Wednesday

23rd Jan 2019

Opinion

Nuclear accountability curbed by EU politics and industry interests

  • A warning sign at the site of Chernobyl. The EU needs to overcome narrow political interests and business pressure and do their job correctly. (Photo: Ratcliff, Trey)

A meeting of the parties to the UN convention on environmental impact assessment in a transboundary context (Espoo) took place last week in Minsk, Belarus.

Among other things, it helped to showcase the influence that politics and the nuclear industry lobby have over decisions that have potentially severe impacts on European citizens’ health and the environment.

Read and decide

Join EUobserver today

Support quality EU news

Get instant access to all articles — and 18 year's of archives. 30 days free trial.

... or join as a group

The meeting – gathering over 200 people, including government delegates, civil society, EU officials and business – ended in an unprecedented way, without the endorsement of any decision, despite worrying evidence of the non-compliance of several governments’ nuclear energy plans.

With many more decisions coming up in Europe on either the construction of plants, or the prolongation of old nuclear units, the lack of a decision following the Espoo meeting leaves no legal precedent for countries to follow.

It also provides the public with even more unclarity on the participation procedures that ought to be followed.

Every three years, the delegates of 45 countries – parties to one of the most important environmental treaties, the Espoo convention – meet to deliberate and endorse the findings of the convention’s implementation committee. The body checks whether there has been compliance with its provisions.

The convention regulates the procedures that a country needs to follow when planning projects that have possible transboundary environmental impacts.

Yet, the obligations deriving from the convention – namely the need to conduct consultations with neighbouring governments and their people – have been a source of tension and discontent, especially surrounding energy projects.

This year’s meeting of parties to the Espoo convention, during the first half of June in Minsk, had several sensitive findings on the agenda, especially related to controversial nuclear energy plans all across Europe.

Three cases

It included Hinkley Point C in the UK, the Astravetz nuclear power plant project in Belarus, as well as cases of lifetime extension of ageing nuclear power stations in Ukraine.

For the past year, all three cases have been at the centre of demands, from neighbouring governments and civil society, for accountability and participation in decision-making.

These demands have been rooted in the very poor public participation processes, which have left little space for governments and citizens to engage in decisions that will shape the future of nuclear energy in Europe.

The findings on these cases include clear statements about the present situation.

For instance, the UK failed to notify all parties potentially affected by the Hinkley Point C power plant in a timely manner.

Ukraine failed to involve its neighbours in consultations regarding the lifetime extension of its reactors, and Belarus was non-compliant by failing to notify its neighbours before selecting the location of its future nuclear power plant, just 45 kilometres from Vilnius in Lithuania.

Endorsing such findings would create strong precedents for the parties, something that the EU seems to be avoiding.

The manner in which the deliberations unfolded during the Espoo meeting of parties sent a clear signal to all delegates that the EU, under pressure from its nuclear member states, does not intend to endorse the critical findings of non-compliance in the cases mentioned above.

In fact, during much of the talks, the EU held coordination meetings behind closed doors, with no opportunity for observations from third parties, which have afterwards objected to this behaviour.

Politics of Espoo

The politicisation of the Espoo process already began in 2014.

In that year, the implementation committee at the time found Ukraine to be non-compliant. The country had made the decision to keep running its two oldest reactors, in the Rivne power plant, beyond their expiry date – without considering the implications for its neighbours.

The meeting of parties then refused to endorse the findings, which clearly stated that nuclear lifetime extensions are subject to the application of the convention, and tweaked the text confining the convention’s jurisdiction on nuclear lifetime extensions only to the Rivne case.

This opened the door to massive inconsistencies in the way the convention is applied.

Once again, government delegates’ failure to endorse the findings on non-compliance would allow states to selectively interpret the convention’s provisions, thus removing an important protection against dangerous decisions on nuclear power.

As of now, 93 ageing nuclear units across Europe are lined up for lifetime extension over the next ten years.

The EU needs to overcome narrow political interests and business pressure, which comes especially from nuclear countries, and do their job correctly.

They need to use the convention’s provision to set clear rules on compliance, and not only in the field of nuclear energy. Only in this way can the EU prove to its citizens that it is open to protecting them, the environment, and supports democracy across borders.

Ana-Maria Seman works for Bankwatch and is an environmental campaigner on issues including nuclear energy and transparency in the sector.

Lessons from Fukushima for EU energy policy

Five years on from the Fukushima disaster, Japan, the UK, and other EU states should commemorate victims by opting for safe and renewable energy over the genie's bottle of nuclear power.

Luxembourg backs Austria against Hungarian nuclear plant

Luxembourg threw its support behind Austria in a legal challenge against the Commission in what the two countries see as unfair state subsidies to nuclear plants. They also seek to bring other EU countries aboard.

What is fate of non-euro EU states after Brexit?

The UK's withdrawal from the EU will heighten fears of marginalisation among the eight member states - Bulgaria, Denmark, Croatia, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Czech Republic and Hungary - that have not adopted the euro.

News in Brief

  1. Dublin: Bilateral Brexit deal may be needed with UK
  2. Bulgaria plans to stop selling EU 'golden passports'
  3. Romanian EU presidency plans March summit with Turkey
  4. EU hits Mastercard with €570m fine
  5. Romanian minister prepares to cancel corruption cases
  6. Sefcovic: no gas supply problems this winter
  7. Report: Commission warning on passport-sale schemes
  8. France summons Italian ambassador over colonial remark

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. International Partnership For Human RightsKyrgyz authorities have to immediately release human rights defender Azimjon Askarov
  2. Nordic Council of MinistersSeminar on disability and user involvement
  3. Nordic Council of MinistersInternational appetite for Nordic food policies
  4. Nordic Council of MinistersNew Nordic Innovation House in Hong Kong
  5. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Region has chance to become world leader when it comes to start-ups
  6. Nordic Council of MinistersTheresa May: “We will not be turning our backs on the Nordic region”
  7. International Partnership for Human RightsOpen letter to Emmanuel Macron ahead of Uzbek president's visit
  8. International Partnership for Human RightsRaising key human rights concerns during visit of Turkmenistan's foreign minister
  9. Nordic Council of MinistersState of the Nordic Region presented in Brussels
  10. Nordic Council of MinistersThe vital bioeconomy. New issue of “Sustainable Growth the Nordic Way” out now
  11. Nordic Council of MinistersThe Nordic gender effect goes international
  12. Nordic Council of MinistersPaula Lehtomaki from Finland elected as the Council's first female Secretary General

Latest News

  1. France and Germany hope to revive EU with Aachen treaty
  2. May pushes defeated Brexit deal, offers no Plan B
  3. European Parliament targets 'fake' political groups
  4. What is fate of non-euro EU states after Brexit?
  5. Turkish NBA star takes on Erdogan
  6. 'Meme ban' still on table in EU copyright bill, says MEP
  7. Brexit power grab by MPs hangs over May's 'Plan B'
  8. Polish mayor's funeral marred by Tusk TV dispute

Stakeholders' Highlights

  1. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic design sets the stage at COP24, running a competition for sustainable chairs
  2. Counter BalanceIn Kenya, a motorway funded by the European Investment Bank runs over roadside dwellers
  3. ACCACompany Law Package: Making the Best of Digital and Cross Border Mobility,
  4. International Partnership for Human RightsCivil Society Worried About Shortcomings in EU-Kyrgyzstan Human Rights Dialogue
  5. UNESDAThe European Soft Drinks Industry Supports over 1.7 Million Jobs
  6. Mission of China to the EUJointly Building Belt and Road Initiative Leads to a Better Future for All
  7. International Partnership for Human RightsCivil society asks PACE to appoint Rapporteur to probe issue of political prisoners in Azerbaijan
  8. ACCASocial Mobility – How Can We Increase Opportunities Through Training and Education?
  9. Nordic Council of MinistersEnergy Solutions for a Greener Tomorrow
  10. UNICEFWhat Kind of Europe Do Children Want? Unicef & Eurochild Launch Survey on the Europe Kids Want
  11. Nordic Council of MinistersNordic Countries Take a Stand for Climate-Smart Energy Solutions
  12. Mission of China to the EUChina: Work Together for a Better Globalisation

Join EUobserver

Support quality EU news

Join us