Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-04-Speech-1-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000904.6.1-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"I am extremely pleased to be able to comment on these two important reports on one of the most significant programmes for which we are responsible. It is clearly going to be a considerable political test for the Commission and for our whole partnership to try to ensure that we deliver more successfully on these programmes in the future than we have managed to do so far.
However we cannot support Amendment No 25, which proposes an individual examination of financing proposals by the MED Committee. We think this is contrary to the spirit of our overall proposal on the revision of the MEDA Regulation, because we want to streamline and simplify procedures. We cannot accept Amendment No 13, which would seek to include a financial reference amount for the period 2000 to 2006 in the regulation since this would clearly prejudge the results of the budgetary procedure as has been agreed in the context of the Interinstitutional Agreement.
We cannot accept Amendment No 21 which seeks the removal of direct budgetary support, nor Amendment No 27 on direct industrial cooperation and I should point out that the new enterprise policy of the Commission focuses on the improvement of the business climate rather than on direct tools of cooperation. In addition, the Commission at this stage lacks the necessary resources for proper industrial cooperation.
Nor can we accept Amendment No 35 or part of Amendment No 40 on the expansion of decentralised cooperation so long as we do not have the necessary human resources to do the job in a responsible and effective way, but forms of decentralised cooperation will be pursued where possible within existing regional cooperation programmes.
Now let me comment briefly on Mr Piétrasanta's report. I congratulate him and the other rapporteur, Mr Vandevielso, for the commitment and dedication which they have shown. Most of the views expressed in Mr Piétrasanta's report and in the amendments are wholly in line with the Commission's efforts to reform the MEDA programme and our overall objective of streamlining procedures and accelerating delivery of aid.
We support the plea regarding the simplification of MEDA's management procedures and the strengthening of its strategic and integrated approach. The report's appeal for an increase in Commission staff assigned to management of the MEDA programme is one we wholly support. Enough staff to do the job is one of the key principles underlying the Commission's efforts to reform its external assistance services. The increase will be, of course, pursued within the overall staff priorities of the Commission, and I note as well the report's request for the preparation of an annual report on human rights in the Mediterranean. We believe this is something for the Council and the Commission to consider together.
We support the proposals for reinforced South-South cooperation and for more programmes backing small and medium-sized enterprises. We are taking action on water management but we are not, I regret to say, in a position to support the micro-project proposals because again we lack the staff to manage them properly. They are extremely resource-intensive in terms of management.
It will be apparent from what I have said that we are thinking very much along the same lines. Our programmes in the Mediterranean are at the core of my agenda, along with the reinvigoration of the Barcelona process.
Let me make two final points. First of all, I hope, the Commission will this week be agreeing a Commission communication on the revitalisation of the Barcelona process, which we will then, of course, wish to discuss with this Parliament. Our funding of programmes in the Mediterranean between now and 2006 is probably the largest of all our programmes representing over 20% of our efforts externally. My concern is that we should deliver that assistance more effectively and more rapidly.
I have told Parliament before of my surprise at the discovery that if we were to continue at the present rate of disbursement it would take us almost nine years to get through the backlog of our existing obligations in the Mediterranean. That is simply not tolerable. You cannot explain that to the people you are trying to help and it is very difficult to justify it to Europe's taxpayers. Instead of our programmes enhancing the reputation of the European Union in the Mediterranean countries and around the world, it damages our reputation even though we are using taxpayers' money to do good. So, the reform of programmes like MEDA goes right to the heart of what we are trying to do in the Commission.
The other point I wanted to make is this: at the informal meeting we had in Evian at the weekend we spent over three hours talking about external assistance and how effectively we do things as a Union. I pay great tribute to the French Presidency for giving this issue the priority it has. The Commission raised the issue in May when I set out our external budget for the General Affairs Council, the first time the General Affairs Council had ever discussed the budget for external relations, and when we put forward our proposals for reforms, so I think the issue now has the political priority it deserves.
I thought that Mr Linkohr made some extremely pertinent and challenging points. We will be coming back to that, not least when we have the opportunity of discussing the letter which the Commission will be addressing to the budgetary authority as a letter of rectification to the 2001 Budget, which will go right to the heart of the real resource problem we face, which creates so many political difficulties for us.
But we will be tested by what we do with MEDA and what we do in the Balkans and by how these programmes actually work on the ground. I cannot keep on coming back to this Parliament and saying we have terrible problems. Parliament, the Commission and the Council have to be able to show that we are making a difference. I hope that with the Parliament's understanding we will be able to ensure over the years ahead that our external programmes are as effective and rapid as we all want them to be.
Let me comment first on Mr Valdivielso's report before dealing with Mr Piétrasanta's report. Naturally, I welcome the fact – though I do not think his speech was quite so enthusiastic – that Mr Valdivielso's report is generally supportive of the Commission's efforts to reform the MEDA Regulation, though there are some criticisms. Mr Piétrasanta's report is also favourable towards the 1998 MEDA Programme report. I want to stress that the revision of the MEDA Regulation is a key element in the broader efforts we are making to enable us to deliver aid more effectively and to streamline our often excessively onerous procedures.
The Commission's objective in revising the MEDA Regulation is to streamline the decision-making process so that we can deliver assistance promptly, in line with the political priorities of the European Union in the Mediterranean. The Commission proposes to reduce excessive scrutiny arrangements for individual projects in the Management Committee by introducing strategic programmes through the yearly adoption of national financing plans and a regional financing plan and simplifying decision making.
The simplifications that we have requested would bring MEDA programming procedures in line with those of other financial instruments of EU external relations programmes. It makes no sense to treat MEDA differently.
I must underline that the Commission cannot hope to improve the implementation of the programme if it remains paralysed by cumbersome procedures. The approval of the new regulation will allow the Union to lend real support to the Mediterranean countries in their structural reform process. The economic growth of these countries is of key importance to their political and social stabilisation.
I should also note that the firm commitment of the Mediterranean partners themselves to economic reform would greatly facilitate the implementation of the programme and would trigger a significant rise in its disbursement rate.
We have an absorption problem with some of our partners. It is difficult to spend the money as fast and as sensibly as we would like if we have not even agreed the Association Agreements, or to justify a situation in which we successfully negotiate an Association Agreement and then cannot get our partner to initial it. We all have to move faster if we are to make a greater success of the programme.
We agree with the bulk of Parliament's amendments, particularly those which strengthen MEDA's strategic character. In that spirit, we can fully endorse Amendments Nos 2, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, 20, 30, 33, 37 and 41 and we can partially accept Amendment Nos 4, 5, 6, 10, 22, 23, 24, 26, 28, 31, 35, 38 and 40 providing some slight verbal modifications. That may save me a bit of work if I am doing the votes later in the week."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples