Affected people

We would like to draw your attention to the history of the proposed Ljulin motorway, part of the road E79 and Trans European Corridor IV. The "Ljulin" Initiative Committee (IC) was formed on 4 November 2002 by the inhabitants of the villages of Malo Buchino, Ivanjane and the town of Bankja. Our three aims are:
1. To encourage the sustainable development of the villages of Malo Buchino, Ivanjane and the town of Bankja. To conserve air quality and safeguard the quality of life of residents.
2. To participate in the constructing an environmentally appropriate and a strategically planned motorway as part of the Trans European Corridor IV.
3. To preventing the construction of the so called "blue + brown" route of the "Ljulin" motorway. In general, to ensure it is not built within the area of Ljulin and Vitosha mountains or in close proximity to the villages of Malo Buchino and Ivanjane and the town of Bankja.

Development of the project

The passage of the motorway through our fields has been discussed for many years. However, the threat only became imminent during the last year.

The various routes now under consideration were first put forward in the early 1970s. At that time Bulgarian experts rejected the possibility of a route through the "Buchinski Prohod" (the Buchino pass) as extremely unfavourable in engineering and geological terms. Landslides are prevalent in this area as well further problems which will be outlined below. In the early 1980s government priorities changed and the projct was shelved for financial reasons. In 1997 the planning of Sofia-Kulata motorway was renewed by two Bulgarian companies under a contract with the General Roads Administration (GRA later called Roads Executive Agency)
In 2000, 3,342,450 euros were granted under the Phare Cross Border Co-operation Programme for preliminary research and detailed design for a Sofia-Kulata motorway. The route between Sofia and Kulata is divided in two parts - "Ljulin" motorway (Sofia-Daskalovo) and "Struma" motorway (Daskalovo-Kulata). Project design is contracted to the Italian company SPEA Ingegneria Europea.

In November 2000 SPEA finished the preliminary research for two of the proposed routes for the "Ljulin" section of motorway (the 'blue' and 'brown' variants). During this planning phase no consultation of residents was undertaken. It also latter became clear that the maps used by SPEA were out of date and failed to indicate the considerable expansion of the villages at the foot of Ljulin mountain during the recent years.

Environmental Impact Assessment procedure

In the summer of 2001 the Ministry of Environment and Water of Bulgaria (MOEW) received first Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) report (ated April 2001). Leading of the team of experts who prepared the report was Professor Doctor Boris Nikolov. The report cnsidered only the 'blue' and 'brown' variants and in conclusion recommended the 'brown' route.

In September 2001 public consultations were carried out in the villages which would be affected. In the villages of Malo Buchino and Ivanjane the debates were very dynamic and the main conclusion was that inhabitants categorically wanted neither the blue nor the brown variant. The main question asked by residents was why only these two variants were considered.

Subsequent public discontent resulted in the High Ecological Expert Council returning the first EIA report for a total revision (resolution 74-18/2001 by Minister Dolores Arsenova). The resolution gave as its justification: 1. The failure to consider alternative routes. 2. The defective and inaccurate nature of the analysis and prognosis made. 3. The reliance on outdated standards and regulations that had been revoked. 4. The failure to take into consideration the fact that some of the area in question is protected by current legislation. 5. Public objections concerning the quality of the EIA.

The Decision includes twelve conditions. The last one is: "The Minister of Environment and Water suggests to the investor and the EIA experts to consult the affected people when revising the EIA report."

Later an entirely new expert team was appointed to prepare a second EIA report. The second EIA report investigated six possible alternatives ('blue', 'brown', 'brown + blue', 'red', 'green' and 'yellow'). The report was finalised and submitted to the Road Executive Agency in March 2003. The second EIA report concluded that from the environmental point of view the 'green' alternative is the most preferable.

The EIA procedure was in process (the public consultations was still not held) when on July 23, 2002 the High Expert Council for Territorial and Regional Policy (HECTRP), part of Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works, considered all alternatives for Ljulin Motorway and approved for technical design the 'blue + brown' alternative proposed by the SPEA. The rationality for that choice was not made clear to the public, as the NGOs were not allowed to attend the Expert Council meeting.

As a result, a new EIA report (third report dated August 2002) was requested from the EIA expert team. And not surprisingly the third EIA report concluded that the most appropriate alternative from the environmental point of view is also the 'blue + brown' alternative. "Surprising" in the case is that the third report was made by the same expert team that a few months before concluded that the 'green' alternative was less environmentally harmful. Furthermore, the data used in both reports (the second and third) are identical, and only the conclusions of the chapters are changed. Therefore, the independence of the expert team is questionable and indeed the forward of the third EIA report stated: "The EIA report is in compliance with the Minister of Environment and Water's Decision N 74-18/2002, because it equally assesses all seven alternatives and applies the Decision of HECTRP from July 23, 2002 for the construction of a road according to the 'blue + brown' alternative listing all measures for nature protection."

The third variant of the EIA report (August 2002) has never been discussed with the residents of the three settlements. No consultations during the report preparation with the affected persons have ever been held as required in item 11 of Resolution No. 74-18/2002 of the Ministry of Environment and Water. The Minister of Environment and Water's High Expert Council accepted the report on September 29, 2002, and the decision of Mrs. Arsenova was signed on October 11, 2002. That decision was issued in violation of the Bulgarian and EU EIA legislation due to the lack of public consultation. The Minister of Environment and Water's decision was announced to the Capital Municipal Administrations instead of the Regional Municipal Administrations that are directly affected by the motorway construction. Only by chance did the local people from Malo Bucuno and Ivanyane find out about the decision and they appealed it in court.

During the appraisal of the Ljulin Motorway project for the ISPA program grant, it was concluded that the EIA procedure undertaken was in violation of European legislation. To move the project along, a compromised decision was made: the grant was approved with the condition that "a new consultation of the public and relevant environmental authorities has to be carried out before the end of the first quarter of 2003 based on the revised final Environmental Impact Assessment Study, along with the issuance of a new environmental permit taking into account this consultation." (art.8.3, b) of FM 2001/BG/16/P/PT/004)

EU funding and the EC involvement in the case

Article 8.3 of the ISPA FM required that a new public consultation of the revised EIA be conducted by the end of the first quarter of 2003. In spite of this, the Road Executive Agency (REA) continued with the detailed design of the'blue + brown' route for the Ljulin Motorway without fulfilling the recommendations in time.

The Fifth ISPA Monitoring Committee (May 2003) made a strong point to the REA that non fulfilment of art.8 will mean no second instalment. In the beginning of July 2003 a new EIA procedure was started. The NGOs analyses showed, however, that the EIA procedure blatantly violates the principles of the EIA grounded in Bulgarian legislation and the best practice of the European Union.

The forth revised EIA report has been prepared only for the selected 'brown + blue' route, where no changes in the project are envisaged. In fact the new EIA report (September 2003) seriously decreased the scale and purpose of the assessment. Furthermore, in the text of the EIA report it is written that the report is conducted in compliance with the decision of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works (MRDPW) for selection of the Ljulin Motorway alignment that put seriously under question the independency of the assessment, and the purpose and conclusions of the report.

The public consultations on the scope of the forth EIA report and the report itself were very poor and the EC did not accept them like implementation of the condition in the Financial Memorandum

The new public consultations, but on the third EIA report (from August 2002) were caried by the Bulgarian Road Exceutive Agency in the period 27.09. - 04.10.2004, a year and half after the deadline set up in the Financial Memorandum . The residents of the affected locations totally rejected the EIA report and its conclusions. Initiative Committees from six settlements around the future Ljulin Motorway wrote a Statement requesting issuing of the negative decision on the project. The minutes from the public consultation in the Knjajevo district, which is affected currently by the traffic, demonstrates that local people are not satisfied with the proposed motorway route. Twenty-two prominent Bulgarian chemistry, ecology, toxicology and medicine scientists signed an appeal for protection of the Bankja resort and asked new alternative.

Disregarding outcomes of the public consultation Bulgarian Minister of Environment and Waters signed a new environmental permit for construction of the Ljulin Motorway on 03.11.2004. The decision also includes a provision for "Preliminary implementation", which mean that no court appeal could stop the project implementation. Following, the public is effectively prevented from enforcement of the public right to justice. Currently, there is no legislative framework in Bulgaria for environmental liability that could make the Minister of Environment accountable for its decision on Ljulin Motorway afterwards. Appealing the implementation of the Ministerial Act is the only option for access to justice in cases involving public participation in decision-making.

Thus Bulgarian Government violated twice Aarhus Convention6 by: 1) disregarding public opinion on the Ljulin Motorway construction and 2) deprive affected citizens from their right on access to justice. The decision for "Preliminary implementation" is viciously as its issued with a clear aim to shelter a deficient environmental permit. The new environmental permit for Ljulin motorway contains number of factual and substantial defects that could be challenged in the court.

In the period October-November 2004 the EC received translated public statements, analyses of the violations of the Bulgarian and EU legislation in the new Environmental Permit, analyses of the problems coming from the clause for "Preliminary implementation", and number of letters from the affected citizens requesting non disbursement of the second transh of the ISPA grant. There was no response on the letters from the public and concerns raised. In December 2004 Bulgarian media announced that the EC gave a green line for construction of the Ljulin Motorway. A letter of clarification of the situation around Ljulin Motorway from Bulgarian desk officer in DG Environment, declaring not to be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission, state that "based on an assessment of the procedural requirements (on EIA procedure) the Commission now regards that these have been complied with".

We believe that the use of EU money would respect the democracy and the people's rights. It is not an excuse that the Commission is interested only by the procedures, but not in the content of the of the materials part of the procedure and the way they respect the EU legislation principles. There is something wrong if the Commission agrees to finance a project that collect negative opinion from more than 15 initiative groups of local citizens, organized to express the position of the inhabitants of the region for the project.