Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-03-Speech-3-036"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000503.3.3-036"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for giving me the floor to tell you about the Commission’s decision concerning the review of the financial perspective. Let me begin by taking this opportunity to inform you of another decision which the Commission took today. The Commission today decided to appoint Mr Carlo Trojan Head of Delegation in Geneva as of 1 September this year and Mr O’Sullivan Secretary-General as of 1 June this year.
As I pointed out, the Commission proposal focuses particularly on the need for the regions to cooperate with one other, which is why special funding is to be provided to that end.
The Commission proposal also makes provision for including financial aid for Serbia to the tune of EUR 2.3 billion in the financial plan.
In this regard it is clear, of course, that these EU budget resources can, and must, only be allocated if there are signs of progress towards democracy in Serbia. The Commission is convinced, however, that if we decide the financial framework at this stage, that will send an important political message to Serbia. It will make it clear that it is not just a question of making promises to the Serbian forces of opposition, but that preparations are also being made to provide immediate assistance on the ground once the necessary changes are in place.
With regard to the amounts involved, let me tell you the following: the Commission estimates the total requirement for the region at EUR 5.5 billion from the EU budget. The financial plan in Agenda 2000, which was adopted in Berlin, already includes some EUR 1.8 billion; these resources were earmarked for Bosnia-Herzegovina. Today, the Commission decided to propose reallocating a further EUR 1.4 billion of aid from other foreign policy budget lines to the Balkans. It therefore proposed and decided to reprogramme the budget for external actions, as I will describe in more detail in a moment.
The view of the Commission is that we will have to raise the external action ceiling here for the next few years by EUR 300 billion a year. In this connection, the Commission made the following proposal on financing this additional requirement: in the years 2001 and 2002, these resources should be taken from resources previously earmarked for agricultural policy and reallocated to the external action heading.
I have already had an opportunity to discuss this proposal here in Parliament. At this point let me repeat that this measure does not mean undoing the agricultural policy package decided in Berlin. And it certainly does not mean curtailing the direct income subsidies for farmers. Let me point out that, overall, the agriculture budget totals EUR 44 billion, which makes it clear that reallocating EUR 300 million has no impact on the overall agricultural package. This amount will have to be financed in the year 2001, among others, from the savings resulting from the euro-dollar exchange rate. After all, the current exchange rate value of the euro means very substantial savings for the European budget with regard to export financing.
For 2003 onwards, the Commission proposes that the decision on financing the necessary resources should be taken in conjunction with the already scheduled mid-term review of agricultural policy. Let me point out that the Commission is also proposing to the budgetary authority that the external action appropriations should only be increased once resources for Serbia can indeed be allocated. This is therefore a decision that establishes a framework for the years to come.
In relation to the re-programming of external action appropriations to which I referred, let me summarise the situation as follows: the Commission proposals always took account of the geopolitical importance of each region. We did not propose any cuts in programmes aimed specifically at combating poverty in the world and the proposals also took into account whether some programmes were not fully taken up in the past, i.e. the administrative activities and the relevant administration’s implementation of these programmes in the areas concerned were examined.
The necessary redeployment is the result mainly of comparable cuts in the TACIS programme for the countries of the former Soviet Union. But let me point out that, in relation to the Mediterranean region, the Commission proposal provides that in this coming period – i.e. up to 2006 – the resources available for the MEDA programme will be increased overall by 13% compared with the previous period.
Let me conclude by pointing out the following: there is another point where the decision on the revision of the financial perspective also responds to a request by Parliament. In connection with the 2000 Budget, you proposed that, in future, the appropriations allocated for Cyprus and Malta should no longer appear under the external action heading but be reclassified under the pre-accession aid budget, so as to make it clear that we have a coherent plan here; that these are appropriations that will be spent with a view to the desired accession of Cyprus and Malta to the European Union. I think that will make the financial planning even more transparent.
Mr Levi, formerly Spokesman for the Commission, has been appointed Director of the Forward Studies Unit. Mr Jonathan Faull, formerly Head of the Press and Communications Service, will henceforth – and for a transitional period – act as the Commission Spokesman. All these staffing decisions were taken as part of the reform of the Commission and I think they were the right decisions in the context of the further reform measures that are needed.
In many regards, today’s Commission decisions satisfy some of Parliament’s key requests; we have complied with these requests. That is why I ask you to support the Commission proposal on the review of the financial perspective and hope you will do precisely that!
The Commission thanked Mr Carlo Trojan sincerely for his activities. May I add, speaking also as a former Berlin politician, that I too want to thank Mr Carlo Trojan most sincerely for the great commitment he demonstrated during the process of German unification. Let me make it quite clear here that it was partly thanks to this commitment that the European Parliament and the Commission immediately rendered so much assistance to East Germany.
Madam President, I will now turn to the Commission’s decision concerning the revision of the financial perspective. That decision was necessary to secure financing for the new political priority, the new highly political task of providing assistance to the Western Balkans region. Many of this Parliament’s resolutions have emphasised how important the European Union’s commitment to the Western Balkans is to the future success of the EU’s foreign policy, and the Council has also constantly stressed its importance at various summits. That is why now is the time to safeguard this task from the financial viewpoint.
In the financial perspective, the financial plan for the European Union, which the Council decided on in Berlin in March 1999, the effects on the Balkans were not anticipated. Let me remind you that the Berlin decision on Agenda 2000 was taken on exactly the same day as the outbreak of war in Kosovo. When Parliament, jointly with the Council and the Commission, adopted the interinstitutional agreement on Agenda 2000, the following statement was annexed to it at Parliament’s instigation: “In view of the development in the Balkan situation, particularly in Kosovo, the two arms of the budgetary authority request that the Commission, when needs have been ascertained and estimated, submit the necessary budget proposals, including, if appropriate, a proposal for a revision of the financial perspective”.
On 16 December last year, at the time of the decision on the 2000 budget, the budgetary authority once again called upon the Commission to submit a multiannual financial plan for a programme of assistance for the Western Balkans and, if necessary, depending on the amount required, to submit concurrently a proposal on the review of the financial perspective.
The decisions the Commission has taken today are a response to the requests made by Parliament and the Council. The starting point for the Commission’s proposal is the following question: what resources will be required for the programme period – i.e. up to 2006 – to meet the substantial financial assistance needs of the Western Balkans? By the Western Balkans I mean Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Kosovo, and also the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.
We need to submit an integrated aid programme, while each country’s participation in that programme will be conditional upon compliance with certain criteria concerning the development of democracy in the region, the rule of law and the will to cooperate. The programme the Commission is proposing forms part of the stabilisation and association process and is designed to make financing available for the reconstruction and stabilisation of the region, for the promotion of democracy and the rule of law, the development of a market economy and the development of cooperation between the recipient countries themselves and also between them and the European Union.
Let me now give you a few figures, for whenever we discuss the budget we must, of course, quote actual figures. According to the Commission’s estimates, the financial requirement for Albania, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia and also Montenegro up to the year 2006 will be EUR 1.5 billion, i.e. around EUR 200-230 million per year. Late last year, we received a very precise study from the World Bank and the Commission regarding the financial requirements for reconstruction in Kosovo, a study which showed that, over the next three to four years, the financial assistance required will total USD 2.3 billion, and the Commission, i.e. the European Union, agreed to fund half that requirement from the EU budget, in other words approximately EUR 1.1 billion."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples