WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1724/96 by Charles GOERENS , Jup WEBER to the Commission. Forestry assistance to countries in transition
Date: 1996-06-25
Institutions: European Parliament, GOERENS, WEBER JUP
Subjects: EU aid, air quality, development aid, environmental policy, forest conservation, forestry holding, pollution control measures, radioactive pollution, silviculture













EUR-Lex - 91996E1724 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1724

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1724/96 by Charles GOERENS , Jup WEBER to the Commission. Forestry assistance to countries in transition  


Official Journal C 385 , 19/12/1996 P. 0030 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1724/96 by Charles Goerens (ELDR) and Jup Weber (ARE) to the Commission (25 June 1996)Subject: Forestry assistance to countries in transitionIn eastern Europe, including those countries aspiring to become members of the Union, forestry is facing several major ecological and socio-economic problems. Air pollution is still causing severe damage to forests, and reducing emissions will require very substantial investment. Privatization and restitution of forest land have created tens of thousands of new forest owners, who must be prevented from mismanaging and over-felling their forests, and helped to achieve sustainable forest management. Nearly five million ha of forest (about 1.5 times the area of Belgium and Luxembourg) are so contaminated by radiation from the Chernobyl catastrophe that they can no longer be managed. In addition to the huge social and economic cost of this situation, the fires which inevitably occur in these abandoned forests rescatter into the atmosphere over long distances the radioactive material which has been accumulated and concentrated in the forest ecosystem.What is the EU, notably in the PHARE and TACIS programmes, doing to address these major and urgent problems, especially in view of the commitments signed by the EU and its Member States in resolution H3, Forestry Assistance to Countries in Transition, of the Helsinki Ministerial Conference on Protection of Forests in Europe?Should the Commission not have a concise strategy for contributing to the protection and development of forest resources in Eastern Europe?Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (6 September 1996)In various programmes under Phare and Tacis the Commission has indeed helped meet the need for forest sustainability in the Central and eastern European countries (CEECs) and the Commonwealth of independent states (CIS) including activities such as Nun moth control in Poland, together with the World Bank (Phare contribution 10 MECU), and participation of the CEECs in the Mera project on forestry (monitoring), which also is being run in the Member States by the Commission's Joint research centre in Ispra. Tacis has supported wood and the wood processing industry (e.g. 1992 action programme). Much of the assistance focuses on ecolabelling and environmentally sustainable logging rates.Approximately 100 MECU is allocated each year under the Phare programme to environmental projects, much of which deals directly or indirectly with sustainable forestry. The Phare support to improve the environment and notably the situation of air and ground water pollution is of considerable indirect support to the forests of Europe as already outlined in the Helsinki resolution H3. This also called for the development of strategies, and co-operation in all fields of forestry such as knowledge transfer, development of demonstration projects, capacity building, creation of a legal and political framework, sustainable forest management, monitoring and adequate assessment of resources. For the future the creation of a databank is encouraged.In reply to the Helsinki resolution, the multi-country environmental project (Phare) foresees the development of a forestry programme serving all countries (1996-1999) and the support to national parks and nature park management (1996-1998). In particular, the Phare multi-country forestry programme is expected to ensure stock-taking of forests and management practices (databank), to provide assistance in developing a legislative framework for forestry in the various countries, to make an inventory of forest biodiversity and to advise governments, non-governmental organisations and others on good practices of sustainable forestry and possibly develop some demonstration projects (amount probably approximately 6 MECU over 4 years). The national parks programme will comprise probably 3 MECU over 4 years and addresses twinning of parks, exchange of practices and capacity building.The Commission recently developed a Phare environmental strategy which was discussed with the partner countries in early June. This strategy focuses on all environmental aspects of the pre-accession phase but mentions explicitly, (following the ministerial conferences of Lucerne and Sofia) halting deforestation and damage to biodiversity, among the nine principal environmental challenges. However, since Phare is a demand-driven programme, the Commission cannot unilaterally allocate Phare support for a certain area, but the acceptance of the strategy including the above sentence by the Phare countries clearly indicates their concern.Tacis under its 1995 programme has strong components for forestry, e.g. a forest resource management programme aiming at sustainability in Carelia (2.5 MECU) and the forestry part of the lake Baikal project, which aims at natural resource management (in total 2.8 MECU).The Phare and Tacis programmes with their limited funding cannot usually make major investments, but can provide seed money and training as well as contribute to increasing general awareness. Also the Commission in its frequent contacts at all levels with the associated countries stresses the importance of meeting Community legislation and implementation practices in matters such as nature conservation.