WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2631/98 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. Threat to the badger (meles meles) in the United Kingdom
Date: 1998-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament
Subjects: United Kingdom, animal disease, animal tuberculosis, disease vector, epidemiology, livestock, protection of animals, public health, slaughter of animals, wild mammal

C 142/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.5.1999

Various youth organisations have expressed concern at the Commission’s failure to define clearly the
exact criteria determining the resources eligible for inclusion within that 10 %.

What is the precise nature of these criteria? Could the figure of 10 % be said to include non-cash assets
acquired by these organisations, be they moveable or immoveable assets?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 1998)

On the basis of the headings under Chapters A-30 and A-31,
the Commission subsidises either
beneficiaries’ specific projects or their overall activities. In both cases, the minimum cofinancing criterion
of 10 % of the budget subsidised by the Community budget applies.

In the case of specific projects, this criterion specifically refers to the budget for the project itself and not
the overall activities of the beneficiaries.

Where the overall activities of beneficiaries are subsidised, the organisation’s annual accounts are the
official basis for calculating the cofinancing. Where the standard accounting rules are applied, duly
recorded infrastructure costs are eligible for the calculation of the cofinancing.

(1999/C 142/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2621/98

by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission

(31 July 1998)

Subject: Threat to the badger (meles meles) in the United Kingdom

How can the Commission claim, in its answer dated 30 March 1998 (1) to Mr Doeke Eisma’s Question P-
0787/98, that the measures recommended in the Kreb report, namely the extermination of the badger in
selected areas, would also benefit the badger population as a whole, given that only a very minute
percentage of badgers is infected with TB and that partial extermination of the badger will not lead to the
eradication of the disease among badgers?

Does the Commission regard total extermination of the badger in the United Kingdom as acceptable
because the badger is indicated as the cause of TB?

Is not the credibility of European nature policy tarnished, given that the total or partial extermination of
badgers constitutes an abrupt break with the current practice, based on European nature policy, whereby
reserves are set aside in the United Kingdom for badgers, tunnels are built beneath roads to cut the number
of badger deaths and entire badger families are provided with new habitats if they can no longer be
managed in their old habitats because of urban developments?

Is the Commission prepared to reconsider its view that it is acceptable for a native protected animal species
living in the wild to be exterminated because it may be involved in the spread of diseases among domestic
animals?

(1) OJ C 310, 9.10.1998, p. 129.

(1999/C 142/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2631/98

by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Threat to the badger (meles meles) in the United Kingdom

How can the Commission claim with so much certainty in its answer dated 30 March 1998 (1) to Question
P-0787/98 by Mr Doeke Eisma that, since the early 1970s, the badger has become involved in the
spreading of bovine tuberculosis in south-west England and Wales?