Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-17-Speech-2-353"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060117.26.2-353"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, I should first like to thank all those who helped improve my report, and I should like to say straightaway that I shall be supporting the amendments tabled by the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance.
When the Commission announces that it wants to make fewer laws by refusing to propose laws that would indeed be burdensome for the Member States or for business in the short term, but that are necessary for the future, it is condemning the Union to political losses. It is all the more incomprehensible for the citizens that the Commission persists with certain legislative proposals that have either already been rejected by Parliament, such as the directives on port services, or been subject to fierce objections from the citizens, such as the directive on services in the internal market.
I should like to conclude on a positive note. As much bad news for the Union as for our idea of development …
It is worth remembering that if all the inhabitants of Earth were to adopt the West’s lifestyle we would need several planets to meet their needs, and that the West, and primarily the EU, is duty-bound to carry out a root-and-branch rethink of its modes of production and consumption. This assessment is undisputed in the Chamber, cutting across traditional political boundaries, and has led the Commission to incorporate sustainable development into the Union’s priorities. The time has come for us to take stock of our actions in this area, and the results so far have been mixed. Progress has been made, but there have been setbacks or, at least, some shortcomings.
Under pressure from public concern about the continued degradation of our environment, the EU has worked hard to warn the international community about ecology issues. Assessment of the situation has led to a large amount of rhetoric, but this has not always been followed up by action – far from it. The time has come for action to be taken, because there is an urgent need for a proactive policy aimed at reversing climate change, especially in light of the magnitude of recent natural disasters. I welcome the conclusions of the Montreal conference and the positive role played by EU representatives should not go unmentioned.
Whilst the Union has adopted important legislation intended to reduce industrial waste and to make the cars we use more energy efficient and environmentally friendly, the significant increase in road traffic has meant that its efforts have come to nothing. This is a clear illustration of one of the paradoxes facing the EU: on the one hand, the free movement of goods and, on the other, the detrimental impact of the free movement of goods on the EU’s environmental objectives. There are two approaches to addressing this problem: firstly, to encourage the use of more environmentally-friendly means of transport, with the Union providing financial support for large structural projects, and secondly, to incorporate the environmental cost of transport into the price of goods or to tax transport in relation to its environmental impact.
There is an urgent need for proactive policy on water. In spite of the laws that have been adopted and the measures that have been taken, the state of water remains unsatisfactory. Do we need to point out once again that chemical pollution levels are still too high? Do we not have a duty to hold certain farming methods responsible, as they are such a major consumer of water and various fertilisers? The forthcoming reform of the CAP should take this into account and press ahead with the reform of grants and environmental cross-compliance.
There is an urgent need for a proactive policy to maintain biodiversity. The list does not stop there. There is an urgent need for measures to be taken – such as the reports already adopted, the one by Mrs Ries and the one expected to be adopted on REACH – to offset the negative impact of the environment on health. There is an urgent need to take action on development aid, because inequality on Earth generates more and more conflict and the poorest countries are the first victims of natural disasters. Sustainable development provides part of the answer, because it represents a model of production and consumption that could and should be extended to all countries.
The Union needs to be proactive and propose effective measures if it is to be up to the task of reversing the most worrying trends and of preventing irreversible situations from arising. To this end, it is essential that each sector be set quantified objectives and be subject to regular, strictly timetabled, evaluation.
On a broader level, the political foundations of the EU must be further strengthened. This entails greater solidarity and more effective coordination; to encourage widespread dumping is incompatible with the requirements of sustainable development. It also entails a breakdown of the implementation of sustainable development at all international, national and local levels. Every legislative proposal would benefit from being viewed from the perspective of sustainable development. We have much to do in this area. Similarly, if we want to move sustainable development forward, we should no longer accept that the legal basis for draft laws on the environment or health should be the sacred cow of the free movement of goods.
The Commission has a responsibility, but protecting the environment is not sufficiently high on its agenda. While it may have published five of the seven thematic strategies, these do not mask the weakness of the proposed review of the sustainable development strategy of the end of 2005. I must say I am concerned about the plans presented to us by the Commission. For example, when one reads in the thematic strategy on waste that there could be a return to national approaches whereby the Member States themselves would set their modes of managing waste, that, to my mind, would be a retrograde step."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples