EBRD and NGOs go Head-to-Head over Mochovce

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development's proposal to finance the final construction on Units 1 and 2 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant in the Slovak Republic is being hotly debated among environmental NGOs and others in Central and Eastern Europe.

The following exchange of letters is a striking example of the confrontation and cooperation happening between local NGOs and this multilateral development bank.
There are two issues involved. The first issue is the role of the EBRD's environmental guidelines. Many inside and outside the Region think the project violates the EBRD's environmental guidelines "to promote in the full range of its activities environmentally sound and sustainable development." The Mochovce case is important because it is the first time the EBRD has considered financing the construction of a nuclear power plant.
The second issue is public participation. In compliance with EBRD guidelines, a public participation process must take place before the bank gives final approval for the project. Called "scoping meetings," the first public participation meetings were held in Bratislava and Levice on 10 and 11 August. About 16 NGOs (from the Slovak Republic and elsewhere) participated. The meetings are to "allow the public and other parties to raise issues which should be addressed in the environmental assessment and to discuss arrangements for further pubic participation," according to the EBRD's Environmental Procedures.
What follows is a point-counterpoint exchange. The statements are excerpts from three letters: (1) a letter the NGOs wrote to EBRD President Jacques de Larosiere, (2) President de Larosiere's response, and (3) Global 2000's response to his conclusion. The first NGO letter criticizes the EBRD's role in the project, including the way the bank is handling the public participation process.

NGO Introduction:
22nd August 1994
Dear Mr. Jacques de Larosiere,
On the 10th of August a meeting was held in Bratislava between the project sponsors for the completion of units 1 and 2 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant and selected environmental NGOs. At the conclusion of this meeting, the environmental NGOs present felt it was necessary to write to you to convey our strong sense of disappointment, confusion and frustration with this meeting and the public participation process and environmental assessment of the Mochovce project. We would like to emphasize in particular four major concerns.

EBRD Introduction:
30 August 1994
Dear Mr. Frogatt,
Thank you for your letter which I studied with great interest. I attach great importance to your comments, and am pleased to reply to your main points below.
Your letter addresses several key issues concerning the Mochovce project and in particular the preparations for, and conduct of, the scoping meetings, organized by the Project Sponsors, that were held in Bratislava and Levice on 10 and 11 August 1994. As you know, in line with the Bank's Environmental Procedures, the primary objectives of the scoping exercise were to review with Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and other interested parties the Terms of Reference for the environmental assessment of the project, and to discuss with these parties the proposed public participation program.
Because of the exceptional and unusual nature of this projectÑthe completion of a nuclear power plantÑ, and the importance the Bank places on effective public consultation, the Bank has hired a public participation auditor to provide staff and Board Directors with an independent view on the implementation by the Project Sponsors of EBRD's public participation procedures. The auditor attended the scoping meeting, and reported that 32 representatives from 16 NGOs participated. The auditor will draft a report on all phases of the public consultation process on the Mochovce project, which will be made publicly available by the Bank, should the project be presented to the EBRD Board of Directors.

First NGO Point:
The stated intent of the project sponsors that they will not release full documentation of studies related to the project will make a farce of the EBRD's desire to have an open and constructive environmental assessment and public participation process. The reports and information about nuclear safety and least-cost analysis in particular are critical elements of the decision-making process with respect to completion of units 1 and 2 at Mochovce. Failure to make these reports available will irreparably damage the public's confidence in the fairness and openness of the process and will make it impossible for the public to have confidence in the decisions that will be made about the most appropriate way of meeting the energy needs of Slovakia.

EBRD Response:
You correctly state that EBRD wishes to have "an open and constructive environmental assessment and public participation process." The Project Sponsors, of course, will release all information on the project to the public that is required by the Bank's Environmental Procedures. Accordingly, the Environmental Impact Assessment Report will be made available to the public, at a date to be disclosed in the coming weeks by the Project Sponsors.
In addition, subject to non-objection from the Slovak authorities, the Bank will release, through the Project Sponsors, a report on a least-cost analysis of the project. This report was commissioned by the Bank to reflect the requirements of the Bank's Energy Operations Policy, recently approved by the Board of Directors. The Policy states that the Bank should focus "on projects that rank high in priority as part of a long-term least-cost plan for the [energy] sector." Please note that according to Bank procedures, public release of this document is not mandatory and that I have authorized its release on an exceptional basis.
You request that the Project Sponsors publish all available information related to safety. Full disclosure of pre-operation safety cases is not required in most European countries, nor by the Bank's procedures. However, information regarding safety, whose release would not represent a security risk to the plant, will be included in the final EIA report. In addition, we would not oppose release of additional safety information, if so directed by the Government of the Slovak Republic.

Second NGO Point:
The current intent of the project sponsors to exclude an examination of alternatives to Mochovce in the environmental assessment is a grave error. Examination of alternatives which may more effectively, more safely, and in a less environmentally damaging way meet the electrical energy needs of Slovakia are necessary. The failure to examine alternatives, from an environmental perspective, is in direct contradiction to the Bank's Environmental Procedures and the Environmental Impact Assessment law for Slovakia, which will come into force on September 1st, 1994.

EBRD Response:
I fully understand your request that the Environmental Impact Assessment should include a study of the alternatives to the completion of the Mochovce facility to international safety standards. However, because a key conditionality to the project is that it must be demonstrated to be the least-cost option, the first step is indeed to examine alternatives from an economic standpoint. If the least-cost study indicates that there is a practical, realistic, and implementable alternative to the completion of Mochovce Units 1 and 2, then the environmental impact assessment will be extended to incorporate this alternative.

Third NGO Point:
There has been confusion and insufficient time for NGOs to comment on the official scoping of the Environmental Impact Assessment, the present draft only allowed 7 days of comment for selected NGOs. Past scoping documents were later classified as "unofficial" by Bank staff, however, it appears that no additional period for comment will be made available.

EBRD Response:
You raise several interesting points regarding public comments on the project to date. The Project Sponsors have already incorporated many NGO comments into the terms of reference of the EIA, which the Bank and the Project Sponsors received over a period of months, starting in January 1994. The Bank procedures do not actually require a second phase of comment time to review Terms of Reference after they have been amended as a result of NGO comments. I understand that these comments and their inclusion or non-inclusion into the final terms of reference, were actually debated at the August scoping meetings.

Fourth NGO Point:
The present intention of the project sponsors to limit public meetings on this issue to Slovakia is unacceptable. Hundreds of NGOs and individuals from throughout Europe have indicated their interest in participation in the public participation program. Failure to provide opportunities for their views to be publicly known will undermine the fairness and completeness of the process. Open discussions such as those recommended by NGOs have been strongly supported by the Environmental Advisory Council (ENVAC) of the Bank. It is therefore necessary to ensure that additional hearings are provided in neighboring lands.

EBRD Response:
It is my understanding that Project Sponsors have agreed to respond positively to requests for additional public meeting in Slovakia's neighboring countries, providing that the relevant governments make the request. This would seem to be a suitable solution.

Additional Point:
In addition to these major points discussed above the participants at the Bratislava meeting would like to express to you their severe disappointment that no representatives of the Bank were present at the meeting. This increased considerably the confusion about the process shared by both NGOs and other participants.

EBRD Response:
Concerning the lack of EBRD representation at the scoping meetings, we understand your disappointment but we ensured that the public participation auditor attended both meetings. We have transmitted his comments and suggestions to the Project Sponsors. You must keep in mind, however, that while our staff may assist Project Sponsors with advice, or act as observers, it is ultimately the work of the Project Sponsors that will be judged by the EBRD Board of Directors. Indeed our procedures are clear that the implementation of public participation is the Project Sponsors' responsibility, and not the Bank's.

NGO Conclusion, part 1:
Based on the concerns described above the NGOs present at the meeting would request that the present process regarding the EIA and public participation be stopped. This would allow for discussion with the Bank, with the project sponsor, and with NGOs to ensure that the process is correct. Failure to do so will seriously undermine the validity of the whole process.

EBRD Conclusion, part 1:
Public participation and project preparation will continue as planned, and we will continue to welcome your comments and input throughout the process. If the Bank's Board of Directors is requested to make a decision on this project, Directors will be able to review completed project documentation along with the report of the public participation auditor. The Board of Directors will ultimately judge compliance with the Bank's policies and procedures.

NGO Conclusion, part 2:
In conclusion, we would like to reiterate that we are extremely concerned about the inadequacy and openness of the public participation process and environmental assessment for units 1 and 2 of the Mochovce nuclear power plant project. Included in this letter we have identified a number of recommendations for actions which we believe are necessary to ensure the process is complete and fair. We would therefore ask you to call a halt to the EIA and public participation process within the project until you have considered these points and informed us as to the actions you plan to take to correct the current difficulties. We believe that a cessation of activities would ensure that the project does not continue down an inappropriate and inadequate path.

Yours Sincerely,

Antony Frogatt,
Greenpeace International
On behalf of the following non-government organizations:

Global 2000 [Austria]
Austrian Ecology Institute
Greenpeace Austria
Greenpeace International
Goncol Alliance [Hungary]
Polish Ecological Club
Greenpeace Slovakia
Ipelska Unia [Slovakia]
Society for Sustainable Living [Slovakia]
Dubnicka Environmentalna Skupina [Slovakia]

EBRD Conclusion, part 2:
As recently stated by the Bank's management to our Environmental Advisory Council, the issue is not, in the Bank's view, whether Units 1 and 2 at Mochovce will be commissioned. The units are 80-90% complete according to the original Soviet designs. The plant could be completed at a very low cost to the original Russian standards and be put in operation within the next twelve months. If the plant were to be completed to original Russian standards by the Slovak government on its own, without any involvement of international institutions, then we can safely assume that Bohunice VI, Slovakia's oldest nuclear units, regarded as unsafe, would continue to operate beyond the year 2000. In other words, Slovakia could well be faced with two Russian reactors operating on Russian safety standards within 100 miles of international borders, instead of one ex-Soviet reactor operating in compliance with international safety standards. Of all alternatives to the completion of Mochovce Units 1 and 2 to international safety standards, the option of completing Mochovce to a low safety level, with no closure of Bohunice VI, is certainly the most likely to happen, as funding for the completion of these units could certainly be found. Indeed, this is why the Bank considered funding this project in the first instance, attaching as a key safety conditionality that Bohunice VI be shut down as soon as units 1 and 2 at Mochovce are commissioned, and that the project be part of the least-cost plan for the Slovak electricity supply industry.
In conclusion, I note that this is probably the first time that such extensive public consultation on an investment project has taken place in any of our countries of operations. It is the EBRD's public participation requirements, contained within the Bank's Environmental Procedures, and approved by the EBRD Board of Directors in January 1992, which have initiated this process.
We will continue to be receptive to your comments and suggestions regarding public participation on this project.

Yours Sincerely,

Jacques de Larosiere

THE BULLETIN * AUTUMN 1994