Dan Banik speaks with Raya Ahmed, Omar Elmawi and Gino Cocchiaro on how they were able to stop a major coal-fired power plant from being built in Kenya. How and why did the local population mobilise against the project, what was the response from the authorities, and what lessons does the Lamu case offer to other communities?
Guests:
Host:
Professor Dan Banik, University of Oslo, Twitter: @danbanik @GlobalDevPod
https://in-pursuit-of-development.simplecast.com/
Banik
It’s such a pleasure to have all three of you on the show, Raya, Omar and Gino. Welcome! I have been extremely impressed with what you have achieved, the strategies you have used and all the challenges that you have overcome to successfully resist the might of the Kenyan state that was pushing through a project that very few really wanted. So, I'm really interested in better understanding your experiences in being a part of this very successful movement. Let me begin first with you, Raya, Congratulations on all the awards you have received of late. Could you please, for the benefit of our listeners, give us an overview of the socio-economic profile of Lamu? What is the general situation there in terms of economic development, in terms of jobs, fisheries, and not least in terms of electricity coverage?
Ahmed
Thank you very much. Lamu is a World Heritage Site. Everybody knows that this is a World Heritage Site, and this is a title that we got in 2011 because there were many things that our forefathers have been preserving until we got that title. And Lamu is a predominantly 80% Muslim community. We have two constituencies. One is Lamu West and one is Lamu East, which is the islands where I come from. Because of the World Heritage status, there are many things that we, as Lamu people, really honour and we do honour, because we got a title because of this, and one of them is the religion, the second is the culture, many things, the language, how we mingle with people, how we build our houses, very unique way that we build our houses, and historically, Lamu has been marginalised. Governments have been coming and going, and there's no major single development projects in Lamu. It was until the LAPSSET projects. That's the only projects that's being implemented by our government. A big majority of Lamu people are predominantly Muslim, and their main socio-economic activity that they do is fishing. 90% of Lamu people are fisherfolk. And the others, there's also tourisms, other locals are doing small businesses, a small percentage which is working with the government, so there are people who do farming, they also do agriculture activities and then we have a smaller portion of the community that are hunters and gatherers. So, mainly these are the socio-economic activities of the Lamu people.
Banik
Thanks for that overview, Raya. Let's move on to this major transport and infrastructure project or sets of projects called LAPSSET, -- The Lamu Port, South Sudan, Ethiopia Transport Corridor, which included the coal-fired power plant. This ambitious project was initiated to promote economic development, not just in Lamu, but in the entire coastal region of Kenya. Upon completion, LAPSSET will become Kenya’s second transport corridor in addition to the the Mombasa - Uganda transport corridor. Omar, what is your take on how that LAPSSET programme was planned? Was it a participatory process, where people in the region were consulted on the need for such an ambitious programme or was it as I fear a very top-down Nairobi-centred policy-making process?
Elmawi
Thanks, Professor. The LAPSSET project, like many other projects, has been more of a top-down approach. And what this has done is that despite Lamu being marginalised since independence in 1963, until just a few years back when the government came up with this plan of having LAPSSET. It's unfortunate the way that they've approached it, because while many of the components seem to be good and something that we would want to see through, they were done in a way that the relevant people, including the community the Lamu, were not involved in getting their free and informed prior consent. We've had several court rulings that confirmed this, Lamu Port and coal plant, the government seems to think it knows best on what the people need for getting that. They are not really people who make decisions for the people, but they are representing them, and therefore to be able to push through with this project, it has to be in a way that the people are involved. And speaking more specifically on the Lamu coal plant, it's even worse, because what happened is the coal plant was going to be the first coal plant in both East and Central Africa, and what this did is that we didn't have as much knowledge or know-how within the country, and people understanding how bad the situation is. The government and the project proponents really took advantage of that. And came to the people and promised them they will have cheap electricity that is going to generate or provide employment opportunities, but they weren't very honest when it came to the impacts. And therefore now we had a situation where this marginalised community that is not as educated and without the resources, had to find a way of really learning about this project and how bad they were, and then moving a step further of even challenging or opposing these processes, successfully so, on both the Lamu Port where they were pushing to ensure the government was, among other things, told to pay compensation to fishermen and with the Lamu coal plant, where the government was, among other things, confirmed to have not involved these people as they were required to. Because public participation within our country is something that is really crystalized or captured in all of our laws, including the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
Banik
So, Raya, I'm thinking about how in many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, including some of the countries I study such as Malawi, Zambia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, there's one common complaint – that has to do with the lack of access to electricity. Indeed, this is, as you are well aware, a big challenge for the whole continent. A large majority of the inhabitants of these countries are dissatisfied with what their governments are doing to increase electricity coverage and access. They are often angry with what governments are doing, which are often considered to be insufficient. And in some parts of the continent, the government is really not doing anything; there are simply no projects, no money to fund new energy projects. But here in Kenya, we have a situation where the government appeared committed to building a huge port development infrastructure project, which includes a coal-fired power plant that would generate a huge amount of much-needed electricity. I’ve also heard the Kenyan government claim that LAPPSET would result in many new jobs and thereby help improve the economic situation of households in the region. And yet, there was so much local opposition. So, can you please help us understand Lamu’s developmental needs. Since Lamu, as you said earlier, has been historically marginalised, surely there must have been something good about LAPPSET? Was it the manner in which the government undertook the project that resulted in so much opposition?
Ahmed
Ok, Professor, let me first say this: we, as Lamu people, because of historically being marginalised, we really welcome developments in our area, because of course, when developments come, the roads open, business booms, electricity comes nearer, and even water. But, and with LAPSSET, it had six components. They told us that they wanted to build 32 small ports in Lamu. That is 32. And they also told us they wanted to build three international airports in Lamu, resort cities, Standard Gauge Railway, they want to build super national highway road which will connect Lamu. So, this was wonderful, a wonderful design for our country to implement. But, with the coal, we had many issues, because every other part of the world is moving away from coal. So, we were wondering why our government wanted to implement a project which has a lot of environmental hazards and which people have witnessed a lot of health hazards, even people have been affected by diseased that come from this project and we've also witnessed people who have died from coal-mining and coal power plant projects. So, with this, we approached our government and told them: ok, you want to generate electricity so that you can use in this area and you can expand some of the services to the people, but why don't you use an alternative sustainable source of energy to generate electricity? And we give them options, because here in Lamu, we have a lot of natural resources, and one of the natural resources the government could use was the sea, they could even use the tidal waves to generate electricity. They can use solar; we have a 24-hour sun here in Lamu. So, these are the options we gave the government. They could use wind, if they have money, nuclear, but with coal, we had many reservations because we travelled to South Africa and we witnessed the destruction of both air, land and even the health hazards, the impacts that come from coal power plants. And our government refused because some people are telling us, if you want to implement this project and you use coal, it's very cheap. The destruction is so strong, it's too big. But the people doing business will get a lot of profit. So, that was our main concern. With LAPSSET, there were issues that we wanted the government to get rid of and implement the project smoothly, but with the coal-fired plant, we said a very big no. And when the government was not listening, we as a community decided we have to go to court and stop. So, it was not an issue that we don't want development or electricity, as we are talking now, maybe 60% of Lamu people have access to electricity because of marginalisation. Almost all our infrastructure, services are not working. We don't have good schools, we don't have tarmacked roads, it's only now that they are building the national highway. I was born and I'm almost 40 now, but I haven't seen a tarmacked road until recently. So, most of the basic services in Lamu are not good. There are people who are living in far areas, remote, which as we are talking, they don't have access to water. They have to walk long. They have to depend on rainwater. And all the amenities, the security and everything. So, with the coal, we said a big no. We said, ok, we want projects, but we also don't want a project which will come and finish the generation of people of Lamu. Thank you.
Banik
That is fascinating, Raya. I've heard you mention this before, about how you and your organisation, this umbrella organisation called Save Lamu was invited to South Africa to witness with your own eyes what was happening on the ground, water being polluted, the land being polluted, and also how local temperatures have changed there, because of the coal-fired power plan? So, it is obvious that the local population in South Africa or Kenya want development, but in Lamu the protests were related to a particular type of development that was on offer. This relates to the fact that the notion of “development” is often highly contested. We may not always agree in what development is and how it should take place. And there is often a tendency in Kenya as in many other countries, not just in low-income countries but also in medium-income and high-income countries, where elites or experts sitting in the capital cities have a vision of development and they think this will be good for people. But it often turns out that such kinds of decisions they've made on behalf of others is not desirable.
When I've discussed this issue with many government officials, particularly in Kenya and Malawi, and I've asked them why they often prefer coal, this dirty fuel, they say, there are two reasons: first, it is cheap and reliable and second, a coal-fired power plant is quick to build, in contrast to hydropower. I also get the impression that the policy space of many governments and officials is limited because they have traditionally had access to both finance and technology from countries like China. So, when there is money and knowhow available, officials are tempted to agree to a project that may be detrimental to the environment in the hope that it can be realised quakily and help improve the energy situation within their countries. But, of course, as you said Raya, you went to South Africa and you saw that the potential harm a coal plant can cause is in many ways worse than the potential benefits. So, let me ask you Raya first, and maybe Omar can join in later, how did Save Lamu and De-Coalonize, how did these organisations tackle some dissatisfaction from locals in Lamu who actually wanted this development? How did you combat that kind of maybe dissatisfaction from the local population who wanted this project while at the same time fighting against the government?
Ahmed
Ok, let me say this. You know, it's been very challenging for us, because like I told you, the LAPSSET is the only first ever project which is being implemented by our government since we got independence. So, a lot of people here in Lamu are very poor. A big percentage are very poor. So, what happened, because of the lobbying and the advocacy of our group, Save Lamu, the government agreed to pay compensation to the farmers, the people who herd land. And it was very good money. And they were given money and they did not have titles for the ... They did not have ownership to the land. It's theirs, but genuinely, they don't have titles. Because of this, every acre of land was going for 1.5 million Kenyan shillings, depending on how many acres you had. This was good money and it was deposited directly into the poor people's account. Because of this, other people expressed interest to also go and own land there, so they could get government compensation. So, when we were telling the people to oppose the project, it was very difficult, because like you said, some of them just wanted the government to go ahead and implement the project as long as they will get their money. So, we did a lot of advocacy down here. One on one advocacy. We called our politicians and we told them, ok, you want to implement this project, but we are telling you, use other renewable sources to implement this project. The professionals, then the bigger DeCoalonize group, there was a lot of mobilisation, locally, regionally, internationally. We went to the radio stations, the TV stations, telling people that they had to stand with us, because we thought this is not a cry for Lamu only. We should go out and spread wings and tell other people to come help us because if our government manages to implement this project, first in Lamu, it means they will spread their wings to every other place. And because of witnesses of the destruction that we witnessed in South Africa, most of the people were believing what we were telling them. We had videos because we captured the sick people. The displacement of people, because they take their lands forcefully, that belongs to them. This is the area that they were living there. They were burying their ancestors and everything. The pollution of their water system, so all this really helped us to tell people about the effects of coal. And I think a larger extent of this advocacy really helped us. But when the government was not listening, that's when we decided, now we have to go to court and stop the project.
Banik
Let me bring you into the conversation, Gino. I've been fascinated with the work your organisation – Natural Justice – has done in this Lamu coal plant case and this really impressive result that all three of you have been able to achieve together with the local community in Lamu. So, Gino, I would like to hear your thoughts on the project. What happened in terms of the litigation aspect of this really impressive movement? How was this project viewed from a legal perspective?
Cocchiaro
Thank you for the invitation to join the podcast. I mean, the Lamu coal plant has, since its inception, and really started to get more ground in 2013-2014, there were murmurings and the community getting more concerned about it. But it was in 2015-2016, where the government of Kenya really started to take greater strides toward the implementation. There was a company that came in, Amu Power, which I'm sure my colleagues have spoken about, some of the background there, and following the legal process here, you need to obtain both an energy licence and an environmental license. And so, for our conversation, Dan, focusing on the environmental license, the company, Amu Power, then went ahead through this process of environmental impact assessment. The community was somewhat engaged in this process, at the end of that EIA, the environmental regulator in Kenya, called NEMA, approved the licence. And they granted a license to Amu Power to construct and run the coal plant in Lamu, based on certain conditions. This was obviously a massive concern for us. We had provided, as Natural Justice, the organisation I work with, Same Lamu, the community-based organisations, and others, a number of members of the citizenry, people of the world providing comments around this, which would have been the first coal plant in Africa. And especially in Lamu, a beautiful World Heritage site, incredibly bio-diverse, so everything, this is like the nightmare scenario basically. Obviously to our horror, after providing really detailed comments, both in terms of the procedural aspect and flaws in terms of the scientific evidence which was provided in the EIA, the license, the environmental license was granted only seven days after the process was complete. So, obviously for us, we were up in arms about all of this, because how do you spend a week essentially going through the plethora of information that is there, including the comments, and trying to digest it. Especially with a coal plant, which has never been built in Kenya, and to have the requisite expertise for that, so we then, shortly after, I should say, the community members of Lamu, really spearheaded by Save Lamu, filed an appeal against that environmental licence. And in Kenya, there in an Environmental Tribunal, the National Environmental Tribunal, and the challenge was filed there. And, on the basis of significant procedural flaws, especially in terms of public participation, the law here requires that there requires to be a number of aspects of public participation throughout the EIA process and we felt that this was flawed, that it was rushed and it didn't follow the law in Kenya. Secondly, there were challenges in terms of the impacts of different elements of the coal plant, including where it was going to be situated, we were also concerned clearly about the climate aspects as well. And so, after filing that, the hearing took place. A number of witnesses were called, and this was litigated by both Natural Justice and another public interest litigation organisation in Kenya, called the Katiba Institute. And after this process, we received a favourable judgement in 2019 in June from the Environmental Tribunal, essentially saying they agree with us that the public participation was flawed. They referred to public participation being the oxygen for an EIA process basically, and it wasn't. This is often the problem with EIAs that the company will have a checkbox approach to them, so it's really about ticking the boxes rather than rule discussion and listening to the people who will be affected. And that is exactly what happened.
Banik
But Gino, let me ask you something here. I know that you and your allies provided a substantial amount of scientific evidence in terms of proving, showing, demonstrating, documenting the harmful effects of a coal plant project would on the environment, but as it turned out, the judgement appeared to not really prioritise this aspect, this scientific evidence. What was really the most persuasive legal argument? Was it the procedural aspects of how the project was initiated and implemented? That there was a lack of adequate public participation? And while the verdict was favourable, were you disappointed that the scientific evidence that you presented wasn't considered to the extent that you would have liked it to be?
Cocchiaro
Yes, and I also wasn't surprised. And the reason I say that, Dan, is because this was argued at the Environmental Tribunal, which is, in terms of law, and I think experience, they have a focus on the procedural aspects. They want to understand whether the project proponent has followed the laws and regulations. They also want to assess whether the environmental authority had considered all information and had followed the correct process as per law. So, the tribunal did take a narrow scope. They did think that in terms of understanding whether all the scientific evidence was adequately considered by the tribunal. They wanted to see whether the information was there and whether a reasonable person or authority would have considered this information and could they have come with a particular assessment. They clearly found that that was the case. But what they really stuck to were those specific procedural elements, as per what they believed to be their specific mandate. So, they took a very specific narrow scope of that. So, I wasn't so surprised. The current tribunal has certainly done so. They feel that they have a very defined role, and that's what they cling to.
Banik
So, what would have happened, let's say if all the stakeholders had done everything correctly in terms of consultation? There's obviously a lack of development in Lamu, there's a need for economic growth, employment, trade, there's a need for power generation and electricity access. Let's say we have a situation where communities feel pressurised to accept a plan such as LAPPSET and the coal plant, that on paper may look to be good for economic growth and development, but later on the community is made aware that it has serious and adverse environmental impacts. Would that mean that in the Environmental Tribunal such as the one in Kenya, the judges will not consider the evidence on environmental impacts as long as all relevant procedures were followed?
Cocchiaro
So, you're right, Dan, to an extent that of course the procedural elements are a prime factor for the tribunal to consider, but at the same time, the law also recognises, of course, environmental harm, and the mitigation of environmental harm. So, it's still the tribunal's, within the tribunal's purview, to mitigate or stop any environmental and social harm that may be there. So, they want to ensure that this is being done, and that the authority, the environmental authority, had adequately considered that. So, of course, there's a balancing act, and even the environmental authority doesn’t always have an easy role to play. In terms of, if there is going to be environmental harm, then no project. The reality is there always has to be a balance, because people do want to work, people do want opportunities, people do want power, and so taking all those factors together, as the law provides, then what is the outcome? The thing is it needs to be robustly considered. You need to consider all information. And I think it is clear in this instance, that all the information was not considered. All the information that was provided by community members, all the information that was provided by other scientific experts, outside of the environmental authority, wasn't considered.
Banik
One of the most interesting aspects of this case, Gino, apart from the fact that it received a favourable verdict, is the kind of model that you and your organization, Natural Justice, have been pursuing in fighting such cases. This active engagement with local communities. And I've heard you say elsewhere that it isn't about lawyers working for the community, but actively with the community. And lawyers in such cases should not just represent people; they should actually actively involve the community. As I understand it, a key aspect that ensured the success of this movement in the Lamu case was how key community participation was. And the Save Lamu organisation played a very important role in mobilising public opposition to the coal project. But I’ve also heard something else that I find fascinating. During this whole process, you organised several public meetings. I’ve heard that you kept detailed minutes from these meetings and there actually was a purposive strategy to gather data and provide documentation to the courts, to make sure that lawyers weren't just making a case without there actually being local interests that were articulated. That there was some sort of local ownership. So, Gino could you help me and my listeners better understand what you mean by this “litigation plus” approach, and what this means in terms of legal empowerment of communities. I am also wondering whether we are now moving into the terrain where we are actually expecting much more of lawyers, that we want them to be not just lawyers but also activists? And I am wondering whether lawyers are comfortable with that.
Cocchiaro
Thank you for the question. I think part of the conundrum that we have looked at, especially as Natural Justice and a number of other lawyers and legal activists, there's been a strong amount of work in different countries and even emanating from the US, with community lawyering and the discourse there, is really how do you connect people to the law, and this really wanting to democratise the law as much as possible. Now of course in terms of legal empowerment where you want non-lawyers to be able to understand and use law. That's a system, in democratic systems, you need to be able to understand the administrative bodies that are making decisions and so therefore, a lot of power and agency comes from knowing the law. And so, getting more people to know that system well, I think results in a number of benefits for the individual but benefits for the society as a whole. Especially in terms of keeping different institutions accountable, keeping governments accountable, and so, we really put a lot of emphasis on decision-making around projects that communities in countries that we work in in Africa are involved as much as possible. And to be able to do that, you do need to know the law. You need to know the limits of the law; you need to know where the law is also challenged. You need to know how to work with it and ideally improve it. So, when looking at that, we often try and move away from litigation, because litigation really has its challenges, we know this. It can take an incredibly amount of time. Lawyers are often very expensive. They are inaccessible. And not as connected to the issues as communities are, who are facing those impacts directly. And so, we often find that when we are looking at legal empowerment, we're trying to steer away from litigation and that in a sense is the correct way, that we don't always have to utilise lawyers. If we know the law ourselves, there's a lot we can do as citizens. And at the same time, I felt there are certain projects, certain circumstances where you actually need to move to litigation. In the Lamu coal plant, in terms of the license being approved, we needed to go to court, to the tribunal. There was no way around that. So, how do you ensure that in these processes, that people are still involved? That in the preparation of the case, and the knowledge that communities have around a particular issue, ensuring that lawyers really understand that and embody that and can represent that to the tribunal. And at the same time, say if there is a judgement that is favourable, not just in terms of a cancellation of a project, but looking at implementation of a good decision, communities need to know what is being implemented and what the different authorities need to do. So, we wanted a way in which to describe and work with the different groups together, especially communities that were directly impacted by these projects, to be involved in this litigation process. And that's what we defined as litigation plus. And, when you're looking at such cases, I think what in public interest, environmental litigation, or public interest litigation generally, there are so many different facets to it. If it's only litigation and everything, that's the primary strategy, I think in many occasions when we're talking about such big projects where there is a focus from governments where you've got these economic pressures that are there and the discussions that are there, and I think especially here in terms of the discourse of development and economic development, litigation is one strategy which has to be of a multitude of other strategies, and so, when we are looking at that, litigation plus ensures that community members or those affected are not only involved in litigation but they are leading the activism around this issue. They are the ones who are really developing and thinking through, with support of other organisations and other individuals, these elements of advocacy, of networking in solidarity with other communities across the globe, and also ensuring that lawyers are also connected with other lawyers who have been involved with experts involved in the project. So, we look at litigation plus to ensure that a) communities are central, but also b) those other elements of activism and advocacy and ensuring a really strong network is there. For the last piece, what we spoke about in terms of legal empowerment. For communities to really be involved in litigation and understand it, it's understanding the law and understanding the process. And so, ensuring and putting a lot of emphasis on that as well.
Banik
We will return to the legal process slightly later in the conversation. Omar, why don't you tell us a little bit about your organisation – DeCoalonize. As I understand it, here was a situation here where Raya and her fellow activists were actively protesting as part of the movement spearheaded by Save Lamu, an umbrella organisation consisting of 42 organisations. And activists were engaging with the local population, informing them about the negaative impacts of a big coal plant, trying to make sure the local population in Lamu actually supported the anti-coal campaign. But what was the role of DeCoalonize? What was your focus? How were you trying to support what Save Lamu was doing?
Elmawi
So, what happened with DeCoal, in terms of, it was actually a product of Save Lamu. So, when Save Lamu initiated the project of opposing coal within Lamu, as Raya explained, we quickly learned, I was working for Save Lamu back then, we quickly learned that for us to stand any chance of succeeding in this fight, we really needed to find a way of nationalising the movement, and therefore bringing different voices from all over the country that are interested in seeing a green and sustainable energy future for the country. So that's how the campaign was thought through. And Save Lamu called the different interests and people within the country that were interested in this. So, the campaign itself is really pushing for a green and sustainable energy future for the country. It's looking at any coal development in the country, so we're talking about the Lamu coal plant and also the proposed coal mining in a place called Kitui, not far from Nairobi. In forming the campaign, it really gave us a platform of raising the issues and nationalising the issues so that we can bring as many voices and individuals to support it. If I were to comment on what Raya said, we learned that the government were pushing for coal and their argument was that it was generating cheap electricity, and also, it's quick and providing employment opportunities. So, for us, we had to come up with a plan, in terms of knowing that while the government has this plan of how they were going to do this, we needed to sit down and come up with our own plan of how we are going to resist the coal and suggest alternatives. So, that's how we organised and pushed for access to these documents and then unpacking them and making a case that there was no public participation, and some of the health and climate change impacts of these projects, what are some of the alternatives that we have in place and also doing an economic analysis because the government might say it's cheap, but they are only able to say so because they externalise most of the costs, especially when you talk about the health and environmental impacts. To conclude, it was for this reason that now we had to come up with a campaign that is really pushing an anti-coal agenda in a way that we make sure it's community-centric and lead by the communities in Lamu and Kitui, but also suggesting solutions in terms of what we believe will be the best way of proceeding forward, if indeed, we need to invest in these energy projects.
Banik
Raya, in terms of the role of women, I found it very interesting that in its work, Save Lamu was particularly successful in making women aware of land ownership structures, about issues of compensation, ownership and inheritance. Could you give us as sense of the role of women in this campaign, in the protests? I am also interested in knowing more on the role of fisherfolk. I know that fisheries, women and land ownership were crucial factors in this movement. But, how were these interest groups activated and how important was this for the struggle?
Ahmed
I always love saying this. Environment goes very closely, hand in hand with women. The environment is women. Because women are the custodians of the environment. Women are the caretakers of the land, and it's very unfortunate that here in Lamu, women do not own land. They are just caretakers. The land is registered in their husband's name. So, when LAPSSET came, the people who got compensation were men. And a lot of women were left suffering because the government had given money to the men and men ran away so the women were left with nothing. They didn't have the lands to continue living there, they didn't have money because most of the men ran away and they went to spend the money the way they wanted. So, because of this, we as Lamu women thought that it would be good that at least we go on board and air out what we want to say and because of the 2010 we changed the constitution and public participation was very vital in that women have to take part in planning, women have to take part in decision-making, so all this really helped us in the advocacy of the project. And talking about the fisherfolk, like I told you, 90% of Lamu people are fisherfolk. So, we as Lamu people thought that we cannot stay back and leave the government to implement a project that they were saying that they will be dumping the poisonous substances from the coal plant into the heart of Lamu people, which was the sea. Because of that, we thought the fisherfolk, the women, and all the community all together have to come together in solidarity and say a big no to the coal power plant project.
Banik
Gino, it turns out that this particular coal project, the fact that coal is a dirty fuel, attracted considerable attention not only within Kenya, but also abroad. It seems that, in many ways, the stars were aligned, you've had all the right things happening in terms of community mobilisation, you've had your own organisation and others actively championing, collaborating directly with the community, the international community has provided its support, and there was considerable media attention, studies, reports, etc. So, it appears that all of these came together rather nicely to produce a positive outcome. So, do you think there was something unique about this case? Was it coal that brought about this enormously successful movement to its conclusion? I ask because protests did not work for, let's say, the Chinese financed and built SGR project, this hugely expensive abd largest infrastructure project in Kenya’s history, but also a very controversial project. Environmentalists have, for example, pointed to numerous environmental harms that have resulted from this ambitious railway project. But such concerns haven't received the same kind of attention as the Lamu coal plant case received. So, is it coal that really is crucial in mobilising public action? And also, could you also reflect on something that I've noticed in my own research on legal empowerment, that the court judgements can only get you so far. There has to be something else. And I believe that in addition to social and legal empowerment, we should also be talking about political empowerment. That, legal judgements, verdicts, will not really have an effect if these are side-lined by important and influential political actors. You have to keep making sure that any verdict and judgement from the courts are actually followed up on later.
Cocchiaro
Absolutely, Dan. I'll start with the latter. This is absolutely key, because as we speak about political empowerment, I think all of what we are discussing are acts of political empowerment in many ways. We're talking about a political system, a process of becoming more involved in decision-making at different levels, local level, national level, and sometimes global level. So, all of these acts we are talking about, how do we increase the agency of different members of our citizenry. And in those, they are all political acts in some form. But of course, in this particular case, I think, and especially Lamu, were incredibly cognisant of the importance of engaging with political figures on this. And this was from the get-go. It's such a - Kenya is an amazingly politically aware country - I've never been anywhere where every person has such a wonderful deep knowledge of politics, and I think from the get-go at the county-level, everyone was engaged. Therefore, at least the political advocacy I found very strong within that movement - the De-Coalonize Movement. And so in terms of how to do so, that was probably in terms of empowerment, people are quite empowered in that sense, and able to, but I think in this case, what was helpful was to be armed with information and facts about coal, the impacts of coal and the dire economic situation that the country would have been in if it was investing in coal. So that was key. I certainly agree around the importance of that, and really recognising that when we look into this process. The first question or point around what made the case De-Coalonize special, the way you describe it, it sounds wonderful with the stars aligning etc. It really was messy as anything. There were some amazing and incredible people involved, individuals, organisations that really came together in solidarity around this, and I think the reality was, is that you're right, a) it was coal, so that really generated a lot of energy in the people-sense and organisational-sense that people were really speaking against coal. And we know the facts are there to oppose coal. It's clear. So, that obviously gave the argument. Secondly, it was in Lamu. So, you had a defined group of people and a group that were going to be so heavily impacted by such a project that they really came together. You had a small pocket of people that were supporting the project, but it was such a small number of people. That's the reality. And I think this galvanized the community in a way that I hadn't seen before. I've been working with the communities in Lamu and differently people in Lamu for over a decade now, a number of other projects, the coal is the first project I really saw everyone come together and say "no, we do not want this project." So, that also really brought this up. Other projects don't have that galvanizing effect, that's the reality, for a number of different reasons. And in this one, bringing people together, I think that we were, it was quite messy at first, the litigation was starting, and we didn't really have a wider strategy. Other people were involved in political advocacy, some in communications, and then we just decided to get together and this was the instigation of a few key organisations in bringing people together, but always I think with the concept of communities, we've spoken about Lamu, but also the community that would be affected by coalmining in Kitui. And that was key, Dan. And as I say, I haven't been involved in a campaign like this and it was incredibly empowering for all of us.
Banik
Omar, how were you able to organise protests in Nairobi while Raya and her colleagues were organising protests in Lamu? What role did social media play? And what was the kind of support did you otherwise receive from others such as international civil society organizations, local and international media coverage. What was it that really lead to this enormous public attention on the Lamu protests?
Elmawi
Yeah, social media played a very big role in popularising the campaign and getting the numbers that we need, because as we all know, there is strength in numbers. For us, as much as we knew the communities in Lamu and Kitui are opposed to coal, we knew that we had to find a way of making this very popular and having more and more people buying into the campaign. So social media was part of our communications plan that we came up with, which now targeted people out of our circles, so that stopped preaching to the choir but reaching to other people who were not necessarily with us. So, you will see the different activities that we did, if it is a demonstration, public forum, meetings, we have to find a way of either live streaming that activity so that people could join, or just making sure that we record or capture those issues very well and them amplify them later on. What it did, in many ways, was make this campaign not just in Lamu or Kitui, but all through all over the country and the region and internationally. And the effect this had, is that our government or country wants to look like it's doing things really well in the international platforms, they've made some very promising remarks in international platforms like how we are 93% now renewable energy, how we've signed on to the Paris Agreement, all these issues. So, it was our own way of highlighting these issues and putting our government on the spot and I would say it's one of the reasons why we've been very successful and more and more people have learned about our issues and what we stand for, and in many ways getting support. It could be resources, human resources, other research materials, partnering with other organisations outside the country. Just to get things done and get more outputs for the campaign to continue convincing people and getting people to really understand why we are against coal development in the country.
Banik
I want to return to Raya. I've heard you say before that there were lots of threats to you and your organisation members from the government, a lot of intimidation, you received threatening phone calls, I believe you were even at some point branded as a terrorist group. I've been reading about the numerous tactics that were used by the Kenyan state and others to oppose you, And I also believe your organisation Save Lamu was branded as anti-government. How did you cope with these challenges? Here you are, trained as a nutritionist, you returned to Lamu from Nairobi, you became an activist and you're faced with all these challenges. There was, as you’ve said earlier in this conversation, some dissatisfaction from the local community, and then you began receiving threats from the government. So, how did the activists and you cope with this? How did you continue having that will to continue with the fight?
Ahmed
Thank you, Professor. You know, sometimes I run out of answers about personally being in activism because I also sometimes think that maybe I should just go offline, because there are many challenges, especially being a woman, a Muslim woman from a very marginalised community which is called Bajuni community, sometimes I just feel like I should take my bad and just, I don't know where to go, but because it's a calling, you know? Activism is a passion. So, after doing all these things and sometimes I get more strength to continue because, like you say, our organisation was branded as one of the organisations which is perceived to be doing terrorism activities. And they came to our offices and they checked everywhere, they took documents, they went to the banks and they said they wanted to see who is funding us, where we are getting our money from, what are we doing with our money. That was all intimidation. They make sure when they want to do public participation, they tell their people that you should not invite Save Lamu, because you know when they come, they will oppose, because we were looked upon as opposes. So, it's been very challenging. I also shared this that at first when we were opposing the coal power plant project, they wanted a woman to go and testify in front of the judges. And I had all this courage - I don't know where it came from - and I said, ok, I will go and speak on behalf of my poor community which is the Lamu people. So, after that, when I testified, after some time, some policemen came, 10 of them, to my house, and they were carrying guns and sticks and wearing their guns. I was really afraid. At 12 at night, they came knocking at my house and they told me that they had this information that I have a fire app in my house. So, because of the activism and the information going out, I knew it was not about fire app, it's just about the coal power plant project, because I know they people, the business people who want to implement this project, were not happy, so this was some of the challenges that we get here. They tell the community that there are people out there, the international community who are paying us to do the activism, so that we can oppose the project. There are people who believe, there are people who don't believe, but these were some of the challenges that they are talking about us.
Banik
As you all are aware, the demand for renewable energy is gaining momentum all over the world, people are demanding cleaner forms of energy, and one of the things that I have noticed while following your activities and the protest movement over the years, is that it appears to me that most of your strategies were directed at the Kenyan government, that it was Nairobi-centric. But some would say that we ought to also view these projects in light of what countries like China is offering in Africa. Some would say the Chinese policy is pretty inconsistent, because on the one hand, they are talking about sustainable development, greening the BRI, on the other hand they are still constructing coal plants, financing them and providing the knowhow. So, what would you say, Omar, has been your strategy in terms of maybe interacting with or negotiating with, have you actually focused some of your action in terms of persuading the Chinese actors to see things differently, or has it been exclusively focused on the Kenyan government?
Elmawi
Believe it or not, Prof, the government actually has not been the actor that we've targeted most of our advocacy. Most of our advocacy has actually been on the potential investors of this project, so we are talking about players like the African Development Bank, General Electric, among others, and I could argue that is one of the reasons why this project hasn't proceeded, because it hasn't managed to get the financial backing it needs to get. Specifically, on your question, China has been a target to us, as an investor on this project, so the way we've gone through it, we did through the community. Save Lamu took the lead on this. And they tried to reach out to Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, which was actually considering issuing almost 70% of the finances required for the project. It's a 2-billion-dollar project and they were going to finance up to about 1.2-1.3 billion US dollars. And Save Lamu tried to reach out to them for the past 4-5 years, without getting any response from them. And we quickly realised that maybe you can only try to have dialogue for so long, but after seeing that they are not intent on responding any time soon, you will actually see that one of the demonstrations that we did in Nairobi was specifically targeting China, so we had a protest from the Central Business District in Nairobi and we were going to go all the way to the Chinese Embassy to give them a petition of telling them that this project that they want to invest in is going to cause a lot of issues with the community in Lamu and also the rest of the country. And it's my belief that by doing so, we have recently seen the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China confirming that they won't be investing in the Lamu coal plant project. And therefore the Chinese have been a big part of our target and the financial advocacy that we did and in many ways it is one of the reasons that today, we can sit here and be happy that this project hasn't yet taken effect.
Banik
That is fascinating because I also teach in China and I've been studying China in Africa for many years, and whenever I ask Chinese policymakers, diplomats, business people on these issues, they have a very simple answer. They say it was the governments of these countries that invited us to come and invest. They invited us and we offered them whatever we could. So, if the local population has a problem with any of these projects, is something for the government to resolve these problems and then inform us. It is not our duty to go out of our way to resolve these challenges. It is the government’s responsibility alone. So, they often find it quite difficult to understand this kind of opposition when the government has already approved a project. I also remember about you being invited, DeCoalonize and other organisations, you were invited by the then Chinese ambassador to Nairobi after the verdict came out, which I thought was a good gesture. It does also appear that all your efforts did bear fruit because all major financing institutions have, as I understand it, backed out of this project. So, that itself is a major victory.
Let’s move on to discussing the future of energy production in Kenya. In many parts of the world, I mentioned earlier Zimbabwe, even in Malawi they are considering coal plants. Not every society has the kind of active civil society participation that you've had in Kenya. In many other parts of the continent, of the world, people just want something, anything that would give them electricity. They may want energy first which may be equated with development, and then they say they will think of the environment. So, Omar, what are the lessons learned from the Kenya case and how do you see the future of energy production within Kenya?
Elmawi
Definitely, at least from where I'm sitting, I would say it is important for all development proponents, the companies, financiers, and the government that are asking for these projects. They need to understand that the communities that they are going to for these projects are actually experts in their own way, because without them, they won't be seeing the land to be as good as it is and they won't even be going to these areas. So, for me, what I've really learnt, is one) you really need to invest in the community, or the people who are going to be affected by this project, and it's something that I've seen is very different in other campaigns, it becomes that it is not the voice of Omar speaking about these issues, but the voice of Raya speaking as the leader of women, it's the voice of the fishermen, and the different others within the community that are able to raise these issues and ask the pertinent questions that need to be asked. Definitely for the financials, and especially the Chinese government and the Chinese investors, they really need to understand that different countries have different ways of how they are doing things. At least for Kenya, while we may have elected a government that doesn't mean that we have delegated all our powers of decision-making because if we did, we wouldn't have all these amazing public participation processes that need to be adhered to. And therefore, the countries that they go to, they really need to make sure that they respect those laws in those countries, because by disrespecting those laws it's actually not recognising the sovereignty of these countries because for Kenya, the sovereignty of Kenya belongs to the people. I will also say that for other people who are pushing for such campaigns in the region, for me I would really say that in our case, we have shown that it is something that is doable and possible for very small communities to come together, come up with a plan, implement it, and to be able to stop or resist any impacts from coming to them. And therefore, for me, I would say what's important is not how many people you have, but how committed these people are in the cause and how much of a plan you have, because at the end of the day, those who love peace, need to come up with ways and plans of how to best organise towards promoting peace. In the same way, those who love war, a quote by Martin Luther King made at some point, and therefore the lessons that I've really learnt, is that people should know that it's possible to stop these projects from happening in their area. And even if you're not successful, it's better than not doing it altogether. You may want to sit and say: it's the government, they do what they want, and therefore give up from the start, but we've shown that this is possible. And lastly, I would also mention as an important part of strategy, that it's not just about saying why you are against certain projects, but also come up with your own solution of how the same could be achieved, either with less impacts, or in a different way that the community is in support of. So, in that way, we don't just look at people who are bringing problems, but also people who are bringing solutions to the table.
Banik
So, Raya, the project is temporarily suspended, and you are of course hoping that it won't be restarted at all. What is the current situation in Lamu now? What are people thinking? What are they saying? Are there some people who are still angry at you and your colleagues for having resisted the project? Some of them maybe are still waiting for compensation, maybe that has not been given. So, one issue relates to how things are now but I would also like you to reflect a bit on the future. What could others on the continent, in other parts of the world, learn from your experience? What would you highlight as the key features that allowed you to successfully resist the state? A very powerful Kenyan state.
Ahmed
There are many things that we've planned throughout this process and one of them is, normally the people, the community are afraid of the government. But because of the coal power plant petition, the petition was cancelled, so a lot of people were have faith in advocacy and faith in civil society organisation, because when we were going to court, a lot of people were saying, you guys will not win, because this is the government, you cannot fight the government. And because of the ruling, we thought the government is the people, and the court decided on behalf of the people, because we went in front of the judges and told them our reservations about the project, so this was a very big plus. Of course, there is a portion of the community who are not happy, who were expecting to get compensation because their land was taken by the government and they were promised compensation, so this is a very small portion. Of course, they are not happy. A strategy that really worked well, and I want to tell the whole world, first is people have to come together, like Save Lamu is not one organisation - it's a group of 42 different organisations involving men, women, youth, fisherfolk, farmers, and all the stakeholders on board. So, first is teamwork. Then people have to have faith. They have to believe in themselves that if you come together, you can do whatever you want to do, because you become strong and the government has to listen to you. The last thing I want to mention to you is the involvement of women. You have to involve women because women are very powerful in advocacy. Because there's this natural relationship between land and women, you cannot block women out. And it is because of the voice of the women, which even the judges were really, they really liked the idea that women went in front of the judges and they cried and shared their experiences, telling them that: please don't bring this project to kill the generation, please don't do business, actually we travelled to African Development Bank headquarters in Cote D'Ivoire and we went and told the bank that, please, we have come all the way from Lamu to come and tell you, don't give our government this money to implement this project. They will do business and they will get profit, but the generation of Lamu people are going to die because of the harmful effects of this project.
Banik
Thank you, Raya. Thank you, Omar. Thank you, Gino. This has been a wonderful chat. I have learned so much from you. Thank you so much for coming on my show today.