For debate in the Standing Committee — see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Doc. 10638

5 July 2005

The Curonian Spit, oil and the environment

Report

Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs

Rapporteur: Mr Daniel Goulet, France, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

Summary

The Curonian Spit, a narrow coastal strip parallel to the Lithuanian and Russian coastline, has been on the UNESCO World Heritage List since 2000. Exploitation of the D-6 oil pool could endanger this extraordinary coastline shared by those two countries. However, oil exploitation and transport of hydrocarbons concerns the whole of the Baltic region.

The Parliamentary Assembly considers that it is necessary to act at regional level in places where the environment is particularly vulnerable and the number of states concerned is limited. This applies in particular to the Baltic Sea and specifically to the area off the Curonian Spit where co-operation between Lithuania and Russia has already got off the ground and is progressing.

The Assembly proposes measures aimed at developing bilateral co-operation between Russia and Lithuania to protect the Curonian Spit and, on a wider scale between all the riparian countries, to protect the Baltic Sea from pollution by hydrocarbons.

I.       Draft resolution

§ 1.       The Parliamentary Assembly has already expressed its concern about natural areas which are particularly sensitive or protected, as it did again recently in Resolution 1444 (2005) on the protection of European deltas, Recommendation 1630 (2003) on erosion of the Mediterranean coastline and Resolution 1295 (2002) on the state of the environment of the Baltic Sea. It considers that particular attention needs to be given to the Baltic Sea coastline and particularly the Curonian Spit, one of its most vulnerable parts.

§ 2.       The Curonian Spit, a narrow coastal strip shared by Lithuania and Russia (Kaliningrad) and enjoying National Park status in both these countries, has also been on the UNESCO World Heritage List as an outstanding natural area since 2000. The discovery of a petroleum deposit (D-6) off the coast, the prospecting activity carried out and the construction and bringing into operation by a Russian company of an oil rig just outside Lithuanian waters have given rise to great anxiety about the preservation of the spit.

§ 3.       The Assembly points out that the Baltic Sea, a particularly vulnerable semi-land-locked sea, is already at risk from oil drilling in other fields and from the transport of hydrocarbons by sea and that it is vital to take all the necessary steps to prevent any accident which might have severe consequences for the marine and coastal environment. It reiterated this following the sinkings of the oil tankers Erika and Prestige and again more recently in Resolution 1439 (2005) on sea pollution.

§ 4.       It emphasises the importance to the protection of seas and coasts of transfrontier co-operation between the countries directly concerned but also of regional or international co-operation and of the relevant agreements and conventions such as, in the case of the Baltic, the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM), which plays a particularly active role in protection of the marine environment.

§ 5.       The Assembly has noted the good operating conditions of the oil rig off the Curonian Spit, its modern technology, its skilled staff and its environment protection and accident prevention measures. It has, however, also noted the increased risk represented by its proximity to the highly vulnerable coasts of the Curonian Spit, the need to reinforce the material and human resources to respond to any accident affecting the coast and the lack of co-ordination of both countries' accident response services, as well as the unresolved issue of compensation in the event of an accident.

§ 6.       Should an accident occur, it recommends application of the "polluter pays" principle on the basis of a bilateral agreement on the payment and reimbursement of the clean-up costs incurred and of lost earnings, if applicable within the framework of a general agreement on protection of the Baltic Sea environment and on liability in the event of an accident. It also notes the importance of the transparency of information, the role of the media, the provision of information to the public and the training of the staff concerned.

§ 7.       The Assembly welcomes the progress noted in co-operation between Russia and Lithuania on the protection of the Curonian Spit natural site and particularly the agreement concluded on the conduct of an environmental impact assessment of oil exploitation and exploration in the Baltic Sea which has enabled UNESCO to refrain from including the Curonian Spit on its List of World Heritage in Danger.

§ 8.       Consequently, the Assembly recommends that Baltic member states develop their co-operation on environmental matters with a view to protecting the Baltic Sea and its coasts both through transfrontier initiatives and through regional co-operation, inter alia in the framework of the Helsinki Convention and the Council of the Baltic Sea States.

§ 9.       In this respect, the Assembly wishes particularly to emphasise the importance that must be attached to the prevention of accidents and ecological disasters, particularly those involving hydrocarbon pollution through:

§ 9.1.       the exercise of particular vigilance by the supervisory authorities and local authorities as to the proper operation of oil installations, their regular inspection, the strict application of the regulations and the provision of information to the public about any failure with the potential to jeopardise health or the environment;

§ 9.2.       the provision, by the responsible authorities and also by the media, of full and transparent information to the public about the dangers of oil exploitation, the risks of pollution and the way to behave in the event of an accident, especially in the most exposed areas;

§ 9.3.       ongoing training for the staff involved both in the extraction, transport and refining of oil and in the emergency accident response services;

§ 9.4.       the adoption of response protocols appropriate to emergency situations resulting from oil pollution, giving the responsible local authorities broad scope for action;

§ 9.5.       the permanent availability of adequate human and material resources for immediate and co-ordinated action in the event of an emergency;

§ 9.6.       transfrontier co-operation agreements on emergency action, providing for the necessary resources and specifying the procedures for intervention and the authorities responsible in the event of an accident.

§ 10.       With more particular reference to the Curonian Spit, the Assembly calls on Lithuania and Russia to continue their co-operation so as to reach an intergovernmental agreement on the fight against pollution of the Baltic Sea by hydrocarbons or other dangerous substances and, in particular, on the question of the evaluation of any environmental damage and the compensation for any oil spill affecting the coast, also taking account, if applicable, of the liability of the oil company exploiting oil field D-6, in accordance with the international regulations in force.

§ 11.       To this end, the Assembly invites member states, particularly Lithuania and Russia, to sign and/or ratify:

§ 11.1.       the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS);

§ 11.2.       the Council of Europe Convention on Civil Liability for Damage resulting from Activities Dangerous to the Environment (CETS No. 150);

§ 11.3.       the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Environment through Criminal Law (CETS No. 172).

§ 12.       The Assembly particularly invites the Council of the Baltic Sea States and the riparian member states to:

§ 12.1.       consider a moratorium on the exploitation of new oil fields or new oil drilling rigs in the Baltic Sea;

§ 12.2.       develop a system of oil pipelines enabling movements of hydrocarbons across the Baltic Sea by ship to be restricted;

§ 12.3.       consider setting up a guarantee fund for the Baltic Sea to cover the expenses connected with accidental hydrocarbon pollution, into which payments could be made by the riparian states, the oil companies concerned and companies shipping hydrocarbons.

II.       Explanatory memorandum by Mr Daniel Goulet.

CONTENTS

Page no.

1.        Introduction


1.       This report originated as a result of a motion for a resolution tabled by Mr Stankevic and others on 9 July 2003 (Doc. 9855) and referred to committee on 8 September 2003. The committee appointed its rapporteur on 30 September 2003, who already met several times with representatives of the delegations of Lithuania and the Russian Federation.

2.       The issue in question is the exploitation of the D-6 oil field in the Baltic Sea, off the Kaliningrad region, near the Lithuanian coast. Because the oil field is near the coast, the Curonian Spit peninsula, a narrow coastal strip parallel to the Lithuanian and Russian coastline, which has been on the UNESCO World Heritage List since 2000, could be affected in the event of an accident.

3.       The Curonian Spit is an outstanding example of a landscape of sand dunes and is under constant threat from the elements (wind and tide). After disastrous human intervention that threatened its survival, the Spit was reclaimed by massive protection and stabilisation work that began in the 19th century and is still continuing today.

4.       Human habitation of the elongated sand coastal strip, 98 km long and 0.4 to 4 km wide, dates back to prehistoric times. Since then it has been threatened by the elements (wind and waves). It has survived to the present day only as a result of ceaseless human efforts to combat the erosion of the Spit, the continuing stabilisation and reforestation projects being outstanding examples.

5.       As far back as the 1980s, Russia began to prospect for oil in the region. Its searches were provisionally called off, but the Russian petroleum company Lukoil started the exploitation of the oil field in June 2004.

6.       At a Committee meeting in Budapest on 12 December 2003, two documents on the subject were handed out, by two members of the Committee, Mr Mincevic (Lithuania) and Mr Tulaev (Russian Federation), presenting respectively the points of view of the two countries concerned1.

7.       Lithuania is concerned about the risks inherent in extracting offshore oil, given the environmental vulnerability of the Curonian Spit peninsula, and is calling for an independent assessment of the environmental impact of the project, which could also have consequences for the Baltic Sea itself.

8.       The Russian Federation affirms that detailed environmental studies were carried out prior to the project, which takes account of the international agreements applicable, and that the most modern technology is being used. Furthermore, other countries in the region are already extracting oil from the Baltic Sea.

2.       Situation

9.       The Baltic is a particularly vulnerable sea, as was pointed out in such recent Assembly texts as Recommendation 1558 (2002) on fisheries in Europe’s semi-land-locked seas (especially the Baltic Sea) and Resolution 1295 (2002) on the state of the environment of the Baltic Sea.

10.       These texts refer to the risks inherent in shipping and in the growing prevalence of hydrocarbon transport and dumping. The Assembly points out that regional co-operation, particularly under the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM), has already made it possible to reduce pollution.

11.       The Assembly has also long been concerned with the pollution of the seas by hydrocarbons, particularly as a result of the recent disasters involving the Erika and Prestige oil tankers. Accordingly, it has adopted a number of texts on the subject, including Resolution 1229 (2000) on accidents causing damage to the environment and Resolution 1317 (2003) on marine pollution, as well as very recently Resolution 1439 (2005) on sea pollution.

12.       It had been observed that existing national and international legislation for preventing disasters due to hydrocarbon pollution was not sufficiently effective and that additional, more stringent measures needed to be taken to prevent and combat marine pollution.

13.       Mention should also been made of the conference held recently by the Council of Europe's Congress of Local and Regional Authorities (Helsinki, 9 and 10 February 2004) on the role of local authorities in combating major oil spills in the Baltic Sea. The conference's final declaration also puts forward proposals for combating hydrocarbon pollution, which gave rise to Recommendation 169 (2005) and Resolution 201 (2005) of the Congress on major oil spills: the role of local authorities.

3.       Issues at stake

14.       As far as the environment is concerned, the European seas – particularly semi-land-locked seas like the Mediterranean, the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea - are constantly and increasingly suffering from various types of pollution, particularly from hydrocarbons, whether as a result of accidents or dumping. The whole life cycle in the seas is in growing jeopardy, biodiversity is suffering and fish stocks are dwindling. In the long term, human beings will also suffer the consequences of this pollution.

15.       The situation is becoming increasingly intolerable, particularly as measures could and should be taken to curb, once and for all, the sources of pollution and severely punish any deliberate infringement of the rules governing the protection of the marine environment.

16.       Such action is possible only by means of international, and in particular European, co-operation. Whether through bilateral agreements (such as that entered into between Spain and France in the wake of the Prestige disaster), multilateral agreements involving countries bordering on particularly sensitive regions (such as the Mediterranean, Baltic and Black Sea basins) or wider-ranging agreements drawn up by continent-wide (eg European Union or Council of Europe) or even international (United Nations or International Maritime Organisation) organisations, it is essential to embark on co-operation to reduce marine pollution, from whatever source.

17.       With regard, in particular, to the exploitation of oil fields in the Baltic Sea, exploitation of the D-6 oil pool could not only cause problems for transfrontier relations between Lithuania and the Russian Federation (Kaliningrad region) but even, in case of accident, endanger an extraordinary coastline (the Curonian Spit) shared by those two countries, and even the marine environment of the Baltic Sea.

4.        Visit to Vilnius – Nida – Kaliningrad (19 – 20 May 2004)

18.       The Rapporteur paid a visit to Vilnius, Nida and Kaliningrad on 19-20 May 20042, accompanied by Mr Stankevic in Lithuania and Mr Tulaev in Russia, both members of the Assembly, the programme of which appears in the appendix.

Wednesday 19 May, Vilnius

19.       The Rapporteur met Mr Kundrotas, Lithuania's Minister of the Environment, who was accompanied by senior officials from the ministry. The minister explained the background to the D-6 oil field exploitation project. He mentioned the initial communication difficulties between Lithuania and Russia, which had more recently been followed by the beginnings of a dialogue. It was nonetheless unfortunate that these first moves towards co-operation had been initiated only after the project's implementation and without the necessary environmental impact studies having been performed.

20.       Given this state of affairs, Lithuania had drawn up a draft agreement with Russia on the measures to be taken and the damages to be envisaged in the event of an accident. However, Russia had not yet signed this agreement. The minister voiced his concern that a potential accident could harm the coastline of the Curonian Spit peninsula. Russia's cooperation was both necessary and worthwhile.

21.       The Rapporteur also met Mr Zukauskas, Vice-Chairman of the Committee on the Environment of the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas), who was accompanied by other committee members. Mr Zukauskas thought exploitation of the D-6 oil field was inevitable and focused more on the need for financial measures, to make it possible to respond to any accident, the mediating role which the Council of Europe might play and the possibility of a moratorium on any further exploitation of oil reserves in the Baltic. The objective must be conservation of the Curonian Spit at all costs.

22.       The Rapporteur then visited Nida (a municipality with a population of 2,600, located on the Curonian Spit), where he met Mr Giedraitis, Deputy Mayor, Mr Zacharevicius, Lithuania's Director of Navigational Security, Mr Koloksanskis, Deputy Director of the Kuršių Nerija National Park, and Mr Vainius, Projects Manager at the "Atgaja" Association.

23.       At that meeting there was much concern about the exploitation of an oil field only 22 km distant from the coast of the Curonian Spit since the marine currents ran northwards along the coastline. The Curonian Spit was a unique natural heritage, which human efforts had also helped to conserve (protection of the dunes, planting of forests, and so on). Nowadays it had even become an important tourism resource (700,000 visitors per year). The Curonian Spit is a national park protected in the Natura 2000 Plan and is visited by thousands of migratory birds.

24.       Lithuania had a national plan to combat marine pollution, but could call on only limited resources in the event of a problem. There was a research and emergency centre at Klaipeda, where the anti-pollution equipment was stored. The national park itself did not have any anti-pollution facilities. In the event of an accident on the D-6 platform, account would have to be taken of the proximity of the coastline, the lead-times for responding (no land link with the peninsula) and any poor weather conditions, which would prevent use of some of the anti-pollution equipment. In addition, the water was not very deep close to the Curonian Spit, and access by emergency service boats was impossible.

25.       A good co-operation exists between Lithuanian, Russian and Polish NGOs and public information and awareness-raising efforts are made to draw attention to the peninsula's importance and vulnerability.

26.       The Rapporteur pointed out that this was not just a bilateral problem between Lithuania and Russia, but the debate on the issue should be broadened to the Baltic region and the other countries with similar problems. He stressed the importance of prevention, training, control measures and the necessary financial and technical resources (including setting up a guarantee fund) as well as of international co-operation.

Thursday 20 May, Kaliningrad

27.       The Rapporteur met Mr Solovyanchik, Deputy Director General, along with other experts from "Lukoil-Kaliningrad-Morneft" and Ms Olga Pishuzhkina, Head of the Environmental Protection Department of Lukoil. He was informed that construction of the drilling platform had been completed and extraction operations would begin in June 2004. Permanent technical and environmental monitoring had taken place during construction. The crude oil would not be processed at the drilling platform but would be transported under the sea by pipeline. All the waste produced on the platform was stored and transported to land. The zero-waste principle had been applied: waste, whether in the form of drillings, crude oil, waste water or other waste, would be evacuated in containers and treated on land.

28.       In the unlikely event of a leak, extraction could be stopped immediately and there was a plan for the evacuation, treatment and disposal of any crude-oil spill. Prevention and pollution control facilities were available on the drilling platform, as well as at sea and on the coast. It was planned to extract 600,000 tonnes a year (1% of Lukoil’s total output) over the thirty-year estimated life of the oil field.

29.       During the second half of 2004 Lukoil launched a project for satellite monitoring of the waters surrounding the D-6 platform and the entire Russian sector of the south-eastern Baltic Sea. This means that it is now possible to discover areas of oil pollution, identify pollutant sources, forecast how pollutants will spread and take prompt action to locate and eliminate them.

30.       The Rapporteur also met Mr Egorov, Governor of the region of Kaliningrad, Mr Nikitin, Speaker, and other members of the Kaliningrad Regional Parliament (Duma) and experts and media representatives. Emergency intervention forces are available and there is a plan for co-operation with Lithuania.

31.       The importance of oil resources for Kaliningrad’s economic development was highlighted.

32.       The Rapporteur said that the precautionary principle and the “polluter pays” principle should be applied and acknowledged that Lukoil may have financial responsibilities should an accident occur. But there is also a collective responsibility for the environment and it is necessary to promote solidarity among the Baltic States. He stressed the important role the media had to play and the need to inform public opinion.

5. Co-operation between Lithuania and Russia

33.       At a meeting in Paris on 4 November 2004, the Committee held a hearing attended by Ms Pishuzhkina, who explained the environmental protection and security measures taken during the construction of the D-6 oil platform and for its operation. The Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS) sent a document on oil transport in the Baltic Sea, which gives particular cause for concern because of the scale of maritime traffic and the vulnerability of the Baltic environment. This issue is also one of the priorities of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), which visited Kaliningrad at the end of September 2004 (see below).

34.       In January 2005, the Russian parliamentary delegation to the Assembly submitted to the Committee a document updating information on co-operation between Lithuania and Russia3.

35.       The Russian-Lithuanian working group on emergency situations of natural and man-caused character met in Moscow on 24-25 August. The two Parties signed a protocol, which, in particular, pointed out that the preservation of the Curonian spit could not be limited to monitoring the impact from the D6 object only, but all potentially dangerous stationary and movable sources were to be taken into account. To do this, it is necessary to work out a draft Programme of monitoring of the Russian and Lithuanian parts of the Baltic sea and the Curonian Lagoon as soon as possible.

36.       The Russian-Lithuanian working group met again in Vilnius on 21-22 September to study the creation of a surveillance system to monitor the state of the environment of the Baltic Sea and the Curonian lagoon and to locate the main potential contamination sources in this part of the Baltic sea. The working group discussed and agreed a joint draft Programme of monitoring and the ways to prepare its integration in the international monitoring system under the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM). The objects on the territory of each Party that can be classified as potential sources of contamination were identified and listed.

37.       On 29 September - 1 October 2004, a delegation of the Helsinki Commission Secretariat (HELCOM) and of the Ministry of environmental protection of Lithuania visited the D-6 platform and other production facilities of Lukoil in Kaliningrad and considered those facilities and the state of the Russian-Lithuanian co-operation as satisfactory.

38.       On 30 November – 1 December 2004 was held a second meeting of the Joint Russian-Lithuanian Committee for environmental co-operation. A new draft Programme of monitoring of the natural environment of the Russian and of the Lithuanian part of the Baltic Sea and the Curonian lagoon was signed. A draft Agreement on co-operation between Russia and Lithuania on prevention of oil pollution of the Black sea was discussed.

39.       On 11 January 2005 Mr Spruogis, Co-Chairman of the Joint Russian-Lithuanian Committee for environmental co-operation, sent a joint draft letter to Mr. Bandarin, Director of the World Heritage Center of UNESCO and to the Russian Ministry of Natural Resources for comments. The letter describes the above mentioned activities which show that both parties are co-operating constructively on the isue of preservation of a World Heritage site. The letter also voices the request not to include the Curonian spit into the list of World Heritage in Danger as the parties have complied with all the conditions set forth in the recommendations of UNESCO.

40.       On 25 January 2005 the Rapporteur held a meeting in Strasbourg with Lithuanian and Russian parliamentary delegations to take stock of cooperation between Russia and Lithuania on the exploitation of the D-6 oil field and the environmental protection measures taken. It was stated that Lithuania and Russia had jointly sent UNESCO (which had received it on 28 January 2005) a “written agreement to carry out a post-project environmental assessment of the impact of oil extraction and exploration in the Baltic Sea”. Under the terms of the World Heritage Committee’s decision at its 28th

session in 2004, “if such an agreement had not been signed by 1 February 2005, the site would automatically have been included on the List of World Heritage in Danger” (as indicated by Mr Bandarin, Director of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre, in his letter of 28 February 2005 to the Rapporteur).

41.       The two Parties referred to progress in cooperation between the two countries and to the role played by the Committee in securing a positive outcome in the dispute over the exploitation of the D-6 oil field. The Lithuanian delegation was asking for the signature of a further agreement on possible compensation and damages to be paid in the event of an accident due to exploitation of the D-6 oil field and pollution of the Curonian coast. Negotiations were in progress on the subject, but the Russian delegation wished to deal with this issue in the wider framework of the various pollutant sources endangering the Baltic Sea, so as to reach a comprehensive agreement under the existing conventions (such as the Lugano Convention). It also wished to distinguish between preventive measures and possible compensatory measures and deal with them in separate agreements. It will be noted that neither Russia nor Lithuania have signed the Lugano Convention.

42.       The Russian delegation undertook to submit proposals to Lithuania very soon on compensation in the event of environmental damage.

43.       Summing up the meeting, the Rapporteur noted that the two delegations were cooperating well and that their viewpoints had drawn closer. This had led to the holding of several joint meetings and to the framing of agreements such as the one sent to UNESCO on the protection of the Curonian Spit. He also took the view that exploitation of the D-6 oil field was a specific aspect of a more general issue affecting the environment of the entire Baltic Sea. Provision needed to be made for compensation in the event of environmental damage in a broader international context, but the specific case of the D-6 oil field would have to be included in this, perhaps in the form of a special protocol. He also proposed that in addition to an international agreement and a bilateral agreement on the subject, the private company Lukoil undertake to compensate for any damage it might cause.

44.       Some of these issues were also raised during the visit to Lithuania and Kaliningrad on 10-11 March 2005 by Mr Lengagne, the Committee’s Rapporteur on sea pollution (see Resolution 1439 (2005) on sea pollution). It was confirmed that an environmental assessment of the impact of exploitation of the D-6 oil field had been undertaken, that the results would be known in June 2005 and that negotiations were still under way between the two parties with a view to signing a bilateral agreement on the prevention of pollution and on compensation in the event of accidents.

6.        Conclusions

45.       While it seems difficult to take action at international level, at least in the immediate future, it would appear possible to act at regional level, in places where the environment is particularly vulnerable and the number of states concerned is smaller. This applies in particular to the Baltic Sea and specifically to the area off the Curonian Spit. The past few months have shown that cooperation between Lithuania and Russia has got off the ground and is progressing in the right direction.

46.       The Parliamentary Assembly could make proposals, notably concerning observance of the relevant rules, application of the precautionary principle, inspection of installations and training of staff. The two countries directly concerned (and others) should sign and ratify the Convention on civil liability for environmental damage, the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea and the Convention on the Protection of the Environment through Criminal Law. Thought might also be given to a convention between the countries concerned and a moratorium on future oil exploitation in the Baltic Sea.

47.       The Rapporteur also suggests the creation of a guarantee fund, to which Lukoil would contribute to cover any expenditure incurred in the event of an accident and also stresses the importance of informing and communicating with the public and neighbouring countries.

Appendix

PROGRAMME

Tuesday 18 May

      Arrival in Vilnius

19.00       Dinner given by Mr Jonas CEKUOLIS, Head of the Lithuanian delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly, Restaurant “Stikliai”

Wednesday 19 May

11.00       Departure for Nida (Curonian Spit)

      - Mr Viktoras KOLOKŠANSKIS, Deputy Director of the National Park of Kuršių Nerija

      - Mr Linas VAINIUS, Responsible for the „Atgaja” Association projects

      - Mr Evaldas ZACHAREVIČIUS, Director of Administration of Navigational Security in Lithuania

19.00       Dinner at the restaurant « Seklyčia »

Thursday 20 May

9.00       Crossing of the Nida-Morskoje / Коsa frontier border post

11.00-12.30       Meeting with Mr Vasiliy SOLOVYANCHIK, Deputy Director General, and experts of "Lukoil-Kaliningrad-Morneft"

13.00-14.00        Lunch in Kaliningrad

14.00-14.30       Meeting with Mr Vladimir EGOROV, Governor of Kaliningrad Region

18.00-19.00       Dinner in the national park (Curonian Spit)

19.00       Return to the Коsa / Nida-Morskoje border post

      Return to Vilnius

* * *

Reporting committee: Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs

Reference to committee: Doc. 9855 and Reference No. 2854 of 8 September 2003

Draft resolution adopted by the Committee on 23 June 2005.

Members of the Committee: Mr Walter Schmied (Chairman), Mr Alan Meale (1st Vice-Chairman), Mr Renzo Gubert (2nd Vice-Chairman), Mrs Elsa Papadimitriou (3rd Vice-Chairperson), Mr Ruhi Açikgöz, Mr Olav Akselsen, Mr Gerolf Annemans, Mrs Sirkka-Liisa Anttila, Mr Ivo Banac (alternate: Mr Miljenko Dorić), Mr Rony Bargetze, Mr Jean-Marie Bockel, Mr Malcolm Bruce (alternate: Mr Paul Flynn), Sir Sydney Chapman, Mrs Pikria Chikhradze, Mrs Grażyna Ciemniak (alternate: Mr Michał Stuligrosz), Mr Valeriu Cosarciuc, Mr Osman Coşkunoğlu, Mr Alain Cousin (alternate: Mr Daniel Goulet), Mr Miklós Csapody, Mr Taulant Dedja, Mr Hubert Deittert, Mr Adri Duivesteijn (alternate: Mr Leo Platvoet), Mr Mehdi Eker (alternate: Mr Mustafa Ilicali), Mr Bill Etherington, Mrs Catherine Fautrier, Mr Adolfo Fernández Aguilar, Mrs Siv Fridleifsdóttir, Mr György Frunda (alternate: Mr Atilla Bela Kelemen), Mme Eva Garcia Pastor, Mr Fausto Giovanelli, Mrs Maja Gojkoviċ, Mr Peter Götz, Mr Vladimir Grachev (alternate: Mr Valeriy Sudarenkov), Mrs Gultakin Hajiyeva, Mr Poul Henrik Hedeboe, Mr Mykhailo Hladiy, Mr Anders G. Högmark, Mr Jean Huss, Mr Ilie Ilaşcu, Mr Jaroslav Jaduš, Mrs Renate Jäger, Mr Gediminas Jakavonis, Mr Ivan Kaleziċ, Mrs Liana Kanelli, Mr Karen Karapetyan, Mr Orest Klympush, Mr Victor Kolesnikov, Mr Zoran Krstevski, Mr Miloš Kužvart, Mr Ewald Lindinger, Mr Jaroslav Lobkowicz, Mr François Loncle (alternate: Mr Guy Lengagne), Mr Theo Maissen, Mr Andrzej Mańka, Mr Tomasz Markowski, Mr Giovanni Mauro, Ms Maria Manuela De Melo, Mr José Mendes Bota (alternate: Mr Abilio Dias Fernandes), Mr Gilbert Meyer, Mr Goran Milojeviċ (alternate: Mr Ivo Lozančić), Mr Vladimir Mokry, Mrs Carina Ohlsson, Mr Gerardo Oliverio, Mr Pieter Omtzigt, Mr Mart Opmann (alternate: Mr Toomas Alatalu), Mr Cezar Florin Preda, Mr Jakob Presečnik, Mr Lluís Maria de Puig, Mr Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando, Mr Maurizio Rattini, Mr Marinos Sizopoulos, Mr Rainder Steenblock, Mrs Maria Stoyanova, Mr Gàbor Szalay, Mr Nikolay Tulaev, Mr Iñaki Txueka, Mr Vagif Vakilov, Mr Borislav Velikov, Mr Geert Versnick, Mr Klaus Wittauer, Mr G.V. Wright, Mr Kostyantyn Zhevago

N.B.       The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in bold.

Secretariat to the Committee: Mr Sixto, Mr Torcătoriu and Ms Lasén Díaz

1 See AS/ENA (2004) 04 and (2004) 05.

2 See AS/ENA (2004) 28.

3 See AS/ENA (2005) 05.