REK Bitola: the biggest energy producer in the country and one of the biggest polluters

On January 18^th, 2010, at the MP’s Club, the Ministry of Environment organized a consultative meeting for the activities which Macedonia plans after CoP15 in Copenhagen.

The Minister of Environment, Dr. Jakupi, gave his overview of the Copenhagen Accord and what does it mean for Macedonia. He also informed the participants that the Macedonian Government thinks that we should sign the Accord.

Considering the fact that signing the Accord also means an obligation to fill the Appendix II and report the actions for mitigation by January 31^st 2010, MoE presented the actions they plan to put in this list and which will later be eligible for funding from the new Copenhagen Green Climate Fund.

The actions presented were: new natural gas power plant and liberalization of the energy market. These are based on the Second National Communication to UNFCCC.

Additionally, Macedonia plans to submit an explanation that new actions will be added from the new Energy Strategy, the Base Study for Renеwables and the Sustainable Development Strategy, once these documents are adopted by the Government (at the time they are completed by wait for Government adoption).

Our comments:

Front 21/42 thinks that it is very positive that the Ministry organized the consultations with various stakeholders prior to the official answer from our Government.

We agree that Macedonia should sign the Accord, even though in our opinion it is a very weak and poor document. However, at the time it is a base for continuation of the global climate talks until a strong and legally binding deal which will really limit the global warming to at least 2°C, or 1.5°C – as it is realistically needed, is made.

What we don’t agree with are the proposed actions for mitigation.

We said in more than one occasion (including the public debate prior to the adoption of the Second National Communication) that the energy market liberalization is not a mitigation action, but a reality which has to be considered in all three scenarios (the base one, the first improved and the second improved scenario). It is not our choice, but a logical step on the road Macedonia choose to take and therefore we can not consider it only in the second improved scenario just because we want to report a greater emissions reduction.*

Putting this “action for mitigation” in the Appendix II doesn’t mean a thing and it will not bring any funding, which we really need, nor any real benefit. Additionally, the reputation of Macedonia, which profiles itself as a regional leader in climate change combat, would be seriously damaged with such an amateur mistake.

We strongly believe that a significant part of the global climate deal is that the developed countries pay for a clean development of the ones which are still developing. In our opinion Macedonia, as a developing country, needs to use all the possibilities for financing its clean development. The Copenhagen Green Climate Fund is one of the most important possibilities which should provide serious funding in the following decades.

We think that it would be devastating if Macedonia follows the usual practice to sign a document and be quite happy that it fulfilled the obligation to submit the list on time, no matter what’s in it. Macedonia needs to recognize the opportunities this Fund bring and use them for the realization of our right to clean development. It is our strategic interest to submit actions which will withdraw as much funding as possible and bring many benefits for all – clean environment, new jobs, economic benefits, energy stability, etc.

Considering all this, we proposed that not only the Second Communication, but all Government adopted strategies and plans which are relevant to the subject are analyzed and new actions are proposed.

*Explanation:

The main “mitigation action” proposed in the second improved scenario in the Second National Communication is the liberalization of the energy market which will create conditions for the big consumers to buy their energy on the free market – thus the emissions for the production of this energy are not taken into account as national emissions.

Link: www.unfccc.org.mk