EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 84/583

(2004/C 84 E/0660)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0416/04

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(9 February 2004)

Subject: Goose hunting in Zeeland

The province of Zeeland has granted an exemption to the ban on hunting geese. The exemption applies to areas that do not fall within the scope of the Birds Directive, with a buffer zone of 200 to 700 metres in operation. The area is home to a number of goose varieties that are listed in Annexe II/2 of the Birds Directive, one of them being the Brent goose (Branta bernicla). The Netherlands is not listed as a Member State that can give permission for hunting Brent geese under Article 7(3). The same goes for the Pink-footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) and the Greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons), which are also frequently in residence in Zeeland. Exceptions to the ban on hunting are only allowed under Article 9(1)(a) if there is no other possible solution to serious problems such as major damage to crops. In the regional press the exemption from the hunting ban is described as an economy measure: the provincial government does not wish to spend money on repairing the damage caused by geese.

1. Is the payment of compensation to farmers for damage to crops a satisfactory solution within the meaning of Article 9(1)?

2. In the opinion of the Commission, does the exemption from the hunting ban violate the Birds Directive? If so, what steps will the Commission take?

3. Are the buffer zones that have been established sufficiently large to provide protection for the birds that live in the protected areas?

4. Can the Commission investigate the extent to which the province of Zeeland has made use of the possibility of obtaining subsidies for agricultural environment management?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to the pink-footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus), the white-fronted goose (Anser Albifrons) and the brent goose (Branta bernicla) which are all mentioned in Annex II/2 of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). According to Article 7(3) of the Directive, the species referred to in Annex II/2 may be hunted only in the Member States in respect of which they are indicated. Annex II/2 indicates that the Netherlands may authorise the hunting of the Anser albifrons.

As far as the other two species are concerned, the information from the Honourable Member suggests that derogations from the prohibiton to hunt these species have been granted by the Netherlands for reasons related to crop damage caused by birds. In principle, it is possible for the Netherlands, on the basis of Article 9(1) (a) of the Directive, to validly derogate from the provisions of Article 7 in order ‘to prevent serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water’.

Pursuant to Article 9(3) and (4) of the Directive, the Netherlands is obliged to provide the Commission regularly with a report on the implementation of Article 9. The report on the derogations for 2003 has not yet been received by the Commission and is not due until the end of 2004. In these circumstances, it is not evident that the Netherlands is necessarily in breach of the Directive. The Commission will examine the report carefully once it has been received and, if necessary, take appropriate steps to ensure that the derogations are not incompatible with the Directive. The Commission would like to emphasise that the Member States must comply with the provisions of Article 9 as interpreted by the Court of Justice. The Court ruled, for example, that a derogation from the general prohibition on hunting in Article 7 is only allowed by measures which refer in sufficient detail to the factors mentioned in Article 9(1) and (2) (see e.g. case C-118/94, WWF, judgement of 7 March 1996).

As regards the agri-environment expenditure, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that at present the national rural development plan for the Netherlands does not contain any specific agri-environmental measure aimed at the protection of the above-mentioned geese. With the amendment 2002 to the Rural Development Plan, that was sent on 2 April 2002, the Netherlands aimed to introduce the packages ‘Winter migrant meadow for short stays’, ‘Winter migrant meadow for medium stays’ and ‘Winter migrant meadow for long stays’. These packages protect the brent geese and the greater white-fronted geese. The protection of the pink-footed goose is not included. However, by letter of 8 July 2003 the Commission was informed on the withdrawal of the packages ‘Winter migrant meadow for short stays’, ‘Winter migrant meadow for medium stays’ and ‘Winter migrant meadow for long stays’ from the amendment 2002. As amendments to the Rural Development Plan are negotiated at bilateral level between the Commission and the Member State, it is not possible for the Commission to assess the extent to which the province of Zeeland has made use of its possibilities to obtain subsidies for agricultural environment management.

If applicable, subsidies for agricultural environment management would most probably be granted under the Dutch Rural Development Plan 2000-2006; the Structural Funds Objective 2 Programme for South-Netherlands, which also covers part of the Zeeland province, does not appear to be an appropriate framework for such measures.

In the framework of the sub-programme for the ‘Euregio Scheidemond’ under the current Interreg ΠΙΑ programme in favour of the ‘Grensregio Vlaanderen-Nederland’ a cross-border project ‘Organic farming’ (‘Grensoverschijdend biologisch boeren’) with two partners from Zeeland is being financed.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.