Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-31-Speech-3-276"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040331.13.3-276"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, since 1959, the intergovernmental fund intended to finance cooperation between the European Union and the ACP countries, known as the EDF, which covers a period of five years as part of the Cotonou agreements, has operated on the basis of contributions from the states involving cost sharing. France and Germany today provide almost 42% of the total financing. The fund is managed by the Commission, with delegation to the beneficiary countries.
For the period 2003-2007, over EUR 15 billion are available for new commitments, more than 10 billion for payments. It should be noted, which is scandalous, that a balance of 11 billion euros are available because they have not been used under the terms of the sixth, seventh and eighth EDF. After numerous vain attempts on its part, the Commission felt that, as the ninth EDF was due to expire in 2007, when the enlargement of the EU would already have taken place and as the debate on the financial framework after 2006 had started, it was time for another debate on the inclusion of the EDF in the budget. The Commission is therefore in line with the constant concern expressed for years by Parliament, mindful of budgetary discipline, about the rapid and effective application of resources and the role of codecision which would be devolved to it by inclusion in the budget, whereas today its role in this area is non-existent and it can quite simply not perform its budgetary control task.
In view of the current malfunctions, what are the advantages of inclusion in the budget? Firstly, providing democratic legitimacy thanks to parliamentary control over the financing of the EDF. Secondly, ending the clumsiness of the procedures, rationalising them, simplifying them, coming closer to the beneficiaries, accelerating the rate of cash withdrawal, improving the effectiveness of the aid. Thirdly, introducing transparency. The complexity of the current system makes it totally opaque as regards the use of the funds. Fourthly, as regards the balance to be liquidated, the EUR 11 billion I mentioned earlier, sensible improvements could be brought in by inclusion in the budget. Fifthly, ensuring that all states contribute. As you know, if the EDF stays outside the budget, the total value of the tenth EDF risks being limited by the low contributions made by the ten new members of the European Union. On the other hand, if the EDF is included in the budget, the contributions of Member States will be set by budgetary rules. Sixthly, preventing delays in the entry into force of the EDF owing to the obligation of Member States and the ACP countries to ratify the Cotonou financial protocol. If the EDF is included in the budget, ratification disappears, hence a gain in time in the use of the EDF funds.
Of course, there are risks and the ACP countries, like some Member States of the Union, are particularly sensitive to these risks. The risks are: ensuring a fixed level of financing, fearing that the funds reserved for the ACP countries are devoted to other uses or transferred to other applications, as was seen for Iraq or Afghanistan, as could be seen for the reconstruction of a state. This worry is real and it will be noted that the budget has technical means of safeguarding the credits allocated to the EDF. The financial projections set ceilings for the heads for several years and it would therefore be sufficient to create a sub-head, as there are today for headings 1 and 7, in order to prevent and limit this risk.
Next, there is the whole problem of multiannual planning. The EDF covers five years. Over five years, these funds may be used or carried forward. The fear of the ACP countries is that, under the terms of inclusion in the budget, after one year, unused funds would be lost. This is why we are asking, with the agreement of the Commission, for a regulation to be drawn up establishing the multiannual nature of the EDF and allowing the funds to be used according to technical criteria to be put in place and which are practically already in existence today. This is important, because it would make it possible to reassure the ACP countries which are afraid not only that the total amount of the EDF will drop, but also that they will lose a large part of the funds previously allocated to them.
Next, and this is important psychologically, in human terms, politically and technically, the ACP countries must be involved in the management of these European Development Funds. How? We propose in Article 11: quite simply by giving the ACP Parliamentary Assembly and the ACP countries the ability to question, the ability to verify and the ability to protest with regard to the use of these funds, which would be done under the control of the European Parliament and in codecision with the Commission.
This involves elements that I should like briefly to present to you. Everyone knows this dossier well. If it is approved tomorrow and above all if it is accepted by Member States in the future, which is going to be a difficult task, as will getting it accepted by the ACP countries, it would be a true revolution, since it would finally mean the third EU policy not included in the budget being incorporated into its framework, something that we consider to be of benefit to us, to the ACP countries and above all to development policy, which certainly needs it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples