VZCZCXRO3697
PP RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHVI #1821/01 3461249
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 111249Z DEC 08
FM AMEMBASSY VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1658
INFO RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHRC/USDA FAS WASHDC PRIORITY 1236
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 VIENNA 001821 
 
SIPDIS 
 
OES/ENRC FOR MARK JOHNSEN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD SENV EAGR BTIO AU
SUBJECT: AMENDED LACEY ACT Q GOA QUESTIONS WTO COMPLIANCE 
 
REF: STATE 126654 
 
¶1.  Embassy provided reftel information to contacts in the 
Ministry of Economy and Labor (MoEL) and the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Environment.  On December 10, Post received 
a written GOA reply -- on behalf of new Economics Minister 
Reinhold Mitterlehner and cleared with all relevant GOA 
agencies -- from MinEcon U.S. desk officer Charlotte 
Koeberl-Burian (PDF copy emailed to OES/Mark Johnsen). 
 
¶2. The GOA reply: 
-- calls into question the WTO compatibility of amended 
Lacey Act provisions, since they Qonly apply to imported 
goods and entail an asymmetric treatment of imported 
products and products sourced inside the U.S." 
-- terms new documentation requirements "onerous" 
-- asks that implementation be restricted to products more 
closely linked to timber (excluding for instance musical 
instruments) and 
-- asks for a comprehensive list of affected HTS numbers 
 
¶2.  BEGIN TEXT OF GOA REPLY: 
 
The Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor avails 
itself of the opportunity to bring to the attention of the 
United States the following concerns on the implementation 
of the revised Lacey Act provisions: 
Austria is supporting the U.S objective of the Lacey Act to 
combat trafficking in illegal wildlife, fish and plants and 
agrees that trade of illegally harvested plants, in 
particular illegal timber, should be reduced to a minimum. 
At the same time we are very concerned about various 
aspects of the envisaged U.S. measures: 
 
(a) Compatibility with WTO requirements 
 
The provisions of the amended Lacey Act only apply to 
imported goods and entail an asymmetric treatment of 
imported products and products sourced inside the U.S. 
They may therefore be inconsistent with WTO rules and we 
would be interested in further information regarding the 
provisions preventing domestic illegal logging activities. 
If US producers were not subject to equivalent obligations, 
foreign suppliers would be put at a disadvantage to US 
producers and WTO principles would be violated. 
 
(b) The scope of the revised Lacey Act provisions 
(Proportionality and legal certainty) 
 
The revised Lacey Act provisions impose onerous declaration 
requirements to products covering most of the chapters of 
the Harmonized Tariff Schedule. Given the increase in the 
cost of imports and the delays in trade flows that will 
follow from the declaration requirements, the measures 
should be limited to timber and timber products that have a 
clear and identifiable link to illegal logging. We consider 
that this link cannot be established in the case of the 
products that are to be phased in after September 30, 2009, 
for musical instruments (HTS chapter 92) and parts of the 
furniture chapter (HTS chapter 94). We suggest that the 
first phase should be limited to base wood products of HTS 
headings 4401 to 4407, as for these the difficulties to get 
the information required by the declaration would be least 
burdensome for the importers. To guarantee legal certainty 
for traders, an exhaustive list of the relevant HTS 
numbers should be provided for each phase. 
 
(c) Schedule for phasing-in 
--------------------------- 
 
Austria welcomes the introduction of a phased-in approach 
regarding the enforcement of the declaration requirements. 
We consider, however, that longer phase-in periods (at 
least nine months per phase) are necessary to ensure that 
importers have sufficient time to get accustomed to the new 
system and to provide the necessary information needed for 
the declaration. Business communities need clarity 
regarding the details of the system at the beginning of the 
phase-in. Austria understands that there is still quite 
some definition work to be done and implementation 
provisions to be decided on. We suppose that this goes also 
for the question, how an importer can or has to prove the 
correctness of his declaration and for the question, what 
constitutes a violation of the revised Lacey Act provisions 
that may entail civil or criminal charges or forfeiture. 
 
The Austrian Federal Ministry of Economics and Labor hopes 
that the US authorities will take into consideration the 
above concerns and will take a careful, measured approach, 
 
VIENNA 00001821  002 OF 002 
 
 
consistent with international obligations, towards 
implementation of the revised Lacey Act provisions. 
 
END TEXT OF GOA REPLY. 
 
GIRARD-DICARLO