WRITTEN QUESTION E-1311/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE)and Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Devastation of the potential Natura 2000 area in the Kresna gorge in Bulgaria by implementation of existing plans to build a motorway

1. Does the Commission recall a series of written questions, including No E-3147/00(1) of 6 October 2000, concerning plans for the construction of the E79 motorway between Sofia and Thessaloniki through the Struma river valley in south-west Bulgaria as part of trans-European corridor No 4, which would substantially alter the character of the gorge to the north of the city of Kresna which is an important natural habitat and environmental transition zone, and its answer of 22 December 2000 in which it said that any application for co-funding would require an environmental impact assessment and indicated that the Commission delegation in Sofia was involved in consultations on planning the route and that it was ready to support any application by Bulgaria for inclusion of the Kresna gorge in the Natura 2000 network?

2. Can the Commission confirm that since its answer to the question referred to in paragraph 1 above no progress has been made concerning the permanent protection of the important environment of the Kresna gorge or in feasibility studies of alternatives, such as an eastern route to the side of the gorge, and that efforts are now focusing on building a motorway to the north and south of the gorge which would create a bottleneck at the existing small road through the gorge, making it necessary to widen this road and upgrade it in a way that would not only cause serious damage to the environment but also probably leave no room for traffic other than cars (bicycles, horses and carts) unless a parallel road is also built on the other side of the river?

3. Is the Commission aware that although five alternative routes have so far been elaborated for this road the actual choice appears to be limited to the three that follow the river since both variant A (deviation directly to the east of the river gorge cutting through a spur of the nature conservation area) and variant B (a route which is somewhat further to the east between Senokos and Dolna Gradeznica) have been rejected because of their higher construction costs although these price comparisons are not accurate because the construction costs of the alternatives have been calculated on the basis of an extra 15 km, when equivalent costs would be involved in following the river valley?

4. How does the Commission intend to ensure that the process of weighing up the alternatives is not influenced solely by the financial aspects of the project or even by inaccurate financial data?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 20.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2002)

1. The Commission recalls the series of written questions, including E-3147/00 by the Honourable Member, and confirms its position.

2. The Commission cannot confirm the statements included in this question.

The Commission is aware of the fact that an official request to define the Kresna Gorge area as a natural protected area according to the Bulgarian legislation was filed by some Bulgarian environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) at the beginning of the year 2001. The Ministry of Environment and Water of Bulgaria is expected to take a decision on this issue.

The Commission is aware that, in a letter dated 3 September 2001 and addressed to Mr Eladio Fernandez-Galiano, head of the Natural Heritage Division of the Council of Europe, Ms Fatme Iliaz, Deputy Minister for the Environment and Water of Bulgaria, stated the following: the [Kresna] gorge is a special protection area (SPA) and a Corine Biotopes Bulgaria site. It is expected that the Kresna Gorge will be included in the National Protected Areas and Zones Network, many of the sites of which will constitute the Bulgarian part of the European Ecological Network Natura 2000 upon Bulgaria's accession to the EU.

As regards possible alternative routes to the alignment of the motorway through the Kresna Gorge, the Commission can confirm that there has not been any separate feasibility study financed by PHARE. A very preliminary assessment, at pre-feasibility level, was undertaken as part of the main feasibility study of the Sofia-Kulata motorway, but the Commission has not accepted this as being an adequate examination of alternatives.

It is the Commission's understanding that the preliminary environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Kresna Gorge section was submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Water of Bulgaria in November 2001. The subsequent public meetings, required by the Bulgarian legislation, were held in March 2002. To the Commission's knowledge, the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water is still reviewing the proposed EIA and no decision has yet been made as to its acceptability.

As it gives a clear indication on the line chosen by the Ministry of Environment of Bulgaria, it is important to recall what Ms Iliaz, Deputy Minister for the Environment, stated on this issue in the same above-mentioned letter to the Council of Europe. She wrote: [T]he Ministry of Environment insists that alternative scenarios of the Project [for the construction of the Sofia Thessaloniki motorway] be developed for the construction of the part of the Struma motorway between the towns of Simitli and Kresna.

In relation to this issue, the Commission, on various occasions and at different levels, has repeatedly stressed that the Union pre-accession instruments will only accept to finance projects that are in compliance with the Community environmental acquis. This applies, in particular, to the need to assess the impacts of the projects on the environment on the basis of provisions similar to those included in the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive(1).

Therefore, should the project for the construction of the Sofia Kulata motorway be submitted for ISPA funding, the Commission will carefully examine the project in order to make sure that all the relevant Community environmental acquis is duly complied with.

3. As far as the Commission is aware, a complete feasibility study, including possible alternative routes outside the Kresna Gorge, has not yet been undertaken. Therefore, the Commission is not in the position to express a reasoned opinion on this issue.

In the case that the preliminary environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Kresna Gorge section (which was submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Water of Bulgaria in November 2001 (see question 2) were approved by Bulgarian authorities, the Commission would then have the opportunity to verify if and how the issue of alternatives has been addressed.

4. As already stated on various occasions, the Commission repeats that it intends to use all the instruments at its disposal to make sure that the project to build the Struma Motorway is developed in line with the requirements of the Community acquis.

(1) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.