The Conversation/Kenneth E. Wallen: Global timber trafficking harms forests and costs billions of dollars – here’s how to curb it

The Conversation   

Edition:

Available editions
Africa

    Job Board

    Become an author
    Sign up as a reader
    Sign in

The Conversation
Academic rigour, journalistic flair

    Arts + Culture
    Business + Economy
    Education
    Environment + Energy
    Health + Medicine
    Politics + Society
    Science + Technology
    In French

Global timber trafficking harms forests and costs billions of dollars – here’s how to curb it
April 24, 2018 12.43pm SAST
Illegally logged rosewood in Antalaha, Madagascar, 22 February 2005. Erik Patel, CC BY-SA
Author

    Kenneth E. Wallen

    Assistant Professor of Human Dimensions of Natural Resources, University of Arkansas

Disclosure statement

Kenneth E. Wallen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Partners

The Conversation is funded by Barclays Africa and seven universities, including the Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Rhodes University and the Universities of Cape Town, Johannesburg, Kwa-Zulu Natal, Pretoria, and South Africa. It is hosted by the Universities of the Witwatersrand and Western Cape, the African Population and Health Research Centre and the Nigerian Academy of Science. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a Strategic Partner. more
Republish this article

Republish
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under Creative Commons licence.

    Email
    Twitter41
    Facebook122
    LinkedIn
    Print

If a tree falls in the forest, do you care how it was brought down?

Few people think about where the wood in their furniture, floors or doors comes from or how it got there. And few would guess that one of the most illegally traded wild products worldwide is a tree, rosewood (Dalbergia).

Rosewood is so widely trafficked it is called “the ivory of the forest.” Its rich reddish-brown timber is used to make furniture, flooring and musical instruments. Yet many of the trees that produce it are threatened and internationally protected.

Rosewood is an extreme example of a wider problem. Globally, 15 to 30 percent of timber is taken illegally. According to Interpol, the illegal timber trade is worth US$50 billion to $150 billion annually.
Illegal logging has many harmful impacts, from deforestation to impoverishment of local communities.

This complex issue will not be solved overnight. But I believe that social science can help curb it by showing the damage illegal timber trade causes to humans and forests, and by stigmatizing the sale and purchase of contraband wood products.
The role of rules

My research uses social science to address conservation issues like wildlife trafficking and invasive species. I focus on the role of norms and rules, which guide human behavior by signaling whether an action is common or approved. When people or organizations know that doing something is unacceptable and punishable, they are more likely to refrain from it.

Today, many rules designed to protect against timber trafficking are either not strict enough or poorly enforced. This signals that illegal activity can occur with impunity, although some nations are tightening up regulations in an effort to curb the problem.
A global trade

Illegal timber is estimated to account for 50 to 90 percent of wood harvested from Amazonia, central Africa and Southeast Asia. Interpol estimates that 40 to 60 percent of timber exports from Indonesia, 25 percent from Russia and 70 percent from Gabon are illegal. In 2016 the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office estimated that 90 percent of U.S. timber imports from Peru were sourced from illegal logging.
The majority of illegal logging takes place in the tropical forest of the Amazon, central Africa and Southeast Asia. Recent studies reveal that illegal logging accounts for as much as 50–90% of total production from some key tropical forest countries. GRID-Arendal, CC BY-ND

North America is not exempt. Tree poachers target centuries-old cedars and redwoods in British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest.

Illegal activities lower global timber prices by 7 to 16 percent, costing source nations up to $5 billion in lost annual revenue. This would suggest governments have a significant incentive to act. But weak regimes, corruption and unresponsive agencies – particularly in source countries – are failing to curb timber trafficking.
Improving enforcement

To protect forests and guide timber use, governments create rules. International treaties and trade regulations restrict timber imports based on quantity or species. Domestic management plans, certification programs and procurement policies dictate how timber should be harvested, bought and sold.

But the effectiveness of these rules often depends on sanctions that penalize rule violators. Many source countries have little capacity to effectively monitor forests or enforce penalties for illegal logging. This makes it easy for traffickers to avoid being caught.

Countries with few or weak regulations also act as trans-shipment points. For example, traffickers send timber from Papua New Guinea to nations like China that do not ban illegal timber. It is then processed and exported as finished products to the United States.

Over the past decade the United States has acted to bolster rules and sanctions against illegal timber purchases. Notably, in 2008 Congress amended the Lacey Act, which prohibits trade in illegal wildlife, fish and plants, to include timber.
Forest Stewardship Council certification indicates that wood comes from forests and supply chains that are managed responsibly and according to the laws of the producer country. FSC, CC BY-ND

Several high-profile sanctions followed. Lumber Liquidators was fined $13 million in 2011 for selling flooring made from illegal Russian timber. In 2015, the Yacu Kallpa, a Peruvian vessel carrying illegal timber destined for Houston, was detained by Mexico. And in late 2017 the U.S. trade representative blocked timber imports from Peru.

But until source countries can effectively monitor and enforce laws against illegal harvesting, intercepting a single shipment does little. Importing countries – particularly the United States, European Union nations and China - must also initiate actions that reduce illegal timber production. And this is where social science can play a role.
Learning from wildlife trafficking

Timber trafficking has many parallels with illegal trade in charismatic and endangered wildlife, such as pangolins, turtles and rhinos. In both cases, the trade is extremely lucrative, and consumer demand is a major driver of the black market.

To reduce demand, many countries use social science to stop consumers from purchasing illegal wildlife. Social influence approaches attempt to convince us that peers are engaging in or refraining from certain actions, such as recycling or reusing grocery bags. They can also help convince organizations that certain actions are inappropriate and counter to rules and norms.

For example, advocates in China and Hong Kong have reduced pressure on endangered sharks by convincing elites and professionals through public awareness campaigns and political advocacy to eat less shark fin soup. And in Indonesia and Malaysia, Muslim clerics declared fatwas against wildlife poaching to signal social disapproval of it. Using the powerful medium of religion and their role as public leaders, clerics have aligned religious faithfulness with existing rules against poaching. In doing so, they make it easier to peer-pressure others and further stigmatize poaching and illegal purchasing.
Steering consumer choices

Governments and businesses can use similar strategies to address timber trafficking. They can educate consumers about the scale of the contraband trade and which products are likely to be illegally logged, much as ocean advocates are working to steer consumers away from buying fish that are overharvested.
Pocket guide published by the Monterey Bay Aquarium to help consumers choose fish that are harvested sustainably. Monterey Bay Aquarium, CC BY-ND

Organizations exist to track, monitor and certify timber and timber products. But awareness is not enough. Stigmatizing or sanctioning the sale and purchase of illegal timber would be a useful further step. For example, governments could destroy shipments of confiscated timber in the same way that the United States and some African countries burn or crush confiscated ivory from slaughtered elephants.

Through events like Arbor Day, many Americans develop a generalized warm glow toward trees and forests. Portraying contraband wood products as harmful and damaging can help shape these views into more focused and sustained opposition to illegal timber trafficking.

    Conservation
    Forests
    Exports
    Wood
    Logging
    Social sciences
    Social norms
    Timber
    Imports
    Wildlife trafficking

    Tweet
    Share
    Get newsletter

You might also like
To conserve tropical forests and wildlife, protect the rights of people who rely on them
China’s ban on domestic ivory trade is huge, but the battle isn’t won
To curb climate change, we need to protect and expand US forests
Data science can help us fight human trafficking
Sign in to comment
0 Comments

    There are no comments on this article yet.
    Have your say, post a comment on this article.

Most popular on The Conversation

    African leaders are more constrained by democratic rules than you think
    Fossil teeth reveal new facts about a mass extinction 260 million years ago
    The uneasy relationship between online betting and mobile money transactions
    Buhari and Trump: a chance to reset Nigeria’s relationship with the US
    What China’s President Xi’s extended tenure means for Africa

    Coverage of Sierra Leone’s election reflected stereotypes, not reality
    Scientists design a novel formula that repels and kills mosquitoes
    Why South Africa’s DJ Black Coffee left a bitter taste by performing in Israel
    Dare South Africans dream again as they celebrate their 23rd Freedom Day?
    South Africa’s strike rate isn’t as bad as it’s made out to be

Expert Database

    Find experts with knowledge in:*

Want to write?

Write an article and join a growing community of more than 66,300 academics and researchers from 2,314 institutions.

Register now
The Conversation
Community

    Community standards
    Republishing guidelines
    Research and Expert Database
    Analytics
    Job Board
    Our feeds

Company

    Who we are
    Our charter
    Our team
    Partners and funders
    Contributing institutions
    Resource for media
    Contact us

Stay informed and subscribe to our free daily newsletter and get the latest analysis and commentary directly in your inbox.
Email address
Follow us on social media

Privacy policy Terms and conditions Corrections

Copyright © 2010–2018, The Conversation Africa, Inc.