Rapporteur: Mr Buldanli (Turkey)
-------------
EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM
INTRODUCTORY
Since 1985, when the first conference of Mediterranean regions was held, the Council of Europe, acting on the joint initiative of the Congress and the Parliamentary Assembly, has sought to mark its commitment to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership. For the Organisation, this has involved developing the dialogue already begun with Mediterranean non-member countries and, in particular, seeking a basis for renewed co-operation in the region. The five conferences of Mediterranean regions, now enlarged to include the Black Sea, have thus given impetus to the objective of promoting and institutionalising a Euro-Mediterranean partnership engineered by towns, regions and parliaments.
In this context, it is understandable that these conferences have given prominence to the themes of sustainable development, local and regional democracy and peace in the region as the main pillars of such a partnership. The themes are, or in any case should be, at the heart of the work of the local and regional authorities and parliamentary bodies of the countries bordering on the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, since these driving forces are closer to citizens and their development needs and will shape the very future of societies in the two basins by taking such themes effectively into account.
The five conferences on Mediterranean and Black Sea regions have met their objectives. They have opened the way to co-operation between towns, between regions and, in a broader sense, between communities. Dialogue between the Mediterranean and Black Sea shores is now firmly established. But how can an unquestionable desire to co-operate be transformed into a tangible and permanent commitment by towns, regions and parliaments to put the principles of sustainable development, local and regional democracy and peace at the centre of their concerns?
The 5th Conference of Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins, held in Marmaris (Turkey) on 25-27 February 1999, set out to respond to this need. The primary objective of the conference, which large delegations of Mediterranean non-member countries attended, was to provide a structure for active co-operation between the local and regional authorities and parliamentary bodies of the countries bordering on the two basins. Accordingly, in its conclusions the working group responsible for the preparation of the 5th conference called upon the Congress and the Parliamentary Assembly to draw up, in close co-operation with Mediterranean partner countries not belonging to the Council of Europe, a charter of sustainable development for the Mediterranean and Black Sea basins. Under such a charter, national parliaments, towns and regions would pledge their resolve to undertake more intensive co-operation and their commitment to certain key principles that should guide them in any interventions likely to affect the ecological balance of the two basins.
This report is a faithful record of the statements and discussions during the 5th conference and its three working sessions on interparliamentary co-operation, interregional co-operation and sustainable development in the Mediterranean and Black Sea basins. The rapporteur wishes at this point to thank Mr Adda BEKKOUCHE, the expert responsible for preparing this report, for his excellent work.
The rapporteur does, however, have reservations about some of the terms used in paragraph 6 (a) of the draft recommendation on the 5th Conference on the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins, as well as in paragraph 10 of the conclusions drawn up by the working group responsible for the preparation of the 5th conference (appended to the draft recommendation). He is opposed to the use of the phrase "[…] the Straits and the Sea of Marmara" and favours the following wording: "[…] the Straits of Istanbul and of Çanakkale and the Sea of Marmara. It is worth noting that the phrase "Straits of Istanbul and of Çanakkale" is the one used in United Nations documents.
-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-
REPORT
The 5th Conference of the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins, whose subject was “Interparliamentary and interregional co-operation for peace, democratic stability and sustainable development”, was jointly initiated by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (CLRAE) and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities). The conference was held at Marmaris (Turkey) on 25 and 26 February 1999. On the eve of the conference, a seminar on interregional and intermunicipal co-operation on the training of elected local representatives and local government staff, organised by the CLRAE's Working Group on Euro-Mediterranean Co-operation on Local Democracy, took place.
The purpose of the conference was to strengthen the process of co-operation between Council of Europe member countries and Mediterranean non-member countries in the fields of sustainable development, peace and democratic stability, particularly at interparliamentary and territorial authority levels.
The conference was notable for the large number of contributions made to its proceedings and the fact that almost all the countries bordering on the two sea basins were represented at it (the 250 or so participants made approximately fifty written and oral contributions, backed up by thorough background documentation).
Before setting out the proposals and general conclusions, which are based on the information contained in the documents prepared by the speakers or drawn up during the discussions, I should like to give a brief account of the main points covered during the conference's five sessions.
Opening session:
Opening addresses
At the very outset, Mr Janos PERENYI, in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee of Ministers’ Deputies, wished to deliver a message. He reminded the conference that Europe must remain open in its process of construction, , in particular by developing co-operation between frontier territorial authorities. He also stressed that the Council of Europe rested on three pillars: parliaments, central governments and local and regional authorities. This made the institution part of a dynamic process of consolidating democracy at all decision-making levels.
He added that the Hungarian chairmanship derived great satisfaction from the conference's expansion to include the Black Sea. In addition to the Mediterranean, other regions were very important to Europe. That was the case, among others, with the Danube, which was a very important communication and trade route for the European continent.
The aim of the efforts being made was to preserve peace and ensure democratic stability in the countries belonging to Europe and its neighbouring regions. It was now some years that Bulgaria sat alongside Turkey as a Black Sea member country of the Council of Europe. Soon Georgia would be admitted to the Council, having been unanimously accepted by the members of the Parliamentary Assembly in January 1999. He hoped that the next countries to be admitted would be Armenia and Azerbaijan. He also hoped that the Israelis and the Palestinians would be reconciled. That was the whole thrust of Resolution 923, which was aimed at restoring mutual trust between those peoples.
In his opinion, the main challenge to the northern Mediterranean was to settle the conflicts there. That was the purpose of the work being carried out by the Council of Europe authorities vis-à-vis the UN Secretary General and the OSCE. With the same aim in view, those authorities had decided to set up a programme of interregional co-operation in south-east Europe. This had been the "raison d'être" of the Crete and Antalya meetings in 1997.
Finally, despite the gravity of latent or open conflicts in Europe, it was the Council of Europe’s duty not to forget the southern shore of the Mediterranean. It was therefore incumbent on the Council to take into account the effects of globalisation so that the gap between poor and rich countries did not widen further. To that end, initiatives would be taken to make the citizens of the countries concerned more aware of the interdependence of the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions, the problem of poverty and that of environment protection, notably in the context of the new Council of Europe campaign entitled “Campaign for global interdependence and solidarity: Europe against poverty and social exclusion”. This campaign would be particularly significant. Resolution 1181 of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on interdependence, which had recently been adopted, encouraged the setting-up of national committees to work within its framework.
Mr Alain CHENARD, President of the CLRAE, raised forthwith the question of the ability of the Council of Europe, and of the Congress in particular, to help towns in Israel and Palestine to work together, as well as territorial authorities in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea to engage in fuller and more effective co-operation. The modest scale of the measures undertaken might, he thought, be due to the newness of Mediterranean consciousness. However, as demonstrated by the examples of Algeria and Palestine, the need for more intensive co-operation was obvious. Accordingly, Europe should renew its partnership for prosperity and peace in the Mediterranean. Within the Council of Europe, through the CLRAE, every effort was being made to that end. The Union of Israeli Local Authorities enjoyed observer status with the Congress (since 1962), as did the Arab Towns Organisation (since 1996).
The present conference was part of a series intended to develop direct co-operation between the local and regional authorities of the two basins. In 1993, at the third conference, the need to develop, more specifically, Euro-Mediterranean decentralised co-operation of this kind had been acknowledged. Surely, such co-operation led to a more direct and rapid type of partnership that was closer to citizens. Surely, the towns bordering on the two seas shared the same problems. For all those reasons, the CLRAE was devoting a great deal of attention to partnership relating to decentralisation and local self-government. This was the whole point of setting up, in 1997, the working group on Euro-Mediterranean co-operation regarding local democracy, whose task was to deal with the question of decentralised co-operation and local self-government in Mediterranean countries not belonging to the Council of Europe. In that connection, the working group had, on the eve of the conference, held its first thematic seminar at Marmaris on the training of elected local representatives and municipal staff in the Mediterranean, which had been a success thanks to the high quality of the proceedings and the proposals for follow-up action to which it had had given rise.
It was now necessary to learn to get to know one another, so that the common will could be expressed in more practical terms. It would then be up to everyone to endeavour to obtain the resources needed for achieving these objectives. It was in this context that the preparation of a draft charter for the sustainable development of the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins was proposed in the final conclusions of the 5th Conference.
In conclusion, the speaker offered some topical thoughts on Turkey and the need to envisage greater regional self-government in that country.
The Council of Europe would help its friends to build a large area of democracy. Terrorism was to be condemned, but every defendant must be given a fair trial. With that in mind, the Congress had taken the view that Turkey should develop the level of regional self-government as required by the commitments entered into. It was therefore by complying with those commitments and respecting the rights of citizens that Turkey would continue to be a great nation.
Mrs Lale AYTAMAN, Chair of the Parliamentary Assembly's Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities, responded to these comments by saying that Turkey was one of the longest-standing member states of the Council of Europe. It respected the principles which governed the Organisation. With regard to reform of its territorial communities and authorities, she considered that Turkey would be happy to draw on the experience of other Council of Europe countries.
Mr Faik KAYTANCI, Secretary General of the Parliamentary Assembly for Black Sea Economic Co-operation (PABSEC), said that the institution he represented had been created to guarantee peace, stability and prosperity for the whole region. The Black Sea was a natural extension of the Mediterranean.
Since its creation, the PABSEC had become a recognised institution. It was seeking to contribute to the control of its member countries' development. The Black Sea countries should therefore co-operate together and concert their efforts to deal with their common problems, particularly in the fields of pollution control and environment protection. On a wider scale, the PABSEC co-operated with the OSCE. In the same way, it co-operated with the Mediterranean countries and their organisations.
Mr Luchezar TOSHEV, a Vice-President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, pointed out that there had been difficulties in holding the present conference. He recalled the initiation and organisation of the previous conferences. Since 1985, the date of the first conference, several countries of central and eastern Europe had joined the Council of Europe. The aim of the present meeting was, among other things, to combat fundamentalism and terrorism in order to establish links for democracy.
In May 1999, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe would be adopting the Declaration of Citizens’ Rights and Responsibilities. Accordingly, interparliamentary dialogue and decentralised co-operation must produce tangible results. That was also the purport of the proposal to draw up a charter for the sustainable development of the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins.
With this in view, the Council of Europe would establish links with the OSCE and the PABSEC. The same applied to the European Parliament and the expected outcome of the April 1999 Stuttgart meeting within the framework of the Barcelona process.
For all those reasons, the speaker urged the participants and the organisations they represented to engage in still further co-operation.
Mr Uluç GÜRKAN, Acting Speaker of the Turkish Grand National Assembly, considered that all international organisations should adopt the recommendations of the Rio de Janeiro summit. Turkey intended to be active both locally and internationally in this field. Turkey had signed some international instruments back in 1992, and since then it had drawn up a programme for the protection of the Black Sea, as it participated in programmes for sustainable development where human beings were the central concern. Turkey also wished to develop its action vis-à-vis the Caucasus.
With regard to the problem of the “Turkish straits” and sea traffic, he drew attention to the considerable number of ships using those sea routes and the risks they involved for the environment and for safety in the region.
As to the relationship between multi-ethnicity and the nation state, he considered that even federal states were not multi-ethnic, the latest example being the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. For that reason he failed to understand the West’s reasons for supporting for the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party), which, in his opinion, was a terrorist organisation. He affirmed Turkey’s respect for human and civic rights in its particular context, and called for solidarity between states.
Results of and prospects for co-operation in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins
In his introductory statement on “Results and prospects for co-operation in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins”, Mr Driss KHROUZ, a member of the Bureau of the European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity (“North-South Centre” of the Council of Europe), referred to the Council of Europe’s action, through the Parliamentary Assembly and the CLRAE, in launching the Euro-Mediterranean process based on subsidiarity and democracy close to the citizen. The Black Sea countries were now involved in these matters. How could all those countries contribute, with the support of their various organisations, to peace and prosperity in Europe, and above all its eastern and southern regions?
He was of the opinion that the first four Euro-Mediterranean conferences had followed the same trend as the Barcelona process initiated in November 1995. However, despite its third section, relating to cultural co-operation between peoples and through civil societies, the Barcelona Declaration was dominated by security and commercial considerations. The prospect of establishing a free-trade area in 2010, supported by association agreements to be concluded between the European Union and the 12 Mediterranean partner countries, favoured a mainly governmental approach. The southern countries were now worried because the free-trade area was being imposed on them, just like globalisation incidentally.
The role of the Council of Europe was therefore vital in refocusing the process on co-operation for the benefit of local democracy. For that reason, the Mediterranean conferences, despite their irregularity, constituted important frameworks which influenced the political factors affecting Europe and its environment. Their impact was undeniable and could be seen at institutional, environmental, demographic and migratory levels. However, the main task that remained to be performed was to ensure that the Mediterranean was not only a northern concept, but also a southern one. In this way, questions as important as the ecological future of the Mediterranean, democracy or the fate of the southern shore in the globalisation process would be dealt with more effectively.
This raised the problem of the prospects and thrusts of interparliamentary and interregional co-operation in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins. Many observers agreed that the two basins formed part of the same system. Consequently, it was no longer necessary to demonstrate the need for a common culture to tackle common problems. Therein lay the basis for the emergence of a common cultural region and a social and political area occupied by and for its peoples.
A charter for the sustainable development of the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins, yet to be drawn up, would be one of results of that process. In broader terms, the fifth conference was intended to create a political platform for interparliamentary and interregional co-operation in the region. This objective could be pursued in three main ways:
1. Interregional and decentralised co-operation: nowadays co-operation in this region could no longer be governed solely by an intergovernmental approach. It also needed a dimension close to the citizen. Parliaments and local and regional authorities were democratic bodies and should now be seen as key frameworks for partnership in the two basins. Even though it was still sporadic and not yet rooted in all political cultures, dialogue at parliamentary and territorial authority levels, with the participation of NGOs, was destined to assume increasing importance. It was this task that the fifth conference was being asked to set in motion. It was a forward-looking project that needed a framework, a vision, participants and instruments. In this respect, reference could be made to several instruments already drawn up by the Council of Europe, such as the European Charter of Local Self-Government, the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities (in particular Additional Protocol No 2 thereto, on inter-territorial co-operation) and the Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats.
Within this process, it was essential to encourage the involvement of the voluntary movement in particular and of civil society in general, as they were the democratic expressions of people’s expectations, and should be chosen as essential partners in the culture of dialogue and democracy. Several serious projects, such as the Conference on Security and Co-operation in the Mediterranean (CSCM), set up within the framework of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, and the initiative taken by the regions of southern France in establishing an observatory of Mediterranean Europe, were resolutely heading in that direction.
2. The environment and sustainable development as challenges for the 21st century: in line with the functions of the Council of Europe, the four previous conferences of Mediterranean regions, as well as the corresponding Parliamentary Assembly and Congress recommendations, had adopted the dissemination of information and the protection of the environment as one of the priorities for consolidating sustainable development in the Mediterranean Basin. That was the only way to protect natural resources and limit damage to coasts, the places of special interest and the cultural heritage.
In this field, the main thrusts of co-operation between parliaments, towns and regions in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins might be aimed at water and pollution problems and the consequences of demographic and migratory pressures.
As far as water was concerned, co-operation might develop instruments for exchanges of information, experience and proposals through a forum supported by a charter. Such a process was already under way thanks to the Euro-Mediterranean partnership and the transition of the Black Sea states towards economic and political liberalisation.
With regard to migratory phenomena, the serious disparities in living standards and incomes, particularly between the two shores of the Mediterranean, were amplified by divergent demographic trends. That was why the migratory flows from south to north demanded action by central and local authorities. And only co-operation between all those authorities, both central and decentralised, could lead to effective common solutions. This huge task was a challenge for the next century.
3. Finally, interdependence, solidarity and intercultural dialogue were the key to peace and stability in Europe itself and in the countries of the southern and eastern Mediterranean. These themes corresponded to the functions of the European Centre for Global Independence and Solidarity (“North-South Centre” of the Council of Europe), established in 1990. Seventeen European countries were now members of the centre.
For these various reasons, it was natural that the fifth conference should deal with the strategic topic of interparliamentary and interregional co-operation for peace, democratic stability and sustainable development. However, all this presupposed the existence or provision of a framework, instruments and resources for creating common areas for dialogue, decision-making and action.
First working session:
Interparliamentary co-operation for peace and democratic stability
At the first working session, devoted to interparliamentary co-operation for peace and democratic stability, the discussion was introduced by the session chairman, Mr Miguel Angel MARTÍNEZ, President of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) and Chairman of the European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity (“North-South Centre” of the Council of Europe), who laid particular stress on the concerns of the IPU. In his view, countries were at a crossroads in the history of civilisation, characterised by globalisation and democratisation. These two processes had produced what might be called “parliamentary democracy”. As a result, parliaments were now responsible for foreign policy, whereas in the past this had been an exclusive domain of governments. Noone nowadays challenged the right of parliaments to act in this sphere. A problem arose when it came to ensuring consistency and logic between the efforts of the two powers. It was therefore necessary to restore the role played by parliaments in international relations to its true status.
The purpose of parliaments was not to perform diplomatic functions but to work for a new international order in favour of peace, stability and democracy.
The United Nations should play a part in this process. But for its involvement to be effective, it must be reformed. The UN must be democratised as many of its anachronisms were becoming more and more insupportable. Its Charter affirmed the primacy of peoples in international decisions. Yet only governments acted.
At its very inception, the Council of Europe had opted for the involvement of peoples, through their parliaments. This objective had been adopted by the Council in order to ensure its application on an international scale. Parliaments must be involved and be allowed to exercise supervision over the United Nations and the World Bank system. The Council of Europe was therefore working for the creation of an international interparliamentary body. In this way, the international order would become more democratic. Without this process, economic globalisation would rather favour an anti-democratic trend in international society.
It was to ensure such democratisation of international institutions that a meeting of all the world's parliaments would be held in New York in 2001. This New York process, which was well under way, was the sine qua non of democracy and stability in the world.
As far as the Mediterranean was concerned, it was suffering not from any lack of initiatives but rather from an excess of initiatives and projects. The problem was to ensure coherence of action. A considerable waste of energy and, hence, of taxpayers' contributions was occurring. It could legitimately be asked, in the face of the multiplicity of projects and organisations, whether the results achieved were commensurate with the efforts made. The fundamental question arising was: how could all those resources be channelled for the purpose of improving everyone's living conditions?
Mr Anatoliy RAKHANSKY, a member of the Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, was of the opinion that interparliamentary co-operation had produced significant results for stability and development. The homogeneity of the Mediterranean and Black Sea areas made it essential to control the risks to which both were exposed. In this regard, the rivers flowing into the Black Sea badly needed treating. The Danube was the sickest river in Europe. The Niepce, the other major river, also needed more attention.
Parliamentarians should consolidate the dialogue between governments and local authorities. That was the only way in which solutions could be found. The case of Chernobyl required international co-operation at every level. Otherwise, there would be no solution.
Democracy was a long learning process, which was why the Council of Europe encouraged the creation of parliaments for young people. Ukraine was the first country to have given up nuclear weapons, even though it possessed the relevant technology. True to the aims of the Council of Europe, which were co-operation for peace, democracy and human rights, the Ukrainian Parliament had passed a resolution calling on the United Nations Security Council to prevent any outside interference in the Yugoslav problem in order to avoid a third world war.
Mr Mohamed Hédi KHELIL, a member of the Tunisian Chamber of Deputies and general rapporteur for the Third Conference on Security and Co-operation in the Mediterranean (CSCM), laid stress on open conflicts and their consequences for the creation of international institutions. The most important of these institutions had come into being in the aftermath of the world wars. It should now be considered what role they, together with parliaments, should play in regard to peace and democratic stability. This question was all the more crucial as peace was under threat throughout the world. Besides, neither the Mediterranean nor the Black Sea were spared by the political, religious and social tensions resulting from on-going open conflicts whose causes were many and varied.
Thus, the region was not a model of peace, security and democracy. When the UN was incapable of helping to restore stability in the region, could parliaments perform the task? He believed that they were perfectly capable of doing so, by exercising their role to the full, as had been the case at the time of the creation of the OSCE and the CSCM process.
However, there were limits to this process in that it had not produced all the expected results, not having given the peoples’ representatives the credit they deserved. Whereas on the European side there was an institution representative of all the peoples concerned, on the southern Mediterranean and Black Sea side each parliament was trying to initiate an individual dialogue with the northern partner.
To eliminate this shortcoming among political institutions, two options could be contemplated:
- Either to continue the CSCM process with a view to the creation of an association of the Mediterranean and Black Sea states by establishing a continuous dialogue at the governmental and parliamentary levels. That was what had been recommended by the Malta CSCM in 1995;
- Or to create a Euro-Mediterranean parliamentary forum open to the European Parliament and the parliaments of the twenty-seven countries of the Barcelona process. That forum would have an advisory role on all questions relating to the implementation of association agreements. It was the European Parliament that was behind this proposal.
Undoubtedly, either option, would reinforce the role of parliaments in dialogue and the consolidation of peace, stability and democracy in the region.
Mr Mohamed EL ANSARI, a member of the new Moroccan Chamber of Councillors and a Regional Councillor for the Meknès-Tafilalet Region, pointed out that Morocco had long been involved in interparliamentary dialogue and the development process in the Mediterranean. For this reason, he believed, there was broad agreement on objectives, but was not the problem to give substance to the partnership between the North and the South, on the one hand, and the East and the West, on the other? Did not the answer lie in development, democracy and stability for all?
Mr Gianni RISARI, an Italian Deputy speaking on behalf of the President of the Italian Parliament, Mr Luciano VIOLANTE, recalled that in the Barcelona process there had been a declaration on interparliamentary co-operation between the Mediterranean countries. On 8 March 1999, the declaration would be signed by the presidents of the European and Mediterranean parliaments.
In his opinion, the Barcelona process rested on two pillars: the establishment of a free-trade area and a zone of peace and stability in the Mediterranean. These objectives meant that national parliaments and regional and local authorities should not stay outside the process. The effort to transform this region into a area of peace and stability should be a joint one, as it was a well-known fact that democracy was a cultural choice before becoming a political project.
Mr Hadi ZIAF, a representative of the PABSEC, recalled that parliamentary co-operation had been a great help to the countries of central and eastern Europe. It was thanks to this co-operation that laws and regulations had been harmonised in many of these countries. Since its creation in 1993, the PABSEC had sought to establish co-operation between the countries of the sub-region. For this reason, its objective was to participate in the establishment of stability and peace in the Middle East, the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
Mr Marwan DUDIN, a Member of the Jordanian Parliament, pointed out that Jordan was a constitutional monarchy with a parliament which monitored respect for fundamental rights. The country was involved in the regional peace process as well as in the Barcelona process, despite the occupation of part of its territory. He subscribed to Mr Driss KHROUZ’s analysis while believing that until the peace process had reached its logical conclusion - ie Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza - democracy in that part of the world would remain wishful thinking. The current status quo was not conducive to peace. True, there was relative stability; but that stability was precarious. The solution lay in the restoration of the dignity of the Palestinian people. Peace in the region and for the world depended thereon.
Mr Salah TAROUTY, an Egyptian Deputy, recalled that co-operation between the Mediterranean countries had always been a link between the region's peoples. It was the main commercial and cultural crossroads in the world. The Barcelona conference merely confirmed that fact. But for things to happen in a climate of stability and in the interests of all, there had to be dialogue between North and South. This would make it possible to deal with the problems due to demographic pressure, which was detrimental to renewable resources.
Everyone agreed that the Mediterranean and Black Seas, regarded as the world’s most polluted seas, needed to be urgently treated if they were to survive. While tackling marine pollution, one should not overlook air pollution, in particular the threat to the ozone layer. This multiplicity of effects on the environment was a reminder that pollution knew no frontiers- and that there was inequality in the face of the problem of environment protection. Consequently, it was for the Mediterranean countries to find ways of ensuring that the burdens and costs of pollution were borne fairly by the Mediterranean countries.
As for the peace process, which was a challenge to the Mediterranean countries, its consequences were not only military. Russia’s place in this process lent even greater importance to the Black Sea. It was in the context of this process that President MUBARAK had proposed, in 1990, that the Mediterranean should be made a disarmament zone.
Taking these problems into account would make it possible to deal seriously with the problem common to the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean: that of development.
Mr Abdelmadjid CHERIF, a Vice-President of the Algerian National People’s Assembly, declared himself proud to be representing the first pluralistic Algerian parliament, in which he placed his hope for the reconciling of democracy and development. In this connection he recalled that when the Council of Europe had been founded 50 years earlier, the aim had also been to create conditions of stability for democracy and development.
He considered that globalisation and the history of Europe showed that democracy was dependent on peace, which, in turn, sustained development. Today, unequal development was still the greatest of injustices. It was underdevelopment that was the breeding-ground of terrorism, even though, in Algeria, terrorism had been helped by foreign complicity and duplicity.
Algeria was at present paying a heavy price, which was not without important consequences for the region. This was an example in support of the assertion that human rights depended on development.
Summing up the proceedings of the opening session, the chairman, Mr Miguel Angel MARTÍNEZ, noted two main points.
Firstly, how were democracy and development to be reconciled? What dialectic needed to be clarified in order to establish a link between the two terms? However, it was impossible to wait for development to take place before building democracy.
Secondly, Turkey’s role was becoming ever more important in the region, and itt would therefore be difficult to build Europe without that country. But there was another reason for including Turkey in the construction of Europe: Europe had to be pluralistic and equitable.
What he wanted was not an exclusively Christian Europe, but a universalist one. That was also why he hoped Turkey would adopt these values and bring pluralism, particularly religious pluralism, to Europe.
Second working session:
Local and regional partnerships for peace and democratic stability
At the second session, devoted to local and regional partnerships for peace and democratic stability, the discussion was introduced by a paper given by Mr Rinaldo LOCATELLI, Head of the Secretariat of the CLRAE, setting out the broad lines of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities and Protocol No 2 thereto concerning inter-territorial co-operation.
The European Charter of Local Self-Government had been ratified by 36 of the 40 states forming the Council of Europe. It lay down five broad principles:
- local authorities should be free to administer their own affairs;
- any supervision of local authorities should be regulated and subject to a review of legality;
- disputes concerning local authorities should be dealt with by a court of law;
- citizens’ participation should be organised in order to contribute to the shaping of the general will;
- the fifth and last principle was that of solidarity between territorial communities, reflected in the operation of a system of financial equalisation.
The European Charter of Local Self-Government had been the first official European text to define the principle of subsidiarity (Article 4). Accession to the Charter was nowadays de facto a criterion for accession to the Council of Europe and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe. The importance of the latter body was such that it drew up reports on the state of local democracy in its member countries. It was currently preparing a Charter of Regional Self-Government.
As for the European Outline Convention on Transfrontier Co-operation between Territorial Communities or Authorities, it had been drafted on the basis of a legal debate between, on the one hand, the advocates of exclusive state competence in regard to international relations between public institutions and, on the other, the advocates of freedom of action between transfrontier territorial communities. The European Charter of Self-Government arbitrated, as it were, the debate by adopting the principle that the right to co-operate with other local authorities, including across frontiers, was an element of local self-government. That right was comparable to private international law. However, it was limited to the powers of the local authorities.
Consequently, again thanks to the Outline Convention, a frontier no longer hindered local authorities from co-operating together to settle common problems or develop links of mutual interest. This so-called Madrid Convention, which had been signed on 21 May 1980, had now been ratified by 21 Council of Europe states.
Moreover, the convention included a system of model agreements, consisting of a series of model inter-state agreements relating to general clauses and another series of outline agreements, statutes and contracts between local authorities. The Council of Europe had also drawn up a number of subject-based model agreements (economic co-operation, spatial planning, nature parks, etc).
The third important instrument was the Additional Protocol to the Outline Convention, which had been signed on 5 November 1995 and had entered into force on 1 December 1998. It recognised the right of local authorities to conclude transfrontier co-operation agreements limited to their common fields of responsibility under national law. Local authorities involved in a transfrontier co-operation body were required to transpose to their national legal system any joint decisions they had taken within that framework. Some rules concerning the legal personality of the transfrontier co-operation body were laid down. They were, in essence, subject to the law of the state where that body’s headquarters were located.
There was also provision for the creation of public-law transfrontier co-operation bodies operating in accordance with the law in the territories of all the territorial authorities which were parties to the agreement.
Consequently, this instrument provided for two types of body: one based exclusively on the law of the body’s headquarters state, the other on a kind of law common to the different states.
The final important instrument was Protocol No 2 to the Outline Convention, concerning inter-territorial co-operation. This text, adopted on 5 May 1998, applied to relations between territorial authorities of two or more states, apart from transfrontier co-operation relations between neighbouring territorial authorities. It was therefore a text that was perhaps even more relevant to co-operation between territorial authorities on the northern and southern shores of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. It had so far been ratified by only one state and would not therefore be coming into force for another few years.
Those instruments and the relevant experience of European territorial authorities constituted a rich heritage which was now also available to the territorial authorities of other countries wishing, for example, to draw up multilateral agreements on co-operation between local and regional authorities in the Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins. It was obvious that, for optimum use to be made of it, decentralised co-operation built up in this way required, in the case of the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea, some progress in the field of local self-government.
The Council of Europe as a whole and its Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and the relevant Parliamentary Assembly Committee in particular were at the disposal of states and territorial communities wishing to benefit from their experience.
The discussion was introduced by Mr Llibert CUATRECASAS, adviser to the President of the Government of Catalonia, who welcomed the work being done on the European Charter of Regional Self-Government. This raised the question of decentralised co-operation in the Mediterranean. In this factual context, many Mediterranean regions had started to dialogue with each other.
He emphasised the concept of the region. Over and above considerations of territorial and cultural coherence, he regarded the regional dimension as the basic level for a type of development that was sustainable and consistent with a spatial planning approach.
Mr Mustapha MECHICHE ALAMI, a member of the Kénitra-Maâmora Municipal Council (Morocco), considered that Mr Locatelli's exposé had adumbrased a veritable legal framework for inter-territorial co-operation between Mediterranean communities. To foster this process, was it envisaged that South Mediterranean territorial authorities should sit as observers in the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe?
Mr Rinaldo LOCATELLI replied in the affirmative. Such a possibility was available through the Arab Towns Organisation. As regards the European heritage, which the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean could usefully exploit, the European Commission had a decisive role to play in the matter by virtue of the impetus it could give to the process of Euro-Mediterranean decentralised co-operation.
With regard to legal instruments, he could see no technical obstacle to the setting-up of a Mediterranean convention on decentralised co-operation. That was what the Rhineland countries had done. The states concerned should feel the need for such an instrument. To that end, it was possible to encourage them to move in that direction. This was the role of civil society and of local and regional authorities.
As far as the reality of local and regional partnerships was concerned, Mr Aown SHAWA, Mayor of Gaza and Chairman of the Union of Palestinian Local Authorities, provided some physical data on Gaza, outlined the history of Palestine and listed the advances and impasses in the peace process.
Despite the practical difficulties, the main objective of the municipality of Gaza remained the reconstruction of the city, the alleviation of the suffering of its inhabitants and adaptation to the universal process of development. To that end, co-operation with the outside world was essential. The international community and its various organisations had been, and were still, a valuable and irreplaceable source of help. This process had made solidarity and technical and financial assistance possible not only at governmental level but also at local authority, NGO and citizen level. Thanks to such support, a friendship and co-operation agreement between Gaza, Tel Aviv and Barcelona had been signed on 24 September 1998. The initiative for that agreement had been taken by the Mayor of Barcelona, Mr Joan CLOS, and with the European Union’s special representative in the Middle East, Mr Miguel MORATINOS. The former Mayor of Tel Aviv, Roni MILO, and the Mayor of Gaza had decided that the mayors could and should take up positions that contributed to the stability and prosperity of their citizens, and this despite opposition from minorities within each of the parties.
He hoped that this agreement would become a model to be followed for Israeli and Palestinian towns working in this way to build trust and thereby restore the right of both sides to live in security, freedom and dignity. Working groups from Barcelona and Gaza had already met, and a work plan had been finalised.
One of the main questions now being debated concerned the future of the peace process and relations between the Palestinian and Israeli peoples, at a time when the Israelis were getting ready for a general election. The results of the election would decide which path was to be taken. He hoped that Israel would choose the path of peace rather than that leading to conflict and bloodshed.
Mr Pere VILLANOVA, adviser to the Mayor of Barcelona, said that many people wondered how the conclusion of such an agreement between Gaza, Tel Aviv and Barcelona had been possible in view of all the difficulties it had involved.
Today, by its mere existence, the agreement could be regarded as a success as it contained countless messages with a strong educational impact, whose salient elements were the following:
- towns could act wherever governments were liable to fail;
- agreements were made between enemies;
- protagonists of this type of agreement had to make a twofold effort, for they had to convince both their enemies and elements within their own parties.
As regards the agreement itself, it did not seem innovative. In a tripartite agreement, one of the parties sometimes lagged behind for various reasons. That was the case with Tel Aviv. When it considered that the time was right, Tel Aviv would become involved.
As far as the history of the agreement was concerned, the process had been initiated by the former Mayor of Barcelona, Mr MARAGAL, through the application of the “embassy of local democracy” In 1998 these bodies became “agencies of local democracy”.
1 1 concept to the case of Sarajevo, a concept created by the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe. It was this concept that had also been developed at the Euro-Mediterranean conference in Barcelona in November 1995. One of the important lessons was that towns could enter into a dialogue when the link between governments or public authorities was broken.
Mr Philippe CICHOWLAZ, responsible for Mediterranean/Black Sea matters at the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions (CPMR), said that his organisation attached particular importance to the two basins. To that effect, the representatives of the Regions of the European Union, at a meeting in Syracuse on 15 and 16 January 1999 with the representatives of the territorial authorities of the Mediterranean partner countries, had made a declaration on co-operation in the Mediterranean. They had called, among other things, for Euro-Mediterranean decentralised co-operation to be reactivated by the European Commission and for a process of thinking to be embarked on, with a view to relaunching the Euro-Mediterranean partnership programmes within the Agenda 2000 context through the allocation of further resources besides those already earmarked for the current MEDA programme. Finally, within the framework of the future Community INTERREG III initiative, the outline of which for the period 2000-2006 was currently under discussion, they had called for the Mediterranean Basin to form the subject of a single programme instead of three separate programmes as was at present the case with the INTERREG II C initiative.
In this context, the CPMR was committed to taking all possible steps to develop decentralised co-operation in the Mediterranean, involve the territorial authorities of the southern Mediterranean in its work and transmit proposals to the national governments in the hope that they would be taken into consideration at the Conference of Ministers for Foreign Affairs in Stuttgart in April 1999.
Mr Dimitar KALTCHEV, Mayor of Rousse and Chairman of the Bulgarian Association of Municipalities, was of the opinion that the Black Sea region had great economic potential. For this to be exploited, stability and security were necessary. Only in that way would it be possible to develop the territories of these regions and combat the new forms of crime.
Mr Mustapha MECHICHE ALAMI said that the commune had two major responsibilities: development and the administration of day-to-day affairs. In Morocco, this posed the problem of human resources. How could elected local representatives and local government staff be transformed into genuine agents for development?
In the current process of globalisation the choice lay between maintaining the status quo, with its burden of poverty for the overwhelming majority of humanity, or spreading prosperity. To permit the second option, it was essential to implement co-operation between territorial authorities, especially in the field of training.
It was in this context that Euro-Mediterranean decentralised co-operation would be beneficial for both shores. This was all the more logical as Morocco, and therefore the southern shore of the Mediterranean, was 12 kilometres from Europe. Indeed, via the Straits of Gibraltar, Morocco was a bridge between the two continents. Moreover, it was surprising that the states concerned and the European Union had not yet seriously worked for the construction of a tunnel linking the two shores, especially as all the relevant studies had already been carried out.
Mr Valery SAMOILENKO, Mayor of Krasnodar and Chairman of the Association of Southern Towns of the Russian Federation, proposed the creation of an economic union of Black Sea and Mediterranean towns, in order to enable economic players to develop their skills and activities. To this end, he called on the Council of Europe to use its influence for the launch of an economic programme to promote economic contacts and business relations. Such a project could take place only in a climate of stability, which indeed it also helped to maintain.
Mr Ratko GOGIĆ, Secretary General of the Montenegrin Association of Municipalities, was of the opinion that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia maintained and developed good relations between human groups and promoted human rights. As for Montenegro, its authorities were carrying out economic and political reforms. As part of that process, the country was engaged in a reorganisation of local and central authorities. Thus, a legislative reform was being conducted on the basis of the Swedish model. The Montenegrin experts were also undergoing training in Italy in order to study practical arrangements for implementing new legal rules.
The Republic of Montenegro had its own position on the situation in Kosovo, which could be summed up as a position of support for political dialogue and peaceful solutions. The country had taken in 40,000 refugees from the former republics of Yugoslavia. Thanks to international aid, the refugees were receiving a basic level of assistance, but Montenegro still needed international aid in order to continue assisting them.
Third working session:
Sustainable development in the Mediterranean and Black Seas
At the third working session, devoted to sustainable development in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, Mr Mario PAVAN, a former Italian Minister of the Environment, introduced the subject by expressing the hope that the nuclear holocaust would never be repeated. The 1987 agreement between the two big powers had made it possible to raise the issue of the world's ecological future. It was in this context that the Council of Europe had asked him to talk at the present conference about the state of the system of the two seas, with a view to action being taken for Europe and for humanity as a whole. Specifically, he had been asked to recommend some measures which states and the international community could implement. But despite all the good will which existed, this posed the problem of realities.
The ecological situation was such that quick thinking and action were needed to preserve the world's natural resources. This raised the whole problem of the earth's population and its demographic trends in the next few decades. For example, 2000 years ago there had been 133 million inhabitants on the planet. In all probability, by 2050 the world population would be about 10 billion. How were all these people to be fed?
As far as the Mediterranean-Black Sea system was concerned, it was actually one and the same system because the two seas were linked. Yet the Black Sea was the most polluted sea on earth, while the Mediterranean was not very polluted because the North African countries had no major rivers flowing into it. There was of course the Nile, but it was not polluted.
Because of the Black Sea, if things went on as at present, the Mediterranean would experience the same fate. So what should be done? In view of the urgency of the problem, a general mobilisation was required, involving policy-makers, the general public, children, etc. Only an extensive public awareness and information campaign could save these two seas. Hence the urgent need to organise a Mediterranean and Black Sea Protection Year.
He proposed that the present conference should demand this and that the Committee of Ministers should do everything in its power to implement this project, calling on the Maghreb and Mashreq countries to join in. Italy was offering to place the training sailing-ship Amerigo Vespucci at the disposal of the proposed campaign.
To sum up, the problems of the two seas necessitated co-operation arrangements, such as a “platform for continuous dialogue” which would have the task of holding consultations and introducing measures for the conservation and management of natural resources and the environment.
With regard to legal instruments for environmental protection in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, Mr Mohamed Mehdi MLIKA, Tunisian Minister of the Environment, highlighted the multidimensional and complex aspect of sustainable development. He described the Tunisian national partnership involving all levels of decision-making. The partnership was based on a strategy comprising three strands:
- legal (compliance with major international conventions and enactment of laws and regulations);
- institutional (establishment of a national commission for sustainable development, a centre for partnership and consultation, and specific charters for various groups);
- operational (carrying-out of strategic studies, action plans and programmes).
Mr Amedeo POSTIGLIONE, a judge at the Italian Supreme Court and Director of the Foundation for an International Court on the Environment, submitted three points to the participants for discussion: institutions, legal instruments and actions.
Moreover, the Council of Europe included the greatest institution for the protection of human rights, namely the European Court of Human Rights. Why not use it as a pattern for creating a court for the purpose protecting the environment? This raised the question of access to the courts and the protection of rights. If the environment involved a human right, the right to a clean environment must be guaranteed and therefore protected. Consequently, he proposed that the 40 Council of Europe member states should work for the institutionalisation of the protection of that right.
The Foundation for an International Court on the Environment (FTIE) had been set up under the Italian Supreme Court. It worked for the protection of the environment world-wide. For that reason, it advocated the setting-up of an international court responsible for conservation.
Mr Lucien CHABASON, a member of the Co-ordination Unit for Action in the Mediterranean - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), considered that international law was a sort of driving force. It showed that the environment had no frontiers. This was illustrated by the Barcelona process, the first by that name - that was to say, the one relating to protection of the Mediterranean. This process, which was a product of two movements - action by states (the Barcelona Convention) and the effect of public opinion (maritime disasters: Amoco Cadiz, Torre Canyon etc) -, had managed to progress from a legal instrument to a framework for action involving states, regions and other authorities concerned with the protection of the Mediterranean Sea and its coastline. This had culminated in the meeting on Agenda Med 21 in 1995, the objectives of which embraced all aspects of sustainable development in the twenty countries of the Mediterranean Basin. Sustainable development was therefore not just a matter for governments. It involved the various other players.
These actions had resulted in indisputable successes, such as the slowing-down of pollution, the regeneration of certain maritime areas and the enactment of laws on coastline protection. Unfortunately, there had also been failures, such as the anarchic development of tourism and cities and the endangering of marine species. In short, the record was mixed. However, with more resources, the problems could be tackled more effectively.
Mr Bayram ÖZTÜRK, a teacher at the University of Istanbul and an expert vis-à-vis the PABSEC, referred to the paradox of the Black Sea: while being fed by Europe’s major rivers, it was the sea most polluted by them.
Its future depended on reducing the pollution of the Danube, preserving its straits and limiting its pollution by hydrocarbons, while encouraging co-operation between the local authorities concerned.
With regard to the proposals for an awareness-raising campaign on the state of the environment, Mr Fabrizio ABBATE, Italian Under-Secretary of State for Defence, considered that it was vital to go beyond observations and diagnoses and to act. To this end, it was necessary to concert the efforts of the countries concerned and prevent their various operating methods from hindering such co-operation. He also considered that only democracy could permit effective co-operation. His own country was prepared to act along these lines.
Mr Marc LEYENBERGER, Vice-Chairman of the Liaison Committee of NGOs vis-à-vis the Council of Europe, proposed delivering a message. For him, NGOs were a fine invention of civil society. They were on the ground and active in all fields. Their freedom was their hallmark, even if it was limited. Consequently, they were agents for democracy and sustainable development. They worked as adjuncts to elected representatives, the result being an increasingly solid and practical kind of unity.
With regard to the Mediterranean, the Liaison Committee of NGOs had long been concerned with certain practical matters, which was why, on 20, 21 and 22 September 1999, the first meeting of the Euro-Mediterranean NGOs would be held in Strasbourg to promote tolerance and Euro-Mediterranean partnership for a sustainable and, above all, equitable environment.
Mrs Nadja Mifka PROFOZIC, Vice-President of Med-Forum, explained the purpose of her organisation, which was an association of NGOs working for integrated management of the Mediterranean environment. It had 52 members. Its philosophy was based on the principle that any work on the environment presupposed solidarity between peoples and generations. Med-Forum organised public-awareness campaigns such as “Feu vert” for the Mediterranean.
With regard to the vital problem of water management, Mr Louis POTIE, a French consultant and a former Delegate General of the Mediterranean Water Institute (MWI), referred to the forecast freshwater shortage. Seven years after Rio de Janeiro and five years after Barcelona, where Agenda 21 had been adopted by the Mediterranean countries within the framework of the Barcelona Convention and the Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP), it was undeniable that much remained to be done.
Such a conclusion might encourage the pessimists. However, it should give rise to measures taking account of the great disparities in the distribution of water as a resource and the difficulty of controlling it - in particular the exploitation of fossil resources, which were necessarily limited as they were non-renewable -, as well as the demand for a shrinking asset and the administrative and institutional complexity of managing such demand.
This last factor underlined the imbalances between resources and needs. The “triangular” balance between natural resource, demography and development, which had existed fifty years ago, had been upset. Alongside those physical conditions, there was a whole series of difficulties caused by national and international institutions. Institutions at all levels were responsible for this inactivity. Yet professional associations and organisation networks were working on the question of the conservation, distribution and use of water. Moreover, until there existed at global level co-ordinating machinery whose decisions had a direct impact on the consultation and involvement of citizens, efforts would be in vain. Specifically, there was need for a comprehensive approach to water, with integrated and thrifty management, development of purification and treatment of waste water and transfers between regions and between countries.
In the absence of such an approach, water, a source of life, would become a major source of conflict. It was therefore essential that water should be made, instead, the basis of a bright future marked by mutual aid, prosperity and happiness.
Mrs Houria TAZI SADEQ, President of the Alliance Maghreb-Machrek pour l’Eau (“Maghreb-Mashreq Alliance for Water”) (ALMAE) and Vice-President of the Council of the International Water Secretariat, considered that water had become an economic asset, even though it was a highly social asset. Yet between the two shores of the Mediterranean there was a considerable gap: on the one side, there were floods; on the other, deserts. Water was therefore a source of inequality.
Sustainable development depended on the availability and use of this resource. Water should therefore be subjected to political management, as its scarcity and uneven distribution were becoming such a major challenge. International law did not deal with water in all its complexity, which was due to questions of land ownership, status and use.
It was depressing to note that civil society was no more interested than public authorities in this resource. Hence the need to treat water in a non-technical manner, ie in terms of demand. A "unicist" approach of this kind presupposed applying the principles of precaution and subsidiarity to water. In short, greater weight should be given to the principle of fair access to the resource. This proposition raised again the question of guaranteeing the right to a clean environment and the right to development: water was therefore at the intersection of those two rights.
Mr Ali Ihsan BAGIS, a teacher at Hacettepe University and the director of the Hydropolitics and Strategic Research and Development Centre (Turkey), subscribed to the assessment made by the previous speakers and added that water also posed a social and ethical problem. For this reason, sustainable development was a new concept in so far as it established a solidarity between generations.
Moreover, water posed a problem of sovereignty (to whom did it belong when it crossed several states?). It also raised a problem of equity linked to demography (should certain countries be asked to reduce their fertility?). What was certain was that there was an urgent need to modify current methods in order to ensure better distribution of water and preserve the environment.
Mrs Asia MANAFOVA, a member of the Azerbaijani Parliament, pointed out that the Caspian Sea was also in need of special attention since it was heavily polluted. To provide answers to this problem, would it not be worth drawing up an outline law? In any event, it was necessary to envisage some burden-sharing arrangements if the pollution of the Caspian Sea was to be controlled.
Closing session:
In his closing statement, Mr Mehmet BULDANLI, member of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and Vice-President of the Working Group responsible for the preparation of the 5th Conference of Mediterranean and Black Sea basins wishes to thank the members of the Working Group and the Congress Secretariat for their great support in the preparation of the Conference. He stresses the fact that dialogue is the only acceptable way to solve the problems in Mediterranean and Black Sea countries and to promote sustainable development and democracy in the region. He is gratified by the close co-operation between the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and hopes that this co-operation will make the next conferences even more successful.
Mr Jean BRIANE, Chairman of the Working Group responsible for the preparation of the 5th Conference on Mediterranean and Black Sea Basins and a member of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly's Committee on the Environment, Regional Planning and Local Authorities, thanked the Turkish authorities for their hospitality and congratulated them on the quality of the arrangements made for the conference. He was gratified by the presence of delegations from Southern Mediterranean countries, which on this occasion were well represented both numerically and qualitatively.
