Brussels, 10/09/2002 (Agence Europe) - Margot Wallström, European Commissioner for the Environment provided her evaluation of the Johannesburg Summit on sustainable development to Parliament's Environmental Committee on Monday, where she answered questions put to her by MEPs. The balance sheet that she drew up was mainly positive although she acknowledged that, "the optimism that reigned at Rio ten years ago had given way to a great distrust of certain countries that poisoned the debate"…"We succeeded in putting sustainable development on the international political agenda. This is an important result. We wanted to move from words to deeds. We now have a follow-up commitment. We worked hard for a result orientated towards action for obtaining the millennium objectives". The Commissioner welcomed the commitments taken in this sense, such as: reducing the number of people who have no access to basic health care infrastructure or drinking water by half by 2015; reducing the impact of chemical products on human health by 2020; developing bio-diversity strategies by 2005 and implementing them by 2010. Ms Wallström believes that this already constitutes a substantial step and that it is important that the USA shares the same objective of sanitation and drinking water, adding "sanitation is a taboo subject for a number of countries".
Other issues touched on by the Commissioner included the "very good debate on energy" and the decision taken by China, Poland, Russia and Canada to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. In a reference to the decision to increase renewable energies but without mentioning a figure, Ms Wallström acknowledged to a certain extent that the Union had failed and its efforts marginalised. "For the definition of targeted objectives and timetables, we were really alone. Developing countries appeared to be rather on the side of the USA", she explained, happy, nonetheless, that the EU had been followed by several countries in its attempt to establish thresholds at least for the promotion of renewable energy."
Reviewing the Union's attempt to obtain a commitment form developing countries for implementing the Johannesburg objectives and the groundwork for an understanding with regard to sustainable consumption, Ms Wallström declared that, "We were able to obtain an agreement from the different groups to help developing countries rectify certain errors and orientate themselves more resolutely towards sustainable development."
Ms Wallström judged that the, "provisions setting up a statute of equality between the WTO and multilateral agreements on the environment and development" were satisfactory. According to the Commissioner, the Johannesburg declaration goes further that the Doha and Monterrey conferences because, "a certain number of commitments were made to encourage trade in organic products and the need to link trade and development was made at both a multilateral and national level". In this context, the Commissioner announced that the Commission was currently preparing a "paper for promoting this link".
Ms Wallström insisted on the importance of the partnerships concluded at Johannesburg, among them, the two Union initiatives on the water and energy sectors. In her view, these partnerships are, "a crucial result, inseparable from the implementation programme". Pointing out that the follow-up mechanism that the Union had been hoping for had been placed under in the hands of the UN, the Commissioner concluded that it had to be able to provide indicators for measuring what progress had been accomplished. "We can be satisfied. "The Union played a constructive role. The problem is that we were perceived as being like a lone train. Some countries, not entirely convinced by the usefulness of certain proposals lined up with the USA. We are going to ensure that our efforts continue in implementing the results of the summit", the Commissioner explained.
During the debate, several MEPs were said to share the Commissioner's positive assessment. Jorge Moreira Da Silva (EPP-DE, Portugal), nonetheless, asked the Commissioner if these summits were the best way of "saving the planet" and whether thematic summits would not be more suitable. Ms Wallström pointed to the differences between those who wanted to focus on some subjects and those who always wanted more. She explained that they had had to fight to keep environmental issues on the agenda and added, "When a large number of countries agree on some thing, it's already a victory. It's important to understand the arguments of some countries, that of South Africa for example, which pointed out that it didn't have the means to electrify the whole of the country with renewable fuels. These mega-conferences always open themselves up to criticism but they are democratic".
Karl Florenz (EPP, Germany), who had been in Johannesburg largely agreed.
While recognising that the Union had placed the bar too high, particularly for renewable energies, he declared that, "despite everything I think, these conferences are indispensable but it would be better to organise them in the future". In a reply to Marialiese Flemming, EPP-Austria, the Commission confirmed that nuclear energy had been excluded from the debate on renewable energies. Alexander de Roo (Greens/EFA, Netherlands), disappointed about the blocking of agricultural subsidies and the difficulties of the Union in finding allies, accused the Commissioner for Development, Poul Nielson, of having, "clearly shown that renewable energy did not interest him". This allegation was vigorously denied by Margot Wallström, who gave assurances of the "excellent co-operation" between the two Commissioners, who spoke "with a single voice", in contrast to Member States of the Union, which were sometimes divided, particularly on getting rid of export subsidies. In response to the President of the Parliamentary Committee, Caroline Jackson (Conservative, United Kingdom), who asked her about what lessons should be drawn from the summit, particularly with regard to Commission working methods, Ms Wallström pointed to the need to integrate sustainable development into the policies of the Union, notably in trade policy; obtaining more form developing countries, for whom the Union is the main donor without benefiting from their support and focusing on follow-up and control. John Bowis (Conservative, United Kingdom) criticised the summit for having been extravagant and of having, "brought together all the rich in the midst of the poor, and with the former who were then unable to agree". Ms Wallström replied that in the future it would be perhaps better, "to organise these conferences in poor areas and try and live like the locals".