17 ACTION TO COMBAT ILLEGAL
LOGGING
(30064)
14482/08
+ ADDs 1-2
COM(08) 644
| Draft Regulation laying down obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market
|
| Legal base | Article 175EC; co-decision; QMV
|
| Department | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 26 July 2009
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 19-xiv (2008-09), chapter 4 (22 April 2009)
|
| To be discussed in Council
| By the end of 2009 |
| Committee's assessment | Politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Cleared
|
Background
17.1 According to the Commission, there is strong evidence that
illegal logging is a substantial and growing problem, and it believes
that, although the supply side of the problem lies in timber-producing
countries, it is encouraged by strong international demand. It
therefore put forward in May 2003 a Communication[61]
setting out the measures which the Community could take to direct
demand towards legally harvested timber. These included entering
into negotiations for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade
(FLEGT) Partnerships with timber-producing countries, and presenting
a Regulation setting up a voluntary licensing system, under which
only timber with a valid certificate of origin, indicating that
it has been logged legally, would be allowed to enter the Community.
17.2 The Government said that it would support the
negotiation of voluntary partnership agreements and the setting
up of a voluntary licensing scheme, so long as these were compatible
with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, and took into account
the question of products coming from countries which did not sign
up to the proposed licensing scheme; the practicalities involved;
and the legal basis for the voluntary partnership agreements.
It subsequently supported a draft proposal[62]
by the Commission in July 2004 — since adopted as Council
Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005[63]
— to give legislative effect to such a licensing scheme,
prohibiting imports from countries which have entered into Partnership
Agreements unless shipments are accompanied by a licence indicating
that the timber has been legally harvested.
17.3 However, it was also recognised that the effectiveness
of the scheme would depend upon how many countries enter into
Partnership Agreements, and that a number might not to do so.
The Commission therefore put forward in October 2008 this draft
Regulation, which in particular would require those who first
place timber on the Community market to exercise due diligence
in establishing to the best of their ability that it had been
legally harvested. In order to comply with WTO rules, the measure
would apply to the entire trade, including European timber producers,
but there would be a presumption of compliance for products from
countries listed under Council Regulation (EC) No 2173/2005, or
imported under the Convention on International Trade of Endangered
Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).
17.4 As we noted in our Report of 22 April 2009,
the Government commented that the proposal would require the whole
trade to put in place the necessary systems, but that this would
be consistent with existing market-based systems for ensuring
legality and sustainability of timber. It added that, although
other Member States were likely to raise concerns about the proportionality
of the measures, the responsible trade in the UK was already implementing
due diligence, and that the approach would ensure that efforts
are focussed on the most likely sources of illegal timber.
17.5 That Report also noted that a subsequent Impact
Assessment had pointed out the difficulty in making an accurate
estimate of the likely costs involved, but had drawn up three
scenarios according to the level of reliance put on self-declaration
and the extent of third party verification and/or auditing. It
had suggested that the annual benefits would in each case exceed
the costs, though the latter would accrue internationally, whereas
the former would arise within the Community (including of course
the UK). Finally, we noted that the Government was also seeking
views on whether there might be a prohibition on the first placing
of illegal timber on the market, as well as on the amendments
being considered by the European Parliament.
17.6 Since that Assessment had launched a consultation
exercise, we said that it would clearly be sensible to await the
outcome before considering the document further. In the meantime,
we commented that a presumption of compliance where timber is
imported from a country with which the Community has a Voluntary
Partnership Agreement or under the CITES might in practice result
in that produced within Europe being treated less favourably than
that imported from a third country. We therefore asked for clarification
of the position of the European timber trade.
Minister's letter of 26 July 2009
17.7 We have now received from the Minister for the
Natural and Marine Environment, at the Department for Environment,
Food & Rural Affairs (Mr Huw Irranca-Davies) a letter of 26
July 2009, indicating that the public consultation showed a widespread
support for measures to tackle illegal logging, and that some
— including non-governmental organisations — favoured
extending the due diligence obligation to those down the supply
chain (though some industry respondents felt that this would in
practice be costly to manage). The Minister adds that the majority
was anxious to avoid the imposition of a large administrative
burden, and had pointed out that mandatory third party audit would
represent a substantial proportion of the total costs to industry.
17.8 As regards the other points we raised, the Minister
says that the Government is fully aware that most of the costs
will be borne by the domestic industry, but considers that they
are well placed to adapt existing systems; that non-governmental
organisations believed that the benefits of tackling illegal logging,
for example conserving biodiversity, had been underplayed; and
that a key consideration was that no timber or timber products
from any country should experience less favourable treatment.
He added that steps were also being taken to minimise administrative
burdens.
Conclusion
17.9 We are grateful to the Minister for this
information, in the light of which we are now content to clear
this document.
61 (24589) 9944/03: see HC 63-xxviii (2002-03), chapter
8 (2 July 2003). Back
62
(25872) 11656/04: see HC 38-ix (2004-05), chapter 3 (23 February
2005). Back
63
OJ No. l.347, 30.12.05, p.1. Back
|
