WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Dangers of hunting and the need for coordination of any measures taken to prevent a further increase in fox numbers.
Date: 2003-01-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: animal breeding, co-financing, disease prevention, hunting, rabies, vaccination, wild mammal, wildlife

C 161 E/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

The authorities have confirmed that the original premises have been sold and new premises purchased
which are now operating as an Enterprise Centre with a number of tenants already in place. The remaining
elements of the agreement in relation to the use of surplus funds are in the process of implementation.

(1) OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(2003/C 161 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 January 2003)

Subject: Dangers of hunting and the need for coordination of any measures taken to prevent a further

increase in fox numbers

Can the Commission confirm that heavy fertilisation of pasture land and grassed areas in leisure
1.
zones results in foxes being attracted to such areas and to a sharp increase in their numbers because
fertilisers are also conducive to a sharp rise in the number of earthworms and other sources of food for
foxes, so that more and more foxes are slowly encroaching on densely populated and heavily treated areas?

2.
Can it also confirm that the hunting of foxes results in areas attractive to foxes becoming temporarily
depopulated, and that this, in turn, leads to other foxes migrating to such areas and the further spreading
of the virus which causes rabies?

Can it confirm that the handling by hunters of the foxes that they have killed results in the spreading
3.
of the eggs of the fox tapeworm and, hence, in the direct opposite of combating disease, although that is
the regular pretext given to justify fox hunting?

4. What differences exist between the Member States of the EU with regard to the increase in fox
numbers and the manner in which that increase might be combated by means of restricting their food
sources, the licensing of or encouragement for hunting for sport or the exceptional licensing of selective
hunting which is exclusively geared to combating extreme situations?

Is there, within the EU, a coordinated policy geared towards the restricting of fox numbers by natural
5.
means and to preventing people from giving the growth in fox numbers as a pretext for hunting which
results in the unwanted consequences outlined in questions 2 and 3?

6. What is the Commission doing to prevent a persistent increase in the number of foxes, the diseases
connected with foxes and the justification for hunting for sport which serves purposes other than
combating disease and over-population?

Source: Metro, Dutch edition, 10 December 2002

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Generally speaking, the Commission does not believe that hunting is an effective way of combating animal
diseases that may be transmitted to man by wild animals.

In particular, as far as foxes are concerned, the beats organised in an attempt to stem the spread of the
rabies epidemic in the 1970s and 1980s proved to be very disappointing.

They were dropped and were replaced by campaigns to vaccinate foxes by oral means, in which effective
vaccines were developed and used on a large scale.

These vaccination campaigns, which were jointly financed by the Community, were conducted over vast
areas and produced spectacular results, with rabies being virtually eradicated throughout the territory of
the Community.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/145

Initially, these operations led to a sharp rise in fox populations, and the number of vaccines distributed per
square kilometre had to be increased in order to achieve sufficient vaccination coverage to stop viral
circulation.

Populations then stabilised depending on the availability of food and the territorial behaviour of the
species.

(2003/C 161 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3792/02

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Application of the automatic decommitment rule

Under Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 laying down general provisions on the
Structural Funds (1), ‘The Commission shall automatically decommit any part of a commitment which has
not been settled by the payment on account or for which it has not received an acceptable payment
application …; the contribution from the Funds to … [the] assistance [in question] shall be reduced by
that amount’.

As regards commitments in the first year of the new programming period, from 2000 to 2006, the rule
will be implemented (in accordance with the procedures and time frames set out
in Commission
communication C(2002)1942, adopted on 27 May 2002) taking into account all payment applications
sent to the Commission not later than 31 December 2002.

The Commission will recover the sums concerned, which will be permanently forfeited by the initial
recipients.

What proportion of funding is in danger of being lost to regions whose development is lagging behind
once the above rule has been enforced, as is shortly due to happen?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2003)

The extent of any de-commitment of resources allocated to the Member States under the Structural Funds
is unknown at this stage in view of the ongoing work by the services of the Commission to evaluate
payment requests forwarded by the national authorities.

While this is the case, the information that is available at present suggests that the total amount at risk of
de-commitment is very limited, and in any case, unlikely to exceed 0,4 % of the total funds committed
under the Structural Funds for the year 2000.

(2003/C 161 E/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3794/02

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2003)

Subject: Second Community Support Framework

The deadline for the completion of payments within the framework of the programmes of the Second CSF
ended on 31 December 2001.

Will the Commission provide a detailed table of the overall commitments and any disbursements made in
respect of each structural fund and each operational programme and of the balance due to be paid to
Greece as payment for these programmes?