Paradox of development, where you need  more you have less capacity to carry it out...

This is a very good question . . . a mystery perhaps. I have noticed the very same phenomenon in the United States. Our wood products industries have died, while we are shipping unprocessed maple to China and elsewhere. We learn from transportation economics that it makes sense to process raw materials near their source if there is waste involved in the processing. So why do we see people violating the first principles of transportation economics? Does it have to do with taxation? What about regulation?

'Countries' do not add value. Entrepreneurs do within countries. 

Questions. Who owns the trees/forest(land)? What about access to global market of certified and/or value added wood products from low income countries to OECD countries with substantive purchasing power?

Although it is sometimes efficient to process raw materials near their source, it is sometimes also efficient to locate the processing factories near their markets.  In this sense, it is not easy to have more value-added factories in forest rich countries.  Another way of thinking is to shift focus from industry to tourism or even real estate.  Many tourists like to go to forest areas.  Many people also like to live close to forest.  Tourism and real estate can also create jobs and wealth for local people.

At the source or at the market, that is the question. The answer from theory depends on the shipping rate. If it is cheaper to ship the raw material than the finished goods per unit of output, then the processing location should be at the market. How can this happen if processing removes weight (waste)? Well, it could happen if the finished goods are delicate or perishable or bulky. What we normally expect is that it is cheaper to ship the finished goods than the raw material. As a result, the plant location at the raw material center seems optimal. 

Of course, there are other considerations such as taxation, regulation, or wage rates.

This is seemingly a simple question but answering the question requires a thorough understanding of the political economy of most African countries. Why businesses and entrepreneurship do not flourish in most African countries? A crude answer to the question is economic and political gangsters are blocking the way for entrepreneurs who could have added value to forest products and generated income and employment opportunities.

Thank you all for all your thoughts so far on this question including:  reversal of transport economics theory, the role of economic and political gangsters, role of regulations, taxation and wage rates, purchaing power of countries and the paradox of development. I will be happy to get more thoughts  from other professionals!! Thank you in advance.

In my opinion, I will largely attribute the slow pace to unfavourable policies that are tilted more toward preservation of these resources rather than exploiting them economically, and also the aspect of inadequacy of skills in the addition of value on these natural resources is another thing to battle with. Above all, there is the issue of wrong perception by most investors in African nations that forest resources do not give quick return to investments like oil and other mineral resources. I strongly feel that there should be a rethink in this particular aspect, and reorientation of the minds of investors in general. The public sector should also make favourable policies!