Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Blog entry

Blog entry

Locals oppose dam that is set to endanger critical fish habitat in Bosnia-Herzegovina

We are passing through the canyon of the river Vrbas, in north-west Bosnia-Herzegovina. I am looking through a car window, mouth wide open in awe. While I look up to the rocky, edgy peaks hundreds of meters above and down to the heavenly blue river, I am wondering why anyone would want to dam this river, flood the canyon and destroy its beauty.

Then again, rather than seeing beauty, hydropower companies see wasted water resources, or in the words of a Bosnian official “euros flowing away in vain.”

Fortunately, the plans to flood the Vrbas canyon are stalled for now. But further upstream on the same river in central Bosnia, north of the towns of Donji vakuf and Bugojno, the Babino Selo dam (pdf) is promoted as one of the priority hydropower projects of Elektroprivreda BiH, the state-owned electric utility. The 100 meter-wide, ten meter high dam is being considered for a 40 million EUR loan from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).

A river flowing through thick forest.
The river Vrbas in the area of the planned dam.

Local anglers (recreational fishermen who use rod and line) are furious. “It is an atom bomb for the Vrbas”, one of the representatives of the local angling associations from Donji Vakuf and Bugojno exclaims.

The anglers are emotional, but they have a good reason – they say the existing hydropower plants at Jajce and Bočac have already cut down migratory routes for some of the important fish species. This section of Vrbas still is a critical habitat for huchen (Danube Salmon), classified as endangered by the IUCN, as well as a spawning ground for the grayling.

A formal public consultation was held in the Municipality of Donji Vakuf in April 2016. Both anglers and community representatives were present and voiced their opposition against the project. Communities were not able to learn where the planned reservoir ends and whose households would be flooded. The promoter says that the impact assessment study (pdf) is preliminary, which is true, but why haven’t the people impacted by the plans heard any updates for more than a year?

Cows walking up a path, seen from behind.
The Vrbas canyon where the dam is planned was a route of the now defunct Austro-Hungarian railway track. Back then, the steam locomotive was cooled with the help of streams running down the sides of the canyon. Their water is now being used for watering livestock and crops.

The people in the valley are friendly. But they are puzzled by the confusing information from the project promoters and consultants who were hired to survey their properties. They don’t know any details about the project or about potential livelihood restoration. This is their land, the river along which they grew up, yet it seems that they have the least influence on what it is going to happen.

Raspberry fields in the foreground, a house, river and mountains in the back.
Raspberry fields along the Vrbas river.

While we are leaving the valley via the wooden bridge that was destroyed in floods in 2010 and then rebuilt, I think of the 300 other hydropower plants planned to be built in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Most of them would have an installed capacity below 10 MW.

Is it really worth ruining one of the best preserved waterways in Europe for such minor energy gains? I hope that Bosnia-Herzegovina’s officials and international lenders such as the EBRD stop seeing money in the wild and scenic rivers of the Balkans.

With thanks to the Center for Environment, Banja Luka, and Eko-Element, Bugojno, for their valuable assistance in organising the visit.

Read more

Find more details about the project in our briefing

[Campaign update] Environmentalists take planned Montenegrin coal plant to court

Green Home, a Montenegrin environmental non-governmental organisation, on Friday submitted a complaint to the Administrative Court of Montenegro requesting the cancellation of the environmental approval for the controversial Pljevlja II coal power plant the government seeks to build.

The approval, issued by the Environmental Protection Agency on 22.2.2017, failed to include several elements stipulated by the Law on Environmental Impact Assessment, such as a justification for the decision, responses to comments provided during the public consultation, and a list of measures to address environmental damage during the construction and operation of the plant.

Among the issues which were not addressed in the decision is the fact that Pljevlja II has not been designed according to new Best Available Techniques standards recently adopted in the EU. This means the plant, if built, would pollute more than allowed.

Another issue which was left out of the decision is the plant’s CO2 emissions and their impact on Montenegro’s contribution to EU greenhouse gas emissions reductions targets once the country joins the EU.

“It’s unthinkable that an environmental approval for such a large, expensive and polluting project as a coal power plant consists of just less than three pages”, commented Diana Milev-Čavor of Green Home.

“We hope the court will acknowledge the inadequacy of this decision, and in turn revoke it, signalling the need for the whole project to be reconsidered”, she concluded.

[Campaign update] Court confirms attacks on Ukrainian villagers are related to poultry business

The Court of Appeal of the Cherkasy region in central Ukraine sided with community activist Nina Martynovska from the Ratseve village who was brutally beaten because of her opposition to the construction of poultry farm facilities by Peremoha Nova, a subsidiary of Ukrainian agribusiness giant MHP.

The court decision from April 12 thus confirmed an earlier ruling by the Chyhyryn district court that the incident was related to “a conflict […] over the chicken farm” between the victim and the attacker.

As a member of the Ratseve village council, Nina Martynovska expressed her criticism of the construction of chicken parent flock facilities – an expansion of an existing Peremoha Nova site – since the community learned of the plans. Under this project about a million chickens would be kept on the lands surrounding the village and owned by the village council. The size of the expansion and its potential impacts on soils, water and the overwhelming odour are an unacceptable prospect for many villagers.

Last summer, June 23, 2016 Nina was attacked and spent several days in hospital with a concussion. The attack was not an isolated incident. Villagers who opposed the project had to face attacks, harassment and intimidation since 2015, when the community’s opposition seemed to threaten the expansion plans.

In December 2016 the Chyhyryn district court found the attacker guilty of a criminal offense and sentenced her to a community service for a period of 150 hours. The Court also decided in favor of the victim to provide material and moral compensation and legal costs. This ruling has now been confirmed by the Cherkasy Court of Appeal.

Poisoned atmosphere

“This conflict arose because of MHP, previously we did not have any conflicts with this woman,” Nina Martynovska said in response to the most recent ruling.

The social environment where the villagers go against each other is unacceptable. Instead of openly discussing the potential social and environmental impacts of the project, the company allegedly concludes long-term leases on land for construction that will be profitable for some community members, but the impacts will be distributed and affecting everybody.

Bankwatch and its Ukrainian member group NECU communicate this situation to the international and European lenders of MHP as the company does not comply with international standards and best practices in terms of stakeholder engagement, land acquisition and community consultations.

The preliminary Environmental Impact Assessment documents that were consulted with the public late 2016 received negative attitudes of the villagers and experts, as all air emissions from the poultry houses would be floating towards residential buildings. Many questions were also raised with regards to the water use from deep artesian sources, impacts on water sources for the city of Chyhyryn, recycling manure, and more.

If the EBRD stands for democracy it should not support TAP – Italian community addresses bank’s directors

At a meeting with the directors of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Bankwatch campaigners read a statement from Italian communities opposing the Trans-Adriatic Pipeline, the last leg of the Southern Gas Corridor, a 3500 km pipeline intended to bring gas from Azerbaijan to Europe.

We reproduce the powerful statement here:

We, in the Salento region, live off agriculture, fishing and tourism, and we are oriented towards a system of environmental sustainability. Salento is a wonderful land, that has already suffered too much damages due to industrial developments, and where tumor cancer incidence is high.

The town of Melendugno and the surroundings are an oasis of happiness thanks to the historical attention to the protection of the environment.

But now they imposed the Trans Adriatic Pipeline on our land, a large infrastructure which has nothing to do with our way of life.

Despite what the government says, there have been no public consultations. In fact, we, as citizens, have been kept in the dark about everything around the TAP project.

But we have managed to get the information on our own. Over the years, we studied the entire project and, based on what we have seen and read, this project is useless and anachronistic, anywhere it is implemented.

We have repeatedly voiced our concerns and our objections to the project, but the company and the government decided to ignore it. They chose to side by the TAP consortium.

In late March, in order to allow the works at the site to begin, the government deployed battalions of police and security forces. They were tasked with defending the uprooting of our olive trees, even though the company did not have all the necessary permits. As local residents we peacefully resisted the works, but the police did not hesitate to attack common citizens, teenagers, elderly people, and even mayors and members of the European Parliament.

Ours is a movement of people, of mothers and families, determined to oppose this project and protect our livelihoods. But we believe in non-violence, and our protests are peaceful.

The violence we had faced from our own state has not scared us. Rather, it united us even more and emboldened our position.

And we know we are not alone in this struggle. Communities in Greece and Albania, who have also been sidelined by the massive political and commercial interests that the TAP project represents, continue to oppose it. And together we call on you to not to finance this project. If the EBRD stands for democracy it should not support TAP.

These olive branches could be the last ones that our centuries-old trees will ever grow, but they symbolize our peaceful resistance to this project.

The dirty secret in Sofia’s backyard – the coal dust that only comes at night

Anyone who has ever driven from Bulgaria’s capital city, Sofia towards the country’s southwest has passed through the town of Pernik, just twenty kilometres away. At first glance, it is in no way different than any other ghost town in eastern Europe, a relic of the former socialist industrial thrive – a metallurgical complex at the entrance on the left, a coal rail to the right, a cement factory, abandoned warehouses. Finally, as you get nearer to the residential part, a smoking chimney of a lignite power plant appears, the last kick of a soon-to-die industry, which seems like it wants to take everyone down with it.

In 2013, the European Environment Agency’s report on air pollution found that four of Europe’s five cities with the most consistently high levels of particulate matter (dust so small it enters deep into our lungs and stays there) were Bulgarian. Our small town of Pernik topped the list as the dirtiest one, with too high concentrations of particulates in the air around half of the year. EU law only allows for 35 days of pollution above the regulated limit.

Nothing seems to have improved since 2013, in spite of the European Commission’s repeated warnings to the Bulgarian Government to act on air pollution. It all culminated with the European Court of Justice’s ruling against Bulgaria in April this year. The ruling confirmed Bulgaria’s law infringement by failing to stay within the allowed limits of coarse particulate matter (PM10) and for failing to take action to keep the exceedance period as short as possible.

Bankwatch’s own, independent dust measurements have concluded the same thing as well. During 19 days of monitoring PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in Pernik the EU limit on PM 10 was exceeded on 13 days, or 68 per cent of the time. As mentioned above, over the course of one year, the PM 10 limit may be exceeded no more than 35 times. The EU limit on PM 2.5 was exceeded on 10 of the 19 days of monitoring.

Daily average of particulate matter levels for PM 10 and PM 2.5 in Pernik, Bulgaria and EU limits for both pollutants. The graph shows how both PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels exceed the legally allowed limit: PM 2.5 on 10 out of 19 days of monitoring (53%), PM 10 on 13 days out of 19 (68%).
During more than half of the observed days, EU pollution limits were breached in Pernik, Bulgaria.

Night and day

We also found big discrepancies between the levels recorded during day time and night time, which may point to the dust filters of the nearby power plant not functioning properly or at all. The trend over the observed period shows an increase in PM10 levels every day after 7PM, lasting until 8AM the following morning, the highest peak being recorded on April 12, at 3AM, with 409 micrograms per cubic metre, eight times above the allowed limit.

Particulate matter levels for PM 10 and PM 2.5 in Pernik, Bulgaria at different times of day and EU limits for PM10 and PM2.5. The graph shows high peaks for PM 10. The highest value for PM 10 was recorded on April 12, at 3AM, with 409 micrograms per cubic meter. PM 2.5 levels spike on a number of occasions and are on average above the EU annual limit more often than not.
The pollution peaks during night time are clearly visible in the graph.

For our independent monitoring device this was quite a brutal conclusion. The high concentration of particles caused the device’s filter to be clogged much sooner than anticipated. The filter could no longer accept any more dust. The monitoring period had to be cut almost by half from a planned full month. With a machine it’s easy, you pull the plug and send it for a clean-up. But I can’t stop wondering about the locals’ health condition and how their respiratory systems handle these levels of pollution.

A cursed coal town

Nowhere in the town is it cleaner – there’s the power plant in one part, the coal transporting rail in the other, and right in the middle of it a now abandoned lignite open-pit, which used to fuel the power plant. No reclamation works have been carried out in this mine, the heap soil was left on site without any protection measures, making it very easy for the wind to carry the dust away.

A satellite image of Pernik. The lignite mining pits are almost as big as the town itself.
The mining pits are almost as big as the town of Pernik itself.

Until recently, this was an official mine under the concession of Recoal AD, a Belgian majority shareholder company. In 2005, the Bulgarian state signed a 10 year concession agreement with Recoal for the lignite field within the town of Pernik. In 2015, the agreement was not renewed, Recoal arguing that the costs of the facility were too high. They left without the compulsory land rehabilitation.

What makes the whole situation most frustrating is that with the ECJ’s decision to sanction Bulgaria for its failure to improve the air pollution, it is Bulgarian taxpayers who will bear the costs of the fine. This is the paradox of air pollution: the sources are quite easy to identify – a lignite power plant, a mine, an industrial facility, traffic etc. – and measures easily applicable on local level. Yet, in case of inaction a much larger segment of the population is affected, be it because emissions travel beyond city borders, be it because when eventually there’s a fine to pay, every citizen has to chip in.

Anti-coal campaigners may motivate themselves with a heart-felt ‘coal is dying’ when we witness the industry’s mounting struggles. But learning about towns like Pernik and how people are indeed dying from coal pollution is a humbling reminder of the work that’s still ahead of us.

Serbian mining company ignores desperate calls for compensation while Kolubara mine is reaching family houses

Every night in the last few months, Dragan Živanović has woken up to the sound of cracking tiles in his kitchen and bathroom. Neighbours Nebojša and Snežana Mitrović, take turns in walking to the bedsides of their five children to calm them down, as they too wake up crying in the middle of the night, scared by the howling sound of excavators near their house.

The village of Vreoci, Serbia, is home to the Kolubara mine, the country’s largest lignite open-pit, one of the biggest in Europe and financed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It used to be home to Dragan, Nebojša and Snežana and tens of other families. To them it is now a living hell.

In November 2007, the Serbian Government, EPS – the state-owned energy utility, and the local council of Vreoci agreed on the “Program basis for resettlement of the village Vreoci” according to which the entire village would be resettled by the end of 2015. Not only has this not happened, but the mining works have continued at a rapid pace, closing in on the locals’ houses and causing vibrations, noise and utter fear.

In February this year, in an emergency action, the mining inspection demanded one part of the village to be resettled by mid-April. The justification for this demand is not publicly available, but the locals suspect it was most probably a deep crack in the lignite layer underneath the village.

Everyone impacted expected their households to be promptly evaluated and expropriation money disbursed in order for them to find new homes and relocate as soon as possible. However, it took until April 9 when the expert came to the village to estimate the properties. The expert, however, did not visit all affected people, and even more worryingly, at the time of writing still no inventory of property has been produced.

Two weeks after the deadline given by the Mining Inspection and five families haven’t even received a paper listing their possessions, let alone receiving any compensation.

In 2015 the EBRD provided a EUR 200 million restructuring loan to the state-owned utility EPS that had among its conditions that a resettlement framework is to be developed, followed by specific resettlement action plans to be agreed on with affected communities. However, although the EBRD has been notified by EPS that the resettlement framework has been published, the document is nowhere to be found, and it has not been consulted with the communities or Serbian civil society organisations that follow the case.

Contacted by two locals in Vreoci in a desperate attempt to improve their unbearable situation and to speed up the fair resettlement process, the Bank is backing its client’s solution to offer temporary housing to the families living now closest to the mining front. However, once out of their homes and out of the excavators’ way, those people will be in a ‘grey zone’ and in a vulnerable and disadvantaged position to accept a final solution that may not be to their satisfaction. The locals have requested suspension of mining works in dangerous proximity to Vreoci until a final compensation is agreed and the families can relocate safely.

The EBRD annual meeting is taking place next week. The situation of Vreoci and several other villages in the Kolubara mining basin in Serbia, in connection with the restructuring loan that EPS has received, is definitely a hot potato for the meetings.

Looking at the ongoing detrimental impacts of EPS operations on local communities and the violation of the legal framework of Serbia one should ask what does restructuring mean in the EBRD’s and EPS’s view and at what cost can it be accepted?