Doubts over Australian illegal logging bill

Jul 24, 2012. /Lesprom Network/. Australia intends its anti-illegal log-ging bill to be the equivalent of the EU Timber Regulation and America’s Lacey Act – a means of minimising the risk of illegally harvested wood entering its market from both overseas and domestic sources, as TTJ reported. But, according to government, industry and NGOs, continuing debate over the content and operation of the bill leaves its introduction date in doubt. Addressing the latest Chatham House Illegal Logging Update, Paul McNamara of Australia's Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry said that the international illegal logging trade was hugely damaging to the environment, and the bona fide timber sector, costing the latter an estimated A$60 billion a year in lost revenue. Australia only imports 10% of its wood consumption. But, said Mr McNamara, it occupies an important geopolitical position in the Asian timber market, with close economic and political ties to Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands in particular, both of which have serious illegal logging issues. "We've held a number of workshops on the issues in the Asia-Pacific region," he said, "and we've also liaised on the bill with the governments of Papua New Guinea, Malaysia, Indonesia, and also Canada and New Zealand." Its backers hope the Australian legislation will be ready in 2013. Giving them added encouragement, a recent study has concluded that it would be compliant with WTO rules. Still to be resolved, however, are how it will be audited and policed. An agreed standard for due diligence risk assessment also has to be established. "And it still has yet to be debated in parliament," said Mr McNamara. "It has to be passed by both houses." According to Stephen Mitchell of the Australian Timber Development Association, unresolved industry concerns about the bill included the cost of implementation and level of bureaucracy involved. "There is also anxiety that litigious Australian NGOs will use it for more legal action against domestic producers," he said. "They've made no secret of the fact that they want to close down harvesting in certain areas of the country." Reece Turner of Greenpeace Australia agreed that the definition of due diligence risk assessment under the bill was a key outstanding issue. "And we are remain unclear on a range of other detail," he said. As for penalties, Mr Turner said that prison terms of up to five years should be part of the mix. Whether the legislation would succeed or "flunk", he said, was down to the political will of the government.