WRITTEN QUESTION E-1687/03 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Botniabanan — Umea river delta, Sweden.
Date: 2003-05-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Västerbotten county, environmental impact, impact study, prevention of pollution, project management, protected area, rail network

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/43

(2004/C 78 E/0041)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1687/03

by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject: Botniabanan (cid:1) Umea river delta, Sweden

As the Commission is aware, the Botniabanan railway line in Sweden threatens the Umea River Natura
2000 site, which supports a number of birds and priority habitats.

Evidence has been presented that there are viable alternatives to the west, avoiding goods transportation
through Umea City, and to the east, avoiding a ‘sack solution’ in Umea City. What is the Commission’s
view of these alternatives?

Concerns have been expressed that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) carried out for this project
in 1998 is incomplete. Is the Commission satisfied that the EIA carried out by the Swedish authorities
fulfils the requirements of Directive 85/337/EEC (1) (updated 97/11/EC (2))? In the Commission’s view, does
the EIA provide all
the railway
development, and fully evaluate the options regarding the alternative routes? Does the Commission
consider the proposal to move the roosting area for 10 000 wetland birds 4km to the north of the site a
scientifically sound recommendation for a compensatory measure? Does the Commission believe that the
overall conclusions of the EIA are supported by scientific evidence?

information on the likely environmental

the relevant

impacts of

How is the Commission assessing both of these issues: the alternative routes and possible problems with
the EIA? Are they being considered jointly by the relevant services of the Commission? Is the Commission
concerned, given the evidence of alternative routes and the possible problems with the EIA, that Sweden
may be in contravention of the Directives on Habitats, Birds and EIA?

Evidence has been presented from highly competent reviewers, that the noise calculations in the city and
Umeå river delta region, done by the Swedish authorities, are substantially underestimated. These
calculations are far below the results of measurements of noise from hundreds of train passages made in
Sweden during the 1990s. Has the Commission considered the impact of this difference of at least 15 dB(A)
noise increase on the bird life of the delta?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of the issues raised by the Honourable Member. On the request of the
Government of Sweden, the Commission adopted on 24 April 2003 an opinion according to Article 6(4)
of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of the natural habitats as well as the
wild animals and plants (1) (hereafter ‘Habitats Directive’) concerning the project.

According to Article 6(4) of the Habitats Directive, a plan or a project may be carried out in spite of
significant negative implications for a Natura 2000 site, in the absence of alternative solutions, if it is
justified for imperative reasons of overriding public interest,
including those of a social or economic
nature. In this case the Member States shall take all compensatory measures necessary to ensure that the
overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected. Where the affected site hosts a priority natural habitat type
and/or a priority species, and if considerations relating to human health, public safety or beneficial
consequences of primary importance for the environment cannot be invoked, the project can be justified,
further to an opinion from the Commission, by other imperative reasons of overriding public interest.

In the above-mentioned opinion, the Commission has accepted the argument made by the Swedish
Government that the impact of alternative routes on projected income is such that they cannot be seen as
economically viable. The Commission therefore accepted the overall conclusion that the proposed route is
the only viable solution.

C 78 E/44

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

In addition, the Commission considered that the proposed compensations are as yet not adequate to make
up for the negative effects of the project on Natura 2000. The compensation package should involve the
establishment of an overall management plan for the Natura 2000 sites to provide a framework for
implementation of the long term targets of the compensatory measures as well as the future management
of the sites. The package must also include a commitment from the Swedish Government with assurances
the compensatory
funding, efficient
on sufficient
measures, to ensure achievement of the targets.

implementation, maintenance and monitoring of

As regards Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC
of 3 March 1997, the Commission did indeed investigate whether the EIA carried out by the Swedish
authorities fulfilled the requirements of the Directive. Having investigated the claim of complainants that
Community law had been breached in this respect, the Commission concluded that no infringement of the
EIA Directive could be identified. Regarding any further EIA on this project, it is the responsibility for the
Swedish authorities to see that a complete EIA is carried out before the development consent is granted.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 78 E/0042)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1688/03

by Anders Wijkman (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 May 2003)

Subject: The construction of the Ladia Galaska road in the province of Aceh, Indonesia

The Leuser Ecosystem Region in the war-torn province of Aceh, Indonesia, has a wealth of biodiversity
which makes it one of the most important conservation areas in the world and which performs life
support functions for the sustainable development of more than 4 million people living around it. The
European Union has for many years supported conservation efforts, most recently investing in the Leuser
Development Programme. The 2002 -2006 EU Country Strategy for Indonesia proposes the twin priorities
of good governance and preservation and sustainable management of natural resources.

It is of severe concern that the Aceh Government wishes to construct a major road network called Ladia
Galaska through the Leuser ecosystem which would lead to its eventual destruction, as it would facilitate
illegal logging and the poaching of endangered species and, as experience has recently shown, lead to
major flooding. The road has not gone through a fair, objective and comprehensive environmental impact
assessment process and violates various environmental laws and regulations.

Although it is to be welcomed that President Megawati of Indonesia has ordered a review of the road, the
struggle for the preservation of the Leuser Ecosystem is a long way from being over.

1.
Given the EU’s investment in the region, the EU’s Strategy Priorities for Indonesia and the EU’s
Gothenburg commitment to halting biodiversity decline, could the Commission inform us as to what
action it is taking to try to prevent the construction of the Ladia Galaska roads?

Given the commitment to integrating the environment into all forms of policy, could it furthermore

2.
assure us that it will not fund any infrastructure projects that risk harming the Leuser Ecosystem?

And will the Commission be exercising influence on the Indonesian Government, the Aceh Provincial
laws pertaining to the

3.
Government and the local district governments to make sure that relevant
construction of infrastructure projects are observed?