WRITTEN QUESTION E-3873/03 by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Motorway and high-speed rail routes — Corridor 5 and Friuli-Venezia Giulia region.
Date: 2003-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, access to information, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental law, impact study, motorway, rail network, road building

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/867

30 4miles apart to converge near Villena. The government has not explained why it has decided to
construct these two adjacent canals virtually simultaneously, with the same purpose of transferring water,
at colossal financial and environmental cost, and furthermore, it has not explained why it wants the EU to
co-fund them. The government cannot justify the existence of sufficient water resources in the Júcar to
carry out this transfer, and the supposed surpluses to be transferred, as shown in the Hydrological Plan of
the Júcar Basin, no longer exist. The declining water resources of the Júcar have fallen even more steeply in
recent years. This means that regular transfer could only comprise a reduced volume of water through the
Júcar-Vinalopó canal if adequate resources were being brought into the Júcar beforehand so as to rebalance
the system in both water flow and quality terms. We should not forget that the studies which the
Commission already has in its possession, in research file 2001/4649 of the National Hydrological Plan,
show that it is more and more doubtful whether the Ebro transfer can in fact meet both requirements. For
that reason, the Júcar-Vinalopó transfer project is entirely dependent on the Ebro transfer, of which it
forms an indissoluble part, and would only be viable if the latter were equally viable. But, on the other
hand, if the Ebro transfer were finally implemented, the Júcar-Vinalopó canal would be redundant thanks
to the major Tous-Villena canal, which would mean that there would be no point in building it. From the
standpoint of the rational and efficient use of public funds, the Júcar-Vinalopó transfer constitutes a logical
problem which has no solution: without the Ebro transfer it is not viable because it will lack sufficient
water flow, and with the Ebro transfer it is not viable either, because it will be a redundant infrastructure.

Under these circumstances, how can the Commission justify funding this infrastructure?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

According to official correspondence from the Spanish authorities, there is no linkage between the
proposed Ebro transfer and the Júcar Vinalopó transfer. This means that no water from the Proposed Ebro
transfer will be introduced into the Júcar river. The proposed Júcar-Vinalopó transfer is an independent
project with the water for the transfer to be made available as a result of water savings resulting from
improved irrigation systems. Nevertheless, this fact is independent from the proposed transfer of 315 hm3
of water from the Ebro transfer to the Júcar river hydrological district.

With regard to the possible duplication of the transfer infrastructure, namely the Júcar Vinalopó canal and
Tous-Villena conduction, which is a combination of different sections of canal, pressure pipeline and
tunnels, the latter being part of the infrastructure linked to the proposed Ebro transfer, it would indeed
appear to be the case that
the two canals will be constructed in close proximity to each other.
Nevertheless, the Júcar-Vinalopó transfer is at a higher level than the Tous-Villena conduction, which
would not allow for the transfer from one conduction to another. In the area in which both conductions
are equi-distant, the Tous-Villena one goes through a tunnel, which makes any connection even more
unlikely. It should be stressed once more that the two transfers are completely independent from each
other, without any plan to link them in the future.

(2004/C 78 E/0921)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3873/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Motorway and high-speed rail routes (cid:1) Corridor 5 and Friuli-Venezia Giulia region

Italian Law 443 of 21 December 2001 provides for the development of Corridor 5 by constructing a third
motorway link (Quarto d’Altino (cid:1) Sistiana) and a high-speed rail
link (Ronchi south (cid:1) Trieste).
Accordingly, two preliminary projects were presented, by Autovie Venete (road) and Italferr (rail), together
with impact assessments which did not, however,
impact
assessment or the comparative examination of alternatives required under Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of
27 June 2001.

include either the strategic environmental

C 78 E/868

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

These projects have not been integrated with other transport infrastructures planned under the framework
agreement subscribed by the central government and the regions on 20 September 2002. Indeed, their
simultaneous presentation suggests the intention of pressing ahead with both even though alternatives
have not been examined.

For the motorway link, there is no reference to environmental
impact assessments for five sites of
Community importance: Paludi di Porpetto IT3320032, Bosco Boscat IT3320032, Laghi di Doberdó and
Pietrarossa IT3330003, Foce del Timavo IT3330004, or Falesie di Duino IT3340001, not to mention four
special protected areas or areas of special environmental interest as defined by the relevant decisions of the
regional governments.

For the rail link (of only 30 km), there is no assessment of the potential interferences with the karst
cavities in the Isonzo area (which would be traversed by four double galleries over 24 km), while proper
consideration is not given to the intermodal benefits of the link with the port of Trieste (high-speed stretch
under the hill of Cattinara).

The studies of the transport experts are contradictory as regards the projected traffic flows for the two
modes: Autovie Venete predicts a rise in average vehicle numbers per day from 39 000 to 52 000 by
2011, while the railway company claims it will win 3,1 million tonnes’ worth of goods traffic and
1,6 million passengers from the roads by 2025.

Despite the provisions of the Aarhus Convention, incorporated via national law 108/2001 and regional
law 43/1990, the only two copies available of the preliminary project are those to be found at the regional
headquarters in Trieste and Venice. No information has been supplied to the local authorities or the public.

Can the Commission take steps to ascertain whether these measures are not in breach of Directives 85/
337/EEC (2), 97/11/EC (3) and 90/313/EEC (4) on environmental
to
information, and Directive 92/43/EEC (5) (the habitats directive) and Directive 2001/42/EC regarding the
obligation to supply interested parties (see Article 6) with all economic and environmental assessments
relating to projects?

impact assessment and the right

(1) OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(3) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(4) OJ L 158, 23.6.1990, p. 56.
(5) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2004)

The Honourable Member refers to the development of Corridor 5 which comprises the construction of a
third motorway (Quarto d’Altino (cid:1) Sistiana) and a high-speed rail
link (Ronchi south (cid:1) Trieste).
According to the information provided by the Honourable Member two preliminary projects were
presented, by Autovie Venete (road) and Italferr (rail), together with impact assessments which did not,
however, include either the strategic environmental impact assessment or the comparative examination of
alternatives required under Directive 2001/42/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on
the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment.

At present Community law does not require Member States to carry out a strategic environmental
assessment (SEA) of their draft plans or programmes, or of proposed modifications. The position will
change on 21 July 2004, the date by which Member States must complete their transposition of Directive
2001/42/EC,
the so-called SEA Directive. Thereafter, Member States will have to carry out an
environmental assessment of plans and programmes which meet the definition in the Directive. In some
circumstances, plans or programmes begun before 21 July 2004 but not adopted until after 21 July 2006
might also require assessment.

However, once application for the construction of the particular projects is made, then Council Directive
85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997
and dealing with the environmental assessment of certain public and private projects is applicable. It
provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects likely to have
significant effects on the environment by virtue,
‘inter alia’, of their nature, size or location are made
subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. These projects are defined in Article 4 that refers to

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/869

Annex I and II of the Directive. Motorways and high-speed railways are found in Annex I point 7(a) and
(b) for which a mandatory EIA has to be carried out. Member States have to adopt the necessary measures
in order to ensure that,
impact assessment
includes an assessment of the impacts on the environment, including, ‘inter alia’, an outline of the main
alternatives studies by the developer and an indication of the main reasons for this choice as well as a
description of the aspects of the environment likely to be significantly affected by the project such as
fauna, flora, landscape. The description of the effects should also cover the direct and indirect effects and
any secondary, cumulative, short, medium and long-term effects.

inasmuch as relevant and reasonable, the environmental

In addition, the Directive requires that consultations with other competent authorities responsible for the
environment and with the public concerned have to be carried out. While the detailed arrangements for
such information and consultation shall be determined by the Member States, they have to ensure that the
request for development consent and the information on the environmental assessment are made available
to the public within a reasonable time in order to give the public concerned the opportunity to express an
opinion before the development consent is granted. This would imply specifying in particular the places
where the information on the project and on the environmental assessment can be consulted, as well as
the way in which the public concerned is to be consulted.

Council Directive 90/313/EEC of 7 June 1990 on the freedom of access to information on the
environment obliges public authorities to make available information relating to the environment to any
natural or legal person at his request and without his having to prove an interest, unless refusal would be
justified on the grounds provided by the Directive. An obligation to actively disseminate information is
only defined in the Directive as regards general information on the state of the environment by such
means as the periodic publication of descriptive reports. On the basis of the information provided by the
Honourable Member, it cannot be concluded that Directive 90/313/EEC is not being correctly applied.

According to the information provided by the Honourable Member, the projects in question could have a
significant impact on five sites proposed for inclusion in the Natura 2000 list of sites of Community
importance under
the Habitats Directive, Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the
conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. They are therefore subject to the provisions
of Articles 6(3) and (4) of that Directive, which define the conditions under which a project likely to have a
significant impact on a site of Community importance or a special protection area can be authorised by
the competent authorities. These conditions include the obligation to do an adequate assessment of the
effects of the project on the site from the point of view of nature conservation.

On the basis of the information provided by the Honourable Member, it seems that development consent
has not been granted for the project. The Commission has, therefore, at this stage no reason to assume
that the EIA and Habitats Directives are not being correctly applied.

(2004/C 78 E/0922)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3875/03

by Francesco Fiori (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 December 2003)

Subject: Reform of the COM in tobacco

The contents of Commission communication (1) were (cid:1) despite the extreme sensitivity of the problems
examined (cid:1) substantially controversial, as well as being incomplete, with respect to the analysis offered of
the consequences for the EU’s tobacco-producing areas.

Besides, the Commission has published the relevant data and documents (cid:1) whether produced by its own
services or commissioned from outside (cid:1) inexplicably late in the day (see, for example, the assessment of
the COM in tobacco by COGEA). The speed-up of the timetable for the ‘reform’ of the COM in tobacco
has made it impossible for the producers to examine and debate the COGEA report in sufficient detail,
while the report’s numerous annexes have still not been made availabnle.

When does the Commission intend to publish this information?