WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/01 by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission. Humanitarian aid to Macedonia and Kosovo.
Date: 2001-07-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ECHO, Kosovo, North Macedonia, aid system, aid to refugees, food aid, humanitarian aid

C 115 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2001)

While noting that the decision of the Constitutional Court ordering the banning of the Fazilet party is in
accordance with the Turkish Constitution, the Commission is concerned about the implications of this
ruling for democratic pluralism and freedom of expression.

The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the declaration issued in June 2001 by
the Presidency on behalf of the Union which stressed that ‘the decision of the Court highlights the need for
the Accession
Turkey to move ahead with political reforms in order to implement priorities of
Partnership.’

The Commission is currently monitoring,
the current
developments connected with the constitutional reform debated by the Turkish Parliament inter alia with
respect to the provisions on the banning of political parties. In this context, it pays particular attention to
the need to comply with European standards, in particular the ‘Guidelines on prohibition and dissolution
of political parties and analogous measures’ adopted in December 1999 by the Venice Commission of the
Council of Europe.

the Copenhagen political criteria,

in light of

(2002/C 115 E/031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2083/01

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Humanitarian aid to Macedonia and Kosovo

(13 July 2001)

Is it true that the humanitarian aid being provided by the Commission to the people of Macedonia is being
restricted to food aid? In view of the state of war in the country and the consequent numbers of refugees
is the Commission planning to draw up a comprehensive humanitarian-aid
and displaced persons,
programme?

It is reported that the ECHO office in Kosovo is closing down, despite the fact that the situation has
in Macedonia. How much
worsened following the arrival of
humanitarian aid is due to be supplied to Kosovo?

fleeing from the conflict

refugees

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2001)

Since the beginning of
the crisis in former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (fYROM), European
Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), through its partners, has responded to the humanitarian
needs of the victims (Internally displaced persons (IDPs) in fYROM and refugees in Kosovo) in three
manners:

> Mobilising the disaster preparedness stocks built, largely with ECHO funding, in the aftermath of the
Kosovo crisis. This was mainly done by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in
fYROM and the United Nations (UN) agencies in Kosovo.

> Enlarging the scope of ECHO’s programme in fYROM, to respond to the new needs. At the beginning
of the crisis, ECHO’s programme was targeting two categories: refugees (from the Kosovo crisis) and
most vulnerable local population. The programme has been increased and re-oriented to cater for the
needs of IDPs. ECHO is currently implementing projects in fYROM for a total amount of € 5,4 million.
Another € 600 000 have been committed and are in the process of being contracted out to ECHO
partners. The sectoral breakdown of it is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

> Responding to the crisis in Kosovo. In 2001, € 12,5 million have been committed for operations in
Kosovo: € 520 000 were contracted out in May 2001 to two non governmental organisation (NGO)
partners to provide support, in the form of non food items to refugees from fYROM. In addition, in
view of the increase in the number of refugees and the revision of the 2001 Consolidated Appeal of
the UN for South Eastern Europe, the Commission adopted on 31 July 2001 an emergency decision

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/33

for € 1,5 million to support the families hosting refugees in Kosovo for more than three months,
support refugees with non-food items, provide basic immunisation to refugee children and strengthen
pre-natal, natal and post natal health services. The programmes will be implemented by United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef). The
total allocation for Kosovo for 2001 is therefore: € 14 million.

ECHO’s phasing out strategy from the Balkans, which started in 2000 with the closure of offices and end
of operations in Croatia and Bosnia & Herzegovina, is based on two parameters: the coverage of the urgent
humanitarian needs and the successful linkage with other instruments who are in a better position to
support a development process. In Kosovo, the humanitarian needs resulting from the Kosovo crisis have
been covered and the development of the Province is strongly supported by the Commission through the
European Agency for Reconstruction. Within the United Nations Mission in Kosovo (UNMiK), the original
UNHCR-led ‘Pillar 1’ dealing with humanitarian issues has also been phased out as needs reduced and were
met by other parts of the interim administration. In this context, ECHO’s intervention in relation to the
Kosovo crisis will be finalised this year and the ECHO office will be closed. ECHO will continue
monitoring the situation and following up the implementation of remaining projects related to the
refugees from fYROM from its office in Skopje.

With regards to the drawing up of a comprehensive Commission plan to support
the
humanitarian response is > with the current conditions in fYROM > an essential, but limited, part of
such plan. Also in anticipation of the implementation of a much larger comprehensive assistance package,
the Commission mobilised, in May 2001, € 2,5 million from the Rapid Reaction Mechanism for the repair
and reconstruction of houses affected by the conflict, as a confidence building measure in support of the
local authorities’ efforts to alleviate the consequences of the fighting on innocent civilians, no matter their
ethnic background.

fYROM,

The Commission also intends to assist fYROM in the implementation of the Framework Agreement
concluded between the political leaders of the country on 13 August 2001. Preparations are ongoing for
the provision of additional support
local
infrastructure development and confidence-building measures (1). Further macrofinancial assistance may
also be disbursed, and the Commission will organise a Donors’ Meeting, with the World Bank, when
adequate implementation of the Framework Agreement has taken place.

from the CARDS programme for housing reconstruction,

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 of 5 December 2000 on assistance for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yougoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, repealing Regulation
(EC) No 1628/96 and amending Regulation (EEC) No 3906/89 and (EEC) No 1360/90 and Decisions 97/256/EC
and 1999/311/EC > OJ L 306, 7.12.2000.

(2002/C 115 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2099/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Cloning of farm animals for commercial use and insufficient animal welfare legislation

1.
Is the Commission aware of the report in the ‘New Scientist’ of 19 May 2001 concerning the cloning
of prize farm animals? Is it aware that in the United States, cloning companies are making multiple copies
of top pedigree cows and bulls, and that prize breeding animals can be cloned, in some cases, for less than
half the price of buying one produced by traditional methods?

2.
Is the Commission aware that, in the opinion of numerous experts, it is vital that controlled farm
trials of cattle cloning for food production are carried out before any commercial production is allowed?

3.
Is the Commission further aware of the dangers accompanying the loss of genetic diversity which
would result from the creation of herds of cloned cattle, with unforeseeable results in terms of illness and
consequent increases in unnecessary suffering, as well as adverse commercial effects for farmers? Is it aware