Russia promises to invest $1 billion in ally Cuba by 2030
HAVANA, May 8 (Reuters) - Russia said its businesses would invest more than $1 billion in long-time political ally Cuba by 2030, Cuba's presidency said on Thursday, promising a lifeline for the communist-run Caribbean island amid a gruelling economic crisis.
Russia had previously announced the so-called "Plan 2030" with Cuba, but for the first time put a price tag on a range of proposals to invest in key areas including electricity production, agriculture and public lighting.
"Under this Plan, Russian companies and businesspeople have expressed their willingness and confirmed their readiness to invest more than $1 billion in the Cuban economy," said Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Chernyshenko.
The statement immediately followed a meeting between Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel and Russia's Vladimir Putin at the Kremlin.
Punishing sanctions from the United States, collapsing tourism and inefficient state-run production have hamstrung Cuba's economy, leaving it with little room to manoeuvre.
Russia, which also faces stiff U.S. sanctions, has over decades provided Cuba with both financing and material goods, including cargoes of oil, infrastructure investments and, most recently, the promise of droves of Russian tourists.
But Russia has often delayed and cancelled projects with Cuba in the past, saying the island nation has failed to make good on payments.
Chernyshenko said Russia this time would subsidise interest rates for businesses interested in investing in Cuba as part of the plan, calling Cuba a "reliable partner".
The timeline for the coming $1 billion in promised investment is unclear.
"There's still a lot of hard work to be done, we'll advance little by little,' Chernyshenko told reporters in Moscow, adding that "it is impossible to achieve things immediately, as if by magic'.
During his visit to Moscow and St. Petersburg this week, Cuba's Diaz-Canel also attended commemorative events for the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Soviet Union and its allies over Nazi Germany.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scotsman
2 hours ago
- Scotsman
Inside the battle for North Sea control: How oil giants like BP lobbied over emission restrictions
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... The North Sea oil regulator weakened environmental requirements designed to control greenhouse gas emissions after being lobbied by oil and gas companies including energy giant BP, a new investigation has revealed. The findings have heightened concerns over the level of influence large oil firms have over independent UK agencies charged with managing the sector. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A general view of the BP ETAP (Eastern Trough Area Project) oil platform in the North Sea, around 100 miles east of Aberdeen. Picture: Andy Buchanan -| Getty Images Documents obtained by The Scotsman through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, in partnership with the investigative organisation Point Source, show BP pushed back against a wide range of proposed requirements that had been drafted by the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) as part of their Oil and Gas Authority (OGA) Plan. These included requirements to reduce the 'emissions intensity' of offshore oil platforms, as well as requirements to 'secure substantial and consistent total emissions reductions'. The scope of the North Sea consultation The NSTA received 32 responses from respondents that included industry bodies, relevant persons, energy transition companies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Outside of BP, the list of respondents also included Shell, Ithaca Energy - the company pushing to extra oil from the Rosebank field, west of Shetland - and Harbour Energy, which last month announced it was cutting a further 250 jobs in Aberdeen. The two-month consultation closed on November 30, 2023. People protest against the Rosebank offshore development off Shetland (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images The Scotsman was denied a request to access unredacted consultation responses from other companies outside of BP involved in the consultation, with confidentiality exemptions cited. BP responses - and how the regulator adapted the oil plan In the wake of BP's communications with the NSTA, a requirement to reduce the emissions intensity was removed from the strategy document, along with a series other concessions that included relaxing requirements for the electrification of offshore platforms. Pushing back on an NSTA drive to shut down low-production fields that have high emissions intensity that was outlined in a draft plan, BP said the NSTA needed to take into consideration wider implications of shutting down these assets such as 'investor confidence' and 'risk of company defaults'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad After changes were made to the OGA plan, Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) said in its newsletter for members the consultation had led to the NSTA "softening" the language within the document. The trade association body said: "The plan originated from the position that the offshore industries own, and will continue to own, the agenda". Mark Wilson, OEUK's HSE and operations director, added: "Regulatory intervention should only be available as a backstop if required." Lang Banks, the director of the environmental group WWF Scotland, said: 'The influence that oil companies have over the supposedly independent North Sea Transition Authority means that instead of helping to support a planned and fair transition away from fossil fuels it prioritises watering down requirements that would reduce polluting emissions. This delays action on climate change, and stalls progress on green job opportunities. 'As we head towards the Holyrood elections next year, we need all political parties to commit to ensuring Scotland and the wider UK reaps the multiple benefits that will come from a properly planned and fair transition to clean energy.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Labour candidate Davy Russell wins the by-election and celebrates alongside party leader Anas Sarwar and his deputy Jackie Baillie. | Lisa Ferguson Consultation documents obtained by The Scotsman under FOI legislation show BP called for deadlines to be abolished for requirements to electrify oil platforms, a move that was intended to reduce the reliance on burning oil and gas to provide power for platforms. Following the consultation, the NSTA scrapped its proposed target of making all platforms 'fully electrified' by January 1, 2030 and replaced it with a requirement for platforms to be either fully electrified or 'run on alternative low carbon power with near equivalent emission reductions' by the same date. Ahead of the publication of the final OGA Plan, BP also criticised a proposed requirement that would force oil companies to carry out an assessment of 'potential emissions savings' that was based on 'the societal cost of emissions'. The oil and gas company said that including an assessment of this kind was a departure from 'traditional practice' and could cause market distortion. After receiving submissions, the NSTA removed the phrase 'based on the societal cost of emissions' from the finished version of the plan, which was published in March last year. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The consultation documents also reveal BP pushed back against a proposal that would require oil companies to execute emissions reduction initiatives aimed at reducing the 'emissions intensity' of an asset over a reasonable time scale and a requirement to deliver 'secure substantial and consistent total emissions reductions'. BP called these requirements 'impractical'. The NSTA changed the wording for both parts of the OGA Plan following the consultation, making the requirements less onerous for oil and gas companies. BP lowered its outlook for gas production in the first quarter of 2025. Picture: Yui Mok/PA Wire The NSTA replaced the phrase 'emissions intensity' with 'emissions' in the first paragraph, and said companies needed to 'secure substantial and emission reductions', removing the requirement for consistent improvements in the second paragraph. BP's position A BP spokesperson said: 'BP, similar to many organisations, engages appropriately with policymakers, industry groups and non-governmental organisations to offer feedback, expertise and insights into the policy-making process. This includes responses to public consultations. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Our aim is to inform the development of balanced and practical policy and regulation that promotes shared objectives across the industry.' The company's view on flaring The consultation documents also show BP criticised proposals that would require oil companies to put in place plans to deliver 'continuous improvements in flaring and venting reductions' as well as a proposed requirement that 'all assets must deliver zero routine flaring and venting by 2030'. Flaring is the practice of burning off methane that is produced alongside oil and venting is when methane is released into the atmosphere without being burned. In 2023, oil and gas companies operating in the North Sea flared and vented enough gas to heat more than 700,000 homes, representing a lost market value of £250 million, according to the NSTA's 2024 emissions monitoring report. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad BP pushed back against the proposed requirements for 'continuous improvements' in flaring and venting saying this was not 'technically feasible', according to communications obtained by The Scotsman. The oil company also stated dissatisfaction with plans to require oil companies to reduce gas leaks, also known as 'fugitive emissions', on a yearly basis. BP said: 'Due to the nature of leaks and seeps, continuous reduction is unachievable as they are by their nature ad hoc.' Louis-Maxence Delaporte, an energy sector analyst at the campaign group Reclaim Finance, said: "This investigation puts the spotlight once again on BP's weak climate strategy, which relies even more heavily on oil and gas than previously. "BP has severely reduced its planned investment in so-called 'low carbon' activities, it has increased its 2030 oil and gas production trajectory and abandoned its critical target for reducing scope 3 emissions. Far from being in transition, BP is building a fossil future.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Other company submissions The UK-based oil and gas company Serica was one of the other companies that responded to the consultation and pushed back against some aspects of the draft OGA Plan. The company stated that requiring yearly improvements in emissions 'may not be a useful target', adding the 'overall direction should be lowering emissions'. Serica said the proposed requirement for 'continuous improvement' to flaring and venting was 'not realistic' due to 'unforeseen disruptions to production and the time it takes to implement material flare reduction projects'. The company also called for the NSTA to make the 'intent and mechanics' clearer for its proposed methodology to determine the that date oil and gas assets should be shut down. Serica was contacted for comment by The Scotsman. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The OGA Plan was published ahead of the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruling earlier this year that permissions granted to the Rosebank oil field and the Jackdaw gas field under the previous Conservative government were unlawful and the fossil fuel giants behind the plans, Shell, Equinor and Ithaca, should have to reapply for permission. Conflicts of interest? However, significant concerns remain about the influence that large oil companies have over regulators like the NSTA, partly due to financial conflicts of interest. According to the NSTA's most recent financial results, which were published in July last year, the regulator's board members and their family members held shares in companies linked to the energy sector worth £351,258, including shares in BP. The family of the NSTA chairman Tim Eggar, who stood down in September last year, held 4,099 BP shares worth £20,331, as well as 1,875 shares in Shell worth £49,219. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Iain Lanaghan, another NSTA director held 1,017 BP shares worth £5,044 as well as 358 shares in Shell that are worth £9,398. The NSTA said that its board did not consider these holdings sufficient to 'impair their independent judgement in board discussions' An NSTA spokesperson said: 'The OGA Plan is a robust set of requirements, which demands that industry takes immediate action to reduce production emissions on the path to net zero by 2050. 'It was finalised following extensive public consultation, including responses from several operators and, as with any thorough consultation, all responses were considered.'
Scottish Sun
10 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
Britain is ALREADY at war with Russia and ‘we are in pretty big trouble' admits defence expert in bombshell warning
Moscow has been 'menacing the UK in various different ways' for years GONE TO WAR Britain is ALREADY at war with Russia and 'we are in pretty big trouble' admits defence expert in bombshell warning RUSSIA is already at war with Britain, an author of the Government's defence review has warned. Fiona Hill, who was the White House's chief Russia adviser during Donald Trump's first term, delivered the stark warning of the threat posed by Vladimir Putin. 4 An author of the Government's defence review has warned that Britain is already at war with Russia Credit: EPA 4 Kharkiv, in Eastern Ukraine, was blitz by Russian missiles in retaliation for last week's Spider Web attack Credit: East2West 4 Fiona Hill, an author of the Government's defence review Credit: Getty She said: 'We are in pretty big trouble. "Russia has hardened as an adversary in ways that we probably hadn't anticipated.' Ms Hill said Moscow has been 'menacing the UK in various different ways' for years, including poisonings and assassinations on British soil, carrying out cyber attacks and cutting sea cables. In her grim alert, the Kremlin expert said: 'Russia is at war with us.' read more on russia WHITE VAN WHAM Army bosses to buy drones that can be fired from VANS after Ukraine op And she warned that Britain can no longer rely on US military might to protect itself from enemy states. Ms Hill co-wrote the Strategic Defence Review, which warned the UK is facing its biggest threats since the Cold War — and set out plans to urgently build more bombs and guns to arm ourselves. Her comments came as Russian missiles blitzed Kharkiv, killing three people and injuring at least 22, including a six-week-old baby and a 14-year-old girl. The eastern Ukrainian city was struck by 48 drones, two missiles and five glider bombs as part of a huge, countrywide bombardment by Putin in retaliation for last week's Spider Web attack on his nuclear bombers. PM Sir Keir Starmer used an article in last week's Sun on Sunday to deliver his starkest warning yet of the danger of war. Putting the nation on a war footing, he said Britain must prepare to 'sight and win' against our enemies. New footage of Op Spiderweb shows drone blitzing Putin's burning aircraft
Channel 4
12 hours ago
- Channel 4
At least three dead in intense Russian bombing of Kharkiv
Ukraine's second city of Kharkiv came under Russian bombing again this afternoon – a Children's Railway building was hit – killing a young woman and injuring 40 other people, three of them critically. It followed a night of sustained attacks by Russian missiles, guided bombs and drones – which the city's mayor described as the biggest assault since the start of the full scale war.
