CITES Requirements for Pernambucco Bow Sales

[Chris Anderson, PhD]

Hello, 

While doing research for a request regarding Lacey act requirements, I stumbled upon this resource for CITES documentation. 

CITES is an international agreement regarding the trafficking of endangered species and started in the late 1970s. I had thought it mostly included the licensing of sales for things like 'Endangered Animals' - like Siberian Tigers or similar exotic pets.  However, in Feb. of 2023, Pernambuco (Paubrasilia echinata) made the list of controlled wood.  

Similar to requirements for the Lacey act, there are not only requirements and licensing for importing Pernambuco - but now for sale of bows completed after Feb 2023.  It would appear that the sale of bows made from Pernambuco requires a certification and the appropriate sourcing documentation.  (NOTE - NOT THE RESALE - ONLY the first time sale!)

https://www.artsrelief.org/news/update-on-cites-protection-of-pernambuco-wood#:~:text=Since September 13%2C 2007%2C the,CITES permits when traded internationally.

The lumber purchasing requirement has been around since 2007 - so anything purchased before then could be proven with a 'receipt' containing a prior date of sale - but anything after that *should have import documentation proving it was legally sourced.  The addition of 'completed bows' appears to be fairly recent.  With the upcoming implementation of Lacey act electronic filing requirements, I thought it prudent to provide the resource with the QA. 

Ebony from Madagascar is also on the list for import under the same class as Pernambuco.  (although - Ebony sourced from any other country is unaffected).  

What a pain... 

I did search for other CITES info - and the last thread on this was in 2022 regarding the movement of Pernambuco from Appendix 2 to Appendix 1 (which, thankfully - did not happen).  Please correct me if this has already been shared and I missed it. 

-Chris

[Brad Dorsey]

2 hours ago, Chris Anderson, PhD said:

…It would appear that the sale of bows made from Pernambuco requires a certification and the appropriate sourcing documentation….

The highlighted passage in the document that you linked to says nothing about sales.  It says that pernambuco bows require documentation “when traded internationally.”

[martin swan]

Your link is copied from the League of American Orchestras website - they were very active in preventing Brazil's move to put pernambuco on CITES appendix 1, as were we.

https://americanorchestras.org/know-your-bow-tips-for-owners-and-users-of-pernambuco-bows/

Here's a resource page on our website if you want to learn more about Pau Brasil. I'm afraid that Brazil will keep coming on this issue - the crucial thing to understand is that it's not about conservation, rather it's a loss and damage/colonial reparations agenda.

I fear that bowmakers and musicians haven't understood this - they imagine that supporting conservation initiatives will make the problem go away. It won't.

[Victor Roman]

9 hours ago, martin swan said:

the crucial thing to understand is that it's not about conservation, rather it's a loss and damage/colonial reparations agenda.

I do not understand : would you be so kind and explain how does that work ? Thank you.

[martin swan]

1 hour ago, Victor Roman said:

I do not understand : would you be so kind and explain how does that work ? Thank you.

Whilst there are genuine issues to do with illegal logging and smuggling of Pau Brasil, there is a vast amount of plantation wood that could be legitimately used for bowmaking.

Brazil isn't arguing for Appendix 1 on grounds of conservation (although they pretend that they are) - rather it wishes to see some acknowledgment that the largely European "colonial" classical music fraternity owes Brazil a debt for the historic exploitation of pernambuco.

This is in line with what we see in conservation and climate change negotiations generally - the debate has moved on from trying to fix the problem to paying out the countries whose resources have been exploited by the developed world.

So, if you approach this problem by trying to answer conservation concerns, Brazil will just shift the goalposts. What they want is some form of reparation. I proposed a levy on every pernambuco bow made, for example $100, paid to a central Brazilian authority. In these days of blockchain, setting up a traceability mechanism should be straightforward.

[M Alpert]

3 hours ago, martin swan said:

Whilst there are genuine issues to do with illegal logging and smuggling of Pau Brasil, there is a vast amount of plantation wood that could be legitimately used for bowmaking.

Brazil isn't arguing for Appendix 1 on grounds of conservation (although they pretend that they are) - rather it wishes to see some acknowledgment that the largely European "colonial" classical music fraternity owes Brazil a debt for the historic exploitation of pernambuco.

This is in line with what we see in conservation and climate change negotiations generally - the debate has moved on from trying to fix the problem to paying out the countries whose resources have been exploited by the developed world.

So, if you approach this problem by trying to answer conservation concerns, Brazil will just shift the goalposts. What they want is some form of reparation. I proposed a levy on every pernambuco bow made, for example $100, paid to a central Brazilian authority. In these days of blockchain, setting up a traceability mechanism should be straightforward.

Brilliant explanation, Mr. Swan. Also the compensation idea seems quite clever. Bravo!

If only more people would see it as you do.

[Shelbow]

@martin swan What is the current situation with this? I'm a bit out of the loop. In the last meeting didn't CITES ask for the various groups involved in the bow trade to come up with a solution for controlling the trade (marking and tracking lumber etc) in preparation for the next meeting? My understanding is that if a suitable solution is not found they will continue to push for pernambuco to become Appendix 1.

 

 

 

[martin swan]

Yes that's where things are at ... and less than a year to go until the next CITES COP.

However, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of bow makers and musicians, who think that arguing their case and coming up with practical solutions to the conservation/traceability agenda will solve the issue.

My belief is that Brazil wants "rights" over pernambuco as a kind of cultural property - these rights to be acknowledged as applying to past, present and future profits from the use of pernambuco in bows.

Solutions proposed by outsiders and special interest groups are likely to antagonize Brazil further and be seen as colonialist ...

[Hempel]

6 hours ago, M Alpert said:

Brilliant explanation, Mr. Swan. Also the compensation idea seems quite clever. Bravo!

If only more people would see it as you do.

Just imagine if you happen to be a Brazilian bowmaker or proprietor of a bow making operation in Brazil.  Why would you impose a $500 "tariff" on your own bows?  That's a crippling competitive disadvantage.  You might as well fold up shop.

That's a damn good reason why not everybody would take Martin up on his neo-colonialist "offer."

[Shelbow]

To me the likely outcome is a failure of all parties to come up with a viable solution and therefore pernambuco becomes Appendix 1. The whole trade gets screwed and no one benefits from it. This is sadly what I think will happen.

[martin swan]

23 minutes ago, Hempel said:

Just imagine if you happen to be a Brazilian bowmaker or proprietor of a bow making operation in Brazil.  Why would you impose a $500 "tariff" on your own bows?  That's a crippling competitive disadvantage.  You might as well fold up shop.

That's a damn good reason why not everybody would take Martin up on his neo-colonialist "offer."

I proposed a $100 tax on the sale of a bow - all bows, so bows made in Brazil wouldn't be disadvantaged.

However, if you do espouse the conservation agenda, the first thing to do would be to make sure that pernambuco is reserved for bows of high value. 

[Hempel]

44 minutes ago, martin swan said:

I proposed a $100 tax on the sale of a bow - all bows, so bows made in Brazil wouldn't be disadvantaged.

However, if you do espouse the conservation agenda, the first thing to do would be to make sure that pernambuco is reserved for bows of high value. 

Considering pernambuco is pretty much only found in Brazil, why wouldn't Brazilian conservationist and _protectionist_ policy make more sense if the "tariff" only applied to bows made outside Brazil?

You are also presupposing that Brazilians aren't capable of making good bows.  The wasteful use argument cuts both ways.  Every part of felled trees aside from the pith gets used, minimizing waste.  The sticks with cosmetic (or functional) issues get priced lower.  In other words, more yield per tree felled.

Bottom line all nations favor and protect their own natural resources (available nowhere else) and industries, why does the movement of pernambuco to CITES I signify some colonial reparation agenda? 

[GeorgeH]

More and more professional musicians are using carbon fiber bows now. The highly esteemed bow maker Rodney D. Mohr is marketing a bamboo bow called the "Nubow."

Pernambuco bows are not the only game in town anymore.

Because of the advances in alternative materials, antique bows are losing their performance-to-value proposition and modern pernambuco bows may soon be on the same track if they become too expensive and/or illegal to transport internationally.

 

[martin swan]

2 hours ago, Hempel said:

Considering pernambuco is pretty much only found in Brazil, why wouldn't Brazilian conservationist and _protectionist_ policy make more sense if the "tariff" only applied to bows made outside Brazil?

You are also presupposing that Brazilians aren't capable of making good bows.  The wasteful use argument cuts both ways.  Every part of felled trees aside from the pith gets used, minimizing waste.  The sticks with cosmetic (or functional) issues get priced lower.  In other words, more yield per tree felled.

Bottom line all nations favor and protect their own natural resources (available nowhere else) and industries, why does the movement of pernambuco to CITES I signify some colonial reparation agenda? 

Brazilian bowmaking can no longer use pernambuco since there's now a complete moratorium on first export from Brazil.

This is a very complex and often self-contradictory issue which many serious and directly concerned people have made strenuous efforts to get their heads around. If you're interested in getting up to speed there are a few hundred pages of reading on our website link.

 

[Hempel]

You'll pardon me if I avoid reading yet another self-serving summary that papers over the real issues written up by someone with a vested interest in trading bows. 

The internet is full of such self-serving summaries but preciously few mention what is going on inside Brazil regarding illegal exports of pernambuco.

https://www.occrp.org/en/investigation/operation-do-re-mi-the-brazilian-bow-makers-under-investigation-for-dealing-in-endangered-wood

[matesic]

11 hours ago, martin swan said:

I proposed a $100 tax on the sale of a bow - all bows

Whatever the price, the material, the nationality, the age... ?Am I the only one to think that's just bonkers? 

[martin swan]

3 hours ago, Hempel said:

You'll pardon me if I avoid reading yet another self-serving summary that papers over the real issues written up by someone with a vested interest in trading bows. 

The internet is full of such self-serving summaries but preciously few mention what is going on inside Brazil regarding illegal exports of pernambuco.

https://www.occrp.org/en/investigation/operation-do-re-mi-the-brazilian-bow-makers-under-investigation-for-dealing-in-endangered-wood

You clearly haven't read any of it.

I can cite you chapter and verse on Operation Do Re Mi - it's doubly funny that you should take at face value a report on an anti-corruption website . Look into who funded this operation, and how many of its findings have been subsequently invalidated.

You'll pardon me if I avoid engaging with someone who does a quick google and thinks they understand an extremely complex and multi-faceted issue.

[martin swan]

1 hour ago, matesic said:

Whatever the price, the material, the nationality, the age... ?Am I the only one to think that's just bonkers? 

pernambuco - obviously.  .

price - it's a way of disincentivizing mass producers of cheap bows from using pernambuco

age - initially it was proposed for post-CITES bows, but in fact I think it might be applicable to older bows too. It depends what Brazil wants.

We need to understand that this is in Brazil's gift - no amount of special pleading will make any difference. The best thing in my opinion is to try to understand what Brazil really wants, and who in the country is actually pushing for a change to the current law.

[reg]

Surely the trees can be grown in another country - if this is not already being done?

[martin swan]

35 minutes ago, reg said:

Surely the trees can be grown in another country - if this is not already being done?

Yes there are some experimental plantations in Hawaii, but it does require a very specific microclimate, and you need about 30 years' growth for the tree to be usable.

Given that there are many thousands of usable plantation trees in Brazil that the Brazilian conservation authorities currently class as wild (and therefore protected), finding a solution to that Catch 22 seems like a good short-term solution.

[Dr. Mark]

Rather fascinating discussion, due primarily to Mr. Swan's insight and compelling argument.  Kudos to Dr. Anderson for bringing the issue to light here.

[uguntde]

Technically carbon fibre bows can be used. I think this is where the future lies. I also don't think that carbon fibre bows have reached their optimum yet. Artistic value will of course suffer, but not the ability to play music on a violin.

[Chris Anderson, PhD]

5 hours ago, Dr. Mark said:

Rather fascinating discussion, due primarily to Mr. Swan's insight and compelling argument.  Kudos to Dr. Anderson for bringing the issue to light here.

Agreed!   This became so much more interesting than I had originally thought...  

The 'vilification' of consumers of Pernambucco wood in the OCCRP article (and several others) is of particular interest.  I doubt that industry consumption can keep up with the 30 year growth requirement of the trees - even if we started planting today.   Tropical trees are notoriously difficult to cultivate outside of their native latitude. 

To quote the the Bow-makers at Muesin.eu

"The next Cites conference will take place in November 2025 and we expect that Pernambuco will finally be put on Appendix 1. This means that all trade (selling and buying) will be punishable, as well as any crossing of borders. Bow made from pernambuco with thus lose any trade value, no matter how old it may be or what kind of papers might be produces, for species listed on Appendix 1 no exceptions are being granted."

All bow-makers - and any player who has mortgaged their house for a high-quality bow - risks losing the value of that investment should the tree move to Appendix 1.  Would Musical Bow trading then have the same connotation for those that trade in 'elephant ivory' or 'baby seal fur'?  The 'fear of loss' is where the rubber meets the road.  I don't feel that instrument users or makers sit at home stroking their handlebar moustaches like Snidely Whiplash as the OCCRP article makes them out...  

10 hours ago, martin swan said:

We need to understand that this is in Brazil's gift - no amount of special pleading will make any difference. The best thing in my opinion is to try to understand what Brazil really wants, and who in the country is actually pushing for a change to the current law.

I must agree with Mr. Swan - normally countries work in their own interest.  I am unsure of what Brazil thinks is going to happen by moving this to Appendix 1.  "At last - we have firm control of our resources! Wait - what do you mean nobody wants them anymore?" I haven't been able to puzzle out any possible benefit... 

-Chris 

[Hempel]

11 hours ago, martin swan said:

You clearly haven't read any of it.

I can cite you chapter and verse on Operation Do Re Mi - it's doubly funny that you should take at face value a report on an anti-corruption website . Look into who funded this operation, and how many of its findings have been subsequently invalidated.

You'll pardon me if I avoid engaging with someone who does a quick google and thinks they understand an extremely complex and multi-faceted issue.

If you want people to read your point of view, the very first step is to avoid accusing Brazilians of having an ulterior motives such as colonial reparations agenda.  Your inability to substantiate that assertion just makes you a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

Nobody, especially not string players, should take a responsible supply chain for granted.  And that's the point of Brazil moving pernambuco to CITES Appendix I. 

I find it funny you can't distinguish irresponsible sourcing (a la Raposo et. al.) vs. reforesting efforts (IPCI, Funbrasil, etc.). 

[martin swan]

Whoa steady on!

Bernd Musing is a manufacturer of carbon fibre bows who does a very clunky job of advancing his own commercial agenda - I wasn’t aware that he’d posted this but it’s a gross misrepresentation of the true state of affairs which can only reflect badly on his company.

We already trade in many Appendix 1 materials - if that trade is across international borders then a Cites permit is required, but it’s granted automatically for any item that predates the appendix 1 listing.

An Appendix 1 listing for pernambuco would be a drag for musicians, makers and dealers but it wouldn’t be the end of the world.