WRITTEN QUESTION P-2816/01 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Political deal between the Netherlands and Belgium over the Ijzeren Rijn route.
Date: 2001-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Germany, Netherlands, environmental impact, environmental protection, nature reserve, rail network

C 93 E/198

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

Is the Commission aware of these phenomena and if so, what is their extent? Can the Commission

1.
give an overview of them?

Can the Commission provide an overview of the ‘loopholes’ in the relevant legislation of the Member

2.
States which make such practices possible?

3.
A Bavarian inland shipping company & Meier & makes large-scale use of employees from outside
the EU. Does it abide by the rules applicable in the Member State concerned regarding employment of
workers from outside the EU and are they employed on the customary terms and in accordance with the
social provisions in force?

4.
Does the Commission believe that introducing a driver attestation, such as has been proposed in the
case of road haulage (1), could help to prevent and solve the problems described here? If it does, will it take
steps to bring this about?

(1) Cf. the Van Dam report regarding a uniform driver attestation for the carriage of goods by road (PE 286 659;
COM(2000) 751). The attestation would certify that all social requirements applicable in the Member State of
establishment had been complied with in the case of the driver concerned. In the event of a check being performed
anywhere in the EU,
legislation had been
this would make it possible to ascertain whether or not social
contravened.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

The Commission knows there is a certain shortage of manpower, in particular crew members, in the
inland shipping sector and that inland shipping businesses seek to employ personnel from outside the EU.

However, it has not so far received any complaints or requests from the sector or Member States for it to
intervene in the market because of social dumping.

It therefore does not have any information which would justify measures similar to those taken in the road
haulage sector along the lines of introducing driver attestation.

(2002/C 93 E/236)

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.

impact of the
Meanwhile, a consultation procedure is still
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

in progress regarding the environmental

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/199

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.

the Commission asked the Dutch
Further to a number of parliamentary questions on this project,
impact assessment (EIA), Council Directive
authorities to clarify the application of the environmental
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.

C 93 E/200

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

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.

(2002/C 93 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2819/01

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: The promotion of renewable energy sources

The formal adoption of the Directive of the European Parliament on the promotion of electricity produced
from renewable energy sources is now clear. An understanding was found that non-separated municipal
waste should not be promoted under a future support system, if this undermines the hierarchy.

When may we expect a Commission position on the future support system, and how will
separated waste?

it include

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Directive 2001/77/CE of the the Parliament and the Council on the promotion of electricity produced
from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market was adopted on 27 September 2001 and
will enter into force the day of its publication.

Directive 2001/77/CE stipulates in its Article 4 that the Commission shall, no later than four years after its
entry into force, present a well-documented report on the experience gained with the application of the
different national support systems. In that report the Commission will assess the success, including the cost
effectiveness, of the national support systems. According to Article 4, this report shall, if necessary, be
accompanied by a Commission proposal for a Community framework with regard to support schemes for
electricity produced from renewable energy sources.

For the reasons mentioned above, the Commission will not propose in the short term a Community
framework with regard to support schemes as mentioned in Article 4. Experiences need first to be gathered
on the implementation of the Directive and on national support schemes before making a decision as to
how separated waste would be treated under a possible future proposal.