Speeches, April session 2010

Monday 26 April 2010 at 11.30 a.m.

Progress report of the Bureau of the Assembly and the Standing Committee

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – I thank Jean-Claude Mignon for his progress report and wish to emphasise three elements of it: the functioning of the Council of Europe and its organs, the functioning of this Assembly and the functioning of our rapporteurs.

We should be glad that we have seen some improvement in the functioning of the Council of Europe and its organs. On the basis of a motion of Jean-Claude Mignon, we in the Standing Committee have agreed to a follow-up to such reform. The Presidential Committee has had meetings with the Bureau of the Committee of Ministers, and we are very grateful for that. We will have another such meeting this afternoon; given the confrontation that we saw last year, such co-operation is far better. We have seen the activities of our Secretary General Jagland on the reform of the Council of Europe, and I am looking forward to his intervention tomorrow, and to seeing whether he has some more news on this issue. We should use the momentum created to ensure that we get some synergy between the organs of the Council of Europe, instead of what happened last year. So that is the good news of the past three months.

On the functioning of the Assembly, it is important that we look for means to help the working of national parliaments. We saw two good examples, including the visit of the Presidential Committee to Albania in order at least to try to change the situation there regarding the blocking of one parliamentary party and the coalition’s position on such opposition. We did our best, but once again it was proven that real solutions have to be found at home. We can only advise; we cannot decide, and that is good.

The visit of the President, on the Assembly’s behalf, to Moldova is also an important sign that this Assembly wants to help national parliaments to overcome their conflicts. There are a lot of threatening conflicts in Moldova that could lead to situations we do not want. It is important that our President goes to such countries to clarify the situation and to see whether he can be of some help.

We must compliment the President: ever since he was elected, he has not been able to spend much time at home with his wife; in fact, a travel agency would be jealous of those who get to arrange such a schedule. Thank you very much, Mr President, for all your work.

We could also help national parliaments to clarify what the role of national delegations should be. We have already discussed the fair composition of national delegations, and I am happy that the Committee on Rules of Procedure, Immunities and International Affairs is now preparing a report, with the support of the Bureau, on the question of the fair representation of all political parties in a delegation. As many speakers have already said, we decided this morning that the rules committee should consider the fact that we can function only when members and Substitutes are allowed by their national parliaments to do that work. It is ridiculous to appoint members and Substitutes and then not allow them to participate in the work of the Assembly, committees and sub-committees. I hope that the rules committee can come up with a good proposal, which we should then bring back to our national parliaments. It is we, colleagues, who have to do that.

It is good that we improved and clarified the position of co-rapporteurs, especially of the Monitoring Committee. This Assembly must stick to the idea that rapporteurs are not ambassadors – they do not represent the Assembly in a formal way, but they are its eyes and ears, so they should be allowed to do whatever they think is necessary to give us the right information. If we do not stick to that principle, we will have a real problem and our rapporteurs will be unable to do the important work for this Assembly that they have done until now. So let us stick to the idea that our rapporteurs can do whatever is necessary for this Assembly. Thank you.

Monday 26 April 2010 at 3 p.m.

Address by Ms Micheline Calmy-Rey, Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of Switzerland, Chairperson of the Committee of Ministers

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – In the light of eternity, everything else in life happens soon, but will you explain what you mean when you say that you hope and expect that the European Union will accede very soon to the European Convention on Human Rights? As we know, there is a threat that bureaucrats will take over the work of politicians and create a problem for each solution in the accession process.

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. I call Ms Calmy-Rey.

Ms CALMY-REY reiterated what she had said in her speech. She hoped that the discussion started at EU level would bear fruit by June.

Lobbying in a democratic society

Mr ELZINGA (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– Thank you, Mr Mendes Bota, for your excellent report. It took a while, huh?

In the aftermath of the financial crisis, the report is very timely, with its call for more transparency. It is timely too in its recommendation to the Committee of Ministers to come up with a European code of good conduct on lobbying, as we adopted the draft report almost a year ago in the Committee on Economic Affairs and Development. I know it was not the choice of the rapporteur that we should have the plenary discussion only today, but the political environment has changed a little so we should be able to go a bit further in the recommendations.

The content of the report is none the less adequate. Since February this year we have had the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development recommendation to all its member states on 10 principles of transparency and integrity in lobbying. They include, more or less, all the principles in paragraph 11 of the report about what a European code of conduct should adhere to. Such a European code of good conduct should be fairly easy to elaborate.

To make its recommendations, the OECD conducted a large-scale consultation with more than 100 stakeholders, including lobbyists. As most lobbyists just do their jobs and have nothing to hide, the OECD found consensus among lobbyists about the need for transparency in their profession. But, perhaps more surprisingly, the OECD also found that a clear majority of the lobbyists surveyed support mandatory disclosure of information. They do not like free riders and prefer clear regulation rather than voluntary codes. Clear regulation should now be preferable for everyone – for all parties – over voluntary options.

As our rapporteur, Mr Mendes Bota, clearly explained, there is growing public awareness of lobbying; in the public’s opinion, lobbying often tends to have a negative connotation and is frequently perceived as a form of corruption; and in recent decades, we have seen a dramatic decline in public confidence in politics in Council of Europe member states. So Mr Mendes Bota is convinced that in a democratic society, citizens are entitled to know the identity of the lobbying organisations that influence political decision making and for whom they do it, and I agree with him. Greater transparency in lobbying activities can make political players more accountable and prevent further loss of public confidence in politics. I therefore fully agree that good governance and democratic principles should not be further undermined by Council of Europe member states not having sound regulation of lobbying in place.

I conclude by congratulating the rapporteur on finally debating this draft recommendation in the Assembly, and I am convinced that we will now approve it. However, as I said, I would like to go a bit further: like the rapporteur, I still want a European code of conduct, but I do not think we should stop there. We should take this recommendation home directly and demand action from our governments. I know that I, at least, will use this document to advocate sound regulation at home – I will start lobbying right away!

Tuesday 27 April 2010 at 10 a.m.

Associating women in the prevention and the solution of unsolved conflicts in Europe

Mrs FRAHM (Denmark) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left. – I would like to say how pleased I am that this report is scheduled for debate today – a Tuesday – and not at the end of the week, where issues raised by the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men often end up. That is a big victory.

This report focuses on an extremely important issue – the situation and role of women and girls in the prevention and solution of armed conflicts. The rapporteur, Ms Kiuru, has done a splendid job, and I congratulate her on her work. The report urges member states to recognise that women must be fully involved in the prevention and resolution of armed conflicts. It underlines the importance of investigating, pursuing and prosecuting all kinds of violence against women, including trafficking committed by armed forces, by other conflict participants or by public authorities. It underlines the importance of the protection and rehabilitation of victims of gender-based violence and of considering the special needs of women and girls in connection with relocation and housing projects. The report also reminds member states of how important it is to remember proven gender competencies when recruiting personnel for international services in conflict areas, war zones and reconstruction projects.

The report demands strong representation of women – at least 40% – when decisions are taken concerning peace processes and the securing of equal representation of men and women in all PACE activities concerning dialogue and conciliation in unresolved conflicts in all areas of Europe. The recommendation urges the Committee of Ministers to, among other things, take up the question of the role of women and men in preventing and resolving conflicts and to monitor member states’ implementation in order to ensure that the forthcoming convention on the prevention of all kinds of violence against women will also include violence against women in armed conflicts.

Finally, the report recommends that in the current process on the convention there is a balanced representation of men and women in all organs working in relation to ongoing, frozen and ended conflicts. The rapporteur says on the front page: “The Assembly believes that the gender perspective is an instrument for crisis management.” I think that today we can show that we agree with her.

Address by Mr Viktor Yanukovych, President of Ukraine

Mr LAAKSO (Finland) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– I congratulate you, Mr President, on behalf of the UEL, on your election. I should first point out that the Finnish Government has a majority of females, and we have a proposal to set up a male protection movement! However, that has nothing to do with my question. As you said, there is a tendency for politicians to try to take on the role of historians, and, unfortunately, we have seen this tendency in our Organisation: we are dealing more and more in the interpretation of history.

You know, Mr President, that under the rapporteurship of President Çavuşoğlu, there is now a Council of Europe report on the great famine. What is your personal opinion of the great famine question? As I mentioned, I do not like the fact that we are deciding this issue by voting. What is the correct interpretation of history? President Çavuşoğlu’s report is very balanced. Should we vote, and what is the truth of the history?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr President you have the floor.

Mr YANUKOVYCH said that the territories of these countries were well known. The great famine of the 1930s had affected the Volga region, Belarus and Kazakhstan as well as Ukraine. It had been a consequence of the policies of the Stalinist regime, and all countries had been affected. To recognise Holodomor as genocide in respect of one or another people would be incorrect and unfair. It had been a shared tragedy between all members of the Soviet Union.

Tuesday 27 April 2010 at 3 p.m.

Communication by Mr Jagland, Secretary General of the Council of Europe

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of Unified European Left. – This may be a good opportunity to say that I am happy that we elected you to the driving seat of this Organisation, but I am sorry that the car does not function that well. You rightly complained about the synergy of this Organisation. What do you think about improving the synergy through co-operation between the Committee of Ministers, the Parliamentary Assembly and you as Secretary General? How should we develop that? There have been new developments – we are fighting less and working together more. What more can we do?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Mr Jagland, you have the floor.

Mr JAGLAND – Coming to the Parliamentary Assembly and holding consultations more often is one step forward. That should also happen with the committees – for example, I was invited to your committee in Paris some weeks ago. There are many things we can do to facilitate more consultations and more exchanges of views and information. I am glad that the climate has changed so much. Yesterday, we had a meeting of the Joint Committee, during which David Wilshire said, “Now we like each other.” I agree – we are now on the same team.

The economic crisis

Mr KOX (Netherlands) on behalf of the Group of the United European Left – As I have only a few minutes at my disposal, I will concentrate on Mrs Roseira’s report, “The social impact of the economic crisis”, although I of course congratulate the other rapporteurs – Mr Agramunt Font de Mora, Mrs Wurm and Mr Volontè – on their reports, which have all helped us in trying to understand what is happening in our continent and in our world.

When a volcano erupts and causes the loss of €1 billion, owing to the unforeseen interruption of air transport, should we blame the volcano? The answer is no. The volcano is just acting according to its nature. Volcanoes do erupt once in a while; the problem is that we do not know when they will erupt, what the magnitude of those eruptions will be, how long they will last or what kind of damage they will cause. The modern world, as we have learned in the past few weeks, appeared to be badly prepared for the volcano’s decision to erupt, although we knew that an eruption could – and normally would – happen.

Let us now forget the volcano and consider the huge financial, economic and social crisis, and compare that explosion with what we know about volcanoes. When capitalism erupts and causes the loss of hundreds of billions of euros, of millions of jobs and – especially in the poorer parts of the world – of even the lives of millions of young children who will die due to lack of food, should we blame capitalism? Yes or no?

It is no secret that capitalism, like a volcano, is built on enormous contradictions. Those contradictions are between capital and labour, the haves and the have-nots and the short-term interests of the powerful and the long-term interests of the masses. Karl Marx warned us about that in the 19th century, John Maynard Keynes did it again in the 20th century and Paul Krugman does it now in the 21st century. Capitalism is indeed like a volcano. We know for sure that it will erupt due to its enormous contradictions, but we do not know the timing, the magnitude of the eruption or the damage that it will do.

Although the structure of capitalism could not have been a secret, the world was badly prepared when banks started collapsing and the economy got into its deepest crisis for almost a century. The main difference between a volcano and capitalism is that the latter is man-made. Man-made means two things: we should blame ourselves for what is happening now, and we can prevent the crisis from happening again.

Ms Roseira’s remarkable report proposes measures to influence capitalism to prevent it as far as possible from erupting again. The rapporteur has our full support when she concludes that we have to ensure synergies between the state and the markets, and effective and efficient regulations of market economies. Her report proposes giving priority to protecting employment through sustainable businesses, quality public services and adequate social protection for all. It states that we should maintain wage levels and enhance support to vulnerable people who are hit hardest by the crisis, especially women, migrants and poor families. Ms Roseira says that we should extend the duration and coverage of unemployment benefits and safeguard pension guarantees. The report states that we should strengthen effective public employment services and ensure that short-term actions are consistent with economic, social and environmental sustainability. Wonderful, Ms Roseira! It is as if I were quoting my party’s programme for the next election.

You will understand, Mr President, that we of the Unified Left have no problem with Ms Roseira’s conclusions. The left has always maintained that there was something really rotten about capitalism, even during the glorious years of neo-liberalism, which affected not only Liberals and Conservatives, but Social Democrats and even some Greens.

Now we are no longer alone in our criticism of capitalism and in our conclusion that an unregulated market economy is a volcano waiting to erupt. I say especially to our Social Democratic colleagues, “Welcome back.” We again share the idea that unregulated capitalism is a tremendous and unacceptable danger to mankind, now and in future. We should therefore all take action together to prevent that form of capitalism from erupting again at the cost of so many lives, rights, jobs and futures.

Wealth, welfare and wellbeing: how to reconcile them in a changing Europe?

Mr LECOQ (France) on behalf of the Group of the United European Left congratulated the rapporteur on the remarkable report, but it did not go far enough in defining an economic model. It used GDP as its basis for accounting but needed to integrate a GDP co-efficient. Issues were still tackled only within the economic sphere. There was a need to question the terms of the debate.

There had been progress but it had not gone far enough, and there remained doubts about the future. The report dealt with notions leading to greater well-being but only that of material well-being. Society needed to look at aspects of public notions and assets which excluded wealth. The report used notions of well-being which implied the type of society we wished to live in. The Council of Europe needed to take the opportunity of the report to rethink a new economic model. Although destitution had virtually been eradicated, man had been led to despair.

Wednesday 28 April 2010 at 10.a.m.

The current affairs debate on the consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia

Mr LAAKSO (Finland) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– The Parliamentary Assembly has, from the very beginning, taken an active approach to the consequences of the conflict in Georgia. Since the outbreak of open hostilities in August 2008, the Assembly has adopted several resolutions. One of the key concerns of the Assembly has been the well-being of the persons residing in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and the possibility that they would not be protected by the human rights mechanisms of the Council of Europe. In order to avoid such a human rights black hole, the presence of the Council of Europe in these two regions is essential. We should monitor the application by the de facto authorities of the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant conventions of the Council of Europe.

In the current political context, however, it would be unrealistic to expect that such a permanent presence could be established immediately; rather, it should be the product of a gradually evolving monitoring dialogue. Such a dialogue could be established in the framework of the monitoring procedure of the Assembly, which already possesses the necessary experience in this regard. Naturally, it is clear to us that any form of monitoring in these two regions will be successful and could take place only if Russia, Georgia and the de facto authorities of Abkhazia and South Ossetia agreed.

I think it is time for parliamentary diplomacy. It is time for the Council of Europe to take an active role in the area. It is important to note that the monitoring presence must not be seen as a replacement for any international presence and mechanisms that have already been established in the framework for addressing the consequences of this conflict. On the contrary, the presence of the Council of Europe should be seen as complementary to, and aiming to strengthen the work of, this other mechanism. That is why my proposal for future rapporteurs is that the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly should examine the possibility of our providing a monitoring mechanism in the region.

Piracy

Mr HUNKO (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left thanked the rapporteurs for their reports and welcomed their consideration of the social causes of piracy. The root cause of piracy was onshore, and to tackle it one needed to address the poverty and lack of stability in Somalia.

The lack of state control had also encouraged unhindered fishing in Somali waters. Fishermen, including some from Europe, were overfishing the waters and exploiting the collapsed state. Greenpeace had described fish theft as a form of piracy.

Illegal waste disposal had also been cited by the United Nations Ambassador for Somalia as a key problem in Somali waters. It cost on average US$2.5 per tonne to dispose of waste in Somali waters, compared with €1 000 per tonne in the European Union.

To combat Somali piracy its root causes had to be tackled, and the calls for increased military action should not be supported.

Wednesday 28 April 2010 at 3 p.m

Annual activity report 2009 by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights

Mr GEORGIOU (Cyprus) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– We in the Group of the Unified European Left express our thanks for your report. In your 2009 annual activity report, you mention that there is a gap between the proclamation and the actual implementation of human rights law in different countries. What further action do you plan to take to ensure a quicker pan-European implementation of such law, particularly in respect of the humanitarian treatment of displaced persons and their resettlement, and to survey the fate of missing persons?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question Mr Hammarberg?

Mr HAMMARBERG – Again, that is a difficult and broad question. There is an implementation gap that we must bridge as much as we can. The only answer I have is that we must work harder. We have the standards and we know what ought to be done. We recommend a systematic approach by governments, including establishing a national plan for the implementation of human rights. We know what should be done – the question is whether the political will exists to do it. Especially in situations where there is a move towards more xenophobia and less respect for minorities, as we have today in Europe, it is extremely important that the politicians stand up for the principles that we have agreed upon.

Commemorating the victims of the great famine (Holodomor) in the former USSR

Mr HUNKO (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left thanked the rapporteur for the report and said that historical tragedies were often used as a political tool by the politicians of today. This case was no different, but the Council of Europe should reject this. He had a personal connection with this tragedy as many of his family had died as a result of the famine.

The historical context of the tragedy was crucial. The famine was a result of the brutal industrialisation programme of Stalin. The Russian revolution could not be blamed for the tragedy as it was an attempt to create a new regime which subsequently failed. By the time of Stalin, the regime in Russia could not be recognised as communist, and the report was accurate in its balanced representation of this fact, describing it as totalitarian. The tragedy could not be described as genocide and it certainly could not be compared with the Holocaust. Mr Yanukovych, President of Ukraine, had recognised these points in his balanced speech yesterday.

It was important to recognise the plight of the victims and prevent a repeat of such tragedies through more education on the events of the Holodomor.

Thursday 29 April 2010 at 10 a.m.

Debate under urgent procedure: the urgent need for a constitutional reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mr GEORGIOU (Cyprus) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left said that the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina was the result of external factors: the war and the adoption of a constitution that did not respect human rights and was based on ethnic discrimination.

The Group of the Unified European Left had previously protested against other countries imposing conditions and solutions upon Bosnia and Herzegovina; a peaceful solution should be found by the citizens themselves.

The European Court of Human Rights had found that the constitution was discriminatory, there was a democratic deficit in the country and there was inequality of opportunity along the lines of ethnicity. These failures had come about as a result of the war, and this debate should mark the beginning of the solution to the problems.

The reforms proposed by the report had to be accepted by Bosnia and Herzegovina, but it was up to the citizens of the country to decide. The Council of Europe, however, should insist on respect for human rights, a condition that was not negotiable. The Assembly should support any positive reforms instituted by Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Debate under urgent procedure: the situation in Belarus: recent developments

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left – I will not respond to the scandalous slander by the previous speaker. I would rather stick to the subject of our debate.

Last year, we decided to offer the Belarusian authorities a chance. As a response to very modest signs of improvement on their side, we proposed to renew the dialogue. On condition of some very simple things, such as a moratorium on the death penalty, we felt that the special guest status of the Belarusian Parliament could be renewed. We hoped that that would facilitate further opening up of the country and thus help it to develop respect for human rights and a more democratic political system.

Regrettably, that approach did not work. As is all too often the case with undemocratic regimes, the friendly gesture was taken as a sign of weakness on our part. Instead of taking the next steps towards democratisation and respect for human rights, clear steps backwards were taken. Of course, the most emblematic were the two executions, to which many members have referred. However, there are other worrying signs, some of which are reflected in the draft resolution.

Therefore, a clear signal must be sent to the Belarusian authorities: in order to participate in the Council of Europe, the basic values of this organisation must be respected. Of course, one of those is not to slander, but that is not the issue at the moment. It is obvious that, unless there is clear progress on human rights in Belarus, activities that involve contact between the Assembly and the Belarusian Parliament and Government must be put on hold.

On behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left, I strongly support the rapporteur’s findings and strongly object to any attempts to water down the resolution. I also strongly support the amendments tabled by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights.

Address by Mr Lavrov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Mr LAAKSO (Finland) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left.– I would like to continue on the same topic. Do you think that the role of the Council of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly can be strengthened in conflict resolution and post-conflict resolution in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as between Russia and Georgia? Is Russia ready to promote the Council of Europe’s monitoring presence and its institutions in the area?

THE PRESIDENT – Thank you. Would you like to answer that question, Mr Lavrov?

Mr LAVROV said that Russia welcomed the efforts of the Council of Europe to resolve the humanitarian problems in the Caucasus. As an institution, it had a presence there through the Human Rights Commissioner who had, along with others, contributed to the resolution of outstanding issues. He did not know what mandatory monitoring Mr Laakso had referred to, but said that surely it was something that would need to be agreed by international institutions.

Thursday 29 April 2010 at 3 p.m.

Effective implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights: the Interlaken process

Mr GEORGIOU (Cyprus) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left thanked the rapporteur for her report and the Swiss presidency for paving the way for the Interlaken Conference and the road map on how to meet the Convention. This had been a convincing victory for ordinary people, as it safeguarded the rights of Europeans. It was up to members to improve the safeguards and speed up the processes of the European Court of Human Rights.

Violations of the Convention had to be eliminated. Armed conflict, sexual crimes, human trafficking and modern crimes, such as financial crimes, were all examples of such violations that were occurring. Domestic legal vacuums allowed this to happen and it was for national politicians to fill them.

It was important to speed up the administration of justice through the European Court of Human Rights while respecting the Convention. The rules of the European Court of Human Rights should provide for a limit on the number of cases to allow this to happen. Sanctions should also be applied where national governments did not automatically execute judgments of the Court, as these should not be affected by politics. The criteria for the election of judges should also be considered.

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity

Mr LECOQ (France) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left quoted Tocqueville, who had said that man had a natural tenancy to scorn those who had been inferior, long after they had become their equal. The comments of Cardinal Bertone in relating homosexuality and paedophilia had shaken the international community. The fact that it had come from a religious authority had given further force to such prejudice. His declaration had taken the world back 30 years to when homosexuals were diagnosed as deviants and treated as mentally ill. France had led the way in no longer treating homosexuals and those of transgender as deviants and had confirmed its commitment to fight discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

The excellent report under discussion would go a long way to combating prejudice and the table of common prejudices and the responses should be widely disseminated as an educatory tool; education was crucial to combat discrimination, even more so than equality in law.

All people, including members of the Assembly, needed to have the courage to speak out when someone was threatened because of their sexual orientation. The Council of Europe should not be intimidated by groups such as religious authorities in its role to ensure that morality was no longer out of step with legality

Friday 30 April 2010 at 10 a.m.

Biodiversity and climate change

Mr HUNKO (Germany) on behalf of the Group of the Unified European Left thanked Mrs John-Calame for her report, which he agreed with. He reminded the Council of Europe that the failure of international organisations had allowed national interests to prevail over concerns on the loss of biodiversity.

The Arctic was an eco system that contained the largest untapped resource, but there was competition for it. A 2009 European Council decision drew attention to new possibilities opening up as a result of melting icecaps in the Arctic that could lead to new entrepreneurial activities to tap into those resources. A moratorium was needed in respect of the Arctic. A radical rethink on how economies in countries were organised was also needed and there had been an Alternative Summit in Bolivia earlier this year. At that summit, countries had agreed a declaration to reduce carbon emissions by 50% by 2020. Issues such as guaranteeing the right to life and the right to clean air and water were also examined as well as the setting up of an international climate court. The Council of Europe could learn from the decisions taken at the Summit

Mr LOTMAN (Estonia) Chairperson of the Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs – I shall not take that long. I thank all those who are still here — although this is the smallest part of our Assembly, it is probably the best. We are under time pressure, and even our rapporteur, who was very committed to staying, had to leave because of the time constraints.

Thank you, colleagues, for endorsing the report’s main findings. I will not delve deeply into the details; rather, I will stress some important things that probably need to be added. The latest news on events in the Gulf of Mexico makes it clear that there is a link, in that one of the main drivers of man-made climate change is our addiction to oil, which from time to time results in disastrous oil leakages such as that happening now in the Gulf. So this is a very clear example of the extent to which these two main global problems – climate change and biodiversity loss – are linked.

Even though not many of us are present, it is important to remember that the Council of Europe has the 1979 Berne Convention, one of the first ever comprehensive treaties on biodiversity. Under this important treaty, which has sunk somewhat into political obscurity, a very good job is done on many issues related to pan-European biodiversity and climate change.

The experts have done their job, and the standing committee on the convention has adopted several recommendations that are referred to in the report and in the draft recommendation that we will soon adopt. We need to attach more political weight to the excellent job done by experts under our own Organisation.

Biodiversity day occurred during this part-session. Three key bodies of the Council of Europe – the Assembly, the Congress and the NGO Conference – have signed a declaration of common approach to biodiversity and climate change. We must remind the other bodies of this Assembly – the Committee of Ministers and the Secretary General’s apparatus – this is an important convention, that there are important problems that we must solve, and that dealing with them is part of our job. We cannot run away from them – we have to solve them.