Strasbourg, 21/05/2002 (Agence Europe) - Two reports on sustainable development, adopted last Thursday in Strasbourg by the European Parliament, express the fears of MEPs that the Johannesburg Summit (26 August - 4 September) would be a repeat of the failure of the Rio Summit. Suggestions made are an appeal to the European Union to act. It is invited to play a leading role during this international meeting that is decisive for the future of the planet.
Approving Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL, Greece), its rapporteur on the European Commission's communication entitled "Ten years after Rio: preparing for the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002", the Parliament adopted a resolution (341 votes for, 29 against and 12 abstentions). It stresses that, despite the commitments taken in Rio, there has been increasing pressure on the environment over the past ten years, and calls on the Johannesburg Summit to take specific initiatives concerning water (fresh water, seas and oceans, coastal areas), mountains, soil use, forests, biodiversity, the fight against desertification, chemical product waste, air pollution, biosafety, energy, minerals and metals. The Parliament subscribes to the five key themes that the rapporteur suggests should be included on the summit's agenda (just months from deadline, no final agenda has yet been decided, stresses the resolution) in order to promote sustainable development. These themes are: 1) the management and conservation of natural resources; 2) placing globalisation to the service of sustainable development and opening new roads (creating a new global pact, modifying the methods of production and consumption, establishing a link between trade and sustainable development); 3) the eradication of poverty (including the financing of development and scientific and technological transfers); 4) strengthened governance at every level (national, regional and international) and the role of local and regional government; and 5) the means for achieving these objectives. The Parliament, on the other hand, refused all reference to taxation of financial transactions. Satisfied with the driving role played by the Union in concluding the Kyoto Protocol and promotion of its ratification, the Parliament nonetheless expresses doubts about the determination and the ability of the Union to reach strong, clear stances on the themes to be discussed at Johannesburg. The resolution therefore invites the EU to translate its declarations (Porto Alegre, Davos, New York) into concrete initiatives and actions in order to: - bend the rules of international trade within the WTO so that they comply with the rules for biosafety; - revise the rules for funding and support of the external balances of the less developed countries (to avoid crises like the one Argentina has been going through); - achieve concerted reactivation of public aid to development; - develop technologies for renewable energy sources guaranteeing global diffusion; - and improve management of resources, maritime safety, the protection of threatened species, etc. The Parliament considers that by making progress in these areas itself, the Union would gain credibility and influence international talks.
With almost unanimous adoption of the report by Paul Lannoye (Greens, Belgium) on the Commission's communication "Towards a global partnership for sustainable development", the Parliament deplores the fact that, far from being attenuated, the disparities between North and South have increased since the Rio Summit. It considers that the poverty in which the majority of the planet's inhabitants live and the excessive consumption of the planet's minority (according to UNDP, one fifth of the world's population accounts for 86% of all consumption) are the two main causes for damage to the environment. The main concrete proposals approved by the MEPs in order to avoid failure in Johannesburg are: - the commitment of Member States to increase public development aid to 0.7% of their GNP by 2010; - cancellation of the debt and elaboration of a moratorium on debt servicing for all the less advanced countries and the heavily indebted poor countries; - introduction of a global tax on fossil fuels; the establishment within the EU of a "give as you earn" donation system based on income, whereby each Member State would adopt in its income tax system provisions allowing taxpayers to pay voluntary contributions, tax deductible, for works of charity; - the end of pressure on developing countries for them to open their market to food imported from the Union if such imports have a negative impact on small local producers and food security; - achievement of impact assessment on the sustainable development of Community policies (trade liberalisation, agriculture, fisheries, environment and public health) before any trade agreement or any Union programme; - a new partnership with the third countries to guide fisheries agreements; - rise in sustainable consumption of renewable energy sources (25% by 2020); - setting in place by 2004 of a legal framework for economic, social and environmental responsibility of European private companies that would compel private investors to respect national and international labour and environmental protection standards.
During the debate, many MEPs deplored the unending incantations that do not result in anything, and called for precise objectives, and a timetable for action and indicators to ensure the follow-up and the control of implementation, mainly concerning the use of natural resources. Mr Papayannakis strongly criticised the attitude of the Americans who are now pulling out of all commitment, considering that the role of the Union is thus more important "as long as it sweeps up its own back yard". Ms Flemming (EPP-ED, Austria) denounced the slowness of the progress and the bureaucracy surrounding preparations for the summit. "Johannesburg could be a failure before it even begins", she said. Recalling that "over 800 million people in the world are underfed and that one billion do not even have access to drinking water", Paul Lannoye felt Johannesburg would be the place for drawing up the balance sheet of the situation but that there was no room for "either a great 'ecologising' mass, or for lamentation". He also stressed that, in his view, good governance comes through "a facelift of the Bretton Woods institutions for a minimum of democracy and control by citizens". Mr Modrow (GUE/NGL, Germany) urged for the Tobin tax to be established and for environmental costs to be internalised in prices, mainly for the intensive use of resources. Ms Gonzales Alvarez (GUE/NGL, Spain) was ironical about the presence of the sustainable development concept "in all documents of those who do nothing". Ms Sandbaek (EDD, Denmark) expressed the hope that, in Bali (the last preparatory meeting end May), a political statement would be adopted on the implementation of international conventions. She stressed that the future Danish Presidency of the Council should plan to promote a global agreement and action partnerships in Johannesburg. Mr Kronberger (non-attached, Austria) urged for increased commitment towards giving up nuclear power, while Ms Evans (Greens/EFA, UK) drew attention to the "defence of biodiversity in the cultural field" which, she says, can be achieved through the defence of languages threatened by disappearance. Mr Blokland (EDD, NL) stressed how urgent it was to act and to "take into account the main concerns of citizens at the present time - security and health - which would make political decision-makers wake up". Mr Souchet (non-attached, France) insisted on "a good balance between public aid and international trade avoiding the perverse effects of the disappearance of food crops or the focusing by developing countries on exports of money-making crops". Mr Liese (EPP-ED, Germany) noted that it is up to the industrialised countries to show it is possible to have economic growth that is not to the cost of the environment. Stressing that the "Kyoto Protocol has still not been ratified after ten years of debate", and that, in Spain, greenhouse gas emissions have increased 33%, Ms Sauquillo (PES, Spain ) felt that, if they were able in Johannesburg to guarantee respect for commitments already taken, it would already be a success. Ms Laguiller (GUE/NGL, France) approved the "indictment of the world economic organisation" contained in the two reports but considered solutions proposed as "derisory". She denounced the "immense hypocrisy of the European Parliament" (which, she said, was why her group abstained during the vote). Mr Howitt (PES, UK) denounced the harm caused by multinationals in LDC in terms of destruction of ecosystems and of infringement of workers' rights. He considered as insufficient the proposals made by the Commission to make companies more responsible at world level. Along the same lines, Mr Deva Nirj (EPP-ED, UK) deplored the fact that the multinationals "are pillaging the planet" and felt that it they should be "helped to assume their responsibilities".
Speaking on behalf of the European Commission, Poul Nielson stressed the need to be "more creative in finding ways to implement and to finance". He said he "fully agreed" with the request of Parliament, all tendencies together, for reform of the EU's agricultural and fishing policies. In his view, "the Union's progress in these two fields will be among the most essential contributions to sustainable development". The Commissioner concluded by calling on the European Summit in Seville to entrust the Union with a pioneering role.