Gibson Guitars, maker of the iconic Les Paul electric guitar, is under investigation for violating a law that protects forests and workers in the US and around the world. Attacking the law — which  actually helps secure long-term supply of raw materials and level the playing field for US companies and workers — and its enforcement is crass self interest leavened with gross political manipulation.

The facts: On August 24, 2011, agents of the Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) executed a search warrant on Gibson Guitar’s facilities in Nashville and Memphis, Tennessee, seizing ebony and rosewood material, guitars, and guitar parts as evidence of suspected violations of the U.S. Lacey Act. The Lacey Act is a long-standing anti-trafficking statute that prohibits trade in illegally-sourced wildlife, plants and wood products from either the U.S. or other countries. Its 2008 amendments were passed under President George W. Bush with bipartisan support and a groundbreaking coalition of industry, labor, and environmental groups.

This is the second time that Gibson’s been the subject of action under this law — and the two cases are not even related. Gibson was raided in 2009 in connection with its import of ebony from Madagascar. Madagascar’s national parks, full of wildlife and trees found nowhere else on earth, have been invaded over the past few years by illegal loggers seeking rosewood and ebony. A network of corrupt timber barons controls this trade in Madagascar; the wood is sold onwards to Europe, China, and the United States. A researcher at the Missouri Botanical Gardens described Madagascar precious woods to the Wall Street Journal as “the equivalent of Africa’s blood diamonds.”

Click here for more of the facts on both actions against Gibson Guitars.

The spin: Even while apparently acknowledging that its actions were a violation of the Lacey Act, through statements like “This would have been legal if….” , Gibson has resorted to the argument that enforcement of the law is going to cost jobs and that “The Obama Justice Department wants us to just shut our doors and go away.” Gibson’s CEO has gone on the warpath on Fox News and radio programs.

The reality: Enforcing the Lacey Act is not undercutting US workers and hurting jobs — rather, it is ensuring their long-term survival. The law has been strongly supported by the US forest products industry precisely because global trade in illegal wood products dramatically undercuts US producers and the domestic wood products industry. The industry itself estimated that illegal trade did economic damage in the US to the tune of $1 billion annually in lowered prices and lost markets.

The media, amplifying Mr. Juskiewicz’s arguments, is stoking irrational fears by suggesting that the authorities “may be coming for you next.” But the Feds are not coming to seize Eric Clapton’s guitar, or your guitar. The government has always stated its intent to investigate and shut down networks of illegal smuggling and trade, not individuals. As Edward Grace, the deputy chief of the FWS’s office of law enforcement, is quoted in this week’s Economist: “As a matter of longstanding practice… investigators focus not on unknowing end consumers but on knowing actors transacting in larger volumes of product.”

Striking a sour note:  Music making and environmental protection not only can be harmonized, they must be harmonized if either effort is to succeed. Smart instrument makers know this and are already investing in efforts to support low-impact community forestry, replant endangered species, and use wood more efficiently rather than oppose and ridicule enforcement of laws like the Lacey Act that will be the only thing to keep their raw materials around in the long run.

This is a moment for musicians, builders and companies to ask, “Where is my wood coming from, and is it legal?” Creating transparency in global supply chains will help ensure the longevity of precious tonewoods for generations to come.  What would the world of music be like with no wood at all?

Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) is Indonesia's largest paper company and the fourth largest in the world. The clearing of rainforests and draining of peatlands in Indonesia has become a huge source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and it is largely driven by the pulp and paper industry.

It’s disappointing that Habitat for Humanity — a group I have a lot of admiration for — didn’t do its homework before partnering with Indonesia’s most destructive pulp and paper company, Asia Pulp and Paper.

Not only is Habitat getting used to fuel APP’s massive PR machine, but Habitat is soiling its own reputation and contradicting its values of integrity, upholding human rights, and addressing poverty by associating with a company that regularly bends the truth, undermines rights and grabs community land and livelihoods.

And this is not even to mention the immense negative impacts APP’s operations are having on Indonesia’s  forests, biodiversity and the climate. (The amount of carbon emissions resulting from APP’s operations is a subject the company has been thoroughly duplicitous about in the past — read our report in which we set the record straight about APP’s “hidden” emissions.)

From Scholastic and the Gucci Group to Office Depot and Staples, those companies that have looked into APP’s record and performance have seen fit to sever ties with the company. RAN urges Habitat for Humanity to research just who it’s dealing with in partnering with the likes of APP, and to find another partner that is consistent with its noble humanitarian mission.

Many extractive industry types are suggesting that adopting environmental reforms will stymie development and have called for the planned moratorium to be withdrawn. In addition to Indonesia’s political leadership, this “environment versus development” argument also places them squarely at odds with the facts. Contrary to companies like Asia Pulp and Paper’s claims that adopting environmental and social safeguards will hamper national development and job creation, an effective moratorium and REDD (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) scheme present an opportunity to jumpstart a new type of “low carbon” sustainable development that would be good for business, communities, and the environment.

The President’s decree on the moratorium is expected any day now. What gets included in the President’s decree — and, even more importantly, what gets done while the moratorium is in place to combat corruption and reform land use policy, decision-making processes, and community rights and tenure — is of critical importance.

The contents of the decree and what happens while the moratorium is in place should matter to a wide-range of businesses in the U.S. and elsewhere that have supply chain or financial links to commodities like pulp and paper and palm oil that are driving deforestation in Indonesia. An effective moratorium could help eliminate social and environmental controversy and create more certainty and supply sustainability. Whether it’s businesses that make and sell food, cosmetics, and household cleaners and thus rely on palm oil, or publishers, copy/printing paper manufacturers, and tissues and packaging companies that require pulp and paper, these firms should be supporting a robust moratorium and measures to adopt safeguards, reduce emissions, and undertake key reforms.

All of these businesses should be working with their Indonesian counterparts, as well as the U.S. and Indonesian governments, to support President Yudhoyono and the private sector and civil society voices advocating a moratorium that includes suspending further loss of Indonesia’s remaining natural forests (both secondary and primary) and peatlands (including those less than three meters deep), even in areas where licenses have been approved but conversion hasn’t yet taken place. And they should be reconsidering their business with pulp and paper and palm oil companies like Asia Pulp and Paper, APRIL, Duta Palma and P.T. Smart whose practices are at odds with this approach.

No matter the scope of the moratorium, the key for protecting the climate, for providing local livelihoods to Indonesians, and for achieving low-carbon development will be to realize the intent behind the moratorium by establishing baselines and monitoring mechanisms, identifying high carbon value areas both in concession areas and outside them, tackling corruption, and dealing with land tenure issues and policies. The private sector has a key role to play, both by giving business to suppliers that demonstrate low carbon and socially and environmentally responsible practices and by supporting the aspirations put forward this week by President Yudhoyono and Mr. Gore.

Kampar Peninsula: Photo Via Treehugger

Sinar Mas Group’s Asia Pulp and Paper (APP), Indonesia’s largest and most controversial logger, made another promise this week.

APP announced that one of the rainforest logging and conversion permits it controls (located in the globally significant peatland forests of the Sumatra’s Kampar Peninsula) will be re-licensed as a carbon conservation project.

However, given the lack local community or government involvement, the fact that the Industrial Timber Plantation license has yet to be reclassified as restoration or protected forest by government, and given the long timelines and lack of details associated with the deal, it remains to be seen if this is just another empty promise and public relations ploy by APP.

APP has a long history of broken commitments with communities, government, certification bodies, civil society and its customers.

Here’s my official statement:

The Kampar is among the deepest and most valuable peat forest ecosystems in the world. Not only does it provide carbon storage, it is customary land that supports the livelihoods of local communities and it serves as critical habitat for endangered Sumatran tigers and many other species. Although RAN hasn’t seen the details behind this announcement, it’s likely that the area in question should be illegal to clear in the first place. Any further development in this or other parts of the Kampar and neighboring peatlands and natural forests should certainly be subject to the moratorium on new licenses due to be adopted in January as part of the agreement on reducing deforestation and forest degradation between the Governments of Indonesia and Norway.
While we support the conservation of the Kampar, this project in no way makes up for the tremendous amount of damage that APP and its affiliates are having on communities rainforests and peatlands across Indonesia. This area represents a small proportion of the remaining natural forests and peatlands in their land bank and without action to protect other threatened areas in the Kampar and elsewhere, the area’s values could be lost and any emissions reductions rendered meaningless due to leakage.

APP’s conservation efforts are a drop in the bucket compared to the destruction that their standard business practices are causing across Indonesia. Under no circumstances should APP be praised or compensated for doing something that they should have been doing in the first place.

A critical question that needs to be answered in this situation, is whether or not local communities and governments know that this is happening and have a meaningful role in decision-making. If we don’t know that, it’s unclear where benefits will flow from this deal and how durable it will be. RAN maintains that if these types of conservation projects are to be successful, they must have the free, prior and informed consent of local communities and these communities must participate and receive an equitable share of the benefits.

What’s really good here is that the Ministry of Forests is stepping up to change the designation of this land use from “clear and convert” to “restore and protect.” If it’s done in the right way, involving communities and avoiding leakage, it could be an important precedent for Indonesia’s government.

If Indonesia is going to live up to their agreement with Norway, the government must re-designate licenses somehow and APP holds a lot of concessions with peat and natural forests. We urge the government to involve local communities, settle land claims and, as they appear to be doing with this agreement, and to reallocate all remaining undeveloped peatlands and natural forests to restoration/conservation areas.

Finally, this project is a great example of why, before they package carbon as a commodity, private carbon traders should adopt fundamental social and environmental safeguards and require their clients to verify that they’re not involved in the destruction of peatlands and natural forests across all their land holdings.

Thought the jury’s still out on how this project will land- given APP’s track record of deception, corruption and destruction- don’t hold your breath.

In a story that came out today about the detention of three Journalists by APP, it’s interesting to see how the threads of the palm oil and pulp and paper sectors – the leading drivers of forest destruction in Indonesia – weave together. It appears that the journalists detained were investigating and filming allegedly illegal natural forest conversion in sites proposed to become both monoculture oil palm and pulp and paper plantations. From these cleared forests, the fiber goes to Asian Pulp and Paper’s Lontar Papyrus paper mill, then it comes in the form of luxury brand paper shopping bags, toilet paper, copy paper and envelopes to a store near you.