Gas production | "Mozambique's government acts in Total's interest"

How do you assess the relationship between the energy companies and the communities affected by the Cabo Delgado gas project?

The relationship between energy companies and local communities in Cabo Delgado began with a US company called Anadarko after the first gas deposits were discovered in the early 2010s. Initial contacts were characterized by exaggerated promises—jobs, development, prosperity—that created unrealistic expectations. As was the case with the construction of schools. Companies meant infrastructure, but communities expected education, including teacher salaries. Poor communication and mistranslations of documents from Portuguese into the local language compounded the confusion. Consultants misrepresented technical details and used vague language that misled the fishing communities. Minor corruption cases played a significant role: Officials demanded thousands of meticais (1 meticais is equivalent to €0.013, ed.) from the local population just to register them for training programs that never materialized. Scammers took advantage of the silence and collected payments for bogus courses. Confidence dwindled, and when jobs were created, communities lacked the promised skills to fill them.

Has the situation changed since Total took over the project?

Not for the better. Fishermen were relocated 10 to 15 kilometers inland, far from the sea. Their traditional fishing grounds were restricted due to project activities by the French company Total and for security reasons. A bus system was introduced, but it failed – fishing requires paying attention to the tides and being on site at unpredictable times. Economic timelines pushed the relocation forward before the land was secured. The social needs of the communities were neglected. And they made it clear: relocation only when both houses and land are available. This was not respected. People received houses but no farmland. The promised three-month food rations were extended to six months but then stopped – but years later, many still lack land.

Why is that?

The host communities resisted the division of the land, and the resettled families feared future conflicts. In Mozambique, land is sacred; it is connected to the ancestors. These cultural dynamics were completely ignored. But for me, something else was underestimated: the communities received financial compensation during a time of conflict. What do you do with the money in times of uncertainty?

Are you referring to the jihadist group's infamous attack in March 2021?

Yes. At the end of March 2021, Islamists attacked the town of Palma, located in close proximity to Total's territory, and managed to occupy it for several days. Over 1,500 people died—confirmed by household surveys—but the government and Total continue to speak only of "dozens of deaths." During the attack, over 800 soldiers protected the project site, while only 10 to 40 soldiers guarded the villages. The population ran to the project site but was turned away. Poorly trained, underpaid soldiers committed abuses—extortion, rape, and aggression. These crimes remain unpunished by local courts, and now we will appeal to the United Nations. The conduct of the armed forces has clearly demonstrated that the government is acting in Total's interests.

What risk do those who oppose the project face?

Speaking out is dangerous – activists and journalists have disappeared. Organizations are under pressure to focus on services, not on corporate accountability and responsibility. With its $200 million Civil Society Fund, Total is taking the opportunity to present itself as a "development aid organization," especially after the withdrawal of the US development program USAID and the cuts in development aid by Sweden. As a result, communities and applicants for this fund are forced to maintain good relations with Total to access the funds.

Total's project also poses ecological challenges, doesn't it?

From an ecological perspective, the project poses serious risks. Ballast water introduces invasive species. Noise and light pollution disrupt marine life, including endangered coelacanths. Environmental impact assessments omit modeling of deep-sea gas condensate, which could be more toxic than oil. Between 200 and 300 relevant studies on the environmental impacts of gas extraction in the area were either not mentioned or excluded from the environmental impact assessments. In a region where 80 percent of the population relies on subsistence farming and fishing, ecological damage directly threatens survival.

How can international solidarity help the activists and communities fighting against this project?

International solidarity must challenge extractive agreements, unfair investment treaties, and fossil fuel subsidies. Africa must be given the opportunity to industrialize, move up the value chain, and regulate its own economy. Civil society must be protected, and global voices must put pressure on public banks, amplify local voices, and reject false climate solutions. Empathy and collective action—not fear—are the way forward.