WRITTEN QUESTION P-4034/03 by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission. Protecting people and livestock against wolves and bears.
Date: 2004-01-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: derogation from EU law, domestic animal, hunting regulations, protected species, protection of animals, public safety, wild mammal

C 84 E/136

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(cid:1) if so, what prompted President Prodi’s office to remove the word ‘condom’ from the press release;

(cid:1) if Mr Prodi’s office does not have access to any scientific findings contradicting those quoted by the
Commissioner, on the basis of what political assessment was the word ‘condom’ deleted from the
press release?

(1) See page 50.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(6 February 2004)

The Commission did not consider it worthwhile to refute the claims of the newspaper mentioned since its
position on this question has long been clear.

For example, it would refer to its answer to Written Question E-3115/03 by Mr Turco (1) and to its press
release of 20 October 2003 entitled ‘HIV/AIDS: European research provides clear proof that HIV virus
cannot pass through condoms’ (2). This document, which is being sent direct to the Honourable Member
and to Parliament’s Secretariat, covers the results of research projects financed by the Directorate-General
for Research (RTD) over the last fifteen years. All the available data confirm that condoms are extremely
effective in preventing HIV transmission.

(1) See page 50.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/rapid/cgi/rapcgi.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/03/1410|0|AGED&lg=EN&display=

(2004/C 84 E/0175)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4034/03

by Kyösti Virrankoski (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Protecting people and livestock against wolves and bears

(5 January 2004)

Wolves and bears are strictly protected in the EU. However, in some areas of Finland large numbers of
these wild animals exist, and they pose a real danger to people, especially children. Livestock/domestic
animals are also in danger, as there is no satisfactory method of keeping wild animals away.

Particularly dangerous are wild animals which have become accustomed to being near people. In the
Northern Karelia province of Finland, for example, there are herds of wolves whose behaviour has
changed. They are not afraid of people but on the contrary seek out prey in the immediate vicinity of
human settlements. This year, for instance, wolves have already mauled a dozen cattle, sheep and dogs.
In some areas, children do not dare to walk to school, so either parents have to drive them or the
municipality has to organise transport to and from school.

Large wild animals are exceptionally numerous in Northern Karelia because the wildernesses in Russian
Karelia, beyond Finland’s eastern border, are a constant source of new animals, while on the other hand
the large lakes prevent them from spreading to the west. In fact, despite this, populations of large wild
animals have grown significantly throughout Finland in recent years.

Very few shooting licences are issued for wolves and bears. The issuing of hunting licences is based on
average wild animal populations in Finland. No account whatsoever is taken of wild animal populations
beyond the Russian border. Accordingly, the police have had to kill a wild animal in the middle of a
settlement in the interests of public safety, because the appropriate authorities have not been able to issue
the requisite licence.

1. What will the Commission do to make it possible to guarantee the safety of people and their animals
in areas where wolves and bears have grown too numerous?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/137

How can the number of hunting licences be increased so as to render it commensurate with an area’s

2.
wild animal population?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Several large carnivores, such as the 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. The Directive does, however, recognize that in certain situations there may
exist the need for a derogation to this general rule of strict protection. These justifications, which include
‘inter alia’ public safety and preventing serious damage to livestock, are listed in Article 16 of the Directive.
Member States may apply these derogations provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and the
derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of the populations of the species concerned at a
favourable conservation status in their natural range.

The number of bears in Finland (830 in 2002)
is, according to the authorities, stable rather than
expanding. The 2003 hunting quota for bears in Finland was 90 individuals which cannot be considered a
small number. The number of wolves is 130 which would still mean that its conservation status is not
favourable. When defining the national conservation status of these species, Russian influence has been
taken into account and the degree downgraded accordingly: bears from actual ‘Vulnerable’ (vaarantunut) to
‘Near
(äärimmäisen
uhanalainen) to ‘Endangered’ (erittäin uhanalainen).

(silmälläpidettävä) and wolves similarly from ‘Critically endangered’

threatened’

The Commission is aware that the Finnish authorities, in granting permits to hunt bear, are adjusting the
regional quotas according to the population in the areas concerned. With respect to wolves, specific
permits are granted for the destruction of individuals that have become problematic for the justifications
foreseen in the Directive.

The Commission is, therefore, of the view that the Directive allows for appropriate management of the
species to avoid problems of public safety and damage to agricultural interests. In discussions with the
Finnish authorities, the Commission has requested that these measures should be structured in the form of
a management plan which addresses the conservation management objectives for the species alongside the
issue of population control and the approaches that should be taken to promote co-existence between
large carnivores and human populations. It is clear that there is much experience of this in Member States.
A recent conference on the specific issue of the wolf, ‘Living with the Wolf’ organized by the Commission
in collaboration with the Spanish authorities and with participants from all Member States with wolf
populations, was the first in a series of actions the Commission is proposing to promote such positive
co-operation between Member States.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 84 E/0176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4036/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Novel Food Regulation (EC) No 258/97 and Noni products

Two years ago, the German firm Pharmos Naturkosmetik und Heilmittel GmbH was banned from selling
capsules filled with pure Noni powder. The competent district authority justified the ban on the grounds
In the meantime, the
that the Novel Food Regulation (NFR)
application by the American company Morinda to sell Noni products has been granted by the
Commission.

(258/97) (1) applied to Noni products.

1. Why can the authorisation for Morinda’s Noni juice not be extended to cover chemically identical
Noni products made from the powder of dried Noni fruit?