EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 88/645

(2004/C 88 E/0662)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3377/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) and Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Oil extraction by Russia in the Baltic Sea, near the Curonian Spit (D6 oil deposit)

The Russian oil company LUKoil will begin oil extraction from the D6 oil deposit before the end of 2003. D6 is located only 22 km from the Russian coast and 6 km from the Lithuanian border. Oil spills would endanger the Curonian Spit in Russia and Lithuania, and possibly the Finnish and Swedish coast as well. The Curonian Spit is a World Heritage site, a national park and will be part of Natura 2000 after Lithuanian accession. It is already receiving LIFE funding. The area is known for its sensitive environment. Tourism, dependent on clean beaches, represents a major economic factor in the area. A transparent, international EIA has not been conducted by the Russian authorities. The second Northern Dimension Action Plan approved in mid-October calls for cooperation with Russia in order to comply with the Espoo Convention and implement cross-border cooperation on environmental issues.

1. Does the Commission believe the project to be environmentally safe? (a) If so, how can the Commission explain the fact that an international EIA, involving Lithuania, has not been conducted and that the national EIA has been highly secretive? (b) If not, will the Commission assume its responsibility for an appropriate impact assessment for a project affecting a Natura 2000 area by supporting the Unesco World Heritage Committee in insisting on an international, transparent EIA with international experts, as prescribed by the Espoo and Helsinki Conventions?

2. Is the Commission using all available channels to make this demand, such as Helcom and the CBSS as well as the different fora for cooperation with Russia established under the PCA, e.g. the Sub-Committee on Energy, Environment and Nuclear Safety? How will the Commission take the outstanding opportunity that the D6 project provides to activate the second Northern Dimension Action Plan?

3. Is the Commission aware that a loan granted to LUKoil by the EBRD in 2000 has been used to resume the D6 project without any conditions regarding the application of the Espoo and Helsinki Conventions requiring an international EIA? What action has the Commission taken to stop funding of LUKoil until international law is applied? Is the Commission aware that the EU could stop this funding using its majority on the Board of Directors of the EBRD?

4. Is the EU planning to import oil produced from the D6 oil platform?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2003)

1. The Commission shares the Honourable Members' concerns about Russia's plan to start prospecting for oil in the sensitive Baltic Sea environment of the Curonian Spit without having conducted an Environmental Impact Assesment (EIA) that meets high international standards. The Commission is of the opinion that only an EIA could provide adequate detailed data concerning the possible impact on current and future Member States and environmental safety. Therefore, the Commission will combine its efforts with current and future Member States in attempting to convince the Russian Federation that, for the sake of the safety of all Baltic Sea States including Russia, a transparent EIA meeting high international standards should be conducted and all relevant precautionary emergency measures should be taken. Moreover, in a report to both Lithuanian and Russian specialists on 5 November 2003, experts from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (Unesco) World Heritage Center recommended that, before Russia starts drilling and pumping oil on the Curonian spit, it should implement the following prerequisite steps: an environmental impact and operational risks study, a bipartite emergency liquidation plan and a monitoring system. The Commission also notes that Russia is not yet a Party to the United Nations/Economic Commission for Europe (UN/ECE) Espoo Convention concerning trans-boundary impacts on environment.

2. The issue has been discussed within the framework of the Helsinki Commission (Helcom). All Baltic Sea States and the Community, represented by the Commission, are Contracting Parties to the Helsinki Convention (1). Steps have been taken to ensure an appropriate exchange of information, and the delegation of the Russian Federation has submitted details of their plans that were circulated to all Helcom Heads of Delegation in July 2003. In addition, there are ongoing contacts within a joint Russian-Lithuanian Commission. The Commission will press for an early meeting of the sub-committee on environment under the Union-Russia Partnership and Co-operation Agreement in order, inter alia, to discuss this matter further. The Northern Dimension Action Plan provides an operational framework setting out strategic objectives. One of the priority objectives is to work on the full respect of international conventions on environment. The Action Plan states that all partners should enhance their commitment to the implementation of the Helcom Copenhagen Declaration on maritime safety. However, since the Northern Dimension is, from a legal standpoint, a non-binding initiative its success depends on the active and willing participation of all actors involved.

3. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) loan to LUKoil in 2000 was for medium-term working capital and, as far as the Commission knows, there is no connection between this and the D6/Curonian spit project (a project which requires a different type of long-term financing). Moreover, the EBRD reports that the 2000 loan represented a minimal part of LUKOil's total indebtedness at that time. The 2000 loan is now in the repayment phase: USD 62,5 million has been repaid on time, and the whole facility is to be fully repaid by mid/end of 2004. There are no firm new LUKoil projects in the Bank's pipeline and more specifically, no projects involving oil field developments. The Commission remains committed to the application by the EBRD of the highest environmental standards for its investment projects. In this context, it is important to note that EBRD involvement has in the past improved the environmental practices of the companies benefiting from the Bank's financing, including LUKoil.

4. In the Union, the choice of crude supply sources is made autonomously and independently by each refining or purchasing company.

(1) Relevant Helcom Recommendations in this respect are in particular Recommendation 18/2 (of 12 March 1997) on offshore activities and Recommendation 19/17 (of 24 March 1998) on Measures in order to combat pollution from offshore units. Following a request made by the delegation of Lithuania, a recent meeting of Helcom Heads of Delegation (Helsinki, 27/28 October 2003) agreed to review these recommendations in cooperation with relevant experts from the OSPAR Commission and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP).