WRITTEN QUESTION E-3644/01 by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU-Latin America relations and impact of the Puebla-Panama project in Mexico.
Date: 2002-01-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EIB loan, EU financing, EU relations, Latin America, Mexico, cooperation policy, deforestation, environmental impact, human rights, industrial integration

C 309 E/6

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

(2002/C 309 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3644/01

by Michael Gahler (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 January 2002)

Subject: EU-Latin America relations and impact of the Puebla-Panama project in Mexico

On 15 November 2001, when it adopted the own initiative report containing its resolution on a global
partnership and a common strategy (A5-0336/2001), Parliament voted in support of relations between the
European Union and Latin America. The ‘Puebla-Panama project’ was also discussed in the debate. Under
this plan the poor rural South, which, however, has abundant stocks of resources, is to be economically
integrated into a globalised production model that has been making itself felt in northern Mexico at the
latest since Mexico acceded to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. The idea is to
create an integrated industrial corridor between southern Mexico and Central America to run through
Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Panama, thus linking the
Atlantic and the Pacific. Transport, telecommunications, energy, fisheries, and irrigation infrastructure
projects will be carried out in order to develop petrochemicals, mining, assembling industries, tourism,
fisheries, water supply and distribution services, and agriculture.

However, the implementation of the plan is prompting accusations that in Mexico in particular and the
other countries as well the environmental effects resulting from rain forest depletion bear no relation to
the economic benefit, building development is driving the indigenous population out of its traditional
homeland, and,
the human rights situation in Mexico, especially where the Indios are
concerned, is so critical that action in that sphere has to be considered the first and most urgent priority.
Furthermore, the public has no information whatsoever about the project.

in general,

To what extent will the Commission follow the example of the international financial community

1.
and thus help to implement the project? What amount will it allocate for that purpose?

2. Will the Commission also submit a proposal to increase EIB funds to finance initiatives in the region
concerned?

3.

How does the Commission propose to deal with the misgivings expressed above?

4.
How will the Commission cover the Puebla-Panama project in the annual progress reports to the EP
detailing how far the goals of the strategy have been attained, first and foremost as regards the human
rights situation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

1.
The Mexican authorities presented the Puebla Panama Plan (PPP) to the Commission and the Council
at meetings of the EU-Mexico Joint Council and Committee. However, no official request for funding has
been made by the Mexican Government or by any of the Central American governments.

The Commission stresses the strategic importance of the PPP as part of regional
considers essential for developing the region and thereby reducing its poverty levels.

integration, which it

The Commission will shortly finalise strategy papers on cooperation with Mexico and the Central
American countries; apart from the priority sectors for cooperation for 2002-2006, they include the
indicative amounts for cooperation with each of these countries. The possibility of using complementary
resources is not included in these strategy papers.

If the Commission were to receive an official request

2.
for funding accompanied by a detailed
description of the projects under consideration, it would make a proper analysis of the request and would
examine the possibilities offered by the Community strategy for the region.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/7

As for funds from the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Commission and the EIB are launching a
3.
dialogue on the total volume of funds which the EIB provides to finance projects in non-EU countries. The
Community would make its proposals in this context concerning funds for Latin America in good time
and on the basis of the general need to strengthen economic and cooperation links between the two
regions as a whole.

4.
The Honourable Member’s concerns are those which the Commission always takes into consideration
when it commits itself financially to a project. If the Commission were to decide to make a financial
contribution to the PPP, it would follow the internal cooperation procedures and the preliminary viability
and impact studies would therefore be carried out before budgetary commitment. In this context, the
consequences for the environment and the indigenous populations would be analysed.

5.
The Commission considers that the PPP is a programme for developing the region and combating
poverty and in any detailed analysis of the PPP it will take into account the situation regarding human
rights, and in particular economic and social rights.

(2002/C 309 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3673/01

by Hedwig Keppelhoff-Wiechert (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 January 2002)

Subject: Animal by-products not intended for human consumption (cid:1) alternative ways of using bonemeal

In its proposal for a regulation (1) concerning animal by-products not intended for human consumption the
Commission proposes a legal framework intended to remove BSE-infected animals and animal material
from the food chain. The proposal lays down methods for disposing of animal by-products.

Products in Category 1, with the highest risk factor, may be disposed of only by incineration, waste
incineration or landfilling. The Commission may, after hearing the relevant Scientific Committee, authorise
alternative disposal methods. This is apparently being delayed by administrative and scientific procedures
in commitology.

The disposal of bonemeal is very costly. Does the Commission see no advantages in introducing

1.
reliable alternative methods for using Category 1 bonemeal more rationally and cheaply?

Is the Commission aware of scientific developments in this field, especially as regards the processing

2.
of residues?

If so, how does the Commission intend to promote alternative processing methods, such as further

3.
processing in a biogas or composting plant or fermentation for the generation of energy?

(1) COM(2000) 574, OJ C 96 E, 27.3.2001, p. 40.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2002)

laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not

In line with the most updated scientific advice, Article 4 of the proposed Regulation of the Parliament and
the Council
intended for human
consumption, establishes that Category 1 material,
the highest risk category, shall be disposed by
incineration, co-incineration or landfill following sterilisation. However, the same Article allows for this
material to be disposed of by other means that are approved by the Commission, after consultation of the
appropriate scientific committee.