[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63142-63145]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[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 
[email protected].

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; 
[email protected].

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.
     Restricting the importation of commodities grown on lands 
deforested either illegally or after a specific cut-off date;
     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);
     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;
     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
     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;
     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: 
https://files.wri.org/d8/s3fs-public/estimating-role-seven-commodities-agriculture-linked-deforestation.pdf. 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: wri.org/publication/estimating-the-role-of-seven- 
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