WRITTEN QUESTION E-0682/04 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. Bushmeat: Development Strategies.
Date: 2004-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cameroon, Ghana, environmental cooperation, forestry policy, game meat, protection of animal life

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/705

It is important to note that the programming of resources, in particular for the European Development
Fund (EDF), had already been largely completed when Parliament adopted the De Rossa report, and
accordingly the margins for action were rather limited. In the 9th EDF, limited amounts were allocated
specifically to the environment. The policy for resource allocation is focused on budgetary support and
support for sectoral programmes. Specific research projects on the problems quoted in the written
question would need to be examined from this perspective. Furthermore, within the EU’s 6th Framework
Programme on Research and Technological Development (FP6) one of the work programmes specifically
concerns biodiversity, and could therefore be used for research on bushmeat issues. Details of this policy,
and of eligibility for participation, are available on (http://europa.eu.int/comm/research/iscp/index_en.html).

There are, however, some responses to the issues raised within the framework of actions ongoing or
starting soon: in particular, the programmes for alternatives to poaching (the Congo, Cameroon, Gabon),
financing of specific market and setting surveys and establishing an observatory, Ecopas (Benin, Niger,
Burkina Faso) and Ecofac (six central Africa countries). Concerning the latter, the preparation of the 4th
phase is in hand and will take some of these aspects specifically into account.

Furthermore, the recent call for proposals under the environment budgetline invited in particular proposals
that are relevant to actions in the biodiversity action plan for economic and development cooperation.

The Commission agrees that timber concession wildlife management must form a key part of the response
to the bushmeat crisis. For this reason the Commission is supporting the World Wide Fund for Nature
with a EUR 1,4 million grant to work in Gabon with private forest concessionaires to find ways of
controlling hunting and poaching in private forest concessions. In addition, the Forest ecosystems in
Central Africa (Ecofac) programme has begun to define protocols for collaboration with the private sector
to address the unsustainable hunting of bushmeat in industrial forest concessions.

(2004/C 88 E/0727)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0682/04

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Bushmeat: Development Strategies

Following the European Commission’s support for the African Forest Law Enforcement and Governance
Ministerial Declaration, what discussions has the Commission held with the governments of Cameroon and
Ghana, concerning the implementation of the indicative actions relating to bushmeat? And what support
does the Commission plan to provide to help these countries implement the indicative actions relating to
bushmeat and integrate them into their development strategies?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

Indicative actions relating to bushmeat form part of the declaration adopted at the launch of the Africa
Ministerial Process for Forest Law Enforcement and Governance (AFLEG) in Yaoundé in 2003. The main
objective of this declaration is to build commitment to strengthen forest sector governance and combat
illegal logging. As yet, the Commission has not held discussions with the governments of Ghana and
Cameroon regarding the specific implementation of indicative actions relating to bushmeat set out in the
declaration. No specific provision of support outside existing co-operation is foreseen to help countries
implement indicative actions relating to bushmeat and integrate these into their development strategies.

C 88 E/706

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

However, the Commission is working to ensure strong follow-up to the AFLEG ministerial process,
including through the provision of financial support and in dialogue with partner countries. Dialogue with
partner countries has focused on the attainment of the overall objective of the declaration, which is to
strengthen forest sector governance in Africa. Strengthened forest sector governance will in turn support
improvements in many aspects of forest management in Africa, including matters relating to bushmeat.

Follow-up to the AFLEG ministerial conference must reflect commitment from African governments,
African civil society and the private sector. Follow-up activities will be subject to a loose form of central
co-ordination, but the emphasis is firmly on governments and organisations contributing in the best ways
they see fit. The Commission is providing technical, political and financial support for these activities.

In Cameroon an ‘Environment and Forests Cell’ is funded from the European Development Fund. This
provides support to assist the government to address challenges which arise in relation to forests and the
environment, including bushmeat.

In numerous other African countries, the Commission provides support to governments, civil society and
local people to facilitate the sustainable management of protected areas, forest concessions and the wildlife
resources found therein. This support will continue to be made available.

(2004/C 88 E/0728)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0687/04

by Marcelino Oreja Arburúa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2004)

Subject: Infringement of the principle of the freedom of movement of goods

Various dairy businesses in various Member States produce yoghurt which meets national legislation, either
post-fermentation pasteurised, heat-treated or long-life. all of these companies export their yoghurts to
Portugal and others could do so in future. The result is that the pasteurised yoghurts of the various
Member States need to adapt to Portuguese legislation, which demands that the term ‘yoghurt’ be replaced
by ‘dairy dessert’, which is completely foreign to the nature of the foodstuff in question. Calling the same
product one thing in the exporting country, and another in the importing country gives rise, in this case,
to various forms of indirect taxation which impede its movement: in the case of Spain, 5 % for the yoghurt
product in Spain, and 19 % for the Portuguese ‘dairy dessert’, which thus constitutes a measure having
equivalent effect. Furthermore, and taking due account of the constant and vast jurisprudence of the Court
of Justice: Cassis de Dijon (CJ 120/78 of 20.02.1979), Smanor (CJ 298/87 of 14.07.1988), Deserbais
(CJ 286/86 of 22.09.1988), Procureur du Roi v Dassonville (CJ 8/74 of 11.07.1974), REWE (CJ 120/76 of
20.02.1979), Rau (CJ 261/81 of 10.11.1982), or Commission v Germany (the beer case) (CJ 178/84 of
12.03.1987), I believe that the principle of mutual recognition of legislation of the country of manufacture
is being straightforwardly violated, since it means that the marketing of the imported yoghurt product is
more difficult and costly due to the extra expenditure on labelling and packaging, and that the consumer is
also burdened by the fact that he may be confused by so generic a name as ‘dairy dessert’, and by a
multilingual label in which different names to indicate the nature of the product are used in different
languages.

Does the Commission therefore believe that Portugal is failing to meet one of the obligations laid down in
the Treaty, violating the principle of the freedom of movement of goods and Article 5 and preliminary
recitals 2, 6, 8 and 14 of Directive 2000/13/EC (1) on food labelling? If so, what is it going to do?

(1) OJ L 109, 6.5.2000, p. 29.