WRITTEN QUESTION E-1930/03 by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Population movements in the oil-rich areas of Sudan.
Date: 2003-06-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sudan, arms trade, civil war, international cooperation, oil industry, the EU's international role, transfer of population

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/67

As can use different methodologies:

(cid:1) cost-benefit analysis, comparing costs and benefits expressed in the same units, normally money;

(cid:1) cost-effectiveness analysis, compares the costs of achieving a given objective;

(cid:1) multi-criteria analysis, compares the costs and benefits expressed in a mixture of qualitative,

quantitative or monetary terms.

The cost-benefit analysis that the Honourable Member refers to entails numerous advantages. It provides
comprehensive information on all effects of a proposed measure and, by so doing, gives political decision-
makers and indication as to whether this measures can be considered justified or not. However, cost-
benefit analyses fail to capture impacts that cannot be adequately quantified and therefore tend to be
underestimated. This is for instance the case of social and environmental benefits.

For this reason, cost-benefit analysis is not always the most appropriate methodology to assess the impact
of Commission proposals. In these cases, other evaluation methods will have to be applied.

this stage,

At
three extended impact assessments have been adopted. These are the Commission’s
Communication on the Employment Strategy (2), the Communication on Immigration, Integration and
Employment (3) and the on unfair trade practices (4).

List of extended impact assessments for 2003 is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

(1) COM(2002) 276 final.
(2) COM(2003) 6 final.
(3) COM(2003) 335 final.
(4) COM(2003) 356 final.

(2004/C 70 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1930/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Population movements in the oil-rich areas of Sudan

The bloody civil war in Sudan has claimed two million lives. Four million people have fled their homes.
European Coalition on Oil
in Sudan (ECOS), a network of 70 European organisations, predominantly
church-based and other Christian bodies, notes that tens of thousands of Sudanese nationals have been
forced to flee from Reweng County in the West Upper Nile region as a result of conflicts over oil
extraction, and with the knowledge of the oil companies. A large proportion of the revenue which oil
brings into Sudan goes on military expenditure. Only 2 % of the Sudanese budget is spent on health care,
while 48 % goes for military and police purposes, e.g. the purchase of Russian Mig 29 fighters, Mig 24
helicopter gunships and T 72 tanks.

What measures is the EU taking through the Commission to influence the Sudanese government and the
oil companies to halt this deliberate movement of population from the oil-rich areas? What is the EU
doing to persuade countries not to sell expensive high-technology weaponry to the warring parties in
Sudan?

C 70 E/68

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2003)

The Union has always been concerned with the situation of Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from the
different areas of the civil conflict, but in particular from those areas in which oil is extracted. This issue
was raised in the Union/Sudan Political Dialogue that took place in December 2002 in Khartoum.

The signature by the parties in the context of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)
Peace Negotiations of the two Memoranda of Understanding, which concern the cessation of hostilities and
protection of civilians, constitute a major step forward. According to Commission’s information IDPs are
returning to their areas of origin.

The Commission has no competence as regards the behaviour of oil companies, in particular those that
are active in Southern Sudan, since their countries of origin are not within the Union (China, Malaysia,
India, etc.). The only European company present there, Lundin, suspended its operations for the last
18 months.

As regards the trade in arms the Union fully applies and complies with the United Nations resolution that
forbids the sale of arms to Sudan. However, the Commission is aware that both parties are buying arms
from countries outside the Union.

(2004/C 70 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1944/03

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Internal market in television advertising in conjunction with programmes for minors

Since 1 April 2003, the Dutch music channel TMF has been broadcasting Nickleodeon programmes aimed
at children. Nickleodeon forms part of Viacom, the same group which also includes MTV and TMF.
Worldwide, Nickleodeon programmes are distributed in no fewer than 150 countries. TMF is also
distributed on cable in Flanders, where it transmits programmes and content specifically aimed at viewers
in Flanders.

As this Flemish version of TMF has a licence issued in the Netherlands, it need not comply, inter alia, with
Flemish rules on blocks of advertising in conjunction with children’s programmes. Flemish legislation is
more stringent than Article 11(5) of Directive 97/36/EC (1). Article 82(6) of the relevant Flemish decree
reads:
‘No advertising or teleshopping programmes may be transmitted in immediate conjunction with
children’s programmes’. For this purpose, in immediate conjunction ‘means within five minutes before or
after a children’s programme.’

This means that commercial stations with a Flemish licence which, like TMF, address the whole Flemish
market are on the contrary required to comply with these stricter rules.

The Flemish Media Minister has already stated on several occasions that this matter can only be regulated
at European level.

Does the Commission consider that stations with Flemish broadcasting licences are being subjected to
unfair competition from other stations which nonetheless are likewise specifically targeting the Flemish
market?

If not, why not?

If so, can the Flemish authorities independently take measures to put an end to this manifestly unfair
competition, and what can and will the Commission do in the near future to put an end to this form of
unfair competition?

(1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.