Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-14-Speech-2-242"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"1999-12-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:NIS and Mongolia: economic reform and recovery (TACIS)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.19991214.11.2-242"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:1999-12-14-Speech-2-2432
lpv:speaker	lp:Constanze Krehl2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; BUDG (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Russia Parliamentary Cooperation Committee (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"d . Thank you Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I should like to start by congratulating Mr Valdivielso de Cué on his excellent and politically balanced report on the new TACIS regulation. I should also like to thank the Commission for their excellent cooperation in the preparation of this report. TACIS is an important political instrument of the European Community, not only in Russia but in all the republics of the former Soviet Union, with the exception of the Baltic States and Mongolia. The philosophy that funds should be used more for the benefit of both sides has finally permeated through to TACIS. This means that we should shift from demand-driven payments by partner countries to the deployment of funds by both sides. This deployment will, in my opinion, prove to be much more effective and we in Parliament should also make sure in future that the European side can influence the deployment of funds. This will give the entire programme the flexibility which it has been lacking hitherto and help to prevent funds being misplaced. In past years I and many of my colleagues who are active in Eastern Europe have noted that EU budget appropriations for TACIS are not always used as efficiently as they might be. I do not want to dwell here on our tiresome experiences with hundreds of studies. This has been due in part to limitations in the regulation itself and to problems in the management area. The most significant shortcomings in this area have, in my view, been reduced in the new proposed regulation; more importantly, concentrating on two rather than 12 priorities per partner country as in the past will show a greater degree of professionalism and improve visibility. New provisions on potential investments are geared to the development of either the embryonic or non-existent SME sector. SMEs form the backbone of the economy in a modern economic system, which is why I have tabled the idea in a proposed amendment that we gear investments to the capacity of the partner country in question, rather than capping them at 25% of the total volume. I also feel that visibility and hence the widespread impact of our programmes is a problem which we in the EU need to address in areas other than TACIS. We could learn a lesson from the USA here. The new TACIS regulation allows us, as did the first regulation, to use appropriations for humanitarian purposes in crisis situations. That this flexibility is extremely important is demonstrated by the fact that, on the one hand, the EU wants to stop certain TACIS projects in Russia, as decided in Helsinki while, on the other hand, humanitarian aid is urgently needed. Mr Valdivielso de Cué, I hope that I have misunderstood only as the result of misinterpretation; I consider it imperative that the TACIS Democracy Project should continue, especially in Russia, and that that we should choose the areas in which we really need to stop TACIS. We did this in the case of Belarus and we should do the same in Russia."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph