Jean-Louis Doucet has a passion for Central Africa and, since 2003, has headed up the Laboratoire de Foresterie des Régions Tropicales et Subtropicales (Laboratory for Forestry in Tropical and Subtropical Regions) of Gembloux Agro-bio Tech (ULg). His in-depth knowledge of the second biggest tropical forest on the planet after the Amazon - and by far the least degraded at the current time - makes him a key observer and committed player in the 'sustainable' exploitation of these gigantic forests. During a field visit in Cameroon (read the article Forestry : Between a rock and a hard place), Reflexions gave him the opportunity to speak in detail to correct certain clichés about the timber trade but also to give details of advances in scientific research.

Along with your team you often call into question a certain number of beliefs about tropical forests and particularly about the timber which is exported to our countries. What are the clichés we have to let go of?

Jean-Louis Doucet: The first is the one about the 'virgin' forest, a sort of forest where man has supposedly never stepped foot. In reality, today we know that human activity probably had a profound impact on the huge forests of Gabon and Cameroon, to name just two countries. The fragments of pottery or charcoal present in the upper layers of the soil are evidence of this. These traces are several centuries old and, in some cases, go back several thousands of years.  Indeed, it is likely that a high proportion of the tree species currently found in the forest, characterised by their dependence on light for their growth (so-called “light-demanding”) owe their presence to human activity, particularly slash and burn agriculture. The second cliché is that the exploitation of tropical wood compromises the future of forests. In reality, the type of exploitation practised today in Central Africa is extremely selective. Just one or two trees are taken from each hectare, that is 5 to 15 cubic metres, which is a much less than in the Amazon and, above all, Asia, the two other big rainforests on the planet. The European consumer is wrongly made to feel guilty about their consumption of tropical timber. Indeed the FAO (the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations) considers that agriculture is by far the biggest cause of global deforestation at almost 80%. The second cliché has the following consequence:  far from favouring the long-term future of African forests, boycotting wood from this continent has negative repercussions for the development of local populations. On the contrary, if the exploitation of wood is well thought out and supervised - I'm referring particularly to certification like that of the Forest Steward Council (FSC) or the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC), it contributes to the sustainability of forests whilst leading to the emergence of an economic fabric which is the source of jobs for the local population.

Where do these clichés come from?

Some NGOs (non-governmental organisations) circulate a simplistic discourse backed up with sensationalist images. Others, or the same ones, manage to get vague concepts - such as 'high conservation value forests' or 'intact forest landscapes' - included in national or international legislation.  As seductive as these concepts are when it comes to drawing attention to highly emotive species (gorillas, chimpanzees, elephants…), they are based on fragile or unfounded scientific facts. Of course, historically, certain international NGOs should be credited with the creation of the FSC certification. By placing high demands on logging companies this allows logging to be steered in a more sustainable direction. But today others ceaselessly criticise the FSC; or lump together, on the one hand, countries that have been carrying out a commendable reform of their forestry code over the last fifteen years (Cameroon, Gabon…) and, on the other hand, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) which is just emerging from war and which, consequently, has a huge amount on its plate if it wants to safeguard the future of its forests. This confusion which is regularly maintained, this way of systematically pointing out what is wrong rather than highlighting what is going well, is obviously understandable on the part of organisations whose core activity is environmental lobbying. But this can prove counter-productive and lead to absurd situations. So, in the not too distant past, the excessive discourse of a French NGO on the exploitation of the Moabi, a valuable tree species for the local communities, led a big French company to throw in the towel and stop using Moabi altogether. But the price of this U-turn was that much more of another species (the Douka) was logged and  - to top it off – that species regenerates  with much greater difficulty than the Moabi! That said, the big nature conservation agencies bear some responsibility for the confusion that reigns about tropical forests.  One example is when they 'blacklist' species that in reality are not very well understood from a scientific point of view. It is the case of the Assamela (or Afrormosia), a species of which Belgium is one of the biggest importers (read the article Protect the African rainforest: yes, but not blindly!) Our work has shown us that although the number of young saplings in the Cameroonian forest in particular is currently low, it is not so much due to the problems related to logging but due to a reduced human presence. The slash and burn of the past favoured clearings and, therefore, the regeneration of this light-demanding species.