EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 294/3

Tuesday 8 July 2008

Environmental impact of the planned gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea

P6_TA(2008)0336

European Parliament resolution of 8 July 2008 on the environmental impact of the planned gas pipeline in the Baltic Sea to link up Russia and Germany (Petitions 0614/2007 and 0952/2006) (2007/2118(INI))

2009/C 294 E/02

The European Parliament,

having regard to Petition 0614/2007 by Radvile Morkunaite, bearing more than 20 000 signatures, Petition 0952/2006 by Krzysztof Mączkowski and the other petitions submitted to it on the issue covered by this resolution,

having regard to the Lisbon Treaty signed by all the Member States on 13 December 2007,

having regard to the communication from the Commission concerning the Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment (COM(2005)0504),

having regard to the Sixth Environmental Action Programme of the European Community (1),

having regard to Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (2), and to Council Directives 92/43/EEC (3) and 79/409/EEC (4), which latter directives form the Natura 2000 legislative package,

having regard to its resolution of 14 November 2006 on a Thematic Strategy on the Protection and Conservation of the Marine Environment (5),

having regard to its resolution of 16 November 2006 on a Baltic Sea Region Strategy for the Northern Dimension (6),

having regard to the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (the Helsinki Convention),

having regard to the recommendations of the Helsinki Commission (Helcom), and in particular Recommendation 17/3 of 12 March 1996 describing the requirement to conduct an environmental impact assessment and to consult with states that may suffer the adverse impact of a proposed project,

having regard to the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context of 25 February 1991 (the Espoo Convention),

having regard to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters of 25 June 1998 (the Aarhus Convention),

having regard to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos),

having regard to the precautionary principle, which is included by the case-law of the Court of Justice amongst the general principles of the acquis communautaire and which forms one of the aspects of sustainable development under EU law and international law,

having regard to the principle of good governance, which constitutes one of the general principles of EU law,

having regard to the activities of the European Parliament's Baltic Europe Intergroup,

having regard to the proposals resulting from the public hearing of 29 January 2008,

having regard to Decision No 1364/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 September 2006 laying down guidelines for trans-European energy networks (7), which recognises that Nord Stream is a project of European interest,

having regard to the Baltic Sea Action Plan adopted at a meeting of Baltic States Environment Ministers held in Kraków on 15 November 2007,

having regard to Article 10 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, which imposes on Member States a duty of loyalty towards the Community,

having regard to Rule 192(1) of the Rules of Procedure,

having regard to the report of the Committee on Petitions and the opinions of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0225/2008),

A. whereas the Baltic Sea is a basin bordered by as many as eight European Union Member States and 80 % of its shore is European Union territory; whereas OAO Gazprom is the majority shareholder of Nord Stream,

B. whereas concern for the Baltic marine environment is one of the principal objectives of the Union's Northern Dimension, as repeatedly confirmed by Commission communications and Parliament resolutions,

C. whereas the agricultural and industrial sectors of all the bordering Member States and of Russia are the biggest polluters of the Baltic Sea and pose the greatest problems to its ecological balance,

D. whereas the Union is especially committed to environmental protection, including protection of the marine environment,

E. whereas in proceedings before the Court of Justice the Commission has repeatedly confirmed that environmental protection is one the Community's key objectives and the Court has recognised the Community's competence in the area of protection and conservation of the marine environment,

F. whereas plans currently exist for the construction of numerous infrastructure projects in the Baltic Sea (Nord Stream, wind farms, the Scanled Baltic Pipe, a gas pipeline between Finland and Estonia, power cables between Sweden and Lithuania, LNG terminals in Świnoujścje, etc.),

G. whereas Europe needs to find ways to respond to the vital question of security of energy supply,

H. whereas the growing contribution of natural gas to the energy balance in Europe has been — especially since 1990 — the major single source of reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,

I. whereas the precautionary principle laid down in Article 174(2) of the EC Treaty requires all stakeholders to make the necessary efforts to assess the environmental impact that new decisions or the commencement of works may have and to take appropriate preventive action where there is a reasonable likelihood of a threat to the environment,

J. whereas, in accordance with the principle that environmental protection requirements must be integrated into sector-specific policies, due account should be taken of such requirements in the conduct of all Community activities and the pursuit of all Community goals,

K. whereas Article 194 of the future Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, as inserted by the Treaty of Lisbon, explicitly states that EU energy policy should be conducted in a spirit of solidarity between Member States and with regard to the need to preserve and improve the environment,

L. whereas the particular vulnerability of the Baltic Sea to environmental threats has been confirmed by the International Maritime Organization, which has recognised it as an ‘extremely vulnerable area’,

M. whereas the Baltic Sea is today one of the world's most polluted maritime areas and whereas, in particular, the concentration of hazardous substances both in its waters and in its living organisms remains unnaturally high,

N. whereas the Baltic Sea is a typical inland sea as well as a shallow sea area and, together with the Black Sea, has the longest cycle of water exchange with the global ocean, at approximately 30 years,

O. whereas the lifetime of the gas transmission pipeline is estimated at 50 years and the magnitude of the work involved in decommissioning the pipeline system will be similar in scale to that of the planned installation; whereas this aspect should be weighed against the time needed for the complete restoration of flora and fauna to their original state when considering the environmental and economic impact of the project,

P. whereas exposure to heavy metals, contaminants and other harmful substances entails health risks and food-chain implications that need to be examined,

Q. whereas a number of factors, including long water retention times, the stratified water column, the extensive, industrialised catchment area and the particular intensification of farming in the Baltic Sea area, make the Baltic Sea especially environmentally vulnerable,

R. whereas the performance of works under the special conditions obtaining in the Baltic Sea could result in a sudden increase in the algae population, which could pose a particular risk to Finland, Sweden, Germany and the Baltic States,

S. whereas a further significant environmental risk factor is the existence of approximately 80 000 tonnes of munitions dumped on the Baltic seabed after World War II, containing toxic substances such as mustard gas, sulphur yperite, nitrogen yperite, lewisite, Clark I, Clark II and adamsite, which represent a hazard both to the Baltic marine environment and to human life and health,

T. whereas munitions containers continued to be dumped by a number of states from 1945 until the late 1960s,

U. whereas, moreover, the munitions containers are in a critical condition, their corrosion having been estimated at 80 %, and whereas their exact location cannot always be determined,

V. whereas, at the same time, the Baltic Sea Action Plan adopted on 15 November 2007 in Kraków requires states bordering on the Baltic to ensure safe storage of old stocks of chemicals and devices containing hazardous substances,

W. taking account of the potential impact of the gas pipeline on the Baltic marine environment and on states bordering on the Baltic,

X. having regard to the increased traffic in terms of seafarers and oil tankers in the Baltic Sea and the potential fire hazard, the risk of loss of buoyancy and sinking of vessels resulting from a breakdown of the gas pipeline during its construction, installation and operation, and the potential human, economic and environmental impact thereof,

Y. whereas Nord Stream plans to construct a 1 200 km long and approximately 2 km wide undersea lane, which will thus become the largest undersea construction in the world,

Z. whereas fishing, tourism and shipping could be adversely affected by the construction, installation and operation of the project, having a probable negative impact on the economy of coastal regions,

AA. whereas Article 123 of Unclos, which forms an integral part of the acquis communautaire, requires states bordering semi-enclosed seas to cooperate with each other in the exercise of their rights and in the performance of their duties and to coordinate the implementation of their rights and duties with respect to the protection and preservation of the marine environment,

AB. whereas Article 2(1) of the Espoo Convention requires the parties thereto, either individually or jointly, to take all appropriate and effective measures to prevent, reduce and control significant adverse transboundary environmental impact from proposed activities,

AC. whereas under Article 5(a) of the Espoo Convention consultations with parties exposed to the harmful effects of transboundary projects may cover possible alternatives to a proposed project, including its abandonment,

AD. whereas Article 12 of the Helsinki Convention requires the parties thereto to take all measures in order to prevent pollution of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea area resulting from exploration or exploitation of the seabed or from any associated activities,

AE. whereas the proposed route of the North European gas pipeline will traverse areas which are included in the Natura 2000 programme and which Directive 92/43/EEC classifies as special areas of conservation,

AF. whereas Article 6(2) of Directive 92/43/EEC requires Member States to take appropriate steps to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species in special areas of conservation,

AG. whereas Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC requires Member States to undertake an appropriate assessment of the implications of any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary for the management of a conservation site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, in view of the site's conservation objectives,

AH. whereas under Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC, in the light of the conclusions of the above assessment, the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and, if appropriate, after having obtained the opinion of the general public,

AI. whereas the proposed gas pipeline would be the longest dual sub-sea gas pipeline in the world, as well as the shallowest one, which makes it especially vulnerable to potential damage,

AJ. whereas Decision 1364/2006/EC includes the North European gas pipeline among priority projects of European interest,

AK. whereas every large-scale engineering structure erected in sea waters must, due to the associated risks, be subject to a particularly thorough and comprehensive analysis and environmental impact assessment as prescribed by the Espoo Convention, the Helcom Convention and all other pertinent European and national legislation,

AL. whereas, pursuant to the Espoo Convention, every project of this kind should be preceded by an analysis of its alternatives, covering in particular implementation costs and environmental safety, in this case an analysis of overland routes for the gas pipeline,

AM. whereas parts of the planned pipeline have already been transported to the town of Kotka in Finland for treatment,

AN. whereas Article 1 of the Aarhus Convention requires each party thereto to guarantee the rights of access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters,

AO. whereas the legal requirements relating to the preparation of an accurate environmental impact assessment must take into account all the above hazards,

AP. whereas, furthermore, it is necessary to analyse the terrorist threat and the capability for effective counteraction,

1. Is of the opinion that Nord Stream is an infrastructure project with a wide political and strategic dimension for both the EU and Russia; understands the concerns expressed by EU Member States regarding the construction and maintenance of the pipeline; emphasises that the ability of small littoral states to act as security providers in the Baltic Sea region cannot be seen in isolation from the EU's ability to act as a unified entity and to speak with one voice on energy issues, and recalls its resolution of 26 September 2007 on a common European foreign policy on energy (8); emphasises that Decision 1364/2006/EC (incorporating the TEN-E guidelines) recognises Nord Stream to be a project of European interest that would help to meet the EU's future energy needs; stresses that this project, together with other complementary pipelines, such as the Yamal II and Amber, should be planned in the spirit of a common European foreign policy on energy and should take fully into account their impact on the environment and on the security of the EU Member States;

2. Reiterates its opinion that, taking into consideration the increasing dependence of the EU on a limited number of energy sources, suppliers and transport routes, it is essential to support initiatives aimed at their diversification, both geographically and by developing sustainable alternatives; draws attention in particular to the need to support the development of port infrastructure used for the handling of fuels; recalls that Nord Stream is only one of a larger number of gas infrastructure projects, such as pipelines and LNG facilities, which will be essential to meet the Community's natural gas consumption needs that — according to numerous studies — will rise significantly over the coming years and which at the same time will make it possible to replace less environmentally friendly fossil fuels; considers it necessary to assess the long-term impact on the environment of the new gas infrastructure, with regard to the importance of guaranteeing a stable gas supply;

3. Supports the proposal, contained in Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 14 November 2006, that the EU's future marine strategy must result in binding supranational obligations which may involve common commitments in third countries;

4. Emphasises that energy security must be regarded as an essential component of the overall security of the European Union, whereby the definition of energy security should not merely be limited to the lack of internal EU production but should also take into account the geopolitical aspects of dependency on imports and the potential therein for politically motivated interruptions; believes that the Third Energy Package will reduce each Member State's energy dependence as no state can be disconnected from a third-country supplier in a fully liberalised and integrated energy market;

5. Considers that the challenge of securing energy supply while respecting the commitment to environmental protection and sustainable development makes it imperative to implement a coherent and coordinated European policy on supply of natural gas based on careful evaluation at European level of the environmental aspects of alternative solutions and on mutual solidarity between Member States;

6. Regrets the marginal role played by the EU in this project, in particular that of the Commission; points out that greater EU involvement would reduce the uncertainty felt by many Member States about the Nord Stream project;

7. Takes note of the opposition expressed by certain Member States to the pipeline project planned for the Baltic Sea area, which is a common asset of the states bordering the Baltic Sea, not a matter of bilateral relations between states; considers, therefore, that the project should be realised in cooperation with each of the states around the Baltic Sea in accordance with the Espoo Convention, the Helsinki Convention and other pertinent legal instruments; stresses the importance of Russia completing its ratification of the Espoo Convention;

8. Voices its opposition, in this connection, to the carrying-out of an investment on the proposed scale, without first having a positive environmental impact assessment;

9. Expresses its conviction that energy projects involving EU Member States and third countries should be subjects of common European interest and concern for the whole European Union and for its citizens;

10. Acknowledges that Nord Stream has been carrying out the ongoing environmental impact assessment to be submitted to the ‘Parties of origin’ as defined in the Espoo Convention (Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany) for their approval; urges the company to make the results of studies and the full set of research data concerning the ecological situation of the project site, collected during environmental investigations, available not only to those States but also to Helcom and to all littoral states;

11. Emphasises that a long-term sustainable solution requires full transparency for all parties during both the construction and operating phases, and that confidence in this major project will be increased if the states bordering the Baltic Sea can monitor the work;

12. Calls, therefore, on the Commission and the Council to make a full commitment to analysing the environmental impact of the construction of the North European gas pipeline, particularly in situations involving considerations which require a Commission opinion, as specified in Article 6(4) of Directive 92/43/EEC;

13. Emphasises that the reciprocity principle must be fully respected as regards investment if the interdependence between the EU and Russia is to develop into a partnership; notes that third countries benefit to a great extent from Europe's open market, but also that European investors in Russia are not accorded similar advantages;

14. Regrets the Commission's failure to accept the proposal contained in Parliament's abovementioned resolution of 16 November 2006 concerning the preparation of objective environmental impact assessments of proposed projects by the Commission, while reiterating its call for the preparation of such an assessment by an independent body to be appointed taking into consideration the opinions of all the littoral states;

15. Calls on the Council and the Commission to conduct a thorough assessment of the question whether the implementation of the project is in keeping with Community and international law;

16. Expresses its concern at the project timetable adopted by Nord Stream, the implementation of which will prevent a thorough analysis of the results of the environmental impact assessment by interested states, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and Helcom experts; points out that a thorough analysis of the results of the environmental impact assessment needs an appropriate timetable;

17. Points out that carrying out work in an area of up to 2 400 km2 in the Baltic Sea, requiring the use of a large number of vessels and other equipment, could represent a serious threat to biodiversity and to the number of habitats, as well as to the safety and smooth operation of shipping, in the region;

18. Expects that the possible interference by the pipeline with the seabed during the construction phase will be part of the environmental impact assessment;

19. Calls on the developer to include in its draft environmental impact assessment report comprehensive terms of reference by providing a clear description of the current environmental conditions in the site and by providing data on the site geomorphology in three-dimensional form;

20. Expresses profound concern at the reports that, before commissioning the gas pipeline, the investor intends to use a highly toxic compound known as glutaric aldehyde; calls on the investor to refrain from using this substance;

21. Calls on the Commission to conduct a reliable and independent environmental study examining the agricultural and industrial emissions polluting the Baltic Sea and to evaluate the situation in proportion to possible environmental threats caused by the pipelines currently crossing the Baltic Sea; in addition, calls on the Commission to evaluate the additional impact on the Baltic Sea caused by the Nord Stream project;

22. Calls on the developer to ensure that the construction and operation of the pipeline does not endanger the many species of fish and birds as well as the existence of a population of porpoises numbering only 600, which are a species unique to this geographical region;

23. Considers that the protection of the marine environment of the Baltic Sea is a component of the Northern Dimension of the EU, and should also be considered within the framework of the Baltic Sea Strategy where appropriate;

24. Notes that the prosperity of coastal regions and the competitiveness of their economies are highly susceptible to, and endangered by, spoilt coastal areas and the deterioration of the marine environment; points out that, given the extent to which coastal regions are affected by maritime activities and policies, long-term environmental sustainability is a precondition for the protection of their economic, social and environmental prosperity;

25. Points out the absence of any strategy to address structural failure and external threats to the security of the pipeline; emphasises the need to clearly define all aspects related to security and emergency response, including financial resources, actors, roles and procedures;

26. Emphasises that, given the growing EU gas demand, alternative gas pipeline routes should be analysed and promoted, taking into account environmental and economic aspects, including the timetable for such routes; notes that Nord Stream is required to submit an assessment of alternatives to the route chosen in the environmental impact assessment;

27. Calls on the Commission to undertake such an analysis in a dialogue with interested littoral states, the investor and Helcom, taking into consideration the opinions of relevant NGOs;

28. Stresses that the issue of economic compensation for any failures or damage must be perfectly clear before work can even begin; points out that a major failure in the pipeline could lead to complications for the states bordering the Baltic Sea and could be devastating for the marine environment; considers that Nord Stream should assume full liability for compensation;

