Brussels, 08/10/2013 (Agence Europe) - Should the European Commission unveil legislation to make an environmental impact assessment compulsory for shale gas in the EU? The answer will be given on Wednesday, when the European Parliament votes in plenary on a revised reactive on the environmental impact assessment of public and private projects that affect the environment (Directive 85/337/EEC, the EIA directive). Vote on the EIA, scheduled for 11 September, was postponed until Wednesday because MEPs wanted to have prior talks with the European Commission (see EUROPE 10920).
Judging by the debate in Strasbourg on Tuesday 8 October, MEPs are divided on the EIA directive itself, and also on the report by the Parliament's rapporteur on the EIA, Andrea Zanoni (ALDE, Italy), who says it is vital to have the strictest environmental standards for shale gas and therefore environmental impact assessments should be compulsory. Many MEPs from the EPP, CRE and ELD want to water down the document, saying that being forced to carry out such assessments would be a burden on companies and have a negative impact on jobs. Hence the rapporteur's appeal to his colleagues that they give the EU a crucial instrument for a green economy to ensure the sustainability of projects. He calls on the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the EU to facilitate agreement in first reading.
EU Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard tried to reassure the MEPs, saying that Environmental Commissioner Janez Potocnik will issue special proposals for shale gas in a few months' time, which will allow a broader debate. The European Commission has suggested, she explained, a change to increase citizens' votes and explain how their comments have been taken on board, which is why the Commission is rationalising procedures. She said there would not be a surfeit of red tape and more effective legislation was sought, racing against the clock. A one-stop-shop will simplify matters and does not add to bureaucracy, she added.
Rapporteur Zanoni tried to bring the debate back to the key issue - pointing out that it had nothing to do with whether one was for or against shale gas, but rather for all shale gas projects to be subject to an environmental impact assessment. He pointed out that his political group had tabled an over-arching amendment to have EIA for extracting because hydraulic fracturing is where the greatest dangers lie. He swept aside fears raised by colleagues of potential job losses, pointing out that in Italy, a big industrial complex currently risks being closed down due to environmental risks, and this could have been avoided if an EIA had been carried out. (AN/transl.fl)