WRITTEN QUESTION E-1511/02 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission. Organising a follow-up to the EU's forestry strategy.
Date: 2002-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EFICS, European forestry policy, enlargement of the Union, forestry economics

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/165

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2002)

According to Eurostat, the income from agricultural activity, measured as the net value added at factor
cost,
in real terms and per labour unit, would have increased by 3,3 % on average in 2001 in the
Community as a whole. This increase in income would constitute a renewed sign of recovery after the falls
recorded in 1998 and 1999 and the 3,3 % increase in 2000. Notwithstanding the sanitary crises observed
in the animal sector in 2001 (linked to the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the Food and
Mouth disease (FMD)), favourable price developments (cid:1) notably in the animal sector (cid:1) have enabled to
lift agricultural income to record levels.

If positive developments are forecast in a clear majority of Member States since only one Member State is
foreseen to record a fall in income (Luxembourg at − 0,6 %), wide variations are projected across countries.
Strongest rises would be recorded in Denmark (+ 12,3 %), Portugal (+ 11,8 %), Austria (+ 10,9 %), Germany
(+ 9,9 %), Ireland (+ 7,8 %), Belgium (+ 5,3 %) and Sweden (+ 5,0 %). If the rise in pig prices constitutes the
common factor in the growth of agricultural income in most of these Member States, price increases in
other farm sectors, such as potatoes and milk, and a surge in non-crop specific subsidies are also estimated
to have contributed favourably to the development of agricultural income.

The Commission has no information concerning farm income development in 2001 in Galicia.

The reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy in 1992 and in the Agenda 2000 have contributed to the
improvement in the competitiveness of the agricultural sector in the Community by shifting from market
price support to more direct income payments. They have also contributed to provide a greater guarantee
and stability in the evolution of producer’s income since direct payments to producers represent now on
average in the Community some 32 % of agricultural
in income
development across Member States and sub-sectors still exist. They mainly reflect the differing situations
at the outset carried over from previous years and the diversity in the agro-economic structures and cycles
in the Member States.

income. However, divergences

if Spain benefited,

Accordingly,
like other Member States, from positive developments in the pig and
poultry sectors that outweighed the sharp drop in beef prices, unfavourable climatic conditions affected
crop productions, notably cereals and wine whose production volumes fell by more than 30 % and 23 %
it should be reminded that Spain still shows the second largest increase in
respectively. Nevertheless,
agricultural income in the Community since 1992 (behind Portugal), with a rise of more than 41 % after
taking account of inflation.

(2002/C 301 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1511/02

by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Organising a follow-up to the EU’s forestry strategy

(29 May 2002)

In December 1998, the Council adopted a common forestry strategy for the EU. Before the Council
adopted its resolution on this subject, the Commission had published a communication concerning it and
the European Parliament had adopted a resolution of its own in 1997. The EU institutions have since
considered the Commission communication on the forest-based industry.

Although the above-mentioned documents do not create a common EU forestry policy, it is extremely
important to forestry that the EU should adopt an active approach to forests, and not only from the point
of view of environmental protection. There are major challenges, inter alia with regard to promoting the
use of timber and thus creating an ecologically benign society by replacing other materials with wood,
which is renewable. There are also challenges in connection with the enlargement of the EU, which must

C 301 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

proceed in a controlled manner without causing damaging changes in prices, inter alia for the products of
sawmills. Renewable energy production and the significance of forests for climate change also, at the least,
require further study. In addition, the significance of forestry as a source of employment in rural areas
deserves special consideration.

Could the Commission establish some kind of system for following up the forestry strategy, for example
the drafting of brief, concise reports every four years or periodic broadly-based conferences at which the
views of experts could be heard? This would provide better information within the EU concerning current
challenges and priorities for action. Such a follow-up would clarify the EU’s forestry strategy. A further
step might be to draw up action programmes for a few years at a time on the basis of the results of the
follow-up, by means of which the coordination of action and the commitment of the various parties
concerned thereto could be improved.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

The Forestry Strategy, as agreed in Council Resolution of 15 December 1998 (1), builds on sustainable
management and the multi-functional role of forests, the principle of subsidiarity and commitments
adopted at international processes related to forests.

The Strategy emphasises the need for effective co-ordination between different sectorial policies which
have an influence on forests and forestry, and co-ordination at Community level.

In its Resolution, the Council invites the Commission to report to the Council on the implementation of
this Forestry Strategy within five years.

The Commission endorsed on 12 December 2001 an inter-service agreement through which it committed
itself to prepare a report on the implementation of this Strategy up to the year 2003.

At the same time an Inter-services Group on the forestry sector was set-up, with the aim to improve the
co-ordination and the exchange of information between the relevant Commission services on activities
related to the forestry sector. This Inter-services Group will meet in the second half of 2002 in order to
discuss the preparation of this implementation report. Within this process, progress on follow-up to the
communication forest-based and related industries (2) will also be taken into account.

The Honourable Member’s suggestion for
consideration in these discussions.

following up the Forestry Strategy will be taken into

(1) OJ C 56, 26.2.1999.
(2) COM(1999) 457 final.

(2002/C 301 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1514/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Illegal trafficking in live animals

Reports have recently appeared in the Italian press citing figures relating to the market in environmental
crime, contained in a report, itself published only very recently, produced by the LAV (Anti-Vivisection
League) and sponsored by the Legambiente (League for the Environment) organisation. These figures are
extremely disturbing: EUR 2 582 million for waste management activities, EUR 1 785 million for
irregularities in the construction sector, EUR 155 million for trafficking in works of art and as much as
EUR 2 825 million for the racket in live animals (especially fighting dogs/thoroughbreds intended for illegal
racing).
In addition, the Vicenza and Padua forestry authorities have impounded 500 000 protected
animals slaughtered in eastern European countries.