WRITTEN QUESTION E-3458/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The final destruction of tropical rainforests and measures to prevent overlogging and imports of timber without an ecolabel.
Date: 2003-11-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: deforestation, eco-label, environmental policy, forestry holding, import (EU), sustainable development, sustainable forest management, tropical forest, tropical wood

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/287

As pointed out above, payments for fishermen affected by the permanent cessation of vessel activities are
only eligible for aid from the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG) under the conditions laid
down in Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999, i.e. under fishing activity reduction programmes. At
the present time they do not qualify for the special measures under Council Regulation (EC) No 2561/
2001 (2) either, but an amendment of that Regulation is currently being discussed by the Council and it is
possible that some provisions may be changed and become more advantageous for them.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2792/1999 of 17 December 1999 laying down the detailed rules and arrangements

regarding Community structural assistance in the fisheries sector, OJ L 337, 30.12.1999.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2561/2001 of 17 December 2001 aiming to promote the conversion of fishing vessels
and of fishermen that were, up to 1999, dependent on the fishing agreement with Morocco, OJ L 344, 28.12.2001.

(2004/C 78 E/0287)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3458/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject: The final destruction of tropical rainforests and measures to prevent overlogging and imports of

timber without an ecolabel

1.
Is the Commission aware that in recent years the destruction of tropical rainforests in Brazil, central
Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia as a result of fires and clear-cut logging has speeded up very considerably
and that the laws enacted in those countries to protect rainforests are repeatedly circumvented by powerful
corporations or army units which have an interest in timber exports and in gaining possession of
deforested land for other purposes?

Does the Commission realise that Europe will also feel the impact of the climate change partly

2.
caused by this deforestation, so that Europe has a stake in bringing overlogging to an end?

3.
Does the Commission recall that efforts have been made to ensure the availability of tropical
hardwoods by means of planned logging combined with replanting; the timber produced is given an
ecolabel, the aim being to ensure that tropical rainforests and these types of timber will continue to exist
and be available in the future?

4.
Is the Commission aware that, according to Greenpeace, a major proportion (i.e. 50-80 %) of the
tropical hardwood currently imported into the EU has no ecolabel and is thus in all likelihood the product
of overlogging and that most firms which import tropical hardwoods into the EU are not able or willing to
end this practice as long as their competitors continue to flout statutory import bans?

5. Why has the EU market not already been completely closed to tropical hardwoods without an
ecolabel?

Is the Commission prepared to take measures in the immediate future in order to prevent further

6.
imports into the EU of tropical hardwoods with no ecolabel?

Source: Nederland 1 television station, Netwerk, 10 November 2003.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The Commission is aware of current deforestation trends in tropical forest areas and agrees that the

1.
reasons for such deforestation include those mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The impact of such rapid deforestation on climate change is a serious concern for Europe, though

2.
not the only concern (cid:1) biodiversity loss being another serious consequence.

C 78 E/288

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Commission has promoted the conservation and sustainable management of forests through
3.
development co-operation programmes for a number of years, including projects in the countries and
regions mentioned by the Honourable Member. It has, since 1992, managed a budget line specifically
aimed at tropical forests and forests in developing countries. The Commission also participates together
with Member States in global processes aimed at promoting sustainable forest management such as the
United Nations (UN) Forum on Forests and the International Tropical Timber Organisation.

4.
The Commission considers that the estimate of the proportion of tropical hardwood entering the
Union market without an eco-label may well be correct. There is, however, no statutory ban on the
importation of tropical hardwood (with or without ecolabel) as the question suggests, other than the
current ban on the importation of Liberian timber resulting from UN Security Council Resolution 1478/
2003.

The Community market has not been closed to tropical hardwoods without an eco-label for various

5.
reasons, amongst them:

(cid:1) there has been no global

intergovernmental agreement on the definition of sustainable forest

management (cid:1) so the technical basis for such a ban would be disputed;

(cid:1) the Commission considers existing ecolabel schemes used to identify forest produce from sustainably
as voluntary market-based instruments which provide

certification)

managed forests
information to the consumer, not as a basis for trade bans;

(forest

(cid:1) tropical countries argue that the complexity of natural tropical forests makes it more difficult to certify
such forests compared to temperate forests with a limited number of species (cid:1) hence such a ban
could be considered discriminatory from this perspective;

(cid:1) a ban which only applied to tropical hardwoods would be discriminatory (cid:1) for it not to be so, it
would need to be applied to imports from all countries ie. including temperate and boreal countries.

6.
The Commission does not intend to take measures to prevent imports into the Union of tropical
hardwoods with no eco-label. Its approach is rather to encourage demand for forest products labelled as
being from sustainably managed forests through a voluntary approach, as stated in the Sixth Environment
Action Programme (1). The Commission has, however, proposed measures which would enable the
elimination of illegally harvested timber from the Union market in its Communication on Forest Law
Enforcement Governance and Trade (2).

(1) Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002, OJ L 242, 10.9.2002.
(2) COM(2003) 251 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0288)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3461/03

by Peder Wachtmeister (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 November 2003)

Subject: Corruption scandal within the Swedish retail monopoly undertaking Systembolaget AB

During the negotiations before Sweden’s accession to the European Union, the Commission permitted
Sweden to retain its State monopoly on the sale of alcohol, while stressing that all discrimination between
national goods and goods imported from other EU Member States must be eliminated.

At present a corruption scandal
is being exposed within the Swedish retail monopoly undertaking
Systembolaget AB. 35 managers have been given notice that they are under suspicion of involvement in
serious corruption. Three suppliers are the subject of a criminal investigation, one of them on suspicion of
bribery. It is thought that over a long period certain suppliers have received preferential treatment in
return for trips and gifts.

Will the Commission, in response to this, review Sweden’s retail monopoly, and will the exclusive rights to
the retail sale of alcohol in Sweden be questioned?