A section of climate and environmental activists are opposing the planned Sh2.2 trillion (USD 70 billion) Lamu Oil Refinery project by Africa’s richest man Aliko Dangote.
The multi-trillion venture is expected to take up to three years to build and would supply refined petroleum products to Kenya and neighbouring countries, helping to reduce East Africa’s dependence on imported fuels.
Despite the county’s leadership and some members of the public supporting the project due to its direct benefits to Lamu, including job creation, climate and environmental activists want the project halted.
Powershift Africa’s Mohammed Adow termed the decision to establish the refinery as “an extraordinary act of environmental recklessness and economic short-sightedness.
“The proposal for an oil refinery in Lamu also represents a breathtaking failure to recognise where the global economy is heading. At the very moment when Africa is experiencing an unprecedented clean energy boom, some still want to anchor the continent’s future to an industry facing mounting economic uncertainty,” said Mr Adow.
He reiterated that Kenya risks investing in infrastructure designed for yesterday’s economy, just as the global transport system begins running on electrons rather than oil.
“The danger is not simply that the refinery will pollute; it is that it will become obsolete long before it has paid for itself,” said Mr Adow. “Too often, communities have instead inherited pollution, environmental degradation, and economic benefits that fall well short of the original promises. The environmental risks remain local while the financial rewards frequently do not. Lamu should not become another entry on that list,” he said.
Greenpeace Africa argues the project threatens to damage Lamu’s fragile ecosystem while locking Kenya into a risky fossil fuel future.
“The promise of ‘thousands of jobs’ cannot be used to hide the true cost of this investment. Large fossil fuel projects often create temporary jobs while undermining existing livelihoods in fishing, tourism and small-scale local economies,” said Sherelee Odayar, Oil and Gas Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa.
The civil society recommends, that the enormous capital required for a project of this scale be channeled to help accelerate Kenya’s renewable energy future through solar, wind, geothermal, storage and better energy access.
“No approvals should move forward without a full, independent environmental and social impact assessment, genuine public participation, and transparent scrutiny of the long-term economic, health and ecological risks,” said Ms Odayar.
Touching on safety and the fragile economy of Lamu that depends majorly on the ocean for fishing, Muturi Kamau, an environmental activist and the National Network Coordinator, Kenya Oil and Gas Working Group cited the risk of oil spills arising from tankers, loading and offloading operations, pipelines, storage facilities, or refinery processes.
“Even a single major spill could have devastating consequences for the region’s fragile marine ecosystem. Oil contamination can smother mangrove forests, damage coral reefs and seagrass beds, and destroy critical breeding and nursery grounds for fish, crustaceans, and other marine species that sustain artisanal fisheries,” said Mr Kamau.
Muslims for Human Rights (MUHURI) Board Member, Khelef Khalifa said a lot of public awareness ought to be undertaken, especially for a project of such scale.
“We agree the project might be good but how do we know if we aren’t involved? We’re just hearing such big announcements through the media. This caught us by surprise and it’s wrong. The public needs to be fully involved. We want to know what is in the contract,” said Mr Khalifa.
He added, “Let there be transparency. We want all the plans to be laid bare so that people discuss the pros and cons of the project. If the project will be found to bring environmental concerns, then it should be opposed forthwith. But those risks and benefits can only be identified if thorough public participation is undertaken.”
