WRITTEN QUESTION E-0584/04 by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU aid money to Zimbabwe.
Date: 2004-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, Zimbabwe, audit, exchange rate, financial aid, use of aid

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/513

In fact, over and above the vain invitation from the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights,
Common Security and Defence Policy for him to attend its meeting of 1 December 2003 (cid:1) to which
reference has already been made in my former question and the reply thereto (cid:1) at the end of January Fidel
Castro’s regime again prevented Oswaldo Payá from travelling to Brussels to take part in the ceremony of
handing on the Sakharov Prize 2003 to his successor: Kofi Annan and the United Nations, in memory of
Sergio Vieira de Mello.

As a result, the European Parliament is continuing to extend an open invitation to Oswaldo Payá, so that
he can come as soon as he is allowed to leave.

I know about the steps taken and the efforts made via the Commission delegation in Havana but we do
need to ask ourselves what else we can and should do in view of the fact that Payá is being kept in Cuba
against his will.

And how much energy is it prepared to expend on ensuring that Oswaldo Payá’s wishes are respected?
What specific measures has it taken, or does it plan to take, in coordination with the Council and the
Member States?

Does the Commission believe it could expressly associate itself with the European Parliament’s open
invitation to Oswaldo Payá to travel to the EU and visit the institutions as soon as he is allowed to do so?

(1) See page 451.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission, through its Delegation in Havana,
is in regular contact with Mr Payá. Our ‘Chargé
d’affaires’ has frequent meetings with him and the issue of how to facilitate Mr Payá’s visit to the
Parliament and other EU institutions is a recurrent topic in their discussions.

It has been agreed with Mr Payá that he would approach the Havana Delegation once he had in his hands
the open invitation of the Parliament. If need be and so wished by Mr Payá, the Commission, through its
representation in Havana, would be ready to accompany the necessary administrative steps before the
Cuban authorities in the context of his visa request. It is however important to recall in this connection
that the Commission’s Delegation is at present ‘diplomatically frozen’ and therefore unable to conduct
political discussions with the authorities on this matter.

All steps the Commission takes in Cuba in the field of human rights, are closely coordinated and
previously agreed upon with its Member States, both in Brussels and in Havana.

The Commission supports the initiative of the Parliament and would welcome it if the Cuban authorities
the
would allow Mr Payá to visit EU institutions,
Commission. Both Members of the Commission responsible for Development, Humanitarian Aid and
External Relations have repeatedly confirmed their interest in receiving Mr Payá on such an occasion.

the competent services of

including, of course,

(2004/C 88 E/0525)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0584/04

by Nirj Deva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: EU aid money to Zimbabwe

Following observations noted by the Court of Auditors in its Annual Report for the financial year 2002,
more precisely in the part entitled ‘Report on the activities of the 6th, 7th and 8th European Development
Funds’, Chapter V (cid:1) ‘A special case: The decision taken by the General Affairs Council and the monetary

C 88 E/514

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

situation in Zimbabwe’ (1), I would like to ask if the Commission is going to start an official audit enquiry
into the implementation of its financial aid to Zimbabwe, which enabled black-listed members of the
Mugabe regime (cid:1) as listed in Council Regulation (EC) No 310/2002 (2) concerning certain restrictive
measures in respect of Zimbabwe, Article 2 and Annex 1 (cid:1) to enrich themselves with EU money by
applying ‘an exchange rate which bears no relation to money-market realities and which, in 2002, reduced
the value of the EDF resources by 89 %, to the detriment of the people on whom the aid had been
retargeted’ (see Court of Auditors Annual Report 2002, Chapter V, Paragraph 68(a))?

(1) OJ C 286, 28.11.2003, p. 355 et seq.
(2) OJ L 50, 21.2.2002, p. 4.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission does not accept the Court of Auditors’ analysis of the situation for the following reasons:

(cid:1) the use of the parallel exchange rate for official transactions by the banks of Zimbabwe was illegal (see
the Commission’s reply to paragraph. 62 of the Court’s report); in fact, the Reserve Bank has on
several occasions threatened to prosecute banks trading on the black market. This is why the
Delegation was instructed to use the official rate for the replenishment of project accounts, pending
the outcome of discussions with the Government and the banks;

(cid:1) the Commission was bound in 2002, in relation to aid from the European Development Funds, by the
procedures set out in the Lomé Conventions, which gave clear powers to the National Authorising
Officer
the funds, and the rules agreed for their
implementation. As the official exchange rate is a matter of national sovereignty, the only possibility
of applying a different rate is to negotiate with the NAO and the country’s banks. This is what the
Commission did when the official rate became unrealistic;

in relation to the management of

(NAO)

(cid:1) in particular, the Commission considers that the figure of 89 % ‘reduced value’, which the Court
applies to payments totalling EUR 4,5 million (less than 5 % of total Community aid to Zimbabwe in
2002), reflects neither the real situation nor the circumstances the Commission faced, if the payments
were to remain legal and regular;

(cid:1) in addition to the negotiation of a ‘blend’ rate to offset the effects of the difference between the official
exchange rate and the ‘parallel’ market rate, the Commission and the Delegation took the following
important measures:

(cid:1) reducing payments in local currency to a minimum;

(cid:1) making euro payments outside the country wherever possible (for instance, by focussing the

health programme almost exclusively on drugs procurement);

(cid:1) ensuring that the imprest accounts of local project work programmes have euro components.

Total Community aid to Zimbabwe in 2002 came to EUR 94 million, of which only EUR 8 million was
spent inside the country. Food aid, agricultural inputs, and medical supplies, for instance, were bought
from neighbouring countries.

For these reasons, the Commission sees no justification for an audit enquiry.