The proceedings had shown that co-operation between the two basins was becoming that of a system. It was now possible to go ahead and draw up a framework and provide resources for the purpose of ensuring sustainable development.
The conclusions of the conference would be taken up by national authorities and the Council of Europe’s bodies. With regard to the next conference, it was proposed holding it at Varna, Bulgaria, in October 2000.
Mr Jean BRIANE presented the draft declaration drawn up by the Working Group responsible for the preparation of the Conference (Joint Working Group of the Parliamentary Assembly and the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe), together with the various amendments received.
On a proposal from Mr Miguel Angel MARTÍNEZ and following a discussion on the status of the conference's conclusions, it was agreed that the declaration should be approved as the conclusions of the Working Group with a view to being submitted to the Council of Europe’s bodies for endorsement and follow-up.
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
It is clear from the various contributions made that the role of the Council of Europe as a whole and of its Parliamentary Assembly and CLRAE in particular is vital in giving impetus to a process of co-operation to promote peace, democracy and sustainable development. For this reason, the Mediterranean conferences constitute important frameworks influencing the policies pursued by the countries of Europe, the southern Mediterranean and the Black Sea in this field. Their impact is indisputable, being apparent at institutional, environmental, demographic and migratory levels. However, the main task still to be performed is to ensure that the Mediterranean is not only a northern concept, but also a southern one. To that end, efforts must be made at parliamentary and local authority level, and work started on the preparation of legal instruments and action programmes.
Interparliamentary co-operation in the globalisation process
The role of parliaments, as guarantors of the will of peoples, is of decisive importance for democracy, peace and stability. This approach also makes the prospect of a democratic international order a realistic one.
As far as the Mediterranean and the Black Sea are concerned, peace and stability are conditional on such an approach. For this reason, two possibilities may be envisaged :
- continuation of the CSCM process with a view to the creation of an association of Mediterranean and Black Sea states, with the establishment of a continuous dialogue at governmental and parliamentary level;
- continuation of efforts to create a Euro-Mediterranean parliamentary body comprising the parliaments of the 27 Barcelona process countries and the European Parliament. This forum would have an advisory role on all questions relating to the implementation of association agreements between the European Union and the Mediterranean partner countries.
The second aspect of this general issue relates to globalisation. The conference's proceedings showed that democracy depended on peace, which, in turn, sustains development. Today, unequal development is still the greatest of injustices. It is the main breeding-ground of poverty and terrorism.
These aspects raise the problem of the general challenge of deciding how democracy and development should be reconciled. What dialectic should be clarified in order to regulate the relationship between the two terms? It is important, however, not to wait for development to take place before building democracy. These two objectives must be pursued simultaneously.
Europe’s role is decisive in this process. Its success presupposes taking into account the multicultural nature of the system formed by the two seas. Thus, the Europe that is hoped for will not be exclusively Christian, but universalist. This means that the southern and eastern Mediterranean and Black Sea countries should in return adopt the values of democracy and humanism.
Partnerships at local and regional level
To ensure that local and regional partnerships bear fruit, it is necessary for local and regional authorities in the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean and around the Black Sea to have a greater measure of autonomy. In other words, decentralisation must be effective. To that end, five broad principles should govern any decentralised system of territorial organisation:
- local authorities should be free to administer their own affairs;
- any supervision must be regulated and subject to a review of legality;
- disputes concerning local authorities should be dealt with by a court of law;
- citizens’ participation should be organised so as to contribute to the shaping of the general will;
- solidarity should exist between all territorial authorities, being reflected in the operation of a system of financial equalisation.
The Council of Europe and its authorities have instruments and experience at their disposal, thanks to the territorial authorities of the Organisation’s member states, which constitute a rich heritage usable by all the countries of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
This will, in addition, develop decentralised co-operation which, in particular, will enable territorial authorities to dialogue together when the link between governments or political authorities is broken.
However, for European experience to be beneficial to the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean, two questions still need to be addressed. The first is connected with the suspension of the Med programmes. These programmes created an unprecedented process of "rapprochement" between territorial authorities and civil-society organisations on both shores of the Mediterranean, and it is surprising that the MEDA programme, within the framework of the Barcelona process, has not translated Euro-Mediterranean decentralised co-operation into reality with the relaunch of the Med programmes. This question also depends on the national governments of the European Union countries.
The second question is a matter for the countries on the southern shore of the Mediterranean. It is undeniable that decentralised co-operation depends on the autonomy of the territorial authorities engaged in it. It also depends on the legal possibility of setting up associations or groupings of territorial authorities in the southern and eastern Mediterranean countries. For this reason, it is important to encourage decentralisation and the creation of associations comprising territorial authorities to the south and east of the Mediterranean.
Similarly, encouragement should be given to the conclusion of an intergovernmental agreement between the countries concerned, authorising territorial authorities to set up joint bodies modelled on the Council of Europe’s Outline Convention and the two additional protocols thereto.
Instruments and measures for sustainable development in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea
The discussions highlighted the need for an extensive awareness-raising and information campaign to save these two seas. However, whether it be for the benefit of such a campaign or for some other, the problems of the two seas call for the introduction of co-operation arrangements, such as platforms for continuous dialogue, for the purpose of holding consultations and introducing measures for the conservation and management of natural resources and the environment.
Such arrangements must be successful and be partly based on existing partnerships. The co-operation should involve all decision-making levels and be guided by a strategy comprising several elements: legal (enactment of laws and regulations in accordance with major international conventions); institutional (establishment of national bodies for sustainable development); and, finally, operational (carrying out of strategic studies, plans and action programmes).
The problem of water resources is central to any co-operation initiative concerning the Mediterranean-Black Sea system. One of the factors highlighted regarding this issue concerns the imbalances between resources and needs. The “triangular” balance between natural resource, demography and development which used to exist 50 years ago has been upset. Alongside these physical conditions, there are a series of difficulties attributable to national and international institutions, which are responsible for this inactivity. Consequently, until there exists at global level co-ordinating machinery whose decisions have a direct impact on the consultation and involvement of citizens, efforts will be in vain. In practical terms, there is a need for a comprehensive approach to water, with an integrated and thrifty method of management.
The second factor debated in this connection concerns the fact that water is a source of inequality, whereas sustainable development depends on its availability and use. Water has become an economic asset, whereas it is a highly social one. This is all the more true as there is a considerable disparity between the two shores of the Mediterranean. For this reason, it is necessary to establish a system of political management of this resource, as its scarcity and uneven distribution are becoming a major challenge.
Water must be dealt with in a "unicist" manner, ie according to demand. Such an approach presupposes applying to it the principles of precaution and subsidiarity. In short, greater weight should be given to the principle of fair access to this resource. This leads on to the question of guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment and the right to development: water is therefore at the intersection of those two rights. The implication here is that, as the environment involves a human right, it must be guaranteed and therefore protected. Hence the relevance of setting up an international court for the protection of the environment.