Greenpeace Opposes Proposed Dangote Lamu Refinery, Citing Environmental Risks

Environmental lobby group Greenpeace Africa has voiced strong opposition to the proposed Dangote Lamu Refinery in Kenya, citing significant environmental risks and the potential for the multi-billion-shilling project to become a 'stranded asset' amidst a global shift towards low-carbon energy systems. This article examines the legal and regulatory landscape governing such large-scale industrial developments in Kenya, particularly focusing on the constitutional right to a clean environment, the Environmental Impact Assessment framework under the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act, and the implications of the Climate Change Act. It delves into the legal avenues available to environmental advocates and the heightened scrutiny projects in ecologically sensitive areas like Lamu face, drawing on relevant Kenyan jurisprudence.

The announcement of a proposed 700,000-barrel-per-day oil refinery by Nigerian industrialist Aliko Dangote in Lamu County, Kenya, has ignited a fierce debate, pitting economic development aspirations against critical environmental protection concerns. While President William Ruto has lauded the project for its potential to create thousands of jobs and position Kenya as a regional energy hub, environmental organisations, led by Greenpeace Africa, have swiftly moved to oppose it.

Greenpeace Africa has issued a stark warning, asserting that the refinery poses an irreversible threat to Lamu's fragile coastal ecosystem, which includes vital mangroves, coral reefs, and seagrass beds, and could undermine the cultural heritage of Lamu Old Town, a UNESCO World Heritage Site. Beyond immediate ecological damage, the organisation has also raised a significant economic argument: that the refinery risks becoming a 'stranded asset' as countries globally accelerate their transition to cleaner energy sources. This article will explore the pertinent legal and regulatory frameworks in Kenya that govern such projects, analyse the grounds for environmental opposition, and discuss the implications for legal practitioners navigating the complex intersection of industrial development, environmental law, and climate change policy.

Kenya's environmental governance is anchored in a robust legal framework, commencing with the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Article 42 unequivocally guarantees every person the right to a clean and healthy environment, which includes the right to have the environment protected for the benefit of present and future generations. This fundamental right is complemented by Article 69, which imposes explicit duties on the State to ensure sustainable exploitation and management of natural resources, establish systems of environmental impact assessment (EIA), audit, and monitoring, and protect the country's biological diversity. Article 70 further empowers individuals to seek redress in court if their right to a clean and healthy environment has been, is being, or is likely to be violated, providing for liberalised locus standi.

The primary legislative instrument for environmental management is the Environmental Management and Co-ordination Act (EMCA), 1999 (Cap. 387), which established the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) as the principal government agency responsible for supervising and coordinating all environmental matters. EMCA mandates that projects likely to have significant environmental impacts must undergo a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before receiving development approval. The detailed procedures for conducting EIAs are prescribed in the Environmental (Impact Assessment and Audit) Regulations, 2003, which critically require mandatory public participation throughout the assessment process. Furthermore, Kenya's commitment to addressing climate change is enshrined in the Climate Change Act, 2016 (amended 2023), which provides a legal framework for promoting climate-resilient, low-carbon economic development and mandates the formulation of National Climate Change Action Plans. The Lamu archipelago itself is an ecologically sensitive region, home to a UNESCO World Heritage Site and a fragile marine ecosystem, which has historically been a focal point for environmental concerns related to large-scale infrastructure projects, including the broader Lamu Port South Sudan-Ethiopia Transport (LAPSSET) Corridor.

Greenpeace Africa's opposition to the Dangote Lamu Refinery is multifaceted, drawing on both direct environmental impacts and broader climate change considerations. Environmentally, concerns centre on the refinery's potential to cause habitat destruction, marine pollution, oil spills, and air pollution, directly threatening Lamu's vital mangrove forests, coral reefs, seagrass beds, and the fisheries that sustain local livelihoods. The proximity to Lamu Old Town, a UNESCO World Heritage Site, also raises alarms about the project's impact on cultural heritage and the wider ecological landscape.

Legally, these concerns translate into potential challenges under Kenya's robust environmental framework. The mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, governed by EMCA and its Regulations, requires thorough assessment of all potential impacts and, crucially, meaningful public participation. Kenyan courts have previously invalidated project approvals due to inadequate public participation, as seen in cases like *Mohamed Ali Baadi and others v Attorney General & 11 others (2013)*, which underscores the judiciary's commitment to this principle. Furthermore, the precautionary principle, enshrined in EMCA and frequently applied by Kenyan courts, dictates that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation. This principle was instrumental in the revocation of the license for the Lamu Coal Plant in *Save Lamu & 5 others v NEMA & another [2019]*, a precedent highly relevant to the refinery project.

The 'stranded asset' argument introduces a critical dimension, linking the project's long-term economic viability to Kenya's climate change commitments. The Climate Change Act, 2016, mandates a shift towards low-carbon development and requires the government to develop and implement National Climate Change Action Plans (NCCAPs) to achieve its Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) under the Paris Agreement. Critics argue that investing in a large-scale fossil fuel refinery, with a projected lifespan of decades, contradicts these national and international obligations and risks significant financial losses if global demand for petroleum products declines faster than anticipated due to the accelerating energy transition. The Supreme Court's pronouncements in the *Uhuru-Owino Case* on the polluter-pays principle and the accountability of both private and public entities for environmental harm further highlight the legal risks associated with projects that may cause long-term environmental and health damages.

Practitioners advising on such projects must therefore navigate not only the immediate environmental compliance requirements but also the evolving landscape of climate change litigation and the increasing judicial willingness to enforce constitutional environmental rights and principles. The judiciary has demonstrated a robust role in upholding the 'Green Constitution,' setting new standards for NEMA compliance and climate accountability. This includes scrutinising the adequacy of EIAs, the genuineness of public participation, and the alignment of projects with national sustainable development and climate change goals. The cumulative impacts of industrialisation in the Lamu region, already a concern due to the LAPSSET project, will also likely be a significant point of contention.

The proposed Dangote Lamu Refinery presents a complex legal and environmental challenge, emblematic of the broader tension between industrial development and sustainable practices in a climate-conscious era. Greenpeace Africa's opposition, grounded in both ecological preservation and the 'stranded asset' economic rationale, underscores the multifaceted scrutiny that large-scale fossil fuel projects now face in Kenya. The robust constitutional and statutory environmental framework, coupled with an increasingly assertive judiciary, provides significant avenues for challenging projects perceived to undermine environmental rights or national climate commitments.

For legal practitioners, this scenario highlights the imperative for comprehensive due diligence that extends beyond traditional environmental compliance to encompass climate risk assessments and the evolving standards of public participation. Future developments will likely hinge on NEMA's decision-making process, the thoroughness of the EIA, and potential litigation in the Environment and Land Court or the National Environment Tribunal. The outcome of this contest will not only shape Lamu's future but also set important precedents for balancing economic ambitions with environmental stewardship and climate resilience across Kenya and the wider East African region.