Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-20-Speech-5-105-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120420.8.5-105-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would first of all like to thank the Members for their support and clarify that for me, there was never any question of having or not having the 7th Environment Action Programme. I was always in favour of it, but there were some things which were – according to the legislation – simply vital. One of these was that we do a full report of the existing 6th Environment Action Programme and that we learn the lessons, which, in a way, is logical.
Parliament – as a legislative body – should be very much interested in ensuring that the things to which you agree and give your blessing are implemented in practice. I will certainly follow up on that. The second point is integration, which some of you call coherence. I think it is of the utmost importance that all our policies take into consideration the fact that we are living in a very interconnected and interdependent world. The next financial MFF financial proposal will need to focus on and give proper attention to the questions we are discussing today.
I would like to thank you again, and especially the rapporteur, Mr Jo Leinen. I think we are on course for some good results.
Even if there will be some time between the 6th and the 7th Environment Action Programmes, I can assure you that we are listening to you carefully and are implementing many of the things that you have underlined. For example, even though, this year, you will have a very comprehensive water proposal on the table, we will also be addressing the question of phosphorous and other issues.
Many of the questions concerning biodiversity that we had discussed previously – resource efficiency and so on – have been dealt with over the last two years, so we are really trying to be active. But, at the same time, we very much understand that we need a longer-term and coherent framework on which we can all agree and cooperate.
Secondly, I would like to say that we are much closer to a common understanding of the shape and substance of the 7th Environment Action Programme after this week. At the beginning of the week, we discussed it in informal Council in Denmark, and today we are discussing it here. My conclusion is that the views are converging and the common understanding of what the programme should actually include, what it should address and how it should be shaped, is emerging. The public consultation is also still open. It will go on until May, and we are expecting to receive input from that.
I would like to sum up in one sentence the dilemma which sometimes exists between green growth and so-called brown growth. We would really not be discussing green growth if everything were alright and if brown growth were not problematic. Brown growth in itself is limited in terms of growth capacity, and many businesses today are starting to understand that and to shift their activities. If we do not take into consideration some of the limited resources that we share today on the planet, like water, land, oceans and ecosystems, we will simply hit the walls of development ourselves.
That is why the green economy is inevitable. It is simply logical. To give you just one example: if we continue with business as usual, then in the year 2030 – which is not so far from now – we will need 40% more water than we actually have on Earth. The situation is simply not going to go away. That is something which cannot happen and cannot work.
Of course, some of you mentioned indicators and GDP. I fully agree. There is a well-known saying: what you do not measure, you do not take into consideration when you are creating your policies and your decisions. I think we need them quite urgently.
To conclude, I think the situation we have today is quite different from the situation of ten years ago, when we were discussing and adopting the 6th Environment Action Programme. Much more legislation is in place, but – on the other hand – we understand much better some of the challenges that have emerged as a result of knowledge. Some things that are much more obvious today than they were a decade ago inform our decision on what we will have to incorporate into the 7th Environment Action Programme.
It is obvious that climate, biodiversity and resources will still have to be our main focus, but we should not replicate – double or triple – the messages. I think we should simply focus on creating a synthesis, a longer-term view and visions. I have heard from many of you that we should pay attention to urban issues, health, chemicals, the air and a strong international dimension. I basically agree. That is no problem at all, but I would underline that our main focus should be on two major things. One is implementation of the things that are already completed or which concern legislation where we are really lagging behind. Nothing will improve if the things we agree are not implemented."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples