Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-06-Speech-4-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060406.5.4-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that Mr van den Berg made an excellent speech. There is no doubt that rooting out corruption is a key objective if we want to ensure the effectiveness of aid, and Mr van den Berg has outlined the instruments needed to make that possible: transparency, participation and responsibility.
The role of parliaments and civil society is crucial, and more transparent procedures and the circulation of information are vital. Furthermore, it is requested that all of the social actors become more involved in the process of defining anti-poverty strategies, which still attract little participation, even at national level. Finally, specific funding is necessary in order to monitor the cooperation measures.
I believe that it is impossible to talk about corruption in developing countries without looking at the other side of the coin: to what extent are we, as developed countries, responsible for their corruption and what benefit do we derive from it? Mr Matsakis gave some very precise examples; this in no way means easing the pressure on the actual corruption of many leaders and governments of developing countries and, at times, of NGOs too.
The fight against corruption in recipient countries must also be extended to corrupting companies belonging to industrialised countries, and the fight against ‘corrupt corruptors’ should be conducted as part of an effective and transparent partnership. The institutions of donor countries located in recipient countries must commit themselves to fighting the phenomenon on the ground, by singling out corrupting companies and banishing them to whichever country they belong, as Mr van den Berg also said, and they must have the courage to act even when corruption is lurking in our own institutions on the ground. In addition to being a moral matter, the cost of corruption is a cost that everyone must bear, including European taxpayers.
Untying aid is another crucial aspect of the relationship between corruption and aid effectiveness. Untied aid – which is necessary for ethical reasons – guarantees greater transparency in relation to procedures and to the awarding and management of tenders, and would also increase the value of aid. The figures are quite clear: tied aid causes an average increase in the cost of goods and services of between 15% and 30%, rising to as much as 40% for food aid.
It would be helpful if we could also come up with an appropriate definition of ODA. I believe that official development aid, which is often swollen by massive sums for debt cancellation, for peace keeping, peace enforcing and conflict prevention efforts, for repatriating immigrants and for controlling borders, must not be changed.
In this kind of scenario, budget aid can become an important support channel to the poorest, most heavily indebted countries, for the purposes of eradicating poverty and of attaining the Millennium Development Goals. Nevertheless, I believe that it is crucial – as, moreover, it is claimed in the tripartite document on the European consensus on development policy – that the governments of the Member States and the European institutions try to coordinate themselves and harmonise their own policies, including within international financial institutions, with a view to becoming not only the leading donors in the world, but also the most responsible of donors and the most incisive when it comes to drafting policies that put an end to the spiralling external debt in the South of the world, thus helping to eradicate poverty and, if I may be so bold, to eliminate a little injustice, too, and perhaps even wars."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples