To: Commissioner Karmenu Vella, Environment

Transcription

1 To: Commissioner Karmenu Vella, Environment Cc: Juergen Mueller, Head of Cabinet to Commissioner Vella Nicola Notaro, Head of Unit, Directorate D.3, DG Env Aurelio Cecilio, Head of Unit, Directorate E.3, DG Regio Daniel Crespo, Director General, DG Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Humberto Rosa, Director, Directorate D, DG Env Aurel Ciobanu-Dordea, Director, Directorate E, DG Env Georges-Stavros Kremlis, Head of Unit, Directorate E.1, DG Env Follow-up Legal Complaint from July 12 th 2017 on the project to build a Struma motorway through the Kresna Gorge CHAP(2017)02186 BULGARIA UPDATE TO THE COMPLAINT 14 th November 2017 Document prepared by: BALKANI Wildlife Society, CEE Bankwatch Network, Centre for Environmental Information and Education, Friends of the Earth Europe, Green Policy Institute, Vlahi Nature School, Za Zemiata (For the Earth)/Friends of the Earth Bulgaria, Dear Commissioner Vella, On 12 th July 2017, our organisations submitted to you a complaint (CHAP(2017)02186 BULGARIA), alerting you to illegal damage and threat of destruction of Kresna Gorge, Bulgaria from the planned completion of the EU-funded E79 Struma motorway. On 13 th November 2017, the European Commission confirmed that it has granted permission for Bulgaria to use 330 million of EU funds to extend the Struma motorway to sub-sections 3.1 and 3.3 right up to the northern and southern edges of Kresna Gorge Natura 2000 site (BG ) without conditions. 1 Motorway traffic will be funnelled onto the existing small road through the Gorge. We are dismayed to see that, in granting permission for construction of Lots 3.1 and 3.3, the Commission appears to have ignored the 2008 legal conditions under which the Commission authorised the Struma Motorway project, and ignored our official complaint. This expressly objected to Bulgaria s actions in violation of EU law to construct other sections of the motorway and increase international traffic flow through the Gorge, causing deterioration of protected habitats and species in the Gorge

2 On 19 th October 2017, the Bulgarian Government announced its formal decision to partially construct the Struma Motorway through Kresna Gorge Natura 2000 site, using its preferred G10,5 Eastern alternative. We would remind you that our complaint detailed three main accusations, that: i. The Bulgarian Government s decision No. 712/ to complete construction of the motorway sections north and south of Kresna Gorge has caused a serious deterioration of the Natura 2000 site and protected species, linked to increased international transit traffic through the Gorge thus violating Habitats Directive Article 6(2); ii. The same decision failed to take light of the conclusions of the 2008 Appropriate Assessment for the motorway, which ruled that Kresna section (Lot 3) must be completed before other motorway sections and routed outside of the Natura 2000 site, in order to avoid serious adverse impacts on the site s integrity from build-up of transit motorway traffic through the Gorge thus violating Habitats Directive Article 6(3); iii. A pre-final decision by the Bulgarian Road Agency on 20 April 2017 to advance design of construction of the motorway partially through the Gorge (via its preferred semi-eastern / G10,5 Eastern alternative) pre-empted the EIA/AA Decision 2017 and would lead to further deterioration of the site and contradict the EIA/AA Decision 2008 conclusion. With this letter we would like to provide you with an update to our complaint. Firstly, following the European Commission s announcement (13 th November 2017) to authorise motorway construction to commence on Lots 3.1 and 3.3, we allege that there is a further breache of the Habitats Directive. Secondly, following the Bulgarian Government s announcement on 19 th October 2017 of its Appropriate Assessment Decision (hereinafter: EIA/AA Decision 2017), based on the outcome of its latest Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA 2017) to approve its long-preferred alternative, to route the Struma Motorway partially through Kresna Gorge (hereinafter: G10,5 Eastern ). This alternative consists of two lanes of south-bound traffic routed through the Gorge on the modified existing road and two lanes north-bound east of the Gorge. We allege that this decision further breaches EU environmental law in the following ways: 1. it contradicts the previous EIA/AA Decision 2008, without presenting adequate new evidence to overturn its conclusion; 2. it fails to fully assess all implications for the Natura 2000 site of the G10,5 Eastern alternative; 3. it has not given equal weight to assessing all alternatives as required, having overexaggerated adverse effects of the Full Eastern ( G20 Eastern ) alternative that would implement EIA/AA Decision 2008, and excluded other possible viable alternatives. Thirdly, we would like to inform you of other recent developments which reveal short-comings in the public consultation carried out under the EIA procedure. In light of such violations of EU law, using EU taxpayers money, and the threat of an irreversible loss of EU protected wildlife and habitats in Kresna Gorge, we ask the European Commission to intervene urgently to ensure the full protection and integrity of Kresna Gorge Natura 2000 site. 2

3 1. Repeated violation of EU environmental law in construction of sections 3.1 and 3.3 This decision on 13 th November 2017 to extend construction of Struma motorway right to the outer boundaries of Kresna Gorge Natura 2000 site (sections 3.1 and 3.3), and feeding international traffic onto the existing Gorge road, appears once again to violate EU law (Habitats Directive Articles 6(2) and 6(3)), in the same ways as our Complaint already detailed for decision No. 712/ Namely: i. By failing to take the appropriate measures to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species and the disturbance of the species for which the site had been designated as laid down in Article 6(2). Our complaint noted very significant deterioration of species and habitats due to funnelling of increased motorway traffic through the small Gorge road: Completion of Lots 3.1 and 3.3 of the motorway will continue and very likely exacerbate this unlawful deterioration. ii. By failing to implement mitigation measure EIA/AA decision 1-1/2008, which expressly prohibited any maintenance or increase in international traffic through the existing Gorge road ( Any motorway construction in the gorge and the option to maintain the current road for international traffic (the so called zero option) was deemed not in compliance with the EU Habitats Directive because of the detrimental impacts on the protected biodiversity and habitats that could not be mitigated 2 ), the decision has failed to take light of the conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment Decision 2008 of the implications for the site, as laid down in Article 6(3). iii. The imminent construction of Lots 3.1 and 3.3 may potentially constrain the selection of the best alternative for protection of the integrity of the site concerned as a number of alternative solutions for section 3.2 (Kresna Gorge), notably the Eastern tunnel and Eastern alternative may not be compatible with the design of 3.1 and Substantial shortcomings of the EIA/AA Decision The EIA/AA Decision 2017 and scope for Lot.3.2 contradicts the EIA/AA Decision 2008, without presenting adequate new evidence to justify a different conclusion. The EIA/AA Reports 2017 includes the consideration of alternatives whose implications were already examined and rejected by the EIA/AA Decision Namely the EIA/AA 2017 considers a G10,5 Eastern alternative which partially routes transit traffic through the Gorge s existing road, via a south-bound dual carriage-way. The AA Report 2007 concluded that the existing road (or zero alternative ) was already causing significant adverse effects on protected species populations (such as Elaphe situla, Elaphe quatorlineata, Testudo graeca, Testudo hermanni); that an increase of international transit traffic circulation on the existing Gorge road may exceed the thresholds of the adaptation of populations and lead to their full extinctions along the bio-corridor ; and therefore EIA/AA Decision 2008 ruled that, in order to mitigate existing damage to wildlife in the Gorge, all motorway traffic should be routed outside of the Gorge (whether along the existing road or a EIA/ AA decision 1-1/2008 of the Ministry of Environment and Water 3 Design of 3.1 and 3.3 is compatible with only starting-ending points of western tunnel alternative considered by the EIA/AA 2008 decisions as best option for Lot3.2. 3

4 constructed motorway route), and that construction of Lot 3 must avoid it remaining as a zero variant when other sections of motorway become operational. Firstly, the scope of EIA/AA 2017 (reports and decision) is not in line with the EIA/AA Decision The EIA/AA Decision 2008 is still in force. According to the Bulgarian Administrative Procedure Code (articles ) the EIA/AA Decision 2008 can only be amended or overturned by reopening the procedure for adoption of the decision. Such a special procedure can be initiated by the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment, by prosecutors, or by the National Ombudsman following submissions by any persons directly affected by the decision. However, at present legal procedures for amending the EIA/AA Decision 2008 have not been initiated. The Bulgarian Ministry of Environment (MOSV N 85/ listed as Annex 1 of AA 2017 report 4 ), determines how and for what purpose the new EIA/AA 2017 should be conducted. 5 According to this decision the EIA/AA 2017 procedure is considered as subject to and a second stage implementing the EIA/AA Decision which granted approval of the Struma Motorway construction. However, the inclusion of alternatives in scope of the AA 2017 report (i.e. the G10,5 Eastern alternative) that were rejected 7 with the EIA/AA Decision 2008, is in conflict with the decision of MOSV and the scoping letter (N 85/ ). The scope of EIA2017 therefore creates legal uncertainties. We attach (in English) the statements of the NGOs regarding the EIA process that review this point in details. Secondly, the decision of the EIA/AA Decision 2017 in favour of the G10,5 Eastern alternative violates the EIA/AA Decision 2008 without presenting adequate new evidence to justify this. In order to justify overturning EIA/AA Decision 2008, there would have to be new evidence that the damage identified by the former assessment would not occur. According to the Bulgarian Administrative Procedure Code, legal grounds could be: new circumstances or substantial new evidence which were not known at the time. Such evidence would have to prove, among others, that existing deterioration of the Natura 2000 site from traffic routed along the existing road (the zero alternative ) can be mitigated, and that an increase in intensity of transit motorway traffic (whether on zero alternative or via the chosen G10,5 Eastern alternative) does not risk deterioration or extinctions of protected species populations. 4 Letter MOSV N 85/ signed by Minister of Environment Ivelina Vassileva determines the legal ground, requirements about the scope of the EIA/AA report and steps for initiating the EIA/AA 2017 process. 5 The letter states that the investment proposal could be considered as measure for implementation of the p.3.2 of the EIA/AA Decision 2008, that envisages for the section of road Krupnik-Kresna (Kresna gorge) para 1: in parallel with development of the lilac alternative (tunnel) should be considered options for its improvement and development of the best environmental, technical and economically viable option. 6 The EIA/AA Decision 2008 was not amended or appealed according to the Bulgarian Administrative Procedure Code ( rules which stipulates in articles the procedural rules for amending (re-initating the procedure of adoption) or appealing as not existing the administrative acts. Such procedures were not imitated or implemented so far for the EIA/AA Decision The EIA/AA Decision 2008 is fully in force, it has not been repealed / amended and it is binding and sets the scope of the EIA and AA 2017 reports and EIA/AA Decision The EIA/AA 2008 Decisions conclusion is that it is impossible to mitigate or compensate for species and site degradation from the zero alternative (use of existing road for international traffic) and any motorway construction in the Gorge. 4

5 However such evidence has not been presented anywhere, and nor is there evidence that mitigation measures would be adequate to reduce such risk. Important evidence the EIA 2017 brings to reach a different conclusion is a herpetological report developed by the Greek consulting company Enveco which was presented in a public discussion of the EIA on 11 of September 2017 in the town of Kresna, and is also on the Bulgarian Road Infrastructure Agency (RIA) 8 website 9 alongside the EIA and AA reports. It should be noted that this report is described as being commissioned by the RIA; whereas in fact the report appears to have been commissioned by the Bulgarian Construction Chamber 10 (representing amongst others all Bulgarian private road construction companies), who purport to be future builders of the highway in the Kresna Gorge region, and whose former chairman is now deputy chairman of the RIA. The report s basis is therefore a clear conflict of interest. The Enveco Herpetological Report contains serious flaws: It does not answer the fundamental question of whether or not it is possible to mitigate the impact of traffic along the existing road. It therefore does not produce evidence to invalidate the conclusion of the EIA/AA Decision 2008, that it is impossible to mitigate or compensate for species and site degradation from the zero alternative. It does not assess the effectiveness of de-fragmentation measures proposed in the EIA 2017, but accepts and assumes that these measures will be effective. It therefore concludes without justification or any real evidence that the de-fragmentation measures are appropriate for Kresna Gorge (despite the fact that the EIA/AA Decision 2008 concluded the opposite). There is no assessment of the actual situation of habitats, condition of populations etc. in the region of the Kresna Gorge. The only analysis in the report is of the frequency distribution based on animal deaths along the road in the Kresna gorge (years ). However this is irrelevant for the scope of assessment of de-fragmentation measures. Moreover this analysis is not species-specific the analysed data of all amphibians and reptiles were combined in one set of data disregarding their specific biologies. The report assumes as a baseline an already heavily degraded situation of natural habitats and species. The analysed data were only those gathered in the period , by when, as our complaint made clear, mortality had already decreased by 84 % (58 to 100% for snakes (Elaphe situla, Elaphe quatorlinenata) and tortoises (Testudo hermanni, Testudo graeca) for Annex 2 of the Habitat Directive) compared to This report therefore fails to present significant new evidence that the damage identified by the EIA/AA Decision 2008 from maintaining transit motorway traffic through the Natura 2000 site, was over-estimated or would not occur. Moreover, the Enveco report and the EIA 2017 conceal the fact that virtually the entire length of the narrow Kresna Gorge migration bio-corridor is highly sensitive and unsuitable for defragmentation or other mitigation measures that would reduce the damage to wildlife. The G10,5 Eastern plan proposes intensive defragmentation and mitigation measures along the 8 After 2016 the National Company Strategic Infrastructure Projects (NCSIP) was closed and Struma Motorway Project became a responsibility of the state Road Infrastructure Agency (RIA). Both are responsible to the Minister of Regional Development and Public Works No documentation for a public tender procedure exists for the RIA commissioning this Enveco report; whereas in 2016 the Bulgarian Construction Chamber commissioned Enveco with the task to assess the impact of alternatives G20 red and blue. 11 Page Complaint to the EK. Kresna gorge case (CHAP(2017)02186 BULGARIA). 5

6 Gorge, including 176 underpasses for small animals (specifically targeting Elaphe situla, Elaphe quatuorlineata, Testudo graeca, Testudo hermanni). However the AA 2017 report provides no argumentation or evidence to counter the findings of the AA 2007 report, that mitigation or defragmentation measures would not be effective to protect animal populations from disturbance and road deaths for 85-95% of the length of the Gorge (the only effective measures being to drastically reduce number and speed of vehicles in Kresna Gorge). Furthermore, the National Museum of Natural History of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (NMNH-BAS) 12, submitted evidence to the 2017 EIA procedure, based on monitoring of roadkill on the existing road, showing that 72% of the proposed small underpasses in the Kresna Gorge Natura 2000 site are in unsuitable locations and will not be effective to mitigate damage, because the areas are too narrow or steep for animals to access; and a further 14.4% will damage valuable natural habitats. This evidence does not appear to have been taken into account. There is therefore no justification presented to invalidate the EIA/AA Decision 2008 [nor other supporting recommendations e.g. Bern Convention Recommendation 98 (2002)]. Rather evidence seems only to substantiate the EIA/AA Decision 2008 conclusion that the only feasible measure for mitigation of the animal road deaths is removal of the motorway outside the Kresna Gorge. 2.2 The EIA 2017 has failed to assess fully all implications for the Natura 2000 site of the G10,5 Eastern alternative There are a number of significant impacts that we expect the G10,5 Eastern alternative to have on the natural habitats and species of the Natura 2000 site, that have not been assessed by EIA/AA First, there is no description of the specific activities involved during the motorway's construction and maintenance of the G10,5 Eastern alternative in the Gorge. We can expect significant disturbance and impacts on the environment from the different phases of the project's development and construction including for construction of the road to bypass Kresna town. However these activities are not systematically listed in the report information, and what is there is unclear or misleading. Secondly, a number of plans and modifications have been announced to be incorporated into the G10,5 Eastern alternative which were not included in the scope of the EIA These include: Widening and straightening of the existing road, in order to increase the traffic speed. All planned underpasses in the AA 2017 report are planned for a road 12 meters wide: this compares to the existing width of 10.5m. The widening and straightening of the existing road was widely proclaimed by Bulgarian officials during public consultations on the EIA and AA in August/September 2017; Construction of commercial zones and parking areas on the territory of NATURA 2000 site these were promised officially by the RIA representatives during the public consultations, at the preliminary meetings with authorities and in the media statements (see p.1 Annex) in order to encourage assent of local authorities. In both cases the construction phase and maintenance, and the additional construction plans within the Kresna Gorge as part of the G10,5 Eastern alternative have not been subject to any th September Position paper of National Muzeum of Natural History, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences adopted by the scientific council, on Appropriate Assessment Report (AAr) on Investment Proposal Improvement of the route of Lot 3.2 of Struma Motorway on ВG Kresna Ilindentsi and ВG Kresna, 15 Pp. + 1 Appendix (in Bulgarian) 6

7 environmental and appropriate assessment, in breach of the EIA legislation and article 6.3 of the Habitats Directive The EIA/AA Decision 2017 has not given equal weight to assessing all alternatives as required by the Habitats Directive, has over-exaggerated adverse effects of the Full Eastern alternative that would implement EIA/AA Decision 2008, and has excluded other possible viable alternatives First, we remind you of the decision of the RIA on 20 April 2017 to preselect and advance the design of the motorway construction routed through the Kresna Gorge (Lot 3.2) (the G10,5 Eastern alternative), six months before the completion of the EIA/AA 2017, which shows that this alternative was favoured far in advance, without giving equal weight to developing or designing other alternative solutions fully outside of the Gorge (as noted in our complaint (CHAP(2017)02186 BULGARIA)). On Bulgarian Ministers Ivaylo Moskovski, Nikolay Nankov, Neno Dimov and Nikolina Angelkova visited Commissioners Karmenu Vella and Corina Cretu with the objective to advocate for approval of the G10,5 Eastern alternative, according to Bulgarian media. 14 Review of the official notes 15 from the meeting shows that such action is in conflict with the Bulgarian Government s role, especially of the Minister of Environment, who is supposed to assess and objectively decide on the best available option, according to the Habitats Directive and EIA law. These show that other alternatives, including those that better implement EIA/AA Decision 2008, were not assessed equally to the Bulgarian Government s preferred alternative, as required by the Habitats Directive G10,5 Eastern. Secondly, the EIA/AA 2017, having under-estimated and missed certain impacts of the G10,5 Eastern alternative, seems to over-exaggerate adverse effects of the G20 East (also known as Full Eastern ) alternative that fully bypasses Kresna Gorge in fulfilment of EIA/AA Decision Unlike the approach for the G10,5 Eastern alternative, the EIA/AA Report 2017 does not consider any mitigation measures to reduce impacts on protected habitats and species from the G20 East alternative. 13 For more information see the Annex with NGO statement from 24 August 2017 and report of the NGOs to the 37th Bern Convention Standing Committee Meeting from 27 October 2017: 24 August Position paper of Balkani Wildlife Society and NGOs on Appropriate Assessment Report (AAr) on Investment Proposal Improvement of the route of Lot 3.2 of Struma Motorway on ВG Kresna Ilindentsi and ВG Kresna, 17 Pp. + 1 Appendix (in Bulgarian, English translation) Sofia, 27 October 2017, CONVENTION ON THE CONSERVATION OF EUROPEAN WILDLIFE AND NATURAL HABITATS, 37th Standing Committee Meeting, 4-8 December 2017, Strasbourg, Possible file 2001/4: Bulgaria: Motorway through the Kresna Gorge and follow-up of Recommendation No. 98 (2002) on the project to build a motorway through the Kresna Gorge (Bulgaria), NGOS REPORT ON THE CASE, Pp Dnevnik, 19:51, 25 Sep 17 ; Four ministers presented in Brussels the project "Struma"; Ministers have submitted the procedural implementation of the project, which needs to be completed by 2023, in order to avoid having to return money to Brussels.... Minister Nankov recalled, as stated by BTA, that the maximum permitted speed for the Kresna Gorge is 80 km / h. in both directions - to Sofia and to Greece. In his words, the local community and over 20 NGOs, the entire scientific, professional and academic community have preferred the "semi-eastern" option to build the road. Nankov added that the government also preferred this option from the five possible options because of the economic and technological assessments Ref. Ares(2017) /10/2017 7

8 Moreover, the negative impacts are over-exaggerated. For example, the EIA/AA 2017 envisions needlessly wide road slopes (up to 100 meters wide) without retaining walls, which entail greater damage than smaller slopes with retaining walls. The unequal approach can also be seen by the very differing results on the two variations of the eastern road (the eastern two-lane north-bound route of the G10,5 Eastern, versus the G20 East s dual-carriage motorway along the very same route). Despite only minor differences in the east (in noise and road width), the AA 2017 report gives completely different conclusions for each alternative. E.g. for the impact on wolves (Canis lupus), the AA 2017 finds no adverse impacts from the eastern part of the G10,5 Eastern alternative, but significant adverse impacts for the G20 East along the same route. Thirdly, the EIA/AA 2017 has excluded consideration of other possible viable alternatives that seem to fulfil EIA/AA Decision namely: An Eastern tunnel alternative proposed by Large Infrastructure Projects, a small independent private engineering bureau. 16 This by-passes Kresna Gorge via a tunnel in the eastern slopes. This alternative was first proposed to the Bulgarian Government in February 2017 during public consultations on the scope of the new EIA and AA. NMNH- BAS preliminarily concluded in October 2017 that probably after applying a set of mitigation measures, this alternative could be considered as the most feasible and suitable version of the tunnel alternative that was approved with EIA/AA Decision An Eastern by-pass proposed by NGOs in 2002 and requested by the NGOs in February 2017 during the public consultations to be included in the scope of the EIA/AA The AA Report 2007 assessed that this alternative has only minimal negative impacts on one species (Canis lupus, wolf) with simple mitigation and compensation measures possible. This alternative has more tunnels than the G20 East alternative, and therefore has smaller direct impacts on the ground. 3. Information on shortcomings in the public consultation phase of EIA 2017 We would here like to inform you of recent developments and number of deficiencies in the public consultation process during September 2017, which have led to an ineffective public consultation. These demonstrate attempts by the Bulgarian government to distort the outcome of the public consultation and influence public opinion on the feasibility of the different alternatives, which have influenced the position of local authorities and affected communities. 3.1 Media pressure. The Minister of Regional Development and the Management of the RIA (official project promoter) have repeatedly pointed out in media outlets that the G10,5 Eastern alternative is the government's favoured option to complete the Struma highway. For example the Minister stated officially, "the authority has already taken its decision about the selection of the route on the basis of economic and engineering considerations It includes 12 small tunnels about 10.5 km long and small viaducts about 4.5 km in length, practically without affecting the terrain of the Gorge. It has the benefits of using sound proof tunnels, including both a motorway and high speed railway, and by using the existing railway line without affecting additional habitats. 17 See Appendix 1 a video records in Bulgarian are provided - interview of Minister of Regional Development Nikolay Nankov for the national television "BTV" from (videofile name: Nankov btv ) and interview of Svetoslav Glosov, member of the Board of Directors of "Road Infrastructure" Agency on the State National Television "Bulgarian National Television" from (videofile name: Glosov bnt ). 8

9 3.2 Closed-door meetings with local authorities. The NGOs representatives who sit on the Monitoring Committee of the project have not been allowed to participate in several closed-door meetings between the RIA and local authorities where the project was discussed Misleading presentation of the alternatives during the public consultation in the towns of Simitly and Kresna. To present the alternatives in two public consultation events, the Director of the RIA several times stated that the G10,5 Eastern alternative is the only opportunity for quick construction of the Motorway and is the only way to stop the car and pedestrian accidents in Kresna. The statements focused the discussion towards economic feasibility, time-frame for construction of the motorway, and social concerns such as car/passengers accidents which are not part of the EIA assessment or scope. Furthermore the statement did not refer to any public documents (such as feasibility studies, cost-benefit analyses etc.) and therefore could not be objectively discussed by affected communities. As result the main part of the public consultation was not focused on the impacts of the different alternatives of the Lot 3. Moreover, key information pertinent to inform the local population about the impacts was missing before and during public consultation e.g. detailed maps of the proposed alternatives, non-technical description of the different alternatives and construction works etc. 4. Conclusion request for action from the EU Commission This letter updates our original complaint. This update, which has made evident significant shortcomings of the EIA/AA Decision 2017, shows that the AA 2017 requires substantial alteration. Taken together, we believe this letter and our complaint demonstrate significant breaches of the EU environment law. We also believe that through an inadequate public consultation, the Bulgarian Government has not sufficiently obtained the opinion of the general public in an objective manor particularly those of local communities whose livelihoods and businesses may become unviable, as a result of losing local (non-motorway) road access north-bound and to the villages and properties situated in the Kresna gorge area. As we detail in our complaint, we have serious grounds for concern that the fulfilment of the G10,5 Eastern alternative (the EIA/AA Decision 2017) would very likely cause further deterioration of Kresna Gorge s unique wildlife, beyond the currently highly degraded state and may result in their full extinction from the Natura 2000 site including priority protected species such as land toroises, Leaopard and Fourlines snakes, 12 bat species, golden eagles, and griffon vultures. The EIA/AA Decision 2017 has not allayed these grounds for concern. We remind the Commission that there are good viable alternative solutions to finalising the highway sub-section Lot 3.2 that would by-pass and avoid the damage to Kresna Gorge Natura 2000 site and its wildlife: notably the G20 Eastern alternative, and an Eastern tunnel 18 One example of such a meeting between the RIA and local authorities and other local people, without NGOs being informed, was reported in the media here: Kresna revolted against RIA! Bulgaria 07 August 2017, Mega scandal broke out today at a meeting between citizens and state administration. On today's meeting between Road Infrastructure Agency (RIA), employees of Patproekt, who won the contract for designing the east alternative of Struma Motorway Lot 3.2 through the Kresna Gorge and residents of Kresna, broke to a mega scandal. The tension escalated at the very beginning of the meeting at the moment when the employees of the RIA said categorically that one of the lanes of the Struma lot 3.2 lot will go through the Kresna gorge would be on the current E-79 road. The locals jumped into the hall, scorching and insisting that the project be changed and the two motorway lanes to pass through the mountain. 9

10 alternative that has not been assessed by EIA/AA Whilst those alternatives would have certain lesser impacts on Natura 2000, these impacts can successfully be mitigated to insignificant level, unlike the impacts of the G10,5 Eastern plan. We therefore ask that the European Commission take infringement action against Bulgaria for failure to comply with its obligations under Article 6(2) and 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/ΕEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora: (a) by failing to take the appropriate measures to avoid the deterioration of natural habitats and the habitats of species and the disturbance of the species for which a site had been designated as laid down in Article 6(2); and (b) by failing to implement mitigation measure EIA/AA decision 1-1/2008, (i) having completed and operationalized other sections of motorway (namely lots 1, 2, 3.1, 3.3, and 4) before designing as a priority sub-section Lot 3, thus maintaining the zero variant ; and (ii) having permitted the G10,5 Eastern plan in breach of EIA/AA decision 1-1/2008 without presenting adequate new evidence to justify this, it has failed to take light of the conclusions of the Appropriate Assessment Decision 2008 of the implications for the site, as laid down in Article 6(3); and (c) by having permitted the G10,5 Eastern plan which is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the site and species at issue, without carrying out a proper appropriate assessment of all the implications, as laid down in Article 6(3); and (d) by having permitted the G10,5 Eastern plan it has agreed to a plan or project which will adversely affect the integrity of Kresna Gorge Natura 2000 site, which is prohibited in Article 6(3) unless the criteria of Article 6(4) apply, and in this case these criteria are not satisfied. The threat of an irreversible biodiversity loss in the Kresna Natura 2000 site is real, probable and imminent. We therefore ask the Commission to intervene to ensure the protection of Kresna Gorge in compliance with the Habitats Directive. Yours faithfully, Anelia Stefanova Programme Director, CEE Bankwatch Network Na Roszesti 6, Prague , Czech Republic 10

11 On behalf of NGO Partners: Desislava Stoyanova Environmental Association "Za Zemiata" (For the Earth)/FoE Bulgaria; Andrey Kovatchev BALKANI Wildlife Society Petko Kovachev Green Policy Institute Daniel Popov Centre for Environmental Information and Education Dimitur Vassilev School for Nature Vlahi Robbie Blake Friends of the Earth Europe 11