Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 92001E000375

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0375/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission. Return of canis lupus to Alpine areas.

OV C 261E, 18.9.2001, p. 98–99 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

European Parliament's website

92001E0375

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0375/01 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission. Return of canis lupus to Alpine areas.

Official Journal 261 E , 18/09/2001 P. 0098 - 0099


WRITTEN QUESTION E-0375/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(15 February 2001)

Subject: Return of canis lupus to Alpine areas

The return of wolves (canis lupus) to Alpine areas, as a result of their migrating from the Italian Apennines, has met with contrasting reactions on the part of national authorities in the light of the laws of the countries concerned, so that various subterfuges have been employed to get round the inflexible Community rules according to which the wolf is a species that may not be hunted.

What are the Commission's views on the subject, and does it consider that it would be appropriate to agree on joint measures and, possibly, changes to the existing legislation?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The wolf (Canis lupus), with the exception of some populations in Spain and Greece, is included in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive(1) as a species of community interest for which rigorous protection is required. According to Article 12 of the same Directive, this protection includes, among others, the obligation by the Member States to prohibit, in their natural range, all forms of deliberate capture or killing of specimens in the wild and deliberate disturbance, particularly during the period of breeding, rearing, hibernation and migration.

The Habitats Directive foresees, in Article 16, the possibility for the Member States to derogate from the provisions of Article 12, provided that there is no satisfactory alternative and that 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 reasons which can justify such a derogation include the prevention of serious damage, in particular to crops, livestock and other types of property, the interests of public health and public safety, or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature.

Finally, for a number of years already, the Commission has financed with Life-Nature funds projects focussed on assessing the evolution of the situation of the wolf in Europe and particularly in the alpine zone, and on its conservation. These projects have studied and applied several methods of compensation to the farmers for damage eventually caused by the wolf, and of mitigation of that damage. One conclusion of these projects is that the present wolf population in the alpine region is not so large that it might create problems at the regional level, and that the damage caused is at the local level.

The Commission does not believe, therefore, that it would be helpful to work on common measures or to adjust the existing Community legislation, particularly for what refers to the Habitats Directive and its annexes.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992).

Top