Publications

At a whopping 2000 MW, the planned Polnoc power plant (Elektrownia Polnoc) in northern Poland would be the largest greenfield coal-fired power plant in Europe. Located in the Pomerania region, which until now has had no coal industry and in recent years has witnessed an unprecedented surge in the wind energy projects, the plant would sit perilously close to three Natura 2000 sites and cool itself with waters from the nearby Vistula river.

In this issue: Kyoto in Bonn * Combating poverty in Georgia * Oil revenues for Weapons * Nukes in Ukraine * EIB Info Policy * EBRD - Language Apartheid * PVC ban in Slovakia * Two new World Bank strategies * Yugoslavia Gets USD 1,3 billion

The new version of the investment programme for a new unit at the Sostanj lignite power plant was prepared by the project promoter after the Slovene government expressed doubts over the economic viability of the investment. All the three previous versions of the document were hidden from the public eye.

The letter poses questions regarding the environmental and social appraisal for the Kolubara lignite mine project and the due diligence carried out by the EBRD before the project's approval by the EBRD:

1. How has the EBRD assessed the corporate behaviour of the Kolubara and EPS companies towards communities affected by the extension of mining operations?
2. How has the EBRD defined the project's influence in the Kolubara basin?
3. Can EBRD staff provide studies or numbers justifying Serbia's need for further growth of coal production?

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and German development Bank KfW are considering supporting the development of a new field in the lignite open pit mine in the Kolubara mining complex in Serbia. Interestingly, the investment is categorised as "Environmental Improvement" on the EBRD's website. But no matter how efficient future processing is, investments into perpetuating lignite production - the dirtiest of fossil fuels - instead of clean electricity generation alternatives rather resembles re-arranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic than serious 'environmental improvement'.

The revised Public Information Policy (PIP) of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) adopts only few of the NGOs' proposals submitted during the first stage of commenting, therefore missing the opportunity to improve the draft. We insist that the detailed comments submitted in January should be further considered by the EBRD before drafting its final PIP. These comments concentrate on several priority issues, in addition to those submitted in January.