Lacey Act Impact on Illegal Imports to U.S. 'Uncertain', Say Researchers

When the Lacey Act was amended in 2008 to regulate trade in illegal plants and plant-based products, expectations for the legislation's ability to deter and control illegal trade were high. But, six years later, what effect has the Lacey Act had?

Researchers from Chatham House in London, who have been studying the global illegal timber trade since 2006, sought to answer that question. Their answer, published in a report that also covered trade in four other large consumer countries, was that its effect is uncertain.

The decline in imports of high-risk timber-sector products into the U.S. since 2010 is real. If that's the only yardstick used to measure the efficacy of the Lacey Act, it might be said to be successful.

But, during the same period, the proportion of paper-sector products imported illegally has remained the same. Further muddying any conclusion, the types and sources of high-risk products coming into the country have shifted significantly, researchers said, with a growing proportion coming from China and comprised of more highly processed products such as furniture.

Complicating the Lacey Act's effect even more is that some companies do not understand what the legislation requires of them.

The Lacey Act principle of "due care," which holds companies accountable for the legality of timber products they import, has caused a "degree of concern and uncertainty among some members of the industry" because "no specific guidance is provided by the act on what constitutes 'due care,'" according to the report.

For example, if a shipment of FSC-certified wood comes in, does a company need to verify its legality in order to prove "due care?" The answer, in light of the high-profile Lacey Act case against the guitar maker Gibson, is yes: Chain-of-custody certification does not guarantee that a company has exercised due care, the report says.

To read the full report, click here.