Damaging effects: A climate protester demonstrates against Swiss National Bank’s investments in the EACOP, in Bern. Environmentalists claim the pipeline will endanger wildlife, displace local communities and increase carbon emissions. — Bloomberg
LONDON: A group of non-profits is pushing Barclays Plc to retract an analyst research note they claim amounts to a “whitewash” of the environmental and social impact of an African oil pipeline being developed by companies including TotalEnergies SE.
More than 40 environmental and social justice groups wrote last month to the bank’s chief executive officer, C.S. Venkatakrishnan, asking him to rescind a note on the East Africa Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project that they said was “highly unprofessional, biased and damaging to Barclays’ reputation.”
In a March 20 report, six Barclays energy analysts, led by Lydia Rainforth, said that while legitimate environmental and human rights concerns have been raised about the pipeline, these were mostly exaggerated or misguided.
“Asking for a retraction is certainly an unusual tactic and one I have never seen deployed before, but I have to question if it’s the best approach,” said Alex Bibani, a senior portfolio manager at Allianz Global Investors in London.
“Research like this highlights important problems, gives them greater prominence and allows investors to engage with the companies building the pipeline.”
EACOP is expected to carry oil 900 miles from the fields of western Uganda to the coast of Tanzania.
Environmentalists claim the pipeline will endanger wildlife, displace local communities and increase carbon emissions. A campaign has persuaded numerous banks and insurers to withhold support for the pipeline.
Barclays isn’t among the banks that are financing the US$5bil (RM22.3bil) project.
But it does have a research arm with analysts who write reports on TotalEnergies, the main developer of EACOP.
After a recent trip to Uganda, a team of those analysts said they were “reassured” the EACOP project won’t be as damaging as critics maintain.
“The social and environmental complexities involved in this project are significant, but based on observations during our visit, we find TotalEnergies to be implementing its plans according to the highest standards set by regulators and stakeholders,” the analysts wrote.
“We therefore believe that many of the voiced concerns either overstate the impact, neglect to take into account the mediations put in place, or are misplaced or based on inaccurate information.”
A spokeswoman for Barclays said “the views expressed in any Barclays Research publication are solely and exclusively those of the authoring analysts and don’t reflect the view of the Barclays Group.”
She declined to comment on whether the report would be retracted.
Rainforth, the report’s lead analyst, also declined to comment. Rainforth also covers BP Plc and Shell Plc.
She has an “overweight” rating for TotalEnergies and expects the stock to outperform, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
In a 34-page write-up of their Uganda trip, the analysts said the travel and itinerary had been arranged independently, and that they were seeking to evaluate the situation on the ground and look into reports of human rights and environmental violations.
They met with non-governmental organisations, the Uganda National Oil Company, TotalEnergies’ project management team, people directly affected by the pipeline and resettlement specialists. — Bloomberg
