Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-10-26-Speech-2-128"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991026.4.2-128"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"First, we are not planning or expecting any change concerning distribution, as between NGOs and UN organisations and other organisations, driven by our management or policy We respond to appeals and crises and use whichever organisation is able to do a good job in the specific circumstances. We do not have a fixed, preconceived idea of who gets what. Concerning the NGOs, we have found very few changes to be necessary. We know that in practice, in daily operations, we will have to streamline procedures as much as possible but, in general, this has not been seen as a major issue in the whole evaluation process.
Moving on to the next question, on reforming or changing the regulation, I already made it clear in my opening remarks that we think it is possible to make many important and necessary changes within the existing regulation. We will come back to that. We are not closing the option of changing the regulation but this will be taken up in a much broader, long-term process – the one I mentioned concerning the policy part of our response. For the time being we will work on the basis of the existing regulation. We think this gives enough scope for the changes that are needed.
Regarding the codecision aspect of this, in responding to the evaluation, I have deliberately avoided saying anything concerning that issue. How codecision will eventually be hammered out in terms of relations between Parliament, the Council and Member States in decision-making on humanitarian activities is something that needs to be discussed further and perhaps negotiated. But I did not want to open up a discussion on that because following up the evaluation is not a problem I have to deal with.
Concerning the identity of the operation, I distinctly mentioned the logo and the discussion. The consultants recommended that we should give up the specific ECHO logo. This is one point on which I feel we should not follow their recommendation. But we have to strike some kind of balance. To put it in a nutshell: visibility is fine, feasibility is better. There is, in some cases, a risk that pushing the logo too much creates friction and reduces the willingness to cooperate smoothly on the ground. Somewhere we have to find a balance. But I did not want to back down as far as visibility is concerned. We owe it to our tax-payers, the European public. Certainly there is no reason why we should hide from the beneficiaries who it is that is actually helping them."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples