Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031105.8.3-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, the Commission proposal, as the House knows, aims at replacing the current Asia and Latin America Regulation with a new, simple and modern legal framework, consistent with the principles underpinning the reform of external aid. This has already been done for other regions. It is now time for our partner countries in Asia and Latin America to benefit from the advantages of this reform.
Third, there is the question of a Solidarity Fund for Latin America. Supporting sectoral programmes linked to health, education and poverty alleviation in Latin America’s poorest countries and regions could be achieved by means of the programming and implementation instruments which we have at our disposal. Setting up a fund, seeking the participation of other financial institutions and agreeing on the rules governing the fund and its management would not only be wasteful but would also be a complicated and cumbersome process. The Commission does not have the human resources for this task.
Fourth, and finally, is the question of sectoral targets and benchmarks. Parliament proposes to introduce a number of sectoral targets in the regulation: 35% for social infrastructure and, within this figure, 20% for basic education and health; another 10% for the environment and up to 15% for Civil Society. All this adds up to nearly 60% of appropriations which would be 'pre-programmed'.
As members of the Committee on Development and Cooperation know, the current agreement on a benchmark of 35% for social infrastructure was reached two years ago after long discussions, in which I myself took part, between representatives of the Commission and the Development Committee. I do not intend to re-open those discussions, and indeed it is the Commission’s intention to remain absolutely faithful to that agreement. However, I would like to stress that it will not be in line with this agreement to add new conditions, in particular the 20% for basic education. Furthermore, this contradicts the principle of country ownership and the very essence of the reform which entails that programming cannot be pre-defined by means of a regulation.
The problem – at least that of the proposed 35% for social infrastructure
is rather theoretical, since in current country strategy papers for Asia and Latin America, 50% and 46% respectively have already been earmarked for social infrastructure.
In conclusion, I should like to thank very warmly the rapporteur, Mrs Sanders-ten Holte, for her very valiant efforts to bridge gaps. She has made a really wonderful effort, and there must have been times when she wished she had been reporting on a different regulation. I would like to invite Parliament to support the Commission proposals. Informal discussions with the Council
I just throw this in for information
have shown firm support for the Commission proposal, and a great willingness to move ahead along those lines. Above all, the interests of populations in need in Asia and Latin America should encourage us to do our utmost for the speedy adoption of a high-quality new legal framework for cooperation.
From the beginning, it has been clear that some misgivings were developing in Parliament with regard to the premise and to the very nature of the new regulation. I have spent more time discussing those misgivings and this piece of legislation than any other for which I have been responsible since I have been a Commissioner. I do not think I have had more meetings, more discussions in the Commission or more conversations in Parliament. I very much respect those of my interlocutors who have not agreed with me. The honourable gentleman Mr Salafranca knows a huge amount about the subject, but my sympathies and my intellect on this occasion are with some of those who spoke in the later stages of the debate, who also know a huge amount about development assistance: the honourable lady Mrs Kinnock, the honourable gentleman Mr Whitehead, and the honourable gentleman and my honourable friend, Mr Deva. Let me just touch on some of the principal arguments.
First, there has been a strong call in certain quarters of this House for two regulations instead of one. Second, as the many amendments which have been tabled illustrate, there is also a strong wish for a more detailed regulation. I should like to respond to both these issues, and to reiterate the Commission’s position on the form of the regulation. The Commission attaches great importance to having a
and a
regulation.
Why a simple regulation? So as to comply with the basic principles of the reform of external assistance, which requires flexibility in order to adapt cooperation to the specific needs of our partners by means of country strategy papers. That is the policy which Parliament has enthusiastically endorsed.
Why a single regulation? So as to avoid the proliferation of legal instruments and the multiplication of procedures and committees; in short, to be more effective. Also, to comply with the Interinstitutional Agreement on better lawmaking which calls for simplifying and reducing the volume of legislation. I have yet to hear a single argument as to why
the rules and the objectives being the same for both regions
two separate regulations would be better than one. As I have said on a number of occasions, I find it difficult to believe that if we were to follow the views of some in this Parliament and support two regulations, there would be dancing in the streets in La Paz or dancing in the streets even around the Latin American embassies in Brussels.
References to other regions with their ‘own’ regulation
Tacis and CARDS, for example
are, in my judgment, hardly convincing, since the objectives of these regulations are not those of development policy as set out in Article 177 of the Treaty and which apply equally to Asia and Latin America. Nor do the differences between the two regions justify two regulations, as the similarity, and even uniformity, of the amendments proposed for each region tend to prove.
But let us now turn to the substance of the amendments, and to the four most important issues on which, in my view, our further discussions should focus.
First, there is the overall objective of poverty reduction and eradication. Some of the amendments aim at stressing poverty alleviation and eradication as an overriding objective. I could not agree more. However, there must also be room for the broad support for overall Community relations with Asia and Latin America, including support for capacity-building to help our partners in their fight against terrorism, illegal migration, trafficking in human beings and international crime.
Second, a subject which has been touched on in, for example, technical terms by my honourable friend, Mr Deva: the question of allocation of financial resources between Latin America and Asia The Commission proposal seeks to respect, for the period 2000-2006, the broad 60/40 balance of appropriations for Asia and Latin America which has prevailed during the previous financial perspectives. This balance was slightly disrupted by events in Afghanistan and international pledges made there by the European Union. However, it must be borne in mind that Asia still has by far the largest amount of poverty in the world - around 800 million people, or about two thirds of the world’s poor, live on less than one dollar a day. It is also important to bear in mind that assistance from the Community budget per capita in Asia amounts to EUR 0.15, compared to EUR 0.45 for Latin America. On this basis, I would find shifting resources from Asia to Latin America hard to defend. Of course, if the budgetary authority was to give us more money for external assistance for Asia and Latin America, I would be delighted to propose to Parliament ways of spending it, but I do not think that Christmas is going to come early this year."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"simple"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples