Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-03-23-Speech-1-153"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090323.17.1-153"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I would like to thank the various speakers.
That said, we still need to know what we want. If we want to get a government to make approaches to civil society or get its population – or its parliament in some cases – to participate, we must all the same accept that we must impose conditions. This is because it is sometimes not enough to simply say to a government ‘we hope that you are going to do that’, to make impassioned pleas or simply friendly suggestions. The issue surrounding conditionalities – I do not like the word conditionality and prefer to talk about criteria – is still important. When you talk, for example, about profile, I believe that it is still quite normal to be able to set one up. That profile has not been used to set the budget for the initiative. It is still quite normal for us to analyse the governance profiles of each country when we are getting ready to grant them up to an extra 25 or even 30% in financial incentives. All of these debates are still open. I do not wish to close them, but I do hope that we are able to do so at some point.
I shall miss out everything to do with China. Obviously I think that it is a good discussion. I think, naturally, that developing countries have the right to put the cooperation that they want out to tender. Africa is no longer the exclusive territory of Europe and that is very good. This is something I consider important.
It is indeed advisable to question the quality of the development policies set up between China and Africa. We cannot criticise them for doing it, but we can wonder. I have, for example, been receiving reports for several months of Chinese contracts in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I am not saying that these are bad contracts. I am simply saying that a whole series of issues merit responses. We are busy responding to them at the moment, particularly the issue of the state guarantee because it is an agreement that is made with a private enterprise. We are also dealing with the percentage of loans compared to gifts, the fact that they did not go out to tender and the fact that it is almost the same amount as the country’s debt to the European Monetary Fund. These are all issues to which a solution must be found, but not by denouncing this type of relationship. African countries have the right to make partnership agreements with the Chinese too. I will not return to this point.
I think, Mrs Morgantini, that you have put your finger on some issues which had already been raised by Mr Hutchinson. It is clear that the real problem will always be in ensuring that the relationship between us and the developing countries is a genuine partnership. I think that the Lisbon Summit was a considerable step forward because we at least forged in the texts the beginnings of a new philosophy of equal partners in terms of rights and responsibilities.
However, we are obviously still not fully there and this is one of the issues that is linked to ownership and to – where possible – budget support. It is linked to ownership by civil society and by debate at parliamentary level. I believe that you are right and that these are the areas we must work on.
You asked another question which is of real concern to me and which is, in my opinion, an essential subject for debate. It was ‘how can we achieve better harmonisation: getting people to work together better, dividing up the work better, supporting global development policy better between the various partners; the role of the World Bank, the World Trade Organisation, the International Monetary Fund, the Commission and all the large-scale donors?’
It is true that for the moment – as was said in another meeting – there are superimpositions and duplications. There is even competition and it is not always useful competition. I can tell you that a lot of progress has been made in the last two years, particularly with the World Bank. I can tell you that seeing the new message, strategy and philosophy that I detect at the World Bank makes me quite optimistic. There is therefore room for another type of cooperation; for collaboration between the various partners, and I think that you have really put your finger on a fundamental point, which we will need to take a close look at.
Of course, good governance is a major element; it is the reason why we made provision for the governance package.
Mrs Gomez broached the important subject of the effects of the financial crisis on the economic and social situation in developing countries. Pretty much all the experts are currently in agreement in saying that there will be at least a 2% reduction in growth, which represents up to 50 million more poor people. We must be very aware of that.
As far as we are concerned, I will already be very pleased if the Member States keep the promises they made in 2005. I assure you that together we will have to fight extremely hard to force the Member States to do so.
I am pleased that there is satisfaction with the first results, but it goes without saying that this is not yet enough. We must understand that things have only been in place for one year and that we should be moving up a gear in 2009.
Secondly, I am busy preparing a communication – the April package that I promised – which goes beyond public development assistance. It will attempt to mobilise a whole series of the Commission’s sectional budgets for development policies. I must tell you that there are some really interesting leads. I am also working with the European Investment Bank on that package, particularly regarding supportive infrastructure to try to develop them quickly and have quite a quick impact. I will come to Parliament with that in April. I would just like to say that I still have one more very important issue to cover, which is the role of civil society and national parliaments.
I will finish with that. Mr Hutchinson once suggested that some experiments could be carried out with Members of this House, and perhaps members of the parliaments of Member States, to go wherever it were possible to do so, and hold debates on the country strategy papers
I have had the opportunity to do so in three different countries. It worked very well, but it is obvious that it worked well because in those three countries we had the support of their governments, because without such support on this issue it is extremely difficult. I therefore think that you are right: mobilising parliamentary action is certainly one of the priorities. In any case, believe me that I will do everything in my power to ensure this.
I accept the essentials of the various speeches and the issues raised correspond perfectly to my convictions. It is obvious that there can be no development if there is no ownership, as Mr Hutchinson and Mrs Morgantini were saying. It is equally obvious that the role of the national parliaments and that of civil society are eminently important.
Moreover, I regret that it was not possible to conduct a thorough reform of the institutional mechanisms governing Parliament’s responsibility for development policy. I remember that you asked for the country strategy papers to be debated not just here but also in partners’ national parliaments. The European Council did not allow me to do that, which is why I sent the country strategy papers to the joint parliamentary assembly. Through that channel, you sent them on to the various parliaments of Europe, but all that does not add up to any sort of institutional rule, as I sincerely wish were the case. As a reminder, I add that that will continue to be one of my absolute priorities, because we would make enormous progress if the European Development Funds were included in the budget. While this will not be included in the budget, we will still have poor reasons for not letting Parliament play the role that it should, and as a result the commissioner in charge of development will sometimes be powerless. It would be far simpler if I could discuss the priorities, programmes and projects here in Parliament; I could move forward, strengthened by this backing. Unfortunately, that is not yet the case. I hope that we will get there.
I do not want to skip over issues that do not seem right to me either. I would remind you that last year, at European level, we spent the contribution of the Commission and Member States, knowing that each one put in EUR 46 billion. However, we are EUR 1.7 billion behind on the programme or, shall we say, on the objective that had been set. I am not at all satisfied with that and I think that we will have to fight for it in the future. Parliament will need to be a true ambassador for this message and exert pressure. We will need all our available strength at political level simply to hold Member States to respecting their 2005 commitments. It will not be easy. I still remember the struggle for the billion for the food facility. That was not easy, but we obtained good conditions. We got an additional billion, however it was spread over three years instead of two. Fortunately though, the projects are moving forward and their implementation is progressing in a positive way. I am therefore, naturally, entirely in agreement.
We do not intend to reopen DAC issues. There are some adjustments
under discussion, for example peacekeeping missions.
Therefore we have no intention of reopening that debate. Moreover, I must say that I am very cautious. I am not particularly in favour of reopening this debate, because if we do that you will even see certain Member States participating in order to include anything and everything in the budget for this.
I must tell you, Mr Cook, that I do not agree when it is said that we have lost our ideals. I do not think that is the case. I think that you only have to hear the voices in this House to realise that we are still extremely committed to defending developing countries. It is not true to say that we are not contributing to the solution. Obviously, we cannot be expected to be able to solve everything, but I shudder to think how poor the world would be without European aid.
It is not enough, I fully agree, but it represents 57% of aid worldwide. Unfortunately, I do not think that we can discuss that now, but the issue of knowing whether European aid from our Member States or from the Commission is still achieving its goals or is still effective – whether it is a good way of working – is another matter. I would like this debate to return to the issue of the establishment, or not, of budget support and conditionalities because, like you, I am very unsure about the latter."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"à la marge"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples