| |
| |
 |
In
May Bulletin editor Pavel Antonov spoke in Kiev with the European Union’s
Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom about the Environment
for Europe process, sustainable development and the EU’s stand on GMOs.
Do you think the Environment for Europe process comes close enough to the spirit of last year's World Summit For Sustainable Development in Johannesburg? I think we are fine with the overall objectives of sustainable development and the general targets. What it has to come down to is move from words to deeds. What exactly does it mean — how do we invest in water and waste, what do we do about chemicals and pollution. I think we need to communicate that also to citizens in this part of the world so that we are made accountable. The frustration comes from not being concrete enough, from not showing action. The Environment for Europe process has provided a good framework for cooperation in trying to harmonise our legislation, for coming close to each other, understanding each other's problems, and seeing how we can assist and help. I think it has been useful. But I think it simply has to become more concrete. Now is the time for the action plan — a list of things that we can promise to do until we meet next time. People want to see progress in drinking water, in cleaning up polluted areas, and dealing with the amounts of waste that we create. I have a personal opinion to add here. I would like to see from now on the phasing out of leaded petrol — a simple thing that could be done immediately in all the countries in this region. We know that it affects the development of the brains of our children; we know it accumulates in the environment. It is a simple thing to do — it is already done in the EU, and I think it should be done here as well. Will the Environment for Europe process split between the environmental priorities for EU's members and accession countries and the East Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia region? The fact that the framework of this programme is called Environment For Europe means that we will need to continue to work together. Not to create too much of a divide. An enlarged EU also means that we will have many more differences and it will probably be a bit more difficult to reach a consensus and to work with the other part. It also creates benefits for the whole of Europe to work together for the same goals — together with the countries of EECCA. Genetically modified organisms were a hot issue at the Kiev conference. Is Kiev a place for the EU to speak out about its views, which would be in opposition to the pressure coming from the United States? We have now prepared ourselves in strengthening our legislation. We have our most important directive, we have added traceability-enabling proposals, we have been looking into feeds, seeds and what have you. We have now a comprehensive bulk of legislation to protect human health and the environment. Then we should be able to apply it and use it — otherwise who will trust the kind of protection and legislation we have in Europe? If we say "Yes, we have it all in place but we do not use it," it does not create any credibility so I think we have to start to apply it. We have the normal exchange of views with the US over this issue, and I don't think it should stop us from doing what is important and most urgent for us, and which is part of the international environmental agenda. |
 |
|
      |
|||
|
