REPORT on the environmental impact of the planned gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea to link up Russia and Germany (Petitions 0614/2007 and 0952/2007)
4.6.2008 - (2007/2118(INI))
Committee on Petitions
Rapporteur: Marcin Libicki
PR_INI_art192
MOTION FOR A EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT RESOLUTION
on the environmental impact of the planned gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea to link up Russia and Germany (Petitions 0614/2007 and 0952/2007)
(2007/2118(INI))
The European Parliament,
– having regard to Petition 0614/2007 by Radvile Morkunaite, bearing more than 20 000 signatures, Petition 0952/2006 by Krzysztof Mączkowski and the other petitions submitted to it on the issue covered by this resolution,
– having regard to the Lisbon Treaty signed by all the Member States on 13 December 2007,
– having regard to the communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council concerning the Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment (COM(2005)0504),
– having regard to the Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community,
– having regard to Council Directive 97/11/EC amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment[1], and to Council Directives 92/43/EEC[2] and 79/409/EEC[3], which latter directives form the Natura 2000 legislative package,
– having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2006 on a Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment[4],
– having regard to its resolution of 16 November 2006 on a Baltic Sea Region Strategy for the Northern Dimension[5],
– having regard to the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (Helsinki Convention),
– having regard to the recommendations of the Helsinki Commission (HELCOM), and in particular Recommendation 17/3 of 12 March 1996 describing the requirement to conduct an environmental impact assessment and to consult with states that may suffer the adverse impact of a proposed project,
– having regard to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context of 25 February 1991(Espoo Convention),
– having regard to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (Aarhus Convention),
– having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS),
– having regard to the precautionary principle, which is included by the case-law of the Court of Justice amongst the general principles of the acquis communautaire and which forms one of the aspects of sustainable development under European and international law,
– having regard to the principle of good governance, which constitutes one of the general principles of European law,
– having regard to the activities of the European Parliament’s Baltic Europe Intergroup,
– having regard to the proposals resulting from the public hearing of 29 January 2008,
– having regard to Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks[6],
– having regard to the Baltic Sea Action Plan adopted at a meeting of Baltic States Environment Ministers held in Krakow on 15 November 2007,
– having regard to Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which imposes on Member States a duty of loyalty towards the Community,
– having regard to Rule 192(1) of the Rules of Procedure,
– having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0225/2008),
A. whereas the Baltic Sea is a basin bordered by as many as eight European Union Member States and 80% of its shore is European Union territory; whereas OAO Gazprom is the majority shareholder of Nord Stream,
B. whereas concern for the Baltic marine environment is one of the principal objectives of the Union’s Northern Dimension, as repeatedly confirmed by Commission communications and Parliament resolutions,
C. whereas the agricultural and industrial sectors of all the bordering Member States and of Russia are the biggest polluters of the Baltic Sea and pose the greatest problems to its ecological balance,
D. whereas the Union is especially committed to environmental protection, including protection of the marine environment,
E. whereas in proceedings before the Court of Justice the Commission has repeatedly confirmed that environmental protection is one the Community’s key objectives and the Court has recognised the Community’s competence in the area of protection and conservation of the marine environment,
F. whereas plans currently exist for the construction of numerous infrastructure projects in the Baltic Sea (Nord Stream, wind farms, the Scanled Baltic Pipe, a gas pipeline between Finland and Estonia, power cables between Sweden and Lithuania, LNG terminals in Świnoujścje, etc.),
G. whereas the growing contribution of natural gas to the energy balance in Europe has been – especially since 1990 – the major single source of reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,
H. whereas the precautionary principle laid down in Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty requires all stakeholders to make the necessary efforts to assess the environmental impact that new decisions or the commencement of works may have and to take appropriate preventive action where there is a reasonable likelihood of a threat to the environment,
I. whereas, in accordance with the principle that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into sector-specific policies, due account should be taken of such requirements in the conduct of all Community activities and the pursuit of all Community goals,
J. whereas Article 194 of the future Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as inserted by the Lisbon Treaty, explicitly states that EU energy policy should be conducted in a spirit of solidarity between Member States and with regard to the need to preserve and improve the environment,
K. whereas the particular vulnerability of the Baltic Sea to environmental threats has been confirmed by the International Maritime Organization, which has recognised it as an ‘extremely vulnerable area’,
L. whereas the Baltic Sea is today one of the world’s most polluted maritime areas and whereas, in particular, the concentration of hazardous substances both in its waters and in its living organisms remains unnaturally high,
M. whereas the Baltic Sea is a typical inland sea as well as a shallow sea area and, together with the Black Sea, has the longest cycle of water exchange with the global ocean, at approximately 30 years,
N. whereas the lifetime of the gas transmission pipeline is estimated at 50 years and the magnitude of the work involved in decommissioning the pipeline system will be similar in scale to that of the planned installation; whereas this aspect should be weighed against the time needed for the complete restoration of flora and fauna to their original state when considering the environmental and economic impact of the project,
O. whereas exposure to heavy metals, contaminants and other harmful substances entails health risks and food-chain implications that need to be examined,
P. whereas a number of factors, including long water retention times, the stratified water column, the extensive, industrialised catchment area and the particular intensification of farming in the Baltic Sea area, make the Baltic Sea especially environmentally vulnerable,
Q. whereas the performance of works under the special conditions obtaining in the Baltic Sea will result in a sudden increase in the algae population, posing a particular risk to Finland, Sweden and Germany,
R. whereas a further significant environmental risk factor is the existence of approximately 80 000 tonnes of munitions dumped on the Baltic seabed after World War II, containing toxic substances such as mustard gas, sulphur yperite, nitrogen yperite, lewisite, Clark I, Clark II and adamsite, which represent a hazard both to the Baltic marine environment and to human life and health,
S. whereas munitions containers continued to be dumped by a number of states from 1945 until the late sixties,
T. whereas, moreover, the munitions containers are in a critical condition, their corrosion having been estimated at 80%, and whereas their exact location cannot always be determined,
U. whereas, at the same time, the Baltic Sea Action Plan adopted on 15 November 2007 in Krakow requires states bordering on the Baltic to ensure safe storage of old stocks of chemicals and devices containing hazardous substances,
V. taking account of the potential impact of the gas pipeline on the Baltic marine environment and on states bordering on the Baltic,
W. having regard to the increased traffic in terms of seafarers and oil tankers in the Baltic Sea and the potential fire hazard, the risk of loss of buoyancy and sinking of vessels resulting from a breakdown of the gas pipeline during its construction, installation and operation, and the potential human, economic and environmental impact thereof,
X. whereas the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline will result in a technogenic impact on an undersea lane 1 200 km long and approximately 2 km wide, with an area of 2 400 km², which will thus become the largest undersea construction site in the world,
Y. whereas fishing, tourism and shipping will be adversely affected by the construction, installation and operation of the project, resulting in a substantial threat to the economy of coastal regions,
Z. whereas Article 123 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which forms an integral part of the acquis communautaire, requires states bordering semi-enclosed seas to cooperate with each other in the exercise of their rights and in the performance of their duties and to coordinate the implementation of their rights and duties with respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment,
AA. whereas Article 2(1) of the Espoo Convention requires the parties thereto, either individually or jointly, to take all appropriate and effective measures to prevent, reduce and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impact from proposed activities,
AB. whereas under Article 5(a) of the Espoo Convention consultations with parties exposed to the harmful effects of transboundary projects may cover possible alternatives to a proposed project, including its abandonment,
AC. whereas Article 12 of the Helsinki Convention requires the parties thereto to take all measures in order to prevent pollution of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area resulting from exploration or exploitation of the seabed or from any associated activities,
AD. whereas the proposed route of the North European gas pipeline will traverse areas which are included in the Natura 2000 programme and which Directive 92/43/EEC classifies as special areas of conservation,
AE. whereas Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC requires Member States to take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species in special areas of conservation,
AF. whereas Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC requires Member States to undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary for the management of a conservation site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, in view of the site’s conservation objectives,
AG. whereas under Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC, in the light of the conclusions of the above assessment the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public,
AH. whereas the proposed gas pipeline would be the longest dual subsea gas pipeline in the world, as well as the shallowest one, which makes it especially vulnerable to potential damage,
AI. whereas Decision 1364/2006/EC includes the North European gas pipeline among priority projects of European interest,
AJ. whereas every large-scale engineering structure erected in sea waters must, due to the associated risks, be subject to a particularly thorough and comprehensive analysis and environmental impact assessment which, if it is to produce reliable results, must cover at least one full growing season which in the case of some species could be as long as two years – a much longer period than the six-month study period proposed by the investor,
AK. whereas, pursuant to the Espoo Convention, every project of this kind should be preceded by an analysis of its alternatives, covering in particular implementation costs and environmental safety, in this case an analysis of overland routes for the gas pipeline,
AL. whereas Article 1 of the Aarhus Convention requires each party thereto to guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters,
AM. whereas the legal requirements relating to the preparation of an accurate environmental impact assessment must be borne in mind and must take into account all the above hazards,
AN. whereas, furthermore, it is necessary to analyse the terrorist threat and the capability for effective counteraction,
1. Is of the opinion that Nord Stream is an infrastructure project with a wide political and strategic dimension for both the EU and Russia; understands the concerns expressed by EU Member States regarding the construction and maintenance of the pipeline; underlines that the ability of small littoral states to act as security providers in the Baltic Sea region cannot be seen in isolation from the EU's ability to act as a unified entity and to speak with one voice on energy issues, and recalls its resolution of 26 September 2007 on a common European foreign policy on energy[7]; underlines that Decision 1364/2006/EC (incorporating the TEN-E guidelines) recognises Nord Stream to be a project of European interest that would help to meet the EU’s future energy needs; stresses that this project, together with other complementary pipelines, such as the Yamal II and Amber, should be planned in the spirit of a common European foreign policy on energy and should take fully into account their impact on the environment and on the security of the EU Member States;
2. Reiterates its opinion that, taking into consideration the increasing dependence of the EU on a limited number of energy sources, suppliers and transport routes, it is essential to support initiatives aimed at their diversification, both geographically and by developing sustainable alternatives; draws attention in particular to the need to support the development of port infrastructure used for the handling of fuels; recalls that Nord Stream is only one of a larger number of gas infrastructure projects, such as pipelines and LNG facilities, which will be essential to meet the Community’s natural gas consumption needs that – according to numerous studies – will rise significantly over the coming years and at the same time will make it possible to replace less environmentally friendly fossil fuels; considers it necessary to assess the long-term impact on the environment of the new gas infrastructure, with regard to the importance of guaranteeing a stable gas supply;
3. Supports the proposal, contained in Parliament’s above-mentioned resolution of 14 November 2006, that the EU’s future marine strategy must result in binding supranational obligations which may involve common commitments in third countries;
4. Underlines that energy security must be regarded as an essential component of the overall security of the European Union, whereby the definition of energy security should not merely be limited to the lack of internal EU production but should also take into account the geopolitical aspects of dependency on imports and the potential therein for politically motivated interruptions; believes that the Third Energy Package will reduce each Member State's energy dependence as no state can be disconnected from a third-country supplier in a fully liberalised and integrated energy market;
5. Regrets the marginal role played by the EU in this project, in particular that of the Commission; points out that greater EU involvement would reduce the uncertainty felt by many Member States about the Nord Stream project;
6. Takes note of the opposition expressed by certain Member States to the pipeline project planned for the Baltic Sea area, which is a common asset of the states bordering the Baltic Sea, not a matter of bilateral relations between states; considers, therefore, that the project should be realised in cooperation with each of the states around the Baltic Sea in accordance with the Espoo Convention, the Helsinki Convention and other pertinent legal instruments;
7. Voices its opposition, in this connection, to the carrying-out of an investment on the proposed scale without the consent of all the littoral states first being obtained;
8. Expresses its conviction that energy projects involving EU Member States and third countries should be subjects of common European interest and concern for the whole European Union and for its citizens;
9. Acknowledges that Nord Stream has been carrying out the ongoing environmental impact assessment to be submitted to the “Parties of origin” as defined in the Espoo Convention (Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany) for their approval; urges the company to make the results of studies and the full set of research data concerning the ecological situation of the project site, collected during environmental investigations, available not only to those States, but also to HELCOM and to all interested parties;
10. Emphasises that a long-term sustainable solution requires full transparency for all parties during both the construction and operating phases, and that confidence in this major project will be increased if the states bordering the Baltic Sea can monitor the work;
11. Considers that the challenge of securing energy supply while respecting the EU's commitment to environmental protection and sustainable development makes it imperative to implement a coherent and coordinated European policy on supply of natural gas based on careful evaluation at the European level of the environmental aspects of alternative solutions and on mutual solidarity between Member States;
12. Calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Council to make a full commitment to analysing the environmental impact of the construction of the North European gas pipeline, particularly in situations involving considerations which require a Commission opinion, as specified in Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC;
13. Emphasises that the reciprocity principle must be fully respected as regards investment if the interdependence between the EU and Russia is to develop into a partnership; notes that third countries benefit to a great extent from Europe's open market, but also that European investors in Russia are not accorded similar advantages;
14. Regrets the Commission’s failure to accept the proposal contained in Parliament’s resolution of 16 November 2006 concerning the preparation of objective environmental impact assessments of proposed projects by the Commission, while reiterating its call for the preparation of such an assessment by an independent body to be appointed with the approval of all the littoral states,
15. Calls on the Council and the Commission to conduct a thorough assessment of the question whether the implementation of the project is in keeping with Community and international law;
16. Expresses its concern at the project timetable adopted by Nord Stream, the implementation of which will prevent a thorough analysis of the results of the environmental impact assessment by interested states, non-governmental organisations and HELCOM experts;
17. Points out that dozens of months' work in an area of up to 2 400 km², requiring the use of a large number of vessels and other equipment, represents a serious threat to biodiversity and to the number of habitats, as well as to the safety and smooth operation of shipping, in the region;
18. Regrets the absence of a precise definition of the extent of interference with the seabed required to bury the pipeline, which could have a critical impact on the benthic environment;
19. Expresses profound concern at the reports that, before commissioning the gas pipeline, the investor intends to use a highly toxic compound known as glutaric aldehyde; underlines that any action that would result in a major environmental disaster with irreversible consequences should be avoided;
20. Calls on the Commission to conduct a reliable and independent environmental study examining the agricultural and industrial emissions polluting the Baltic Sea and to evaluate the situation in proportion to possible environmental threats caused by the pipelines currently crossing the Baltic Sea; in addition, calls on the Commission to evaluate the additional impact on the Baltic Sea caused by the Nord Stream project;
21. Calls on the developer to ensure that the construction and operation of the pipeline does not endanger the many species of fish and birds as well as the existence of a population of porpoises numbering only 600, which are a species unique to this geographical region;
22. Considers that the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea is a component of the Northern Dimension of the EU;
23. Notes that the prosperity of coastal regions and the competitiveness of their economies are highly susceptible to, and endangered by, spoilt coastal areas and the deterioration of the marine environment; points out that, given the extent to which coastal regions are affected by maritime activities and policies, long-term environmental sustainability is a precondition for the protection of their economic, social and environmental prosperity;
24. Points out the absence of any strategy to address structural failure and external threats to the security of the pipeline; emphasises the need to clearly define all aspects related to security and emergency response, including financial resources, actors, roles and procedures;
25. Emphasises that, given the serious environmental risks and the high cost of the proposed project, alternative gas pipeline routes should be analysed first, taking into account both environmental and economic aspects, including the timetable for such routes; notes that it is possible to run such routes to the Russian border overland, solely through European Union Member States;26. Stresses that the issue of economic compensation for any failures or damage must be perfectly clear before work can even begin; points out that a major failure in the pipeline can lead to complications for the states bordering the Baltic Sea and would be devastating for the marine environment; considers that Nord Stream should assume full liability for compensation;
27. Calls on the Commission to undertake such an analysis in a dialogue with interested states, the investor and the Helsinki Commission, and with the participation of interested NGOs;
28. Calls on the Commission and Member States to carry out a thorough assessment of the economic, budgetary and transparency-related aspects of the Nord Stream project and the firms involved in it;
.
29. Welcomes the following decisions made by authorities of the Member States:
– the Swedish Government’s decision of 12 February 2008 refusing to grant Nord Stream permission to build the gas pipeline due to significant procedural and substantive shortcomings and in particular the lack of an analysis of an alternative route and of the option of abandoning the construction of the pipeline;
– the position of the Lithuanian Parliament of 27 March 2007 pointing to the need to suspend the implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects in the Baltic Sea pending an in-depth analysis of alternative solutions together with independent and comprehensive environmental impact assessments;
– the Estonian Government's decision of 21 September 2007 not to grant permission for underwater studies to be conducted in Estonia's exclusive economic zone, owing to doubts about the scope and scale of those studies;
30. Regrets the fact that the Green Paper entitled ‘Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union’ does not address the problem of large-scale projects such as subsea pipelines;
31. Calls for a truly independent environmental impact assessment to be commissioned, with the approval of all littoral states, while recognising the environmental impact assessment carried out by Rambøll;
32. Regrets that in the legal instruments and communications concerning marine strategies initiated by it, the Commission usually passes over the problem of subsea pipelines, which is crucial from the point of view of both environmental protection and the EU’s energy security;
33. Points out the importance of conducting a transparent communication strategy on steps concerning the results of the environmental impact assessment, and of communicating those results actively to all EU Member States, especially the Baltic littoral states;
34. Reiterates, therefore, its call in its resolution of 14 November 2006 for the proposal of a mandatory mechanism for negotiation between Member States and its insistence that the Council take action at international level to develop mandatory environmental impact assessments in relations between the EU and third countries;
35. Notes that routing the North European gas pipeline should meet the strategic and economic objectives set out in Decision 1364/2006/EC whilst avoiding extensive environmental damage;
36. Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States to use every legal means at their disposal to prevent the construction of the North European gas pipeline on the scale proposed by the investor, should it become apparent that there is a risk of an environmental disaster in the Baltic Sea area;
37. Calls on the Commission in particular to ensure compliance with the provisions of the documents referred to above, namely the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the helsinki Convention, the Espoo Convention, the Aarhus Convention and Directives 85/337/EEC, 97/11/EC, 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC, as well as Article 10 of the EC Treaty and the precautionary principle and the principle of sustainable development, and to initiate proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty in the event of failure to comply with the above obligations;
38. Calls on the Commission in particular to take resolute action in line with the principle of good governance, which recognises that decision-making bodies enjoying a wide discretion are required to carry out a timely analysis of the actual state of affairs and, where necessary, to obtain expert opinion to prevent an arbitrary decision from being made;
39. Calls on the Commission, within the scope of its competence, to evaluate the market competition situation caused by the possible completion of the Nord Stream pipeline, and if necessary to take measures to prevent Gazprom from assuming a dominant role on the EU gas markets without guaranteeing reciprocal rights for EU companies to enter the Russian energy market;
40. Suggests the establishment of a system of common supervision of the pipeline, to include all countries in the Baltic Sea region; further suggests that the obligation to pay compensation for environmental damage should lie solely with Nord Stream;
41. Notes the lack of institutional structures capable of responding adequately to the environmental and geopolitical security issues associated with this project; suggests, therefore, that the Commission should create an appropriate post to deal with current and future projects, functioning under the authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Vice-President of the Commission;
42. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the governments of the Member States.
EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Last year the European Parliament received petitions supported by almost 30 000 European Union citizens, mainly from the Baltic States, expressing concern at the planned construction of a gas pipeline from Russia to Germany passing under the Baltic Sea. They believe that the project poses a threat to the natural environment and could be contrary to European Union law.
In deference to the large number of petitioners and the scale of the problem, the Committee on Petitions, which examines petitions from citizens relating to Community activities on behalf of the European Parliament, decided unanimously to draw up a report on the impact of the planned pipeline on the natural environment of the Baltic Sea.
In view of the multifaceted nature of the problem, which, in addition to the issue of environmental protection, also concerns the Union's energy security and other international issues, two competent parliamentary committees (the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy) have drawn up their own opinions.
The unprecedented level of interest in the project and its potentially powerful impact on fundamental areas of EU activity, in particular public health, environmental protection and energy security, as well as an increase in gas prices which would ultimately be borne by consumers, provided an incentive for an in-depth examination of the problems related to this venture. With this in view, the European Parliament held a public hearing at which all parties and interest groups were present and expressed their points of view.
After examining the various opinions and assessments and after hearing the participants in the public hearing, your rapporteur is convinced that the European Union must treat this project with the utmost caution and concern, since it poses a direct threat to the environment of the Baltic Sea basin as a whole. The problem has a genuine European dimension since it seriously affects eight European Union countries, namely Germany, Sweden, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Denmark and Poland. The rapporteur therefore calls on the Council and Commission to use all available legal means to prevent the construction of the Northern European gas pipeline on the scale proposed by the investors. Your rapporteur firmly believes that routing the northern gas pipeline overland through EU territory will make it possible to meet the strategic and economic objectives set out in Decision 1364/2006/EC, while at the same time averting the serious threat to the environment and an increase in prices that would have to be borne by consumers.
Your rapporteur is gravely concerned that in recent months, in virtually all the Baltic countries, expert agencies, government bodies responsible for the environment and representatives of environmental associations have examined the fundamentals of the project and concluded that it would pose serious threats to the environment, including:
1. Damage to Natura 2000 areas;
2. Danger of disturbing German chemical weapons dumps from World War II, mines, unexploded bombs and sunken vessels, particularly in the Gulf of Finland and in areas along the route of the planned pipeline;
3. The unprecedented size of the construction zone (2400 km2 - the same size as the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), in a sea such as the Baltic, which is relatively small and enclosed;
4. The threat of large-scale pollution from the discharge into the Baltic Sea of thousands of tons of chemicals (aldehydes) needed to clean the pipeline before it enters into service.
The environmental risks set out in detail by various experts at the public hearing are confirmed by the opinions and the viewpoints of other organisations which have approached Members of Parliament, including Nordic Greenpeace, which forwarded a statement expressing its concern and opposition to the planned Nord Stream pipeline and expressing support for the overland option.
Your rapporteur cannot accept the viewpoint that a project affecting the Baltic seabed is a bilateral matter for Germany and Russia. Protection of the Baltic Sea environment is one of the most important tasks facing the so-called Northern dimension of the EU, and one which is addressed in a series of Community resolutions and legal instruments dealing with this issue.
In this connection, the European Union has a duty to devote special care to the Baltic Sea environment, not forgetting also the need for solidarity, energy security and consumer protection. There have been cases where European institutions have reacted firmly to inter-state projects with dubious effects on the environment where these ultimately affected only one state. It is hard to imagine that the EU institutions will treat lightly a case which in practice affects one third of its Member States and its only enclosed sea.
It should be stressed in particular that the investors took no account of the need first of all to examine alternative routes for the gas pipeline which would not damage the marine environment, bearing in mind that the possibility exists for a land route running from the Russian border and passing solely through European Union countries. In this connection, your rapporteur urges the Commission to undertake such an analysis, as part of a dialogue with the countries concerned, the investors and the Helsinki Commission and with the participation of interested NGOs.
Your rapporteur supports the decision of 12 February 2008 by the Government of the Kingdom of Sweden refusing to grant the company Nord Stream permission to build the pipeline because of significant substantive and procedural shortcomings and, in particular, the failure to submit any study of alternative routes or the option of abandoning the construction of the pipeline.
Your rapporteur also supports the position adopted by the Parliament of the Republic of Lithuania on 27 March 2007, pointing to the need to suspend large-scale infrastructure projects in the Baltic until detailed studies of alternative options have been undertaken together with independent and comprehensive environmental impact assessments.
The rapporteur also takes note of the decision of 21 September 2007 by the Government of Estonia refusing Nord Stream permission to carry out underwater studies in its exclusive economic zone.
Your rapporteur also wishes to draw attention to the problem of covering the cost of damage caused during the construction and use of the pipeline and the cost of dismantling it at the end of its period of operation.
Apart from looking at environmental questions, we also need to consider the opinions of leading experts and European media, who speak of an increase in investment costs of up to 20 billion euro and anticipate considerable delays in the building schedule caused by the need for extensive studies and consultations at political and social level. In their opinion, even if the project is completed within a number of years, after taking exceptional security measures and paying compensation for damage to Natura 2000 protected areas, the enormous cost is bound to affect European gas prices, particularly German consumers and the companies building the pipeline. These experts believe that the costs involved would be several times greater than the cost of a land-based alternative.
OPINION of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (13.5.2008)
for the Committee on Petitions
on the environmental impact of the planned gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea to link up Russia and Germany
(2007/2118(INI))
Draftsman: Christopher Beazley
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Foreign Affairs calls on the Committee on Petitions, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
1. Reiterates its opinion that, taking into consideration the increasing dependence of the EU on a limited number of energy sources, suppliers and transport routes, it is essential to support initiatives aimed at their diversification, both geographically and by developing sustainable alternatives; draws attention in particular to the need to support the development of port infrastructure used for the handling of fuels;
2. Underlines that energy security must be regarded as an essential component of the overall security of the European Union, whereby the definition of energy security should not be merely limited to the lack of internal EU production but should also take into account the geopolitical aspects of dependency on imports;
3. Underlines the need for enhanced dialogue with major producer, transit and consumer countries; recognises that European energy solidarity critically depends both on transparent and mutually enforceable agreements with producer countries and on the existence of a functioning internal energy market, as well as an interconnecting energy infrastructure;
4. Considers that aspects of energy solidarity within the European Union should be taken into account by all Member States in their decisions on energy infrastructure projects; regrets the lack of progress towards a common European energy policy and is concerned about bilateral deals by several Member States, which would undermine the ability of the European Union to speak with a common voice with major supplier countries; calls once again on the Member States to keep the Commission and each other informed before strategic decisions are taken on major bilateral agreements on energy projects, which could affect the interests of other Member States and the EU as a whole, as should be done in respect of all foreign policy issues of common interest;
5. Is of the opinion that Nord Stream is an infrastructure project with a wide political and strategic dimension for both the EU and Russia; understands the concerns expressed by EU Member States regarding the construction and maintenance of the pipeline; underlines that the ability of small littoral states to act as security providers in the Baltic Sea region cannot be seen in isolation from the EU's ability to act as a unified entity and speak with one voice on energy issues and recalls its resolution of 26 September 2007 on a common European foreign policy on energy[1]; underlines that the project has been labelled a project of European interest in the latest guidelines on Trans-European Energy Networks (TENE-E), adopted in September 2006, and that it should be planned in the spirit of the common European foreign policy on energy;
6. Underlines the importance of a thorough, independent and objective environmental impact assessment of Nord Stream, particularly given the fragility of the Baltic seabed; is of the opinion that full account should be taken of all relevant environmental and safety aspects in the preparation, construction and operational phases of any gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea; emphasises that a final judgment of the environmental effects of Nord Stream can only be made after the completion of the impact assessment;
7. Reiterates the importance of the EU's energy partnership with Russia and draws attention once again to the fact that this strategic partnership can only be based on the principle of non-discrimination and fair treatment and on equal market access conditions; calls on the Council and the Commission to address environmental issues and energy security concerns within the framework of the EU’s energy dialogue with Russia and believes that this dialogue should be strengthened on the basis of the principles enshrined in the Energy Charter Treaty; recalls its opinion that the principles and substance of the Energy Charter Treaty and the Transit Protocol thereto must be included in cooperation agreements with third countries, including the new Partnership and Cooperation Agreement with Russia, while stressing the importance of Russia ratifying the Energy Charter Treaty and the Transit Protocol thereto, as such ratification will reduce the potential for conflict over projects such as Nord Stream;
8. Notes that the Nord Stream project, if implemented, may cause an environmental disaster due to highly toxic industrial sediments dumped in particular in the Gulf of Finland, as well as a significant volume of post-World War II chemical weaponry dispersed elsewhere along the Baltic seabed, should these be affected by building work, having regard also to the likely increase in the transportation of liquid energy products on the Baltic Sea; calls on Nord Stream to assume the financial responsibility to pay compensation for any damage arising;
9. Regrets the marginal role of the EU in this project, in particular that of the Commission; points out that greater EU involvement would reduce the uncertainty felt by many Member States about the Nord Stream project;
10. Therefore asks the Commission and the Member States:
– to assess the various transparency-related, economic, budget-related, regulatory and legal aspects of the Nord Stream project;
– to undertake a study of Nord Stream’s contribution to Europe’s energy needs, including a consideration of all alternatives;
– to ensure that Nord Stream and its affiliated companies engage in an open and transparent dialogue and cooperate closely with all parties concerned on all aspects throughout all stages before and after construction of the Nord Stream pipeline;
– to ensure that the concerns of all littoral states are duly taken into account in the independent environmental impact assessment;
– to reiterate its call for the ratification of, and commitment to full implementation of the provisions of, the Espoo Convention and the Energy Charter Treaty, including the Transit Protocol thereto, by Russia;
11. Calls on the Member States and the Commission to ensure that full and independent environmental impact assessments are carried out before decisions are made on all major infrastructure investments, including pipeline projects on sea and land; expresses its conviction that the current debate on the need for better environmental standards for implementation of the Nord Stream pipeline project will help to establish appropriate standards for future undertakings; in this regard, welcomes the recent decision by Nord Stream to commission a study from Finland and Sweden on the environmental risk posed by the existence of munitions dumped on the Baltic seabed after World War II, which contain highly toxic substances;
12. Suggests the establishment of a common supervision of the pipeline including all the countries in the Baltic Sea region; furthermore, considers it essential for the Commission to pay close attention to the screening of an environmental aspect of the planned pipeline construction, by using all existing legal instruments available to the Commission, and, upon request by a Member State, through the direct involvement of, and in close cooperation with, HELCOM (the Helsinki Commission);
13. Notes the lack of appropriate institutional structures capable of responding adequately to the environmental and geopolitical security issues associated with the development of external energy infrastructure, and once again calls on the Council to consider the proposal for the creation of the office of High Official for Foreign Energy Policy, who, wearing a "double hat", would act under the authority of the newly created strengthened High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, a Vice-President of the Commission;
14. Expresses its strong support for the third energy liberalisation package, including the third-country clause, because only a vibrant and liberalised European energy market, equipped with the tools needed to counteract monopolist behaviour, can guarantee security of energy supplies;
15. Expresses concern at proposals to secure planned pipelines by military means.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
6.5.2008 |
|
|
|
||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
55 3 0 |
||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Christopher Beazley, Angelika Beer, Colm Burke, Marco Cappato, Véronique De Keyser, Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos, Hanna Foltyn-Kubicka, Bronisław Geremek, Maciej Marian Giertych, Ana Maria Gomes, Klaus Hänsch, Richard Howitt, Anna Ibrisagic, Jelko Kacin, Ioannis Kasoulides, Maria Eleni Koppa, Helmut Kuhne, Joost Lagendijk, Vytautas Landsbergis, Johannes Lebech, Willy Meyer Pleite, Francisco José Millán Mon, Raimon Obiols i Germà, Vural Öger, Ria Oomen-Ruijten, Justas Vincas Paleckis, Ioan Mircea Paşcu, Alojz Peterle, Tobias Pflüger, João de Deus Pinheiro, Mirosław Mariusz Piotrowski, Michel Rocard, Libor Rouček, Katrin Saks, José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, György Schöpflin, Hannes Swoboda, Konrad Szymański, Charles Tannock, Inese Vaidere, Kristian Vigenin, Jan Marinus Wiersma, Luis Yañez-Barnuevo García, Zbigniew Zaleski, Josef Zieleniec |
|||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Laima Liucija Andrikienė, Alexandra Dobolyi, Carlo Fatuzzo, Evgeni Kirilov, Marios Matsakis, Rihards Pīks, Dariusz Rosati, Wojciech Roszkowski, Inger Segelström, Adrian Severin, Jean Spautz |
|||||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
Renate Weber |
|||||
- [1] Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0413.
OPINION of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (7.5.2008)
for the Committee on Petitions
on the Environmental impact of the planned gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea to link up Russia and Germany
(2007/2118(INI))
Draftsman: Andres Tarand
SUGGESTIONS
The Committee on Industry, Research and Energy calls on the Committee on Petitions, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following suggestions in its motion for a resolution:
1. Recalls the decline in gas production in the EU and the corresponding increase in demand for gas imports over the coming years both to meet rising household and industrial needs and to replace less environmentally-friendly fossil fuels; considers it necessary to assess the long‑term impact on the environment of the new gas infrastructure, with regard to guarantees of stable gas supply;
2. Recalls the Presidency Conclusions of the European Council of 8 and 9 March 2007 endorsing the European Council Action Plan (2007-2009) for achieving the objectives of the Energy Policy for Europe, based on solidarity and diversification of supply, in order to tackle the increasing energy supply dependency of the EU;
3. Regrets that, the energy mix falling within the competence of the Member States, some national strategic decisions concerning major bilateral agreements with third countries are undermining the development of a credible, effective and consistent common energy policy;
4. Calls on the Member States to put into effect in a transparent fashion a coordinated strategy when securing energy supply; notes the Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 laying down guidelines for the trans-European energy networks aimed at diversifying geographically transport routes for and suppliers of energy imports; recalls, in that context, that the Nord Stream pipeline is only one of many gas supply routes included within trans-European energy networks;
5. Recalls that the Baltic Sea has been identified as a 'particularly sensitive sea area' by the International Maritime Organisation and that, due to the relatively shallow waters and slow water replacement rate of the Baltic Sea, its ecosystems are extremely vulnerable to the smallest of disruptions and the slightest pollution; therefore recommends that the utmost care be taken when considering the Nord Stream gas pipeline project;
6. Recalls that, although the laying of submarine pipelines on the continental shelf is in accordance with the freedoms of the high seas, Article 79 of the 1982 UN convention on the law of the sea provides that 'the delineation of the course for the laying of such pipelines on the continental shelf is subject to the consent of the coastal State';
7. Calls on Nord Stream AG, the developer of the pipeline, to justify the choice of the current route and thoroughly assess alternative routes, including inland routes, for the pipeline between Russia and Germany; calls that the integrated environmental, economic and technical studies be appended to the environmental impact assessment (EIA) that is being carried out;
8. Calls on Nord Stream AG to carry out an assessment of the potential cumulative adverse effects of both the pipe-laying and the operational phases as part of the wider EIA and to incorporate into the EIA an assessment of the potential effects of the Nord Stream gas pipeline project on the Baltic Sea Protected Areas and Natura 2000 sites;
9. Calls on Nord Stream AG to publish the measures for reducing the adverse effects on the environment, should this project be carried out; urges Nord Stream to lay the pipeline at the most appropriate time and to avoid using in installation and maintenance of pipeline potentially damaging glutaraldehyde to minimise the negative effects upon ecosystems;
10. Regards both the sunken warships and the chemical weapons dumped during the 1940s at the bottom of the Baltic Sea as a possible threat to the successful laying of the gas pipeline and therefore calls on Nord Stream to draw up an inventory, to be shared with the relevant national authorities, of all shipwrecks and explosive or chemical substances located in proximity to the proposed pipeline route, such as two "ships' graveyards" of vessels sunk with their munitions in August 1941 near Hogland Island and midway between Helsinki and Estonia’s Lahemaa National Park; the inventory should also include an assessment of the risks these shipwrecks and substances pose;
11. Considers that the pollution caused by the activities of Russian military bases may have ecological consequences once the Nord Stream project has been carried out, and therefore calls for this aspect also to be assessed;
12. Calls upon the states directly involved in the Nord Stream gas pipeline project to clarify before the final authorisation for the construction of the pipeline is given, where legal liability rests for the possible consequences of accidents on the ecology of the Baltic Sea and on the coastlines, inhabitants and economies of Baltic Sea states, including when vessels in the narrow navigation zones of the Gulf of Finland and of the Baltic proper cause damage to the pipeline on sinking.
13. Recalls the recent earthquakes such as the 2004 earthquake in Kaliningrad region, calls upon the project developer to submit relevant studies as required by the EIA;
14. Acknowledges that Nord Stream AG has been carrying out the ongoing EIA process, and urges therefore the company to make the results of studies and the full set of research data concerning the ecological situation of the project site, collected during environmental investigations, available to HELCOM and to all interested states;
15. Urges the Commission to include in its forthcoming implementation report relating to Decision No 1364/2006/EC an assessment of the progress made clearly identifying any possible breach of Community law committed by Nord Stream;
16. Calls on the European Commission to evaluate the EIA of the gas pipeline conducted by the Nord Stream company, its conformity with EU environmental legislation and its accuracy, thoroughness and objectivity;
17. Calls on the Commission as signatory to HELCOM to seek to put into effect the HELCOM recommendation for the establishment of standard requirements regarding the scope of investigations necessary for the approval procedures for submarine cables and pipelines in the Baltic Sea;
18. Mindful of the third legislative package on the internal market in gas, calls on Nord Stream to maintain easy access to the Nord Stream gas pipeline for neighbouring Member States if they wish to be directly connected to the pipeline by means of spur lines.
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
6.5.2008 |
|
|
|
||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
31 0 2 |
||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Jan Březina, Jerzy Buzek, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Giles Chichester, Pilar del Castillo Vera, Den Dover, Nicole Fontaine, Norbert Glante, András Gyürk, Fiona Hall, Romana Jordan Cizelj, Werner Langen, Anne Laperrouze, Eluned Morgan, Angelika Niebler, Reino Paasilinna, Atanas Paparizov, Francisca Pleguezuelos Aguilar, Anni Podimata, Miloslav Ransdorf, Vladimír Remek, Herbert Reul, Teresa Riera Madurell, Paul Rübig, Andres Tarand, Catherine Trautmann, Nikolaos Vakalis, Alejo Vidal-Quadras |
|||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Dorette Corbey, Göran Färm, Juan Fraile Cantón, Vittorio Prodi, Silvia-Adriana Ţicău |
|||||
RESULT OF FINAL VOTE IN COMMITTEE
|
Date adopted |
27.5.2008 |
|
|
|
||
|
Result of final vote |
+: –: 0: |
26 3 1 |
||||
|
Members present for the final vote |
Sir Robert Atkins, Margrete Auken, Inés Ayala Sender, Victor Boştinaru, Michael Cashman, Alexandra Dobolyi, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, David Hammerstein, Marian Harkin, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Lasse Lehtinen, Marcin Libicki, Miguel Angel Martínez Martínez, Manolis Mavrommatis, Mairead McGuinness, Willy Meyer Pleite, Marie Panayotopoulos-Cassiotou, Eoin Ryan, Frank Vanhecke, Diana Wallis, Rainer Wieland |
|||||
|
Substitute(s) present for the final vote |
Thijs Berman, Marie-Hélène Descamps, Georgios Georgiou, Henrik Lax, Grażyna Staniszewska, Margie Sudre |
|||||
|
Substitute(s) under Rule 178(2) present for the final vote |
Urszula Gacek, Tunne Kelam, Vytautas Landsbergis, Markus Pieper, Konrad Szymański |
|||||