Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-05-14-Speech-3-275"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030514.12.3-275"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – I would like to thank Parliament, and Mr Van den Berg in particular, for the extensive work and interest put into the examination of the Commission’s communication on education and training.
Furthermore, the Community policy focuses on the needs of the poorest countries and poorest people, with particular attention to women, orphans and children in conflict and post-conflict areas.
The communication highlights that resources for education and training must be substantially increased, so the slogan about doubling the effort is very meaningful. The international community should give preference to countries that have the most clear-cut commitments to Education for All. This is the important outcome of the whole effort in Education for All, not only highlighting it but also creating some sort of peer pressure on all concerned to give this higher priority.
Education budgets should be geared towards vulnerable populations and equity in access to education: primary education should be compulsory and free, girls and boys should have the same opportunities, rural areas should be given priority, indigenous populations should be supported and the special educational needs of orphans or disabled should be met.
Finally, the Commission highlights the importance of a shift in the monitoring of education, focusing more on outcomes and results. Clear indicators are being developed using and reinforcing our partner countries’ own monitoring systems in close coordination with other donors. This is an issue we have been discussing in our dialogue between the Commission and Parliament. We have seen some real progress in improving these monitoring systems.
We work with other donors to agree on common, but country-specific indicators. It is not possible, or desirable, to evaluate the impact of a single donor’s activity in isolation from the country’s activity and other donors’ operations. In the coming years we will be able to have a better-founded discussion because we will have figures available in order to clarify our position.
We can see a place for a mix of input and output targets, but we do not support a specific target as a percentage for the education sector. This is in respect of the reality of ownership. There is no disagreement about the wish for increasing it, but we cannot give a specific figure.
Finally, I thank the European Parliament and the rapporteur for this resolution and the strong commitment to promoting education it always demonstrates.
Education has a major impact on reducing poverty and our purpose is to maximise it. This is in line with the Millennium Development Goals and Education for All objectives. Ownership by our partner countries and complementarity with other donors are also vital aspects. In fact, when we talk about this, not only focusing on the actions of the Commission, we should take a tour around Europe and clarify what each of our Member States is doing, because complementarity is supposed to work both ways. Even in Maastricht this is a common activity and not a Commission-only activity. Of course it is a privilege for the Commission to have an organised dialogue with Parliament on all occasions.
We support education both through budgetary support and sector funding. I would agree with Mr Van den Berg about the special quality of sector programme funding but we are, in the name of complementarity, very happy that the Commission can provide budget support. Where we do it we try to link it to policies that have also been worked out and contributed to by other donors, thus improving the quality of the recipient or partner country's actions.
The Commission’s communication on this subject also opens up the possibility for the Commission to fund recurrent expenditure in education budgets of partner countries. This has been a missing element. It is nice to build a teacher training college, but if we only build the bricks, and not the curriculum and especially the professors' salaries, we will never meet the challenge.
At the same time, we must make sure that resources reach those who truly need them and create results.
Our partner countries have to improve the efficiency and quality of their education systems and, as regards donors, a flexible attitude toward financing mechanisms is necessary.
The first priority in our education policy is basic education - six-year primary school. This is in line with the Millennium Development Goals on education, which give priority to universal primary education.
The second priority is to ensure a balanced strategy encompassing secondary and higher education, vocational training and adult literacy. Work-related training is of particular importance in countries that have attained an acceptable level of schooling as a first step. We also included additional policy priorities for our support for education.
In particular, more attention should be given to the impact of HIV/Aids on education systems and the role of education in preventing HIV/Aids and in improving health in general."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples