Georgi Parvanov:

Good afternoon, Ladies and Gentlemen.

First, a few introductory words from me, in seeking to formulate the main conclusions about the outcomes of this forum. I hope that you all have a copy of the Declaration of the Sofia Energy Summit. But I must tell you straight away that there are no changes with reference to the text from yesterday, which from the very outset received the endorsement not just of ourselves as hosts but of most of the delegations, including the President of the European Commission Mr. Barroso. The text will be circulated for your disposal.

I consider the Declaration itself to be a major achievement of the Sofia Summit, because, mind you, this is a matter of common principles, of common rules that have been agreed between countries representing different regions, the gas producing, the transit countries and those that provide natural gas.

This meeting is taking place at a moment when each country has defined its new principles and ideas. President Barroso has outlined and supported the new views of the European institutions. Minister Shmatko has built upon, enriched and upheld the Russian vision of energy cooperation. I believe that the US position has been presented in a convincing manner by Special Envoy Morningstar, which is of particular significance, and this was one of the original ideas of this Conference, which also voiced the position of the small countries, of all countries down the supply chain. And the fact that we have a consensual wording, I underscore, a text adopted by consensus, is indeed a very important, or shall I say, exceptional achievement of the Sofia Summit Meeting.

Of course, if I need to run back the tape, I believe that the Sofia Summit is indeed a unique forum, in both its concept and its composition: almost 30 countries, one-third of which represented at the level of head of state or government, countries covering a very broad geographic spectrum and, respectively, strong representation. All of this goes to demonstrate that indeed, the goals and objectives that we set ourselves by this meeting, initiated by Bulgaria, had been well justified.

Next, in its atmosphere. I believe you will agree with me that this was a living forum. There was nothing stage-managed about it, although there had been a series of expert meetings, but they were regarding the dry texts of the declaration. You could see and feel, I hope, that the clash of views did happen. But what also happened was that our positions did come closer together, which for me personally provides grounds for optimism, with respect to the following fora, of the upcoming contacts and meetings on both a bilateral and multilateral level. In general, the direction of movement was, no doubt, constructive, convergent and productive.

The agenda, as a concept, did not focus on one project or another, even less aimed at comparing or ranking projects in magnitude or importance. The agenda was all about the principles, the rules and the mechanisms. And I believe that on that matter, the positions of each of the participating countries resounded very distinctly. Also quite naturally, each or most of the debating parties made pronouncements on specific projects, thus filling these principles and rules with concrete content. And I believe that here, in this context, there will surely will be concrete questions on your part, as it became very clear what is the place of each project: Nabucco, South Stream, TGI, the intersystemic links, the liquefied gas terminals.

Speaking about the principles and rules, however, the participants upheld, in no uncertain terms and in almost every statement they made, the principle of transparency. Another principle that was very seriously justified was that of non-discrimination, of equal treatment in the supply process, in natural gas transit.

Coming back to the declaration, Ladies and Gentlemen, I wish to highlight the texts that very distinctly emphasize the importance of energy security and trans-regional cooperation in the energy field. I reiterate that the spirit of dialog and understanding has dominated our discussions. I am not saying this as the chair and host of the forum, it is written in the text and it is also reflected the opinions, positions, assessments of all participants in this forum.

I am glad that from the very outset to the end, the European stand on these matters was categorically upheld, and not just by EC President Barroso but by all other participants on behalf of the European Union. At the same time, the place and role of each participant along the entire chain of extraction, transit and consumption of natural has was highlighted and honoured, irrespective of the size and scale of the country that they represented.

A number of concrete ideas were heard and justified. I do not wish to repeat them here, but ever since yesterday’s discussions many media have spotted and covered them in their reporting. If there are, of course, specific questions, we would be ready to reply.

I am also glad that this forum has provided a venue for bilateral meetings. It has contributed towards strengthening mutual trust between countries upholding different views. It is my pleasure to inform you, for which I am authorized by both parties, by Russia and the US, that they both highly appreciate the outcome of the Sofia Energy Forum, in that it has provided an impetus for bilateral Russo-American dialog here, at the Summit Meeting in Sofia. And mind you, I am not inventing this, for it is the exact wording that has been provided to me by both delegations acting in concert. Even more importantly, both parties are glad that, for the first time in many years, here, in Sofia, they engaged in dialog on energy issues. And I think that this beneficial outcome of the Sofia Energy Forum should likewise be appreciated for what it is worth.

Since trust exists not just in such public, official statements but also in the concrete dialog between individual countries, between the participants in the process, I believe that this proves yet again that the Sofia Summit Meeting has served its purpose and reached its goals.

Thank you for your attention. The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Kalfin, and I are ready for your questions.

Daniel Chipev, Bulgarian National Television: Mr. President, are you informed whether Russia and Gazprom are making the signature of the South Stream Agreement contingent upon amending the contract with Gazprom on natural gas supplies, and in this context, what are the prospects for the South Stream Agreement being signed, can we expect that to happen in the near future? Thank you.

Georgi Parvanov:

Look, this is, rather, the Bulgarian position. Let me remind you that during my visit to Moscow in the beginning of this year, I raised the issue of moving ahead the energy agreements as a package. That is to say, we are working on the new south Stream Agreement that would speed up the implementation of this major European project, and I emphasize European, and if you ask me why, I will explain it to you later, while at the same time we insist on our agreement with Gazprom being revised, especially in its part about cutting out the intermediary companies. There had been no objections at the political level on this issue. And this is exactly why I react to some ideas that are being floated about, in the wings at an expert level, to the effect that this issue can wait. I do not want, I repeat again, the gas people, the energy specialists, with all due respect for them as experts, to dictate the political agenda. Whatever has been agreed at the political level, it is the job of experts to implement it.

Of course, as far as the signing of South Stream is concerned, I am in favor of moving quickly, yet not hastily, forward. We will sign when we have sorted out all differences between us. This may happen in a matter of days, during the Prime Minister’s visit to Moscow, which is for a different occasion, or may happen at the meeting proposed by Minister Shmatko, a broad-format meeting of all participants in the South Stream project. There is northing to stand in the way of signing it then, provided that we have prepared things well. This will not be very far, that’s for sure. I see this meeting happening within the next month on the outside, for example, in the middle of May, or the second half at the latest.

Juliana Stoyanova, Bulgarian National Radio: Mr. President, you mentioned the long-term agreement that our country is expected to conclude with Gazprom by the end of the year, and therefore I would ask you to comment on yesterday’s pronouncements of Gazprom that after the end of the year they would communicate directly not with our representatives, whom they see and regard as intermediaries, but with the consumer companies.

Georgi Parvanov:

I think I already answered this question. I kindly request Gazprom not to determine who should be the contact entity in Bulgaria. I request respect for our sovereignty. If they have any specific motives, they should state them in public. I, however, communicate, and therefore I would not like to comment on the details, with the government of the Russian Federation. If they have any claims, please, let’s discuss them, but I am not going to comment on the claims of one company or another.

Mihailina Dimitrova, Trud Daily: Mr. President, I have two questions for you. One relates to the southern gas corridor. Have the prospects for this corridor been discussed during the forum, because some expert opinions have been circulating around Europe recently that the southern corridor and South Stream could, at one point, be merged into a single project. What is your comment on that?

And my second question concerns the Declaration adopted at the Forum. What are your expectations: will these new principles and rules of the gas game become genuinely operational, and will they be abided by all countries which have placed their signatures under this document?

Thank you.

Georgi Parvanov:

I suggest Deputy Prime minister Ivaylo Kalfin should start, and I shall complement his answer.

Ivaylo Kalfin:

There is no way for the southern gas corridor and South Stream to be merged into one. The southern gas corridor is a clearly defined project comprising several gas pipelines. One of them is Nabucco, the other is the Iran-Turkey-Greece-Italy pipeline. It also comprises intersystemic links and liquefied gas terminals. Therefore, if anything is to be changed, and by the way, this is what Gazprom requested yesterday, and I believe that this issue should at least merit a discussion, is to what extent South Stream is one of the projects that can be included in it, not to replace or displace the significance of the southern gas corridor. So this is how things stand.

Here, as the President also said, there have been quite a few opinions. The southern gas corridor is an important European project. There is a major European conference on the southern gas corridor, scheduled to be held on 8 May in Prague, therefore the European Union has a very clear cut policy on this issue. South Stream is a project that is being developed between Russia, several EU member states and several European countries that are non-members of the EU. I say that again: there at least some ground to discuss to what extent it could fit within those principles, but this issue is irrelevant at this point in time.

Georgi Parvanov:

Look, Ladies and Gentlemen, at a moment when we are arguing with the Russian Federation, and on matters of principle to boot, this comes to demonstrate that from the very outset we have been upholding our national interests and the interests of Europe, and we insist that the principles agreed upon a little over a year ago be honored, nothing more. We see no reason for them to be revised. And I immediately wish to say something that has its supporting evidence in the discussion that has just ended. It is high time for Brussels and the European Union to realize that South Stream should take its worthy place on the Union’s agenda. We can no longer turn a blind eye on the fact that more and more EU member states are joining this project. Neither can we turn a blind eye on the fact that this project is to be implemented with the participation of European companies. And, most importantly, we cannot ignore the fact that the users of that gas, 30 billion cubic meters or more, the more the better, because Europe will need that, will be the citizens of Europe. Therefore any attempts at sophistry, at ideologization of the issue are futile, regardless of whether they come from the east or the west.

As for a forecast whether these new rules will work or not, I expect them to work. I do not believe that anyone, starting from Moscow, going through Brussels and all the way to Washington, could sign their name, could give their consent to something that afterwards they will not take on board or use in their political practice. This declaration was not drafted on the spur of the moment, this declaration is the product of the very hard work of experts, the debates upon it continued literally until the very last minutes of today’s forum. But it was adopted by consensus. Therefore, from this moment onwards we have every reason to believe that there is no going back.

Of course, each of the participants will perhaps place different emphases on one principle or another, but this is inevitable. However, the very fact that such a document was produced at such a moment in time, a moment fraught with clashes of positions, this, I underscore once again, is indeed a very important achievement of this Forum.

Gergana Todorova, Darik Radio: Mr. President, given that the issue of the Belene Nuclear Power Plant has been the subject of some useful discussion at this Forum and on account of the fact that Commission President Jose Barroso announced the support of the European commission for compensations for the decommissioned units three and four, will you tell us whether Bulgaria’s ambitions to re-commission these units have ended once and for all?

Georgi Parvanov:

I did not participate in that meeting and cannot comment on the talks between President Barroso and Prime Minister Stanishev, even less so that the Forum was about natural gas. So let us focus of that subject. I would agree, if someone were to initiate a debate on the future of nuclear energy in Europe, to participate very actively. Perhaps it would not be very appropriate for Bulgaria to initiate and host such a forum, in view of the situation about our claims, but these claims, the claims of Bulgaria, are well-founded. I stand by this position of mine. The rest I have said already. Thank you.

MIR TV: Mr. President, the past year for Bulgaria has been characterized by high diplomatic activity in seeking contacts with countries in the regions of Central Asia and the Caucasus. You personally met with your colleagues in these countries and, as far as I understand, your talks have been aimed at seeking gas supplies for the Nabucco Project. How successful have your contacts been?

Georgi Parvanov:

The results of these meetings have been publicly announced. When we had our talks in Azerbaijan, we had the agreement in principle for the provision of quantities to the tune of 1 billion cubic meters that Bulgaria could use even before the launch of Nabucco, provided that we found a reliable, operational route to that end. In Turkmenistan, in much the same way our request for about 2 billion cubic meters was met with understanding. We have a similar approach to, and we have the agreement of, Egypt for availing ourselves of some quantities from the Trans-Arab Gas Pipeline, specifically its connection via Turkey. I hope this, too, will happen before the launch of Nabucco. For Bulgaria there is a clear tendency towards deficit in its natural gas supplies in the years to come. For the moment, there is no such threat, but we must act preemptively and this is why we have negotiated these quantities. Whether they will become reality would depend on many things. It would depend on our own proactive stand, that of the current and the next government. It would also depend on the countries via which the pipes will go: Turkey, Greece, I need not go any further. It would depend on the goodwill, on the consent of some major international factors. I hope there is no resistance against these ambitions of little Bulgaria. I hope this gets realized, something that can happen, quite literally, as early as 2010. The first quantities may start coming in the moment we manage to build the intersystemic link from Greece, between Komotini and Dimitrovgrad, that would ensure the transit of part of these quantities.

Georgian National TV: Mr. President, my question also concerns Nabucco and South Stream. Do you believe that the two projects are mutually alternative and what is their significance to Bulgaria?

Georgi Parvanov:

In any event, the two projects are not alternative to one another. Perhaps they are mutually competitive and this can be asserted with a high degree of probability, inasmuch as both the countries that will implement them and the countries where the gas will be extracted are different. What could be better than having two major pipelines like Nabucco and South Stream passing through Bulgaria!

The White Stream pipeline also has its place, provided that the necessary resources are found to realize the intentions as per the original version of the project. We are open towards each of these projects, yet there are several questions that are raised here. The first is about the political will to overcome the differences, for I hate to say the contradictions between the individual countries involved in its implementation. The second is about financing. These are projects that require enormous finding that, at this point, is not yet available. Bulgaria therefore has the political will, readiness and ability to meet the challenges of each of these projects.

Mariana Zheleva, 24 Chasa Daily: You said that Prime Minister Stanishev would have a hard time in Moscow. What do you expect the visit of the Bulgarian delegation there to achieve? And my other question; Yesterday Minister Shmatko said that the South Stream gas would be cheaper than that of Nabucco. Is there any connection between the present differences between Bulgaria and Russia on our network and that statement regarding the cheaper gas from South Stream? Thank you.

Georgi Parvanov:

Look, Stanishev may have it all very easy in Moscow. You know that he is going there with a different schedule that is related to the Year of Bulgaria in Russia. This is a cultural and economic program. But just like I myself was forced, on the opening of the Year of Russia in Bulgaria, to negotiate on gas and energy issues as a whole, the prime Minister will inevitably have to bear his cross.

I personally suggest, without having consulted about this with the Prime Minister or being his spokesman, that we should not place overly high expectations on this visit. What is important is to move forward with the agreements achieved on these issues. If no signatures are put on paper this time around, that would not be fatal. This is what I wish to say once again. We are not in such a stalemate as to have to rush things. Of course, I would not recommend that we wait until after the end of May ether, because at that time Bulgaria will be in the swing of an election campaign and that would not be very appropriate; in any case, these agreements will be shadow of the election struggle. After that there will be a time period for forming the new cabinet and setting the priorities for the new government, a delay that may have a negative impact on the development of the projects as a whole.

There was also a highly expert question; whether the gas from South Stream would be cheaper than that from Nabucco. Here we have representatives of the Bulgarian Energy Holding, this is something that has been discussed for sure, so ask them, it is not my business. Since we have undertaken both projects, we have deemed them both effective and beneficial to Bulgaria. This is my political answer.

Svetlana Nenova, Dnevnik Daily: Does this mean that Bulgaria has changed its position with respect to South Stream and will no longer seek guarantees for the capacity of this gas pipeline and is ready to make its network available to Russia? In other words, is there a change in that direction of the Bulgarian position that has occurred during the Forum?

Georgi Parvanov:

I am tired of talking about this issue in recent days. Please, read the press. Journalists should not only write but read as well. Excuse my remark. Let me remind you: A year and three months ago, here in Sofia, the then President Putin and I signed the three energy agreements. Then we commented on that issue and agreed that there would be a parallel pipeline for South Stream, one that would run parallel to our current network. And since then, too, there were misunderstandings and innuendo, not to use a stronger word, when I was in Moscow a few months ago I reminded the Russians of that agreement, and there were no objections. Of course, if a small stretch of the pipeline somewhere can be used temporarily, subject to commercially viable conditions advantageous to Bulgaria, the experts could consider that issue. But in the main, we have no intention of changing the ownership of our gas transmission network. I am stating this in no uncertain terms as my own position and that of the Bulgarian institutions.

Borislava Peeva, Mediapool: In principle, I would like at this point to bring you back to the text of the declaration. Since on several occasions you emphasized that this text was the subject of heated debate until the very last moment, would you identify the moot points, basically the things that were the focus of the most dispute in the course of the discussion. And also, let me ask you: does the final text identify by name projects that are specifically supported, and if yes, which ones?

Ivaylo Kalfin:

The draft of the declaration has been in the pipeline for two months, mostly worked on at expert level. There had been an enormous lot of proposals pertaining to the text, coming from virtually all participating countries. Ultimately, the text we arrived at immediately before the forum was endorsed by consensus by all participants in the meeting. It is hard for me to get into details, because there had been a great many proposals indeed. In general, the subject matter and nature of this declaration are such that you can imagine, also from the nature of the participants in the meeting, how many different views there had been. Therefore I am glad that we arrived at a text that was adopted by consensus.

I wish to thank specifically the representatives of the European Commission and the Council of the European Commission for their efforts, since we have been working very closely with them and with their help managed to iron out much of the differences. Therefore the text adopted today has been endorsed by consensus by all parties. It is about policies, about the principles of energy policy, and contains expectations for these policies and principles to apply to all gas pipelines, to all projects related to gas supplies. They are not listed by name, but there is a common sentence that also appears in other texts, including ones of the European Union, which refers to all projects in the regions, present or future.

Nikola Miladinov, Bulgarian National Radio: Mr. President, I have one question. A year ago, when Russian Prime Minister, then President, Vladimir Putin arrived in Bulgaria for the signing of intergovernmental agreements, including the one on the South Stream project, it was stated repeatedly that Russia was a reliable partner for natural gas supplies. After the crisis in January, isn’t the Bulgarian government giving higher priority to Nabucco, at least in your statements? How would you respond to that? Or do you still believe that both projects should be considered with equal priority?

Georgi Parvanov:

I continue to hold the view that Bulgaria’s security can only be guaranteed given a wide network that includes Nabucco, South Stream, the link with Greece, liquefied gas terminals. I do not wish to comment here on specific talks that are underway regarding our connection to one terminal or another south of here, which by the way explains the presence here of the Emir of Qatar, or the construction of new gas storage facilities. I can cite to you about ten points or so that create the entire system of safeguards for the energy security of Bulgaria. Not in one project or the other, but in any event, the status quo provides no guarantees whatsoever. Even if there is goodwill on the part of the supplier, the transit country may create problems or the other way around. So the guarantees are in creating the network, and since this network will not be built by the present government, not even solely the next one, this should be the task of several consecutive Bulgarian cabinets, respectively parliamentary majorities and presidents. This is why I appeal so insistently and with such intensity for consensus on the subject of energy for Bulgaria. Because what we will start will be completed by others and used by still others.

Thank you.