Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-013"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.1.3-013"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I am going to speak about the Johannesburg Summit. With regard to the Hulthén report, my colleague, Peter Liese, will address this issue. Unlike what many tried to do, and which amounted to condemning the summit to failure even before it began, Parliament set out for Johannesburg with considerable ambition: in other words, we did not join in with the cynical approach of those who sought to lower expectations before setting off in order to be able then to make small victories appear to be major ones.
We adopted this approach for two reasons: first, because this is what the world required. The world is in a state of emergency, in both the environmental and the social fields, and so achieving a merely reasonable result at the summit was not acceptable to this Parliament. Second, because this was an opportunity that did not arise ten years ago and which will not arise in the next few years. It would, therefore, have been a tragic mistake not to take advantage of this opportunity. We set out, then, with considerable ambition and with a great spirit of unity and of solidarity between all the political groups. And at the end of the summit, I must say that although we moved in the right direction and we went further than Rio, we achieved less than what was needed. Admittedly, some results were achieved, but these are by no means sufficient to reverse the signs of unsustainability afflicting the planet.
On the positive side, in addition to what the Danish Presidency and the Commission have highlighted in terms of timetables and targets, specifically for poverty, water and health, I would highlight as equally positive the change in the character of the summit. Whereas in Rio we did not get beyond the concept of sustainable development, Johannesburg was associated with action. The nature of the summit took a qualitative leap forwards. Secondly, a qualitative leap was also taken in terms of concepts: sustainable development made a very close link between the environment and poverty. And I think that another qualitative leap was the desire to eradicate poverty and, at the same time, to put a brake on environmental degradation. Thirdly, in terms of the actors: reversing unsustainability stopped being an obligation of nations, of states alone. With the huge number of partnerships approved, the participation of civil society has been guaranteed. Both the public and private sectors are committed to this objective of sustainable development.
On the negative side, it was obviously a disappointment that no quantified targets were set for renewable energies or for reversing lost biodiversity. I would, however, add a point not mentioned either by the Danish Presidency, or by the Commission, and which I believe is negative: it is the fact that no boost was given to institutional reform in the field of the environment. This summit could have been used to ensure the ‘greening’ of the existing institutions, such as the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, but also to launch new institutions that place globalisation at the service of sustainable development. I am thinking, for example, of a World Environment Organisation. This issue was not mentioned or discussed, and played no part in the summit, and this was deplorable.
I have one last thing to say, also on the negative side, with regard to Kyoto. Many people have placed Kyoto on the positive side of the balance-sheet of this summit. I would put it on the negative side. It is true that Russia, Canada, India and China made very fine declarations with regard to the future. What was expected of this summit, however, was not declarations or intentions about Kyoto: what was hoped for was for the summit to lead to the practical implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. And ten years after the Rio Summit, Kyoto has still not begun to exist in practice.
I wish to say one last thing about the role of Parliament and our relationship with the Commission and with the Council. We tend, at these summits, to praise the Commission and to criticise the Council. This time, things were reversed: our relationship with the Danish Presidency was excellent, transparent, highly cooperative and, unfortunately, this time, with the Commission, we did not see the same level of cooperation that we have grown accustomed to at the conferences on climate change with Commissioner Wallström. We have always enjoyed excellent cooperation at the summits on climate change. Unfortunately, this time there was neither transparency, nor cooperation, nor sufficient collaboration."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples