Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-02-Speech-1-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030602.11.1-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, I should first like to thank my colleagues who have worked so hard on this report, in particular Mrs De Keyser for her work on behalf of the AFET Committee and also Mrs Zrihen. I should also like to thank the European Commission and Mrs Gonzalo, who gave us all of the information that we needed.
Fourthly, we want there to be regular monitoring of the observance of democratic principles when projects are chosen, not just through the bilateral negotiations between the Union and the countries concerned, but also involving civil society and NGOs in this process and ensuring that the gender criteria, in particular regarding the participation of women, are respected.
Fifthly, we stress the need to further develop South-South relations and not just bilateral relations, which even today absorb more than 85% of funds.
Sixthly, we take into account the work underway in the European Convention seeking to meet the five challenges for the MEDA countries: demography, employment and migration, globalisation, diminishing natural resources and the environment and human rights.
Seventhly, we suggest that the sixth framework programme of research should be used for carrying out research in the fields of the environment, agriculture – with the aim of ensuring food sovereignty – and in particular water management, and suggest that more emphasis be put on renewable energies. We recall that the Mediterranean Basin has the greatest variety of agricultural specimens and seeds of all temperate areas: these must be preserved. We want more attention to be paid to agrodiversity and to implementing projects involving farmers, tradesmen, consumers and SMEs. Finally, we want all of the opportunities afforded by the information and communication society to be developed, in particular electronic communication.
Finally, let us note that all of this work under MEDA is currently being done against the difficult background of the post-war situation in Iraq, the resolution of difficult problems in the Middle East, the peace process, in particular between Israel and Palestine, and the new balance established by the Treaty of Nice with enlargement to 25, and here we need to continue our efforts to ensure that this is not a pretext for sidelining Mediterranean cooperation.
That is why we support the creation of a Euro-Mediterranean foundation for dialogue between cultures and civilisations, as well as a monitoring centre for migratory flows, a Euro-Mediterranean investment bank and a Euro-Mediterranean parliamentary assembly, which would play a decisive role in formulating a properly implemented and well-integrated Euro-Mediterranean cooperation policy.
I would remind you that the MEDA programme is the tool through which our Mediterranean policy, as formulated in the Barcelona process in 1995, is implemented. The first phase was carried out by the MEDA I programme (1995-1999) and the second by the current MEDA II programme, which was shaped by my and Mr Valdivielso's reports in the year 2000.
This new regulation entered into force on 15 December 2000 and we have been able to analyse how it has worked up to the end of 2002. The conclusions on MEDA I had given rise to numerous concerns, the overall payment-to-commitment ratio between 1995 and 1999 being only 26%.
The main causes of this relative failure were identified as the length of the negotiations, the complexity of the programme's procedures, the multi-annual nature of some projects and the limited administrative capacity of the MEDA countries, together – it has to be said – with a lack of administrative resources in the committee in charge of managing this programme, obliging it to delegate work to Technical Assistance Offices, whose involvement proved to be ineffective.
MEDA II is not restricted to fostering the creation of a free trade area in the Mediterranean by 2010, but enhances the previous economic cooperation in the Mediterranean with a social, cultural and environmental strand. For the period from 2000 to 2006 this programme has an overall budget of EUR 12.75 billion, made up of European Union funds and loans from the European Investment Bank.
In summary, having analysed the situation in the documents that we have tabled, we would draw the following conclusions.
Firstly, we note that MEDA II represents a marked improvement on MEDA I, thanks to the creation of the EuropeAid Cooperation Office in the External Relations DG. Thus, we have moved from an overall payment-to-commitment ratio of 26% in MEDA I to 37.4% in 2000, 53% in 2001 and 92.9% in 2002, an overall ratio for MEDA II of 59%. To achieve this, the Technical Assistance Offices have been dismantled and eight delegations have been set up (in Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the West Bank), with a representation only in Gaza. These delegations can take action more readily, as they have Commission representatives and clearly identified resource centres in each country.
Secondly, the comitology has been simplified. A methodological guide was published in March 2002.
Thirdly, as we have recommended several times, Parliament is very mindful of the links that need to be established between the granting of aid and the respect of human rights by the various countries, and we ask for an annual report on this."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples