Mr President, there is nothing indecent about stating the figures on extreme poverty in developing countries. What is indecent is the wilful blind eye turned by rich countries, who, despite the horror of the situation, still carry on in the same way. It is in this context that the increasing overlap between business and development should be viewed, including here, within the Committee on Development and Cooperation. If the fight against poverty and food insecurity is to succeed, it cannot be left up to the business community. It must attack the structural causes of poverty in developing countries. Priority must be given to structural change in their economies in order to increase their share of products produced and diversified, including in the agricultural sector. That is why it is essential to promote fair access to land, water and the resources of biodiversity as well as a policy of local support for agricultural smallholdings. In order to achieve this, we must take account of three factors. Firstly, new international commitments are needed and, most of all, must be honoured. I have just come from Johannesburg. After the disappointing Monterrey and Food Summits, Johannesburg is a new opportunity for the northern Heads of State to repeat how important it is to help the people of the South but also to provide ourselves with the proper means to do so. All well and good, but when will these significant commitments be followed up by practical action? Secondly, the approach concerning multilateral trade relations should definitely be thoroughly reviewed. Within the WTO, these relations do not actually take place with a view to achieving the priorities set by the United Nations, but are dominated by the ‘give-and-take’ philosophy. What is more, the negotiation methods and pace automatically exclude many developing countries. Why refuse the protection that has enabled developing countries to implement their own industrialisation? As for the ADPIC agreements, these restrict access for local peoples in the South to their own natural resources and are incompatible with the objective of food security. Moreover, pressure in favour of the liberalisation of services endangers their public services, such as water, energy, communications, health and education. Lastly, new funding must be found urgently. In Johannesburg, the French President, Jacques Chirac, suggested taking a small percentage of the wealth created by globalisation to finance the fight against its negative effects. Who is he trying to kid? Why not suggest that the rich countries set aside the equivalent of 5% of the money they spend on subsidies for their own agriculture in order to fight hunger in developing countries? Johannesburg, in particular, is also an excellent reflection of people’s experiences and anger, but also the hopes of the numerous NGOs, associations, men and women from all continents who meet to find alternatives and draw up effective proposals. We must listen to them. To Mr Berlusconi, who said in July that it is not the fault of rich countries if they have 80% of the world’s wealth, I would say that three quarters of the world are slowly dying on the doorstep of this so-called ‘rich’ world. It is the responsibility and duty of rich countries, for the sake of fairness as well as of economic efficiency, not to limit themselves to formal commitments, voluntary guidelines or the business community, but to define a proper, restrictive code of conduct that penalises countries which fail to give the necessary aid to the poorest countries. The same applies to transnational corporations, whose exceptional power must be regulated and controlled as a matter of urgency. Although the Deva report does not demonstrate a radical will to throw off the shackles of die-hard commercial globalisation, it still raises the need to protect the economies of poor countries and cancel all or part of the debt. This is a significant starting point.

Political group: GUE-NGL