WRITTEN QUESTION P-0416/04 by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission. Goose hunting in Zeeland.
Date: 2004-02-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, application of EU law, derogation from EU law, destruction of crops, hunting regulations, indemnification, protected area, protection of animal life, rural development

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/583

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Under the France-Spain Interreg III A programme EUR 45 000 was granted from the European Regional
Development Fund for the study on the viability of creating a cross-border hospital at La Cerdanya. Carried
out by the Languedoc-Roussillon Regional Council (project leader) and the Generalitat de Catalunya, it is
now in the final stages.

At the moment therefore we await the study’s findings. We favour part-financing of this type of project
that can have a real lever effect on the quality of the daily life of border zone populations. In the case in
point the question to be answered by the study is whether health resources and infrastructure can feasibly
be pooled to the benefit of geographically adjacent populations.

(2004/C 84 E/0660)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0416/04

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(9 February 2004)

Subject: Goose hunting in Zeeland

The province of Zeeland has granted an exemption to the ban on hunting geese. The exemption applies to
areas that do not fall within the scope of the Birds Directive, with a buffer zone of 200 to 700 metres in
operation. The area is home to a number of goose varieties that are listed in Annexe II/2 of the Birds
Directive, one of them being the Brent goose (Branta bernicla). The Netherlands is not listed as a Member
State that can give permission for hunting Brent geese under Article 7(3). The same goes for the Pink-
footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) and the Greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons), which are also
frequently in residence in Zeeland. Exceptions to the ban on hunting are only allowed under Article 9(1)(a)
if there is no other possible solution to serious problems such as major damage to crops. In the regional
press the exemption from the hunting ban is described as an economy measure: the provincial government
does not wish to spend money on repairing the damage caused by geese.

Is the payment of compensation to farmers for damage to crops a satisfactory solution within the

1.
meaning of Article 9(1)?

In the opinion of the Commission, does the exemption from the hunting ban violate the Birds

2.
Directive? If so, what steps will the Commission take?

Are the buffer zones that have been established sufficiently large to provide protection for the birds

3.
that live in the protected areas?

Can the Commission investigate the extent to which the province of Zeeland has made use of the

4.
possibility of obtaining subsidies for agricultural environment management?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to the pink-footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus), the white-fronted goose
(Anser Albifrons) and the brent goose (Branta bernicla) which are all mentioned in Annex II/2 of Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (1). According to Article 7(3) of
the Directive, the species referred to in Annex II/2 may be hunted only in the Member States in respect of
which they are indicated. Annex II/2 indicates that the Netherlands may authorise the hunting of the Anser
albifrons.

C 84 E/584

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

As far as the other two species are concerned, the information from the Honourable Member suggests that
derogations from the prohibiton to hunt these species have been granted by the Netherlands for reasons
related to crop damage caused by birds. In principle, it is possible for the Netherlands, on the basis of
Article 9(1)(a) of the Directive, to validly derogate from the provisions of Article 7 in order ‘to prevent
serious damage to crops, livestock, forests, fisheries and water’.

Pursuant to Article 9(3) and (4) of the Directive, the Netherlands is obliged to provide the Commission
regularly with a report on the implementation of Article 9. The report on the derogations for 2003 has not
yet been received by the Commission and is not due until the end of 2004. In these circumstances, it is
not evident that the Netherlands is necessarily in breach of the Directive. The Commission will examine
the report carefully once it has been received and, if necessary, take appropriate steps to ensure that the
derogations are not incompatible with the Directive. The Commission would like to emphasise that the
Member States must comply with the provisions of Article 9 as interpreted by the Court of Justice. The
Court ruled, for example, that a derogation from the general prohibition on hunting in Article 7 is only
allowed by measures which refer in sufficient detail to the factors mentioned in Article 9(1) and (2)
(see e.g. case C-118/94, WWF, judgement of 7 March 1996).

As regards the agri-environment expenditure, the Commission informs the Honourable Member that at
present the national rural development plan for the Netherlands does not contain any specific agri-
environmental measure aimed at the protection of the above-mentioned geese. With the amendment 2002
to the Rural Development Plan, that was sent on 2 April 2002, the Netherlands aimed to introduce the
packages ‘Winter migrant meadow for short stays’, ‘Winter migrant meadow for medium stays’ and ‘Winter
migrant meadow for long stays’. These packages protect the brent geese and the greater white-fronted
geese. The protection of the pink-footed goose is not included. However, by letter of 8 July 2003 the
Commission was informed on the withdrawal of the packages ‘Winter migrant meadow for short stays’,
‘Winter migrant meadow for medium stays’ and ‘Winter migrant meadow for long stays’ from the
amendment 2002. As amendments to the Rural Development Plan are negotiated at bilateral level between
the Commission and the Member State, it is not possible for the Commission to assess the extent to which
the province of Zeeland has made use of its possibilities to obtain subsidies for agricultural environment
management.

If applicable, subsidies for agricultural environment management would most probably be granted under
the Dutch Rural Development Plan 2000-2006; the Structural Funds Objective 2 Programme for South-
Netherlands, which also covers part of the Zeeland province, does not appear to be an appropriate
framework for such measures.

In the framework of the sub-programme for the ‘Euregio Scheldemond’ under the current Interreg IIIA
programme in favour of the ‘Grensregio Vlaanderen-Nederland’ a cross-border project ‘Organic farming’
(‘Grensoverschijdend biologisch boeren’) with two partners from Zeeland is being financed.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2004/C 84 E/0661)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/04

by Brian Simpson (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Fluoridation of drinking water

Could the Commission say why the new Drinking Water Directive (98/83/EC (1)) continue to allows the
addition to public water supplies of a ‘priority hazardous substance’ prohibited by the Water Framework
Directive (2000/60/EC (2)), hexafluorosilicic acid,
listed in the EC Dangerous Substances Directive,
in obvious violation of its own directives,
a persistent, bioaccumulative pollutant and toxic chemical,
including Article 4(2) which prohibits Member States from adopting measures leading ‘to any increase in
the pollution of waters used for the production of drinking water’?

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998, p. 32.
(2) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1.