Dear President de Larosiere:
We are writing in regard to the EBRD's present policy on financing nuclear power. We request that the EBRD follow its environmental, democratic and private sector development mandates and adopt an explicit policy precluding the Bank from financing completion, upgrading or construction of nuclear power plants.
The EBRD was the first development bank to include in its founding charter the mandate to promote in all of its activities "environmentally sound and sustainable development." It also was founded to promote the transition to a market economy and democracy in its countries of operations. In our view, nuclear power generation fails when measured against these goals. If its true long-term costs are taken into account, it is an economically unsustainable method of generating electricity. Its risks to humans and the environment are high. Its highly centralized nature is contrary to the involvement of citizens in democratically deciding on the best energy options. These are some of the reasons why the World Bank has refrained from financing nuclear power. We urge the EBRD to follow a similar course.
Nuclear safety in the countries of EBRD operations is a critical and serious issue. That was a base for giving the Bank responsibility for managing, since February 1993, the Nuclear Safety Account, which is to "receive contributions by donor countries to be used for grants for safety projects in the region" [1]. Unfortunately, the safety issues seem to be the only one recognised by EBRD: "Nuclear reactors in the region suffer a wide range of safety deficiencies" [2]. "In general, priority should be given to the promotion of a "safety culture" and to all possible improvements to design and construction" [3]. Yet the EBRD is heavily involved in promoting completion of the new nuclear power plants, thus additionally contributing to the problem rather then solving it.
Already in March 1993 the Bank indicated its commitment to financing nuclear power development: "The EBRD is conducting a parallel study to assess costs of nuclear power generation with alternative scenarios for safety upgrades, and completion of nuclear plants in an advanced stage of construction, and for new nuclear plants". [4] "In special circumstances, the Bank is also prepared to assist with nuclear projects, using its own funding resources, when this would lead to an overall improvement in nuclear safety through closure of "high risk" reactors" [5]. The new, Energy Policy of the Bank dated 7 March 1995 states: "In the context of such strategies and in addition to ordinary non-nuclear projects suitable for EBRD financing, the Bank may also assist from its ordinary resources projects to complete or upgrade modern nuclear stations (of the VVER 213 and 1000 types), provided that they are directly linked with the closure of high-risk reactors operating in the country concerned" [6].
As the Bank is well aware, there are many ways to address energy demand issues. One might be to build new plants of different sorts, using gas, for example. But the most effective investments in the context of Eastern Europe are low-cost, easy-to-carry out energy efficiency improvements, demand side management projects, and a wide range of renewable energy sources that are available in the region. These have been already proved by many demonstration projects carried out throughout the region by local communities, NGOs, various domestic and foreign governmental agencies, the Global Environment Facility and the World Bank. The EBRD itself has recently established its Energy Efficiency Department, which is developing a good track record, with enormous potential.
Further developing the nuclear power sector does not contribute to environmentally sustainable development goal set behind the Bank. There are environmentally harmful activities connected to nuclear power development at every stage, beginning with uranium mining, including operation, closure and waste disposal. Only helping the countries of the region to close down their environmentally devastating, extremely dangerous and economically inefficient nuclear power plants is the way out of the loop. For this, there must be a coherent action plan, in order to phase out the most dangerous facilities first and to bring on-line the necessary replacement power or the investments that will effectively reduce demand or prevent waste of energy.
The issue of nuclear power financing is also very important to the future of the CEE countries from other perspectives. If the Bank uses its resources to finance the most capital-intensive schemes, there will be a lack of resources for other activities, which would be of much bigger value to the countries of the region. For example the Bank assistance proposed for the completion of Mochovce Nuclear Power Plant, estimated on approximately 704,5 million ECU [7], was larger than all the energy investments so far in all of the countries of Bank's operations in the power sector, estimated at about 473 million ECU [8].
If the Bank's main activities are to promote privatization and decentralization of the economy, then financing nuclear power is inconsistent with these two goals. Privatization of the energy sector is one of the most difficult issues in CEE countries. Financing nuclear power schemes will only contribute to strengthening state-owned monopolies and centralized energy production. Nor will financing nuclear power contribute to the development of democracy in the countries of the Bank's operations. The governments in the region are treating public participation mostly with hesitancy thus far, and the public is not educated to participate. There are very few examples of good quality, effective public participation actions. Also, as demonstrated through the Mochovce NPP project, the governments are reluctant to involve the public in discussing nuclear power projects.
Thank you for your time and attention to our request. We are very much looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely yours,
Tomasz Terlecki
CEE Bankwatch Network Regional Coordinator
References:
1. EBRD Annual Report, 1994, page 32
2. EBRD Annual Report, 1994, page 32
3. EBRD Annual Report, 1994, page 32
4. "Nuclear Power and Safety in Central and Eastern Europe and the
former Soviet Union", The World Bank, International Energy Agency,
Distribution:
CEE Bankwatch Members:
1. Pavel Pribyl, Hnuti Duha,
2. Norbert Brazda, Centre for Env. Public Advocacy;
3. Peep Mardiste, Tartu Student Nature Protection Group;
4. Jozsef Feiler, Environmetal Protection Club of Eotvos Lorand
University;
5. Helga Cukure, Environmental Protection Club;
6. Linas Vainius, Lithuanian Green Movement;
(additionally, fax transmission: +370-7-209274)
7. Macrin Desa, Ecosens;
8. Magda Stoczkiewicz, Polish Ecological Club;
Others:
8. John Hontelez, Friends of the Earth - International;
9. Andrew Dilworth, Friends of the Earth - EW∋
10. John Hallam, Friends of the Earth - Australia;
11. Andrea Durbin, Friends of the Earth US;
12. Friends of the Earth - Austria;
13. Jim Barnes, Friends of the Earth - France;
14. Manuela Krauter, GLOBAL 2000
15. Anthony Frogatt, Greenpeace Int.;
16. Miriam Bowling, NRDC;
17. Jan Haverkamp, Milieukontakt Oost Europa;
18. Huub Schelle/Ian Tellam, BothEnds;
19. Kliment Mindjov,
20. Vladimir Sliviak, EcoDefense!
21. World Vision / Children of Chernobyl Project office
22. Donald Golberg, CIEL;
23. Robin Round, Coordinator of the Halifax Initiative Coalition;
24. Steward Boyle, IIEC London;
25. Olaf Dierker, URGEWALD;
26. Bank Information Centre;
27. Lydia Popov, Socio-Ecological Union;
28. Toni Vidan, Green Action Zagreb;