WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/01 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Forest fires.
Date: 2001-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Andalusia, EU aid, environmental protection, fire, forest, forestry statistics, protected area, public awareness campaign, wooded area

C 115 E/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

The Commission notes the suggestion that it should exercise its right of initiative under the Common
Foreign and Security Policy so that the Council adopts a position on activities by Turkey and Iraq.

It would point out that the situation in terms of international law is very different for Iraq and Turkey and
it would be impossible to establish an identical position for them. The UN Security Council has expressly
condemned the repression of the civilian population in Iraq and a number of sanctions have been applied
against Iraq under Security Council decisions. Given that no condemnations have been issued or decisions
taken against Turkey, similar action against Turkey, which would be against a member of the Atlantic
Alliance, would not have the same international legitimacy.

The Commission would, however, draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the programme it recently
introduced to support regional development in South-East Turkey. A total of € 45 million has been
allocated for the period 2002-2005. The programme’s main objective is to promote the region’s economic
and social development.

(2002/C 115 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2434/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(10 September 2001)

Subject: Attitude of the governments to the cloning of human beings

Parliament has declared its opposition to the cloning of human beings by stem cell manipulation.
According to press reports, nationals of Member States are preparing to clone a human being by the
procedure already used to clone, among other species, mice and cows. Do the governments of the Member
States have the means and the will to stop the cloning of human beings on EU territory?

Reply

(17 December 2001)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that giving opinions on the positions of Member
States’ governments or on the means available to national public authorities are not matters that fall within
its competence.

The Council would however stress that Article 6 of Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of
biotechnological inventions stipulates that the granting of patents on processes for cloning human beings
is prohibited.

(2002/C 115 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2444/01

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Forest fires

At the end of the summer, year after year, the Union’s southern Member States go through the sad routine
of tallying up, like the number of deaths on the roads, just how many forest fires have occurred and how
many hectares of woodland have been lost.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/85

Does the Commission believe that, given the relentless rate of forest fires in certain regions of the Union,
there will actually be any woodlands for future generations to enjoy?

Can the Commission state the value, in forestry and biological terms, of the woodlands burnt this summer
in a region prone to prolonged droughts and desertification like Andalusia?

Is the Commission aware of the real scale of the fire in the Cazorla national park at Segura la Villas, a
biosphere reserve, whose maintenance and conservation benefit from funding under various Community
programmes?

Does the Commission not believe that there is a real problem in attempting to run and maintain these
nature reserves on the tiny budgets allocated them by the relevant authorities?

Does the Commission not believe that the Community authorities should be directly involved in this area,
given the overwhelming importance of these natural spaces to the Community as a whole, and that the
Community authorities should be more directly involved in administering reserves which receive
significant funding?

Does the Commission not believe that checks and controls closer to the ground, in collaboration with the
regional = or in the case of Spain, Autonomous = authorities, and increased financial and technical
support, could reduce the alarmingly high numbers of hectares destroyed by fire?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2001)

Every year, the forests in the southern Member States of the EU are affected by a very large number of
fires. According to the latest figures the Commission has for the period 1 July to 31 August 2001 33 833
fires affected 98 600 hectares (ha) in Spain, France, Italy and Portugal.

The Member States and the Commission are not ignoring this phenomenon. Each year substantial financial
resources are allocated for protecting forests against fire, raising public awareness, combating the causes,
tracks) and
active fire-fighting, setting up protective infrastructure (firebreaks, water supply points,
surveillance. The Commission, in particular, contributes under the programmes provided for in Council
Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999, of 17 May 1999, on support for rural development from the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1),
and Council Regulation (EC) No 2158/92, of 23 July 1992, on the protection of the Community’s forests
against fire (2). As a result, despite the very high number of fires, the surface area affected has been
decreasing since the early 1990s.

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that on average, as statistics
indicate, the amount of forested land is increasing for several reasons: forest naturally colonises abandoned
farmland; active forestation and reforestation policies have been implemented, notably in Spain;
Mediterranean forest, which has probably been affected by fire for a very long time, has adapted and has
considerable regeneration capacity. So the 98 600 ha burnt this year have not been totally destroyed.

Nevertheless, the problem is very worrying. The number of fires is growing each year. They often affect
the same areas, gradually causing them to deteriorate beyond repair. In certain regions, where there are no
buffer zones such as farms to stop fires spreading and the forest cover is continuous, major fires are a real
threat.

Between January 2001 and 31 August 2001, 836 fires,
including 213 of over one hectare, affected
5 625 ha in Andalucia, i.e. 0,1 % of the Andalucian forest. Of this, 3 060 ha were classified as woodland.
The Commission does not have any information on the biological value of the forests destroyed.

C 115 E/86

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

The Commission was informed that the fire in the Cazorla national park affected 836 ha, mainly artificially
reforested areas, planted with Pinus Pinaster. The area of the park with the highest ecological value was
not affected.

The responsibility for financing nature conservation and nature reserves lies with Member States, either
through national or local authorities. Financing nature reserves requires allocation of sufficient resources.
The Commission does not have comprehensive information on national budgets allocated for natural
reserves in each Member State and thus cannot judge if the resources made available are adequate for the
management of these areas. However, under the Habitats Directive there is a need to address the financial
requirements of areas included in the Natura 2000 network and currently the Commission is working on
this issue.

The Commission believes that responsibility for the management of the reserves of a Member State lies
with the State, which is responsible both for management decisions and their implementation. The
Commission recognises the importance of these areas for the Community and has therefore developed
policies and instruments for their protection. Sites of Community Importance are being protected Union-
wide through the Natura 2000 network, and the Commission provides substantial
funding for the
management of these areas. However, the national or local authorities are responsible for administering
these areas and the funding they receive from different sources (LIFE, Structural Funds, etc.).

The Community is not responsible for implementing preventive measures to reduce the number of forest
fires and the damage they cause. However, as far as it can, the Commission is trying to bring together the
national operational centres for forest fire fighting to encourage not only the exchange of experience with
regard to prevention, but also practical cooperation. Experience has shown that such cooperation, in the
form of mutual assistance and technical advice, is important and produces good results. However, forest
fire experts believe that monitoring operations on the ground, however well managed, cannot prevent
people from starting fires deliberately.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.

(2002/C 115 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2450/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Differences of interpretation regarding incorrect use and unforeseen claim for repayment of Dutch

ESF funds

1.
In the light of the differences of opinion between the Netherlands Government and the Commission
concerning the claim for repayment of NLG 447 million (more than € 200 million) in subsidies paid in the
Netherlands from the European Social Fund in 1994-1996, can the Commission say whether the rules on
the use of ESF funds should be interpreted as meaning that the Member State which receives them bears
ultimate responsibility for monitoring and ensuring their correct use?

2.
If ultimate responsibility lies with the government of the Member State concerned, does this mean
that the government is immune from claims for repayment if it considers the funds to have been used in
accordance with the rules, or does it always remain possible for the Commission to retrospectively resume
ultimate responsibility and on this basis, years later, demand repayment of money which the government
concerned considers to have been spent in good faith?

How can it be ensured that agreement is reached between the Commission and the government of
3.
the Member State concerned at the earliest possible stage, and not later than one year after the end of the
financial year in which the expenditure has been incurred, that ESF funds have been spent correctly, so as
to avoid the possibility that the Commission may later demand repayment of money which the Member
State concerned or its subordinate bodies have already definitively assessed as having been spent correctly
and in accordance with the rules?