Fabio Schvartsman and Gerd Peter Poppinga attended a Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM) trial session, last Tuesday, October 1st. Poppinga was convicted by one of the CMV directors, but the second CMV director requested more time to review the case files, postponing the judgment by 60 days. Victims’ families and supporters will have to keep waiting for justice regarding one of Brazil’s worst human and environmental disasters.
Two projects insured by Atradius DSB in the Brazilian port of Suape have caused serious social problems and environmental damage. Both ENDS is helping the local people to obtain justice.
TotalEnergies and the Chinese National Offshore Oil Cooperation (CNOOC) are currently developing an oil extraction and transportation project in Uganda: East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). The project – the construction of a heated pipeline (EACOP) of no less than 1445 kilometers through Uganda and Tanzania to export crude oil, is increasingly causing human rights violations and environmental damage. This is a matter of great concern to civil society organisations in Uganda and beyond. This week, Both ENDS, together with partner organisations in Uganda, sent an urgent letter to twelve pension funds and asset managers with investments in TotalEnergies and CNOOC.
January 25th, 2024 is the solemn 5-year mark of the Brumadinho upstream mining dam collapse, Brazil’s worst environmental and industrial disaster that killed 272 innocent people and unleashed 12 million cubic metres of ore tailing into the surrounding areas including the Paraopeba River – a crucial tributary of the second largest river in the country.
Both ENDS calls on the government only to provide export credit insurance to sustainable projects that cause no social and/or environmental damage in the countries where they take place.
In April 2021, the Dutch development bank FMO announced that it is no longer involved in the Barro Blanco project, a controversial dam in Panama. GENISA, the Panamanian company that built the dam, unexpectedly paid off the multi-million dollar loan early. The question is to what extent, now that the bank is no longer actively financing the project, FMO can still be held responsible for the damage and suffering that was caused when this was still the case.