Mr President, I welcome this point of order, for foresters and the forestry sector cannot wait for the outcome of these rather irregular debates which can only have one effect today, and that is to send out a message proclaiming that the European Parliament is made up of absentee Members, whereas most of our fellow Members, including those here today, are certainly not relaxing in front of their televisions but are working in the field. The issue is wider than that. In reality, this is nothing more than a feature of the anti-Strasbourg sniping which has developed. Let us be completely clear about this and not try to pretend it is otherwise or to evade the issue. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the forestry sector. As it happens, we already expressed our sympathy, as we are wont to do, in a resolution of 20 January 2000, and requested that the Commission supply us with certain information and undertake to help those of our citizens – and they were numerous – who were in difficulties, for this disaster affected the whole of Europe. Now, four months later, we are sufficiently removed from events to be able to learn both from what has been done and what has not, and we are expecting a tangible response from the Commission to this question. Did we actually intervene? Did we employ the means available to us? This time, we are not claiming appropriations for exceptional circumstances under the “natural disasters” heading. The sector is simply assessing the extent of its difficulties and the resulting risks – economic risks, security risks, that is to say fire risks, and also risks of non-reforestation, for if it is not possible to remove the wood in the coming weeks, many foresters would prefer to leave them where they are, and then the forestry sector will be in permanent difficulties, and with it the primary processing industry. Four months on, the purpose of this oral question is therefore, Commissioners, to inform you, first and foremost, that the condition of the forestry sector is critical. In the space of two days, 193 million cubic metres of timber have flooded the market. The first question is that of price control and regulation of the market, since the cost of removing some low-quality species is now more than the market is willing to pay. We are familiar with the regulation of the market in the context of the common agricultural policy. We are not asking you to include timber in that policy, but it appears that Europe could have employed equivalent measures to assist the timber market during this exceptional crisis. It could have temporarily regulated the timber market for a period of several months. The question has been put to you. What action are you going to take? Secondly, what have you done and what have you achieved with the means available? I refer to the means which allow us to grant exemptions from the competition laws to help exporters, for the cost of transportation of timber which has been exposed to fungal or parasite risk is totally unacceptable, provided that there is a buyer. If we want to support the market, we must support the transportation necessary for export to places further afield. Is the Commission prepared to take steps to do this? To what extent has it implemented Article 87(2) of the Treaty, which allows it to grant exemptions? To what extent, if at all, has it approached the WTO to request it to grant derogations? What has it done to set up means of remedying the natural disasters affecting the forestry sector? These are not virtual instruments. We have rules, such as Article 30 of Regulation 1257/1999. If it has not done so, what action does it intend to take in the forthcoming weeks? The matter is urgent. Finally, I call for the DOCUP development plans to give unequivocal consideration to the forestry sector and the timber industry.

Political group: PSE