WRITTEN QUESTION P-0663/04 by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission. Measures against concentrations of wolves in Finland.
Date: 2004-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, Finland, derogation from EU law, hunting regulations, livestock farming, protected species, protection of animal life, public safety, reindeer, wild mammal

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/837

In this context, the Commission has urged both the IASB and industry to pursue their dialogue in order to
find an appropriate solution on the two remaining controversial issues raised by IAS39, namely macro-
hedging (hedging effectiveness and hedging of core deposits) and the insurance measurement mismatch.
Accounting standard-setting is a gradual process and the preference of the Commission would be for the
IASB to find a temporary situation pending medium to long term improvements to the standards.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1725/2003 of 29 September 2003 adopting certain international accounting
standards in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council,
OJ L 261, 13.10.2003.
the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group.

(2)

(2004/C 84 E/0930)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0663/04

by Samuli Pohjamo (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Measures against concentrations of wolves in Finland

(3 March 2004)

Finnish Members of the European Parliament are increasingly being contacted because the danger posed by
wolves in Finland has grown. In areas bordered by small bodies of water, concentrations of wolves have
grown to such an extent that some people are even in a state of panic. There are clear indications that
numbers of wolves are increasing and that wolves are spreading into quite new areas.

The wolf stock in Finland forms part of a single stock with its counterpart in Russia, and if one bears this
in mind, the total population could be as large as 10 000. The biggest problems in Finland exist in certain
regions close to the eastern border: for example in Northern Karelia it has been proven that there are
dozens of wolves living close to human habitations. In the Ruokolahti area there is a new concentration,
which is preventing the holding of the traditional hunting dog championships there. Further north, the
increase in the number of large predators will soon put an end to reindeer farming, which is a traditional
source of livelihood there.

The view of local residents is that the existing blanket protection of wolves provided for by EU rules is
creating an impossible state of affairs. In order to make it possible to issue hunting licences in ‘exceptional
cases’ on account of the increase in numbers of wolves, it is necessary to have demonstrable proof of
problems over a long period. People are wondering how many good elkhounds have to be lost first and
whether a child has to die on the way to school before anything can be done about the situation. In a
situation where people are in a state of panic, it is not enough for hunting licences to be granted only for
the killing of ‘problem individuals’. The wolf stock ought to be controlled in such a way that wolves do not
come into people’s yards and gardens or impinge on routes between homes and schools causing fear and
real danger.

At present, unfortunately, it seems that decisions are made on the basis of information which is years old
and using only information supplied by environmental organisations, while the threat of legal action hangs
over the national authorities. Such a policy does not help people who are constantly confronted by wolves.

to question P-4034/03 (1), but would appreciate further
I have studied the Commission’s answer
clarification concerning it. What will the Commission do to ensure that the authorities are able (cid:1) and
dare (cid:1) to react quickly to a situation, ‘inter alia’ by issuing hunting licences as needs dictate?

(1) See page 136.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

As the Honourable Member knows, in joining the EU, Finland agreed to conform to the Community
legislation and rules. Several large carnivores, such as wolf, brown bear and lynx, are protected by Council

C 84 E/838

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (1) (hereafter Habitats Directive), Annex IV (a). These species are therefore subject to a 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 derogation from this general rule of strict
protection. These justifications, which include public safety and damage to agricultural interests 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.

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, for species covered by this annex, the use of means capable of causing local
disappearance of, or serious disturbance to, populations is prohibited. This therefore applies to wolf
populations in the reindeer herding area (2). It lies within the competence of the national authorities to take
appropriate measures with due regard to the above. According to the information the Commission has
received, there have been no reproductions of wolves in the reindeer herding area in recent years.

Information provided by the Finnish authorities to the Commission on reindeer mortality indicate that
road kills (2 500 animals in 2002) are far more significant than predation by large carnivores (2-300 killed
by wolves in 2002). The claim that the level of predation is in danger of putting an end to reindeer
husbandry (200 000 animals in Finland 2002) is certainly not supported by the official data.

Outside the reindeer herding area killing of wolves is allowed only in accordance with Article 16
derogation, i.e. it is possible only in cases where there is no satisfactory alternative and provided that the
derogation is not detrimental to the maintenance of populations of the species concerned at a favourable
conservation status in their natural range. The Commission is aware that the Finnish authorities are
permitting a number of wolves to be killed every year by way of such derogations.

While it is true that there has been a small increase in wolf population in Finland during the recent years
this has been from a very low figure. The current estimated population of 140 (official Finnish data)
cannot be regarded as representing a favourable conservation status in the terms of the Habitats Directive.
This assessment is not contested by the Finnish authorities since the official Red Data Book of endangered
species published by the Ministry of Environment and the Finnish Environment Institute includes the wolf.
This population level remains very low compared to a number of other Member States (e.g. Spain 2 000,
Italy 500, Portugal 400).

The management of the species in the Annexes lies within the competence of the national authorities,
taking into regard the requirements of the Directive. The Commission has discussed on a number of
occasions the issue of wolf management in Finland with the national authorities and have encouraged
them to formulate comprehensive policy and approach within an overall national management plan.
The Finnish authorities agreed in July 2002 to prepare such a plan before the end of 2002. The
Commission has yet to receive this plan.

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

(2004/C 84 E/0931)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0664/04

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Legislation on yoghurt

The 15 Member States currently regulate the marketing of yoghurt on the sole basis of a Commission
Communication of 1991, designed to interpret the Smanor ruling of the Court of Justice, which referred to
a case involving the naming of the product. By virtue of this communication, the Member States are free