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

Environmental and human rights advocates are urging the world to hold global investors accountable for their actions.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team

Communities and organizations defending their land, livelihoods, and environment demand that global investors and development finance institutions take responsibility for projects they believe harm people and the planet.

Environmental and human rights defenders from Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, and India gathered at the World Bank Group Annual Meetings to share stories of communities fighting to be heard and seeking justice for harm caused by development projects.

Ms. Ueangfa Chamket, representing Chachoengsao Re: Power in Thailand, described her community’s long battle to defend the land that sustains their way of life. For over twenty years, residents have stood firm against the Burapa power plant, first proposed as a coal-fired facility and later changed to a gas-fired plant.

She explained that this region is a lifeline for farming communities, whose fields not only ensure local food security but also supply Bangkok markets with fresh produce.

“Our communities are agricultural communities which practice organic farming and later sell some of our produce in Bangkok,” she said.

Chamket voiced concerns about the power plant’s environmental impact and its effects on local livelihoods, citing air pollution, dust, and strain on water resources. She warned these threats endanger both people’s health and the biodiversity that sustains the community.

The Burapa Power Plant Project is a proposed 540 MW fossil gas-fired combined cycle power plant under construction in Khao Hin Son, Phanom Sarakham, Chachoengsao Province, Thailand. The project began in 2007 as a 600 MW coal-fired power plant awarded to Advance Agro (now Double A Power/National Power Supply, NPS), according to research from Bank Track, an international organization that tracks private-sector commercial banks and their financed activities.

Despite strong opposition from local communities and four rejections of its Environmental and Health Impact Assessments, most recently in 2016, the project remains in Thailand’s National Power Development Plans.al-fired proposal was replaced by plans for the 540-megawatt Burapa natural gas-fired power plant at the same location. The developers subsequently signed a 25-year Power Purchase Agreement with the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), alongside a long-term gas supply agreement with PTT PCL.

Chamket says residents refuse more industrial development unless their concerns are addressed, stressing their determination to resist the power plant and what they see as the taking of their local resources.

Beyond environmental worries, Chamket said the community felt shut out of key decisions, from consultations to public hearings. She questioned why residents’ voices mattered less than those of powerful financiers.

“They do not hear our comments and only listen to the funders and financiers of the project. We want to share in public hearing forums, but they block us by saying there is limited time, creating a situation where we cannot report the actual situation in the area,” she said.

Similar worries have surfaced in Prachinburi province, where communities are pushing back against industrial waste incineration projects promoted under the banner of a circular economy.

The Gulf Waste-to-Energy (GWTE) Circular Economy Project aims to build and operate 12 waste-to-energy power plants across five Thai provinces: Saraburi, Ayutthaya, Prachinburi, Rayong, and Chonburi.

Mr. Ridtidat Boonyaburanakit, of the Strong Prachinburi Community Network, described how the project area supports rice, cassava, maize, and poultry farming. He said residents struggle to be heard at public hearings.

“We do not have the opportunities for public hearings,” he said.

“We do not have opportunities for public hearings,” he said. AIIB, along with other lenders, backs the project. In February 2026, the ADB announced loan agreements totaling 16.6 billion Thai baht (approximately US$511.9 million) with 12 companies indirectly owned by Gulf Waste to Energy Holdings Company Limited, a subsidiary of Gulf Development Public Company Limited (GULF), with the intention of supporting energy generation from nonhazardous industrial waste, promoting diversion from landfills, and reducing illegal waste disposal activities in Thailand.

On the ground, community leaders say the project has failed to meet its promises. Boonyaburanakit also reported security personnel intimidated residents who tried to join project discussions. Counsel Aaron Pedrosa, of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, highlighted the uphill battle communities face in holding investors accountable for environmental and social harm.

The Philippine Movement for Climate Justice is a coalition of more than 150 grassroots, sectoral, and other organizations working nationwide to advance climate justice.

Pedrosa said the coalition filed a case in 2017 against the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private-sector arm of the World Bank Group, over financing linked to 19 coal power projects in the Philippines through a financial intermediary, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation.

He explained this financing fueled the spread of coal power in the country, with 16 of 19 proposed projects ultimately built.

“This is happening in a country where for 13 years now, according to the recent Global Witness Report, we remain the deadliest place for land and defenders,” Pedrosa said, highlighting the dangers people face when defending their land and environment.

Despite the challenge of confronting powerful financial institutions, Pedrosa emphasized the need to keep fighting for accountability, vowing to persist even when justice seems out of reach in Bangkok also sparked debate over who ultimately shoulders the burden of environmental damage and climate disasters.

Sutharee WannasiSutharee Wannasiri, a senior community associate with Accountability Counsel and one of the event’s moderators, referred to recent flooding in Thailand and questioned who pays the price of such farmers cries, vendors, and families seeking shelter as those most vulnerable to the fallout, even as powerful institutions make decisions that shape their futures.

Her remarks linked communities’ opposition to individual projects to a broader concern, suggesting people facing environmental risks may have little influence over investment decisions that affect them.

Advocates demanded stronger accountability for harmful projects, insisting that affected communities must be heard and that investors and operators take responsibility for the outcomes of their choices.

Margaux Day, the policy director at Accountability Counsel, said investors could make better decisions by listening to communities with direct knowledge of their environments and livelihoods.

“Local communities are the experts in their own lives and environments, and if investors were to listen to them, then those projects would be more sustainable and successful because they would be more informed by the actual experts,” Day said.

Yet advocates argue that complaint mechanisms alone are not enough. Communities need a real voice before projects are approved, protection from intimidation when they speak up, and access to remedies when their rights and livelihoods are threatened.

“The polluter and the financier should fix it and pay for it and stop silencing the people for speaking the truth,” said Margaux Day, policy director at Accountability Counsel.

 

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Why are secure land rights key to Africa’s climate resilience and the protection of its natural treasures?

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team.

Protecting forests, breathing new life into exhausted land, and confronting climate change hinge not only on policies but on whether those who live on the land truly hold secure rights to it.

The challenge is significant. Between 2015 and 2019, at least 100 million hectares of healthy, productive land were degraded worldwide each year, affecting about 1.3 billion people, according to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). A 2026 global assessment by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Land Coalition (ILC), and the French agricultural research organization CIRAD found that only 35 percent of the world’s land has formally documented ownership, tenure, or use rights. These figures highlight the scale of land degradation and the gaps in recognizing and documenting people’s land rights.

Across Africa, communities depend on farmland, forests, and grazing lands not just for food, but to keep their traditions and livelihoods alive. When climate and environmental policies ignore their rights to these resources, their power to protect the land and shape its destiny fades.

This is why land rights advocates across Africa are calling for land governance to be more deeply woven into climate action and conservation, insisting that securing people’s land rights is the foundation for protecting the environment.

The issue was discussed during an online webinar organized by ILC Africa in partnership with the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the German development agency GIZ. Practitioners and policy actors shared experiences from several African countries on integrating land governance into climate and environmental policies.

Ms. Johanna von Braun, People, Climate and Nature Lead at the International Land Coalition, explained that land rights are fundamental to achieving the objectives of the three major global environmental conventions addressing climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification.

She said secure land rights can support emissions reduction, help communities adapt to climate change and strengthen biodiversity conservation. In the Amazon, she noted, research shows that recognizing Indigenous peoples’ territories helps protect tropical forests and preserve carbon sinks.

“For mitigation, we know now that with land rights, we can ensure the protection of critical carbon sinks,” Ms. von Braun said.

Land rights are equally important for communities whose livelihoods depend on adapting to changing environmental conditions. Ms. von Braun explained that pastoralist communities with secure rights to move their livestock are better positioned to respond to climate change and manage grazing areas sustainably.

Evidence on rangeland loss reinforces this connection. Research has found that 92 percent of rangeland loss through land-use conversion between 2016 and 2024 occurred in areas where Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ land rights were not secure, were unknown, or the land fell outside mapped community territories, facts which highlight the importance of recognizing community land rights in efforts to protect rangelands and strengthen climate resilience.

Ms. von Braun also pointed to Namibia, where communal conservancies cover about 20 percent of the country and support biodiversity conservation. She said community-based conservation initiatives can help countries advance global biodiversity commitments, including the 30×30 target to conserve at least 30 percent of the world’s land and sea by 2030.

Despite the clear connection between land rights and environmental protection, bringing land governance into national climate policies remains a persistent and difficult challenge.

Moise Mbimbe, a regional program analyst with ILC Africa, described efforts to address this gap in Burkina Faso, Liberia, Togo and Senegal.

With catalytic funding, the coalition ignited efforts to weave land governance into countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which serve as blueprints for their climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. This meant reviewing policies, amplifying community voices, and bringing together a wide range of actors to shape recommendations that place land issues at the core of national climate plans.

Mr. Mbimbe said the process had helped participating countries consider land governance.

“Whether it’s in Togo, Burkina Faso or Liberia, we have made considerable progress when it comes to taking or considering land when it comes to NDCs,” he said.

In Burkina Faso, an assessment of the country’s previous climate commitments revealed that land governance had received limited attention.

Mr. Blaise Bama, coordinator of the Multi-Stakeholder Platform on Land (PMAF) in Burkina Faso, said the assessment reviewed policy documents and gathered perspectives from institutional, community, and regional stakeholders.

The findings pointed to significant gaps in how the country’s previous NDC addressed land issues.

“This assessment identified a very weak level where land was not considered in the previous NDC,” Mr. Bama said. assessment recommended recognizing the central role of land rights in climate action and securing community land rights. Mr. Bama added that local consultations allowed community-level actors to share their views and contribute to the policy process.

“It was a moment of close analysis, and these local consultations allow us to consider the opinions of local actors, especially at the community level,” he said.

In Senegal, practitioners are forging new links between land governance, environmental restoration, and active local community participation.

Ms. Nicole Chaby Hary, facilitator of the National Land Governance Platform (PNGF), said consultations revealed that land security and environmental restoration are top priorities. Yet, motivating communities to invest in restoration has proven difficult, highlighting the need for practical tools, clear responsibilities, and authentic participation.

She emphasized that women, youth, local leaders, government bodies, and all stakeholders must have a seat at the table when managing and restoring land.

“We have to put in place tools, like pastoral units, to help with consultations and community responsibilities, especially for women and youth,” Ms. Hary said.

In Madagascar, efforts are underway to ensure that community rights are reflected in biodiversity policies and implementation.

Ms. Stefana Raharijaona, a senior program officer at Natural Justice Madagascar, said the organization has worked to incorporate local communities’ concerns into national biodiversity priorities and translate them into monitorable actions.

This work has meant championing the recognition of community rights and land tenure, supporting community-led management, and striving to formalize and protect these hard-earned rights.

Ms. Raharijaona also described efforts to support implementation of Madagascar’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, including work related to Target 22 and the establishment of a national biodiversity platform to improve coordination among the different actors involved.

Across these countries, practitioners confront a common challenge: climate and biodiversity goals will stay out of reach unless the rights of those who depend on and nurture the land are genuinely recognized.

As African nations strengthen their environmental policies, securing community land rights and ensuring meaningful participation in decision-making will be essential to protect ecosystems, heal damaged land, and build resilience to climate change.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Biodiversity Goals: The world has no time to meet its 2030 goals.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team

With fewer than four years left to meet global biodiversity targets, a new United Nations assessment urges country to accelerate efforts to protect and restore nature, warning that current efforts fall short of promises.

The State of Biodiversity Action report, released just before the 17th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17) in Armenia, reveals that while almost 90 percent of countries have set national biodiversity targets, less than half are making progress toward achieving them.

COP17 starts today in Yerevan, Armenia, and runs until October 30, 2026.

As the conference opens, the findings cast doubt on whether countries can fulfill the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022 to stop and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.

The Framework addresses the principal drivers of biodiversity loss, including land- and sea-use change, unsustainable exploitation of species, climate change, pollution and invasive alien species, as well as economic and financial activities contributing to biodiversity loss.

A key ambition of the framework is to safeguard at least 30 percent of the world’s land and sea by 2030. The assessment reveals that current pledges fall short. Even if all commitments are met, just 26 percent of land and 12 percent of marine ecosystems would be protected by the deadline.

The gap between promises and progress was highlighted by Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, who called on governments to use the global review to identify shortcomings and accelerate implementation.

“We know where we stand. We know where the gaps are. Now we must work together to close them,” Ms. Schomaker said.

Her words highlight the conference’s core challenge. Countries know what must be done, but meaningful action is still lagging.

The assessment points to gaps in funding, coordination among government bodies, and the data needed to measure progress. It also shows that targets requiring action beyond environment ministries, such as business practices, sustainable consumption, harmful incentives, and finance, are falling furthest behind.

To meet the 2030 targets, governments must integrate biodiversity concerns into broader economic and development choices.

At the opening of COP17 on 19 October, the outgoing Colombian presidency also stressed the need to turn international agreements into practical results.

David Olarte Amaya, who represented Colombia’s COP16 presidency, described the gathering in Yerevan as a decisive moment for the planet, noting that the international community had an urgent responsibility to turn the framework’s commitments into “concrete, measurable, and lasting results.”

He also stressed that biodiversity is deeply connected to daily life, underpinning water and food security, resilient communities, thriving economies, and the well-being of society.

“Biodiversity is not merely an environmental concern but also the foundation of our water and food security, the resilience of our territories, the productivity of our economies, and the well-being of our societies,” he stressed.

He noted that the true measure of the conference’s success will not be the number of decisions made, but whether they spark real change in countries and communities.

“Today, as we hand over the COP16 presidency, Colombia reaffirms its commitment to solution-oriented multilateralism, grounded in dialogue, mutual respect among parties, and shared responsibilities. We express our confidence in Armenia’s leadership and our readiness to contribute constructively to the work of this conference,” he added.

Armenia’s Minister of Environment and incoming COP17 president, Mr. Hambardzum Matevosyan, recognized that countries must now focus on what works, where progress is lacking, and what must change to accelerate results.

“COP 15 gave us the framework. COP 16 advanced important mechanisms for its implementation. COP 17 must now help us determine where we stand, what is working, where progress is falling short, and what must change to accelerate implementation,” Mr. Matevosyan said.

He praised Colombia’s COP16 presidency and described the handover as a seamless continuation of the global push for biodiversity.

Mr. Matevosyan also highlighted the Leaders for Nature Summit in Yerevan, which concluded with the Yerevan Declaration—a call to action for nature and a reminder to turn promises into tangible outcomes.

Staying true to the promise of an inclusive COP, Matevosyan pledged that Armenia’s presidency would listen to Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, youth, civil society, academia, local leaders, businesses, and the finance sector, recognizing that governments cannot tackle biodiversity loss on their own.

“The challenges we face are too big to be addressed by governments alone. The story, the parallel forums, thematic days, and numerous side events will inform and support negotiation outcomes,” he concluded.

As the 2030 deadline looms, the real test is whether countries can move from promises to action and deliver the transformation needed to stop and reverse biodiversity loss. The Yerevan review gives governments a chance to face the gaps, build stronger partnerships, and turn words into measurable progress for nature and all who rely on it.

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