Jump to content

Course:CONS200/2026WT2/Illegal logging in Ecuador: Drivers, impacts and potential solutions

From UBC Wiki

Illegal logging refers to the harvesting, transportation and sale of timber in violation of national laws and regulations[1]. In Ecuador, illegal logging includes timber extraction without permits, harvesting from protected areas and trading through unauthorized supply chains. These practices have become significant environmental and economic issues due to weak enforcement capacity, high international demand for timber and the profitability of valuable wood products[2].

Ecuador contains some of the most biodiverse forests in the world, including the Amazon rainforest, Andean mountain forests, and tropical forests along the Pacific coast[3]. These ecosystems provide critical habitat for wildlife, store large amounts of carbon, and support the livelihoods of many Indigenous and rural communities. Despite their ecological and social importance, Ecuador’s forests have been increasingly threatened by unsustainable timber extraction driven by economic incentives and global demand for timber products[2].

Today, illegal logging remains a major issue in Ecuador. Estimates suggest that between 25% and 70% of logging activity in the country may occur illegally[4]. Illegal logging networks often target high-value timber species such as balsa and mahogany, harvesting them at unsustainable rates to meet international demand. These activities contribute to deforestation, habitat degradation, and biodiversity loss while also undermining government regulation and reducing potential tax revenue [5] [6]. In addition to environmental impacts, illegal logging has serious social consequences, including the displacement and exploitation of Indigenous communities whose livelihoods depend on forest ecosystems[1].

This wiki page examines the drivers of illegal logging in Ecuador, its environmental and social impacts and the strategies that have been proposed to address the issue.

Background Information

History

Exploitation of forests in Ecuador has developed through several phases which are linked to resource extraction, infrastructural development and agricultural expansion [7].

Agricultural land in Ecuador.[8]

File:Agricultural progress in Ecuador, 1970-82 (IA CAT10847948).pdf One of the earliest commercial uses of the Amazon forest’s resources appeared in the 19th century during the rubber boom [7]. Following the discovery of vulcanization, the global demand for rubber increased rapidly, which led to intensified extraction of the Amazonian resources [7].  The rubber boom led to extensive deforestation in many areas and only came to a pause when other countries joined the production cycle [7]. These developments marked the beginning of large-scale exploitation of the Ecuadorian forests, continued by oil extraction and infrastructure development during the twentieth century[7].

Oil companies entered Ecuador in the 20th century and experienced an increase in scale in the 1970s when Texaco (a US company) began extraction in the Amazon[7]. Oil production led to major infrastructural changes, including pipeline and road construction [7] [10]. The construction of roads made remote areas more accessible, accelerating colonization and intensifying deforestation[10]. Increased accessibility allowed settlers to move into previously forested areas and made timber extraction more economically viable[10]. In Wimbí, community members reported workers involved in logging were leasing timber extraction permits to a land trafficker, Miguel Egas, while extraction continued on community lands [11]. This illustrates how permit misuse can blur the line between legal and illegal logging.

Agricultural expansion became another significant driver of deforestation[7]. The Ecuadorian Agrarian Reform (1964) encouraged colonization and clearance of previously forested lands to turn them into agricultural fields [10]. However, the impact of these policies only accelerated deforestation with the development of road networks which made forests more accessible [10]. Access to roads and markets increased incentives for agricultural colonization, which supported by institutional factors such as land tenure insecurity intensified forest clearing [12].

The pressures of timber industry, oil-palm agroindustry and gold mining can still be seen in the 21st century. For instance, in Esmeraldas, dispossession of ancestral territories has continued [13]. In Wimbí, the community leaders have been treated like thieves and invaders in their own territory due to conflict with Energy & Palma, an agro-industrial company [13].

The factors behind deforestation and timber extraction in Ecuador are all interconnected. While agricultural colonization became a considerable factor in forest loss , its expansion was strongly influenced by the development of the oil sector and related infrastructure. The construction of the road network provided access to previously forested areas, which led to settlement and agricultural expansion. As a result, historically, the oil extraction industry not only directly contributed to forest exploitation through pipeline development, but also indirectly accelerated deforestation by increasing accessibility.

Scale of the Issue

Timber is one of the main economic resources for people living near tropical forests, oftentimes harvested illegally. Illegal deforestation contributes to significant biodiversity loss, forest degradation, and millions lost in government taxes[5]. It also destabilizes the forest ecosystem and affects indigenous communities who rely on the forest for survival. It was found that indigenous people within Ecuador harvest illegal lumber at a significantly higher rate than their colonist counterparts, this is to do with the costs associated with obtaining legal logging permits[5].

Map showing deforestation in the Amazon, including Ecuador [14]

Weak forest governance also often aligns with broader illegal operations, such as drug trafficking and illegal mining industries[15].  These disturbed regions create access for further land conversion and transport corridors which facilitate illegal activities, further accelerating biodiversity loss beyond just the logging itself [15].

In Ecuador, at least 336 unique species are being exploited in the illegal logging industry to produce timber products [6]. Illegal logging not only removes tree species, but also fragments important forest habitats by clear-cutting in segments, as well as creating roads and transport areas for the lumber [16].  The reasons for such high rates of illegal logging are due to acute problems with the lawmaking and policy within the government, and not enough funds being allocated for forest management. [6]

Ecuador is ranked as a medium-high risk country for the proportion of illegal logging (25% - 70% of logging is illegal), along with other countries such as China, Indonesia, and Russia [17].  This illegal deforestation also contributes to climate change and soil erosion by removing large trees which act as significant carbon sinks within the ecosystem[18].

Drivers of Illegal Logging

Illegal logging in Ecuador is driven by a combination of economic, institutional and social factors. High global demand for timber products, combined with weak regulatory enforcement and economic pressures faced by rural communities, creates conditions that allow illegal logging activities to thrive.

American mahogany wood [19]

High Demand: One major driver is the high economic value of tropical timber species and the profitability of logging. International demand for wood products encourages the extraction of valuable species such as balsa and mahogany, which are often harvested illegally to avoid regulatory restrictions and associated costs [6]. The illegal behaviour is incentivised though the interconnected relationship between the high demand and the difficulty to obtain certifications. The lack of certifications allows rare species that would otherwise be protected to be harvested and sold at a competitive price [6]. In contrast, certified loggers have more constraints and financial obligations such as legal fees in order to maintain their certifications, further de-incentivizing the legal route.

Lack of Enforcement: Another important driver is weak governance and limited enforcement capacity. Studies have identified key gaps in forest policy implementation such as insufficient funding for forest monitoring as well as limited enforcement of environmental regulations, ultimately enabling illegal logging to occur [6]. These institutional weaknesses make it difficult for authorities to effectively monitor timber extraction and prevent illegal trade [20]. Without proper monitoring, there is no accountability for those who harvest or export timber illegally, allowing the continuation of their destructive behavior, without consequences.  

Remote village near Misahuallí River in Ecuador [21]

Economic Pressures & Incentives: Economic pressures also greatly contribute to illegal logging in Ecuador. Many communities living near forested areas are often quite remote and rely on timber harvesting as a source of income. With the lack of alternative economic opportunity, the people are driven to utilize the resources most accessible to them, though means most accessible to them [20]. However, obtaining legal logging permits can be expensive and complex administration-wise, which encourages individuals to participate in informal or illegal logging activities instead [5].

Finally, limited economic opportunities and poverty in rural regions further increase reliance on illegal resource extraction. In some cases, individuals affected by economic instability or displacement turn to illegal logging or other informal industries as a means of supporting themselves and their families financially [1].

Impacts

Indigenous Displacement

Loss of territorial control and land system degradation triggers cultural, social, and livelihood harm[1]. Due to illegal activities, this has led to over 315,000 people being displaced, the majority of whom are from Indigenous communities[1]. This forced displacement has resulted in the destruction of Indigenous ancestral territories, with marginalized groups being the most vulnerable, as studies show women, children, and LGBTQ+ groups represent 55% of displacement, with a 42% increase in gender-based violence between 2023 and 2024[1].

Habitat Degradation and Biodiversity Loss

Through illegal timber overexploitation, the Ecuadorian Amazon has greatly decreased forests, causing habitat degradation for wildlife and plant species. Research by Global Forest Watch (2025) estimates that from 2002 to 2024, Ecuador has lost 260 kha of humid primary forest, making up 26% of the total tree cover lost [22]. This has led to the loss of habitat for thousands of wildlife species, including umbrella and flagship species such as the jaguar, spectacled bear, harpy eagle, and several primate species that depend on intact forest ecosystems for survival [22]. As forest fragmentation increases, these species face shrinking territories, disrupted migration routes, and declining reproductive success [22].

Increased Poverty and Organized Crime

Mass overexploitation lacking policies and government control leading to those in poverty to seek income through illegal trade. With the economic crisis further exacerbated, the situation has caused 93% of informal jobs as 82% of displaced individuals prioritize access to food and shelter, especially during times of climate-related disasters such as the 2024 El Niño phenomenon, which destroyed homes and infrastructure across 23 provinces in Ecuador[1]. This has increased illegal work trades through mining, illegal logging, and trafficking in order to sustain livelihoods, as 52% of the population lives in multidimensional poverty [1].

Current Actions

Socio Bosque Program

In response to widespread deforestation and forest exploitation, Ecuador has introduced several initiatives and incentive-based approaches to promote conservation and sustainable forest management. One of the most significant policies is the Socio Bosque Program (PSB), introduced in 2008. The program provides direct economic incentives to landholders in exchange for voluntary agreements to protect native forests and other ecosystems [23].

PSB is based on a mechanism that offers direct monetary incentives per hectare to landowners through a voluntary agreement that is regularly monitored[23]. The program is focused on natural ecosystems that are privately owned, including land held by individual families as well as collectively owned land by Indigenous or peasant communities [23]. The Ministry of Environment of Ecuador (MAE) designed this program not only for environmental conservation, but also to alleviate poverty while supporting local communities [23]. PSB employs spatial targeting through a ranking system which takes into account three main criteria [23]:

  1. Deforestation threat
  2. Importance for three ecosystem services: carbon storage, water cycle regulation and habitat for biodiversity
  3. Poverty levels

This approach allows the program to prioritize areas with the most potential for environmental and social impacts. By targeting areas with high deforestation risk and vulnerable communities, PSB aims to address both ecological degradation and the underlying socio-economic drivers.

To achieve these goals, PSB uses a structured payment system that ties payments to hectares of land signed up for conservation. The payment scale is tiered, where per-hectare payments decline as larger areas are enrolled [23]. This structure suggests an attempt to make the program financially viable while balancing participation with the program’s ability to support conservation over a larger area. The contracts are also long-term, designed to ensure conservation over a 20-year period, with provision to renew after completion [23]. The agreements limit exploitation by prohibiting [23]:

  • Conversion of conservation area for other uses
  • Burning of conservation area
  • Logging

In 2008, despite the rise of strict regulations in Ecuador, illegal logging on private lands and protected areas continued [24]. Unlike approaches that rely on restrictions, PSB also uses financial incentives to encourage compliance and conservation. PSB ensured the agreements were implemented by monitoring through aerial photography, field visits and participant involvement[24].

In this way PSB works as a preventive remedial action that addresses underlying drivers of forest loss rather than relying on post-illegal logging punishment. By restricting timber extraction under monitored agreements and compensating landowners for conservation, the program helps improve conditions that contribute to illegal logging.

Path Forward

Combating Illegal Logging Through New Approaches

Introducing Lumber Tracking

Despite the success of current remedial actions, illegal logging still remains in Ecuador, especially in remote regions where enforcement is weak. Effectively tracking and monitoring tree species from initial harvest to export is an effective way to reduce illegal logging within Ecuador. There are multiple ways to trace timber, such as DNA methods, QR codes, and stable isotope ratios [25]. Regions of Europe have successfully established timber tracing since 2010, and African countries are recently implementing new methods with success [25]. These methods of tracking are especially useful in Ecuador, as the remoteness of the Amazon makes it easy to mix in illegally harvested lumber through road and river passages.

Through labelling each tree harvested with a unique QR code specific to the area harvested, it would become increasingly more difficult for illegally harvested timber to be mixed with legally harvested timber, or falsely labelled during transportation[25]. Although implementation of these methods across Ecuador's remote regions may involve high upfront technological costs, experts argue that the long-term environmental and economic benefits will outweigh the initial cost [26].

Involving Local and Indigenous Communities

A significant portion of illegal logging is due to local and indigenous communities' dependence on the income generated from logging, and they are often forced into the industry due to poverty [5].  By reducing these incentives and allowing different options for citizens, it will cause a greater shift than legal enforcement alone. Ecuador could allocate funding towards payment for ecosystem services, or allow these local citizens to act as park rangers to help protect the forest. By extending Ecuador's current Socio-Bosque program which already compensates landowners doing conservation, it represents an opportunity to implement  new ecosystem services payments for local citizens, and fund indigenous guardians. Indigenous guardians have been implemented successfully in many areas over the world, such as in Canada[27].  There is also evidence that payment for ecosystem services has created positive environmental and socioeconomic change, such as in the community managed forests of Nepal ​[28].

Indigenous citizens within the Amazon and Ecuador have already been found to contribute to positive environmental outcomes, research shows that indigenous titled land in Peru has lower deforestation rates than untitled indigenous land [29]. Furthermore, indigenous titled land has been found to act as significant carbon sinks. Indigenous managed land in the Amazon rainforest removed 340 million tonnes of C02 from the atmosphere between 2001 and 2021, while forests outside of indigenous titled land were found to be a net carbon source [29]. Further change in Ecuador can be created through economic alternatives, indigenous and local communities would play a significant role in the reduction of illegal logging within Ecuador. This would simultaneously create new jobs for the community while also preventing illegal logging and helping to improve the environment. Furthermore, donation-driven efforts in Peru have also shown promising results through recruiting local indigenous communities to act as park rangers within the Amazon Rainforest [30].

Refundable Environmental Deposits

Introducing refundable, environmental restoration bonds for logging companies, which are scaled by lumber yield and company size could reduce illegal logging. These bonds would be paid up-front by companies prior to obtaining a harvest permit within the forest, and would require that no illegal logging would be found, and if it was, they would lose their deposit on the bond [31].

This method of refundable restoration deposits has been used in countries such as Canada, for mining and logging [32]. The cost of the bond would have to be high enough that losing the deposit would cause a significant financial impact to the company, while also being affordable for smaller local companies. This is why the proposed idea would scale the cost with the size of the company as well as the size of the land claim. If illegal logging is found, funds allocated from the bond would be used for environmental restoration.

Together, these strategies will work together to combine technological monitoring, community-based environmental stewardship, and financial accountability to reduce the rate of illegal deforestation within Ecuador, as well as boost the economy and provide new jobs for citizens.

Conclusion

Illegal logging in Ecuador presents significant environmental, social, and economic challenges. Driven by high global demand for timber, weak regulatory enforcement and limited economic opportunities in rural regions, illegal timber extraction contributes to widespread forest degradation and biodiversity loss. Ecuador’s forests are some of the most biologically diverse in the world, yet they face high pressure from unsustainable logging practices.

The impacts of illegal logging extend beyond environmental damage. As forests are degraded, Indigenous communities experience displacement, loss of access to traditional lands and declining opportunities for livelihoods. Habitat destruction from logging also threatens many plant and animal species that depend on intact forest ecosystems. These impacts are perpetuated by economic instability and weak governance structures that further reinforce cycles of illegal resource extraction.

Efforts to address illegal logging in Ecuador have included initiatives such as forest certification systems, community-based forest management programs, and support from international organizations promoting sustainable forestry practices. Programs such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) aim to improve transparency in timber supply chains and encourage responsible forest management practices . However, long-term solutions will require stronger governance, improved enforcement of forest policies, and increased economic opportunities for communities living near forested regions.

Ultimately, reducing illegal logging in Ecuador will depend on coordinated efforts between governments, local communities and international organizations. Strengthening sustainable forest management and addressing the socioeconomic drivers of illegal logging are essential for protecting Ecuador’s forests while supporting the livelihoods of the people who depend on them.

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Ortiz-T P. (2025). Debates Indigenas: Empty Territories and Violated Rights: The Forced Displacement of Indigenous Communities in Ecuador.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Ebeling, J., & Yasué, M. (2009). The effectiveness of market-based conservation in the tropics: Forest certification in Ecuador and Bolivia. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 1145-1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.05.003
  3. ↑ Rivas, C.A., Guerrero-Casado, J. & Navarro-Cerillo, R.M. Deforestation and fragmentation trends of seasonal dry tropical forest in Ecuador: impact on conservation. For. Ecosyst. 8, 46 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40663-021-00329-5
  4. ↑ Lin, J.-C., Jun-Yen, L., & Wan-Yu, L. (2021). Risk Analysis of Regions with Suspicious Illegal Logging and Their Trade Flows. Sustainability, 13(6), 3549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063549
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Vasco, C., Torres, B., Pacheco, P., & Griess, V. (2017). The socioeconomic determinants of legal and illegal smallholder logging: Evidence from the Ecuadorian Amazon. Forest Policy and Economics, 78, 133–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.01.015
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Vizuete, D. D. C., Montoya, A. V. G., Velásquez, C. R. C., & Borz, S. A. (2023). A Critical Review on the Perspectives of the Forestry Sector in Ecuador. Land, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/land12010258
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Cuvi, N. (2025). The Environmental History of Ecuador. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Latin American History. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.013.1247
  8. ↑ Arabsalam. (2018). On the way to Taxopamba Waterfall [Photograph]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Taxopamba_Ecuador_1038.jp
  9. ↑ Ruff, S. R. (1984). [Cover photograph of agricultural workers in Ecuador] [Photograph]. Internet Archive. https://archive.org/download/CAT10847948/CAT10847948.pdf
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 Tapia-Armijos, M. F., Homeier, J., Espinosa, C. I., Leuschner, C., & Cruz, M. d. (2015). Deforestation and Forest Fragmentation in South Ecuador since the 1970s – Losing a Hotspot of Biodiversity. PLoS ONE, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133701.
  11. ↑ World Rainforest Movement. (2019, May 14). Ecuador: Stories of Dispossession and Deforestation Caused by the Extraction of Palm and Wood. Retrieved April 2026, from World Rainforest Movement: Supporting struggles for social justice in the forests: https://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin-articles/ecuador-stories-of-dispossession-and-deforestation-caused-by-the-extraction-of-palm-and-wood
  12. ↑ Southgate, D., Sierra, R., & Brown, L. (1991). The Causes of Tropical Deforestation in Ecuador: A Statistical Analysis. World Development, 1145-1151.
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 University of Cambridge. (n.d). Wimbí: A Black Community Under Threat. Retrieved April 2026, from University of Cambridge: Latin American Anti-racism in a 'Post-Racial' Age - LAPORA: https://www.lapora.sociology.cam.ac.uk/countries/ecuador/wimbi-black-community-under-threat
  14. ↑ Global Forest Watch. (2017). Map showing deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon [Map]. Mongabay. https://news.mongabay.com/2014/06/new-report-illegal-logging-keeps-militias-and-terrorist-groups-in-business/
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Global Analysis on Crimes against the Environment—Forest Crime. (2025, April). United Nations : Office on Drugs and Crime. //www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/forest-and-minerals-crime.html
  16. ↑ St-Laurent, M.-H., Dussault, C., Ferron, J., & Gagnon, R. (2009). Dissecting habitat loss and fragmentation effects following logging in boreal forest: Conservation perspectives from landscape simulations. Biological Conservation, 142(10), 2240–2249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.04.025
  17. ↑ Lin, J.-C., Jun-Yen, L., & Wan-Yu, L. (2021). Risk Analysis of Regions with Suspicious Illegal Logging and Their Trade Flows. Sustainability, 13(6), 3549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063549
  18. ↑ Maza-Maza, J., Rodríguez-Caballero, E., Rodríguez-Lozano, B., & Cantón, Y. (2025). Impact of deforestation on ecosystem functions of Ecuador’s tropical dry forest under different protection status. Trees, Forests and People, 22, 101032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2025.101032
  19. ↑ Zinger, P. (2004). American mahogany veneer (Swietenia macrophylla) [Photograph]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Amerikanisches_Mahagoni.jpg
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Monteros Altamirano, M. M. (2010). Sociedad civil y conflictos socioambientales por la tala ilegal de madera en el Parque Nacional Yasuní (Master 's thesis, Facultad Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, sede Ecuador). Repositorio digital FLACSO Andes. https://repositorio.flacsoandes.edu.ec/server/api/core/bitstreams/9c69efc7-2e6a-40f0-b3ef-57c15795b6b5/content
  21. ↑ Hubertl. (1985). Impressions of Misahuallí River [Photograph]. Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 University of Maryland and World Resources Institute. "Global Primary Forest Loss". Accessed through Global Forest Watch on 13/04/2026 from www.globalforestwatch.org.
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 de Koning, F., Aguiñaga, M., Bravo, M., Chiu, M., Lascano, M., Lozada, T., & Suarez, L. (2011). Bridging the gap between forest conservation and poverty alleviation: the Ecuadorian Socio Bosque program. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(5), 531-542, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.007.
  24. ↑ 24.0 24.1 Mohebalian, P. M., & Aguilar, F. X. (2016). Additionality and design of forest conservation programs: Insights from Ecuador's Socio Bosque Program. Forest Policy and Economics, 71, 103-114.
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 25.2 Tonouéwa, J. F. M. F., Biaou, S. S. H., Assèdé, E. S. P., Agossou, H., & Balagueman, R. O. (2024). Timber traceability, determining effective methods to combat illegal logging in Africa: A review. Trees, Forests and People, 18, 100709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2024.100709
  26. ↑ Reboredo, F. (2013). Socio-economic, environmental, and governance impacts of illegal logging. Environment Systems and Decisions, 33(2), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10669-013-9444-7
  27. ↑ Canada, E. and C. C. (2018, November 6). Indigenous Guardians. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-funding/indigenous-guardians.html
  28. ↑ Giri, Suja & Poudel, Anil & Khanal, Ashish & Pandey, Ronish & Paudel, Roshan & Khanal, Sugita. (2022). Understanding the payment for ecosystem services and associated challenges: Global practices and recommendation for Nepal. Multidisciplinary Reviews. 5. 1-7. 10.31893/multirev.2022017.
  29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 Veit, P., Gibbs, D., & Reytar, K. (2023). Indigenous Forests Are Some of the Amazon’s Last Carbon Sinks. https://www.wri.org/insights/amazon-carbon-sink-indigenous-forests
  30. ↑ Junglekeepers: Heart of the River. (2026). Mission. https://www.junglekeepers.org/
  31. ↑ Canada, E. and C. C. (2024, April 4). What is the Environmental Damages Fund. https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/environmental-funding/programs/environmental-damages-fund/about.html
  32. ↑ Ministry of Energy, M. and L. C. I. (2026, January 22). Reclamation securities for mines in B.C. - Province of British Columbia. Province of British Columbia. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/mineral-exploration-mining/permitting/mine-reclamation-securities


This conservation resource was created by Course:CONS200.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.ubc.ca/index.php?title=Course:CONS200/2026WT2/Illegal_logging_in_Ecuador:_Drivers,_impacts_and_potential_solutions&oldid=894140"