16th PLENARY SESSION
3-5 March 2009
OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES
Page
First sitting of the Congress
Tuesday 3 March 2009 ............................................................................................................... 3
Second Sitting of the Congress
Wednesday 4 March 2009........................................................................................................... 37
First Sitting of the Chamber of Local Authorities
Wednesday 4 March 2009........................................................................................................... 53
First Sitting of the Chamber of Regions
Wednesday 4 March 2009........................................................................................................... 67
Second Sitting of the Chamber of Local Authorities
Thursday 5 March 2009............................................................................................................... 83
Second Sitting of the Chamber of Regions
Thursday 5 March 2009............................................................................................................... 95
Third Sitting of the Congress
Thursday 5 March 2009............................................................................................................... 105
FIRST SITTING OF THE CONGRESS
Tuesday 3 March 2009 at 10.45 a.m.
______________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Opening of the sixteenth Plenary Session
2. Verification of credentials of new members
and new appointment procedures
4. Communication by the Congress President
6. Statement by Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe
9. Adoption of the composition of the Standing Committee
and the Statutory Committees
11. Euro-Mediterranean co-operation: the role of local and regional authorities
13. Public water and sewer services for sustainable development
14. Combating domestic violence against women
The session opened at 10.50 a.m. with Mr Ian Micallef (Malta, L, EPP/CD), Congress President a.i., in the Chair.
The participants stood to listen to the European anthem.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) declared the 16th session of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe open, in pursuance of Rule 1 of the Congress Rules of Procedure.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said it was a great honour for him to open this 16th session as first
Vice-President of the Congress but that he was sorry President Yavuz Mildon was unable to be present for health reasons. His thoughts were with President Mildon and his family and he wished him a speedy recovery. He proposed that Congress members send him a message, expressing their sympathy.
The PRESIDENT pointed out that this was the first session to take place under the new arrangement whereby there were to be two Congress plenary sessions per year, one in the spring and another in the autumn, and an annual meeting of the Bureau. He hoped this would lead to greater drive and continuity in the Congress’s work and make it easier for all members to participate in its activities.
He said that the names of the substitutes whose presence had been brought to his notice would be published in the attendance list appended to the minutes. Each national delegation was obliged to give the Secretariat two copies of the list of its full and substitute members attending the session. Finally, candidatures for the statutory committees and the Standing Committee should be lodged with the Congress Secretariat by 4 pm on Monday 2 March 2009 at the latest.
[CG(16)4RES]
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) pointed out that the next item on the agenda was the verification of credentials of delegations and representatives, substitutes and special guests and that the Bureau, at its meeting on Monday 2 March 2009, had examined the credentials in question.
He said he had received an oral amendment from Herwig Van Staa. Should any other representatives intend to table an oral amendment, he asked them to submit the text in writing to the podium.
He gave the floor to the two Rapporteurs, Günther Krug and Anders Knape.
Günther KRUG (Germany, R, SOC), Rapporteur, said he was honoured to open the proceedings and very pleased to see that at least 30% of the members of the delegations were women.
He said that the credentials of the Russian, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Cypriot and Turkish delegations had been checked and that most of the questions raised had been answered.
He spoke of the need for member states’ domestic law to comply with the new Charter. In particular, any dismissals must be carried out in a transparent and correct manner.
With regard to the representation of women, there still remained one problem: many of the women were substitutes, not full members. Efforts thus needed to be made, in particular by delegations which had vacant seats. In the Serb delegation, for example, 7 seats remained unfilled. There were also vacancies in the Cypriot delegation.
Work was under way with regard to the Turkish delegation, while the composition of the Portuguese delegation had been approved by the legal experts and the Institutional Committee, as had the composition of the Dutch delegation.
There was, however, the continuing problem of expired mandates. Delegations were still failing to report these in good time; anyone whose mandate had expired should be replaced as quickly as possible.
Despite the many changes that had occurred, the Congress Bureau had managed to achieve a great deal. It had worked hard to ensure that the rules introduced by the Congress were properly applied. It had also sent a number of letters, asking for further information about the composition of certain delegations. The composition of the Russian delegation was still causing problems and an amendment to that effect had been tabled, on which Anders Knape would now elaborate.
Anders KNAPE (Sweden, L, EPP/CD), Rapporteur, thanked Günther Krug for his long-standing efforts to verify the credentials of new members and new appointment procedures.
The case of the Russian Federation delegation was an especially difficult one. The previous June, the Congress had written to this delegation, asking for clarification regarding the status of two of its members. The Bureau had been due to rule on the delegation’s credentials on 24 October 2008 but had had to postpone its decision for lack of information. It had then decided to consult the Congress’s group of independent experts, who had recommended excluding the two Russian members in question. In February 2009, the Bureau had accordingly stated that the presence of these two persons in the Congress constituted a breach of the Rules of Procedure. The Russian Federation delegation had then asked for more time to come up with additional information. In the event, however, this information had failed to sway the group of experts and the Bureau, who recommended that unless urgent changes were made to the law in Russia, the mandates of the two Russian members should be annulled. The kind of changes envisaged, however, were not due to be introduced until 2011.
The amendment tabled by Herwig Van Staa sought to postpone the Congress’s final decision until the end of 2009. Such a move would be most unwise. For one thing, it was very important that Congress members be elected representatives of their respective countries; for another, it did not do to make new rules and then constantly put off decisions. So although talks with the Russian Federation delegation should, of course, continue, It was essential that the Congress today adopt the Bureau’s draft resolution. It could not afford to wait another two years before taking a final decision on a subject that clearly had implications for countries other than the Russian Federation. The status of Congress members had been confirmed a short while back by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and must be rigorously respected.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) declared the discussion open and gave the floor to Herwig Van Staa.
Herwig VAN STAA (Austria, R, EPP/CD) said that the Bureau and the political groups had discussed this subject at length. Having served in the Congress for 15 years, he recalled how resolving the problem of the Dutch mayors had taken just as much time as the current problem with the Russian delegation, which had first emerged in June 2008. The Congress could easily afford, then, to spend another six months looking for a political solution to the matter, so as to enable the two Russian members to sit in the Congress. It should not be forgotten that Mr Saltykov had served for many years on the Bureau and had earned his place in the Congress. It was important, of course, to ensure that all members of the Congress were treated equally but somewhere between the position of the experts and the rapporteurs and that of the Russian delegation, a compromise could be found. In particular, there should be further consultations, leading to the adoption of a decision at the 17th session of the Congress.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Fabio Pellegrini.
Fabio PELLEGRINI (Italy, L, SOC) said that paragraph 5 of the Bureau’s draft resolution mentioned the case of an Italian delegate, whose credentials had been challenged. It was true that the member in question was no longer a local councillor and that he had lost his electoral mandate, the mayor of his town having assigned him to other duties. Certainly, too, the Congress Rules of Procedure did state that members must be directly elected or accountable to an elected assembly and that domestic law must be compatible with the Congress Charter, but how in that case to respond to the legitimate desire of an Italian delegate appointed by a mayor or regional president to continue serving in the Congress?
A group of experts had been asked to look into the matter of the Russian delegation’s credentials and it was only right that the same courtesy should be extended to the Italian delegate. For that reason the speaker was tabling an oral amendment to delete paragraph 5 of the report.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) asked those delegates who were intending to present an oral amendment to send him the text.
He gave the floor to Valery Kadokhov.
Valery KADOKHOV (Russian Federation, R, SOC) explained that Russian legislation was complex and was being revised to bring it into line with European standards but that it was impossible to change everything overnight, particularly if constitutional amendments were required. The two delegates whose credentials had been contested had in fact been elected, by secret ballot. The executive had merely nominated them. To claim that their mandates were unlawful was to call into question the Constitution itself.
The speaker therefore asked the Congress to adopt Herwig Van Staa’s amendment, which would give it a 6-month period within which to make a decision. That way, everyone would have time to study the finer points of Russian law to which he had just referred.
He concluded by reiterating his view that the electoral mandates of the two members of the Russian delegation were wholly compliant with Article 2.1 of the Congress Charter.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Alexander Uss.
Alexander USS (Russian Federation, R, EPP/CD) agreed that the Congress rules must be observed to the letter, but he also felt that any decision must be taken in full knowledge of the facts. In this instance, the calls for the Russian delegates to be stripped of their powers rested on the opinion of a single expert, who had himself admitted to having not enough time and information.
As a professor of law and president of his region’s parliament, and having twice been a member of the Upper House of the Russian Parliament, Mr Uss felt he was well qualified to speak on this subject. In his view, his Russian colleagues had every right to sit in the Congress. It was no accident that only 5 of the 15 Bureau members had voted to have their credentials annulled. He therefore supported Herwig Van Staa’s proposal that the Congress take six months to consider the matter further before making a duly reasoned decision.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Valerio Prignachi.
Valerio PRIGNACHI (Italy, L, EPP/CD) pointed out that in Italy, the mayor was directly elected by the people and enjoyed a large measure of independence from the municipal council. He could have deputies and specialist advisers and give them a direct mandate to represent the municipality. Such was the case with the delegate,
Giuseppe Anzalone, who had been appointed under the Italian act signed into law in 2000. In Italy, the mayor’s deputies were fully comparable to elected municipal councillors.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that the Chair had received one oral amendment from
Herwig Van Staa. As there was no one else down to speak, he gave the floor to the two rapporteurs, Anders Knape and Günther Krug, who had three minutes each to answer the speakers.
Anders KNAPE (Sweden, L, EPP/CD), Rapporteur, pointed out that the Congress had had to deal with this kind of situation before and had been quite clear on the matter, making it fair to conclude now that the Italian delegate’s mandate was not in compliance with the Charter. Were the Congress to go along with the Italian delegation’s proposal, any mayor could appoint anyone as a representative to the Congress, on the ground, say, that they had some international experience. That person would be accountable solely to the mayor and not to an elected assembly, which was simply not acceptable. If it accepted the Italian proposal, the Congress would be forsaking its traditional stance.
The situation with regard to the two Russian delegates was equally clear. Herwig Van Staa had talked about compromise but in fact, no compromise was needed to determine whether a person had received an electoral mandate or not. If the Congress began to break with the principles followed up until now, there was a danger that more and more Congress members would be appointed in breach of them. It was important, therefore, to make the right decision that very day. Of course, taking more time was always an option but a great deal of time and energy had been expended on the matter already. The Congress could not afford to carry on doing that, with the budgetary situation the way it was.
Günther KRUG (Germany, R, SOC), Rapporteur, recalled how when he was Rapporteur for the Charter in 2007, everyone had agreed that the Congress must consist of representatives who held an electoral mandate. In 2007, Congress members had made it quite clear what they wanted, after labouring away on the Charter for five years. If they now wanted to change those texts, they should say so!
A similar discussion had taken place back in May 2008 and the issue had been clearly settled. The Russian speaker being wrong, therefore, to cast doubt on the Bureau’s position. True, there had been some abstentions, but only because certain members had been unsure whether annulment was the best route. It was nevertheless in everyone’s interest to ensure that the Congress Charter was applied and the Rapporteurs would not be proposing anything different.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said he would not be calling on anyone else, except for points of order.
He gave the floor to Svetlana Orlova, who had made a request to this effect.
Svetlana ORLOVA (Russian Federation, R, EPP/CD) recalled how, in the past, Congress members had always had the right to be heard in order to defend democracy. Under Russia’s domestic law, Stepan Kirichuk and
Anatoly Saltykov were accountable elected representatives. Only one expert had challenged their credentials.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) did not think this qualified as a point of order. The points raised by the speaker had already been taken on board by the Congress and had been made by two other members of the Russian delegation.
He said that the Bureau had presented a draft resolution and that an oral amendment had been tabled by
Herwig Van Staa, which sought to replace paragraph 4.a with the following paragraph: “Taking into account the need to study in detail the recent developments of the appropriate Russian legislation, it is however necessary to hold further consultations with the participation of Congress and Russian experts with a view to taking the final decision on the mandates of the two Russian representatives at the next, 17th Congress session”.
He considered this amendment admissible, unless there were any objection to it being taking into consideration, which was not the case.
He had received an oral sub-amendment from Viatcheslav Rogov to add the following at the end of the
sub-paragraph: “Taking into consideration the fact that, during the examination of the credentials of Stepan Kirichuk, member of the Russian delegation, his current mandate as directly elected President of the National Congress of Russian Municipalities was not taken into account, the Congress asks the rapporteurs to study in more detail the question of the conformity of his credentials as member of the Congress according to Article 2 of the Charter.”
Under the rules, this sub-amendment was admissible as well.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Viatcheslav Rogov.
Viatcheslav ROGOV (Russian Federation, L, ILDG) saw no point in repeating the arguments already heard. In his view, the sub-amendment was necessary because he did not think that sufficient account had been taken of Russian law to enable a correct judgment to be formed. Stepan Kirichuk, for example, had been locally elected for a
3-year term. Had the Rapporteurs considered that fact?
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) noted that nobody wished to speak against the sub-amendment.
He gave the floor to Anders Knape, Rapporteur.
Anders KNAPE (Sweden, L, EPP/CD), Rapporteur, said that Stepan Kirichuk’s mandate was not a local one. He had not been elected to a local body, nor was he accountable to one.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) asked Herwig Van Staa for his opinion on the sub-amendment.
Herwig VAN STAA (Austria, R, EPP/CD) said that the amendment which he had tabled, and which was widely supported by the delegates, was in fact a compromise. He did not agree with the Russian delegation but thought that, seeing as less than a year had elapsed since the changes in Russia, the Congress could afford to take a year to settle the matter once and for all, rather than relying on the opinion of a single expert who had himself said that he had not had enough time to study the matter in depth.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that first Viatcheslav Rogov’s sub-amendment must be put to the vote.
He pointed out that under Rule 3.2 of the Rules of Procedure, Giuseppe Anzalone, Stepan Kirichuk and
Anatoly Saltykov could not take part in any vote relating to the verification of credentials.
By 95 votes to 70, the sub-amendment was rejected.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said the time had now come to vote on Herwig Van Staa’s oral amendment and gave the floor to him to defend his amendment.
Herwig VAN STAA (Austria ,R, EPP/CD) said he had already presented his amendment, the purpose of which was to allow further consultations before taking a final decision on the credentials of the two Russian representatives at the 17th Congress session.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) noted that nobody wished to speak against the amendment.
Günther KRUG (Germany, R, SOC), Rapporteur, pointed out that the Committee had come out against this amendment: the Congress must settle the matter here and now.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) invited the Congress to vote on Amendment No. 1 tabled by Mr Van Staa. He pointed out that only members whose credentials had been checked and accepted by the Bureau were permitted to vote.
Amendment No. 1 was put to the vote.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) noted that the vote was very close: 93 members had voted for and 94 against the amendment. To confirm the result, he asked the Congress to vote again, standing up, in keeping with the Rules of Procedure.
Amendment No. 1 was rejected by 97 votes to 96 with 6 abstentions.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Fabio Pellegrini to move Amendment No. 2.
Fabio PELLEGRINI (Italy, L, SOC) said that the Italian Act of 1993 met the requirements of the Charter. He therefore proposed that the Chamber delete paragraph no. 5 of the draft resolution and perhaps refer the question of the conformity of the Italian Act with the Charter to a group of experts. Whatever the case, he felt that Mr Anzalone was entitled to be a member of the Congress in view of the mandate conferred on him by an elected representative.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) asked Günther Krug for his opinion.
Günther KRUG (Germany, R, SOC), Rapporteur, felt that whatever the different circumstances, the same rule should apply to everyone. The second paragraph of the draft resolution clearly set out the requirements for membership of the Congress, and Article 2 of the Charter unequivocally stated that only elected representatives or persons accountable to an elected assembly could sit in the Congress: that was the rule.
Amendment No. 2 was rejected.
Nataliya ROMANOVA (Ukraine, R, ILDG) said that Igor Oliynyk, member of the Ukrainian delegation, had been unable to take part in the previous vote, having arrived late. This was an important point given the very close result of the poll.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that the voting had taken place according to the prescribed procedure and that the announced result was final.
He invited the Congress to vote on the draft Resolution contained in document CG(16)4RES.
The draft Resolution contained in document CG(16)4RES was adopted by 158 votes to 52.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Anders Knape.
Anders KNAPE (Sweden, L, EPP/CD) observed that the poll had produced no winners, only losers. For when it came to the crucial matter of interpreting basic rules, the Congress was split. Clearly, then, there was a need for further efforts to promote a better understanding of the Rules of Procedure and to carry on exploring these issues with the independent experts. The Congress must adhere to the Rules of Procedure and the standards which it itself had adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said he would see to it that the Bureau discussed all the points raised by the rapporteurs.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) proposed, given the delay incurred, that the debate on combating domestic violence against women be moved to the top of the agenda that afternoon.
Agreed.
TRIBUTE TO DECEASED CONGRESS MEMBERS
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) speaking on behalf of the entire Congress, paid tribute to the three members who had died since the previous session: Ms Ivanka Novak (Croatia), Ms Paola Manzini (Italy) and
Mr Valery Sychev (Lithuania).
[CG(16)3]
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that the next item on the agenda was the communication which he was going to present, on behalf of the Congress President, and which would be followed by a debate.
The President said it was his firm conviction that the Congress today found itself in a new situation, the result of years of an accelerating shift in the power balance from the national towards territorial level, and a consequent steady increase in the political weight of local and regional communities and their representative bodies.
These years of decentralisation and regionalisation had brought into political prominence the most fundamental building block of the European political landscape, namely territorial communities. Their authorities were now seen as being the most representative voice of the people. Numerous opinion polls showed that local and regional authorities were the most trusted layer of government. They had thus become an indispensable partner of national governments which now recognised that solutions to even the most taxing problems required the involvement of local and regional policy-makers. Global challenges facing society today – climate change, migration, social and economic upheavals, demographic change – all called for responses from local and regional level. Tackling global warming, for example, necessitated building adaptive capacities of local and regional communities and finding ways for making optimal use of local resources, be it water management, waste disposal, optimisation of public transport networks, sustainable use of energy sources or industrial applications. It also meant introducing innovative approaches and here local and regional authorities had been showing remarkable ingenuity. The presentation of Energy Cities at the last plenary session of the Congress was just one proof of this. Territorial communities had much to share with their counterparts. And national governments had no choice but to take them on board because it was communities that bore the brunt of the consequences of the governments’ decisions.
The global financial crisis was another example. Who would suffer from it the most? And who had to find immediate remedies? Whereas people had little control over the government’s borrowing and spending, they could certainly hold their municipal and regional representatives accountable. In the European Union alone, local and regional authorities controlled two thirds of all public investments, and over the years had proven more adept at managing assets than their national counterparts. Although up until now they had had little or no say in the international financial system, today there was a growing recognition of the need to involve them more.
In sum, territorial communities today were the stakeholders that governments could not do without. This was the novelty of the situation in which the Congress could and must play a growing political role as the builder of democracy from the bottom up.
Local and regional elected representatives were the representatives closest to the citizens. With their knowledge of the terrain, and of communities’ needs and expectations, they knew what really worked on the ground in practical terms. This experience was an invaluable asset for national and even international policy-making, as more and more communities were going global, creating European and international networks, advancing their political agenda through City Diplomacy and fostering new territorial arrangements in a Europe without dividing lines.
As a pan-European body and as the voice of villages, towns, cities, provinces and regions, the Congress had a political vocation today. Its members were representatives of the Europe of communities talking to the Europe of governments, making sure that their voices were heard, their rights defended and their interests respected. The Congress had the tools to achieve that, and its functioning had just undergone revision with the introduction of a new Charter and new Rules of Procedure, with a minimum 30 per cent requirement for women’s representation. With two plenary sessions a year, it would now be able to follow more closely national situations with regard to local and regional democracy and their development.
Thanks to the European Charter of Local Self-Government, the Congress had the means to ensure that all member states applied and respected the principles of territorial democracy: monitoring missions, country-by-country reports, observation of local and regional elections and fact-finding missions. Fact-finding missions could be the first element in a rapid-response system designed to monitor national developments in the field of local and regional self-government. The missions to Turkey, Latvia and Belgium in 2007 and 2008 had given rise to open and frank debates. The fact that some governments had been critical meant that the Congress was doing something right. Control by popular elected representatives and their critical assessment were the backbone of democracy.
The Congress wished to add more instruments to its toolbox. It had to convince governments of the expediency of a European Charter of Regional Democracy in order to create a legal basis for democratic governance and development at regional level. It wanted to foster principles of new urban governance and modern living, set out in the European Urban Charter II : manifesto for a new urbanity. It also wished to boost cross-border co-operation between cities and regions, for better integration, for better social and territorial cohesion.
The Congress had the tools and the will, but not always the necessary resources to realise its full potential, such as the Charter of Local Self-Government. If it were endowed with sufficient resources, the Congress could react faster and could launch more initiatives such as local democracy agencies, networks of local authorities, Euroregions.
Having the resources to match its competences was central to local self-government. Member states had already recognised that principle and now they must act accordingly.
Although we were living at a time of tremendous challenges, this was also a time of enormous potential for territorial democracy and for local and regional communities in Europe. The Congress had the will and the tools to harness this potential. It was firmly resolved to stay the course that it had charted with its priorities for 2009-2010. All it needed was a little wind in its sails.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Ludmila Sfirloaga.
Ludmila SFIRLOAGA (Romania, R, SOC) thanked the President for this overview of what the Congress had been doing since the last plenary session. As President of the Chamber of Regions, she wished to add that her Chamber had been very busy, taking part, for example, in the work on the draft European Charter of Regional Democracy. She was especially grateful to Jean-Claude Van Cauwenberghe, Rapporteur on regionalisation, for his involvement.
Among the Chamber’s achievements were the successful first meeting of the countries in the Black Sea Euroregion and organising the Prize of the Regions.
The Chamber of Regions working groups had been very busy, too. The working group on regions with legislative powers had met on 22 October 2008 in Paris and was currently preparing a report on Regions with legislative powers in Europe: role and developments. The working group on inter-regional co-operation had met on 1 July 2008 and 19 February 2009. It had approved a draft resolution and draft recommendation on the state of transfrontier co-operation in Europe. These drafts would be discussed at the next plenary session.
The Chamber had also been represented at the main general assemblies of European regional government organisations.
These intensive efforts would continue for the benefit of Europe’s regions.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Svetlana Orlova.
Svetlana ORLOVA (Russia, R, EPP/CD) considered that the Congress had done some sterling work.
She asked that it address the subject of the global crisis, which was not only affecting banks and financial institutions but also threatening social cohesion. Local and regional elected representatives were having to deal on a daily basis with the human fallout from this crisis.
She further indicated that more could be done in the budgetary sphere.
She felt there was little point in setting a 30% quota for women if they were not going to be permitted to speak, referring to the very close result of the poll held earlier.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) declared the discussion closed.
[CG(16)1PROV]
[CG(16)OJ1]
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said the next item on the agenda was the adoption of the order of business of the Congress and the Chambers [Congress (16) OJ1 and Congress(16) 1 Prov]. In the case of the Chambers, who were responsible for their own agenda, only the times and not the content of the meetings needed to be decided.
The notice of the present sitting gave details of the organisation of the debates both in respect of the Congress and each of the two Chambers, in accordance with the rules of procedure.
As there were no comments, the order of business for the 16th session of the Congress was adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that the next item on the agenda was the statement by Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe.
He recalled how, when addressing the Congress for the first time a little over four years ago, in November 2004, after being appointed Secretary General, Terry Davis had stated that the Congress, as an arm of the Council of Europe, had a role to play in the success of the organisation, which could only do its job if all of its bodies were involved. Terry Davis had also said that the Congress could bring its expertise to bear in the Council of Europe’s programmes and campaigns and share its tools with them.
This was the last time Terry Davis would be addressing the Congress as Secretary General of the Council of Europe. The Congress knew that Terry Davis had been following its activities closely, not least because he himself had served as a local councillor in the UK. The Congress wished to thank him for the interest he had shown in the Congress over the years.
Terry DAVIS, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, after thanking the president for his words of welcome, wished President Mildon a speedy recovery and expressed his condolences to the families of the three Congress members who had died over the past year.
He said he would not be answering questions from the assembly until the early afternoon.
That year the Council of Europe was celebrating its 60th anniversary and there was much to be proud of. The Council had carried out and would continue to carry out the mandate entrusted to it in 1949, namely to defend and extend democracy, human rights and the rule of law, with the advantage of sixty years of experience and the proven ability to adapt to new circumstances and new challenges. The social, political, economic and technological developments of the past sixty years had resulted in much progress in the promotion of the Council of Europe’s values, but had also resulted in new threats to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. The Council had an excellent record in facing new tests but, as in football, it was important to stay on the ball.
Another challenge was the circumstances in which the Council operated because although economic policy was not part of the Council’s mandate, it was nevertheless affected by the economic downturn. In the current situation member states were becoming even more stringent when it came to spending taxpayers’ money and that included the money they paid to international organisations. In those circumstances, the Council must find ways to save money, but after years of budgets based on zero real growth, there was no fat left to cut so any additional savings were bound to affect our activities. There was a need to prioritise, therefore, and that applied to the Congress like everyone else. What made the Council’s situation even more difficult was that the economic crisis not only affected its funding, but also reinforced the need for its activities. The economic crisis was a threat to social cohesion, led to uncertainty and often provoked tensions along national, ethnic and religious lines, including at local government level.
The Congress brought substantial assets to the common endeavour to help Europe cope. It was the only European body mandated to monitor local and regional democracy in Europe. Its position as one of the pillars in the institutional set-up of the Council of Europe was reflected in the new Congress Charter which had been adopted by the Committee of Ministers in May 2007. This was the first session of Congress in the framework of the new Congress calendar which provided for two plenary sessions a year. In May 2008, the Congress had renewed its membership and its leadership, thus becoming the first political assembly to put into practice the requirement of at least 30 per cent of women in each national delegation. Although all the national delegations had complied with this requirement, which was a formal condition for the approval of credentials, efforts still needed to be made to increase the representation of women at local level. A Council of Europe report on the participation of women in public decision-making bodies in Council of Europe member states, which was to be released that week on the occasion of International Women’s Day, showed that on average only 10% of mayors and 24% of local councillors in Europe were women.
The progress achieved by the Congress since its November 2004 session, at which the Secretary General of the Council of Europe had spoken for the first time, was to be welcomed, in particular its work in defending the rights of local communities through fact-finding missions and to increase the influence of local and regional authorities in relation to other tiers of governance. Mention was made of the Congress’s efforts to improve the quality of governance at local and regional level and to advance transfrontier co-operation between cities and regions.
The Congress today was a true pan-European watchdog for local democracy. That was sometimes frowned upon by governments, but in the end the member states of the Council of Europe accepted that criticism and differences of opinion were the norm in democratic societies, and a sign of health and strength, not of illness and weakness. Governments must recognise that in society today, local and regional authorities were players on a par with national governments and parliaments, and that their contribution was a valuable asset in national policy-making.
The Congress’s recent achievements included the European Urban Charter II, which was a manifesto for a new modern urban governance and living. As for the draft European Charter of Regional Democracy, this was the first ever text laying down the principles of regional self-governance and offering models for regional autonomy. Then there was the creation of the Adriatic Euroregion in 2006 and the Black Sea Euroregion in September 2008, as platforms for co-operation between the cities and regions concerned. Finally, there was the establishment of national associations of local and regional authorities and their networks, such as the Network of Associations of Local Authorities of South-East Europe and the National Association of Local Authorities of Georgia. The Congress had also succeeded in expanding local democracy agencies and their Association, which was a positive experience born out of the post-conflict reconstruction of communities torn apart by wars in the Balkans. Today the association included 11 Local Democracy Agencies in South-East Europe and one in the Georgian city of Kutaisi.
The Congress had made a very valuable contribution to the activities of the Council of Europe. One example was the recent set of recommendations on the “Child in the City”, setting guidelines for building child-friendly communities and the reintegration of street children. Similarly, it had produced recommendations to improve the integration of migrants, their living and working conditions and their access to social rights. The 12 principles on intercultural and interreligious dialogue adopted in November 2006 were an important part of the Council of Europe White Book. The Congress had also made progress on a variety of other issues, from improving the plight of young people in disadvantaged urban areas and increasing youth participation in local and regional public life to reconciling heritage and modernity in urban development.
In the area of environmental protection, the Congress had provided advice to local communities on how to adapt to climate change, how to manage natural and man-made disasters, how to protect urban biodiversity and how to encourage responsible consumption, better use of water and energy resources.
The Congress saw as its overall objective the creation of a Europe of sustainable communities. Its pan--European dimension and its role as the guardian of local democracy and the defender of the rights of communities had put it into a special, perhaps unique, position. There was a difficult period ahead, but Terry Davis had every confidence in the commitment and ability of the Congress to continue its work, for the benefit of local communities and democracy in Europe.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) thanked the Secretary General for his kind words about the work of the Congress.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) proposed that the Congress hold its next public sitting that afternoon, at 2.30 pm, with an agenda that was in keeping with the order of business adopted.
The agenda for the next public sitting was adopted.
The sitting resumed at 2.30 pm with Günther Krug (Germany, R, SOC) in the Chair.
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC) hoped that everyone had recovered from the morning’s animated discussion and said that the afternoon’s agenda, which was no less exciting, had been changed slightly to make up for lost time.
He suggested that the debates be organised as follows: the debate on Euro-Mediterranean co-operation would end at around 4.30 pm, when Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, would answer questions from members of the Congress. The debate on public water and sewer services would take place as arranged at around 5 pm, with attention being turned to the subject of domestic violence against women at around 5.30 pm.
There being no objections, the matter was agreed.
[CG(16)5PROV]
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC) said that the first item on the agenda that afternoon was the adoption of changes to the composition of the Standing Committee and the statutory committees. The national delegations had put forward names. These were set out in document CG(16)5PROV which had been circulated and which everyone had had an opportunity to consult.
Noting that there were no objections, the President declared the nominations approved. The Standing Committee and the statutory committees were appointed accordingly.
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC) said it was a great pleasure and honour for him to present the Pro Merito medal of the Congress to Alan Lloyd, a long-standing member of the Congress whose list of achievements included serving as local councillor in Wales and Deputy Lord Mayor of Swansea, as leader of the UK delegation to the Congress for 13 years, as President of the Congress’s Socialist Group and Vice-President of its Local Authorities Chamber for 8 years, and, finally, as President of the International Union of Local Authorities and the founding President of the United Cities and Local Governments, UCLG.
Having first got to know Alan Lloyd in 2002 and having worked with him on the Charter, the President had witnessed at first hand the depth of his commitment and his tenacity. That the Congress’s Rules of Procedure now included a requirement for the under-represented sex to make up at least 30% of members was largely down to him.
Moving from local to European and then international politics, Alan Lloyd had always been a brilliant advocate of the causes he espoused, in particular local democracy.
Turning to address Alan Lloyd directly, the President said that his energy and conviction would always be a source of inspiration for Congress members, who very much hoped to continue benefiting from his advice. Stepping down from the podium, the President presented Mr Lloyd with the medal, while thanking him warmly for everything he had done for the Congress, where he had so many friends.
The PRESIDENT gave the floor to Alan Lloyd.
Alan LLOYD, former Vice-President of the Chamber of Local Authorities, said he was pleased and grateful to receive this award, and that he was deeply humbled by the tribute from his peers.
The Congress had played an extremely important role in his life. A sort of United Nations of Europe, it was founded on key principles: democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Plenty of organisations were more powerful, but the Congress dealt with the things that mattered most to ordinary people.
Back when the Rules of Procedure were being changed, the speaker had argued that the delegations should be 50% women. In the end, however, he had accepted a compromise and approved the current figure of 30%. He was pleased to note that all the delegations were now in compliance with this rule. The Rapporteurs should certainly take a closer look at the situation, however, because while all the delegations conformed to the letter of the law, they did not always respect its spirit: too many women were merely substitutes. The Congress had taken another step in the right direction when it elected a woman to the head of the Chamber of Regions back in May.
Today, the financial crisis was also affecting the international organisations, which relied on member states for funding. Delegates must lobby their ministers to come up with more money. The Charter of Local Self-Government took on added importance in this period of economic crisis, when there was a danger of a resurgence of extremism. It was important, therefore, that the Congress have the necessary resources to do its job. Local and regional authorities must be provided with sufficient funds, either by central government or through local and regional taxation.
The need for vigilance and close monitoring to ensure compliance with the Charter was greater than ever. Signing the document was, of course, an important event but what really mattered was implementation. The speaker hoped that there would shortly be a monitoring mission to check whether the United Kingdom was implementing the Charter properly, as he personally had some doubts on that score.
Alan LLOYD ended by thanking the Congress again for the medal and assured members that he would continue to take an interest in their activities.
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC) thanked Alan Lloyd and said he hoped the Congress could continue to count on him for expert advice.
He handed over the Chair to Ian Micallef.
Ian Micallef (Malta, L, EPP/CD), President a.i of the Congress, replaced Günther Krug in the Chair.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) congratulated Alan Lloyd and apologised for not being there to present him with the Pro Merito medal, as he had had to attend a press conference.
OVERVIEW AND FUTURE SYNERGIES
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that the next item on the agenda was the debate on
“Euro-Mediterranean co-operation: the role of local and regional authorities, overview and future synergies”.
Following the introduction, and before embarking on the debate, a number of leading figures would address the Congress: Luc Van den BRANDE, President of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union,
Etienne BUTZBACH, Mayor of Belfort, member of the Mediterranean Commission of United Cities and Local Governments, Jesmond MUGLIETT, member of the Maltese Parliament representing the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, Irene LOIZIDOU, Municipal Councillor of Engomi (Cyprus), Khaled OSAILY, mayor of Hebron and representative of the Association of Palestinian Local Authorities.
The Congress had often worked with the Parliamentary Assembly on Euro-Mediterranean co-operation: in 1985, for example, they had organised the first conference of Mediterranean regions together.
While local and regional authorities in Europe were becoming increasingly self-reliant, it was a different picture on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, where they were still very fragile. Clearly, therefore, there was a need to better channel our energies into capacity-building and empowerment at local level. It had been decided to focus on developing local government associations, starting with Morocco, a country with which the Congress had long-standing ties. A conference had been held on the subject in Marrakech in November 2000. The Congress intended to pursue this goal in order to make local authorities more transparent and efficient. To do that, it was important to refer to the key texts, namely the Charter of Local Self-Government, the European Code of Conduct for local and regional representatives and the European Urban Charter.
EUROMED co-operation was an extremely complex field, owing to the large number of associations involved. Not all of them were success stories, however, and the general feeling was that the Barcelona process had ultimately failed. There was evidence, however, of a clear international commitment in this region and the President had welcomed President Sarkozy’s plans to create a Union for the Mediterranean. Congress members would be interested to hear what Luc Van den Brande had to say on the subject.
The Congress was stepping up its presence in, and giving a higher priority to, EUROMED co-operation. A number of forums had been held in this connection over the past year. In December 2008, a co-operation agreement had been signed with the Council of Europe’s North-South Centre.
What was the specific role of the Congress? It had been decided to set up a special group in the Congress to develop a clear strategy in the region. The current debate marked the start of an important process which should usher in a new era in relations with the South.
The PRESIDENT said he was pleased to welcome Luc Van den Brande, President of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union. The Congress had forged close ties with the Committee of the Regions and there was ever greater co-operation between the two institutions. Luc Van den Brande was well known for his commitment to European construction and for his work within the Parliamentary Assembly. He had recently devoted his energies to giving a territorial dimension to the Barcelona process and to the Union for the Mediterranean. Congress members would like to hear about what was being done to help towns and cities in the Mediterranean.
Next May, for the first time, regional and authorities would gather in Brussels as a Euro-Mediterranean association.
The two institutions had a common goal: to build stronger partnerships with local and regional authorities and to pool their efforts. The Congress wished to be closely involved in this initiative, by obtaining observer status, for example. In the latest preliminary talks, participants had agreed on the need for North/South parity and for all authorities to be involved. Luc Van den Brande would provide details of the project but in the meantime, the Congress welcomed these new synergies.
Luc VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium), President of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union, began by wishing President Mildon a speedy recovery. He spoke of the profound respect he had for him professionally, and also of his personal friendship with this man who had done so much for the Euro-Mediterranean partnership.
When the new Euro-Mediterranean dialogue started, the EU Committee of the Regions had given local and regional elected representatives an active role in the Union for the Mediterranean. With their on-the-ground expertise, they had made an innovative contribution to a process which, in the past, had been dogged by over-centralisation. Likewise, the lack of a forum for dialogue between local and regional communities had wrecked the plans for South-South integration.
The speaker welcomed the support shown at the Marseilles ministerial meeting for the Committee of the Regions’ proposal to form a Euro-Mediterranean regional and local assembly, know as ARLEM, which would bring a territorial dimension to governance of the Union for the Mediterranean. In partnership with the representative associations - ARLEM’s multifaceted nature was key to its success - this assembly would provide a political forum for around 80 members, 10 of which would represent the European associations in the Union. It would give greater prominence to the process by relating it more closely to the everyday concerns of ordinary citizens. Engaging actively with all the parties concerned, it would express opinions both on the governance of the Mediterranean Union and on specific projects on which authorities in the North and South would work together. It would serve as an interface between supply and demand for decentralised co-operation and provide a showcase for co-operation projects on both shores of the Mediterranean. And lastly, it would serve as a catalyst for projects designed to give regions a more competitive edge.
The speaker was strongly in favour of Ian Micallef’s proposal to involve the Congress in ARLEM’s work, saying it would be a definite asset. He pledged to support the Congress’s application for observer status and invited it to attend the inaugural session on 14 May in Brussels.
The whole of Europe would benefit from this partnership, just as the Mediterranean Union would benefit from the experience of local and regional authorities in the European Union, beyond the Mediterranean. The partnership would become fully operative when it had captured the attention of European citizens, and would help to create equilibrium in the Euro-Mediterranean region, which was essential if citizens on all three shores of the Mediterranean were to have a stable future.
On 13 February last, the Committee of the Regions had unanimously adopted an own-initiative report on city diplomacy, which was an essential means of achieving social cohesion, sustainable development and conflict resolution. The previous week, too, the speaker had raised these issues at Nicosia, and the Committee was currently working with local authorities in Cyprus to build trust between the two communities on the island. The same approach held for everywhere else in Europe: local and regional authorities could play a part in dismantling barriers, building democracy, upholding the rule of law and fostering respect for human rights and minority rights, in keeping with the Framework Convention which was the reference text for all European authorities.
The rule of law and promoting human rights were ongoing objectives, shared by all locally elected representatives, who had been pursuing them in recent decades as Europe expanded eastwards. It was because these fundamental values could be not taken for granted that the European Commission and the Czech Presidency had asked the Committee of the Regions to contribute to the partnership in eastern Europe, so that local and regional authorities could have a say in it. The same approach should be adopted with the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean.
The political crisis in the Middle East must not be allowed to interfere with the ambitions for the Union for the Mediterranean. In Paris, these same ambitions had prompted 43 countries to turn the page on the Barcelona process, an enterprise which, for all its merits, had fallen victim to international politics. The Union for the Mediterranean had served to depoliticise Euro-Mediterranean dialogue. Inclusive, representative and operating on a parity basis, it should contribute to regional and urban development and avoid falling into the trap that the Barcelona dialogue had fallen into. The speaker issued a rallying call to local and regional representatives across the Mediterranean who cared about the future of this partnership, urging them to give more emphasis to the territorial aspect of the Union, and to help ARLEM get started by appointing their respective members. He invited the Congress to contribute in a variety of ways.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Khaled OSAILY, Mayor of Hebron.
Khaled OSAILY, Mayor of Hebron, said he was honoured to have this opportunity to address the Congress and, on behalf of the Palestinian people, expressed sincere gratitude for the support provided by the European Commission, which was the Palestinian Authority’s biggest donor, having given over a billion dollars. It had a key role to play in the creation of a Palestinian state and its coexistence with Israel. That said, Palestinians were anxious for the Commission to become even more involved in the peace process, beyond its current role as a facilitator.
That was the way to move the peace process forward and to find lasting solutions both for the Palestinians and for the region as a whole. Such solutions must be based on an end to occupation, with all that that implied in terms of the free movement of people, goods and services and respect for the efforts to promote sustainable development. It also meant putting an end to the expansion of existing settlements, to the confiscation of land and human rights violations.
Mahmoud Abbas’s presidency, backed by the Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, offered a unique opportunity to move towards peace and stability. In order to do that, however, Palestine must have a genuine partner and the current climate in Israel was hardly conducive to such a partnership, especially since the last parliamentary elections.
The government, the municipalities and all the Palestinian local authorities, in particular the Hebron authorities, had active links with the European Union and all its member states. Palestinian towns had established good relations with towns and cities in Europe and together they were developing projects and initiatives which they hoped would have a long-term impact.
The European Parliament and the European Commission had sent numerous missions to Hebron, which had also received visits from the foreign affairs ministers of France, Norway and the United Kingdom and from Tony Blair, representing the Quartet. Everyone who had visited had appreciated the efforts made to create normal conditions for local residents, and to offer them choices so that life became worth living.
The Palestinians needed all the support their friends and partners could give them. Thanks to twinning agreements, co-operation and exchanges of experience, they had established an extensive network with towns and regions, many of which were represented in the hemicycle. The task now was to join forces in order to put an end to the conditions which the city of Hebron was currently forced to endure. It was effectively split into two parts, one of which was under Israeli control. 110 crossing points had been blocked, more than 1,800 shops forcibly shut and over 1,000 homes evacuated. All this was intolerable from a humanitarian point of view, especially as the settlements were continuing to expand in the heart of the old town, with Palestinians regularly forced to surrender their land. These measures were plainly aimed at eliminating a cultural heritage that was more than 6,000 years old. Following the desecration of Abraham’s grave, joint action was needed to get Unesco to place Hebron on the World Heritage List.
Following the declarations adopted in Istanbul and Palermo, this Congress session should usher in a period of closer ties with all the Palestinian cites, in particular Hebron which accounted for more than a third of Palestine’s GDP.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) pointed out that Khaled Osaily had spoken not only on behalf of the city of Hebron but also on behalf of the Association of Palestinian Local Authorities, which had observer status with the Congress and with which the arrangements for future co-operation had been discussed the previous day, in high-level talks.
He went on to welcome Etienne Butzbach, Mayor of Belfort, member of the Euro-Mediterranean Research Centre and member of the Mediterranean Commission of United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG). He reminded delegates that in June 2008 a meeting had been held in Marseilles under the auspices of the UCLG.
Etienne BUTZBACH (France), Mayor of Belfort and member of the Mediterranean Commission of United Cities and Local Governments, proposed to tell the story of authorities which had been involved for many years in Euro-Mediterranean and which for the past 20 years had had ties with Algeria, Morocco and indeed the whole of the Mediterranean region. For the past 14 years, they had also had links with Hebron.
The Mediterranean Commission of UCLG, which had already existed within the World Federation of United Cities, was a cross-sectoral organisation representing the three shores of the Mediterranean. It had a rotating tripartite presidency made up of Mr El Jazouli, Mayor of Marrakech, Ms Bresso, President of the Piedmont Region, and Mr Ariss, Mayor of Beirut. Its technical secretariat was based in Marseilles.
On 26 November 2005, in Barcelona, the Commission had held a Euromed forum for towns and regions which had in turn decided to set up a permanent forum in June 2008. This last had highlighted the role of the Commission and underlined the need to “create a system for the formal representation for local and regional authorities in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership”. The Committee of the Regions had accordingly suggested creating a Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly (ARLEM), whose first meeting would be held in Brussels on 14 May next and would include two workshops on “decentralisation and local governance” and “environmental issues”, run by the UCLG and CPMR networks respectively.
In 2009 and 2010 the Commission was hoping to build on the efforts already made, secure recognition for the role of local and regional authorities in the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and make it easier for authorities to obtain funding for capacity building.
The strategic importance of the European partnership had been recognised by all governments, as evidenced by the statements of intent made within the framework of the Union for the Mediterranean.
There were, however, numerous obstacles.
With regard firstly to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, recognition of the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians to live within secure borders was essential if there was to be peace and prosperity in the region.
The Barcelona process had failed. There had been high hopes for this major forum, which was the first to bring together all the partners, but the rift had merely widened. What was needed, therefore, was a commitment on the scale of the recent endeavours to help central and eastern Europe.
Lastly, the current crisis showed that we could not rely on the market alone to drive development. Public authorities also had a crucial role to play. Action by local and regional authorities was essential for sustainable, socially responsible development.
By promoting active citizenship, local and regional authorities were helping to strengthen democracy. Contributing as they did to balanced development, they could help prevent over-concentration of population and wealth in the largest metropolitan areas in Europe. Europe should therefore develop a wide-ranging programme of cohesion funds and structural funds to support their decentralised activities. At the same time, efforts needed to be made in the South to build the capacity of decentralised authorities: not everything could come from the North. The Mediterranean Commission of UCLG was endeavouring to promote suitable institutional machinery.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) thanked Etienne Butzbach and welcomed Jesmond Mugliett, Vice-President of the 2nd Standing Committee, Member of Parliament.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean worked in close partnership with the Congress for the greater good of local and regional authorities on both shores of the Mediterranean. The local and regional aspect of Euro-Mediterranean co-operation was a vital ingredient in its success.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean had recently discussed a draft Charter of the Mediterranean. The headings of the four chapters of this charter said it all: “A common heritage”, “A shared space”, “A collective challenge” and “Engagement for the future”. This last topic was precisely what was being discussed that day.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Jesmond Mugliett.
Jesmond MUGLIETT (Malta), member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean, Vice-President of the 2nd Standing Committee, Member of Parliament, said he was very pleased to have this opportunity to tell the Congress about the work of a parliamentary assembly where all the national parliaments in the region could come together on an equal footing. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean had held its inaugural session in Amman (Jordan) in 2006. Its headquarters in Malta were officially inaugurated in November 2007.
With a view to finding common solutions to the challenges facing the region and ensuring its prosperity, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean had three standing committees: one on security and regional stability, one on economic, social and environmental co-operation and one on dialogue among civilisations and human rights. Based on the key issues identified by the Assembly, ad hoc committees could also be set up. Although the reports and resolutions adopted were not legally binding per se, they were a “soft diplomacy” tool for dealing with issues such as conflicts, the environment, energy, migration and economic growth.
After just two years of operation, the Assembly had now reached cruising speed. Partnerships had been forged, including notably with other parliamentary assemblies (e.g. WEU, NATO, Black Sea Euroregion) and with the World Bank and the UN.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean (PAM) had established itself as a platform for equal with equal dialogue, where differences could be acknowledged. There had been discussions, for example, on displaced persons and environmental refugees. Indeed, the PAM’s definition of this last group had been adopted two weeks earlier in Limassol.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean felt the need to step up its co-operation with major international organisations in order to develop its expertise. A young institution with a modest budget, it was constantly refining its procedures and different member states were being asked to host meetings, providing an opportunity to study the host country’s best practice in the energy sector or disaster management, for example. PAM meetings also afforded an opportunity for civil society representatives to join in the discussions.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean was very concerned about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and believed that a two-state solution with Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within secure and internationally recognised borders would bring peace and security to the region.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean was also trying to find new approaches to environmental and socio-economic issues. The General Secretariat would in future be working closely with the special task force set up to study developments in the region.
The Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean also wished to be closer to European citizens in order to better appreciate their everyday concerns. What could be done to involve citizens more in its activities? How to facilitate their participation in the decision-making process? On 21 March next, International Mediterranean Day, on the theme of “shared values and shared aspirations”, would focus on young people. With regard to relations with other international organisations, these needed to be improved, with more public hearings and invitations for public submissions. PAM’s Secretary General had also invited NGOs to attend the various meetings of the Assembly to enable them to benefit from the region’s cultural wealth and diversity. The Assembly likewise intended to extend its collaboration with various universities in the Mediterranean region, in order to create a network for sharing knowledge and bring citizens closer together.
More initiatives were needed in order to bridge the gap between European institutions and European citizens. Although Mediterranean countries had every reason to be united, they continued to be divided by disputes and conflicts whose origins dated back many centuries. Many issues still needed to be addressed at regional level, chief among them the brain-drain, terrorism and human trafficking. The conflict in the Middle East, moreover, posed a threat to peace and stability in the Mediterranean region. The Council of Europe had a key role to play here, by identifying best practice and showing that it was possible to engage all the stakeholders in constructive dialogue. Hence PAM’s keen interest in stepping up its co-operation with the Council of Europe. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Ms Loizidou, municipal councillor since 2001 and member of the Congress since 2007.
Irène LOIZIDOU (Cyprus, R, EPP/CD) thanked the Congress for inviting her and said that despite its small size, her native Cyprus was a major player in Euro-Mediterranean co-operation. Cyprus’s local and regional authorities consisted of towns and regions. The towns accounted for 65% of the total population and were responsible inter alia for waste processing, the upkeep of roads and green areas and health care facilities, as well as social services, the arts, sport and school activities. Most of their revenue came from taxes, while infrastructure projects were financed by central government. Cyprus was divided into six provinces, each of which was headed by a senior official appointed by central government. Through its funding, the European Union was contributing to the development of local and regional authorities. Local organisations were involved in rewarding exchanges of experience with local players in other parts of Europe. The towns and regions played a major role in ensuring that citizens enjoyed a good quality of life.
Launched in 1995, the Barcelona Process aimed at creating a common market for the Mediterranean countries had helped stimulate their economic and social development through private and public investment. Peace and democracy could only come about through dialogue. In this respect, the EU Committee of the Regions had recently recognised the importance of city diplomacy. Towns and cities were key players when it came to improving Euro-Mediterranean co-operation. The summit of the Union for the Mediterranean held in July 2008 and the Marseilles conference had recognised the role of local authorities. The new approach adopted by the European neighbourhood policy and the increased emphasis on Euro-Mediterranean dialogue provided an opportunity to introduce optimal governance within the framework of Euro-Mediterranean co-operation. The Congress of Local and Regional Authorities had forged useful contacts with the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. On 7 October 2008, the EU Committee of the Regions had approved the setting-up of an assembly for Euro-Mediterranean co-operation at local and regional level.
Cyprus’s local authorities, which were eager to take part, were also taking a close interest in the work of the Mediterranean Commission of UCLG. The Union of Cyprus Municipalities was a member of the Council of European Municipalities and Regions, which was particularly concerned to promote twinning. The Assembly of European Regions had set up a working group entitled “Mediterranean regions”, while the Association of European Border Regions had formed a working group entitled “External borders” to deal, inter alia, with issues relating to regions on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. Other examples of structures in which Cypriot local authorities were involved were the permanent committee of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership, the Network of Eastern External Border Regions, the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions, etc. These were all important initiatives.
The PRESIDENT declared the discussion open and gave the floor to Gaye Doganoglu.
Gaye DOGANOGLU (Turkey, L, EPP/CD) believed that setting up a Union for the Mediterranean would require a sustained effort by everyone involved and a shared commitment to overcoming differences of opinion. Local and regional authorities, which by definition were close to citizens, had much to contribute here. They were open to transfrontier co-operation. The task now was to boost this co-operation through a specialised body such as the Euro-Mediterranean Regional and Local Assembly, which operated under the umbrella of the Committee of the Regions.
To enable this instrument to operate, however, the range of participants should be extended to all 43 member countries of the Euro-Mediterranean Union, rather than confining it to the 27 member states of the Committee of the Regions. The Barcelona process had attracted criticism because Europe had tried too hard to impose its views. It was worth remembering that.
As to the question of where to site the headquarters of the new body, obviously they should be as close to the Mediterranean as possible. Marseilles would make a good candidate, therefore, but the ideal place was Istanbul, a city that lay at the crossroads between East and West, North and South, Christianity and Islam, the developed world and the developing world. Turkey was also a member of the Council of Europe, NATO, the OSCE and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and had observer status with the African Union.
Istanbul had the further advantage of being easily accessible by all means of transport. The same, incidentally, could said be for Antalya, where the speaker was a local councillor.
It was only logical that the Union’s Secretariat should be in Barcelona as that was where the movement had started. In the interests of balance, however, other structural subdivisions of the new institution should be sited in the eastern part of the Mediterranean.
The PRESIDENT gave the floor to Carmen Patrizia Muratore.
Carmen Patrizia MURATORE (Italy, R, ILDG) outlined an initiative by the Liguria region. Entitled “Dialogue in the western Mediterranean” it consisted of discussions to be held in Genoa on 13 and 14 March 2009, with the aim of improving cohesion and co-operation between the five Mediterranean countries that were in the Arab Maghreb Union and five European countries, namely Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Malta.
Participants would discuss strategic issues such as immigration, fundamental freedoms and rights, sustainable development, mobility and cultural exchanges. This forum in Genoa was intended as an experiment in sub-regional integration. Its organisers were counting on a high level of participation by civil society, NGOs and foundations. Anyone who wished to know more could consult the Liguria region’s website.
The speaker concluded by expressing the hope that the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities would take part as well.
The PRESIDENT gave the floor to Ioannis Stratakis
Ioannis STRATAKIS (Greece, R, SOC), standing in for Ionnis Michas, who was unable to attend, began by wishing Yavuz Mildon a speedy recovery.
The dialogue begun that day was very important as it confirmed the common political will of the various European bodies to move forward in the dialogue with the Mediterranean. Local authorities had a key role to play in this context as they were the ones who could sort out the problems encountered in everyday life. They also formed a very powerful network which could only strengthen relations between countries.
Some moves had been made in this direction back in 1995 in Barcelona, although they had not been successful. United by history, the countries along the Mediterranean were well aware of the difficulties, not least on the political front. The Palestinians were calling for the creation of an independent state, the withdrawal of foreign troops and an end to human rights violations. At the same time, religious issues, racism, xenophobia and intolerance were poisoning relations between Palestine and Israel. Increased co-operation between local authorities would facilitate dialogue.
Social responsibility, the integration of immigrants, environmental protection and cultural development: these were all areas that were ripe for co-operation. The European solidarity network could serve as a means of enabling local authorities to co-ordinate their efforts to tackle poverty and social exclusion. Information sharing could lead to the introduction of better practice to help the most vulnerable sections of society.
Conferences, seminars and meetings within the framework of Euro-Mediterranean co-operation were planned, in order to address immigration issues, for example. All that required increased support from the structural funds, however.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) was obliged to interrupt the speaker who had already spoken for twice his allotted time.
He gave the floor to Ludmila Sfirloaga .
Ludmila SFIRLOAGA (Romania, R, SOC) said she was glad to have this opportunity to address
Luc Van den Brande at a time when the Congress was seeking observer status with the Euro-Mediterranean Local and Regional Assembly (ARLEM). The Congress had considerable experience in the field of co-operation, thanks to a host of partnerships with institutions such as the Organisation of Arab countries and Palestinian associations.
What role could the Congress play within ARLEM? What could it bring to developing regions on the southern shore of the Mediterranean?
The PRESIDENT gave the floor to Michael Cohen.
Michael COHEN (Malta, L, SOC) said this was an important issue: the Euro-Mediterranean partnership needed bolstering in order to better ensure the security of the Mediterranean region. Joint action was absolutely vital in order to set up a migration monitoring centre to combat irregular migration and help deal with the refugee problem. Only by working together could we hope to resolve these issues through social, economic and cultural measures.
The Mediterranean was a factor in the defence and security of Europe: unless there was peace in the Mediterranean basin, there would be no peace in Europe. Local and regional authorities needed to become more involved.
The speaker was pleased to see the President of the Committee of the Regions among those present and was confident that ARLEM would pave the way for more effective co-operation between the two shores of the Mediterranean.
The PRESIDENT gave the floor to Fabio Pellegrini.
Fabio PELLEGRINI (Italy, L, SOC) pointed out that COPEM had been working on this subject for years and had succeeded in establishing closer contacts on both sides of the Mediterranean. Liaison offices had been set up in numerous countries. They had had to contend with myriad problems. As far as peace, security and growth were concerned, the Barcelona process had set targets that were still valid today even though they had not been achieved yet. Introducing the planned radical reforms by 2010 was no easy task. Indeed, it was a long and complex process.
With the Israeli-Palestinian conflict hampering the development of Euro-Mediterranean relations, the main task of the new body was to secure peace and pave the way for the emergence of two sovereign states.
What kind of ties might be created with the Committee of the Regions? Up to now, the Union for the Mediterranean had been concerned mainly with inter-governmental matters, and local and regional authorities had had little or no say. Was the new body a representative one? It might be an idea to spell out its role and tasks.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said he must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of members on the speakers list who had been present during the debate but had not been able to speak could be handed in to the secretariat, office 1081, for publication in the official report.
Some questions having been addressed directly to certain speakers, they would be permitted to answer these briefly.
The PRESIDENT gave the floor to Luc Van den Brande.
Luc VAN DEN BRANDE (Belgium) congratulated Congress members on the contribution they had made. Although he did not have time to answer all the questions that had been put, he did wish to make a few points.
Firstly, it was wrong to make a distinction between the Europe of the Council of Europe and that of the European Union. There was only one Europe.
ARLEM was not just another in a long line of agencies but rather a means of bridging certain gaps in the institutional set-up and acting as a link between various bodies operating in the field. Far from being an attempt by the North to dictate to the South, as Ms Doganoğlu had suggested, ARLEM was a genuine partnership that brought together local and regional authorities from the European Union and from the eastern and southern shores of the Mediterranean, institutions and associations. Leaving aside the legitimate concerns about the format of this assembly, the main thing was that it was contributing to the success of the Euro-Mediterranean partnership by actively engaging with all those working in the field.
On the subject of its headquarters, the organisation would have only a small secretariat in Brussels. Its epicentre was in all 43 member states. ARLEM would pull together existing efforts; in this respect, the speaker liked the idea of having branch offices of the kind that already existed in Marseilles, Malta and Turkey and said that he himself had recently observed a Euro-Mediterranean initiative in Naples. As to what the specific role of this new instrument would be, he told Ms Sfirloagathat he had invited the Congress to attend ARLEM’s inaugural session not merely out of politeness but so that the partnership between these two institutions could blossom.
The parliamentary diplomacy mentioned three years ago in Tallinn must be followed up by local diplomacy, in particular city diplomacy. That was the thinking behind the Committee of the Regions’ decision to rename its conference room after the Cypriot city of Lefkosia. City diplomacy should provide an opportunity to work together, within the framework of the EU’s priorities for the Mediterranean: that was the important thing.
The inaugural meeting on 14 May in Brussels would be followed by other meetings elsewhere. The speaker welcomed the invitation to Istanbul and said that all the partners must do their bit to support the new body.
Lastly, as Mr Butzbach had said, it was important not to view the Union for the Mediterranean purely in terms of the countries around the Mediterranean, but to include all the members of the European Union and even Council of Europe members. Northern European countries, eastern European countries: the co-operation must extend to everyone, no-one should be left out. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Jesmond Mugliett.
Jesmond MUGLIETT (Malta) was pleased that this high-calibre debate had raised the question of the kind of co-operation to be established in the Euro-Mediterranean area and the allocation of roles. As suggested by Mr Salles, Vice-President of France’s National Assembly, both assemblies, far from overlapping, were in fact complementary. The great thing about the Parliamentary Assembly of the Mediterranean was that all the parties were represented there equally, and that, with one exception, all the countries around the Mediterranean were involved. Using a tried-and-tested modus operandi, it was there to serve the interests of each and every one of us and of the region as a whole.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Etienne Butzbach.
Etienne BUTZBACH (France) thanked the Congress for addressing the major geostrategic issue of Euro-Mediterranean partnership, which was something local authorities should take up. ARLEM must fit in with the efforts of local and regional authorities: it was not enough to create new institutions. Local and regional authorities must also engage in a tangible way in decentralised co-operation with their partners in the South.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Irene Loizidou.
Irene LOIZIDOU (Cyprus, R, EPP/CD) said there was a multitude of agencies promoting Euro-Mediterranean partnership. What was needed was not more structures but rather proper co-ordination of these agencies.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) welcomed this debate, seeing it as proof of the Congress’s determination to push ahead with Euro-Mediterranean co-operation. He called on Congress members to keep their sights fixed firmly on the future as the Mediterranean region was a key factor in global stability. Local and regional authorities had the experience, the contacts and the motivation needed to secure democracy in the region, turning it into a model of intercultural dialogue for the rest of the world.
The discussion was declared closed.
[CG(16)13]
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) informed the assembly that Terry Davis, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, had agreed to answer written questions. In keeping with the Rules of Procedure, he would only answer questions from members present in the hemicycle. There were six written questions, two of which would be dealt with jointly.
He gave the floor to the Secretary General.
The SECRETARY GENERAL recalled how, five years earlier, he had been elected head of the Council of Europe, how the Council itself was now 60 years old and how the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities had been around in one form or another for 52 years.
Nowadays the Council had a greater political role and its institutional position had been strengthened as well. Thanks to the new charter adopted two years earlier by the Committee of Ministers, this year, for the first time, the Congress would be holding two plenary sessions. That was a positive development, as the Congress was the only body mandated to monitor local democracy in Europe and to reflect the importance of local authorities.
There was no doubt that the past five years had seen an improvement in the Council’s position on the international stage. A directorate of external relations, separate from the directorate of political affairs, had been created and the former ambassador of Hungary appointed to head it. The results had been immediate, with the establishment of regular institutional contacts with the European Union and the appointment of a new special representative of the Secretary General in Brussels. The strengthening of the Council’s position had been welcomed by the European Commission.
There had been other positive developments as well. For the first time, the Secretary General of the Council of Europe had been invited to attend the Francophone Summit. He had also been invited, again for the first time, to the United Nations where there was to be a conference at the end of March on human rights and democracy, with numerous prominent figures from the United States, the Caribbean and South America. He would also be the first Secretary General to give a talk to the Board of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in London, next March. In addition, he would be attending the United Nations debates on the resolutions affecting the Council of Europe and had received an invitation from the Alliance of Civilizations.
Over the past year, the number of references to the Council of Europe in the media had increased by 89%, i.e. more than 10,000 articles and press releases. The Directorate of Communication had put forward numerous ideas for making the public more aware of what the Council did. Open Days provided an opportunity for the residents of Strasbourg, Alsace and neighbouring regions to visit the Council and on the forthcoming “Museums Night”, the public would have a chance to view the Council’s magnificent art collection, free of charge.
The Council had excellent relations with the new Strasbourg city council, as it had had with its predecessor. It was mindful of the fact that it was in Strasbourg not as a tourist but as a member of the local community.
There had also been some extremely successful campaigns in other member states: against discrimination, to help young people, to combat violence against women and discrimination against the Roma. On such occasions, as well as holding colloquies and seminars for specialists, the Council reached out directly to the public, in an effort to communicate its core values.
At the top of the Organisation, various activities previously handled by Legal Affairs had been transferred to the Directorate General of Democracy and Political Affairs. As a result, DG-DPA was now in charge of a network of 16 schools of political studies and, during the “universities” which it ran in the summer, hundreds of people squeezed into the hemicycle which was fuller then than during Parliamentary Assembly sessions. Such activities had proved immensely popular and had met with a tremendous response.
The Council had also set up a committee to monitor the 2005 Convention on trafficking in human beings, which had been ratified by a very large number of member states. Combating this new form of slavery required attention to be focused both on the countries of origin and on the countries of destination.
Fresh efforts were being made on the intercultural dialogue front, now that all the governments had accepted the white paper that had been published the previous year.
The Council was also conducting activities in the fields of education, sport, youth and social cohesion. A high-level task force had been set up to promote solidarity as a basis for social cohesion. The year before, ministers meeting in Moscow had mapped out their priorities in this area.
The Council was also endeavouring to put its values into practice within the Organisation itself. It had a more detailed organisation chart and was using new external auditors. It had also been quicker than the United Nations to apply accounting rules that were compatible with international standards. This achievement was down to the Secretariat staff who had worked harder and more effectively than ever.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Herwig Van Staa to reply to the Secretary General.
Herwig VAN STAA (Austria, R, EPP/CD) thanked the Secretary General for his reply and for his sterling efforts over the past few years.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) invited Terry Davis to reply to questions Nos. 2a from Jean-Claude Frécon and 2b from Mukhu Aliev.
The SECRETARY GENERAL said that a zero-real-growth budget meant that funding merely kept pace with inflation. With pressure from some quarters to move to zero nominal growth, this policy of zero real growth that the Secretary General had managed to maintain throughout his time in office could be regarded as something of an achievement, particularly as other international organisations, such as the OECD, had not been so lucky.
Although it was not yet known what the following year’s budget would be, the forecasts had once again been based on zero real growth. The costs arising from the increase in salaries and the need to provide secretarial services for the new directorates would be absorbed through redeployment.
The next budgetary year did admittedly pose a particular problem. In previous years, thanks to under-spending, millions of Euros had been left over. Not all the planned activities had been implemented. In 2008, however, almost all the money had been spent, with just 300,000 to 400,000 Euros to spare.
Next year, too, the return on the Council of Europe’s accounts would be lower owing to the decline in interest rates.
The Secretary General felt he had been fairly generous towards the Congress in recent years. The number of staff in the Congress had increased, in a way that the Parliamentary Assembly could only envy. Although he himself had never been a member of the Congress, he had been inspired by his experience as a local councillor to try to correct the tendency in the past to underestimate it.
The Secretary General welcomed the efforts made by some states which had provided extra funds, in particular for retirement pensions. He said he would be making his budgetary proposals over the next two months.
Replying to Mukhu Aliev, he said it had always been his wish that the Congress should be treated on a par with the Parliamentary Assembly. Local and regional elected representatives must be able to come together in the same way as parliamentarians.
He reminded delegates that he personally had proposed a productivity gain of just 1%: it was the Committee of Ministers who had insisted on 2%. Congress members should complain to their respective governments, therefore, possibly in tandem with members of the Parliamentary Assembly, who had contacts in the ministries and who voted on the budgets in the national parliaments.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Jean-Claude Frécon and Mukhu Aliev to respond, if they so wished, to the Secretary General’s reply.
Jean-Claude FRECON (France, L, SOC) did not share the Secretary General’s optimism. At the behest of the Bureau, which was unanimous on this point, and with the backing of the chairs of the three political groups, he wished to sound the alarm. The Congress was in decline and there was a danger that it might wither away altogether.
The previous year had already seen operational cuts. That was why interpreters’ booths were now standing empty and some Congress members were unable to find documents translated into their languages. Similarly, the funding allocated for election monitoring had been cut by 70% and it was planned to reduce the budget of the European Network of Training Organisations for local and regional authorities, ENTO.
The previous year, the Congress had had to focus on two priorities: local democracy week and development of the Euro-Mediterranean Union. Now it was being told it could keep just one of those activities. Which to choose?
The speaker concluded with a reminder of the comments made that morning by President Ian Micallef: the Congress needed some wind in its sails. What was the use of wind, however, if there were no sails? And if a storm should strike, the ship would sink.
Mukhu ALIEV (Russia, R, SOC) said he was satisfied overall with the Secretary General’s reply. The Congress did need support and resources, however.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to the Secretary General.
The SECRETARY GENERAL believed he had given the Congress more attention than his predecessors. He pointed out that he did not determine the overall size of the budget but merely allocated it, and once again urged Congress members to knock on ministers’ doors in their respective capitals.
Admittedly, the Congress had many calls on its resources but it had to make choices, focusing on certain activities rather than others, as himself had had to do when he was a local councillor.
Pointing to the reduction in interpretation costs that had been achieved under a new framework contract, he said he did not believe that there was no scope for productivity gains in the Congress. All the other Council of Europe departments had managed to achieve them. He therefore urged Congress members to change their tactics when dealing with the authorities, otherwise they would be giving them a stick to beat them with.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) invited Mr Davis to answer question No. 3, from Svetlana Orlova concerning the global financial crisis.
The SECRETARY GENERAL agreed with Svetlana Orlova that social cohesion was a key issue. The first conference of Council of Europe ministers responsible for social cohesion held in Moscow recently had proved particularly interesting. The Council of Europe was determined that there should be no reduction in funding in this area, despite opposition from some member states. He himself had had the opportunity to address a gathering of Russian students in Moscow, to whom he had sought to explain the need to reconcile freedom of expression and journalistic responsibility. The Russian media had given extensive coverage to the conference, proof that Russia was a democratic country, willing to accept criticism. It was also the biggest member state in the Council of Europe, a fact that should not be overlooked.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Svetlana Orlova.
Svetlana ORLOVA (Russian Federation, R, EPP/CD) said that the current financial crisis, more than previous ones, had hit disadvantaged groups, in particular women, the unemployed and people with disabilities and that it was important now to give them our support. Not one person at the Moscow conference had failed to grasp the urgent need to provide every possible assistance to these groups.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) invited Mr Davis to answer question No. 4, from M. Krug, concerning the Council of Europe’s activities in the South Caucasus.
The SECRETARY GENERAL said that this region was high on the Council of Europe’s agenda and that new representatives had recently been appointed to review the situation there. The Council of Europe was conducting numerous activities in this area and programmes to assist local governments were being rolled out in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. There was also to be a support plan for the presidential election process.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Günther Krug.
Günther KRUG (Germany, R, SOC) thanked the Secretary General for his hard work and said he hoped that tangible results would soon be achieved in the region.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to the Secretary General.
The SECRETARY GENERAL said that the South Caucasus had been overshadowed in Europe by the Balkans, which had always attracted far more media interest, probably because it was easier to cover.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that the Congress was likewise endeavouring to target its activities at the South Caucasus. Visits would take place shortly to promote local democracy in the region.
He invited Mr Davis to answer written question No. 5, from Inger Linge, concerning the additional protocol to the Charter of Local Self-Government.
The SECRETARY GENERAL recalled how the previous month, the Committee of Ministers had adopted the Congress recommendation on this subject and asked a group of experts to consider before the end of the year whether various new topics should be included in the Charter. Obviously the Congress would be consulted.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Inger Linge.
Inger LINGE (Sweden, R, EPP/CD) thanked the Secretary General for his reply and stressed that this additional protocol was very important in terms of the relationship between local and regional government.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) gave the floor to Ludmila Sfirloaga, President of the Chamber of Regions.
Ludmila SFIRLOAGA (Romania, R, SOC) wished, on behalf of the Chamber of Regions, to thank the Secretary General for the help he had given the Congress and the Chamber of Regions. This being the last time he would address the Congress as Secretary General of the Council of Europe, she wished to express her appreciation for the support he had given the Chamber of Regions in preparing the draft European Charter of Regional Democracy, which was a significant text.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) likewise wished to thank the Secretary General for all the years he had devoted to the Council of Europe. The criticism voiced by the Congress had never been directed at him personally, for he had always been a fine ambassador for the Congress in his dealings with other Council of Europe bodies.
Ludmila Sfirloaga (Romania, R, SOC), Congress Vice-President, took the Chair.
[CG(16)6REC]
[CG(16)6RES]
[CG(16)6REP]
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) said that the next item on the agenda was the presentation and discussion of the report on behalf of the Committee on Sustainable Development on public water and sewer services.
All life forms needed water. Managing this resource in such a way as to meet both current needs and the needs of future generations was a major concern of the Congress, in particular its Committee on Sustainable Development. If adopted, the draft recommendation and draft resolution would be the Congress’s contribution to the 5th World Water Forum taking place in Istanbul in two weeks’ time. The texts called for a strengthening of the role of local and regional authorities in the water sector, a role that had already been recognised at the 4th World Forum in Mexico in 2006. Further action was now needed, however.
The PRESIDENT apologised on behalf of Vladimir Gorodetskiy, co-Rapporteur, who was unable to be present, and called Piet Jansen to present his report.
Piet JANSEN (Netherlands, R, EPP/CD) Rapporteur, began by talking about how water spoke to our deepest emotions. The happiness on the faces of children at the sight of fresh, running water was one striking example of this.
It was estimated, however, that by 2025 half of the world’s population would be facing water shortages or have difficulty obtaining access to it, partly because of growing scarcity and partly because the cost of water would have increased. At present, many countries had outdated infrastructure. The challenge for all European countries was to develop and to speed up the introduction of strategies and policies that would improve water supplies and sewer services.
Studies had shown that, where water was concerned, public management was no better or worse than private management. The challenge was to identify the advantages and disadvantages of both management systems. Purely public management was liable to be inefficient while purely private management could lead to price increases. What was needed, therefore, was a mixture of public oversight and private participation. Local and regional authorities must in any case have the freedom to choose between the two management systems.
Water was a collective commodity which must be accessible to all, provided they used it in a reasonable manner. The cost of modernising the way this resource was managed must be factored into the price paid by consumers. There was also a need to improve water supply and sewerage systems. We must learn how to avoid shortages such as those seen recently in Barcelona. That meant not using drinking water for secondary applications and finding alternative technical solutions, such as desalination.
The short- and long-term effects of global warming on water supplies would also need to be studied.
There were also ethical aspects to water management, such as the question of how to make water accessible to the poorest sections of society. In addition, good governance demanded that ordinary citizens be involved in the decision-making process as much as possible.
The Rapporteur said he was pleased to be contributing to the 5th World Water Forum, in which the Dutch delegation would be taking part. He said he had tabled two amendments to the draft resolution and thanked everyone who had helped him with the report, in particular Mr Barraqué, Mr Bressers and Mr Lulofs. He also wished to say a special thank you to the secretariat of the Committee on Sustainable Development. He concluded by alluding once again to the ability of fresh drinking water to put smiles on children’s faces.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) thanked the rapporteur and said that the 5th World Water Forum would endeavour to answer the question of how to bridge the divides that existed.
Previous gatherings of the World Forum had established a few basic principles, including the principle that supply and sewerage services should be managed as close to ordinary citizens as possible. It was important that the Istanbul Pact incorporate these principles.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) gave the floor to Dr Hasan Zuhuri Sarikaya.
Hasan Zuhuri SARIKAYA (Turkey),Co-Chair of the World Water Forum, Under-Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forestry, said it was a great pleasure for him to be there at the 16th session of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities and thanked Mr Micallef for inviting him.
Turkey was preparing to host the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul, from 16 to 22 March. As the dictum said, “water was life”. Without water, there could be no sustainable development. Nor was it possible to fight poverty and hunger without utilising water resources.
The international community must rally together to ensure that everyone had access to sufficient quantities of high-quality drinking water. They must further ensure that there was enough water for agriculture, so that food security for over eight billion people could be guaranteed in the future. Mankind also needed water to generate electricity. In other words, it was essential to manage water resources in an efficient and sustainable manner.
There was a growing global awareness of the importance of water-related issues. In that context, the Forum in Istanbul, whose main theme was “bridging divides for water”, had become a major event.
Istanbul was a symbolic city, lying as it did at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa, a gathering place for world leaders, civil society, water professionals and the media, a bridge between east and west, north and south, rich and poor, young and old, men and women, technical and political, social and economic, developed and developing regions. There was a need to co-ordinate and harmonise the activities of the various entities involved in water management. Water, after all, was a means of achieving development, prosperity and well-being. With better management of water resources, we could meet the Millennium Development Goals.
During the 5th World Forum, two days would be dedicated to local and regional authorities, with themed roundtable discussions. Through the “Istanbul Water Consensus”, local authorities would agree to step up their efforts to tackle water and sanitation issues. There would also be a meeting on 20 March 2009 between local authorities, parliamentarians and ministers. So far, nearly 8,000 people had registered for the Forum but the final figure was expected to be over 20,000. It was hoped that the forum would help to find appropriate solutions to the current problems with water supply, by providing opportunities for dialogue and for airing different viewpoints.
In Turkey, water management was the responsibility of the public authorities: the population was 70 million, of which 83% lived in towns and cities. 98% of the urban population had access to piped drinking water, compared with 82% of the general population. In 2006, 87% of the urban population were connected to the sewer network and 51% were served by some kind of wastewater treatment. Most major projects related to water or sewerage were managed by local authorities, with support from the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.
The main challenges facing Turkey with regard to public water and sewer services were the financing and pricing of water. Added to that were the problems of technology and of developing the human resources of the water agencies. Another task was to determine the optimal size of those agencies.
The speaker thanked the members of the Congress committee for their excellent work, saying it would be an important contribution to the 5th Water Forum, which all the delegates were invited to attend.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) thanked the speaker for this interesting statement and for his invitation to Turkey.
She gave the floor to Mariacristina Spinosa.
Mariacristina SPINOSA (Italy, R, SOC) pointed out that water, which was a valuable resource essential for all forms of life, was a collective commodity. The fact was, however, that over 6 billion people did not have access to drinking water, and 2.4 billion did not have access to proper sanitation, resulting in 33,000 deaths every day. With climate change and pollution, the situation was going to get even worse. To mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, governments had taken the initiative of getting the United Nations to recognise the right to drinking water as a human right.
It was important not to overlook the cultural side of the problem: citizens needed to be better informed about the importance of using water resources sensibly. In the speaker’s native Piedmont region, a project entitled “I want to drink you” aimed to educate the public about the need to change their everyday behaviour when resources were limited, as was the case with water.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) gave the floor to Konstantin Skomoraklin.
Konstantin SKOMORAKLIN (Russian Federation, L, NR) thought that the report presented was in line with international efforts to ensure more equitable water management and better access for all to this natural resource.
Russia had plentiful supplies of water: its lakes accounted for 30% of its drinking water stock, and it used only 3% of this. Unfortunately, however, these resources were not evenly distributed. The European part of Russia, where 80% of the population lived, contained just 10% of the country’s water resources. The Caucasus region, which was rich in mineral water, did not have deep enough wells to exploit these reserves and had to make do with the groundwater close to the surface.
Another problem was the distribution network. It was planned to introduce major federal programmes to supply the entire population with drinking water.
Local and regional authorities, which were responsible for managing water resources, must take account of historically determined local contexts. Closer co-operation needed to be established among all Council of Europe states.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) gave the floor to Jos Wienen.
Jos WIENEN (Netherlands, EPP/CD) said that water management was a major issue for local and regional authorities. He cited the example of the governor of California who had declared a state of emergency because of severe drought and who had called for a 20% reduction in water use.
In the current financial crisis, what could local and authorities do to secure equitable distribution of water resources and ensure sufficient investment in water management?
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) gave the floor to Line Vennesland.
Line VENNESLAND (Norway, L, ILDG) observed that investment was needed to replace infrastructure in many countries. Were European citizens going to foot the bill? What about the poorer countries of Europe?
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) said that she must now interrupt the list of speakers. The speeches of any members on the speakers list who had not been able to speak could be handed in to the secretariat, office 1081, for publication in the official report.
She gave the floor to Hasan Zuhuri Sarikaya.
Hasan Zuhuri SARIKAYA (Turkey) Co-Chair of the World Water Forum, said that with water resources in limited supply in many countries, conserving them was vital. California was managing its resources to good effect and putting its efforts into educating the public and creating a legislative framework. Without the appropriate technologies, however, no amount of education would help. Nowadays, the technology for recycling and reusing low-quality water had improved. If ordinary people were to benefit from them, however, these developments needed to be accompanied by appropriate pricing policies, so that they could contribute to the development of sustainable water management.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) gave the floor to Piet Jansen.
Piet JANSEN (Netherlands, R, EPP/CD) thanked Hasan Zuhuri Sarikaya for his very fine speech. Representatives of local authorities must defend citizens’ access to water; they had a responsibility to ensure the supply of high-quality water.
It was essential to adopt an integrated approach. In the Netherlands, for example, there was a scheme called “Room for rivers” in which government bodies at every level were involved. Water knew no boundaries, so any proposed action needed to be taken across the entire river basin.
Water, like food, was essential for life. A suitable pricing policy should be introduced so that everyone had access to drinking water.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) asked the Chair of the Committee whether she wished to speak.
Gaye DOGANOGLU (Turkey, L, EPP/CD) thanked Piet Jansen for his report and also the other speakers. A number of recent events had served to highlight the importance of water from an environmental, economic and social perspective. Water management was a primary concern of the Committee on Sustainable Development. In this area, all sections of society needed to be involved in the decision-making process, as part of a concerted approach to the problem.
The speaker ended by thanking Hasan Zuhuri Sarikaya for his invitation to the 5th World Water Forum in Istanbul and repeated it, saying that all Congress members were welcome to attend.
The general discussion was declared closed.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) put the draft Recommendation to the vote.
The draft Recommendation contained in document CG(16)6REC was put to the vote and adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) reminded delegates that the Committee had submitted a draft Resolution CG(16)6RES, to which two amendments had been tabled. She gave the floor to Piet Jansen to defend them.
Piet JANSEN (Netherlands, R, EPP/CD) presented amendment No. 1 which sought to rephrase the section of the text on the 5th World Water Forum, highlighting the role of local and regional authorities, which must be free to choose how they managed water and sewer services and to decide whether or not to accede to the Istanbul Water Consensus. Amendment No. 2 supplemented the text by emphasising the need to consult the relevant international associations of local and regional authorities.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC), noting that nobody wished to speak against the amendments, put them to the vote.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, having been successively put to the vote, were adopted.
The draft Resolution contained in document CG(16)6RES was approved, as amended.
[CG(16)7REC]
[CG(16)7RES]
[CG(16)7REP]
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) said that the next item on the agenda was the presentation and discussion of Ms Sandra Barnes’s report, on behalf of the Committee on Social Cohesion, on combating domestic violence against women. The Committee had presented a draft Recommendation and a draft Resolution.
The Council of Europe had conducted a campaign to raise awareness of this issue. Measures to combat domestic violence, which affected mainly women, were helping to reduce crime and create a more close-knit society. The report on this subject explained how local and regional authorities could implement effective prevention and assistance measures, while drawing on examples of co-ordinated action in various countries.
The PRESIDENT called Ms Barnes to present her report.
Sandra BARNES (United Kingdom, L, EPP/CD) said that a large number of women were victims of domestic violence, in towns and regions across Europe. The problem was far more widespread than commonly supposed: one woman in four suffered some form of abuse. People experienced domestic violence regardless of their social group, age, ethnic origin, disability, sexuality and lifestyle. It could take various forms, from sexual abuse to isolation and harassment. The one thing all victims had in common, however, was that ultimately they lived in a town or municipality with specific or regional authorities who were responsible for their welfare and to whom they should be able to turn.
The Congress had worked hard to combat human rights abuses of this kind. It had endeavoured to combat discrimination between the sexes and emphasised the importance of women’s participation in political life.
The Council of Europe had waged a 2-year campaign against domestic violence, and the speaker had been privileged to have taken part in the opening of this campaign which was launched in Madrid in November 2006 by the Spanish Prime Minister. It had touched a nerve in the local media as the previous night a man had murdered his partner. A photographic exhibition had been staged in various countries around Europe, featuring images and stories that were in some cases quite shocking. A short film had also been distributed in an effort to convey the real menace that a woman felt in such situations. The speaker was proud to have the poster from the campaign displayed on her office wall.
The photographs had been put in a book entitled “Break the silence on domestic violence” recently published jointly by the Congress and the Parliamentary Assembly. The Council of Europe campaign underlined the fact that each of us had a role to play in combating domestic violence. And who better to play that role than local or regional authorities given that they were confronted with the direct consequences of domestic violence on a daily basis?
All of us had a duty to break the cycle of domestic violence. One person controlling a victim’s waking moments day after day, making that person live in fear and dread was not acceptable in the twenty-first century. On the world stage politicians pontificated about world peace yet we could not achieve this in homes across Europe. Local and regional authorities should rise to the challenge of domestic violence and ensure that the appropriate services in terms of medical, psychological and financial help were available to victims.
Many local authorities were already undertaking excellent work in association with NGOs. Anyone who experienced domestic violence either as a victim or as a family member living in an abusive household could not escape the lasting effect this had on their lives.
As opinion formers, Congress members had responsibility for providing services to these vulnerable people and could make funding available to the NGOs which helped them. By continually bringing domestic violence to the debate by awareness raising in schools, youth clubs or civil society in general we should be seeking to eradicate the violence and ensure that it was not condoned by the public and the media.
The report contained examples of good practice.
The draft recommendation explained what was being asked of states: a legislative framework and global policies providing greater protection for women who suffered domestic violence and ensuring that perpetrators were prosecuted; support services evenly distributed throughout the country; collection of statistical data in a form that could be compared and contrasted throughout the regions and member states; awareness raising and education to stop future generations from seeing domestic violence as a normal activity.
The draft resolution explained what was being asked of local and regional authorities: ensure that victims had access to high-quality services and monitor perpetrators, in co-operation with NGOs; provide more information to the public through various activities, including skilling up teachers in schools and getting parliaments and governments to become more actively involved in combating domestic violence against women.
Congress members should support the draft recommendation and resolution, but it was also important that they monitor what was happening in their own countries.
This vote must be the beginning of a continuing campaign to help to remove the threat of domestic violence. The Conference of INGOs supported the idea of drafting a specific Council of Europe Convention: the Congress was willing to participate in this work and contribute to the local and regional viewpoint.
Domestic violence, in all its forms, was a public, not a private matter. Future generations should not be witnesses to this abuse and should be able to live and thrive in an atmosphere where respect, mutual support, love and wellbeing was the norm. Nobody’s scream should end in silence!
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) said she was sorry that because of the delays incurred, the Congress could not give this subject all the time it deserved.
She gave the floor to Jean-Claude Frécon.
Jean-Claude FRECON (France, L, SOC), responding to Sandra Barnes’s call for more specialised support for victims of domestic violence, said it was shocking that in countries where such facilities already existed, such as the United Kingdom or here in Strasbourg itself, with the domestic violence unit in the departmental directorate of public security, these services were now faced with cuts. The danger was that in these times of crisis, they would be replaced by non-specialist services with less experienced staff, in which case it would be the most vulnerable groups who would suffer.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) gave the floor to Zinaida Dragunkina.
Zinaida DRAGUNKINA (Russian Federation, R, EPP/CD) felt it was a great pity that such a serious issue could not be discussed at greater length and criticised the previous chairs of sessions for wasting time handing out medals.
For years now, institutions had been talking about domestic violence and yet we were no further forward. Quite apart from adopting the draft recommendation and resolution, there must be no let up in the efforts being made in this area.
The previous year, the Congress President had announced that 2008 would be the year of the family. The Russian Federation had used this year to gather large amounts of data, which it would be happy to pass on to the Congress. The truth was, though, that every day should be the day of the family. Abusers were almost always men, and the victims – women. In addition, women today led impossibly busy lives: Muscovite women had so much to do that they spent, on average, just 15 minutes a day with their families.
According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, two thirds of murders in Russia were committed by a member of the victim’s family. Every year 14,000 women were killed by their spouses, often in front of their children. Violence occurred in one quarter of Russian homes.
On her frequent prison visits, the speaker had come across women who were serving 15 or 20 years for killing husbands who had been abusing them for 10, 15 or 20 years, and many of whom had themselves been the victims of alcohol or drug abuse or unemployment. With the global downturn, the problem of domestic abuse was set to get worse because when there was not enough money for food, men started making their own alcohol at home, resulting in drunkenness and wife-beating.
Another problem was the attitude of the media. Because they saw violence on television, children were more apt to play violent games and to become abusers later in life. To prevent this kind of violence from being seen as normal, a high priority needed to be placed on family issues, and national and international standards developed to protect individuals from the pernicious effects of the media.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) said that as a woman, she was sorry she had not been able to give the speakers more time.
She gave the floor to Mariacristina Spinosa.
Mariacristina SPINOSA (Italy, R, SOC) agreed with her Russian colleague. She could not understand why a discussion such as this had been postponed until the end of the day. It was important to move away from the idea that domestic violence was a private matter. She herself had voted for a regional law which should make it easier for women to obtain access to lawyers.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) said that, as Sandra Barnes had pointed out, the work had only just begun.
This was the first time she had heard such passionate outbursts in the Congress. She, too, was sorry that she had had to wait all day for this debate.
She felt that the police ought to protect victims of domestic violence, pointing out that it was more difficult to recover from an assault than from a break-in, for example.
Although NGOs were going to be hit hard by the recession, it was important to guard against the possible knock-on effects if an organisation lost its funding.
She gave the floor to Valerio Prignachi, Chair of the Committee on Social Cohesion.
Valerio PRIGNACHI (Italy, L, EPP), Chair of the Committee on Social Cohesion, reminded delegates that the committee had conducted numerous initiatives. The aim of the campaign, to break the silence, had been achieved. He proposed that the ad hoc Committee meet in October 2009, outside of the official programme if necessary, so that everyone could have their say.
He congratulated Sandra Barnes on her report and his colleagues on the high calibre of their contributions.
The draft Recommendation contained in document CG(16)7REC was unanimously adopted.
The draft Resolution contained in document CG(16)7RES was adopted unanimously. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) said that the Committee on Social Cohesion and the Institutional Committee would meet the following day, Wednesday 4 March 2009, at 9 a.m.
She proposed that the Congress hold its next public sitting the following day, Wednesday 4 March 2009, at 10.15 a.m., with an agenda that was in keeping with the order of business adopted.
The agenda of the next public sitting was adopted.
The meeting rose at 6.40 p.m.
SECOND SITTING OF THE CONGRESS
Wednesday 4 March 2009 at 10.15 a.m.
______________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Written questions for oral reply
3. Statement by Lluís Maria de Puig,
President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
4. International financial crisis:
consequences for European local and regional authorities
5. Date, time and order of the day of the next sitting
6. Award ceremony of the Dosta! prize for municipalities
The sitting was opened at 10.20 a.m. with Ian Micallef (Malta, EPP/CD), President a.i. of the Congress in the Chair.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said how regrettable it was that the delay in the previous day’s proceedings had resulted in too little time being devoted to important discussions, in particular on Sandra Barnes’ report on domestic violence against women, which would be put on the agenda again at the October session.
The President also thanked the interpreters and all the staff members who had enabled the Congress to complete its work the previous day. He reminded all members that speakers should not exceed their speaking time if the timetable for that day’s sittings was to be kept to.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said the next item on the agenda was the statement by Marίa Tena, Director General for Local Administration, on behalf of the Spanish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The statement would be followed by written questions for oral reply. Six questions had been tabled in writing and were contained in document [CG (16) 14]. After Marίa Tena had replied, the author of the question would be able to respond but should not speak for more than one minute.
The President pointed out that the Congress had already had the pleasure of engaging in a dialogue with Marίa Tena at its spring session in March 2008 in Malaga. At that time, she had spoken on the recommendations on local and regional democracy in Spain adopted by the Congress in 2002. The debates in Malaga had shown that Spain attached great importance to devolution and had very strong local and regional authorities. In its recent past, the country had been able to implement the principle of subsidiarity by carrying out major changes in its territorial organisation. Spain had staged the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government in Valencia in October 2007. On that occasion, the European Local Democracy Week initiative had been launched for the first time under the aegis of the Congress and the Council of Europe’s Directorate General of Democracy and Political Affairs. A year later, at the Forum for the Future of Democracy held in Madrid in October 2008, the Spanish government had organised a large number of events in order to make the work of the local authorities more visible for citizens. It had thus made a big contribution to the success of European Local Democracy Week.
The Valencia Conference had also given Mari Kiviniemi, the Finnish Minister of Public Administration and Local Government, the task of drawing up a report on the Council of Europe’s work on local and regional democracy. The report would soon be available and could be discussed at the Utrecht Ministerial Conference on 16 and 17 November. That conference should enable the Council of Europe’s work agenda on the subject of local and regional democracy to be drawn up. The Congress would pay particular attention to the recommendations in Ms Kiviniemi’s report. The aim in particular was to enable the Council of Europe to strike a balance between its intergovernmental work and the work done by the Congress to promote the direct expression of citizens’ views at local and regional level.
The Chair called Marίa Tena.
Marίa TENA, (Spain), Director General of Local Administration, Spain, thanked the President for drawing attention to the events in Madrid and Valencia, which had been particularly important for the Spanish government. She wished the President of the Congress a speedy recovery and said she was honoured to be speaking that day on behalf of the Spanish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers. The Chairmanship had mainly set itself the objective of implementing the priority measures laid down at the Warsaw Summit, so it attached great importance to promoting democracy and good governance nationally, regionally and locally for all citizens. The Congress clearly had an essential role to play in that undertaking.
One of the most important priorities identified for the Spanish Chairmanship, which were set out in detail in a document available on the website, was no doubt ensuring the effectiveness of the European Court of Human Rights. Pending the entry into force of Protocol No. 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Spain believed the time had come to enter into a dialogue with all members to explore all solutions that would enable the Court, in its 50th anniversary year, to carry out its work under the best possible conditions.
The Spanish Chairmanship would also concentrate on promoting a cohesive Europe. Migration and multiethnic and culturally diverse societies were major challenges to be faced not only at international and national levels but also at local and regional levels. This concerned practical issues such as education, housing, promoting integration, combating discrimination, preventing social exclusion and protecting vulnerable groups. That week’s Congress debate on equality and diversity in local authority employment and service provision was particularly relevant from that point of view.
The question of gender violence, which was also on the Congress’s agenda that week, was another priority of the Spanish Chairmanship, so the Congress’s input to the preparatory work for an instrument in that area would be very valuable.
The situation of the Roma and Traveller population in member states also required continued attention if the groups concerned were to achieve full social integration and enjoy all their rights. The local authorities’ responsibilities and role were again crucial in that regard.
Another priority area was the impact of the information and communication technologies on human activities and on the way individuals exercised their fundamental rights and freedoms. This was an area in which the Council of Europe was playing a leading role, which Spain considered should be consolidated, possibly by drawing up a convention. The debate on the digital divide and e-inclusion in the regions would also be closely followed.
With regard to that particular subject, Ms Tena drew the Congress’s attention to the recently adopted recommendation on e-democracy, which should prove a very useful and innovative tool for all levels of government, including local and regional government.
Other issues that were highlighted by the Spanish Chairmanship and called for a particular contribution at local and regional level included cultural heritage, the education of young Europeans and the development of the Council of Europe “Building a Europe for and with Children” strategy. The Congress’s work regularly focused on children in our society, which was to be welcomed. In that respect, the conclusions of a seminar taking place in Madrid later that month on “Health in a Europe for and with Children” would be of particular interest to the Congress.
The culminating event for the Spanish Chairmanship would be the 119th Ministerial Session to be held in Madrid on 12 May 2009 in the context of the 60th anniversary of the Council of Europe.
Having highlighted those priorities of the Spanish Chairmanship, Ms Tena referred more specifically to the activities of the Committee of Ministers of particular interest to the Congress.
The Committee of Ministers was invited to adopt a recommendation of particular relevance to the Congress the following week. It concerned the examination, monitoring and assessment of participation policies at local and regional level. It was hoped that the tool, which had been tested by a number of local authorities across Europe, would help all local authorities to improve citizen participation.
Increasing attention was being paid to regionalisation, which was a complex and sometimes sensitive issue, particularly against the backdrop of 47 very different member states with very different structures. The draft European Charter on Regional Democracy prepared by the Congress was currently being considered by the Committee of Ministers. Given the importance of the draft text and its implications, an exchange of views would take place on the issue between the relevant rapporteur group and Mr Van Cauwenberghe by the end of the month.
With regard to the proposal for a draft protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government, the Committee of Ministers had tasked its relevant intergovernmental committee, the CDLR, with conducting a more in-depth analysis of the need for such a protocol and on the topics and issues that should be included in the instrument, taking into account the elements prepared by the Congress. Once that process had been completed, and subject to there being broad support for the items to be included, the drafting of a possible text would no doubt be improved if it were carried out jointly by governments and Congress representatives.
Finally, the Committee of Ministers had recently taken note of the situation regarding the draft protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on democratic participation, on which the Congress had submitted a positive opinion. Subject to the adoption of the final text by the Committee of Ministers, it should be opened for signature at the 16th Session of the Conference of Ministers responsible for local and regional government to be held in Utrecht in November. The conference would address two main topics: “Good governance in the 21st century at local and regional level” and “Transfrontier co-operation”. The Congress’s participation would, of course, be welcome.
Another subject that Ms Tena wished to address was local co-operation. In that connection, the Spanish government had pursued two political lines of action. The first was adapting the local legislative situation to the new realities of regional Spain and the second was considering town halls as key players in the economic recovery.
As far as the first line of action was concerned, the Spanish government had included the legal reform of local government among its political priorities for 2008/2012. The reform was necessary in order to achieve more efficient, more modern, more democratic and more transparent town halls, ie town halls that were able to provide quality public services in accordance with citizen demands.
Regulatory adaptation was in response to different measures, such as the approval of the second generation Autonomy Statutes and the new dynamics of urban and rural environments, which demanded regulations that corresponded to the growing complexity of municipal administration.
The Spanish government considered that the primary aim of the new law was to encourage citizen participation, since the involvement of residents in local politics was essential to secure higher levels of democracy.
Parallel to that, and in order to improve the democratic operation of local institutions, it was necessary to strengthen political control and transparency with regard to the actions of municipal government. For that reason, minority groups should be encouraged to play an active part in supervising and monitoring local government activities, so there was a need to provide supervisory instruments and access to the relevant information.
Within that strategy, another objective of the legal reform consisted in clarifying the status of local elected representatives. The future legal text should therefore systematise the list of rights and duties of local elected representatives and include other related provisions, in particular rules guaranteeing impartiality in the exercise of a political mandate.
Those measures should be accompanied by improvements to conflict resolution and by the obligation for local government staff to declare their assets and interests. Those measures helped to strengthen the monitoring of the conflicts of interests of local authorities and public officials, which was a strategy adopted during the government’s previous term of office.
The third line of reforms currently underway was the adaptation of the system of local powers and responsibilities to the new legal situation resulting from the approval of the Autonomy Statutes.
As everyone was aware, the global economy was facing a crisis that was unprecedented in modern history. In response to the situation, the Spanish government had implemented over 80 economic, financial and tax measures under the Spanish Plan for Stimulating the Economy and Employment. In that context, the State Fund for Local Investment, with funds of 8 billion euros – doubling the average annual investment of all Spanish municipalities – had been set up by a Royal Decree dated 28 November 2008.
The response of those municipalities had been remarkable: from 10 December 2008 to 24 January 2009, the period in which applications could be submitted, the Ministry for Public Administrations had received details of 30,907 projects from 8,107 municipalities. Since Spain had 8,112 municipalities, it followed that only five had not applied for a grant from the State Fund.
The main aim of the State Fund for Local Investment was to encourage job creation. There was every reason to be pleased since the objectives laid down when the plan had been approved had been achieved. It was estimated that the projects submitted by the municipalities would ultimately lead to the creation of nearly 300,000 direct jobs and 200,000 indirect jobs, making a total of 500,000.
It was interesting to point out that the municipalities’ priorities varied according to their number of inhabitants: in the large towns the emphasis was on the restoration, improvement and adaptation of public spaces, whereas in the smaller municipalities it was on improving the equipment and infrastructure of basic services.
Another major innovation was that applications were dealt with exclusively by electronic means and via the Internet. All municipalities, regardless of their size, had thus been able to benefit from the rapid processing of requests, and none had encountered any difficulties. That was therefore a good example of the progress of electronic administration. All municipalities now had a “digital certificate”, which would considerably simplify procedures in the future and result in a corresponding reduction in their administrative burden. The general introduction of electronic procedures was one of the priorities for 2008-2012.
Thanks to the use of electronic tools, the management of the Local Investment Fund was rapid and transparent but had not in any way affected the rigour and professionalism of the processing of applications. Each project had been carefully examined. In 19,000 cases, additional information or modifications had been requested.
The Fund had just entered its second phase, which involved implementation of planned municipal investments and the creation of jobs.
Unfortunately, the financial and economic crisis had deepened both in Europe and the rest of the world in the past few months. The resulting rise in unemployment was putting more strain on local government and on the resources available, which were already limited. Local and regional authorities, like central government, would probably face difficulties in the coming months, and the debate that was about to take place would shed some interesting light on that subject.
On behalf of the Spanish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers, Ms Tena wished the participants a fruitful session and continued success with the work that was being carried out every day by local elected representatives on behalf of all their fellow citizens.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) thanked María Tena for her very full report in which she had discussed a number of issues that also fell within the Congress’s competence and paved the way for future co-operation.
As María Tena had agreed to reply to delegates’ questions, the President (Malta, L, EPP/CD) asked her to reply to Question No. 1 tabled by Jean-Claude Frécon.
María TENA said that the Committee of Ministers attached great importance to strengthening local government and to the work done by the Congress in that area. The documents adopted by the Congress, especially the recommendations on the European Charter of Local Self-Government and the reports on the observation of local elections, were taken into account in the monitoring procedures carried out under the authority of the Committee of Ministers. Those texts were also helpful when establishing the priorities of Council of Europeco-operation programmes.
The Committee of Ministers believed it was extremely important that the States Parties to the Charter of Local Self-Government fully met the commitments that they had voluntarily entered into. The Committee welcomed the monitoring carried out and urged the Congress to continue along that path. In order to respect the Congress’s independence, the Committee of Ministers thought it should not become involved in the conclusions of monitoring procedures for which the Congress was responsible. That was not an indication of a lack of interest. When it forwarded the Congress’s recommendations to the governments of the member states concerned, the Committee of Ministers expected those governments to take due note of them.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Jean-Claude Frécon.
Jean-Claude FRECON (France, L, SOC) thanked María Tena for her general reply. However, his question concerned the specific cases of Latvia and Belgium. The Committee of Ministers had received detailed documents on those two countries’ failure to comply with the Charter of Local Self-Government, but it merely took note of the fact and forwarded those documents to the governments concerned. The delegates to the Congress would have appreciated it if, in these specific cases at least, the Committee of Ministers had added a more reasoned opinion one way or the other.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called María Tena.
María TENA said that this remark would be noted.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) asked Ms Tena to reply to Question No. 2 tabled by Jean-Claude
Van Cauwenberghe.
María TENA said that the issue of regional democracy was crucially important and that the Committee of Ministers was fully aware of it.
The Committee of Ministers had asked its intergovernmental committee responsible for dealing with regional and local democracy to give its opinion on the draft European Charter of Regional Democracy currently being drawn up by the Congress. That opinion would be particularly useful during the Committee of Ministers’ discussions on the draft Charter in the coming months. In order to better understand the opinions expressed at the Congress, Jean-Claude Van Cauwenberghe had been invited to take part in an exchange of views with the Committee of Ministers’ rapporteur group at the end of the month. That exchange of views would no doubt contribute to future discussions. However, as the discussions had only just begun it was not possible to anticipate what the Committee of Ministers’ position would be. The Congress would naturally be informed of the outcome of those discussions as quickly as possible.
A conference of ministers responsible for local and regional government in the Council of Europe member states would be held in Utrecht in November 2009, and the Congress delegation would then have the opportunity to discuss the draft Charter with the ministers.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Jean-Claude Van Cauwenberghe.
Jean-Claude VAN CAUWENBERGHE(Belgium, R, SOC) said that he had been hoping for more constructive relations with the Committee of Ministers for some time. He expected the Spanish Chairmanship, which supported regional self-government, to foster those relations and said that he was very pleased that the Congress delegation had been given the opportunity to engage in dialogue in Utrecht.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) asked Ms Tena to reply to Question No. 3 tabled by Vsevolod Belikov.
María TENA said that the Congress’s recommendation on local democracy in Latvia had been passed on to the Latvian government. The Committee of Ministers hoped it would give it due consideration.
The question of non-citizens in Latvia had been discussed on several occasions in the Committee of Ministers. As it had already said in a reply to the Parliamentary Assembly, the Committee of Ministers supported the process of integrating national minorities in Latvia that would lead to a reduction in the number of non-citizens as quickly as possible. Since it was a matter of giving non-citizens the right to vote in local elections, the Committee hoped that Latvia would give its full attention to the implementation of the Council of Europe’s recommendations. On the other hand, the Committee of Ministers had also taken into account the position of Latvia, which sought to encourage naturalisation so that all citizens would enjoy full rights.
Ms Tena reiterated the Committee of Ministers’ position that a satisfactory solution to that complex problem should be found as quickly as possible.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Vsevolod Belikov.
Vsevolod BELIKOV (Russian Federation, L, NR) thanked María Tena for her very clear reply. It was time to adopt practical measures to solve the problem, which had often been discussed within the Council of Europebodies. The Latvian government should put forward a specific plan containing the measures it intended to adopt in compliance with the recommendations.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) asked Ms Tena to reply to Question No. 4 tabled by Ludmila Sfirloaga.
María TENA paid tribute to the Congress for the successful implementation of the joint programme to which the question referred. A relatively limited number of joint local democracy programmes had been implemented, especially in South-East Europe. There was no reason why those programmes could not be developed further. They provided support for local and regional democracy, particularly in the context of the European Union’s eastern partnerships.
The Council of Europe usually participated in joint programmes on a percentage basis varying from 10 to 50%. Owing to budgetary constraints, so its ability to take part in joint programmes with the European Union was limited. There were naturally competing agendas. Moreover, it should not be forgotten that those joint programmes also required assistance from both national and local authorities.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Ludmila Sfirloaga.
Ludmila SFIRLOAGA (Romania, R, SOC) was pleased that María Tena was prepared to support the programmes mentioned.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) asked Ms Tena to reply to Question No. 5 tabled by Nikolay Dudov.
María TENA thought the 60th anniversary of the Organisation, which stood for human rights, the rule of law and democracy, should be fittingly celebrated, but, given the overall economic situation and the Organisation’s budgetary problems, the celebrations would have to remain modest. The emphasis would be placed on political aspects, visibility and commemoration.
The main event would be the 119th Ministerial Session to be held on 12 May in Madrid, where a political declaration would be adopted. The Spanish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers intended to invite the President of the Congress to that session. A commemorative ceremony would also be taking place on 1 October and would bring together the various Council of Europe players, including the Congress. Civil society would also be involved in the event.
Other initiatives would be taken to improve the Organisation’s visibility: open days, commemorative stamps and creative competitions.
Ms Tena took the opportunity to urge the local and regional authority delegates to pass on that information in their respective countries and give the event due prominence.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Nikolay Dudov
Nikolay DUDOV (Russian Federation, R, EPP/CD) thanked Ms Tena for her comprehensive reply. It was important that those celebrations be seen in the world as a significant event.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) asked Ms Tena to reply to Question No. 6 tabled by Jean-Claude Frécon on behalf of the Bureau of the Congress.
María TENA said that the Council of Europe’s budget reflected the general budgetary situation of the member states. Strict budgetary discipline was essential in these times of financial crisis and economic recession. The Spanish Chairmanship believed the Council of Europe should adapt so as to continue to promote the Organisation’s founding principles.
In May 2008, the 118th Ministerial Session had confirmed that the Council of Europe’s future was based on pursuing the objectives set out at the Warsaw Summit: the promotion of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. The majority of member statesthought that that strategy should be based on the principle of zero real growth in their contribution to the ordinary budget through the integration of activities and a reform of the Organisation.
The 2009 budget had been adopted in November 2008 on that basis and all the Council of Europe bodies had been urged to continue their efforts in that direction. The forthcoming discussion on the budget for 2010 would have to take account of growing budgetary constraints and the global financial crisis. The Committee of Ministers would naturally consider any proposal from the Congress.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Jean-Claude Frécon.
Jean-Claude FRECON (France, L, SOC) said that, on behalf of the entire Bureau and the three groups represented in the Assembly Chamber, he wished to issue a wake-up call concerning the financial situation of the Congress, whose very survival was at stake. It had been asked to take a number of measures In the past few years and had in the past four years considerably reduced its operational expenditure, whether it be the costs of travel or interpreting – Mr Frécon pointed out that some interpreters’ booths were now empty. The previous year, the Congress had been forced to reduce the budgetary resources earmarked for a programme that was its own “baby”, namely the local democracy agencies. Similarly, it was going to have to cancel the appropriations for ENTO, a network of institutions that trained local and regional authority officials in the new member states, despite the fact that those initiatives were crucial for the promotion of local self-government. Other turns of the screw would also be necessary, for example regarding the observation of local elections.
The budgetary difficulties were admittedly significant and the Parliamentary Assembly was facing a comparable situation. The Congress had been asked to set out its priorities for 2010 and had chosen the development of European Local Democracy Week and the promotion of the Union for the Mediterranean, which were two key initiatives. It now seemed that one of those priorities would have to be abandoned, but which one?
Mr Frécon reminded delegates of the statement recently made by the President: wind was needed in the sails to make progress as the Congress had a lot of work to do. Unfortunately, when it had lost its sails and the storm arrived it would sink. Its members should warn their governments about that and Ms Tena ought to voice those concerns to the Committee of Ministers. The Congress could no longer accomplish its tasks under those conditions! (Applause)
María TENA took note of the remarks and would inform the Committee of Ministers.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) hoped that a response could be provided to the last question. He thanked Ms Tena for coming to the Congress and for her time.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that the next item on the agenda was a statement by Lluís María de Puig, President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. He was not only a good friend of the Congress but also the Parliamentary Assembly’s rapporteur on regionalisation in Europe. The Congress appreciated his personal commitment on that key issue and his support for the European Charter of Regional Democracy and the cause of local and regional democracy.
The Congress and the Parliamentary Assembly, which were the Organisation’s two elected organs, shared a large number of common interests and had the same mission, which Lluís María de Puig would no doubt point out, namely the promotion of democracy at all levels of society for the benefit of all citizens.
Lluís María de PUIG (Spain),President of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, said that he would above all like to wish his friend Congress President Yavuz Mildon a speedy recovery. He hoped he would soon be back.
In 2009, the Council of Europe would be celebrating its 60th anniversary. The path already travelled in pursuit of the European idea was a reason to be proud, but in the light of the crisis Europe had to clarify its policy priorities and the resources it devoted to them at all levels of governance. No country big or small could fight the crisis alone, and social peace was being sorely tested: despite the efforts of governments and central banks, businesses were failing one after the other and unemployment and over-indebtedness were rising, the assets of families were declining and entire sections of the population were falling into poverty. Discontent was on the increase and sometimes even led to outbreaks of violence. The very credibility of governments was at stake.
The existence of complex and somewhat opaque financial instruments had increased the risks of destabilisation. The ineffectiveness of regulatory mechanisms, the lack of individual responsibility and the greed of certain economic players had contributed to the building of virtual houses of cards within a bubble of ephemeral stocks and shares, so greater co-ordination and solidarity were required, as too was better social dialogue in each country. In a situation as alarming as that, the authorities’ duty was to protect the rights of the most vulnerable citizens as best they could, as the Parliamentary Assembly had concluded at the end of January.
Mr de Puig pointed out that human rights included economic and social rights, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the revised European Social Charter, which 22 member statesstill had to ratify. The first Conference of European Ministers responsible for Social Cohesion had been held the previous week in Moscow. Perhaps it would enable every state to sign up to the highest social standards, including those of the European Charter, more quickly – the Russian authorities had already undertaken to do that.
In Chinese thinking, any crisis was considered an opportunity. The moment had come to review the social contract of European societies and improve market control mechanisms to promote sustainable development and a greener, more innovative economy that placed greater emphasis on human development.
Local and regional authorities, which were very close to citizens, were the best placed to warn the central government authorities in the event of a problem and to implement the measures most suitable for the specific features of each territory. However, in dealing with the crisis other important issues, such as environmental pollution, the growing energy supply difficulties and, unfortunately political tensions on Europe’s borders, should not be overlooked.
Owing to continuing problems in the areas of democracy, the rule of law and human rights, Belarus remained the only European country that was not a member of the Council of Europe. Given that a Parliamentary Assembly delegation had noted that some progress had been made by the country, the Assembly would probably examine in June the possibility of granting the Belarus parliament special guest status.
The efforts to promote dialogue between the Georgian and Russian parliamentary delegations were continuing with the aim of normalising relations between the two countries. The ad hoc committee set up by the Assembly in January would be meeting for the first time the following week. Representatives of the delegations of the two countries had been invited to participate and it was hoped that it would enable progress to be made on the path to dialogue. The meeting would also be an opportunity to examine ways of involving representatives of the Abkhazian and Ossetian communities in the future.
At its previous session, the Congress had decided on the main focus of its work for the following two years, highlighting increased co-operation with the Mediterranean area, especially the countries along its southern shore. A co-operation agreement between the Congress and the Council’s North-South Centre had also been signed on that occasion. Those decisions reflected the desire of the local and regional elected representatives to give fresh impetus to the political dialogue in that region and to concrete projects aimed at bringing peoples together.
In that context, it was necessary to stress the significance of the intercultural dialogue called for by the Council of Europeand the importance of the environmental, economic and socio-demographic issues for a forward-looking approach for the Mediterranean region and Europe as a whole. The Parliamentary Assembly had just been granted permanent observer status at the Euro-Mediterranean Assembly, which would enable it to broaden its remit and its scope for communication and consultation.
The Assembly was also doing a great deal to intensify discussions with the Maghreb countries, inviting parliamentarians to attend its plenary sessions and follow the work of its committees. Discussions had begun on the possibility of granting the Maghreb partners a specific status commensurate with their expectations. The President had recently held talks with the Moroccan authorities and intended to go to other Maghreb countries in the near future.
Finally, Mr de Puig said that he was prepared to answer questions from members of the Congress. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that five members of the Congress had expressed the wish to ask questions. He called Svetlana Orlova to ask the first question on behalf of the Bureau.
Svetlana ORLOVA (Russian Federation, R, EPP/CD) said that, although the Assembly Chamber was very well appointed, it was surprising that it was not possible to use electronic voting when fundamental decisions were taken. At a time when local and regional authorities were being asked to employ less paper and make more use of the new technologies, the budgetary argument seemed hard to accept.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) invited Jean-Claude Van Cauwenberghe to ask his question.
Jean-Claude VAN CAUWENBERGHE (Belgium, R, SOC) noted that Lluís María de Puig was a fervent supporter of regionalisation, that the rapport he had presented to the Parliamentary Assembly on that subject provided an authoritative assessment and that he was one of the most resolute proponents of the European Charter of Regional Democracy. Was he not worried that the current crisis might lead to some degree of recentralisation? Could the charter not constitute an instrument of protection in that context?
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Gaye Doganoğlu to ask her question.
Gaye DOGANOĞLU (Turkey, L, EPP/CD) emphasised that the Congress and Parliamentary Assembly were very much aware of the scale and seriousness of the challenges associated with climate change and the problems concerning energy supplies. The financial crisis should not serve as an excuse for reducing the resources set aside for combating climate change. On the contrary, it should provide an opportunity to rethink strategies, change behaviour, move towards the so-called “green renaissance” and promote new ecological investments. Accordingly, 2009 would be a key year as the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention would be meeting in Copenhagen in December to take a number of post-Kyoto decisions.
Climate policy should respond to the “think globally and act locally” principle, so the local and regional authorities had a key role to play. What could the Parliamentary Assembly do to ensure that the international diplomatic process recognised the role of those authorities?
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Britt-Marie Lövgren.
Britt-Marie LÖVGREN (Sweden, L, ILDG), in her capacity as the Congress’s rapporteur on equal opportunities, welcomed the fact that the Parliamentary Assembly had recently created a Gender Equality Prize to reward political parties that embraced the promotion of equality.
Under the new charter adopted by the Committee of Ministers in May 2007, all the national delegations in the Congress now had to comprise at least 30% women. Did the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly intend to impose the same requirement? Could a consensus be reached on the motion for a resolution to that end?
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) called Jean-Claude Frécon to ask his question.
Jean-Claude FRECON (France, L, SOC) said that both the Parliamentary Assemblyand the Congress were having to suffer budget cuts. Was it not to be feared that, in the guise of making savings and bringing about cross-cutting synergies, the result would be a weakening of the defining characteristics of those two institutions within the Council of Europe?
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) invited the President of the Parliamentary Assembly to reply to the questions he had been asked.
Lluís María de PUIG (Spain) first of all replied to Svetlana Orlova, saying that the Assembly, which supported faster and more transparent democracy, saw no problems in the Congress’s employing electronic voting. However, the Bureau of the Congress ought to be aware that the cost of using that method in terms of the necessary equipment and staff would be 10,000 euros per session, so it had to decide if it was prepared to incur that expenditure.
Having done a great deal of work on the subject of regionalisation, Mr de Puig said that he hoped there was no real risk of the recentralisation mentioned by Jean-Claude Van Cauwenberghe, even though it was impossible to know what economic crises might lead to.
Drawing on the Spanish model, the report on regionalisation in Europe advocated the strengthening of the second sub-national tier of government, giving it genuine autonomy and enabling it to deal with certain outstanding historical problems and meet certain demands. The Chamber of Regions had every interest in working in that direction and could rest assured that, in order to bring about a stable and prosperous Europe, the President of the Parliamentary Assembly would resolutely support a solution that was not only pragmatic but also wise.
Climate change was an Assembly priority.
John Prescott, his own country’s negotiator for the first Kyoto protocol, was now the Parliamentary Assembly’s rapporteur on that issue and would present his report either in September, or possibly even in June. A major debate would then have to be held, in which key American, Chinese and United Nations players would be invited to participate. The work undertaken could result in the drawing up of a protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights relating to nature protection.
The draft Kyoto II protocol would be debated in Copenhagen at the end of 2009, and Mr de Puig urged Congress members to keep abreast of the Assembly’s work on the subject.
Replying to Britt-Marie Lövgren, Mr de Puig said that the issue of gender equality within the Assembly was basically a matter for national parliaments and national delegations. Although an average of 27% of Assembly members were women, many delegations, including those of seven of the ten largest Council of Europe member states, had fewer than 20%.
Parity was the rule is some countries, such as Spain, which had passed a law to that effect: there was parity in the Spanish chambers of parliament and government.
The Assembly’s Committee on Rules of Procedure and its Committee on Equal Opportunities would be voicing their opinion on the 30% rule, which was a proportion that would appear derisory in a few years’ time.
Replying to Jean-Claude Frécon, Mr de Puig said it was not so much a question of the amount of resources as how they were distributed. Everyone was aware of the difficulties in financing the European Court of Human Rights. Protocol 14, which was supposed to resolve them, had unfortunately not been ratified by all member states, one example being Russia.
It was hard to call for more money in the present situation but the democratic representation of citizens within the Council of Europe should not be undermined.
The current budget did not allow the Council of Europeto carry out as many activities and hold as many meetings as in the past. It was to be hoped that an end would be put to that very negative situation in the months to come.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) thanked President Lluís María de Puig for his replies.
Günther KRUG (Germany, R, SOC), Vice-President of the Congress replaced Ian Micallef in the Chair.
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC) said the next item on the agenda was a debate on the international financial crisis and its consequences for European local and regional authorities.
He welcomed the guests due to speak in the debate: Maurice Vincent, Mayor of Saint-Etienne, President of Saint-Etienne Métropole; Vladimir Moskov, Mayor of Gotse Delchev and Vice-President of NALAS; Svetlana Orlova, Vice-Chair of the Council of the Federation, Head of the Russian delegation to the Congress; and Yevgen Kartashov, Mayor of Zaporizhzhya. He noted that the debate would be continued the following afternoon.
The impact of the crisis on local and regional authorities was both direct and indirect. Their resources were declining at a time when their services should be doing more and their local economies needed support. Moreover, the crisis brought uncertainties and led to pessimism at all levels. How should local and regional councillors respond? What measures could be taken? What assistance would the local and regional authorities need? Drawing on their experience, the speakers could enlighten the members of the Congress on those issues.
Maurice Vincent, Mayor of Saint-Etienne since 2008, President of Saint-Etienne Métropole and a member of the Rhône-Alpes regional council since 2004, had been President of Saint-Etienne’s Jean Monnet University from 1997 to 2008. He was still a university professor and was an expert on regional economics and industrial organisation.
The city of Saint-Etienne was now going through a very difficult period because of the financial crisis and its debts amounting to several million euros. Its relations with the banks were complicated. Given Mr Vincent’s experience and expertise, his views on the crisis and his description of the initiatives taken by him and his team would no doubt point out a number of ways for members of the Congress to embrace the challenges facing them.
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC) called Maurice Vincent.
Maurice VINCENT, Mayor of Saint-Etienne, President of Saint-Etienne Métropole (France), thanked the Congress for its invitation and said he was very pleased to be able to participate in the debate. As mayor of a city with 180,000 inhabitants, he wished to point out a number of aspects regarding the consequences of the crisis, which was unique with regard to both its scale and its depth.
The European local authorities carried out nearly two-thirds of public investment, which had grown by 3.2% in volume since 2000. Their debt had risen by 3.9% since then but was only 5.8% of GDP. In France the ratios were close to the European average: local authorities carried out 73% of public investment and their debt was 5.7% of GDP. They accordingly played a major role in overall demand because of the scale of their investment, and their accumulated debt, which was lower than that of states, no longer gave them any room for manoeuvre in dealing with the global financial crisis, which would have serious consequences. The excesses of a far too poorly regulated financial system had led to a frenetic search for profits by promoting and distributing high-risk products throughout the system. Apart from the financial losses, that risk distribution had led to a loss of confidence between the banks and financial institutions, hence the decline in interbank loans and the refinancing difficulties faced by banks. The crisis of confidence was becoming widespread among all economic players, especially companies, which were considerably cutting back on their intended investments. The European countries, and therefore their local authorities, were all affected by the general crisis in demand but the extent varied according to their risk exposure.
The crisis had serious consequences for business activity but it was particularly difficult to measure its actual impact on the economy and, above all, its duration, which made it hard to take decisions. The lack of certainty weighed heavily on the morale of both consumers and businesses and made it difficult to manage the crisis. The city of Saint-Etienne was clearly affected by its primary consequences. Layoffs, especially among car industry suppliers, were making inhabitants increasingly more concerned.
For local authorities and for public investors in general, the consequences of the decline in business activity would be automatically reflected in a reduction in their tax income. In such circumstances, it would be difficult to avoid raising local taxes. The authorities were also suffering from the banks’ reluctance to grant new loans. In France, that risk was currently contained but the nature of local authority debt and the management methods pursued between 2001 and 2008 by some councillors might involve potentially very costly risks. Around ten big local authorities seemed to be exposed but their exact number remained uncertain, as did the number of hospitals and building departments concerned, so it was important to carry out the appropriate debt-securitisation policies in order to preserve investment capacity and protect future generations from potentially significant costs.
The debt-stabilisation and securitisation approach adopted by the authorities affected by high-risk loans should be supported by central government, which had made efforts to save the banks that had even gone as far as nationalisation. Moreover, in order to revive overall economic activity, the revival plans should ideally be implemented in conjunction with the local authorities.
As Mayor of Saint-Etienne, Mr Vincent was anxious to be involved in providing support for economic activity and had stepped up the number of measures to attract companies and develop innovation, especially in the design and optical industries.
The major difficulty that the European local authorities now came up against was that they had less and less room for manoeuvre given their considerable capital investment and public service requirements. In this respect, they were well placed to contribute to the revival of overall demand and to the return of confidence.
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC) thanked Maurice Vincent for his stimulating statement and called Vladimir Moskov, Mayor of Gotse Delchev in Bulgaria since 1995, a member the National Association of Bulgarian Municipalities and Vice-President of the Network of Associations of Local Authorities in South-East Europe (NALAS).
Vladimir MOSKOV (Bulgaria), Mayor of Gotse Delchev, Vice President of NALAS, said that he was particularly honoured to participate in the debate on the international financial crisis, which gave him an opportunity to describe the situation of the local authorities in the countries of South-East Europe, especially his own country of Bulgaria. At the NALAS meeting in Tirana in November 2008, the mayors of the countries of South-East Europe had debated the consequences of the financial crisis on the functioning of local authorities. At that time, the spill-over effects of the crisis had not yet seemed to be strongly felt in the region, whereas other, more developed countries in Europe had already been affected. It had, however, been evident that its negative effects would not take long in making themselves felt. Indeed, in December 2008 the Bulgarian municipalities had been hit by a drop in exports, a fall in the volume of transactions and the stagnation of property prices, among other things.
According to analyses by the National Association of Bulgarian Municipalities, the local and regional authorities’ resources would fall considerably in 2009 because of reduced tax revenues and increased demand for social assistance, especially due to unemployment. Most of the local and regional authorities in the countries of South-East Europe said that they had confidence in their banking and monetary system but were aware that their economic growth would slow down, so they needed to take preventive measures. NALAS recommended that central governments intensify their dialogue and co-operation with the local authorities and their associations.
The local authorities, for their part, should point out that investment projects should be given priority funding in order to mitigate the effects of the crisis.
NALAS recommended that central governments in South-East Europe help local and regional authorities to apply for European structural funds and make use of the Instruments for Pre-Accession Assistance.
Local and regional authorities should be cautious in their budgetary assessments as their tax revenues might be reduced. NALAS recommended that they closely monitor the activities of companies that might be forced to lay off workers or even close down. In that context, they should not raise taxes, although taxpayers would have to pay any taxes due in a timely manner.
Following the NALAS recommendations, the National Association of Bulgarian Municipalities had organised training courses for municipal staff.
In conclusion, Mr Moskov stressed that those recommendations would create a climate favourable to investment and good governance and would also make it possible to restore the health of local finances and apply the best European practices. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC) thanked Mr Moskov and announced that, as it was late, the rest of the debate would have to be postponed to the next day. However, two questions could be asked by two guests who would not be able to attend then.
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC ) called Jean-Pierre Klein.
Jean-Pierre KLEIN (Luxembourg, L, SOC) had no question to ask the two speakers, whose statements he thought had been excellent.
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC ) called Ioannis Stratakis.
Ioannis STRATAKIS (Greece, L, SOC) said that global economic development would necessarily weigh heavily on local and regional authorities, which risked seeing their resources diminish, whether they consisted of general grants or local tax revenue. He pointed out that revenues had declined in his country, especially vehicle registration taxes since people were buying fewer cars. There might be a snowball effect.
It was therefore necessary for local and regional authorities to adapt in order to deal with the situation. Central governments should place their confidence in them by increasing instead of reducing their grants. If social cohesion was to be preserved, it was necessary to avoid cutting the resources available to local authorities, which would have an immediate and direct impact on inhabitants. For their part, local and regional authorities should undertake not to raise taxes or the cost of the services they provided. The social component of the local authorities’ activities should be preserved at all costs during a period of crisis.
The PRESIDENT (Germany, R, SOC) asked Maurice Vincent and Vladimir Moskov if they wished to reply. As that was not the case, he said that the next plenary sitting would take place on Thursday 5 March at 2 pm.
Before closing the sitting, the President asked the Congress delegates to remain for the award of the Dosta! Congress Prize for Municipalities, which would be made in the presence of Ian Micallef, President a.i. of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities, and Henry Scicluna, Council of Europe Co-ordinator on Roma activities.
The first prize was awarded jointly to Ljubo Bešlić, Mayor of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and to Marko Pavić, Mayor of Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The second prize was awarded to Alekos Voulgaris, Mayor of Volos, Greece, and the third to Penka Penkova, Mayor of Lom, Bulgaria.
The sitting rose at 12.15 p.m.
FIRST SITTING OF THE CHAMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Wednesday 4 March 2009 at 3.15 p.m.
______________
CONTENTS
Page
6. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting.............................................................................................. 64
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) declared the sixteenth session of the Chamber of Local Authorities of the Congress open, in accordance with Rule 1(2) of the Rules of Procedure.
The sitting opened at 3.15 p.m. with Ian Micallef (Malta, EPP/CD), President of the Chamber, in the chair.
[CPL(16)OJ1PROV]
[CG(16)1PROV]
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) said that the agenda called for presentation of the order of business in document CG(16)1PROV and presented the draft agenda, distributed on 27 February 2009, as set out in document CPL(16)OJ1PROV.
No points having been raised, the draft agenda was put to the vote and adopted.
[CPL/SA(15)PV1]
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) presented the minutes of the previous meeting.
No points having been raised, the minutes were adopted.
[CPL(16)1REC]
[CPL(16)1RES]
[CPL(16)1REP]
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) said that the agenda called for a debate on intercultural cities. He thanked Véronique Moreira for agreeing at very short notice to take the place of Carlos Pinto, who was unable to attend. Véronique Moreira’s speech would be followed by a round-table debate and the presentation of Jens Nilsson’s report.
Véronique MOREIRA (France, R, NR) thanked the Chamber for inviting her to present the European Urban Charter II, a key document that constituted a genuine manifesto for a new urbanity and offered constantly changing cities new ways of meeting current challenges.
The Congress had adopted an Urban Charter in 1982. This was a ground-breaking step and marked the recognition of the urban phenomenon and the commitment of European cities to becoming actively involved in a context of social, economic and cultural change.
The cities had shown that they could meet the challenge: they had become fora for new democratic forms of public debate and places of solidarity, freedom and emancipation, although they were also a source of potential division, discrimination and exclusion.
The European Urban Charter II reflected a state of mind, an ambition, a claim on behalf of cities, which were called upon to play an increasing role in society. It would serve all those involved in public life – local elected representatives, governments and associations. It was a manifesto for the city of the new century, a major political statement which presented a new vision of the city.
The Charter was based on five pillars: social, environmental, economic and cultural development, and good governance.
Its first ambition was to establish a strong public ethic in civic cities where subsidiarity was active and based on a social commitment. Democracy must be regenerated in all its forms: elections, of course, but also participation, involvement and debate, to which the development of the new technologies would contribute. Greater importance must be attached to the role of citizens, who were at the heart of urban policies and, accordingly, must have an active relationship with their authorities. Transparency, means of action and scrutiny of public policies must all be strengthened, and powers and responsibilities must be more clearly defined.
Secondly, respect for the environment was the key to the role that cities must play in order to contribute to the sustainable development of the planet, because it was in cities that the population, activities and changes in customs and behaviour were concentrated. Urban ecology, energy-saving and universal access to all major public facilities must be promoted. Cities must be more compact in order to save space. They must develop alternative transport solutions, such as cycling and walking, to replace the car, in order to protect health, reduce pollution, improve safety and preserve the countryside. These were the principles that must guide urban policies.
Next, the city must combat all forms of discrimination and endeavour to maintain desegregation and dialogue. The city was a place for solidarity between different districts and social classes, a human melting pot. It reflected Europeans’ ambition to build a more inclusive and diverse society. In the face of poverty and segregation, the city must encourage solidarity within its walls and in the surrounding areas; it must be open to the world.
Lastly, the city must be a catalyst for scholarship, creativity and knowledge. A crossroads of civilisations, a reflection of identity, a place of culture and memory, the city was a place of the future, where local and regional heritage and know-how must prosper. It must encourage the development of an economy based on knowledge and the new technologies.
Intercultural cities were based on intermingling and exchange. In promoting a sense of identity and belonging, it was necessary to strike the right balance between inclusion and exclusion. Multicultural identities were the basis of European diversity.
Most of the population was urban. At a time when the ecological balance of the world was under threat, cities that innovated and advocated solidarity and sustainable development, civic cities, intercultural cities had a major role to play in shaping the future. She hoped that the Charter would mobilise everyone’s energies and invited all the members to read it and pass it on.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) welcomed members of the round table and said that they had all agreed to answer impromptu questions from members of the Chamber after they had spoken.
The first speaker, Georges Képénékian, Deputy Mayor of Lyon, came from a city that had welcomed migrants from the Mediterranean, Europe and Africa since the days of antiquity. With a million inhabitants, it was the smallest administrative entity to participate in the "Intercultural Cities" project. Its candidacy for the title of cultural capital of Europe bore witness to the heritage of what was a city of confluence and history.
Georges KEPENEKIAN (France), Deputy Mayor of Lyon, thanked the Congress for inviting him to speak on behalf of the city of Lyon, and said it was happy to participate in the intercultural cities project. The people of Lyon were convinced of the relevance of the concept of interculturalism. A two-thousand-year-old city with a population of 450 000 (1 200 000 in the conurbation), Lyon had always welcomed migrants from all parts of the world: 14 % of the inhabitants had been born in other countries. The population of the city was likely to increase by a further 150 000 by 2030.
The implementation of public policies in France suffered from divergent approaches. The motto "Liberty, equality, fraternity" had prompted a refusal to collect ethnic statistics and make any distinction apart from the distinction between French people and foreigners. Some schemes were designed to combat discrimination while others sought to promote diversity.
The method employed in Lyon was simple: it consisted of applying principles of governance designed to familiarise all the players with the concept of interculturalism. Expressions of diversity were encouraged, as opposed to the ghettos sometimes induced by strict separation in the public and private spheres. With due regard for diversity, the children's choir of the Lyon Opera included children of all origins and the Lyon Council for the Protection of Human Rights was considering the issue of cultural diversity as of that year.
In short, it was a matter of endeavouring to extend the republican model to make room for interculturalism.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) introduced Heinz Buschkowsky, Mayor of Berlin Neukölln, who was well known for combating poverty and campaigning for citizen participation.
Heinz BUSCHKOWSKY (Germany), Mayor of Berlin Neukölln, said that 40 % of the population of Neukölln was of immigrant origin. This cultural diversity was essentially the fruit of economic migration. The result was a degree of unintended proximity among Turks, Asians, Africans and Arabs in particular.
At a time when 65 % of the young people in the city centre had no money, 90 % of the parents were unemployed and 80 % of schoolchildren were of immigrant origin, it was a matter of ensuring that the city continued to uphold European values. This was not easy, given the ravages of illiteracy, delinquency and religious fundamentalism.
The city relied on music as a vehicle to convey its message. Courses were also provided to give women an opportunity to meet other members of the population. Lastly, a new campus had been established, with a new type of school; a different modus operandi was clearly essential in a city where the population came from such different parts of the world.
The number of pupils and the numbers obtaining the school-leaving certificate had increased appreciably in the space of a few years, which showed that pragmatism and tenacity produced results.
It was a matter of ensuring that everyone continued to be tolerant, observed public rules and respected diversity. Full-time education probably contributed more in this connection than the traditional education involving fewer hours.
All the measures taken by the local authority were designed to end segregation. Of course, this objective could only be achieved in stages.
The speaker ended by inviting members to come and explore a city that was both multicultural and traditional.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD), called Adam Wasilewski, Mayor of Lublin, to address the Chamber adding that he had no doubt about the city’s great cultural diversity, which was borne out by the presence of Ukrainian and Asian minorities among others and the organisation of a Roma festival.
Adam WASILEWSKI (Poland), Mayor of Lublin, drew attention to the exceptional nature of the city of Lublin. Few cities in Poland had benefited from such diverse influences. The 16th-century treaty between Poland and Lithuania had enabled his country to discover the merits of tolerance and diversity.
This multicultural approach had been undermined by the Second World War, with the destruction of the Jewish quarter, followed by a regime that encouraged social uniformity. Even so, the multicultural foundations of the city of Lublin had not been destroyed. The future identity of the city depended on an awareness of its rich cultural heritage.
The city of Lublin had decided to be a candidate for the title of European capital of culture in 2016. It was relying on the promotion of multiculturalism in this connection. However, such a policy required appropriate funding. The city had accordingly doubled its spending on culture between 2007 and 2009, with initiatives designed to promote multiculturalism accounting for a substantial proportion of expenditure. Twenty initiatives of this kind had been undertaken in 2008, in collaboration with religious and ethnic minorities. Their common feature was to show the inhabitants of Lublin the diversity of their cultural and historical heritage.
Among the various projects, mention should be made of the annual International Theatre Festival and "Theatrical Confrontations", the International Days of Documentary Cinema, the Central Europe Theatre Festival "The Neighbours" and, lastly, the "Jagiellonian Fairs", a 16th century tradition.
When Poland had joined the European Union, Lublin became one of the largest urban centres in the eastern part of the EU and, because of its geographical location and its traditional links with its eastern neighbours, it became a kind of pioneer city for co-operation with Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. These contacts had unfortunately been reduced as a result of Poland’s inclusion in the Schengen area. The city therefore hoped that the EU eastern borders would not establish any more dividing lines.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) called Dmytriy Sychov, Mayor of Melitopol, to address the Chamber.
Dmytriy SYCHOV (Ukraine), Mayor of Melitopol, said his city, which had 158 000 inhabitants, counted a hundred or so different nationalities. This was a phenomenon that went back a long way. The population had never been monocultural and it had, over the centuries, become a cultural crossroads, a centre of convergence.
The city regarded this diversity as one of its principal resources, a real asset that had generated tolerance and mutual respect and enabled it to overcome the crises and wars of the 19th and 20th centuries. There were new challenges to be met in the 21st century and cultural diversity would, once again, be a major asset.
The local authorities considered that Melitopol’s participation in the "Intercultural Cities" project represented an opportunity to enter a new phase. The city had already established a large association including all the communities and it had changed its way of managing the local authority budget. Instead of assigning appropriations by community, the authorities distributed them on the basis of overall projects.
The "Intercultural Cities" project would enable Melitopol to benefit from the experience of other European cities, in particular with regard to the management of migration. What Melitopol could tell other cities was that, in its own case, the mix of nationalities had encouraged economic and social development and stability. Having a great many multicultural families was a major asset, particularly when it came to preventing interreligious conflicts. In short, the intercultural approach offered a global vision of the future. (Applause)
Onno van Veldhuizen (Netherlands, ILDG) replaced Ian Micallef in the chair.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) noted that the city of Reggio Emilia had the highest percentage of mixed couples in Italy. He called the Mayor, Graziano Delrio, to address the Chamber.
Graziano DELRIO (Italy), Mayor of Reggio Emilia, explained that his city had experienced a sharp rise in its population in the space of a few years, largely as a result of migration. The inhabitants of the city had not always been prepared for this phenomenon. They had had to learn to regard diversity as an asset. The local authority had decided to work mainly in schools, taking the view that prejudices and stereotypes could and must be overcome at a very early age. More than 40 % of the city’s children attended school from the age of three and some schools had sixteen different nationalities to deal with. Various experiments had been tried: for example, working with immigrant women who would otherwise have had no contact with the rest of the population.
All this educational activity had laid the foundations for harmonious cohabitation. It had also had the effect of reducing the crime rate.
The city had also endeavoured to organise cultural mediation in public places and in connection with publicly subsidised housing. It was keen to encourage mixing. Diversity must not be confined to certain districts.
Italy, like other countries, was experiencing a serious crisis that was not conducive to social policies. Unfortunately, the tendency at present was to see others as competitors, or even enemies. The local authorities’ aim was to increase the quantity of services provided so as to dispel this impression of competition.
Lastly, with regard to the media, the battle had not been won. It would be some time before, as Plutarch had said, only bad things were labelled foreign. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Thomas Facchinetti to address the Chamber, noting that he had posted a very interesting video on his internet site, in which he showed how much his public commitment had been motivated by his status as an immigrant with ties in both north and south, and in which he expressed his fear that modern society had lost its way.
Thomas FACCHINETTI (Switzerland), Commissioner for Foreign Nationals of the Canton of Neuchâtel, said that to succeed in living together on good terms was a constant challenge, as old as humanity.
45 % of the people in the Canton of Neuchâtel were Swiss people from another canton, 25 % were foreign nationals from more than 150 countries, and 30 % were of Neuchâtel stock – including some naturalised foreigners – and were thus merely one of a number of minorities. And yet the feeling of sharing a common human destiny was very much alive in the canton: the diversity of the population did not prevent citizens from putting down roots in their new homeland.
Switzerland had a large number of mechanisms for direct democratic expression: Swiss citizens voted on all important matters every three months or so. Foreigners had the right to participate in local and cantonal elections. In the Canton of Neuchâtel, foreigners had been granted the right to vote in local elections in 1850 and their votes had proved to have a good influence in helping citizens to settle and in promoting integration. Civil rights had since been extended, by popular vote on each occasion.
Foreigners could now be elected to all local executive and legislative bodies, and some were currently sitting on local councils. At the last local elections, the electoral lists on every side had included foreign candidates. This civic participation strengthened social cohesion.
Appropriate political management by the authorities was nevertheless equally essential, as they had the task of organising the business of "living together" on the basis of common principles. Public policies for the management of diversity must be co-ordinated with all the measures taken by the public authorities: it was not so much a matter of organising intercultural festivals here or there as of setting up machinery to support public policies for the management of diversity and make them more effective. For instance, the authorities of the Canton of Neuchâtel welcomed all newcomers with a message, a reception and services to facilitate their integration. Neuchâtel would shortly be adopting a citizenship charter, which would be given to all newcomers, Swiss and foreign alike, to explain the bases of community life in the canton. Also, people were free to speak whatever language they liked in the canton, in accordance with a constitutional principle, but it was nevertheless quite useful for immigrants to learn the local language, i.e. French, especially for the purposes of integration in the labour market. Lastly, in order to set an example where occupational integration was concerned, the cantonal authorities were opening the post of police officer and senior managerial posts in local government to foreigners.
Many other measures of this kind were being adopted all over Europe. The "Intercultural Cities" programme provided an opportunity to share the various experiences in order to promote good intercultural governance. In short, the public authorities must adapt their political management as effectively as possible in order to ensure social cohesion and enable everyone to live together on good terms.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) said he was sorry that the speaker did not have more time and invited the members of the Congress to ask short questions, the answers to which should also be short.
He called Alison Cook.
Alison COOK (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) thanked the mayors for sharing their experience with the Congress. She drew attention to the wealth of foreign cultures that were becoming established in Europe and the need to understand the culture of the host country. There had been many waves of migration in the course of history but the world had never experienced a global migration phenomenon on the current scale. In the circumstances, integration policies were encountering many difficulties in the areas of, for instance, employment, health and housing, to the extent that there was sometimes a risk that ghettos would form.
She wondered about the involvement of old people and women in intercultural activities.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Georges Képénékian.
Georges KEPENEKIAN (France) confirmed that the enlargement of the scope of diversity in cities was a major issue. The city of Lyon considered that respect for rights and for disability in the broad sense of the term must cover all sections of the population so that they shared the city's facilities. Every section of the population had different needs, whether it comprised women, old people or some other group. That was why the concept of interculturalism must extend to everyone in the city.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Vsevolod Belikov.
Vsevolod BELIKOV (Russian Federation, NR) affirmed his support for the Charter and said the work that was being done by the city of St Petersburg, the cultural capital of Russia, was guided by the principles set out in the Charter. For instance, the city had a special law to combat xenophobia and promote diversity. More than a thousand events had been organised in the city, with excellent results. This showed how essential systematic action was in this area.
St Petersburg had many cultural institutions, museums and theatres. Thanks to this heritage, the local authorities, in co-operation with the media, contemplated interculturalism with equanimity and promoted equal opportunities. Instances of xenophobia were the subject of constant work. He reiterated his support for the Charter and invited everyone to share their experiences for the benefit of all.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) noted this appeal for intercultural dialogue and called Minodora Susana Luca.
Minodora Susana LUCA (Romania, EPP/CD) asked members of the round table whether intercultural policy was a bone of contention with the opposition in their assemblies or whether, on the contrary, there was a consensus.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called on Graziano Delrio to reply.
Graziano DELRIO (Italy) said there were few issues on which there was a consensus and this was no exception. In his city, the centre-right coalition had proved to be open-minded on the subject but was still against giving foreigners the right to vote. Every effort must be made to remain constructive where diversity was concerned, but it was true that it was not always easy to establish dialogue and get people of different political leanings to agree.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) asked Heinz Buschkowksy whether his policy was the subject of a consensus.
Heinz BUSCHKOWSKY (Germany) observed that the less people were affected by interculturalism, the more they were in favour of it, hence the importance of the role played by education.
That said, it was only natural that differences should emerge on an issue that related specifically to the degree of intervention by the public authorities. How far should the process of integration be overseen by the public authorities? He personally considered that it was necessary to intervene when public rules were not observed, for example when there was a breach of the obligation to attend school.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Lars O. Molin.
Lars O. MOLIN (Sweden, EPP/CD) asked whether interculturalism might threaten or weaken human rights.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) asked Véronique Moreira if she could answer Lars O. Molin’s question.
Véronique MOREIRA (France, R, NR) considered that the question raised many problems.
She had noted with satisfaction that all the speakers who had been called were keen to see participation by many and varied sections of the population, even if there was a risk of addressing only the most visible ones initially. The role of education was crucial here.
Policies designed to get women to become more involved in public debate were of particular interest as women were present in all areas of society.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) noted that the object was indeed, as Véronique Moreira had implied, to promote human rights and not to threaten them.
He called Heinz Buschkowksy.
Heinz BUSCHKOWSKY (Germany) pointed out that some immigrants came from parts of the world which did not observe even minimum standards in the matter of human rights. He was thinking, in particular, of the question of women’s education and their right to be protected from physical and psychological harm. It was essential to be absolutely firm on these questions, refusing to countenance excision and forced marriages. Human rights applied to everyone.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) thanked Heinz Buschkowsky for this clear response.
He called Dario Ghisletta.
Dario GHISLETTA (Switzerland, SOC) drew attention to the fact that some women immigrants were confined to the home, in a situation of great weakness.
He said that, in his canton, the father and children were granted Swiss nationality in naturalisation procedures but not the mother, because she did not usually speak the language. Did this not constitute very serious discrimination?
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG)) asked Dmytriy Sychov to answer this question.
Dmytriy SYCHOV (Ukraine) said the population in the city of Melitopol did not include any recent immigrants. The only problem the city had encountered had been concerned, in the 1970s and 1980s, with Tatars from the Crimea who had been unable to return to their homeland. The problem of women confined to the home did not arise in Melitopol.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) rephrased the question: was the right to naturalisation a general right or an individual right with conditions attached? Was the policy of refusing nationality to a mother who could not speak the language a good policy or a bad one?
He called Georges Képénékian.
Georges KEPENEKIAN (France) said that not all the problems had been solved in France, far from it, at a time when current policy was to escort immigrants back to the border en masse. Moreover, there were divisions not only between right and left, but also on the question of secularism.
That said, he considered that a distinction could not be drawn within a family. On the contrary, it was appropriate to facilitate the integration of all members of the family, allowing plenty of time where necessary.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Fernanda Cecchini.
Fernanda CECCHINI (Italy, SOC) thanked all the speakers.
As councillor in Città di Castello, a city with a population of 40 000 in which 10 % of schoolchildren were of
non-EU origin, she too wished to draw attention to the role of education and the integration of women.
The majority the non-EU immigrants settled in places where most of the business undertakings were established. As a result, they were the first to be affected by unemployment. Cities could not solve this problem on their own: it required intervention by the national authorities.
Lastly, she deplored the fact that, where interculturalism was concerned, the newspapers only printed the worst news.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) asked who would like to reply to Fernanda Cecchini’s remarks.
Véronique MOREIRA (France, R, NR) replied that local radio stations tended to strengthen the sense of belonging to a particular community and could therefore encourage the formation of ghettos, but they could also promote multiculturalism if the public authorities asked them to, as was their role.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) said the round-table debate must now close as time had run out, and invited Jens Nilsson to present his report on "Intercultural Cities" on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education.
Jens NILSSON (Sweden, SOC), Rapporteur, pointed out that cultures were like living beings, which developed and changed on contact with other cultures. The initiative of designating twelve pilot cities had been taken by the Council of Europe Directorate of Culture and Cultural and Natural Heritage in co-operation with the European Commission. This network was an excellent forum for experiments on strategies that might subsequently be recommended to all the cities of Europe that wanted to embark, as the Congress encouraged them to do, on large-scale inclusive policies that might cover housing and vocational training in particular.
The report advocated closer co-operation with the media, which were often in a position to combat stereotypes and prejudices.
Intercultural policy did not mean compromise. It was not a matter of closing one’s eyes to anything that might militate against respect for human rights or democracy, quite the opposite. If one really wanted social cohesion and equal opportunities, there must be a bedrock of common fundamental values. These were the values that the Council of Europe had always defended.
In his capacity as Rapporteur, Jens Nilsson recommended members of the Congress to support giving foreigners the right to vote in local elections since, in his view, that could not fail to give new impetus to cities that were concentrating on integration. In conclusion, he invited members of the Congress to adopt the draft recommendation and the draft resolution, and above all to implement them in their own cities. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) thanked Jens Nilsson for his report and called Amy Koopmanschap.
Amy KOOPMANSCHAP (Netherlands, SOC) asked how the effective implementation of proposals made by the Congress could be ensured.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Michel Guegan.
Michel GUEGAN (France, NR) asked the Rapporteur whether he thought cities were the antidote to the tendency for people to withdraw into their own community and whether they were better able to encourage intercultural dialogue than rural areas.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called the Rapporteur.
Jens NILSSON (Sweden, SOC), Rapporteur, said he felt the answer to the last question was both yes and no. Coming, as he did, from a small town in the north of Sweden, in which a bare 3 to 4 % of the population belonged to a different culture, he tended to think, as he listened to colleagues who were responsible for cities in which 50 % of the population came from somewhere else, that things might be easier in towns because people met one another every day. He did, however, know of small villages in the north of Sweden where refugees were very well received.
As regards the effective implementation of intercultural policies, the Rapporteur believed strongly in the value of example. It was essential to learn from the experience of others - hence the vital importance of the network of pilot cities. It was to be hoped that the network would expand and that good practices would spread quite naturally in this way. As a member for Liverpool had said, one was better prepared to face globalisation if one had the world in one's own back yard.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Karl-Heinz Lambertz, Chair of the Committee on Culture and Education.
Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ (Belgium, R, SOC), Chair of the Committee on Culture and Education, pointed out that the report was full of examples to follow, though of course problems were less serious in places where there was more interculturalism. The intercultural approach required a high degree of mutual respect. It also required that certain rules be observed by all, otherwise it was impossible for people to live together.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) closed the debate and put the draft recommendation and draft resolution, to which no amendments had been tabled, to the vote.
The draft recommendation, put to the vote, was adopted unanimously.
The draft resolution, put to the vote, was adopted unanimously.
[CPL(16)2REC]
[CPL(16)2RES]
[CPL(16)2REP]
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) said that the agenda called for an address by Isaac Albert, Deputy Mayor of Terrassa (Spain), which would be followed by the presentation by Esther Maurer, on behalf of the Committee on Social Cohesion, of the report on "Equality and diversity in local authority employment and service provision"
He called Isaac Albert to address the Chamber.
Isaac ALBERT (Spain), Deputy Mayor of Terrassa, said his city, which was 29 km from Barcelona, had a population of 208 000, which was increasing fast. More than 120 nationalities were represented in the city, including more than 12 000 Moroccans – a community which, together with the Ecuadorian population, accounted for more than half the foreign population.
The population of Terrassa was, in the main, of working age, particularly in the case of Moroccan and Senegalese men and South American women. Despite the unfavourable economic circumstances, employment was still one of the key factors in integration. Unfortunately, the immigrants suffered even more than Spanish citizens from unemployment.
In the matter of policies for the integration of foreigners in local authorities’ staff, a number of obstacles had to be taken into account: knowledge of Catalan and Castilian was still limited among immigrants; officials had to have Spanish nationality; and, lastly, many recent immigrants had a relatively low level of education, and illiteracy was not unusual. In the circumstances, the local council employed very few foreigners or people of foreign origin and, when it did so, it was mainly in jobs connected with immigration or translation.
Foreigners were often employed in the building and service sectors. That was why they had felt the full force of the credit crunch: in January 2009, almost 28 % of the unemployed were foreigners, and the figure was almost 40 % in the building trade. Unemployment was increasingly affecting second-generation immigrants. Terrassa had more than 16 000 unemployed and 4 000 households in which no-one was working.
The public authorities endeavoured to enable everyone, irrespective of language or origins, to map out a plan for their life by guaranteeing access to translation services, providing more training and facilitating access to social services such as mediation. Such a policy should reduce the need to establish special services to assist immigrants. The city of Terrassa published a great many information documents in a number of languages, including a guide welcoming newcomers. Immigrants now used local services more often than Spanish citizens.
However, Catalan families were also affected by the crisis and were consequently being prompted to use the social services. Only now, therefore, was there beginning to be real competition between nationals and immigrants – at a time when the city was facing diminishing revenue. It now had to meet the challenge of an increasing demand for basic services not only from immigrants but also from the native population.
In view of the economic situation, the city of Terrassa had launched a voluntary return project, including a lump-sum unemployment allowance, designed to encourage some immigrants to return to their country of origin and set up a business there after a period of training. Moroccan and Senegalese entrepreneurs had already benefited from the scheme.
The city faced another problem: the Moroccan women’s dependence on translation services. To solve it, the city had set up a language programme for this group and planned to restrict access to the services in question.
The speaker thanked the Congress for its invitation and hoped that what he had said would be useful.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) said he had been informed of a question for the speaker. He called Irmeli Henttonen.
Irmeli HENTTONEN (Finland, IDLG) asked Isaac Albert whether, given that the aim was to increase the independence of immigrants, particularly Moroccan women, excessive use was not being made of translation services, not least by second-generation immigrants.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Isaac Albert to reply.
Isaac ALBERT (Spain) recognised that recourse to translation services was sometimes an impediment to the independence of foreigners. That was why the city of Terrassa was investigating ways of developing their linguistic skills through programmes providing tuition in Catalan and Spanish.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) thanked the speaker and invited Esther Maurer to present the report of the Committee on Social Cohesion on "Equality and diversity in local authority employment and service provision".
Esther MAURER (Switzerland, SOC), Rapporteur, was pleased to present to the Congress the second report of the European network of Cities for Local Integration Policies, or CLIP, on the employment market and access to public services, following the first report on housing policy. The two documents had the same objective: to improve the integration of migrants.
The current report was based on three assumptions: integration took place primarily at local level; access to the employment market was essential for any integration policy; and the role of cities, which were both employers and service providers, was also important. These were the bases for speeding up the processes of integration.
Although unimpeded access to the employment market, both public and private, was a factor in integration, no-one could harbour any illusions: unemployment affected everyone. Since the submission of the report in November 2008, the collapse of the financial markets had left its mark on all local communities. Given the economic circumstances, a growing number of nationals were looking in vain for jobs, sometimes for years, to the point where they were indignant to find that the public authorities were devoting their energies to integrating immigrants into the employment market by means of special measures. The same applied to housing and education. To facilitate the integration of immigrants, it was important that local people should not feel disadvantaged, otherwise intolerance, xenophobia and segregation might increase. The report included a range of measures designed to resolve these difficulties.
Equal treatment with respect to employment was not a new claim: the member states of the Council of Europe had long approved it via Recommendation No. 7 in 2002 and Resolution No. 181 in 2004. Unfortunately, practice still fell a long way short of principle. To remedy the situation, the speaker proposed a number of measures that had been tried out in 25 cities in the CLIP network.
It was important to make sure that there were no impediments to equality and diversity in the area of employment in the municipal services. It was not simply a matter of preventing discrimination but of encouraging integration by taking affirmative action. Tools were needed to carry out the necessary checks.
Cultural diversity in the managerial class must be regarded as an asset rather than a handicap. Staff must be trained to prevent conflicts between employees who were nationals of the country and their foreign colleagues. Care must also be taken not to treat migrants separately and to ensure the adoption of rules prohibiting any discrimination.
Immigrants’ access to information and language courses must be promoted. The NGOs could contribute here.
The report envisaged two strategies, which should be combined: providing posts reserved exclusively for migrants, and ensuring that the services available to all met the special needs of immigrants.
Local authorities must also defend their policies on equality and diversity, and make in known that they would do so.
Lastly, the employment potential in the various sectors must be assessed, particularly in times of crisis, and instruments deployed to monitor the impact of the measures taken.
The speaker thanked all the leaders of the CLIP network, the research workers associated with it, who had studied the effectiveness of the provisions, the experts, and the representatives of the city of Terrassa, whose initiatives in this connection were most welcome.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) declared the debate open and called Mikhail Gulevskiy.
Mikhail GULEVSKIY (Russian Federation, ILDG), having listened to the various speakers, was disturbed to learn that national governments did not assist the local authorities. In Russia, the three levels of territorial organisation spoke with one voice. For instance, the Federation had provided the city of Lipetsk with substantial financial aid to enable it to invest in factories, roads, schools and infrastructure. Among other things, this had made it possible to avoid redundancies in a factory in Lipetsk.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Mikhail Chernishev.
Mikhail CHERNISHEV (Russia, EPP/CD) said his city, Rostov-on-Don, with more than a million inhabitants and a hundred or so nationalities and ethnic groups, was very much concerned with the problems mentioned in Esther Maurer’s report.
Every year, 40 000 to 50 000 people applied to the local employment services in Rostov-on-Don, seeking vocational training, new jobs, part-time jobs and guidance. Psychologists and lawyers even helped young people in their choice of occupation. All the information was available on the city’s internet site and also on the Federation sites.
He therefore emphasised the need for collaboration between the local, regional and federal or national levels.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Francis Lec.
Francis LEC (France, SOC) congratulated Esther Maurer on the courageous report she had presented on what was an essential issue.
He deeply regretted that regional and local government regulations in France still contained a nationality clause. How was this obstacle to be overcome? More generally, how was a complete absence of discrimination to be ensured? Should all applications in recruitment procedures not be anonymous?
Moreover, at a time when migrants were often confined to districts with problems, where integration rules provided for the employment of people from these districts, why not specify minimum quotas of migrants to be recruited in this context?
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Jetty Eugster-Van Bergeijk.
Jetty EUGSTER-VAN BERGEIJK(Netherlands, EPP/CD) was pleased to see that the report did not regard integration as a problem but as an opportunity. Such a positive approach, which was all too rare, must be encouraged. The report was full of proposals in this connection.
That said, should greater efforts not be made? In particular, how could women be encouraged to leave the home in order to train or find a job?
Lastly, in a context of crisis, migrants ought not to be the first to suffer unemployment. That would only create more problems.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) called Esther Maurer.
Esther MAURER (Switzerland, SOC), replying to her Russian colleagues, said that laws were drawn up at national level and their application at local level was sometimes complicated in so far as they were remote from reality. The allocation of substantial or even massive financial resources was an immediate indication of the importance attached to a matter.
Integration certainly came at a price, but the cost of delaying investment in integration, or even not investing in it at all, must also be borne in mind when budget decisions were taken.
Affirmative action was useful but it could also encourage a degree of xenophobic intolerance. It must therefore be used in moderation. Generally speaking, it was essential to see how receptive a given society was and how far it was capable of absorbing foreigners. There was no single answer; it was necessary to adapt to the situation in each case.
Women of immigrant origin had even more difficulty in adapting and defending themselves. In the difficult context created by the current economic crisis, convictions alone would not achieve progress. Pressure would be needed. When an elected Italian representative refused to take on a woman because her linguistic skills were inadequate, the thought that sprang to mind was that the poor woman would have no chance of learning the language of the country if she was forced to remain confined to the home! On the contrary, it might be an idea to refuse to grant naturalisation to a man who did not allow his wife to leave the home.
It was essential to be creative and look at what was happening elsewhere.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) thanked Esther Maurer and called Valerio Prignachi, Chair of the Committee on Social Cohesion.
Valerio PRIGNACHI (Italy, EPP/CD), Chair of the Committee on Social Cohesion, reiterated the importance that the committee attached to the right to work. Work was one of the most important bases for integration because, without financial independence, freedom was impossible. Without work and without financial independence, there was a danger that some might turn to crime. The committee was engaged in extensive discussions designed to identify appropriate rights and duties, quite apart from the question of integration.
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) was obliged to close the debate and proceeded to put the draft recommendation and resolution to the vote.
The draft recommendation, put to the vote, was approved.
The draft resolution, put to the vote, was approved.
6. DATE, TIME AND AGENDA OF THE NEXT SITTING
The PRESIDENT (Netherlands, ILDG) proposed that the Chamber of Local Authorities hold its next sitting at 10.15 a.m. on the following day.
Agreed.
The sitting rose at 6.05 p.m.
FIRST SITTING OF THE CHAMBER OF REGIONS
Wednesday 4 March 2009 at 3.15 p.m.
______________
CONTENTS
Page
3. Approval of the minutes of the fifteenth session of the Chamber………………………………….….….............
5. The digital divide and e-inclusion in the regions………………………………………………………..…................
6. Future of cultural tourism – towards a sustainable model……………………………………………….................
7. Co-operation with CALRE and REGLEG………………………...…………………………..………........................
9. Date, time and agenda of the next sitting…………………………………………………....................................
The sitting was opened at 3.15 p.m. with Ludmila Sfirloaga (Romania, SOC), President of the Chamber, in the Chair.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) declared the 16th session of the Chamber of Regions open pursuant to Rule 19.1 of the Rules of Procedure.
She reminded the participants that only members who had received a pink ballot paper were entitled to vote.
[CPR(16)OJ1]
[CG(16)1PROV]
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that the Order of Business had been adopted by the Congress the previous day.
It was now necessary to adopt the Chamber’s agenda as set out in document [CPR(16)OJ1]. There were no objections.
The draft agenda was adopted.
[CPR/SA(15)PV1]
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that the minutes of the 15th autumn session of the Chamber of Regions set out in document CPR/SA(15)PV1 had been distributed. She noted that it did not give rise to any observations.
The minutes were approved.
[CPR(16)3REC]
[CPR(16)3RES]
[CPR(16)3REP]
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that the agenda called for the presentation of the Report on Good Governance, a Key Factor for the Sustainable Economic Development of Regions by Uno Aldegren on behalf of the Committee on Sustainable Development. After listening to the Rapporteur’s remarks, the members of the Chamber would hear a statement by Vladimir Kissiov and would then be invited to comment on a draft recommendation and draft resolution, to which no amendments had been tabled.
Good governance was a subject of paramount importance for everyone and might enable the two major problems of climate change and the economic recession to be resolved.
The PRESIDENT called the Rapporteur of the Committee, Uno Aldegren.
Uno ALDEGREN (Sweden, SOC), Rapporteur, said that regions throughout Europe were subject to profound transformations as a consequence of global phenomena. They faced new challenges with regard to the environment, energy and the climate, coupled with the need to deal with the economic recession, so the future depended on their ability to innovate and implement co-operative projects. In the sustainable development context, good governance practices, ethical conduct and the ability to establish a climate of confidence should enable the regions to be made more attractive. The citizens had lost faith in the political institutions and their elected representatives, and only the renewal of good governance practices would enable that faith to be restored.
A great deal of research was taking place in that area. The American researcher Robert Putman had highlighted the fact that the north of Italy had benefited from stronger civic engagement and, in his opinion, social capital was a key element for getting institutions to perform well and strengthening democracy. In the 20 Italian regions, whose development he had studied since the 1970s, the most prosperous were those in which civic engagement and confidence were strongest. The promotion of civic engagement was therefore a key element. In order to gain the confidence of civil society, good governance should include transparency, open-mindedness and respect for the rule of law.
The report studied the cases of Poland, the Czech Republic and Sweden, which had shown that it was necessary to formulate a long-term vision of regional policy and involve civil society in it in order to strengthen its commitment. The regions should therefore initiate a strategy to guarantee their competitiveness and social commitment. The citizens’ confidence would be gained by involving them in policy decisions that affected them.
Those principles should be applied by the elected regional representatives, who should take care to ensure the transparency of decision-making. Good governance seemed to be a key factor for sustainable economic development.
He was pleased that Vladimir Kissiov, Rapporteur of the Commission for Territorial Cohesion of the Committee of the Regions (who was also working on the promotion of sustainable development in the European regions), was present.
The draft recommendation emphasised the need to enshrine the subsidiarity principle in national legislation and give the regions the administrative and regulatory powers needed to implement sustainable development strategies.
The European Charter of Regional Democracy was an instrument that would enable that objective to be achieved. The Rapporteur called on the Committee of Ministers to adopt it and on his colleagues to pressure their respective governments to do so.
The draft resolution reiterated that good governance went hand in hand with political and social cohesion. It was necessary to take account of all the economic, environmental, social and cultural parameters and promote regional synergies.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) thanked both the Rapporteur for his excellent work and the secretariat of the Committee on Sustainable Development. She hoped that co-operation with the Committee of the Regions could be intensified.
She welcomed Vladimir Kissiov, Rapporteur of the Commission for Territorial Cohesion of the Committee of the Regions, and said that the valuable co-operation with that committee would be strengthened by the debate.
Vladimir KISSIOV (Bulgaria), Rapporteur of the Commission for Territorial Cohesion of the Committee of the Regions (COTER) on governance and partnership at national and regional level (interpretation) stressed that the Rapporteur’s proposals should be constantly reiterated so that it was never forgotten what good governance should be and the excellent ideas in the proposal were disseminated. During election campaigns, all politicians spoke about transparency, citizen participation and decentralisation, but as soon as the elections were over they all forgot their promises and tried to concentrate power and financial resources in their own hands if there was no rule that required consultation at all levels.
The role of the local and regional authorities was going to increase because they were the tiers of government closest to the citizens. The European Union and Council of Europe had to ensure that those authorities were involved in drawing up and implementing cohesion and development policies. When the new cohesion policy was drawn up, it was crucial for the authorities, as well as economic partners, employers, trade unions and civil society, to be involved in setting priorities and for their opinions to be taken into account.
In the large towns and the regions, the authorities played a key role with regard to cohesion. By relying on the local and regional tier of government, it was possible to prevent transport and environmental problems from becoming worse and the population from being concentrated in certain places. Moreover, the local and regional authorities had the best administrative capacities. It was their responsibility to strengthen the various partnerships to ensure a sustainable policy and more vertical and horizontal integration. The authorities should adapt their methodology to bring about such partnerships. To that end, the local and regional authorities should be given genuine autonomy to manage certain programmes, with due regard for the fact that not all member states had reached the same level of decentralisation. It was also necessary to compare partnership experiments and simplify communication between partners.
There were also differences between the various local and regional governance consultation processes, The Committee of the Regions believed that local government leaders should be prepared to take appropriate action in consultation with their partners and civil society representatives. For example, in the context of the objectives of the Lisbon strategy, targeted measures could be taken to involve the universities and technology centres in the preparation of the new programme, to strengthen the skills of administrators and to take measures that enabled young people to be included as early as possible in the preparation of their programme. All that would have a profound impact on the policies of the European Union.
The Committee of the Regions also emphasised the need to reinforce active governance partnerships. The European Parliament, the European Commission and the Council of Europe should seek ways of using to best advantage the local and regional authorities’ skills with regard to the monitoring and implementation of operational programmes. The opportunities provided by the structural and cohesion funds should also be exploited in order to reduce costs and simplify procedures. The experiments carried out showed that the Committee of the Regions should have a more important role in devising and monitoring EU policies and that its members should actively participate in the local and regional dialogue. Those were the preconditions for the successful planning of territorial development and would also enable the administrative shortcomings so often complained about to be overcome.
The Committee of the Regions was drawing up recommendations for improving local and regional partnerships and wanted them to be discussed at the highest level. It also supported the initiatives of the member states, the European Parliament and the European Commission aimed at developing partnerships with the local and regional authorities, for the purpose not only of following up proposals but also of drafting them.
The Committee of the Regions would take the measures necessary to improve the use of the mechanisms for co-ordinating and implementing regional policies, so the involvement of the Committee for Territorial Cohesion would be a guarantee of effectiveness. The Committee of the Regions should do its utmost to ensure that the policy was applied to the best advantage. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) was pleased to note that that involvement marked a new phase in the co-operation between the Congress and the Committee of the Regions.
She opened the debate and called Mariacristina Spinosa.
Mariacristina SPINOSA (Italy, SOC) asked Mr Kissiov, who had stressed that partnership and dialogue with many different players were key components of good governance, to provide an example from his own experience in Sofia.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Marjan Haak-Griffioen.
Marjan HAAK-GRIFFIOEN (Netherlands, NR) thanked the Rapporteur for stressing the role that the regions should play in ensuring sustainable development. They were half-way between the local and national authorities. The report showed that different economic options were available to the regions, and the Dutch provinces employed some of them, such as closer ties between SMEs and universities.
Regional diversity was also a very important aspect with regard to sustainable development in Europe.
The report provided a good study of what was referred to as territorial cohesion but it was somewhat surprising that its title focused more on the economic aspect than on governance.
The European Commission had launched initiatives on the subject of territorial cohesion. How could the Congress and the Committee of the Regions ensure that the report, which should be distributed within all the existing networks, did not remain a dead letter and was actually acted upon? Whatever happened, it was to be welcomed that the two institutions were working together on those issues.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called David Shakespeare.
David SHAKESPEARE (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) said the Congress’s Committee on Sustainable Development was convinced that sustainable development and good governance were two sides of the same coin. Developing sustainable policies offered new opportunities for economic and social progress. Were the regions currently in a position to take up those challenges?
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Valery Kadokhov.
Valery KADOKHOV (Russian Federation, SOC) thanked the Rapporteur for all the information he had provided and expressed his gratitude to Mr Kissiov, who had emphasised the synergies between the Congress and the Committee of the Regions. Both had highlighted the importance of good governance for sustainable economic development and in order to mitigate the crisis. However, as that crisis was escalating, pious aspirations would not be enough, especially as civil society was beginning to protest. In the event of failure, people were likely to lose any confidence they had in governments. Regional leaders should adopt a long-term view and influence the major political and economic policies. The Council of Europe was a body well-suited to discussing those issues in order to influence the action of central government authorities and even remedy their inaction.
Regional leaders should do more than pay lip service: they needed to take action. As representatives of the population, they should be a driving force and work hand in hand with central governments so that good governance became a key factor for the economic development of the regions.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Vladimir Varnavskiy.
Vladimir VARNAVSKIY (Russian Federation, ILDG) thanked the Rapporteurs for their work, which deserved to become required reading for all the regional players in Europe. In the Omsk region, their recommendations were already being implemented, whether it be the funding of the different tiers of government, partnerships with industry, further training or help for SMEs. Good governance was a key factor for the sustainable economic development of the regions and, moreover, would enable their roles to be better understood by the public.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Oddleif Olavsen.
Oddleif OLAVSEN (Norway, EPP/CD) stressed how much the regions differed from one country to another in both size and number of inhabitants. The solutions and methods they employed naturally had to take account of their specific features, but they also had many features in common that enabled them to establish an accountable and transparent democracy based on the subsidiarity principle. Good governance should result in certain responsibilities being entrusted to the citizens. It should apply to all territorial levels, whose co-operation rather than competition was essential. Finally, the successes and not the failures recorded with regard to good governance should be highlighted.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called George Pavlidis.
George PAVLIDIS (Greece, EPP/CD) said the report was very good but regretted that it did not anticipate the new needs with regard to governance brought about by the economic crisis. It was also necessary to place further emphasis on the need to improve the application of the subsidiarity principle in the regions.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Uno Aldegren.
Uno ALDEGREN (Sweden, SOC), Rapporteur, thanked the speakers and welcomed the action taken by the regions and European towns and cities. He urged the pooling of all the experience gained. While there were many differences between the European regions, they had a number of features in common, such as the mobility of their inhabitants and their educational requirements. At any rate, they had much to learn from one another.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Vladimir Kissiov.
Vladimir KISSIOV (Bulgaria) mentioned, in connection with the good practices implemented in Sofia, the recent decisions of his city’s council: the setting up of a committee for European affairs and one tasked with relations with NGOs, and the allocation of a specific budget for supporting projects to strengthen civil society. Each year, the Committee of the Regions drew up a report and recommendations to make it easier to disseminate the principles of good governance among the European local and regional authorities.
Mr Kissiov told Mr Olavsen that he owed a great deal to his country, where he had begun his career thirty years back. It was in Bergen that he had learned the principles underlying good governance.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) declared the general debate closed and asked the Chamber to vote on the draft recommendation in document [CPR(16)3REC].
The draft recommendation in document [CPR(16)3REC] was approved unanimously.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) asked the Chamber to vote on the entire draft resolution contained in document [CPR (16) 3 REC].
The draft resolution contained in document [CPR(16)3REC] was approved.
[CPR(16)1REC]
[CPR(16)1RES]
[CPR(16)1REP]
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said the next item on the agenda was the presentation of Jean-Marc Bourjac’s report on the digital divide and e-inclusion in the regions on behalf of the Committee on Social Cohesion and the vote on the draft resolution and draft recommendation, to which no amendments had been tabled.
Unfortunately, Christian Paul, (France, Bourgogne), Deputy Chair of the Bourgogne Regional Council’s committee for spatial planning, contractual and European policies and ICT, had been unable to attend on account of a parliamentary debate.
Although the citizens’ access to the digital means of communication was crucial, Jean-Marc Bourjac’s report underlined the fact that there was a real divide in the population. The regions should play a role in ensuring the inclusion of all citizens in the communication society. The report suggested ways of bridging the gap between those with and those without access to the digital technologies.
Jean-Marc BOURJAC (France, SOC) stressed that the rapport, which was the product of collective work, aimed to show to what extent the digital divide was a problem for the economic, social and human development of European countries at the beginning of the 21st century. At a time when the digital technologies were omnipresent, inequalities between citizens were increasing and required countries to react quickly and co-operate more closely.
Considerable disparities had been observed not only between countries but also between the various parts of each country, so the problem concerned not only technology but also the social fabric. The authorities should use those technologies to reinforce the democratic conduct of public affairs. Their legitimacy would depend on the number of cyber-citizens and their ability to use the technologies.
The Rapporteur urged the Council of Europe member states to continue their work on coherent e-inclusion policies linked to the local or regional digital agendas that were either in place or were yet to be set up. Account should be taken of the recent initiatives of the European Union and those originating from the Ministerial e-Inclusion Conference. It was important for citizens to be involved in the preparation of projects catering for them. Electronic equipment in the regional institutions and in institutions managed by the regions should perhaps be picked up and redistributed to less-well-off households. A policy that facilitated accessibility, information and citizen training should be implemented, for example the employment of “cyber-buses” that travelled to the citizens. The gradual widespread use of information technology was leading to a more marked digital divide, for example in rural areas, where one person in three had no broadband access.
As access to the internet did not necessarily lead to its actual use, training should be increased. It was up to the authorities to pursue policies with a regulatory function: the member states should set out coherent and effective policies that would ensure the balanced provision of communication facilities while at the same time making certain that the laws of the marketplace were not thrown out of balance. As various social groups were deprived of internet access for financial reasons, a public internet access service available either at an affordable price or free of charge should be guaranteed by making the free public access points permanent in the countries where they existed, and consideration should be given to targeted tax measures in partnership with businesses to help low-income households acquire computer equipment. In addition, digital training should be standardised in Europe to facilitate the development and upgrading of jobs, training provided at public internet access points should be recognised at European level and good public online services should be made available in order to foster quality use of the internet so as to ensure greater social inclusion. The legal framework should be strengthened in line with the European Union’s Riga Declaration, and national accessibility guidelines should be harmonised to make the subject more comprehensible. Public assistance would be required and information should be circulated through the media. Mr Bourjac called on the regions to provide schools with computer equipment so as to make them key settings for reducing the social and digital divide. Finally, there was a need to demonstrate digital solidarity with the developing countries.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) thanked the Rapporteur for his remarks, which reflected his commitment.
She opened the debate and called Mariacristina Spinosa.
Mariacristina SPINOSA (Italy, SOC) noted that the proper use of the internet made it possible to enhance the skills and knowledge of both individuals and businesses. This should make technology accessible to all. It was not possible to prepare for the future without tackling these issues. The digital divide affected a large proportion of the population in both poor and advanced countries. Its causes were economic in origin (the cost of equipment), technical (the lack of infrastructure) and cultural (low-income groups were not familiar with these new forms of communication, which had actually created new barriers) and it was now necessary to look for solutions to reduce the digital divide.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Nikolay Dudov.
Nikolay DUDOV (Russian Federation, EPP/CD), the governor of the Russian region of Magadan, a very large but sparsely populated area, thought the report was interesting because it showed the urban/rural divide very well. In Russia, the regions were involved both in targeted programmes and in a federal programme entitled “Computerised Russia”. Measures had already been adopted to set up communication networks, especially with the aid of satellites, which would enable video-conferences involving both the governors and central government to be organised. An automated staff management system had been introduced. A programme to connect schools to computer networks had been launched. Since 2007, the computerisation of businesses had increased by 50%.
President Medvedev had chaired a body tasked with dealing with the problem and had given new impetus to the work of the regions.
The committee document would permit new concrete applications in that area.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said there were no more speakers on the list and called Jean-Marc Bourjac to reply.
Jean-Marc BOURJAC (France, SOC) said that Mariacristina Spinosa’s remarks were particularly relevant. It was true that it was not enough to possess computer equipment: it was also necessary to be able to use it, which was a particular problem in the case of people unable to read and write. That was a point that would have to be dealt with in the future.
Nikolay Dudov, who had reiterated the difference between the towns and rural areas, had shown how his region had committed itself to computerisation by focusing on training in schools.
In conclusion, as a result of the adoption of the texts presented that day, the regions would have concrete documents at their disposal to help them reduce the social divide and strengthen e-inclusion.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Erich Haider, Chair of the Committee on Social Cohesion.
Erich HAIDER (Austria, SOC), Chair of the Committee on Social Cohesion, thanked Jean-Marc Bourjac for his excellent report, which reflected great commitment. As a representative of the province of Upper Austria, he had been confronted with the problem in the Alpine regions. It had been decided that all citizens would be connected to the internet by 2010.
The coverage of the population and region was already 100% and the third phase, which was currently under way, was designed to raise the population’s awareness of ICT and its use.
25% of economic output and 45% of productivity increases were now linked to the use of information systems. Figures like those alone showed the importance of the report.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said she shared that assessment.
She called Valerio Prignachi, Chair of the Committee on Social Cohesion.
Valerio PRIGNACHI (Italy, EPP/CD), Chair of the Committee on Social Cohesion, stressed the need to offer citizens the same services throughout the Council of Europe area, in both the towns and the countryside. If, however, the services were to be identical everywhere, thought had to be given to training courses enabling each citizen to use the technology. The example of Brescia showed what benefits wireless technology provided in terms of virtual and actual mobility.
The main thing was to guarantee equal opportunities with regard to access to, and the use of, the technology. It was now necessary to consider how the Chamber wished to follow up its activities in that area.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) closed the general debate.
She said that the Committee on Social Cohesion had presented a draft recommendation and a draft resolution, to which no amendments had been tabled.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) asked the Chamber to vote on the entire draft recommendation in document [CPR(16)1REC].
The draft recommendation in document [CPR(16)1REC] was approved unanimously.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) asked her colleagues to vote on the entire draft resolution in document [CPR(16)1RES].
The draft resolution in document [CPR(16)1RES] was approved unanimously.
[CPR(16)4REC]
[CPR(16)4RES]
[CPR(16)4REP]
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that the next item on the agenda was the presentation by Günther Krug of his report on “The future of cultural tourism – towards a sustainable model” [CPR(16)4REP] on behalf of the Committee on Culture and Education.
Cultural tourism could be considered an antidote to mass tourism as it provided European towns and cities with new opportunities, promoted cultural exchanges, encouraged direct exchanges between citizens and offered new ways of achieving a balance between the exploitation of the cultural heritage for commercial purposes and the sustainable use of the heritage. The idea was that political leaders should be responsible for the management of cultural resources and the pursuit of the economic development of the regions.
She called Günther Krug.
Günther KRUG (Germany, SOC) stressed that culture united peoples and that it was doubtless no accident that the Chamber of Local Authorities was debating the subject of intercultural cities at that very moment.
Cultural tourism, which helped to give impetus to the cultural and artistic life of towns and regions, enabled European values to be preserved and passed on. As a result of exchanges of knowledge and culture, it helped to ensure that cultural diversity was appreciated as an asset.
On the strength of local characteristics, it helped to rationalise commercialisation and avoid the mass exploitation of tourist towns and cities. In fact, cultural tourism was a matter not simply of bringing in money but also of communicating a heritage.
The members of the committee had had very interesting discussions at the Dubrovnik symposium, which had sparked the report. If there was a genuine desire to prevent the major cultural towns and cities from being inundated by mass tourism, it was necessary to consider ways of preserving the heritage and making tourists more aware, and the draft recommendation and draft resolution endeavoured to do just that. An overall approach was necessary to bring together all the players prompted to use resources of this kind. That would help to raise the awareness of all parties concerned, whether they be tour operators, hotel and catering trade professionals, museum directors or people responsible for preserving historic monuments. It was also necessary to involve the local and regional population in developing the new ideas in question and establishing the maximum visitor numbers that were not to be exceeded, which naturally varied according to location. For example, Berlin was pleased that millions of tourists came to the city and could actually accommodate more visitors.
Cultural tourism emphasised the preservation of the specific characteristics of rare assets. The idea of protection was also to be found in the notion of sustainable tourism. The main task of local and regional political leaders was to strike a balance between the exploitation and preservation of the cultural assets that needed to be protected from excessively large numbers of tourists.
The draft recommendation and draft resolution called on governments to take account of the sustainability principle in order to guarantee that the cultural heritage was used for the benefit of everyone and preserved for future generations. To that end, the report considered not only the scientific aspects and research but also policy decisions.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) opened the debate by calling Mariacristina Spinosa.
Mariacristina SPINOSA (Italy, SOC) said that, as an Italian, she was acutely aware of the issue of cultural tourism: Italy, which was often described as an open-air museum, had not yet succeeded in developing a model that prevented tourism from being the prerogative of an aesthetic elite. It was necessary to pursue a tourism policy that did not prevent the population from enjoying its cultural assets.
Moreover, sustainable tourism meant preserving not only the cultural heritage but also ecosystems. There, too, a type of solidarity with the local population could be found: tourism should not damage the social fabric of the regions visited.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) invited Günther Krug to reply to Mariacristina Spinosa.
Günther KRUG (Germany, SOC) pointed out that the problem was addressed in the report, which dealt with questions of education and did not set elite culture against mass culture. This was extremely important in the eyes of a socialist politician.
Such a conception of culture could enable peoples to understand one another better. It was not a question of denigrating mass tourism but of showing that cultural tourism was a means of promoting culture. It was clear that not only financial considerations were involved, since cultural tourism could enable a country’s monuments and assets to be preserved for the benefit of future generations.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Karl-Heinz Lambertz to speak on behalf of the committee.
Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ (Belgium, SOC) noted that cultural tourism was a source of contradictions that could not be denied and that even the best of reports could not resolve. At any rate, mass tourism should not be set against elite tourism. Cultural tourism should remain accessible to the largest possible number of people, and the report showed that that could be achieved while at the same time guaranteeing the protection of heritage properties. Tourism professionals faced a considerable challenge but the Rapporteur had shown with his report that it was possible to embrace it.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said the general debate was closed and reminded the Chamber that the Committee on Culture and Education had presented a draft recommendation and a draft resolution. One amendment had been tabled to the draft recommendation. She called Karl-Heinz Lambertz to speak to it.
Karl-Heinz LAMBERTZ (Belgium, SOC) said the conference organised by the Congress in Eupen, Belgium, on 18 February 2009 had considered the situation of border regions. The purpose of the amendment was to mention the specific dimension of cultural tourism in those regions.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) noted that no one wished to speak against the amendment and called the Rapporteur.
Günther KRUG (Germany, SOC), Rapporteur, said the amendment was excellent.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) asked the members of the Chamber to vote on it.
Amendment No. 1 was adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) asked the Chamber to vote on the entire draft recommendation in document [CPR(16)4REC].
The draft recommendation in document [CPR(16)4REC] was approved as amended.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) asked the Chamber to vote on the entire draft resolution contained in document [CPR(16)4RES].
The draft resolution contained in document [CPR(16)4RES] was approved.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said the next item on the agenda was an exchange of views on co-operation between the Conference of Presidents of European Regional Legislative Assemblies (CALRE) and the Conference of Presidents of European Regions with Legislative Power (REGLEG), in the course of which the Chamber would be able to listen to a contribution by Herwig Van Staa, President of CALRE, and a message from Mercedes Bresso, President of REGLEG, who was otherwise engaged.
The Chamber of Regions had close links with CALRE and REGLEG, and the Congress welcomed the support of those organisations for the work on the European Charter of Regional Democracy. An agreement had been concluded between CALRE and the Congress and its scope should be widened to include REGLEG. A proposal in that regard had been sent to the Presidents of the two organisations. That day’s debate would also provide an opportunity to discuss it.
The PRESIDENT called Herwig Van Staa.
Herwig VAN STAA (Austria, EPP/CD), President of CALRE, welcomed the work done by Mercedes Bresso, who was unfortunately absent that day, both in his region of Piedmont and for the Committee of the Regions. She was an activist who was convinced of the importance of regionalisation and was an ardent supporter of the draft European Charter of Regional Democracy.
CALRE had been set up in 1997 to consolidate the work of the European regional legislative assemblies. Initially, countries like France and the Netherlands had been sceptical about the benefits of regions with legislative assemblies but attitudes had changed a little since then and local and regional democracy had been given a boost. Regionalism could take many forms, not only that of federalism. National governments should establish the model they found the most appropriate, but European countries were still far from agreeing with one another on what constituted a region and what its powers should be.
CALRE’s priorities in 2009 would be to strengthen regionalisation in Europe and support states that had chosen the path of federalism, such as Germany, Austria, Spain and Italy. Self-governing regions would also be given special support.
The draft European Charter of Regional Democracy had elicited the hostility of many governments, which were worried that it would encourage some of their regions to make demands. Many different models were possible for the regions in Europe, from a simple grouping of municipalities to regions with extensive legislative powers. In order to make progress, the working groups of the Congress and the Committee of the Regions should be retained. It was also necessary to institutionalise co-operation between parliaments and regional executives. Furthermore, it was imperative to strengthen the links between CALRE and REGLEG and to stress the transfrontier dimension between neighbouring regions of member states of the European Union or the Council of Europe and non-members. Some regions of the Mediterranean Basin, Arab countries and Israel could also develop closer ties with CALRE.
Finally, the work at regional level should be given more legitimacy. The Congress had considerable experience in the field of local and regional democracy and possessed the best mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the rules of democracy, and there was a need to ensure it did not have its powers and responsibilities taken away. In any event, the European Committee on Local and Regional Democracy (CDLR) could not replace it.
The scope of the agreement between the Council of Europe and CALRE should be broadened to include not only REGLEG but also the Congress.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) read out the message from Mercedes Bresso, President of REGLEG, to the Chamber of Regions.
The PRESIDENT asked Jean-Claude Van Cauwenberghe to reply in his capacity as Rapporteur on regionalisation.
Jean-Claude VAN CAUWENBERGHE(Belgium, SOC) congratulated Herwig Van Staa, who was a great supporter of regionalisation. The Congress was unique in that it had both a Chamber of Regions and a Chamber of Local Authorities. Being a member of the Committee of the Regions, he was fully aware that the many different tiers did not make it easy to ensure the consistency of work carried out. There was hardly any connection between a small rural region and one that acted like a proper state with a parliament and a government that levied taxes and laid down legal rules, which was why the working group on regions with legislative powers had been set up. The regional fight had to be fought at all levels, with the regions with legislative powers forming a kind of advance guard leading the campaign for subsidiarity.
It was important to work with CALRE and REGLEG even though those they represented only 27 Council of Europe member states. Should an agreement involving two, three or four parties be concluded, as Herwig Van Staa was proposing? Experience showed that it was always difficult to put agreements into concrete form: the will to engage in joint action was proclaimed but the result was unfortunately often poor. It was necessary to avoid the dissipation of efforts and focus on one or two specific issues. The Chamber of Regions shared with CALRE and REGLEG the desire to fight for subsidiarity, multi-tier governance and the completion of the draft Charter of Regional Democracy. It was a good thing to work together but it was often easier said than done.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Herwig Van Staa.
Herwig VAN STAA (Austria, EPP/CD) thought, like Jean-Claude Van Cauwenberghe, that nothing would be achieved without a clear objective and a precise schedule. Pushing ahead with regionalisation, completing the draft Charter of Regional Democracy and ensuring compliance with the principle of subsidiarity were all common objectives and, if agreement was reached on them, a three- or four-party working group to make progress on the draft Charter of Regional Democracy could be quickly set up.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that co-operation with CALRE and REGLEG would be put on the agenda of the next meeting of the Bureau. The text of a draft agreement could be reviewed in the light of the current debate.
[CPR(16)2REC]
[CPR(16)2REP]
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said the next item on the agenda was the presentation of Günther Krug’s report on the observation of elections to the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara (Georgia) on behalf of the Bureau of the Congress and the discussion of the draft recommendation, to which four amendments had been tabled.
On 3 November 2008, a Congress delegation had observed the Supreme Council elections in Adjara, which had passed off without incident. Several Congress recommendations had been implemented on that occasion, but it was still necessary to consolidate the democratic process, and anomalies and irregularities had been discovered. Moreover, some political parties had refused to participate in the election and the delegates questioned the reduction from 30 to 18 in the number of seats on the Supreme Council. There had been criticism that that body did not have the right to appoint the head of the Adjaran government directly.
She called Günther Krug, Rapporteur.
Günther KRUG (Germany, SOC), Rapporteur, believed that election observation missions were a key Council of Europe activity. The visit to Adjara had been particularly interesting and the governments of Georgia and the Autonomous Republic of Adjara had to be thanked for their hospitality.
Despite a number of difficulties, the Congress had been able to complete an extremely full programme. It had in particular met national observers and representatives of the Supreme Council of Adjara in Tbilisi and Batumi. On election day, its four teams had observed more than 60 polling stations.
Some progress had been noted in comparison with previous elections. The election campaign seemed to have been low-key and he had been surprised to have seen virtually no election posters in the region. The ballot had passed off without incident. Some recommendations issued by the Congress in 2001 and 2004 had been implemented, such as non-interference by the central government authorities and compliance with the Law on the Electoral Commission.
Some inadequacies had nonetheless been recorded, for example with regard to voter identification. The electoral rolls were not well-kept and there had been some attempts to intimidate national observers. The communication of the results had proved complicated. The ballot papers for the majority-system and proportional-system elections had been very similar, which had made the vote count more difficult.
The fact that the results of the elections had been declared void in two districts showed that not everything had passed off well. It was therefore essential to make sure that future elections took place in accordance with international standards, especially by ensuring that the election workers involved were better trained.
Among the measures implemented by the authorities, it seemed that the ink-marking of voters and the checks at polling stations had been carried out in a somewhat careless manner. As far as the surveillance cameras were concerned, quite apart from the fact that they were sometimes located close to the polling booths, it was hard to understand why they were not installed everywhere. Moreover, the Venice Commission did not recommend the use of cameras at all in polling stations.
With regard to the general context of the elections, the delegation was rather sceptical about the reduction in the number of seats on the Supreme Council from 30 to 18. That did not seem conducive either to the proper representation of the population or to in-depth work. In addition, the Council should elect the head of government directly.
Many journalists had been present at the press conference held by the delegation in Tbilisi. The press release had been widely distributed. Co-operation with the other international observers had been good.
The members of the delegation were to be thanked, as were the Georgian and Adjaran governments. The Rapporteur was particularly grateful to Petre Zambakhidze, a member the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara. The delegation had worked in a spirit of considerable openness. The report indicated what work it had done, while the draft recommendation mapped out a way forward for the next elections.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) opened the discussion and called Sevdia Ugrekhelidze.
Sevdia UGREKHELIDZE (Georgia, EPP/CD) thanked the Congress, the Rapporteur and all the members of the mission. The Georgian delegation was prepared to work with the Congress on strengthening local and regional democracy.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Véronique Moreira.
Véronique MOREIRA (France, NR) emphasised the importance of the observation missions both for the regions they visited and for the Congress as a whole. The region had recently faced violent conflicts. While such missions were not enough to bring about peace, they played a useful role and served the interests of Europe by emphasising the importance of democracy, pluralism, freedom of information and citizen participation.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) invited the Rapporteur to reply to the speakers.
Günther KRUG (Germany, SOC) was in favour of having more fact-finding visits as they were very helpful: they provided an opportunity to meet the population and members of the opposition and hence to obtain a picture of the situation at election time.
Georgia succeeded in making crucial progress in 2001, 2004 and 2006 and could now be seen as an example for other countries.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) closed the general debate.
The Bureau of the Congress had presented a draft recommendation [CPR(16)2REC], to which four amendments and one sub-amendment had been tabled.
She called Sevdia Ugrekhelidze to propose Amendment No. 1.
Sevdia UGREKHELIDZE (Georgia, EPP/CD) said it was simply a matter of mentioning in paragraph 1 the country’s official name, which was “Georgia” and not “Republic of Georgia”.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) asked the Rapporteur for his opinion.
Günther KRUG (Germany, SOC) said he was in favour of the official name being used and therefore supported the adoption of the amendment.
The amendment was adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called George Tkemaladze to propose Amendment No. 2.
George TKEMALADZE (Georgia, NR) thought that “sporadic progress” could be interpreted in various ways. As a member of the opposition on the Tbilisi City Council, he therefore proposed a more precise wording, in conformity with that used by the Rapporteur in the explanatory memorandum.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) asked the Rapporteur for his opinion.
Günther KRUG (Germany, SOC) said he was in favour of the amendment subject to the adoption of Sub-Amendment No.5, which referred to “all remaining inadequacies” without detailing them any further.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) asked the opinion of the author of the amendment.
George TKEMALADZE (Georgia, NR) accepted the sub-amendment.
The sub-amendment and the amendment, as sub-amended, were adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Petre Zambakhidze to propose Amendment No. 4, pointing out that Amendment No. 3 would fall if it were adopted.
Petre ZAMBAKHIDZE (Georgia, NR) said that paragraph 5 should be deleted because it was hard to understand why the Supreme Council of Adjara should be denied the right to elect the head of the executive when that was a fairly widespread practice in Europe.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) asked the Rapporteur for his opinion.
Günther KRUG (Germany, SOC) opposed the amendment as, in contrast to Amendment No. 3 (which he preferred), its aim was to delete the entire paragraph.
Both in its press release and in the report, the delegation stressed its commitment to the direct election of the head of the executive, who would clearly remain accountable to the Supreme Council. That should therefore be mentioned in the draft recommendation.
The amendment was not adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Sevdia Ugrekhelidze to propose Amendment No. 3.
Sevdia UGREKHELIDZE (Georgia, EPP/CD) said the first part of paragraph 5 referred to a Congress resolution adopted the previous year, when the South Caucasus had been occupied by Russian troops. The context had now changed and the wording risked sending a dangerous message to the population of Adjara.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) noted that no one wish to speak against the amendment and asked the Rapporteur for his opinion.
Günther KRUG (Germany, SOC), Rapporteur, said he agreed with the amendment, which enabled the paragraph to be shortened and eliminated a source of confusion.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) put the amendment to the vote.
Amendment No. 3 was adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) put the entire draft recommendation in document [CPR(16)2REC] as amended to the vote.
The draft recommendation in document [CPR(16)2REC] was approved as amended.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) proposed that the Chamber hold its next sitting the following day at 10.15am, with the order of the day set out in the draft adopted at the present sitting.
The order of the day of the next sitting were therefore agreed.
The sitting rose at 6pm.
SECOND SITTING OF THE CHAMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
Thursday 5 March 2009 at 10.15 a.m.
______________
CONTENTS
Page
The sitting opened at 10.15 a.m. with Ian Micallef (Malta, EPP/CD), President of the Chamber, in the chair.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) presented the minutes of the previous sitting, contained in document [CPL(16)PV1PROV].
As there were no objections, the minutes were adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) noted that the first item on the agenda was an address by Chris Saïd on local democracy in Malta. Mr Saïd, responsible for local government in Malta, was also the former Mayor of Nadur.
Chris SAÏD (Malta), Parliamentary Secretary for Public Dialogue and Information in the Maltese Parliament, said that it was a pleasure and an honour to be invited to address the Congress. Malta, a member of the Council of Europe since 1965, had been quick to engage in the promotion of local and regional authorities, and had incorporated the principles of the European Charter of Local Self-Government and a Code of Ethics for Local Councillors in its legislation. The Maltese Government had set objectives on the subject for 2015 – a strategy designed to strengthen the solidarity, subsidiarity and sustainability of local democracy.
In 2008, Malta had celebrated the 15th anniversary of the establishment of local councils. This local government reform process had followed extensive consultation with all stakeholders, from institutions to NGOs and associations. The key elements of the reform process were the development of a policy on local government, the establishment of a special fund to contribute to local projects, the allocation of financial and human resources to assist local councils, the development of sustainable localities, and the improvement of local administrative procedures.
The reform, decided by the Government and discussed in the Maltese Parliament, consisted of measures adopted with immediate effect and others requiring the allocation of additional means, and it represented an objective that was shared by all members of the Chamber: to ensure that citizens had access to efficient and effective public services. This obligation on the local authorities was supervised by central government, which ensured that the rules were followed and the funds were put to good use in accordance with the rules set out in Article 3.1 of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. The Council of Europe too exercised a monitoring function in member states.
The speaker referred to the Congress report on local democracy in Malta, adopted in November 2002, which recognised that the system of local government in that country was new, and which made a number of recommendations for improvement. Several of the concerns had been addressed, for example Note 23 of the report had stated that “complete equality between localities, when it comes to tasks to be accomplished, may create problems if the functions endowed are too big or complicated for the smallest ones.” As a result the system of grants for “special circumstances” had been reinstated. Similarly, in accordance with Note 27, the increase in tasks assigned to local councils had entailed the allocation of additional resources for the management of public libraries and other council property. With regard to Note 35, concerning the limitations on the engagement of municipal employees, the possibility was being considered of waiving this rule where a council could prove that it needed more employees than the law currently allowed. Note 36 concerned the training of council staff: that was now to be improved, funds having been allocated to make up the lost ground.
The Maltese authorities upheld the principle of transparency at both national and local level. Municipalities were an essential tool for the promotion of solidarity and sustainability in the development of society, in accordance with the overriding principle of good governance – subsidiarity. The local government reform would be implemented in the archipelago in 2009, following six months of consultation during which the Maltese Government had received more than 3,000 suggestions from the public – a response that was an example of direct and active citizen participation in the reform. Malta had implemented measures that were fully in line with the Council of Europe’s acquis. The country had a long history of local democracy, which was subject to scrutiny by a number of bodies. It was at the heart of the Maltese authorities’ determination to promote democracy, the rule of law, social integration and cultural identity at all levels of government.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) opened the discussion and called Michael Cohen.
Michael COHEN (Malta, SOC) was pleased with the important contribution members of his country were making to the Congress’s activities and he thanked the President, Ian Micallef, for his excellent work in the absence of Yavuz Mildon. The Maltese Minister for Local Authorities was young and dynamic and this was a good thing: local democracy needed enthusiasm.
Malta was a small country, but its contribution to the promotion of local democracy had always been an active one. The speaker was pleased to hear Chris Saïd extolling the merits of the report adopted by the Congress in 2002. Local democracy in Malta was still very new but it had made a great deal of progress in recent months. It must keep up the good work.
The speaker would like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary of the promise on tax sharing, allocating a proportion of tax revenue to the local authorities as they had no tax prerogatives of their own.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) called Christopher Newbury.
Christopher NEWBURY (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) asked the Parliamentary Secretary for his opinion on the work done by the Congress. Was the Congress, in his view, the most appropriate body to carry out this work?
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) called Onno van Veldhuizen.
Onno VAN VELDHUIZEN (Netherlands, ILDG) raised the question of the dynamism of local democracy. He asked the Parliamentary Secretary which of its aspects should be developed first.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) called Chris Saïd.
Chris SAÏD (Malta) thanked Michael Cohen for his appreciation of the work that had been carried out. He said his nine years’ experience as a local councillor helped him to understand the specific problems of Malta’s 68 municipalities.
Ways of introducing tax sharing were currently being studied. The local authorities in Malta had depended entirely on State grants for fifteen years. It was true that the grants were substantial and they had even been increased by 17% in 2009, but these resources had to be supplemented by other forms of funding.
The speaker appreciated the Congress proposals, which came from people who all had experience of local democracy.
As regards the dynamism of local democracy, he noted that the turnout in local elections was 95% in some Maltese localities and at least 70% in the others. Many local councils also provided for extensive public consultation when decisions were being drafted.
In conclusion, he said that failings and advances in local democracy in Malta were subject to regular assessment.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) called Michel Guégan.
Michel GUEGAN (France, NR) asked the Parliamentary Secretary what he thought of the Congress’s work in monitoring the Charter on Local Democracy.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) called Fabio Pellegrini.
Fabio PELLEGRINI (Italy, SOC) thanked the Parliamentary Secretary for his address. In view of the place that Malta occupied in Europe and in the Mediterranean, and therefore in North-South relations, did the Parliamentary Secretary think his country had a special role to play in the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue? He also asked about the relevance of the idea of an Assembly of local and regional representatives in the Mediterranean region.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) called Chris Saïd to reply to the speakers.
Chris SAÏD (Malta) said that the Maltese local government legislation was based almost entirely on the Council of Europe’s Charter. He therefore thought it was important for the Council to make sure at regular intervals that domestic law complied with its Charter.
He said that Malta, a Mediterranean state par excellence, attached the greatest importance to the Euro-Mediterranean dialogue. Malta had always encouraged it.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) said that they had reached the end of the list of speakers and the debate was therefore closed. He thanked Chris Saïd.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, EPP/CD) left the chair in order to present the Congress medal to Chris Saïd.
Jean-Claude FRECON (France, SOC) took Ian Micallef’s place in the chair.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) said that the next item on the agenda was a debate on citizen participation at local level.
The debate would start with three addresses. First, Christopher Newbury would present the draft Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on democratic participation at local level. Eduard Gurvits, the Mayor of Odessa, would speak next. And lastly, Keith Whitmore would present European Local Democracy Week.
He invited members of the Chamber to register their names if they wished to speak in the debate that would follow the three addresses.
Christopher NEWBURY (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) said that a favourable opinion had been issued on the draft additional Protocol to the European Charter of Local Self-Government on democratic participation at local level. The preamble to the Charter referred to the right of citizens to participate. That participation was a prerequisite for the legitimacy of local democracy. He was therefore pleased that this principle was to be enshrined in a legal instrument, even though there might be doubts as to whether the Charter was the most appropriate vehicle for stating the principle, since it was concerned with the rights of local authorities vis-à-vis national governments. However, the CDLR had not been in favour of the idea of a separate legal instrument and had preferred the idea of drawing up an additional Protocol to the Charter. The Congress representatives had agreed to this solution in order not to let slip the historic opportunity it presented.
The text of the Protocol had been more or less decided and would be finalised at the CDLR meeting to be held from 22 to 24 April. The Protocol would be ratified at the 16th Conference of Ministers at Utrecht, in November 2009.
The speaker said that an extremely positive spirit had reigned throughout the work and he hoped that this would continue to be the case.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) thanked the speaker and said that he too was pleased with the fruitful collaboration between the Congress and the CDLR.
Eduard GURVITS (Ukraine, ILDG), Mayor of Odessa, quoted the words of the Polish satirist, Stanislaw Jerzy Lec: “Power comes from the people but it never returns to them”. How can one make sure that citizen participation at local level was not confined to voting for a mayor and a local council once every few years? Citizens should participate in the decision-making process every day. To do so, they must be well informed and their participation must be legally formalised.
Odessa had had the honour of being a pilot city in 2008. It had some experience of participation. It took the form of neighbourhood councils or residents’ committees for example, or open days when citizens could all come and make suggestions. The city paid particular attention to groups that might be less well integrated: young people, pensioners, and people with disabilities, amongst other. A number of councils had been established: these included a council for young people, a council for indigenous cultures, a council for war veterans, a council for directors of charitable organisations, a council for cooperation between secularists and believers. Above all, the city had made arrangements to follow up citizens’ complaints and suggestions. For example, a direct line to the city hall had been set up and a team had been given the task of answering all correspondence. Citizens really could give their opinions or state their criticisms by telephone or through the internet. Everything was then taken into account. Such practices could easily become more widespread.
The city of Odessa was aware that there was still much to be done. Lack of budgetary resources was not the only issue. The problem also arose from the fact that the leaders who had emerged from the “orange revolution” in Ukraine had not taken all the necessary steps to deal with the consequences of the great constitutional crime that had been committed in 1998, when the President, Leonid Kuchma, had cancelled the elections and replaced the legitimately elected team with a different one that had been more to his liking. Political assassinations had been committed and nothing could erase the traces of the blood that had been shed at that time. The speaker mentioned in particular his late deputy and the city’s director of legal affairs.
He deeply regretted that the European countries had not reacted sufficiently strongly at the time and that they had, on the contrary, allowed the criminal, Kuchma, to sit seven seats from Tony Blair and thirty seats from George Bush at the Prague Summit, when he ought to have been sitting on the stool of shame.
It was true that Odessa had received moral support from 18 cities with which it was twinned, but most Ukrainian citizens had been unaware of this support because of the prevailing censorship. Also, Odessa had received the flag of honour awarded by the Committee of Ministers and the Council of Europe in 1998 but the flag could not be hung in the city council chamber until 2006, when a democratically elected team had finally succeeded in replacing the team illegally installed in 1998. That was all in the past but the speaker thought it was important to mention these events in a debate on citizen participation. And he paid tribute to the people of Odessa, who had organised a number of demonstrations to defend their rights and uphold justice.
In conclusion, the speaker hoped that the Congress and the Council of Europe would adopt a new instrument that would enable democratic participation to flourish throughout Europe.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, ILDG) said that he was very pleased to have this opportunity to speak about European Local Democracy Week, which had an exhibition stand in the lobby adjoining the Chamber.
The initiative for the Week had been taken at the Conference of European Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government held in Valencia in October 2007. Progress had been rapid, thanks to the close co-operation of the Congress, the CDLR and the Department for Democratic Participation. In 2007, events had been organised in twelve European countries and thirty-seven local authorities had sent reports. In 2008, more than two thousand local authorities in thirty-three countries had taken part in the Week, which had taken place from 13 to 19 October. In 2009, the objective was to increase the number of participating countries to forty-seven.
A planning week would be organised in Strasbourg on 30 and 31 March. The speaker invited all the national associations concerned to take part.
Local Democracy Week always took place on or about 15 October, to commemorate the day when the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which could be described as the magna carta of local democracy, had been opened for signature, on 15 October 1995. The purpose of the Week was to promote democratic participation and good governance everywhere in Europe. It enabled citizens to be informed about the functions of their local authorities, the work their elected representatives were doing, and the ways in which everyone could have a say. It also provided an opportunity to give local councillors more visibility and bring the question of participation to their attention. It gave rise to events that could be festive occasions: for example, in the United Kingdom, celebrities were invited to participate in a television broadcast and do something a bit out of the ordinary, such as juggling.
In 2008, in order to raise the Week’s profile, the Congress had decided to take advantage of the role of a number of UN pilot cities, such as the Brussels Capital-Region, which had participated in more than 90 projects, the city of Odessa which had arranged many inspiring activities at the remarkable instigation of its Mayor, and the cities of Varna and Madrid, which had actively contributed to the promotion of the Week.
The speaker hoped that a growing number of cities would participate in the project and he invited any that wished to do so to put their names forward for the title of pilot city for 2009. European Local Democracy Week was an opportunity for citizens to take part in Council of Europe activities. In conclusion, he urged all members of the Chamber to consult the dedicated website and to participate in the initiative.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) thanked the speaker for his involvement in the project and observed that it was one of the Congress’s two priorities for the years to come, with the support of the Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the agreement of the Committee of Ministers.
He then opened the debate and called Hilde Zach.
Hilde ZACH (Austria, EPP/CD) thanked Eduard Gurvits for his highly interesting and highly political contribution and for his remarkable account of his city’s history. She said that the city of Innsbruck, which had a population of 150,000, had adopted two measures designed to strengthen citizen involvement in local democracy. The first concerned Turkish women, whose husbands often had busy working lives and whose children were rapidly learning German while they, on the contrary, stayed at home and for the most part watched Turkish television channels. One of the best times for the players involved in integration to talk to them was when they had just dropped their children off at school or nursery: bridges could be built in those few minutes to break down their isolation.
The second measure concerned the integration of the surrounding villages in the municipality of Innsbruck, even though some of them retained a very strong identity. Two of them had formed discussion groups in which citizens could present proposals for consideration by the local council. Others preferred a direct approach. In any case, these methods strengthened citizen participation in local democracy.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Eduard Gurvits.
Eduard GURVITS (Ukraine, ILDG) said that the city of Odessa had a million inhabitants and more than 130 different nationalities. With a history going back more than two centuries, it had been founded by men and women from every country – French, Greek, German and Italian – as illustrated by its varied range of street and place names. The city endeavoured to foster understanding between all its people. It encouraged recruitment of women in the local administration. In cultural matters, all the communities were involved in the extremely rich artistic life of the city. Lastly, on the question of learning languages, many languages – including Japanese – were taught in the hundreds of schools in the city.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Barbara Toce.
Barbara TOCE (Italy, SOC) thanked the Mayor of Odessa for his presentation of the inspiring activities organised by his city which, given the diversity of the communities that lived there, was making a remarkable effort to facilitate their integration. She asked him whether such initiatives could be extended to other cities in Ukraine.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Eduard Gurvits.
Eduard GURVITS (Ukraine, ILDG) stressed out that the people of Odessa felt that they were European. The city was in contact with other Ukrainian municipalities in the association of Ukrainian cities and it was also very active in the field of international cooperation: it was twinned with Marseille, Liverpool, Haifa, Vancouver, Istanbul and Yokohama, for example. The municipal authorities had also received more than 90 city delegations on 2 September 2008 which had come to share their experiences during Local Democracy Week.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Jean-Louis Testud.
Jean-Louis TESTUD (France, EPP/CD) asked whether citizen participation in elections, which had been a fundamental advance in the 19th century, still sufficed to define democracy today.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Christopher Newbury.
Christopher NEWBURY (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) replied that the consultation of citizens in elections was the absolute minimum in a modern democracy, which included many other participation processes.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Michel Guégan.
Michel GUEGAN (France, NR) asked Christopher Newbury whether the draft additional Protocol to the Charter would provide mechanisms for supervising and monitoring citizen participation in local democracy. He added that the Community of Municipalities of Val d’Oust and Lanvaux intended to participate in European Local Democracy Week, which was to be a noteworthy event. To that end, many meetings involving councillors, business undertakings, associations and educational establishments, had already been held. The speaker said the Community of Municipalities hoped that the Council of Europe would support and endorse the event the Community would be organising in the heart of Brittany for European Local Democracy Week.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) hoped that more local communities would declare their intention to participate in the Week, which could thus continue to be one of the Congress’s priorities. He called Christopher Newbury.
Christopher NEWBURY (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) said that the legal instruments at the Council of Europe’s disposal served primarily to verify the application of its adopted texts. Was the adoption of a procedure for monitoring local democracy a matter for the Congress? Undoubtedly: it was not desirable for any other organ of the Council of Europe to undertake this task.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) was pleased to see that so many activities were planned for European Local Democracy Week. He had some simple suggestions to add to these initiatives: opening municipal buildings to the public and allowing citizen participation in meetings held at the Town Hall, for example.
The speaker emphasised the importance of working with young people, in view of their low rate of participation in elections.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Laurent Wehrli.
Laurent WEHRLI (Switzerland, ILDG) asked to what extent the new information and communication technologies could encourage participation.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, ILDG) said he was not sure that he was in the best position to answer the question. The city of Manchester’s IT system had just been down for a week, and once it was back up, he had found his inbox inundated with some 800 e-mails.
However, information technology and the Internet were useful tools. Twitter had developed considerably. In more general terms, the Internet encouraged communication between citizens and their elected representatives by giving members of the public an opportunity to contact local councillors and councillors an opportunity to present themselves to the public.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Esther Maurer.
Esther MAURER (Switzerland, SOC) said that participation was an important pillar of any project for sustainable development. However, she wondered whether it ought not to be limited on some occasions.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Christopher Newbury.
Christopher NEWBURY (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) said that the draft Protocol referred to participation and involvement without clearly defining the two concepts or distinguishing between them. However, participation could take any form. For example, in the United Kingdom citizens had an opportunity to speak on subjects such as urban planning, in the half hour before council meetings started.
In any case, participation required full access to information and this was infinitely easier to organise now, thanks to information technology and the INTERNET.
Lastly, the speaker mentioned the right to engage in lobbying and the right to be heard as being the points that raised the most problems.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, ILDG) stressed the importance of sustainable development, even though environmental concerns tended to be relegated to second place in view of the financial and economic crisis. For example, there had been an appreciable decline in commitment to Agenda 21 in many local communities.
On the question of possible limitations on participation, he thought a referendum could not always be held on any question, no matter what. On the other hand, he approved of the idea of increasing the number of decision-making bodies in order to allow the broadest possible citizen participation. For example, meetings on transport had been organised in train and bus stations in Manchester.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Fabio Pellegrini.
Fabio PELLEGRINI (Italy, SOC) said that he felt it was important for the Committee of Ministers to fully subscribe to the European Local Democracy Week in order to lend more weight to the initiative.
Participation in the Week had increased exponentially in Italy. About a hundred municipalities would be participating in the Week this year, compared with only one the first time it was held.
He said the preparatory meeting on 30 and 31 March would provide an opportunity to find out about the many activities to be organised during the forthcoming Week.
He also invited delegates to consider the differences between large and small cities and stressed that citizen participation could not be limited to polling days.
Lastly, he deeply regretted that the Committee of Ministers had limited the scope of participation to local level. A separate legal instrument would have underlined the fact that such a limitation was irrelevant and would have highlighted the many aspects of participation.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, ILDG) was pleased to hear that Italy was participating fully in European Local Democracy Week, which was held every year on the anniversary of the date on which the European Charter of Local Self-Government had been signed.
He also welcomed the fact that the Slovakian Minister had attended the whole of the day recently organised in his country.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Luciano Valaguzza.
Luciano VALAGUZZA (Italy, EPP/CD) said that most established democracies were faced with two negative phenomena: the sharp decline in the turnout at elections and the fact that citizens had very little interest in local and regional council meetings. The cause of these two phenomena was perhaps the same: citizens had the feeling that their elected representatives never honoured the commitments they had made during the campaign. What could European Local Democracy Week do to bridge this gap between councillors and citizens? How could citizens be persuaded to return to the polling booths and the council chambers?
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, ILDG) said that he too was worried about the low turnout at local elections. In the United Kingdom, there was general satisfaction if the turnout reached 30%. In Liverpool, participation had even been as low as 6.7% in some districts two years previously. This was a warning signal. European Local Democracy Week was designed precisely to halt that trend. It was true that if councillors did not keep their campaign promises, citizens lost confidence, became cynical and began to tar all politicians with the same brush.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Christopher Newbury.
Christopher NEWBURY (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) said that he did not want European Local Democracy Week to become an excuse for not addressing the issue of participation for the rest of the year. The good practices tried out during the Week should be applied all year round.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Andreas Shoshilos.
Andreas SHOSHILOS (Cyprus, NR) cited the experience of family councils in Cyprus, which were designed to facilitate exchanges of views within the family, and asked whether European Local Democracy Week could include the theme of the family.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, ILDG) said that he thought this was an excellent idea and he suggested that Andreas Shoshilos should try it in his own municipality. That might encourage other members of the Congress to follow suit.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Savvas Savva.
Savvas SAVVA (Cyprus, EPP/CD) said that the local authorities in Cyprus organised meetings with citizens, sometimes in connection with changes to the boundaries of urban areas, but unfortunately not many people came to these meetings. Did colleagues from other countries have the same experience? How were citizens to be encouraged to participate more? Was it necessary to teach participation?
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, ILDG) replied that Europe could generally pride itself on having very good practices. But there was always much to be learned from the experience of others. For example, the way Barack Obama had conducted his campaign, inviting each and every one to become involved, through the Internet as well as in other ways, was in a way a model of commitment.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Bronis Rope.
Bronis ROPE (Lithuania, ILDG) said that he thought the experiment in which elected representatives let young people take their seats in the chamber for a day was a very interesting one. This was done at national level, in the Children’s Parliament, and also at local level. For example, the local authority in Ignalina had allowed young people to manage a budget themselves and they had done very well. They had also organised an event for all the young people in the local community.
Lithuania had chosen 10 April as the day to celebrate local government. The very first law on the subject had been passed on 10 April 1919. Numerous events would therefore be organised this year to mark the ninetieth anniversary of the law.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, ILDG) said that he found the Lithuanian commemorative programme very interesting and he hoped Bronis Rope would be able to give other members of the Chamber the benefit of his experience, particularly in view of the forthcoming European Local Democracy Week.
The commitment of young people was a matter of concern to all local councillors. The speaker was therefore delighted to hear that the local authorities in Lithuania were managing to get them really involved in local government. The young represented the future of Europe and it was extremely gratifying to see them in the Assembly Chamber gallery. He wished to assure them that they were most welcome.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) also welcomed the group of young people who had come to hear the debates and joined Keith Whitmore in thanking them for attending.
He called Vladimir Novikov.
Vladimir NOVIKOV (Russian Federation, NR) said that in the Russian Federation participation was guaranteed under the Constitution. For example, in the city which he had represented for ten years, there were six hundred associations covering all sections of society. There were women’s associations, war veterans’, pensioners’ and young people’s councils, friendship circles for all nationalities, local, district and street committees, etc. A growing number of citizens appeared keen to participate at local level, including standing as candidates in local elections. What did the speakers think was the most effective form of participation?
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) reiterated the suggestions he had made for encouraging active citizen participation in European Local Democracy Week, such as opening town halls or organising conferences. He thanked the speaker for the information he had given the Chamber about his region, which he would like to visit if he was given the necessary budget. Alas, Russia was such a big country.
Many bodies and associations were partners in European Local Democracy Week. Discussions were currently taking place to establish a Worldwide Local Democracy Week: it was to be hoped that they would soon lead somewhere.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Charikleia Ousountzoglou.
Charikleia OUSOUNTZOGLOU(Greece, SOC) observed that, in Greece, local democracy had been a tradition since the days of antiquity. The villages had public assemblies and all citizens were invited to meet the local team. In the large urban centres, regular discussions with citizens were organised for major cultural events, where they could be informed about the local authority’s work and the local authority could be informed of the citizens’ expectations. Everyone therefore benefited from this good practice. The city of Veria, of which the speaker was the Mayor, also organised “open days” and hoped to participate in European Local Democracy Week.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Christopher Newbury.
Christopher NEWBURY (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) thanked the speaker for sharing with the Chamber the good practices of local democracy in modern Greece. Pericles himself had had ideas about citizen participation and local democracy that had been very modern in his time – and were still very modern today. He was also owed a debt of gratitude for being the first to introduce remuneration for councillors.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Keith Whitmore.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) said that he was not surprised that Greece, the cradle of democracy, had many good practices in the matter of local democracy. He looked forward to the city of Veria’s participation in European Local Democracy Week.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) called Volodymyr Udovychenko to ask the last question.
Volodymyr UDOVYCHENKO (Ukraine, EPP/CD) said that it was important to create mechanisms that would get young people interested in municipal administration. Ukraine already had such mechanisms, particularly in Slavutych, and young people were regularly asked for their views on the city and the policy that should be pursued there. What was the point of talking to them about the financial crisis? What the young people in Slavutych wanted was a skate park; if they wanted one, then one should be built.
The speaker welcomed what Keith Whitmore had to say as a true champion of European Local Democracy Week, which presented a unique opportunity to involve European youth. Of course, it was essential to improve the turnout at elections and strengthen the citizens’ independence vis-à-vis their local authorities. For example, the Executive Committee in the city of Slavutych regularly opened its doors to civil society to give it an opportunity to voice its concerns. However, it was also essential to create mechanisms for participation; in this connection, the speaker referred members of the Chamber to the Code of the city of Slavutych.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) said that the debate was now closed and expressed his satisfaction that fourteen speakers had been keen to participate in it, bearing witness to the importance of local democracy, which was at the heart of the daily activities of the Congress and of all local authorities.
He called Christopher Newbury.
Christopher NEWBURY (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) said that he was very pleased with the quality of the debate, which showed the interest every member of the Chamber attached to citizen participation at local level. He reminded members that a workshop on European Local Democracy Week would be organised and that the additional Protocol to the Charter should be adopted before long.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) thanked Christopher Newbury for his commitment to the adoption of the Protocol and called Keith Whitmore, who had just been awarded a new title, which he wore with distinction: that of “champion of European Local Democracy Week”.
Keith WHITMORE (United Kingdom, EPP/CD) said that he was pleased with the enthusiasm shown during this excellent debate. He thanked the Mayor of Slavutych, adding that he remembered seeing him walking through the streets of his city when it was under one and a half metres of snow, and stopping to speak to all the people who recognised him. Volodymyr Udovychenko was indeed a model mayor.
The speaker hoped that the same enthusiasm would prevail at the forthcoming European Local Democracy Week and he invited everyone to participate in it – including the Mayor of Strasbourg, who had already been very much involved in 2008. That was the way to advance the cause of local democracy.
The PRESIDENT (France, SOC) said that the 16th Session of the Chamber of Local Authorities was now at an end and thanked the delegates for their active participation in the work.
The 17th Ordinary Session of the Chamber of Local Authorities would take place at the same time as the 17th Session of the Congress, from 13 to 15 October 2009, when the anniversary of the signing of the European Charter of Local Self-Government would be celebrated.
The President declared the Sixteenth Session of the Chamber of Local Authorities closed.
The sitting rose at 12.30 pm.
SECOND SITTING OF THE CHAMBER OF REGIONS
Thursday 5 March at 10.15 am
______________
CONTENTS
Page
The sitting was opened at 10.30 am with Ludmila Sfirloaga (Romania, SOC), President of the Chamber of Regions, in the Chair.
[CPR(16)PV1]
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that the minutes of the 1st sitting had been distributed and noted that there were no objections.
The minutes were adopted.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that the next item on the order of business was the debate on the Black Sea Euroregion and that there would be an exchange of views with several contributors.
The Congress had built the framework for the Black Sea Euroregion initiative over the course of three conferences: in Constanţa in March 2006, Samsun in November 2006 and Odessa in June 2007. Like the Adriatic Euroregion, the Black Sea Euroregion was likely to be very successful. It had finally been set up in Varna in September 2008 with the adoption of the Constituent Act and the signing of the Statutes. The Euroregion members, namely the local and regional authorities of Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Moldova and Romania, had agreed to set up the Euroregion in the form of a non-profit association with its headquarters in Constanţa. A network of local contact points had been established with various towns and cities, such as Samsun, Odessa, Varna, Batumi, Cahul and Ijevan. Other contact points could be established in the future.
The first General Assembly of the Black Sea Euroregion had been held in Constanţa in November 2008. It had been decided to launch a series of projects relating to environmental protection, renewable energies, maritime transport, sustainable tourism, inter-cultural exchanges and migration. All these were areas in which partnerships between local and regional authorities could contribute to the well-being of their citizens.
The Congress had supported the local and regional authorities in the Black Sea area which sought to develop inter-municipal and inter-regional co-operation. The various economic, social and environmental issues called for increased co-operation between the Black Sea regions to ensure the prosperity, stability and security of their populations.
The establishment of the Euroregion had made it possible to create a co-operation framework at local and regional level to supplement those already existing at the level of the national governments, in particular the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation.
The local and regional authorities of the Black Sea Euroregion now had at their disposal a framework for creating synergies, co-ordinating their efforts, exchanging experiences and developing the powers of local and regional authorities. The Euroregion served as a launch pad for multilateral initiatives and projects, using existing European and international financial mechanisms.
It was hoped that local and regional authorities in other regions, especially Turkey, Ukraine and Russia, would soon join the Black Sea Euroregion.
The Chamber of Regions was preparing a report on the Black Sea Euroregion, which would be submitted to the Congress in the coming months.
The guests and members of the Euroregion were now going to have the opportunity to express their thoughts on the first steps taken by the Black Sea Euroregion and on its future options.
The PRESIDENT called Miljenko Dorić.
Miljenko DORIĆ, Chair of the Sub-Committee on Local and Regional Democracy of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, thanked the President for inviting a member of the Parliamentary Assembly to take part in the meeting. To convince the delegates in the Chamber of the benefits offered by the Black Sea Euroregion and the justification for the texts adopted in that context by the Parliamentary Assembly the previous year, he had actually prepared a speech but would not deliver it, preferring to focus on the main issues instead.
The local, regional and national authorities had a common responsibility on such an important subject. Those who had been members of the Parliamentary Assembly twenty or thirty years back had begun to write the great book of European democracy, and it was up to their successors to write at least five new and particularly important chapters.
First, it was necessary to continue the fight to impose the principle of subsidiarity. The European Charter of Local Self-Government was a remarkable document, which had shown its worth and improved the lives of millions of Europeans. It was regrettable that there had been no success in adopting a similar text on regional democracy. It was naturally very disappointing that several representatives of the old democracies had voted against such a project at the CDLR meeting whilst the representatives of the new democracies had remained silent and been incapable of explaining the remarkable changes that had occurred after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The second chapter yet to be completed was the one on good governance and skills development. Much more needed to be done on the subject, especially in Central and Eastern Europe. The Council of Europe had contributed a great deal to some successes, such as the transfer of good practices and twinning arrangements, but it was necessary to implement the proposals contained in a document published the previous year entitled “Strategy for Innovation and Good Governance” as quickly as possible in all member states.
Hitherto, very little had been done to add to the chapter on the proper co-ordination of the three tiers of administration. Europe was admittedly decentralised but the different tiers of government were almost at war with one another, and effective co-operation mechanisms should be adopted to put an end to that situation.
In order to complete the fourth chapter, it was necessary to ask how the restrictions imposed by borders could be overcome. The remarkable Madrid Outline Convention was unfortunately not fully applied and transfrontier
co-operation ran up against a number of difficulties.
The fifth chapter dealt with citizen participation. Should the citizens be involved in the decision-making process only when elections were held or should they be involved on a daily basis in the mechanisms of local and regional public life?
The Black Sea Euroregion had been conceived as a pioneering entity in order to write the main parts of those chapters. In particular, it would improve transfrontier co-operation between all tiers of government and bring together around the same table not only the regional authorities but also the national and local authorities so as to establish vertical communication between everyone with the necessary competence for the development of the Black Sea. It was therefore about developing a new model of governance and co-operation between the three tiers of administration.
The Chair of the Parliamentary Assembly’s Sub-Committee on Local and Regional Democracy would do everything in his power to ensure that those chapters were completed, especially with regard to the Black Sea Basin, which deserved unreserved commitment.
The Black Sea was really special. It bordered a third of the European continent and had a unique ecosystem, and so should be preserved at all costs. To that end, all the action taken had to be co-ordinated. Mr Dorić appealed to both the Black Sea and Adriatic countries to continue to fully shoulder their responsibilities and called on all the other countries to give them their unqualified support.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that she hoped the representatives of the Black Sea and Adriatic regions would meet at the Rome conference planned for May 2010.
Suvi Rihtniemi (Finland, EPP/CD) took the Chair.
The PRESIDENT (Finland, EPP/CD) called on Ludmila Sfirloaga to read to the Chamber the message from Nicuşor-Daniel Constantinescu, President of the Black Sea Euroregion (BSER), President of the County of Constanţa, Romania.
Ludmila SFIRLOAGA (Romania, R, SOC) read out the following contribution on behalf of Nicusor-Daniel Constantinescu.
“This debate, organised during the plenary session of the Congress, gives us an opportunity to promote our young association, its objectives and priorities. The common will to create an institutional basis for co-operation in the Black Sea area has found substance in establishing the Black Sea Euroregion on 26 September 2008, in Varna, Bulgaria. At that time, alongside the Congress, an honorary member of the BSER, 14 founding members of this structure signed the constituent documents, determined to turn the Black Sea area into a forum for co-operation among local and regional authorities in order to improve development in all fields.
Last year, in November, Constanţa County Council hosted the 1st General Assembly of the Black Sea Euroregion which adopted several key decisions for its future activities in the short and medium term, the standing committees were set up, and priority projects for 2009 were discussed and approved.
On 25 and 26 March 2009, Varna Municipality will be the host of the 2nd General Assembly of our association which will focus on one of the major issues that the Black Sea communities are confronted with, that is energy efficiency.
As agreed in the BSER Statutes, the objectives of our association are: to establish relations between the inhabitants of the Black Sea area with a view to developing cross-border co-operation initiatives; to protect the members’ common interests and define a common development strategy; to disseminate information on members’ relevant experiences and know-how to all BSER members; to draw up joint programmes and development strategies and set up actions aimed at implementing them; to create the necessary conditions for developing social and economic activities while protecting the environment and taking into consideration the need to improve territorial cohesion among its members; to identify intervention needs, joint projects and funding sources applicable to BSER members; to organise, set up and implement joint transnational co-operation projects eligible for financial support from national, European and other international institutions; to support public-private partnership initiatives; to support civil society.
These objectives are the starting point of the projects proposed by Constanţa County Council which holds the Presidency of the Black Sea Euroregion. All those projects are aimed at increasing local development in the Black Sea area and are designed to generate benefits for our communities.
In an increasingly globalised society, we cannot remain indifferent to the changes around us and what affects or influences local development in Romania today, may affect or influence local development in the other Black Sea countries and the reverse.
The concept of unity through diversity may be the solution to many of our day-to-day problems and cross-border cooperation which we intend to develop through the Black Sea Euroregion will be a key element of this concept.
In addition to cross-border infrastructure projects implemented in our county, our main goal is to develop “The Black Sea Cruise”, an integrated project that includes several projects geared to the development of tourism and socio-cultural infrastructure in the Black Sea basin. Alongside the Danube-associated cruise – which is the main objective of this project – its goal is to transform all the ports along its itinerary from destination ports into home ports, providing specific entertainment and cultural activities including: the building of Black Sea marinas; the building of Danube tourist ports; improvement of tourism services by opening a ferry-boat line between Romania-Bulgaria, that is Constanţa-Varna-Burgas, possibly extended to Odessa and Istanbul; building a traditional Black Sea village – a series of restaurants with specific Black Sea dishes (Constanţa House, Varna House, Odessa House, Sochi House, Samsun House etc.) and small museums of the Black Sea countries; Black Sea cultural traditions, a project aimed at offering a complete presentation of Black Sea local and regional authorities, and organising a folk music festival to be entitled “Black Sea Music”; Black Sea culinary menu, a project aimed at drawing up a joint Black Sea menu, containing specific dishes for each Black Sea community and available in every harbour-city of the Basin, and also organising a culinary festival.
All these projects, details of which are displayed around the hemicycle during this session, should have access to various sources of funding.
It is to be hoped that all the members of the Congress will support these projects so that our association can become a framework for co-operation and development, enabling us to overcome the difficulties facing us, especially at this time of crisis.”
The PRESIDENT (Finland, EPP/CD) was pleased that the Chamber had been able to hear that very interesting message from the President of the Black Sea Euroregion.
Ludmila Sfirloaga (Romania, SOC), President of the Chamber, resumed the chair.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Varuzhan Nersisyan.
Varuzhan NERSISYAN (Armenia, SOC) pointed out that Armenia had from the outset supported the idea of
co-operation between the countries and between the local and regional authorities of the Black Sea Basin. Armenia was determined to do its utmost to strengthen cross-border co-operation and fully supported a key initiative for the border regions. That applied to the province of Tavush, where he had been elected on four occasions and where people were very committed to cross-border co-operation with the neighbouring regions in Georgia and Azerbaijan, to freedom of movement, to intercultural links and to mutual understanding.
The Black Sea Euroregion would make it possible to strengthen intercultural dialogue, open up channels of communication, improve co-operation on energy and trade and deal with economic problems. It would also prompt efforts to find common solutions to economic problems, especially in the context of the global crisis. The Euroregion should also help to establish an atmosphere conducive to building confidence and greater tolerance, mutual understanding and good neighbourly relations.
Cross-border co-operation was also a very effective instrument of European integration. With enlargement, the European Union’s borders had come closer to Armenia’s. The creation of the Euroregion reinforced the ability of the local and regional authorities to respond vigorously to citizens’ needs.
The Black Sea Euroregion should develop efficient structures in order, in particular, to enable the partners to engage in a genuine exchange of experiences and co-ordinate their initiatives, especially in the current times of crisis with rising unemployment and falling local and regional authority revenues. The countries with developed economies had been the first to suffer from the consequences of the crisis, while those of the Black Sea region had become victims because of very strong exchange rate variations. Against that background, the local and regional authorities had to make a real effort to attract new investors, implement measures of good governance and make better use of their budget resources to avoid having to increase local taxes. On all those subjects, exchanges of experiences between countries would be very helpful to enable them to cope with the crisis better. The framework provided by the Black Sea Euroregion was thus extremely valuable for its members. It should be stressed that the role of that framework was not, as some feared, to replace countries’ regional structures.
Mr Nersisyan appealed to all partner countries to become more involved in the development of the Black Sea Euroregion. Additional European funding would be needed to help the regional players join the initiative. It was also necessary to expand the opportunities for joining the body, in which both EU members and non-members were involved. That particular fact meant that multilateral projects were planned with integration in mind. In conclusion, the Chamber of Regions was assured of Armenia’s commitment alongside its Black Sea Euroregion partners.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Nataliya Romanova, Chair of the Chernihiv Regional Council, Ukraine.
Nataliya ROMANOVA (Ukraine, ILDG), Chair of the Chernihiv Regional Council, stressed that the views and ideas expressed a few moments previously by Miljenko Dorić constituted the basis for the creation of the Black Sea Euroregion, which Ukraine had supported from the outset. The country, which had been populated a very long time back by the Greeks, had a common border with the European Union and had many features in common with its neighbours. The national territory was divided into seven regions, which co-operated and engaged in dialogue with the central government at all times. The local players were represented in government, to which they submitted recommendations.
In 2007, Ukraine had organised the Odessa Conference. The Minister for Regional Development had taken part in the Varna Conference in 2008 and in the international conference on the Black Sea Euroregion on 16 January 2009. There were a number of unique features about this new Euroregion, foremost of which were its large maritime area and the fact that it adjoined Russia and Turkey.
The regional and central government authorities of the partner countries needed to see the benefits in participating in the development of the Euroregion. Several points mentioned at the 16 January conference should be elaborated on in the future, in particular the scale of contributions, respect for the principle of parity in the membership process, the interaction between the various players, powers relating to migration and the decision-adoption process. Ukraine advocated the recommendation of the 2007 conference on the establishment of a joint Congress-CDLR working group in order to consider the various aspects of cross-border co-operation and the development of the Black Sea Euroregion and called on Russia and Turkey to support that initiative. There needed to be consensus on the project. As its initiator, the Congress bore considerable responsibility for its success.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) invited Nataliya Romanova to participate in the next General Assembly in Varna to detail her proposals for improving the Euroregion’s operation.
She called Gheorghe Vasilache, President of the Region of Cahul, Moldova.
Gheorghe VASILACHE (Moldova, NR), President of the Region of Cahul, said he was particularly pleased to address the Chamber of Regions on behalf of Cahul, Moldova’s southernmost region. The Black Sea Euroregion was young but already kindled many hopes among its members, which were counting on it to advance the economic, social and cultural issues specific to their particular country. The Congress was providing valuable assistance for the project and was to be thanked for its efforts. The Black Sea Europrogramme had been presented at the Chişinau seminar and allocated a budget of thirty million euros, which was modest but should gradually be increased. The aim of the projects planned under that programme was to combat the effects of the economic crisis while at the same time furthering the development of the region. Ideally, those projects should also certain conflicts to be settled. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that she was particularly pleased to welcome Halil Vehbi Yenice, a member of the Executive Committee of the Union of Municipalities of the Marmara Region and Mayor of Izmit-Saraybahçe, Turkey. His organisation was very active in Turkey and as a member of NALAS, which had been set up with Congress support. It was also very interested in the Euroregion, in which it should ideally be able to participate as an observer.
Halil Vehbi YENICE, Member of the Executive Committee of the Union of Municipalities of the Marmara Region and Mayor of Izmit-Saraybahce, Turkey, first of all wished to pay tribute to the President of the Congress, Yavuz Mildon, to whom he wished a speedy recovery. The members of the Union of Municipalities of the Marmara Region included Istanbul, which, with twelve million inhabitants, was the largest city in Turkey. The association had established contacts with its counterparts throughout Europe, Africa and Asia.
Turkey believed that the Black Sea Euroregion could play a key role for the stability of the region and had itself taken many initiatives concerning co-operation with its neighbours. This could include interparliamentary co-operation. The Black Sea Forum organised by Romania in 2005 had proved an excellent initiative.
New and stronger structures were necessary to enable towns and cities to reflect together and take joint action.
The Black Sea Euroregion was pursuing the same objectives as the Black Sea Economic Co-operation Organisation, set up in 1992
Turkey, which had a long Black Sea coast, wished to be involved in the work of the Euroregion which was a real asset, especially as it was under the auspices of the Council of Europe. It was regrettable that major players in the region, such as Turkey and Russia, were not yet members. The Turkish regional authorities wanted to make a positive contribution to the Euroregion and would like concrete projects to be presented. The Union of Local Authorities, which supervised co-operation between the municipalities, should enter into dialogue with the Euroregion, as should the national associations, which had played a positive role in various Black Sea countries. Mr Yenice suggested creating a network of Black Sea local authorities along the lines of NALAS in the Balkans. He hoped to obtain help from the Council of Europe to set it up as the various bodies would complement one another and work together.
Where should the headquarters of the new body be located? The city of Istanbul, a major metropolis with easy access, had the advantage that it avoided all problems with visas. It was, of course, not a question of imposing a choice but there were objective criteria that militated in favour of Istanbul, where, incidentally, the headquarters of the Union of Municipalities of the Marmara Region was also situated. The European Union’s strict visa policy separated countries more than it united them.
Turkey was heavily involved in co-operation projects on the Black Sea. It was a member of the Council of Europe, and the Union of Municipalities of the Marmara Region was willing to make its contribution to the Black Sea Euroregion, a unique organisation that the Congress should support.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) thanked Mr Yenice for his interesting contribution and asked him to pass on her wishes for a speedy recovery to Yavuz Mildon. She wished the members of the Turkish delegation every success in the forthcoming elections.
She asked the various speakers to let the secretariat have the texts of their contributions.
Adjara was interested in the Euroregion and Batumi had offered to organise a conference in the near future. The President called Petre Zambakhidze, a member of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Adjara.
Petre ZAMBAKHIDZE (Georgia, NR) shared the desire to improve co-operation between the Black Sea countries. The Congress and the Black Sea Euroregion should co-operate with Adjara on that initiative. The Euroregion could launch projects that would benefit not only the Black Sea countries but also Europe as a whole. The Adjara authorities would spare no effort to ensure the success of that endeavour.
The municipality of Batumi invited the Congress to a future meeting of the Black Sea Euroregion, which would give his country’s authorities an opportunity to introduce their culture and history.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) thanked the speaker.
She thought the local and regional authorities of the Black Sea area should work together on the development of joint projects that would provide their population with security and ensure their well-being.
The PRESIDENT opened the debate and gave the floor to Mariacristina Spinosa.
Mariacristina SPINOSA (Italy, SOC) stressed the importance of the Black Sea, not only for the countries bordering its shores but also those of the Mediterranean Basin. The Mediterranean’s ecosystem was intimately linked to that of the Black Sea and had to be protected when addressing the energy challenge. The Black Sea countries should join forces to develop a shared vision and work together. More than that, however, all the Mediterranean countries should take action.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Jean-Paul Heider.
Jean-Paul HEIDER (France, EPP/CD), Deputy Chair of the Alsace Regional Council and First Vice-President of the Association of European Border Regions, said that the Region of Alsace had undergone considerable development since the last war. Today, the Upper Rhine region comprised, in addition to Alsace, a number of Swiss cantons and part of Baden-Württemberg and Rhineland-Palatinate. Cross-border co-operation did not cost a lot of money but it did make for economies of scale.
An excellent initiative had been launched in the past few days with the grouping of Upper Rhine transfrontier metropolitan regions, which would enable them to make progress together more quickly. The Black Sea Euroregion should therefore be given every support.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) called Valery Kadokhov.
Valery KADOKHOV (Russian Federation, SOC) pointed out that Russia’s position on the Black Sea Euroregion was well-known and was fairly positive. The Russian authorities had some reservations: at the beginning, the first General Assembly seemed mainly to relate to Romania and Bulgaria. Moreover, the Euroregion received funds from the European Union, which could only benefit member states, so the accession of large shoreline countries was not a foregone conclusion. Russia preferred to stay on the sidelines and would, for the time being, be content with observer status, which was permitted by Article 13 of the Euroregion’s Statutes.
Russia supported the development of cross-border co-operation, especially with the Black Sea countries, and maintained good economic relations with Turkey in particular. It was also employing thousands of Bulgarian and Romanian workers on the site of the future Winter Olympics.
Against the background of the global economic and financial crisis, which reduced the finance opportunities available, Russia would not be applying to join the Euroregion in the near future but would think about doing so in the long term provided that the conditions of membership were depoliticised, so that South Ossetia and Abkhazia became eligible.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that Valery Kadokhov and she had participated in all the conferences to prepare the creation of the Euroregion and pointed out that he had mentioned the possibility of Russia’s being an observer.
She called Jens Gabbe.
Jens GABBE (former Secretary General of the Association of European Border Regions) said that, as
Mr. Heider has stressed, cross-border co-operation did not cost anything or, to be more precise, it paid back more than it cost.
Contrary to what Miljenko Dorić had said, the three-dimensional aspect was not new: the involvement of civil society was an idea that had already been successfully implemented elsewhere. Nonetheless, that involvement was essential for the success of the Black Sea Euroregion, which had just adopted its Statutes. Only time would tell if it worked. It was the border regions themselves that would make it successful.
It was essential to take an overall approach to the question. What point was there, for example, in developing tourist areas if it was impossible to visit them without a visa?
Cross-border co-operation helped to overcome national prejudices and the national hierarchical structure. However, since the distribution of powers varied from one country to another, co-operation should be at the level of individuals rather than administrative tiers, which inevitably varied in nature.
In order to make rapid progress, it would be helpful if the European Union programmes provided for the more experienced regions to assist those with less experience.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) invited Jens Gabbe and his association to the next meeting of the Euroregion, which would be held in Varna at the end of the month.
She then invited the speakers who wished to do so to reply to the members who had contributed to the debate. She first called Miljenko Dorić.
Miljenko DORIĆ (Chair of the Sub-Committee on Local and Regional Democracy of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly) thought the debate had clearly shown that co-ordination of effort in the Black Sea Basin was absolutely essential.
He had been somewhat disappointed by the Russian delegation’s position. It was not enough to be an observer, and it was necessary to act quickly, for example to avoid further damage to the ecosystem. If no action were taken, fishing, tourism and even life in the region would be affected. It was well-known that an economic crisis quickly became a social and political crisis and a source of instability.
It was very important for all the authorities in the region to work together and co-ordinate their activities. If two countries did not join the project and if some authorities pulled in opposite directions, its effectiveness would be diminished.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) assumed that, as a representative of an Adriatic country, Mr Dorić would be participating in the joint meeting in Rome of the Adriatic and Black Sea Euroregions.
She called Nataliya Romanova.
Nataliya ROMANOVA (Ukraine, ILDG, Chair of the Chernihiv Regional Council) agreed with Mr Dorić. The Congress should constantly renew its efforts to ensure that the project gave all the parties real added value. All the players should also try to convince Turkey and Russia.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) thanked all the participants in the debate and announced that the Euroregion’s second General Assembly would take place in Varna, Bulgaria, on 25 and 26 March.
She would inform the Bureau of the Congress at its next meeting of the conclusion of that conference and would ensure that a report on the Euroregion was examined at a future session of the Congress.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, SOC) said that the Chamber of Regions had reached the end of its sixteenth session. She thanked her colleagues for their active participation in the proceedings. She also thanked the interpreters, the members of the secretariat and the staff present for their contributions.
The seventeenth ordinary session of the Chamber of Regions would be held at the same time as the seventeenth session of the Congress, from 13 to 15 October 2009.
The President declared the 16th session of the Chamber of Regions closed.
The sitting rose at 11.45am.
THIRD SITTING OF THE CONGRESS
Thursday 5 March 2009 at 2 p.m.
______________
CONTENTS
Page
2 Adoption of the minutes of the previous sittings
3. Formal adoption of texts approved by the Chambers
4. Congress Resources and the 2010 Budget
5. International financial crisis: consequences for European territorial authorities.......................................... 107
6. Local and Regional Democracy
The sitting was opened at 2.05 p.m. with Ian Micallef (Malta, L, EPP/CD), President a.i. of the Congress in the Chair.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that the minutes of the previous sittings [CG(16)PV1 am], [CG(16)PV1 pm] and [CG(16)PV2] had been distributed and that there were no objections.
The minutes were approved.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) proposed limiting the speaking time to three minutes in view of the full agenda that afternoon.
This was agreed.
[CG(16)8]
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that the next item was, in application of Rule 46 of the Congress’s Rules of Procedure, the formal adoption of the texts approved by the Chambers. Document CG(16)8 contained a list of the texts, which were available at the distribution point.
The texts were adopted.
[CG(16)9REC]
[CG(16)9REP]
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that the next item was the presentation and discussion of the report by Jean-Claude Frécon, on behalf of the Bureau of the Congress, on the Congress’s resources and 2010 budget (Doc. [CG (16) 9 REP]). The Bureau had presented a draft recommendation to which no amendment had been tabled.
He called Jean-Claude Frécon, Rapporteur.
Jean-Claude FRECON (France, L, SOC), Rapporteur, said that the draft recommendation submitted that day to the Congress had been unanimously approved by the Bureau on 20 January. The accompanying report was the first of the reports that the Bureau had decided to present each year from then on at the first of the two annual plenary sessions and would enable a recommendation to be forwarded to the Committee of Ministers drawing attention to the budgetary situation of the previous year and making requests for the following year’s budget.
With regard to the budget of the Congress and its various bodies, it was first of all necessary to point out that a comparison with the budget of the Parliamentary Assembly did not imply any demands. As a member of both the Congress and the Assembly, the rapporteur compared the budgets of the two entities in a spirit of friendship. The Congress, which was made up of local and regional elected representatives, and the Assembly, which consisted of elected parliamentarians, were both irreplaceable political platforms for the Council of Europe, so the rapporteur had very much appreciated the statement made the previous day by Lluίs Maria de Puig. The Congress budget had amounted to 6 million euros in 2008, or 3% of the total Council of Europe budget. The Assembly’s had been 15 million euros for the same year, or 7% of the Organisation’s total budget. For each of its four annual sessions, the Assembly had a budget of 200,000 euros. The budget for each of the Congress’s two annual sessions was 78,000 euros. The European Union’s Committee of the Regions, which had 344 members representing the regional authorities of the 27 EU members, had had a budget of 71 million euros in 2008, eleven times higher that that of the Congress. Its human resources budget had also been ten times higher.
The report analysed the 2008 budget. The Secretary General and the Director of the Congress had ensured that all of it had been used up in order to avoid any money being left over at the end of the year but some unforeseen expenditure due to unexpected events, such as the political situation in Georgia, the launch of Local Democracy Week and the observation of the elections in Israel, had led to a deficit. With regard to human resources, the report drew the Congress’s attention to the situation of twelve temporary staff assigned to permanent statutory tasks, to which it would be necessary to allocate permanent posts. The grant to the political groups, which was currently 21,600 euros, should be increased in order to enable them to function better: the grant to the Assembly’s political groups had amounted to 731,000 euros in 2008. The report also provided details of certain major expenditure, such as the costs of the sessions, the observation of elections and co-operation and communication activities. That item did not even represent 3% of the total budget.
Action was therefore necessary at the communication level.
The 2009 budget was 6,132,600 euros at 1 January 2009, ie a reduction, which ran counter to the trend within European institutions to accord growing importance to local and regional authorities. On the initiative of the Congress’s management, it had been decided to introduce a policy of very strict budgeting of the Congress’s expenditure from 2009 onwards. That was to be welcomed as it would enable anomalies to be highlighted as quickly as possible. It also meant that once the budget projections for all the Congress’s statutory activities had been taken into account the Congress would no longer be able to allocate all the funds necessary for certain activities, which were nevertheless priority.
The Congress would continue in 2009 to promote the European Charter of Local Self-Government, monitor the situation of local and regional democracy in member states, observe elections and continue its efforts to promote European Local Democracy Week to improve the visibility of its members, its activities and its work.
The report set out proposals for the 2010 budget. The priorities for 2010 had been adopted by the Congress at its autumn session. In that connection, it was necessary to stress the need for an increased budget for both the Congress and the Council of Europe as a whole in order to promote the key texts adopted by the Congress such as the Manifesto for a new urbanity, the Code of Good Conduct for local elected representatives and the draft Charter of Regional Democracy.
With regard to human resources, the rapporteur emphasised the need to convert the present twelve temporary posts to permanent ones. He also proposed returning to the question of the “rank” of the Secretary General, which should be placed on a par with that of the Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly.
In conclusion, the rapporteur noted that the Congress occupied a unique place in the European institutional landscape and that it would benefit the Council of Europe much more if the Council granted it the resources necessary to accomplish its tasks. At a time of international economic crisis, a management effort was no doubt necessary but the Congress had been making efforts for four years, which justified the wake-up call being issued that day.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said that one member was on the list to speak in the general debate and called Jean-Louis Testud.
Jean-Louis TESTUD (France, L, EPP/CD) thought it was justified to issue a wake-up call since the Congress’s role was to implement local democracy and thus strengthen national democracy. The Congress was the only assembly of its kind in the world and represented 800 million citizens. It was a kind of UN for local and regional authorities.
The increase in expenditure agreed for the European Court was certainly justified. However, he appealed to the Spanish Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers to find new sources of funds to finance the Court instead of continually reducing the budget of an Assembly that played a key role for peace and democracy. The peace process began at the level of local and regional authorities. It was by establishing relations between the Israeli and Palestinian towns that a lasting peace would one day be achieved in the region.
Mr Testud hoped that the Committee of Ministers would be able to find other sources of funding.
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) said there were no other speakers on the list and called Jean-Claude Frécon to reply.
Jean-Claude FRECON (France, L, SOC), Rapporteur, said that he had not detailed the Organisation’s entire budget in the report but it was true that some Council of Europe bodies used up more funds than others. For example, it was going to be necessary to create posts at the European Court to deal with the 100,000 pending cases. Local and Regional democracy was a constituent element of any democratic system and a core value of the Council of Europe. That priority could not be sacrificed to monetary requirements. The Congress could not continue to endure budget restrictions, so the rapporteur launched a solemn appeal to the Secretary General, the Committee of Ministers, the governments of the 47 member states and all the elected representatives, who could take action with their governments.
Was it not precisely in a period of crisis that everything had to be done to safeguard the principles of local democracy and respect for human rights? After the crisis of 1929, there had been a desire to promote monetary values, forgetting human values, and we had seen what that had led to. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Malta, L, EPP/CD) closed the general debate.
The Bureau had presented a draft recommendation to which no amendment had been tabled.
The draft recommendation was adopted.
Ludmila Sfirloaga (Romania, R, SOC) replaced Ian Micallef in the Chair.
5. INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CRISIS: CONSEQUENCES FOR EUROPEAN TERRITORIAL AUTHORITIES
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) said that the next item was the continuation of the debate on the international financial crisis: consequences for European local and regional authorities, which had been interrupted the previous morning.
She called Svetlana Orlova, Vice-President of the Council of the Russian Federation and head of the Russian delegation to the Congress.
Svetlana ORLOVA (Russian Federation, R, EPP/CD) said that it was regrettable that that important debate, which had been moved to the end of the afternoon, was being held in a half empty Assembly Chamber. The economic crisis was deepening, people were losing confidence in the institutions, the disparities in wealth were growing and there was instability. The Russian Federation was focusing on human beings by setting priorities such as health and education
The international crisis showed the need to co-operate and draw up joint policies. At the G20, President Medvedev had made a number of proposals concerning the international financial institutions, especially the introduction of arbitration tribunals to establish their responsibility in the financial crisis.
The Russian authorities had first of all focused on protecting savers’ deposits by taking a number of measures in support of the banks and state funds since the rouble had lost much of its value owing to the crisis. A government official was co-ordinating the work together with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Co-ordination between the regions and the municipalities was also planned.
It was also essential to maintain social standards. Most people who acquired properties made use of loans, but it was now impossible for them to pay them back, so a solidarity fund of 70 billion roubles was a real safety net that even allowed unemployed people to discharge their debts and receive housing assistance.
With regard to the real economy, the government had gathered together representatives of the country’s biggest companies to discuss taxation aspects. While calling on the banks to continue giving loans to companies, it had modified the tax treatment of profits as many companies were not making any, especially in the Kuzbass region, which specialised in metalworking. After a big drop in production in December, some positive movement had been recorded in January.
The car industry, which was a key employer, had benefited from an unprecedented stimulus package. Vehicle purchases sustained domestic consumption.
In a situation also characterised by competition from China, the government had decided to provide support for SMEs, which made up 17% of all the country’s businesses. They would for example benefit from several major infrastructure projects and be granted 36 billion roubles, compared with 1 billion previously. While it had perhaps been decided to lower the income tax rate a little quickly, the measures to help SMEs seemed all the more justified as those businesses played a key role in maintaining employment.
As the number of unemployed had risen from two to six million, the government had issued a decree in December enabling 43 billion roubles to be allocated to the regions for the creation of community-service jobs, which were particularly conducive to the integration of the unemployed, who were offered at least a short-term solution.
Measures had also been initiated to enable workers to retrain. They complemented everything being done in the field of education. It should also be mentioned that all Russian schools, wherever their location, now had Internet access.
Local and regional authorities should ensure that the unemployed actually received their benefits and that the laws were properly applied. The anti-crisis bulletin published in all municipalities provided a complete picture of the problems encountered and of the solutions in place. A working group on legislative initiatives had also made proposals for helping the regions and local authorities. An amendment to the budget would enable the least wealthy regions to launch major investment programmes.
The Russian Federation was prepared to share that experience with the other member states. It also suggested setting up an international financial centre. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) thanked Ms Orlova for her very substantial contribution and for the details she had provided on how the Russian Federation was managing the crisis.
The next speaker was Adrien Zeller, President of the Alsace Region, whom the Congress knew well, not least because he had taken part during the autumn session in a debate organised by the Committee on Sustainable Development. He had considerable experience at regional, national and European level and his statement on the crisis was eagerly awaited. He would also be speaking on behalf of the Assembly of European Regions, with which the Congress had close relations.
The PRESIDENT called Adrien Zeller.
Adrien ZELLER (President of the Alsace Regional Council, on behalf of the Assembly of European Regions) said that he was standing in for Michèle Sabban, Vice-President of the Regional Council of Ile-de-France, France’s largest region and who had been appointed a few months earlier as the new President of the Assembly of European Regions. He had been very pleased to accept the invitation to speak to an institution to which he felt an affinity, since he was or had been an MP, a mayor, an MEP, a member of the Regional Council and a member of the Committee of the Regions. Moreover, Alsace felt a very special commitment to local democracy.
Even though his region was very different from that of Ms Orlova, they were both suffering from a crisis that was first and foremost financial in nature and then economic, and they should do their utmost, without neglecting the environmental aspects, to ensure that it did not turn into a social crisis.
For local and regional authorities, the crisis was reflected in problems in obtaining finance, especially owing to the restrictions on bank loans. In France, the government had intervened very quickly to ensure that the specialised banks continued to meet the needs of local and regional authorities.
The crisis also made public investment necessary in order to provide companies with work. The local and regional authorities were well placed to launch initiatives in that area, especially as the crisis had the beneficial effect of lowering the cost of work and, sometimes, even of credit. Local and regional authorities should therefore invest to create employment and play their part in the economic revival. That applied all the more so as 70% of public investment in France was now underpinned by the local, département and regional authorities. If those tiers of government did not do their work, the crisis would become more serious.
Apart from reviving business activity, local and regional authorities should focus on everything to do with training and vocational redeployment. New programmes could be launched. With the possible exception of Romania, thanks to the Logan, all countries were affected by the crisis in the car industry. In France, some regions were making use of periods of short-time working to provide training courses that enabled wage-earners to improve their skills and qualifications.
The main objective was to prevent people from falling into extreme poverty, especially when they ceased to benefit from unemployment insurance. Local governments had an eminent part to play as they were closest to citizens and, accordingly, the best informed about their social difficulties.
It was at local and regional level that the transition from the traditional forms of energy to renewable energies, such as geothermal power, biomass, wind power and photovoltaic energy, could be organised. For example, the Alsace Region had 160 heating plants that used wood which would previously have been left to rot and with which swimming-pools, schools and other public buildings were heated.
The technical mastery of those new energies required specific training measures, so local and regional authorities had new responsibilities. The crisis was not only a source of difficulties but also an opportunity for new initiatives.
At a time when citizens were worried about the future, it was up to local and regional authorities to give them back their confidence and hope.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) thanked Adrien Zeller for his lively contribution and called Yevgen Kartashov, Mayor of Zaporizhzhya.
Yevgen KARTASHOV (Ukraine, L, ILDG) said that, having seen the toll taken by the crisis in his own town, he believed the Congress was today addressing a very crucial issue.
Out of the 280 companies making up the industrial backbone of Zaporizhzhya, 30% were operating in the mechanical engineering sector and 45% in metalworking.
Industrial production had grown by 23% in 2007 and even 17% in 2008 but by only 2% at the end of that year. There had been a drop of 33% from January 2008 to January 2009.
The unemployment rate, formerly 2%, had quadrupled and businesses were laying off workers and asking their staff to take their holidays.
A plan to deal with the crisis adopted by his municipality was monitored on a weekly basis. The city administration had subjected itself to a strict savings policy: travel was reduced, the mayor did not receive any bonuses and efforts to save energy had been stepped up.
The crisis was affecting the city’s relations with its neighbours and was leading to the disappearance of supermarkets and small markets. Entire sections of society had been hit. How could the economy be revived? The World Economic Forum in Davos had not proposed any way forward and powers that were capable of sending rockets into space seemed to be at a loss.
It would take at least three years for economic activity to return to the previous year’s level. In order to bring that about, the public authorities, far from giving in to the temptation to adopt an isolationist position, should work together and the market should provide transparent information. The population’s confidence in the authorities and banks had to be restored. Apart from economic measures, an educational approach that took account of the psychology of individuals was required.
So what could the Congress do? Mr Kartashov proposed setting up three working groups, one bringing together the elected representatives of the small towns, the second those of the medium-sized towns and the third those of the large towns and cities. Each one should draw up an appropriate action programme. Since it had many eminent experts at its disposal, the Congress should achieve better results than the European Union. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) thanked the speakers and said that she had taken due note of their suggestions.
She called Bernardka Krnc.
Bernardka KRNC (Slovenia, R, NR) said that the Slovenian government had taken a first series of measures to ensure liquidity, preserve the public services and protect jobs.
A second series of measures had sought to stimulate banking activities and, once again, ensure the liquidity of the sector.
Slovenia also intended to develop its relations with the European Union, help to ensure the financial soundness of businesses and take action in support of the environment and sustainable development.
The state had provided a guarantee for all bank deposits so as to encourage people to save and, as a consequence, encourage lending. The government had also taken a series of measures aimed at protecting jobs. One consisted in subsidising the pay of part-time workers, which made it possible to reduce the costs of those businesses forced by the crisis to put some of their workers on part-time.
Nonetheless, one had to be realistic. In spite of all the measures taken to deal with it, the crisis would have a big impact on households, businesses and administrative authorities, and its effects would be felt by the municipalities, which would no doubt have some painful choices to make concerning schools, day nurseries and other services. However, the crisis could also provide an opportunity to work towards more sustainable development, especially in farming and tourism.(Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) called Fernanda Cecchini.
Fernanda CECCHINI (Italy, L, SOC), speaking as Vice-Chair of the Committee on Sustainable Development, pointed out that the financial and economic crisis should not be a pretext for reducing the resources allocated to sustainable development, which, in the present climate change context, was the century’s biggest challenge.
On the contrary, the crisis should be seen as providing an opportunity to rethink production methods and modes of consumption and encourage new forms of behaviour. It was an incentive for countries to move more quickly towards a “greener” and more innovative economy.
The crisis also highlighted more clearly the need for Europe to have proper energy-supply coverage. It was necessary to improve land yields and increase the proportion of renewable energies. Like the financial crisis, the energy crisis signalled the failure of the free market.
The 17th session of the Congress would be an opportunity to continue the discussion on the energy crisis.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) called Halvdan Skard.
Halvdan SKARD (Norway, L, SOC) said that the Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities had persuaded the government to allocate significant sums to maintenance work that had been put on hold for a long time by the local authorities. The money would be distributed on the basis of the number of inhabitants. The relevance of the measure was twofold: first, the lowering of unemployment in the building sector, which was experiencing a significant slowdown, and, second, providing inhabitants with improved infrastructure. Local governments would therefore be highly relevant players in the struggle to deal with the effects of the crisis. It could only be hoped that the crisis would not last too long and that it would be possible to see light at the end of the tunnel in 2010.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) called Sari Ylipulli.
Sari YLIPULLI (Finland, R, NR) said that she had listened with interest to the contribution by Fernanda Cecchini and, like her, thought the crisis should be seen as an opportunity to move towards a more ecological society.
In Finland, 2008 had not been too bad but the situation was deteriorating and in 2009 GDP was likely to fall by between 2 and 4% owing to the export difficulties encountered by such sectors as the paper industry. Unemployment was likely to rise by 8 to 10%. The government was responding with various measures: export subsidies, major construction works, increased resources for education and research, etc.
For their part, the local authorities were faced with a decrease in tax revenues while at the same time citizens expected them to continue to provide, or even improve, their services in the fields of education, health, sport, social integration, etc. Ageing of the population was leading to an increase in local authorities’ costs.
Local authorities would therefore be facing some difficult choices. If they did not want their deficits to rise, they would either have to increase taxes or postpone construction work and abandon certain activities. Many of them had had to close community health centres and schools. Staff reductions could also be expected. The only good news was that the Finnish state had relatively healthy finances. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) called Svetlana Orlova.
Svetlana ORLOVA (Russian Federation, R, EPP/CD) said that the message from the various speakers was shared by all: the crisis was going to continue, production was declining and the difficulties in paying back loans were on the increase. In those circumstances, it was essential for local authorities to tackle the issue of social cohesion. For example, apart from the question of energy efficiency it might be necessary to review the lifestyle prevailing in modern societies. At any rate, a group of experts on the subject should be set up. Europe should find a way out of the crisis by restoring the confidence of its citizens and without leaving any section of the population – such as those with disabilities – by the wayside.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) proposed, in the light of the statements made during the debate, that a group of experts be set up so that the Congress could discuss those issues again at its next session. She closed the debate and invited those who had not had the time to speak to send their speeches to the Secretariat.
Jean-Claude Frécon (France, L, SOC) replaced Ludmila Sfirloaga in the Chair.
[REC202(2006)]
[CG(13)30PART2]
The PRESIDENT (France, L, SOC) said the next item was the statement by Perica Rajčević on local and regional democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which had become a member of the Council of Europe in 2002 and had ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government a few months later. In 2006, the Congress had carried out a monitoring visit and drawn up a Recommendation on local and regional democracy in that country. It had also organised several election observation missions, the most recent of which had been in October 2008.
The Congress welcomed Perica Rajčević, who, on behalf of the Bosnia and Herzegovina delegation, would be speaking about the current situation prevailing in his country’s two entities. The Congress remained willing to assist Bosnia and Herzegovina in whatever way it could to strengthen local and regional democracy.
Perica RAJČEVIĆ (Bosnia and Herzegovina, R, NR), member of the Parliament of the Republika Srpska, confirmed that he was speaking on behalf of the Bosnia and Herzegovina delegation.
Bosnia and Herzegovina had undertaken to bring its legislation into line with the European Charter of Local
Self-Government, which it had ratified. As Recommendation 202 (2006) stated, legislation on local self-government in Bosnia and Herzegovina was on the whole compatible with the principles of the Charter. Significant progress had been made but a great deal remained to be done on the path to Euro-Atlantic integration.
The reforms carried out had been adopted in difficult circumstances. However, the federal law on the principles of local self-government and the law on local self-government in the Republika Srpska were now in conformity with the Charter, as the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe had confirmed. For example, the electoral law in the two entities guaranteed the proper functioning of local self-government, allowing for the proportional representation of the peoples in the employment field and, ultimately, in local authorities.
With regard to public employment, replies to job vacancy advertisements were monitored, revealing that members of the communities other than the Croats and Bosniaks applied less often, which was no doubt due to their insufficient training or motivation.
As far as the financing of local authorities was concerned, the use of funds allocated was monitored in order to guarantee compliance with the regulations. Specific support was given to the municipalities facing serious difficulties in order to reduce territorial inequalities.
The two entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina were determined to reform their territorial structure in order to bring the size of the local authorities into line with the tasks entrusted to them. At the moment, the situation was uneven. In the Republika Srpska, a debate was taking place on the draft law on territorial organisation, the outcome of which would serve as a basis for the reform. A working group was studying a strategy to re-launch the development towards a sustainable society. Unfortunately, owing to the difficult situation there was still a long way to go before it would be possible to bring about the sound and secure legal and territorial organisation of the country.
In the two entities, administrative supervision should not result in limiting the local authorities’ powers. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina contained a chapter dealing with relations between the different jurisdictions and institutions throughout the country. A co-ordinating body had been set up between the Association of Municipalities in the Republika Srpska and the Association of Municipalities in the Federation. It was mainly tasked with organising the conferences on local self-government in Bosnia and Herzegovina but also maintained contacts with local authority associations at international level. Local authorities had become institutional categories in their own right and the Constitution contained a chapter on local self-government. In the two entities, significant efforts had been made to comply with Congress Recommendation 202 (2006) and practical measures had been taken at the various levels of local administration. Those efforts should make it possible to bring about a more transparent legal framework and thus create the conditions for a genuine reform movement. Mention should be made of the recent negotiations entered into by the country’s three main political leaders under the auspices of the American government and the European Commission.
To conclude, Mr Rajčević once again wished to express his country’s gratitude to the Congress and the Council of Europe for their support and understanding. They had agreed to examine the specific features of Bosnia and Herzegovina and postpone their questions to members of the delegation to a later date and were to be warmly thanked for that.
The PRESIDENT (France, L, SOC) called Christopher Newbury, who, he reminded the participants, was one of the authors of Recommendation 202 (2006).
Christopher NEWBURY (United Kingdom, L, EPP/CD) said that Perica Rajčević had done his best to inform the Congress on the situation of local and regional democracy in his country. The Chair of the Congress’s Institutional Committee, which had met the previous day, had rightly suggested that the debate should be an opportunity for preliminary discussions as the ministerial level seemed the most appropriate for a detailed examination of the action taken by Bosnia and Herzegovina in response to the Congress’s 2006 report. The Congress was paying great attention to the development of local democracy and to the legislative changes that had taken place in the country in the past few years. He was pleased to see that there was now a greater awareness of the need to amend the Constitution in order, in particular, to guarantee local and regional democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was to be hoped that the country’s local and regional authorities would take account of the opinion issued by the Venice Commission. It was to be welcomed that the Republika Srpska had submitted to the Council of Europe for opinion a draft law on local and regional organisation, the provisions of which seemed at that stage to meet the requirements of the European Charter of Local Self-Government. Nonetheless, certain aspects still posed a problem, such as the lack of a clear definition of local self-government in the law. There had also been little progress on bringing the Federation’s legislation into line with the principles of the Charter.
Paragraph 4 of Congress Recommendation 202 (2006) on local and regional democracy in Bosnia and Herzegovina recommended the ratification of the European Framework Convention on the transfrontier co-operation of local and regional authorities, and that had been done. On the other hand, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages had not yet been ratified. Paragraph 3 (e) stressed the strong dependence of the municipalities on financial resources from higher-level authorities. It should be pointed out that 25% of VAT revenues in the Republika Srpska now accrued to the municipalities, as did all the income from the new property tax. On the other hand, there was no analogous information available for the Federation, which had nonetheless just set up a new commission on decentralisation.
The October 2008 local elections had been held in accordance with the Council of Europe’s standards, and displaced persons had even been granted a special voting right. The Congress had, however, drawn up a number of recommendations for improvements. Mr Newbury thanked Mr Rajčević for participating in the debate, which should be continued in the future.
The PRESIDENT (France, L, SOC) thanked the two speakers and said that no one had asked for the floor. He concluded that item on the agenda by stressing how essential peace and stability in Bosnia and Herzegovina were for Europe.
The PRESIDENT (France, L, SOC) said that the next item was the debate on transfrontier co-operation, which would be introduced by Ludmila Sfirloaga (Romania, R, SOC). She would be followed by Marija Katovic (Montenegro, L, SOC), Stepan Kirichuk (Russian Federation, R, SOC), President of the National Congress of Russian Municipalities, and Jean-Paul Heider (France, R, EPP/CD), Vice-President of the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR). A debate would then take place, followed by the presentation by Ludmila Sfirloaga of her conclusions.
Ludmila SFIRLOAGA (Romania, R, SOC) was pleased to open the debate on transfrontier co-operation. The Congress had set up a working group that was dealing with the subject and a report would be presented in October by Karl-Heinz Lambertz. That day’s debate would provide material for future discussions. The Sub-Committee on Local and Regional Democracy was working on the third protocol to the Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation in order to add a number of fundamental rules concerning equipment and structures and facilitate the creation of new co-operation projects. That would also be a topic at the sixteenth Conference of Ministers responsible for Local and Regional Government to be held in Utrecht in November.
The previous year, the Congress had organised a seminar in Ukraine. The Dnieper Euroregion comprised regions in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Those regions were encountering the difficulties experienced by the countries of western Europe before the introduction of the single market. They had different administrative and political systems and different tax and social legislation, which caused difficulties for frontier workers. Access to health care was sometimes complicated by the need to cross a border. Travelling in those regions could be costly and difficult because of the border checks and the need for visas.
So how could the citizens of those regions be guaranteed a less complicated life? Transfrontier co-operation should enable foundations to be laid to resolve the problem.
The PRESIDENT called Marija Ćatović.
Marija ĆATOVIĆ (Montenegro, L, SOC), Mayor of Kotor, spoke about the South Adriatic Eurodistrict, which had been set up in accordance with a draft agreement signed in Madrid in 1980 and was made up of 17 local authorities in Montenegro, Albania and Italy. A further agreement set out the way it was organised and functioned.
The Eurodistrict pursued several objectives, in particular the creation of a common European district based on sustainable development, social cohesion and cultural dialogue. Other aims were to promote co-operation initiatives in all districts, foster co-operation projects promoted by public and private enterprises and involve citizens in the various co-operation activities in order to strengthen their sense of common cultural belonging.
The priority initiatives to be managed in that area were fishing, the promotion of complementarities in industry, co-operative measures in the agro-industrial field, the development of secure trade, the promotion of territorial development models in the environmental field, the promotion of measures to protect the marine ecosystem and the promotion of research programmes to manage coastal regions. With regard to tourism, the Eurodistrict would have to promote environmentally friendly models. In the research field, the Eurodistrict would need to take steps to foster co-operation between schools and universities and preserve the cultural heritage. In the field of transport, it would be necessary to develop infrastructures with the aim of boosting tourism and trade. Regarding health and social affairs, the Eurodistrict was relying on the experience acquired in order to take steps concerning technology and knowledge transfer. In the context of local democracy, it was necessary to develop instruments of good governance and stress the promotion of civic rights.
The aim was to carry out significant institutional investment with the aim of improving the quality of local public services and fostering the economic integration of the border areas by developing partnerships in those regions.
Links should be established between the Eurodistrict and the other European regions. It was particularly important to build bridges between the Mediterranean regions of Montenegro, Italy and Albania. The European regions could properly promote democratic values only if their neighbours were prosperous too, so it was crucial to eradicate all the causes of social and economic instability if dialogue between the different cultures was to be boosted. The members of the Eurodistrict believed in the importance of that partnership. The co-operation would be further developed in thefuture. The Eurodistrict was making a positive contribution to the region’s activities.
Ludmila Sfirloaga (Romania, R, SOC) resumed the Chair.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) thanked Ms Ćatović and introduced the next speaker, Stepan Kirichuk, President of the National Congress of Russian Municipalities, an important Congress partner as an association of local authorities that played a crucial role in Russia in strengthening co-operation between the municipalities of that large country. In particular, the Congress of Russian Municipalities operated an agency for the exchange of information on good practices at local level in their area of competence, including transfrontier co-operation. Transfrontier co-operation in Russia took on a new dimension when the municipalities of different entities worked together. The President invited Mr Kirichuk to speak on that specific situation.
Stepan KIRICHUK (Russian Federation, R, SOC) thought that the question of the development of transfrontier co-operation was extremely important for municipalities and regions. Russia had over 61,000 kilometres of borders and 16 neighbouring countries, which constituted an unparalleled potential for transfrontier co-operation. The standard of living of people living along borders depended on neighbourly relations, and that aspect should be taken into account for sustainable development, which helped to strengthen democracy at local and regional level. Transfrontier co-operation was taking place at the level of public works, employment and the resolution of ecological problems. The NGOs also had an increasing role to play, especially in connection with humanitarian assistance and health care, which increased trust between peoples and enabled prejudices to be overcome.
There were a number of instruments that enabled transfrontier co-operation to take place. For example, the 2003 law on foreign trade provided a definition of transfrontier trade. The law on the co-ordination of the international and economic relations of the constituent entities of the Federation and the decree subsequently enacted also provided a legal basis for that co-operation. In 2002, the Russian Federation had signed the Madrid Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation. In accordance with that instrument, it gave the constituent entities of the Federation and the municipalities the right to co-operate with partners in line with co-operation agreements. In October 2008, President Medvedev had signed the law ratifying the second protocol to the Madrid Convention, which had then come into force in Russia on 26 February 2009. All those measures had made it possible to broaden the legal basis necessary for the creation of a European economic and social area. With the participation of Russian experts, the Council of Europe was currently preparing the third protocol, which would serve as a pan-European basis for the constitution of the Euroregions.
Within the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Belarus had already created three Euroregions and negotiations were underway to create a fourth.
The prospects for the strengthening of transfrontier co-operation were therefore good, and constructive collaboration in connection with the EU’s European Neighbourhood Policy could be envisaged. The programme of co-operation between Russia and the European Union, which involved the likely commitment of 439 million euros for the period 2009-2015, fitted into that context.
Transfrontier co-operation was very dynamic and constituted a key aspect of relations between Russia and other countries. The fact that it mainly fell within the competence of the CIS meant that it had to be based on sound legal foundations. The fifteen existing agreements, which were based on European standards, ought to serve as a starting-point for bringing the domestic legislation of the CIS member states closer into line.
The Congress should continue the work it was doing to reinforce transfrontier co-operation in the interests of the municipalities and regions and all the citizens of Europe. (Applause)
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) thanked Stepan Kirichuk for his information on the situation in the Russian Federation.
She called Jean-Paul Heider, Vice-President of the Association of European Border Regions and Vice President of the Alsace Regional Council
Jean-Paul HEIDER, (France, R, EPP/CD), Vice-President of the Association of European Border Regions and Vice President of the Alsace Regional Council, pointed out that, as a European organisation covering virtually the entire continent, the Council of Europe had been working on the question of transfrontier co-operation, and especially territorial development, regional policies and the consolidation of democracy in Europe, since 1960.
Particularly active co-operation had developed with the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR), which had been set up in 1971 with the effective support of the Council of Europe. Since the mid-1980s, owing to the development of the integration process and the extension of its competences the European Union had been actively participating in transfrontier co-operation schemes at both political and financial level.
The AEBR was the only international non-governmental organisation specialising in interregional co-operation throughout Europe. With over 100 members, it represented more than 200 border regions.
The transfrontier regions covered 40% of Europe and over 32% of its population. The added value of transfrontier co-operation compared with national measures could be broken down according to various levels: European, political, constitutional, economic and socio-cultural. The advantages of that co-operation resulted in particular from the complementarity of transfrontier projects, synergies, joint research and innovation, networking, the exchange of good practices and know-how, the indirect effects of crossing borders, and the efficient management of resources.
The European funds allocated to that co-operation provided a new dimension. It had also given the partners, which were very close to the population, more responsibilities. The technical assistance financed by European funds gave the project promoters greater powers.
There had therefore been a movement away from the old rivalries between neighbours towards combining their strengths while at the same time realising economies of scale by pooling existing resources and creating new instruments. Fortunately, the Interreg programme was the only European programme not to have been affected by reduced commitment from Brussels.
Since the end of the last war, the Upper Rhine had been an area of experimentation in the field of transfrontier co-operation, in very close association with the AEBR. The Interreg programme had been trialled in that region before being extended to all the continent’s border regions. Drawing on the successes recorded, the Upper Rhine Conference decided on 11 January 2008, in a joint declaration by the representatives of Germany, Switzerland and France, to set up the Upper Rhine Trinational Metropolitan Region.
The concept of metropolitan regions was gaining ground, especially in Germany, but no existing region had both transfrontier and trinational characteristics. With three countries and two languages, the idea was to combine their strengths to make it an exemplary region in a number of areas. In order to guarantee its success, the metropolitan region would be based on four pillars: a political pillar, with the membership of the existing territorial, local, regional and national bodies; an economic pillar, with the chambers of commerce and industry and the business clubs; a scientific pillar to develop initial and further training, research and skills transfer; and, finally, civil society: in order to benefit from the participation of citizens, civil society would be involved in the creation and development of the region via citizen forums that received Interreg funding. That approach was, incidentally, in line with the new territorial policy being pursued by the European Union.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) thanked Mr Heider for the example he had provided of the work being done by his association and for the support it was giving to the Black Sea Euroregion.
She opened the debate and called Boris Batura, President of the Council for the Co-operation of Local Authorities attached to the Council of the Republic of the Belarus National Assembly. That Council had had observer status with the Congress since December 2008. Boris Batura was also President of the upper chamber of the Belarus National Assembly and a former deputy prime minister.
Boris BATURA (President of the Council for the Co-operation of Local Authorities of Belarus) was pleased that his organisation had been given observer status with the Congress. He believed that local self-government was a key pillar of civil society. He thought the interaction with the Congress in the context of the modernisation of local government in Belarus was particularly important. That modernisation involved bringing the country’s legislation into line with the instruments of the Council of Europe and the training of senior local and regional staff, in co-operation with the Congress.
Joint work could be particularly relevant.
Mr Batura said that he was prepared to work with the Congress on specific matters linked to transfrontier co-operation. The five Euroregions could also play a role.
Finally, direct contacts could be established between local and regional authorities on many different occasions.
Transfrontier co-operation was highly relevant for all European states, and Mr Batura was convinced that joint efforts would enable the citizens’ quality of life to be improved.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) called Onno Van Veldhuizen.
Onno VAN VELDHUIZEN (Netherlands, L, ILDG) believed that the question of transfrontier co-operation was much more important than usually thought because it was not about just a handful of inhabitants living in border areas.
The free movement of persons, goods and ideas enabled everyone to fully live the European reality. However, states always lagged behind as far as transfrontier co-operation was concerned. Fortunately, the Utrecht Ministerial Conference to take place in the autumn would be entirely devoted to that issue.
Mr Van Veldhuizen also pointed out that a conference to be held on 2 and 3 April would be celebrating fifty years of transfrontier co-operation.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) called Svetlana Orlova.
Svetlana ORLOVA (Russian Federation, R, EPP/CD) was pleased that Belarus had observer status with the Congress and stressed that the latter was the primary defender of citizens’ rights at local and regional levels. She believed that the economic crisis provided an opportunity to deal with many different issues arising in the context of transfrontier co-operation.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) reminded Ms Orlova that it was not Belarus as such that had observer status but its Council for the Co-operation of Local Authorities, which was represented by Boris Batura.
In her opinion, it was thanks to the commitment of the citizens and authorities concerned that the major transfrontier initiatives and structures mentioned by the speakers had been launched or set up. The aim of those initiatives was not only to strengthen ties between neighbours but also to foster the sustainable development of the regions. They were based on mutual trust and the desire to get to know one’s neighbour, as well as on the need to improve the citizens’ standard of living. Transfrontier co-operation strengthened economic and social cohesion in the regions concerned.
The transfrontiercontacts established contributed to resolving and preventing conflicts and to overcoming the psychological barriers that had their origin in ignorance of one another, and transfrontier co-operation contributed to mutual understanding, tolerance and democratic stability.
Projects clearly could not materialise without a political will and the involvement of all social players: the NGOs, cultural bodies, tourist organisations, civil society, etc. The national authorities could also contribute to transfrontier
co-operation by implementing the Madrid Convention. The Council of Europe member states should quickly adopt the 3rd protocol to that Convention.
The members of the Congress were asked to persuade their respective governments to act.
The PRESIDENT (Romania, R, SOC) called Ian Micallef, President a.i. of the Congress to deliver the closing address.
Ian MICALLEF (Malta, L, EPP/CD), President a.i. of the Congress, thought the session had provided a real opportunity for participants to speak their mind and deal with substantive issues in high-quality debates. He was pleased that the distinguished guests had been asked pertinent questions.
Mr Micallef said that he had been impressed by the attention, regular attendance and involvement of the Congress members.
The range of subjects discussed during that week had also reflected the importance of that session.
At the beginning of the week, the Bureau of the Congress had called on Azerbaijan to adjourn the planned constitutional referendum, which did not appear to comply with the European Charter of Local Self-Government.
Just before the opening of the session, and as though subsequent to the Congress debates concerning foreign nationals in Latvia the previous December, the European Court of Human Rights had delivered a judgment stating that making an individual’s rights dependent on his or her naturalisation was discriminatory. On Monday 2 March, Vice-President Jean-Claude Frécon had welcomed the judgment and reiterated the Congress’s appeal to the Latvian authorities to grant foreign nationals the right to vote in local elections.
There had been an occasionally painful debate at the beginning of the session concerning the validity of the mandates of certain members. It raised the question of the legitimacy and operation of the Congress and showed that its members should try to understand one another better. A solution would nonetheless be found with Russia.
The question of continuing the Congress’s missions in the middle of the budgetary crisis facing the Council of Europe had also been addressed. That problem had been raised before the highest Council of Europe bodies as the members of the Congress had not shied away from asking them some awkward and difficult questions. The Congress had been able to make its voice heard and would know how to maintain the pressure until it obtained answers and results.
One debate had been on Euro-Mediterranean co-operation, which was a subject of growing importance for European governance.
The Congress could not, and did not want to, remain on the sidelines and would work with the Committee of the Regions and other partners on those issues.
Observers had travelled from Belarus and had agreed to engage in an exchange of views on local democracy, for which they were to be thanked.
The Congress had addressed the issue of the global financial crisis and its serious effects on local authorities. It had drawn up recommendations to those authorities with a view to helping them cope.
The Congress had also made a contribution to the 5th World Water Forum to be held in Istanbul. It had also tackled one of the biggest problems of our time, namely domestic violence against women, and had, once again, drawn up a number of recommendations, which were the result of the very active involvement of local and regional authorities in the Council of Europe campaign on that issue. Those recommendations would be put together in a draft convention.
Aware that towns and cities were becoming increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual, the participants had engaged in exchanges of views that would advance the cause of inter-culturalism. Social cohesion was fuelled by dialogue between cultures.
The Congress had spoken about the reforms carried out in Malta, citizen participation, the Black Sea, transfrontier co-operation, European Local Democracy Week, etc. In short, the session had been very intensive and had marked the beginning of a new era for the Congress, which had been preparing for that turning-point for many years. Things were now moving along the right lines and it only remained to express the hope that the winds would be favourable for the long voyage ahead.
Ian MICALLEF (Malta, L, EPP/CD) resumed the Chair.
He declared the 16th session of the Council of Europe Congress of Local and Regional Authorities closed.
The sitting rose at 4.35 pm.