“Back to square one”: ClientEarth heads renewed assault on Ineos’ Project One

The Ineos Project One site.

27 Feb 2024 --- Lawyers at environmental charity ClientEarth, together with 14 NGOs, have launched a fresh legal attack on Ineos’ plans to build Europe’s largest ethane cracker in the Port of Antwerp, Belgium. The case is part of a long-running legal battle in which environmentalists accuse the corporation of endangering the EU’s environment while the company insists development is needed for the bloc’s economy.

The petrochemical giant announced its intentions to begin what would be Europe’s biggest plastics production site in 2019, and last year, it secured €3.5 billion (US$3.7 billion) in funding for “Project One.”

Pegged for completion in 2026, the plant would have a nameplate capacity of 1450 kt of ethylene per year and an environmental footprint less than half of a conventional (naphtha) cracker of a similar size, according to Ineos.

But legal action by Client Earth took the project “back to square one” after Belgium’s Court of the Council of Permit Disputes ruled that Ineos failed to tell authorities the full extent of the project’s predicted impact on the surrounding environment.

According to the court, these “crucial omissions” meant the Flemish authorities should not have granted an approval and should not go forward. Now, Client Earth and its allies argue that the Flemish authorities’ original approval of the project without first demanding a full assessment of its impacts was illegal under both EU and national laws.

Ineos says Project One could undo decades of divestment from the European chemicals sector.Jim Ratcliffe, chief executive of Ineos, recently announced he would not have begun the project if he had foreseen the environmental pushback and bureaucratic resistance made by legislators in Brussels. He further insists that deindustrialization in Europe is not the answer to decarbonization, and a collapse in international competitive power would threaten the EU’s Green Deal ambitions.

Failure to detail
Following the court’s ruling, Ineos subsequently established changes to its permit request, but according to opponents, has again failed to detail to authorities the true impact of the development on human and environmental health — not just in the region but along the full value chain, including “Scope 3” emissions.

ClientEarth lawyer Tatiana Luján remarks: “Plastics are an environmental issue, a people issue and a climate issue. Allowing what would be the largest plastics facility in Europe to go ahead would not just be a local disaster, but a global affront.”

“Project One would help fuel more plastic production when we’re already at saturation point. Plastics are made from fossil fuels, so their production is catastrophic for the climate at every stage. The far-reaching consequences of this project are very real and cannot go unaccounted for,” she says.

“The changes made to the project’s new permit are just window dressing. The fact remains that Project One is hugely destructive and completely unnecessary. However, the authorities have once again failed to acknowledge the blatant, toxic repercussions of the project, so we have no choice but to go back to court.”

Environmental spillovers, economic risks
The ruling last year was on a parallel case by the Dutch authorities, which mobilized after realizing the extent of Project One’s nitrogen impacts, which would creep over the border, according to Client Earth.

The Netherlands has been struggling with nitrogen over-pollution and billions of euros have been approved to buy out farmers and reduce nitrogen emissions as a result. Project One could pose an additional burden to the country’s efforts to solve these problems.

Stijn van Uffelen, representative of Mobilisation for the Environment, says: “If Project One is built, it will become one of the top three biggest sources of nitrogen pollution in the Brabantse Wal protected area in the Netherlands.”

“This protected site is home to century-old oaks that already suffer from too much nitrogen deposition — they’re essentially being drowned in fertilizer. Project One will only further exacerbate the problem. No amount of tinkering to its permit will make this cross-border pollution miraculously go away.”Ineos has 10 production sites in Belgium.

However, Ratcliffe insists that economic damage caused by shutting the project down would surpass other associated risks and that a revival in Europe’s petrochemical industry is essential to maintain a place on the global market as manufacturing continues to shift toward the US and China.

Footprint underestimation
Client Earth and its partners also argue the pollution created by Project One continues to be severely underestimated locally. Flanders’ nitrogen levels already far exceed the recommended safe levels, they say.

The situation has already resulted in the agriculture sector being required to cut emissions, but many farmers feel the industry is being given preferential treatment.

Mathieu Soete, energy transition campaigner at Greenpeace Belgium, says: “Ineos’ new and legally flawed permit for Project One is the perfect example of how the Flemish government stubbornly champions destructive projects. By consistently turning a blind eye to the harmful emissions of these industries, the government puts not only nature and climate, but also our farmers under pressure. Eliminating unwanted projects like this is a necessary step in resolving some of the tensions we see escalating today.”

Once the legal action is declared admissible by the Council of Permit Disputes, the Flemish authorities can submit their arguments against the groups’ case.

By Louis Gore-Langton

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com