Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-328"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.12.3-328"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, sustainable development is a splendid concept. Combining economic aspects, environment and the social dimension is a powerful idea. These are the three cornerstones of a better world. Sustainable development has developed over time. Initially, it was chiefly concerned with the environment, and had an additional socioeconomic aspect. Nowadays, the environment seems to be accorded a lower priority at international conferences, and poverty reduction takes precedence. Whereas Rio was still an environmental conference, Johannesburg was concerned with everything: water, AIDS, schooling, energy, poverty, malaria and environment. That makes it difficult to implement sustainable development; for, with all the problems we are tackling, we have the sense that we can never do everything at the same time. As far as I am concerned, it is also somewhat apolitical to put so many desires on the table at the same time without making choices. In order to make sustainable development a little more specific, I have two suggestions to make.
Firstly, all of the European Union’s policies should undergo a ‘Johannesburg check’. It seems to me a good idea to examine all of our legislation and policies against sustainable development: primarily policies with clear external implications, but also more internal matters such as the Directive on paints. One example is climate policy. Our thoughts are chiefly turned to the environmental aspects and the economic costs; while the social aspect
the attention to social inequality
has up to now been left behind. Another example is pharmaceutical legislation. We are chiefly preoccupied with our industry, the competitive position of European businesses, and our own public health, and we are not looking at the rest of the world. It does not have to be this way. A Johannesburg check would bring this to light immediately, and also open our eyes to the environmental aspects of medicines. With the packaging dossier, Parliament did its best to involve exports to developing world countries in this by means of a prevention policy, and to promote sustainable production and consumption. In food legislation, there are environmental aspects and social aspects in abundance. The current food legislation would not, at any event, pass the Johannesburg check. By showing that it is possible to give flesh and blood to sustainable development, we bring about rejuvenation, and this rejuvenation can also arouse new creativity.
This brings me to the second point. Sustainable development not only needs flesh and blood, but indeed a face. Our common foreign policy is having difficulty getting off the ground. Anyone who reflects on Europe’s role in the world quickly comes to the conclusion that we are too divided to find a military role of any consequence for ourselves. Why, then, should we not put a great deal more emphasis on global public leadership; leadership so that we may tackle problems worldwide in a pragmatic way and in consultation with interested parties, businesses and NGOs. We have to commit resources to this and make room for it in our budget, therefore. It may also be a good idea to give this leadership, too, a face: a ‘Johannesburg Commissioner’. There are sufficient commissioners in the coming term of office who would be capable of fulfilling this role. Perhaps you, Commissioner, could advance the idea of a Johannesburg Commissioner and a Johannesburg check a little within the Commission."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples