Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-02-16-Speech-3-035"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000216.2.3-035"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the debate we are holding today strongly underlines the need to discuss development policy in much broader terms than are involved in simply measuring the flow of aid. The level of aid is naturally important, and the level of aid contributed by the rich countries as a whole ought to be increased. This ought to be done with, in particular, a view to combating poverty and through investing in the development of capacity. However, the level of aid is only one of many instruments which significantly influence the development of poor countries.
A number of colleagues have today pointed to areas in addition to aid which are important and where contrasts and conflicts between different policy areas are very serious indeed. The latter include trade, agricultural and fisheries policies. Other important areas are, of course, the flow of private investments, cooperation on research and technology and the way in which the welfare state deals with, and finances solutions to, a variety of global problems which affect us all. These problems include questions of climate, health issues, biodiversity etc, and the problems are clearly exacerbated by globalisation, that is to say the new economy which is developing. In this economy, the connection between different policy areas is that much more marked. In my opinion, what we are discussing here today is partly the EU’s contribution to the debate about the opportunities and risks of globalisation and about the rules there must be in order to give poor countries a decent chance.
The report, or survey, which Mrs Maij-Weggen has demanded, showing how the various policy areas fit together and what the aforementioned conflicts appear to be, is naturally quite crucial. I cannot help but wonder why the Commission has not done more. The Commission is new and has to be given time, but the absence of such a survey suggests that there are powerful tensions within the Commission. I can only hope that Mr Nielsen will be successful in the forthcoming discussions within the Commission.
In addition to a report of this kind, I should like to see a more positive analysis which could be ongoing in character. An analysis of this kind should look not only at the flow of aid but also give comprehensive consideration to all the different types of aid and transfers of resources which influence poor countries. These include technology, trade, cooperation in the field of research etc. It should be an extremely constructive contribution to the debate we are conducting.
Finally, Parliament recommends, in paragraph 6 of the draft resolution, that a working party should be established in order to bring about coherence. I believe it is only a coincidence, but the Commissioner for the Environment is also, of course, to participate in this group.
Let us hope that the debate in which we are now engaged will prove to have been a watershed. Policy so far has been characterised far too much by a process of giving with the one hand and taking away with the other. There are a lot of people who will be watching further developments with great interest."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples