OPEN
* Admissibility date reflects the date the case was officially registered. All other dates pertain to the date in which a stage was completed.
Case Description
Complaint
The case was initiated by two civil society organisations: the Regional Federation of Neighbourhood Associations of Madrid and the Pasillo Verde Imperial Neighbourhood Association. The complainants expressed overall support for the development of the metro system in Madrid and welcomed the project. However, they raised allegations of non-compliance with seven of the EIB’s Environmental and Social Standards (Standards 1 (Environmental and Social Impacts and Risks), 2 (Stakeholder Engagement), 3 (Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention), 4 (Biodiversity and Ecosystems), 5 (Climate Change), 7 (Vulnerable Groups, Indigenous Peoples and Gender) and 10 (Cultural Heritage).
Work performed
In March 2024, the EIB-CM issued the Initial Assessment Report, summarising the complainants’ allegations and deciding to proceed with a compliance review.
During the compliance review, the EIB-CM engaged with the complainants and the EIB services and analysed open-source information. After reviewing the available information and documents, the EIB-CM prepared this conclusions report.
Conclusion
In terms of the project’s compliance with the project-applicable standards, the reviewed evidence shows that it is in line with the EIB’s Environmental and Social Standards. For example, the potential impact of the project on the Paseo del Prado and Buen Retiro United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) site was taken into account as part of the 2023-2024 simplified environmental impact assessment procedure and the national competent authorities gave the project the green light. UNESCO was not consulted during the 2019-2021 ordinary environmental impact assessment procedure, as the Paseo del Prado and Buen Retiro were only designated as a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2021.
In terms of the role of the EIB, the reviewed evidence shows that the EIB fulfilled its role as required, with one exception: instead of referring to the national Environmental Quality Assurance Plan, the EIB’s Environmental and Social Data Sheet refers to an Environmental and Social Management Plan, a term with a broader meaning.
As part of its appraisal, the EIB was informed that the project would be implemented in line with the 2020 environmental impact assessment decision. As part of its monitoring, the EIB was informed of the changes to the project reflected in the 2023 environmental impact assessment decision. Initially, the EIB did not publish neither the 2019-2020 environmental impact assessment report nor the 2020 environmental impact assessment decision on its website, but it did subsequently publish the 2023 environmental impact assessment report (and decision).
Outcome
The EIB-CM closes the case with one recommendation and two suggestions for improvement:
- Recommendation:
- Within two months of finalising the report, the EIB should correct the Environmental and Social Data Sheet to address the reference to Environmental and Social Management Plan.
- Suggestions for improvement:
- The EIB should include additional project-related developments – namely the 2023 environmental impact assessment report and decision and the 2024 project authorisation – in the project’s Environmental and Social Completion Sheet.
- The EIB is reminded of its obligation to publish the environmental impact assessment reports so that the public can access the relevant information.
Monitoring
Ongoing