The United Nations has recognised the lack of a comprehensive framework to prevent and suppress the trafficking of timber from illegal logging and has made several attempts to establish global frameworks to more effectively suppress this illicit trade. Equally, there have been calls by academic scholars that ‘illegal logging should be addressed as an international
crime’ (Salo 2003: 128, 144–146). The advantages of a multilateral treaty designed specifically to combat illegal logging are obvious and include creation of a universally acceptable logging and certification system, guidance for harmonised forest policies and legislation, access to multilateral cooperation and assistance, financial support, consistency of controls, and best use of resources (Watson 2006: 26).
Western nations first attempted to negotiate an international treaty against illegal logging and deforestation in the mid-1980s, but these attempts failed because the main forest-rich nations refused to cooperate, insisting that their forests were sovereign, national resources and should only be dealt with nationally and internally (Davidson 2007: 3). In 1990, the United Nations proposed development of an International Convention on Conservation and Development of Forests. However, this attempt was short-lived as it faced severe opposition from many countries, especially Brazil and Malaysia (Birnie & Boyle 2002: 626).
The topic of trafficking in timber and timber products was discussed at the 15th session of the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, and at the Conference of State Parties to the Convention in Transnational Organised Crime held in Vienna in 2006. On this occasion, the Indonesian representative raised the matter and emphasised that:
the smuggling of natural resources by organised criminal groups posed a serious threat to the international community by fuelling conflicts, causing significant loss of national revenue, destroying the environment and destabilising border security. The link between the smuggling of natural resources and other types of serious crime, such as corruption and terrorism, was also underscored (UN Doc CTOC/COP/2005/8 para 99).
In its presentation to the conference, the Indonesian delegation specifically advocated international cooperation and technical assistance, and stressed the need for a wide range of instruments on the matter. The Indonesian proposal found some support among other delegations including Thailand and the United States. But there was no broader support for any resolution on the matter, partly because the Indonesian proposal was still in its infant stage, but also because the issues Indonesia raised faced fierce opposition from other timber producing countries, especially Brazil (UNODC Crime Convention Section, Chief, Vienna, 2007, pers. comm., 17 January). As a result, the proposal was only included in the minutes as ‘Annex VII, Draft Resolution entitled “International cooperation in preventing and combating international trafficking in timber and timber products from illegal logging”’ (UN Doc E/CN.15/2006/20 Annex VII).
Further negotiations followed this initiative and a new resolution was presented at the 16th session of the United Nations Commission in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Vienna in April 2007. The new proposal was developed jointly by delegations from Australia, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and the United States (UN Doc W/CN/15/2007/L.3/Rev.
1, 25 April 2007). The resolution recognises:
That forest products, including timber, wildlife and other forest biological resources harvested in contravention of national laws are the object of illicit international trafficking and ... that such activities have an adverse
environmental, social and economic impact in many countries;
... that illicit trafficking in forest products, including timber, wildlife and other forest biological resources, is often perpetrated by individuals and groups, including organised criminal groups that may operate transnationally and that may also be engaged in other illicit activities.
This resolution is purely aspirational in nature. It encourages Member States to strengthen law enforcement and cooperate at bilateral, regional, and international levels. Of practical importance is the draft resolution’s request to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) to invite an open-ended meeting of an expert group to discuss this issue and identify the need for further international collaboration.
The 2006 and 2007 draft resolutions are among the first international documents to recognise the criminal aspects of the illicit timber trade and to address the involvement of criminal organisations as well as corrupt government officials in this activity. Accordingly, the 2006 draft resolution stresses that the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime and the Convention against Corruption ‘may be utilised to counter international trafficking in timber and timber products from illegal logging’ (Preamble).
It is unclear where exactly these proposals will go from here and whether they will ultimately lead to creation of an international convention against illegal trafficking in timber. Given the lack of widespread support for this proposal it is unlikely that such a convention will come into existence anytime soon. The literature is divided on the benefits of such a treaty. In support of such moves, Duncan Brack and colleagues remarked:
If a multilateral, potentially world-wide, agreement can be negotiated, the problem of third-country diversion of course disappears. ... A multilateral agreement should be the final aim of any move towards an international system for controlling the trade in illegal timber. Clearly, however, it will neither be an easy nor a quick road to follow (Brack, Gray & Hayman 2002: para 5.13).
But among other experts there have been critical and pessimistic voices about these proposals. Watson, for instance, argues that:
it would be very difficult to gain consensus towards a binding multilateral agreement. Such an agreement might gain some support if it only focused on the legality requirement. ... Disadvantages of multilateral agreements would also include: slow negotiations and extreme difficulty in getting any final multilateral agreement, lack of ‘bottom up’ practical initiatives; inability for countries to resource their obligations, including effective participation in a new agreement; difficulty in achieving consensus for action (Watson 2006: 26–27).