# CE2004078EN.01086701.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/867 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/867

---

(2004/C 78 E/0921)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3873/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject:   Motorway and high-speed rail routes — Corridor 5 and Friuli-Venezia Giulia region

Subject:

Italian Law 443 of 21 December 2001 provides for the development of Corridor 5 by constructing a third motorway link (Quarto d'Altino — Sistiana) and a high-speed rail link (Ronchi south — Trieste). Accordingly, two preliminary projects were presented, by Autovie Venete (road) and Italferr (rail), together with impact assessments which did not, however, include either the strategic environmental impact assessment or the comparative examination of alternatives required under Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of 27 June 2001.

1

These projects have not been integrated with other transport infrastructures planned under the framework agreement subscribed by the central government and the regions on 20 September 2002. Indeed, their simultaneous presentation suggests the intention of pressing ahead with both even though alternatives have not been examined.

For the motorway link, there is no reference to environmental impact assessments for five sites of Community importance: Paludi di Porpetto IT3320032, Bosco Boscat IT3320032, Laghi di Doberdó and Pietrarossa IT3330003, Foce del Timavo IT3330004, or Falesie di Duino IT3340001, not to mention four special protected areas or areas of special environmental interest as defined by the relevant decisions of the regional governments.

For the rail link (of only 30 km), there is no assessment of the potential interferences with the karst cavities in the Isonzo area (which would be traversed by four double galleries over 24 km), while proper consideration is not given to the intermodal benefits of the link with the port of Trieste (high-speed stretch under the hill of Cattinara).

The studies of the transport experts are contradictory as regards the projected traffic flows for the two modes: Autovie Venete predicts a rise in average vehicle numbers per day from 39 000 to 52 000 by 2011, while the railway company claims it will win 3,1 million tonnes' worth of goods traffic and 1,6 million passengers from the roads by 2025.

Despite the provisions of the Aarhus Convention, incorporated via national law 108/2001 and regional law 43/1990, the only two copies available of the preliminary project are those to be found at the regional headquarters in Trieste and Venice. No information has been supplied to the local authorities or the public.

Can the Commission take steps to ascertain whether these measures are not in breach of Directives 85/337/EEC (2), 97/11/EC (3) and 90/313/EEC (4) on environmental impact assessment and the right to information, and Directive 92/43/EEC (5) (the habitats directive) and Directive 2001/42/EC regarding the obligation to supply interested parties (see Article 6) with all economic and environmental assessments relating to projects?

2

3

4

5

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

(9 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to the development of Corridor 5 which comprises the construction of a third motorway (Quarto d'Altino — Sistiana) and a high-speed rail link (Ronchi south — Trieste). According to the information provided by the Honourable Member two preliminary projects were presented, by Autovie Venete (road) and Italferr (rail), together with impact assessments which did not, however, include either the strategic environmental impact assessment or the comparative examination of alternatives required under Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

At present Community law does not require Member States to carry out a strategic environmental assessment (SEA) of their draft plans or programmes, or of proposed modifications. The position will change on 21 July 2004, the date by which Member States must complete their transposition of Directive 2001/42/EC, the so-called SEA Directive. Thereafter, Member States will have to carry out an environmental assessment of plans and programmes which meet the definition in the Directive. In some circumstances, plans or programmes begun before 21 July 2004 but not adopted until after 21 July 2006 might also require assessment.

However, once application for the construction of the particular projects is made, then Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and dealing with the environmental assessment of certain public and private projects is applicable. It provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, ‘inter alia’, of their nature, size or location are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 that refers to Annex I and II of the Directive. Motorways and high-speed railways are found in Annex I point 7(a) and (b) for which a mandatory EIA has to be carried out. Member States have to adopt the necessary measures in order to ensure that, inasmuch as relevant and reasonable, the environmental impact assessment includes an assessment of the impacts on the environment, including, ‘inter alia’, an outline of the main alternatives studies by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for this choice as well as a description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the project such as fauna, flora, landscape. The description of the effects should also cover the direct and indirect effects and any secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term effects.

In addition, the Directive requires that consultations with other competent authorities responsible for the environment and with the public concerned have to be carried out. While the detailed arrangements for such information and consultation shall be determined by the Member States, they have to ensure that the request for development consent and the information on the environmental assessment are made available to the public within a reasonable time in order to give the public concerned the opportunity to express an opinion before the development consent is granted. This would imply specifying in particular the places where the information on the project and on the environmental assessment can be consulted, as well as the way in which the public concerned is to be consulted.

Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the environment obliges public authorities to make available information relating to the environment to any natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest, unless refusal would be justified on the grounds provided by the Directive. An obligation to actively disseminate information is only defined in the Directive as regards general information on the state of the environment by such means as the periodic publication of descriptive reports. On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it cannot be concluded that Directive 90/313/EEC is not being correctly applied.

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, the projects in question could have a significant impact on five sites proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 list of sites of Community importance under the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. They are therefore subject to the provisions of Articles 6(3) and (4) of that Directive, which define the conditions under which a project likely to have a significant impact on a site of Community importance or a special protection area can be authorised by the competent authorities. These conditions include the obligation to do an adequate assessment of the effects of the project on the site from the point of view of nature conservation.

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it seems that development consent has not been granted for the project. The Commission has, therefore, at this stage no reason to assume that the EIA and Habitats Directives are not being correctly applied.

---

(1)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.

1

(2)  OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.

2

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

3

(4)  OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.

4

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

5

---