PART II: Case Examples from Central and Eastern Europe

Mohovce Nuclear Plant

Poland

Jerzy Jendroska

Background

The construction of a nuclear power plant was initiated by the Slovak government in Mohovce in 1994 The future operation of the plant may pose an extremely serious threat to human health and the environment across Europe since it is based on obsolete Soviet technology. The planned construction directly affects the local population, and several surrounding countries, including Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, Austria and Ukraine.

Problems/Effects

The problem became known when the Slovak government decided to build the nuclear plant in Mohovce and applied to the EBRD for funding. The internal Environmental Guidelines of the EBRD require an environmental impact assessment in cases where projects may have a potential transboundary impact. Therefore, the Slovak government was required to advertise the planned project and obtain EIA documentation in the neighboring countries in October 1994. The problem has been addressed in several neighboring countries: Austria, Hungary, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Germany. Here we focus on Austria, Poland and Germany, where both formal and nonformal action was taken. The Polish government and NGOs reacted to the issue in October 1994.

The project has not yet been entirely implemented. Therefore, all action has focused on the avoidance of a nuclear accident that would potentially affect people in Slovakia, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Austria and the entire European continent. As a result of the EIA Procedure initiated by the EBRD in October 1994, the Slovak government advertised the project in Poland and inquired about the possibilities of obtaining EIA documentation.

Strategies Employed

Since the Polish government was unwilling to take any position on this issue, the Polish Ecological Club (PKE) decided to become involved and made an independent survey of the project. PKE managed to receive funding from the UNDP Umbrella Program and commissioned a group of independent experts to review the EIA documentation. The critical review was presented in a series of press conferences and events. The Espoo Convention on Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment could have been applied, but, unfortunately, it is not yet in force.

Due to the public involvement and NGO activity, MPs from the Environmental Committee of Parliament became aware of the case and were asked to request an official response from the government. As a result of the huge pressure by the public and parliament, the Polish government - despite its initial reluctance and opposition - officially forwarded the reservations concerning the project to the Slovak government. The critical review by Polish independent experts was translated into English and presented to the EBRD. Although the NGO representatives were not allowed to participate in the EBRD meetings concerning the project, their reviews played an important role in the EBRD's decision not to support the project. The Polish, Austrian and German NGOs lobbied the EBRD regarding the project and managed to convince the EBRD Board not to approve it.

STAKEHOLDERS
Government:
  • Slovak government
  • Polish government

NGOs:
National and foreign:
  • Polish Ecological Club
  • Austrian NGOs
  • German NGOs

International institutions:
  • EBRD

Other:
  • Independent Polish EIA experts

Outcome

In this particular case, cooperation between national and foreign NGOs resulted in preventing the EBRD from granting financial support. One NGO representative from each country went to London and together submitted their reservations and criticisms to the EBRD. Due to public protests in Poland, Slovakia and other countries and the lobbying activity of NGOs, the EBRD decided not to support the project.

As a result of NGO action, the Polish government was forced to take an official position and formally address the Slovak Government regarding its reservations. The public involvement and concentrated action of the NGOs contributed to the EBRD's refusal of the application for financial support, which has prevented the project from being carried out for the time being.

Lessons Learned

Mainly nonformal instruments were used in this case, since the ESPOO Convention could not be used. NGOs tried to make use of the Environmental Procedures of the EBRD using independent expertise, lobbying parliament and the EBRD, putting pressure on the government and cooperating with foreign NGOs.
  1. NGOs can act quickly and efficiently if a serious risk emerges near their border and if the government is not able or willing to take measures. NGOs can take over the initiative, and pressurize the government to play its role.
  2. Polish NGOs were able to act professionally and cooperate with foreign colleagues. Due to the different nonformal methods used, the opinion of the NGOs was considered seriously and accepted by both the Polish government and the EBRD.
  3. The review conducted by independent experts had a great impact on the public and the government.
  4. The EIA procedure of the EBRD appeared successful in this case. Without this tool, Polish NGOs would not have been able to receive the proper information nor would publicize the case, thus forcing the Polish government to adopt an official position.
  5. The case shows that there is a lack of procedural guarantees for NGOs to participate officially as a party in banking procedures concerning projects which have significant transboundary impact.

REC * PUBLICATIONS * BEYOND BOUNDARIES * CASE EXAMPLES * POLAND

PREVIOUS NEXT COVER PAGE HOME PAGE