WRITTEN QUESTION E-1072/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Imports of the tree fern Dicksonia antarctica and the danger that this poses to the species.
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: America, Australia, New Zealand, floriculture, import, international standard, international trade, protection of plant life

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/143

Other factors that can contribute to hull structural failure have been identified by international research as
over-stressing due to incorrect
loading and physical damage to cargo hold structures during cargo
discharging. To address this issue, Directive 2001/96/EC (3) has recently been adopted.

(1) Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey

organisations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations, OJ L 319, 12.12.1994.

(2) Directive 2001/106/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 December 2001, amending Council Directive
95/21/EC concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping using Community ports and sailing in the waters
under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of international standards for ship safety, pollution prevention and
shipboard living and working conditions (port State control), OJ L 19, 22.1.2002.

(3) Directive 2001/96/EC of

the Parliament and of

the Council of 4 December 2001, establishing harmonised

requirements and procedures for the safe loading and unloading of bulk carriers, OJ L 13, 16.1.2002.

(2002/C 277 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1072/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Imports of the tree fern Dicksonia antarctica and the danger that this poses to the species

Is the Commission aware of

for 18 February 2002
1.
concerning the threat posed to the tree fern Dicksonia antarctica by a craze for using the species as a
decorative garden plant?

in the edition of

‘The Times’

the report

The plant is legally imported into the European Union, with 91 % of imports going to Great Britain,
2.
where it has been popularised by television gardening programmes. 140 000 plants have been legally
imported over the last five years, of which almost half have been taken directly from the wild. Specimens
do not replace themselves, as their rate of reproduction is extremely slow. According to the World Wildlife
Fund, which has published a report on the matter which was the subject of the article in ‘The Times’,
‘… most tree ferns are ripped from old-growth, wet, temperate rainforests, subsidising logging operations
that are wrecking wildlife habitats in south-eastern Australian states such as Victoria and Tasmania.’

3.
Does the Commission agree that, given the impossibility of distinguishing specimens taken from the
wild from those cultivated specifically for the market, a complete ban on imports would be the most
appropriate action? Does it plan to propose such a ban, or does it believe that some other form of action
would be effective in conserving this prehistoric species?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2002)

1.
The Commission is aware of the report ‘Alert over tree ferns loved by TV garden makeovers’ in the
edition of ‘The Times’ from 18 February 2002 as well as of the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
report ‘Traded towards extinction?’ from February 2002.

2.
The international trade in endangered plants is regulated by the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The provisions of CITES are implemented in the
Union by Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 (1) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 (2).

Dicksoniaceae spp. were listed on CITES Appendix II and Annex B of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97
until March 2000, when the CITES Conference of the Parties agreed on a change of the listing of
Dicksoniaceae spp. to Dicksonia spp. (originating in the Americas only). The proposal for this partial

C 277 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

de-listing had resulted from a review undertaken by the CITES Plants Committee. It was recognised that
Dicksonia antarctica was one of the species which were traded in significant quantities but the trade was
not considered to be a threat for the conservation of the species (except in the Americas). In addition, both
in Australia and New Zealand, commercial trade of tree fern was regarded as well regulated.

3. Matters concerning bans on imports to the Union can be discussed in the Scientific Review Group
(SRG) which is a consultative body established under Article 17 of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97.
At the moment there are no proposals from the Member States to ban commercial imports of Dicksonia
antarctica. Any new evidence in this regard will need careful examination.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by

regulating trade therein, OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1808/2001 of 30 August 2001,

laying down detailed rules concerning the

implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97, OJ L 250, 19.9.2001.

(2002/C 277 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1078/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 April 2002)

Subject: Cross-border rail link between Groningen and Bremen; long delays in replacing the section of the

track between Nieuweschans and Leer

Does the Commission recall my question No E-0178/00 (1) of 31 January 2000 concerning
1.
suspension of the rail service between Groningen in the Netherlands and the German connecting station
of Leer on the line to Bremen following the upgrading of 17 kms of track between the border towns of
Nieuweschans and Weener, and your answer of 30 March 2000 with the reassuring conclusion that
upgrading of the section of the track would be carried out during 2000, after which the rail companies DB
Regio and NoordNed would operate the route?

2.
Is the Commission aware that since its answer to my question the train service was suspended from
28 May 2000 until 1 December 2000 but that services cannot be resumed because replacing the much
neglected track did not start until the second half of 2001?

3.
To what extent are these delays and obstacles caused by German and Dutch plans which keep
linking Amsterdam, Lelystad,
cropping up concerning the construction of a maglev line (TransRapid)
Groningen, Bremen, Hamburg, Schwerin and Berlin which would involve shifting existing traffic flows to a
border crossing near Nieuweschans and Leer? Do these plans still play a serious role in the decisions on
the future of the conventional railway between Groningen and Bremen?

4.
Does this section of the track, including stations, bridges and level crossings, now comply with all the
standards for improvement that were stipulated when financial aid was granted in the framework of the
trans-European transport network and the Interreg programme? Have all the funds made available by the
EU since been spent for the purposes for which they were intended? If not, why not?

5.
Are there still any technical reasons, apart from the disputes relating to operation of the line referred
to in the following questions, preventing the rail service from being resumed on this section of the track
without delay?

Source: ‘Het Openbaar Vervoer/Railnieuws’, Volume 45 No 522, March 2002, rail@wanadoo.nl

(1) OJ C 330 E, 21.11.2000, p. 98.