A new analysis shows that the developers of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, led by France’s TotalEnergies, are being forced to self-finance the project almost entirely. The analysis, part of a new Finance Risk Update from a coalition of African and International civil society organisations, shows that the companies have abandoned plans to raise 60% of the project’s growing costs from bank loans, and are now on the hook for almost 90% of the costs themselves.

The EACOP is under construction from Hoima in Uganda to the port of Tanga in Tanzania. While a recent “first tranche” of lending for the project was recently finalised, the analysis of EACOP Ltd.’s recent financial disclosures indicates this amounts to only $755 million in total. This means the project companies now need to finance the whole remainder of the project’s $5.6 billion total price tag themselves. This means Total and its partners (The China National Offshore Energy Corporation (CNOOC), and the national oil companies of Uganda and Tanzania) look set to sink more than three times their originally planned contribution of $1.4 billion into the project.

The EACOP has been rejected by almost all of Total’s biggest bankers, based on its extreme risks to communities and the region’s rich nature. Over 40 commercial banks have made clear they will not finance the project directly. As a result of the decision to self-finance the project, Total and its bankers and investors are far more exposed to the accelerating risks to communities, nature and climate being caused by the oil pipeline than was previously thought. 

The pipeline has been described by the project companies as over 60% complete. However, analysis of satellite imagery by EarthInsight shows less than 40% of the pipeline has been laid. The same analysis also shows roads cleared for the pipeline reaching the Victoria Nile riverbank, signalling an imminent, high-risk crossing of this river in an area that overlaps with protected wetlands and the Murchison Falls National Park. Well pads which will feed the pipeline are being constructed in the National Park, with tragic consequences for local people as vibrations from drilling rigs cause elephants to move to surrounding communities. The elephants are destroying cropland, and have killed at least five people in the area in 2023 and 2024.

The new Finance Risk Update, which details these impacts for financiers exposed to Total and CNOOC, is the sixth in a series which has been produced by a coalition of civil society groups led by BankTrack. It is endorsed by Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), Both ENDS, EarthInsight, Environment Governance Institute EGI-Uganda, Inclusive Development International, Just Share and Reclaim Finance.

As the project becomes more expensive for Total, its financiers become more exposed to its risks. Several banks including Citi, BBVA, Deutsche Bank, JPMorgan Chase, MUFG, Royal Bank of Canada, Société Générale, and Wells Fargo underwrote bonds for TotalEnergies in March and June 2025 – money which may fund the construction of the EACOP, despite the banks’ commitments not to finance the project directly. The briefing warns that any additional bond issuances by the company could be critical sources of financing for EACOP.

“Ugandans need to concern themselves with the borrowing that the government is doing to invest in the EACOP and related oil projects. Forecasters have been warning that demand for combustible fossil fuels could peak as early as 2027. However, the Ugandan government is indebting poor citizens amidst this bleak outlook. Citizens must say enough is enough! They should demand that investments are made into green economic sectors as opposed to the oil industry,” said Diana Nabiruma, Senior Communications Officer at AFIEGO. 

“It’s clear that projects like EACOP come at an unbearable cost to people and nature. TotalEnergies’ growing self-financing is not a show of strength but a warning sign: when even the world’s largest banks walk away, it’s because the financial, social, and environmental risks are too great. Uganda and Tanzania deserve better investments, ones that uplift communities instead of deepening harm and inequality,” said Samuel Okulony, Director at Environment Governance Institute (EGI).

“Investors such as Amundi, BlackRock and Deutsche Bank that buy TotalEnergies’ new bonds, are providing critical support to finance its oil and gas projects, including EACOP. Any investor that wants to take meaningful action against climate chaos, environmental destruction and human rights violations must immediately commit to stop purchasing new bonds from TotalEnergies and other oil and gas majors,” said Antoine Bouhey, Defund TotalEnergies campaign coordinator at Reclaim Finance.

“It’s insulting to the public when a bank distances itself from a project like EACOP by refusing to fund it directly, only to provide a blank check to the project’s main backer TotalEnergies. Any new general-purpose loans or underwriting for Total can fund the EACOP and all its impacts. Banks funding the project, directly or indirectly, should be prepared to be held accountable for remedying these impacts,” said Ryan Brightwell, Human Rights Campaign Lead at BankTrack.

The EACOP Finance Risk Update can be downloaded here.
An accompanying Public Statement by the StopEACOP Coalition can be downloaded here.

The post TotalEnergies financiers beware: EACOP is eating up money, nature and livelihoods appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

• Over 40 banks globally have ruled out finance for the controversial Uganda-Tanzania pipeline, including 28 European banks.
• Largest European banks not to have ruled out EACOP finance are Lloyds, UBS, Caixa Bank, Danske Bank, Sberbank and Commerzbank.

Last September, Uganda’s minister for hydrocarbons claimed that at least seven European banks have committed, in private, to finance TotalEnergies’ East African Crude Oil Pipeline project (EACOP) despite the extreme risk it poses to people and the environment. However, new engagement and policy analysis from BankTrack covering the 50 largest European banks shows a dwindling number of European banks candidates prepared to finance the project. In total, 28 banks headquartered in Europe have either publicly ruled out finance for the project, or have policies in place that would rule out finance for any new oil pipeline project. Globally, this total now stands at 42 banks.

While this sends a clear signal to the project sponsors that the project is beyond most banks’ risk appetite, a number of banks have not yet ruled out finance. The largest European banks that have so far not ruled out finance for the damaging project, in order of asset size, are: Lloyds (UK), UBS (Switzerland), Caixa Bank (Spain), Danske Bank (Denmark), Sberbank (Russia), Commerzbank (Germany) and SEB (Sweden).

Read the full press release from the StopEACOP campaign and BankTrack here.

The post Most of Europe’s largest 50 banks have rejected EACOP oil pipeline appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

On June 4th 2024, Stephen Kwikiriza, a member of the Kingfisher community, was abducted in Kampala under alarming circumstances. The Kingfisher project is an oil project in western Uganda on the shores of Lake Albert, developed by the Chinese company China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC), of which TotalEnergies is the main shareholder. The project will extract oil to be transported by the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

Stephen went into town that morning. His wife later reported that he was abducted by the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF, Ugandan army) officers in plain clothes. He managed to send a text message to the Environmental Governance Institute (EGI), a local organization supporting project affected persons, confirming his arrest. No further communication has been received from Stephen since. All his known phone numbers are currently off. On June 5th 2024, Stephen’s wife reported the case of the missing person at the Seeta police station, but has yet to hear anything and still no information has been provided about him. The lawyers are finalizing an application for habeas corpus demanding all the security agencies in Uganda produce Stephen in court.

Stephen’s abduction follows previous threats he received from the UPDF deployed in Kingfisher, due to which he had been staying in an undisclosed safe location since mid-March. We are strongly concerned that the abduction of Stephen is a retaliation for speaking out against human rights abuses and threats to the livelihood of his community due to the Kingfisher oil project.

The abduction of Stephen fits into a broader pattern of indiscriminate violence against local communities, activists, students, journalists, and environmental groups speaking out against human rights abuses and threats to the environment due to oil projects in Uganda. On May 27^th, seven Stop EACOP activists were arrested outside the Chinese embassy in Kampala for holding a peaceful demonstration calling on China to stop plans to support EACOP. They were released on police bond and are still battling police cases. Again, on May 30 2024, a group of project affected community members protested and later presented a petition to Daqing Oilfield Construction Group, a subsidiary of the Chinese state-owned oil and gas giant China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC), concerning the impacts of the project on their livelihoods. On June 3rd, one of them was arrested and detained in Kikuube police station while others managed to escape and remain on the run.

The signatories of this statement stand in solidarity with Stephen, EGI and Ugandan civil society organizations and urge the Ugandan authorities to:

• Immediately and unconditionally release Stephen Kwikiriza, as the undersigned believe that he was abducted and is being held solely as a result of his legitimate and peaceful work in defense of human rights and the environment.
• Ensure Stephen’s human rights are respected and, pending his release, ensure that the treatment of Stephen Kwikiriza adheres to the conditions set out in the ‘Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment’, adopted by the UN General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December 1988.
• Cease all forms of harassment of civil society organisations and community members living in and speaking out on the EACOP Kingfisher project and all other related oil projects, including the Tilenga project, and guarantee in all circumstances that they are able to carry out their legitimate human rights activities without fear of reprisal.
  
  

Signed,

The post Statement of International Civil Society Organizations in response to the abduction of Stephen Kwikiriza, community environmental defender in Uganda appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

This incident follows a disturbing pattern of arbitrary arrests and intimidation aimed at individuals who express criticism of the EACOP project, which concerns us about the rights and safety of human rights and environmental defenders in Tanzania and elsewhere.

Inclusive Development International and other global human rights organizations are urging the Tanzanian government, international human rights organizations, as well as the leading companies involved in EACOP, TotalEnergies and CNOOC, to take action to uphold the rights of PAPs and activists. Read our full statement and complete list of supporters here.

The post Civic Groups Sound Alarm Over Tanzania’s Crackdown on EACOP Dissenters appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

MUFG’s withdrawal follows that of Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group (SMBC Group), reinforcing the growing opposition to the pipeline. The StopEACOP campaign welcomes MUFG’s decision, underscoring the need for financial institutions like Standard Bank to follow suit and withdraw support for the project. With all three Japanese megabanks distancing themselves from EACOP, the spotlight now turns to Chinese lenders considering involvement in the project. Read the full press statement here.

The post Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group Joins Growing List of Banks Distancing Themselves from East African Crude Oil Pipeline appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

The project has already resulted in violence, intimidation, and land use restrictions for project-affected people and frontline activists. The compensatory processes for the pipeline’s development have been unfair, and many communities have lost their land and other income-generating streams. The EACOP project poses potential environmental threats to local wildlife populations and sensitive ecosystems.

Standard Chartered’s decision, particularly as the current chair of the Equator Principles, sends a clear message that international standards must be upheld, and financial institutions cannot ignore the concerns of those affected by their investments.

The StopEACOP campaign is determined to push other firms considering involvement in this controversial project to follow Standard Chartered in pulling out of the project and increasing their investment in genuine climate solutions.

The shift to renewables requires massive support from banks, and their investments must be rightly channeled to avoid exacerbating the rapidly deteriorating climate change resulting from fossil fuels. Click here to read the full press statement.

The post Standard Chartered Takes a Stand: Refuses to Finance Controversial East African Crude Oil Pipeline appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

“Nearly a third of the pipeline would run through the basin of Africa’s largest lake, Lake Victoria,” the petition reads. “Just one spill or leak could poison the water that 40 million people depend on for food, farming and their livelihoods.”

Intended to transport crude oil from Uganda’s oil fields to the Tanzanian coast, EACOP, upon its completion, would be the longest heated crude oil pipeline in the world. The project would cross an active earthquake zone and numerous lakes, rivers, and wetlands. Should a spill occur, the disaster could threaten vital freshwater resources.

“Human rights and climate activists in East Africa and around the world are urging AIG to not underwrite EACOP,” said Hannah Saggau, insurance campaigner with Public Citizen’s Climate Team. “As a massive oil and gas insurer, the onus is on AIG to publicly rule out involvement with EACOP. AIG should listen to communities and stop backing oil and gas expansion projects.”

As part of the action outside of AIG’s headquarters, speakers from around the world called on insurance companies to end their support for EACOP and other oil and gas projects. Further, in the child friendly event, activists and their children participated in an “oil” slime activity, intended to depict the impact the project could have on the communities and natural resources the pipeline passes through. Afterwards, activists walked to Chubb’s New York office to send a similar message to CEO Evan Greenberg, who has so far failed to rule out support for EACOP. 

Despite the growing controversy around the project, including human rights violations, the French oil company Total Energies and the Chinese state company CNOOC are moving ahead with the oilfields and pipeline projects. 

Today’s action is part of a Global Week of Action for the #StopEACOP Campaign, with additional actions targeting banks and insurers taking place in 19 cities across North America, Europe, Africa and Asia. In a separate action yesterday, activists in London protested Lloyd’s of London insurer Talbot, a subsidiary of AIG, against their potential involvement in this “toxic” pipeline.

Additional Quotes: 

“Our human rights and environment can not, should not, and must not be at the mercy of fossil fuels,” said Hillary Innocent Taylor Seguya, Ugandan climate justice activist and graduate student of international relations at Harvard University. “As our collective responsibility to decarbonize, we should stand firm against all potential Insurers of the EACOP project who want to put our human rights, health, and environment at the mercy of fossil fuels.”

“If actualized, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) would be catastrophic: for the climate, for the environment, for human rights, for wildlife, and for marine life in Lakes and rivers on which over 40 million East Africans depend for their livelihoods,” said Joseph Senyonjo, coordinator of the Uganda Diaspora Community in New York and New Jersey. “EACOP must be stopped.” 

Baraka Lenga, of the Tanzanian chapter of the international multi-faith network GreenFaith, said: “We urge AIG and Chubb to commit publicly to ruling out the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. Our land, water, and natural resources are integral to our livelihoods and culture, and this pipeline poses a significant threat to our well-being and future with unacceptable risks and impacts. We implore the insurance companies to stand with us by prioritizing the health and safety of our communities, as well as the preservation of our environment. Let us work together towards sustainable development that benefits everyone, instead of supporting a project that will only bring harm to our beloved home.”

Maxwell Atuhura, of the Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) in Buliisa, Uganda, said: “Financial institutions and insurers that choose to lend their financial muscle to harmful fossil fuel projects, must recognize their role in fueling the climate crisis that is devastating communities. It’s time these institutions make a conscious effort to transition towards more sustainable and ethical investments. Those which have ruled out EACOP have chosen to prioritize the lives of communities and the future of our planet and generations to come.”

“We’re standing in solidarity with communities in Uganda and Tanzania to tell AIG, Chubb and other insurance companies to rule out involvement with EACOP and stop underwriting fossil fuel expansion,” said Liat Olenick, organizer with Climate Families NYC. “Kids and families around the world are counting on AIG to listen to the science and reject dangerous projects like EACOP.”

“AIG and Chubb’s reputations are on the line, with 22 of their industry peers already publicly rejecting provision of insurance coverage for the EACOP due to the project’s outsized risks. To remain silent in the face of overwhelming evidence that the EACOP is a human rights, biodiversity and climate disaster is simply not an option anymore,” said Coleen Scott, legal & policy associate with Inclusive Development International. “Until they publicly rule out support for EACOP, public pressure on AIG and Chubb will only grow.” 

Kier Blake, co-founder and Director of Community Partnerships at Start:Empowerment says, “every new fossil fuel project requires three things to be built: permits, financing, and insurance coverage. Without these critical components, fossil fuel companies cannot dig new coal mines, build tar sand pipelines, or expand oil and gas production signaling that EACOP Insurers play a large role in our collective dependence on fossil fuels and pipeline expansion. Furthermore, with international oil companies holding a whopping 70% stake in the project (French-run TotalEnergies having a 62% stake and China’s CNOOC having an 8% stake), it is not just an issue of locality but of global importance that we make it clear that enough is enough. The Global South should wield the power to self-determine and be able to develop sustainably and regeneratively apart from imperial forces.

“Just yesterday, Chubb announced the launch of its Chubb Climate+ business unit, which sets out to support the transition to a low-carbon economy. But, this initiative remains silent on the insurer’s approach to new oil and gas projects, and Chubb has yet to make any statements about its stance on EACOP,” said Elana Sulakshana, Senior Energy Finance Campaigner at Rainforest Action Network. “From Uganda to London to New York City, pressure is mounting on Chubb to ensure it is not enabling climate-wrecking, rights-violating projects like EACOP.”

The post Activists Call on AIG to Disavow Insurance Coverage of East African Crude Oil Pipeline appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

“Le rôle d’un courtier d’assurance est souvent invisible pour le public, ce qui lui permet d’éviter de rendre des comptes, mais Marsh mérite d’être examiné de près“, a déclaré Coleen Scott, associée juridique et politique à Inclusive Development International. “Marsh joue un rôle important en permettant à l’oléoduc de pétrole brut d’Afrique de l’Est d’aller de l’avant malgré une opposition généralisée et des preuves accablantes que le projet sera un désastre pour les Ougandais et pour la planète.”

Les Principes directeurs de l’OCDE définissent des principes et des normes pour la responsabilité sociale des entreprises dans toute une série de domaines, notamment en matière de droits de l’homme et l’environnement. Ces normes s’appliquent aux entreprises multinationales ayant des activités ou un siège dans les pays de l’OCDE, y compris aux États-Unis. Bien que les principes directeurs de l’OCDE ne soient pas contraignants, ils constituent une norme internationale importante et largement acceptée en matière de conduite éthique des affaires. Les plaignants demandent au PCN américain d’examiner les allégations contre Marsh et de faire des recommandations au courtier d’assurance pour que sa conduite soit conforme à ces normes. Il s’agit de la première plainte du PCN déposée contre un courtier d’assurance dans le monde.

La plainte stipule qu’en fournissant des services de courtage d’assurance, sans lesquels l’EACOP ne pourrait pas aller de l’avant, Marsh contribue aux graves préjudices que le projet a déjà causés ou qu’il devrait causer, notamment :

• Des processus d’acquisition de terres inappropriés caractérisés par l’absence de compensation rapide et adéquate.
• Intimidation, harcèlement, menaces et arrestations arbitraires de membres de la communauté, de défenseurs de l’environnement et des droits de l’homme, ainsi que de journalistes critiques à l’égard du projet.
• Consultation insuffisante des communautés affectées
• Menaces sur les ressources naturelles dont dépendent les communautés, notamment de risque de déversement d’hydrocarbures affectant des ressources en eau douce vitales telles que le lac Victoria, qui fait vivre 40 millions de personnes.
• Dommages conséquents et irréversibles aux écosystèmes et aux habitats locaux le long du tracé de l’oléoduc, qui traverse de nombreuses zones de faune protégées en Ouganda et en Tanzanie
• Augmentation des émissions de carbone accélérant le risque d’une catastrophe climatique planétaire.

Selon la plainte, le fait que Marsh n’ait pas fait preuve d’une diligence raisonnable en matière de droits de l’homme et d’environnement avant de s’engager dans ce projet, et qu’il continue de contribuer à ses effets néfastes, constitue une violation des responsabilités de l’entreprise au titre des Principes directeurs de l’OCDE. Les plaignants demandent à Marsh de remettre ses opérations en conformité avec les Principes directeurs de l’OCDE en se retirant de son rôle de courtier pour le projet et en s’engageant à ne plus proposer de services de courtage pour le projet EACOP à l’avenir. Compte tenu de la gravité des allégations, les plaignants suggèrent que Marsh devrait au moins s’engager immédiatement à ne pas offrir ses services jusqu’à ce que la plainte soit résolue.

“Sur son site internet, Marsh indique publiquement son engagement en faveur du développement durable et de la « construction d’un monde plus résilient », tout en contribuant activement à un projet de combustible fossile massif et irresponsable qui aura l’effet inverse”, a déclaré l’un des plaignants ougandais, qui a choisi de rester anonyme pour des raisons de sécurité.”Le projet EACOP n’est pas seulement un investissement à court terme dans le pétrole alors que le monde tente de faire une transition vers des carburants alternatifs, il détourne également les ressources des projets d’énergie renouvelable que les Ougandais souhaitent et menace les ressources naturelles et les industries existantes dont nous dépendons.”

The post Le géant de l’assurance Marsh sous le feu des critiques pour son rôle dans un projet pétrolier controversé appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

“An insurance broker’s role is often invisible to the public, which allows them to avoid accountability, but Marsh deserves to be scrutinized,” said Coleen Scott, a legal and policy associate at Inclusive Development International. “Marsh is playing a critical role enabling the East African Crude Oil Pipeline to move forward in the face of widespread opposition and overwhelming evidence that the project will be a disaster for Ugandans and for the planet.”

The OECD Guidelines set out principles and standards for responsible business conduct across a range of issues, including human rights and the environment. These standards apply to multinational enterprises with operations or headquarters in OECD countries, including the United States. While the OECD guidelines are non-binding, they are an important and widely accepted international standard for ethical business conduct. The complainants are calling on the U.S. NCP to consider the allegations against Marsh and make recommendations to the insurance broker to bring its conduct in line with these standards. This is the first NCP complaint filed against an insurance broker anywhere in the world.

The complaint alleges that by providing insurance brokerage services, without which the EACOP could not move forward, Marsh is contributing to the serious harm that the project has already or is expected to cause, including:

• Improper land acquisition processes characterized by failure to provide prompt and adequate compensation 
• Intimidation, harassment, threats and arbitrary arrests of community members, environmental and human rights defenders, as well as journalists critical of the project 
• Inadequate consultation with affected communities
• Threats to natural resources relied upon by communities, including the risk of oil spills affecting vital freshwater resources such as Lake Victoria, which supports 40 million people
• Immense and irreversible harm to local ecosystems and habitats along the pipeline’s route, which passes through numerous protected wildlife areas in Uganda and Tanzania
• Increased carbon emissions that will tip the world closer to climate catastrophe

Marsh’s failure to conduct adequate human rights and environmental due diligence before engaging on this project, and its ongoing contributions to its harmful impacts, constitute a breach of the company’s responsibilities under the OECD Guidelines, according to the complaint. The complainants are calling on Marsh to bring its operations back into alignment with the OECD Guidelines by withdrawing from its role as broker for the project and committing to abstain from offering brokerage services for the EACOP project in the future. Given the severity of the claims, the complainants suggest that Marsh should at minimum commit immediately to withhold its services until the complaint is resolved. 

“Marsh’s website advertises its commitment to sustainability and ‘building a more resilient world’ but the company is actively contributing to a massive and irresponsible fossil fuel project that will have the opposite effect,” said one of the Ugandan complainants, who has chosen to remain anonymous for security reasons. “The EACOP project isn’t just a shortsighted investment in oil as the world is trying to transition to alternative fuels, it is also diverting resources away from renewable energy projects that Ugandans want and threatening natural resources and existing industries that we rely on.”

The post Insurance giant Marsh under fire over role in controversial oil project appeared first on Inclusive Development International.

Britam’s decision was confirmed in official correspondence from the Compliance Advisor Ombudsman (CAO), IFC’s independent accountability mechanism, in response to a complaint submitted by affected communities in Uganda, represented by Inclusive Development International. The accountability office confirmed that Britam decided not to participate in underwriting the risk associated with the oil pipeline and connected oil fields and refinery, after conducting an environmental and social risk evaluation of the projects. As an IFC client, Britam is required to ensure that any high-risk project it insures meets IFC’s Environmental and Social Performance Standards. 

The complaint alleges that Britam intended to insure the EACOP through the Ugandan Insurance Consortium for Oil and Gas, and sets out evidence showing the myriad ways in which the pipeline and associated oil projects fail to meet IFC’s standards. These include, among others, failure to meaningfully consult local communities, failure to provide adequate and prompt compensation to communities whose land is being acquired, ongoing threats and retaliation against human rights defenders opposed to the project, and anticipated irreversible impacts on sensitive ecosystems such as Murchison Falls National Park.

Earlier this year Inclusive Development International, BankTrack and African Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) published a report assessing the project’s conformance with IFC’s Performance Standards and the Equator Principles, a set of guidelines for the banking industry that are based on the IFC standards. 

“Britam’s decision validates our assessment and confirms what we already knew: the EACOP fails to comply with international standards,” said Coleen Scott, a legal and policy associate at Inclusive Development International. “This is a major wakeup call to any insurance company or Equator Bank still providing or considering support for EACOP. Britam should release its evaluation in full, so that other insurers and banks can consider the findings when making their own decisions regarding this project.” 

Two of the project’s financial advisors and potential lenders, Standard Bank and Sumitomo Mitsui, are signatories of the Equator Principles. The banks have come under fire for their role, with Standard Bank stating that it will not fund the EACOP unless it complies with the principles. An environmental and social assessment carried out on behalf of the banks by the consultant Golder Associates, which has not been released to the public, reportedly found “no red flags.” Britam’s decision to withhold support following its evaluation calls into question the credibility of Golder’s findings.

Britam’s decision comes amid intense and growing criticism of EACOP from local communities and the global #StopEACOP coalition and is the latest in a series of rejections from major insurance groups and financial institutions.

“The tide is turning on EACOP,” said David Pred, Inclusive Development International’s executive director. “Building a massive fossil fuel project when the world is urgently transitioning to renewable sources of energy is infuriatingly shortsighted and it’s the last thing communities along EACOP’s route need to create lasting economic opportunity.”

About EACOP 

The EACOP would be the world’s biggest heated oil pipeline, stretching nearly 900 miles (1,443 kilometers) through the heart of East Africa. The project has already caused large-scale displacement of local communities and poses grave risks to protected environments, water sources and wetlands in both Uganda and Tanzania, including the Lake Victoria basin, which millions of people rely upon for drinking water and food production. If completed, it would also enable the extraction and transport of enough oil to generate over 34 million tons of CO2 emissions per year at peak production, exacerbating the ongoing climate emergency.

Since its inception, the project has faced opposition from affected communities along the pipeline route and their advocates, and the global #StopEACOP campaign they built. For more on this, visit www.stopeacop.net. 

The post World Bank client backs out of EACOP after risk assessment appeared first on Inclusive Development International.