Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Tbilisi fra 1. til 5. juli 2016

1/2
OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling
Til:
Dato:
Delegationens medlemmer
26. april 2016
Praktik og procedurer i forbindelse med den årlige session i Tbilisi fra 1.
til 5. juli 2016
Hermed omdeles Practical and Procedural Information samt udkast til rapporter
og resolutionstekster fra forsamlingens tre komitéer til brug for OSCE’s
Parlamentariske Forsamlings (OSCE PA) årlige session i Tbilisi den 1. - 5. juli
2016.
Som det fremgår af papiret, er der en række krav og tidsfrister, som I skal over-
holde, hvis I ønsker at fremsætte ændringsforslag eller forslag til
supplerende resolutioner (”supplementary items”). Jeg har opsummeret krav
og tidsfrister i nedenstående skema. Underskiftsskemaer til brug for eventuelle
ændringsforslag bliver omdelt så snart de modtages fra OSCE PA sekretariatet.
Forslag Krav Frist for modtagelse i
Folketingets sekretariat
Frist for modtagelse i
OSCE PA´s sekretariat
Forslag til supplerende
resolutionsudkast
(supplementary items)
Skal som minimum være
underskrevet af 20 med-
lemmer af OSCE PA fra
mindst 4 forskellige lande.
I kan maksimalt under-
skrive 4.
Torsdag den 26. maj 2016 Fredag den 27. maj 2016
Kompromisforslag til sup-
plerende resolutionsud-
kast (compromise draft
resolutions)
Skal som minimum være
underskrevet af forslags-
stillerne og af 10 af under-
skriverne på de supple-
rende resolutionsudkast
Torsdag den 16. juni 2016 Fredag den 17. juni 2016
Ændringsforslag til rap-
portørernes resolutions-
udkast (amendments to
draft resolutions)
Skal som minimum være
underskrevet af 5 med-
lemmer af OSCA PA fra
mindst 2 forskellige lande
Torsdag den 16. juni 2016 Fredag den 17. juni 2016
Ændringsforslag til sup-
plerende resolutionsud-
kast (amendments to
supplementary items)
Skal som minimum være
underskrevet af 5 med-
lemmer af OSCA PA fra
mindst 2 forskellige lande
Torsdag den 23. juni 2016 Fredag den 24. juni 2016
OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2015-16
OSCE Alm.del Bilag 28
Offentligt
2/2
Delegationssekretariatet vil koordinere og videreformidle forslag til OSCE PA’s Interna-
tionale Sekretariat. Af praktiske hensyn vil den interne tidsfrist for aflevering af forslag til
delegationens sekretariat være torsdagen inden de tidspunkter, hvor OSCE PA´s Inter-
nationale Sekretariat skal have dem i hænde.
Forslag til supplerende resolutioner og ændringsforslag fordeles alene elektronisk. Er-
faringerne fra tidligere år viser, at i tiden frem til de anførte tidsfrister kan I forvente et
stort antal henvendelser fra diverse forslagsstillere med anmodning om støtte fra den
danske delegation.
Såfremt I selv ønsker at fremsætte forslag, anbefales det at være ude i god tid før udlø-
bet af tidsfristerne. Maj - juni er typisk en travl tid i de fleste parlamenter, og det kan
derfor være forbundet med visse praktiske problemer at få indsamlet det nødvendige
antal underskrifter.
Samtidig vil jeg også bemærke, at der maksimalt kan behandles 15 supplementary items
på sessionen i Tbilisi. Hvis flere end 15 supplementary items har fået det fornødne antal
underskrifter, vil Standing Committee med et flertal på 2/3 beslutte, hvilke supplemen-
tary items, der skal behandles.
Reglerne for valg til posterne i forsamlingen er desuden beskrevet i de vedlagte infor-
mationer, ligesom det fremgår, hvilke poster der er på valg.
I Tbilisi skal der således vælges:
 1 Præsident
 3 vicepræsidenter
 1 kasserer
 Formand, næstformand og rapportør for hver af de tre komitéer
Med venlig hilsen
Eva Esmarch,
delegationssekretær


OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2015-16
OSCE Alm.del Bilag 28
Offentligt


AS (16) RP 1 E
Original: English
REPORT
FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON
POLITICAL AFFAIRS AND SECURITY
25 Years of Parliamentary Co-operation:
Building Trust Through Dialogue
RAPPORTEUR
Ms. Margareta Cederfelt
Sweden
TBILISI, 1 – 5 JULY 2016
OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2015-16
OSCE Alm.del Bilag 28
Offentligt
1
REPORT FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE
ON POLITICAL AFFAIRS AND SECURITY
Rapporteur: Ms. Margareta Cederfelt (Sweden)
Introduction
The OSCE, now in its fifth decade, continues to establish itself as the primary forum for
transatlantic and Eurasian dialogue in the spheres of security and human rights, and in the
economic and environmental dimension. As a community based on shared values and
principles, the OSCE carries unparalleled moral authority in Europe and, therefore, the
implementation of OSCE commitments is an essential element for peace, security and
stability in the OSCE region.
However, there has been a palpable loss of trust between participating States in recent years
and a corresponding decrease in political will, resulting in reduced willingness to
compromise in key areas in order to move the OSCE’s agenda forward. This culminated last
year in the inability of the OSCE Ministerial Council meeting in Belgrade to reach consensus
on a number of key issues. Since so many of our common challenges require real multilateral
engagement, this gridlock and loss of trust has had a tangible and negative impact on our
mutual security. Acknowledging this, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly should utilize its
full capacity to tackle emerging threats in the spirit of rebuilding trust among participating
States. The parliamentary dimension of the OSCE should work towards overcoming the lack
of trust between OSCE participating States and towards being more vocal in expressing its
position. Only by strengthening dialogue and political will can diplomatic efforts truly bring
together belligerent parties in negotiating a peaceful settlement to conflicts and in working
together towards addressing common threats.
This report will touch upon five main points in this regard: transnational terrorism, the crisis
in and around Ukraine, protracted conflicts, women in armed conflict, and the link between
security and democracy.
Transnational Terrorism
Violent extremism is having a growing and palpable impact on security in the OSCE area,
with far too many lives being cut short by terrorist tactics, including suicide bombings, mass
shootings, kidnappings, and beheadings.
As governments work to effectively respond to the evolving terrorist threat, they should make
full use of the OSCE and its anti-terrorism activities, which focus on improving the
international legal framework against terrorism, strengthening travel document security,
countering violent extremism and radicalization that lead to terrorism, and countering the use
of the internet for terrorist purposes. Likewise, the OSCE would do well to tailor its activities
to the needs of participating States, while working to ensure that counter-terrorism is not used
as a cover for targeting legitimate political opposition and suppressing the legal activities of
nonviolent civil society groups.
Countering the terrorist threat is complicated by the refugee and migrant crisis now impacting
nearly all OSCE countries, which has been precipitated by ongoing conflicts in Europe and
2
its surrounding neighborhood. Allegations of migration’s links to terrorism have led to the
politicization of the crisis and in some cases the scapegoating of desperate people who are
fleeing war and repression. But while acknowledging the core humanitarian concerns of the
crisis, it is important that we also recognize it as a fundamental security issue and work to
improve the process of screening asylum seekers. In order to address the crisis’s root causes,
the OSCE and its participating States should focus on conflict resolution and prevention in
countries of origin.
The nexus between human trafficking and illegal migration further undermines the security
and stability of the OSCE region. Since human trafficking networks are known to have links
to terrorist activities, the OSCE needs to develop new ways to move the partnership with the
Mediterranean Partners for Co-operation forward. The experience in border management, in
addition to the existing mechanisms for information sharing between participating States and
their joint effort in countering organized crime, places the OSCE in a unique position to
tackle the issue of irregular migration and its possible links to terrorist activities. Participating
States should acknowledge this issue as a shared responsibility by ensuring that they fully
uphold OSCE commitments.
While taking actions on the national level to protect our citizens from the terrorist threat, we
must not forget the root causes, which need to be addressed on the international level. A
comprehensive, multi-layered strategy is needed, one that includes targeted efforts to address
the grievances that terrorists exploit, including economic grievances.
Parliamentarians have a role to play in strengthening international legal frameworks against
terrorism by working in their national parliaments to promote universal anti-terrorist
conventions and protocols on a national level, and also working to ensure that national
legislative initiatives targeting terrorist activities uphold key OSCE principles, including
freedom of expression.
Russian Aggression Against Ukraine
The OSCE’s response to the crisis in and around Ukraine has demonstrated that its tool box is
well-equipped for crisis management, with the Organization providing essential instruments
for promoting de-escalation and dialogue. The Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine in
particular and the Observer Mission at two Russian checkpoints have had a crucial role in
addressing the crisis by providing daily unbiased reports from the field.
However, we should also acknowledge and address a number of issues including a lack of
resources, restrictions on the OSCE monitors’ freedom of movement, and the challenges
posed by the OSCE’s lack of legal personality. Also, the fact that the conflict was not
prevented at its early stages – despite all of the OSCE’s preventive action mechanisms –
highlights the need for the OSCE to continue to strengthen its political dialogue and to
develop capabilities for early warning detection and reporting. The subsequent upsurge of
violence in Eastern Ukraine is exacerbated by the provision of weapons and military
equipment to the rebels by the Russian Federation. This further fuels the ongoing killing in
the southeast and clearly shows the continuing aggression by Russia towards the territorial
integrity of Ukraine. Therefore, recognizing that the achievement of a political solution to the
crisis is a top priority for the international community, we must continue promoting good
governance in Ukraine and building confidence based on the full implementation of the
Minsk Agreements.
3
Regarding perhaps the most tragic incident of the Ukraine conflict, the downing of Malaysian
Airlines Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014, we must continue to press for greater transparency
and urgency in the investigation, with a view towards ensuring justice and closure for the
victims and their families. A declaration calling for an open, transparent and independent
international investigation into the crash was approved by the Permanent Council with the
consensus of all 57 participating States the day after the tragedy nearly two years ago, but to
this date, the investigation has been hampered by a lack of openness and co-operation by
some governments. This tragedy has been one of the main rifts of trust between participating
States and, therefore, efforts for the resolution of this issue should be pursued.
Another major issue of controversy has been the Russian Federation’s illegal annexation of
Crimea. This act of aggression towards another OSCE participating State has breached the
founding principles of the OSCE as enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act, fundamentally
undermining Ukraine’s right to territorial integrity. The OSCE PA has been clear since the
beginning that the Russian Federation’s annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in March 2014
was illegal and illegitimate. Since that time, there has been a steady deterioration in human
rights and a systematic attack on media freedom on the peninsula. While the issue of Crimea
has been overshadowed in some ways by other priorities of the international community in
Ukraine, including the alleviation of the conflict in the Donbas region, it is important to
continue to point out that Ukraine’s sovereignty over all of its territory – including Crimea –
must be respected.
To prevent the Ukraine crisis from becoming another protracted conflict, the OSCE should
work towards facilitating a constructive discourse that will bring all sides to the negotiating
table and establish a long-term solution. The Parliamentary Assembly could strengthen its
role in this effort by facilitating, inter alia, more in-depth and productive dialogue between
parliamentarians.
Protracted Conflicts
As outlined in the German OSCE Chairmanship’s priorities for 2016, emphasis is being
placed this year on crisis and conflict management, particularly regarding conflicts in
Moldova and the South Caucasus. In concrete terms, the OSCE should strengthen its
commitment towards solving the protracted conflicts in the region by means of its current
negotiating formats and mechanisms.
Because participating States still use unilateral decision-making and violence for addressing
differences, diplomatic negotiations are hindered from adequately addressing protracted
conflicts. This was recently exemplified by the major violations that took place along the
Line of Contact in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone on the side of Armenia and
Azerbaijan, which represented the most serious escalation of this protracted conflict since
1994. The OSCE should utilize its full toolbox of conflict resolution mechanisms, including
the Parliamentary Assembly and its capabilities and outreach, in order to stabilize the
situation on the ground and exert more pressure for the facilitation of a peaceful negotiated
solution of the conflict.
Furthermore, the Parliamentary Assembly should also strengthen its involvement in
addressing the repercussions of the August 2008 conflict between the Russian Federation and
the territory of Georgia. The issue of illegal resettlement of displaced persons to change the
4
demographic situation undermines trust between the negotiating parties and hampers the
actual implementation of commitments. There should be more involvement on the
parliamentary level for the implementation of the EU-brokered Six-Point Agreement of 12
August 2008. In concrete terms, the access to humanitarian aid in the regions of Abkhazia
and South Ossetia should be made available and provisions should be put in place
guaranteeing its transit. Moreover, the OSCE PA should utilize its diplomatic power to draw
the attention of the wider international community and ensure more transparency and
accountability thereby reducing tensions on the ground. There needs to be stronger political
will and more dedicated involvement on the side of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly so as
to ensure dialogue and concrete action within the internationally recognized territory of
Georgia. The fact that talks with the EU on visa liberalization for Georgian citizens is
underway demonstrates the democratic development in the country. Moreover, the upcoming
elections in Georgia on 8 October 2016 will serve to further strengthen the democratic
development of Georgia.
The promotion of confidence-building measures, as well as the active work of the OSCE field
presences, is vital. In particular, the OSCE should provide increased opportunities for civil
society to participate and play a constructive role in a variety of fields, ranging from the
promotion of democracy to social development. Specifically in protracted conflict zones,
NGOs have produced many useful conflict management programmes, which can be
synergistic with that of the OSCE. Civil society can offer valuable professional advice and
information from the ground about activities in the area. The ability of NGOs to provide
training and educational programs often enables them to bring together conflicting parties and
facilitate dialogue.
Women in Armed Conflict
Building long-term stability and security is an inclusive process that requires greater
involvement of women in decision-making and conflict mediation. The OSCE’s work with
participating States to implement UN Resolution 1325 on women, peace and security is a
positive example of the important role that this Organization can play to help ensure that
women are involved in taking preventive measures and decision-making at all stages of
conflict resolution. The 2004 OSCE Action Plan for the Promotion of Gender Equality
further sets out goals to prevent violence against women, advance their participation in
political and public life, promote women’s participation in conflict prevention, crisis
management, and post-conflict reconstruction.
In Moldova, the active participation of women in political affairs is a fundamental aspect of
democracy, peace-building, and achieving sustainable development. The legal framework to
advance women’s participation in decision-making must continue to be reformed in the
country, including by building capacity at national and sub-national levels to develop policies
to advance women’s rights and their participation in electoral processes. Another conflict
area where women should have a more strengthened role is Ukraine. The knowledge, skills,
and experience of Ukrainian women are vital to reaching a negotiated solution, and their full
involvement is crucial to strengthening the implementation of OSCE commitments in their
country during the current crisis.
At the Helsinki Annual Session last year, participating States were encouraged to take
effective measures to provide comprehensive security guarantees and humanitarian relief to
women in conflicts. The continuous development of an OSCE-wide action plan on women,
5
peace and security could be an important step in ending widespread conflict-related sexual
violence, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1325.
The Link Between Security and Democracy
Parliamentarians have an important role to play in providing democratic oversight of the
security sectors within participating States, as well as on the governmental side of the OSCE.
As elected Members of Parliament are not restricted by the boundaries of official
governmental policy, they can more freely address sensitive issues, including security sector
reform. However, we must be honest and acknowledge that there is disproportionate
influence wielded in some parliaments by well-financed special interests. Corruption is a
major challenge to democracy and to the rule of law. We should seek accountability from
those who have been implicated in recent corruption scandals and OSCE parliamentarians
should provide necessary oversight to ensure compliance with international norms and best
practices.
Therefore, in order to exercise checks and balances more effectively, a separate group of
experts from different branches within the OSCE could complement our oversight role in the
Organization. We can thereby strengthen the mechanisms of ensuring commitment to OSCE
agreements. Not only would this type of co-operation enhance the quality of democratic
oversight, it could help to also rebuild trust among participating States in the OSCE area.
Conclusion
Healthy dialogue is crucial for strengthening broader co-operation in areas such as arms
control, conflict resolution, security sector oversight, and military exchanges. The OSCE
should therefore utilize its full capacity to tackle emerging threats by facilitating an
atmosphere of mutual respect, trust and co-operation. The consensus-based decision-making
process of the OSCE, while in some respects a useful measure to ensure greater legitimacy
for the Organization’s decisions, can also be an obstacle to timely action. The relevance of
the OSCE is enshrined in its principles, and if the Organization’s mechanisms and tools are
not advancing those principles, they should be addressed and reformed to ensure that the
OSCE lives up to its mandate. This places the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly in the unique
position to rebuild mutual support between OSCE participating States through dialogue and
discussion. Parliamentarians within the Assembly have a crucial role as representatives of
their home countries and diplomats to both uphold OSCE commitments but also to work
towards building trust between OSCE participating States.
We must also remember that the OSCE is an organization entirely dependent on the political
will of its participating States. If these countries cannot agree on fundamental issues and
continue to dispute competing narratives over how we have come to the current impasse,
there is very little hope for moving forward the OSCE’s agenda and building a common
security community for the one billion people living from Vancouver to Vladivostok. It is up
to all of us to bring the spirit of Helsinki back to our capitals and try to encourage the
political will needed to reach compromises in key areas and reaffirm the principles on which
the Organization was founded.


AS (16) RP 2 E
Original: English
REPORT
FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENT
25 Years of Parliamentary Co-operation:
Building Trust Through Dialogue
RAPPORTEUR
Ms. Marietta Tidei
Italy
TBILISI, 1 – 5 JULY 2016
OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2015-16
OSCE Alm.del Bilag 28
Offentligt
1
REPORT FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE
ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Rapporteur: Ms. Marietta Tidei (Italy)
Introduction
The nexus between the environment, economics and security has never been more acutely felt
than it is today. In recent years, we have seen the cascading and interrelated effects of
corruption, energy, climate change, food security and migration as contributing factors to
destabilization in many areas of the OSCE region.
For instance, when looking at the current crisis in Syria, which is heavily impacting Europe
and the broader OSCE area, we can trace its roots to a series of interconnected socio-
economic, political, and environmental factors, including growing poverty, rising
unemployment, lack of political freedom, corruption, a widening rural/urban divide, resource
mismanagement, and the impact of water shortages on crop production.
It is our obligation as OSCE parliamentarians, recalling the comprehensive approach to
security that OSCE participating States agreed to in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, to rise above
legalistic disputes and tackle the underlying causes of so many of our common security
challenges, which today, more clearly than ever, have a component rooted in the economic
and environmental dimension. As the Parliamentary Assembly noted succinctly in its very
first Declaration adopted at the Budapest Annual Session in 1992, “security has an
environmental aspect”.
Climate Change
2016 is an important milestone year for the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, marking 25 years
since parliamentary delegations met in Spain to adopt the Final Resolution of the Madrid
Conference establishing the PA. But this year also marks an important 25th anniversary for
the international community in another respect. In 1991, the Intergovernmental Negotiating
Committee (INC) held its first meeting to tackle what was already seen at that time as a
serious challenge to humanity, the threat of climate change. The following year, the INC
adopted the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and at
the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio, the UNFCCC was opened for signature.
More than two decades later, the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference (COP 21) concluded
last December with the adoption, by consensus, of the Paris Agreement by the 195 countries
represented at the Plenary Assembly. This historic Agreement, which is universal in character
and must be deemed to be binding in every respect, will come into force in 2020. It sets out a
new global action plan to put the world on track to stave off the worst effects of man-made
climate change.
The Agreement sets out to achieve three main objectives:
1) to implement measures to keep the increase in global average temperatures to “well
below” 2°C above pre-industrial levels, and simultaneously to step up efforts to limit
the increase to 1.5°C;
2) to enhance the capacity for global adjustment to the consequences of climate change;
2
3) to guarantee funding to support climate change mitigation measures.
As important as the Paris Agreement is, it should be kept in mind that it only sets out to
mitigate – not stop – the effects of climate change. We should pause then to reflect on the
impact that climate change is already having around the world – effects that will likely
worsen even if the Paris targets are met. As a UN report issued on the eve of COP 21
documented, weather-related disasters are becoming increasingly frequent, and “predictions
of more extreme weather in the future almost certainly mean that we will witness a continued
upward trend in weather-related disasters in the decades ahead”.
The OSCE Secretariat is increasing its attention on this issue, particularly in relation to the
link between climate change and security and the possible impact of environmental
degradation on migratory pressures. The OSCE, with its comprehensive approach to security
could help to assess the potential environmental challenges and threats to security and
stability that could be magnified by climate change. But to do so, and to further develop its
early warning capacity, the Organization needs a clear mandate, agreed to by all the
participating States, that would allow us to address the potential security implications of
climate change through co-ordination with other international organizations and through the
promotion of political dialogue aiming at contributing to the carbon reduction goals laid out
in the Paris Agreement.
Migration
Migration is a sensitive issue which should be addressed at several levels. First of all, we
should recognize that the political discourse about migration is worryingly distorted by
demagogical approaches aimed at leveraging the most negative instincts of fear and mistrust.
Hysteria impedes a frank and open discussion about migration, based on the economic
evidence that in a globalized world where everything moves – goods, financial assets,
production chains – facilitating the movement of skills and talents allows unlocking the
economic potential of labour mobility. Considering the current demographic shifts, with the
global population of those 60 years old and older expected to exceed the number of young
people for the first time in history in 2050, greater labour mobility is part of the solution to
address the talent shortages and encourage innovation. Therefore, a first level of action is to
mobilize governments to promote and expand feasible, accessible, and effective labour
migration policies.
We need to raise awareness through public discourse that migration is an integral part of our
global economic environment and that it substantially contributes to economic growth and
social development. There is a need to come together and discuss common issues concerning
migration management and to find solutions that are mutually beneficial, equitable, and
sustainable. As Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman has said, “The grandiosity of problems
generated by globalization must go together with the available instruments and effective
collective actions”.
For this we need political will and open dialogue. This includes stepping up efforts to:
improve policy coherence between migration management, industrial and labour policies,
economic development and environmental policies; encourage legal migration, including
high- and low-skilled migration, through long-term and short-term schemes, while combating
irregular migration; understand the demand and supply of labour markets; create conditions
3
for improved economic development and co-operation; facilitating integration of migrants in
host societies and their reintegration on return to their countries of origin.
While humanitarian responses are important in the short-term perspective, we must
complement those efforts with a long-term strategy for migration management. The United
Nations’ High-Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly on addressing large
movements of refugees and migrants, scheduled for 19 September 2016, will represent the
culmination of the on-going debate on migration at the international level. We want to be part
of this debate.
Prevention of Corruption
Corruption has extremely negative impacts on society at large. Deepening economic
disparities, lack of rule of law, weak governance, and corruption are among the factors that
contribute to global threats such as terrorism, violent extremism, transnational organized
crime, as well as to illegal economic activities. Corruption weakens trust in the political
system. Popular dissatisfaction of gravely corrupted institutions may sometimes result in
violent forms of reaction that may undermine political stability, impacting negatively on
economic development and security. Supporting good governance and transparency are
essential factors to prevent corruption.
Effective anti-corruption measures require combined efforts and strong alliances among
governments, civil society, the business community, and academia to foster and enhance
citizens’ trust and social consensus on the non-tolerance of corruption. But most of all, what
is profoundly needed is to redesign the entire matrix of social behaviour, so that corruption
becomes not only illegal but ethically unacceptable.
In this regard we parliamentarians play a critical role. We can and must support the efforts of
our governments and civil society actors and create a barrier to corruption with our private
and public behaviours and actions. Indeed, improving the efficiency of public administration,
especially if combined with greater transparency in public affairs and higher standards of
integrity in the behaviour of public servants, is essential in mitigating corruption-related risks.
Many OSCE participating States have introduced income- and asset-disclosure systems for
public officials. But we need to do more to promote measures to effectively manage conflict
of interest through the strengthening of asset declaration systems applicable to public
officials.
Food and Water Security
2015 was an important year for the issue of food security. The Expo in Milan dedicated to the
theme “Feeding the Planet” was a huge success with the public, surpassing the threshold of
20 million visitors. The Milan Expo saw the launch of the “Milan Charter”, which has
received widespread endorsement.
This instrument deals with three types of paradoxical situations:
1) combating food waste (about one-third of the food which the world produces is
wasted);
2) reducing the share of crops used as livestock feed. This affects both the areas of land
under fodder crops, and above all water use. As many as one billion of the world’s
4
seven billion inhabitants still have no access to drinking water, leading to 4,000 child
deaths every day;
3) the third development paradox is the simultaneous co-existence of starvation and
binge eating. Every year, 36 million people die of starvation, while 3.4 million die of
obesity (twice the 1980 figures), not to mention diseases relating to diabetes, heart
disease, tumours connected with overeating, and unbalanced diets.
Together with food security, water security is a growing issue for the OSCE area, with certain
regions in particular that are seriously prone to a water crisis. Central Asia, unfortunately, has
been affected by two massive environmental disasters in recent years: the pollution of the
Caspian Sea and the – by now – irreversible drying up of the Aral Sea. Erstwhile fertile and
pollution-free areas have now become unproductive, poisoned lands. On the subject of
protecting water resources, we need effective forms of international regulation to which the
countries with vast strategic water resources and the largest water basins, above all, should
subscribe. Such regulation should also envisage the fairer distribution and use of adequate
financial resources for effective reclamation and basin depollution policies.
Energy
The need for superseding hydrocarbons as the world’s primary energy source must be placed
on our planet’s environmental strategic agenda as a process to be managed and governed, not
left to chance. This approach should embrace three areas of action – technological, economic
and geopolitical. The OSCE could play a role in introducing conditions for sharing and co-
operation in the energy sector, in order to manage and encourage technological progress. In
this regard, intellectual property rights should not hinder the sharing of technological
innovation, which should instead be made available to the world, in order to improve health,
security, and quality of life.
It is also important to prevent financial shocks from upsetting the energy market, which will
be difficult to sustain in the medium-to-long term. In the coming years, we will have to come
to terms with a stagnant global demand for hydrocarbons, which, if properly managed, will
not necessarily lead to budget deficits in hydrocarbon producing countries. If not well
managed, however, it will likely lead not only to economic instability, but also geopolitical
instability in various regions of the world.
Furthermore, it is necessary to foster new sustainable energy supplies in order to reduce the
impact and the risks with the atmosphere. This year marks the 30th anniversary of the
Chernobyl tragedy, which was the worst nuclear accident in our history and which destroyed
for many years the life and economies of large areas in current Belarus and Ukraine. This
tragedy must be remembered and remain a warning against the real risk of any possible
enviromental catastrophe. There will be no energy welfare without serious risk management
and protection of the environment.
Economic Co-operation
It is against this background that Western countries must consider the difficult relations with
the Russian Federation and ensure that they keep dialogue open so that solutions can be
sought which genuinely respect the full rights of states, including Ukraine. But it should also
be recognized that the imposition of sanctions against Russia, whatever the political rationale
5
behind them, have ripple effects across many countries’ economies, and are arguably
inconsistent with the spirit of Helsinki.
The 2008 financial crisis made it clear that economic relations affect the global geopolitical
equilibrium. For this reason, excessively rigid austerity measures must be reconsidered, as
they have failed to measure up to the current economic challenges. Such measures have been
shown to depress economic activity, when what is needed is economic revival.
Conclusion
In the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, participating States recognized that “efforts to develop co-
operation in the fields of trade, industry, science and technology, the environment and other
areas of economic activity contribute to the reinforcement of peace and security in Europe
and in the world as a whole”. More than four decades later, in the midst of crises and
challenges on multiple fronts, we are reminded of how prescient these words were.
In this 25th
anniversary year of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, let us redouble our efforts
to ensure that OSCE’s comprehensive approach to security includes a robust commitment to
the economic and environmental dimension which, as we have seen in recent years, is
integral to the broader security situation in the OSCE area and the world.


AS (16) DRS 2 E
Original: English
DRAFT RESOLUTION
FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY
AND ENVIRONMENT
25 Years of Parliamentary Co-operation:
Building Trust Through Dialogue
RAPPORTEUR
Ms. Marietta Tidei
Italy
TBILISI, 1 – 5 JULY 2016
OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2015-16
OSCE Alm.del Bilag 28
Offentligt
1
DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Rapporteur: Ms. Marietta Tidei (Italy)
1. Emphasizing that 2016 is an important milestone year for the OSCE Parliamentary
Assembly, marking 25 years since parliamentary delegations met in Spain to adopt the
Final Resolution of the Madrid Conference establishing the PA,
2. Recalling that as the Parliamentary Assembly noted succinctly in its very first Declaration
adopted at the Budapest Annual Session in 1992, “security has an environmental aspect”,
3. Further recalling that in the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, participating States recognized that
“efforts to develop co-operation in the fields of trade, industry, science and technology, the
environment and other areas of economic activity contribute to the reinforcement of peace
and security in Europe and in the world as a whole”,
4. Welcoming the results of the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference concluded last
December with the adoption, by consensus, of the Paris Agreement by the 195 countries
represented at the Plenary Assembly,
5. Welcoming the launch of the “Milan Charter”, a participatory and shared document that
calls on every citizen, association, company and institution to assume their responsibility in
ensuring that future generations can enjoy the right to food and which has received
widespread endorsement,
6. Noting the need for superseding hydrocarbons as the world’s primary energy source, but
aware that the relationship of economic relations and the global geopolitical equilibrium
require the prevention of financial shocks from upsetting the energy market,
7. Affirming that the nexus between the environment, economics, and security has never been
more acutely felt than it is today and that recent years have seen the cascading and
interrelated effects of energy, climate change, food security, and migration, which have led
to destabilization in the OSCE area,
8. Recognizing that extreme weather is becoming increasingly frequent, and that due to rising
global temperatures, weather-related disasters will continue to grow in frequency in the
coming decades,
9. Stressing that corruption and money laundering are contributing factors to global threats
such as terrorism, transnational organized crime, as well as to illicit economic activities,
2
10. Deeply concerned that according to experts, higher global temperatures will raise sea
levels, leading to the destruction of urban centers, arable lands, and wetlands, effects that
will be more acutely felt in the Mediterranean and the Arctic,
11. Conscious that the most vulnerable sectors of the economy are those with the greatest
dependency on natural resources, namely tourism and agriculture, and that as
environmental problems increase, many areas of the world will be prone to famine, leading
to a growing number of “climate refugees”,
12. Taking into consideration the effects of the 2008 economic crisis and the failure of
excessively rigid austerity measures in promoting economic recovery,
13. Recognizing that refugees and migrants can positively contribute to the economy and that
opening labour markets to asylum seekers can contribute to both economic growth and
integration efforts,
14. Pointing out that the migration crisis impacting Europe, spurred by the Syrian Civil War,
which was precipitated by a severe drought last decade, is at least partly related to climate
change and food security,
15. Bearing in mind that the imposition of sanctions against Russia, whatever the political
rationale behind them, have ripple effects across many countries’ economies, and are
arguably inconsistent with the spirit of Helsinki,
16. Noting that this year marks the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl tragedy, which was the
worst nuclear accident in our history and which destroyed for many years the life and
economies of large areas in current Belarus and Ukraine, and expressing profound concern
over the ongoing effects of the accident on the lives and health of people, in particular
children, in the affected areas of Belarus and Ukraine, as well as in other affected countries,
The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly:
17. Calls on all OSCE participating States to redouble their efforts, to identify and pursue
comprehensive solutions to our common environmental and economic challenges,
including food and water security, climate change, energy security, migration, and
improved management and oversight of financial institutions;
18. Urges the OSCE to further develop its early warning capacity in an effort to help counteract
potential threats from climate change long before they endanger the stability of any
participating State;
19. Encourages the OSCE to co-ordinate its work with that of other international organizations
when addressing the security implications of climate change and to promote political
dialogue in order to achieve the reduction goals set out in the Paris Agreement;
3
20. Calls on parliamentarians of OSCE participating States to ensure oversight of the targets set
by the COP 21 Agreement to be met with the greatest sense of urgency by implementing
robust policies and regulations on greenhouse gas emissions and facilitating the transition
to a low-carbon economy;
21. Further recommends that in line with the Paris Agreement, OSCE participating States focus
on ensuring sufficient funding for carbon capturing and storing deployment globally, and
on a mechanism for the transfer of relevant knowledge and know-how from industrialized
to developing countries;
22. Invites all OSCE participating States to develop best practices in line with the “Milan
Charter” on combating food waste, reducing the share of crops used as livestock feed, and
focus on the simultaneous co-existence of starvation and binge eating, recognizing that
overweight and obesity are now major causes of ill health which present huge social and
economic burdens to all states;
23. Calls on OSCE participating States to create food security solutions through a culture of
innovation in food systems promoting technological change which is critical to long-run
sustainability of the global food system;
24. Encourages the OSCE participating States to take a co-operative approach to sharing and
protecting water resources from all forms of pollution and to create effective forms of
international regulation to which the countries with vast strategic water resources and the
largest water basins, above all, should subscribe;
25. Requests OSCE States to play a role in introducing conditions for sharing and co-operation
in the energy sector, in order to manage and encourage technological progress, with a view
towards ensuring that intellectual property rights do not hinder the sharing of technological
innovation;
26. Encourages OSCE participating States to make use of renewable energies as clean sources
of energy that have a much lower environmental impact than conventional energy
technologies, and recommends transitioning the transportation sector to electricity,
enabling community micro-grids and grid-connected energy storage;
27. Notes the progress made by the governments of the affected countries in implementing
national strategies to mitigate the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster, and calls upon
the OSCE participating States, multilateral and bilateral donors to continue their activities
to minimize the health, environmental, social, and economic consequences for the people
of affected States;
28. Calls on the OSCE to introduce the principle of the joint responsibility of the sending,
transit, and host countries by helping OSCE Partner States to combat human trafficking,
enhance co-operation to implement an effective repatriation policy, and adopt a more
targeted approach to development investment in Africa;
4
29. Calls on OSCE parliamentarians to mobilize their governments and civil society to more
effectively manage migration flows;
30. Affirms the importance of fighting corruption, tax evasion, financial crime and money
laundering, and proposes to all OSCE participating States the introduction of strong
regulation for offshore banking centers so as to ensure their co-operation and the
transparency of their activities;
31. Urges the reconsideration of the imposition of sanctions against OSCE participating States,
which could lead to political and economic instability;
32. Encourages OSCE states to reconsider excessively rigid austerity measures as they have
failed to measure up to the current economic challenges.
5
GENERAL COMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
PROPOSED AMENDMENT to the DRAFT RESOLUTION
on
25 Years of Parliamentary Co-operation:
Building Trust Through Dialogue
[Set out text of Amendment here:]
Principal Sponsor:
Mr/Mrs
Family Name in
Capital Letters
Country Signature
Co-sponsored by:
Mr/Mrs
Family Name in
Capital Letters
Country Signature


AS (16) RP 3 E
Original: English
REPORT
FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE ON
DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND
HUMANITARIAN QUESTIONS
25 Years of Parliamentary Co-operation:
Building Trust Through Dialogue
RAPPORTEUR
Ms. Gordana Comic
Serbia
TBILISI, 1 – 5 JULY 2016
OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2015-16
OSCE Alm.del Bilag 28
Offentligt
1
REPORT FOR THE GENERAL COMMITTEE
ON DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS AND HUMANITARIAN QUESTIONS
Rapporteur: Ms. Gordana Comic (Serbia)
Last year we paused to reflect upon 40 years of the OSCE, and this year we celebrate 25 years of
the Parliamentary Assembly. Such milestones justify a pause to recognize the achievements of
the Assembly and the Organization as a whole. However, it is important not to be distracted by
nostalgia and to look ahead in order to address the uncomfortable fact that we are facing a crisis
of leadership and ideas regarding human rights in our region. There is a need to put a spotlight
on the lack of energy regarding the human rights agenda and how weak leadership is
contributing to an emerging status quo that accepts human rights to be less valuable to lasting
security than political and military concerns. The migration crisis has highlighted the problems
facing the region as a result of a lack of ideas and leadership. Over the past year migration has
brought over a million people to Europe and over 2.5 million refugees to Turkey. Another
million people are expected to try to reach the European Union in 2016. As an increasing
proportion of the refugees are forecast to be women, an adequate gender-sensitive response will
be urgently needed. This crisis is a test for the ideas and leadership of the OSCE and the
governments of its participating States.
The OSCE has regressed from being the region’s leading organization in establishing accepted
human rights standards to a position of treading water. The institutionalization of the
Organization has, on the one hand, resulted in the establishment of key human rights bodies such
as ODIHR and the Representative on Freedom of the Media. On the other hand, the participating
States of the Organization have lost the initiative regarding dialogue on human dimension
commitments. Rather than seeking to expand protections they have opted for the politically safer
option of rhetoric and recycled dialogue – even reasserting previous commitments is a rare event.
Although the OSCE remains an important forum, it has lost its energy concerning human rights.
The lack of agreement on human rights-related decisions at recent Ministerial Council sessions
demonstrates this.
It is important to be clear that when discussing the crisis of ideas and leadership, it is not a
criticism of the OSCE Institutions mandated to carry out third dimension commitments and those
who work within them. Within their mandates, the OSCE field missions, ODIHR, and the
Representative on Freedom of the Media work hard to promote compliance with human rights
commitments. It is unfortunate that the dedication displayed by the staff in these institutions does
not translate into commitments and bold leadership on the governmental side of the
Organization.
It is worrying that the willingness to use the OSCE as a platform to push for rights in the region,
and spend political capital in doing so, appears to have evaporated. It is necessary to go back to
the Istanbul Declaration in 1999 to find any substantial development in the human dimension.
The Moscow mechanism, regularly applied in the 1990s, has become a dormant procedure over
the past decade.
2
As a result, the crisis of ideas facing the Organization regarding human rights is increasingly
stark and noticeable as the years pass.
The lack of action regarding discrimination against the LGBT community in the OSCE area is a
particularly notable absence in the OSCE’s toolbox and demonstrates how the OSCE has stopped
taking the initiative in setting human rights standards for the region. Other areas that have gained
international traction over the past ten years have also received minimal attention. For example,
the last commitment by participating States to people with disabilities was made in 1991 in
Moscow. Twenty-five years ago this commitment was forward-looking. Writing this report in
2016 the lack of progress is almost embarrassing.
The migration crisis in particular has served to highlight the lack of ideas and leadership by the
Organization. In particular there has been little action on how to ensure that participating States
respond in a way that respects the human rights of those fleeing conflict and takes the specific
needs of female refugees into account. Instead there has been a rush to close borders, shy away
from humanitarian responsibilities, and hope that other countries will take care of the problem.
The current attitude is well summarized by a recent Amnesty International statement that
“European leaders’ attempts to use Turkey as their border guard to stop refugees and asylum-
seekers heading to the EU is a dangerous and deliberate ploy to shirk their responsibilities to
people fleeing war and persecution.”1
Shirking responsibilities is the only way to describe the response of participating States of an
Organization that actually has commitments regarding refugees and migration. To give a sense of
the scale of commitment by OSCE participating States, it is worth listing some of the
agreements. In the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, participating States recognized their aim to
‘facilitate freer movement and contacts…and to contribute to the solution of humanitarian
problems that arise.’ In 1992 at the Helsinki Summit it was recognized that ‘refugee problems
require the co-operation of all of us. We express our support for and solidarity with those
countries that bear the brunt of the refugee problems…we recognize the need for co-operation
and concerted action.’ In Stockholm that year OSCE Ministers called upon ‘all participating
States to…share the common burden.’ In Budapest in 1994 participating States agreed to expand
their co-operation regarding refugees. The Lisbon Declaration in 1996 recognized the
destabilizing effect of involuntary migration on the OSCE area and signatories committed to
address these problems. The Istanbul Declaration saw an agreement to ‘seek ways of reinforcing
the application of international law’ regarding refugees. It was only in Sofia in 2004 that
appropriate consideration was given to women refugees when OSCE states committed to ‘ensure
that proper consideration is given to women claimants...[and requested that] the range of claims
of gender-related persecution are accorded due recognition.’ In 2005 in Ljubljana participating
States agreed ‘to promote dignified treatment of all individuals wanting to cross borders, in
conformity with relevant legal frameworks, international law, in particular human rights,
refugee, and humanitarian law,’ in a decision with great resonance with today’s problems.
The above commitments were made at different times with different problems in mind.
However, they collectively make a powerful statement on the principles agreed to by the
1
Amnesty International: ‘EU-Turkey Summit: Don’t wash hands of refugee rights’, 7 March 2016;
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/03/eu-turkey-summit-refugees/, accessed 29 March 2016.
3
participating States of the OSCE in regard to the human rights of refugees. The fact that there has
been nothing new in this area since 2005 highlights the lack of ideas, and the failure to
implement these agreements in regard to the current refugee crisis demonstrates the current lack
of leadership in our region.
It is particularly striking that only in Sofia in 2004 has explicit reference been made to the unique
problems faced by women refugees. Women have experienced sexual assault by officials,
smugglers, traffickers and other refugees. Reception centers lack lighting and separate spaces for
women. There has been a chronic lack of gender-based analysis of the current situation, and as
the proportion of female refugees increases, so does the need for a gender-based response.
The vacuum created by the lack of ideas and strong leadership in the human dimension is
resulting in the erosion of the comprehensive concept of security that stands at the core of the
OSCE. This is the agreement that respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law is
fundamental to lasting security. For this to work in practice, participating States must take
seriously the concept of the third dimension having equal weight to the second and first
dimensions. Yet, the growing trend to prioritize ‘hard’ security over human security by
participating States is removing the foundations the Organization was built upon. There appears
to be an increasing acceptance, both East and West of Vienna, to deal with the perceived threat
first and to worry about any implications for human rights later. There is a lack of seriousness in
the way human rights are integrated to security solutions; by accepting this through silence the
OSCE is risking making itself redundant. It is astonishing that in 1975 a landmark agreement on
the importance of human rights to lasting security could be made at a time the world was poised
for nuclear war but struggles to be applied seriously today.
Evidence of this shift to ‘hard’ security can be found in a variety of areas. For example,
regarding freedom of expression, States claim ‘extremism’ as an excuse to shut down
newspapers, block the internet or imprison without due reason. There has been a change in the
discourse from open discussion of fundamental freedoms to a more restricted discussion of how
much freedom should be allowed. The clearest example of the shift in security emphasis is again
demonstrated by the refugee crisis. The speed by which countries have responded to the flow of
migrants through erecting walls and closing borders demonstrates the lack of seriousness with
which the human rights of those affected by the crisis is taken when States are confronted with a
security issue. This gradual ‘securitization’ of the crisis is demonstrating a broad consensus
towards treating it as a security issue first and a humanitarian crisis second. By separating
security from human rights, participating States are in danger of undoing much of the work done
to achieve the OSCE’s landmark comprehensive concept of security.
As we look to the future it is becoming increasingly urgent to address the lack of ideas and
leadership surrounding human rights. The refugee crisis must serve as the catalyst to strengthen
the Organization’s human dimension and to make the leaders of our region act. If we do not act
to protect the principles we have agreed to now, it may soon be too late.


OSCEs Parlamentariske Forsamling 2015-16
OSCE Alm.del Bilag 28
Offentligt