Updated September 1998 www.greennet.org.uk/fern THE EU FOREST STRATEGY1. Background - earlier attempts at a common forest strategyThe Community has attempted to adopt a common forest strategy three times: In 1981 the Commission sent the Council a proposal for a Resolution on a forestry policy. This was supported by the Parliament, but not endorsed by the Council. In 1988 the Commission adopted a Communication proposing a "Community strategy and action programme for the forestry sector" i. The Council did not adopt the 'strategy' part of the Communication - which would have implied at least a co-ordination between Member States' forestry policy. The 'action plan' was accepted, resulting in different EU funding actions such as aid to Member States for afforestation ii, aid to develop woodlands in rural areas iii, etc. On 30 January 1997 the European Parliament called on the Commission to formulate a "legislative proposal for a European forest strategy" by January 1999 iv. The Parliament's report - also named the "Thomas Report" - make no reference to the earlier attempts to adopt a strategy.
2. The "Thomas Report"The rapporteur of the Parliament's proposal for a forest strategy is the British Socialist MEP David Thomas. His report, like earlier attempts, is an against a centralised common forestry policy. Instead it advocates the development of guidelines and greater co-ordination between the policy of Member States. The report is an attempt to establish a compromise between the view of the Nordic countries that control over forests should be left to the Member States, and the southern European desire for a more interventionist common forest policy.
2.1 NGO comments on the Thomas ReportThe Thomas Report is insufficient as groundwork for a Commission proposal for at least two reasons:
The rapporteur's attitude towards these problems is that the resolution should be as "realistic" as possible, since the Commission is under no obligation to take up the proposals outlined in the report v. However, the Parliament forgot to look at the history which shows that the opposition traditionally came from the Council, not the Commission.
3. The new forest strategy - how far has it got?DG VI (agriculture) of the Commission has just started working on the proposal for a forest strategy. So far the Commission follows the Parliament's request of a strategy that by no means intends to replace national strategies or joint efforts made at pan-European level (Strasbourg 1990, Helsinki 1993, or Lisbon June 1998). The strategy will be complementary to these efforts, aiming at implementing in Europe the Forestry Principles of UNCED (Rio, 1992).
3.1 The division of responsibilitiesThe big question the Commission has to face before it finalise a first draft is the division of responsibilities between EU (the Commission) and Member States:
3.2. Standing Forestry CommitteeOn 26 January, the Standing Forestry Committee - made up of representatives from Member States and the Commission - discussed how to identify gabs in Member states' policies, in order to determine where the EU should become involved. No agreement was reached.
3.3 Internal battles in the CommissionThe Commission will continue to work on its proposal in order to find a 'balance' in the division of responsibilities. The Commission is due to present the Strategy to the parliament in 1999. However, before addressing this fundamental problem, the Commission's main challenge seems to be internal. Officials in as many as nine different Commission departments are battling to defend their own DG's interest. DGVI (agriculture) deals with European forests and is primarily responsible for developing the strategy, DG Ib (foreign relations with Asia and Latin America) has tropical forest projects, DGIII (industry) has a unit dealing with wood and paper products, DGIV (competition) has an interest in ensuring fair play in the paper market, DGXVII (energy) is looking at energy production from wood, DG XI (environment) champions sustainable development, DGV (social affairs) is encouraging job creation in the sector, DG XII (research) is doing monitoring of forests, and DG XVI (regional policy) runs forestry programs under the structural funds.No wonder the Commission does not intend to take up the proposal made in the Thomas Report asking the Commission to "establish a coherent and administrative framework...and thus counteract the dispersion of responsibilities and the lack of co-ordination and organisation as regards forestry in the EU....and the Commission should propose...the reorganisation of the budgetary presentation of forestry activities". This seems to be too difficult. All DGs have different goals, and different financial means to reach these goals. However, without co-ordination and agreement within the Commission itself, a coherent and meaningful strategy is not likely to become a reality.
3.4 NGO comments on a forest strategy
What is Fern?Fern is an NGO created by the World Rainforest Movement. Fern advocates changes in EU activities in order to achieve:
Fern ContactsSaskia Ozinga,Fern/WRM 1C Fosseway Business Park Stratford Road Moreton-in-Marsh UK - GL 56 9NQ Tel: 44 1608 652 895 Fax: 44 1608 652 878 Saskia@gn.apc.org
Chantal Marijnissen & Susan,
i) COM(88) 255 final, 11.11.1988 ii) Council Regulation (EEC) no 1609/89, OJ no L 165/1, 15.6.89 iii) Council Regulation (EEC) no 1610/89, OJ no L 165/3, 15.6.89 iv) A4-0414/96; PE 213.578/fin (the "Thomas Report") v) View expressed by David Thomas on Monday 25 March 1997 in the discussion of the draft resolution in the Agricultural Committee. |