Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-05-24-Speech-4-116-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120524.7.4-116-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"− Mr President, honourable Members, macro-financial assistance is, without doubt, a truly important instrument, and we should use it in the best possible way. I would like to thank Ms Neynsky for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the point about the use of the implementing act for the most eligible countries.
I can provide some clarifications and some answers to your questions. On the question concerning the level of corruption in recipient countries, this is already a criterion. The same goes for public-finance management, a key condition for disbursement. On the 20% minimum share, which was mentioned by the rapporteur, the Commission has sympathy with the aim of ensuring that MFA is seen to offer added value, but we believe that fixing an indicative minimum share for it is quite difficult. Economically, it would be difficult to justify the precise figure of 20% and, as with the maximum share which is an aspect of the general criteria, there are also difficulties in calculating residual financial gaps in an unambiguous way, in particular given the differences in the reference periods due to the delays in the MFA decision-making process.
On the role of the European External Action Service in the decision making, I can say that it is already consulted before any MFA proposal is adopted by the College of Commissioners. The EEAS participates both in inter-service consultations at staff level and in the College decision itself, through the Vice-President/High-Representative, as well as before every disbursement, of course. However, given that the EEAS is an autonomous body and not an institution, and given the Treaty provisions, the EEAS cannot be singled out and put in a legal act in the same manner as the Commission. However, we have sympathy for strengthening its role in the regulation, as I have already mentioned.
Finally, on the question of whether the regulation should be prolonged, what do we think about that? This regulation is, as you know, being proposed under the current multiannual financial framework (MFF). Given the delays and the parallel discussions on external instruments under the MFF, it might make sense to extend it into the next financial framework period. However, deleting the expiry date and any reference to a specific financial framework would be contrary to all common budgetary practice. Also, this regulation includes numerous specific conditions for MFA which might need to be reviewed in eight years’ time. Therefore, it would make more sense to limit its application, as was done in the case of all the other external instruments, and link it to the 2014-2020 multiannual financial framework.
I would like, once again, to thank all of you who have participated, and especially the rapporteur, Mr Kazak."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples