Power struggle hinders efforts to create coherent forestry strategy

Date: 01/05/1997

EUROPEAN Commission efforts to bring some coherence to the EU's approach to forestry policy are being hampered by a lack of coherence within the institution itself.

Officials in as many as seven different Commission departments are battling to establish their individual roles in the process as a number of outside pressures come together to force EU action.

But attempts are now being made to set up an inter-service group to prevent work on a forestry strategy for Europe from being hamstrung by an internal turf fight.

The move comes amid growing pressure from EU agriculture ministers for the Union to decide a common negotiating position before June's United Nations meeting in New York, where renewed efforts will be made to agree on a global convention to guarantee the sustainable use of the world's forests.

Ministers have pledged to adopt formal conclusions when they meet in mid-May, once diplomats have drafted an EU position.

The Union will be looking to balance the apparently contradictory demands of ensuring respect for environmental standards in developing countries and those applying for EU membership, while attempting to help them exploit their natural resources.

“We are looking for a legally binding instrument. The big question is how to label timber to guarantee that it has come from sustainable forests,” said one lobbyist.

While this will exercise the minds of officials dealing with foreign trade and development policy, even greater headaches face those charged with giving some logical shape to a strategy to cover the 120 million hectares of forest within the Union itself.

The Commission has two years to come up with proposals following the European Parliament's adoption in February of a report drafted by British Socialist MEP David Thomas. This marked the first use of new powers granted to Euro MPs under the Maastricht Treaty to initiate legislation.

Thomas concentrated on the protection, exploitation and extension of the EU's forest area. His report also represented a compromise between the Nordic view that market control should be left to the private sector and the southern European desire for a more interventionist approach with increased Union funding.

Commission officials are working on a three-tier approach. “We will try to develop the multiple functions of forests, continuing wood production while ensuring the maintenance of the environmental and social benefits of forestry,” said one.

But the relative weight given to each priority varies markedly in different Commission departments.

The Directorate-General for agriculture (DGVI) already manages the extension of forest area through the reafforestation scheme introduced under the 1992 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy.

But DGIII (industry) has a unit dealing with the wood and paper sectors, DGIV (competition) has an interest in ensuring fair play in the paper market, DGXVII (energy) is looking at energy production from wood, DGXI (environment) champions sustainable development, DGV (social affairs) is encouraging job creation in the sector and DGXVI (regional policy) runs forestry programmes under the structural funds.

“We all have different goals and this will be a major difficulty. Eventually, one Commissioner will have to take political responsibility,” commented an official.

The full range of views will be on show at a conference organised by the Club de Bruxelles from 21 to 23 May, where the speakers will include Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler, Environment Commissioner Ritt Bjerregaard and External Relations Commissioner João de Deus Pinheiro.