WRITTEN QUESTION E-0634/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Protection of the Siberian tiger.
Date: 2003-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, environmental cooperation, indigenous population, nature reserve, protected species, protection of animal life, wild mammal

C 33 E/60

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

above. The Commission has also adopted its position on the future analysis of these markets, under the
new regulatory framework, in the Commission Recommendation on relevant product and services markets
within the electronic communications sector (C (2003) 497, 11/02/2003). Regarding broadband services,
in this Recommendation the Commission has reached the conclusion that, while the development of
competing technological platforms was an objective of primary importance,
in compliance with the
principle of technological neutrality, under specific conditions ex-ante regulation of wholesale broadband
access may be necessary to foster competition.

(1) COM(2002) 695 final.

(2004/C 33 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0634/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(4 March 2003)

Subject: Protection of the Siberian tiger

Is the Commission aware of the threat to the Amurian or Siberian tiger, which, like the world’s four other
tiger species, is in danger of extinction?

What action is the Commission taking to contribute to the protection of the Amurian tiger, a species of
which, according to the WWF, only between 200 and 400 are now in existence, in Primorsky Kray and
the Khabarovsky Kray region in the far east of Russia near the border with China? Is this region covered by
any TACIS projects?

Could a project be launched under the EU/Russian Federation cooperation arrangements with the objective
of saving this endangered species?

What position and measures is the EU adopting in general to encourage the Russian Federation to protect
its national parks, which are now facing substantial problems thanks to the difficult economic situation in
the regions?

Is the Commission aware of the recent conflicts and tensions generated among the Udege, the main ethnic
group in the Amur regions, who have traditionally protected the tiger, which has a vital place in their
culture as a sacred animal? At present, following changes a few years ago in the local management of the
project, a crisis is affecting the partnership between the Udege and the WWF-backed managers of the
Changbai park in the Amur region. It appears that the WWF has been alerted at international level by the
Udege, but is not taking the necessary measures to bring its practices into line with its own policy
positions on strategy and principles regarding indigenous peoples.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 March 2003)

The Commission is aware of the threat to the Amur tiger and has discussed this question with the Russian
authorities in the framework of the EU-Russia Partnership and Co-operation Agreement.

The Siberian tiger is listed on Annex A of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the
protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein (1) which implements the
provisions of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
(CITES) in the Union. This means that commercial trade in the species is prohibited and imports may only
take place under exceptional circumstances, e.g. for research aimed at the conservation of the species.

In the meeting of the Sub-Committee on Environment on 20 September 2001, the Russian authorities
explained that a National Strategy for the Protection of the Amur tiger exists and that Federal funding has
been allocated for a special programme. The Amur tiger population was reported to be about 450,
probably as high as it could be. An anti-poaching task force had been established, a Joint-Intervention

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/61

to
Agreement had been signed with China and several meetings held (also with Japan and Korea)
coordinate action against poaching and smuggling. USD 3 million had been invested over the past three
years to protect tigers; the programme was to be extended to cover other big cats.

TACIS projects are identified in a dialogue with the Russian authorities and are to be in line with the
adopted strategy for Russia. Currently it is focussed on four main areas: support for institutional, legal and
administrative reform; support to the private sector and assistance for economic development; support in
addressing the social consequencies of transition; nuclear safety. The Commission has not received any
proposal for consideration from the Russian authorities with regard to the situation of the Amur tiger. If
received, the Commission will assess to what extent it corresponds to the strategy for assistance and which
priority such a project proposal could get relative to other pressing needs.

The Commission is currently not aware of problems related to activities of the World Wild life Fund
(WWF) in the Amur region and the indigenous Udege people.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.

(2004/C 33 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0648/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Absence of compensation and rehabilitation measures for people illegally deported from Slovakia

in 1946 and 1947

1.
Is the Commission aware that Law No 88/1945 of 1 October 1945, which was in force for twenty
years in the former Czechoslovakia, authorised the State to compel men between 16 and 60 and women
between 18 and 55 to leave their homes and engage in forced labour for a maximum of one year in order
to combat catastrophes or crises and carry out urgent public works, with the proviso that pregnant
women, mothers and the sick were exempt, only individuals, and not whole families, could be
requisitioned, and the people concerned retained their homes and property in their absence?

2.
Is the Commission aware that in 1946 and 1947, 43 546 people were sent into forced labour, that,
in violation of the law, in many cases the period of forced labour was in excess of one year, that people
were sent far away from their homes (cid:1) without decent accommodation or salaries (cid:1) to work in
agriculture and other industries where there was no crisis situation, that the army and police transferred
whole families (cid:1) including children and elderly people (cid:1) in cattle trucks from what is now Slovakia to the
present-day Czech Republic and confiscated their houses in order to give them to new occupants, a
measure which, for the Hungarian-speakers from the southern border area of Slovakia and for members of
the large Roma community living mainly in the east of Slovakia, came close to what is now known as
ethnic cleansing?

3.
Does the Commission understand the sense of indignation felt by the victims of these measures,
originally from Slovakia, and their descendants, who now live in Slovakia, the Czech Republic and other (cid:1)
mainly European (cid:1) countries, at the fact that the Slovak Government has in the meantime decided to
compensate and rehabilitate the victims of illegal acts committed during the Fascist regime, between 1939
and 1945, and the Communist period, from 1948 to 1949, but is not taking any similar measures for the
benefit of the victims of forced labour and ethnic cleansing during the allegedly democratic period in
between, i.e. from 1945 to 1948, and that the Slovak Prime Minister does not reply to complaints on this
subject?

4. What can the Commission do to ensure that when Slovakia becomes a member of the European
Union a satisfactory solution is found to this problem, which has been dragging on for so long and which
is reminiscent of situations that we now reject in the European Union?