Areva case in Niger and Gabon
For justice beyond
borders
Why act against Areva?
Sherpa reminds that, any person accused or prosecuted by a national or international jurisdiction is presumed innocent until found guilty by a final court decision. In this respect, an appealable decision does not constitute a final decision.
For several decades, the French nuclear giant Areva (now named Orano) has been established in Gabon and Niger, two countries with significant uranium resources. The company exploited the Mounana site in Gabon from 1958 to 1999 through the Compagnie des mines d’uranium de Franceville (COMUF – Uranium Mines Company of Franceville), and the Arlit site in Niger starting in 1968 through the companies SOMAIR and COMINAK. From 2003 onwards, former employees and residents in Niger and Gabon alerted Sherpa to the deterioration of the population’s health and the increase in serious illnesses likely linked to exposure to ionising radiation.
Sherpa, the Commission de recherche et d’information indépendantes sur la radioactivité (CRIIRAD – Radioactivity Research and Independent Information Commission) and Médecins du Monde then carried out several field missions and published two investigative reports. These reports documented the lack of information for workers on radioactive risks, insufficient protective equipment and inadequate medical monitoring, as well as the reuse of contaminated materials in the construction of homes and public buildings. The investigations also revealed a clear inequality of treatment between African and French sites, and a deliberate policy of keeping workers and local populations in the dark, made possible by the opacity of radiological protection systems.
In 2009, two agreements aimed at addressing the situation of mine workers were concluded between Sherpa, Médecins du Monde and Areva. These agreements provided for the creation of a Health Monitoring Group and local health observatories in Niger and Gabon, responsible for monitoring the health of former miners and surrounding communities, as well as a compensation mechanism for workers suffering from diseases linked to radiation. While these mechanisms allowed for medical monitoring of hundreds of African workers and awareness of the environmental consequences of extraction, the compensation process proved extremely deficient.
Considering the absence of reparation for victims and the lack of genuine commitment from the group, Sherpa terminated the agreements and announced its withdrawal in 2012. This case illustrates the significant limits of voluntary and contractual mechanisms when multinationals retain control over the governance of the mechanisms put in place.
Timeline
Key dates
Impact
Why initiate legal action?
The law is a tool of power in a globalised world. It underpins power relations and encourages impunity for the most powerful. Because of their transnational nature, or the political and economic stakes involved, many violations escape justice. Bringing cases before the courts means putting the debate back on a legal footing, giving a voice to the people affected and thus restoring the legal tool to social movements.
Thanks to the work of NGOs and journalists, the consequences of globalisation are increasingly being documented and denounced. Our legal actions make it possible to initiate contentious proceedings, establish the facts and apply the rules of law to these situations. They also aim to provide practical solutions by putting a stop to violations, holding the players concerned responsible and/or enabling victims to obtain compensation.
In support of our advocacy and in parallel with our legal laboratory and capacity-sharing activities, our legal actions are designed to contribute to wider and lasting change. They fuel public debate to highlight the limits of the legal framework and the obstacles facing the victims of globalised capitalism. They set precedents that shape a more protective legal framework.
