WRITTEN QUESTION E-1490/03 by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission. Impact of the war in Chechnya on the Russian economy.
Date: 2003-05-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU initiative, EU programme, EU relations, Russia, democratisation, economic consequence, financial aid, human rights, war of independence

C 280 E/154

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

It should also be noted that the terms of Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of
foodstuffs (4) apply horizontally to foodstuffs in general. This means that food business operators, including
those covering stages after primary production, such as preparation, processing, storing, handling and
offering for sale or supply to the consumer, must meet the requirements of this Directive to ensure the
safety and wholesomeness of foodstuffs.

The principal objective of the new general and specific hygiene rules is to ensure a high level of consumer
protection with regard to food safety, taking into account certain principles. Pending the adoption,
entering into force and implementation of the draft Regulations making up the proposal, the existing
requirements prevail.

The proposed Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs (5), as it stands,
includes the principles that the primary responsibility for the food safety rests with the food business
operator and that there is a need to ensure food safety throughout the food chain. The general rules will
apply to all stages of production and processing of
food. However, Member States may, without
compromising food hygiene objectives, adopt national measures adapting the requirements laid down in
the new food hygiene Regulations in order (i) to enable the continued use of traditional methods at any
stage of production, processing and distribution, and (ii) to accommodate the needs of food businesses
situated in regions suffering from special geographical constraints.

The proposed Regulation of the Parliament and of the Council laying down specific hygiene rules for food
of animal origin will not apply to the domestic preparation, handling or storage of food for private
domestic use. Neither will it apply to the direct supply by the producer of small quantities of meat from
poultry and lagomorphs slaughtered on the farm to the final consumer or to local establishments directly
supplying such meat to the final consumer as fresh meat. Member States will be obliged, in respect of such
supply, to establish rules under national law to ensure the achievement of the objectives of the proposed
Regulation. This Regulation, unless indicated otherwise, will not apply to retail. Under Article 10(3) of the
proposal Member States will have the opportunity, without compromising food hygiene objectives,
to adopt national measures adapting the specific requirements set down in Annex III under five sets of
conditions.

(1) OJ P 121, 29.7.1964.
(2) OJ L 55, 8.3.1971.
(3) OJ L 368, 31.12.1994.
(4) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993.
(5) OJ C 365 E, 19.12.2000.

(2003/C 280 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1490/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Impact of the war in Chechnya on the Russian economy

In a recent interview for the ‘Ekho Moskvy’ radio station, Mr Khasbulatov, former President of the Russian
Supreme Council, stated that the first three to four months of the second Chechnyan war (August-
November 1999) had cost some USD 3 billion and that the annual cost of the three years of war from
2000-2002 had been USD 10 to 13 billion. As for this year, the cost of the first three months is estimated
at USD 3,5 billion.

Mr Khasbulatov also said that Russia’s overall expenditure for these three-and-a half years of war, i.e. since
the beginning of the second invasion and the occupation of Chechnya in 1999, was USD 40 billion. These
are some of the figures contained in a report drawn up by Mr Ruslan Khasbulatov and Mr Ivan Rybkin
under the title ‘Economic aspects of the war in Chechnya’.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/155

Has the Commission seen the report by Mr Khasbulatov and Mr Rybkin? If so, how does it view the
report? Does it not consider that this expenditure is totally incompatible with the Russian economy’s
current state? Moreover, does it not consider that it is only through the economic and financial aid
provided by the EU and its Member States that Russia is capable of spending such huge amounts in order
to continue the war in Chechnya?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

The Commission deeply regrets the tragic situation which has existed in the Russian republic of Chechnya
the past decade. The ongoing conflict has entailed huge costs for both federal and local
over
administrations and for the civilian population of Chechnya, in human, social and economic terms. The
Commission hopes that the constitution adopted during the referendum held on 23 March 2003 will
provide a platform for dialogue, reconciliation, restoration of the rule of law and effective protection of
human rights in line with the statement made by President Putin on 16 March 2003. It will continue to
raise the concerns which it has in this regard with the Russian authorities, in the context of the Union’s
political dialogue with Russia.

The Commission recalls that it has provided assistance via the European Initiative for Democracy and
Human Rights (EIDHR) to promote civil society, media freedom and respect for human rights in the north
Caucasus throughout the period of conflict in Chechnya, with the aim of promoting a lasting peace in the
region. The Commission notes that assistance provided to Russia via the Tacis programme aims, inter alia,
at the promotion of civil society, the rule of law and public institutions, as well as assisting Russia’s
difficult political, economic and social transition.

The Commission notes the analysis presented by Mr Khasbulatov and Mr Rybkin. The Commission is
unable to make a judgement on the estimated costs of the Russian Government’s present policy in
Chechnya or their impact on the wider economic situation. There is however no evidence that the Russian
authorities present policy is dependent on financial assistance from the EU.

(2003/C 280 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1498/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 May 2003)

Subject: 2003 financial package to tackle BSE and other animal diseases

What amount of financial aid was available to the UK Government under the 2003 EU financial package
to tackle BSE and other animal diseases; further, which of the Member States applied for such assistance
and what amounts have been awarded to each; and finally can the UK Government still make a claim for
payment to be made?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

The budget available for the 2003 transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) Monitoring Programme
it is estimated that around EUR 4,2 million would have been available
was EUR 94,5 million. Of this,
initially for the United Kingdom’s eligible costs if their programme had been submitted on time, with a
possible reallocation of the budget from the underspending Member States to the overspending Member
States before the end of the year, as was done for the 2002 TSE Monitoring Programmes.

The other 14 Member States all submitted a programme for TSE Monitoring 2003.