Uganda's oil dream plunged into new insurance protest

At least 10 human rights and environmental groups in Uganda and Tanzania lodged the complaint on February 7, 2023, to the US National Contact Point at the Department of State, accusing Marsh of violating guidelines for ethical business conduct in the project.

Marsh, which is brokering underwriting services worth $5 billion for the project, is the latest insurer in the project's pipeline facing the wrath of activists.

Last year, Britam Uganda dropped out of the project after allegations that they had breached the performance standards of the International Finance Corporation.

Currently, the project has secured 47.22 acres of land in Kakumiro District where the main camp and pipe yard site will base. The coating plant construction is also under work at Nzenga, Tanzania.

The EACOP Managing Director Martin Tiffen has signaled the fortitude of their sponsors to close the land acquisition process by June this year. After which the construction of the 1,433km pipeline will commence from the Albertine district of Hoima to Tanzania's Tanga Port.

Critics allege that this ambition has left 100,000 people displaced and uncompensated. However, Tiffen said 81 percent of the affected person within Uganda have signed compensation agreements and 69 percent have been compensated.

Meanwhile, a legal and policy associate at Inclusive Development International (IDI), Coleen Scott said this about the insurer: “An insurance broker’s role is often invisible to the public, which allows them to avoid accountability, but Marsh deserves to be scrutinised.”

The IDI is one of the forces behind non-government orgainsations in Uganda and Tanzania that have pressed EACOP sponsors to abandon the project on a climate and human rights basis.

According to the complaint, Marsh should face scrutiny for going against guidelines set by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) which set principles and standards for responsible business conduct.

Although the guidelines are non-binding, they are widely accepted global standards for responsible business activity.

Critics argue that Marsh is acting irresponsibly by backing the project without adequate consultation with affected communities and risks to natural resources.