This document summarizes a student's research on the Lacey Act and its implications for the forest products industry. The research objectives are to understand how the industry views and complies with the Lacey Act, and to identify any communication issues. A preliminary survey found that most respondents believe illegal logging should be stopped but that the Lacey Act will not affect it or benefit the US. Respondents also felt the 2008 amendments were unnecessary and inadequately communicated. Further research includes interviews and expanding the sample size.

1. The Lacey Act and its Implications
for the Forest Products Industry
Ashlee Tibbets
Oregon State University

2. General Introduction
• What is illegal logging?
• Why should we care?
• How has it impacted the United States?
• What has been done globally?
• What has the United States done?
2

3. General Introduction
“Illegal logging, associated trade and corruption
increase environmental degradation, biodiversity
loss, and deforestation and hence climate systems.
Illegal logging also damages the livelihoods in the
poorest countries, causes loss of revenues to
governments, distorts markets and trade and
sustains conflicts.”
-Leaders of world’s largest consumer
countries (EIA 2007)
3

4. Roadmap of this presentation
Research Objectives
Illegal Logging
Lacey Act
Preliminary Results
Plans for the Future
4

5. Research Objectives: Primary
Understand how the forest products wholesale
industry is working with and responding to the
Lacey Act.
5

6. Research Objectives: Secondary
Enhance understanding regarding how forest
products wholesalers in the U.S. view and comply
with the Lacey Act
Enhance understanding regarding how managers
see the present and future implications of the
Lacey Act.
Unveil possible communication shortcomings
between the U.S. government and companies
6

7. Illegal Logging backdrop
Illegal deforestation and forest degradation
contributes: (INECE 2010)
 1/5 GHG emissions
 Habitat destruction
 Biodiversity loss
 Billions of dollars of government revenue
7

8. Illegal Logging backdrop
Export-oriented illegal logging
Does not benefit communities or
governments who should be benefiting (EIA
2007)
Estimated $15 billion annual loss to
developing countries (World Bank 2006)
Supply and Demand
8

9. Lacey Act: Inclusion of plants
1900
Originally intended to protect the interests of
agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife
or the wildlife resources of the U.S. (FWS 2009)
In 2008, the terms “plant” and “plant product”
were added to the protected species list
Excludes common food crops and scientific specimens
of plant material (e.g. genetic alterations)
9

10. Lacey Act: Enforcement
4 government bodies
Fish and Wildlife Service
Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
U.S. Customs
Homeland Security
10

11. Lacey Act: U.S. Forest Products
Industry
1. Prohibits trade in illegally sourced material
2. Requires documentation
- Country of origin
- Species name
- Quantity and value
3. Establishes penalties
- Forfeiture of goods
- Fines
- Jail
11

12. Lacey Act: Illegality and Due Care
Illegalities Due Diligence
• Theft of plants Intended to encourage log
• Taking plants from buyers to ask questions of
protected areas their suppliers in order to
• Taking plants without reinforce the idea that the U.S.
authorization is no longer interested in
buying illegally sourced wood
• Failure to pay products.
royalties/taxes associated
• Disregard export laws (such
as log-export bans) Different due diligence
program for every company
12

13. Research Methods
• Online questionnaire was sent to members of
the Portland Wholesale Lumber Association
(PWLA) and the North American Wholesale
Lumber Association (NAWLA).
• Over 500 questionnaire were sent
– 80 bad emails
– Total questionnaires returned: 35
13

14. Preliminary Results
Lacey basics
Where do respondents go with questions?
Due diligence practices
Global perspective
Communication
14

15. Preliminary Results
Lacey basics
Where do respondents go with questions?
Due diligence practices
Global perspective
Communication
15

16. Preliminary Results: Lacey Basics
70% well-versed in environmental policy
20% well-versed in the Lacey Act
-Respondents failed the knowledge questions
Could indicate
• Inadequately communicated
• Respondent was not the Lacey expert
16

17. Preliminary Results
Lacey basics
Where do respondents go with questions?
Due diligence practices
Global perspective
Communication
17

18. Preliminary Results: Questions
20% use official government resources
Others include: international shipping agencies,
personal contacts, internet searches
Could indicate
• Subpar usability of websites
• Business aren’t aware of resources
18

19. Preliminary Results
Lacey basics
Where do respondents go with questions?
Due diligence practices
Global perspective
19

20. Preliminary Results: Due Diligence
Variety of answers
-honest middlemen
-visit country of origin
-personal resources
Compliance does not equal competitiveness
Could indicate
• How to market compliance
• General public doesn’t appreciate compliance
20

21. Preliminary Results
Lacey basics
Where do respondents go with questions?
Due diligence practices
Global perspective
Communication
21

22. Preliminary Results: Global
81% “steps should be taken to stop illegal
logging”
88% “compliance with the Lacey Act will not
affect illegal logging”
Could indicate
•Misunderstand the Lacey Act
•Lacey Act is missing a key element
22

23. Preliminary Results: Global
60% “compliance with the Lacey Act will not be
beneficial for the United States”
66% “the 2008 amendments were unnecessary”
100% “the amendments were inadequately
communicated to them”
Could indicate
•Policy makers need a better communication system
•Education
23

24. Further Research
Personal interviews with respondents who
indicated they are interested
Increase sample size
24

25. Thank you!
Chris Knowles: Academic advisor
Anne Middleton: Environmental Investigations
Agency
OSU Forest Business Solutions group: Sanity
Questions?
Ashlee.Tibbets@oregonstate.edu
25