Bhutan’s reliance on imported wood products has laid bare a significant trade imbalance, with last year’s imports reaching over Nu 4 billion compared to a mere Nu 700 million in timber exports. In order to reverse this trend and bolster the forestry sector’s contribution to the national GDP, experts are urging a shift towards import substitution—anchored by a robust certification system and strategic branding of locally produced timber.
During a session devoted to reviewing the Forestry Sector Contribution to the GDP report, members of the Parliament expressed the need for clearer, actionable recommendations. Central among these is the establishment of a national certification scheme that would guarantee the quality of Bhutanese wood products. Proponents argue that certification would not only boost consumer confidence at home but also enhance the competitiveness of Bhutan’s timber on international markets.
“Quality is important, but equally crucial is price,” noted Sonam Tobgyel, MP for Trashigang. “We have ample stands of mature trees and quality timber. If we can support local manufacturers financially and ensure that they can offer products at reasonable prices, our people will naturally prefer domestic wood over imports.” His remarks highlight the conviction that government-backed incentives could help develop a self-sufficient wood-processing industry, reducing reliance on foreign suppliers.
However, not all lawmakers are convinced that certification alone will suffice to curb import levels. Sonam Tenzin, MP from Trashi Yangtse, pointed out that while the introduction of a national certification scheme may pave the way for international competitiveness, it does not directly address import volumes. “The objective is to reduce imports,” he said, “but certification by itself might not be enough. We need to consider additional measures.”
One such measure could take inspiration from policies already in place for construction materials. Tshering Wangchen, MP representing Monggar, referenced a practice where government construction projects mandate the use of locally manufactured bricks. “It would be ideal if government infrastructure projects could also prioritize locally produced wood products,” he suggested. “This kind of institutional demand could stimulate domestic production. Of course, for private builders, the cost might still be prohibitive without subsidies or other support.”
The Natural Resources and Environment Committee, which introduced the report last week, had initially put forward seven recommendations aimed at strengthening the forestry sector’s performance. During Wednesday’s sitting, the House deliberated over these proposals and adopted three, including the call for a national certification system, while deferring further discussion on the branding strategy and other measures until next week. Lawmakers will reconvene to refine these recommendations and determine how best to implement them in the short and medium term.
In addition to certification, the pending recommendations seek to create a strong, competitive brand for “Made in Bhutan” wood products. Advocates believe that a unified brand identity—coupled with stringent quality standards—would not only appeal to domestic consumers but could also open doors to markets in neighboring countries and beyond. By leveraging traditional craftsmanship and sustainably managed forests, Bhutan could position its timber industry as both eco-friendly and high quality.
As the debate continues, stakeholders across government and the private sector will be watching closely. The successful adoption of certification and branding initiatives could help transform Bhutan from a net importer of wood products into a self-reliant exporter, thereby generating new employment opportunities, increasing rural incomes, and contributing tangibly to the nation’s economic growth.
