Stenograma dezbaterilor

Marţi, 25 septembrie 2007 - Strasbourg

15. Spre o politică externă europeană comună în domeniul energiei (dezbatere)

  Presidente. L'ordine del giorno reca la relazione di Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, a nome della commissione per gli affari esteri, su una politica estera comune dell'Europa in materia di energia (2007/2000(INI)) (A6-0312/2007).

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE-DE), rapporteur. – Madam President, I am presenting to you an own-initiative report recommended by an overwhelming majority in the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Our report advocates a common EU foreign policy on energy in order to face challenges of energy security. It would bring necessary and substantial added value to efforts made at national level, according to the subsidiarity principle, and would allow better protection of Europe’s energy interests.

What should this policy look like? It should be based on the following four principles: diversification; unity in defending the EU’s interests and the EU speaking with one voice; solidarity in crisis; and strengthened cooperation with partners.

We need to develop a proactive broad energy diplomacy aimed at strengthening our cooperation with all major producer, transit and consumer countries, and to create an energy market based on the principle of reciprocity.

The report welcomes the proposals of the third energy package, as adopted last week by the Commission, which addresses these concerns and is in line with the report. The EU has to be active, determined and united. The geopolitical dimension of energy security has been so far neglected and it is high time to fill the gap. Hopefully the new Treaty will equip the EU with a legal basis for energy solidarity, thus allowing for the EU’s institutional competence to negotiate an energy security framework with third countries. The report recommends including in our agreements with producer and transit countries a so-called energy security clause which lays down a code of conduct and explicitly outlines measures to be taken in the event of disruption of supply.

We should replace the current EU Member States’ preference for energy unilateralism with a new common policy of energy solidarity based on a multilateralist approach. Meanwhile, there is a necessity to establish a good practice of consultation among Member States on strategic decisions which may affect the EU or one of its members.

The new common foreign policy on energy must be consistent with all EU policies having an external aspect, e.g. internal market, competition, transport, trade, environment, consumer protection, budget and others. One cannot create a new common policy overnight. We propose, therefore, to adopt a gradual approach and furthermore, to be efficient, this new policy should be equipped with appropriate instruments.

We suggest the creation of a new post of High Official for Foreign Energy Policy after the new Treaty enters – hopefully – into force. This office would allow for the coordination of all the above-mentioned sectoral policies of the Union and especially those aspects related to the external side of energy security, working under the authority of the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, who would, in future, also be Vice-President of the European Commission. That would reinforce the synergies inside the Union.

This institutional novelty therefore constitutes an important anchorage of the new approach. We also propose to elaborate a precise roadmap indicating short-, medium- and long-term objectives with a specific timeframe for implementing them and obviously subject to the European Parliament’s scrutiny.

To be successful, we need to engage the EU’s internal dynamic and to secure the necessary public support. The citizens’ interest is in secure and affordable energy. This interest of our citizens should be at the core of the project, thus constituting one of the targets of our ‘Europe of results’ approach.

Common threats to secure energy for Europe should therefore produce a common response. But we may also achieve more: a new common policy can become a trigger for further European integration, giving it a new impetus and new strength to the EU as a global actor. A demanding and courageous approach should be an ambition of the European Parliament.

Today’s European Union started a long time ago with energy. Then, it was coal giving an initial push to our reconstruction. We should not miss the opportunity to let it happen once again. We need energy for Europe, indeed, both in literal and in metaphorical terms.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I welcome very much the initiative of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and in particular the chairman, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, to propose a report on a common European foreign policy on energy. Recent developments have confirmed that this is a very timely initiative. The report serves to underline the growing importance of energy issues in the Community context, particularly the external aspects and the importance of the European Union speaking with one voice on external energy issues.

I appreciate that the report clearly highlights that substantial progress has been made over the past year by the European Union and its institutions towards the goal of speaking with one voice. This includes the establishment of the Network of Energy Security Correspondents (NESCO), in addition to the existing gas coordination group and oil supply group. NESCO has been active since the early summer, which has permitted a very useful and early exchange of energy information between Member States.

However, an earlier exchange of information on planned initiatives by particular Member States would still be highly welcome. Therefore, as the report underlines, a lot still remains to be done.

The call for a suitable Treaty basis for energy and energy security is particularly important and timely, as is the call for concrete provisions in the Treaties that will lead to the creation of a common European foreign policy on energy. I very much welcome this approach, including the proposal from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy that the principles of the common energy policy be included in the EC Treaty at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, so that there will be a solid basis for joint action in the energy field directed towards third countries.

I also note that the Committee has reflected further on the proposal on how to anchor external energy policies more firmly both in the Commission and the Council. We will need to reflect further on this important subject.

I believe that this version of the report is also balanced geographically, recognising the importance of enhancing our energy relations not only with our eastern neighbours but also with our Mediterranean, Middle East, Asian and other partners.

I already enjoy the genuine energy partnership with the United States but I do believe that we can achieve more in this area. I also believe that we need to continue to work with like-minded energy partners, such as Norway, Canada and Australia, to strengthen the consensus on the value of open, transparent and competitive international energy markets.

Recognising the value of the Energy Charter Treaty, I agree with the Committee that Russia’s ratification would be very important. However, at the same time I firmly believe that the principles of the Charter also need to be included in a robust energy agreement within the framework of the post-PCA agreement with Russia.

I do have a practical concern about the number of reports that it is suggested that the Commission should produce. I know that each of them per se is important but I believe that most of the issues raised will be covered in the framework of the regular review of the Energy Action Plan or are already covered in the Commission’s annual reports on the application of competition law.

I do, however, favour more involvement by Parliament and I will examine the suggestions proposed to my colleagues in the College to determine what, in practical terms, the Commission can do to address the concerns raised.

Finally, with respect to the substance, the Commission intends to press ahead with the work in which we are engaged since early last year and which reflects most of the priorities identified in the report, in particular, on the feasibility study to examine the existing legal arrangements in the EU if its neighbours’ energy sectors fall short, and how to strengthen them.

Equally, it is important to put concrete proposals on the table on reciprocity, and I welcome the fact that your report recognises the importance of reciprocity measures aimed at protecting our internal energy market.

This is a very timely report, both politically and also in terms of substance. The Commission has been actively working over the past year and a half to reinforce the EU’s external policy on energy and, as the report recognises, there have been a number of significant achievements.

However, we do need to go further and I therefore fully support the call in this report for concrete provisions in the Treaties that will lead to the creation of a common European foreign policy on energy.

With energy security, we are talking about the security of our economies and our way of life. As the EU is becoming increasingly dependent on imports of energy, it is crucial that we have a coherent and focused response to the challenges that this presents, not least in our relations with our major external energy suppliers. This has already been reflected in the Commission’s latest package on the internal electricity and gas markets, and I very much welcome your appreciation of the proposal.

I can also announce that the Commission will be a holding a rapid and in-depth review of the wider aspects of the EU’s external policy in energy and that we will definitely make the results of that work public.

I would like to thank the Committee on Foreign Affairs and particularly the chairman, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, for taking this initiative and for giving Parliament an opportunity to debate this extremely important issue for Europe, and I look forward to continuing our cooperation in the future.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE-DE), rapporteur pour avis de la commission du commerce international. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, mes premiers mots seront pour féliciter mon collègue et ami, Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, pour la qualité de son rapport.

Il est en effet temps, en matière énergétique, que l'Europe parle d'une seule voix car nous devons faire face à de lourdes menaces sur la sécurité des approvisionnements, le transit et les investissements.

Je regrette néanmoins que le paragraphe 62 du rapport soit trop catégorique quant à la séparation totale de propriété entre la production, le transport et la distribution de l'énergie, car d'autres solutions existent pour concilier l'instauration d'un marché européen de l'énergie et l'indispensable sécurité politique que nous devons conserver sur les réseaux.

Au niveau du commerce international, il est nécessaire d'imposer l'inclusion de chapitres relatifs à l'énergie dans tout nouvel accord commercial. Une concurrence équitable doit être établie au niveau international, notamment par le biais, et sous la surveillance, de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce.

Nous devons enfin soutenir les initiatives scientifiques internationales telles que le programme expérimental de réacteur thermonucléaire ITER, qui regroupe, outre l'Union européenne, de nombreux autres pays partenaires dans le monde.

  Umberto Guidoni (GUE/NGL), relatore per parere della commissione per l'ambiente, la sanità pubblica e la sicurezza alimentare. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'esaurimento dei combustibili fossili e i cambiamenti nella situazione geopolitica hanno posto la sicurezza energetica in testa all'agenda politica dell'Unione europea.

La crescente dipendenza dell'Unione europea dalle forniture energetiche esterne, provenienti soprattutto da paesi instabili, desta preoccupazione per gli interessi economici e politici degli Stati membri nonché per la sicurezza globale dell'Unione. Tuttavia, non credo che possiamo rispondere a queste sfide e a queste difficoltà soltanto aumentando la produzione e i rifornimenti dall'estero, ma piuttosto dobbiamo cercare all'interno dell'Europa la risposta alla richiesta di energia.

Anche per questo la commissione ambiente si è espressa per puntare sull'efficienza energetica e sulle fonti rinnovabili entro il prossimo decennio, come la strada maestra per ridurre la dipendenza dal petrolio e dal gas. Poiché la produzione e il consumo dell'energia sono le fonti principali di emissioni di gas serra, è necessario un approccio integrato all'ambiente e all'energia per realizzare gli obiettivi di una politica energetica sostenibile.

Perciò la lotta al cambiamento climatico non deve rimanere limitata alle politiche ambientali, bensì deve essere al centro delle politiche dell'Unione europea, sia le politiche interne che quelle commerciali. Ad esempio, riguardo ai biocarburanti è indispensabile che l'Unione europea verifichi che un tale uso non minacci la sicurezza dell'approvvigionamento alimentare a livello globale e non induca pressioni sull'economia del Sud del mondo verso espansioni delle monoculture e della deforestazione.

Il sostegno a favore dello sviluppo e dell'utilizzo dei rinnovabili può assicurare un trasferimento equo di tecnologie ai paesi terzi e portare vantaggi in termini di leadership europea nello sviluppo dei mercati internazionali. Per questo è importante la proposta di partenariato energetico con l'Africa, al quale si deve aggiungere un analogo partenariato con la Cina e con l'India, considerando la crescita di questi paesi. E' prioritario il conseguimento degli obiettivi del millennio per i paesi in via di sviluppo.

  Lena Ek (ALDE), Draftsman of the opinion of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. – Madam President, the cornerstones of the energy policy for the European Union are transparency, reciprocity and the rule of law. And, as we have all experienced in the last two years, this is also a vitally important issue when it comes to energy and foreign relations.

We already have problems in Europe when it comes to security of supply, consumer rights and environmental concerns, and we have to do something about the greenhouse effect.

We also have a disturbance on the market that is severe, which Neelie Kroes’s report showed us very clearly and which puts on the table the need to unbundle, which is also a foreign relations concern. This is a very important aspect of this issue. So we have to rebuild our energy system in Europe with regard to production, distribution and consumption.

I would like to thank the rapporteur Mr Saryusz-Wolski for very good cooperation. He has taken account of all the texts from the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. What I am not so happy about is what he added with regard to the new Solana-like function, to be able to talk with one voice for the European Union. This new institution would, as I see it, cause uncertainty of roles, a divide-and-conquer situation, and it takes completely the opposite approach to our cornerstones in our energy policy. We cannot check on reciprocity with an institution like this, transparency is ruled out and the powers of Parliament are diminished, which is also completely the opposite of what we want in all other areas. We have therefore asked for a split vote on this topic tomorrow.

Finally, I want to agree with the Commissioner that it is vitally important that we add the energy issue to the new Treaty.

  Christopher Beazley, on behalf of the PPE-DE Group. – Madam President, this report is a serious, thorough and inspirational piece of work. The rapporteur has rallied support across the Committee on Foreign Affairs but also across the other four committees that we have just heard from. In my view it will meet with widespread acclamation tomorrow, including my own support, and, I am very happy to say, that of my British colleagues.

Commissioner Piebalgs, you went a very long way in your introduction to support the initiative that the Committee chairman, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, has raised with, as I say, a lot of innovation and skill, because, to many, there were challenges.

I have two specific questions to which perhaps you might reply. You stated, in terms of one of our major suppliers, Russia, that you look forward to a new agreement under the action plan. What is wrong with the old agreement that Russia has actually signed, the Energy Charter, including the Transit Protocol? Because, if our neighbours and suppliers, with whom we have mutual dependency, constantly renege on agreements, what confidence can we have in the future? We are looking for harmonious relations, but we have to defend our own corner and not merely agree with those who are in a supply situation.

I disagree with Ms Ek in her reservations – perhaps she might listen – about the High Official. It seems to me that Mr Saryusz-Wolski is absolutely right in that we must have an institutional representative, whether it is yourself or whether it is, as we foresee, a double-hatted responsibility – both the Commission and Council. I disagree thoroughly with Ms Ek. This increases transparency, because Parliament would have a direct contact in the Vice-President of the Commission role of this High Official.

Could you dwell, in your reply, a little bit on this institutional issue, which seems to me to be extremely important and which Parliament is going to stress very strongly?

  Justas Vincas Paleckis, PSE frakcijos vardu. – Pirmininke, norėčiau pasveikinti pranešėją ir padėkoti už gerą bendradarbiavimą derinant šios naujos, drąsios temos pranešimo pakeitimus.

Išties, Europos Sąjunga nelengvai įgyvendina bendrą užsienio ir saugumo politiką, tik pradeda kurti bendrą energetikos politiką. Ir štai siūloma eiti dar toliau – kurti bendrą Europos užsienio energetikos politiką. Šis žingsnis, manau, teisingas, nes užsienio ir energetikos reikalų persipynimas darosi vis akivaizdesnis, reikia žvelgti į ateitį.

Šalims, valdančioms energetinius šaltinius, kyla pagunda valdyti jei ne visą pasaulį, tai bent turėti ypatingą įtaką kai kuriuose regionuose. Šiame pranešime siūlomi keliai, kaip to išvengti, naudojantis pasiteisinusia ES priemone – solidarumu. Svarbus (aš tuo visai neabejoju) būtų specialaus atstovo užsienio energetikos politikai, turinčiam dvigubą pavaldumą, sukūrimas. Prisiminus garsų Henrio Kisindžerio posakį, jam turėtų skambinti valstybių resursų tiekėjų ir tranzito šalių oficialūs asmenys bei stambiausių kompanijų atstovai, jis neatsigintų skambučių ir iš ES valstybių sostinių.

Europos Parlamento nariai tikėtųsi gauti iš EK ataskaitas, kaip ši siūloma politika įgyvendinama, kaip trečiosios šalys laikosi skaidrumo, abipusiškumo principų. Jeigu Europos Sąjungai ši politika bus priimtina, išvengsime suklupimų, kai dvišaliai susitarimai daromi virš kaimynų Europos Sąjungoje galvų.

ES ir Rusija labai priklauso viena nuo kitos energijos importo bei eksporto srityse. Abi pusės ieško ir ieškos diversifikavimo galimybių, bet dar ilgai išliks natūralūs, vienas kitą papildantys partneriai. Labai svarbu, kad ES ir Rusiją saistytų tarptautine teise pagrįsti, perregimi ir aiškiai kontroliuojami susitarimai. Šiame pranešime nubrėžiamas ir jiems kelias.

(Plojimai.)

  István Szent-Iványi, az ALDE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Elnök asszony, biztos úr! Először is gratulálni szeretnék Saryusz-Wolski úrnak kitűnő jelentést írt és egy nagyon fontos aktuális kérdésről írt, és köszönöm az együttműködését, köszönöm a kooperációt és a kompromisszumkészséget.

Kétségtelen, hogy az Európai Unió előtt álló egyik legnagyobb kihívás az energiabiztonság kérdése. Ez ma elsősorban nem technikai kérdés, nem üzleti kérdés, még csak nem is energetikai kérdés, hanem alapvetően stratégiai kérdés.

Az Európai Unió egésze jelenleg energiaszükségletének 50%-át az Unión kívülről szerzi be. Szakértői becslések szerint 2030-ban az energiaszükséglet 70%-át fogja importálni. Ez tehát azt jelenti, hogy nagyon nagy az energiafüggősége és sok tagállam már ma is sokkal nagyobb mértékben függ külső beszállítóktól és az új tagállamok közül jó néhány egyetlen beszállítótól. Egy olyan beszállítótól, amelyik egyre gyakrabban él az energiával mint a politikai érdekérvényesítés eszközével. Néha büntetni kívánja a tagállamokat, néha megosztani. Oroszországról beszélek, tisztelt képviselőtársaim.

Égető szükség van ma egy közös energiapolitikára. Egy energiapolitikára, amely az egységen alapul és a szolidaritáson, ahogy Saryusz-Wolski úr az imént ezt pontosan kifejtette. Elengedhetetlen, hogy a forrásokat és a szállítási útvonalakat is diverzifikáljuk, hiszen mind az energiaforrások tekintetében, mind a szállítási útvonalak tekintetében instabil övezetekről van szó, vagy nagyrészt instabil övezetekről van szó, amelyek az ellátás biztonságát is fenyegetik.

A jelentés javasolja egy energiaügyi főtisztviselő kinevezését, ezt az ALDE nem támogatja. Tartunk attól, hogy ez a kompetenciák vitájához vezetne, tartunk attól, hogy az Európai Parlament ellenőrzési jogosítványai csorbulnának, és félünk attól, hogy valódi hozzáadott értékkel nem rendelkezik.

Ugyanakkor nagyon fontosnak tartjuk a jelentésben azt, hogy kiemeli az energiaügyi projektek jelentőségét, itt is kiemelkedik a Nabucco, mint az Európai Unió közös nagy energiaügyi vállalkozása, amely az első lépés lehet a valódi közös külpolitika felé.

Különleges érdeme ennek a jelentésnek, és Saryusz-Wolski úrnak, hogy felhívja a figyelmet a Nord Stream vezetékkel kapcsolatos aggodalmakra. Ezek részben környezetvédelmi aggályok, de legalább annyira politikai aggályok is, és csak akkor valósulhat meg ez a vezeték, hogyha mindezekre az aggályokra megnyugtató megoldást találunk és megnyugtató választ kapunk. Különösen fontos az Energia Charta Szerződés, mert ez az alapja az európai energiaügyi együttműködésnek és ezt Oroszországnak is el kell fogadnia. Köszönöm.

  Konrad Szymański, w imieniu grupy UEN. – Mamy wielkie szanse na wspólną politykę energetyczną. Ostatni komunikat Komisji pokazuje, że jesteśmy na dobrej drodze. Także raport posła Saryusz-Wolskiego stanowi ważny krok w tej sprawie.

Po pierwsze, mamy tu adekwatne ujęcie problematyki handlu energią w kontekście polityki zagranicznej. Unia Europejska przez długi czas tego unikała. Dopiero wrogie nadużywanie energii przez Rosję pozwoliło nam zrozumieć, że handel energią stał się instrumentem ściśle politycznym. Raport włącza bezpieczeństwo energetyczne do priorytetów bezpieczeństwa Unii.

Mamy tu dobrze zdefiniowaną zasadę solidarności oraz postulat dywersyfikacji dostawców i korytarzy przesyłowych. Mamy tu uzasadnione przecież wątpliwości wobec Gazociągu Północnego, postulat poszanowania zasad Karty Energetycznej przez Rosję, zaangażowania WTO oraz poszerzenia naszej polityki energetycznej poza kontekst państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej.

Z tych wszystkich powodów nasza grupa polityczna chętnie poprze ten raport. Gratuluję sprawozdawcy!

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, sehr geehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich teile die Bewertung des Berichterstatters Saryusz-Wolski, was die Probleme der Importabhängigkeit und der wachsenden Importabhängigkeit für Energierohstoffe angeht, und habe da auch wenig Dissens – der Bericht beschreibt das sehr gut. Ich bin aber nicht einverstanden mit den Lösungen, die dieser Bericht anbietet, und bin der Auffassung, dass wichtige strategische Zielsetzungen der internen, der inneren europäischen Energiepolitik sich auch in diesem Bericht hätten niederschlagen müssen.

Meiner Meinung nach ist das wichtigste Instrument zur Verringerung dieser wachsenden Abhängigkeit von Importen die Senkung des Verbrauchs von Energie in allen Bereichen, und ich bin auch der Auffassung, dass die 20 % Energieeffizienzsteigerung, die Europa sich bis zum Jahr 2020 vorgenommen hat, ein Ziel sein muss, das in die strategische Energieaußenpolitik einfließen muss. Wenn man sich klar macht, dass in Russland allein im Gebäudebereich so viel Gas unnötig verbraucht wird, wie ansonsten von Russland in die Europäische Union exportiert wird, dann ist doch klar, wie viel wir gewinnen können, wenn wir unsere Effizienzstrategien bei uns verwirklichen und für Russland in einer dann auch nach außen gerichteten Energiestrategie der Europäischen Union tatsächlich zu einem gangbaren Weg machen. Das hieße also, durch Vorbild Einfluss nehmen auch auf die innere russische Energiepolitik.

Beim Thema Öl – die Abhängigkeit von der OPEC gerät ja angesichts der aufgeregten Russlanddebatte immer ins Hintertreffen – würde ich sagen: Wenn Europa es schafft, sparsame und effiziente Autos zum Leitmodell zu machen und eine Kerosinsteuer für Flugbenzin durchzusetzen, dann wäre uns damit mehr gedient als mit aufgeregten Debatten mit der OPEC über Märkte und Exportchancen.

Teile unterstützen wir, aber andere Teile nicht, Herr Kollege Saryusz-Wolski!

  Tobias Pflüger, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! In gewisser Weise ist das ein sehr ehrlicher Bericht. Es wird deutlich formuliert: Es gibt bisher für diese Energieaußenpolitik keine vertragliche Grundlage. Stimmt! Dann ist für mich die Frage: Warum wird diese Initiative ergriffen?

Die Initiative wird ergriffen – das hat man jetzt auch in den Redebeiträgen dann doch deutlicher gehört, als es im Bericht selbst zu lesen war – aufgrund der Energiepolitik Russlands. Genau diese Grundlinie zieht sich durch den gesamten Bericht. Es ist ein antirussischer Bericht – an verschiedenen Punkten wird dies unterschiedlich deutlich formuliert –, und es ist ein Bericht, in dem klar formuliert wird, dass die Europäische Union ein global player sein will und die Energieaußenpolitik dazu quasi ein Mittel ist. Auch das ist in gewisser Weise ehrlich und etwas, was politisch erwünscht sein kann oder auch nicht. Wir wollen das nicht!

Es werden klare Forderungen für bestimmte Projekte formuliert. Die Lobbypolitik für das Nabucco-Pipeline-Projekt, die ja auch hier im Hause betrieben wird, findet sich in diesem Bericht wieder. Insgesamt werden die Länder abgehandelt: Die Türkei wird quasi ausschließlich als Transitdrehscheibe für Energieversorgung verstanden. Das ist dann doch ein bisschen weniger als das, was die Türkei tatsächlich ist. Besonders schön finde ich die Formulierung, die bezüglich der USA getroffen wurde. Da heißt es: „unterstreicht insbesondere die Bedeutung eines verstärkten Energiedialogs mit den USA und anderen Schlüsselpartnern im Energiebereich, die für die gleichen Werte wie die EU eintreten“. Ich darf nur daran erinnern: Die USA führen im Irak mit einer Reihe von Bündnispartnern einen Krieg, unter anderem auch aufgrund von Energiefragen. Wenn das die gleichen Werte sind, dann muss man sehr klar Nein zu dieser Entwicklung sagen!

Es wird klar formuliert, dass im Rahmen der G8 für die Interessen im Energiebereich von den verschiedenen daran beteiligten EU-Mitgliedstaaten Stellung genommen werden soll, und es wird ein Zusammenhang mit der militärischen Komponente hergestellt. Wie gesagt: Das Ganze ist in gewisser Weise ein ehrlicher Bericht. Ein Kollege von mir hat es so formuliert: Es ist ein Hauch des Kalten Krieges mit diesem Bericht verbunden. Ich glaube, das ist zutreffend, und deshalb wird meine Fraktion diesen Bericht ablehnen.

  Bastiaan Belder, namens de IND/DEM-Fractie. – Mevrouw de Voorzitter, de tijd dringt voor concrete stappen naar een Europees extern energiebeleid. Niet voor niets schuift het verslag van collega Saryusz-Wolski daarbij met name het Nabucco-project naar voren. Veelzeggend genoeg noemde onze commissaris voor energie Piebalgs deze gaspijpleiding "een belichaming van het bestaan van een gemeenschappelijk Europees energiebeleid". Inderdaad op woorden moeten daden volgen. Daarom juichen we ook de benoeming van Jozias van Aartsen tot EU-coördinator voor het Nabucco-project zeer toe.

Van Europese daadkracht getuigen evenzeer de recente Britse en Oostenrijkse missies richting potentiële gasleveranciers voor Nabucco, Turkmenistan en Azerbeidzjan. De positieve reacties uit Ashgabat en Bakoe bieden in elk geval perspectief. Voor een goed vervolg van het miljardenproject Nabucco zijn er twee zaken van essentieel belang. Ten eerste dient er harmonie te zijn tussen de huidige consortiumhouders. Kortom, de Oostenrijkse projectleider OMV moet zijn hardnekkige pogingen tot een vijandelijke overname van consortiumpartner, het Hongaarse MOL, onverwijld staken. Een schone urgente taak voor de nieuwe Nabucco-coördinator en namens de EU zal de heer Van Aartsen ook alert moeten zijn op verdere Russische infiltratiepogingen in dit belangwekkende energie-diversificatieproject.

Want, mevrouw de Voorzitter, in geval van een mislukking van het Nabucco-project en soortgelijke Europese plannen kan van energiediversificatie voor de nieuwe EU-lidstaten volstrekt onvoldoende sprake zijn. Een fragmentatie van de Europese energiemarkt zal het gevolg zijn; over een Europees extern energiebeleid valt dan helaas het diplomatieke doek. Zó ver mogen de Europese instellingen het nooit laten komen.

  Alessandro Battilocchio (NI). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, condivido, come relatore, la necessità e l'importanza di allineare la politica estera alla politica energetica.

Spero non occorra insistere su quanto un'adeguata coerenza tra le due politiche, che da una strategia comune uscirebbero entrambe rafforzate, porterebbe crescita economia e benessere per i cittadini europei, nonché maggiore stabilità politica a livello mondiale con un probabile effetto domino sui maggiori partner europei.

Tuttavia la priorità non va legata esclusivamente alla sicurezza degli approvvigionamenti, dobbiamo infatti puntare al contempo ad una politica energetica sostenibile ed efficiente, che renda l'Europa progressivamente autosufficiente in materia e quindi indipendente da pressioni esterne che possono condizionare, a volte pesantemente, l'impegno UE per la promozione della democrazia, dei diritti umani e della pace.

Una politica comune efficiente non potrà prescindere da maggiori risorse per la ricerca sulle energie rinnovabili così come su investimenti per il nucleare, puntiamo quindi su ciò che abbiamo: competenze, professionalità e tecnologie. Se ci mettiamo anche la volontà politica possiamo trasformare l'emergenza energetica europea in un'opportunità unica: guadagnare un vantaggio tecnologico assoluto per vincere, al momento dell'imminente crisi energetica mondiale, la sfida economica con i nostri principali concorrenti.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE-DE). – Madam President, today’s debate could well be titled ‘who is going to have the upper hand in conducting the EU’s foreign policies?’ Will it be big corporations and third countries or will it be the EU institutions?

By creating a common policy on energy, as proposed by Mr Saryusz-Wolski, the EU will become a much stronger player on the world stage, better placed to defend the interests of all its Members. A common energy policy has to become an essential part of our common security policy.

As late as January 2006, the EU countries started to realise that energy has been used and will be used by Russia as a central instrument of its foreign policies. President Putin has openly defined the state-owned Gazprom in such a role. For my country, Estonia, this is nothing new: Estonia experienced a full-scale energy blockade 16 years ago, when Russia punished its former colony for trying to become genuinely independent.

This report shows that it is high time for a united approach. Too often, bilateral agreements have in fact led to looking away from democratic standards and have caused real damage to the EU’s unity and credibility. For example, the Baltic Sea gas pipeline project should be seen first of all as a political tool, which will enable Putin’s Russia to further divide the EU, by playing certain states against the others.

Therefore, I strongly support two key ideas of this report: creating a special EU official to coordinate foreign energy policies and including an energy solidarity clause in the future Treaties. But I am especially encouraged by Commissioner Piebalgs for his deeply professional, constructive and forthcoming approach and I look forward to our good cooperation.

  Hannes Swoboda (PSE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte mich zuerst beim Berichterstatter Saryusz-Wolski für die Möglichkeit bedanken, mit ihm gut zusammenzuarbeiten und zu einem Kompromiss zu kommen. Einer dieser Kompromisse ist eben auch erwähnt worden und betrifft den Beauftragten für Energieaußenpolitik. Ich weiß, das ist ein schwieriges Feld, nicht unumstritten, und der Herr Kommissar wird noch viel daran arbeiten müssen. Wenn es so weit kommt, werden natürlich nicht nur die Außenpolitiker, sondern auch die Energiepolitiker der Kommission involviert werden müssen.

Ein wichtiges Ziel unserer Energieaußenpolitik ist die Diversifizierung. Das heißt nicht, dass wir gegen jene Länder, von denen wir Erdöl oder Erdgas beziehen, vorgehen wollen, aber wir wollen andere Quellen anzapfen. Auch Russland versucht, Zugang zu Quellen zu bekommen, um dann das Erdöl oder Erdgas nach Europa zu liefern. Es ist unser gutes Recht, dass auch wir versuchen, einen solchen Zugang zu finden. Im Übrigen ist auch die Frage der Reziprozität ein wichtiger Aspekt im Verhältnis zu Russland. Unserer Fraktion geht es nicht um eine Politik gegen Russland, sondern um eine Politik der Gleichberechtigung. Wenn Russland seine Märkte öffnet, werden wir das auch tun. Aber es kann nicht verlangt werden, dass wir alles aufmachen, und Russland macht zu. Das macht für uns keinen Sinn.

Der letzte Punkt, den ich noch erwähnen möchte, ist ein sehr schwieriges Kapitel, das auch im Antrag enthalten ist, und zwar das Verhältnis zwischen Energiepolitik und Menschenrechtspolitik. Als ich kürzlich mit Kolleginnen und Kollegen in Aserbaidschan war, haben wir das diskutiert. Leider Gottes stammen die meisten unserer Bezugsquellen aus Ländern, in denen die Menschenrechtsfrage nicht die oberste Priorität ist. Das kann uns nicht dazu führen, zu sagen, aus diesen Ländern werden wir keine Energie mehr beziehen. Aber es muss uns dazu führen – wenn wir glaubwürdig bleiben wollen –, beides zu machen: Energiepolitik, aber auch Menschenrechtspolitik und Förderung der Menschenrechtssituation in diesen Ländern. Es kann nicht sein, dass wir sagen: Wir beziehen Energie, alles andere interessiert uns nicht. Wir müssen eine parallele Strategie liefern. Das ist das Einzige, was glaubwürdig ist.

  Samuli Pohjamo (ALDE). – Arvoisa puhemies, minäkin haluan onnitella Saryusz-Wolskia hyvästä mietinnöstä erittäin tärkeästä asiasta. Mietintö osoittaa, että unionilla on vielä paljon tehtävää yhteisen energiapolitiikan luomisessa.

Haluan painottaa uusiutuvan energian merkitystä energiaomavaraisuuden parantamisessa, energialähteiden monipuolistamisessa ja ilmastonmuutoksen hallinnassa. Uusiutuvan energian osuuden lisäämisessä tarvitaan vielä voimakasta panostusta tutkimukseen ja tuotekehitykseen.

Jäsenvaltioiden on voitava säilyttää oikeutensa tehdä energiaa koskevia päätöksiä ja hyödyntää omia energiavarojaan, mutta samalla tarvitaan yhteistyötä, hyvien kokemusten vaihtoa ja myös yhteisiä määräyksiä, jotka edesauttavat yhteisen energiapolitiikan luomista.

On myös tärkeää toteuttaa yhteisiä uusiutuvan energian hankkeita unionin naapurimaiden kanssa, jotta koko Euroopan uusiutuvan energian resurssit saadaan käyttöön tehokkaammin ja kestävällä tavalla.

  Inese Vaidere (UEN). – Godātie kolēģi! Vispirms vēlos pateikties referentam Saryusz-Wolski kungam par visaptverošo un ārkārtīgi aktuālo ziņojumu. Enerģētika ir joma, kur Eiropas Savienības kompetence tiek dalīta ar dalībvalstīm. Un ir skaidrs, ka šādos apstākļos virzīties uz kopīgu ārpolitiku enerģētikas jomā nav viegls uzdevums. Tomēr atrisināt situāciju pēc iespējas ātrāk liek tas, ka energoapgādē esam atkarīgi no nestabilām valstīm ar apšaubāmu demokrātijas kvalitāti. Energoapgādes drošības jautājums ir svarīgs vispārējās drošības elements. Līdzšinējā pieredze ir parādījusi, ka enerģētika var būt visai iedarbīgs politiskā spiediena līdzeklis. Vienīgais pretlīdzeklis tam ir kopīga politika un solidaritāte. Viens no lielākajiem Eiropas Savienības piegādātājiem ir Krievija, ar kuru šobrīd tiek izstrādāts jaunais partnerības un sadarbības līgums. Tajā jāiestrādā Enerģētikas hartas principi, protams, ir nepieciešams, lai Krievija hartu ratificētu. Attiecībā uz trešajām valstīm, kurās ir vērojama pieaugoša vajadzība pēc enerģijas, Eiropas Savienībai vajadzētu rūpēties, lai atjaunojamo avotu tehnoloģijas tām tiktu piegādātas uz atvieglinātiem noteikumiem. Tas viennozīmīgi atmaksāsies daudzos aspektos nākotnē. Pagājušajā nedēļā Komisija nāca klajā ar priekšlikumu tālākajai tirgus liberalizācijai. Diemžēl jau uzreiz tas sastapa atsevišķu dalībvalstu un Krievijas pretestību. Ir simptomātiski, ka pretestība nāk no tām valstīm, kur uzņēmumi arī nesenā pagātnē centušies gūt labumu no īpašu divpusējo attiecību veidošanas, ignorējot citu dalībvalstu tiesības un intereses, kā tas, piemēram, ir Ziemeļeiropas gāzes vada projekta gadījumā. Gribētos cerēt, ka mēs tomēr varēsim vienoties, un tas padarīs mūs stiprākus arī ārējās attiecībās. Paldies!

  Marie Anne Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, merci à notre rapporteur. L'énergie est redevenue un enjeu géostratégique. C'est aussi le talon d'Achille de l'Union européenne. Ne pouvant répondre seule à ses besoins énergétiques, l'Union européenne s'escrime à diversifier ses sources d'approvisionnement à partir des accords commerciaux noués avec des pays en Amérique latine, en Afrique ou en Eurasie.

Le récent désaccord entre l'Union européenne et la Russie sur la charte de l'énergie indique que la sécurité énergétique est entrée dans une nouvelle ère. Face à l'épuisement des ressources pétrolières, au danger que constitue toujours l'atome et à l'avènement de puissances énergétiques comme la Russie ou le Brésil, il est essentiel également de réaffirmer la politique de développement durable de l'Union européenne. Et en ce sens, une politique étrangère cohérente reflétera d'abord les objectifs fixés par le Conseil européen de printemps en matière d'énergies renouvelables. Elle introduira également, dans nos relations extérieures, le postulat d'efficacité énergétique. Il ne suffit pas d'exiger des autres, en particulier des pays du voisinage, les garanties d'un approvisionnement constant. Il faut également assurer une véritable coordination entre les 27 États membres.

De fait, la sécurité énergétique implique une perte de souveraineté sur un secteur européen désormais stratégique. La pression qu'exerce l'approvisionnement énergétique sur les gouvernements ne doit pas précipiter nos décisions et les principes que nous avons élaborés collectivement. Comme l'a rappelé notre précédent Président du Parlement européen au président Poutine, les droits de l'homme ne peuvent pas se négocier à l'aune de nos besoins énergétiques. Au contraire, nous devons conditionner notre approvisionnement au respect des droits de l'homme.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL). – Este relatório parte de um problema real - a dependência energética da União -, mas dá a resposta errada. O inimigo não é a Rússia, qualquer que seja a opinião que tenhamos sobre Puttin, nem a Argélia, goste-se ou não dos seus militares. As alterações climáticas, o peso dos combustíveis fósseis, um modelo de vida com altos consumos de energia, estes são os adversários. Internos e externos. Não os venceremos com enfoques securitários próprios da guerra-fria.

A obsessão securitária mina a cooperação e induz uma política interna onde vale tudo: da fusão nuclear à aposta nos biocombustíveis. Ainda ontem o Le Monde revelava as conclusões de Paul Crutzen: um litro de agrocarburante pode contribuir até duas vezes mais para o efeito de estufa do que o seu equivalente fóssil.

Termino parafraseando José Sócrates: Talvez fosse boa ideia voltar a ouvir os cientistas e os economistas e não tanto os geoestrategas de sofá.

  Thomas Wise (IND/DEM). – Madam President, when the EU talks of a common foreign policy on energy, you need to be very aware of exactly who you propose to do business with. President Putin is on record as saying ‘The Commission should be under no illusions. If it wants to buy Russian gas, it has to deal with the Russian state.’

Gazprom is not a private company. It is a state-controlled tool of Russian foreign policy. It is, moreover, in the hands of President Putin’s political henchmen and, allegedly, organised crime. Take, for example, Alisher Usmanov. This gentleman, the son of a Communist apparatchik, is Chairman of Gazprom Invest Holdings, the group that handles Gazprom’s business activities outside Russia. He is the man we are doing business with. He is the man who cuts off gas supplies if client states dare to question Gazprom’s demands. Allegedly a gangster and racketeer, he served a six-year jail sentence in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, his eventual pardon coming at the behest of Uzbek mafia chief and heroin overlord Gafur Rakhimov, described as Usmanov’s mentor.

Usmanov bought the newspaper Kommersant. Three months later the journalist Ivan Safronov, a critic of the Putin regime who just weeks earlier had been vigorously interrogated by the FSB, as the KGB is now called, mysteriously fell to his death from his apartment window, still clutching a recently purchased bag of shopping.

According to Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, it was Usmanov who ordered the cutting off of supplies to Georgia earlier this year. Please take note, Madam President, the Kremlin has now refused to sanction the construction of a pipeline to the EU over Georgian territory. These are the people you want to do business with. These are the people around whom you want to mould your foreign policy on energy. Commissioner, good luck. You will need it.

  Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE-DE). – Frau Präsidentin! Zunächst möchte ich dem Berichterstatter Saryusz-Wolski ein Kompliment aussprechen. Sie sehen an der sehr großen Präsenz zu dieser späten Stunde, wie wichtig der Bericht ist, und Sie hören auch, wie emotional geladen er ist, wenn wir die verschiedenen Beiträge von verschiedenen Nationalitäten und aus verschiedenen Fraktionen hören. Insofern also ein Kompliment, dass das Papier tatsächlich geschrieben und verabschiedet worden ist.

Als Berichterstatterin für die Handels- und Wirtschaftsbeziehungen zwischen der EU und Russland möchte ich zwei Aspekte hervorheben und nachher eine allgemeine Bemerkung machen.

Der erste Aspekt betrifft die bilateralen Energieabkommen. Wenn ich richtig lese, heißt der Bericht Saryusz-Wolski „Auf dem Weg zu einer gemeinsamen europäischen Energieaußenpolitik“, mit anderen Worten: Diese gemeinsame Energieaußenpolitik besteht noch nicht! Solange sie noch nicht besteht, muss es also möglich sein, andere Wege zu finden, um über Energie zu sprechen. Die Mitgliedstaaten können sich effektiv untereinander abstimmen – das ist sehr wünschenswert, eine Pflicht ist es nicht. Es ist nicht möglich, ein Veto gegen bilaterale Abkommen einzulegen. Es spricht für den Realitätssinn des Berichterstatters – denn ich weiß, dass er etwas anderes wollte –, dass er dies so in seinem Bericht geschrieben hat.

Zweiter Punkt: Energiecharta kombinieren mit WTO-Mitgliedschaft von Russland. Die Koppelung der Ratifizierung der Energiecharta am den WTO-Beitritt ist ein Schuss nach hinten. Es ist auch von Vorteil für die EU, wenn Russland WTO-Mitglied ist. Im Übrigen sind wir nicht diejenigen, die alleine darüber entscheiden können.

Der Bericht des Berichterstatters für die gemeinsame Energiepolitik ist russlandlastig, aber das entspricht nun einmal der Situation von heute.

  Libor Rouček (PSE). – Dámy a pánové, Evropská unie je stále více závislá na dodávkách tradičních energií, především ropy a zemního plynu. Aby bylo možno tuto závislost omezit a snížit, je nutno provést mnohá důležitá opatření. Je nutno například zavést výrazné úspory energií i posílení výzkumu v této oblasti. Je nutno zavést výraznější využívání alternativních paliv od větru, vody, biomasy až po atomové reaktory. Je nutno provést teritoriální diversifikaci zdrojů dodávek mezi více zemí a více tras.

Všechny tyto výzvy a úkoly nelze řešit osamoceně, pouze na úrovni jednotlivých národních států. Ukazuje se, a začínají to chápat i politici v mnohých euroskeptických zemích, že řešení je nutno hledat společně, prostřednictvím společných evropských politik. A nejinak je tomu i na poli společné evropské zahraniční politiky v oblasti energií.

Vítám proto zprávu Saryusze-Wolskeho jako nezbytný krok a základ do debaty o vytvoření této politiky. Zpráva obsahuje důležité zásady a doporučení, kterými by se měla Evropská unie řídit, aby byla schopna jednotně hájit zájmy svých členů, aby byla schopna, a to i navenek, mluvit jedním hlasem. Mezi tyto zásady a důležité principy patří i velmi důležitý princip solidarity – solidarity v krizových situacích. Se všemi těmito zásadami a principy je možno souhlasit. K jejich naplnění však potřebujeme také nový, posílený smluvní základ – jinými slovy potřebujeme reformní smlouvu. Já myslím, že i tento aspekt bychom měli při diskusích o vytvoření společné zahraniční politiky v oblasti energií mít na paměti.

  Henrik Lax (ALDE). – Fru talman! Jag vill tacka föredraganden för att han vill göra det rysk-tyska Nordstream-projektet till en gemensam sak för EU. Det är det nämligen verkligen. EU behöver gas, och Ryssland behöver sina exportintäkter. Samtidigt väcker projektet rädsla och oro hos invånarna i Östersjöregionen och upplevs som ett hot. Vi behöver förtroendeskapande åtgärder för att undanröja denna misstro. Ryssland kan inte fortgående underblåsa allvarliga motsättningar mellan sig och folken kring sin viktigaste exportled. Men, bara ett enigt EU kan vända det nu upplevda hotet till en möjlighet och ett framsteg i relationerna med Ryssland.

För att projektet skall kunna ges grönt ljus måste EU kräva följande: en tillförlitlig bedömning av dess konsekvenser för miljö, garantier för ersättningar om gasledningen förorsakar olyckor och full insyn i driften i form av ett övervakningsråd med företrädare för länderna kring Östersjön.

  Zbigniew Krzysztof Kuźmiuk (UEN). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Chciałbym zwrócić uwagę, że z punktu widzenia poszczególnych krajów i społeczeństw najważniejsze są trzy rodzaje bezpieczeństwa: bezpieczeństwo energetyczne, bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe i wreszcie bezpieczeństwo osobiste. Dziękuję więc autorowi raportu w sprawie europejskiej polityki zagranicznej w dziedzinie energetyki, panu posłowi Saryusz-Wolskiemu, za przygotowanie kompleksowych przemyśleń na temat bezpieczeństwa energetycznego Unii Europejskiej. Wyrażam przy tym nadzieję, że wspólna polityka energetyczna zostanie zapisana w traktacie reformującym Unię Europejską.

Polska, którą reprezentuję, na własnej skórze doświadcza bowiem skutków rozbieżności interesów w zakresie polityki energetycznej pomiędzy poszczególnymi krajami członkowskimi. Dobitnym tego przykładem jest realizacja przez Niemcy i Rosję inwestycji Gazociągu Bałtyckiego wbrew interesom zarówno Polski, jak i pozostałych krajów nadbałtyckich.

Już dwa lata temu, na posiedzeniu Rady Unii, Polska zgłosiła propozycję wspólnej polityki energetycznej, którą można określić sformułowaniem: „jeden za wszystkich – wszyscy za jednego”. Dobrze się stało, że omawiany dzisiaj raport idzie w tę stronę, proponując wspólne rozwiązania, które realizowałyby wyżej wymienioną zasadę. Nie ulega bowiem wątpliwości, że bez jedności w obronie interesów energetycznych Unii Europejskiej, bez przestrzegania zasady solidarności w sytuacjach kryzysowych, Unia Europejska nie będzie postrzegana jako jednolity organizm.

  Jana Hybášková (PPE-DE). – Madam President, Commissioner, I should like to thank and congratulate you and Mr Saryusz-Wolski for your current work and achievements.

Allow me today to open a debate on a new proposal, not on a high commissioner but on a whole new issue. Let us create a European fund for alternative energy resources. You might be surprised at why I am speaking about this issue. Have you ever heard about one terrific night in a frozen US in 1965 which led to the baby boom? You must be able to recall early May 1986 – Chernobyl – hours, days and months afterwards. And, Commissioner, you probably did not have the opportunity to land and stay in Kuwait in 1991 when 300 oilfields were burning.

These are all cases of a lack of energy security. Why do we have this lack of energy security? Because we do not have freedom of choice; we are heavily dependent. As a granddaughter of the founder of ČEZ, I know that we can say that the Česká republika is no longer ‘Česká’, but ‘ČEZká’!

When you asked for 2020 for 20% of renewables, Prime Minister Topolánek came to us and he told us, I could sign it because it is total nonsense. With this approach, we will stay insecure because we will not have freedom of choice. How to achieve it? Of course, not only by external diversification – we Europeans have to find our own resources. Therefore, using energy tariffs to create a European fund for alternative energy can help us, not to create another Lisbon Strategy for 2020, but to really reach such people as Topolánek and give us the ability to have new resources, so as not to be dependent.

  Ana Maria Gomes (PSE). – Esta resolução expõe as insuficiências gritantes das políticas europeias no domínio da energia. Na verdade, a União Europeia não existe aqui como actor global. Quem, como eu, acredita que a União Europeia se deve garantir um mínimo de autonomia estratégica só pode observar com inquietação a nossa vulnerabilidade nesta matéria. Não se trata de ambicionar uma auto-suficiência utópica, mas sim de reconhecer a necessidade de mais coordenação entre políticas nacionais, de garantir solidariedade entre Estados-Membros e desenvolver relações com parceiros globais menos assimétricas, mais previsíveis e enraizadas numa abordagem verdadeiramente europeia. Por exemplo, depende de nós, europeus, inviabilizar o "dividir para reinar" que tem marcado as relações com a Rússia nesta matéria.

Neste relatório sublinha-se a dimensão política do mercado energético europeu. Enquanto os Estados-Membros, numa abordagem comparável à do mercado europeu de equipamento de defesa, insistirem em promover um proteccionismo soberanista e anacrónico para dentro e um liberalismo mais adamsmithiano do que Adam Smith para fora, a Europa continuará a destoar num mundo onde todos os actores principais vêem a energia como uma questão eminentemente política e estratégica. Nesse sentido a proposta do relator de criar um alto responsável é útil e importa aplicá-lo o mais depressa possível.

Mas a UE nesta matéria não tem só o imperativo estratégico ligado à segurança do aprovisionamento. A própria sustentabilidade da política energética europeia e as implicações ambientais da falta de diversificação das nossas fontes energéticas requerem urgente mudança de rumo. Nesse sentido, a Europa não pode continuar a prolongar petro-regimes corruptos e opressivos. A política externa energética da UE deve integrar nos seus critérios estratégicos imperativos dos direitos humanos, da boa governação e da sustentabilidade ambiental.

Concluindo, a poluição e o cenário pós-Quioto, o preço do petróleo, imperativos morais e de direitos humanos, a instabilidade política e económica decorrente da dependência dos hidrocarbonetos, o potencial de novas tecnologias ambientais para estimular uma nova revolução industrial na Europa e no mundo, tudo à nossa volta conspira no sentido de obrigar a UE a desenvolver uma política externa multifacetada, mas coerente, na área da energia.

Termino, Senhora Presidente, apresentando os meus parabéns ao relator Saryusz-Wolski.

  Šarūnas Birutis (ALDE). – Gerbiami kolegos, noriu padėkoti pranešėjui už puikų pranešimą. Pasikartosiu, bet pasakysiu, kad jis yra labai reikalingas, savalaikis, jeigu nepavėluotas. Jau ne vieną kartą akcentavau bendrosios energetikos politikos ir energijos tiekimo saugumo klausimus, nes tai yra gyvybiškai svarbūs klausimai Lietuvai ir kitoms Baltijos valstybėms.

Prisiminkime prieš 2 metus svarstytą A. Laperrouze pranešimą dėl transeuropinių tinklų gairių. Deja, tada čia, Parlamente, supratimas buvo, ir dabar kai kuriose šalyse lieka, visiškai kitoks, kad ir Nord Stream projektas. Gyvenimas parodo, kas yra teisūs.

Šiandien tik galiu pasidžiaugti, kad situacija keičiasi, ir Europos Komisija ėmėsi drąsių iniciatyvų. Rugsėjo 19 d. paketas kartu su šiuo pranešimu pagaliau pradeda pateisinti mūsų lūkesčius.

  Anna Ibrisagic (PPE-DE). – Fru talman! Först skulle jag vilja gratulera föredraganden till ett betänkande som inte bara är väldigt bra utan som också kommer i rätt tid. Saryusz-Wolski har gjort ett extremt viktigt arbete genom att flytta fokus från energi som en fråga om vår bekvämlighet till energi som en fråga av geopolitisk vikt. Just den geopolitiska och säkerhetspolitiska dimensionen är någonting som vi som är födda bakom järnridån alltid är medvetna om, men som Västeuropa negligerade länge. Därför är detta kanske det viktigaste som föredraganden bidrar med i denna debatt.

Vi behöver utveckla en gemensam policy för att bättre skydda våra gemensamma intressen på detta extremt viktiga strategiska område. Jag är tacksam för att Saryusz-Wolski hade mod att föreslå detta betänkande som innehåller en rad viktiga och innovativa idéer. Vi bör nämligen ha i åtanke att en säker energiförsörjning är av vitalt intresse för hundra miljoner av Europas medborgare.

Slutligen, Saryusz-Wolski har fullständigt rätt när han påstår att vi behöver tala med en röst i denna fråga, just för att energifrågan också helt uppenbart är en säkerhetsfråga. Alla våra erfarenheter av utrikes- och säkerhetspolitik visar att varje gång vi inte har talat med en röst har vi förlorat och våra medborgare har betalat priset. Därför kan jag inget annat än att varmt rekommendera att vi stöder Saryusz-Wolskis betänkande i sin helhet.

  Adrian Severin (PSE). – Madam President, Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report is important and timely. Energy today is strategic for the European Union, as coal and steel were decades ago. Yes, the European Union needs a common European foreign policy in energy. Starting from this statement, I believe two questions are legitimate.

Firstly, how could one have a common external energy policy without a common internal energy policy? We need a common agency for technological development in this field; we need a European budget funded in an appropriate way and from appropriate sources; we need a coherent strategy for the energy production; we need an integrated network of energy transportation, compatible systems of distribution and a European Union policy to balance consumption and production. We need a truly free internal energy market.

Secondly, how could one have a common foreign policy on energy without a general common foreign policy? The Russian factor is crucial. Unfortunately, Russia perceives any common European strategy on energy as being directed against its interests. How can we figure out a convincing win-win strategy on energy in our relations with Russia? Russia’s behaviour today is unacceptable. However, we could not only tell Russia to behave, we have to motivate it to behave. Therefore, I believe we should welcome Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report, but we should see it as one necessary important step in a long way towards our common goal.

  Alejo Vidal-Quadras (PPE-DE). – Señora Presidenta, hay que felicitar al señor Saryusz-Wolski porque su informe retoma con claridad los puntos esenciales que la Unión debe tener en cuenta para establecer una verdadera política energética exterior común: la reciprocidad con los países exportadores, la necesidad de coordinar mejor nuestra diplomacia energética a nivel europeo y la importancia de conseguir un mercado interior integrado y competitivo.

En el ámbito de la política energética exterior es crucial recordar que no es lo mismo un negocio que controla su mercado desde la generación hasta la venta final, como es el eléctrico, que otro cuyo producto depende de factores en gran medida fuera de su control, como es el caso del gas.

Por otra parte, no hay que confundir el proteccionismo, que condenamos, con la protección, que es una medida de prudencia. Hay que reenfocar el problema desde una óptica de interdependencia, ya que la Unión representa alrededor de 500 millones de consumidores, lo que nos da un peso considerable en el mercado mundial.

Sin embargo, reincidimos en el error de no armonizar los esfuerzos diplomáticos a nivel nacional y a nivel europeo, lo que nos debilita económica y geopolíticamente. Debemos asegurarnos de que los acuerdos bilaterales entre Estados miembros y terceros países no pongan en riesgo los esfuerzos realizados a nivel europeo. No pocos de los Estados miembros dependen de las importaciones en más de un 90 % de su consumo, lo que nos obliga a mantener relaciones fluidas y estables con los países productores.

Pero surgen ocasiones en las que los lazos se debilitan debido a acontecimientos inesperados, lo que suele acarrear consecuencias negativas en el comercio entre regiones ?lo que estamos sufriendo ahora en España y lo que vimos en Polonia y otros Estados miembros en un pasado muy reciente.

Termino, señora Presidenta, sólo mediante una auténtica política energética exterior de dimensión europea podremos evitar situaciones similares en el futuro y, por tanto, cualquier nueva base jurídica y cualquier nuevo instrumento institucional que contribuya a articularla ha de ser...

(La Presidenta retira la palabra al orador)

  Roberta Alma Anastase (PPE-DE). – Doamnelor şi domnilor, aş dori, în primul rând, să felicit raportorul pentru munca laborioasă şi pentru deschiderea manifestată în abordarea multiplelor aspecte pe care le implică o politică europeană comună în domeniul energiei.

Unul din aceste aspecte pe care voi dori să le menţionez în intervenţia mea este importanţa regiunii Mării Negre în cadrul viitoarei politici susmenţionate. În ultimii ani am fost martori ai mai multor crize energetice ce au afectat şi Uniunea Europeană. Obiectivele de asigurare a unei livrări energetice stabile, precum şi a unei pieţe transparente au devenit o prioritate indiscutabilă pentru Uniunea Europeană.

În acest context, regiunea Mării Negre constituie o cheie importantă spre securizarea sectorului european energetic prin diversificarea surselor de energie şi a reţelelor de tranzitare, iar iniţiativa europeană de a consolida cooperarea regională la Marea Neagră, prin crearea sinergiilor, trebuie utilizată la maximum în această direcţie. Subliniez, mai ales, importanţa strategică a proiectelor Nabucco şi Constanţa-Trieste.

Salut, în consecinţă, atenţia acordată acestor proiecte în raportul dlui Sarvusz-Wolski, precum şi numirea recentă a unui coordonator european al proiectului Nabucco. Nu mai puţin importante sunt obiectivele de consolidare a reţelei de coordonatori în domeniul energiei şi de aplicare a Tratatului asupra Comunităţii Energetice. Sper ca aceste iniţiative să fie urmate de paşi şi mai fermi în constituirea unei politici energetice comune, paşi ce vor valorifica regiunea Mării Negre şi vor pune bazele unui dialog cu partenerii externi, bazat pe reciprocitate şi încredere mutuală, valori comune şi, bineînţeles, pe respectarea obligaţiilor internaţionale.

  Bogdan Klich (PPE-DE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! To świetne sprawozdanie Jacka Saryusz-Wolskiego pokazuje, że najważniejszym aspektem polityki energetycznej Unii jest dziś bezpieczeństwo dostaw. Już dziś w połowie zależymy od dostawców zagranicznych, a w przypadku gazu jest to zależność aż 57-procentowa, a ropy aż 82-procentowa. Oznacza to, że jakiekolwiek kryzysy pomiędzy dostawcą a Unią Europejską, lub pomiędzy dostawcą a krajem tranzytowym, mogą mieć katastrofalny wpływ na nasze gospodarki i naszych obywateli. Tym ważniejsze jest zatem wprowadzenie do naszego porządku prawnego wraz z traktatem reformującym zasady solidarności krajów członkowskich na wypadek kryzysów.

Żeby jednak ta zasada mogła być w praktyce przestrzegana, niezbędne jest stworzenie systemu rezerw strategicznych, zwiększenie liczby połączeń między sieciami przesyłowymi, skonstruowanie wreszcie sprawnego mechanizmu reagowania, takiego, który zapewniałby pomoc techniczną krajom najbardziej poszkodowanym w wyniku kryzysów. Solidarność między krajami członkowskimi musi się przejawiać także we wspólnej zewnętrznej polityce energetycznej, i to dobrze, że Komisja zapewnia o swojej woli tworzenia takiej polityki, co usłyszeliśmy z ust pana komisarza Piebalgsa. Trzeba jeszcze przekonać do tego państwa członkowskie, żeby wyrzekły się partykularyzmów na rzecz wspólnego podejścia i wspólnego dobra.

Ważne jest, aby ta polityka opierała się na zasadzie dywersyfikacji zarówno źródeł, jak i dostawców, wreszcie tras i metod dostarczania energii. Oznacza to konieczność politycznego i finansowego wspierania dla nowych projektów infrastrukturalnych, takich jak rurociąg Odessa-Brody-Płock czy gazociąg Nabucco. Zobowiązuje jednak także do przeciwdziałania takim projektom, które dzielą wspólnotę, jak na przykład gazociąg bałtycki. No i wreszcie stałym elementem gry Unii Europejskiej z otoczeniem, zwłaszcza tym najbliższym, w ramach europejskiej polityki sąsiedztwa, winny się wreszcie stać klauzule energetyczne na wzór klauzul antyterrorystycznych, które postulujemy stąd, z Parlamentu Europejskiego, do umów z krajami trzecimi.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. Madam President, I will start by thanking the rapporteur.

I think you see how complex the issue is, and it is very difficult to address all aspects, but it is good to try to address the complexity of the issue. In my work, I am not pretending to be ‘Mr Energy’. There are three pillars of external energy relations: one is supply transit (and here I work with my colleagues Benita Ferrero-Waldner and Peter Mandelson); the second pillar is clean energy and energy efficiency such as launching a global energy efficiency platform (here I work with Stavros Dimas and Janez Potočnik; and the third pillar addresses energy poverty (where I work with Louis Michel).

That indicates how complex this is, and on top of it we have the Member States. The Treaty, and also the Reform Treaty, says a very important thing: each Member State is responsible for its energy mix. That is why I think the report calls for speaking with one voice. I think that is the main message that I got from the report. This is far from simple, and we are far from being there. I believe that this report gives us a good chance of advancing the whole Union along this path.

I now come to Mr Beazley’s question, because I think it was addressing the heart of the whole process: Why do energy issues need to be addressed in a partnership and cooperation agreement, a post-PCA agreement with Russia, if you have an Energy Charter?

The Energy Charter is a multilateral instrument. For Russia, our relations on energy are definitely much bigger. We invest in Russia. Russia invests here. A Russian nuclear reactor will perhaps be constructed in Belarus. That means we need to build confidence on both sides, and confidence could be built if there are very clear legal requirements describing both sides’ duties and also rights.

If these are described, then we can also conclude that there are areas where we also need an External Energy Representative. I hear this call for a High Official coming from other partners. If we have Treaty provisions making provision for Union development then we should agree to a mandate – by a mandate I mean on a basis like Committee 133 for external trade policy – then on the basis of this mandate the person delegated could speak with external suppliers, transit countries, or any other participants in the energy market.

If we deal with this separately, then definitely it loses all power. We should see it as a symbiosis because it is not a separate issue from speaking with one voice. If you do not speak with one voice, then you do not need a messenger. If you speak with one voice, then you definitely need a messenger.

So I will stay with this position. I would like to thank you for a very good debate. It was very interesting. After the Commission produces this paper on external energy relations, I believe that Parliament will return to the issue because you cannot resolve this issue with just one report. That would be too optimistic. Again, I should like to thank the rapporteur for very good work.

  Presidente. La discussione è chiusa.

La votazione si svolgerà mercoledì.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 142)

  John Attard-Montalto (PSE), in writing. – Today, more than ever, economic powers are scrambling for energy resources. China is providing enormous amount of aid without strings to developing countries in recompense for energy supplies. Russia is using its gas and oil clout so as to become once more a global player. The United States is foreseeing a future more dependent on nuclear technology. Where does this leave the European Union?

It has become essential to close ranks for the supply and security of energy. Problems facing those EU countries such as Malta which have the potential of becoming energy suppliers have to be dealt with by the European Union as a whole. Just as in issues of illegal immigration, where questions of energy arise, it is the EU which should intervene. A common foreign policy on energy should not only be limited to supply and security but must also encompass two essential subjects: the emission of greenhouse gases and secondly the quest for alternative energy. A common foreign policy on energy can only make sense in this wider context, a triangle, with supply and security at the top, climate change and alternative sources at its base.

  Avril Doyle (PPE-DE), in writing. – In our efforts to tackle climate change we should not jeopardise efforts to protect biodiversity, ecosystems and Europe’s food security. The 8/9 March Council conclusions specify that the 10% target for biofuels is an appropriate target only if it is subject to sustainable production. The impacts of first-generation biofuels maybe greater than originally thought, for instance the USA’s desire to use bioethanol has led to a massive increase in the use of grain for biofuels production. This demand is having a negative effect on European grain supplies with predictions that it will get much worse as the US surplus of grain diminishes. The OECD-FAO foresees a significant impact of biofuels production on agriculture commodity prices with possible knock on effects on food importing countries. A comprehensive international certification scheme for biofuels is therefore needed – as referred both in the Saryusz-Wolski and Thomsen reports – where both exports and imports to the EU are certified. The certification criteria should be designed to ensure that biofuels provide significant greenhouse gas savings over the whole life cycle and that their production does not cause a loss in biodiversity or major socioeconomic problems such as serious food price inflation.

  András Gyürk (PPE-DE), írásban. – „Az energiára vonatkozó közös európai külpolitika felé” című jelentés fontos megállapítása, hogy Európa energiaellátása növekvő mértékben függ instabil és nem demokratikus országoktól. Az egyre inkább egyértelmű függőséget az is súlyosbítja, hogy az energia mind gyakrabban válik a politikai nyomásgyakorlás eszközévé.

Az említett folyamatok miatt sürgető feladat a szolidaritáson alapuló közös európai energiapolitika megteremtése.

A közös politika gyakorlati megvalósulását jelenthetik a nagy európai energetikai projektek. Ezért üdvözlendő, hogy az Unió nemrégiben koordinátort nevezett ki a legfontosabb ilyen projekt, a Nabucco élére. Ez a tény, valamint az, hogy az eddig vonakodó magyar kormány immár kiáll a vezeték megépítése mellett, azt jelentheti, hogy az európai fogyasztókat a Kaszpi-térségben lévő forrásokkal összekötő gázvezeték a bizonytalankodás jelképe helyett a sikeres közös energiapolitika szimbólumává válhat. A források és a szállítási útvonal tekintetében is diverzifikációt megvalósító Nabucco vezeték már néhány éven belül bebizonyíthatja, hogy a közös fellépés a fogyasztók számára növekvő ellátásbiztonságot és megfizethető árakat jelent. Ez minden tagállamnak érdeke, de különösen fontos a jelenleg kizárólagosan orosz gázra támaszkodó Magyarországnak.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE-DE), în scris. – Politica energetică europeană s-a axat până acum pe crearea, stabilizarea şi reglementarea pieţei interne, tendinţă vizibilă şi în ultimul pachet energetic al Comisiei Europene.

S-a considerat că liberalizarea pieţei interne va transforma UE într-un actor important pe scena energetică internaţională, dar s-a constatat că Uniunii îi lipseşte de fapt o dimensiune externă şi omogenă a politicii energetice.

Noua realitate, în care concurenţa şi liberalizarea sunt interconectate cu schimbările climatice şi securitatea resurselor, generează nu numai provocări externe (teama de dependenţă energetică faţă de un singur furnizor, care îşi foloseşte poziţia drept armă politică), ci şi o importantă provocare internă, care testează capacitatea statelor membre de a-şi plasa interesul naţional în subsidiar pentru a crea premisele dezvoltării unei politici energetice comune şi coerente.

Următorul pas este reprezentat de diversificarea resurselor prin intermediul cooperării intensificate cu statele vecine, în special cu cele din estul Europei şi din Asia Centrală. În acest fel se asigură dezvoltarea convergentă a statelor membre şi a vecinilor lor şi se încurajează cooperarea regională şi inter-regională, indispensabilă eficientizării politicii energetice externe europene.

Extinderea Comunităţii Energetice Europene către est ar stimula definitivarea liberalizării pieţelor energetice, asigurând un avantaj comun în vederea unei posibile extinderi viitoare a Uniunii Europene.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE-DE), in writing. – It is vital we ensure that the principles and goals of the EU’s development policy are respected and promoted through the measures foreseen in the field of energy and foreign policy. Access to energy is an essential enabling factor for economic growth and for the provision of basic living conditions for all human beings.

EU Member States and European energy companies cooperate extensively with developing countries in the field of energy, yet it is not always clear how much the citizens of these resources actually benefit. For this reason, I support all steps aimed at promoting transparency, the rule of law and improved governance in the energy sector.

Economic development does not have to mean repeating the polluting practices of the industrialised countries. Many developing countries are heavily dependent on high carbon-emitting sources of energy. They need assistance to be able to diversify their sources of energy to achieve a more sustainable mix. I deplore the widespread use of coal-fired power stations in China. We should take all reasonable steps to encourage their transition to clean technologies through building sustainable energy capacity and facilitating the transfer of clean technologies.