Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Press release

Press release

Historic win for frontline communities: plans for coal power project in Turkey shelved

Fossil fuel giant SOCAR abandoned coal power project in Aliağa, İzmir

Aliağa, Turkey; Prague; Rome – Communities in Aliağa, Turkey, who have been resisting the construction of coal power plants in the region for decades, have achieved a significant victory. Azerbaijan’s state-owned energy company SOCAR, has decided to shelve plans to construct an integrated 672 MW coal power plant in Aliağa, İzmir.

Aliağa residents have been highly concerned about the plans for new coal power plants in an area already suffering from air pollution and environmental degradation – including tree felling and damage to natural ecosystems – caused by the existing power plants and other nearby industrial facilities. In addition, greenhouse gas emissions from the new plant would have made it particularly difficult for Turkey to meet its international pledge under the Paris climate treaty.

Moreover, SOCAR’s coal power plant was to be constructed in close proximity to the ancient city of Kyme, an archaeological site categorised as top conservation priority, which means that construction or interventions can only be permitted for research and conservation purposes.

Since 2014 civil society groups including CEE Bankwatch Network, Re:common and others have been warning about SOCAR’s fossil fuel projects in Aliağa breaching environmental, social and cultural legislation [1]. In particular, concerned that a refinery project was masking the construction of the coal-fired power plant, the groups have been calling on international financial institutions to withdraw their financial support to these projects.

Seven export credit agencies (ECAs) are financing the refinery project with a total of USD 2.84 billion. These include CESCE, Export Development Canada, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, JBIC, the Korea Trade Insurance Corporation, NEXI, and SACE.

However, in a formal letter sent last week, the seven ECAs stated that SOCAR’s management had decided not to pursue the coal power plant project.

The local campaign against the fossil fuel projects received major support in May 2016, when Aliağa hosted a Break Free from Fossil Fuels rally, organised by a coalition of over 100 Turkish organisations and platforms, and held simultaneously with similar Break Free actions across six continents.

Bahadir Doguturk from the Foça (Izmir) Environment Platform, a local grassroots group, said: “The May 2016 Break Free rally was a new beginning for our collective movement against coal plants. Today it is time to celebrate our victory with this decision. It proves the rightful nature of our resistance against outdated and dirty coal projects. We will continue to fight against plans for 70 other coal projects in Turkey. We will not let companies violate our nature with coal projects, we will continue to fight.”

Ozlem Katisoz, Coal Policy Officer at TEMA, part of the Initiative against Fossil Fuels, said: “Energy corporations are shifting away from coal power plant investments one by one. Coal is becoming history, and SOCAR’s decision is just another proof of this global trend. As part of the global shift from coal to clean energy, Turkey should utilise public resources for energy efficiency and renewables instead of subsidizing coal projects.”

Ioana Ciuta, Energy Co-ordinator at CEE Bankwatch Network, said: “The project promoters eventually made the only rational decision they could. This coal plant has been plagued with so many legal and moral inconsistencies, from excluding it from the refinery project’s EIA documentation and refusing to assess their cumulative environmental and social impacts, to dodging public consultations and overriding cultural heritage regulations that I am surprised it took so long to give it up.”

İbrahim Çiftçi, Sustainable Investments Advisor at Greenpeace Mediterranean, said: “We were lobbying the financiers of the SOCAR STEP since 2014. SOCAR’s decision shows that the era of coal is coming to an end. Instead of pursuing energy policies relying on dirty fossil fuels such as coal, policy makers should focus on sustainable renewable energy resources and energy efficiency. This is the environmentally and economically sensible pathway for the future.”

For more information contact:

Ioana Ciuta
Energy Co-ordinator, CEE Bankwatch Network
ioana.ciuta@bankwatch.org
+40 724 020 281
Twitter: @unaltuser

Antonio Tricarico
Programme Director, Re:Common
atricarico@recommon.org
+39 328.84 85 448
Twitter: @atricarico72

İbrahim Çiftçi
Sustainable Investments Advisor, Greenpeace Mediterranean
ibrahim.ciftci@greenpeace.org
+90 533 283 56 60

Notes to editors:

[1] The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation (the World Bank’s private lending arm) were originally considering financial support to SOCAR’s refinery project, but withdrew in March 2014. It is fair to assume that pressure from international NGOs has been a key factor in their decision.

  • No public announcement has been made by SOCAR. The letter sent by the ECAs can be found at https://bankwatch.org/documents/response-ECAs-Aliaga-18Oct2016.PDF
  • Turkey’s plan for expanding its coal power – with new 67 GW of installed capacity – is the world’s third largest. If materialized, this new coal power could put Turkey among the world’s top five greenhouse gas emitters by 2030.
  • SOCAR’s project in Aliaga, which was to be built just 50 meters from the archeological site of Kyme, was taken to court and the Archaeologists Association made statements about the project. http://iklimadaleti.org/?p=haber&n=aliagada-is-makineleri-arkeolojik-alana-girdi
  • The Break Free actions took place in 13 different countries between 3-15 May 2016, and called on world leaders to take their Paris Agreement promises seriously. On 15 May, more than 2000 people came together in Turkey, coal expansion. For more see here: http://turkey-en.breakfree2016.org/

Azerbaijan’s crackdown on civil society must not be tolerated, international NGOs tell industry transparency body


Prague, Geneva, London – The Azerbaijani government’s relentless repression of civil society should disqualify the country from participating in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI), 18 international groups wrote in a letter sent on Thursday (October 20) to members of the EITI board.

The letter and the briefing note can be found here: https://bankwatch.org/publications/letter-extractive-industries-transparency-initiative-board-working-conditions-civil-soc

The EITI board is expected to review Azerbaijan’s membership status tomorrow (Wednesday, October 26), after it has already been downgraded from ‘compliant’ to ‘candidate’ in April 2015 in light of the country’s appalling track record on human rights.

A year and a half later, it is evident that the Azeri government remains defiant, and therefore the international groups urge the board members to suspend Azerbaijan’s membership until the government ensures the ability of activists and rights defenders to operate freely.

The EITI seeks to ensure, among others, an enabling environment for civil society in member countries, but in the letter, the organisations warn that Azerbaijan’s autocratic government continues its ruthless crack down on activists and critics in the country. The letter states that bank accounts of many Azerbaijani NGOs remain frozen, international travel bans have been imposed on a number of NGO leaders, and civil society groups are effectively barred from accessing overseas funding.

Since the October 2015 visit of EITI Chairwoman Clare Short to Azerbaijan, Baku has taken some steps to improve the situation, but in light of the renewed crackdown on civil society in the country in recent months they amount to little more than lip service. Continued government harassment and persecution of NGOs and activists in Azerbaijan, including imprisonment on trumped up charges, prevents them from meaningfully participating in the EITI process.

Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev and his family have built their fortunes and political clout on the country’s oil and gas riches. Now government is promoting the development of the Southern Gas Corridor, a 3500 kilometer long chain of pipelines meant to deliver natural gas to Europe from Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz offshore field.

Some of the world’s largest international financial institutes – including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the European Investment Bank, and the World Bank – are currently considering extending loans to parts of the project at the excess of over USD 3 billion. These multilateral development banks’ own policies oblige them to only support projects that are in line with international public participation and human rights standards.

If the EITI board decides to suspend Azerbaijan’s membership, the banks will no longer be able to ignore the domestic human rights situation in the country.

“To successfully implement the corrective actions outlined by the EITI, the government must demonstrate political will to introduce genuine reforms and create the conditions for developing civil society in the country,” the letter states.

“Although the government faces serious economic problems, it remains unwilling to cooperate with civil society, and continues to violate the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, preventing civil society from meaningfully operating within the country.”

For more information contact:

Emin Huseynov
Director, Institute for Reporters’ Freedom and Safety
Emin@irfs.org
+41(0)788788428
Twitter: @EminAzerbaijan

Katie Morris
Head of Europe and Central Asia, Article 19
katie@article19.org
+44 20 7324 2500
Twitter: @katiekatia

Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath
EBRD Policy Officer, CEE Bankwatch Network
fidankab@bankwatch.org
Twitter: @fidankabmg

Lawsuits and complaints pile up against planned Bosnia and Herzegovina coal power plants

Sarajevo-based environmental watchdog Ekotim has submitted on Friday (October 14) an official complaint to the Energy Community dispute settlement mechanism (1) due to lax pollution limits for a new Chinese-backed 450 MW unit at the Tuzla coal power plant in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The complaint claims that the Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism has failed to require the plant to comply with the Industrial Emissions Directive pollution limits for new plants. Instead the Ministry required only older, less stringent standards for SO2 and dust. As a consequence additional investments may be needed once the plant is built.

This complaint is the latest in a series of legal moves by NGOs against planned new coal power plants (2) in the country due to their adverse health and climate impacts.

The environmental permits for new Tuzla 7 and Banovići power plants in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina entity have been targeted by three lawsuits at the Sarajevo Cantonal Court requesting the cancellation of the permits that were issued by the Federal Ministry of Environment and Tourism. In addition, an official complaint against Bosnia and Herzegovina was submitted to the Energy Community Secretariat regarding unclear pollution control limits for the Banovići plant, this July.

In the Republika Srpska entity, a lawsuit against the environmental permit for the recently inaugurated Stanari power plant has been submitted by the Center for Environment for Banja Luka, along with an appeal seeking the cancellation of the environmental permit for the Ugljevik III power plant. The group also filed a complaint to the Energy Community dispute settlement mechanism regarding pollution limits for the Ugljevik III power plant in December 2014.

The latest complaint comes at the time when Bosnia and Herzegovina hosted the Energy Community Ministerial Council meeting (3) in Sarajevo as the culmination of its year-long presidency of the regional energy body. During the meeting, new stricter environmental impact assessment standards were adopted, bringing the Treaty up to date with changes in the EU (4).

“More than ten years since the entry into force of the Energy Community Treaty, the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities have proven themselves incapable or unwilling of correctly implementing one of the most basic obligations of the Treaty – the environmental impact assessment process. Now the Ministerial Council has adopted stricter legislation and our authorities haven’t even managed to properly implement the current obligations”, commented Rijad Tikveša, President of Ekotim.

“We’ve been warning the authorities for several years that under the Energy Community Treaty, any new power plants coming online after 1 January 2018 have to be in line with the EU Industrial Emissions Directive, but the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities have failed to include this requirement in new environmental permits”, he added.

“It’s anyway incomprehensible that the Bosnia and Herzegovina authorities are approving new climate- and health-damaging coal power plants at all, when EU climate policies and low electricity prices will almost certainly render them uneconomic. Solar and wind prices are falling rapidly but Bosnia and Herzegovina is failing to take advantage of these plentiful resources”, added Igor Kalaba, Energy and Climate Change Program Coordinator of Center for Environment.

For more information please contact:

Rijad Tikveša
President, Ekotim (Sarajevo)
+387 61 554 302
rijad@ekotim.net

Igor Kalaba
Energy and Climate Change Program Coordinator, Center for Environment (Banja Luka)
+387 51 433 142
igor.kalaba@czzs.org

Pippa Gallop
Research Co-ordinator, CEE Bankwatch Network
+385 99 755 9787
pippa.gallop@bankwatch.org

Notes for editors:

(1) The Energy Community Treaty was signed in 2005 and entered force in 2006. It aims at extending the EU energy market to neighbouring countries by progressively adopting EU energy and environmental legislation. The current Contracting Parties to the Treaty are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine. Georgia was accepted as a Contracting Party on 14 October 2016. The Dispute Settlement Mechanism is a complaints body administered by the Energy Community Secretariat and aims at ensuring the implementation of the required legislation by the Contracting Parties.

(2) The ongoing lawsuits and official complaints comprise:

  • A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the environmental permit for the planned Tuzla 7 power plant filed to the Sarajevo Cantonal Court by Ekotim on September 29, 2016.
  • A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the environmental permit for the planned 350 MW Banovići power plant near Tuzla was filed to the Sarajevo Cantonal Court by Ekotim on April 15, 2016.
  • A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the environmental permit for the Ramići cooling water reservoir was filed to the Sarajevo Cantonal Court by Ekotim on April 18, 2016.
  • A complaint to the Energy Community dispute settlement mechanism regarding pollution limits for the Banovići plant was filed on July 26, 2016.
  • A lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the environmental permit for the recently opened 300 MW Stanari power plant near Doboj was filed by Center for Environment on August 18, 2015.
  • A court appeal seeking the cancellation of the environmental permit for the Ugljevik III power plant was filed by Center for Environment on November 13, 2015.
  • A complaint to the Energy Community dispute settlement mechanism regarding pollution limits for the Ugljevik III power plant was filed by Center for Environment on December 16, 2014.

(3) For the meeting documents see the Energy Community website.

(4) The current version of the Environmental Impact Assessment directive in the Energy Community Treaty is the 1985 version (Council Directive 85/337/EEC amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC and Directive 2003/35/EC). Friday’s decision, which needs to be implemented starting from January 1, 2019, brings the Treaty into line with the 2011 version of the Directive (2011/92/EU amended by 2014/52/EU).

New life for old nukes in Ukraine means more risk for people and planet

A decision today by Ukraine’s nuclear regulator to extend the operations of another Soviet-era reactor has been made in spite of the country’s failure to implement fully the obligations it took on when receiving EU funding for its ageing nuclear fleet.

Slated for closure by February 2016, the second unit at the Zaporizhska nuclear power plant – located in the proximity of the ongoing war with Russia over the Donbas region – was granted a new lease on life today. The State Nuclear Regulatory Inspectorate Council ruled that the reactor could continue operations until 2026. This follows a similar decision made in September 2016 for unit one at Zaporizhska.

The ruling brings the total number to six reactors with a green light to operate beyond their originally designed lifetime. Together with another nine reactors, as much as 55 per cent of Ukraine’s electricity is provided by these plants [1].

Yet despite its obligation under the UN’s Espoo Convention and the loan agreements signed with the financiers of its nuclear ‘safety upgrade’ programme – the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the EU’s Euratom – Ukraine has yet to initiate the requisite discussions regarding the Zaporizhska extensions in its neighbouring countries.

Ukraine is already under scrutiny [2] by the Energy Community for its failure to implement the EU’s Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, a further obligation for Ukraine in receiving its nuclear loans.

Iryna Holovko, campaigner at the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine, said: “Ukrainian authorities need a clear message from the European Commission that disrespect for international obligations comes with consequences. No respect for conventions, no money.”

Bankwatch has also taken legal action against the European Commission over the lack of information provided about its decision to disburse the first tranche of funds to Ukraine. When a 2015 request for information from the Commission’s Directorate for Economic and Monetary Affairs [3] – which has jurisdiction of the loan to Ukraine – was insufficiently answered, Bankwatch referred the case to the European Court of Justice.

Dana Marekova, Bankwatch campaigner in Slovakia, said: “Today’s decision shows little regard for safety and for public opinion. Bankwatch had asked for information from the Commission about the disbursement of loan payments, because we want to understand the rationale for supporting a programme that fails to honor commitments made to international conventions.”

For more information contact:

Dana Marekova
Campaigner, Bankwatch – Slovakia
dana.marekova@bankwatch.org

Iryna Holovko
Campaigner, National Ecological Centre of Ukraine
iryna@bankwatch.org

Notes

[1] More on individual reactors in Ukraine and their designed lifetimes https://bankwatch.org/image-upload/UAnuclear-map-new.pdf

[2] https://www.energy-community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/NEWS/News_Details?p_new_id=13263

[3] https://bankwatch.org/publications/letter-european-commission-dg-ecfin-ukraine-does-not-meet-obligations-under-internation

Juncker investment plan: deep reforms necessary for sustainable future


Brussels, 28 September 2016 – Cash that should be flowing into projects that boost environmental sustainability is instead fuelling outdated carbon-intensive projects like motorways, airports, and fossil-fuel infrastructure, according to a new report on Europe’s investment plan released today [1].

The report analyses projects approved by the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) in its first year of operation. The fund should catalyse €315 billion in new investment, and play an important role in the fight against climate change. However, during its first year an additional €1.5 billion was earmarked for fossil fuel infrastructure, and 68% of transport investment is destined for carbon-intensive projects.

Markus Trilling, EU policy officer for CEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of the Earth Europe, said:
“Despite the best laid plans, Europe is hemorrhaging cash in deeply unsustainable projects like motorways, airports and gas infrastructure. Europe is missing huge opportunities to modernise and decarbonise its economy through investments in renewables and energy efficiency.”

Anna Roggenbuck, EIB campaign coordinator for CEE Bankwatch Network, said:
“Our analysis proves that in the energy sector, the EFSI did not catalyze more support for renewables than what was already provided by the European Investment Bank – although this was its initial mandate. This looks like window-dressing. We need to ensure that the EFSI provides real added-value in order to catalyse investments needed for an energy system of the future.”

Sebastien Godinot, economist in WWF European Policy Office, said:
“The Juncker plan should be used for climate action, not for climate destruction. There is no reason why it should support more investments in gas infrastructure while the EU gas consumption is going down. Instead of investing in polluting costly infrastructure for which there will likely be no market in the future, we should focus on energy efficiency and renewable energy solutions.”

The report raises concerns about the European Commission’s proposal to extend the Investment Plan for Europe under “EFSI 2.0” [2]. Although some support for renewables and energy efficiency is welcomed, deep reforms are necessary if the fund is to guide a sustainable energy transition, according to the organisations [3].

The report recommends improving both the sectoral and geographical balance of investment, increasing transparency, and putting a clear focus on genuinely sustainable projects.

For more information please contact:

Markus Trilling
CEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel: +32 (0) 484 05 66 36
markus.trilling@foeeurope.org

Anna Roggenbuck
CEE Bankwatch Network
Tel: +48 509 970 424
annar@bankwatch.org

Sebastien Godinot
WWF European Policy Office
Tel: +32 (0) 489 46 1314
sgodinot@wwf.eu

Maeve McLynn
CAN Europe
Tel: +32 2893 0950
maeve@caneurope.org

Notes for the edito:

[1] The best laid plans: Why the Investment Plan for Europe does not drive the sustainable energy transition – https://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/best-laid-plans.pdf

The report was published by CEE Bankwatch Network; Climate Action Network Europe; Counter Balance; Friends of the Earth Europe and WWF EU.

[2] European Commission, Strengthening European Investments for jobs and growth, September 2016:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=COM:2016:581:FIN

[3] European Commission, The Road from Paris, March 2016:
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/1-2016-110-EN-F1-1.PDF

Juncker Investment Plan 2 and review of EU budget offer no progress towards Europe’s long-term climate goals

What should have been two significant contributions to Europe’s war chest in the fight against climate change will in fact leave the planet short-changed and open the door to even more polluting fossil fuel projects, argue campaigners at Bankwatch, Friends of the Earth Europe and Climate Action Network Europe.

Today, the European Commission proposed a second iteration of the European Fund for Strategic Investment (the so-called ‘Junker Investment Plant’) [1]. It would extend its operations until 2020 – two and a half years beyond its initial term – and aim to leverage 500 billion euro in additional infrastructure investments across the EU.

While the new proposal would include so-called ‘climate action components’ in at least 40 percent of new projects, the groups argue that virtually any investment could fit within this framework.

Anna Roggenbuck, EIB campaigner at Bankwatch, said:
“The Commission’s proposal is pretty generous about what it would consider climate-friendly. Moving the goalposts would mean that refurbishing a gas pipeline would count as a climate action component. We need a real guarantee that money allocated for climate action is spent to fulfil the EU’s climate obligations under the Paris Agreement and not some form of green washing.”

Also at issue is the introduction of a new provision that would make any piece of infrastructure eligible for an EU guarantee under the EFSI as long as it is cross border between two member states.

“This provision paves the way for continued investments in fossil fuels such as gas infrastructure and climate intensive motorway transport”, argued Wendel Trio, Director at CAN-Europe. “Instead, we need investments in genuine alternatives that support the transition away from carbon pollution”, he continued.

In a parallel move, the Commission also published its mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 [2] (the so-called ‘EU budget’). In a sobering admission [3], it predicts that it will not reach the 20 per cent spending for climate action, as was mandated when the budget was approved in 2013.

The mid-term review gives a nod to the need to foster job creation, investment and economic growth as well as addressing migration and its root causes. However, the mid-term review fails to mention enhancing funding to tackle climate change or removing fossil fuel subsidies which inhibit Europe’s ability to meet its international climate objectives.

Markus Trilling, EU funds campaigner at Bankwatch and Friends of the Earth, said:
“The two proposals today sold out the EU’s long-term plans for climate action. The Commission betrayed the commitments made in Paris by allowing more money for fossil fuels. Now it is up to the European Parliament and the Council to right the Commission’s wrongs and ensure that both the Juncker Investment Plan and the EU budget truly deliver for the climate.”

Contacts

Caroline Westblom, CAN Europe Communications Officer
caroline@caneurope.org
+32 484 566 239

Wendel Trio, CAN Europe Director
wendel@caneurope.org
+32 473 170 887

Markus Trilling
EU funds campaigner at CEE Bankwatch Network & Friends of the Earth Europe
markus@bankwatch.org
+32 484 056 636
Twitter: @SustEUfunds

Notes for editors

1. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:08ec00f9-7a52-11e6-b076-01aa75ed71a1.0001.02/DOC_1&format=PDF

2. http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/figures/index_en.cfm#com_2016_603

3. Staff Working Document, page 20 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/mff/lib/COM-2016-603/SWD-2016-299_en.pdf