Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Press release

Press release

Ukraine snubs safety concerns and European donors, extends lifetime of fourth Soviet-era nuclear reactor

Kiev, Prague – An ageing nuclear unit in the South Ukraine power plant is the latest to have its expiry date rewritten by overzealous Ukrainian authorities, despite a number of pending safety issues and concerns over compliance with international treaties.

The board of Ukraine’s nuclear regulator SNRIU has yesterday (Monday) given the green light to the prolonged operation of unit 2 in the South Ukraine nuclear power plant beyond its original expiry date. Designed to work for no more than three decades, this nuclear reactor will be able to continue operations for ten more years as soon as the board decision is approved by the head of the SNRIU, even though a number of high priority safety upgrades are yet to be completed.

In its meeting on April 30, 2015, the nuclear regulator ruled that the unit has 33 safety deviations which need to be eliminated for a lifetime extension to be considered. The unit was therefore shutdown once it exceeded its design lifetime on May 12, 2015, but it could soon resume operations.

Yet, an inspection report from October 23, 2015, showed that only 9 of the 33 deviations have been eliminated and works on 11 others were still underway. The SNRIU board agreed that the remaining 13 issues will be addressed at a later stage.

“The SNRIU claims that it enforces international safety standards in Ukraine’s nuclear fleet, but there is little to back this up as long as no documents to confirm the elimination of safety deviations are presented,” says Iryna Holovko, Bankwatch’s national campaigner in Ukraine.

In fact, the SNRIU’s ability to guarantee the safety of the country’s nuclear reactors is in question. A government-imposed moratorium in effect since January 2015 prevents the nuclear regulator from carrying inspections in nuclear facilities on its own initiative.

A broader safety upgrade programme in Ukraine’s nuclear reactors, including in the South Ukraine power plant, is supported with a total of EUR 600 million from Euratom and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and was agreed to be completed by December 2017.

Yet, a governmental decree from September 30, 2015, postponed the deadline for the implementation of the programme until 2020 and without the approval of the European donors. As a result, the implementation of additional safety measures at unit 2 of the South Ukraine plant could now be delayed until the end of 2017.

“Ukraine could not send a clearer message to the programe’s international financiers that, despite the millions of euros of public money that they had invested, they don’t really have a say in how they are used,” says Holovko.

Moreover, in a letter sent to Member of the European Parliament in September the European Commission explicitly confirmed that it is of the opinion that lifetime extensions of nuclear units in Ukraine require transboundary environmental assessments and public consultations in neighbouring countries in line with the Espoo and Aarhus conventions. Yet, the Ukrainian authorities’ refusal to do so has not prevented the European donors from disbursing their loans.

“The Ukrainian authorities are so keen to stifle public debate on this reckless programe that when we commented on the SNRIU’s decision on this nuclear unit in April we were faced with a defamation lawsuit,” says Holovko.

Three other Ukrainian nuclear units are already operating beyond their design lifespan. In 2010 units 1 and 2 in the Rivne power plant have been authorized to continue working until 2030. This decision has been found to be in breach of the Espoo Convention. Unit 1 in the South Ukraine power plant has been granted a ten years lifetime extension in 2013. An independent expert report published earlier this year concluded the reactor is suffering critical vulnerabilities. Next Thursday (December 17) the SNRIU is expected to discuss the status of unit 1 in the Zaporizhia power plant ahead of its December 23 expiry date.

For more information contact:

Iryna Holovko
National Campaigner for Ukraine
CEE Bankwatch Network
iryna@bankwatch.org
Tel.+380 50 647 6700

Note to editors:

For more information visit the campaign webpage:
https://bankwatch.org/our-work/projects/nuclear-power-plant-safety-upgrades-ukraine

Macedonia urged to suspend controversial hydropower project

Strasbourg, Skopje, Prague – In the latest blow to planned hydropower dam in Macedonia’s Mavrovo National Park, the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention, the European wildlife treaty, added today its voice to growing calls to reconsider this reckless project. The spotlight is now on the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the project’s main financier.

The heated discussions at the Committee concluded today with a resolution calling on the Macedonian government to suspend its plans for establishing over 20 hydropower facilities in the Mavrovo National Park until a Strategic Environmental Assessment, analysing the potential impacts, is completed.

In its resolution, the Committee refers to the park as “one of biodiversity hotspots in Europe, hosting a very high number of species and natural habitats protected by the Bern Convention”.

If materialized, the 68 MW Boškov Most hydropower plant is expected to cause irreversible damage to the fragile ecosystems in the park. Specifically, experts believe it could deal a fatal blow to the critically endangered Balkan lynx, for whom the park and its surroundings are the only known breeding area.

According to the latest scientific estimations, less than 40 individuals of this magnificent feline still remain in the wild.

This week’s discussions follow an independent expert study (pdf) into the planned hydropower developments in the Mavrovo National Park.

The study authors found the hydropower development to be “not compatible with the status of protection of the park,” and concluded that the Boškov Most project “as currently designed must be abandoned until the conservation status of the Balkan lynx population is brought back to a safe level and until when the Mavrovo National Park is no longer the only known core area of reproduction of this species.”

Yet, the Macedonian government has already secured EUR 65 million in funding from the EBRD for the Boškov Most project, despite the bank’s own environmental policy. The Committee’s decision also suggested international financial institutions revisit their involvement in the hydropower projects in the park in light of the outcome of an upcoming strategic environmental assessment.

“The Committee has now sent an unequivocal message to the Macedonian government and everybody involved in this egregious project that protected areas are there for a reason,” says Ana Colovic Lesoska, executive director of the Macedonian environmental group Eko-Svest. “In light of today’s decision, the Macedonian government should seriously reconsider its plans for hydropower developments in the Mavrovo National Park. Specifically, the government should engage the public and civil society in the decision making process, and it should also acknowledge Macedonia’s international responsibility to protect the wildlife and natural habitats in the park through allocating the necessary funds for the conservation of the Balkan lynx population.”

“Boskov Most has now become synonymous with endless trouble and it has already inflicted significant reputational damage on the EBRD,” says Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath, EBRD Campgin Co-ordinator with CEE Bankwatch Network. “Surely the EBRD realizes it is only going to get worse as a new strategic impact assessment buys the project some more time, but is unlikely to contradict numerous assessments done to date. The recommendation to suspend the hydro power plans should give the EBRD enough reason to pull out of the project.”

Yet, Boškov Most is not an isolated case. A study (pdf) released in May by Euronatur and Riverwatch found that 49 percent of hydropower projects in the western Balkans are planned to be located in protected areas. A new study to be released later this month will uncover the companies and banks, including the EBRD, behind this dam tsunami.

For more information contact:

Ana Colovic Lesoska
Executive Director, Eko-svest (member group of CEE Bankwatch Network)
ana@bankwatch.org
Tel.: +389 72 726 104
Skype: ana_colovic

Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath
EBRD Campaign Co-ordinator
CEE Bankwatch Network
fidankab@bankwatch.org
Tel.: +350 877 303097
Twitter: @fidankabmg

Bankwatch statement on hazardous arsenic waste in Dundee operations in Namibia

Last week Namibian news outlets reported on Bankwatch’s findings on the potential impacts of Dundee Precious Metals’ (DPM) operations in the country. Yet, in light of the company’s response we believe a number of points need to be stressed.

For more background on the Tsumeb smelter in Namibia, see Exporting toxic pollution from Europe to Namibia (Blog post | November 19, 2015)

First, inorganic arsenic is a highly toxic compound. Despite DPM’s statements to the media in recent days, arsenic trioxide, a by-product of the copper smelting process in Tsumeb, is “one of the most toxic and prevalent forms [of arsenic]”, according to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. “Small amounts of arsenic trioxide can lead to multiple organ damage and death.”

And this is not just our interpretation. DPM’s own 2014 Sustainability Report (page 63) states that “After the copper concentrate has been smelted, the extracted arsenic is classified as hazardous waste”.

We believe that information about the handling of this hazardous waste is not available to the public, even upon request. If DPM are happy about the situation in Tsumeb, why not make the relevant information public? Despite claims made by the company’s spokesperson, the information on monitoring of the waste disposal site, on exposure of workers and community members to toxic substances, and arsenic levels in the environment is not available on DPM’s website.

Moreover, since February 2015 Bankwatch has repeatedly approached DPM with requests for detailed information about the improvements in the Tsumeb smelter facilities, the environmental assessment of those improvements and the environmental permits. But so far the company has refused to supply any information with various arguments.

No less worrying is the fact Bankwatch’s request for information from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism has been ignored. Sent in early October, our letter to the Minister of Environment and Tourism Pohamba Shifeta, the ministry’s Permanent Secretary Dr Malan Lindeque, and the Environment Commissioner Teofilus Nghitila, remains unanswered.

We believe this information is of profound public interest, and both the government and DPM are ought to be as transparent and as publicly accountable as possible when dealing with such amounts of hazardous compounds.

For more information please contact:

Genady Kondarev
Campaigner “Public Funds For Sustainable Development”
Za Zemiata – Friends Of the Earth, Bulgaria (member group of CEE Bankwatch Network)
genady.kondarev@bankwatch.org

Daniel Popov
Centre for Environmental Information and Education
National Co-ordinator for Bulgaria, CEE Bankwatch Network
dpopov@bankwatch.org

The energy dissonance: How EU development funds fuel climate change while leaders talk decarbonisation

EU leaders repeatedly voice commitments to spearhead the global effort to tackle climate change, primarily through long-term decarbonisation targets. But a Bankwatch research into the EU’s development funds for neighbouring regions finds that considerably more European taxpayer money is supporting fossil fuels than facilitating a sustainable energy transition.

The main findings of the study will be presented today at the European Parliament. The study’s executive summary can be found here:
https://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/ENP-energy-exec-summary.pdf

An infographic summarising the findings can be found here:
https://bankwatch.org/publications/infographic-how-eu-development-funds-fuel-climate-change

Guiding the EU’s relations with 16 countries to its east and south, the European Neighbourhood Policy instructs the bloc’s public investments in these countries and should in part help spur sustainable development. Between 2007-2014 EU [1] financial support to the energy sector in Europe’s neighbourhood exceeded EUR 9 billion.

Of the 16 European Neighbourhood countries [2], the top four recipients were Ukraine (EUR 2.5 billion), Egypt (EUR 1.8 billion), Tunisia (EUR 1.1 billion), and Morocco (EUR 1.1 billion). Together, these four countries received nearly 75 percent of the total EU financing.

Yet a new Bankwatch analysis shows that fossil fuel projects in European Neighbourhood countries have received three times more EU financial support than energy efficiency and renewable energy projects.

For example, while Tunisia received nearly EUR 1 billion in support of fossil fuels, it obtained only EUR 8 million in investment for renewables and energy efficiency. In Egypt, the EU financial institutions contributed with EUR 1.5 billion to hydrocarbons. At the same time, their support for renewables amounted to EUR 74 million, that is 5 percent of the financing for fossil fuels.

This discrepancy is most evident in the lending portfolio of the European Investment Bank (EIB) which provided the largest volume of financing. During this period, the bank extended loans to 51 projects totalling EUR 5.6 billion. But while energy efficiency and renewable energy projects were awarded EUR 780 million, fossil fuel-related project received from the bank no less than EUR 3.2 billion.

The second main funder, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), supported 105 projects with a total of EUR 2.8 billion. Of this amount, energy efficiency, wind, solar and other sustainable energy projects in European Neighbourhood countries were granted EUR 582 million over this eight years period. Yet gas, oil and other fossil fuel projects were granted EUR 557 million in 2014 alone, of a total EUR 991 million between 2007 and 2014.

“The EU lenders talk of leading Europe’s neighbourhood to the next level when it comes to renewable energy. But their track record says the opposite,” Klara Sikorova, Senior Researcher with Bankwatch and lead author of the report. “Europe must radically change course if its rhetoric on sustainable energy investments is to become a reality.”

For more information contact:

Manana Kochladze
European Neighbourhood Co-ordinator
CEE Bankwatch Network
manana@bankwatch.org
Tel.: +995 599 916 647

Klara Sikorova
Senior Researcher
CEE Bankwatch Network
klara.sikorova@bankwatch.org
Tel.: +420 274 822 150 (ext. 27)

Notes to editors:

[1] The analysis examined financing from the major EU financing institutions and energy cooperation programmes including the European Investment Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Neighbourhood Investment Facility, Inogate and the European Atomic Energy Community.

[2] The European Neighbourhood countries include Algeria, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Egypt, Georgia, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya, Moldova, Morocco, Palestine, Syria, Tunisia and Ukraine.

For more see here: https://bankwatch.org/ENP-energy

Harmful hydropower projects in SE Europe enabled by sub-standard environmental assessments


South East Europe Sustainable Energy Policy project press release

Zagreb – WWF and civil society organisations in the framework of the SEE SEP project have today published a new report: EIA/SEA of hydropower projects in Southeast Europe – Meeting the EU standards. The report, prepared in collaboration with a team of international independent experts, looks at the quality of 25 environmental impact assessments (EIA) and 2 strategic environmental assessments (SEA) done for hydropower projects in seven countries [1] in the last five years and examines how the mistakes made in these cases could be avoided in the future.

The report concludes that the main shortcomings come from the fact that transposition of EU directives has not been followed up by specific rules, regulations and guidelines to fully implement the requirements of the directives. The most serious failures relate to a widespread lack of application of standard procedures by competent authorities i.e. lack of public consultation and transparent decision-making, but there are also serious setbacks in terms of content specific issues i.e. very limited field research and use of outdated scientific data.

“The general standard of the EIA and SEA studies in the region is very low. Study developers often ignore their professional responsibility and produce bad assessments without making fundamental research and analysis. Many studies rely on hydrological and ecological data from 20-30 years ago and do not include data on land use or climate change. Alternatives and cumulative impacts are rarely assessed, and the same goes for the preservation of ecological flows in rivers to protect biodiversity and other water users downstream,” said Peter J. Nelson, editor of the report.

These shortcomings arise in part due to inadequate financial and technical capacity in ministries and agencies, but they also reflect the reluctance of the competent authorities to fully engage local communities and the non-governmental sector. According to the report, this resistance stems from deep-rooted traditional practices, political influence of private interests, and in some cases corruption and illegal activities.

The main findings of the report were presented on 28th October 2015 at the Energy Community Environmental Task Force meeting in Vienna, Austria.

“EIA is of particular importance in the energy sector, where decisions may have long term effects on the energy structure and consumption, as well as on the general environmental situation. In the case of hydropower projects, sound EIA is particularly important to ensure that the impact on river ecosystems is as small as possible. The provision of early and effective public participation is one of the key elements of sound EIAs, which increases the legitimacy of any project,” commented Janez Kopač, director of the Energy Community Secretariat.

“The adverse environmental and social impacts of large hydropower plants are well known. The report also highlights the serious consequences of a multitude of small power plants that are now actively promoted across the Balkans in some of the most valuable Natura 2000 sites without adequate measures for the protection of nature,” said Petra Remeta, Freshwater program manager in WWF Adria.

Evidently, action is urgently needed at all levels, from the EU and major investment banks, to the individual governments, regulators, experts, investors and consultants, for whom the report lists 25 recommendations, including a regional study on energy and protected areas and the development of guidelines for the preparation of EIA/SEA studies. The report also provides detailed recommendations to individual governments in order to help improve EIA/SEA procedure and content in the future.

The whole report is available for download at:
http://seechangenetwork.org/eiasea-of-hydropower-projects-in-southeast-europe-meeting-the-eu-standards/

Signatory organisations: SEE Change Net, Analytica (Macedonia), ATRC (Kosovo), CEKOR (Serbia), CPI (Bosnia and Herzegovina), CZZS (Bosnia and Herzegovina), DOOR (Croatia), EDEN (Albania), Ekolevizja (Albania), Eko-Svest (Macedonia), Forum for Freedom in Education (Croatia), Fractal (Serbia), Front 21/42 (Macedonia), Green Home (Montenegro), MANS (Montenegro), WWF Adria, CEE Bankwatch Network

For more information:

Petra Remeta, Freshwater program manager in WWF Adria
+385 95 256 77 74
premeta@wwfadria.org

Masha Durkalić, Communication Officer in SEE Change Net masha@seechangenet.org

ABOUT THE SEE SEP PROJECT

The South East Europe Sustainable Energy Policy (SEE SEP) is a multi-country and multi-year programme which has 17 CSO partners from across the region (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia) and the EU, with SEE Change Net as lead partner. It is financially supported by the European Commission. The contribution of the SEE SEP project will be to empower CSOs and citizens to better influence policy and practice towards a fairer, cleaner and safer energy future in SEE.

Notes for the editors

1. Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo*, Macedonia**, Montenegro and Serbia
* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244 and the ICI Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence.
** The European Union’s official title ‘FYR Macedonia’ continues to be used pending resolution of the dispute between Greece and the Republic of Macedonia over use of the shortened title.

Environmental organisations deplore ‘lost year’ for environmental protection

Brussels, November 2 – One year since the entry into office of the current European Commission headed by Jean-Claude Juncker, environmental groups have criticised the EU executive for a paralysis in policymaking on issues related to the environment.

CEE Bankwatch Network, Climate Action Network Europe, European Environmental Bureau, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, and the Health & Environment Alliance said that this had been “a lost year” for environmental protection.

The environmental organisations said: “The dieselgate scandal shows that a lax approach to environmental protection comes at a high cost to our health, the economy and the environment we depend on. The Commission’s first vice-president, Frans Timmermans, has sustainable development in his job title, but this has not manifested itself in concrete policy action. This has largely been a lost year for environmental protection. Without a radical change of course, the corporate capture of EU policy-making will lead to more scandals like dieselgate and more irreversible damage.”

The Commission claims that its 2016 work programme – released last week – responds to citizens’ concerns. For these words to be translated into action, there needs to be a significant shift in priorities in the new year towards sustainable development, with benefits for the environment, health, employment and prosperity, warned the environmental groups.

Detailing the policy areas in which the Commission’s stance has been particularly disappointing the groups pointed to:

  • Despite the growing momentum around the Paris climate change summit and the over 120 countries joining the European Union in making climate action pledges, the Commission has failed to develop proposals to ratchet up the EU’s 2030 targets. The target to cut carbon emissions is below the EU’s fair share of the global effort to tackle climate change, while renewable energy and energy efficiency targets remain woefully weak. The Commission has instead proposed a reform of the Emissions Trading Scheme which does not resolve the chronic oversupply of emission credits that drives down the carbon price. At the same time, the Commission has not ensured that the financial tools at its disposal, namely the European Investment Bank, the Juncker investment plan and the EU’s regional development funds, will steer billions of euros in taxpayer money towards helping Europe meet its long-term goal of a clean energy economy.
  • The Commission has come under fire from civil society and European governments for threatening to weaken nature protection legislation. On Tuesday, nine governments called on the Commission to protect EU nature laws and improve their implementation. In July this year, an unprecedented half a million citizens and organisations responded to a Commission consultation on the future of European nature protection. All the evidence suggests the answer to Europe’s shocking biodiversity loss is making sure these laws are better implemented – not undermined.
  • The Commission’s secretive trade talks with the US have so far side-lined environmental concerns. Negotiations for a transatlantic trade agreement (known as TTIP) have focussed on granting privileges to big business at the expense of environmental, health and social rights protection.
  • Despite the severity of the air pollution problem, which kills more than 400,000 people in Europe every year, the Commission has defended a weak proposal on air quality which would still result in unnecessary premature deaths of European citizens and a huge additional health burden.
  • President Juncker’s commitment to improve democratic accountability in the approvals of GM food and feed has proved to be an empty promise. Instead of taking action to reform the EU’s approval system, the Commission tabled a proposal so unworkable that it was rejected by the European Parliament. The Commission wants EU member states to decide individually about GM crops, exposing them to legal challenges.
  • One of the Commission’s first acts at the end of 2014 was to controversially withdraw its circular economy package, which included targets to reduce waste and improve recycling. A new circular economy proposal is due to be released in December 2015. This has been a year of unnecessary delay. Industry lobbyists have been pressing the Commission to water down any binding measures. True ‘ambition’ means not only dealing seriously with waste and recycling, but also taking concrete steps to address the fundamental problem of resource overconsumption in the EU.
  • The European system to phase out highly toxic chemicals from industrial processes and consumer products has been painfully slow. The Commission has come under fire from its own chemicals agency and EU member states for failing to speed up the process. Under pressure from the United States to water down EU restrictions on chemicals for TTIP, the Commission has also been strongly criticised for blocking long overdue legislation to ban endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). These chemicals can interfere with people’s hormones, and are linked to serious health impacts, such as hormone-related cancers, fertility problems, diabetes and obesity as well as behavioural problems in children. Exposure also disrupts the hormonal systems of species of wildlife.
  • Overall, we see the Commission pursuing more and more dangerous deregulation. Its so-called ‘better regulation’ agenda seeks to reduce regulation for industry at the expense of protection for citizens. Essential social, labour, environmental, consumer, financial regulation and public health standards are all under threat of being weakened, delayed or scrapped and subordinated to corporate interests.
  • European economic policy was described at the UN sustainable development goals summit as “Cappuccino policy”: a lot of coffee (economic dimension), if things get better some milk (the social dimension), and if they get even better some chocolate (the environmental dimension). This sort policy cannot bring Europe out of the crisis, but will instead worsen it as more inequalities are created and more natural resources are destroyed.
  • Transparency International reviewed the number of high level meetings obtained by lobbyists in the Commission: 75 per cent of meetings were with business representatives. Business Europe came top, followed by Google and General Electric. European policymaking is shaped by this unbalanced influence at the expense of European citizens.

Contact details:

CEE Bankwatch, David Hoffman, david.hoffman@bankwatch.org, + 420 274 822 150

Climate Action Network Europe, Ania Drazkiewicz, ania@caneurope.org, +32 2 894 46 75

EEB, Philippa Nuttall Jones, philippa.jones@eeb.org, +32 4 71 57 81 01

Friends of the Earth Europe, Francesca Gater, francesca.gater@foeeurope.org, +32 485 93 05 15

Greenpeace EU, Mark Breddy, mark.breddy@greenpeace.org, +32 496 15 62 29

Health & Environment Alliance, Lucy Mathieson, lucy@env-health.org, +32 2 234 36 47