COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONSEIL DE L' EUROPE CONFIDENTIAL ^^N. Strasbourg 19 June 1981 '^C AS/Loc (33) PV 2 J PARLIAMENTARY ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON REGIONAL PLANNING PACECOM060365 AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES DRAFT MINUTES of the meeting in Luxembourg on 10 and 11 June 1981 r MEMBERS PRESENT: MM AHRENS, Chairman Federal Republic of Germany JUNG;, Vice Chairman France AGRIMI Italfy . , • AMADEI Italy : Mrs GIRARD-MONTET Switzerland / 'c MM GUTERES (for Mr MARQUES) Portugal HILLJ United Kingdom JENSEN Denmark LlENf Norway McGUIRE Uriited Kingdom : MARQUE Luxembourg MULLER G (f or Mr LEMMRICH) Federal Republic of Germany ROSETA (for Mrs ROSETA) Portugal . > SCHLINGEMANN (for Mr STOFFELEN) Netherlands STA^INTON United Kingdom • TANGHE - Belgium VERDE SpVin WINDSTEIG Austria • '•• . r \ ' ' ' ALSO PRESENT: MM BERCHEM Luxembourg GARRETT Unitled Kingdom HARDY . United Kingdom HAWKINS United .Kingdom 70.616 01.52 CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL AS/Loc (33) PV 2 - 2 - EXPERTS: For items 3 and 4 Mr Paul Weber, representing the Luxembourg Ministry of the Environment For item 6 Mr Thill, representing the Luxembourg Ministry of the Interior For item 5 a. Konsortium Magnetbahn Transrapid (Munich): Mr Hessler Mr Eitelhuber Mr Parnitzke b. International Union of Railways (IUR): Mr Harbinson APOLOGISED FOR ABSENCE; MM MUNOZ PEIRATS, Vice Chairman Spain BECK Liechtenstein BONNEL Belgium BOZZI France CHLOROS Greece COWEN Ireland FOSSON Italy MERCIER France MICALLEF Malta PANAGOULIS Greece SCHAUBLE Federal Republic of Germany^ SCHWAIGER Austria * SJONELL Sweden THORARINSSON Iceland VALLEIX France WAAG Sweden Mrs van der WERF TERPSTRA Netherlands The Chairman, Mr Ahrens, opened the meeting at 10 am on 10 June 1981 and thanked the Luxembourg authorities for their generous hospitality. 1. AGENDA /AS/Loc (33) OJ 2/ The.draft agenda was adopted, subject to changes in the order of items (see appendix). 2. MINUTES . /AS/Loc (33) PV I/ The draft minutes of the meeting in Strasbourg on 14 May 1981 were approved. CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL - 3 - AS/Loc (33) PV 2 3. PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN LUXEMBOURG /AS/Loc (32) 32/ Mr Paul Weber, representing the Luxembourg Ministry of the Environment, outlined his government's general policy on the environment. A series of protective measures had made it possible to halt the deterioration in the natural environment which had started at the beginning of the century. Clean water policies had greatly reduced pollution levels since 1963. The 1973 national waste disposal plan had given excellent results and had now reached its final phase. As regards prevention, impact studies had become common practice for all major projects likely to affect the environment. The most recent examples were the surveys on the proposed runway extension at Findel airport. The Chairman thanked Mr Weber and threw the discussion open. Mr Hawkins asked what the population of the Grand Duchy was and whether the Moselle was affected by pollution. Mr Weber replied that Luxembourg had a population of 360,000. The Moselle was already seriously polluted when it reached Luxembourg. Other rivers,, such as the Sure and the Alzette, had been easier to clean. The plant at Echternach to purify the water of the Sure was governed by an international management agreement. ^ - ' . Mr Hill raised the question of noise pollution resulting from the runway extension and asked whether the public had been involved in the impact studies. Mr Weber said that the present level of traffic did not constitute a serious nuisance and that extension of the runway would, in fact, reduce noise affecting the population of the town of Luxembourg. There had been no public involvement at the preparatory stage of the project but an environmental committee, composed of representatives of the various sectors concerned, had recently been set up to examine existing problems. Mr Jung was interested in the question of financing the purification plant. Mr Weber said that the central government had provided a 90% subsidy for the investment in construction of the plant and the main collectors. Op-erating costs were entirely the responsibility of the local authorities. Mr Schlingemann referred to the pollution of the Rhine and asked whether the Luxembourg tributaries were properly cleaned. Mr Weber said that the great efforts made by Luxembourg to clean up the water courses would benefit the Netherlands. None of the saline pollution of the Rhine originated in Luxembourg. Mr Stainton was pleasantly surprised by the quality of relations between Luxembourg and its neighbours and asked what resources the Luxembourg Government had at its disposal to implement the environmental protection programme. ./. CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL AS/Loc (33) PV 2 . - 4 - Mr Weber said that Luxembourg allocated 1.5% of its GNP to environmental protection.Furthermore, a large body of legislation had existed for several years and was regularly up-dated, particularly to take account of EEC directives on the environment. Mr Lien asked about water pollution caused by agricultural-activities. Mr Garrett asked about the problem of storing steel industry waste. Mr Guteres commented that open-cast mining might harm "the environment. Mr Hardy wanted to know what role was assigned to the Luxembourg forests. Mr Weber answered the speakers. The effect of farming on water quality in Luxembourg was negligible. Mining had had a considerable impact on the environment in the past but agricultural land reclamation was now in progress. There were no restrictions on access to forests, which were used principally {• for leisure. The Chairman said that in the Federal Republic of Germany open-cast mines were subject to special regulations which compelled the owners to reclaim the land concerned. The committee thanked Mr Weber for his statements and for his replies to the various questions. 4. LUXEMBOURG AND TRANSFRONTIER CO-OPERATION a. Germano-Luxembourg_Nature Park Mr Weber described the park's legal status and ownership, its state of conservation, the work done in 1980, visitor statistics and visitor behaviour together with research carried out in the park. It was planned to extend the park in the near future. There were also plans to create a Belgian-Luxembourg nature park and an effort would be made to link the two parks together to form^^ one. <9 Mr Margue commented that the Luxembourg authorities considered tourism to be the principal function of the Germane-Luxembourg park, as could be'seen from the 1980 budget. The committee took note of the information supplied. The meeting was adjourned at 12.50 am and resumed at 3 pm. CONFIDENTIAL CONFIDENTIAL - 5 - AS/Loc (33) PV 2 b. Cf^Y.6"!:*011 between_the Grand_Duchy_of Luxembourg_and_the Federal Republic of Germany on mutual assistance in the event of serious accidents or disasters /AS/Loc (33) I/ This item would be discussed at the working meeting on Thursday 11 June. c. The exercise_of_certain professional_activitiesi especially in_the iiii^Oiii!""" -~" This item was postponed. 5. RECENT DEVELOPMENT CONCERNING TRUNK COMMUNICATIONS IN EUROPE. a. Advance_d_trans£ort technology: jnagnetic cushion_and_guidance Mr Eitelhuber, the technical director of Konsortium Magnetbahn Transrapid, described the research and development programme on the magnetic cushion transport system, In the industrialised countries there was a revival of interest in the railways, because of their low energy consumption, lack of dependence on oil supplies, high transport capacity, safety, low environmental impact and high degree of automation. Magnetic trains had the additional advantages of suspension without contact with the ground and frictionless guidance, propulsion and braking system. The combination of these characteristics with the traditional advantages of rail transport resulted in high speeds, low wear and tear, low weight-passenger ratio, reduced energy consumption, absence of noise and the possibility of routes with minimum radii of curvature, comparatively steep slopes and elevated sections of track. In the Federal Republic of Germany, the programme of research into magnetic trains had started in 1968. The technical trials were now being completed. Operational trials were due to start in 1982 on an experimental track in the Emsland and. should be completed by 1985. Technical data concerning the magnetic train and its guidance system were set out in the documents distributed to the members of the committee. The Chairman recapitulated the committee's activities on this topic, particularly its visit to the premises of the French hovertrain near .Orleans. These new technologies should be compared with the advantages of the. conventional railways, which already possessed a very extensive infrastructure. The question was whether a whole new infrastructure was justified under these circumstances. Mr Hessler, the Executive Director of the Konsortium, described the present state of passenger and freight transport in the Federal Republic of Germany. The railways accounted for 6% of passenger traffic in 'terms .of passenger-km and 28% of total goods traffic in terms of tonne-km. In most countries, the railways' share of total traffic volume was falling. Magnetic trains could supplement the. present rail network efficiently over distances of around 500 km. Cost-benefit analysis of magnetic trains had shown that they were more economic in terms of infrastructure and that their energy CONFIDENTIAL • - ^ . CONFIDENTIAL AS/Loc (33) PV 2 - 6 - consumption per passenger-km was low* Furthermore, introduction of the new system would create jobs in the regions concerned. The people in charge.of the Konsortium Magnetbahn Transrapid had the impression that a great many institutions in Europe were discussing the transport problem but that it was hard to find partners ready to co-operate in bringing a practical project to fruition. Mr Muller said that buses were the cheapest mode of transport in terms of running costs. The problem was whether magnetic trains would be attractive to the public as a whole or whether only a few large urban centres would benefit from them. Mr Schlingemann said that the railways attached excessive importance to speed and that it would be better to offer travellers an alternative to the private car.