Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-05-22-Speech-4-074"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080522.7.4-074"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, thank you for your support for the approach and main thrust of our policies. I would like to come back to a few points and reply briefly.
I also agree that we need more. Mr Buzek spoke of combating climate change. Clearly, if we adjust the funding for development in order to work on climate change, we will be mortgaging all that we have done or intended to do in traditional development policy. That means we need new, additional resources to tackle climate change. Let me refer you to the idea we and Mr Borrell put forward, of setting up an international loan that would be tied to CO
emission quotas. That project is making good progress. Technically, it has been finalised. We worked with the World Bank. I shall be returning to this subject later, because it might also partly resolve the question of increased funding, in that it would help the Member States to meet their objectives and commitments in a way that would be less painful for their budgets in the long run.
Obviously I at one with Mr Borrell in congratulating, first of all, Spain, because it is true that in a sense it is unfair. Some countries have made real efforts and allocated increased budget funds: in terms of its GDP, Spain has indeed made a huge effort. At the same time, some other countries really were in free fall, which in a sense eclipsed the actions of certain others. I must say that this is an important issue that arises again and again: 20% for education, health, water, etc. You know the reply.
Firstly, I have already replied. Even if I agree as to the objective, I did say one must try to establish where budgetary aid expenditure – since the word budgetary was used – actually goes, because those are often the sectors that are funded. It is very difficult to give definite figures, however.
Secondly, it is our partner countries that choose the sector on which they focus, not us. So I cannot impose and tell them they have to spend on, say, education. I can suggest but I cannot impose. Of course I agree with Mr Mitchell that – to put it very baldly – we should increase our aid for selfish reasons. That is more or less true. I often point it out at meetings. Let those who do not want to give more aid for selfless reasons at least do so for their selfish interests. In this context, and looking in particular at Africa, we find that certain emerging countries have an extremely large presence there. I do not dispute the legitimacy or validity of their presence there, I am simply saying that it would be in Europe’s interest to have a somewhat stronger presence in a continent that is our neighbour and to which it can offer much added value while also drawing added value from it.
I think I have covered everything now. I have replied to the two questions put by the last speaker, which were, if I may say so, very pertinent. I am really happy to be in the European Parliament. It is certainly the place with the most dynamism and the greatest determination to drive forward all these policies in which we believe with such conviction.
First of all, regarding food aid, in particular the rising price of cereals and the question of agricultural programmes, let me tell you that we have just finalised a communication on a European development strategy to respond to the food crisis. You will soon be receiving information about that document.
Secondly, I would like to correct some of the things that have been said, and I do not understand why they are constantly being asserted. Unilateral attacks on the common agricultural policy, based on very few real arguments, harm the European Union, convey false information and suggest to our partners that the common agricultural policy is the cause of all their woes. I say and I repeat: that is not true! We have been dismantling the system of agricultural subsidies since 1996 and the effects of our common agricultural policy cannot now be regarded as the cause of the developing countries’ troubles. I am prepared to discuss this question in detail at another meeting, because the accusation is being repeated like a sort of refrain, as though it were true. People are saying things that are not accurate. Europe has to a large extent sorted this issue, though there are still some questions that remain; I admit that there is some doubt about the coherence of our development policies. In regard to agriculture, however, if there is one sector where we have made real progress, it is that one. I do find it rather unfair of people to tarnish our image without good cause.
I have listened to the proposal concerning, I believe, a global fund. I know that Professor Geoffrey Sachs, who is incidentally a remarkable man, is fighting and campaigning for a global food fund. For my part, I am not in favour. I have strong hesitations about that; after all, it took a long time for the Global Fund to which Mr Ryan referred and which he seemed to think was a panacea, to work transparently and effectively. Why set up another fund when we have instruments such as the WFP, the FAO and others? Inventing new tools and instruments to tackle global policy weaknesses is certainly not the right answer. The tools exist. They simply need to be funded adequately.
We need to reform the WFP, but how? The WFP must have a predictable annual budget and its financial operation must change. I spoke of that recently. It is a major problem. So we must not invent bad replies to good questions either. I am not in favour of creating a new fund because it would simply lead to a lot of red tape, a lot of procedures. On the subject of procedures, let me say a few words.
In regard to agriculture, let me simply tell you that we will be moving from EUR 650 million in the ninth EDF to EUR 1 250 000 billion in the tenth EDF. I agree that is a lot in quantitative, percentage terms, but it is not a real increase in terms of the percentage of EDF funding. The positive aspect is that we have moved from four countries choosing to focus on the agricultural sector to 24 countries, i.e. more or less one third. That shows things have progressed, there is a greater awareness. Let me remind you, however, because this is important, that the choice of focal sectors is based in principle on ownership: it is our partners who decide on which sector they want us to focus our funding. It is important to remember that.
Next I was asked an interesting question: what will you do with the unused money intended for agriculture? In fact we will recover a large part of that money and allocate it to resolving the problem of rising prices and the food crisis. I prefer to speak of a food crisis, rather than of rising prices. At the Commission’s last meeting a week ago I proposed – a proposal that was very well received – that we should try to channel those resources in such a way as to give small farmers in poor countries access to seeds and fertilisers, because that is one of the biggest problem facing them today. If we want them to become self-sufficient, they obviously need better access to seeds and fertilisers, which would help them gradually to become self-sufficient in food. I am very much in favour of reducing the period during which aid is distributed as much as possible. I believe it is far more important to provide the farmers with the means of production. We all agree, as I said in my opening statement and need not repeat: Accra is a political rendezvous and I ask you – knowing that you are all aware that we have to do this – to mobilise our Member States so that they deliver on their commitments and agree to observe a calendar that demonstrates, as I believe Mr Borrell said, that they have a real political resolve and will keep their promises.
People keep talking about cumbersome procedures and asking me to streamline them. I must admit that I really have no powers in that respect. The procedures exist and I have to observe them; I can do no other. I can propose flexibility measures, but you know full well that it would take years for them to take effect. It is not widely known, but at the end of my term of office I intend to present all the lessons I have learned as regards procedures. I hear Mrs Martens say: ‘We need greater transparency’ – and I am ready for all the transparency you want – ‘but we also need greater effectiveness’. Let me tell you, however impertinent and shocking it may sound, that if you want even more transparency, which means even more controls, even more audits, even more consultations and so on, you will have less effectiveness. That is what I want to say to you. You may dismiss it, but I am convinced that is the case. So much transparency is now demanded that the Commission has become a chained giant, another Gulliver. Personally, I am prepared to talk and there are ways of achieving an effective level of transparency, but I beg you, do not keep talking about ‘transparency’, ‘control’, about how things should be … That is all very well and good, but you must face the facts … I would like to have the chance to trace the journey of a dossier. I can tell you it is no joke. Sometimes even I am at a complete loss to trace its journey, and then you have to remember the inter-services and all the others involved. It is an extremely complicated business. I do not want to caricature it, but I must say it is a real problem.
I believe Mr Hutchinson spoke of coordination, coherence and complementarity. He was quite right. I believe we could hugely increase the effectiveness of our aid if we had a better division of labour, if we were more coherent, more coordinated, and if we could indeed cut back on some of the intermediate, and often entirely useless, controls. I gave you a few figures earlier on: Tanzania has to produce 8 000 audit reports! I am not sure what sort of burden that represents for a country like Tanzania, which actually has a capacity for governance. There comes a time when surrealism verges on madness. There are limits. I have nothing against procedure, but enough is enough. I want no more procedure. Mr Hutchinson, in regard to the division of labour, you were right to emphasise the importance of the diaspora. We are trying to work with them, but it is precisely because of the procedures that we cannot do so. That is another example! You asked whether there are any projects to encourage young people to go and work in developing countries. No Sir, I cannot do so, the procedures do not authorise me to do so. I am told, for example, that there are certain NGOs with whom you cannot work. Indeed, I cannot work with certain NGOs because the procedures do not allow me to do so. Our new Member States may feel frustrated, and rightly so, because in most cases their NGOs, even though they are as good as the others, cannot work because they do not comply with the standards invented by Commission’s procedures. In a sense, they are, therefore excluded from our cooperation and our contribution, which is not fair. We are working on this, but it will take a long time to resolve."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"2"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples