Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Press release

Press release

The European Investment Bank is not ready for a capital increase, NGOs say

Brussels – As EU Ministers of Finance are currently gathering at the Annual General Meeting of the European Investment Bank (EIB) to discuss a possible capital increase, civil society organisations that monitor the EIB say the bank is not ready for such a move.

“First and foremost, the quality of EIB lending has to improve, and only then can it substantively contribute to the fight against the current recession sweeping across Europe’s member states,” stated Desislava Stoyanova, co-ordinator of Counter Balance, a coalition of European NGOs that campaigns to improve EIB lending.

Caught in the narrow debate between growth and austerity, the EIB is being put forward by some policy makers as one of the few alternatives to budget cuts and fiscal orthodoxy. Meanwhile the real question of whether the bank is actually able to lead the EU out of the current crisis and into a sustainable – economic, social and environmental – future remains unanswered.

Due to a lack of transparency and performance indicators it remains uncertain whether increased EIB loans can effectively contribute to a sustainable way out of the European debt crisis. When it comes to supporting SMEs, employment and climate action – three top priorities of the bank – tangible results are unclear or remain below par. [1]

A direct link between EIB loans and job creation, for instance, is not clear. A recent report from MEPs on the EIB’s lending to SMEs has raised urgent concerns over the transparency of these loans that accounted for 18 percent of EIB lending in 2011. The European Parliament report[1] points out that while the European Commission is obliged to publish a list of the beneficiaries of EU Funds, currently nothing is known publicly about where – and for what – these EIB SME loans are going.

Berber Verpoest of Counter Balance explained: “If EIB president Hoyer is seriously proposing to extend the bank’s byzantine SME lending via a new capital increase, Europe stands to walk further off the cliff into the unknown. Hoyer and the EIB have to take responsibility for these kinds of loans. First of all, they need to be targeted at sustainable, job creating and ideally green sectors within the overall SME sector. And ultimately we need to see the evidence that they are delivering for the real needs of the very much ‘in need’ European economy.”

While it is positive that EIB loans for sustainable energy projects are rising, its loans for polluting fossil fuel projects are equally on the rise. Increasing the capital of the EIB without appropriate conditions attached to prevent new climate-damaging investment runs the risk of reinforcing this trend.

“The challenge for the bank is not to increase the number of projects it invests in, or the size of its portfolio, but rather to invest in better projects and programmes working as a financial catalyst for achieving the EU’s objectives. By avoiding this discussion EU policy makers not only put a heavier burden on the EIB, they also take away a crucial incentive to make it perform better,” said Anna Roggenbuck, EIB co-ordinator of CEE Bankwatch Network, one of the members of Counter Balance coalition.

One such sectoral policy for which the EIB has already announced a review, to take place later this year, is its energy lending policy. If ambitious enough and in line with common EU policies such as the European Commission’s 2050 energy roadmap, this could be a first essential step in better equipping the EIB to deliver more qualitative results.

“We welcome the EIB’s review of its energy lending as it is urgently needed,” said Roggenbuck. “In 2010 the EIB still lent as much as EUR 5 billion to fossil fuel projects. This figure contains not only loans for gas but also support for coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels. The EIB needs to find a way to rapidly phase out financing of the economy based on fossil fuels.”

Counter Balance and CEE Bankwatch Network have presented a list of recommendations [2] to be included in the policy review in order to make it effective. The recommendations include a plan for the EIB to phase out support for all fossil fuel projects starting with coal, a ban on the financing of large scale dams and clearly prioritising energy efficiency projects.

Notes for editors:

[1] More detailed information can be found in the background paper: “Why the EIB is not ready for a capital increase”

[2] The full list of recommendations for the energy policy review can be found here: http://www.counterbalance-eib.org/?p=1832

For further information contact:

Anna Roggenbuck
+48 (0) 509 970 424
annar at bankwatch.org

Berber Verpoest
+32 (0) 484 508 416
press at counterbalance-eib.org

Video projected on the European Parliament questions potential European Investment Bank’s capital increase

Brussels – On Monday night a video was projected on the building of the European Parliament which denounced the unsustainable energy portfolio of the European Investment Bank (EIB). The 1 minute video concluded with: “Make the EIB chose a brighter future before increasing its capital”, a message for EIB governors which gather Tuesday 15 May in Brussels during the bank’s Annual General Meeting. The main topic will be a possible capital increase of the EIB.

“Under the current conditions the EIB is not ready for a capital increase”, says Anna Roggenbuck, EIB coordinator for CEE Bankwatch Network. “The bank should play a role in supporting environmental sustainability. Yet, in 2010 the EIB gave loans for EUR 5 billion to fossil fuel projects. This number is still on the rise. A capital increase allowing the bank to do more will only reinforce this trend”, Roggenbuck concludes.

Berber Verpoest, Counter Balance: “This video is meant to be an eye-opener for EIB governors (mostly the Ministers of Finance of the member states) and other EU policy makers. In order to offer a long term solution to the crisis European citizens are currently facing, EIB backed projects should be economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. Right now this is not the case. Before talking about quantity, EIB governors should be discussing how the quality of EIB lending can be improved.”

The video has been projected on the European parliament at Place Luxembourg at 10 PM on May 14. This action is an initiative of Counter Balance which monitors the operations of the EIB.

Tomorrow on May 15, a press conference will be organised where we will explain in more detail our reluctance to a possible capital increase of the EIB and the need for more sustainable lending.

Notes for editors:

  • The press conference will start at 10 AM in the Aloft Hotel (near Schuman). More info can be found here: http://www.counterbalance-eib.org/?p=1824
  • The video of the action can be found here: http://youtu.be/ul-Ls5RfAbY
  • Pictures of the action can be found here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/counter-balance/sets/72157629732246256/with/7199507962/
  • Video producer: Blubvideo – http://vimeo.com/user764736

For further information contact:

Berber Verpoest
+32 (0) 484 508 416
press at counterbalance-eib.org

EBRD fresh plans show intent to pour more public money into coal

Brussels – In a draft mining strategy published yesterday, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) made it clear that it intends to continue investing in the coal sector for years to come.(1) Supporting the coal sector with European public money is unacceptable, according to CEE Bankwatch Network, as it undermines the EU’s climate policy and the transition to a decarbonised European economy that the EU and the EBRD both claim to support.(2)

In its current formulation, (3) the EBRD’s mining strategy allows for new climate-damaging coal projects (4) and contributes to an energy market that still favours new polluting installations.

„Once coal is taken out of the ground, no technology can keep carbon from getting into the atmosphere, there is no point in deluding ourselves,” comments Ionut Apostol, Bankwatch EBRD coordinator. „Plus, coal plants built today will be pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for fifty years into the future, so putting money into coal plants now means making a complete mockery out of EU plans to decarbonise the European economy by the middle of this century.”

Between 2006-2010, the EBRD lent over 412 million euros for coal mining and combustion in its countries of operation, among them, Serbia, Slovenia, Poland, Mongolia and Kazakhstan.(5)

Climate change and the need for decarbonisation have moved up the political agenda recently. It is increasingly recognised, including in the EU Roadmap to a Low Carbon Economy and the EU Energy Roadmap to 2050, that an 80-95 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is needed in the so-called ‘developed’ countries, with significant reductions needed elsewhere compared to a business as usual scenario. The EBRD mining strategy, in the form released yesterday, completely contradicts such targets.

„The European Commission and EU countries with a stake at the bank need to make sure that EBRD loans which should be in line with broad European objectives do not achieve the contrary result,” comments Apostol. „This means the mining strategy draft must be revised to ensure that no coal extraction or production project can receive financial support from the EBRD.”

„The European Investment Bank, owned by the EU, plans to increase investments in projects outside the EU promoting the reduction of CO2 emissions and phase out funding climate-damaging projects,” adds Apostol.  „How is it possible for the same shareholders to say we should ban coal lending at the EIB while allowing the EBRD to do otherwise?” (6)
 

Notes for the editors:

(1)  http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/policies/sector/draft-mining-strategy.pdf
The final version of the strategy is expected to be approved later on this year, following two months of public consultations and a reassessment of the draft by the bank staff.

(2)  The EBRD is a European public bank, its operations being supported with EU taxpayers’ money and the European Commission sitting on its management board.

(3)  “[…] the Strategy does not cover carbon-related issues such as the impact of thermal coal combustion on climate change […] The Mining Strategy will, however, cover other aspects of thermal coal mining activities, such as EHS&S issues.”

(4)  A few example of harmful projects currently in the bank’s pipeline:

https://bankwatch.org/our-work/projects/kolubara-lignite-mine-serbia

https://bankwatch.org/our-work/projects/mining-boom-mongolia

(5)  See an analysis of EBRD energy lending completed by Bankwatch in December 2011: https://bankwatch.org/sites/default/files/EBRD-energylending-Dec2011.pdf
and
https://bankwatch.org/ifi-energy-lending

(6) Put together, the EU, the EIB and EU member states own 62.8 percent of the capital of EBRD. Decision No 1080/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Union and repealing Decision No 633/2009/EC:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:280:0001:0001:EN:PDF

For more information, contact:

 
Ionut Apostol
Bankwatch EBRD coordinator
ionut AT bankwatch.org”
0040721251207

Member States set to block greening of next Cohesion Policy

Brussels — Meeting today in the General Affairs Council, leaders of EU Member States have significantly watered down last year’s Commission proposal on greening the next Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 (1). Much of the power over how to spend EU regional funds is set to remain with national governments with only weak demands placed on the capitals over how to spend EU funds towards building a low-carbon European economy.

“The contents of the text approved today by the Council amount to an abandoning of the Cohesion Policy’s alignment to Europe 2020 objectives,” comments Markus Trilling, CEE Bankwatch Network EU funds coordinator. “As we have seen in the current budget period, this actually means that, particularly in Central and Eastern Europe, regional funds will likely continue to be poured into highways, airports and incinerators.” (2)
 
According to Bankwatch, some of the most problematic aspects of the Cohesion Policy legislation approved today in the Council are:

  • the relativisation of the EU 2020 objectives (from the draft Cohesion Policy legislation proposed by the Commission in the summer of 2011) as a strategic direction for the spending of regional funds;
  • the weakening of safeguards, including environmental conditions, on which the awarding of Cohesion moneys had been proposed to be conditioned;
  • commitments by national governments related to the receiving of regional funds will be included in partnership agreements – not contracts, as proposed by the Commission – losing their legally binding nature and not requiring Commissions approval anymore in important areas such as the implementation of sustainable development principles;
  • the demands of including civil society partners in decisions over the allocation of funds have been drastically weakened;
  • the demands for clear targets and result indicators related to how the regional funds are used have been watered down;
  • member states preserve a right to reject certain measures on the grounds of increased administrative burden, opening the door for certain transparency or environmental requirements to be left unimplemented at national level.

 
“If the next Cohesion Policy ends up in the form we have seen indicated during today’s Council, this means we are giving up the chance to transform the next Budget of the EU into a tool for decarbonising our economies, into an engine of sustainable development for our regions,” adds Trilling.
 
“We are calling on MS to assume their responsibility towards future generations and use EU regional development funds for the benefit and well-being of their citizens, which would clearly imply committing to European long-term targets on climate and resources and including stakeholders in the planning of investments priorities,” says Markus Trilling. “At the same time, the European Parliament should not allow member states to use EU funds for investments undermining European objectives and priorities.” (3)
 

For more information, contact:

Markus Trilling
EU Funds Coordinator
CEE Bankwatch Network
markus.trilling AT bankwatch.org

Notes for the editors:

 
(1)    See the Commission proposal at: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/what/future/proposals_2014_2020_en.cfm
 
and Bankwatch’s take on it at:
https://bankwatch.org/checklist-eu-cohesion-policy
and at:
https://bankwatch.org/publications/funding-europes-future-how-cohesion-policy-2014-2020-can-deliver-europes-people-and-env
 
(2) See Bankwatch’s map of harmful projects financed with or considered for financing with EU       funds: https://bankwatch.org/bwmail/51/new-eu-funds-map-adds-calls-sustainable-eu-budget
 
(3) The European Council and the European Parliament both need to amend and adopt the Commission proposal from last year in order to finalise the legislative framework for the next Cohesion Policy. These legislative steps are expected to finish in 2013 only.

Slovenia: The EBRD freezes loan disbursements in Alstom’s coal project over corruption allegations. NGOs call on the EIB to follow suit

Paris, 18 April 2012 — The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) announced that it is freezing the disbursement of the promised EUR 100 million loan for the construction of a new lignite block at thermal power plant TES 6 in Šoštanj, Slovenia. The decision by the EBRD comes after a group of Slovenian and international NGOs approached the EBRD asking for the bank to halt the loan until corruption allegations are investigated.(1)

In June 2008, Alstom “won” a public contract for the construction of a new power plant in Šoštanj, Slovenia (TEŠ 6 Project), within the framework of a project funded by the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD).(2) In a report issued on February 17 this year, the Slovenian Commission for the Prevention of Corruption suspects that acts of corruption may have interfered with the tender process, to the benefit of Alstom. In addition to the close ties between Alstom and several actors in the procurement process, the Commission clearly states that “the project [TES 6] is designed and implemented in a non-transparent manner, lacks supervision and is burdened with political and lobbying influences, and as a result there has been [and still is] a high risk of corruption and conflict of interest”.

This is not the only case where Alstom has been implicated in corrupt practices. In Switzerland, one of Alstom’s subsidiaries was convicted at the end of last year in relation to corruption of foreign public officials in Latvia, Tunisia and Malaysia, and in February this year the World Bank (WB) debarred two Alstom subsidiaries and their affiliates for having bribed a Zambian official in order to win a contract funded by the WB. (See overview of the cases below).

Corruption impedes free competition, undermines institutions’ credibility and legitimacy, and ultimately leads to poorer quality implementation of projects, usually at higher than necessary costs to public budgets. Such consequences contrast with the very mission of Multilateral Development Banks such as the EIB and EBRD.(3)

In this context, SHERPA, Focus and Bankwatch call the EIB to follow in the wake of the EBRD and to freeze financing for the TES 6 Project until all the investigations are concluded and light is shed on the conditions of the contract awarded to Alstom, in strictest accordance with the Multilateral Development Banks’ joint Anti-corruption commitments.

Furthermore, SHERPA, Focus, and Bankwatch call on the EIB to ratify the Agreement for Mutual Enforcement of Debarment Decisions (4) as soon as possible and to temporarily ban Alstom Hydro France and Alstom Network Schweiz AG (Switzerland), the two subsidiaries involved in the public officials corruption scandal in Zambia, from bidding for any new call for tenders linked with projects funded by the bank.

Finally, given the multiple corruption scandals around Alstom, SHERPA, Focus and Bankwatch call on the banks to be particularly cautious with respect to any on-going or planned projects in which Alstom is involved. This appears all the more necessary considering recent comments made by Patrick Bessy, Alstom’s Vice President in charge of communication, who did not seem worried about the World Bank’s debarment decision: “We [the Alstom Group] can still participate [in WB’s calls for tenders] through other subsidiaries”.(5) SHERPA, Focus and Bankwatch expect the company to tackle corruption issues more seriously and to perform an in-depth review of its anti-corruption policy.

 

For more information contact:

Association SHERPA (France)
Maud Perdriel-Vaissière
maud.perdriel-vaissiere AT asso-sherpa.org
+ 33 1 42 21 33 25

Rachel Leenhardt
communication AT asso-sherpa.org
+ 33 1 42 21 33 25

Focus Association for Sustainable Development, (Slovenia)
Lidija Živčič
lidija AT focus.si
+38615154080
 
CEE Bankwatch Network
Piotr Trzaskowski
piotr.trzaskowski AT bankwatch.org
+48509162988

 
SHERPA is a Paris-based non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and defending victims of economic crimes. The association brings together international jurists and lawyers and works in close collaboration with civil society organizations from all over the world.
www.asso-sherpa.org

Focus Association for Sustainable Development is an independent, non-governmental, apolitical and non-profit environmental organisation based in Ljubljana, Slovenia. The mission of Focus is to stimulate solutions for environmentally and socially responsible life through education, awareness raising and co-shaping policies in the field of climate change. www.focus.si

CEE Bankwatch Network is an international non-governmental organisation with member organisations from countries across central and eastern Europe (CEE). We monitor the activities of international financial institutions which operate in the region and promote environmentally, socially and economically sustainable alternatives to their policies and projects. www.bankwatch.org

OVERVIEW OF THE RECENT CORRUPTION CASES INVOLVING ALSTOM

 
November 22, 2011 – Alstom Network Schweiz AG was found guilty by the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) of Switzerland and ordered to pay a 36.4 million Swiss francs compensation (42 million euros), for having bribed officials in three different countries. The OAG concluded that Alstom Network Schweiz AG was guilty for “not having taken all necessary and reasonable organizational precautions to prevent bribery of foreign public officials in Latvia, Tunisia and Malaysia”. Although the conviction does not directly target the parent company Alstom SA, the OAG considered that “Alstom SA, as the senior holding company, is responsible in part for the organizational deficiencies identified”. In addition, Alstom SA supported all financial costs related to the case.
For more details, see the press release.

February 17, 2012 – The Commission for the Prevention of Corruption in Slovenia is an independent state institution in the Republic of Slovenia. In February it published its interim report about irregularities in the construction of a new power plant in Šoštanj, Slovenia. Among numerous alleged breaches of policies and laws in the project, the Commission notes that both the technical commission implementing the public procurement for TES 6 and the group negotiating the contract included employees of CEE Inženiring za energetiko in ekologijo d.o.o., which has close business links with Alstom. As a consequence, “conditions for corruption” were created, as Alstom “could have had access to complete information about the offer of the competing supplier”.

The Commission is continuing its investigation, while separate investigations into the possible unlawful acts at TEŠ 6 have already been opened by other Slovene institutions: the National Investigations Office and the police in the town of Celje. This week the Slovene parliament is expected to hold a first discussion on the law granting a state guarantee for the remaining tranche of the EIB loan worth EUR 440 million. The final decision is expected to take place only in a few months. In this context, Alstom’s reported threat to charge the Slovene government for delaying the construction of TES 6 while facing suspicions of fraud is particularly shocking.(6)

See the unofficial English translation of the report.

More information about the project can be obtained on Bankwatch’s website.
 
February 22, 2012 – Alstom Hydro France and Alstom Network Schweiz AG, as well as their affiliates, were debarred from the bidding of the World Bank for a period of three years, after paying a 110,000 Euros kickback to Zambian officials to ensure they would obtain a public contract within the context of a project funded by the World Bank in 2002. The two companies have agreed to pay $9.5 million in compensation to the Bank, which represents 40% of the amount foreseen under the electricity network rehabilitation contract in Zambia. Alstom SA and its direct subsidiaries will be conditionally non-debarred during the same period: they will retain the right to participate in World Bank’s projects, but they will have to strictly observe the terms agreed with the World Bank; should they fail to do so, they will be similarly debarred.

Since then, the EBRD, the Asian Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank have implemented cross-debarment in the wake of the World Bank’s decision.

See the World Bank’s press release and SHERPA’s press release for more information.

Notes for the editors:

(1)  Referring to the preliminary assessment of the corruption allegations undertaken by the anti-corruption body of the EBRD the President of the bank wrote on April 16th “Disbursements are suspended until the Bank is satisfied that all conditions for such disbursement are met, which include conclusions from this investigation satisfactory to the bank.” In the second statement made by the EBRD just a day later it was specified that the suspension does not have a formal character.

Letter from the president of the EBRD Tomas Mirow to Focus Association for Sustainable Development, Greenpeace and CEE Bankwatch Network, April 16, 2012:
https://bankwatch.org/documents/response-EBRD-Sostanj-loansuspension-16Apr2012.pdf

Letter from the Managing Director of the EBRD Riccardo Puliti to Focus Association for Sustainable Development, Greenpeace and CEE Bankwatch Network, April 17, 2012:
https://bankwatch.org/documents/response-EBRD-Sostanj-17Apr2012.pdf

(2)  The EIB has approved a contribution of 550 million euros, of which 110 million euros have been already paid out while the EBRD loan amounts to 200 million euros, out of which 100 million euros is being syndicated to a consortium of private banks.

(3)  « Dealing resolutely with corruption is key to the development of sustainable economies that will attract investment and engender confidence», Thomas Mirow, President of the EBRD, in the press release of the signatories of the April 9, 2010.

(4) Agreement signed on April 9th, 2010 by the main MDBs (World Bank, European Bank for the Reconstruction and Development, the Asian Development Bank, the African Development Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank), except the European Investment Bank.

(5) Article from Wall Street Journal, February 22, 2012 and from La Tribune, February 23, 2012 (French)
http://www.latribune.fr/actualites/economie/international/20120223trib000684517/la-banque-mondiale-place-une-filiale-suisse-d-alstom-sur-liste-noire.html

(6) These threats appeared in Slovene and international media: Bloomberg dispatch, March 28, 2012
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-28/slovenia-may-pay-damages-to-alstom-on-guarantee-delay-fi.html

Gazela reloaded: another illegal Roma resettlement in Serbia on account of an EIB funded project

Belgrade – By the end of April, one hundred Roma families are expected to be illegally resettled from Belgrade neighbourhood Buvljak to several locations including Resnik, where current inhabitants are these days protesting against their arrival [1]. The resettlement is being carried out by Belgrade authorities without a proper resettlement plan or any consideration of the needs of the Roma and potential for inter-racial conflict [2]. The move is deemed necessary as part of the Sava Bridge and adjacent road construction, financed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank respectively. [3]

“As sad as it is to see the anti-Roma protests taking place over the past days in Resnik, it comes as no surprise to us, because locals there have been giving signals they do not want Roma to be moved to the area for a long time,” explains Zvezdan Kalmar from Serbian NGO CEKOR, a member group of CEE Bankwatch Network. “This kind of response is to be expected when neither local people nor the Roma families have been consulted about their needs and wishes. Unfortunately this is just one of several mistakes that have been made in this process: no Resettlement Action Plan has been drawn up, nor have any efforts been made to ensure the needs of the resettled families will be met in the new location.”

The one hundred Roma families are currently living in the Buvljak settlement and several other locations along the Belgrade-Budapest rail transport corridor, where roads meant to serve the newly constructed Sava Bridge are planned to be built with financing from the EIB.

In August 2009, 150 Roma families living in the vicinity of Gazela Bridge in Belgrade were resettled illegally as part of wider reconstruction plans related to EIB-sponsored Gazela Bridge. [4] Soon after the illegal resettlement, it was proven that the Roma families could not integrate properly in their new locations, because of lack of work opportunities and proper living conditions alongside being geographically marginalised on the far edges of the city. The EIB’s Complaints Office, which investigated the project, ruled that there had been a number of mistakes on the EIB side done which were partly to blame for the lack of Roma integration and for a significant project delay.

“Moving Roma families in the same way again, without a proper plan to ensure their long-term social inclusion, is sure to lead to failure, not least because of igniting conflicts between the resettled Roma and hostile local communities,” says Kalmar.

The activist points out that the European Investment Bank, the main financial supporter of the roads requiring this resettlement, has been warned by local NGOs about the possible negative consequences of such illegal resettlements of Roma in Serbia from as early as September 2010, to no avail.

“It is worrying to see that the EIB has learnt nothing from the disastrous Gazela resettlement that it proved powerless to control,” adds Kalmar. “The EIB should act immediately to stop any work under the project it is financing until a resettlement action plan is completed and consulted with interested Roma families, NGOs, and host communities.”

For more information, contact:

Zvezdan Kalmar
CEKOR, Serbia
Bankwatch Serbian national coordinator
vodana at gmail.com
+381 65 5523 191

Notes for the editors:

[1] Protesters said they will continue the protests until authorities give up the resettlement idea. Details about the protests:
http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/belgraders-protest-against-settling-of-roma (English)
and
http://www.vesti-online.com/Vesti/Hronika/216385/Resnik-Policija-sprecila-protest-protiv-Roma (Serbian)

Resnik is in the outskirts of Belgrade and next to another large infrastructural development on corridor X (a Belgrade bypass financed by the EBRD http://www.ebrd.com/english/pages/project/psd/2006/36651.shtml ).

In addition to Resnik, the Roma families are expected to be resettled to a couple of other locations around Belgrade, some of which have seen anti-Roma protests in the past, even though the precise locations have not all been made public by the authorities.

[2] Read about long-term efforts by local NGOs to get local authorities and banks financing the project to promote a proper resettlement plan here:
https://bankwatch.org/news-media/blog/deja-vu-belgrade

[3] The European Investment Bank is offering 160 million euros for the construction of Sava Bridge and access roads:
http://eib.europa.eu/projects/loans/2009/20090526.htm

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development financially supported the construction of the Sava Bridge:
http://www.ebrd.com/pages/project/psd/2005/34913.shtml

[4] Read more about the Gazela resettlement and its negative consequences:
https://bankwatch.org/our-work/projects/gazela-bridge-rehabilitation-belgrade-serbia
and
http://outofsight.tv/

[5] See an Amnesty International petition against the illegal resettlement of the one hundred Roma families:
http://www.amnesty.ie/content/roma-families-immediate-risk-eviction