NORWAY KEENLY INTERESTED IN THE LACEY ACT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 OSLO 000647

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/04/2018
TAGS: SENV EAID EAGR ETRD EINV BTIO NO
SUBJECT: NORWAY KEENLY INTERESTED IN THE LACEY ACT

REF: STATE 126654

Classified By: Political Counselor Kristen Bauer for reasons 1.4(b) and
(d)


1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The Norwegian government has showed keen
interest in the Lacey Act's impact on tropical timber issues.
Embassy Oslo arranged a thorough presentation to the Deputy
Minister of Environment, NGOs, and other government
officials, which generated spirited discussion. An EU
representative also presented the EU's approach at the
meeting. Norway may not follow the Lacey model, but public
pressure will guarantee some kind of Norwegian legislation.
The Lacey Act was an opportunity to present a clearly
positive story on a USG environmental initiative. Post would
recommend active outreach to Ministries of Environment in
other capitals. End Summary.

"WHY AREN'T WE DOING WHAT THE AMERICANS ARE?"
--------------


2. (SBU) Months before reftel demarche, in July, the Embassy
was contacted by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) to obtain
information on the recent amendments to the Lacey Act, as the
MOE was determining how to respond to public and NGO
pressure. Some of that pressure was expressed as, "Why isn't
Norway doing what the US is doing?" The Embassy furnished
various factsheets, links and websites, coordinating with OES
in Washington. Shortly thereafter, the MOE suggested that
the Embassy participate in a seminar on the issue. On
November 24, a three-hour "Tropical Timber Seminar" was held
at the MOE, chaired by Deputy Minister Heidi Sorensen, and
attended by various GON officials, NGO representatives, and
export industry representatives.


3. (SBU) Poloff presented a thirty-minute powerpoint adapted
from the one available on the www.usda.aphis.gov website, and
circulated the Q&A's also posted there. The EU also
presented for 20 minutes on their FLECT plan. NGO and legal
representatives were allowed to give brief presentations, and
then two hours of discussion and questions ensued.


4. (SBU) Poloff emphasized that the Lacey Act is directed at
changing incentives for importers in the United States by
imposing a new liability. The law would thus work not through
comprehensive inspections, but through a chilling effect on
irresponsible sourcing. The EU representative emphasized the
EU proposal's focus on required systems of due diligence,
rather than liability for actual shipments. The Rainforest
Foundation pointed out that timber certification schemes are
often circumvented.

WORRIES ABOUT THE LEGAL/POLITICAL INTERFACE;
ADMIRATION FOR OUR TOUGHNESS
--------------


5. (C) Several Norwegian government participants questioned
how US courts would deal with the issue of interpreting
foreign law, and how we would deal with foreign legal and
government authorities that might disagree with or be angered
by US interpretations or judgments. Some participants
expressed worries that implementation of the Lacey Act could
cause bilateral tension. Poloff emphasized that the DOJ
could choose its prosecutions carefully, going after the most
egregious violators first. Most participants openly
expressed admiration for the US's tough stance on this issue,
while hedging about whether our approach was appropriate for
Norway. The EU's FLECT plan was generally well-received, but
there were concerns about effectiveness, given the endemic
corruption and unreliable documents of some timber-exporting
countries.

"WE HAVE TO BE PERCEIVED TO BE DOING SOMETHING"
-------------- --


6. (C) In response to reftel, poloff also briefed Dagfinn
Sorli, the MFA WTO section chief on December 3. Sorli
listened with rapt attention. Although he admired the plan,
he commented that, "the tricky part is figuring out what is
'illegal,' isn't it?" Sorli said there was immense eagerness
among Norwegian environmentalists to act, but the roadblocks
to effective action were a lack of accepted standards and
reliable systems of certification. The government last year
presented an "action plan" which said that public buildings
in Norway should avoid using any tropical timber. While only
a "political" document, Sorli said that he would have
"screamed and yelled" if it had been shown to his office
beforehand, because a blanket prohibition without any legal
or scientific basis was against WTO rules. Brazil protested
the government's statement. Sorli wryly commented that,
"it's vital, you understand, for our government to be
perceived to be doing something."


OSLO 00000647 002 OF 002



7. (C) Comment: The Lacey Act presented an unusual
opportunity for the USG to be seen to be ahead of the GON on
an environmental issue of significant interest to the
Norwegian public and NGO community. Norwegian authorities
are unlikely to prefer the US approach because it is
confrontational. Post would not be surprised if Norway
ultimately subscribes to whatever scheme the EU chooses to
legislate. Nevertheless, admiration of the US on this
substantive environmental issue has been and will be helpful
in our discussions on other environmental issues. Other
Embassies may find that active outreach on the Lacey Act
amendments can pay dividends. End comment.
WHITNEY