“IUCN recognises that extractives industries can be significant contributors to the global economy”. Maybe we made a mistake about the postal address and sent our letter to the World Bank instead of to the International Union in charge of Conservation of Nature?
Many conservation organizations have adopted corporate friendly practices with the oil and gas industry, signing MoUs, developing frameworks for engaging with the sector, looking at mitigation of impacts and providing them with the needed biodiversity surveys and data to “green wash” their activities in key biodiversity hotspots and protected areas. But when it comes to radically oppose oil developments in protected areas and high biodiversity hotspots, defending community rights and not to make deals with the oil industry or take their money, these organizations have been largely silent and support measures that are looking at “conciliating” oil developments with conservation and reducing environmental impacts, instead of just saying NO!
Why has IUCN been so silent about EACOP? What can we expect from them in 2022?
The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP)
The Lake Albert project is located in the ecosensitive and biodiverse Albertine Rift in Uganda. It consists of the upstream Tilenga and Kingfisher oil projects as well as the planned East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP). The project is being developed by France’s TotalEnergies, China’s China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) as well as the Ugandan and Tanzanian governments.
Scientific reports and research state that a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80% of
current coal reserves need to remain in the ground in order to avoid catastrophic climate change. The report of the International Energy Agency (IEA) “Net Zero by 2050 Roadmap” released this year in May stated that no new investments in fossil fuels should be made further; there also should not be any new oil and gas fields approved for development and no new coal mines or mine extensions are required. The recent IPCC report alarmingly tells us that we have about one decade left to dramatically decrease our carbon pollution if we want to avoid tragic and irreversible climate change and less than five years to put up the energy infrastructure to facilitate the transition to green energy that would help forestall that. Put plainly, there has never been a worse time to develop the Lake Albert oil project (Tilenga/Kingfisher) and to build the world’s largest heated crude oil pipeline, the EACOP, so that we can burn up to 1.7 billion barrels of oil and generate over 34.3 million extra tons of carbon emissions each year. The world simply cannot afford another massive oil project like the Tilenga/Kingfisher/EACOP one.
The EACOP is a proposed 1,443-kilometer pipeline that will transport oil from Hoima in Uganda to the port of Tanga in Tanzania. If completed, it will be the longest heated crude oil pipeline in the world. Extraction of 1.7 billion barrels is threatening to take place at two oil fields: the Kingfisher field, operated by CNOOC Ltd, and the Tilenga field, operated by TotalEnergies. The EACOP, which is slated to be operationalised in 2025, is expected to transport 216,000 barrels of oil per day at peak production.
Both the extraction sites and the EACOP pose serious and severe environmental and social risks to protected wildlife areas, water sources and communities throughout Uganda and Tanzania.Needless to say, the Tilenga, Kingfisher and EACOP projects’ environmental, biodiversity, climate change and social risks have raised serious concern. This massive concern about the project by international panelists and personalities is not unfounded; local groups and communities have also expressed their concerns regarding the impact the project will have on their lives, speaking up despite promises of compensation and employment.
(Source open letter sent to IUCN on September 9th 2021, see below)
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
IUCN is a membership Union composed of both government and civil society organisations. It harnesses the experience, resources and reach of its more than 1,400 Member organisations and the input of more than 18,000 experts. This diversity and vast expertise makes IUCN the global authority on the status of the natural world and the measures needed to safeguard it. IUCN is a democratic Union that brings together the world’s most influential organisations and top experts in a combined effort to conserve nature and accelerate the transition to sustainable development. Every four years, IUCN convenes the IUCN World Conservation Congress where IUCN Members set the global conservation agenda by voting on recommendations and guide the Secretariat’s work by passing resolutions and the IUCN Programme. (1)
This is what IUCN has to say about Conservation in the midst of a global pandemic, and escalating climate and biodiversity emergencies:
“The IUCN World Conservation Congress in Marseille comes to a close in the midst of a global pandemic, and escalating climate and biodiversity emergencies. This exacerbates inequalities within and among countries and reinforces global divides.
The climate and biodiversity emergencies are not distinct, but two aspects of one crisis. Unsustainable human activity continues to compound the situation, and threatens not only our own survival but the foundation of life on Earth. We cannot separate ourselves from nature: we are part of nature, and depend upon it for our lives and livelihoods. Our response to these emergencies must be mutually reinforcing. For example, measures designed to address climate change must not lead to further biodiversity loss.
Humanity has reached a tipping point. Our window of opportunity to respond to these interlinked emergencies and share planetary resources equitably is narrowing quickly. Our existing systems do not work. Economic “success” can no longer come at nature’s expense. We urgently need systemic reform.
Yet there is reason to be optimistic. We are perfectly capable of making transformative change and doing it swiftly. During the global pandemic, we have changed our behaviour to protect our health, and the health of those around us. Fundamental change is again needed if we are to build societies that value, protect, and invest in nature. To invest in nature is to invest in our collective future. “
Source: IUCN Marseille Manifesto (10 September 2021)
Our Demands to IUCN
As a movement united in solidarity for our common home, we come to you, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), to Unite with us for Life and Livelihoods. We call on you to help send a strong message to say that we must act on the recommendations of the IPCC and the IEA, and that countries of the Global South must not be pushed into investments that do not serve their people.
The new corporate colonialism of extracting as much profit as possible – while externalizing the human and ecological costs – must end. The disappearance of biodiversity and encroachment of critical ecosystems such as IUCN designated areas cannot go unnoticed anymore. It is time for IUCN to take a bold stand.
We call on you to help stop the Tilenga/Kingfisher/EACOP project and safeguard the promise of a sustainable future in the heart of Africa. To this end, we ask you to:
- Adopt and publicly declare as soon as possible an IUCN position to oppose the Tilenga/Kingfisher/EACOP project and in support of biodiversity protection in Uganda and Tanzania.
- Engage with the governments of Uganda and of Tanzania to promote a biodiversity protection policy, to replace the current destructive policy.
- Create an ad hoc working group to follow through on the above.
- Invite the Stop EACOP coalition representatives to brief the ad hoc group on an ongoing basis.
We sincerely hope that IUCN will help usher in “a new era of environmentally sound economic development” where social and ecological justice reigns supreme; where the wellbeing of our brothers and sisters and our common home takes precedence over profits.
Together we can co-create a unique precedent where nature is over profit. This can inspire many frontline communities to seek and find environmental and climate justice globally and internationally.
Laudato Si’ Movement
IUCN’s Response to Our Demand
IUCN is aware that the ongoing developments in the Albertine region are a cause for concern with regard to conservation. IUCN further recognises that the impact is not only linked to biodiversity and climate change, but also affects economic development. We have been in dialogue with the Government of Uganda and have had preliminary discussions with the Government of Tanzania, in addition to other stakeholders, to find approaches to collectively address these issues.
IUCN has further offered the application of existing recommendations, and guidance from the scientific knowledge, tools, and experiences to address these issues. Through this collaboration, we acknowledge the growing interests by both Governments, and we also encourage the work of civil society to help safeguard nature, climate and economic development.
Earlier this year, Mr Dickens Kamugisha, Chief Executive Officer of Africa Center for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), wrote to IUCN on a similar subject. We understand that AFIEGO is also a co-signatory to your 9 September letter. In our response of 30 September 2021 to Mr Kamugisha, we detailed the various efforts put in place by the Government of Uganda in relation to the Tilenga, Kingfisher and East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) oil projects. We trust that Mr Kamugisha will share those details with you.
IUCN recognises that extractives industries can be significant contributors to the global economy, and this makes them an influential force in shaping how global conservation and development goals are attained. Based on these considerations, the Secretariat has developed the IUCN Extractives Sector Operational Framework, which guides the Secretariat’s engagement on these issues. For further information on this, please visit our website.
(Source IUCN Response to Letter)
The Ugly Truth
The meaning of their answer is clear : “IUCN recognises that extractives industries can be significant contributors to the global economy”. Maybe we made a mistake about the postal address and sent our letter to the World Bank instead of to the International Union in charge of Conservation of Nature?
Many conservation organizations have adopted corporate friendly practices with the oil and gas industry, signing MoUs, developing frameworks for engaging with the sector, looking at mitigation of impacts and providing them with the needed biodiversity surveys and data to “green wash” their activities in key biodiversity hotspots and protected areas. But when it comes to radically oppose oil developments in protected areas and high biodiversity hotspots, defending community rights and not to make deals with the oil industry or take their money, these organizations have been largely silent and support measures that are looking at “conciliating” oil developments with conservation and reducing environmental impacts, instead of just saying NO!
“Basically, the Trump Moment in Conservation means that mainstream conservation organizations commonly refuse—at their own peril and that of the biodiversity they aim to conserve—to properly acknowledge the root causes of biodiversity loss and hence to support the radical types of responses necessary to halt and reverse this trend. Instead, many conservationists are content—often proudly or ‘pragmatically’ so—to join forces with the economic logics and institutions of degradation behind such terms as ‘natural capital’ or ‘ecosystem services’. In doing so, they might occasionally slow down some biodiversity loss in some places. But at the very same time, they strengthen the broader drivers of biodiversity destruction that completely undermine the small gains that might be made.”
More recently, activist environmental groups have argued that IUCN is too closely associated with governmental organisations and with the commercial sector.[29] IUCN’s cooperation with Shell came in for criticism, also from its own membership.[11] IUCN’s close partnership with Coca-Cola in Vietnam – where they have together been launching Coca-Cola-focused community centers – has also drawn some criticism and allegations of greenwashing.[31][32][33] Its decision to hold the 2012 World Conservation Congress on Jeju Island, South Korea, where the local community and international environmental activists were protesting against the construction of a navy base also led to controversy.[34]
(Source: Wikipedia)
What is next in 2022 ?
“If environmental conservation doesn’t face the current political movement by becoming much more radical there will soon be precious little biodiversity to conserve.” (Bram Büscher and Robert Fletcher)
Actually… this is even not about becoming more radical but simply about doing what you are supposed to do to protect nature and people, and if not then:
Stop saying: that you address the “Climate and Biodiversity Emergencies”
When you are not acting upon it as an emergency, and you are allowing that oil companies and governments bypass your resolutions and recommendations in defense of protected areas and indigenous rights. How much time do we have left for you to raise your voice and say enough is enough? Do you really believe that “encouraging compliance” to environmental standards while undertaking oil drilling activities in high biodiversity areas is a way to counter Climate and Biodiversity Emergencies?
Stop saying: “Our existing systems do not work. Economic “success” can no longer come at nature’s expense. We urgently need systemic reform.”
When you purposely support oil companies and say that they are “significant contributors to the global economy”. How can an investment in a 1,443-kilometer oil pipeline that poses serious and severe environmental and social risks to protected areas, water sources and communities throughout Uganda and Tanzania be the systemic reform we need?
Stop saying: “Fundamental change is again needed if we are to build societies that value, protect, and invest in nature.”
When yourself are to scared to be part of this change and is avoiding confronting the current power dynamics and remain silent when your own membership is the target of intimidation and human rights violations by the same governments that you support and negotiate with for minimal gains.
Stop saying: “To invest in nature is to invest in our collective future”
When you are not speaking against an investment of billions of dollars in the fossil fuel industry, an industry that is the major contributor to global warming (in 2018, 89% of global CO2 emissions came from the fossil fuels industry; when you don’t say NO to the EACOP which is threatening the tourism and other green economic sectors in Uganda and Tanzania. We simply cannot support new fossil fuel projects and still expect to mitigate climate change.
Tell us, how does IUCN intend to advice the government of Uganda and TotalEnergies about the 34.3 million extra tons of carbon emissions each year due to the EACOP? Looking down?
Tell us, what is the value of the IUCN and its beautiful words and manifestos if yont don’t walk the walk?
“If Not You, Then Who? If Not Now, Then When?” (Hillel the Elder)
SV
Laudato Si Letter to IUCN:
Letter IUCN Response :
SAVE VIRUNGA 