For debate in the Standing Committee see Rule 47

Pour débat à la Commission permanente – Voir article 47 du Règlement

Doc. 8374

14 April 1999

Environment protection as a provider of employment

Report

Committee on Economic Affairs and Development

Rapporteur: Mr Fernando Gonzalez Laxe, Spain, Socialist Group

Summary

Protection of the environment has every possibility not only to fulfil its primary purpose, but also to create new jobs in an unemployment-ridden Europe and become a major “future industry”. Countries that have progressed the furthest in environment protection also find to their delight that new companies spring up, develop and start exporting their innovations abroad, including to developing countries where environmental problems are often acute. In a future where leisure activities, tourism and the service sector will grow even more in importance, a restored natural environment will become an even greater asset. Protecting the environment, the report concludes, is good not only for people and nature, but also for employment and economic activity.

I.       Draft resolution

1. At a time when many countries in Europe are plagued by high unemployment, greater efforts to protect the environment can create new employment opportunities through new industries, technologies and expertise, for use in Europe itself and as exports to other continents suffering from increasing environmental problems. Policies encouraging greater environment protection – if pursued with due concern for economic realities and in particular the situation of small and medium-sized enterprises – may therefore not be harmful to the economy over the longer term, but may instead help it to adapt to meet new challenges, and indeed help mankind survive, such as in the case of global warming.

2. The job creation potential of environment protection has been greatly increased in recent years through technological breakthroughs resulting in much greater cost-efficiency. Council of Europe member states should tap this potential through high environment standards, environmentally-oriented tax and pricing policies, the phasing out of subsidies to polluting industries and enhanced international co-operation as regards environmental data collection and analytical tools.

3. Environmental protection takes on a new significance as European economies move in the direction of an ever-greater role for services, including the particularly labour-intensive tourism sector. Council of Europe member states should therefore consider environment protection and the conservation of the environment as an integral part of this effort and of that of combating unemployment, as also emphasised in Assembly Resolution 1148 (1998) on the need to accelerate the development of tourism in central and eastern Europe.

4. Several central and east European countries in transition face particular difficulties owing to the legacy of the communist era. Polluting industries, often still in state hands, are kept in operation out of a fear of rising unemployment and social tension, thereby posing a threat to the health of present and future generations. The Assembly therefore calls on Council of Europe member states to increase – through international institutions such as the European Union, the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and the World Bank – assistance to the countries in transition for the necessary modernisation of these industries.

5. Finally, Europe also has a special duty to assist the developing countries to protect their environment against such threats as soil erosion and deforestation, and thereby help preserve employment there. The Assembly therefore calls on Council of Europe member states to give environmental protection its due weight at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ministerial summit to be held in late 1999 and in the forthcoming WTO “Millennium Round”.

II.       Explanatory memorandum, by Mr González Laxe

Contents

A. Introduction

B. Recent Developments in the Environment-Economy Integration Process

C.       Environment and Employment

D.       Instruments of Environmental Policy

E.       The Kyoto Summit of December 1997

F.       Conclusions

A. Introduction

1. Following the motion for Resolution No. 7932 (1997), presented by the rapporteur and several of his colleagues, the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development was mandated to prepare a report examining the question of whether an effective protection of the environment indeed has the potential to create additional employment.

2. The focus on sustainable development intensified in the mid-eighties with the work of the Brundtland Commission, and took on an even higher profile with the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development. Sustainable development has two sub-objectives: a. the quality of the environment (broadly defined as including all ecological processes and natural resources on which life depends) must be sustained; b. and the economy (broadly defined as all human activities) must continue to develop. In brief, improving the links between the environment and the economy can contribute directly to the goal of sustainable development.

3. On the other hand, concern about the state of the environment has increased in recent years. The realisation that environmental damage may seriously affect health and social conditions has led to many studies on how to limit industrial pollution and to reduce, say, the emission of gases that might contribute to global warming or to the destruction of the ozone layer in the stratosphere.

4. Environmental standards and taxation are among the most often tried policy instruments. However, given high unemployment in many countries, governments are reluctant to use them fully. This report aims to explain why such reluctance may not always be justified.

B. Recent developments in the environment-economy integration process

5. Although environment-economy integration involves a much wider set of policies than just those reviewed in this report, progress is being made towards an even better integration in at least a few areas. For example, some tax regimes have been reformed along environmental lines; some environmentally harmful subsidies have been reduced; better data and analytical tools are becoming available; institutions are being reformed so to become more sensitive to environmental needs; and public awareness of market and policy intervention failures has grown.

6. These structural changes point to the special role of technological innovation in the environment-economy integration process: as technological development progresses, the cost of existing environment protection activities can generally be expected to fall. In turn, lower costs imply new opportunities for environmental improvement. In this sense, a “virtuous circle” may come about by promoting technological change in a given field.

7. Integrating economic and environmental decision making constitutes a key challenge for governments in their quest for sustainable development. There are many ways to achieve better integration of economic and environmental decision making. The most powerful tool, on the one hand, remains the price mechanism and the extent to which it gives the right signals to producers and consumers. On the other hand, the role that prices will play will ultimately depend on the ability of governments to pursue an effective strategy of internalising environmental costs.

8. Although some progress has been achieved in quantifying the economic impact of environmental policies, serious methodological and conceptual difficulties remain. One of the most important is that estimates of environmental damage have yet to find their way into the mainstream of economic policy making. Hence the need for better analytical tools in this field.

9. In recent years, numerous attempts have been made to incorporate environmental factors into economic analysis. Studies have dealt with the relationship between the quality of the environment and a number of economic variables, including employment and growth. Few of these studies are qualitative in nature, while the majority use more or less sophisticated econometric techniques. Differences in definition and method mean that they are not always comparable. Nevertheless, some conclusions, summarised below, can be drawn.

10. One study, published in 1995 in the journal New Economy on the situation in the United Kingdom, examines the implications of a fourfold increase in pollution abatement expenditure and intensified water protection measures between 1995 and the year 2000. It argues that such measures would generate a short-term increase in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) followed by a slow-down by the year 2010. Some 682 000 jobs would be created by the year 2005, while unemployment would be reduced by 365 000 jobs (The study, of course, does not take into account effects on employment of policies in other areas or macroeconomic policies pursued.)

11. Another British study, published in the Economist, covering the same period, assumes a tax of thirty pounds per ton of carbon dioxide pollution. It found a slight negative impact on GDP, along with a positive impact on employment (a reduction of unemployment by 70 000). A third study from the same country for the period 1995-2005 examines the possible effects of a carbon tax achieving a 20% reduction on 1990 emission levels by 2005 (an idea also discussed at the conference on climatic change held in Kyoto in December 1997). It concludes that there would be a substantial increase in employment, in addition to improved competitiveness in the manufacturing sector due to the scrapping of old equipment.

12. A study, published in 1996 in the Journal of Public Economics on the situation in the United States, considers the possible effects over the next seventy-five years of either a slowing of global warming through preventive measures, or the adaptation to global warming by investments in sea walls, flood mitigation works, relocation, etc. It found that adaptation is the less costly while the effect on employment is uncertain. This study, however, did not take into account the advantages of carbon-cutting measures in terms of reduced air pollution and its impact on ecosystems, human health, and urban centres.

13. A different United States study considered the effects of an increased reliance on solar energy and energy conservation measures from 1979 onward. It found a net employment gain of 3 million jobs. A third study covered the period 1973-85 and examined the effects of environmental legislation enacted during this time in the United States. It concluded that GDP growth would have been close to 0.2% higher without the legislation in question, with a corresponding effect on employment.

14. Another study by the Economist’s Economic Intelligence Unit examined federal environmental programmes in the US in the 1970-80 period, and reached a different conclusion regarding effects on employment. It concluded that these programmes in 1987 would reduce GNP by 0.7% relative to what it would have been without these programmes, while price levels would be 7.4% higher and unemployment 0.4% lower.

15. Other studies, published by the International Labour Organisation, however, suggest that a better environment is positively correlated with economic growth and an increase in employment. They argue that areas with a better protected environment tend to attract businesses through an overall lowering of production costs. The argument here is that a better environment will have positive effects in the form of enhanced productivity of labour, lower health costs, lower maintenance on buildings and equipment, etc.

16. A Norwegian study by the Scandinavian Journal of Economics considered a carbon tax designed to keep emissions at the level of the year 2000. It concluded that GDP growth rates would fall from 2.7% to 2.3%, that imports and exports would decline by 4.7%, and that investment would fall by about 1%. Employment effects would, however, be negligible. Another study assessed the private sector cost related to growing environmental expenditure for the period 1974-83. It found that GDP would rise by 1.5%, prices by 0.1% and unemployment by 25 000.

17. A number of OECD studies argue that environmental policies may have a greater effect in countries where environmental programmes are already in place. Thus, countries ahead in terms of environmental measures would be expected to develop a comparative advantage which can also be used for export of equipment and know-how, of benefit to employment.

18. An analysis by the Economist’s Economic Intelligence Unit on France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom addressed the effects of the installation of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide scrubbers at major electricity and industrial plants to control acid rain. It found a substantial increase in employment and income in the first five years (especially in Germany) followed by continued gains in employment and income in France and Italy.

19. An OECD study on employment and environment addressed the employment effects of environmental policies directed at energy conservation and renewable energy. It concluded that such policies would be accompanied by a gain of 3 800 jobs per million tons of oil saved, with a total saving of 34 million tons achievable (around 130 000 jobs). A further study on the effects of broad-spectrum environmental policies over the years 1980-2000 for Europe argued that the integration of environmental policies into future development was necessary to avoid the loss of jobs.

C. The environment and employment

20. The above-mentioned studies often differ considerably in their conclusions. Most of them seem to indicate, however, that policies to protect the environment can under given circumstances generate new employment, although they may also reduce income. More specifically, the positive impact on employment appears to be more immediate, while losses in income and growth can last longer. Indeed, measures to protect the environment call for additional productive resources, such as funds, technological know-how, labour and materials.

21. In a situation where these resources are in relative abundance, or where the taxation of companies and individuals is relatively low, they can be readily mobilised. But if they are in scarce supply, their use will increasingly be at the cost of other areas of economic activity. Thus, demand for capital for environmental purposes could contribute to higher interest rates, or to higher taxes for companies and individuals. If the investments are paid by companies, they may have to raise prices or, if they keep prices unchanged, may see their profit margins reduced. This could lead to a loss in competitiveness vis-à-vis other producers, in the same country or abroad, and to companies moving production elsewhere. This is what lies behind the wish on the part of many developed countries to see the World Trade Organisation establishing a more “level playing field” among different countries in an increasingly free-trading world.

22. Indeed, a case can be made that environmental policies create more jobs than they may eliminate. In certain countries with particularly high environmental protection standards, such as Japan, Germany or Scandinavian countries, the latter have given rise to the creation and growth of a host of private companies and public projects. The environmental industries in these and other countries are now so big that they not only contribute considerably to the national economy but also export their know-how and equipment to other countries. In addition, as one can be certain that the world of the future will need more, not less, environmental protection, this sector of the economy is bound to become an indisputable wealth provider. The rapporteur shall now turn to the individual types of environmental protection concerned.

a. Pollution abatement

23. Pollution control of air, water, and the soil constitutes a major area of environmental protection activity. Much of environmental policy in OECD countries is at present oriented towards the prevention and control of pollution activities. The cornerstone of this policy is the Polluter Pays Principle (PPP). During the 1980s, within the OECD, between 1% and 2% of GDP was spent on these activities, employing around 2% of the workforce. In the future they are expected to grow in importance. For instance, the United States hopes to raise expenditure for environmental protection to 2.8% of GDP by the year 2000. The National Environmental Protection Plan of the Netherlands projects an increase to 4%. It is noteworthy that countries more advanced in pollution control, such as Japan and Germany, are net exporters of control equipment. Therefore, the expected increase in expenditure will have a positive impact on the level of employment for these countries.

b. Agriculture rehabilitation

24. The necessity to rehabilitate land is particularly vital for economies that depend on agriculture to a large extent, as in most of the developing world. Land impoverishment and erosion are commonplace in many parts of the world. Contributing factors are overcropping, overgrazing, monoculture, excessive use of fertiliser, herbicides and insecticides. Measures such as recycling of organic material, the building of windbreaks, the prevention of run-offs, crop rotation, etc., are important to safeguard the continuity of production. However, it is often difficult to implement such measures because of the short-term cuts in production and the increased labour required.

c. Energy conservation

25. At present, the price of fuel, and fossil fuel in particular, is considered by many not to reflect fully its cost to society in terms of the pollution it causes, including its suspected contribution to global warming. Others, however, maintain that, indeed, that is the case, in view of all the taxes that are added to the producer price of, for instance, petrol, and which are rarely used by governments for environment-protection purposes. Whatever view one takes, it is certain that any further increase in the price of fuel will necessarily further reduce energy consumption, with the ensuing positive effects on the environment. At the same time, such policy would also reduce the private welfare of those many who depend on, say, cars, to take them to work where public transport is unavailable or insufficient, or who live in remote areas. It could also have a negative impact on employment, say in the transport sector, and raise the price of consumer goods due to higher transport costs.

26. Investment in energy conservation will have a positive impact on employment. While US$ 1 million spent on energy production would generate twelve jobs in America, the same amount spent on energy conservation would generate from between eighteen to seventy jobs, according to different studies.

d. Transport and communications

27. In this sector, the major issue is whether the environmental cost of motor transport is fully borne by motorists. Some believe that higher motor transport prices that fully reflected the social cost of this means of transportation might bring a number of beneficial developments in the form of energy conservation and improved environmental standards, with indirect effects on employment. Others argue, however, that motorists already pay dearly in the form of fuel and vehicle taxes, with the latter financing government activities completely unrelated to transport or environment protection. Higher motor transport taxes would, they maintain, negatively affect employment by reducing mobility and by increasing the cost of goods through higher transport costs (thereby cutting consumption or, if consumption takes place, disposable income).

e. Water and sewage works

28. The rapid increase in urbanisation has given rise to another major environmental concern: the over-use of water resources. This problem, along with unsatisfactory standards of sewage treatment and disposal, calls for new investment both in poor and in rich countries. These projects will also contribute to increased employment in activities that already provide many jobs. For example, data provided by the European Union suggest that around half a million people are employed in the water sector.

f. Recycling and waste management

29. An environmental policy of price reform can be effective in encouraging the recycling of glass, metals, plastic, tires, and even water. However, waste collected for a flat fee often will not provide sufficient incentive for recycling. There is indeed evidence that the absence of incentives has generated an increase in the amount of waste going into landfills or being incinerated.

30. Recycling generates more employment than disposal. Data from the United States show that a million tonnes of waste recycled generates some 2 000 jobs, while incineration generates only 150-1100 jobs, and landfill only 50-360 jobs. In the United States, estimates suggest that waste management employs from around 2 million to 2.5 million people, a number that is expected to increase by 1.5 million by the end of the 1990s. In western Europe, this figure amounts to 3-3.5 million. This is because the labour intensity of waste management is higher in Europe than in the United States (12 000-15 000 jobs per US$ 1 billion in Europe against 7 000 jobs in the United States). However, it is more uncertain whether recycling generates more employment than no recycling. For instance, much of Europe’s newspaper paper is recycled. While this generates some employment in the collection of the paper and its transport to the recycling plant, it also leads to less employment in forestry and the transport sector.

g. Conservation and forestry

31. The conservation and rehabilitation of land allows for the preservation of biodiversity, the protection of wilderness, and the maintenance of a pure water supply. This, in turn, may have a beneficial impact on air quality, on micro and macroclimate, and on the recreational demand. Furthermore, recreation and tourism are particularly labour intensive, so conservation may, indirectly, have a positive impact on jobs in both developed and developing countries.

h. Public works

32. Governments and parliaments play an important role in the protection of the environment, not only in policy shaping and legislation, but also through public works programmes. The case for a strong role of governments is strengthened by the fact that environmental work projects normally belong to the “public good”, whose financing is likely to be better borne by society as a whole. Environmental public work projects contribute to employment. In the early 1980s, the Swedish Government ran a counter-cyclical public works programme involving 21 000 jobs, of which one third related to the environment. In 1984 a similar scheme was adopted in France (in form of the travaux d’utilité collective). At the end of the 1980s this scheme offered part-time jobs to some 700 000 young workers, otherwise unemployed. Similarly, in developing countries, governments and aid agencies are increasingly sensitive to environmental concerns. The World Bank alone has over 100 projects in some sixty countries in order to promote economic development through increased protection of the environment.

D. Instruments of environmental policy

33. Efforts are increasingly being made to design economic instruments that are more environmentally effective, as well as environmental regulations that are more cost-effective. In this search for complementarity, negotiated agreements may under certain conditions offer opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of both the regulations and the economic instruments. The end result of experiments such as these should be the creation of more cost effective and more environmentally effective combinations of policy instruments.

34. Budget deficits and high public debt are sources of continuing concern to OECD governments. Environmental policy has the potential to contribute to the resolution of these problems via the introduction of “environmentally friendly” tax reforms (involving either broad reform of the tax regime along environmental lines, or the development of more specific “eco-taxes”), or the reduction of “environmentally harmful” subsidies.

35. In fact, the use of domestic eco-taxes, especially product taxes, continues to spread in the OECD area. Significant fiscal reform along environmental lines has also been carried out in some countries, notably in Scandinavia, without causing undue disruption of macroeconomic activity.

36. In order to explore the employment effects of an environmental tax policy, we should consider three areas where governments can impose environmental taxes: production, consumption and labour.

37. The employment impact of environmental taxes on production will largely depend on the degree to which labour is mobile internationally. If non-labour inputs (that is, capital and energy) are fully mobile internationally, they can escape tax burdens by moving across the borders. Accordingly, non-mobile labour bears the full weight of tax policies. Furthermore, if workers trained in one industry cannot easily move to another, real wages will fall. Hence, the introduction of an environmental tax on production may result in added unemployment in countries with downwardly rigid real wages (which is the normal case in Europe) and other labour-market rigidities. Finally, to the extent that the tax is passed on from the producer to the consumer, the latter will lose out, especially if he or she cannot buy an imported alternative product.

38. Some argue that taxes on consumption have two advantages. Firstly, that they reduce social tensions, because such taxes tend to spread the tax burden rather equally over various categories of workers. Secondly, that where rigidities exist in the wage structure, the initial burden of the tax falls on workers, rather than employers, with no increase in unemployment. However, this disregards the fact that taxes on consumption also make consumption more expensive, leading to fewer purchases and hence less employment in the production, transport, distribution and sales sectors.

39. The various forms of pollution taxes differ in their impact on employment. At first sight it might seem that a tax on polluting inputs (such as fossil fuels) might have an effect on employment because it would encourage consumption of other fuels, which might be more or less labour intensive. However, we could all be cutting wood in the forest or collecting other renewable energy sources and thereby be raising employment; but the negative effect on our overall prosperity would, of course, be overwhelming. Furthermore, a tax on fossil fuels could push up the overall cost of production, thereby inducing entrepreneurs to move production abroad.

E. The Kyoto Summit

40. In December 1997, representatives of nearly 160 countries concluded a new treaty on global warming in Kyoto, Japan. The agreement calls for the reduction of six greenhouse gases – mostly pollutants caused by burning coal, oil, and other hydrocarbon fuels – by an overall total of 5.2% below 1990 levels during the years 2008-2012. The protocol will enter into force following the ratification by at least fifty-five parties, accounting for at least 55% of global carbon emissions as they stood in 1990.

41. Kyoto signatories are urged to make progress towards their emission goals by the year 2005. The reductions apply to a number of emission sources and economic sectors, such as fossil fuels, industrial processes, agriculture, waste management and the use of solvents. (Emissions by aeroplanes are not to be included in the national targets. Given the particular nature of this sector, it will be part of a specific agreement.)

42. The Kyoto agreement wishes to make implementation easier by encouraging countries to co-operate in order to reduce emissions. Through so-called “emissions trading” it will be possible for countries to “trade” emission permits with a view to reducing global output, as countries which are able to abate their emissions cheaply – say, thanks to more developed technology or by avoiding pollution-rich development – may be able to take over, against payment, obligations from those with higher abatement costs.

43. The emission cuts envisaged in the treaty are required for only thirty-four (mainly developed) countries. This encounters objection from, among others, the United States Senate. The United States indeed also wants developing countries to cut emissions. This has, however, not happened. China, which is the second-largest producer of greenhouse gases, was one of the countries excluded from any reduction requirements.

44. Defending its position, the Chinese delegation referred to the 1995 Berlin accord. It has clearly stated that “rich countries” must act first, before discussion begins about what poorer countries should do. This is unfortunate, because China’s inefficient burning of coal and other fossil fuels not only damages the atmosphere but also harms the Chinese population. A study by the World Bank estimates that if China does not improve its environment, its urban residents face 600 000 premature deaths and 5.5 million cases of chronic bronchitis a year by 2000.

45. On the other hand, if the United States does not ratify the treaty, many other countries of the thirty-four countries may not do it either. Furthermore, even if other parties were to ratify the pact, the emission reductions agreed by other developed economies and countries in transition would not be sufficient to stabilise the global emission of greenhouse gases.

F. Concluding remarks

46. This report has shown how complex is the relationship between environmental protection and employment. This becomes even clearer by some extreme, hypothetical examples. Thus, by, say, imposing a tax ten times its cost of production, we might all be employed hauling things, and one another, by horse or on foot. But that would be disastrous for the economy. Conversely, if we do nothing to curb pollution, many more would be employed in the public health sector taking care of the greater number of people with respiratory or other illnesses. Clearly, that is not a way out either. If we do nothing against global warming, employment in dam building to keep out rising sea water levels would surely go up. But that is not anything we would want to see happening.

47. Environmental policies are often thought to have adverse effects on employment, due to such factors as reduced competitiveness, project delays or cancellations, and industrial relocation to “pollution havens”. The underlying concern is that environmental policies might be “job killers”. Available evidence does not support the thesis that environmental policies in OECD countries are having a net negative effect on total employment. On the contrary, available studies suggest that although any link is probably weak, the relationship may be positive rather than negative. On the other hand, concerns persist that the short-term employment effects of environmental policies may be significant for specific industries, sectors or regions.

48. In the final analysis, competitiveness issues lie at the heart of the debate about environment-economy policy links. Although current research suggests that environmental policies do not have a net negative impact on competitiveness, perceptions exist that they do. Indeed, some members of the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development argue that environmental legislation, if too bureaucratic and meddlesome, may overly complicate life for small and medium-sized enterprises. This suggests the need for more research into these issues. Three priorities are suggested.

49. Firstly, a broader understanding needs to be developed as to how competitiveness is actually affected by environmental policies. This is true at all levels of the economy (individual plants, specific sectors or regions, and the national and international level). Secondly, better ways will have to be found to mitigate or compensate for the worst of these effects. Mitigation may involve some kind of harmonised action (such as broader use of multilateral environmental agreements at the international level). Compensation may also involve some form of revenue-sharing arrangement. Thirdly, the positive effects of environmental policies on competitiveness are often under-emphasised in policy debates. Special efforts should be made to ensure that any positive effects are both understood and given publicity.

50. So, in our environmental protection policies we need to make sure that they do lead both to a cleaner environment and, if possible, greater employment, both among the skilled and unskilled. It might, for instance, be good to use unskilled labour, including young such people, to clean up the underbrush in forest areas in dry regions in southern Europe, thereby reducing the risk of forest fires and making such forests more amenable for hiking. Some countries, which for long have pursued strict environmental policies at home, are now reaping major post-Kyoto benefits by exporting their know-how, technologies and equipment around the world. As environmental concerns rise, say in heavily polluted Mexico City, the Mexican Government will be ready to pay for such know-how, technologies and equipment to whoever can supply them. This will lead to more employment in the exporting country (and also to better health in Mexico City).

51. There is no doubt that the environment protection industry will be of major importance in the future, and also that we as legislators have a duty to follow our consciences and introduce legislation in this field that we feel is justified. The legislation for cleaner cars, for instance, has led to new technologies in car manufacturing that benefit us all – as citizens wanting cleaner air for our health and well-being, but also as workers developing the new technologies required to meet higher standards. The legislation we introduced against asbestos at the time soon encouraged the use of other, even better insulating materials. It would be wrong to think that environment protection in and by itself can solve the unemployment problem. But if judiciously applied it can make a contribution, as the report, it is hoped, has shown.

Reporting committee: Committee on Economic Affairs and Development.

Budgetary implications for the Assembly: none.

Reference to committee: Doc. 7932 and Reference No. 2226 of 7 November 1997.

Draft resolution unanimously adopted by the committee on 9 March 1999.

Members of the committee: Degn (Chairperson), Valleix, Blœtzer, Elo (Vice-Chairmen), Aliko, Andreoli, Attard Montalto, Billing, Blattmann, Bonet Casas, Brunhart, Calner, Cunliffe (alternate: Davis), Cusimano (alternate: Turini), Dumitrescu (alternate: Baciu), Durrieu, Eyskens, Frey, Freyberg, Frimannsdóttir, Galvão Lucas, González Laxe, Grenfell, Gusenbauer, Gylys, Hempelmann (alternate: Behrendt), Hoffmann, Kacin, Kiratlioğlu, Kirilov, Kittis, Kuznetsov, Lazarenko (alternate: Kosakivsky), Leers, Liapis, Lotz, Mateju, Mautner Markhof, Mezeckis, Mitterrand, Nagy, Nothomb, Obuljen, Pereira Coelho, Popescu, Prokeš (alternate: Osvath), Puche, Regenwetter, Rigo (alternate: Pozza Tasca), Rutskoy, Schmitz, Shuba (alternate: Averchev), Sorocean, Squarcialupi, Štĕpová, Stoyanova, Tekir, Telgmaa, Townend, Vasile (alternate: Gabrielescu), Verbeek, Verivakis, Wielowieyski; N. … (alternate: Connor).

NB. The names of those members present at the meeting are printed in italics.