Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-042"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.1.3-042"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Parliament’s task is, in the first place, to monitor the Commission and, in general, the Council's and Commission's achievements in Johannesburg. I think that this debate demonstrates that we can be rather positive about the role Europe played. In my view, Commissioner Wallström was right in saying that the European Union was the driving force behind the Johannesburg Summit. As far as I can see, though, the results of Johannesburg are too insubstantial, but this is actually more
rather than
the EU's efforts. I believe we can be pleased about the role we ourselves played on that forum.
Nevertheless, the outcome of Johannesburg is, broadly speaking, too insubstantial. In not one single area have verifiable and firm goals been established, and sanctions pertaining to the infringement of the already weak goals are completely lacking. I believe that this is because these goals were too abstract. Everyone is in favour of cleaner water, less poverty and more education, but in my view, the Heads of State or Government should have directed their energy more towards achievable and concrete projects. The Rio Summit had already taught us that concluding agreements that cannot be enforced is an empty exercise.
Despite this, some positive results have been achieved which have been mentioned in this debate. I should particularly like to single out progress in the field of cleaner water, hygiene and the prevention of diseases. These elements are, of course, of crucial importance, particularly for the poorer sections of the world's population. Another positive development is what has finally been said in the documents on fisheries and on energy, although concerning the latter, these documents could have easily been a bit more constructive in the chapters on wind and solar energy and hydropower. Anyway, this too is something which causes no problems in the EU but has run into major problems elsewhere. These texts are upbeat, even the introduction in the text on agriculture and relevant subsidies is upbeat, in my view. It is not, however, the EU that we have to thank for this, of course. Quite the reverse, in fact; the EU could have been a little more accommodating on this front. Anyway, we are all familiar with the internal situation. It is a matter on which we need to reach a better position internally the sooner the better. Agriculture still remains a weak point for all of us in those international negotiations, and this is something we only have ourselves to thank for and which requires our involvement. It is also related to the issue of environmentally harmful subsidies, something that we know Commissioner Wallström wishes to address in the EU. It is a matter related to agriculture, but also to all kinds of other subsidies that we provide in the EU, as this is also done worldwide. The fact that we made little progress in this area in Johannesburg should serve as an incentive to address it within the EU and outside it as a matter of priority.
I should like to finish off with a comment on the role of Parliament's delegation. I did not intend to mention this at first, but since the matter has now been brought into the open in such a manifest way, I should like to say a few words. This delegation was, incidentally, excellently led by our fellow MEP Mr Moreira da Silva. I should like to express gratitude on behalf of our group for the way in which he acquitted himself of this task. I should also like to thank the Danish Presidency. We – at any rate those of my group who attended the Johannesburg Summit – were delighted with the communication at the summit. I am, however, somewhat surprised about the comments by Commissioner Nielson on this score. I can understand that it is disagreeable to be monitored by troublesome MEPs, but it is still necessary for us to join forces more effectively at times like these. We must create a wider support. I think that the MEPs who attended the summit had a positive attitude and that better cooperation and communication benefits us all. The Commissioner struck me as somewhat acidic in his comments, and the environment is acidic enough as it is without the need for an acidic Commissioner.
I therefore hope that in future, at other conferences too – for this was not a one-off problem, but one that also plays a part elsewhere – better cooperation will be established between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Cooperation is fluid and requires a positive attitude, not only from Parliament, but also from the other institutions, and this will eventually benefit us all."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples