EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 92003E000576

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0576/03 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Declassification of woodlands in Greece.

OB C 65E, 13.3.2004, p. 35–36 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

European Parliament's website

13.3.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/35


(2004/C 65 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0576/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject:   Declassification of woodlands in Greece

The Greek Parliament's legislation drafting committee recently finished drafting a Ministry of Agriculture bill on the protection of forest ecosystems, the establishment of a forestry register, the regulation of real rights in respect of forests and woodlands in general and other provisions.

According to forestry experts, if this bill is adopted, the classification of 5 000 hectares per prefecture as forests and woodlands will be called into question, which may lead to the declassification of a total of 170 000 hectares throughout Greece, given that the country's 34 prefectures contain woodlands. Environmental bodies have complained that the bill means that hundreds of thousands of hectares will fall victim to arbitrary development and landgrabbing.

In parallel with the Ministry of Agriculture's bill, the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works and the Ministry of Finance are drawing up a joint ministerial decision which provides that, following declassification under the bill in question, areas of land that have been illegally developed may be ceded to the illegal developers at a price and may be built on as unplanned building projects, since, according to statements by the Secretary of State for the Ministry for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works, the concept of unplanned building project will be abandoned by 2004.

Given the fact that Greek woodlands are increasingly scarce and given also the chaotic state of town planning and housing in Greece and the Commission's previous statement that ‘Member States must avoid any action that may lead to a further deterioration of the forestry situation on their territory’, does the Commission consider that the bill in question is compatible with Community policy on the protection of forests and the environment generally? Does it also intend to make any recommendations to the competent Greek authorities to prevail upon them to honour the commitments they have assumed both in the European Union and at international meetings?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2003)

The Commission is not (and ought not to be) informed about the draft Greek bill in question, since a generally binding agreement on the definition of forests does not exist at Community level. The Treaty on the European Union makes no provision for a comprehensive common forestry policy. Therefore, matters regarding national forest legislation and national definitions related to forests are the competence of Member States and a change in the national forest legislation in Greece falls under the responsibility of the Member State.

The management, conservation and sustainable development of forests are nevertheless vital concerns of existing Union policies.

The Community is supporting Member States in the management and protection of forests: Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May 1999 on support for rural development from the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certain Regulations (1), supports measures for the management and protection of forests. Furthermore, the Commission has proposed a Regulation called Forest Focus (2) in order to contribute to the protection of the Community forests by means of monitoring.

Therefore, the Greek Government must ensure that such a modification of national law is in accordance with those existing Union policies and legislation.


(1)  OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2)  OJ C 20 E, 28.1.2003.


Top