Madagascar rosewood

[Paul Hostetter]

I've been to Madagascar and I've seen first-hand what resource exploitation has done to the place (not to mention poverty and horrendous politics). I've long maintained that Madagascar rosewood, so fashionable in the lutherie world, is being extracted illegally, but my lone voice hasn't been able to do much.

National Geographic's current (September 2010) issue has an article on this issue. I urge folks who think all's fair in the marketplace have a good look at that article. Many of the damning images and brief captions can be viewed here: http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/09/madagascar/maitre-photogr...

This map of the current state of things isn't in the slideshow at the Geo site:

It was all forest once. It's mostly burned out bare dirt eroding into the Indian Ocean now. Commercial trade in Madagascar rosewood has been built entirely on lies. There's almost none left. Please think about it.

[Russell Vance]

At least we have talked and expressed our thoughts - I have been unfortunate to have been to places where the extremities have been reached and whole nations have been put on life support (south west Pacific Islands for instance) as the very last useful resource and heritage has been stripped out. Everything from bird droppings to Tuna has been gutted and the people now live out of aid supermarkets and are so unfit that they can no longer fish or farm.

Market revulsion is the only factor that stops the destruction - when the world wide buying stops the killing and destruction of species stops.

These people you speak of may be starving and dirt poor but at least they still have a few trees to stand under - our attitude is to take the last tree and leave the people to elect a new government. Not so good I think.

Regards, Rusty.

[Pierre-Antoine Roiron]

Problem is global because economy is global. If we want to control species extinction, we have to provide an alternative to people living of it, because as everyone noticed, they depend on a governement that is not helping them. I see the FSC program this way : "OK you can cut trees, but think of it, manage your forest and don't cut everything everywhere or you'll run in another problem in short time. Managing your forest will make your job a long term job. If you do this, I'll buy your wood at a better price, a fair price." Not only protecting species, but also giving an alternative. If you don't, it doesn't solve the problem.

[Ned Knepp]

Russell said; “These people you speak of may be starving and dirt poor but at least they still have a few trees to stand under - our attitude is to take the last tree and leave the people to elect a new government. Not so good I think.”

I’m not sure I know who you are talking about, Russell. I haven’t seen anyone here who reflects the attitude you describe. Perhaps you do not understand me. I think saving the trees is important too. I just don’t think a “don’t buy it” approach will do anything. Cutting the trees and strip mining the land are symptoms of a cancer. As long as the cancer exists, the symptoms will too. We can treat symptoms but the cancer will ultimate kill the patient if it is not addressed. I believe that the people of Madagascar will either sell their trees or, sooner or later, burn them unless something happens to change the course of their lives in a big way

You mentioned in an earlier post how the U.S. continues to import mahogany from the Amazon, something you obviously disagree with. Have you looked at the stats on what has been contributing most to deforestation in the Amazon? It’s Ranching, followed by farming. Logging is in the single digits, percentage wise and that including poaching of trees. The ranchers and farmers burn trees unless there is a market for the lumber. We can, of course, take the moral position that we will not contribute to the deforestation of the Amazon by importing wood from that region and continue to watch it burn via satellite or we can accept that we are not in control of the forest in that region but we can make a market for the material that they will destroy without it.

This is one of the reasons that I think it is good to use the old stocks of banned wood we may still have. Demand SHOULD be high for this material. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think we should continue to buy them UNLESS it is sustainable but using what we have keeps the conversation going. Maybe it will lead to someone who is able to do something about the situation coming to understand that this demand is the basis for making that wood sustainable.

I think people should WANT Brazilian Rosewood. If there is a market, there is a reason to save the trees. This is the root of the sustainable forestry industry. Someone has to pay to save ecosystems. It’s not enough to say “Save the trees”. America saved the Buffalo because America wanted to and has the money to do that. We saved our Sequoia Redwoods for the same reasons. The destruction of species doesn’t stop until enough people in the right places see value in stopping it. As you pointed out, sustainable forestry is working for other desirable species and it is because there is value in doing so. If we are willing to pay for it any ecosystem can be saved but only IF we are willing to pay.

Maybe someone needs to convince the Chinese lumber industry that saving forest of Madagascar is in their long term interest. Perhaps they can invest in turning these trees into a renewable resource. They are becoming more and more capitalistic every day, moving through the stages of the process at a very accelerated pace. They are beginning to understand that their industry’s impact on their ecosystems must be handled properly. Perhaps someone can convince them that this should be extended to the wood they import from outside their lands too.

Ned

[Doug T]

I'm not even going to bring up world population issues, and how this should be the concern of every nation on the planet. What I will bring up is that use of materials that are 'more' sustainable (whatever that may be) should be considered everyone's first option. I'm not a big builder, I do it mostly for fun with the occassional sale. I use plantation grown Indian Rosewood, maple and spruce from a private source who owns the land he cuts from and only sells in limited quantaties, replants and does not clear cut, and sapele that is certified. What I believe must begin to happen among luthiers is looking at species found within urban forests, that is city lumber. Unfortunately, most cities just shred this stuff. Some is quite remarkable and worthy of use in high-end furniture or guitars. Here in the SF Bay Area we have sycamore, maple, eucalyptus, redwood, fir, pine, two varieties of acacia, locust, black walnut, english walnut, cherry, almond, pear, apple, pistache, and god knows how much more. For me, (and I've looked into it) I could not even afford the set up fee at a custom mill to have the small amount done I'd want to, but cities should be looking to support or establish businesses that use this valuable resource and make it available to woodworkers of all sorts.

[Russell Vance]

Yep, Ned, it's a vexing subject isn't it - I'm a full time commercial guitar builder presently changing from custom to production building and having to write company policy on our use of timber - including old growth/old stock and timber in short supply for various reasons.

As for you not having seen anyone who would take the last tree and leave the ground bare - try taking a trip to Tasmania - a once beautiful and pristine place now under siege and stripped bare of its unique trees (Tamanian Blackwood, Myrtle, Huon pine) ....and that is here in Australia a prosperous and supposedly ecologically aware western nation. Ever wonder why XXX major supplier only has Tasmanian Blackwood from time to time? Check out the NATGEO map of Madagscar provided by Paul for another example of stripping resources.

Regarding the truth about the Amazon - check out the stats on Greenpeace website and be aware that the illegal logging roads conveniently provide access for the robber baron farmers to go in and burn up the forest for short term gain and cheap beef. Mahogany is on the CITES list because of past legal and present illegal (except for the U.S. which continues to exploit this resource) logging - this logging is selective and lucrative - the stuff that gets burnt is another issue. Check Honduras as well - they haven't got anything left either.

However, the economic fundamentals are immutable and no amount of specious or self serving waffle is going to change the fundamental fact that demand creates profit - while the demand is strong the decimation of the species is assured. If the demand for plantation/stewarded/sustainable timber rises so to will the supply - if the demand for exotics falls....maybe you get the picture, maybe not.

Anyway, our imperfect solution is to buy the owners of our guitars a share in credentialed forest regeneration projects coupled with our own city tree planting project. That's all I have to say. R.

[Howard Klepper]

"Given that the main users of these endangered species appears to be luthiers I suggest the predicted painful silence means that this destruction will continue unabated until the last of this remaining resource is wiped out. At this stage the luthiers will simply move on to an alternative species until it is also wiped out." Russell Vance, p. 1 this thread

"Virtually all rosewood exported from the SAVA Region is sold to Chinese import companies. The deep
red fine hardwoods of different species of the genus Dalbergia – known as “rosewood” - have been
associated with ornate carvings of traditional Chinese instruments and furniture since the Ming Dynasty.
With the exhaustion of most rosewood stands in China, and even in neighbouring countries such as
Burma, Chinese timber importers have begun aggressively to source rosewood from Madagascar, to feed
a growing domestic appetite for high-end Imperial-style furniture. "

"A small proportion of the precious wood exported from Vohémar is exported in semi-finished form to
Europe for use in craft furniture and musical instruments. In January to April of 2009, direct shipments
to Europe represented 1.5% of total exports (by weight), with the remainder going to China. These
exports are composed of species other than rosewood . . . ."

Source: Global Witness and Environmental Investigation Agency (EIR) 2009. INVESTIGATION INTO THE ILLEGAL FELLING,
TRANSPORT AND EXPORT
OF PRECIOUS WOOD IN
SAVA REGION MADAGASCAR
AUGUST 2009

As I said, Rusty, get your facts straight before you begin to lecture.

[Paul Hostetter]

That was really helpful, Howard. We can always count on you for facts and a good perspective.

[Howard Klepper]

There is a saying, Paul, that good ethics begins with good facts. There is no disputing the problem of illegal logging in Madagascar or that it has become much worse in the past couple of years , but deriving moral imperatives from this, and more narrowly, moral imperatives for luthiers is hard.

When we move from acknowledging the problem to deciding what we as luthiers ought to do, then whether the main users of these woods are luthiers or others becomes important. As Ned has been pointing out, the economic value of a resource can lead to its sustainable preservation. Maintaining the value of Malagasy woods for luthiers might be compatible with a sustainable industry. But if the demands of luthiers were to be themselves enough for the destruction of the resource, that would not seem to be a possibility.

I also see little reason to doubt that much or most of the mahogany logging in Brazil is illegal, or that the largest importer country for this wood is the USA. I also see little reason to doubt that most of this wood goes to major furniture manufacturers. Again, what moral imperatives for luthiers might stem from these facts is not easy to determine, and IMO should be the subject of a different discussion, given the differences between Madagascar and Brazil.

[Ned Knepp]

I realize that the discussion about Mahogany should have been else where and I apologize for keeping it going here.

Ned

[Russell Vance]

Fact of the matter wqs I referred to South American Mahogany and other Australian species in the main in my last post - but never let a lack of comprehension get in the way of a good misdirected statistical rant (which is a lecture gone wrong) - fact is we are part of the problem and the oft used specious defence of: "I only killed one elephant for it's tusks - that guy over there killed fifty so he's guilty and I'm not) just isn't going to wash with future consumers who will be presented with choice.

You can be part of the solution or part of the problem - its a free world brother.

Rusty.

[Ned Knepp]

Sorry for the "lecture gone wrong".

I completely agree, "we are part of the problem". The question is what to do about it. I think the easy answer is stay out of it. ("don't buy it".) which I believe ignores the human cost in these regions. It is always easiest to say "that not my problem" but too many people in the world have a ".. let them die than and reduce the surplus population" (Ebenezer Scrooge - "A Christmas Carol".) attitude.

It appears to me that the biggest difference between us is that I feel the people are important and your primary concern is with the trees. I suppose we will never agree.

BTW, The ivory trade is completely different and probably shouldn't be discussed in this thread but it does, perhaps, illustrate another difference between us. I see each issue as a separate and distinct issue, each with it's own set of problem to be solved. I don't see any cookie cutter answers to them. You keep bring in outside issue as if they are the same thing which has lead me to believe that you do not see them as distinct issues. I just can't do that.

Ned

[Russell Vance]

Hi Ned, I agree entirely, and while the limits of forum chat are obvious and causes undue niggle here I can assure you that we (myself and my family) are indeed humanitarians first and businessmen/women second. To list what we do would be churlish, but it is a lot and it costs a lot.

The issue of the ethical use of the resources is a subset of one of the things I do - which now involves high end guitar production with international markets being targeted. We have made the decision to finish off present stock and not use endangered species ( generic ).

Any other decision requires a complex solution and leaves us open to 'cherry picking" critics with less than pure humanitarian motives (obviously this is not you Ned, but our decisions have to be made with some pragmatism otherwise we will be open to specific criticism).

Discussion at this level is a blunt instrument as I seldom know the background of those I chat with - and as you note, the ivory trade example can get one into a heap of hurt quickly - but we use it to demonstrate how business interests will say that 'farming ivory" from excess park elephants is a good way of providing income to the locals etc etc.

Except the locals hardly make the cost of their bullets when given their 'wholesale' rate for the tusks. And the 'bushmeat' market is similarly unprofitable. It also encourages captive animals to be shot for a price by "great white hunters" and their expat guides who contribute nothing to local economies. It's the middle men who make the money and they are not on the ground where the poverty exists. They are driving Beemers in Shanghai and Capetown.

However, and I do not want to appear to have the last word - the decision 'not to buy' is the only available, logical decision I can take - once the local ecosystem collapses the people die or become refugees - the original resource buyer who caused the problem never picks up the tab for this eventual misery and the burden falls on NGOs and their staff and supporters (us) to keep them alive anyway. If I had a silver bullet I would use it.

Regards, Rusty.