Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Blog entry

Blog entry

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.

Nuclear safety in Europe: decision-making behind closed doors?

This article first appeared at openDemocracy on July 3, 2017.

After Fukushima, you might think that nuclear power is a thing of the past. Or that our focus on climate is the only issue of public concern when it comes to the energy sector.  Yet the recent Meeting of the Parties to the Espoo Convention, which deals with environmental impact assessments across borders, was hi-jacked by ongoing disputes over reactor construction and lifetime extension. In Minsk, 200 participants representing the 45 states who are members to this UN Convention held heated discussions over problematic cases, such as Hinkley Point C (UK), Ostravets (Belarus) and a number of old Ukrainian reactors going through their lifetime extensions.

This dispute has arisen largely because the rules on who has a say when decisions regarding nuclear operations are made are unclear. Which countries and their citizens should be notified and involved in decision-making on a new nuclear installation such as Hinkley Point C? And how about extending the lifetime of old reactors, like the Yuzhnoukrainsk power plant in south Ukraine? These are questions to be addressed in the framework of the Espoo Convention.

But are we really solving the dilemma of whether nuclear operations can have a significant transboundary impact, which should, according to the Espoo Convention, trigger communication across borders with potentially affected parties? Or are we witnessing a political game, fueled by self-centered interests of nuclear positive countries and the nuclear business, which is trying to remodel itself by “climate-neutral marketing” of its product?

The recent Meeting of the Parties to the Espoo Convention was an unfortunate display of the influence that politics and the nuclear lobby have over decisions with severe impacts on health and environment. One of the most important tasks of the Meeting of the Convention parties, which convenes every three years, is to endorse draft decisions on non-compliance. These are prepared carefully and over the course of few years by the Convention’s Implementation Committee. Such decisions, despite being tailored to each specific case of challenged non-compliance, should have general implications across similar cases, reflecting the principal of an equal treatment. Endorsed decisions should bring needed clarity — in this case clarity concerning rules for nuclear decision-making.

Unfortunately, the Minsk meeting has torn the draft decisions apart with last minute revisions, which were agreed behind the closed doors of “coordination meetings” and “ad hoc working groups”. Civil society members, whom this (and some other) UN environmental convention assigns a special role, were closed out from all key deliberations. At some point, shortly before midnight on the penultimate day of the Meeting, most participants lost track of a number of parallel meetings and groups.

At the end of this political show there were too many revisions proposed to be seriously considered. All decisions were postponed for an extraordinary meeting to take place in the course of the next year — just when the clarity on how to proceed with all the nuclear decision-making concerning old and new nuclear installations is much needed. Confusion continues, which lowers efficiency of the Convention on nuclear issues. The main purpose of the Convention — to be an instrument for a more inclusive decision-making leading to a better protection of environment — was abandoned.

To end on a hopeful note, there are three almost positive developments resulting from the Meeting. First, the mere acknowledgement that there is a lack of clear rules for nuclear decision-making. In Minsk, this became obvious and the issue finally “came out of the closet”. Second, delegations as well as other participants seemed to have agreed in principle that when a state is making a decision on a nuclear project, they should send notification to potentially affected countries, and that the fact that a severe accident can cause widespread impacts has to be taken into account.

Thirdly, on the topic of extended operations of old nuclear units past their officially designed lifetime, the Meeting created a working group to clarify the need for transboundary environmental assessments. This particular issue generated significant interest among different mostly EU countries. By expressing their interest to be members of this working-group, states have acknowledged the relevance of this issue. This is hardly surprising: Europe is heading into a decade when 93 nuclear reactors will be (or not) up for their lifetime extension. And one does not need to be a nuclear scientist to understand increased risks associated with any aging technology, let alone nuclear.

Nuclear safety is a matter of high concern and relevance to all of us. We have a right to be asking questions related to nuclear operation, to receive good quality answers and demand highest possible safety measures. This is all possible in the frame of the Espoo Convention on the environmental impact assessment in transboundary context. What we need now is to make it work. The international working group created in Minsk should make it crystal clear that lifetime extensions of nuclear reactors require broad engagement and public participation across borders. Resistance of some governments and the European Commission to this logical solution to nuclear decision-making is dangerously illogical. If “everything is ok and safe” as we are being assured, then why is wider public participation on decisions with immense potential impact generating so much opposition?

European citizens don’t want to be left out of decision-making. It is important to renew our trust in political governance to feel that our interests are duly accounted for and represented — on nuclear issues, democracy from behind the closed doors can have fatal consequences.

Nuclear accountability curbed by EU politics and industry interests

This article first appeared on EUObserver on Monday, 3 July 2017.

A meeting of the parties to the UN convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (Espoo) took place last week in Minsk, Belarus.

Among other things, it helped to showcase the influence that politics and the nuclear industry lobby have over decisions that have potentially severe impacts on European citizens’ health and the environment.

The meeting – gathering over 200 people, including government delegates, civil society, EU officials and business – ended in an unprecedented way, without the endorsement of any decision, despite worrying evidence of the non-compliance of several governments’ nuclear energy plans.

With many more decisions coming up in Europe on either the construction of plants, or the prolongation of old nuclear units, the lack of a decision following the Espoo meeting leaves no legal precedent for countries to follow.

It also provides the public with even more unclarity on the participation procedures that ought to be followed.

Every three years, the delegates of 45 countries – parties to one of the most important environmental treaties, the Espoo convention – meet to deliberate and endorse the findings of the convention’s implementation committee. The body checks whether there has been compliance with its provisions.

The convention regulates the procedures that a country needs to follow when planning projects that have possible transboundary environmental impacts.

Yet, the obligations deriving from the convention – namely the need to conduct consultations with neighbouring governments and their people – have been a source of tension and discontent, especially surrounding energy projects.

This year’s meeting of parties to the Espoo convention, during the first half of June in Minsk, had several sensitive findings on the agenda, especially related to controversial nuclear energy plans all across Europe.

Three cases

It included Hinkley Point C in the UK, the Astravetz nuclear power plant project in Belarus, as well as cases of lifetime extension of ageing nuclear power stations in Ukraine.

For the past year, all three cases have been at the centre of demands, from neighbouring governments and civil society, for accountability and participation in decision-making.

These demands have been rooted in the very poor public participation processes, which have left little space for governments and citizens to engage in decisions that will shape the future of nuclear energy in Europe.

The findings on these cases include clear statements about the present situation.

For instance, the UK failed to notify all parties potentially affected by the Hinkley Point C power plant in a timely manner.

Ukraine failed to involve its neighbours in consultations regarding the lifetime extension of its reactors, and Belarus was non-compliant by failing to notify its neighbours before selecting the location of its future nuclear power plant, just 45 kilometres from Vilnius in Lithuania.

Endorsing such findings would create strong precedents for the parties, something that the EU seems to be avoiding.

The manner in which the deliberations unfolded during the Espoo meeting of parties sent a clear signal to all delegates that the EU, under pressure from its nuclear member states, does not intend to endorse the critical findings of non-compliance in the cases mentioned above.

In fact, during much of the talks, the EU held coordination meetings behind closed doors, with no opportunity for observations from third parties, which have afterwards objected to this behaviour.

Politics of Espoo

The politicisation of the Espoo process already began in 2014.

In that year, the implementation committee at the time found Ukraine to be non-compliant. The country had made the decision to keep running its two oldest reactors, in the Rivne power plant, beyond their expiry date – without considering the implications for its neighbours.

The meeting of parties then refused to endorse the findings, which clearly stated that nuclear lifetime extensions are subject to the application of the convention, and tweaked the text confining the convention’s jurisdiction on nuclear lifetime extensions only to the Rivne case.

This opened the door to massive inconsistencies in the way the convention is applied.

Once again, government delegates’ failure to endorse the findings on non-compliance would allow states to selectively interpret the convention’s provisions, thus removing an important protection against dangerous decisions on nuclear power.

As of now, 93 ageing nuclear units across Europe are lined up for lifetime extension over the next ten years.

The EU needs to overcome narrow political interests and business pressure, which comes especially from nuclear countries, and do their job correctly.

They need to use the convention’s provision to set clear rules on compliance, and not only in the field of nuclear energy. Only in this way can the EU prove to its citizens that it is open to protecting them, the environment, and supports democracy across borders.

Guest post: A win for citizen activism after UNESCO asks Macedonia to stop all construction projects on Lake Ohrid

This article by Elena Nikolovska originally appeared on Global Voices on June 27, 2017.

The latest UNESCO mission to the Ohrid region in Macedonia discovered a Natural and Cultural Heritage site threatened by increased traffic and tourism pressure, inappropriate infrastructure projects and uncoordinated urban developments. It immediately released a report requesting the Macedonian government to halt construction projects in the area.

Existing for over 3 million years, Lake Ohrid in Macedonia is the oldest lake in the European continent holding valuable information on evolution aside from being the home of unique and rare species. In 2016, this lake was put in danger when the Macedonian government started plans to urbanize the lake shore and Galichica mountain and turn both biodiversity hotspots into mega resorts.

Citizen activists, civil society organizations, and scientists warned about the possible catastrophic impact of these projects on Lake Ohrid and demanded a moratorium on all construction activities in the Ohrid region.

In March this year, the UNESCO mission to the Ohrid region validated the concerns of citizens and experts about the projects around the lake. It asked the government to halt the projects to protect Lake Ohrid and instead develop alternative ecotourism programs in the area:

The mission strongly recommended to completely abandon the Galičica ski centre project, keep the internal national park zoning as is, and consider developing ecotourism options that would not negatively impact the property. Therefore, it is recommended that the Committee request the State Party to halt the construction projects of the Galičica ski resort, as well as the sub-sections (a) and (e) of the A3 road. – says latest decision by UNESCO World Heritage Committee

The Ohrid SOS group has been on the frontlines fighting to save Lake Ohrid from the very beginning. It published the UNESCO decision urging the Macedonian government and European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) to stop the further destruction of Lake Ohrid.

Meanwhile, the Center for Environmental Research and Information Eko-svest from Skopje worked on alternatives to the planned infrastructure project that will not destroy precious nature. A feasibility study for a sustainable transport solution is scheduled to be presented in the Ohrid municipality this year.

We want to mark #TheDayOfTheLake by sharing our vision for a bike trail that would encircle the Ohrid Lake. Beautiful!

Instead of a new highway that would cut through the national park forests and block access to the water, the group is proposing a combination of transport alternatives that would not interfere with the ecosystem.

The Smart Ohrid transport solution with routes for cycling, solar boats and solar buses arround the lake. By Stefan Bouzharovski

To commemorate 21 June, Lake Ohrid day, the newly elected Macedonian government opened its doors to civil society and held an event in parliament where the president of the Assembly addressed the guests.

I am especially glad that today in the Assembly of the Republic of Macedonia there is an event related to the initiative of the civil sector for the protection of the Ohrid region as the only region in the Republic of Macedonia protected by UNESCO. – said The President of the Assembly, Mr. Talat Xhaferi

The parliament speaker stressed the readiness of the government to discuss and support citizen initiatives for the protection of the environment. An informal group of Members of Parliament from different parties was also formed named “Friends of UNESCO.”

This has been a long and difficult fight but civil society groups continue to hope that the initial victory will be sustained to preserve and protect the biodiversity of Lake Ohrid.

[Campaign update] EU urged to act on Western Balkans smog after alarming pollution levels were found

Local communities of Western Balkan countries pay a heavy health toll from air pollution caused by coal-generated electricity, household heating and traffic. The most recent EEA air quality report, using 2013 data, estimated that PM 2.5 pollution alone kills 18,310 people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia every year.

Nonetheless, pollution monitoring is either absent or unreliable in many countries in the Western Balkans which is why Bankwatch carried out independent measurements in four selected Western Balkan communities and two in Romania and Bulgaria. 

A greyish sky with a smoke stack partly visible. The text reads: 'Peak pollution. Six months of independent monitoring of air quality in the Balkans'
Read the multimedia briefing at http://stories.bankwatch.org/peak-pollution

The results of more than half a year of monitoring and video testimonies of locals are now available in the multimedia briefing ‘Peak pollution’.

The communities where monitoring was carried all have in common the fact that they are hosts to old lignite power plants, operating without minimal pollution controls, and also open-cast coal mines and coal ash disposal sites. Without a doubt, all these contribute to the high dust concentration levels found. Nevertheless, official monitoring is patchy at best, while results from Bankwatch’s monitoring have indicated worryingly high levels of both PM 10 and PM 2.5 (dust particles that enter into our lungs and blood stream) in places where the responsible authorities, such as the local environmental inspectorate or agency, do not even carry out any regular air quality monitoring.

 

The findings were presented today at an event at the European Parliament, co-hosted by Bankwatch and Bas Eickhout, MEP of the Greens/EFA. The event also explored possible policy avenues to tackle the problem on a regional level, and to align Western Balkan countries’ air quality standards to those of the EU.

The European Commission recognises that the situation is alarming. Francois Wakenhut, head of Clean Air Unit of the Environment Directorate General said during the conference:

Concentrations of PM10 in Western Balkans are in the upper range of concentrations observed in the EU. Dust pollution holds a special challenge due to extensive use of brown coal and biomass for heating or energy, so reducing the use of coal and replacing it with cleaner fuels would be the first step towards cleaner air.

Local residents from the Balkan countries who attended the conference highlighted how bad the situation is. Goran Stojak, citizens’ representative in the local council of Tuzla said:

Here, everybody knows the situation is bad, but the readings of the air quality measurements in Tuzla astonished even us. The results show a clear pattern that dust levels skyrocket as soon as it gets dark, after 19:00 local time, which make me think that the pollution filters at the Tuzla power plant, the main source of air pollution, might not function properly or are even turned off during night time.

All local communities monitored have suffered immensely from poor air quality, and in spite of getting more vocal, no political decision to tackle the problem is in sight. Worryingly, in some of these places, governments are even planning on expanding coal mines or the power plants’ capacities, which would make the situation even worse. They should instead think of making it up to these people who have been neglected too long at the expense of a dirty industry’s thrive.

Find out more

Peak pollution – Eight months of independent monitoring of air quality in the Balkans

Multimedia briefing | June 26, 2017