Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-12-15-Speech-4-225-750"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111215.23.4-225-750"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The EU Committee on Budgetary Control decided to investigate more closely the management of EU funds in Afghanistan. The result of this evaluation was that enormous discrepancies were uncovered. In a comparative analysis of the administration of financing by the EU and US, the rapporteur refers to the benefits of major leverage and effective coordination of aid under the ‘Common Administration with International Organisations’ financing form, while also pointing to the need for negotiations on accountability and transparency as disadvantages. This analysis concludes that “direct budgetary aid to the Afghan national budget” should be chosen as the future method of providing aid, something I cannot agree with. Although the rapporteur recognises the problem of susceptibility to fraud and corruption, he seems to believe that there are sufficient safeguards in the clause permitting the discontinuation of budgetary aid to poorly performing administrative institutions. Accountability requirements are not sufficiently met and the actual aid in individual cases can be described as mediocre at best. It is not easy to redress the disadvantages of ‘Common Administration with International Organisations’: it should be stated clearly that NGOs that receive EU funds to administer must produce regular accountability reports to indicate clearly and unambiguously how much they have spent and where and these reports must also be published on the institutions’ websites."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples