Rapporti verbatim tad-dibattiti

It-Tlieta, 15 ta' Frar 2011 - Strasburgu

20. L-Istrateġija Enerġetika tal-Bank Dinji (dibattitu)

  Elnök. − A következő pont az Eva Joly által a Fejlesztési Bizottság nevében a Bizottsághoz intézett, a Világbank energiastratégiájáról szóló szóbeli választ igénylő kérdésről folytatott vita (O-000020/2011 - B70012/2011).

  Franziska Keller, author. − Mr President, today 1.5 billion people are currently without access to electricity, but access to energy is a prerequisite for the eradication of the poverty that these people live in. The right to energy implies that energy supplies achieve universal and reliable access: equitable access that bridges the gap between urban and rural areas and is also affordable. It is also crucial for a country to develop a sustainable and secure energy supply, and the most reliable and secure one is a decentralised use of renewables.

But energy does not only need to be secure and reliable; its production also needs to take into account other issues such as climate change, deforestation, environmental degradation, human health, and the poverty it causes. These problems cannot be tackled by fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have a disastrous impact on health, environment and climate. At the same time, the climate crisis is doing more damage to those living in extreme poverty. Fossil fuels create pollution that endangers both human health and a healthy environment, and they are expensive and their prices increase the more we run out of oil and gas. Fossil fuels create centralised, hierarchic and inflexible energy distribution.

We have to focus on renewables. We have to assist developing countries to leapfrog our destructive fossil fuel path. Only renewables can bring a solution to these problems. Renewable energy uses resources that will never run out and that many developing countries have in abundance: sun and wind mainly. They can be employed locally on a very small and inexpensive scale, which is also in a very literal sense empowering people. Decentralised power supplies are in the hands of the people. They are democratic. Nevertheless, the World Bank continues to push fossils in its energy strategy. Recent increases in lending for renewable and energy sufficiency remain tiny and cannot cover up the obvious preferences.

Fossil fuel investments are also taking place through financial intermediaries which the World Bank does not sufficiently monitor. There is an under-reporting of fossil fuels. The bank continues to make significant investment in coal-fired power plants, locking developing countries into coal-based energy for decades to come. This is not what an energy revolution looks like.

The World Bank’s energy policy suffers from a lack of transparency. This problem should be addressed through the definition of clear requirements that financial intermediaries must meet in order to be eligible for multilateral financing. 40% of World Bank loans to the private sector are transferred through those financial intermediaries and a large part of those loans goes to the energy sector, in particular extractives. However, unlike direct bank project investments, there is no information publicly available on these individual sub-project investments, making it very difficult to track what ultimately happens to financial intermediaries’ funding.

When we look at what sort of energy is counted as low-carbon, we can find large hydropower plants in the strategy. Such large hydroplants destroy vast amounts of nature and drive people from their homes. This is not sustainable and this is not in the interests of the people and of society. Also carbon capture and storage do not make coal power low-carbon. The CO2 is still there and nobody can predict what will happen to it underground. None of us can say for sure that it will stay there, calmly for the next millennia. This is fortune telling and not research and certainly not policy making.

The same goes for nuclear energy. Uranium mining produces huge amounts of CO2 and nobody knows what to do with the waste we are producing. This is not low-carbon and this is not sustainable. This is why the Green/EFA Group will vote against the resolution unless the low-carbon wording is replaced.

However, we also see some good points in the resolution: for example, the focus on off-grid renewables for rural areas and small-scale local production, as well as the concern about the dominance of export orientation, large-scale plants and bio fuels.

A last word: we also very much focus on the call for enhanced technology transfer. In particular, technology transfer will not need much if intellectual property rights are left intact. The overriding goal should be to treat intellectual property rights in a manner that allows access to technology at affordable prices. This is what we promised at the climate negotiations, and we should stick to our promise.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). - Mr President, I can only congratulate Ms Keller for what she has said and her analysis. The question though is this. We have known about these problems for two decades now. Ms Keller, since you have dealt with the issue in more depth than most of us, is there any particular point that makes you optimistic that what we are about to decide upon could actually bring some progress, or that the World Bank is now finally heading in the right direction?

  Franziska Keller, author. − Mr President, indeed we have been discussing these issues for more than two decades, and I really hope that the World Bank will learn from these discussions since everybody agrees that the future lies with renewables.

We have seen a slight change in this strategy. For instance, it has moved a bit more towards renewables, but this is a little step and not enough by far. There is still too much dominance of fossils and, when it comes to renewables, too much focus on hydropower plants – and they are not renewable, they are not sustainable, not for anybody.

So I hope that this Parliament can make a strong statement on where we want the European energy policy and the policy that we promote for energy in the world to go. I hope for your support to remove the wording on low carbon and go for proper, sustainable, renewable energy.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I feel I also made a very strong statement. Firstly, I would emphasise that the World Bank energy strategy is very welcome because the World Bank plays a very particular role in the world, particularly in dealing with development issues. It is not an understatement to say that they are leaders of public opinion and approaches to development strategies. My point is that we should address this issue with all seriousness.

At the same time, we should not forget a couple of elements that are very crucial when we are estimating our answer to the strategy. There are still a substantial number of households today that have no access to any type of energy. It is true that, although we have been discussing the issue for 20 years, substantial investment in the energy sector or energy service provision have not been delivered to hundreds of millions of people, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. So I believe that we need to understand the scale of the challenge.

The second point that we need to take into account is growth. Each of the countries that are on the path of development have an immense growth in demand. We should respond to growth in demand with supply. There is an additional fundamental challenge because of the scale of this.

The third point – and here I fully agree with Ms Keller – is sustainability and anticipation. Whatever the energy sector does should be considered in the light of the consequences that it has on climate change. We know that the energy sector which exists today is the biggest cause of greenhouse gases. Additionally, we should also look at the price of fossil fuel, because we should not forget that the challenge of fossil fuel prices is still ahead of us. I hope that we will face this later rather than sooner, but it is definitely part of anticipation of the strategy.

As for the orientation, I would expect Parliament to take account of the Green Paper on EU development policy, where we make access to renewable energy in developing countries one of the central pillars of the new EU development policy. If we do not take this pioneering step, we cannot easily expect to convince the World Bank and others that we should be focusing investment on renewable energy. I believe that we are capable of managing the scale of investment in renewable energy. We just need to have courage. It is true that it requires a lot of financial means today, but any energy strategy would require quite a lot of investment. So, if I see anticipation of the prices, I would always argue that renewable energy is definitely the one that should be at the heart of any energy policy in any part of the world.

Our knowledge of renewable technologies today gives a good guarantee that we really could make a change in these countries. I also believe that there is a lot of untapped potential. I know that hydropower, for example, is a rather challenging source of energy from all points of view but, provided environmental sustainability analysis is being done, I believe that most countries also have a fantastic untapped potential in hydropower, which gives additional arguments that the scale – the Inga Dam – for example is huge.

At the beginning we need to lead by example. If the EU is able and you discuss a report on the EU development policies Green Paper, Parliament should strongly support driving EU development policy in this direction. We will have a better argument for convincing the World Bank to actually follow this drive and be more focused on investments in the coal-fired power station. The Bank has now established six criteria as general guidelines for future coal investment. The World Bank, under the leadership of Bob Zoellick, is extremely active in the debate, so it would seem that the World Bank is an asset and not something that we should be afraid of. It is our ally but we really need to provide European leadership on this issue and in the energy sector for the developing world.

I would also like to address the issue of the EIB, because it was in the question. The Cotonou Agreement is the legislative basis for EIB activity for an amount of EUR 3.1 billion to ACP countries. A major instrument in this framework is the ACP Investment Facility. The Facility finances infrastructure and climate-friendly energy projects. As far as the energy sector is concerned, no projects exist in the area of fossil fuels. The general policy is very clear – to fund climate-friendly energy projects based on wind, hydraulic or solar energy.

In the context of the mid-term review of the EIB External Mandate – covering pre-accession, neighbourhood and partner countries, Asia, Latin America and South Africa – a proposal has been put forward by the Commission to activate an additional EUR 2 billion mandate for 2011-2013 to support EIB financing operations in the field of climate change mitigation and adaptation across all regions. The proposal stresses that the EIB’s own rules and procedures shall include the necessary provisions to ensure that only projects that are economically, financially, environmentally and socially sustainable are supported under the mandate.

I believe that the EU has already taken some steps in the right direction, but we could really take more steps to provide real leadership for the world, not least by addressing the World Bank’s energy strategy.

  Alf Svensson, för PPE-gruppen. – Herr talman! Det är en mycket angelägen och viktig fråga som tas upp i kammaren, nämligen utfasningen av lån till fossilbränsleprojekt. Jag anser att man ska våga säga precis som kommissionsledamot Andris Piebalgs gjorde, nämligen att Världsbanken har en mycket medveten energistrategi. I detta sammanhang kan man till och med tala om morötter, och det är ju positivt. Sedan handlar det ju inte enbart om att fasa ut, utan det handlar som sagt också om att fasa in.

Med en viss envishet vill jag upprepa att där finns möjligheter för EU att göra konkreta satsningar för att hjälpa människor i utvecklingsländerna, såväl i Afrika som i Asien och Latinamerika. Jag tror att kommissionsledamoten tidigare har hört mig tala om de vedspisar som i dag finns i hyddor eller enkla hus och som förgiftar människor. Två miljoner människor dör en för tidig död på grund av de gaser som finns i enkla bostäder.

Där skulle vi, i likhet med USA och en del europeiska länder, kunna satsa på enkla soldrivna spisar som i varje fall tar bort 95 procent av gaserna. Då skulle man slippa använda gödsel som vi vet att man behöver för att odla och man skulle slippa att elda med svart kol. Man skulle inte heller behöva hugga ner skog som absolut inte ska huggas ner.

Jag skulle än en gång vilja understryka att det finns möjligheter att konkret göra någonting. Ofta när vi talar om alternativa energikällor talar vi yvigt om vindkraft och solenergi och naturligtvis ska vi göra det. Men konkretioner saknas trots att möjligheterna finns. Låt inte EU hamna på efterkälken i de här frågorna utan låt EU vara med och utveckla konkretion för att ersätta detta fossilbränsle som vi inte längre vill ha i vare sig i- eller u-länder.

  Κρίτων Αρσένης, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας S&D. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, Επίτροπε Piebalgs, κατ’ αρχήν να συγχαρώ την Franziska Keller για την εξαιρετική δουλειά της στην έκθεση αυτή. Πραγματικά, όσοι δουλέψανε σ' αυτή την έκθεση είδανε το πόσο μη βιώσιμη είναι από πολλές πλευρές η στρατηγική της Παγκόσμιας Τράπεζας. Όπως είπε και η Franziska Keller, χρηματοδοτεί έργα μεγάλης κλίμακας, μη βιώσιμα, όπως τα υδροηλεκτρικά και πολλά άλλα.

Είναι γεγονός ότι αυξήθηκε κατά 300% η χρηματοδότηση για έργα ανανεώσιμων πηγών ενέργειας. Την ίδια στιγμή όμως αυξήθηκε κατά 430% και η χρηματοδότηση των έργων ορυκτών καυσίμων.

Η Παγκόσμια Τράπεζα, και αυτό είναι, θα έλεγα, σκανδαλώδες, δεν υπολογίζει το περιβαλλοντικό αποτύπωμα των έργων που χρηματοδοτεί η ίδια. Την ίδια στιγμή, ακόμη και σήμερα συζητά την έναρξη χρηματοδότησης σε προγράμματα που αφορούν φυτείες φοινικέλαιου. Δεν σέβεται τις αρχές της ελεύθερης και πρότερης και μετά από επαρκή πληροφόρηση συμφωνίας των ιθαγενών για τα έργα που χρηματοδοτεί. Είναι η αρχή του «Free, Prior and Informed Consent». Επίσης δεν ενσωματώνει (και θα πρέπει να ενσωματώσει) το Full Cycle Analysis, το κόστος για τον κύκλο ζωής των έργων τα οποία χρηματοδοτεί.

Ελπίζω πραγματικά αυτή η έκθεση, όπως θα προκύψει μετά την τελική ψηφοφορία, να στείλει ένα δυνατό μήνυμα για τις απαραίτητες περιβαλλοντικές μεταρρυθμίσεις που πρέπει να ολοκληρώσει η Παγκόσμια Τράπεζα στο εσωτερικό της.

  Charles Goerens, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, la Banque mondiale, en vertu de son mandat, est tenue de contribuer à éradiquer la pauvreté dans les pays en développement. Quel que soit le projet soutenu par la Banque mondiale, la finalité doit toujours être la même. Qu'il s'agisse d'un investissement dans les secteurs sociaux de base – la santé, l'éducation, l'accès à l'eau –, le financement d'un projet économique doit être conforme à sa mission. Et si elle fait de la lutte contre la pauvreté une priorité, nous serons satisfaits du mandat que nous avons donné à la Banque mondiale.

Quant à la question orale qui fait l'objet de notre débat et qui exprime ses plus vives réserves à propos du financement de projets pétroliers ou axés sur le charbon, laissez–moi faire les remarques suivantes:

Premièrement, les termes de référence d'un projet de financement doivent intégrer les critères d'évaluation dès le lancement de celui–ci. Il faut savoir ce qu'on évalue et il faut donc intégrer ces critères d'évaluation dès le lancement d'un projet.

Deuxièmement, le dialogue politique entre la Banque mondiale et son partenaire doit porter à la fois sur la gouvernance politique et économique tant du pays concerné que de l'emprunteur.

Troisièmement, là où la promotion de l'énergie renouvelable est possible à des coûts défendables, il importe de privilégier cette forme d'énergie.

Quatrièmement, et je remercie le commissaire Piebalgs d'avoir déjà répondu à une de mes préoccupations dans sa réponse à Mme Keller, la Banque européenne d'investissement, de son côté, tient d'ores et déjà compte des remarques que je viens de formuler.

Il ne me reste plus qu'à souhaiter que la Banque mondiale fasse siennes les priorités d'ores et déjà adoptées par d'autres, notamment la Banque européenne d'investissement. Étant donné que les 27 États membres de l'Union européenne sont aussi membres de la Banque mondiale, nous ne pouvons pas prétendre n'avoir aucune influence sur la politique de celle–ci.

Je crois que le groupement de nos forces au sein de la Banque mondiale mériterait aussi un débat qui pourrait être utile pour résoudre les questions soulevées par Mme Keller, que je tiens aussi à féliciter pour son excellent travail.

  Marisa Matias, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Sr. Presidente, eu também gostaria de dizer, antes de mais, que enalteço o trabalho que foi feito pela colega e que apoio completamente as questões que aqui foram enumeradas.

E vou fazer uma coisa que não fiz ainda, mas que penso que vale a pena fazer. Nós temos uma série de documentos que têm um conjunto de pressupostos, todos eles, e que raramente discutimos. É como se fossem pressupostos que não merecem discussão. Temos a pergunta oral e temos uma resolução que nos diz várias coisas, entre as quais que os programas convencionais de electrificação rural financiados pelo Banco Mundial fracassaram globalmente na tarefa de atingir os pobres nas áreas rurais.

Temos também a constatação de que há uma possível, putativa, mudança da estratégia energética do Banco Mundial para meados de 2011, mas sabemos também que é nos sectores energéticos que podemos combater de forma muito concreta a pobreza e ajudar a retirar as pessoas da pobreza. Por isso apelamos ao Banco Mundial para adoptar uma abordagem de desenvolvimento que possa beneficiar ao máximo os pobres e que, simultaneamente, permita combater as alterações climáticas.

Também temos já dito que os empréstimos destinados a combustíveis fósseis continuam a desempenhar um papel predominante na carteira global da energia do Banco Mundial e que temos de abandonar essa predominância. Temos também a promessa de que essa predominância vai deixar de ser uma predominância até 2015 e de que haverá uma redução gradual do financiamento para estes projectos baseados nos combustíveis fósseis.

Temos, enfim, um conjunto de declarações, nomeadamente no que diz respeito à necessidade de o Banco Mundial conferir prioridade ao acesso à energia local em pequena escala. E muitas, muitas outras, tendo em conta as alterações climáticas.

Dito isto, edito aquilo que foi dito e que eu subscrevo. Edito todas as declarações que temos feito. Deixo apenas duas perguntas finais, porque não vale a pena continuar com meras declarações de intenções.

A primeira pergunta é: porque não retiramos daqui uma conclusão tão básica como esta? Porque é que continuamos a deixar que quem paga mande? E porque continua o Banco Mundial a ser responsável pela estratégia energética mundial? Quando é que nós vamos tomar a decisão de que a estratégia energética mundial passe a ser objecto de uma coordenação mundial alicerçada nas Nações Unidas?

A segunda pergunta que deixo aqui – peço desculpa se ultrapasso um pouco o tempo – é: quando é que nós paramos de impor aos outros um modelo de desenvolvimento, seja em primeira ou segunda geração, quer dizer, seja em primeira ou segunda mão, ao resto do mundo, como se fosse um modelo de desenvolvimento que deve ser aplicado a toda a gente?

Há limites para a arrogância. Devemos ser mais democráticos.

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). - Herr Präsident! In den 70er-Jahren, in den beginnenden 80er-Jahren war die ökologische Blindheit der Weltbank in der Tat ein großes Thema. Damals hat man die gleichen Reden gehört wie hier heute und bestimmte Versprechungen der Weltbank. Man hat so getan, als ob man die Weltbank reformieren würde. Jahrzehnte sind seitdem vergangen. Aus verschiedensten Gründen war ich in jüngster Zeit in verschiedensten Ländern, die man Entwicklungsländer nennt. Es war unerträglich! Wo sind denn die ganzen Projekte zu sehen, wo sind die Solaranlagen in den Tropen, wo sind die nachhaltig nutzbaren Wälder im Amazonasgebiet oder auch in Vietnam, wo sind denn Solarpanels und Windräder in Kenia?

Nichts ist da, gar nichts ist da! Passiert ist nur, dass das auf der europäischen Ebene bestehende System der Selbstverwaltung perfekt kopiert wird. Man hat sich im Wesentlichen selbst verwaltet, man hat ein paar Großinteressenten in die Hände gespielt, aber nichts vorangebracht. Und dann wundern wir uns, wenn Bürgerinnen und Bürger aus der Dritten Welt vollkommen verzweifelt sagen „Ich will nicht mehr in der Karibik leben, ich will in die USA und über das Schlupfloch Martinique in die EU hinein“. Wir wundern uns, wenn im Maghreb die Leute jetzt alle zu uns drängen. Da ist doch eine unglaubliche Verlogenheit in dieser Debatte! Man muss doch die Radikalisierung von Millionen Menschen verstehen, die einfach sagen „Uns reicht’s!“.

Jeder, der sich jetzt den Entschließungsantrag des Europäischen Parlaments ansieht, muss gestehen, dass es das doch nicht gewesen sein kann. Wir müssten mit einer viel stärkeren Stimme sprechen. Wir müssten die Weltbank viel eindeutiger auffordern und auch durch entsprechende Aktionen zu etwas bewegen. Wozu haben wir denn die ganzen Ausschüsse hier – mit dem Entwicklungsausschuss, der AKP-Versammlung und so weiter –, wenn das Ergebnis nur so ein mattes Papierchen ist, das teilweise in den Schlussfolgerungen hinter die Debatte der späten 70er-Jahre zurückfällt? Das ist peinlich.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Nie musimy nikogo przekonywać jak ważna dla krajów rozwijających się jest kwestia energii. Wielokrotnie byłem świadkiem zaskoczenia osób, które dowiadywały się jakie są ceny energii elektrycznej w Afryce. Nie trzeba też chyba nikogo przekonywać, że rola Banku Światowego w sprawach energetycznych krajów rozwijających się, jest niebagatelna.

Moja grupa polityczna PPE zgłosiła kilka wniosków o głosowanie rozłączne w sprawie rezolucji, o której mówimy. Wydaje nam się, że w kilku miejscach rezolucja jest zbyt krytyczna wobec Banku Światowego. Nie sądzę np. byśmy mogli zwracać Bankowi uwagę na to, które rodzaje energii są uważane przez ową instytucję za czyste, a które powinny być uznawane za ekologicznie niepoprawne czy niepożądane. Energetyka jądrowa jest np. szeroko stosowana w krajach Unii Europejskiej, co więcej kraje europejskie uzależnione od węgla czy gazu są w pewnym sensie poszkodowane, muszą bowiem ograniczać emisyjność, co generuje koszty rozłożone bardzo nierównomiernie w poszczególnych państwach członkowskich. Dlatego trzeba być ostrożnym we wskazywaniu podmiotom zewnętrznym, które rodzaje energii powinny być rozwijane. Zgadzam się natomiast z tezą, że warto szczególnie wspierać projekty lokalne, obejmujące małe obszary, że warto popierać projekty niskoemisyjne, że warto popierać idee zróżnicowanych źródeł energii i unikania uzależnienia energetycznego.

Chcielibyśmy, aby Bank Światowy inwestował w energię odnawialną i zwiększenie efektywności energetycznej, ale ciągle musimy pamiętać o zasadniczym celu, czyli o tym, w jaki sposób dostęp do energii miałby pomagać ludziom w wychodzeniu z ubóstwa. Chcemy bowiem upiec kilka pieczeni na jednym ogniu – stworzyć warunki rozwoju, ograniczyć emisyjność, uwzględnić aspekty społeczne i środowiskowe w nowych projektach energetycznych. To są ambitne zadania i ja bym chciał, żeby Bank Światowy się ich nie bał. Jednocześnie wiem, że pan komisarz Pielbags kładzie duży nacisk na rozwój projektów energetycznych w krajach rozwijających się i potwierdzam, że w Zielonej Księdze jest o tym mowa i Parlament Europejski powinien tę strategię popierać.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). - Astăzi, în lume, 1,4 miliarde de oameni nu au acces la electricitate, 85% dintre aceştia trăind în zonele rurale. Obiectivele de Dezvoltare ale Mileniului de a eradica sărăcia până în 2015 nu vor fi atinse în lipsa unui progres substanţial privind accesul la energie. Atingerea acestui obiectiv până în 2015 înseamnă ca 395 de milioane de oameni să aibă acces la electricitate şi ca 1 miliard de oameni să dobândească acces la facilităţi igienice de pregătire a hranei. Toate acestea vor necesita în perioada 2010-2015 investiţii anuale de aproximativ 40 de miliarde de dolari, ceea ce reprezintă 0,6% din PIB-ul mondial.

Accesul universal la energie electrică este unul dintre cele mai importante obiective stabilite de către guvernele ţărilor în curs de dezvoltare. Printre barierele identificate în calea electrificării se numără costurile ridicate pentru furnizarea energiei electrice în zonele rurale şi pentru locuinţele periurbane, lipsa stimulentelor fiscale sau financiare, slaba capacitate de dezvoltare şi implementare a unor proiecte de electrificare, precum şi capacitatea limitată de generare a energiei electrice.

Zonele rurale au o situaţie particulară privind necesarul de energie. În aceste zone trebuie nu doar asigurată energia necesară, ci însuşi procesul de producţie a acesteia, care asigură şi crearea de locuri de muncă şi dezvoltare economică şi socială.

Pe 11 februarie 2011 un raport al Băncii Mondiale arăta că producţia locală de energie din surse regenerabile, la preţuri mici de producţie, este , pe termen lung, mai viabilă din punct de vedere economic. Aceasta poate avea un rol important pentru creşterea securităţii energetice a Indiei, pentru reducerea importurilor de energie şi pentru reducerea influenţei fluctuaţiilor preţului petrolului. Banca Mondială ar putea fi deci un partener al ţărilor în curs de dezvoltare. Consider că Banca Mondială ar trebui să sprijine proiectele aferente creşterii eficienţei energetice, producţiei locale de energie din surse regenerabile, precum şi ample proiecte de electrificare şi de asigurare a interconexiunilor dintre diferite ţări.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). - Pirmiausia noriu padėkoti pranešėjai iš tikrųjų už laiku, savalaikiai ir labai aktualų iškeltą klausimą. Energetinis skurdas išlieka didžiulė problema, o su juo susijusios problemos užkerta kelią skurdžiausiuose pasaulio regionuose gyvenantiems pagerinti savo gyvenimo kokybę, suteikti galimybę užsidirbti bei apskritai prisidėti prie augimo ir produktyvumo didinimo. Tai yra vienas iš pagrindinių faktorių, trukdančių bendram socialiniam ir ekonominiam vystymuisi ir neleidžiančių šiems regionams išbristi iš skurdo.

Kaip minėjo pranešėja, statistika yra liūdna – apie pusantro milijardo žmonių neturi jokio priėjimo prie elektros energijos, o daugiau nei du su puse milijardo žmonių vis dar naudoja tradicinį iš biomasės gaunamą kurą. Pasaulio sveikatos organizacijos duomenimis, dėl šio kuro naudojimo pasaulyje kasmet anksčiau laiko dėl kvėpavimo ligų miršta du milijonai žmonių.

Iki šiol buvusios pasaulio bankų energetikos strategijos nedavė apčiuopiamų rezultatų. Be to, parama iškastinio kuro naudojimui iki šiol išlieka didesnė nei atsinaujinantiems ar švarios energijos šaltiniams. Didelės investicijos iki šiol yra teikiamos anglimis kūrenamoms gamykloms, kas šias skurdžias šalis ir toliau daro priklausomas nuo labai teršiančio aplinką iškastinio kuro.

G20 lyderių priimtas susitarimas mažinti paramą ir finansavimą iškastinio kuro projektams, kurie išvis neturėtų būti finansuojami po 2015 m. yra teigiamas ir sveikinantis postūmis. Taip pat naujojoje strategijoje būtina išsamiai įvertinti teikiamo finansavimo priežiūros ir kontrolės klausimą, kad ši parama būtų naudojama tiems energijos projektams, kurie gali duoti ilgalaikės naudos ir realiai prisidėtų prie šių regionų vystymo bei žmonių gyvenimo kokybės gerinimo.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Ich möchte mich insbesondere bei Kommissar Piebalgs bedanken. Als ehemaliger Energiekommissar weiß er natürlich genau über unsere Strategie Bescheid. Ich glaube, dass gerade in der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit noch sehr viel geleistet werden muss, vor allem auch an technischer Hilfe. Europa muss in der Weltbank nicht nur Zahler sein, nicht nur payer, sondern vor allem player. Eine verstärkte Rolle Europas und der europäischen Institutionen in der Weltbank wird also eine zentrale Herausforderung sein, um zu sehen, wie man mit Entwicklungshilfe Familienbetriebe fördern kann, wie man kleine und mittlere Betriebe in der Energieerzeugung fördern kann, weil auch viele kleine Betriebe letztlich economy of scale darstellen und einen dementsprechenden return on investment bieten können.

Eine der wichtigsten Fragen ist natürlich auch die Speicherung der Energie. Das wird eine zentrale Rolle bei der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit spielen.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, I suppose one could say that those of us who are still here at this hour of the night are probably powered by some form of renewable energy, perhaps solar power or maybe even divine power in the form of a halo above our heads.

Either way, the discussion has been very varied, and not surprisingly because this is always a contentious issue. But I think the Commissioner got the balance right, probably better than most of us, in terms of where we are going and what needs to be done in the future. I think a few points need to be made more precise. Whether countries are in the developing world or the developed world, if they have resources of fossil fuel – coal – or nuclear energy, they are going to utilise them. The question is: do we finance them or do we not? Obviously in Europe, in terms of Cancún, Kyoto, etc. we want to push the renewable agenda, and that is absolutely correct. But I think in doing that, Mr Martin is probably right in one sense that we need to speak with a louder voice and push the World Bank into promoting and financing more renewable energy projects than they are perhaps doing right now.

  Andris Piebalgs, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, this is very important to our debate, even if it is late at night, because I think the World Bank’s energy strategy is an opportunity. It is a genuine opportunity to respond to energy challenges.

If we also look at what the International Energy Agency is saying about energy poverty, about renewable energy, it is certainly a huge challenge, but the World Bank, together with our leadership, could make the necessary change. If we go back a couple of years in our Union’s history, our renewable energy target seemed impossible to meet, even if it was a rather humble target of 18%, if I recall correctly. Now it seems that we are well on track.

Sometimes, however, you need to take your courage in both hands and anticipate the real challenges. The World Bank makes the whole process very open. There will be the World Bank energy week in Washington. We could also submit our contributions to the World Bank, which is very open to new ideas. If we are courageous, that will give even more courage to the World Bank. So it is important that we go with open hearts and put these very ambitious ideas to the World Bank. Otherwise, many people could attempt to evade this challenge.

It is definitely a question of where to start. I would say it is still access to energy that we should be looking at, because access to energy also means sustainable and efficient energy. The recent trends in the countries we are working with show huge urbanisation, so in a way it has changed the pattern of the whole energy riddle. It means not only decentralised generation, but also agglomeration areas, so energy efficiency, strange as it sounds, should also be part of the strategy.

Most importantly, we should beef up. We have energy facilities: EUR 200 million. You cannot do too much on energy with EUR 200 million. We need to envisage long-term funding, because I believe Europe’s trademark should be renewable energy. With this, and the capacities of the World Bank, we really could do something that matters, not only for energy supply but also in terms of taking substantial steps to combat climate change.

  Elnök. − Egy állásfoglalásra irányuló indítványt⁽¹⁾ juttattak el hozzám, melyet az eljárási szabályzat 115. cikkének (5) bekezdésével összhangban nyújtottak be.

A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra 2011. február 17-én, csütörtökön kerül sor.

(1) Lásd a jegyzőkönyvet.