The former minister of Environment Corrado Clini: "See you in court"

 Translation from the italian weekly publication Tempi






Few weeks ago Corrado Clini, the former minister of the Environment issued an interview with the Italian, influential, Chatolic weekly publication "Tempi" in which he cleared up the truth about his legal cases. In particular, he showed persecutions are defective and equivocal. Mr Clini, also, told of his achievements as general manager and as minister.

Corrado Clini isn't going to stand idle while the media shoot him down. After working at the Ministry of the Environment for almost 25 years, one and a half of which as a minister, one day he woke up to find out that he had gone from public manager respected in Italy and abroad to sacrificial lamb for the media and the judicial system. Mr Clini was taken into custody on May 26th 2014 pursuant to allegations by Ferrara's Public Prosecution of taking bribes for a project in Iraq financed by his ministry. Over the following months he was portrayed in newspapers and on television as a trafficker who had spent years squandering the taxpayers' money in exotic countries for no plausible reason other than to stock up millions for himself, for his partner and for his entrepreneur friends. The media then went beyond the alleged Iraqi project bribe for which Mr Clini was sent for trial to Rome (where, in the meantime, the Ferrara investigation had been moved), beefing up Mr Clini's list of alleged shortcomings with dozens of other projects abroad (mainly in China and in Montenegro) promoted and funded by the Ministry of the Environment, which the media claimed "investigators are looking into" as possible cover-ups for other illicit business.

Mr Clini learned of all these accusations from the media, day after day. In the following interview he firmly rejects them, calling them "false" and "ridiculous". Moreover, Mr Clini has decided to take action, lodging a complaint at the Rome Court against Italian Ambassador in Beijing Alberto Bradanini who, according to former minister Clini, is the person responsible for a long series of "falsities aimed at discrediting the environmental cooperation between Italy and China and at libelling my work." These falsities formed the backbone of the Report service aired on Italian State Television channel Rai Tre on November 16th and focussing on Mr Clini and his partner Martina Hauser, who is also under investigation.

Mr Clini has no fear of facing the judges. In fact, after being arrested he resigned from all his ministerial assignments (he had returned to the general direction after a stint at the government), not so much to offset the risk of crime reiteration and thus regain his personal freedom, but rather to "fully defend himself" before the judges without causing the ministry any trouble. "I would have stepped down even if I had been an MP or a minister" says Mr Clini to Tempi. "I trust the judicial system. I'm not saying it just for the sake of it – I trust that when I'm called to answer about the records and the facts, this smear campaign against me will be shown for what it truly is. I'm just sorry that such a violent end was put to an original experience, so removed from the clichés concerning environmentalism and yet with outstanding results for the promotion of sustainable development. It is well-known that the style and content of my work was frowned upon by those who gained political and personal advantage from aggressive, armchair environmentalism. On May 26th, when I was arrested, I was set to sign a contract to coordinate the EU presidency's climate and energy initiatives. These are crucial issues for Europe; in the last few years, the European Commission handled them with a regulation-heavy, ideological approach which I had repeatedly spoken against and which had isolated Europe at an international level. Maybe too many people didn't like the idea of me working in Europe. Anyway, I'm not going to get embittered about it – I found strength in the affection and solidarity of a priest who was also a long-time scholar of Italian ecology, professor Antonio Moroni, whom I managed to say good-bye to after I was released and just a few hours before his death. I also have the support of my five children – four of my own and a step-daughter –, my partner, the mother of my children, the many friends who have seen me work without ever asking for anything in return. Now I'm striving to piece together the truth."



But piecing together the truth about the alleged Iraqi bribe didn't help much. Despite the explanations released when you were sent for trial in mid November, the newspapers kept stating that the money on your Swiss bank account came from suspicious sources. And Report still aired the interview with the chief prosecutor in Lugano, who is still investigating you for money laundering.


The interview with the chief prosecutor in Lugano was disgraceful, especially because he did not tell the truth. He opened an investigation on me in 2012, when I was a minister, because I had allegedly paid bribes to a Swiss account in exchange for funding of the ministry in Kenya. This was all a huge lie that was dealt with by the Public Prosecution in Rome following a complaint lodged against me. The Public Prosecution dismissed the case in 2008. But in 2012 the parliamentary group of Italia dei Valori presented an inquiry against me, which led the chief prosecutor in Lugano to open an investigation against me. This coincidence is more than just a clue.



But the question remains – why do you have money in Switzerland?


I wilfully provided the chief prosecutor in Lugano with all the information on my work between August 2004 and March 2011 concerning the setting up of an NGO in Iraq. I provided the same information to the Italian magistrates. As proven by the papers I provided, the job was not a part of my institutional role and was financed with Iraqi and international funds having nothing to do with those from the Italian Ministry of the Environment. It was classified work – and that is why it was decided that my expenses should be based on international tariffs and paid to a bank account in Lugano.



Why was everything classified?



The context I started working in wasn't simple. The temporary government was still in power and the situation was very confused. The aim was to bring together the best of the Iraqi civil society working in the field of sustainable development and to focus our efforts on supporting democracy "from below", building on the prevalently American idea of foundations and NGOs. The work was carried out in a harsh environment that made it impossible for my role to be disclosed. The outcome was remarkable. Nature Iraq became a touchstone for the country's "sustainable" pacification and upgrading, earning the prestigious "Green" Goldman Prize in 2013. I'm a Christian but I can't help being angry at those who wanted to turn this great work in Iraq into a crime. As for the payments I received on the basis of the final report drawn up by Nature Iraq, I was preparing my tax statement in Italy but the chief prosecutor in Lugano got there first and froze my account. The money is still in Switzerland.

So it's not true that you moved the money to Italy "thanks to the smugglers".
We have already proven to the magistrates that the money being paid to my bank account in Rome consisted of perfectly legitimate ministerial allowances. The story of the smugglers was made up and is outrageous. How can you include something like that in an official accusation and make it public – even my bank account number was circulated – without having previously investigated the allegation? This tells you a lot about the approach that was taken to this whole affair. The Supreme Court itself made some very critical observations when it declared that the Public Prosecution in Ferrara was incompetent.



Let's talk about the so-called "Clini system". You have been accused of exploiting the Ministry of the Environment to finance a host of projects "without tendering procedures" in order to favour companies that were "close".


This is another ridiculous and groundless accusation, as anyone can tell by simply leafing through the procedures that were followed. I've promoted some 22,000 projects in Italy, most of them concerning companies, public administrations and local bodies. 252 of these projects were financed by Europe with 300 million euro, versus the ministry's 3 million euro funding. That's a 1-to-100 ratio – not bad. Then I signed 50 programme agreements with research bodies, universities and companies that were co-funded for the development of innovative technologies. Thanks to these agreements, Italy now has centres of excellence and higher education programmes. All of this is the Clini system – a network of excellences thanks to which Italy has become the leader of hugely important European projects.



What about the programmes subsidised abroad? Italian daily Corriere della Sera wrote about "funding that could be used strategically in Italy" but that "under the will of Corrado Clini" was "in fact diverted elsewhere to favour personal interests."


We didn't spend money abroad just because we felt like it. Law 120/2002, which ratifies the Kyoto protocol, provides for the implementation of the commitments made by Italy and the other EU members belonging to the United Nations. In particular, the law states that Italy must take part in international initiatives for "the promotion in developing countries of programmes for adaptation to climate change, low- or zero-emission technology transfer, the promotion of the best sustainable practices in the fields of energy, transport, farming, forestry, and waste management." So nothing underhand was going on to transfer resources abroad – it was Italy fulfilling its obligations. This is the context of the first 350 international environmental cooperation projects that were promoted, 300 of which within the framework of bilateral agreements (120 in China, 85 in the Balkans, 45 in the southern Mediterranean and in the Middle East, 30 in Brazil and Latin America, 20 in the small Pacific islands) and 50 in Africa, Asia and Latin America through agreements with multilateral institutions (UN agencies, the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility). The programmes and projects were located and proposed jointly by our partners and by the Ministry, pursuant to the objectives set out in the agreements and on the basis of the participating countries' environmental priorities. The Ministry transferred the funds to the authorities of the individual countries and to the multilateral institutions, which were fully responsible for the management of the programmes and projects in accordance with the local rules and procedures. In short, the Ministry did not manage the allocation of tasks or tenders for the fulfilment of international environmental cooperation projects.



Put yourself in the shoes of a "Report" viewer – it's very odd that so many of these projects were assigned to companies that were so close, or outright related, to Martina Hauser.


This is false – completely false. We're talking about the over 450 Italian companies that took part in the projects in Italy and abroad. Fiat is a prime example – thanks to our work and to Chinese funds, between 2003 and 2013 Fiat was able to provide Beijing with the largest supply ever of clean public transport vehicles. This project was celebrated in 2003 by president Ciampi. I seriously doubt that the ownership of Fiat or of the other 450 companies can be connected to me or to my partner. This story about the companies being connected to me or to Martina Hauser is ridiculous.



What about Co2Print mentioned during Report?



Co2Print is a small company set up by a group of experts who collaborated for years – and with no exclusive rights – with a public company that takes part in the Ministry of the Environment's programmes. These experts are engineers and chemists with PhDs; they were underpaid and at one point they actually got no pay for months. So they put themselves on the environmental consultancy market. Let's look at the numbers: out of 210 companies that took part in the national programme for environmental footprint assessment, 10 requested their services. Ten out of two hundred and ten. Report's allegation that Martina Hauser went to companies offering them funding from the Ministry in exchange for contracts for this small company is ridiculous. And the impudence with which the anchorwoman, faced with very clear and public data, essentially declared that there was blackmailing going on is extraordinary. It's false and because of this we are going to take legal action against Report.



But why resort to tax havens?



I know nothing about tax havens.



What about the companies belonging to your partner?
I won't speak on behalf of others. All I can say is that Martina Hauser didn't just appear out of the blue. It's not like at some point she became my partner and thus started working for the Ministry. She worked abroad for many years carrying out very important activities. It's not by chance that in 2005 the President of the Republic invested her with a High Honour for her services to Italy in the Balkans. Report would have done well to remind its viewers of this instead of construing and selling a skewed image through public television, paying a reporter to go around asking loitering bathers or people with covered faces for information on Martina and me. The same reporter went to a private home, took some footage of the entrance and then asked the waiter of the restaurant opposite how much the rent was. This sequence reflects the style of the inquiry.



Is the same true for Augusto Pretner, the businessman involved with you in the investigation into the alleged bribes in Iraq?
Once again – I won't speak on behalf of others. We'll see the papers in court; in any case, it's a bit reckless to imagine that if Pretner has funds around the world that they necessarily come from illegal activities that damaged the Ministry of the Environment. His company was chosen in Iraq by Iraq Foundation following the local procedures; but he already had long and consolidated experience in Italy and in many other countries, often with prestigious assignments from international financing institutions. I mean, we're not talking about some incompetent leech who feeds off of public funds.



Don't you find it unsuitable that Martina Hauser wants centre stage?



Let's talk about it. What did Martina Hauser do for the Ministry? She had temporary contracts that were renewed year after year, and yet she organised the group of experts that provided technical support to the governments of the Balkan countries that had signed agreements with the Ministry of the Environment to implement environmental cooperation programmes. She didn't manage a single project nor did she manage a single cent. She supported the programmes developed by the other countries. And how did these countries appoint the assignments? Mostly through public tenders at a European level. So much for the alleged "no-tender" direct assignments.



Are the Ministry of the Environment's offices abroad really empty?



That's ridiculous. In the Balkans we had two offices at the embassies of Belgrade and Podgorica. The first was cleared out after I was arrested – the whole group of experts was fired because they were considered "Corrado Clini's faithful". The second, which was always bustling, was closed down because at some point the administration of the Ministry of the Environment, following what was a blatantly remote input, decided that the rent couldn't be paid anymore.



Fiorenza Sarzanini also wrote on "Corriere della Sera" that the Ministry's projects in China were "fake tenders".

"Corriere della Sera" dedicated a whole page to the description of how Clini "pocketed 10 per cent" of the bribes on programmes implemented in China. But it mentions a report by the Financial Guard – one of the few investigation papers I was able to examine – that states: a classified source that allegedly heard it from another non-identified source suggests that Mr Clini allegedly gets 10 per cent on all of the Ministry's activities in China. Then there's a footnote that says: all this information must be verified. It's already quite singular that things like this are written in a report by the Financial Guard. But it's scandalous that a daily such as Corriere della Sera would dedicate a whole page to it. Moreover, these 20 million euro in bribes were allegedly paid to me through the Chinese authorities. It's absurd.



Why did you bring action against Bradanini?



I decided to lodge a complaint against the Italian Ambassador in China because he spread false rumours that are a part of the dossier of accusations against me. I believe in the Italian judicial system and therefore I demand that the judicial system verify the proceedings. An example would be the large project co-financed by the Ministry of the Environment and carried out by Impregilo at Tsinghua University in Beijing, China's most important university, where all the prime ministers including the latest one studied. Well, this building – which for China represents the archetype of new eco-efficient construction – was declared by Bradanini, on the basis of information gathered by someone whose role is very vague, as an inefficient, crumbling, energy-hungry, you-mention-it building. Over the years, that very building was visited by Italian ministers coming not only from the Ministry of the Environment; it was taken as a model by Obama's Energy Secretary, nobel prize winner Steven Chu, during a G8 summit. How can it be that an Italian ambassador, referring to an Italian work acknowledged by everyone, dares to declare – on the basis of information gathered by some layman – that the building is crumbling to bits? Seriously, who does this man represent?



Why would Bradanini have it in for you?



I don't know. All I know is that as long I was a minister, his behaviour was prudent and seemingly collaborative. But the day after I stepped down, on May 3rd 2013, he sent a letter to the new minister Orlando in which he raised many objections to the Italy-China environmental collaboration programme, even though he had had all the information and every chance in the world to personally check with the competent authorities. He jeopardised the diplomatic relationship between the two countries by refusing to meet with the Chinese ministers and he even attacked Beijing's Minister of the Environment during a dinner. As the documents given to us by the Public Prosecution show, he suggested that there was a sort of organised crime group involving me and the Chinese ministers. Fake tenders? The projects are there for all to see. Some were hard to carry out because there were earthquakes and floods, but it is all documented by the proceedings of the joint meetings. It's all out in the open. Moreover, in early November minister Galletti was on an official visit to China and confirmed the importance of the environmental cooperation between the two countries. I believe this shows how the ambassador, with his adventurist initiative, is acting against Italy's interests. It pains me terribly to see how the work carried out for years by hundreds of Italian people and companies in China is being demolished by this behaviour aimed at harming me.



Speaking of demolishing, the Ilva in Taranto, half sequestered and paralysed as it is, soon won't be getting any more money from the banks, not even to pay wages. Bankruptcy or state control seem to be Ilva's future. Having dealt with the issue as a minister, what is your take on the matter?


I took charge of the Ilva matter in March 2012, when the Monti government decided to do something to offset the crisis of the iron and steel industry. In five months of work we completely revamped the Integrated Environmental Authorisation (AIA), which had previously received much criticism and been investigated. We managed to have it approved and, for the first time, to get the company's approval. The AIA envisioned a 36-month period in which the iron and steel hub would be made environment-friendly using the best technologies; workplaces would be preserved; and competitiveness would increase since innovation would cut production costs. When we released the AIA, which is an administrative document, i.e. it does not need any laws to become effective, we came up against the Taranto magistrates, who essentially blocked cold production and therefore, basically, the company's whole activity. We had to resort to an emergency decree to make the AIA effective; the decree was then made into a law by Parliament at the end of 2012. But not even this was enough. The Constitutional Court had to step in. Six months went by in which Ilva was also deprived of liquid assets because of other judicial measures. What I'm saying is that despite the company's commitment, which was also financial, on the basis of motivations I never agreed with the Taranto magistrates took measures that effectively put the factory on a dead track. What did this accomplish? Did it improve the environmental conditions? If the AIA had been applied and the Ilva recovery plan had been implemented in November 2012 as expected, today we'd probably have Europe's largest and most advanced site for the eco-sustainable restructuring of the iron and steel industry. We recklessly wasted an extraordinary chance. And unfortunately the story of Ilva seems to be the paradigm of a self-destructive instinct that is eating away at Italy. Just think of the country's hydro-geological instability that gets worse by the month because for years now laws and conflicts of jurisdiction have made it impossible to fix our country.