WRITTEN QUESTION E-2667/03 by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Illegal timber trade (Indonesia) and the FLEGT.
Date: 2003-09-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Indonesia, forest conservation, forestry holding, illicit trade, import restriction, surveillance concerning imports, tropical forest, wood production

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/427

In its set of measures vis-à-vis the Turkish Cypriots of 30 April 2003 the Government of the Republic
announced several measures regarding relatives of missing and killed Turkish Cypriots (Appendix E). The
measures provide inter alia for access to information, meetings between relatives of missing persons and
Government officials, exploratory excavations of burial places, and arrangements for the establishment of a
DNA Bank. A list of 500 Turkish Cypriots whose cases have been submitted to the Committee of Missing
Persons was published by the Government of the Republic in Turkish Cypriot newspapers on 14 June
2003. The Commission has also learned that information concerning the fate of 201 missing Turkish
Cypriots was officially conveyed to the International Committee of
the Red Cross by Government
authorities.

(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

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.

Indonesian ramin continues to be traded illegally.

Indonesian ramin is being illegally
Despite this,
laundered through Malaysia (cid:1) the only other country where ramin grows (cid:1) 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 B (as requested by the Indonesian
Government) and will the European Commission be placing ramin on Annex B 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)

The Commission and Member States remain to be convinced that unilateral listing of ramin on Annex B 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 (cid:1)
if the consignment comes from Indonesia (cid:1) 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

C 88 E/428

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

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.

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.

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
(cid:1) 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.
(2) COM(2003) 251 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0434)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2674/03

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Application of the safeguard clause in respect of EU imports of tinned satsuma segments from

China

In its recent reply to my Question E-1646/03 (1), the Commission recognised the urgent nature of the
request that the safeguard clause be applied to tinned satsuma segments from China, and stated that it was
‘currently’ [actualmente] in receipt of a request from the Spanish Government, complete with all requisite
documentation.

Given that Spain requested the application of the clause at the beginning of June 2002, and that, in
November 2002, the Commission’s reply to my Question P-2956/02 (2) justified its inactivity by the fact
that the file submitted by the Spanish authorities was not rigorous enough, it appears to me that the sector
affected has a right to know the real reasons for the delay of over a year in dealing with this request.

In July 2003, the Commission used the term ‘currently’ [actualmente]. Will the Commission state on what
exact date the Spanish authorities forwarded adequate information as to the nature and scale of the
disruption being caused to sales, and the seriousness of the impact this is having on the Community
producers affected, as demanded by WTO rules?

(1) See page 363.
(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 55.