Lietuvos Respublikos Seimas

S.Burbienės, J.Čekuolio, S.Dmitrijevo, V.Landsbergio, D.Mikutienės, J.Oleko ir V.Stankevičiaus komandiruotės į Prancūzijos Respubliką 2001 04 21-28 d. ataskaita

Ataskaita apie dalyvavimą ETPA sesijoje

Strasbūre, 2001 m. balandžio 23–27 dienomis

Ekonominių reikalų ir plėtros komitetas sesijos metu turėjo tris posėdžius. Jų metu buvo apsvarstyti šioje sesijoje svarstomi pranešimai apie ET ir ETPA biudžetus 2002 metais, o taip pat apie buvusį politinių grupių finansavimą, ir dar du svarbūs pranešimai: “Europos kova prieš organizuotą nusikalstamumą: pažanga ar grįžimas atgal?” ir ”Penkiolika metų po Černobilio: galutinis finansavimo sprendimas”. Pastarasis buvo svarstomas labai ilgai , nes teikiamų Rusijos ir Ukrainos kolegų siūlymų nenorėjo priimti pranešėjas, dėl to buvo ilgai ginčijamasi. Aš pritariau daugumai šių siūlymų, nes mums labai aktualios Ignalinos atominės elektrinės galimo uždarymo finansavimo galimybės ir mums ne tas pats, kaip Europa elgsis su ukrainiečiais. Ne visas pozicijas pavyko vėliau apginti plenarinio posėdžio metu, bet su ukrainiečiais tapom draugais.

Svarstyti kitų pranešimų projektai ir buvo balsuojama už nuomonę apie kito komiteto ruoštą pranešimą “Transporto technologijos ir Europos integracija”. Po to buvo paskirti atstovaujantys komitetui įvairiuose renginiuose.

Sesijos metu buvo svarstomi šie klausimai: Artimųjų Rytų konfliktas, situacija Kosove, demografiniai pokyčiai ir tausojanti raida, Ukrainos įsipareigojimai, spaudos laisvė Europoje, konvencija dėl nusikalstamumo kibernetinėje erdvėje, o taip pat ET ir ETPA biudžetai, Černobilio situacija, bei organizuotas nusikalstamumas ir kova u juo. Sesijoje pasisakiau dėl Černobilio ir organizuoto nusikalstamumo, kalbų tekstai pridedami prieduose Nr. 1 ir 2.

Priedai Nr. 1,2

Sigita Burbienė

Priedas Nr. 1

Fifteen years after Chernobyl: financing a lasting solution

First of all I would like to express my appreciation to Lord Ponsbonby’s report which I find indeed very informative and interesting. The report was lively debated in Committee on Economic Affairs and Development and was not carried unanimously as in many other cases.

Why I want to take part in this discussion? I come from Lithuania, which has Ignalina nuclear power plant with 2 RBMK type reactors and the item discussed is very close to us. We had no explosion or any serious accidents in our station, though more than 7 thousand of Lithuanian citizens (as soldiers or workers) took part in liquidation of consequences of the explosion in Chernobyl and about one thousand of them died, most of those alive now are ill and need medical and social assistance. So we know the problem as if from the inside. Lithuania took early efforts and made huge investments (Sweden was one of the major donors) in safety of the nuclear plant. These efforts bring us to the situation today, when no international nuclear power safety authorities could accuse us for unsafety of these reactors. The technical resources of operation for these reactors estimate from 10 to 15 years to go. Nevertheless, we have decided to close the first reactor until 2004 and to make a decision on the second until 2005.

I should admit that the reason for such a decision is not our own will. Ignalina power plant produces 85% of total electricity power in Lithuania. Of course we have the alternatives of coal, oil or gas. Inexhaustible nature sources doesn’t seem to be very helpful in this respect as our rivers are slow and we have only some wind near the Baltic Sea and very few sunshine. In order to compensate the shortage the nuclear power we need thermal stations, what leads us to 100% dependence on Russia, high pollution and high costs. Such a situation doesn’t seem to be very optimistic.

We have passed a law on national strategy on energy, according which the first reactor must be closed until 2004. Such a decision was caused first of all by the demands, sometimes ultimate, of European commissioners. You can say they have no right to demand, still this has very straight link to decision if Lithuania will be a member of EU, though there are no such directives on the existing EU legislation. Sometimes you simply doubt if such demands are fair or there are various interests, political or economical behind them.

These are the circumstances. Frankly speaking, nobody of us believes that nuclear power plants could function forever. At the very start up of reactors you must have a plan for decommissioning them. We have inherited Ignalina nuclear power plant from Soviet times, it was not our own decision. But when you are asked to close it 10-15 years earlier, you should have a right to ask not only for advice, but also for appropriate funding. We received some assistance in this respect. Nevertheless all donors are speaking only about some million USD, while the closure of the plant requires billions. However, besides all technical measures, the closure will imply huge social problems and those of national as well. The city of Visaginas was built for staff of the nuclear power plant and represents specific national composition with only 20 % of Lithuanian inhabitants. Integration of national minorities will be one of the key tasks upon the closure of Ignalina.

Let me turn back to Chernobyl, the much more difficult problem. We see that the financing of this power plant is very much complicated. Many in Lithuania doubt the possibilities to allocate sufficient funds for closure works after the first steps to shut down our own the Ignalina power plant will be made. We should be aware that beyond this point there is no way back. Estimations of various experts say that the full closure of power station would cost from 1 to 2 annual national budgets. Dear colleagues, which of distinguished member countries could afford to carry such a burden alone?

The understanding of the difficult situation Ukraine faces now makes me to fully support the amendments tabled by our Ukrainian colleagues.

Priedas Nr. 2

Europe’s fight against economic and traditional organised crime: progress or retreat?

Thank you, mr. president. First of all I want to thank Mrs. Squarcialupi for her excellent work and presented recommendation.

And I want to speak about one item, that is not popular, especially in so called new democracies, I mean funding of political parties. I am sure this theme has very straight link to our topic. We have Lithuanian saying “the fish is spoiled from it’s head” and in our world fish head is everything around authorities that means political parties also, or even especially political parties. This is the reason that this item is in the report on economic crime. All of us know, that many organised crimes is related to persons in power, and the legislation can assist or strictly forbid the possibility of organised crime. And who is guilty in the eyes of many people? Of course – political parties. And we see item in the recommendation 10. III. calling Committee of Ministers to finalise the draft recommendation, under elaboration by the multidisciplinary groups on corruption on guidelines against corruption in the funding of political parties and electoral compaigns and in this way assist political parties against undue influence in their capacity as one of the fundaments of democracy.

And it is very serious recommendation, and I am eager to see what would be those guidelines. Pollitical party system has a lot of shortages, but nobody can offer better system as the system of political parties, presenting various political and economic views. Still all of us know the temptations in various countries to change at least the system of elections, if not the government or parties. It is caused by belief, that the election system can protect parties and governments from criminal influence. At the same time most politicians know that no system can avoid the influence of criminals or perhaps persons planning criminality in future. And we know about various scandals in even very highly developed countries. One of the solutions, I know, is adequate funding, as no party can live from “saint sole” or from nothing, as it is very serious body, needing experts, staff, premisies and so on, and this demands money. And I am almost sure, budget funding will be one of the most serious items in the guidelines of Multidisciplinary group on corruption.

Nevertheless, imagine countries in transition where there are budget deficite and GDP per capita very low, when unemployment is high and a lot of any shortages are taking place, and we can speak about very limited finansing of the political parties, who is guilty for all bad in the country, even, when they are in oposition.

So, dear collegues shall we wait for any recomendations or should we work ourselves. I am sure we are doing this work, and I hope every country alone and all together will find the solution, at least how to limit the problem to minimum.

Thank you




Naujausi pakeitimai - 2002 07 29.



   >   Istorija  >   2000 - 2004 m. Seimas  >   Seimo narių komandiruotės ir kelionės  >   2000 - 2004 m. ataskaitos  >   PRANCŪZIJA

LR Seimas