a b Rhett A. Butler (16 November 2005). "World deforestation rates and forest cover
statistics, 2000–2005". mongabay.com.
Jump up ^ The fear is that highly diverse habitats, such as tropical rainforest, are vanishing at a faster
rate that is partly masked by the slower deforestation of less biodiverse, dry, open forests. Because of this
omission, the most harmful impacts of deforestation (such as habitat loss) could be increasing despite a
possible decline in the global rate of deforestation.
Jump up ^ "Remote sensing versus self-reporting".
Jump up ^ The World Bank estimates that 80% of logging operations are illegal in Bolivia and 42% in
Colombia, while in Peru, illegal logging accounts for 80% of all logging activities. (World Bank (2004).
Forest Law Enforcement.) (The Peruvian Environmental Law Society (2003). Case Study on the
Development and Implementation of Guidelines for the Control of Illegal Logging with a View to
Sustainable Forest Management in Peru.)
Jump up ^ "Forest Holocaust". National Geographic.
Jump up ^ "Rainforests & Agriculture".
Jump up ^ The Amazon Rainforest, BBC, 14 February 2003.
Jump up ^ John Revington. "The Causes of Tropical Deforestation". New Renaissance Magazine.
Jump up ^ "What is Deforestation?". kids.mongabay.com.
Jump up ^ "Paraguay es principal deforestador del Chaco". ABC Color newspaper, Paraguay. Retrieved
13 August 2011.
Jump up ^ "Paraguay farmland". Retrieved 13 August 2011.
Jump up ^ IUCN – Three new sites inscribed on World Heritage List, 27 June 2007.
Jump up ^ "Madagascar's rainforest map". New Scientist.
Jump up ^ "Haiti Is Covered with Trees". EnviroSociety. Tarter, Andrew. Retrieved 14 November 2016.
Jump up ^ Chart – Tropical Deforestation by Country & Region. Mongabay.com. Retrieved 2011-12-04.
Jump up ^ Rainforest Destruction. rainforestweb.org
Jump up ^ Amazon deforestation rises sharply in 2007, USATODAY.com, 24 January 2008.
Jump up ^ Vidal, John (31 May 2005). "Rainforest loss shocks Brazil". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 1
April 2010.
^ Jump up to: a b The World's 10 Most Threatened Forest Hotspots, Conservation International, 2
February 2011.
Jump up ^ Indo-Burma, Conservation International.
Jump up ^ New Caledonia, Conservation International.
Jump up ^ Sundaland, Conservation International.
Jump up ^ Philippines, Conservation International.
Jump up ^ Atlantic Forest, Conservation International.
Jump up ^ Mountains of Southwest China, Conservation International.
Jump up ^ California Floristic Province, Conservation International.
Jump up ^ Coastal Forests of Eastern Africa, Conservation International.
Jump up ^ Madagascar & Indian Ocean Islands, Conservation International.
Jump up ^ Eastern Afromontane, Conservation International.
Jump up ^ "Copenhagen Accord of 18 December 2009" (PDF). UNFCC. 2009. Retrieved 2009-12-28.
Jump up ^ Forest Monitoring for Action (FORMA) : Center for Global Development : Initiatives: Active.
Cgdev.org (2009-11-23). Retrieved 2010-08-29.
Jump up ^ Browser – GEO FCT Portal. Portal.geo-fct.org. Retrieved 2010-08-29.
Jump up ^ "Methodological Guidance" (PDF). UNFCC. 2009. Retrieved 2009-12-28.
Jump up ^ Agriculture Secretary Vilsack: $1 billion for REDD+ « Climate Progress. Climateprogress.org
(2009-12-16). Retrieved 2010-08-29.
Jump up ^ "FAO sets standards to improve national forest monitoring systems".
Jump up ^ Angelsen, Arild; et al. (2009). "Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
(REDD): An Options Assessment Report" (PDF). Meridian Institute for the Government of Norway. pp.
75–77. Retrieved 2011-11-24.
Jump up ^ Payments for watershed services: A driver of climate compatible development, Climate &
Development Knowledge Network, 30 December 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b "India should follow China to find a way out of the woods on saving forest people". The
Guardian. 22 July 2016. Retrieved 7 August 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b "China's forest tenure reforms". rightsandresources.org. Retrieved 7 August 2016.
Jump up ^ "Global Forest Change - Google Crisis Map". Google Crisis Map. Retrieved 12 October 2016.
Jump up ^ "Warning to forest destroyers: this scientist will catch you". Nature News & Comment. 4
October 2016. Retrieved 12 October 2016.
Jump up ^ Diamond, Jared Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail or Succeed; Viking Press 2004, pp.
301–302 ISBN 0-14-311700-9.
Jump up ^ Diamond, Jared Collapse: How Societies Choose To Fail or Succeed; Viking Press 2004, pp.
320–331 ISBN 0-14-311700-9.
^ Jump up to: a b Rosenberg, Tina (2012-03-13). "In Africa's vanishing forests, the benefits of bamboo".
New York Times. Retrieved 2012-07-26.
Jump up ^ "State of the World's Forests 2009". United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
Jump up ^ Facts about Tropical Timber. Rainforest Rescue. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
Jump up ^ John Gittings. "Battling China's Deforestation." The Guardian. 20 March 2001.
Jump up ^ Foley Jonathan A; DeFries Ruth; Asner Gregory P; Barford Carol; et al. (2005). "Global
Consequences of Land Use". Science. 309 (5734): 570–574. doi:10.1126/science.1111772. PMID
16040698.
^ Jump up to: a b James Owen, "World's Forests Rebounding, Study Suggests" National Geographic
News, 13 November 2006.
Jump up ^ John Gittings, "Battling China's deforestation", World News, 20 March 2001.
Jump up ^ The world’s last intact forest landscapes. intactforests.org
Jump up ^ "World Intact Forests campaign by Greenpeace". intactforests.org.
Jump up ^ The World's Forests from a Restoration Perspective, WRI
Jump up ^ "Alternative thematic map by Howstuffworks; in pdf" (PDF).
Jump up ^ Daniel B. Botkin (2001). No man's garden: Thoreau and a new vision for civilization and
nature. Island Press. pp. 246–247. ISBN 978-1-55963-465-6. Retrieved 4 December 2011.
Jump up ^ Stenstrup, Allen (2010). Forests. Greensboro, North Carolina: Morgan Reynolds Publishing. p.
89. ISBN 978-1-59935-116-2.
Jump up ^ Balabkins, Nicholas (1964) "Germany Under Direct Controls; Economic Aspects Of Industrial
Disarmament 1945–1948, Rutgers University Press. p. 119. The two quotes used by Balabkins are
referenced to, respectively: U.S. office of Military Government, A Year of Potsdam: The German Economy
Since the Surrender (1946), p. 70; and U.S. Office of Military Government, The German Forest Resources
Survey (1948), p. II. For similar observations see G.W. Harmssen, Reparationen, Sozialproduct,
Lebensstandard (Bremen: F. Trujen Verlag, 1948), I, 48.
Jump up ^ Higa, Takejiro. Battle of Okinawa, The Hawaii Nisei Project
Jump up ^ Pesticide Dilemma in the Third World: A Case Study of Malaysia. Phoenix Press. 1984. p. 23.
Jump up ^ "Encyclopedia of World Environmental History". Routledge, 2004. ISBN 0-415-93733-7.
Jump up ^ Marchak, M. Patricia (18 September 1995). Logging the globe. McGill-Queen's Press – MQUP.
pp. 157–. ISBN 978-0-7735-1346-4. Retrieved 4 December 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b c Biodiversity and Infectious Diseases | The Center for Health and the Global
Environment. Chgeharvard.org (2011-11-11). Retrieved 2016-11-13.
Jump up ^ Forests and human health. Fao.org. Retrieved 2016-11-13.
Jump up ^ Moslemi, Jennifer M.; Snider, Sunny B.; MacNeill, Keeley; Gilliam, James F.; Flecker,
Alexander S. (2012). "Impacts of an Invasive Snail". PLoS ONE. 7 (6): e38806.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038806. PMID 22761706.
Jump up ^ Deforestation and emerging diseases | Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Thebulletin.org (2011-
02-15). Retrieved 2016-11-13.
Jump up ^ African Politics Portal | Tag Archive | Environmental impact of deforestation in Kenya. African-
politics.com (2009-05-28). Retrieved 2016-11-13.
Jump up ^ 2014 Kenya Economic Survey Marks Malaria As Country’s Leading Cause Of Death | The
Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kff.org (2014-05-01). Retrieved 2016-11-13.
Jump up ^ Scheidt, Spencer N.; Hurlbert, Allen H. (2014). "Range Expansion and Population Dynamics of
an Invasive Species: The Eurasian Collared-Dove (Streptopelia decaocto)". PLoS ONE. 9 (10): e111510.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0111510. PMID 25354270.
Jump up ^ Lam, Sai Kit; Chua, Kaw Bing (2002). "Nipah Virus Encephalitis Outbreak in Malaysia". Clinical
Infectious Diseases. 34: S48–51. doi:10.1086/338818. PMID 11938496.
Jump up ^ "Nipah Virus (NiV)". cdc.gov.
Jump up ^ Deforestation sparks giant rodent invasions. News.mongabay.com (2010-12-15). Retrieved
2016-11-13.
General references
BBC 2005 TV series on the history of geological factors shaping human history (name?)
A Natural History of Europe – 2005 co-production including BBC and ZDF
Whitney, Gordon G. (1996). From Coastal Wilderness to Fruited Plain : A History of Environmental
Change in Temperate North America from 1500 to the Present. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-
57658-X
Williams, Michael. (2003). Deforesting the Earth. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ISBN 0-226-
89926-8
Wunder, Sven. (2000). The Economics of Deforestation: The Example of Ecuador. Macmillan Press,
London. ISBN 0-333-73146-8
FAO&CIFOR report: Forests and Floods: Drowning in Fiction or Thriving on Facts?
Fenical, William (September 1983). "Marine Plants: A Unique and Unexplored Resource". Plants: the
potentials for extracting protein, medicines, and other useful chemicals (workshop proceedings). DIANE
Publishing. p. 147. ISBN 1-4289-2397-7.
Ethiopia deforestation references
Parry, J. (2003). Tree choppers become tree planters. Appropriate Technology, 30(4), 38–39. Retrieved 22
November 2006, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 538367341).
Hillstrom, K & Hillstrom, C. (2003). Africa and the Middle east. A continental Overview of Environmental
Issues. Santabarbara, CA: ABC CLIO.
Williams, M. (2006). Deforesting the earth: From prehistory to global crisis: An Abridgment. Chicago: The
university of Chicago Press.
Mccann. J.C. (1990). A Great Agrarian cycle? Productivity in Highland Ethiopia, 1900 To 1987. Journal of
Interdisciplinary History, xx: 3,389–416. Retrieved 18 November 2006, from JSTOR database.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Deforestation.
Global map of deforestation based on Landsat data
Old-growth forest zones within the remaining world forests
EIA forest reports: Investigations into illegal logging.
EIA in the USA Reports and info.
Cocaine destroys 4 m2 of rainforest per gram The Guardian
"Avoided Deforestation" Plan Gains Support – Worldwatch Institute
OneWorld Tropical Forests Guide
Some Background Info to Deforestation and REDD+
General info on deforestation effects
In the media
14 March 2007, Independent Online: Destruction of forests in developing world 'out of control'
Pappas, S. (2013-11-14). "Vanishing Forests: New Map Details Global Deforestation". LiveScience.com.
TechMediaNetwork. Retrieved 2013-11-16.
Films online
Watch the National Film Board of Canada documentaries Battle for the Trees & Forest in Crisis
Video on Illegal Deforestation In Paraguay
[hide] v t e
Deforestation and desertification
Deforestation
Assarting Deforestation Deforestation and climate change Deforestation by region Deforestation during
the Roman period Illegal logging Mountaintop removal Slash-and-burn Slash-and-char
Illegal slash and burn in Madagascar
Desertification
Aridification Desertification Moisture recycling Soil retrogression and degradation Water scarcity
Mitigation
Afforestation Arid Lands Information Network Biochar Conservation grazing Desert greening Ecoforestry
Ecological engineering Farmer-managed regeneration Flexible Mechanisms Great Green Wall (Africa)
Managed intensive rotational grazing Oasification Reforestation Three-North Shelter Forest (China)
Related articles
Allan Savory Biodiversity Economic impact analysis Environmental philosophy Extinction Intact forest
landscape International Year of Forests Land surface effects on climate Land use, land-use change and
forestry Natural landscape Neolithic Richard St. Barbe Baker Satoyama Terraforming Terra preta
Wilderness World Forestry Congress

The Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Filipino: Kagawaran ng Kapaligiran at Likas na
Yaman, DENR or KKLY) is the executive department of the Philippine government responsible for
governing and supervising the exploration, development, utilization, and conservation of the country's
natural resources.

Contents [hide]
1 History
2 List of the Secretaries of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
3 Bureaus
4 Attached agencies
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
History[edit]
The Department of Environment and Natural Resources was first established on January 1, 1917 as the
Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) through the enactment of Act No. 2666 by the
Philippine Commission, otherwise known as "An Act to Re-organize the Executive Department of the
Government of the Philippine Islands," on 18 November 1916. In 1932, the DANR was reorganized into
the Department of Agriculture and Commerce (DAC).

In 1947, a reorganization act changed the DAC back to the Department of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. The Natural Resources arm of the DANR was finally spun off on May 17, 1974 as the Ministry
of Natural Resources. On January 30, 1987, the Ministry was reorganized into the Department of
Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, by Executive Order No. 131 and was finally reorganized
into the Department of Environment and Natural Resources by Executive Order No. 192 on June 10,
1987. Currently, the DENR is working on a large-scale reforestation of Davao City.

List of the Secretaries of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources[edit]

Main article: Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (Philippines)
Bureaus[edit]
Bureau Acronym Filipino Name Incumbent
Environmental Management Bureau EMB - DENR Kawanihan ng Pamamahalang Pangkapaligiran
Juan Miguel Cuna
Mines and Geosciences Bureau MGB- DENR Kawanihan ng Pagmimina at Agham-Panlupa Mario
Luis Jacinto[2]
Forest Management Bureau FMB Kawanihan ng Pamamahala sa mga Kagubatan Ricardo
Calderon
Biodiversity Management Bureau (formerly Protected Areas and Wildlife Management Bureau) BMB
(formerly PAWB) Kawanihan ng Pamamahala sa Sari-Saring Buhay (formerly Kawanihan ng
Pamamahala sa mga Parke at Buhay Ilang Dr. Theresa Mundita Lim
Land Management Bureau LMB Kawanihan ng Pamamahala sa mga Lupa Engr. Ralph
Pablo
Ecosystems Research and Development BureauERDB Kawanihan ng Pananaliksik at Pag-unlad
Pangkalikasan Dr. Portia Lapitan
Attached agencies[edit]
Laguna Lake Development Authority
National Mapping and Resource Information Authority
National Water Resources Board
Natural Resources Development Corporation
Pasig River Rehabilitation Commission
See also[edit]
Environmental issues in the Philippines
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "GAA 2015" (PDF). DBM. Retrieved 22 January 2015.
Jump up ^ "President Duterte appoints new MGB chief". Manila Bulletin. 2 August 2016. Retrieved 2
August 2016.
External links[edit]
Department of Environment and Natural Resources website
Environmental Legal Assistance Center, Inc. website
Mines and Geosciences Bureau