Hakemisto 
 Edellinen 
 Seuraava 
 Koko teksti 
Menettely : 2017/3031(RSP)
Elinkaari istunnossa
Asiakirjan elinkaari : O-000086/2017

Käsiteltäväksi jätetyt tekstit :

O-000086/2017 (B8-0615/2017)

Keskustelut :

PV 05/02/2018 - 14
PV 08/02/2018 - 17
CRE 08/02/2018 - 17

Äänestykset :

Hyväksytyt tekstit :


Sanatarkat istuntoselostukset
Torstai 8. helmikuuta 2018 - Strasbourg

17. Ensisijaiset tiedustelut (keskustelu)
Puheenvuorot videotiedostoina
Pöytäkirja
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Große Anfrage gemäß Artikel 130b der Geschäftsordnung von Rosa D'Amato und Dario Tamburrano im Namen der EFDD-Fraktion an die Kommission betreffend die Transadriatische Pipeline in Italien (O-000086/2017 – 2017/3031(RSP)) (B8-0615/2017).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rosa D'Amato, autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la Banca europea per gli investimenti stanzia un miliardo e mezzo per il Trans Adriatic Pipeline, la TAP. Un progetto inutile, dannoso, che va contro i principi, gli standard che l'Unione europea professa. La stessa Unione europea, persino attraverso i Fondi strutturali, ha finanziato questa opera. I cittadini lo denunciano da anni, ma l'Europa fa finta di non vedere. L'Europa non è solo cieca, per noi è complice. È complice di una truffa ai danni dei cittadini, perché TAP costa decine di miliardi e non serve all'Unione europea, non serve all'Italia.

Costruire la TAP non servirà a rilanciare l'economia, a uscire dalla crisi. La TAP ha una vita utile di almeno trent'anni e, vista la transizione energetica in atto, fra dieci o vent'anni avremo ancora bisogno di così tanto gas? I dati dicono di no, ci dicono che il gasdotto serve a emancipare l'Unione europea e l'Italia da approvvigionamenti di altri paesi, alcuni ad alto rischio come la Libia. Peccato che anche la TAP, che approderà in Puglia, passi per nazioni che potrebbero dare qualche preoccupazione: la Georgia, l'Azerbaigian, la Turchia.

A proposito di Azerbaigian, ci siamo dimenticati dell'inchiesta su quanto è avvenuto al Consiglio d'Europa con la compravendita di voti per fermare la mozione di condanna dell'Azerbaigian, che avrebbe impedito i finanziamenti della BEI? Ci siamo dimenticati dell'inchiesta giornalistica che rivela un intreccio di manager in odor di mafia, valige di contanti, oligarchi russi, affaristi italiani legati alla politica, casseforti anonime con la targa off shore? Tutto questo non merita un minimo di attenzione da parte di Bruxelles?

La verità è che costruire la TAP è un mega affare, in cui fondi di investimento, banche e assicurazioni sono pronti a tuffarsi, a patto che i rischi siano coperti da governi, dalla Commissione europea o da istituzioni finanziarie come la BEI, ossia dai soldi dei contribuenti.

La TAP è insostenibile anche sotto il profilo ambientale. Ricordo alla Commissione che le praterie di Posidonia sono nursery di specie di interesse commerciale, sono fondamentali per la salvaguardia dell'ambiente marino e costiero e per la pesca artigianale. Ricordo che, negli ultimi cinquant'anni, la Posidonia ha registrato una regressione del 10 % a causa, tra l'altro, dell'alterazione del regime sedimentario, la posa di cavi sottomarini e gasdotti. Non a caso, l'approdo è fra due aree SIC. Da un lato, l'Unione europea spende risorse attraverso i progetti LIFE per proteggere il nostro mare e, dall'altro, presta il fianco a ecomostri come la TAP che distruggono l'ambiente marino.

Non a caso, come ho scritto al Commissario, che ringrazio per la sua presenza, il ministro dell'Ambiente italiano ha avvocato a sé le verifiche di ottemperanza di ben undici prescrizioni per la realizzazione del gasdotto, sottraendole agli enti locali, tra cui la Regione. Pertanto, chiediamo di sapere se questa decisione violi la direttiva 2011/92/UE concernente la valutazione dell'impatto ambientale di determinati progetti pubblici e privati.

La VIA sulla TAP è stata rilasciata sulla base di uno studio di fattibilità e non di un progetto esecutivo. Le autorizzazioni ministeriali sono state concesse a fronte delle autocertificazioni di TAP, talvolta parziali e modificate in itinere. Un po' come gli studi dell'EFSA sul glifosato, tanto per capirci. La TAP è sicura? Ricordate l'incidente in Austria? Sul terminale di ricezione della TAP, il professor Ghezzi del Politecnico di Milano ha paventato rischi estremamente rilevanti, esplosioni e incendi, rischi accertati anche dalla Regione Puglia e che chiamano in causa la direttiva Seveso. Anche su questo vogliamo dall'Unione europea delle risposte chiare.

La TAP viola anche i diritti dei cittadini e lo Stato di diritto. Il cantiere TAP di Melendugno è un Far West, dove vige la legge del più forte, a scapito dei diritti dei cittadini e delle autorità pubbliche. Persino i vigili urbani hanno dovuto attendere quasi un'ora prima di poter accedere al cantiere, dove volevano soltanto verificare la regolarità e la legittimità di lavori in corso. Siamo dinanzi alla militarizzazione di San Foca. Le proteste pacifiche di cittadini e dei comuni vicini sono state silenziate dalla polizia.

In conclusione, chiediamo a Bruxelles uno studio di valutazione sulle conseguenze ambientali, economiche e sociali del gasdotto, di pronunciarsi sulle proteste degli abitanti di Melendugno e dei comuni interessati, perché lo Stato di diritto va rispettato, perché nell'Unione europea che vogliamo non può vigere la legge delle multinazionali a scapito dei diritti dei cittadini, perché il nostro mare va rispettato, perché la TAP va fermata.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, today’s debate is a good opportunity to recall the importance of the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline as a key infrastructure project for European Union energy security and the internal energy market, and how it fits into the broader European Union picture.

Let me start with a few words to put this project into its full context. Gas remains today a significant source of energy in the European Union, accounting for 22% of the Union energy mix. At the same time, Europe is increasingly dependent on imports of gas. The Union currently imports 70% of the gas it consumes; and, in 2016, 42% of these imports came from a single supplier. Our domestic production is declining at a faster pace than our gas demand, thus our import dependency for gas is expected to further increase, to more than 83% by 2040.

For that reason, the European Union has been pursuing a study of diversification of gas supply sources and routes. This diversification strategy has three key dimensions: first, the opening of the Southern Gas Corridor to bring gas from the Caspian region and the Middle East directly to Europe; second, benefitting from the developing global liquefied natural gas (LNG) market; and, third, developing a liquid-gas hub in the Mediterranean region.

I want to thank the European Parliament in this context for the support it has lent the Commission in our efforts to make gas supplies for our Member States more diversified and more secure, notably by supporting our LNG strategy and helping us achieve an ambitious compromise on the Security of Gas Supply Regulation. In this context, the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) is a key element of this strategy to promote diversified supply and competitive markets. It will provide a key link to the Southern Gas Corridor and the resources of the Caspian region for Italy and south-east Europe.

For Italy, this additional supply source is particularly important, given that the sale of gas in its energy mix, at 35%, and its substantial dependence – 90% – are both above the EU average. I would also remind you that Italy was the Member State that lost the most, in terms of GDP growth, from the gas cut-offs we saw in 2006 and 2009.

TAP will also be crucial in terms of lessening dependence on a single supplier in south-east Europe, creating a gas hub in the region and integrating this market with the rest of the European Union. We expect the TAP project to improve Europe’s energy security and lead to a more competitive market. This will ultimately benefit consumers, who will pay lower prices.

Let me now turn to the question raised about the potential environmental impact. A high level of environmental protection is, of course, of the highest priority for the Commission. First, I note that the necessary environmental and social impact assessments have been carried out for this project, and these included a list of conditions to be fulfilled before the construction phase, during the construction phase and in the operational phase itself. These assessments also include an appropriate impact assessment as defined by the European Union’s Habitats Directive, to exclude significant effects from the project. And I would point out that the pipeline does not fall into the offshore area protected by the Natura 2000 network.

Lastly, let me confirm to you that the Commission is in contact with the authorities to ensure that the project is carried out in line with the necessary standards and that all necessary measures will be taken to protect nature in the region. I look forward to a good exchange about this project.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrejs Mamikins, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, while the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) is an ambitious and game—changing project that can contribute to the EU’s efforts in decarbonising the economy and introducing environment friendly energy supply, it faces several criticisms, and not without reason.

The Trans-Adriatic Pipeline has so far encountered more obstacles than approvals. At least two investigations have been conducted on it, one about connections between the TAP project and Italian organised-crime groups and offshore capital, and the other about a tacit political and economic arrangement between Erdoğan, Aliyev and Russian oligarchic groups. Certainly these are issues that have to be addressed by their national governments.

However, the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline is a project we need. It will facilitate gas supply not only to Italy, Bulgaria and Croatia but also to several Western Balkan countries, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia. In the context of the current Western Balkan enlargement strategy, that has a specific value. TAP will create a stronger bond between this region and the EU and consequently improve our energy harmonisation. In addition, multiple opportunities will appear for the transport of Caspian natural gas to some of the largest European markets, such as Germany, France and Austria. If we are bound to build greater energy security in the EU, TAP will certainly make a great contribution – and, more than that, TAP means major economic development and job creation for all the countries concerned.

However, while the TAP corridor is a strategic priority for the Italian economy and other partners, it represents a matter of concern to ordinary citizens. Why? Tourism activities represent a big share of income on the Adriatic shore, and environmental security in this regard is a matter of great importance.

Such preoccupations have also frequently been raised by the authorities of Puglia, who are very concerned about the conservation of their olive groves. In Puglia they call olive oil the ‘green gold’ because it is the wealth of their region. Digging up their olive trees may compromise local livelihoods. Around 2 000 olive trees have to be removed and transplanted to make way for the pipeline, and the criticism raised by the head of the region, Michele Emiliano, is perfectly understandable.

So how can we be sure that the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline is in the interests of the private citizens who are actually paying for its construction? How can we guarantee that such large—scale projects are implemented with due democratic accountability to our citizens, and with thorough consultation with local authorities? The answer lies in democratic guarantees that the contracting governments have to give their citizens. We cannot apply the ‘business as usual’ tactic and present the project to the people as an accomplished fact.

In this specific case, a lack of preliminary consultation has brought about delays in the project’s implementation because no substantial compromise had previously been reached. To tell the truth, there was no significant attempt to reach such a compromise.

When we have to deal with such important initiatives, the EU must take the lead in filling the democratic gap. Businesses are often not interested in asking the opinion of the families who will have to live beside their new installations. Citizens need the certainty that TAP does not carry any potentially high industrial risk, such as that of explosions.

This is very important. Citizens need to be asked. I repeat this again and again because, in today’s Europe, where there is a desire to promote democratic consultation and accountability, respect for sustainability and the harmonious life of households, we cannot afford to let business be done only among the big players, while ordinary people stand looking on, without a say. That it is why it is very important to discuss this issue –very important even for my small country, among the Baltic states, Latvia. That is why we are discussing it here in Parliament.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Urszula Krupa, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Gazociąg transadriatycki, jako końcowy fragment tzw. południowego korytarza gazowego, odgrywa rolę w planach polityczno-biznesowych Europy Zachodniej, szczególnie Niemiec i Rosji. Jednak nie mniej ważny jest aspekt środowiskowy, który jest podnoszony przez obywateli Włoch, gdyż gazociąg przechodzić ma przez obszar także aktywny sejsmicznie. Tektonicznie, obszar fałdowań alpejskich w Abruzji, na Sycylii, jest oceniany przez specjalistów od środowiska jako największe zagrożenie środowiskowe. Trzęsienia ziemi mogą doprowadzić do przerwania ciągłości rurociągu, poza możliwym zagrożeniem energo-terroryzmem.

W przypadku takiej inwestycji powinny być przeprowadzone konsultacje społeczne, które przewiduje konwencja z Aarhus i spory między lokalną społecznością a władzami odpowiedzialnymi za inwestycje powinny być rozstrzygane z wykorzystaniem przewidzianych w konwencji narzędzi. Osobiście bardzo żałuję, że takiej aktywności społecznej nie wykazywali obywatele krajów nadbałtyckich, pozwalając przeprowadzić gazociąg Nord Stream na dnie morza z ogromnym ryzykiem katastrofy ekologicznej Bałtyku, jaka może być spowodowana zaleganiem na dnie broni chemicznej, zatopionej po wojnach światowych we wrakach okrętów i kontenerach. Może Bałtyckie cechuje ogromna wrażliwość na zanieczyszczenia ze względu na ograniczoną wymianę wód z Morzem Północnym, gdzie obieg odbywający się przez wąskie cieśniny duńskie jest powodem, że całkowita wymiana wód bałtyckich na oceaniczne trwa od 25 do 35 lat. Wszystkie obce substancje wnoszone do Morza Bałtyckiego pozostają w nim przez wiele lat, stwarzając ogromne zagrożenie ekologiczne, naruszenie dna morskiego, skał będących siedliskiem dla żywych organizmów.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivan Jakovčić, u ime kluba ALDE. – Gospodine predsjedniče, želim jasno poručiti da podržavam TAP, podržavam Trans Adriatic Pipeline, ali želim isto tako jasno reći da se želim solidarizirati s onima koji će trpjeti zbog toga. I tu moramo pomoći svakom onom koji zaista iskreno želi podržati velike projekte bitne za Europsku uniju, ali istovremeno moramo upravo na taj način pristupiti građanima i pokazati našu solidarnost s njima.

I zato se ja želim solidarizirati s kolegicom iz Puglie, iz Italije, kao što znam da isto tako kao i kod nas u Hrvatskoj postoje slični problemi. LNG terminal koji se želi napraviti na otoku Krku, taj terminal kojega će financirati Europska komisija, novcima koje mi odobravamo ovdje u Europskom parlamentu, ima problema ozbiljnih u svojoj izvedbi. U namjeri tehnologije koja se želi sad nametnuti je nešto što je potpuno neprihvatljivo. Načelo partnerstva s lokalnom zajednicom nitko ovdje ne poštuje. Mi znamo da imamo to načelo u Europskoj uniji.

Evo, ovdje imam zaključak Županijske skupštine Primorsko-goranske županije u kojem se jasno kaže da oni jesu za izgradnju LNG terminala na otoku Krku, ali nisu za plutajući terminal, pogotovo ne za plutajući s tehnologijom koja se sada nudi. Znači ako već imamo partnera koji je spreman trpjeti i prihvatiti jedan LNG terminal pa napravimo ga tako da on bude prihvatljiv za okoliš i prihvatljiv za sve koji žele taj terminal. Naravno da govorim o tome da treba potrošiti nešto malo više novca jer treba napraviti terminal na kopnu, a ne plutajući, pogotovo ne taj, kakav se sad zamišlja s tehnologijom da jedemo možda kvarnerske škampe pune klora. Pa valjda nam to nije cilj. Valjda nam nije cilj uništiti turizam, valjda nam nije cilj uništiti podmorje i morske organizme na Kvarneru.

Dakle, ono za što ja želim se založiti ovom prilikom je: učinimo ono što je najbolje za ljude i za njihov život jer i druga odluka koju imamo, zaključak od Općine Omišalj koji također govori o tome da prihvaća kopneni terminal, ali ne onakav kakav se predlaže.

I zašto mi dajemo novac za nešto što građani ne žele? I nema partnerstva s tim građanima.

Dakle, želim poručiti da osim te lokacije znamo jako dobro da na sjevernom Jadranu imamo mogućnosti i drugih lokacija koje su čak i bolje nego što je taj kopneni terminal na Krku. Imamo na Urinju već, da tako kažem, devastiran prostor, u Plominu je također devastiran prostor i puno bi bolje bilo naći drugu lokaciju. Ali, ako se ne želi odustati od lokacije na otoku Krku, učinimo to napokon u partnerstvu s građanima.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Eleonora Forenza, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, voglio in primo luogo associarmi integralmente alle parole dette dalla collega D'Amato. Penso che la conoscenza diretta che abbiamo del territorio di cui stiamo parlando, essendo entrambe pugliesi, ci aiuti nella comprensione di quello che sta accadendo e nella condivisione della valutazione del progetto TAP.

Il progetto TAP, si diceva, fa parte del Southern Gas Corridor, il cosiddetto gasdotto del Sud, che per 3 500 chilometri dovrebbe portare il gas dell'Azerbaigian fino all'Italia. Il costo complessivo dell'opera è stimato in 45 miliardi di dollari, col fine di ridurre la dipendenza energetica dalla Russia. Questo è quello che ci ricordava poc'anzi anche il Commissario.

Quello che il Commissario non ci ricordava, o ha omesso di ricordarci, è che queste risorse saranno gettate in primo luogo in pasto a società che fanno parte del consorzio TANAP, che sono invischiate in vicende di corruzione, tant'è che le inchieste giornalistiche definiscono il TAP il "mafiodotto". La Banca europea per gli investimenti ha da poco concesso un prestito pubblico, uno dei più imponenti della storia, di 1,5 miliardi di EUR. È uno scandalo su cui non mancheremo di interrogare ulteriormente la Commissione.

Manca una valutazione seria di impatto ambientale dell'opera. Manca una valutazione circa le emissioni e le perdite, manca una valutazione sulla compatibilità dell'opera con i propositi sanciti dalla COP23.

Poco più di due ore fa abbiamo votato una risoluzione del Parlamento europeo che testimonia la preoccupazione sul tema dei diritti umani in Turchia. Noi andiamo esattamente a stringere affari con il governo di Erdogan, per non parlare della situazione in Azerbaigian.

Ma vorrei qui menzionare alcuni cittadini e cittadine europei, che sono le cittadine e i cittadini pugliesi, il cui parere sembra non contare nella determinazione di questa decisione. Non so se il Commissario è stato a Melendugno, a San Foca, una delle aree costiere più belle della Puglia e del Mar Adriatico. Non so se ha potuto vedere gli olivi abbattuti per la cantierizzazione della TAP, oltre che per la gestione sciagurata della questione xylella. Non so se sa di una terra militarizzata, delle denunce, delle cariche della polizia contro i cittadini che manifestavano contro la TAP. Non so se sa di una totale assenza di coinvolgimento della popolazione locale e della Regione Puglia. Non so se sa che non sono ancora visibili, che sono nascoste, le carte che hanno autorizzato la cantierizzazione. Di tutto questo io mi auguro che il Commissario possa rispondere e rendersi conto che la TAP va fermata.

(L'oratrice accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu" (articolo 162, paragrafo 8, del regolamento))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D), zilās kartītes jautājums.Forenza kundze! Paldies par jūsu runu, bet es īsti nesapratu, jūs esat, vispārēji runājot, par vai pret šo projektu, jo es pilnīgi piekrītu jums tajā ziņā, ka iedzīvotāju viedoklis ir obligāti jāņem vērā, pirms mēs kaut ko būvēsim vai kaut ko pieņemsim, kaut kādu lēmumu. Bet tā, jā vai nē, plus vai mīnus, jūs esat par vai pret šo projektu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL), Risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". – Sono contro, totalmente contro questo progetto e ribadisco che non c'è stata nessuna consultazione della popolazione locale e nessun coinvolgimento della Regione Puglia. Credo che questo abbia a che fare non solo con i rischi ambientali del progetto TAP, ma anche con la cancellazione di una decisione democratica sulla realizzazione di quel progetto e con la cancellazione dello Stato di diritto che consegue alla militarizzazione di quel cantiere.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Laurenţiu Rebega, în numele grupului ENF. – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, unul dintre argumentele împotriva conductei Tap și a folosirii gazului, în general, este faptul că este nociv mediului.

Cu toate acestea, sud-estul Europei folosește mai mult cărbune decât gaz pentru energie, cărbunele având un impact și mai mare asupra schimbărilor climatice pe termen lung. Într-adevăr, idealul pentru întreaga Europă și lume este alimentarea cu energie regenerabilă, însă acest ideal este încă în lucru.

Consider că alimentarea Italiei și a Sudului Europei cu gaz și, implicit, asigurarea securității energetice nu trebuie și nu va încetini cu nimic dezvoltarea energiilor regenerabile. Până când idealul alimentării depline cu energie regenerabilă va fi atins, gazul rămâne o variantă viabilă.

Mai mult decât atât, acest proiect are potențialul de a întări cooperarea între țările membre ale Uniunii Europene, precum Grecia, și țările aspirante la Uniunea Europeană, precum Albania. De asemenea, acest proiect poate îmbunătăți infrastructura energetică a întregii regiuni, nu doar a statelor pe care conducta le va străbate, aducând astfel beneficii economice acestor țări și regiuni. Pentru Albania, spre exemplu, construirea și găzduirea conductei poate facilita integrarea europeană prin creșterea stabilității economice și a importanței geostrategice a acestui stat.

Construirea conductei vine și cu beneficii pentru comunitățile locale, prin angajări, achiziții și taxe care vor fi plătite statelor în cauză. Noi, politicienii, suntem în slujba cetățenilor și trebuie să le reprezentăm interesele atât acum, cât și pe viitor. Autoritățile locale trebuie să discute cu cetățenii, nu să se impună cu forța. Trebuie să caute să-i înțeleagă și să-și explice acțiunile într-un mod obiectiv, clar și pe înțeles. Trebuie să comunice cu oamenii și să facă din comunitățile lor parteneri pentru un viitor mai sigur și prosper.

Acum, Europa are legături în privința alimentării cu gaz cu Rusia, Africa și Marea Nordului. Adăugarea unei noi surse și unei noi rute reduce riscul de a deveni dependenți, de a ne confrunta cu crize energetice așa cum s-a întâmplat în 2009 și, nu în ultimul rând, riscul de a ajunge supuși prețurilor și intereselor unora.

Europa are, așadar, nevoie de o alternativă pentru alimentarea cu gaz, dar are nevoie și de dialog deschis și eficient cu cetățenii. Încurajez pe această cale continuarea proiectului, datorită perspectivelor pentru independența energetică a Sudului și - de ce nu? - a întregii Europe.

(Vorbitorul acceptă să răspundă la o întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura „cartonaşului albastru” (articolul 162 alineatul (8) din Regulamentul de procedură))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rosa D'Amato (EFDD), domanda "cartellino blu". – Si parla di decarbonizzazione ma qui c'è una difficoltà di fondo a capire che decarbonizzare non vuol dire eliminare il carbone, ma il carbonio, il che vuol dire anche il gas, il che vuol dire le fonti fossili, e invece di sottrarci dalla dipendenza delle fonti fossili noi continuiamo a finanziarle. Un progetto che fra trent'anni sarà sicuramente inutile. Ricordo la Turchia ha appena firmato un accordo – e chiedo al Commissario se è vero – con Gazprom, e quindi il gas continuerà ad arrivare …

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. – Vielen Dank, Frau Kollegin D'Amato. Ich möchte erstens daran erinnern, dass man bei Fragen auch fragen sollte, und zweitens, dass ich nach 30 Sekunden ohne großes Klopfen den entsprechenden Redner unterbreche.

Herr Kollege Rebega, möchten Sie trotzdem antworten?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Laurenţiu Rebega (ENF), Răspuns la o întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura „cartonașului albastru”. – Domnule președinte, nu am înțeles întrebarea. Care este întrebarea?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, I think that some perspective is needed in this debate. While I completely agree that there is a huge need to move towards a system that is primarily based on renewable energy – and I strongly welcome Parliament’s opting for ambition last month when it backed our proposal for a 35% target for renewable energy – this is a more complex issue that I feel is often overly simplified.

First of all, as Commissioner Arias Cañete pointed out, security of supply is of crucial importance, particularly in our eastern Member States which have at various times in recent years actually experienced gas shortages. At the moment we still have a lot of dependency on gas, both for heating and for electricity generation. We have an obligation to push our ambitions on renewables and climate change.

There is no doubt about this, but there is equally an obligation to ensure supply security to our citizens, many of whom have real concerns in this regard. At the moment, diversifying gas supply is our most effective method of doing so in many regions.

Secondly, the transition to renewables is moving quickly, particularly in recent years, but it is still a gradual process. Fossil fuels, preferably gas rather than coal or oil, and biomass will be needed to provide the base-load generation that balances our energy system to ensure the cost effectiveness and feasibility of integrating more and more renewables. I have been at the centre of calls for increased investment, under the ninth Framework Programme for research and innovation (FP9), in the development and improvement of balancing and storage technologies that we hope will be able to replace fossil fuels in time for this purpose. But again, this will take time.

Regarding the wider debate on the inclusion of certain projects on the list of projects of common interest (PCIs), that seems to have inspired this afternoon’s debate: yes, the PCI list includes certain fossil projects, but these are of strategic interest to the European Union. They are about ensuring supply security with interconnectors, pipelines and terminals for liquid natural gas (LNG). They are about helping to improve the functioning of our markets and moving towards a single European internal market for gas and electricity. And perhaps most importantly, they are about helping to ensure affordability of energy for the consumer.

So, all in all, I think that this project is worthwhile. We have to take on board concerns, but at the same time security of supply is of crucial importance and projects that secure supply for our citizens must not be disregarded.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL), domanda "cartellino blu". – Onorevole Kelly, non ritorno su quello che ho già detto durante l'intervento. Ho già spiegato perché non condivido quello che lei ha appena detto. Le chiedo soltanto: lei pensa che si possa costruire un progetto con quell'impatto ambientale contro la volontà delle cittadine e dei cittadini che abitano in quel territorio? Contro la volontà della Regione Puglia, che è l'ente locale che insiste su quel territorio? Pensa che la volontà di quelle cittadine e di quei cittadini europei possa essere completamente ignorata?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE), blue-card answer. – No, it’s not. Obviously the views of local populations have to be taken into consideration, but just because the local population objects to something doesn’t mean the whole project should fall. They have to be properly consulted, they have to make their points known, but there is also an obligation on those who run the project to inform them of the full facts, and then people can proceed. And I think in this instance the balance would suggest that the security of supply is absolutely vital because without it the locals, communities and customers in general, will be without gas and without heating and will pay more.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Г-н Председател, разбира се природата трябва да се пази, хората в Пулия трябва да се питат, трябва да има пълно участие на гражданското общество. В това няма никакво съмнение. Обаче, уважаеми колеги, нека Ви уведомя, че всяка година, всяка зима ние на Балканите – в България, Румъния, Гърция и Хърватска се чудим дали ще има газ или няма да има, какви са отношенията между Русия и Украйна, ще спрат ли газопровода, няма ли да го спрат и какво ще се случи. Това вреди на нашата икономика и на икономиката на тези държави – на Австрия, Унгария, Украйна и Италия.

Нека бъдем реалисти – трябват ни повече източници на газ и ни трябва източник към нашата индустрия, защото предполагам, че колегите тук в залата не се хранят със слънчева енергия и не ядат само природосъобразни храни. Имаме индустрия и за тази индустрия ни трябва енергоносител. За този енергоносител ни трябва разделяне на източниците. Който е против този газопровод, работи за интереса на една чужда северна държава, а това е малко странно.

(Ораторът приема да отговори на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта (член 162, параграф 8 от Правилника за дейността))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D), zilās kartītes jautājums. – Paldies, priekšsēdētāja kungs, īpaši par to, ka jūs apveltījāt manu personību ar visādām dotībām, bet īstenībā jautājums man ir tas pats, ko es uzdevu Forenza kundzei, arī Dzhambazki kungam. Es pazīstu jūs, Dzhambazki kungs, kā — neskatoties uz to, ka jūs piederat pie ļoti konservatīvām politikām,— ļoti godīgu vīru un ļoti nopietnu, kad jūs lemjat par projektiem, jūs esat par vai pret, īsāk sakot, plus vai mīnus, balts vai melns.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Angel Dzhambazki (ECR), blue-card answer. – Yes, I am in favour. We need more sources, we need more pipes than one from Russia. That is true.

 
  
 

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, mulțumesc pentru că ne-ați dat câteva informații care eu cred că sunt relevante. Sigur, nu există sistem ideal, sigur că trebuie să facem compromisuri, nu va fi niciodată o posibilitate să avem 100 % mediul curat.

Eu știu, colega, e foarte frumos să spunem, și populist chiar, noi pledăm aici să nu avem poluare zero, să nu mai avem nimic. Dar securitatea energetică despre care dumneavoastră ați vorbit, faptul că depindem 70 % de importuri și chiar cu tendința de a crește la 80 %, consider că sunt argumente extraordinar de importante pentru a susține acest proiect TAP și eu îl susțin.

Evident că este importantă consultarea, dar să știți că eu am trăit într-o zonă cu inundații și autoritățile locale le spuneau cetățenilor să nu construiască, că le ia apa casa și, totuși, ei au construit. De foarte multe ori trebuie să-i facem să înțeleagă pe cetățeni. Cei care iau decizii trebuie să știe cum să explice, încât să înțeleagă cetățeanul că mai târziu se întoarce împotriva lui dacă trebuie să ne opunem la un proiect atât de important cum este proiectul TAP. Eu susțin întru totul acest proiect, cu consultarea, bineînțeles, a autorităților.

 
  
 

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. – Bevor ich Herrn Kommissar das Wort erteile, will ich gern die Gelegenheit nutzen, dass mit Herrn Bullmann ein amtierendes Mitglied der Konferenz der Präsidenten da ist. Ich würde gerne was sagen, was ich meinem Fraktionsvorsitzenden auch schon gesagt habe: Wir haben seit einem Jahr dieses neue Instrument der Großen Anfragen. Das ist nun leider am Donnerstagnachmittag, mit relativ wenig Resonanz gelandet. Irgendwas muss am Donnerstagnachmittag stattfinden.

Das ist erkennbar ein wichtiges Thema. Ich halte es nicht für ganz angemessen, dass die Konferenz der Präsidenten entschieden hat, dass man praktisch nirgendwo nachlesen kann, um was es geht. Es steht da nur O-000086/2017, und nur an einer Stelle erfährt man, dass es sich um die Transadriatische Pipeline handelt. Ich glaube, wir könnten das etwas mehr darstellen, um was es an diesem Donnerstagnachmittag geht.

Spontan, Herr Bullmann?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Das ist eine Premiere, dass man spontan in diesem Haus das Wort bekommt. Auch das könnte möglicherweise Schule machen und uns zu ein bisschen mehr Lebendigkeit verhelfen. Ich danke Ihnen sehr für diese direkte Ansprache. Ich bin dazugestoßen, um zuzuhören, und ich werde Ihre Anregung mitnehmen. Ich möchte den Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die jetzt im Plenum sind, aber natürlich auch den Angehörigen, dem Kommissar und den Kommissionsmitarbeitern ausdrücklich Dank sagen, weil ich glaube, die Beratungen sind aller Ehren wert.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the Commission has followed with the utmost attention all the concerns expressed by the honourable Members during this very interesting debate. As I said in my introductory remarks, the Commission sees the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) as an important project not only for Italy but also for south-east Europe and the European Union as a whole, because it will bring significant energy security and diversification of gas supply sources. It also has the potential to stimulate investment, to create jobs and improve their quality and ultimately to reduce energy prices to the consumer.

I would like to comment in reply to some of the reflections, particularly from Ms D’Amato, who raised many topics and I will try to address some of them. My first comment is related to respect for human rights in countries which supply energy to the European Union. The Southern Gas Corridor, beyond its energy dimension, also serves as a unique platform for engagement with Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Mutual interdependence in relation to the Southern Gas Corridor project thus contributes to security and to a dialogue that aims to secure positive developments, in line with the core values of the European Union, including human dignity, freedom of democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights. And pursuing our economic interests will not compromise the defence of our values. In our experience, the most reliable and effective way to promote them in a sovereign partner country is through dialogue and constructive engagement. In this spirit, on 7 February 2017, the European Union launched negotiations on a new agreement with Azerbaijan that will replace the 1996 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement.

There was a comment about the possible effect on climate change and the impact vis-à-vis the Paris Agreement. I would say that the TAP and the Southern Gas Corridor will not, per se, increase gas-related greenhouse gas emissions because this is an alternative source of gas and it is not intended to serve demand growth. The objective is to diversify sources in order to increase energy security. In fact, it is very likely to reduce the carbon footprint of the units of gas arriving in the European Union because the entire corridor will consist of brand new, state-of-the-art pipeline infrastructures, which are inevitably less leakage-prone than those built in the 1970s.

Many of you referred to the environmental impact the project may have. The environmental impact assessment for the TAP started in 2012. It was improved through the Environmental Impact Assessment Decree issued by the Italian Minister for the Environment in September 2014, with 65 conditions to be fulfilled during the pre-construction, construction and operational phases of the project. Subsequently, in May 2015, the Italian Minister of the Economy issued development consent for the TAP.

It is clear that there were legislation changes in the area of environmental impact assessment in Italy, and the powers to approve some verification-of-compliance conditions were given back to central government. Ms D’Amato asked the Commission some questions, which have been answered in a letter from Commissioner Vella, raising the issue of whether the decision to give to central government the power to approve this verification of compliance would violate three environmental directives. The answer from the Commission was that the arrangements for the transposition of European Union law at regional level, and the delegation of institutional responsibility for fulfilling requirements designated through acts of national or regional transposition, are the responsibility of Member States; and it was concluded that, in the specific case raised by the honourable Member, no infringement of European law could be identified.

In the Commission’s view, there has been a commitment from the TAP project promoters to avoid any environmental or negative social impact. Some 20 landfall points along the Apulian coastline were studied, from Brindisi to Tronto, in order to identify the one, at San Foca, with the least environmental impact. A state of the art micro-tunnel was used for the landing point, passing more than 10 metres below the beach. So there will be no impact on the shoreline, and this technology will avoid interference with protected sea and land habitats and, at the same time, will render the pipeline invisible.

Also, the width of the pipeline has been reduced. Care has been taken in respect of sustainable water management: the pipeline has been buried 1.5 metres below agriculture land to ensure that farmers can continue using their land, and olive trees will be relocated. They will be stored temporarily until they can be replanted.

We also understand that the TAP project promoters are implementing social and environmental investment projects in communities along the route. These projects are being implemented to promote sustainable development, and in full consultation and cooperation with communities along the pipeline route. In Italy, the focus has been on livelihoods, tourism, agriculture and fisheries, and community services and infrastructure. Project funding has been raised from small-scale grants, local community initiatives and regional development partnerships.

There were some comments on whether the pipelines had to be assessed according to the Seveso Directives. The so-called Seveso III Directive on the control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances does not apply to the transport of dangerous substances in pipelines, as this would typically be regulated by other relevant legislation.

There was another question on whether there would be Russian gas in this pipeline. I can tell you, honourable Members, that there will not be Russian gas in the TAP when it comes into operation in 2020 and opens up the Southern Gas Corridor. With an initial capacity of 10 billion cubic metres, it will be transporting gas only from the Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan, and no other gas can be transported as part of this initial capacity as that would be in violation of the exemption decision that TAP received from the national energy regulatory authorities. If the capacity is doubled, there will be provision for additional use of capacity in a non-discriminatory manner.

Finally, the Commission was asked whether it envisaged carrying out an impact assessment of the project’s economic and social consequences. The Commission does not envisage carrying out such an assessment for a specific projects. Such assessments are the responsibility of project promoters, and the promoters of the TAP carried out very extensive assessments of environmental social impacts for all the countries it crosses – Greece, Albania and Italy. The complete dossiers on these environmental and social impact assessment are publicly available on the TAP website.

The Commission understands that very high-quality environmental and social impact assessments were also requested by the international financial institutions approached by the TAP project promoters for the project financing. These assessments were recently positively approved by the European Investment Bank due-diligence team when the loan application from the promoters of the TAP project was proposed to the EIB Board of Directors, and agreed on 6 February.

But the usefulness of the TAP has been scrutinised by the Commission. The Commission, together with other members of the regional groups established under the TEN-E Regulation in the context of the projects of common interest (PCI) process, assessed the TAP contribution to energy policy objectives, such as security of supply, market integration, promotion of competition and sustainability. The assessment was done on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis carried out on TAP’s behalf and the main results are available on the TAP website. In this context, the TAP was positively assessed as contributing to energy policy, and it was therefore included in the list of projects of common interest (PCI list) initially in 2013, and subsequently in 2015 and 2017.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

 
Päivitetty viimeksi: 15. toukokuuta 2018Oikeudellinen huomautus - Tietosuojakäytäntö