WRITTEN QUESTION E-3195/02

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE)and Giorgio Celli (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 November 2002)

Subject: Bridge in the regional park of the River Taro

There are plans for a road inside the Taro river regional park (in the province of Parma), which protects a fragile and precious natural environment; the road is projected to cross the park over a large bridge. On the left bank the bridge joins the provincial road connecting Medesano and Noceto to the via Emilia, while on the right bank it links to the Collecchio bypass (on the new section of the SS 62 to Cisa via Parma). Another addition planned to the road network on the left bank is a better connection to Salsomaggiore, to produce an east-west axis at the bottom of the mountains. In fact, the bridge would be located in the zones of greatest value in the protected natural area.

The planned bridge (now under final discussion by the departments which are shortly to approve the EIA, following which the final construction plans will be drawn up with a view to launching the contract award procedure) and the link road sections have been located in one of the last areas belonging to the State to have escaped being sold off. From Fornovo to the A1 motorway the Taro park is designated a special protection area (SPA) within the meaning of Directive No 79/409/EEC(1), and it has been put forward as a site of Community importance within the meaning of the Habitat Directive, No 92/43/EEC(2).

The impact assessment was not carried out, as it should have been, at the initial stages, when comments could have been made on the choice of site for the bridge. The EIA procedure only compared three routes which are very close to each other and the difference between them is irrelevant as far as the impact on resources is concerned, since pollution in the area would be very high in all three cases. This is an isolated project in an SPA, which has probably been planned with the public contract itself in view and to add value to the surrounding land. In fact, there is a highly polluted site in Maraffa at a height of 800 metres, where a ford links up to manufacturing sites,

which was not taken into consideration even though it is a possible alternative and also has potential for connecting up to nearby roads. The loss of 13 hectares of park in an SPA as a result of the construction of the bridge cannot be justified from an environmental point of view and the measures intended to compensate for the resulting damage, by taking private areas back into public ownership, are irrelevant, in that these areas are already inside the park's boundary and are therefore already protected. On the other hand, if a barrier were to be created within the park's ecosystem forming an obstruction to the river corridor, in spite of the restrictions in place on construction in rural areas and existing parkland, this would cause serious damage to the environment and the countryside in the area.

Is the Commission aware of the above facts, and what is its opinion?

Does it not consider that, as environmental groups have already urged, the lower-impact alternative in the Maraffa location should be preferred, in view of the fact that the projected work would affect an SPA?

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

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2002)

The case described by the Honourable Members was one of the subjects of a complaint received by the Commission in 2002, which concerned three projects within the Special Protection Area and proposed Site of Community Interest Fiume Taro da Fornovo di Taro all'Autostrada del Sole.

For what concerns the specific project mentioned by the Honourable Members, Article 6 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, defines under which conditions a project likely to have a significant impact on a Special Protection Area or Site of Community Importance can be authorised. Should the project be likely to have a significant impact, its approval without fulfilling the conditions specified in Article 6 would therefore constitute a breach of the Directive.

The complaint is presently under assessment. Should the Commission come to the conclusion that Community law is being breached, it would not hesitate, as the Guardian of the EC Treaty, to take all necessary measures, including infringement procedures under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, in order to ensure the observance of relevant Community law.

The Commission's powers are limited to those conferred on it by the EC Treaty. Under Article 211, the Commission is responsible for ensuring that Community law is properly applied within all Member States. It therefore has the power to ensure that the Member States apply correctly Directive 92/43/EEC, but not to advise Member States on project location.

As regards the application of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(1), the fact of comparing only three alternative projects is not, in itself, a breach of the Directive. Given the lack of specific grounds of complaint on the application of the EIA Directive to the specific case, no breach of the Directive can be identified at present. Should the Honourable Member provide detailed information enabling the Commission to assess the issues in relation to the above-mentioned Directive, the Commission would also be able to investigate this matter under Directive 85/337/EEC.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985 as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 OJ L 73, 14.3.1997 also called EIA Directive.