Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-267"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.11.3-267"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, Mrs Ferrer’s report provides very interesting ideas for developing the concept of capacity building and to describe the means to implement it. This is an area we have identified as a priority for our development cooperation. It is the main element in our overall policy statement dating back to November 2000, and adopted also by Parliament.
We are working to improve the strategic approach to European Union action on capacity building and are approaching it from the perspective of good governance.
The report is therefore timely, because it comes as we prepare the communication on governance in Community development policy. This being said, capacity building is typically an area that has to be mainstreamed in all our interventions, and is increasingly recognised as a key factor in all areas of development. Our communication will give priority attention to three specific topics
governance in general, political governance and economic governance
three themes which we see as part of the broader agenda of capacity building.
I fully agree with the approach followed in Mrs Ferrer’s report on searching for a definition. Particularly relevant are the need to adapt capacity building to the context and the rather broad notion of capacity building, which includes not only the 'classic' inputs such as 'training and materials', but also a range of innovative aspects.
The reference to the need to avoid imposing foreign models is also highly welcome
ownership has to be promoted. The different priority sectors mentioned also show an innovative approach to institutional development; the security issue, in particular, has indeed become one of the new political concerns.
The specific problem that we face is that of setting priorities within the area of capacity building, linked to the scaling-up of activities. The need for capacity building is accepted everywhere. There is interest in the issue and, in principle, there is a readiness to provide funds. However, when one takes a snapshot of what happens in practice in this area, one sees a patchwork of uncoordinated activities, usually very small-scale and attached to specific projects or programmes. If we really want to promote ownership, this situation has to change. What is needed is improved priority-setting by developing countries themselves and more coordination and harmonisation among donors to promote activities on a larger scale and over the longer term. In fact, the formula I keep using in addressing what needs to be done on capacity building is that instead of having it as an additional measure here and there in the actions we are implementing, we have to turn capacity building into hard-core, big-money development cooperation and not shy away also from agreeing to cover recurrent costs as part of the capacity building effort.
Finally, I agree with the criticism of the problems in assessing the impact of the Community-financed interventions within our statistics in the Commission. This problem is being addressed. It is one of many aspects of the same problem that we are working on. The communication will deal with this issue by devoting a chapter to current practices within the Commission and lessons learned. The recommendations of the rapporteur in this respect are very welcome.
I conclude by once again thanking the rapporteur."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples