92001E0672

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0672/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 February 2001)

Subject: Dealing with the cormorant problem

In some Baltic areas flocks of cormorants (Phalacrocorax carbo) have become a real nuisance, driving out other species

and in many cases killing off plant life where they have passed. Nevertheless, action against these flocks has not been permitted, for example in Finland; some bodies and authorities maintain that cormorants are protected by EU directives.

What is the Commission's view on this? What action is permissible and how can the damage caused by cormorants be reduced?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2001)

The cormorant is a naturally occurring bird species, and as such is covered by the Council Directive 79/409 EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(1), the Birds Directive. In 1997 this species was removed from the list of birds subject to special conservation measures of Annex I of this Directive because it was no longer considered to have an unfavourable conservation status.

As the cormorant is not included in the lists of huntable bird species of the Birds Directive (Annexes II/1 and II/2), Member States have to protect it like most naturally occurring species, prohibiting for example deliberate killing or capture, destruction of or damage to their nests and eggs, and deliberate disturbance especially during the breeding period.

However, Member States may derogate from these strict protection provisions to prevent serious damage to fisheries and water and for the protection of flora and fauna where no other satisfactory solution exists.

In order to grant such a derogation there is however the need for some scientific evidence that such serious damage is taking place. At present the studies from Sweden and the information from Finland do not demonstrate an overall negative effect.

The Commission has received information indicating that damage to nests of cormorant is taking place in some locations. In the absence of substantive proof of damage to fisheries and wildlife, justifying a derogation as mentioned above, such actions are in contravention of the Birds Directive.

(1) OJ C 103, 25.4.1979.