Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-02-Speech-1-077"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-02"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Trade and development for poverty eradication and food security2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020902.7.1-077"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-02-Speech-1-0782
lpv:speaker	lp:Margrietus van den Berg2
lpv:spokenAs	vice-chair; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-chair; Committee on Development and Cooperation (2002-01-22--2004-07-19)3 member; Members from the European Parliament to the Joint Parliamentary Assembly of the Agreement between the African, Caribbean and Pacific States and the European Union (ACP-EU) (2002-02-06--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Central America and Mexico (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, a protectionist sugar fortress Europe amounts to theft from the poorest people in Africa. It prevents poor farmers from earning their own income by exporting to Europe. The first signal should be that of credibility. Tear down trade-fortress Europe, put an end to European theft, which is only detrimental to the income of the poor farmers in this world. Only then can we really talk about sustainable development. In the report published last week, Oxfam International shows how Europe's subsidies undermine local African sugar sales. Despite pleas from Parliament and the Commission to abolish these subsidies in 2002, the European sugar lobbyists managed to persuade their governments to extend the protectionism to 2009. This to me is theft at the expense of the poorest of the poor. Today, such embarrassing practices are a central theme at the World Summit in Johannesburg, and the European Union should therefore use that forum to call for fair trade, the abolition of unfair subsidies and the opening up of our rich markets. That is what sustainable development is about. Under the Bush administration, the United States has drawn up its own Farm Bill, completely in contravention of the agreements reached at Doha as part of negotiations on the worldwide abolition of agricultural subsidies. This attempt to win the goodwill of the voters is a direct attack on the world's poorest, unfortunately with grave consequences for world trade and worldwide development. Luckily, the Commission and Parliament are choosing a different route. All credit is due to the Commission, which, via Mr Lamy in Doha and Mr Fischler, wants to make a U-turn through agricultural reform proposals. It is time to move towards a shift from production aid to agricultural policy. More environmental agriculture, the abolition of export subsidies and the strict enforcement of food security rules – that is what sustainable development is about. I call on the European Commission to help the EU Member States to send out this signal at the World Summit and to help bring about an agreement on fair trade and fair agriculture in Johannesburg accordingly. Anyone who is not prepared to bring these issues in Johannesburg to a concrete resolution is standing by the poverty issue empty-handed. Sustainable development is not possible without adopting a structural approach to the environmental issue. Nature will strike back with a deterioration in the climate and the accelerating disintegration of woods, sea and soil. We have experienced the effects of this close to home during the recent floods. The most recent example of the local market being distorted, and thus preventing any further development, is the dumping by the US of genetically modified corn on the African market. The famine that is currently affecting southern Africa does not mean that those countries should just accept anything. The Commission, fortunately, seems to be adopting a sensible stance. Countries should not be coerced, and it is unacceptable to take advantage of their famine. The Deva report on trade and development, on which we reached agreement following tough negotiations between various political persuasions in the Committee on Development and Cooperation, is a warning signal to the European Council, a warning signal that the Council should cease to oppose the plans of Commissioners Lamy and Fischler, and of the European Commission. Let the Council now send out its own signal in Johannesburg, starting with a worldwide structural approach to the environmental issue and a worldwide structural approach to poverty."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"‘The Great EU Sugar Scam’"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph