Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present to you the report on biodiversity. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Members here today and those who worked with me with a view to drafting and presenting this resolution to you today. I would also like to thank the draftsmen of the opinion of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development, the Committee on Fisheries and the Committee on Development and Cooperation who supported all the drafts that your rapporteur presented on the protection of biodiversity. Lastly, I would also like to thank the NGOs who really made an enormous effort for this report. We know that they are excellent observers who have a perfect understanding of the status of biodiversity throughout the world. Mr President, the situation is not rosy and I would like to answer a question that, strictly speaking, has not been raised but which is often implicit in some Members’ comments. What is the real use of biodiversity, or, in more straightforward terms, why protect nature when there are so many other issues of concern? I would like to remind you that biodiversity plays a part in our own survival and that although nature does not need man to survive, we, as human beings, need nature in order to live. Our responsibility as elected representatives is to preserve a rich biodiversity. This rich biodiversity holds the assets for the development of future generations. Each living species that disappears from the face of the planet is an irreversible and irretrievable loss, and if we allow biodiversity to be destroyed, we are slowly but surely destroying ourselves. We can see this destruction taking place every day. Is the Brazilian Congress not due to issue an opinion in the near future on a project that authorises the use of 50% of the Amazon rain forest, which we know represents a huge genetic pool? It is not out of disinterest that man destroys or threatens biodiversity – very much the opposite in fact. It is out of genuine interest. It is because huge financial interests are at stake, involving the precious wood as well as trafficking in endangered species, the intensive farming of land, the overexploitation of fish stocks or even the pillaging of the age-old practices of indigenous peoples. In order to put a stop to this massacre, the Convention on Biological Diversity was signed at the Earth Summit in Rio. Ten years down the line, it is still the poor relative – the Convention’s signatory States have not kept their commitments and so far no country has biodiversity in its list of priorities for September’s summit in Johannesburg. In just a few days’ time, the Conference in The Hague will be held, which will bring together those party to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the European Parliament, by means of our resolution, must shoulder its responsibilities and send out a strong and clear message. We call upon the Union to place the issue of biodiversity on the Johannesburg agenda and upon the Commission to present an action plan at this meeting, as it is doing for the European Union. We must reiterate the fundamental role of biodiversity as the cornerstone of sustainable development and the importance of the full application of the Convention and its provisions. We also call on the Union to put in place an ambitious policy to preserve its own biodiversity. The action plans presented by the Commission in the areas of natural resources, agriculture, development and fisheries, which are the subject of this report, may, of course, be seen as a first step along this road, but they are not enough. We need additional action plans, particularly for forestry and for transport, as all these Community policies had or still have a negative impact on biodiversity. And although the Commission claims its ambition is to reverse the current trend, it is fully aware of the challenge that it faces. The report states – and I quote – that “during recent decades, the reduction and loss of biodiversity in Europe and worldwide has accelerated dramatically and existing measures have proved to be insufficient to reverse present trends”. I would add to this the new threats posed by the introduction of certain GMOs and even the conflicts related to the ownership of living things, which give an indication of future ambitions. To reverse this destructive tendency is a bold challenge, admittedly, but it is one we are prepared to face. The European Union has still to equip itself with the political and financial means to hope to achieve this objective. We already have the birds and habitats directives, which enable us to preserve a part of our biodiversity. We demand that they be applied throughout the European Union, including in the candidate countries and in the outermost regions and particularly in areas such as the coral reef. We must find ways of preserving these areas. The second way of making headway in implementing a sustainable ecological development plan, as formally acknowledged at the Gothenburg Summit, is to equip ourselves with effective means of measuring how far the environment is taken into account in the Union’s policies. The Barcelona Spring European Council is due to adopt six environmental indicators. This is not enough. No mention is made of biodiversity. We also call on the Commission to present a specific indicator for biodiversity by 2003. If we want to make progress in the area of biodiversity, we know that we must begin immediately and continue every day to integrate this problem in the policies of the Union, starting with the forthcoming reform of the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy, the policy on transport and the Cotonou development agreements. Although there is consensus between the various groups within Parliament on the ways of protecting biodiversity, several Members hold conflicting views on the impact of GMOs on biodiversity. Nonetheless, as rapporteur, I hope that the references to the environmental liability of GMOs for polluting the countryside are retained. To sum up, allow me, Mr President, to presume that no one would even think of planning to destroy a cathedral, for example, or a listed monument to build a motorway. We must have the same approach towards preserving our natural heritage and biological diversity.

Political group: Verts-ALE