2008 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(Third part)

REPORT

Twentieth Sitting

Monday 23 June 2008 at 3 p.m.

Link to the voting results

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are summarised.

3.       Speeches in German and Italian are reproduced in full in a separate document.

4.       Corrections should be handed in at Room 1059A not later than 24 hours after the report has been circulated.

The contents page for this sitting is given at the end of the verbatim report.

Mr de Puig, President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 3.05 p.m.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The sitting is open.

1. Changes in the membership of committees

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Our first business this afternoon is to consider the changes proposed in the membership of committees. These are set out in the Document Commission (2008) 5 Addendum 1.

Are the proposed changes in the membership of the Assembly’s committees agreed to?

They are agreed to.

2. Statement by Mr Carl Bildt, as Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – We now come to the communication from Mr Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers, Document CM/AS(2008) 5.

(The speaker continued in English)

Dear Chairman, I have great pleasure welcoming you in this Chamber for your first communication to the Assembly in your capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers.

Let me say a special word of gratitude for the generous hospitality which the Standing Committee received from the Swedish Parliament during its last meeting in May. The presence of your Minister for European Affairs, Ms Cecilia Malmström, contributed to a very fruitful and valuable exchange of ideas. At the same time, it was a very much appreciated sign of the political commitment of your country to the cause of the Council of Europe. In this connection, I praise the priorities of your country’s chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers have a common endeavour to strengthen our Organisation’s core objectives and to show genuine political vision and leadership for Europe.

We need, first of all, constantly to improve the human rights protection system for Europe’s citizens, but we also need to find adequate responses to several crisis situations and trends: world conflicts; soaring petrol prices; the ever increasing cost of living; and climate change. In many instances, we see that the temptation is for governments to back down on human, social and civic rights. We are also witnessing the current difficulties of Europe to move forward towards further integration.

Therefore, the leading role of our Organisation in strengthening democracy, human rights and the rule of law is more relevant than ever. However, there is a basic precondition so that our core values are a reality in Europe: appropriate budgetary means. The foremost problem facing this Organisation is the current “zero growth” budgetary impasse. Our member states’ commitment to the Council of Europe must, in my view, be better reflected in our budget.

Dear Chairman, with a harmonious and balanced partnership between the Parliamentary Assembly and the Committee of Ministers, I am confident that we are on the right track. We look forward to hearing from you about the activities of the Committee of Ministers and about your vision of the future of the Council of Europe. The floor is yours.

      Mr BILDT (Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers). – Mr President, Mr Secretary General, and ladies and gentlemen, I see the faces of quite a number of old friends in this Assembly. I am honoured to be in this distinguished Assembly to address you in my capacity as Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers. I have never personally had the privilege of being a member of your Assembly, but over the decades I have had reason to follow your work very closely, as numerous prominent parliamentarians from my country have rightly seen their work in this Assembly as being of the utmost importance. The reason why they do so should be obvious, but we sometimes need to remind ourselves of the facts.

The Council of Europe might not deal primarily with food prices, energy policy or treaty ratification difficulties – we dealt with some of those issues in another body a couple of days ago – but it deals with issues that are more fundamental to the well-being of our citizens and societies, and it deals with them across a far larger area of Europe. In May, we marked the 60th year since the congress in The Hague. That congress, held after the great war, provided the impetus to set up this Council a year later on – an event that we will celebrate next year. That congress in The Hague was based on the firm belief that it is only by safeguarding the rule of law, by protecting human rights and by building democratic structures of governance that we can secure future peace and prosperity in our part of the world. Those truths were self-evident immediately after the end of another of the wars that devastated Europe.

But I believe that we need to remind ourselves of those truths even in the Europe of today. Peace can never be taken for granted. Prosperity does not come out of nowhere. If we cannot build the rule of law, our societies are bound to descend into a state of legal nihilism that sooner or later will endanger virtually everything. If we cannot safeguard the human rights of each and every person, our societies are at risk of degenerating into darkness. If we cannot protect our democratic way of governing, with all that it entails, our societies risk sinking down, sooner or later, into confrontation, crisis and chaos. That is what the Council of Europe is all about: the most fundamental of European values and the most fundamental of European interests. That is where Europe has to stand tall and be truly proud of its achievements, both in Europe and in the wider world.

While being proud of our achievements, we must also recognise that there are significant challenges ahead, and that those values and interests need to be safeguarded everywhere and all the time. My country, Sweden, tries its best; we are often proud of what we have achieved, but even we have to note that rulings in the European Court of Human Rights sometimes expose flaws in our adherence to the high standards of respect for human rights, and that we have to undertake changes to be truly in conformity with these standards. That proves that no state stands above those standards, and that every state is subject to the jurisdiction of the common institutions of which we are so proud.

The role of the Council covers a large number of different areas but, of course, of critical importance when we talk about the rule of law, human rights and democracy is the issue of free and fair elections. Here, you – the Parliamentary Assembly – together with other institutions of the Council and other European bodies, play a very important role. I note that on your agenda this week are reports on the recent elections in Georgia, as well as in “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”. In both cases, shortcomings were noted, but in both cases improvements were reported in the latest round of voting – due to a large extent, I think, to the help and assistance that we, you and others have provided.

Also on your agenda is the situation in Azerbaijan and its important upcoming election, as well as Armenia, after the most tragic events of 1 March. They both require close surveillance. The attention that you give those countries is therefore most welcome and important. Looking ahead, we note that parliamentary elections have been scheduled for Belarus on 28 September this year. Obviously, we all hope that there will soon be democratic changes in that country that will allow it to assume its rightful place in this Assembly. The elections will be, and should be, closely watched. I can only appeal to the authorities of Belarus, in the best interests of the future of their country, to allow truly free and fair elections and to invite long-term, as well as short-term, international and European observers. I will be consulting with my colleagues in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the European Union to see what else can be done to further that important objective as we approach those important elections in Belarus.

Democracy is not just about having free and fair elections; it is also about respecting the result of the vote, and respecting the government formed as a consequence of the elections. I understand that you intend to have a discussion on the situation in Turkey and the extremely far-reaching legal challenges now mounted against its democratically elected government. We obviously have to, and should, respect the constitutional law of Turkey, but in judging how the country’s different constitutional institutions are used, we must also take into account the principles and practices of the countries of the Council of Europe. The banning of political parties, which happens in various countries, is always a serious issue, but the Venice Commission has laid down certain rules that ought to be observed. I believe that laws and practices that go significantly outside these rules will be seriously questioned, and not just in this Assembly.

I stress again that our task of safeguarding respect for human rights and the rule of law applies to every country – there should be no double standards – but there are two regions to which we are presently devoting particular attention. One of them, obviously, is south-eastern Europe. At the ministerial meeting in Strasbourg on 7 May, we had an extended discussion on this subject, both in more general terms and in relation to the activities of the Council of Europe. Both the rule of law and respect for human rights have made great progress in this area during the last decade or so, but the tasks remaining are still formidable if we look at the details.

Refugees and displaced persons everywhere should have the right to return if they so wish. The rule of law should apply equally to each and everyone. Elections should be conducted peacefully and free of any form of coercion or intimidation. Corruption corrodes and destroys any economy and any society. European neighbours should be seen as future friends – not past enemies. Here, the Council of Europe is helping, and it should continue to do so.

I am pleased to note that President Tadić of Serbia will address you during the week. I hope that a reform-oriented government, advancing the European integration of Serbia, can be formed in Belgrade very soon. I am certain that President Tadić will explain to you from this rostrum his country’s position on the status of Kosovo. Some other governments share the view that he will express, but the majority of the countries of our Council have recognised Kosovo as an independent state under international supervision.

UN Security Council Resolution 1244 still applies, and a reconfiguration of the international presence in Kosovo will now occur – highly welcome, in my opinion. It is important that this also gives room for the Council of Europe’s continued activities there. Few things are more important for the future of all those who live there than that the rule of law is truly respected – and we all know that the situation today leaves much to be desired in that vitally important respect.

      The second area of special concern is obviously Southern Caucasus. In this region too, progress has been made towards the building of democratic institutions, respect for human rights and the rule of law since Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia joined the Council of Europe. However, electoral observations in these countries have shown that there are still shortcomings that need to be addressed in order to have fully democratic elections. In addition, in all three countries, political life is characterised by a strong polarisation and an element of antagonism between the majority and the opposition. That absence of political dialogue and trust is, in my opinion, obviously a serious structural obstacle to democratic progress.

      Key to the future of the region is both economic development – that is always of great importance – and the resolution of the unresolved conflicts that otherwise tend to consume the attention of the political lives of those countries. Those conflicts are outside the remit of our Council, but let me just stress the fundamental importance that we attach to the territiorial integrity of Georgia. That Abkhazia must have the widest possible degree of autonomy in the future is obvious to everyone and not really very much contested, but the territorial integrity of Georgia must not be called into question. To do so would risk stability in a much wider region and in an important area for a number of countries in that vicinity.

      Moving on to the somewhat more formal aspects of my speech, I would assume that you have all received and read my written communication providing you with details on the progress of the Committee’s work over recent months, including the 118th ministerial session and its follow-up, and about forthcoming events.

I will only highlight a couple of points that are particularly important to the Swedish chairmanship. As my colleague, Cecilia Malmström, informed you at the meeting of your Standing Committee in Stockholm last month, Sweden’s priority is to implement the Warsaw decisions to focus on core issues, to make rights real for the citizens of Europe. This we do through the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. The challenges that we face here are well known to all of us: the increasing awareness of the Convention and the Court in increasingly large parts of Europe has led to a huge backlog of cases.

      In itself, this is highly satisfactory from our point of view. Numerous international institutions set up in the distant past just fade away into irrelevance – here we have one that was set up some time ago and is seen as increasingly important by more and more of the peoples and citizens of our diferent European countries. That, in itself, should be considered as important, but it does present some practical difficulties. And then we – governments and parliamentarians – in the 47 countries of our Council have a collective responsibility to make certain that it works. I can reassure you that this issue is dear to me and one to which I will devote attention.

      Ratification of Protocol No. 14 is obviously of key importance. I hope that a new interest in the issues of the rule of law in Russia will open up new possibilities in that respect, and we will obviously pursue that issue from that perspective. But let me remind you that there are several ways in which these issues must be addressed. We should all stress the importance of national efforts to make certain that the Convention can be implemented at the national level. The closer that it is implemented to the citizen, the better for the long-term observance of the different rights and provisions of the Convention. This is one of the most effective ways of protecting the Court against an excessive workload that is a consequence of the Council and the values that we represent.

      The ministers took stock of work to this effect at the ministerial session. Following that, a colloquy was organised in Stockholm on this very subject at the beginning of the month. The conclusions from the colloquy will be taken into account in the further reform work.

      These are some of the priorities that we will continue to work with. And they are all related not only to the core issues identified more recently for the Council of Europe, but more importantly to those fundamental values and interests identified as this Council was set up nearly six decades ago. They have proved their strength and importance since then – I am convinced they will do the same in the decades ahead. Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you very much, Mr Bildt, for your statement, which was extremely interesting.

We will now proceed to questions. Sixteen questions have been tabled in writing and are published in Document 11649, in the order in which they were received. To have an opportunity for a more spontaneous debate, Mr Bildt has agreed to respond to some spontaneous questions as well. So I have an additional list to the one that you have already with written questions. First, I give you the floor, Mr Bildt, for you to respond to some of the written questions.

Mr BILDT. – Thank you, Mr President. Yes, we had the discussion before, and I thought that, in addition to delivering answers to the written questions – that is the way that we do it at home as well – I will leave the floor open to try to answer any more spontaneous questions that there might be. Of course, if you have submitted a written question, you might also submit it verbally, and I will see whether I deliver roughly the same answer – I hope that I will do that. Let me say something about some of the questions that have been put to me and accordingly to the Committee of Ministers. It is related to Protocol No. 14. I think that I have covered that to a certain extent. Those issues are of great importance. Whatever our perspective, we should work on those issues.

      I received a question on the Irish referendum and its result. We may discuss that fairly extensively in another body as well. However, democratic practices differ somewhat in European countries. Switzerland has a tradition of having referendums on virtually everything. In other countries there is a legal prohibition on having a referendum because in the not too distant past they have had a rather nasty experience that could have lead to threats to democratic order. We must respect the fact that different European countries have different histories. Accordingly, we have different rules for taking decisions.

      I have been asked about enlargement of the European Union. That is an interesting subject. As a Swedish Foreign Minister I am very much in favour of that. That is as important as the enlargement of the Council of Europe. It is also about the rule of law, although in a number of ways the EU has a more integrationist approach with higher standards in other areas, not necessarily those covered by the Council of Europe.

      I have been asked about the situation in Turkey. I think that I addressed that to some extent. I have also been asked about the monitoring that we do on the fulfilment of the commitments and obligations of different countries and the obligations that countries undertake to become members. Some of that is done by you and there are elements that are done by the Committee of Ministers. We must observe the rules. It is important. All member states are being watched. My own country is aware of the fact that it will also be watched by the Court if it does things that do not conform fully with the rules.

      I have been asked about the situation in Armenia and Azerbaijan. I mentioned that briefly. I know that that will be on the agenda, which I welcome; it is important that it is on the PACE’s agenda. I was asked about the situation in Kosovo and south-eastern Europe. I do not think that I fully answered all the questions and all the issues related to that. I cannot do that, but I have at least made some remarks on the subject.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. We will now have spontaneous questions.

      Mr BABAKOV (Russian Federation) raised a point of order about how questions had been answered.

      THE PRESIDENT said that he would receive a written answer; that was how questions were now organised.

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – It seems that we should have communicated this change in our proceedings much better. For example, I also put a question to Mr Bildt and I understand that I will receive the answer later in written form but only this morning did it transpire that there was the opportunity to present an additional spontaneous question. I asked to be put in the register but now I find that my name is not included. The explanation that I received was that there was a choice: one was either on the list of speakers with written questions or on the spontaneous question list. It is ridiculous because if it is supposed to be spontaneous it should not be limited to that group. I know it is a long way to Tipperary, but I hope that we will improve the position.

      THE PRESIDENT said that it was precisely because this had been thought about and the Bureau had been unanimous. They thought they should change the procedure, and it was necessary to do so, to make the session more dynamic and lively. That was why the Bureau had unanimously decided to have spontaneous questions. It was time to move forward on to the spontaneous questions, and that was that.

      Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – Mr President, you did not respond to my question: why is it that people such as me who are eager to be put on the list of spontaneous questions are not accepted?

      THE PRESIDENT said that he thought it had been understood: it was necessary for debate to move more swiftly and be more responsive. People had to apply to be able to put a spontaneous question or a written one. There might be time for additional oral questions after the spontaneous questions. There was not enough time for an extended discussion on each individual question, as he had explained. He called Mr Van den Brande, on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr Van den BRANDE (Belgium). – Let us not shoot the messenger, even if he comes from Sweden and not from Greece. It is important that we have a real question time, and I appreciate the way in which the Minister dealt with that. For two years, we have demanded a dialogue and interaction between the Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers and members of the Assembly. It is important to give that message and not just have a combination of speeches, written questions and written replies. I am pleased that we changed the procedure.

      Minister, you were a bit afraid that we had not read your text but of course we did. I looked at the priorities of the Swedish presidency, and I was pleased that you said that the key is to make rights a reality. The Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers must also see how the commitments and obligations of member states could be made a reality. My question relates to your comments about doing something about that, and about the responsibilities of the member states. When we look at many of the conventions of the Council of Europe, it is appropriate to make the connection with national parliaments and to have some discussion beforehand. I look forward to hearing what initiatives you are taking on that point.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – I call on the Minister to reply.

Mr BILDT. – I thank you for your question. I agree that that is an important issue: whether we have done enough to follow up the different commitments in different cases. That is a matter that we should discuss.

      When I have visited certain areas in my national capacity, I have noted significant deviations. Countries have been subject to the decisions and judgments of the European Court for Human Rights that are fairly fundamental. I always try to bring that up with the leadership of those countries. That should be the obligation of every foreign minister of all the countries of the Council of Europe. In that way, we can make it obvious that we are taking those matters into consideration, but I am happy to look into whether there is anything further we can do in that respect. That is important. It is about commitment, all of us observing the rules and working to make certain that those commitments are observed.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

Mr BENDER (Poland). – I want –

THE PRESIDENT. – Your name is on the list, Mr Bender. Please wait your turn. I call Mr Kox of the Unified European Left.

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – There are two parts to my question. First, the organisation that deals with more fundamental matters is going to continue its work. What are you going to do to end our budgetary anorexia from which that organisation suffers? What initiatives will you introduce to do so? Secondly, how do human rights relate to the recent Swedish law on Internet tapping? It will be interesting to hear the answer to that, too.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Kox.

Mr BILDT. – On the latter question, there is no such law. The only thing that has happened in Sweden is something that is good for the country, in contrast to the position in the past, and perhaps in contrast to other countries. We now have a very firm law setting out what can be done in foreign signals intelligence, and what cannot be done. We have a signals intelligence law that applies to what our respective authorities can do concerning traffic that crosses our borders. It was done before, but without any law. Now we have a law with safeguards and oversight, and I think that that shows our commitment to human rights. Whether the same applies in all countries is a different issue. What was the first question, Mr Kox?

Mr KOX (Netherlands). – On the budget.

Mr BILDT. – Yes, the budget: I was trying to avoid that as you know, but I failed. That is obviously a different issue. As we know, most governments concerning most international organisations – not only this one – want zero growth. I do not think that it is wrong to take a stringent approach to the way in which we spend taxpayers’ money. Some of us, in view of things that I spoke about, think that leeway should be given to certain activities. We shall continue dialogue with different governments on that matter. We are careful when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money, but when we talk about fundamental values and interests, safeguarding them might not always come for free.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Bildt.

Mr KOSACHEV (Russian Federation). – On a point of order, Mr President. I let the representatives of the political groups pass, but now that we are starting our regular procedure, may I have an explanation as to why some people on the list of questions had the opportunity to table spontaneous questions as early as 4 June? How did they know at that moment that there would be an opportunity to ask spontaneous questions, and people like me did not know that? We tabled written questions, and we have not received any answers today.

THE PRESIDENT said that a letter had been sent to all members, and that this new procedure had also been discussed before it was set up. Under the new procedure, when political groups did not wish to take up all their speaking slots, there would be room for spontaneous questions from members. He apologised to Mr Kosachev if he had not been informed about this decision, which had clearly caused some confusion. He would ensure that the Bureau acted to clarify matters; but in his view the new procedure certainly made for a more interesting debate. There had clearly been a few teething problems, which had been manifest today, but this was the first time this procedure had been used. He apologised to the Minister for the fact that time had been taken up by internal Assembly matters. He called Mr Hovannisian.

Mr HOVANNISIAN (Armenia). – Last week, the well-known Turkish publisher and human rights activist Ragip Zarakolu was given a five-month conviction for publishing a book by a British author that mentioned the Armenian genocide. That has happened following the recent amendments to Article 301. On conviction, Mr Zarakolu said: “I was partly waiting for this result. But it is a struggle for the truth and it will go on. I do not accept myself as convicted. This is a conviction for official history and for denialism.” What is your comment, especially after the recent amendments and given the fact that there has been no closure of the tragic case of Hrant Dink?

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Hovannisian. I call the Minister to reply.

      Mr BILDT. – I am not aware of the details of that particular case. Of course, we are concerned about freedom of information in Turkey, particularly regarding Article 301. I note with satisfaction the changes to that article, as there have been significant improvements. There are issues relating to other aspects of the penal code that are still the subject of debate, and I can only hope that that will go forward.

      Concerning the discussion of what we might term “historical issues”, including the one that was mentioned, there has been significant improvement in the climate in which they are discussed in Turkey. Books and articles are published in which different points of view are spelled out in a way that was nearly unthinkable some years ago. That does not mean that everyone is in agreement, and the tragic case alluded to clearly shows that.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Sasi.

      Mr SASI (Finland). – You rightly said that the presidency would promote human rights. However, at the last EU summit, the EU decided to develop contacts with Cuba, which has no democratic elections and no freedom of press, and where opposition leaders are in jail. Would you speak in that context in favour of human rights and say that in the whole of Europe we share the same values? For example, there is a co-operation agreement between the Council of Europe and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, and we have the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. In practical terms, how can you guarantee that we really share the same values?

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you, Mr Sasi. I call the Minister to reply.

Mr BILDT. – I do not think that we share the same values with the Cuban regime – at least, I do not. It is the only regime in the Latin American Caribbean region that does not allow free elections. Some people say that big changes have taken place in Cuba. However, I have said that I do not have a sufficiently large microscope to detect them. There are in the order of 260 political prisoners there, to which we may add those whom Amnesty International considers prisoners of conscience. It is a fairly deplorable regime: it is a reprehensible and repressive regime. Having said that, I am in favour of dialogue. I think we should have confidence in our values. I am not afraid to talk to anyone, because I am confident in my values. They are somewhat reluctant to talk to us, and if we look at the history of the EU relationship with Cuba, we can see that that has been the case there as well. We have offered Cuba dialogue time after time. We want to talk about political prisoners; we want to talk about free and fair elections, but so far they have slammed the door in our face. Let us see if they are ready to talk to us. We are not afraid to talk to anyone, because we have confidence in our values. That is the way it should be.

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Rigoni.

Mr RIGONI (Italy) thanked the President, and asked the Minister what he had meant when he had referred to dialogue. Had he meant, for example, dialogue with Belarus? It had not been possible in recent years to influence the regime there with the strategy that it had adopted. What was the Committee of Ministers’ strategy? Should there be dialogue with Belarus or should the same old policy of isolation be continued?

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call the Minister to reply.

      Mr BILDT. – My personal view is always that we should be clear about what we seek from dialogue and that we should not be afraid of it. However, that does not mean that we should invite each and everyone – including those who are violating our values – to our meetings and high-level events that could be used for propaganda purposes. That undermines what we seek. There were moves by the Slovak presidency and the Committee of Ministers to open up an information point and other things in order gradually to get into Belarus to engage with Belarus society as well as with representatives of regimes. Without doing anything that gives them any sort of democratic credibility, we should continue that process. As I said in my address here, on the issue of standards in the upcoming elections we should have a dialogue with them about international European observers and Belarus allowing them into those elections. Let us see what happens after that.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Ms Pashayeva.

      Ms PASHAYEVA (Azerbaijan). – Why is the Committee of Ministers not demanding that Armenia complies with European values, the principles of the Council of Europe and the commitments of international organisations such as the Council of Europe? What is the new Chairman’s position on the continued occupation of the territory of one Council of Europe member state, Azerbaijan, by another, Armenia, and on the violation of the rights of Azerbaijani internally displaced persons and refugees?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the Minister to reply.

      Mr BILDT. – As I think I noted in my remarks, when it comes to conflict resolution, certain issues are outside the scope of both the Council of Europe and the Committee of Ministers. In this case, the Minsk Group is trying to facilitate a resolution to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, and I can only note that some meetings have taken place. There was a meeting between the two presidents in St Petersburg at the beginning of the month. I do not know what happened at that meeting, but we should encourage progress in those areas. Those talks will bring the issue to a resolution. We should be observant about democratic standards and the rule of law in each country, including those mentioned. I think I alluded to that in my remarks.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Ms Vėsaitė.

      Ms VĖSAITĖ (Lithuania). – Thank you, Mr President.

      For many years, Sweden has been known as an absolute champion in the world as a country promoting equal opportunities for everybody and equal rights for women and men. Will the issue of equal rights for women and men find a place during your chairmanship? If so, how will that be reflected in practice?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the Minister to reply.

      Mr BILDT. – Thank you for those nice words about my country. We do certain things well and we shall continue to do that. Gender equality and equal opportunities for each and every one are very important in political life, business life and elsewhere. As part of the plans for our presidency, we have activities relating to crimes against women and to gender inequality, so there remains a Swedish fingerprint in that respect.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Omtzigt.

      Mr OMTZIGT (Netherlands). – Mr Bildt, you called Kosovo one of the significant challenges ahead, and rightly so. Last January, this Assembly approved a report that welcomed the EU rule of law mission and asked that the Council of Europe should be closely associated with the work going on inside Kosovo. Will you work for full implementation of the Council of Europe standards and report back to the Assembly before the next session?

      Secondly, Mr Bildt, will you raise with the Committee of Ministers the laws that are being implemented in member states in which the Executive interferes with the judiciary, as seems to be happening in Italy these days?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the Minister to reply.

      Mr BILDT. – I will not go into the last question as I am not sufficiently aware of the details. As has been noted, practices are different in different countries. If there are gross violations of our standards, that will be taken note of, but I am not aware of that in the particular case.

      On Kosovo, I was asked to report back before the next session of the Parliamentary Assembly. I am not quite certain that I can promise that, but I can certainly promise that we will be working on the issue. The Council of Europe has important functions in assisting with building the rule of law, protecting minorities, and protecting religious sites and patrimony of various sorts. Important work has been done by the Council of Europe, and we are all keen for that to continue. As there will be a reconfiguration of the UN presence, still respecting the continued validity of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, we shall of course seek ways for the Council of Europe to continue to assist all those living in Kosovo in that respect. We shall all be preoccupied with those issues for some time to come, so even if I cannot promise to report to the next session I can certainly promise that we will be coming back on those issues.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. I call Mr Biberaj.

      Mr BIBERAJ (Albania). – Thank you, Mr Minister, for applying the “Question Time” model, which allows us to ask these questions and makes this session so lively.

      The new independent state of Kosovo has been recognised so far by 29 Council of Europe member states. What is your opinion about the accession of the Kosovan state as the 48th member state?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the Minister to reply.

      Mr BILDT. – That issue is not yet on the agenda. Whether it will be at some time in the future is not up to me at the moment.

      On Kosovo, there are a number of issues of vital importance that we should address – the rule of law for each and every one, the protection of minorities, and economic and social development issues, which are the subject not primarily of the Council of Europe but of the European Union. I advise the authorities of Kosovo to concentrate on more immediate issues on which they can deliver concrete results for all the inhabitants of Kosovo, whatever their nationality, in terms of the rule of law, democracy and economic and social development. If we do not have economic and social development in that region on a somewhat more positive trajectory, we shall face political tension in the years ahead, and we want to avoid that.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Bender.

      Mr BENDER (Poland). – I have some positive information to report – the Holy See has recently called for a moratorium on abortion. I ask your opinion about that. Your few published words are difficult to understand and I am not satisfied with the answers. At least a temporary moratorium, especially in Europe, would be a step forward, but the Minister has not addressed that.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the Minister to reply.

      Mr BILDT. – Mr Bender is dissatisfied with the answer but that is because we have different views. These things happen in political life, as we know. Abortion is a controversial issue and there are different values and interests and it is, to a dominating extent, the subject of national jurisdiction.

      Mr BENDER (Poland). – It is important.

      Mr BILDT. – It is important. It is a strongly felt issue on both sides of the argument and we must respect that. The debate is somewhat different in different countries. It might be somewhat different in my country than it is in your country, and we must respect that. However, we must also respect the common rules. I am grateful for the question, but as is sometimes the case in politics, we do not agree with everything.

THE PRESIDENT.– Thank you very much. I call Mr Boswell.

      Mr BOSWELL (United Kingdom). – The Minister will be aware from last week’s events that the situation in Zimbabwe is now a parody of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. At the same time, it poses a very severe humanitarian problem for people of that country and a threat to the region and to international security. Although I appreciate that it is a very long way from this Chamber, can you offer any positive initiative on that matter?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the Minister to respond.

      Mr BILDT. – Let me agree with what has been said. What happened in Zimbabwe was brought into focus by the opposition’s decision not to stand for the election because to do so would risk their lives. It is an ongoing tragedy. It is a tragedy for Zimbabwe, once a very promising country, which was one of the economic success stories of Africa. To a certain extent, it is a tragedy for all of Africa. We have seen the economic implosion of this country. We have seen its social disintegration. We have seen it sink politically into a seamy dictatorship supported by violence and terror. We are in agreement on that. The question is what we can do.

      At the moment, much of the responsibility falls on the immediate neighbours. That is easy to say but it is the reality. A lot of the responsibility falls on South Africa because Zimbabwe in economic terms remains very dependent on that country. The regional countries should have an interest in addressing the issue. There are 4 million refugees from Zimbabwe and more are likely to come if the problem continues. I am encouraged by the fact that we have heard far more open statements from the regional leaders in the past few days. I expect the issue to be on the agenda of the UN Security Council within days. Let us see where we can take it from there. I assure the Assembly that the issue will be high on my agenda and on the agenda of the European Union, and I am quite certain that it will be discussed here as well, which is appropriate.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Now I call Mr Malins.

      Mr MALINS (United Kingdom). – The Minister will have taken a close interest in the Irish referendum result – the “no” vote on the Lisbon Treaty. However, is he aware the Council of Europe – this body – may have unwittingly, in part, been instrumental in that result because our recent controversial report on a woman’s right to an abortion was, during the referendum campaign, widely read and greatly disliked by a huge number of people through Ireland who, albeit wrongly, took it as a European policy and voted accordingly?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Bildt to respond.

      Mr BILDT. – A direct question requires a direct answer: no, I was not aware that that particular report by the Council of Europe played a role in the Irish referendum campaign. On the other hand, I would need encyclopaedic knowledge to be aware of everything involved in the Irish referendum debate. As far as I can tell from the media, everything under the sun was addressed in that campaign, and not necessarily the content of the Lisbon Treaty.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The last speaker is Mr Hörster.

Mr HÖRSTER (Germany) said that there were many unresolved conflicts in Europe at the moment, such as the one in Cyprus. The member states involved in this conflict belong to the Council of Europe and it was important that the Council of Europe considered such matters. How could the Council of Europe help to resolve these issues?

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I give the floor to Mr Bildt.

Mr BILDT. – If you look at the really important issues on the European agenda in the year ahead, I would probably place this one at No. 1. If we can finally overcome that painful division of Cyprus, and the painful fact that we still have a European capital with a wall running right through it, it would be of interest to all of us. It would greatly facilitate not only security and stability in that great region of the eastern Mediterranean, and collaboration between the different countries, it would also greatly facilitate, to take just one example, collaboration between the European Union and NATO on different stability operations, be that in Kosovo or Afghanistan. It is a truly important issue.

I think there is a possibility of that happening. I have been talking to the leaders on both sides, and there is no question but that there is a new will to seek a solution. We should encourage not only them, but the United Nations, because it has to be done in the overall framework of the UN’s efforts. We should also encourage everyone else who can have an influence in the process. It is exceedingly important.

What can the Council of Europe do? Let us see. Primarily, it will be important when it comes to implementing an agreement. The Court has a role. As we know, it has made different judgments on some aspects of this problem. I am quite certain that the Council and different bodies will be called on to help with the implementation of the agreement, which I sincerely hope will happen in the not too distant future. That said, this is a difficult issue. We have tried to resolve it before and failed. Let us hope it does not fail now.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Babakov.

Mr BABAKOV (Russian Federation) said that, in Stockholm on 29 May, a decision was taken on chemical weapons disposed of in the Baltic Sea. The Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States of America were requested to make available information on where weapons had been buried in the Baltic Sea. He asked what information the Committee of Ministers had on this issue.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the Minister to reply.

Mr BILDT. – I have to confess that I am not aware that the information is still secret. I can understand why it was secret in the beginning. Where we dumped chemical weapons such as mustard gas after the First World War had to be kept secret because there was a risk of someone else picking it up. I will look into the matter. It might not necessarily be such a big issue. We have fairly detailed knowledge of where it was dumped, and some of it has been moving around. However, over the years we have been able to get a fairly good picture of where the major problems are in the Baltic. It is not simply a case of chemical weapons; different parts of the Baltic also have a large number of mines left from both world wars. There is also a problem in the North Sea. But we are fairly well aware of where those challenges lie.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call Mr Iwiński.

Mr IWIŃSKI (Poland). – I want to refer to something mentioned by Mr Rigoni, but in a broader sense. The Polish/Swedish initiative on the eastern partnership was recently adopted by the European Union Summit, which I think is a positive move. On the appeal for closer co-operation with some former countries of the Soviet Union in the Caucasus, to what extent do you think that such initiatives can have an impact on the activities of this Organisation, particularly in relation to Belarus and Ukraine?

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I call the Minister to reply.

      Mr BILDT. – In some respects, you are, of course, far more advanced than the European Union, as you cover a lot of the issues in a way that the European Union does not. However, it is exceedingly important that we in the European Union are able to extend our different structures of integration and co-operation to willing countries, even before they acquire EU membership. We in the European Union are discussing our neighbourhood programmes and their different directions. There will be an important meeting in Paris on the union for the Mediterranean, to develop further that axis, and we have had an initiative in the past on the northern dimension. We are developing a Baltic sea strategy; Poland and Sweden have taken that initiative, creating an eastern partnership. Even if the structures and the memberships of those bodies are very different, it is also important for the Council of Europe to be engaged in building the rule of law and democratic structures in those countries.

      As I have said, we should not say that Europe is divided into those who are perfect angels, and those who know nothing and who need to be helped, because there are issues to be addressed in all our countries. Of course, obviously, as a result of their rather tragic experience, some countries perhaps need more of our help and assistance, and we should be ready to give it.

      THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – Thank you. That completes the list of speakers. Mr Bildt, I thank you very much for your communication, and especially for answering our questions. It was a very good exercise, although there was some confusion. However, you can see how dynamic and interesting people in this Chamber found it to hear from someone like you, who is disposed to answer our questions.

3. The fight against harm to the environment in the Black Sea

THE PRESIDENT (Translation). – The next item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report on the fight against harm to the environment in the Black Sea, presented by Mr Mironescu on behalf of the Committee on Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. I refer colleagues to Document 11632. It is a draft recommendation, and three amendments have been tabled to it.

The list of speakers, which has been distributed, closed at noon. I remind the Assembly that we have already agreed that speaking time in all debates this week, except on Friday, should be limited to four minutes.

In order to finish by 5 p.m. we must interrupt the list of speakers at about 4.50 p.m. to allow time for the reply and the votes. Are these arrangements agreed to?

They are agreed to.

I call Mr Mironescu, the rapporteur. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between your presentation of the report and your reply to the debate.

Mr MIRONESCU (Romania). – Thank you, Mr President. Dear colleagues, the Black Sea is an area of crucial importance for Europe, given its geographical location and its socio-economic, cultural and environmental attributes. It is located at the frontier both of geographical Europe and of the European Union, and it represents a bridge between different cultures and religions.

Once one of the richest fisheries in Europe, an important source of food and recreation, now the Black Sea is in danger of becoming an unprecedented ecological disaster. In our report, we have considered several main causes. They include the regional population explosion and its consequences. Coastal cities and towns are a huge source of pollution. Cities with considerable populations are pumping sewage directly into the sea. Another cause is the industrialisation of the Black Sea area and its consequences. As for the shipping and port industries, in Sebastopol bay, just near Sebastopol sea port, oil concentration is more than one hundred times higher than the maximum permissible concentration allowed by the Russian Federation. Coastal industries are also a factor.

There is also the issue of permanent alterations to natural equilibriums. One example – a Ukrainian project that is under way as we speak – is the construction of a deepwater navigation canal that will have huge and irreparable consequences for the Danube delta eco-system. Rivers represent continuous sources of toxic substances that flow into the Black Sea. The Black Sea is the world’s largest closed and anoxic sea. The effect of the steady flow of harmful substances is greater than on any other body of water. The Danube river alone annually deposits into the Black Sea thousands of tonnes of heavy metals, cadmium, mercury, lead and zinc and more than 50 000 tonnes of oil residues. As a consequence, the Black Sea faces a severe reduction in its dissolved oxygen concentrations, and a severe increase in algal and plankton blooms, which means drastic reductions in the fish population and the commercial extinction of 21 out of 26 species that once lived there.

The Black Sea is bordered by six states: Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, the Russian Federation, Georgia and Turkey. There are already a number of co-operation structures in place in the Black Sea area involving all six states, and dealing with fields far beyond that of the environment. At all levels – governmental, parliamentary and even academic – mechanisms such as the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Co-operation, the Black Sea Regional Energy Centre, the Commission for the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution and the 1992 network of Black Sea universities promote co-operation, dialogue and transparency. They are aimed at solving any issue raised relating to the Black Sea region.

We could also mention the 1985 Bucharest Declaration, signed by the states along the Danube, which is geared to monitoring the level of pollution along the river. However it has no practical aspect, in spite of its renewal in 1994. We think that the Council of Europe must take the necessary steps to reinforce co-operation at local, national and regional level, given that all the riparian countries are its member states. In that context, we welcome the initiative of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe to designate a new Black Sea Euro region, following the example of the Adriatic Sea Euro region. Such a body would help co-operation among the Black Sea countries at local and regional level, and could also foster sustainable development and reinforce local authorities’ management capacities.

We believe that relevant member states of the Council of Europe should: encourage coastal cities and towns to modernise their sewerage systems and stop pumping into the sea any residual and waste waters; encourage sea ports to implement modern pollution control procedures, and maritime surveillance and pollution control for shipping activities on main shipping routes; refrain from activities endangering protected areas around the Black Sea and cease any ongoing activities of that kind, with particular reference to activities that will affect the Danube delta ecosystem in the long term, such as the building of the Bastroe navigation canal in the Ukrainian part of the Danube; encourage alternative sources of energy, such as solar and wind energy; supervise the fishing industry in a more efficient manner and help to rebuild fishing stocks; reinforce implementation of environmental agreements and introduce mandatory environmental assessments for regional projects; and ensure productive co-operation at regional level, and thereby the creation of a Black Sea Euro region.

      In summary, the Black Sea, which was once a highly productive fishing ground, is now close to ecological disaster owing to over-fishing, pollution and the discharge of toxic substances into its waters. The main sources of those substances are the frequently contaminated rivers that flow into the Black Sea and the activities of cities, sea ports and coastal industry.

      In conclusion, the Council of Europe must take steps to bring about an immediate and consistent improvement in the region’s environmental situation and call upon the states concerned to act as soon as possible. The draft recommendation also draws attention once again to the fact that inter-regional co-operation should be pushed forward from its present status to support the creation of Black Sea Euro region. Thank you.

      (Mr Kosachev, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair, in place of Mr de Puig.)

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you very much, Mr Mironescu.

I open the debate and call Mr Frunda, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party. You have four minutes.

      Mr FRUNDA (Romania). – Thank you very much, Mr President.

      First, dear colleagues, let me congratulate the rapporteur on his very analytical and sympathetic draft recommendation.

      Colleagues, the Black Sea neighbours six countries. Seven of the biggest rivers in Europe meet at the Black Sea, including the Danube, the Don and the Dniestr. For centuries all those rivers were clean. The truth is that, in the past 30 or 40 years – after the Second World War – all those rivers brought to the Black Sea not only fish and water, but a lot of matter, oil and other things that destroy the environment of the Black Sea.

      The six neighbouring countries, including Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, the Russian Federation and Turkey, did not get enough support to fight for the environment. That is the main point of the recommendation. International, national, regional and local co-operation is needed to save the environment of the Black Sea, to make it clean and to make it possible for its beaches to be as clean as they were after the Second World War, when it was one of the loveliest places in Europe.

      We have not only a moral but a financial responsibility for the Black Sea. The international community, the European Union and the Council of Europe must help with funds and logistical support to make the Black Sea cleaner. We must encourage and support the institutions that already exist but that are not sufficiently successful. We have in Constanţa, Romania one of the vestiges of one of those institutions. I think that it deserves to have the support of the Council of Europe and the European Union.

      It is very trendy today to speak about the environment. It is very trendy to say that we want a clean environment, but we have to be efficient when we want countries to have a clean environment. Do the countries through which the Donau, the Dnieper and the Don pass do anything to have clean rivers? The answer is no. Do they have a responsibility to do something to have clean rivers and to make the Black Sea clean? Yes, they have. Here, we have the MPs from those countries. That is why I call on you, colleagues, to speak in your national parliaments, to adopt laws and to support financial measures to have cleaner rivers in your countries and a clean Black Sea for Europe and all the world. Thank you for listening.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Frunda. I call Mr Marquet, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr MARQUET (Monaco) thanked the rapporteur and secretariat for the excellent quality of the report. He recalled that, in its Resolution 1444 of 2005, the Assembly had expressed its concern aboput the effect on the environment of Ukraine’s construction of a canal in the Danube delta. In April 2006, the attention of the Committee of Ministers was once again drawn to the matter by the Assembly. There was concern about preserving the important biodiversity of the Danube, which was an important resource for Europe as a whole, in the face of such development. The Committee of Ministers had worked with international organisations and NGOs. It was a requirement under the Bern convention that an environmental impact assessment should be undertaken in such cases. Romania had approached the Ukraine for a risk assessment, for compliance purposes, and for a full assessment to be conducted jointly. Recommendations were made, but unfortunately, nothing was accomplished. This was an example of why better co-operation was needed in the Black Sea region. The north-western part had been subject to negotiations for a long time, and, after the break up of the USSR, had continued between Romania and Ukraine. There were repercussions on where the exact boundary lay. The deposits under the seabed – oil, for instance – made that more important. Another issue was the 2014 Winter Olympic Games, which would also be held at the Black Sea region. This would attract strong media attention. If European regional co-operation were to be established, it would help to promote democracy and good government. He thanked the rapporteur for showing the way.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Marquet. I call Mr Evans, who will speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group

      Mr EVANS (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President.

      First, I would like to applaud Mr Mironescu for a very comprehensive report, which is very timely and brings to our attention some of the problems that are now being faced on the Black Sea. Indeed, because of the pollution that now exists in that area, the Black Sea has turned into a bleak sea. It has become a cesspit. A number of countries pour their waste into it and show complete disregard for a resource that should be valuable to all the countries that surround the area. It should not be used as a dumping ground for their waste.

      Mr Mironescu has talked about the fisheries, navigation and tourism. All those things were important for the Black Sea but are now under threat, particularly fisheries. We in the developed countries have some responsibility for the fact that, in the past, we have no doubt sold old industrial equipment to some of the countries that are now polluting the rivers that flow into the Black Sea. So we in the developed countries need to look at clean technology transfer to some of those countries in order that their industries become cleaner.

      I also note that a number of developing countries do not put the environment as the number one priority, because they have so many other things that they need to look at. But it is a huge mistake if they disregard the environment and what they need to do. Two things need to happen. First, they now need to stop polluting the rivers that feed into the Black Sea. Secondly, we need to work out how to clean up all the pollution in the rivers and the Black Sea.

      As Mr Frunda said, we need to look at the European Union and other institutions to help with the cost that that will involve. However, all other authorities and agencies in the six countries that surround the Black Sea have to show responsibility for what they are doing. They are polluting the Black Sea. They need to ensure that they stop that immediately.

      The potential for tourism for all the countries around the Black Sea is enormous. When I was in Macedonia recently to look at the elections, I managed to go to one of its huge lakes and to look at the Ohrid. The investment that has been put in there is fantastic. Jobs are created as a result in hotels, restaurants, boating and other activities on the Black Sea. That shows you the potential. It has been realised in Macedonia and it could be realised in all the countries on the Black Sea.

      We need to ensure that we all work together with Council of Europe countries in giving advice and support at every level, including the regional level. We have environmental agencies in the United Kingdom that do not allow industry to pollute rivers. We need to ensure that those six countries are given advice and shown examples of what works in member states so that they can use the same type of agencies to crack down on industries that pollute the rivers.

      We also need to get fishing stock levels back up. We know that fishing stocks throughout the world are under threat. We need to ensure that those are brought back to feed the peoples of those countries. The Black Sea is a powerful resource. It should not be abused.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Sigfússon.

      Mr SIGFÚSSON (Iceland). – On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, we welcome the report and congratulate the rapporteur. The information in the report is very alarming. The amount of pollutants in the rivers is tremendous and shocking. That information alone goes to show how urgently action needs to be taken.

We note with concern that existing bodies and conventions, such as the Bucharest Declaration, are mainly geared towards measuring and monitoring pollution but are not directly aimed at stopping it, or at least reducing the amounts being dumped. We in the group therefore suggest that stronger measures be taken, and an authoritative body be established based on a binding convention and provided with the financial means to take drastic action.

We have guidelines on the Rio principles such as the “polluter pays” principle, and the principle that nature should enjoy the benefit of the doubt but, given the urgent situation in the Black Sea, we need stronger measures. We need to go to the source of the pollution and stop it, not just measure it, monitor it and have the polluter pay. In that case it would just continue.

Perhaps because I am from Iceland I was particularly struck by the shocking state of fishing in the Black Sea, the formerly rich fishing grounds. The report states that 21 out of 26 species are extinct in terms of commercial fishing. We already have examples of fish stocks being restored and pollution being stopped. In that way we re-established eco-systems that were on the verge of collapsing or had already collapsed. Therefore, there is a lot to gain in terms of future resources. We have the knowledge, the technology and the management systems. We need to make use of that knowledge and take action.

Therefore, we welcome the report and support the recommendations but we suggest that even stronger action be taken. Of course there are other land-locked seas, lakes and river systems in the Council of Europe area that are in bad shape and need our attention desperately and where firm action is required, but the Black Sea is very important and deserves our help. The destruction of eco-systems and the depletion of resources is directly linked to the wellbeing of people and communities so it is highly relevant that the Council of Europe Assembly deals with those issues. We did so as regards the pressing issues in the Arctic. We should look at other regions such as the Black Sea. They deserve our attention.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call the rapporteur Mr Mironescu.

      Mr MIRONESCU (Romania). – I am very happy that my alarm call has been heard and our colleagues have emphasised what is important in the report. The Black Sea is in bad shape and if we do not take consistent action we will hamper future progress. We do not have the right to play with that heritage.

      The state of the Black Sea at present is the result of our lack of efficiency. I have stated in the report that mechanisms and commissions already exist that exchange information from time to time, but a consistent environmental approach is still not in place. That is the reason we consider that, following in the footsteps of the Adriatic Euro region, we can do something better with our sea.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. I now call Mr Sudarenkov.

      Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation) said that there was so much talk about sustainable development; but it was only possible if the landscapes and places where people lived could be preserved. There was tension in the Black Sea region now, and there was much work to be undertaken in developing a regional policy. The integration of landscape studies into such policies was increasingly important. There were many mountain landscapes around the Black Sea and these were particularly important to Russia; a country of many mountains. Mountainous regions were equally vulnerable to many of the effects of climate change.

He continued by saying that this led to a wide range of problems of which people were often unaware. For example, there was too much logging in coastal areas, and people were often not aware of the range of environmental impacts of such activity. There was a real need for multilateral co-operation, particularly in the dry areas of Europe, many of which were near the Black Sea. Another problem was the amount of urban development close to the shores of the Black Sea. This also had a significant impact on the level of pollution in the Black Sea.

      It was also important to recognise that the problems of the Black Sea were not unique; the Caspian Sea, for example, had similar problems. The problems of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea were not only similar but linked. The dramatic sea level changes in the Caspian Sea were having a huge impact. Therefore, if a Black Sea landscape centre were set up, this should also address problems in the Caspian Sea. It was just as important to monitor the situation in and around the Caspian Sea as it was to study the Black Sea.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Sudarenkov. I call Mr Grignon.

      Mr GRIGNON (France) thanked Mr Mironescu, the rapporteur. He said that this was a report that set alarm bells ringing by providing a range of examples which gave rise to serious concerns. The reactions of the countries surrounding the Black Sea had in many ways been paradoxical. Although several initiatives had been taken, results had been slow to materialise. He said one had to ask oneself whether this was simply the result of a lack of resources, or whether there was also a lack of political will. It was very unfortunate that the political context had become very tense. It was vital to strengthen co-operation because results would be achieved only if all the countries were able to co-operate and overcome divisive issues arising from national pride and historical legacies.

      The European Union could play a very important role in this context. With Romania and Bulgaria now in the EU, there was a good basis for European initiatives in the area. The European Neighbourhood Policy had environmental protection as one of its key objectives. There was an important parallel to be drawn between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. Initiatives in the Mediterranean had been aimed at developing solidarity across the spectrum, precisely the sort of work that the founding fathers of the European Union would have applauded. Exactly the same was needed in the Black Sea area. After all, the Black Sea and the Mediterranean were the two most polluted seas in the world. The key objective of a Black Sea Euro region should be to foster integration and co-operation on the ground and to encourage efficiency in applying resources to challenges. This was what a Euro region should be all about.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Grignon. I call Mr Jakavonis.

      Mr JAKANOVIS (Lithuania) thanked the rapporteur for an excellent report. It was worth noting that, in the 15th century, the Black Sea had formed the southern border of his country. Even though that was not the case anymore, Lithuania was situated on the shores of the Baltic Sea, which was, in many ways, very similar to the Black Sea. Both the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea were almost lakes and both suffered greatly from pollution as a result of dense development of ports, harbours and industry, as well as spills from ships. The Baltic Sea had even had the problem of chemical weapon stocks from the Second World War being dumped in it. He was particularly grateful to the rapporteur for this detailed report because of the many parallels with the Baltic Sea. The report demonstrated that we should hurry to improve the situation and that this was best done by developing co-operation through the establishment of a Euro region covering the area. This was a specific report, making specific recommendations and this was the most effective way for the Council of Europe to make a difference.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you, Mr Jakavonis. I call Mr Açikgöz.

      Mr AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey). – As a parliamentarian from the Black Sea region, I thank the Assembly for putting the problem of environmental pollution in the Black Sea on the agenda for this session. I congratulate our rapporteur, Mr Mironescu, on his excellent report.

      My country attaches the utmost importance to the protection of the environment in the Black Sea region, and I sincerely welcome the rapporteur’s efforts to highlight the urgency of the environmental situation. He suggested that the Council of Europe should be more active in urging the states concerned to take the necessary measures to protect the environment in the region. We can only welcome that recommendation but, believing as I do that the protection of the environment is first and foremost the responsibility of the relevant authorities of the Black Sea littoral states, I am of the opinion that efforts further to enhance co-operation mechanisms in the littoral states could play a crucial role in the protection of the Black Sea marine environment.

      In fact, the Commission on the Protection of the Black Sea Against Pollution, also referred to in the report, is an effective mechanism to foster co-operation on environmental protection in the Black Sea. The commission was established under the 1992 Convention on the Black Sea Against Pollution to which all littoral states are parties. Therefore, especially in the context of rivers draining into the Black Sea, other non-littoral states or international organisations may consider contributing to the work of the commission.

Co-operation between the commission and other interested organisations can be developed with a view to controlling and reversing environmental pollution in the Black Sea. In that regard, I refer to the commission’s current co-operation with the Danube Commission. According to the 2001 memorandum of understanding adopted by the two commissions, a Danube-Black Sea task force was established to protect the Black Sea from pollution originating from the Danube.

      At this point, I would like to touch on the incorrect reference to the Turkish Straits in paragraph 2 of the explanatory memorandum. The word “Dardanelles” in that paragraph should be replaced by the words “Turkish Straits”.

Once again, I thank our rapporteur for bringing such a vital issue for Black Sea countries to the agenda of the Assembly. I take this opportunity to appeal to my colleagues from other Black Sea countries to convince their governments to make better use of the existing mechanisms to protect the environment in the Black Sea region.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. The last speaker today will be Mr Joseph Falzon from Malta.

Mr FALZON (Malta). – The concept of sustainable development arose from recognition of both the development of economic importance and its realised and potential impacts. Its foundation can be found in the general concept of sustainable development aiming to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The wide spread of the different economic and industrialised sectors has created negative environmental impacts, of both a physical and social nature. In certain locations, such as the Black Sea, that has led to greater demands for a more sustainable approach.

Various initiatives have been focused on the protection of the environment, biodiversity and fishing to safeguard the sustainability of the fragile ecosystem of the sea. There have been discussions at local, regional and international level on environmental sustainability, but we must admit that the various action plans are off-track. We need to move from action plans to implementation plans in a more concrete approach, so that all of us have a well co-ordinated response to all the likely challenges that will confront us.

Imminent challenges ahead include investment for renewable energy production, protection of the sea and rivers by preventing oil spills and the discharge of waste water, management of maritime transport risks, integrated management of coastal areas and the promotion of sustainable tourism. The global challenge on climate change, compounded with constant increases in energy costs, has led the industry to become aware of the economic benefits of adopting environmental management techniques that decrease energy consumption levels.

In view of the challenges that face us all, we have a duty to continue combining our efforts. The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly must encourage member and non-member states to take a crucial role, and must continue to reflect on the issues, together with representatives of all the various sectors, including the environmental, agricultural, industrial and economic sectors.

I conclude by thanking the rapporteur for the extensive report that he prepared.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

I must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who have been present during the debate but have not been able to speak may be given to the Table Office for publication in the official report. I call Mr Mironescu, the rapporteur, to reply. You have five minutes.

Mr MIRONESCU (Romania). – Mr President, I thank everyone for their contributions. I owe my Turkish colleague, Mr Açikgöz, sincere apologies. His observation was accurate. The Black Sea is linked to the Mediterranean through two straits and an inner sea so I am happy for us to change the text with all necessary explanations. The seas are the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, and in the middle is the Marmaris.

I come from an industry that has strong links with environmental protection – the shipping business. In respect of shipping, almost every piece of legislation on environmental protection is reactive. When a disaster happens, the legislation is changed afterwards. I want our report to assist in starting a proactive approach so that we can prevent the environmental disasters that hinder our future.

THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you. Does the chairperson of the committee, Mr Meale, wish to speak?

Mr MEALE (United Kingdom). – Thank you, Mr President. I shall be brief.

I congratulate my colleague on a magnificent report. He has worked exceptionally hard. On behalf of committee members and, I hope, the Assembly, I thank the Secretariat for their hard work in helping us in that process.

My colleague is an exemplary illustration of what all of us as parliamentarians should be doing in the Assembly and elsewhere, in our own parliaments. He has tried to find an important part in the jigsaw of our planet, to talk about it and to be proactive rather than reactive. He has just said that he works in an industry that far too often only reacts to incidents that have taken place and lays down laws to try to stop them in the future. His report flies a flag for the environment and tells all members of the Assembly that we have to do more. We have to pay more attention before it is too late. I congratulate him.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Thank you.

      The Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs has presented a draft recommendation, to which three amendments have been tabled.

      They will be taken in the following order: 1, 3, 2.

      I remind you that speeches on amendments are limited to 30 seconds.

      I call Mr Açikgöz to support Amendment No. 1.

      Mr AÇIKGÖZ (Turkey). – We are withdrawing Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 are withdrawn.

      We come to Amendment No. 3, tabled by Mrs Elene Tevdoradze, Mrs Olha Herasym'yuk, Mr Serhiy Sobolev, Mr Hryhoriy Omelchenko, Mr Giorgi Bokeria, Mrs Nino Nakashidzé and Mr Jean-Charles Gardetto, which is, in the draft recommendation, to replace paragraph 12.5 with the following sub-paragraph: “refrain from activities which endanger the environment of the protected spaces around the Black Sea and cease the ongoing ones;”.

I call Mrs Tevdoradze to support Amendment No. 3.

      Mrs TEVDORADZE (Georgia) spoke in favour of Amendment No. 3. She noted that the amendment affected not just this part but the next section as well. At the committee meeting, the amendment had been lost by just one vote.

      THE PRESIDENT. – Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment? I call Mr Evans.

      Mr EVANS (United Kingdom). – I think that there may have been a misinterpretation of what paragraph 12.5 says. In essence, it is not saying that this is the only project that should be stopped. Clearly, if you read the report, you will see that there are many major problems with the Black Sea. What the committee has done is point to one dramatic example of many that need to be tackled. I hope that we allow the paragraph to remain in the draft recommendation, because as the report shows with this particular project, the damage that it causes is immense.

      THE PRESIDENT. – What is the opinion of the committee?

      Mr MEALE (United Kingdom) . – The committee is against.

      THE PRESIDENT. – The vote is open.

      Amendment No. 3 is rejected.

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft recommendation contained in Document 11632.

      The vote is open.

      The draft recommendation in Document 11632 is adopted, with 69 votes for, 0 votes against and one abstention.

4. Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting

      THE PRESIDENT. – I propose that the Assembly hold its next public sitting tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. with the agenda which was approved this morning.

      Are there any objections? That is not the case.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 5 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1.       Changes in membership of committees

2.       Statement by Mr Carl Bildt, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

      Questions:

      Mr Van den Brande (Belgium)

      Mr Kox (Netherlands)

      Mr Kosachev (Russian Federation)

      Mr Hovannisian (Armenia)

      Mr Sasi (Finland)

      Mr Rigoni (Italy)

      Ms Pashayeva (Azerbaijan)

      Ms Vėsaitė (Lithuania)

      Mr Omtzigt (Netherlands)

      Mr Biberaj (Albania)

      Mr Bender (Poland)

      Mr Boswell (United Kingdom)

      Mr Malins (United Kingdom)

      Mr Höster (Germany)

      Mr Babakov (Russian Federation)

      Mr Iwiński (Poland)

3.       The fight against harm to the environment in the Black Sea

      Presentation by Mr Mironescu of report of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs, Doc. 11632

      Speakers:

      Mr Frunda (Romania)

      Mr Marquet (Monaco)

      Mr Evans (United Kingdom)

      Mr Sigfússon (Iceland)

      Mr Sudarenkov (Russian Federation)

      Mr Grignon (France)

      Mr Jakanovis (Lithuania)

      Mr Açikgöz (Turkey)

      Mr Falzon (Malta)

      Replies;

      Mr Mironescu (Romania)

      Mr Meale (United Kingdom)

      Draft recommendation adopted.

4.       Date, time and orders of the day of the next sitting