Current initiatives and future challenges to Japan’s timber sector
Krystof ObidzinskiCenter for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)
International seminar for tackling illegal logging
Yokohama, 3-5 December 2007

ABSTRACT:
Forest crime, or illegal logging and timber trade, continue to have major implications in
the Asia-Pacific region as well as globally. While statistics are often debatable, it isgenerally accepted that a considerable portion of timber produced in the tropics continues
to be illegal. Illegal logging has many important implications. It results in significant
revenue losses in producer countries. It is also a major driver of forest degradation anddeforestation. However, illegal does not automatically means bad. It is crucial to make a
distinction between the “need-based” illegal logging, for which there is a lot ofjustification as an important source of income for the people in remote parts of the
producer countries, and “greed-based” illegal logging which is an outright crime.
To-date five types of initiatives have been deployed to address the illegal logging
problem: 1) conventional law enforcement; 2) certification/legal verification; 3) green
procurement policies; 4) voluntary partnership agreements; and 5) regional andmultilateral processes. Over the last few years, the use of law enforcement to address
illegal logging has intensified significantly. However, its effectiveness continues to below. Various certification systems provide tools for log tracking and chain of custodyassessments. While the concept of certification is gaining acceptance, it also faces
constrains – particularly as a result of the proliferation of different certification schemes
and lack of a unified international standard. Green procurement policies have been themain tool used by governments to influence demand for legal timber products. Japan andsome EU country member governments have been particularly active in this regard.
Japan’s efforts and contributions have been outstanding. Japan has introduced the green
purchasing law; incorporated “legality” (goho) as criteria for evaluation; specifiedverification approaches; and had a significant number of industry groups and timbercompanies verified according to these principles. This clearly is a significant progress.
However, the private timber sector in Japan continues to exercise a high level ofautonomy in carrying out timber legality verification and there continue to be questions
about its robustness. On a broader scale, Japan has been a leading player in stressing theurgency of the illegal logging issue at G8 forum. It has also been a major catalyst for, andcontributor to, climate change mitigation (Kyoto Protocol, REDD). Finally, it has been amajor supporter of AFP – information exchange platform on forest governance in AsiaPacific.
Despite to-date achievements and useful on-going processes helping address the illegal
logging problem, there are a number of important challenges that Japan and otherimporters of tropical timber (also G8 forum) need to consider. First, as a large number ofpeople are engaged in informal timber sector for income in the producer countries, it isimportant to help find legal ways for these communities to produce timber legally andaccess major timber markets. Second, the effectiveness of forest law enforcement inproducer countries needs to improve. This requires assistance for capacity building(professionalization) of forest law enforcement agencies. Third, higher
standards/requirements for transparency and accountability for forestry corporations arenecessary to ensure their operations are fully legal. Japan could help but expanding
sector-wide the exemplary conduct of Oji Paper and Nippon Paper. Fourth, the global
liberalization of timber trade, driven by sky-rocketing demand in China and India, isgoing to be a tough test for the viability of greater regulation of timber trade in Japan.
Finally, there is a need for greater due diligence by banks financing forestry investments(Japan being a major financier of such investments) as banks often do not possess
adequate forestry expertise to assess viability of forestry projects from timber legality
point of view.