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

African Women forge bold actions for climate justice at the 2024 Women’s Climate Assembly in Senegal.

Published

on

By Witness Radio and WoMin teams.

Hundreds of African women activists and climate leaders who attended the week-long Women’s Climate Assembly (WCA), held alongside the African People’s Counter COP (APCC) in Saly, Senegal, have declared to fiercely protect Africa’s natural resources from the rampant exploitation by countries in the Global North.

The Pan-African radical space ignited a powerful collective movement, uniting Africans most deeply affected by rampant resource extraction and ecological destruction, forging a path toward true environmental justice and liberation for Africa’s people.

The WCA highlighted African women’s central role in defending the continent’s natural resources, which countries in the Global North have long exploited. Activists and leaders called for urgent action to protect Africa’s wealth, including minerals like cobalt and lithium, oil, and vast tracts of forested land, which have fueled global industries while devastating local environments.

Activist Ndieme Ndong from Senegal spoke ardently about this exploitation: “All the wealth is coming from Africa. Gold, phosphate, oil, cobalt – everything is coming from Africa. But foreign powers bribe our leaders and rob us of our resources. If we look at all the wealth in Europe, all the wealth they are using in the factories and plants in Europe, everything comes from Africa.”

Held alongside the African People’s Counter COP, this annual assembly set a powerful precedent for future collaborations and united efforts toward a more just and sustainable future for Africa and the world. The activists noted that women have often been sidelined in climate advocacy despite the devastating effects Africa and the rest of the world are facing.

“The 2024 Women’s Climate Assembly has demonstrated that when women unite, they can be a powerful force for change. African women are determined to ensure that their demands and impactful organizing in the fight against the climate crisis are both heard and seen.” The activists mentioned in a statement released shortly after the event.

The assembly also served as a powerful platform for African women to demand gender-responsive climate policies. Africa continues to bear the brunt of climate change’s worst consequences as harmful development models driven by Global North companies, such as cobalt and lithium mining fuel conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, oil pollution in the Niger Delta, forest and land grabs for monoculture farming in Cameroon and Uganda among others, and polluted water sources have intensified the call for environmental change. These destructive practices are driving African women, who are disproportionately affected, to lead the resistance.

“In my village in Côte d’Ivoire, if we want to get outside our community, we need a gate pass to explain why we are going out. When we are in our village, you cannot move your goods freely. There are guards, uniformed men, always in yellow, who monitor movements on behalf of the palm oil company. Many women have been arrested and put in prison by these wicked multinationals just because they are picking fruits of the palm for themselves. This is OUR land. We had to do something. We had to fight for the liberation of these women. So, as women, we organized.” – Josiane Boyo, from Cote d’Ivoire, revealed.

Ahead of COP29 in Azerbaijan this November, the WCA and APCC emphasized the critical need to include African women’s voices in global climate negotiations. African women are leading the push for sustainable solutions, demanding the right to say “NO” to harmful extractive and development projects, reparations for environmental damage, and advocating for an end to the climate debt that has burdened their communities.

Over 120 women activists and leaders from across Africa met from October 7th to 11th under the theme “African Women Rise to Defend their Lands, Oceans, and Forests. ” The assembly emphasized the power of women’s leadership in confronting Africa’s most pressing environmental challenges.

The assembly was organized by a steering group of women’s movements, grassroots networks, and a few NGOs working in solidarity with women in resistance, and 200 women from across West, Central, East, and Southern Africa were gathered last year. The delegates, representing 70 communities and organizations from 17 countries, are at the forefront of resistance against large development projects that extract and exploit Africa’s natural resource wealth at the expense of people and the planet.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Women’s Climate Assembly, 2024: African women vow to protect human and environmental rights amidst an influx of destructive land-based investments on the continent.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

Africa’s path to recovery from the scars of destructive development projects will take decades. These projects, often presented as “development initiatives,” have caused untold suffering, including deaths, homelessness, infertility among women, food insecurity, flooding, and the relentless pollution of lands that were once flourishing homelands. This fallout is catastrophic for the environment and the people who depend on it.

In a radio program at Witness Radio, which was part of the Women’s Climate Assembly (WCA) 2024, women activists from across Africa, representing western and central African regions, revealed the dark reality behind projects disguised as “development,” which genuinely devastates their communities, lands, and the environment.

The rise of these destructive projects has galvanized African women to fight back. They demand alternative development solutions and projects that uplift women, support families, and sustain communities while protecting the environment.

Siya Foyoh, a community activist working with WoME from Kono District in Sierra Leone, shared the horrors her region faces from mining and deforestation. Kono, Sierra Leone’s one of the leading diamond-producing districts, has seen an increase in child deaths due to uncovered mining pits, which flood during the rains. “Every month, we lose one or two children who fall into these pits. This never happened before the mining began,” Foyoh explained.

Beyond the immediate dangers, the chemicals used in mining have led to widespread health crises. “In my district, hepatitis B is rampant because of these chemicals. Our health is suffering greatly,” she added.

But what is more disheartening is the response from government authorities. “When we report these tragedies to the government, we are told the mining companies are too powerful to be challenged,” Foyoh lamented.

Foyoh also pointed to the growing problem of timber logging in Sierra Leone, accelerating deforestation and disrupting rainfall patterns.

“This year, our community saw little and late rainfall, leading to food shortages. Deforestation is driving us toward famine,” she further added.

Another activist, Florence Naakie, from Nigeria’s Lokiaka Centre, highlighted the devastating impact of oil extraction on women and their communities. She revealed that “Countries may be different, but the struggles we face are the same,” recounting stories of coastal erosion in Senegal, deforestation for timber, and the increasingly erratic weather patterns affecting farming communities across Africa.

In Nigeria’s Niger Delta, Oil development operations have ravaged the land and waters, and farmers and fisherfolk are facing an ecological disaster. “Our soil is infertile; even when we use fertilizers, there’s no yield. Fisherwomen report catching fish that smell of crude oil, which we know can cause cancer,” Naakie explained.

She painted a bleak picture of life in the Niger Delta: “We’re being pushed to the brink. People cannot farm or fish, and the pollution has led to widespread infertility and cancer among women. Some of the babies born in these areas are deformed.”

In Nigeria, the oil spill crisis is staggering. The Nigerian Oil Spill Monitor recorded over 1,150 spills in 2023 alone.”Oil pollution has destroyed our environment, caused infertility in young women, and left us battling diseases like cancer,” Naakie added, with emphasis on the devastating impact on women, who bear the brunt of providing for their families in the face of environmental destruction.

“We have many women between the ages of 25 and 30 and above who are now unable to conceive because they have been exposed to a polluted environment. When these women go fishing, they come into contact with crude oil, leading to serious health consequences like cancer. We are seeing rising cases of skin cancer, cleft lips, and deformities in infants born to these women,” Naakie added.

Despite the overwhelming challenges, African women are refusing to back down. They call for projects restoring degraded lands and water sources and for the collective power to stand up to mining companies, governments, and other entities pushing harmful ” development ideas.”

“We will not give up,” vowed the activists. We are fighting for projects that prioritize women, families, and communities. We want a future where we can live dignified lives without fear for our children or our land.”

In-case you missed the live program,

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

UN approves carbon market safeguards to protect environment and human rights

Published

on

The UN’s new carbon market will have a compulsory mechanism that aims to prevent developers of carbon credit projects from breaching human rights or causing environmental damage with their activities – a first for the UN climate process.

Developers of projects under the UN’s new Article 6.4 carbon crediting system will be required to identify and address potential negative environmental and social impacts as part of a detailed risk assessment under new rules adopted by technical experts in Baku, Azerbaijan, last Thursday.

Developers will also be asked to set out how their activities contribute to sustainable development goals like ending poverty or improving health, alongside their primary objective of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Maria AlJishi, chair of the Supervisory Body in charge of setting the rules, said in a statement that “these new mandatory safeguards are a significant step towards ensuring that the UN carbon market we are building contributes to sustainable development without harming people or the environment”.

The risk reduction measures introduced by the so-called “Sustainable Development Tool” represent an attempt to grapple with widespread concerns over the harm caused by some carbon credit projects around the world.

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – the previous UN carbon market set up to help richer countries meet their emissions-cutting pledges – was dogged by accusations of social and environmental abuses linked to its registered projects. They included, for example, toxic pollution from a waste-to-energy facility in India, forced relocations due to infrastructure like a hydropower dam in Panama, and villagers in Uganda being denied access to land they used to grow food as a result of a tree-planting project.

The CDM had only a less-rigorous voluntary safeguarding mechanism that was heavily criticised by civil society.

The approval of the new Sustainable Development Tool this week marks the end of a two-year process to agree on the rules, which will work alongside an appeals and grievance procedure rubber-stamped earlier this year.

Kristin Qui, a Supervisory Body member closely involved in developing the tool, told Climate Home it had been “very challenging” to get it right. “Everyone wanted to find the right balance between making sure the tool can be used while at the same time being as stringent as possible,” she added.

Under the new rules, project developers will have to fill out an extensive questionnaire designed to assess the risk their activities could pose in 11 areas, including land and water, human rights, health, gender equality and Indigenous Peoples.

They will have to describe how they are planning to avoid any negative impacts or, if that is not possible, the measures they are taking to reduce them, as well as procedures to monitor their implementation.

External auditors will review the risk assessment, check that local communities have been properly consulted and evaluate the appropriateness of the actions proposed by the developers. The rules will apply to both new projects developed under Article 6.4 and to over a thousand more that are seeking to transfer into the new market from the CDM.

Isa Mulder, a policy expert at Carbon Market Watch (CMW) and a close observer of Article 6 negotiations, said the tool “should go a long way in upholding rights and protecting people and the environment”.

She added there is still room for improvement on certain provisions and said the mechanism will need to be used as intended for it to be effective, but called it “a really good start”.

The Supervisory Body will review and update the safeguarding tool every 18 months, striving to improve it based on feedback from those involved.

In addition to the risk assessment, the mechanism will require project developers to assess the potential impacts of their activities on country efforts to meet the 17 Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by the UN in 2015 and due to be met this decade.

Qui said the tool will make project developers reflect more closely on how they can share benefits with local communities.

“It poses the question of how the project is actually going to contribute to sustainable development in addition to simply avoiding harm and encourages a high level of engagement with Indigenous populations from the get-go,” she added.

The approval of the Sustainable Development Tool is seen as an important stepping stone towards achieving the full operationalisation of the Article 6 carbon market at COP29 in November – one of the main priorities for the incoming Azerbaijani presidency of the talks.

CMW’s Mulder said the tool’s adoption was “very significant”, as having a human rights protection package in place was “probably a prerequisite” for many countries to even consider approving other carbon market measures at COP.

After extended and heated discussions stretching into the early morning on Thursday, the Supervisory Body also agreed on guidance for the development of carbon-credit methodologies and carbon removal activities aimed at ensuring that emission reductions claimed by projects are credible.

These key building blocks for the establishment of the Article 6.4 carbon crediting mechanism proved an insurmountable hurdle at the last two annual climate summits where government negotiators rejected previous iterations of the documents.

That prompted the Supervisory Body to take a different route in Baku this week by directly approving those documents as “standards” instead of simply presenting its recommendations for diplomats to fight over at COP.

Jonathan Crook, a policy expert at CMW, interpreted the move as “a risky take-it-or-leave it strategy” to avoid intensive negotiations. “I think this approach aims to ensure the texts won’t be reopened at COP29 for line-by-line edits,” he said.

Climate Home understands that governments will still have the option of rejecting the body’s “standards” wholesale or directing it to make further changes.

Supervisory Body chair AlJishi said in written comments that “the adoption of these standards marks a major step forward in enabling a robust, agile carbon market that can continue to evolve”.

But a fellow member of the body, Olga Gassan-zade, voiced concerns over the process. “Personally I have huge reservations against creating a UN mechanism that can effectively evade the UN governance,” she wrote in a LinkedIn post, “but it didn’t feel like the SBM [Supervisory Body Mechanism] as a whole was willing to risk not adopting the CMA recommendations for a third year in a row.”…PACNEWS/CIMATE HOME.

Source: Post-Courier

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter