# CE2004088EN.01042701.xml

| 8.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 88/427 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 88/427

---

(2004/C 88 E/0433)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2667/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject:   Illegal timber trade (Indonesia) and the FLEGT

Subject:

In May 2003, the European Commission launched an action plan to combat illegal logging and the trade in illegal timber: the ‘Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (FLEGT).

This will seek to combat illegal logging and the trade in illegally harvested timber. Measures set out in this Plan include support for improved governance in wood-producing countries, voluntary partnerships with wood-producing countries to ensure only legally harvested timber enters the EU market, and efforts to develop international collaboration to combat the trade in illegally harvested timber.

Indonesia is home to 10 % of the world's remaining tropical forest and is experiencing an illegal logging crisis. More than 80 % of the logging in Indonesia is carried out in breach of the law. The EU is providing funding to Indonesia and is seeking signed agreement to help tackle the problem.

Despite this, Indonesian ramin continues to be traded illegally. Indonesian ramin is being illegally laundered through Malaysia — the only other country where ramin grows — and is continuing to reach the EU market. Seizures of illegal ramin have occurred in Italy and the UK.

Why has the European Commission delayed placing ramin on Annex Β (as requested by the Indonesian Government) and will the European Commission be placing ramin on Annex Β at the earliest possible opportunity, which will be the European Union CITES Committee meeting?

Does the Commission support the principle that legislation should be introduced to make it illegal to import illegally logged timber into the EU?

Does the Commission plan to propose co-decision legislation to support the Action Plan and thereby seek to impose stricter penalties for those who trade illegally logged timber and timber products into the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

(10 October 2003)

The Commission and Member States remain to be convinced that unilateral listing of ramin on Annex Β of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1) (which implements CITES in the Community) will be any more effective than the present régime, in which ramin is listed on Appendix III of CITES and the corresponding Annex C of the Regulation. Under the present provisions, importers of ramin must produce an export permit — if the consignment comes from Indonesia — or a certificate of origin from the exporting country if it originates elsewhere. The only additional requirement that would be obtained if ramin were listed on Annex B of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 would be that in addition to the export permit issued by the exporting country, an import permit would also be required from the relevant Member State. This would be of rather marginal value; encouraging customs administrations to better enforce the current provisions would probably be more effective.

1

Considerable effort has already been made at Union level to ensure enforcement of the current provisions and seizures have been made in Member States. In any case, since Malaysia has significant supplies of its own ramin, its views have to be taken into account before the Community considers additional measures concerning ramin. The Commission wrote to the Malaysian authorities in June 2003 and is now waiting for their reply. However, irrespective of what decision is finally made at Union level, the best approach would be for the Indonesian Government to seek an uplisting of ramin to CITES Appendix II at the 13th Conference of the Parties of CITES in October 2003. If successful, this would allow trade in ramin to be more closely regulated, not only with the Union, but worldwide.

The Commission supports the principle that the Union should not act as a market for illegally logged timber. In the FLEGT Action Plan (2) referred to in the question it is proposed that legislation be introduced to underpin voluntary agreements between the Community and third countries so as to prevent the importation of illegally harvested timber from such countries. A general ban on importation of illegally harvested timber raises a number of issues, hence the Commission proposes to examine this option in more detail and report back in 2004. In general, the Commission would favour multilateral rather than unilateral action.

2

In the FLEGT Action Plan the Commission proposed to introduce legislation to support the implementation of proposed voluntary FLEGT Partnership Agreements under Article 133 of the EC Treaty — on the basis that this would fall under the chapter on common commercial policy. Legislation under this Article is in generally not subject to co-decision.

---

(1)  OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 251 final.

2

---