I would argue that it's incorrect to say that "illegal logging and palm oil production are the main culprits".  Illegal logging and palm-oil production are more like the main symptoms.

The main culprit is overpopulation, and mankind's insatiable demand for more and more resources -- for example more logs and more palm oil.

Until there are fewer of us, there will inevitably have to be fewer of almost everything else in our biosphere, including orangatangs.  That's just the way things work on a finite planet with finite space and finite solar energy input.

It's not just that there are too many of us, it's also that about half of all humans consume too much individually, including things we should not be consuming at all.  Traditional cultures existed for millennia without killing trees or by killing so few that it was unnoticeable.  Logging is not a legitimate activity, is ecologically immoral, and is not sustainable to any significant degree (i.e., unless the number of trees killed is minuscule, you will eventually destroy the forest).

You may want to inform the Japanese that logging is not sustainable!  They've been doing it at a rather intense level for about 1,000 years longer than we have.  See the chapter in Jared Diamond's book 'Collapse'.

Yeah, yeah, I know: if we just reduced our consumption.  But, #1, I don't generally see people voluntarily reducing their consumption, either in the USA or in China or in India.  I only see them reducing consumption when they HAVE to, due to the expense ($5.00/gal gasoline may finally kill the Hummer) or the lack of more resources (no more shark fin soup for you once we kill the last shark!)

And #2, eventually, of course, we will all HAVE to reduce our per-capita consumption or Mother Nature will reduce our capita (population) for us; this is a non-negotiable reality when you live on a finite planet.  

The question is whether we will voluntarily do so before Mother Nature forces our hand.  The signs so far are not promising.  My point is that even if you can convince everyone on the planet to reduce their consumption by 50% (no small feat!), all your gains are for naught if the global population increases by the same amount.  As, in fact, it is forecast to do from the year 2000 (about 6 billion) to 2050 (about 9 billion).

I just find this basic fact ignored in most discussions here on Grist.  News flash: all the Berkeley yuppies in the world putting compact fluorescent bulbs in their lamps won't get us very far, as long as we're still adding 150,000 humans (Eugene, Oregon's population!) each day.

Japan is one of the last places I'd use for an example of respect for the environment.  There is very little native forest left in Japan, and old-growth native forests that remain in southwest Japan are highly fragmented.  There's a huge difference between a tree farm and a forest.  If by "sustainable" you merely mean sustainable for humans for awhile, then yeah, maybe Japan's logging is "sustainable."  But it's certainly not sustainable for the forests or for those who live there.  A proper environmental ethic would be don't kill anything you don't eat, and humans don't eat trees.  Logging is therefore immoral, with the exception of restoration of areas where human-caused overgrowth has caused forests to be unnaturally dense.

There's no point in obsessing on either overpopulation or overconsumption.  They are the twin physical roots of all environmental and ecological problems, and without fixing both problems, our ecological problems will not be solved.