Speaking at COP29 in Azerbaijan about the impact of climate change on Africa, the executives of Afreximbank promised to double-down on their commitment to a just energy transition on the continent. But, four months later, the multilateral lender has confirmed its support for a controversial pipeline that would carry crude oil from Uganda to the Tanzanian coast for export overseas.
It was announced this week that the African Export-Import Bank – whose main shareholders are African governments – would be part of a syndicate of financial institutions committing a first tranche of external financing to the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project, which is majority-controlled by French energy giant TotalEnergies.
Other lenders include South Africa’s Standard Bank, Uganda’s Stanbic Bank and KBC Bank, and Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Corporation for the Development of the Private Sector, according to a statement published by EACOP’s developer, which called the financing deal “a significant milestone”.
The loan is in the range of $1 billion, with two further tranches expected, according to the government-owned Ugandan newspaper New Vision. Afreximbank earlier indicated it would provide $200 million to the project.
Samuel Okulony, CEO of the Environment Governance Institute, a Ugandan NGO, told Climate Home that Afreximbank’s actions are in direct contradiction of their “empty words” on climate change.
“Afreximbank is funding the destruction of our own people, while at the same time speaking about energy transition and a commitment to a cleaner future. It is a big disappointment,” he said.
Afreximbank did not respond to Climate Home’s request for comment.
Oil pipeline faces strong opposition
The 1,443-km pipeline would carry crude oil extracted from oilfields under development near Lake Albert in Uganda to Tanga port in Tanzania for onward export to international markets. The long-delayed project has been the target of protests and lawsuits from campaigners that accuse the project developers of displacing communities, damaging the environment and fuelling the climate crisis.
A coalition of regional civil society groups said on Thursday it is a “shame” that the EACOP developer would announce financing for the project on a day many Ugandans had come face-to-face with the dire impacts of global warming. This stark reality was evident on the front page of the state-owned New Vision newspaper, which published the EACOP announcement just above a picture of the deadly floods that hit the capital Kampala this week.
The coalition said it is considering “legal and other actions” against financial institutions that “continue to prioritise profits over the lives and wellbeing of East Africans. Campaigners said the project has already displaced thousands of people and stands to harm plants and animals, while also threatening livelihoods in the farming and tourism sectors.
‘Desperate’ search for funders
The construction of the pipeline is a key element in Uganda’s push to become an oil producer, which the government says would propel the country’s economic growth.
The East African nation has been looking to exploit its natural resources for nearly two decades since oil reserves were discovered in the Albertine Rift Basin near the Democratic Republic of Congo. But development stalled as the plans faced local opposition and the project struggled to attract external financing.
Several Western banks, including BNP Paribas, Société Générale, Barclays and Standard Chartered, have publicly stated their intention not to pour money into the project.
Ugandan energy minister Ruth Nankabirwa, who has blamed activists for the project’s setbacks, said last September that at least seven European banks had committed, in private, to finance the project, the Financial Times reported – but no official announcement has materialised since then.
Where East African oil pipeline meets sea, displaced farmers bemoan “bad deal” on compensation
Afreximbank, Standard Bank, Stanbic Bank and Islamic Development Bank had all indicated their willingness to fund the pipeline construction in the past, while KCB Bank of Uganda is only being linked with the project now.
Okulony said Wednesday’s announcement amounted to a “desperate move” from the EACOP developer to demonstrate progress and drum up additional interest from investors in the project.
He added that regional African banks are becoming lenders of last resort for the oil industry in the continent, “covering up a gap” left by the accelerating withdrawal of Western lenders.
Oil investments clash with climate pledge
Afrieximbank – whose main shareholders are the Egyptian and Nigerian governments – is a major backer of fossil fuel developments in Africa.
The lender’s exposure to the oil and gas sector increased in 2024, making up over a fifth of its total loans. It has bankrolled the expansion of oil production in Nigeria and the Republic of Congo, and last month it announced the intention to set up a $1-billion financing facility for the fast-growing oil industry in Guyana.
The investments contrast with Afrieximbank’s public attempts to bolster its climate credentials.
At the COP29 climate summit, the lender said it would advocate for policies and investments that accelerate Africa’s energy transition and called for a scale-up in climate finance. Its president, Nigerian economist Benedict Oramah, stressed that the devastating impacts of climate change on the continent would probably intensify in the next decade.
“We are at the point where taking action does not only suggest good environmental stewardship,” he said, “but must also be seen as a sound economic policy, considering that the cost of immediate and decisive action is far less than the cost of inaction and delayed efforts.”
Similarly, another backer of the Ugandan project, Standard Bank, wrote in its climate policy that it supports the Paris Agreement in transitioning Africa to a lower-carbon economy and aims for net zero emissions from its portfolio by 2050.
‘Assault’ on the planet
The STOPEacop coalition said the decision to fund a fossil fuel infrastructure project “is not just “irresponsible” but also an “active assault” on the planet and people. The banks supporting the project have marked themselves as “enemies of the people” which enable “climate chaos, environmental destruction” and support international profiteers at the expense of local communities, its statement added.
The project developer still needs to raise the majority of the funding for the pipeline construction, which has an expected price tag of $5 billion.
Okulony said EACOP is trying to attract interest from Islamic financial institutions, especially in Oman.
Ryan Brightwell, deputy director at campaigning group BankTrack, told Climate Home that EACOP has tried since 2018 to secure financing for the project, and the fact that it has now only finalised one tranche “only goes to show the extent of their troubles”.
The post African banks back oil export pipeline despite climate commitments appeared first on Climate Home News.
African banks back oil export pipeline despite climate commitments
Climate Change
Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to ‘halt new expansion’
Countries attending a first-of-its-kind fossil-fuel summit have been asked to consider “action recommendations” such as “halting all new fossil-fuel expansion” and “reject[ing] gas as a bridging fuel”, according to a preliminary scientific report seen by Carbon Brief.
Around 50 nations will gather in Santa Marta, Colombia from 24-29 April to debate ways to “transition away” from fossil fuels, in the face of worsening climate change and sky-high oil prices.
The talks come after a large group of nations campaigned for, but ultimately failed, to get all countries to formally agree to a “roadmap” away from fossil fuels at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil in November.
The nations gathering in Santa Marta for the summit co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands, call themselves the “coalition of the willing”.
Ahead of country officials arriving in Santa Marta, a global group of academics will gather in the city this week to present and discuss the latest scientific evidence on fossil-fuel phaseout, which will then inform debate among policymakers.
A preliminary scientific “synthesis report” circulated to governments attending the talks and seen by Carbon Brief offers 12 “action insights” for countries to consider, along with a wide range of “action recommendations”.
These recommendations range from “phase out subsidies on fossil-fuel production and consumption” to “kick-start a forum to develop a legal framework to ban fossil-fuel advertisements”.
‘Rapid’ assessment
The preliminary scientific report seen by Carbon Brief – titled, “Action insights for the Santa Marta process” – is the result of some rapid work by an “ad-hoc” group of around 24 scientists.
It is designed to present governments attending the talks with concrete and actionable recommendations for transitioning away from fossil fuels.
The preliminary version, which includes recommendations such as “halting all new fossil fuel expansion”, has already been circulated to governments, with a view that this could help them to prepare for the talks in advance.
It will be further debated and refined by scientists attending the academic segment of the Santa Marta talks, before a final version is made public towards the end of April, Carbon Brief understands.
The process to produce the report began shortly after the conclusion of the COP30 climate summit in Brazil in November, explains its lead author, Dr Friedrich Bohn, a research scientist and co-founder of the Earth Resilience Institute in Germany. He tells Carbon Brief:
“When [Brazil] announced there would be a Santa Marta conference led by Colombia and the Netherlands, I was sitting listening with a small group of scientists. We thought: ‘This is great news, but it should be supported by scientific expertise.’”
One of the members of Bohn’s group had a pre-existing relationship with the Colombian government, allowing a dialogue to quickly be established, he continues:
“In the beginning, the idea was to just write a peer-reviewed paper. But, because of this close connection to the Colombian government and some feedback from them, the synthesis paper evolved.”
The report came out of a “very rapidly evolved process” that relied on the “goodwill” and “enthusiasm” of the academics involved, adds coordinating author Prof Frank Jotzo, a professor of climate change economics at Australian National University. (Jotzo is a former Carbon Brief contributing editor.) He tells Carbon Brief:
“It’s an attempt to get broad coverage on relevant topics from researchers with good expertise and reputation.”
The group of 24 scientists involved spent around two months compiling the “action insights” for the report, drawing on their expertise and the latest available research, says Jotzo.
Given the rapid nature of the report, it does not aim to be “completist”, has not been externally reviewed and did not follow a stringent process for author selection comparable to that used by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, he adds.
The contributors to the report currently skew to the global north and include more men than women, adds Bohn.
‘Direct guidance’
In a departure from IPCC reports, the preliminary Santa Marta synthesis report offers “very direct guidance to action”, says Jotzo.
The report lists 12 “action insights”, each with three “action recommendations”. (The list was cut down from a shortlist of about 40-50 insights, Carbon Brief understands.)
One of the most striking in the draft is “action insight 5”, which says:
“Take immediate measures to prevent future emissions. Ban new fossil infrastructure, mandate deep methane cuts, accelerate electrification and inscribe fossil-fuel phase-down targets in NDCs [nationally determined contributions] and clean-energy pathways support to low and middle income countries (LMICs).”
The accompanying three “action recommendations” include “halting all new fossil-fuel extraction and infrastructure projects ahead of a final investment decision”, “implementing deep, legally binding methane cuts in the energy sector” and “inscrib[ing] targets for fossil-fuel phase down, electrification and green exports in NDCs”.
(The draft report includes multiple references to “phasing out” and “phasing down” fossil fuels, rather than the “transition away from fossil fuels” language that was, ultimately, agreed by countries at the COP28 UN climate talks in Dubai in 2023.)
Another action insight says “public support for climate action is broadly underestimated and undermined by interest groups, but it can be strengthened by debunking greenwashing narratives”.
One recommendation for this insight is that nations “reject natural gas as a bridging technology and CCS [carbon capture and storage] techniques as scalable compensation”.
In a letter introducing the report to governments and civil society, the scientists note that making direct recommendations is a “challenge for our community”, but added:
“However, in the spirit of a constructive collaboration between science and policymaking, we allowed ourselves to identify some potential courses of action that our community would recommend for each particular issue – and we invite you to weigh these against your own circumstances and pick up whatever seems most useful for you and your colleagues.”
The prescriptiveness of the recommendations – something strictly prohibited in IPCC reports – was an explicit request from the Colombian government, Bohn says:
“The idea of actionable recommendations was introduced by the Colombian government.
“There was some discussion within the team about this. It’s a tricky area when you leave science and move to consultation. Therefore, we agreed, in the end, to call them ‘actionable recommendations’ and to make them as precise as possible, from the scientific perspective.”
Jotzo, a veteran of the IPCC process, tells Carbon Brief that it was “very liberating” to work on a report with a “free-form process”:
“The bulk of policy-related research is very readily deployed to recommendations pointing out what countries could do. The IPCC process, for example, just doesn’t allow that. As far as the summary for policymakers in the IPCC is concerned, it will usually be governments that filter out anything that could be interpreted as a specific recommendation.”
He adds that the hope is that some of the action insights might be reflected in the high-level segment of the Santa Marta conference:
“No one is under any illusions that governments will walk away from the Santa Marta conference and will have made a decision to implement recommendations one, seven and nine – or something like that. But it is a chance to insert directly applicable action points into national and plurilateral policy agendas.”
Colombia calling
The preliminary report will be further debated and refined by scientists attending the “pre-academic segment” of the Santa Marta talks.
This is taking place from 24-26 April, ahead of the “high-level segment” involving ministers and other policymakers from 28-29 April.
The pre-academic segment will also separately see the launch of a new advisory panel on fossil-fuel transition and a scientifically led roadmap for how Colombia can transition away from fossil fuels, Carbon Brief understands.
The high-level segment is expected to be attended by representatives from around 50 countries, including COP31 host Turkey and major oil-and-gas producers such as the UK, Canada, Australia, Brazil and Norway.
Countries expected to attend account for one-third of global fossil-fuel demand and one-fifth of global production, according to the Colombian government.
At the end of the conference, countries are due to release a report featuring a “menu of solutions” for transitioning away from fossil fuels, according to Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres.
This report is in turn set to inform a global “roadmap” on transitioning away from fossil fuels being developed by the Brazilian COP30 presidency, which is due to be presented at COP31 in Turkey this November.
The Brazilian COP30 presidency offered to bring forward a “voluntary” fossil-fuel transition “roadmap” outside of the official COP process, after countries failed to formally agree to one during negotiations in Belém.
The post Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to ‘halt new expansion’ appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Revealed: Scientists tell Colombia fossil-fuel transition summit to ‘halt new expansion’
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Pygmy Blue Whale Management Plan
To secure their approvals, Woodside had to develop a plan for how they would manage the significant risks to threatened green turtles if the project proceeds. We’ve had two independent scientists provide a technical assessment of Woodside’s management plan for whales and turtles and their findings are gobsmacking.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could make Scott Reef’s unique green turtles extinct.
Woodside’s Browse gas project could delay or prevent the population recovery of the endangered pygmy blue whales that rely on Scott Reef, heightening their extinction risk.
Technical Assessment of Woodside’s Browse Turtle Management Plan
Jackie Chesnutt, who lives outside San Angelo, is tired of pollution from wells she says should have been plugged years ago. Experts say Texas rules allow companies to defer plugging wells for far too long.
Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.
Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits