WRITTEN QUESTION E-2246/02 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. Sudan.
Date: 2002-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Sudan, civil war, settlement of disputes

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/13

Finally, since the launch of the campaign the Commission has been in regular contact with Oxfam through
meetings and seminars and has been studying their proposals. This dialogue has been constructive and
useful and will certainly continue throughout
the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) negotiations,
the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations and beyond.

(2003/C 242 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2226/02

by Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Grant for 2001 under Item B7-6200, Forests and Environment

Can the Commission confirm that it could not commit the entire appropriation for 2001 from Item
B7-6200, Forests and Environment, because of delays resulting from poor communication between DG
Development, DG Environment and the EuropeAid Cooperation Office services, with the result that the
resources allocated for sustainable management of
the forest ecosystems in Central Africa were
significantly reduced?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

The Commission regrets that part of the 2001 appropriation for budget line B7-6200 could not be
committed. In fact, given the importance of the subject and the fact that certain proposals had almost
completed the approval procedure,
the services agreed the exceptional measure of carrying over
EUR 7 million of the allocated amount, which would otherwise have been lost to the programme.

The Commission fully recognises the importance of the ecosystems in Central Africa and continues to
support the conservation and sustainable management of the forests in the Congo Basin. In fact, the two
proposals for forest ecosystems in the Congo Basin which were not approved in 2001 have subsequently
been adopted, so the resources allocated to this region have not been significantly reduced.

(2003/C 242 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2246/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Sudan

In view of the International Crisis Group’s latest report on Sudan, would the Commission agree that there
are a number of reasons for concern about recent developments in that country?

Are these concerns being raised with the Government of Sudan, and if so would the Commission clarify
exactly what issues are being raised and what the response has been?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2002)

The Commission is aware of the developments in Sudan and is particularly concerned about the escalation
of the fighting during the first half (dry season) of this year -which is partly due to the acquisition of new
weaponry by both sides (cid:1) and possibly the restriction of humanitarian access, as described in the
International Crisis Group (ICG) report of 27 June 2002.

C 242 E/14

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

The issue of the war and the related peace process are constantly being addressed in the Union-Sudan
dialogue, which now takes place on a monthly basis. It is worthwhile to mention that the reactivation of
the political dialogue between Sudan and the Union has opened the possibility to a progressive
normalisation of the Union-Sudan co-operation in terms of the Cotonou Agreement provided progress in
the political dialogue is considered satisfactory by the Union.

Furthermore, a number of actions are being taken by the Commission: (i) a declaration of the Union
Presidency on behalf of the Member States has been issued condemning the impeded access; (ii) a donor
meeting was held in Geneva on June 26 2002 where several actions were decided including joint
declarations, regular donor meetings, joint donor missions, etc. and (iii) the Delegation in Khartoum is
actively exercising strong pressure on the Government of Sudan and the other warring parties alongside
the United Nations agencies and other humanitarian donors.

The recent progress in the peace talks indicates that there might at last be hope for ending the war in the
near future. If this will be the case, then the concerns addressed by the ICG report would be fortunately
resolved.

The Union gives its utmost importance to support the negotiations, which have been resumed after
12 August 2002.

Finally, it has to be underlined that the Union as well as Member States need to be continuously informed
during the negotiation process and not only at the end of each round, which can only be done by United
Kingdom and Italy, who are attending the talks as observers.

(2003/C 242 E/020)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2248/02

by Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Construction of a hydroelectric power station on indigenous land in Chile

The company Endesa Chile, which has been privatised and acquired by Endesa España, is in the process of
constructing the Ralco hydroelectric power station. This will result in the flooding of 630 hectares of
indigenous land and the disappearance of two Pehuenche Indian communities which have always existed
in the Alto Bio Bio, and contravenes Indigenous Law No 19.253 of 5 October 1993 and the Basic Law on
the Environment No 19.300 of 9 March 1994.

Furthermore, adverse opinions on this construction project have been issued by 22 relevant Chilean public
bodies, and the World Bank has refused to grant it funding because it contravenes its code of ethics.

Eight of the 93 families living in the area have asserted their rights under the Indigenous Law and refused
to be relocated, while the others have caved in to pressure, threats and blackmail.

The Chilean government is affecting ignorance of its own laws, and has set up a Committee of Wise Men
to put a figure on the compensation payable to these eight families. This is unlawful and sets an alarming
precedent for the indigenous peoples of Chile and their survival.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

Does it not feel there is a need, in the light of the recently signed EU-Chile Association Agreement,

2.
to demand respect of democracy clauses and the indigenous rights they contain?

3. What measures is it considering taking with regard to this violation of indigenous rights and
therefore of the EU-Chile Association Agreement?