WRITTEN QUESTION E-2258/01 by Mikko Pesälä (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission. Reliable information on the predator numbers and cause of death of reindeer calves.
Date: 2001-07-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Finland, census, livestock farming, protection of animal life, reindeer, wild mammal

C 81 E/144

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

Other studies have been carried out in the framework of the Socrates programme, two of them are
particularly interesting for the issue of school failure:

(cid:129) (cid:145)Success for all: promoting access of socially excluded children to basic skills(cid:146) (1997/1999) which
analyses the various educational strategies for socially excluded youth in Europe classified in three
categories: equal opportunities, equal treatment or equal outcomes strategies.

(cid:129) (cid:145)Dropping out and secondary education(cid:146)

(1997/1999) which provides on one hand Community
country reports describing the number and distribution of drop-outs in secondary education and, on
the other hand, comparative analysis of drop-outs profiles and their relationships with pre-existing
structures of inequality. The researchers have formulated recommendations for educational policy
makers taking into account that dropping out is a cumulative process, which develops over several
years, and that the structural and cultural-biographical factors need to be apprehended in a integrated
approach.

(2002/C 81 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2258/01

by Mikko Pes(cid:228)l(cid:228) (ELDR) and Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Reliable information on the predator numbers and cause of death of reindeer calves

We have received numerous reports from the reindeer herding region of Finnish Lapland that there are
now too many predators there for viable reindeer herding. This situation has been affected by a fall in the
number of deer on the Russian side of the border, which forces predators to prey on deer in Finland.
Similar reports have come from the Kainuu region.

Finland is an exceptional country in the EU in terms of the distribution of predators there, and in that it
has a common border with Russia. Consequently a detailed survey of predator numbers ought to be
carried out, e.g. by applying (cid:145)real time research(cid:146), using a helicopter and a radio transmitter to investigate
the cause of death of reindeer calves. However, research of this nature is expensive.

A significant number of reindeer calves are dying for unknown reasons, and these deaths need to be
investigated in the interest of the legal protection of the reindeer industry.

This matter has been made topical by the Commission(cid:146)s comments on Finland(cid:146)s protection of wolves, bears
and lynxes. The Commission has called in writing for Finland to adopt legislation in accordance with the
aims of the habitats directive.

In the light of the above what measures is the Commission taking to ensure that real-time information is
available on the real numbers of predators, and that the actual damage to the reindeer industry can be
ascertained?

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

(12 October 2001)

By way of background, the Commission would like to point out that the species (wolf, bear and lynx)
mentioned by the Honourable Members are protected by Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on
the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

Therefore, Commission(cid:146)s task in accordance with Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty is to ensure
that the protection of those species by Finland fulfils the requirements of the Directive (2), in particular that
the conservation status of those species remains favourable. In accordance with Article 11 of the above-
mentioned Directive, Finland has monitored the level of protection of the mentioned species.

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/145

The Commission has received such information from Finland and is presently examining its validity. In this
context the Commission uses all available reliable and up-to-date information about the population
numbers and characteristics of the above species in Finland.

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 also Commission(cid:146)s reply to Written Question E-1295/01 by Mr Virrankoski, OJ C 350 E,

11.12.2001, p. 113.
In particular Articles 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16.

(2)

(2002/C 81 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2264/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Preventive measures and protecting classified natural areas in the region of Viana do Castelo

(Portugal)

Local residents in Afife, Viana do Castelo, Portugal, claim that valuable natural heritage, which should be
preserved is being endangered by a building under construction in a former water driven sawmill in the
(cid:145)Engenho do Maneta(cid:146) on the left bank of the river Afife, also known as the Cabanas river, in a highly
sensitive ecosystem between the sea and national road No 13. The three storey building in question is
located in a natural habitat (biotope C11100132); all building of any kind should be banned in the area,
where the land is being divided up for agricultural purposes as it is, without planning permission.

Can this important ecosystem be preserved under any existing Community directives?

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

(28 September 2001)

The Honourable Member refers to a building project on the left bank of the Afife River, between the sea
and national road No 13, in an area considered to host a highly sensitive ecosystem with classified biotopes
and in which, under national legislation, all construction is prohibited. The Honourable Member asks the
Commission whether there are any Community directives applicable that can ensure the ecosystem is
preserved.

The Commission would first point out that the application of national legislation is a matter for the
national authorities.

From the point of view of Community law, the matter raised by the Honourable Member must be
examined in the light of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

This Directive specifies the establishment of a European ecological network, Natura 2000, comprising sites
hosting the natural habitat types listed in Annex I and the habitats of species listed in Annex II to the
Directive.

Article 6(3) provides that any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management
of a site but likely to have a significant effect on it, either individually or in combination with other plans
or projects, must be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications in view of the site(cid:146)s conservation
objectives. If, in spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of
alternative solutions, a plan or project must nevertheless be carried out
for imperative reasons of
overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature, Article 6(4) requires the Member
State to take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is