The exploitation of natural resources has the potential to lift third world countries out of dire economic predicaments. Hydrocarbons, oil and natural gas are seldom out of the news, with wars being waged to secure these precious commodities. Mozambique is one of the poorest countries in the world, and the centre of a growing controversy between environmentalists and big business, as companies move in to tap the potentially vast gas and oil reserves. Given the magnitude of the potential income, the government is tempted to ignore, or at least disregard, any potential environmental damage caused by the petrochemical industry.  They focus on maximising profit, even if this is only in the short term. As long term income earners, the tourism sector and the fishing industry are often of secondary consideration when stacked up against huge short term hydrocarbon profits.

 

The island chain of the Bazaruto Archipelago, originally declared a wildlife sanctuary to protect the scarce Dugong population, is the centre stage of a growing conflict. Late last year over 40 Dolphins washed up dead on Benguera Island. Although strandings of marine mammals are fairly common in the world, they aren’t that common in east Africa.  Since the 1940’s there have been very few recorded incidences but recently, within a six month period, there were two major ones. The Benguera incident, and an even more catastrophic stranding, further north, in Zanzibar where over 600 Dolphins washed up six months earlier.  No major natural underwater disturbance was recorded at the time, and the animals all seemed to be in good condition. Many people, especially in the tourism sector in Vilanculos, the small town adjacent this archipelago, are convinced the strandings are caused by seismic testing and, since Sasol own the concession blocks near the Mozambique strandings, the finger pointed in Sasol’s direction. In many parts of the world seismic testing has received harsh criticism, and has even been blamed for triggering some of the catastrophic natural events, especially tsunamis.

 

Whilst Sasol is complying with the World Bank requirements for this kind of environmentally hazardous work, and have even been cited as an example of ‘best practice’ for their inclusion of different stake-holders in public forum debates, many have said this is simply window-dressing and they are merely informing those affected of what they are doing. Sasol admit that marine life will be damaged and set aside a budget to compensate fishermen for loss of income. The fishermen are delighted as they see the short-term benefit of having cash in hand without having to work for it.  The only dissenting voice is the tourism sector, who are mostly white entrepreneurs from abroad, mostly from South Africa and Zimbabwe.  They are nervous to speak out publicly for fear of loosing their temporary work permits.

 

Clearly pressure from these groups, and the media, are starting to have some affect on Sasol. Sasol have split the sea-based seismic testing into off-shore and in-shore zones and have recently completed their off-shore work. The recommendation of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was that Sasol postpone the offshore seismic work, especially during turtle breeding season.  Sasol chose to ignore this.

 

Sasol claim to be postponing in-shore work until further research has been done. The tourism sector representatives think this is unlikely to be the cause of the delay and it is more likely that a suitable contractor for this specialised in-shore work can’t be found.

 

When the seismic work is concluded, the inevitable drilling will commence. Whether it is for natural gas, or oil, a degree of pollution is going to occur. “Will it totally decimate the fragile eco-system?”  This is the question on everyone’s mind. Sasol could make the operations less environmentally destructive and have, for example, sub-sea pipelines. But this would add hugely to the cost and is would impact on their ‘bottom line’ or profitability of the venture.  

 

Is this going to be another sad tale of the inevitable depletion and ultimate destruction of one of last relatively untouched marine environments in the world?  Or is some middle ground going to be reached, especially with a little help from the media?  By way of a comparison, the government of Gabon has turned the corner and is now strongly in favour of environmental protection after less than ideal experiences with their oil industry.