|
Get AfricaFocus Bulletin by e-mail!
Print this page
|
Note: This document is from the archive of the Africa Policy E-Journal, published
by the Africa Policy Information Center (APIC) from 1995 to 2001 and by Africa Action
from 2001 to 2003. APIC was merged into Africa Action in 2001. Please note that many outdated links in this archived
document may not work.
|
Central Africa: Chad/Cameroon Oil Project
Central Africa: Chad/Cameroon Oil Project Date distributed (ymd): 980801
Document reposted by APIC
+++++++++++++++++++++Document Profile+++++++++++++++++++++
Region: Central Africa
Issue Areas: +economy/development+
Summary Contents:
This posting contains an open letter to the World Bank in July from 86
NGOs,
calling on the Bank to suspend participation in a proposed oil and pipeline
project in
Chad and Cameroon, until human rights and environmental concerns are adequately
addressed.
+++++++++++++++++end profile++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Open Letter to Mr. James D. Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank,
from 86 NGOs in 28 Countries
Concerning the Chad/Cameroon Oil & Pipeline Project
Contact Information:
Korinna Horta
Environmental Defense Fund (http://www.edf.org)
1875 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1016
Washington, D.C. 20009 USA
Tel : 202 387 3500; Fax : 202 234 6049
Samuel Nguiffo
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement
P.O. Box 8451
Yaounde, Cameroon
Tel : +237 22 38 57; Fax : +237 22 38 59
July 9, 1998
James D. Wolfensohn, President
The World Bank
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20433
Dear Mr. Wolfensohn,
The 86 undersigned environment, development, human rights and religious
organizations from 28 countries call upon you to suspend World Bank participation
in the Chad/Cameroon Oil & Pipeline project until respect for human
rights and compliance with World Bank environmental and other policies
can be fully guaranteed. We are writing to draw your attention to the especially
troublesome situation, including the severe violation of human rights in
southern Chad and to the inadequacy of the environmental impact assessment
and environmental management plan for the project submitted to the Bank
by Exxon.
The Chad-Cameroon Petroleum Development and Pipeline project, whose
primary sponsor is an oil consortium consisting of Exxon, Shell and ELF
Aquitaine, plans to develop three oil fields in southern Chad and put in
place an export system including a 1,050 kilometer long pipeline, most
of which passes through Cameroon, and an off-shore loading facility for
crude oil on Cameroon's southern coast. At present, IBRD plans to provide
loans of approximately US $ 115 million to the governments of Chad and
Cameroon to help finance their respective portions (ca. 15%) of equity
in two pipeline companies, which to 80% or more will be owned by the oil
consortium. In addition, the IFC plans to provide loans for about US $
250 million for the oil export system. According to an Exxon project document
of August 15, 1996, the sponsors consider significant World Bank participation
to be a pre-requisite for going forward with the project. Therefore your
action may be decisive in determining the outcome of this project.
Civil society organizations in Chad and Cameroon have expressed serious
concerns about the preparation of the project relating to the lack of accountability
to affected populations, lack of transparency, and absence of the rule
of law. Their concerns reflect precisely the values that you are championing
in promoting good governance and in your fight against corruption. Under
present circumstances we are concerned that the project will lead to escalating
civil violence, especially in southern Chad. Moreover, at present there
are no guarantees that the financial resources generated by the project
will be used to improve living conditions in the countries since poverty
alleviation does not seem to be the highest priority of both governments.
Contrary to World Bank requirements, there has been no meaningful consultation
of local people during the EIA process (formerly OD 4.01 on Environmental
Assessment, at present OP 4.01 on Environmental Assessment in both their
Bank and IFC draft versions). Furthermore, the EIA, which was commissioned
by EXXON gives little guarantee that internationally accepted standards
for environmental protection will be put in place.
I. Human rights
According to reports by Amnesty International, in March 1998 one hundred
unarmed civilians were massacred by Chadian security forces in the oil-producing
region in southern Chad. This latest massacre follows a previous one in
October 1997, which took the lives of at least eighty unarmed people. Representatives
of Chadian human rights organizations and journalists are especially at
risk (Amnesty International, Urgent Action, December 1997). According to
international press reports, Chadian government forces have resorted to
indiscriminate killings and repression of the civilian population in the
project area as it pursues rebel groups, who are also known for showing
little respect for human rights of civilians (Agence France Press, November
1997). A recent Resolution by the European Parliament calls attention to
the constant threat of more extrajudicial executions, arbitrary arrests
and torture in the region (European Parliament, Resolution on Human Rights
Villations in Chad, Brussels, June 18, 1998). International observers believe
that the renewed conflict and violence are linked to the prospect of massive
oil revenues.
There has been no investigation into the killings and none of those
responsible are being brought to justice. As reported by Agence France
Press, Chad's President recently denounced what he called "pre-packaged
democracy" being imposed on African states by rich countries. Under
such circumstances, the outcome of the high-stakes project may be a renewal
of Chad's 30-year long civil war rather than genuine efforts in poverty
alleviation and sustainable development.
II. Environmental Impact Assessment and Management Plan
Exxon has commissioned a voluminous Environmental Impact Assessment
and Environmental Management Plan (Environmental Assessment, Chad Export
Project, Chad Portion and Cameroon Portion, October 1997 and Environmental
Management Plan, Chad Portion November 1997/ Cameroon Portion, February
1998).
A report to be released on July 10, 1998 by the official Dutch Commission
on Environmental Impact Assessment states that: "The Commission concludes
that essential information is lacking in the EAs. On the basis of the EAs
neither the project nor its environmental consequences can fully be overseen."
Separate analyses by NGOs of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Management
Plan have reached similar conclusions (Chad Portion by Friends of the Earth
Netherlands, February 1998, Cameroon Portion by Center for Environment
and Development, Cameroon and Environmental Defense Fund, May 1998).
The following brief analysis of the Environmental Impact Assessment
and Management Plan refers to the Cameroon portion of the project.
II. a) The Environmental Management Plan (EMP)
The World Bank's requirements for Environmental Management Plans include
the identification and summary of all significant adverse impacts that
are anticipated, the description and technical details for each mitigation
measure, the assignment of responsibility for carrying out the mitigation
measures and the implementation schedule for the mitigation measures (OP
4.01 - Annex C).
The EMP falls significantly short of these requirements. It states,
for example, that the project ".will avoid, where and when practical,
those situations or incidents that could cause unacceptable, adverse biophysical,
socio-economic or health impacts" (1.3.2). What are those potentially
'unacceptable' impacts and who will define 'when and where something is
practical' to avoid these 'unacceptable' impacts? The EMP does not say.
On the Mbere Rift Valley, a region of important wildlife and biodiversity,
the EMP states that it is "one area that is relatively less degraded
than the other savanna region in the northern section of Cameroon"(2.5.2).
How will this area be affected by the road to be built by the project?
The EMP does not clarify.
The EMP states that "A population of Pygmies exists in the Kribi
area forests at a distance from the Cameroon Transportation System's land/system
easement" (2.11). What does it mean that Pygmies exist at a distance?
Again, there is no indication of how the Pygmies are likely to be affected
by the project. Chapter 5 of the EMP lists as a mitigation measure that
the Pygmies will participate through consultation during the construction
phase of the project (Chapter 5, topic 10). Given the lack of civil society
participation in the project to date, this is certainly not encouraging
and is in violation of the Bank's Indigenous Peoples' policy (OP 4.20)
which requires the preparation of an Indigenous Peoples Development Plan
in tandem with the preparation of the main investment.
The EMP acknowledges that it is unable to "address all location-
specific biophysical, socio-economic and health topics at the level of
detail required to produce a suite of finalized environmental management
actions" (1.4.2). It appears that the contractors will be in charge
of dealing with the location-specific impacts. Since contractors will be
under considerable time pressure since they are paying construction crews
who are waiting to work, there is a conflict of interest built into this
procedure which bodes ill for effective environmental protection.
One of the most disturbing characteristics of the EMP is that it shifts
responsibility for environmental management away from the Consortium and
toward the Government of Cameroon. It places the overwhelming burden of
responsibility for appropriate mitigation of measures squarely on the Government
of Cameroon (pls. see Chapter 5). There is no assessment of the government's
capacity to fulfill this role. At least, a fundamental lack of capacity
is evident in the government's handling of the country's alarming rates
of loss of tropical rainforest. Despite almost ten years of World Bank
conditionalities on forestry in the context of structural adjustment programs,
forestry reform measures have not been implemented (World Bank Office Memorandum,
June 25, 1997).
II. b) Lack of Oil Spill Response Plan/ Liability Fund
The analysis of the environmental impact of the floating storage and
off-loading vessel (FSO) component of the project does not include an oil
spill response plan nor provisions for a fund to pay liability for damages
(including natural resource damages) in case of an accidental oil spill.
However, an oil spills response plan, based on a full assessment of the
potential damages and risks from oil spills is one of the most basic internationally
recognized requirements of any oil development and transport project. For
example, an EIA recently submitted to the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (EBRD) by a consortium of oil companies seeking to build
an FSO near Sakhalin Island in Russia included both an oil spill response
plan and a liability fund in accord with accepted international practice.
The project only plans on developing an oil spill response plan in the
later stages of the construction phase of the project. Without an oil spill
response plan and underlying assessment of potential oils spills risk,
damages, and liability, it is impossible for the public to know how much
damage will result if there is an oil spill from the FSO, and, specifically,
whether the responsible parties would have adequate resources to contain
the oil spill and prevent broader environmental and social impacts.
There is no mention in the EIA or the EMP of how COTCO (the Cameroon
Oil Transportation Company) would pay compensation in case of an oil spill.
It is standard practice (and the law) in the United States and other countries
that the owner or operator of such a facility provide evidence of financial
responsibility.
III. Conclusion
A January 1997 report on the Bank's Oil and Gas Portfolio, which was
prepared at the request of the Quality Assurance Group, found that the
number of problem projects were proportionately higher in oil and gas as
compared with the Bank's general portfolio. The conclusion of the report
is that ".especially in countries with unstable governance, the oil
and gas portfolio is almost certain to remain risky and contain an above
average share of problem projects." Unstable governance and the potential
for violence are present in both Chad and Cameroon. The proposed Chad/Cameroon
Oil & Pipeline project is likely to further aggravate an already volatile
situation. The situation in Nigeria and the oil-related civil war in the
Republic of Congo are disturbing examples of the impact of oil development
in the region.
Moreover, we have little reason for optimism concerning the environmental
attitudes of the oil consortium. In a Wall Street Journal article of October
14, 1997, the chairman of Exxon states that developing countries ought
to avoid environmental controls because otherwise they risk losing foreign
investment. There appears to be little recognition that most people in
Africa depend directly on land, forests and on the water in streams to
meet their needs.
Africa has witnessed a long history of extraction of its natural resources,
which has contributed little to improving the quality of life of ordinary
citizens throughout the continent. We call on the World Bank to use its
skills and resources to find alternatives to the presently risky Chad/Cameroon
Oil and Pipeline project. The Bank's financial resources should be used
for operations which have direct positive impacts on nutrition, health,
education and other priorities of the people of Chad and Cameroon.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Korinna Horta
Environmental Defense Fund, U.S.
Samuel Nguiffo
Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement, Cameroon
cc: Executive Directors, The World Bank
A SEED Europe, Netherlands - ACRA, Italy - Africa '70, Italy - Agir
Ici pour un Monde Solidaire, France - AID/WATCH, Australia - Berne Declaration,
Switzerland - Both ENDS, Netherlands - Bretton Woods Project, U.K. - Brot
fur die Welt, Germany - CECAS, Cameroon - CEE Bankwatch Network, Hungary
- Center for Environmental Public Advocacy, Slovakia - Center for International
Environmental Law, U.S. - Centre pour l'Environnement et le Developpement,
Cameroon - Centro Internazionale Crocevia, Italy - CIEFE/RAAF, Cameroon
- CIPSI, Italy - Climate Network Africa, Kenya - COCIS, Italy - Comite
de Defensa de la Salud de Ilo, Peru - Committee on Vital Environmental
Resources, Nigeria - Corporacion de Defensa de la Vida (CORDAVI), Ecuador
- Development GAP, U.S. - Environmental Defense Fund, U.S. - Environmental
Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria - ERA Cameroon - FERN, U.K.
- Forest Peoples Program, U.K. - Forum For Protection Of Public Interest,
Nepal - Foundation Center for Environmental Legal Assistance (CELA), Columbia
- Friends of the Earth International, Netherlands - Friends of the Earth
(England, Wales, Northern Ireland) - Friends of the Earth Italy - Friends
of the Earth Japan - Friends of the Earth U.S. - General Board of Church
and Society, United Methodist Church, U.S. - Gesellschaft fuer Oekologische
Forschung, Germany - Global Witness, U.K. - GRAMUE, Cameroon - Grassroots
International, U.S. - Greenpeace Italy - Greenpeace U.S. - Halifax Initiative
(10 organizations), Canada - Health and Environment Program, Cameroon -
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, U.S. - Integrated Development
for Eco-friendly and Appropriate Lifestyle (IDEAL), Malaysia - Interchurch
Organization for Development Cooperation, Netherlands - International League
for the Rights and Liberation of People, Italy - International Rivers Network,
U.S. - INHURED International, Nepal - Justice for Nature, Costa Rica -
KWIA Supportgroup for Indigenous Peoples, Belgium - Lalanath de Silva,
Sri Lanka - Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center, Inc.-Kasama sa Kalikasan/Friends
of the Earth-Philipines - Legambiente, Italy - Les Amis de la Terre, France
- Lifeline Heritage, Nigeria - Lithuanian Green Movement - Mani Tese, Italy
- Milieudefensie, Netherlands - National Wildlife Federation, U.S. - Netherlands
Committee for IUCN - Nigerian Environmental Study/Action Team - Oilwatch
Africa, Nigeria - Overseas Development Network, U.S. - PERAD, Cameroon
- Pro REGENWALD, Germany - Project Underground, U.S. - RAAF/AFAN, Cameroon
- Rainforest Information Centre, Australia - Red de Information Rural,
Mexico - Reform the World Bank Campaign, Italy - Reseau Foi et Justice
Afrique-Europe, Cameroon - Robin des Bois, France - Service Center for
Development Co-operation, Finland - Service Humanus, Cameroon - Sierra
Club, U.S. - Survival for Tribal Peoples, U.K. - Swiss Catholic Lenten
Fund, Switzerland - The Corner House, U.K. - TERRA (Towards Ecological
Recovery & Regional Alliance), Thailand - The Institute for Transportation
and Development Policy, U.S. - Urgewald, Germany - Watch the Niger Delta,
Nigeria - Women in Nigeria - World Economy, Ecology & Development,
Germany - World Rainforest Movement, Uruguay - WWF Italy
This material is being reposted for wider distribution by the Africa
Policy Information Center (APIC), the educational affiliate of the Washington
Office on Africa. APIC's primary objective is to widen the policy debate
in the United States around African issues and the U.S. role in Africa,
by concentrating on providing accessible policy-relevant information and
analysis usable by a wide range of groups individuals.
|
