WRITTEN QUESTION E-3297/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Angola — food contingency plan.
Date: 2003-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Angola, EU aid, World Food Programme, aid policy, food aid, food shortage, security of supply, self-sufficiency in food

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/503

(2004/C 84 E/0581)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3297/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject: Angola (cid:1) food contingency plan

According to the media the World Food Programme (WFP), which is currently affected by the greatest
global food shortage in its 40 years of existence, will be forced to adopt a contingency plan in Angola to
tackle the shortage of food for the populations it is assisting, because of delays in the delivery of
international donations.

The WFP’s spokesman Marcelo Spina has said that the portion of food aid for each recipient has been
halved, but that the crisis is not due to a lack of or reduction in international donations, but merely logistic
problems encountered by the donor countries.

He also claims that the WFP has already secured more than 80 % of the resources needed for the
operation.

According to the WFP there are now 2,2 million displaced persons, refugees and other beneficiaries in
Angola, the highest number in the last few years.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) whether it can confirm the existence of the WFP contingency plan and the circumstances justifying it;

(cid:1) whether the European Union has taken or plans to take any additional or supplementary measures to
tackle the humanitarian emergency resulting from the delay in the arrival of international donations;

(cid:1) what it considers should be the main contribution the Union might make in this emergency situation;

(cid:1) what explanation there is for the fact that the humanitarian situation in Angola has worsened again

after having improved?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission can confirm that a World Food Programme (WFP) contingency plan exists to tackle the
shortage of food for the population in Angola. The emergency situation is not, however, the result of
missing contributions from international donors, but rather of delayed and damaged WFP maize
shipments, as confirmed in a recent press release from this organisation. Consequently, an additional
Community contribution to address
in addition to its already substantial
humanitarian assistance, is neither advisable nor foreseen. Among the Commission’s activities to assist
the Angolan population in its critical situation the EUR 30 million Emergency Programme to Support the
Peace Process, adopted in September 2002 and currently under implementation, is of particular relevance.
This programme includes emergency medical assistance, the distribution of seeds and tools, food aid to
discourage consumption of the seeds and humanitarian de-mining. In addition ECHO’s humanitarian
interventions will reach EUR 21 to 23 million this year, while the Food Security Budget Line provided
food aid and seeds and tools worth EUR 18 million in 2003.

specific situation,

this

As Angola continues to make the transition from emergency relief to rehabilitation and development, the
Commission’s intervention will take a more structured approach than in the past, when responding to
crises was its predominant task. With specific regard to food security, one of the focal sectors of the
Community-Angola cooperation strategy, the Commission has opted for a progressive reduction of food
aid in kind, because this carries strong risks of creating dependency.

C 84 E/504

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

it seeks to increase the production and processing of, and trade in,
Instead through its activities,
agricultural products, and to strengthen local associations. In addition, efforts will be made in the longer
term to support the national ministries concerned and consolidate the decentralisation of decision-making.

For a number of reasons the Commission does not share the view that the humanitarian situation in
Angola has deteriorated. First, an increase in the number of recipients of emergency assistance is not
necessarily an indicator of a worsening humanitarian situation; the increased number rather reflects
improvements in access throughout the country, following the consolidation of the peace process.

Second, as peace leads to greater security throughout the country, refugees from neighbouring countries
are returning home. While this has increased the caseload, it does not indicate an aggravation of the
humanitarian situation.

Third, food security is subject to regular, seasonal reductions, since Angola still suffers limited harvests and
poor agricultural yields. Once the harvest has been gathered, what little food is produced is quickly
consumed. Furthermore, the country’s crumbling infrastructure means that with the onset of the rainy
season, it becomes much more difficult to distribute food effectively. The rains and the harvest are twice-
yearly events, so the resulting reduction in food security has been a regular,
if wholly undesirable,
phenomenon. It is best addressed through the rehabilitation of the agricultural sector, and in this the
Community is actively engaged in Angola.

Nevertheless, the Commission is prepared to assist further in emergency situations, should the need arise.

(2004/C 84 E/0582)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3330/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Import of packaged foodstuffs contaminated with toxins, and use of surreptitious routes to bring

them into Member States with the strictest controls

1.
Is the Commission aware that many relatively cheap packaged foodstuffs which originate outside the
EU contain remarkably high levels of residues of toxic preservatives, antibiotics and veterinary medicines,
including nitrofurans in prawns, chloramphenicol in pigs and chickens which have been fed on fish waste,
and, increasingly, the carcinogenic malachite green in farmed salmon?

2.
Should such imported goods be destroyed in the EU once they have been identified? Where Member
States do destroy them, do they come under pressure from exporting states and importing businesses,
partly because in other EU Member States such consignments are not destroyed but sent back to the
country of origin on the basis of a promise that they will not be exported again, in which case there is no
way of checking whether the promise has been honoured?

Do the businesses in question reroute such imports via ports and airports where it is assumed that
3.
the technically least sophisticated methods of checking goods are in use, smaller samples are taken or there
is greater tolerance of any contaminants detected? Does such food consequently by a roundabout route
reach Member States which would have rejected it if they had performed the checks themselves?

4. Where do shortcomings exist in cooperation between national food inspection authorities and
customs services? Are there instances in which consignments of packaged food which have been rejected
at one EU port are released and sent on to other EU Member States where they are placed on the market
for human or animal consumption or ultimately return to the Member State which previously rejected
them?