WRITTEN QUESTION E-2038/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. 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.
Date: 2002-07-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, EU financing arrangements, aid policy, airport, environmental impact, pre-accession aid, project management

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/123

(2003/C 52 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2038/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 July 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

Is it true that PHARE granted the sum of EUR 7,6 million for technical assistance, project planning
1.
and supervisory control at a time when a restricted plan costing no more than EUR 184 million, rather
than the present USD 254,7 million, was envisaged, and that this sum was granted on the grounds that the
first tranche of the EUR 60 million loan awarded by the European Investment Bank in September 1997
would not otherwise be paid, whereas in fact a contribution of EUR 50 million 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?

To what extent do Greek airport plans mean that there is less need for a large increase in flight

4.
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?

Answer given by Mr. Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(27 September 2002)

The Commission confirms that financial contributions of EUR 4 932 905 and EUR 2 661 005 from
1.
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 EUR 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).

C 52 E/124

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

The Commission undertakes an assessment of all aspects of a proposal

in order to ensure that
3.
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
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.

in place to ensure that

The Commission does not consider that Greek airports represent a realistic alternative to the air

4.
transport needs of Bulgaria.

5.

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

(2003/C 52 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2039/02

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(3 July 2002)

Subject: Structural Funds: closure of operational programmes dating back to before 1993

According to the Commission’s Twelfth Annual Report on the Structural Funds (1) at the end of 2000
35 operational programmes dating back to before 1989 and 73 to the period 1989-1993 remained open.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) what total amount all the open programmes represent and for what Member States they were

destined;

(cid:1) what the causes for the delay were and what the current situation is;

(cid:1) what steps it will take to ensure these programmes are closed?

(1) COM(2001) 539.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(2 August 2002)

The total amount of the open Structural Funds programmes, projects and other interventions from the
period before 1994 was EUR 991 million at the end of 2000. Since then, considerable progress has been
made in reducing this figure as shown in the table. By June 2002, the amount outstanding in unclosed
programmes was reduced by nearly two-thirds to EUR 370 million. This sum is equivalent to 0,6 % of the
resources made available for 1989-1993.

Country

Outstanding amount

(EUR million)

Belgium

Germany

Greece

Spain

France

End 2000

End 2001

30 June 2002

20,68

34,23

24,34

91,05

57,24

2 %

3 %

2 %

9 %

6 %

17,47

22,44

7,86

39,51

21,36

3 %

4 %

1 %

7 %

4 %

17,18

11,74

7,72

35,37

12,20

5 %

3 %

2 %

10 %

3 %