29. Calls on the Commission and Member States to carry out a thorough assessment of the economic, budgetary and transparency-related aspects of the Nord Stream project and the firms involved in it;

30. Calls on the Commission to investigate the possibility, within the Northern Dimension partnership, of requiring the equivalent of ‘planning gain’ from Nord Stream in connection with possible regeneration projects in the Finno-Russian border area where the pipeline is proposed to commence or within the context of the Baltic Sea Strategy;

31. Takes note of the following decisions made by organs of the Member States: — the Swedish Government's decision of 12 February 2008 requesting further documentation from Nord Stream AG due to significant procedural and substantive shortcomings and in particular the lack of an analysis of an alternative route and of the option of abandoning the construction of the pipeline; — the position of the Lithuanian Parliament of 27 March 2007 pointing to the need to suspend the implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects in the Baltic Sea pending an in-depth analysis of alternative solutions together with independent and comprehensive environmental impact assessments; — the Estonian Government's decision of 21 September 2007 not to grant permission for underwater studies to be conducted in Estonia's exclusive economic zone, owing to doubts about the scope and scale of those studies;

32. Regrets the fact that the Green Paper entitled ‘Towards a future Maritime Policy for the Union’ does not address the problem of large-scale projects such as sub-sea pipelines; regrets that in the legal instruments and communications concerning marine strategies initiated by it, the Commission usually passes over the problem of sub-sea pipelines, which is crucial from the point of view of both environmental protection and the EU's energy security;

33. Calls for an independent environmental impact assessment to be made available for in-depth consultation with the relevant authorities and the general public of all littoral states;

34. Points out the importance of conducting a transparent communication strategy on steps concerning the results of the environmental impact assessment, and of communicating those results actively to all EU Member States, especially the Baltic littoral states;

35. Reiterates, therefore, its call in its abovementioned resolution of 14 November 2006 for the proposal of a mandatory mechanism for negotiation between Member States and its insistence that the Council take action at international level to develop mandatory environmental impact assessments in relations between the EU and third countries;

36. Notes that routing the North European gas pipeline should meet the strategic and economic objectives set out in Decision 1364/2006/EC whilst avoiding any environmental damage;

37. Calls on the Council, the Commission and the Member States to ensure that the construction of the Nord Stream gas pipeline fully complies with EU legislation on environmental impact assessments and with all international conventions;

38. Calls on the Commission in particular to ensure compliance with the provisions of the documents referred to above, namely Unclos, the Helsinki Convention, the Espoo Convention, the Aarhus Convention and Directives 85/337/EEC, 97/11/EC, 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC, as well as Article 10 of the EC Treaty and the precautionary principle and the principle of sustainable development, and to initiate proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty in the event of failure to comply with the above obligations;

39. In light of Russia's current political situation and geopolitical ambitions, considers that it is of great importance that Russia show goodwill regarding cooperation in European energy policy; stresses the importance of Russia ratifying the Energy Charter Treaty and the Transit Protocol thereto, as such ratification will reduce the potential for conflict over projects like Nord Stream;

40. Calls on the Commission, within the scope of its competence, to evaluate the market competition situation caused by the possible completion of the Nord Stream pipeline, and if necessary to take measures to prevent Gazprom from assuming a dominant role on the EU gas markets without guaranteeing reciprocal rights for EU companies to enter the Russian energy market;

41. Suggests the establishment of a system of common supervision of the pipeline, to include all countries in the Baltic Sea region; further suggests that the obligation to pay compensation for environmental damage should lie solely with Nord Stream;

42. Notes the lack of institutional structures capable of responding adequately to the environmental and geopolitical security issues associated with this project; suggests, therefore, that the Commission should create an appropriate post to deal with current and future projects, functioning under the authority of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and the Vice-President of the Commission;

43. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council and the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

(1) See Decision No 1600/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2002 laying down the Sixth Community Environmental Action Programme (OJ L 242, 10.9.2002, p. 1.)

(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(4) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

(5) OJ C 314 E, 21.12.2006, p. 131.

(6) OJ C 314 E, 21.12.2006, p. 330.

(7) OJ L 262, 22.9.2006, p. 1.

(8) Texts adopted, P6_TA(2007)0413.