Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Uganda: StopEACOP Campaign Condemns Standard Bank’s Decision to Fund EACOP

Published

on

Kampala — The StopEACOP Campaign is appalled by Standard Bank’s decision to help finance the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project and condemns this decision in the strongest possible terms. This decision follows a years-long review process, during which environmental and social concerns raised by numerous stakeholders were evidently ignored.

The $5 billion EACOP project, spearheaded by TotalEnergies, aims to transport crude oil from Uganda’s oil fields to a terminal in Tanga, Tanzania. Despite significant opposition from affected communities and environmental and human rights groups, Standard Bank, Africa’s largest lender, has decided to support this disastrous project.

Standard Bank chair Nonkululeko Nyembezi stated in a recent interview that they had conducted comprehensive environmental and social due diligence. However, the claim contradicts the project’s grave climate, environmental and human rights risks. The decision of Standard Bank is also at odds with the assessment of its peers, who have ruled out support for the EACOP for climate, environmental, and social concerns.

Standard Bank’s decision ignores local opposition and human rights abuses 

In the last month alone, 11 pipeline critics have been arrested in Uganda and Tanzania after expressing their concerns about the project. In addition, one of the community leaders from the Kingfisher region in Uganda was abducted by the Uganda Peoples’ Defense Forces, bringing condemnation from the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders. Standard Bank’s untimely announcement of their decision to finance EACOP, in the midst of a brutal crackdown on human rights, environmental and land defenders in Uganda and Tanzania, illustrates their level of detachment from the realities and experiences of communities on the ground and calls into question their claim to have done thorough due diligence.

Environmental and human rights groups have persistently highlighted the potential hazards of the controversial EACOP, including severe impacts on wildlife habitats, the displacement of communities, and the exacerbation of climate change through increased greenhouse gas emissions. Many field investigation reports, including a recent Human Rights Watch report, have also documented and denounced the inadequate compensation and significant disruption experienced by residents displaced by the pipeline’s construction. Against this backdrop, Standard Bank’s decision to finance EACOP shows blatant disregard for the voices and rights of the communities in Uganda and Tanzania who will bear the brunt of the environmental and social devastation caused by this project.

Standard Bank cannot feign ignorance in relation to the concerns surrounding EACOP. It has faced consistent pressure from communities and climate and social justice organisations and groups in South Africa who have demonstrated outside the bank’s offices in Rosebank, Johannesburg on numerous occasions. These demonstrations, including a large protest with hundreds of participants on the day of the bank’s AGM in 2023, a 3-day-long occupation of the bank’s entrance in September of the same year, and weekly pickets held outside the bank’s parking lot by Extinction Rebellion, sought to bring the demands and experiences of EACOP-affected communities to their attention.

Standard Bank has refused to engage in meaningful and constructive dialogue and instead, its response has been characterized by repression and increased militarisation. The South African Police Service has also intervened to protect the interests of the bank and has arrested peaceful demonstrators on two occasions. It is a stark demonstration of Standard Bank’s prioritization of profit over people and the planet and its lip-service commitment to constructive dialogue and meaningful engagement with frontline communities and other key stakeholders.

Standard Bank is also ignoring clear business risk

The decision to bankroll the project also casts doubt on Standard Bank’s assessment of the business and reputational risks stemming from the risks to local communities, environment and climate posed by the project.

Standard Bank’s decision comes after major financiers and insurers from North America, Europe, and Japan have publicly ruled out support for EACOP due to global outcry over the harmful project. The expected finance from China has also been delayed, while the Chinese state-owned insurers and banks have taken prolonged time to assess the outstanding risks. As a result, the EACOP project is facing significant challenges and  project sponsors are reportedly in a cash crisis to fill the funding gap, which threatens to stall the construction.

These delays come as a result of the immense pressure that potential financiers have come under from communities, civil society, the international community and even shareholders and investor groups who express grave concern over the catastrophic socio-economic, biodiversity and climate change risks of the project.

Standard Bank’s decision to finance the EACOP project starkly contradicts industry trends, as leading banks and insurers have distanced themselves from this controversial initiative. This decision exposes Standard Bank to significant risks, including the potential for stranded assets, especially as the global economy transitions towards clean energy solutions. Furthermore, with Uganda already facing a severe debt crisis, worsened by the country’s oil induced borrowing spree, the environmental and social costs associated with EACOP could precipitate an economic disaster for the people of Uganda as well as financiers and their shareholders who opt to engage with this project.

It is clear that investing in EACOP threatens the stability of vulnerable communities and jeopardizes the financial health and reputational integrity of those who support it. A 2022 report assessing the EACOP and associated oil fields against internationally recognized environmental and human rights standards for financial institutions found numerous violations, putting banks at risk if they sign on to support the project. The assessment, undertaken by the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Inclusive Development International (IDI) and BankTrack, suggests that the project is not in compliance with many of the criteria set forth in the Equator Principles and the Environmental and Social Performance Standards of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), two internationally recognized standards for responsible finance.

We demand that Standard Bank review and rescind its decision to finance the EACOP project immediately. While it may be too late for Standard Bank to redeem its supposed commitment to people and the planet, there is still time for other potential lenders, particularly Chinese state-owned banks, to demonstrate their dedication to human rights and sustainability by refusing to support EACOP. We call upon the global community to continue its unwavering support for the StopEACOP campaign and the communities on the frontlines. It is not too late to halt this disastrous project and prevent the extensive environmental, social, and economic damage it promises to inflict.

Quotes

“For years, we have campaigned tirelessly against Standard Bank, bringing the grievances and aspirations of impacted communities directly to their doorstep time and time again. Each time, we are met either with deafening silence or with outright violence from an institution that has shown itself to be truly heartless and utterly indifferent to the well-being of ordinary people. Let it be known that this announcement will not deter us. We will continue to stand in solidarity with the communities affected by EACOP and will escalate our actions against Standard Bank in the coming months.”  – Zaki Mamdoo, StopEACOP Campaign Coordinator

“Standard Bank prides itself on financing Africa’s development. However, the bank’s decision to finance the EACOP, not to mention its financing of other fossil fuel projects across Africa, earns the institution the title of an anti-people and an anti-development bank. Fossil fuel projects like EACOP that cause livelihood losses, enslave Ugandans by worsening indebtedness and drive all of us deeper into the climate crisis should not be financed by any bank.”  – Diana Nabiruma, Senior Communications Officer, AFIEGO

“Standard Bank is contributing to the devastation of our communities including through the immense loss of land and livelihood. They have chosen to ignore the plight of our people and to support our exploitation and suffering at the hands of greedy multinational corporations. This is a decision that places them squarely on the wrong side of history and which marks them as an institution with no regard for human rights and justice.” –  Richard Senkondo, Executive Director at the Organization for Community Engagement, Tanzania.

Original Source:350Africa.org  Via allafrica.com

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Forced Land Evictions in Uganda: Tenure and food insecurity on the rise…

Published

on

The scale of the issue, as revealed in Witness Radio’s recent report, is staggering and demands immediate attention: Over 5,000 hectares are targeted weekly by local and foreign investors, leading to the displacement of hundreds of Indigenous and local communities. This urgent situation threatens their food sovereignty and environmental stewardship, necessitating immediate and decisive action.

The forced land evictions are not just numbers; they are exacerbating inequality and directly undermining the efforts of local farmers to safeguard food systems and the environment.

Disturbing findings from the Daily Monitor: Uganda is grappling with a surge in malnutrition cases, with over 260,000 children suffering from acute malnutrition, as reported by UNICEF and WHO.

When evicted from their land, which is the source of livelihood, survival becomes very difficult, resulting in unwanted deaths, sicknesses, and poverty. These are not just statistics, but the harsh realities the affected communities face. It’s crucial to remember that there’s a human story of struggle and loss behind every statistic, and it’s these stories that should drive our actions.

Witness Radio’s recent report, which covered the first half of 2024, revealed that Ugandans face forced land evictions daily to give way to land-based investments, with 723 hectares of land at risk of being grabbed daily.

Furthermore, over 360,000 Ugandans were displaced, with a daily average of 2,160 people losing their livelihood. Land is targeted for oil and gas extraction, mining, agribusiness, and tree plantations for carbon offsets. While some investments have taken shape on the grabbed land, other pieces of grabbed land are still empty but under the guardship of military and private security firms.

The report pointed out that the leading causes of forced land evictions were the lack of legal documents for land ownership and transparent mechanisms to regulate an influx of “investors.” This lack of legal ownership is not just a symptom but the root cause of the problem, highlighting the urgent need for legal reform to protect the rights of Indigenous and local communities.

Since the Uganda government announced an industrial policy that commoditized its land to fight its unemployment, which will give Uganda a middle-income class status from a low-developed country, there has been an increase in forced land eviction cases. This policy shift, encouraging large-scale industrial projects, has raised questions about the government’s responsibility and accountability in these evictions.

Many investors fraudulently acquire communities’ land and do not conduct feasibility studies to establish whether the targeted land has interests. On many occasions, communities are not consulted about their land, and no compensation is offered.

According to the Lands Ministry’s 2016 annual report, about 23 percent of Uganda’s land is registered. The registration is mostly with freehold (where the land is owned outright), mailo (a form of land tenure in Buganda, a region in Uganda, customary tenure), and lease (where the land is leased for a specific period) tenure systems.

Go-betweens and blockers use this gap with support from some government officials to acquire land titles fraudulently and later evict bonafide land occupants (Indigenous and local communities) to give way for land-based investment.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) rejects the request to dismiss the EACOP appeal case.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

The Appellate Division of the East African Court of Justice (EACJ) has rejected a request by the Tanzanian government to dismiss an appeal filed by four East African civil society organizations (CSOs) seeking compliance with the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) with regional and international human rights standards.

Tanzania’s Deputy Solicitor General, Mr. Mark Mulwambo, requested the judges dismiss the Appeal, arguing that the record of proceedings from the hearings held at the First Instance Division was missing. The record of proceedings includes the CSOs and respondents’ submissions. He added that, without it, the judges at the Appellate Division could not determine whether the First Instance Court erred in the ruling that they made.

However, the court could not grant his request. Instead, it ordered the four CSOs that filed the Appeal to file supplementary information so that the judges could hear the case.

The Appeal will be heard by a panel of judges from the Appellate Division of the EACJ, including Justice Nestor Kayobera, the division’s president; Justice Anita Mugeni, the Vice President; Justice Kathurima M’Inot; Justice Cheboriona Barishaki; and Justice Omar Othman Makungu. These judges, with their expertise in regional and international law, will review the Appeal and make a final decision.

The Appeal was filed by four CSOs, including the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) from Uganda, the Centre for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT) from Uganda, the Natural Justice (NJ) from Kenya, and the Centre for Strategic Litigation (CSL) from Tanzania, in December 2023. This was in response to the dismissal of their case, which sought compliance with the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) with regional and international human rights standards, by judges at the First Instance Division of the EACJ in November 2023.

During the dismissal, the court ruled that the applicants filed the petition out of time, stating that the petitioners should have filed the petition as early as 2017 instead of 2020. The court also ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, meaning it did not have the legal authority to decide on this matter. These decisions were based on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case.

The CSOs were ordered to file the record of proceedings by Justice Nestor Kayobera by November 29, 2024.

The court session was attended by EACOP-affected communities from both Uganda and Tanzania. Among them was Mr. Gozanga Kyakulubya, an affected person from Kyotera District in Southern Uganda, who traveled to Arusha to participate in the hearing. His personal story underscores the profound impact of the EACOP on the lives of these communities.

He shared his grievance, stating, “I came to the court because I have a lot of pain. My land was taken for the EACOP, and before I was paid, it was fenced off. The government of Uganda also sued me because I rejected the low compensation offered by EACOP. We need at least one court to be fair to EACOP host communities, and we hope the East African Court of Justice will be that court.”

The EACOP has been designed, constructed, financed, and operated through a dedicated Pipeline Company with the same name. The shareholders in EACOP are affiliates of the three upstream joint venture partners: the Uganda National Oil Company (8%), TotalEnergies E&P Uganda (62%), and CNOOC Uganda Ltd (15%), together with the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (15%).

The 1,443km pipeline will eventually transport Uganda’s crude oil from Kabaale—Hoima to the Chongoleani peninsula near Tanga Port in Tanzania.

Climate activists and civil society organizations, however, continue to oppose the project, claiming that it will harm several fragile and protected habitats irreversibly and violate key agreements and treaties.

The potential environmental damage is a cause for concern among these groups.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Big oil firms knew of dire effects of fossil fuels as early as 1950s, memos show

Published

on

Newly unearthed documents contain warning from head of Air Pollution Foundation, founded in 1953 by oil interests.

Major oil companies, including Shell and precursors to energy giants Chevron, ExxonMobil and BP, were alerted about the planet-warming effects of fossil fuels as early as 1954, newly unearthed documents show.

The warning, from the head of an industry-created group known as the Air Pollution Foundation, was revealed by Climate Investigations Center and published Tuesday by the climate website DeSmog. It represents what may be the earliest instance of big oil being informed of the potentially dire consequences of its products.

“Every time there’s a push for climate action, [we see] fossil fuel companies downplay and deny the harms of burning fossil fuels,” said Rebecca John, a researcher at the Climate Investigations Center who uncovered the historic memos. “Now we have evidence they were doing this way back in the 50s during these really early attempts to crack down on sources of pollution.”

The Air Pollution Foundation was founded in 1953 by oil interests in response to public outcry over smog that was blanketing Los Angeles county.

Researchers had identified hydrocarbon pollution from fossil fuel sources such as cars and refineries as a primary culprit and Los Angeles officials had begun to proposal pollution controls.

The Air Pollution Foundation, which was primarily funded by the lobbying organization Western States Petroleum Association, publicly claimed to want to help solve the smog crisis, but was set up in large part to counter efforts at regulation, the new memos indicate.

It’s a commonly used tactic today, said Geoffrey Supran, an expert in climate disinformation at the University of Miami.

Fire emanating from a factory chimney
A gas flare from the Shell Chemical LP petroleum refinery burns against the sky in Louisiana. Photograph: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

“The Air Pollution Foundation appears to be one of the earliest and most brazen efforts by the oil industry to prop up a … front group to exaggerate scientific uncertainty to defend business as usual,” Supran said. “It helped lay the strategic and organizational groundwork for big oil’s decades of climate denial and delay.”

Then called the Western Oil and Gas Association, the lobbying group provided $1.3m to the group in the 1950s – the equivalent of $14m today – to the Air Pollution Foundation. That funding came from member companies including Shell and firms later bought by or merged with ExxonMobil, BP, Chevron, Sunoco and ConocoPhillips, as well as southern California utility SoCalGas.

The Air Pollution Foundation recruited the respected chemical engineer Lauren B Hitchcock to serve as its president. And in 1954, the organization – which until then was arguing that households incinerating waste in backyards was to blame asked Caltech to submit a proposal to determine the main source of smog.

In November 1954, Caltech submitted its proposal, which included crucial warnings about the coal, oil, and gas and said that “a changing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere with reference to climate” may “ultimately prove of considerable significance to civilization”, a memo previously uncovered by John shows. The newly uncovered documents show the Air Pollution Foundation shared the warning with the Western Oil and Gas Association’s members in March 1955.

In the mid-1950s, climate researchers were beginning to understand the planet-heating impact of fossil fuels, and to discuss their emergent research in the media. But the newly uncovered Air Pollution Foundation memo represents the earliest known cautionary message to the oil industry about the greenhouse effect.

The Air Pollution Foundation’s board of trustees, including representatives from SoCalGas and Union Oil, which was later acquired by Chevron, approved funding for the Caltech project. In the following months, foundation president Hitchcock advocated for pollution controls on oil refineries and then testified in favor of state-funded pollution research in the California Senate.

Hitchcock was reprimanded by industry leaders for these efforts. In an April 1955 meeting, the Western Oil and Gas Association told him he was drawing too much “attention” to refinery pollution and conducting “too broad a program” of research. The Air Pollution Foundation was meant to be “protective” of the industry and should publish “findings which would be accepted as unbiased”, meeting minutes uncovered by John show.

After this meeting, the foundation made no further reference to the potential climate impact of fossil fuels, publications reviewed by DeSmog suggest.

“The fossil fuel industry is often seen as having followed in the footsteps of the tobacco industry’s playbook for denying science and blocking regulation,” said Supran. “But these documents suggest that big oil has been running public affairs campaigns to downplay the dangers of its products just as long as big tobacco, starting with air pollution in the early-to-mid-1950s.”

In the following months, many of the foundation’s research projects were scaled back or designed to be conducted in direct partnerships with lobbying groups. Hitchcock resigned as president in 1956.

Last year, the largest county in Oregon sued the Western States Petroleum Association for allegedly sowing doubt about the climate crisis despite longstanding knowledge of it.

DeSmog and the Climate Investigations Center previously found that the Air Pollution Foundation underwrote the earliest studies on CO2 conducted in 1955 and 1956 by renowned climate scientist Charles David Keeling, paving the way for his groundbreaking “Keeling Curve,” which charts how fossil fuels cause an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Other earlier investigations have found that major fossil companies spent decades conducting their own research into the consequences of burning coal, oil and gas. One 2023 study found that Exxon scientists made “breathtakingly” accurate predictions of global heating in the 1970s and 1980s, only to then spend decades sowing doubt about climate science.

The newly unearthed documents come from the Caltech archives, the US National Archives, the University of California at San Diego, the State University of New York Buffalo archives and Los Angeles newspapers from the 1950s.

The Western States Petroleum Association and the American Petroleum Institute, the top US fossil fuels lobby group, did not respond to requests for comment.

Origin Source: The Guardian

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter