Application of the EIA Directive in Austria (Petition 0672/2007)

31.3.2011

Question for oral answer O-000084/2011
to the Commission
Rule 115
Erminia Mazzoni
on behalf of the Committee on Petitions

In 2007 an Austrian nature protection organisation (Alpenschutzverband) submitted a petition to the European Parliament regarding the planned installation – without an environmental impact assessment (EIA) – of four new ski lifts in Damüls in Vorarlberg, Austria. According to the petitioners, incomplete data had been supplied on the areas affected, in order to avoid an EIA under Directive 85/337/EEC. They maintained that the project would have disastrous effects on the habitats of wild birds and mammals and on important biotopes in the area.

They further claimed that the project had been deliberately subdivided into smaller projects, that project elements had been deferred in time and that parts of projects had been cut down in size in order to keep the scope of development under the then applicable threshold (20 hectares). They maintained that the calculation should have included the entire area affected – not only those parts on which actual work was to be carried out and parts affected by landscape modification.

The Committee on Petitions visited the Mellau/Damüls area on a fact-finding mission and approved the report on the mission.

Does the Commission consider that the current EIA Directive contains sufficiently strict and appropriate requirements to prevent the splitting up or subdividing of projects over time or in terms of statutory type of construction (as mentioned in Petition 0181/2009) or location?

If so, does it consider that Austria’s implementation of the directive fully complies with the standards set in this respect?

Does the Commission consider it acceptable that only surfaces on which actual work is to be carried out should be included in calculations of area for EIA purposes?

Does the Commission consider it acceptable that ski slopes and surfaces on which no work is to be carried out, but which are nonetheless part of the project, should be excluded from the calculations for EIA purposes?

Does the Commission consider that, in the case of the Mellau/Damüls project, the requirement to take into account the cumulative and overall impact of the project has been fully met?

Can the Commission indicate the state of play with regard to the revision of the EIA Directive and whether the above-mentioned aspects will be taken into account in the revision?

Tabled: 31.3.2011

Forwarded: 4.4.2011

Deadline for reply: 11.4.2011