Petroleum Development and Biodiversity Conservation in the Protected Areas of the Albertine Graben in Uganda: Can They Co-Exist?

PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION IN THE PROTECTED AREAS OF THE ALBERTINE GRABEN IN UGANDA: CAN THEY CO-EXIST?

A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities

2013

Isaiah Owiunji

Planning and Environmental Management School of Environment and Development (SED)

Table of Contents List of Figures ...... 9

List of Tables ...... 10

List of Pictures ...... 11

List of boxes ...... 11

Abstract ...... 12

Acknowledgements ...... 13

Declaration ...... 14

List of Abbreviations ...... 15

1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION ...... 19 1.1 Introduction ...... 19

1.2 Statement of the problem ...... 22

1.3 Research aim and objectives ...... 24

1.3.1 Aim of the study ...... 24

1.3.2 Objectives of the study ...... 24

1.4 Importance of the study...... 24

1.5 Structure of thesis ...... 26

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 28 2.1 Introduction ...... 28

2.2 The concept and role of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation ...... 28

2.2.1 The concept of protected areas ...... 28

2.2.2 The role of protected areas ...... 29

2.2.3 Categories of protected areas ...... 29

2.2.4 Evidence of petroleum development in protected areas and sensitive ecosystems . 30

2.3 Petroleum development and its impact on biodiversity and communities ...... 32

2.3.1 The importance of petroleum ...... 32

2.3.2 The process of petroleum development ...... 33

2.3.3 Potential impacts of petroleum development ...... 34

2.4 Regulation of petroleum development activities and biodiversity conservation ...... 41

2.4.1 Legislation or command and control ...... 41

2.4.2 Economic or market incentives ...... 45

2.4.3 Voluntary initiatives ...... 45

2.4.4 Environmental practices for addressing petroleum development impacts ...... 46

2.5 Stakeholder participation...... 58

2.5.1 The role of the state ...... 58

2.5.2 The role of oil companies ...... 60

2.5.3 Civil society and petroleum development ...... 61

2.5.4 International financial institutions ...... 62

2.6 Lessons from other regions – petroleum development in protected areas and communities ...... 62

2.7 Conclusion ...... 64

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 68 3.1 Introduction ...... 68

3.2 Research design ...... 68

3.3 Background and concepts ...... 69

3.3.1 Ecosystem approach ...... 69

3.3.2 The stakeholder theory ...... 70

3.3.3 DPSIR conceptual framework ...... 71

3.3.4 Weaknesses of the DPSIR framework ...... 73

3.3.5 Petroleum development in protected areas and DPSIR framework ...... 74

3.4 Selection of the Albertine Graben as a case study ...... 78

3.5 Research methods ...... 78

3.5.1 Literature review ...... 80

3.5.2 Document acquisition and analysis ...... 80

3.5.3 Acquisition of other materials ...... 82

3.5.4 Site visits to Uganda ...... 82

3.5.5 Semi structured interviews ...... 82

3.5.6 Focus groups ...... 83

3.5.7 Direct observations ...... 84

3.5.8 Data analysis and interpretation ...... 84

3.7 Conclusion ...... 87

4. DRIVING FORCES AND PRESSURES OF PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT ...... 88 4.1 Introduction ...... 88

4.2 Driving forces of petroleum development ...... 88

4.2.1 Global drivers ...... 88

4.2.2 Drivers for Africa ...... 90

4.2.3 Drivers for Uganda ...... 91

4.3 Petroleum exploration in Uganda – past and present ...... 93

4.4 Process of petroleum development in Uganda ...... 95

4.4.1 Seismic survey ...... 95

4.4.2 Exploratory drilling ...... 96

4.4.3 Field development and production ...... 98

4.4.4 Site abandonment ...... 99

4.5 Pressures of petroleum development ...... 99

4.5.1 Pressures during seismic surveys ...... 99

4.5.2 Pressures during exploratory and appraisal well drilling ...... 100

4.5.3 Pressures during field development and production ...... 102

4.6 Conclusion ...... 102

5. STATE OF BIODIVERSITY IN ALBERTINE GRABEN AS OF 2012 ...... 103 5.1 Introduction ...... 103

5.2 The biodiversity of Uganda and its importance ...... 103

5.2.1 Biodiversity at the ecosystem level ...... 104

5.2.2 Biodiversity at the species level ...... 104

5.2.3 Biodiversity at the genetic level ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.2.4 Value of Uganda’s biodiversity ...... 105

5.2.5 Threats to biodiversity in Uganda ...... 108

5.3 Biodiversity conservation in protected areas of Uganda and its importance ...... 108

5.4 Protected areas affected by petroleum development activities ...... 111

5.4.1 Murchison Falls NP, Karuma WR and Bugungu WR ...... 115

5.4.2 Kabwoya-Kaiso Game Management Area ...... 119

5.4.3 Queen Elizabeth NP, Kyambura WR and Kigezi WR ...... 121

5.5 Regulation of petroleum activities and environmental management in Uganda...... 124

5.5.1 Legal and regulatory framework for petroleum development ...... 124

5.5.2 Legislation for management of biodiversity in Uganda ...... 124

5.5.3 Biodiversity conventions for management of petroleum activities in Uganda ...... 125

5.5.4 Environmental practices for management of biodiversity ...... 125

5.5.5 Institutional framework for biodiversity conservation and petroleum development . 128

5.5.6 Trans-boundary petroleum development activities and biodiversity conservation .. 131

5.6 Conclusion ...... 131

6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE ALBERTINE GRABEN...... 132 6.1 Introduction ...... 132

6.2 Biophysical impacts of petroleum development ...... 132

6.2.1 Atmospheric emissions ...... 133

6.2.2 Impacts of physical presence on wildlife ...... 133

6.2.3 Impacts of vehicle traffic on wildlife ...... 136

6.2.4 Poaching of wildlife ...... 137

6.2.5 Impacts of petroleum wastes ...... 139

6.2.6 Impacts of infrastructure development on integrity of protected areas ...... 143

6.2.7 Introduction of exotic plants ...... 145

6.2.8 Impacts of construction of linear infrastructure on soils ...... 146

6.2.9 Impacts of workmen and military camps in protected areas ...... 146

6.2.10 Gravel extraction ...... 147

6.3 Impacts of exploration phase on socio-economic issues ...... 148

6.3.1 Impacts of seismic and drilling activities on tourism ...... 148

6.3.2 Impacts of offshore seismic on fishing grounds ...... 150

6.3.3 Impacts of seismic surveys on community or private land ...... 150

6.3.4 Impacts of population influx in the surrounding areas ...... 151

6.3.5 Flaring during extended well testing ...... 152

6.4 Potential impacts of future petroleum activities on biological resources ...... 152

6.4.1 Impacts of oil spills ...... 152

6.4.2 Poaching of wildlife ...... 153

6.4.3 Impacts of infrastructure development on integrity of protected areas ...... 154

6.4.4 Impacts of water abstraction ...... 154

6.5 Potential socio-economic impacts of future petroleum development activities ...... 155

6.5.1 Potential impacts on tourism ...... 155

6.5.2 Impacts of infrastructure development on the communities ...... 155

6.5.3 Impacts of population influx in the surrounding areas ...... 156

6.5.4 Increase for demand for land in exploration areas ...... 157

6.6 Conclusion ...... 157

7. EMERGING RESPONSES FOR MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE ALBERTINE GRABEN ...... 159 7.1 Introduction ...... 159

7.2 Strengthening Uganda’s legal and regulatory framework ...... 160

7.2.1 Developing new legislative framework for petroleum development ...... 160

7.2.2 Updating existing environmental legislation to address petroleum development .... 161

7.2.3 Observing international conventions and agreements ...... 162

7.3 Building capacity of regulatory institutions and Ugandans to manage environmental issues ...... 163

7.3.1 Improving institutional capacity and coordination of environmental regulators ...... 164

7.3.2 Improving compliance enforcement of oil and gas activities ...... 165

7.3.3 Building the capacity of Ugandans and retaining staff ...... 165

7.4 Application of environmental management practices in petroleum development...... 166

7.4.1 Enforcing EIA as environmental management tool for petroleum development ...... 166

7.4.2 Undertaking strategic environmental assessment in Uganda ...... 167

7.4.3 Development of environmental monitoring plan for the Albertine Graben ...... 168

7.4.4 Applying environmental sensitivity atlas in the Albertine Graben ...... 168

7.4.5 Establishment of waste treatment process ...... 169

7.4.6 Development of national oil spill contingency plan ...... 170

7.5 Harmonisation of protected area management with petroleum development ...... 171

7.5.1 Developing new and updating existing management plans ...... 171

7.5.2 Establishing alternative tourism infrastructure ...... 171

7.5.3 Using flexible approaches while developing infrastructure in sensitive areas ...... 172

7.5.4 Applying appropriate technology to minimise impacts ...... 172

7.5.5 Undertaking phased development as compared to region-wide development ...... 173

7.6 Responsibilities of petroleum companies in Uganda ...... 173

7.7 Influences of development partners, IFI, CSO and communities in Uganda ...... 174

7.7.1 Development partners (donors) ...... 174

7.7.2 Civil society organisations ...... 175

7.7.3 Host communities ...... 176

7.8 Conclusion ...... 176

8. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE ALBERTINE GRABEN...... 180 8.1 Introduction ...... 180

8.2 Evaluation of environmental legislation to enforce compliance and monitoring ...... 180

8.3 Assessment of institutional capacity of environmental regulatory institutions ...... 182

8.3.1 Inadequate resources provision for enforcement and monitoring ...... 182

8.3.2 Insufficient staff and lack of technical knowledge in environmental institutions ...... 185

8.3.3 Lack of transparency, accountability and political will ...... 187

8.3.4 Weak coordination among the environmental institutions ...... 188

8.3.5 Lack of equipment and institutional knowledge of environmental institutions ...... 189

8.4 Evaluation of environmental management practices ...... 190

8.4.1 Weaknesses of EIA process as environmental management tool ...... 191

8.4.2 Deficiencies of the Petroleum SEA process as environmental management tool ... 194

8.4.3 Challenges with the environmental monitoring plan ...... 195

8.4.4 Flaws of the environmental sensitivity atlas in the Albertine Graben ...... 196

8.4.5 Issues with the development of national oil spill contingency plan ...... 197

8.4.6 Issues with compensation and resettlement plan ...... 198

8.5 Conclusions ...... 198

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACHIEVING CO-EXISTENCE BETWEEN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE ALBERTINE GRABEN ...... 200 9.1 Introduction ...... 200

9.2 Conclusions ...... 201

9.2.1 Concept and roles of protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation ...... 201

9.2.2 Management of petroleum development and its impacts ...... 202

9.2.3 Evaluation of legislation, environmental practices and institutional capacity ...... 204

9.2.4 Assessment of roles of stakeholders ...... 206

9.3 Recommendations for co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation ...... 208

9.3.1 Developing relevant environmental legislation for management of petroleum impacts ...... 210

9.3.2 Improving the capacity of government environmental institutions making them efficient and effective ...... 211

9.3.3 GoU and oil companies improving on environmental practices for addressing impacts of petroleum development ...... 214

9.4 Reflections on the research process ...... 217

9.4.1Strength of the research process ...... 217

9.4.2 Limitations of the study ...... 218

9.5 Contribution to knowledge by the study ...... 219

9.5.1 Legislation ...... 220

9.5.2 Institutional capacity ...... 220

9.5.3 Environmental practices ...... 223

9.6 Suggestions for future studies ...... 223

9.6.1 Ecological studies ...... 223

9.6.2 Socio-economic ...... 224

9.7 Conclusion ...... 224

REFERENCES ...... 226 APPENDICES ...... 252 Appendix 1: Summary of biodiversity impacts caused by petroleum development activities ...... 252

Appendix 2: Scientific names of fauna and flora mentioned in the thesis ...... 254

Appendix 3: List and codes of main stakeholders interviewed in Uganda ...... 256

Appendix 4: Timeline for exploration activities in Uganda ...... 258

Appendix 5: Interview guide and research protocol ...... 260

WORD COUNT: 78,232 words

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Albertine Graben showing the overlap between protected areas and petroleum exploration blocks ...... 21 Figure 2.1 The lifecycle of upstream petroleum development ...... 34 Figure 2.2 The key stakeholders in the petroleum development process ...... 59 Figure 3.1 The DPSIR framework for reporting on environmental issues ...... 72 Figure 3.2 A framework for linking drivers, pressures and responses as a socio-ecological system for assessment of impacts of petroleum development on protected area ecosystem. .. 74 Figure 3.3 Linking objectives, DPSIR components, methods used and chapters of the thesis . 86 Figure 4.1 World oil consumption from 1980 – 2010 ...... 89 Figure 4.2 World crude oil prices per barrel from 1980 – 2010 ...... 89 Figure 4.3 Growth of Africa's Proven Oil Reserves from 1980 – 2010 ...... 90 Figure 4.4 Total biomass used in Uganda, 2003 – 2010...... 92 Figure 4.5 Percentages of petroleum products and electricity used 2003 – 2010...... 92 Figure 4.6 Petroleum exploration blocks of the Albertine Graben ...... 94 Figure 4.7 Location of Buffalo-Giraffe Wells in Murchison Falls NP ...... 101 Figure 5.1 Distribution of wildlife protected areas in Uganda ...... 110 Figure 5.2 Wildlife protected areas affected by petroleum exploration and development activities in the Albertine Graben ...... 112 Figure 5.3 Number of tourists in Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth National Parks from 1996-2010 ...... 118 Figure 5.4 Location of oil and gas wells in Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu WR and Karuma WR ...... 118 Figure 5.5 Location of oil and gas wells in Kabwoya WR ...... 119 Figure 5.6 Flowchart of Uganda’s EIA process...... 126 Figure 5.7 The overlapping nature of the institutional framework for environmental management in relation to petroleum development in Uganda ...... 129 Figure 6.1 Number of non-resident foreign tourists to Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth National Parks ...... 149 Figure 6.2 Total number of tourists to Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth National Parks . 149 Figure 7.1 A DPSIR framework showing current responses required to ensure co-existence in biodiversity conservation and petroleum development ...... 178 Figure 8.1 Number of oil and gas wells drilled as of 2011 in the Albertine Graben ...... 183 Figure 8.2 Linkages between Government institutions participating in environmental management to address petroleum development impacts ...... 184 Figure 9.1 A DPSIR framework showing conditions required to ensure co-existence between biodiversity conservation and petroleum development ...... 209

List of Tables

Table 1.1 Species number of endemics and threatened species for the Albertine Rift ...... 22 Table 2.1 IUCN protected area categories ...... 30 Table 3.3 Focus groups held in villages of Albertine Graben ...... 84 Table 3.4 Examples of analysis of the qualitative data from interviews ...... 85 Table 4.1 Oil wells drilled in the protected areas of the Albertine Graben by 2010 ...... 100 Table 5.1 Number of known Ugandan species of fauna and flora in taxonomic groups ...... 105 Table 5.2 Number of extinct, threatened and other species in each IUCN Red list category for Uganda ...... 105 Table 5.3 Values of Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu and Karuma WR and Budongo FR ...... 107 Table 5.4 Categories of Wildlife Conservation Areas1 in Uganda ...... 109 Table 5.5 Area of forest and woodland under different categories of ownership and management in Uganda ...... 109 Table 5.6 Protected areas affected by petroleum exploration and development activities ...... 113 Table 5.7 Country ranking* for conservation values and threats of some protected areas in Albertine Graben affected by petroleum exploration and development activities ...... 113 Table 5.8 Ecosystem ranking* for conservation values and threats of studied protected areas in Albertine Graben affected by petroleum exploration and development activities ...... 114 Table 5.9 Rankings* for species number, endemic species and IUCN threatened species for some of the protected areas affected by petroleum exploration and development ...... 115 Table 5.10 Species number, endemics and threatened species in Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu WR and Karuma WR ...... 117 Table 5.11 Species richness, number of endemics and threatened species in Kaiso-Kabwoya Game Management Area ...... 120 Table 5.12 Species richness, number of endemics and threatened species in Queen Elizabeth NP and Kyambura WR. Data on Kigezi WR was not available...... 122 Table 6.1 Threatened mammals in Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu WR and Karuma WR ...... 134 Table 6.2 Threatened bird species in Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu WR and Karuma WR .... 136

List of Pictures

Picture 4.1 Shot-hole seismic line equipment in Buliisa District, Uganda ...... 96 Picture 4.2 A drilling rig in Kabwoya WR in the Albertine Graben ...... 98 Picture 5.1 Murchison Falls after which the park was named ...... 116 Picture 5.2 Rothschilds’ giraffe in Murchison Falls NP - the only viable populations found in Uganda ...... 116 Picture 5.3 A male Uganda kob - one of the species that has recovered very well in Kabwoya- Kaiso GMA ...... 121 Picture 5.4 One of the many roads that criss-cross Queen Elizabeth NP ...... 123 Picture 5.5 Kisenyi Fishing Village within Queen Elizabeth NP ...... 123 Picture 6.1 A soldier apprehended from the Pakwach camp with smoked meat of wild game ...... 138 Picture 6.2 A poached Hartebeest transported in an ambulance to beat UWA security in Murchison Falls NP on 30 November 2010 by a driver supporting oil and gas activities ...... 138 Picture 6.3 Dead frogs, snakes and monitor lizards in a waste pit in Ngasa 1 Well near Kaiso- Tonya GMA ...... 142 Picture 6.4 Cows drinking E&P waste water at one of the unprotected wells at the Turaco Wells 142 Picture 6.5 Introduced exotic species of plants (Teak) and other ornamentals flower Catharanthus roseus in a camp in Kabwoya WR ...... 145 Picture 6.6 Erosion caused by construction of access roads in Kabwoya WR ...... 146 Picture 6.7 A seismic line through a cassava garden in Buliisa District ...... 151

List of boxes

Box 5.1 Major ecosystems in Uganda ...... 104

Abstract Isaiah Owiunji, University of Manchester

Thesis Title : Petroleum Development and Biodiversity Conservation in the Protected Areas of the Albertine Graben in Uganda: Can they Co-exist?

