Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-13-Speech-1-073"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000313.3.1-073"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, ever since the Brundtland report of 1987, it has been clear that a policy which emphasises only economic growth cannot be sustained in the longer term. The challenge for us all consists in integrating social and environmental considerations. This means, for instance, that environmental considerations cannot be seen as a sectoral issue but that the possible negative environmental impact of production, transport, construction, etc. must be clarified at the planning stage and minimised through a variety of measures.
The Rio Conference involved preparing an action programme which, on a sector-by-sector basis, points out the most important problem areas in this context and states how protection of the environment and of natural resources is to be ensured. In spite of the fact that this is a document of several hundred pages, it is a programme which, in general, is well put together. If further progress is to be made towards the necessary level of integration, an appropriate method has to be developed. Indicators also need to be selected so as to be able to keep abreast of what is under way in terms of developing know-how, pilot projects etc.
This type of work has been going on for many years in many of the OECD countries. It could be given higher priority, but it is in fact under way. Matters are organised rather less well in the majority of developing countries. There, there is a lack of both knowledge and resources to facilitate the integration of environmental considerations, together with the preventive approach which is the very essence of the decisions taken in Rio. In this context, aid can play an important role. As aid donors, we have, on the whole, a major responsibility for ensuring that we transfer knowledge and techniques that are sustainable, that is to say which do not entail severe damage to the environment and to natural resources.
The proposed regulation we are discussing today is aimed at ensuring that, in providing aid, the EU fully and completely integrates the environmental dimension into its activities. In the longer term, the objective is, of course, for this type of integration, or mainstreaming as it is called, to take place quite automatically, that is to say without special budget appropriations or programmes. So far, there remains, however, a lot to be done in terms of developing methods. In particular, knowledge and skills within both the Commission and the recipient countries must be increased.
I was responsible for the preparations for this second reading. My work has, of course, been very much based upon experiences from the first reading and upon the preparatory work for that reading. On that occasion, Parliament tabled a large number of amendments, of which approximately a third have been accepted by the Council ahead of this second reading. Analysing the situation, I identified three or four principal points where I think we in Parliament ought to try to amend the Council proposal. The most important of these issues are firstly, the size of the budget, the way in which activities are directed and the way in which the rules are to be interpreted, that is to say they should relate not only to developing countries’ activities but also, of course, shape our own activities within the EU. That does not mean that other questions raised at first reading are not important. What it does mean, however, is that we ought to concentrate on those which are most important. We ought also, in the interests of reaching agreement with the Council, to see to it that we, as far as possible, relinquish what is of less importance.
I am delighted to note that, following the informal discussions which have taken place, it has been possible considerably to increase the amount of the budget, namely from the proposed figure of just over EUR 50 million to just over EUR 90 million. This is something we ought to support, a fact which also emerges from Amendment No 11. Regarding the period of applicability of this regulation, I believe that there is no reason to commit ourselves now once and for all. I think that the Council’s proposal is acceptable because an evaluation will take place within four or five years. This question will then, at all events, return to Parliament.
Finally, I want to mention a question on which there have been, and remain, a variety of views. This concerns the committee procedure, that is to say how actual implementation of this regulation will look. Where this is concerned, I take the view that we should try to get away from an arrangement whereby the Member States themselves are directly involved in determining the fine detail of implementation. They should be involved, and determine the framework and rules, but leave it to the Commission to implement the actual project. In this connection, we have proposed, in the course of the examination of this proposal, a so-called split comitology procedure, which could be used to excellent effect. I hope that the vote will ensure that this will also become Parliament’s proposal.
Might I just ask for one more thing? The fact is, we shall need further consultations. I would therefore propose without further ado that the vote could take place on Wednesday."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples