WRITTEN QUESTION E-2824/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 2001)

Subject: Failure to comply with Community legislation in the construction of the Spanish high-speed train passing through Osera del Ebro

In December 1999 the mayor of the town of Osera del Ebro submitted a complaint (99/5330) to the Commission on the grounds of an infringement of EU environmental legislation in the modified route for the Zaragoza-Lleida stretch of the high-speed railway line which, if the current proposal goes ahead, would seriously affect the natural area of Soto del Aguilar (hitherto protected).

In view of the fact that:

- Soto del Aguilar is home to species protected by the wild birds Directive 79/409(1) and the habitats Directive 92/43(2) and the Spanish authorities should therefore have included it as an ASPB and SCI for the purposes of Natura 2000;

- there is a better alternative route (the Northern alternative) which would not cause any damage to the environment, but, despite being the first route proposed, it was rejected by the Spanish Government without any cogent reason being given for the change;

- the Directive on environmental impact assessment 85/337(3) has not been correctly applied, since the adverse opinion of the Ministry for the Environment was not taken into account and the project finally accepted for the current route has serious shortcomings;

- the construction of the high-speed train receives support from the Cohesion Fund, although Community funding should never be used to finance projects which do not respect the environment;

- according to information obtained by the questioner the Spanish Government would be willing to alter the route once again, but this would only leave undamaged too small a part of the natural area, which qualifies for continued protection.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in dealing with complaint 99/5330?

What measures does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis the Spanish authorities to ensure the compulsory classification of Soto del Aguilar as an ASPB and SCI and hence to safeguard the wild birds and habitats directives?

Can the Commission ensure that the current routing for the high-speed train passing through Osera del Ebro has been determined in compliance with the Directive on environmental impact assessment?

Does the Commission not consider that any funding for the high-speed train project should be frozen until it is proven that it will not entail any environmental damage?

Is it true that the Commission would be willing to accept a slight variation in the current routing, which would preserve only a small part of the Soto del Aguilar, although the area qualifies as an ASPB and SCI?

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

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

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

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Madrid-Figueres high-speed railway line project will cover a distance of approximately 860 kilometres, 550 km of which are already under construction. The complaint received by the Commission(1) concerns a 0,5 km stretch through Osera del Ebro.

The complaint alleged misapplication of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2) in the form of the rerouting of part of the Zaragoza-Lleida stretch of the high-speed line along the southern alternative instead of the northern alternative originally proposed by the Ministry for the Environment and for which an impact assessment had already been completed.

According to the complaint, the new route would seriously affect site of Community importance (SCI) for birds No 104 and special protection area (SPA) No 138.

To investigate this complaint, a letter was sent to the Spanish authorities asking for their comments on the allegations. On analysis of their reply, the Commission found that the high-speed rail project was inside an important area for bird conservation (SCI No 104) and that 29 % of this site had been designated as an SPA under the inventory drawn up by the Spanish ornithological society (SEO/Bird/Life).

According to the information available, all the alternatives proposed cross SCI No 104, but the route originally proposed (the northern alternative) is more favourable from the environmental point of view since it would have less impact on nesting grounds.

Consequently, since the route chosen by the Spanish authorities was not the most appropriate solution from the environmental point of view, on 30 October 2000 a letter of formal notice was sent to the Spanish authorities. They sent a detailed reply, stating the reasons for their choice and giving scientific data to support it.

The SCI through which the Spanish authorities have routed the high-speed line is severely degraded and compensatory measures have been proposed by SEO/Bird/Life and approved by the environmental authorities for the region. They consider that the abovementioned measures are sufficient to offset the damage caused by construction of a bridge across the river Ebro.

The Commission was notified of the compensatory measures planned. These consist of regeneration of the damaged part of the habitat, notably by extending the riparian forest by 9 hectares. This scheme will be coordinated with other work already started on a Life-Nature project a few kilometres from the site.

It must be stressed that the report submitted by the authorities was of extremely high quality, was very detailed and contained all the information needed to evaluate the scheme: species of trees selected, reforestation plan, budget, maps, aerial photographs, list of species of birds in the area which will benefit most, etc.

Under these circumstances, after informing the plaintiff of the foregoing, the Commission decided, on 18 July 2001, to file the matter. There is therefore no reason to suspend the Community support from the Cohesion Fund for the Madrid-Figueres high-speed line.

The Commission has already taken measures to ensure compliance with the directives mentioned by the Honourable Member throughout Spain in the parallel case initiated against Spain for non-designation or incomplete designation of SPAs (case 99/2212).

(1) Complaint No 1999/5330.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.