Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-10-23-Speech-2-259"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20011023.12.2-259"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, firstly, I would like to thank the rapporteur for her excellent and very serious work on this discharge exercise covering EDF 1999 which was the year in which this Commission took office. This means that I feel especially responsible for the last four months of that year.
One of the main objectives of the reform of the management of the Community’s external assistance programmes is, of course, drastically to reduce the gap between commitments and payments. The Commission has been implementing measures since May of last year to tackle this problem. For instance, we pressed ahead with the closure, wherever possible, of old and dormant commitments, and we proposed also the introduction of a so-called ‘sunset clause’ to limit the time during which funds allocated to an action can be used for contracts. We, therefore, have reason to hope that the situation will gradually improve.
In relation to the slow rate of payments, the figures already available indicate that payments in 2000 increased from EUR 1.27 billion to EUR 1.55 billion. We still have incredible inertia in the pipeline, in the way in which these figures move. We have been increasing the total volume of what we do in this area and this is something that will gradually occur as a result of more and more activity year by year. This is, of course, the challenge we are facing.
I have said, on several occasions, that the lack of comprehensive data about our operations is a real embarrassment. We have made some progress towards more effective management information systems. I know that Parliament, and particularly the Development Committee, is anxious to see us make progress in this area, and we are doing our best. Nevertheless, there is still much to do and we are very conscious of the need to press on with reforming the management of our programmes.
In particular, we are concerned that the process of deconcentration, or delegating to delegations as I prefer to call it, should move ahead smoothly. The Commission has been asking for additional staff, but the numbers required have been assessed on a very conservative basis and we need every single post.
I therefore hope that Parliament in its decisions on the budget for 2002 will support us in this effort. It was encouraging to listen to Mr Casaca in this respect. I thank you for your enthusiastic support and hope you can deliver. We are determined that the deconcentration exercise should not end by simply exporting from Brussels to the delegations the problems caused by inadequate staffing. This is serious.
Concern is expressed in the resolution about the percentage of EDF contracts going to companies from the ACP countries, and it requires the Commission to increase this from some 25% to 40% in five years. The ACP countries win a much higher percentage of contracts under the EDF than from almost any other major donor. This should not be forgotten. ACP companies already benefit from a substantial preference margin in cases where offers are technically equivalent. If it is to operate a transparent and fair tendering system, the Commission cannot envisage any kind of fixed quotas which would discriminate against European companies, and which would be contrary to WTO rules. Nevertheless, we share the political intention of Parliament to maximise the benefits of our aid for local economies, particularly where there is a technically competent and well-structured private sector.
I would point to the new investment facility, part of the Cotonou Agreement, EUR 2.2 billion, which is architectured in order to stimulate the emergence of this activity in our partner countries. This is a way in which they may improve their position in exactly this respect. We have already identified this as an area where we should push forward.
I am anxious to reassure Parliament that the Commission is strengthening its monitoring procedures on the follow-up of audit. This is an important part of the reform of the Commission’s financial management and control. We also plan improvements to the presentation of the accounts, in response to the comments from the Court of Auditors. We are ready to enter into a direct dialogue to find out how this is best done.
I will say a few words on the points in the resolution which refer to the transmission of confidential documents. The respect of confidentiality and the application of correct transmission procedures remain crucial. The 1999 discharge procedure showed that the framework agreement provides an effective and satisfactory framework for cooperation between the Commission and Parliament. What we are discussing tonight has been following that set of rules. I want to make that perfectly clear.
The 1999 discharge procedure was the first to which this framework agreement was applied. The Commission sought to apply the agreement fully and loyally throughout that procedure. In the Commission's view the framework agreement has proved to be an effective mechanism, one benefit being that it allows Parliament to receive confidential and similar information. The understanding of the importance of development aid seems to be growing as we understand more and more about globalisation. And in the light of recent events we have come to better understand the reality and urgency of interdependency in this world. We cannot act alone. The challenge of reducing poverty is one in which the whole international community is involved and we share with others the framework for providing aid and for assessing the results.
Mr Blak mentioned that Parliament has gained much by having this discharge delayed. I think this is true, but it should be noted that the Commission feels equally pleased with the outcome. This is like a good love story – it is always worth waiting for. But it was wrong that the delay had to do specifically with information being held back in contradiction to the agreement between the Commission and Parliament. The main reason for the delay was that the report from the internal auditor service was not finished and could not be finished because we, on both sides, found it necessary and a good idea to broaden its scope in order to get a serious and deep study of how to handle this method of development cooperation. So we have solved problems that went beyond what is normally dealt with in the discharge process and this is what we can congratulate each other on tonight.
One remark to Mr Bösch concerning the Ivory Coast – we did get full recovery even though they had a military coup! We grilled them. We stuck to what I told Parliament: that we wanted to maintain a position of zero tolerance, and the new military dictators in the Ivory Coast accepted their obligations within the deadline.
We have not, in my time as Commissioner, experienced any case so far where we did not manage to get full recovery when the audit results indicated the need for that.
Our cooperation through the EDF has kept growing, while the support of other major donors for developing countries and especially for the least-developed countries has been declining. The Funds constitute an increasingly important source of finance for these countries and so, of course, we owe it to them, and to our European taxpayers, to use these resources as effectively as possible.
By the same token, the Commission should be concerned to verify that the beneficiary countries are doing all they can to improve their own capacity for effective budgetary and financial management. This has been a major theme of this discharge exercise, and it has succeeded in focusing attention on an important area of development cooperation. The question of sound financial management of budgetary support is, I think, better understood, as a result of the work carried out by the Court of Auditors and the Commission’s internal audit service, in cooperation with the various Commission services responsible.
I do not see any need to amend the Cotonou Agreement to reflect this. I am confident that there is a clear consensus between the Commission, the Court of Auditors and Parliament on the right way ahead, and in particular on the importance of budgetary support. This is a key tool to enhance stability and economic governance. By doing this in cooperation with other main donors and in a manner that emphasises the responsibility of the recipient government, we are playing a very important role. I am deeply grateful to Parliament that this perspective has been understood for this budget period. We need to continue to do this. No other donor is able and willing to meet this challenge as we are.
Of course, we cannot turn a blind eye to the cases of corruption or of negligence in the management of public funds, and I can reassure you that we will continue this policy of zero tolerance towards fraud and corruption. But we have to be aware, as you must, that the strengthening of financial control systems in these countries is a long-term process. It has to be tackled with realism. We have to make an assessment of the risks involved in each action that we consider for EDF finance, and go into action with a clear understanding of those risks. It has to be based on a common approach with other donors. An isolated approach by the Commission would be unrealistic. It must rely on the development of internal accountability. Cooperation with other donors in this field is better than ever. We all need improvement, and this is definitely being pursued in good cooperation.
This covers the discharge for 1999, and the performance for 2000 is in several ways somewhat more encouraging."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples