Türkiye: Plans for Harmful Coal Expansion

Toxic Air Affects Health in Surrounding Community


Click to expand Image
Entrance to Çoğulhan village, located 500 meters from Afşin Elbistan, a coal power plant, Afşin, Kahramanmaraş, Türkiye. © 2024 Katharina Rall/Human Rights Watch

(Istanbul) – Türkiye’s Environment Ministry should not approve the planned addition of two more units at Afşin-Elbistan coal power plant A in the southeastern Kahramanmaraş province in view of the serious harm the plant has caused the surrounding community, Human Rights Watch said today.

Human Rights Watch research found that air pollution levels near plant A – and the later built plant B located two kilometers away – are dangerously high and that residents are experiencing health conditions that academic studies have attributed to toxic air. Despite an early government warning that a cancer explosion was expected in Afşin-Elbistan, the government has failed to monitor and reduce the harm with more stringent regulations and enforcement.

“Toxic air from coal power plants is killing thousands of people every year in Türkiye while authorities do little to prevent the problem or even to warn people of the harm to their health,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Instead of authorizing the expansion of polluting coal power plants, the Turkish government should strengthen and enforce air quality standards and enable a just transition from coal to renewables by 2030.”

The government is continuing to expand coal plants notwithstanding significant progress in Türkiye’s renewable energy sources that research has shown would enable Türkiye to exit coal by 2030. Renewable energy sources currently make up 54 percent of Türkiye’s installed electricity capacity, significantly above the global average of about 30 percent, and the International Energy Agency projects renewable energy use to increase 50 percent between 2021 and 2026.

In May 2024, Human Rights Watch interviewed 28 residents about their experiences of air pollution in Afşin-Elbistan, including 11 women and 4 older people; 2 elected village headmen from nearby villages; the mayor of the nearby town of Elbistan, 2 academics, 5 health professionals working in the region, 2 lawyers, 1 public official, and 6 local activists. Human Rights Watch also reviewed and analyzed recent air quality data from the closest governmental monitoring station whose data is publicly available, satellite data of air pollution from the EU Copernicus program, and official government documents.

Human Rights Watch wrote letters to the relevant seven divisions at the Health Ministry and that the parent company of the firm operating coal plant, which had applied for the additional units; to the state-owned electricity generation company; and to local government authorities. It also wrote to the Turkish Statistical Institute requesting health data related to Afşin and Elbistan districts. None have responded.

Residents living near the coal plants said that friends, family, and neighbors had died from cancer and cardiovascular or respiratory ailments they believe were attributable to or exacerbated by the pollution from the nearby plants.

A 57-year-old man in a village about 500 meters from coal plant A has had respiratory illness for the past 13 years: “I have asthma, and my doctor says I need clean air. But there is no clean air. We are all ill here.”

Health care workers interviewed said they had seen increased rates of respiratory problems in areas surrounding the plants.

The coal mine feeding the power plants in Afşin-Elbistan is a so-called carbon bomb, one of the world’s largest fossil fuel production projects with a coal extraction capacity of 4.09 gigatons of carbon dioxide. Expanding the coal plant threatens Türkiye’s energy transition and jeopardizes Türkiye’s obligations under the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Despite substantial investment in renewable energy sources, including solar and wind energy, Türkiye’s 2022 National Energy Plan makes no mention of a planned phaseout from coal-based electricity generation.

The country became Europe’s largest coal-fired electricity producer in early 2024 and accounts for 73 percent of planned but not-yet-constructed coal projects within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the EU that are actively seeking necessary approvals and financing. Based on the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates, more than 35,000 people died from air pollution in 2019 in Türkiye.

Türkiye should address air pollution as part of its constitutional and international legal obligations to realize the human rights to health, life, and a healthy environment and stop the expansion of coal plants in line with the duty to prevent exposure to toxic substances. The government should tackle the root causes of air pollution by drastically reducing the release of harmful pollutants, including with concrete actions to phase out coal by 2030 and refraining from expanding existing operations.

It should also take concrete steps to better monitor air quality and make the results easy to access and understandable by everyone, and by improving and applying rigorous air quality standards in line with WHO recommendations, especially in areas affected by coal plant emissions. The government should promptly introduce limits for PM2.5 – polluting particulate matter – concentrations in line with current EU regulations, and further strive to update its air quality standards to comply with proposed new EU standards expected to be adopted later in 2024. Data of emissions from large combustion plants should be made public.

“People in Afşin-Elbistan have been paying the price of coal-based electricity generation for decades,” Willamson said. “Instead of expanding a coal plant in an area where people have been exposed to high levels of pollution, the governments should urgently protect their lives and realize their right to a healthy environment.”

For additional details about air pollution and the situation in Türkiye, please see below.

Scientific research has found that exposure to air pollutants from coal power plants is associated with a risk of mortality more than double that of exposure from other sources and that canceling new coal plants would reduce air pollution related mortality globally.

The use of coal for electricity generation, alongside the domestic residential use of coal and wood for heating, creates heavy air pollution in Türkiye’s coal regions. Türkiye produces electricity by burning lignite, a low-quality polluting type of coal found in abundance throughout the country, in outdated coal plants.

Over four decades, successive Turkish governments have built and expanded two of the country’s biggest coal power plants, plants A and B, in Afşin-Elbistan. Emissions from plant A, which lacked technology to reduce emissions from its inception in 1984 through its temporary closure in 2023, are of particular concern, Human Rights Watch said. Plant A is 2.5 kilometers from plant B, which was built in 2004 using newer technologies.

Despite this, the Turkish authorities are due to be presented with an environmental impact assessment that gives the go-ahead for the construction of two additional units at power plant A, with an additional capacity of 688 MW and an investment cost of 37.5 billion Turkish Lira (at the time approximately 1.1. billion USD). A 2022 study commissioned by Greenpeace Mediterranean estimates that the planned expansion of the plant will lead to about 1,900 premature deaths over its 30-year economic lifespan.

Human Rights Watch analysis of air quality data from January 2021 to June 2024 found dangerously high levels of air pollution in the area surrounding the Afşin-Elbistan coal plants. Analysis of satellite data from the Copernicus Sentinel-5P mission shows that the average concentration of sulfur dioxide (SO2) was significantly higher over the plants and in the surrounding villages than over Elbistan, the location of the closest air quality monitoring station whose data is published. Residents living in villages close to the coal plants said they have not received any information about the risks from the plants in the region or how to help protect themselves.


Click to expand Image
Map of the village of Çoğulhan, between the two Afşin-Elbistan coal plants. © Image © 2024 Airbus. Google Earth. Graphic © Human Rights Watch

Türkiye’s air quality standards are less strict than those recommended by WHO and do not include a limit for the harmful PM2.5 pollutant, responsible for the most deaths worldwide of any pollutant, leaving a major regulatory gap.


Click to expand Image
© 2024

Coal, Health, and Climate Change

Globally, coal plants are responsible for over 20 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions: more than any other single source contributing to the climate crisis. Burning coal, and in particular lignite, releases significant pollutants including particulate matter and sulphur dioxide (SO2), each of which can significantly harm health.

The impact of particulate matter of less than 10 micrometers (PM10) and of less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) on human health is substantial. PM2.5 can reach deep into the lower respiratory tract, leading to serious respiratory and cardiovascular problems, and can easily enter the bloodstream and penetrate the lungs. Another pollutant of concern is SO2 which can cause harmful effects to the lungs, damage the cardiovascular and nervous systems and contribute to type 2 diabetes and even death.

Although Türkiye’s updated 2023 Nationally Determined Contributions, its climate action plan under the Paris Agreement, aims to increase the share of renewable energy sources in electricity generation, the country has not set a date for a coal exit. Allowing the addition of two new units with a total capacity of 688 MW to the existing 1.355 MW at the coal power plant Afşin-Elbistan A could undermine efforts to phase out coal.

Despite these advances, government data indicates that 36 percent of the electricity produced in Türkiye in 2022 was generated by coal plants. Türkiye’s operating coal fleet grew by 34 percent between 2015 and 2023.In the first quarter of 2024, the total installed capacity of coal plants was 20.2 GW, with an additional 2 GW capacity expected by 2035.

Coal Feeding Toxic Air

According to 2019 Turkish Health Ministry data air pollution is among the most important factors affecting life expectancy in Turkey. A 2001 scientific study found that communities near coal plants in the western province of Kütahya are more likely to experience health problems such as respiratory problems and reduced lung function, conditions commonly linked to air pollution.

Another study, first published in 2010, found that the impact of air pollution on people in villages near the Bursa Orhaneli coal plant in northwest Türkiye was dependent on their proximity to the coal plant as a predictor of various respiratory diseases. Children living in Türkiye’s coal-mining areas are also at higher risk of exposure to dangerous heavy metals.

Türkiye has f 380 air quality monitoring stations across the country; the closest to Afşin-Elbistan coal plant A with publicly available data is in Elbistan, 22 kilometers away. Other stations are within 3 kilometers of the plant produce no publicly available data.


Click to expand Image
Data © OpenStreetMap

Human Rights Watch analysis of SO2 concentrations recorded at the Elbistan ground monitoring station between 2019 and June 2024 shows that pollution levels started to decrease when operations of plant A temporarily ceased between February and May 2020 because the government said it had failed to comply with regulatory requirements.

Pollution levels decreased even more significantly when operations of plants A and B ceased for most of 2023 after the two earthquakes of February 6, 2023, affecting the entire region and slightly damaging the plant. The Right to Clean Air Platform (CAP), a national network of environmental groups and health professionals, similarly found that Afşin-Elbistan was a pollution hotspot in 2019.


Click to expand Image
The graph above represents the daily average of SO2 concentration between January 2019 and June 2024 measured at Elbistan air quality monitoring station. Pollution levels started to decrease when operations temporarily ceased between February and May 2020. Pollution levels decreased more significantly when operations also ceased for most of 2023 after the two earthquakes of February 6, 2023. For comparison, the graph above includes the daily WHO recommended SO2 concentration limit of 45 µg/m³, the proposed EU 2030 standards limit of 50 µg/m³ limit, and the 2019 Turkish standards limit of 125 µg/m³. © 2024 Human Rights Watch

The SO2 values recorded at the government ground level monitoring station in Elbistan are very likely to be much lower than at the levels at locations closer to the plant. The average SO2 vertical column density at ground level from January 1, 2019, to June 1, 2024, over the village of Çoğulhan, directly adjacent to the plant, was almost three times higher than the average density recorded over the monitoring station in Elbistan during that period.


Click to expand Image
Map of the average SO2 concentration from January 1, 2019, to June 1, 2024, around the Afşin-Elbistan coal power plant A showing significantly higher levels in the immediate vicinity of the plant than over the closest monitoring station, 22km away in the town of Elbistan. Data © Copernicus Sentinel-5P processed with Google Earth Engine. Analysis and graphic © Human Rights Watch.

The Afsin-Elbistan A plant had been allowed to operate without filters required by environmental regulations for many years. Despite repeated legal challenges and campaigning that resulted in its closure on January 1, 2020 for failure to comply with environmental regulations, the government permitted the plant to reopen in May 2020 and to continue operating until the earthquakes, which damaged the plants. As of December 26, 2023, only one of four A plant units, for the first time fitted with a desulfurization filter, had been permitted to restart.

While the best available technology for desulfurization can drastically lower SO2 emissions, it is unclear whether this technology is used at the unit that has been permitted to restart. There are also concerns that air pollutant filters lose performance efficiency over time. As is acknowledged in the environmental impact assessment, if new units are added to the existing coal plant, SO2 pollution levels in the area will rise. In addition, while the best available desulphurization technology can significantly limit exposure to SO2, it cannot undo the health harm caused by prior exposure.

In November 2018, Çelikler Holding, a private company, took over Afsin-Elbistan A plant, from the state company (EÜAŞ), which previously operated it. Human Rights Watch does not know the terms of the agreement between the state company and Çelikler Holding and key details of the agreement should be made public.

Çelikler Holding says on their website that they “aim to prevent negative impacts on the environment and society and to take appropriate measures [to reduce such impacts] where they cannot be prevented.” The company did not respond to questions about the measures taken to minimize the release of harmful air pollutants and requested projections once filtration is fully installed at the plant.

Human Rights Watch analysis of PM2.5 levels recorded at the government monitoring station in Elbistan from January 2021 to June 2024 found that the average PM2.5 concentration was more than five times the annual WHO recommended level and almost three times the proposed 2030 EU standard. Türkiye has not established PM2.5 limits under its pollution control laws/standards aligned with the EU limits.


Click to expand Image
The graph above represents the daily average PM2.5 concentration between January 2021 and June 2024 measured at Elbistan air quality monitoring station. For comparison, the WHO recommendation (daily average no higher than 45 µg/m³) and proposed EU 2030 standard (daily average no higher than 25 µg/m³) are also displayed. © 2024 Human Rights Watch

Human Rights Watch analysis of PM10 concentrations at the Elbistan air quality monitoring station between January 2021 and June 2024 also shows that pollution levels have remained high in recent years, with an average PM10 concentration more than four times the annual WHO recommended level and 1.75 times the 2019 Turkish standard.


Click to expand Image
The graph above represents the daily average of PM 10 concentration between January 2021 and June 2024 measured at Elbistan air quality monitoring station. For comparison, the 2019 Turkish daily standard (50 µg/m³), the WHO recommendation and the proposed EU 2030 daily standard (45 µg/m³) are also displayed. © 2024 Human Rights Watch

Health Impacts of Toxic Air Fed by Coal in Afsin-Elbistan

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has told governments that to protect and fulfil the right to health governments are required to implement policies to reduce and eliminate air pollution.

People living in the vicinity of the coal plants in Afşin-Elbistan described health problems that they believe could be related to the toxic air they are breathing.

Hacıkız Savran, 70, who lives less than 500 meters from the power plant and can see the plant’s chimney belching out smoke from her living room, said she has had severe asthma for more than 7 years: “[My] doctor was surprised to hear that I had never smoked in my life. He said, ‘Why did you become [this sick] if you never smoked?’”

Fatma (real name withheld for her own protection) 55, lives in Çoğulhan, has had asthma for 4 years and lost her son to lung cancer which she believes was linked to pollution from the plant. She worries about the impact of air pollution on women: “There is a lot of asthma and a lot of chest and lung conditions among women in the village.… Men can go off in their cars to other places but we as women are always at home. We have to suffer the dirt of the plant.”

Children from Çoğulhan and six neighboring villages attend schools close to the plant. A health professional in Elbistan told Human Rights Watch that they had observed a high incidence of respiratory diseases, particularly among children.


Click to expand Image
Map of the location of the schools in Çoğulhan, highlighting their proximity with the plant and the area for the additional two units. Image © 2024 Airbus. Google Earth. © Graphic © Human Rights Watch

People with certain health conditions, such as asthma or cardiovascular problems, children, older people, pregnant women, workers, those living in poverty, and members of other socially and economically marginalized groups are among those most at risk of exposure and adverse effects of air pollution.

Scientific research drawing on data from 83 countries suggests that the more a country relies on coal power plants to generate energy, the greater the lung cancer risk. While research specific to the health impacts of air pollution for people in surrounding areas of the Afşin-Elbistan coal plant is scarce, a 2009 PhD thesis found that nonsmokers in nearby villages were more likely to experience genotoxic damage than those further away from the plant, which may increase the risk of cancer.

Similarly, a 2007 academic study found nonsmoking workers employed in the transportation of fly ash at Afşin-Elbistan A power plant to be more likely to experience cytogenetic damage (changes in their chromosomes which can lead to cancer).

Several people interviewed expressed concern about high numbers of cancer cases in their families.In 2002, the head of the Health Ministry’s Cancer Control Department stated that a cancer explosion was expected in Afşin-Elbistan, in the ensuing five years. The official noted that a coal power plant had been built there 30 years earlier and that the coal plant poses a serious danger to the people of the region.

A 2017 report by the same ministry identified Elbistan as a priority region for establishing an oncology service, a recommendation that has not been followed. The Health Ministry did not respond to questions regarding cancer prevalence in Afşin and Elbistan districts and whether further studies had been carried out.

Lack of Sufficient Monitoring of Air Quality

In 2019, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment published a report focused on the right to breathe clean air as one of the components of a right to a healthy environment. He outlined key steps governments to take in fulfilling the right to a healthy environment by ensuring clean air, the first of which is to monitor air quality and its impact on health.

Over the years, Türkiye has invested in developing its air quality monitoring systems, supported by EU accession funds. Yet the number of stations remain insufficient and data from areas at high risk of pollution is not available to the public.

While the Turkish government air quality monitoring website provides measurements from ground level monitoring stations across the country, the historic data is at times incomplete and pollution hotspots like Afşin-Elbistan are not closely monitored. According to analysis of 2016-2019 data, conditions in at least 21 of 81 provinces could not be adequately assessed because data was available for fewer than 75 percent of days, a criterion of the European Environment Agency.

Residents of Çoğulhan said that a monitoring station in the village was no longer operational, and no data from the station is publicly available. Human Rights Watch wrote in May 2024 to government and to the state-run electricity production company (EÜAŞ) seeking any data from the station, but received no reply.

These shortcomings prevent the Turkish government from reliably monitoring the impact of coal plants on air quality.

Lack of Information, Consultation about Power Plant Expansion

Another key step for governments to take to fulfill their human rights obligations is to share information in a timely, accessible way, educating the public about health risks and issuing health advisories.

Yet there is a dearth of information about the real extent of air pollution in the region and related health risks. In addition to the lack of effective monitoring of ground level air pollution, the emissions from large combustion plants, including coal plants, are not publicly available in Türkiye. Even when courts have ordered the government to provide emissions data of coal plants publicly, the authorities have not revealed the data.

Residents in Çoğulhan, Berçenek, and Altunelma, said they have not received any information about the extent of environmental problems in the region, possible health effects, or how to participate in decisions around the coal plant that would enable them to address prevent health risks and seek remediation for health harms suffered.

The Environment Ministry provides some health advice on a website, such as suggesting that members of sensitive groups limit outdoor activities when air pollution levels are high, but it does not provide detailed practical advice for at risk groups.

Residents also raised concerns about their lack of information about the planned expansion of the coal power plant. “They don’t ever tell us anything,” said Savran, the 70-year-old resident. “Everything is decided in Ankara.”

The newly elected mayor of Elbistan said that even municipal authorities were not consulted during the expansion approval process, an apparent violation of Turkish regulations governing the process.

Human Rights Obligations and Air Pollution

Human rights obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil rights including those to life, to bodily integrity, to health, to information and to a healthy environment require governments to take action to prevent air pollution and strive to ensure clean air. The UN Human Rights Committee, in its comment on obligations on the right to life noted that implementation of the obligation to respect the right to life, depends, among other things, on governments taking measures to protect the environment against pollution caused by public and private actors.

The UN special rapporteur on human rights and the environment has set out how states must not only not violate the right to breathe clean air through their own actions but also protect the right from being violated by third parties, especially businesses. To do so, governments must establish, implement and enforce laws, policies and programs to fulfil the right. They also have duties to promote education and public awareness; provide access to information; facilitate public participation in the assessment of proposed projects, policies and environmental decisions; and ensure affordable, timely access to remedies.

The European Court of Human Rights has found in several cases that severe environmental pollution affecting individuals’ well-being violated their rights to privacy and family life. In finding violations of human rights, the court has taken into account the proximity of homes to the source of pollution.

In its case-law, the court has established that governments have a positive obligation to undertake due diligence with respect to pollution hazards, weigh the impact they have on personal and family lives against any competing interests, and take effective measures to protect people’s lives and health, including by preventing or reducing the harmful impacts and providing adequate information to people.

Report Shady green finance

How Italy’s largest fossil fuel company uses sustainability-linked bonds as a loophole to keep financing hydrocarbons

Misleading media coverage and a lack of regulatory oversight are contributing to a huge climate blind spot: that both private and institutional investors have poured billions into Eni's "green-labelled" bonds, under terms and conditions which give them the freedom to continue to fund carbon-emitting activities.

Published on 2 September 2024 
Stefano Valentino, Giorgio Michalopoulos
 

PV64 | Cartoon movement


A massive greenwashing operation is quietly unfolding across Europe, affecting thousands of investors who believe they are supporting climate-friendly initiatives. These investors have bought 'green-labelled' bonds issued by Eni, Italy's largest – and the world's 13th largest – fossil fuel company. The problem is that these bonds may well be funding carbon-emitting activities, undermining the very energy transition and climate goals that Eni claims to support. As the activist group Reclaim Finance describes the scam: “the bond market has become a safe haven for easy access to fossil fuel finance”.

Eni’s CEO Claudio Descalzi has persuaded thousands of investors across Europe to back a sustainability strategy that can be summed up as: Give me your money to mitigate climate change, and then I'll decide how much of it goes towards exacerbating climate change.
More : How big finance greenwashes climate crisis culprits

"The energy transition is irreversible," Descalzi said on a well-known Sunday talk show on the Italian public broadcaster in June, laying out his plan. "But the money has to come from private capital. When you set targets, you have to provide the opportunity for each industrial activity to be optimised with the tools to achieve those targets, and to do so freely."

The fact remains that both private and institutional investors have signed what are effectively Eni 'blank climate cheques'. Meanwhile Descalzi earns a staggering €1.6 million a year, and has been at the helm of the state-controlled company over a decade and through four different Italian governments.
The controversial bonds

The type of financial product issued by Eni is called a "Sustainability-Linked Bond" (SLB). Eni has been promoting such “green-labelled” financial products in several European countries. This plan was backed by the Italian ministry of economy and finance, which owns more than 30% of the company's shares, and a coalition of banks that marketed the bonds while downplaying experts' warnings about their true environmental impact.

These products are designed to attract investors who are concerned about the environment. But there is growing concern that the money raised by these bonds could end up further funding fossil fuel activities rather than helping the environment. There is nothing to stop Eni from doing so, and the company has vowed to increase its production of oil and natural gas in years to come.

In January 2023, Eni issued one of its most controversial SLBs, aimed at climate-conscious retail investors in Italy. The bond was initially valued at €1 billion, but was so popular that it quickly doubled to €2 billion.

The success of these bonds was boosted by the rather enthusiastic attitude of the Italian mainstream media, which reported ENI's statements without questioning its weak commitments to reduce carbon emissions.

The reality is that investors in these bonds are unlikely to make a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Eni's plans for the money raised by these bonds are likely to support its usual business activities, leaving most of its emissions untouched.

This hoax, involving major public, industrial and financial powers, was also recently exposed in a report published in July by the Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute (AFII), a UK-based NGO that helps investors direct capital into impactful sustainable investments “in the age of human induced climate change”.

This situation highlights the need for greater clarity and honesty in the way financial products are marketed to the public. A first step in this direction is expected when the European Union's new regulation on green bonds comes into force on 21 December this year (1).
Big polluters rely on industry self-regulation of eco-bonds

In recent years, SLBs have become popular with companies as a way of raising fresh funds to support their efforts to combat global warming.

But as our research shows, these bonds are not as "green" as they seem. Like traditional green bonds, SLBs are based on voluntary standards. The main difference is that while the former require the issuer to use the money for specific environmental projects, SLBs only require companies to meet certain sustainability targets, known as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). This means that money raised through SLBs can be used for any purpose, including activities that could harm the environment, as long as the company meets its KPIs.
More : Reclaim Finance’s Lucie Pinson: ‘Europe’s banks are subverting the climate objectives’

More specifically, the Italian fossil fuel company's SLBs are linked to two key KPIs listed in the issuance prospectus: increasing renewable energy capacity by 5 gigawatts (GW), and reducing greenhouse gas emissions from its operations by 65% compared to 2018 levels.

Bonds classified as ESG (promoting ‘environmental, social and governance’ benefits) include not only SLBs but also the more aptly named "green" and "sustainability" (as well as "social") bonds. The ESG bond market operates under voluntary guidelines set by the International Capital Market Association (ICMA), a trade association that includes the companies that issue the bonds, the agencies that certify them and the banks that market them to investors (2). This means that the same actors who benefit from these bonds also set the rules and ensure compliance, creating a conflict of interest.

The ESG bond market is not regulated by any public authority, so there is little oversight to ensure that these bonds actually contribute to environmental sustainability. In Italy, for example, Consob, the national financial markets regulator, simply approved Eni's SLBs on the basis of general rules for financial products, without examining their environmental merits.

No wonder SLBs are the preferred debt financing instrument of fossil energy companies among all ESG-qualified companies. Data from the London Stock Exchange Group, used for our analysis, shows that between 2021 and 2023 some oil and gas multinationals have raised around €9 billion through SLBs. The fossil fuel issuers are Repsol (Spain), Gasunie (Netherlands), Odfjell (Norway), Orlen (Poland), SFL Corporation (Bermuda), Eni and Snam (Italy).
Misinformation greened Eni’s carbon-sponsoring bonds

ENI raised €4.75 billion through four different SLB issues between June 2021 and September 2023, making it the largest issuer of SLBs in the fossil fuel sector. These bonds were marketed mainly in Italy, France, Germany, the UK and Switzerland, between June 2021 and September 2023, with the help of major banks (3).

Both Intesa Sanpaolo (which is an ENI shareholder both directly and indirectly through the green funds marketed by its asset management arm Eurizon), and UniCredit coordinated the consortium of banks that commercialised the €2 billion SLB reserved for Italian retail investors in January 2023. The group also includes Banca Akros, BPER Banca, BNP Paribas and Crédit Agricole CIB (the latter two banks announced last May that they have retreated from oil and gas bond deals).

In Italy, 310,000 retail investors bought €600 million worth of bonds in the January 2023 issue, attracted by the high fixed rate of 4.3%, which was more appealing than returns on conventional bonds.
More : Green funds: how a jungle of indices turned fossil fuels into a sustainable investment

Eni's CEO continued to publicly laud the success of the “greened” bonds. "So many Italians have believed in what we are doing, both in terms of progressive evolution towards decarbonised industrial processes and products, and in terms of guaranteeing energy security," commented Claudio Descalzi at the launch of the Italian bond, which was admitted to trading on the Milan Stock Exchange in February 2023.

ENI's board decided to issue the SLBs without the prior approval of the company's shareholders, as the Italian ministry of economy and finance confirmed to Voxeurop. The ministry also sits on the board and is therefore co-responsible for any decision, but refused to explain if and why its representatives formally voted in favour of the issue.

The Italian mainstream media played an important role in “greening” Eni's SLBs by giving them favourable coverage. Major newspapers such as La Repubblica and La Stampa respectively described the bonds as "sustainable" and "green" – two categories of ESG bonds that have to meet much stricter criteria than the SLBs.

As explained, unlike “green and “sustainable” bonds, SLBs have no requirement to use the proceeds for specific 100% environmental projects, allowing Eni to use the money for general purposes, including fossil fuel production (4). Unicredit clarified to Voxeurop that indeed Eni’s issuance “was not conceived of as a ‘Green Bond’”.

Josephine Richardson, Managing Director and Head of Research at AFII, explains that essentially, as an SLB issuer, Eni enjoys a great deal of flexibility and is entitled to use investors' money for its fossil fuel production, as long as it meets the two sustainability targets or KPIs that it has committed to in its prospectus. "Both refinancing of debt originally used for oil exploration and expenditure strictly related to oil production could theoretically be covered," she said.
Eni green bonds will trigger weak GHG reduction

Taking advantage of the laxity of the SLB requirements, Eni arbitrarily set poor climate targets. Firstly, it committed to reducing a negligible proportion of its total greenhouse gas emissions. Secondly, instead of substantially reducing this amount of emissions, the Italian oil major decided to largely offset it with reductions achieved elsewhere by buying carbon credits generated by third-party projects (reforestation or renewable energy). The latter is a cheap way for large emitters to reduce their carbon footprint.

These flaws – unheeded by the Italian government – have been pointed out by independent organisations, banks and media. The first criticism came from Moody’s, one of the world's leading rating agencies, which certified Eni's "Sustainability-Linked Financing Framework" (a non-binding document, unlike the prospectus, which sets out the company's actual commitments) (5).

In its assessment (technically called "second party opinion") of Eni's framework, Moody's said that Eni's SLBs have a "limited overall contribution" to sustainability. This is because the company has committed in its framework to invest the money borrowed from bondholders to reduce only its direct emissions (oil and gas production and refining) and those associated with its energy consumption. Together, these two categories of emissions (classified as Scope 1 and 2, respectively) represent no more than 3% of Eni's total emissions, according to Moody's.
Receive the best of European journalism straight to your inbox every Thursday


You can unsubscribe at anytime *Subscribe

The reduction of Eni's indirect emissions from upstream suppliers and downstream customers (Scope 3) is excluded from the SLB targets. However, such emissions, especially those from companies that purchase and burn fossil fuels for their operations (e.g. industrial plants and airlines), account for the largest volume of GHGs attributed to fossil fuel suppliers such as Eni.

“Also including the emissions generated by the company's suppliers and customers (scope 3) would have been the opportunity for an impactful sustainability-linked bond,” said Richardson of AFII. “I hope investors will realise this is not a very impactful sustainability-linked-bond and make consequent choices.”

An Eni spokesperson provided an explanation which seems contradictory, pointing out that the four sustainability-linked bonds “have maturities [i.e. the payback deadline] between 2027 and 2030". They said that these were years “in which it will not be possible to determine whether or not the Scope 3 target will be reached – this will only be known in the first part of 2031. It was therefore not possible to include this target in the bonds.”

Yet Eni is not even sure that it will achieve the Scope 1 and 2 reductions promised to bondholders. In fact, if it fails to meet these targets, Eni will have to pay investors a higher interest rate of 4.8% as a sort of penalty (i.e. 25 percentage points more than what is usually included in the prospectus of SLB issuers). However, this penalty is small compared to the potential impact of the environmental damage (6).

“We are still waiting for a publicly agreed methodology to be defined on Scope 3 emissions,” added Eni’s spokesperson. In reality, such methodology has already been agreed at an EU level and should kick in by 2025 (7).

Moody's states that Eni's approach is "at odds with the recommendations of the International Energy Agency (IEA) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which emphasise the need for immediate action to reduce all greenhouse gas emissions (Scopes 1, 2 and 3) in order to achieve the 1.5°C objective of the Paris Agreement".

Despite its criticism, Moody's has put its green stamp on the company's framework, confirming compliance with the International Capital Market Association standards. Before issuing the SLB, Eni did not ask Moody's to also assess the product prospectus, which formalised the company's weak commitments. Moody's, which was paid by Eni for its so-called "independent" certification (issuers always pay assessors), declined to comment.

Most of the time, assessors’ (or second party opinion providers) reviews are “based on the pre-issuance documents such as the SLB Framework, and not on a Bond-by-Bond basis,” said the International Capital Market Association’s spokesperson. “This is clearly the issuers’ decision. There is no rule preventing that practice.”

Richardson said that it is “generally acknowledged to be non-ideal that SPO providers assess financing frameworks rather than bonds”.

Intesa Sanpaolo insisted that Eni’s framework “has been externally certified as sustainable” and therefore “has been classified as meeting the needs of subscribers who have indicated their preferences for sustainable investments" (8). Nonetheless, the lack of transparency on the part of Intesa Sanpaolo and Eni raises questions about the ability of investors to make an informed decision when purchasing the bond (9). It is worth noting that Intesa Sanpaolo, Unicredit and all the underwriters except BPER, together with Eni and Moody's, are on the ICMA member list, working together side by side for the same “cause”.
Over-flexibility may further water down Eni climate efforts

As highlighted in the recent AFII report, which assessed 19 SLBs issued by companies in different sectors, Eni's bond is also questionable because the company intends to neutralise 40% of its scope 1 and 2 emissions through the use of offsets (or carbon credits). Compensating for emissions rather than reducing them slows down the transition to renewables and the decarbonisation process. Eni's offsets “are reported to be 5.9mt CO2 equivalent for 2023”.

In its 2023 report the Climate Bond Initiative (CBI), the world's largest certification platform for the financing of sustainable projects, also criticised Eni’s SLB, stating that the company should "set more ambitious reduction targets that are in line with the industry's path and do not include offsets". Eni's plan "is dependent on offsets, Ccs (for CO2 capture and storage) projects and the expansion of the gas business [...] which will not address the radical turnaround that is needed," the CBI researchers wrote in their report.

AFII gives Eni a fair 50/50 chance of meeting its SLB targets, and says that this probability of success depends on the company's planned use of carbon offsets. According to the same report: “A simple extrapolation of the recent trend of Eni’s SLB would suggest the target will narrowly be missed [...], however [...] offset purchases significantly increase the chance of achieving the target”.
More : How “green” investments are financing Big Carbon

Richardson of AFII argued: “Should Eni just pay to buy some more offsets so it can meet its targets and no longer have to pay their step up on coupon (i.e. higher interest rate to investors)? That is clearly not the best use of a Sustainability Linked Bond.”

All in all, Eni’s SLB does not effectively help to keep the company on track towards its carbon neutrality target in 2050 (10).

AFII's analysis of SLBs issued by other fossil energy companies revealed similar problems to those highlighted in relation to Eni's SLB (11).

“Some SLBs issuers had too much flexibility with the use of SLBs prior to setting up a credible transition plan,” Matthew MacGeoch, Senior Research Analyst at CBI, told Voxeurop, implicitly referring to Eni. “However, recent trends show a convergence towards the use of credible GHG decarbonisation targets (all material sources of emission, and no abuse of offsets).”

Richardson shares MacGeoch’s optimistic views: "We are very much in favour of this kind of product because we believe it has great potential for impact," she said, "although not all those that have been launched so far have necessarily had an impact, nor have they all set high standards or concrete goals."

Footnotes


1) The new regulations mentions as follows: "To be able to use the designation European green bond or EuGB, issuers: must invest the proceeds from these bonds in full, before the bond reaches maturity, in sustainable economic activities covered by the European Union’s (EU) taxonomy* legislation (Regulation (EU) 2020/852 – see summary). These include fixed assets, capital and operating expenditures, and assets and expenditure of households (this is known as the gradual approach)."

2) ICMA requires that one of its approved external reviewers evaluate the ESG bond before issuance to certify that the product meets its guidelines (through a specific assessment form).

3) Eni’s SLBs: 7 June 2021, 23 January 2023, 15 May 2023, 7 September 2023.

4) The prospectus (the public information document) that Eni provided to investors confirms that: "The bonds are not marketed as so-called green bonds because the Issuer expects to use the net proceeds thereof for general corporate purposes and does not intend to use the net proceeds for projects or business activities that meet environmental or sustainability criteria”. The same disclaimer is replicated in the prospectus of the other SLBs issued by Eni both in Italy and abroad.

5) Generally, while the framework sets the company’s overall sustainability goals, the specific targets that the issuer intends to meet as a counterpart of the funding cashed from bondholders are outlined in the information document (prospectus) provided at each issuance. Albeit setting ambitious targets to reduce the overall value chain emissions in the long term, Eni’s framework clarifies that the company will use the SLBs proceeds to reduce, exclusively, its Scope 1 and 2 emissions in the short term.

6) This is precisely what happened to the Italian utility Enel (also partially owned by the Italian government), the first company to launch an SLB with a record value of €15 billion raised between 2019 and 2023. Josephine Richardson, managing director and head of research at AFII, recalls that Enel did not meet its sustainability promises in 2023. As a result, it will have to pay bondholders a slightly higher interest rate.

7) Harmonised EU criteria for quantifying and disclosing carbon emissions and reduction targets as well as other environmental and social targets will come into force in 2025 under the new Corporate Sustainability Disclosure Directive (CSRD). Companies will have to comply with the CRSD obligations through a set of specific European sustainability reporting standards (ESRS). The standard covering climate change makes reference to a well defined methodology to calculate Scope 3 emissions.

8) Full response by Intesa Sanpaolo, in Italian: ‘Intesa Sanpaolo e Unicredit sono state Responsabili del Collocamento dell’emissione obbligazionaria Eni Sustainability-Linked 2023/2028 la cui offerta si è aperta il 16 gennaio 2023 e conclusa il 20 gennaio 2023, del quale hanno fatto parte anche Banca Akros, BNP Paribas, BPER Banca e Crédit Agricole CIB, in qualità di Collocatori e Garanti unitamente ai Responsabili del Collocamento. Come indicato nel prospetto, il bond basa la caratteristica di sostenibilità sulla capacità dell’emittente (ENI) di osservare determinati parametri ESG durante la vita dell’obbligazione stessa.Il Framework (Sustainability Linked Financing Framework) di Eni, a cui l’emissione oggetto della Vostra richiesta fa riferimento, è stato esternamente certificato come “SOSTENIBILE” da Agenzie specializzate indipendenti dalla società medesima e dai Collocatori (‘Second party opinion providers’) e rispetta i requisiti previsti dai Sustainability-Linked Bond Principles dell’ ICMA (International Capital Market Association). In virtù di quanto sopra è stata classificata come rispondente alle esigenze dei sottoscrittori che hanno segnalato le loro preferenze per investimenti sostenibili; l’emissione non è stata mai certificata, ne pensata o predisposta, come “GREEN BOND”.’

9) In its announcement, the Italian bank briefly mentioned the SLB framework and referred, for further information, to Eni’s “Investors” web page. Only by scrolling down the page, can users find the company press release. However, it does not explain what Scope 1 and 2 emissions mean, does not quantify the expected GHG reduction associated with the SLB, and does not provide neither a summary nor even a link to the prospectus (which includes Moody’s Second Party Opinion). This lack of transparency and missing information undermines the retail investors who do not have sufficient knowledge to find out how their money is actually being used, and understand whether Eni’s product meets their true preferences for sustainable investments (or not).

10) Contrary to the IEA and IPCC recommendations, the climate performance achieved by Eni through the proceeds of the SLBs in the short term represents just a tiny fraction of the GHG reduction (including Scopes 1, 2 and 3) projected by the company to meet its net zero target in 2050. “High-quality carbon credits, [...] generated under stringent environmental and social constraints, will account for about 5% of the overall reduction in Scope 1+2+3 emissions by 2050,” said an Eni spokesperson, while avoiding comment on the use of offsets to meet the specific SLB targets. “Our strategy does not depend on carbon offsets, but [we] will resort to them where it is not possible to abate residual emissions, i.e. those that cannot yet be reduced due to technological and/or economic constraints.”

(11) Read further reports from the Anthropocene Fixed Income Institute (AFII), a UK-based NGO, on other companies, including SLBs: Orlen, SNAM and Repsol, amongst others.

Stefano Valentino is a Bertha Challenge Fellow 2024. This article is part of the investigation coordinated by Voxeurop and European Investigative Collaborations with the support of the Bertha Challenge fellowship.

How Development Failures Fuel Labour Exodus in Nepal



Vidhu Prakash Kayastha
September 2nd, 2024

LSE


As outward labour migration increases steadily in Nepal, Vidhu Prakash Kayashta looks at the various factors that have led to this exodus, and discusses why and how this trend will continue unless there are radical changes in the entire system — from political will to education and skills development programmes.

Nepal faces a severe unemployment crisis, leading many young workers to migrate abroad for better opportunities. The economy, heavily reliant on low-productivity agriculture, struggles with limited growth and failed diversification in manufacturing and services. The crisis is exacerbated by a mismatch between graduate skills and the needs of the labour market alongside an outdated education system. As a result, the youth are confronted with high unemployment and underemployment.

Many migrate to countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia and South Korea for higher wages and better work conditions. While remittances from migrant workers supports Nepal’s economy, they also highlight domestic job market deficiencies, and bring social and psychological challenges in its wake. Comprehensive reforms are needed, including modernising education, improving infrastructure, creating jobs and fostering entrepreneurship to build a more resilient economy and address these systemic issues.

Shadows of Migration

In the quiet, almost eerie calm of Nepal’s Terai region, abandoned villages paint a poignant picture of a larger issue. These once-bustling communities now lie empty, a stark reminder of the growing trend of absenteeism in the country. ‘Absent population’ refers to those counted in the Census but not present in Nepal at the time of data collection. This absence is a powerful indicator of the economic hardships pushing many Nepalis to seek better prospects beyond their homeland.

The economic struggle is particularly evident among the youth. In recent years, the youth unemployment rate — reflecting the percentage of individuals aged 15–24 who are jobless but actively seeking employment — has been a critical metric of the country’s economic challenges (Table 1). For instance, in 2022, the youth unemployment rate stood at 20.52 per cent, showing a slight improvement from the previous year’s rate of 22.75 per cent; however, this was an incremental drop from 2020, which saw a rate of 23.80 per cent. The trend of increasing youth unemployment rates was evident even earlier, with 2019 recording a rate of 19.88 per cent, only marginally higher than in 2018.





Table 1: Unemployment in Nepal 2018–22 based on data from Macrotrends; © Author.



Impact of Absenteeism

The 2021 Census Report, the 12th since Nepal’s first Census in 1911, provides essential demographic data for planning and policy by the government. As of 2021, Nepal’s population is 29,192,480, reflecting a 10.18 per cent increase since 2011. However, the annual growth rate has slowed to 0.93 per cent, the lowest in 80 years, due to declining fertility rates, rising migration and urbanisation.

Migration has surged, with 2,169,478 Nepalis living abroad, significantly contributing to remittances, which constitute about 30 per cent of the Gross Domestic product (GDP). Between 2011–21, the number of Nepalis living abroad increased by 269,098, or 14.01 per cent. Female migration has risen from 12.36 per cent to 17.83 per cent of the overseas population, while the percentage of males has decreased from 87.64 per cent to 82.17 per cent. The number of males living abroad increased by 6.01 per cent, while females increased by 7.98 per cent.

The high rate of absenteeism of Nepalese workers serves as a stark indicator of the dire conditions prompting their departure. Everyone who leaves in search of better prospects reflects the economic shortcomings at home. This exodus not only reveals the depth of Nepal’s economic struggles but also underscores the urgent need for comprehensive reforms to address the underlying issues.

Simultaneously, Nepal’s net migration rate, which tracks the number of people moving in and out of the country per 1,000 population, reflects a similar story of economic desperation. In 2024, the net migration rate dropped to 4.144 per 1,000, a significant 18.26 per cent decrease from the previous year. This followed a 16.47 per cent increase in 2023, when the rate had been 5.070 per 1,000. The migration rate has been climbing steadily since 2021, which saw a rate of 3.636 per 1,000 — a 24.52 per cent rise from 2020. In 2022, the migration rate had surged to 4.353 per 1,000, a notable 19.72 per cent increase from 2021.

These statistics and trends not only highlight the pressing economic issues facing Nepal but also underscore the larger narrative of a nation grappling with the challenges of providing opportunities and stability for its people. The empty villages and the rising net migration rate are emblematic of a broader socio-economic struggle that continues to drive many Nepalis to seek a better life elsewhere.

Economic Challenges

Nepal’s economic environment is marked by slow growth, high unemployment and widespread underemployment. The scarcity of job opportunities perpetuates a cycle of poverty and restricts economic mobility. This situation is particularly disheartening for the youth, who face limited job prospects and are increasingly drawn to foreign labour markets in search of better opportunities.

Dependence on Remittances

In response to the sluggish domestic economy, remittances from abroad have become a crucial support system for many Nepali families. Workers in countries like Qatar, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia send essential funds back home, underscoring the deficiencies of Nepal’s domestic job market. While these remittances offer temporary relief, they highlight a more profound issue: the country’s inability to generate sufficient employment opportunities and sustain its population.

Political Instability and Corruption

Political instability and corruption have further destabilised the economy. Frequent changes in government and pervasive corruption erode public trust and obstruct effective policy implementation. The lack of consistent economic strategies and stable governance undermines long-term planning and investment, stifling growth and opportunity.

The trend of young people leaving the country for employment opportunities is growing. In the fiscal year 2013–14, the number of youths seeking jobs abroad first surpassed 500,000 in a single year. However, it is important to factor in the impact of the Covid–19 pandemic, which has influenced these figures. According to the Foreign Employment Board, over 600,000 individuals sought jobs overseas in the year following the pandemic, with that number rising to more than 750,000 in the most recent fiscal year. Currently, it is estimated that more than 7 million young people have been living abroad for over five years which, along with other absentee population, represents about 23 per cent of the country’s total population.

As evident in Table 2 below, the highest number of labour approvals was in Kartik (mid-October to mid- November) with 78,370; the lowest number of labour approvals was in Baisakh (mid-April to mid-May) with 54,457.





Table 2: Labour Approvals per month in 2080 Bikram Sambat (April 2022 – March 2023), not available for Asoj (mid-September to mid-October 2022); data based on myRepublica © Author.



Way Forward

Substantial reform is necessary to tackle Nepal’s economic and demographic challenges. Enhanced data collection can provide better insights into absenteeism and its causes. Strengthening support systems for both resident and non-resident populations, along with promoting sustainable economic development, are crucial steps. By focusing on job creation, better living conditions and addressing the root causes of migration, Nepal can strive towards a more resilient and equitable economy.

The 23 per cent absentee rate highlighted by the Census 2021 serves as a crucial reflection of Nepal’s economic and social landscape. Addressing this issue is vital for effective governance and sustainable development. By enhancing data collection, providing support to all Nepalis regardless of where they are and promoting robust economic growth, Nepal can work towards a more equitable and prosperous future for its people.

*

The views expressed here are those of the author and do not represent the views of the ‘South Asia @ LSE’ blog, the LSE South Asia Centre or the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please click here for our Comments Policy.

This blogpost may not be reposted by anyone without prior written consent of LSE South Asia Centre; please e-mail southasia@lse.ac.uk for permission.

Banner image © Rohan Reddy, Boudhanath Sadak, Kathmandu, 2018, Unsplash.

*



About the author

Vidhu Prakash Kayastha
Dr Vidhu Prakash Kayastha holds a PhD in Journalism and Mass Communication, and is a journalist, writer and media educator in Kathmandu. He contributes articles in English and Nepali, and writes in Nepalbhasa.

Gaza's Health Ministry vaccinates over 72,000 children against polio

Urgency of vaccination campaign underscored by confirmation of Gaza’s 1st polio case in 25 years last month

Mohamed Majed |02.09.2024 -

Mass polio vaccination drive for children continues in Gaza Strip, covering thousands of children amid war

GAZA CITY, Palestine

Gaza’s Health Ministry announced Sunday that it managed to vaccinate more than 72,000 children on the first day of a polio vaccination campaign, despite an ongoing Israeli offensive.

“Medical teams in the central area (of the Gaza Strip) were able to vaccinate 72,611 children on the first day of the emergency polio vaccination campaign,” the ministry said on Telegram.

An Anadolu correspondent noted that thousands of Palestinians went to the centers announced in the area to vaccinate their children under the age of 10 against polio.

According to medical teams supervising the vaccination campaign at centers in Deir al-Balah, signs of fatigue and malnutrition were observed in hundreds of children who received vaccinations due to the difficult conditions they are living through due to the ongoing Israeli war on the Gaza Strip for nearly 11 months.

The vaccination drive, which is being conducted in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and the UN agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), kicked off at Nasser Hospital following a joint press conference by the organizations.

Majdi Duhair, head of the technical committee overseeing the vaccination effort, said Saturday that the campaign will first focus on central Gaza from Sept. 1-4, followed by Khan Younis from Sept. 5-9, and will conclude in Gaza City and the northern regions from Sept. 9-12.

The campaign comes amid a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where Israel’s ongoing conflict with the Palestinian group Hamas and an Israeli blockade of the enclave have led to critical shortages of food, clean water and medical supplies. The deteriorating conditions have heightened concerns about potential outbreaks of diseases, including polio.

The urgency of the campaign was underscored by the confirmation of Gaza’s first polio case in 25 years in a 10-month-old child last month. On Aug. 16, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for a seven-day humanitarian cease-fire to allow the vaccination of 640,000 children, a request that was supported by UNRWA.

The polio vaccination campaign is taking place against the backdrop of Israel's continued military attacks in Gaza, which have resulted in over 40,700 Palestinian deaths and more than 94,000 injuries since Oct. 7 last year.

*Writing by Rania Abu ShamalaAnadolu Agency website contains only a portion of the news stories offered to subscribers in the AA News Broadcasting System (HAS), and in summarized form. Please contact us for subscription options.

Related topics

Al-Qassam Brigades send message to families of Israeli hostages in video

‘Netanyahu chose the Philadelphi Corridor over the liberation of your captives,’ says military wing of Hamas

Mohamed Majed |02.09.2024 -  TRT/ AA


GAZA CITY, Palestine

The Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the Palestinian resistance group Hamas, said Sunday that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has chosen to maintain troops in the Philadelphi Corridor between Egypt and the Gaza Strip rather than getting back Israeli hostages alive.

This was mentioned in a video message addressed to the families of the Israeli hostages held in the Palestinian enclave.

It came hours after the Israeli army said it had recovered the bodies of six hostages from the southern Gaza Strip.

On Sunday evening, hundreds of thousands of Israelis protested, demanding a hostage swap deal with Palestinian factions amid ongoing protests and announcements of a general strike on Monday involving labor unions.

In the video, the brigades addressed the Israeli army: "What kind of heroism is this? And you are retrieving them as corpses after deliberately killing them."

“Indeed, they were alive and were supposed to be released in the first phase of the deal,” the message continued.

Addressing the families of the hostages, Al-Qassam said: “Netanyahu chose the Philadelphi Corridor over the liberation of your captives."

The video included images of Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip as well as photos of the six captives announced by the army to have been found in Gaza, followed by the message: "They have become part of the history."

The video also included a note: "Netanyahu is creating more Ron Arads."

Since 1986, Ron Arad, an Israeli Air Force weapon systems officer, has been missing, and Israeli media reports suggest that the Lebanese Amal movement captured him and handed him over to Lebanon’s Hezbollah group during the years of conflict with Israel in southern Lebanon from 1985-2000.

However, in 2006, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah denied knowledge of Arad's fate and said in a televised interview that he believed he was "dead and lost."

Israel’s Haaretz daily, citing an Israeli source, said three of the six hostages were supposed to be released in the first stage of a prisoner swap deal currently being negotiated.


"They appeared in the lists given over at the beginning of July. It was possible to bring them back alive," the source said.


Hamas said the six hostages were killed in ongoing Israeli airstrikes in the Gaza Strip.


Israel estimates that more than 100 hostages continue to be held by Hamas in Gaza, some of whom are believed to have been already killed.

On Thursday, the Israeli Security Cabinet approved the army’s continued presence in the Philadelphi Corridor as part of any proposed hostage exchange and cease-fire agreement.

With this decision, the Cabinet officially adopted Netanyahu’s position regarding the corridor.

For months, the US, Qatar and Egypt have been trying to reach an agreement between Israel and Hamas to ensure a prisoner exchange and a cease-fire and allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. But mediation efforts have been stalled due to Netanyahu’s refusal to meet Hamas’s demands to stop the war.


Israel’s ongoing offensive on the Gaza Strip has killed more than 40,700 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and injured over 94,100 others, according to local health authorities.

An ongoing blockade of the enclave has led to severe shortages of food, clean water and medicine, leaving much of the region in ruins.

Israel faces accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice, which has ordered a halt to military operations in the southern city of Rafah, where over one million Palestinians had sought refuge before the area was invaded on May 6.

*Writing by Rania Abu Shamala

 

Palestinians Seek Review Of Case Charging Biden With Enabling Israel’s Genocide In Gaza Because Of Its ‘Exceptional Importance’ – OpEd

 September 1, 2024 

By The Center for Constitutional Rights

Palestinians, Palestinian Americans, and Palestinians human rights groups are urging the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to review their lawsuit charging President Biden and his aides with enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Last month, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision of a lower court, which dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds even as it said Israel’s assault “plausibly” constituted genocide. In an en banc petition filed late Thursday, the plaintiffs argue that courts have a constitutional duty to assess the legality of the Biden administration’s actions.  

“Just this week, my brother’s apartment building in Gaza was completely destroyed– the second time he lost his home, after our family house was obliterated in 2009,” said Ayman Nijim, a plaintiff in the case. “The U.S. is providing the bombs for this genocide. I have lost countless friends and neighbors, so many that I couldn’t know where to start to grieve. When will the courts uphold the law and stop the horror?”

If the Ninth Circuit grants the petition for en banc rehearing, the case would be heard by an eleven-judge en banc court. A case needs to meet at least one of two requirements for en banc review: it must involve a matter of “exceptional importance” or have resulted in inconsistency with other court rulings. The plaintiffs’  petition, filed on their behalf by the Center for Constitutional Rights and Van Der Hout LLP, argues that their case fulfills both. 

One indication of the case’s “exceptional importance,” the petition says, is the scale of the ongoing violence. With unconditional U.S. support, Israel has killed about 40,000 Palestinians – injured more than 90,000, forcibly displaced 2 million, and pushed large segments of Gaza into famine. Israel’s actions, which followed numerous expressions of eliminationist intent by its leaders, have led manylegal experts and scholars to conclude that it is committing genocide, the most serious human rights crime. In January, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that Israel’s assault “plausibly” amounted to genocide and ordered it to take provisional measures to prevent further harm to civilians. 

The following week, the federal judge in this case echoed the ICJ but ruled that the “political question” doctrine prevented courts from ruling on executive branch decisions that touch on foreign policy. Yet courts have repeatedly rejected the executive’s invocation of the political question doctrine when policy decisions cross over into violations of the law. From the founding-era to the post-9/11 “enemy combatant” cases, courts have determined whether foreign policy decisions violated domestic and international law. This failure to uphold Supreme Court precedent also qualifies the case for en banc review, the petition says. 

“For almost eleven months we have witnessed the intentional destruction of the Palestinian people in Gaza made possible by these officials,” said Pam Spees, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights. “With this ruling, the panel has said our courts are too small to do the job they were assigned at the founding – to be a co-equal branch in our government and a check and balance on presidential power. If the Ninth Circuit doesn’t course correct here, it will be giving this and future presidents license to violate the law at will in the realm of foreign relations.” 

The lawsuit, filed in November, claims Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin violated international and federal law when they failed to prevent and were complicit in Israel’s genocide. It asked the court to enjoin the administration from supporting the assault on Gaza with weapons or other means. The case featured rare testimony from victims of the genocide, and plaintiff lawyers pointed to evidence of the massive current and historical U.S. support for Israel – including an affidavit from former State Department official Josh Paul – to make the case that Israel could not be committing genocide without its chief benefactor. 

The three-judge panel consisted of Consuelo M. Callahan, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, and Daniel Aaron Bress. Judge Ryan Nelson was slated to be on the panel, but recused himself following the plaintiffs’ motion highlighting his participation in a World Jewish Congress delegation to Israel that was explicitly designed to influence U.S. judges’ opinions on the legality of Israeli military action against Palestinians. Alongside the en banc petition, plaintiffs are also filing an unopposed motion to disqualify Judge Patrick Bumatay and Judge Lawrence VanDyke from participating in any deliberation in the case because they participated in the same delegation to Israel.       

The organizational plaintiffs in the case are Defense for Children International – Palestine and Al-Haq. The individual plaintiffs from Gaza are Dr. Omar Al-Najjar, Ahmed Abu Artema, and Mohammed Ahmed Abu Rokbeh; and Mohammad Monadel Herzallah, Laila Elhaddad, Waeil Elbhassi, Basim Elkarra, and Ayman Nijim, U.S. citizens with family in Gaza. 

For more information, see the Center for Constitutional Rights’ case page. 

The San Francisco law firm of Van Der Hout LLP is co-counsel in the case. Facebook

Share

The Center for Constitutional Rights works with communities under threat to fight for justice and liberation through litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications. Since 1966, the Center for Constitutional Rights has taken on oppressive systems of power, including structural racism, gender oppression, economic inequity, and governmental overreach.