WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/03 by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Commission. Danger of landslides on the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed track.
Date: 2003-03-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, environmental risk prevention, geology, high-speed transport, natural disaster, rail transport, transport infrastructure

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/155

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Has Greece asked the Commission for aid in view of the fact that in some regions, such as the
Cyclades, most of the population has been affected, and for what purposes will the aid be used?

2. Has the Commission initiated the procedure to provide immediate financial aid for the above purposes
with the aim of promoting the speedy re-establishment of normal living conditions in the disaster-
stricken areas in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 (1) of 11 November 2002?

(1) OJ L 311, 14.11.2002, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2003)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to its response to written question E-0657/03 on possible
sources of support for the reparation of damage caused by the natural disasters in the Cyclades

(2004/C 11 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0918/03

by Raimon Obiols i Germà (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Danger of landslides on the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed track

A report by the Delegation of the Association of Geologists in Aragon recommended that the Madrid-
Barcelona high-speed train should bypass an area near Zaragoza which had experienced subsidence in
2000 and 2001. It would seem that the recommendations made by these geologists were disregarded. A
gaping hole of fifty cubic metres has now appeared on a section of the conventional line and the high-
speed line near Zaragoza. According to newspaper reports the rails on the line circling the south of
Zaragoza, which run parallel to the high-speed tracks, were left hanging in thin air just an hour after a
good trains had passed.

Similarly, the Delegation of the Association of Geologists in Catalunya has pointed to the susceptible
geological characteristics of some sections of the Lerida-Barcelona line (presence of water-expandable
gypsums and clays) which call for a ‘second phase of problem identification’, for which it would seem
there is no budget. The Catalonian Association of Engineers has also deplored what it calls a ‘breakdown in
project implementation culture’ on the Madrid-Barcelona line, saying there was poor monitoring of the
work done by contractors and a lack of quality control, and has publicly announced that the geological
surveys were disregarded.

Have the Spanish authorities provided a proper explanation for what has happened and for the criticisms
levelled by these associations of geologists and engineers?

Can the Commission provide assurances that all the requisite geological surveys aimed at averting risks and
problems were carried out for the construction of the Madrid-Barcelona high-speed line, and especially the
Lerida-Barcelona section of track, and that new funding is available for the identification and/or resolution
of those problems?

C 11 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The Commission reminds the Honourable Member that any requirement to carry out geological surveys
prior to infrastructure construction is a matter of national legislation, there being no such obligation in the
Community legislation. Thus the Commission has no authority to judge whether the surveys he refers to
were adequate or not.

(2004/C 11 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0932/03

by Jorge Moreira Da Silva (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Second phase of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol

(26 March 2003)

In view of the need to prepare for the negotiations on the second phase of implementation of the Kyoto
Protocol, can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What does the Commission consider should be the overall target for the reduction of greenhouse gas

emissions in the second phase of implementation of the Kyoto Protocol?

2.

3.

In what way should emissions from international transport, specifically air and sea transport, be
included in the second period of the Kyoto Protocol?

Should developing countries be subject to binding targets for the reduction of emissions, in a change
to the situation in the first period?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2003)

In preparing negotiations for greenhouse gas emission targets,

1.
the Commission considers it
important to take into account the available scientific evidence, as summarised in the Inter-Governmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s Third Assessment Report. It appears premature and non-negotiable at
this stage to take a definitive decision on what the ultimate objective of the Convention, expressed in terms
of a long-term level of atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases, should be. Nevertheless, the
Commission firmly believes that the next step should be taken with careful consideration of the resulting
global emissions level, taking into account non-participating countries and regions, and the achievable level
of atmospheric concentration. Following scientific evidence of the need to reduce emissions in the long-
term by some 70 % from 1990 levels, the Commission has outlined in the 6th Environmental Action
Programme its view to aim for a minimum 20 % global reduction by 2020.

2.
The Commission supports the allocation of emissions from international aviation and maritime
transportation to Parties, beginning in the second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol. The
Commission considers the most important issue is that international aviation and maritime emissions are
taken account of in the same way as emissions from all other sectors of the economy, and this concern
takes precedence over preference for any particular option for allocation to Parties under consideration by
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In respect of emissions from
aviation, also the overall radiative forcing from aviation should be taken into account as mentioned in the
1999 IPCC Special Report on Aviation and the Global Atmosphere. Any decision within the UNFCCC on
this issue will have to address this aspect. It is important for the Union to lead in discussions on this with
other Annex I Parties in the context of beginning to consider targets for the next commitment period.
Special efforts will be needed to include the United States and to find an equitable balance of the burdens
to be carried.