ARUSHA, Tanzania
The East African Legislative
Assembly (Eala) has strongly castigated opponents of the Hoima-Tanga crude oil
pipeline.
The civil society groups, in particular,
came under fire for agitating against the project expected to bring much
goodies to the region.
Lawmakers from Tanzania and
Uganda led to fray, playing down claims of environmental hazards the pipeline
1,443 km would allegedly pose.
“Has the project passed the
environmental test? The answer is yes. Have we planned mitigation measures put
in place just in case? The answer is yes.
“Then what is the fuss all
about?” Asked George Odongo from Uganda, saying the project could not have
been approved without the requisite environmental tests.
He wondered as to why the
project opponents based in Europe have raised the pollution fears whereas the
EA region emitted a mere fraction of greenhouse gases (GHGs) globally.
The pollution claims, he
opined, were baseless in that the entire Europe and other industrialized
countries generated millions of tonnes of GHGs daily.
“Or this could be a ploy to
make use continue to be poor,” he told the House which unanimously expressed
dismay at the critics of the pipeline.
ALSO READ: Uganda -Tanzania oil pipeline project a 'carbon bomb', analysis shows
The $4 billion Hoima-Tanga
pipeline project would yield about 250,000 barrels of crude oil a day to be
sold in the markets within the region and abroad.
According to Mr Odongo, the
project would also generate 1,000 km of paved roads and substantial revenues
“to plant trees and fight poverty”.
He asserted that the CSO groups based in Europe and their collaborators in the region have “ no moral authority” to oppose construction of the pipeline. Habid Mohamed Mnyaa (Tanzania) expressed his dismay on why some activists linked the planned pipeline and associated structures under the project with human rights violations.
“What actually is the real
argument? Is the East African Crude Oil Pipeline Project (EACOP) really going
to grab farming and grazing land from the communities? he asked. Abdullah
Makame (Tanzania) argued that the human rights violation claims were
“unacceptable” because 70 percent of people whose land would be taken by the
project have already been compensated. He said oil was an abundant resource
that East Africa was endowed with and that time has come to exploit it to
improve “our regional economies.” Ms Suzan Nakauki and Paul Musamali (both from
Uganda) said activists fighting the project from abroad owed the East African
people an apology.
“We should also identify their
local collaborators and crush them”, they said, noting that exploitation of any
petroleum product “must have a carbon footprint.”
Ms Mary Mugyenyi (Uganda) said
her country and Tanzania were united against the critics of EACOP and would go
ahead with its implementation.
The project has been subjected
to mandatory environmental impact assessment (EIA). “Should we abandon it and
continue to be beggars?” she asked.
The heated debate in the House
following a Motion on EACOP tabled in the Assembly by the Ugandan MP James
Kakooza and seconded by Mr. Makame from Tanzania. The Ugandan MP rubbished
fears of GHG emission from the project, noting that Africa generated only 1.5
percent of carbon gases compared to 25 percent by the European Union.
Tanzania and Uganda emitted
only 0.2 and 0.1 percent metric tonnes of GHG emissions per capita respectively
“far behind every single member of the EU”.
Eala’s hard stance on the
project followed a Joint Resolution of the European Parliament in September
this year, alleging human rights violation should EACOP execution go ahead.
According to the Motion adopted by the House late on Thursday, a total of
13,161 people affected by the project in both countries have been identified.
“The compensation process is
still ongoing,” Mr Kazooza said, adding that out of 13,161 Project Affected
Persons (PAPs), 9,513 were in Tanzania and 3,638 in Uganda.
The commitment is that EACOP
will not access land until compensation has been paid out followed by
livelihood restoration programmes to eligible PAPs. - Monitor
No comments:
Post a Comment