WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/01 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission. Food aid to Russia.
Date: 2001-10-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, European Court of Auditors, Russia, aid system, distribution of aid, economic consequence, food aid, report

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/45

What is the Commission’s view on the appropriateness of using soya meal as opposed to the use of fish
meal, fish pulp and fish silage, on the assumption of stricter controls?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

It is estimated that soya meal covers 20 % of EU-15 crude protein use in animal feed. Imports account for
95 % of soya meal uses. Among the three main partners for Community imports, two authorise and grow
genetically modified soybeans.

Currently there is one authorisation granted to genetically modified soya (Round-Up Ready) which covers
the following uses: handling in the environment during import before and during storage, and before and
during its processing to non-viable products. This genetically modified soya may be used in animal
nutrition, this does not mean that all soya meal used for animal nutrition in the Union is produced from
genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Following the developments regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), in particular after the
extension of the ban on processed animal meals (1), the Council called on the Commission to analyse the
supply and demand of protein rich plants. In this regard the Commission presented a Communication to
the Council and the Parliament ‘Options to promote the cultivation of plant proteins in the EU’ (2). This
communication concludes that there is no major problem to replace proteins from animal meals by
protein from plants. The best source in this respect is soya meal. However, farmers and the feeding
industry will not react by simply using more soya meal because other alternatives are possible.

The Commission is not in a position to express a view on the appropriateness of using one or other
protein source, as long as they are safe. Indeed the use of any safe feed material in animal nutrition should
be decided by the relevant operators taking into account other criteria such as the type of animal
production (specific feeding requirements) as well as nutritional value, availability of the commodities and
price.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written question E-1898/01 by
Mrs Jackson (3). Quite apart from their protein content, the Commission is aware that fisheries products are
a predominant source of long-chained unsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) which are beneficial in nutrition.
On the other hand fisheries products can be contaminated with dioxins. Proposal to establish limit values
for dioxins in food and feed are currently under consideration by Council (4).

(1) Council Decision 2000/766/EC of 4 December 2000 concerning certain protection measures with regard to
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and the feeding of animal protein, OJ L 306, 7.12.2000. This decision
has been further extended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1326/2001 (OJ L 177, 30.6.2001).

(2) COM(2001) 148 final.
(3) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 71.
(4) COM(2001) 493 final and COM(2001) 495 final.

(2002/C 147 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2725/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Food aid to Russia

According to the Court of Auditors’ Special Report (1) large proportions of food aid were paid over to the
Russian Federation rather than to those in genuine need as originally planned. This has caused disruption
to trade with Russia.

C 147 E/46

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

What stage has been reached in the work of assessment and what does the Commission intend to do to
avoid similar disturbances of the market in future aid operations?

(1) OJ C 25, 25.1.2001.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Commission has given a comprehensive response to the findings detailed in the report referred to by
the Honourable Member. This response, which is published as an annex to the European Court of
Auditor’s Special Report (1), addresses the concerns raised in the Honourable Member’s question.

In particular the Commission would draw the Honourable Member’s attention to paragraphs 48, 50, 51
and 52 dealing with trade disruption, paragraph 53 which addresses the issue of programme targeting and
to paragraphs 56 to 61 in the Conclusion. There is little evidence of disruption to trade and local markets.
Independent evaluators did point out the positive impact of the programme on the food chain. The
constitution of the counterpart funds from the sale of the food aid delivery did aid the clearance of Russian
pension arrears and contributed to the significant increase in basic pensions. Food aid to Russia has been
designed in accordance with international guidelines and has been implemented in close co-operation with
Russian authorities and other donor programmes.

In regard to ‘work assessment’ this Programme is not yet finalised despite the fact that the physical delivery
of 1,67 million tonnes of product was completed by end March 2000. The Community-Russia Joint
Working Group, set up to oversee implementation, continues to meet monthly until all arrears to the
Special Account have been cleared and final disbursements from this account are made. As of 3 October
2001 the arrears total was 576 million Russian Rubles (RUR) representing about 8 % of the total value of
Programme product sold. As mandated by Council (Council Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December
1998 on a programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation (2), article 4) an
independent evaluation has been completed. An independent audit is on going and the final audit report
is expected in spring 2002.

In the context of future food aid operations, the Commission will take account of the valuable experience
gained with this particular programme and the recommendations detailed in the independent evaluators
report. Necessarily, the Commission does take particular care to avoid market disruption, both within the
Community and at beneficiary level, with all large-scale food aid operations. In the case of the Russian
Federation, the Commission has no plans at present to propose further food aid operations.

(1) OJ C 25, 25.1.2001.
(2) OJ L 349, 24.12.1998.

(2002/C 147 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2740/01

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 October 2001)

Subject: Electromagnetic fields

What steps is the Commission intending to take to protect human health against the negative effects of
electromagnetic fields, specifically from mobile telephones?