Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-10-06-Speech-3-102"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20101006.12.3-102"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, Mrs Schauvliege, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the commitments made in 1992 in Rio and in 2002 in Johannesburg have not been respected. Our strategies for halting the loss of biodiversity have been a failure, and we know the reasons for this failure.
The climate is changing, biodiversity is diminishing, and humanity must be determined to adapt itself more and more quickly, and in ways which are more and more difficult. In Nagoya, with a few weeks to go before Cancún, the European Union has the opportunity to argue in favour of adapting our economic development model to face up to the challenges of the 21st century.
Climate deregulation, halting the loss of biodiversity and combating poverty: these three challenges, and the responses needed to face up to them, are intimately linked. We have the responsibility of proposing and introducing a new development model which is fairer, more equitable and more sustainable.
So let us speak clearly and practically. Parliament’s resolution identifies three key challenges which now raise several questions about the Commission’s and the Council’s position.
The first challenge, of course, is to start protecting and restoring biodiversity. This presupposes adequate financing, the withdrawal of all public aid which is harmful for biodiversity and a dedicated budget which we propose should be multiplied tenfold. However, is the European Union ready to commit 0.3% of its GDP to its policy for halting biodiversity loss and to convince the OECD countries to do the same?
The second challenge is the cost of biodiversity loss to society, which has only just begun to be evaluated. It is thought to be around 1% of global GDP, but this evaluation does not take into account the social, cultural, moral and scientific value of biodiversity.
Is the European Union determined to resist the monetisation of living things? Is it determined to defend the common inheritance of humankind and to reaffirm that nature is priceless and is not for sale?
Finally, the third challenge is to stop the pillaging of genetic resources by businesses and industries. One solution is to regulate access to genetic resources in a way which, in particular, respects fully the rights of indigenous and local communities.
The European Union will still have a particular responsibility in these negotiations. As such, is it determined, firstly, to defend the principle of the non-patentability of life and, secondly, to support the repayment of the ecological debt to the countries of the South by supporting the retroactivity of the system which is to be adopted?"@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples