Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Insurance firms should shun the East African Crude Oil Pipeline

Published

on

Police officers detain a Ugandan activist during a demonstration on September 15, 2023, over plans to build the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), in Kampala, Uganda [File: Abubaker Lubowa/Reuters]

The project is already devastating local communities and will contribute to climate change if completed.

Last year was the hottest on record, with extreme weather events in many corners of the globe. It was also the year in which countries reached a landmark agreement at the UN Climate Conference (COP28) to begin “transitioning away from fossil fuels”.

If governments are to comply with this agreement and avert global climate collapse, there cannot be any new expansion of coal, oil and gas production. This includes the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), one of the largest and most controversial fossil fuel projects currently under development.

Financing for EACOP is yet to be secured, but if it is and the project moves forward, a 1,443km (897-mile) pipeline will stretch from oil fields in western Uganda to the port of Tanga in eastern Tanzania.

The project’s completion would not only contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions which fuel climate change but also harm local communities. That is why, Human Rights Watch is calling on insurance firms to stop providing support for it.

The pipeline is planned to traverse some of Africa’s most sensitive ecosystems, including Murchison Falls National Park and the Murchison Falls-Albert Delta Ramsar site. Pipeline ruptures, inadequate waste handling, and other pollution impacts would cause significant damage to the land, water, air and the species that rely on them.

Our research found that the project’s initial land acquisition process has already devastated thousands of people’s livelihoods in Uganda, causing food insecurity and household debt that has resulted in children dropping out of school.

During our interviews with local communities, many described being largely self-sufficient before the project began, using revenue from coffee, bananas and other cash crops to pay for school fees and other household expenses. When their land was allocated for the pipeline construction, they were not compensated immediately for it.

They waited an average of three to five years after the land evaluation process took place, and interviewees repeatedly told Human Rights Watch that the payments they received were not adequate to purchase replacement land. They said they were worse off than they were previously.

While they were waiting for compensation, many farmers understood that they were not permitted to access their land to tend perennial crops, and were therefore deprived of crucial income.

Residents described how the payment delays impacted their food security, pushing them to sell household assets, including livestock, or borrow money from predatory lenders at excessive rates to buy the food they would have previously grown on their plots and cover other expenses. This has left many families poorer and more insecure about their future.

If the pipeline is completed, more than 100,000 people in Uganda and Tanzania will permanently lose land to make way for it.

Civil society groups in Uganda and Tanzania have called for the pipeline not to be built, citing climate, environmental and social risks. Ugandan civil society groups say that, instead of building the pipeline, the Ugandan government should develop its abundant renewable energy resources – particularly solar and hydropower – to drive economic development and secure access to energy without further contributing to climate change.

Their demands have been met with hostility from the Ugandan authorities. Our research documented the Ugandan government’s systematic harassment, arbitrary arrests of and threats against environmental defenders and anti-fossil fuel activists for raising concerns over the pipeline project and oil development.

In this context, it is deeply troubling that insurance companies are enabling this and other big fossil fuel projects by providing insurance for them. This is despite the fact that new oil projects are wholly inconsistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoiding the worst consequences of climate change.

In late 2023, Human Rights Watch wrote to 15 insurance and reinsurance companies and shared our findings on the grave environmental and human rights risks associated with the pipeline. Only two companies – Lloyd’s of London and Chubb – responded to us, and neither agreed to reassess their involvement in the project.

In early March, civil society groups across the world organised a global week of action to end fossil fuels, including confronting insurance companies about their role in the climate crisis and asking them to rule out support for fossil fuel projects. Anti-fossil fuel activists held peaceful protests at regional offices of the insurance companies still involved in the East African project with the message: “Insure our futures, not fossil fuels.” Increasing numbers of insurers have made public commitments to not underwrite the pipeline, but others have persisted.

Continued support for EACOP is a mistake. By underwriting the project, insurers are helping to build the longest heated oil pipeline in the world at a time when the world is warming at dangerous levels. Insurance companies should refuse to support this project.

Original Source: Aljazeera

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Businesses, banks and activists resist EC plans to strip back human rights legislation

Published

on

Today the European Commission introduced their ‘Omnibus simplification package’ to amend key laws of the EU Green Deal, including CSDDD, CSRD and Taxonomy. The package proposes significant changes, including the removal of civil liability provisions in the CSDDD and removing 80% of companies from scope in the CSRD.

The earlier announcement from the European Commission as well as the leaked draft to reform recently-agreed EU laws such as the CSDDD has already come under attack from businesses, expertsinvestors and activists alike.

The UN Global Compact and companies including Unilever, Vattenfall and Nestlé have also expressed their concern. Nestlé Europe’s Bart Vandewaetere said that it had “been reporting on [environmental impact and human rights issues in the supply chain] ourselves for years. European regulations mean that more companies have to start doing that. That creates a level playing field and we welcome that.”

Former president of Ireland Mary Robinson added: “Von der Leyen’s new Commission’s attempt to eviscerate these sustainability laws must not be agreed by the European Parliament and by the member states.”

The European Banking Federation warned that weakening the CSRD could create challenges for banks, echoing concerns from more than 160 investors who cautioned that the Omnibus package could harm investment and increase legal uncertainty.

CSOs such as the European Coalition for Corporate Justice (ECCJ)WWF and the Clean Clothes Campaign have also sharply criticised the proposal. The ECCJ writes the proposal is “not simplification, but full-scale deregulation designed to dismantle corporate accountability”.

Workers’ organisations and trade unions from garment-producing countries across Asia, Europe and Latin America also opposed the ‘Omnibus’ this week, highlighting the risk the proposal will “exclude most supply chain workers” including 49 million home workers.

Source: Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The CSOs’ Appeal to hear the EACOP case on merit is a crucial development, with the ruling now awaited.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

The Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has heard an appeal filed by four civil society organizations (CSOs) challenging the dismissal of their case against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

The appeal, filed by four civil society organizations (CSOs), seeks to reconsider the case on its merits after the First Instance Division of the EACJ dismissed it in November 2023 on procedural grounds.

The case was before Justice Nestor Kayobera, Justice Kathurima M’Inoti, Justice Anita Mugeni, Justice Barishaki Bonny Cheborion, and Justice Omar Othman Makungu.

The East African CSOs, Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT), Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Natural Justice (NJ), and Centre for Strategic Litigation (CSL), argued that the lawsuit was dismissed unfairly and that the First Instance Court had improperly evaluated the evidence before making its ruling.

According to CSOs, the EACOP project, if implemented, could lead to significant environmental damage, endangering local livelihoods, water supplies, and biodiversity. This includes potential oil spills, disruption of ecosystems, and contamination of water sources. They further assert that TotalEnergies, China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC), and the governments of Tanzania and Uganda failed to provide a sufficient risk assessment for the project and to adhere to international human rights norms.

The EACOP project is a significant pipeline initiative spanning over 1,400 kilometers, designed to transport crude oil from Uganda’s Lake Albert region to the Tanzanian port of Tanga. The project is a joint venture of TotalEnergies and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) in partnership with the governments of Uganda and Tanzania.

During the appeal hearing in Kigali, Rwanda, the CSOs’ lawyers, known for their expertise, presented robust arguments against the First Instance Court’s dismissal of the case.

Counsel David Kabanda, one of the CSOs’ lawyers, argued that the First Instance Court had overstepped its role by evaluating evidence when considering the preliminary objection raised by the Tanzanian government, which claimed the case was time-barred. He emphasized that determining a preliminary objection should not require examining evidence.

The CSOs’ legal team also emphasized that the case had been filed promptly under the EAC Treaty, a key legal instrument that allows individuals in East African countries to challenge unlawful acts within two months of their enactment or upon gaining knowledge of such acts.

They also urged that the court should have examined other, non-time-barred portions of the case if a portion of it was dismissed on time-barred grounds.

The CSOs also raised the First Instance Court’s ruling to award costs to the Tanzanian and Ugandan governments and the East African Community Secretary General (EAC). They contended that a decision like this may deter future public interest lawsuits, particularly those involving human rights and the environment, as it could set a precedent of penalizing those who advocate for public welfare.

Lawyer Rugemeleza Nshala cautioned that charging in public interest cases, particularly those involving the environment and human rights, could have a “chilling effect” on those seeking justice. “The case that was filed affects the people, and this is why we have all these people in court today,” he said.

After hearing arguments from both sides, including legal representatives for Uganda, Tanzania, and the EAC Secretary General, the appellate judges reserved their ruling, stating that it would be delivered “on notice.”

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

As Uganda awaits the Energy Efficiency and Conservation law, plans to develop a five-year plan are underway.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

Kampala, Uganda—The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) is developing a comprehensive five-year Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and Plan for Uganda (EECSP). This plan, which is expected to be completed in June 2025, aims to enhance energy efficiency and conservation efforts in Uganda. Uganda has no law governing the manufacture, distribution, and use of clean cooking technologies.

The plan is expected to be aligned with national priorities, foster partnerships, and secure stakeholder buy-in for effective implementation and long-term sustainability.

In Uganda, over 90% of household energy consumption relies on biomass, a practice that is contributing to massive deforestation. This deforestation threatens our natural habitats, worsens climate change, and increases air pollution. To address these challenges, the government wants to improve energy supply, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and expand green energy solutions in rural areas, ensuring access to affordable and clean energy.

James Banaabe said that the government, through the Energy Ministry, has hired their firm, Castle Group of Consultants, to develop the strategy. He explained that the goal is to create an actionable plan to enhance energy efficiency across various sectors in Uganda, including industries and buildings.

“We need to develop solutions that help sectors reduce their energy bills while promoting efficiency,” he noted during a consultative meeting attended by key stakeholders, including government agencies, private sector actors, civil society, academia, and end users, which provided active and meaningful insights into the development process.

Funded by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), the plan seeks to set realistic, achievable energy efficiency targets across key sectors such as industry, transport, residential, and commercial, identify key areas for improvement, develop an environmental strategy, and recommend actionable measures to enhance energy efficiency and conservation.

Engineer Simon Kalanzi, Energy Efficiency and Conservation Department Commissioner at MEMD, emphasized the crucial role of continuous stakeholder engagement. “The energy efficiency strategy and plan rely on broad stakeholder engagement to ensure inclusivity, relevance, and effective implementation. Your involvement is key to addressing market barriers, sharing knowledge, and building capacity to incorporate local and international expertise,” he stated further.

The strategy will yield significant benefits over the next decade, including a promising future with steady and responsible energy usage across targeted sectors.

David Birimumaaso, a principal officer at MEMD, highlighted that the strategy would support the implementation of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation bill, which is already before Parliament. “This law mandates everyone to be mindful of energy conservation,” he added.

On February 4, 2024, the State Minister for Energy, Hon. Sidronius Opolot, tabled the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Bill, 2024. The bill seeks to regulate energy consumption, curb waste, and promote sustainable cooking technologies. According to the bill, no regulations currently govern the manufacture, distribution, and use of clean cooking technologies.

 

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter