P.O. 316, Lviv, 79000

+380 32 225 76 82

office@epl.org.ua

EBRD Ukraine

15 February 2019

EBRD Ukraine
Kiev Resident Office
46-46A Antonovycha Str.,
Kyiv, 03150,
Ukraine

Tel: +30 44 354 4084
E-mail: kiev@kev.ebrd.com

EIB Resident Representation for Ukraine

101, Volodymyrska Str
UA-01033  Kyiv
Ukraine

+380 443908018
+352 437967495
kiev@eib.org

Head of Representation: Jean-Erik DE ZAGON

Hugues Mingarelli

Head of the EU Delegation to Ukraine

Delegation of the European Union to Ukraine

101 Volodymyrska St.
Kyiv, 01033 Ukraine

+380 (44) 390 8010

delegation–ukraine@eeas.europa.eu

Following upon the news published on the European Commission DG Mobility and Transport on 15 January 2019, our civil society partnership would like to call your attention to some of the economic, environmental, societal and human health challenges linked to the development of E40 inland waterway (E40 IWW). The news was about the Commission setting out “TEN-T Investment Action Plan of €13 billion for better connectivity and stronger growth” in the Eastern Partnership countries.

First of all, we welcome the fact that the European Commission continues its support to Eastern Partnership countries. Fortunately, the joint report of the EC and World Bank entitled Indicative TEN-T Investment Action Plan did not mention the E40 IWW as a priority project. However, there are projects along the Dnipro river in Ukraine, which aim at improving inland navigation facilities. These projects targeting the reconstruction of locks on the Upper, Middle and Lower Dnipro – along with the Polish government recent investment in the feasibility study of developing E40 IWW1 – raise serious concerns that Poland in cooperation with two Eastern partnership countries (Belarus and Ukraine) is heading towards the construction of the waterway.

Various civil society organisations and representatives of the scientific community in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine suggested not considering the construction of E40 IWW, which would connect the Baltic and Black Sea through a 2000 km long line, because of the following reasons:

  • It impacts protected areas negatively and thus directly causes biodiversity loss and wetland habitats degradation

  • It is not aligned with existing policies including various international conventions

  • It does not take into account sustainable development goals with special attention on economic justification and human health, for instance downstream from the Chernobyl exclusion zone, along its 2,200 km length.

  • Economic calculation of the project ignores the concept of ecosystem services, for instance, natural solutions for flood and climate change mitigation.

  • Considering the impact of climate change on weather anomalies, its core purpose, the inland navigation, does not offer a sustainable solution for transport.

  • It would mean a heavy economic burden on societies with no economic sense.

More detailed explanation of these threats of E40 to economy, environment, society and human health (re. the impact of radioactive sediments moved from the Chernobyl exclusion zone) is available on two websites: www.stope40.org and www.savepolesia.org

We would also like to call your attention to the meeting of the Eastern Partnership Civil Society Forum (EaP CSF) Working Group 3 “Environment, climate change and energy security” in Brussels on 12-13 September 2018. During the meeting the Working Group participants discussed the new EaP architecture, Internal Reform and upcoming changes to the Forum2. One of the outcomes of this meeting was the following statement:

  • Stop the E-40 Inland Waterway – for the sake of safety and inevitable loss of unique habitats, forests and agricultural land

Mr. Benedek Javor, MEP, also submitted a written question to the European Commission on 10 December 2018 in relation to the sustainability proofing of E40 IWW3. Mr. Javor highlighted in his question that Polesia, which would be crossed by E40 IWW, is “Europe’s greatest intact floodplain region comprising large forests and wetlands and boasting high biodiversity and great potential for climate mitigation.”

With reference to the points above, we kindly ask the European Commission to respond to the following questions:

  1. Can the European Commission confirm that it has no intention to support the planning and construction of E40 IWW?

  2. How will the European Commission ensure that both EBRD and/or EIB funding allocated for infrastructure projects along the Dnipro river will not lead to the further planning or even construction of E40 IWW, which threatens the protection of valuable priority habitats of Natura 2000 and Emerald Network sites and human health through mobilizing radioactive sediments from Chernobyl exclusion zone?

  3. How does the European Commission guarantee that Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) is conducted before any further investment in the various elements of E40 IWW?

In relation to the 3rd question, please note that according to the EU regulations, which apply to Poland and Ukraine due to the association agreement with the European Union, an SEA is mandatory for plans/programmes which:

  • are prepared for agriculture, forestry, fisheries, energy, industry, transport, waste/ water management, telecommunications, tourism, town & country planning or land use and which set the framework for future development consent for projects listed in the EIA Directive4

OR

  • have been determined to require an assessment under the Habitats Directive5

The annex 1 of the EIA directive includes the following:

8. (a) Inland waterways and ports for inland-waterway traffic which permit the passage of vessels of over 1 350 tones;

(b) Trading ports, piers for loading and unloading connected to land and outside ports (excluding ferry piers) which can take vessels of over 1 350 tones.

Therefore, our partnership believes that SEA is to be conducted before taking any further steps with the development of E40 IWW.