Four Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) projects planned for the Rovuma Basin in Cabo Delgado region in northern Mozambique in East Africa will produce 9.9 GtCO2e of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and would use at least would use at least 17 per cent of the remaining carbon budget if fully exploited, according to a new study.
The deep-sea gas exploitation projects led by energy multinational France’s TotalEnergies, Italy’s Eni, and US’s ExxonMobil would also inflict extensive, severe, long-term impacts on biodiversity, ecosystems, and sea-dependent communities along the Indian Ocean shoreline.
This is due to cumulative impacts of severe chemical, physical, and acoustic pollution, and invasive species from ship ballast water, worsening effects of climate change the report titled True Risk: The environmental risks of deep-sea gas exploitation in the Rovuma Basin of Cabo Delgado, Mozambique by campaign groups, Fair Finance Coalition Southern Africa and Justiça Ambiental added.
The region is home to vibrant marine life, including whales and turtles. It hosts critically important habitats such as sea grass beds and coral reefs, and provides natural resources that sustain local communities, all of which would be jeopardised by exploitation of the resources, the report released on June 30, noted.
“Already, there has been restrictions on fishing areas due to offshore exploration and development activities. As a result, hunger and poverty are creeping,” said Manuel Passar of Justica Ambiental.
More than 400 families displaced from their land in the Palma region of the northeast to give way to the project since 2016 were yet to get alternative land, he noted, with fishermen continually being ‘squeezed’ in one area.
With more than 15,000 ships expected to be ‘attracted’ to the LNG development area during the project development and extraction phases, noise levels will negatively impact sea animals, as confirmed by 84 per cent of than 500 studies conducted by different entities, noted lead author Chris Engelbrecht at the launch of the document.
“The Mozambique Channel is a marine biodiversity hotspot of global importance, and this is recognised even by the Government of Mozambique, while the Rovuma delta coral resource is an important western Indian Ocean feature whose value has been estimated at US$100 billion,” he added.
A network of gas pipelines undersea and on shore will do further harm not only on corals but on sea grass mangrove forests hosting a variety of aquatic life as well, he explained.
“The case against extraction is getting stronger daily with more scientific studies being conducted revealing that the real risks posed by the projects are under-stated by the developers,” he added.
The study further cautions that “If LNG produced by the four projects is burned, the resulting greenhouse gas emissions would take up at least 7.5 per cent of the remaining global carbon budget for a very high (83 per cent) chance of staying under average global warming of 1.5 degrees Celsius”.
This implies that it would take up the 7.5 per cent if only all the LNG projected to be extracted is taken out, according to Moses Khaliel, senior campaigner, Fair Finance.
On the other hand, the remaining global carbon budget (RCB) refers to all the carbon that humanity can emit if we want to stay below the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit.
“Investments in gas comes with a lot of risks, including leaking of methane gas. In addition, it takes a very long time to develop necessary infrastructure, which is also very expensive. This could lock up a lot of public finance and time for developing other renewable energy sources,” he observed.
The study calls for an immediate moratorium on the activities of all four gas projects, in application of the “Precautionary Principle, or First Do No Harm Principle”, which should remain in place until there is a thorough understanding of the ecological value of the Rovuma Basin and Afungi Peninsula.
This is besides a “thorough understanding of the full projected impacts of the gas projects on the habitats and biodiversity of the region”.
Notably, the document faults Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) commissioned by the companies for the planned projects as ‘flawed’, dismissing them as being used to rubber stamp the extractive megaprojects in the cyclone-prone country.
The EIAs conducted for the four Rovuma Basin gas projects are inadequate, riddled with omissions, and flawed. They are not effective for making credibly informed decisions about the impacts of the gas projects, or how to reduce those impacts, it charges.
It cites the failure to, for example, acknowledge the relationship between gas development and the ongoing bloody insurgency in the region. The conflict led to halting of gas development by TotalEnergies, it noted. “This has been underplayed and totally ignored,” it observed.
“There is simply not enough known about the ecological value of the region or the full impacts of deep-sea gas exploitation to be able to accurately predict impacts or prevent irreversible ecological damage,” it explained.
The study stressed that the project risk assessments do not include a thorough marine ecology survey of the deep-water environment, or any independent studies for deep-water species.
The analysis called for the conduct of “thorough, scientifically sound baseline studies” of the habitats and biodiversity of the terrestrial, near-shore and deep ocean areas affected by the gas projects, including identification of species that require special conservation attention and areas of high conservation value.
In recommendations targeted at financial institutions committing financial support to the LNG developments, it called for conduct of “thorough, scientifically sound and peer-reviewed cumulative impact assessments that establish clearly the combined and successive, incremental impacts of the gas projects together and over the extent of their projected lifetimes, including impacts of related marine traffic, and impacts on commercial and subsistence food species”.
Even more important, it demanded full disclosure of “scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions from the projects, and scientifically sound assessment of whether there is alignment with the 1.5 degrees C limit”.
“Should these emissions not be compatible with the commitment, divest or withdraw support from the projects,” it asked the banks.