LOperators in the sector are wondering: who really benefits from this measure, and at what cost to the national economy?
Even within the supervisory ministry, confusion reigns. The Department of Commerce and that of Industry seem to be moving on opposite trajectories, multiplying contradictory decisions that are often considered arbitrary.
In the absence of prior studies on the impacts of this reform, the consequences are already being felt in several sectors, fueling discontent both among local manufacturers of wooden furniture who directly import raw materials, and among importers of these raw materials intended for these local manufacturers, and who must pay a tax, called “forestry”, of 12% on entry, while importers of finished furniture will benefit, with the new Law of Finance, the reduction of this tax to 6%.
“We are losing 6% of competitiveness compared to imported products,” lament the manufacturers, already weakened by a tense economic context.
This imbalance pushes many players to review their strategies. “With this new measure, why continue to invest in the local production of furniture and the wooden panels used to make it? We might as well turn to the import of finished products, where the risks are lower and the margins better protected,” some wonder.
This situation once again illustrates the lack of coordination and strategic vision in the management of this sector. For the moment, neither local manufacturers nor importers of wooden raw materials seem to be benefiting from this reform, and the wood and furniture sector is bogged down in a climate of uncertainty, further weakening a sector already in search of stability and clear vision.
This inconsistency risks slowing down local investment, increasing dependence on imports and harming employment in an industry that is nevertheless crucial to the national economy. Sector stakeholders are now calling for an urgent review of this policy, accompanied by in-depth consultation with all stakeholders, in order to give the sector the means to develop in an equitable and sustainable manner.
Without rapid response and appropriate adjustments, the consequences could extend well beyond the wood and furniture sector. The loss of competitiveness of local producers could lead to business closures, an increase in unemployment and a systematic halt to the development experienced by this sector.
Furthermore, this reform highlights a broader issue: the need for coherent arbitration between the interests of different economic actors: How to reconcile efficient regulation of imports which remain essential to reduce costs and promote consumption, while protecting and stimulating an emerging local industry that generates added value and creates jobs.
Faced with these challenges, several experts are calling for a balanced fiscal framework, where taxes and incentives are structured around a long-term vision. In the absence of such measures, the entire value chain of the sector could collapse, to the detriment of economic sovereignty and national competitiveness.
The ball is now in the court of decision-makers, who will have to respond to criticism and, above all, provide appropriate solutions to restore the confidence of economic operators along this value chain.
