• 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

Lonely advocacy at Kolubara lignite mine


Regular readers of Bankwatch’s website will already be familiar with the Kolubara mine ‘environmental improvement project’ in Serbia, for which the EBRD signed an EUR 80 million loan in 2011.

The EBRD’s claims of environmental improvement are ringing very hollow for local people affected by the project, including those in the village of Barosevac, who this week received a response to an official complaint they recently submitted to the EBRD’s Project Complaint Mechanism. Their complaint was rejected because “[w]hile EPS Kolubara Environmental Improvement […] is a Bank Project, the scope of its activities does not include field B of the Kolubara basin” and furthermore “this project has not yet started operations and none of the loan has yet been disbursed”.

Kolubara mining complex is part of JP Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS), the state-owned energy company in Serbia. The entire complex covers an area of approximately 600 km2, with a number of mining fields. In Serbia 69% of total electricity in 2010 was based on lignite, out of which 75% originated from the Kolubara mines.

By chance we visited Barosevac this week with my Bankwatch colleagues from Macedonia and the Czech Republic. It is obvious that the affected residents are frustrated. They expected that the EBRD would bring European standards to the Kolubara mine operation, including on the most difficult issues such as resettlement of people affected by the mining operation. But they found the EBRD’s excuse rather poor. The EBRD says its operations cover field C plus the Tamnava West field, but in fact fields B and C are connected in one pit and at least one of the complainants has a document which clearly states that his property is in the exploitation area of field C.

The loan might not yet have been disbursed, but the EBRD has already signed 5 loans with EPS worth EUR 315 million. The first, from 2001, planned to address “public information and consultation (particularly for new developments)” (Source) by the EPS company. Evidently the EBRD must be satisfied with EPS’s progress on this front if it continues to lend to this client.

Although the money is not yet disbursed for the Kolubara mine project, EPS is supposed to implement an Environmental and Social Action Plan which among other topics requires it to “appoint community liaison offices” and set up a “grievance management system” within one month of signing the agreement.

As a part of our visit, we requested a meeting with the Assistant Manager for legal affairs, who is managing the grievance procedure and responses to comments. We wanted to find out first hand how this grievance mechanism works, but the meeting was denied. Later we learned why – the Director of the Environmental Protection Department had written to his colleagues in EPS:

    Dear Sirs,
    I ask you that *under no circumstances should you talk* to the gentleman from the NGO CEKOR without the presence of Mr. Miroslav Spacojevic and myself. Namely, this concerns issues and actions that could cause long term and far-reaching damage not only to RB Kolubara and JP EPS, but also to the entire state. I note that their primary goal is the decarbonisation of Serbia. I note that RB Kolubara has already had very negative experiences with them. It is known that the activities of said NGO are in the field of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION JP EPS.

    Regards,
    Mihajlo Gavric

As we were not able to speak to the EPS staff, we spoke with local residents in the towns and villages around the mine. Even people who are in the process of resettling have never heard of either the community liaisons or about the grievance mechanism – something that it is badly needed.

In one of villages – which has already nearly been completely resettled we met a Bosnian family. The land to which they will be relocated is the third place they have lived in, but they have never moved by choice. First they were forced to move when they fled from their home in Srebrenica, Bosnia in 1992 during the war there, and now again they are being removed for the sake of the mining operations in the Tamnava field of the Kolubara mine.

These people left 15 hectares of their own woods and land in Srebrenica when they left, only to come here and work in other people’s fields and houses for years. Over a period of 20 years they managed with their hard work and some help from relatives living in France to build themselves a household where they keep some chickens and two cows, living from their agriculture. Their children are not with them – their son is working in the city where he lives with his family, but their daughter was not so fortunate and died ten days before we visited them, after years of sickness and four operations.

On top of their family tragedy, they will now also be leaving their household of 1.4 hectares of land with a nice but modest house in it, replacing it with land of only 0.35 hectares. They were given about EUR 70 000 for their land, out of which they are buying a new, much smaller household in the neighbouring community of Lazarevac. They are not satisfied with the compensation, but although they mentioned complaining to the company, it did not help them at all, so they had to take what they were offered and move to Lazarevac.

So now, after having to rebuild their life once when coming to Serbia, they will have to do so again.

This family is only one of the many that will be or have already been relocated because of the mining operations. We talked to several other families, but they all shared the same sentiment – resignation, believing they have no choice and no options.

Another own goal for Ukraine at the Euro 2012


While the Euro 2012 is approaching its final, many European politicians continue to boycott matches in Ukraine to protest the treatment of former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Beyond the headlines on Tymoshenko, however, Ukraine has yet more misconduct to offer that gets more easily washed away by the wave of excitement about the tournament.

I’m not talking about nuclear lifetime extension here, but about something directly connected to the Euro 2012: the rehabilitation of the Kiev-Chop road, financed with the help of two Euro 200 million loans from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank. The project was part of the preparations for the championships, because the Kiev-Chop highway is one of the main routes by which fans from all over Europe can reach Kiev.

But when complaints from people living next to the road appeared in the news, I decided to visit two affected villages, Bolyarka and Berezivka. What I found was that the road’s quality has definitely improved. But while car drivers might enjoy the smooth surface of the road, local people have to face dangerous, even life threatening situations every day:

Many crossroads are hardly equipped with any markings, let alone traffic lights. With no speed limit for cars, crossing the street has become a life threatening challenge of trying to avoid being run over like a frog in an arcade computer game. Some children in Bolyarka have stopped going to the school on the other side of the road because it is too dangerous to cross it twice every day.


The pedestrian bridge in the background has been finally finished by now. The situation remains critical in other places.

Reaching the few crossroads that exist is not much easier. With no sidewalks, people can either risk their lives walking on the street – passed at high speed by cars and trucks – or walk through the dirt (or mud and snow in the winter).

Generally, living a normal life has become impossible for some families. The new road has literally blocked the access to some private houses and land plots. People are not able to bring fuel to their homes or cultivate their gardens.

In April, we brought these problems to the attention of the EBRD and the project sponsor, the state company “Ukravtodor” (with a project briefing and a photo report (pdf)). Two moths passed, but the situation has not changed. The football celebrations continue and the road on which fans drive comfortably to Kiev is a slap in the face of the people living next to it.

It was not a shame that Ukraine didn’t reach the Euro 2012 quarter finals. The implementation of this Euro 2012 project, however, is embarrassing for our authorities and the banks that financed it.

Europe’s unequal partnerships – a sad tale about energy


At today’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting European ministers all but hailed (pdf) the “substantial progress made in the delivery of the new European Neighbourhood Policy”. One of the key priorities for the EU in its relation with neighbouring states is the cooperation in the energy sector. While this does theoretically include the promotion of energy efficiency and renewables, it is the security of Europe’s energy supply that receives the bulk of attention.

We’ve already discussed some of the pitfalls of the “energy security” narrative on this blog (here and here). In a recent study (pdf) based on cases from Ukraine, Georgia and the Western Balkans, we now examined the consequences that a security focus has for the character of the cooperation between the EU and its neighbours: Does the EU treat us as equal partners or does it rather play to the tune of a zero sum game?

The study could have served as useful reading material for the Council’s meeting, because it exposes the discrepancies between the ENP’s rhetoric and the concrete projects being pushed politically and economically.

As for the rhetoric, the ENP promises to

    “promote good environmental governance in partner countries to prevent environmental degradation and pollution, protect human health, and achieve a more rational use of natural resources” (Source: European Neighbourhood Policy (pdf), p. 8)

Our study, however, shows that the EU’s external energy policy and the projects financed by international financial institutions not only prioritise Europe’s energy supply, but take damages to the exporting countries into account:

  • … increasing the risk of nuclear accidents in Ukraine by financing the lifetime extension of Soviet style nuclear reactors and the high voltage transmission lines that will transport their electricity to Europe.
  • … damaging natural habitats and water systems in Georgia by supporting a gargantuan export oriented hydropower scheme that is (among others) set to destroy the ecosystem of the Paravani river and the livelihoods of the adjacent communities.
  • … reducing the “partner country’s” ability to develop its own renewable energy in sustainable and beneficial ways, as for example the case in the Western Balkans, from where Italy plans to import renewable energy in such amounts that the most suitable production sites will not be available for the countries’ own electricity needs.

Most of the projects examined in our study receive financial support from international financial institutions and/or the European Commission, thus concretely demonstrating Europe’s problematic interpretation of a “partnership” – making it a partnership of unequals.

Find more details in our study “A Partnership of unequals – Electricity exports from the eastern neighbourhood and western Balkans” (pdf)

To learn more about the European Neighbourhood Policy and how civil society can get involved in the Policy’s process – to make sure the invested money benefits people in the region without doing social, environmental and economic harm – visit our online ENP guide.

Environmental study for illegal coal plant gets thumbs up in Croatia


Despite the controversies around coal power plants in Slovenia, Serbia, Romania, Croatia is on its way to adding one more to the list – if we don’t stop it:

The Croatian electricity company HEP – along with as yet undefined private investors – is planning to construct a new 500 MW unit at the Plomin power plant on the Istrian coast. The project, entitled “Plomin C” is being presented as a reconstruction of Plomin 1, even though it is nothing of the kind, being of more than four times greater capacity than Plomin 1’s 120 MW.

Today the majority of members of the commission responsible for assessing the environmental acceptability of the Plomin “C” coal power unit gave a green light on the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project in spite of the study author Ekonerg’s failure to adequately address several serious problems. These include seawater warming and a lack of inclusion of certain transmission lines – problems which had previously caused the commission to send the study back for revision.

Doubts about the commission’s commitments to thoroughly resolve these problems have been increased by the three large elephants which have stood in the corner of the room almost unnoticed throughout their meetings:

  • Climate impact. In a small country like Croatia, building one plant of 500 MW means that the country will be unable to meet EU 2050 climate goals of 80-95 percent CO2 reductions compared to 1990, and will stifle the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency. (This is much like the situation with Slovenia and the Sostanj lignite power plant.)
  • Reliance on imported coal, the likely source of which is not even speculated on in the EIA – hardly inspiring confidence about the project’s long-term economic outlook.
  • The third is the most bizarre problem and requires a truly dismal grip on mathematics to get round it: The spatial plan for Istria county, where the plant would be situated, says that if a new unit is built at Plomin, the total capacity of the units together must not exceed 335 MW. As the existing Plomin II unit has a capacity of 210 MW and the 120 MW Plomin I plant is to be closed, this means that any new plant at the site cannot have a capacity larger than 125 MW. The spatial plan further states that any third unit at Plomin must run on gas, not coal.

While the first two points are left aside due to lack of binding legal obligations and a clear sustainable long-term vision for Croatia’s energy system, the Ministry of Spatial Planning and Construction has a clear duty to point out the last issue through its representative on the EIA commission, but it has not.

Asked by Bankwatch member group Zelena akcija/Friends of the Earth Croatia for an explanation, the Ministry repeated the same incongruous argument that HEP usually comes up with: that the spatial plan is talking about Plomin 3, a new third unit, while this project is merely a replacement for Plomin I, hence the name ‘C’ instead of ‘3’.

This does not at all address the point about the total capacity of the Plomin units not exceeding 335 MW, which was illustrated on Tuesday by Zelena akcija in a symbolic protest action outside of the Ministry of Spatial Planning and Construction. With a large black column of approximately four metres height representing the new coal unit and a one metre high transparent box representing the spatial plan’s gas plant, the group drew attention to the absurdity of trying to pretend that the new unit is in line with the spatial plan.

Giving this study a green light sets a dangerous precedent in the worthlessness of spatial plans and absence of sound judgement – not a good sign for a country whose government thinks it is well on the way to becoming a modern and advanced democracy.

Now it is up to the Ministry for the Protection of the Environment and Nature to bring some common sense into the proceedings and to issue a negative decision on the Environmental Impact Assessment.

3:1 against Ombla, Croatia must stop gung-ho investment


Implicated in a political scandal, during the last few weeks the EBRD-financed Ombla hydropower plant has suddenly become the centre of attention in Croatia.

On 8 June the Minister for the Protection of the Environment and Nature, Mirela Holy, resigned, ostensibly because of a scandal involving her sending an e-mail to Croatian Railways connected to the wife of a party colleague’s work position. But considering the e-mail was sent three months previously, many media and civil society observers pointed out that the timing of the revelation was quite a coincidence considering that Holy’s Ministry was about to decide on the fate of several controversial infrastructure projects including Ombla and the new Plomin C coal power plant in Istria.

On the day she resigned, Holy also announced the long-awaited results of an independent review that she had commissioned of the 1999 Environmental Impact Assessment for the Ombla project. Out of four experts who reviewed the study, three assessed the study as being inadequate, with the fourth giving it conditional approval. No more details are known as yet as the government has failed to publish the expert reviews, in spite of promises.

To fan the flames a bit more, Deputy Prime Minister Radimir Cacic, far from promising to give the results adequate consideration, made dismissive comments on the review on the grounds that they had been done for free, which in his view made them automatically suspicious. With comments like “Enough of this kindergarten” and “Ombla’s going ahead, Plomin’s going ahead” during the last week and a half he has made it very clear that he has little idea about the fact that even if the government for some reason does not stop the Ombla project now, it still has to be subjected to a nature impact assessment.

Today Green Action held a press conference outside of the government’s building in Zagreb calling on Prime Minister Milanovic and the new Environment Minister Zmajlovic to heed expert opinion – rather than Cacic’s gung-ho remarks – and cancel the project.

It remains to be seen how the EBRD, which approved a EUR 123 million loan for this project last November before it was anywhere near clear that the project would comply with EU environmental requirements, will now react. It was bad enough that a bank that claims to promote EU law approved the project on the basis of a 1999 environmental impact assessment, but it can hardly afford to ignore an independent review that has given such a clear thumbs down to the environmental study.

#Endfossilfuelsubsidies in Ukraine


Yesterday, coinciding with the opening of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro, people across the globe called on governments and international institutions to end fossil fuels subsidies and instead provide much-needed support for renewable energy.

Bankwatch member group National Ecological Centre of Ukraine joined in and gathered with other environmental groups in Kiev for a public action to emphasise their demands towards the Ukrainian government and the EU (see the video and images below).

A ‘twitter storm’ to end fossil fuel subsidies was part of the global action yesterday. It triggered more than 100 000 tweets, making #endfossilfuelsubsidies a trending topic on twitter.

Because the need to reform energy subsidies is particularly urgent in Ukraine:

  • Less than 0.5 percent of all Ukraine’s power is currently produced from renewable energy sources.
  • In 2010 coal subsidies reached nearly 730 million euros, approximately 2 percent of total budget expenditures and four times more than in 2001 (Source: Draft revised Energy Strategy for Ukraine till 2030 (UA)) – a governmental lifeline for Ukraine’s traditionally unprofitable coal industry.

If even the richest countries struggle to finance the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency in parallel to subsidising energy from coal, oil and gas, then all the more urgent is the need to cut these “dirty” subsidies in Ukraine as soon as possible.

Impressions from the action in Ukraine

Video

Images

« 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