President. – In accordance with the agenda – and I would also go as far as to say in homage to the Greek Presidency – we will proceed to the Commission Statement on the Northern Dimension.

I understand, Mr Patten, that we all have problems with the timetable and I would therefore be grateful if the honourable Members could be as brief as possible, since there are problems with flight connections which affect the Commissioner himself.

  Patten, Commission. – Mr President, I will try to live up to that request. We turn now from one end of Europe, as it were, to another. The Northern Dimension continues to occupy an extremely important place on the Commission's external relations agenda. The Commission has been working hard to implement the Northern Dimension Action Plan that was endorsed by the European Council at Feira in June 2000, and to prepare for a new action plan. We are determined to continue to take a leading role in carrying forward this important initiative.

Last year saw significant progress in all nine sectors encompassed by the Action Plan. The Commission's 2002 Annual Progress Report on the implementation of the Northern Dimension action plan presents a complete overview of these results. I would like to pick out a few concrete examples. The Commission has actively contributed to launching the Northern Dimension environmental partnership, with its support fund for environmental and nuclear projects in Northwest Russia. The Commission is by far the largest contributor to the fund, with EUR 50 million over three years, mainly for nuclear-related projects. The Northern Dimension environmental partnership is a clear example of how cooperation in the Northern Dimension region can achieve tangible results in very sensitive areas, calling for urgent action.

In this context much attention is also being devoted to resolving the remaining details of the Multilateral Nuclear Environmental Programme for the Russian Federation, the so-called MNEPR. I hope that we are now very close to a solution and that this key agreement can be signed very soon.

Much attention has also been devoted to the Northern Dimension, energy issues, transport, infrastructure, business and trade cooperation and to cooperation in the fight against organised crime. We have continued to support cross-border cooperation through the Tacis programme, with a total assistance to Northwest Russia between 1996 and 2003 of about EUR 122 million, about half of this being for border crossings.

The Commission has also attached great importance to enhancing the coordination and interoperability between its principal programmes operating in the region (mainly Tacis, Phare and Interreg) in order to facilitate the implementation of joint projects in the Northern Dimension area. This has already helped bring about a considerable increase in the number of joint projects being presented for Tacis/Interreg or Tacis/Phare funding in 2001-2002.

The past year has also seen continued dialogue with the most important actors involved in the Northern Dimension. The final agreement with Russia and Lithuania on the issue of transit to and from the Kaliningrad region is a good example of a concrete success in the EU-Russia relationship that should bring benefits for the wider Northern Dimension region. We have already provided more than EUR 40 million to the development of Kaliningrad and an additional EUR 25 million is planned for the coming years. We are determined to assist the Russian authorities in improving living standards and addressing the challenges it poses to the wider region.

The Commission has also been closely following the work of the intergovernmental organisations of the Northern Dimension region, including the Council of the Baltic Sea States (CBSS), the Barents Euro-Arctic Council (BEAC) and the Arctic Council itself. Building on the positive results already achieved, the Northern Dimension will be further strengthened in the near future. In the coming years, the Northern Dimension will have to address the impact of European Union enlargement, and focus on enhancing links with the Russian Federation as a neighbour.

Two ministerial meetings were organised by Denmark in the last six months, both focussing on the next Action Plan. On the basis of Guidelines adopted by the Council in October last year, the Commission is preparing the next Northern Dimension Action Plan for the period 2004-2006.

We are carrying out an extensive consultation process involving Member States, Partner Countries, and regional bodies, as well as the business world, academia and civil society. Our objective is to have a consolidated draft of the Action Plan (which will replace the current one on 1 January next year) tabled by the middle of this year at the latest.

There is still a lot of work to be done. The Commission is willingly taking the lead in preparing this new Action Plan. But I want to make it clear that success will require an active contribution of all partners concerned with the region and I am sure that the European Parliament will want to play its part in this process. I am certainly looking forward to hearing the contributions which Members have to make in ensuring that the Northern Dimension, which has begun so well, can go on from strength to strength, particularly after the enlargement of the Union.

  Suominen (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, Minister, Commissioner Patten, at the start of the 1990s I had the pleasure of participating in a programme of cooperation between a group of Russian democratic forces and one of European non-socialist parties. There were just 25 of us in all, and our chairman was the current French President, Jacques Chirac. We adopted the slogan ‘There is no great Russia without Europe, and no great Europe without Russia’ for it.

