WRITTEN QUESTION E-2518/02 by Dorette Corbey (PSE)and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission. Genetically modified food aid to developing countries.
Date: 2002-09-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, aid policy, developing countries, export policy, food aid, genetically modified organism

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/11

Initiatives like the Community supported ‘Wildlife Conservation and Management Programme’ (WCMP),
which the Honourable Member refers to, come within this scope and the Commission will continue the
dialogue with Government institutions at all levels on the issued relocation.

Two aspects of the above mentioned WCMP intervention appear of particular interest. Firstly, the main
aim of this development operation is not the provision of a specific support to any particular ethnic group
nor to the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR). Therefore, the programme is not directly related to the
question of the Basarwa. It aims at supporting and improving the conservation and sustainable use of the
country’s protected reserves and adjacent areas through activities in Ngamiland, Ghanzi District as well as
parts of Central and Kweneng District.

Secondly, it is important to clarify that EUR 1 million (out of a total of EUR 14 million) will be provided in
the form of a ‘Community Development Grant Fund’. Access to resources will be demand driven and all
Basarwa or other communities in the target areas, protected or adjacent, can submit proposals for support
for economically viable and environmentally sustainable development alternatives
these local
communities. Potential project ideas include, but are not limited to, activities related to the generation of
income and the development of infrastructure. Capacity building measures within local communities are
also foreseen. Indeed, communities will be trained and strengthened so as to enable them to develop their
own institutions, manage and monitor resources and negotiate in their own interest with the private
sector, government institutions and others. This last aspect is considered of crucial importance for the
effective empowerment of local communities.

for

Following discussions with the Government of Botswana earlier this year, it appears that Basarwa, even if
residing outside the CKGR, may be permitted to develop activities that include the sustainable use of
resources within the reserve. The Commission will follow up on this option within the context of the new
programme once it is fully operational towards the end of 2002.

(1) SEC(98) 773 final.

(2003/C 268 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2518/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE)
and Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2002)

Subject: Genetically modified food aid to developing countries

We have heard that developing countries are having genetically modified organisms forced upon them in
the form of food aid. Zambia is considering refusing consignments of genetically modified food, Zimbabwe
accepts modified food only if it has been milled, and Mozambique does not permit the transport of any
genetically modified material.

Is the Commission aware of any cases in which developing countries have had genetically modified

1.
food aid forced upon them and thus were not able to opt for GMO-free food aid?

2.

Does this contravene the Cartagena Protocol on biosafety?

Is the Commission aware of any cases in which developing countries have encountered problems

3.
with exports after farmers had used part of a consignment of genetically modified food aid as seed?

4.

Does the Commission agree that recipient countries should be able to opt for GMO-free food aid?

C 268 E/12

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2002)

The Commission is not aware of any case in which developing countries have had genetically modified
(GM) food aid forced upon them. To its knowledge, when countries have refused GM food aid donors have
complied with their requests to the possible extent and looked for alternative GM free supplies. However,
in the case of Southern Africa, given the sheer size of the food aid needs, the logistics involved and the
costs to be incurred, there are not enough funds to fully replace the American food aid. At the moment,
Zambia is refusing GM food aid, while Mozambique and Zimbabwe are accepting it provided it is milled.
Mozambique does authorise the transit of GM food aid on its territory provided this is done in sealed
containers.

The Cartagene Protocol applies an ‘Advanced Informed Agreement’ procedure to export genetically
modified organisms (GMOs)
intended for deliberate release in the environment. This is not, strictly
speaking the case for food aid. Article 11 (4) of the Protocol allows Parties to take decisions on the import
of GMOs for food, feed and processing (GMOFFP) under their domestic legislation and consistent with the
objectives of the Protocol. As to exports of GMOFFP, the Protocol (Article 18) foresees that these must be
accompanied by documents stating that the product ‘may contain’ GMOs. Moreover, under Article 11(6),
developing countries which have no domestic legislation can declare that their decision on the first import
of a GMOFFP will be taken according to a risk assessment and will be made within 270 days. Therefore,
imposing GMO food aid would deprive Parties of their prerogative under Article 11 and would contravene
the provisions of the Protocol. However, it should be remembered that: i) the United States are not a
signatory to the Protocol and ii) that the Protocol is not yet in force and, at the moment, there is only an
obligation on signatories (stemming from the principle of good faith) not to act in contradiction with the
objectives of the Protocol.

The Commission is not aware of any cases where developing countries have encountered problems in
exporting maize to the Community because of GM content. Countries could face problems only if they
were seeking to export GM varieties not authorised for marketing in the Community. As to Southern
Africa, it should be noted that current exports of maize and maize derived products to the Community are
minimal.

The Commission fully agrees that recipient countries must be allowed to make a free and informed choice
between GM and GM-free products.

(2003/C 268 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2527/02

by Giles Chichester (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Kozloduy nuclear power plant

In view of the importance of ensuring the safety of nuclear installations and given the complexity of the
factors which lead to the closure of a nuclear power plant and the implications of doing so, particularly in
the countries applying for accession to the European Union, could the Commission explain why it is not
basing its assessment of units 1-4 of the nuclear power plant at Kozloduy on the IAEA’s conclusions? Has
the Commission adopted different criteria from the IAEA? If so, why and what are those criteria? Who
drew them up? Who took the decision to apply other criteria, and when? Has the Commission based its
decision on expert reports drawn up by the IAEA? If not, why not? Who checked the qualifications of
these experts? Which installations did these experts visit and for how long? From which budget were the
fees of these experts paid and on whose authorisation?