WRITTEN QUESTION E-2001/00 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Lack of information from European railway operators in international train timetables.
Date: 2000-06-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, Italy, Spain, United Kingdom, common transport policy, consumer information, cross-border transport, rail transport, railway tariff

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/165

(2001/C 72 E/210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1998/00

by Didier Rod (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: DG I contracts involving subsidies to Brazilian NGOs

(21 June 2000)

Three years ago the Commission (DG I) signed a number of contracts with Brazilian NGOs operating in
the area of the environment. Since those contracts were signed, no further information and no funds have
been forwarded to the intended beneficiaries (e.g. Ecotropica, an NGO operating in Mato Grosso State
(Contract No BR97/023/B7-E201/04) and WWF Brazil, in Brasilia).

Can the Commission explain the reasons for this delay and give an account of its policy on environmental
protection and NGOs in the countries of Latin America? Can it state what action it will take in honouring
the above contracts?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(28 July 2000)

The Commission has not signed contracts with Brazilian environmental non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) for any of the projects mentioned, or for others in the same (cid:145)package(cid:146). Thus there is as yet no
contractual obligation with the partner NGOs for the implementation of the project proposals.

The proposals in question were accepted in principle for financing. They form part of a package which
includes the NGO projects and a technical assistance facility for co-ordination, the latter requiring a formal
agreement with the Brazilian government. The unconventional design of the project has led to difficulties
on both sides in finalising arrangements. The package will be re-examined in the near future by the
Commission with a view to deciding the most appropriate course of action.

The Commission has financed a large number of NGO activities in Latin America dealing with environ-
mental actions, mainly through the tropical forests, environment and NGO co-financing lines. Last year
over € 22 million of NGO projects in Brazil were funded through the NGO co-financing line alone. The
role of civil society in environmental protection and sustainable development is widely recognised in Latin
America and in the Commission(cid:146)s policy. Amongst examples of projects funded by the Commission are the
COAMA project in the Colombian Amazon (winner of the Right Livelihood award in 1999), and a project
with a Brazilian NGO to protect the uncontacted Indians of the Javari area in Brazil.

(2001/C 72 E/211)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2001/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Lack of information from European railway operators in international train timetables

Cross-border passenger train connections between European Union countries are often underused.
1.
The sharp increase in traffic on such journeys is accounted for mainly by car and air travel, not by trains.
The reasons include the (cid:145)premiums(cid:146) charged by railway operators over and above their standard fares on
cross-border services and the poor availability of timetabling information from railway operators in
countries other than their own. Does the Commission agree that it would be desirable for as many as
possible of the existing obstacles to cross-border passenger travel by train to be removed?

C 72 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

French, Spanish, Italian and British railways were unable to forward their new timetabling informa-
2.
tion to railway operators in other European countries in good time for the introduction of the new
timetables on 28 May 2000, with the result that no train services to the above four countries could be
included in the international timetables issued in those other countries. What action will the Commission
take to put a definite end to that situation not later than 9 June 2001 (the next date for introducing new
timetables) and to ensure that principal rail connections between European Union countries will be
included in good time in each country(cid:146)s timetable of international services?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2000)

The Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that the information policy of railway undertakings
as well as co-ordination among them has not proved effective in many cases. This is in particular true for
questions related to timetables, train operations and other operational rules. The Commission is however
not in a position to force undertakings, on the basis of current legislation, to adopt a certain policy in view
of their customers and other undertakings. The Commission would like to recall that railway undertakings
have been given management independence by way of Council Directive 91/440/EEC of 29 July 1991 on
the development of the Community(cid:146)s railways (1).

Referring to the obstacles to cross-border rail
Commission would like to point out
interoperability of conventional (i.e. all non-high-speed) rail transport (2).

transport, be they technical or organisational,
the
it proposed in November 1999 measures to raise the

that

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
(2) COM(1999) 617 final.

(2001/C 72 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2002/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Helmuth Markov (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Loss of direct rail
in November 2000

link between the Netherlands and the German border town of Emmerich

1.
Can the Commission confirm that its policy continues to include efforts to bring areas along the
borders of EU Member States out of their isolation at the same time as promoting cross-border public
transport by train?

2.
Is the Commission aware that with effect from 5 November 2000, EC trains between Amsterdam
(NL) and Cologne (D) will no longer stop at the station in the German border town of Emmerich because
it will no longer be necessary to change locomotives there, owing to the introduction the new, ICE 3M,
rolling stock, even although the timetabled waiting time of 8 to 10 minutes in Emmerich will be retained,
so that the only difference will be that passengers will no longer be able to leave or board the train in
Emmerich? Is it further aware that the kilometrage for fare-calculation purposes from the Netherlands to
Emmerich was also increased, as at 28 May 2000, on the grounds that the ICE service was being
introduced in November?

Does the Commission consider it acceptable for a border town like Emmerich not only to lose its fast
3.
direct train service to Germany, making it less accessible from the direction of Cologne and D(cid:252)sseldorf, but
for the direct connection between Emmerich and the Netherlands to be completely cut off, with the result
that passengers wishing to make that journey by train will henceforward have to put up with a diversion
lasting more than one hour via Wesel, a good half-hour(cid:146)s travelling time from Emmerich?

4.
Does the Commission share my view that the loss of the above stopping service at Emmerich would
only be acceptable if it were to be replaced by substitute services, for example by extending Netherlands
local
trains as far as Zevenaar or Arnhem in the
Netherlands?

trains to Emmerich or extending German local