Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2012-04-20-Speech-5-078-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20120420.7.5-078-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, first of all, I agree with all those who believe that, basically, the major problem with taking care of biodiversity is insufficient awareness. I think that if we were to be frank and compare how many people today understand – even among us politicians – the importance of climate change versus biodiversity, we would be astonished at how many are aware of the success of the Durban conference and how few are aware of the success of the Nagoya conference – and, by the way, the Nagoya conference was much more successful: it produced concrete agreements in the biodiversity area. So we all have work to do, when it comes both to Europe and to the international environment.
To conclude. The other day, we were guests in Denmark, where we met a farmer who was extremely successful. He told us that he was doing everything in cooperation with nature and respecting nature, and he said: ‘if you Ministers want to remember just one message coming from farms today, remember that biodiversity and nature have had millions of years of experience of how to deal with the questions which we humans are struggling with, and we are stupid enough to destroy it and stupid enough not to use it’.
One of the things which will happen this year after Rio will be a conference in Hyderabad, which will also focus largely on resource-mobilisation and the things which were not entirely settled in Nagoya. I would also urge you in the European Parliament to help recognise this important issue, which needs to be addressed in the Member States. On 14 May, a ministerial-level conference will be held at which we will try to ensure that this issue can be properly addressed.
I think when we discuss the future, there are basically three major core issues which we cannot ignore: one of course is climate change; another is biodiversity, and the third is the question of resources.
When we talk about issues – and this is a typical one – I think that the longer-term view, the visions and the strategies are particularly important. As Mr Eickhout said, the importance of those decisions is that we do not make mistakes today, because if we do, we should not dream about the future. We need those decisions so that we do not take the wrong decisions today. One of the things that many of you underlined, when it comes to coordination among policies, is that if you asked today – to take a clear example – somebody who is an environmentalist: ‘what is the long-term interest in fishing?’, he would say: ‘sustainable fishing’. Ask a fisherman what his long-term interest in fishing is, and he will also say sustainable fishing. So they agree perfectly. When it comes to the short term, they would immediately disagree. One would ask for more fishing and another one would ask for less fishing.
So I think it is very important that we keep an eye on those long-term agendas, and that we base them very much on the scientific knowledge that we should all create and develop.
The fourth thing which I would like to mention is in the context of the common agricultural policy, because many of you have mentioned that. The protection of biodiversity is very much in the farmers’ interest – and by the way, again from the longer-term point of view, they know that perfectly well – and what we are suggesting in the proposals of the common agricultural policy is basically that they should deliver some kind of public good. In the case of other EU policies (for example, water policy), they have to respect them, otherwise they will be punished by paying penalties later on because of non-compliance. We wish to pay them in advance so that they do not pollute or hamper biodiversity. That is the essence of the new common agricultural policy. Working together: that is how we understand the mainstreaming or integration of policies.
I should like to tell you some bare facts on soil biodiversity. It is widely recognised by scientists that about one quarter of biological diversity on the planet is hosted by soils. So the European Commission, in its recent report on the implementation of the soil thematic strategy five years after its adoption, said that soil degradation continues in the European Union, and soil biodiversity is not spared. These are the bare facts, and we in the Commission believe that the best way would be to adopt comprehensive legislation to protect the soils.
Two slightly more specific comments. It is not the case that it is the EU which is determining Natura 2000. Natura 2000 is determined on the scientific criteria which we have all agreed together, and it is the Member States themselves which then define the areas on the basis of those criteria. We then jointly check if they are correctly applying the criteria which we have jointly agreed upon. That is the procedure. By the way, I come from a country which has 36% of its territory protected under Natura 2000, so if anyone does not believe that this has real potential for the future, I would invite you to visit my country in the future.
The last thing that I should mention is connected to the last speaker’s comment. Part of our strategy for the future is a strategy for invasive species; we recognise that. This is one of the six strategic issues that we want to address, and this year you can expect a proposal from the Commission to address that issue."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples