7 COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS Funding the Two Options The above analysis is predicated on the base case financial projections of AAHK and Master Plan 2030 construction costs. It shows that we cannot finance either of the options through our internal cashflows and external prudent borrowing capacity. While we may be able to reduce the shortfall by reviewing our existing revenue framework with a view to increasing our revenue, the magnitude of such additional revenue sources would unlikely be material within this time frame. Subject to views gauged on the way forward for the Master Plan 2030, further discussion on how best to bridge the funding gap between AAHK and the Government would be necessary. CONSIDERATION 5 : ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES Care for the environment is at the heart of HKIA’s long-term commitment to sustainable growth. A voluntary Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was conducted and included in the 1992 New Airport Master Plan (NAMP) – EIA. This was updated in 1998 to provide a thorough evaluation of the potential environmental impacts associated with the ultimate airport development envisioned by the NAMP for the two-runway operations at design capacity, with a range of commitments made to ensure that environmental impacts would be effectively mitigated over the operational lifespan of the airport. We do not underestimate the challenges involved in both options, particularly in Option 2. In line with HKIA’s long-term commitment to sustainable growth, we will rise to these challenges by addressing the environmental concerns. Should Option 1 be pursued, a review will be undertaken based on guidelines as stipulated in the statutory EIA process to assess whether the proposed developments under Option 1 will constitute material changes to the NAMP to trigger the requirement for an EIA study and environmental permit. For Option 2, we commissioned Mott MacDonald to conduct a preliminary environmental assessment to assess the potential constraints associated with the various alternative airport expansion layouts of the third runway. While this preliminary assessment does not replace a full-scale statutory EIA and compliance with all legal requirements, we must ensure that the final recommended airport expansion layout under Option 2 50