JA! causes a ruckus at the Eni AGM

On Wednesday 14 May, JA! Attended the AGM of Italian oil and gas giant Eni, in Rome, where we put CEO, Claudio Descalzi, Chairperson Emma Marcegaglia and the board of executives on the spot in front of about 50 shareholders, by asking them questions about their work on gas in Mozambique and oil in South Africa that they really did not want to deal with. This was the first time we had been at the Eni AGM and we were able to go with the help of our Italian partners, Re:Common.

The meeting started at 10am and went on till 9pm, unusually late. After submitting written questions two weeks ago, we received the written answers, in Italian, literally as we walked into the meeting, and had to study them while the meeting was already in session, to see what they had or had not answered sufficiently before we were given a chance to speak.

JA! was given 10 minutes for an intervention. We first gave the context of the way Enis Coral Liquid Natural Gas Project was destroying endangered flora and fauna, and forcing people off their land before operations had even started, as well as their oil exploration in Block ER236, off the South Coast of Durban, affecting the livelihoods of at least 20 fishing communities and followed this with a barrage of questions about both of these issues, none of which were properly answered by CEO Descalzi.

While we asked many questions covering a range of topics, the main issues we raised were:

– Why did Eni begin operations in Mozambique in 2006, when they only received their license in 2015, and only completed their environmental impact assessment (EIA) in 2014? (This EIA was done in conjunction with Anadarko)

– Why is Enis gas project in Mozambique releasing greenhouse gases that will increase the whole of Mozambiques carbon emissions by 9.4% by 2022, when their main focus for the next ten years is decarbonisation?

– Why did Eni ignore the poor and marginilised communities of the South Coast of Durban, while only engaging with the wealthy communities at country clubs and upmarket hotels, to do their EIA?

Descalzi was extremely patronising in his responses, saying that Eni had not done any drillingin South Africa, so he is not sure about the forced removals of fishing communities that you (Ilham) are talking about.

He also interrupted JA, to say that Eni is not involved in Area 1 so the EIA for Mozambique But this is a lie, as Enis logo is on the front page of the EIA.

He did not answer the questions about them beginning operations in Mozambique before they received their license. He also claimed that the resettlement process of what we know to be forcefully-removed communities in Mozambique was in line with the EIA.

He said that the answers to the other questions were in the document of written responses, which will be released next month.

After the end of the AGM, Descalzi sought out JA !representative, and thanked JA! for the questions, to which JA! responded that none of the questions had actually been sufficiently answered, and that his so-called responses were offensiveas they contradicted what JA! Has seen on the ground, and which we are told by affected communities. He is basically, JA! said, saying that we are either ignorant or lying.

It was clear that we, and our partners Re:Common had an impact on Descalzi as he was answering our questions, he stumbled, saying Im well-cooked, an Italian saying meaning that he was extremely tired. That he sought Ilham out before anybody else was quite telling, offering her his personal contact details. Now lets see what happens

JA! will publish a more detailed post, the questions asked, and the verbal responses from Descalzi, as well as an analysis. Its important to note that Eni, and Descalzi, along with Shell, are currently defendants in a court case, charged with one of the worlds biggest corruption scandals, allegedly paying $ 1.3 billion in bribes, to Nigerian politicians for the purchase of an oil field in Nigeria. Lets see now, if he keeps his word by responding fully and personally to the questions he has offered to personally answer, while also remembering, Can we trust one of the most corrupt men in the world?

Tagged , , , , , ,

Justica Ambiental’s intervention at Eni Annual General Meeting

14 June 2019

Rome

I represent an organisation called Justica Ambiental/Friends of the Earth Mozambique in maputo. Ive come quite a long way to ask Eni some questionsI will ask in particular questions about the onshore and offshore work in Area 1 and Area 4 of the Rovuma Basin in Mozambique, which includes the Coral Floating Liquid Natural Gas Project, and the Mozambique Liquid Natural Gas Project, and the offshore oil and gas exploration in Block ER236 off the South Coast of Durban in South Africa.

we want to give some context to the shareholders:

Although the extraction in Mozambique has not yet begun, already the project has taken land from thousands of local communities and forcefully removed them from their homes. We work with and visit most regularly the villages of Milamba. Senga and Quitupo. The project has taken away peoples agricultural land, and has instead provided them with compensatory land which is far from their homes and in many cases, inarable. Fishing communities which live within 100 metres of the sea are now being moved 10 km inland.

Furthermore, the noise from the drilling will chase fish away from the regular fishing area, and the drilling and dredging will raise mud from the seabed which will make fishing even more difficult with little visibility.

There is little to no information about the type of compensation people will receive. Communities think the ways in which peoples compensation has been measured and assessed is ridiculous. For example, the company assesses someones land by counting their belongings and compensating them financially for those goods. Another way is by counting the number of palm trees that one person has on their land. Most people have been given a standard size of land of 1 hectare. This is regardless of whether they currently have 1 hectare, 5 hectares, or even ten hectares.

80% of Mozambicans dont have access to electricity, and need energy to live dignified lives. Despite this incredibly low electricity rate, the LNG projects will not help Mozambique and its people benefit from its resources. Instead the LNG will be processes and exported to other countries, in particular Asia and Europe.

The projects will have a huge negative impact on the local environment, destroying areas of pristine coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds, including endangered flora and fauna in the Quirimbas Archipelago, a UNESCO Biosphere.

Mozambique is a country that is already facing the impacts of climate change. In the last two months, two cyclones hit the country hard, as we saw most recent with Cyclone Idai and Cyclone Kenneth that together killed over 600 people and affected at least 2 million.. The EIA admits that the contribution of the projects greenhouse gases to Mozambiques carbon emissions will be major.

This project will require a huge investment by the Mozambican government, which would be better spent on social programs and renewable energy development. The project itself will require an investment of up US$ 30 billion. This project will divert funds that should be going to education and other social necessities, including $2 billion that the World Bank estimates is necessary to rebuild the country after the cyclones, in order to build and maintain infrastructure needed for the gas projects.

Over the last year and a half, there as been a scourge of attacks on communities in the gas region, which many communities believe are linked to the gas projects because they only began once gas companies became visible. In order to ensure the security of the gas companies and contractors, the military has been deployed in the area and maintains a strong presence, and several foreign private security companies have been contracted by the companies.


SOUTH AFRICA

While the human rights and environmental violations against the people of the South Coast are many, the particular issue Id like to raise is that of the lack of meaningful public participation with the affected communities, who were totally excluded from the process.

Exclusivity of meetings:

Eni held a total of 5 meetings.

Three of them were at upper end hotels and country clubs in the middle class areas of Richards Bay, Port Shepstone and in Durban. This is extremely unrepresentative of the vast majority of people who will be affected, many of whom live in dire poverty: communities of as Kosi Bay, Sodwana Bay, St Lucia,, Hluluwe, Mtubatuba, Mtunzini, Stanger, Tongaat, La Mercy, Umdloti, Verulam, Umhlanga, Central Durban, Bluff, Merebank, Isipingo, Amanzimtoti, Illovu, Umkomaas, Ifafa Beach, Scottsburgh, Margate, Mtwalume, Port Edward and surrounding townships like Chatsworth, Inanda, Umlazi, Phoenix and KwaMakhuta. This is blatant social exclusion and discrimination.

During the two so-called public participation meetings with poorer communities in February and October 2018, attended by both Eni and consultants Environmental Resources Management, the majority of people affected were not invited. The meetings, held by Allesandro Gelmetti and Fabrizio Fecoraro were held in a tiny room with no chairs. Eni had not invited any government officials.

[Sasol head of group medial liaison Alex Anderson, confirming the meeting, said: Eni, our partner, is the operator and the entity managing this process. Sasol is committed to open and transparent engagement with all stakeholders on this project, as its an ongoing process over the coming year. We value the engagement and the feedback we receive, so that we consider stakeholder concerns into the development of the project.]

Eni says it dropped the finalised EIAs off at 5 libraries for the interested parties to read. However these libraries are difficult for most of the affected communities to travel to, and one of the libraries, Port Shepstone library, was in fact closed for renovations at the time.

QUESTIONS:

Civil society in Mozambique:

The response to our question was not answered, and I would like to reformulate it.

Is Eni working with any Mozambican organisations as part of its community engagement, and which are they?

Is Eni working with any organisations, Mozambican and from elsewhere, who are NOT paid by the company?

Reforestation:

Id like to quote an article in the FT article David Sheppard and Leslie Cook 15 March 2019- Eni to plant vast forest in push to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which says, I quote:

by planting trees which absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, companies like Eni are looking to offset their pollution that their traditional operations create.

Italian energy giant Eni will plant a forest 4 times the size of Wales as part of plans to cut greenhouse gas emissions

1. Does Eni dispute the truthfulness of the Financial Times article

Eni says that it has already begun the contract process with the governments of the countries in Southern Africa, where these forest projects will take place.

1. Has the company assessed whether there actually is 81 000 hectares of unused land available for this project?

2. Has Eni already held any public participation meetings with the communities who live on the land that will be used for ?

3. who is doing this assessment and when will it begin

4. how many communities and people will be affected?

EIA s:

1. In the case of Area 1, Eni responded that the responsibility for ongoing public participation with the communities of Cabo Delgado lies with Anadarko for the joint EIA. Does Eni confirm it is relying on another company to guarantee that its own project fulfills requirements for an EIA?

2. Also on Area 1, the last EIA was done in 2014? Why does Eni rely on an impact assessment that is 5 years old?

3. Eni has responded that it only concluded its EIA in 2014, but had already begun seismic studies in 2007 and prepared for exploration in 2010. Furthermore, Eni only received its license from the Mozambique government in 2015. This is a whole 8 years after it had begun seismic studies.

Why did Eni begin studies that affect the environment and people before completing an EIA?

Decarbonisation:

This question was not sufficiently answered: I have asked why Enis decarbonisation strategy does not align with its actions in Mozambique, where the EIA says, and I quote from Chapter 12: The project is expected to emit approximately 13 million tonnes of CO2 during full operation of 6 LNG trains.

By 2022 the project will increase the level of Mozambiques GHG emissions by 9.4%

The duration of the impact is regarded as permanent, as science has indicated that the persistence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is said to range between 100 and 500 years, and therefore continues beyond the life of the project.

I ask again, how does this align with Enis decarbonisation strategy?

Private security:

1. Who is Eni using as their private security companies in Mozambique and in South Africa?

2. What was the legal process the company went through to contract these private security companies?

3. If any companies are not registered locally, what legal process did Eni go through to bring them to Mozambique and South Africa?

Contractors:

1. Will Eni provide us with a list of all their contractors in Mozambique and in South Africa?

2. if not why not?

Jobs in South Africa:

You have not answered our question here

How many jobs will Eni create at its operation in SA?

How many of these jobs will be paid by Eni?

Contract

I ask this in the name of the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance. The organisation requested Eni to make available the contract signed with the Dept of Environmental Affairs and Petroleum Agency South Africa that gives Eni permission to conduct seismic testing. Eni has said no, because the right to the document lies with a contractor.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Petitions to government institutions fall into oblivion

On the 21st of September 2016, Justiça Ambiental, in partnership with the World Rainforest Movement, submitted to the Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development, to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, to Green Resources and to Portucel a petition signed by 12332 people exposing the numerous conflicts and social, environmental and economic impacts – especially in the local communities directly affected. The petition stated the following:

“On September 21st, on the occasion of the International Day of Struggle Against Tree Monocultures, we, the undersigned organizations, groups, movements and individuals, expressed our solidarity and support to the communities that are fighting against the expansion of these large plantations. We demand that Green Resources, Portucel and all other companies and financial capital investors who are usurping land or planning to support the capture of fertile agricultural land for tree monocultures in eastern and southern Africa return it to the communities. By doing so, they can help prevent new conflicts between plantation companies and governments and contribute to solve the many that already exist across the region. We demand that the Government of Mozambique maintain its Land Law and ensure that the rights of communities to land, water and food are duly respected.”

The conflicts and impacts of monoculture plantations are not exclusive to rural communities in Mozambique. In fact, they are a characteristic of this type of investment and can be found everywhere where plantations of this type are promoted.

The petition was submitted to the aforementioned bodies with the knowledge of:

The Office of the President of the Republic

The Parliament

The Attorney General’s Office

The Governor of the Province of Zambézia

The Governor of the Province of Niassa

The Governor of the Province of Nampula

However, to date, after more than 2 years, none of the institutions above deigned to respond…

These public institutions, that we are told exist to serve and defend the interests of the people, are the ones who systematically ignore their concerns, demands and petitions…

In August 2018, Justiça Ambiental, ADECRU (Academic Action for the Development of Rural Communities) and Nampula’s UPC (Provincial Peasants Union) facilitated the process of drafting and submitting a petition on behalf of the communities affected by Green Resources, which contained some 3406 signatures from members of affected communities. The petition exposed in detail the innumerable situations these communities were subjected to and the various attempts at conflict resolution that have had no results at all. This last petition was submitted to the following institutions:

Ministry of Agriculture and Food Safety, addressed to the Minister;

Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development, addressed to the Minister;

The Parliament’s 5th Committee – Committee on Agriculture, Economy and the Environment;

Green Resources Mozambique;

Mozambican Bar Association;

Norfund;

Embassy of Norway in Mozambique; and

National Commission on Human Rights

Of these institutions, only the National Human Rights Commission responded and was showed interest in investigating the matter, however, so far nothing else has happened.

Land conflicts persist, communities affected and deceived with promises of better living and employment are still waiting for a response, they continue to wait for a solution to their many complaints, and to believe that there will be answers to their many appeals !!!

More frightening than our government’s silence and inaction over these petitions and complaints regarding this type of investment, is that it continues to promote the monoculture plantations business, it continues to invite investors and distribute land that is not vacant, nor is it infertile or marginal – as they claim in order to defend their investments.

The latest versions of the Forestry Policy and Implementation Strategy, of the 2035 Forest Agenda and of the National Forestry Program, which are allegedly still under public discussion, clearly demonstrate that our government, particularly the environment and forest sectors, is far from realizing the scale of the social, environmental and even economic impacts of this investment.

Even more serious than the complete absence of current knowledge about the negative impacts of large monoculture plantations on the environment, in particular on maintaining the ecological balance on which we all depend, is the arrogance with which they refuse to learn from the many examples that exist throughout the world. It is completely unacceptable and absurd to hear a forestry technician effusively defend that monoculture plantations are forests and then insist by asking “are those not trees?”! It is equally unacceptable that the definition of forests can be altered to accommodate the interests of many false solutions such as REDD and the commodification of nature. Yet, this is precisely what is happening in the sector.

Important instruments such as the 2035 Forest Agenda and the National Forestry Program are being developed under the leadership of government’s “strategic partners”, with tremendous economic interests in the sector, such as the World Bank that has poured millions and millions of dollars in these “make-believe” processes. Yet we, the Mozambican organizations that stand our ground against the complete pillage of our resources, are the ones who are constantly accused of serving foreign interests. The influence and power enjoyed by these “strategic partners” who finance and direct these processes is visible and frightening. Who rules our country? Are we really sovereign? Or is that speech valid only when your “strategic partners” and our eternal “financiers” are angry with your crazy adventures with public money? Are we only sovereign then?

Public participation is still a huge challenge, and it does not seem to us that there is a real desire to improve, since this way it is much easier to conduct the processes without much resistance. Mozambican civil society barely participates in public discussion processes, whether about environmental aspects or other issues. The participants of these meetings are mostly representatives of civil society organizations and other organizations and sometimes some students. This weak participation also tells us a great deal about the way citizens feel about these processes and, above all, what can be expected of them.

In the case of the above-mentioned instruments, it should be noted that technical committees have been set up for the elaboration and discussion of these, but the space attributed to civil society organizations is always very small and it is not clear how organizations are “chosen” to participate . JA! participated in the technical committee and despite the numerous comments on the various versions of the document, nothing was really considered and properly analyzed. Our natural resources, our forests and ecosystems are only treated as profit-making resources, we do not consider their biological importance and the fact that we are part of this planet and depend on the biological services that these ecosystems provide us and that allow life on Earth.

It seems childish to remember that we do not own Planet Earth and nature, we are part of it. We are the most stupid and destructive part of it…

Our stupidity is demonstrated over and over again by the state of our planet, by the state of our forests, rivers and other ecosystems… We don’t see the other animals – the ones we call irrational – destroying their habitat as humans do… for profit!

JA! Visit finds confusion and distrust in Cabo Delgado gas region

DSCF2153When JA! team visited Pemba at the end of February, 2019, the biggest city in Cabo Delgado province, to learn about the current situation of the ‘gas rush’ in northern Mozambique, it quickly became apparent to us that there is very little clarity and transparency about what is actually happening in the gas industry. Attacks on communities, land grabs, the stage of the companies’ operations, and even which companies are involved, have left people uncertain and confused.

 

The industry is constantly changing, with one example at the time being the pending takeover of US company Anadarko, which is the leader of one of the two major projects since it first ‘discovered’ gas in the Rovuma Basin in 2010. Just two weeks ago, Chevron put in a bit to purchase Anadarko for $ 33 billion, and a mere few days later, Occidental Petroleum tried to outbid them with $ 38 billion.

This has huge implications – communities who have been in communication with Anadarko about resettlement and compensation, or already signed agreements with them, the government’s financial agreements with Anadarko and investments in the project – these will all need to change, and more frighteningly, nobody knows how they will change.

 

Furthermore, the stages of the gas projects are constantly changing, new contractors come in and new deals are signed in the blink of eye. The official information out there is that In 2006, 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas was discovered in the Rovuma Basin off the coast of northern Mozambique. There are two concession areas that the Mozambique government has already given the rights away to:

IMG_20190225_150151_9

Area 1, the location of the Mozambique LNG Project, which was led by Anadarko, but will now be led by Chevron and Occidental Petroleum, and Area 4, the location of the Coral LNG Project that is lead by Eni and Exxon.*

And both projects have secured purchasers which ultimately has given them the financial green light to operate.

 

Over the last year, there have been many violent attacks on villages in the gas region, and there are different theories about who is responsible and who benefits from them. Due to these attacks, on this trip the JA! Team was unable to travel to the communities with which we work near Palma.

Instead, our focal point that we work with closely, arranged to bring two community members to meet us in Pemba instead.

 

Even though we were unable to travel to Palma during this visit, just meeting with people in Pemba – NGOs, activists and journalists – pointed us to an increasing number of issues arising. Basically, the more people we spoke to, the more people we realized we needed to speak to.

Two people from communities being affected by the industry, Crisanto Silva from Senga, and Burahani Adinane from Milamba, traveled six hours to tell us about the situation they are facing now.

 

Mr Burahani told us how his community left Milamba in February and are staying with family in Palma because they felt very unsafe, in constant fear of being attacked. He says that at the end of last year, Anadarko made an agreement with the community telling them what they would receive as compensation. They have not yet signed that agreement with the government, and Anadarko has not returned that agreement document to them as they said they would, so they are in a constant state of uncertainty and limbo.

 

He says that the compensation assessment process has been ridiculous – one way the company assesses someone’s land is by counting their belongings and compensating them financially for those goods.

 

People with 5 hectares (ha) of land are going to get only 1.5 ha in compensation,” he says. “I have 64 ha but will only get 1.5 ha!  The company did the measurement by counting the number of trees in the plot. I had 583 trees, but how do I fit that in 1 hectare?”

 

The fishing community is being moved 10 km inland, away from the sea, where it will be very difficult for them to get to their fishing grounds, which will also be the location of a new port construction project. And actually, people have lost access to the sea even before the process has been completed.

 

Now we will be resettled from the sea,” says Mr Burahani,and personally, i don’t know how to do anything but fish”.

 

Crisanto Silva, from Senga, which is the village that the removed communities will be resettled in, told us about the problem of the military in the area. Following the violent attacks on villages, mainly those around or in the gas region,  that have been taking place since October 2017, the government has brought the military, allegedly to protect the communities from the attackers. Nobody is sure about who is responsible for the attacks, but there are many theories going around. The official government line is that they are carried out by Muslim extremists, but many others believe that gas companies, or powerful people in government are responsible themselves.

 

However, Mr Crisanto says that the military who is supposed to be protecting them, instill fear in the community instead. They stand around drinking beer, says Mr Crisanto, and give the people of Senga a curfew of 8pm, and then beat up people who are out after that. “But the army is only in the village till midnight,” Mr Crisanto says, “which I don’t understand… We are too afraid to go to the fields but the army refuses to escort us, so we are left without food.”

 

Mr Crisanto also says that he knows the ecosystem will be completely destroyed, and the Anadarko and Exxon factories are right next to the port that will be built. The port will go 2km into the sea, and the excavation is disturbing the sea bed. This is really affecting fishing patterns and the amount of fish in the area.

 

After speaking with the community members, we held several other meetings that provided important information. One of the other urgent issues is that of media oppression – two community journalists from Cabo Delgado were imprisoned for a long time, with one, Amade Abubacar, detained from 5 January to 23 April 2019. While the official reason for his arrest is unclear, Amnesty International says the he was arrested for documenting deadly attacks by armed groups against civilians.

 

This has left the few journalists who are not following the mainstream government rhetoric in constant fear of their lives or of losing their credibility if they write or say anything which does not align with it. The journalists we spoke with insisted on speaking to us in our hotel room because even being seen with us would put them in danger.

 

We spoke with a few NGO’s, some of whom provided us with very interesting information. We learnt about the vast current issues with the resettlement process. For example, the areas where Anadarko plans to give people machambas (farmlands) is at high risk of attacks, and it is very difficult for civil society to physically go there to protect people from these attacks. Communities feel that monetary compensation is not enough, as it is their ancestral land that is being taken from them. When they have meetings with companies about the process, they are not given the space to ask questions, and when they hold meetings with civil society, the military appears to disrupt the meeting. Anadarko is also known to hold resettlement meetings with individual families, which is divisive, and there is growing hostility over who gets which machambas.

 

We also learnt that many areas in Cabo Delgado, including areas where people are given machambas, are actually not arable, because Portuguese colonizers used them to grow cotton plantations which utilized many chemicals and degraded the soils.

 

Another rather disturbing piece of information is that while we met several NGOs doing interesting work, there are very few in Cabo Delgado working on the gas issue that do not receive funding for some or other service from Anadarko. It raises questions of independence and transparency for us when NGOs receive money from the very companies they are supposed to be challenging.

 

After those few days we spent in Pemba, it became clear that things are changing very quickly – the presence of the companies and private security is growing, fear of attacks and military is increasing and people are already losing their homes and livelihoods. There is a sense of unease in the air – many people don’t want to talk, or if they do, are afraid to say anything openly against the government or industry.

 

There is no doubt that the need to stop the industry is urgent, as the devastation we are already seeing may be irreversible. We will continue to work closely with the affected communities, as part of a campaign that uses different approaches – local and international to stop gas in Mozambique!

Broken Lives,Stolen Futures. A short documentary made by JA! of the sad situation of the communities in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique, affected by the gas exploration..

 

Of Coral FLNG, ExxonMobil owns a 35.7 percent interest in Eni East Africa S.p.A. (to be renamed Mozambique Rovuma Venture S.p.A.), which holds a 70 percent interest in Area 4, and is co-owned with Eni (35.7 percent) and CNPC (28.6 percent). The remaining interests in Area 4 are held by Empresa Nacional de Hidrocarbonetos E.P. (10 percent), Kogas (10 percent) and Galp Energia (10 percent).


In Mozambique LNG, Anadarko (soon to be taken over by Chevron or Occidental Petroleum or?) leads the LNG project with a 26.5 percent ownership stake. Other owners include the Mozambique state energy company, 15 percent; Japan’s Mitsui Group, 20 percent; India’s ONGC Videsh, 16 percent; India’s Bharat, 10 percent; Thailand’s PTT Exploration and Production, 8.5 percent; and Oil India Ltd., 4 percent.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

CLIMATE CRIMINALS: ENI and Shell, keep the fossil fuels in the ground! We don’t want your false forests!

CLIMATE CRIMINALS: ENI and Shell, keep the fossil fuels in the ground! We don’t want your false forests!

13 May 2019

A new strategy put forward by fossil fuel corporations to plant trees as ‘compensation’ for climate change is not only a greenwashing gimmick, but a dangerous tactic that could exacerbate the problems caused by fossil fuel exploitation.

Fossil fuel giants ENI (Italy) and Shell (the Netherlands) have announced reforestation programmes as compensation for carbon emissions, in a push to greenwash a corporate model that has caused widespread environmental devastation, land grabbing and the destruction of livelihoods. The two companies are responsible for environmental disasters and crimes as a result of their fossil fuel activities in Nigeria and many other places across the globe.

ENI is currently undergoing a massive operation to exploit new gas reserves in northern Mozambique. For years, the company has engaged in extremely damaging gas flaring in the Niger delta – a practice which is still underway, long after ENI promised to quit gas flaring at its 2011 Annual General Meeting. Only last year, the Nigerian Ikebiri community took ENI to court for pollution of their lands and water. The company is also on trial in Basilicata – a small region of southern Italy nicknamed the Italian Texas because of its oil activities – where ENI stands accused of illegally dumping hazardous waste into the environment.

Shell is one of the world’s top 10 climate polluters, and since the 1980s has operated in the knowledge that burning oil and gas would have disastrous consequences for the climate (i). Yet the company continues to spend billions of dollars seeking out new oil and gas fields, and spends a further $49 million each year lobbying for fossil-fuel friendly policies (ii). Shell has been involved in, and their executives were probably aware of, numerous murders, tortures and rapes carried out by paramilitary organisations in Nigeria during the 1990s. Its current activities in Groningen, the Netherlands, are the cause of earthquakes that are destroying peoples’ homes (iii).

Now, ENI and Shell are pushing a new and dangerous tactic. ENI has announced plans to plant 8.1 million hectares of trees in Mozambique, South Africa, Ghana, and Zimbabwe (iv). CEO Claudio Descalzi announced ENI’s objective “to achieve net zero emissions in our upstream business by 2030,” in the company’s strategy update on 15 March 2019. Meanwhile, Shell has presented its plan, launching in 2019, to reduce its “net carbon footprint by 2%-3%”. The plan will include reforestation of false forests, with the company offering carbon credits to its customers so that they may offset their emissions (v). Shell is also pushing controversial schemes such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+), which not only fail to reduce greenhouse emissions, but lead to the violation of environmental and human rights, the exacerbation of corruption and the corporate capture of vital climate funds. REDD+ projects reduce nature to a commodity to be bought and sold, and local communities are either expelled from their land in the name of ‘preservation’ or employed as private conservationists, while traditional land management practices disappear. Meanwhile, by focusing on the community’s responsibility for deforestation, the central role of large corporations and the state as the primary actors in environmental destruction is underplayed.

The protection of critical natural ecosystems such as mangroves, forests, dunes, wetlands is crucial, and will help the planet to naturally absorb carbon emissions, while also providing livelihoods to local communities and warding off extreme weather events. However, strategies put forward by Shell and ENI will do nothing to contribute to these aims – far from it.

Solving the climate crisis requires deep, urgent and immediate emissions cuts, meaning that dirty and harmful energy must be stopped at source, and cannot simply be ‘compensated’ elsewhere in the world. Fossil fuels must be left in the ground, but instead, ENI and Shell do not even pretend to deal with this reality so far, investing billions in the quest to find further reserves.

We write this statement as the impacts of Cyclone Idai are still being felt. The cyclone and related flooding in the last few weeks has devastated huge parts of Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Malawi, claiming thousands of lives and affecting millions more. Those impacted are people who did not create the climate crisis, while ENI and Shell are among the perpetrators of the crisis. The people of the world, especially the poorest and most vulnerable who suffer the worst effects of climate change, cannot afford any further fossil fuel expansion.

Truly addressing the climate crisis means achieving ‘zero emissions’ NOT ‘net zero’ emissions. A ‘net zero’ goal allows polluters such as ENI and Shell to keep polluting on the pretext that they may use artificial plantations to ‘suck’ carbon out of the air in other parts of the world. From a climate justice perspective, this strategy is completely flawed. There is no guarantee that tree plantations can secure carbon offsetting in the long term. Plantations do not and can never compensate for the destruction of the natural world: they reduce biodiversity, lead to exhausted soils and absorb only a fraction of the CO2 taken in by real forests.

Furthermore, through this plan, ENI and Shell intend to introduce tree plantations to an area larger than the whole of Northern Italy, ENI’s homeland – or double the size of the Netherlands, from where Shell hails. This raises serious questions. Where on Earth will ENI plant these 8.1 million hectares of fake forests? Where is the land to do so, and whose land will they grab to do this planting? What would ENI say if the tables were turned, and Africans wanted all of Northern Italy to plant trees?

There is no unused land available at this scale, which means millions more people will be affected, through the loss of their land, homes and forests. Areas teeming with biodiversity will become monoculture plantations. This will undoubtedly have calamitous impacts on the food sovereignty and rights of people across Africa.

Neither ENI nor Shell have the right to impose such tree plantations on the lands of local communities and indigenous peoples. For generations, communities have taken care of their forests, often fighting off their own governments to retain ownership and control. Many communities are already resisting dirty energy, agro-commodities, infrastructure and large commercial projects that drive deforestation. The new spectre of corporate climate ‘compensation’ schemes headed by the dirtiest fossil fuel corporations is a ludicrous affront, and one which will be fought wherever it rears its head.

Climate justice requires that ENI and Shell immediately cut their emissions at source. Since the industrial revolution, the fossil fuel industry has grown rich through the exploitation of people and nature, leading to large-scale and irreversible destruction of the atmosphere. As such, ENI and Shell owe a colossal climate debt to those bearing the brunt of the impacts of climate change. At the same time, deforestation poses a grievous risk to people and the planet. If we are to stand any chance of halting the inter-related crises of climate change and biodiversity loss, fossil fuels and deforestation must both come to an end.

To stop causing the climate crisis, ENI and Shell MUST stop fossil fuels and harmful energy at source. No more land grabs in Africa or anywhere!

No fossil fuels! No dirty and harmful energy! No to false forests! Yes to real reductions, No to net zero! ENI and Shell, Stop your emissions at source!

References:

(i) https://en.milieudefensie.nl/climate-case-shell
(ii) https://leftfootforward.org/2019/03/report-uk-firms-are-the-biggest-spenders-in-global-climate-change-lobbying/(iii) https://www.foei.org/news/these-eight-scandals-prove-shells-long-history-of-contempt-for-people-and-planet(iv) https://www.ft.com/content/7c4d944e-470d-11e9-b168-96a37d002cd3(v) https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2019/shell-invests-in-nature-to-tackle-co2-emissions.html

 

SIGNED BY:

  1. Anabela Lemos, Justiça Ambiental/ Friends of the Earth Mozambique
  2. Bobby Peek, groundwork/ Friends of the Earth South Africa
  3. Farai Maguwu, Centre for Natural Resource Governance, Zimbabwe
  4. Nnimmo Bassey and Anabela Lemos, No REDD in Africa Network (NRAN)
  5. Giulia Franchi, Re:Common, Italy
  6. Karin Nansen, Chair, Friends of the Earth International

 

STATEMENT ENDORSED BY:

S. No.

NAME OF THE PERSON

NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION SIGNING ON

1

Ricardo Navarro

CESTA/ Friends of the Earth El Salvador

2

Maggie Mapondera

WoMin African Alliance

3

Martin Galea De Giovanni

Friends of the Earth Malta

4

Helen La Trobe

Friends of the Earth Ghana

5

Richard Dixon

Friends of the Earth Scotland

6

Víctor Barro

Amigos de la Tierra (España)

7

Janet Solomon

Oceans Not Oil

8

Desmond Dsa

South Durban Community Environmental Alliance

9

Nanna Clifforth

NOAH Friends of the Earth Denmark

10

Tom BK Goldtooth

Indigenous Environmental Network

11

Frank Muramuzi

Friends of the Earth Uganda / NAPE

12

Kureeba David

Regional Coordinator Friends the Earth Africa

13

Maria Selva Ortiz

REDES – FoE Uruguay

14

Camila Rolando Mazzuca

EnvJustice

15

Sam Mucunguzi

Coordinator- Citizens’ Concern Africa -(CICOA) Uganda

16

Michelle Pressend

Environmental Humanities South (EHS), UCT

17

Ivonne Yanez

Accion Ecologica, Ecuador

18

Almuth Ernsting

Biofuelwatch, UK/US

19

Martin Vilela

Bolivian Platform on Climate Change

20

Cindy Wiesner

Grassroots Global Justice Alliance (US)

21

Pennie Opal Plant

Idle No More SF Bay

22

Hemantha Withanage

Centre for Environmental Justice/ Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka

23

Pascoe Sabido

Corporate Europe Observatory

24

Yago Martínez Álvarez

Ecologistas en Acción, Spain

25

Alejandro Aleman

Centro Humboldt, Nicaragua

26

Mercia Andrews

Rural Women’s Assembly (southern Africa)

27

Lungisa Huna

Trust for Community Outreach and Education (TCOE) (South Africa)

28

Larry Lohmann

The Corner House, UK

29

Antonio Zambrano

Movimiento Ciudadano frente al Cambio Climático – MOCICC, Perú

30

Choony Kim

Korea Federation for Environmental Movement (KFEM/ FoE Korea)

31

Juan Pablo Orrego

ONG Ecosistemas – Chile

32

Edwin Mumbere Fanta

Kasese youth and women clean energy club, Uganda

33

Logan Moodley

KZNSFF

34

Ayumi Fukakusa

FoE Japan

35

Bori Yordanova

Za Zemiata – Friends of the Earth Bulgaria

36

Luca Saltalamacchia

Studio Legale Saltalamacchia

37

Simon Taylor

Global Witness

38

Simon Counsell

Rainforest Foundation UK

39

Cadmus Atake-Enade

Health of Mother Earth Foundation, Nigeria

40

Marija Mileta

Zelena akcija/ FoE Croatia

41

Dickens Kamugisha

Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Uganda

42

Anna Barkered

Latinamerikagrupperna / Solidarity Sweden-Latin America

43

Teresa Perez

World Rainforest Movement

44

Yoram Banyenzaki

Guild Presidents Forum on Governance (GPFOG), Uganda

45

Eriel Deranger

Indigenous Climate Action, Canada & member of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation

46

Khalid Mather

WildoceansSA

47

Judy Bell

FrackFreeSA

48

Alejandra Porras

COECOCEIBA – Amigos de la Tierra Costa Rica

49

Eduardo Giesen

Colectivo VientoSur – Chile

50

Opio Christopher

Oil Refinery Residents Association, ORRA – Uganda

51

Ana Maria R. Nemenzo

WomanHealth Philippines

52

Alnoor Ladha

The Rules Foundation

53

Maxime Combes

Attac France

54

Niko van Rensburg

Animalia Learning Center, Assagay, KZN, SA

55

Ncobile Nkosi

South African Youth Climate Change Coalition, South Africa, NWU, MP

56

Wolfgang Kuhlmann

ARA, Germany

57

Godwin Ojo

Environmental Rights Action/ Friends of the Earth Nigeria

58

Bishop Geoff Davies/ Vainola Makan

SAFCEI – Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute

59

Evelyn Schönheit

Forum Ökologie & Papier, Germany

60

Louise Lindfors/ Anna Ushamba

Afrikagrupperna

61

Silvia Ribeiro

ETC Group

62

Khulekani Magwaza

South African Youth Climate Change Coalition (SAYCCC)

63

Alphonse Maindo

Tropenbos DRC

64

Stella Jegher

Pro Natura / Friends of the Earth Switzerland

65

Natalia Salvatico

Amigos de la Tierra Argentina

66

Robert Anderson

Noordhoek Environmental Action Group, South Africa

67

Kwami Kpondzo

Global Forest Coalition

68

Amegadze Kokou

Les Amis de la Terre-Togo

69

Mikael Sundström

Chair, Jordens Vänner – Friends of the Earth Sweden

70

Dorothy Guerrero

Global Justice Now (UK)

71

Rose Williams

Biowatch South Africa

72

Glen Tyler-Davies

350Africa.org

73

Fernando Campos Costa

FoE Brasil

74

Vanessa Black

Earthlife Africa Durban branch

75

Ernst-Christoph Stolper

BUND – Friends of the Earth Germany

76

Robert Jereski

New York Climate Action Group

77

Olga Senova

Russian Social Ecological Union – Friends of the Earth Russia

78

Howard Wood OBE

COAST, 2015 Goldman Award Recipient Scotland

79

Ka Hsaw Wa

EarthRights International

80

Rossano Ercolini

Zero Waste europe-Zero Waste Italy

81

Àlex Guillamón

Entrepueblos/ Entrepobles/ Entrepobos/ Herriarte

82

Jorge Varela Márquez

Ambiente, Desarrollo y Capacitación

83

Louise Colvin

Ward Environmental Affairs Bluff South Africa

84

Ode Rakhman

WALHI / FoE Indonesia

85

Syeda Rizwana Hasan

BELA / FoE Bangladesh

86

Kirant Kamal Samarung

Kirant Indigenous Samarung Sangpang, Indigenous Knowledge and Peoples Network SWBC Nepal

87

Sviatoslav Zabelin

Socio-ecological union international

88

Ikal Angelei

Friends of Lake Turkana (FoLT)

89

Meena Raman

Sahabat Alam Malaysia (Friends of the Earth Malaysia)

90

Juliette Renaud

Amis de la Terre France (Friends of the Earth France)

91

Sylvain Angerand

Canopée Forêts Vivantes – France

92

Christophe Murroccu

Mouvement Ecologique (FoELux)

93

Živa Kavka Gobbo

Focus Association for Sustainable Development, Slovenia

94

Bruno van PETEGHEM

Association Toxicologie-Chimie – FRANCE

95

Laura greco

A Sud, Italy

96

Prafulla Samantara

Lokshakti Abhiyan, India

97

Wendy Flannery

Friends of the Earth Brisbane, Australia

98

Katharine Lu / Karen Orenstein

Friends of the Earth U.S.

99

Karen Pickett

Earth First!, Calif., B.A. Coalition for Headwaters

100

Mary de Haas

KZN Monitor

101

Kristina Salmi/ Jarrah Kollei

Friends of the Earth Finland

102

Jennifer Redner

American Jewish World Service (AJWS)

103

Beatriz Felipe Pérez

Enginyeria Sense Fronteres

104

James Whitehead

Forest Peoples Programme

105

Joan Deare

Amnesty International Durban, South Africa

106

Andrew Bennie

Sustaining the Wild Coast

107

Makoma Lekalakala

Earthlife Africa Johannesburg

108

Ivonne Ramos

Saramanta Warmikuna Women’s Network

109

Helena Paul

EcoNexus

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ end ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

LETTER to the Mozambican Government about Mphanda Nkuwa

mn

Please note: This letter is addressed to the Implementation Office of the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam Project, which according to local news, was created by Ministerial Decree in February 2019 and would be functioning under the Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy (MIREME). However, we could not find any information about who or where to deliver this letter, not even in MIREME. Due to this, JA! delivered this letter only to MIREME and MITADER (Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development).

TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OFFICE OF THE MPHANDA NKUWA DAM PROJECT

cc:   Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development
Ministry of Mineral Resources and Energy

Maputo, 14th of March 2019

JUSTIÇA AMBIENTAL (JA), a Mozambican civil society organization committed to the defense of environmental and land rights of local communities, hereby expresses its total repudiation for the Mozambican government’s persistence on seeking to make feasible and implement the controversial Mphanda Nkuwa hydroelectric project, proposed for the Zambezi River, in the Tete province. Here are some of our concerns about the project, highlighting some of its potential environmental, climatic, social and economic impacts.

Brief history of the Mphanda Nkuwa project

In the 90’s, the UTIP (Hydroelectric Projects Implementation Unit) was created with the mandate to implement the Mphanda Nkuwa project proposal. Thousands of dollars were spent on feasibility studies and on the environmental impact assessment, among several other studies, most of which of poor scientific quality. Years later and after thousands of dollars were spent, UTIP was extinct. However, this did not mean the Mozambican people were any closer to reaching a viable and sustainable energy solution.

In the 2000s, the Mphanda Nkuwa consortium was established, with EDM holding 20%, Insitec 40% and Camargo Corrêa 40%. At this stage, more studies were elaborated and thousands of dollars more were wasted. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was approved in 2011, with huge and serious flaws, leaving many of the issues and concerns we rose at the time unanswered. This consortium was equally extinct before the project got to move forward.

In the past two years, this project started being mentioned as a government priority again. Hence, in February 2019, the Implementation Office of the Mphanda Nkwua Dam Project was created by Ministerial Diploma. In March, an international open tender was launched for the selection of the consulting firm that will assist the Executive in designing the legal and financial structuring strategy of the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam Project. The consultancy includes the energy transport system and associated infrastructures. Everything indicates that we are going to witness, yet another waste of thousands of dollars in endless consultancies and studies that will, most likely, remain in the secret of the gods.

What we would like to know from our government is how much money has been invested in this project so far – since the UTIP, through the controversial and incomplete EIA, up to the present day? What are the concrete results of the thousands of dollars that have been invested over the past 19 years?

Regarding the environmental, climatic, social and economic impacts of mega-dams, in particular on the Zambezi River

The project establishes that the Mphanda Nkuwa Dam will be built just 70km downstream from the Cahora Bassa Dam, which could aggravate the already serious negative impacts of existing dams along the Zambezi River.

This project will have very serious social and environmental impacts (in particular for local communities), and there is no chance it will bring the country the economic benefits claimed by its proponents. The EIA approved in 2011 did not contemplate the risk of induced seismicity, it did not contemplate the impact of climate change on river flow (and the consequent reduction in estimated energy production), nor did it  contemplate the financial risk that the project represents. Why does our government continue to ignore all these facts and flaws?

The Zambezi River is the 4th largest river in Africa and an estimated 32 million people live on its banks, 80% of whom depend directly on the river for subsistence through agriculture and fishing. In the specific case of the Mphanda Nkuwa project, the environmental unfeasibility of which we speak is not only justified by the fundamental perspective of ecological preservation, since it also translates into a blatant and unquestionable economic unfeasibility. Taking into account the reports of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and International Rivers, even without the dam in Mphanda Nkuwa, the Zambezi is already one of the rivers in Africa that will most suffer the impacts of climate change (partially because of the greenhouse gas emissions caused by mega-dams) due to intense droughts and floods that are projected to the continent in the medium and long term. Such climatic events will certainly jeopardize the energy production of its various dams – especially Mozambique’s dams, which stand at the end of the line. Specifically regarding the flow of the Zambezi River, studies predict that by 2050 there will be a considerable reduction of 26-40% of its flow. This data is not being considered, nor is it even being debated. Will we have to wait until 2050 to see this scenario materialize along with all the negative impacts on the local communities and on the rich ecosystem of the Zambezi Delta to believe in it?

Countless studies and concrete examples demonstrate that it is a mistake to continue to insist on the construction of large and mega-dams for energy production. An Oxford study looked at all the dams built between 1934 and 2007 and concluded that large and mega-dams end up 96% more expensive than the initial project, and take 44% longer than estimated to get built. There is also sufficient evidence that there is an urgent need to make an energy transition and diversification, by abandoning traditional and obsolete sources of energy and adopting clean and renewable energy sources. There are currently countless countries that have distanced themselves from this type of solutions, in the last 100 years, in the US alone, about 1150 dams have been demolished!

The recent floods on the Revuboé River, which are affecting the centre of the country and all the communities living along the banks of the this river and of the Zambezi River, are yet another prove that dams (especially those of this size) are not suitable to mitigate the impacts of floods and droughts. On the contrary, large and mega-dams exacerbate these impacts, since their main (and, in most cases, only) purpose is the generation of hydropower. To reach their maximum production capacity, the reservoirs must accumulate as much water as possible. In case of floods, the dam is forced to release the stored water, causing even more destruction in the existing communities and infrastructures along the river bank.

Without a doubt, energy is a fundamental and indispensable asset for the development of a nation, however, there is enough scientific evidence that large dams do not bring the desired benefits, specially for those who need them the most. The truth is that the energy produced in mega-dams does not benefit the local populations and serves mostly for export and supply of energy-intensive industries, as the Cahora Bassa Dam exemplifies. The successive and unannounced high increases in the price of energy that Mozambicans have faced over the past five years, clearly show that our government has not been able to properly manage the energy it already produces, nor has it been able to plan properly and seek solutions that take into consideration the present shameful and sad situation of crisis in which the country is immersed.

In conclusion:

Given the information presented above, and in numerous studies and scientific analysis that we can make available if you are interested, we must ask you: Why are we rowing against the tide? We demand the government explain to us clearly and comprehensively the contours, objectives and the rational behind this project, including:
• Where does the investment come from and in exchange for what?
• Why is this project a priority for the country (taking into account the current socio-economic situation)?
• Have other alternatives been considered? If so, which ones?
• Who will be responsible for compensating the communities that, for over 19 years, have had their future on hold, unable to invest in their community and to build any infrastructure, for fear of losing their investments? These communities heard about the Mphanda Nkuwa dam project for the first time in 2000 and were warned not to build new infrastructures because they would not be compensated at the time of resettlement. To date they have received no other information from the government.
• What is the real purpose of the dam and what hypothetical benefits do you think it would bring the country in the short, medium and long term, including how do you plan to monetize it? Considering that Eskom (our main customer) is the electricity company that buys energy at the lowest price in the world, from us… and also remembering that, at present, Mozambicans are paying one of the highest rates of energy consumption in Africa, behind only 3 countries.

If the Government’s priority is really development, there are a number of other energy options that need to be duly studied and widely debated, such as clean renewable energy sources, so that the decision that needs to be made is the most correct and fair socially, environmentally and economically. Once again, Justiça Ambiental is available to help find alternatives that are in line with a truly inclusive and sustainable development, suitable for the majority of Mozambicans. Or do we have to make the same mistakes again? Or do you wish to tell us then that you did not see it coming?

P1320318

Photograph taken in Maputo, in an action to raise awareness about the impacts of the proposed Mphanda Nkuwa dam, on March 14th 2019, International Day of Action for Rivers.

See you in court!

Shell_SM_EN2

Friends of the Earth Netherlands is suing Shell in a historic climate case!

Today, Friends of the Earth Netherlands has delivered a court summons to the headquarters of Shell, one of the companies responsible for ruining lives, landgrabbing and destroying the environment of many countries, including Mozambique.

The court papers for this groundbreaking climate litigation demand that Shell ceases its destruction of the climate, on behalf of more than 30,000 people from 70 countries.

This court case is especially relevant for JA! Not just because we are fighting for climate justice, but also because Shell is a very significant player in the gas industry in Cabo Delgado. In fact, Shell has committed to be one of the biggest buyers of gas from the projects. Shell has signed a contract with American company Anadarko to buy two million tonnes of liquid natural gas per year for 13 years from its Mozambique LNG Project. This agreement was a crucial step – now that Anadarko has guaranteed buyers, it can go ahead with extraction. In other words, Shell gave the Mozambique LNG project the green-light to go ahead.

This makes are one of the companies responsible for mass displacement of people from their homes and farmland, landgrabbing, destroying livelihoods and environmental devastation, that will be caused by the liquid natural gas industry.

The 236 page complaint will be delivered to Shell’s International Headquarters in the Hague this afternoon by Friends of the Earth Netherlands, ActionAid NL, Both ENDS, Fossielvrij NL, Greenpeace NL, Young Friends of the Earth NL, Waddenvereniging and a group of 500 co-plaintiffs.

Donald Pols, Director of Friends of the Earth Netherlands said, “Shell’s directors still do not want to say goodbye to oil and gas. They would pull the world into the abyss. The judge can prevent this from happening”

In the court summons, Friends of the Earth Netherlands outlines why it is bringing this groundbreaking climate litigation case against Shell, highlighting the company’s early knowledge of climate change and its own role in causing it. Despite acknowledging that the fossil fuel industry has a responsibility to act on climate change, and claiming to “strongly support” the Paris Agreement, Shell continues to lobby against climate policy and to invest billions in further oil and gas extraction. This is incompatible with global climate goals.

The 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, a key piece of evidence in this case, underlines the importance of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees for the protection of ecosystems and human lives, and outlines the devastating and potentially irreversible impacts of any “extra bit of warming”.

The court summons proves that Shell’s current climate ambitions do not guarantee any emissions reductions, but would in fact contribute to a huge overshoot of 1.5 degrees of global warming. The plaintiffs argue that Shell is violating its duty of care and threatening human rights by knowingly undermining the world’s chances to stay below 1.5C.

In addition, the plaintiffs argue that Shell is violating Articles 2 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to life and the right to family life. In the historic Urgenda case against the Dutch state, the Dutch Appeals court created a precedent by ruling that a failure to achieve climate goals leads to human rights violations. The court ordered the Dutch state to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 25% by the end of 2020.

Roger Cox, who initially represented Urgenda, is now leading Friends of the Earth’s case against Shell. Roger said, “If successful, the uniqueness of the case would be that Shell, as one of the largest multinational corporations in the world would be legally obligated to change its business operations. We also expect that this would have an effect on other fossil fuel companies, raising the pressure on them to change.”

If successful the court case would rule that Shell must reduce its CO2 emissions by 45% by 2030 compared to 2010 levels and to zero by 2050, in line with Climate Paris Accord. This would have major implications, requiring Shell to move away from fossil fuels.

Friends of the Earth International Climate Justice and Energy campaigner Sara Shaw said, “In leaked company documents from the 1990s Shell predicted that environmental organizations would start suing the company for causing climate change if it did not listen to the warnings of its own scientists. Well, that day has come. This rising tide of climate litigation will finally call climate wrecking corporations like Shell to account and stop them in their tracks.”

Several lawsuits holding polluting companies to account for contributing to climate change exist globally. In 2016 a Peruvian farmer filed a lawsuit suing German coal company RWE for its contribution to glacier melt. In 2017 several American cities and states started climate cases against Shell, BP, ExxonMobil and Chevron.

Link to sign the petition: https://www.foei.org/?page=CiviCRM&q=civicrm%2Fpetition%2Fsign&sid=19&reset=1

Shell_SM_EN4

7 Questions to Anabela Lemos, the Director of Justiça Ambiental

Ticha

First of all, how was 2018 for Justiça Ambiental? Tell us what were the positive and the negative highlights of your year.

On the negative, I highlight the frustrating development decisions of our government; the shrinking space of civil society; the constant threats we suffer due to the positions we take; the antagonism between some civil society organizations; the government’s posture – who insists in treating as enemies all those who question or disagree with its decisions, instead of treating us as partners with different ideas; the return of the Mphanda Nkuwa dam project; and the capture of our forests by the World Bank; among others.

On the positive, I would like to highlight our Environmental Justice school in Nampula and the Agroforestry school on Mount Mabu, in Zambézia, mainly for the satisfaction of seeing the interest and involvement of all participants. I would also like to highlight the fact that our Tribunals have finally ordered Jindal to relocate the communities that still live inside the mine and decided that Mozal must disclose its environmental plans and emissions – even though, so far, we have not received any information and despite the fact that Mozal has decided to appeal. I would also like to highlight the launch of our short documentary on gas and the progress made by the international campaign of which we are part, whose aim is the elaboration of a treaty to end corporate impunity.
Briefly, I think this year we were able to consolidate our positions, consolidate our campaigns and stand firm in this struggle to secure the future of this planet and a just and sovereign Mozambique for our children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren and all future generations – which, given the adversities we face and the context in which we work, is undoubtedly a victory.

 

And how was 2018 for the country? What was good and what was bad?

The good: the Bar Association’s decision to defend the rights of communities; anadarko’s illegal DUAT case; the continuation of the ban on the exploitation of Pau-Ferro, Mondzo, Nkula, Inhamarre and Mbuti timber.

The bad: increases in energy price, fuel prices… in the cost of living in general; the impunity granted to those responsible for our “hidden debts”, the impunity granted to perpetrators of violations of the basic rights of rural communities; the impunity granted to international companies due to economic interests; the increasing poverty; the conflicts in Cabo Delgado; the tax exemptions and other benefits granted to the companies that will invest in our gas; the irresponsible “tweaks” to our legislation to better accommodate foreign investment; the municipal elections.

 

What does Justiça Ambiental think of the government’s intention to leverage the national economy with the Rovuma basin’s gas projects (including its intention to use any dividends to pay off the country’s debts)?

A wrong decision – like coal, the plantations of exotic monocultures in detriment of our forests or the illegal debts – among many others. The contracts made with the companies will not result in dividends in the first 30 years, and after that you know what will happen … It is an illusion to believe that the dividends will pay the debt. The environmental and social impacts of gas exploration will be irreversible, and what we lose will be forever: I speak of unique ecosystems that maintain environmental balance. There is no business or money that can pay for that loss.

In social terms, the loss or theft of fishing and peasant communities’ land is synonymous to loss of livelihood and rights of these communities, to an increase of their poverty, to a decrease of their level of education, to an even worse access to health and to an attack on their basic rights.

On the other hand, we continue to focus almost exclusively on extractive industry as a development path rather than diversifying our economy. Like many other African countries and other countries of the so-called Global South, we continue to follow the path of the curse of resources. Shouldn’t we be learning from others and be wiser? If we made the right choices – such as investing in education, health, renewable and decentralized energies, supporting peasant agroecology, decentralizing production processes, conserving our forests and water resources – we could be an example in Africa. But we choose not to. We are not interested in energy, food, economic and political sovereignty.

 

One of JA’s most recurring criticisms in your opinion articles is the apathy of Mozambican civil society. Do you think this criticism is having any effect? Do you think Mozambicans are “waking up”?

I hope so, because only by questioning our government and its decisions will we be able to live in a free and transparent country, where the “development” decisions are not imposed by a minority, and are totally unrelated to what the Mozambican people really wants. As the old saying goes: “Nothing for us, without us.”

For those who are part of our privileged elite, everything is okay. After all, they are the ones responsible for the current situation in the country.

Below them, our petty bourgeois do everything to maintain their privileges, and as such, could not care less. They do not care about change. Like the three wise monkeys, they do not see, they do not hear and they do not speak. They are not interested in solving any problem or injustice. I do not believe they can stop living in apathy.

About the others, I can say I am well aware that there is too much fear of speaking about certain subjects. Fear that something might happen, or fear that standing for something may simply seem wrong. For me, this fear is simple cowardice. Every citizen should speak up when faced with an injustice, because silence means assent. I think the same about activists who, for fear of reprisals, avoid interviews, or signing petitions, even when they agree with its terms. Giving in to fear only makes things worse.

But the light at the end of the tunnel continues to shine. Today I see many young people more open, more interested in environmental and social problems, more lucid in terms of values. An example of this was the reaction and solidarity of many of them when they heard the news about the arrest of journalist Estacio Valoi and others in Palma.

We cannot be silent when faced by injustices; otherwise we cannot put an end to them.

 

There are those who theorize that the slowdown of the economy in recent years, also slowed the race to our land. What do you think of this theory and what is the status of cases like ProSavana, Portucel or Green Resources?

The race to our land continues because our land is given away carelessly to foreign investors. Few countries “donate” land like ours: usurping it from their rightful owners – whether by false promises or simply by force. Prosavana illustrates precisely this, for despite the fact that the vast majority of the affected are against the program, the government is unable to act in accordance with the will of the people. The same happens in multiple sites throughout the country, where forest plantations have only brought conflict and more poverty to the peasantry, while our rulers continue to ignore them and give more land to companies that are constantly violating their rights.

 

Transnational corporations and foreign direct investment are often seen by countries like Mozambique as “economic messiahs.” What is your opinion on this development policy?

An illusion. The transnational corporations do not help any country. What they do is make themselves even richer at the expense of our resources, and along the way help enrich our already too privileged elite even more. And when our resources run out – because oil, gas, coal, and others are not renewable resources – we’re going to be left with an even poorer, polluted country, full of destroyed ecosystems and landless people. Furthermore, during their exploitation, they will constantly violate human rights and our common property and destroy our environment. As long as transnational corporations continue to act with impunity and take profit as a priority rather than the well being of human beings and their common goods, there will be no “development” for Mozambique or any other country.

 

You are often labelled radical or anti-development. Do you think that your posture can be undermining your relationship with the State and depriving you of a more collaborative and productive relationship with it?

By way of clarification, we are labelled “radicals” purely and simply because we are faithful to what we believe. If we think something is wrong, we do not just stand by and accept it. This is not being radical, it is being ethical. Furthermore, we believe that the positions we take regarding the various issues with which we work are not radical at all; on the contrary, because they are for the life and survival of the planet, our positions should be seen as absolutely consensual. Radical is treating these principles as secondary.

We live in a time of crises, such as the climate crisis, which despite being a scientifically unchallengeable threat to the survival of the planet and future generations, continues to be ignored by most countries – that prefer to continue to engage in false solutions and distractions to the real problem, when the solution to the problem is simple: stop with fossil fuels. And they call us “radicals” …

On the other hand, the first to raise their voices against slavery, racial discrimination or equal rights for women, were also considered radical. Maybe being radical is not that bad. Time will judge us.

In our country, despite our warnings and the worldwide examples that point to the abandonment of fossil energies – which are becoming increasingly more obsolete – as the sensible option to take, after coal now comes gas…

Development? Look at Tete. Look at “everything” that coal brought to Tete. In 2004/5, we, “the anti-development radicals”, gave the warning and few believed. Today, most people are already beginning to grasp the sad impending outcome.

Where is the “development” they spoke so much about?

Worse than that, apparently we have not learned anything, and the gas in Cabo Delgado is the proof of that.

Answering your question, we are aware that our posture bothers a lot of people. And unfortunately, in most cases, it is indeed very difficult to have a collaborative and productive relationship with our government because our differences – for example regarding climate issues, exotic monoculture plantations, and energy resource choices, among many others – are irreconcilable. Our government’s choices in these areas are, in our view, fundamentally wrong and will only aggravate the climate crisis; as such, sitting at the same table to discuss adjustments does not make any sense. Honestly, this saddens us; but in other specific cases we manage to collaborate.

In summary, we cannot say that we are developing, when poverty increases, education worsens and health support is minimal. What is happening in Mozambique is not development, because when a country develops, the lives of its citizens improves, and that is not what is happening.

JA! and other civil society confront SASOL at their AGM

In November, South African oil and gas company, SASOL, held its annual general meeting (AGM) at the Sandton Convention Centre in Johannesburg. JA, along with a few other organisations, attended the AGM to raise issues about SASOL’s operations. This was the first time ever that civil society was present at a SASOL AGM, and was made up of the Centre for Environmental Rights – a legal organisation based in Cape Town, the South Durban Community Environmental Alliance (SDCEA) and Women in Mining (WoMin).

JA was the only organisation raising an issue outside of South Africa, and in particular the Temane gas fields operations, SASOL Petroleum Temane’s Central Processing Facility, in Inhambane province, in the south of Mozambique.

The questions raised referred specifically to a 2017 report written by Mozambican organisation the Centre for Public Integrity (CIP), entitled SASOL Continues to Milk Mozambique.

The substance of the report centered on two issues:

  1. SASOL purchases gas from its own entity, SASOL Petroleum Temane, which extracts the gas, at very low prices, which it has set itself.
  2. It then sells it in South Africa, at a much higher price, making massive profits.

This is straightforward transfer pricing.

The project is managed by SASOL Petroleum Temane Limitada (SPT), by the Companhia Moçambicana de Hidrocabonetos (Mozambican Hydrocarbons Company or CMH) and by the International Finance Corporation (IFC).

SASOL responded to the report on their website, and JA opted to raise two questions in particular: One on employment of locals, and one on tax.

SASOL has not made any of their annual tax statements and details public, instead it has only provided an overall statement, and we had planned to demand access to the annual statements. However, we were refused the opportunity to ask the question about tax, and could only focus on jobs, as they insisted that we were only allowed one question each.

One of the issues raised in the report was that SASOL has not provided many jobs to local communities. SASOL’s response to the allegation on its website says:

“To date, over 300 permanent jobs have been sustained since inception across our various businesses in Mozambique, the majority being in Inhambane Province. SASOL and its partners established a Community Liaison Forum (CLF), in Maimelane in Inhassoro district, Inhambane Province, which helps with jobs opportunities for the 22 surrounding areas of the Central Processing Facility (CPF). Approximately 600 jobs have been allocated to members of these communities to date.”

We asked what the difference was between ‘permanent’ and ‘allocated’ jobs, and how it was possible that in 16 years of operating the project, they have only created this tiny number of jobs across the country.

Their initial response was to ‘put in context’ for the attendees the work that SASOL is doing in Mozambique, where they explained that they are the largest taxpayer, that they have built clinics and schools and brought Mozambicans into management positions.

It was only after JA’s member stood up and shouted in order to be heard, – insisting that the board provided a proper response to the questions – that they finally answered with the explanation that the 300 permanent jobs were employees who worked directly at the plant, and whose salaries were paid by SASOL. However, the 600 allocated jobs were people who worked at the clinics and schools that SASOL had built for the communities, but they were not on SASOL’s payroll, but rather were paid by the Mozambican government.

They then said that the reason only 300 jobs had been created at the plant was because ‘the plant only needs 300 workers at a time’.

SASOL created a major obstacle for us – while we had legitimately arranged for proxies to be given to members of SDCEA and WoMin, the company did not recognise them as shareholders, claiming that we required a letter from SASOL, which we were not told beforehand, and were therefore not given an opportunity to ask a question.

SDCEA is leading the fight against SASOL in the coastal province of Kwazulu Natal. SASOL is responsible for 2 massive oil spills here, and along with Italian company Eni, is now again exploring for oil offshore. SDCEA previusly tried to engage directly with SASOL but was met with hostility. They have totally undermined community input, have created extremely toxic air pollution, and the oil spills have led to massive distruction of the ecosystem and coastal flora and fauna.

WoMin has been fighting SASOL’s operations in Secunda and Sasolburg for many years, with the company being the greatest polluter in the country, and those regions bearing the largest brunt.

Overall, the AGM was successful for a few reasons – we had taken the executive board by surprise as this was the first time they had been directly confronted by civil society at a shareholder meeting. They were forced to answer questions on the spot, and even though their answers were vague, and even somewhat patronising, it was clear that they were unsure and on the back foot. They were certainly not expecting to be faced with a question about Mozambique, and were clearly confused as to how to answer. It was only when they forced into answering that they answered with technical information which still did not explain how, as the largest taxpayer, the country remained one of the poorest in the world and they had barely made a slight dent in the problem of unemployment, even in the communities where they operate.

The lesson learnt, however, was that it is important to have community members present to ask questions from personal experience. While civil society’s input was imperative, personal experience will be invaluable.

Who benefits from gene drives as a modern biotechnology?

Article presented At CBD COP14 in Egypt 18.11.2018
by Kwami D. Kpondzo Campaigns officer / Les Amis de la Terre-Togo
Africa Regional Focal Point of Global Forest Coalition

The world is suffering because biodiversity is poorly protected and poorly preserved. The question remains, how do we plan to conserve biodiversity for a better life on earth? is it by traditional knowledge or by modern technology? Indeed, today, modern biotechnology is put forward as the solution to improve the life of human beings on earth. This technology invades the field of agriculture, forestry and the fishery with the aim of improving productivity. It is at the root of the destruction of biodiversity and the imbalance in the harmony of nature. In addition, the introduction of biotechnologies like genetically modified organisms (GMOs), synthetic biology and gene drives (digital sequence information technologies) have an impact on the livelihoods of communities. The GMOs were originally promoted with the claim that they would benefit people and biodiversity as well; but this is not the case. The example of failed BT cotton in India and Burkina are examples why we do not need this risky and failed technologies.

In India, the Andhra Pradesh Coalition, in its report titled “Did BT cotton still fail in Andhra Pradesh in 2003-2004?”, investigated the cases of 164 small-scale farmers in three districts of Andhra Pradesh between 2003 and 2004. The report states that BT cotton increased yields insignificantly and that overall profits of farmers growing BT cotton were reduced by 9%. In Africa, a COPAGEN report titled “BT Cotton and us – The Truth of Our Fields!”, published in April 29, 2017, draws a damning conclusion. It describes the consequences, in Burkina Faso, of genetically modified cotton cultivation developed by Monsanto. The peasant field research over a period of three years involving 203 cotton producers clearly showed that in the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 cotton seasons, yields were lower than those of conventional cotton. These examples show the danger of the use of these modern biotechnologies in agriculture.

There is clearly a conflict of interest between the conservation of biodiversity and the use of genetically modified organisms and other forms of modern biotechnology like gene drives. These gene drives could have a serious impact on human health, environment and biodiversity.

In the light of various findings regarding the use of modern biotechnology in agriculture, there is every reason to believe that the promoters of modern biotechnology are benefiting from it.

We say NO to gene drives and all false solutions to the biodiversity crisis.

%d bloggers like this: