Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-07-05-Speech-4-014-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120705.8.4-014-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr Potočnik, we will hear a lot of people talking about the substance of Rio+20 today. I should mainly like to focus on the following question: why have we been so disappointed? I was in Rio 20 years ago as a young MEP and I would have welcomed the opportunity to attend the Rio+20 conference 20 years later. The committee, in its wisdom, however, decided not to travel and, out of solidarity, I stayed away too. Commissioner, how could it happen that the technicians who were in Rio one week before you had almost signed off on a finished result, while the parliamentarians had no opportunity to intervene in relation to the substance of the agreement? This is what I have been told and this is also what I hear from your office.
I am also very pleased that the three pillars of the environment, the economy and social affairs are now fundamental components within the United Nations, as this is part and parcel of a socially and environmentally responsible economy. As you have pointed out yourself, Commissioner, we do not have much time left, which is why I am broaching the subject now. We must ensure that what was agreed in Rio, even if it was not very much, is finally put into action.
We should then first turn to the question of whether we need to place the UN and our contribution to UN environmental and climate policy on a completely new footing. This is something we have called for in all climate conferences. We need a more efficient target. We do not need other people to tell us how difficult it is to put forward a single opinion when one has 27 Member States. How much more difficult must it be to organise an opinion with 192 countries? That is difficult and absolute unanimity is not possible. That is why we need a different organisational format for these issues, so that those who want to move forward can do so, but under orderly conditions, so that Europe’s competitiveness is not permanently damaged.
Commissioner, what interests me personally in this question is the fact that we in Europe have a marked tendency to come up with a new dossier every week. The Directorate General for Climate Action has now placed a land use paper on the table. We only have a couple of weeks in which to discuss this. The paper will have a dramatic influence on the way land is managed in Europe. Why, Commissioner, do we not finally take the step of implementing something that was agreed on many years ago? We have directives on plant protection and fertiliser use, we have an erosion protection programme, we have a Habitats Directive for flora and fauna, a Water Framework Directive and a directive on air quality systems. Why not implement these? If we were to do this, we would look a lot better in the eyes of the rest of the world at future conferences."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples