Recherche Fr menu fr ClientConnect
Recherche
Résultats
5 premiers résultats de la recherche Voir tous les résultats Recherche avancée
Recherches les plus fréquentes
Pages les plus visitées
    Reference: SG/E/2016/10
    Received Date: 19 July 2016
    Subject: Grand Contournement Ouest de Strasbourg
    Complainant: Alsace Nature
    Allegations: Alleged negative environmental impacts of the project
    Type: E - Environmental and social impacts of financed projects
    Suggestions for improvement: yes
    Admissibility*
    Assessment*
    Investigation*
    Dispute Resolution*
    Consultation*
    Closed*
    3/08/2016
    6/09/2017
    18/07/2019
    10/02/2020
    1/07/2020

    * 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

    On 19 July 2016, a French non-governmental organisation lodged a complaint with the European Investment Bank Complaints Mechanism Division (EIB-CM). The complaint concerns the Grand Contournement Ouest de Strasbourg (GCOS) project, consisting of construction of the A355 motorway project in France, bypassing the city of Strasbourg to the west.
     
    The complainant alleged that:
    • GCOS will have a negative impact (e.g. biodiversity, agricultural land).
    • GCOS will not have a positive impact (limited impact on traffic on A35, therefore, not leading to the necessary improvements of the air quality in Strasbourg).
    • EIB had imperfect knowledge of the GCOS during appraisal, according to the information presented in the Environmental and Social Data Sheet (ESDS).

    EIB-CM Action

    In 2017, the EIB-CM completed the Initial Assessment Report. In 2019/2020, the EIB-CM completed its Conclusions Report.

    EIB-CM Conclusion

    The EIB-CM noted that there is a case pending before a competent court in France. Therefore, at this stage, the EIB-CM cannot conclude whether the GCOS complies with the applicable standards. The evidence reviewed suggests that GCOS will have only a limited impact on traffic on the A35. Consequently, the GCOS is not expected to enable attainment of air quality standards in Strasbourg/ improve public health.

    The EIB-CM noted that the EIB carried out two-stage appraisal for the GCOS. However, the EIB did not: (i) document whether the changes between Stages 1 and 2 constitute fundamental change requiring re-approval of the project by the EIB Board of Directors; (ii) appraise the 2018 Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) report or document the related reasoning; or (iii) prepare and publish an addendum to the ESDS.

    EIB-CM Recommendation and Suggestions for Improvement

    The EIB-CM recommended that the EIB prepare and publish an addendum to the ESDS, which will include:

    • Environmental information and conditions included in the term of financing as loan conditions, and the related developments.
    • Summarised environmental information encompassed by the Stage 2 appraisal (e.g. concession contract).

    Publication will be made in accordance with the EIB’s policies and procedures and subject to any limitations by which the EIB is bound (including but not limited to any confidentiality undertakings).

    The EIB-CM suggested that the EIB revise its procedures in order to:

    • Ensure that in a multiphase approval project, the EIB documents its reasoning at the different decision points.
    • Clarify what constitutes a fundamental change requiring re-approval of the project by the EIB Board of Directors.
    • Clarify whether the EIB needs to appraise an EIA (report) update when the EIB’s decision-making process is still ongoing.
    • Further clarify the reasoning for preparing and publishing an addendum to the ESDS and its content (e.g. environmental information and conditions included in the finance contract and encompassed by the appraisal).

    EIB Final Response

    The EIB decided to issue a separate Final Response to the complaint (available below in EN and FR). In addition to the EIB’s Final Response, the complainant was provided with a copy of the EIB-CM Conclusions Report (available below in EN and FR).