WRITTEN QUESTION E-0987/02 by Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Follow-up regulation to Regulation No 3528/86 on the protection of forests against atmospheric pollution.
Date: 2002-04-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European forestry policy, database, environmental cooperation, environmental monitoring, forest conservation, pollution control measures

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/75

In addition, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is responsible for investigating irregularities and frauds.
One project implemented in the province of Hainaut during the 2000-2006 programming period is
currently being investigated by OLAF.

DG REGIO is currently finalising the work plan for the 1994-1999 programming period, which will
provide a basis for the selection and implementation of audits into the closure of individual programmes.
Individual projects will also be selected and mentioned in the inspection reports.

Following submission of the application for final payment for closure of the programmes, DG FISH will
carry out an audit inspection for the 1994-1999 programming period based on individual selection. The
results of these checks will be mentioned in the final report.

OLAF has carried out investigations with links to projects implemented in the province of Hainaut during
the 1994-1999 programming period, all of which have been closed.

for
In view of the decentralisation of responsibilities for the management of the Structural Funds,
information on the project operators and possible promoters,
the
the Commission would request
Honourable Member to contact the authorities responsible for programme management, at the following
address: Ministère de la Région wallonne, Direction générale de l’économie et de l’emploi, Division de la
Politique économique, Direction des Programmes européens, Place de la Wallonie 1, B-5100 Jambes (cid:1)
Namur (Belgium).

(2002/C 301 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0987/02

by Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: Follow-up regulation to Regulation No 3528/86 on the protection of forests against atmospheric

pollution

1. What concrete strategy is the Commission pursuing in order to expand the existing aim of the
to include biodiversity and climate
Regulation (protecting forests against atmospheric pollution)
protection?

Has the Commission considered whether the selection of sites already undertaken will make such a

2.
new target possible?

3.
How will the Commission ensure that the extensive data base and large number of assessments are
coordinated so as to ensure that the fullest possible account is taken of quality aspects, data management
and the cost-effectiveness ratio?

4. What measures will the Commission take to ensure the continuation of existing cooperation with the
UN/ECEs ICP Forests?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Following the success of the Council Regulations which expire at the end of this year on the protection of
the Community’s forests against atmospheric pollution (1) and against fire (2), the Commission is planning a
new Community action to monitor woodland and its interaction with the environment to take effect from
2003. The Commission intends to present the Parliament and the Council with a proposal for a new
Framework Regulation, covering both forest monitoring and the fire information system, at the end of
June 2002.

The aim of the new action will be to go beyond protecting forests from atmospheric pollution to include
more detailed assessment of the health of forest ecosystems and the factors influencing it.

C 301 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Monitoring activities will gradually be adapted and developed to ensure the continuity of data collection
over time and the achievement of the new goals. Data collection methods and networks will also be
reviewed. Studies will be carried out as a basis for proposals for optimising and developing monitoring
activities. Consideration will be given to biodiversity and climate protection.

The action will have to be centrally coordinated due to the increasing demand for a flexible monitoring
programme and the need for integrated data assessment. No specific comments on this can be made at
present, however, as the details of who will take care of the technical and scientific aspects of the new
action have yet to be decided.

The Member States and the EU have entered into obligations under the Convention on Long-range
Transboundary Air Pollution (UN/ECE). Since 1986, therefore, the International Cooperative Programme
on Integrated Monitoring of Air Pollution Effects on Ecosystems (ICP Forests) and the EU have been
working together to ascertain forest health. Efforts should be therefore be made to ensure that cooperation
with ICP Forests continues under the new action, particularly in the field of atmospheric pollution.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3528/86 of 17 November 1986 on the protection of the Community’s forests against

atmospheric pollution, OJ L 326, 21.11.1986.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 on protection of the Community’s forests against fire,

OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.

(2002/C 301 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1007/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 April 2002)

Subject: The enlargement negotiations, agriculture and the Sapard programme

Article 5(1) and (2) of the various multiannual financing agreements between the Commission and the
governments of the individual candidate countries (Lithuania, Latvia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Estonia, Poland,
the Czech Republic, Slovenia and Romania)
in connection with the Sapard programme imposes a
requirement to communicate in English: ‘Any communication between the Commission and (…) related to
this Agreement shall be in English.’ Article 10 of these agreements stipulates that only the English text of
the agreement shall be authentic.

Why did the Commission choose English as the language of communication? Can it give an assurance that
these documents will be translated into all the official languages of the Union, and does it also intend that
English should in future be the sole medium of communication for other contacts with authorities in the
candidate countries?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2002)

It is not the policy of the Commission to use solely English as the means of communication with candidate
countries. The choice of language in the contacts between candidate countries and the Commission
depends on whether it is understandable and expedient to both parties.

A particular good example for language use is the co-operation between candidate countries and long-term
experts in the field of twinning, where it is not unusual e.g. for Estonians to use Finnish with Finnish pre-
accession advisors; French is used widely e.g.
in Romania, and German is also frequently a common
language.

Concerning the Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development
(Sapard) English was chosen for practical reasons. In particular, the Commission point out that the volume
of documents per country would already average around 1000 pages.