Backers of Lamu coal project lose court case

The mostly Chinese-financed coal project was to begin construction in 2016, but its proponents must now get a new impact assessment after judges criticised efforts to force the project on the local community.

Lamu coal protest
Communities from Lamu and Kitui protest against the Lamu Coal Plant construction in March. Image: ©Paul Basweti, Greenpeace

Backers of Kenya’s Lamu coal plant have been instructed by the courts to conduct a new environmental impact assessment and halt work on the project, in a ruling celebrated by local environmental groups.

The mostly Chinese-financed plant is the biggest coal project in eastern and central Africa. Lamu county is on Kenya’s northern coast and includes a small archipelago in the Indian Ocean. The area is a World Heritage Site and a major draw for tourists.

The June 26 ruling by the National Environmental Tribunal cancelled the license given to Amu Power by the National Environment Management Authority.

“The people of Lamu and Kenyans finally have got justice three years after knocking on the doors of the Tribunal in 2016,” said Omar Elmawi, head of Decoalonize, a local activist group.

Construction of the project was expected to start in 2016 but was delayed following a legal challenge from Decoalonize and Save Lamu.

We are happy we won’t be subjected to all these impacts as the project proponents and their friends make profits at our expense.

Omar Elmawi, head, Decoalonize

“We won because we had a very strong case that was anchored on myriad grounds including inadequate public participation, environmental and health impacts. Also because of economic unviability of the project among others,” Elmawi told chinadialogue after the verdict was delivered.

“We are happy we won’t be subjected to all these impacts as the project proponents and their friends make profits at our expense,” he added.

Danger to marine life

Those opposed to the project argued that it would pollute local air and water, increase the country’s carbon emissions, and put thousands of farmers and fishermen out of work.

“We will have to forget Lamu as we know it today,” complained Somo Mohammed Somo, a fishing dhow captain and chairman of the Lamu fishermen association, before the decision was announced. He said that water pollution would harm the mangrove forests, an important breeding ground for fish, and risk the livelihoods of more than 6,000 fishermen.

“We are saying no to this project. What we need in Lamu is something like a fish processing factory, or an international airport to bring in more tourists,” he said.

Activists feared that fly ash and the release of water used to cool the coal plant would damage the marine ecology.

“Experts have warned against this as the rise in temperature from the now hot water will impact negatively on the marine life, and fishermen will have less or nothing catch. Additionally, effluent from the plant will have elements including mercury, which when disposed in the sea will be consumed by the fish which in turn will be consumed by the local community,” said Elmawi.

study on the plant’s potential impacts by Greenpeace found that air pollution would affect almost half a million people and result in 1,600 premature deaths and 800 low birth weight births over 40 years of operation. In addition, polluted air and fly ash—the latter stored in an area prone to coastal flooding—would lead to acid rain and the deposition of toxic heavy metals on farmland.

However, the ruling does not spell the end of the plant. Amu Power has 30 days to appeal the decision and restore its environmental and social impact assessment license. Alternatively, it can conduct a new assessment in the hope of being awarded a fresh license. This would require the company to properly consult the public and outline clear plans for managing fly ash.

Ambassadors weigh in

In a surprise move both the Chinese and US ambassadors to Kenya commented on the court’s decision.

US ambassador, Kyle McCarter, tweeted: “Kenya needs a larger less costly base load of power first. Coal is the cleanest least costly option. Investors will come.”

In contrast, the Chinese ambassador Wu Peng said that he was personally opposed to coal power and that “It has been and always will be the people of Kenya who can decide whether there would be a coal power plant or not,” in comments published by campaign groups that were invited to meet him.

While the US ambassador’s comments were perhaps expected given the Trump Administration’s attempts to stem the decline in the US coal sector, the Chinese ambassador’s invitation to meet the campaign groups was a surprise as attempts to discuss the project with the Chinese embassy were previously ignored.

“We believe they didn’t take the letters seriously until when they saw that the communities and the people of Kenya were in the streets protesting and trying to reach the Chinese embassy,” said Elmawi, who attended the meeting.

Who is backing the Lamu coal plant?

The US$2 billion coal plant was agreed in May 2017 when a high-level Kenyan delegation visited China for bilateral trade and development talks. An investment agreement was signed between Chinese energy company China Power Global, the Kenyan government, and Amu Power Limited, which is a joint venture between Gulf Energy and Centum Investment.

The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) committed to finance the venture to the tune of US$1.2 billion, a 60 per cent stake in the project.

“If the Chinese withdrew from funding this project it would surely collapse,” said Elmawi.

“We know that the Chinese government owns a large stake of ICBC and therefore they can’t treat this as if it is just an issue of private Chinese companies being involved in the Lamu coal plant,” he added.

Kenya’s renewable resource

To get a new license, Amu Power must also explain whether the proposed 1,050 megawatt coal plant is in line with the country’s climate change legislation. The planned electricity capacity is nearly half of Kenya’s installed generation of around 2,400 megawatts.

The project would hinder Kenya’s ability to meet its goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30 per cent by 2030 relative to a business as usual scenario. Kenya’s emissions in 2010 were equivalent to 73 million tonnes of CO2. The coal project alone would add 8.8 million tonnes per year.

Mithika Mwenda, executive director of climate group Pan African Climate Justice (PACJA) said countries are abandoning coal power and other forms of “dirty” energy in favour of renewables and that Kenya should focus on tapping its enormous clean energy potential.

This story was originally published by chinadialogue under a Creative Commons’ License and was republished with permission.

Like this content? Join our growing community.

Your support helps to strengthen independent journalism, which is critically needed to guide business and policy development for positive impact. Unlock unlimited access to our content and members-only perks.

Most popular

Featured Events

Publish your event
leaf background pattern

Transforming Innovation for Sustainability Join the Ecosystem →