Press release

Halfway there but facing a mid-life crisis: why the EU’s recovery fund is failing to deliver

The evaluation [1] presents too rosy a picture of how public money has been spent on investments and reforms. But it fails to detail the challenges underlying the implementation of the programme, casting doubt on the potential of this massive fund to reach its objectives. This is particularly true for green measures, since fossil fuel investments are still allowed, money for nature and the ambition of ‘green measures’ is severely lacking, and the majority of funds continue to be channelled into big companies instead of benefitting community-led initiatives.

Progress remains uneven across the EU, with some countries, particularly in central and eastern Europe, struggling to roll out key measures for the energy transition. Some of these are aimed at modernising electricity grids, deploying renewables and renovating buildings. In Bulgaria, for example, just 2 per cent of green measures have been implemented, while in Latvia, only 2.3 per cent of funds have reached their intended beneficiaries. With the recovery fund due to end in 2026, the pressure to spend quickly and compromise on climate ambition is now a major challenge for governments and the European Commission, with potentially negative impacts on the implementation of the 2030 climate goals.

The use of the fund to tackle the biodiversity crisis has also been poor: less than 1 per cent of spending has been earmarked for nature restoration and conservation measures. Meanwhile, several Member States have watered down their environmental assessments under the guise of ‘emergency’ procedures, jeopardising the goals of the EU 2030 Biodiversity Strategy and European Green Deal.

Unlike other EU-funded instruments, the recovery fund almost exclusively relies on milestones and targets to assess implementation progress. But due to the structure, it is incredibly difficult to assess the level of implementation, the contribution to green objectives, and the impacts of projects on the ground. Compounding matters, the imposition of tight deadlines has limited opportunities for meaningful public consultations, particularly with civil society and local authorities, leaving the needs of citizens unmet [2].

The EU and its Member States must start discussing what comes next, as meeting the EU’s self-stated objectives will require further funding beyond 2026. Any future fund must learn from the experience of the Recovery and Resilience Facility for the benefit of both citizens and the environment.

Christophe Jost, Senior EU Policy Officer at CEE Bankwatch Network, said: ‘The Recovery and Resilience Facility was initially a breath of fresh air, allowing Member States to invest in the energy transformation. But implementation has proved complex. Now there’s a real risk that not all of its objectives will be achieved. We need to see more detailed and transparent monitoring of the measures and debate the future of EU funding after 2026.’

Daniel Thomson, EU Policy Officer for Biodiversity at CEE Bankwatch Network, said: ‘The Recovery and Resilience Facility was clearly aimed at speedy disbursement. But we need to honestly assess what impact it has had on the quality of the measures and whether environmental safeguards have been properly applied. Time is of the essence when it comes to spending, but it shouldn’t come at the cost of achieving the EU’s green objectives.’

For more information, please contact:

Daniel Thomson
EU Policy Officer for Biodiversity
CEE Bankwatch Network
daniel.thomson@bankwatch.org, +32 (0)2 893 08 61

Christophe Jost
Senior EU Policy Officer
christophe.jost@bankwatch.org
+32 (0)489 69 03 56

Notes for editors

[1] European Commission, Mid-term evaluation of the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), 21 February 2024.

[2] Citizen’s Observatory for Green Deal Financing, No recovery without citizens: why public involvement is key to Europe’s green transformation, June 2023.

International groups stand in solidarity with Armenian environmental and human rights defenders facing defamation and criminalisation

In December 2023, a number of local online media and social media pages started targeting some organisations for their environmental work. They wrote that it was unclear who commissioned their bio-monitoring studies in mining-affected communities, that they might be sharing their data with Azerbaijan to be used against Armenia, and suggested that the National Security should investigate them to address these concerns.

The defamatory attacks and hate speech on social media intensified in January after the publication of a statement raising concerns around the controversial Amulsar mining project, which was signed by 118 Armenian civil society organisations and 57 affected citizens. The project, after being on hold for several years, has now received backing from the government, that on January 18 received a share in the mining company Lydian.

Local communities have been strongly opposing the Amulsar mining project and speaking out against its serious environmental, health, and socio-economic impacts. But the government and the company, instead of addressing these concerns, have been pushing forward the project at all costs and have been trying to silence critical voices. Human rights defenders denouncing the harmful impacts have been facing threats, attacks, smear campaigns and criminalisation.

In January, following the joint statement about the Amulsar mine, several environmental human rights defenders and their organisations have again been targeted with hate speech and defamation on social media. The recurring narrative is that they want to hinder Armenia’s economic growth and that they are somehow affiliated with Azerbaijan.

Moreover, in one of the articles published after the release of the statement, the Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure was quoted saying that ‘there are public organisations whose activities we do not understand whose mill they are pouring water into’ and that the government was looking into the matter. Although the Minister did not mention any specific organisation or human rights defender, this statement is extremely worrying as it implies that environmental defenders might be placed under investigation.

Mark Fodor, coordinator of the Defenders in Development campaign at the Coalition for Human Rights in Development, said: ‘This public smear campaign, taking place with explicit support from government officials, is completely unacceptable: it puts a target on the backs of people working for the protection of the environment and communities. All actors looking to support the development of a sustainable future for Armenia should immediately condemn these attacks, and speak out in support of environmental and human rights defenders.’

To stifle dissent, mining companies in Armenia have often criminalised environmental and human rights defenders, as well as journalists, through the use of the so-called ‘strategic litigation against public participation’ (SLAPP). For example, since 2018, Lydian – the mining company developing the Amulsar mine – has filed a series of lawsuits against the volunteers of the local civil society group Armenian Environmental Front, community members, and other environmental and human rights defenders. Among the defenders targeted, there are Nazeli Vardanyan (lawyer and director of the Armenian Forests NGO) and Tehmine Yenokyan (environmental defender and journalist, who has also faced another lawsuit from Zangezur Copper-Molybdenum Combine in 2022 and 2023).

In another recent case, on 9 February 2024, the president of the Centre for Community Mobilization and Support (CCMS) and human rights defender Oleg Dulgaryan received a letter from Zangezur Copper-Molybdenum Combine (ZCMC), the largest mining company in the country. In the letter, the company accused him of defamation and demanded a compensation of one million Armenian drams (approximately EUR 2300), as well as a public retraction of the statements allegedly defaming the company.

Nina Lesikhina, policy officer at CEE Bankwatch Network, said: ‘To identify and mitigate environmental and social risks, international financial institutions require public consultations on the projects they fund. But if human rights defenders and communities face restricted civic space and fear retaliation, they can’t meaningfully engage with the lenders and their clients. Civic space restrictions can jeopardise the participatory approach and increase the risk of project non-compliance and cancellation. In May, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development will hold its annual meeting in Yerevan, including a civil society programme. If the retaliation against Armenian environmental and human rights defenders doesn’t stop, this event is at risk.’

Ryan Schlief, Executive Director of the International Accountability Project, said: ‘Civil society and rights defenders in Armenia have long performed an integral role facilitating an exchange of information among companies, governments and communities and protecting human and environmental rights in the country. The mounting threats and intimidation have a rippling effect across all Armenian civil society groups, who were already facing severe limitations to their critical work, and risk jeopardising any consultations with communities on development decisions that affect their lives.’

Signatories

CEE Bankwatch Network

Defenders in Development campaign

Front Line Defenders

International Accountability Project

Nesehnuti

Additional information

About the Amulsar gold mine

The Amulsar gold mine is located in south-east Armenia near the town of Jermuk, one of the country’s top tourist destinations, famous for its spa resorts. Nearby, there are also some rural villages where people mainly rely on agriculture. Pollution caused by the mine and the risk of toxic contamination to water sources pose a serious threat to the economic livelihood of these communities, and to endangered animal species in protected areas nearby. There is strong evidence that the Armenian state, Lydian and investors (including the development banks European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) breached their obligations to protect and respect human rights to health and a healthy environment, peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, information, participation in decision-making, and access to justice.

The multinational corporation Lydian International started developing the project in 2006. Exploration and construction activities have already been carried out, but the mine infrastructure has not been completed yet and the project was put on hold for several years until the recent announcement of the Armenian government.

The Amulsar mine has already received a total of USD 426 million from development finance institutions and private investors. The EBRD provided USD 4.5 million in equity to Lydian in 2009 and USD 8.9 million in 2016, but exited the project after Lydian International restructuring in 2020. Apart from EBRD’s support, throughout the years Lydian also received a total of USD 16.4 million from the IFC, but the Bank withdrew in May 2017.

Lydian faced bankruptcy a few years ago, underwent reorganisation, and transferred ownership rights to its major shareholders. In January 2024, under the leadership of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, the Armenian government decided to acquire 12.5 per cent of the shares of Lydian Armenia as state property. In a statement, over 100 Armenian civil society groups have expressed their indignation regarding this decision, saying that their concerns have not disappeared. Instead, they have increased, as even ‘the best international and national experts and scientists have confirmed the environmental, social, economic risks and dangers of the Amulsar project.’

Previous reprisals in the context of the Amulsar mine

Detailed information about reprisals in the context of the Amulsar mining project can be found at page 21-25 of the report Wearing Blinders (Coalition for Human Rights in Development, 2022).

Since 2011, local residents and Armenian environmental defenders have drafted petitions, submitted official complaints and organised numerous protests to oppose the development of the Amulsar mine. Protests intensified in 2018, when the Velvet Revolution swept old elites and an authoritarian government out of power. Members of the local communities started blocking the roads leading to the mine and the construction works were suspended. As the protest grew stronger, retaliations against those leading or participating in the protests also intensified.

Since construction works started, dozens of local activists have been harassed, smeared, threatened and criminalised by the company. The company has been systematically deploying Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) as a tactic to silence project opponents, and especially against those who were reporting cases of alleged corruption. Lydian has filed more than 20 cases, mostly in 2018 and 2019, and most of them are still ongoing. Through defamation lawsuits, it has been demanding people retract their criticism and seeking excessive financial compensation for the damages caused to its reputation.

Dozens of activists have been sued for social media posts or comments during meetings, two media outlets for publishing news stories about the project, two members of parliament for their speeches during parliamentary meetings. In some cases, judges also suspended the bank accounts of activists accused by the company. Social media has been systematically used to harass activists, damage their reputations, and generate strong pressure to silence them. Women human rights defenders were also targeted with offensive and sexist remarks.

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Corridor Vc motorway south of Mostar needs rerouting to meet EBRD and EU standards

Local people affected by the European Corridor Vc are calling on the international community to ensure that the highway will comply with international environmental and human rights standards. In a letter to the Head of the Delegation of the EU to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ambassador Johann Sattler and several key embassies, the communities highlight recent findings of serious violations of international standards, and are requesting a rerouting of the South Mostar – Tunnel Kvanj section, to protect their land, livelihoods, cultural heritage and nature.

The Corridor Vc has received almost three billion euros in loans and grants from the European Union, the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the EBRD.

In January, the EBRD’s Independent Project Accountability Mechanism (IPAM) published a report from its investigation of the South Mostar – Tunnel Kvanj section. It found serious breaches of the Bank’s environmental and social policy. Importantly, IPAM found that the project has violated the do-no-harm principle by breaching standards for democratic decision-making, consideration of alternatives and impact assessment.

To remedy these violations, IPAM made recommendations for steps to bring the project into compliance with the Bank’s standards. The primary one resonated with the request from local complainants, namely that the EBRD should ‘undertake a new alternative alignment analysis comparing the current alignment with the 2011 [one] over the ridge using the updated data now available’ and ensure transparency and public participation in the decision-making process.

Although land acquisition is not complete; there are several ongoing court cases and complaints, and construction works have not started on the section, the recommendations for reassessment of the route have so far been ignored by the project promoter, JP Autoceste (JPAC). The company did not provide a formal response to the compliance review report. Meanwhile, the EBRD’s management responded that it is ‘not in the position to fully implement [the recommendation] without the (sic) acceptance by JPAC and the FBiH Government’.

Amna Popovac, a representative of local complainants: ‘Bosnia and Herzegovina is on the path to EU accession. EU standards need to be applied in the construction of EU infrastructure with EU money and huge loans from public banks. Corridor Vc is a test, whether democratic principles and human rights will be upheld or not. Our EU partners cannot stand aside and watch as the EU’s normative principles get bulldozed’.

Azra Durakovic, an impacted land-owner and complainant, added: ‘A lot has changed in the local communities since the current alignment of Corridor Vc was approved without public consultations in 2017. The villages are thriving, there is a lot of new residential development and economic activity. The project promoters need to reassess the route selection in line with the EBRD IPAM’s recommendations’.

Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath, Bankwatch: ‘IPAM’s recommendations delivered justice to complainants by affirming their grievances and echoing their demands. Now it is up to the EBRD and Autoceste to deliver effective remedy by reassessing the route. The international community needs to take responsibility for the way this very costly European infrastructure is being built in Bosnia and Herzegovina with public financings.’

For more information:

Amna Popovac, amna.popovac@gmail.com, 0038761130717

Fidanka Bacheva-McGrath, Bankwatch, fidankab@bankwatch.org, 00359877303097

Notes for editors:

The EBRD’s Independent Project Accountability Mechanism case documentation can be found here.

New Biofuelwatch briefing exposes Tuzla power plant’s planned biomass unit as a dead end

The briefing is available in English (https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2023/src-west-balkan-briefing) and in Western Balkan languages (https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2023/src-izvjestaj-za-zapadni-balkan/).

Despite a September 2022 agreement by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and energy utility Elektroprivreda BiH to pursue the construction of a new biomass unit at the Tuzla power plant [1], the proposal to burn willow biomass is shrouded in uncertainty.

Notably, the EBRD feasibility study for the project has not been completed even a year after its initiation, and according to the draft National Energy and Climate Plan for BiH [2], the proposed biomass capacity has been halved from 100 MW to 50 MW.

As per EPBiH’s official statements [3], in an effort to overcome limitations on available biomass, the Tuzla power plant plans to rely heavily on fast-growing willow plantations primarily grown on former open-cast coal mines, supplemented by additional Short Rotation Coppicing (SRC) willow from farmers when necessary.

However, Biofuelwatch’s analysis highlights that SRC willow plantations have not been successful in Europe despite decades of effort. Economic challenges that farmers face and their inability to recoup investments, even with subsidies, raise concerns about the long-term sustainability of large-scale SRC plantations.

Alarmingly, the proposed 50 MWe biomass unit in Tuzla would require an estimated 29,000 hectares of land, more than double the size of Sarajevo, based on the average yield of SRC willow on farmland stated by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Additionally, SRC willow’s high water requirements make it far from drought-resistant. Failed SRC willow trials in Šićki Brod [4] further underline the challenges associated with implementing such projects.

Denis Zisko, Aarhus Centre BiH: ‘We lost 15 years listening to fairy tales about new coal power plants. Now the BiH authorities and Elektroprivreda BiH have created a new fairytale about biomass that could cost us another 15 years. It is time for our authorities to get their act together, admit that there is no future in burning stuff to produce energy, and finally start working on sustainable renewable solutions based on solar, wind, and geothermal energy combined with energy efficiency measures and energy storage solutions.’

Almuth Ernsting, Biofuelwatch: ‘Our research clearly shows that short-rotation coppicing, regardless of whether it is done on former coal mine surface or on farmland, cannot realistically meet more than a tiny fraction of the biomass demand of one or more, let alone the biomass plants proposed by EPBiH. Inevitably, most of the biomass will have to come from forests, which is deeply alarming in a region where illegal logging is widespread and forest degradation rampant.’

Natasa Kovacevic, CEE Bankwatch Network: ‘Even without considering the environmental impact of burning energy crops, the lack of credible success stories and the challenges of growing willow in short rotations on former coal mine sites raises serious doubts about the feasibility of this transition. We urge the EBRD and the EPBiH to halt the wasteful expenditure of time and money on this absurd project of replacing the Tuzla 3 unit with a biomass plant.’

The groups call for the funds to be redirected towards using geothermal energy for district heating needs and developing thermal energy storage in salt mines and advise authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to capitalize on the increasing opportunities for assistance in developing district heating modernization projects.

For instance, the EIB’s JASPERS programme has pledged to triple its technical assistance for investment preparation and project implementation in the next six years, while grants and loans available through the Western Balkans Growth Plan can be utilized to invest in clean heating systems [6].

Notes for editors:

[1] EBRD to back Bosnia’s Tuzla TPP project with 50 mln euro loan: https://seenews.com/news/ebrd-to-back-bosnias-tuzla-tpp-project-with-50-mln-euro-loan-797457

[2] http://www.mvteo.gov.ba/data/Home/Dokumenti/Energetika/Nacrt_NECP_BiH_loc.pdf

[3] BiH to convert Tuzla coal unit to biomass (50 MW) by 2030 https://www.energetika.net/eu/novice/ecology/bih-to-convert-tuzla-coal-unit-to-biomass-50-mw-by-2030

[4] Video: https://youtu.be/90lR2mDPayY

[5] EIB and European Commission to triple advisory support for the Western Balkans under the JASPERS programme https://www.eib.org/en/press/all/2023-412-eib-and-european-commission-to-triple-advisory-support-for-the-western-balkans-under-the-jaspers-programme

[6] 2023 Regulation proposal Reform and Growth Facility Western Balkans https://neighbourhood-enlargement.ec.europa.eu/2023-regulation-proposal-reform-and-growth-facility-western-balkans_en

For more information, please contact:

Denis Žiško

Aarhus centar u BiH

E-mail: denis.z@bih.net.ba

Telephone: 00 387 61 140 655

Skype: denis.zisko

Natasa Kovacevic

Heating sector decarbonisation campaigner for the Western balkans | CEE Bankwatch Network

E-mail: natasa.kovacevic@bankwatch.org

Telephone: 00 382 67 030 033

Twitter: @Natasa_Kovacev

European development bank decides to keep cooking the planet

The EBRD’s new Energy Sector Strategy, guiding the Bank’s energy financing until 2028, introduces new criteria intended to restrict financial support to midstream and downstream fossil gas projects that are deemed ‘exceptional cases.’ Yet, this new policy fails to put an end to the EBRD’s decades of sinking billions of public money into fossil fuels.

In addition, the strategy adopted by the board leaves the door open to financing of fossil gas projects via financial intermediaries such as commercial banks in some cases.

With this decision, the EBRD – owned by 72 governments – has effectively turned a blind eye to both the scientific community repeatedly warning humanity must end its fossil fuel addiction — not expand it [1] — and growing public pressure on the EBRD to divest from fossil gas and instead step up its support for a just, sustainable energy transition.

During public consultations on the Energy Sector Strategy, members of the public sent over 6200 emails to the EBRD, demanding that the EBRD fully excludes financing of fossil fuels [2]. A similar request was voiced in a letter to the Bank signed by Bankwatch and over 130 civil society groups from more than 40 countries. [3]

The EBRD is currently considering backing for several fossil gas projects – among others, in North Macedonia, Uzbekistan and Bosnia and Herzegovina – which, if materialised, are only likely to entrench countries’ dependence on polluting and expensive fossil gas. This misguided approach to public funds, at the expense of much needed investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy sources, would only hamper the energy transition across the EBRD’s countries of operation.

Over the past two weeks, at the COP-28 climate summit, more than a hundred governments, including EU member states, have been calling for a halt to fossil fuel subsidies. And yet, representatives of many of these very governments on the EBRD’s board of directors voted to keep channelling public money to fossil gas projects.

Gligor Radečić, Gas Campaign Leader with CEE Bankwatch Network, says: ‘This is a missed opportunity for the EBRD to stop adding fossil fuel to the climate fire and show its countries of operation how the energy transition looks. The responsibility now lies with the Bank’s shareholders, represented by the board of directors, to assert their right to oppose all fossil gas project proposals in the upcoming strategy period.

There is a pressing need for increased scrutiny and introspection within international financial institutions. If they are genuinely committed to aligning financial flows with the Paris Agreement goals and preventing the worst impacts of climate change, they must lead from the front. In practice, that means no more public funds for fossil fuels.’

Lisa Rose, Associate Director with 350 Europe, says: ‘The EBRD is being disingenuous with its vaunted new energy strategy that it says will help tackle the climate crisis. The reality is that the Bank has deliberately left loopholes to continue investing in gas under ‘exceptional cases’. This mirrors what we see happening time and time again, including at the UN Climate Talks in Dubai. Many governments and financial institutions claim to be aligned with the Paris Agreement but then they do all they can to avoid committing to the level of action we need. The EBRD can’t support the Paris Agreement and invest in fossil energy at the same time. Climate justice activists around the world are demanding an end to all fossil fuel investments and the powering up of renewable energy for all.’

Notes to editors:

[1] Paris alignment: why there is no more space for European public money to finance fossil fuels: https://bankwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/2023_12_Paris-alignment_why-there-is-no-more-space-for-European-public-money-to-finance-fossil-fuels.pdf

[2] Thousands demand European development bank stops financing fossil fuels https://bankwatch.org/press_release/thousands-demand-european-development-bank-stops-financing-fossil-fuels

[3] The Energy Sector Strategy 2024-2028 Must Mark the End of the EBRD’s Support to Fossil Fuels https://bankwatch.org/publication/the-energy-sector-strategy-2024-2028-must-mark-the-end-of-the-ebrd-s-support-to-fossil-fuels

For additional information, please contact:

Gligor Radečić
Gas Campaign Lead, CEE Bankwatch Network
gligor.radecic@bankwatch.org
+385977454467

Mark Raven
Europe Communications Manager, 350 Europe
mark@350.org
europe-comms@350.org
+44 784 147 4125
England, United Kingdom

New EIB President Nadia Calviño must put people’s needs first

Brussels – 8 December 2023

Nadia Calviño was appointed as the new EIB President by the Finance Ministers of the 27 EU Member States. She will succeed current President Werner Hoyer next year.

Frank Vanaerschot, Director of Counter Balance: ‘Calviño takes the EIB helm at a critical moment for Europe. She must seize the moment and make a just transition fundamental to the Bank’s climate ambitions. Until now, the EIB has provided significant support to big business, putting corporate profits over people. To change this, the Bank must use its EUR 248 billion of subscribed capital to finance environmentally friendly essential services like public housing and energy for the EU citizens and taxpayers who ultimately own the Bank.’

Last year, more than half of the EIB’s loans (EUR 39 billion) went to financial institutions and corporations, assuming benefits would eventually ‘trickle down’ to the public. But this money has failed to reach the people facing the cost-of-living crisis. Instead, it’s ended up lining the pockets of its rich shareholders. Shockingly, the Bank still allows companies, banks and intermediaries it works with to continue their polluting activities.

Calviño must ensure that the Bank adopts strict environmental and social criteria for companies and financial institutions it works with. This includes taking serious steps to improve transparency and accountability, such as a standard and timely disclosure of environmental and social assessments for all projects in line with the recommendations of the European Ombudsman.

To support the just transition, the Bank should step up its work with local, regional and national public bodies to deliver affordable quality public services that meet the needs of the EU population. Instead of bankrolling huge corporations, it should increase its support for sustainable small businesses at the centre of our economies, as well as enterprises with inclusive and equitable governance structures.

To deliver on these objectives, Calviño must modernise and democratise the Bank’s governance structure, drawing on the positive examples set by other public finance institutions such as Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW). It also needs to do much more to involve the representatives of unions, civil society, and local authorities in the decision-making process.

Anna Roggenbuck, CEE Bankwatch Network: ‘Outside the EU, the Bank’s development branch EIB Global must involve local stakeholders in decision-making to allow them to shape their sustainable development path. We regret that the EIB ignored NGOs calls and adopted the EIB Global Strategy without any public consultations outside the EU. We expect the new President to include global civil society in the bank’s decision making. The EIB must immediately implement all recommendations provided to it by the European Ombudsman on transparency and public participation. It’s high time that EIB Global adopted a strong human rights policy and an effective and independent complaints mechanism for communities negatively impacted by EIB operations seeking justice.’

EIB Global’s development projects must rigorously and clearly demonstrate how they contribute to meeting development goals, prioritise marginalised and vulnerable communities, and reduce inequality and poverty. To ensure high transparency on its human rights, environmental and democratic standards, EIB Global should shift from working with financial intermediaries to directly supporting projects involving local communities and public groups best positioned to make sure development funds reach the people who need it most.

For more information, please contact:

Frank Vanaerschot

Counter Balance Director

frank.vanaerschot@counter-balance.org

+32 (0)2 893 08 61

Michaela Kožmínová

Communications officer, CEE Bankwatch Network

michaela.kozminova@bankwatch.org

+420 607 135 410

Notes for editors

In a joint letter in April 2023, the Fossil Free EIB coalition urged the EIB to step up its efforts to address the direct and indirect environmental impacts of its activities, stressing the need for significant and tangible progress in aligning its lending practices with a socially just transition in the upcoming review of the EIB’s Climate Bank Roadmap.
Civil society also raised concerns about the EIB’s development activities outside the EU. The EIB is not an accountable development bank: its policies and standards are not strong enough to ensure that international development is implemented in a responsible way.

« Previous Page