Is the U.S. Hardwood Federation Really the United Voice of the U.S. Hardwood Sector?

The U.S. Hardwood Federation (HF) recently sent a letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) urging the agency to list Apitong (also known as Keruing) under CITES Appendix I. Apitong is a highly durable sawn timber species widely found in Southeast Asia and is commonly used for trailer flooring. Malaysia and Indonesia, two of the leading exporters of Apitong, have a long-established track record of supplying this timber to the U.S. market.
However, the HF’s request raises questions. The primary purpose of CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) is to ensure that international trade does not threaten the survival of wild animals and plants. Notably, the HF’s letter does not provide any evidence that Apitong is endangered or that its trade poses a threat to its survival. Instead, the letter states that “this change in classification will expedite the move towards using domestically grown and processed hardwood lumber for military truck bed use.”

While promoting domestic industries is a valid goal, it should be part of a broader, more balanced strategy. The U.S. hardwood industry has been shrinking for decades and relies heavily on the export of lumber and logs. Using CITES as a tool to restrict the import of Apitong could be seen as imposing a trade sanction on Malaysia and Indonesia. This move could have unintended consequences: the export value of American hardwood to Malaysia and Indonesia far exceeds the import value of Apitong into the U.S. If the HF’s request is approved, it could harm the promotion and sales of U.S. hardwood species in these key Southeast Asian markets.

The Hardwood Federation claims to be “the united voice of the U.S. hardwood sector,” but this assertion is questionable. Organizations like the National Hardwood Lumber Association (NHLA) and the American Hardwood Export Council (AHEC) are also key players in the industry. If the HF’s request is granted, it could lead to a loss of market share for U.S. hardwood exporters in Southeast Asia, negatively impacting the broader industry.

In conclusion, while the Hardwood Federation’s intent to support domestic hardwood production is understandable, leveraging CITES for this purpose appears misguided. Such a move could harm international trade relationships and undermine the U.S. hardwood industry’s global standing. It also raises doubts about whether the HF truly represents the unified interests of the entire U.S. hardwood sector.