A clash is raging between nature and finance. On the one hand, the EU is striving to improve the deteriorating state of nature across Europe, with initiatives like the Biodiversity Strategy 2030 and the European Green Deal. On the other, massive amounts of public money continue to flow to infrastructure projects with devastating impacts on the natural world. Our work where finance meets the natural world advocates for adequate protection and restoration projects to ensure a green future for all.
IN FOCUS
Rivers and communities
The countries of the Energy Community Treaty have diverse energy mixes, but hydropower has traditionally played a strong role in many of them. Albania is almost completely reliant on dams for its domestic electricity generation, followed by Georgia with an average of 80 per cent of electricity generated by hydropower and Montenegro with an average of 55 per cent.
EU funds and biodiversity
In May 2020, EU leaders committed to an ambitious Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, outlining the clear need to act on biodiversity loss and address the failing health of nature.
The historic amount of EU funds now available represents a golden opportunity to increase biodiversity spending and fully realise the objectives of the biodiversity strategy.
As well as addressing the biodiversity crisis, strategically supporting nature through EU funds is also one of the most effective ways to tackle climate change, while providing jobs and improved health at the same time.
Yet, with many of the previous strategy’s objectives left unachieved, the pressure now mounts for this decade. Never before has there been so much potential – and urgency – to use EU funds and investments to address the biodiversity crisis.
Related projects
Boskov most hydropower plant, North Macedonia
Boskov Most was one of 18 hydropower greenfield projects planned by the North Macedonian government in the Mavrovo National Park. After five years of campaigning, we convinced the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development about the folly of this project and to cancel its EUR 65 million loan. Without its major source of funding, the project lost steam and was discontinued.
Krapska Reka small hydropower plant, Macedonia
Loopholes in the EBRD’s due diligence, together with a lack of assessment and monitoring by Macedonia’s local and central government, has proven to be a lethal combination for the country’s rivers. A prime example is the Krapska Reka small hydropower project. The authorities’ failure to recognise the location as part of the proposed Jakupica National Park, Emerald area and a future Natura 2000 site, on top of poor mitigation measures and construction practices, have caused irreversible damage to this small river valley.
Dabrova Dolina hydropower plant, Croatia
A harmless-sounding mill conversion project on Croatia’s stunning river Mrežnica is a textbook example of how even small hydropower plants can damage protected areas. It also exemplifies the lack of transparency and oversight of investments that the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development channelled through commercial bank intermediaries.
Latest news
Sve može, kad zakona nema
Bankwatch in the media | 24 April, 2022Milena Muk ističe da Crna Gora jedina od zemalja bivše Jugoslavije nema zakon o Vladi, te da bi se njime jasno regulisala pravila za period …
Read moreUmweltverbände warnen vor Naturzerstörung mit EU-Hilfen
Bankwatch in the media | 21 April, 2022Brüssel – EU-Hilfen zur Linderung der sozialen und wirtschaftlichen Folgen der Coronapandemie fließen wohl teilweise in umweltschädliche …
Read moreSenatul României și cuiburile de păsări
Bankwatch in the media | 28 March, 2022Senatul României, la insistențele membrului său Zamfir Daniel, a dat undă verde construirii de hidrocentrale ilegale, pe râurile de munte …
Read moreRelated publications
Just transition project implementation checklist
Checklist | 29 April, 2022 | Download PDFThe paper outlines what comes next after the preparation of the Territorial Just Transition Plans and their final approval by the European Commission. It takes a look not only at the actual planning and spending of the funds provided in accordance with the approved Plans, but also at the challenges faced by the regions and the level to which they are prepared to address them. The checklist provides an easy-to-use overview of what each region should have in place in order to make sure it reaches its professed goals along with a discussion of each issue, relevant examples and references to more detailed reports, documents or regulations concerning particular points.
Breaking down the ‘do no significant harm’ principle
Briefing | 7 April, 2022 | Download PDFThis briefing aims to explain the ‘do no significant harm’ principle and how it has been used in the Recovery and Resilience Facility. It also raises concerns over the long-term risks and implications of applying the ‘do no significant harm’ principle
Flagships or red flags? Risks of proposed flagship infrastructure projects under the Economic and Investment Plan for the Western Balkans
Briefing | 24 March, 2022 | Download PDFUnder the European Commission’s October 2020 Economic and Investment Plan for the Western Balkans, the Instrument for Pre-Accession (IPA) is set to provide grants worth EUR 9 billion, with up to EUR 20 billion more in investments leveraged through the Western Balkans Guarantee Facility. Western Balkan governments have proposed projects for financing in ten Flagship areas for investment. The list of these proposed projects contains many which appear reasonable and much-needed, but many others are not in line with EU policy and/or legislation and must not be funded with EU money. This briefing provides an overview of selected projects that have been nominated by governments but which are not in line with EU policy and/or legislation.
