Science Is Giving Forest Law Enforcement a New Edge

In late 2018, Indonesian authorities seized 384 shipping containers of merbau (Intsia spp.) timber from Papua, Indonesia — roughly 6,000 cubic meters of some of the world’s most valuable tropical hardwood. The shipments came with documentation, but some of that paperwork was falsified, obscuring its exact origins. The timber had been laundered: illegal logs passed off as legal, through a system that relied on its own records, with no way to verify them.

Bridging Science and Law: Aligning Forensic Wood Analysis with Indonesia’s Forest Law Enforcement to Tackle Illegal Timber Trade

Read the related report.

Download

The case is striking in scale, but not in kind. Between 2003 and 2014, illegal logging cost Indonesia an estimated $6.5 billion to $9 billion in lost government revenue from timber royalties alone. Across Southeast Asia, Central Africa and Latin America, timber regularly enters legal supply chains through misdeclared species, falsified permits and manipulated origin documents. Laws designed precisely to prevent this depend heavily on the accuracy of information provided along the supply chain. When that information is fabricated, the system fails.

A Tightening Regulatory Moment

That vulnerability is becoming harder to ignore. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which is expected to enter into force for large companies at the end of this year, requires businesses to provide geolocation data proving their timber is deforestation-free. The United States, Australia, Japan and South Korea have all tightened measures against illegal timber imports in recent years. The regulatory pressure isn’t going away — and documentation-only compliance is fast becoming a liability: When the documents themselves can be falsified, no amount of paperwork provides genuine assurance.

The good news is that science already offers tools to verify the claims documents make. Wood identification technologies offer a practical and independent verification layer for species and origin claims that goes beyond documentation.

Indonesia is already deploying them. Their experience reveals what works and what still needs to change to ensure timber can be accurately traced from its forest to its end use.

Why Documents Alone Can’t Solve a Documents Problem

Indonesia’s Timber Legality Assurance System (SVLK) is one of the most developed national timber tracking frameworks in the world, linking harvesting permits, transport records, royalty payments and export licenses into a single system. The SVLK and similar systems are playing critical roles for countries to maintain access to legality-sensitive timber markets.

But documentation systems can only verify paperwork, not wood. Under Indonesian law, timber royalties are calculated based on species and location of harvest — a cubic meter of merbau from Papua carries higher levies than teak from Java. That creates a direct financial incentive to lie. Traders have routinely misdeclared high-value species as lower-value ones, or falsely claimed timber came from private forests — where royalties don't apply — rather than from state forest zones. 

Between 2003 and 2014, illegal logging cost Indonesia an estimated $6.5 billion to $9 billion in lost government revenue from timber royalties alone.

When investigators open a case, they typically have up to 90 days to close it. Without independent tools to verify species or origin, the work falls back on physical inspection and manual stump-matching —methods found to be prone to error. This isn’t a uniquely Indonesian problem. Enforcement agencies across major timber-producing regions face the same challenge of how to verify wood products when the documentation may be unreliable.

What Wood Science Can Tell You

Forensic wood identification is a toolkit, not a single technology — and different questions call for different tools. Wood anatomy — the microscopic examination of cellular structure — is a fast and affordable way to identify a sample to genus level; Indonesia’s Ministry of Forestry lab charges around $15 per sample. Its limitation is origin: Anatomy can tell you what a piece of wood is, but not where it grew.

That’s where DNA analysis and stable isotope analysis come in. DNA can identify species precisely and, through population genetics, can match a seized log to the specific forest area — or even the stump — it came from. Stable isotope analysis reads the chemical signature left by local climate and soil conditions, producing a geographic fingerprint. A newer method, DART-TOFMS, can rapidly screen species based on chemical profiles.

These methods have delivered results. A collaboration between the nonprofit World Forest ID and a German laboratory used combined wood identification and AI to detect 261 tons of sanctioned Russian timber entering Belgium in 2024 despite an active trade ban. Malaysia’s Forest Research Institute regularly assists enforcement agencies in origin verification cases.

Indonesia’s Progress — and Its Gaps

Indonesia has built a serious foundation. IPB University and the National Research and Innovation Agency (BRIN) have been developing reference datasets for key commercial species, and WRI Indonesia has trained prosecutors, police, customs officials and forest officers across multiple provinces in forensic sampling methods. The country also holds the world’s largest physical wood sample collection — over 200,000 specimens in the Xylarium Bogoriense, its national reference library.

But the picture has real gaps. Reference datasets for DNA population genetics and stable isotopes across Indonesia’s geographic range exist only for a few species considered at high risk for illegal logging and trade, leaving out a number of other priority species. Most sampling has been led by universities and nonprofits rather than government agencies — constrained by project cycles and donor funding rather than sustained institutional commitment. There is no national government-managed database, making coordination difficult.

Lab accreditation presents another friction point. Indonesian enforcement agencies say they will only trust forensic results produced by accredited labs. While most existing institutions doing cutting-edge wood identification work have accreditations, new lab facilities — including the DNA and DART-TOFMS labs at IPB University — are still in the process of completing full formal accreditation (which can take at least a year or more). Until that process is complete, results from those labs may face legal challenges in court, even when the underlying science is sound.

What Needs to Change — in Indonesia and Beyond

The core problem in Indonesia isn't technology: the methods exist, the equipment is increasingly in place and the country has institutions with genuine expertise. The gap is scale and integration. Three priorities stand out.

1) Reference data collection needs to become a government-led commitment rather than a project-dependent activity. Government authorities in Indonesia have the legal authority to centralize research data from universities and other institutions; that authority should be used to build a comprehensive national wood reference database. Forest management units, provincial forestry offices and concession holders are all positioned to collect samples in the field — with the right coordination and resourcing, they could significantly accelerate coverage. IPB University recently signed a consortium and data sharing agreement with World Forest ID, a positive step to facilitate coordinated sampling and data and enhance capacity to provide verification services to requests from inside and outside Indonesia.

2) Lab accreditation needs to move faster. IPB University is supporting expansion of ISO accreditation to more forensic labs. WRI Indonesia is enabling accreditation by working with Indonesian partners on accreditation standards. Getting accredited, competitively priced DNA analysis available to enforcement agencies is achievable within a defined timeline — but requires institutional follow-through.

3) Forensic wood identification needs to be embedded in standard procedures. Indonesia’s certification bodies are already authorized to use lab testing for SVLK verification. Making forensic checks a routine part of high-risk shipment review — rather than a special response to suspected fraud — would meaningfully raise the cost of timber laundering.

A Lesson That Travels

Indonesia is, in many ways, the best-case version of this challenge. It has one of the world’s most developed timber legality frameworks, a nationally mandated traceability system, a massive reference collection, and years of investment from researchers and civil society. If Indonesia is still working to connect these pieces into a system that enforcement agencies can use routinely, the gap is likely to be wider elsewhere. But whether in Asia, Latin America or Africa, the structural problem is the same: Laws that depend on documentation are vulnerable wherever documentation can be falsified.

The science to address that vulnerability — DNA analysis, stable isotopes, chemical fingerprinting — is already in use in research institutions across tropical forest regions. For example, World Forest ID is partnering with NGOs, companies, and universities to collect georeferenced samples to build a global reference data platform. What is missing isn’t the technology. It's the investment to build out the reference databases, get the labs accredited and wire the results into the systems that actually decide what timber reaches market.

The EUDR, the U.S. Lacey Act and a growing list of national measures are making that investment easier to justify than it has ever been. For donors and development partners, this is an unusually concrete place to put money in forest governance. Indonesia's 200,000 wood samples, sitting in a warehouse in Bogor, are a reminder of how much groundwork has already been laid. Whether the institutions, incentives and resources can be aligned to put it to work — not just in Indonesia, but across the forests that supply chains and climate commitments both depend on — is the question that remains.