WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/03 by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Predatory sea birds.
Date: 2003-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bird, conservation of fish stocks, environmental research, fish farming, protected species, protection of animal life

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/155

At present, there is no European limit value for occupational exposure to 1,2-dibromoethane.

5. The Commission has no information concerning the precautionary and protective measures taken in

or around military installations.

(1) Case 222/84 Johnston v. Chief Constable [1986] ECR 1651.
(2) Case 414/97 Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain [1999] ECR I-05585.
(3) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990.
(4) OJ L 41, 14.2.2003.
(5) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(6) OJ L 131, 5.5.1998.
(7) OJ L 196, 26.7.1990.

(2004/C 65 E/170)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2443/03

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Predatory sea birds

Some sea birds such as cormorants are having a devastating effect on silver shoal fish in EU rivers and
estuaries.

There is also a detrimental impact on the food chain, adversely affecting many species of birds and large
fish.

Are predatory sea birds such as cormorants protected in any way by EU legislation or do national
authorities have the power to carry out culls where necessary?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2003)

The Honourable Member has expressed his concern regarding the impact that some species of predatory
sea bird, such as the cormorants, have on silver shoal fish in Union rivers and estuaries.

Concerning the protection status of these birds the Commission would like to emphasise that like all the
wild birds species, the cormorant is covered by the general system of protection of the Birds Directive (1),
Member States may derogate from the prohibition of deliberate killing or capture by any method, the
deliberate destruction of, or damage to their nests and eggs or removal of their nests in accordance with
the system of derogations of the Birds Directive (Article 9).

When the Birds Directive was adopted in 1979,
the cormorant,
Phalacrocorax carbo sinensis was regarded as in danger and therefore was listed in the Annex I to the
Directive as a species subject of special conservation measures concerning its habitat,
including the
protection of the sites.

the continental

subspecies of

Nevertheless, the population of this species has increased significantly and the species is now regarded as
being in a favourable conservation status. Following these developments, the Commission, after having
consulted the Member States, removed the cormorant from Annex I to the Directive.

The Commission is aware of
interests between fishermen and
cormorants in certain regions of the Union and agreed with the Member States that the derogations
provisions of the Birds Directive can be fully applied to prevent the serious damage caused by cormorants,
where justified and where there is no other satisfactory solution.

there are conflicts of

the fact

that

C 65 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Since the elimination of the cormorant from Annex I to the Birds Directive in 1997, the Commission has
continued to check the situation and to consider the question with the competent authorities of the
Member States responsible for the implementation of the Birds Directive. From the latest discussions at the
meeting of the Ornis Committee for the Birds Directive of 26 June 2003, it seems that present populations
appear to be relatively stable in Europe and there is no agreement on the need to develop international
co-operation for managing the populations of this species.

Finally, research is ongoing in various Member States and at European level (e.g.
‘Reducing the conflict
between Cormorants and fisheries on a Pan-European scale: Redcafe’, funded under the 5th Framework
Research and Technological Development Programme) on the development of improved methods to deal
with the problem of the damage caused by cormorants to fishing.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2004/C 65 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2453/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Eurostat: date of first discovery of fraud and ease with which contracts with businesses and

amounts per business could be examined

Since when has the Commission been aware of contacts between Eurostat and dubious businesses,
1.
the fact that large sums of money were being received via concealed accounts (at least EUR 900 000 to
date) for the purchase of statistics via datashops and the scope for a small number of officials to get hold
of this money? Has the Commission known about this since 1997, 1999 or only 2001? Does the
Commission agree that internal correspondence within the Commission, namely letters ESTAT/G-0/CD/sb/
000347 and PRODI(2000)A/291246.--/1, gives the impression that Mr Prodi already knew about the
matter at an earlier date than the Commission has so far confirmed?

2.
Is the Commission aware that irregularities relating to contracts at Eurostat may also have arisen in
connection with other businesses, such as Worldsystems, Eurocost, Eurogramme, TES, GIM, DEBA,
Planistat and CESD, and that far larger sums are involved in these cases? Is the Commission aware that, at
the mere touch of a button using the internal book-keeping system Sincom, it can state precisely over
what period these businesses had contracts with Eurostat and what the value of the contracts with each
such business was? Will the Commission forward this information to me and the other Members of the
European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

The Commission answered these questions in hearings of the Cocobu and in particular in the hearings of
17 and 30 June 2003. As soon as information became available to it, the Commission immediately took
the appropriate measures. In this respect, the Commission requests the Honourable Member to refer to the
decisions of the Commission of 9 and 23 July 2003.

The general tone of the e-mail sent to the President on 13 November 2000, to which the Honourable
Member refers, was polemical but the specific operational purpose of the message was vague. The author’s
thoughts on a number of issues, such as the comparative courage of certain Members of the Commission
and prominent figures (Monnet, Schuman), were included alongside other, sometimes rather cryptic,
remarks. In short,
it was difficult for the uninformed reader to understand the true purpose of this
correspondence. In accordance with normal practice in such cases, this e-mail was passed on directly to
the service concerned (in this instance, Eurostat) to deal with as appropriate. Eurostat acted on what
appeared to be the ‘operational’ section of the document,
in the
publication of an internal audit report on Eurocost. The answer given described the factual situation with
the dossier at that point, i.e. that the report in question had been sent to the competent services which
were dealing with it in accordance with the confidentiality rules applicable in such cases.

the author’s declared interest

i.e.