Bankwatch

Home > Archives for Press release

Press release

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.

Distribution of EU funds in Poland seen as flawed by local officials


The selection of projects for billions of euros of EU funding in Poland is widely perceived by Polish municipalities to be politically-driven and non-transparent, new research conducted by Bankwatch member group the Institute of Environmental Economics (IEE) has found. [1]

The alarming findings are based on an anonymous questionnaire survey of 160 Polish municipalities on how they view the process of appraisal and selection of projects that applied for funding to the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) between 2004 and 2006. [2] The results show that 49 percent of the municipalities believe that the project selection procedure was non-transparent and 44 percent that it was not objective. Fifty-two percent of the respondents see politically-driven choices as one of the main weaknesses of the project selection system. [3]

Anna Dworakowska, of the Institute of Environmental Economics, said: “Our research findings back up the argument that there is a clear need for improving the project selection process for EU funded projects in Poland and other member states. The lack of a correct project selection process means that EU funds are not being spent on the most necessary and beneficial projects.”

Previous IEE research has found that regional politicians and officials in Poland often overrule independent evaluation by experts. Projects that received the highest number of points on the ranking list by experts are subsequently often turned down, while projects evaluated as much worse receive EU money without any objective grounding and explanation. [4]

Anna Dworakowska said: “The problem is that no one from the municipalities will speak up openly because if they do they could say farewell to EU money for the next couple of years. Our anonymous questionnaires allowed municipal officials to say what they think”

The IEE has also experienced difficulties in obtaining any information about selected projects in Poland. It has had to start legal actions in order to receive only very short descriptions of financed projects.

Anna Dworakowska said: “The Polish government must first of all ensure that those experts evaluating projects are truly independent. There must also be less room for regional officials to arbitrarily change the experts ranking, and wherever it happens there should be a proper justification. Finally, more information about the financed projects must be publicly available.”

Poland is currently finalising its negotiations with the European Commission on the plans and rules for using the EU funds in the 2007-2013 period that will see EUR 67 billion disbursed in Poland alone.

Martin Konecny, EU funds project coordinator for CEE Bankwatch Network and Friends of the Earth Europe, said: “These research findings should also serve as a wake-up call to the European Commission at the start of the 2007-2013 funding period. The Commission should not tolerate billions of EU taxpayers resources in Poland being spent on projects that have not been evaluated as the best ones. A system where regional officials can override expert evaluation and arbitrarily select projects without explanation allows huge potential for corruption.”

For more information

Anna Dworakowska
Institute of Environmental Economics, Krakow
Tel.: +48 12 631 90 80
Mob.: +48 607 94 00 47
Email: ania AT iee.org.pl

Martin Konecny
EU funds project coordinator, Brussels
Tel.: +32 25 42 01 85
Mob.: +32 484 601283
Email: martin.konecny AT foeeurope.org

Magda Stoczkiewicz
Policy Coordinator at CEE Bankwatch Network, Brussels
Tel.: +32 25 42 01 88
Mob.: +32 475 867637
Email: magdas AT bankwatch.org

Notes for editors

[1] The research report and summary (in Polish) can be downloaded from the Institute’s website.

Key results of the IEE survey:

“How do you evaluate transparency of the project selection process in the Integrated Regional Development Operational Programme?”

  • very transparent: 3%
  • rather transparent: 37%
  • rather little transparent: 38%
  • very little transparent: 11%
  • difficult to say: 12%

“How do you generally evaluate the objectivity of the project selection process in the Integrated Regional Development Operational Programme?”

  • very objective: 4%
  • rather objective: 37%
  • rather little objective: 31%
  • very little objective: 13%
  • difficult to say: 15%

“What are the main weaknessess of the project selection and appraisal system?”

  • too many institutions involved in project selection: 63%
  • politically-driven decisions: 52%
  • lack of proper justification for decisions refusing the financing: 48%

[2] The questionnaires were sent by post to officials responsible for structural funds management in their municipality.

[3] For example, one of the typical answers received in the survey was the following: Regional management’s decisions are 100% political, the municipalities that did not have connections stood very low chances for receiving co-financing.

[4] For example, in 2005 the Management of the Podlaskie Region (the regional body which makes the final decisions) approved ERDF financing for projects which were at the following places according to the ranking by experts: 2, 6, 7, 12 and 16. Only these five projects out of 21 applications received funding. So the project that ranked 16th according to the experts was selected by the regional officials while projects assessed on the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th place were passed over. As a justification, the project description form was simply copied and pasted from the project application.

Albanian referendum aims to put a break on Italian oil and gas plans for renowned Vlora Bay

Vlora, Albania – The city council of Vlora in Albania this week approved a citizens’ initiative to hold a public referendum on the development in the picturesque Bay of Vlora of a 200,000 ton oil and gas terminal that is being promoted by the Italian La Petrolífera Italo Rumena company. If constructed, the terminal would become another component of a controversial industrial and energy park located less than six kilometres north of Vlora, a city of more than 150,000 inhabitants.

The sprawling energy park plans include the hosting of an outlet to the Adriatic for the AMBO pipeline and several thermo power plants. Some of the projects within the energy park have already received the backing of certain international financial institutions such as the World Bank despite protests and warnings from Vlora’s citizens that the park will bring detrimental impacts to the waters and coastal ecosystems of the Vlora Bay, will threaten tourism and fishing, and will harm their quality of life.[1]

Aleksander Mita, of the Civic Alliance for the Protection of the Bay of Vlora, said: “The city council’s approval of the referendum is an important milestone in our campaign. Whether the referendum takes place or not depends ultimately on the state Central Electoral Committee which approves requests for referenda according to the Albanian Constitution. We have reason to believe that the committee could block the referendum. In 2005 it did not allow a referendum on the Vlora power plant even though 14,000 people in Vlora requested one.”

The 50 million euro oil and gas terminal would be constructed on the site of a former caustic soda and PVC factory contaminated by mercury. [2] Although decontamination of the site by the Czech Geotest company allegedly started in 2002, people in Vlora argue that they have been informed neither about the progress of the decontamination nor about plans to rehabilitate the site. According to the last census 141 families live at or in proximity of the site and have heard nothing about potential resettlement.

Gani Mezini, of the Civic Alliance for the Protection of the Bay of Vlora, commented: “We call upon Petrolífera Managing Director Guido Ottolenghi to withdraw from this project. The Bay of Vlora will suffer irreparable harm from the development of the oil industry and from the immense tanker traffic accompanying it. We are ready to repurchase the land at a premium price and completely decontaminate and rehabilitate it.”

The project’s opponents say that La Petrolífera Italo-Rumena obtained a concession from the Albanian government in 2004 that involves extremely disadvantageous conditions for Albania. The Italian company is looking to construct the storage deposit in a public ocean-front property of 150,000 square metres, having paid the Albanian government a price of 1 euro for the entire area. Under the deal, the property will become exclusively Italian after a period of 30 years. La Petrolífera has also reserved the right to be the sole operator in the Bay of Vlora.

With this agreement La Petrolífera Italo-Rumena will control 50-60 percent of the Albanian oil market and will be able to influence internal market prices. In addition the Italian company has arranged tax breaks from the Albanian government which can only help it to squeeze all other local operators from the market, say the local opponents.

Caterina Amicucci, of the Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale based in Rome, said: “A referendum in Vlora is absolutely vital. It is clear that the agreement between La Petrolífera Italo-Rumena and the Albanian government was signed in the exclusive interests of the economic lobbies close to the former prime ministers Fatos Nano and Silvio Berlusconi. This agreement will not only create a monopoly situation for a foreign company in the Albanian energy sector, but also provides full legal immunity for Petrolífera should there be any environmental and social damage in Vlora Bay.”

For more information, contact:

Aleksander Mita
Civic Alliance for the Protection of the Bay of Vlora
Tel: +355 33 25313
Mob: +355 (0)69 226 0212
Email: aleksander.mita AT gmail.com

Gani Mezini
Civic Alliance for Protection of the Bay of Vlora
Tel: +355 33 25 313
Mob: +355 69 24 46 010
Email: gani.mezini AT gmail.com

Caterina Amicucci
Campagna per la Riforma della Banca Mondiale
Tel: +39 06 782 6855
Mob: +39 349 852 0789
Camicucci AT crbm.org

Notes for editors:

1. The USD 112 million Vlora oil-fueled power plant will be built with public money from the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank. The Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation promoting the 894,5 km long AMBO pipeline designed to facilitate the transfer of 30-40 million tons of crude oil per year from the Caspian region to the Adriatic Sea has been in discussion over project financing with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the World Bank’s insurance agency MIGA, the International Finance Corporation, the US Overseas Prime Investment Corporation and an Export-Import Bank.

2. It is estimated that the plant released up to 70 tons of mercury into the air, soil and marine sediments until its closure in 1992.