This is becoming ever truer today with enlargement of the European Union to the east and Russia becoming a compass point, from the Union’s point of view, where most of our opportunities for economic cooperation lie, although there are also numerous, not to say countless, obstacles for us to overcome. Along with such issues as organised crime, human trafficking and drug routes, these obstacles still constitute a regional threat, even though the security threat may have receded. The Northern Dimension naturally means cooperation between all the countries in the region: Germany, Poland and the Baltic countries, as well as Finland, Sweden and countries even further away, in such areas as environmental hazards, nuclear safety, infrastructure and the prevention of infectious diseases. Our most crucial problem, however, is making Russia an integral part of this work.

Despite the length of Commissioner Patten’s praiseworthy list of achievements it would also be easy to criticise the Commission and the Council for an inadequate show of initiative regarding the Northern Dimension, but the fact is that the problems are not mainly due to us, but to Russia’s attitude. Nevertheless, as we heard, for the Union the notion of the Northern Dimension has been a tool to shape strategy. At street level President Putin has not yet succeeded in his aim to make Russia a state subject to the rule of law, a ‘dictatorship of law’ as he put it; instead, corruption, crime, and totally unpredictable behaviour on the part of the administration still do more to prevent cooperation at public, business and Union level than Russia’s inadequate economic resources ever could. It is for that very reason, however, that, while the next Northern Dimension Action Plan is in force over the period 2004–2006, we should work hard to increase political activity in that direction to reassure the Russians that cooperation between us is advantageous to both parties, although it is definitely more important for them than it is for us.

The Commission will have several new members in 2004. I still think it is worth considering that one of them should focus on developing cooperation with our neighbours Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and the Mediterranean regions. This would be practical work that would not, Commissioner Patten, be in competition with the large-scale foreign policies laid down by others in the Commission or the Council. We in Parliament too, as the Commissioner said, can and must be active in new ways, when the focus of attention turns from enlargement to our immediate neighbours. The importance of the existing delegations from these countries is growing, and they must become more active. Ladies and gentlemen, in all honesty how many of us are familiar with conditions in rural and border regions in Northwest Russia or Ukraine? Our path has mainly led to the big cities and the administrative authorities. African and Asian questions are important, and we in the North also understand that, but from the viewpoint of a Europe our children will inherit, the most important direction in which we should be looking is nevertheless the country next door to us and the one offering great opportunities, Russia. My experience is obviously based on neighbouring region cooperation between Finland and Russia, but I think that the freely operative NGOs, also referred to in Parliament’s motion for a resolution, in Finland are already doing at least as much good work, for example, in patching up Russia’s non-existent social security system, as the authorities and the state in their own work. Our job is to encourage and assist them.

I would like to thank the Commission for its report and also its ideas for the future. I believe that we have done a lot of the foundation work since 1999 with a view to getting Russia still more actively involved. The idea in Parliament’s joint motion for a resolution, which I will not otherwise be quoting from, regarding looking into appropriations or making them available in the budget, must be supported, particularly because we are all excited about the long-term ideas and the long-term programme. The size of the appropriation and whether it increases will then depend more on our partners in Russia and in other countries in the neighbouring regions than on us.

Mr President, I hope that it was not symbolic when the representative of the Council, the Greek minister, left the Chamber when we began discussing the Northern Dimension. I really do hope that Greece and Italy, in whose programme there is no mention of the Northern Dimension at all, will also take the Northern Dimension into consideration. After all, we in the Nordic countries also understand the importance of the Barcelona Process and the Mediterranean Partnership.

  Myller, Riitta (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, I wish to thank Commissioner Patten for allowing Parliament the opportunity, already at this stage of the Northern Dimension Action Plan, to be involved in this work. The aim must be that the Commission makes a greater commitment to respond to the special questions posed by the EU’s northern regions. I believe that Greece, as the country to hold the presidency, will also address this challenge, and I also hope it will be able to convince Parliament over the coming spring that this is what it is doing, because now it is not succeeding. I myself, however, have already had the opportunity to hear this assurance personally. The EU’s forthcoming Northern Dimension Action Plan must be broad in scope, to make possible political and economic dialogue and action in all sectors of society.

As Commissioner Patten has already said, very much has already been done in the area of cooperation on energy. What is more, progress has been made in projects devoted to cooperation on environmental issues. In that area, of course, cooperation has to be strengthened further. There are many challenges in the Northern Dimension region, and not least those to do with nuclear power and nuclear waste. In addition, the Gulf of Finland is vulnerable, and for this reason, progress has still to be made with the sewage treatment projects in St. Petersburg. We are, however, to have a new partnership programme for social affairs and health for part of the Northern Dimension and this must have an important place in the new Northern Dimension Action Plan. Health and social issues usually go hand in hand. Bad social conditions are responsible for poor health as well as disease, which spreads across borders, and we need vigorous cooperation in this area.

In connection with the Northern Dimension Action Plan we still have to continue to develop frontier crossing points and obtain Russia’s involvement in making it easier to cross borders at current crossing points. I now wish in particular, however, to focus the Commissioner’s attention on something he has already touched on here, which is how we might be able to get border cooperation to function more efficiently. The Commission has already begun work to develop the PHARE, TACIS and Interreg programmes of cooperation. We nevertheless need administrative reforms, one common programme to implement action in this area, and less bureaucracy and more action. I believe that these matters will be taken into account in the forthcoming action plan.

  Wallis (ELDR). – Mr President, as the first vice-president of the Parliamentary Delegation for Relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway over the last three years, I have been privileged to represent Parliament on several occasions at ministerial meetings on the Northern Dimension.

I want to concentrate on process – that is what concerns me – and Parliament's right to contribute properly to the new action plan. I welcome the action plan and the effort that both the Swedish presidency and most recently, the Danish presidency, have put in to the Northern Dimension. Enlargement will represent a step change in the Northern Dimension. It will no longer be a matter of high foreign policy just about the relationship with Russia. It will be about many countries that will now be Member States and the neighbours will be different. It will involve matters that have to do with the EU's regional and environmental policy. That means that civil society and Members of this House and other elected representatives need to be properly and fully involved.

At the first ministerial meeting I attended in Luxembourg, there was a commitment to have a Northern Dimension forum. It has yet to see the light of day. That ought to have happened a long time ago. I sense that there is some reluctance to fully involve this House in the Northern Dimension. I hope I am wrong. As this policy changes, I would like to see a much more regular system of annual reporting and involvement with this House, because the Northern Dimension concerns all our citizens. The environment and climate in the far north is important to European solidarity.

I urge the Commissioner to involve this House fully.

  Seppänen (GUE/NGL). – (FI) Mr President, the Northern Dimension is the northern equivalent of the European Union-Mediterranean Partnership. Although we speak of the north, it also refers to the EU’s eastern external dimension.

There are two seas in the north, which have to be protected from catastrophe. The Baltic Sea, which will soon be virtually an internal sea of the EU, is the world’s most polluted sea. As we speak it is frozen over, which illustrates how problematic the natural conditions are there. An oil disaster on the scale of the Prestige wreck would be devastating. The Barents Sea, on the other hand, is threatened by nuclear waste and the exploitation of natural resources on the seabed. As a gas pipeline is being built from the Barents Sea to Germany we will also need investment from Member States to prevent environmental damage resulting from gas production.

Our group is pleased with the resolution the political groups have together agreed upon here. It sets forth the key issues that the Commission must take account of when it drafts the action plan for the period 2004–2006.

Unfortunately, the countries to hold the presidency this year have not included a mention of the development of the Northern Dimension in the Council’s action programme. Greece and Italy, both countries in the Mediterranean region, are failing in their duty, as countries to hold the presidency, to represent the interests of the EU as a whole.

Something that is of strategic importance is cooperation on energy. The EU is dependent for energy on gas imported from the east. The intention is to meet the entire increase in the EU’s energy needs over the next few decades with gas from the east. Investment in the energy sector will improve the reliability of the supply of gas and ensure there is shared responsibility for the sustainable exploitation of energy resources.

Important areas of cooperation also include western investment in environmental protection, nuclear safety and transport infrastructure. Some pilot projects have been set up in order to solve Russia’s environmental problems. These are positive steps in the right direction in a situation in which we are being called upon to compensate for Russian capitalism’s lack of responsibility for nature and people.

The Northern Dimension is furthermore concerned with the fight against poverty in the EU’s neighbouring regions. Civil society has been acting independently and we must ensure it is more involved in EU projects. NGOs are weapons in the struggle against bureaucracy both in the EU and in Russia.

The Northern Dimension motorcar today is being driven in too low a gear. The car is not an automatic, and Greece and Italy must therefore now change up to a higher gear. I agree with the criticism expressed here by Mr Suominen: the representative of the Greek Presidency should have been present here while we are speaking about the Northern Dimension. The area of responsibility of the country holding the presidency is not only the Mediterranean but also the other seas in the EU.

  Hautala (Verts/ALE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner Patten, I would very much like to welcome you to Parliament to discuss the Northern Dimension with us. The idea for this debate, which my colleague, Mrs Diana Wallis, has already referred to, originated in the Delegation for Relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. We realised that the European Parliament had had no proper debate such as this, in which specific efforts would be made to ensure that Parliament was involved in the EU’s Northern Dimension.

While we have called on Italy and Greece here to correct their obvious error and include the Northern Dimension in their programme, I would like to praise Denmark, which was good enough to invite Parliament to the Ministerial Conferences both in Luxembourg and Greenland. We now hope that in this way Parliament’s involvement in the Northern Dimension will become established.

Commissioner, you mentioned some successful projects, and I would like to show you my support in your mention of the financing of the environmental programme. It seems that now at last a way has been found for the EU, various donor countries and international financial institutions all to do their bit to solve the huge problems that relate to the environment and nuclear safety. When the political parties were discussing the joint resolution – and it was a very amicable debate – we noted with satisfaction that the Barents Euro-Arctic Council in Kirkenes last week seems to have reached some sort of agreement whereby Russia will sign the MNEPR Agreement you mentioned, and that is a prerequisite for cooperation on nuclear safety to commence in earnest. I believe that we really now have to embark on this project without delay and ensure that Russia does actually see the ratification of this agreement through to the end.

Arctic cooperation is an absolutely essential part of the Northern Dimension and we have managed to address, for example, the concern that the aboriginal peoples in the north have regarding their traditional means of livelihood. If the permafrost starts to thaw in the north many kinds of disasters will result. As a result, Parliament has invited representatives of the aboriginal peoples to discuss these and other questions that relate to the Northern Dimension and Arctic cooperation this spring.

Finally, I just want to say that it will be an immense challenge to cross the prosperity chasm that exists between Russia and the European Union. It will be a crucial challenge indeed, and we can promote it though cooperation in the social welfare and health sectors within the context of the programme.

  Oostlander (PPE-DE). – (NL) The enlargement of the European Union places the countries of the Northern Dimension in a very special and much changed position. Everyone is expecting a great deal from this – including strong economic development in particular. The greater mutual openness shows that there are extremely attractive prospects for cooperation in the economic, ecological and social fields. If we are to benefit from this we will have to change our attitude towards Russia. It has already changed, fortunately, but it was not just a matter of course. Despite some worrying signals from Russia regarding parliamentary democracy, the acceptance of non-indigenous religions and in particular the continuing war in Chechnya, we must still have a positive attitude towards Russia.

The politics of the Northern Dimension is therefore part of our two-track policy. A policy that does not withhold criticism, however severe it may be, but one that also sounds out and exploits constructive ideas. It is very important to implement the various forms of policy in the action plan. The European Union’s attitude will then be very balanced and multi-faceted, which will also be good for the development of neighbouring regions. The way in which this is done is also naturally of great importance, and this is also mostly of a political and cultural nature. Market participants as well as social organisations, for example, will have to play a major role. Political integration must always go hand in hand with social integration; this may entail a large number of independent organisations. The action plan may therefore also be relevant to the social democratisation of the territories in question – with Russia first.

The Danish Presidency made great efforts with regard to the Northern Dimension issue. Coming from a southern northern country, I appreciate this very much. We are assuming that Greece will also feel a sense of responsibility towards the Northern Dimension. The focus must be on the exploitation of energy sources, the transportation of energy, possibly including to the European Union, and nuclear waste. The delegation to the Russian Duma recently went to the north, where we found out about the serious problems caused by nuclear waste. The European Union is one of the major donors, possibly the biggest in fact, but cleaning up is taking place pretty slowly there. They are not able to dismantle more than a small number of nuclear submarines each year. It is very important for all of us that this is speeded up. The territory there in the north is extremely vulnerable, and we will have to accept our responsibility, particularly with regard to Norway and other countries with interests there.

It is a very good thing – for the people who live there as well – that solutions are also being found for waste water, particularly in St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad. In order to make it clear that we are concerned about people, we must also make sure that social questions linked to public health and the like are not forgotten. We have seen that there are already numerous councils and forums dealing with the Northern Dimension. I must therefore express the hope that their activities will be appropriately coordinated so that they do not overlap too much and hamper one another. A budget line for the Northern Dimension has also already been discussed. I understand that there are technical problems involved in setting up a budget line of this kind and I would like to know what the Commissioner thinks about this.

  Mann, Erika (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, there are a number of points I would very much like to deal with. Those of my colleagues who have spoken before me have covered quite a lot, so please permit me to focus on a few aspects.

It was with interest that I read the Commission documents, as well as the various initiatives considered by the Council, which have had some influence on actual action plans. I find it particularly interesting that we are here attempting to define an area that is at present made up of various interests and also watched over and managed by different nationalities. To take one example, you were right to mention in the action plan the various meetings that you had with Canada and Russia. I think that what you are undertaking in those areas is of great interest. Like my colleagues, I would like to see Parliament more closely involved in this work.

I believe that, in defining the area, which has its own specific problems, its own specific criteria and is undergoing changes of its own, you are attempting something that has real authenticity and which also involves political dimensions such as foreign or security policy. You have also, however, incorporated issues of health, research, infrastructure, energy and the information economy as a whole. The remarkable thing about this is that we really are taking account of the region's specific interests, and doing so not merely from the standpoint of our European interests or coupled with them, but by actually including the Russian dimension in the discussions and taking it into consideration, just as we do with Canada. I want to say how grateful I am for that, because it broadens to some degree the somewhat narrow view that we in Europe sometimes take, and which leads us to focus on purely European interests. Many thanks for that.

What we ask is that you get Parliament more closely involved and attempt to find ways in which the parliaments and our counterparts in the various countries can support you in your work. After all, we have established very good cooperation in the European Economic Area in order to give support in the workings of government and administration, and we have seen this done in several other cooperative arrangements between parliaments. This sort of cooperation could actually be a source of strength to you, and I believe that you still need it.

There is one thing I find lacking among all the interests and diverse topics that you address. Relevant though these are, either I have failed to spot it when reading or I have not managed to find the documents, but I find no reference to you focussing on the economic dimension of the area as a topic in its own right. It may be that I have overlooked this, and if that is the case, I crave your indulgence.

  Väyrynen (ELDR). – (FI) Mr President, the concept of the Northern Dimension must be understood in a broad sense. It embraces both the Union’s external relations and its internal policies. In external relations it encompasses the Baltic Sea and Barents Sea areas and the whole of the Arctic region. With the enlargement of the European Union the importance of cross-border cooperation will increase, as the border we share with Russia will lengthen and as we will be acquiring new neighbours.

Cross-border cooperation is first and foremost bilateral action between the EU and its Member States, on the one hand, and Russia and our other neighbours, on the other hand. Then again, we also have two viable multilateral forums, the Council of the Baltic Sea States and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council. Bilateral and multilateral action are both restricted by a lack of funds. In bilateral cross-border cooperation EU funding is limited to Interreg projects and to a small number of TACIS projects. Barents and Baltic Sea cooperation is not financed by the Union at all.

It is being proposed once again in our joint resolution that a special budget heading should be created for the Northern Dimension. In practice this could mean that EU funding for the area of activity covered by the Council of the Baltic Sea States and the Barents Euro-Arctic Council would be appreciably increased and it would be channelled at least in part through these Councils.

This time we are discussing the Northern Dimension on the basis of a statement by the Commissioner in charge of External Relations. The principles of the Northern Dimension must also be remembered when we discuss the enlarging Union’s regional and agricultural policy and other areas of internal policy that particularly affect the development of the northern regions. The importance of the Northern Dimension will also grow with regard to internal policies, when the Baltic countries and Poland join the Union.

  Gomolka (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, we should surely endorse the Commission's basic statements on the development of the Northern Dimension and the shape it should take in the future, including such things as the diverse subjects to be covered by future cooperation, ranging from the resolution of environmental problems to telecommunications, taking in research and technological development. The list of partners is no less impressive than that of any previous initiative. There can also surely be no dispute about the fact that the accession of the Baltic States to the European Union will be able to rapidly extend cooperation and move it up a gear, and that there will be greater opportunities for developing relations with Russia.

Appreciation of these and other positive aspects does not preclude critical observations, and I will limit myself to two of them. It is, for example, striking that the Council, in producing its directives, is to some degree working on the basis of a decidedly uncritical analysis. That has also, alas, and to a somewhat lesser degree, been true of the statements from the Commission. An example of what I mean by this is the uncertainty still felt by many investors with a particular interest in involvement in the candidate countries and in Russia. Deficiencies in administration and in the justice system are kept quiet for appearances' sake rather than described in terms that reflect the reality. Surely it is more than a mere linguistic nuance to say that the efforts at rectifying abuses of this sort must not just be persevered with, but also significantly stepped up.

Secondly, development of technological infrastructure has a key part to play in relation to this major region as a whole, and there is a need for this sort of activity, which is at present still largely scattered, to be better interconnected. Existing concepts and plans for road and rail transport need to be realised more quickly if real improvements are to be made. To sum up, the plans made to date, and the results that have been achieved, should be seen in a very positive light. What is now needed is for priorities to be set out more clearly than before and decisive improvements made in key areas.

  Paasilinna (PSE). – (FI) Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the southern parts of Russia, the Caucasus and Caspian Sea regions, are caught up in a vicious circle of conflicts that have been going on for a long time. The United States of America is building – has already built – a network of military bases close to Russia’s southern border. With Azerbaijan and Georgia it is constructing an oil pipeline past Russia to Turkey. The oil pipeline that passes through Chechnya has been damaged by the war.

I would like to say to you all, and especially the Commissioner, that Russia is now turning its attention to its traffic connections and natural resources in the north. Within a short time it will be constructing its second oil port at the end of the Gulf of Finland. An enormous gas pipeline project from the Arctic Ocean, via the Baltic Sea, to Central Europe is already being planned. At the same time trial shipments of oil are being delivered from the Ob delta area to Murmansk and from there to the world markets. In other words, Russia has effected a strategic change, which is beginning to be seen in the activities we are involved in, although these are Russia’s own solutions. Now it is a question of what the role of the European Union is.

As Mr Suominen said, Russia for us is becoming an ever more important partner state, and, as Mr Seppänen said, it is energy that is the crucial issue here. Why is that? Because it is in that area that our dependence on Russia is most clearly visible. This excellent idea and model for a Northern Dimension, underrated and afflicted by confusion as it has been, now needs a centre of focus, and that should be energy. If it is made a priority in the next action plan we can also act in the other areas: environment, culture, education and training, health, the transport situation, and the information society. In this way this whole great idea would gain extra momentum, and not least because the accession of Poland and the Baltic countries to the EU will create more pressure to improve the structure of this Northern Dimension. As Heidi Hautala said, a good example of this in the area of financing is the environmental programme fund. The money therefore exists; now it is a question of action.

I want to thank Denmark for having been so active in this area, and I shall put Greece on the same scales that we used to weigh Denmark’s efforts, with the praise that resulted.

  Tannock (PPE-DE). – I welcome a new action plan for the Northern Dimension which will embrace three new Baltic states and Poland as EU members in 2004, Russia, with which I support a privileged status in a common economic space one day, and the EEA states of Iceland and Norway.

I am concerned about the environmental hazards in the far north and I strongly urge the Russians to sign the MNEPR Agreement, as they have agreed to do, on joint action for decommissioning of their spent nuclear fuel rods and warheads rotting in their naval submarines which might contaminate the Murmansk area.

Negotiations on the accession of ten countries to the EEA were launched in Brussels just last week. Enlargement of the EU entails simultaneous enlargement of the EEA in order to safeguard the homogeneity of the internal market.

There is no justification for the idea that the contributions of the EEA countries should be comparable to those of EU Member States and the Commission's demand for a 22-fold increase for Norway is absurd.

Third countries do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as Member States; in some cases there is reduced market access due to tariff imposition. An example is Norway's loss of free trade in fish with Poland. The EEA Agreement is a good agreement but it has its limitations. Recent opinion polls in Norway indicate that public perceptions of the Union are changing; that support for membership is growing and will inevitably dominate the political agenda at the next elections. I would like also to raise the issue of Belarus, which has borders with four of the Member States that are party to the action plan and, given its union with Russia, might one day become part of the group. It is important for the EU to maintain its dual-track approach and pressure for democratic reforms there. But notwithstanding our political differences with that country, we are still committed in areas of mutual interest such as the management of illegal immigration and cross-border crime.

  Titley (PSE). – Mr President, in view of the delicate situation in relation to Kaliningrad and the imminent accession of the Baltic States, the Northern Dimension takes on even greater significance. We have to try to ensure that in all our policies we have as close a relationship with Russia as is possible.

The Northern Dimension has ensured that we are able to focus on developments in the Baltic area, in terms of energy supplies, telecommunications, and economic assistance. I would therefore be delighted if we could continue that process at the moment, particularly emphasising the importance of Kaliningrad as a major source of difficulties and issues for the European Union to resolve.

  Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, those who think the Northern Dimension is buried are wrong. There is greater need for the project at present than ever before. With eastward enlargement we will have four new Member States on the shores of the Baltic Sea and the Union’s border with Russia will be longer than what it was before.

The reliability of energy management in the Baltic countries will be among the challenges of the future. Something else will need to be found to replace bituminous shale and Ignalina. One cannot merely rely on gas imported from Russia. The Baltic Ring must be involved in the programme.

The programme must also show clear links to EU relations with the northern parts of Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the United States of America and Canada. The aim is for the Northern Dimension to grow to rank with the MEDA Programme among other good EU programmes. The Northern Dimension, like the MEDA Programme too, is a matter for the whole of the EU.

The project has, with reason, been criticised for having nothing concrete to offer. I hope that my report that was adopted in May 1999 by the European Parliament, which focussed specifically on concrete proposals, will serve as a cornerstone of the Northern Dimension.

The problem with the Northern Dimension has been that funding has been scraped together from various EU programmes. The decentralised character of its management, spread among several of the Commission’s Directorates-General as it is, only complicates the work. The project is like a patchwork quilt. May the Commission organise itself in such a way that the development of the Northern Dimension is the responsibility of a high-ranking official in just one Directorate-General, as is the case with the MEDA Programme. I also support the idea that the Northern Dimension should have its own budget heading, which is in accord with my earlier proposals.

  Gahler (PPE-DE). – (DE) Mr President, I am glad that the Greek Presidency has returned after an absence which had attracted some criticism. Having looked up which of our Members have spoken so far, I find that, of all those who have spoken on this subject, I am the one from furthest south. That is something that we perhaps ought to organise differently in future, as we should give attention to the regions in a more even-handed way.

When, in 1997, President Ahtisaari was the first to mention the Northern Dimension as a concept, many of those present did not at first know what to do with this mere form of words. The word has subsequently acquired a great deal of substance, and we have already heard that the second action programme is being planned, and the priorities chosen for it are also, in my view, the right ones. My fellow Members have, of course, listed the various subject areas more than once.

My personal experience of all these topics – including in earlier years when I was involved in the area of Baltic cooperation – has, unfortunately, led me to the same conclusion that Mr Suominen has already reached, that being that we have, in the meantime, offered Russia, sometimes grovellingly, a whole bouquet of issues along with concrete proposals, but often find the Russians unwilling to do the business. In all this, the benefits to Russia are obvious when one considers the potential for increasing export capacity or our willingness in the environmental field – which is also of course in our own interest – to dig deep into our own resources in order to provide for improvements in Russia.

I would like to say something about border management. I hope that the EU, the three Baltic states, and Poland, even before these latter four join the EU, will engage in detailed talks with Russia in order to make it possible for their border-crossing procedures, from 2004 onwards, to run as smoothly as those we find at the crossing points between Finland and Russia, which have already been modernised. I believe that many working in the field of exports and imports would see their costs for goods and services fall substantially. I also hope that, as regards the combating of criminality at these borders, the Russians …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Linkohr (PSE). – (DE) Mr President, you have given me a keynote to use. Of all those who have spoken so far, I live the furthest to the south, and if it was not for the Alps, I would have a clear view of the Mediterranean. So I claim the right to speak on behalf of the Members from the South and to assert that we too have an interest in the North's well being. I take it for granted that you, Mr President, agree with me!

I would like to be brief and to touch on the following topics, the first of which is energy. What matters here is that the Baltic Ring should at last come into being, with an electricity interconnection right round the Baltic. That would be a great help to us and also to the Baltic States. The second point I want to make is that we must at all cost prevent any mishap involving oil or gas in the far north. It would take many years for nature to recover, far longer than would be the case in the south. That is something we must avoid come what may.

My third point is the main one: disarmament. Quite a bit has already been said about the submarines that are rusting away in north-western Russia and the plans we have for dealing with them, for which I would like to give the Commission every credit. I do, though, want to suggest to the Commission that they should make a statement setting out what disarmament measures they and the Council are jointly considering, what has been decided on, and what is being done through our Budget, so that this House can have a debate on all these measures, which we are co-financing. The Commission deserves thanks for having organised a major disarmament conference in Brussels at the beginning of December, which I attended, and I am amazed at the vast number of initiatives that there are. It is only right, though, that this House should discuss them and make them known to a wider public.

If I might return to the subject of energy, I would like to bring a paradox to your attention. Here in Western Europe, we are replacing coal and atomic power with gas, which we will, in future, be buying increasingly from Russia. The Russians are selling us more and more gas, because it earns them more money than if they use the gas at home – where, however, they are using coal and atomic power instead. Taking all these things together, then, no savings are being made either in atomic power or in CO2. I ask that we in this House should take seriously the question of whether our policy is the right one, and that this issue should be on the agenda for the dialogue with the Russians on energy. What is going on here is quite simply absurd, at any rate from an outsider's point of view. I just wanted to point that out.

  Sacrédeus (PPE-DE). (SV) Mr President, I welcome the fact that the Northern Dimension is now being placed on the EU’s agenda. In Commissioner Patten, the EU has a strong leader in the area of foreign policy. I am convinced that the Commissioner is keeping a close watch on the Barents Cooperation whereby the Nordic countries, together with Russia, make active, ongoing efforts to combat the serious risk posed by the scrapped submarines, armed with nuclear weapons, in this area, especially in Murmansk.

I also want to discuss the strategy in relation to Belarus within the framework of the Northern Dimension. We cannot afford to have pariah states adjacent to our own borders in Europe. That is why it is important for the European Union, led by the Council of Ministers and Commissioner Patten, to implement a strategy that sustains a vigorous and long-term critique of the lack of human rights in Belarus. This should be combined with initially low-level discussions with the Belorussian authorities on the subjects of crime prevention and border controls. This dialogue should also take place with a view to stimulating economic development in Belarus and strengthening civil society.

The Baltic is not far from being a mare nostrum within the European Union. It is an economic area that must be developed. In our relations with Russia, we must continue to demand greater democracy. We must not, however, forget to enter into low-level political relations with Belarus. These are a necessity.

  Korhola (PPE-DE). – (FI) Mr President, the motion for a resolution on the Northern Dimension properly underscores some of the most important issues of the present time. The Northern Dimension, however, has to be seen as a dynamic process. I should particularly like to highlight two factors that will have an impact on this: enlargement and the environment.

With enlargement our concept of the ‘north’ has to change so that by the end of the decade we will use it to mean more the Arctic north and less the ‘north’, in the sense that varies depending on who the speaker is.

With enlargement too the role of the EU in the Baltic Sea will alter significantly. In practice the Baltic from the start of next year will be an internal sea of the EU. With its problems and opportunities it must be generally visible in EU policy. The prominence given to the Baltic Sea in all EU policy must increase, whilst at the same time its importance as part of the EU’s Northern Dimension lessens.

Naturally, Russia in the future will be an important part of Northern Dimension content, but west and east are close together at the Arctic Circle. The Northern Dimension will also enable ties to the west to be strengthened. The EU should take the decision to join the Arctic Council, whose members are currently the United States of America, Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia.

It would be odd if the EU were to continue to be left out of the work of this Council, which was established in 1996, especially as so many of the EU’s own projects, if associated with Arctic Council projects, could result in important synergies. At the same time it would strengthen Euro-Atlantic mutual understanding in the area of the environment, which recently has not been the best possible. EU policy on climate change could in this way obtain a new basis internationally on which to build practical action.

The vulnerable Arctic regions will be the first to suffer from climatic change, and before long that change will have an effect throughout the entire EU, extending as far as the Mediterranean Sea. It is obvious that the melting of the ice caps implies a likely threat, which, if it were to become a reality, would in practice totally devastate Europe’s culture and economy.

  President. – To close this debate, I have received four motions for resolutions presented in accordance with Rule 37(2) of the Rules of Procedure⁽¹⁾.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place tomorrow Thursday at 12 noon.

(The sitting was suspended at 5.25 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m.)

IN THE CHAIR: MR PUERTA
Vice-President