Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-11-Speech-1-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020311.4.1-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, thank you very much for inviting the Commission to present its views on the events in Porto Alegre and New York. I believe that this is also a good opportunity to explain the initiatives that the Commission has adopted on these issues in recent weeks.
The report recognises that many countries have achieved an increase in their per capita income and an improvement in the standards of living which would not have been achieved with a strategy of less integration. It also notes a considerable increase in direct foreign investment, an essential factor in increasing growth and therefore combating poverty.
The report examines various existing proposals on international taxes. In relation to the general use of these taxes as a potential source of development funding or public funds, we reach the conclusion that, while some of them would appear attractive in terms of short- and medium-term needs, there are not many alternatives to funding coming from national budgetary resources. This conclusion implies an adjustment of the priorities in accordance with budgetary availability.
Another interesting proposal is the introduction of the tax on monetary transactions. The report considers two perspectives: firstly, in relation to the so-called Tobin tax as an instrument for stabilising the currency markets, the analysis leads us to the conclusion that it is difficult to imagine that this tax would make a fundamental contribution to the stability of exchange rates. However, if we analyse it as an instrument for increasing the resources available for development funding, the Tobin tax may appear more attractive.
It is true that its implementation would be laborious, since it would require almost global coverage in order to minimise tax evasion and would require a solid international consensus. Even if it were possible to achieve that consensus on a political level, numerous technical problems would still arise, such as problems relating to the appropriate tax basis and collection mechanisms. These conclusions are very similar to the Resolution on the international monetary system adopted by the European Parliament last autumn.
Another important aspect of the report is the statement that for many developing countries, technical commercial assistance and the development of capacities are important in terms of their profiting from the growth opportunities resulting from trade.
Ladies and gentlemen, the European Union is well placed to play a leading role in strengthening sustainable global development. It is the world’s largest donor of development aid, the world’s largest trading partner and an important source of direct foreign investment. Furthermore, within the framework of its commitment to protect the environment, it is developing and promoting the use and distribution of technologies which respect the environment both inside and outside of Europe.
The European integration model has developed along the lines of strategies for mutual support for stable economic growth, social development and environmental protection.
On the basis of these achievements and in view of the forthcoming World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, the Commission has directed the communication towards partnership for sustainable development. Its purpose is to point out the strategic components which will serve as a basis for a global deal in Johannesburg, with a view to ensuring that all partners, from both the north and the south, work together in favour of sustainable development. The communication highlights several key priorities and presents concrete proposals for action in the economic, social and environmental fields.
The Commission and the Member States have committed themselves to negotiating in a constructive spirit, within the framework of the WTO, in order to continue with the process of establishing a just and free-market commercial system, in accordance with the conclusions of the Doha Ministerial Conference. Our global objective is to increase the world’s standard of living by means of the liberalisation and development of trade.
The Community actively promotes the participation of developing countries and, in particular, the least-developed countries, in the international commercial system. The ‘Everything but arms’ initiative is an important step in this direction, but it is not enough and we urge others to follow our example and to improve access to the market for the least-developed countries. We also adopt measures to support the efforts of the developing countries to integrate into the global commercial system and to profit from it. In accordance with the Doha development agenda, we also recommended that the Member States increase trade-related aid.
As you know, the International Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey will take place very soon, the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development will take place in September and we must define our position on both issues.
The European Union is also contributing to the international effort to strengthen the resistance of the international financial and monetary system and to reduce the opportunities for abuse relating to the funding of terrorism, money laundering and other illegal financial activities.
The Union will continue to focus its development policy on the essential objective of reducing poverty. It will allocate its resources accordingly and will ensure that European aid is used effectively. Genuine practical progress could be made in terms of the quality and effectiveness of aid if the rules regulating policies and the procedures were more harmonised, both on Community and Member States levels. However, without ignoring the need to increase efficiency, the Commission considers that there is inconsistency between the resources necessary to achieve the millennium development objectives and the agreed time limits and current available means.
Therefore, with a view to the success of the Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, the Commission has recommended that the Council increase the volume of Official Development Aid and we suggest that by 2006 all countries whose percentage of aid in relation to GNP is less than the European Union average of 0.33%, should have reached that level. If we achieve that objective, the European Union average would increase to practically 0.4%, which would become a new threshold for the Member States of the Union, which, with that increase, could make a significant contribution to the development objectives of this millennium. Furthermore, a strong commitment together with this gradual approach would consolidate the Union’s position in the negotiation of a fruitful international distribution of the burden.
Finally, in relation to the global protection of the environment, the Commission proposes to implement an initiative in the field of sustainable water management. We have committed ourselves to putting pressure on our partners in order to achieve a restructuring of up to 50% of the global environment facility before April 2002 and in order to broaden its mandate. We are promoting the application of multilateral environmental agreements including the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, which the Member States did at the beginning of this month. Speaking in general terms, I believe that, as industrialised countries, we do not have the right to demand that developing countries make more effort to protect the environment if we are not prepared to respect our own commitments.
Ladies and gentlemen, the construction of a sustainable future for the world requires the cooperation of all of us. However, real progress can only be made if the main partners commit themselves to playing a pivotal role and in this respect I am convinced that we, in the European Union, can and must play that fundamental role.
Much has been written about the apparent antagonism between the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre and the World Economic Forum in New York. In both cases, agents from different cultural and ideological origins and from different areas have met. There is no doubt that the World Economic Forum has provided a good platform for a well-founded and broad debate, without prejudices, on problems which are of urgent concern to the whole world.
However, some commentators have stated that the Porto Alegre meeting was more important than the one in New York. It has been argued that the world’s real civil society was in attendance in Brazil and not in New York. I would not deny the participants in the World Economic Forum the right to be considered as part of civil society. But the fact is that the Social Forum was a significant meeting, an important event which political leaders must count on clearly from now on.
Nevertheless, I would reach the conclusion that not all the participants who met in Porto Alegre hold an anti-globalisation position. Rather I believe that they are also part of this phenomenon of globalisation, which has allowed non-governmental movements to have a global impact, thanks to the new technologies. It is another thing to criticise a capitalist model which could undermine social cohesion and deplete natural resources. In this respect, the views and concerns of Davos and of Porto Alegre are perhaps not so far apart.
To achieve a balance between economic and social process on a global level, and the preservation of our planet’s resources, is a great responsibility and a difficult task which no person or country can manage alone. The solutions are difficult and complex. Easy solutions are sometimes popular, but they tend to ignore the secondary effects and the difficult choices and sacrifices which policies often imply. The complexity of the genuine solutions often leads to a lack of comprehension by social movements and also by political leaders. Therefore, we believe it is essential to carry out in-depth studies which clarify and properly explain the issues and communicate them in a clear way.
The Commission has tried to make an effort of this type by means of its report ‘Response to the challenges of globalisation’. We avoid any type of prejudice and the study includes a series of proposed reforms of the international financial architecture, in accordance with the current world academic and political debate, and places it within the current perspective.
While accepting that globalisation has many other facets, including social and environmental aspects, the priority focus of the report is the international financial and monetary system and problems of development funding. In producing it, we began by analysing the evolution of the process of globalisation in the economic field and identifying some of the challenges relating to the financial and monetary system.
The report acknowledges the benefits of international economic integration, but also notes the existence of systemic deficiencies and the fact that poverty is still a significant problem. It confirms the need for greater and more effective official development aid."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples