Sumario: September 25, 2002: Speech by Poul Nielson, European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, on the outcome of the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) at the European Parliament (Strasbourg)
Introduction
Margot (Wallström) has spoken about the EU mandate and how well the EU has been able to have our objectives reflected in the Johannesburg outcome. Margot and I have agreed that, after a few general remarks, I will now talk more specifically about trade, about finance and about follow-up. [You see, Margot and I are actually quite well coordinated on these issues!]
General remarks
Listening to Margot's account of results, one needs to keep in mind that Jo'burg was a UN conference, not a beauty contest (in which case we would have won by an even greater margin!]. It means delegations must reach consensus and that not everybody gets everything they want.
As Margot said, we are in a different political climate than in 1992. It is almost as if NGOs and the G77 have given up on a multilateral United States. As if the US was not part of the equation for sustainable development. That attitude is not possible in the negotiation rooms, where the US is very much a player, as we could see when the US and OPEC members joined forces in resisting targets on renewable energy.
Johannesburg did result in consensus. That in itself is positive.
Trade
Let me now address trade issues in more details. I have noticed some concerns on that issue.
The negotiations were indeed difficult. Developing countries in the Group of 77 put strong emphasis on trade and on subsidies in agriculture. This forced the EU to put in a strong effort to safeguard the Doha Development Agenda as the place to discuss this in substance in order to avoid a derailing of the whole multilateral agenda.
The EU succeeded, but we had to use negotiation capital defending what everybody had already agreed less than a year ago.
What is very encouraging -- and you may call it "EU leadership" if you have a taste for such expressions -- is that we avoided a repetition of the "agenda overload" leading to the Seattle breakdown.
Doha dealt with Trade in November 2001. Monterrey dealt with financing in March 2002. This certainly helped Johannesburg succeed. The multilateral agenda was much better organized for Johannesburg. This enabled us - despite the difficulties mentioned - to put aside trade and finance issues and focus - in the end-game- on the core issues of the Johannesburg conference.
The EU will continue to promote its positive and progressive agenda on trade -- including trade for the benefit of sustainable development in developing countries. There is plenty of things to report:
First, we are ahead of other major trading partners on market access, thanks in particular to "Everything But Arms".
Second, on Friday, the EU and the ACP launch negotiations on Regional Economic Partnership Agreements under Cotonou. I can talk more in detail if you have questions about that.
Third, last week, the Commission adopted a communication on Trade and Development, addressed to Council and to this Parliament. It sets out what we think needs to be done to make developing partners benefit from national, regional and global trade. As such, within less than a month, it responds to many of the action points in the Johannesburg Political Declaration such as the call for increased Trade-Related Assistance and capacity building for trade. Yesterday, in Brussels, we discussed four
African Regional Strategy Papers with our partners. We are suggesting that almost 50% of the regional envelopes should be dedicated to making trade a strong development vector.
There are many useful things we can do, and in fact, we already give some € 640 Million on trade-related assistance over the last five years. We will continue to help trade officials and operators in developing countries find their way through the red tape of international trade. We will work with partner countries to help them comply with food safety rules. And we will work directly with governments - to help train their negotiators and administrators, and to develop "sustainability impact
assessments" on the environmental and social impact of trade proposals
So, in short, the Plan of Implementation on trade, globalization and finance agreed in WSSD is in line with the mandate given by the Development Council on 30 May.
The relevant Doha provisions are quoted throughout the text. The Johannesburg text also calls for the successful completion of the Doha Agenda, without interfering with its negotiations on subsidies and tariffs. On subsidies, the EU Council conclusions are directly quoted.
The Johannesburg text also welcomes Doha's focus on placing the needs of developing countries at the heart of negotiations. It quotes - for example - the access to medicines/TRIPS text.
So the message for developing countries' delegation was nevertheless loud and clear: "The North must show that it is serious about Doha being a development round!" I think that is actually a rather useful reminder.
Meeting the Millennium Development Goals and Finance
Johannesburg fully reconfirmed the Millennium Development Goals, adding also a few, new important targets the International Development Agenda developed throughout the 1990's. Sustainable development remains the core objective. The Johannesburg Political Declaration gives us a coherent framework to work within to implement the outcome of all major UN Conferences.
As such, I am satisfied that the fight against poverty was given high priority throughout the chapters of the Plan of Implementation. It is a step forward that the Summit explicit prioritized fighting poverty in pursuing all the sectoral targets such as access to energy, water and sanitation, and equitable sharing of the benefits of biodiversity.
That MDGs are important yardsticks for whether the community of nations is jointly doing enough -- whether the mix of policies and finances produce the desired result.
You will not be surprised to hear me say that I think donors should be doing a lot more. The agreed language on finance ensures a dynamic post-Monterrey process, thereby maintaining the pressure for more ODA. If you want hard-core answers on where the EU is going, you should look at 2003 fiscal budgets for each of the EU Member States.
As regards the World Solidarity Fund, the EU has been and is clearly of the view that honoring those ODA commitments is more important than diverting already scarce means to new instruments. The text agreed in Johannesburg emphasizes the voluntary nature of this fund leaving the modalities to be further elaborated at the UN General Assembly.
Role of the European Parliament at WSSD
There has been some debate on the role of Members of this Parliament at the Summit, and on the collaboration with the Commission. Since some of these remarks have been made in public, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly react.
The Commission was happy to have a substantial presence from Parliament in the Union's delegation, as has been the case for all major UN conferences. Members clearly followed the summit actively and interacted with the Commission in various summit events, side-events etc., all in the interest of representing Europe.
Still, as agreed between the institutions, Members of Parliament participate in delegations as observers and do not take part directly in negotiating sessions.
The Commission did its best to allow parliamentarians to play their role. They were kept regularly informed of negotiations, and the Commission listened carefully to their views. Debriefing meetings where held on a daily basis by senior Commission officials. This demonstrates the importance we gave to a transparent flow of information. Both Commissioner Wallström and I participated in this process, briefing Members.
All of this was done within the current framework, a framework recalled explicitly in President Prodi's letter agreeing to parliamentary participation. I pointed out to Members of Parliament raising this issue in Johannesburg during the summit, as I had to do, that it was not in our power in Johannesburg to change these arrangements. Any such changes require a tripartite decision involving the Commission, Council and European Parliament. That probably goes beyond what we can handle in today's
debate, which I hope will contribute to the continuing fruitful dialogue on how to promote sustainable development building on the outcome of Johannesburg.
Follow- Up by the European Union
Let me therefore now conclude by a few words on follow-up.
Partnerships between governments, business and civil society should be a key instrument to deliver the commitments made in Johannesburg. We welcome the wide range of partnerships more than 200 launched at the Summit. These partnerships will bring with them additional resources and expertise, and will help to mobilize action at all levels.
It is the quality and size of the partnerships that matter, not the numbers. The Cotonou agreement is "only" one partnership, but it cover 15 EU member states and 78 developing countries and has a financial protocol of € 15.2 Billion… Let us not reinvent the wheel…
Now, the European Commission will focus on securing strong EU implementation of the two EU-wide partnerships on water and energy launched by the EU in Johannesburg.
Already during the Summit, the EU signed with its African partners a strategic EU/Africa partnership on water and sanitation. In relation with the EU Water Initiative, this is an important step towards the development of concrete actions building on a strong ownership and commitment from African partners.
More generally, it is clear that the effective implementation of the outcome of Johannesburg means translating intentions to action through development co-operation undertaken regionally, nationally and locally.
The EU must continue to take the lead. The European Council has already agreed to review, at their Spring meeting in 2003, the EU Strategy for Sustainable Development, with a focus on putting into practice the commitments undertaken in Johannesburg. To prepare this review, the Commission intends to submit proposals building on the Communication "Towards a Global Partnership for Sustainable Development" issued earlier this year. Internally, one of the main issues to be addressed in the synthesis
report for the next Spring European Council should be how to move towards more sustainable consumption and production patterns in the EU.
Concluding Remarks
The European Union can be pleased with the role it played in Johannesburg.
The EU clearly came with the longest wish list. By setting a high level of ambition, the number of disappointments also increases. NGOs and Press focus on these shortcomings.
Fine
But as responsible politicians, we must be careful NOT to draw the conclusion that we will be less ambitious in the future.
| Arriba |
Estados Miembros de la Union Europea
Alertas por e-mail
Enviar por e-mail
Imprimir esta página