WRITTEN QUESTION E-3641/03 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Definition of forest: divergence between the definition in a Greek bill and in the Forest Focus regulation.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, application of EU law, environmental law, environmental monitoring, forest conservation, government bill, interpretation of the law, protected area

C 78 E/840

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Can the Commission Member responsible state what trends have been identified in cross-border freight
and passenger traffic by road and by rail in the European Union since 1995, and provide a forecast of
future trends over the next ten years? What has been the trend in transit traffic through Austria since
1995, and what scenarios does the Commission Member anticipate for Austrian transit traffic over the
next ten years?

What priority should, in the Commission Member’s opinion, be set for cross-border freight and passenger
traffic in coming years in the European Union, in Austria in particular, as between rail or road? What will
be the impact on the ease of access to particular European regions by public transport? What actions has
the Commission already taken to implement its objectives, and what further actions will follow?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission is aware that a large number of international train services operated cooperatively
between national railway undertakings have been discontinued. According to information received from
these undertakings, the services in question often made heavy losses, and in the absence of any public
service subsidies, the undertakings chose to withdraw them for reasons of sound financial management.

Cumbersome cooperation arrangements and the absence of any commercial benefit for many undertakings
involved in the cooperation are another reason why these services are not being maintained.

The Commission considers that this sector of the market would benefit from being liberalised in order to
promote a more commercial approach and allow a single undertaking to assume responsibility for the
services from start to finish.

The implementation of the first railway package in 2003 created a new legal framework which should
facilitate such operations by international groups of undertakings and ultimately by any interested railway
undertaking, when the services are fully liberalised in accordance with Parliament’s wishes. The creation of
RailNetEurope in December 2003, which brings together all infrastructure managers, will promote the
development of international train paths which can be used by undertakings wishing to set up such
services on a more dynamic commercial basis (cid:1) essential if they are to head off the strong competition
from low-price airlines and regular bus services, which are developing rapidly in Europe.

The Commission, being aware of the challenges facing the rail sector in the transport system, has
undertaken in the first and second railway packages, with which Parliament is very familar, and in the
third package, soon to be adopted, to establish a comprehensive European regulatory framework intended
to revitalise the sector by allowing it to offer safe, high-quality services on a European scale, the only
prerequisite for its future success given the other modes of transport which are constantly being improved.
It hopes to have the firm support of Parliament in this long-term project, which will involve a major
cultural change in the rail sector.

The Commission will send the information requested on traffic statistics and investments directly to the
Honourable Members and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2004/C 78 E/0894)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3641/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Definition of ‘forest’: divergence between the definition in a Greek bill and in the Forest Focus

regulation

The Regulation concerning monitoring of forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest
Focus) (1) provides that ‘forest’ means land with tree crown cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more
than 10 % and area of more than 0,5 ha (Article 3.a). The Greek government recently tabled a bill in the

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/841

Greek parliament on the protection of forest ecosystems, the establishment of a forest register, the
regulation of property titles over forestry and woodlands in general and other provisions.
In total
contradiction with the Community definition this bill seeks for reasons of political expediency to define
‘forest’ in such a way as to declassify woodlands and to allow development there. Specifically, this bill (cid:1) a
copy of which I have sent to the Commission (cid:1) defines ‘forest’ as an area of at least 0,3 ha with tree
crown cover of at least 25 % of the area.

Given that each Member State is obliged to comply with the requirements of existing legislation and
1.
the Forest Focus Regulation forms part of Community legalisation, what measures does the
that
Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, intend to take to ensure compliance with its provisions and in
particular the definition of ‘forest’?

Is the definition of ‘forest’ proposed by the Greek government more restrictive than the Community’s

2.
definition and does it exclude land covered by the Community definition?

3.
Does the proposed definition of ‘forest’ diverge from the Community definition? In which Member
States is ‘forest’ defined more restrictively than under the Community definition and in which others is it
defined more broadly in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity (please provide a table with existing
definitions)?

4.
How does the Commission intend to avert fragmentation and the exclusion of land and changes in
the classification of dwellings which are at present protected by the Community in accordance with
Directive 92/43/EEC (2) (Natura 2000), and what measures does it intend to take to maintain and preserve
existing forests, protect biodiversity and ensure the sustainable management of forests?

(1) COD 2002/0164 C5-0292/2003, Regulation not yet published in the OJ.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 February 2004)

Community legislation does not provide for a comprehensive common forestry policy although the
management, conservation and sustainable development of forests are of course addressed through several
Union policies.

The draft Greek forest bill has been made available by the Honourable Member to the Commission.
However, the draft in question has been substantially modified during the legislative procedure prior to
adoption. Once the adopted text of
the Commission could foresee an
assessment of the compatibility of the Greek forest law with Community legislation.

the bill becomes available,

1. to 3.
The Commission stresses that the forest related definitions provided in Article 3 of Regulation
(EC) No 2152/2003 of the Parliament and of the Council of 17 November 2003 concerning monitoring of
forests and environmental interactions in the Community (Forest Focus) (1) have to be applied by Member
States only for the purpose of this Regulation. National forest definitions can still be applied for other
purposes such as national monitoring systems.

4. With regard to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats
and of wild fauna and flora, hereafter ‘Habitats Directive’, it is recalled that this directive makes explicit
references to habitat types and not to land use. The habitat types and species listed in Annexes I and II
should be included in the Natura 2000 network of sites, following the procedure set out in Article 4 and
the selection criteria established by Annexe III of the Directive. The designation of Sites of Community
Importance under the Directive is therefore based on the ecological quality of the habitats and species
existing in a site and not on the site’s land use classification.

C 78 E/842

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The recently tabled Greek forest law will not modify the classification of the habitat types included in the
Habitats Directive and the list of Sites of Community Importance proposed by Greece. Since the Greek
proposal of Sites of Community Importance was based on the selection criteria of Annexe III and not on
land use criteria, this list is not expected to change. The list of selected sites of Community Importance for
the Mediterranean region is expected to be adopted by the Commission by the end of 2004.

As regards the identification of proposed Sites of Community Importance, it should be borne in mind that
Member States have a general obligation to act in such a way as to ensure that the aims of the Directive
are not jeopardised. Even in the absence of a Community list, Member States authorities must at least
abstain from all activities that may seriously compromise the integrity of a site on the national list, that
may cause the deterioration of a natural habitat or significantly disturb species. Furthermore, it should be
stressed that the provisions of Articles 12, 13 and 14, which cover certain plant and animal species, are
applicable from the date of implementation of the Directive, i.e. 10 June 1994.

Regarding management of the sites, within six years of the adoption of the list of sites of Community
Importance for the Mediterranean region, each Member State concerned should designate them as Special
Areas of Conservation and establish relevant priorities.

Following the adoption and the implementation of the Greek law, the Commission will assess the impact
that the possible changes in land use classification may have on the proposed Sites of Community
Importance and will take all appropriate measures to ensure the application of Community environmental
legislation.

(1) OJ L 324, 11.12.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0895)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3644/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Reform of the COM in olive oil

Following the introduction of production aids for table olives, EU 15 production increased by around
70 %. Given that there are no surpluses and that it is unlikely that consumption would have increased on
this scale, the most plausible explanation is that the introduction of production aids has substantially
improved transparency in the table olives market.

In the light of the possible abolition of the link with production, to what extent does the Commission feel
that there is a danger that transparency will be lost in the table olives and olive oil market? Against this
background, how does it assess the risks as regards loss of quality in the olive oil market and the
appearance of oils of doubtful origin?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2004)

The Commission takes the view that an aid scheme cannot be justified on the sole ground that checks on
granting it make it easier to tell production volumes and verify product quality.

We intend to continue fighting lack of market transparency and oil quality fraud using the arrangements
already in place, namely the provisions drawn up by the Community on quality standards and testing for
authenticity and quality that fall to be applied by the Member States (using their anti-fraud organisations
where appropriate) through national programmes to be notified to the Commission. This approach allows
oils to be tested from the production stage up to retail sale.

We are also proposing more intensive action programmes for the sector’s professional organisations,
which should be encouraged to set up traceability, guarantee and inspection schemes for both olive oils
and table olives.