Expert  Insight:Inside EACOP ,an Expert Weighs in on Uganda’s Controversial Fossil Fuel Project.

By Diana Taremwa Karakire

Earlier this year,I interviewed Richard Pearshouse, Director of the Environment and Human Rights Division at Human Rights Watch about the East African Crude Oil Pipeline EACOP project, the role of Chinese financiers, and the broader implications for Uganda’s development and environment.

Human Rights Watch has produced several reports on the EACOP, documenting its devastating impacts on the livelihoods of Ugandan families.In its report, “Our Trust is Broken: Loss of Land and Livelihoods for Oil Development in Uganda,” the organization highlights how the project has displaced communities, disrupted livelihoods, and threatens to destroy some of Africa’s most sensitive ecosystems while emitting millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Qsn: You’ve published reports documenting human rights violations linked to EACOP. Has the Ugandan government or companies involved like Total Energies responded?

Yes, TotalEnergies has responded directly to our correspondence. They’ve made it clear that they are firmly behind the project. However, because of the documented harms so far  and the significant human rights and environmental risks that lie ahead we’ve urged them to reconsider their involvement and to stop further development.
The Ugandan government hasn’t responded to our reports, but its position is well known,they view the project as vital to national development.Our research challenges that view. The oil hasn’t started flowing yet, but we’re already seeing negative consequences ,the impoverishment of poor Ugandans, especially farmers. People are losing land, livelihoods, and even access to education. So while the government promises prosperity, the evidence so far points in the opposite direction.

Qsn: Have the Chinese companies or financiers  involved in the project responded to your reports?

No, they’ve declined to respond. Unfortunately, that’s part of a broader pattern we’ve observed, a lack of transparency from Chinese companies and potential financiers involved in the project.Some other banks have been very clear that they will not support EACOP because of human rights and environmental concerns. A small number of banks have publicly stated support for the project, and we’ve called on them to reconsider. As for Chinese banks they generally don’t respond and that’s a problem. Financial institutions that could support the project should take a public position.  Transparency is a basic expectation in such large financial deals, and it’s not acceptable that these companies remain silent.

Qsn: Do Chinese companies’ activities in Uganda reflect China’s broader stance on human rights?

The Chinese government tends to be highly critical of the human rights framework, both domestically and internationally. They often emphasize what they call the right to development ,meaning economic growth while downplaying civil and political rights.In the case of EACOP, that translates into support for projects that prioritize economic output over human rights. But if development were truly their concern, they wouldn’t be building a pipeline through the farms of impoverished Ugandans.
We’ve also seen hostility toward protest movements in Uganda, especially student-led demonstrations against EACOP. China’s approach reframing legitimate human rights concerns as “obstacles to development” is deeply cynical.

Qsn: Total Energies claims its Tilenga project in Murchison Falls National Park will achieve a net gain on biodiversity. What are your thoughts on this?

That’s an excellent question. We haven’t specifically researched the biodiversity claims, as our focus has been on the pipeline and compensation issues.However, we’ve repeatedly seen a gap between company promises and what actually happens on the ground. Based on that pattern, I would approach any claim of a “net gain” on biodiversity with considerable caution. The promises often look good on paper, but reality on ground tends to tell a different story.

Qsn: Government officials say some of the oil revenues will fund a just energy transition including  being invested in cleaner energy. What are your thoughts on that ?

We understand the government’s concern for energy security,that’s a legitimate priority but we fundamentally disagree that achieving it requires this pipeline or these oil fields.
Firstly, EACOP locks Uganda into decades of fossil fuel dependence. If government were truly serious about renewable energy, it would be investing in it now not 30 or 40 years from now. There’s a far more direct and sustainable path to improving Uganda’s energy future through scaling up renewable sources immediately. The key question we keep asking is; where is the plan for that?If the government truly prioritizes renewables, it should have a clear, funded plan and timeline for scaling them up immediately.

Secondly, the main beneficiaries of this project are external, most of the oil will be sold internationally.There’s a reason the pipeline ends at the Tanzanian coast ,it’s designed for international markets.