Visitors:
Lack of legislation brings threat to environment
The Thessaloniki- Skopje crude oil pipeline serves as an example
The Thessaloniki- Skopje crude oil pipeline serves as an example
Introduction
In December 2000 the EBRD agreed to invest US$ 50 million in the Thessaloniki-Skopje oil pipeline being built by Hellenic Petroleum. The pipeline was planned to carry up to 2.5 million tonnes of crude oil per year. The Okta refinery in Macedonia where the oil will be transported, has a maximum capacity of 2.5 million tonnes, which was never reached.
The Hellenic Petroleum is contributing a further US$ 55 million in cooperation with Aegek SA, a Greek construction group. In total, this is the largest single direct investment into Macedonia from an EU country.
The pipeline runs from Hellenic Petroleum’s EKO refinery and terminal at Thessaloniki to the Okta refinery in Skopje and replaces existing rail transport. The EBRD stated that ”The new pipeline is being built at a distance from the river to protect its sensitive ecosystem by ensuring that there is no risk of it being damaged by an oil spill.”
It is interesting to note that there have been no oil spill accidents when the crude oil was transported by rail, but the Environmental Impact Assessment for the Thessaloniki- Skopje crude oil pipeline clearly shows that the pipeline will cross several rivers and streams and that “In any case, the spilled oil from the pipeline will end up in the waters of river Vardar ”.
Lack of legislation and transparency
Macedonia still does not have a regulation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The new law on environment was supposed to be adopted in 2004, however the process was delayed. In case of a project financed by EBRD, the only procedures for EIA that have to be followed are the EBRD’s Environmental Procedures. These procedures demand from the investor the completion of a study for the environmental impacts of the project. According to these procedures, a scoping meeting is required in order to determine the details and special areas for the EIA study. In this particular case, a scoping meeting was not held.
The EIA study for the Thessaloniki- Skopje crude oil pipeline project was released in October 2000. No public hearing was organised and the public was not invited to comment on it. In the following 53 days, the study was available only in English, so that the Macedonian citizens could not read and understand it. A week before the Board approval of the project, the study was released with a poor translation into Macedonian, and remained available only in the EBRD’s office in Skopje. Macedonia has ratified the Aarhus Convention for access of information in July 1999.
Threat to rare species
The EIA study clearly shows that the region where the pipeline is supposed to be built is unique with its rare and endangered flora and fauna species. For example, there are the so-called “Macedonian forests”, only present in the south-eastern part of Macedonia, that are made of rare species of oak tree with sensitive character and slow regeneration. When constructing a pipeline, it is necessary that the ground is cleared from any trees, shrubs and plants with large roots. 11.8 ha of the Macedonian forests have been cut for the construction of this pipeline.
The forests of Italian and Turkish oaks also present in the southern part of Macedonia are the home of the wild cat (Felis sylvestris). This species is very sensitive to the fragmentation of its habitat and undoubtedly its low population will be under a great pressure in this area . According to the construction plans, 31.8 ha of this forest have been cut for construction needs.
In the central part of Macedonia near the town of Veles live three couples of the royal eagle (Aquilla heliaca). This eagle is globally endangered and according to the European Commission’s Bird directive it is classified as a species of special protection, especially protection of its habitat in order to ensure his reproduction. It is also protected under the Bern Convention and Bonn Convention . Two of the nests are located less then 100 metres from the pipeline axis and the third one is 400 metres away from the pipeline. Chapter 8 of the EIA “Mitigation measures” recommends: ”The investor should investigate the possibility to relocate the pipeline axis and to distance it from the nests at least at 500 metres. The construction of the pipeline must be exclusively performed between November and January and must be as short as possible”. The pipeline has been build without changes and eyewitnesses from the nearby village state that the pipeline was built in January 2000.
Late study
The EIA study contains mitigation measures which apparently have not been accomplished in practice. The case is such that as the EIA study came 10 months late, in October 2000, while the pipeline was being built in early 2000.
How can EBRD Environmental Procedures function together with the new Macedonian Law on Environment?
In its Environmental Policy, EBRD stresses out the importance of access to information and public participation procedures. It is understandable, because the EBRD has been developing these procedures since 1991. The newly proposed and not yet adopted Macedonian Law on Environment contains a chapter on the Environmental Impact Assessment. This part of the law defines the procedures around the EIA study and access to information and public participation in the process. Six articles from this law regulate the access to information and public participation. Interestingly, the Macedonian law does not have an article on scoping meetings. Also, it does not oblige the Project Sponsor to prepare the draft Public Consultation and Disclosure Plan as the EBRD. The availability of the EIA study according to EBRD is 120 or 60 days for public and private projects respectively. The Macedonian law limits this consultation period for 30 days.
On the other hand, the Macedonian Law on Environment will require the existence of a special report for on the quality and competence of the EIA study. The EBRD can freely appeal that the sponsor hires a foreign or international consultancy company for the preparation of the EIA study, however this study will not be prepared by an official expert certified by the Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning, and therefore it will be unacceptable. If a special mechanism for the preparation of EIA studies is not put in place, Macedonia will not advance a bit in this direction.
The public hearing as a process should be a part of EBRD’s procedures. In case a project is financed by the Bank, through the Project Sponsor it should ensure concrete procedures for organising of public hearings according to the Macedonian law.
Recommendations to EBRD and the Macedonian Government for implementation of laws and procedures
The Environmental Procedures and the Environmental Policy of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the new Macedonian Law on Environment should be well synchronised and function together. The full implementation of the Macedonian law should be a priority both for Macedonian institutions and EBRD.
EBRD should pay special attention to: inviting NGOs, citizens and affected communities to the scoping meetings; providing assisting documentation and ensure access to the relevant documents and materials, especially in Macedonian language; helping the Project Sponsor in organising the public hearing (as only few companies or governmental agencies have practical experience with the process); ensure wide participation by interested communities.
And most important, if the EBRD cannot keep away from financing fossil fuel, it should at least increase its standards and safeguards when it comes to this type of projects. Only in this way it can ensure protection of the environment, the species and the biodiversity.
EBRD should not allow itself to get involved in projects that have already caused environmental or social damage.
The Macedonian Government should include non-governmental organisations in the EIA process as reliable partners. The Ministry of Environment and Physical Planning should prepare the necessary secondary legislation so that full implementation of the EIA law is possible. And finally, the Law on Environment should be adopted as soon as possible.