Government sponsors environmental crime on Orinda Island in Quelimane

Paulo Vilanculo"

The grounding of a ship loaded with chromium on the shores of Orinda Island, in the Inhassunge district, Zambézia province, is no longer a simple maritime accident. As the months pass, the vessel's continued presence in the same location, the ongoing spill of hydrocarbons, and the lack of accountability from those involved have transformed it into one of the most worrying examples of the fragility of environmental governance in Mozambique. The case exposes not only operational failures but also raises serious doubts about the capacity and willingness of public institutions to protect natural resources and enforce the law.

 According to a report by TVSucesso, the ship, which had departed from the port of Quelimane heading towards the sea, ran aground on November 1, 2025, near Orinda Island. The then-delegate of the National Institute of the Sea (INAMAR), Bela Mabazo, clarified that the incident did not occur due to natural or unforeseen causes. On the contrary, she attributed the grounding to negligence resulting from overloading, the absence of a stowaway during loading, the lack of mandatory vessel documentation, the absence of a contingency plan, and the lack of marine insurance.INAMAR (National Institute of the Sea) is the maritime authority of Mozambique that regulates and oversees the country's waters. Its mission is to ensure the safety of navigation channels and to defend and protect marine life and resources. For safety, INAMAR controls ship traffic and certifies vessels; for rescue operations; and for the environment, it prevents water pollution and combats spills of substances hazardous to marine life.

The INAMAR delegate in Zambezia, Bela Mabazo, at the time of the ship's grounding, reported that efforts were underway to remove the vessel while awaiting clarification from the ship's agent, Manica.Investigations have been announced and promises made, while the environmental impacts continue to worsen on the ground. The paradox becomes even more evident when considering the institutional mission of INAMAR itself, the institution created precisely to regulate maritime activity, inspect vessels, ensure navigational safety, prevent accidents, and protect the marine environment. How could a vessel without documentation, insurance, or a contingency plan have sailed until it ran aground? To whom should the responsibility for oversight be attributed? Cases like this also reveal a recurring trend in Mozambique: the institutional response is usually quick in public statements, but slow in implementing concrete solutions. It is legitimate to question whether Mozambique is facing a poorly resolved accident or an environmental crime whose continuation results from the omission of the competent authorities. Administrative silence ends up producing effects as harmful as negligence itself.

The fundamental element that raises concern is the fact that INAMAR (the Mozambican National Institute of Maritime Affairs) states that the ship belongs to the company Indo Africa, being handled by Manica, while the chromium cargo allegedly originated in the Milange district. If there are clearly identifiable cargo owners, logistics operators, shipowners, and regulatory bodies, it becomes difficult to understand why no public responsibility seems to have been effectively assumed. It is inconceivable that the entity extracting chromium from Milange would have planned the export without a license, delivered the merchandise to an unaccredited shipowner, that Manica would have handled a ship without any documentation, and finally that a ship would have appeared at the Quelimane port dock without the knowledge or authorization of the Mozambican maritime authorities.

The Constitution of the Republic of Mozambique recognizes the right of citizens to live in a balanced environment and imposes on the State the duty to protect natural resources for present and future generations. Mozambican environmental legislation also incorporates the polluter-pays principle, according to which whoever causes environmental damage must bear the full costs of recovery and compensation. In any State that upholds the principle of legality, such irregularities would be sufficient to trigger administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings against all parties involved in the operation. When these principles cease to produce practical effects, the State thus conveys the message that certain infractions can remain without consequences, especially when they involve significant economic interests.

The absence of consequences fuels the perception of impunity and weakens citizens' trust in the institutions responsible for enforcing the law. It symbolizes the weaknesses of environmental governance, the inadequacy of oversight mechanisms, and the State's difficulty in fully exercising its regulatory function. Thus, responsibility cannot be attributed exclusively to the shipowner or the logistics operator. The protection of natural heritage cannot depend solely on the goodwill of companies nor be limited to official statements. It requires preventive oversight, effective accountability, and transparency in the management of public and environmental resources. The existence of successive failures in the control of maritime law also highlights institutional weaknesses that deserve independent investigation.

What is most disturbing is the fact that, several months after the alleged negligence, the ship remains stranded, chromium remains deposited in the sea, hydrocarbons continue to spread through the waters, and tons of fuel from the ship continue to mutually contaminate the marine ecosystem. The environmental impacts also translate into risks for public health, since coastal populations may consume contaminated fish. It is important to remember that chromium (Cr⁶⁺) is one of the most toxic forms of this heavy metal, recognized by the scientific community as a mutagenic and carcinogenic agent. Its presence in aquatic ecosystems causes metabolic changes in fish, crustaceans, and mollusks, affects the respiratory system of marine species, compromises reproduction, reduces the survival of aquatic organisms, and promotes bioaccumulation processes along the food chain.

In a country whose coastal economy depends significantly on artisanal fishing, tourism, and marine ecosystems, the degradation of fishery resources directly compromises the income of local communities, exacerbates food insecurity, and threatens traditional livelihoods that sustain thousands of families along the Mozambican coast. The prolongation of this situation clearly goes beyond the concept of an occasional accident. When environmental damage persists without effective mitigation measures being taken, a form of institutional normalization of environmental degradation takes hold. The Orinda Island incident, therefore, represents much more than a maritime accident. Unfortunately, Orinda Island has become a reflection of the distance that still separates official discourse from the effective protection of the environment in Mozambique. When the State remains silent, it is not merely treating a maritime disaster as an environmental crime.

2025/12/3