WRITTEN QUESTION E-0073/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The impossibility and undesirability of rapid return of refugees to Afghanistan, where there is no employment or housing for them.
Date: 2003-01-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Afghanistan, EU aid, European Union, cooperation policy, dissemination of information, economic reconstruction, refugee, repatriation grant, return migration, war damage

C 268 E/68

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

The project for building a tourist centre among the wooded dunes of Is Arenas, in the commune of
Narbolia, as referred to by the Honourable Member, falls under Annex II of Directive 85/337/EEC, as
amended. Therefore, the competent authorities should have determined, through a case-by-case examin-
ation or by applying criteria or thresholds set by Italian legislation, whether the project had to be made
subject to environmental impact assessment.

By decision No 2309/VIII of 4 October 2002 of the Environmental Protection Department of the Sardinia
Autonomous Region (SIVEA), to which the Honourable Member refers, it was decided, in the light of a
specific examination, that the proposed tourist centre in the wooded dunes of Is Arenas does not need to
undergo environmental impact assessment. It should be noted that the decision concerned the overall
project for 222 900 cubic metres under the programme agreement of 9 June 1997 between the Sardinia
Region and Is Arenas srl.

With regard to infringement procedure 1998/2346 concerning the proposed Site of Community
Importance ITB 032228 ‘Is Arenas’, the reasoned opinion does not cover the Is Arenas building project
but focuses only on the project for a golf course.

Therefore, in the light of the above and on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member,
no breach of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, can be identified at present.

Lastly, with regard to the granting of Community assistance, following the opening of the abovementioned
infringement procedure, the Commission has asked the body responsible for implementing the Oristano
Territorial Pact, which receives European Regional Development Fund support, to suspend the support to
the project in question pending the outcome of the procedure. The Is Arenas tourist project has been
completely excluded from the Oristano Pact.

(2003/C 268 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0073/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 January 2003)

Subject: The impossibility and undesirability of rapid return of refugees to Afghanistan, where there is no

employment or housing for them

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Afghan Minister for Refugees and Repatriation, Enayatullah Nazari,
is travelling around the world advising fellow citizens who have fled from Afghanistan not to return there
for the time being, for the following reasons:
‘After 23 years of war, our country is destroyed, the
economy is paralysed, health services and agriculture are seriously damaged, there are more than six
million landmines in the ground, living conditions are impossible, there is no housing or employment, and
the government has only been in office for ten months and cannot possibly solve all these problems’?

2.
Can the Commission confirm the minister’s statement that some of the two million refugees who
have returned to Afghanistan have already fled again because the country is in no state to receive them
and that the lives of these people who have become refugees again are now endangered?

3.
Is the minister right to say that even highly qualified refugees should stay away for the time being
because they will be needed only when it is possible to start work on reconstruction with financial aid
from the international community?

4. What is the EU doing to ensure that Afghan refugees do not return on their own initiative to areas
which are currently regarded as ‘safe’ but where there is no employment or housing and where an increase
in the population would further increase the problems faced by the Afghan Government?

5. What will the Commission do to enable Afghan refugees to continue for the time being to reside in
EU Member States and to abandon the previous idea that 1500 refugees per month should depart to a
country which cannot receive them?

Source: ‘De Volkskrant’ (Dutch newspaper), 17 December 2002.

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/69

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission is aware of the fact that Minister Nazari recently visited European capitals to discuss
1.
refugee and repatriation issues with Member States and that during this tour he also spoke to the press and
Afghan communities. The Commission fully shares Minister Nazari’s concern that returns should be
sustainable and by no means should jeopardise the ongoing reconstruction efforts of Afghanistan. The
Commission is strongly committed to the reconstruction and recovery of Afghanistan. Since September
it has been one of the largest contributors to the reconstruction effort. In 2002, development
2001,
assistance will be over EUR 205 million. In addition, the Commission will finance humanitarian support of
about EUR 73 million.

While the Commission shares the widely embraced opinion that the massive return of refugees is to be
seen as an indicator of the achievements of the Afghan Interim and Afghan Transitional Authority, it fully
realises that the Afghan authorities will need ongoing support to reintegrate refugees and continue positive
developments. The Commission is, therefore, also determined to support the sustainability of these returns
both through its ongoing humanitarian aid and development assistance. These especially address rural
recovery, physical reconstruction, including demining and the provision of a basic healthcare package.

2.
The Commission shares the opinion of humanitarian agencies that the conditions in certain parts of
Afghanistan are not conducive to sustainable return. Moreover, following the initial euphoria of returning
to their homes, many Afghans face the difficult challenge of re-establishing their lives in a country
devastated by a quarter century of conflict and years of drought.

The Commission does not believe, however, that temporary movements out of Afghanistan are a sign of
the inability of the Afghan authorities to reintegrate the on-going massive return movement. In the past,
movements over the Afghan/Pakistani border have historically taken place seasonally.

Humanitarian agencies supported by the Commission, provide for the immediate needs of the returning
families. Reconstruction and recovery assistance helps to promote the sustainability of return by providing
health, education and employment opportunities.

The Commission does not share the view that the Afghan authorities would not be supportive of the
3.
return of qualified Afghan nationals. The Community Country Strategy paper for Afghanistan 2004-2006
(cid:1) which has been elaborated in close consultation with the Afghan authorities (cid:1) states the need to give
support to the return of qualified nationals. In line with this mutually shared aim to support Afghans that
wish to contribute to the reconstruction of
the Commission earmarked
EUR 3,6 million to support qualified Afghan nationals’ positions in the Afghan administration and the
private sector. With reconstruction efforts already underway, these individuals can make a significant
contribution to the redevelopment and recovery of Afghanistan and their voluntary return should therefore
be welcomed.

their country of origin,

4.
The Commission recalls that the European Convention on Human Rights enshrines the basic human
right to return to a country of origin. Therefore, the Commission certainly does not intend to prevent
anyone from returning by their own free will. However, the Commission would like to ensure that the
decisions of people to return are based on full knowledge of the situation in Afghanistan and therefore (cid:1)
in line with what has been agreed to information provision to returnees within the Afghanistan Return
Plan (cid:1) will encourage Member States to fully take up their responsibilities in this area. Furthermore, the
Commission will certainly not support any initiative at European level that would contribute to returns to
area that are unsafe.
It should also be noted that providing appropriate, up-to-date information to
returnees upon arrival and before proceeding to their intended destination is an important element of the
Union plan for the return to Afghanistan that was adopted by the Council on 28 November 2002 (1). The
information shall include security information and information on the state of reconstruction of the local
community as well as adequate counselling regarding risks of mines and unexploded ordinance.

5.
The Union plan for the return to Afghanistan has called for an ‘Afghanistan Return Co-ordination
Group’ (ARCG) with participating Member States as members and chaired by the Commission. One of the
main terms of reference of this group is to set in motion the part of the return plan which states that ‘the
identification of returnees and the pace of return shall
take into consideration the best available
information of the situation on the ground, the possibilities of matching returns with reconstruction efforts

C 268 E/70

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

and the partnership between the Union and the Transitional Government of Afghanistan.’ According to the
return plan returns should be sustainable and by no means should obstruct reconstruction activities. The
ARCG would have a role in the assessment of the security situation on the ground, including the reception
capacity, and the development of a clear and realistic picture of the possible beneficiaries of the plan. The
number of 1 500 returning refugees, was a first and rough estimate. It will be one of the tasks of the
ACRG to provide a more precise and realistic number of people that could be returned to Afghanistan.

(1) http://ue.eu.int/newsroom/newmain.asp?lang=1.

(2003/C 268 E/072)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0092/03

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Programmes of assessment of buildings vulnerable to earthquakes

In San Giuliano di Puglia (Italy -31 October 2002) a recently modified school building collapsed in a
moderate sized earthquake resulting in the death of 27 occupants (25 of them schoolchildren). According
to the European Association of Earthquake Engineering this is not an isolated incident. Similar incidents
could happen in many European countries; however, the problem is preventable and the risk can be
substantially reduced by a programme of expert assessment of the older and more vulnerable existing
structures and a programme of strengthening works in the highest-risk areas. The rules for the assessment
and strengthening of structures are available in the European Standard, Part 1-4 of Eurocode 8, prEN
1998-3.

In the interest of preventing further loss of life and considering that in many Member States there is
excessive earthquake activity, could the Commission formulate a directive requiring the Member States to
(according to the above-mentioned European Standard) of all
establish programmes of assessment
buildings and structures in areas known to be prone to damaging earthquakes and of strengthening the
ones which are found to be inadequate?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2003)

The Commission deeply regrets the loss of human lives and the damages caused to the population of San
Giuliano di Puglia.

At this stage, the Commission does not envisage any specific proposal for legislation in the field of
earthquake mitigation.

However, the current action programme in the field of civil protection established by Council decision
1999/847/EC (1) foresees to develop initiatives in the fields of risk management methodologies, including
risk mapping, for seism and other disasters. In that context, a call for proposal shall be published in the
first half of 2003.

Moreover, the Commission will adopt a communication by May 2003 that will present new concrete
measures to improve public safety in the context of natural and man-made hazards. The Parliament will be
invited to a meeting planned for 28 February 2003 to discuss these measures, jointly with the Commission
as well as the concerned stakeholders.

The above mentioned two initiatives should contribute to the establishment of assessment programmes for
identifying vulnerable structures in earthquake prone areas.

(1) 1999/847/EC: Council Decision of 9 December 1999 establishing a Community action programme in the field of

civil protection, OJ L 327, 21.12.1999.