WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/02 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Aid to Afghanistan.
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Afghanistan, EU aid, European Commission, aid policy, aid to agriculture, drug traffic, operation of the Institutions, position of women, terms for aid

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/17

Fears have been expressed that these grants, which play an important role in ensuring the survival and
continued use of buildings of historic importance, may now be prohibited by the Commission under state
aid rules.

Is this the Commission’s intention, and, if so, what suggestions has it for ensuring that in the UK it
continues to be possible to bring about the costly restoration of historic properties which have a relatively
low market value?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2002)

The Commission welcomes the restoration of buildings of historic value, whereby the Member States select
the eligible buildings.

State aid rules of the Treaty certainly do not stand in the way of such projects, where the costs which the
market does not accept to bear, are taken over by the State.

It has to be reminded in that respect that the prohibition of State aids laid down in Article 87 §1 of the
EC Treaty concerns only selective advantages to undertakings, i.e. entities having an economic activity, and
which distort or threaten to distort competition.

According to the Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (1), aid measures are deemed not to meet all the
criteria of Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty, if they don’t exceed EUR 100 000 over a period of three years.

Furthermore, Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty only prohibits State aids insofar as they affect trade between
Member States. It is questionable to what extent, if any, heritage regeneration grants financed through the
State lottery and allowing the restoration of buildings with historic value affect trade between Member
States.

In case these grants would satisfy the criteria set out in Article 87 §1 of the EC Treaty Article 87 §3 (d)
would provide for an exemption to the prohibition of State aids concerning aid to promote culture and
trading conditions and competition in the
heritage conservation where such aid does not affect
Community to an extent that is contrary to the common interest.

(1) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001.

(2002/C 309 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Aid to Afghanistan

It has been widely reported that during the last few months large quantities of poppy seeds have been
planted in northern Afghanistan. The promise of a bumper crop, together with the release of large opium
stocks built up by the Taleban, is responsible for the market price for a kilogram of opium in Kandahar
plummeting from $ 1 600 to $ 330. A farmer will receive about $ 300 for a kilogram of opium as opposed
to less than $ 1 for a kilogram of wheat.

What steps will the European Union take to encourage farmers to earn a good living through the
cultivation of alternative crops, and will European Union aid be linked to a willingness of Afghan officials
and warlords to respect the new government’s decree prohibiting the production of opium as well as
respect for the authority of the central government? Will the provision of aid also be conditional upon
there being no reintroduction of the barbaric practice of stoning women to death for adultery?

C 309 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Finally, what proportion of EU aid will be channelled through its own institutions and what proportion
will be made available to NGOs? In cases where the European Union feels that aid is needed and the aid is
dispersed through the Commission, what steps will be taken to ensure that the aid is made available in
good time and not left in bank accounts or caught-up in labyrinthine bureaucratic procedures as has
happened so often in the past with European aid budgets?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The Community considers the implementation of the poppy ban by the Afghan Interim Authority as an
important step which deserves support.

Among the programmes to be financed by the Community and other partners involved in the
reconstruction and rehabilitation process in Afghanistan are rural development programmes intended to
contribute to the improvement of the situation of the population.

To this end, a number of assessment missions are currently in Afghanistan, including a Community food
security/agronomic expert who is studying the potential for support in this area.

The principal conditionality for continuing Community assistance to the Afghan administration is its
adherence to the terms of the Bonn/Petersburg Agreement,
inter alia, commitment to a timetable for
elections, introduction of an agreed legal framework, the establishment of a Human Rights Commission,
co-operation in the fight against terrorism, drugs and organised crime, and respect for the basic principles
of human rights and international humanitarian law to which Afghanistan is a party.

European Union aid is made up of bilateral pledges from Member States and a pledge from the
Commission. Pledges from Member States have been made in differing forms and cover a variety of sectors
of the reconstruction process, including agriculture and anti-drugs measures. Pledges for 2002 made at
Tokyo in January 2002 were EUR 400 million from Member States, EUR 200 million from the
Commission.

The Commission has set aside EUR 13 million from its first commitment in 2002 of EUR 57,5 million to
be devoted to agricultural/rural regeneration and development. Precise project plans are being drawn up.
These could include assistance to farmers and other members of the rural population previously involved
in poppy cultivation. Other proposals in this area will be considered for further commitments later in the
year. The fight against illegal drugs is an important cross-cutting issue in EC assistance to Afghanistan.

The Community generally channels its humanitarian assistance through non-governmental organisations
(NGOs), United Nations (UN) aid agencies and international aid organisations. Depending on the nature of
projects or programmes agreed for future funding, some assistance may now be implemented, where
appropriate and with technical assistance, directly with central government agencies or local municipalities.
No decisions have been made on proportions to be channelled via NGOs or via the central government.
This will depend on individual decision on the best way to achieve the objectives for the assistance.

It is hoped that the setting up of a fully deconcentrated Union Office in Kabul operational as of
12 February 2002, will keep to a minimum the time taken to approve, adopt and put into implementation
Community assistance programmes in Afghanistan. An early assistance package of project worth
EUR 4,9 million was approved in December 2001 under the Rapid Reaction Mechanism and has been
disbursed.