Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Blog entry

Blog entry

Any increase in renewable energy targets must exclude environmentally destructive projects

Last week, Bankwatch responded to the European Commission’s public roadmap consultation on the Renewable Energy Directive (RED II), aimed at assessing how EU renewable energy rules can contribute to higher EU climate ambition. We highlighted the need to raise the level of ambition of the Directive’s targets and sub-targets. However, we emphasised that this must also include the strengthening of its sustainability criteria.

Renewable energy will need to play a crucial role if the EU is to achieve its key target to reduce GHG emissions by 55% by 2030. Yet so far, hydropower and biomass have made up a significant proportion of renewables in the EU and accession countries, despite the serious environmental damage they entail.

Bankwatch has documented the harmful impacts of hydropower projects – small and large – on both people and the environment. Within the EU, no fewer than 60% of rivers have failed to reach good health, among others as a result of hydropower construction. In recent years, their trail of destruction has been particularly felt in biodiversity-rich southeast Europe, where nearly a third of all hydropower projects planned or built since 2005 are in protected areas or internationally recognised areas of high biodiversity value. 

This overdevelopment of small hydropower projects has been driven by disproportionate support from feed-in tariffs – a form of subsidies that are no longer allowed in the EU except for the smallest projects. In 2018, 70% of renewable energy incentives in the Western Balkans benefitted small hydropower. This is despite small hydropower only generating 3.6% of total electricity.

In the EU, hydropower can in theory only be subsidised if it is in line with the Water Framework Directive. 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. 

As a result, Bankwatch is calling for tighter conditions, allowing hydropower to be counted as renewable energy only in countries which have complied with the Water Framework Directive and ensured their rivers are in good health – at least for the river basin in question. 

Compliance with the Habitats Directive to prevent damage to protected areas and species also needs to be a condition for labelling energy projects as renewable – and not only be on the project level: no potentially damaging projects in Natura 2000 areas should be counted as renewable energy in any Member State failing to implement the Habitats Directive correctly. This would both prevent unsustainable renewable projects and incentivise better application of the Habitats Directive.

Unfortunately, biomass is no better than hydropower, and brings additional issues regarding carbon emissions. Energy production from forest biomass leads to both CO2 emissions during combustion and reduces the capacity for carbon capture and storage by forests. Yet it is not clear that current EU sustainability criteria take account of this. 

In a previous analysis of the National Energy and Climate Plans (NECPs) , Bankwatch found that central and eastern European (CEE) countries plan logging and the use of biomass far above sustainable levels. Estonia, for example, cuts down 30% more forests than grow back for biomass use, and in Slovakia, logging grew by at least 75% from 1990 to 2015, leading to a 6% loss of forest cover. 

These concerns were conveyed in our response to the Commission’s roadmap consultation on the Directive. We highlighted that increasing the level of renewable energy will only be part of the solution, and to be truly effective, stricter provisions need to ensure the sustainability of renewable energy projects. 

We welcomed the Biodiversity Strategy 2030 released in May this year, which introduced stricter enforcement mechanisms for protecting sustainability. The revised Renewable Energy Directive needs to follow this positive direction. It has the potential to really drive forward renewable energy and act as a catalyst for achieving GHG emission targets. But it must ensure that increasing the EU’s ambitions for renewable energy does not exacerbate environmental and social destruction. 

The (Un)Just Transition Fund: the European Parliament shows how green it really is

On Wednesday, 16 September, MEPs cast a final vote on the Just Transition Fund (JTF) to establish Parliament’s final position for negotiations with the European Council. First proposed in January this year, the JTF is designed to mitigate the social impacts of those in coal regions most affected by the transition from fossil fuels to clean, sustainable energy sources.

The JTF’s legislative journey has been far from smooth. The Fund’s amount has been revised three times, from EUR 7.5bn, to 40bn and now 17.5bn. In July, the Committee on Regional Development-first responsible for this file, voted in favour of reintroducing gas to the list of possible investments that can be supported by the Fund. Unfortunately, last Wednesday the Parliament followed suit and voted for the JTF not to fully exclude fossil fuels from the scope of the Fund. This comes less than a year after the same Parliament gave its full support to the climate objectives outlined by the Commission’s European Green Deal. 

In a further sense of bitter irony, Commission President Ursula Von de Leyen announced the very same day the decision to increase the European target for GHG emissions reductions to 55% by 2030 (a proposal that was initially put forward by Parliament, who wanted the Commission to increase the target from 50% to 55%).

But how ‘just’ can this Fund still be, given that public money may now be used to support the fossil fuel industry – those responsible for creating the need for a just transition in the first place? Can it still be deemed ‘just’ if these much needed funds are diverted away from those citizens who require the most support for dealing with the economic and social burden of the transition? 

Bankwatch published our position outlining the lack of safeguards in the JTF in March this year, where we highlighted that fossil fuels, in particular natural gas, will have a nonexistent role in energy production after 2035. This was further reiterated during Bankwatch’s submission to the JTF public consultation, where we noted that in less than 15 years, natural gas will become a stranded asset in energy production if the objectives of the Paris Agreement are respected. These concerns have been validated by a  CAN Europe report, which revealed that more than 10% of the Fund will go to the four countries that plan to phase out coal by 2030 via a significant increase in fossil gas use. 

A truly ‘Just’ Transition Fund would instead focus on investing entirely in sustainable technologies that also create long-lasting jobs, something that will be severely hindered by Parliament’s latest decision. 

Looking ahead, this now sets a precarious course for ongoing negotiations on the next EU long term 2021-2027 budget and recovery measures, especially given an unprecedented 30% of this will now be allocated to climate related spending. In particular, the Recovery and Resilience Facility and Cohesion policy regulations which are worth EUR 900 billion will also see heated debate over excluding fossil fuels from their supported activities. The spotlight will now turn to whether Parliament will repeat the same mistake again.

Regardless of the outcome of these negotiations, Parliament now finds itself in the awkward position of being the least green EU institution, and risks being held responsible for failing to deliver on the Green New Deal objectives and the Paris agreement that it vowed to support. 

Georgia’s precious Khada Valley at risk due to a new road to Russia

‘This is not only the struggle of the locals. If we lose the Khada Valley, the entire country will lose it. So we hope that everyone will bond to save the historic heritage and wealthy biodiversity of Khada,’ said Giga Chokheli, a local of Georgia’s Khada Valley. Khada is known among Georgians and foreigners for many reasons: it is among tourists’ favorite hiking destinations, with breathtaking mountainous landscapes, and its precious cultural legacy is unique. 

This valley will be bulldozed to build the Kvesheti Kobi road to Russia. An EUR 558 million project envisages digging five tunnels and building six bridges in a tiny valley. Two international financial institutions, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), have already allocated loans to support this initiative. 

But some members of the local community, scientists and human rights activists refuse to let the road be built. Campaigners said that they are particularly concerned because the project has violated some of the international banks’ standards. 

They have started a petition to protect the valley, as the project threatens traditional forms of livelihood, unique biodiversity (some species in the valley are on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species), a number of cultural monuments and unique towers that date back to the tenth and eleventh centuries, unexplored archaeological treasures that confirm traces of life from the Eneolithic period, and tourism opportunities. 

The petition addresses the Government of Georgia, the EBRD and the ADB. It calls on the project promoters to choose an alternative route for the new road that does not go  through Khada because of the valley’s special value. Campaigners also request that the government establish a Protected Landscape (IUCN category V) in the Khada Valley (see all requests here).

‘Khada Valley has an amazing…diversity of cultural heritage monuments in a small area. This clearly confirms how unique the valley is and, to be fully discovered, it needs thorough scientific explorations. Some of the patterns here are unique, including the three monuments of national importance that date back to the IX-X centuries… All together, they form a cultural phenomenon that embraces considerable scientific, educational and touristic potential and its importance goes beyond local. We consider it inadmissible to have the highway in the valley. An alternative route should be selected,’ said Manana Suramelashvili, an art and cultural heritage expert who is one of the authors of the petition.

‘The project’s ESIA [Environmental and Social Impact Assessment] Report and other mandatory documentation related to the project do not comply with the EBRD’s 2014 Environmental and Social Policy and the ADB’s 2009 Safeguard Policy,’ reads a new report about the potential socio-economic and gender impact of the Kvesheti-Kobi road on the local population, produced by Green Alternative, a Bankwatch member organisation in Georgia. 

According to the report, the project does not comply with the EBRD’s standards for the following performance requirements: assessment and management of environmental and social impacts and issues, land acquisition, involuntary resettlement and economic displacement, cultural heritage, and information disclosure and stakeholder engagement. 

‘The project will go through a critical habitat, as defined by the ADB’s policy.It will endanger physical cultural resources as well as fail to bring poverty alleviation and benefits to the region’s inhabitants,’ states Green Alternative’s assessment. 

The petition was launched after recent controversial developments in the valley. Despite one year of struggle, the locals’ protests and highly critical reactions from cultural, environmental and human rights defenders about the project’s impact, the preliminary construction still began.   

The very first steps of those works already threatened a historic monument and violated Georgian law: the preliminary construction took place only 70 metres from a significant historic monument in Mtiuleti, the Nagvarevi church. According to Georgian law, construction must take place at least 300 metres away from any significant historical or cultural site. 

In addition to this, archaeologists said, the construction of a secondary road for the Kvesheti-Kobi project posed serious risks to archeologically important yet unstudied spots in the village of Zakatkari. Only after the public outrage in response to these activities did the National Agency for Cultural Heritage Preservation in Georgia say that the activities were illegal. None of the project’s international funders have made any public comment about the violations. 

‘The Naghvarevi and Zakatkari cases are the first examples of the kinds of dangers this project could bring,’ said Manana Kochladze, founder of Green Alternative. ‘The development of the Kvesheti-Kobi project began without properly exploring the area. The social and environmental impacts of the road project are practically unstudied, and the construction is more dangerous than stated in official project documents. Unfortunately, in Georgia, the participation of international financial institutions in a project does not necessarily guarantee that the project will be developed according to international standards.’ 

‘For one year we used all official methods to save the valley. As a result, instead of listening to our concerns, the government kicked off the construction,’ said Giga Chokheli from Khada, who is one of the complainants who filed a lawsuit alongside Green Alternative against the Georgian government. The lawsuit requests that the government revoke the permission for the preliminary construction of the Kvesheti-Kobi road project obtained by the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture. Other attempts to save Khada also included letters to the ADB and EBRD, who the local population particularly relied on due to their international standards. However, their expectations were not quite fulfilled: 

‘Instead of the support of international financial institutions, the response I got at one of the meetings from a representative of the Asian Development Bank was the following: “Do you really believe that project is being done for Khada?!”’ Chokheli recalled. He added:

‘The project ignores the needs of villagers and intends to sacrifice the entire Khada Valley, which we will not allow.’

Sign the petition here. 

The never ending saga of the Nenskra HPP

Last year, 96,000 European Union citizens united in solidarity with the Svans, an indigenous people in Georgia, in their fight against the Nenskra Dam. The thousands of supporters who signed the petition to #StopNenskra called on the presidents of the European Investment Bank (EIB) and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) not to sign the loan contract for the Nenskra hydropower plant (HPP) because it threatened biodiversity, did not comply with legislation, and violated human rights. The international petition was one of many actions taken during years of struggle against Georgia’s billion-dollar dam.

Solidarity proved to be effective. Recently, the accountability mechanisms of the EBRD and EIB published the conclusions of their two year investigation of the Nenskra project. They concluded that Nenskra is non-compliant with the banks’ own standards on indigenous peoples’ rights, the protection of cultural heritage, gender issues, the assessment and management of environmental and social impacts, information disclosure and engagement of local communities and other stakeholders. These issues have been at the core of local communities’ and activists’ struggle for the last few years. 

In Georgia, large hydropower plants are considered the fastest way to achieve energy independence. Surprisingly, international financial institutions, such as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), EBRD, EIB, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and others, continue to support this idea, disregarding the fact that the country has no energy strategy which would support such investments.

The beginning 

The story of Nenskra starts on the morning of 23 April 2012, when Chuberi villagers unexpectedly saw Georgia’s then-president Mikehil Saakashvili holding the opening ceremony for the Nenskra HPP construction. Locals had never heard of the project before. Since then, the ghost of the unborn Nenskra HPP has created confusion and irritation among the villagers, and its potential benefits remain blurry. 

The Nenskra HPP project is a 280 MW reservoir-type hydropower plant, located in the Nenskra and Nakra valleys of Svaneti. The project costs were estimated at up to USD one billion in 2018, and the AIIB, EBRD, EIB and ADB planned to finance it, along with a number of export credit agencies, including Korea Development Bank. The project sponsor, JSC Nenskra Hydro, is majority share-owned by Korea Water Resources Corporation and the Georgian state-owned JSC Partnership Fund.

Svaneti is a region inhabited by the Svans, a Georgian ethnic group that leads a unique, self-sufficient lifestyle and has its own distinct cultural and religious tradition. The Svans already experienced the devastating impact of the Enguri Dam, which was constructed in the Soviet period. Since 1979, Svaneti has been home to a resistance movement against Khudoni Dam, which, if built, will flood the village of Khaishi, just next to Chuberi. The movement’s first victory was the 1989 decision of Georgia’s Soviet government to stop construction on Khudoni. However, different Khudoni projects have been popping up with frightening regularity, and the people continue to fight against them. In 2020, the government of Georgia and investor Transelectrica LTD  are working to terminate the most recent attempt to build the project, based on a contract from 2009. According to the plans, the Khudoni HPP should have begun generating electricity by 2017. 

A troubled dam

The Nenskra project, which received environmental and construction clearance from the Georgian government in 2015, fails to recognise the cultural and property rights of Svans or to properly identify the impacts of the proposed hydropower plant on their livelihood. The poor quality assessment of the Nenskra project, together with the  promoters’ neglect of the locals’ opinion, have only aggravated the fading public acceptance of Nenskra.

The approved project does not comply with the aforementioned banks’ environmental and social safeguards. Therefore, in 2016 and 2017 the project promoter was forced to redesign the type and height of the plant, as well as the locations and design of weirs, among other elements of the project, to ensure the safety of the dam for local communities and the environment. 

The first sign that the Nenskra HPP saga would continue was when the EBRD and EIB approved the project’s financing in early 2018. In January 2018, the EBRD approved a senior secured loan of USD 214 million and a USD 15 million equity investment for the Nenskra project, and in February 2018 the EIB approved USD 150 million; however, the loans have not been signed yet.

Lalkhor – the community’s unprecedented response

In March 2018, the Svan communities responded with an unprecedented move: they organised a Svan council meeting known as the Lalkhor and published a joint declaration underlining that the Svans ‘represent ancient, indigenous, aboriginal, autochthonic people with priority advantage and all around legitimate entitlements and authority over the territory of Svaneti’. They also stated that the  ‘protection of … nature is one of [their] supreme duties,’ and that they ‘unconditionally and eventually forbid construction of hydro power plants, gold mining and any other activities that harms nature, livelihood, material and non-material cultural heritage in the entire Svaneti! From now on hydro power plants in Svaneti will not be constructed including: Khudoni HPP, Nenskra HPP, Mestiachala HPP and other more than 50 HPPs planned in Svaneti!’

A few weeks later, the ADB’s Compliance Review Panel (CRP), in response to a complaint made by Chuberi and Nakra villagers, found prima facie evidence of noncompliance on a number of issues, including an insufficient assessment of project alternatives, noise and vibration impacts during construction and operations, health and security risks for the local population, and the absence of an assessment of environmental impacts of associated facilities. The CRP requested further investigation. 

Instead of a full investigation, the ADB Board of Directors requested that the ADB’s management prepare a management response action plan to address all instances of non-compliance and the concerns identified in the eligibility report. This was considered the most cost effective alternative. 

However, Salini Impregilo, the project’s main construction contractor, left the project without explanation shortly afterwards. The promoters were required to hire a new contractor, and due to the change in technical expertise, the project was likely to see critical changes to the contractual structure underlying it. This was also likely to create significant cost overruns. Thus, ADB management placed the preparation of the Management Action Plan on hold until a new contractor could be found. 

In January 2019, the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture of Georgia reapproved the environmental impact decision from 2015 based on new ESIA documentation. The new ESIA was approved in violation of the Georgian Environmental Assessment Code, without any public consultation, despite the fact that almost all of the project’s details had been changed. In addition, after devastating floods on 5 July 2018, the natural and social environment of the whole project area, including Chuberi, was changed, which the Ministry did not consider during the decision-making process. Angry locals appealed to the National Court for the annulment of the decision shortly after.

In parallel, villagers patiently waited for the outcomes of complaints submitted to the EBRD’s Project Complaint Mechanism (PCM) and EIB’s Compliance Mechanism (CM) in June 2018, together with Green Alternative and Bankwatch. Only in late summer 2020 were villagers informed that both mechanisms had recognised that the project does not comply with the international banks’ standards in the vital fields of human rights and environmental protection. 

What the international banks say now

Both institutions had previously claimed that the Svans are not an indigenous people, as they don’t fulfill all of the banks’ criteria for recognition as indigenous peoples. The EIB refused to disclose the documents justifying its position, claiming that it would heavily impact the ‘current geopolitical situation in Georgia and the sensitivity within the political debate of the status of the Svan population’, which ‘would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations, as covered by article 5.4.a of the EIB-TP.’

The complaint mechanisms of both the EIB and EBRD found that the banks’ policies regarding indigenous peoples’ criteria were violated. According to the indigenous peoples expert consulted by the PCM and CM, the good international practice is to ‘consult a self-proclaimed indigenous community concerning the application of any eligibility criteria that will be used in the determination of whether the group constitutes an indigenous people. Such consultation would be part of project due diligence, and will demonstrate good faith in the question of determining whether the eligibility conditions are met’. 

Other instances of noncompliance include the protection of cultural heritage, addressing gender challenges, the assessment and management of environmental and social impacts, labour influx, information disclosure, and engagement of local communities and other stakeholders. The PCM found that the project is incompatible with five out of ten of the EBRD’s social and environmental performance review requirements. 

The findings regarding indigenous peoples and negligence of project alternatives, which should be core elements of any Environmental Impact Assessment but were absent in the case of Nenskra, were underlined in both redress mechanism reports. The reports make clear that Nenskra still has a long way to go until it can be transformed into a project that is acceptable for Svans and that offers a sustainable solution to the country’s energy challenges (if such a project is possible at all). 

Independent from the costs associated with resolving the Svans’ complaint, the costs of the Nenskra HPP are expected to increase, due to other problems the project has experienced. These include the year-and-a-half-long search for a new major construction partner for the project.

In December 2019, South Korean media reports celebrated the fact that Hyundai Engineering & Construction (Hyundai E&C) and Limak won a USD 737 million tender to realize the Nenskra project.  However, the news was never confirmed. This announcement is also concerning due to the fact that Hyundai E&C and Limak have been connected with a series of financial and corruption scandals.

In addition, the Bern Convention Standing Committee in its April 2020 meeting reexamined a complaint made about the possible threat posed by the Nenskra HPP to Svaneti 1 as a Candidate Emerald Site. In their decision, the Committee noted ‘the concerns of the complainant on the reduced scale and scope of the proposed Emerald Network sites, which exclude areas where hydropower plants are planned to be constructed, the lack of protection of large rivers and the lack of strategic planning for hydropower development in Georgia’. It also ‘invited the authorities to envisage a national plan for the protection of water courses to avoid the situation replicating in other Emerald Network sites’.

While the governments of Georgia and Korea, as well as the management of the EBRD and EIB, attempt to convince Georgian and EU citizens that the Nenskra project will be done in the near future, the prospect of the fast, non-problematic construction of the Nenskra HPP dwindles. Meanwhile, the belief that Nenskra will be the energy security cornerstone for Georgia’s economic development has been questioned by both the IMF and the World Bank.

The EBRD, EIB, ADB and AIIB should not consider financing the Nenskra HPP, given all of the problems mentioned and its long standing bad reputation. In order to support Georgia’s energy security, they should instead finance more feasible and less harmful projects that benefit the communities and citizens of Georgia. 

EIB’s lack of public disclosure on the Svans challenged by Ombudsman

In its recent opinion on a case brought by Bankwatch, the European Ombudsman criticized the European Investment Bank (EIB) for not disclosing the expert opinion that Bankwatch requested. The Ombudsman found that the EIB’s reasons for withholding the report were unfounded. We welcome this opinion of the European Ombudsman, who has again stood on the side of citizens’ right to know about the EU institution’s activities

It was at a meeting with Bankwatch and Svan community representatives in early 2018 when the EIB’s staff explained that the Bank had an independent opinion confirming that the Svans did not qualify as indigenous peoples under the Bank’s standards.

Svans are an ethnic group in Georgia, constituting approximately one per cent of the Georgian population, with their own distinct cultural and religious traditions, as well as a unique language and law. They live in high mountains, in a region called Svaneti. 

Now, the region is facing a massive programme of hydropower development, including five large reservoir and dam projects. The EIB agreed to finance the largest of them, the Nenskra hydropower plant, which is expected to significantly impact the life of people in Upper Svaneti. These developments seriously threaten the Svans’ culture and traditions, and the livelihood of many.

When we questioned the EIB’s decision not to trigger a policy provision that would protect the Svans and requested disclosure of the expert analysis on which the Bank’s decision was based, we first received a document for the purpose of disclosure which was not an expert assessment but the EIB’s own conclusion. Then, when we insisted that the Bank disclose the real document and complained to its Complaints Mechanism, the Bank began claiming that the document’s disclosure would seriously undermine its decision-making process and would undermine the protection of the public interest as regards international relations.

However, the European Ombudsman found that the requested document largely contained information of a historical, geographical or anthropological nature which was not likely to harm the EIB’s decision-making process, international relations or the privacy and integrity of the author of the report. It proposed that the EIB disclose these data.

It is indeed incomprehensible why the Bank tried to hide a document which turned out to include a brief history of the Svans, information on their language and answers to some questions from the lenders’ guidelines (Asian Development Bank, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and EIB) on indigenous peoples. It also turned out that the document was not drafted by an independent expert as claimed by the EIB during the meeting, but by the project promoter’s expert. 

The EIB did not want to reveal that its decision not to properly protect the Svans against the negative impacts of this megaproject was based on political grounds and had nothing to do with an objective, prudent assessment or a precautionary approach – both of which are widely expected from the EU institution.  

Give women a voice to build better cities

Just look at the traffic signs in many parts of the world! More often than not, traffic signs show men: men crossing the road, male pedestrians to watch out for, and men doing construction work. You would think the world has only one gender. Traffic signs may not seem like a serious gender equality issue, but they undoubtedly create unconscious bias and reflect the way our infrastructure has been built – by men, for men.  

Building sustainable cities means providing opportunities for all. This is impossible without considering the gender implications of urban infrastructure. The UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) include both sustainable cities (SDG 11) and gender equality (SDG 5). These should go hand in hand in order to meaningfully contribute to sustainable development. 

So, what are the main issues women face with regard to city infrastructure? 

Let’s start with transportation, the ‘circulatory system’ of any city or settlement. Women need to have equal mobility in order to have equal access to educational opportunities and economic participation outside of the home. Unfortunately, women often face long commutes to work or school, which is likely to keep them at home and prevent them from taking an active part in society. There is a negative correlation between commuting time and women’s labour participation. 

According to research conducted by Stanford University, U.S. women across all racial and ethnic groups use public transport more often than men. Therefore, in order to ensure women can commute safely, comfortably and affordably, it is crucial to ensure that public transport is accessible for women. 

Zero-carbon public transport is important not only because it facilitates gender equality, but also because it is the most environmentally and socially sustainable solution for mobility within cities. However, one of the biggest challenges for women using public transport is security. 28% of women who use public transport in London, 45% of women in Tbilisi, Georgia, and around 60% of those in Latin America reported verbal or physical harassment in public transport. Thus, in order to ensure women can access this inexpensive and environmentally-friendly urban service, cities have to make sure public transport is safe for women. 

Another big infrastructure issue for women is water and hygiene. Women are more likely than men to suffer from the lack of clean water and sanitation facilities. Lack of sanitation can discourage women from engaging in economic activity outside the home due to menstruation and related social stigma. However, these and household related reasons also mean that women more often take responsibility for providing water for their family. For example, women in developing countries are proactively involved in building connections to clean water in their households and cities.

Women’s voices are crucial in designing sustainable solutions for cities that protect our environment and communities, and increase the quality of life. In Nordic countries, accessibility and inclusivity of infrastructure is a key part of urban planning. Renewable energy sources are no longer a luxury, but a standard. Unsurprisingly, these cities and countries have the highest number of women in policy making and leadership positions. 

However, the picture is not as bright in the rest of the world. According to the Global Gender Gap Report 2020, only one in five ministers globally are women. This proportion is the same in infrastructure ministries, where one in five employees are women. 

If we want women’s voices to shape sustainable infrastructure, we should have more women in decision-making roles, especially in infrastructure. The cities of Vienna and Barcelona are good examples. Vienna now hires more women architects and city planners than it did in the past. They have increased security by adding more city lights, and encouraged girls to use parks by introducing special sport facilities for girls, and designing park spaces to make girls feel more comfortable using them. Barcelona, led by a female mayor, radically increased safety in recent years by improving lighting and effectively combating street harassment.  

In addition to more female policy makers and decision makers, we also need more women represented in infrastructure, architecture and urban design. This requires removing gender stereotypes and unconscious gender biases that prevent women from entering and succeeding in these fields. 

Women should have a voice as public service users and citizens as well. Women and gender organisations need to be consulted in designing and implementing sustainable solutions, as their experiences and views can inform a practical and user-friendly urban infrastructure and services. 20th century cities were accessible primarily for adult, able-bodied males, but the city in the 21st century should be accessible for all!

Bankwatch’s new set of infographics in four languages shows how sustainable, inclusive city infrastructure can be designed. We suggest greater participation of all community groups, including women, in shaping their shared space.