Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Blog entry

Blog entry

Balkan governments unprepared for new EU pollution rules

The new LCP BREF standards might not have the snappiest name, but they could bring substantial relief for people in places like Bitola (Macedonia), Tuzla (Bosnia-Herzegovina) and Pljevlja (Montenegro) who have for years been suffering from suffocating air pollution caused partly by neighbouring coal power plants.

The new standards, adopted by EU member states in late April, include tighter pollution limits for nitrous oxides, sulphur dioxide and dust, and a new standard on mercury emissions. They oblige large plants to use the best available techniques to reduce pollution. These measures cannot reduce coal’s significant CO2 emissions and its contribution to climate change, but they will lead to significant reductions in other pollutants and have a positive effect on air quality across Europe.

Since most of the Western Balkans countries have legislation which refers explicitly to EU standards for the best available techniques, from now on, permits for new power plants must be based on the LCP BREF. When permits for existing plants are renewed they need to follow the new standards as well.

Yet most of the region’s governments are not addressing this issue, in spite of numerous warnings by Bankwatch and others. None of them have required planned new power plants in the region to comply with the new rules, even though the new LCP BREF has been under development for several years.

In our recent analysis, we found that almost none of the planned new power plants in the Western Balkans would meet the new LCP BREF standards. Of the eight coal-fired units we examined, planned in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, and Serbia, five would certainly not meet the new standards, while sufficient information is still not publicly available for the remaining three.

Yet none of the governments in the region is insisting on applying the new standards, even in the countries nearest to EU accession. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) study for the Pljevlja II plant in Montenegro shows that the plant would comply only with the 2010 EU standards from Annex V of the Industrial Emissions Directive, which are now out of date. Yet, the Montenegrin government completely disregarded warnings on this issue submitted in 2016 as part of official comments in the process by NGOs Green Home and MANS.

Montenegro’s electricity utility Elektroprivreda Crne Gore, for example, called the analysis we released in June “critical and incorrect” (PDF, p.11), stating that “The construction of Unit II will be in line with guaranteed conditions and EU standards for the relevant coal combustion technology. It should be mentioned that it is the obligation of the contractor to apply modern and the best available technology (BAT), including all activities for cleaning waste gases in line with the defined EU Directives, even in the case that more rigorous international ecological standards appear”.

This all sounds nice but if the plant’s environmental impact assessment and feasibility study don’t even mention these more rigorous new standards it is hard to imagine them really being implemented – and if they are, they will most likely tip the project even further into economic unfeasibility.

Meanwhile, in the ongoing EIA process for the 350 MW Kostolac B3 plant in Serbia, the study authors take the attitude that any changes that need to be made to the plant to comply with the new standards can be done later, once the new plant is built. Adding such costs at an undefined later date is an extremely risky strategy for the plant’s already shaky feasibility.

And the likelihood of such investments really being made seems very low, if we examine the current foot-dragging across the region as the 2018 deadline approaches for compliance with the Large Combustion Plants Directive under the Energy Community Treaty. The governments have known about the deadline since 2005 when they signed the Treaty, yet very little has been done to bring existing plants into line with the standards.

Based on this experience, the construction of new plants that are not even in line with the latest standards has to be avoided at all costs. If the region’s governments will not ensure this themselves, it is up to us as civil society to make them do so.

Bulgarian government wants to limit civil rights for the sake of EU funding

The Bulgarian government is currently trying to rush through legislation that would restrict the rights of civil society to challenge certain infrastructure projects. The move is intended to ensure that Bulgaria receives EU funding for the environmentally harmful Struma motorway project.

Bulgaria’s ruling party proposed legislation that will restrict the possibilities for citizens to appeal governmental decisions on so-called “strategic projects”.

If adopted, the legislation would allow the government to limit the role of the judiciary in case of an appeal on environmental matters. It envisages an increase in legal fees for filing an appeal proportional to the size of the investment. Courts are furthermore asked to move more quickly and provide their ruling within 6 months. The government will be able to speed up the environmental permitting procedure for the projects it can choose arbitrarily. A second appeal against a court’s ruling will not be possible anymore.

In a letter from July 21 to Jyrki Katainen, European Commission Vice-President for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness the Bulgarian environmental community called on the European Commission to prevent such a deterioration of civil rights in Bulgaria.

Civil society organisations believe that the law changes are motivated by Bulgaria’s urgent need to absorb EU Cohesion Funds. An environmental permit is a prerequisite for projects to receive the funding. For Bulgaria’s biggest transport project, the Struma motorway, this is a vital financing source. But the project is still under preparation and with only three and a half years before the end of the current EU budget period, Bulgaria risks losing EUR 800 million if the motorway is not completed in time.

The delay is caused by the authorities’ unwillingness to construct the motorway outside the Kresna gorge, a biodiversity hotspot and NATURA 2000 site. The environmental permit from 2008 for the Struma motorway considers the bypass of the gorge feasible and the best option for the local population and for the nature. In 2013, the European Union committed to provided funding for this option specifically. However, pressured by the construction companies building the motorway, the government is already for few years looking for a way to route the motorway through the gorge.

For this to become possible, a new environmental permit is needed, quickly. The process for a new permit are supposed to start already in August. The new law would make it easier for the government to dismiss criticism from civil society against a routing through the Kresna gorge.

Civil society organisations are campaigning for the motorway to bypass the gorge for two decades already. In a complaint filed with the European Commission on July 12, they made clear that the government’s plans would be a violation of EU law.

Instead of making an effort to improve the project preparation process and to comply with EU legislation on biodiversity protection, the Bulgarian government is now stubbornly trying to limit inconvenient civil engagement altogether. The measures proposed would greatly limit the effectiveness, independence and quality of the judicial system and violate the constitutional right to live in a healthy environment.

More than 35 non-governmental and civil organisations supported the letter to the European Commission. They call on the Commission to give a clear sign that compliance with EU law is non-negotiable for EU funded projects and to encourage the Bulgarian government to instead strengthen public control and increase the quality of the preparation of important infrastructure projects.

Way off track in Riga – EU funds at risk for controversial tram project

In a relatively small country like Latvia, the general public is used to having its say and being able to influence things in the public realm – our opinion usually means something, and access to decision makers and communication with government officials is commonplace. Latvians, though, are not like the French, revolution is not in our DNA, and protests or strikes happen very rarely in Latvia. All of that said, public tensions have been rising over what should, on the surface, appear to be a non-controversial and publicly beneficial EU funded investment project: a proposed EUR 100 million tram line in the capital Riga.

For the most part, ease of access to decision makers and politicians in Latvia is a great thing. However, the ability of NGOs to input on issues of national importance, including where and how EU funds are spent, is all too often impaired. NGOs often involve themselves in scrutinising the planning documents and strategic decisions which are part of EU funds management, often a time-consuming process requiring expertise. Yet despite the apparent inclusiveness of these consultation processes around the realisation of EU funded projects, too many decisions are still being made behind closed doors.

And the most glaring recent – and ongoing – example of this is Riga City Council’s decision of last year to move forward with the ‘Riga tram infrastructure development’ project, to be routed to the territory of Skanste and a project which is reliant on EU structural funds. In this case civil society voices and contributions have been frozen out, and vested interests may have had reasons for doing so.

The aim of the Riga tram project , which has not yet entered the construction phase, is to introduce a route that would increase the capital’s environmentally friendly public transport rolling stock and generally promote the use of public transport in Riga. The logic is clear on paper: the inhabitants of Riga, via the deployment of EU funds, should be set to enjoy sustainable, low-carbon transport infrastructure, improved mobility and of course cleaner air. It should be a no-brainer if the plan involved building a tram link to the district in Riga where most inhabitants live – this would provide fresh incentive to keep their cars out of the city centre and to hop on the tram instead for their daily commute.

Regrettably, the opposite is true. The majority of inhabitants in Riga with which the 3.6 kilometre proposed tram line will connect are domiciled in Skanste, an area of the city which actually has a very small number of inhabitants – approximately 1,300. By comparison, the district of Purvciems has 60,000 and Plavnieki has 47,000. Indeed, a recent survey on public transport in Riga, conducted by independent experts of the urban/rail public transport civil engineering consulting firm leader ‘Systra’, concluded that Riga’s transport system could be significantly improved by building the tram line to the districts of Plavnieki and Purvciems instead.

To come back to where I started – the development of the tram project has seen a total absence of public involvement and a disappointing lack of transparency and partnership with civil society. The selection of this particular tram line route – over other alternative routes – was never discussed publicly, not even within Riga City Council’s Transport Committee. The justification for the preferred routing to Skanste has been based on a local plan for Skanste which failed to receive a final public hearing and which has no legal status. To the distress of citizens, the preferred alignment of the tram line alongside the territory of a local cemetery has also never been discussed.

Latvian civil society attempts to be involved in how EU funds are allocated have resulted, for this particular project, in requests to the responsible authorities to make the project application public. In response to various NGOs, the City Council of Riga and JSC ‘Rigas Satiksme’, the two project developers, deemed to classify the whole project application as a trade secret. Yes, in our democratic and ‘open society’, this can still happen here in Latvia!

After growing public criticism, parts of the project application were eventually published, but several important parts – for example, the most relevant justification documents providing details of the project’s technical and economic rationale – were still held from public view. Thus, not only has public debate been closed down and neutered during the planning process, but now key elements related to the project have unjustifiably been classified as ‘secret’.

It gets dirtier still. A Latvian transport industry expert, Talis Linkaits, has submitted his concerns about the potential risk of conflict of interest in the project case to the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB,) which is the leading, specialised anti-corruption authority in the country.

Linkaits referred to information provided by public broadcaster LTV that the construction company Merks had sold apartments to high-ranking officials within Riga’s municipality, including Vice Mayor Andris Ameriks, at a price significantly lower than the market price. Linkaits furter noted that the construction company Merks, together with its affiliated companies, is one of very few developers involved in the Skanste district, and a beneficiary of the public works carried out as part of the tram project. Notably, Merks’ parent company Merko Ehitus has also been involved in an anti-corruption investigatory case in Estonia.

In addition to these uncertainties and concerns, it’s become evident that the mayor of Riga City Council, Nils Ušakovs, and other officials are not presenting a fair picture in public and media discussion about the rules which guide EU funded projects – and they are even blaming the European Commission. Ušakovs has claimed that EU funds finance is only available for transport projects serving degraded areas and with a high development potential, thus there is only the Skanste line option available, otherwise Riga will lose the available funding. In fact there is no such stipulation in the Operation Programme, as has been confirmed by Commission representatives in Latvia.

A schematic showing different types of vehicles next to each other and the space needed for each.
The planning for the early stage of the project shows that without sharp widening of Senču Street, it’s not possible to accommodate the various transport zones.

After sending letters to both the European Commission national authorities, and following several meetings organised at the highest level, as well as even placing the project and its questionable value for money in the political spotlight, we have only managed to change the nature of the project a little. But, when it comes to this project, every little change is even a big thing.

For instance, in the initial stages of the project there was a plan for the tram line to cross the Great Cemetery, which was founded in 1773 and was formerly Riga’s principal cemetery. The Great Cemetery is a site of significant cultural and historical heritage in Latvia and the memorial park nowadays also serves as a recreation area. Yet the plan was to widen Senču Street in order to accommodate the tram line, which would have involved destroying parts of the cemetery. According to an assessment made by the activist group ‘Friends of Great Cemetery’, it would have been necessary to destroy historic buildings and many visible and non-visible burial sites and trees, thus making a devastating effect on the entire memorial area. Public campaigning, however, along with several meetings with different authorities, including Latvia’s Minister of Culture, has partly eliminated the risk of damage to the cemetery.

Moreover, when it comes to merging the tram line project in Senču Street so that it doesn’t damage the cemetery, there is no space for pavements and cycle lanes on the road. There was a further public outcry earlier this summer when a plan emerged to cut all the chestnut trees on Pernava Street as well as additional trees around the cemetery territory, which would leave the air of the city in even worse condition. Several flash mobs were organised as well as pickets around the trees to raise more attention. For now, no tree-cutting has taken place.

Latvia’s political parties have also jumped on the tram line project for their election campaigning, many of them actively demonstrating that they are against the project – the exception being the Saskana party, as Riga’s mayor represents this party and supports the project to Skanste.

During the election debate, one candidate Martins Bondars claimed: “Skanste tram line is a waste of money as there are no need to build such expensive infrastructure to a place where there is such a small number of habitants. There is more need for a line to Purvciems, Plavnieki and other parts of Riga where more people located. The Skanste project must be stopped!”

Bondars, however, was not elected as the mayor of Riga, and as there has been no significant change in the make-up of Riga City Council it has to be assumed for now that the project will be implemented as agreed previously. At a meeting in the Latvian parliament which I and my allies organised in order to bring the case to the attention of parliamentarians, one politician Valdis Kalnozols didn’t pull his punches: “This is a real deal! It is clear that it is very fruitful deal for someone, and it is not even someone at Riga Council”.

In this case the only thing the concerned public has been able to do is to make public noise and complain to both national and EU institutions. But the activist group ‘Friends of Great Cemetery’ is not about to give up. They are trying, step by step, to stop this wasteful and unreasonable project and are calling for the tram line to be redirected so that more people will benefit from it. We have to keep in mind too that EU money is citizens’ money, and it should work in the best interests of the people and reflect our values. All eyes are now on a pending European Commission decision on the project, which may arrive by the end of the month.

Join the campaign #PeoplesBudget and see how you can shape the budget of Europe

Namibian smelter expansion risks deepening environmental and health problems

About two years have passed since a Bankwatch report exposed how highly toxic substances are being kept in unsafe conditions at a smelter in Tsumeb, Namibia. For months, the smelter’s operator, Canadian mining company Dundee Precious Metals, has denied access to environmental information of the smelter. A planned expansion of production has is now forcing the company to disclose some of the information in a public consultation process.

In 2016 the Canadian Dundee Precious Metals announced plans to expand production at the Tsumeb smelter in Namibia. The production is to rise by more than 50% to 370.000 tons of processed dirty copper concentrate a year. The company is now seeking an amendment of the existing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the expansion.

The smelter and its impacts

The Tsumeb smelter is fed with concentrate coming predominantly from the Chelopech mine in Bulgaria and the El Brocal Colquijirca mine near Cerro de Pasco in Peru. The former is operated by Dundee and financed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) In addition, the EBRD is supporting Dundee with a revolving debt of up to EUR 250 million.

The planned increase in the production capacity will have additional costs for the environment and the health of the Namibian people. According to the Environmental Impact Assessment for the production increase, it will boost SO2 emissions by 53%. PM 10 emissions are expected to increase by 19%, arsenic emissions by 54% and H2SO4 emissions by 42%. As a result the air pollution will inevitably soar.

The waste disposal site at the Tsumeb smelter. The bags contain highly toxic materials.

The production expansion also increases the risks associated with piling the highly carcinogenic arsenic trioxide, a by-product from the smelting process, in a dump site nearby. The site is located in one of the most geo-morphologically complex parts of Namibia with underground cave systems that stretch hundreds of kilometers.

In 2016 we received highly disturbing photos and videos documenting slow cooling slag, a new practice in the smelter. The hot slag is thrown in the yard of the smelter and the workers wait until it cools down. During this process, toxic fumes of the highly carcinogenic arsenic trioxide must affect the workers in very high concentration before spreading further to the town of Tsumeb and the surrounding villages.

The cooling slag lying on the smelter’s premises. The toxic steam they emit is clearly visible.

We have shared the documentation with the EBRD but have not received a response that addresses the concerns we raised.

None of my business

While the EBRD has turned down all our requests to discuss Tsumeb, arguing that they are not financing the project, insiders told us that the EBRD has been very nervous about the situation in the smelter. And rightly so, because by failing to consider the environmental and social impacts of the entire chain of production they fund with the Chelopech mine in Bulgaria, the EBRD provides an incentive to export the most polluting parts of their business to places with less public scrutiny. Out of sight, out of mind.

Following Bankwatch’s revelations from Tsumeb, the EBRD finally visited the site. Not long after, Dundee announced that they will close the arsenic plant, a facility used to purify the arsenic trioxide by removing all other substance. The nearly pure arsenic trioxide was shipped to South Africa and Malaysia to be used for pesticides and wood-treatment. The closure of the facility however, will not solve the problems with the toxic waste piles in Tsumeb, for which a long term solution still needs to be developed.

The good life – Interactive documentary on Tsumeb and Chelopech

The documentary explores the meaning of progress, development and well-being in two places on two continents that are connected through the Chelopech copper mine and the Tsumeb smelter.

Watch now

Responsibility lost in the production chain

Dundee has equally broken the chain of responsibility in all the stages of production. The company produces concentrate in Bulgaria. Yet, they avoid responsibility for what happens to it afterwards. Louis Dreyfus Commodities (a commodity trader based in Switzerland) buys the concentrate under an exclusive rights contract and brings it to Dundee in Namibia to process it while maintaining its ownership of all the final valuable resources.

Dundee in Namibia plays the role of a contractor who is specialised in the processing of dirty ore. The product coming out of the smelter in Namibia is black copper – almost pure copper from which all toxic waste has been removed and which can be processed further anywhere in the world. No one will ever ask about the pollution that was left behind in Namibia.

The Tsumeb waste dump where the highly toxic arsenic trioxide is being stored in sugar bags. Photos from three different years show how the site has filled up over time and is about to reach its limit.

Who benefits from the expansion?

The round of public comments for the EIA on the smelter expansion ended in May 2017.  An EIA done by an international Consulting company is a clear step forward for the project in making the impacts of the smelter and its expansion publicly available. (The gaps that we have identified can be found in our comments to the EIA report.)

When we prepared our report in 2016 we had to build the puzzle of Tsumeb’s impacts from scratch, estimating the piling stock of arsenic in Tsumeb and the health hazards for the workers and the local population. Apart from attacking Bankwatch in the Namibian press, Dundee never commented on the substance of our claims.

Interestingly, the EIA report confirms the claims we’ve made in our report from 2016. It also suggests that we might have even underestimated the impacts of the smelter and the ticking time bomb that piling toxic waste represents.

From an economic perspective the increase of the capacity will be beneficial for the company. Yet from a social perspective the benefits are negligible since no new workplaces will be created. According to statistics from previous years quoted in the EIA report the entire employment rate of the smelter was 667 people – a really small number compared to the Tsumeb population of approximately 25.000.

With unemployment at 36% in Tsumeb (2012), a much higher rate than the 26.4% in the Oshikoto region it belongs to, and with Dundee enjoying tax-exemption, no significant social benefits can be expected from the smelter’s expansion.

Our asks

  • We urge Dundee to quit its plans for expansion. We call onto the shareholders of Dundee to exercise their right to influence the decisions by the management about the development of the company. Your investment has placed the health of many people at risk. The smelter should not be allowed to function under its current emission levels as these are many times more harmful to workers when compared to the most relaxed industrial standards worldwide. The expansion will make things even worse.
  • The Municipality of Tsumeb has to stop being a passive player and demand from the central government to intervene and oversee that external environmental monitoring is in place and that dangerous pollution levels are being addressed. We also we urge the municipality and its citizens to oppose the expansion of the capacity.
  • EBRD should turn their one-time mission into regular visits to Tsumeb. More importantly, it should make use of its leverage as a financier and hold Dundee Precious Metals to account for the hazards it inflicts on people in Tsumeb.

Southern Gas Corridor update: Russian involvement increasingly evident

Another chunk of EU public money could soon be going to the Russian component of the Southern Gas Corridor, a system of mega-pipelines to bring gas from Azerbaijan to Europe.

Tomorrow (July 18), the EBRD board is expected to vote on a new loan for Lukoil’s share in the Shah Deniz II gas drilling project. The Russian energy giant holds a 10% share in the Shah Deniz consortium. It is the third time it would receive EBRD support for the very same project (following a USD 200 million loan in 2014 and a financing package of USD 1 billion dollars, arranged together with the Asian Development Bank and commercial banks in 2015).

At the same time, according to recent media reports, Italy’s Snam, a shareholder of the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP), the final piece of the Southern Gas Corridor, has offered Gazprom to use the pipeline for its gas deliveries to Europe. Snam later denied these reports, but as Reuters reported in February Snam, like other TAP shareholders, welcomed Gazprom’s use of TAP. Moreover, in March, another Italian energy firm, Eni, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Gazprom for exploring the use of the Southern Gas Corridor for Russian gas imports into the EU.

Corruption allegations

In the meantime, a journalistic investigation as part of the Malta Files series added another piece to the puzzle that Bankwatch started assembling with our Risky Business report. (Our report found that many of the companies contracted to build the Southern Gas Corridor have been implicated in various forms of corruption in the past.)

According to the new investigative story, an Azeri billionaire named Mubariz Mansimov has practically been sponsoring a multi-million oil tanker for Erdogan’s family. A company Mansimov owns together with the Azeri state-owned energy company SOCAR, received two contracts from Turkey’s state-owned energy company BOTAS, each worth approximately half a billion  dollars, for part of the construction of the Trans-Anatolian Pipeline project (TANAP) the Turkish section of the Southern Gas Corridor.

Opposition intensifies

In Italy, the #NoTAP movement is continuing its protests, even at sea. But the opposition against the Southern Gas Corridor has been growing on a global scale.

In an open letter Bankwatch, together with 350.org, Counter Balance and many other groups, called on the EU to avoid financing the TAP project. Over 13 000 people have already added their signatures, including Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein, James Hansen and Mark Ruffalo.

Image by Thawt Hawthje – CC BY 2.0

Commission must involve the people in next EU budget debate

Last week’s reflection paper on the Future of EU finances opened the debate on some potentially seismic changes. Reading between the lines, the Commission seems to recognise that it holds a wild card with the EU budget proposal, and that the Future of Europe debate will not actually resolve until the key architecture of the budget is sorted.

But how significant are the reform options it has flagged, and how might they play out politically? Should we read the narrative shift as mere lip service or a genuine intention to move to a more sustainable, people-centred EU budget?

The Commission knows that the smaller budget due to Brexit, combined with the crises facing the EU, gives it legitimacy in proposing to member states fundamental reforms to ensure more targeted and coherent spending. One potentially big change is the option to radically rethink cohesion policy funds, which equal one-third of the EU budget and flow predominantly to poorer member states.

The paper mentions the possibility to allocate these funds according to the location of policy challenges like unemployment, social exclusion and climate change. The inclusion of this option is significant, as an indication of moving beyond the distorting logic of GDP and GNI, which currently determine how the pie is carved.

It also speaks about using incentives to coax reluctant member states to aim higher on structural changes, which could be critical for the clean energy transformation. In the wake of increasing attacks on democracy in Hungary, and beyond, the proposal also picked up on important ideas of linking EU finance with respect for the rule of law and core European values.

It acknowledged that citizens deserve greater transparency in the results of EU spending. Lastly, there is a detectable shift in the overall narrative since the last budget, in that it now stresses the importance of the budget for improving people’s daily lives. Mere words for now, but carefully chosen words nonetheless.

However, it remains to be seen whether the Commission will follow through and propose the sort of budget that we, as civil society, can help defend. The budget also needs to better safeguard the taxpayer’s interests; it makes no sense to spend on fossil fuels and fight climate change at the same time, yet this is what the current budget does.

We need a fresh approach and new sustainability proofing instruments for the design and implementation of the budget, to ensure that it serves the public good. While acknowledging the role of EU financing in driving a social Europe, key issues were avoided. These include the need to ensure that member states grant more equitable access to citizens for benefits of EU-supported programmes.

If the Commission follows through and proposes ambitious reforms, including a budget that ensures a genuinely coherent and ambitious approach to the implementation of Agenda 2030, this could bring us a step closer to the Europe that we, as civil society, want. More in line with the sixth scenario for the future of Europe that has recently been launched with the support of over 250 civil society groups.

Macron is right to propose public debates on the Future of Europe. But the EU budget is where change will first manifest itself. It is precisely by steering the debate and asking citizens how they would best spend EU funds to achieve sustainable well-being in Europe, that the Commission could secure additional political cover for a more inspiring path.

To help, the PeoplesBudget campaign is gathering across Europe. We seek an innovative Budget that empowers citizens and civil society to build a sustainable Europe. With an ambitious implementation of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals at its heart.

Some of our campaign partners call for piloting participatory budgeting in the EU budget, steered towards sustainable ends, as a powerful way to involve citizens in shaping the European project.

The Commission paper suggested a Venture Capital Facility, but what about a Community Power Facility or EU support for social entrepreneurship to spur resilience and unlock local creativity to solve local challenges?

Wouldn’t a truly forward-looking EU budget consider the role of citizens investment platforms, creating a Common European approach that would allow Europeans to place their savings or acquire shares in transformative projects anywhere in Europe? Or a Nature Fund to support the implementation of the Nature Directives?

We want to build a sense of ownership in the European project, a shared destination, a concept of progress worth believing in. If the Commission follows through and finds the courage to propose such reforms, it will be able to count on civil society to help defend them.