PV\1137160EN.docx AP102.472v01-00

EN EN

EURONEST PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY

ASSEMBLÉE PARLEMENTAIRE EURONEST

PARLAMENTARISCHE VERSAMMLUNG EURONEST

ПАРЛАМЕНТСКАЯ AССАМБЛЕЯ ЕВРОНЕСТ

Committee on Political Affairs, Human Rights and DemocracyCommittee on Social Affairs, Education, Culture and Civil Society

NEST_PV(2017)0323

MINUTESof the joint meeting of 23 March 2017

Brussels

The meeting was opened on 23 March 2017, at 9.30 am, with the Social Affairs Committee(SOC) Co-Chairs Mr Georgi PIRINSKI (European Parliament) and Ms MalahatIBRAHIMGIZI (Azerbaijan) and the Political Affairs Committee (POL) Co-Chair Mr BorysTARASYUK (Ukraine) and Vice-Co-Chair Ms Kati PIRI (European Parliament) in the chair.

In his introductory remarks, SOC Co-Chair Mr PIRINSKI recalled the Euronest plenarysession one year ago, on the same day that Brussels was hit by terrorist attacks, and expressedhis concerns about the attack in London one day prior to this joint meeting. He then went on toencourage everyone to help build a free, democratic and peaceful space in Europe and beyond,and expressed his confidence that the exchanges of this meeting would reflect this ambition.He also invited all the participants to attend the afternoon conference co-organised by theEuropean Parliament Delegation to the Euronest PA and the Open Society Foundations, anddedicated to anti-discrimination policies, justice sector reform and the fight against corruption,within the framework of the Eastern Partnership (EaP) and the association agendas of Georgia,Moldova and Ukraine.

1. Adoption of draft agenda

The draft agenda was adopted as tabled.

2. Election of the Eastern Component’s Vice-Co-Chair of the Euronest PACommittee on Social Affairs, Education, Culture and Civil Society

Members elected by acclamation Mr Beka NATSVLISHVILI (Georgia) as Vice-Co-Chair ofthe Euronest PA Committee on Social Affairs, Education, Culture and Civil Society (SOC).

AP102.472v01-00 2/12 PV\1137160EN.docx

EN

SOC Co-Chair Mr PIRINSKI then gave the floor to Mr NATSVLISHVILI, for a shortintroduction.

Mr NATSVLISHVILI started by expressing his deepest sympathies for the families of thevictims of the terrorist attack in London the day before. He then expressed his gratitude toeveryone for the confidence placed in him to act as the Eastern Component’s Vice-Co-Chairfor the Committee on Social Affairs, Education, Culture and Civil Society. He brieflyintroduced himself, and noted that in the light of his particular experience and interest in labourand industrial relations, he would seek to highlight this topic in the future and hoped for fruitfulcooperation with everyone.

3. Approval of minutes of the joint meeting of the Euronest Committee on PoliticalAffairs, Human Rights and Democracy and its Committee on Social Affairs,Education, Culture and Civil Society of 31 October 2016 in Kyiv

The minutes of the joint meetings of the POL and SOC Committees held on 31 October 2016in Kyiv were approved as tabled.

4. Exchange of views on the protection of women’s rights, the promotion of genderbalance, and the access of women to the labour market in the Eastern Europeanpartner countries

SOC Co-Chair Mr PIRINSKI recalled the occasion of International Women’s Day, twoweeks prior to the meeting, when the European Parliament held a series of debates concerningthe transformation of gender roles and women’s economic empowerment and employment inthe European Union. His overarching conclusion from those events was that much remained tobe done regarding the equal treatment of women and men in the labour market, and heencouraged the members to advance work on legislation together.

– Presentations by Mr Mikael ERBS-JORGENSEN, Policy Analyst, EuropeanCommission, DG NEAR, and Ms Yuliya MITSKEVICH, Coordinator of theBelarusian Sub-Group on gender issues, Eastern Partnership Civil Society ForumGroup

In his presentation, Mr ERBS-JORGENSEN touched upon the protection of women’s rights,the promotion of gender and the access of women to the labour market in the Eastern Europeanpartner countries. First and foremost, he underlined that the EU European NeighbourhoodPolicy (ENP) places significant focus on gender equality, and devotes particular attention toenhancing women’s participation in the economy and strengthening support for women’srights. He also mentioned that fighting gender inequality is acknowledged as an importantaspect in preventing radicalisation, including terrorism. He provided assurances that the ENP,together with the EU Gender Action Plan for 2016-2020 (GAP II), is a good framework thatwill ensure that the GAP II is translated into action. He highlighted that non-discrimination,gender equality and development for both women and men were cross-cutting issues in all EUfinancial support, and were identified as such in the 2020 deliverables for ensuring full outreachto societies within the partner countries. He further clarified that the Commission wascontinuing to support initiatives for gender equality and continuing to provide support to thethematic areas of the GAP II through the European Neighbourhood Instrument (ENI).

PV\1137160EN.docx 3/12 AP102.472v01-00

EN

Mr ERBS-JORGENSEN then identified some of the common issues affecting women in thepartner countries that the EU financial assistance was addressing: the high level of violenceagainst women, significant gender pay gaps, and the low representation of women in politicaland economic life. He also expressed his interest in the SOC Committee’s reports on thesituation of women in partner countries, and declared his intention to circulate them within DGNEAR. He noted the financial assistance packages for the Programmatic CooperationFramework under the Council of Europe at regional level, and for the ‘Women in Business’programme – for which EUR 30 million and EUR 54 million had been earmarked respectively.He then gave some bilateral examples of financial assistance in the areas of entrepreneurship,business and agriculture. He highlighted that, by empowering women in economic terms, thefinancial assistance had also had a positive impact on halting economic migration. Finally, heemphasised that gender equality, as a cross-cutting issue, was one of the best ways to unlockeconomic growth in both the EU and partner countries.

SOC Co-Chair Mr PIRINSKI emphasised the importance of the point that Mr ERBS-JORGENSEN raised – translating words into action. He then gave the floor to Ms YuliyaMITSKEVICH to provide an overview of women’s education, social equality and the genderbalance in Belarus.

Ms MITSKEVICH started by pointing out that her presentation would encompass all partnercountries, and not just Belarus. She thanked Mr ERBS-JORGENSEN for his presentation,and stated that she would like to take a closer look at GAP II, together with her colleaguesrepresenting partner countries, and to try to implement it jointly. She also pointed out that someplans drafted by partner countries sometimes did not reflect the reality in terms of genderequality.

Ms MITSKEVICH then referred to the respective rankings of the six partner countries in theWorld Economic Forum’s 2016 Gender Gap Index, for which 144 countries were evaluated intotal: Moldova – 26; Belarus – 30; Ukraine – 69; Azerbaijan – 86; Georgia – 90; and Armenia– 102. She concluded that, with the exception of Belarus and Moldova, the partner countriesrank fairly low, but pointed out that the rankings reflected government statistics, and not reality,citing Belarus in particular, which ranked at number 30. She elaborated on this by making thepoint that Belarus has a 37 % quota for women in its parliament, but that this did not reflect agenuine election process, as the female parliamentarians are appointed to these positions.Similarly, she then highlighted the fact that government reports on domestic violence also didnot reflect the real situation in Belarus, which she said was deeply regrettable. She noted,furthermore, that there are a number of indicators that also do not reflect Moldova’s highranking in the Gender Gap Index, citing data from the Centre for Development in Moldova. Shethen remarked that the statistics produced by women’s organisations reflected gender inequalityin partner countries more fairly.

Ms MITSKEVICH highlighted the fact that the common issue in partner countries, and wherepartner countries were lagging behind other nations, was the low level of women’s involvementin politics, which she said was 10-15 % at most. She highlighted the fact, furthermore, thatwomen were also not involved in negotiations to resolve military conflicts and bring aboutpeaceful solutions. She then referred to the UN Security Council Resolution on the importanceof women in decision-making, emphasising that peace agreements were 35 % more likely tolast for up to ten years if women were involved. She pointed out that in the case of Ukraine, no

AP102.472v01-00 4/12 PV\1137160EN.docx

EN

women representing the countries in conflict were involved in the negotiations for the MinskAgreements.

Ms MITSKEVICH emphasised the widespread discrimination suffered by women in thepartner countries. She referred to legislation to counter domestic violence, which, in the case ofBelarus, had been propounded for over ten years but was yet to be enacted, as the bill hadencountered numerous obstacles, notwithstanding the worrying statistics on domestic violence.She underlined the importance of the response of the international community, pointing out thatinternational experts backing official government positions may adversely affect NGOs’ workon gender. She added that this was the case in Belarus, where government policy claimed thatgender equality had been achieved and did not recognise it as a problem to be addressed. Shedrew attention to the issue of gender equality being regarded by both government institutionsand many NGOs as a narrow topic on its own and unrelated to universal human rights. Sheurged that gender mainstreaming should be promoted, that gender issues should be consideredas directly related to human rights and their violation, and that gender equality should be pushedhigher up the agenda, as it is a priority issue.

SOC Co-Chair Mr PIRINSKI expressed his conviction that this set of issues meritedconsiderable attention in all the Euronest PA’s endeavours, as well as further discussion.

– Presentation by Social Affairs Committee Co-Rapporteurs Ms Maria GRAPINI,MEP, and Ms Natalia VESELOVA, MP, Ukraine, on the Committee’s report on‘The situation of women in the labour market in the Eastern European Partnercountries’

SOC Co-Rapporteur Ms GRAPINI congratulated Ms MITSKEVICH for her informativepresentation. She also reiterated the point made in previous presentations about the difficultyof translating words into action, recalling her experience in the business and non-governmentalsectors. She then presented the Committee’s ongoing draft report, opining that it wascomprehensive and balanced, and pointing out that there was, in general, no need for lengthyreporting, but rather concise reports encompassing the essentials. She also expressed the hopethat the report would have a positive impact.

Ms GRAPINI then highlighted the report’s priorities. First, she put forward the issue of therecognition of gender equality, which was underlined in the report as a fundamental value andan objective of cooperation between partner countries. She expressed the conviction of the Co-Rapporteurs that a political stimulus was necessary to promote gender equality and that it shouldbe part of the political priorities of partner countries, highlighting gender balance in particular.She also expressed her belief that the EU should do more to help its partners implement theircommitments, in accordance with their national objectives and strategies, including offeringexpertise and promoting improved participation of women in the labour market and in decision-making. She indicated that the implementation of various action plans and strategies under theEastern Partnership should be monitored with annual reporting presented in the nationalparliaments.

Ms GRAPINI was of the opinion that it was important to collect harmonised data on thesituation of women in partner countries by introducing the gender equality index. She addedthat economic independence and equal pay for equal work or work of equal value should berecognised as priorities and common principles. She then highlighted that it was also essential

PV\1137160EN.docx 5/12 AP102.472v01-00

EN

to increase support for investment in the employment of women in quality work. She underlinedsectors and positions where women were particularly underrepresented, such as moderntechnology and technical fields, rather than services more traditionally associated with women.She recalled the POL-SOC joint meeting held in Kyiv in autumn 2016 and reiterated the pointshe had made there, that there were EU female entrepreneurship ambassadors who could offermentorship to women entrepreneurs in partner countries, and that the EU should support this.

Ms GRAPINI noted that Roma women should also be at the centre of focus, in terms ofdiscrimination and gender issues, as, owing to both their gender and ethnic group, they faceparticular discrimination. In her conclusion, she pointed out that women in general should beprotected from stereotyping by family and society, including subordination to men and theburden of exclusively caring for children, which is especially prevalent in more rural areas andtraditionally conservative cultures. She also suggested that more drastic measures should betaken to fight gender-based discrimination from an early age, through education for children.

SOC Co-Rapporteur Ms VESELOVA took the floor to continue the presentation of the draftreport. Firstly, she expressed her gratitude to Ms GRAPINI for fruitful cooperation on thereport and expressed the hope that the discussion and follow-up on the topic would beinstrumental in helping partner countries and EU Member States develop effective approachesto resolving these issues and preventing discrimination in social equality.

Ms VESELOVA noted that the position of women in the labour market was a major globalproblem, with unemployment and gender discrimination having far-reaching negativeimplications. She added that this situation not only had repercussions for the economy, but alsoprevented country growth and development, and urged the members to highlight the importanceof the topic. She suggested that women’s labour appeared to be less competitive than that ofmen, and women were more often faced with the prospect of unemployment than men. Theemployment of women also required additional social costs, putting employees at adisadvantage, and most of it remained unrecognised and unremunerated, particularly domesticlabour. Ms VESELOVA highlighted that opportunities for women were more limited than formen, which has negative implications for women’s status in society, with gender frequentlyignored in policies and development. She pointed out that the important issue in both EaPcountries and the EU was labour migration, because women workers are poorly paid, exposedto discrimination and exploitation, and find it difficult to obtain permanent residency and properaccess to social and medical security services. She concluded by raising the importance ofestablishing effective mechanisms to promote women’s access to power instruments, includinglegislation on equal rights and opportunities.

During the discussion, POL Co-Chair Mr TARASYUK and Mr Vitalii KORCHYK(Ukraine) noted that there are women playing active roles in peace settlements in Ukraine, forinstance: Ms Iryna Herashchenko, the First Deputy Speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, who is alsoserving as the Ukrainian President’s Humanitarian Envoy at the Minsk peace talks; Ms MariaIonova, Acting Head of the Verkhovna Rada’s European Integration Committee, whocoordinates the humanitarian programmes for Donbas; and Ms Olga Aivazovska, a civil societyrepresentative and expert in the political group on the Minsk process. In turn, MsMITSKEVICH clarified that she had used the national plan of action to implement UNResolution 1325 as the basis for her presentation, and it contained no information aboutwomen’s participation in peace-making processes. She also mentioned that she was aware ofwomen in Ukraine playing significant roles in the conflict, noting women’s organisations inparticular.

AP102.472v01-00 6/12 PV\1137160EN.docx

EN

Ms Heidi HAUTALA (EP) emphasised the importance of paragraph 28 of the report – on theneed to increase the number of women in the decision-making process, primarily at the politicallevel – and called it the basis of everything. Ms Guguli MAGRADZE (Georgia) drew attentionto the need to also underline STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)education for women, and to develop programmes for assisting women in business, especiallyin medium-sized and large enterprises.

The Members agreed that there was a need to improve gender equality in both partner countriesand EU Member States, and that this subject matter was very topical. They also emphasised theimportance of tackling the issue of the lists of banned professions for women in partnercountries, to which SOC Co-Rapporteur Ms GRAPINI responded by offering reassurancesthat this topic was indeed dealt with in the report. She also agreed with the point raised by somemembers that the lack of childcare facilities was an obstacle to women’s participation in thelabour market, although this was not specifically mentioned in the report. Several membersexpressed their desire to table amendments to the report, referring to the issue of maternal,paternal and parental leave in particular, with a view to improving it further.

SOC Co-Chair Mr PIRINSKI announced that the deadline for tabling amendments to thereport was 7 September 2017, at 18.00 (Brussels time).

5. Exchange of views on the situation of and prospects for media freedom,independence and integrity in the EU and Eastern European partners

POL Vice-Co-Chair Ms PIRI reminded the participants that freedom of expression was thecornerstone of democracy, and that access to independent information and free media was afundamental right of all citizens. She also pointed to some prevailing challenges in the mediafield: the undermining of critical journalism, attempts to jeopardise legal frameworks for mediafreedom and the independence of public broadcasting, and disinformation warfare. POL Co-Chair Mr TARARYUK invited the POL Co-Rapporteurs to present the ongoing draft reportof the Committee.

– Presentation by Political Affairs Committee Co-Rapporteurs Ms Tanja FAJON,MEP, and Mr Rasim MUSABEYOV, MP, Azerbaijan, on the Committee’s draftreport on ‘Ensuring media freedom and integrity in the EU and Eastern Europeanpartners’

POL Co-Rapporteur Ms FAJON started by thanking her POL Co-Rapporteur MrMUSABEYOV for his good cooperation in producing a very balanced report that covered allmajor challenges relating to the media in both the partner countries and the EU Member States.She clarified that, as those countries faced different levels of challenges regarding mediafreedom and transparency, the Co-Rapporteurs had decided to focus on more general principlesbehind media dynamics, rather than taking a country-by-country approach. She also noted thatthe report mostly focused on: media legislation, ownership and transparency, and their presentlimits, as well as challenges brought about by new media – digitalisation and the internet.

Ms FAJON emphasised, in addition to the point made by POL Vice-Co-Chair Ms PIRI, theimportance of media quality at a time of rising populism, hate speech and so-called ‘fake news’.She further highlighted the fact that the most important and common challenge today was

PV\1137160EN.docx 7/12 AP102.472v01-00

EN

fighting lies and distorted truths together. In order to tackle this, she stressed the need to elevatethe level of professional and investigative journalism, to exchange good practices, to preventattacks on journalists and to ensure their fair trial, and to develop professional ethics in qualitymass media. She also underlined the importance of speaking out on irregularities, and fosteringan environment in partner countries and EU Member States in which citizens can express theiropinions without fearing the consequences.

POL Co-Rapporteur Mr MUSABEYOV drew attention to another important aspect of thereport – media responsibility, which should be distinguished from media freedom. He pointedout that, particularly with the advent of new media, it was becoming increasingly difficult tomonitor the type of messages that are sent and that tend to reach large audiences. He cited, inthis regard, the example of bloggers, noting that it was easy to register as one and to have thefreedom to publish, with little accountability involved.

– Presentations by Mr Matthijs BERMAN, Principal Adviser, Office of the OSCERepresentative on Freedom of the Media, Mr Azer HASRET, Chairman, CentralAsian and Southern Caucasian Freedom of Expression Network and Mr BorisNAVASARDIAN, President of Yerevan Press Club and Coordinator of ArmenianNational Platform, Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum

Mr BERMAN remarked that the report was very welcome and timely, especially as mediafreedom within the OSCE area appeared to be regressing, on account of the striking differencesbetween its members. He then proceeded to highlight three issues: freedom, safety andpluralism.

On the issue of freedom, Mr BERMAN noted that authorities tended to arrest journalists oncharges conveniently unrelated to media activity, giving the example of the journalist AfganSadigov, who was convicted in Azerbaijan this year. He also pointed out other powerful toolsdeployed against dissenting media in many countries, including several EU Member States,such as laws criminalising defamation, and noted, by comparison, that defamation wasdecriminalised in partner countries. He suggested that some EU Member States could learnfrom their Eastern European partners, recalling that the OSCE Representative on Freedom ofthe Media had been advocating the decriminalisation of defamation for years, and that theEuropean Court of Human Rights was of the same opinion. He then invited Members to showinitiative and exert political pressure to make decriminalising defamation a priority. On thesame subject, he stressed that censorship was not the way forward, even in the face of what mayappear to be disinformation and propaganda, referring to laws in Denmark and Ukraine on theblocking of websites, and to the TV channel Russia 24 being shut down in Moldova in May2016. Backing up the point made by POL Co-Rapporteur Ms FAJON, he pointed out thatinstead of using the curtailment of freedom of expression to tackle fake news, governmentsshould foster quality journalism, support self-regulation efforts by media professionals, debunkfake news in a factual and neutral way, and support efforts to increase media literacy amongthe public. He added that media freedom was also affected by counter-terrorism legislation, andthe current EU draft copyright directive.

On safety, Mr BERMAN listed the common methods used to silence journalists: murder(recalling the death of journalist Pavel Sheremet), harassment, threats and intimidation. Heremarked that female journalists were more frequently affected by the latter three than men,and raised the issue of online safety, particularly for women, reiterating Ms MITSKEVICH’s

AP102.472v01-00 8/12 PV\1137160EN.docx

EN

point that gender issues were also human rights issues. He then urged members to put pressureon their governments and law enforcement bodies to consider entering into a dialogue withmedia professionals and to take this issue more seriously.

On pluralism, Mr BERMAN noted that with new media on the verge of dominating theadvertisement market thanks to their increasing technological capacity, more traditional mediahave been forced to find new business models, local print media is disappearing, and theconcentration of media ownership was a strong trend in the developed world. He remarked thatthe EU is well aware of this challenge to pluralism, not least the ability of media to holdgovernment to account, and, in a number of EU Member States, local media struggling tosurvive without advertising from public authorities. He also drew attention to worrying trendsof politics intervening in public broadcasting, drawing on the examples of Poland and Hungary,which has an impact on all vulnerable groups in society, independent from economic pressure.

Mr NAVASARDIAN stressed first and foremost that since the launch of the EasternPartnership in 2009, the heterogeneity in the region had not declined, and even appeared to haveincreased. He referred to Freedom House’s rankings on political rights and civil liberties, withthree partner countries – Georgia (49), Ukraine (53) and Moldova (56) – classified as ‘fairlyfree’, and the remaining partner countries – Armenia (64), Azerbaijan (89) and Belarus (91) –as ‘not free’. He expressed his concerns that the partner countries’ rankings were particularlyalarming, as they have been falling since 2015, which Freedom House had deemed the worstyear since the rankings began in 1980.

As one of its representatives, Mr NAVASARDIAN pointed out that media in the region wasvery much the focus of the Civil Society Forum’s attention, with a Working Sub-Group onMedia, comprising around 50 organisations, up and running since 2009. He pointed out that thesub-group had created a Media Freedom Index for partner countries, which enabled experiencesto be exchanged and the trends on freedom of media in the region to be followed. He alsoreiterated the common issues regarding the state of media in the Eastern European regionreferred to by the Co-Rapporteurs: the economic situation and media ownership, political biasin public broadcasting, the harassment and incarceration of journalists, and external propagandaand its influence on weak local media. He noted, moreover, the efforts made by the Civil SocietyForum to seek a consistent solution to concerns about the future of the independent channelBelsat TV, broadcasted in Belarus from Poland, and many other media outlets in the region. Hethen reiterated the point made by the Co-Rapporteurs that greater efforts were required todevelop quality media in the region.

Picking up on the point made by Mr BERMAN, Mr HASRET started by expressing hissurprise at the imprisonment of Afgan Sadigov, and claimed that neither he, nor the MPs fromAzerbaijan, were aware of this issue, but offered assurances that he would deal with it upon hisreturn to the country. On the same note, he spoke of his efforts in appealing to the Governmentof Azerbaijan to release the blogger Mehman Huseynov on the grounds of his lack ofunderstanding of the issues of freedom of expression. He then pointed out that Azerbaijan wasfree to outlaw international media broadcasting within its borders, referring to Radio Liberty inparticular. He also touched on the subject of gender balance, expressing the view that the mostinfluential media outlet in Azerbaijan – Azeri Press Agency (APA) – is headed up by a woman.He also noted the case of three Armenian journalists who found refuge in Azerbaijan owing, inhis view, to the lack of freedom of expression in Armenia. In response to the point made by MrNAVASARDIAN, he went on to illustrate the difference between public and state broadcasting

PV\1137160EN.docx 9/12 AP102.472v01-00

EN

in Azerbaijan – public broadcasting features extensive coverage of ethnic minority issues. Heconcluded by reiterating the importance of media ethics and responsibility.

During the ensuing discussions, several members of the Georgian Delegation elaborated on andraised the importance of the case of the Georgian TV channel Rustavi 2, and hoped forcontinuing EU support in order to resolve it. On the question of tackling external – especiallyRussian – propaganda, they proposed, as a best practice, the creation of nation-wide mediachannels pushing a very clear pro-EU agenda. In response to a point made by Mr BERMAN,Mr KORCHYK (Ukraine) noted that the censorship of Russian propaganda was part of hybridwarfare in Ukraine today, and hoped that participants would show understanding for thecountry’s defence strategy.

Euronest PA Co-President Mr LUPU (Moldova) reiterated what in his view were the threemost important issues: financial independence of the media; coordinating efforts to tackleexternal propaganda, while noting that the situation in partner countries was very different tothe EU landscape; and media freedom in combination with responsibility. Mr ArtakZAKARYAN (Armenia) remarked that Mr HASRET’s comment regarding the Armenianjournalists deciding to reside in Azerbaijan for the purposes of greater freedom of expressionwas incorrect, and elaborated on the issue. In response to Mr HASRET’s lack of awarenessabout the case of Afgan Sadigov, Mr BERMAN, for his part, provided additional informationin the hopes of aiding MR HASRET’s research.

POL Co-Chair Mr TARASYUK announced that the deadline for tabling amendments was 7September 2017, at 18.00 (Brussels time).

6. Presentation by Mr Boris IAROCHEVITCH, Head of Division, EuropeanExternal Action Service (EEAS), Division for ‘Eastern Partnership, Regionalcooperation & OSCE’, on the preparation of and expectations from the 2017Eastern Partnership Summit

POL Vice-Co-Chair Ms PIRI highlighted the Commission’s Working Document on keypriorities and deliverables which, in her view, could serve as a good basis for reviewing theadvancement of the Eastern Partnership. She also asked Mr IAROCHEVITCH to outline whatrole, in his view, the Euronest PA could play in the important period of preparation ahead ofthe Summit.

Mr IAROCHEVITCH expressed his conviction that holding the Summit in Brussels wouldsend a strong signal to the outside world about the EU’s commitment to the Eastern Partnership.He recalled that the Working Document on deliverables, highlighted by Ms PIRI, was basedon the four priority areas of cooperation agreed at the Riga Summit in 2015. He expressed theexpectation that the 2017 Summit would mark a return to ‘business as usual’, following certainmore dramatic Summits in the past. He heralded the high degree of cooperation that had alreadybeen achieved, and the need to continue on the same path. He suggested that the Summit wouldbe an opportunity to take stock of progress achieved across the four areas of the RigaDeclaration, and to offer a vision for the future. He also admitted that the context had changedsince 2015, referring to the new European security landscape and the increasing heterogeneitybetween partner countries.

AP102.472v01-00 10/12 PV\1137160EN.docx

EN

Mr IAROCHEVITCH recalled the Association Agreements with Georgia, Moldova andUkraine; the completed negotiations for a comprehensive and enhanced partnership agreementwith Armenia; open negotiations for a new agreement with Azerbaijan; and the continuingdialogue with Belarus, including a new EU-Belarusian Coordination Group, to be establishedin 10 days’ time. He stressed the need to build the narrative together, and to be able todemonstrate to citizens that the Eastern Partnership delivered positive results, which hesuggested was a challenge for both the EU and partner countries. He added that communicationwould therefore be a very important element surrounding the Summit, especially with regard toshowing unity. He noted that the multilateral architecture of the Eastern Partnership was beingrevised, and highlighted the importance of side events to the Summit, as they not only includedHeads of State or Government, but civil society as well. He added that many of the importantpoints raised at today’s meeting would be tackled at these side events.

In response to the request of POL Vice-Co-Chair Ms PIRI, Mr IAROCHEVITCH said thathe had no definite answer on the Euronest PA’s role in preparation for the Summit. Heexpressed the view that it would be very useful to hold a Euronest PA event alongside theSummit, especially as regards Members’ feedback for the Summit Declaration, which heconceded was always an extremely difficult exercise. He then added that he would like to seethe issuance of a short political joint declaration on, for example, the commitments required toachieve the Eastern Partnership’s objectives in the four Riga priority areas.

7. Planning and preparation of the Political Affairs and Social Affairs Committees’activities for 2017

– Proposal to organise a conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, in 2017, on theresponsibilities of national parliaments and governments for implementing UNSustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3 and 5 on health and gender equality

SOC Co-Chair Ms IBRAHIMGIZI highlighted the brief concept note for the proposedconference on the responsibilities of national parliaments and governments for implementingUN Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 5 on health and gender equality. She noted that theAzerbaijani Delegation to the Euronest PA had proposed holding the conference in Baku in2017, and asked for it to be scheduled in September, on account of the pleasant seasonalconditions. She also kindly asked for comments and remarks about the proposal.

POL Co-Chair Mr TARASYUK suggested that the decision on the proposal should be takenat a later date. Finally, before bringing the meeting to a close, he conveyed the news of themurder of the former member of the Russian State Duma Denis Voronenkov, in Kyiv.

The meeting was closed at 12.30.

Encl. list of attendance

PV\1137160EN.docx 11/12 AP102.472v01-00

EN

Euronest Parliamentary Assembly

Assemblée parlementaire Euronest

Parlamentarische Versammlung Euronest

Парламентская Aссамблея Евронест

Committee on Political Affairs, Human Rights and Democracy

and

Committee on Social Affairs, Education, Culture and Civil Society

Brussels, 23 March 2017

List of participants

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTMembers (11)

Mr Georgi PIRINSKI, Co-Chair, SOC Committee (Bulgaria, S&D)Ms Kati PIRI, Vice-Co-Chair, POL Committee (Netherlands, S&D)Ms Tanja FAJON, Co-Rapporteur, POL Committee (Slovenia, S&D)Ms Maria GRAPINI, Co-Rapporteur, SOC Committee (Romania, S&D)Mr Petras AUSTREVICIUS (Lithuania, ALDE)Ms Iveta GRIGULE-PĒTERSE (Latvia, ALDE)Ms Rebecca HARMS, Euronest PA Co-President (Germany, Greens/EFA)Ms Heidi HAUTALA (Finland, Greens/EFA)Mr Marc TARABELLA (Belgium, S&D)Mr Traian UNGUREANU (Romania, EPP)Mr Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI (Poland, EPP)

ARMENIAMembers (1)

Mr Artak ZAKARYAN, Head of the Delegation

AP102.472v01-00 12/12 PV\1137160EN.docx

EN

AZERBAIJANMembers (4)

Ms Malahat IBRAHIMGIZI, Co-Chair, SOC CommitteeMr Fuad MURADOV, Head of the DelegationMr Rasim MUSABEYOV, Co-Rapporteur, POL CommitteeMr Rovshan RZAYEV

GEORGIAMembers (6)

Ms Tamar KHULORDAVA, Head of the DelegationMr Sergi KAPANADZEMs Guguli MAGRADZEMr Beka NATSVLISHVILIMs Salome SAMADASHVILIMr Dimitri TSKITISHVILI

MOLDOVAMembers (2)

Mr Marian LUPU, Co-President of the Euronest PA, Head of the DelegationMr Ion APOSTOL

UKRAINEMembers (6)

Mr Borys TARASYUK, Co-Chair, POL CommitteeMr Hennadi CHEKITAMr Oleksander KODOLAMr Vitalii KORCHYKMr Oleksandr KSENZHUKMs Natalia VESELOVA, Co-Rapporteur, SOC Committee