Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-19-Speech-2-251"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070619.41.2-251"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Mr President, thank you very much for being here, giving the status that these issues deserve in this Parliament. I should also like to thank the Commissioner for his kind remarks. I think many of us here deeply regret the fact that the Council chose not to be represented here today in discussions on the G8 and the Millennium Development Goals. We are sorry that priorities took them elsewhere.
My report is an opportunity at the midway point to assess progress or otherwise on meeting the Millennium Development Goals. Of course the reality is that many sub-Saharan countries are not on track to meet even one of the MDGs. Virtually no country in Africa is on track to achieve the Millennium Development Goals for child and maternal health. That is why our committee agreed that the European Union should continue to lead on efforts to support sexual and reproductive health rights through funding and other support. In 2005, the leaders of the rich world met at the G8 Summit in Gleneagles and undertook to double annual aid to poor countries to USD 50 billion, and to give 100% debt cancellation.
In May 2005, the EU Council had already set the agenda for the Gleneagles Summit which took place in July of that year. They had agreed
and this is important
a time-bound commitment to meeting the 0.7% of GNI and 100% debt relief. At the time of writing my report, it was clear that were serious questions of credibility in relation to certain Member States of the European Union. This is where I have a fundamental disagreement with the Commissioner. Excluding debt relief, a number of Member States are falling behind. The Iraq and Nigerian debt deals have been counted in such a way as to distort the true picture on real aid. It is estimated that it amounted to some USD 13 billion in 2006. In 2010, when aid to Africa is supposed to reach USD 50 billion a year, debt relief would have been largely accounted for and would therefore no longer bolster the amount of aid a country gives. The shortfall is now estimated by Oxfam to be an absolutely shocking USD 30 billion.
At the G8, we saw efforts by some Member States of the European Union to press for the promises to be met. But what we saw, as you said Commissioner, was a reiteration and confirmation of the 2005 promises to increase aid. We are still lacking clear timetables and binding practical commitments. We need more specifics and clear financial pledges which will, for instance, fill in the funding gaps for the countries endorsed by the Education Fast Track Initiative.
We also need clarity on the pledge to scale up universal access to HIV/Aids. They talk about 5 million people in 2010. We want to know whether this is a global figure, because, if it is, it should be more like 10 million. If it only applies to Africa, then the communiqué is presenting a somewhat different picture. Of course, again, there is no specific target date. The reality is that developing countries do not want some kind of cheque in the post or some kind of promissory note. They want to be able to put credible and costed plans in place, as our own governments do.
On climate change, all the G8s except the US and Russia agreed to cut emissions by half by 2050. The US commitment to join in with the UN efforts was welcome. However, again I have to say that there were no clear binding targets, and even the 50% by 2050 target had no base year agreed by the G8 in Germany. There is also no agreed intention to limit climate change to 2°C. In the context of the importance we attach to debt relief and to pledges on aid, we know that the whole issue of trade justice continues to elude us. Last year in the G8 in St Petersburg they issued a grand clarion call for the Doha Round to reach a successful conclusion, but what you see, in fact, is a far cry from what developing countries thought they were signing up to when they signed up to a Doha development round. All the G8 in Germany did was to repeat what they said in St Petersburg a year ago.
On EPAs, I particularly recommend Mr van den Berg’s amendment, which unfortunately was left out of the text that you have here because an error was made when the compilation took place. I think it makes a very valuable addition to the debate on EPAs.
Finally, I would like to say that what we need to see now is an absolute change of gear. In 2005, thousands of our citizens across the world marched under the banner of making poverty history. We are seeing that aid really works. There are real improvements in reducing poverty, getting children into school, improving health and saving lives. However, there has to be real social and political change, as well as the growing understanding that what we are calling for here is not for charity but rather for justice for the world’s developing countries."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples