Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 6kWORD 15k
1 July 2016
E-005405-16
Question for written answer E-005405-16
to the Commission
Rule 130
Marco Affronte (EFDD) , Eleonora Evi (EFDD) , Isabella Adinolfi (EFDD) , Catherine Bearder (ALDE)

 Subject:  Reorganisation of the Corpo Forestale dello Stato (CFS ‐State Forestry Agency) — CITES offices
 Answer in writing 

The Commission has submitted to Parliament the EU Action Plan against Wildlife Trafficking (SWD(2016)0038 final), which is to be put into practice over the next few months.

Action 10 under objective 2.1., action 15 under objective 2.2 and action 24 under objective 2.4 provide for improved cooperation among the Member State agencies responsible, inter alia through the work of customs services and by means of checks and police measures.

Italy is moving in the opposite direction: by means of a decree of 1 February 2016, the CFS, which was responsible for the CITES offices, was abolished and incorporated into the Carabinieri, a branch of the armed forces. This will lead to tasks being split: for example, checks at airports will be carried out by the financial police (Guardia di Finanza), whilst certificates will be checked and issued by the ordinary police. No specific arrangements have been made concerning the CITES offices and their highly specialised staff.

Is the Commission aware of this reorganisation of the CFS (and by extension of the CITES offices in Italy) and what view does it take of it?

Is the resulting division of tasks among different agencies not at odds with the approach taken in the EU action plan referred to above?

Original language of question: IT 
Legal notice - Privacy policy