Select Committee on Environmental Audit Minutes of Evidence



Annex H

 

TIMBER AND WOODY SPECIES INCLUDED IN THE EU REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTING CITES UPDATED NOVEMBER 2001

  The EU Regulations implementing CITES in the 15 Member States "replace" the CITES Appendices with Annexes:

Annex A

Equivalent to CITES Appendix 1; includes Appendix I species and species for which the EU takes stricter measures. Trade in wild taken specimens is only permitted for primarily non-commercial purposes, although artifically propagated speciments are treated as though they were listed in Annex B.

Annex B

Equivalent to CITES Appendix II; includes Appendix II species and species for which the EU takes stricter measures. Trade is permitted in these species but the Management Authority has to be satisfied that the speciments have been lawfully acquired and that trade will not be detrimental to the conservation of the species before an import permit can be granted.

Annex C

Equivalent to CITES Appendix III. These are essentially listed for monitoring purposes. Importers have to complete a self-notification form to which they must attach the export permit or certificate of origin issued by the exporting country.

Annex D

Non-CITES species listed for monitoring purposes.

 

  Although the scope for the EU Annexes to differ considerably from the CITES Appendices remains, at present Annexes A-C are almost identical for plants. No timber species are included in Annex D. The only significantly traded timbers are Periocopsis and Swietenia macrophylla. The others are minor timbers or species that are not in trade for their wood.

Family

Annex A

Annex B

Annex C

Araucariaceae

Araucaria araucana (Monkey Puzzle Tree) +217

Araucaria araucana (Monkey Puzzle Tree)

 

Caryocaraceae

 

Caryocar costaricense (Ajillo) #1

 

Cupressaceae

Fitzroya cupressoides (Alerce) Pilogerdendron uviferum

   

Cyatheaceae

 

Cyathea spp. (Tree ferns) =502 #1

 

Dicksoniaceae

 

Dicksonia spp. (Tree ferns) +218 #

 

Gnetaceae

   

Gnetum montanum #1Nepal

Juglandaceae

 

Oreomunnea pterocarpa =509 #1

 

Leguminosae

Dalbergia nigra (Brazilian Rosewood)

Pericopsis elata (Afrormosia ) =510 #5
Platymiscium pleiostachyum (Quira macawood) #1
Pterocarpus santalinus (Red Sandalwood) #6

 

Magnoliaceae

   

Magnolia liliifera var. obovarta =514 #1 Nepal

Meliaceae

 

Swietenia humilis (Honduras mahogany) #1
Swietenia mahagoni (Caribbean mahogany) #5

 
     

Cedrela odorata (Cigar-box cedar) +219 #5 Colombia, Peru
Swietenia macrophylla (American/Big leaf mahogany) —218 #5 Boliva, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru

Pinaceae

Abies guatemalensis (Guatemalan fir)

   

Podocarpaceae

Podocarpus parlatorei (Parlatore's podocarp

 

Podocarpus neriifolius (Yellow wood) #1 Nepal

Roseceae

 

Prunus africana (African stinkwood) #1

 

Taxaceae

 

Taxus wallichiana (Himalayan Yew) =522 #2

 

Tetracentraceae

   

Tetracentron sinense #1 Nepal

Thymelaceae

 

Aquilaria malaccensis (Agarwood) #1

Gonystylus spp. (Ramin) #1 Indonesia

Zygophyllaceae

 

Guaiacum sanctum (Lignum vitae) #1
Guaiacum officinale (Lignum vitae) #1

 

 

Annotations

  1.  The symbol (=) followed by a number denotes that the name of that species be interpreted as follows:

    —  =502  Includes genera Alsophila, Nephelea, Sphaeropteris and Trichipteris

    —  =509 Also referenced as Engelhardia pterocarpa.

    —  =510  Also referenced in the genus Afrormosia.

    —  =514 Formerly included in Talauma hodgsonii; also referenced as Magnolia hodgsonii and Magnolia candollii var. obvata.

    —  = 522  Also referenced as Taxus baccata ssp. wallichiana.

  2.  The symbol (+) followed by a number denotes that only designated geographically separate populations of that species are included in the Annex concerned as follows:

    —  +217  Populations of Argentina and Chile  

    —  +218  Population of the Americas

    —  +219  Population of Peru  

  3.   The symbol (-) followed by a number denotes that designated geographically separate populations of that species are excluded from the Annex concerned as follows:

    —  -112 Populations of Argentina and Chile

  4. The symbol (#) followed by a number designates parts or derivatives as follows:

    —  #1 Designates all parts and derivatives, except:

    (a)  seeds, spores and pollen (including pollinia);

    (b)  seedling or tissues cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers; and

    (c)  cut flowers of artificially propagated specimens.

    —  #2 Designates all parts and derivatives, except:

    (a)  seeds and pollen;

    (b)  seedling or tissues cultures obtained in vitro, in solid or liquid media, transported in sterile containers

    (c)  cut flowers of artificially propagated specimens; and

    (d)  chemical derivatives and finished pharmaceutical products.

    —  #5  Designates logs, sawn wood and veneer sheets.

    —  #6  Designates logs, wood chips and unprocessed broken material.


  (1) 1 Producer groups are concept being developed by WWF. Products sourced from producer groups would come with the assurance that the sources are legal and are progressing towards sustainable by a certain date.

  2 Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development on All Types of Forests. www.un.org/esa/sustdev/iff-ifpd.htm.

  3 Pan-European Criteria, Indicators and Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management. Resolution L2 of the Ministerial Conference on the Proetection of Forests in Europe. www.minconf-forests.net/MCPFE-Resolutions/MCPFE-Resolutions-Third.html3 Non-Legally Binding Authoritative Statement of Principles for a Global Consensus on the Management, Conservation and Sustainable Development on All Types of Forests. www.un.org/esa/sustdev/iff-ifpd.htm.

  3 Pan-European Criteria, Indicators and Operational Level Guidelines for Sustainable Forest Management. Resolution L2 of the Ministerial Conference on the Proetection of Forests in Europe. www.minconf-forests.net/MCPFE-Resolutions/MCPFE-Resolutions-Third.htmlWhat are your views on the proposed criteria presented on the previous page?

  Are there other criteria that we have not considered in Annex A? What would be the rationale for including them?

  In addition we propose the following approach to the different percentages of certified virgin fibre and recycled fibre in products that will be offered by suppliers and the different ways in which percentages are calculated.

  Assuming that competition between suppliers has the effect of forcing up the percentage it is not necessary for the government to set a threshold percentage. Exercising a preference for the product with the highest combined percentage of certified virgin fibre and recycled fibre will be sufficient.

  Units of product, batches and continuous processes of manufacturing a single product line can be considered equivalent if the verifiable percentage of wood from certified forests is equal. When the verifiable percentage is based on any other unit of manufacture, the product should be given no more weight than one that contains no verifiable percentage.

  What are your views on this approach towards different percentages of certified virgin fibre?

Group B

  Registered environmental management systems (EMS) could be deemed acceptable evidence if they identify wood purchasing as a significant environmental aspect and specify procedures for ensuring that source forests are being managed legally and sustainably. However, each supplier's system would have to be evaluated individually to ensure that the supplier's procedures guaranteed that the source was legal and sustainable. The evaluation would need to be reviewed at the same intervals as monitoring by the certification body—typically annually—to ensure that the system was being implemented effectively. Following a positive evaluation, all supplies covered by the EMS could be deemed acceptable until the EMS was reviewed.

  The procedures specified by the EMS would have to include verification of chain of custody to a legal and sustainable source. The scope and content requirements applied to forest certification standards could be taken as the benchmark for legal and sustainable (see paragraph 5 of the proposed criteria on the previous page). Verification procedures would vary between one company and another. Some EMSs might be based on uncorroborated statements by intermediate suppliers, on documentary and/or site inspections by the company or someone acting on their behalf, or on third party certification. In order for EMSs to provide an equivalent degree of assurance to forest certification schemes and eco-labels, the verification procedures would have to have equivalent veracity. This would rule out uncorroborated statements, but documented checks made by the company, an agent of the company, or a third party might be acceptable. If registered EMSs were to be considered acceptable as evidence of compliance with the government's policy, separate, clearly defined criteria would be needed in order to assess them fairly and consistently.

Group C

  Other forms of evidence might be acceptable if its content allowed purchasers (or someone acting on their behalf) to verify chain of custody to a legal and sustainable source. However, the practical implications for purchasers could be enormous, with evidence perhaps comprising many documents arising from different points in the chain from forest to supplier and in different languages.

  Suppliers may offer labels or declarations of origin as evidence and these may or may not be supported by independent verification. The stated origin might be the source forests or the country or countries in which the source forests are situated. We suggest that such labels or declarations should not be accepted as evidence because they do not necessarily guarantee legality and sustainability.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

  It is clear that it will be very difficult to assess different forms of evidence of legal and sustainable on an equivalent basis. The consultants have come up with the following options:

  Only accept labels or declarations issued under the authority of a forest certification or eco-labelling scheme that conforms to the criteria that we have devised in Annex A (or some other criteria);

  Accept labels or declarations issued under the authority of a forest certification or eco-labelling scheme that conforms to the criteria that we have devised in Annex A (or some other criteria) and require mandatory third party verification of B and C types of evidence;

  Accept labels or declarations issued under the authority of a forest certification or eco-labelling scheme that conforms to the criteria that we have devised in Annex A (or some other criteria), accept other forms of evidence that suppliers state comply with government and tender requirements. Government to commission random audits of B and C types of evidence using independent verifiers post-award stage;

  Accept labels or declarations issued under the authority of a forest certification or eco-labelling scheme that conforms to the criteria that we have devised in Annex A (or some other criteria), accept other forms of evidence that suppliers state comply with government and tender requirements at face value.

  Mandatory verification: one option is to require any evidence that does not fall within the examples of acceptable schemes notified at tender invitation (ie all evidence in groups B and C) to be independently verified as meeting the relevant criteria set out in the technical specification. A supplier could commission appropriately qualified independent bodies to verify their evidence in relation to the criteria set for legal and sustainable. The effect could be to encourage more certification without limiting the competition and reduce uncertainty among potential suppliers as to whether they comply with the government's policy when they submit their tender.

  Random audits: An alternative to mandatory third party verification would be to accept suppliers' claims at face value but carry out random audits using independent verifiers paid for by the government. This could be envisaged at various stages in the tender process but it is arguably most effective to conduct random audits of awarded contracts.

  An interesting point to note in relation to both these options is what action should be taken if verification reveals only partial compliance with the criteria or ``grey areas''. One option is for suppliers to be given the opportunity to provide further information to address any anomalies highlighted by the verifiers. If these remained unresolved it could either then lead to breach of contract and termination or exclusion from the tender process or could highlight areas for improvement that could be incorporated into on-going contract management, depending on the severity of the anomalies. Although practical, the problem with this approach is that care would need to be taken to ensure that this does not provide greater flexibility in some cases than others. For example some third party certification schemes may be deemed unacceptable if they do not fully meet the criteria and so the same approach needs to be applied to other forms of evidence in the interests of fairness.

  Only accept certification and labeling schemes: options incorporating verification of B and C type evidence would have to ensure that verification occurred in accordance with certain guidelines in order to ensure veracity, fairness and consistency and to allow the government to break the contract if it was found post-Award that the claim of legal and sustainable could not be substantiated. This brings us full circle to specifying criteria for credible third party verification of legal and sustainable and to the possible conclusion that the only practical way of verifying compliance with the government's policy is through labels or declarations issued under the authority of credible forest certification or eco-labelling schemes. A conclusion that does not necessarily fit with public procurement regulations.

  Face value: at the other end of the scale, an alternative option is simply to take suppliers' claims of compliance with government policy and the tender specifications at face value. Only if there was any reason to doubt the claim would verification or an investigation be commissioned. This is likely to be the lowest cost option to the government but also the least reliable as it puts the onus on suppliers to comply with their legal obligations.

What are your views on the options presented here?

  Only accept labels or declarations issued under the authority of a forest certification or eco-labelling scheme that conforms to the criteria that we have devised (or some other criteria).

  Mandatory third party verification of claims.

  Random audits of suppliers' claims after tenders have been awarded, using independent verifiers paid for by the government.

  Accept suppliers' claims at face value.

  Are there other options that the government could consider?

 


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2002
Prepared 17 July 2002