Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-23-Speech-2-187"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030923.5.2-187"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, honourable Members, I do not propose to discuss agricultural policy, as much more has been said – by Mr Poos, Mr Laschet, and Mr Salafranca – on the subject of Iraq.
I am glad to see consensus on the need for the conditions to be met. Aid, including that given by the European Union, must be provided under the aegis of the United Nations. The Trust Fund must not be confused with the fund administering the yields from oil deposits, but must be separate from it. I also believe that we can also achieve consensus on other points relating to the conditions. The EUR 200 million proposed by the Commission would also express well our sense of obligation, our awareness of the need for us to take on responsibility, and our willingness to do so together on the basis of the EU Budget. It is also very important that this aid for Iraq should be seen in relation to the shared commitments that we have made in other areas. Let me reiterate that EUR 214 million have been allocated to Afghanistan for next year, thus discharging in full the obligations into which we entered at the donors’ conference in Tokyo. I would also like to again lay stress upon the fact that we are allocating, next year, EUR 250 million as additional aid for Turkey, Iraq’s neighbour, with 65 million inhabitants, and that must also, of course, be seen in its context.
Next week – on 1 October – we will have the opportunity to debate this in a joint meeting of the Committee on Budgets and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, when the Commission will be putting forward a proposal that the margin and also part of the flexibility reserve be used for Iraq, and will be submitting an amending budget.
Mrs Figueiredo asked about the Forest Focus programme. For this we have allocated the same amount as this year. Both the Regional Development Fund and the Structural Funds can be used for reforestation measures and also for measures to prevent natural disasters. The question has been raised as to whether cohesion policy can be pursued at all successfully using a European Budget amounting to some 0.99 per cent of the Community’s economic product. The answer to that is in the affirmative. The European Budget and its effects demonstrate that our support for cohesion policy is yielding fruit. Last week, I presented what we are calling the ‘allocation report’, which shows who is paying what and where the money goes. The four cohesion countries are the four net recipients from the EU’s Budget, which is only right and proper. The two poorest countries receive the most funds expressed as a percentage of their gross national product, and the cohesion reports do indeed show how successful that is, and that the European Union is successful in its efforts to reduce the economic gaps between one country and another.
Mrs Buitenweg addressed the issue of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organisation. This year, these funds – which, by the way, your House had blocked – will be reallocated to other purposes, whilst this breach of the agreement means that we have allocated no funds in the preliminary draft Budget for next year. North Korea is not, unfortunately, offering to abandon its atomic programme and to invest instead in renewable forms of energy. This is also relevant to Mr Dell'Alba’s question on the human rights clause. Countries such as North Korea, in which humanitarian emergencies exist at the same time as human rights are being abused, always put us in a very difficult position. Indeed, the Commission had also decided to step up humanitarian aid for North Korea, concentrating this aid on mothers, who are worst affected by the terrible conditions in that country.
The Commission did of course bear in mind administrations’ capacity for implementing them when making its proposals relating to Latin America, but we will of course look at Parliament’s various proposals as well.
Next, Mr Garriga Polledo asked whether the means of payment cut by the Council are still adequate. As it usually does in October, the Commission will shortly be proposing a revision of the agricultural policy, with new assessments of market developments and taking due account of the exchange rate. We will also be submitting an estimate relating to the old Structural Funds programmes, but I can tell you even now that the Commission cannot accept that the means of payment for pre-accession aid should be cut back. Next year, although the candidate countries will be Member States, they will still be getting help with their pre-accession programmes, as these will still be in progress. It is fortunate that the pre-accession programmes are now at last being better implemented, and this of course means that we need the means to pay for them. We would be very glad if Parliament and the Council together were to restore the former amounts."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples