Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-09-20-Speech-3-125"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-09-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Complementarity on development cooperation policies2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20000920.11.3-125"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-09-20-Speech-3-1262
lpv:speaker	lp:Bas Belder2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EDD (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij - Gereformeerd Politiek Verbond - Reformatorisch Politieke Federatie (1999-07-20--2002-03-17)3 member; Temporary committee on the Echelon interception system (2000-07-06--2001-09-05)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, we share the rapporteur’s view that, pursuant to Article 177 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the European Union fulfils an auxiliary role in the field of development cooperation. From this article, it is clear that there is no question of replacing the Member States’ development policy. The EU aid policy is determined by the fifteen Member States and financed by contributions from the Member States, as established in the EU Treaty. In theory, this is a solid basis for a decisive and clear DC policy, with implementation to match. In practice, however, both leave something to be desired. The payments, for example, pose a problem. On the whole, two visions are to be distinguished between in the DC Council: that of the Northern Member States, which consider DC to be a valuable area of policy and which are, by and large, of the opinion that the EU DC is lacking in terms of quality, and that of the Southern Member States which consider DC to be merely an instrument of foreign and economic relations. These discrepancies are marginalised all too easily by the EU in the complementarity and coordination proposed by the rapporteur and the Commission. The reason why the Council and Member States suffer from a lack of ‘political will’, as highlighted by the rapporteur and Commission, can therefore be found in this fundamental difference in approach to development cooperation. This is why at EU level, it is impossible to develop cohesive policy in this area. Finally, the Treaty terms the EU’s DC as supplementary to the aid from Member States. In our opinion, this means that the Commission should provide the added value over and above what the Member States can offer, such as granting emergency aid in emergency situations such as natural disasters and wars. Long-term programmes, on the other hand, fare better within bilateral, often historical relations between developing countries and Member States. In any case, the Commission should not act as the sixteenth bilateral donor, which is the case in practice. The European Union could, however, help coordinate Member State aid and intervene if the Member States fail to take any action. We therefore partly endorse the view that European coordination and complementarity are important, but we do not conclude from that that EU DC coordination adds something to what should be the actual objective, namely coordination which unites all relevant donors, preferably under the guidance of the recipient country or, if this is not possible, under the guidance of the UN or the World Bank. We will take a stance to this effect in the discussion on coordination and complementarity."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph