Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-129"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.7.3-129"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I can overlook the fact that the previous speaker spoke a little too long on this subject. Five minutes to debate sustainable development in a 25-year perspective is not much, and it is an art to be able to keep to the time margin exactly to the second.
The question is what we mean by a ‘sustainability strategy’? Is it a new political buzzword that we are attempting to invent here in Parliament? No, it is not. It is an inheritance that goes back further in time. We have had this task ever since it was decided in Rio nearly ten years ago that each nation was to establish a sustainability strategy.
So what is sustainability? What are we actually talking about when we discuss sustainability? Well, we are discussing the future of coming generations. We are discussing what development, what life we want future generations to have – in other words, how their lives are to be managed as regards social issues, ecological development and the economy. However, we must bear in mind that it is easy for us who live in a fairly small, rich part of the world to say that we want to leave behind us, for others to inherit, a situation that is just as good as that which we have. For an overwhelming majority in the world, the desire must be for their children to have a better life than they had.
The process in Parliament for producing this document, which is still to form some kind of basis or contribution to the Gothenburg Summit, leaves a great deal to be desired. Parliament has had to rush to keep up with the Commission in order to be able to produce it or be given any opportunity at all to get its viewpoints across concerning the form this development should take. This is not satisfactory. It is possible that the Commission itself had plenty of time, but Parliament should still be given a real opportunity to discuss these matters – not just from an environmental perspective. The whole of Parliament, the committees working on social and economic issues and all the other committees that are actually concerned should be involved. Otherwise, we restrict the issue and make it just an environmental issue, which it is not.
As far as which areas of policy it would be desirable to look at in such a document, including in the light of the direction that the treatment of the issue is to take in Gothenburg, I believe that we must primarily start from the ecological perspective. Both the social and the economic perspectives are, of course, important, and we know that they rule our lives. However, if we do not have a well-functioning planet in ecological respects, it will be very difficult to discuss social and economic issues. It is quite simply a prerequisite that our ecology is in equilibrium. The Commission’s text, which we feel despite everything takes the current economic systems as its starting point, is then perhaps not entirely satisfactory. The point has somehow been missed. It is about utilising the economy that exists. It is about trying to set the limits we want to have on the market. It is about finding the management tools that we can use ourselves in our own budget and our own purchasing.
If we want to create a sustainability strategy for the European Union, we must certainly observe the problems that exist within the Union, but it is completely impossible to isolate the Union from the outside world. We must see ourselves as part of the planet, in the global context. What we do in the Union affects the world around us. We must not export that which we do not want to have ourselves. We must review our trade relations and our agricultural policy, as well as the negative effects that the latter is having on the opportunities for other countries to develop. We also have a responsibility in international trade relations.
Moreover, without the local perspective, there will not be any sustainability strategy. The point of the Agenda 21 work was that it provided, and is providing, opportunities for voluntary organisations, players at local level, municipalities and citizens to participate in the process and understand what it is about. In the final analysis, it is about the responsibility of the individual and about the fact that it is actually necessary to change our behaviour in every area. The Commission, but naturally also the Council, must think about how we can encourage people to feel involved, and ensure that this is the case, so that it does not just become a message from on high.
Finally, I would like to say something about political leadership. It is essential that the message that will be given in Gothenburg is clear in order for it to be effective. It cannot be simply an empty manifesto. There must also be evidence that the Commission and the Council really want to move from words to actions."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples