Avoiding legality: Timber producers’ strategies and motivations under FLEGT in Ghana and Indonesia

Abstract

Large-scale illegal logging and associated trade in illegally sourced wood products are recognized as pervasive drivers of deforestation and forest degradation in many developing countries. To address the problems, the European Union (EU) adopted the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan in 2003 with the Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) and the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) as key components. Following the introduction of these initiatives, concerns have been raised about the potential of timber producers to avoid the new legality requirements. Based on interviews with timber actors in Ghana and Indonesia, this paper explores the practices of timber producers, identifying various strategies they undertake to circumvent timber legality requirements. It also explores their motivations for doing so. The study found that timber legality verification presents challenges to timber producers in Ghana and Indonesia. They therefore engage in a number of practices to avoid timber legality. These practices entail a range of actions that bypass EU market legality requirements and/or domestic laws. Motivations included instrumental, normative and contextual factors, such as the costs associated with complying with the legality requirements, and the perception that the new regulations are overly burdensome. Moreover, for many operators, there is the feeling that timber legality as it is unfolding in the countries is an imposition that fails to take into account local realities; as such, evading legality becomes a legitimate response. Through their focus on legal formalisation and strengthened enforcement, the VPA and EUTR implicitly stipulate an instrumental perspective to compliance. The paper, therefore, contends that, for the FLEGT Action Plan to achieve its objective of addressing illegal logging and, ultimately, deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, FLEGT policy makers and implementers must also pay attention to the normative and contextual factors of compliance.