OPINION OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 251 (2) (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on measures to promote the conservation and sustainable management of tropical forests and other forests in developing countries AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty

1. Introduction

Article 251(2)(c) of the EC Treaty lays down that the Commission shall deliver an opinion on the amendments proposed by the European Parliament at second reading. The Commission sets out its opinion below on the 12 amendments proposed by Parliament.

2. Background

a) On 3th February 1999, the Commission forwarded to the Council and to the European Parliament its proposal for a regulation (COM(1999) 41 final) - 1999/015 (COD) .

b) The Economic and Social Committee gave its opinion on the 7th July 1999.

c) The Committee of the Regions informed the Council that it would not express an opinion on the proposal.

d) The European Parliament approved the Commission proposal on 5th May 1999, in first reading, subject to 34 amendments.

e) On 9th February 2000 the Commission adopted, pursuant to Article 250(2) of the Treaty, an amended proposal for a decision incorporating wholly or in part 19 of the 34 amendments proposed by Parliament (COM(2000) 54).

f) The Council adopted its common position on 16th December 1999.

g) On 14th March 2000, the Parliament European adopted at second reading a favourable resolution including 12 amendments to the common position.

3. Purpose of the proposal

Based on Articles 175 and 179 of the Treaty, the proposed Regulation will be an important instrument to enable the Community to meet its commitments to the conservation and management of forests, in the context of sustainable development. It will ensure the continuation of activities implemented under Council Regulation (EC) n° 3062/95 of 20 December 1995 [1], which expired on 31st December 1999. The proposed legal instrument takes into account relevant developments within the Community, the results of the international discussion on Forests through the Intergovernmental Panel on Forests/ Intergovernmental Forum on Forests process, the evolution in the forest sector, as well as experience acquired during the implementation of the 1995-1999 regulation.

[1] OJ L 327, vol. 38, 30.12.1995.

4. Opinion of the Commission on the amendments by the European Parliament

4.1. Amendments retained by the Commission

* Amendments 4, 7, 9, 10 are retained by the Commission. Amendments 4 and 7 concern minor drafting improvements while Amendment 10 (also supported by Council) requires that Parliament be informed of the annual guidelines for activities to be funded under the Regulation. Amendment 9 specifies a financial framework of 249 M EUR (over 7 years). This figure represents an acceptable compromise between the initial proposals of Council and Parliament.

* Certain other amendments, namely Amendments 11 and 13 can be accepted in principle, subject to some reformulation. These concern the split comitology arrangement proposed by Parliament, whereby the annual guidelines for the implementation of the Regulation would be subject to a management procedure, while approval of projects of over 2 M EUR would be subject to an advisory procedure. As currently drafted there is some overlap in the provisions of these two amendments. The Commission prefers the wording on split comitology approved in the parallel proposal for a Regulation on the Integration of the Environmental Dimension into the Development Process of Developing Countries.

4.2. Amendments not accepted by the Commission

* Amendment 1 expands a recital with an unnecessary reference to the need for substantial financial resources and to environmental disasters. It is considered not to be coherent with agreed guidelines for drafting of Community legislation.

* Amendment 2 is considered redundant as it is addressed in Art 4 (1) (a), Art. 4 (3) indent 3 and Art 4 (5) of the common position.

* Amendment 3 on coordination is considered redundant as it is addressed in Art 4(3) 5th indent and Art. 6 (5) of the common position.

* Amendment 5 states that projects should not be funded where there exist "serious doubts" about their impact. The Commission considers that the term "serious doubts" is subjective and not appropriate for a Regulation. Furthermore the impact assessments mentioned in Article 4.5 address the concern not to fund projects with potential negative impacts.

* Amendment 6 requires evaluations to take into account views of local people. While the Commission has no objection to the spirit of the amendment it is considered to be redundant, given that Art 11 (2) deals with this topic in a more comprehensive manner. Furthermore the amendment is misplaced as it introduces the topic of evaluation into an article that deals with planning of projects.

* Amendment 8 concerning the possible lifting of the requirement for bank guarantees is considered to be unnecessary, given that bank guarantees are now only required for advances to NGOs of over 1 M EUR. Also as a point of principle and in order to simplify administration the Commission does not consider it appropriate to introduce specific financial provisions in specific Regulations. An identical amendment in the parallel proposal for a Regulation on the Integration of the Environmental Dimension into the Development Process of Developing Countries was not approved by Parliament in the second reading.

5. Conclusion

Under the terms of Article 250(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission amends its proposal according to the above.