WRITTEN QUESTION E-1311/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL), Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE)and Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Devastation of the potential Natura 2000 area in the Kresna gorge in Bulgaria by implementation of existing plans to build a motorway.
Date: 2002-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, Greece, accession to the European Union, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental protection, protected area, road building

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/183

In the light of the above, the Commission does not conclude that Directive 97/11/EC has not been
properly transposed into Spanish law as regards giving the public concerned an opportunity to take part in
the procedure.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) Case C-342/00.

(2002/C 277 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1299/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2002)

Subject: French farm fraud

Further to Commissioner Fischler’s response to written question P-0440/02 (1) by Neil Parish, will the
Commission please confirm that it will inform the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control
as soon as the Commission has read and examined the report in detail? Will the Commission forward its
opinion as soon as possible? How does the Commission plan on recovering the missing funds?

(1) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2002)

The Commission is in the process of examining the report of the French Court of Auditors in detail. It will
inform the Parliament’s Committee, on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) about its opinion on the report if
invited to do so by the Committee. The results of the examination will be in principle available before the
summer break.

If there is any evidence of administrative weaknesses leading to a risk to the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) then this will be dealt with by proposing financial corrections
through the clearance of accounts process. This is a well established process, set out in Council Regulation
(EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (1), which leads
to recoveries across the Union of € 600-800 million per year.
In the case of France these financial
corrections have amounted to € 457 million since 1994, or less that 1 % of the amount declared.

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 277 E/206)

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

Does the Commission recall a series of written questions, including No E-3147/00 (1) of 6 October
1.
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?

C 277 E/184

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Can the Commission confirm that since its answer to the question referred to in paragraph 1 above
2.
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?

How does the Commission intend to ensure that the process of weighing up the alternatives is not

4.
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)

The Commission recalls the series of written questions, including E-3147/00 by the Honourable

1.
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.

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/185

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:
insists that
alternative scenarios of the Project [for the construction of the Sofia J Thessaloniki motorway] be
developed for the construction of the part of the Struma motorway between the towns of Simitli and
Kresna’.

‘[T]he Ministry of Environment

the Union pre-accession instruments will only accept

In relation to this issue, the Commission, on various occasions and at different levels, has repeatedly
stressed that
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 J 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.

As far as the Commission is aware, a complete feasibility study, including possible alternative routes
3.
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.

impact assessment (EIA) for the Kresna Gorge section
In the case that the preliminary environmental
(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.

(2002/C 277 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1312/02

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

(7 May 2002)

Subject: Urgency and capacity of the planned motorway through the Kresna gorge in Bulgaria and deadline

for inclusion of the area in the Natura 2000 network

In the Commission’s view, to what extent was the decision to construct or upgrade the trans-
1.
European corridor No 4 between Sofia and Thessaloniki
in the form of a motorway, despite the low
projections for traffic on the route, influenced by the fear of political unrest concerning the ‘Autoput
Bratstvo i Jedinstvo’ (Motorway of brotherhood and unity) built 40 years ago in the then Yugoslavia, which
still provides the shortest possible route, straight through Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia and Macedonia, for road
traffic between EU Member States Austria and Greece?

Does political harmony along the route referred to in paragraph 1 mean that there is now less need

2.
to build parallel expressways through Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria?

To what extent is the choice of route and the urgency of construction linked to the Olympic Games

3.
to be held in Athens in 2004? Is that any real expectation that this road link will be open by then?