FIM

Photo by Mauro Halpern

What is Pernambuco?

Around 1775, French bow mak­er François-​Xavier Tourte –inven­tor of the mod­ern bow– rec­om­mend­ed the use of Pernambuco wood for bow mak­ing on account of its very spe­cif­ic phys­i­cal prop­er­ties, in par­tic­u­lar its hard­ness and den­si­ty. For over two hun­dred years, all qual­i­ty bows have been man­u­fac­tured using this species of wood.

Pernambuco (Caesalpinia echi­na­ta) grows exclu­sive­ly in Brazil, in the country’s Northeast Region. Unfortunately, as a result of agri­cul­tur­al defor­esta­tion, the species has been dwin­dling for many years and is now becom­ing scarce. In order to address this sit­u­a­tion, bow-​making pro­fes­sion­als found­ed the IPCI (International Pernambuco Conservation Initiative).

Since 2007, Pernambuco has been reg­is­tered in Appendix II of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), which has led to strict reg­u­la­to­ry mea­sures. A cer­tifi­cate is required from exporters and importers to guar­an­tee that the wood comes from a plan­ta­tion that respects the prin­ci­ples of sus­tain­able harvesting.

This more restric­tive clas­si­fi­ca­tion would have severe con­se­quences on bow-​making and pre­serv­ing the know-​how of craft bow mak­ers on a glob­al scale

Will 2022 spell the end of bows made from Pernambuco?

At the 19th Conference of Parties to CITES (CoP19) to be held from 14 to 28 November 2022, Brazil wants to obtain the trans­fer of Pernambuco from Appendix II to Appendix I. This more restric­tive clas­si­fi­ca­tion would have severe con­se­quences on bow-​making and pre­serv­ing the know-​how of craft bow mak­ers on a glob­al scale.

If this pro­pos­al is accept­ed by CoP19, any trans­ac­tion relat­ing to a bow in Pernambuco will need a CITES licence. In addi­tion, if nation­al CITES author­i­ties con­sid­er that exist­ing stocks do not ful­fil the new cri­te­ria, the pro­duc­tion and sale of new bows will become impossible.

In the even­tu­al­i­ty of these stocks remain­ing autho­rized, renew­ing them will be pro­hib­it­ed, includ­ing from trees replant­ed at the ini­tia­tive of bow mak­ers them­selves. As a com­par­i­son, let us not for­get that after ivory and tor­toise­shell had been clas­si­fied in Appendix I of CITES, ivory and tor­toise­shell work­ers were forced to cease their activity.

For musi­cians, if Pernambuco were to be clas­si­fied in Appendix I, this would make it manda­to­ry to obtain a Musical Instrument Certificate (MIC) before trav­el­ling abroad, with such cer­tifi­cate need­ing to be endorsed sub­se­quent­ly by the cus­toms author­i­ties each time a bor­der is crossed. In addi­tion to admin­is­tra­tive red tape, this would also lead to risks of delay or items being blocked at borders.

For all that, the effect of these mea­sures on the con­ser­va­tion of the species is very unclear. In real­i­ty, Pernambuco is suf­fer­ing pri­mar­i­ly from defor­esta­tion and ille­gal trade in Brazil. In com­par­i­son, har­vest­ing for the needs of craft bow mak­ers is neg­li­gi­ble. It is esti­mat­ed that the annu­al con­sump­tion in raw tim­ber for the hun­dred or so French craft bow mak­ers is a mere one cubic meter. Action is con­se­quent­ly need­ed at the lev­el of Brazil itself.

Envisaging solu­tions

Actions fund­ed by IPCI at the ini­tia­tive of bow mak­ers have made it pos­si­ble to replant some 300,000 Pernambuco seedlings, main­ly ded­i­cat­ed to pre­serv­ing the species. Using Pernambuco to man­u­fac­ture bows con­se­quent­ly con­tributes to its con­ser­va­tion since this high added-​value con­sump­tion is based on safe­guard­ing the species.

As a result, we rec­om­mend that CITES Member States reject Pernambuco being clas­si­fied in Appendix I and, in col­lab­o­ra­tion with Brazil, come up with an effi­cient strat­e­gy to con­trol legal chan­nels and bring an end to traf­fick­ing. We are con­vinced that enhanced appre­ci­a­tion and con­trol of the resource are the only solu­tions which will guar­an­tee sustainability.

Moreover, we would urge the whole of the music busi­ness to join in fund­ing the con­ser­va­tion of this extra­or­di­nary species of wood that is essen­tial for all bowed instruments.

What role do musi­cians’ unions have to play?

We would urge all musi­cians’ unions to under­take advo­ca­cy with their respec­tive gov­ern­ments, in col­lab­o­ra­tion with nation­al bow-​maker organ­i­sa­tions. A guid­ance doc­u­ment is avail­able here to help you draft your arguments.