The co-existence of oil and gas development and biodiversity conservation in protected areas is a worldwide challenge because of the risks posed by petroleum development in sensitive ecosystems. This research focuses on the relationship between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in protected areas of the Ugandan Albertine Graben, to establish how these two sectors with different goals can co-exist without one sector significantly compromising the other. In 2006, Uganda confirmed the existence of commercially viable quantities of oil and gas in the Albertine Graben and, given Uganda’s overwhelming energy needs and pressure for economic development, started to develop these resources. However, the area is also identified as a region of great importance for biodiversity conservation and is designated as a Biodiversity Hotspot, Ecoregion and Endemic Bird Area. Petroleum development has started to show impacts on wildlife, tourism, agriculture, fisheries, culture and communities. The research drew on the Driver, Pressure, State, Impact and Response (DPSIR) concept to identify the impacts of petroleum development and the wider issues that impact on biodiversity management and affect the livelihoods of communities living in and around the exploration areas. Data sources included literature, document analysis, field observations, focus groups and interviews. During the study 41 interviews involving 52 people from central and local government, private sector, nongovernmental organisations, consultant and member of parliament; one focus group each in eight of the villages in the exploration areas were undertaken.

The study examined current strategies to address the emerging issues of petroleum development and identified their limitations. It highlights the roles of stakeholders in developing and influencing responses in the management of the petroleum development, and makes recommendations for addressing the weaknesses currently not covered by the legislation and environmental management practices. A number of recommendations are made to ensure co- existence, including implementation of legal and regulatory frameworks, development of efficient and effective institutions to enforce and monitor the laws and regulations, maintenance of ecological integrity of protected areas and sensitive ecosystems, improving the effectivenes of environmental management tools for decision making, creating an enabling environment for participation of all stakeholders in the process, and promoting good governance. In addition, the co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation can be realised if more resources are committed by Government, NGOs, private sector for the environment sector, that there is political will to champion biodiversity conservation, a transparent decision making process, and stringent operating practices. Finally, all key stakeholders need to play a role in the petroleum development process and biodiversity conservation.

Acknowledgements

The writing of this thesis could not have been possible without the support and assistance rendered to me by a number of wonderful people and institutions.

Funding for the study was generously provided by the Ford Foundation for which I am grateful.

I am indebted to my supervisors Dr Carys Jones and Dr. Richard Kingston for their guidance. I would like to thank Mr. Andrew Omara as my contact person in Uganda and Mr.Steven Kaheru both of them working for AHEAD

I would like to thank UWA, MEMD, NFA, Uganda Council of Science and Technology, Tullow and Dominion Ltd for granting me permission and allowing access to their premises. I am grateful to all the people who accepted to be interviewed and colleagues who willingly provided me with information whenever I needed clarifications.

Finally, I wish to acknowledge my family members, relatives, classmates and friends for their moral and financial support.

Declaration

I, Isaiah Owiunji, hereby declare that no portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

i The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis) owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and s/he has given The University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright including for administrative purposes.

ii Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made.

iii The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and any other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property Rights and/or Reproductions.

iv. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=487 ), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.manchester.ac.uk/library/aboutus/regulations ) and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses.

List of Abbreviations

2D 2-Dimensional 3D 3-Dimensional ADB African Development Bank AEWA African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement API American Petroleum Institute AU African Union AWE Air Water Engineers bopd Barrels of oil per day BP British Petroleum

CaCO 3 Calcium Carbonate CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CFR Central Forest Reserve CGV Chief Government Valuer CHA Controlled Hunting Area CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMS Convention on Migratory Species CNOOC China National Offshore Oil Corporation CSO Civil Society Organisation CWA Community Wildlife Area DEA Directorate of Environmental Affairs DEO District Environmental Officer DLB District Land Board DPPUD Directorate of Physical Planning and Urban Development DPSIR Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response DRC Democratic Republic of Congo DWRM Directorate of Water Resources Management EA Exploration Area EAC East African Community EDP Exploration, Development and Production EEA European Environment Agency EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIN Environmental Information Network EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMA Environmental Management Auditing EMAS Environmental Management Auditing Scheme EMCBP Uganda Second Environment Management Capacity Building Programme

EMP Environmental Management Plan EMPAG Environmental Management Plan for the Albertine Graben EMS Environmental Management System EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency (USA) EPE Environmental Performance Evaluation EPI Environmental Pillar Institution E & P Exploration and Production E & P Forum Exploration and Production Forum EPRC Economic Policy Research Centre ERM Environmental Resources Management (Consultancy Firm) ESA Environmental Sensitivity Atlas E-SHRIMP Environmental-Social-Health and Impact Management Process EU European Union FR Forest Reserve GMA Game Management Area GDP Gross Domestic Product GoU Government of Uganda IBA Important Bird Area IFI International Financial Institution INECE International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement IPIECA International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association ISO International Organisation for Standardisation IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature km Kilometre kWh Kilo Watt hour LC Local Council MAB Man and Biosphere Reserve masl Metres above sea level MDG Millennium Development Goals MEMD Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development MGLSD Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development MIEMC Multi Institutional Environment Monitoring Committee MoU Memorandum of Understanding MP Member of Parliament MTTI Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry MW Mega Watt MWE Ministry of Water and Environment MWLE Ministry of Water, Land and Environment NCEA Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment

NDPR Nigerian Department of Petroleum Resources NEPA National Environment Policy Act (USA) NEMA National Environment Management Authority NFA National Forest Authority NFTPA National Forestry and Tree Planting Act NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NOGP National Oil and Gas Policy NORAD Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation NP National Park NRM National Resistance Movement OGP International Association of Oil and Gas Producers OPEC Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries OSCP Oil Spill Contingency Plan PA Protected Area PAAP Protected Area Assessment Programme PAH Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon PEPD Petroleum Exploration and Production Department PLC Parish Land Committees PPP Policy, Plan and Programme PRIME Productive Resources Investment for Managing the Environment PSA Production Sharing Agreement Ramsar Sites Wetlands of International Importance Designated under the Ramsar Convention RGPCTS Refining, Gas Processing and Conversion, Transport & Storage SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment TEV Total Economic Value ToR Terms of Reference UAIA Uganda Association of Impact Assessors Ugx Uganda Shillings UK United Kingdom ULC Uganda Land Commission UNBS Uganda National Biomass Study UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization URA Uganda Revenue Authority USA United States of America UTOA Uganda Tour Operators Association UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority VOC Volatile Organic Compounds

WBM Water-based mud WCS Wildlife Conservation Society WHS World Heritage Sites WR Wildlife Reserve WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Petroleum, also known as oil and gas or hydrocarbons, is the key energy source of modern civilization because it is widely used as ingredients in many industrial uses, from pharmaceuticals and plastics, to computer chips (Matutinovic, 2009). According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA, 2007) fossil fuels will remain the major source for energy generation and are still expected to meet about 84% of energy demand in 2030. Therefore in a continuing search for new reservoirs of oil and gas to meet the growing global energy demand, oil companies are expanding their exploration and production activities into some of the planet's most sensitive and remote ecosystems (Rosenfeld et al., 1997). For example, since 1990, about $20 billion has been spent on oil research and development in Africa, and it is anticipated that by the end of the decade, new technologies and markets will encourage another $50 billion investment in oil and gas exploration (Queiroz et al., 2008). However, the history of petroleum development 1 in sensitive tropical ecosystems has been marked by conflicts with environmentalists and isolated indigenous communities. In many cases, this development has resulted in irreversible environmental damage and severe social disruption (Rosenfeld et al., 1997). This is because there is a tendency for both companies and governments to downplay environmental concerns because of the highly lucrative oil development business (Queiroz et al., 2008).

According to Queiroz et al (2008), the demand for better livelihoods and environmental protection manifests itself so immediately in the extractive industries because the sector creates significant opportunities for the near term while significant risks are entailed for the future generations. They further observe that benefits of resource extraction are seldom borne equitably. However, Taylor (1986) argued that there is no reason why humans and biodiversity cannot exist side by side on our planet if there is genuine respect for the natural world and the living things in it. Genuine respect for biodiversity can be reflected by regarding wild animals and plants to possess intrinsic worth for human benefit and that humans recognise their responsibility not to harm or interfere with a viable life community of wild animals and plants as they also provide for our wellbeing (Sagoff, 2004). Therefore, the care for the environment should be considered as an ethic in itself as such to kill or otherwise harm creatures is morally wrong and can only be justified if we have no feasible alternative (Evan, 2012).

This study looks at the relationship between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in protected areas of the Ugandan Albertine Graben to establish how these two sectors with different goals can co-exist without one significantly affecting the other. Protected

1 In relation to this study petroleum development refers to the processes of exploration, well development, production and site abandonment . 19 areas (national parks, game/wildlife reserves, forest reserves, etc.) are formally established for conservation of biodiversity. Dudley (2008) defined protected areas as:

A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated and managed, through legal or other effective means, to achieve the long-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystem services and cultural values (Dudley, 2008 p8).

Petroleum development is an extractive industry which is defined as a non-renewable natural resource sector. It has a number of phases during its development (exploration, appraisal, development, operational and decommissioning) all of which are associated with certain environmental and social impacts (Ali and O'Faircheallaigh, 2007). Hence, conservationists argue that extractive industries such as petroleum development should not be allowed in protected areas because they are incompatible with the goals for which protected areas are established.

The co-existence of oil and gas exploration and production and biodiversity conservation in sensitive ecosystems is a worldwide challenge because of the risks posed by petroleum development in protected areas and sensitive ecosystems. Protected areas are considered fundamental to preserving and conserving natural areas and reducing biodiversity loss (Leroux et al., 2010). Biodiversity is defined as variability among living organisms from all sources including inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part. This includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010a). Destruction of biodiversity can disrupt ecosystems which in turn can impact negatively on the communities that depend on such systems (Grigg, 2007). The rate of loss of biodiversity is estimated at 0.5–1.5% of natural habitats and species populations per year (Balmford et al., 2003; Jenkins et al., 2003; BirdLife International, 2004). To stop the unprecedented loss of biodiversity, the world’s governments under the Convention on Biodiversity Conservation (CBD), set a goal of protecting 10% of all ecological regions by 2010 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2004). However, this target was not achieved as planned despite a few encouraging efforts (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2010b) mainly because there was no political will as well as financial and legal commitments from the contracting parties (Butchart et al., 2010; Evan, 2012). Most indicators of biodiversity are still in decline with no significant reductions in rate while pressures on biodiversity still continue to increase (Butchart et al., 2010).

Figure 1.1 Albertine Graben showing the overlap between protected areas and petroleum exploration blocks

Legend Mt Otzi Mt. Kei Protected Areas National Parks Wildlife Reserves Era Communal Wildlife Areas Era ForestReserves West Madi Exploration Blocks

EA5 East Madi Suru Ajai's Kilak

Murchison Falls EA1

Karuma Bugungu Budongo EA2

Kabwoya

EA3B Semliki EA3A Bugoma Kikonda Flats EA3C Toro Semuliki Itwara EA3D Kitechura Kibale Mt. Rwenzori

Katonga th EA4A e lizab E Kyambura een u Buyaga Dam Q Kasyoha-Kitomi EA4B North Maramagambo Kalinzu South Maramagambo Kigezi Mujuzi Lake Mburo Tero (West) Namalala Bwindi Malabigambo Impenetrable Mafuga Rwoho

Muko Mgahinga Gorilla

Source: Kasoma and Tushabe (2009)

1.2 Statement of the problem

Uganda has confirmed the existence of commercially viable quantities of oil and gas in the Albertine Graben which is the northern part of the Albertine Rift Region within the country’s boundary. It stretches from the border between Uganda and Sudan in the north to Lake Edward in the south, covering a total distance of over 500km with a variable width of 45km that sometimes extend into the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (NEMA 2009). The location of Albertine Graben is shown in Figure 1.1. The Albertine Rift Region is of great importance for conservation. It has been identified as an ‘Endemic Bird Area’ by BirdLife International (International Council for Bird Preservation, 1992; Stattersfield et al., 1998) and as an ‘Ecoregion’ by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) (Olson and Dinerstein, 1998) and was listed as a ‘Biodiversity Hotspot’ by Conservation International (2011). The importance of the area for conservation stems from not only the high number of species but also the high level of endemism (Table 1.1). The region harbours 39% of Africa’s mammal species, 51% of its bird species, 19% of its amphibian species and 14% of its plant and reptile species. It has more endemic species than any other region in Africa and also contains 78 threatened terrestrial vertebrates according to IUCN Red Data Book listings (Plumptre et al., 2003).

Table 1.1 Species number of endemics and threatened species for the Albertine Rift

Taxon Species number Endemic species Threatened species Mammals 402 34 35 Birds 1,061 41 25 Reptiles 175 16 2 Amphibians 118 34 16 Butterflies - 117 - Fish - 366+ - Plants 5,793 567 40

Source: Plumptre et al (2003)

Similarly, the Albertine Graben has eight of Uganda’s ten national parks as well as a number of wildlife and forest reserves. It has several sites described as Important Bird Areas (IBA) (Byaruhanga et al., 2001).

The Albertine Graben contains a Man and the Biosphere Reserve (Queen Elizabeth NP), twelve Ramsar Sites (wetlands of international importance designated under Article 2.1 of the Ramsar Convention 1971 – Bisina, Mburo-Nakivali, Nakuwa, Opeta, Lutembe Bay, Mubamba Bay, Murchison Falls-Albert Delta, Nabajuzi, Sango Bay-Musambwa-Kagera, George and Nabugabo), two World Heritage Sites (Bwindi Impenetrable NP and Rwenzori Mountains NP), and three sites of regional importance (Mgahinga, Kibale, and Semuliki National Parks). There are also three regionally important lakes (Edward, George, and Albert). Almost all of Uganda’s potential for eco-tourism is located in destinations within this region.

Petroleum development with its associated infrastructure development leads to land cover change, climate change, pollution and land fragmentation (Exploration & Production Forum/United Nations Environment Programme, 1997; Rosenfeld et al., 1997; Trail, 2006; Alemagi, 2007; Ramirez, 2009). In some instances it also has direct impacts on biodiversity. According to Carter (2008) the 2007 IUCN Red List reveals that of the 243 threatened amphibians and 232 birds in Africa and Madagascar, 9% of amphibians and 8% of birds are threatened wholly or in part by mining activities (here the term includes petroleum extraction) suggesting that mining and conservation could be in conflict with biodiversity in some crucially important sites. Petroleum development is also known to affect mammals to varying degrees through infrastructure development and pollution (Bradshaw et al., 1997; Dyer et al., 2001; Dyer et al., 2002; Linke et al., 2005; Sawyer et al., 2009; Kolowski and Alonso, 2010; Rabanal et al., 2010). Similarly, IUCN 2010 stated that apart from pollution and physical disturbance, mining affects wildlife through habitat loss. In addition, impacts of oil and gas development on flora through vegetation removal and chemical pollution are beginning to emerge (Rosenfeld et al., 1997; Thomsen et al., 2001; Ko and Day, 2004; Dickson et al., 2009).

The livelihoods of communities that depend on the ecosystem services provided by protected areas could also be disrupted by the impacts of petroleum development. It is therefore important that as Uganda plans to explore and develop its oil and gas resources, the status of the protected areas and other biodiversity resources in the region will need to be maintained to continue playing their roles in terms of sustainable development 2and ecosystem services. There is also a need to reform the relevant legislation and institutions for management of the petroleum resource and ensure mitigation of any impacts (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). Petroleum development is already taking place in the protected areas and sensitive ecosystems of the Albertine Graben which have international designations and this could attract international condemnation if not well planned (National Environment Management Authority, 2010; Government of Uganda, 2013). Other issues that will require attention are management of expectations, compensation and resettlement of the affected communities and addressing land issues. Any co-existence will depend on how well these emerging issues are addressed. Petroleum development is new to Uganda and therefore the country will need to develop its own strategies as well as draw on experiences from elsewhere.

2 “Meeting the needs of the present generation without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their needs” United Nations (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, New York, United Nations. 23

1.3 Research aim and objectives

1.3.1 Aim of the study

The aim of the study was to:

Assess how petroleum development can co-exist with biodiversity conservation in protected areas and factors under which such a co-existence could occur .

Information on key impacts of petroleum development on biodiversity and communities was collected and analysed to assess how the stakeholders involved in the process collaborate to address the identified impacts. Based on the identified set of conditions the study makes recommendations for petroleum development in protected areas of the Albertine Graben. This ensures that petroleum development does not jeopardize other viable economic activities, particularly tourism in this region.

1.3.2 Objectives of the study

This study investigated the impacts of petroleum activities on the biodiversity and surrounding communities of the Albertine Graben and assessed whether petroleum development could co- exist with biodiversity conservation. The study established factors governing an effective balance between petroleum development as an economic venture and conservation of biodiversity for future generations in the Albertine Graben. The specific objectives were to:

1. Evaluate the concept and roles of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation.

2. Analyse the process of petroleum development and synthesize the environmental and socio-economic impacts particularly on wildlife, tourism and people.

3. Evaluate the relevant legislation, environmental practices and institutional capacity for addressing petroleum development in the Albertine Graben.

4. Assess the roles of stakeholders participating in petroleum development and protected areas management.

5. Develop recommendations that promote co-existence of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in protected areas.

1.4 Importance of the study

It is clear from the current situation in Uganda that isolation of nature from human influence into global conservation categories such as protected areas, biodiversity hot spots, world heritage

24 sites, etc., may not be a viable option. As noted by Spangenberg (2009), new concepts may need to be developed for managing the co-evolution of nature, society and the economy towards conditions that will improve human livelihoods while preserving the diversity of their biological basis. Consequently, protected areas of the Albertine Graben affected by petroleum development may have to be managed with new concepts to take care of the new challenges posed by the industry in the region. Development of such new concepts will be achieved if there is a good understanding of the relationship between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation and the roles of the stakeholders involved.

The evidence from literature shows that there is relatively little work which has been done in Africa on impacts of petroleum development on wildlife (Munshi-South et al., 2008; Ugochukwu and Jurgen, 2008; Akani and Luiselli, 2010; Rabanal et al., 2010). While some generalisations can be made, the impacts of petroleum development on specific areas depend on the location and the operations being conducted (Falola and Genova, 2005). Environmental impacts are also known to be dependent on the scale of activity, the technology used as well as the state (vulnerability) of the environment (Smeets and Weterings, 1999; Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003). Impacts of petroleum development on wildlife are also known to be species specific. Similarly, petroleum development has economic, social and cultural impacts on communities as it affects livelihood patterns, fishing, agriculture, livestock rearing, eco-tourism, etc. (International Alert, 2013). Therefore this study makes a contribution to broader understanding of impacts of petroleum development on wildlife and communities through analysis of the situation in the Albertine Graben.

Petroleum development in Uganda is new and few studies have looked at its impacts on protected areas and the communities (International Alert, 2009; Ayebare, 2011; Prinsloo et al., 2011; International Alert, 2013). In addition, there have been environmental impact assessments (EIAs) for individual schemes but these analyses did not address all the issues of petroleum development in protected areas (Johnson, 2007; Johnson, 2010). Therefore none of the previous studies comprehensively looked at the co-existence of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation, as well as its impacts on communities of the Albertine Graben. Moreover, as noted by Ministry of Energy Mineral Development (MEMD) (2010a) drilling of exploration wells within the area will imply a significantly increased risk level for the petroleum operations in the Albertine Graben. Furthermore, there is currently insufficient knowledge about the environment and potential environmental impacts of oil and gas exploration in the areas with the potential for oil and gas production (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). This study therefore has added some knowledge and data concerning the factors for co- existence which could not have been obtained from studies based on EIAs or indeed research studies of often more limited duration.

The study uses the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) concept (Maxim et al., 2009), which has been extensively used in a range of studies, to examine the factors that can permit the co-existence of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in the protected areas of the Albertine Graben. It identifies the impacts of petroleum development and also wider issues that can affect the management of biodiversity and also the livelihood of communities living in and around the exploration areas. The study appraises the strategies Uganda is putting in place to address emerging issues of petroleum development and the limitations of such strategies. It evaluates the roles of stakeholders in developing and influencing responses in the management of the petroleum development and makes recommendations for addressing the limitations not covered by the current legislation and institutional frameworks and environmental management practices. To address the limitations the study recommends development of relevant environmental legislation for management of petroleum development impacts, improvement of capacity of environmental institutions and other stakeholders as well as perfection of environmental practices for addressing petroleum development.

1.5 Structure of thesis

This thesis consists of 9 chapters and is organised as follows: Chapter 1 sets the context of the study and provides the general background to petroleum development and biodiversity conservation. The problem statement and the objectives of the study are stated as well as the significance of the study.

Chapter 2 provides context to concept of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation, process of petroleum development and its impacts, regulation of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation, roles of stakeholders involved in petroleum development and biodiversity conservation as well as assesses the experiences from other petroleum development areas. The chapter aims at informing the objectives of the study by presenting literature on the relationship between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation.

Chapter 3 sets out the research strategy and methodology and presents the (DPSIR) conceptual framework adopted. It justifies the reasons for the choice of the Albertine Graben as the case study area, and presents the research methods used to achieve the objectives.

Chapter 4 presents the driving forces (human needs) and pressures of petroleum development activities as well as the processes of petroleum development in Uganda. It draws on the description of the DPSIR framework and examines ‘drivers and the pressures’ of petroleum development as factors that influence search for oil and gas in the protected areas of the Albertine Graben.

Chapter 5 provides an overview of the state of the biodiversity in Uganda in general and the protected areas of the Albertine Graben in particular. The state of biodiversity is explored at species and ecosystem levels and the importance of biodiversity in Uganda is discussed. The chapter then analyses the regulation of petroleum activities and environment management as of 2012 and gives the institutional framework for biodiversity conservation and petroleum development in Uganda.

Chapter 6 assesses the impacts experienced during the exploration phase and forecasts the anticipated potential impacts of future activities. Impacts are discussed around the broad themes of biophysical and socio-economic consequences.

Chapter 7 examines the strategies Uganda is putting in place to manage the emerging issues of petroleum development. These responses are a combination of legal and regulatory frameworks and environmental management practices. The chapter also identifies initiatives for harmonisation of protected area management and petroleum development.

Chapter 8 analyses the gaps in responses Uganda has put in place to ensure co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity. It identifies deficiencies in the existing legislation and environmental practices as tools for management of environmental impacts. The chapter recognizes weaknesses in established institutions responsible for ensuring environmental compliance. It then discusses the current shift in environmental management from mandatory to voluntary and the role likely to be played by environmental management practices in management of environmental impacts of petroleum development.

Chapter 9 concludes the study by highlighting the contributions of each of the objectives in order to fulfil the research aim and makes recommendations for future practice and research activities related to petroleum development. This chapter states the factors necessary for petroleum development and makes a number of recommendations for ensuring co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in the Albertine Graben.

Appendices 1-5 summary of biodiversity impacts caused by petroleum development activities (Appendix 1); giving scientific names of fauna and flora (Appendix 2); list and codes of main stakeholders interviewed (Appendix 3); timeline for exploration activities (Appendix 4) and interview guide and research protocol (Appendix 5) are presented at the end of the thesis.

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

In this chapter the literature on biodiversity conservation and petroleum development in protected areas and sensitive eco-systems is reviewed. It informs the objectives of the study and is derived from relevant journals, text books, conference proceedings; press reports newspaper articles and Government of Uganda (GoU) documents to give context, an overview and latest knowledge on petroleum development in protected areas. Section 2.2 introduces the concept of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation, while Section 2.3 presents the processes of petroleum development and their impacts. In Section 2.4, regulation of petroleum development activities is examined, and Section 2.5 explores the roles of stakeholders involved in petroleum development and biodiversity conservation. Section 2.6 assesses experiences from petroleum development in other areas, while Section 2.7 concludes the chapter by synthesising key issues to take forward to the Methodology Chapter.

2.2 The concept and role of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation

2.2.1 The concept of protected areas

Protected areas (national parks, game reserves/wildlife reserves, forest reserves, etc.) have a long history, and are a feature of cultures around the world. Even in their modern form, they can be said to have begun about 130 years ago (Phillips, 2002). Protected areas exist in many forms and with many objectives, but can be thought of broadly as delimited areas having specific restrictions on human activities (Jenkins and Joppa, 2009). Protected areas are important innovations for the conservation of biodiversity, and are the cornerstones of local, regional and global strategies for the conservation of biodiversity (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005; Gaston et al., 2008; Timko and Innes, 2009). The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) recognises 102,290 areas as protected (Chape et al., 2008) covering 12.9% of the global terrestrial area (Jenkins and Joppa, 2009).

One of the concepts behind protected areas, is that society should protect a sufficient sample of each of the world’s ecosystems to guarantee the widest possible variety of life to be enjoyed by future generations (Jenkins and Joppa, 2009). The issue of biodiversity loss is an important part of the Millennium Development Goals (United Nations, 2011), a set of eight international objectives that 189 countries have agreed to achieve by 2015. O'Neill and Abson (2009) observed that the main approach to reducing biodiversity, loss has been by creation of protected areas. However, in the past many areas were chosen for conservation not because of their potential to preserve biodiversity but because of their relative lack of commercial value or unsuitability for habitation (Pressey, 1994). Factors such as outstanding scenery, recreation,

28 tourist potential, the influence of lobby groups, and historical protection for hunting and water supply have also been cited as reasons for the creation of national parks (Pressey, 1994).

2.2.2 The role of protected areas

Many protected areas have been, and are, created because they are essential for biodiversity conservation and, without them, in situ conservation would have been impossible (Phillips, 2002). According to Phillips (2002) and Leroux et al (2010) protected areas are important because they play the roles of biodiversity conservation, provision of ecosystem services, tourism and research among others. However, large parts of some protected areas are being sacrificed for development and will therefore cease to serve their roles (Gaston et al., 2008). Phillips (2002) observed that petroleum development in protected areas is sometimes in defiance of national laws by governments who see petroleum as an attractive alternative land use that could generate cash. The economic benefits offered by protected areas are ignored because they are either unrecognised (for example, their value as a means of watershed protection) or undeveloped. It is also the case that mining may appeal to some local communities in need of jobs, income and development. Moreover, the efficiency of protected areas in playing their roles in biodiversity conservation is also being questioned (Naughton- Treves et al., 2005; Gaston et al., 2008; Parr et al., 2009; Timko and Innes, 2009). For example, Gaston et al (2008) stated that there is limited literature to support the role of protected areas in conserving biodiversity and in understanding the ecological performance of the protected areas; although these areas do capture substantial components of biodiversity and buffer them from threatening processes. Phillips (2002), observed that whilst it is true that some protected areas are poorly managed, this should not be a reason to increase the pressures on them still further. This is because some protected areas are not ideally located to safeguard biodiversity but this is not a justification for undermining the other values that the protected areas offer. Similarly, according to Taylor (1986), developments should be designed and located with a view to avoid serious ecological disturbances and environmental degradation. Taylor (1986) observed that natural areas in regions of development are essential for ecological stability and should be left unmodified; thus certain habitats used by wild species-populations should not be destroyed, and some wildlife are given a chance to survive alongside the works of human culture.

2.2.3 Categories of protected areas

In recognition that different types of protected areas are better suited to different settings and that not all of these areas emphasize biodiversity conservation, the World Commission on Protected Areas one of the voluntary Commissions of IUCN (Dudley, 2008) developed six different management categories with two subdivisions: • areas managed primarily for biodiversity conservation (categories I and II) and

• areas managed mainly for the sustainable use of resources (categories III-VI) (Naughton-Treves et al., 2005).

Therefore, the IUCN plays a global leadership role in defining different types of protected areas, and in influencing how protected area systems that are developed are managed (Locke and Dearden, 2005). It has developed a system for categorizing protected areas according to degree of protection. All categories of protected areas are considered equally important, but a gradation of human intervention is implied, such that Categories 1a and 1b are the least influenced by human activities and Categories V and VI are often modified landscapes (Table 2.1). The categorisation was introduced in large part to help standardise descriptions of what constitutes a particular protected area. The assignment of a category depends on management objectives and what the management authority intends for the site, rather than on any strict and inviolable set of criteria (Dudley 2008). The strict protected areas systems (IUCN I-IV) represent approximately 5.8% of the world’s land surface (Jenkins and Joppa, 2009); while World Heritage sites (WHS) represent only 1% (Miranda et al 2003).

Table 2.1 IUCN protected area categories Category Description Ia Strict Nature Reserve Protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation value. Areas for scientific research and monitoring. Ib Wilderness Area Protected areas that are large unmodified or slightly modified areas, retaining their natural character and influence, without permanent or significant human habitation. These areas are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition. II National Park Protected areas managed for protection of large-scale ecological processes, species and ecosystems characteristic of the area. They provide a foundation for environmental, cultural, spiritual, scientific, educational, and recreational and visitor opportunities. III Natural Monument Protected areas managed to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, submarine cavern, or geological feature. Generally small protected areas often with high visitor review. IV Habitat/Species Protected areas aimed at protecting particular species or habitats. Such Management Area protected areas require regular active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats but this is not a requirement. V Protected Protected area where the interaction of people and nature over time has Landscape/Seascape produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value. Safeguarding the integrity, nature conservation and other values is important. VI Managed Resource Protected area managed to conserve ecosystems and habitats together Protected Area with associated cultural values and traditional natural resource management systems. They are managed mainly for sustainable use of natural ecosystems.

Source: Dudley (2008)

2.2.4 Evidence of petroleum development in protected areas and sensitive ecosystems

There are obvious concerns about permitting petroleum activities in protected areas (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2001; World Parks Congress, 2003; Tully,

2004); however, because the industry is a priority for many countries, it occurs in many protected areas and sensitive ecosystems (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 2013b; Shell, 2013). Similarly, the World Resources Institute (Austin and Sauer, 2002) indicated that one-quarter of active mines and exploration sites overlap with, or are within, 10km radius of protected areas categorized as I-IV under the IUCN system (Table 2.1). Rosenfeld et al. (1997) observed that in the tropics, there is high correlation between areas of high biodiversity and geological formations that contain oil and gas, and that many of the areas targeted for oil development directly overlap with sensitive and threatened ecosystems. According to United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2009), one-quarter of WHSs listed for natural values have mining or oil and gas development in or near their borders. In sub-Saharan Africa, 27% of oil and gas concessions are located in World Heritage Sites (Osti et al., 2011), and a study by Finer et al (2008) indicated a similar trend in Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru. Similarly, Miranda et al (2003) indicated that more than one-third of New Guinea’s forests and nearly half of the mangroves forests were allocated to oil, gas or mining concessions. In the United Kingdom (UK) Wytch Farm, an onshore oil field in Dorset was developed adjacent to internationally important heathland and wetland. In Uganda, the focus of this study, 10 out of the country’s 22 national parks and wildlife reserves lie within the oil rich Albertine Graben (Figure 4.6) (National Environment Management Authority, 2009a).

Examples of specific cases where petroleum development is taking place in protected areas of IUCN Categories I-IV are: Anduki Forest Reserve (Brunei), Barrow Island (Australia) and Urhonigbe (Nigeria) are IUCN Category Ia protected areas. Kakudu Natural Park (Australia) and Lord Howe Island (Australia) are IUCN Category II. Dollard Nature Conservation Area in Netherlands – IUCN Category III; Iguela Hunting Area (Gabon), Ngove-Ndogo Hunting Area (Gabon), Delta (USA) and Gilli-Gill Game Reserve (Nigeria) are IUCN Categories IV (Shell, 2013). Petroleum development also occurs in sensitive environments such as the Villano Oil Field in the Ecuadorian Amazon, a Liquefied Natural Gas Project in Papua New Guinea, Chevron Texaco in offshore Angola, Shell in the Gamba Complex in Gabon, etc. (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 2003).

Consequently, there have been international efforts to prevent further petroleum development in protected areas. For instance, the second IUCN World Conservation Congress held in October 2000 in Amman, Jordan adopted Recommendation 2.82 which included a section calling on all IUCN’s member states to prohibit by law all exploration and extraction of mineral resources in protected areas corresponding to IUCN categories I-IV (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2001). However, this recommendation is voluntary and therefore non-binding on governments, but some countries have banned oil and gas development in categories I-IV protected areas (Dudley 2008). Another initiative by the members of the International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM) committed them not to undertake mining and petroleum

31 development in protected areas which are WHS (International Council of Mining and Metals, 2006). Similarly, the Framework for Responsible Mining is a collaboration between NGOs, retailers, investors and mineral sector experts and sets out the environmental and social issues associated with mining and mined products (Miranda et al., 2005). Members of this organisation have agreed not to undertake mining in Ramsar sites categorised as IUCN Category I-IV protected areas (Miranda et al., 2005). In the same way, HSBC – a global financial institution – does not offer financial support for undertaking energy projects in WHS or in wetlands on the Ramsar list in relation to its commitment to environment support (HSBC, 2011).

However, in cases where petroleum development must occur in protected areas or in sensitive ecosystems, NGOs have been advocating the idea of working in partnerships with the petroleum companies (Carter, 2008; Smuts, 2010). In addition, industry associations such as OGP and IPIECA have been encouraging companies to initiate dialogue on biodiversity issues and form partnerships with conservation organisations (Tully, 2004). As a result, a number of NGOs such as IUCN, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Flora and Fauna International (FFI), Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Conservation International, etc. work with energy companies on petroleum development projects in protected areas or sensitive ecosystems (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 2003; International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, 2013; International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 2013b).

2.3 Petroleum development and its impact on biodiversity and communities

Following a brief consideration of petroleum development in protected areas its importance in the world economy is discussed.

2.3.1 The importance of petroleum

The choice between biodiversity conservation and petroleum development has been made difficult because the petroleum sector has the potential to create considerable wealth. The economic rents generated can fund social and economic initiatives few other industries could support (Ali and O'Faircheallaigh, 2007). Oil provides significant benefits to society in terms of employment. By 2013, the International Labour Organisation (ILO) estimated that at least three million people were employed in the oil and gas industry worldwide (International Labour Organisation, 2013). According to Youngquist (2000), oil in its various refined derivative forms, has a unique combination of many desirable and useful characteristics. These include its availability in abundance, high net energy recovery, a high energy density, ease of transportation and storage, relative safety, and great versatility in end use. It is the basis for the manufacture of petrochemical products including plastics, medicines, paints, and myriad other useful material. The oil industry is phenomenally profitable for some corporations and

32 governments. Taxes from oil are a major source of income for some 90 governments. Petroleum is the largest single item in the balance of payments and exchanges between nations and a major factor in local level politics regarding development, jobs, health, and the environment (O’Rourke and Connolly, 2003). In addition, millions of dollars have been spent by oil and gas companies to improve health care, build housing and medical facilities, enhance education and job training, and improve daily life for people in nearby communities (Kratsas and Parnell, 2001; O’Rourke and Connolly, 2003).

2.3.2 The process of petroleum development

According to EBI, (2003) oil and gas development can be divided into five basic phases as given in Figure 2.1:

Pre-bid phase : when a petroleum company conducts desk studies, through a series of preliminary high level identification and assessment for particular potential exploration areas as well as environmental and social risks involved in undertaking operations in such areas.

Exploration and appraisal phase : once a concession has been acquired, this involves exploration to understand the subsurface through seismic surveys and, if warranted, exploratory drilling. The aim is to prove the commercial viability of existing reserves. This stage involves a number of environmental impacts 3 (Section 2.3.3).

Development phase : once commercially viable reserves are indicated, the company makes a decision either to develop the field itself or sell the concession to another company. This activity involves the drilling of production wells and construction of facilities such as pipelines and terminals to process and transport the oil or gas (Section 2.3.3).

Operational phase : once the basic infrastructure for production is in place, the day-to-day production of oil and/or gas begins, and entails maintenance of facilities as well as transportation of the product. Various impacts are involved in this stage (Section 2.3.3).

Decommissioning phase : once the reserves of oil or gas are exhausted, decommissioning involves removal of facilities and restoration of the area.

At each of these phases, there are biodiversity and environmental considerations that have to be borne in mind to ensure co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation.

3 See Appendix 1 for summary of environmental impacts on exploration and appraisal, development, operational and decommissioning phases 33

Figure 2.1 The lifecycle of upstream petroleum development

Acquire Prove commercial Start End Concession Hydrocarbons Production Production Restoration

Pre- Exploration bid and Development Operations Decommissioning Appraisal

Risk Seismic & Drilling & Production Assessment Drilling Construction Maintenance & Studies Transport

Source: Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (2003)

2.3.3 Potential impacts of petroleum development

The oil and gas exploration and production process involves a number of phases ranging from exploration to decommissioning, all of which are associated with certain environmental and social impacts (Exploration & Production Forum/United Nations Environment Programme, 1997). Petroleum development impacts can be direct, indirect or cumulative and are categorised into biophysical and socio-economic. Predicting the impacts of petroleum development could avoid impacts in places crucial for species conservation (Johnson et al., 2005). This next section highlights the various impacts of petroleum development on the atmosphere, flora, fauna, ecosystems and socio-economic impacts.

Biophysical impacts of petroleum development

The biophysical impacts are grouped under atmospheric emissions, infrastructure development, physical disturbance, generation of wastes and pollution.

Atmospheric emissions

Petroleum development processes and its products are some of the economic activities that have major underlying causes for rapid changes in atmospheric composition (Falola and Genova, 2005). The primary source of atmospheric emissions from oil and gas operation arise from flaring, venting and purging gases; combustion processes such as diesel engines and gas turbines and fugitive gases from loading operations, tankage and losses from process equipment (Exploration & Production Forum/United Nations Environment Programme, 1997; The Energy & Biodiversity Initiative, 2003; Alemagi, 2007). The principal emission gases include carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane, volatile organic carbons and nitrogen oxides. Emissions of sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide can occur, and depend upon the sulphur 34 content of the hydrocarbon and diesel fuel, particularly when used as a power source. In some cases sulphur content can lead to odour near the facility (Exploration & Production Forum/United Nations Environment Programme, 1997; The Energy & Biodiversity Initiative, 2003; Alemagi, 2007). Ozone depleting substances are used in some fire protection systems, principally halon, and as refrigerants. Following substantial efforts by the industry, unplanned emissions have been significantly reduced and alternative agents for existing and new developments have been engineered. Flaring of produced gas is the most significant source of air emissions, particularly where there is no infrastructure or market available for the gas (Exploration & Production Forum/UNEP, 1997).

Infrastructure development

Infrastructure development can lead to vegetation removal which may result in habitat loss, changes in food and nutrients supplies, loss of breeding areas, changes to migration routes, vulnerability to predators or changes in herbivore grazing patterns. The removal of vegetation and topsoil can lead to erosion with subsequent water contamination and sedimentation of streams, especially during rainy seasons (Rosenfeld et al., 1997; Thomsen et al., 2001). Extensive land-clearing can expose delicate rain forest soils to increased sunlight, disrupt watershed drainage, increase the risk of flooding, and disrupt habitats and migration paths (Rosenfeld et al., 1997). Other direct anthropogenic influences are fires, fishing and possibly poaching (Exploration & Production Forum/UNEP, 1997). Alterations to soil conditions may result in widespread secondary impacts such as changes in surface hydrology and drainage, reducing the capacity of the environment to support vegetation and wildlife. Clearing by operators may stimulate further removal of vegetation by the local population surrounding a development. Indirect impacts may arise from opening of access routes into virgin areas that lead to illegal settlements and poaching (Thomsen et al., 2001; Suárez et al., 2009). Seismic surveys, depending on the type of ecosystem, can have a lasting impact through the access routes they create. In Alberta Province in Canada, 80% of the seismic lines that cut through the vast boreal forest region to prospect for oil sands have failed to regenerate (Creasey and Fischer, 2004).

Linear infrastructure development such as construction of roads and pipelines give rise to physical disturbance and barrier effects that contribute to overall habitat fragmentation (Laurence et al., 2004; Laurance et al., 2006; Coffin, 2007; Laurance et al., 2009). Roads and pipelines also provide access for introduction of invasive species and increase chances of hunting pressure. The barrier effect is the most prominent factor in the overall fragmentation caused by infrastructure (Van Der Hoeven et al., 2010). In Montana, Grizzly bears 4 avoided the vicinity of trafficked roads but eventually foraged near roads with little or no traffic (McLellan and Shackleton, 1988). A study by Kerley et al (2002) demonstrated that roads decreased the

4 See Appendix 2 for scientific names 35 survivorship, foraging efficiency and reproductive success of Amur tigers (Siberian tigers) in Sikhote-Alin Nature Reserve in Russia. Traffic also causes the death of many animals that utilise verge habitats or try to cross the roads as in the case of Moose in North America and across northern Europe (Hurley et al., 2009).

Physical disturbance

When petroleum activities take place at a particular site, animals are either attracted to, or avoid, the development sites as a result of noise and physical presence (Rabanal et al., 2010). When animals, especially large mammals, move away from locations due to petroleum development, it can lead to temporary or permanent reduction in their home range (Bradshaw et al., 1997). Moreover, the abandoned home range could be important high quality habitat, e.g. breeding area, a salt lick or watering point. Under such circumstances concentration at single location could lead to potential intra-specific competition among groups of animals (McLellan and Shackleton, 1989; Bradshaw et al., 1997; Dyer et al., 2001; Jansen et al., 2007; Kolowski and Alonso, 2010; Rabanal et al., 2010). This observation has led to a number of studies to assesses, the impacts of petroleum development on mammals (Harding and Nagy, 1980; McLellan and Shackleton, 1989; Bradshaw et al., 1997; Dyer et al., 2001; Simon et al., 2001; Dyer et al., 2002; Linke et al., 2005; Jansen et al., 2007; Sawyer et al., 2009; Kolowski and Alonso, 2010; Rabanal et al., 2010).

However, there are very few studies that have investigated the impacts of petroleum development on mammals in Africa (Rabanal et al., 2010; Ayebare, 2011; Prinsloo et al., 2011); the majority of studies were conducted in Canada and the northern United States (Harding and Nagy, 1980; McLellan and Shackleton, 1989; Bradshaw et al., 1997; Dyer et al., 2001; Simon et al., 2001; Dyer et al., 2002; Linke et al., 2005; Jansen et al., 2007; Weir et al., 2007; Sawyer et al., 2009). The results indicated mixed conclusions with some showing negative impacts while others did not find any evidence of mammal displacements. Among the studies that confirmed displacement of wildlife by seismic activities is that of Rabanal et al (2010) who looked at impacts of seismic exploration on distribution of large mammals in Loango National Park in Gabon. Using the method of transect counts they found that chimpanzees, gorillas and African elephants still avoided the seismic lines in the park four months after the seismic activity had ended. However, in the same study duikers and monkeys did not show any behavioural change. Rabanal et al. (2010) concluded that seismic operations had a greater impact on large mammals. Studies that did not find any evidence of big fauna displacement by seismic activities included McLellan and Shackleton (1989), Kolowski and Alonso (2010). Therefore it appears that impacts are species specific and vary from one area to another (Kolowski and Alonso, 2010; Rabanal et al., 2010). Such variations could have been due to the different methods used (McLellan and Shackleton, 1989; Kolowski and Alonso, 2010; Rabanal et al., 2010) or to

36 differences in intensity of petroleum activities in different places and duration of the studies, as shown by Johnson et al. (2005).

As well as mammals, birds were also studied to assess impacts of petroleum expansion. Copeland et al. (2009) modelled the potential impacts of petroleum development on Sage grouse in 12 states of Intermountain West USA and predicted that petroleum development in that part of USA could lead to 7–19% decline in their population.

The majority of these studies on mammals and birds were not in Africa but are relevant to the Albertine Region because they demonstrate that petroleum development activities have impacts on wildlife and vary between species. Studies by Ayebare (2011) and Prinsloo (2011) in the Albertine Graben showed similar trends to those undertaken in other parts of the world. Research findings on impacts of petroleum development also broadly concur with other studies on impacts of mining. For example, Woodland caribou avoided sites of gold mines in Newfoundland (Weir et al., 2007) as well as other industrial developments and mining activities in Alberta (Dyer et al., 2001). While Jansen et al. (2007), did not find any significant impacts of copper mine development on Bighorn sheep in Arizona. The studies also show that impacts of petroleum exploration on wildlife can be temporary if the wastes are carefully handled.

Generation of wastes

Petroleum development is accompanied by production of waste fluids during exploration and production phases. In general, these fluids (referred to ‘E&P waste’, or exploration and production waste) are a mixture of water with a variety of contaminants, commonly including drilling muds, concentrated salts, hydrocarbons not removed in the separation process, and trace amounts of potentially toxic metals (Ekpubeni and Ekundayo, 2002; Trail, 2006). Therefore, the contents of a particular reserve pit used to store these waste fluids depends on the type of drilling mud used (Trail, 2006; Ramirez, 2009), the formation drilled, and other chemicals added to the mud circulation system during the drilling process (Ramirez, 2009). Waste pits can attract and kill wildlife (Flickinger, 1981; Flickinger and Bunck, 1987; Trail, 2006; Ramirez, 2009), as they are mistaken for bodies of water. Insects entrapped in reserve pit fluids also attract birds, bats, amphibians, and small mammals. The sticky nature of oil entraps wildlife in the pits and they die from exposure and exhaustion (Flickinger, 1981; Grover, 1983; Flickinger and Bunck, 1987; Trail, 2006; Ramirez, 2009).

Trail (2006) reviewed impacts of waste fluids on birds in the oil producing regions of the United States and reported that from 1992 – 2005, a minimum of 2,060 individual birds representing 172 species and 44 families were identified from body remains recovered from oil pits. The study concluded that oil pits pose a threat to virtually all species of birds that encounter them. Birds were the predominant vertebrate group recovered from oil pits in the US (Grover, 1983)

37 but death of reptile and mammal groups in oil pits were as well reported (Flickinger, 1981; Grover, 1983; Wood and Harod, 2000).

Disposal of muds and cuttings is also a big challenge because of the potential high salt content in the muds and volume of waste generated. For example, during drilling of a typical well of 3,000m in depth, about 300-600 tonnes of mud may be used and 1,000-1,500 tonnes of cuttings produced (Exploration & Production Forum/United Nations Environment Programme, 1997). Accidental spillages of waste drilling fluids occur as a result of overflow from waste pits and flows into the surrounding areas and adjacent water bodies. Waste drilling fluids can also leak into the subsurface of freshwater aquifers due to poor pit linings as well as incorrect disposal of wastes (Ifeadi, 2004).

Soil pollution

Soil contamination may arise from oil based wastes, vessels that come in distress or collide, oil spills, oil well blowouts and pipeline ruptures, and explosions at storage facilities. Globally, Burgherr (2007) reported that 131 offshore and 43 onshore severe ( ≥10,000) oil spills from all sources occurred between 1970 – 2004, but the frequency of occurrence has since reduced.

According to Amnesty International (2009), oil spill figures in Niger Delta in Nigeria vary considerably depending on the source of information. Shell Petroleum Development Company reported that between1989–1994 there was an average of 221 spills, involving some 7,350 barrels of oil, per year. However, the Nigerian Department of Petroleum Resources (NDPR) reported 4,835 oil spill incidents between 1976–1996, with a loss of 1.8 million barrels of oil to the environment. On the other hand United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) reported that more than 6,800 spills were recorded between 1976–2000, with a loss of approximately 3 million barrels of oil to the environment. These spills have destroyed crops and damaged the quality and productivity of soil that communities use for farming. Crude oil contamination affects plants by creating conditions which make essential nutrients like nitrogen and oxygen needed for plant growth unavailable (Pezeshki et al., 2000; Ogbo et al., 2009).

Plant sensitivity to oil pollution varies with species, age of plant, and season of spill and also depends on the volume of the spill (Pezeshki et al., 2000). The ability to predict the impacts of oil on vegetation is still limited because no single study has addressed the many factors controlling vegetation responses to oil pollution (Pezeshki et al., 2000). However, some plants are capable of neutralising soil contaminants and reduce environmental hazards through a process called phytoremediation (Cunningham et al., 1996). Such plants that are identified to react positively to oil pollution could be used for restoration of oil contaminated areas (Merkl et al., 2004). The only limitation of phytoremediation is that there are very few practical demonstrations of the phytoextraction of hydrocarbons from contaminated soils and sediments

38 beyond small-scale and short-term trials (Dickson et al., 2009). Oil pollution of ecosystems cannot completely be eliminated, but can be reduced through strict regulation and enforcement, monitoring and surveillance and improvement in technology (Ferraro et al., 2009).

Impacts of disturbance and waste disposal on aquatic systems

Part of the petroleum development in the Albertine Graben will be offshore on L. Albert. The expected waste streams resulting from exploration and production operations while on the lake are: produced water, drilling fluids, cuttings and well treatment chemicals; process, wash and drainage water; sewage, sanitary and domestic wastes; spills and leakage; and cooling water (Exploration & Production Forum/United Nations Environment Programme, 1997). In exploratory drilling the main aqueous effluents are drilling fluid and cuttings, whilst in production operations – after development wells are completed – the primary effluent is produce water. Offshore oil development can affect marine birds in a variety of ways. Major spills can directly destroy large numbers of adults when they get in contact with oil and indirectly through starvation of nestlings deprived of food. Less dramatic long-term, chronic pollution or disturbance may also have detrimental effects on marine birds or their food supplies. Low levels of pollution may increase adult and juvenile mortality through fouling or ingestion, and sub-lethal amounts of ingested oil may lower reproductive success. Finally, disturbance of birds at colonies may reduce reproductive success or cause desertion (Hunt, 2003). Fur-bearing marine mammals such as otters are adversely affected by contact with oil (Geraci and Aubin, 2003). The greatest impact of offshore oil and gas activities may result not from direct mortality, but rather through subtle alterations of habitat, in association with intrinsic stressors within the environment (Geraci and Aubin, 2003) .

Socio-economic impacts

The potential socio-economic impacts of petroleum development can be broadly grouped under land use changes, health impacts, immigration and conflicts.

Changes in land use patterns

The key socio-economic impacts resulting from oil and gas development are the changes in land use patterns for agriculture, fishing, logging, hunting as a direct consequence of, for example, land-take and exclusion (Exploration & Production Forum/United Nations Environment Programme, 1997). Another impact is the provision of new access routes to an undeveloped area for people who are interested in using previously inaccessible land or resources for other purposes. This access is usually facilitated by the building or upgrading of linear infrastructure, such as roads and pipelines, into such environments leading to unplanned settlements or exploitation of natural resources (Exploration & Production Forum/United Nations Environment Programme, 1997; Thomsen et al., 2001; Energy and Biodiversity Initiative, 2003; Suárez et al., 39

2009). In Nigeria, it was reported that oil spills resulted in reduction of land productivity, crop yields and farm income in Delta State (Inoni et al., 2006).

Health impacts

Epidemiological studies on the direct impacts of petroleum exploration and development on local communities, show evidence of increases in infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS and malaria (Jobin, 2003), as well as pollutant-related increases in rates of dermatologic and pulmonary conditions (Epstein and Selber, 2002). A study by Hurtig and San Sebastian (2002) to determine incidences of cancer and the population living in proximity to oil fields in the Amazon basin of Ecuador found increased cancer cases for the population living in proximity with oil fields as compared to those living away from it. Similar studies in the same region also reported that water used for drinking, washing and bathing by the residents living near oil fields showed a high concentration of oil pollutants at a level high enough to cause alarm (San Sebastián et al., 2001). Petroleum development can have potential indirect health impacts such as alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and suicide for communities living in and around the development areas (Wernham, 2007).

Immigration

Oil and gas operations usually require skilled labour, and are thus magnets for people hoping to find employment with the company or its contractors. New projects also typically stimulate the provision of goods and services both to the project, and/or affected local communities, creating additional employment opportunities and attracting more people to the area. For example, in Gabon, Shell’s operations have been the catalyst for the establishment and development of Gamba, a town in which many of the people work directly or indirectly for Shell (The Energy & Biodiversity Initiative, 2003). New employment opportunities create differences in per capita income, when different members of the local groups benefit unevenly from induced changes. Socio-cultural systems such as social structure, organisation, cultural heritage, practice and beliefs will also change, which can lead to secondary impacts such as effects on natural resources, rights of access and changes in value systems influenced by foreigners.

Conflicts

Conflicts are likely to arise between development and protection of natural resources use, recreational use, tourism, and historical or cultural resources. The aesthetic value of the landscape will reduce as a result of unsightly developments or noisy facilities. There will be expansion of the transport system due to increased road, air and sea infrastructure with associated effects (Exploration & Production Forum/UNEP, 1997). On the other hand, positive impacts through improved infrastructure, water supply, provision of sewerage and waste

40 treatment, health care and education could improve the socio-economic situation. Standards of living will also be improved through employment (Wernham, 2007).

Impacts of petroleum development activities are managed through regulation and by companies adopting relevant environmental management tools which are the subject of discussion in the following sections.

2.4 Regulation of petroleum development activities and biodiversity conservation

Regulation of petroleum activities to conserve the environment is through a combination of regulatory frameworks or ‘command and control’, economic or market based initiatives and voluntarism (Khanna, 2001; Delmas and Keller, 2005; Blanco et al., 2009). The development of regulation evolved from the rigid command and control, market-based to more proactive voluntary incentives which then led to self-regulation (Khanna, 2001).

2.4.1 Legislation or command and control

Command and control regulation is when the state takes control in the market and ensures a specific corporate behaviour (Sarker, 2013). It occurs through a number of forms such as laws, regulations, guidelines, standards, permits or licences as well as existence of covenants with specific organisations (Sarker, 2013). Command and control uses legal and regulatory frameworks to achieve compliance and applies enforcement mechanisms such as criminal sanctions, injunctions, and civil penalties (Arinaitwe, 2012). It can also prescribe quantity limits on emissions of pollutants and use of specific abatement technologies (Khanna, 2001). Legislation can also include a combination of international conventions and national legal and regulatory frameworks 5 since command and control approaches are developed from broad principles formulated at international meetings which are ratified through international conventions or treaties (Gao, 2000; Brady, 2005). International conventions form the overarching frameworks for environmental management with protocols specifying detailed requirements (ibid). Similarly, national legislation for management of petroleum development activities on biodiversity includes policies, laws, regulations, standards, permits, licences and contractual agreements (Onorato, 2009). The national legal and regulatory frameworks are developed through acts of parliament of the host countries and other mandated institutions, and are therefore legally binding and can be enforced (International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, 2009). The legal and regulatory frameworks are also important because they determine any other applicable strategies for management of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation (ibid).

5 In this particular context the term framework refers to a conceptual structure intended to serve as a regulatory guide for undertaking petroleum development. 41

The legal and regulatory framework for petroleum development provides the mandate, vision and authority for the management of the petroleum resource, the regulations and standards establish the details of the law or make the laws operational, and are usually developed by the implementing entity responsible for compliance 6 and enforcement 7 under the established laws (International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, 2009; Onorato, 2009). Permits can be used to control activities related to construction or operation of facilities that generate pollutants or have impacts, while licences are authorisations to manufacture, test, sell or distribute a product. Usually both licences and permits are issued by the implementing agency (International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, 2009). In addition, the national legal and regulatory framework for petroleum development specifies the way a country or state organises its petroleum development activities, defines the host country’s involvement and the association with the participating agents, sets the conditions under which petroleum development is implemented, gives mandate to the participating government entities, roles and responsibilities and ensures that companies comply with conditions of licenses, permits, agreements and conditions of approval of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) (ibid). Therefore, petroleum companies have to conform to the national legal and regulatory frameworks established while undertaking petroleum development activities in a host country (Onorato, 2009).

The international conventions and agreements have relevant sections for management of petroleum activities on biodiversity, but such provisions are implemented through national laws and regulations (Brady, 2005). The command and control approach for petroleum development has been applauded for achieving substantial improvements in the reduction of industrial pollution (Stevens et al., 2012), but it is also assessed as being heavy-handed, rigid and costly in terms of administration (Arimura et al., 2008). The approach also can create confrontation between regulators and companies (Arinaitwe, 2012), as well as negative relations when there is failure of compliance and litigation ensues (Khanna, 2001).

Biodiversity conventions and regulation of petroleum activities

There are a number of international conventions that advocate conservation of biodiversity. According to Angel et al. (2007) such initiatives are in response to regulatory deficits that were created between the global scope of industrial activities and varying country based regulatory standards and the growing force of global ethics networks. Similarly Bridge (2004), observed that full legal compliance with state environmental regulations has increasingly been insufficient to satisfy society’s expectations on environmental issues. This has resulted in global support,

6 For this thesis compliance is defined as a condition for meeting requirements in laws, regulations, standards, permits and licences. 7 Enforcement is defined as actions taken to encourage or compel compliance with the regulatory framework 42 through various initiatives, to protect biodiversity worldwide through conventions and agreements. In international legislation, statements, resolutions and declarations are known as ‘soft laws’ (Rio Declaration 1992) and are nonbinding, while ‘hard laws’ such as treaties, statutes, and protocols which establish written agreements or obligations between states are binding for example the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Brady, 2005). The key international legislation for environmental management relevant for guiding Uganda’s petroleum development are discussed below.

World Heritage Sites

According to the Energy & Biodiversity Initiative (2003) mining, which includes petroleum development, is viewed by the World Heritage Convention as incompatible with World Heritage status. Mining is specifically named as an activity that may lead to a natural or mixed World Heritage site being listed as “in danger” (July 2002 Operational Guidelines). There are currently no formal guidelines under the Convention for approaching operations in WHS but experiences with industrial developments and WHS indicate that there are essentially three ways in which petroleum activities may be considered in the context of a WHS. These are through the nomination process, by reactive monitoring and periodic reporting and through stakeholder identification (Energy and Biodiversity Initiative, 2003). The host country may also consider changing the zoning within the protected area, or agreeing to the re-designation or alteration of protected area boundaries to allow hydrocarbon activities to occur outside the area (ibid). Uganda signed the World Heritage Convention in 1987 and has two sites, the Rwenzori National Park and Bwindi National Park.

IUCN Recommendation 2.82

IUCN’s Recommendation 2.82 was adopted in October 2000 in Amman. This Recommendation includes a section that calls on all IUCN’s member states to prohibit by law all exploration and extraction of mineral resources in protected areas corresponding to IUCN protected area management categories (I-IV). It states that exploration and localized extraction would be acceptable only where the nature and extent of the proposed activities of the development indicates the compatibility of the project activities with the objectives of the protected areas in categories V and VI (Dudley 2008). The Recommendation underlines the need for all concerned to adopt best practices to guide every stage of mining. However, this recommendation is not legally binding even though it carries a lot of political influence (Koziell and Omosa, 2003). Uganda is a member of the IUCN and its protected areas follow the IUCN management categories.

Ramsar Convention

While working in Ramsar Sites there are two aspects of the Ramsar Convention to consider in the context of oil and gas operations. One is whether the planned, proposed or existing operation affects, or has the potential to affect, the ecological character/integrity of the Ramsar site. Under Article 3.1 of the Ramsar Convention, the Contracting Parties are obligated to formulate and implement planning that promotes the conservation of the Ramsar wetlands and, as far as possible, the wise use of wetlands within their territory. A precautionary approach is advised, and where impacts are likely or even possible or unknown, it should be assumed there is a possible change in the ecological character (Energy and Biodiversity Initiative, 2003). The second condition is that signatories to the Ramsar Convention are expected to only consent to activities or developments that will cause loss or damage to a Ramsar site if that activity is of “urgent national interest”. In Uganda, because of its energy needs, petroleum development may qualify for the urgent national interest. In such cases petroleum companies should establish whether the host country has invoked the “urgent national interest” clause under the Ramsar Convention, and confirm that it followed due process in so doing (Energy and Biodiversity Initiative, 2003). Uganda has twelve sites designated as Ramsar sites (Chapter 1.3) and by 2012 the wetland likely to be affected by petroleum development is the Murchison Falls-Albert Delta wetland system.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 (United Nations, 1992b). This treaty focuses on controlling the emission of greenhouse gases to prevent global warming and associated potential consequences. The UNFCCC, although at the time of its signing was nonbinding, led to the legally binding Kyoto Protocol for developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (Evan, 2012). The Kyoto Protocol expired in 2012 and was replaced by an accord signed at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December 2009, at which all emitting countries committed to addressing climate change (ibid). Uganda is a member of the UNFCCC.

Convention on Biological Diversity

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 to reduce loss of biodiversity, encourage sustainable use of biodiversity and the equitable sharing of the benefits of genetic resource (United Nations, 1992a). However, there is little evidence to support the role of the convention in reducing loss of species and habitats (Evan, 2012). Uganda is a signatory to CBD.

In general, the various international conventions and initiatives have achieved very little in stopping petroleum development in protected areas, because the majority of the conventions are not legally binding and do not have regulatory organs, and lack punitive sanctions for violations of, or defaulting upon, treaty commitments (Adaman et al., 2009). Many countries, especially the developing countries, are desperate to boost their national incomes and emphasise economic growth, with little care for environmental matters at the national level. Thus, most of the international conventions need to be domesticated at national levels in order to take effect (Phillips, 2002; Adaman et al., 2009). However one of the important contributions of international legislation is the global requirement for consideration of important environmental management tools such as Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA, and Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) before undertaking development projects (Section 2.4.4).

2.4.2 Economic or market incentives

Economic or market incentives, such as pollution taxes or emission trading, are another approach used by petroleum companies to integrate pollution abatement and control into their routine production decisions (Arimura et al., 2008; Arinaitwe, 2012). Petroleum companies are willing to reduce emissions as long as it makes economic sense and are therefore motivated to apply cost effective methods for impact mitigation (Arinaitwe, 2012). One of the advantages of market incentives is that they are cost effective (Arimura et al., 2008). In addition, since this approach uses taxes and tradable permits it relies on price signals to induce pollution control and therefore is flexible and enlists market forces in creating a demand for environmental self- regulation (Khanna, 2001). However, it faces opposition for its insufficient motivation of petroleum companies to go, beyond compliance and its failure to set minimum levels of pollution, as well as for retaining some elements of command and control approach (Arinaitwe, 2012). Designing efficient instruments to cover all categories of pollutants can also be a challenge, administratively costly and beyond the budgets of regulatory bodies (Khanna, 2001).

2.4.3 Voluntary initiatives

The third approach to environmental management is the use of voluntary initiatives – described as collaborative arrangements between companies and regulators (or other third parties) in which companies voluntarily commit to undertake activities that improve the natural environment (Delmas and Keller, 2005). “ Voluntarism is based on the belief that the individual firm unilaterally undertakes to do the right thing ” (Sarker, 2013 p208). In this approach the government may play the role of a facilitator or/and coordinator (ibid). Sinclair (1997) argues that a situation where there is no compulsion for compliance is very rare since the voluntary approach is usually adopted in response to peer pressure, or in an effort to avoid more formal

45 regulation (Sinclair, 1997). The common form of voluntarism practised is self-regulation (Sarker, 2013).

Self-regulation can be considered as efforts by corporations or organised groups to establish rule-based measures for the behaviour of their members, without the direct coercive involvement of states or other external actors (Graham and Woods, 2006; Sarker, 2013). The practice of self-regulation is attractive as a result of limitations in using command and control, and market incentives, (Graham and Woods, 2006). According to Sarker (2013) self-regulation can be one of the following:

• Voluntary self-regulation – an industry or professional body creates codes of practice, enforcement mechanisms, and other methods for regulating its members, entirely independent of government. • Mandated self-regulation – the host nation requires the company to establish controls over its own behaviour, but leaves the details and enforcement to the business itself; approval of the regulations and provision oversight is by the state. • Mandatory partial enforcement – firms are responsible for developing some of the regulations and their enforcement, but with the overriding regulatory specifications being mandated by the state.

For instance, the oil industry organisation IPIECA (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association), now known as ‘The Global Oil and Gas Industry Association for Environmental and Social Issues’, compiled a set of environmental guidelines titled ‘best practices’ for oil and gas companies (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 2013a). However, for self-regulation to succeed there must be a statutory base, clear and measurable environmental objectives and substantial financial incentives (Wu and Babcock, 1999).

Realising that no single environmental management approach is ideal, use of all the three approaches concurrently to reinforce each other can be considered (Arimura et al., 2008; Stevens et al., 2012).

2.4.4 Environmental practices for addressing petroleum development impacts

This section examines known environmental practices for environmental management by petroleum companies. These include environmental impact assessment (EIA), strategic environmental assessments (SEA), environmental performance evaluation (EPE), environmental management system (EMS), environmental auditing; environmental monitoring, environmental reporting and oil spill contingency plans (OSCP).

Environmental impact assessment

Environmental assessment requirements were first formulated based on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 in the USA (Fischer, 2003). This followed requirements by NEPA for environmental assessment of proposed federal agency actions, and is regarded to have formed the first framework for environmental assessment (Partidário, 2000). Gradually, environmental assessment evolved into environmental impact assessment (EIA) at the project level and eventually was adopted all over the world (Wood, 2003). Environmental impact assessment is a predictive tool to anticipate the significant environmental impacts of development proposals before a commitment is made to a particular course of action (ibid). It is the orderly procedure for considering potential impacts before a decision is taken on whether or not a proposal should be allowed to proceed (Jay et al., 2007).

The process of undertaking EIA has some variations in different nations but there are common elements to the process (Wood, 2003). These are:

1) Screening : process of identifying whether an EIA is necessary for a particular project;

2) Scoping : deciding on the coverage and issues to be considered in the EIA. Decisions may be based on legislation, international conventions, expert knowledge and public involvement. It is also a stage at which terms of reference (ToR) are developed;

3) Alternatives : identifying project options that may have less impact on the environment including consideration for ‘no development’;

4) Preparing the EIA report or environmental impact statement (EIS): describing the project, the existing environment in which the project is to be located (baseline study), assessing the magnitude and significance of impacts (impact prediction), identifying measures to address impacts (impact mitigation) and preparing environmental management plan (EMP);

5) EIA Review : checking the EIA report for adequacy in addressing the impacts of the proposed activity. It may include public participation and consultations and is sometimes based on the ToR or ‘good practice’ guidelines;

6) Decision making : decision taken by the relevant authority on whether the proposed project should proceed or not based on the EIA report as well as on political, economic and social considerations. If approved the project may have conditions of approval;

7) Follow-up : monitoring actual impacts, checking mitigation measures, reporting against EMP and may include auditing.

These EIA elements are performed in a consultative and iterative manner and they are closely linked together (Wood, 2003). For instance, consultations undertaken at the scoping stage, or later at the EIA review stage, can be used to improve the project design so as to minimise impacts. Consultations with statutory bodies and other experts, together with public participation are important inputs to the EIA process (ibid).

In general, considerations for petroleum companies to undertake EIAs are influenced by the existence of global initiatives, petroleum industry best practice, international financial institutions (IFI) conditionality and national legislation (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 2003; International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, 2007). At the global level the requirement for project proponents to undertake EIA is guided by Article 14 Impact Assessment and Minimising Adverse Impacts (United Nations, 1992a p9) of the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity. EIA is also included as Article 4(f) of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (United Nations, 1992b). CBD (2005) developed guidelines on Article 14 for impact assessment entitled Refined guidelines on biodiversity considerations in EIA and SEA (Part1: EIA prepared in response to decision VI/7-A, para 3 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005).

Petroleum industry associations also influence companies to adopt the practice of EIA. For instance, as part of petroleum industry best practice, the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) produced guidelines for its members on EIA Environmental-Social-Health Risk and Impact Management Process E-SHRIMP (International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, 2007). Similarly, many of the IFI exert pressure on their clients to undertake EIA before some projects can be financed. The World Bank’s EIA requirements are contained in the Environmental Assessment Sourcebook (World Bank, 1991), and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) which is the part of the World Bank group also launched the Equator Principles in 2003 - providing guidelines on use of EIA in relation to major projects of funding above US$10m (International Finance Corporation, 2012; Morgan, 2012).

At the national level, undertaking EIA for major projects is mandatory in many countries. According to Morgan (2012), out of the 193 members of the United Nations, the two countries without EIA commitments are People’s Republic of Korea and South Sudan. The other 191 countries either have national EIA legislation or are signatories to some form of international legislation that stipulate use of EIA. Of the 191 countries subscribing to EIA practice, about 10 countries may be without national legislation for EIA or its equivalent (Morgan, 2012).

Consequently, according to International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (2007), petroleum companies adopt three EIA practices. A host country undertakes a basin-wide

48 strategic environmental assessment (SEA)8 (this section) before any project activities commence. The SEA assesses all potential and existing land use types in the exploration area and the necessary mitigation measures are suggested. Petroleum companies interested in pursuing exploration activities prepare proposals based on the results of the SEA without performing specific EIA studies of their own to apply for project approval by the environment regulatory agency. This is the preferred option by companies because the method has several advantages, such as avoiding collection of repetitive data sets, early provision of general guidelines for operations, addressing cumulative impacts, and it is cheaper and easy to implement (International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, 2007).

A company follows the EIA process and conducts an EIA study, and the regulator issues a permit based on the assessment in the EIS. The company adopts its EMS based on information in the EIS and the general knowledge of the environment (International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, 2007). In this approach, detailed information becomes available as the project evolves and therefore adaptive management is recommended. This calls for constant updating of the environmental management plan as more information on the environment becomes available. If there are a number of wells at a location, and EIA is required for each well, then the EIA process becomes repetitive. In such a situation, exploration block-wide EIA would be recommended (ibid).

The third approach is where an international financial institution (IFI) 9 is involved in financing the project. Always, the IFI demands a detailed design and environmental information before the EIA can be completed. The quality of the EIA process is enriched because of the introduction of another layer of the IFI team, but the EIA process can be considerably longer as a result of consultations between the company, the lender and the regulator. This method is the most complex and costly of all the three methods to implement (ibid).

Therefore, according to International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) (2007) there are a number of benefits EIA offers to a company if the right approach is used and the process is undertaken correctly. EIA benefits include savings that can be realised through early identification of project risks, timely and cost effective project delivery, and provision of information for decision making and giving opportunities for companies to demonstrate self- regulation without government intervention. Similarly, for other participants, the EIA provides opportunities for stakeholder participation, opens the project development process for scrutiny, presents an opportunity to identify and incorporate mitigation measures into a development activity and ensures environmental monitoring, reporting and auditing (Wawryk, 2002). EIA

8 SEA can regarded as analytical and participatory approaches that aim to integrate environmental considerations into policies, plans and programmes and evaluate their inter linkages with economic and social considerations (OECD, 2006) 9 International financial institutions are formal financial institutions formed by more than one country for purposes of development and are controlled by international laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_financial_institutions) 49 provides information for decision making which can ensure co-existence between development projects and environmental conservation (Leknes, 2001; Cashmore et al., 2004; Jay et al., 2007).

Despite all the good intentions of undertaking an EIA, there are a number of weaknesses associated with the process:

An EIA is undertaken by project proponents who have an interest in the success of the project which therefore can compromise the process. This can lead to inadequate environmental statements (Wawryk, 2002). This weakness can be counteracted by distributing the EIS widely and making the process as transparent as possible through consultative participation. In principle EIA, should be conducted as part of the project planning process – but in actual practice it is often undertaken only when economic and technical assessments have been completed (Wawryk, 2002; International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, 2007).

Baseline information can be insufficient and sometimes inaccurate, difficult to obtain or non- existent; the consideration of project alternatives is weak; sometimes the mitigation measures are not even feasible and there is lack of competent practitioners and sufficient funding for undertaking EIA studies (Wawryk, 2002). EISs can be difficult to obtain, are voluminous and written in a technical language making them difficult to understand (ibid). Public participation in EIA is weak due to difficulties in obtaining EIS, lack of technical knowledge on projects, failure to influence decision making process and poor use of participation methods (Morgan, 2012).

