PART II: Case Examples from Central and Eastern Europe

Oil Terminal Construction in Butinge

Lithuania

Saulius Piksrys

Background

In 1990, the Lithuanian government pro posed construction of an oil terminal in Klaipeda shortly after the Russian government announced an energy supply blockade. The government asserted that the terminal was needed to replace energy previously imported from Russia. The government maintained that the terminal was needed to help establish political and economic independence for Lithuania. In June 1993, after three years of deliberation, the government adopted a plan to build a 310,000 cubic meter capacity terminal 1.5 kilometers from the Baltic coast, close to the Latvian border and near Butinge.

Problems/Effects

The issues presented by the project were two-fold. First, it was not clearly established that the proposed oil terminal was necessary. Opponents argued that no comprehensive strategy of energy sector development had been planned, nor had the possibility of coordinating refining operations in Mazekai and storage capabilities in Ventspils been explored. The latter is located in Latvia and would involve a cooperative scheme between the two countries. Second, the proposed location of the terminal threatened a wide, ecologically sensitive coastal area that included marine habitats, protected areas, regional parks and landscape protection zones. The project would have affected aquatic environment in Lithuania, but would have an even greater impact on the Latvian marine economic zone (between Butinge and Liepaja). This presented the possibility of severe environmental consequences during both construction and normal operation and particularly in the event of an accidental oil spill. Besides the environmental damage, economic consequences would also have arisen, having a negative impact on the tourism industry.

Strategies Employed

The authorities' attempt to keep the project secret resulted in protest action among the inhabitants and the local municipality. NGOs began by collecting information from the media, politicians and local officials. Individuals and local NGOs protested against the oil terminal by using the well-known NIMBY slogan: "Not in my backyard." The Lithuanian Green Movement wanted to base its efforts on more scientific information and present alternative suggestions. Also, several protests were staged in front of the parliament building, discussions were arranged with state officials and complaints and declarations were presented to the authorities and responsible institutions.

Since Lithuania joined HELCOM during this period and took part in the preparation of the "Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Action Program," the NGOs tried to use this situation. In cooperation with the international NGO, Coalition Clean Baltic, which had observer status in HELCOM, the Lithuanian Green Movement attempted to restrict the oil terminal construction according to international environmental regulations. Finally, the oil terminal construction was included into the "Baltic Sea Joint Comprehensive Program" as a new "hot spot" in the Baltic area. Some mitigating measures were foreseen as part of the Joint Comprehensive Program. When the Lithuanian government approached the World Bank for a loan, the Lithuanian Green Movement appealed to the Bank and tried to prevent the funding. One consequence of this development was the Bank's refusal to finance the project.

Lithuanian NGOs also cooperated with Latvian NGOs throughout the case, both at national and local levels. The Lithuanian Green Movement was in touch with VAK, and the Green Society of Klaipeda worked together with the Environmental Protection Club in Liepaja. Activities included exchange of information, meetings and joint lobbying. With the support of Latvian NGOs, a delegation of Lithuanian NGOs visited the Latvian Parliament in September 1992 to urge Mazeikai-Ventspils cooperation. NGOs also supplied information to independent Canadian experts who were consulted regarding modifications of the project.

STAKEHOLDERS
Government:
National and international:
  • Lithuanian government
  • Latvian Parliament

Local:
  • Local government, Klaipeda
  • Local municipality, Butinge

NGOs:
Local, national, foreign and international NGOs:
  • Lithuanian Green Movement
  • Green Society of Klaipeda
  • Latvian Green Movement
  • Environmental Protection Club, Liepaja
  • Coalition Clean Baltic
  • Environmental Protection Club, Latvia

Business:
  • National oil industry officials

Others:
  • World Bank

Outcome

Despite opposition, the terminal was finally built, but the project was significantly modified as a result of NGO efforts and public protest. The authorities took NGO suggestions into consideration and were ready to change their position. The costs of the project were also reduced by an alternate technical solution proposed by the NGOs to change from a marine stationary platform to mooring buoys. The major result, however, was that local authorities, the public and NGOs worked together and became involved in the decisionmaking process, through the EIA procedure and in designing mitigation measures.

Lessons Learned

Primarily nonformal methods were usedin this case, including protest action, lobbying, meetings, complaints and exchange of information. At the same time, this case is a good example of international coalition-building among local, national, and international NGOs. It also shows that it is possible for NGOs and the public to be involved in decisionmaking, even in a difficult investment project with transboundary impacts.
  1. Presenting alternatives is an important instrument to help the public understand the possible options. Support for a solution that is less harmful to the environment needs to be mobilized. It also might result in considerable benefit to the authorities in addition to local residents.
  2. However, such a negotiation process requires persistence, openness and flexibility on the part of the NGOs and governments.
  3. Despite the absence of international or transboundary legal instruments in cases of large industrial projects, NGOs can become "consultants" through nonformal means and affect even the funding policies of international financing institutions.
  4. NGOs can target and reach not only their own national parliaments, but those of neighboring countries as well by lobbying and pressuring governments and MPs.
  5. National governments have to contend with strong public protest if they initiate narrow, short-term energy programs without considering local and transboundary concerns.
  6. Lobbying can impact the largest industrial development projects, even without significant financial resources.

REC * PUBLICATIONS * BEYOND BOUNDARIES * CASE EXAMPLES * LITHUANIA

PREVIOUS NEXT COVER PAGE HOME PAGE