Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-13-Speech-3-211"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010613.7.3-211"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"The direct answer to the question of whether the Commission will actually contribute money to this fund is that at this stage we do not have an answer. I will try to explain.
Eight, decreased transaction costs for countries should be a priority.
Finally, I wish to say that a global fund cannot succeed and will not get our support without a commitment from industry to a global, tiered pricing system.
These conditions may look very demanding but they, represent in fact, the mainstream of shared international policy in this area. It would be a tragic mistake to organise a fund, which is supposed to be a procurement fund, for special, expensive types of medicine. Today this is something which we more or less agree upon. But that is not how discussion about the fund started out.
Much of the discussion so far has been meaningful, but please note that as far as mobilising money is concerned, today we are not even allowed to provide core funding for UN organisations. Even under the new financial regulation, which we hope to get but do not yet have, we will not be allowed to carry out normal core funding, although we hope to be allowed to provide programme-based funding for UN organisations. This fund, however, will not be a UN organisation. What is on the cards here is to ensure core funding for this fund.
None of this is as easy as it may be portrayed in the press, but we are, in substance, a very active player in contributing to making the fund a meaningful and well-organised entity.
We made a joint Council and Commission declaration on the proposal for a global health fund at the Development Council meeting on 31 May. I will quote from the first part of this: "The Council and the Commission note with concern the devastating impact of HIV/ AIDS and other communicable diseases on human suffering and on economic and social development and hence also on poverty reduction efforts. The proposal by the UN Secretary-General to establish a global HIV/ AIDS and health fund is therefore fully welcomed. The Commission and Member States will explore how best to develop this initiative." The Commission is taking an active part in the negotiations concerning the modalities and all the issues relating to this fund. There are a number of points we consider important. I will go through them, quoting from a speech I made on this issue during the LDC Conference on 16 May.
First, we would wish to see a number of principles or conditions fulfilled. I will name just a few. One, donors should make available additional and new resources over an extended period of time. The Commission does not have access to additional resources. We have a specific budget. The Commission is not in a position to tax directly, as you all know. So it is, in fact, the political decision-makers who decide on taxation who can provide additional resources. We cannot.
Two, the OECD countries need to take measures to assume a fair share of the global financial burden of reducing poverty and disease.
Three, we do not support single-issue funds and plead for a broad approach targeting the three major communicable diseases – malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/ AIDS.
Four, we will continue to raise the need for country ownership, integration with national development strategies and health systems development, effective coordination on the ground and keeping prevention efforts to the fore. This is crucial. If all this is not helped by a fund, the fund is no help at all. So, does it improve delivery? We have had enough empty donor-driven manifestations. If the answer to the question about delivery is not a clear "yes", the establishment of the fund will only be like crossing the creek to get wet feet.
Five, a fund should be open to contributions from all interested parties, both public and private, and should support action beyond the public sector.
Six, the governing structure of the funds should be light and transparent. The basic and multilaterally agreed health policy principles of WHO should be secured on how it is managed.
Seven, the fund should be outcome-driven as opposed to input-focused."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples