Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Press release

Press release

Stench rising over Sofia waste crisis, warns local group

The environmental assessment (EIA) of a waste management project proposed by Sofia municipality to deal with the Bulgarian capital’s chronic waste problems has been criticised by Bankwatch’s Bulgarian member group Za Zemiata for failing to consider an alternative waste management scenario officially submitted by NGOs in collaboration with experts and researchers from Europe and the U.S. Such a procedural breach of Bulgarian EIA legislation should, believes Za Zemiata, rule out vital EU funding that the authorities in Sofia are seeking for the EUR 175 million project. [1]

Ivaylo Hlebarov, of Za Zemiata and Bankwatch national coordinator who has participated this week at the EIA public hearings in Sofia, said:

“Our alternative waste management scenario that has been overlooked puts much more emphasis on the prevention and recycling of waste, in line with EU recycling priorities, than that which Sofia municipality is proposing. The municipality’s scheme is heavily dependent on landfilling and burning refuse derived fuels in cement kilns outside Sofia, with clear threats to human health from pollution. Another indication of how inadequate this EIA process has been is that the experts involved have refused to even assess the hazards of burning this fuel. The attitude appears to be, if it’s outside Sofia then it’s not our problem. [2]

“The EIA report for the municipality’s unsustainable approach to Sofia’s waste is too toxic even for landfill, but it is looking more and more like a done deal. Constructive comments from NGOs on the plans have also been totally discounted. The EU’s new Waste Framework Directive has set minimum 50 percent recycling rates for household waste by 2020, yet the Sofia scheme is unambitious, there is no way it can meet such a target and the Sofia authorities still believe they are due EU financial support!

“Sofia’s waste crisis has rivaled that of Naples and EU funding is essential in such extreme circumstances. However, to support EU waste goals, EU money should support integrated waste management facilities where separate collection and high recycling rates are essential elements. Our proposals have these essential elements yet they have been chucked on the scrap heap by the authorities.”

For more information

Za Zemiata (EU funds and waste coordinator)/CEE Bankwatch Network
Mobile: +359 898 252 303
E-mail: hlebarov AT bankwatch.org

Notes for editors

[1] The European Commission will have the final say on whether or not to provide financial support to the Sofia waste management project. The Commission is responsible for the approval of any environmental project with total costs above EUR 25 million. Without a properly conducted EIA process for individual projects within the member states, the Commission cannot approve the disbursal of funds.

In October 2007, the European Commission initiated an infringement procedure against Bulgaria because of the illegal storage of mixed municipal waste in plastic bales in the open (currently around 600 000 tonnes) and the city’s lack of adequate facilities for waste disposal.

[2] Sofia municipality’s project proposal includes: two composting facilities (40 000 tonnes/year), a mechanical-biological treatment facility (410 000 tonnes/year), a landfill and a small waste water treatment plant – the project will treat 71 percent of Sofia waste in 2020 (and more than 87 percent of total waste produced in 2011).

The recycling contribution from this plant will be 6.98 percent of total waste produced in 2020 (630 000 tonnes/y), thus barely helping to achieve the any way low figure of 33 percent recycled waste in 2020 as optimistically foreseen by the municipality.

The NGO scenarios for waste managament in Sofia, which have also been submitted to the European Commission, involve binding targets for recycling of 50 percent as a minimum and rising to 75 percent, the omission of burning municipal waste and an extensive focus on prevention, reuse and recycling.

The proposed Sofia waste management project is one of 50 damaging projects planned or already underway in central and eastern Europe at a potential total cost to EU taxpayers of EUR 10 billion. More information is available at this online map from the Bankwatch website.

Local resistance to nightmare Albanian energy development scenario remains defiant, protestors demand a referendum

3000 citizens from the city of Vlora in Albania held a large protest rally this weekend at the coastal site that has been designated as the construction site for an oil and gas terminal and a thermo power plant. The protestors called on national institutions to respect their right to a local referendum on the constructions. They also urged the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB) not to provide finance for projects that do not respect local public rights to participate in decision making and that will have strong negative impacts in the very sensitive area of Vlora Bay. [1]

The Sunday rally followed ten days of protest at the end of the year which saw the arrests of 20 people by 200 local policemen. Those arrested reported being beaten by rubber truncheons at the local police station. The police forces prevented the local media from reporting on the event.

However, the Civic Alliance for the Protection of Vlora Bay together with students from Vlora Students Movement (Levizja Studentore Vlonjate – LSV) continue to protest with the slogan: “Resistance till our right for a local referendum is taken into consideration”. Although, the protests have been attended by some members of the Vlora municipality, the City Council has not officially commented on the events.

Mr. Rezart Aliaj, the chair of the Alliance, said during his opening address to the protestors: “We live in a democratic country, and as such we have the right to raise our voices.”

The well known Albanian publicist Ardian Klosi supported the demonstration by underlining that the movement for the protection of the natural sites, history and archaeology, cultural values and local economies of Vlora is the first authentic citizens’ movement in Albania. He regarded the denial of a referendum as an act against the democratic right of Vlora citizens to decide on a matter of public concern.

At the terminal construction site, Besnik Lula – the Alliance member arrested and injured during the protests in the previous days – invited citizens to plant new trees where old pine trees have been cleared by the constructors.

Mr Lula commented: “We will plant new pine trees today within the territories of the construction sites in order to convey the message that this is not the right site to build on.”

For more information

Rezart Alliaj
Civic Alliance for the Protection of Vlora Bay
Mob: +355 (0) 682072861
Email: alliajshpk AT hotmail.com.vcf

Lavdosh Ferruni
Civic Alliance for the Protection of Vlora Bay
Tel: +355 4 250575
Mob: +355 (0) 69 209 9047
Email: lferruni AT icc-al.org

Notes for the editors

[1] The 97 megawatt oil and gas fuelled thermo power plant backed by the World Bank, EIB and EBRD and the La Petrolífera Italo Rumena’s storage of oil and its by-products currently seeking financing from the EBRD have been the subjects of several complaints and rulings for inadequate public information and participation as well as for underestimated social, economical, cultural and environmental risks that are attached to the projects such as the UN Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee.

Dead workers, stinking pollution and forced evictions: New report highlights ArcelorMittal’s global trail of destruction

A newly-formed coalition of environmental and community groups [1] – Global Action on ArcelorMittal – today released a report showing how local residents and workers around the world pay the price of ArcelorMittal’s success.

The report – ‘In the wake of ArcelorMittal – the global steel giant’s local impacts’ [2] – was launched at a press conference in Luxembourg to coincide with the company’s annual shareholder meeting. It contains nine case studies detailing ArcelorMittal’s legacy of pollution, environmental damage, health impacts and poor worker safety.

In the report the coalition demands that:

  • ArcelorMittal implements environmental and health action plans in consultation with residents adjacent to the plants and plant workers in a democratic manner;
  • Governments should not give ArcelorMittal perverse tax breaks or allow it to dispossess people from their land; and
  • Public financial institutions should not support polluting industry such as ArcelorMittal, which has extensive resources of its own. [3]

The success of the company has coincided with the exploitation of weaker national laws and political wrangling, and the pollution and health and safety problems experienced by neighbours and workers at ArcelorMittal plants are more than occasional blips. Rather, they represent the logical conclusion of the company’s strategy of buying old, heavily polluting steel mills in countries such as Kazakhstan, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, South Africa and the USA, and implementing large production and cost-cutting targets.

Samson Mokoena, who lived adjacent to the ArcelorMittal plant in South Africa, represents the Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance, a coalition of community, religious and labour groups calling on ArcelorMittal to clean up its water and air pollution in South Africa. He said: “Buying cheap apartheid created state industry and making huge profits from it does not absolve one from dealing with its historic pollution, which led to the relocation of people in a democratic South Africa.”

Jan Srytr, of GARDE – Environmental Law Service, a Czech NGO, said: “In the Czech Republic the level of arsenic, dust and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons near the ArcelorMittal steelmill is seven times higher than allowed by Czech legislation, making the region’s air among the most heavily polluted in the EU. We sued the company last month on behalf of local residents and are planning to launch more suits.”

In India, ArcelorMittal is planning to build two giant plants on indigenous lands, destroying the livelihoods of local communities who are already poor and have no political voice to defend themselves.

Even though ArcelorMittal’s CEO and largest shareholder, Lakshmi Mittal, is the fourth richest person in the world, worth an estimated USD 45 billion, the company has been supported with no less than ten public loans from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Finance Corporation in the last ten years. Together these public loans have totalled around USD 692 million.

Dana Sadykova, of Eco Museum, Kazakhstan, said: “Public money is meant to ensure that society collectively benefits from development projects and investment, but investing in ArcelorMittal just condones the activities of a company that has been responsible for over 100 miners dying in accidents during the last five years in Kazakhstan. The investments are supposed to bring environmental and health and safety improvements, but the results on the ground just aren’t good enough. It is vitally important that senior international management take responsibility for improving the local conditions.”

Members of Global Action on ArcelorMittal will present this set of demands to their governments, the international financial institutions and ArcelorMittal, and step up their efforts to hold the company accountable on the local level.

For more information

Blanche Weber
Mouvement Ecologique – Friends of the Earth Luxembourg
Mobile: +352 621 282 139

Jan Srytr
GARDE – Environmental Law Service
Mobile: +420 775 910 054

Notes for editors

[1] The report was compiled by CEE Bankwatch Network, Ecological Society Green Salvation (Kazakhstan), the GARDE programme of the Ecological Law Service (Czech Republic), groundWork – Friends of the Earth South Africa, groundWork USA, Friends of the Earth Europe, Friends of the Earth International, Karaganda Ecological Museum (Kazakhstan), Mouvement Ecologique – Friends of the Earth Luxembourg, National Ecological Center of Ukraine, Ohio Citizen Action (USA), Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance (South Africa).

[2] The report ‘In the wake of ArcelorMittal – the global steel giant’s local impacts’ can be downloaded from the Bankwatch website.

[3] The full demands listed in the report are:

To ArcelorMittal’s management and shareholders:

  • As a first step, where this has not already been done, the senior management of ArcelorMittal needs to meet with all stakeholders to listen to their concerns and to develop action plans for stakeholder engagement.
  • Where they have been made, environmental action plans need to be released to the public, and where they have not been made they need to be developed.
  • Environmental action plans must be developed in consultation with community people living adjacent to ArcelorMittal’s plants and incorporated into government licences to operate.
  • The company needs to review its working arrangements to ensure that its managers do not have to make trade-offs between environmental/health and safety protection on the one hand and production targets on the other.

To local and national authorities in locations where ArcelorMittal is operating:

  • ArcelorMittal should not be given any tax or environmental exemptions.
  • ArcelorMittal’s status as a major employer in some areas does not mean that it should be treated leniently with regards to pollution, health and safety and labour issues. Where ArcelorMittal’s operations do not comply with the law, the company should be sanctioned as any other company.
  • ArcelorMittal should not be allowed to displace poor and indigenous communities when their livelihood depends on the very land where the company plans to build its plants.

To the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and International Finance Corporation:

  • ArcelorMittal should not receive further low-interest public loans. A company of such a size should easily be able to finance projects from other sources.
  • For those projects that are still ongoing, the EBRD and IFC need to intensify their monitoring of the environmental, labour and health and safety aspects of the projects, as well as stakeholder engagement.

Three activists released pending trial for protesting against controversial oil terminal construction in Vlora

The district court in Vlora, Albania last week released three members of the Civic Alliance for the Protection of Vlora Bay [1] who were arrested and detained for two weeks after protesting against the construction of a hydrocarbons terminal in Vlora. The terminal, regarded by the protestors as bringing few benefits to the local economy in exchange for high environmental risks, is being built by the Italian investor La Petrolifera Italo Rumena. The project is currently seeking a EUR 15 million credit from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). [2]

The protesters were arrested and detained for obstructing traffic on March 31 after chaining themselves together to prevent the coastal storage construction trucks from circulating in the city centre in the evening. [3] The released activists, who are now obliged to report to the law enforcement office twice a week, are pending trial.

The recent police arrest is being seen as an attempt by the Albanian authorities to fulfill their obligations to the foreign investor and to guarantee public order and safe use of the terminal construction site as dictated by the project’s Concession Agreement.

Lavdosh Ferruni, the Secretary of the Civic Alliance for the Protection of Vlora Bay, said: “The concession is unfavourable for Albania because it grants the Italian investor ownership of 183 000 square metres for a symbolic price, an exclusive tax regime and rights to be the sole operator. We fear the terminal and the tankers will pollute Vlora Bay and hugely impact Vlora’s attractiveness as a tourist destination. We are determined to continue the protests that we initiated in September last year in order to open the way to a local referendum or to stop the building works.”

Prominent Albanian intellectuals, civil society organisations and the media issued protest statements and demonstrated against the violations of freedom of speech and the poor conditions experienced by the detainees in the detention centre. The Albanian Helsinki Committee visited the Vlora police station and was appalled by the conditions of the detention rooms and that a defense lawyer was not allowed to have contact with two of the detainees.

Vasilika Hysi, Executive Director of the Albanian Helsinki Committee, commented: “When we arrived to the station, nineteen people were kept in rooms with a maximum capacity of six persons each. One room was furnished with a mattress and the other had only blankets. The rooms lacked windows and minimal hygenic conditions, were poorly ventilated and the floor was littered.“

Andi Kananaj, lawyer of the MJAFT! Movement, said: “As the leaders of the Alliance are under house arrest, the repression of the freedom of speech and human rights continues even after their liberation from detention.“

Last week CEE Bankwatch Network released a report on the Vlora coastal terminal that describes how the EBRD’s engagement in industrial and energy projects reflects the lack of a coherent development strategy for the Vlora district. According to the report, there are indications that the EBRD’s management has failed to ensure compliance with the bank’s environmental standards during the terminal’s environmental appraisal. [4]

For more information

Lavdosh Ferruni
Civic Alliance for the Protection of Vlora Bay
Tel: +355 4 250575
Mob: +355 (0) 69 209 9047
Email: lferruni AT icc-al.org 

Vasilika Hysi
Albanian Helsinki Committee
Tel: +355 4 23 36 71
E-mail:v.hysi AT ahc.org.al

Kristi Pinderi
Director of Communications
MJAFT! Movement
Tel. +355 4 223661
Mob: + 355 68 2056 037
Email: kristi AT mjaft.org

Notes for editors

[1] The Civic Alliance for the Protection of the Vlora Bay was established in 2005 with the aim to protect the sustainable development of the city of Vlora. It has opposed the development of a coastal terminal and a thermo-power plant north of the town due to the risks these projects pose for the sensitive ecosystems and a local economy based on tourism. The Alliance has also complained about the lack of opportunities for the affected community to engage in the decision-making process.

[2] Besides the terminal, a construction on the 97 MW and 110 million EUR thermo-power plant is taking place in Vlora with support of the World Bank’s International Development Association, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank.

[3] A local regulation allows the construction trucks to pass through the city up to 11.00 pm.

[4] The “Energy Matters: the Vlora coastal terminal. Fact-finding mission report on energy and industry developments in Vlora, Albania” is available on the Bankwatch website.

EU funds for fifty harmful projects: NGOs announce ‘RegioScars’ – the three most ill-conceived projects in CEE countries

A new map with details of 50 environmentally damaging and economically dubious infrastructure projects in Central and Eastern Europe was launched by CEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of the Earth Europe in Brussels today [1]. Based on the most extensive investigation to date, the map entitled ‘Cohesion or Collision?’ shows controversial projects with a total cost of EUR 22 billion. The projects are either already financed, or planned to be financed, by EU structural and cohesion funds and/or the European Investment Bank (EIB) [2].

Martin Konecny, Coordinator for EU funds at FoEE said: “EU funding support for Central and Eastern European countries is necessary and welcome. But if the money drives reckless developments and environmental destruction, its potential to deliver benefits is being wasted. The map shows that harmful projects are unfortunately not limited to a few isolated exceptions. Yet these problems are wholly unnecessary because alternatives exist. The European Commission and the EIB should call a halt to such projects and demand that alternative solutions are properly assessed.” [3]

The total cost of the 50 projects is EUR 22 billion, of which EUR 10 billion would be paid by EU funds and further billions by the EIB. Some of the projects have been approved already, but most are planned in the budgetary period 2007-2013. [4]

The projects on the map include:

  • 18 waste incinerators promoted at the expense of recycling which is better for both the environment and economic development
  • 14 motorways ineptly routed through valuable natural areas or residential zones regardless of possible alternative routes
  • 8 river engineering and other water management projects set to destroy unique natural sites

Anelia Stefanova, EU-affairs coordinator at CEE Bankwatch Network said: “Recklessly prepared projects lead to disputes and delays and thereby jeopardize the ability of the new member states to absorb the full amounts of EU funds available. Our aim with this map of controversial projects is to warn about the problems before they happen – most of the 50 projects are still under preparation.”

On the day that European Commissioner for Regional Policy, Danuta Huebner awarded ‘RegioStars’ for the most innovative projects but also appeared before the European Parliament to explain discrepancies in EU funding, CEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of the Earth Europe also revealed their selection of ‘RegioScars’ – the three most ill-conceived projects planned for EU funding in the new member states in the 2007-2013 period.

The following projects were selected by an NGO jury based on environmental, economic and social criteria:

  • A scheme for building 9 waste incinerators for EUR 1 billion in Poland
  • Via Baltica expressway in Poland
  • R52 expressway (Brno-Vienna connection) in the Czech Republic

Magda Stoczkiewicz, Policy coordinator at CEE Bankwatch Network commented: “The plan to build nine polluting waste incinerators throughout Poland will divert money from the much more needed and effective recycling services. This is unjustifiable at a time when Poland recycles merely 3 per cent of its municipal waste. That’s why this scheme fully deserves the ‘RegioScar’ for worst project. The Via Baltica and R52 expressways in Poland and the Czech Republic are second and third worst as they will both damage highly valuable natural sites and landscapes despite the availability of much less damaging, shorter and less costly alternative routes.”

For more information

Martin Konecny, Coordinator for EU funds, Friends of the Earth Europe / CEE Bankwatch Network
Tel. + 32 2 542 0185
martin.konecny AT foeeurope.org

Anelia Stefanova, EU-affairs Coordinator, CEE Bankwatch Network
Tel. +39 06 78 26 855
anelias AT bankwatch.org

Magda Stoczkiewicz, Policy Coordinator, CEE Bankwatch Network, Brussels
Tel. +32 25 42 01 88
magdas AT bankwatch.org

Greig Aitken, Media coordinator, CEE Bankwatch Network
Tel. + 420 605 216 705
press AT bankwatch.org

Francesca Gater, Communications Officer, Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel. +32 2 542 6105
francesca.gater AT foeeurope.org

Notes

[1] The new map and photos are available for download and free reproduction from the Bankwatch website.

[2] Despite their different set-ups, the EU funds and the EIB are the EU’s two main public financial mechanisms and often co-finance the same projects.

[3] A letter to the European Commission President Barroso can be found on the Bankwatch website.

The European Commission makes the final decision about each EU funded project with a total cost of more than EUR 25 billion for environmental projects, and over EUR 50 billion for transport and other projects.

[4] The map includes:

  • 6 approved projects, for which EU/EIB money has already been authorized: total cost: 2.7bn cost to EU funds: 0.5bn
  • 35 planned projects, that are listed in the national plans for EU funding in the 2007-2013 period or are planned to be financed by the EIB: total cost: 14.5bn; cost to EU funds: 9.0bn. This equals to 5 per cent of all EU funds for CEE countries in the 2007-2013 period (EUR 177bn) and is for example four times more than all EU funds allocated for energy efficiency measures in the same period
  • 9 potential projects, that are not officially listed in the EU funding plans or in the EIB pipeline, but are being seriously considered for EU or EIB financial support: total cost: 4.8bn; cost to EU funds: 0.6bn

A previous version of the map with 22 projects was published in 2006. The new version is based on a new, more extensive investigation and on the EU’s funding plans for the period 2007-2013 which have been finalised over the last two years.

European Parliament passes resolution to end taxpayer support for fossil fuels projects


With a resounding majority (540 MEPs in favour), the European Parliament today passed a resolution on trade and climate change which calls for the discontinuation of public support, via export credit agencies and public investment banks, for fossil fuel projects. [1] The step was widely welcomed by environmental and development NGOs campaigning on export credit agencies (ECAs) and the European Investment Bank (EIB). [2]

National public finance institutions in industrialised countries, known as ECAs, promote exports and investments in developing countries which significantly contribute to long-term increases in greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that ECAs support approximately double the amount in financial terms of oil, gas and mining projects as compared to all of the multilateral development banks combined. Half of all new greenhouse gas-emitting industrial projects in developing countries have some form of ECA support. [3]

The EIB – the EU’s house bank and also named in today’s resolution – is another of the largest public financiers of fossil fuels projects, with approximately EUR 20 billion of support for such operations in the last five years. In 2006, the EIB provided 58 percent of international financial institution financing for fossil fuels, dwarfing the contributions of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation and others. [4]

In the resolution the European parliamentarians have now decided to take action. The resolution asks the Commission and EU governments to propose legislative instruments that would force ECAs and the EIB to “take account of the climate change implications of the funded projects” and to “impose a moratorium on funding until sufficient data are available”. The resolution also calls on financiers to redouble their efforts to transfer public funds to renewable energy and energy efficient technologies.

Antonio Tricarico, coordinator of CRBM in Italy, said: “While the EU is negotiating reductions in their own greenhouse gas emissions and emphasising the importance of reducing emissions in developing countries, their finance and trade agencies have so far largely ignored the climate implications of their activities. It is high time for this to be properly tackled and corrected.”

Magda Stoczkiewicz, Policy coordinator of CEE Bankwatch Network, said: “Through the EIB and their export promotion agencies, EU governments continue to subsidise billions of euros in exports and investments that encourage fossil fuel-intensive development. These types of investments will remain in place and contribute to climate change for the next 10 to 50 years. Yet the EIB and the ECAs could be playing a much more positive role in the transition to more sustainable energy. Ultimately urgent action is required at the highest governmental levels.”

Judith Neyer, of FERN and co-ordinator of the European ECA Reform Campaign, sees one of the reasons for this policy perversity on fossil fuel subsidies coming down to a lack of transparency: “Currently the disclosure of environmental information at the ECAs and the EIB alike is still seriously lacking. Reporting greenhouse gas emissions will be an important first step to enable the public to analyse the impacts of these institutions portfolios on climate change and will allow governments to start harmonising climate protection objectives with their ECAs financing as well as EIB lending.”

For more information

Antonio Tricarico
CRBM (Rome):
Tel.: +39 328 84 85 448

Magda Stoczkiewicz
CEE Bankwatch Network (Brussels):
Tel.: +32 475 867637

Judith Neyer
FERN (New York):
Tel.: +1 315 3958666

Notes for editors

1. The relevant paragraphs of the European Parliament resolution are:

  • 29: Calls for the discontinuation of public support, via export credit agencies and public investment banks, for fossil fuel projects and for the redoubling of efforts to increase the transfer of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies;
  • 30: Asks the Commission and the Member States to propose legislative instruments in order that Member State Export Credit Agencies and the European Investment Bank take account of the climate change implications of the funded projects when making or guaranteeing loans and impose a moratorium on funding until sufficient data are available, in accordance with advice from the OECD, G8 and the Extractive Industries Review;

2. The EIB campaign includes the following organisations: CEE Bankwatch Network; CRBM, Italy; Friends of the Earth, France; Friends of the Earth International; Urgewald, Germany; WEED, Germany; Bothends, The Netherlands; Bretton Woods Project, UK.

3. Export credit agencies and investment insurance agencies (ECAs) provide government-backed loans, guarantees and insurance to corporations seeking business opportunities in developing countries or emerging markets that are considered too risky (commercially or politically) for conventional corporate financing. ECAs are mostly national, public or publicly mandated agencies that usually support companies from their home country. Most ECAs don’t take into consideration the impacts of the projects they support on the environment or the rights of local peoples, undermining their governments commitments to sustainable development and combating climate change.

4. In the 2002-2006 period, the EIB lent EUR 23.7 billion to the energy sector, with 76 percent of its total energy investments going to fossil fuels, primarily gas.

See a recent Bankwatch analysis of EIB energy investments 2002-2006.