- 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
