WRITTEN QUESTION E-2967/02 by Pere Esteve (ELDR) and Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission. Protection of Mediterranean forests.
Date: 2002-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European forestry policy, Mediterranean forest, afforestation, competence of the Member States, forest conservation, sustainable forest management

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/55

(2003/C 161 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2956/02

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(15 October 2002)

Subject: Application of the safeguard clause in respect of imports into the EU of tinned mandarin-orange

segments from China

In June, Spain requested application (pursuant to Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 (1)) of the
safeguard clause in respect of imported tinned mandarin-orange segments, since the Community market
was being severely disrupted by imports from China.

At the beginning of September 2002 the Spanish authorities sent the Commission further information
additional to what it had submitted in July concerning the serious state of affairs which has prevailed in
the mandarin-orange market in recent months.

How does the Commission account for its inaction when (cid:1) according to Article 22 of the above regulation
(cid:1) it is required, in a serious situation such as this, to adopt measures within three working days following
receipt of notification?

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2002)

As the Honourable Member knows, safeguard measures vis-à-vis World Trade Organisation (WTO)
Members (such as China) can only be imposed in acordance with WTO obligations. This means that the
Community may only act in accordance with WTO rules in this field. One of these requirements is that it
is the task of the Member States to present a file with sufficient information as to the nature and
dimension of the trade disturbance, and of the serious impact on the relevant Community producers.

Unfortunately, the information presented by Spain up until now does not meet the high standards imposed
by WTO and the Community’s rules. The Commission is in close contact with Spain, highlighting aspects
to be completed in order to fulfil
these standards, and will expeditiously examine any additional
information provided. The Honourable Member can rest assured that the Commission will not hesitate to
proprose the appropriate action as soon as this is legally justified.

(2003/C 161 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2967/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) and Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Protection of Mediterranean forests

(22 October 2002)

In the light of the current situation regarding forests in the Mediterranean areas of the European Union
and of the absence of any specific policies for their protection or reforestation: what is the Commission’s
view on the drawing-up of an EU-financed plan for the restoration of Mediterranean forests, comprising
programmes based on sustainable criteria for the protection, regeneration and conservation of the forests
of southern Europe and the establishing of a European protected forest heritage for forests with flora and
fauna of particular ecological value that are public property and managed by non-governmental
organisations?

How would the Commission assess this initiative? Does it intend to bring forward any other proposals
concerning the protection of Mediterranean forests?

C 161 E/56

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

Mediterranean forests are natural areas of great variety that enjoy a specific set of bioclimatic conditions.
Their functions (cid:1) protective, productive, social and cultural (cid:1) are exposed to a range of risks involving
both natural and human agency.

Some damage, e.g. from fire, can give rise to other problems such as soil erosion or the spread of pests
and diseases. The dangers to which these forests are subject have to be considered not in isolation but in
the context of natural phenomena such as long periods of drought and social phenomena such as
increasing urbanisation and the agricultural exodus.

Damage prevention and control work cannot be carried out without the involvement of owners, managers
and users. Here it is important to take account of both the structure of ownership, since these forests
belong predominantly to a multitude of private owners often of small areas and the various types of
management and use discernible in the ongoing history of these Mediterranean ecosystems.

Turning to Union action in this area, and in particular the question of any initiatives on the part of the
Commission, some basic principles well defined in the Union’s forestry strategy must be noted.

The Council Resolution of 15 December 1998 on a forestry strategy for the Union (1) makes the
subsidiarity principle one of the basic policy elements:

given the fact that the Treaty establishing the European Community makes no provision for a specific
common forestry policy and that responsibility for forestry policy lies with the Member States,
nevertheless taking into account that, pursuant to the principle of subsidiarity and the concept of
shared responsibility, the Community can contribute positively to the implementation of sustainable
forest management and the multifunctional role of forests.

This decentralised approach accords with the principles and objectives set out in Parliament’s resolution on
the Union’s forestry strategy passed on 30 January 1997 (rapporteur David E. Thomas; doc. A4-0414/96),
point 2 of which states that ‘coordination of national policies must be based on respect for the principle of
subsidiarity’.

The launching of systematic action to restore the Mediterranean forest heritage in line with sustainable
protection, regeneration and conservation criteria is therefore in the first place a task to be assumed in the
Member States’ forestry policies. So too are decisions on which administrative agencies or organisations are
to be charged with managing forest ecosystems that are protected because of a flora and fauna of special
ecological interest.

The main aim of the measures adopted or envisaged at Union level under the environment, rural
development, regional policies etc.
is to add value to and reinforce the Member States’ policies on
sustainable forest management, including protection of the Mediterranean forest heritage.

Among the Community instruments backing up the Member States’ action to protect and conserve
Mediterranean forests are:

(cid:1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild

fauna and flora (2);

(cid:1) the Sixth Environment Action Programme (3);

(cid:1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural development (4);

(cid:1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 on the Structural Funds (5);

(cid:1) the sixth framework programme for research activities (6).

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/57

In the context of these instruments the Commission is encouraging the Member States to develop an
integrated approach coordinating forest management with spatial development planning in order to:

(cid:1) make forests useful to the whole population and compatible with their real needs,

(cid:1) ensure sustainable multifunctional forest management based on science and technology that takes
proper account of the links between silviculture and more complex problems: erosion, flooding,
biodiversity loss etc.,

(cid:1) bring together at regional and local level all those with an interest in Mediterranean forests, including
public and private owners,
local authorities, managers of protected zones and non-governmental
organisations so that they can work together and develop a comprehensive overview of what is
involved in management and protection of our forest heritage.

The integrated and decentralised approach that the Community’s regional and rural policies take to
fostering protection and sustainable development of the Mediterranean zones does not see the problems as
purely silvicultural, environmental or administrative but as needing to be tackled in the wider context of
regional development and the lives of local people, producers, users and other interested parties.

(1) OJ C 56, 26.2.1999.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1997.
(3) OJ L 242, 10.9.2002.
(4) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.
(5) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(6) OJ L 232, 29.8.2002.

(2003/C 161 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2975/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR)
and Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Interpretation of Article 87 of the EC Treaty with regard to the planning agreement involving Real

Madrid football club and the free competitive market

From the Commission’s answer to Written Question P-2491/02 (1) on the planning agreement involving
Real Madrid football club and the free competitive market the questioners understand the following:

1.

2.

although the Commission understands that there is insufficient reason to investigate the matter, it
states that the action of the authorities has favoured Real Madrid;

the Commission considers that the advantage in question is not of the kind referred to in Article 87 of
the EC Treaty, since it does not entail the direct or indirect granting of State resources, and bases this
argument on the judgment of 13 March 2001, in Case C-379/98, Preussen Elektra AG v. Schleswag
AG, ECR I-02099.

In this connection the questioners understand the following:

(cid:1) that the conjunction ‘or’ in Article 87 of the EC Treaty unequivocally implies the inclusion of aid
which is not State funding and that that this distinction is maintained clearly and literally in Article 88
of the EC Treaty;

(cid:1) that the conjunction ‘or’ in itself signifies an alternative and hence we are talking about two concepts
‘aid granted by a Member State’ and aid granted

which are not equivalent or equal, but separate:
‘through State resources’, both of them covered by the relevant articles.

Taking this argument into account, can the Commission explain the distinction made by the legislator
between these two kinds of aid? To what does aid granted by a Member State other than aid in the form of
State resources refer?