'Leave our marshes alone': Iraqis fear oil drilling would destroy fabled wetlands

Plans to drill for oil in the protected Mesopotamian Marshes of southern Iraq have galvanised villagers and activists determined to save the mythical wetlands already battered by years of drought.
"We will never accept it," marshes activist Murtada al-Janubi told a meeting, seeking to reassure anxious residents gathered in a traditional hall made of woven reeds from the wetlands, to discuss the government's plans for the UNESCO-listed area that is their home.
Everyone nodded in approval.
If they fail to save the Huwaizah Marshes, "a historical era... with its heritage and southern identity will vanish for ever", Janubi, 33, told AFP during a tour of the wetlands that straddle the Iraq-Iran border.
The millennia-old history of the marshes -- the reputed home of the biblical Garden of Eden -- "would end with this oilfield", said the moustached, tanned activist.
In 2023, as China became a major player across various sectors in Iraq, the oil-rich country awarded a Chinese firm the rights to explore the Huwaizah field.
Several residents of Abu Khsaf, the village in Missan province where the meeting with activist Janubi was held, said that at the time they did not fully grasp the implications.
Only this year, when heavy machinery was brought in to conduct seismic studies and open a new road, did the residents say they recognised a "threat" to the swamplands that have sustained their traditional way of life.
The government says that the oil and environment ministries are collaborating closely to avoid endangering the wetlands, and that any activity would occur near, not inside, the marshes.
Satellite images of the area from March, which AFP obtained from Planet Labs, show tracks left by heavy vehicles.
Wim Zwijnenburg of Dutch peace organisation PAX said the images point to the "rapid" construction of "a 1.3-kilometre-long dirt road in the vegetation of the marshes".
- 'All we want is water' -
Missan province already has several oilfields, including one just kilometres (miles) from the marshes.
Its emissions fill the sky with heavy grey smoke, and its gas flares can be seen from the fishing boats that roam the depleted marshes, suffering after years of harsh drought and dwindling water supplies.
Nestled between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the Mesopotamian Marshes depend on rivers and tributaries originating in neighbouring Turkey and Iran.
Sparse rainfall and reduced water flows blamed on climate change, upstream dams and government rationing have created shortages with severe impacts on the marsh ecosystem.
Residents expect the marshes to dry up in summer, hoping for a long-absent good rainy season to revive them.
The current water level in many areas is less than a metre (three feet) deep. Um al-Naaj lake, once teeming with fish, is now just three metres deep, compared with at least six before the drought.
Rowing his boat on the lake, fisherman Kazem Ali, 80, said that while the new project may create some jobs, "we, the average people, will not benefit".
"All we want is water," he said.
Rasul al-Ghurabi, a 28-year-old buffalo farmer, said he would never quit "the marshes and the freedom that comes with them" even if the oil company offered him a job.
- Protected core -
One cool March morning, as he led his buffaloes to the marshes to graze, Ghurabi was surprised to see workers laying cables and drilling holes.
A cable caused one of his animals to stumble, he said.
The marshes contain a core area that serves as a habitat for numerous species, including migratory waterbirds, surrounded by a buffer zone for protection.
Activists have accused authorities of conducting seismic studies within the core, which the state-owned Missan Oil Company denies, saying that the vehicles spotted in the area were carrying out work for a separate field nearby and had since left.
The Huwaizah oilfield was discovered in the 1970s, and Iraq shares it with Iran, which has been extracting oil for a long time.
The Missan Oil Company says that 300 square kilometres (116 square miles) of the field's area overlap with the marshes' buffer zone, but that the oilfield does not encroach on the core.
An environmental impact assessment concluded in 2024 would provide "the baseline for work in the field", the company said, adding that exploration would take place "without harming the natural habitat".
According to environment ministry official Jassem Falahi, the protected status of the marshes does not bar development projects.
"But investment is subject to specific conditions and standards that must not disturb the core area... or affect the site and its biodiversity," he told AFP.
- Balance -
Iraqi activist Ahmed Saleh Neema, a vocal advocate for the protection of the marshes, expressed concerns that oil companies might not adhere to regulations and further drain the marshes.
A UNESCO spokesperson told AFP that "concerns have been raised in recent years" over the potential impact of oil-related activities on the marshes.
Across the border in Iran, local media have long warned against the environmental impact of oil projects.
In a report earlier this year, two decades into oil activities in the wetlands known in Iran as Hoor al-Azim, the Tasnim news agency said energy companies had obstructed water flows and drained areas to build infrastructure.
Tasnim also said that oilfields have polluted water resources.
Environmental activist Neema said authorities should strike "a balance between two great resources: the oil and the marshes".
Iraq is one of the world's largest oil producers, and crude sales account for 90 percent of state revenues.
But while oil is financially vital, the marshes represent the livelihood of its people and "the heritage, the folklore, and the reputation of Iraq", Neema said.
Back in the village of Abu Khsaf, Janubi said: "Our region is already teeming with oilfields. Isn't that enough?"
"Leave our marshes alone."
rh/ami/srm/rsc

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Miami Herald

4 hours ago

• Miami Herald

Will skipping ‘Made in China' beat tariff price hikes?

For most shoppers, "Made in China" has been a way of life for consumers. The mark is on seemingly everything. That has consumers concerned about how tariffs and trade battles between the United States and China might hit home, literally. If tariffs ultimately act as a tax on consumers – most economists say they do – how can Americans avoid paying higher prices? Stop buying things that were made in China. That's easier said than Trump recently took to Truth Social to say that the United States and China have a deal that's done, pending final approval of leaders from both countries. He said that U.S. tariffs would be set at 55% on Chinese goods, while China's tariffs remain at 10%. Officially, tariff plans with China and other countries are on hold until July 9, but U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has said several times that the 55% tariff "definitely" will not change. Related: Major housing expert predicts huge change to mortgage rates in 2026 While many of the harshest tariff hikes face legal challenges, current U.S. tariff rates are at their highest levels in nearly a century; estimates from the Yale Budget Lab say that's costing the average U.S. consumer an extra $2,500 a year. A recent study by covering consumer sentiment about tariffs shows that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe tariffs will have a negative impact on their personal finances. Just over 40% of respondents said tariffs would "greatly worsen" their personal finances. But even if consumers decide to tackle the China tariff problem by eliminating spending on goods from the country, it doesn't mean they will save money. They also will find the task daunting, if not impossible. That's according to journalist Sara Bongiorni, who tried to live without goods from China for a year back in the early 2000s; the trials and tribulations of her effort became the basis for her book, "A Year Without Made in China." Bongiorni, now an adjunct professor at Louisiana State University, woke up on Christmas morning in 2005 to a house full of stuff, and as she rummaged through it, she realized almost everything was made in China. "I said to my husband, 'Do you think it would be possible to live for a while without things made in China? You want to try that?' He was not very enthusiastic about that idea, but we gave it a whirl." Related: Forget tariffs, Fed interest rate cuts may hinge on another problem Bongiorni didn't set out to make a political statement or to write a book. She was simply hoping "to understand at a personal level, as best we could, how much we relied on things from China in our everyday, ordinary consumer life." In a recent interview on "Money Life with Chuck Jaffe," Bongiorni recounted how her rule was to avoid the words "Made in China," which are only seen on the end consumer product sold to shoppers. That's a low bar, given that countless products are assembled in the United States or in other countries using parts from China. Those goods-like the ones with the Made in China label-will incur increased costs due to tariffs. Bongiorni noted that in certain product categories – notably toys, household gadgets, many types of electronics, coffeemakers, sneakers and footwear, and children's clothing – it was nearly impossible to find items that weren't made in China. Even when she did find rare exceptions, Bongiorni noted that the options often pushed her to higher-end goods, which meant paying more for the purchase, in some cases, more than she would expect to pay now on goods from China with tariffs attached. "I think there were so many things we didn't buy that year because you couldn't find a viable option that wasn't made in China," Bongiorni said. She also noted that, ironically, it's nearly impossible to celebrate a wholly American holiday like July 4th without goods from China, as the small flags, fireworks, parade toys, festive paper goods, and more were made there. Truly trying to avoid all goods from China – including component parts – would be nearly impossible, Bongiorni said, noting that consumers would find themselves with no easy alternatives. "The share of things, ordinary consumer items from China, account for at least 65% of things you find in a typical household," Bongiorni said. "If you push up [prices with tariffs up to 55%], that is a huge impact, especially when we've got inflation and other things going on in the economy. It's a huge thing for most families to have to shoulder that burden." More Tariffs: Aldi plans huge price cut despite tariffs driving costs higherCar buyers should shop these brands for the best tariff dealGeneral Motors makes $4 billion tariff move Bongiorni does think the United States can bring some manufacturing back onshore, but that will have a limited impact because of the breadth and volume of goods coming from China, and the convenience of having those items and getting them cheaply. "I have a hard time thinking that we can lure ourselves off of our connection to China as consumers as a long-term affair," she said, "but also I can see a huge public outcry because this is going to affect people's bottom line every month." While Bongiorni recalls her efforts fondly nearly two decades later, she says she would not want to permanently do without Made in China, even if tariffs raise costs. Avoiding goods from China and finding alternatives was "incredibly time-consuming." And when there were no viable product options, she was willing to go without certain items for a year, but would not want to sacrifice them for a lifetime. "I do think it's interesting to have an awareness of where things come from, and to get a sense to the extent you can to which you are connected to the international economy on that consumer level," said Bongiorni. "I found that enjoyable and interesting, but the idea of weaning ourselves from Chinese goods, after doing this, just seems very unrealistic.…I can't imagine living like that long-term." Related: Fed official sends shocking message on interest rate cuts The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

Yahoo

5 hours ago

• Yahoo

Israeli strike on Tehran kills bodyguard of slain Hezbollah chief

BEIRUT (Reuters) -A member of Lebanese armed group Hezbollah was killed in an Israeli air strike on Tehran alongside a member of an Iran-aligned Iraqi armed group, a senior Lebanese security source told Reuters and the Iraqi group said on Saturday. The source identified the Hezbollah member as Abu Ali Khalil, who had served as a bodyguard for Hezbollah's slain chief Hassan Nasrallah. The source said Khalil had been on a religious pilgrimage to Iraq when he met up with a member of the Kataeb Sayyed Al-Shuhada group. They travelled together to Tehran and were both killed in an Israeli strike there, along with Khalil's son, the senior security source said. Hezbollah has not joined in Iran's air strikes against Israel from Lebanon. Kataeb Sayyed Al-Shuhada published a statement confirming that both the head of its security unit and Khalil had been killed in an Israeli strike. Nasrallah was killed in an Israeli aerial attack on Beirut's southern suburbs in September. Israel and Iran have been trading strikes for nine consecutive days since Israel launched attacks on Iran, saying Tehran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. Iran has said it does not seek nuclear weapons.

Yahoo

11 hours ago

• Yahoo

‘I just want finality': GOP greets newest TikTok extension with resignation

President Donald Trump's latest move to keep TikTok alive is yet again frustrating congressional Republicans, many of whom object to China's continued involvement in the popular app but just want to be done with the whole drama. 'Not my favorite thing,' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), along-time proponent of the ban, deadpanned, when asked about the president's plan to issue another extension. He spoke a day before the White House confirmed Trump signed a 90-day suspension of enforcement of the law requiring TikTok to divest from ByteDance, its China-based parent company, throwing another lifeline to the short-form video app. By Friday, some House lawmakers registered a note of resigned irritation. The extension — Trump's third since the law went into effect on Jan. 19 — is a unilateral decision not envisioned in the bipartisan law passed by Congress and upheld last year by the Supreme Court. Rep. Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), a member of the House Intelligence and China committees, told POLITICO. 'The national security concerns and vulnerabilities are still there, and they have not gone away. I would argue they've almost become more enhanced in many ways." But Trump's extension of the TikTok law largely boxed out Republicans in both chambers who have shown little inclination — beyond stern words — to prevent him from making these postponements almost routine. Many GOP lawmakers saw themselves as granting the president space to cut a promised deal while the White House deals with urgent priorities, like trade negotiations and the Israel-Iran conflict. 'In light of everything going on, I think he did the right thing,' Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a China hawk who voted for the ban, told POLITICO of Trump. 'I have concerns about all kinds of things — that [the extension] is on the list — but it's not at the top of the list.' Though Trump has promised his TikTok negotiations areclosely tied to trade talks with China, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testified last week to a Senate panel that TikTok's sale wasnot currently a part of the negotiations with China, raising a further potential obstacle to Trump inking a deal in the near future. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a close ally of the president and longtime national-security hawk said earlier in the week: 'The sooner we get that issue solved, the better,' without offering any ideas for further enforcement. 'I just want finality,' Senate Judiciary Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told POLITICO. 'I want some certainty and just know that the Congress isn't being played when we make a decision [that the app] be sold.' Another member of the House China Committee, Rep. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa), told POLITICO, 'No more extensions. It's time to follow through.' Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.), also a member of the China panel, noted in a post on X Thursday the law only allows one extension of the compliance deadline, adding, 'I was proud to support the ban of TikTok and believe the law should be implemented as written.' With their comments, the lawmakers echoed House China Chair John Moolenaar (R-Mich.), who in early June called for the U.S. to 'let [TikTok] go dark' to bring China to the table to negotiate. He reiterated that stance on Friday. 'Delays only embolden the Chinese Communist Party,' Moolenaar said in a statement to POLITICO. 'I urge the administration to enforce the law as written and protect the American people from this growing national security threat." Still, observers say Republicans are not exercising their leverage to demand the White House enforce the law they helped write, for example by withholding funding or congressional oversight hearings. "I keep reading that Republicans are 'frustrated' and 'impatient' about their TikTok law being ignored, but they should stop complaining to reporters and take it up with Trump,' said Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of the pro-tech Chamber of Progress. Among the Republicans being undercut by the president is his own secretary of state. Marco Rubio — who as senator was one of the loudest critics of TikTok's ties to China, and a huge backer of the app's ban — has been conspicuously silent as Trump has repeatedly granted more time to strike a deal for its sale. 'You have to decide what's more important, our national security and the threat that it poses to our national security,' Rubio told POLITICO in March 2023, as Congress was considering a ban. 'You have to weigh that against what you might think the electoral consequences of it are. For me, it's an easy balancing act. I mean, there is no balance. I'm always going to be for our national security.' A spokesperson for Rubio at the State Department did not respond to a request for comment. Democrats — even those who support keeping TikTok online — say Trump's approach is the wrong one. 'These endless extensions are not only illegal, but they also put TikTok's fate in the hands of risk-averse corporate shareholders,' Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told POLITICO in a statement. 'This is deeply unfair to TikTok's creators and users. I'm prepared to work towards a solution, but Trump isn't coming to the table.'