MIL NGO Engine

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

Landmark submission to Africa’s highest court frames fossil fuels, deforestation and extractive industrial agriculture as not development but human rights violations

ARUSHA, TANZANIA – Greenpeace Africa has submitted an amicus curiae brief before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR), arguing that climate destruction is a systematic, ongoing violation of the rights of African people.

The submission situates the climate crisis within a broader pattern of extractive economic models imposed across Africa, from fossil fuel extraction to mining, deforestation and industrial agriculture. Greenpeace Africa argues that these industries threaten the rights to life, health, food, water, and a healthy environment, and that governments have binding duties under the African Charter to prevent harm, ensure transparency and public participation, and provide remedies to affected communities.

Greenpeace Africa argues that allowing multinational corporations to expand without meaningful environmental safeguards constitutes a fundamental failure of the State’s duty to protect the rights to life, health, and a satisfactory environment.

“This case is about justice for frontline communities already bearing the costs of a climate crisis they are least responsible for,” said Eugene Perumal, Governance and Legal Advisor at Greenpeace Africa. “Across the continent, communities are already living with the consequences of decisions made without their consent. We are asking the Court to affirm that governments must protect people and to draw a hard line against this ongoing corporate impunity.” 

The submission also highlights the growing risk posed by industrial livestock expansion – a relatively new but rapidly emerging threat on the continent. Unlike traditional pastoralist and smallholder systems, industrial meat production concentrates environmental damage, drives deforestation, and shifts control of food systems away from local communities toward multinational corporations.

As part of this broader trend, the brief references the planned expansion of JBS, the world’s largest meat company, into Nigeria. The proposed $2.5 billion investment in industrial meat processing illustrates how global agribusiness is seeking to establish a foothold in African markets, raising concerns about environmental impacts, lack of public consultation, and the long-term implications for local food systems and livelihoods.

JBS has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Nigerian government to construct six industrial meat-processing plants, with at least one Nigerian state reportedly pledging 1.2 million hectares of land for the project. The MOU has not been made public. Formal Freedom of Information requests for the agreement and for the social and environmental impact assessments that must accompany any investment of this scale have gone completely unanswered. Local communities say they have not been consulted.

Invoking Article 21(5) of the African Charter –  which obliges States to “eliminate all forms of foreign economic exploitation, particularly that which is practised by international monopolies” –  the submission argues that the facilitation of extractive corporate expansion, without transparency, public participation, or environmental impact assessment, constitutes a direct failure of its duty to protect. 

The submission draws the landmark precedent of  SERAC v. Nigeria (2001), arising from Shell’s catastrophic oil operations in Ogoniland, which established that states have a positive duty to regulate corporations, conduct and publish impact assessments, and guarantee meaningful community participation before major industrial development proceeds. 

The submission invokes the SERAC standards directly: the Nigerian government’s handling of this agreement satisfies none of the obligations established by the ruling.

Elizabeth Atieno, Food Campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, said:

“The projects being approved today will determine who controls our land, our food systems and the health of our planet in the future. We look to the Court for a powerful advisory opinion that cements the rights of African communities to say no to extractive agriculture, and sends a definitive message to corporate exploiters that their time for operating with impunity on this continent is over.”

What the Court Heard Today

Greenpeace Africa’s submission argues that Africa’s climate burden is, at its root, a human rights violation.

The submission calls on the Court to affirm three categories of binding State obligation under the African Charter:

• Substantive obligations: to cut emissions, protect carbon sinks, build resilience, and remedy harm already done
• Procedural obligations: to guarantee public participation, access to information, and access to justice, including when multinational corporations operate within a State’s borders
• Remedial obligations: to ensure reparations for climate-related human rights violations, including from corporations whose operations lock in further damage

ENDS.

Notes to Editors:

What is an amicus curiae submission?

An “amicus curiae” –  Latin for “friend of the court” – is a submission made by a party not directly involved in a case but with relevant expertise or a strong public interest in the outcome. Greenpeace Africa has been admitted as amicus curiae before the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which is hearing a request for an advisory opinion on what human rights obligations African States hold in the face of the climate crisis. This proceeding is part of an unprecedented global quartet of parallel advisory proceedings before the world’s four highest international courts, expected to produce the most authoritative rulings on climate and human rights law in history.

What is SERAC v. Nigeria?

Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) v. Nigeria (2001) is a landmark ruling by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, arising from Shell’s oil operations in Ogoniland and the catastrophic environmental and human damage they caused. The Commission found Nigeria had violated the African Charter by failing to regulate Shell,  establishing that States have a positive duty to protect communities from corporate harm, must conduct and publish environmental and social impact assessments before major industrial development, and must guarantee meaningful community participation. These standards apply directly to the Nigerian government’s handling of the JBS expansion, which satisfies none of them.Why does this advisory opinion matter?

An advisory opinion affirming robust State obligations in the climate context – including the duty to regulate multinational corporations –  would carry significant legal weight across the continent, shaping how domestic courts, governments, and regulators interpret their obligations. For Nigeria specifically, it would strengthen civil society’s legal basis to compel disclosure of the JBS MOU and associated impact assessments. More broadly, it would close the accountability gap that has allowed companies like JBS to operate in the Global South with a degree of impunity that would be unacceptable in their home jurisdictions.

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

Thiès, March 30, 2026 – While the world celebrates women, Senegalese fish processors are still waiting for the law to acknowledge they exist. The Network of Women in Artisanal Fishing in Senegal (REFEPAS) is calling on authorities to officially recognize their profession. These women are essential to the fishing supply chain, yet they remain legally invisible — even as they sustain food security and local economies.

Fish stocks are shrinking, and with them, the livelihoods of women who have built their lives around the sea. Markets are emptying. Incomes are falling. Precarity is becoming the norm.

The causes are well known: industrial fishing fleets overharvesting resources for export, fishmeal and fish oil factories diverting fish away from local tables, and the growing pressure of oil and gas projects along Senegal’s coastline.

Yet despite their vital role, these women have no recognized legal status — which shuts them out of decision-making and strips them of social protection.

“We work every day to feed our families and our country, but legally, we don’t exist. Without status, we have no protection and no voice in the decisions that affect us,” says Diaba Diop, President of REFEPAS.

REFEPAS is calling on the government to act:

• Official recognition of the fish processor profession
• Meaningful inclusion of women in fisheries governance
• Greater transparency in the management of fishing resources

Artisanal fishing is a pillar of national food security, and women are at the heart of it. Marginalizing them is not only unjust — it puts entire coastal communities and the food supply at risk.

Source: Oxfam –

Source: Amnesty International –

By Nciko wa Nciko

Madagascar’s youth-led uprising promised a break from corruption and exclusion, but six months after the military takeover, repression and political consolidation have replaced reform. As the junta tightens control while preparing for elections, the risk is growing that democratic transition will serve only to legitimise a more entrenched form of authoritarian rule.

In late September, people in Madagascar took to the streets to protest rapidly deteriorating living conditions. Led by the Gen Z Madagascar youth movement, thousands protested against years of poor governance and corruption. Public frustration was compounded by the perceived colonial humiliation that came with finding out that the country’s president, Andry Rajoelina, was also a French citizen.

The protesters demanded that Rajoelina step down, a non-negotiable position that created the conditions for a military takeover two weeks later. On October 17, Colonel Michael Randrianirina was sworn in as head of state, promising to address the protesters’ grievances and to transition the country to elections within two years.

Six months later, the protesters’ demands remain unmet.

Repression, rather than investigations into those suspected to be responsible for killing dozens and injuring more than a hundred, now defines the country. The politics of exclusion, rather than meaningful participation by youth, women, and civil society in shaping reforms in the transition, has taken hold. Like the military regimes in the Central Sahel, Randrianirina’s junta has been all about political expressions of gendered narratives of strength and protection – dominance, decisiveness, coercion, authority and the capacity to impose and enforce.

Repression, deliberate failure to investigate violations

The junta’s first act a week after seizing power was to strip Rajoelina of Malagasy citizenship. Although Rajoelina took up French citizenship in 2014 – a status that should have disqualified him from holding the presidency in the first place as Malagasy law does not allow for dual citizenship – stripping him of citizenship was mainly the beginning of a wave of repression justified as the cost of national survival.

Each month since the military takeover, affiliates of the former regime have faced a series of unlawful searches, arbitrary arrests and prolonged detention under the broadly framed offence of “threats to national security”. All this has been carried out under the auspices of the junta’s zero-tolerance anti-corruption campaign.

It took Randrianirina less than a month in power to make clear his intention to run in the elections he had pledged to take the country to within two years. This not only explains the intensifying repression, but also the lack of serious effort to investigate soldiers, gendarmes and police who killed and maimed protesters last year.

Parliament – largely aligned with the junta – has unsurprisingly chosen not to operationalise the commission tasked with investigating senior officials for their alleged abuses. Instead, investigations into “violent actions to repress protesters” have so far targeted only the former president of the senate and former minister of education under Rajoelina’s regime.

The junta’s legitimacy rests upon the perception of strongmen in combat attire, untainted by wrongdoing. Acknowledging abuses by soldiers, police or gendarmes would weaken that moral authority and militarised masculine posture.

Politics of exclusion from legitimate concerns

Although he announced quitting the armed forces (probably in preparation for his presidential candidacy), Randrianirina explained that if he continues to show up in his military regalia, it is because of the respect it engenders among the public. The carefully staged masculine imagery has always been unmistakable under his rule. He is usually flanked by other senior male military officials. Youth and women are nowhere to be seen.

The junta reshuffled the executive branch of the state and made almost 600 appointments. The Gen Z Youth Movement and civil society it claims to have seized power for was neither involved nor consulted.

The 2026 Finance Act was to be a political tool to set in motion mechanisms to improve deteriorating public service delivery that drove the whole nation onto the streets last year. However, despite calls from Gen Z and civil society to be part of the deliberations, the junta hurriedly passed it.

It provides budget lines that preserve the spending priorities of the old regime, with sizeable allocations for the presidency and cabinet. A closer reading reveals where the money really goes: salaries, bonuses and administrative costs swallow the bulk of the budget, while direct investment in basic services – water, electricity, education and healthcare – remains marginalised.

Women’s political participation poses a direct threat to the masculine posture of the regime, which is sold as protective and reassuring for a people fatigued by years of poor governance and humiliation. From the junta’s high council, Randrianirina leads alongside four senior male security officials, each also with the status of head of state. And on March 15, after dismissing the entire cabinet without explanation, he appointed as prime minister a former gendarmerie officer and close associate of his – further entrenching the executive’s militarised masculine posture.

Women face an additional layer of political exclusion. Randrianirina, a Lutheran Christian, chose to place nationwide consultations on national reforms under the exclusive stewardship of the Council of Christian Churches. The council has historically opposed women’s reproductive rights and is likely to sideline LGBTQI rights.

Beyond electoral timelines

The junta’s geopolitical alignment reinforces its militarised masculine posture. Randrianirina quickly gravitated toward partners who frame repression, misogyny and homophobia as expressions of sovereignty and national honour. With US President Donald Trump’s White House, the junta is in discussions on the possibility of Madagascar hosting migrants expelled from the US under policies widely criticised as discriminatory.

With Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, and the Emirati leaders in Abu Dhabi, it is pursuing further environmental harm through fossil fuel extraction in Madagascar marketed as “energy sovereignty”.

With China’s Communist Party, plans are afoot to establish a weapons manufacturing facility.

With no progress on enacting the long-awaited law on access to information, civil society remains largely unable to demand – let alone receive – answers from the government about how its appointments and policies are meant to improve the delivery of basic services.

The disappointment among the Gen Z youth movement is palpable. On March 4, a statement by some representatives of the movement read: “Leaders are turning a blind eye to the demands expressed on the ground.”

The Southern African Development Community, the African Union and the United Nations have all focused on elections in September 2027 as a pathway to restoring civilian rule.

However, unless repression stops, those responsible for killing and injuring protesters are investigated, and the toxic masculine posture is dropped to allow for youth and women to meaningfully shape reforms before the vote, the much-anticipated elections risk repackaging this same authoritarian military junta in civilian clothes. DM

This oped first ran in South Africa’s Daily Maverick

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

People often get my name wrong. It’s Elle—like “El-yeah.” At the airport, at the store, in the interviews which have become more frequent ever since we announced the case against Shell. I correct them with a smile. But there are bigger things to worry about; I’m fighting for climate justice and accountability.

I live in Batasan. We are a small Island, a small number of people always battered by climate change. We’ve seen almost every face of the climate crisis: rising water, stronger storms, warmer seas, and unbearable heat when the rains don’t come. We rely on the cycles of rain for drinking water. We depend on the sea for food. When these systems change, everything in our daily life is disrupted.

After Odette, our recovery was slow. If you ask me today, maybe we’re only 70% back—and just because of loans. I was tagged “totally damaged”—and it wasn’t an exaggeration. There was nothing left, not an item of clothing. I borrowed from microfinance groups—first for our livelihood and again for housing. To this day I’m in debt, for the first time in my life. My husband was a seaman. We started a small business. We were stable. Now, we begin again from zero—and the interest doesn’t stop growing, where storms are concerned.

People ask why I am speaking out. The truth is simple: I woke up to what’s happening. And if I’m awake, I should be a voice for our community. I believe climate justice is a kind of inheritance—something I can pass on to my children and future grandchildren. It’s a hopeful vision that even if you feel small, you can still do something, as long as you speak. We don’t need to be a scientist to know that the climate is changing: we see it, and we feel it.

We have prepared a legal case against a huge company. Yes, it’s big. Yes, I was scared at first. But I think of my children and their tomorrow. That’s where the courage comes from. Doing what is right is not about being fearless; it’s about choosing what matters more than fear.

Why does winning matter? Because accountability matters. If we win, there can be payment for damages—boats, homes, tools we saved up for over years. But more than things, it would mean the effort is not wasted. That standing up to powerful companies was not for nothing. And even if we don’t win right away, we will have done something. We will have told our children: we stood our ground.

People say the Philippines contributes so little to global pollution. Still, we absorb the worst of the impacts. That is the unfairness we live with. The ones who profit from pollution should be the ones held to account. That’s what climate justice looks like from our shoreline: those who caused the harm help pay to repair it—and change their business so others don’t suffer the same.

I don’t pretend this is easy. I carry a notebook of dues and deadlines. I check the sky more than I check my phone. When a squall rolls in, I think about plywood, nails, roofs, and school uniforms. But I also think about what’s possible when people tell the truth about what’s happening to us, and when those with power finally listen.

So if you’re asking again: Why climate justice? Why accountability? Because our lives are at stake. Because debt should not be our disaster plan. Because the sea should bring life, not fear. Because the future belongs to our children—and they deserve more than survival.

My name is Trixy Elle, from Batasan Island. I used to think my name sounded “foreign.” Now I know it sounds like home—a place worth defending, a story worth telling, and a voice that will not be quiet.

---

Trixy is a resident of Batasan Island, one of the “sinking islands” in Bohol, and one of the claimants in the Odette Case. Trixy, along with other survivors of Super Typhoon Odette (Rai), is demanding accountability from Shell for climate-induced damages and the great harm they suffered from the storm, which claimed 405 lives and injured over 1,400 others in 2021.

Climate scientists say the extreme weather brought by Odette was made more likely by climate change driven by fossil fuel combustion. This landmark case is the first of its kind and scale against an oil and gas company for deaths, injuries, and property damage that have already occurred.

The case, filed in London where Shell’s global headquarters is located, addresses the company’s historic carbon emissions, as well as its deception and disinformation about climate change, which it has known about since 1965.

Support Trixy and other super typhoon survivors in their fight for survival and our common future. Sign the petition.

Source: Amnesty International –

Millions of football fans attending the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup in Canada, Mexico and the USA risk coming face to face with troubling attacks on human rights, not least those stemming from abusive and deadly US immigration policies, Amnesty International said today. The human rights organization warned that severe restrictions on freedom of expression and peaceful protest threaten the “safe, welcoming and inclusive” tournament promised by FIFA.

Its new report, Humanity Must Win: Defending rights, tackling repression at the 2026 FIFA World Cup, details significant risks to and impact on fans, players, journalists, workers and local communities in all three host countries. The USA under President Trump – where three-quarters of World Cup matches will be held – is facing a human rights emergency marked by discriminatory immigration policies, mass detentions and arbitrary arrests by masked, armed agents from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and other agencies.  

“The US Government has deported more than 500,000 people from the USA in 2025 – more than six times as many people than will watch the World Cup final in the MetLife Stadium,” said Amnesty International’s Head of Economic and Social Justice, Steve Cockburn.

“The record-breaking surge of unlawful arrests and deportations has only been possible because of the erosion of due process safeguards, undermining the rights to liberty and security of hundreds of thousands of migrants and refugees. These policies have torn communities apart and created a climate of fear throughout the USA. It’s a deeply troubling time in the US, which will certainly extend to fans who want to take part in World Cup celebrations.”

World Cup host cities have been impacted by the US government’s crackdown on rights. President Trump federalized and deployed approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles in June 2025, in response to protests against immigration raids. Host cities Dallas, Houston and Miami have all signed problematic agreements for local law enforcement agencies to collaborate with ICE, which increases racial profiling and targeting of immigrants, and erodes trust between communities and local law enforcement, leading to reduced public safety.

© AFP via Getty Images

In the other host countries, Mexico has mobilized 100,000 security personnel, including the military, in response to high levels of violence, raising risks for people protesting. This includes women activists who are planning a peaceful protest for the opening match at Estadio Azteca in Mexico City, seeking truth justice and remedy for the disappearance of loved ones. In Canada, the impact of the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver and a growing housing crisis have raised fears that people experiencing homelessness will again be displaced and pushed further to the margins. On 15 March, authorities in Toronto closed a winter warming centre providing shelter for people experiencing homelessness, as the venue had been pre-booked for use by FIFA.

US travel restrictions and abusive immigration policies mar the beautiful game

In 2025 alone, the U.S. government deported over 500,000 people, including 230,000 arrested in the interior of the country and 270,000 at the border, according to analysis of official government data by the New York Times. Many have been deported in violation of the principle of non-refoulement to third countries to which they have no connection, to face arbitrary and prolonged detention.

Throughout the US, federal agents, behaving in the manner of a paramilitary-style operation, have repeatedly targeted Latino, Black, Asian and other communities of colour, violently and arbitrarily detaining people, including children, near their homes, schools and workplaces.

With many immigrant communities in the USA likely to want to come together to watch the World Cup, and millions of fans travelling from all over the world, ICE and other agencies pose a chilling threat to people living in the US, those traveling to see a game, and players themselves.

Due to travel bans under the Trump administration, fans from Côte d’Ivoire, Haiti, Iran and Senegal will be unable to travel and enter the US to support their team unless they had valid visas before 1 January 2026. Other fans face intrusive surveillance, with proposals to force visitors to make their social media accounts available for vetting, and screening for “anti-Americanism”.

This World Cup is no longer the ‘medium risk’ tournament that FIFA once judged it to be… urgent action is needed to make sure the reality of this World Cup matches its original promise.”

Steve Cockburn, Amnesty International’s Head of Economic and Social Justice

“Despite the astounding numbers of arrests and deportations, neither FIFA nor the US authorities have provided any guarantees that fans and local communities will be safe from ethnic and racial profiling, indiscriminate raids, or unlawful detention and deportation,” said Steve Cockburn.

“Only four of the 16 host cities have so far published their human rights plans, and none of those that have done so to date say anything about protection from abusive immigration enforcement. This World Cup is no longer the ‘medium risk’ tournament that FIFA once judged it to be – whether it is to protect people from ICE, guarantee the right to protest or prevent homelessness, urgent action is needed to make sure the reality of this World Cup matches its original promise.”

Right to protest and freedom of expression under threat

World Cups are often the focus of protests and there are risks that demonstrations could be repressed.

Across the USA, Canada and Mexico, there have been restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The Trump administration has particularly targeted foreign-born students protesting the Israeli government’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, while US citizens protesting and monitoring aggressive immigration enforcement actions have been killed by federal agents.

© AFP

Canada has seen a wave of protests against the genocide in Gaza, including large scale peaceful demonstrations and student encampments that were unduly dispersed or cleared by the police.

Mexico has also experienced a series of World Cup-related protests by residents angry about the disruptions to water supplies, access to land, rising costs and gentrification linked to infrastructure development in host cities. The militarized nature of Mexico’s security mobilization for the tournament brings risks that further protests could be repressed.

Human rights must remain at heart of tournament

With just over 10 weeks until the World Cup kicks off, FIFA’s commitment to a tournament where everyone “feels safe, included, and free to exercise their rights” requires urgent action to ensure the beautiful game is not at risk of an ugly outcome.  Members from LGBTQI+ groups in the UK and across Europe have said it is not safe for them to have a visible presence at the tournament.

“While FIFA generates record revenues from the 2026 World Cup, fans, communities, players, journalists and workers cannot be made to pay the price. It is these people – not governments, sponsors or FIFA – to whom football belongs, and their rights must be at the centre of the tournament,” said Steve Cockburn.

Background

Amnesty International is part of Sports & Rights Alliance, a movement of fans, athletes, workers, local community members, and human rights organizations calling on FIFA to work with host countries to protect host city residents and communities.

Source: Chatham House –

Sudan’s volunteer-led aid network receives 2025 Chatham House Prize
News release
eoboko.drupal
27 March 2026

Sudan’s grassroots mutual aid groups, the Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs), accept the Chatham House Prize 2025.

Sudan’s volunteer-led aid network – the Emergency Response Rooms (ERRs) – were handed the Chatham House Prize 2025 at a special ceremony on 26th March.    

The ERRs were recognised for their vital work in delivering humanitarian support during the devastating conflict in Sudan.  

Since the start of the war in April 2023, over thirteen million people have been displaced from their homes, with more than thirty-three million requiring humanitarian assistance, making Sudan the world’s largest humanitarian crisis.  

Emerging from Sudan’s local traditions of mutual aid, the ERRs provide lifesaving essentials such as food and water to communities across Sudan’s 18 states, as well as providing medical assistance, education and responding to gender-based violence.

The grassroots movement has been recognized by several international bodies particularly for their impartial nature and their aim to provide aid for all parties caught up in the war, despite facing harassment and attacks from the conflict’s warring sides and members being killed and injured.    

Four members of the network represented the ERRs at the prizegiving event: Alsanosi, Alaa, Abdalla and Khalid.  

In her opening remarks at the ceremony, Bronwen Maddox, Director and Chief Executive of Chatham House, said: ‘[The Emergency Response Rooms] have meant the difference between life and death for many Sudanese. They provide food, clean water and medical supplies in areas that are often inaccessible to international organisations. They help maintain and repair infrastructure, from power lines to water systems. They organise evacuations from areas under bombardment and siege. They design and implement projects that support women, children and other vulnerable groups. They pay attention not only to immediate survival, but to dignity and social cohesion.’

During the event a message from King Charles to the ERRs was read by Sir Simon Fraser, Chatham House Chair.  

Accepting the award, Alsanosi, who is a volunteer member of the external communications committee of the ERRs said the Prize belonged to the 26,000 ERRs volunteers, ‘who refuse to be victimized or disappear in the face of war.’ He added that: ‘This Prize is also a reminder of responsibility that recognition must not stop at applause. Sudan’s civilians continue to face famine, displacement, and violence. Emergency Response Rooms volunteers continue to operate with minimal resources, immense risk, and shrinking civic space. We see this award as a call to all of us to protect civic spaces in times of war; so that they remain the baseline to rebuild and transform Sudan.’  

Abdalla, who is a volunteer coordinator for the EERs’ committee said: ‘This award represents an opportunity to bring Sudan to the forefront of international attention. We hope it will help shine a greater light on the daily humanitarian efforts carried out by the Emergency Response Rooms. We dedicate this recognition to every volunteer who continues to serve despite the challenges.’

Khalid, who co-founded the ERRs in Sudan’s South Kordofan said: ‘Winning this award is global recognition of the efforts and courage of the Emergency Response Room volunteers, and a tribute to the Sudanese community. It serves as an incentive to continue protecting civilians and upholding their dignity, and to emphasise the role of local leadership in bringing about change.’

The Chatham House Prize 2025 was generously supported by Dr Mo Ibrahim, Open Society Foundations and Quadrature Climate Foundation.

The Chatham House Prize is voted for by Chatham House members, following nominations from Chatham House staff and presented to ‘the person, persons, or organization deemed to have made the most significant contribution to the improvement of international relations.’

The Prize was launched in 2005. Previous recipients of the Prize include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Sir David Attenborough, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Médecins Sans Frontières, and Melinda Gates, co-founder of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
 

Source: Greenpeace Statement –

Greenpeace urges ministers to “tax every penny” of Big Oil’s war windfall 

The five largest North Sea oil and gas companies have received a staggering £73 billion boost to the value of their shares in the month since the first US-Israeli attacks on Iran, new analysis by Greenpeace UK shows. 

The sharp rise in the value of their stocks means fossil fuel producers are now expecting a huge “war windfall”, prompting campaigners to call for a strengthening of the windfall tax.

One month of Donald Trump’s illegal war in Iran has resulted in death and destruction and turmoil in global energy markets, pushing up UK petrol prices and threatening higher bills and inflation. At the same time, the sudden spike in oil and gas prices has led to a huge increase in the market value of many fossil fuel companies.

Analysis by Greenpeace shows that in just four weeks, the combined market capitalisation of Shell, TotalEnergies, BP, Equinor and Harbour Energy has jumped by £73.5 billion. Shell and Equinor top the list, with each company’s total market value soaring by around £20 billion and Shell’s share price hitting an all-time high last week.

The market shock from the conflict in the Middle East is set to deliver a multi-billion-pound boost to oil giants’ profits. Despite this, the industry has been lobbying ministers to scrap the Energy Profits Levy, the government’s main tool to tax fossil fuel firms’ unearned profits. 

Shell and Equinor are also attempting to capitalise on instability in global oil and gas supply by pressuring ministers into greenlighting the controversial Rosebank oilfield. A 95,000-tonne production ship, the Petrojarl Rosebank, is currently sailing to the UK despite the companies having no permission to start production at the site.

Greenpeace is calling on the Government to resist industry pressure, reject Rosebank, strengthen the windfall tax on fossil fuel profits and champion a global profit tax on international oil companies.

Paul Morozzo, senior climate campaigner with Greenpeace UK, said:

“These oil giants are about to cash in a huge windfall from Trump’s illegal war, yet the industry is shamelessly lobbying for tax cuts. While UK households face eye-watering energy bills, fossil fuel producers are in line for a multi-billion-pound war windfall they’ve done nothing to earn. Shell and Equinor are pressuring the government to open up a major new oilfield in the North Sea – they keep making huge profits while UK households are held hostage to volatile fossil fuel markets.”

“The government must not cave in to industry lobbying but should tax every penny of these war profits. This crisis shows why we need to ramp up efforts to wean ourselves off fossil fuels by doubling down on renewables. More wind and solar can cut the UK’s reliance on gas imports much faster than issuing new North Sea licences. Renewables are our best insurance policy against the fallout from Trump and Putin’s wars – we should go all in.” 

ENDS

Contact: Greenpeace UK Press Office – press.uk@greenpeace.org or 020 7865 8255

Notes for editors:

The Greenpeace analysis looked at the variation in the companies’ share prices based on FT markets data from 28 February to 25 March.