There are several very worrying implications with the expansion of coastal and offshore fossil fuel exploration for small-scale fisheries. Some coastal and off-shore fossil fuel projects will restrict access to fishing grounds, and they raise concerns over accidents and pollution, such as oil spills. The search for oil and gas deposits requires the use of acoustic mappings, which generates enormous sonic booms underwater that harm and change the behaviour of fish and marine mammals (see our previous article on this). The oil and gas sector claims that many of these problems can be mitigated against, and that off-shore oil and gas production poses minimal risks to the fisheries sector.
But there is no doubt that coastal communities and coastal fisheries are among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, and this will get worse if the global economy continues to depend on fossil fuels —oil, gas and coal account for about 65% of global greenhouse emissions. Extreme storms, such as the one in Mozambique, is just one aspect of this. The cyclone 'Idai' in Mozambique has claimed hundreds of lives, left thousands homeless and it has destroyed local businesses and food crops, as well as decimating small-scale fisheries. It has been declared the worst cyclone to hit Africa.
As the seas continue to warm and become more acidic, marine ecosystems suffer. Scientists in Canada think that climate change is one of the main reasons that native salmon fisheries are on the brink of collapse. What is happening in Africa is far less studied, but one group of scientists predicted that if carbon emissions continue on their current trajectory, then over the next two decades or so, fish catches are likely to decline by about a quarter in parts of West Africa, and could be as much as half in countries such as Ghana, Nigeria and Cote d'Ivoire. This grim future has been confirmed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In their October 2018 report that considered the impact of further increases in global warming they state that:
Global warming of 1.5°C is projected to shift the ranges of many marine species to higher latitudes as well as increase the amount of damage to many ecosystems. It is also expected to drive the loss of coastal resources and reduce the productivity of fisheries and aquaculture (especially at low latitudes). The risks of climate-induced impacts are projected to be higher at 2°C than those at global warming of 1.5°C (high confidence). Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70–90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2°C (very high confidence). The risk of irreversible loss of many marine and coastal ecosystems increases with global warming, especially at 2°C or more
Their research also confirms that if the world is to avert global warming of 1.5%, then a massive reduction in fossil fuel use is needed. We know this is not happening, and frighteningly in 2018 the world used more fossil fuels than ever before.
The state of play with offshore oil and gas in Africa
In this context it is alarming that across Africa there is a strong growth in investments in fossil fuel production, which is increasingly focused in coastal areas and off-shore. The intensification of new oil and gas projects is partly to supply local energy demands, but is also driven by foreign market demand, including in the EU. Africa’s largest exports by value to the EU are oil and gas, while Africa’s supplies the EU with about 16% of its oil and gas imports. However, increasing this supply is considered important for the EU due to their heavy dependence on oil and gas from Russia.
Where the biggest oil and gas firms operate in Africa (click to expand)
At the beginning of 2018, it was estimated that the top 10 African oil and gas projects will receive 170 billion USD in investment over their lifetimes, which will result in the production of 25 billion barrels of oil equivalent (i.e. oil and gas combined). In sub-Saharan Africa, Mozambique is predicted to have one of the highest levels of investment, with foreign capital to fund offshore gas projects predicted to be as much as 100 billion USD. The country is expected to become one of the leading global suppliers of gas over the next decade.
There are other mega projects that have been announced over the last couple of years. For example, in late 2018 Angola, sub-Sahara's second largest oil producer, announced an agreement with French multinational Total for a 16 billion USD investment. Already, Total has installed the world's largest under water network of pipes to extract oil in Angola's sea, and this maze of pipes covers an area the size of Paris. Its floating platform stores 2 million barrels at any time, transferred to tankers on a weekly basis. The new investment will see a second floating platform and possibly a doubling of output.
There have also been new discoveries in West Africa, notably in the Senegal basin covering Mauritania, Senegal, the Gambia, Guinea and Guinea-Bissau; an area of the sea which is one of the most productive for fisheries in the world. Although it has been suspected that the region contained large reservoirs of gas and oil for decades, interest in exploration began to develop only recently. The largest discovery in this region was made in 2017--the Yakaar field off Senegal, being developed by BP and US based Kosmos Energy. This is planned to start extraction of gas in 2021. Further discoveries are expected, with Exonmobil—the leading investor in oil and gas projects in Africa—being awarded exploration rights over large areas of the seas off southern Mauritania. A Swedish firm, Svenka, has secured exclusive rights for offshore drilling in Guinea-Bissau. Some industry experts predict that the boom in offshore gas and oil in the Senegal basin will follow what has happened in the last few years in the Guyana basin, where in a four-year period mining companies found 9 new major gas and oil fields with an estimated 4 billion barrels reserve.
In so many African coastal states, almost all coastal and marine areas have been parcelled into oil and gas ‘blocks’, sold off under longterm lease to foreign exploration and drilling companies, as illustrated here for Senegal.
Foreign public finance for fossil fuels in Africa
The growth in oil and gas production in Africa is made possible by bi-lateral and multi-lateral investments. Information on exactly how much is invested by foreign governments and development banks is extremely hard to collate. However, the NGO "Oil Change International" undertook research for the years 2014 to 2016. Their report establishes that in this three-year period, African countries received about 60 billion USD for energy development. 60% of these funds were directed to fossil fuel projects, with 18% being directed towards clean renewable energy.
Oil Change International provided a breakdown of where this public finance was coming from. Of the bi-lateral sources, China was the largest supplier of loans for fossil fuel developments; providing over 4 billion USD a year. The next most important bi-lateral donor was Germany, which provided about 500 million USD a year for fossil fuel development on the continent, with most of this concentrated in North Africa and Nigeria, were German multinational company Siemens is involved in gas production. Italy was also a major source of finance, providing about 300 million USD a year, also concentrated in those countries where Italian ENI oil firm works.
Of the multilateral donors, the World Bank group was the largest source of finance, providing just over 2 billion USD a year. The second and third were the European Investment bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, who combined provided approximately 800 million USD a year for fossil fuels.
Another important finding in this work is that things seem to be changing. If we look at the investments of European countries in Africa's energy sector, then countries such as France and Sweden invest more in clean renewables in Africa than they do in oil and gas, which is in contrast to countries such as Germany, Italy and the UK. The World Bank group has also been investing more in fossil fuels in the past than it has in renewables, but this will all change from 2019, when the Bank agreed to disinvest in all fossil fuels projects due to concerns with climate change.
Thus, there is some hope that foreign public finance will increase in clean renewables. But there is yet to be any reason to believe this will end the dominance of the fossil fuel sectors. China's persistent support for dirty fuels in Africa is a major reason for this. It is also clear that African governments themselves have shown limited interest in expanding renewables at the expense of lucrative investments in oil, gas and coal. Indeed, while offshore oil and gas is depicted as the major new energy frontier, recent research by 'Coal Swarm' describes that there are over a 100 coal generating power plants planned or being built in Sub-Saharan Africa, and if these are completed than they will increase the total energy produced by coal on the continent by 800%. Research by African Energy has shown that despite high level commitments for expanding renewable energy on the continent, in 2018 the contribution made by solar and wind to Africa’s energy consumption declined, while the use of fossil fuels continued to rise.
This continuing support for fossil fuels is evident in the Africa-EU Energy Partnership, a 10 year initiative that will come to an end in 2020. This partnership is aimed at improving energy security in Africa, and has a commitment to increase solar and wind power. However, it is primarily an effort to increase gas production, with targets to double production on the continent and to double export of African gas to the EU.
Why natural gas is not the answer to oil and coal
“Increasing domestic use of natural gas in Africa remains an important target for the AEEP as a means of improving energy security, raising living standards and helping to mitigate the effects of climate change.” From the African-EU Energy Partnership, Status Report (2016).
The Africa-EU Partnership is one example of how the production of natural gas is considered part of greening the energy sector, or acceptable as part of 'blue growth', as gas causes less carbon emissions than either oil or coal for the same amount of energy produced. Burning natural gas releases about 50% less carbon emissions than burning coal. Furthermore, the expansion of natural gas is often promoted as a 'bridge' to cleaner energy development; it can raise energy levels until renewable energy, including solar and wind, are developed.
But as many organisations campaigning against climate change have explained, gas is still a dirty fuel, and contributes profoundly to greenhouse emissions. As explained by the Union of Concerned Scientists, what is often overlooked is that in the process of extracting and moving natural gas a lot of methane is released into the atmosphere. Methane is far more damaging to the climate than carbon—it is about 80 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon over 20 years (methane only lasts in the atmosphere for a few decades, whereas carbon will stay in the atmosphere for thousands and thousands of years). To compare a coal plant to a gas plant, methane emissions as a percentage of carbon emissions would have to be around 3.2% for a gas plant to be less damaging to climate change than a coal fired one. The Union of Concerned scientists report that methane emissions from gas plants is anywhere between 1 to 9%.
Many of the world's leading multinational companies claim they have limited methane production to much lower than 3.2%, although independent research shows that national and industry data is not always reliable. Limiting methane is expensive, and cuts into profits substantially. Because of this, in the US the Environmental Protection Agency put in place the world's most stringent regulations to limit methane production from oil and gas installations, but companies such as BP have successfully lobbied the Trump administration to have these rules overturned. According to research by the NGO 'influence map', since the Paris Agreement, the largest oil and gas companies in the US have spent over 200 million USD a year in lobbying the US government to avoid legislation that would reduce their carbon and methane emissions (also see here). One should expect these companies to have the same approach in Africa.
Another problem with investments in gas production is that these are long term; the new offshore oil and gas projects in Africa guarantee production for decades, and the contracts signed with multinational companies provide them legally bound assurance that they will have long term rights to fossil fuel reserves, and that governments are not able to introduce new legislation that would diminish their profits. These investments cannot be thought as bridging the transition to cleaner energy, but rather locking in Africa to furthering global warming.
Ending fossil fuel investments in Africa: A pipe dream?
Landry Ninteretse, the African lead for the organisation 350.org, a prominent organisation campaigning for climate justice, published an article in the Guardian Newspaper, in which he argued that it is indefensible for African governments and development agencies to continue with their current energy strategies. Of course, the big industrialised countries have to be the priority for decarbonising the world's economy, but African citizens will be the hardest hit from climate change, and therefore he argued that African states have to be bold:
"While regional leaders and development partners are gathered in Accra for the 2019 Africa climate week, they should refrain from promoting more false solutions or making empty promises while thousands of innocent citizens are perishing. Ending the extraction and use of coal and other fossil fuels in Africa is a decision that cannot be delayed any longer."
A few years ago this would seem a fantasy request. Indeed, from a global perspective, campaigns to end fossil fuel development have largely failed. Carbon emissions from fossil fuels are increasing, and governments all over the world, influenced by lobbying and conflicts of interests, have continued to favour the fossil fuel industry. The industry still receives enormous government subsidies, estimated to be over 5 trillion dollars in 2015, or about 6.5% of global GDP. Even in the EU, where the EU agreed to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, recent research by the European Commission shows that very little progress has been made, and that subsidies to fossil fuel sectors remain at the same level they were in 2008, with the UK being the worst offender.
There are, however, positive developments to draw inspiration from. This year, the World Bank has agreed to stop financing fossil fuel projects entirely, and late last year Ireland became the first EU member state to commit to a total dis-investment in fossil fuel sectors.
Organisations such as 350.org are absolutely right to demand African states end their pursuit of new fossil fuel projects, and this is a campaign that both SSF organisations, their supporters and environmental organisations should take forward in discussion about the so-called 'sustainable blue economy'. There can be no space for new oil and gas installations in blue growth strategies.
At the EU level, it‘s time for the European Union to follow the lead of the World Bank and Ireland, and to agree to an end to all public finance from the European Union and its members states for coastal and offshore fossil fuel projects in Africa. This may not have an immediate effect on the expansion of oil and gas developments, but it could be a further catalyst to change.
This policy should be at the forefront of the next Africa-EU partnership on energy, with the current one coming to end next year. The EU cannot continue to endorse a policy of doubling gas production and trade with African partners if it is serious about combatting climate change and pursuing a ‘sustainable blue economy’.