Rumble over the ramin trade
 |
Malaysia and Singapore have been accused of marketing Indonesian ramin to international buyers, thus encouraging illegal logging in Sumatra and Kalimantan. |
IT may be the last proposal on the long list but it is likely to be the most contentious facing the Malaysian delegation at the 13th meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (Cites CoP13) beginning in Bangkok next week.
The 50th proposal to amend the Cites Appendices from Indonesia, seeks to include all species of the ramin tree (Gonystylus spp) on Appendix II of the Convention and was submitted in May to the Geneva-based Cites secretariat.
Cites subjects international trade of selected species to varying degrees of controls via listing in its three Appendices according to the degree of threat and protection required.
Appendix I applies the most stringent controls on species threatened with extinction, Appendix II regulates trade in species that could potentially lead to extinction and Appendix III includes species listed by an “individual” country in an effort to enlist international cooperation to control trade from their country
The attempt by Indonesia to upgrade the status of ramin is not surprising as it struggles to control the trade – a substantial part of which is illegal – of the valuable timber.
Frustrated by the ineffectiveness of the existing Appendix III to garner cooperation of other parties to regulate trade of the hardwood, Indonesia is going for broke by subjecting ramin to closer scrutiny via the Cites licensing system. Cites regulates 30,000 species of animals and plants including 49 tree species.
A listing in Appendix II requires the exporter and re-exporter to adhere to Cites documentation – a move that is shunned by major timber-exporting countries which argue that the paperwork and procedures impede trade.
Appendix II lists species that are not necessarily threatened with extinction but that may become so unless trade is closely controlled.
Advocates of Cites say Appendix II is not intended to curtail the trade in commercial species. In fact, appropriately issued Appendix II permits can be seen as a form of timber certification that give some assurance to the buyer as to the legality and sustainability of the product.
However, in Bangkok, Indonesia will need to secure two-thirds of the votes from the 166 member countries to transfer ramin to the higher list. Malaysia, regarded as the biggest opponent, could derail its plan.
Illegal trade
The ramin trade has been in the limelight particularly after Indonesia listed the hardwood unilaterally on Appendix III in August 2001.
Since then, Malaysia and Singapore have been accused of marketing Indonesian ramin to international buyers, thus encouraging illegal logging in Sumatra and Kalimantan.
Malaysia responded by placing an official ban on ramin logs in June 2002 and a further prohibition of import of square log (measuring more than 387 sq cm) in June 2003 to plug a loophole exploited by traffickers who cut up the timber to circumvent the earlier ban.
However, allegations of illegal ramin logs and sawn timber being smuggled into the country did not cease.
Meanwhile, seizures were conducted in a number of importing countries like the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Singapore and Hong Kong and Italy, with more than 142,000kg of mostly processed products being confiscated in the United Kingdom thus far.
At the 7th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at Kuala Lumpur in February, the London-based Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) and its Indonesian counterpart Telapak released a report on the trafficking of ramin.
Malaysia has maintained that Indonesia need to do more to stem the flow of illegal logs at source rather than pointing an accusatory finger across the straits.
Despite being unhappy that Indonesia failed to consult Malaysia in the listing, Malaysian officials say they had done their best to assist in implementing the Cites regulation. Trade in Appendix III species requires a Cites export permit from the listing state while importing countries are obliged to check for such documentation at the entry points to ensure the legality of the source and issue a certificate of origin for re-export.
 |
Indonesia’s Environment Minister Nabiel Makarim. |
Being the only other ramin-exporting country, Malaysia has taken out a reservation on the Appendix III listing except for logs and sawn timber. This decision effectively ensures that it could continue to trade in the valuable wood in the form of furniture and ramin-based wood products.
A source from the Ministry of Plantation Industries and Commodities says furniture has been the star performer of the country’s timber export earnings over the past few years, contributing RM5.8bil from the total RM16bil earned last year.
Bearing similarity to the widely-used rubberwood, she says ramin poses serious identification problems and could lead to misidentification.
“About 80% of Malaysia’s furniture is based on rubberwood, which is also whitish in colour. It is difficult to tell the difference between ramin and rubberwood and even jelutong, sesenduk and pulai.
