WRITTEN QUESTION E-1084/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Protection of the endangered capercaillie in Asturias.
Date: 2000-04-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cantabria, Castile-Leon, EU environmental policy, Principality of Asturias, Spain, protection of animal life

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/67

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 May 2000)

The PHARE programme indeed has as one of its main planks the support and development of local small
and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) through specifically designed programmes and facilities. The case
raised by the Honourable Member refers to a tender issued by the Commission for the assessment of the
programme. It is a single tender covering all accession countries.

The services required are highly specialised. It is anticipated that replies to this tender will come from
consortia which are likely to include smaller but specialised companies.

(2001/C 53 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1084/00

by Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Protection of the endangered capercaillie in Asturias

(7 April 2000)

According to a report by JosØ Ram(cid:243)n Obeso of the University of Oviedo, the capercaillie, an endangered
species whose numbers have dwindled to several hundred in Asturias, Le(cid:243)n and Cantabria (Spain), could
become extinct before the year 2030 because it is not covered by any special conservation and protection
plans. The capercaillie population has fallen by 60 % in the past 15 years, with the number of limited sites
it commonly inhabits having dropped from 335 to less than 220 over the same period.

The capercaillie(cid:146)s struggle to survive is compounded further by poaching, indiscriminate wild-boar hunts,
road- and fence-building beside its sites and the lack of campaigns to alert local residents, hunters, skiers
and tourists to the existence of natural habitats.

The capercaillie is not listed as a species which may be hunted in Spain in Annex II/2 of Council Directive
79/409/EEC (1) of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, and thus poaching this species should
constitute grounds for prosecution. However, the authorities appear reluctant to take action against the
continued illegal hunting of this species.

The Spanish authorities previously notified the Commission of their intention to submit a report on the
situation of the capercaillie at a meeting of the Ornis committee provided for under the Directive,
consisting of representatives from the Member States, with a view to requesting priority funding for the
species under the LIFE-Nature initiative.

Has that report been submitted to the Ornis committee? Will the Commission make the report available?
Has the capercaillie been recognised as a funding priority under the LIFE-Nature initiative? Will the
Commission work together with the Spanish authorities on the necessary research into the factors
threatening the survival of the capercaillie and on measures to halt the decline in its numbers?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2000)

In September 1998 the Spanish authorities submitted a technical report to the Commission entitled
(cid:145)proposal to include the Cantabrian Capercaillie (Tetrao urogallus cantabrius) in the list of priority species
for LIFE(cid:146). This formed the basis for discussions, which took place on the subject during the Ornis
committee meeting of October 1998. As the Spanish Ministry for the Environment is author of this
report, the Honourable Member is invited to address her request for access to it directly to them.

C 53 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

It was agreed during the Ornis meeting not to list these sub-species as a priority for LIFE funding. The
priority list is exclusively determined with reference to the list in Annex I, which only refers to the species
Tetrao urogallus.

However, it was also made clear during the meeting that this does not preclude the submission of a LIFE
application for the conservation of these sub-species. If such an application met the necessary conditions
for LIFE, including the requirement that site-based project areas are classified as special protection areas
(SPAs), it would be seriously examined by the Commission. Unfortunately, it appears that the level of
protection of the sub-species in SPAs is at present low.

(2001/C 53 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1085/00

by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Objectives of the study of supplies of tuna loins

(7 April 2000)

The Council asked the Commission to conduct a study of needs as regards supplies of tuna loins to the
Community market. According to the document released by the Commission which provides a summary
of the study, the objective was indeed to assess supplies of tuna loins. However, the opening paragraph of
the chapter containing recommendations begins by stating that the study(cid:146)s focus lies in ascertaining the
means of helping the Italian industry to remain competitive.

Will the Commission say what the ultimate objective of the study actually was?

Does it consider it ethical that this study, financed from public funds and responding to a specific request
from the Council, should have in fact served as a means of establishing the needs of certain undertakings
in a Member State?

If these undertakings wish to determine the weaknesses in their ability to compete with other enterprises
in the Member States, should they not commission a study of their own?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2000)

On the first point, would the Honourable Member please refer to the Commission(cid:146)s joint answer to
Written Questions E-756/00 to E-761/00 by Mr Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (1).

The Commission considers that the study(cid:146)s analysis and conclusions both served a balanced purpose.

The analysis covers the main Member States which produce and consume the product in question (as well
as third countries) and the recommendations relate to all market participants, both in the short and
medium term.

The assertion that the study served to ascertain the needs of certain businesses in one Member State is
incorrect, since (cid:129) far from concentrating on operators in a single Member State (cid:129) it took a detailed look
at the situation of the main firms in all the Member States involved: seven in Spain, five in Italy and four
in France.

In answer to the last point, the Commission would stress that it carried out the study in response to a
request from the Council and not from the firms concerned.

(1) OJ C 26 E 26.1.2001, p. 104.