Advocates Redesign

Author: acaredesign

  • Simandou-related construction works: Senguelen residents in Guinea share their ordeal

    Some residents of Senguelen, a farming community in Guinea, are worried about the effects of construction works in the area on their lives. The on-going construction of a port and railway facilities at the Morebayah estuary, which is few kilometers to Senguelen, has resulted in direct environmental impacts on their livelihoods.

    Senguelen community members have not been mincing words on their ordeal. At a recent visit to the community to ascertain the veracity of these concerns, it came to light that several farmers who cultivate rice had their rice fields impacted by the construction of the railway.

    Rice farms destroyed

    A road has been constructed across a major river to serve as a platform for laying of the rails without any bridge to allow the free flow of water from upstream to the downstream of the river. This has since prevented water from reaching the rice fields and hence their destruction.

    As a result, these families have not been able to farm for the past three years. According to them, Winning Consortium Simandou (WCS) officials gave them a sack of rice as compensation for the destruction of the rice fields. The contractors later inserted narrow pipes under the platforms on the river to serve as passage for the river water. The pipes were yet to be inserted at some dug out places of the platform across the river at the time of our visit. Some amount of water now flows to the downstream, but its flow pattern has changed and has not been able to restore the productivity of the rice fields.

    Contaminated water

    A rice farmer, Mr. Dawuda Sila, who has been cultivating several acres of rice along the banks of the upstream of the river, complained that he has not been able to farm over the past three years due to the contaminated water which is discharged onto his farm from the construction camp. Our team observed that long pipe connected from the camp discharges wastewater onto Mr. Sila’s farm. The pipe was not flowing at the time of our visit; however, remnants of previous discharge were seen. The soil and water were observed to be oily suggesting the discharge fuel and other oil-based wastewater into his farm which ends up in the river.

    Dust

    Residents also complained about dust from the construction site and from the dusty roads and complained that the heavy-duty vehicles that are being used by the contractor generate a lot of dust any time they use the dusty roads. What makes the situation worse is that the vehicles mostly move in convoys, making the amount of dust generated very intense to the extent that it completely blinds other road users. Besides, the dust enters the houses close to the road. Worst still, it is practically impossible to wear white clothes in this area because of the dust. The contractors have been watering the road but due to the hot weather the water dries up quickly and the problem with the dust continues.

    No compensation

    Mr. Dawud Ahmed complained that portions of his farm were destroyed by the contractor to create an access road and was told that the area has been compensated for the creation of the access road. It later turned out that that was not the route where the access road was supposed to pass and therefore the clearing was discontinued. Mr. Ahmed said he had reached out to the company about the issue which resulted in the destruction of his oil palm and cashew trees but to date e is yet to be compensated for the destruction of his farm. He has followed up several times, but his effort has not yielded any result.

  • Sowing Seeds of Sustainability: CiCoNet Leads tree planting exercise in Nkoranza

    The Citizens Committee Network (CiCoNet), a community-based organization dedicated to promoting sustainable development, has embarked on a tree planting exercise at Kyerefene, near Donkro Nkwanta, in the Bono East region of Ghana.

    The event, held on Saturday, June 29, 2024, was part of ACA’s citizen science program, which aims at engaging communities in environmental conservation efforts.

    The exercise saw the planting of over 500 tree seedlings, including bombax, mahogany, and ofram species, known for their ecological and economic benefits.

    CiCoNet members, ACA representatives, and a staff of the Forestry Commission, Prince Adu Adjei, joined forces to make the event a success.

    “I am highly elated to be part of this journey and actively get involved in planting trees to safeguard and foster biodiversity in ecosystems in my community,” said Comfort Takyiwaa, a CiCoNet member from Kyeradeso.

    Prince Adu Adjei, the Forest Range Manager, praised the effort, highlighting the significance of tree planting in controlling climate change and its associated consequences.

    ACA’s Project Manager, Mr. Godfred Osei Nimako, and his team ensured the exercise’s success. The Forest Range Manager advised ACA to monitor the planted seedlings to ensure their survival, emphasizing the need for sustainability and preservation of the environment.

    Monitoring

    Given the area’s susceptibility to bush fires during the dry season, the team will conduct regular monitoring visits to assess the seedlings’ growth and health, provide ongoing maintenance, including pruning and watering as needed, engage local community members in the monitoring and maintenance process, establish a system for tracking and reporting on the seedlings’ progress and create a fire belt, a strip of land cleared of flammable materials, around the planted areas to prevent the spread of bush fires.

    The support of Mr. Cudjoe Awudi, Mr. Dickson, and Mr. Raymond Agbontor, all staff of the Forestry Commission, was invaluable to the success of the exercise. Their expertise and guidance ensured that the tree planting exercise was done efficiently and effectively.

    The exercise demonstrated the power of community spirit and environmental stewardship.

    CiCoNet and ACA’s collaboration, with the support of the Forestry Commission, sets an example for others to follow, promoting a greener future for generations to come.

  • Empowering Osino CiCoNet members: The dangers of agro-chemicals and sustainable farming practices

    In a bid to address the rampant misuse of agro-chemicals by farmers in Ghana, about 80 members of the Osino Citizens Committee Network (CiCoNet) gathered at Asiakwa in the Abuakwa South Municipality for an enlightening workshop.

    The meeting, facilitated by Advocates for Community Alternatives (ACA), aimed at educating participants on the proper use of agro-chemicals and sustainable farming practices.

    The continuous application of agro-chemicals by farmers has become a norm, with many unaware of the devastating effects on human health and the environment. Some farmers fail to read instructions on the chemicals, endangering their lives and those of others.

    ACA’s Science Advisor, Dr. Kwabina Ibrahim, delved into the negative effects of agro-chemicals, including respiratory and skin problems, reproductive and nervous system damage, cancer risks, and cognitive impairment. Through a PowerPoint presentation, he demonstrated the dire consequences of improper use and emphasized the need for personal protective gear.

    He introduced participants to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and organic farming methods, offering a holistic approach to farming without relying on agro-chemicals. These alternatives promote better yields and a healthier environment.

    The workshop received an overwhelmingly positive response, with participants expressing gratitude for the knowledge gained. “I’ve learned a lot today, and I realize we need to be mindful of how we apply agro-chemicals. We’ll share this knowledge with our families and community members,” remarked Mr. George Asante, the out-going Osino CiCoNet Chairman.

    The workshop empowered the Osino CiCoNet members to adopt sustainable farming practices, ensuring a healthier future for themselves, their communities, and the environment.

  • CiCoNet welcomes new members

    From a humble beginning of memberships in seven communities in the then Brong Ahafo Region and the Eastern region in 2018, the Citizens Committee Network (CiCoNet) can now boast of branches in 62 communities in Ghana.

    CiCoNet currently has 14 branches in Nkoranza South Municipality, ten in Atiwa West District, 17 in Abuakwa South Municipality and 21 in the Fanteakwa South District – all contributing to an estimated membership of 340.

    At the inauguration of new CiCoNet members drawn from Abuakwa South, Atiwa West and Fanteakwa South districts at a ceremony held at Osino, ACA’s Senior Trainer, Francis Fernaldinho Manu, explained that members of the Committee serve as watchdogs in their communities and resist any act that poses as a threat to their lives and livelihoods.

    He also said CiCoNet members actively participate in, supervise and monitor the effective execution of development projects in their community and always ensure accountability and transparency in their line of work.

    “You’re to play a lead role in educating your community members on their fundamental human rights, act as intermediary between community and local government and also serve as the official mouthpiece of community”, he further said.

    Mr. Manu assured CiCoNet of ACA’s continuing support towards the effective running of CiCoNet, adding that copies of constitution and guidelines will soon be made available to them for thorough study and application.

    Touching on some successes chalked by CiCoNet since its inception in 2018, the Senior Trainer mentioned a recent media campaign by members which resulted in the refilling of some abandoned mining pits in Juaso, Sagyemase and Nsuapemso and compensation payment to some landowners in the Fanteakwa South district as well as the reversal of the sale of some 400 acres of land by the queen mother of Donkro Nkwanta for cashew plantation without following due process.

    Another Senior Trainer of ACA, Mr George Mpoah, also encouraged the CiCoNet members to keep themselves abreast of the country’s legal frameworks on lands, minerals and mining.

    He further asked them to demonstrate a high sense of commitment to their work and attach maximum seriousness to meetings, keeping in mind that all that CiCoNet does is geared toward development of their communities.

    A similar ceremony was held in Nkoranza to welcome 30 new CiCoNet members from ten communities in the Nkoranza South Municipality of the Bono East Region.

  • New CiCoNet executives sworn into office

    The newly elected executives of the Osino Citizens Committee Network (CiCoNet) have taken over from the out-gone executives at a ceremony at Asiakwa near Kyebi.

    The new executives, who will steer the affairs of the Committee till 2026, took over from their predecessors who recently ended their term of office. They were elected a few weeks ago during one of the committee’s meetings.

    Chaired by Stephen Gyekye Appiah, the other executives include Antwi Boasiako, Vice-chairman; David Aboah, Secretary; Grace Adu, Treasurer and Samuel Gyeketey, Organizer.

    They took over from George Owusu Asante, Bartholemew Boakye, David Aboah, Grace Adu, Matilda Asantewaa and Ebenezer Tetteh.

    The out-gone Chairman, George Owusu Asante, congratulated his successor and his team, and urged them to serve with humility and selflessness.

    “I worked with you during my tenure as the Chairman and I have no doubt in my mind that you can deliver. Continue to dedicate your time, energy and other resources to the course of CiCoNet and trust me, you will never regret doing so”, he added.

    Stephen Gyekye Appiah, on behalf of the new executives, pledged to continue the good works of the outgone executives and called for the total support of all CiCoNet members.

    Certificates of recognition were presented to all the outgone executives as a sign of appreciation for their hard work and dedication to duty.

  • Atiwa West Assembly renders accounts to residents through Town Hall Meeting

    The Atiwa West District Assembly in the Eastern region of Ghana has held its maiden annual Town Hall Meeting at Kwabeng as part of measures to deepen local governance, transparency and accountability.

    The Town Hall meeting was funded by Advocates for Community Alternatives (ACA), a non-profit-making organization, that has a long-standing partnership with the District Assembly.

    The District Planning Officer and the Budget Officer took turns to explain the projects executed by the Assembly in 2023 vis-à-vis the revenues generated or accrued during the period.

    The projects executed by the Assembly during the period under review were mainly in the areas of education, health, agriculture, economic empowerment and infrastructural development.

    Mr. Paddy Amponsah Douglas, the DCE for the area, noted that through the meeting, citizens would have the chance to demand accountability from the local government authority.

    “Pursuant to the Local Government Act, ACT 936 (2016), the Metropolitan, Municipal and District Assemblies are mandated to organize Town Hall meetings at least twice a year to afford the local people the opportunity to engage the District Assembly officials on the Assembly’s Public Financial Management and service delivery outcomes”, he stated.

    Stakeholders’ engagement

    The Director for Community-Driven Development (CDD) programs of ACA, Nana Ama Nketia-Quaidoo (Mrs), stated that her organization places much premium to stakeholders’ engagements such as the Town Hall meeting.

    “This is because such engagements promote accountability, builds trust, saves cost and ensures a well-informed decision-making process.”

    She therefore reminded the Assembly that it owed it as responsibility to make conscious effort to improve on existing structures that would allow the participation of the citizenry in every stage of development.

    She disclosed that a recent Chiefs Council meeting organized by ACA at Asiakwa for chiefs in Fanteakwa South, Abuakwa South and Atiwa West districts revealed serious communication and participatory gaps between the assemblies and the chiefs and called for pragmatic measures to rectify this anomaly.

    Some of the issues raised by the citizens focused mainly on health and sanitation, revenue mobilization, effectiveness of the National Health Insurance Scheme, drug peddling in the area and improvement in educational standards, among others.

  • Nkoranza South: FCAP Leadership Committees back community development pathways

    Story by So Abapa Boateng, Nkoranza

    Members of Leadership Committees in ten communities in the Nkoranza South Municipality, in the Bono East Region of Ghana, have pledged their commitment to lead their communities to create community development proposals to achieve a communal development vision.

    The Leadership Committee members held a meeting last week in Nkoranza to deepen their knowledge of the Facilitated Collective Action Process (FCAP), also known in Ghana as Oman Yie Die.  FCAP is a methodology that helps communities articulate a development vision, gain skills to implement that vision, and pursue projects consistent with that vision in a transparent and inclusive manner.  They vowed to leave no stone unturned to solidify their commitment by hard work and perseverance in the execution of the task ahead.

    Advocates for Community Alternatives (ACA), a non-profit-making organization that helps West African communities that are threatened by the destructive impacts of extractive projects to take control of their futures, is partnering with the Nkoranza South Municipal Assembly to roll out Oman Yie Die in ten communities in the Municipality: Asuano, Akuma, Abuontem, Akumsa Domase, Bredi No. 1, Bonsu, Barnufour, Brahoho, Kyekyewere and Nkwabeng.

    The FCAP Leadership Committee members and a selection of officers from the Nkoranza South Municipal Assembly Planning, Social Welfare and Community Development, and Works and Engineering Departments met to discuss strategic ways that they could support the Oman Yie Die development processes in their various communities. They also reviewed steps for the proposal development subphase of the FCAP and the various roles the Leadership Committee can play to make this sub-phase successful.

    The Leadership Committee members will use the information shared during this meeting to guide their chiefs, elders, and community members on the proposal development sub-phase and support community-based facilitators to implement FCAP activities.

    As part of the meeting, the participants were taken through different leadership styles and how that can impact the Oman Yie Die in terms of participation and the mobilization of the needed resources for the chosen community development pathways.  They also discussed procurement processes, implementation action plans and budgeting, maintenance plans, transparency and accountability, cost tracking and how to request micro-grants.

    Smooth implementation

    For the smooth implementation of Oman Yie Die in Ghana, each partner community has elected a team of a five-member or seven-member leadership committee to spearhead the FCAP implementation process.

    Each of the ten communities was represented at the meeting by the chairperson, secretary and treasurer of the FCAP Leadership Committee.

    These proposal development sub-phase meetings will last for two months, after which the communities will be able to begin implementation of their community development projects.

  • Nkoranza South CBFs undertake field work on FCAP

    Story by So Abapa Boateng, Nkoranza

    It was yet another grueling and enduring moment for Community-Based Facilitators (CBFs) from ten partner communities in the Nkoranza South Municipality of the Bono East Region of Ghana. These CBFs, together with selected members of staff of the Nkoranza South Municipal Assembly, gathered once again in Nkoranza to deepen their understanding of the Facilitated Collective Action Process (FCAP), which aims at strengthening local participation in the implementation of the assembly’s medium term development plan.

    One of the key highlights of the meeting was field practicing proposal development, which primarily provides an opportunity for the CBFs and the local government staff to interact with community members on the practicalities involved in community meetings in relation to the smooth implementation of FCAP.

    The field practicing proposal development phase provides an opportunity for a community to delve deeper into the choice of its development pathway and how it will aid in the fulfilment of the community’s development vision in line with the local assembly’s medium-term plan.

    The CBFs literally put into practice the activities learnt during the proposal development process. As part of the field practice, a topic from the proposal development sub-phase is selected for a facilitator to plan and come up with a meeting guide to facilitate it at a community meeting.

    As part of the field practicing proposal development, the CBFs visit selected project sites identified by the communities for their development pathways. This provides yet another opportunity for community leaders to delve deeper into the choice of the pathway and how it will aid in the fulfilment of their community development vision.

    The core objective is to equip the CBFs and the assembly staff with practical experience during the proposal development sub-phase. The CBFs plan their meetings by outlining the topics to be discussed, the facilitation techniques to be used and go further to figure out possible challenges that might come their way and how they will be addressed.

    The Director for Community-Driven Development (CDD) programs of ACA, Nana Ama Nketia-Quaidoo (Mrs), noted in an interview, that such an activity offers ACA the opportunity to assess the level of understanding of the CBFs on the various topics treated during the training sessions and how they will put the knowledge acquired into practice.

    “The assessment is done on their level of preparedness before the meeting, their understanding of the topic, the techniques used during the facilitation and how well they engaged the communities during the community meeting. It enables the trainers to identify areas that need improvement during the facilitation and promptly work with the facilitator to identify ways of improving upon it before the actual proposal development meeting in the communities start.”

    “It also builds the confidence of the CBFs in facilitating the various steps of the proposal development sub-phase and enables the assembly staff supervise them appropriately and further details the role of the technical advisor during the proposal development sub phase, which is guiding the communities to strategically tailor their implementation action plan and budget to their desired projects or development pathways.

    Bonsu and Nkwabeng hosted the team for the field practice, which was generally very successful. The team visited the Nkwabeng community development site where a proposed Out-Patients Department (OPD) is to be built under FCAP.

    At Bonsu, the visit took the team to the Bonsu water site to get firsthand knowledge on their proposition for an extension of water to their households.

    The ten communities which participated in the training programme were Akuma, Akumsa Domase, Abuontem, Asuano, Barnufour, Brahoho, Bredi No. 1, Bonsu, Nkwabeng and Kyekyewere.

    Advocates for Community Alternatives (ACA), a non-profit-making organisation, which helps West African communities that are threatened by the destructive impacts of extractive projects to take control of their futures, is partnering with the Nkoranza South Municipal Assembly to roll out FCAP, which is also called “Oman yie die” in Ghana, in these ten communities in the area.

    Community meetings are expected to be facilitated for two months by the CBF under the supervision of an ACA trainer and the Nkoranza South Municipal assembly staff.

    (Note: The writer is a CDD Trainer based in Nkoranza in the Bono East region of Ghana)

  • OPEN LETTER ON SOCFIN’S PROPOSED DIVESTMENT FROM SRC IN LIBERIA

    OPEN LETTER ON SOCFIN’S PROPOSED DIVESTMENT FROM SRC IN LIBERIA

    We, the undersigned, are Liberian, West African, and international civil society organizations, communities, and individuals concerned with the legacy of harm that the operations of the Salala Rubber Corporation (SRC) have foisted on local communities in and around Weala, Liberia.  We are alarmed by news that SRC’s parent company, Socfin, is seeking to divest its shares in SRC without first settling its social, environmental, cultural, financial, and economic debts to affected communities.  We therefore address this open letter to the Liberian government, Liberia’s development partners, the public, Socfin, and, particularly, all prospective purchasers of SRC.

    Any purchaser will inherit extremely significant liabilities connected to the widespread land, environmental, and human rights violations associated with SRC’s rubber plantation.  The purchaser will also receive a concession based on insecure title to the land on which the plantation sits.  We therefore call on all stakeholders – SRC’s parent company, Socfin; investors; financiers; the Government of Liberia; and all prospective buyers – to desist from any sale or assignation of rights until the complaints against SRC are resolved and the rights to the land upon which the concession for the rubber plantation was granted are conclusively determined.

    Background

    SRC, an indirectly owned subsidiary of Luxembourg-based agricultural giant Socfin since 2007, is the owner of an 8,000-hectare rubber plantation near the town of Weala.  The plantation operates according to a Concession Agreement concluded in 1959 and enacted by the Liberian legislature in 1960, which granted Socfin’s predecessors the rights to develop a rubber plantation on unencumbered, public land in what is now Lofa, Margibi and Bong Counties in the Republic of Liberia.  Since that time, the plantation has undergone several waves of expansion – most recently in 2015 – and has been associated with a wide range of violations of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including land grabbing, destruction of cultural sites, and sexual and gender-based violence.

    In its 2023 annual report, Socfin announced that a “sign of impairment” exists for SRC, assessed that impairment value at 7.5 million euros, and reclassified the plantation as an “asset for sale.”[1] According to the Article XI of SRC’s Concession Agreement, any assignment of rights to a third party must be approved by the Government of Liberia.[2]  Under Liberia’s 2018 Land Rights Act, local communities must have the opportunity to contribute their views to ensure that their rights and interests are protected when an existing concession is reviewed.[3]  That same law also provides that upon the termination of any concession on customary land, the land reverts to the local communities who are its original owners.[4]  The SRC concession will terminate on August 1, 2030.

    Serious Human Rights Impacts

    As the plantation has grown, it has engulfed the farmlands of at least 37 villages, miring their residents in poverty, food insecurity, and cultural dislocation.  Some communities, like Jorkporlorsue, are now a mere enclave surrounded by a sea of rubber, cut off from the graves of their ancestors and any form of self-sustenance.  Others, like Sayee Town, were burned when the plantation took over, sending their residents fleeing.  SRC did not pay compensation for the loss of land, and many testimonies from several communities attest that the company underpaid for the loss of productive and cultural assets.  Women are often harassed by workers and security guards when they cross the plantation for any reason, and many have been extorted for sex when they seek employment with the company.[5]

    These allegations were first reported by Green Advocates International in 2013[6] and confirmed in a 2019 report by Swiss NGO Bread for All.[7]  They are the subject of a 2019 complaint to the ombudsman’s office of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private sector financing arm of the World Bank, which partially funded Socfin’s rehabilitation of the SRC plantation after Liberia’s civil war and is currently finalizing an investigative report focused on how the IFC enforces its environmental and social safeguards.[8]  When Socfin engaged a consultant – Earthworm Foundation – to review its social and environmental performance in lieu of cooperating with the IFC’s investigation, the resulting report concluded that most of the communities’ complaints were, in fact substantiated and had not been properly addressed.[9]

    Land Rights Questioned 

    The plantation itself is the object of a lawsuit currently pending in the Liberian courts, in which residents of the affected communities claim that the land SRC took was not eligible for plantation development because it was neither public nor unencumbered.  The land was, in fact, under customary use and is part of the traditional territory of the local Kpelle communities.  The outcome of this lawsuit may decide whether the concession was validly granted or whether it should be recognized as customary land.

    Risks of Acquisition

    Socfin’s prospective divestment of SRC is a risky deal for all involved except Socfin itself.

    •       For affected communities, it could mean trading an international company that has committed – at least, on paper – to high standards of social and environmental responsibility and the resources to make good on them for a prospective purchaser whose willingness and capacity to protect community well-being is unknown.  Communities in Nigeria’s Niger Delta are currently facing a similar situation, as international oil companies with global reputations are seeking to divest their onshore operations to poorly known companies with little experience and few resources, without first resolving their environmental liabilities.[10]
    •       For the Republic of Liberia, as the purported owner of the land on which the plantation is located, it could mean being stuck with the social and environmental liabilities left behind by SRC under Socfin.
    •       For any prospective buyer, the purchase of the plantation would entail exposure to as-yet unquantified liability for claims for land, crop, cultural, and environmental damage and sexual and gender-based violence from thousands of individuals in 37 villages, as the Earthworm report and IFC assessment process clearly demonstrate.
    •       The buyer’s right to operate the plantation could also be affected by a potential finding from the Liberian courts that the Liberian government never had the authority to grant a concession over the land on which the plantation sits.[11] According to Article XI of the Concession Agreement, any assignee will have the same “rights, privileges, immunities and obligations” of the original concessionaire.  But given the uncertainty around Socfin’s outstanding liabilities to the communities and the validity of the concession itself, the rights transferred may be significantly less valuable than they appear, and the obligations may impose heavy, unforeseen costs on the purchaser.

    Recommendations

    In light of the above, Socfin’s planned divestment from SRC should not proceed without taking into account the following.

    To the Republic of Liberia:

    •       Ensure that process to seek the free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities with respect to any proposed assignation of rights by Socfin is respected, as it reviews the proposed sale, pursuant to Article 48(2) of the Land Rights Act of 2018 and general principles of international law with respect to the rights of indigenous peoples when their traditional land and natural resources are at risk.
    •       Immediately disclose to affected communities any request from Socfin to dispose of or assign its interest in SRC to any other party.
    •       Decline to approve any proposed assignment of rights by Socfin until the pending litigation over ownership of the plantation land and all other disputes regarding control of the land are resolved.
    •       Order a comprehensive forensic audit of SRC’s operations covering the entire concession period, focusing on production, environment, revenue, labor, and social obligations, as well as compliance with the terms and conditions of the concession agreement.
    •       In addition, decline to approve any proposed assignment of rights by Socfin unless a) Socfin has first deposited in a trust account in Liberia, under the joint control of community and government trustees, an amount adequate to cover all SRC’s potential environmental, social, cultural, and economic liabilities; and b) the purchaser has signed a community benefit agreement with the affected communities in which it commits to respecting the highest environmental and social standards and confers enforceable rights and benefits on the communities.  It is encouraging to note that in Nigeria, the government is taking seriously the need to ensure that exiting oil companies first pay for environmental cleanup;[12] nothing prevents Liberia from following suit.

    To prospective buyers:

    •       Refrain from completing any purchase until Socfin and SRC have settled all potential outstanding social, environmental, cultural, and economic liabilities with the surrounding communities.
    •       Prior to any engagements or negotiations with Socfin/SRC, commission a comprehensive risk assessment covering all potential, outstanding, and existing social, environmental, cultural, and economic liabilities toward the surrounding communities, private vendors/contractors, and the Government of Liberia.

    To Socfin:

    •       Refrain from seeking to divest from SRC until all potential and outstanding social, environmental, cultural, and economic liabilities with the surrounding communities are settled.

    To local communities:

    •       Exercise the right to submit comments and input to the government through the Community Land Development and Management Committee on Socfin’s proposed divestment, with a view toward protecting their human, environmental, cultural, and economic rights.

    Signed,

     

    Community representatives

    Edwin Gbah, Elder Representative, Dedee-ta 1

    Tina Gibson, Women Representative, Dedee-ta 1

    Isaiah Gibson, Youth Representative, Dedee-ta 1

    Tommy Blackie, Elder Representative, Golonkalah

    Tenneh Gbomah, Women Representative, Golonkalah

    Emmanuel Singbah, Youth Representative, Golonkalah

    Musa Kaiffa, Elder Representative, Dokai Town

    Quita George, Women Representative, Dokai Town

    Jonah Singbah, Youth Representative, Dokai Town

    Alfred Gotolo, Elder Representative, Monkeytail Town

    Hawa Monkeytail, Women Representative, Monkeytail Town

    Remember Fellezey, Youth Representative, Monkeytail Town

    Mulbah Yarkpawolo, Elder Representative, Hawa Bondon

    Betty Kollie, Women Representative, Hawa Bondon

    Patrick Yah, Youth Representative, Hawa Bondon

    David Siaffa, Elder Representative, Siaffa Molley Village

    Hawa Siaffa, Women Representative, Siaffa Molley Village

    Moses Siaffa, Youth Representative, Siaffa Molley Village

    Olanto Forjah, Elder Representative, Martin Village

    Miatta Gbah, Women Representative, Martin Village

    Emmanuel Gbah, Youth Representative, Martin Village

    James Whalee, Elder Representative, James Whalee Village

    Hawa Whalee, Women Representative, James Whalee Village

    Titus G. Whalee, Youth Representative, James Whalee Village

    James K. Gorgbor, Elder Representative, Gorgbor Town

    Jartu Gorgbor, Women Representative, Gorgbor Town

    Penneh Mulbah, Youth Representative, Gorgbor Town

    Samuel D. Bindah, Elder Representative Jorkporlorsue Town

    Menatta Sackie, Women Representative, Jorkporlorsue Town

    Aaron F. Kollie, Youth Representative, Jorkporlorsue Town

    Moses David, Elder Representative, Varmue Town

    Ruth Cooper, Women Representative, Varmue Town

    Dennis Cooper, Youth Representative, Varmue Town

    Fahn Kolleh, Elder Representative, Blomu Town

    Finda Bengo, Women Representative, Blomu Town

    Stephen Nantee, Youth Representative, Blomu Town

    William Bainda, Elder Representative, Lango Town

    Karne Dolo, Women Representative, Lango Town

    Fahn Singbe, Youth Representative, Lango Town

    Pst. Milton F. Gweh, Elder Representative, Garjah Town

    Hawah Siaffa, Women Representative, Garjah Town

    Edward Lawad, Youth Representative, Garjah Town

    Emmanuel Kpaingba, Elder Representative, Kuwah-ta

    Yassah Mulbah, Women Representative, Kuwah-ta

    Victor Koko, Youth Representative, Kuwah-ta

    Roger Moore, Elder Representative, Dedee-ta 2

    Miatta Singbah, Women Representative, Dedee-ta 2

    Oretha Singbah, Youth Representative, Dedee-ta 2

    		  

    Civil Society supporters

    Alfred Lahai Gbabai Brownell Sr., Founder, Green Advocates International, 2019 Goldman Environmental Prize Winner

    AbibiNsroma Foundation (Ghana)

    Accountability Counsel (Global)

    Action Solidarité Tiers Monde asbl (Luxembourg)

    Advocates for Community Alternatives (USA/West Africa)

    Africa Transcribe (Tanzania)

    Ahmed Elseidi, public interest lawyer (Egypt)

    Al-Marsad Arab Human Rights Center (Syria)

    Alliance for Rural Democracy (Liberia)

    Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (Asia Regional)

    Asociación de Pescadores Artesanales del Golfo de Fonseca (Honduras)

    Attac CADTM Maroc (Morocco)

    Botswana Watch (Botswana)

    CADTM Afrique (Burkina Faso)

    CADTM Afrique (Mali)

    Claudia Lazzaro Socra (Argentina)

    CNCD-11.11.11 (Belgium)

    Collectif pour la défense des terres malgaches – TANY (Madagascar)

    Community Forest Watch (Nigeria)

    Consejo de los Pueblos Wuxhtaj (Guatemala)

    Daniel Santi, Pueblo Originario Kichwa de Sarayaku (Ecuador)

    Economic and Social Rights Centre – Hakihamii (Kenya)

    Environmental Defender Law Center (USA)

    FIAN-Belgium

    FIAN-Switzerland

    Fondation pour le Développement au Sahel (Mali)

    Foundation for Good Governance Development Initiative (Liberia)

    Global Rights (International)

    Good Health Community Programmes (Kenya)

    Green Advocates International (Liberia)

    GRAIN (International)

    HakiMadini (Tanzania)

    Hilfswerk der Evangelisch-reformierten Kirche Schweiz (HEKS) (Switzerland)

    Human Rights Awareness Center (Nepal)

    Inclusive Development International (International)

    Integrated Center for Community Empowerment (Liberia)

    Jamaa Resource Initiatives (Kenya)

    JPIC, Franciscans Africa (Kenya)

    Justicitz-ACORN (Liberia)

    Karapatan Alliance (Philippines)

    Karl Klare, International Social & Economic Rights Project (USA)

    Liberia Reform Movement (Liberia)

    Lok Shakti Abiyan (India)

    MENA Fem Movement (International)

    MUFRAS-32 (El Salvador)

    Natural Resources Women’s Platform (Liberia)

    National Civil Society Council of Liberia

    National Union of Domestic Employees (Trinidad and Tobago)

    Neighbourhood Environment Watch Foundation (Nigeria)

    Network Movement for Justice and Development (Sierra Leone)

    Protection International Africa

    Public Eye (Switzerland)

    ReAct Transnational (France)

    Réseau des Acteurs du Développement Durable (Cameroon)

    Renevlyn Development Initiative (Nigeria)

    Solifonds (Switzerland)

    SOS Faim (Luxembourg)

    SYNAPARCAM (Cameroon)

    West Point Women for Health and Development Organization (Liberia)

    Witness Radio (Uganda)

    WoMin Alliance Africa (Burkina Faso)

    Yeabamah National Congress for Human Rights (Liberia)

     

     

    [1] Socfin 2023 Annual Report at 65, 105, available at https://socfin.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2023-Socfin-Annual-report.pdf. 

    [2] Concession Agreement between the Republic of Liberia and Rubber Cultur Maatschappij ‘Amsterdam’ & Nordmann Rasmann and Company, dated 1st August 1959 AND Acts passed by the Legislature of the Republic of Liberia during the session 1959-1960, art. II.

    [3] Republic of Liberia, Land Rights Law of 2018, art. 48(2).

    [4] Ibid, art. 48(4).

    [5] See Ashoka Mukpo, At a rubber plantation in Liberia, history repeats in a fight over land, Mongabay (January 17, 2023), at https://news.mongabay.com/2023/01/at-a-rubber-plantation-in-liberia-history-repeats-in-a-fight-over-land/.

    [6] Green Advocates International, Livelihood Challenges at Salala Rubber Corporation (SRC) (April 2013).

    [7] Bread for All, Struggle for Life and Land: Socfin’s Rubber Plantations in Liberia and the Responsibility of Swiss Companies (2019), at  https://www.heks.ch/sites/default/files/documents/2021-12/Bfa_Socfin_Report_Update_Nov_19.pdf.

    [8] See Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, Liberia: Salala Rubber Corporation (SRC)-01/Margibi & Bong Counties, at https://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/liberia-salala-rubber-corporation-src-01margibi-bong-counties; Victoria Schneider, World Bank’s IFC under fire over alleged abuses at Liberian plantation it funded, Mongabay (April 4, 2024), at https://news.mongabay.com/2024/04/world-banks-ifc-under-fire-over-alleged-abuses-at-liberian-plantation-it-funded/

    [9] Earthworm Foundation, Earthworm’s Deep Dive Greivance Work: Salala Rubber Corporation (SRC) (2023), at https://www.earthworm.org/uploads/files/EF-Public-report_SRC_310723.pdf.

    [10] Amnesty International, Nigeria: Government must halt Shell’s sale of its Niger Delta business unless human rights are fully protected (April 15, 2024), at https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/04/nigeria-government-must-halt-shells-sale-of-its-niger-delta-business-unless-human-rights-are-fully-protected/.

    [11] See Selma Lomax, Liberia: Government, Salala Rubber Plantation Company Suffer Major Setback in Court Case, Front Page Africa (December 14, 2022), at https://frontpageafricaonline.com/news/liberia-government-salala-rubber-plantation-company-suffer-major-setback-in-court-case/.

    [12] Camilius Eboh & Issac Anyaogu, Oil majors offered faster Nigerian exit if they pay for cleanup, Reuters (May 3, 2024), at https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/oil-majors-offered-faster-nigerian-exit-if-they-pay-cleanup-2024-05-03/.

     

    LETTRE OUVERTE SUR LE PROJET DE DÉSINVESTISSEMENT DU GROUPE SOCFIN DE LA SRC AU LIBERIA 

    Nous, soussignés, sommes des organisations de la société civile libérienne, ouest-africaine et internationale, ainsi des communautés et individus, préoccupés par les préjudices que les activités de la Salala Rubber Corporation (SRC) ont infligés aux communautés locales de Weala, au Liberia, et de ses environs. Nous sommes alarmés par la nouvelle selon laquelle la société mère de la SRC, Socfin, cherche à céder ses parts dans la SRC sans d’abord régler ses dettes sociales, environnementales, culturelles, financières et économiques à l’égard des communautés affectées. Nous adressons donc cette lettre ouverte au gouvernement libérien, aux partenaires de développement du Liberia, au grand public, à Socfin et, en particulier, à tous les acheteurs potentiels du SRC.

    Tout acquéreur héritera d’un passif extrêmement important lié aux violations généralisées des droits fonciers, environnementaux et humains associées à la plantation d’hévéas de la SRC. L’acheteur recevra également une concession basée sur un titre de propriété incertain pour le terrain sur lequel se trouve la plantation. Nous appelons donc toutes les parties prenantes – la société mère du SRC, Socfin, les investisseurs, les financiers, le gouvernement du Liberia et tous les acheteurs potentiels – à s’abstenir de toute vente ou cession de droits jusqu’à ce que les plaintes contre le SRC soient résolues et que les droits sur les terres sur lesquelles la concession pour la plantation d’hévéas a été accordée soient déterminés de manière concluante. 

    Historique

    SRC, une filiale indirecte du géant agricole luxembourgeois Socfin depuis 2007, est propriétaire d’une plantation de caoutchouc de 8 000 hectares près de la ville de Weala. La plantation est exploitée conformément à un accord de concession conclu en 1959 et ratifié par le législateur libérien en 1960, qui a accordé aux prédécesseurs de Socfin le droit de développer une plantation d’hévéas sur des terres publiques non grevées dans ce qui est aujourd’hui les comtés de Lofa, Margibi et Bong dans la République du Liberia. Depuis lors, la plantation a connu plusieurs vagues d’expansion – la dernière en 2015 – et a été associée à un large éventail de violations des droits des peuples autochtones et des communautés locales, notamment l’accaparement de terres, la destruction de sites culturels et la violence sexuelle et sexiste.

    Dans son rapport annuel 2023, Socfin a annoncé l’existence d’un « signe de dépréciation » pour SRC, a évalué cette valeur de dépréciation à 7,5 millions d’euros et a reclassé la plantation en tant qu’ « actif à vendre ».[1] Selon l’article XI de la convention de concession de SRC, toute cession de droits à un tiers doit être approuvée par le gouvernement du Liberia.[2] En vertu de la loi libérienne de 2018 sur les droits fonciers, les communautés locales doivent avoir la possibilité d’exprimer leur point de vue afin de garantir la protection de leurs droits et de leurs intérêts lors de la révision d’une concession existante.[3] Cette même loi prévoit également qu’à l’expiration d’une concession sur des terres coutumières, les terres reviennent aux communautés locales qui en sont les propriétaires d’origine.[4] La concession actuelle de la SRC prendra fin le 1er août 2030. 

    Incidences graves sur les droits de l’homme 

    Au fur et à mesure de son développement, la plantation a englouti les terres agricoles d’au moins 37 villages, plongeant leurs habitants dans la pauvreté, l’insécurité alimentaire et la dislocation culturelle. Certaines communautés, comme Jorkporlorsue, ne sont plus qu’une enclave entourée d’une mer de caoutchouc, coupée des tombes de leurs ancêtres et de toute forme d’autosuffisance. D’autres, comme Sayee Town, ont été brûlées lorsque la plantation en a pris le contrôle, faisant fuir leurs habitants. La SRC n’a pas versé de compensation pour la perte de terres, et selon de nombreux  témoignages émanant de plusieurs communautés la société n’a pas payé suffisamment la perte de biens productifs et culturels. De nombreux témoignages affirment que les femmes sont harcelées par les travailleurs et les gardes de sécurité lorsqu’elles traversent la plantation pour quelque raison que ce soit, et nombre d’entre elles ont été extorquées à des fins sexuelles lorsqu’elles cherchaient un emploi au sein de la compagnie.[5]

    Ces allégations ont été rapportées pour la première fois par Green Advocates International en 2013[6] et confirmées par l’ONG Suisse Pain pour le Prochain dans un rapport de 2019.[7] Elles font l’objet d’une plainte déposée en 2019 auprès du bureau du médiateur de la Société financière internationale (SFI), la branche de financement du secteur privé de la Banque mondiale, qui a partiellement financé la réhabilitation par Socfin de la plantation SRC après la guerre civile au Liberia. et qui finalise actuellement un rapport d’enquête axé sur la manière dont la SFI applique ses mesures de sauvegarde environnementales et sociales.[8] Lorsque Socfin a engagé un consultant – Earthworm Foundation – pour examiner ses performances sociales et environnementales au lieu de coopérer à l’enquête de la SFI, le rapport qui en a résulté a conclu que la plupart des plaintes des communautés étaient en fait fondées et n’avaient pas été correctement traitées.[9] 

    Les droits fonciers remis en question

    La plantation elle-même fait l’objet d’un procès actuellement en cours devant les tribunaux libériens, dans lequel les résidents des communautés concernées affirment que les terres prises par le SRC n’étaient pas éligibles pour le développement de la plantation car elles n’étaient ni publiques ni libres de toute charge. Le terrain était en fait utilisé de manière coutumière et fait partie du territoire traditionnel des communautés locales de Kpelle. L’issue de ce procès pourrait décider si l’accord de concession est valide ou si elle doit être reconnue comme terre coutumière. 

    Risques liés à l’acquisition

    La cession envisagée de la SRC par Socfin est une opération risquée pour toutes les parties concernées, à l’exception de Socfin elle-même.

    – Pour les communautés touchées, cela pourrait signifier l’échange d’une entreprise internationale qui s’est engagée – au moins sur le papier – à respecter des normes élevées en matière de responsabilité sociale et environnementale et à disposer des ressources nécessaires pour les mettre en œuvre, contre un acheteur potentiel dont on ne connaît pas la volonté et la capacité à protéger le bien-être de la communauté. Les communautés du delta du Niger, au Nigeria, sont actuellement confrontées à une situation similaire, car des compagnies pétrolières internationales de réputation mondiale cherchent à céder leurs activités terrestres à des entreprises peu connues, dotées de peu d’expérience et de ressources, sans avoir au préalable résolu leurs responsabilités environnementales.[10]

    – Pour la République du Liberia, en tant que propriétaire présumé du terrain sur lequel se trouve la plantation, cela pourrait signifier qu’elle doit assumer les responsabilités sociales et environnementales laissées par le SRC dans le cadre de la Socfin.

    – Pour tout acheteur potentiel, l’achat de la plantation entraînerait une exposition à une responsabilité non encore quantifiée pour des réclamations concernant des dommages causés à la terre, aux cultures, à la culture et à l’environnement, ainsi que des violences sexuelles et sexistes sur des milliers de personnes dans 37 villages, comme le rapport Earthworm et le processus d’évaluation de la SFI l’ont clairement démontré.

    – Le droit de l’acheteur d’exploiter la plantation pourrait également être affecté par une éventuelle décision des tribunaux libériens selon laquelle le gouvernement libérien n’a jamais eu l’autorité d’accorder une concession sur le terrain où se trouve la plantation.[11] Selon l’article XI de la convention de concession, tout cessionnaire aura les mêmes « droits, privilèges, immunités et obligations » que le concessionnaire d’origine. Toutefois, compte tenu de l’incertitude qui entoure les dettes de Socfin envers les communautés encore en suspens et la validité de la concession elle-même, les droits transférés pourraient avoir beaucoup moins de valeur qu’il n’y paraît et les obligations pourraient imposer à l’acquéreur des coûts lourds et imprévus. 

    Recommandations

    À la lumière de ce qui précède, le désinvestissement prévu par Socfin de la SRC ne devrait pas avoir lieu sans prendre en considération le suivant.

    À la République du Liberia :

    – Assurer que le processus pour rechercher le consentement libre, préalable et éclairé des communautés affectées en ce qui concerne toute proposition de cession de droits par Socfin soit respecté, lors de l’examen du projet de vente, conformément à l’article 48(2) de la loi sur les droits fonciers de 2018 et aux principes généraux du droit international relatifs aux droits des peuples autochtones lorsque leurs terres traditionnelles et leurs ressources naturelles sont menacées.

    – Divulguer immédiatement aux communautés affectées toute demande de Socfin de céder ou d’attribuer sa participation dans le SRC à une autre partie.

    – Refuser d’approuver toute proposition de cession de droits par Socfin tant que le litige en cours sur la propriété des terres de plantation et tous les autres litiges concernant le contrôle des terres n’auront pas été résolus.

    – Commander un audit complet de conformité des opérations de la plantation SRC couvrant toute la durée de la concession, en se concentrant sur la production, l’environnement, les revenus, le travail et les obligations sociales, ainsi que sur le respect des termes et conditions de l’accord de concession.

    – En outre, refuser d’approuver toute proposition de cession de droits par Socfin à moins que a) Socfin n’ait d’abord déposé sur un compte fiduciaire au Liberia., sous le contrôle conjoint de la communauté et du gouvernement, un montant adéquat pour couvrir toutes les responsabilités environnementales, sociales, culturelles et économiques potentielles du SRC ; et b) que l’acheteur n’ait signé un accord de bénéfice communautaire avec les communautés affectées dans lequel il s’engage à respecter les normes environnementales et sociales les plus élevées et confère des droits et des bénéfices exécutoires aux communautés. Il est encourageant de constater qu’au Nigeria, le gouvernement prend au sérieux la nécessité de veiller à ce que les compagnies pétrolières sortantes paient d’abord pour l’assainissement de l’environnement[12] ; rien n’empêche le Liberia de suivre cet exemple.

     

    Aux acquéreurs potentiels :

    – S’abstenir de conclure tout achat jusqu’à ce que Socfin et SRC aient réglé toutes les dettes sociales, environnementales, culturelles et économiques potentielles en suspens avec les communautés environnantes.

    – Avant tout engagement ou toute négociation avec Socfin/SRC, commander une évaluation complète des risques couvrant toutes les responsabilités sociales, environnementales, culturelles et économiques potentielles, en cours et existantes à l’égard des communautés environnantes, des vendeurs/contractants privés et du gouvernement du Liberia.

     

    A Socfin :

    – S’abstenir de chercher à céder le SRC jusqu’à ce que toutes les responsabilités sociales, environnementales, culturelles et économiques potentielles en suspens avec les communautés environnantes soient réglées.

     

    Aux communautés locales :

    – Exercer le droit de soumettre au gouvernement, par l’intermédiaire du comité de développement et de gestion des terres communautaires, des commentaires et des suggestions sur le projet de désinvestissement de Socfin, en vue de protéger leurs droits humains, environnementaux, culturels et économiques.

     

    Signé,

     

    Représentants des communautés

    Edwin Gbah, Elder Representative, Dedee-ta 1

    Tina Gibson, Women Representative, Dedee-ta 1

    Isaiah Gibson, Youth Representative, Dedee-ta 1

    Tommy Blackie, Elder Representative, Golonkalah

    Tenneh Gbomah, Women Representative, Golonkalah

    Emmanuel Singbah, Youth Representative, Golonkalah

    Musa Kaiffa, Elder Representative, Dokai Town

    Quita George, Women Representative, Dokai Town

    Jonah Singbah, Youth Representative, Dokai Town

    Alfred Gotolo, Elder Representative, Monkeytail Town

    Hawa Monkeytail, Women Representative, Monkeytail Town

    Remember Fellezey, Youth Representative, Monkeytail Town

    Mulbah Yarkpawolo, Elder Representative, Hawa Bondon

    Betty Kollie, Women Representative, Hawa Bondon

    Patrick Yah, Youth Representative, Hawa Bondon

    David Siaffa, Elder Representative, Siaffa Molley Village

    Hawa Siaffa, Women Representative, Siaffa Molley Village

    Moses Siaffa, Youth Representative, Siaffa Molley Village

    Olanto Forjah, Elder Representative, Martin Village

    Miatta Gbah, Women Representative, Martin Village

    Emmanuel Gbah, Youth Representative, Martin Village

    James Whalee, Elder Representative, James Whalee Village

    Hawa Whalee, Women Representative, James Whalee Village

    Titus G. Whalee, Youth Representative, James Whalee Village

    James K. Gorgbor, Elder Representative, Gorgbor Town

    Jartu Gorgbor, Women Representative, Gorgbor Town

    Tenneh Mulbah, Youth Representative, Gorgbor Town

    Samuel D. Bindah, Elder Representative Jorkporlorsue Town

    Menatta Sackie, Women Representative, Jorkporlorsue Town

    Aaron F. Kollie, Youth Representative, Jorkporlorsue Town

    Moses David, Elder Representative, Varmue Town

    Ruth Cooper, Women Representative, Varmue Town

    Dennis Cooper, Youth Representative, Varmue Town

    Fahn Kolleh, Elder Representative, Blomu Town

    Finda Bengo, Women Representative, Blomu Town

    Stephen Nantee, Youth Representative, Blomu Town

    William Bainda, Elder Representative, Lango Town

    Karne Dolo, Women Representative, Lango Town

    Fahn Singbe, Youth Representative, Lango Town

    Pst. Milton F. Gweh, Elder Representative, Garjah Town

    Hawah Siaffa, Women Representative, Garjah Town

    Edward Lawad, Youth Representative, Garjah Town

    Emmanuel Kpaingba, Elder Representative, Kuwah-ta

    Yassah Mulbah, Women Representative, Kuwah-ta

    Victor Koko, Youth Representative, Kuwah-ta

    Roger Moore, Elder Representative, Dedee-ta 2

    Miatta Singbah, Women Representative, Dedee-ta 2

    Oretha Singbah, Youth Representative, Dedee-ta 2

    		  

    Société civile

    Alfred Lahai Gbabai Brownell Sr., Founder, Green Advocates International, 2019 Goldman Environmental Prize Winner

    AbibiNsroma Foundation (Ghana)

    Accountability Counsel (Global)

    Action Solidarité Tiers Monde asbl (Luxembourg)

    Advocates for Community Alternatives (USA/West Africa)

    Africa Transcribe (Tanzania)

    Ahmed Elseidi, public interest lawyer (Egypt)

    Al-Marsad Arab Human Rights Center (Syria)

    Alliance for Rural Democracy (Liberia)

    Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (Asia Regional)

    Asociación de Pescadores Artesanales del Golfo de Fonseca (Honduras)

    Attac CADTM Maroc (Morocco)

    Botswana Watch (Botswana)

    CADTM Afrique (Burkina Faso)

    CADTM Afrique (Mali)

    Claudia Lazzaro Socra (Argentina)

    CNCD-11.11.11 (Belgium)

    Collectif pour la défense des terres malgaches – TANY (Madagascar)

    Community Forest Watch (Nigeria)

    Consejo de los Pueblos Wuxhtaj (Guatemala)

    Daniel Santi, Pueblo Originario Kichwa de Sarayaku (Ecuador)

    Economic and Social Rights Centre – Hakihamii (Kenya)

    Environmental Defender Law Center (USA)

    FIAN-Belgium

    FIAN-Switzerland

    Fondation pour le Développement au Sahel (Mali)

    Foundation for Good Governance Development Initiative (Liberia)

    Global Rights (International)

    Good Health Community Programmes (Kenya)

    Green Advocates International (Liberia)

    GRAIN (International)

    HakiMadini (Tanzania)

    Hilfswerk der Evangelisch-reformierten Kirche Schweiz (HEKS) (Switzerland)

    Human Rights Awareness Center (Nepal)

    Inclusive Development International (International)

    Integrated Center for Community Empowerment (Liberia)

    Jamaa Resource Initiatives (Kenya)

    JPIC, Franciscans Africa (Kenya)

    Justicitz-ACORN (Liberia)

    Karapatan Alliance (Philippines)

    Karl Klare, International Social & Economic Rights Project (USA)

    Liberia Reform Movement (Liberia)

    Lok Shakti Abiyan (India)

    MENA Fem Movement (International)

    MUFRAS-32 (El Salvador)

    Natural Resources Women’s Platform (Liberia)

    National Civil Society Council of Liberia

    National Union of Domestic Employees (Trinidad and Tobago)

    Neighbourhood Environment Watch Foundation (Nigeria)

    Network Movement for Justice and Development (Sierra Leone)

    Protection International Africa

    Public Eye (Switzerland)

    ReAct Transnational (France)

    Réseau des Acteurs du Développement Durable (Cameroon)

    Renevlyn Development Initiative (Nigeria)

    Solifonds (Switzerland)

    SOS Faim (Luxembourg)

    SYNAPARCAM (Cameroon)

    West Point Women for Health and Development Organization (Liberia)

    Witness Radio (Uganda)

    WoMin Alliance Africa (Burkina Faso)

    Yeabamah National Congress for Human Rights (Liberia)

    [1] Socfin, Rapport Annuel 2023, pp. 65-66 et 102, disponible à https://socfin.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/2023-Socfin-Rapport-annuel-1.pdf.

    [2] Concession Agreement between the Republic of Liberia and Rubber Cultur Maatschappij ‘Amsterdam’ & Nordmann Rasmann and Company, daté le 1er août 1959 et Acts passed by the Legislature of the Republic of Liberia during the session 1959-1960, art. II.

    [3] Republic of Liberia, Land Rights Law of 2018, art. 48(2).

    [4] Ibid, art. 48(4).

    [5] Voir Ashoka Mukpo, At a rubber plantation in Liberia, history repeats in a fight over land, Mongabay (17 janvier 2023),  https://news.mongabay.com/2023/01/at-a-rubber-plantation-in-liberia-history-repeats-in-a-fight-over-land/.

    [6] Green Advocates International, Livelihood Challenges at Salala Rubber Corporation (SRC) (Avril 2013).

    [7] Pain pour le prochain, Lutte pour la vie et pour la terre les plantations de caoutchouc de Socfin au Libéria et la responsabilité des entreprises suisses (2019), at https://www.heks.ch/sites/default/files/documents/2022-08/Bfa_Socfin_Summary_F_Update_Nov_19.pdf.

    [8] Voir Compliance Advisor Ombudsman, Liberia: Salala Rubber Corporation (SRC)-01/Margibi & Bong Counties, https://www.cao-ombudsman.org/cases/liberia-salala-rubber-corporation-src-01margibi-bong-counties ; Victoria Schneider, World Bank’s IFC under fire over alleged abuses at Liberian plantation it funded, Mongabay (4 avril 2024), https://news.mongabay.com/2024/04/world-banks-ifc-under-fire-over-alleged-abuses-at-liberian-plantation-it-funded/

    [9] Earthworm Foundation, Earthworm’s Deep Dive Greivance Work: Salala Rubber Corporation (SRC) (2023), https://www.earthworm.org/uploads/files/EF-Public-report_SRC_310723.pdf.

    [10] Amnesty Internationa, Nigeria: Government must halt Shell’s sale of its Niger Delta business unless human rights are fully protected (15 avril 2024), https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2024/04/nigeria-government-must-halt-shells-sale-of-its-niger-delta-business-unless-human-rights-are-fully-protected/.

    [11] Voir Selma Lomax, Liberia: Government, Salala Rubber Plantation Company Suffer Major Setback in Court Case, Front Page Africa (14 décembre 2022), https://frontpageafricaonline.com/news/liberia-government-salala-rubber-plantation-company-suffer-major-setback-in-court-case/.

    [12] Camilius Eboh & Issac Anyaogu, Oil majors offered faster Nigerian exit if they pay for cleanup, Reuters (3 mai 2024), https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/oil-majors-offered-faster-nigerian-exit-if-they-pay-cleanup-2024-05-03/.

  • Sierra Leone Court of Appeal continues hearing on Kono Community’s human rights claims

    Lawyers for the Marginalized Affected Property Owners (MAPO), a community association seeking justice for harmful mining practices in Kono, Sierra Leone, concluded their marathon of argument before the Court of Appeal in Freetown last Thursday, May 30, 2024.

    The Court of Appeal is determining whether Kono community members and associations can take Koidu Limited, a multinational diamond mining company, to court for causing harm to their livelihoods, health, and their traditional lands.

    At the court last Thursday, the lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Dr. Chernor Mamoud Benedict Jalloh, completed presenting arguments for the Plaintiffs, after which counsel for the mining company and its affiliates commenced his arguments.  Dr. Jalloh argued, among other things, that all citizens should have the right to sue to enforce Sierra Leone’s environmental laws, as environmental pollution affects everyone.

    On Thursday June 6, 2024, when the court reconvenes, counsel for the respondents will be expected to conclude his arguments, after which the court will schedule a date for its judgement.

    For now, the Kono community members and their civil society partners are keeping their fingers crossed, hoping that the Court of Appeal will expedite work on the case.  If the appellate court sides with the community, then the way will be clear for them to take Koidu Limited and its related companies to trial regarding alleged human rights abuses.

    The hearing of the Koidu community’s appeal has become possible after a ruling on Thursday February 29, 2024, that struck out preliminary objections filed by the defendant mining company, Koidu Limited.

    Last week’s hearing comes on the heels of the Court of Appeal’s ruling of February 29, 2024, which breathed new life into the Koidu plaintiffs’ case by granting their right to appeal.  The case was dismissed by the High Court in Makeni on October 27, 2022, on the basis that the plaintiffs were not qualified to press their claims in court.  The dismissal order also ruled that the plaintiffs should have used a non-judicial grievance mechanism before going to court, despite also recognizing that the grievance mechanism did not actually exist.