Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Press release

Press release

Turkey pushes dirty coal despite solar potential second only to Spain

Istanbul — Following a fact finding mission to the Turkish Black Sea Coast, Bankwatch and Greenpeace Mediterranean publish a paper outlining some of the controversial aspects surrounding Turkish coal power plant plans in the Black Sea region.

Ignoring its significant solar and wind potential, Turkey envisages a massive expansion of its coal capacities, with over 37,000 MW of new installations proposed.

Between 50 and 86 new coal plants are planned to be built in Turkey over the next few years. This would rank Turkey first among OECD countries investing in new installed coal capacity, and fourth globally, behind only China, India and Russia. As a member of the G20, Turkey committed earlier this year to “phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies” [1].

13 of Turkey’s new plants are supposed to be built in the Western Black Sea region, within 80 kilometres of the coast.

In Amasra, a small touristic port on the coast, two new plants totalling 2,640 MW have been planned for construction, despite opposition from locals who argue these big polluting structures would threaten the tourism potential of this historical region, which also hosts the most intact examples of Black Sea humid karst forest ecosystems.

In nearby Catalagzi, 1,320 MW are scheduled to be added to the existing 1,690 MW of coal capacity. Already today, existing plants in Catalagzi are choking inhabitants with radioactive ash and heavy metals.

Preparation for the construction of new plants is taking place without properly following legal requirements, raising doubts over whether future plants would function with less pollution and negative social impacts than currently operating ones.

The Turkish government recently adopted a new Electricity Market Law giving exemption to all facilities in which the state is an owner or has a participation from all national environment legislation until the end 2018, with the possibility of extending the exemption for three more years through a Council of Ministers decision.

To date, no cumulative impact assessment has been conducted for the 13 new plants planned to be built in the Western Black Sea Coast region. Alternatives to coal in a country with one of the largest solar potentials in Europe have not been properly discussed, and the public consultation processes are deficient.

“In order to understand the interest for solar in Turkey, just think that 1.7 GW of unlicensed, self-consumption projects are forecasted for installation until 2018,” Gulcin Sahin from GP Mediterranean said.

„Turkish authorities would be better advised to support this potentially booming sector rather than choking the population with more than 50 new coal plants,” Sahin added.

„In a resolution passed following the Gezi protests, the European Parliament called on national authorities in Turkey to launch public consultations for all development plans in the country and to conduct environmental impact assessments for all projects,” explains Bankwatch’s Daniel Popov, one of the authors of the fact finding mission report.

„These planned coal units will have an enormous climate, environmental and social impact, not only on Turkish people but also on inhabitants of neighboring countries,” adds Popov. „The EU must closely monitor these projects and make sure they meet requirements related to environmental standards and public participation.”

Read the Bankwatch and Greenpeace Mediterranean report on coal in Turkey:
https://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/BlackCloudsLooming-TurkeyCoal.pdf

For more information, contact:

Gulcin Sahin, Greenpeace Mediterranean
Communications Officer
Tel.: +90 530 963 10 91 / +90 212 292 76 19
gsahin at greenpeace.org

Daniel Popov, Bankwatch
Tel.: +359 886 818 794
dpopov at bankwatch.org

Notes for the editors:

[1] These developments put Turkey on the opposite track from EU countries, where the construction of new coal plants is virtually grinding to a halt.

In April 2013 research undertaken by Poyry consultants for the UK government concluded that it is highly unlikely that new coal power plants will be built in the Netherlands, Germany or Spain in the foreseeable future. Germany, for example, has abandoned 22 coal and lignite projects since 2007 and postponed four more (Poyry Management Consulting: Outlook for new coal-fired power stations in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, a report to DECC, April 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194335/Poyry_Report_-_Coal_fired_power_generation_in_Germany.pdf)

For a wider overview see eg. Ben Caldecott, Bloomberg New Energy Finance: CALDECOTT: WILL OLD KING COAL CONTINUE TO BE A MERRY OLD SOUL?, 29 August 2013, http://about.bnef.com/blog/caldecott-will-old-king-coal-continue-to-be-a-merry-old-soul/

As a prospective EU member, Turkey also needs to take into account EU climate and renewable energy commitments when planning long-life energy infrastructure such as coal power plants. The EU Council has endorsed the objective of reducing Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions by 80-95% compared to 1990 levels as part of efforts by developed countries as a group to reduce their emissions by a similar degree. The European Commission has published a roadmap for building the low-carbon European economy that this will require.

EU-backed energy projects will harm people and the environment in the Western Balkans


Civil society urges President Barroso to review the list of energy projects in Western Balkans for alignment with EU principles.

Brussels – NGOs from across the region are expressing very serious concerns about the list of 35 priority energy projects [1] approved by the European Commission-backed Energy Community [2] meeting in Belgrade, Serbia, last Thursday. The decision to support projects that are in conflict with EU environment goals and climate goals has seriously dented the EU’s credibility as a positive force for the protection of the environment and people’s health in the Western Balkans, say the NGOs.

Several of the selected projects are environmentally and socially damaging coal and hydropower plants and NGOs point out that the EU has condoned regional Ministers choosing projects that conflict with EU goals such as biodiversity protection and decarbonisation.

“We are deeply concerned about several hydropower projects in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia that have received the backing of the Energy Community. These projects will have significant environmental and social impacts and do not meet basic EU standards. WWF will therefore appeal to the competent European institutions to review the list and eliminate the projects that fail to comply with EU legal requirements,” said Angela Klauschen from WWF Mediterranean.

“It is highly disappointing that an EU-backed body has prioritised projects that directly conflict with EU goals, including three lignite power plants – Kolubara B and Nikola Tesla B3 in Serbia and Kosova e Re in Kosovo [3] – which clash with the EU’s long-term climate goals and harm local people’s health”, added Pippa Gallop from CEE Bankwatch Network.

The selected “Projects of Energy Community Interest” will be fast-tracked and prioritised for financing over the coming years, in particular by the EBRD and EIB. Yet several of the projects are aimed at exporting electricity rather than meeting local needs, while others will perpetuate the region’s addiction to lignite power.

“EU Commissioner Oettinger backs projects which divert the clean energy out of Balkans to feed EU markets while leaving our citizens breathing more dirty coal. We sincerely hope that this is not the birth of a new EU energy strategy, which takes advantage of local resources of candidate countries for fulfilling its own renewable energy goals”, said Garret Tankosić Kelly from SEE Change Net.

NGOs call on the EU and specifically Commissioner Oettinger to ensure that environment and health issues are taken seriously in decisions about energy infrastructure development in the region. “The Energy Community has stated that projects not meeting EU standards will be deleted from the priority list and we are holding Commissioner Oettinger and President Barroso accountable for ensuring that this pledge is followed up”, conclude the NGOs.

Among the most controversial projects selected are:

Dabar and Dubrovnik II hydropower plants, BiH and Croatia

The construction of new hydropower plants in Croatia and BiH (HPP Dabar and HPP Dubrovnik II) is part of the very complex Upper Horizons cross-border project that collects water from the catchment basins of the Neretva and Trebišnjica rivers and diverts them to the coast, bypassing the areas that usually get this water via underground connections. If realized in current form, these projects will increase the salinization of the Neretva delta and threaten agricultural production in the region, and cause the drying up of the Hutovo Blato Nature Park, a Ramsar wetland and one of the largest habitats of migratory birds in the Balkans.

Kolubara B lignite power plant, Serbia

A new 750 MW coal plant is planned to be built at Kolubara, in western Serbia, in order to exploit the resources in the Kolubara coal basin. One million tonnes of additional CO2 would be emitted annually, while total annual emissions of such a plant would exceed 8 million tonnes, a quantity that is roughly equal to 25% of the total CO2 emissions from the current power generation in Serbia.

Dajc-Velipoje wind power plant, Albania

The project has repeatedly been refused permission by the Albanian Environment Ministry as it is planned to be located in a Ramsar site near Skadar Lake. The wind farm it is not designed to raise the renewables uptake and meeting local energy demand but rather for export of energy to Italy, and should not gain points under facilitation of renewables, because it does not contribute to developing renewables in Albania’s or the Energy Community’s electricity system.

Hydropower system on Drina river, BiH/Serbia/Montenegro

The Upper and middle Drina hydropower plants will seriously endanger the hydrology of the beautiful Drina river, including some of the most valuable biodiversity hot-spots like Tara river and its gorge. At the same time, these projects will have irreversible destructive impacts on the river itself and all local communities living next to it. Electricity produced in these plants will not benefit local and national economies and will be a serious burden on the national budgets of Serbia and BiH, especially since the electricity produced in the middle Drina hydropower plants is meant to be exported to Italy.

Pljevlja – Lastva transmission line, Montenegro – Italy

This transmission line is to be connected to the underwater energy interconnection between Italy and Montenegro, which wil significantly affect the environment, and some parts of the country are going to be changed forever. With the almost certain bankruptcy of aluminium factory KAP as the biggest consumer of electricity in the country, Montenegro already has sufficient electricity production for domestic use, so all new projects will be exclusively oriented towards export, which opens up questions about how will the people of Montenegro benefit from these expensive projects.

Contacts

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

Chantal Menard, WWF Mediterranean
cmenard@wwfmedpo.org
+39 34 623 574 81

Masha Durkalić, SEE Change Net
masha@seechangenet.org
+387 63 999 827

Notes for editors

[1] For the complete list of Projects of Community Interest, see:
http://www.energy-community.org/pls/portal/docs/2386187.PDF

[2] The Energy Community is an international organisation dealing with energy policy established in 2006. You can find more on:
http://www.energy-community.org

[3] According to the UN, Kosovo is “under the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1244.”

Dirty power plants in Western Balkans and Ukraine set to become EU priority

Belgrade – Several environmentally damaging coal and hydropower projects across the Western Balkans, Ukraine and Moldova are likely to be included this Thursday on a priority list of projects of the European Commission-backed Energy Community, meaning they will be fast-tracked for financing over the next years.

The Energy Community is meant to integrate the signatory countries’ energy systems into that of the EU.

Among the projects submitted [1] for prioritisation by the members of the Energy Community, 15 have been identified by Bankwatch as prone to causing serious harm to the climate, environment and health [2].

These include the Kosova e Re lignite power plant in Kosovo, three lignite plants including Kolubara B in Serbia, and two new coal units in western Ukraine – Burshtyn and Dobrotvir – that would be aimed mostly at electricity exports to the EU, while leaving health and environmental costs to the local population.

Several hydropower plants which would damage protected areas, are also on the list.

An overview and description of these projects can be seen in this visualisation [2] and briefing [3].

“It is highly ironic that an EU-backed body such as the Energy Community prioritises these polluting projects considering that they directly conflict with EU environmental legislation or climate goals,” comments Bankwatch’s Pippa Gallop.

“The Energy Community is meant to make it easier for its members to join the EU – and most of these countries are very interested in accession,” adds Gallop. “But in reality constructing these polluting coal plants or environmentally harmful large hydro plants and transmission lines puts a huge financial burden on pre-accession countries for later on, when they will have to fix conflicts with EU legislation. The prioritisation of these projects now primarily serves EU energy import needs.”

The selected projects will be allowed to undergo a fast-track approval process on the national level, which may mean the concerned public might not be consulted thoroughly before approval. Despite repeated requests by NGOs and local groups to see the shortlisted projects proposed for prioritisation, the Energy Community has refused to disclose any information to date.

The chosen projects will also be prioritised for financing by international financial institutions such as the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Although the EBRD is currently revising its energy strategy and civil society groups are asking it to halt lending for fossil fuels, starting with coal, it – along with the World Bank – has already shown interest in financing the highly contested Kosova e Re lignite plant.

Contacts

Pippa Gallop
Bankwatch research coordinator
pippa.gallop at bankwatch.org
Tel.: +385 99 755 9787

Notes for editors

1. The original list of Projects of Energy Community Interest here
http://www.energy-community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/AREAS_OF_WORK/Consultation/PECIs

is supplemented by an additional 15 projects that were published in May 2013
http://www.energy-community.org/portal/page/portal/ENC_HOME/NEWS/News_Details?p_new_id=7281

2. See a visualisation of projects proposed for prioritisation by the Energy Community which Bankwatch assesses as problematic:
http://bit.ly/energy-community

3. Read a briefing about the Energy Community and the harmful projects proposed for prioritisation:
https://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/briefing-PECI-22Oct2013.pdf

4. Although the European Investment Bank has recently made a virtual withdrawal from financing coal projects, it remains open to financing large hydropower projects and transmission lines aimed at exporting electricity from Energy Community Parties to the EU.

Another company withdraws from controversial Plomin C coal plant in Croatia

Zagreb — Korean company KOSEP has confirmed that it no longer intends to participate in bidding for the controversial 500 MW Plomin C coal power plant in Croatia. KOSEP is the second of the four strategic bidders shortlisted in September 2012 to pull out of the project, after Polish company POL-MOT withdrew in the spring of this year.

The news about KOSEP’s withdrawal was confirmed by Mr Seungnam Han, Deputy Director of KOSEP’s Innovation and New Business Office to Greenpeace Korea.

At the start of 2012, Germany’s RWE was strongly courted by the Croatian project developer HEP for this project but to no avail: RWE announced at its annual meeting in April 2012 that it was not interested in the Plomin C project, nor in other new coal plants in central and eastern Europe.

Two companies are now left in the running for Plomin C: French-Italian-owned Edison and Japan’s Marubeni, which have until the end of October to submit binding bids for the project.

Even if the tender is successful, the financing of the project is still under question as no potential source of funding for the project, estimated at EUR 800 million, has been mentioned publicly.

“The fact that only a maximum of two companies are interested in such a project confirms what we have been saying for more than a year already – that the project is harmful not only because of its health impacts [1], high carbon emissions [2], and increasing Croatia’s dependence on imported coal, [3] but also because coal plants are less and less economically viable in Europe [4]”, said Bernard Ivcic, President of Zelena akcija.

The project is also threatened by a court appeal by environmental organisations Zelena akcija and Zelena Istria together with local people against the environmental permit issued in September 2012 by the Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection. The appeal is based on the permit’s incompatibility with the Istria County spatial plan, which limits total capacity at the site to 335 MW and stipulates gas as the fuel for any new capacity. The second hearing is expected to take place next week on Friday 11 October in Rijeka, Croatia.

Plomin C is one of more than 20 coal plants planned in south east Europe, in contrast to Western Europe where plans have virtually ground to a halt in recent years [5]. Environmental groups from the region are concerned that such plans are endangering the countries’ abilities to meet EU accession requirements on pollution control and greenhouse gas emissions reductions, as well as crowding out investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Contacts:

Zoran Tomić, Greenpeace
Tel.: +385 (0)91/2345 092

Bernard Ivčić, Zelena Akcija
Te.: +385 (0)99/314 9138

Daul Jang, Greenpeace Korea
djang at greenpeace.org

Notes for editors:

[1] An April 2013 report by Greenpeace Croatia, using European Environment Agency methodology, shows that the planned new 500 MW unit at the Plomin coal power plant in Croatia will cause approximately 17 early deaths annually, along with around 3970 lost working days due to illness and EUR 124.8 million in external costs.
http://www.greenpeace.org/croatia/Global/slovenia/2013/Arctic%20Sunrise/Plomin_final%20web.pdf

[2] This one coal power plant alone will also swallow up a significant portion, if not most of the country’s carbon budget by 2050: According to EU goals Croatia’s entire emissions will be limited to somewhere between 1.566 and 6.264 million tonnes CO2 equivalents (CO2eq) annually, but Plomin C by itself would emit 2.644 million tonnes CO2eq. That leaves hardly any room for other sectors like transport and industry to emit CO2, even though they are projected to be much harder to decarbonise than the energy sector.

[3] Unlike most countries in South East Europe, Croatia no longer has its own lignite reserves. The Croatian government argues that the plant will decrease dependence on imported electricity but instead it will just increase Croatia’s dependence on imported coal, as the country has exhausted its own coal resources.

[4] Local expert prof.dr.sc Enco Tireli – who worked at the Croatian state electricity company HEP for more than 15 years and was construction manager for Plomin 2 – has found that the plant is unlikely to be profitable mainly due to the need to pay for CO2 emissions as part of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. See his calculations here:
https://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/PlominC-feasibility-03Oct2012.pdf

One of the few coal power plants to be opened soon in the EU – Luenen in Germany – is expected to generate at least 100 million euros of losses per year, according to the developer of the project.
http://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/nachrichten/region/nordrheinwestfalen/Stadtwerke-befuerchten-hohe-Verluste-mit-Gas-und-Kohlekraftwerken;art5192,2058959

For a wider overview see eg. Ben Caldecott, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Will old King Coal continue to be a merry old soul? 29 August 2013
http://about.bnef.com/blog/caldecott-will-old-king-coal-continue-to-be-a-merry-old-soul/

[5] In April 2013 research undertaken by Poyry consultants for the UK government concluded that it is highly unlikely that new coal power plants will be built in the Netherlands, Germany or Spain in the foreseeable future.
Poyry Management Consulting: Outlook for new coal-fired power stations in Germany, the Netherlands and Spain, a report to DECC, April 2013
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/194335/Poyry_Report_-_Coal_fired_power_generation_in_Germany.pdf

One of the few coal power plants to be opened soon in the EU – Lunen in Germany – is expected to generate at least 100 million euros of losses per year, claims the developer of the project.
http://www.ruhrnachrichten.de/nachrichten/region/nordrheinwestfalen/Stadtwerke-befuerchten-hohe-Verluste-mit-Gas-und-Kohlekraftwerken;art5192,2058959

The reasons given for Germany having abandoned 22 coal and lignite projects since 2007 and postponing four more are “steeply rising capital costs, fierce local and environmental opposition, the priority dispatch for renewables, the economic downturn, falling demand, low wholesale electricity prices and the expectation of high carbon prices in the future”.

Several of these risks are also relevant for Plomin C.

NGOs welcome enquiry by Paris prosecutor into financial crimes related to the VINCI CONCESSIONS RUSSIE SA Moscow-St. Petersburg motorway

Paris, 3 October 2013 – Today’s announcement by the Paris Prosecutor to open a preliminary enquiry into financial crimes related to the construction of a motorway between Moscow and St. Petersburg [1] has been welcomed by NGOs Sherpa, Russie-Libertés, CEE Bankwatch Network, MOBO Princip, and members of Russian civil society, who lodged the complaint in June 2013.

This investigation by the Paris Prosecutor is the first of its kind related to corruption of foreign public officials in Russia.

The Russian NGOs who participated in the initial investigations and ensured the submission of the complaint are particularly satisfied that the liable persons will be identified and potentially face judgment in France, as such processes are impossible in Russia.

This case is a reminder of the gulf that continues to grow among the virtuous rhetoric of multinational companies, their ethical commitments and the reality, thousands of miles from Paris, far from shareholders’ eyes, auditors and consumers.

The NGOs expect police services to ensure that every possible step is taken to identify the people liable for the offences outlined in the complaint, without prejudice of the designation, which will be needed, of one or several investigating judges, given the complex and International character of offences reported.

Press contacts:

Sophia Lakhdar, Director of Sherpa
Tel.: 0033 (0)1 42 21 33 25,
communication at asso-sherpa.org

William Bourdon, President of Sherpa
Tel.: 0033 (0)1 42 60 32 60
w.bourdon at bvb-avocats.com

Pippa Gallop, Research Coordinator at Bankwatch
pippa.gallop at bankwatch.org

Alexis Prokopiev, President of Russie-Libertés
Tel.: 0033 (0)6 13 49 53 84
aprokopiev at gmail.com

Notes

1. More details on the Moscow-St. Petersburg motorway project available on the Bankwatch website at
https://bankwatch.org/our-work/projects/moscow-stpetersburg-motorway-ppp-russian-federation

Leading green NGOs in Europe tell the EBRD to step out of coal

Brussels – As the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development today closes the public consultation period on its upcoming energy strategy, a coalition of the ten largest environmental organisations working at the European level, the Green 10, is calling on the bank to phase out fossil fuels from its future lending, beginning with coal, and to rule out lending to risky energy sources, such as nuclear and shale gas.

A draft energy policy presented by the EBRD this summer indicates that the bank plans to continue investing in fossil fuels, including coal. Furthermore, the bank is not considering restricting its current lending to the nuclear sector. The EBRD is now also opening the door for the financing of shale gas.

The review of the EBRD’s energy strategy comes at a time when the negative effects of over-reliance on fossil fuels for the climate, the environment and human health have been broadly recognised. As a result, international financial institutions such as the European Investment Bank have recently introduced significant limitations to their coal lending, and EBRD shareholders like the US and the Nordic countries have said they would halt financing of coal abroad.

In this context, Green 10 asks of the EBRD not to buck the trend but instead to act responsibly and contribute to this global wave of progressive action towards decarbonisation by introducing strict Emission Performance Standards for energy related investments and a shadow carbon price.

Mark Fodor, CEE Bankwatch Network: „The EBRD claims that that their new energy policy supports sustainability, but how can they seriously say that when the document leaves the door open for coal? The EBRD know what needs to be done – it’s about time they had the courage to do it.”

Louise Duprez, EEB: “The fossil fuel industry is responsible for thousands of premature deaths, tens of thousands of hospital admissions and millions of lost working days in Europe every year. The EBRD stopping its funding for this industry would be a much-needed step towards breaking our addiction to coal – essential to allow Europeans to breathe fresh air and have a healthy environment.”

Wendel Trio, CAN Europe: “The EBRD should support global efforts to reduce carbon pollution and needs to put a ban on coal funding. The EIB and the World Bank have joined efforts to protect the climate and are phasing out funding to coal projects. The EBRD should join them, so that other public lenders also follow their example. The world urgently needs this kind of leadership.”

Jorgo Riss, Greenpeace: “As proposed in the draft energy policy, the EBRD is set to continue its old approach of funding the nuclear sector, including extending the lifetime of existing reactors, as happened recently in the case of nuclear reactors in Ukraine. In the interests of the environment and human health, the EBRD needs to stop financing nuclear energy.”

Magda Stoczkiewicz, Friends of the Earth Europe: “The EBRD must urgently move away from financing fossil fuels, and must not open up financing for new unconventional fossil fuels like shale gas. The bank has indicated it would be open to financing shale gas but these operations pose serious threats to the climate, our environment, our health and local communities. Instead of financing risky and costly fracking, scarce public resources would be better spent developing safe, clean renewables and energy savings which are in dire need of support across the EBRD’s region of operations.”

Tony Long, WWF European Policy Office: “It is time for the EBRD to finally say goodbye to old-fashioned coal and say “no more” – once and for all. The EBRD must join the growing movement in international development finance led by the World Bank and the European Investment Bank in ending funding for coal projects given their disastrous impacts on climate and health. Clearly the way forward is with renewable energy sources. Coal investments are merely locking future generations into the clean-up costs from a particularly nasty, toxic energy source.”

Green 10 members: BirdLife Int’l, CAN Europe, CEE Bankwatch Network, European Environmental Bureau, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace, International Friends of Nature, Health&Environment Alliance (HEAL), Transport&Environment, WWF.