WRITTEN QUESTION E-1689/03 by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Bushmeat.
Date: 2003-05-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: conservation of resources, cooperation policy, development policy, environmental cooperation, forest conservation, forestry policy, game meat

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/383

A HGA Agreement has been signed by the consortium with the Turkish government which is extremely
far-reaching, effectively prohibiting the Turkish government from introducing any laws which might
undermine the economic success of the project (e.g. laws to protect the environment or for social goals).

The Agreement also paves the way for the consortium building the pipeline to demand unlimited
protection from Turkish security forces, without safeguards against human rights abuses. Under the vague
wording of the agreement, paramilitary units could be placed along the pipeline route to pre-empt ‘civil
disturbance’ or ‘terrorist’ activities. The record of the Turkish military on human rights (cid:1) particularly in
the Kurdish areas (cid:1) gives serious cause for concern.

How does the Commission view these security commitments being demanded from the Turkish
government, especially given this is an area of Turkey where human rights abuses on the part of the
Turkish authorities have been common?

Does the Commission believe that this agreement is likely to call into question the accession conditions
laid down in the Copenhagen criteria for democracy, human rights and respect for and protection of
minorities?

Does the Commission believe, furthermore, that this excessive interference by corporate bodies in the
freedom of action of a sovereign state may result in actions contrary to EU standards on protection of the
environment?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the proposed construction of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline and
of the related Host Government Agreement, signed by the consortium with the Turkish Government. The
Commission has received various reports about potentially far reaching effects, and its implications for the
environment and for the public.

Any negative development arising from the implementation agreement referred to by the Honourable
Member will have to be seen in the light of the Copenhagen criteria for accession, including the political
criteria concerning human rights and the protection of minorities.

The Commission will continue to monitor the implementation of this project in respect of accession
conditions laid down in the Copenhagen criteria.

(2004/C 78 E/0405)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1689/03

by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject: Bushmeat

The Commission is currently developing a Strategy for Forest Development Co-operation. The Strategy
could become a model of best practice for the conservation of the world’s forests.

However, the draft strategy does not deal specifically with the very serious issue of the (illegal) use of
bushmeat, which is one of the main threats to the survival of many species and which is often directly
connected to the development of forest resources.

Is the Commission willing to address the bushmeat issue in the final draft of its Strategy for Forest
Development Cooperation and, if not, is the Commission willing to develop a special strategy to help solve
the bushmeat problem?

C 78 E/384

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The Commission’s draft strategy for forest development co-operation sets out broad parameters for aid
interventions in the forest sector. The wide scope of this document makes it an unsuitable platform for
detailed policy on many pressing issues in the forest sector. That said, the latest draft of the strategy does
note bushmeat as a matter of concern in the forest sector in a number of our partner countries.

The Commission does not intend to augment the draft forest sector strategy with a specific strategy to
address the bushmeat problem. That does not mean bushmeat will not continue to be treated as a matter
of great importance. Addressing the bushmeat problem is a matter to which considerable resources are
already devoted (cid:1) both through field-level technical co-operation, and in high-level political fora.

Bushmeat issues will be integrated in the manual for ‘Integrating environment concerns into development
and economic cooperation’, which is to be reviewed at the end of 2003 (cid:1) beginning of 2004. In particular,
the revised manual will ensure that proper attention is given to bushmeat issues in Strategic Environmental
Assessments.

At a political level, Commission support to the African Ministerial Process for Forest Law Enforcement and
Governance (AFLEG) is helping to address problems of law enforcement and governance in the forest
sector,
including issues concerning bushmeat. In the field, technical support to address the bushmeat
problem is being provided through a number of Commission-funded initiatives. These initiatives have been
supported with funds disbursed through the Tropical Forest Budget Line and regional and national
programmes of assistance.

Efforts are also being directed at limiting the trade in illegal bush meat to the Union. For example,
a Commission Decision has recently introduced new rules that prevent the personal import of all meat and
milk from third countries into the Union. This removes previous derogations that allowed the importation
of small consignments of meat and milk for personal use. The introduction of the new rules on personal
imports is being supported by a poster campaign in a wide range of languages. The posters are on display
at points of entry into the Union to ensure that travellers are made aware of the new rules.

(2004/C 78 E/0406)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/03

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 May 2003)

Subject: European Union unit to work for the release of kidnapped European tourists

The frequent cases of European tourists being kidnapped in third countries which they are visiting for their
historical, cultural and other attractions have highlighted the need for the European Union to have a
permanent team of negotiators and mediators to intercede with the relevant national authorities to secure
the release of Community nationals who have fallen victim to these inhuman practices at the hands of
local terrorists.

In this way, Community negotiators could keep the families of victims better informed than is currently
the case with local authorities, which are seeking to cover up the failure of their own efforts.

Will the Commission propose to Member States that permanent Community negotiating teams be set up
to secure the release of European tourists who have been kidnapped in third countries for internal political
reasons which have nothing to do with them?