Press release

Western Balkans: NGOs launch proposals to revive EU’s flagging Green Agenda

Launched by the European Commission in October 2020, the Green Agenda for the Western Balkans (2) is a major initiative to encourage the region’s governments to use EU funds for decarbonisation, depollution, circular economy, sustainable rural development and biodiversity protection. It is managed by the Regional Cooperation Council (RCC)(3).

Yet four years since its launch, and three years since an Action Plan 2021-2030 (4) was endorsed by Western Balkan leaders in October 2021, a lack of clear structure, timetable and targeted reporting is still preventing effective oversight by civil society.

This raises concerns about the Green Agenda’s effectiveness and added value, particularly as many of the Action Plan items duplicate countries’ pre-existing obligations under the Energy Community Treaty (5) and Transport Community Treaty (6).

‘…the responsibilities for implementation are unclear and it cannot be properly monitored or reported on. The RCC’s Implementation Report (7) published in 2023 has great difficulty identifying whether actions have been completed or not, and if so, whether this happened due to the Green Agenda or would have happened anyway,’ write the groups.

Among others, today’s NGO proposals request a rethink of the Green Agenda’s voluntary nature, asking governments to publicly commit to specific actions. They also urge the RCC to break down the Action Plan into time-bound steps, clearly stating who is responsible, together with baseline information to allow effective progress tracking.

The proposals include detailed suggestions for actions to advance decarbonisation, depollution and biodiversity, prioritising enforcement of key EU environmental legislation, legal protection of natural areas and other high-impact activities, while eliminating poorly-defined, unmeasurable or meaningless ones.

Pippa Gallop, Southeast Europe Energy Policy Officer, CEE Bankwatch Network – ‘With climate chaos accelerating across the Western Balkans, the Green Agenda is a must. But we’re almost halfway to 2030 and it’s hardly got started. It’s now urgent for the EU’s new Enlargement Commissioner to take the helm and make sure EU funds are used effectively in the region, for the good of people and the environment.’

Contacts

Pippa Gallop, Southeast Europe Energy Policy Officer, CEE Bankwatch Network

pippa.gallop@bankwatch.org

+385 99 755 9787

Notes for editors

(1) The proposals are available here (Action Plan and Roadmaps) and here (Green Agenda governance).

They are supported by the following organisations:

Aarhus Centar in BiH,

Belgrade Open School,

CEE Bankwatch Network,

Center for Environment,

Center for Economic Analyses (CEA) (supported the governance proposals),

Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe,

EcoZ,

EDEN Center,

Eko-svest,

Front 21/42,

Group of Rural Activists of Dibra-GARD,

Network Albania,

NGO Eco-team,

Protection and Preservation of Natural Environment in Albania (PPNEA),

Resource Environmental Center (REC) Albania,

Resource Environmental Center (REC) Bosnia and Herzegovina

Resource Environmental Center (REC) Montenegro

Resource Environmental Center (REC) North Macedonia.

(2) A working paper on the implementation of the Green Agenda accompanied the Economic and Investment Plan for the Western Balkans published by the European Commission in October 2020. This was followed in November 2020 by the Sofia Declaration, endorsed by the region’s leaders at a Western Balkans Summit under the auspices of the Berlin Process.

(3) For more on the Regional Cooperation Council, see here.

(4) The Green Agenda Action Plan can be found here. Produced by the Regional Cooperation Council, it contains 58 actions to advance the region’s decarbonisation, depollution, circular economy, rural development and biodiversity, and outlines a monitoring and governance structure. From the outset, updates of the Plan were envisaged in 2024 and 2027.

(5) For more on the Energy Community Treaty, see here.

(6) For more on the Transport Community Treaty, see here.

(7) Implementation Report published in 2023 can be found here.

European Parliament fails to halt disastrous hydropower project jeopardising local livelihoods and endangered species

27 September, Brussels, Sofia, Bucharest

The hazardous Turnu Măgurele–Nikopol hydropower project on the Lower Danube has been added to the EU’s priority investment list, despite the fact it will increase flood risk for over 100 towns and villages, threaten protected areas and the survival of critically endangered species, and violate the EU’s own policies. This happens just before the world gathers at the Convention on Biological Diversity COP16 to discuss how to accelerate action to protect rivers under the Global Biodiversity Framework. This strategy commits the EU to protect 30% of its rivers and other inland waters.

The European Parliament chose to ignore the joint call of Bankwatch, WWF and 36 other environmental organisations across the continent to take more time and thoroughly review the scientific evidence and socio-economic arguments against the project [1]. The Turnu Măgurele-Nikopol Hydraulic Structures Assembly (TMNHSA) hydropower project, designed over forty years ago, has consistently failed to attract investors due to its massive costs, relatively low energy returns, and significant social and environmental impacts.

Along with its impact on communities and nature, it would also devastate local economies dependent on agriculture, fisheries, and tourism, disrupt waterway transport, and even pose risks to the nuclear power plant in Kozloduy.

By not requesting an extension of the scrutiny period or voting against the list of projects by September 24, the European Parliament has silently green-lighted the project. As a result, on September 24, this environmentally and socially destructive project was officially added to the List of Renewable Energy Cross-border Projects (CB RES), making it eligible for EU funding under the Connecting Europe Facility programme.

‘We are disappointed that the European Parliament missed the opportunity for scrutinising the project. Without proper assessment, the rushed approval of this project undermines the EU’s stated goals of biodiversity protection and climate resilience’, says Irene Lucius, WWF-CEE Regional Conservation Director. ‘Beyond environmental destruction, the project will cause irreversible harm to communities in Romania and Bulgaria. Over 100 towns and villages will be affected by the dam’s reservoir, which is expected to cause widespread flooding of farmland, homes, and critical infrastructure.’

Call for Immediate Action by the European Commission

CEE Bankwatch Network, WWF and the 36 partner organisations urgently call on the European Commission to remove the Turnu Măgurele – Nikopol project from its list of priority renewable energy projects.

‘The Commission must act swiftly to reverse this mistake’, says Andrey Ralev, Biodiversity Campaigner at CEE Bankwatch Network. ‘As the EU faces a biodiversity and climate crisis, pursuing projects that exacerbate these challenges is irresponsible and short-sighted. There are far more sustainable energy alternatives available, including solar and wind power, which can meet the region’s energy needs faster and cheaper without destroying natural habitats or threatening livelihoods. The Turnu Măgurele – Nikopol project is an outdated, cost-inefficient and destructive dinosaur, and the EU cannot afford to endorse it.’

The environmental organisations underline that the TMNHSA project contradicts not only key EU environmental laws and policies, such as the Water Framework and the Habitats Directive. It is also in conflict with EU Member States international commitments, including under the historic Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework signed in December 2022.

‘How can the EU appear on the global stage and expect the world community to take action on biodiversity conservation and climate change adaptation when it promotes outdated infrastructure that destroys large protected areas and threatens the survival of critically endangered species such as the iconic Danube sturgeons – the most endangered wildlife species group in the world?’ says Beate Striebel-Greiter, WWF’s Sturgeon Initiative Coordinator.

Note to editors

[1] A delegated act sent to the European Parliament and Council for a two-month scrutiny on 24/07, added the project to the list of cross-border renewable energy projects (CB RES list) eligible for funding under the Connecting Europe Facility Programme. The European Parliament and Council had two months to scrutinise the list, and could approve or reject it, or ask for a two-month extension of the scrutiny period. Link to the delegated act: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=PI_COM%3AC%282024%295129&qid=1723042928236

Additional information

Briefing on EU priority project Turnu Măgurele – Nikopol Hydraulic Structures Assembly (TMNHSA) threatening Lower Danube communities and ecosystem here

Pictures

Download pictures from here.

Contact details:

WWF contact:

Irene Lucius, WWF-CEE Regional Conservation Director
Email: ilucius@wwfcee.org

Bankwatch contact:

Andrey Ralev, Biodiversity Campaigner
Email: andrey.ralev@bankwatch.org

42 civil society organisations call on EU leaders to secure funding for the just transition in the next EU budget

Currently, 92 regions across Europe are using the Just Transition Fund to mitigate the impacts of the closure of high-carbon industries in regions throughout the EU. Some countries will complete the process within a few years, but others face a much longer and more painful journey towards full decarbonisation.

The timing of this statement is particularly significant given the upcoming mid-term review of the EU’s cohesion policy, the review of the Just Transition Fund, and the European Commission’s proposal for the new Multiannual Financial Framework, which will be followed by negotiations with other EU institutions.

While the political guidelines for the next European Commission include a commitment to ‘significantly increase our funding for a just transition across the next long-term budget’, there are also signals from various corners of the EU that the fund should either be discontinued entirely or be significantly modified. This could lead to much dissatisfaction in regions that have already embarked on the just transition pathway.

With this statement, Europe’s leading civil society organisations underline the importance of keeping the Just Transition Fund as a dedicated financial instrument under the cohesion policy, while preserving its territorial focus to ensure targeted support. In addition, they call on EU leaders to ensure that the next version of the fund applies stronger social conditionalities to protect the most vulnerable communities, including dedicating a minimum proportion of spending to social projects. They also call for more robust environmental conditionalities to ensure that funded projects make a greater contribution to the EU’s climate and biodiversity targets.

Miłosława Stępień, Just Transition Coordinator for Central and Eastern Europe at CEE Bankwatch Network: ‘In regions transitioning away from high-emission industries, especially in central and eastern Europe, the Just Transition Fund is seen as the only dedicated and easily accessible fund they can use. It provides enormous support in revitalising areas that have been in decline for decades. These regions will continue to struggle if they’re not further assisted in their efforts to shift to a green economy.’

Olivier Vardakoulias, Finance and Subsidies Policy Coordinator at Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe: ‘The European Green Deal is in its implementation phase and, while it promises to reduce emissions, it also requires ongoing dialogue with citizens to maintain their trust. It’s crucial that Member States and EU institutions show that they can meet their basic needs and provide a safety net. Extending the Just Transition Fund beyond the current long-term EU budget would demonstrate that the EU is serious about the public’s demands for a socially just energy transition, particularly in regions shifting away from fossil fuels.’

Mags Bird, Senior Policy Officer for Just Transition at WWF European Policy Office: ‘Addressing environmental, economic and social challenges in a coordinated way is a key challenge for the green transition. The Just Transition Fund is unique in aiming to do exactly that via plans tailored to local needs and contexts. It’s an important instrument for a more integrated and place-based shift towards sustainable societies.’

Contacts:

Miłosława Stępień, Just Transition Coordinator for Central and Eastern Europe at CEE Bankwatch Network

miloslawa.stepien@bankwatch.org, +48 607 491 322

Olivier Vardakoulias, Finance and Subsidies Policy Coordinator at Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe

olivier.vardakoulias@caneurope.org, +30 697 816 2538

Mags Bird, Senior Policy Officer for Just Transition at WWF European Policy Office:

mbird@wwf.eu

Notes for editors:

(1) Keeping the promise: Why the Just Transition Fund must be maintained in the next EU budget – Bankwatch

About Bankwatch

CEE Bankwatch Network is today the largest network of grassroots environmental groups in countries of central and eastern Europe and a leading force in preventing dubious public investments that harm the planet and people’s well-being in this region and beyond.

About CAN Europe

Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe is Europe’s leading NGO coalition fighting dangerous climate change. We are a unique network, in which environmental and development organisations work together to issue joint lobby campaigns and maximise their impact. With over 200 member organisations active in 40 European countries, representing over 1,700 NGOs and more than 40 million citizens, CAN Europe promotes sustainable climate, energy and development policies throughout Europe.

About WWF EPO

WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which people live in harmony with nature. The European Policy Office contributes to this by advocating for strong EU environmental policies on sustainable development, nature conservation, climate and energy, marine protection, sustainable finance and external action. We represent 27 national and regional WWF offices and over 3 million supporters.

Western Balkans: coal pollution increases due to government failures – new report

Six years since pollution control rules came into force under the Energy Community Treaty, sulphur dioxide emissions from coal plants included in the National Emissions Reduction Plans (NERPs)(2) of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Serbia were still collectively 5.7 times as high as allowed in 2023. This is a step backwards from 2022, when they were 5.6 times as high.

The highest absolute emitter of SO2 in 2023 was Ugljevik in Bosnia and Herzegovina, with 97,189 tonnes. Its operator, an Elektroprivreda Republike Srpska subsidiary, has spent at least EUR 85 million, financed by a Japan International Cooperation Agency loan, on a desulphurisation unit, but following a series of technical problems, now admits it is not working, partly because it is an ‘economic burden’.

Fellow repeat offender Kostolac B in Serbia had finally started to decrease its SO2 emissions in 2021, but has increased them since then, emitting nearly 5.8 times as much as allowed in 2023. Either the desulphurisation unit, financed by the China Eximbank and installed by the China Machinery Engineering Corporation (CMEC), is not being used much, or it is underperforming.

Dust pollution from NERP coal plants across the region was nearly 1.75 times as high as allowed in 2023 – only a minor decrease from 1.8 times in 2022. Nitrogen oxides pollution also totalled 1.3 times as much as allowed. For the first time, Serbia joined Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina in breaching its NOx limit.

In addition to the NERP breaches, at the end of 2023, the deadline for closing the smallest and oldest plants under the ‘opt-out’ limited lifetime derogation expired. All three countries in the Western Balkans with coal power plants subject to this rule – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia – are now breaching it, as all the plants are still operating.

Montenegro’s Pljevlja plant has been running illegally since late 2020, and in 2022 was joined by Tuzla 4 and Kakanj 5 in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Morava in Serbia. Morava’s operator, Elektroprivreda Srbije (EPS), plans to run it until 2026, along with another opt-out plant, Kolubara A.

The Energy Community Secretariat has opened several infringement-type cases against the countries (3) but not a single government has imposed penalties on the coal plants in question. Nor do they have clear, updated and realistic plans for compliance and/or closure.

Davor Pehchevski, Balkan Energy Coordinator at Bankwatch – ‘Governments and utilities are intent on squeezing every last kilowatt out of their ageing coal power plants, regardless of the health costs. The countries’ national energy and climate plans (NECPs) must set out how and when coal will be phased out, but so far, most do not. In North Macedonia, closures are being delayed with no action being taken to address pollution in the meantime. Utilities can’t have it both ways – coal plants must either close immediately or comply until they close.’

Pippa Gallop, Southeast Europe Energy Policy Officer at Bankwatch – ‘At a time when EU leaders appear confident in Serbia’s ability to manage the environmental impacts of lithium mining, our report provides a sobering reality check about environmental law enforcement in the region. The European Commission’s inability to ensure compliance with EU pollution control legislation puts a major dent in the EU’s image in the region: The new Enlargement Commissioner must tackle this head on.’

Contacts:

Davor Pehchevski,
Balkan Energy Coordinator
davor.pehchevski@bankwatch.org
Tel: +389 71 264 087

Pippa Gallop
Southeast Europe Energy Policy Officer
pippa.gallop@bankwatch.org
Tel: +395 99 755 9787

Ioana Ciută, Strategic Area Leader – Beyond Fossil Fuels
ioana.ciuta@bankwatch.org
Tel: +40 724 020 281

Notes for editors:

(1) The report is available at ComplyOrClose.org

(2) As part of their obligations to comply with the Large Combustion Plants Directive under the Energy Community Treaty, four Western Balkan countries – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Serbia – have drawn up National Emission Reduction Plans (NERPs) covering the period from 2018 to 2027. Instead of requiring each large combustion plant to comply with the emission limit values from the Large Combustion Plants Directive from 1 January 2018, these plans allow the countries to calculate national emissions ceilings for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and dust, and to gradually decrease their total emissions from selected pre-1992 large combustion plants until 2027. In 2027, all the plants included in the NERPs will individually need to be in compliance not only with the emission limit values from the Large Combustion Plants Directive, but also with Part 1 of Annex V to Directive 2010/75/EU on Industrial Emissions.

(3) Due to the breaches of the NERP pollution limits, in March 2021 the Energy Community Secretariat opened dispute settlement cases against BiH, Kosovo, North Macedonia and Serbia.

In July 2023, the Energy Community Secretariat took further steps against Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, and North Macedonia, making a reasoned request to the Energy Community Ministerial Council to make decisions on the cases, which it did in December 2023. The case against Serbia remains open but has not escalated due to ongoing desulphurisation investments.

Due to the breaches of the opt-out provisions, the Energy Community Secretariat also opened dispute settlement cases against Montenegro in April 2021, Bosnia and Herzegovina in October 2022, and Serbia in October 2023.

Reaction to the European Court of Auditors’ report on the green transition in the EU’s recovery fund

The European Court of Auditors’ report on implementation of EU’s recovery fund, published yesterday, casts a new shadow over the contribution of the fund to the green transition. The court identified a series of weaknesses in the design and implementation of the investments for climate and environment. This means that less money is actually spent on the green transition than what is communicated by the Commission and Member States.

These shortcomings include issues with the methodology to track climate investments as well as discrepancies between planning and implementation of the measures. Due to the recovery fund’s legal framework, as well as the Commission’s interpretation of the rules and the practices of Member States in spending the money, it is likely that the fund’s actual investments for the green transition are largely overestimated.

The report shows it is necessary to develop a different approach which more accurately calculates the contribution of the Recovery and Resilience Facility to the green transition, as well as to establish higher standards for implementing climate and environment investments. In particular, this means a stricter approach to applying the ‘do no significant harm’ principle, as well as improved reporting on climate spending.

The Commission will propose the EU’s long term budget post 2027 by mid-2025, and is regularly portraying the recovery fund as a blueprint for future funding streams. The inconsistencies and shortcomings related to climate and environment measures must be properly considered, with the necessary revisions being properly integrated when planning future EU funds.

Christophe Jost, Senior EU Policy Officer says, ‘Climate and environment investments needs are only increasing. So, it is crucial that public funds for the green transition are spent with the highest standards, both in the design and implementation. The European Court of Auditors’ report shows this is not happening with the EU’s recovery fund so the Commission and Member States must revise their practices to ensure that what is communicated corresponds to what is happening on the ground’.

For more information contact:

Christophe Jost, Senior EU Policy Officer
christophe.jost@bankwatch.org

Environmental NGOs demand halt to KfW controversial biomass investments in Serbia

KfW is the main financier of a controversial EUR 32 million Programme for Renewable Energy in South East Europe – Development of a Biomass Market in Serbia, which started in 2017. The programme has already led to the construction of four combined heat and power (CHP) plants in four Serbian municipalities [2], each featuring a wood boiler and a larger fossil fuel boiler. On 14t of May 2024, KfW approved two new contracts for a further EUR 9.9 million in loans for six more wood biomass plants in six further municipalities. [3] The full details of the agreements for the second phase remain undisclosed.

KfW’s financing of wood bioenergy in Serbia is sourced from Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) funds aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting a just transition. However, the planned investment threatens Serbia’s forests, affecting the diverse wildlife and ecosystems they support, and exacerbates the existing high levels of air pollution. As the letter points out, illegal logging is widespread in Serbia and there is no adequate legal and administrative framework for protecting forests and all the mammals, birds, fungi and other life forms that depend on them.

500 scientists warned in an open letter in 2021 that additional woodharvest for bioenergy “will increase warming for decades to centuries. That is true even when the wood replaces coal, oil or natural gas.” Furthermore, part of that ‘climate finance’ has been used to build new fossil fuel boilers next to wood-fired ones.

Natasa Kovacevic, Campaigner for district heating sector decarbonisation, CEE Bankwatch Network ‘Not enough wood can be harvested to cover Serbia’s plans for biomass district heating without causing serious harm to the countries’ forests. Pouring further money into burning trees for heat means feeding illegal logging activities, exacerbating poor air quality and fuelling the climate crisis. It also crowds out funding urgently needed for more sustainable energy solutions.‘

Zoe Lujic from Earth Thrive, who lives in Serbia, states: “Industrial forest biomass goes against the inherent and inalienable rights of Nature and thus violates the rights of forests and living forest communities, to live and exist, flourish and evolve naturally. We strongly oppose the spreading of industrial forest biomass in Serbia, Balkans and beyond.”

Almuth Ernsting from Biofuelwatch adds: “KfW must discontinue further support for biomass energy in Serbia, re-evaluate funding priorities, and support real heating alternatives such as solar, geothermal, large-scale heat pump deployment, and energy efficiency measures to ensure genuine climate and nature benefits. Mr Sven Giegold, State Secretary in the FederalMinistry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action and Chair of the Board of Directors of KfW needs to intervene to ensure that KfW carries out a review to that effect.”

Jana Ballenthien, forest campaigner with ROBIN WOOD and member of the German network ausgebrannt says: “Germany has a huge responsibility for forest destruction worldwide. It is not the first time that BMZ is financing projects which promote burning forest biomass. We cannot accept that the German development bank KfW becomes an instrument for promoting harm to the climate internationally. A fundamental rethink is needed.”

Contacts:

Natasa Kovacevic
Campaigner for Decarbonisation of the District Heating Sector for the Western Balkans, CEE Bankwatch Network, email. natasa.kovacevic@bankwatch.org , Mob. +382 67 030 033

Almuth Ernsting Biofuelwatch, biofuelwatch@gmail.com, Tel.: +44-79340-227525

Zoe Lujic, EarthThrive, zoelujic@earth-thrive.org Tel.: ++381 64-309-8177

Notes for editors:

[1] Open Letter to KfW – Offener Brief an die KfW

[2] The recently built plants are located in Priboj, Mali Zvornik, Novi Pazar and Majdanpek.

[3] More information about KfW’s Programme for Renewable Energy in South East Europe – Development of a Biomass Market in Serbia can be found at:

https://www.kfw-entwicklungsbank.de/ipfz/Projektdatenbank/Förderung-erneuerbarer-Energien-in-Südosteuropa—Entwicklung-des-Biomassemarktes-in-Serbien-29131.htm and

https://www.german-energy-solutions.de/GES/Redaktion/DE/Publikationen/Kurzinformationen/Technologiefactsheets/2022/fs-serbien.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1