WRITTEN QUESTION E-2169/02 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Enlargement.
Date: 2002-07-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: BusinessEurope, Central and Eastern European countries, administrative formalities, business location, enlargement of the Union, public administration, technical barriers to trade

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/9

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Lord Ashdown was appointed Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (‘double-hatted’)
under a Council Joint Action (2002/211/CFSP) of 11 March 2002. He receives no Union remuneration in
his capacity as Union Special Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). However, financing is
provided for the operating costs of the Office of the High Representative under Council Regulation (EC)
No 1080/2000 of 22 May 2000. In 2002 this financing is set at EUR 13 307 million.

Lord Ashdown dismissed Nikola Grabovac because, in his judgement, the latter had failed to supervise
actively his ministry and to perform effectively the function of the Federation Minister of Finance.
Mr Grabovac also ‘failed to show the required leadership by taking political responsibility’ for the loss of
1,7 million KM from the public purse. The powers of the High Representative do not derive from
democratic election; but they are not arbitrary. They are conferred on him by annex 10 of the Dayton
Peace Agreement and by the December 1997 Bonn Peace Implementation Council. In exercising his ‘Bonn
powers’ the aim of the High Representative is to promote implementation of the Dayton Peace Agreement
and a self-sustaining peace in Bosnia in which international supervision is,
in due course, no longer
necessary. The Union’s efforts in BiH are designed to help the country make progress in the Stabilisation
and Association process, and to realise its aspirations as a potential candidate for Union membership to
become a member of the Union one day. But like other potential candidates, BiH must show that is
willing, over time, to take on the obligations that would come with eventual Union membership.

The Commission strongly supports Lord Ashdown in his work as High Representative, and his decision in
this case.

(2003/C 242 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2169/02

by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 July 2002)

Subject: Enlargement

The Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe (UNICE) recently drew attention to the
slow working of the administration in certain candidate countries. Some cases of corruption have also
arisen among these countries.

This situation considerably hinders the entry and establishment of firms from European Union countries.

What measures is the Directorate-General for Enlargement planning to take to mitigate this situation?

Has a quantitative assessment been made of the economic damage which might result from these
‘technical’ barriers?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2002)

As can be seen from the Commission’s Regular Report on the progress towards accession in the candidate
countries, the problems mentioned by the Honourable Member are known to the Commission. The
information provided by UNICE, as by other independent sources, are very useful and are greatly
appreciated.

The problems of administrative weakness have been addressed by the Commission since the beginning of
its co-operation with the candidate countries. Many PHARE projects in all candidate countries aim at
strengthening the capacity of public administration. In fact, today it is the core objective of PHARE. This
has included specific programmes to combat corruption. These efforts continue under the PHARE

C 242 E/10

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

programmes presently under implementation, and further projects are being considered. However, it must
be realised that the first responsibility for addressing these issues lays with the countries themselves.

The Commission has not undertaken a quantitative assessment of the economic damage resulting from
such obstacles, which are being tackled in various forms.

(2003/C 242 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2206/02

by Walter Veltroni (PSE) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Situation of the poor in Nairobi

55 % of the population of Nairobi, approximately 2 million people, are living in slums scattered around
the urban area without
there being any relevant building policy. The economic, social and health
conditions in these settlements are appalling and unfit for human beings. Most of the slums are on
publicly-owned land which the government considers as unoccupied land which it can sell. When that
happens the poor inhabitants, who have no legal entitlement, are forcibly evicted and their shacks are
demolished, without there being any prospect of alternative accommodation.

Can the Commission say, in the context of its cooperation policy with the developing countries, what it
thinks of this urgent and complex issue and whether it has taken the problem into account in its relations
with the Kenyan authorities?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2002)

1.
The Government of Kenya, supported by the international community, has undertaken a large-scale
consultation process, with the active participation of civil society, in order to define a coherent strategy to
fight poverty and to eradicate it in the long term. This has led to the drafting of a Poverty Reduction
Strategy Paper (PRSP) which is at the centre of the co-operation strategies of Kenya’s main donors,
including the Community.

No donor (cid:1) including the Community (cid:1) is in a position, however, to tackle the full range of Kenya’s
poverty issues alone. The coordination between the Government of Kenya and the donors leads to a
sharing of work on the various aspects of poverty.

In this context, the Commission’s main objective in Kenya is the fight against poverty in rural areas,
reflecting the priorities of the PRSP. Three quarters of the poor live in rural areas.

The concentration on rural areas does not mean, however, that there is no contribution to fighting urban
poverty: such contribution is made through support to national policies (e.g. health) which greatly
influence the determinants of poverty in Kenya. In addition, support is given through a number of specific
actions in areas such as education, water and sanitation. Income-generating projects are also financed
through a micro-enterprise support programme. Furthermore, the Commission also funds a number of
non governmental organisation (NGO) co-financed projects in the Nairobi slums supporting vocational
training, the reinsertion into society of street children and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired
immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) prevention.

2.
Questions relating to land tenure in African countries are complex and usually difficult to resolve.
They are far from being a particularity of urban areas alone and are usually linked to issues such as
traditional property rights and colonial and post-independence legislative developments. By contributing to
a more sustained development
the Commission seeks to alleviate the flow of rural
populations to the slums of major cities. It is preparing, in consultation with Member States, guidelines on

in rural areas,