WRITTEN QUESTION E-3579/03 by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Hunting season for carrion crows in the EU.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, derogation from EU law, hunting regulations, national implementing measure, protection of animal life

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/829

diesel fuel and water, such as developed by CAM-Technologies and by other manufacturers, are known by
the Commission to be used in a few cities in France and Italy as a fuel for public transport and in some
small scale trials in other Member States but are not included in this work. A study on the eco-balance of
alternative fuels recently launched by the Commission also includes an assessment of these emulsion fuels.

At the proposal of the Commission, two important legal
promotion of environmentally friendly fuels.

instruments were adopted in 2003 for the

Directive 2003/30/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 (2) sets reference values of 2 %
in 2005 and 5,75 % in 2010 for the targets to be adopted by Member States as the minimum proportion
of biofuels and other renewable fuels to be placed on their markets.

Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the
taxation of energy products and electricity (3) gives the possibility to Member States of applying a reduced
level of taxation to environmentally-friendly fuels. For instance, according to Article 16 of this Directive, a
tax reduction is allowed under certain conditions when a motor fuel contains water.

(1) COM(2001) 547 final.
(2) OJ L 123, 17.5.2003.
(3) OJ L 283, 31.10.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0882)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3579/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Hunting season for carrion crows in the EU

Is the Commission aware that in transposing the EU bird protection directive into national law EU

1.
Member States have adopted widely differing rules on the hunting season for carrion crows?

2.
How does the Commission view the fact that farmers, forestry owners and hunters in Germany suffer
far greater economic losses than in other EU Member States owing to the fact that the hunting season is
restricted in that country? Does it consider that this practice places this interest group in Germany at a
disadvantage?

3. What view does the Commission take of the fact that other countries frequently issue derogations for
hunting carrion crows, while the competent German authorities refuse to do so?

4. What conditions must be met for such a derogation or the extension of the hunting period to be
permissible?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

1.
The rules governing the fixing of hunting seasons under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1) are given in Article 7 of the Directive. The Commission, with
the Member States, has compiled information on the pre-nuptial migration and reproduction periods of all
huntable species in each Member State in order to facilitate the application of the fixing of hunting seasons
in accordance with the Directive (2).

The Commission has received no evidence that restrictions on hunting has resulted in greater

2.
economic losses in Germany than in other Member States.

C 78 E/830

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Derogations are permissible under Article 9 of the Directive for the purpose of, ‘inter alia’, preventing
3.
‘serious damage to crops,
livestock, forests, fisheries and water’. It is the Member States who decide
whether the application of a derogation is necessary, provided that there is no other satisfactory solution.

The possibilities for use of derogations are restricted. They must be justified in relation to the overall
4.
objectives of the Directive and comply with the specific conditions for derogations described in Article 9
of Directive 79/409/EEC. Non-respect of any one of these conditions may render a derogation invalid.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) Key concepts of Article 7(4) of Directive 79/409/EEC (cid:1) Period of Reproduction and prenuptial Migration of Annex

II Bird Species in the EU, http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/directive/intro_en.pdf

(2004/C 78 E/0883)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3581/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Shrimp fishing in Svalbard

Svalbard shrimp fishing by the Community fleet is seriously impeded by the obligation that no more than
four EU fishing fleet units be present at any one time. This practice has been imposed for some years, and
there is thus a danger that it will become established, with all the negative consequences it presupposes for
the Community fleet, which is unable to take up the full fishing effort allocated to it yearly (519 days).
In addition, this limitation is imposed in the brief months in which access can be had to the region, due to
the adverse weather conditions which prevail there for most of the year. The Commission’s reply of 8 May
2002 to my previous Written Question E-1037/02 (1) stated that it was fully aware of the problems which
the situation of the Svalbard shrimp fishery posed for the Member States concerned, and that it would
‘continue to endeavour to engage the Norwegian authorities in a dialogue, which will lead to improved
access conditions for the Community shrimp fleet’. No progress whatever has been forthcoming, and
certain Community fleets, e.g. the fleet working in NAFO, have seen their catches seriously reduced, which
means that an additional effort to find alternatives is called for.

Can the Commission tell me why there have been no improvements in the situation of the Community
shrimp fleet?

Given that the fishing effort is already limited by the number of vessels, can the Commission not negotiate
the abolition of the ‘at any one time’ obligation, or simply not accept it?

Do the EU’s bilateral relations with Norway not permit of a reasonable improvement of the situation for
our shrimp fleet?

What steps has the Commission taken to improve the presence of the Community shrimp fleet in
Svalbard?

What new steps is it intending to take so as to improve the current situation which, from any point of
view, is unsatisfactory?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002, p. 172.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

The question of improved access conditions for the Community shrimp fleet fishing in the Svalbard area
has been discussed with Norway on several occasions and most recently at a high level meeting in March
2003.