Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 15 February 2006 - Strasbourg

14. EU forestry strategy (debate)

  President. The next item is the report by Mr Kindermann on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on the implementation of a European Union forestry strategy [2005/2054(INI)] (A6-0015/2006).

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, Mr Kindermann, on a very well-balanced report.

The Commission believes that the main issues and challenges in the European forestry sector are well reflected in the draft opinion. In particular, we appreciate the overall support given to the Commission’s proposal concerning the preparation of a European action plan for forestry. In our view, the action plan should provide a coherent, verifiable and practical framework for the implementation of this strategy. It could become a major instrument of coordination between Community actions and the forestry policies in the different Member States. For that reason, we consider the development and implementation of the action plan a dynamic process, which should involve the Member States and the stakeholders and should be accompanied by regular monitoring and reporting.

The ideas are very well expressed in the draft opinion and we fully share the rapporteur’s view on the need to develop the action plan in close cooperation with the Member States and the stakeholders. I think we have already made progress in that respect. The action plan will be based on the overall principles of the European forestry strategy, which are sustainability and subsidiarity.

There are three specific issues that I would like to highlight. First, the need to enhance the competitiveness of the forestry sector, in line with the Lisbon objectives. There is growing concern about the economic viability of sustainable forestry in the European Union in the context of globalisation. Competitiveness is a key pillar of sustainable forest management and it is of crucial importance in maintaining the multiple benefits that forestry provides to society, including employment opportunities in rural areas where there is nothing else. Forestry can deliver a wide range of products and services to society and we should try to develop this potential in the future.

The second issue is that the forestry sector has to respond to social demands concerning the protection of the environment and the natural heritage, in accordance with the Gothenburg objectives of sustainable development. The forestry sector as a whole will prosper best if it fits snugly into wider society. Actively contributing to major European objectives, such as biodiversity, conservation or climate change mitigation, will offer new opportunities for forestry. In relation to a previous discussion, the possibility of biomass for energy is a clear example of how forestry can contribute.

The last issue is the global importance of forestry for sustainable development and the need firmly to continue our support for international commitments for the protection and sustainable management of forestry worldwide. That also involves measures to combat illegal logging and related trade in forest products. Those issues are well addressed in the report and I can assure you that they will be reflected in our action plans.

  Heinz Kindermann (PSE), rapporteur. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, in May 2005 the Agriculture Council called on the Commission to work in close cooperation with all those involved to draw up an EU action plan for sustainable forest management by mid-2006, which should turn the various elements of the EU's forest strategy into reality. With its own-initiative report on the EU forestry strategy, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development has made an early entry into the discussion, and we want this report to take the process we have initiated further and deeper. Which of our considerations and demands ultimately end up in the action plan is, of course, purely up to the Commission, but the quality of the cooperation – for which I am very grateful – leads us to believe that, on the essential issues, we are thinking along the same lines.

The starting point for our own-initiative report was the Council resolution of 1998 on a forestry strategy for the European Union, which offers a whole range of possibilities, but has no specific targets and no coherent structure. In accordance with the various starting points, and alongside some general remarks, we have identified a range of strategy elements. I would just like briefly to go over the most important points.

First: Until now, there has been no uniform legal basis for forestry activities at EU level. In our view, an objective assessment would be desirable despite all the concerns of those involved.

Secondly: There are various definitions of forest both internationally and in each of our 25 countries, and we therefore ask the Commission to consider drafting a European definition, in order to make the European Union's measures in this domain transparent and comparable.

Thirdly: In order to improve coordination, communication and cooperation, we propose strengthening existing structures such as the Standing Forestry Committee. In addition to horizontal coordination, the exchange of information between the levels of the hierarchy within the Commission must be improved using the new Inter-Service Group. In our opinion, this vertical coordination should have a dedicated unit in the Secretariat General.

Fourthly: Europe's forests must be protected from forest fires and air pollution, and also from soil and water pollution. Illegal logging outside the EU must be combated by means of appropriate coordinated international measures, and the EU can play its part in this.

Fifthly: Forests can help us to slow down the greenhouse effect and climate change, but only if we make greater use of their various products. The EU should therefore promote the use of environmentally friendly wood products and give renewable energy from forests a greater place in its energy supplies.

Sixthly: In order to promote the competitiveness of the sector, and thus employment and income in rural areas, Europe needs to address itself more effectively to such tasks as the mobilisation of timber resources, the removal of obstacles to the use of wood, overcoming structural problems in forestry, and the diversification of forest owners’ income.

Seventhly: since forestry-related research and development have a major role to play in connection with the Lisbon Strategy, key forestry research projects should therefore be included in the Seventh Framework Programme of Research.

Eighthly: European training and further training programmes such as Leonardo and Erasmus should be put to more use than hitherto in the forestry sector. In this connection, the Member States are particularly called on to provide those affected with more information on the opportunities available.

Finally: What contribution can the forestry sector make to Lisbon and Gothenburg? We think that Europe's forests, unlike those in other regions of the world, are underutilised, not only with regard to timber – we use only 60% of the quantity grown – but also with regard to services that have previously been unmarketable. We want the European forestry sector to improve its competitiveness in this way, because only a vibrant and competitive forestry sector can contribute to Lisbon and Gothenburg and thus to the wellbeing of Europeans.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE-DE), draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. – (SV) Mr President, as draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I should like to emphasise that forests are incredibly important to our continent and that they affect a very large number of people. In Sweden, forests and forest management account for nearly 30% of the economy, and there are more than 15 million forest owners in Europe. What we decide here in Parliament is therefore of great importance to a lot of people, both at home in Sweden and in many parts of Europe.

I know that there is great anxiety about the EU interfering in forestry issues and beginning to take decisions and about Brussels starting to meddle in this area. I can understand that concern, for such interference would not be helpful. There are huge differences between an olive grove in southern Italy and an industrial forestry business in northern Sweden. Decisions about forests should be taken locally and close to those who are familiar with the forests and who use and own them.

I wish, however, to reassure those who fear such a development. I believe that the Commission is extremely clear in its statement: forestry policy should be based on subsidiarity. This is the starting point for those of us in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. That does not, however, mean that the EU does not have any responsibility for forestry. On the contrary, the EU has a big responsibility, namely that of taking account of the forests in all its decision-making. Now already, the EU takes a great many political decisions that affect European forests either directly or indirectly. We in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety find, however, that coordination between the various proposals affecting our forests is almost non-existent. This state of affairs both makes for inconsistency between different environmental objectives and affects the basic conditions under which forests are managed. I wish, therefore, to emphasise that, in my opinion, the Commission’s most important task in the future is to coordinate existing policy and monitor how it affects forests. Moreover, preliminary assessments able to take account of the ways in which different political decisions affect European forests and forest management must be carried out in good time.

In conclusion, I should like to emphasise the importance of forest management. It is probably the branch of industry that most clearly creates both economic and environmental value. As the Commission points out, EU forestry does, however, have problems being competitive in the global, open market, and that is something that has a price in terms of environmental value. My and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety’s message to you today is, therefore, that, by taking account of our forests, the Commission should be able to create sound and stable conditions for forest management and thus give Europe both a better economy and a better environment.

  Michl Ebner, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, first of all I would like to thank Mr Kindermann for his wise and balanced report, as he has put a great deal of commitment and empathy into achieving a compromise and drafting a balanced text.

We are in favour of the forest strategy, Commissioner, but against market regulation, and that is something we want to make quite clear. We are in favour of subsidiarity in forestry policy and are convinced that we should continue to go down that path. We certainly should pay much more attention to this sector. If only 85% of the forested area in the European Union is managed, we must do our level best to bring the other 15% into the economic cycle; and if, as Mr Kindermann has indicated, only 60% of the wood grown is used, it is all the more important to draw attention to it: it is only if they are used that these forests can be protected.

Let me also say that the fairy tale of the dying forests of Europe we have been told for decades really was a fairy tale, a tale told more for political effect than for any other reason. If there is growth of 450 thousand hectares a year, then the forests are certainly not dying, but expanding. It thus only remains for me, Commissioner, to ask you to incorporate into your work as much as possible of what ultimately remains binding in the text following tomorrow's vote, and I am pleased that you have already agreed to do so at the end of your speech.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos, on behalf of the PSE Group. – (PT) Commissioner, the European forest, and its economic, social and environmental importance, is a subject in which we have a shared interest. We must never overlook the fact that forests account for 35% of EU territory, 3.5 million jobs, 15 million owners and a production value of over EUR 350 million.

These figures illustrate the importance of the issue and the importance that the European institutions should be attaching to it. This is especially true at a time when various factors – be they natural or man-made – pose such a threat to forests. In a particularly complex international context, the Union urgently needs a fresh approach to the energy question, whereby biomass is duly brought to the fore, and this is borne out by the priority that the Commission and the Austrian Presidency have been attaching to the issue.

I therefore welcome the Commission’s communication on the implementation of the strategy and commend Mr Kindermann on his report. I welcome much of the report, which represents an excellent contribution from Parliament to the formation of Europe’s forestry strategy. Furthermore, there are a number of proposed amendments which I believe will help to improve upon and complete the report.

The fact that the report acknowledges the vulnerabilities of the forest is a welcome contribution to the ongoing debate on natural disasters. The Commission will hopefully, therefore, adopt an integrated approach to this vitally important issue, an approach that sees the problem, as we do, as a whole. In this way, the contributions of the various instruments now on the political agenda can help to improve the situation for Europe’s forests.

  Anne Laperrouze, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – (FR) Mr President, Commissioner, the report by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development is a balanced one. Although it does not endorse the idea of a common forestry policy, it does stress the need for coordination. The report acknowledges that Member States vary in their definitions of what is meant by the word ‘forest’, which makes it difficult to offer a definitive assessment of important Community forestry measures.

I, for one, am disappointed that the proposal to set up a European observatory has not been adopted. Such an observatory would have led to the use of reliable, retrievable data. That aside, I support the proposals calling on the Commission to improve coordination between the various Directorates-General concerned with forestry issues and to strengthen the role of the Standing Forestry Committee.

I tabled an amendment calling on the Commission to make proposals to the Member States based, in particular, on tax arrangements and designed to encourage forest owners to plant indigenous species in order to maintain biodiversity and reduce fire risks. The spirit of this proposal was echoed in the report, which recommends the adoption of measures for the prevention of fires and desertification, afforestation with native species, the promotion of diversity, the sustainable management of natural forests and the promotion of environmental services, particularly with a view to protecting water systems and combating erosion. The implementation of these measures entails investments on the part of forest owners. As they provide benefits to society, they deserve to be duly compensated.

Lastly, the report takes account of my hopes and fears for the sector. It sets out the priority axes for a policy that will be global, yet will cater specifically for each region, taking account of the economic, social and environmental potential of the forestry sector. Thank you, Mr Kindermann, for your work, which I believe will secure a large majority in tomorrow’s vote.

  Ilda Figueiredo, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (PT) The undoubted need to maintain forests and to preserve their multifunctional nature requires effective management and support measures that take account of the range of forests and their specific problems. I therefore do not accept the idea of emphasising a one-size-fits-all concept of the forest, when we know that there are internationally accepted definitions underpinning reports on, and periodical assessments of, the state of forests in Europe and the rest of the world.

Whilst we welcome an EU Action Plan for the sustainable development of forests, we do not endorse a number of the proposals put forward in the report before us. We regret the rejection of a number of proposals that we made in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, aimed at warning of the situation in the forests of southern Europe, which face fires on a yearly basis, and which in some years are stricken by drought; such was the case in Portugal last year, where some 300 000 hectares of forest burned, with enormous costs and serious consequences for the forest, biodiversity, farmers and the populations of vast areas.

We therefore call for a proper medium and long-term forest-fire prevention strategy, a specific regulation and a dedicated budgetary heading with a view to protecting the forests against fires, taking account of resolutions that have actually already been adopted by Parliament and of what happened to the previous specific Community regulation, which was regrettably removed by the Commission.

We also feel that the next Action Plan should cover seven years, so as to correspond to the next financial perspective. The Plan should include a programme for the protection of cork-oak forests, and a contribution towards the rearing of livestock and cork production, which is of vital importance for rural development across vast areas of countries in the south.

We trust that the Commission will take on board the proposals – not contained in the report but which we once again wish to stress – to make the Action Plan a proactive instrument in the protection and promotion of the range of forests, including those in the countries of the South where the climate is most conducive to forest fires.

  Andrzej Tomasz Zapałowski, on behalf of the IND/DEM Group. – (PL) Mr President, the figures that characterise forest structure in the 15 countries of the old European Union in terms of forest cover are very good and amount to 35% of the total land area, with a significant majority in the hands of 15 million private owners. However, with forests divided to this extent among private owners, the question arises as to how economies of scale can be achieved in forest management.

I am not against private forest ownership. In my home country, Poland, the majority of forests are state-owned, the exact figure being 82%, with 2% of this accounted for by national parks. By comparison with other EU countries, the structure of our forests is much richer and older. The Polish forestry model is efficient and effective.

State-owned forests are a self-financing, profit-making institution. However, what European Union aid for forests in Central Europe provides is substantial funding to train people who plant trees on their own private land, and funding for payments. Support is also needed for areas that are not exploited commercially, national parks and reserves. The infrastructure linked to forestry needs modernisation.

I call on the Commission and Parliament to draw on the experience of forest management in Poland. Western Europe can learn from experience too. Not everything that is private is always best. Non-private forests also need support.

The wealth of Polish forests benefits society across the entire European Union.

  Janusz Wojciechowski, on behalf of the UEN Group. – (PL) Mr President, what I have to say also concerns the problem facing Polish forests mentioned by the previous speaker.

Poland’s forests are a significant resource, but unlike in most EU countries, the majority – more than 80% of the total area – are state-owned. This is the result of a long historical process and at present there are no reasons for a radical change in the structure of forest ownership in Poland. Public opinion in Poland is largely in favour of forests continuing to be state-owned.

The problem is that the EU has thus far discriminated against state-owned forests, denying them support. I am pleased that Mr Kindermann’s report contains one amendment that holds out the hope that the situation will change and that EU support will be given to forests irrespective of how they are owned. This is something we very much need in Poland and we trust that the Commission will demonstrate understanding of the situation.

  Agnes Schierhuber (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to start with warm thanks to our rapporteur for his very balanced report, for he has taken a very balanced approach to the three pillars of sustainability – the economic, the ecological and the sociocultural. This report reflects the European model of forestry: multifunctional forest management, predominantly private ownership of forests and a close entwinement with agriculture, leisure space for citizens and living space for plants and animals.

The report also refers to the regional characteristics of forest management: in the South, for example, as has already been mentioned, the problems of forest fires and cork oaks; in Central Europe the high utility of the forests alongside their considerable importance for relaxation, tourism and vital protective functions, particularly in Alpine areas; and in northern Europe primarily the market orientation of timber production. It also emphasises the importance to climate policy of wood as an energy source and building material to replace fossil fuels and building materials. I would like to thank the Commissioner for making specific reference to this.

I see sustainably managed forests as being a sort of green lung. This report particularly emphasises the need to coordinate forestry-related policies at EU level and to take joint measures, agreed by vote to achieve additional effects for European forestry, whilst safeguarding subsidiarity.

It follows, then, that what we are talking about here is a European forestry strategy. I would like to make quite clear my opposition to market regulation of forest management, which has been put up for discussion time and time again. Once again, many thanks for this report.

  María Isabel Salinas García (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, Commissioner, tomorrow the European Parliament will approve the report by Mr Kindermann and, in doing so, it will be sending the Commission and the Council a clear message about the approach we want the future action plan for our forests to take.

Of all of the ideas on which we have worked in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, I would like to stress the innovative nature of the proposals relating to the ban on changes in use of burnt land. This measure, which we are already applying with considerable success in my country, Spain, has the great virtue of discouraging those people who destroy our forest heritage whose sole motivation is then to speculate with the land. I therefore believe that the future European forest plan must opt clearly for a policy for preserving our forests and enhancing and making the best possible use of the immense resources obtained from forest soil.

I would also like to say, however, that for a long time we Spanish Members of Parliament and many Members from countries of the South have been calling for a common forest policy to serve as an instrument for managing this heritage, which benefits the whole of the Union.

I therefore believe that we must not take the wrong approach: the protection of forests is good for the North and good for the South. We would have liked some of our suggestions about the Mediterranean forest to have been taken into account. We all agree that the forests play a fundamental role and provide us with resources that are closely linked to the future of the Union and to the objectives we all set in Lisbon. The multifunctional role of the forests must be enhanced on the basis of a common approach.

We would therefore urge you, Commissioner, to consider common regulation of what we see as an asset and a heritage for the whole of the European Union.

  Kyösti Virrankoski (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, the rapporteur, Mr Kindermann, has drafted an excellent report on the implementation of a European Union forestry strategy. My sincere thanks go to him for that. I also wish to thank him for the excellent cooperation he showed in preparing the report.

As we have already said, in the European Union forestry employs 3.4 million people, and the value of its output stands at EUR 350 billion. In many countries, such as Finland and Sweden, its importance to the economy is crucial. Aside from production, forestry provides employment for a cluster of industries related to it, among which is the very considerable metal and electrical engineering industry. Its importance will only grow as new possibilities for producing energy are sought.

The EU, however, has no common forestry plan, although many areas of policy, such as rural development and environmental policy, impact greatly on this sector. It is therefore appropriate to undertake a comprehensive assessment of action on forests.

The report makes the assumption that, even in the future, forestry policy itself will fall within the competence of the Member States. The tone of the report suggests that there is no desire to create new bureaucracy similar to the European Union’s agricultural policy. The report supports the Commission’s project for an action plan for sustainable forest management in the EU. The very fact that this area of policy is so fragmented makes this necessary. There have to be better guarantees for the success and future of a sector of industry that employs sustainable, renewable natural resources. The report is not in favour of setting up a separate forestry agency. This is quite right. We in the EU need to learn to rationalise our policies so as to be able to perform new tasks with the resources currently available, without always establishing new agencies. I await the Commission’s new proposals with interest.

  Dariusz Maciej Grabowski (IND/DEM). – (PL) Mr President, whilst thanking Mr Kindermann for his report, I would like to stress that the EU’s forestry strategy should have one single goal, namely a systematic extension of the land area covered by forests, particularly large forests. Only in forests covering more than 500 ha can the biodiversity of plant and animal species be restored.

The afforestation policy can be implemented most effectively in the new Member States, particularly in Poland. This is because of Poland’s very effective model of ownership and the right to work and exploit forests. The evidence for this is that in 50 years Poland has increased its forests by almost 50% and the only virgin forests in the Union are in fact in Poland. Large-scale hunting for deer, boar and elk goes on in Polish forests. Everyone has access to the forests and those who hunt in them are involved in their management.

Allocating more funds to afforestation in the new Member States is not the best strategy. Supporting and promoting the Polish model of forest management is, in my view, desirable. The EU should treat state-owned forests at least as well as privately—owned ones. It follows that state-owned forestry undertakings should have the same right to financial support as private ones.

Any kind of discrimination against state-owned forestry undertakings makes no economic sense. Most importantly, it makes no sense either from the ecological point of view.

  Zdzisław Zbigniew Podkański (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, the EU’s forests are characterised by their great diversity. The conditions for preserving their multi-functional role are also diverse. This means that forest management must be well-planned and sustainable in order to maximise a forest’s protective and social functions, which are no less important than its productive functions.

Forest owners play a major role in forest management. Studies and reports show that management is at its best in state-owned forests. Unfortunately, in contrast to privately-owned forests, state-owned forests cannot rely on significant assistance from EU funds. It is therefore necessary to reconsider whether the existing forestry strategy is appropriate, and whether state-owned forests should not also come within the scope of EU assistance. We must remember that when all is said and done, what matters to people is the forest, not who owns it.

  Duarte Freitas (PPE-DE). – (PT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, Commissioner, the Commission’s report before us sets out the main conclusions of the analysis of the European forestry strategy and the emerging problems affecting the forestry sector, and suggests measures that might be taken in the future.

Experience has shown that the forestry sector can help deliver the Lisbon Strategy objectives of sustainable economic development and competitiveness and the Gothenburg objectives, including the safeguarding of Europe’s natural resources. The Commission is proposing to develop a European Action Plan for forest management that will be able to provide a consistent framework for implementing measures in the field of forestry, and in so doing help to make the most of the sector’s potential for Europe.

The Treaty establishing European Union does not, however, lay down a legal basis for a common forestry policy. What is more, neither the sectoral Community policies on the forest, nor the Lisbon and Gothenburg strategies, have ultimately been sufficiently efficient to combat the deterioration of forests.

I wish to remind the Chamber of the tragedy of the forest fires and the drought which have laid waste to southern Europe in recent years, and which have unfortunately hit Portugal particularly badly. I realise that some may see this situation as nothing more than a distant problem, but I should like to draw your attention to the major difficulties that the forestry sector in southern Europe is facing, and the problems endured by the citizens who depend on the sector.

In view of its serious nature, this problem needs to be tackled, and a committed and far-reaching approach adopted, as a matter of urgency. A common forestry policy is, more than ever, of vital importance. I therefore believe that the Member States should think very carefully about the environmental, social and economic benefits of introducing a common policy within the context of the future Constitution.

I therefore call on the Chamber to support Amendments 7, 8 and 9, to which I have put my name, along with Mrs Herranz Garcia and others.

  Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE). – (ES) Mr President, I believe this report to be very positive and I would like to congratulate the rapporteur, my colleague Mr Kindermann, most warmly on his work.

We Spanish Socialists identify in particular with this text because it recognises the importance of the forest sector in the European Union, on the basis of broader criteria than the purely economic and also because it highlights the need to produce a single interpretation of the concept of forest.

Furthermore, because it makes particular mention of fires and the management of disasters, which are the two great problems facing the Spanish forests, and because it supports the general approach and the results of the Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, which is a process in which Spain plays a very prominent role, since it is one of the four States that are leading it.

Furthermore, because I believe that the report by Mr Kindermann provides new elements which deserve to be taken into account, such as — and I believe this to be very important — the need to facilitate coordination and cooperation, both amongst the units of the Commission and between the units of the Commission and the Member States, and enhancing the fields of research, training and communication to the public, fields that are in line with the Spanish forest plan.

I would like to thank Mr Kindermann very much for having accepted my amendment, relating to the fundamental role played by forests as regulators of the water cycle, but I would still like to see an express mention of the importance of Community intervention in contributing to the maintenance and remuneration, where necessary, of the environmental services that forests provide for the whole of society.

In this regard, although I believe that we should take account of the importance of the economic and environmental aspect, I would like to say to the Commissioner and the rapporteur that I will continue working to achieve a genuine Community policy in this field.

  Danutė Budreikaitė (ALDE). – (LT) The EU does not have a common forestry policy. However, the importance of forestry has prompted the creation of the EU Forestry Strategy, and the Commission is preparing an action plan for its implementation.

The EU forestry sector is incredibly diverse in terms of forest types, sizes, ownership structures and social-economic conditions. Around 60% of forests are private.

The 10 new Member States have more state-owned forests than the former EU15. In Lithuania, 50% of forests are state-owned, 33% private and 17% are reserved for the restoration of ownership rights.

In Lithuania, forest management is the responsibility of the Ministry of Environment. State and private forests are managed by different sections of the ministry. Three thousand workers work in state forests, while private ones are run by just 120 officials. Not only is forestry management complex, there is also a gap between timber growers and processors. The question arises whether it would not be better if forests were administered by an independent Forestry Ministry?

Perhaps the Commission could provide some examples of good practice experience in forestry management?

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – (PL) Mr President, speaking today in the debate on the EU’s forestry strategy, I would like to draw your attention to two facts I consider to be very important.

In Poland, the State Treasury owns over 80% of the country’s forests that are managed on its behalf by the State forestry undertaking, Lasy Państwowe. Their management, which has spanned a period of several decades, has been acknowledged in World Bank and EU reports as a veritable model of forest management.

Secondly, the European Union allocated around EUR 5 billion for forestry measures from rural development funds in the period 2000-2006. Unfortunately, despite the efforts of a number of my fellow Members, state-run forestry cannot benefit from these funds.

Consequently, my appeal to you, Commissioner, is that this critical shortcoming in the financing of the forestry strategy be rectified in the next seven-year period, namely 2007-2013.

  Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, allow me, too, to express my gratitude to the rapporteur, Mr Kindermann, for his excellent report and to endorse all of his demands. In these times of empty coffers, some people are pulling their hair out when they hear about the new things that the EU is doing and spending money on. However, the EU forestry strategy and the drafting of an EU action plan for sustainable forest management are not new activities and expenditure. Forestry policy is not a Community matter, although it cannot be denied it, and forest management too, are increasingly influenced by policy in other areas such as the environment and agriculture. Ever increasing social demands and environmental standards are also pushing the forest and timber industry to the very edge of profitability. If they are pushed over this edge, the managers will withdraw from the fray.

We see the EU action plan as an opportunity to improve the framework conditions for forest management in the enlarged European Union. I think there are two key aspects to this: first, improving communication and coordination structures at EU level, and secondly appointing a structural unit within the Commission to take primary responsibility for implementing forestry action plans and strategies.

There are three things that we do not need: firstly, European regulation of the timber market, secondly, more bureaucracy, and thirdly, particularly in the current financial situation, I reject EU aid for communal or state forests. Forestry in Central Europe is characterised by multifunctionality. We hope that social, ecological and economic sustainability will continue to be exemplary in the European context, and that European forestry will remain competitive.

  Bernadette Bourzai (PSE). – (FR) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I must first commend our rapporteur, Mr Kindermann, for his outstanding report. It is crucial that the importance of forests in the EU be taken into account, in compliance with the subsidiarity principle, on account of the area that forests cover in the rural environment, their position in the rural economy as a complementary sector of activity to agriculture and their role in landscape planning, for example in preventing, and limiting the impact of, natural phenomena such as flooding and erosion.

There are several reasons why an EU forestry strategy would make it possible to establish sustainable development in forests. Firstly, it would help mitigate climate change and would contribute to sustainable energy supplies, in particular biomass. In this regard, I welcome the agreement reached at the Ecofin Council authorising the application of a reduced rate of VAT for the production of heat and refrigeration from wood. In practice, such a reduction should encourage the development of this renewable energy source and of new outlets for the wood sector. Furthermore, forestry activities also create wealth and jobs, whether this be …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE-DE). – (LT) First of all, I want to thank my colleague Mr Kindermann for preparing the report on the implementation of the EU Forestry Strategy. The draft of this report was also debated in Lithuania and was well received by the Forest Owners Association of Lithuania. In Lithuania, forests are by tradition an important part of our way of life, culture, mentality and economy. This subject is doubtless relevant to the whole of the European Union, in which 60% of forests are managed by 15 million private owners and the average size of a privately-owned forest is only around 13 ha.

All of the EU Forestry Strategy is important, but today I would like to talk specifically about the eighth strategy element of the report, that is, the stimulation of competitiveness, employment and profitability in the forestry sector, and more precisely its 25th point, which states: ‘calls on the Commission and Member States to include in the EU Action Plan for Sustainable Forest Management effective action measures to avert dangers and cope with serious disasters (fires, storms, insect infestations and drought)’.

The report correctly underlines that a large part of the European Union's assistance for forest fire prevention is now obtained from rural development funds, and that it is necessary to consolidate the coordination of regional and national programmes by preparing Community strategic guidelines, which would help to coordinate preventive measures implemented by different state institutions.

Within this context I would like to draw your attention to the trial project for battling against natural disasters, which, thanks to the efforts of the Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, we incorporated into the EU 2006 Budget. It has been allocated EUR 6.5 million. The trial project is aimed at funding preventive measures to fight natural disasters, including forest fires and droughts.

I am confident that the funding of preventive measures is a much more effective means of implementing the Forestry Strategy than battling with the consequences of fires and droughts and awarding compensation from the EU Solidarity Fund for the caused damage.

  Riitta Myller (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, I wish to thank my colleague, Mr Kindermann, particularly for successfully probing into the issue of what European policy on forestry is and what it should be doing.

I would especially like to focus attention on the multi-use aspect of forests and the use of wood in new, innovative ways. Wood as a raw material has many properties which remain unexploited. For example, wood can be used instead of plastic, thus saving non-renewable raw materials. The chemical industry could exploit wood as a raw material, and the properties it has, in totally new ways. There is a lot of potential in the foodstuffs industry; for example, in the production of healthy foods.

All this, however, requires new research and knowledge. I therefore suggest that we should consider establishing a top-level research unit in Europe for the forest and wood sector to address this issue.

  Jan Březina (PPE-DE). – (CS) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, it is my view that the Union needs a common forestry management strategy. I fully agree with the principles on which this strategy is based, particularly the recognition of the multifunctional nature of forests and their significance for the economy, the quality of life, environmental protection and the protection of biodiversity. As a member of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, I also welcome the fact that the report, for which I would like to thank the rapporteur, calls for support for the production of biomass from wood. Many parts of the report show the need to look at forestry management in the context of other common policies, such as environmental protection or energy. In order for the strategy to be effective, however, it must also comply with the financial instruments of the EU.

In this context, I should like to point out that current regulations on financial support from the Union virtually exclude all mention of forests owned by the state or state enterprises. It is possible for these forests to receive aid only in exceptional circumstances such as natural disasters, but no longer for everyday requirements such as investment. This is a key issue, particularly for countries such as the Czech Republic and Poland, where more than 50% of the forested land is in state hands.

I am pleased that the report states that EU support should not be made dependent on the form of ownership of forests. Surely a forest is a forest, whether owned by private individuals, the state or local authorities. Is its significance altered in any way by the form of ownership? European law should apply the principle that all forms of ownership are equal and enjoy the same legal protection. I hope that this report will contribute to raising the profile of the forestry sector in the EU and will encourage the Commission and the Council to devote more attention to this area. A start could be made, for example, by setting up specialist working groups or platforms for exchanging experiences and harmonising national strategies. It is necessary to bring about a situation where national experts in the area of forestry management will be able to view EU institutions as discussion partners.

  Wiesław Stefan Kuc (PSE). – (PL) Mr President, the implementation of a common forestry strategy in our countries will as usual be linked to the provision of funding for these measures. This will not be a problem for many countries, because most forests are public or privately-owned. What, however, can be done in countries such as Poland where most of them are owned and managed by the state?

The number of my fellow Members from Poland speaking today is testimony to the magnitude of the problem. However, I do not share their view and believe that until such time as a balance is struck between state and private ownership, funding should go only to privately-owned forests.

The number of funding applications for new forests has already exceeded the funding allocated for the purpose. In the first year of the programme, new forest plantings amounted to about 6 000 ha. This is an opportunity to change the structure of ownership, lower the cost of timber production and implement a common forestry policy in line with the Lisbon Strategy.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE-DE). – (PL) Mr President, I am pleased that the key issue of forestry is being debated in Parliament and that it is also the concern of other EU and international institutions.

The Commission submitted to Parliament a communication on the implementation of the forestry strategy to date. It also sets out the issues to be included in the Union’s action plan for sustainable forestry management. Its setting is general and succinct and it identifies the way forward to a true balance between the economic, environmental and social functions of forests within a model of sustainable forest management.

The Natura 2000 ecological network is in place in the European Union. However, the success of this initiative will depend on the proper functioning of the funding mechanism for the network. The rules for funding biodiversity, which is the main objective of Natura 2000, should be the same for every form of ownership in the Natura 2000 network, whether private or public. Funding for forestry-linked programmes must come from funds allocated for this purpose in the Union budget, and should not be dealt with in the context of rural development. European taxpayers will be happier funding forestry or the environment than the common agricultural policy.

Forests cover one third of Europe and provide a whole range of environmental, social and economic benefits to the community. Cross-sectoral relationships must be better understood and citizens of the Union better informed about the problems and needs of the forestry sector. Our main objective should be to get forestry and the community to work together. The forestry sector can make an important contribution to the attainment of the Lisbon and Gothenburg objectives. Forests have an influence on scenic and cultural values and serve as a base for other kinds of activities such as hunting and tourism. They are also a source of raw materials for renewable energy.

It is important to remember that preserving the natural and environmental functions of forests that are needed to safeguard and balance the ecosystem requires money as well as know-how.

  Mariann Fischer Boel, Member of the Commission. Mr President, I have been greatly encouraged by the very engaged and highly interesting debate on this important issue, and I should like now to refer to some of the questions that have been raised during our discussion.

On vertical integration in the Commission, two main points must be noted. Firstly, the Commission has very recently set up a new unit in its Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development with a much stronger focus on forestry. This unit is presently coordinating the preparatory work on the EU forest action plan and chairs the meetings of the interservice group on forestry.

Secondly, the interservice group on forestry, which was established in 2002 to facilitate cooperation and coordination of forestry-related work between relevant Commission services, has proved to be an effective tool of coordination and is working very satisfactorily. Its membership has increased and now comprises 11 Commission services. It is very actively involved in the preparation of the action plan and will have a very important role in its implementation.

Regarding the legal basis, several legal studies have been carried out in the Member States concerning the creation of a separate legal basis for forestry in the Treaties. In our opinion, unless the position of the Member States changes, the added value of further legal studies on this issue is questionable.

Regarding the concerns raised about the establishment of a European forest observatory, I believe that this should be discussed primarily among the Member States, which have the main responsibility for our forestry policy. They can assess the added value of such an initiative in the light of the current structures and existing international institutions.

I am aware of the importance of the problem of forest fires in the European Union and the need to continue to prevent these situations from arising. I had the opportunity to see the horrible consequences of these forest fires last year during a visit to Portugal. The current Rural Development Regulation provides support to the Member States for important forest fire prevention measures, such as fire breaks, water points and preventive sylviculture, as well as for the restoration of the forestry production potential in forests that have been damaged by fires.

I should like to indicate that these actions will be continued during the period 2007–2013 under the new Rural Development Regulation, and Member States will, therefore, have the possibility to include forest fire prevention measures in their rural development programmes. The rural development measures will be complemented by the actions that will be undertaken under the LIFE+ programme for the next financial period.

In this respect, following an initiative of the European Parliament, the Commission will launch a study to examine the main causes of forest deterioration in Europe, including forest fires, and the efficiency of the current measures, as well as possible future options to improve the situation.

Quite a few honourable Members mentioned state-owned forests. It is clear that the main objective for rural development is to revitalise rural areas and not to finance public authorities’ activities. This is why the main target group of beneficiaries of the rural development measures related to forestry is the private sector, notably farmers, foresters and, under axis 3 in the rural development policy, the broader rural society. However, there are derogations concerning the exclusion of state-owned forests from support under the new Rural Development Regulation in order to take into account the specific situations of certain regions and the characteristics of particular measures.

Finally, I shall make two comments on the content of the action plan. Firstly, the action plan will be designed in accordance with the key principles of the European Union forestry strategy. The main responsibility for forest policy lies with the Member States, and actions at Community level will continue to be based on the principle of subsidiarity. Our intention is to concentrate Community actions on those areas where there is a clear added value.

The second point is that the action plan will also identify Community instruments that can be used by the Member States for the implementation of the proposed actions, for instance, the new Rural Development Regulation, the LIFE+ instrument or – as was also mentioned here – the seventh Research Framework Programme. In this respect, the action plan will strengthen the overall visibility of forestry and increase the complementarity of different Community actions in support of sustainable forest management.

Concerning the specific proposals in the report, the Commission welcomes the recommendations contained in paragraphs 1, 4, 7, 11, 12, 14, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26 and 29. There are a number of recommendations, notably paragraphs 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23 and 30, which are addressed also to the Member States, and the Commission will discuss these specific proposals with the Member States when we elaborate further on the action plan.

The Commission has also taken good note of recommendation 9, and we will look into it: coordination is certainly an issue to be addressed.

Finally, there are a number of recommendations, such as 2, 13, 15, 25, 27, 28, 30 and 32, which will go beyond the key principle of the European forest strategy or may not be completely in line with the regulations already adopted.

Once again, I thank you for an extremely interesting and very good report and also for this engaged discussion, which has been very supportive.

(Applause)

  President. The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow at 10 a.m.

Written Statement (Rule 142)

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE-DE). – (FR) The purpose of the forest action plan is to consolidate the core principles of the forestry strategy, namely sustainable forest management and strengthening the increasingly multifunctional role played by forests, highlighting their economic, social, cultural, recreational and environmental dimensions and complying with the subsidiarity principle.

It is right not to go down the road of setting up a common forestry policy. That being said, we could have gone further by setting up a structure specially tasked with coordinating, on the one hand, national and Community policy and, on the other, all those working in the forestry sector.

Forest owners are also among the guarantors of biodiversity. The management of animal species goes hand in hand with the management of habitats. Forests have a substantial capacity for hosting wildlife, and the species that naturally colonise these habitats deserve to exist. What is more, the management of forest damage does not necessarily entail the reckless destruction of animal populations. There must be coordination and dialogue between forest owners and hunters if biodiversity is to be fostered and if the right balance is to be struck between forests and game.