CITES and the Lacey Act

[Bob Connor]

Here's an interesting article in The Fretboard Journal about how CITES and the Lacey Act are supposed to work and how it is actually implemented.

http://www.fretboardjournal.com/feature ... ion-treaty

[charangohabsburg]

This article is somewhere between hilarious and shocking.

Reading this great article I learned I'd better never cross the border of the United States with an instrument containing dark brown wood with darker streaks, hard and heavy, having pleasant, faintly sweet or spicy odor. It might get confused by US customs officers with brazilian rosewood (Dalbergia nigra). US customs would confiscate the instrument and I had to prove they were wrong (sic!). Yes, that's US law. Here in Europe customs had to prove they were right, and I guess that in Australia and New Zealand it's the same as in Europe.

I strongly recommend to read the whole article: there's much more in it and it's more entertaining than any TV show and afterward you'll know something (some things) more.

Cheers,

[peter.coombe]

Yes I read this article. Moral of the story is don't even think of using any CITES listed wood in your instruments unless you are certain it will remain in Australia. That is not such a big problem but the other problem is that it seems to assume that we can predict what will happen into the future, and it appears to assume guilty until proven innocent. Now that makes people very nervous when the penalties are so massive, and the US F&W confuse pearl with a CITES listed species of abalone from South Africa that nobody uses for inlay, not even in South Africa. No wonder my US orders went stone dead after April 1st.

Another interesting read is Gibson's problems with Ebony

http://www.wsmv.com/news/26901107/detail.html

Peter

[J.F. Custom]

Hmmm.

Makes for interesting and somewhat alarming reading. Especially as you suggest Peter, in that we have to have foresight. Many exotics would fall into the potential future category such as most of the asian ebonies (Macassar etc) or any ebony for that matter, cocobolo, indian rosewood, possibly most dalbergias, african blackwood... How does this play out? If Mahogany gets an 'upgrade' in its category listing, I'd like to see how they pick it from the plethora of other species that resemble it. But then, the onus does not appear to be on them, but on us to prove it is not. Plywood looks like a decent future proof alternative at this rate.

Are we seriously relying on individuals with practically no timber experience, but a written "guide to cites materials" to judge as it passes briefly through customs in a given instrument? How many Australian timbers are US customs officials likely to be familiar with? What if they get pulled up because it "resembles" a CITES listed material? What a headache.

If a new species is listed now, does that mean in five years we are unable to transport a guitar built from it unless we can prove it the materials therein were obtained years ago? How many of you have kept the receipts for your timber purchases from the last fifteen years???

What about pre-CITES timbers? How difficult is it to prove pre-CITES material anyway? I am fortunate (at least I thought I was fortunate) to have purchased some Braz. Rosewood from an elderly woodworker. He purchased 1/4 cube of it more than thirty years ago in South Africa where he lived at the time. He carried it around in several moves until finally using it to make some heirloom gifts - very expensive Grandfather clocks, for his adult children here in Australia. I purchased the offcuts and scraps essentially. Is it now resigned to the "nice but not usable" because he is unlikely to have a 30+ year old receipt? What if I cut up an antique dresser such as some I've seen on ebay? It seems Brazilian Rosewood is just in the too hard basket now.

I just checked and there is this on Pre-CITES which may be of interest for some of you -

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodivers ... oducts.pdf

...but how difficult a process it is to obtain such a certificate remains to be seen. It appears, given the lack of a receipt, I would be reliant on a Stat. Dec. from him regarding it's age. Then what? Perhaps it is just whether they take his word for it or not. Of course, that is just the Australian documents; if it was going to travel into USA, I would have to apply for their approval as well. Or any other country with similar legislation. What is also unclear to me, is whether a Pre-CITES certificate will cover all the raw material applied for and its future use, or if a separate certificate is required every time a use a little piece of the same stock on an individual instrument.

It is particularly relevant to me currently as I just carved two classical style Tenor uke bridges from the BR today for two special ukes and am now disappointingly hesitant on using them. Very frustrating. Perhaps I need to put it to the back for another 30 years until the laws are reformed enough not to have this impact on small individual craftspeople.

Well, I know at least I ought to start keeping my receipts from now on.

Pity about the last 15 years of stock...

Jeremy.

[peter.coombe]

Yes well I think most of us don't keep receipts for 15 years. I think it is unreasonable for anyone to expect us to keep receipts for longer than that required for tax purposes which is 7 years. I am in a similar position. I have two big lumps and a smaller lump of Brazilian Rosewood, purchased 16 years ago. I was informed then that it was at least 15 years old when I purchased it, so that makes it over 30 years old. After Bob's comment about BR bridges giving a zing to the treble I thought it would be perfect for guitar bridges, there is enough wood there to make a lot of bridges, but am now having second thoughts. No way can I prove it was legally imported into Australia more than 30 years ago. In any case, it looks like as soon as you incorporate it into an instrument it is deemed to have been harvested at that time by the US F&WS and is therefore illegal. A customer travelling to the US could be in deep doo doo if I put a BR bridge on his guitar. Crazy system, but they are concerned about loop holes that unscrupulous people can drive a truck through. Better to close the loop holes and bugger the problem of legacy wood. That is too hard, ignore it. We are too small to worry about. Unforunately CITES is being abused by certain low life who forge CITES certificates and in the process make it more difficult for everyone.

Personally I think that CITES is not a major problem at the moment because there are really only 2 species we need to worry about and can avoid them, but the Lacey Act is because it is much more wide ranging and you need to be an expert in the law of every country you get wood from to be 100% certain it was legally logged. Gibson is in trouble because of this. They have 300,000 fingerboards that US F&W claim was illegally logged, but Gibson claim that they are legal according to the laws of the country of origin. At least Gibson are big enough to defend themselves. How do I know that the Tassie Oak from Bunnings has been legally logged? We assume it has been because it comes from Bunnings and we buy it legally, but how can you prove it? Ask for the logging permit and you would be laughed out of the store. The risk of getting caught with something you believe is legal, but US F&W claim is illegal is not zero and that is a risk US residents are very reluctant to take, and who can blame them, the penalties are huge. Hence sales to the USA stop stone dead, and US suppliers stop exporting for fear of being made bankrupt. The other crazy thing is that guitars being sent back to Martin and other US guitar companies for warrantee repairs are being confiscated at the border because of a lack of appropriate paperwork. Apparently an import permit takes at least 60 days, more often 90 days or even longer. If you send before the import permit is issued, then importing the guitar is illegal, even if it was manufactured in the USA. George Gruhn has stopped international sales because the Lacey Act requirements are too hard to comply with. How do you know what wood is in a vintage guitar, what the country of origin is for each piece, and what the weight of each individual piece is? That is what is required before the guitar can be legally exported or imported, even if it is 100 years old!

[aside]

g'day guys - first post here.

Wondering if anyone has successfully imported braz with a pre-CITES certificate? Was it painless? Any tips or advice would be much appreciated!

cheers.

[WaddyT]

A point on CITES. It really does not matter what certification you have, as once you start to change the shape or cut the wood, and make a guitar out of it, it's no longer valid certification. Some will argue with me, but the way it's written, no changes are allowed in the certified wood. You can legally own it, but you can't use it, except as an expensive club!

[kiwigeo]

You'd have alot less trouble getting a dead body into America than a piece of Brazilian Rosewood.

[WaddyT]

Only if it was legally harvested!

[peter.coombe]

Wondering if anyone has successfully imported braz with a pre-CITES certificate? Was it painless? Any tips or advice would be much appreciated

No, have not done it. Way too expensive and risky for me. All my BRW is pre CITES sourced domestically. As far as I can determine it should be theoretically possible, but you will definately need the pre-CITES certificate from the country of export, and you probably will also need an import permit and pay the fee. Note that forgery of CITES documents has been known to occur for BRW, and import permits can be refused.

Here is a useful link. You should contact the department before doing anything.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodivers ... mport.html

Peter

[aside]

thanks for the info - I'm guessing in practice it's painful but the theory according to that Govt website is straight up if the exporter has a legit pre-CITES certificate.

Not sure if I want the headache, will report back with any info.

cheers