# CE2004078EN.01030901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/309 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/309

---

(2004/C 78 E/0311)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3662/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject:   Botswanan beef, wildlife and sustainable development

Subject:

It has been brought to my attention by a constituent that the Botswana Government is considering fencing in areas of land in an effort to increase the country's production of beef, most of which I understand is intended for the EU. The impact on local wildlife, communities and the tourism industry would be huge.

Can the Commission confirm that this would go against the EU's environmental and social standards, and, given that the EU is a major importer of Botswanan beef, will it put pressure on the authorities in Botswana to reconsider their options?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 January 2004)

(26 January 2004)

The Commission is aware both of the Government of Botswana's intention to alter its existing network of cattle/wildlife fences in Ngamiland, and of the recent developments on this matter. These would include the erection of a new veterinary fence, with the purpose to extend the country area free from Foot and Mouth Disease.

While, however, there is no direct link between the intended fences and the European Development Fund/budget lines projects currently funded in Botswana, the Commission and its Delegation in Botswana, conscious of the issues at stake, maintain contacts with the various stakeholders, including the nongovernmental organisation ‘Environmental Investigation Agency’. There is also a regular dialogue with the Government of Botswana in the area of conservation of natural resources.

The Botswana/DFID (Department for International Development, United Kingdom) funded ‘Environmental assessment of veterinary fences in Ngamiland’ report outlines various technical options, and constitutes a solid preliminary information base on environmental impact for the Okavango delta. To the Commission's knowledge, the Government of Botswana has not taken a decision on a particular option to follow; the Commission however understands that a number of complementary studies (in particular on socio economic impact) are planned by the Government of Botswana, following the report recommendations. The Delegation expects that the matter will be resolved through the local consultations that have been reinitiated, as well as by a policy dialogue between the Botswana stakeholders.

The importance of livestock for the livelihoods of Ngamiland cannot be underplayed. It should be noted that, unlike other Southern African countries, most Botswana meat for export comes from smallholders, who benefit from Foot and Mouth Disease control even if no exports are taking place. Foot and Mouth Disease control has therefore a positive impact on poverty alleviation. The control is possible through a range of techniques, the erection of fences (with different modalities) being one of them.

In more general development terms, the debate illustrates the importance of land use planning, particularly for pastoral areas and also for Botswana. Persistent persuasion, resources and action are required to define and build a viable interface between cattle and wildlife, and strike the right balance between divergent interests respectively favouring wildlife and livestock.

The Commission will continue to closely monitor the situation. It has recently met with the nongovernmental organisation ‘Environmental Investigation Agency’ to listen to their point of view and to obtain further information.

---