“We are concerned that Custom authorities, especially in the importing countries, would have difficulties telling the difference,” she adds.
According to the source, the partial reservation would “ensure that the timber trade is not jeopardized by unnecessary procedures and misidentification.”
According to a TRAFFIC briefing document for Cites CoP13, most traders could easily distinguish these species, with ramin timber having a market value close to 10 times that of rubberwood.
“Furthermore, jelutong has a very much finer grain texture compared to ramin, with the two timbers being very easy to distinguish using a simple hand-held lens. In general, Customs officials should be able to differentiate ramin from other species using existing guides and simple hand-held lenses to examine the wood structure,” the document says.
The big picture
Proponents for the uplisting argue that the 2% contribution of ramin sawn timber to timber exports should enable Malaysia to see a case for cleaning up its image. The legality of the ramin trade has raised the possibility of a boycott of Malaysian timber by importing nations, particularly the European Union.
The MPIC source disagrees. “The 2% or so looks small in percentage terms but in absolute terms it is not small anymore if we look at it as a proportion of the total timber export earnings of RM16bil in 2003. We are also looking at this issue on a broader angle,” she adds. The industry is concerned that a stricter trade control through an Appendix II listing could curtail the supply of raw material to the downstream value-adding industry.
She says the current Appendix III listing is already sufficient and that relevant parties ought to be given adequate chance to work towards faithfully implementing the Cites requirements.
“Therefore, putting ramin on stricter levels of export and import requirements may create unnecessary confusion at the implementation level and inconsistencies with trade facilitation initiatives that are being promoted worldwide.
“In addition, a tri-national taskforce on ramin led by Malaysia was recently formed with the main objective of strengthening the enforcement of trade regulations and measures to ensure legality and sustainability of ramin trade,” she points out, adding that the initiative should be given a chance to work before any move is made to uplist ramin.
The taskforce was formed at the early September meeting but there is no indication yet when it would be implemented.
Indonesia, which is facing a logging crisis, cannot wait too long for the taskforce to be functional. Neither can Malaysians who have to bear with the haze.On the current haze blanketing many parts of Malaysia, Indonesia’s Environment Minister Nabiel Makarim says forest fires in Kalimantan and Sumatra are the direct result of illegal logging of ramin found in peat swamp forests there.
“If the Malaysian Government can help us block the flow of illegal logs from Indonesia into Malaysia, it will help us tremendously in reducing illegal logging and forest fires in the country,” he adds.
So is the concern for the well-being of the timber industry, in spite of a possible boycott and at the expense of public health, a case of failing to see the forest for the trees?
Regulating the trade
Concerned by the legality of trade in ramin, TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, brought Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore together in April to find a solution to the problem. Gaps and weaknesses in the existing legislations and system for controlling international trade of the species were identified.
Critical issues include tracking movement of timber, verification of country of origin, requirements for species-specific declaration for shipments, look-alike and other implementation difficulties were also openly discussed and acknowledged.
For instance, Indonesia needs to improve on its trade enforcement and harvest monitoring system while Malaysia has to step up its inter-agency coordination and increase checks at illegal landing sites as well as ensure that its Free Trade Zone (FTZ) and barter trade centre are not used for laundering Indonesian ramin.
Malaysia has rectified the “loopholes” posed by transhipment cargo in the FTZ, which were exploited by smugglers to beat the enhanced enforcement in the barter trade system. Ramin, which was not in the prohibitive Schedule One of the Customs (Prohibition of Imports) Order 1998, has since been listed in Schedule Four which allows it to be transhipped with an accompanying export permit from April 8.
TRAFFIC South-East Asia regional director James Compton is confident that the illegal elements in the trade can be controlled, if not eliminated totally.
“Its not impossible. By process of elimination, the trade can be easily regulated, “he says in reference to the single legal source from Indonesia, the available identification techniques and the inherent administrative ruling both at the barter trade jetty and the FTZ. Barter trade jetties are registered with the Customs Department and the Customs authority should be notified of all transactions.
RSS
