WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/01 by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission. Compensation for predator damage in reindeer preserves.
Date: 2001-05-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Finland, derogation from EU law, indemnification, nature reserve, protected species, wild mammal

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/113

This could have a major impact on the continued development of the port of Bristol, which lies on the
Severn estuary. In other EU Member States, only specific parts of estuaries are designated as SACs, and the
navigation channels are excluded, allowing ports to cater for larger ships.

Will the Commission confirm that it will treat the port of Bristol in the same way as other EU ports?

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

(20 June 2001)

The designation of Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) is a matter that is under the competence of the
Member States. The procedure leading to site designation is described in Article 4 of Council Directive 92/
43/EEC of 21 May 1992, on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1). Each
Member State must propose a list of sites for protection under the Directive. The Commission then
establishes a list of sites of Community importance in agreement with the Member States. Member States
then designate these sites as Special Areas of Conservation. Therefore, the proposal and, if included on the
Community list, ultimate designation of the Severn Estuary as a Special Area of Conservation falls under
the responsibility of the United Kingdom.

The selection of Natura 2000 sites, including the definition of site boundaries, is exclusively based on
scientific criteria. Economically sensitive areas, such as navigation channels, should not be excluded if they
form part of a site on the basis of scientific evidence. In cases where the Commission receives complaints,
with clear evidence that these provisions have not been respected by a Member State, it will carry out the
necessary investigations.

The management and protection of sites in Natura 2000 is undertaken in accordance with the
requirements of Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC. The Directive provides clear procedures for dealing
with proposed plans and projects, not necessary to the management of the Natura 2000 site, but that are
likely to have a significant effect on it. These provisions apply to developments in any port that may
adversely affect a Natura 2000 site, even if they take place outside the site.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2001/C 350 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1295/01

by Ky(cid:246)sti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Compensation for predator damage in reindeer preserves

(3 May 2001)

In Finland there are some 200 000 reindeer living in the reindeer preserve of Lapland and Northern
Finland. Of these, some 2000 to 2500 animals fall victim to predators (bears and wolves) every year. This
is a significant level of damage, because there are some 800 households dependent on full-time reindeer
herding, in addition to over 500 families for whom reindeer herding is economically important.

Predator damage to reindeer is on the increase. The Finnish authorities are blaming the EU for not being
able to restrict predator numbers.

In the light of the above:

(cid:129) Is the Commission preventing the rational restriction of the bear and wolf population?

(cid:129) What does the Commission propose to do to ensure that reindeer herding remains an attractive way
of life, and that reindeer herders do not find themselves paying the price for the protection of
predators?

(cid:129) Does the Commission feel responsible for ensuring that this ancient way of life is preserved in

Europe(cid:146)s northernmost regions?

C 350 E/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

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

(10 July 2001)

The lynx, brown bear and wolf are listed in Annex IV(a) to Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992
on conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1) (here after: (cid:145)the Directive(cid:146)). These species
are therefore subject to the strict protection scheme which requires, among others, that their deliberate
killing is prohibited.

Wolf populations in the reindeer herding area of Finland are exempted from Annex IV(a), but are listed in
Annex V to the same Directive. Therefore, the prohibition of the use of all means capable of causing local
disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations of such species applies to wolf populations in the
reindeer herding area (2). It means that in this area the wolf is not a subject to total protection, but
nevertheless the use of indiscriminate trapping methods is prohibited.

Finland has notified the Commission that it makes use of the derogation under Article 16 of the Directive
to authorise the killing of lynx, brown bears and wolves. This Article authorises Member States to derogate
from the provisions of Articles 12 to 15, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the
the species concerned at
derogation is not detrimental
a favourable conservation status, among others,
in particular to crops,
livestock, forests, fisheries and water and other types of property (3).

to prevent serious damage,

to the maintenance of

the populations of

In accordance with Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, the Commission(cid:146)s task is to examine
whether Finland stays within the limits of the rules of the Directive. Compensation for the damages caused
by species is not covered by the provisions of the Directive and may be regulated by national law.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992. See particularly Articles 12, 15 and 16.
(2) Article 15 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.
(3) Article 16(1)(b) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.

(2001/C 350 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1297/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Inspection at GAL Cadispa in the Campania Region

(3 May 2001)

Given the numerous complaints from companies which responded to invitations to tender but which have
only benefited from a minimal amount of Community funding worth millions, will the Commission say
whether it intends to conduct an audit in the GAL Cadispa Consortium in the municipality of San Mauro
Cilento which, via the Campania Region, is a recipient of the Community funding concerned? This funding
is allegedly being used imprudently and irrationally in totally unnecessary expenditure which brings no
benefit to local farmers.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Honourable Member asks whether the Commission intends to fulfil its control task with regard to the
consortium GAL Cadispa in the municipality of San Mauro Cilento, a beneficiary of Community part-
financing under the Leader II programme of the Campania region for the period 1994-1999.

The Commission is not aware of any irregularities or misuse of Community and national funds by GAL
Cadispa.

In this context it is important to stress that the Leader II Initiative follows a bottom-up approach, not only
to drawing up programmes but also to implementation on the ground, which is entrusted mainly to local
action groups made up of various socio-economic players and private and public partners at local level.