Parliamentary questions
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2037/02
by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 June 2002)

Subject: Major expansion of the airport of the Bulgarian capital Sofia near urban neighbourhoods and residential centres and failure to comply with environmental standards

1. Is the Commission aware that in plans for the building, extension and relocation of airports sites are now sought which are further away than in the past from large towns and their highly urbanised surroundings, with the aim of preventing noise and air pollution for large groups of residents and reducing the chance of large numbers of victims in the event of an aircraft crashing?

2. Is the Commission also aware of the plans drawn up in 1996 by the British company Sir William Halcrow & Partners, with no regard for the objectives described in point 1, to extend the airport Aerogara Sofia, which is situated near the capital of the applicant country Bulgaria, with, inter alia, a second east-west runway situated parallel with, and north of, the current runway and planned to extend much further east, so that the Sofia districts of Vasil Levski and Hristo Botev in the north-east, the nearby town of Brazjdebna and the residential areas Nova Mahala and Dolni Bogrov to the east of the extended airport will be subject to nuisance and danger?

3. Does the Commission consider the way in which the environmental impact assessment was carried out in September 1996, with the arguments of local authorities and non-governmental organisations being ignored and the noise levels and other effects of a new runway and terminal being studied in isolation, with no consideration of the cumulative effects of these and of activities in the rest of the airport and without envisaging any solution to the existing environmental problems or taking any account of applications from alternative locations, to be compatible with the attitude that might be expected of a (future) EU Member State?

4. Does the Commission believe that the European Union would have reasons to express reservations as to its involvement in this project, given that the environmental impact assessment for the new runway, which was approved subject to twenty conditions in April 2001, states that the water purification system has shortcomings and that anti-freeze products would drain into the ground, surface water and subsoil, that no consideration has been given to the fact that the runway crosses the Via Aristotelis, a bird migration route, that the approach route will pass over the city, that night flights will be authorised between 11 p.m. and 6.30 a.m., that the noise pollution protection plan required by the Ministry of the Environment has been postponed until April 2003, that there is to be no political debate on this plan and that the condition laid down in approving the environmental impact assessment - presentation of an action plan for public controls by 15 May 2001 - has not been met?

-2037/02EN
Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(27 September 2002)

1. The Commission is aware of the different considerations cited by the Honourable Member with regard to the siting of airports. In all such developments a balance has to be struck between the need to improve airport infrastructures, and thus improve mobility and encourage economic development, and the potential effects on the local environment and population.

2. The original master plan to develop Sofia airport and more recent detailed designs are known to the Commission and include the proposed construction of a new terminal and related infrastructure as well as a new runway.

3. Projects submitted for ISPA assistance must be subject to an assessment of environmental impact similar to that provided for in Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 on the assessment of the effects of certain private and public projects on the environment.*

The request for ISPA co-financing for the Sofia airport project was based on an EIA carried out for the airport master plan in 1996. Although the Commission considered that the main elements had been covered and that the necessary documentation had been submitted in order to satisfy the requirements of the ISPA Regulation** it insisted that new environmental impact assessments be carried out, in view of the time that had elapsed since the initial EIA, for all aspects of the project covering the new runway, new terminal and related infrastructure.

The Commission is satisfied that these new EIAs conform with the requirements of the EIA Directive, including the requirements for public consultation.

4. Concerns about the potential environmental impact of this project have already been addressed by the Bulgarian authorities, and points raised during the public consultations have been incorporated into the development consent procedure. The Commission will monitor the implementation of the commitments made by the Bulgarian authorities in the course of the normal procedures for the follow-up of projects assisted under ISPA.

Parliamentary questions
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2038/02
by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission
(28 June 2002)

Subject: European contributions to financing of the controversial extension of the airport of the Bulgarian capital Sofia in close proximity to urban neighbourhoods and residential centres

1. Is it true that PHARE granted the sum of 7.6 million euro for technical assistance, project planning and supervisory control at a time when a restricted plan costing no more than 184 million euro, rather than the present US$ 254.7 million, was envisaged, and that this sum was granted on the grounds that the first tranche of the 60 million euro loan awarded by the European Investment Bank in September 1997 would not otherwise be paid, whereas in fact a contribution of 50 million euro was subsequently made by ISPA in April 2000 while the planning stage was still in progress and before the environmental impact assessment had been completed?

2. Why was the project considered urgent during all its preliminary stages, so urgent that there was no time to consider the many alternatives proposed, and yet five years later, despite contributions from the European Union, the EIB and a development fund in Kuwait, it is still in the development phase?

3. In the opinion of the Commission, is this combination of urgency, financial aid granted at a time when the consequences were not yet entirely clear, an absence of alternatives, and shortcomings in the content and implementation of the environmental impact assessment one which can be repeated in future projects, or can lessons be learned from it so that a more cautious approach is taken in future?

4. To what extent do Greek airport plans mean that there is less need for a large increase in flight capacity in Bulgaria?5. What are the possibilities at this stage of using the funds available to study an alternative site located further away from the conurbation, so that the harmful environmental effects are minimised and renewed social pressure does not arise within a very short period to relocate to another site?

E-2038/02EN
Answer given by Mr. Barnier on behalf of the Commission
(27 September 2002)

1. The Commission confirms that financial contributions of € 4,932,905 and € 2,661,005 from the PHARE program were granted in 1999 to support respectively technical assistance for project management and design and technical assistance for the financial and commercial management of the Sofia airport development project.
Subsequently, the Bulgarian authorities applied for ISPA assistance for the construction phase of the airport. A grant of € 50 million from ISPA was approved by the Commission for works relating to the new terminal and related infrastructure, following the favourable opinion of the ISPA management committee in July 2000.
The project was in its design phase at the time of the ISPA application, but a full environmental impact assessment (EIA) on the Master Plan for the airport's development had been undertaken by the Bulgarian authorities in 1996 and all the required documentation was submitted to the Commission with the application for ISPA assistance. The recommendations of the EIA were taken into account in the planning and design of the project. Moreover, the ISPA grant was made conditional on carrying out a full EIA on all the sub-projects involved in the development based on the detailed project designs. These assessments have now been completed along with the required consultations of the public and environmental authorities.

2. Large and complex projects of this kind take a considerable time to develop in view of the many technical, financial and environmental factors involved. There is also a need to take account of a wide range of requirement and interests. It is recognised that the Sofia airport project has taken longer than originally anticipated, but it is now past its development phase with the main works tenders having been launched this year (2002).

3. The Commission undertakes an assessment of all aspects of a proposal in order to ensure that projects submitted for assistance meet the requirements of the relevant regulations. It is not always possible to ensure that every aspect of the project is fully defined before approval of the financial assistance, but safeguards are put in place to ensure that the legal requirements, especially with regard to the environment, are fully met by the beneficiary, for example, via the conditions under which assistance is granted.

4. The Commission does not consider that Greek airports represent a realistic alternative to the air transport needs of Bulgaria.

5. The Commission has no plans to fund a study of alternative sites for Sofia airport.