WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2366/98 by Graham WATSON to the Commission. The destruction of forests in Venezuela
Date: 1998-07-27
Institutions: European Parliament, WATSON
Subjects: EU aid, Venezuela, ecology movement, forest conservation, forestry holding, indigenous population, protection of minorities, tropical forest

29.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/61

(1999/C 118/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2366/98

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: The destruction of forests in Venezuela

(27 July 1998)

The President of Venezuela has recently issued a Decree reversing the protected status of the Imataca
Forest Reserve. As a result, this beautiful forest, home to many indigenous tribes and endangered species,
is very much under threat from mining and logging.

Neither the Venezuelan Congress nor tribes who live in the forest were properly consulted before the
President took this decision. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the Decree ignores several national
laws and international agreements.

Does the Commission consider this action to be in breach of international agreements?

Is this an issue that the Commission has raised with the Venezuelan authorities?

Does the Commission agree that decrees of this kind bode ill for safeguarding the tropical rainforests of
South America?

What pressure will the Commission bring to bear on the Venezuelan Government to prevent massive
destruction of wildlife in the region and the setting of a precedent for other areas of forest in Venezuela?

Answer given by Mr Mar(cid:237)n on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 1998)

The preservation of tropical forest is a very sensitive topic for the Commission, which closely follows all
the environmental problems and consequently is well informed about the Imataca forest reserve case.

The Imataca forest reserve was created by law in 1961 and since then logging and mining activities have
taken place there. Decree 1850 will, according to the declarations of government officials, result in the
exploitation of the reserve being more rational and using more environmentally friendly practices.
However, it is fair to assume that due to declining oil prices and a weakened economy which has left at
least 50 % of the population in appalling conditions of poverty and created a massive burden of external
debt, Venezuela(cid:146)s policy makers have seen in the exploitation of this region an opportunity to diversify the
economy and provide new sources of financing. Moreover, the lobbies of the multinational companies
have been pressing for this opening-up of the reserve as well.

At this moment, as a result of protests and legal proceedings by environmentalists, the decree is currently
suspended.

The Commission has undertaken several actions in the area, providing ECU 11 million of funding to
protect Venezuela(cid:146)s biodiversity in the Orinoco Casiquiare biosphere reserve and ECU 915 000 for the
(cid:145)Protecci(cid:243)n del indigena amazonense(cid:146) project which aims to prevent the migration of indigenous people to
the cities.

Moreover, Venezuela has a long history of environmental legislation, the first environmental law in
Venezuela was passed in 1910. There exists extensive legislation in the matter with more than 80 laws and
400 decrees and regulations. Consequently the Commission has strongly recommended to Venezuela by
means of different bilateral contacts to enforce its own regulations.

Finally, it has to be recalled on a wider point of view, that the Community is offering to developing
countries benefits under the environmental clause included in the scheme of generalised tariff preferences
(GSP) as an incentive to exploit their forests in a sustainable manner. The Commission is at present
reflecting on the possibilities to implement this incentive to Andean countries including Venezuela.