Mr President, President Prodi has described three fundamental points of the programme and, in general, I support the overall line taken. As representative of the Group of the , I do, however, feel that we should be basing our assessment of this legislative programme on the agenda for sustainable development, outside as well as within the European Union. I am afraid to say, President Prodi, that your programme is rather vague on this point, not to say slightly rhetorical. We hope that, this time, the Commission’s report on sustainable development, due to be presented at the Spring Summit, will not arrive at the last minute. Equally, we hope that, as part of the follow up to Johannesburg, it might be possible to publish the annual report on the partnership initiatives on water and energy which, as you are aware, are part of what are known as the type two agreements concluded at Johannesburg, in due time. The legislative programme mentions the importance of the success of the Cancún meeting. However, we feel that the European Parliament must be involved in the debate on what the Commission is going to do and say in Cancún. We really do not want a repeat of the absolutely disgraceful situation at Johannesburg, where we were faced with a fait accompli, an agreement already concluded between the Commission – or perhaps the Commissioner responsible, for that mystery has yet to be cleared up – and the United States, that WTO rules should take precedence over international agreements in environmental matters. This venture was partly foiled at Johannesburg, but we genuinely fear that something similar might happen at Cancún, without any public debate and going completely against the endeavours the Commission itself is making in the area of the environment. As regards the external dimension of sustainable development, I would also point out that, although it is true that impact and sustainability assessments are now necessary for all international agreements – and this is a positive innovation which we very much welcome and with which we are very satisfied – it is also true that it is difficult to realise this undertaking, not least because of a certain lack of resources, as is shown by the work carried out on the agreement with Chile, work which was, I regret to say, inaccurate and rushed. We are looking forward with great interest, Mr President, to the Commission’s Green Paper on services of general interest, and it is our genuine hope that it will be possible to discuss it here in Parliament too, Chairman Barón Crespo. Moreover, we hope that it will be possible to produce a directive on the matter as well, not least in that we fear that there might be some inconsistency – as I said just now – between what the Commission says and does in the Union and what it then proceeds to negotiate at international level, particularly within the WTO, which is now extremely powerful. In addition, in this International Year of Mountains, President Prodi, knowing your passion for mountains, we would like to know what measures the Commission intends to adopt for the practical implementation of the Alps Convention, particularly the protocol on transport. Another environmental issue which we feel needs attention but which I am afraid is no longer part of the programme is PVC, a material which is recognised to be highly dangerous by at least five Commission ongoing studies. We were expecting a communication before the end of the summer but it appears that, after Commissioner Liikanen announced his position, all the work was stopped. I am citing this example, although it may seem a minor issue, because, although it is true that we are working constructively to improve the legislative programme, it is also true that our discussions do not serve much purpose if we then lose sight of major legislative proposals, firmly supported by Parliament, which appear as part of the programme for years and then suddenly disappear. I will end, Mr President, by expressing our deep concern at the influence of industrial lobbies on the Commission’s choice of legislative instrument, which may even not be a proper legislative instrument, and I would also point out that this issue is a very specific part of the interinstitutional agreement which, together with other Members of Parliament, we are trying to conclude before the Copenhagen European Council.

Political group: Verts-ALE