Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

The U.S. Lacey Act_ Overview and Recent Developments - Forest


									The U.S. Lacey Act:
Overview and Recent

Caitlin Clarke
World Resources Institute
Washington, DC
Outcomes of Presentation
• Review of the Lacey Act
• What Lacey means for trade
• The Forest Legality Alliance
The Lacey Act Amendments of 2008
• Fact-based, demand-side policy
• No trade in illegally sourced
  forest products
• No entry without declaration
• No false claims
Source: Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, Section 8204. Prevention of Illegal
Logging Practices. 16 U.S.C. § 3372 (a).                                                 Representative John F. Lacey (R-IA)
Important Lacey Act facts
• The import ban on illegal goods is effective now
  and for all products. Phase-in schedule concerns
  only the declaration requirement.
• There are no documents or processes that can be
  used as “get-out-of-jail free” cards. Only actual
  legality counts.
• The entire supply chain is at risk for prosecution,
  not just importers.
Two necessary components of a
Lacey Act violation
1. An underlying violation of a state, foreign, or
   tribal law that protects or manages plants
   and/or derivative products occurs.
2. The tainted good obtained through violation
   of such a law is traded in the United States.
   The Lacey Act regulates trade, not logging.
Declaration requirement
• Requires scientific species name,
  country of harvest, volume, and
• Does not require information on
  legality or “chain of custody”
• Does not establish standards or
  require verification by
  government or a third party
Outcomes of Presentation
• Review of the Lacey Act
• What Lacey means for trade
• The Forest Legality Alliance
Public enforcement actions to date
• Gibson Guitar Corp., famed U.S. musical
instruments manufacturer
• Raided Nov. 2009 as part of an investigation
into the use of illegally logged wood from
• Major shock to U.S. wood products industry
• Investigation ongoing; current developments
not yet public

• U.S. Dept. of the Interior v. Three Pallets of Tropical Hardwood, a small business case in
which the U.S. seized a shipment of imported hardwoods from Peru
• Found that importer “did not do all he could within his power to comply with regulations
and ensure that the shipment was authorized” – in essence, a failure of “due care”
U.S. private sector response to Lacey
• The Lacey Act has reshaped the U.S. wood products industry
  and exporters’ business practices
• The industry generally supports the intent of the Act but has
  concerns about its implementation
• Awareness of the Lacey Act is high, and has been moving up
  the supply chain from importers to retailers of forest products
• Concerns about complying with the Lacey Act focus on
  understanding “due care,” rather than on completing new
Perspectives from the trade
“Three years ago, only a few              “Our association wants to avoid illegal
companies were concerned about            logging and market our products in the
[illegal logging]. And now, everyone      U.S., and for us, working with the
who is serious about exporting to the     Lacey Act is not a problem.”
U.S. or the EU is.” – Intermediary        – Exporter

“I would want to know the list of         “The risk assessment tools, and a
questions I need to ask back through      definition of what ‘due care’ looks
the supply chain so that I can sleep at   like, that is needed, and that would
night and know that I am fine.”           make things easier.”
 – Intermediary                           – Importer/Retailer
New technologies for tracking
supply chains
•   Enhanced timber barcode tracking
•   DNA analysis, mapping and tracking
•   Satellite analysis of land cover change
•   Trade databases
•   Fiber analysis
•   Isotopic analysis, mapping and tracking
Lacey and EU Timber Regulation
• Laws differ in approach
• In EU, “first placer” liable for legality of wood products;
  under U.S. Lacey Act, entire supply chain may be
• As exporters, know that both systems require legality only
• Buyers may require additional assurances, but no third-
  party schemes are recognized by U.S. government as proof
  of legal origin
Outcomes of Presentation
• Review of the Lacey Act
• Current developments
• What Lacey means for trade
• The Forest Legality Alliance
The Forest Legality Alliance: Context
• Information gaps on demand and supply sides
• Move from voluntary to mandatory: the need to mainstream
  legality, risk considerations
• Assist both U.S.-based and overseas forest products industries
  and stakeholders in adapting to legislation
• Access to ALL information is key
• Need for targeted U.S.-based information for legality
• Not an official U.S. government voice
The Forest Legality Alliance
Background and goals                       Activities
• A clearinghouse for disseminating        • Build awareness of forest legality
  information and resources                  issues and support supply chain
• Legality-only focused                      efforts to deliver legal wood and
   • No auditing, certification or           paper products
       verification of membership          • Develop tools to help all parts of
• A creator of appropriate tools to fill     supply chains
  risk assessment and policy               • Conduct feasibility demonstration
  knowledge gaps                             studies
• A platform for consensus and
• Nine major companies and
associations in Industry Advisory
• General membership open to
companies, associations, NGOs,
technical service providers,
certain government entities,
other stakeholders
• Provide guidance on tools
• Access to policymakers in U.S.
government, peers in industry
Tools – Information to markets
Global focus
    The Forest Legality Alliance

                              Thank You
               Caitlin Clarke –

This presentation is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the
United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the responsibility
of the Forest Legality Alliance and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United
States Government.

To top