Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Blog entry

Blog entry

20,000 backing Khimki activists calling on Vinci to end involvement in Moscow – St. Petersburg motorway


While the week of action to save Khimki Forest is in full throttle, the activists in Russia can now add another landmark in their struggle against the destruction of their valued nature. More than 20,000 people from 161 countries have signed a petition to demand Vinci’s withdrawal from the 1.5 EUR billion toll highway section through Khimki Forest. Supporters plan to present the petition at Vinci’s annual shareholders meeting in Paris on May 2nd.

Many of us were impressed by the dedication of the environmentalists in Russia, who are leading one of their country’s biggest protest movements in years.

This inspiration has now spread around the globe in just one month. The Save Khimki Forest campaign has become one of the most popular global petitions on Change.org and has garnered additional support from Avaaz, the largest activism community in the world, as well a number of civil society organizations throughout Europe.

This week, protest actions are also being held by supporters around the world, including in Moscow, Toronto, Buenos Aires, Prague, Mexico City, Zagreb, Klin, and Khimki, before Vinci’s shareholders meeting.

Why Vinci?

The activists are accusing Vinci, a Paris-based global construction firm, of complicity with human rights abuses and corruption perpetuated by government officials. Just last week police arrested 11 members of the Movement to Defend Khimki Forest as they peacefully protested ongoing illegal clearing in Khimki.

So far, Vinci has washed its hands of responsibility for the litany of documented abuses surrounding the project.

Michèle Rivasi, a French member of the Green-EFA Group in the European Parliament, also called on Vinci to take action this week. “The battle for Khimki forest in Russia is a symbol for the green movement. Russian activists are not only fighting to protect their forest and their environment, they are also fighting against corruption, censorship, violation of laws and human rights, oppression against civil society […] Since the beginning, this project has been done without any real public participation, what is going against essential and basic rules of democracy. […] it’s particularly shocking to see a French company – Vinci – participating to this harmful project. I ask Russian authorities to stop violence against activists and Vinci to withdraw from this project,” she said.

Image: A clearing in the Khimki Forest. (Original image CC 2.0 by Daniel Beilinson)

Russian activist wins Goldman Environmental Prize

Russian environmentalist Dmitry Lisitsyn is one of the six winners of the Goldman Environmental Prize, often referred to as the Nobel Prize for environmentalism.

Having had the privilege to work with Dmitry, Bankwatch witnessed his enduring dedication and indefatigability during the fight to safeguard endangered ecosystems on Sakhalin Island in Russia – a fight that is ongoing for the last two decades in the face of the world’s largest oil and gas projects.

Sakhalin Island, off Russia’s eastern shore, is one of the richest sites in marine biodiversity worldwide and breeding area to a number of endangered species. But, following the discovery of vast oil and gas reserves in the 1980s, the area has been targeted for exploitation by both governments and the biggest energy companies worldwide.

In the early 1990s, two major petroleum projects were initiated on the island: Sakhalin I, led by Exxon, and Sakhalin II, managed by a consortium consisting of Royal Dutch Shell, Mitsui, and Mitsubishi, among others. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development has been involved in the earliest stages of Sakhalin II development, by offering financial support to Royal Dutch Shell. After almost one decade of involvement the EBRD withdrew from the project when Russian state company Gazprom joined the consortium.

Through all the trials and tribulations of these business ventures, Dmitry and his organisation, Sakhalin Environment Watch, have acted as tough watchdogs of the project, negotiating stricter regulations, cleanup of toxic sludge and an end to dumping waste in the ocean.

They have fought to protect the world’s last one hundred Western Pacific grey whales, threatened by the development. They have worked to safeguard the key salmon fishing area off the island — and the livelihood of tens of thousands of farmers depending on this catch.

Dmitry has also obtained more rights for Sakhalin’s indigenous communities and campaigned to create the Vostochny Wildlife Refuge on Sakhalin Island, which has led to the protection of nearly 67,000 hectares of ancient forest, salmon spawning grounds and the adjacent marine area.

Dmitry’s struggle and successes are an inspiration for us in Bankwatch and we’re celebrating his achievements and the acknowledgment he received with this prize.

“The last wild, untouched salmon rivers, which we are trying to save on our island, are the embodiment of beauty, power and freedom of wild nature. I’m convinced if we would lose them, all our planet would be poorer, because we will never be able to get them back.” – Dmitry Lisitsyn

Notes

This is the second prestigious award within a month for Russian activists contesting ruthless environmental destruction. Evgenia Chirikova in March received the Woman of Courage Award for her efforts to save the Khimki Forest near Moscow from a motorway construction. You can still sign on an international petition asking the french construction company not to participate in the project.

Image:
Dimitry helps put the finishing touches on a whale skeleton used during a mock funeral staged by campaigners during the 2004 EBRD annual meetings in London to protest the bank’s involvement in the Sakhalin II project.

Poland should kick off rail revitalisation now to best serve passengers and cargo

While Polish authorities waste precious time trying to persuade a reluctant European Commission to approve a reallocation of 1.2 billion euros of EU Funds from rail to road, Bankwatch member group Polish Green Network argues that the government would be better advised to start investing in rail transport as soon as possible.

The potential for rail renovation in Poland is huge. Only 37 percent of rail infrastructure in Poland is in good condition. On only 8.4 percent of rail lines in Poland can trains reach the standard European speed – 160 km/h for passenger trains and 120 km/h for cargo trains. This situation severely restricts the competitiveness of rail and, without a significant investment, passengers and freight services will continue to move away from rail.

Too many opportunities are lost in Poland because authorities have allowed the national rail network to decay. For example, the revitalisation of the route between Warsaw and Wroclaw could shorten the journey time from almost six to less than four hours. Similar results could be achieved with the revitalisation of the line between Gdask and Pozna. The estimated cost of such works is 125 million euros, which is only one tenth of what the government currently plans to take from rail.

These reversals need to stop. EU goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 to 95 percent before 2050 cannot be achieved through reliance on road or air transport. With the Polish presidency of the EU scheduled for the second half of this year, there is no better time than now for Poland to set an example for other central and eastern European countries that also ignore the importance of rails.

The railway infrastructure in Poland is in dire need of renovation. Shifting EU funding to roads can only exacerbate the problem. The image has been taken on the line Warsaw-Wroclaw. (Original image CC 2.0 by flickr user ah&am – http://bit.ly/h6Uqcs)

Campaign against Vinci’s participation in Moscow St. Petersburg motorway project launched

Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition

While much of the debate around the Moscow St. Petersburg motorway project has centred around the behaviour of the Russian authorities, the Movement to Defend Khimki Forest is now targeting French construction giant Vinci and asking the company not to sign an additional agreement with the Russian authorities, expected in mid-April.

A coalition of Russian NGOs has also written a letter (pdf) to the company to ask it once more not to participate in the project and warning it of its complicity in human rights abuses.

Vinci has also been accused by the group of failing to adhere to its UN Global Compact commitments. In a letter (pdf) to the Global Compact secretariat the Movement to Defend Khimki Forest and Bankwatch outline how the company has violated 3 of the 10 Global Compact principles, on promoting human rights, avoiding complicity in human rights abuses, and supporting a precautionary approach to environmental challenges.

Vinci has not only failed to condemn the human rights abuses committed against opponents of the project’s current routing, but Louis-Roch Burgard, CEO of Vinci Concessions has openly said he does not care: We are dealing with tens of projects in France, Europe and throughout the world and sometimes some projects face opposition. It is not the source of concern for us, otherwise we should be changing business.”

When President Medvedev last year suspended tree felling works, the company even lobbied via the French Chamber of Commerce to move ahead with the construction as soon as possible a move which it must have known would result in further violence towards activists.

In an interview he gave Bankwatch on the occasion of the EU-Russia civil society forum in Prague, Jaroslav Nikitenko from the Movement to defend Khimki forest describes the harassment and intimidation Muscovite activists have faced in their campaign to protect the Khimki forest:

Transport white paper is carbon black in the short term

The European Commission’s Roadmap for a competitive and resource efficient transport system by 2050, published March 28, comes with the bold target to cut carbon emissions in transport by 60 percent before 2050, however this is undercut by inaction during the crucial years before 2030.

While comparatively better than other transport policy developments, as here the Commission does at least exhibit a vision of a decarbonised transport sector, the roadmap is still far from turning this vision into reality.

A few positive aspects of the roadmap to begin with:

  1. It includes the first sector-specific reduction targets for greenhouse gas emissions – something that hasn’t been introduced yet for other sectors.
  2. The paper announces a move towards full application of user pays and polluter pays principles, to internalise pollution and other external costs of the transport sector.
  3. Lastly the Commission supports a shift from road to rail transport for medium distances (300km and more) and recognises the need to invest in rail infrastructure an approach that is all the more important in central and eastern Europe, where railways are notoriously being neglected in favour of road constructions.

These certainly are promising aspects, but in the overall context of the white paper the recommendations are far too vague, lacking both dedication and detail.

While the reduction targets are certainly a step ahead, they are nevertheless not binding. Consequently, real progress must come through concrete and swift reforms, and this is exactly where the Commission fails to show commitment. Action to reach the 60 percent emission reduction by 2050 is mostly postponed until after 2030. Until then the planned reductions remain at only one percent annually.

With a clear prioritisation for instance of EU funding to support low-carbon transport modes, the potential to decarbonise the transport sector could be realised much earlier. Instead the Commission envisions doubling EU air transport by 2050. Limiting fossil fuel use through a higher biofuel percentage (sustainable low carbon fuels in Commission speak) would therefore only compensate for the increase in transport. It certainly is not a dedicated move to decarbonise the transport sector, not even mentioning that the sustainability of biofuels is far from decided.

The roadmap shows a similarly blind faith in other ambiguous innovations such as public-private partnerships (PPPs), a funding instrument that all too often fails to beneficially influence cost and time efficiency, let alone project quality.

The most fundamental transport challenge however has not been answered by the Commissions roadmap for 2050. To dramatically reduce Europe’s dependence on imported oil and [to] cut carbon emissions, scarce funding has to be prioritised more strategically. Investments need to aim at a transport system that goes beyond the usual approach of developing a mass transport infrastructure. Instead, they should contribute to decreasing car dependency, noise and air pollution, urban sprawl and chronic congestion.

There is still a long way to go before Europe’s transport system is in line with EU’s goals such as combating climate change or implementing Europes strategy for sustainable development. By delaying action for nearly another 20 years the Commission does not work the switches well.

Original image CC 2.0 by flickr user Freefotouk – http://flic.kr/p/4kYYU5)

Don’t turn Ukraine into a nuclear energy source for the European Union!


A little background first. Ukraine joined the European Energy Community in 2010 with the purpose of integrating into the common European electricity and gas market. Some preparations for this began six years ago with the construction of high voltage transmission lines and support of one billion euros from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the EIB.

Right now Ukraine’s state energy company is beginning work on a series of ultra high voltage transmission lines, dubbed the Second Backbone Corridor. As with the earlier transmission line projects, the company plans to raise funds for this project from international financial institutions like the EIB.

The fundamental problem with the project is that it’s designed to ensure the connection of nuclear power plants in Ukraine to the European electricity network. In other words, the planned transmission lines are a part of a strategy to turn Ukraine into a cheap nuclear energy source for the European Union. Not to mention the concerns of environmentalists and the Ukrainian public that this project will not promote sustainable development but instead have negative environmental impacts, like routing through protected areas.

NECU believes that the EIB cannot support a nuclear future in Ukraine while pursuing EU objectives to diversify the energy supply of Member States. The EIB needs to understand that the price of nuclear electricity is attractive only because the cost of output reactor decommissioning and disposal of radioactive waste are not covered by the nuclear industry but by taxpayers in this case the Ukrainian people.

NECU also urges the EIB to concentrate its investments in Ukraine on renewable energy and energy efficiency as one transition country with the highest energy intensity (pdf), Ukraine has enormous potential for both.

Image: NECU members protest against nuclear power in Ukraine (2008). (Orginal image CC 2.0 by Saulius Piksrys)