Notice2022-22541
Request for Stakeholder Input on Options for Combating International Deforestation Associated With Commodities
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
October 18, 2022
Issuing agencies
State Department
Abstract
Pursuant to an Executive Order on Strengthening the Nation's Forests, Communities, and Local Economies, the Department of State is seeking public feedback on options, including recommendations for proposed legislation, for a whole-of-government approach to combating international deforestation that includes: an analysis of the feasibility of limiting or removing specific commodities grown on lands deforested either illegally, or legally or illegally after December 31, 2020, from agricultural supply chains; and an analysis of the potential for public-private partnerships with major agricultural commodity buyers, traders, financial institutions, and other actors to voluntarily reduce or eliminate the purchase of such commodities and incentivize sourcing of sustainably produced agricultural commodities.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63142-63145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22541]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
[Public Notice: 11877]
Request for Stakeholder Input on Options for Combating
International Deforestation Associated With Commodities
ACTION: Notice of request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to an Executive Order on Strengthening the Nation's
Forests, Communities, and Local Economies, the Department of State is
seeking public feedback on options, including recommendations for
proposed legislation, for a whole-of-government approach to combating
international deforestation that includes: an analysis of the
feasibility of limiting or removing specific commodities grown on lands
deforested either illegally, or legally or illegally after December 31,
2020, from agricultural supply chains; and an analysis of the potential
for public-private partnerships with major agricultural commodity
buyers, traders, financial institutions, and other actors to
voluntarily reduce or eliminate the purchase of such commodities and
incentivize sourcing of sustainably produced agricultural commodities.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 2, 2022. Early
submissions are appreciated.
ADDRESSES: Send comments as a PDF or Word attachment in an email to
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8eccdcec7dacddbdcc9dcc1c7c6faeee1e8dbdcc9dccd86cfc7de"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c18393a332e392f283d283533320e1a151c2f283d2839723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Gallant, Sustainable
Landscapes Analyst, U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and
International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of Global
Change, (202) 256-1301; Christine Dragisic, Foreign Affairs Officer,
U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Office of Global Change;
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d1e3134303c2938133c29282f381d2e293c2938733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d390bfbabeb2a7b69db2a7a6a1b693a0a7b2a7b6fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under this Executive Order, the Secretary of
State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the
Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of
Homeland Security (through the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection), the Administrator of the Small Business Administration,
the Administrator of the United States Agency for International
Development, the United States Trade Representative, and the Special
Presidential Envoy for Climate, will submit a report to the President
within one year on the above topic.
The Executive Order also references the Biden Administration's
commitment to deliver, by 2030, on collective global goals to end
natural forest loss and to restore at least an additional 200 million
hectares of forests and other ecosystems, while showcasing new economic
models that reflect the services provided by critical ecosystems around
the world, as described in the Plan to Conserve Global Forests:
Critical Carbon Sinks. The plan recognizes that conserving and
restoring global forest and peatland ecosystems, particularly in the
Amazon, Congo Basin, and Southeast Asia, can provide significant global
greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, both by preventing the emissions
caused by deforestation and by increasing the amount of carbon dioxide
captured from the atmosphere and stored in soils and forest biomass.
The Administration is also committed to combating illegal logging and
stopping trade in illegally sourced wood products including through the
Lacey Act, and to addressing the related importation of commodities
sourced from recently deforested land.
In addition to any general input, the Department is interested in
responses to the questions posed below. The Department may use this
information to inform potential future actions including, but not
limited to, preparation of a report to the President addressing the
above topics. The Department welcomes any relevant comments, including
on related topics that may not be specifically mentioned but that a
commenter believes should be considered.
Respondent information. Please note the following information is
not required but will assist us in contextualizing responses. If
possible, in your submission, please include: institution name; and
type of institution (suggested responses might include U.S. government
agency; U.S. Congress; U.S. subnational government; foreign government;
U.S.-based soft commodity producer; foreign-based soft commodity
producer; U.S.-based soft commodity trader; foreign-based soft
commodity trader; U.S.-based soft commodity user; foreign-based soft
commodity user; U.S.-based retailer; foreign-based retailer; U.S.-based
financer; foreign-based financer; U.S.-based civil society
organization; foreign-based civil society organization; U.S.-based
academia; foreign-based academia; international organization; or
Other); for foreign-based entities, please specify country/ies in which
the institution is headquartered; if your organization engages with
commodities, please specify which commodity (cattle, oil palm, soy,
cocoa, coffee, wood fiber, rubber, and/or other)
Specific topics and questions: The Department is interested in any
information respondents believe would be useful in preparing a report
to the President corresponding to E.O. paragraph 3.b evaluating
options, including recommendations for proposed legislation, for a
whole-of-government approach to combating international deforestation.
In addition to general comments, the Department is interested in
respondents' answers to any or all of the questions listed below.
Please fully explain your answers and include additional reasoning,
context, and other information as appropriate.
Approach To Identifying Deforested Lands
1. Should the United States government apply tools within its
authorities to limit or remove specific commodities grown on illegally
deforested lands from agricultural supply chains? What are the
potential benefits or negative effects of this approach?
2. Should the United States government apply tools within its
authorities to limit or remove specific commodities grown on lands
deforested, legally or illegally, after a specific cut-off date (for
example December 31, 2020) from agricultural supply chains? What are
the potential benefits or negative effects of this approach?
3. For any approach to addressing commodities grown on deforested
land that focuses on lands deforested after a specific date, is
December 31, 2020 the
[[Page 63143]]
most appropriate date? Is another date more appropriate, and if yes,
what might that be and why?
4. For U.S.-based respondents: If trade in commodities grown on
lands deforested either illegally or, (legally or illegally) after
December 31, 2020 (and products containing those commodities) were
prohibited in the United States, what, if any, effect would that have
on your operations (e.g., demand for your product, costs, revenue,
supply chains, etc.)?
Approach To Addressing Deforestation Associated With Commodities
5. Which of the following approaches should the United States
federal government consider following in advancing efforts to limit or
remove specific commodities grown on deforested lands from agricultural
supply chains: (a) tax incentives; (b) expanded application of existing
regulations and authorities; (c) public procurement policy; (d)
enhanced transparency on deforestation and/or commodity flows; (e)
enhanced commodity traceability; (f) development of voluntary or
mandatory third party or federal standards or certification programs;
(g) partnerships with countries or subnational governments to address
commodity-driven deforestation; (h) public-private partnerships. For
each approach selected, please provide details on the most effective
potential measures that might be applied, and whether new legislation
or amendment of existing legislation would contribute to effective
measures. For approaches not selected, please specify why such an
approach is not recommended. If you believe that a modification of an
approach or a different approach that is not listed here would be more
effective, please describe. (Note throughout ``commodities'' may also
be read to apply to derivative products.)
6. Which of the following substantive approaches by the U.S.
federal government might be most effective in limiting or removing
specific commodities grown on deforested lands from agricultural supply
chains? For each approach selected, please provide details on the most
effective potential measures that might be applied. For approaches not
selected, please specify why such an approach is not recommended.
<bullet> Restricting the importation of commodities grown on lands
deforested either illegally or after a specific cut-off date;
<bullet> Requiring covered entities to conduct due care for
transparency and traceability to eliminate or minimize the risk that
commodities in agricultural supply chains, or the products produced
from such commodities, were grown on lands deforested either illegally
or after a specific cut-off date; (Please specify how such due
diligence might be conducted; whether audits of due care for
transparency and traceability by independent, recognized third parties
should be required; and if and how entitles would provide notice or
documentation);
<bullet> Requiring covered entities to have full traceability of
covered commodities. (Please specify the level of proposed traceability
[e.g., to the farm/forest/ranch, municipality, processing plant];
information that should be collected and retained at each point in the
supply chain; potential data sources, collection methods and retention
rules; potential costs and impacts on agricultural supply chains), and
how this might be verified by importers to assure compliance;
<bullet> Incentivizing the use of commodities produced in
jurisdictions (e.g., country, state or province) with low deforestation
rates, or disincentivizing the use of commodities produced in
jurisdictions with high deforestation rates; and
<bullet> Enhancing transparency around commodity flows and
deforestation to inform investors and importers. If recommending this
option, please elaborate how this could be done, benefits and
limitations;
<bullet> Phasing in substantial penalties for non-compliance with
any approach the federal government would take (including but not
limited to those listed above) to limit or remove specific commodities
grown on deforested lands from agricultural supply chains.
7. What substantive approaches by the private sector might be most
effective in limiting or removing specific commodities grown on
deforested lands from agricultural supply chains? For each approach,
please provide details on the most effective potential measures that
might be applied. Please specify if there are approaches not recommend
and why.
8. For corporate respondents: Several other governments have
adopted, or proposed, due care for traceability and transparency
requirements to address the risk of commodity-driven deforestation. Can
you provide any evidence on the cost of documenting traceability and
transparency, whether related to these requirements or voluntary
systems? If yes, can these costs be broken down by specific
commodities? Can you provide any evidence on the benefits to businesses
of documenting due care for, traceability and transparency, including
for specific commodities? If yes, can these benefits be quantified?
Please provide details.
Definitions
9. In defining deforestation, should a single definition of forests
be used? Or should ecosystem- or country-specific definitions be used,
for example the definition of a forest submitted by each country to the
FAO?
10. If a single definition of forests is used, which existing
definition is most applicable? E.g., FAO Global Forest Resource
Assessment 2020: ``Land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees
higher than 5 meters and a canopy cover of more than 10 percent, or
trees able to reach these thresholds in situ'' (plus explanatory
notes)? Other?
11. Which existing definition of deforestation is most applicable
or appropriate? E.g., FAO Global Forest Resource Assessment 2020: ``The
conversion of forest to other land use independently whether human-
induced or not.'' (plus explanatory notes) Others? How should illegal
deforestation be defined?
12. For any proposed definition of deforestation (other than
illegal deforestation), are there any exceptions that should be made
for certain types of deforestation?
Data and Information
13. In assessing the feasibility of addressing commodities produced
on land deforested illegally, how might legality be assessed? Which
global or regional data sets might be used to identify illegally
deforested lands? What process precedents exist for assessing national
legal frameworks to identify the legality, or illegality, of an action?
What are the benefits or limitations of such precedents and approaches?
Which actors might identify illegal deforestation, and through which
channels? Is this approach feasible given the diversity of legal
regimes?
14. In assessing the feasibility of addressing commodities produced
on land deforested after December 31, 2020, or another specific date,
which global or regional data sets might be used to identify lands
deforested before, or after, this date?
15. Would there be value in the United States making publicly
available a map or other dataset of lands worldwide assessed to be
deforested either illegally, or before a specific date? If yes, what
value would this provide to relevant stakeholders? How should such a
map, or dataset, be made publicly available?
16. Would there be value in the United States requiring some
[[Page 63144]]
declaration upon import of the location from which the commodity
derived?
Covered Commodities
17. Assessments have identified that around three-fifths of
deforestation worldwide is associated with seven commodities: cattle,
oil palm, soy, cocoa, coffee, wood fiber, and rubber,\1\ though
dynamics vary by country. Should the United States (1) address
deforestation associated with all soft commodities (those that are
grown, rather than extracted or mined); (2) address deforestation
associated with all soft commodities, but start with the seven listed
above, or (3) address deforestation associated with all soft
commodities, but start with a smaller subset of commodities, or
different commodities, or (4) only address deforestation associated
with a subset of soft commodities?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ World Resources Institute. (2020). Estimating the Role of
Seven Commodities in Agriculture-linked Deforestation: Oil Palm,
Soy, Cattle, Wood Fiber, Cocoa, Coffee, and Rubber. Retrieved from:
<a href="https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/estimating-role-seven-commodities-agriculture-linked-deforestation.pdf">https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/estimating-role-seven-commodities-agriculture-linked-deforestation.pdf</a>. See e.g. Goldman,
E., M.J. Weisse, N. Harris, and M. Schneider. 2020. ``Estimating the
Role of Seven Commodities in Agriculture-Linked Deforestation: Oil
Palm, Soy, Cattle, Wood Fiber, Cocoa, Coffee, and Rubber.''
Technical Note. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute. Available
online at: <a href="http://wri.org/publication/estimating-the-role-of-seven-">wri.org/publication/estimating-the-role-of-seven-</a>
commodities-in-agriculture-linked-deforestation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. For corporate respondents: Which harmonized tariff codes, if
any, associated with cattle, oil palm, soy, cocoa, coffee, wood fiber,
and rubber are associated with the commodities you import, or processed
goods you manufacture or trade?
Covered Entities
19. What entities should be covered by an approach the United
States takes to address global deforestation associated with
commodities? Please identify which of the following categories should
be covered, and explain why each category should or should not be
included: (a) direct importers; (b) commodity traders; (c) consumer
goods companies; (d) retailers; (e) financers of the above companies;
(f) other (please identify).
Prioritization of Resources
20. How could the United States most effectively address global
deforestation associated with commodities, using a finite set of
resources? Please explain.
(A) Focusing on the countries with the highest rates of
deforestation;
(B) Focusing on the countries with the highest volume, or value, of
soft commodities imported to the United States;
(C) Focusing on the tariff codes or industries associated with
commodities of greatest impact?
(D) Focusing on the countries with the highest risk for illegal
land clearing and deforestation based on a set of factors (i.e., level
of criminality/corruption; weak law enforcement; unclear land tenure/
land conflict)?
(E) Another approach to prioritizing resources?
21. Should countries be excluded or deemphasized if they: (a)
maintain forest cover above a specific threshold, (b) export soft
commodities to the United States below a specific threshold, and/or (c)
for another reason (current forest cover, etc.)? Should tariff codes by
excluded or deemphasized if they account for under a certain percent of
covered commodity imports? Should there be a de minimus exception to
any measure implemented? If yes to any of the above, please specify the
reason and the appropriate minimum threshold.
22. Should covered entities be excluded or deemphasized if they:
(a) import soft commodities to the United States below a specific
threshold or volume, (b) maintain integrity of intact natural forest
above a certain threshold, (c) import the covered commodities to the
United States below a specific threshold or volume, (d) have U.S.
revenue below a specific threshold, or (e) have global revenue below a
specific threshold? Should entities with revenue below a specific
threshold have simplified requirements, for example for due care for
traceability and transparency? If yes, please specify the reason and
the appropriate minimum threshold.
Monitoring and Traceability
23. Some approaches to address global deforestation associated with
commodities may entail traceability of commodities. In your experience,
for which of the following commodities is traceability from the farm/
forest/ranch level to the final product technically possible: cattle,
oil palm, soy, cocoa, coffee, wood fiber, and/or rubber? At what level
of precision and unit? Where it is possible, which systems are used,
and what is the cost per volume (e.g., ton)? Where traceability from
the farm to the finished product is not possible, at what level is
traceability feasible (e.g., municipality, processing plant, final
distributor, country), using which systems, and at what cost per
volume? Why is it not traceable to the farm/forest/ranch? What
standards/features of traceability systems are needed to help ensure a
high degree of compliance with the system? In your experience, is full
traceability from the farm to the finished product the only way to
ensure the commodities grown on deforested land or illegally deforested
land is removed from supply chains?
24. For corporate respondents: To what level can you currently
trace the commodities you use (e.g., from the farm/forest/ranch,
municipality, processing plant, country to where)? In five years time,
to what level could you trace the commodities you use? To which end
points? What is considered best practice in your industry regarding
traceability? What would be the cost implications of full traceability
from the farm/forest/ranch level to the finished product? Please feel
free to disaggregate by commodity.
Certification Schemes
25. A number of schemes or programs have been developed for
certifying the sustainability of agricultural commodities. These
include both voluntary standards (e.g., those developed by commodity-
specific roundtables, other industry groups, or non-governmental
organizations) as well as mandatory government compliance standards.
26. Which, if any, voluntary or compliance (e.g., government)
commodity certification systems currently includes within its
certification standard (a) illegal deforestation, or (b) deforestation
after a specific cut-off date?
27. Have voluntary or compliance certification schemes been
effective in reducing commodity-driven deforestation? Which ones?
28. What are the factors that contribute to the effectiveness of
these certification schemes in reducing deforestation, or create
obstacles that impede their effectiveness?
29. How can certification schemes be improved to ensure they are
effective in reducing commodity-driven deforestation?
Public Private Partnerships
30. A number of public-private partnerships to reduce deforestation
associated with commodities have been developed to promote
collaboration across sectors and leverage the relative strengths of
different actors.
31. Which partnerships been effective in reducing commodity-driven
deforestation? What are the factors that contribute to the
effectiveness of these public private partnerships, or present
obstacles that impede their effectiveness?
Resources
32. Do you recommend any further collection of evidence to verify
[[Page 63145]]
deforestation associated with commodities, globally or in specific
countries? Please specify if you believe this is an information gap or,
if this evidence exists, please provide detail on the source(s) of this
evidence (i.e., citations).
33. Do you recommend any further resources to assess the legal
frameworks related to deforestation and land use in specific countries,
or data sets of legally or illegally deforested lands? Please specify
if you believe this is an information gap or, if this evidence exists,
please provide detail on the source(s) of this evidence (i.e.,
citations).
34. Do you recommend any further resources related to the impacts
(economic, trade or markets, and otherwise) of deforestation associated
with commodities, globally or in specific contexts? Please specify if
you believe this is an information gap or, if this evidence exists,
please provide detail on the source(s) of this evidence (i.e.,
citations).
We welcome additional information related to addressing the link
between soft commodities and deforestation.
Christine Dragisic,
Branch Director, OES/EGC, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2022-22541 Filed 10-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-09-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on October 18, 2022.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.