WRITTEN QUESTION E-1539/02 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. Illegal timber imports.
Date: 2002-06-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, European convention, import, import restriction, international trade, protected species, protection of animal life, protection of plant life, sustainable development, wood product

C 192 E/6

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

Can the Commission explain the delay in forwarding to me the document that I requested?

Will the Commission now answer the question that I have put repeatedly and tell me whether the
document was forwarded to other Members of the European Parliament some time ago?

If that should be true, can the Commission explain why it is using delaying tactics of this nature in my
case and the extent to which those tactics comply with the principle of equal treatment of Members?

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.
(2) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 70.
(3) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 54.
(4) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 9.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2002)

to the
The Commission has been informed that
Honourable Member a copy of the letter referred to in his written question, following the closure of the
legal proceedings in Belgium and Italy.

the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has sent

The Commission has no information that would lead it to believe that delay tactics were employed in
sending the letter to the Honourable Member.

(2003/C 192 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1539/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(3 June 2002)

Subject: Illegal timber imports

Would the Commission clarify what provisions currently exist to prevent the import of illegal timber into
the EU?

Does the Commission intend to propose new legislation to prevent the import of illegal timber into the EU
(cid:1) and if so, does the Commission have a timetable for any new proposals?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

The only provisions preventing the import of illegally harvested timber into the Community currently in
force are those contained in the regulations implementing the ‘Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES)’. The provisions of CITES are implemented in the
Community by 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) and by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of
30 August 2001 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC)
No 338/97 (2). Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 provides for stricter rules than the Convention and
introduction into the Community of species listed in the Annexes is only allowed if the documents
required (import permits for species listed in Annexes A and B;
import notification and additional
documents for species listed in Annexes C and D) can be presented to the customs office at the point of
including Pericopsis elata (Assemala), Guaiacum officinale
introduction. A number of timber species,
(Lignum-vitae), Gonystylus macrophyllum (Ramin) and Swietenia macrophylla (Brazilian Mahogany) are
listed in these Annexes.

The Commission’s Communication to the Council and the Parliament (3) provided that the Community
would ‘develop a European Union action plan by end 2002 on forest law enforcement, governance and

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/7

trade (FLEGT) to combat illegal logging and associated illegal trade and to strengthen international co-
operation to address violations of forest law, and forest crime.’

The Commission has been working on this since September 2001, and in particular organised a workshop
in April 2002, to which a wide range of stakeholders and other interested parties were invited (experts
from the Member States, other main wood-producing and importing countries: China, Japan, United States,
Canada, Indonesia, Ghana, …; non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the forest industries). The
workshop produced consensus amongst those present on legality identification and verification of wood
production which could help lead to proposals for inter alia: a legality licence for import
to the
Community; due diligence for banks, Export Credit Agencies and other financing institutions; proper
procurement for public contracts and other matters pertaining to the legal procurement of wood products
into the Community.

Following the workshop, the Commission is now in the process of setting up the FLEGT action plan
covering all relevant aspects. The elaboration of programmes of co-operation with developing wood-
producing countries, with their agreement, will form an essential part of this plan.

The Commission will present the FLEGT action plan before the end of this year.
It should include
proposals for the introduction of new Community legislation which legitimately prohibits the import of
illegally-procured wood and wood products into the Community. The timetable for the introduction of
new legislation will depend on the support of all relevant stakeholders and interested parties; and in
particular the Parliament and the Member States in Council.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
(2) OJ L 250, 19.9.2001.
(3) COM(2002) 82 final.

(2003/C 192 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1610/02

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 May 2002)

Subject: Structural Fund payments

The latest budget review figures indicate that the implementation of and payments under Structural Fund
programmes in the current Agenda period have been progressing far too slowly. The slow programme
approval procedure can no longer be held to blame, given that outstanding commitments have risen in
May of this year to the equivalent of last year’s level.

Parliament will be placed in a strange position when it is called upon to give discharge to the Commission
in respect of the Structural Fund policy pursued notwithstanding the fact that the delays have in most
cases been caused by Member States and not by the Commission.

One problem now beginning to arise is that if payments pile up at the end this Agenda period, the annual
payment appropriation frameworks will not be sufficient. A further incipient problem lies in the n+2 rule,
which reduces regional policy funding for many Member States even though local and regional operators
are not to blame for the difficulties inherent in the complicated system.

What is the Commission doing to resolve the situation, which will soon become a political problem?
Could it give a clear and open account to Parliament and the Member States? Could structural policy be
simplified before the end of the current Structural Fund period to enable projects to be set genuinely in
motion?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2002)

A rapid increase in outstanding commitments (OCs) at the beginning of the year is not an indicator of the
rapidity of implementation of structural action. What happens is that the automatic commitment rule for