WRITTEN QUESTION E-0288/04 by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission. Drug eradication programme in Colombia.
Date: 2004-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Colombia, EU aid, EU environmental policy, UN technical commission, alternative agricultural production, cooperation policy, defoliation, drug traffic, environmental impact, terms for aid

C 88 E/174

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

This is also why the Commission places great emphasis on transparency of information for payment
service users. In order to guarantee this transparency, it proposed in its communication to the Council and
Parliament of December 2003 (1) regarding a new legal framework for payments in the internal market
transparency rules for payment service providers which would be harmonized at European level.

(1) COM(2003) 718 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0272/04

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(5 February 2004)

Subject: Timisoara international port

The dark shadow of speculation is beginning to be cast on the construction of Timisoara international port
in Romania, a project aimed at making Romania the ‘gateway to the East’.

The choice of location, originally 150 ha of public land to the north of the city, which has already been
approved by the EU, has been unexpectedly changed to a site covering only 30 ha, which could potentially
be increased to only 70 ha, in an area south of the city, towards Serbia, a direction that would rule out the
benefits brought by heavy vehicles. The original choice, which included the constraint that, in the event of
the port not being built there, the land would automatically revert to agricultural use, clearly excludes any
possibility of property speculation; the same cannot, however, be said of the current choice.

Does not the Commission intend, in view of the possibility that European funds might be granted to help
carry out this project, to gain a better insight into the disturbing aspects of the choice of the new location
of the Timisoara international port?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the project to build a multi-modal platform in Timisoara, but has not been
asked to give its approval to any proposed location. Furthermore, since EU pre-accession funding has not
been requested, the Commission does not intend to take a position on the issue of the location of this
terminal.

(2004/C 88 E/0183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0288/04

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Drug eradication programme in Colombia

During his recent visit to Colombia, Commissioner Chris Patten expressed European criticism of the drug
eradication programme, which is supported by the United States. Commissioner Patten also said that the
EU had refused to fund fumigations on the Andes, citing their impact on the life and well-being of
Colombians, as well as the environment.

Mr Patten also confirmed the European pledges for alternative development programmes of some
EUR 50 million, tying the disbursement of the money to Colombia’s compliance with United Nations High
Commission on Human Rights recommendations.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/175

Does the Commission intend to raise the issue of the impact of fumigation in its bilateral talks with the US
Administration, emphasising their overall impact and massive failures?

Would the Commission take into consideration for funding some of the proposals that a number of
Colombian organisations are currently drafting on the alternative development of the coca bush, which
could lead to the use of the leaf, which some indigenous communities consider sacred, for the production
of a variety of produce other than cocaine?

Bearing in mind that the upcoming session of the UN Commission on Narcotics of 16/25 March can
provide an opportunity to suggest changes to the UN Conventions on Drugs, what are the scientific
reasons why the European Commission is of the opinion that coca bush should be kept in Schedule I and
not reclassified in Schedule IV?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission has already communicated to the United States Government its position on aerial
spraying (fumigation)
in general and such spraying as a method of destroying illegal plantations in
Colombia in particular.

The Commission has been given a political undertaking by the Colombian Government that the areas in
which alternative development projects are started will not be sprayed and is monitoring the situation
carefully on the ground.

This position is in line with the one the Commission takes within the European Union, i.e. in future aerial
spraying should be restricted to a minimum,
if not entirely prohibited. In its communication on the
environment and the sustainable use of pesticides (1), the Commission proposed a general ban on aerial
spraying. It provided for specific derogation to be given by the Member States’ authorities if such spraying
presented clear advantages and environmental benefits compared with other spraying methods. The
Commission put forward this proposal because of the possible effects of pesticide spraying on human
health and the environment and the possible socio-economic effects of unintentional spraying of areas
other than those targeted, inhabited areas and water resources (2).

The alternative development projects the Commission supports in Colombia provide for the voluntary
manual uprooting of coca plants.

The next session of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs will be held in Vienna from 15 to 22 March
2004. Amending the UN Conventions on drugs, or reclassifying coca leaf in those Conventions, is not on
the agenda. The European Commission does not have the powers to alter the classification.

(1) COM(2002) 349 final.
(2) http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/home.htm

(2004/C 88 E/0184)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0320/04

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject: Illegal logging and timber trade

The Commission will be aware that until recently timber barons were concentrating on the islands of
Indonesia, accelerating the destruction of the forests there. It now seems that the forests of West Papua are
being targeted and are at risk of suffering the same fate.