Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-03-Speech-3-249"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030903.10.3-249"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I cannot help but say that one of the problems in this world is that there is too little jungle left. On the subject of water, the Conference of the Parties to the Convention to Combat Desertification is currently taking place in Havana and the Commission is represented there. The big problem is that the desert is expanding and tropical forests are in bad shape, threatened by greed and crime. We are trying to do something about that. This has an influence on the balance of water. Watershed management is directly influenced, micro- and macroclimates are changing and all this relates to the first of the two reports we are discussing tonight. Perhaps in some years from now the law of the jungle will sound more like a reference to a paradise lost, because the jungle is a symbol of unspoilt nature. But I am sure this is not what Mrs Morgantini wanted to discuss.
In Mrs Morgantini's report there should be a stronger reference to the work immediately in front of us and the challenge and the potential for our partners – especially our ACP partners – to do what is immediately possible by opening up more regional markets between them. Who will invest in producing paint or soap in Uganda if such products cannot be exported to neighbouring countries? We tried to find out what happened regarding mosquito nets. Why were no mosquito nets being produced in Africa? The answer was that, as there were 17% tariff barriers, they were imported from Hong Kong. Regional liberalisation is the name of the game and this is what we have on the table in the Economic Partnership Agreement negotiations. Parliament should give more of a helping hand in this. We are taking the safe route. Whatever happens in the WTO, the Cotonou route is there and it would be highly beneficial for our ACP partners to engage strongly in it.
I have cut across the themes. I look forward to listening to the next contributions and, as always, to engaging in dialogue with this Parliament.
I am faced now with the problem of having to address two different subjects at the same time. I will start with Mrs Morgantini's motion for a resolution.
It calls on the Commission to reduce its pressure on developing countries to indiscriminately liberalise and deregulate their markets. There is no such pressure. The Commission is collaborating with developing countries to help put in place a sound regulatory framework for the provision of basic services. I want to draw the attention of Parliament, and especially members of the Committee on Development and Cooperation, to the communication on the reform of state-owned enterprises that we have pursued in the Commission. This is also extremely relevant to Mr Lannoye's report.
We are issuing this communication in order to have firmer ground in our battle against, amongst others, the World Bank and the IMF, concerning privatisation. If we talk about water and the conditionality of privatising the management of water resources, my reaction has been that for a country like Burkina Faso the national responsibility of the government there to manage water carefully and in the interests of its citizens is as important – or more important – a national priority for that country as the missile defence shield is for the government in Washington. That is the approach. This Commission has been able to make sure that Burkina Faso was not forced to privatise its national water company as a condition for the big Ziga dam project providing water for the capital. A project where the World Bank is one of a handful of big donors and partners, and where this was initially a condition from the Bank, it has been implemented without that condition being kept, or insisted upon by the Bank, because others – i.e. the Commission – stood behind the government of Burkina Faso in resisting this condition.
You will see in this communication a much more nuanced approach to this whole issue. However, when I hear Mrs Morgantini arguing that, as far as water is concerned we should move away from the commercial way of thinking – I say yes and no! What does 'commercial' mean? A private, commercial, short-term, profit-maximising philosophy is clearly detrimental to handling water in developing countries. But if by 'commercial' you mean that ends have to meet, that is, it has to have economic sustainability, then there is no way whatsoever of escaping that commitment. This is what makes things so extremely difficult.
Kinshasa now has more than seven million inhabitants, of which not many more than one million have access to sanitation or safe sewage treatment. Therefore, most of the population, not only in the big slums in the exploding mega-cities of the south, but also in the emerging middle class, does not have even near-normal sanitation. They get fresh water and pay for it by the litre, but it is almost impossible to organise the next phase in the cycle economically. It is too long-term and too expensive. The real picture is not that some water companies from the north are out for quick profits in the south. There are no quick profits. Therefore, the divisive image of the past round of the international water debate, especially among NGOs in Europe, has been wrong – it is easy to warn against the risk of undue profiteering from more donor-funded activity in the water sector – but this is not the real problem. The real problem is to attract long-term, humble, down-to-earth funding for the necessary investments. We are nowhere near achieving that. It is very similar to the problem of the health sector.
Annual public health sector spending per capita in Sub-Saharan Africa is somewhere between one and six US dollars. You do not get very far with that kind of money. It is exactly the same proportion when we look at water and sanitation. In many ways it is easier to do what needs to be done in the rural villages. We know what to do there. It is not that difficult and our technology is quite overwhelming. With deep-bore holes or pipes for transportation, our ability as a donor is quite fantastic. However, I see a big problem in provincial towns and the big mega-cities of the south. That is where cholera and other problems sneak in as a collateral problem because of bad sanitation. Deciding on how to organise this takes much more than repeatedly mobilising well-established divisive images of private or public money.
It is also too easy to take a shortcut by cancelling all these countries' debts. Please be realistic. We are doing everything we can on that front. Only the genuine addition of real money from the pockets of taxpayers in the north will make a difference. That is the real battle. We won some rounds in that battle over the European contribution at the Monterrey Conference. That is where we are looking for more money for water and sanitation. This is why we urge Member States to accept our proposal to accelerate spending and to create a water facility to ensure that the money, which is still conditional for the 9th EDF – the EUR 1 billion that depends on performance – could be accepted and mobilised to accelerate our action on the water issue.
On trade, we are forced to be optimistic and constructive and to push for Europe to stay on a line of progressive constructivity from the WTO meeting in Cancún and the Doha development round. I am still somewhat optimistic. It has to succeed."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples