Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

StopEACOP raises alarm over €1.5bn back door funding for TotalEnergies

Published

on

  • StopEACOP coalition says €1.5bn bond creates “back door” funding channel for EACOP and Mozambique LNG.
  • Over 40 global banks previously declined direct EACOP financing on ESG and climate grounds.
  • Coalition calls for shift from project exclusions to client based exclusions.

The StopEACOP coalition has raised alarm over a €1.5bn bond issued by TotalEnergies this week, arguing that the transaction exposes a critical gap in global banks’ ESG and climate commitments.

According to the coalition, several international banks that had publicly distanced themselves from the controversial East African Crude Oil Pipeline project participated in underwriting the bond. While more than 40 global banks have declined to directly finance EACOP, campaigners argue that facilitating corporate bond issuances for TotalEnergies effectively provides the company with unrestricted capital that can be allocated to any of its projects.

These include both EACOP and the Mozambique LNG development in Mozambique, another project facing sustained international scrutiny.

Among the banks that had previously announced they would not support EACOP are Société Générale in 2021, followed in 2022 by HSBC, Intesa Sanpaolo, J.P. Morgan and Mizuho. BBVA made a similar announcement in 2025.

Campaigners argue that although these institutions avoided direct project finance exposure, their participation in corporate level fundraising undermines the intent of those commitments. Bond proceeds are typically unrestricted, enabling companies to allocate capital internally, including to subsidiaries such as EACOP Ltd.

Zaki Mamdoo, StopEACOP Campaign Coordinator, said banks were seeking reputational protection while maintaining financial relationships that sustain fossil fuel expansion. He argued that bond underwriting allows lenders to benefit from fees and returns while distancing themselves from direct project finance scrutiny.

The coalition maintains that the €1.5bn raised strengthens TotalEnergies’ ability to internally finance projects that have struggled to attract external lenders due to environmental and social risk concerns. Recent risk briefings from BankTrack noted that public pressure has made it increasingly difficult for EACOP sponsors to secure conventional project finance.

EACOP, a planned 1 443 km heated crude oil pipeline linking oilfields in western Uganda to the Tanzanian coast, has faced sustained opposition over land acquisition, biodiversity risks and human rights concerns. Project affected communities in Uganda have reported land disputes and delayed compensation, while activists allege judicial and security pressures against opponents of the development.

Rachael Tugume, a project affected person from Hoima, said that once TotalEnergies channels internal funding to EACOP Ltd, the capital raised through bonds becomes directly linked to on the ground impacts, including land loss and livelihood disruption.

The coalition has called on banks to move beyond project specific exclusions and adopt client based exclusions. Under such a framework, financial institutions would decline to finance companies pursuing projects deemed incompatible with climate and human rights commitments, rather than simply avoiding individual transactions.

As TotalEnergies, alongside project partners including CNOOC and host governments in Uganda and Tanzania, continues to target first oil by July 2026, the financing structure behind the project is drawing renewed scrutiny from civil society.

Diana Nabiruma of the Africa Institute for Energy Governance said banks must align their financing practices with stated commitments to human rights, biodiversity protection and climate leadership. She argued that continued capital market support for companies expanding fossil fuel infrastructure erodes public confidence in ESG frameworks.

The controversy highlights a broader debate within global finance over the effectiveness of project level exclusions in driving climate aligned capital allocation. For African energy markets seeking to balance development priorities with environmental safeguards, the outcome of this debate will carry significant implications for future upstream oil and gas financing across the continent.

Source: greenbuildingafrica.co.za

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The untold struggle of community land right defenders in eastern DRC’s three-decade war.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

“My land is among the properties currently being used by rebels. I had purchased a plot right along Route 2, but an M23 officer is now renting it out to traders. He collects the fees for my own land while I suffer here in hiding. I cannot even call him, for fear of exposing myself to further danger.”

These are the words of a community land-right defender from North Kivu Province, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), living in hiding after becoming a target for defending community land rights.

According to the defender, defending land rights has come at an enormous cost. He has lost access to his property, his livelihood, and his freedom of movement. A piece of land he legally acquired is now under the control of others, and he remains unable to challenge their occupation because doing so could put his life at risk.

His story reflects a growing reality across eastern DRC, where decades of conflict have made land one of the most contested resources. As armed groups expand territorial control, communities say homes, farms, grazing areas, and commercial properties are being seized, leaving millions displaced and land rights defenders increasingly vulnerable.

Eastern DRC has endured armed conflict for more than three decades. The violence has involved government forces and multiple armed groups competing for political influence, territory, and control over valuable resources.

Since its resurgence in 2021, the March 23 Movement (M23), operating under the AFC/M23 coalition, has captured large areas of North and South Kivu, some of the country’s most strategic and resource-rich provinces.

According to the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s July 2025 report, the control of large parts of North and South Kivu by AFC/M23 secured access to mineral-rich territories and fertile land, while increasing Rwanda’s influence in the DRC.

The report highlights the strategic importance of territorial control in the conflict, where access to natural resources, productive land, and key areas is closely linked to armed groups’ expansion and regional influence.

For communities living in these territories, territorial control has brought displacement, insecurity, and loss of ancestral land.

According to the United Nations, more than seven million people are internally displaced across the Democratic Republic of Congo, making it one of the world’s largest displacement crises.

Many displaced people who spoke to the Witness Radio team say that when fighting forces drive them from their homes, their property often becomes vulnerable to occupation.

“Many people are suffering in silence. Throughout the territory, homes, fields, and plots are being seized by force while people are being driven out so that others can settle in undisturbed. Rwandans are leaving their homes to occupy local owners’ properties. We are helpless and suffering in silence,” he said.

Another defender, whom Witness Radio identifies as Mwamba for security reasons, says his family’s struggle over land has lasted for generations and has been shaped by armed conflict.

Mwamba says his father, a traditional chief, farmer, and landowner in North Kivu, was targeted during the years of rebellion and that their family land, measuring approximately 240 hectares, was taken over.

Before the land was seized, the family ran a farm with livestock, including about 550 cattle, 250 sheep and goats, and 50 pigs.

According to Mwamba, the livestock were looted, houses were destroyed, and the farm was occupied by armed actors linked to the AFC/M23 movement during successive periods of conflict.

“My whole life, there has been conflict over our family’s property. Since the 1990s, we have never been able to use our land in peace,” he said.

The human cost has been greater than the economic losses, leading to the deaths of his family members. He recalls, “In 1997, my three older brothers were captured on the road and killed by the same group that had grabbed our land. When I later tried to organize my family to reclaim what belongs to us, I received death threats too. I had to flee because I believed I would be next.”

Today, his family lives in poverty while watching others profit from land they say has belonged to them for generations.

“All family members left to save their lives. The farm is still in their hands, and we cannot even approach it,” he said.

Also, human rights lawyer Ngoma, whose real name is withheld for safety reasons, says defending victims of land grabbing and other abuses became a threat to his own survival.

For more than a decade, Ngoma represented marginalized communities seeking justice for land seizures, killings, sexual violence, torture, and other abuses committed during the conflict.

But when M23 fighters took control of his area, his work put him in danger.

“I felt constantly at risk, to the point of receiving death threats from the very people against whom we were litigating. I faced numerous threats to my own safety and that of my family. I was forced to change my phone numbers, cut communication with people, and I could no longer move freely as a citizen,” he told Witness Radio in an exclusive interview.

Like many other human rights defenders, Ngoma eventually fled and went into hiding for safety, but the conflict and its far-reaching costs to victims remained. His departure disrupted his life and left many victims without legal representation when they needed it most. For communities whose land had been seized or whose relatives had been killed, lawyers and land defenders are often the only link to justice. When they are forced into exile or silence through threats and intimidation, victims are left with few avenues to challenge abuses, document violations, or pursue accountability.

“When the conflict escalated, that marked the beginning of my ordeal. My life was thrown into turmoil. I was forced to flee and constantly protect my family from possible attacks,” he added.

His experience reflects a wider pattern across eastern DRC, where attacks on lawyers, land defenders, and human rights activists have weakened community efforts to resist land dispossession and seek justice. As those documenting abuses are driven into hiding, armed groups tighten their control over contested territories, while many displaced families are left without the legal and human rights support needed to reclaim their land or defend their rights.

Residents say that when armed groups capture territory and civilians flee, abandoned properties can become vulnerable to occupation. Families who later attempt to return often face intimidation, threats, or the inability to reclaim their land.

Researchers widely agree that the conflict in eastern DRC has multiple overlapping drivers, including competition for political power, ethnic tensions, control of mineral resources, weak governance, and territorial control. Within this broader conflict, land remains a critical source of both livelihoods and strategic influence, making it a frequent point of contestation between armed groups and displaced communities.

Dr. Deborah S. Rogers, the International Outreach Coordinator for the coalition Mobilization for the Safeguarding of Congolese Sovereignty and Autonomy (MOSSAC), told Witness Radio that, in her view, Rwanda’s involvement in eastern DRC is closely linked to territorial expansion.

According to Dr. Rogers, Rwanda’s limited land area and growing population have increased the importance of securing additional territory. She argued that in areas under the control of the AFC/M23, civilians are frequently driven from their homes through violence and intimidation. When displaced families later attempt to return, she said, many discover that their land has already been occupied by people she identifies as Rwandans.

Human rights organizations have repeatedly raised concerns about attacks against those documenting abuses and supporting affected communities.

Between November 2025 and February 2026, several human rights defenders in North and South Kivu were reportedly targeted because of their work, according to the United Nations.

In January 2026, UN human rights experts expressed concern over allegations of attempted killings, kidnappings, torture, sexual violence, and death threats targeting defenders and their families.

The attacks have forced many defenders to choose between abandoning their work and risking their lives.

Despite years of displacement and violence, many affected families still hope to return to their ancestral lands.

“The land belongs to our families. We have lost so much, but we have not lost hope. One day, we believe justice will allow us to return,” Mwemba told our team.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Ugandan farmers take TotalEnergies’ pipeline to UK court

Published

on

Police apprehend a Ugandan activist during a protest against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) plans in Kampala, Uganda, on 15 September, 2023. © Reuters

Four Ugandan farmers filed a case against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) at the UK’s High Court on Tuesday, seeking to have Ugandan constitutional, environmental and climate law applied to EACOP Ltd, the UK-registered company financing the project

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Lawyers Move to Court to Stop New Luxury Tourism Projects in Maasai Mara

Published

on

A coalition of regional legal and environmental organisations has moved to court seeking to halt the approval and development of new luxury tourism facilities in the Maasai Mara National Reserve, arguing that the projects threaten one of the world’s most important wildlife ecosystems.

The petition, filed before the Environment and Land Court, seeks orders stopping further construction of high-end tourist accommodation within the reserve pending the determination of the case.

Those behind the petition include East Africa Law Society, Natural Justice, JustAct and Africa Centre for Peace and Human Rights, who have sued several government agencies and private investors involved in the developments.

Among the respondents are Marriott International, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, Minor Hotels, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA), Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and the Narok County Government.

Narok Governor Patrick Ole Ntutu and the Maasai Mara National Reserve date in Narok County.
Photo| County Government of Narok / Maasai Mara National Reserve.

The petitioners contend that approvals granted for the tourism developments violated constitutional and environmental safeguards, arguing that the projects were allowed within ecologically sensitive areas meant primarily for wildlife conservation.

Court documents further claim that the developments sit close to critical wildlife habitats and migration routes linking the Maasai Mara ecosystem with Serengeti National Park.

This, according to them, potentially disrupts the annual wildebeest migration that attracts thousands of tourists every year.

They have asked the court to certify the matter as one raising substantial constitutional questions and refer it to the Chief Justice for the appointment of a five-judge bench to hear the case.

The latest legal challenge comes months after the planned opening of the luxury Ritz-Carlton safari camp sparked public debate, with conservationists raising concerns that the facility could interfere with wildlife movement near the Sand River.

At the time, the Kenya Wildlife Service dismissed claims circulating online that the camp had blocked the wildebeest migration, describing videos shared on social media as misleading.

“The Ritz-Carlton safari camp is situated within a designated tourism investment low-use zone, as provided for in the Maasai Mara National Reserve Management Plan, 2023-2032,” KWS said at the time.

The agency also maintained that camps established along the Mara, Sand and Talek rivers have historically coexisted with wildlife movements without obstructing migration.

Source: kenyans.co.ke

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates