The Evolution of Timber 

When looking at the timber industry, I decided to focus on the trade, production, and consumption of Ikea’s said-to-be sustainable deforestation practices and sourcing of their timber for furniture items, such as my MALM bed in my apartment. People all around the world use Ikea products to furnish their homes as an affordable and stylish option. Some also consume at Ikea with the mindset that their consumption choices are benefitting the environment. Before we look at consumption aspects, it is important to understand the production processes of timber around the world, especially in the Baltic region of Europe.

 

The Privatization of Timber

​

Much of the world’s timber comes from Russia due to that fact that a little over one-fifth of the world’s forests are located here (Newell and Simone 2014). Similarly, Ikea sources 20% of its timber from Russia, it’s top distributor of wood (Newell and Simone 2014). As the demand for timber has increased throughout the late 20th and into the 21st century, Russia’s production policies have become more internally corrupt and less regulated due to impoverished and badly managed government groups, resulting in higher levels of pollutants in the deforestation process and illegal logging (Newell and Simone 2014). This demand for timber at such rapid rates and competition from other timber sources has resulted in the privatization and trade liberalization of timber in Russia. Trade liberalization is a neoliberal policy in which international trade is made less restricted and expensive for importers and exporters through the removal of tariffs and nontariff barriers such as quotas. Liberalized trade can be beneficial for countries economies and its people but only if is carefully implemented with attention to labor rights and safety at every level of the production process. Cynthia Enloe discusses in “The Global Trotting Sneaker” the impact trade liberalization and organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) can have on a country (2004). Enloe argues world organizations like NAFTA and WTO allow for global competition for cheaper labor sources, resulting in many women fighting one another for their jobs in return for bad working conditions (2004). Companies looking for cheaper labor can move their businesses from countries that demand higher wages and are becoming more democratic, like South Korea, to countries like China where their workers will work in harsher conditions and lower pay (Enloe 2004). This model does not solve the problem of inequality and human rights violations but merely moves it around the globe.

 

However, NAFTA and the WTO do have the power of changing this by setting labor standards. Trade liberalization and the membership of the WTO in 2012 allowed Russia to become a key actor in the global trade flow of timber while implementing certain labor rights standards on Russian timber companies (Newell and Simone).  As the Soviet Union collapsed and timber companies were struggling to compete with the rest of world due to a lack of funding in the sector from the government, privatization and trade liberalization was the key to their future success (Newell and Simone). This allowed timber companies and towns to sprawl and grow throughout the region and allowed companies to extend their exports to the Asian market. In eleven years, approximately 2,300 Russian timber companies became registered exporters to China. These neoliberal concepts of reducing set prices on goods and stopping the regulation and quantity of exports has allowed Russia to become one of the top producers of timber in the world. As a member of the World Trade Organization since 2012, Russian timber has remained a liberalized good with few tariffs attached to it (Newell and Simone). While this may be beneficial to countries that import their timber such as China, Finland, and Sweden, the environment has taken a hit from deregulated deforestation and inefficient production (Newell and Simone).

 

The Impacts of Neoliberalization in the Production of Timber

​

      Due to the mass production of materials and products created by a neoliberal society, we have a wide range of options to feed peoples desire to mass consume as well. While Ikea markets themselves on simplistic and environmentally-conscious lifestyle, many of the their products are still mass produced for a large global market. Gregson discusses “chock-chocky” furniture as a way to repurpose and recycle cargo ships to produce affordable furniture in Bangladesh. In this case study, furniture is being made in order to find a use for these cargo ships that were brought over by globalization and making them into a materialistic item that creates a physical symbol of people being moving up the social ladder from lower to a middle class household. Whether Bangladeshi’s feel the chock-chocky furniture is lesser quality or fashionable, they do agree that shipbreaking furniture has given them the newfound freedom to affordably fill their homes with furniture. By using an item that once used to be a burden to the country, people were able to find a use for this item that socially mobilizes people. Similarly to the production of Ikea furniture, these products are affordable for lower and middle class people but they are also very disposable. From a mobilization perspective this is beneficial. However, Gregson explains from a environmental perspective, the ability to throw out materials with little value to the consumer uses many valuable natural resources in order to produce the item (2010).

​

 

Bibliography

• Enloe, C. “The Globe Trotting Sneaker.” The Curious Feminist: Searching for Women in an Age of Empire. (2004): 43-56.

• Gregson, N. “Following Things of Rubbish Value: End-of-Life Ships, ‘Chock-Chocky’ Furniture and the Bangladeshi Middle Class Consumer.” Geoforum, no.41 (2010): 846-854.  

• Newell, J.P & Simeone, J. “Russia’s forests in a global economy: How consumption drives environmental change.” Eurasian Geography & Economics, no. 55.1 (2014): 37–70.