Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-044"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020925.1.3-044"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, let us not mince our words. Johannesburg was not a success. The results were disappointing, but I am pleased that the Commission is now giving a balanced judgment rather than the overoptimistic views it expressed immediately at the end of the summit. In our view, if the summit were to be rated according to the Dutch rating system, it would be given a four out of ten, a fail in other words.
I am bound to correct the Commission on one point, namely biodiversity. It has not been agreed worldwide that we will put an end to the loss of biodiversity by 2010. The only thing that has been decided is to significantly reduce the extinction of species, while only this spring, 100 ministers in The Hague called for an end to the loss of biodiversity by no later than 2010, as we have also stated at European level.
The question is, of course, why Europe has achieved so little. Of course, it is true that the United States wanted hardly anything, but many G77 countries are also tired of unfulfilled promises. They were promised more development aid while they are, in fact, receiving less. This is why it is logical that these G77 countries have focused on the traditional fight against poverty and for clean drinking water, sanitary facilities and energy for the poor. This is what they got, which is a positive thing.
We must, however, search our own conscience. Too many key players in Europe, particularly Commissioners Lamy and Nielson, saw Johannesburg only as an intermediary step between Doha and Cancùn. That is why Europe had hardly anything to offer to the G77 countries. This is not helped by the fact that we still have not reformed our own agricultural policy and that we consider our own trade interests to be more important than sustainable development. We have not got our own house in order in terms of agriculture, fisheries, traffic, energy and the use of materials.
I do not think that mega-summits of this kind will work any more in future. We should move towards UN summits that address specific goals, the prime example being Kyoto. If it is impossible to conclude a treaty at world level, Europe should at least act consistently on its own patch. What we need, for example, is a UN treaty in which multinational businesses are required to issue a social and environmental report that is inspected by independent accountants. We can start with this in Europe. It is also necessary for large businesses, maybe over a 5- or 10-year period, to commit to using the same environmental standards outside Europe as they do inside. Volkswagen is already doing this. After all, South Africa and Namibia do not have environmental legislation, let alone any system of enforcement. We cannot wait for a worldwide regulation in the environmental field.
Another example is deforestation. Rio failed to produce a treaty, and so did Johannesburg, but there is something we can do in Europe. Why does the European Commission not suggest that a clear label be introduced for timber and timber products? A green label for sustainable timber and a red label for incorrectly produced timber. My group would like to see us adopt an even-handed approach in trade policy. I hope that Mrs Wallström will join in the preparatory meetings of Cancùn and that she will be representing Europe at that summit in Cancùn in a year’s time, for this is the only way we can prove that we take sustainable development seriously."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples