• Fossil Free South Africa and its partners have lodged a complaint with the Advertising Regulatory Board, challenging the bank’s environmental and climate related marketing.
• The complaint centres on Standard Bank’s involvement in financing the 1,443 kilometre East African Crude Oil Pipeline, which campaigners say conflicts with its sustainability commitments.
• The complainants are seeking a review of the bank’s environmental claims and want any statements found to be misleading or inadequately supported to be amended or withdrawn.

Standard Bank is facing a formal complaint to South Africa’s Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) over environmental and climate claims in its corporate reporting and financial services advertising, with campaigners questioning whether its sustainability messaging accurately reflects its involvement in fossil fuel infrastructure.

The complaint was lodged by Fossil Free South Africa (FFSA), represented by Lawyers for Human Rights. They are joined by  StopEACOP Coalition, an international coalition of frontline community organisations and civil society groups. It challenges statements in Standard Bank’s 2025 Report to Society, its Climate Related Financial Disclosures and advertising for its energy, infrastructure and sustainable finance services.

According to the complainants, Standard Bank presents itself as a leading provider of sustainable finance and an enabler of Africa’s just energy transition while supporting financing for the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). They argue that the bank’s environmental claims should be assessed against the wider impact of the projects it helps finance.

East African Crude Oil Pipeline map. Image credit: EACOP

The 1,443 kilometre pipeline is designed to transport crude oil from Uganda’s oilfields to the Tanzanian coast. The project has attracted international criticism over its potential climate impact, environmental risks and effects on communities along its route.

Peak production is projected to generate up to 34 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent annually at peak production and approximately 379 million tonnes over the project’s lifecycle. Furthermore, the pipeline’s path breaches 158 wetlands in Uganda, eleven rivers and dozens of legally protected,  ecologically sensitive areas.

The complainants further raise concerns about reported land loss, economic displacement, compensation disputes and disruption to local livelihoods. They also point to reports of harassment, arrests and intimidation involving environmental and human rights defenders who oppose the project.

Standard Bank’s stated commitments to renewable energy, reduced fossil fuel exposure, water conservation, biodiversity protection and net zero financed emissions by 2050 are central to the complaint. The campaigners argue that these commitments require clear evidence of how the bank’s financing activities align with its public sustainability messaging.

Kholwani Simelane, campaign coordinator and team lead at Fossil Free South Africa, said the complaint seeks to establish whether the bank’s environmental image can withstand scrutiny of the projects it supports.

The complaint also questions Standard Bank’s assertion that EACOP meets the Equator Principles and the International Finance Corporation’s Performance Standards. It asks the bank to substantiate this position and explain how its financing decisions align with its commitments to water conservation and environmental protection, particularly given the pipeline’s proximity to freshwater systems, including the Lake Victoria basin.

The dispute comes amid wider scrutiny of financial institutions involved in fossil fuel infrastructure. According to the StopEACOP Coalition, more than 40 banks and 30 insurers internationally have distanced themselves from EACOP or introduced policies excluding the project or similar developments. South African financial institutions including Absa, FirstRand, Nedbank and Investec have also declined to participate, the coalition says.

Zaki Mamdoo, coordinator of the StopEACOP Coalition, said the concerns extend beyond corporate advertising to the consequences experienced by communities along the pipeline corridor, including pressure on livelihoods and local ecosystems.

The ARB Code requires environmental claims to be substantiated and not mislead consumers through omission, ambiguity, inaccuracy or exaggeration. The complaint asks the regulator to examine Standard Bank’s claims relating to climate alignment, fossil fuel reduction and sustainable finance, and to require amendments or withdrawal of any representations found to be misleading or inadequately supported.

Brighton Aryampa, a Ugandan human and environmental rights lawyer working with communities affected by EACOP, said the complaint was intended to establish whether the bank’s public sustainability messaging provides an accurate account of its financing activities. He noted that financing a fossil fuel project does not automatically negate every renewable energy investment made by a bank, but argued that its overall environmental claims must be assessed in context.

The outcome of the complaint could have implications for how financial institutions communicate their sustainability commitments and environmental performance to customers and the public. It also raises broader questions about the evidence banks should provide when marketing sustainable finance services while maintaining exposure to fossil fuel infrastructure.

The ARB has been asked to scrutinise the claims and determine whether corrective action is warranted.

Author: Bryan Groenendaal

Source: greenbuildingafrica.co.za

• A coalition of 149 organisations has called on eight African and Middle Eastern financial institutions to disclose their involvement in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline.
• New analysis by Reclaim Finance identified approximately US$3.7 billion in project lending linked to the pipeline between 2025 and 2026, with several lenders yet to publicly disclose their exposure.
• The coalition is demanding greater transparency, a commitment to stop further funding for oil expansion and financial support for communities affected by the project.

The StopEACOP coalition has sent an open letter to eight African and Middle Eastern financial institutions, demanding full disclosure of their financial involvement in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project and greater accountability for its environmental and social impacts.

Signed by 149 organisations, including representatives of communities affected by the pipeline, the letter follows new analysis by Reclaim Finance that identified approximately US$3.7 billion in project lending linked to EACOP between 2025 and 2026.

The institutions linked to the financing include Afreximbank, KCB Group and KCB Bank Uganda, the Islamic Development Bank Group and the Islamic Corporation for the Development of the Private Sector, NMB Bank Tanzania, Qatar National Bank, Standard Bank Group and Stanbic Bank Uganda, and Uganda Development Bank.

The coalition says the financing has largely come from African and Gulf lenders after more than 40 banks and 30 insurance companies declined to support EACOP or introduced policies restricting their involvement.

Although EACOP Ltd has publicly confirmed some financing involving Afreximbank, Standard Bank, Stanbic Bank Uganda, KCB Bank Uganda and the Islamic Corporation for the Development of the Private Sector, it has not disclosed the amounts involved. The terms and extent of exposure among other institutions, including NMB Bank Tanzania, Qatar National Bank and Uganda Development Bank, also remain undisclosed.

East African Crude Oil Pipeline map. Image credit: EACOP

The demand for transparency comes as the project faces further delays to its expected start of oil production. At African Energy Week, held from 12 to 16 October, Uganda National Oil Company officials said commercial production was now targeted for June 2027. Previous targets had included 2025, June 2026 and July 2026.

Tanzania’s state petroleum company has separately indicated that crude oil could reach Tanga by February 2027, with the first tanker loading expected in March.

EACOP is designed to transport crude oil from Uganda’s oil fields to the Tanzanian coast for export. The project has faced sustained opposition from environmental organisations and community groups concerned about its climate impact, land acquisition, compensation, biodiversity and human rights implications.

In its letter, the StopEACOP coalition is calling on each financial institution to disclose the full scope, structure and terms of its support, including exposure through bonds, guarantees and advisory roles.

The coalition also wants the institutions to commit to providing no further funding for EACOP expansion or related oil and gas development in Uganda’s Albertine Graben region or elsewhere.

A third demand calls for financial contributions towards remedying harm suffered by affected communities. The proposed mechanism would be independent and community led, providing compensation, restoring livelihoods and funding environmental clean up. The coalition says EACOP Ltd and its financial backers should contribute according to their respective roles in the project.

“First oil does not mark an end to the harm caused by EACOP. It escalates and entrenches it,” said Zaki Mamdoo, StopEACOP campaign coordinator.

Mamdoo said financial institutions that had provided billions of dollars to the project must publicly account for their decisions and take responsibility for addressing the damage associated with their investments.

For communities affected by land acquisition and construction, the consequences of the project are already being felt.

“When they took our land, we lost more than the land itself. We lost the means to support our families. Compensation was supposed to help us rebuild our lives, but for some of us, that has not happened,” said Rachael Tugume, an EACOP project affected person.

She questioned whether the banks financing the pipeline understood the impact on the people whose land had made the project possible.

Antoine Bouhey, Defund TotalEnergies campaign coordinator at Reclaim Finance, said financial institutions that had agreed to finance EACOP should be held accountable for the project’s impacts.

He said lenders should contribute to reparative justice for affected communities and commit to excluding new financing for oil and gas expansion in Uganda and elsewhere.

The coalition has also raised concerns about land acquisition and compensation failures, the loss of livelihoods, militarisation and environmental damage along the pipeline route and at the Chongoleani terminal in Tanga, Tanzania. It warns that these risks will persist and could intensify once oil production and exports begin.

The eight financial institutions have been asked to clarify their positions by 16 November. The coalition says it will publish both responses and non-responses after the deadline.\

Author: Bryan Groenendaal

Source: greenbuildingafrica.co.za

By the Witness Radio team.

Experts agree that when communities lead environmental initiatives, they can safeguard land, biodiversity, and local livelihoods. Yet for these efforts to truly shape decisions and create lasting change, communities need a real seat at the table when crafting the policies that govern their territories.

Across regions, communities are crafting unique approaches to agriculture, conservation, and resource management that mirror their own priorities and landscapes. But finding solutions is just the beginning. For these grassroots efforts to ripple out and shape broader environmental policy, the people driving them must have a voice in decision-making, gain recognition for their methods, and see that policy promises become reality.

Stories shared by environmental policy advocates during a recent webinar brought to life both the power of collective action and the hurdles communities encounter when trying to shape decisions beyond their own backyards.

A project in central Italy demonstrates how collaboration among communities, farmers, and local officials can win formal policy recognition. At the same time, Guillerme Eidt’s advocacy work underscores why local communities must move from passive recipients of environmental policies to active shapers.

In Italy’s Lazio region, the Bio-district of Via Amerina e delle Forre shows that collective action can lay the groundwork for environmental stewardship and shape the future of territorial development.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the bio-district brings together 13 municipalities and more than 300 organic farms in a territory with approximately 70,000 inhabitants. The initiative connects agriculture, local communities, environmental protection and economic development through a shared approach to managing the territory.

Instead of leaving environmental challenges for individual farmers to tackle alone, the bio-district champions teamwork among producers, residents, civil society groups, and local authorities.

Andrea Ferrante, an agronomist and agroecologist with experience in food and agriculture policy and rural development, says this territorial perspective is central to understanding how environmental protection can work in practice.

“So, we need communities; we need organizations and movements that are the ones stewarding also the soil, the biodiversity,” Ferrante said during the webinar.

He argued that tackling issues like land degradation requires more than focusing on single farms, since landscape health depends on the web of relationships among those who live and work there.

“It’s not the single farm, it’s a territory,” he added.

The bio-district supports organic farming, boosts direct sales from farmers to consumers, promotes environmental education, and champions sustainable local growth. Reports also highlight how the community has come together to address concerns about intensive hazelnut farming, including pesticide use, water pollution, and threats to biodiversity.

Ferrante pushed back against the idea that innovation always means new gadgets or technology. He argued that true innovation often lies in collaboration, especially when communities tap into their shared wisdom and work hand in hand with nature.

“Innovation is all about how we work together, how we build on our local community, how the capacity to manage and live in collaboration, in great collaboration with nature,” he said.

Ferrante described how civil society and local government joined forces to create a framework that would bring their shared vision for agriculture and territorial development to life.

“So, both civil society and the municipality, we built together a structure because if we are recognized, we have the capacity to protect our territory, to build our socioeconomic models. And from the regional law, we arrived at the national legislation,” he further added.

In October 2019, the Lazio regional government officially recognized the initiative, marking a key step in building a legal framework for bio-districts.

While the Italian bio-district shows how collective action can earn official recognition, Guillerme Eidt’s presentation spotlighted a different challenge: ensuring communities have a real voice in shaping the policies that govern their lands.

Eidt believes that true participation means honoring the identities and governance systems that communities use to organize themselves.

“We understand that local communities have the right to self-identify themselves and not be labeled for the state,” he said.

He explained that local communities comprise a rich tapestry of groups, from pastoralists and Afro-descendant peoples to community foresters, nomads, and farmers. Despite their varied histories and cultures, many rely on collective systems to steward land and resources.

Eidt pointed out that local communities often have little say in international environmental negotiations, even though decisions on climate, biodiversity, and land use can reshape how resources are managed at every level.

“It’s not fully open. It’s not fully inclusive. If you invite parties to do something, it means something different. We need to pay attention to these documents and understand how they are written. We need to participate in these processes to ensure local communities have a more visible voice. Indigenous people are so well organized.” He added

Eidt emphasized that for local communities to have real influence in international environmental governance, they need ongoing coordination and strong, organized advocacy.

In his presentation, he described how the Global Forum of Local Communities brings organizations together, helping them align their priorities and take part in international environmental discussions.

He outlined several ways communities and their allies can influence policy, including contributing proposed wording to negotiation texts, preparing policy briefs and technical submissions, participating in mandated workshops, holding bilateral meetings with decision-makers, and organizing events that bring communities together. The stories Ferrante and Eidt share reveal how vital it is to bridge the gap between local environmental action and the institutions that craft, enforce, and implement policy.

Ferrante’s story of the Italian bio-district shows how communities, farmers, and local authorities can work together to manage land and win official recognition.

Eidt’s presentation, on the other hand, highlights the challenge of ensuring communities can shape decisions that reach far beyond their borders, even in international environmental negotiations.

Hania Morani, a legal expert and former vice-chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, reinforced this relationship in her closing reflections during the webinar.

“International ideas inspire local action, and communities give those ideas meaning, and their experiences return to reshape policy,” she said.