Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-02-04-Speech-1-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020204.6.1-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioners, the European Union is the world’s largest donor in terms of relief. Thanks to European funding, people who are hit by war or natural disasters in Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Somalia and the Balkans are helped to get back on their feet. However, things too often go wrong when direct relief is discontinued and a switch is made to aid for the reconstruction and development of the affected area. This problem is referred to in specialist literature as the grey zone.
Allow me to illustrate this with a textbook example. After Hurricane Mitch left a trail of destruction in Central America in 1998, the Union responded quickly with relief. As from 1999, the Commission subsequently worked on an action programme for reconstruction in Central America, and ECHO was set to leave the area from March 2001 onwards. The action programme contained some sound elements, such as local participation, coordination with the Member States and other donors, and decentralisation of powers to the delegation in Managua. In practice, however, the programme moved far too slowly. Two years after the disaster, only a few projects had been rubberstamped.
This example unfortunately illustrates the rule and not the exception, and this is of course unacceptable, both from a political and humanitarian perspective. Who would like to explain soon to the people in Afghanistan that we are unable to keep our pledge of aid due to our own inability to respond promptly and with due flexibility following the relief phase? The question arises as to what measures the Commission is taking to prevent the problem of the grey zone from occurring during the reconstruction of Afghanistan.
During the preparation of this report, the Commission and the organisations involved in the field were consulted extensively. The Commission recognises the problem of the grey zone but, at the same time, its evaluation, which we are discussing today, remains too vague and too theoretical. That is why a number of specific proposals are being submitted to the Commission in my report, partly on the basis of the conference with the NGOs involved and intensive talks with your official services.
The Commission recognises that inflexible and bureaucratic procedures form one of the key problems. By way of solution, the Commission would like to draw up appendices to the Country Strategy Papers as a result of which a rapid and flexible reaction in a crisis situation must become possible. I support this proposal, but only if those appendices are approved within a two-month period. Can the Commission give an indication as to whether it has already drafted new, simplified, rapid and flexible procedures for the approval and adjustment of the appendices? For otherwise, the proposal for these crisis papers will simply remain a hollow exercise.
In addition, in my capacity as rapporteur, I would refer to the enormous importance of coordination and cooperation, not only between the Commission services but also with the Member States, international donors, local partners and NGOs. From my talks with the Commission, it transpired that there is a clear need for a flexible instrument for construction and rehabilitation, so that this grey zone can be dealt with. The existing rehabilitation regulation is too restricted. Projects in the field of security and good governance, for example, fall outside the scope of the Regulation, and resources are limited. It is evident that the total amount of, for example, some EUR 50 million for Asia lags far behind the level of need in Afghanistan. That is why I suggest reviewing the existing rehabilitation regulation, so that, in the post-crisis stage, the real needs of the people in an affected area can be accommodated in a flexible manner. In order to guarantee sufficient funding, it is important that, as soon as a crisis breaks out, resources are freed up quickly via a trigger mechanism from the existing non-used budget and reserves.
In what way does the Commission want to act upon my plan in terms of concrete proposals? The problem of the grey zone between relief and rehabilitation is well-known. It is no longer acceptable for people who are directly faced with the effects of war or natural disasters on a daily basis to be left out in the cold due to our inability to react to the local situation in a rapid, flexible and coordinated manner. Since Europe, being the world’s largest relief donor, plays a fantastic role, we must, as Europe, close this gap by means of sustainable development in crisis areas. That would truly constitute an enormous contribution to security and stability in conflict regions in Asia, Latin America and Africa. This might well be a wiser investment than committing substantial sums for defence materiel, such as F16s, at this stage, although I know that the Commission is not concerned with these matters. As your rapporteur, I will therefore closely follow how the Commission and the Member States tackle this problem in the near future. I expect a great deal from the pledge made thus far, but I am anxious to know what the Commission’s actual response will be."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples