92003E0024

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0024/03

by Yves Piétrasanta (Verts/ALE), Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE),Harlem Désir (PSE), Renzo Imbeni (PSE), Gérard Onesta (Verts/ALE),Francis Wurtz (GUE/NGL), Charles Tannock (PPE-DE),Alonso Puerta (GUE/NGL), Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PPE-DE),Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE), Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE),Giuseppe Di Lello Finuoli (GUE/NGL), Pedro Marset Campos (GUE/NGL),Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE), Didier Rod (Verts/ALE),Danielle Auroi (Verts/ALE), Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE),Bart Staes (Verts/ALE), Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE),Struan Stevenson (PPE-DE), Theodorus Bouwman (Verts/ALE),Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL), Nuala Ahern (Verts/ALE),Jan Wiersma (PSE) and Robert Goodwill (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2003)

Subject: EU aid and intervention for the victims of Chernobyl

The explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in 1986 was the most serious nuclear accident ever to have occurred in peacetime, leaving a terrifying and devastating radioactive legacy that will continue to be felt for many centuries to come, mainly in the European states of Ukraine and, above all, Belarus, countries already fragile as a result of undergoing abrupt economic, social and political transition.

As well as the great many victims directly affected by radiation among the local inhabitants and the 600 000 liquidators who took part in the clean-up operation at the site of this tragedy of the industrial age, there are also those who have been forced to stay in the area or return there, due to economic constraints or political obscurantism.

Invisible but ever-present, caesium-137 and strontium-90, radionuclides with a half-life of around 30 years, have caused long-term damage to 5 % of Ukrainian and 23 % of Belarussian soil, reducing the local populations to a state of subsistence living. At present, the situation is characterised by pandemics of thyroid cancer, leukaemia, congenital deformities, and an unprecedented ecological genocide far outstripping any individual state's budgetary, sanitary and medical capacities, let alone those of successor states to the Soviet Union. The scientific community predicts that, in terms of ecological fallout in the ecosystem and pathological after-effects, the worst is yet to come for the Chernobyl generations.

One scientist, Professor V. B. Nesterenko(1), director of the independent Belarussian Institute of Radiation Safety Belrad, is conducting pioneering research into nuclear pathologies, devoting all his efforts and the meagre resources available to the Institute to developing medical follow-up and treatments for the people of the affected region, in the face of the numerous difficulties and constraints prevalent in Belarus.

Confronted with this human drama and the challenge of reconciling needs with resources, does the Commission recognise that the political situation in Belarus can under no circumstances justify a withdrawal or even a disengagement from the Union's duty to provide humanitarian and medical assistance for this European people, but rather that it calls for a redoubling of efforts and presence to help this martyred people and its independent medical personnel and scientists?

What support does the Commission intend to give the Belrad Institute and its director, Professor Nesterenko, following President Romano Prodi's declaration of 8 April 2002(2)?

Why will the Commission not set up a programme of curative holidays for Belarussian, Ukrainian and Russian children within the EU's medical services and hospitals?

What is the current status of the policies on assistance to tackle the problems arising from the accident mentioned by the Commission in its answer of 3 September 2001 to Written Question E-1570/01(3) by Mrs Isler Béguin MEP?

(1) http://www.fortunecity.com/boozers/vines/860/Nester/nesteree.htm.

(2) [] It remains imperative to maintain assistance programmes to remedy the human consequences of the Chernobyl disaster as well as to support civil society.

(3) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2003)

The Commission is deeply concerned about the humanitarian, ecological and medical consequences of the Chernobyl catastrophe in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia.

The Commission has been an active donor in the Chernobyl area for over ten years. Initially, the assistance comprised mainly emergency relief and joint research activities. In later years, the Commission, within the limitations set by the political context, has supported a number of projects dealing with the health, economic, social and environmental consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Specifically in the health area, support has been given for the diagnosis and treatment of thyroid cancer and associated training, for a production facility for thyroxin, a drug needed by those who undergo thyroid surgery. In total, over EUR 60 million has been attributed to Chernobyl related aid including more than 100 projects assessing the health and environmental impact of the disaster.

The impression that there is no Chernobyl programme for Belarus comes from the fact that the bulk of the activity is channelled through regional programs designed for Belarus, Ukraine and Russia at the same time. The Commission has financed from budget 1996 a regional project addressing social and medical consequences of the Chernobyl accident with the budget of EUR 1,5 million. This project ended in 2001, resulting in 15 pilot projects in the three countries addressing the mentioned issues.

As regards the future, allocations coming both from the limited (EUR 5 million in total) national TACIS programme for Belarus and from the Nuclear Safety programme, are planned for assistance to alleviate the social consequences of the Chernobyl disaster for 2003 and 2004.

The Commission is now in the project identification phase for the programmes in question. Honourable Members will appreciate that it is too early to discuss individual projects at this stage. A Commission decision on the TACIS Action Programme for Belarus is foreseen for May or June 2003.