The airport expansion project has contributed to a dramatic increase in the number of air operations at El Dorado International Airport (22% increase between 2008 and 2014). The noise experienced by neighboring communities exceeds normal limits for residential areas: 84% of noise measurements in the areas violated the 65 dB national daytime standard, while 100% of noise measurements violated the 50 dB national nighttime residential standard. This situation will only get worse as the airport is projected to increase air operations, increases that both OPAIN S.A. and Codad S.A. are contributing to:

• OPAIN has expanded, and continues to expand, the domestic and international terminals and aircraft docking and platform spaces, among other works. By the end of 2017, OPAIN plans to increase the airport’s capacity to 40 million passengers per year, up from 31 million in 2016.
• Codad has designed, constructed, increased and improved runway rapid exits to reduce the time that each aircraft occupies on the runway after it lands from more than a minute to 46 seconds. This will allow the airport to increase its capacity by almost a third, from 76 operations to 100 operations per hour.

Physical buffers around the airport's runways are almost non-existant with only a road and, for some, a mound of dirt separating Fontibón residents from the runway and aircraft. The insulation of homes and buildings is also incomplete and inadequate: a 2012 study of noise-affected areas by Bogotá's Secretary of Health (see documents) found that only 2.7% of study participants had partial sound insulation in their homes and only 1.1% felt protected from the noise.

A recent report by the Inter-American Development Bank's indpendent accountability office (known as MICI) describes their first-hand experience with the inadequate noise mitigation:

“During its visit to the Project area, the Compliance Review Panel … was able to experience firsthand not only the impact of the noise on the daily life of residents (such as the need to interrupt a conversation or classroom activities when airplanes take off and land because it was impossible for the other person or the teacher to be heard, or the vibrations caused by some aircraft), but also the discomfort produced in some homes by the soundproofing, which in the Panel’s experience is in poor condition, does not really reduce noise, and prevents, among other things, ventilation in the homes.” (MICI Report, paragraph 2.99)

The World Health Organization warns that chronic exposure to high levels of environmental noise can lead to hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease, mental health problems, impaired cognition, and severe sleep disturbance, among other harmful effects. Children are particularly vulnerable to developmental harm, with studies finding a relationship between long-term exposure to aircraft noise and impaired reading comprehension and memory.

Some of these harms are already visible in the Fontibón community. Bogotá's Secretary of Health estimates that 67% of Fontibón's population sleeps poorly, while up to 37% suffers chronic insomnia, leading to related problems with headaches, irritability, anxiety, and difficulty concentrating. Neighborhood children are experiencing early hearing loss.

Although OPAIN asserts that noise mitigation is the responsibility of Aerocivil under the specific terms of the concession agreement, such an argument cannot negate the environmental and social responsibilities of OPAIN, Codad S.A. - and their investors - under those investors' environmental and social safeguards. Those responsibilities apply to the project as a whole; the client cannot "contract out". MICI dismissed the same argument, when it was made by the Inter-American Development Bank, in strong terms:

"The MICI considers that Management’s argument that neither the Bank nor the Client is responsible for or has any influence on air activities and that the Bank is not involved in any activities on the Aerocivil side is an attempt to be relieved of responsibility and contradicts ... the essence underlying any Bank financing, as reflected in the standards set in Bank policies, particularly Operational Policy OP-703. This policy is a tool that should be used to achieve social and environmental success in any IDB project. There is an express requirement to identify, assess, and manage both direct and indirect impacts and risks, and it is the Bank’s obligation to determine how to manage them, whether they are produced by the Bank’s client or by a third party. It is also surprising that Management should attempt to disassociate itself from any aspect related to the Airport’s air operations, which are the source of the Project’s future financial success." (MICI report, paragraph 2.88)