Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-01-30-Speech-4-032"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030130.1.4-032"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, I would like to express my thanks for the way you have handled my unfortunate problems getting here this morning.
To Mr Souchet I would say that the food sovereignty notion makes a lot of sense but sufficiency is not the only way to do it. Singapore, for instance, is not self-sufficient in food production, which shows that there are other possibilities, but for the category of countries we are talking about here I have to agree totally that this is a good way of defining the challenge at national level.
But to say that protectionism and the right to subsidise agricultural production is a good idea is something I would warn against. It is more important to open up between neighbours, also in this area. Any way of stimulating the emergence of market mechanisms regionally is a key to getting things rolling. Mrs Kinnock's remarks about the economic partnership agreement negotiations highlighted the need to make our ACP partners more aware of their responsibility in moving this agenda forward. The phytosanitary constraints, and different elements such as capacity building on trade negotiation, are not really a problem in terms of money made available. The real problem is to define adequate, good, specific fundable projects and ideas. For phytosanitary standards in fisheries we also have ongoing large programmes. We are pushing to have a central help-desk organised in the Commission to which all problems can be directly channelled so we can fight the battle for a decent reaction in the Commission. We hope to see a flow of ideas from the reality out there which can materialise in fundable actions. That is the architecture of how we would like to accelerate what we do here.
Mr Santini said that NGOs did more than all the western governments together. I agree that NGOs are extremely important, especially in the area of humanitarian aid but also generally. But please do not shield the public from the raw information that, when we add all the different budget lines together, the Commission is channelling about EUR 1 billion annually through NGOs. They sometimes have great difficulty, and are extremely shy, in telling the public how they are funded. When MSF received their well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize, I sent them a telegram of congratulations in which I also told them that, as the provider of about 50% of their economic basis, I felt entitled to extend even warmer congratulations to them, and would also hope that our partnership could be reflected in the way in which MSF present themselves to the public. Unfortunately, I never even received an answer. That does not change our relationship but I urge Parliament to help me insist on some reality when it comes to visibility. It is difficult for our own public to understand what the money is really used for when it is shielded in this way.
One remark for Mrs Schierhuber, who said that fraud in development aid is a problem. It is reckless for me to say no, but most corruption and fraud has to do with fat contracts, with management or mismanagement of oil revenue, diamonds, illegal logging and other heavy stuff. In the case of our development cooperation work, it is not that big a problem. I admit that, technically, fundability is here to stay, as it provides more flexibility in the budget. That being said, our general track record and ability to trace and document is quite good.
You remember when the Ivory Coast was playing around with money and the hammer fell. They paid back and that is how the piano plays. I should like to dispel the notion that development cooperation in itself is a problem, as this is not the case. It is also why following and delivering on Monterrey is important. We have reach the point as regards the quality and handling of development cooperation where it is meaningful, in fighting poverty to say that more of the same is right. Finally, I should like to say to Mr Santini that if Italy were to move from the previous and current level of 0.15% of GDP for development assistance to the 0.33% in 2006 called for in the Monterrey decision, such a contribution on the part of Italy and other Member States below the current average of EU partners would make the most interesting and relevant response to the discussion here today.
I would start by saying that I find it both important and remarkable that across party lines everybody is basically in agreement in describing the problem and in pointing out what needs to be done. This is important, even though one Member did remark that I might not be the right Commissioner to deal with this debate considering the kind of problems that are involved, and in particular the trade issues.
Well, we all have to face the reality that coherence starts at home. In the Commission we have achieved a much better situation in terms of working across different sectoral views and lines, and concerning the balance between the global issues of development and trade today I am convinced that this Commission is working in a much more organised and predictable way, and reflecting more basic orientations, than previous Commissions.
I think Parliament itself should do more to ensure that the nice, correct analysis presented by all parties here is representative of the whole House. The dark forces of agriculture in Europe are not only working in certain governments. This game is also going on in this House. If we talk about fisheries, farm policy, agricultural reform in Europe, the acceptance of whether or not ‘everything but arms’ should be subject to the modifications concerning sugar, rice and bananas, all this would be lacking in impact if everybody thinks this is only a task for the Commission. We all have a responsibility. Much as I welcome everything I have heard, and I am sure what I did not hear was of the same genre, and appreciate your encouragement, it would be more in terms of Realpolitik to return that message to Parliament itself and ask for a partnership that delivers these attitudes also on those policy areas where we have difficulties.
As I say, I share the analysis. A few remarks concerning figures: at the World Food Summit last spring, I offered the analysis that approximately 80% of the people who are really starving in the world do so because of conflicts. The problem of food insecurity or the inadequate mix or quality of the food is bigger than the number of people who are, in that sense, really starving.
It goes without saying that all these problems are directly linked to poverty. I have just returned from a week in Zambia and Angola, and in Zambia in particular we were able to have a close look at the reality on the ground, visiting food distribution centres and support services for subsistence farmers and so on. Everything that has been said here about the relation to trade policy, access to our markets and the need to diversify agricultural production and the economy in these countries is true, but it is also true that there is a sort of de-linkage from all this affecting the very poor subsistence farmers. They are not anywhere near a monetarised economy and do not have anything interesting to offer in terms of cash crops. They do not get services as such. This is the hard-core category of poverty and it is their food insecurity that really creates the picture we are trying to do something about in the current crisis in the Horn of Africa. This is a long-term structural effect showing that neglect, poverty and marginalisation are the real problems.
More trade, the big global discussion, does not immediately help these people. It is another layer, so to speak. Now what we are trying to do in the southern African food crisis makes a lot of sense compared to those simply dumping surplus maize, a sort of opportunistic marketing if you will, into those countries. So far, and this is a figure we can be proud of, 99.1% of what the European Commission has been providing in the southern African food crisis has been bought in the region. This makes sense. In fact, we are performing the role of a catalyst to develop a market in the region, to give the right signal to producers, those producers who participate in the monetarised formal economy, who produce for a market and not just for themselves and the neighbour, if he is even worse off.
But there is a de-linkage between those actually playing in a market as agricultural producers and those simply feeding themselves, if they can. The main problem is the marginalised, very poor group who cannot survive if there is more than one year of bad rain because then they cannot prepare the next season.
In terms of money and resources, this is not very challenging or problematic. The big problem is to move them into something that reaches somewhat outside their own non-monetarised subsistence economy. The discussion on ‘everything but arms’ should be continued in the manner we are doing today. Of course, we are not at the end of these discussions in the Doha track and I would strongly urge Parliament to keep up the pressure and input that I have heard today. A lot of work needs to be done before we can aspire to earning the headline of being a development round."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples