Facts, fiction and future of Uganda’s oil

In March, Barclays Bank in London released a comprehensive report on Uganda’s oil projects, which has triggered a vehement reaction from a group of Western NGOs and their local affiliates. This report, the outcome of an extensive fact-finding mission, addresses critical questions and allegations raised by Western activists regarding Uganda’s oil and gas projects.

The research team conducted visits to Uganda and engaged with various stakeholders, including NGOs, government representatives, project-affected persons, and environmental authorities, among others. Their findings offer valuable insights into the project’s impact on people, the environment, and biodiversity.

The report states that, “The social and environmental complexities involved in this project are significant. However, based on our observations during the visit, we find that Total Energies is implementing its plans in accordance with the highest standards set by regulators and stakeholders. Therefore, many of the concerns voiced either overstate the impact, fail to consider the mitigations put in place, or are based on inaccurate information.

This is not to say that there were no issues during the initial phase of the project – there were, and these deserve recognition. However, most of the local frustration appears to have stemmed from delays in the disbursement of compensation payments. As these payments are now being received, local residents who received them expressed that the project itself is welcome, often describing it as life-changing.”

Subsequently, NGOs and their local affiliates who oppose the project have written a letter to the CEO of Barclays, demanding a retraction of the report. By seeking a retraction, they essentially want the researchers to unsee what they witnessed and unhear what they heard. Such a demand is astounding. It raises the question of how CSOs would react if Uganda demanded the withdrawal of a report authored by these groups about Eacop.

Undoubtedly, we would hear about “shrinking civic space” and the need to protect the rights of “frontline human rights defenders”. In fact, Uganda would be entirely justified in asking these NGOs to retract some of their reports. Allegations, such as the pipeline passing through Lake Victoria or Lake Albert, dense forests, or crossing 230 rivers, displacing 200,000 people, emitting seven times the combined annual emissions of Uganda and Tanzania, or posing a threat to lions or hippos, are baseless claims that CSOs and their political allies in the EU Parliament have repeatedly made regarding the Ugandan oil project.

These groups have even gone to the extent of asserting that an oil spill from the pipeline would easily contaminate the water relied upon by 40 million people. Curiously, the Government of Uganda has never formally requested these groups to withdraw these entirely false reports.

Considering the bank had received numerous requests not to fund the projects based on unsubstantiated allegations, Barclays deserves commendation for taking the initiative to investigate these claims and provide an unbiased assessment of the situation. The only “crime” committed by Barclays analysts was daring to present facts in a debate where Western NGOs have proceeded in a fact-free manner. The real argument against Barclays is their audacity to let facts interfere with an argument.

It is possible that challenges exist within the project, and genuine grievances need addressing. However, there is no need to exaggerate or fabricate facts to oppose the project, as some CSOs have done.

A more significant danger arises when CSOs attempt to stifle alternative views, and an even broader concern emerges when they issue reports and make claims that are evidently false and easily disproven. CSOs are an integral part of the democratic process, and they play a vital role in shedding light on serious concerns and highlighting challenges in various areas, including the oil industry.

However, the publication of manifestly false reports and the attempt to suppress those who expose these inaccuracies may appear tactically advantageous in the short term but, in the long run, it undermines the credibility of many CSOs.

The writer is an advocate and partner at Kampala Associated Advocates

[email protected]