91998E2638

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2638/98

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1998)

Subject: Interpretation and application of Directive 92/43/EEC

Does the goal pursued through the construction of railways (conventional and high-speed magnetic track) of reducing pollution due to air and road transport by shifting transport operations to railways come under the heading of considerations relating to consequences of primary importance for the environment within the meaning of Article 4(6), second subparagraph, of Directive 92/43/EEC(1)?

Some uncertainty is encountered in the practical application by the Member States of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, known as the Habitat Directive. Pursuant to the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of this directive, the imperative reasons of overriding public interest include considerations in connection with consequences of primary importance for the environment. The construction of railways is particularly relevant in this respect, especially from the angle of environmental protection. One of the main aims of these projects is to shift road and air transport operations on to the railways with a view to reducing the pollution caused by aircraft and road vehicles (CO2, CO, NOx, hydrocarbons, benzene). Hence the above question, which I would ask the Commission to answer.

Answer given by Mrs Bjerregaard on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 1998)

Article 6(3) and (4) of Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(2) is intended to ensure that any new plan or project affecting a Natura 2000 site takes close account of nature-conservation factors.

If it is shown that a project adversely affects the integrity of a site the national authorities may only agree to it if it is proven that there are no alternative forms of action (in the railway-infrastructure sector that means that the applicant must contemplate alternative routes and show in a convincing manner that they are not feasible), that the plan or project reflects a major public concern, and that compensatory action is planned and that the Commission is informed thereof.

Where a site contains a type of natural habitat or a listed species, an additional condition as described in Article 6(4), second indent, is required. The major concern justifying the project may only be based on factors linked to human health, public safety or major benefits to the environment, or else, after the Commission has delivered an opinion, on other compelling reasons of major public concern.

That additional condition may, however, only be contemplated if all of the above obligations have been met by the Member State.

In comparison with other means of transport, whether by road or air, rail transport brings undeniable benefits for the environment. However, the Commission doubts that it may be considered in general terms to count among the "considerations relating to beneficial consequences of primary importance for the environment" referred to in Article 6(4), second indent of Directive 92/43/EEC. Essentially an answer can only be contemplated on a case by case basis in connection with specific projects.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.