Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-07-08-Speech-2-048"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080708.4.2-048"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would firstly like to thank the speakers in today’s debate for their interesting views. It is true that I have referred to the public hearing requested by the Committee on Petitions in January, in which both I and my colleague, Mr Piebalgs, Commissioner responsible for energy matters, spoke, and I have repeated what was said regarding the need for natural gas imports, as my colleague Mr Piebalgs said. I have also referred to Decision No 1364/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council, pursuant to which the guidelines specified certain priority projects as projects of a European interest, including this project. That was your decision, not mine! Therefore, do not criticise me for placing too much emphasis on economic matters! I have referred precisely to matters decided by you. Other than that, the emphasis in my speech was placed on environmental matters. These are the matters I am concerned about. Therefore, I kindly ask you to be a bit more attentive, not only during one-sixth of my speech, but also during the remaining five-sixths.
There have been no such indications so far, as the environmental impact study procedure is still in progress. I assure you that the Commission will not hesitate to intervene if and when needed.
Finally, I can simply repeat at this point that the Commission expects the Member States to fully honour their obligations stemming from Community law. This is a fundamental condition for any final decision of approval.
I wish to thank you once again and to thank Mr Libicki for his report and for the opportunity he gave us to discuss this crucial issue of the pipeline and of its potential environmental impact.
The concerns regarding the environmental impact of projects of such large proportions, of great importance and with complex technical aspects are, of course, totally legitimate. They imply that the general public is becoming increasingly involved in debates on sustainable development and on environmental protection in relation to large infrastructure projects.
Both the environmental impact and the views of the public and of authorities with responsibility for environmental matters are, however, included in the environmental impact assessment, which is provided for in the relevant legislation on environmental impact assessments, in the EU directive and in the Espoo Convention, which, as I mentioned earlier, Russia has signed but not ratified, although it has stated that it will implement it. I hope it will ratify it. We always put pressure on third-party countries to ratify agreements of environmental interest.
The findings of the environmental impact procedures must be carefully evaluated by the authorities with the power to issue an implementation permit or construction permits for any kind of infrastructure project. Only then can these authorities have a clear understanding of the environmental issues included in the report so meticulously drafted by Mr Libicki.
For instance, the report mentions the threat of large-scale pollution from the discharge into the Baltic Sea of thousands of tonnes of chemicals needed to clean the pipeline before it enters into service; ‘specific chemicals’, as the report says.
However, it seems that in February 2008 the contractor confirmed that it does not intend using these chemicals in the pipeline’s pressure tests before it enters into service. This does not mean that the problem will not be there. It is highly probable that other chemicals will be used. Nonetheless, it means that we must wait until the environmental impact assessment procedure has been concluded, as is required by the law, in order to be able to discuss compliance with EU legislation and policy, the impact, the risks, the measures and also to decide on the terms which must be imposed on the project owner.
The transparency terms set for the environmental impact assessment procedure ensure that all the parties involved, including the European Parliament, will have access to all the relevant information.
Interestingly, various sides have today voiced the view that the Commission must have great jurisdiction, either in order to carry out environmental impact studies or in order to impose various policies. The Commission’s jurisdiction is specific; with regard to studies and environmental assessment studies, it has neither the means nor the jurisdiction, with the latter held by the Member States. The role of the Commission, as stated in the Treaty, is to ensure that the Member States duly implement and fully adhere to all the rules of Community law, including the international agreements ratified by the Community.
The Commission may only intervene if there are serious grounds to believe that there have been omissions in performing the relevant legal obligations based on Community law, including the environmental laws of the European Union."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples