Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-04-12-Speech-3-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000412.6.3-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, in the time allocated to me, I would mainly like to focus on the Funding Conference of the Stability Pact which has just been held, because it is more beneficial, in my view, to focus attention on this than on the text of my report which, of course, was written for the Conference.
I would like to make a general comment regarding the Conference. It is safe to say that it was a huge success, not only in financial terms but also due to the fact that the emphasis was most definitely on projects which link up the different regions. In fact, this was one of the central themes of the report and the main thrust of the Stability Pact. Indeed, regional development is one of the Stability Pact’s key points. It was good to see all-round commitment most definitely present at all the desks at the Conference. It was also a success – and I do not simply say this to flatter the Commissioner – because it was clear that the European Union or the European Commission took the lead at long last. In my opinion, it had been taking a back seat for a little too long. This concludes my general comments on the Funding Conference.
Further to this Conference, I would like to single out five key points from my report. First of all, the funding. Everyone was waiting with bated breath for the moment when the Commissioner would produce the amount. He finally came up with EUR 530 million. That was very smart creative accounting, I must say, because, of that EUR 530 million, 50% was old, pre-2000 money from the Obnova and Phare programmes and 30% was taken from the same programmes for the year 2000. In the final analysis, therefore, there was little new money in it. This is not a reproach to the Commission but an observation, and one which will, of course, create even more bad feeling, bearing in mind that another EUR 5.5 billion is still to be found. This is an amount which was quoted by the European Investment Bank at one time, which was later taken over by Commission President Prodi and in respect of which it is still completely unclear, to me in any case, how this is to be raised in the coming year. I would, therefore, like to ask the Commissioner how the first year, the year 2001, is likely to take shape? How are the preparations for the Stability Pact budget coming along? What is his reaction to the ever increasing protests, both in terms of loudness and number, coming, for example, from the Council or the Member States, to the effect that those 5.5 billion intended for the western Balkans, by way of pre-accession aid for Bulgaria and Romania, have been pitched far too high and that, in terms of absorption capacity, for example, a much lower amount would be far more realistic? I am in favour of retaining the figure of 5.5 billion for the time being. I am only very curious as to how the Commission hopes to raise all this money.
A request had also been made to spread the projects and planning for this Conference over all the desks: democracy, reconstruction and safety, in the knowledge that, at the end of the day, a bridge is more expensive than a training centre or mine-clearance programme. Unfortunately, I have to note that, looking at all the figures after the Conference, the emphasis has been shifted quite considerably towards reconstruction. Of 4.2 billion, 80% has been set aside for reconstruction, 17% for democracy and only 3% for safety. I would call on the Commission, and Europe has more or less pledged to use the same scale, to take the 3 to 4% really seriously and expand it. I would just remind you of a tragic report in the paper this morning about three children who stepped onto a mine near Sarajevo yesterday and were killed. A mine-clearance programme is part of safety, is of key importance and should not be overlooked.
Thirdly, I would like to comment on the appeal in the report, backed by the General Affairs Council, to lift trade restrictions for the countries asymmetrically and, if necessary, unilaterally, the underlying idea being that, in time, trade will be just as important as subsidies. What is the progress here? What does the Commission intend to do to lift these unilateral trade restrictions in the short term?
Fourthly, the NGOs. Regrettably, very little attention has been paid to the role of NGOs, especially the local NGOs, both in terms of preparation and implementation. This is all the more unfortunate if one considers the level of knowledge regarding the Stability Pact in the region. I am convinced that it is vital to introduce local NGOs in order to improve the quality of the programmes but also to raise the awareness of the Stability Pact, and the exact plans, in that region.
Finally, the distribution of tasks. Who will ensure that all these tasks are carried out promptly and efficiently? I would like to give the Commissioner a word of advice. Last week, he was accused of wanting to saw the legs from under Commission President Prodi’s chair. If you are having a go at chair legs, could you take those of Mr Solana’s chair? In my view, he has been given a leading role in the Balkans for no good reason. It would seem far more logical to give this leading role to the European Commission, notably Commissioner Patten, to implement this Stability Pact promptly and efficiently."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples