WRITTEN QUESTION E-2180/03 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR)to the Commission. Damage caused by predators in the Finnish reindeer range.
Date: 2003-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Finland, animal resources, livestock farming, protected species, protection of animal life, reindeer, wild mammal

C 78 E/84

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2180/03

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) and Mikko Pesälä (ELDR)
to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Damage caused by predators in the Finnish reindeer range

Reindeer husbandry has long traditions in Finland. Reindeer husbandry and herding are not directly
comparable to farming. Reindeer graze freely in a vast wilderness.

Predator populations have increased alarmingly as a result of the protection requirements laid down in the
EU Habitats Directive (Directive 92/43/EEC (1)). Predators seek out areas where food is ready to hand, in
other words the reindeer range. In particular, members of herding cooperatives close to the Russian border
have lost huge numbers of reindeer in recent years. There is evidence that by 31 May of this year,
predators had already killed 160 reindeer in the Suomussalmi area alone. In the Halla herding cooperative,
wolves have caused the number of reindeer for slaughter to slump to a third of the normal level.

In most cases, the carcasses of reindeer killed by predators are never found in the vast wilds of the range. It
is up to reindeer herdsmen to look for their animals and meet the costs incurred in so doing. A great deal
of resources and valuable time are wasted in protecting reindeer from predators at the expense of reindeer
In addition, the larger bear population has led to
husbandry proper, thus undermining its viability.
substantial losses of reindeer calves, a situation due in part to the fact that spring hunting privileges have
been abolished.

Reindeer herdsmen are invoking Article 16(1), and in particular point (b) thereof, of the Habitats Directive.
The reindeer are their property, and predators are inflicting serious specific damage. The expanded
predator population threatens to wipe out the traditional livelihood of the EU’s only aboriginal people, the
Lapps. For the most part, the damage caused by predators affects the reindeer range, and that is therefore
the area where the predator population should be reduced appreciably.

Do the Union and the Commission accept that the ever-increasing predator populations will destroy
traditional reindeer herding in a sparsely populated region with little in the way of
industry and
commerce?

Can the national authorities issue licences by more flexible accelerated procedures in order to keep
predator populations under control in the reindeer range and hence preserve the operating conditions
required to make reindeer herding possible?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 July 2003)

Several large carnivores, such as wolf, brown bear and lynx, 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), Annex IV (a).
These species are therefore subject to the strict protection scheme that requires, among others, that their
deliberate killing is prohibited. Derogation from the protection regime in a case of serious damage to
property may be granted under Article 16(1) which allows for the elimination of the damage-causing
individuals.

According to official information from the Finnish authorities, the populations of bear and lynx are stable
rather than expanding. The spring hunting of bear was discontinued well before Finland joined the Union,
the reasons for this being national (cid:1) a general unsustainability of the hunting and a considerable number
of cub-nursing females being killed by hunters in the spring. The wolf densities in the reindeer herding
area are far lower than elsewhere in Eastern Finland, because of its lower protection status there. There is
no evidence to support the claim that the large carnivore populations are ever-increasing in the reindeer
herding area.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/85

Wolf populations in the reindeer herding area in Finland are exempted from Annex IV(a), but are listed in
Annex V to the same Directive. This means that management measures may be used to control the
population. Nevertheless, it is prohibited to use indiscriminate means of capture or killing that would lead
to local disappearance or serious disturbance of populations (2). It lies within the competence of the
national authorities to take the appropriate measures with due regard to the above. The Commission’s task,
is to ensure that the protection of those species by
in accordance with Article 211 of the EC Treaty,
Finland fulfils the requirements of the Directive.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) Article 15 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC.

(2004/C 78 E/0084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2186/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 June 2003)

Subject: Need for better consumer protection against malicious or negligent practices in international

e-commerce

1.
Is the Commission aware of the findings of the European Consumer Centre which indicate that, in
too many cases, international shopping over the Internet results in failure to deliver the goods ordered
(34 %), payments being banked for goods which have not been delivered (8 %), failure to repay the price of
goods returned by the recipient (33 %) and failure to repay the costs of delivery of goods returned (37 %)?

In view of these figures, does the Commission agree with the Consumer Centre’s conclusion that the

2.
position of consumers is highly unsatisfactory in this respect?

3.

Does the Commission agree with me that additional protection is needed?

If so, what will the Commission do to bring about the introduction of rules to protect consumers
adequately against abuse by international e-commerce firms which commit malicious and deliberate abuses
and are difficult for consumers to trace and whose principal business seems to consist of receiving money
for goods which they do not deliver? What initiatives will the Commission take to this end?

How are e-commerce businesses monitored, particularly to prevent abuses by businesses acting in

4.
bad faith?

5. Might it be possible to prohibit businesses from receiving payments before the goods have been
delivered and/or possibly returned? How could compliance with such a prohibition be adequately policed?

6. Might it be possible to recognise that (cid:1) until such time as it becomes possible to provide genuinely
effective protection against abuses (cid:1) consumers should be strongly advised to avoid making purchases
over the Internet or this method of purchase should even be stopped until supplementary security
requirements which will make abuses impossible have been met?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 August 2003)

The Commission is indeed aware of the report and its findings. It has supported the European Consumer
Centres’ initiative in this matter, and is also supporting their initiative to continue their work in this area.

The Commission has taken note of the conclusions of the report. Even though the results of the report are
based on a fairly small sample of test transactions, the report does appear to show that the e-commerce
market in the Union is not functioning as it should.