Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-08-Speech-2-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080708.4.2-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Petitions, Mr Libicki, for his report, which allows us to discuss the environmental impact of this large project, a natural gas pipeline of 1 200 km in length, which will be crossing a shallow sea such as the Baltic. This is not just because this is an important project, raising many questions on environmental protection in the Baltic area, but also because this appears to be the first of many similar projects planned for the future.
The environmental impact procedure based on the Espoo Convention started with the project’s disclosure in late 2006. According to the information held by the Commission, numerous studies, reports and matters have been discussed at various forums and meetings, both with the public and with the competent authorities in various Member States.
As is stipulated in the Espoo Convention, the contractor or project owner must provide the appropriate documentation regarding the environmental impact. At the same time, the country with the authority to issue the implementation permit, the country of origin, the party of origin as it is referred to in the Espoo Convention, has the following two duties.
Firstly, it must hold talks with the environmental authorities and with the public affected and, secondly, it must initiate talks with the affected party or parties, meaning the neighbouring countries, which may be subject to the project’s cross-border impact. In this case, the affected parties are the three Baltic States and Poland.
Therefore, due compliance with the environmental impact procedure means that all the concerns, questions and important issues, such as those mentioned in the report we are discussing today, must be evaluated and discussed both by the competent authorities and by the public.
At the present phase, any emphasis placed on a potential negative environmental impact which cannot be mitigated or avoided, as laid down in the environmental impact legislation, is premature. In fact, the final environmental impact assessment report has not yet been drafted. Therefore, the environmental authorities have not yet had the chance to analyse and evaluate all the technical data necessary for providing answers to all the legitimate questions.
The countries of origin have a legal right to demand all the supplementary information which they deem to be necessary in order for them to be able to grant, if they so decide, an implementation permit; for instance, Sweden has already done so, when the project owner submitted a formal request in order to comply with the national legal requirements.
On the other hand, the affected parties also have a legal right to ensure that they hold all the information necessary to meet their needs. I have been informed that all the parties involved, meaning both the parties of origin and the affected parties, are regularly holding meetings and discussions on the developments in the environmental impact procedure based on the Espoo Convention.
The final environmental impact report is expected by the end of the year. After it has been submitted, the formal talks will take place, and these will determine the final decision on whether or not an implementation permit is granted.
I expect that the competent authorities in all the Member States, which are parties to the Espoo Convention, will perform their duties and assume their responsibilities as they ought to.
Russia, which has signed the Espoo Convention but is not a party to it, has nonetheless agreed to abide to its rules.
The project has already attracted considerable attention from the media and from politicians throughout the Baltic region over the last few months. It has been discussed at many forums and in many of the countries involved.
In conclusion, I wish to stress that we are monitoring developments and that we are in contact with the responsible parties of the Espoo Convention, with the parties involved and with the contractor. With regard to the contractor, the Commission authorities have made it clear that all the obligations pertaining to the necessary information and to the transparency required must be honoured.
As Mr Libicki mentioned, it was also discussed in the European Parliament in January at a public hearing organised by the Committee on Petitions, in which I participated together with Mr Piebalgs, my fellow Commissioner, who is responsible for energy matters, . Commissioner Piebalgs gave an overview of the prospects of the European Union with regard to natural gas and stressed that the needs of the European Union in gas are rapidly increasing, while the production of gas in the European Union is falling dramatically and stocks are being used up.
Our energy policy for Europe highlights the urgent need to promote an improvement in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, and we are working towards that goal.
Significant increases in natural gas imports will, however, still be needed to cover Europe’s energy requirements in coming decades. Additional infrastructure, such as natural gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas terminals, will play a significant role in meeting the needs of European consumers and in ensuring a constant supply. The Nord Stream pipeline will make it possible to increase the supply of natural gas from Russia.
As you know, the need to construct new infrastructure for the transportation of Russian gas to the European Union has been acknowledged by the European Parliament and by the Council through the guidelines for trans-European energy networks, adopted in September 2006. I am specifically referring to Decision No 1364/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The guidelines specified certain priority projects and this project is classified as a project of European interest and, therefore, as a top priority. Provided that the environmental impact study reaches positive conclusions, the Nord Stream pipeline will be a project of European interest.
My main point during the European Parliament hearing in January was that the project, just like any other project, must follow all the relevant environmental rules of international and Community law during its construction, operation and monitoring stages. This is also the point I wish to make today.
According to international and Community law, then, the project owner, namely Nord Stream AG, must apply for an implementation permit or for a construction permit from the countries which have jurisdiction over the works to be carried out, these countries being Germany, Denmark, Finland and Sweden. The grant of an implementation permit for such projects is, however, subject to the environmental impact assessment procedure. This is also stipulated in the guidelines for trans-European energy networks I mentioned earlier. The environmental impact assessment procedures are laid down both in Community and in international law. There is a relevant EU directive, as well as the Espoo Convention at cross-border level.
The Espoo Convention is part of Community
given that both the Community and the Member States are parties to the Convention. In this case, the procedures of both Community and national law apply. The project’s cross-border nature means that the Espoo Convention must be adhered to, while the Member States involved must properly enforce the provisions of the directive on environmental impact assessments before granting an implementation permit."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples