Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-21-Speech-4-158"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021121.6.4-158"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this was the first time I had taken part in one of these delegations. I found it fascinating, but also frustrating.
As has been said, this 8th Conference of the Parties to the Climate Change Convention in New Delhi was intended to be a transitional one – more a matter of keeping the momentum going on the climate change debate than making headline political decisions.
I concur with what colleagues have said and also express my frustration with the exclusion of the parliamentary delegation from the daily coordination meetings. As a result, the Commission ended the last day trying to exclude us from the press conference, albeit very politely and diplomatically. When we parliamentarians were briefed that morning, we indicated our frustration with the weakness of the draft declaration. The Commission did not want us to express that view at a press conference when it was taking what it thought was a more diplomatic line. These differences would not arise if we were part of the coordination meeting and on the inside. The Commission was very good to us in that it gave us briefings outside the loop, but we need to be inside the loop if we are to be involved and if we are to be described as 'members as participants in the European Community delegation'. The Council and the Commission were on one side and Parliament on the other.
The draft declaration itself was rather weak and disappointing. The title was changed from 'The Declaration on Climate Change' to 'Declaration on Climate Change and Sustainability'. That is a precedent we have to be careful of. It is very hard to talk about these issues, be objective and keep the focus on climate change if it is suggested that sustainable development is not included. It is a sort of 'hit-me-with-a-child-in-my-arms' argument, i.e. how can you justify what you are saying if you do not include sustainable development? The Americans and others used the serious issue of sustainable development to divert focus from climate change and from the Kyoto Protocol requirements in general.
It was a fascinating exercise. I would like to thank the leader of our delegation, Mrs García-Orcoyen Tormo, and all colleagues for making it that."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples