Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-08-Speech-2-034"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030408.1.2-034"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, on 1 April we celebrated the entry into force of the Cotonou Agreement, and the fact that this gives the go-ahead for the ninth European Development Fund. Today, however, we face the discharge for the seventh, eighth and even sixth European Development Funds, and the main thing that emerges is that a large amount of that money has not been spent, and that the Fund is therefore under-implemented.
The Commission is one of the chief administrators of development money worldwide. No less than 10% of the total development money worldwide is administered by the Commission. We would urge, therefore, that careful attention be paid to the valuable comments made by both the Committee on Development and Cooperation and the Committee on Budgetary Control. Many mistakes have been made, and there is a lack of measurable indicators. Then there is the lack of coordination with the Member States, which means that the complementarity between the Commission and the Member States is often a dead letter. The Council does not concentrate on strategic issues, but instead is involved with 50 management committees intended to enable the micro-management of individual projects. There is a great deal of criticism of the way in which we carry out self-monitoring. The only control is on legality, while many taxpayers are asking themselves whether we actually have anything to show for our development work. I would therefore add my voice to that of the Committee on Budgetary Control in its wish for the incorporation of the European Development Fund into the budget.
I should, however, just like to return to something that I find very dangerous: here I am talking about the risks of direct budgetary support. There is a growing trend towards this, and I understand, of course, that it seems much simpler at first glance. Direct budgetary support already amounts to EUR 2 604 million, although we know that it involves great risks, which the rapporteur has explained very well. To begin with, there is the risk of substitution. In the context of combating poverty, we want 35% of funds go on health and social infrastructure – education, in particular – but we note that the countries find it that much easier to spend their money on weapons. I should like to point to the examples of Uganda and Rwanda, which are probably down somewhere in the Commission's records as countries who do things by the book. You should take a look at what those countries are doing in East Congo, however, and see how they share the guilt for plundering the land. We are giving budgetary support to countries such as these.
We are not looking enough at the conditions, because the report – rightly, in my opinion – refers to these as poor and inadequately stipulated. What we are looking at is a lack of control with regard to management and implementation, to say nothing of the possibilities for corruption that are permitted and covered up as a result. There are the enduring problems of monitoring. In short, Commissioner, I should like to urge that the European Development Fund and the money that the Commission administers for development and cooperation be examined not only on the basis of legality, but also of the results achieved in connection with the priority we all set ourselves, namely the eradication of poverty."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples