AA13CR08

AS (2013) CR 08

2014 ORDINARY SESSION

________________________

(First part)

REPORT

Eighth sitting

Thursday 30 January 2014 at 4.30 p.m.

In this report:

1.       Speeches in English are reported in full.

2.       Speeches in other languages are reported using the interpretation and are marked with an asterisk.

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 report.

(Mr Rouquet, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair at 4.35 p.m.)

      THE PRESIDENT – The sitting is open.

1. Stepping up action against global inequalities: Europe’s contribution to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) process

      THE PRESIDENT* – The first item of business this afternoon is the debate on the report titled “Stepping up action against global inequalities: Europe’s contribution to the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) process” (Document 13368) presented by Sir Alan Meale, on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development.

I should remind you that the Assembly decided on Monday to limit the speaking time to three minutes.

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

Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – May I say what an honour it is to speak in this Chamber with you in the Chair, Mr Rouquet? We have served for a long time together in the committees, so I know how much effort you put into your role and how you support the work of the Assembly, and we are very grateful.

      As we are all aware, the issue of global inequalities is more topical today than ever before. Every day we can see reports in the press about inequalities, both those in our own countries and those in other parts of the world. Colleagues will have to admit, however, that when we reach the end of the timeline of the millennium development goals in 2015, which is what this debate is about, major progress will have already been made on eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, increasing sustainable access to drinking water and reversing mortality rates from diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. If colleagues do not think that advances have been made, they should look at what was happening in Africa and Asia, where children were dying every handful of seconds – the situation has considerably changed since those early days.

      Nevertheless, many problems remain to be solved. Such problems include high mortality rates, particularly among the young, and maternal mortality in the poorest regions of the world. For example, each day 800 women and adolescent girls die from preventable complications arising from pregnancy and child birth. That represents a total of 280 000 deaths a year, which is totally unacceptable.

Furthermore, more than 840 million people will still go hungry every day despite there being enough food to go around. That equates to 6 billion hungry days a year, which is totally unacceptable. Europe, as one of the wealthiest continents in the world, must not turn away from the facts. We are among the main players when it comes to changing this situation. We can and should play a leading role.

Only this month, the British charity Oxfam published its latest “Good enough to eat” index, which classifies countries according to their availability of food in sufficient quantity and quality and at reasonable prices. While European countries occupy all but one of the top 20, African countries make up 26 of the bottom 30, which provides a food-based snapshot of global inequality. Like Oxfam, I am convinced that world leaders from Europe have the means of redistributing resources around the world, but only if they are willing to do so. I also agree with the American economist Paul Krugman when he said recently in the New York Times that inequality should not be put on the back burner under the pretext that it was more important for world economies to “generate new growth” rather than evenly distributing the gains from such growth. That is his view, but we need to change the debate and follow him. Europe must therefore take a stand on the issue, and it must do it now, given that the current millennium development goals adopted by the United Nations come to an end in 2015, and because international negotiations have already started for a new set of goals for beyond that date.

      Let me remind members why Europe has a say on this issue. We in the Council of Europe have taken the lead on some of the key issues that have not yet been addressed effectively by the international community, including persistent gender inequality, violence against women and children, the lack of decent work conditions in many regions and the gradual degradation of our natural environment, in which I have taken a particular interest in my 14 or 15 years here. European experience in the field of good governance could also stimulate the effectiveness of global development processes and aid. Democratic structures should therefore be promoted beyond Europe’s boundaries and the most urgent issues, such as widespread corruption, should be addressed as a matter of priority.

Not only does Europe have access to some of the solutions to the major challenges of the 21st century, it also, as a user, contributes to many current global inequalities through its production and consumption patterns. We must therefore acknowledge international interdependencies in many areas, such as commerce, human rights, and the environment, and live up to our responsibilities. The issue is systemic and we must recognise that we are all part of the global economic system – just like animals and plants in a biotope. We have to admit that our mass consumerism and widespread preference for cheap products also contribute to the fact that many people in the world are underpaid and working in unacceptable working conditions. The reality is that people in many countries will not be able to escape the poverty cycle they are trapped in without receiving our help. A straightforward example is Bangladesh, where thousands died in a recent accident at a site that was producing clothing particularly for the European market. For an example that is closer to home, I would look to the Mediterranean. Europe constantly pollutes the sea and leaves it to the countries that border the Mediterranean to pick up the tab. People are being driven into poverty and driven away from the benefits that they are supposed to get from tourism. They are paying a heavy price.

      Europe’s contribution to reducing global inequalities should therefore include stepping up efforts under the current MDG framework to fulfil commitments made under the Official Development Assistance mechanism, setting good examples of good governance and the fight against corruption, contributing to the international negotiation process by asking that the development programme beyond 2015 be complemented by a set of new sustainable development goals, such as those suggested by other international organisations, particular the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The Parliamentary Assembly should also call on member States, because it is only really us in Europe who can, to address some of the key factors and challenges currently hindering balanced global development, in particular the empowerment of women and girls, the guaranteeing of their sexual and reproductive rights with a view to avoiding unwanted pregnancies and further reducing maternal mortality, the fight against violence towards women and girls, the creation of equal opportunities for women and young people, who are among the most disadvantaged groups on our planet, and their right to access quality education and decent jobs. Finally, the Parliamentary Assembly should ensure that the Council of Europe is represented at all upcoming events related to global development processes until 2015 and beyond, which is what we have fought for over the past 15 years.

      I will end my speech by quoting Mahatma Gandhi, which is how I began my explanatory memorandum. He said: “The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.” That was true then and it is true now. Let’s do it! The text that is suggested for adoption by the Assembly was adopted unanimously by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development in November and I urge members to support it. The world needs as many voices as possible to promote more equal and more sustainable development in the future. The report is about creating a more sustainable and peaceful future for our planet, which is a vision that we should and could all share. I strongly endorse the draft resolution that is before us in the hope that members participating in the debate will take the matter seriously, take a lead and give examples to other parliamentarians in Europe.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. You have four minutes remaining.

      I now call Mr Jónasson to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – On behalf of the left parties, I declare my support for the report and the proposals. I would like to compliment the rapporteur, Sir Alan Meale, and all those who contributed to his excellent report, which is informative and gives a good overview of the progress of the millennium development goals. It singles out some of the activities related to the achievement of the goals agreed on by the United Nations at the turn of the century, which are activities that the Council of Europe, as a guardian of human rights, has paid particular attention to, such as children’s rights and the fight against child abuse. There has been progress in many countries in the sense that awareness has been raised. In my home country, Iceland, we have been inspired by the work carried out by the Council of Europe and have acted on its recommendations. We pledged to uphold the “principles of human dignity, equality and equity” as stated in the millennium declaration agreed upon in the United Nations in September 2000.

      The report points out that even if more people now have access to clean water and enjoy better living conditions than a few years ago, the gap between the rich and poor is wider than ever, leaving a billion people – one thousand million human beings – in utter poverty and insecurity. There is something fundamentally wrong with a world social order that allows that to happen. One culprit – it is not the only culprit, but it is certainly a social evil – is of course greedy and all-too-little-controlled capitalism with its inherent exploitation and disregard for the principles that I just quoted. A good example of that exploitation, as Sir Alan said, is what happened in Bangladesh.

      The report contains concrete proposals that are aimed both at individual States and collectively at the Council of Europe. It urges us to reaffirm our commitment to the millennium development goals and to evaluate them, revise them and set new goals to strive for in the years beyond 2015. In that sense, it is a fighting document and a reminder. The report is a declaration of commitment and a declaration of responsibility on behalf of the Council of Europe, and as such it has our support.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Next I call Ms Giannakaki, who will speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Ms GIANNAKAKI (Greece)* – I congratulate the rapporteur on this useful and interesting report. The Millennium Declaration included a range of obligations for good governance and democracy. The declaration aimed to establish the challenges of the planet on the eve of the millennium by creating a range of commitments and goals on security, peace, development and human rights. The global recession has been used as a pretext for leaving the millennium objectives too far from being achieved. We are holding a major debate on the agenda for development after 2015, and to have sustainable green development it is important to ask questions about effective democratic governance, the transparency of human rights, good functioning of justice, gender equality and the promotion of equality and security. There has been a regression with rights, and when rights are considered to be a luxury, we should not forget that the answer cannot be anything but more democracy, more rights and more equality.

      Unfortunately, development is even more topical than it used to be. Great poverty affects a large amount of the global population – even in Europe – and it undermines human rights and the right to have a dignified and decent life. Wars have caused great difficulties and inequalities are growing, and that affects the new generation. We need to have a new agreement on challenges, priorities and the needs and aspirations of people. We need proper development and human rights, otherwise we will not be successful. The European experience of governance and human rights could offer a good model, and despite its weaknesses, the continent that has seen enlightenment can continue to offer that model.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Mr Bockel, who will speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr BOCKEL (France)* – The rapporteur has explained that, in spite of the undeniable progress, it is not enough to say that the eight MDGs laid down in 2000 will be achieved by 2015. In fact, the United Nations Secretary General has conceded as much. Our rapporteur expects much of Europe, which is right. We are committed when it comes to meeting the objectives, and we have been committed right from the start. The European Union is a major creditor and provides half of the development aid at an international level.

      In 2010, as a result of the mixed picture, Europe took a number of measures with a view to making further progress in meeting the objectives. The MDG initiative concentrates aid on those objectives or aims where the least progress has been made. The 10th European Development Fund programme and the MDG action plan seek to enhance the efficacy of the aid. There is also the programme for change that seeks to adapt aims and the means of delivering aid at European level to the new situation internationally.

      We should not forget that Europe has had its own problems. The Lisbon strategy can be deemed a success. Questions remain on our ability to meet the objectives under the “Europe 2020” strategy. The same thing could be said of the European Union climate and energy package, which establishes the 20-20-20 targets. We have been grappling with these difficulties, but the report is right to underline that we have a responsibility with the MDGs. We are talking about partner countries where we have a shared interest in ensuring that we succeed, and we have to consider others on an equal footing. We are not lecturing anyone when we talk about good governance. The spirit that prevails should be one of partnership.

      As we look to 2015, it is important that Europe adopts a strong stand on the international development agenda that will succeed the MDGs. Progress has been thwarted by certain global challenges, such as soaring demographic growth, natural resource depletion, the degradation of the environment and climate change. We need to put our heads together and come forward with proposals, rather than pointing an accusing finger, although that is sometimes necessary. Rather than deploring the situation, we should realise that progress has been made and we need to say that if we are to be successful in 2015. The key ideas have to be partnership and a shared sense of responsibility.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Kazakova to speak on behalf of the European Democrat Group.

      Ms KAZAKOVA (Russian Federation) – On behalf of the EDG, I congratulate Sir Alan on his outstanding work. The questions raised in the report are of unquestionable importance, because they deal with an enormous number of people who need special care and protection: women, children, the elderly, the sick and the poor. We share the rapporteur’s view on the need for integrated strategies so that this growing population can, as the resolution says, “learn, work and enjoy life.”

      However, we have to point out that some countries are trying to distort the global development agenda and introduce irrelevant issues to it, placing emphasis on human values and looking to bring about a gradual shift of donor assistance on to the shoulders of the rapidly developing countries, which have to prioritise continuous economic growth and stepping up their national productive potential. We should not blur the socioeconomic agenda. Of special importance is the improvement of macroeconomic regulation, guaranteeing access to basic services for the population in the fields of energy, transport, education, healthcare, social protection, with special attention on fighting unemployment and guaranteeing decent labour conditions, road safety and so on.

      Progress on the MDGs is a mixed bag. While there has been more than a twofold reduction in the proportion of the population living on less than $1.25 a day, there are still more than 1 billion people around the world who are hungry and more than 2 billion with inadequate micronutrient intake. While some regions of the world have achieved progress in primary education and reduced the infant mortality rate, we have not had the same success with maternal mortality. We are therefore seeing contradictory trends. Despite a reduction in deforestation and a twofold increase in access to drinking water, there has none the less been an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and a loss of biodiversity. This is compounded by the adverse consequences of the financial and economic crisis, and that underscores the needs for us to pool our efforts to resolve these problems.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. I call Ms Fiala to speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Ms FIALA (Switzerland)* – I thank the rapporteur on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe for his commitment to this issue. If we look at the situation the world is in, we realise that we cannot simply say things that have no actual meaning. It is true that since 2000, there have been some changes that have helped to combat poverty and hunger, such as better access to drinking water. Progress has also been achieved in combating tuberculosis and malaria; none the less, huge problems remain.

      The situation in the poorest regions is very serious. There is the high child mortality rate, the lack of schools and vaccination programmes, and the extremely serious problem of HIV/AIDS. It is estimated that the world’s population will reach 9 billion by 2050. We must try to find pragmatic solutions to the problems faced by the very poorest. Trade levels are increasing, but no thought is given to what this involves. Refugee flows are increasing, and we must deal with this problem. We in Europe are unable to deal properly with these great flows of refugees, for both humanitarian and domestic reasons. We should do everything we can to promote development in the poorest parts of the world. We need to make sure that the money donated at donor conferences throughout the world is actually spent on development.

      We must also consider the issue of social responsibility. Global companies should bear more of their burden of corporate responsibility. Fighting corruption is also an extremely important objective. It is in the interests of us all to promote development and to provide equal opportunities through training and education. We must also combat violence against women and children. It is essential to promote these human rights, which are being trampled underfoot, in order to have sustainable development.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Sir Alan, would you like to respond to the group spokespersons now?

      That is not the case, so I call Ms Maury Pasquier.

      Ms MAURY PASQUIER (Switzerland)* – In the media and in political discussions on the future of our planet, often, all we hear about is the tip of the iceberg, as it were: the seventh millennium development goal, on the preservation of the environment. We do indeed talk about the icebergs and ice floes that are disappearing, about global warming, deforestation and loss of biodiversity, and we are right to do that. However, human development, which is central to the other MDGs, is perhaps left aside. As Alan Meale has shown in his report, the millennium development goals are indeed interconnected. For example, promoting gender equality and women’s empowerment, which is enshrined in MDG3, is necessary if countries are to fight poverty – covered by MDG1 – effectively by harnessing women’s economic and productive capacity. Similarly, sexual and reproductive health, which is central to a number of millennium development goals, has a major impact on the education of young girls and women and their ability to obtain decent employment.

      However, it is on MDG5, which seeks to improve maternal health, that most progress needs to be made. Maternal mortality has declined by 47% in the last 20 years, but we are far from the goal of a 75% reduction. Each day in the world, 800 women or adolescent girls die from complications linked to pregnancy or childbirth that could have been avoided. The pregnancy-related death of women and the death of neo-nates following the death of their mother lead to an estimated loss of productivity of some $15 billion. Such figures are indeed shocking.

      Neither access to contraception nor treatment against HIV/AIDS is universal. In European countries, access to health care in general and to sexual and reproductive health care in particular are very patchy, as we have had occasion to see in this Assembly. In my own country of Switzerland, there is going to be a popular referendum on a text that seeks to put an end to the reimbursement of abortion costs. The discourse of the authors of this text is marked by an alarming absence of respect for women’s right to sexual and reproductive health. This right, and all human rights, should form the bedrock of the vision defended by the Council of Europe and its partners: a vision of a fairer world where basic needs are met and human development is central to our concerns, as, indeed, is respect for the environment. If greater Europe is to face up to responsibilities, it has to contribute in this regard in Europe and elsewhere as we move toward 2015.

      Ms SCHNEIDER-SCHNEITER (Switzerland)* – This report is good and important and I thank the rapporteur for it. It underscores the most important aspects of the issue and makes the correct demands. However, it puts too much emphasis on extending the MDGs, and the framework that needs to be created for sustainable development after 2015 is too hazy.

      My country, Switzerland, has focused not only on extending MDGs, but on looking at new development frameworks after 2015. These objectives must have not only an economic basis, but must be based on an assessment of the MDG experience, the final declaration of Rio+20, internationally agreed environmental objectives and other relevant documents. They should also be based on the principles of human rights, the respect of international borders, social inclusion and justice, universality and political consistency.

We must also have a balance between sustainability, economics and the environment, and the promotion of freedom, security and the rule of law. These elements must form a part of sustainable development, and they must also be universally applicable, with different approaches taken according to the country in question. They must also have clear objectives and indicators that can be assessed, and they must be action-based, timely, limited in number and easily communicable.

This means that the creation of a new, further established objective for sustainable development must apply across the board. It should also draw a distinction between the different time frames for all aspects of development – social, economic and environmental. These must be put on an equal footing, because so far the MDGs have concentrated mainly on social development, and they should be applicable to all countries, not only those on which the MDGs mainly concentrate – that is, the developed countries.

On point 8.1.3., the appeal to member States for 0.7% of GDP for development aid is a long-term objective that we can support. In fact, for 2015 the Swiss Parliament has earmarked 0.5% for this purpose, and Switzerland is therefore part of the middle group of donor countries. I think that this amount should be increased and hope that there could be a satisfactory form of words for this. I agree with the report and will vote in favour of it.

      Ms MAGHRADZE (Georgia) – We must thank the rapporteur for raising these problems and for a fair evaluation of not only the success but the failure of developed countries’ activities in reducing global and regional inequalities. In the draft resolution, we read that the Parliamentary Assembly is concerned about the persistently high levels of global inequality and the remaining barriers to more balanced development, which are also affecting Europe's destiny. In addition, the countries of Europe, as well as other countries, have a serious problem due to the big gap between the developed and so-called undeveloped countries. There are problems of terrorism, illegal migration, and so on.

      What are the challenges in taking more powerful steps to reduce global and regional inequalities? I think one of the obstacles is the fact that sufficient time and resources are not always spent in the right direction. Personally I do not support spending a great amount of money to assist the governments and parliaments of some developing countries in promoting political willingness, developing good governance and fighting against corruption. If the governments are corrupt, these efforts strengthen them more than they assist in the improvement of the population’s life conditions.

      One of the innovative focuses of integrating the current MDGs into a new set of global sustainable development goals could be to declare education to be a mainstream MDG. The experience and history of many countries confirms that real progressive changes in those countries, historically as well as nowadays, happen only when the number of educated people reaches critical mass. Let me remind you of the law of dialectic: quantitative changes leads to qualitative changes. For an educated person, it is very difficult to live in a situation of human rights violation, corruption, gender inequalities and so on, but when they are part of a minority they have fewer chances to make changes. When the number of such people reaches critical mass, progressive changes are possible. Such changes happened only recently in Arab countries, relatively peacefully in some cases.

      We need to stress the component of education in every programme and every activity within the MDGs. All the traditional programmes for medical help – the supply of medicine, food, drinking water and so on – need to be developed, but the most significant thing is to educate the local population. First, an educated population is much more skilful at using international assistance, and secondly and more importantly, educated people could make real democratic changes. That is why it is necessary to increase the number of students, young people, scholars, women, specialists and civic activists from developing countries who are studying and training in developed countries in order to launch in their countries good educational programmes in vocational areas and in high education. Europe’s contribution should mainly consist of taking steps to reduce global and regional inequalities under the current MDG framework through putting major emphasis on education.

      Ms BONET PEROT (Andorra)* - First and foremost, I congratulate Sir Alan Meale on this report.

      Europe is strongly committed to making progress towards achieving the millennium development goals. Notwithstanding the important political commitment of the European countries through economic assistance and the use of resources, much remains to be done by 2015. Europeans are showing solidarity and taking responsibility for improving the living conditions of millions of people and ensuring that they may have an opportunity to live a worthy life. At the next plenary meeting of the United Nations in 2015, there will be an assessment of the achievements of the various MDGs. Thanks to the joint work carried out on all of them, improvements have been made in a number of fields – for example, reduction of poverty and increasing the incorporation of girls and boys in primary and secondary education. However, in other fields much remains to be done – for example, fighting hunger, combating child and maternal mortality, gender violence, inequalities between men and women, deterioration in living conditions as a result of armed conflict, and deterioration of the environment because of over-exploitation of natural resources. We need to underscore the fact that the most important thing is to achieve the goals in these countries and not just worldwide. Especially in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, people are very far from achieving these goals. Climate change may aggravate access to food and increase contagious diseases and compound the dearth of natural resources.

      As regards gender equality, education of girls is still a long way from being achieved in many countries. The problems regarding women getting work on the same conditions as men and the poor numbers of women in decision-making and political positions of authority also lead to alarming inequalities. In 2015 we will analyse to what extent the commitments have been achieved by all countries and what the role of the most-developed countries should be. There should also be an assessment of the difficulties faced by other countries in achieving the various objectives.

      Without going into detail, we can see that some countries in Europe still have not achieved all the goals. The economic crisis has given rise to an increase in poverty and hunger. An increasing number of European citizens do not have productive employment or worthy work, and there is an increase in girls and boys not concluding primary education. There is persistent inequality between genders and an increase in gender violence, and there continue to be areas of Europe where the rate of maternal and child mortality remains very high. The commitment to multilateral global governance must be the main thrust of the external action of all European countries. Europe needs to make a resolute commitment to maintaining its leading role in co-operating with the developing countries in order to continue the path pursued to ensure that we achieve the various goals, both nationally and on the European and global levels.

      Ms SPADONI (Italy)* – In the committee and here in the Chamber, I have heard some fantastic statements. We talk about fighting discrimination, xenophobia and violence against women, and meeting the millennium development goals, but I look at the reality and I do not like that reality.

      One of the aims is to reduce poverty, but Banca d’Italia has said that between 2010 and 2012 poverty in Italy has risen from 14% to 16%. Many people in Europe do not live lives of dignity. They do not have a guaranteed minimum wage that will lift them out of a state of despair. One objective is to reduce infant mortality, but the truth is that Europe is a major trading partner of countries that ride roughshod over human rights. Women’s reproductive rights are limited and there is child selection on the basis of sex, but that seems not to matter as long as we can continue to trade with these people. We are exploiting lands that do not belong to us. We talk about sustainable access to drinking water, but we are exploiting the water resources of other countries and reneging on a referendum conducted in Italy ensuring that water would remain a public commodity.

      One of the millennium development goals is to promote gender equality. Well, yesterday evening, in the chamber of deputies in Italy, Loredana Lupo from the Five Star Movement, the mother of a child, was slapped and pushed by Stefano Dambruoso from Civic Choice. The videos and photographs show that she was assaulted and pushed by someone who is a member of parliament and should be an example for the Italian people. This kind of thing is happening in Italy, and yet the media depict the Five Star Movement as violent and anti-democratic. Yesterday, for the first time in the history of the Italian republic, the Speaker of the Italian Parliament, Laura Boldrini, silenced the opposition and stopped them speaking in the chamber. Is that the idea of democracy that we constantly invoke? What does the Council of Europe think about that? We are talking about the violation of one of the cardinal principles of this institution, which is to promote parliamentary democracy. In Italy there is no parliamentary democracy. In Italy we have a parliament that is stripped of all its functions. We are in the hands of a government dictatorship.

      Last but not least, in a number of contributions I have heard the word “populism” associated with words such as “xenophobia”, “violence” and “a danger for democracy”. If populism means to ensure that the voices of Europeans and Italians are heard – if I need to shout that the time for talking is over and we need to act, that unemployment levels are unacceptable and Europeans are at the end of their tether, that Article 1 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on human dignity is a distant memory, that it is not the Europe that we young people dreamt of, a Europe of people prioritising solidarity over economic profit, without the dominion of some countries over others – if populism means forcing you to face the failure of the current system, where human dignity and brotherhood are the least of our concerns, then we are proud to be pacifists, democrats, against xenophobia but populists.

      Ms BLANCO (Spain)* – First, I congratulate Sir Allan Meale on this report. It is an important issue. I have been working for many years in the development field and I am concerned about the attainment of the MDGs and even more concerned about the post-2015 development agenda.

      Unlike Ms Spadoni, I do believe in politics. I believe a great deal in politics and I think politics is more necessary now than ever. I will illustrate this by referring to three millennium development goals. With regard to MDG1 – “eradicate extreme poverty and hunger” – we are faced with a massive concentration of economic resources in the hands of a few. I can give you some information provided by the United Nations: 85 individuals in the world have as much wealth as the 3.5 billion poorest; in other words, half the income of the world is in the hands of 1% of the population. Moreover, most of that wealth is in tax havens, and this is where politics comes into play. The first thing we need to eradicate is the tax havens, and that is completely in our hands. The markets and economic magnates are confiscating wealth with economic rules that undermine democracy. These are not my words but those of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

      With regard to MDG3 – “promote gender equality and empower women” – very little progress has been made. Violence against women simply because they are women continues to be a worldwide problem of paramount importance. Our colleague from the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe has referred to the situation in her country. Spain is meeting its goal but there are still vast numbers of children even in Spain who are not achieving this goal. It is true that there is a crisis but this crisis has a lot to do with what is happening in the south.

      Lastly, MDG5 – “improve maternal health” – has been referred to in this Assembly. There are countries such as my own, Spain, where the right-wing government is poised to repeal the abortion law.

      Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation)* – We are at the gates of another 15-year period. The previous 15 years have gone by so quickly that you come to the conclusion that some decent progress has been made. None the less, from each and every one of our countries we can see that alongside the positive trends and the achievement of the goals mentioned by Sir Allan Meale, there are other, more negative trends, especially with regard to progress in protecting the natural environment. Incidentally, 11 of the 15 speakers in this debate are women, which means that the most sensitive part of the population is giving the clearest signal that our efforts over the past 15 years have not been sufficient. The barometer of public opinion is thereby reflected.

      I would especially like to refer to Europe’s role after the 2015 threshold referred to by Sir Allan Meale, and the need to make progress on the European Landscape Convention, which is in paragraph 8.4.6 of the report. The MDGs should bring about sustainable development, which is something that we should all be prepared for. They pave the way for the sustainable development goals, which are predicated on a landscape approach to geographical resources and studying, planning and developing these new components. They should be taken into account in future. Russia is ready to take part in areas such as energy security and combating unemployment, and we will be well prepared for the UN Summit in 2015. Can Sir Alan Meale say whether the Council of Europe will be preparing any proposals for the next 15-year period?

      Ms KARAMANLI (France)* – First, I thank our colleague Sir Alan Meale because he records the figures very well in his report. These are sometimes rather dry, but if we look at the comparisons they give us they are very useful as we try to understand the great divergences and differences that divide our world. In fact, today the 85 richest people in the world possess as much as the 3.5 billion human beings who are the poorest on our planet. To eat one’s fill, to have necessary health treatment, to go to school, to have decent work and decent pay, not being afraid of men if you are a woman – these are all rights that seem quite natural to those of us who live in this part of the world. But it is not the case for the majority of people living on our planet. Europe, therefore, is triply concerned by the failure to realise the objectives of the millennium development goals.

      First, Europe should be a model in so far as progress appears possible. It can and should offer material aid to other countries to help them develop. It can also be a vector of a global movement in which democracy is a lever to obtaining the MDG objectives. There should be three main objectives. In a large number of countries the objectives of human development have been attained, although the most crucial problems have not always been resolved. But crises and tensions created by the unequal share of wealth leave the field open to populist movements that challenge the very idea that poverty should be restricted or eliminated. Economic responses adapted to the needs of large populations that are suffering from crisis should be considered at the right place and time, even on the European continent. We must not mix up the major objectives with the minor drawbacks. Europe must be more visible.

      I have some suggestions. Our States should re-examine the idea of Paul Davidson, inspired by John Maynard Keynes, of having an international compensation chamber, which would make it possible to use financial surpluses from one part of the world to finance development in another. Our States should do everything to collect taxes that are currently not paid by globalised companies and ensure that all members of the community can achieve fulfilment. As President Obama said, if the poorest succeed, everyone succeeds. As the rapporteur said, our Assembly should be able to contribute to the process of negotiation and co-operation aimed at improving the effectiveness of public policies and achieving the MDGs. Thinking about wealth sharing and making sure that taxation is effective is a sustainable way of achieving the MDGs.

      THE PRESIDENT* - As Mr Likhachev and Ms al-Astal are not here, that concludes the list of speakers. Rapporteur, you have four minutes to respond.

      Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – I start by thanking the staff of this august Organisation. The secretariat of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development and the rest of its staff have done a sterling job under Tanja’s management. I particularly want to mention Madame Lambrecht-Feigl, the Clerk, who has done a magnificent job. I place on the record my thanks to Marina Davidashvili, from the European Parliamentary Forum, based in Brussels. She made a valuable contribution.

      All the speakers have dealt with the main issues, which are clear – there needs to be change. This debate is about poverty, hunger and despair and building a better world that actually works. Mr Sudarenkov talked about women being the most sensitive part of our population, but they are the majority – they constitute more than 50% of us and they are treated badly. I have presented the figures. I tried to prioritise the section about writing the new agenda that takes us beyond 2015, starting to right the evils of the world and make it more equal. I mentioned that 800 women die every day – nearly 300 000 every year – as a result of preventable complications in pregnancy and childbirth. Those 300 000 deaths are preventable, and if we are to build a better world we have to start to address that as soon as possible.

      Critics of my report might say that I have put a little too much emphasis on the female gender, but it is about time that happened. This Assembly does more than anywhere else to say where inequality occurs but as a world we do not get anywhere near resolving the situation. Women are still dying from preventable causes, being treated unequally and not getting the same jobs, education and opportunities as men. The issues go on and on. Remember that women constitute more than 50% of the population. We have to be honest and tell ourselves that we have to change and build a better world. The issue is about poverty and despair, but also about change and building a world with hope and endeavour. I hope we achieve that.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. Does the chairperson of the committee wish to speak?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – I welcome the considerable support for the text among Assembly members. I congratulate Sir Alan Meale on helping us to focus on some sensitive issues such as poverty and inequality that, unfortunately, the 21st-century world is still dealing with. As I come from one of the poorest countries in Europe, I can relate to many of the problems raised by Sir Alan. As the report states, it is crucial that we do not slow down – we must pursue the issues with the same verve beyond 2015. It is unacceptable that a number of countries still do not allow women to get an education, as Ms Maghradze mentioned. That is important to us as an institution whose goal is to guarantee equal rights to every human being. The committee will keep some of the most important issues referred to in the text on its agenda for the next year. I encourage members to support the draft resolution. Together we can improve our world.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. The debate is closed.

      The Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development has presented a draft resolution, to which one amendment has been tabled. I remind members that the speaking time on amendments is limited to 30 seconds.

      We come to Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Donaldson, Sir Edward Leigh, Mr Clappison, Mr Neill, Mr Liddell-Grainger and Mr Pintado, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 8.3.2, delete the words “and rights”.

      Mr Donaldson is not here to speak in favour of the amendment. Mr Ghiletchi, would you like to say something?

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – The amendment was dealt with in the Committee. No one was there to move it, but the rapporteur was against it and the committee rejected it.

      Sir Alan MEALE (United Kingdom) – The amendment was about a more controversial part of female health care. Reproductive rights and health are about a whole range of things and the amendment was a straightforward attempt to introduce the sorry subject of abortion, which has no part in the report.

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

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Against.

      THE PRESIDENT* – The vote is open.

      Amendment 1 is rejected.

      THE PRESIDENT* – We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Doc. 13368.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13368 is adopted, with 58 votes for, 0 against and 4 abstentions.

2. Climate change: a framework for a global agreement in 2015 and energy diversification as a fundamental contribution to sustainable development (joint debate)

      THE PRESIDENT* – We now come to the joint debate on two reports from the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. The first is entitled “Climate change: a framework for a global agreement in 2015” (Document 13362) presented by Mr John Prescott; the second is entitled “Energy diversification as a fundamental contribution to sustainable development” (Document 13366) presented by Ms Doris Barnett.

      Speaking time is limited to three minutes.

      Each rapporteur has 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      I call Mr Prescott.

      MR PRESCOTT (United Kingdom.) – It is my pleasure to present the report on climate change. I have been actively involved in this subject going back to the Kyoto agreement in 1997, where I was the lead European negotiator. We have gone through some tribulations about whether we want an agreement on climate change or not. This report makes it very clear that it is absolutely critical that we get an agreement to follow Kyoto 1 and go to the second stage. There is no doubt that climate change has got worse. We have got the international body and the scientists make the situation clear. The poverty and wealth distribution issue has got worse since we started with the first planet earth summit 40 years ago. In this report I am not trying to prove that we need to do something. Instead, I am saying what we can do. The report tells you. I ask you all to read the report. I hope you will agree with its analysis.

      I want to talk about how we can get to the next stage and maintain the essential principles in the Kyoto framework, because when we decided Kyoto that applied only to 46 industrial countries – the rich ones. We decided there would be a legal framework: we would determine carbon emissions targets and enforce them in a legal framework. The difference between then and now is that we are talking about 190-plus nations now, not 46 rich industrial ones, and we have to find a consensus and agreement on how to move to the next stage, which I call the Kyoto 2 agreement.

      Let us look at what we are proposing here. There have been difficulties. When we reached agreement at Kyoto in 1997 and then negotiated the various parts, we said it would finish in 2012, and there was great fear that some countries that opposed Kyoto 1 were hoping it would fade away and we would not have an agreement. We intervened. This Council of Europe Chamber intervened. A document called “Stop the clock” was produced. Those who know about negotiating in Europe know that if we are conducting a negotiation and it is not completed in time, we stop the clock. That is what we proposed in 2012. We got the countries to agree to extend Kyoto 1 for another four years to 2015. There is no “Stop the clock” for 2015. We have to find an agreement by 2015, and we have to say what the framework is.

      First, we have to understand why it was difficult to get an agreement. It was difficult because America and other countries have argued it should be a legal framework, but it is not possible to get 190 nations to agree a global legal agreement, and certainly not in the next four years. So we must extend the principles embodied in Kyoto 1 and then ask, “How can we achieve a legal agreement if we can’t just say here is a global agreement and we must enforce it?” It is very difficult to enforce. We have to find a consensus covering the majority of nations, but all the countries vary in their economic development and in their development as States and how they address poverty. There has to be a framework that allows for all these differences yet at the same time advances globally.

      The science is clear. If we allow businesses to continue producing emissions on the current scale, it will be disastrous. We are very near that critical level at the moment. It is crucial that by 2015 we have the framework in place.

      What we are proposing in this document is precisely what we did through “Stop the clock”. What is the common sense solution we can all sign up to which addresses the dangers the scientists are telling us about and which we can sell to everyone? If we try to sell Kyoto, the Japanese are the first to tell me, “Although it’s called Kyoto, we don’t want it any more after our problems with nuclear energy and other things.” The Americans could never do Kyoto anyway, because they could not get it through Congress. Obama this week says he is going to take Executive action. That is an interesting point, but other countries have also said they would not do it, including Australia, I think.

      The way forward is for each country to develop its own Climate Change Act. We have that in our country. It is written into our law. No Government can come in and say we are changing it overnight, despite what Mr Cameron says – I will not pursue that here.

      I am holding up a report produced by GLOBE. It is a body of 33 countries’ legislators, and it is about time the legislators had a say about what is going on. We saw at Copenhagen that it is no good all-powerful leaders – Obama, Brown from the UK – coming along and assuming we will get people to agree. It does not happen that way. Legislators should play more of a part. What I am proposing is a kind of compromise involving all countries, and this book shows that 33 countries have already said they are establishing their environmental legislation.

      The big countries – China and the United States – and Europe will determine this. Europe is the biggest force. We would not have had a Kyoto agreement without Europe as a continental influencing body to achieve that. The United States cannot use Congress so it has to use its Executive action laws. The Executive cannot just sign up to a Kyoto agreement. China has already agreed a White Paper. She is prepared to see that her own legislation has that. In Europe we have our own legislation to bring it into effect.

      Domestic legislation is the way forward. We should set ourselves targets, but make no mistake: we can promise things, but can we deliver them? That is going to be the problem. The global requirement is to add together all these domestic proposals, put them on to one level and see if we are satisfied with the emission cuts targets, and then use domestic law to impose it. Therefore, you need two things: first, climate change legislation, which every country should enact; the report recommends that. We should do that and agree it, and that is the one that can gain the maximum support. Secondly, we need an international body; an amendment to the report mentions this, and we can talk about it later. We need an independent body that judges whether countries are delivering on their promises and whether their legislation has credibility. If their legislation does not have credibility – some deny this – it will fall right through the system. Credibility and transparency are crucial if we are to get Kyoto 2.

      Kyoto is a Japanese city, and the Japanese were proud of the agreement at the time. The Kyoto agreement does not have the same meaning at the moment. What is interesting is: where do we sign the next agreement? In Paris. In Europe. Europe is at the centre of the process, because the conference to decide it will be in Paris in 2015. Perhaps the agreement will be known as the Paris memorandum. I do not know whether French politicians find that attractive; I hope they do. I just want an agreement – I do not care a damn what you call it – but that has to be done.

      If we are to do anything about the millennium development goals and the problems with energy, we must consider the issues altogether. If you have any doubts about the growing disparity of wealth, just listen to the voices at Davos, that conference of the rich and powerful over in Switzerland. They were concerned about inequality, but what did they propose? More growth and more business. Now, the ice is melting, which we are concerned about, and they are saying, “We can sail ships through the ice now and get more growth.” Perhaps they should be concerned about what is causing the ice to melt and the complications with the climate.

      Here is a chance for Europe to lead the way. Here is a chance for this Council of Europe, as it did when things were falling apart, to intervene and say, “Listen. Stop. Let’s think seriously. Don’t let it go.” We need this. The world needs it. More importantly, our children’s children need it. We all know that. That is our responsibility.

       I am proud to see that the Council of Europe is at the heart of the matter, leading and making proposals. We did it with “Stop the Clock”; we smiled a bit at the time and didn’t like it, but we came to adopt it. What we have in this report is the common-sense way forward. The world needs it. The globe needs it. It is a combination of a global framework enforced with legislation. That will take us to 2020, and we can say to those voices who do not want it, “We intend to implement it, and the formula came from the Council of Europe”. We have every reason to be proud about that.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you, Mr Prescott. You have four minutes remaining.

      I call Ms Barnett, rapporteur, to present the second report. You have 13 minutes in total, which you may divide between presentation of the report and reply to the debate.

      Ms BARNETT (Germany)* – To begin with, I want to thank warmly the secretariat, particularly Ms Ramanauskaite, for their excellent preparatory work. We cannot talk enough about the enthusiasm that has been shown by members of the secretariat in preparing the report. Without them, we would not have been able to produce the report, because we have a lot to do at home in our own constituencies.

      Safe, sustainable and affordable energy production is at the top of the political and economic agenda. Decisions taken by politicians on energy production are subject to various interests, including those of citizens, industry and the environment, which is like squaring a circle.

      Added to that is the fact that energy production and tapping into sources of energy is not a static matter, but a development, and there are constantly new approaches. Our forefathers were proud of the fact that we produced our energy from coal-fired power stations. We have increased that figure twofold, in terms of use of fossil fuels.

      To add a personal comment, I come from Ludwigshafen, a city with many chemical industries. It is the home of BASF, the world’s largest chemical company, as well as other chemical companies. The basis of the chemical industry is fossil fuels – oil and natural gas. Rather than feeding those fuels into the production of electricity and heating, they should be fed into a more efficient chain of value creation. The issue is of particular concern to me, which is why I was pleased to take on the report.

      The report provides an overview of various forms of energy production in Council of Europe member States, and, generally speaking, they are climate-friendly. We are talking about a transition in energy production away from environmentally detrimental processes to methods that not only are carbon neutral, but will benefit us all in the long term, whether we are talking about the environment, consumers or industry.

      Of course, we are competing with one another and with other regions in the world. That is a good thing for our planet, if we can help to put a brake on the depletion of natural resources and to kick-start development in other regions so that they can leapfrog the detrimental stages of development in energy production and, rather than coal-fired or nuclear power stations, start off with renewables straightaway.

      It is important that we deal fairly with one another. Looking at the way in which different countries harness energy sources, we realise that we do not all have the same potential in terms of investment and resources, such as solar, wind and water power. What is important is that we proceed together along the path towards cleaner energy sources.

      Speaking from experience, I know how long it takes for a country to change its energy mix. In 1998, Germany decided to move out of nuclear power, but we started doing that only following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. Eight nuclear power plants have been shut down, while 25% of our electricity needs are covered by renewables. Of course, that change has not been cost-free, which our citizens have not always been happy about.

      Unlike traditional power plants, it is only now that we are starting with new installations and infrastructure. With clean energy, new problems can arise with the building and operation of new facilities. For example, wind turbines take up room and are dangerous to birds and bats. They are noisy and throw shadows. Off-shore wind farms are problematic for fishes and submarines. Pump-storage facilities require space.

      Energy production does not only affect the environment, but has considerable socio-economic consequences. Investing in new plants and renewables infrastructure – we are talking about private investors rather than the State – often requiring bureaucratic authorisation procedures. Also, incentives are required in the start-up phase. A new plant can create jobs, but that is only part of the incentives. Another part is that electricity produced from renewables is sold at guaranteed prices, which are at a mark-up compared with prices traded on the electricity market.

      We will have to work together more in the future. No country can afford blackouts – not even a millisecond – given the highly sensitive nature of our networks and the considerable consequences that a blackout can cause. We must therefore invest in network infrastructure, the watchword being “smart grids”. We need smart grids that can cope with inputs from both small and large-scale production.

      Often, the consumer has to foot the bill. I think we will see an increasing need for energy as people shift to electric vehicles, but that might be an opportunity for certain countries that have been in the wings of such developments. I am convinced that Mediterranean countries, with their considerable solar and wind power sources, might well be future suppliers of energy. However, we will need appropriate network infrastructure, and for all that to become a reality, we need to conduct a certain amount of preparatory work.

      The best and cheapest way to achieve a different energy mix is to avoid using energy. There are products on the market – light bulbs, hoovers, fridges, televisions and plant machinery – that are more efficient and use less energy. We need to build buildings that need little energy for heating or cooling. Also, we should not lose sight of human beings when talking about insulating buildings. Many people cannot afford what is required, and ultimately they will have to continue to pay high electricity bills. We need political solutions in order to avoid energy poverty. Politicians also have to do something about energy wastage. We need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and the best way of doing that is through people’s pockets. There is certainly room for improving the European Union emissions-trading system and making it more effective.

      We have traditional renewables, offshore wind power and tidal power plants, and we have been looking into tapping other renewable sources under the earth through, for example, geothermal technology and fracking. Geothermal is a long-standing technology in Italy, but other countries are somewhat sceptical about its potential. The situation is similar with regard to fracking. Germany has been fracking – obviously, this has escaped public attention – since 1960. Today there is a problem because of the cavalier approach in the United States of America towards the use of chemicals, but we in Europe try to offset the risks beforehand. In Austria, for example, corn starch is mixed with water for the purposes of fracking, thereby obviating the risk of dangers associated with it elsewhere.

      We should not overlook any dangers, but, given that we know something about science and technology, we should be aware of the potential as wells as the risks. The countries of our Organisation have changed their energy mix, with some proceeding more quickly than others. If we can change that mix, we will reap the social, economic and political benefits.

      After 2022 – the year by which Germany wants to cease the production of electricity by nuclear power plants – some of our electricity production will still emit carbon dioxide and we will still have no safe end storage for nuclear waste. I hope we will be able to do more on waste energy, using domestic waste and bioenergy to produce clean energy. We will need efficient storage technologies in future so that renewable energy is not only affordable but cost-efficient in the long term and able to promote general well-being.

      We have a long way to go, but we have started on the path to reaching our objective together. I hope that some of the report’s suggestions will be of assistance to colleagues, whom I thank for their attention. I look forward to the discussion.

      (Mr Seyidov, Vice-President of the Assembly, took the Chair in place of Mr Rouquet.)

      THE PRESIDENT – I call Mr Schennach to speak on behalf of the Socialist Group.

      Mr SCHENNACH (Austria)* – On behalf of my political group, I should like to thank both rapporteurs for, and congratulate them on, their extremely important reports.

      I am Chair of the Sub-Committee on Environment and Energy and I am also the Council of Europe’s representative at the Climate Change Conference and the Arctic Conference, so this is an extremely important issue for me. The international community is in a similar situation to the passengers on the Titanic who were celebrating as the ship went down: people are simply unwilling to face up to the looming catastrophe. If our carbon dioxide emissions continue at their present levels, it will take us 80 years to turn the situation around. I do not think that anyone present will be here in 80 years’ time.

      The poles are receding and the exploration for fossil fuels in the Arctic means that it is under severe threat. It is likely that it accounts for a substantial proportion of the remaining fossil fuel reserves. We need to look at energy consumption. The south is likely to experience the most serious energy disasters, and that is the most serious aspect of this debate.

      The most important point about the second report, which centres on energy diversification, relates to energy efficiency and energy savings. Nuclear energy is no longer safe or clean. If we did not know about that before, we have certainly known about it since the Fukushima disaster. In Austria we have gradually become aware that Europe’s future lies in becoming less dependent on gas and oil. We have to look to the future and gear ourselves towards the increased use of renewable energies.

Southern countries, including Arab countries, Turkey and all the Balkan States, are working on the Mediterranean solar project. All those countries, apart from Spain, are keen to become partners in the development of renewable energies in order to come up with a genuinely green and clean source of energy from both shores of the Mediterranean.

My final point is about jobs. The Austrian Chancellor spoke this morning about the importance of generating employment for young people. I am sure that energy will be a source of jobs and, most important, sustainable jobs in future.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Schennach. I call Mr Schneider to speak on behalf of the Group of the European People’s Party.

      Mr SCHNEIDER (France)* – In February 2013, the European Economic and Social Committee rightly stressed that energy is an essential common good that is necessary for each and every human being to lead a dignified life, yet energy precariousness is the daily lot of more than 50 million Europeans. They find it difficult to pay their energy bills and often do not have sufficient access to energy, which is a daily drama for them. It further complicates their lives, given that they are already very much affected by the economic crisis.

      We have to work on two fronts in order to combat that precariousness. First, the cost of energy, whether for heating or for transport, depends, of course, on the energy and budgetary choices of individual countries, but it is too frequently subject to geostrategic interests. The rights of suppliers must be respected, but access to energy must never serve political interests, because the absence of energy undermines human rights.

      Secondly, on energy efficiency measures, insulation of housing is absolutely necessary to bring down energy bills, but humble households often do not have the means required to renovate their accommodation. To remedy that, we at the European level must think of innovative funding mechanisms. Fortunately, most European States provide specific mechanisms, such as social tariffs, to protect the most vulnerable.

      Elsewhere in the world, the reality of energy poverty is a very different picture. More than 1 billion individuals have no access at all to electricity. The absence of modern energy services is an obstacle to the development of those countries in the south and has dramatic consequences for their citizens.

      In addition to that vulnerability, we have climate change, be it rising water levels or natural disasters such as drought or flooding. Despite recent events, it will mainly affect poor countries, resulting in forced migration. The disappearance of certain islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans is often cited in examples about climate refugees. We must not forget that climate change will have a strong impact on the agricultural regions of sub-Saharan Africa.

      We must also be aware that the great majority of environmental migration will probably take place within individual countries, so we must re-examine the provisions we have in place for displaced persons. If these climate refugees have no legal status, what status will they have? The international community must rethink its institutional instruments so that international solidarity adapts to this new form of migration. We have a dual responsibility: to change our behaviour to slow down climate change and avoid the worst of it; and to promote energy solidarity in Europe and beyond on sustainable and safe energy. That is our responsibility to future generations, and it goes without saying that I support both reports.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you very much, Mr Schneider. I call Mr Büchel, who will speak on behalf of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

      Mr BÜCHEL (Liechtenstein)* – Accessing clean, affordable energy and tackling climate change are two of the main challenges we must rise to in the 21st century, and they are central principles in creating a peaceful community and society. The reports highlight the importance of sustainable energy and exactly what needs to be done to produce renewable energies and strike a proper balance in our energy mix. That important step needs to be taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Liechtenstein agrees with the so-called “2020 aims and objectives” set by the European Union, as they outline important steps that need to be taken to create a clean and sustainable future for all of us and our children.

      If we look at the most recent developments, we see that some important objectives have been achieved on developing renewable energies. Such efforts need to continue, and they can be used as a model, but support is required for this overall process. It is important for all States to play a role in this regard, because energy costs have an impact on competitiveness and the economy. These challenges need to be faced jointly; they cannot be faced individually, with the costs being borne by individual countries only. The countries that have played key roles have set themselves objectives to rise to. They have committed to reducing carbon dioxide emissions significantly, and we must continue along those lines.

      We must also come up with new solutions. Governments have an important role to play on energy prices, so that they can be governed by the free market. It is also important to maintain the aims on creating new energy sources. Creating them is no easy task, and it is worrying that a majority of new energy production sources require support from the government to be able to survive in the market. That cannot be the aim of the free market economy if we really want to come up with new solutions and approaches. The reports mention fracking, a new source of energy. That technology is being used as an energy source, but we need to be careful in addressing the environmental consequences. We need to look at the measures on protecting the environment, which are set out in the reports. We welcome them, but they are not enough in themselves. A great deal needs to be done to ensure that new energy sources do not have too many negative consequences, and we all need to rise to that challenge.

      The issues involved in providing more affordable energy and more drinking water are important, so I thank the rapporteurs for their excellent reports.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Büchel. I call Mr Jónasson to speak on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.

      Mr JÓNASSON (Iceland) – I start by agreeing with Mr Prescott and thanking him for his valuable work. His explanatory memorandum states “Climate change is one of the greatest threats our society is facing in the 21st century. The battle against climate change and natural resource degradation compels us to think and act together beyond our conventional boundaries. This battle is just as paramount as our efforts to agree on the new action framework for the Millennium Development Goals beyond 2015. Our success, or failure, will determine the type of world we leave for future generations.” This discussion is taken seriously by the parties of the left. We are grateful for the report and agree with the proposals it makes.

      I also wish to thank Doris Barnett for her comprehensive report. When our group discussed it, we had some reservations, which I want to be heard in today’s debate, although we certainly agreed on other things. There were those who wanted the report to be more ambitious on raising standards and targets on greenhouse gas emissions. Others were sceptical about some of the terminology. The report makes reference to “clean energy”, but that includes nuclear energy, which is not sustainable for safety reasons and the unsolved question of how to deal with nuclear waste. On the emissions trading system, some in our group are sceptical about the idea of commercialising the atmosphere as a tool in defending the environment, and I am among them. Others point out that the European Union emissions trading system, in its current design, does not provide any incentive for investment in climate-friendly technologies and so should not be expanded to other non-European Union countries until it has proven its ecological effectiveness.

      Today, I just wanted to make known the reservations that people discussed in the debate in our group. Once again, however, I thank the rapporteurs for their very valuable work.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Mr Jónasson. All the speeches on behalf of the political groups have now been made. Both rapporteurs will reply at the end of the debate. Does either of you wish to respond at this stage?

      That is not the case.

      I call Mr Ilić.

      Mr ILIĆ (Serbia) – What I have to say about the topic mostly goes for Serbia as well as for other Balkan countries, so I will use Serbia as an example in an attempt to make a few general points. Serbia is a country with substantial reserves of coal and significant potential in hydro-power; we have underdeveloped but highly promising potential in renewable energy sources. First, the most ambitious and most expensive project in which Serbia is participating is the Russian South Stream international gas pipeline, which offers Serbia a few very important advantages. First, it will allow us to stop importing gas via the Hungarian national gas network, which has so far proved to be extremely expensive. Although Serbia will still be buying Russian gas, it will come significantly cheaper, bringing with it additional income from the transit of gas. That will free up resources, which can then be invested in development.

      Serbia is also investing a substantial effort in developing its own energy sources, the most important of which are hydro-power, coal, biomass and a variety of other renewable energy sources. All those projects are being developed with the help of European Union funds and international investors, including significant interest from Chinese companies. As well as a highly promising potential in biomass, Serbia has all the necessary resources for the construction of solar power plants and wind farms, but the necessary subsidies are proving to be a large burden on the country’s struggling economy and social standards, which is why the national authorities currently mostly rely on large, foreign-financed projects.

      For any government to stay in power, especially in the Balkans, it needs to focus on handling the balance between economic development and social standards. While the effects of the first are usually long-term, the effects of shifts in the second are mostly immediate and have direct consequences for the authorities. I remind the Assembly about the ousting of the Bulgarian Government over electricity bills this time last year. Most governments in the Balkans choose present energy security and social standards over future sustainable development, which is, in their opinion, always a problem for the next cabinet to solve. To be fair, investing in energy diversification and sustainable development seems a luxury for a government that is barely holding things together given its external debt, budget and trade deficit and plummeting social standards. Nonetheless, the resources are there, as well as the ideas, projects, and the political will to make the necessary legal framework. What we need, as always, is more time and more money, and we are desperately short on both.

      Ms GKEREKOU (Greece) – It is a great honour for me to be here as a new member of the Greek delegation in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It is a challenge that I will approach with a sense of duty. Please allow me to continue my speech in my mother tongue.

      (The speaker continued in Greek.)

      I want to focus on the possibility of diversification in Greece based on European energy commitments. We want to plan to reduce our dependency on imported energy with a view to maximising renewable sources. With that in mind, we considered three different scenarios. The first was maintaining the current policies on energy and the environment, which would only slightly reduce CO² emissions by 2050 and would have little effect on the use of renewable energy or on the economy. We therefore plumped for the two other scenarios, one of which would provide for major use of renewable sources and which would enable us to reduce emissions by 60% to 70% with regard to 2005. Greece’s dependence on imported fossil fuels means that some technological investment is necessary. We have had an opportunity to develop sectors such as construction, equipment and new technologies, and we hope that final users will be protected from unstable price fluctuations, that energy will be saved and that expenses will be reduced.

      The Greek Government is striving to combat energy poverty, which is a recent development following major budget cuts. Many households are unable to pay their electricity bills and Greece has decided to reduce energy bills for 15% to 20% of the population based on income. We hope to find a solution to energy poverty, which we can achieve if we consider all aspects of energy diversification.

      THE PRESIDENT – I congratulate you on becoming a new member of the Greek delegation.

      As Ms Čigāne is not here, I call Mr Jakavonis.

      Mr JAKAVONIS (Lithuania)* – I want to express gratitude to Mr Prescott and Ms Barnett for the important work that they have done. I urge everyone to support their reports and to vote in their favour. My contribution will be brief, because several points that I wanted to make have already been made.

      Energy issues are obviously important at present. My country spends 10% of its annual budget on energy – $4 billion on gas and more than $5 billion on oil – which is a huge problem. For how long are we going to be reading articles about a lack of energy security? We need energy security.

      The other big problem is climate change. There is ferocious competition for energy sources, but they are a big source of income for those who have access to them. If something is expensive, it is more likely to be a source of conflict, but we can resolve such problems.

      Ms MATTILA (Finland) – I thank our colleagues, Mrs Barnett and Mr Prescott, for their fine reports.

      I am going to talk about European Union climate policy. I am sorry about that, but I have to do it. I do not deny that climate change is happening, and I think that CO² emissions are linked to the growing amount of national disasters, but what is going on inside the bubble of European Union climate policy is totally absurd. We have an emissions trading system, and we understand that burning fossil fuels increases greenhouse gases, but we are increasing our use of coal. I really do not understand that.

      All climate discussions should take place in a global context. We must begin a new century for energy. Energy is a critical contributor to the economy and any potential economic crisis is also a democratic crisis. Europe has many energy-intensive industries. We heat our houses and need fuel for our cars. Electricity does not come from a socket in the wall and heat does not come from radiators. Citizens are facing energy poverty, but we must also worry about fossil-fuel emissions. It worries me that climate change is not substantially discussed in a global context. Energy and climate-change policies need to work hand in hand and sustainably, and I am concerned by the direction of the European Union’s energy and climate change policy.

      We are dependent on nuclear power, but we should be encouraged by how the Austrians have renewed their energy strategy. They have increased self-sufficiency and have created thousands of jobs as a result. In the end, it is better to use energy as a means of employment for our home countries, rather than for coal mines abroad.

      Through national tax solutions, we should primarily support the increase of renewable energy so that it is affordable for households and industry. The bioeconomy is the future for Europe. It means decentralised and diversified energy production based on renewable biomass. We must remember that oil is an energy source that has led to wars and it is being drilled in questionable places, such as the bottom of the ocean. We cannot forget the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The price of oil will not go down in the future.

      Mr CONNARTY (United Kingdom) – I have spent 21 years involved in energy study groups in the UK Parliament, including PRASEG, which is an alternative energy group. I have also been the secretary of the all-party group on nuclear energy and of the all-party group on British offshore oil and gas for more than a decade, and a member of the board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology since 1996. I therefore apply science and not prejudice to policy choices.

      I welcome the excellent report on climate change presented by my good friend and diligent UK Labour Party colleague John Prescott on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development. In particular, I support the amendment by the committee that sets out a mechanism to prevent deadlock and to move forward to the second stage of a worldwide campaign against climate change damage to our planet.

      However, I wish to focus on the second report on energy diversification from Frau Barnett and its importance in ensuring sustainable development. What worries me most is how countries pitch about in their response to political pressures, whether populist or financial, on their use of modes of energy production. We have suffered from political sclerosis in the United Kingdom with a dash for gas, the destruction of our coal industry by Government diktat and the paralysis and sell-off of our nuclear energy generating capacity. Other countries have turned to policies entirely against nuclear power generation and refuse to engage with the scientific facts. The result is that they are building power stations that use coal, which even with the cleanest technology produces the highest level of climate-damaging gases.

      There are no clean fossil fuels – not natural gas, not shale gas, not oil and not coal – but there is and will continue to be a massive demand for fossil fuel power generation throughout the 21st century. Some 73% of the United Kingdom’s electricity generation uses fossil fuels and 47% of that is from cheap coal. There are also technologies being developed to capture fossil fuel carbon and store that climate-damaging gas in former oil, gas and natural reservoirs. I have visited a successful pilot in France at Pau, and in the United Kingdom and other places there are pilots at advanced stages of development. The sensible, scientific and sustainable future includes fossil fuel-based energy production. Similarly, with the application of science and facts, nuclear power generation has both the lowest carbon footprint from construction to production of all energy sources, including wind and wave power, and with reprocessing and the use of mixed oxide fuel, it has the highest potential to be a renewable energy source. I will debate nuclear safety any day with my socialist colleague Mr Schennach, who spoke earlier.

      A key question is how much of the fissile energy of a nuclear fuel rod is used in its first use, and the answer is 4%. With the use of technologies already available here in France, we can use up the most dangerous plutonium produced during our nuclear weapons programmes and create safe mixed plutonium oxide and uranium oxide fuels again and again. There is also the potential for the use of non-uranium borium fuel rods. We must not stumble about in the energy diversity debate blinded by prejudice and fear. I support the report in its aspirations, but it does lack scientific and factual rigour.

      Mr SUDARENKOV (Russian Federation)* – Both rapporteurs have really contributed to our understanding of energy and sustainable development in this changing climate. There is no doubt that man has contributed to global warming, although some place doubt on that. What sort of world will we leave for future generations? I am convinced that we will manage to succeed, but we cannot exclude the possibility of failing. Increasing the world’s average temperature by 2° C would be a catastrophe. Of course, it is very difficult to apply the principle of common but differentiated responsibility that has been adopted.

      We have talked a lot about monitoring, and perhaps we can monitor who is living up to their commitment. The resolution indicates that Canada, Japan, New Zealand and the Russian Federation have left the Kyoto Protocol. The Russian Federation is officially still a party to the Kyoto Protocol, although for the time being we have not agreed to take on board the quantitative obligations on greenhouse gas emissions. We are nonetheless a party to the protocol.

      On Doris’s report, the average human consumption of energy in the 21st century is stabilising at about 2.5 tonnes of coal equivalent per person per year. Climate stability would require a certain number of conditions being met: a reduction in the average individual consumption in developed countries from 6.9 tonnes of coal equivalent to 4 tonnes of coal equivalent and a corresponding increase in developing countries from 1 tonne of coal equivalent per year to 2.5 tonnes. How will countries agree to that? It is hard to imagine. I am not convinced by the idea of strengthening the European emissions trading system. We need to reduce consumption and not trade in permission to pollute the atmosphere. They are very good reports all in all.

      THE PRESIDENT – As Mr Mendes Bota is not here, I call Mr Recordon.

      Mr RECORDON (Switzerland) – My thanks go to Mr Prescott and Ms Barnett for the excellent reports they have outlined for us this evening with the assistance of our extremely able secretariat. It goes without saying that I unreservedly support the various proposals. Nevertheless, I would like to develop a couple of points. You cannot look at climate change and energy diversification in isolation – they must be linked – because if you do so, you run the risk of committing some serious errors. In the interests of our climate, we obviously need to have a mix of energy that is as clean as possible. There is no such thing as 100% clean energy and you cannot just calculate energy in megawatts; you have to calculate energy in terms of the amount you save. The most important thing is the fight against energy wastage.

      Renewables are a problem. Even if you do increase your solar energy, you will need lithium, which is another resource. At the other end of the chain, we must do away with people’s illusions about shale gas – that it is some kind of easy solution – and point out the problems associated with greenhouse gases and global warming.

      A lot of people thought at the time that there would be some kind of miracle panacea, but we have come to realise that countries that have got a grip on industrial processes, such as Japan, are not immune to disasters. Indeed, this is my only criticism of the report on energy diversification. On page 11, for example, it states that nuclear energy has the advantage of providing security of supply. That is simply not true. Account needs to be taken of the fact that the energy supply could suddenly be cut off if there is a nuclear disaster.

      There are also the problems associated with uranium sources. Fusion is possible but year in, year out, it is delayed. Studies used to say that it would be achievable in 30 years’ time, and then in 40 years’ time, but nobody is really sure whether we will ever get there.

      These are the reasons we need to pay close attention to fighting energy waste.

      Mr REISS (France)* – I congratulate the rapporteurs on the high quality of the work they have produced. The challenge we face today is no less than protecting the future of this beautiful planet. As you know, my country will host the next United Nations climate conference, in 2015. The problems associated with climate change can be resolved only if the vast majority of greenhouse gas emitters are brought together. China accounts for 29%, the US 17% and Europe 11% of all greenhouse gas emissions. For this agreement, which brings together the main greenhouse gas emitters, to be successful, it needs to be binding, subject to checks and enable the imposing of sanctions.

      Since the summits in Doha and Durban, we have witnessed the public’s growing awareness – influenced by the emerging countries’ economic prosperity and their growing level of development – of climate threats. Here, I am thinking of China, India, Brazil and, to a lesser extent, South Africa. President Obama has shown a willingness to make headway on this matter. Such developments are important if we want an agreement to see the light of day.

      On the Kyoto protocol, the industrialised countries have committed to respecting quotas to reduce or limit their greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union has led the way on this issue. On 22 January, the European Commission proposed that the 28 member States set an objective of a 40% reduction in their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, compared with 1990 levels. By the end of 2012, Europe had reduced its emissions by 18% compared with 1990 levels. This ambitious objective requires the commitment of all States, particularly the leading greenhouse gas emitters per inhabitant.

      Madam rapporteur, you said that Germany is going to stop using nuclear power. I should point out that moving to newer energy sources can be hampered by high costs, and a return to coal is not the panacea, either. Such a return is being defended by some Balkan countries, and is supported by the European Union on the pretext, defended by the energy commission, of giving priority to European Union energy independence and that of its partners, even if it means compromising on environmental criteria.

      Where are our priorities? Energy diversification – here, I am not going to mention nuclear energy – will be of vital importance if we want to reduce omissions and promote much greater energy independence. We have to do everything within our power to make this energy transition successful, and that requires both courage and determination. It means most of all that Europe has to have a say in its energy future, and that is why the Paris conference really needs to be a success.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you. We now welcome Ms Boutin-Sweet, Observer from Canada.

      Ms BOUTIN-SWEET (Observer from Canada)* – Developing economies’ demand for energy is insatiable. According to the International Energy Agency, the demand for global energy could grow by a third between 2011 and 2035. The agency adds that it is possible to meets the world’s demand through different sources of energy, particularly renewable energies. Or, we can continue to promote fossil fuel industries with subsidies: $544 billion in 2012 – or five times more than the $101 billion of subsidies given to renewable energy industries. But let us be realistic: we will not be able to free ourselves from our dependency on oil from day one. On the other hand, the argument according to which it is necessary to continue to consume huge amounts of fossil fuels and to increase energy consumption in order to ensure economic growth is not based on any reliable data, as has been shown on many occasions.

      As indicated by the rapporteur, who has based her conclusions on many international studies, renewable energy and energy efficiency are the essential elements that will enable us to ensure economic growth and competitiveness, while respecting the environment, equality and economic equity. By reducing dependency on fossil fuels, which are expensive, our companies can become more competitive. Replacement energies can be extended to regions that do not have the infrastructure required to use fossil fuels.

      Those of us who live in countries where energy is abundant sometimes forget that a large part of the world’s population has to live without electricity, oil or other fuel forms. We must perceive energy conservation and the development of other forms of energy and associated technologies as futuristic sectors that can drive economic development. The clean energy world market will be worth $3 billion in 2020. As to the advantages for the environment, they are obvious.

      As indicated by PricewaterhouseCoopers, to have even a 50% chance of limiting global warming to 2ºC, in accordance with the commitments taken on by Canada and other countries under the Copenhagen agreement, the world economy must reduce its carbon intensity by 5.1% per year until 2050.

      In its 2013 edition on the world’s energy prospects, the International Energy Agency notes that, despite the efforts currently made to meet the objective of limiting global warming to 2º - in particular by promoting energy efficiency and renewable energies, reducing subsidies for fossil fuels, and putting a price on carbon emissions – the world is in fact confronted with the long to medium-term probability of warming by 3.6ºC. To cite Madam Barnett, the rapporteur, we need more ecological, more intelligent and more balanced development, and it is those principles that must orient our energy policies. However, it is also our business, as individual citizens: each of us must turn our words into action – as of today.

      Mr SHAHGELDYAN (Armenia)* – First, I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their excellent and interesting work. The issue of energy diversification and the problems it raises is of great importance, particularly for developing countries, which do not have the required energy sources. The report states at paragraph 8 that human and economic development over the past 150 years conveys a key idea. We need to move away from energy “slavery” and develop energy independence and autonomy, not only for the regions but for organisations and individuals.

      I want to outline three strategic approaches. First, we must agree on the importance of developing synergies between energy diversification, energy security, economic development, an increase in the level of social and environmental security, and sustainable development.

      In recent years, there has been a 65% increase in the number of cars in Armenia using gas, rather than petrol. Public health and the environment have gained from this. Headway has been made by developing new technologies based on renewable energies, but sometimes what is missing is funding and the technology to bring it on to the market for mass production so that costs can be reduced. I think this is the case in other countries as well. We need to endow ourselves with a strategy to create this, to market it, and then to produce it in the field of renewable energies for member countries of the Council of Europe.

      Another important point is the lowering of prices. This is one of the key principles underpinning energy diversification and sustainable development. We need a strategic approach geared towards reducing energy prices that will enable us further to develop this sector. Last but not least, energy sources should be used for economic and social development. At the same time, we need to focus on European values and fight against policies that are all about arming societies and investing in the military, as is the case with our neighbour.

      THE PRESIDENT – The next speaker is Mr Rivard, Observer from Canada.

      Mr RIVARD (Observer from Canada)* – Thank you, Mr President. It is a pleasure for me to be able to address this Assembly again.

      Under the United Nations framework convention on climate change, the international community has committed itself to conclude a new world agreement by 2015 with the objective of preventing dangerous climate change. For this reason, I applaud the efforts being made by various persons and entities, including this Assembly, to accomplish the difficult task that the conclusion of such an agreement will be.

      Canada takes the problem of climate change very seriously. The north of our country is particularly affected; it is heating more than twice as fast as the rest of the planet. Despite the good intentions that underpin the draft resolution, Canada could not perceive it as requiring a legislative instrument that imposes a target for reduction of emissions that stimulates action. Through the Copenhagen agreement, Canada has already agreed to reduce its emissions by 17% by 2020 with regard to the level of 2005. It will not be easy to meet that target, but there is at least an intention and a common will to succeed. In Canada a law has been enacted giving the federal government certain powers with regard to emissions reduction, and it is taking advantage of these powers. They flow from Canada’s decision to identify greenhouse gases as toxic under the Canadian law on the protection of the environment of 1999, given that these gases can endanger the environment that is essential for life.

      Canada certainly understands the gravity of the situation. It acts at the national level and works at the international level with a view to promoting the conclusion of a fair and effective agreement on climate change. Since 2005, Canada has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 4.8% during a period in which the economy has grown by 8.4%. This result is the fruit of efforts made by the federal Government, by the provinces, and by individual companies and residents. At the international level, it is necessary to intensify work in order that a multilateral agreement be finalised and implemented.

      Canada is very much a pioneering State in this regard. It supports initiatives that are complementary, flexible and innovative and lie outside the United Nations framework convention on climate change – for example, the efforts being made by the Arctic Council and the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to reduce climate pollutants with short life cycles. Mathematical logic requires that in order to be effective, any multilateral agreement must apply to the countries often referred as the major emitters, but at the same time no agreement can succeed if it is not fair. According to the chairpersons of the working group responsible for drafting an agreement under the framework convention, the agreement of 2015 will have to be based on science, fairness to national realities, flexibility, effectiveness and participation. Bringing all this together in a multilateral agreement will be a colossal job of work. I thank the Assembly for contributing to this effort, and particularly for showing what an important role can be played by parliamentarians in this regard.

      MR HUSEYNOV (Azerbaijan) –        It is a naked truth that energy resources are a major factor not only for sustainable development and premium living conditions but generally for life and the existence of mankind. Now, in the 21st century, when the world’s population is increasingly growing, with all its requirements, energy problems are getting much more serious, thus going beyond the scope of being purely an economic factor. Nowadays energy affairs have grown to become a serious political phenomenon, becoming the constant accompanist to and reliable guarantor of global balance and stability as well as close international co-operation.

      The success of my country, Azerbaijan, in energy diversification can be perceived as an obvious illustration of this. After the restoration of its State independence 23 years ago, Azerbaijan gained the right to be an unchallenged possessor of the energy resources of the country. In the third year of Azerbaijan’s independence, the contract concluded in 1994 was symbolically renamed the “contract of the century". It was aimed at the exploitation of the energy resources of the Caspian Sea with the involvement of the investment of a number of the leading countries of the world. The contract was signed as a result of overcoming very hard and impetuous external pressures. It not only stimulated the emergence of the new panorama in the energy landscape of Europe and the world but contributed to the further speedy economic development of Azerbaijan, as well as to the protection of its sovereignity.

      Nearly 20 years later, in late 2013, Azerbaijan signed another project, named Shahdaniz 2, with a number of European countries, and this was named the “contract of the 21st century”, in the international economic-political terminology, and not only for its being one of the biggest energy projects of the world. The major significance of this project is expressed in energy security in Europe, energy diversification, and establishment of the solid ground for the broad and deep international collaboration among the countries and companies that have joined the contract. The Azerbaijani President has clearly and precisely stated the position of his country with respect to co-operation in the sphere of energy. The indicated position notes that the energy strategy of Azerbaijan is based on amity and mutual support. Azerbaijan has never benefited from its energy resources with other purposes and will not do this in future either.

      The essential role of Azerbaijan in European energy security is a recently affirmed truth. In particular, newly discovered gas reserves increase this importance. It is not only its rich hydrocarbon resources that make Azerbaijan attractive. One of the main aspects is that Azerbaijan, through demonstrating its determination in the establishment of the new and colourful spectrum of energy systems in the region, is seen as an important country that does not pose risks and problems in transporting hydrocarbon products from central Asia to Europe.

      Along with such sorrowful and undesirable phrases as "lack of energy", " energy hunger" and "poverty of energy" in the political glossary, there is also the bright expression, "energy dialogue". The main desire is to see energy dialogue as a factor that leads not to confrontation and blackmail but to mutually effective co-operation and the building of a world with more peace.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you Mr Huseynov. That concludes the list of speakers. I call Ms Barnett, rapporteur, to reply. You have three minutes, the remainder of the total of 13 minutes.

      Ms BARNETT (Germany)* – Thank you very much, President. Energy supply is crucial to the future of our countries, as this evening’s debate has illustrated. But we must ensure that energy supply does not become a political football – instead, energy supply must be put on the same footing as the other basic minimum requirements a country provides for its citizens.

      Of course, trying to get CO₂ emissions down is also a very important goal. After all, we are all responsible for the fate of the world, and when it comes to new technologies, we would be well advised to try to help one another out. It has now dawned on us that a lot of countries simply do not have enough money to fund the necessary investments. A number of countries have signalled that they would be keen to expand their renewable energy sector but they quite simply do not have the money to do so. We call on countries that have renewables technologies to help other countries, but not in such a way as to send investors to a country and then have the target country become dependent on energy investors or consortia.

      Paragraph 9.1.1, concerning the European Union targets, was referred to several times. That does not mean the targets will be taken over, one by one, by other countries. You have to look at mistakes made by other countries in order to avoid repeating them. When all is said and done, we have taken many decisions at both national and international level. The problem is that paper is patient but nature is not. We as humanity have taken something away from our natural environment so we should now not just churn out more paper but take action. Germany knows that this is hard because it costs money but we have to be more inventive and imaginative in order to benefit those people who cannot afford to foot the bill themselves. That point has been made several times in the debate but if we all genuinely want to achieve something, if the political will is there, we will succeed in the end. As politicians, let us not just take the decisions, let us implement them. Let us take another look at the situation five years down the road and see how much progress we have achieved.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you, Ms Barnett. Now it is Mr Prescott’s turn. The floor is yours. You have four minutes.

      Mr PRESCOTT (United Kingdom) – First, I thank the secretariat, as we all have, because it is good to put our case. They do the hard work and I express my appreciation for that. Secondly, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate. It was an excellent, informed debate and the kind of debate that we need to keep having. I want to pick up a couple of points.

      Mr Schennach reminded us that they are now looking for oil in the Arctic. There is a carbon bubble: only 20% of known oil reserves can be used if we are not to go over the level of emissions. That is one of the problems we have. Therefore, energy policy and environment policy are two sides of the same coin. We already know we have enough oil; it is high-carbon. Therefore, we come to the other point that must govern the agreement. There are some difficult decisions here. We belong to the rich countries that poisoned the world because we had high-carbon growth. We used coal, we used oil; we reduced our poverty, we increased our wealth. You have to think of the Third World countries. I am in New Delhi next week. The Indians are desperately trying to reduce their poverty and because they do not have the capital that we have to invest in low-carbon economies, which is our obligation, they have to use coal and oil. That means that they will produce more emissions.

      How do you find agreement? I heard an American say at one of our Copenhagen conferences, “China produces as many emissions as we do”. That is factually right; I think China now produces more. But if you measure it per capita, America’s emissions output is five or six times greater. The United Nations says the policy that should govern our actions in this matter must be, “the principle of common but differential responsibilities”. We all want to see our countries grow. We have an awful lot more to do in reducing poverty. That is partly what it is about. But if we are to get a fair balance, the rich countries have a responsibility. Perhaps we could use some money to provide carbon sequestration to those using coal, in order to take out those emissions that are poisoning our world through high-carbon development.

      Our colleague from Finland talked about the bubble. We designed the bubble at Kyoto to allow some countries – there were 15 countries in the European Union then – to increase their emissions and some to reduce. The United Kingdom and Germany had to reduce their emissions but Spain and Portugal, in their early stages of development, were allowed to grow. That is the principle that we have to apply in the world: fairness. If you do not have fairness, you cannot get an agreement. Our colleague from France says it has to be fair: we should not just continue to use our strength, our technology and our resources. It is a big moral question, not just a mathematical one. We, the rich countries, have a responsibility to allow the low-carbon development of our economies while the others develop their high-carbon economies and we give them money to reduce carbon. That is the biggest challenge we could have but it is the challenge we are facing: to be fair and equitable.

      Our French colleague is right: the framework will be decided basically in France. I like that idea, as I said before, because it will be a European initiative. Let us lead the way. The European Commission was mentioned before; the Commission is still hanging on to a legal framework. I think it will have to change. We will have to work on our European colleagues to get that kind of solution.

      THE PRESIDENT – Thank you very much, Mr Prescott and Ms Barnett, for your excellent replies. Now it is time for the chair of the committee to reply. You have two minutes.

      Mr GHILETCHI (Republic of Moldova) – Dear colleagues, I have to admit that it is a bit difficult to listen to reports at this time of day. The number of colleagues here in the Chamber proves this. It is difficult to stay awake but thanks to our rapporteurs, who spoke with so much passion about these issues, I think everybody was awake, especially at the end when we heard their conclusions.

      After we heard the report on the very sensitive issue of poverty, we had the chance to hear two more reports that touched two other sensitive issues. Climate change and energy diversification are relevant and important issues for us and our countries. I liked what Mr Prescott said, that what we are looking for is consensus, to find a compromise and to reach a common ground so that our countries understand that it is important to have legislation that will regulate and address these issues. Energy diversification is fundamental not only to sustainable development but to avoid political crises. When we are dependent on energy, this is a heavy burden and it is a great obstacle to building free and prosperous societies.

      The issues debated in our Assembly today are important. All three reports presented on behalf of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development are important bricks in the building that our Assembly could build for the future of our children and our children’s children. I, too, thank the secretariat for their great work, and thank the rapporteurs. I invite you to support the resolutions that are presented to you today. Thank you.

      THE PRESIDENT* – Thank you.

      The debate is closed.

      There is one amendment to the draft resolution on “Climate change: a framework for a global agreement in 2015”, Document 13362, which has been unanimously approved by the committee. If there is no objection, I declare it approved by the Assembly.

      The following amendment has been adopted:

      Amendment 1, tabled by Mr Prescott, Sir Alan Meale, Mr de Vries, Mr Cilevičs, Mr Kox, Mr Connarty, Mr Sheridan, Mr Pâslaru, Mr Florea, Ms Birchall, Ms Giannakaki, Mr Triantafyllos and Mr Magazinović, which is, in the draft resolution, after paragraph 9, insert the following paragraph:

      “An international body should be established as a part of any Climate Change Agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions. It should be required to produce annual reports to the international authority under the Climate Change Agreement. It must reflect great scrutiny and transparency necessary for the credibility of a new Climate Change Agreement.”We

      We will now proceed to vote on the whole of the draft resolution contained in Document 13362, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13362, as amended, is adopted, with 56 votes for, 1 against and 1 abstention.

      Three amendments have been tabled to the Committee’s draft resolution on “Energy diversification as a fundamental contribution to sustainable development”, Document 13366. We will consider them in the order that they appear in the Compendium and the Organisation of Debates. Amendments 3 and 2 have been agreed unanimously in the Committee. If there is no objection, I declare Amendments 3 and 2 approved by the Assembly. Amendment 1 cannot be included in the unanimous amendment procedure because it was further amended in the Committee.

      The following amendments have been adopted:

      Amendment 3, tabled by Mr Büchel, Ms Oehri, Mr Bugnon, Mr Voruz and Ms Mateu Pi, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 4, after the word “cooling”, insert the word “, mobility”.

      Amendment 2, tabled by Mr Ahmet Kutalmiş Türkeş, Ms Erkal Kara, Mr Tuğrul Türkeş, Mr Çonkar, Mr Dişli, which is, in the draft resolution, paragraph 9.2.7, replace the words “eliminate subsidies to fossil fuels, but consider” with the following words:

“rationalise and phase out inefficient subsidies to fossil fuels over the medium term and consider”.

      I call Mr Ahmet Türkeş to support Amendment 1. You have 30 seconds.

      Mr Ahmet TÜRKEŞ (Turkey) – Countries should be encouraged to develop strategies and need certain time frames to implement national policies in this regard. What the amendment suggests would be more appropriate than penalising them.

      THE PRESIDENT – I have been informed that Ms Barnett wishes to propose an oral sub-amendment, on behalf of the Committee, as follows:

      In Amendment 1 to delete the words “phase out” and to insert the word “discourage”.

      Ms BARNETT (Germany)* – In the committee, we unanimously approved this oral sub-amendment and I am pleased to say that Mr Ahmet Türkeş, who tabled the original amendment, has said that he agrees with it.

      THE PRESIDENT – The President may accept an oral sub-amendment on the grounds of promoting clarity, accuracy or conciliation and if there is not opposition from 10 or more members to its being debated. Do 10 or more members object to the oral sub-amendment being debated?

      That is not the case.

      Does anybody wish to speak against the oral sub-amendment?

      That is not the case.

      What is the opinion of Mr Ahmet Türkeş?

      Mr Ahmet TÜRKEŞ (Turkey) – I agree.

      THE PRESIDENT – The committee is obviously in favour.

      I will now put the oral sub-amendment to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      The oral sub-amendment is adopted.

      We will now consider the Amendment 1, as amended.

      Does anyone wish to speak against the amendment, as amended?

      That is not the case.

      I shall now put Amendment 1, as amended, to the vote.

      The vote is open.

      Amendment 1, as amended, is adopted.

      We will now proceed to vote on the draft resolution contained in Document 13366, as amended.

      The vote is open.

      The draft resolution in Document 13366, as amended, is adopted, with 54 votes for, 2 votes against and 3 abstentions.

      I congratulate our rapporteurs and all Assembly members. It has been an honour for me, as a representative of an oil-rich country, to chair these important discussions about energy. Thank you very much.

3. Next public business

      THE PRESIDENT – The Assembly will hold its next public sitting tomorrow at 10 a.m. with the agenda agreed on Monday.

      The sitting is closed.

      (The sitting was closed at 7.15 p.m.)

CONTENTS

1. Stepping up action against global inequalities: Europe’s contribution to the Millennium Development Goals process

Presentation by Sir Alan Meale of the report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development,Document 13368

Speakers: Mr Jónasson, Ms Giannakaki, Mr Bockel, Ms Kazakova, Ms Fiala, Ms Maury Pasquier, Mr Schneider-Schneiter, Ms Maghradze, Ms Bonet Perot, Ms Spadoni, Ms Blanco, Mr Sudarenkov, Ms Karamanli,

Draft resolution in Document 13368 adopted

2. Climate change: a framework for a global agreement in 2015 and Energy diversification as a fundamental contribution to sustainable development (joint debate)

Presentation by Mr John Prescott of the report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 13362

Presentation by Ms Barnett of the report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, Document 13366

Speakers:Mr Schennach, Mr Schneider, Mr Büchel, M Jónasson, Mr Ilić, Ms Gkerekou, Mr Jakavonis, Ms Matilla, Mr Connarty, Mr Sudarenkov, Mr Recodon, Mr Reiss, Ms Boutin-Sweet, Mr Shahgeldyan, Mr Rivard

Amendment 1 to the draft resolution in Document 13362 adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13362, as amended, adopted

Amendments 3, 2 and 1, as amended, adopted

Draft resolution in Document 13366, as amended, adopted

3. Next public business

Appendix

Representatives or Substitutes who signed the Attendance Register in accordance with Rule 11.2 of the Rules of Procedure. The names of Substitutes who replaced absent Representatives are printed in small letters. The names of those who were absent or apologised for absence are followed by an asterisk

Pedro AGRAMUNT

Alexey Ivanovich ALEKSANDROV*

Miloš ALIGRUDIĆ*

Jean-Charles ALLAVENA

Werner AMON*

Luise AMTSBERG*

Lord Donald ANDERSON*

Paride ANDREOLI/Gerardo Giovagnoli

Khadija ARIB*

Volodymyr ARIEV*

Francisco ASSIS*

Danielle AUROI*

Daniel BACQUELAINE*

Egemen BAĞIŞ*

Theodora BAKOYANNIS*

David BAKRADZE*

Taulant BALLA*

Gérard BAPT*

Gerard BARCIA DUEDRA/Sílvia Eloïsa Bonet Perot

Doris BARNETT

José Manuel BARREIRO/Ángel Pintado

Deniz BAYKAL

Marieluise BECK*

Ondřej BENEŠIK/Pavel Holík

José María BENEYTO*

Levan BERDZENISHVILI/Guguli Maghradze

Deborah BERGAMINI*

Sali BERISHA*

Anna Maria BERNINI*

Teresa BERTUZZI*

Robert BIEDROŃ

Gülsün BİLGEHAN

Brian BINLEY*

Ľuboš BLAHA*

Philippe BLANCHART*

Delia BLANCO

Jean-Marie BOCKEL

Eric BOCQUET*

Mladen BOJANIĆ*

Olga BORZOVA*

Mladen BOSIĆ*

António BRAGA*

Anne BRASSEUR/Claude Adam

Alessandro BRATTI*

Márton BRAUN*

Gerold BÜCHEL

André BUGNON/Luc Recordon

Natalia BURYKINA*

Nunzia CATALFO

Mikael CEDERBRATT*

Elena CENTEMERO*

Lorenzo CESA*

Irakli CHIKOVANI*

Vannino CHITI*

Tudor-Alexandru CHIUARIU/Viorel Riceard Badea

Christopher CHOPE

Lise CHRISTOFFERSEN

Desislav CHUKOLOV*

Lolita ČIGĀNE*

Boriss CILEVIČS

Henryk CIOCH*

James CLAPPISON*

Deirdre CLUNE*

Agustín CONDE*

Telmo CORREIA

Paolo CORSINI*

Carlos COSTA NEVES

Celeste COSTANTINO*

Jonny CROSIO*

Yves CRUCHTEN

Katalin CSÖBÖR*

Milena DAMYANOVA*

Joseph DEBONO GRECH*

Armand De DECKER*

Reha DENEMEÇ

Roel DESEYN*

Manlio DI STEFANO

Arcadio DÍAZ TEJERA*

Peter van DIJK*

Şaban DİŞLİ

Aleksandra DJUROVIĆ

Jim DOBBIN*

Ioannis DRAGASAKIS/Maria Giannakaki

Damian DRĂGHICI*

Elvira DROBINSKI-WEIß*

Daphné DUMERY*

Alexander [The Earl of] DUNDEE*

Josette DURRIEU*

Mikuláš DZURINDA/József Nagy

Lady Diana ECCLES*

Tülin ERKAL KARA*

Franz Leonhard EßL*

Bernd FABRITIUS

Joseph FENECH ADAMI*

Cătălin Daniel FENECHIU*

Vyacheslav FETISOV/Yury Shamkov

Doris FIALA

Daniela FILIPIOVÁ/Miroslav Krejča

Ute FINCKH-KRÄMER*

Axel E. FISCHER*

Gvozden Srećko FLEGO*

Bernard FOURNIER*

Hans FRANKEN*

Jean-Claude FRÉCON*

Béatrice FRESKO-ROLFO*

Martin FRONC*

Sir Roger GALE*

Adele GAMBARO*

Karl GARÐARSSON

Tamás GAUDI NAGY*

Nadezda GERASIMOVA

Valeriu GHILETCHI

Francesco Maria GIRO*

Pavol GOGA*

Jarosław GÓRCZYŃSKI

Alina Ştefania GORGHIU

Svetlana GORYACHEVA*

Sandro GOZI*

Fred de GRAAF*

Patrick De GROOTE*

Andreas GROSS

Arlette GROSSKOST*

Dzhema GROZDANOVA*

Attila GRUBER*

Mehmet Kasim GÜLPINAR/Ahmet Berat Çonkar

Gergely GULYÁS*

Nazmi GÜR

Antonio GUTIÉRREZ*

Ana GUŢU

Maria GUZENINA-RICHARDSON

Carina HÄGG

Sabir HAJIYEV*

Andrzej HALICKI*

Hamid HAMID*

Mike HANCOCK*

Margus HANSON

Davit HARUTYUNYAN/Mher Shahgeldyan

Alfred HEER/Eric Voruz

Michael HENNRICH*

Martin HENRIKSEN*

Andres HERKEL*

Françoise HETTO-GAASCH/Marcel Oberweis

Adam HOFMAN*

Jim HOOD/David Crausby

Arpine HOVHANNISYAN*

Anette HÜBINGER*

Johannes HÜBNER*

Andrej HUNKO*

Ali HUSEYNLI*

Rafael HUSEYNOV

Vitaly IGNATENKO/Olga Kazakova

Vladimir ILIĆ

Florin IORDACHE*

Igor IVANOVSKI*

Tadeusz IWIŃSKI

Denis JACQUAT/ Frédéric Reiss

Gediminas JAKAVONIS

Stella JANTUAN

Tedo JAPARIDZE*

Ramón JÁUREGUI/Laura Seara

Michael Aastrup JENSEN*

Mogens JENSEN*

Frank J. JENSSEN

Jadranka JOKSIMOVIĆ/Vesna Marjanović

Ögmundur JÓNASSON

Čedomir JOVANOVIĆ*

Antti KAIKKONEN*

Ferenc KALMÁR*

Mariusz KAMIŃSKI*

Deniza KARADJOVA*

Marietta KARAMANLI

Ulrika KARLSSON*

Jan KAŹMIERCZAK*

Serhii KIVALOV*

Bogdan KLICH*

Serhiy KLYUEV*

Haluk KOÇ

Igor KOLMAN*

Kateřina KONEČNÁ/ Marek Černoch

Unnur Brá KONRÁÐSDÓTTIR*

Attila KORODI*

Alev KORUN/Christine Muttonen

Tiny KOX

Borjana KRIŠTO*

Dmitry KRYVITSKY*

Athina KYRIAKIDOU*

Jean-Yves LE DÉAUT

Igor LEBEDEV*

Christophe LÉONARD*

Valentina LESKAJ*

Terry LEYDEN*

Inese LĪBIŅA-EGNERE

Lone LOKLINDT*

François LONCLE*

George LOUKAIDES*

Yuliya L'OVOCHKINA*

Trine Pertou MACH*

Saša MAGAZINOVIĆ

Philippe MAHOUX*

Thierry MARIANI*

Epameinondas MARIAS

Milica MARKOVIĆ*

Meritxell MATEU PI

Pirkko MATTILA

Frano MATUŠIĆ

Liliane MAURY PASQUIER

Michael McNAMARA*

Sir Alan MEALE

Ermira MEHMETI DEVAJA*

Ivan MELNIKOV*

José MENDES BOTA

Jean-Claude MIGNON

Djordje MILIĆEVIĆ*

Philipp MIßFELDER*

Rubén MORENO PALANQUES

Igor MOROZOV*

João Bosco MOTA AMARAL*

Arkadiusz MULARCZYK*

Melita MULIĆ

Lev MYRYMSKYI*

Philippe NACHBAR*

Oľga NACHTMANNOVÁ*

Marian NEACŞU*

Baroness Emma NICHOLSON*

Michele NICOLETTI

Elena NIKOLAEVA*

Aleksandar NIKOLOSKI*

Mirosława NYKIEL/Tomasz Lenz

Judith OEHRI

Carina OHLSSON/Jonas Gunnarsson

Joseph O'REILLY*

Lesia OROBETS*

Sandra OSBORNE*

José Ignacio PALACIOS*

Liliana PALIHOVICI

Dimitrios PAPADIMOULIS*

Ganira PASHAYEVA*

Foteini PIPILI*

Stanislav POLČÁK

Ivan POPESCU

Marietta de POURBAIX-LUNDIN*

Cezar Florin PREDA*

John PRESCOTT

Jakob PRESEČNIK*

Gabino PUCHE*

Alexey PUSHKOV*

Mailis REPS*

Eva RICHTROVÁ*

Andrea RIGONI*

François ROCHEBLOINE/André Schneider

Maria de Belém ROSEIRA*

René ROUQUET*

Pavlo RYABIKIN*

Rovshan RZAYEV*

Vincenzo SANTANGELO/Maria Edera Spadoni

Kimmo SASI

Deborah SCHEMBRI*

Stefan SCHENNACH

Ingjerd SCHOU*

Frank SCHWABE*

Urs SCHWALLER/Elisabeth Schneider-Schneiter

Ömer SELVİ

Senad ŠEPIĆ*

Samad SEYIDOV*

Jim SHERIDAN/Michael Connarty

Oleksandr SHEVCHENKO

Bernd SIEBERT*

Arturas SKARDŽIUS/Petras Gražulis

Leonid SLUTSKY*

Serhiy SOBOLEV

Lorella STEFANELLI/Luca Lazzari

Yanaki STOILOV*

Christoph STRÄSSER*

Karin STRENZ*

Ionuţ-Marian STROE

Valeriy SUDARENKOV

Björn von SYDOW

Petro SYMONENKO*

Vilmos SZABÓ*

Chiora TAKTAKISHVILI*

Vyacheslav TIMCHENKO*

Romana TOMC*

Lord John E. TOMLINSON*

Konstantinos TRIANTAFYLLOS

Mihai TUDOSE*

Ahmet Kutalmiş TÜRKEŞ

Tuğrul TÜRKEŞ*

Konstantinos TZAVARAS/Angeliki Gkerekou

Ilyas UMAKHANOV*

Dana VÁHALOVÁ

Snorre Serigstad VALEN*

Petrit VASILI*

Volodymyr VECHERKO*

Mark VERHEIJEN*

Birutė VĖSAITĖ*

Anne-Mari VIROLAINEN*

Vladimir VORONIN*

Klaas de VRIES*

Nataša VUČKOVIĆ

Zoran VUKČEVIĆ*

Draginja VUKSANOVIĆ*

Piotr WACH*

Robert WALTER

Dame Angela WATKINSON*

Karl-Georg WELLMANN*

Katrin WERNER

Morten WOLD*

Gisela WURM

Jordi XUCLÀ

Tobias ZECH*

Kristýna ZELIENKOVÁ*

Barbara ŽGAJNER TAVŠ*

Emanuelis ZINGERIS

Guennady ZIUGANOV*

Naira ZOHRABYAN*

Levon ZOURABIAN*

Vacant Seat, Croatia/Ivan Račan

Vacant Seat, Cyprus*

ALSO PRESENT

Representatives and Substitutes not authorised to vote

Maria GIANNAKAKI

Observers

Stella AMBLER

Marjolaine BOUTIN-SWEET

Corneliu CHISU

Michel RIVARD

Partners for Democracy

---