Illegal logging has become a global issue because of its adverse effects on biodiversity and climate change. In order to reduce illegal logging, many countries around the world have introduced regulations for the international trade of forest products. This paper examines the effects of these efforts on international trade of forest products. The analysis is conducted using the Heckscher–Ohlin–Vanek model, where the number of regulations against illegal logging is used to describe the level of efforts, and is included as an explanatory variable for national net export of forest products. The results show that efforts against illegal logging have had significant and positive impacts on the net export of forest products.
AtyiER, Assembe-MvondoS, LescuyerG, CeruttiP.2013. Impacts of international timber procurement policies on Central Africa's forestry sector: the case of Cameroon. For Pol Econ. 32(6):40–48. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2012.12.006
BisschopL.2012. Out of the woods: the illegal trade in tropical timber and a European trade hub. GC. 13(3):191–212.
4.
BonnefoiB, BuongiornoJ.1990. Comparative advantage of countries in forest-products trade. For Ecol Manag. 36(1):1–17. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(90)90060-O
5.
BoselloF, ParradoR, RosaR.2013. The economic and environmental effects of an EU ban on illegal logging imports. Insights from a CGE assessment. Environ Devel Econ. 18(2):184–206. doi: 10.1017/S1355770X12000526
BrackD, HaymanG.2001. Intergovernmental actions on illegal logging: options for intergovernmental action to help combat illegal logging and illegal trade in timber and forest products. A scoping study prepared for UK Department for International Development 15–20.
GuanZJ, GongPC.2015. The impacts of international efforts to reduce illegal logging on China's forest products trade flow. China Agric Econ Rev. 7(3):467–483. doi: 10.1108/CAER-12-2014-0134
18.
GulbrandsenLH, HumphreysD.2006. International initiatives to address tropical timber logging and trade a report for the Norwegian ministry of the environment, [accessed 2016 Oct 28]. http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R0406.pdf.
19.
Gutierrez-VelezVH, MacDickenK.2008. Quantifying the direct social and governmental costs of illegal logging in the Bolivian, Brazilian, and Peruvian Amazon. For Pol Econ. 10(4):248–256. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2007.10.007
20.
HeckscherE.1919. The effects of foreign trade on the distribution of income. Ekonomisk Tidskriff 497–512. Translated as chapter 13 in American Economic Association.
21.
KinnairdMF, SandersonEW, O'BrienTG, WibisonoHT, WoolmeretG.2003. Deforestation trends in a tropical landscape and implications for endangered large mammals. Conserv Biol. 17(1):245–257. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2003.02040.x
22.
KishorN, LescuyerG.2012. Controlling illegal logging in domestic and international markets by harnessing multi-level governance opportunities. Int J Commons. 6(2):255–270. doi: 10.18352/ijc.327
LawsonS, MacFaulL.2010. Illegal logging and related trade: indicators of the global response. Chatham House: Royal Institute of International Affairs.
25.
LearnerE.1984. Sources of international comparative advantage. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
26.
LeipoldS, WinkelG.2016. Divide and conquer: discursive agency and the politics of illegal logging in the United States. Glob Environ Change. 36(1):35–45. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.006
27.
LiRH, BuongiornoJ, TurnerJA, ZhuS, PrestemonJ.2008. Long-term effects of eliminating illegal logging on the world forest industries, trade, and inventory. For Pol Econ. 10(7–8):480–490. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.04.003
28.
LiuYZ, TianZH.2007. A test on comparative advantages in world and Chinese forest products trade. China Agric Econ Rev. 1(2):28–45.
29.
LundmarkR.2010. European trade in forest products and fuels. J For Econ. 16(3):235–251.
30.
MoiseyevA, SolbergB, MichieB, KallioA.2010. Modeling the impacts of policy measures to prevent import of illegal wood and wood products. For Pol Econ. 12(1):24–30. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2009.09.015
31.
OhlinB.1933. Interregional and international trade. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
32.
OverdevestC, ZeitlinJ.2014. Constructing a transnational timber legality assurance regime: architecture, accomplishments, challenges. For Pol Econ. 48(1):6–15. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.10.004
33.
PrestemonJP.2015. The impacts of the lacey act amendment of 2008 on U.S. hardwood lumber and hardwood plywood imports. For Pol Econ. 50(1):31–44. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2014.10.002
34.
PrestemonJP, BuongiornoJ.1997. Comparative advantage in forest products trade: a test of the Heckscher-Ohlin-Vanek theorem with interstate data. J For Econ. 3(2):207–228.
RosanderMN.2008. Illegal logging: current issues and opportunities for Sida/SENSA engagement in Southeast Asia. [accessed 2016 Oct 28]. http://www.fni.no/doc&pdf/FNI-R0406.pdf.
37.
SmithJ, ObidzinskiK, SubarudiS, SuramenggalaI.2003. Illegal logging, collusive corruption and fragmented governments in Kalimantan, Indonesia. Int For Rev. 5(3):293–302.
38.
TacconiL.2007. Illegal logging: law enforcement, livelihoods and the timber trade. London: Earthscan Pradhan.
39.
TanczosF.2011. A new crime: possession of wood – remedying the due care double standard of the revised lacey act. Rutgers L J. 42:549.
40.
UusivuoriJ, TervoM.2002. Comparative advantage and forest endowment in forest products trade: evidence from panel data of OECD-countries. J For Econ. 8(1):53–75.
41.
VanekJ.1963. The natural resource content of United States foreign trade. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
42.
VanekJ.1968. The factor proportions theory: the N-factor case. Kyklos. 21(4):749–756. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6435.1968.tb00141.x
43.
Visseren-HamakersIJ, GlasbergenP.2007. Partnerships in forest governance. Global Environ Change. 17(3–4):408–419. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.11.003
