WRITTEN QUESTION P-2816/01

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 October 2001)

Subject: Political deal between the Netherlands and Belgium over the Ijzeren Rijn route

Developments with regard to the reopening of the Ijzeren Rijn line, and the diffuse decision-making on the subject, have been causing many people concern. Officially, nothing has been decided, but according to a press release of 21 September 2001 from the Netherlands Ministry of Transport and Public Works, the transport ministers of the Netherlands and Belgium have reached a working agreement to adopt a decision on the reopening of the Ijzeren Rijn line. On 15 October the two ministers are to sign a memorandum of understanding.

Meanwhile, a consultation procedure is still in progress regarding the environmental impact of the proposed reopening of the line. Not only at local and regional, provincial level is there a sense of growing astonishment: at national level too, people are asking why reasonable alternatives to the project are not being considered. It seems as if a political deal has been done between the Netherlands and Belgian Governments to ignore European and national rules and implement this project, using the old route which passes straight through the De Meinweg and Weerter en Budeler Bergen nature areas. By

revitalising the existing Montzen route (R24), the 3.68 m tons of freight per annum currently being transported from the port of Antwerp to Duisburg could easily be doubled, provided that certain adjustments were made to the Montzen line. According to information from the Government of Wallonia, revitalisation would cost only 16 m. Have not the competent Belgian and Netherlands authorities ignored Directive 97/11/EC(1) by not including the Montzen route option in the environmental impact assessment, and does the Commission consider that an EIA ought now to be made which does include it?

There is a danger that the Habitats Directive and the Directive on Wild Birds will likewise be ignored by the Belgian and Netherlands authorities. There are no pressing reasons of major public importance why the Netherlands should reopen the old Ijzeren Rijn route. The purpose is to carry freight from the port of Antwerp, which can just as well be done using the existing Montzen route. There are also other possible routes in the Netherlands which do not pass through the De Meinweg and Weerter en Budeler Bergen nature areas.

Does the Commission agree about this?

It is apparent from the answers to question E-1216/00(2) (14 April 2000) that the Commission did not receive a sufficiently prompt reply from the Netherlands to the question as to whether an appropriate assessment as referred to in Article 6(3) of Directive 92/43/EEC(3) was made in relation to the possible impact of the Ijzeren Rijn project on De Meinweg and if so, what its findings were.

Has the Netherlands now given adequate and prompt replies to these questions from the Commission, and what is the Commission's view of them?

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

(2) OJ C 53 E, 20.2.2001, p. 102.

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2001)

The existence of the Iron Rhine (IR) railway linking the port of Antwerp and the German Ruhr area is based on a right of way through the Dutch canton of Sittard which is guaranteed by the Dutch-Belgian separation Treaty of 1839. Rail traffic has existed on this route between 1879 and 1994.

Belgium started a procedure to restore use of the IR in 1996. The Iron Rhine was included in the Trans-European networks as defined by Decision No 1692/96/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network(1), Directive 2001/12/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways(2) defines the Iron Rhine as an integral part of the Trans European Rail Freight Network.

Further to a number of parliamentary questions on this project, the Commission asked the Dutch authorities to clarify the application of the environmental impact assessment (EIA), Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment(3) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 and the Nature Protection directives: Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds(4) (Birds directive) and Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats directive). The Netherlands replied on 18 July 2000 that an international study on the impacts of the project was being executed in conformity with the requirements of the above mentioned directives and that the results of this study would be incorporated in the national EIA procedures (Trajectnota/MER). The Commission accepted this answer as satisfactory and closed the complaint case P-2000/2002 under which the questions had been asked.

The three Member States involved in the operation (B-D-NL) requested a meeting with the Commission to expose their views and provided copies of the Comparative cross-border Study on the Iron Rhine by Arcadis consultancy, the Dutch Trajectnota/MER and Startnotitie. The meeting took place on 5 July 2001.

From the chapters in the above mentioned documents dealing with EIA and application of article 6 of the Habitats Directive, it was concluded that the requirements of Community law have been complied with in the Netherlands, but that more detailed assessments concerning Natura 2000 sites in Belgium would have to be done. The same applies to Germany, depending on which route Belgium and the Netherlands will take option.

According to the Comparative cross-border study on the Iron Rhine, the reactivation of the historical route is the most environmentally friendly and also the cheapest of the considerable number of alternatives that have been studied.

About the consideration of the Montzen route as an alternative for the IR, it has to be remarked that the reactivation of the IR was requested precisely because of the limited capacity of this route in the long term. Moreover, the functions of the IR and the Montzen route are different in a Community-wide context. The IR links Antwerp with the Ruhr basin and the north of Europe, while the Montzen route serves the Cologne area and the south of Europe.

At the meeting on 5 July 2001 in Brussels, it was also made clear that the considerations above only apply to the proposal to reopen the existing railway line and to restore traffic to levels that have existed before and that all interventions going beyond the original traffic capacity should be considered separate projects and have to be assessed specifically.

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.

(2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.

(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(4) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.