Gibson Guitar Logging Bust Demonstrates Lacey Act’s Effectiveness

Illegal logging generates $10 to $15 billion annually in unregulated, untaxed funds, according to a recent World Bank report. Photo credit: Flickr/angela7dreams

On August 6, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that it reached a criminal enforcement agreement with Gibson Guitar Corp., resolving two investigations into allegations that Gibson violated the Lacey Act by purchasing and importing illegally harvested wood materials into the United States from Madagascar and India. Because this is the first major set of investigations to be publicly resolved under the new amendments to the Lacey Act, the agreement will help set precedents important to the U.S. and the global wood products industry. The announcement puts to rest nearly three years of investigation and speculation, and it has significant implications for future implementation of the Lacey Act and forest legality regulations across the world.

The Threat of Illegal Logging

The U.K. think tank Chatham House estimated in 2010 that rates of illegal wood harvesting worldwide have declined by almost one-quarter since 2000, thanks in large part to consumer-country policies such as the Lacey Act. However, illegal logging remains a significant threat to many of the world’s most biologically diverse forests. A recent World Bank report estimates that illegal logging generates $10 to $15 billion annually in unregulated, untaxed funds. The illegal trade robs developing countries of their national patrimony, undermines broader law enforcement efforts, harms legal companies’ efforts to compete in the market, and helps fund criminal gangs. As one of the world’s largest consumers of forest products, the United States is in a position to contribute to the solution by enforcing the Lacey Act and trading only in legally sourced products.

What is the Gibson Guitar Agreement?

The Department of Justice and Gibson Guitar agreed on significant facts related to Gibson’s purchase of ebony from Madagascar and established penalties. The company must:

  • Pay a penalty of $300,000.
  • Further pay a community service payment of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to be used “to promote the conservation, identification and propagation of protected tree species used in the musical instrument industry and the forests where those species are found.”
  • Implement a detailed compliance program designed to strengthen its compliance controls and procedures.
  • Relinquish its civil claims to wood seized by the Government during the course of the criminal investigation, including Madagascar ebony valued at $261,844.

The government will not pursue criminal charges against Gibson or its employees in the two cases (Madagascar and India), provided that Gibson fully carries out its obligations under the agreement and commits no future violations.

Importantly, Gibson accepted responsibility for its actions. The company acknowledged that it did not act on prior knowledge that legal ebony was difficult or impossible to source from Madagascar, that the investigation into the harvest and export of these woods “served important environmental and law enforcement objectives,” and that its duties under the amended Lacey Act include “reasonable corroboration of the circumstances” of the harvest and export of musical instrument parts from foreign countries.

The Agreement on Due Care

One of the most interesting parts of the agreement for other companies in the wood products industry is the section on Gibson’s Lacey Act Compliance Program, because it contains valuable information related to due care. “Due care” is a legal standard used in considering penalties under the Lacey Act, generally held to be “that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances” (more resources on due care are available here). Due care is meant to be flexible and company-specific, but many companies have been clamoring for additional clarity since the Lacey Act was amended. Gibson’s compliance program contains a number of details for other companies to consider when creating their own due care systems, such as:

  • Annual training for all purchasing staff
  • Communication with suppliers
  • Adherence to a detailed procurement checklist
  • Verification of foreign laws and licenses with in-country legal professionals and/or knowledgeable third parties (e.g., NGOs)
  • Going beyond the checklist by doing independent research to identify risky sources
  • Performance of risk assessment at the species level, using resources such as CITES, the IUCN Red List, national threatened/endangered species lists, and UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre data
  • Requesting sample documentation from suppliers to ensure that information provided is sufficient to satisfy Lacey Act requirements
  • Maintenance of records
  • Disciplinary action for staff who fail to follow policies on legal wood procurement

Gibson’s Lacey Act Compliance Program offers helpful pointers for companies working to strengthen their own due care programs in the hopes of avoiding the kinds of activities that landed Gibson in trouble.

Lessons Learned from the Gibson Agreement

The penalties imposed on Gibson demonstrate that demand-side forest legality policies can be effectively enforced by national governments, a message that should encourage policymakers in the European Union and Australia, who are currently working on similar legislation. It also shows that the U.S. government is serious about the Lacey Act as a means to protect the world’s forests from illegal exploitation.

The case offers a number of important lessons for companies, too. In the future, avoiding the legal and reputational headaches associated with a public Lacey Act violation will come down to careful use of due care. The references listed above are helpful, and a number of other organizations have compiled guides relevant in particular parts of the world or for certain industries. The Forest Legality Alliance, a project that works to achieve better forest governance by increasing the capacity of supply chains to deliver legal wood products, offers an online list of them.

The Forest Legality Alliance, of which WRI is a founding partner, has also created tools to help make compliance with the Lacey Act and similar policies easier for importers. These tools include the Risk Information Tool, the Lacey Customs Declaration Form Tool, and the Guide to Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-Based Products.

As the Gibson case powerfully illustrates, the Lacey Act has teeth. Now it’s up to companies to put policies in place that ensure their products are sourced legally.

For further information, contact Caitlin Clarke (cclarke@wri.org) or Adam Grant (agrant@wri.org).

3 Comments

Comments expressed on this page are opinions of the authors themselves, and not positions of the World Resources Institute or its partners. WRI reserves the right to remove any comments that it considers inappropriate or spam.

Dear Adam and Caitlin: Thanks

Dear Adam and Caitlin:

Thanks for the analysis and good work you both do. What needs to be pointed out here is the fact that what the Justice Department has outlined here is that Gibson needs to adhere to their own procurement policy which is what was included in the settlement. In fact, if they had adhered to their own policy and the professional advice that was given them by me and the MusicWood Coalition they would have saved a lot of money and we would probably not be discussing this right now.

Moreover, the procurement policy and compliance requirements set out in the settlement reflect the advancement of needed Due Care standards which is exactly what was accomplished in the Lacey Due Care Consensus Standard that WRI, EIA and other NGOs were invited to participate in designing. I and other forestry leaders in business would love to see the Forest Legality Alliance embrace solutions based approaches.

And yes the Lacey Act works which is what trips like the Madagascar trip were designed to promote - sustainabiliy and clarity of legal issues for forests products and forest dependent people.

Look forward to following up with you both and let me know if you have any questions.

Like many musicians, I'm

Like many musicians, I'm concerned about illegal timber harvesting and all its effects. If the Lacey Act is an effective force to reduce US consumption of illegally-sourced timber, and the Gibson agreement serves to make enforcement more effective and more transparent, that's a good thing.

I would ask interested parties such as the WRI, however, to use their advocacy toward a small, but important goal for musicians - the creation of a simple, transparent and low cost means of certifying instruments made prior to the passage of the Act. The lack of clarity regarding both CITES and the Lacey Act, the amount of paperwork required to comply (with no guarantee that the paperwork actually leads to compliance), and the severe and arbitrary penalties imposed - including seizure of an instrument without recourse - are having a chilling effect on musicians' ability to travel with their instruments and to buy instruments across national borders.

Thank you!

How much of the fine (or the

How much of the fine (or the payment to NFWF) goes back to Madagascar to compensate then for the illegal logging?

What happens to the confiscated wood? Increasing the fine by the value of the wood and allowing the company to keep it would (a) reduce the need for further (albeit legal) logging to replace the confiscated wood, and (b) provide additional funds for conservation efforts.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • No HTML tags allowed
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
This question is to verify that you are indeed an actual person, and not a spam-bot or other nuisance.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.