"Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." Cree Indian Prophecy
Today, 8th of March, is International Women’s Day, we celebrate the political mobilization, the many struggles and achievements of women over the last century. Despite important achievements, the day must remain an important moment for reflection and continued struggle: against patriarchy, against capitalism, against gender-based violence and against all forms of oppression and discrimination that still persist.
According to a study by the Centro de Integridade Pública (Center for Public Integrity)(CIP, 2023), more than half of the Mozambican population is composed by women, of whom around 85.4% are available for the labor market. However, of these, more than 90% are in the informal, agricultural and commercial sector, with a high degree of precariousness, temporary jobs, low levels of social and legal protection, low and unstable incomes.
This scenario is the result of various factors, but mainly the low level of access to education for girls and women, and the persistent maintenance of the traditional role of women as subservient to men. Despite the various instruments and initiatives aimed at protecting and emancipating women and promoting equal rights and duties, to this day Mozambican society does not reserve the same rights for men and women. There is still an alarming rate of violence against women, rooted in the social understanding of women’s role of submission and subjection.
Wars, armed conflicts, forced displacement, extreme weather events, loss of land and livelihoods affect women and girls in a differentiated and more accentuated way, due to the vulnerability caused by the role they normally play. This is the scenario in Mozambique. On the one hand, the conflict in Cabo Delgado has been particularly cruel and impacting on women and children, the number of people displaced by this conflict is increasing every day and there is still no solution in sight, nor does there seem to be any political will to provide the necessary assistance and care for the displaced. On the other hand, and directly linked to this, the focus on extractive development and megaprojects led by transnational companies has not contributed to poverty reduction, has not contributed to better living conditions for the population, and has in fact aggravated the vulnerability and poverty of a large part of the population, particularly women and the most vulnerable groups, leading to forced displacement, loss of land and means of subsistence, violence and sexual harassment.
May International Women’s Day serve as a time for deep reflection, and may it not be used once again for ceremonies empty of sentiment, empty of justice that only serve to pretend that the countless challenges that women face every day around the world are really on the global agenda. We celebrate the day in solidarity with all the many women displaced by wars and conflicts fueled by the greed of a few, in solidarity with all the women who are fighting today and always to keep their territories and livelihoods!!!
Let nothing limit us, let nothing define us, let nothing hold us. Let freedom be our own substance
Published by Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment, February 2024
Salvatore and Gubeissi, ‘Billion-dollar exposure: Investor-state dispute settlement in Mozambique’s fossil fuel sector’, January 2024, Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Mozambique is endowed with extensive untapped natural resources, particularly gas and coal. The country’s gamble on fossil fuel-based economic growth comes with significant economic risks and crowds out investments in the country’s enormous renewable energy potential.
Mozambique faces a substantial economic risk due to its exposure to investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims by foreign investors in its coal, oil, and gas sectors. The investment protections in the country’s international investment agreements and contracts, combined with ISDS, expose Mozambique to multi-billion-dollar financial liabilities. Even conservative estimations show that potential ISDS liabilities from oil and gas projects would cover almost a decade of Mozambique’s government expenditures for SDGs.
Mozambique’s international investment agreements and publicly available oil, gas, and coal contracts allow foreign investors to bypass the national judicial system and bring multi-billion-dollar ISDS claims against Mozambique. Such claims can result in significant costs for the country, and they also have a considerable chilling effect on any new public-interest regulation in areas such as health, environment, community rights or labor protections. ISDS can undermine attempts to adopt meaningful legislation to transition away from fossil fuels and achieve sustainable development goals. This regime can therefore contribute to locking the country into a high-carbon economy.
In addition, multiple stabilization clauses in the analyzed contracts lock the operations into specific legal and fiscal regimes for the duration of the contracts. Stabilization clauses protect investments from unexpected regulatory changes or new fiscal rules. If a host state does introduce such changes, stabilization clauses allow investors to demand measures or compensation that would ensure their same profitability absent such changes. These clauses thus exacerbate the limits to – and chilling effect on – states’ public interest regulation.
Mozambique and other countries can take actions to remove ISDS from their contracts and treaties, replacing the mechanism with alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. They can also take steps to terminate investment agreements in force. Home countries of Mozambique’s foreign investors have a responsibility to support such action, especially as they, themselves, remove ISDS from their own treaties.
To access this complete study, in the original English version, please visit the website:
Justiça Ambiental! (Friends of the Earth Mozambique), Friends of the Earth Europe, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) and Friends of the Earth U.S.
Press release
With clear signs that TotalEnergies is about to restart the development of its massive LNG project in the conflict-ridden province of Cabo Delgado in Mozambique, a new report points to how contracts with companies like TotalEnergies and ENI are exposing the people and government of Mozambique to multi-billion-dollar financial risk, while blocking the country’s path to the energy transition and development. Companies are entitled to claim billions in compensation when the government takes public interest measures that affect the profits of these companies, like increasing minimum wages, introducing environmental or health standards or increasing taxes on companies.
Fossil fuel corporations have touted the benefits of major oil and gas projects for Mozambique, but a new report written by Columbia University and commissioned by Justiça Ambiental! (Friends of the Earth Mozambique), Friends of the Earth Europe, Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands) and Friends of the Earth U.S. shows how Mozambique’s gamble on fossil fuel-based economic growth comes with significant economic risks and crowds out investments in the country’s enormous renewable energy potential. This happens in a country that is already struggling to afford the costs of damage caused by flooding, droughts and cyclones linked to climate change.
Mozambique faces an estimated USD 29 billion in financial risk due to the possibility of foreign fossil fuel investors, such as TotalEnergies and ENI, to directly sue the state through problematic investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). This sum is equal to almost a decade of Mozambique’s government expenditures on poverty, health, and education. While it is claimed that Mozambique can use the profits from its fossil fuel projects to pay for development, other new research shows that Mozambique is not due to financially benefit from the LNG projects until the late 2030s, when global gas demand will likely have fallen and profits will be very low. The International Energy Agency confirms that Mozambique ‘may struggle to generate any real income’ from new fossil fuel projects.
Mozambique’s international investment agreements and publicly available oil, gas, and coal contracts allow foreign investors to bypass the national judicial system and bring multi-billion-dollar ISDS claims against Mozambique. Such claims can result in significant costs for the country, and they also have a chilling effect on new public-interest regulations in areas such as health, environment, community rights, or labour protections. ISDS can undermine attempts to adopt meaningful legislation to transition away from fossil fuels and achieve sustainable development goals.
Daniel Ribeiro, from Justiça Ambiental/Friends of the Earth Mozambique said:
“These financial risks just add more fuel to the fire created by big gas projects in Mozambique. These projects have contributed to insecurity and violence in the region and displaced local communities. Now it’s clear the economic arguments for continuing them don’t hold up to scrutiny. Mozambique should bring these toxic projects to an end.”
The report notes that European countries have already taken steps to limit their own exposure to ISDS. Mozambique can follow suit and take actions to remove ISDS from their contracts and treaties, replacing it with alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. They can also take steps to terminate investment agreements in force. On top of that, Mozambique should reexamine whether the costs of these projects are worth the risks and consider cancelling the projects.
Published by Solutions For Our Climate (SFOC), January 2024.
Kim & Oh, ‘Total Turmoil: Unveiling South Korea’s Stake in Mozambique’s Climate and Humanitarian Crisis’, January 2024, Solutions For Our Climate (SFOC)
The report identifies the participation of South Korean corporations in Mozambique’s liquified natural gas (LNG) projects and lays out the risks and flaws in the project that affect the economic feasibility and ethical correctness of the project. It is published by Solutions For Our Climate (SFOC).
SFOC has identified the significant participation of South Korean corporations in Mozambique’s LNG projects, as they play pivotal roles throughout the entire value chain of the Mozambique LNG business. With a 10% stake in the Area 4 block, Korea Gas Corporation (KOGAS) has been making substantial investments in project exploration and development. Notably, major Korean shipbuilders are actively involved in Area 1 and Area 4 projects. Samsung Heavy Industries is expected to provide offshore LNG production vessels for two of the four Mozambique gas field projects. Meanwhile, three Korean shipbuilders anticipate supplying a total of 23 LNG carriers for transporting the produced LNG volume. Six LNG carriers have already been constructed and are in use to transport LNG volumes from the Area 4 Coral Sul field, while 17 fleets for the Area 1 Mozambique LNG project await the final contract to be signed. Consequently, South Korean public financiers have become involved in the Mozambique gas projects, providing a total of USD 3.22 billion financial support to Korean companies engaged in these initiatives.
The LNG projects in Mozambique face significant risks, primarily in two key areas. Firstly, flawed resettlement processes for local communities near the LNG facilities have resulted in forced relocations, inadequate compensation, and the loss of livelihoods, especially among fishing communities. Secondly, there are substantial climate concerns associated with these projects, as they are expected to contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions when considering the project’s entire lifecycle. An independent report by Friends of the Earth and the New Economics Foundation estimated that the Mozambique LNG project alone could generate 3.3 to 4.5 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalents, surpassing the annual emissions of all EU countries.
The involvement of South Korean stakeholders in the LNG projects raises alarming concerns. By providing financial support for the LNG projects in Mozambique, public finance institutions have failed to adequately assess human rights, climate, environmental, and security risks associated with the projects in accordance with both international and internal guidelines. Samsung Heavy Industries faces criticism for its involvement in controversial LNG projects in Mozambique, which potentially conflicts with its sustainability initiatives and ESG commitments. Additionally, the economic feasibility of new gas projects in the Mozambique Area 4 basin, where the Korea Gas Corporation holds a 10% stake, is questionable due to factors such as low profitability, regional instability, declining gas demand, and fierce market competition.
Some key recommendations to relevant stakeholders are:
1. Public financiers should withdraw their financial backing from Mozambique gas projects and join the Clean Energy Transition Partnership (CETP) to end fossil fuel investment.
2. Public financiers should establish Human Rights, Environmental Impact, and Security Assessment processes.
3. KOGAS should consider divesting its stake in Area 4.
4. The South Korean shipbuilding industry should transition away from the fossil fuel business.
To access this complete study, in the original English version, please visit the website:
On December 13th, in Maputo, the Mozambican government and the companies Electricidade de Moçambique (EDM), Hidroeléctrica de Cahora Bassa (HCB), Électricité de France, TotalEnergies and Sumitomo, signed the partnership contract for the construction of the Mphanda Nkuwa hydroelectric dam on the Zambezi River.
A partnership contract that is signed before a single community consultation meeting with the people who live in the region has been carried out, only makes it even more clear that the project is not, and never has been, for the benefit of the local population. Our Constitution and Land Law guarantee customary land rights, and local communities should have their rights to public participation and fair and prior compensation respected. To add insult to injury, this unlawful contract was signed with all the pomp and circumstance, in the presence of the President of the Republic, the Ambassadors of France and Japan, among other personalities. It’s a blatant lack of respect for the People, celebrated in a luxury hotel in Maputo, and commemorated by the political elites and big international capital, who see Mphanda Nkuwa as an opportunity to play “energy transition” and trade carbon credits. But the power dynamic between those promoting the project and those who will be affected by it only underlines its neo-colonial nature: force them out of their land, because there are valuable resources to exploit – and export!
And as if this shocking obstruction of public participation was not enough, the interests behind the Mphanda Nkuwa project are also fuelling the repression of local communities. To counteract the misinformation created by the project’s promoters, Justiça Ambiental launching a video on the same day this shameful contract was being signed with first-hand accounts of what has been happening in the communities of Marara, Chiúta and Cahora Bassa to those who question the project or claim their rights.
This repression has taken place in various forms, it has been perpetrated by the local government and the Police of the Republic of Mozambique, and it includes:
– The intimidation and threats to community members who criticise the project;
– the violation of freedom of movement and community member being required ‘authorisation’ from the local government to travel;
– the violation of freedom of association and actions to prevent communities from meeting with civil society organisations such as JA!;
– the violation of freedom of expression and banning songs about the communities’ feelings about the project;
– the expulsion of community members from meetings related to the project;
– the arbitrary arrests of community members who travelled to Maputo to take part in legal trainings.
Once again, in the face of all these breaches of the law, we wonder where are the institutions that should be looking after the legality and rights of all Mozambicans. We need to think seriously about how megaprojects are being implemented in our country, about the social conflicts they are fuelling and about the impacts they are subjecting us to. How long are we to believe in this development paradigm?
Watch the video:
Nothing on our land without our free, prior and informed consent.
It has been 28 years of climate COPs, of empty talks without the necessary commitments, while emissions continue to rise and the countries of the global south, like Mozambique, are suffering the impacts of this crisis. This year, in the midst of a profound humanitarian crisis and a crisis of humanity due to the ongoing genocide in Gaza, and in total solidarity with the people of Palestine, Justiça Ambiental JA! is joining many other social movements in a complete boycott of COP28 in Dubai.
We also need to recognise that the hypocrisy of the climate negotiations has reached an unprecedented level. A COP taking place in a petro-state that commits war crimes, whose human rights record is appalling, which is chaired by an oil baron whose company has plans to increase fossil fuel exploitation, cannot possibly move towards the solutions we need.
This is a COP in which transnational agribusiness companies want to re-define food systems and accommodate them to their profit interests. It’s a COP in which false solutions such as REDD+, carbon markets, nature-based solutions, continue to gain traction instead of being recognised once and for all for what they are: a dangerous distraction. It’s a COP in which methane-emitting projects such as gas and mega-dams are promoted as if they were part of some just transition. It’s a COP that broke last year’s record – which in turn had already broken the previous year’s record – for the largest number of lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry.
The fact that year after year there are more representatives of the dirty energy industry than of the states most affected by climate change has had its effects. One example of this influence was in the Paris Agreement in 2015. Article 6 of this agreement instituted a system for exchanging carbon credits, which had long been one of the industry’s main proposals.
Let’s also not lose sight of Israel’s interest in these negotiations. COP28 is yet another element in its strategy to distract the world from the genocide it is perpetrating against the Palestinian people, with the support and arms of the United States. At the invitation of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Israel is sending a large delegation to Dubai, including representatives of its main fossil fuel companies. In addition to dirty energy, in Dubai Israel will promote a series of technologies that were developed and tested thanks to the oppression and exploitation of the Palestinian people and land.
We refuse to contribute to legitimising or whitewashing this space.
On the contrary, we will continue to mobilise with movements around the world, such as at the Earth Social Conference, to debate the paths to a just energy transition in legitimate spaces, where affected communities set the agenda, not climate criminals. We will continue to fight for the Yasunisation of our territories. We will continue to stand united and in solidarity with all the peoples who are fighting for the right to say NO to extractivist projects. We will continue to demand that the industrialised countries pay off the climate debt to the countries of the South – but that this funding is not for the benefit of our economic and political elites. We will continue to support and amplify real solutions to the climate crisis – agroecology, community forest management, clean, decentralised and community-owned energy. These solutions are already being implemented around the world, by those on the frontline of the impacts of climate change.
The struggle continues, against companies and governments that whitewash Israel’s apartheid and promote false solutions to the climate crisis.
The struggle continues, driven by the principles of climate justice, in defence of our resources and territories, and in total repudiation of the climate colonialism that infests the halls and corridors of COP28 in Dubai!
Maputo and Paris, October 10, 2023 – A criminal complaint has just been filed in France against Total for manslaughter and failure to assist a person in danger, by survivors and families of victims of the devastating terrorist attack on March 24, 2021 in Palma, in Mozambique [1]. While Justiça Ambiental (JA!) / Friends of the Earth Mozambique and Friends of the Earth France had been warning since 2019 about Total’s responsibilities in developing its mega-gas project Mozambique LNG [2], despite the pre-existing and ongoing security and humanitarian situation, and the numerous human rights violations, this complaint confirms that the French multinational had not taken the necessary measures in view of the serious existing risks. While the situation in Cabo Delgado remains dramatic, JA! and Friends of the Earth France denounce Total’s intention to restart operations by the end of the year, with the support of French banks Crédit Agricole and Société Générale [3].
In June 2020, Friends of the Earth France, Mozambique and International published an investigative report entitled “Gas in Mozambique : a windfall for the industry, a curse for the country” [4], detailing the risks and impacts of the project on human rights, the environment and the climate, and the complicity of the French State. At the time, our organizations warned: “In a region plagued by escalating conflict, gas development is already turning into a nightmare for the people of Cabo Delgado”.
Following the terrorist attack in Palma, which caused the death of almost 1,200 civilians, Total declared force majeure and suspended operations in April 2021 [5]. Total was thus seeking to free itself from its contractual obligations with its subcontractors, many of whom are local. This not only affected the workers of Total’s subcontractors, but above all aggravated the situation of the local populations displaced by the gas project, who were abandoned without land or livelihoods, and with the compensation process halted without certainty around when or if it would resume.
The criminal complaint filed against Total confirms the transnational corporation’s scant regard for the local population and its subcontractors: despite being aware of the deteriorating security situation in Cabo Delgado and the likelihood of an imminent terrorist attack, the company was criticized for not even having adopted an evacuation plan. Worse still, according to the complaint, which is based in particular on the investigation by journalist Alex Perry [6], Total refused to provide assistance to the security company DAG, which had requested fuel for its rescue missions during the Palma attack. Prior to the attack, Total had pressured the Mozambican government to guarantee security to the gas area, which was reflected by the fact that, on the day of the attack, over 800 soldiers were protecting Total’s Afungi site whereas there was no security protecting the town nor the civilians [7].
Anabela Lemos, JA!’s Director, says: “Total’s negligence towards its subcontractors is another expression of the company’s criminal disregard for the people affected by its activities. We shall not forget that the majority of the victims of the Palma attack were the local people. We believe this legal action is important to challenge the impunity of these companies and we hope it expands the possibilities for Mozambican communities to pursue justice as well.”
The complaint also refers to the Uprights study, commissioned by Friends of the Earth Mozambique, France and Europe [8], which identified serious shortcomings in Total’s human rights impact assessments. In particular, the report highlights the company’s failure to account for the armed conflict and to address the human rights impact of its operations. As a result, the rights of local communities were violated.
Juliette Renaud, Corporate Regulation Senior Campaigner with Friends of the Earth France, says: “Since entering the gas business in Mozambique in 2019, Total has consistently underestimated the seriousness of the security and humanitarian situation, even failing in its duty to come to the aid of local communities and workers in mortal danger. Impunity must end and Total must be held accountable in court”.
Lorette Philippot, Private Finance Campaigner with Friends of the Earth France, says: “Today, Total is still trying to make its financiers and investors believe that the situation is under control and that the actions carried out by Mozambique LNG are having a positive impact on the living conditions of the population. Crédit Agricole and Société Générale need to urgently abandon this myth and stop supporting the oil and gas majors’ projects in Mozambique.”
On September 27, Total CEO Patrick Pouyanné announced to investors his goal of restarting the Mozambique LNG project by the end of 2023 [9]. However, on the ground, fundamental issues remain unresolved and most of the shortcomings identified by the Uprights report have still not been addressed by Total. Even though there are improvements in the security situation in Palma and around the project site, communities still don’t feel safe, civil society organizations and journalists are not operating freely, and the insurgency remains active in other areas of the province.
This project should not be resumed: the ground reality remains problematic, the gas contracts are unjust, and the risks to Mozambique’s people, climate and economy are extremely high.
Press contacts :
Justiça Ambiental JA! / Friends of the Earth Mozambique: Daniel Ribeiro, Technical and Research Officer – daniel.ja.mz@gmail.com ; +258 86 620 5608
Friends of the Earth France: Juliette Renaud, Corporate Regulation Senior Campaigner – juliette.renaud@amisdelaterre.org ; +33 6 37 65 56 40
Global Campaign to Reclaim Peoples Sovereignty, Dismantle Corporate Power and Stop Impunity
September 2023
The Global Campaign to Reclaim Peoples Sovereignty, Dismantle Corporate Power and Stop Impunity (Global Campaign) is a worldwide network of over 250 social movements, civil society organisations, trade unions and communities affected by the activities of transnational corporations (TNCs). Having actively participated in the negotiations for a legally binding instrument to regulate the activities of TNCs in international human rights law, as mandated by Resolution 26/9, the Global Campaign would like to express profound concerns regarding the Updated Draft Treaty as published in July 2023 by the Chair of the Open-Ended Intergovernmental Working Group (OEIGWG), the Ambassador of the Permanent mission of the Republic of Ecuador.
It is alarming that the process in the lead up to the updated draft has been marked with an unacceptable level of arbitrariness by the Chair. For instance, the weeks leading up to the 8th session of the OEIGWG were riddled with inconsistencies that give rise to important procedural and ethical concerns. First, the Chair released a series of unsolicited and untimely “Suggested Chair proposals for select articles of the Legally Bindign Instrument”, completely unrelated to the negotiation process, which he then imposed as a parallel negotiating document. Furthermore, despite the clear wording of Resolution 26/9, which states that the future Treaty will apply to TNCs and other business enterprises of a transnational character, the Chair seeks to extend the scope to all types of enterprises, including SMEs and public companies with no transnational activity. Instead of facilitating negotiations over this matter, the Chair, through his“Guidelines for Intersessional Work”, dictated his own incoherent interpretation both of the Chair’s mandate and the UN negotiating process, and illegally arrogated upon himself the powers of a judge.
While the Chair should facilitate the course of negotiations, maintaining impartiality and relying on a comprehensive understanding of delegations’ proposals and manifestations — as laid out by the UN stipulations on the “Substantive role of the Chair” — this new text reveals the Chair has significantly overreached his mandate. It is evident that the Chair’s approach leans more towards judgment than facilitation as he cherry-picks proposals instead of consolidating the textual inputs supported by most States that have been active in the process. With this latest draft, the Chair sets us back at least three years in the negotiations, benefiting TNCs and their allies, to the detriment of social movements, workers, peasants, and affected communities.
Indeed, while the updated draft now incorporates some demands and proposals that came from some States and civil society organizationsi, an initial examination of the text reveals that its content was significantly weakened, including in Articles 6 to 9; these articles will constitute, once their wording is corrected, key pillars of the future Treaty. The Global Campaign will conduct a deep technical and legal analysis of the updated draft, article by article, which will be released before the 9th session. However, we would like to highlight here some concerning and pressing issues related to the update draft:
1) Several important proposals from committed States were excluded or weakened, even when they had been widely supported by other States and civil societyii. At the same time, proposals made by only one or a few States were retained, despite the absence of significant support from other delegationsiii.
2) Key provisions were weakened or inexplicably disappeared, even though no delegation had explicitly requested that this be doneiv.
3) Key proposals for the elaboration of a strong and effective instrument coming from social movements and affected communities were deleted, while those of the representatives of TNCs were imposedv.
Considering the above, we call on the Chair to facilitate negotiations at the 9th session in accordance with the mandate of Resolution 26/9 of the United Nations Human Rights Council, and on the basis of the updated revised draft Treaty with the track changes (the only legitimate basis for negotiations), which includes all the proposals presented by the States in the last two sessions. We also urge the States committed to the process in favor of a Binding Treaty to be vigilant and to oppose any kind of diversion strategy.
Last but not least, we also call on the Chair to convene an inclusive international consultation with all State missions and ensuring the participation of civil society organizations prior to the 9th session, to discuss the program, agenda and methodology for the 9th session.
It is time for transparency, coherence, collaboration, and, above all, it is time for justice.
i The right to information, collective claims, participation in reparations, precautionary measures, applicable law, among others.
iii For example, the word “obligations” was replaced by “responsibility”, as requested by the US (followed by some other countries). This proposal ignores the fact that TNCs already have obligations in human rights law. Furthermore, the concept of “adverse human rights impact” has been integrated in Article 1 and all along the whole Treaty, despite this concept being legally inappropriate for this kind of instrument and its objectives.
iv Essential paragraphs were inexplicably removed and/or strongly weakened, including the prohibition on the use of forum non conveniens in Articles 7 and 9, the provision on penalties in case of violations (6.7) and on the undue influence of TNCs (6.8). In Article 7, other important provisions on the reversal of burden of proof (7.5) and the application of remedies (7.6) were also weakened by new language. As for Article 8, each provision is now “Subject to the legal principles of the State…”. It is important to state that these changes substantially reduce the capacity of the future instrument to tackle corporate impunity, to ensure effective legal liability mechanisms, thus obstructing access to justice.
v For instance, the updated draft fails to establish international obligations and effective legal liability mechanisms for TNCs, turning the future Treaty into a mere set of a guidelines for States to develop their own Due Diligence Legislation. Thereafter, powerful States close to TNCs would argue that there is no longer any need for a legally binding instrument since DDL would suffice to make TNCs liable. The updated draft fails to even incorporate elements of what could be the basis of a solid national legislation, one which surely cannot rely on due diligence mechanisms alone. To consult the main proposals of the social movements and affected communities, represented here by the Global Campaign, please see: https://www.stopcorporateimpunity.org/frontiers-of-an-effective-binding-treaty/ and https://www.stopcorporateimpunity.org/written-contribution-in-the-framework-of-the-inter-sessional-period/
On 17 May 1960, the Kariba Dam was officially opened by the Queen Mother as part of her Royal Visit to the then Central African Federation (CAF) comprising Nyasaland, Southern and Northern Rhodesias (i.e. Malawi, Zimbabwe and Zambia respectively). Located in the north-western parts of Zimbabwe, the dam’s actual construction commenced in 1955 and was completed in 1958. It was designed by the French engineer Andre Coyne and built by an Italian construction firm, Impresit. The dam was constructed for the sole purpose of electricity generation, to provide energy to the growing industries in Southern Rhodesia and the Copperbelt mines in Northern Rhodesia during the world Post- World War Two. However, it later became a hub for many other socio-economic activities including conservation, hunting, modern exploration, tourism, recreation and fisheries. It was financed by the largest loan that the World Bank had given up until that time (Scudder 2005). The dam stands 128 metres tall and 579 metres long (as shown in Figure 1). The dam forms Lake Kariba, which extends for 280 kilometres (170mi) and holds 185 cubic kilometres (150,000,000acre⋅ft) of water.
The Kariba Dam Wall
The dam wall blocked the natural flow of the Zambezi River (at the Kariba gorge) which sustained life for many groups of people. Its construction resulted in unacceptable long- term environmental and social impacts that have been widely studied by professors Elizabeth Colson and Thayer Scudder over a course of 60 years (Colson 1971; Scudder 2005). However, findings from their studies are based on research conducted in Zambia, here a summary of such long- term effects on the Tonga, Shnagwe and Korekore speaking peoples of the Zimbabwean side are discussed. More than 57 000 people including the Tonga and Shangwe and Kore-kore speaking peoples were displaced from both sides of the Zambezi.
Before, the Kariba Dam construction, people’s homesteads were in the immediate vicinity of the river on both sides. Socio-cultural and economic life revolved around the river. As illustrated in Figure 2: fishing, riverine agriculture and livestock rearing formed the basis of the economy. In addition, the river had a religious significance to the Tonga, Shangwe and Korekore people. It had sacred pools, rapids and gorges (from Victoria Falls to the Kafue confluence) that were homage to their spirits including Nyaminyami the river god and ancestors (Saidi and Matanzima 2021). People had stronger attachments to the riverine landscapes. Sacred places along the river including rainmaking shrines, malende, marked by the presence of baobab trees were approached with awe and respect, and were burying grounds for the Chiefs. People from both sides of the river conducted ritual and religious ceremonies together. The river was not a barrier of communication, but it facilitated it.
Tonga women fishing with baskets in the Zambezi before Kariba Dam.
When the dam was constructed, there was permanent separation of communities. People were moved to two different countries. Also, within each country there were haphazard movements of people across chieftaincies that separated people (Matanzima and Saidi 2020). Since the late 1950s, most people never had a chance to reunite.
Cultural property (homes, religious sites) was destroyed by heavy machinery which was used to clear roads and inundation from flooding. Though, the Lake had inundated their cultural property; during the colonial period, the Tonga and Shangwe people were denied access to the waterscape for religious and economic reasons. In the postcolonial era, though they gained a certain measure of access, the Lake’s industries were dominated by major ethnic groups including the Shona and the Ndebele people. For this reason, people were not given adequate support to reunite with their spirits in the water. Riverine Identity was foreclosed. People had for a long time identified themselves with the River as they lived along it, but overnight this identity was lost. Resulting in them becoming identified through many derogatory identities including uncivilized, childish, lazy and two toed people. The attachment to the river that sustained economies, social life and culture abruptly ended.
In the long-term people were left with no natural assets to [re]construct sustainable livelihoods, resulting in long-term socio-economic impoverishment. There were also secondary displacements. In Mola, for example, growing conservation interests around the dam resulted in Tonga people being pushed further inland in the 1960s, where they conflicted with their hosts over natural resources. During the Zimbabwe’s Liberation War in the 1970s, they were displaced again. These forms of secondary displacements worsened their impoverishment.
It is essential to have such longitudinal data on the effects of dams for many reasons, including the following: a) Long-term data about the early dams to be constructed in this region including Cabora Bassa and Kariba are essential because we can draw lessons from them in our contemporary decisions to build dams; b) Longitudinal data can also be used in campaigns against the construction of dams, especially when we emphasize their intergenerational impacts on lives and livelihoods on impacted communities; c) in addition, such data can inform and reinforce the work of such civil society groups and NGOs as “International Rivers”, “RiverWatch” and “EuroNatur” whose work is to achieve social and environmental justice through raising awareness about the impacts of dam building; d) we are in a better position to assess the relevancy of dams in the long-term and coming up with decisions to decommission them. Dam decommissioning should be informed by adequate information about their advantages and disadvantages; and e) we also get to understand different shifts in the governance of dams over time and how that affect communities (including displaced people). In the case of the Kariba dam, for example, it has been governed both by colonial and postcolonial governments. Different policies are implemented in disregard of the impacted communities, which then worsen their plight. Apart from Kariba, the validity of longitudinal data has also been emphasized in studies of the resettlement impacts of the Three Gorge Dam in China by Brooke Wilmsen (Wilmsen 2016; Wilmsen and van Hulten 2017).
The ongoing long-term effects of large dams on Indigenous people raise the controversial question: do we still need to construct more dams? In recent years we have seen mega dams being decommissioned mainly in the global north because they become unnecessary in the long run. Such a turn in the relevancy of dams pushes us to [re]think our decisions to build dams.
In the contemporary haste to transition from use of fossil fuels to clean energy in order to meet the net-zero target, dams are increasingly being considered as an option for clean energy production by governments. This may entail that governments may need more dams than ever before. Which may mean minimal dam decommissioning. However, it is essential to consider other clean energy sources such as roof top solar systems that have minimized impacts on human communities and the environment. Energy transitions must be achieved through ‘just’ methods that do not harm Indigenous communities and the environment. We should consider stopping dam building especially when its unnecessary and consider other options. The unnecessary nature of dams can be calculated through cost benefit analysis and their overall long term social and environmental impacts. Research has shown that in most cases the costs of maintaining a dam exceeds their benefits (Ansar et al. 2014; Scudder 2017, 2019).
Sources:
Ansar, A., Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A., & Lunn, D. (2014). Should We Build More Large Dams? The Actual Costs of Hydropower Megaproject Development. Energy Policy, March 2014, 1-14. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2406852
Matanzima, J., & Saidi, U. (2020). Landscape, belonging and identity in Northwest Zimbabwe: A semiotic analysis. African Identities, 18(1–2), 233–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/14725843.2020.1777839
Saidi, U., & Matanzima, J. (2021). Negotiating Territoriality in North-Western Zimbabwe: Locating The Multiple-Identities of BaTonga, Shangwe, and Karanga in History. African Journal of Inter/Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(1), 61–74. doi: 10.51415/ajims.v3i1.864
Scudder, T. (2005). The future of large dams: Dealing with social, environmental institutional and political costs. Earthscan.
Scudder, T. (2017). The good megadam: Does it exist, all things considered? In B. Flyvbjerg (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of megaproject management (pp. 428–450). Oxford University Press.
Scudder, T. (2019). Large Dams: Long-term impacts on riverine communities and free-flowing rivers. Springer Nature.
Wilmsen, B. (2016). After the Deluge: A longitudinal study of resettlement at the Three Gorge Dam. World Development, 84, 41-54.
Wilmsen, B., & van Hulten, A. (2017). Following resettled people over time: The value of longitudinal data collection for understanding the livelihood impacts of the Three Gorges Dam, China. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 35(1), 94-105. DOI: 10.1080/14615517.2016.1271542
We, the social movements, civil society organisations, grassroots communities, lawyers, academics, experts and others, from several provinces of Mozambique and also from South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Nigeria, Cameroon, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Brazil, Cuba, France, Ireland, Switzerland and Bosnia-Herzegovina, have met at our 4th International Conference on Rivers and Dams in Maputo, Mozambique, on 6th July 2023.
We acknowledge the decades-long history of dam struggles, this declaration builds on the Manibeli declaration 1992, Curitiba 1997, Rasi Salai 2003 and Temaca 2010, and we move towards the fourth International Meeting of People Affected by Dams, to take place in the Brazilian Amazon, in 2025.
We note that we live in a capitalist, imperialist, neocolonial, patriarchal and racist system that is the main enemy of rivers and communities, that places profits above life and grabs territories and common goods. We commit ourselves to build an alternative to this system of death, violence and destruction, and to continue mobilising at all levels towards an energy model for peoples, in defence of life, peace, health, education, water, energy, food and decent work. We stand for internationalist solidarity, system change and power to the people.
We denounce the human rights violations of dam-affected communities across the world, including past injustices which have still not been redressed. We reiterate that any struggle in defence of territories and human rights is legitimate, fair and necessary. Specifically, we denounce the intimidation and persecution of local communities by the Mphanda Nkuwa dam project proponents in Mozambique for speaking up and resisting against this project and we reaffirm our solidarity with all affected peoples.
CONCERNS
We note with concern that over 200 million people globally have already been displaced due to dam projects, while millions more have lost their livelihoods. Africa, Asia and Latin America are the regions most affected by dams, with many displaced peoples. In Africa, for example, 57,000 people in Zimbabwe and Zambia were displaced by the Kariba Dam in the late 1950s; 100,000 people in Egypt and Sudan by the Aswan Dam; 80,000 people in Ghana by the Akosombo Dam and thousands in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by Inga I & II. In Asia, for example, the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the river Narmada in India displaced 200,000 people; China’s Three Gorges dam displaced 1.2 million people; Kaliwa dam in the Philippines stands to inundate 28,000 hectares of forestland in indigenous ancestral domain, and many others.
We are concerned that the human rights of dam-affected communities, particularly indigenous peoples, are systematically violated. They face harassment, intimidation, incarceration and other abuses. Compensation is usually unfair, inadequate, and delayed, if it takes place at all.
We note that as the climate crisis worsens, the hydropower industry is attempting to recast large dams as a climate-friendly energy source but nothing could be further from the truth. Dam reservoirs, particularly in the tropics, are aglobally significant source of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Free-flowing rivers, on the other hand, playa crucial role in trapping carbon. Dams are uniquely vulnerable to floods and droughts – which are only increasing in frequency and severity with climate change – raising the risk of dam failures during floods and power outages when reservoirs run dry. Also, big dam reservoirs flood forests and agricultural land and destroy biodiversity and fisheries, while leaving downstream wetlands and forests dry. These impacts worsen the ability of ecosystems and the indigenous and rural peoples that depend on them to adapt to climate change.
We note with concern that now the hydropower industry is again trying to rebrand dams as green by promoting hydropower as a key fuel source for hydrogen. This is another false solution which carries huge risks and is not designed to provide energy for local people, but rather for export to foreign markets.
We denounce international financial institutions, banks and companies that are involved in financing and construction of dams while disregarding the negative impacts to peoples and planet.
We understand that not only mega dams but also small dams and run-of-river projects bring negative environmental and social impacts to society and ecosystems. Hydropower is presented as clean energy, but the construction and use of hydropower causes permanent damage to the environment and the destruction of river-dependent ecosystems.
We are encouraged by the World Commission on Dams (WCD) report, released by President Nelson Mandela 23 years ago, in 2000, whose key findings demonstrated that the purported benefits of large dams are regularly undermined by cost overruns and delays while most dams, particularly in the global South, under-perform, and that the social and environmental costs of dams borne by affected communities, downstream communities, taxpayers and the natural environment have been “unacceptable and often unnecessary”.
DEMANDS
We strongly call upon the governments, corporations, financiers and United Nations bodies to:
Stop construction of all dam projects on our rivers until the guidelines of the World Commission of Dams (WCD) are fully followed, and decommission all old and inefficient dams while redressing past injustices caused by these dams.
Stop international financing and public subsidies going to dam projects, from the World Bank, Belt Road/Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, African Development Bank, and others.
Address the historical injustices perpetrated against displaced communities for the last many generations, by the Narmada, Belo Monte, Inga I and II and Kariba dams, and against many other victims of dam displacements globally.
Protect the land, forest and other rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including customary rights.
Focus on energy access for almost 800 million people worldwide, 600 million of whom are in Africa. We demand community-owned, locally-appropriate renewable energy options instead of big damaging dams.
Stop the criminalisation of dam-affected communities and struggles, and the militarisation in dam-affected areas.
Ensure Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples and affected communities, including their right to say NO.
Adhere to the World Commission on Dams (WCD) guidelines for public participation and consultation in decision-making related to rivers and water at all stages of planning.
Ensure that existing dams have acceptable ecological flows and that biodiversity, natural species and sensitive habitats are protected, not turned into commodities, as a real solution to tackle the climate crisis.
Swiftly finalise, adopt and implement a strong and effective UN binding treaty to stop the impunity of transnational corporations, which is relevant and appropriate in responding to the struggles of peasant communities, fisherfolk, and people affected by extractivism in the global South.
Stop the export of the resources of Africa and the global South, including hydrogen, for the benefit of others.
RIVERS FOR LIFE, NOT FOR DEATH!
ADOPTED BY THE INDIVIDUALS, ORGANISATIONS AND COLLECTIVES PRESENT AT THE 4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON RIVERS AND DAMS, JULY 6th 2023:
Organisations and collectives
Action pour les Droits, l’Environnement et la Vie ADEV (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
Alternactiva – Acção pela Emancipação Social (Mozambique)
Basilwisi Trust (Zimbabwe)
BioVision Africa (Uganda)
Centre Congolais pour le Développement Durable CODED (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
Center for Environment (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Centre for Applied Legal Studies CALS (South Africa)
Centre pour la Justice Environnementale (Togo)
Centro de Educación y Promoción de Desarrollo Sostenible CEPRODESO (Cuba)
Centro Memorial Martin Luther King Jr. CMLK (Cuba)
Coalition pour la Réforme et le Suivi de l’Action CORAP (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
FishNet Alliance (Africa)
Friends of Lake Turkana (Kenya)
Friends of the Earth Africa (Africa)
groundWork (South Africa)
Grupo de Jovens Activistas de Moatize GJAM (Mozambique)
Health of Mother Earth Foundation HOMEF (Nigeria / Africa)
Justiça Ambiental JA! (Mozambique)
Legal Right and Natural Resources Center LRC (Phillipines)
Missão Tabita (Mozambique)
Movimento de Atingidos por Barragens MAB (Brazil)
Movimiento de Afectados por Represas MAR (Latin America)
Mulher, Género e Desenvolvimento MuGeDe (Mozambique)
Observatório das Mulheres (Mozambique)
Pro Natura / Friends of the Earth Switzerland (Switzerland)
Right to Say No Campaign (South Africa)
Solidarité des Femmes sur le Fleuve Congo SOFLECO (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
South African Waste Pickers Association SAWPA (South Africa)
South Durban Community Environmental Alliance SDCEA (South Africa)
Southern Africa Campaign to Dismantle Corporate Power (Southern Africa)
Vaal Environmental Justice Alliance VEJA (South Africa)
Women of Change (Lephalale, South Africa)
WoMin African Alliance (Pan-african network)
Individuals
Alexandre Morais (Mozambique)
Alex Chipissani (Mozambique)
Allan Basajjasubi (Jurist – South Africa)
António Morais (Mozambique)
António Vicente Sede (Mozambique)
Aparício de Nascimento (Mozambique)
Ana Brígida Novela (Mozambique)
Anabela Lemos (Mozambique)
Apollin Koagne Zouapet (Human rights lawyer – Cameroon)
Bertrand Sansonnens (Switzerland)
Carlos Mhula (Mozambique)
Celso dos Anjos Pereira Dias (Mozambique)
Charles Artur (Mozambique)
Ching Maganiso (Mozambique)
Christopher Mweembe (Zimbabwe)
Daniel Américo (Mozambique)
Daniel Ribeiro (Mozambique)
David Sthuntsha Mokoena (South Africa)
Desmond D’SA (South Africa)
Dipti Bhatnagar (Mozambique)
Eliana N’Zualo (Mozambique)
Erika Mendes (Mozambique)
Farelo dos Reis (Mozambique)
Fátima Lenade (Mozambique)
Fazbem Artur (Mozambique)
Félix Manuel (Mozambique)
Janete Eusébio Cantiga (Mozambique)
Jorge Josefa (Mozambique)
Juan Francisco Santos Estévez (Cuba)
Latifo Patreque (Mozambique)
Lenine Francisco (Mozambique)
Lídia Zacarias (Mozambique)
Lourenço Cesário (Mozambique)
Lucas Atanásio Catsossa (Mozambique)
Lucy Pitse Duba (South Africa)
Mahomed Shahid Jusob (Mozambique)
Mai Taqueban (Philippines)
Mantwa Mokoena (South Africa)
Manuel Passar Luciano (Mozambique)
Moisés Cuambe (Lawyer, Mozambique)
Neli Vicente (Mozambique)
Nino Cesário (Mozambique)
Patrick Martin Bond (Center for Social Change, University of Johannesburg, South Africa)
JA4change 