WRITTEN QUESTION E-3324/01 by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Forest reproductive material — registration and protection.
Date: 2001-11-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Ireland, afforestation, deforestation, exchange of information, forest, marketing, plant propagation

C 93 E/220

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

(cid:1) Since 16 months have passed since the contract was signed, what extensions have been agreed
between the contractor and the Greek State, how many such extensions have there been, have they
been notified to the Commission and what is the time-limit on extensions to such an agreement?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2001)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the Greek government’s legal advisers
have submitted recent documents on the execution of the project to the Commission. Having examined
these documents, the Commission has sent a letter to the Greek authorities seeking clarification on certain
points in these documents and on the project in general. Once an answer has been received from the
Greek authorities, the Commission will be in a position to propose what action should be taken.

As for funding, the Thessaloniki underground project is one of the priorities of the ‘Main highways, Ports
and Urban Development’ Operational Programme (OP)
in the Community Support Framework (CSF)
2000-2006 for Greece (with planned European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) assistance of €122
million out of a total cost of €657 million). The national authorities have yet to submit a request to the
Commission to confirm the level of Community co-funding for this major project, in accordance with
Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on
the Structural Funds (1). It is clear that compliance with Community legislation is one of the preconditions
for ERDF funding of the project in question.

The Honourable Member asks whether the fact that the Greek Parliament will be asked to adopt a law
ratifying the modifications to the concession contract violates Community law. On this matter, it should be
pointed out that such ratification is not in itself contrary to Community law.

Finally, as regards the provision in the contract for extending the period during which the concessionaire
should have signed loan contracts with the banks, the Commission feels that, in the case in question, this
does not fall within the scope of Community law.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 93 E/266)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3324/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Forest reproductive material (cid:1) registration and protection

(30 November 2001)

the Commission take steps to protect

the Community seed stands registered under Directives
Will
66/404/EEC (1), 71/161/EEC (2) or 1999/105/EC (3) on the Marketing of Forest Reproductive Materials
which currently may be felled without any suitable assessment?

In Ireland, the State Forestry Board Coillte Teo has felled over 1 474 hectares of registered seed stands
without any form of licensing which would require individual assessment, although the entire register
covers only 3 715 hectares and only 20 % of Ireland’s seed is from native sources. Further, by delegating
the task of drawing up the national register of basic forest reproductive material required under the
Directive to Coillte Teo, the country’s largest harvester of timber, Ireland’s practice is not in accordance
with the Directives which specifically exclude any legal person or its members from maintaining the seed
stand registers if they could derive financial gain from the measures it takes under the Directives.

Would the Commission, therefore, take steps to ensure that the native seed stands in every Member State
that receives EU funding for afforestation, including Ireland, are registered under the Directive only by
independent qualified parties and that, once registered, any felling is prohibited without suitable assessment
and the attachment of necessary conditions to respect the purpose of the Directive?

(1) OJ B 125, 11.7.1966, p. 2326.
(2) OJ L 87, 17.4.1971, p. 14.
(3) OJ L 11, 15.1.2000, p. 17.

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/221

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2002)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by
the Honourable Member. It will inform her of its findings.

(2002/C 93 E/267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3388/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: Construction of the Dutch A73 motorway through nature conservation areas in the long narrow

strip of land between the River Maas and the German border

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands Government, which has long been planning to build a
new A73-south motorway between Venlo and a junction with the existing A2 motorway south of
Roermond, has now granted an exemption to allow the road to pass through protected natural areas along
the east bank of the River Maas, so that the new road can pass through the long narrow strip of land
between the Dutch-German border and the Maas?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that the Netherlands State Secretary for Nature Management recognises
that both the Dutch Nature Conservancy Act and the European Habitats Directive prohibit disturbance to
the habitats of protected animals and plants, but says that in this case a ‘major public interest’ is at stake
and there are no ‘satisfactory alternatives’?

3.
Does the Commission consider the argument about the lack of alternatives to be valid in this case,
bearing in mind that as long ago as 1995 complete and detailed plans existed for building this road to the
west of the Maas, which the government was then proposing, and that ultimately this alternative was
exchanged for the present east-bank variant due to pressure on the Dutch Parliament from businesses in
the area which considered the environmentally unsound eastern variant more advantageous to themselves?

4. What can be done to induce decision-makers to revert to the variant already developed which would
entail building the road with the least possible damage to nature and the environment?

Source: The Dutch newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’, 16 November 2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-2244/01 by Mr de Roo (1)

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 137.