Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-07-03-Speech-3-146"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020703.4.3-146"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – For the Commission and the European Union the summit provided an opportunity to renew the dialogue with developing countries concerning the implementation of the Rome Plan of Action and to confirm our political will to fight against hunger and malnutrition. The outcome of the summit was the adoption of a declaration containing many good elements that I hope will support and contribute to the promotion of coordinated action in order to achieve the 1996 summit target.
In particular, the Commission welcomes Parliament’s reminder that food aid must be reserved for emergencies and must be granted solely in the form of donations, with supplies being purchased whenever possible locally or within the region.
Nevertheless, the Commission does not endorse all the elements contained in that resolution, and in particular not the call made on the Commission itself and on EU Member States to contribute to the FAO Trust Fund established last year.
I do regret that the same calls for contributions to that fund are contained in some of the motions presented to this part-session of Parliament. The opinion of the Commission remains the same as it was on the occasion of the last debate.
The EC policy is to directly support national and regional development processes and programmes in the context of its regional partnership agreements. I am also firmly convinced that the multiplication of funding instruments, such as separate trust funds, etc., will not lead to the generation of additional financial flows but will only add to the diversion of funds. The Commission also agrees with the longstanding policy of the European Union that the FAO should concentrate its resources where it has the best capabilities and added value, and that is in its normative work. The orientation of the possible actions under the Trust Fund appears to be outside of that area. I would, therefore, not want the Commission to encourage this.
Moreover, the FAO’s food security approach is very much production-driven and does not promote the broader concept of food security. We are, however, cooperating financially with the FAO on specific projects and programmes and will continue to do so, whenever we can see competence, added value and professional excellence that match the priorities and objectives of the Community’s development policy. The Commission therefore does not consider contributing to the FAO Special Programme for Food Security and to the Trust Fund as a priority in its development cooperation.
I would add here that Parliament's resolution of 16 May 2002 was adopted, pursuant to Rule 37(2) of the Rules of Procedure, following the debate on the statement made by the Commission without any prior consultation with the Commission. So I have made quite specific reference to the new drafts in my speech here today.
Considering the key role of rural development and agriculture in fighting poverty, food insecurity and environmental degradation, the Commission will present, before the end of the year, a communication to the Council and Parliament on “Fighting Rural Poverty – An EC policy and approach to rural development and sustainable natural resources management in developing countries”.
In closing I would like to recall that this World Food Summit is a step in a long process, which started in Doha and Monterrey and which will end in less than two months in Johannesburg. It is my conviction that each of the major conferences that have taken place since Doha are not a response on their own to the global governance gap that we are facing. Only the totality of these different conferences give a meaningful response to the challenges of sustainable development and it is this totality that defines what we like to call the global deal.
In this spirit, the summit decided to set up an intergovernmental working group with the participation of all stakeholders in order to elaborate, within a period of two years, a set of voluntary guidelines on the right to adequate food. The objective of the guidelines is to support the efforts of the member states of FAO to achieve the progressive realisation of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security. Time will tell what the impact of this decision will be. We are certainly willing to be part of that effort and to make sure that it is going in the right direction.
The adoption of such a declaration supported by the whole FAO membership has certainly raised the profile of the fight against hunger on the international agenda. The Commission welcomes this positive achievement and is happy to see that the declaration reflects the views of the EU on many issues.
However, in our opinion the declaration misses a key strategic line, one that has been consistently supported by the EU: the importance of elements other than agricultural production and productivity in addressing food insecurity.
It is essential that the issues I will mention here be addressed simultaneously and in the framework of national poverty reduction strategies. These essential elements are: food availability, production, strategic reserves and trade in food; access to food – for example economic growth, employment, income, to make this access realistic; response to crisis situations, such as safety nets; and nutritional problems, which, in the long term, constitute the main element in all this.
In particular, the summit failed to clearly denounce and clarify the most crucial overriding causes of hunger, which are bad governance and man-made disasters. Some estimates say that about 80% of the people suffering from hunger are victims of conflicts – man-made problems. There are different versions of this. Zimbabwe is one such case. The problems in Zimbabwe are, to a great extent, man-made. There is also a very real drought in southern Africa. Of course we will provide humanitarian aid, but it should be kept in mind that a lot of this is man-made.
The FAO’s public statements and appeals during the preparation process and the summit itself have been placing too much emphasis on additional ODA resources and on the role of agriculture and rural development. The issue of ODA has already been reasonably successfully treated in the Monterrey Conference, and the EU remains committed both to the Monterrey Consensus and the clear commitments on increased ODA that were decided in Barcelona and presented in Monterrey, and which the Danish Minister has just gone through in greater detail.
In Rome, it would have been more appropriate to re-emphasise one of the main themes of recent summits and conferences: the crucial need for developing countries to overhaul their national development and sectoral policies in order to take due account of the needs and constraints of the rural poor and food insecurity. This should lead to the formulation of national poverty-reduction strategies, including food security concerns, focusing on agriculture and rural development as appropriate. It would then be the role of the donor community to support the implementation of national policies and strategies in a coordinated manner.
The European Parliament contributed to the international debate through the adoption on 16 May 2002 of the resolution on the summit. The Commission agrees with the thrust of this resolution, which contains many important elements, such as support for the Monterrey Consensus and the emphasis on the need for increased policy coherence in developed countries."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples