Thursday, August 20, 2015

Vincent Varisano Anti-Global Warming Crusader George Soros Invested Millions in Coal

Vincent Varisano,

August 19th (Sputnik) - In 2009, wealthy philanthropist George Soros used $1 billion of his own money to launch a think tank known as the Climate Policy Initiative. That organization’s goal was to help develop clean, renewable energy to move the planet away from its reliance on more harmful energy sources.

“There is no magic bullet for climate change, but there is a lethal bullet: coal,” Soros said at the time.

But despite specifically identifying coal as the main culprit in global warming, the billionaire has now invested heavily in that very industry. Over the past few months, Soros has spent $2 million to help prop up two major coal companies, Peabody Energy and Arch Coal.

Those investments mean that Soros Fund Management now owns over 1 million shares of Peabody stock, and 500,000 in Arch.

Given the vast size of Soros’ $24.2 billion wealth, these recent investments seem relatively small. With the struggling coal industry, the cost of each share was remarkably cheap.

“At their current stock prices of just above a $1 these investments can almost be viewed as stock options – or a small bet on a recovery in global coal prices,” Dan Lowrey, a coal analyst with SNL Energy, told the Guardian.

Which means that despite the decline of the coal industry – a trend which Soros himself contributed to – the billionaire is now placing a multi-million dollar bet that the coal market will recover.

A curious choice, given that multiple economic indicators predict that the coal sector will only continue to weaken.

“We see no reason to question this conclusion,” Luke Sussams, an analyst with Carbon Tracker, told the Guardian. “The market is still struggling to stay afloat, with victims falling by the wayside monthly. This month is was Alpha Natural Resources filing for bankruptcy, the US’s second-largest coal producer [after Peabody].”

Soros’ own foundation also documented the harmful environmental effects of coal, and even noted how a transition to low-carbon systems could actually improve the global economy.

“Transitioning away from coal can achieve 80% of the needed emissions reductions for just 12% of the asset value at risk,” a report by the CPI reads. It adds that “significantly reduced operational costs associated with extracting and transporting coal and gas outweighs increased financing costs for renewable energy…”

Soros appears to be ignoring both the financial and environmental advice of his own think tank.

The billionaire has said that he was inspired to join the crusade against climate change after talking to former US vice president Al Gore.

“I will look for profitable opportunities, but I will also insist that the investments make a real contribution to solving the problem of climate change,” he said in 2009.

“Profitable opportunities” appear to have become a priority.



via Vincent Varisano, Anti-Global Warming Crusader George Soros Invested Millions in Coal

Vincent Varisano Oil Prices Must Rebound. Here’s Why

Vincent Varisano,

This article originally appeared at Oil Price


Last week I spotted a very interesting chart that Gregor MacDonald tweeted which showed world oil production over recent years excluding the USA. The chart was pretty flat and that got me wondering about the extent to which the world has come to depend upon Light Tight Oil in the USA and, for that matter, Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD or oil sands) projects in Canada.

So I went back to the font of all knowledge, the BP statistical review of world energy, and reconstructed the plot with my own little variations on it. For one thing, I added in OPEC’s spare capacity, as what I was really interested in seeing was just how much capacity the world had to produce oil. Figures on unused capacity are hard to come by, but the EIA do publish a series of estimates of OPEC spare capacity and it is pretty reasonable to expect that just about everyone else is pumping flat out. Then I thought I would add Canada and the USA together, LTO and SAGD are different in many ways but they both grew in response to higher oil prices.

Finally, I thought I would compare the total world production capacity to BP’s figures for oil consumption (less biofuels) to see how the trends had moved. BP do give a pretty healthy warning on their work that supply does not equal consumption but the details of why that is so (other than stock movements) elude me.

No matter, here is the aggregated picture of world oil production capacity vs world oil demand from 1990 onwards with the annual average oil price in 2014 dollars added on for good measure.

You can see two things on this chart, the first is that when capacity exceeds demand, prices are low (and vice versa); the second is that, since about 2005, despite the oil price being rather high, outside North America the world has struggled to add any oil production capacity at all. In fact, since 2010 oil production capacity outside North America has been in decline. If it weren’t for the USA & Canada, where production growth has been driven by LTO & SAGD, we would have been in a right pickle.

Here is a closer look at that growth in capacity in North America. It is very dramatic, but what you don’t see on this chart is that by the end of this year that growth will have halted and that demand will once again exceed capacity.

In the short term, the oil market is in the doldrums and projects are being delayed or cancelled, left right and center. That will mean that, outside North America, oil production capacity will decline even faster and with the growth knocked out of the shale producers and SAGD projects being put on the back burner, it is only a matter of months before demand starts to exceed world oil production capacity again. A nasty recession might put a dent in demand growth and turn those months into quarters, but eventually capacity will wane, demand will wax, and the oil price will climb once again.

In fact if traders looked hard at these charts they might wonder if the continued weakness in the 2022 Brent Oil future was a tad overdone. For this time, I think the price response might be even stronger and more sustained than before.



via Vincent Varisano, Oil Prices Must Rebound. Here’s Why

Vincent Varisano Kazakhstan Follows Russia in Floating the Currency

Vincent Varisano,

ASTANA./TASS/. Kazakhstan will allow its national currency tenge to float freely, Prime Minister Karim Masimv said at a government telephone conference on Thursday.

“The decision was made to start a new economic policy from August 20 on the basis of inflation targeting and to cancel the currency corridor,” the premier cited a joint statement of the government and the National Bank.

“A new economic policy in conditions of fundamental negative changes in the global economy necessitates a new monetary policy to ensure a balance between economic growth and stability of prices,” he said.

“With this in view, the government and the National Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan have made the decision to start the implementation of a new monetary policy, based on the inflation targeting regime and move to a floating exchange rate,” the prime minister said.



via Vincent Varisano, Kazakhstan Follows Russia in Floating the Currency

Vincent Varisano 'Reverse Flow' Didn't Save Ukraine Money. It Cost It Millions Extra

Vincent Varisano,

August 19th (Sputnik) - Ukraine’s national oil and gas company has revealed the true cost at which it purchased the reverse gas from Europe in the second quarter of the year.

As it turned out, the average price of European gas without transportation was $267 per 1,000 of cubic meters and $275 – including transportation towards the national border.

Interestingly, Russia’s Gazprom previously offered $247 for the same amount, but its proposal was rejected with a demand for a larger discount.

“The revealed data proves that Naftogaz of Ukraine has lost out from the purchase of the reverse gas from Europe,” Yuri Korolchuk, Ukrainian expert of the Energy Strategies Institute, commented to Russia’s Regnum new agency.

“With an average price at $275 the company purchased 2.68 billion cubic meters for a total of $737 million. At the same time Gazprom offered $247 per 1,000 cubic meters. So, the same amount of gas could have been purchased for $662 million,” he is quoted as saying.

“Thus, in the second quarter of the year Naftogas lost $75 million (1.65 billion Ukrainian hryvnias). Is this a significant amount? With an expected deficit of 94 billion hryvnias ($4.24 billion) in 2015, this isn’t much. But, on the other hand, it proves the saying “low overpays.”

“The admittance of the overpay means dispelling the myth of cheaper reverse gas flow from the European Union,” he added.

“Since 2012 Ukraine has had an opportunity to purchase cheaper European gas as opposed to what it deemed as more expensive Russian gas.

However the purchase of the European gas has become more of a political and, likely, a corrupt process, affecting the decisions to buy more expensive reverse gas. Thus the idea of reverse gas as an alternative to Russian gas can be discounted and could be seen as more of a “soap bubble”, which can burst at any moment.”

Overpaying for gas by $75 million in just the second quarter alone is a loss for Ukraine, he said. And the sale of more expensive gas by a national company in the national currency can by no means be called diversification.

On July 1, Ukraine suspended gas purchases from Russia’s energy company Gazprom because the two countries were unable to reach an agreement covering the third quarter of 2015. At present, Ukraine receives reverse gas flows from Slovakia, Hungary and Poland.

During the June 30 round of gas talks in Vienna, Kiev demanded a discount of $100 per 1,000 cubic meters, which exceeded the Russian discount offer by $70.

Earlier in May, President Poroshenko vowed to pay $245 per thousand cubic meters for the gas it will get through reverse flow from Europe as the country wanted to diversify its natural gas supply away from Russia.



via Vincent Varisano, 'Reverse Flow' Didn't Save Ukraine Money. It Cost It Millions Extra

Vincent Varisano Russia Is Right to Destroy Contraband Food

Vincent Varisano,

This article originally appeared at Oriental Review


President Putin’s late-July decree to destroy all sanctioned EU foodstuffs caught at the Russian border has incited a flurry of backlash, even among some typically Russian-friendly foreign journalists.

Russia Insider’s Danielle Ryan, for example, documents not only instances of domestic criticism over the initiative, but also personally laments that it’s “wrong” and “not right”.

It’s completely understandable why the publicized destruction of food is appalling to many people worldwide, but the fact is that they’re largely missing the deeper reasons why this is happening, and that’s partly due to the Russian authorities not properly communicating them.

It’s not simply about saving the administrative resources and time that have to be directed to resending the products back to their original destination, nor in depriving a sanctions violator of the opportunity to profitably resell their said contraband back in the EU or elsewhere.

There’s also more at play than just supporting Russian domestic producers and ending the country’s foreign food reliance.

What’s really happening is that Russia is publicly defending itself from a clever form of psychological-economic warfare being waged against it by the EU, and it’s doing so at this specific time in order to limit the ability of this offensive to interfere with the upcoming general elections in September.

The first thing that needs to be addressed is the reason why the Russian government is engaging in such a highly publicized destruction of the banned EU foodstuffs.

The point here is to hold Russian customs officials to full accountability by retaining a retrievable record of their activity and transparently demonstrating to the people that the law is being complied with.

Things brings about another point, which is that it’s impossible to have carried out such an action “quietly” since the whole point of the matter is to enforce a law that was publicly signed by the Russian President.

As such, there’s obviously an accessible record of Putin having agreed to the decree, and correspondingly, investigative journalists (both Russian and foreign) that would naturally conduct follow-up reporting on it and monitor its implementation.

Under such conditions, it would be scandalous for the government to ‘hide’ the very same activity that it had just recently committed to in public.

Even more so, it would have been a conspiracy of epic proportions if the original decree had been ‘secret’ and pictures and/or footage of the Russian government burning and burying food were leaked to the international media.

All things considered, this is why Moscow decided to publicly and proudly demonstrate to the world that the President’s law is actively being followed.

The most common criticism surrounding Russia’s controversial measure is that the government should donate the smuggled food to those in need, perhaps even to the refugees in Donbass, instead of just destroying it.

This well-intentioned and altruistic perspective forgets that that there are concrete health concerns behind the government giving its citizens or other recipients food products of unverified quality, but that’s not all.

The main issue is that doing so would only be a short-term solution to whatever problem it was meant to address (be it poverty in Russia or helping war refugees in Donbass), albeit one with major external strings attached that are unacceptable for any self-respecting and patriotic authorities to fully agree to.

To begin with, if Russia gave the food to anyone else, it would merely be acting as a conduit for de-facto ‘humanitarian aid’ from the EU to its population, and as with all examples of this type of international assistance, the donor’s image would be enhanced at the government’s expense and could easily be exploited by Brussels for soft power gains.

It would also undermine Russia’s message that its domestic issues (even poverty) don’t need foreign interference to solve.

Moving along, another primary reason behind Moscow’s refusal to give the confiscated food away is that it establishes a dependency relationship between the recipients and the EU donor that could be broken at any time.

Should the EU and its related companies decide to stop breaking the law and trying to smuggle their products into Russia, the civil beneficiaries would suddenly be left without the resources that they had previously come to expect, possibly even leading to unrest and discontent with the government intermediaries that had previously facilitated the ‘donations’.

Russia in that case would be forced to ‘pick up the slack’ for a commitment that it didn’t agree to nor budget for (amid a time of decreased revenue, it must be pointed out), and worse, the period of EU ‘humanitarian aid’ would have set unrealistic standards for the recipients.

They would have come to expect that Moscow would continue giving them the same type of camembert cheese and other high-quality luxury foodstuffs that the EU was providing via the seized products, which in any instance is unfeasible for any government to indefinitely pay for and provide to its impoverished citizens.

The EU is calculating that the comparatively lower quality of Russian-provided assistance to its poor could then achieve the same destabilizing consequences that Moscow had initially sought to avoid by continuing the unsolicited ‘aid’ in the first place.

The final issue that Moscow seeks to remedy by destroying the EU contraband is to ensure smooth regional elections on 13 September.

Had there not been any visible decree such as the one that prompted the controversy, then citizens may have questioned their government’s commitment to its own counter-sanction policy, as banned EU food has still been slipping through the borders regardless.

This will likely still remain the case to some extent (it’s impossible to stop everything from getting through, after all), but by publicly demonstrating its resolve in dealing with the issue, it’s thought that this will decrease any potential voter apathy in the upcoming polls or possible dissatisfaction with the ruling United Russia party.

On the other hand, there are certainly consequences to this patriotic measure, as the Western media onslaught attests. The US and its EU allies have once more been caught unaware by the fortitude of the Russian government, hence why they’re reacting in such a hysterical manner (much as they did to Crimea’s seemingly unexpected reunification).

The objective here is to intensify the information war against Russia by promoting the false idea that Moscow is depriving an unspecified amount of starving citizens from being fed by seized EU foodstuffs.

The preconditioned foreign audience is expected to use their imagination in envisioning thousands of disgruntled people queuing up for food that they won’t ever receive (a hybrid mix of the late-Soviet-era bread lines and the recent untruestories about a ‘food scarcity’ ever since the counter-sanctions).

There’s also a domestic component at work here too, since external actors hope that Russian voters will be so upset by the decree and its coverage in the international (Western) media that they’ll vote against United Russia next month.

Russia’s decision to destroy seized EU foodstuffs has provoked a loud reaction from many forces, not least of which is the West, which is gleeful to use the highly publicized opportunity to denigrate the Russian authorities.

It’s surprising then that some of those very same outlets are giving space to voices that suggest the food be given to those in need, but this just confirms that the West does in fact have a stake in Russian citizens establishing an indirect ‘humanitarian aid’ dependency on the EU.

Moreover, there’s definitely a sizeable proportion of the population that is unhappy with the decree, but it’s now becoming clearer that the US and its allies aim to steer them towards expressing their dissatisfaction politically through the upcoming regional elections next month.

The government isn’t likely to enact a policy reversal on the matter so soon, no matter what domestic opinion indicates at this point, since that could be manipulated into being presented as a capitulation to international pressure (which wouldn’t be the case at all, but would definitely be how the West would market it as).

The general motif still remains the same, however, and it’s that the EU has taken to using its sanctioned foodstuffs as an asymmetrical weapon against the Russian government and its people, attempting to push through tons of illegal product with the very intent that some of it will be seized and consequently end up furthering the psychological-economic war that’s Washington and Brussels have unleashed.



via Vincent Varisano, Russia Is Right to Destroy Contraband Food

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Vincent Varisano Russian Start-up Has Wild Crowdfund Success for Magnetic Sticky Note Paper

Vincent Varisano,

The only lame bit is that this is a pure Russian invention, and the company presents itself as American, no doubt, thinking it would help them raise money. There was no need for that. Russians should have more self confidence in commercializing their inventions. Check out the video for their Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign below.  

This article originally appeared in The Moscow Times


One of the largest office supply retailers in the United States has offered a group of young Russian and American entrepreneurs an exclusive distribution deal for a new sticky note developed by the team after raising almost $250,000 on crowd-funding site Kickstarter.

Founded in January by two Russian cousins and their American business partner, Tesla Amazing has grown fast. The company is marketing a product they call Magnetic — a digital age take on the classic sticky note that clings to any dry surface without messy adhesives.

Available in a variety of sizes, Magnetic sticks to surfaces using a patented static film developed by Dmitry Samoylovskikh and his cousin Alexei Bragin in Moscow. Not content with simply being a Russian start up company, they invited their American friend Elizabeth Bagot in to work as their international marketing chief and launched a Kickstarter campaign in January.

“One of the main reasons for us to go global was the circumstances that we faced when we were ready to launch. When everything around you tells you that it’s not the best time for the ruble, you should use it as a challenge rather than be afraid of it,” said Samoylovskikh, the company’s CEO.

Bagot told The Moscow Times that Tesla Amazing set out on their crowd funding drive with a modest goal to raise $12,000 to finance production of Magnetic, and by the end of March had raised $240,000 in funding.

“The beauty of Magnetic is that it is a product literally everyone can use. We’ve had interest from teachers, artists, facilitators, agile developers, programmers and anyone else who visualizes their ideas on paper,” Bagot said.

Small Team

Tesla Amazing prides itself on being a small team that has turned an idea into an internationally marketed product in less than a year.

“A lot of companies have 100 or more employees, but less than 10 percent of them actually do the work and add value, while the rest just pretend to work. It’s different with us. There are just six people on our team, and they do an enormous amount of work,” said co-founder Bragin.

Since launching their Kickstarter campaign in January, Tesla Amazing has signed deals with about 20 distributors on five continents and delivered Magnetic products to their 6,000 Kickstarter backers and customers in 85 countries, and has won international recognition at trade shows in Japan and the U.S.

This recognition is now turning into commercial success. Tesla Amazing boasts at least $100,000 a month in revenue from sales via the company’s website and deals signed with distributors around the world.

After visiting an innovation convention organized by major U.S. office supplies firm Staples to show off their product, Tesla Amazing has received an exclusive distribution offer from the company.

“The idea of exclusivity was brought up by Staples just last week, but nothing has been signed yet,” Bagot said. Staples is testing the product in two stores during the seasonal back-to-school shopping spree in mid-September.

“The original idea was that if it goes well, they’ll consider boosting us to more stores. But then, last week, they told us they were so bowled over by the product that they may want to sign an exclusivity contract with us soon,” Bagot said.

Russian Roots

Amid the crisis in Ukraine, which as seen relations between Russia and the West fall to a post-Cold War low, Tesla Amazing has been forced to navigate a complicated business environment by expanding from its Russian roots to becoming an international company.

“We registered in Estonia in order to avoid skepticism from Western distributors,” Bagot said. “One Australian prospect asked us if we were registered in Russia, because he was afraid to sign with us in light of the sanctions.”

Tesla Amazing has overcome this initial skepticism by spreading their efforts to Finland and Ukraine as well. The company’s web developer, Slava Kornienko, is based in Ukraine and production of the Magnetic sticky notes takes place in Finland.

“And we don’t even have an office. We often work together while spread across different countries,” said co-founder Bragin.

Though the team has run into trouble crossing borders to work together, they found that political tensions have had little impact on developing their business beyond skepticism from Russia-weary distributors.

“When we arrived at the Staples Innovation Council Event in July, we were nervous about potential backlash for our Russian origins. But we were relieved and thrilled to find that nobody cared,” Bagot said.

“The Staples executives only cared about our awesome product — Magnetic. In fact, when they learned that two of our team members were Russian, they got excited and welcomed us to the U.S. It seemed that our Russian roots were a point of pride — we traveled all the way from Russia to visit Staples!”



via Vincent Varisano, Russian Start-up Has Wild Crowdfund Success for Magnetic Sticky Note Paper

Vincent Varisano World Bank's Millions Funding Corporate Land Grab in Ukraine

Vincent Varisano,

This article originally appeared in The Guardian on July 30th


Hundreds of millions of dollars in development finance from the World Bank’s investment arm have helped to fund the controversial expansion of a billionaire’s agribusiness empire inUkraine, amid growing concern that land and farming in the country are increasingly falling into the hands of a few wealthy individuals.

Controlled by one of Ukraine’s wealthiest men, Yuriy Kosiuk, the agribusiness company Myronivsky Hliboproduct (MHP) dominates the country’s domestic poultry market and exports chicken and luxuries such as foie gras across Europe. Since 2010, it has received at least $200m (£128m) in long-term loans from the bank’s International Finance Corporation (IFC).

Much of this funding has gone to support the building of Europe’s largest industrial chicken farm in the middle of Ukraine’s rural heartland. Almost 300km south of Kiev, the Vinnytsia poultry farm is part of an audacious effort to transform the country once known as “Europe’s breadbasket” into its “meatbasket”.

The IFC, which like all World Bank institutions has an explicit mandate to end global poverty, says its investments in MHP have created jobs and supported food security in Ukraine and beyond. Central to the IFC’s mission is a policy to “do no harm” and achieve positive development outcomes by investing in the private sector.

But villagers living near the Vinnytsia project, which is already partially constructed and in operation, said no one is listening to their concerns about its impact on their area. They also said that people are being pressured into giving their land over to the project by signing long-term land leases.

The project is a massive complex, with slaughterhouses, hen houses, fields to grow crops to feed the chickens, and incubators for eggs. It is still expanding, and this expansion requires leasing extra land from nearby villages in order to construct more “rearing zones” for chickens and additional grain facilities. The second phase of construction is expected to be completed in 2017-18.

“There are growing fears about potential ecological and health impacts and extra pressure on local people to sign land lease agreements,” said Natalia Kolomiets, environmental protection specialist at the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine (Necu). “It looks like once the business, the state and the investors are interested in having these projects, there is really little attention paid to local populations.”

In villages already surrounded by the farm’s facilities, residents said the smell and noise are overwhelming, and claimed their roads and houses have been damaged by heavy trucks driving past day and night.

“Before, it was calm and peaceful here,” said one man in the village of Olyanitsa, pointing at cracks in his brick walls, which he said appeared after the trucks started driving through the village. “Now everything is vibrating … look, everywhere, it’s all broken.”

Local NGOs have documented concerns about air, noise and potential water pollutionsince 2011, but the company dismissed the question of environmental concerns, saying it complies with all environmental regulations. Community leaders in Ulianovka, a small village on the frontlines of the project’s expansion, said they have written to the company and to local authorities but that no one is listening to them.

“There’s no rights, no consultation,” said one woman.

The woman, who did not want to be named as she fears being pressured by the company, said people in her village, including the sick and elderly, were being visited at home and coerced into giving their land over to the project.

“We are nothing for rich people, they don’t want to see us, or hear us.”

Villagers in Ulianovka and Bilousivka said representatives of the company had visited people in their homes. When asked to respond to villagers’ allegations about home visits, the IFC said: “Land acquisition and environmental impacts are covered under the IFC performance standards, which define our clients’ responsibilities for managing environment and social risks. If there are specific concerns or incidents connected with this investment, we will work together with the client to help address them.”

After the dismantling of Soviet and collective state farms in the 1990s, agricultural land in Ukraine was divided up into small plots of roughly two hectares each (4.94 acres), and distributed among the population. There is currently a moratorium on the sale of this land, but it is expected to be lifted as soon as 2016.

Meanwhile, big agribusiness companies have already been acquiring huge swaths of land through long-term leases of up to 50 years. This has fuelled concern over a quiet land grab, where land is de facto controlled by a small group of powerful private individuals and companies.

Some estimates now put the total Ukrainian farmland controlled by foreign companies at more than 2.2m hectares. And, as in many countries experiencing a rush for farmland, domestic investors are also major players.

Kosiuk, founder and chief executive of the MHP company behind the Vinnytsia chicken farm, is one of Ukraine’s wealthiest men. In 2014, along with President Petro Poroshenko and seven other billionaires, he was estimated to control nearly 6% of his country’s GDP. Since 2008, MHP has been listed on the London Stock Exchange, though Kosiuk remains its major shareholder with 66% of its shares.

In Ukraine, his company is pursuing an aggressive strategy to control production “from field to fork”, growing its own grain to feed its chickens and installing facilities to incubate eggs, slaughter animals and package meat. Now it plans to increase the amount of land under its control to 450,000 hectares.

The IFC first invested in Kosiuk’s company in 2003. According to its website, the IFC has provided MHP with hundreds of millions of dollars in finance over the past five years alone.

In 2010, the IFC invested $61m in the company: a $50m loan “for crop cultivation and to secure the land lease rights” and an $11m credit guarantee for “a leasing portfolio of agricultural machinery”. In 2013, it provided a further $50m loan to support “MHP’s growth plans” in the Vinnytsia region.

Last year, the IFC announced a historic $250m investment in MHP, its largest deal in Ukraine since 2008. Of this, $100m would come direct from the IFC’s own books, with the remainder raised in partnership with other investors.

In a statement, the IFC said it has invested in MHP on commercial terms to support poultry production in Ukraine, “which has created jobs and promoted the development of the agribusiness sector, a key driving force for the national economy”.

It added: “Despite the challenging economic situation, the company continues with its expansion programmes and, as a result, direct employment is expected to grow.”

It also said its finance had helped the company improve food safety standards and energy efficiency. Anastasiya Sobotyuk, head of investor relations and communications at MHP, said the company complies with environmental regulations and builds long-term relationships with local communities, often paying higher-than-market rent for the land it leases. “Everything is transparent and legal,” she said. “We can’t force people, because it is our reputation and we are here for a long time and need land.”

Sobotyuk acknowledged that some people were opposed to the project and said that others might have ulterior motives for criticism. “There are some people who understand our competitive advantages … and therefore do black PR campaigns toward MHP.”

Describing Ukraine as a “food basket for the world”, she said the country had great potential because of its black soil. “We create facilities from scratch, invest in development of towns and villages: roads, infrastructure, social. And we want to continue to do so, especially taking into account the difficult macroeconomic situation in the country,” she added.

But Kolomiets said funding big farms is the wrong approach for Ukraine, where small- and medium-sized projects should be supported instead. At minimum, she said, the IFC should step up its monitoring of such projects and pay closer attention to the concerns of people living nearby.

The IFC has a formal mechanism whereby communities impacted by its investments can file complaints if they have grievances. But villagers and community leaders in the Vinnytsia region said they had never heard of this arm of the World Bank, and that they were informed about the project when it was already too late to resist it.

“There should have been community discussions before building started, but there weren’t. They just gathered us and confronted us with the fact that they were building this,” said one woman, standing near the village school where she works.

“Had there been a vote, people would have voted against it.”



via Vincent Varisano, World Bank's Millions Funding Corporate Land Grab in Ukraine