Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-03-Speech-3-273"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030903.11.3-273"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I would like to start by thanking Mr Bowis for his good work. While we give support to health directly in many countries, the Commission is increasingly investing in budget support strategies where the linkages to improved health outcomes are ensured.
I do not want to prolong the discussion ahead. I will end by repeating my appreciation of the input provided by Mr Bowis.
In this context the follow-up through key input and outcome indicators is crucial and this is a high-priority area of work. This relates to a long discussion with Parliament and the Committee on Development and Cooperation about the percentages allocated to different sectors.
The Commission is prioritising support for improved health and education outcomes. To reflect this, it is not enough simply to calculate funds for health and education where they appear as focal sectors. All support to related social sectors, such as investment in water and sanitation, and budget support linked to improved health and education outcomes, has to be taken into account. Doing this brings us to something that adds up to more than 40% of the programming for the 9th EDF.
It is a matter of the credibility of the link between budget support and outcomes in these sectors, but this is the best way we can do this. We are relying on other donors or partner governments to do more of the substantial work. We are providing a lot of money, but this is also what complementarity is about, what donor coordination is about and what ownership is about.
I am in no way apologetic about these percentages and I will never get tired of arguing like I do here whenever, like tonight, I hear figures – which I feel are wrong – regarding how much we do in these sectors. The Interreg contribution through budget support is real and it has the advantage that it also makes it possible for us to fund, and for support to be received for, the ongoing recurring costs.
It does not do much to help to build a nurses' training centre if the teaching there cannot be sustained. That is one of the advantages of budget support. This is in no way an excuse, but it is a real, hard-core explanation.
The specific challenges as regards HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis have been meaningful, leading to our contribution to the global fund. Our engagements at country level mean that we now know better what to do than we did some years ago.
Attempts at solving the HIV/AIDS problem are made more difficult as it involves having to cope with the ideological battle of reproductive health and sexual rights. I do not want to start a discussion tonight on these issues, but it is an added problem on top of all the other existing problems.
As regards financing I am pleased that it was possible to get the United States to accept what everyone else agreed to in December last year in the WTO on TRIPs and the use of generic medicines. The point I want to make here is that it is very nice to see that our decision last year to untangle the procurement of medicine for these diseases adds to the reality and impact of what was agreed in the WTO last weekend. If we still tied procurement to European producers, the WTO agreement that Third World countries should be able to buy generic medicine would not have carried much real importance. So it is the combination of this deal in the WTO and our untying of procurement there that really is dynamic."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples