Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.9.2-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, the European Commission's role in the UN Ministerial preparatory conference in Bali, at which I represented the European Commission, was facilitated by the comprehensive reports prepared by Mr Papayannakis and Mr Lannoye and discussed with my colleague, Mr Nielson, at Parliament's part-session last month.
In addition to the political context, we will also continue our technical work to build support for our partnership initiatives, which can bring real benefits to developing countries in terms of poverty reduction, health and educational improvements and environmental protection.
Together we must ensure that the European Union plays a leading role in ensuring that the outcome of Johannesburg is ambitious and action-orientated. The European Parliament is an advocate of sustainable development. We must bring a sense of urgency to the preparations for Johannesburg in the short time that lies before us.
The Commission agreed with Parliament last month that the preparatory process for the world summit is not going as well as we would like. This remains our assessment after the Bali meeting. As we have heard, three documents are being prepared for Johannesburg: an action plan on sustainable development, drawn up under the leadership of the UN-appointed chairman, Dr Salim, secondly a political declaration and thirdly criteria for the launching and monitoring of partnerships to implement the actions and political commitments agreed in Johannesburg. None of these documents was finalised in Bali, but while the Bali meeting to prepare for Johannesburg was not a breakthrough, it was not a breakdown of the process either.
There was intensive EU coordination throughout the meeting in Bali. Ministers agreed that the key EU objectives to be achieved were, firstly, the setting of clear targets and time-frames, especially for water, sanitation and energy, secondly the establishment of a clear linkage between the political commitments and targets in the proposed action plan, and their implementation through initiatives or partnerships, and thirdly an agreement on the shift to sustainable patterns of consumption and production.
Some progress was made in these areas in Bali, as well as on issues such as health, Africa, small island states and the environment and some of the differences between delegations were reduced. However, the meeting was dominated by the developing countries' insistence on trade and finance issues. The G 77 group pressed for the creation of a world solidarity or poverty fund based on voluntary contributions from public and private funds. Whilst it said that it did not wish to reopen agreements reached in launching the trade round in Doha or at the Conference on Financing for Development in Monterey, the G 77 group was seeking signals from the developed countries which could lead to increased market access for developing in addition to least-developed countries and ways of constraining those that have not yet clearly committed increased resources under the Monterrey Consensus to do so.
Since the developed countries have always made it clear that market access questions would have to be discussed in the World Trade Organisation in the context of the Doha development agenda and that there would be no new public funds for development beyond what had been pledged in Monterrey, the positions taken by the G77 representatives, led by Venezuela, inevitably led to an unfortunate standoff between the developing and developed countries. This blockage in the means of implementation meant that we were unable to achieve the breakthrough we were looking for in Bali.
Whilst useful progress was made in cleaning up the text of the action plan, large parts – including some key EU objectives – have not been agreed. All these issues will have to be sorted out either in informal meetings or actually at the Johannesburg Summit.
A successful outcome in Johannesburg now depends on finding ways of bridging the gap between the developed and developing countries over trade and finance issues. The EU position has a lot of appeal for developing countries, not least because it seeks, inter alia, to promote common commitments on increasing trade-related assistance and capacity building beyond pre-Doha levels, to search for innovative ways to encourage trade in sustainable products and to encourage the emulation of the European "Everything but Arms" initiative. The European Union therefore can, and must, play a constructive role in bringing the parties together.
However, unless a satisfactory solution is found, there is a risk that the Johannesburg meeting will be dominated by acrimony over the issues of trade and finance and the focus on sustainable development risks being lost. If that happens, the opportunity to make progress with sustainable development could be missed.
Now is the time for leadership. The South Africans are now in the driving seat and will need our help and support to pull things together in the coming weeks. The European Union will need to play its part in overcoming differences in the next few weeks. Future meetings, such as the Seville European Council and the G8 meeting, as well as bilateral contacts, will provide important opportunities for review and discussion by developed countries on how to respond to G77 concerns without reopening the Doha and Monterrey agreements. We will need to work closely with G77 to re-establish a climate of trust and partnership and explain our globalisation and sustainable development agenda."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples