Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-17-Speech-3-299"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-12-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Decentralised cooperation (2004-2006)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031217.10.3-299"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-12-17-Speech-3-3002
lpv:speaker	lp:Bas Belder2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2002-09-25--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, south-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; ChristenUnie - Staatkundig Gereformeerde Parti (2002-03-18--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the United States (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the best way of providing development aid is by doing justice to the local context in developing countries. It stands to reason that there needs to be consultation with local parties. The instrument of decentralised cooperation, however, has raised a few questions. First of all, the separate budget line; a line for decentralised cooperation is an experiment of recent years. The assessment that the Commission has commissioned shows no trace of effective implementation. It is therefore unreasonable to persist with a separate budget line. Unfortunately, I cannot find this consideration in the report. The selection of projects, in particular, is problematic. A transparent framework is required within which the delegations select the right projects. The criteria for this selection should be sound and their application insightful. According to the assessment report, however, the selection process is not transparent at all. Moreover, follow-up and assessment are inadequate; in fact, according to the assessment report, they are absent. Whilst the Commission’s delegations appreciate the instrument’s flexibility, the lack of transparency and assessment cause me to conclude that its flexibility is excessive. Finally, the Commission has proposed an increase in the budget; the Zimmerling report goes further and proposes a huge increase, but neither the Commission document nor the report adduce convincing arguments for this increase. In short, there is no reason for great faith in the correctness of the approach adopted."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph