WRITTEN QUESTION E-0104/04 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. Namibia — Farms threatened with occupation.
Date: 2004-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cotonou Agreement, EU relations, Namibia, agrarian reform, agricultural real estate, land reform, ownership, political situation

C 88 E/680

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

modern technology for its airforce. In exchange, Israel will receive 50 million cubic metres of water for a
period of twenty years from the River Manavgat in Anatolia, which will be transported by a fleet of
gigantic tankers currently being built in Israel, which is encountering serious problems with salinisation of
its water resources.

Since Turkey is a candidate for accession to the European Union, will the Commission say what it knows
about the content of the abovementioned agreements? Will it inform the European Parliament thereof?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission does not have any specific knowledge nor has it been officially informed about the
contents of the agreements mentioned by the Honourable Member.

As the 1993 Copenhagen European Council stated,
‘membership requires that a candidate country has
achieved stability of institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and the respect of
and protection of minorities’. It is in particular against these criteria that the Commission will assess
Turkey’s progress towards accession in its next Regular Report.

(2004/C 88 E/0699)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0104/04

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Namibia (cid:1) Farms threatened with occupation

(22 January 2004)

Following the deadlock in negotiations between the Namibian Farmworkers Union (NAFU) and the
Namibia Agricultural Union (NAU), which comprises most of the country’s farm-owners, NAFU has
announced that it intends to occupy certain farms, giving rise to fears of a re-run, although without official
support, of what has been happening in Zimbabwe. This situation has been reported in The Namibian
newspaper and some international media.

Tension continues to rise, with NAFU announcing that these actions could begin this month.

Since independence, Namibia has sought to establish a certain degree of equity with regard to land
ownership, by adopting the ‘willing seller, willing buyer’ programme, with the right of preference reserved
to those cases where the owner is seeking to sell, without taking or advocating any kind of violent or
forced expropriation measures.

With the next presidential election campaign drawing near, to appoint Sam Nujoma’s successor after
14 years in power, there are forecasts that this issue may be used as a way of stirring up the population,
and fears that people and property could, as a result, suffer greatly.

The Commission:

(cid:1) does it have any reliable information on this issue, and how does it see future developments;

(cid:1) has it established contacts, or will it do so, with the authorities, or the trade union headquarters or the
bosses’ unions in Namibia in this connection? What measures has it taken or will it take to try to
prevent the confrontation from worsening and dragging in other applicant countries;

(cid:1) does it believe that European interests are in any way threatened in Namibia? Has it obtained safety

guarantees from the Namibian Government? Will it do so;

(cid:1) would it be prepared to collaborate with the Namibian Government, should this be requested? Does it
believe the European Union could have a role in this issue as a potential means of reconciliation
between the parties at dispute?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/681

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the general problem with regard to ownership of commercial farm land in
Namibia as well as of some individual cases of labour disputes in this context which are widely reported in
the local media.

With regard to future developments on this issue, the Commission trusts that the Government will
continue to respect the law and prevent unlawful actions. The prudent but firm statements made by the
Government on individual cases show that it fully supports the application of the agreed ‘willing buyer,
willing seller’ principle (which excludes any unlawful actions).

The Commission, through its Delegation in Namibia, has well established contacts with the responsible
Government authorities, in particular with the Minister of Land Reform and the Minister of Agriculture, as
well as with the Commercial Farmers Union (NAU) and the Namibian National Farmers Union (NNFU).
From the ongoing dialogue with these institutions, the Commission concludes that the Government
continues to ensure that any dispute is settled peacefully and in accordance with existing laws, and that it
will do its utmost to avoid any confrontation. Any negative impact on neighbouring countries (or any risk
that Namibia might follow the ‘Zimbabwean way’) appears thus excluded.

Namibia has signed with a number of Member States ‘Investment Protection Agreements’ during the recent
past. These will provide additional legal security for property and investments.

Within the framework of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement and the related Namibia-Commission
Country Strategy Paper it has been agreed that ‘Rural Development’ will be the main focal area for future
development co-operation in this country, including the issue of land reform. The Commission has indeed
acknowledged the great importance of this issue in the development of Namibia, and recognised that a
successful
land reform programme can be an effective way to consolidate the reconciliation and
democratic process in this country. Preparations for providing such assistance are under way. Ignoring
the need for land reform (cid:1) including the promotion of a more equitable distribution of land (cid:1) would be a
mistake and would weaken the fight against poverty. This is true not only for the Commissions role as a
partner in Namibia but indeed throughout the region.

(2004/C 88 E/0700)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0116/04

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Leader II projects (cid:1) Blue Dragon case

1.
Regarding Leader II projects, can the Commission confirm that the Kingdom of Spain is receiving
30 % of the European subsidies?. Is the Commission aware that in the Blue Dragon 2000 case, the
accounts of the GAL Salines-Bassegoda were certified by the Spanish Government? Is the Commission
aware that a sum of EUR 43 000 was transferred in France? Is the Commission aware that the Regional
Minister Josep Grau, in charge of the local control, recognised the Blue Dragon 2000 people as victims,
but that no complaint was ever lodged to any penal court?

2.
Knowing that the people of Blue Dragon supported OLAF with material evidence leading to a penal
treatment of the case from September 2000 to November 2001, is the Commission aware that, although
acknowledging irregularities, OLAF adhered to the Spanish conclusions? Can the Commission explain why
no investigation on both Spanish and French territories was opened?

3.
Knowing that an official complaint was placed against the Kingdom of Spain on 9 March 2002 by
the people of Blue Dragon, how would the Commission interpret that the validity of this complaint seems
still under scrutiny?