Mr President, the subject of this debate is sustainable development and the political message which Parliament wants to send out – both itself and via the European Union as a whole – to the Johannesburg Summit next August, ten years after Rio. It would be very tempting to list the issues and problems of sustainable development and the future of sustainable development at length, but there is just such a list in the report and in the resolution proposed by the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy. So I shall refrain from doing so. I mainly want to explain the logic behind the political message we want to send out. So let us begin with the bottom line and the bottom line, ladies and gentlemen, 10 years after Rio, is clearly in the red. With the exception of Kyoto, no progress has been made either with the environment per se – in fact there have been setbacks – or with the state of the world in general. Poverty has not been eradicated or reduced; on the contrary it is rising and we know full well that, with so many people living below the poverty line, there is no point in talking about protecting productive resources, renewable sources of energy and so on. The bottom line is in the red but no one accepts any responsibility for it. Perhaps they will do so in Johannesburg; it would be a useful exercise because it might throw some light on what we need to do in the future, because the future is not looking too rosy. The population on this planet is exploding, all the statistics say so. The pressure on resources is increasing as a result of globalisation and other factors, and both environmental and social cohesion problems look set to get worse. So what should we be doing? What should we be talking about in Johannesburg? I think we all agree that whatever the definition of sustainable development, it must include development, social cohesion and environmental protection. The to-do list is clear on this count, I think we all agree. We talk about changing production and consumption standards, we talk about eradicating poverty, we talk about mainstreaming the environment in all policies, in farming, fisheries, industry, energy, tourism, water and air policies, but we have no objectives, timetables, indicators to tell us if we have reached our targets, mechanisms, capital, and the means to move and control the use of resources. This is where the problems lie. The report and the resolution contain numerous proposals on reducing poverty, on renewable sources of energy and on countless other points which all require resources, institutions, rules, proper local, national and global management, political management. It is this management that will, I think, be the main problem in the future. Reforming the international system of Bretton Woods institutions and of more recent institutions such as the World Trade Organisation, for example when their rules clash with environmental protection. Reforms so that poor people can farm, agricultural reforms, for example, to give them water, energy, the rudiments needed to move to a modern perception of environmental protection and, of course, government action. As we know, the United States are loath to make any kind of commitment. They are also distancing themselves from those who have. The role of the European Union is the sixty-four thousand dollar question. The European Union will be able to play a part for quite some time to come, but not for ever. And if it is going to play its part, it needs to put its own house in order. It needs to do more to promote environmental protection and social cohesion policies. To table commitments at international organisations in which it has enough clout to achieve some degree of success, to be a reliable partner, internationally and with the third world, so that we can hope for some sort of improvement post Johannesburg and so that, in ten years' time, we do not find ourselves in the same situation we were in 30 years ago.

Political group: GUE-NGL