# CE2004078EN.01004301.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/43

---

(2004/C 78 E/0041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1687/03

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject:   Botniabanan — Umea river delta, Sweden

Subject:

As the Commission is aware, the Botniabanan railway line in Sweden threatens the Umea River Natura 2000 site, which supports a number of birds and priority habitats.

Evidence has been presented that there are viable alternatives to the west, avoiding goods transportation through Umea City, and to the east, avoiding a ‘sack solution’ in Umea City. What is the Commission's view of these alternatives?

Concerns have been expressed that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out for this project in 1998 is incomplete. Is the Commission satisfied that the EIA carried out by the Swedish authorities fulfils the requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) (updated 97/11/EC (2))? In the Commission's view, does the EIA provide all the relevant information on the likely environmental impacts of the railway development, and fully evaluate the options regarding the alternative routes? Does the Commission consider the proposal to move the roosting area for 10 000 wetland birds 4km to the north of the site a scientifically sound recommendation for a compensatory measure? Does the Commission believe that the overall conclusions of the EIA are supported by scientific evidence?

1

2

How is the Commission assessing both of these issues: the alternative routes and possible problems with the EIA? Are they being considered jointly by the relevant services of the Commission? Is the Commission concerned, given the evidence of alternative routes and the possible problems with the EIA, that Sweden may be in contravention of the Directives on Habitats, Birds and EIA?

Evidence has been presented from highly competent reviewers, that the noise calculations in the city and Umeå river delta region, done by the Swedish authorities, are substantially underestimated. These calculations are far below the results of measurements of noise from hundreds of train passages made in Sweden during the 1990s. Has the Commission considered the impact of this difference of at least 15 dB (A) noise increase on the bird life of the delta?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

(25 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the issues raised by the Honourable Member. On the request of the Government of Sweden, the Commission adopted on 24 April 2003 an opinion according to Article 6(4) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of the natural habitats as well as the wild animals and plants (3) (hereafter ‘Habitats Directive’) concerning the project.

3

According to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, a plan or a project may be carried out in spite of significant negative implications for a Natura 2000 site, in the absence of alternative solutions, if it is justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest, including those of a social or economic nature. In this case the Member States shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. Where the affected site hosts a priority natural habitat type and/or a priority species, and if considerations relating to human health, public safety or beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment cannot be invoked, the project can be justified, further to an opinion from the Commission, by other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

In the above-mentioned opinion, the Commission has accepted the argument made by the Swedish Government that the impact of alternative routes on projected income is such that they cannot be seen as economically viable. The Commission therefore accepted the overall conclusion that the proposed route is the only viable solution.

In addition, the Commission considered that the proposed compensations are as yet not adequate to make up for the negative effects of the project on Natura 2000. The compensation package should involve the establishment of an overall management plan for the Natura 2000 sites to provide a framework for implementation of the long term targets of the compensatory measures as well as the future management of the sites. The package must also include a commitment from the Swedish Government with assurances on sufficient funding, efficient implementation, maintenance and monitoring of the compensatory measures, to ensure achievement of the targets.

As regards Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997, the Commission did indeed investigate whether the EIA carried out by the Swedish authorities fulfilled the requirements of the Directive. Having investigated the claim of complainants that Community law had been breached in this respect, the Commission concluded that no infringement of the EIA Directive could be identified. Regarding any further EIA on this project, it is the responsibility for the Swedish authorities to see that a complete EIA is carried out before the development consent is granted.

---

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

1

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

2

(3)  OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

3

---