Blog entry

Updated Renewable Energy Directive needs built-in biodiversity protection

This week sees the closure of the European Commission’s consultation on the draft revised Renewable Energy Directive (RED II), which proposes a new EU renewable energy target of at least 40 per cent by 2030 and slightly tighter sustainability criteria for biomass.

Renewable energy will play a crucial role in achieving the EU’s key target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 55 per cent by 2030. But tackling the climate crisis has to go hand in hand with tackling the biodiversity crisis.

And this is where a more joined-up approach is needed. No form of renewable energy is impact-free. Hydropower and bioenergy in particular have caused serious environmental damage, but also many other renewable energy projects built in biodiversity-rich areas.

Forest biomass subsidies are rightly receiving massive attention due to the climate and biodiversity impacts of burning trees. This is likely to continue as the Commission’s proposals are too timid to address these issues, and fail to prevent incentives schemes supporting primary woody biomass.

Europe’s rivers need renewed action

But neither do the proposed updates to the Directive address the environmental impacts of other types of renewable energy or take into account the goals of the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy.

Within the EU, by 2018, no fewer than 60 per cent of rivers had failed to reach good health, among others because of hydropower construction. The EU’s lakes and rivers should have reached ‘good status’ by 2015 under the Water Framework Directive, but more than half have been subject to exemptions – often with weak justification according to the European Parliament.

This has led to calls for renewed action, among others in the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy, which aims to restore 25,000 km of free-flowing rivers by 2030.

But while many EU countries seek to restore their rivers, some are still building new hydropower. In recent years, their trail of destruction has been particularly felt in biodiversity-rich southeast Europe, where around a third of hydropower projects planned or built since 2005 are in protected areas or internationally recognised areas of high biodiversity value.

Most of the projects are of small capacity, but high in damage due to their locations in pristine natural areas. Their rampant development has been driven by disproportionate support via feed-in tariffs – a form of subsidies that is now allowed only for the smallest projects in the EU.

Renewables incentives must be truly conditioned on EU law compliance

In the EU, renewable energy can in theory only be subsidised if it is in line with EU environmental law. But in practice, there are insufficient mechanisms to ensure this condition works. By the time any breaches of the Directive have been established, subsidies have usually long since been approved, and there is no mechanism to make sure they are discontinued.

Several projects in Croatia illustrate this problem. The Ilovac and Dabrova Dolina hydropower plant projects underwent design changes after their environmental impact assessments were carried out, causing more damage to the river ecosystems as a result. The Croatian authorities have been reluctant to act and the issues remain unresolved. Yet both plants are still receiving feed-in tariffs paid for by the public.

The country’s wind sector is also under scrutiny, with the European Commission sending a letter of formal notice in May 2020 for repeated infringements of the Habitats Directive resulting from the authorities’ failure to properly assess the effects of 11 wind farms along the Croatian coast on the environment. Even though the case is not yet resolved, the Croatian authorities are free to continue handing out incentives to these and other renewable installations as they wish.

A quick look at the list of nature-related EU infringement procedures currently ongoing shows that Croatia is far from unique. Several Member States are currently under investigation for failing to adequately protect Natura 2000 areas or properly assess environmental impacts of certain activities – failures which could certainly result in needless damage by poorly designed renewable energy projects.

As a result, Bankwatch is calling for the Renewable Energy Directive to explicitly link renewables support schemes with compliance with EU law. It makes no sense for the European Commission to open infringement procedures on one hand while countries can continue to pay incentives to the same sectors – and in some cases the same projects – which are under investigation.

No more subsidies for projects that make use of EU law exemptions

Even where countries are not in actual breach of the Directives, in a situation of biodiversity crisis it makes no sense to allow incentives for hydropower projects which have only been allowed to go ahead due to the exceptions provided for in the Water Framework Directive. Nor does it make sense to allow incentives for any renewable projects which have been allowed to go ahead only due to the exceptions allowed in the Habitats Directive. Incentives must be used sparingly, and only for those projects which truly deserve it.

The Renewable Energy Directive already prohibits incentives for the incineration of biodegradable waste in countries that do not meet their separate waste collection obligations – an excellent example of joined-up policy. Equivalent provisions for other forms of renewable energy would help to ensure appropriate project design and siting, increase public acceptability, and incentivise better application of the EU environmental law.

We don’t have time or money to waste on subsidising damaging projects and we certainly can’t afford the public backlash that this brings. Time is running out to tackle both the climate and biodiversity crises, so incentives schemes must be bang on target.

This publication was produced in collaboration with EuroNatur in the framework of the joint research and advocacy work on hydropower finance and subsidies.

Want to make cities climate neutral? Engage residents!

The cities we have nowadays were shaped by big industries and governments, with little concern for what citizens want their city to look like. We ended up with cities that are often polluted, unpleasant to live in and in total produce three quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions. Local residents care about what cities they and their children will live in and are often eager to get involved in initiatives to shape their cities’ public spaces. Yet municipalities and investors still fail to listen to citizens’ voices.

Kyiv is no exception. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s (EBRD) Green Cities Facility funded the development of a Green City Action Plan (GCAP) in Kyiv which aims to help the city deal with environmental issues and adapt to climate change. This process is a chance for Kyiv’s residents to influence the way their city will develop in the upcoming 5 to 15 years, as the draft of Kyiv’s GCAP is available for public comments and contributions at different stages of the process.

Activists who united around Kyiv’s Osokorky Wetland Park are an example of how citizens can use the GCAP process to increase support for their cause and fight for green spaces in their cities.

The story began in 2015, when more than 300 residents of the residential districts Osokorky and Pozniaky united and established an NGO to fight against planned construction on a unique piece of untouched natural wetlands – Ecopark Osokorky. Soon after, ‘Save Ecopark Osokorky’ became one of the first successful petitions on the website of the Kyiv City Administration. The City said they were making steps to implement the demands of the petition, but in the end failed to stop preliminary construction works, endangering the park.

‘For activists, at some point, it became evident that reaching out to local and national level policymakers [was] not working to save the park from illegal construction. So, we started international advocacy’, said Anna Adamchuk from the organisation Ecopark Osokorky. Activists sent letters requesting support from international organisations and scientific communities that work to preserve natural resources and save biodiversity, such as the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust and business associations, such as Widenmoos.

According to Adamchuk, Ecopark activists learned about the public survey on prioritising Kyiv’s environmental issues that was conducted during the drafting of the GCAP. ‘The information about the project was not easy to find in the public domain. Same went for the contacts to receive more information’, added Adamchuk.

In recent months, about 80 letters have been sent on behalf of the group to the EBRD, a team of GCAP consultants and the Kyiv authorities. As a result, the preservation of Osokorky Wetland Park was mentioned in the draft Kyiv GCAP as a measure that can mitigate the impacts of climate change in the city. In addition, thanks to Ecopark activists, ‘green zones’ became one of the GCAP’s priority areas. Conservation of wetlands was also added to the draft.

Activists have ambitious plans and ideas, such as establishing an Ecocenter and teaching children about natural resources and saving the environment. The Ecopark team says there are investors who are interested in the projects, but since the territory is disputed they have hesitated to make financial commitments.

Kyiv’s administration, however, is not hurrying to approve the spatial planning documentation that would formally establish Ecopark, and the construction company claims that it has a right to build on this area. Activists, however, say that the territory is not eligible for construction due to closeness to the wetlands and the risk of flooding.

Ecopark Osokorky is a great example of a citizen initiative to save urban green spaces, and inclusion of the park in the Kyiv GCAP would be another step towards saving the park. Would city authorities, the Bank or the consultants who drafted the GCAP even be aware of the parkwithout local activists? Activists see the preservation and development of the Ecopark not only as their right, but also as their duty as citizens, to take care of their public space for themselves and their children. If city authorities and international investors viewed engaging citizens in local decision-making as their duty, we would probably have much greener and much more climate resilient cities.

Have your say on the future development of Kyiv by commenting on and contributing to the draft Kyiv Green City Action Plan.

About Osokorky Wetland Park

Ecopark Osokorky is a unique natural and historical heritage site stretched along the entire left bank of the Dnipro River, from the mouth of the Desna River far to the south beyond the boundaries of Kyiv. This area is home to endemic animals, birds, and plants. From among 170 bird species inhabiting the Ecopark, 21 species are included in the Red List of Ukraine, three are listed on the European Red List (the greater scaup, the grey partridge and the northern lapwing), and one species (the corn crake) is included on the List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). Seven animal species and four flower species inhabiting this area are included in the Red Book of Ukraine, and many more are protected by the Bern Convention and are under special protection within the area of the city of Kyiv. Kyiv may obtain the Wetland City Accreditation of the Ramsar Convention if its urban wetlands are protected; most of these are located in Osokorky Wetland Park. Read more here.

EBRD Accountability Mechanism starts a compliance assessment of MHP projects

Two projects of Myrinivskyi Hliboprodukt (MHP), a Ukrainian industrial agribusiness company, financed by the EBRD will be assessed for a compliance review by the bank’s Independent Project Accountability Mechanism (IPAM). The compliance review is an independent investigation aimed to determine if the Bank has complied with its environmental and social policies in relation to the MHP projects. By 26 January 2022 the EBRD’s mechanism will conduct a preliminary evaluation whether the project may have caused harm to affected local people and if there is an indication that the bank may have breached its standards.

Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO) of the IFC is expected to begin a similar process in the coming weeks to assess the need for a full investigation into the IFC’s financing to MHP.

The move towards compliance investigation comes three and a half years after local people from Olyanytsya, Zaozerne and Kleban, three villages in the Vinnytsya region of Ukraine, submitted complaints to the accountability mechanisms of the two banks. Between October 2018 and August 2021 the two mechanisms co-facilitated a confidential mediation process between representatives of local complainants and MHP. Ecoaction, CEE Bankwatch Network and Accountability Counsel advised local complainants in the mediation process with MHP.

IPAM’s public report from the mediation process provides a summary of the outcomes of the confidential mediation and the outstanding issues that remained unresolved.

Complainants were disappointed that despite their effort no agreement was reached with MHP. They hope that the compliance review will result in an effective remedy for the outstanding issues listed in the IPAM report, such as:

Road safety. To address the problem of heavy vehicle traffic through village roads, some progress was achieved in terms of road safety awareness raising. Yet concerns regarding heavy traffic going through the villages remain, as local villagers have noticed little change even after the construction of a long-promised bypass road.
Joint Fact Finding on damaged houses. Despite attempts by complainants and MHP to assess the damages on houses in Olyanytsya, which villagers believe are caused by increased traffic through the village, the pilot assessment did not take place before the process came to an end.
Farm Odours. Options to manage the odour from chicken farms, manure storage and the biogas plant were explored, such as the planting of trees throughout the perimeter. However, no agreement was reached on this issue before termination of the mediation.
Water supply. The issue of a piped-in water supply scheme in Olyanytsya and Zaozerne was discussed during the mediation process, but the concerns about local Water Quality were not addressed.

With regards to water quality issues, for example, the results of an Ecoaction study of surface & groundwater quality in the villages of Olyanytsya, Zaozerne, Vasylivka, and Kleban, four local villages located near MHP’s massive Vinnytsya Poultry Farm, significantly exceed a number of water safety parameters, especially those concerning nitrogen forms (ammonia, nitrites, nitrates) and in some cases phosphates as well. Water well testing during this citizen science project included both express methods and specialised lab analysis. They revealed that results from almost half of groundwater wells (19 wells checked) exceeded the safety norm for Nitrates (<50 mg/l). All water research measurements are available here whereas some extreme calculations on Nitrates (NO3) include the following numbers (in mg/l): 142,4 (water point in Zaozerne, 2.8 times exceeding safety norms), 150 (water point in Vasylivka, 3 times exceeding safety norms ), 124,3, 109,2 (two water points in Kleban, 2.5 times exceeding safety norms ), 200 (water point in Olyanytsya, 4 times exceeding safety norms).

Additionally to wells, the water quality was checked on the Southern Buh river, upstream and downstream from the underwater discharge pipe of MHP’s wastewater treatment plant. Downstream results show significantly higher numbers on ammonia (NH4), nitrites (NO2) and phosphates (PO4). As of June 2021, results are (in mg/l): NH4 – upstream 0,05, downstream 0,4; NO2 – upstream 0,02, downstream 0,5; PO4 – upstream 0,2, downstream 0,5. A second round of testing (October 2021) of the downstream water in the lab showed similar results: NH4 – 0,46; NO2 – 0,4; PO4 – 0,36.

“The Ecoaction citizen science initiatives conducted research on water quality in 14 communities of 10 regions (oblasts) of Ukraine. The results on nitrates compounds in ground water in the area that is the subject of the complaint showed the worst results. Taking into account the scale of intensive crop, fodder and livestock production facilities in the region, we believe that water quality and health risks concerns of the complainants are well grounded”, said Anna Danyliak from Ecoaction.

“The accountability mechanisms of the EBRD and IFC now need to conduct independent investigations into problems raised in the complaint that remained without solutions and agreements. IPAM and CAO need to review if the investments in the MHP projects by the public banks followed their standards for assessment, prevention and mitigation of negative impacts on local villages. We are hopeful that the compliance investigations may bring some long-awaited answers to questions about the real impacts of MHP’s operations,” said Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath from CEE Bankwatch Network.

“Despite the extensive time and energy that impacted villagers dedicated to the process, the mediation did not result in effective remedy for affected people. The compliance review can bring some form of justice to them by investigating major questions raised in the complaint, such as why the banks continued to assess that their investments in MHP would not present a high risk, even years after local villagers began raising concerns about their environmental, health and social impacts,” said Caitlin Daniel from Accountability Counsel.

Second edition of Lung Run promotes climate action and clean air at COP26

As we enter the final decade to transform our world in such a way that prevents a climate catastrophe, everyone must be on board and support this move in any way possible. This year, our second edition of the Lung Run focused on climate action as a way to also improve air quality in the Balkans and fight the same enemy, the fossil fuels industry.

Since 2016, we have been collecting data to prove that coal-related air pollution impacts people’s health. From 2018 the Western Balkans coal power plants have caused 19 000 deaths, 12 000 of which were due to the breaches in the legal air pollution limits. Unlimited amounts of pollution spread uncontrollably through the continent, crossing borders and harming people.

We have all the data we need and we know who’s to blame. Coal is the main source of emissions of pollutants into the air right now and also the main source of greenhouse gasses that are damaging our climate. In order to keep climate change within acceptable limits, we have to phase-out coal before the year 2030. The science is clear on this, it is possible and it is achievable.

The Lung Run provides a perfect platform for people from different backgrounds to amplify this imperative to phase out coal use by 2030 to avert climate emergency and to ensure breathable air for future generations, while urging decision makers at the 2021 UN Climate Conference in Glasgow (COP 26) to take action aimed at saving lives and the environment.

More than 40 people joined our call to run or walk this symbolic distance of 20.30 kilometres at this year’s virtual edition of the Lung Run and shared photos and messages supporting our cause. People from all over Europe took part – from Glasgow, in the midst of the conference, to the coal regions in the choking Balkans and Ukraine. The total distance covered by participants was enough to get from Glasgow to Brussels and deliver one clear and simple message to the EU – there cannot be a pollution-free Europe without a coal-free Europe.

We are running out of time, and we need action now.

Bulgarian recovery plan improves after six-month impasse

More funds for biodiversity

The new plan includes an increased budget for biodiversity-related measures, from EUR 16 million to almost EUR 46 million. Although it is a step in the right direction, this still leaves biodiversity measures with less than 1 per cent of the total budget.

The biodiversity measure (Project NH5) added in the process of consultations focuses on forest and freshwater ecosystems, improving connectivity within and between Natura 2000 sites, and habitat restoration in line with the EU’s Biodiversity Strategy 2030 objectives.

Activities will include mapping of non-state old-growth forests, a transformation of pine plantations to deciduous forests, wetland restoration and other projects. Given Bulgaria’s rich biodiversity, about one-third of the country is included in the Natura 2000 network. Yet the oversight of Natura 2000 sites is far behind other countries, and a lot must be done to implement the EU’s nature conservation directives.

Improvements in the plan

The rehabilitation of the old, state-owned irrigation systems project, which lacked Natura 2000 impact assessments, was dropped from the last version of the plan. Instead, as part of a larger agricultural fund, the plan includes funding opportunities for wastewater treatment facilities, including treatment and recycling systems; automation of separate stages of production processes (including irrigation); and measuring devices for hydro melioration facilities.

In addition, the Minister of Environment and Waters rejected his predecessor’s decision not to subject the plan to a Strategic Environmental Assessment. The assessment is currently ongoing and can hopefully improve the quality of implemented projects.

The next challenge facing biodiversity is to guarantee that climate-related measures are indeed biodiversity-proof. For example, the renewable energy measures included in the plan must avoid bird migratory routes or valuable grasslands to really ‘do no significant harm’.

Improvements also can be found in the energy sector proposals. After several meetings with civil society representatives, the government adopted one of their most important proposals: the establishment of a commission tasked to come up with a plan for phasing out coal. This should allow to plan a clear energy transition.

Problematic measures

However, these successes should not hide the problematic measures that remain in the plan and hamper the necessary transformation towards a carbon free energy system. Indeed, the recovery plan has no general, unifying idea of moving to a low-carbon economy, but rather looks like a selection of individual projects with no connection between them.

Some elements of the plan do not meet the philosophy of energy transition and just transition. This is visible in the proposal to replace one gigawatt of coal with gas, an expensive and temporary measure that will not have a sustainable effect.

Furthermore, the Bulgarian authorities are planning to fund the costly construction of hydrogen transmission infrastructure and a pilot project for green hydrogen production, benefiting the two largest Bulgarian energy companies. Even though hydrogen has a future, there are more urgent needs that the recovery plan should address, for the benefit of citizens. The plan lacks projects that would decentralise energy generation, while at the same time supporting individual households to produce electricity from renewable sources.

With its assessment underway, the Commission should reject the measures and reforms which oppose the pathway to a climate-friendly future. The recovery money should be used for measures focused on the future, not business-as-usual and unsustainable projects. Still, the Bulgarian recovery plan shows that by opening the process to public consultations, harmful measures can be removed and new ones supporting nature can be included.

Radio silence on gas allegations: European Commission breaks another deadline to respond to Bankwatch’s complaint

The EU Ombudsman’s office is currently looking into a complaint by Bankwatch against the Commission’s omissions concerning the climate assessment of 12 gas pipeline projects in the Western Balkan and Caucasus countries. The Ombudsman’s findings, if delivered on time, could have significant implications for the way such projects are selected.

But the Commission hasn’t delivered its response yet to the Ombudsman’s inquiry. Neither has the Commission provided any explanation for delays on its end despite the Ombudsman already having granted three extensions to the Commission for its response. Normally it should take less than 3 months for an EU institution to provide a response according to the Ombudsman’s rules that govern the inquiry process. Already in this process, it has taken twice as long.

These gas pipelines, so-called Projects of Energy Community Interest (PECI) and Projects of Mutual Interest (PMI), have been selected by the Energy Community Ministerial Council as the key energy projects in the region under the Energy Community Treaty. Project proponents can profit from EU financial support and fast permitting procedures.

The key problem with the project assessment was that it assumed all gas projects would reduce CO2 emissions and not increase them. The idea was that gas would replace coal and that demand would not increase, so it would not cause additional emissions compared to today. These assessments overlooked the very likely scenario where gas would actually end up displacing other energy sources like renewable electricity or wood in some regions.

Gas is a fossil fuel that needs to be stopped burning if we are to stay below 1.5 degrees climate change. Last week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) reported that we need to stop building fossil gas infastructure globally if we are to stay on course for a 1.5 pathway. This is the second report from the IEA in less than 6 months that underlines the same pathway for fossil gas. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN body that should inform decision-makers, in its AR6 report, published before the summer, states that the climate change is widespread, rapid, and intensifying. Their findings show that unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5°C or even 2°C will be beyond reach.

Therefore it doesn’t make sense to invest in the build-up of gas infrastructure in the Western Balkans now, especially as some of the countries are not even connected to international gas corridors.

According to Bankwatch estimates, these projects would jointly cost more than 2 billion euros. The costs of their construction and operation would fall on taxpayers through subsidies and consumers through their energy bills.

Furthermore, financing invested into fossil gas projects is money that is crowding out renewables financing.

Europe is at a crucial moment in discussions about new gas pipelines and liquefied gas terminals in Europe. As well as the energy price crisis, there are two ongoing processes right now: revision of the TEN-E regulation that entered the trialogues phase and is expected to be finished by the beginning of next year and the adoption of the new Projects of Common Interest (PCI) list for energy infrastructure that is expected to arrive in late November.

If this inquiry continues at a similar tempo we can expect the Ombudsman decision at the earliest next year – too late to influence these processes.

However, there is also some good news from the Energy Community. Following on our complaint, the Energy Community Secretariat proposed to the Commission to postpone the new PECI and PMI gas list until the revised TEN-E is adopted in the Energy Community. This corresponds with one of the requests from our complaint. This proposal is on the agenda for the next Energy Community Ministerial Council, to be held on 25 November.

« Previous Page