WRITTEN QUESTION P-3137/02 by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European Programme for Reconstruction and Development in South Africa.
Date: 2002-10-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: AIDS, EIB loan, South Africa, aid evaluation, aid programme, development aid, economic situation, poverty

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/29

(2004/C 11 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3137/02

by Sérgio Marques (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 October 2002)

Subject: European Programme for Reconstruction and Development in South Africa

Given that South Africa is by far Africa’s biggest economy and constitutes a factor of political stability in a
region with enormous political problems, the recent data on that country are disturbing. Despite the
conclusion of the political transition, the prospects for the consolidation of democracy and social peace in
South Africa are being adversely affected by rampant poverty, unemployment and inequality, the huge
number of AIDS sufferers and the increasing safety problems in the main cities.

In this connection, the EU has made available, under the European Programme for Reconstruction and
Development, a total of EUR 885,5 million for the period 2000-2006 (approximately EUR 126,5 million
per annum); to this should be added the sum of EUR 825 million granted in EIB loans for the same period
(approximately EUR 135 million per annum).

This programme seeks, through the establishment of financial and technical cooperation, to contribute to
the sustainable and harmonious economic and social development of South Africa, in particular by means
of measures for: reduction of poverty and creation of incentives to economic growth in the interests of the
least-favoured sections of the population; the integration of South Africa into the global economy; an
improvement in safety; and the consolidation of democracy and the rule of law on a basis of full respect
for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Given the above:

(cid:1) Can the Commission provide information on the physical and financial execution of the different
programmes supported by the European Programme for Reconstruction and Development in South
Africa?

(cid:1) Can the Commission specify the amounts already granted in EIB loans?

(cid:1) Can the Commission state whether the impact of this programme has been subjected to any kind of
ex ante assessment? If so, what is the expected impact with particular reference to job creation,
infrastructure construction,
improvement of safety, numbers of persons to be offered professional
training, the effect on AIDS, etc?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2002)

The European Programme for Reconstruction and Development in South Africa (EPRD) was created in
1996 with the aim of supporting the policies and reforms carried out by the South African authorities and
thereby promoting sustainable economic and social development and the consolidation of a democratic
society in South Africa.

It is implemented through the establishment of Multiannual Indicative Programmes (MIPs) based on a
defined strategy, to provide a clear framework for Community funded cooperation activities in South
Africa.

The second MIP was signed in June 2000. It covers the three-year period 2000-2002 and foresees a
reference amount of EUR 340 million out of the total EUR 885,5 million, which, according to Regulation
(EC) No 1726/2000 of the Parliament and the Council of 29 June 2000 on development cooperation with
South Africa (1), constitutes the ‘reference amount’ for Union-South Africa cooperation for the period
2000-2006. Within the period covered by this MIP it was agreed with the South African authorities that
Community support would be focused in the areas of: poverty reduction; private sector development;
consolidation of the rule of law; promotion of human rights and support to regional cooperation.

C 11 E/30

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

The annexes containing data concerning every Community programme financed since 1995 as well as
information on the interventions of the European Investement Bank (EIB) in South Africa are sent direct to
the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

A copy of the 2001 Report of the Delegation in South Africa, which contains more detailed information
on the projects listed in the above-mentioned annex are sent
to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat. The report
is also available from the Pretoria Delegation’s website (http://
www.eusa.org.za).

There has been no ‘ex-ante’ impact evaluation of the EPRD. However, the Commission is in the final stages
of completing a Country Strategy Evaluation (CSE) of the Community assistance to South Africa since
1994. The CSE is more specifically focused on the impact (ex-post evaluation) of the 1997-1999 MIP and
on the relevance of the current Country Strategy and MIP for 2000-2002. The draft CSE concludes, among
other things, that the current Union strategy is basically sound. Priorities are coherent with those outlined
in the post-apartheid Reconstruction and Development Programme policy framework. The Commission
has applied most recommendations from the earlier evaluation in 1999 and has also incorporated the
lessons learnt from earlier ‘pilot’ projects into an upgraded, comprehensive programme approach. In
relation to the impact of the 1997-1999 MIP, the evaluation has found evidence of impact in all main
areas. Statistics confirm progress in most social services sectors, except where massive rural emigration
creates ever-increasing needs. However, there are considerable challenges, which are identified as priorities
in the Government’s Medium Term Expenditure Framework, and which need to be considered as
crosscutting constraints for the effectiveness of the programmes. These include the human immunodefi-
ciency virus/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) pandemic (projections for which make it
arguably the most serious problems for South Africa in the short and medium terms); de-centralisation and
local development; skills and capacity shortages, and the provision of sustainable livelihood for the most
disadvantaged.

The Commission has scheduled the evaluation report for publication towards the end of the year 2002.

(1) OJ L 198, 4.8.2000.

(2004/C 11 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3164/02

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE)
and Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2002)

Subject: Nuclear energy in Bulgaria

We refer to the seminar in the European Parliament at which the future of the Bulgarian nuclear plants at
Kozloduy was discussed on 1 October 2002, and to the answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the
Commission on 23 September 2002 to Written Question E-2121/02 (1)
tabled by Mrs Matikainen-
Kallström and Dr Adam.

At the Parliament seminar, the Director of Nuclear Safety of the IAEA presented the report of a recent
expert safety mission. This concluded that the safety standards achieved at Kozloduy 3 and 4 had now
reached the same level as units of the same vintage operating in the EU.

In his answer to the previous written question Mr Verheugen suggested that the Kozloduy NPP units 3 and
4 ‘continued to harbour a number of deviations from safety requirements’.

Could the Commission now clearly give its opinion on the report of the IAEA? In particular could it
specify which are the ‘safety standards’ referred to by Mr Verheugen in his answer (if they are different to
those used by the IAEA)? Could the Commission also spell out the precise nature of the ‘deviations’
mentioned in the reply?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 6.