LIBRO VERDE DE LA COMISIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS, recuperado de:

As of 1994 the European Community and the Member States were the main donors of food aid in the world, although this had not brought about a substantial improvement in the levels of food self-sufficiency in the developing countries, due to significant changes on the international markets that worked against their interests, not least the Uruguay Round agreements involving reductions in food aid itself. The report478 _accompanying

the motion for a resolution on a Commission initiative to revise the relevant legislation separated food aid for the purposes of food security from food aid of a humanitarian or emergency nature, which was to be subject to different rules479_.

The scenario outlined in the report was far from encouraging: Community food aid had been reduced in real terms while the area for potential application of aid had expanded

477 _{EP resolution of 14 May 1992 on ways to achieve food security, OJ C 150 of 15.6.92, p.276 following on from the report of the}

Committee on Development and Cooperation with the same title. Doc. A3-25/92. Rap: Wynn.

478 _{EP – Committee on Development and Cooperation - Report on food aid policy and food aid management and special operations}

in support of food security. Doc. A4-285/95. Rap: Telkämper.

to include the former Soviet Central Asia. All forecasts pointed to a further deterioration in the situation of the developing countries for a variety of reasons: limited technological innovation and water resources, falling crop yields, a reduction in the area of farmland and population growth.

Despite the improvements achieved, not least of which was the gradual substitution of replacement of European-type foodstuffs with local and traditional foods, there was still a basic problem affecting European food aid even at an operational level: the disposal of European surpluses. This was regulated by an unwritten rule criticised in the report, a ‘secret’ quota of 10% of aid of non-European origin, just previously raised to 40% as a result of agreements between the relevant Directorates-General of the Commission. The new Regulation completely separated the budget for food aid from the agricultural budget and encouraged purchasing outside the Community market, albeit adopting a somewhat less radical formula than that suggested by the rapporteur.

Parliament approved the proposal with amendments480 _{and later reiterated its position at}

second reading481_.

480 _{EP Decision of 21 May 1996 on the common position established by the Council with a view to adopting a Council Regulation on}

food aid policy and food aid management and special operations in support of food security, OJ C 166, 10.6.96, p. 24 following on from the report of the Committee on Development and Cooperation with the same title. Doc. A4-126/96. Rap: Telkämper.

481 _{EP legislative resolution of 15 December 1995 embodying Parliament’ s opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation on food}

chApTeR Xvii

hUmAniTARiAn Aid

The Community had intervened in emergency situations from the outset, but initially it did so on a case-by-case basis, leaving the establishment of a real intervention system until later.

The Sahel drought was the first case of direct Community action, carried out in an area of the African continent stretching from the Sahara in the north to the tropical regions of the south, and from the Atlantic to the Red Sea. The countries in this area were almost all Associated States: Upper Volta, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Sudan. From a climatic point of view, it was a region of low rainfall concentrated mainly in the monsoon season, which meant that these countries had almost permanent problems with water supply and suffered from progressive desertification.

In 1973 the situation became particularly serious and on 7 May 1973 the European Parliament called on the Council and the Commission to intervene urgently to overcome the problems preventing aid already sent from getting through the access ports482_{. Some}

days later, following a proposal from the Committee on Development and Cooperation, Parliament reiterated its call to the other Community institutions, suggesting that foodstuffs stored in the ports be transported by air to the interior of the Sahel area and that the Community’s delegated monitors on the ground be given the powers of initiative needed to deal with the disaster483_.

Six months later, despite aid being sent in the interim, for which the Associated States thanked the Community484_{, the situation remained serious and threatened to get even worse}

in 1974. In addition to the humanitarian problem, there was the question of lost production, especially cereals, and the deterioration of already poor economies. In order to address the situation with aid not limited to the humanitarian area, the European Parliament decided on a series of interconnected actions to be implemented over a number of phases. What was required immediately was a new plan for food aid consisting of cereals, milk and butteroil, which needed to be delivered prior to the start of the rainy season, while the solution to the logistical and transport problems, critical for the successful outcome of the relief operation, also needed to be integrated into the programme.

Measures to improve infrastructures, including small-scale actions, were required in the longer term for the road network, together with hydraulic work, especially on the River Niger and River Volta. This action was to accompanied by a medical initiative, in tandem with research on ways of eradicating certain diseases, such as the onchocerciasis

482 _{EP resolution of 7 May 1973 on the consequences of drought in Africa, OJ C 37, 4.6.73, p. 6.}

483 _{EP resolution of 11 May 1973 on emergency aid by the Community to relieve drought in Africa, OJ C 37, 4.6.73, p. 67, following on}

from the report of the Committee on Development and Cooperation with the same title. Doc. 58/73. Rap: Spénale.

484 _{EP – Committee on Development and Cooperation - Report on aid to the Sahel countries affected by drought. Doc. 271/73. Rap:}

Spénale. The expressions of thanks mentioned in paragraph 1 of the report were presented during the Joint Committee of the Yaoundé Convention held in Bruges from 26 to 28 June 1973. The drought issue was top of the agenda at this meeting of the Joint Committee and its subsequent meeting in Lomé from 27 to 31 October of the same year.

endemic in the Sahel area. Research was necessary not just in the medical field, but also on agricultural economics, making use of satellite searches for underground water resources. The European Parliament called, too, for additional financial resources for the Sahel area in the 1974 budget and the creation of a special relief fund for natural disasters485_.

In some cases, the problem of hunger was further complicated by political factors such as corrupt or dictatorial regimes. A case in point was the Central African Republic, which was suffering under the Bokassa dictatorship, where large-scale massacres led in 1979 to the regime being overthrown. A subsequent resolution486 _{noted the manner in which the}

Commission had managed to send relief to the inhabitants of the Central African Republic without offering support to the regime and applied this example to the general problem of aid to countries suffering grave violations of human rights. The issue was also examined in the relevant report outlining the Community’s position. This report echoed, although with a somewhat different emphasis, the Council Decision of 21 June 1977 requiring the Community to take all necessary measures to ensure that aid destined for affected populations was not in fact used for other purposes. However, it was difficult to apply this principle when the beneficiary country was a signatory to the Lomé Convention, which defended the right to establish an indicative aid programme independently. In order to circumvent this problem, the resolution called on the Community to introduce a range of preventive measures, including better monitoring of its own aid programmes in countries that violated human rights.

In yet other cases, humanitarian problems were caused by wars, as in the refugee crisis in the Horn of Africa involving some two million people, which was the subject a resolution calling for additional Community food aid487_{. The Palestinian refugee crisis was another}

such case: the Community acted as donor in the programme implemented by UNRWA, a UN agency specifically charged with overseeing aid to this group of refugees. The Convention first signed with this agency in 1972 provided for the sending of food aid, to be distributed on the ground by the agency488_{. The Convention was subsequently renewed}

on a number of occasions.

The European Parliament also called for further intervention in situations involving food crises and displacements of refugees, often connected to deteriorating political or armed conflicts. These cases included a resolution on Afghanistan489 _{that simply called for the}

485 _{EP resolution of 11 December 1973 on aid to the Sahel countries affected by drought, OJ C 2, 9.1.74, p.30.}

486 _{EP resolution of 19 June 1980 on the situation in the Central African State, OJ C 175, 14.7.80 following on from the report of the}

Committee on Development and Cooperation with the same title. Doc. 1-149/80. Rap: J. Jaquet.

487 _{EP resolution of 11 July 1980 on the dramatic situation of the refugees, especially the children amongst them, in the Horn of}

Africa, OJ C 197, 4.8.80, p. 81 following on from the report of the Committee on Development and Cooperation with the same title. Doc. 1-289/80. Rap: Marshall. Subsequent resolutions of a more general nature: 16 December 1983 on Assistance to refugees in developing countries, OJ C 10, 16.1.84, p. 278, and 19 February 1987 on Aid to refugees and displaced person in developing countries, OJ C 76, 23.3.87 following on from the respective reports with the same titles. Docs. 1-929/83, Rap: Dury, and A2-122/86, Rap: Verbeek. The first dealt with the issue in general, calling essentially for Community action to render the refugees self- sufficient, in other words to reduce their dependence on international aid; the second dealt specifically with a number of crisis situations and food for refugees.

488 _{EP resolution of 15 February 1980 embodying the opinion of the European Parliament on the proposals from the Commission}

of the European Communities to the Council for: I. a Decision concluding the convention between the European Economic Community and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) on aid to refugees in the countries of the Near East; II. a Regulation on the supply of sugar to UNRWA as food aid, OJ C 59, 10.3.80 p. 70 following on from the report with the same title. Doc. 1-754/79. Rap: D. Enright, from which the information in the text is drawn.

489 _{EP resolution of 18 January 1980 on the situation in Afghanistan, OJ C 34, 11.2.80, p. 110 following on from the report with the}

intervention of the Commission, later followed by others on the same conflict. There was a more far-reaching resolution on the situation in Cambodia490 _{that welcomed the}

first food aid sent by the Commission and called for more general assistance to the Thai Government, which was in grave need, in addition to aid for the Cambodian, Vietnamese and Laotian populations who had remained in their countries. The following year, the European Parliament welcomed the fact that aid to Cambodia had continued throughout 1981 and urged further relief efforts in 1982491_.

Parliament approved another resolution492 _{on Vietnam a number of years later, which}

called for emergency aid to be distributed among the affected population by NGOs, since the Community itself could not resume its own suspended aid programmes until such time as the Vietnamese Government provided proof of serious intentions to withdraw its troops from neighbouring countries and to respect human rights. The report incorporating the motion for a resolution493_{, already referred back to committee, offered a}

detailed examination of the humanitarian situation in Vietnam. Despite a health system that was relatively evolved in comparison to the general state of the country, Vietnam suffered from serious problems of malnutrition, especially among children. Another serious problem was the plight of the so-called boat people, the refugees fleeing Vietnam for other countries.

Years later the problem of repatriations would emerge and the European Parliament494

welcomed the participation of the Community in the dedicated programme of the UN High Commission for Refugees. It also ensured that Vietnam, one of the poorest Asian countries, was included in the debate, demanding that it be allocated a fair share of the aid destined for Latin America and Asia.