• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

Bankwatch

  • About us
    • Our vision
    • Who we are
    • 30 years of Bankwatch
    • Donors & finances
    • Get involved
  • What we do
    • Campaign areas
      • Beyond fossil fuels
      • Rights, democracy and development
      • Finance and biodiversity
      • Funding the energy transformation
      • Cities for People
    • Institutions we monitor
      • European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
      • European Investment Bank
      • Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
      • Asian Development Bank (ADB)
      • EU funds
    • Our projects
    • Success stories
  • Publications
  • News
    • Blog posts
    • Press releases
    • Stories
    • Podcast
    • Us in the media
    • Videos
  • Donate

Home > Archives for Blog entry

Blog entry

The EBRD: Fueling the future, or stuck in the past?


This article was originally published on Mada Masr and has been reproduced here with kind permission.


Three years after the first investments arrived in Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia and Morocco from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the London lender announced a quarter of a billion dollar program to support new renewable energy projects across the region.

Although the bank says it “wants to push renewables to the next level,” new research shows there is not often the money to back this up.

The EBRD has established itself as one of the leading multilateral lenders for the energy sector in the region it refers to as the southern and eastern mediterranean (SEMED). Established in 1991, with a dual mandate to finance economic transition and sustainable development in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, the bank was given a similar task by its government shareholders after the popular uprisings that swept the Arab region in 2011.

Of the 1.5 billion euros invested in SEMED by the EBRD between 2012 and 2014, the energy sector accounted for about 40 percent of the total, or 604 million euros. Energy investments were particularly important to Egypt and Jordan, where they made up 37 and 72 percent of total EBRD financing respectively.

But a closer look at the projects that the bank has financed in the energy sector reveals that, despite the bank’s rhetoric about promoting sustainable energy, its balance sheet for 2012-2014 has fossil fuels all over it.

A matter of perspective

When viewed through the lens of Bankwatch’s research, the amount of money invested in sustainable energy, and especially energy efficiency, differs significantly from what the EBRD maintains. If an energy efficiency project leads to the use of more fossil fuels — be it through an increase in the capacity of an energy installation or otherwise — then it surely should not be regarded as an energy efficiency project.

One illustration is the 156 million euros the EBRD lent to the state-owned Egyptian Electricity Holding Company. The project consists of the conversion of two existing power plants at Damietta West and El Shabab to combined cycle gas turbines, in order to increase their generation capacity. Bankwatch sees this as a project that will essentially use more fossil fuels, as opposed to the EBRD, which accounts for it an as efficiency gain.

Neither does Bankwatch believe that new, so-called “greenfield” electricity and heat power plants (co-generation plants) should be seen as energy efficiency projects. Depending on the energy source used, such projects are classified either as renewable energy or fossil fuels. Take for instance the Abdali District Heating and Cooling plant in Jordan, which the EBRD presents as an energy efficiency project, even though it is difficult to know exactly what fuel the new plant will use.

Similarly, the bank views any component in the construction of a new fossil fuel-fired power plant that provides energy savings as an energy efficiency project. Bankwatch believes that such a project should not be considered green, as it will lead to the increased use of fossil fuel. This is the case with the Manakher Power Project in Jordan.

The Manakher power plant, which burns a mix of gas, heavy oil and other fossil fuels, received 130 million euros from the EBRD, in spite of vocal concerns from local residents about the project’s impacts. While the EBRD has claimed that the project will ensure a secure electricity supply for Jordan, it may in fact have the opposite effect, since Jordan is dependent on gas imports from Egypt. In 2004, the two countries signed a 15-year agreement for the supply of gas, but bombings of the pipeline running through Sinai since 2011 and the shortages in Egyptian gas deliveries led the Jordanian government to increase gas prices. Last year Jordan’s state-owned power company also signed a 15-year deal for the purchase of natural gas from Israel, adding to concerns about the future security of energy supplies.

EBRD financing for energy by subsector in SEMED, 2012-2014
*EBRD financing for energy by subsector in SEMED, 2012-2014

Stuck in the past

Research has indicated that, between 2012 and 2014, almost 70 percent of the bank’s financing in SEMED countries’ energy sectors (419 million euros) was spent on oil and gas-based electricity generation, as well as hydrocarbon extraction and distribution. By contrast, the bank’s support for renewables and energy efficiency totalled just 14 percent, or 85 million euros.

The difference in the amount of financing for fossil fuels and renewables is particularly striking in hydrocarbon-dependent Egypt. Egypt already ranks among the world’s fastest growing greenhouse gas emitters, and the EBRD’s 239 million euros for financing fossil fuels is likely to solidify this trend. Part of this public money was spent on offshore gas drilling.

EBRD financing for renewables and energy efficiency versus fossil fuels by country, 2012-2014
EBRD financing for renewables and energy efficiency versus fossil fuels by country, 2012-2014

At the same time, the EBRD did little to decrease the energy intensity of Egypt’s economy, which ranks among the highest in the world. Small renewable and energy efficiency projects in the country received a meagre 24 million euros. In Jordan, a country awash with solar and wind power potential, the bank lent just 61 million euros for four solar projects.

The bank has also failed to diversify its renewables portfolio and to penetrate all SEMED markets. Although the region is rich in wind, solar, geothermal (and to lesser extent hydropower) potential, the bank invested only in solar power (the projects mentioned above in Jordan). Neither Morocco nor Tunisia received EBRD investments for renewables or energy efficiency.

EBRD financing of energy projects by type, 2012-2014
EBRD financing of energy projects by type, 2012-2014

Signs of change?

Political developments and legal barriers in the SEMED region are certainly a hindrance to the business climate that the EBRD operates in and complicates the bank’s sustainable energy initiatives. While there have been encouraging signals in 2015 that the EBRD is progressing in deploying renewable energy sources and energy efficiency in the region, EBRD lending for the energy sector over the last three years has not helped alleviate these countries’ historic dependence on fossil fuels. It remains unclear whether the bank’s recent announcement will become reality or mere rhetoric.

Poland and the Energy Union: Legitimising Europe’s flagship climate laggard?


“The idea of creating the Energy Union came to life thanks to a Polish initiative. Now, the project is being carried out,” said Maroš Šefčovič, the vice-president of the European Commission and Commissioner for Energy Union, during his visit in Poland in September/October. Indeed, the concept was first voiced by Donald Tusk, the then Polish prime minister, in the context of common purchasing of gas for the European market. Since then, the Energy Union project has moved away from the initial proposal and developed in a broader – and for Poland, not always welcome – way, to include among others a push for more efficiency and for making Europe a leader in renewables.

From the Polish government’s perspective, this is where problems start – because European solidarity in the area of energy is all well and good, until someone raises the dreaded subject of climate change. When it comes to commitments to decarbonisation and shared responsibilities, the Polish call for more European solidarity, so prominent in the discussion about gas imports from Russia, suddenly disappears.

In fact, Poland has often been the one working openly to weaken EU climate targets, recently in the context of the EU’s 2030 climate change agreement, when a Polish threat of veto put the deal at risk. Our government has a track record of delaying transposition of EU climate and energy directives. It also continues to put the economic interests of an increasingly troubled coal mining sector above any and all environmental and health (pdf) concerns (pdf).

Poland’s hope for a low-carbon development has long been paralysed by an inability to deal with the hard coal-mining sector.

Poland’s hope for a low-carbon development has long been paralysed by the inability of successive governments to deal with a hard coal-mining sector that is constantly on the verge of insolvency, as well as the increasingly obsolete coal-burning industries inherited from Poland’s communist era.

Even key national strategic documents and policies, in particular the recently published Energy Policy 2050 mostly reflect present political interests, especially those of the powerful coal mining lobby. The external costs of pursueing a carbon-intensive business-as-usual are being ignored. Renewable energy is portrayed as a burden imposed on the country by Brussels bureaucrats and not as an opportunity to pursue the long-term interests of the country, its economy and its citizens.

Unearned praise and skewed priorities

In light of this, the Energy Union, as an EU-wide policy and legal framework, could be an important opportunity to set a clear agenda for the transformation of the Polish energy system.

All the more important, in fact, in light of the recent general election, which put Poland’s energy and climate policy once again on European headlines. The winning party – the conservative Law and Justice (PIS) led by Jarosław Kaczyński – makes no secret of its anti-climate position and promises to do whatever it takes to save Polish coal mines – even renegotiate Polish commitments under the EU climate and energy 2030 package – the same commitments which underpin the creation of the Energy Union.

Yet, in light of the European Commission’s recent Energy Union assessment for Poland (pdf), the hope that an impulse for change will come from the EU is quickly disappearing.

The document praises Poland for being on track to meet its 2020 energy and climate targets but a closer look makes it hard to be excited about that. Since 2000, Poland’s greenhouse gas emissions have remained more or less constant, at around 85% below 1990 levels – and this has happened without much extra effort, as the bulk of the reduction took place in the 1990s as a result of the transformation to a post-communist economy. Moreover, Poland was actually allowed to increase its emissions not included in the EU’s Emissions Trading System by 14% above the 2005 baseline.

In Poland, almost 45% of the so-called renewable energy is produced through co-firing – the simultaneous burning of coal and biomass. Co-firing consumed almost 40% of public subsidies to renewable energy between 2005 and 2012.

Another Europe 2020 target obligates Poland to reach a 15% share of renewable energy sources in gross final energy consumption. With the current 11.3% Poland indeed seems on track to reaching it. Except what counts as ‘renewables’ is a different question. In Poland, almost 45% of the so-called renewable energy is produced through co-firing – the simultaneous burning of coal and biomass – which could hardly be called green energy.

With regards to transposing the EU Renewable Energy Directive the Energy Union assessment reads: “Poland engaged into a long-term process of reforming its support system for renewables and reducing administrative barriers to market entry for renewables.” This is one way of saying that Poland was almost 5 years late with adopting a dedicated renewables law and reforming a dysfunctional support system based on green certificates. Due to this faulty system co-firing consumed almost 40% (pdf) of the already meagre public subsidies to renewable energy between 2005 and 2012.

But the true danger of the Energy Union assessment of Poland lies not in the unearned praises but in framing energy security only as stable and diversified gas supplies and increased interconnection capacity – which, in the case of Poland, is mostly related to coal power plants. This could mean perpetuating the country’s dependence on fossil fuels.

Energy security, particularly in the context of Russian gas imports, has become a hot topic in Polish public discourse. The prevalent response is to shun any restrictions on the use of indigenous energy resources, such as coal and shale gas. But we cannot discuss security of supply without honestly addressing the worsening situation on the hard coal market and the adverse impacts and external costs of fossil fuel mining and burning.

The missing points: energy efficiency and renewables

Even more so, we cannot discuss supply without first addressing demand – and prioritising energy efficiency measures over new generation and transmission projects is missing from the Commission’s assessment. Poland’s economy remains one of the most energy-consuming in Europe, with energy intensity more than double than the EU average. Energy poverty remains a widespread problem, with more than 20% of Poles not able to afford comfortable temperature at home during winter, mainly due to the poor energy standard of residential buildings.

As the Commission’s assessment points out, the Energy Union strategy must indeed help Poland “strengthen the targeted use of financial instruments for increased investments [in energy efficiency]”, but simply throwing money at Poland is not going to be enough. Investments in energy efficiency across all sectors, particularly in the housing sector, are indeed urgently needed – but to be effective they must be based on clear and focused strategies and a solid legal framework, not least the long overdue transposition of the EU energy efficiency directive.

Something else is conspicuously absent from the Energy Union assessment of Poland – and that is renewable energy. The Commission’s review quietly overlooks both the huge potential (pdf) for the production of clean energy, particularly in small, decentralised sources, and the fact that political support for the development of renewable energy sources is almost non-existent. Investments in wind, solar and small biogas are lagging because of the unstable and often outright unfavourable investment environment. Policymakers have openly been opposing renewables, even actively trying to dilute provisions to introduce feed-in-tariffs for micro-installations in the recently adopted renewables law, even before they take effect in 2016.

In the official discourse, renewables continue to be depicted not as an opportunity for innovation, sustainable growth and green jobs, but as a risk to the stability of the power grid and a financial burden to end consumers. In its silence, the Commission’s assessment is a lost opportunity to change this discussion.

Clean coal appeasement

One sentence by Šefčovič, during the Polish stop on his Energy Union tour, captures the Brussels method of dealing with Poland. “Coal should stay in the national energy mix, but it must be clean,” said the Commissioner, making sure not to antagonise his hosts.

In fact, echoing the Polish government’s rhetoric, which has repeatedly pushed coal under the umbrella of sustainable energy solutions, this could well fall under the Energy Union’s “Research and Innovation” pillar. For Polish policy-makers clean energy often means more efficient and modern coal burning, upgraded smart grids which would minimise transmission losses from coal burning, and coal-based district heating as a solution to air pollution.

The Energy Union concept might have originated in Poland as an idea of common gas purchasing, but ultimately it is the myth of “clean coal” which could become Poland’s true imprint on the shape of the Energy Union.

The final decision on a country’s energy mix remains its own – but there is a clear and urgent need for the Energy Union strategy to put more emphasis on transforming the energy system in Poland, shifting focus from security of supply to decarbonisation, moving towards small-scale, decentralised renewables and greater energy efficiency – especially in the coming era of a PIS government.

[Campaign update] MEP Rebecca Harms criticises Ukrainian nuclear operator for its lawsuit against activists


This article first appeared in Ukrainian on radiosvoboda.org. It was translated and reprinted with kind permission.


The member of the European Parliament Rebecca Harms called Energoatom’s lawsuit against the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine (NECU) ‘nonsense’. The Ukrainian state nuclear operator filed a lawsuit against the civil society organisation because of the organisation’s conclusions on the condition of the second reactor of the South-Ukrainian nuclear power plant.

In her comment to Radio Liberty the MEP stated:

“I consider this matter strange. I said this to Energoatom representatives and I had a meeting with Ms. Vronska (Deputy Minister of Ecology covering for European integration – ed.) on this issue. I will also speak about it with the Minister of Energy. This matter is nonsense. Discussion is needed instead. The real issue is whether all the upgrades have been completed for this reactor of the South-Ukrainian NPP, which are required to extend its lifetime,” said Harms who is the Co-President of the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance in the European Parliament.

Find out more, get involved


“It is normal in my country, Germany, or any other EU country, that non-governmental organisations accuse state authorities who are responsible for the safety of nuclear facilities of failure to do their job. After that, the authorities, minister, companies in the area of nuclear energy response to these challenges and present their arguments. But I cannot remember that something like a press release provided the basis for court proceedings like in the case against the National Ecological Center,” added the MEP.

At the end of August 2015, the National Ecological Center of Ukraine (NECU) was notified about the lawsuit from Energoatom filed against it. According to the environmentalists, the reason for the suit was NECU’s press release from May. It stated that the condition of the second power unit of the South-Ukrainian NPP failed to meet the requirements for its further safe operation.

Energoatom states that the information distributed by the activists is factually wrong.


Copyright © 2015 RFE/RL, Inc. Reprint allowed by Радіо Вільна Європа / Радіо Свобода

Up in smoke: the billions for Europe’s auto industry from the EU’s house bank

In the wake of last month’s Volkswagen (VW) emissions scandal, a Politico story, based on a Bankwatch analysis, revealed that the car manufacturer enjoyed generous public financial support from the European Investment Bank (EIB). But the full picture is even more disturbing.

Bankwatch’s analysis of EIB data identified 19 loans totaling EUR 4.3 billion for the VW group between 2005 and 2015. Fourteen of these loans were intended for improving fuel efficiency and reducing emissions, and out of them five were classified under the bank’s so-called ‘climate action’. Five loans worth EUR 1.53 billion are still to be paid back.

With the spotlight bright on VW for gaming the system, the EIB must now come forward and show exactly what it has done to ensure proper oversight over its loans to the company.

With the spotlight bright on VW for gaming the system, the EIB must now come forward and show exactly what it has done to ensure proper oversight over its loans to the company.

Today Bankwatch can reveal that between 2005 and 2015, the EIB lent European automakers EUR 20.4 billion. Diesel cars produced by seven of these companies have been found to have considerably higher nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions when put to more stringent tests than the ones currently in place in the EU.


The underlying data for this graph can be seen and downloaded here. The source data is available on the EIB’s website.


Stay informed

Subscribe to our blog

 

Volvo, whose S60 D4 model was found to emit over 14 times more NOx than in regulators’ tests, has received EUR 1.75 billion from the EIB. The bank also lent Fiat, whose 500x 1.6 model emitted over six times that level, more than EUR 2.9 billion. Four loans totaling EUR 1.7 billion were extended to one or more unnamed automakers in Germany.

A number of these loans were explicitly intended for the research and development of engines with lower emissions. In fact, over half of all EIB loans to Europe’s car industry between 2005 and 2015 were classified as “climate action”.

These loans raised our concerns from the very beginning. In March 2009, after the EIB gave over EUR 3 billion to nine European car manufacturers, including VW, Bankwatch and Greenpeace expressed their scepticism about these investments. “CEE Bankwatch Network and Greenpeace call on the EIB to ensure that money goes to initiatives with a true impact on cutting carbon emissions from cars and not just to small-scale greenwash projects,” the statement read.

Now, in light of suggestions that other carmakers might have also manipulated emissions tests, the findings from our analysis cast doubts over whether those loans, meant for developing cleaner car engines, have indeed served their purpose.

In particular, labeling some of the loans as “climate action” is plain cynical. The EIB’s Operations Evaluation report (pdf) showed that between 2010 and 2014 the car industry received the biggest share – 11 per cent – of the bank’s total climate action lending. Despite some efficiency gains in car engines, this classification ignores the long-term cumulative impacts of loans that go to polluting transport instead of cleaner alternatives.

But it is now about the credibility of the EIB and its ability to ensure sufficient control over billions of euros in public funds. Failing to be transparent and publicly accountable – by disclosing all the relevant information – would make the bank complicit in both mismanaging public funds and contributing to chronic air pollution and climate change.

So far the bank has been restrained in informing about its actions towards VW group. EIB President Werner Hoyer said the bank has launched an investigation into the case and might ask the money back from VW. “If we determine that the loans that we have extended to drive engine developments have not contributed to combating climate change, but have possibly done the contrary, then that is a reputational problem also for us,” Hoyer told Bloomberg.

If the EIB suffers a reputational risk it means that the bank had been negligent in the case. So if the bank is concerned about its reputation, it would be wise to be as transparent as possible right now. The EIB does indeed document things like the results of research and development through monitoring reports about the achievements of its investments, but these are not publicly available.

The EIB’s accountability is on the line and the public interest in disclosing all relevant information clearly outweighs the bank’s normal transparency standards. Otherwise, how can the public know if the bank demanding its VW loans back is at all legally possible? Has the bank even secured such option in the loan contract?

Meanwhile, it is business as usual at the EIB, which has just announced a no less secretive loan of EUR 700 million to Daimler. A day after the loan was approved the Guardian revealed that Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz diesel cars have been found to produce at least 2.2 times more NOx in real driving conditions than the official Euro 5 level and five times higher than the Euro 6 level.

A month since the scandal was first revealed, and three weeks since the public learned that Europe’s biggest automaker received hefty support from Europe’s biggest lender too many questions remain – the ball is now in the EIB’s court.


Stay informed

Subscribe to our blog

 

Public action: Mourning the demise of Czech responsibility for climate action


On October 6, Bankwatch member groups from the Czech Republic Centre for Transport and Energy (CDE) and Hnutí Duha held a funeral service to mourn the death of the Czech Republic’s responsibility for climate change. With a three meter tall funeral wreath (see visuals below) about three dozens of citizens grieved the loss of a piece of the Czech Republic’s landscape as well the country’s responsibility for climate action. The performance was a gift for minister of industry who met activists for talks about the current government’s climate and energy policy.

While the funeral was a mockery, the government’s upcoming decision to dismantle limits on coal mining is not. Established to protect the landscape of northern Bohemia and locals from the threat of evictions, limits on mining are keeping more than 1.3 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide in the ground that would otherwise be emitted if the coal were to be mined and burned.

The government is expected to decide to lift the limits on October 19.

Read more background about the mining limits and the impact it would have to lift them on our blog:
Czech coal mining communities are under threat

Visuals from the action

 
Funeral action - Czech coal mining limits


Made possible with funding from

Visegrad Fund/></a></p>
</div><footer class=

The EU’s bank turns its back on Europe’s long term climate goals


Earlier this week the European Investment Bank (EIB) published its new Climate Strategy, after it was adopted by the bank’s Board of Directors in late September. But it seems that the Board has decided to further dilute this already weak policy guidance document.

A reference to the EU’s 2050 decarbonisation roadmap as a long term vision guiding the EIB’s climate action, which appeared in the final draft published in August and brought to the Board, has been removed in the official document.

This could have counted as a minor, errant amendment if the whole strategy were anything more than a PR exercise.

Just when stepping up climate action financing is so urgently needed, the EIB’s new Climate Strategy does little more than consolidating the bank’s current financing practices and showcasing a worrying dearth of detailed financial and advisory solutions, numbers, volumes and timelines.

Already in 2008 the bank decided to allocate over 20% of its total lending to projects contributing to greenhouse gas emission cuts and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. In 2010 this target has been upgraded to 25%. Yet, after seven years of experience in supporting climate-related projects , the EIB is still unable to raise the bar. This is particularly shameful given that the bank’s climate-related lending has already exceeded 30% of its overall portfolio in 2010.

Not least, despite bank statements repeatedly naming climate action a top lending priority since 2010, the new Climate Strategy fails to commit to boosting the much needed support for energy efficiency in lower income EU member states.
 
Consequently, rather than scaling up its support for financing climate action, in line with the EU’s climate and energy targets, the EU bank’s pledge falls far short of the role the world’s largest public lender should be playing in the global effort to tackle climate change.

« Previous Page
Next Page »

Footer

CEE Bankwatch Network gratefully acknowledges EU funding support.

The content of this website is the sole responsibility of CEE Bankwatch Network and can under no circumstances be regarded as reflecting the position of the European Union.

Unless otherwise noted, the content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 License

Your personal data collected on the website is governed by the present Privacy Policy.

Get in touch with us

  • Bluesky
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • YouTube