Assurance
We ensure that the projects we finance are socially and environmentally sustainable, designed and carried out with the principles of good governance and due diligence, and compliant with both relevant laws and international best practice. We are committed to transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to risk management and project performance.
The Bank’s policies
All projects are appraised against the Bank’s Environmental and Social Policy and Performance Requirements. The project’s size, location and potential environmental and social impacts are all taken into account.
If an appraisal reveals a project would not be fully compliant with our requirements, the EBRD will agree an Environmental and Social Action Plan with the client to bring the project up to the required standards, within a reasonable timeframe.
If this is not possible but there are compensating environmental or social benefits, the EBRD’s Board may approve derogations from specific parts of the performance requirements. Any approved derogations are detailed in this report.
Performance Requirements and Guidance
EBRD-financed projects are expected to be designed and operated in compliance with good international practices relating to sustainable development. To help our clients and their projects achieve this, we have defined ten performance requirements covering the key areas of environmental and social issues and impacts.
Tracking and transparency
We aim to be transparent and accountable in all our activities. Our work covers such a wide range of sectors, and economies at different stages of development. So it is important that our projects are assessed and monitored with rigorous criteria to ensure compliance and the best use of resources.
We have been tracking our climate and resource efficiency investments since 2006. We continue to assess and set relevant key performance indicators at the outset of projects and employ a robust monitoring system throughout the project cycle to ensure compliance and best use of resources, and enhance accountability (see Measuring and monitoring performance). We also have a dedicated Project Complaint Mechanism to assess and review any grievances we receive related to our projects.
The EBRD has set up a robust monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) system, in line with internationally established practice. The system’s guidelines define the characteristics of green projects and project components and they determine the data required for monitoring.
Operational results in 2017
The environmental and social category – A, B, C or FI (Financial Intermediary) – reflects the potential impacts associated with a project and determines the nature of the environmental and social appraisal, information disclosure and stakeholder engagement required.
Category A projects: those with potentially significant and diverse environmental and social impacts, requiring a detailed participatory assessment process.
Category B projects: those with environmental and social impacts that are site-specific and which can be readily assessed and managed.
Category C projects: those that are expected to result in minimal adverse environmental or social impacts.
Category FI projects: transactions that involve the provision of financing to a financial intermediary – typically a bank or a fund – which are required to adopt and implement procedures to manage their environmental and social risks.
Environmental Sustainability Bonds
The projects financed by our Environmental Sustainability Bond Programme (ESBP) achieve specific and meaningful environmental benefits and, collectively, comprise our Green Project Portfolio (GPP).
The GPP is underpinned by the Bank’s GET strategy and the projects in the Bank’s green bonds help our countries of operations to implement the SDGs.
Our ESBP responds to clear investor demand for this type of bond product by a new investor base and it also allows us to highlight the importance we place on environmentally sound and sustainable development while fulfilling core elements of our mandate.
EBRD’s Issuance of Green Bonds
| Total volume of Green Bonds issued since 2010 | €2.35 billion |
| Number of Green Bonds issued since 2010 | 66 |
| Total volume of Green Bonds issued in 2017 | €615 million |
| Number of Green Bonds issued in 2017 | 4 |
| Percentage of EBRD's 2017 medium to long term issuance | 7.50% |
| Currencies of Green Bonds issued in 2017 | USD (69%), EUR (24%), and INR (7%) |
| Total Green Bond issuance outstanding as at 31/12/17 | €1.98 billion |
In addition to our ESBP, since 2010 we have also issued social bonds that focus on microfinance loans. The EBRD Microfinance Bond is a use-of-proceeds bond that funds a selected microfinance portfolio of €1.2 billion and has an average individual loan size of below €5,000 (as at 30 June 2017).
Both our Environmental Sustainability Bonds and Microfinance Bonds are aligned with the Green Bond Principles (GBP) and Social Bond Principles (SBP) respectively. The EBRD has been a member of the GBP since its inception and we are currently serving on the GBP SBP Executive Committee and on various Working Groups. Many socially responsible investors also purchase our generic bonds.
Green Project Portfolio
Our ESBP is directly linked to the disbursed amount of the Green Project Portfolio (GPP). This is a replenishing portfolio with strict eligibility criteria (see below) that ensures that the proceeds of our Green Bonds are immediately directed towards projects with positive environmental impacts.
| Total operating assets as at 31 December 2017 | €3.9 billion |
| Total undisbursed commitments as at 31 December 2017 | €3.7 billion |
| Number of projects | 390 |
| Weighted average remaining life | 10.2 years |
| Weighted average tenor | 12.7 years |
| Weighted average age of the GPP from signing as at 31 December 2017 | 2.5 years |
| Weighted average age of EE and RE projects from signing as at 31 December 2017 | 2.3 years |
| Total committed amounts approved in 2017 | €2.8 billion |
| Total of new operating assets approved in 2017 | €397 million |
| Total of undisbursed commitments approved in 2017 | €2.4 billion |
The GPP comprises investments in two main areas:
1. Energy efficiency and renewable energy
The EBRD region has substantial potential for cost-effective improvements in energy efficiency and for the expansion of renewable energy production. The EBRD also provides credit lines to local financial institutions that are seeking to develop sustainable energy financing as part of their business. The Bank provides these credit lines for two key areas: energy efficiency and small-scale renewable energy. Local financial institutions on-lend the funds they have received from the EBRD to their clients, which include SMEs, corporate and residential borrowers, and renewable energy project developers.
2. Sustainable resource projects
The EBRD supports public- and private-sector operators in the delivery of essential urban municipal services nationally and locally. Projects include water efficiency, wastewater and solid waste management, resource efficiency, as well as sustainable transport solutions including urban public transport and traffic management systems.
Examples of projects as part of the GPP
- renewable energy projects, such as photovoltaic installations, and production of photovoltaic cells/modules, installation of wind turbines, construction of small hydro power plants and mini-hydro cascades and geothermal and biomass energy facilities
- rehabilitation of transmission/distribution facilities to reduce total GHG emissions and allow for increased integration of renewable electricity in the grid, for example, smart distribution networks
- modernisation of industrial installations to reduce total GHG emissions and other pollution
- new technologies that result in significant reductions in total GHG emissions
- greater efficiency in mass transportation, such as investment in fuel-efficiency (fleet replacement) or more energy efficient infrastructure
- methane capture on waste landfills and waste water treatment plants
- rehabilitation of municipal water/waste water infrastructure to improve drinking water quality and wastewater treatment and reduce water consumption and waste water discharges
- improvements to solid waste management (minimisation, collection, recovery, treatment, recycling, storage and disposal)
- energy efficiency investments in existing buildings (insulation, lighting, heating/cooling systems)
- investments to improve efficiency of industrial water use
- sustainable and stress-resilient agriculture, including investments in water-efficient irrigation
- sustainable forest management, reforestation, watershed management, and the prevention of deforestation and soil erosion.
The Green Project Portfolio (GPP) selection criteria and procedure
Regardless of whether they are subsequently allocated to the GPP, all projects are subject to due diligence before approval to assess their compliance with our Environmental and Social Policy and Performance Requirements. All projects in the GPP need to comply with all Performance Requirements of the policy to be eligible.
The GPP is compiled using further objective and transparent criteria. These are based on strict exclusion and inclusion principles (see below). These criteria are reviewed regularly to ensure they remain consistent with our own evolving thinking and understanding on sustainability, as well as with investor and market requirements for green investments.
A key criterion in the framework ensures that only projects in which 90 per cent or more of the proceeds are directed to environmental purposes are eligible. The framework allows us to refinance existing projects, as well as finance new commitments that meet the eligibility criteria.
Apart from a positive list of the environmental benefits of certain industry activities (such as Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, Water and Waste Infrastructure) there are also various exclusion criteria. We exclude, for example:
From the GPP:
- the construction of new large hydropower installations (as defined by the International Commission on Large Dams, ICOLD)
- fossil fuel production/regeneration/fuel switching and projects with significant consumption of fossil fuels (coal, heating oil, oil shale)
- biofuel production (pending the adoption of internationally recognised sustainability criteria)
- projects requiring a derogation from the Environmental and Social Policy for not being able to meet the Bank’s Environmental and Social Performance Requirements within the term of the EBRD transaction
- projects funded via equity, or projects that are credit impaired
From all EBRD financing:
- defence-related activities, tobacco, selected alcohol products, substances banned by international law or gambling facilities
- projects related to subsidies, sponsorship or donations
- activities listed on the Exclusion list in Annex 1 of EBRD’s Environmental and Social Policy such as:
- the production of or trade in any product or activity deemed illegal under host country laws or regulations, or international conventions and agreements, or subject to international phase out or bans (such as production of or trade in products containing PCBs or pharmaceuticals, pesticides/herbicides, and other hazardous substances subject to international phase-outs or bans)
- the shipment of oil or other hazardous substances in tankers, which do not comply with IMO requirements.
The process is a combination of automated and manual steps, with every project checked and signed off to ensure compliance with GPP eligibility and exclusion criteria. We review the new and reassess the existing GPP projects quarterly to ascertain whether they are consistent with the criteria established for the GPP.
Use of proceeds
The EBRD’s Legal, Environmental and Sustainability Department and Treasury teams have prepared the use-of-proceeds language for bond documentation, and these are reviewed and revised together with the eligibility criteria regularly. The proceeds from all of the EBRD’s environmental sustainability bonds are directed towards the Bank’s GPP. The EBRD also seeks to ensure that the bond proceeds can be directed in full to its GPP by limiting the total amount of ESBs outstanding to 70 per cent of the GPP.
The net proceeds of the EBRD’s environmental sustainability bonds are tracked on a euro equivalent basis and, in the unlikely event that the issued bond amount exceeds the value of the GPP, the excess funds will be invested separately in money market instruments specified in the terms of the bonds until they can be allocated to projects in the GPP.
Tracking the results of GPP projects
Regardless of whether they are subsequently allocated to the GPP, all of the projects we finance are subject to due diligence before approval to assess their compliance with our Environmental and Social Policy and Performance Requirements and are rigorously monitored over the lifetime of the Bank’s investment. For further details on assurance and tracking please see Measuring and monitoring performance.
To measure the output and impact of projects specifically associated with the GPP, in addition to the mechanisms already in place to monitor Bank investments, we carry out a sample ex post check of 5 to 10 per cent of such projects to gain aggregate and project-level data on the GHG emissions that our projects successfully avoid, as well as energy consumption. We do this to improve reporting accuracy and provide the market with a transparent platform for clearer comparison among issuers of green bonds.
Environmental output and impact metrics of the renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in the GPP
Renewable energy (RE) and energy efficiency (EE) projects account for 73 per cent of the GPP. The projects assessed are expected to have achieved a GHG reduction of 12.2 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) each year. Based on the EBRD’s share of funding of the projects, the GHG savings attributable to EBRD finance is estimated to be 6.8 million CO2e.
RE capacity installed amounted 2.7 GW and the associated GHG savings amounted 6.3 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (CO2e) each year (1.0 GW and 2.4 million tonnes CO2e based on the EBRD’s share of funding).
Note that because of the criteria applied to the GPP, not all of the EBRD’s RE and EE investments are included. Investment amounts and CO2 savings for the GPP are consequently lower than those for the EBRD’s overall investments in these sectors.
The EBRD’s GHG Methodology and Climate Related Definitions and Metrics are available here.
Environmental output and impact metrics of sustainable resource projects in the GPP
Sustainable resource projects, which include water, waste and sustainable transport projects, account for 27 per cent of the GPP. These investments are expected to benefit a total of 17.4 million people (7.3 million based on the EBRD’s share of funding) in the EBRD region by providing them with improved water services, district heating and solid waste facilities. The water projects are expected to per annum save 123 million m3 of water and treat 137 million m3 of wastewater (103 million and 52 million m3 of water and wastewater respectively based on the EBRD’s share of funding).
Note that because of the criteria applied to the GPP, not all of the EBRD’s water, waste and sustainable transport investments are included. Investment amounts and project benefits for the GPP are consequently lower than those for the EBRD’s overall investments in these sectors.
| GPP projects from 2014 to 2017 were included in impact measures to ensure consistency in the assessment methodology | Number of total people benefiting | Number of people benefiting pro rata to the EBRD's share of funding | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 17,415,000 | 100% | 7,258,000 | 100% |
| Total population with improved solid waste management services | 6,689,000 | 38% | 2,516,000 | 35% |
| Total population with improved access to tap water | 3,024,000 | 17% | 1,513,000 | 21% |
| Total population with improved access to wastewater services | 3,437,000 | 20% | 1,465,000 | 20% |
| Total population with improved district heating | 4,265,000 | 25% | 1,764,000 | 24% |
| Country | Number of total people benefiting | Number of people benefiting pro rata to the EBRD's share of funding | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 17,415,000 | 100% | 7,258,000 | 100% |
| ARMENIA | 1,530,000 | 9% | 418,000 | 6% |
| BELARUS | 359,000 | 2% | 241,000 | 3% |
| BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA | 781,000 | 4% | 300,000 | 4% |
| CROATIA | 42,000 | 0% | 20,000 | 0% |
| EGYPT | 1,410,000 | 8% | 431,000 | 6% |
| GEORGIA | 1,600,000 | 9% | 1,333,000 | 18% |
| JORDAN | 4,083,000 | 23% | 1,413,000 | 19% |
| KAZAKHSTAN | 4,237,000 | 24% | 1,699,000 | 23% |
| KYRGYZ REPUBLIC | 508,000 | 3% | 319,000 | 4% |
| MOLDOVA | 190,000 | 1% | 38,000 | 1% |
| MOROCCO | 480,000 | 3% | 385,000 | 5% |
| ROMANIA | 1,178,000 | 7% | 74,000 | 1% |
| SERBIA | 386,000 | 2% | 380,000 | 5% |
| TAJIKISTAN | 60,000 | 0% | 30,000 | 0% |
| TUNISIA | 400,000 | 2% | 91,000 | 1% |
| UKRAINE | 171,000 | 1% | 86,000 | 1% |
| Country | Total project | Pro rata based on the EBRD's share of funding |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 123,200,000 | 103,134,000 |
| Kazakhstan | 112,000,000 | 99,719,000 |
| Morocco | 11,200,000 | 3,415,000 |
| Country | Total project | Pro rata based on the EBRD's share of funding |
|---|---|---|
| Egypt | 108,405,000 | 33,151,000 |
| Belarus | 26,768,000 | 17,939,000 |
| Jordan | 1,826,000 | 861,000 |
| Total | 136,999,000 | 51,951,000 |
Please see our Disclaimer section below for the indicators supplied in this section. The scope of the expected impact is based on ex ante estimates at the time of project appraisal and mostly focus on direct project effects.
Impact indicators are typically based on a number of assumptions. While technical experts aim to use sound and conservative assumptions, based on the information available at the time, the actual environmental impact of the projects may diverge from initial projections.
Caution should be taken in comparing projects, sectors or whole portfolios because baselines (and base years) and calculation methods may vary.
Projects will have a wider range of impacts than are captured by the indicators presented in this report. While the EBRD makes efforts to improve the consistency and availability of reported metrics over time, projects cover a wide range of sectors and sub-sectors making complete harmonisation of reporting metrics challenging.
Measuring and monitoring performance
The environmental and social performance of all EBRD projects is closely monitored throughout the investment cycle. It involves a combination of client reporting, regular site visits by Bank staff and independent audits.
We require each of our clients to provide us with a report — at least annually — on their environmental and social performance and the implementation of applicable Environmental and Social Action Plans (ESAPs).
| Performance Requirement* | % of projects |
| PR1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Impacts and Issues | 99 |
| PR2: Labour and Working Conditions | 99 |
| PR3: Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention Control | 99 |
| PR4: Health and Safety | 99 |
| PR5: Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement and Economic Displacement | 23 |
| PR6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources | 47 |
| PR7: Indigenous Peoples | 0 |
| PR8: Cultural Heritage | 23 |
| PR10: Information Disclosure and Stakeholder Engagement | 95 |
* PR9 applies only to investments made through Financial Intermediaries. These are monitored separately via the FI Sustainability Index
The EBRD has introduced a system of performance indicators for direct investment projects. This system assesses and monitors project compliance with the Bank’s Environmental and Social Performance Requirements (PRs) over time. The objectives of this work are:
- more accountability
- improved management of resources
- enhanced reporting.
Compliance with the main components of each PR is scored for each project at the time of appraisal. These scores are combined to give an overall performance rating for each project on a five-point scale. Projects are rated based on current performance, that is, before the implementation of any future commitments under an ESAP.
The aim is that by tracking projects over time, we will be able to demonstrate changes in performance as EBRD investments and associated ESAPs are implemented.
2017 was the second full year that the system has been in operation. This chart shows the spread of ratings for projects signed last year, with 2016 signings included for comparison, and the Performance Requirement table above shows the percentage of applicable projects that have been subject to this new system that have triggered each of the PRs.
As the number of projects rated is still relatively low, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from the data. As the dataset expands over time it will enable the Bank to identify lessons for sectors, countries or particular environmental and social issues.
Greenhouse gas assessment for 2017
Our Greenhouse Gas Assessment provides an estimate of the net carbon footprint that will result from EBRD-financed projects signed during a representative year, once the projects are fully implemented.
The calculation is based on estimated emission reductions from sustainable energy projects and estimates of “new” greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from projects that involve new building or expanding capacity.
The EBRD has published GHG estimates for its signed projects every year since 2002.
GHG data for the project assessments come from a variety of sources, including environmental impact assessments (EIAs), energy audits and, in some cases, calculations carried out by our engineers. Find out more about our GHG reporting and how we assess it here.
| Category | Number of investments above significance threshold | GHG impact (ktCO2e per year) |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 51 | -3,420 |
| Renewable energy | 29 | -2,659 |
| Energy efficiency | 11 | -2,005 |
| Climate mitigation funds and credit line | 3 | -203 |
| Public transport | 2 | -140 |
| Waste and wastewater | 4 | -507 |
| Greenfield (new build) | 2 | 2,156 |
2017 marks the 12th consecutive year in which our investments have been forecast to deliver aggregate GHG savings.
A large part of the emission reductions are the result of investments in renewable energy, including multiple solar energy projects in Egypt.
The most significant GHG emitting project is the Southern Gas Corridor pipeline. Project emissions come from the compressors that pump the gas along the pipeline.
Financial intermediaries
We ensure that banks, private equity funds and other financial institutions receiving our financing have appropriate environmental and social risk management systems in place. Our requirements for these financial intermediary (FI) projects are set out in PR 9 of our Environmental and Social Policy (ESP).
Sustainability Index
Our Financial Intermediary Sustainability Index (SI) allows us to monitor the Environmental and Social (E&S) risk management performance of individual FIs and the entire portfolio. It is an online alternative to the annual environmental and social reporting system. As at the end of 2017, over 250 partner financial institutions have been provided with access to the SI.
We regularly review usage of the Index: we ask participating FIs for their feedback and insight into sustainability issues facing business. In October 2017, we reviewed the 90 completed responses.
As with the 2015-16 review, FIs still consider that the influence of sustainability issues has grown in the last three years, although slightly less in 2017 when compared with 2015-16. Levels of endorsement for international collaborations are broadly similar to the 2015-16 reporting period, with endorsement for the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (reporting) and “Other” frequently endorsed being: UNEP Financial Initiative, UN Global Compact, Smart Campaign and IFC Performance Standards.
Of the respondents, seven of the 15 lowest scoring FIs have received E&S risk management training, compared with 14 out of the 15 highest-scoring FIs. This demonstrates a link between capacity-building and higher E&S risk management performance.
The average performance recorded in 2017 has remained consistent with that of 2015-16 where FIs also scored 53 per cent in the good practice score. In 2017, only two FIs scored above the good practice score.
Training and capacity building
Environmental and social risk management/due diligence is good practice in the financial sector. We rely on the financial institutions in our countries of operations to implement our performance requirements, which delegates quite a bit of responsibility for the E&S risk management to them. Training our financial intermediaries in this regard has been part of our operations since 1991.
During 2017 various one-day E&S due diligence training workshops were delivered to the following partner FIs: in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Partner Bank and Addiko Bank; Croatia: Hrvatska Postanka Banka; Serbia: Addiko Bank, Intes SanPaolo Banka.
The Bank’s E&S online e-learning programme for FIs continues to be accessed by partner banks and private equity houses, with 72 new users added in 2017.
Our experience shows that those FIs who receive E&S monitoring visits from the EBRD have a better understanding of the methods and benefits of implementation of the procedures and much higher confidence in decision-making on environmental and social actions.
In 2017 EBRD staff undertook monitoring visits to the following FIs in Ukraine: UrkSibbank, Piraeus Bank, Oschadbank, OTP, Aval Bank, UkreximBank and Credit Agricole.
Environmental Resources Management (ERM) consultants undertook monitoring visits, on behalf of the EBRD, to the following FIs in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Intesa SanPaolo Banka, Sberbank, Mikrofin, Partner, Sparkasse, Raiffeisen Bank, Addiko Bank; in Croatia: Hrvatska Postanka Banka, UniCredit Bank, Raiffeisen Bank, Erste Bank; and in Serbia: ProCredit Bank, Societe Generale Leasing, UniCredit Bank.
Toolkit update
The EBRD’s E&S Risk Management Toolkit for Financial Intermediaries is designed to help FIs meet the requirements of the EBRD E&S Risk Management Procedures for Corporate Loans, Micro and SME and equity investments.
The Toolkit was updated in 2017 to include the new Responsible Investment Index for Private Equity Fund. The RI is designed for EBRD’s private equity fund partners to report to the Bank annually on their compliance with our E&S requirements under PR 9.
Health and safety
The EBRD’s portfolio collectively involves tens of thousands of people, be they employees or contractors, working across some 1,500 projects at any one time. And this also includes the millions of customers and end-users who benefit from our projects. All EBRD-financed projects are held to high occupational health and safety (OHS) standards as part of our continued due diligence. We monitor trends across the Bank’s portfolio and take prompt and effective action where necessary.
We work with businesses and communities across the EBRD region to minimise any risks associated with our projects, to improve safety standards and raise awareness.
Our clients are required to notify the EBRD of any serious incidents and fatalities. In 2017, we received reports of serious incidents from 25 clients, which sadly resulted in 45 fatalities overall. This figure is, however, a significant reduction compared with the 80 fatalities recorded in 2016.
The main causes of fatalities among workers and members of the public were electrocutions (11 reported); falling from a height (nine reported); and being caught or struck by a moving object (seven reported).
Over 2013-17 we have mobilised over €2 million from the EBRD Shareholder Special Fund for road, occupational health and safety activities, from appraisals to capacity-building for clients in higher-risk sectors.
The EBRD’s involvement in various activities and awareness-raising events has helped to influence policy and standards in many of our countries.
In Turkey, we provided the construction sector with support by appointing a consultant to undertake a study of the current challenges and barriers that prevent construction workers from receiving appropriate health and safety training. This was followed by a high level policy dialogue session with members of the ministry and trade unions.
We are fully committed to protecting and promoting health and safety within our investments and set out our expectations within PR4 of our Environmental and Social Policy (ESP, 2014).
Road safety
The majority of EBRD countries of operations have road fatality rates well above the European average — 85,000 deaths and 800,000 injuries are caused by traffic-related accidents across the EBRD region each year,1 creating a significant social and economic burden.
Since the start of the UN Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020 we have helped our countries address the challenge of safer roads, working with them to raise standards in safe fleet management for commercial fleets and in road construction.
In 2017 we completed road safety audits/inspections in Bosnia and Herzegovina (two visits); Belarus; FYR Macedonia (two visits); and Montenegro (three visits), covering 81.8 kilometres of road.
We also spearheaded seatbelt awareness and eco-driving campaigns in Tajikistan and a crash data study to understand how certain measures can influence crash rates. A project we have supported since 2013 – the Safe Driving for Life campaign in Moldova – was recognised at the 2017 HRH Prince Michael of Kent International Road Safety Awards. And in December 2017 the EBRD hosted a high-level conference focusing on regional capacity building to achieve the Global Sustainable Development Goals on Road Safety.
See also the Transport section of this report.
1 Eastern Alliance for Safe and Sustainable Transport (EASST) and the Towards Zero Foundation (2017) Road Safety in the EBRD region.
More than 1.3 million people worldwide are killed on the roads each year – 90 per cent of them in low-income countries.
Global Sustainable Development Goals on Road Safety
The EBRD hosted a high-level conference focussing on regional capacity building to achieve the Global Sustainable Development Goals on Road Safety on Monday 11th December 2017 at the Bank’s London Headquarters.
Project Complaint Mechanism
The Project Complaint Mechanism (PCM) helps us assess and review, with the help of external independent experts, any complaints about projects we finance.
Individuals and local groups who may be directly or adversely affected by an EBRD project, as well as civil society organisations, can raise concerns or complaints with the Bank independently from our banking operations.
In 2017 the PCM registered 10 new complaints and continued working on different stages of Compliance Review and Problem-Solving for seven additional ongoing complaints. The PCM has been monitoring the implementation of Management Action Plans and issued bi-annual Compliance Review Monitoring Reports in relation to six complaints. Five complaints that were under monitoring stage were closed in 2017. Two further complaints were closed after no findings of non-compliance.
The PCM also conducted outreach workshops with civil society organisations in Amman, Nicosia and Thessaloniki, in partnership with the accountability mechanisms of other international financial institutions. Capacity-building activities for dispute resolution professionals were also held throughout the year in various EBRD countries of operations.
Details of all complaints and reports, together with PCM Annual Reports, are available on the PCM website.
Annex 1: Climate project disclosure
The EBRD has been tracking climate finance1 on a project-by-project basis since 2006. Up to 2017, the EBRD disclosed this information on a sectoral or country level.
The EBRD has now agreed to disclose climate finance data on a project level. This follows a number of external information requests and is in line with the EBRD’s Public Information Policy.
For 2017 a threshold for climate finance of €40 million will be applied. A list of the corresponding projects is below.
From 2018 onwards the GET finance (climate change mitigation and adaptation) for all projects will be made publicly available and no threshold will be applied.
1 At the EBRD, climate finance is defined as ABI that qualifies for GET under the climate change mitigation and adaptation categories.
| Operation name | Banking sector team | GET finance YTD (€m) | ABI (€m) | Green activity | Climate finance (€m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ENR - Locomotive Renewal Programme | Transport | 290.0 | 290.0 | Transport | 290.0 |
| Shalkiya Zinc: Pre-Privatization Loan | Natural Resources | 60.1 | 101.6 | Energy efficiency | 60.1 |
| Cosmote Mobile (f. Project Echo) | Information & Communication Technologies | 44.1 | 85 | Energy efficiency | 44.1 |
| Schwarz Sustainable Retail Bulgaria | Agribusiness | 41.4 | 45.0 | Energy efficiency | 41.4 |
| Project Monet | FI - Insurance & Financial Services | 69.0 | 69.0 | Energy efficiency | 69.0 |
| TurSEFF III - Isbank | FI - Insurance & Financial Services | 45.9 | 45.9 | Energy efficiency | 45.9 |
| GEFF - Poland - BZ WBK Leasing | FI - Insurance & Financial Services | 50.0 | 50.0 | Energy efficiency | 50.0 |
| Project Clover | FI - Insurance & Financial Services | 43.1 | 71.4 | Energy efficiency | 43.1 |
| Dolovo Wind Farm | Power and Energy | 52.7 | 52.7 | Renewable energy | 52.7 |
| Grid Enhancement for Renewables | Power and Energy | 119.8 | 119.8 | Renewable energy | 119.8 |
| Kovacica Wind Farm | Power and Energy | 48.8 | 48.8 | Renewable energy | 48.8 |
| Gaziantep Hospital PPP | Municipal & Env Inf | 62.0 | 80.0 | Energy efficiency | 62.0 |
| Kharkiv Metro Extension | Municipal & Env Inf | 160.0 | 160.0 | Transport | 160.0 |
| South Kazakhstan Water Supply Project | Municipal & Env Inf | 145.0 | 145.0 | Waste and wastewater | 145.0 |
| Istanbul Metro Project | Municipal & Env Inf | 88.3 | 88.3 | Transport | 88.3 |
| Saïss water conservation project | Municipal & Env Inf | 120.0 | 120.0 | Waste and wastewater | 120.0 |
| VIPA Energy Efficiency Structured Loan | Municipal & Env Inf | 50.0 | 50.0 | Energy efficiency | 50.0 |
| Bursa Hospital PPP | Municipal & Env Inf | 55.0 | 55.0 | Energy efficiency | 54.1 |
Annex 2: Derogations
Some projects are unable to comply fully with all requirements of the Environmental and Social Policy. The EBRD Board approved derogations from the policy for six projects or project extensions signed in 2017. The specific derogations for these projects were agreed where affordability or operational constraints made full compliance unachievable but the overall environmental, social and economic benefits of the projects were sufficient to justify our investment. With the exception of the agreed derogations, these projects will meet our policy and performance requirements.
Board-approved derogations for new projects in 2017
| Project | Derogation | Country | Sector |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arcelor Mittal Kryvyi Rih | The investment project will meet EBRD’s PRs. A road map is being developed to EU standards. However, in the short term the Bank’s financing will not allow for attainment of EU environmental standards and full BAT compliance across the whole plant due to the magnitude of environmental legacy issues. | Ukraine | Manufacturing & Services |
| KG Water Framework - Uzgen Water | EBRD’s Board has approved a derogation for all sub-projects under this Framework for non-compliance with EU requirements due to affordability constraints. | Kyrgyz Republic | Municipal & Environmental Infrastructure |
| KG Water Framework - Balykchy Water | EBRD’s Board has approved a derogation for all sub-projects under this Framework for non-compliance with EU requirements due to affordability constraints. | Kyrgyz Republic | Municipal & Environmental Infrastructure |
| KG Water Framework - Toktogul | EBRD’s Board has approved a derogation for all sub-projects under this Framework for non-compliance with EU requirements due to affordability constraints. | Kyrgyz Republic | Municipal & Environmental Infrastructure |
| TJ Solid Waste Framework - Yavan Solid Waste | The Project will comply with design requirements of the EU Landfill Directive, but further investments would be needed to achieve compliance with EBRD PRs and EU Directives with respect to management of hazardous and medical waste, as well as waste recovery and recycling. The shortfalls from EU requirements are not considered to pose significant environmental, health or safety risks. | Tajikistan | Municipal & Environmental Infrastructure |
| Kulob Solid Waste Sub-project | EBRD’s Board has approved a derogation for all sub-projects under this Framework for non-compliance with EU requirements due to affordability constraints. | Tajikistan | Municipal & Environmental Infrastructure |
Annex 3: 2017 Category A Projects
Fourteen new Category A projects requiring an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) were in an active disclosure period during 2017. Full ESIA disclosure packages for all these Category A projects were available in English and in local languages and were disclosed online.
Summary of Category A Disclosure/Board Review in 2017
| Country | Project Name | Sector | Date ESIA on EBRD website and in RO | Board or other approval date | Days publicly available (before approval) | Language of ESIA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Regional | Trans Adriatic Pipeline Project | Private | December 19, 2017 | Not yet scheduled | n/a | English/Greek/Albanian/Italian |
| Turkey | Mersin Wastewater Project | Public | December 15, 2017 | May 29, 2012 | English | |
| Turkey | Tumad Gold Mines Development Loan (Project Maple) | Private | September 29, 2017 | November 29, 2017 | 62 | English and Turkish |
| Jordan | Shobak Wind Farm | Private | September 14, 2017 | November 16, 2017 | 64 | English and Arabic |
| Belarus | Belarus Road Sector Reform Project | Public | August 11, 2017 | January 31, 2018 | 174 | English and Russian |
| Moldova | Green Cities: Chisinau Solid Waste | Public | August 10, 2017 | February 14, 2018 | 189 | English and Romanian |
| Moldova | Moldova Romania Power Interconnection Phase I | Public | July 27, 2017 | November 29, 2017 | 126 | English and Moldovan/ Romanian |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | Corridor Vc in FBH - Part 3 | Public | July 21, 2017 | February 14, 2018 | 209 | Bosnian and English |
| Romania | BRUA Pipeline | Public | July 14, 2017 | December 13, 2017 | 245 | English and Romanian |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | Corridor Vc in Republika Srpska: Johovac to Rudanka | Public | June 23, 2017 | November 16, 2017 | 147 | English and Serbian |
| Azerbaijan | Azerbaijan: Southern Gas Corridor | Public | June 16, 2017 | October 18, 2017 | 125 | English and Turkish |
| Kosovo | Kijeve – Peje (Zahaq) Highway | Public | May 26, 2017 | December 13, 2017 | 202 | English and Albanian |
| Serbia | Kovacia Wind Farm | Private | April 5, 2017 | July 5, 2017 | 92 | English and Serbian |
| Georgia | Nenskra HPP | Private | March 17, 2017 | January 17, 2018 | 307 | English and Georgian |
| Kazakhstan | Kyzyl Project | Private | February 17, 2017 | May 4, 2017 | 77 | English, Russian and Kazakh |