WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/04 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission. Illegal logging and timber trade.
Date: 2004-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Papua New Guinea, action programme, deforestation, environmental protection, illicit trade, import restriction, surveillance concerning imports, wood product

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/175

Does the Commission intend to raise the issue of the impact of fumigation in its bilateral talks with the US
Administration, emphasising their overall impact and massive failures?

Would the Commission take into consideration for funding some of the proposals that a number of
Colombian organisations are currently drafting on the alternative development of the coca bush, which
could lead to the use of the leaf, which some indigenous communities consider sacred, for the production
of a variety of produce other than cocaine?

Bearing in mind that the upcoming session of the UN Commission on Narcotics of 16/25 March can
provide an opportunity to suggest changes to the UN Conventions on Drugs, what are the scientific
reasons why the European Commission is of the opinion that coca bush should be kept in Schedule I and
not reclassified in Schedule IV?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission has already communicated to the United States Government its position on aerial
spraying (fumigation)
in general and such spraying as a method of destroying illegal plantations in
Colombia in particular.

The Commission has been given a political undertaking by the Colombian Government that the areas in
which alternative development projects are started will not be sprayed and is monitoring the situation
carefully on the ground.

This position is in line with the one the Commission takes within the European Union, i.e. in future aerial
spraying should be restricted to a minimum,
if not entirely prohibited. In its communication on the
environment and the sustainable use of pesticides (1), the Commission proposed a general ban on aerial
spraying. It provided for specific derogation to be given by the Member States’ authorities if such spraying
presented clear advantages and environmental benefits compared with other spraying methods. The
Commission put forward this proposal because of the possible effects of pesticide spraying on human
health and the environment and the possible socio-economic effects of unintentional spraying of areas
other than those targeted, inhabited areas and water resources (2).

The alternative development projects the Commission supports in Colombia provide for the voluntary
manual uprooting of coca plants.

The next session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs will be held in Vienna from 15 to 22 March
2004. Amending the UN Conventions on drugs, or reclassifying coca leaf in those Conventions, is not on
the agenda. The European Commission does not have the powers to alter the classification.

(1) COM(2002) 349 final.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm

(2004/C 88 E/0184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/04

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Illegal logging and timber trade

The Commission will be aware that until recently timber barons were concentrating on the islands of
Indonesia, accelerating the destruction of the forests there. It now seems that the forests of West Papua are
being targeted and are at risk of suffering the same fate.

C 88 E/176

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

On 21 May 2003 the Commission published the EU Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance
and Trade (FLEGT). The Commission has stated that it intends to submit a proposal for a regulation in
2004 to implement the Action Plan and to provide the basis for a voluntary partnership scheme to control
illegal timber imports.

The opinion of the European Parliament’s Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy,
delivered on 19 January 2004, notes that although a voluntary licensing scheme would prevent unlicensed
timber from participating countries being released for free circulation within the EU, not all producing
countries are likely to agree to enter bilateral agreements. It recommends that urgent binding legislation be
illegally sourced timber and forest products,
drafted to prohibit
irrespective of the countries of origin, so as to enable the authorities in EU Member States to prosecute
companies and individuals.

the import and marketing of all

Can the Commission confirm whether it will introduce binding legislation, and what its next steps will be?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission is aware that the voluntary licensing scheme proposed in the FLEGT Action Plan
Communication (1) would not cover all timber producing countries; hence there is a risk that illegally
harvested timber could enter the EU from countries without such schemes. Nevertheless, if those countries
with the most serious illegal logging problems enter into bilateral agreements with the EU, this should
have a considerable impact.

In the FLEGT Action Plan, the Commission stated that it would investigate possible additional legislative
measures aimed at halting the importation and marketing of illegally harvested timber, beyond the
proposed voluntary licensing scheme. The Commission will put forward to the Parliament and Council
options for such potential legislation during the course of 2004. A decision on whether to introduce
further legislation will depend on the feasibility and nature of the options.

It should be noted that, while intuitively attractive, a general ban on the importation of illegally harvested
timber raises some difficult legal and practical issues, such as who would determine legality and how to
track timber from the forest through processing to the point of importation. Furthermore, some potential
measures may fall under Member State rather than Community competence, eg. where criminal law is
concerned. Nevertheless, the Commission recognises the gravity of the problem, as referred to in the
Honourable Members’ question, and is committed to ensuring the Community assumes its responsibilities
in this matter.

(1) COM(2003) 251 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0362/04

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2004)

Subject: Latvian passport names

Could the Commission please tell me why it is necessary under Latvian legislation to demand that
individuals passport names comply with the dictates of the Latvian language? For example, if a woman
marries, her name cannot be changed on her passport to Smith, it must be written Smite as this is the
nearest Latvian version.