Generally, EIA makes contributions in certain decisions affecting the environment but such contributions are sometimes much less than was originally thought it could achieve in practical terms (Wood and Jones, 1997; Leknes, 2001; Cashmore et al., 2004; Jay et al., 2007). Governments, especially in developing countries, are likely to support projects on economic grounds rather than recommendations of an EIA study. In some cases they can even put pressure on the environmental management entity not to delay the decision by making ‘unnecessary’ demands (Gilpin, 1995; Wawryk, 2002); the decision can be made by a minister or the cabinet especially where large and controversial projects are involved (Mwalyosi et al., 1999). Many proponents and governments in developing countries consider EIA as an obstacle to development rather than a beneficial practice for management for addressing environmental impacts (Mwalyosi et al., 1999). There is inability to impose specific environmental standards or targets upon decision makers even though decisions may take into consideration environmental issues (Jay et al., 2007). EIA is still unable to achieve prevention of large-scale environmental degradation, contribute to sustainable patterns of development and to be fully incorporated in decision making process (Jay et al., 2007).

There are other challenges such as existence of corruption, political pressures and inadequate funding, the heads of the environmental institutions lacking political influence and working in an environment where information is being kept secret (Mwalyosi et al., 1999). Sometimes ministries, such as that of environment, are ‘bypassed’ by other more powerful ministries such as resource exploitation, which make compliance enforcement and monitoring very difficult (Wawryk, 2002). Consequently, given EIA’s marginal contribution in addressing impacts of development projects there is need to restate its main goals of addressing environmental degradation; but when properly applied EIA still remains one of the key practices for environmental management for development projects such as oil and gas (Jay et al., 2007).

Strategic environmental assessment for petroleum development

The concept of ‘strategic environmental assessment’ was first used by Wood and Djeddour in the 1980s in an interim report to the European Commission even though it was based on the principles of EIA (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). SEA is thought to have evolved due to insufficiencies of project EIA to sufficiently integrate environmental issues into decision making (Partidário, 2000), so as to proactively promote considerations of environmental and sustainability issues in the early stages of strategic decision making process. SEA is meant to incorporate environmental and sustainability considerations into strategic decision making processes, such as the formulation of policies, plans and programmes (Nilsson and Dalkmann, 2001; Jones et al., 2005; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). SEA can be taken as a range of “ analytical and participatory approaches that aim to integrate environmental considerations into policies, plans and programmes and evaluate their inter linkages with economic and social considerations ” (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2006 p17). SEAs are adapted and tailored to fit the context in which they are being used (Foluke, 2012). Consequently, the principle aim of a SEA is to integrate environment, alongside economic and social concerns into a holistic sustainable approach (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2006).

There is no standard procedure for applying SEA and approaches vary according to circumstance (Fischer, 2003; Jones et al., 2005; Sadler, 2011), but a generic process includes the following elements (Jones et al., 2005).

The screening process examines the aims and objectives of the policy, plan or programme (PPP). This stage considers whether the PPP is likely to have significant environmental impact, and if so then SEA is required. Screening is followed by the scoping stage which assesses whether the PPP meets environmental protection objectives, international targets, etc. Based on objectives of the PPP the scoping stage identifies key environmental issues central to particular PPP being assessed. A series of SEA objectives/criteria are then developed against which performance of the PPP will be forecast. Targets and indicators based on these criteria can be

51 used as basis of a strategy to monitor implementation of the PPP. Other alternatives are considered and the costs, benefits and environment impacts of such realistic alternatives to meet the plan’s objectives are also identified. The choice made between alternatives may be a political decision.

Baseline environmental data can be collected focussing on issues identified at the scoping stage to provide a platform to examine and predict impacts against anticipated changes in the future environment without the PPP. Using SEA objectives and criteria as a guide, the impacts of PPP implementation can be identified. Predictions should use baseline environmental data, as available, as well as focus on cumulative, synergistic, secondary and long-term impacts. This assessment can be both subjective and objective depending on the methods used for data collection and the type of information. Impacts of PPP and alternatives can be evaluated and decisions made based on the significance of predicted environmental impacts. A mitigation strategy should be developed after the prediction and evaluation of the significance of impacts. Mitigation for impacts should be considered throughout the SEA process, enabling continual refinement of the PPP. Nevertheless, residual impacts of chosen alternative must be addressed.

When considerations for mitigation are made then a monitoring strategy can be developed which relates back to the environmental targets and indicators identified during scoping. Assessment should be made of whether the PPP is achieving its objectives and whether mitigation measures are working effectively; amendments to the plan should be made if necessary. A SEA report should be prepared consisting of main findings of the SEA and a non- technical summary. The report should be evaluated to ensure whether information provided in the SEA report is sufficient for decision making. In order to maintain objectivity, some form of independent review is necessary. Consultation and public participation during the process at various stages during SEA process is important.

In terms of global requirements for undertaking SEA, the Convention on Biological Diversity (Article 6b and Article 14) encourages the use of SEA (United Nations, 1992a). In Europe the European Directive (2001/42/EC) on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environmen t, known as ‘SEA Directive’ was launched in 2004 and commits all 28 member nations of the European Union to recognise the importance of SEA while undertaking development projects (European Union, 2001). Similarly, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, adopted on 2 March 2005 argues development partners to develop common approaches to environmental assessment specifically focussing on SEA (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2005). As of 2012, there were about 60 countries with SEA systems or its equivalent, but out of these the number with legal or formalised SEA requirements was less clear (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012).

The main rationale and benefits of SEA have been suggested as early consideration of environmental impacts in the decision making process, promotion of sustainability, addressing cumulative and large-scale effects and including follow-up arrangements and issues which EIA normally do not address (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). SEA also supports the implementation of Millennium Development Goal (MDG) 7 (United Nations, 2008) on environmental sustainability (as agreed at the UN General Assembly in 2000) which calls for the integration of the principles of sustainable development into country policies and programmes (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2006). The application of SEA backs the Johannesburg Plan of implementation agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in 2002 (ibid), which stressed the importance of strategic frameworks and balance decision making as fundamental requirements for advancing sustainable development agenda. SEA ensures that land use plans are incorporated into environmental issues and raises awareness about impacts of development (Jones et al., 2005). It provides environmental evidence to support more informed decision making and ensure that environmental issues are taken into consideration (ibid). SEA creates opportunity for stakeholder dialogue as well as individual and organisational learning (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012). SEA facilitates transboundary cooperation around shared environmental resources as well as contributes to conflict prevention; and Identifies monitoring indicators during project implementation(Jones et al., 2005; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012).

SEA as a tool is important for identification of environmental consequences of PPPs, and also globally, recognised as means of delivery of more strategic interventions.

Challenges with SEA implementation

There are a number of constraints that affect the application of SEA as a tool for environmental management. These include lack of awareness of the value and importance of SEA, difficulty with systematic and comprehensive identification of impacts by the SEA process, lack of political will and support, political manipulation of the SEA procedure, time taken to appreciate the value of SEA and lack of knowledge and capacity on how to implement SEA (Owens et al., 2004; Jones et al., 2005; Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2006; Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012).

Consequently, apart from the current established aims and roles of SEA, the process should take into consideration issues such as decision makers’ understanding of environmental and sustainability issues, environmental governance, environmental awareness and opportunity for individual and institutional learning in order to make contributions in achieving sustainability between socio-economic and environmental issues of petroleum development (Fundingsland Tetlow and Hanusch, 2012).

Environmental management systems of petroleum companies

Environmental policy may be shifting from regulation-driven, market-based incentives to self- regulation (Section 2.4.4), but environmental management by companies is achieved through EMS, including the mitigation measures set out in EISs. EMS provide the framework for the environmental management of a firm, while EMS auditing and performance standards are used to evaluate the company to ensure successful implementation of EMS (Melnyk et al., 2003). Motivations for implementation of EMS can include regulatory and institutional pressures, internal competencies, social pressures, continual improvement capabilities and capital expenditure (Darnal 2003).

EMS are procedural rules that assist managers in detecting and preventing environmental violations, in addition to ensuring compliance with existing legislation in host countries (Wawryk, 2002). There are a number of organisations that have produced standards and guidelines for EMS, but the most commonly used one is the ISO 14001:2004 which was formulated by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), an international network of national standards bodies to promote standardisation and related activities as well as facilitate the international exchange of goods and services (Melnyk et al., 2003; Delmas and Montiel, 2008). The European Environmental Management Audit Scheme (EMAS) issued by European Commission is to certify EMS among the European organisations (Delmas and Montiel, 2008; Stevens et al., 2012). These standards are private management initiatives formulated, monitored and enforced by private entities to govern their own conduct (Prakash, 2000).

An EMS consists of interrelated parts working together to help a firm manage, measure and improve the environmental impacts of its activities (Prakash, 2000). Consequently, the ISO 14000 series of standards released in 1996 and revised in 2004 are group of voluntary standards for establishment of environmental management system (Nishitani, 2009). Among the series, ISO 14001 also known as the ‘environmental management system’, is the document companies can use for certification (Zutshi and Sohal, 2004). ISO 14004, ISO 14011 and 14012 are guidance documents explaining environmental management concepts, definitions and guidelines for establishing and implementing EMS; but are not mandatory for certification (Zutshi and Sohal, 2004).

One of the key elements of the EMS is the continual improvement of environmental performance defined as a process of enhancing the environmental management so as to achieve improvement in overall performance consistent with the organisations’ environmental policy (International Organisation for Standardization, 2004). Continual improvement is the final outcome of the Plan-Do-Check-Act, or Deming Cycle which is the core of the ISO EMS (ibid). Therefore, implementing an EMS consists of establishing an environmental policy, planning, implementation and operations, checking and management review (ibid). The implementation of EMS is based on the assumption that it improves environmental performance, a presumption 54 that is yet to be validated (ibid). Business firms find it hard to implement EMS due to fear of negative publicity in case of improper management of the environment, uncertainty over future regulatory controls, lack of required resources, absence of rewards and added bureaucracy (Stevens et al., 2012).

One limitation of ISO 14001, is that the EMS does not fix minimum levels of environmental performance to be achieved for annual assessments in order to maintain the certification. Similarly, it does not provide specific requirements or operational methods to be used to measure continual improvement. Therefore ISO 14001 cannot be used to measure environmental performance (Nakamura et al., 2001). A company can make a self-declaration of compliance with ISO 14001 or be audited and gain certification against the standards in ISO 14001. A company with ISO 14001 certification can claim that it has a documented environmental management system that is fully implemented and consistently followed, but it cannot claim that its product processes are more environmentally friendly (ibid). This is because certification under ISO 14001 is based on an audit of the EMS, not the product or services provided by the company (Wawryk, 2002). The ISO 14001 standards presume that once a company has management systems in place then it can effectively deal with impacts of industrial development; and that firms go beyond regulatory requirements to achieve continuous environmental improvement even though this cannot be independently verified (Rondinelli and Vastag, 2000).

Monitoring of EMS involves the on-going checking, inspection or examination of equipment, management systems, operational activities and their effect on the environment on a regular and frequent basis (Wawryk, 2002). It is a practice that focuses on company EMS as well as associated risks and liabilities as opposed to environmental impact auditing which is comparing the impacts predicted in an EIS with those that actually occur after implementation (Glasson et al., 2012).

Environmental management audits were first carried out in the 1970s by private firms in the USA for financial and legal checks as an extension of financial audits (Hillary, 1998; Glasson et al., 2012). EMA would later spread to private firms in Europe and, in the late 1980s to local authorities in response to public pressure on environmental issues; by 2010, more than 130,000 organisations world-wide gained ISO 14001 certification (Glasson et al., 2012).

One of the most commonly quoted definitions of environmental management auditing (EMA) is:

“A management tool comprising a systematic, documented, periodic and objective evaluation of how well environmental organisation, management and equipment are performing with the aim of helping to safe guide the environment by: i) facilitating management control of environmental practices; ii) assessing

compliance with company policies which would include meeting regulatory requirements ” (Hillary, 1998 p75) referring to (International Chamber of Commerce, 1989).

The auditing standard for EMA is ISO 19011:2002 which is useful for EMS quality management system auditing (International Organisation for Standardization, 2009). It gives guidelines on procedures of auditing, managing auditing programmes and on capacity of auditors (ibid). The ISO standards do not allow third-party audits or external disclosure of audit reports; these standards also focus on audits of environmental management systems rather than on compliance with legal regulations (Wawryk, 2002). It is generally argued that external monitoring and auditing (and/or the external verification of internal monitoring results) by accredited; independent organisation is the best method for ensuring the reliability and independence of results (ibid).

Environmental performance evaluation (EPE) is a management tool or process designed to ensure the on-going measurement and improvement of an organisation’s environmental performance against defined targets (Wawryk, 2002). According to Jasch (2000) EPE is:

“An internal process and management tool designed to provide management reliable and verifiable information on an on-going basis to determine whether an organisations environmental performance is meeting the criteria set by the management of the organisation ” (Jasch, 2000 p79).

ISO 14031:1999: ‘Environmental management – Environmental performance evaluation – Guidelines' – gives guidance on undertaking environmental performance and addresses the selection of meaningful performance indicators for measuring the environmental impacts (International Organisation for Standardization, 2009). The publication of environmental and social performance reports are useful for internal and external reporting by companies (International Organisation for Standardization, 2009). In case of petroleum companies environmental and social performance reporting provides host communities and the general public with useful information on their past and current environmental and social operations (Wawryk, 2002).

Oil spill contingency plan

In many oil producing countries the development of oil spill contingency plan (OSCP) is a regulatory requirement (Environmental Protection Agency, 1999; Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008; Republic of Angola, 2008; Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2011; Transport Canada, 2011; Maritime New Zealand, 2013; Ministry of Energy and Energy Affairs, 2013). Planning for an oil spill emergency is important because it can help to mitigate potential risks to human and the environment by ensuring a timely and coordinated response (Maritime

New Zealand, 2013). A contingency plan contains specific action plans developed in response to an oil spill and according to United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 1999):

A contingency plan is like a ‘game plan’ or a set of instructions that outlines the steps that should be taken before, during and after an emergency. A contingency plan looks at all the possibilities of what could go wrong and ‘contingent’ upon actual events, has the contacts, resource lists, and strategists to assist in the response to the spill (Environmental Protection Agency, 1999 p27).

For many countries that have oil fields offshore, or petroleum transport activities in their international waters, the International Convention on Oil Preparedness, Response and Co- operation Convection 1990 is the key legislation for marine pollution response which also ensures that responsible oil companies and shipping industries fund the preparedness and response regime (Republic of Angola, 2008; Transport Canada, 2011; Maritime New Zealand, 2013; Ministry of Energy and Energy Affairs, 2013). The key objectives of the convention (ECOLEX, 2013) are that signatories:

• Establish a national OSCP that can respond to oil spill emergencies and this can be done either as individual countries, bilateral or multi-lateral arrangements; • Designate national institutions that are responsible for oil spill preparedness and response; • Establish local contingency plans which should be coordinated with the national plan systems for quick and effective response to pollution incidents; • Deploy minimum equipment at appropriate locations where risks are identified; • Ensure ships under the jurisdiction of the convention carry on board oil emergency plans; • Establish programmes for exercising, training and simulations; • Provide help to other members in times of oil spill emergency and reimbursements made for such assistance.

Therefore, a well-designed OSCP should be easy to follow and, in general, have four major elements in common; hazard identification, vulnerability analysis, risk assessment and response actions. When developing the OSCP, hazard identification and vulnerability analysis are used to develop a risk assessment which can be used as the basis for planning particular response actions (Environmental Protection Agency, 1999). An OSCP should be able to provide a range of emergency response actions, have an implementation structure, be flexible to provide compatibility between participating institutions, should be accountable and ensure record keeping (Australian Maritime Safety Authority, 2011). The plan should be updated frequently based on actual oil spill experiences, drill, and simulation exercises which take into

57 consideration the nature of threats as well as changes in technology (Ministry of Energy and Energy Affairs, 2013).

The environmental tools described in this section are important because they are tools companies use for environmental management of petroleum development impacts. For the tools to serve the purposes they are meant for, they need to be correctly applied and supported by the top level management of companies. Regulators should give guidance and encourage companies to implement these tools voluntarily. Similarly, regulators should ensure that petroleum companies set performance standards for annual assessments and they practise social and environmental reporting.

2.5 Stakeholder participation

Stakeholders are people who are affected by, who can influence, or who are responsible for, decisions and their implementation (Freeman, 1984). Stakeholders such as the state, oil companies, the international community, civil society organisations and the local community affected by the activities of the extractive industries, play important roles during the petroleum development process. The stakeholders in a petroleum development process can be summarised by Figure 2.2.

2.5.1 The role of the state

In terms of environmental management, the key government institutions in the petroleum development process are cabinet members, parliament, participating entities and local governments (Extractive Industries Source Book, 2010). The host state is responsible for formulation of petroleum and environmental laws, provision of an oversight role, definition of specific policies on protected areas and sensitive areas, and information access and stakeholder involvement (Onorato, 2009; Extractive Industries Source Book, 2010). In addition, the state should ensure that there are enough resources for implementation of the regulatory framework, clear mandates, roles and responsibilities for participating entities to avoid overlap in roles and regulatory gaps.

The host country should provide conditions that are favourable for all the stakeholders to participate in the petroleum development process in general, and in environmental management in particular (World Bank, 2010a).

The legislators, or members of parliament, need to ensure that the laws governing petroleum development and biodiversity conservation are relevant, clearly written and sufficiently stringent to meet environmental goals (International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, 2009; Extractive Industries Source Book, 2010). The regulatory agencies are responsible for development of regulations and standards and their coordination. These 58 agencies issue guidelines, permits, licenses and production sharing agreements (PSA), are in charge of enforcement and compliance monitoring and make sure international protocols are observed (ibid). The roles of the regulators include undertaking SEA and approval of EIA, and establishing agreed procedures for participation of other stakeholders such as communities, NGOs (Brady, 2005).

Figure 2.2 The key stakeholders in the petroleum development process

Host Country Oil Companies Executive Shareholders Parliament Employees Participating Contractors government entities Local Governments

Petroleum Civil Society International Development Organisations Institutions Process NGOs Development Universities partners Research Institutions Development Industry Associations Banks

Host Communities Indigenous people Employees

Suppliers Customers Community activists

Source: Based on Extractive Industries Source Book (2010)

The biodiversity conservation sector (e.g. the protected area managers) is included under the participating government entities

2.5.2 The role of oil companies

Oil companies are obviously a key stakeholder and should ensure that petroleum development in protected areas and sensitive ecosystems is undertaken in an acceptable manner (Extractive Industries Source Book, 2010). In general, oil companies are categorised as either state-owned or privately-owned. The state-owned oil companies are the most powerful in terms of their influence (Falola and Genova, 2005). The major oil companies are regarded as better at environmental management because they have both the financial resources and capacities for innovation, as well as experience and the human resources to deal with environmental impacts, plus reputation to lose in case of an environmental disaster (Bridge, 2008). In other words, a firm’s access to technology and capacity for environmental management determines the impact of mineral extraction on the environment (ibid).

As part of good practice at a strategic level, the petroleum companies are expected to develop company policy on biodiversity conservation and specify the company position on protected areas. They should adopt host country legislation in their company policy and define the roles and responsibilities for environmental management (Extractive Industries Source Book, 2010). In addition, companies are expected to commit resources to implement their biodiversity conservation strategy and ensure EIA mitigation measures are implemented and report on their activities to ensure transparency (Brady, 2005). It is the duty of the oil companies to ensure that they comply with the rules and regulations and observe best practice codes on social and environmental impacts (ibid). Communities expect companies to develop good working relations with them, provide employment and give them business and participate in provision of social services (Extractive Industries Source Book, 2010). Furthermore, oil companies are expected to consult and inform the affected communities on their plans and performances. The host government and the petroleum companies should draw up community development plans in a participatory manner to ensure that the interests of local communities are considered and that they derive benefits from the petroleum investments (World Bank, 2010a). The community development plan, which should be paid for from oil and gas revenues, should include provision of education and health facilities, water and power supplies and employment and training opportunities for local people (ibid).

Therefore, petroleum companies have responsibilities to other stakeholders through the impacts of their activities on the environment and on societies. Companies are expected to comply with host country’s rules and when they default they are likely to be subjected to fines, litigation by government or other stakeholders. They may also experience pressures to improve environmental performance, investor concerns because of loss of company reputation and fall in shares, employee concerns leading to loss of morale, and NGO campaigns to persuade customers to boycott products of non-complying companies (Brady, 2005). Such pressures on companies can result in increased costs associated with environmental taxes, insurance premiums and loss of opportunities to funds from IFI (ibid). According to the stakeholder theory

(Freeman, 1984) (Chapter 3.3.2) petroleum companies are known to respond to legislation and stakeholder pressure to reduce the potentially negative environmental impacts of their activities (Frooman, 1999; Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999; Buysse and Verbeke, 2003; Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2012). Such responses vary from one firm to the other and are designed based on the perception of the company’s most important stakeholders ((Darnall et al., 2010; Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2012).

2.5.3 Civil society and petroleum development

Civil society includes NGOs, community groups, research institutes, think tanks, advocacy groups, trade unions, academic institutions, parts of the media, professional associations, and faith-based institutions (Court et al., 2006). Civil society contributes toward community empowerment, checks government excesses both at national and local government level, hold leaders accountable and facilitate citizen awareness on key development issues. According to Watts (2005), the oil industry is an arena in which new forms of global regulation and governance are being developed, fought over, and implemented. Civil society organisations (CSO) therefore work to ensure that the oil industry is compliant with important human, social, political and environmental rights. CSOs provide information, conduct research, propose and evaluate policies, and introduce ideas and political pressure into negotiations. NGOs and other international networks can engage in world civic politics, and influence the values and behaviours of individual corporations, fund debt for nature swaps and promote consumer boycotts (Brady, 2005). CSOs check the activities of petroleum companies and the state especially in terms of monitoring. For example, where companies operate in protected areas there is widespread public debate, and potential for legislation on the issues of access to protected areas and liability for damaging biodiversity (ISIS Asset Management, 2004).

Historically, NGOs, have adopted a confrontational approach to corporate engagement in an attempt to force companies to place greater emphasis on environmental and social issues (Carter, 2008; Hoffman, 2009). This perspective has shifted considerably over the past decade as more and more mining companies, and NGOs, have come to recognise mutual benefits in engaging in cross-sectoral partnerships (Smuts, 2010). Hoffman (2009) emphasised that while some environmental NGOs have retained a confrontational stance, numerous NGO have shifted their approach to working within the system to solve environmental problems. In many cases environmental problems with petroleum development are highlighted by NGOs, and when such concerns are proved to be genuine the government can take action in terms of legislation, fiscal measures or encourage voluntary actions by companies (Brady, 2005). NGOs can also use campaigns to force companies to take environmental responsibility; for instance, NGOs have undertaken high profile campaigns against companies such as Shell, BP and Esso to persuade customers boycott products of such companies (ibid).

2.5.4 International financial institutions

International financial institutions can use both technical assistance, as well as leverage of their lending terms to oil companies to encourage good practice in the sector. Experiences in other countries have shown that legislation may not necessarily ensure compliance, but conditionality on loans may. For example, according to United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTD) (2007) improvements in Ghana’s environmental management in the mining sector was achieved as a result of strict environmental conditions tied into loans given by international financial institutions to international mining companies rather than by enforcing legal and regulatory framework. Similar situations can therefore be applied to petroleum companies particularly if they borrow funds from IFI for financing their activities, especially when operating in sensitive areas like protected areas.

To achieve a balance between petroleum development and conservation of biodiversity all stakeholders need to play their roles. However, this can only be achieved if all stakeholders, including governments, business and conservation communities understand and recognize the roles played by conservation and petroleum in development (International Union for Conservation of Nature and International Council on Mining and Metals, 2004).

2.6 Lessons from other regions – petroleum development in protected areas and communities

There are lessons that can be learned from other regions where petroleum development occurs in protected areas. For instance, companies can avoid working in protected areas such as WHS by unilateral declarations as was the case with Shell and Total. Shell has, since 2003, pledged not to undertake petroleum development in WHS and promised to prepare biodiversity action plans for all its operations that will potentially impact on protected areas designated under IUCN categories I–IV and areas of high biodiversity value. Shell has further committed to publicly report on their activities in IUCN I-IV categories and work with other biodiversity organisations like IUCN and UNEP (Shell, 2013). Similarly, in 2013, Total SA made a commitment not to undertake petroleum development in the Virunga National Park – a WHS in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (World Wide Fund for Nature, 2013). Both Shell and Total are members of OGP which works with organisations such as IUCN, UNEP, World Bank, ISO, and IPIECA to prepare standards and operating guidelines as part of acceptable operating practices for its members to adopt while working in developing countries, protected areas and sensitive environments (International Association of Oil and Gas Producers, 2013). The review also shows that use of a combination of approaches such as legislation, market initiatives and voluntary practices are important in ensuring co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in protected areas.

It is also clear that when petroleum development takes place in protected areas especially in developing countries, a number of weaknesses became apparent (Rosenfeld et al., 1997; Phillips, 2002; Koziell and Omosa, 2003; Ruiz-Marrero, 2003; Kasoma and Tushabe, 2009; Kashambuzi, 2010; United States Agency for International Development, 2011): • Environmental legislation becomes outdated, uncoordinated or overtaken by events and requires adaption to accommodate the needs of the emerging oil and gas industry, and to be based on international legislation, global industry standards and guidelines (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). • Existing policies and laws may overlap and cut across a diverse range of institutions for their implementation which requires clear definition of roles and closer coordination of institutions for effective functioning of the oil and gas industry (Kasoma and Tushabe, 2009). • Difficulties may be experienced in monitoring and enforcing protected areas legislation because of lack of resources, intense pressures on regulatory institutions, and the politicization of natural resource issues (Koziell and Omosa, 2003). • Sometimes the institutional frameworks for implementation of the policies are weak, coupled with lack of political will for environmental monitoring and enforcement (United States Agency for International Development 2011). • Confusion occurs over the respective roles and responsibilities of government institutions, CSO, communities and the petroleum companies in land-use planning and management (Koziell and Omosa, 2003). • Lack of baseline information, tools and knowledge on identifying ‘best practices’ for petroleum development in protected areas and sensitive ecosystems and where these do exist, access to them can be difficult enforcement (United States Agency for International Development 2011).. • Weak capacities of CSOs to play their role of holding government and private companies accountable (Koziell and Omosa, 2003). • Existing mistrust arising from poor industry history in dealing with environmental and socio-economic issues, as well as lack of understanding and appreciation of different value systems and world views by the different stakeholders (Koziell and Omosa, 2003). • The need to review management plans of affected protected areas to take into consideration land use change and impacts on other socio-economic activities such as tourism (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development 2010a).

As a result of such emerging challenges, oil companies working in protected areas and in sensitive environments have gone beyond regulatory compliance requirements and undertaken voluntary initiatives such as putting in place transparent processes in their operations (Shell, 2013), forming partnerships with international biodiversity organisations such as IUCN, UNEP to undertake long-term research (Shell, 2013; Total, 2013), setting stringent operating codes and

63 practices such as at Barrow Island (Chevron, 2013; Shell, 2013), following responsible industry codes of conduct in their operations and enhancing biodiversity value at such protected areas (Chevron, 2013; Shell, 2013; Total, 2013), and integrating biodiversity and social issues in environmental management systems (Chevron, 2013; Shell, 2013; Total, 2013).

2.7 Conclusion

This chapter presented the literature on the relationship between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation based on the objectives of the study. The literature was reviewed to inform on how petroleum development and biodiversity conservation could be achieved in the Albertine Graben.

The evaluation of the concept and roles of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation (Objective 1 ) shows that protected areas are important for biodiversity conservation and are established with the sole aim of conserving important ecosystems for future generations. Protected areas exist in many categories depending on the objectives for which they are established and, in theory, human activities are not permitted in some of the categories but in practice this is not the case. Given the importance of petroleum in the national development of many countries there are a number of protected areas in which petroleum development takes place, including WHS (Section 2.2.3). However, at times the revenue that accrue from petroleum development may not be well utilised by the governments of host countries:

The discovery of oil has transformed Nigeria’s political economy, and oil has for the past two decades provided approximately 90% of foreign exchange earnings and 80% of federal revenue. Nigeria also has huge reserves of natural gas, yet to be fully exploited. However, instead of turning Nigeria into one of the most prosperous states on the African continent, these natural resources have enriched a small minority while the vast majority of people have become increasingly impoverished (Ugochuku and Ertel, 2008 p139)

Petroleum development activities cause concerns where they occur in protected areas, because the industry is associated with environmental mismanagement and disruption of lifestyles of local communities. Key issues that emerge when petroleum development takes place in protected areas are impacts on biodiversity, weak legislation, lack of institutional capacity, lack of baseline information to monitor impacts, need to review management plans, land use change and impacts on other socio-economic activities such as tourism. As a result of these challenges, some oil companies working in such environments have put in place transparent processes in their operations, formed partnerships with international biodiversity organisations such as IUCN, UNEP to undertake long-term research, set stringent operating codes and practices, follow

64 responsible operations and enhance biodiversity value in such protected areas, integrate biodiversity and social issues in environmental management systems.

Evaluation of themes relating to processes and impacts of petroleum development (Objective 2) showed that while companies have made some improvements through use of appropriate technology and continuous progress on environmental performance, bad practice still exists in the sector. Review of the literature indicates that expected impacts of petroleum development that are likely to affect biodiversity conservation and communities in Uganda are biodiversity loss, impacts on wildlife, air emissions, interference of fisheries and tourism, degradation of sensitive areas, pollution, habitat fragmentation, disruption of lives of people living in the petroleum projects, etc. However, it is also argued that the significance of such impacts are likely to depend on various factors such as the legislation in place in the host nation, the technology used by the oil company andthe sensitivity of the ecosystem affected. Given the limited work done on the relationship between biodiversity conservation and petroleum development in Africa, the majority of studies on wildlife and communities used in this review were not from Africa; although they were relevant in demonstrating the impacts of petroleum development on wildlife and communities. This has left a gap in knowledge and skills to adequately understand, monitor and manage impacts of petroleum development on wildlife and communities in Africa, hence the relevance of studies such as this research in Uganda. In addition, whereas in other countries baseline information is collected before commencement of petroleum development, in the Albertine Graben activities started without baseline information which could have assisted in monitoring trends of impacts.

The exploration of relevant legislation, environmental practices and institutional capacity for addressing petroleum development in the Albertine Graben (Objective 3) draws on key themes such as the importance of legislation, environmental practices and institutional capacity in management of protected areas and regulation of petroleum development. The impacts of petroleum development on the environment and communities can be minimised by a combination of approaches such as use of regulatory frameworks, market-based approaches, voluntary incentives as well as setting conditions on loans by IFI. Legislation is shown to be important for management of environmental impacts because it ensures companies comply. However, this approach involves high administrative costs, provides little room for innovation and development of environmentally friendly technologies, as well as creating confrontation between regulators and oil companies. Furthermore, most regulations for environmental management are spread across different government entities which then require a multi- sectoral approach for enforcement and compliance. The review of legislation also indicates that once petroleum development commences existing environmental legislation in the host country can become outdated and therefore not take into consideration petroleum development issues. Undertaking petroleum development in protected areas can also create the need to harmonise the existing legislation with international initiatives such as agreements and guidelines.

In the voluntary approach the authorities set up the guiding framework within which the companies exercise flexibility in terms of technology to ensure safety and environmental protection (Sarker, 2013). It involves adopting environmental practices such as EIA, SEA, EMS, EMP environmental monitoring, auditing and reporting as well as standards developed by international oil industry associations such as OGP and IPIECA to ensure environmental management and high environmental performance. The government’s role is to enhance transparency and disclosure of information by operators so as to gauge environmental performance (Arinaitwe, 2012). In most cases petroleum companies are powerful in terms of technical capacity, research, information and influence which may not be within the regulators reach and are therefore able to innovate. Companies may also adopt the industry’s voluntary standards and codes and are more likely to be better controlled by their peers than outsiders. However, the disadvantage with the voluntary approach is that it lacks the incentives to comply and is most effective where private self-interest overlaps with the public interest. Therefore, the combination of command and control, market-based and voluntary initiatives is necessary for environmental management.

The review on roles of stakeholders in petroleum development (Objective 4) shows that a balance between petroleum development and biodiversity can be achieved if all stakeholders, including governments, private sector, CSO, development partners, host communities and financial institutions understand and recognize their roles during the petroleum development process. This can be achieved by establishing a common platform where ideas and experiences can be shared. Establishing such a platform in which all stakeholder can come together to express their views and discuss their experience is one of the challenges facing Uganda. The review shows that petroleum companies respond to regulatory and stakeholder pressure implying that the role played by all stakeholders is important to sustain such pressure to ensure continuous improvement in environmental performance management.

Petroleum companies are aware that their operations are cause of concern for the environment and the communities in which they operate as a result they are under pressure from government regulators, host communities, NGOs and the general public. Consequently, companies must understand the roles and sensitivities of the protected areas they operate in and identify the impacts of their activities and adopt the most appropriate strategies for managing such impacts. Similarly, stakeholders must play their roles as a check on companies to ensure that impacts are properly managed.

Uganda is a member of the IUCN and its protected areas follow the designated categories, particularly I-IV. For instance, two of its protected areas where petroleum development is taking place – Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth National Parks are – IUCN Category II protected areas and Kabwoya, Bugungu, Kigezi, Karuma Wildlife Reserves are IUCN Category IV

66 protected areas (Chapter 5.5). When Uganda’s national parks were established in the 1950s, permitting development of extractive industries in those protected areas was never thought of, however, the Wildlife Act (Amended 2000, Section 18, 6e) provided for ‘ any other economic activity ’ to be allowed provided an EIA was undertaken, and consent obtained from the Executive Director. There is already limestone mining in Queen Elizabeth NP, which commenced in 2008, and other energy projects already established or planned in these protected areas such as hydropower development (United States Agency for International Development, 2011). Even though petroleum development has been taking place in some of the protected areas of the Albertine Graben since 2006, there are no special considerations put in place similar to those cited above to address petroleum development issues.

Lessons from existing practice (Section 2.3.4), indicate that without any adequate measures in place it may be difficult to achieve co-existence of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation therefore there is a need to identify the factors responsible for petroleum development and biodiversity conservation.

The key themes of a) protected areas b) petroleum development c) regulation of petroleum development activities and biodiversity conservation d) roles of stakeholders are taken forward into the research methodology.

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Chapter three presents the research methodology used to study the relationship between biodiversity conservation and petroleum development in the protected areas of the Albertine Graben in Uganda. The choice of the methodology for the study was underpinned by the objectives which were informed by the literature review (Chapter 2). Section 3.2 presents the research design, while Section 3.3 explains the theoretical background and concepts for the study. Section 3.4 justifies the reasons for the choice of the Albertine Graben as the case study area, and Section 3.5 presents the range of research methods used in gathering data. Finally, Section 3.6 concludes the chapter by summarising the overall approach to data collection and analysis.

3.2 Research design

The research is designed to link the aim of the study (Chapter1.3.1), the research question (this section), the conceptual framework (Chapter 3.3.3), and the sampling strategy (Yin, 2009; Robson, 2011). The aim of the research is to assess how petroleum development can co-exist with biodiversity conservation in protected areas and factors under which such a co-existence could occur (Chapter 1.3.1). The specific objectives (Chapter 1.3.2) were to:

1. Evaluate the concept and roles of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation.

2. Analyse the process of petroleum development and synthesize the environmental and socio-economic impacts particularly on wildlife, tourism and people.

3. Evaluate the relevant legislation, environmental practices and institutional capacity for addressing petroleum development in the Albertine Graben.

4. Assess the roles of stakeholders participating in petroleum development and protected areas management.

5. Develop recommendations that promote co-existence of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in protected areas.

Consequently, the key research question was ‘ Can impacts of petroleum development be managed in a protected area without compromising the ecosystems and communities that depend on it?’

This question was particularly relevant following the controversy that surrounds petroleum development in protected areas (Chapter 2.2.4). As observed in Chapter 2.5.2, the responses of

68 petroleum companies to manage impacts of their activities depend on legislation and stakeholder pressure (Frooman, 1999; Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999; Buysse and Verbeke, 2003; Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2012). Drawing on the aim, objectives and the literature review (Chapter 2), the study uses ecosystem approach, the stakeholder theory and Driver-Pressure- State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003) (Section 3.3.2) to identify the factors for co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation.

3.3 Background and concepts

This section explores the ecosystem approach (systems thinking) as one of the approaches to sustainable development (United Nations, 1987) for integrating petroleum development as an economic project with potential impacts on biodiversity in protected areas of the Albertine Graben while promoting the long-term sustainability of the ecosystem of the area and taking into consideration the social needs of the people. The section is informed by the literature reviewed to understand the relationships between petroleum development, biodiversity conservation, impact identification, stakeholder roles and how to ensure co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation (Chapter 2.7). The section then explains why the DPSIR framework was the preferred conceptual framework for the study.

3.3.1 Ecosystem approach

The strategy of integrating ecosystems – all organisms in an area and the physical environment with which they interact – with economic and social needs in a sustainable way is known as the ecosystem approach (United Nations Environment Programme/Convention on Biodiversity/Conference of Parties/5/23, 2000; Chapin et al., 2002). A report by UPEP/CBD/COP/5/23 (2000) on Convention on Biodiversity defines the ecosystem approach as:

“A strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. It is based on the application of appropriate scientific methodologies focused on levels of biological organization which encompass the essential processes, functions and interactions among organisms and their environment. It recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of ecosystems ” (United Nations Environment Programme/Convention on Biodiversity/Conference of Parties/5/23, 2000 p104).

The ecosystem approach is based on the ecosystem concept (Chapin et al., 2002) which is the interaction between organisms and their environment as an integrated system (Chapin et al., 2002). Therefore, the application of the ecosystem approach and Driver-Pressure-State-Impact- Response (DPSIR) framework (Section 3.3.3) for this study is underpinned by the relevance of the framework in linking the issues of economic development that present challenges for the environment and how people react to manage the changes. The DPSIR framework captures these complex issues in a logical and holistic manner.

3.3.2 The stakeholder theory

In dealing with issues of addressing petroleum development in protected areas or sensitive ecosystems, the ecosystem theory is complemented by the stakeholder theory. This theory emphasises the role played by stakeholders in the management of impacts and is linked to the DPSIR framework through the ‘responses component’ (Sections 3.3.3 and 3.3.5) – which consists of making demands for environmental responsibility, formulation of legislation, application of environmental practices and building institutions (Chapters 2.3.4, 2.4 and 2.5).

According to this theory, one of the roles stakeholders perform to organisations is to demand organisations to address the environmental and socio-economic impacts of their projects on the environment and communities so as to ensure sustainable development (Hart, 1995). Consequently, the stakeholder theory argues that a company’s adoption of environmental practice to manage the impacts of its activities on the environment is as a result of both regulation (2.4.1) and stakeholder demands (2.5) (Freeman, 1984; Frooman, 1999; Buysse and Verbeke, 2003; Delmas and Toffel, 2004; Jones, 2010; González-Benito et al., 2011; Garcés- Ayerbe et al., 2012).

Therefore, without any regulation or stakeholder demands any organisation’s responses to environmental changes can be one, or a combination, of the following (Freeman, 1984; González-Benito et al., 2011; Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2012):

i) Inactivity – take no action and ignore the changes to the environment; ii) Reactivity – wait for something to occur and respond; reaction must be triggered by an external stimulus such as stakeholders demands, regulations; iii) Proactivity – predict the potential changes that will occur and prepare the firm for the change; iv) Interactive – try to engage all stakeholders actively in trying to find solutions to environmental problems.

The majority of petroleum companies adopt both reactive and proactive approaches (Freeman, 1984; Hart, 1995). The proactive response can be described as the willingness of the company to do more than just comply with legislation or the industry standards, and go beyond such

70 requirements (voluntary initiatives) (Darnall et al., 2010; Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2012). However, continued demands from stakeholders are necessary to reinforce the continuity of the environmental proactivity by the company (ibid).

Proactive environmental practices include implementing environmental policies (Jones, 2010; Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2012), utilising internal assessment tools such as benchmarking and accounting procedures, establishing environmental performance goals, public disclosure of environmental performance information (Hart, 1995; Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2012), performing internal and external audits, training employees in ways to improve the environment and linking employee compensation to environmental performance (Welford, 1998). By implementing these practices companies can improve their environmental performance (Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2012). Therefore, it is argued that the response of petroleum companies to adopt environmental management practices for management of the environment will depend both on legislation in Uganda and harmonising stakeholder demands in a manner which is satisfactory to all the parties involved. The stakeholder theory reinforces the importance of stakeholder responses in the DPSIR framework.

3.3.3 DPSIR conceptual framework

The choice of relevant framework for this study was important because a conceptual framework guides in collection of relevant data for a study – in this case collection of data for study of relationship between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation (Miles and Huberman, 1994). Therefore the choice of the DPSIR framework was appropriate because it recognises the relationship between environmental, social and economic issues similar to the ecosystem approach (Section 3.3.1) and guided in collection of relevant data for the identification of factors of co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation. The framework was used to assess the drivers and pressures of petroleum that impact on the ecosystem (Section 3.3.4) so that holistic management approaches can be designed to mitigate such impacts rather than single sector interventions (Section 3.3.1). In addition, the use of DPSIR framework was justified by its previous use in related studies (European Environment Agency, 2007; Mace and Baillie, 2007; Maxim and Spangenberg, 2009; Maxim et al., 2009) to structure and analyse information to indicate the relationship between human development and the environment.

According to this system analysis view Driving Forces , i.e. the underlying social and economic developments, induce Pressures on the environment and, as a consequence, the State of the environment changes. These changes in the condition of the environment can have Impacts on human health, ecosystems and materials that can lead to societal Responses that feedback on the driving forces, pressures, state or impacts directly through adaptation or curative action (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003) as illustrated in Figure 3.1.

The DPSIR framework, therefore, appropriately captures and structures the reasons for exploration of petroleum by oil companies and the process for its exploitation, in this study and presents these issues in a logical manner. For instance, the reasons for search for petroleum (increased demand, high price, and energy security) are captured by ‘ Driving forces or Drivers’, petroleum development activities (exploration, operation, production and decommissioning) are represented by ‘ Pressures ’, state of biodiversity (abundance and distribution of species, status of threatened species, status of ecosystems) as ‘ State ’, impacts of petroleum development activities (changes in abundance and distribution of species, loss of species, health issues and concern for well-being of communities) as ‘ Impacts ’, and stakeholder actions (legislation, institutions, environmental practices) captured as ‘ Response ’.

Figure 3.1 The DPSIR framework for reporting on environmental issues

Driving Forces e.g. causes Pressures e.g. pollutants

Responses e.g. policies & targets State e.g. quality

Impacts e.g. species loss

Source: Gabrielsen and Bosch (2003)

The origin of the DPSIR framework can be traced back to the Stress–Response framework developed at Statistics Canada in the late 1970s which was based on ecosystem behaviour (Rapport and Friend, 1979). In the 1990s, this approach saw further development by, among others, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD 1991, 1993) and the United Nations (1996, 1999, and 2001). The DPSIR framework was first elaborated in its present form in two studies by the European Environment Agency (EEA, 1995; Holten- Andersen et al., 1995).The DPSIR framework is grounded in the assumption that causal relationships exist between its different components (Section 3.3.1).

Due to its simplicity, it is also widely emphasized as an interdisciplinary communication tool. A presumed strength of the DPSIR framework is that it captures, in a user friendly manner, the key relationships between factors in society and the environment and therefore can be used as

72 a communication tool between researchers from different disciplines as well as between researchers, on one hand, and policy makers and stakeholders on the other (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003; Svarstad et al., 2008).

The DPSIR framework was chosen for this study because it is a conceptual framework that describes environmental problems and their relationships with the socio-economic domain in a policy meaningful way (Maxim et al., 2009). Its development drew on ecosystem behaviour (Rapport and Friend, 1979) similar to the ecosystem approach (United Nations Environment Programme/Convention on Biodiversity/Conference of Parties/5/23, 2000) which in turn was founded on the system theory (Section 3.3.1). The use of DPSIR as a conceptual framework has also been widely tested in various studies and has shown proven utility in understanding the genesis and persistence of environmental problems (Carr et al., 2007; Svarstad et al., 2008). The framework is used to structure information and convey messages on interrelations between ecosystems, economic development and social aspects (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003).

3.3.4 Weaknesses of the DPSIR framework

Despite its strength and flexibility, the DPSIR framework has been criticized. One short coming is that this framework creates indicators that are used as basis for analysis without taking into consideration the changing dynamics of the system(s) in question (Rekolainen et al., 2003). According to Carr et al (2007) the DPSIR framework cannot capture trends except by repeating the study of the same indicators at regular intervals and ignores non-human drivers of environmental change. The framework is also criticized for not illustrating clear cause–effect relationships for environmental problems as well as suggesting linear, unidirectional causal chains in addressing environmental problems that defy such description or analysis (ibid).

According to Carr et al. (2007), these criticisms rest on a misunderstanding of DPSIR, because it is not meant to be a model, but a means of categorizing and disseminating information related to a particular environmental challenge. The DPSIR framework, and its predecessors, had the original goal of identifying appropriate indicators for the measurement and evaluation of environmental problems, not the elaboration of cause–effect relationships that lead to these problems. Similarly, Karageorgis (2006) pointed out that to understand the cause–effect relationships related to a particular environmental issue, one must focus on the links between the different categories (Driver, Pressure, State, Impact, Response), and it is in this focus that the application of specific social science or physical science models becomes appropriate. However, the weaknesses of the DPSIR framework are not relevant for this study because the issues of petroleum development activities are specific and involve a number of stakeholders whose views are all included in the study. The study also covers both environmental and socio- economic concerns and according to Svarstad et al (2008) one way of addressing the

73 weaknesses of the DPSIR framework is to pay adequate attention not only to the state of the environment, but also to the state of social matters which are indeed adequately covered in this study.

3.3.5 Petroleum development in protected areas and DPSIR framework

In order to reduce the consequences of petroleum development on biodiversity and communities it is important that relevant pressures and impacts of petroleum development in protected areas are identified. Like any other pressures causing biodiversity loss in ecosystems, it is important to analyse the driving forces of petroleum development as well as the pressure and impacts of petroleum development on biodiversity and the resulting impacts on, and possible responses from, society. Based on such analysis, policies and strategies can be developed to reduce the anthropogenic impacts on biodiversity by modifying the trends in the underlying causes. Figure 3.2 gives the modified DPSIR framework used in this study based on those developed by Smeets and Weterings (1999) and Gabrielsen and Bosch (2003). It incorporates involvement of stakeholders in the decision making process, and socio-economic assessments as well as reaching compromises (through trade-offs) as suggested by Maxim et al. (2009) and Svarstard et al. (2008). These modifications address the weaknesses of the DPSIR framework discussed in Section 3.3.3.

Driving forces of petroleum development

Driving forces are changes in social, economic and institutional systems (and/or their relationships) which trigger, directly and indirectly, pressures on biodiversity (Maxim et al., 2009). Driving forces are understood as the social needs that require the existence of a given economic activity (Figure 3.2). These are socio-economic processes that have direct impacts on the environment (Carr et al., 2007). Drivers are influenced by global and national factors, are difficult to control and managed through legislation and also best practice initiatives. Drivers as reasons for petroleum development in protected areas (part of objective 2) were explored using literature (Section 3.5.1), document analysis (Section 3.5.2) and semi structured interviews (Section 3.5.4). Background information on the economic importance of drivers is given in Chapter 2.3.1 and the consideration of drivers in relation to the Albertine Graben is presented in Chapter 4.2.

Figure 3.2 A framework for linking drivers, pressures and responses as a socio-ecological system for assessment of impacts of petroleum development on protected area ecosystem.

Protected Area State (Biodiversity)

Drivers of Ecosystem Oil and gas Increased demand Increased price Energy security Genes Species Revenue

Pressures Exploration Impacts of petroleum Operations Production Biophysical and Decommissioning Socio-Economic S t a k e Impact Evaluation h Decision Evaluation o l d e Trade-offs between r Conservation and s Petroleum Development

Responses Regulations Institutions & Environmental Management Practices

Source: Modified after Smeets and Weterings (1999) and Gabrielsen and Bosch (2003)

In Figure 3.2 ‘ drivers ’ (quest for petroleum) lead to ‘ pressures ’ (search and development of petroleum). Boxes for drivers and pressures are shown in yellow to indicate that they are fairly well understood. Pressure acts on biodiversity (protected areas) (green box) leading to changes in ‘state’ – ‘impacts ’ (light-blue box). Impacts are evaluated (light blue box) and appropriate types of ‘responses ’ (green box) developed by stakeholders (grey box) to manage the impacts. Some impacts are tolerated so that the development can occur (trade-offs) light blue box. The bold arrows in Figure 3.2 show the main focus of the study .

Petroleum development as a pressure on biodiversity

Pressures are defined as consequences of human activities resulting from driving forces which have the potential to cause, or contribute to, adverse effects (impacts) (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003; Maxim et al., 2009). An example of pressure is petroleum development (Carr et al., 2007). The environmental pressure (activities) resulting from petroleum development are a function of two types of variable: (i) the level of the activities undertaken, and (ii) the type of technology used in the development (Smeets and Weterings, 1999; Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003).

Therefore petroleum development activities vary from one location to another and in this study they were studied using literature (Section 3.5.1) for description of the process; semi structured interviews (Section 3.5.4), focus groups (Section 3.5.5) and direct observations (Section 3.5.6) for their consequences on the biodiversity and communities of the Albertine Graben. An introduction to processes of petroleum development as pressures is summarised in Chapter 2.3.2 and the results of the study specific to Uganda’s context is explored in Chapters 4.4 and 4.5.

State of biodiversity and potential changes due to petroleum development

The state of biodiversity is defined as the quantity and quality of biological features (measured within species, between species and between ecosystems), of physical and chemical features of ecosystems, and/or of environmental functions, vulnerable to pressure(s) in a certain area (Maxim et al., 2009). The state is the condition of the environment and is not static but reflects the current trends of the particular environment (Carr et al., 2007). The intensity of the pressure acting on the state depends on the nature and extent of the driving forces and also on other factors which shape human interaction with ecological systems. In turn the impacts that affect ecosystems and human health are due to modifications of the state resulting from the activities. Figure 3.2 indicates that petroleum development activities act on biodiversity which result in a change of state of the environment. Biodiversity in the protected areas of the Albertine Graben are represented by three levels – ecosystems, species and genes. However, it takes some time for impacts of petroleum development on genes to manifest; hence the study focused on impacts on species and ecosystems on which some impacts may show immediately. The state of the biodiversity in the Albertine Graben (objective 1), the actual and likely changes on the biodiversity and communities were explored using the methods of literature review (Section 3.5.1); semi structured interviews (Section 3.5.4), focus groups (Section 3.5.5) and direct observations (Section 3.5.6). A review of literature on the general management and importance of protected areas is given in Chapter 2.2 and the specific findings on the state of the environment in the Albertine Graben are discussed in Chapter 5.

Impacts of petroleum development on biodiversity and communities

Impacts are changes in the environmental functions negatively affecting the social, economic and environmental dimensions, and which are caused by changes in the state of biodiversity (Maxim et al., 2009). For example, the changes in the physical, chemical or biological state of the environment determine both the quality of ecosystems and the welfare of human beings. In other words, changes in the state may have environmental or economic ‘impacts’ on the functioning of ecosystems, their life supporting abilities, and ultimately on human health and on the economic and social performance of society. The impacts of petroleum development on the biodiversity and the communities are assessed and mitigation measures suggested before the development takes place; represented by the box ‘impact and decision evaluation’. Evaluations may involve trade-offs – compromises between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation; in Figure 3.2 trade-offs are indicated by the box ‘trade-offs between conservation and petroleum development’. In ideal situation, the decision making process for petroleum development should involve stakeholders to ensure co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation denoted by the ‘stakeholder box’. Impacts of petroleum development (Objective 2) on biodiversity in the Albertine Graben were assessed through semi structured interviews (3.5.4), focus groups (3.5.5) and direct observations (3.5.6). Results of the analysis of impacts in the Albertine Graben are presented in Chapter 6.

Responses to address challenges of petroleum development

A response can be a policy action, environmental management practices or voluntary initiatives initiated by institutions or groups (politicians, managers, consensus groups) which is directly or indirectly triggered by the societal perception of impacts and which attempts to prevent, eliminate, compensate, reduce or adapt to them and their consequences (Maxim et al., 2009). Therefore a response by society or policy makers is the result of an undesired impact and can affect any part of the chain between driving forces and impacts (ibid). For the petroleum industry, management of the activities and impacts can be through regulations and adoption of environmental practices (Objective 4). Responses were studied using the literature review (Chapters 3.5.1); semi structured interviews (Section 3.5.4), focus groups (Section 3.5.5) and direct observations (Section 3.5.6). The Literature reviewed on responses is given in Chapters 2.4 and 2.5, and discussions on appropriate current responses for the Albertine are presented in Chapters 7, 8 with future responses articulated in Chapter 9.

3.4 Selection of the Albertine Graben as a case study

A case study is purposive and at times is theory driven (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Yin, 2009). The Albertine Graben was selected as a case study because of the overlapping (occurrence of petroleum reserves within the protected areas) nature of petroleum reserves and the protected areas of the Albertine Graben so as to examine whether the two sectors could co-exist without compromising each other (National Environment Management Authority, 2010). The Albertine Graben is important for biodiversity conservation and the communities living in the area also depend on the biodiversity for their livelihoods (ibid). Therefore the study was undertaken within the ecological, social and economic context of the Albertine Graben (Section 3.4). According to Robson (2011) ‘A case study is a strategy which involves an empirical investigation of a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of evidence (Robson, 2011 p. 136). A case study always occurs in a specified social and physical setting (Miles and Huberman, 1994).

This case study on petroleum development in the Albertine Graben was based on management of petroleum development in Uganda in the period 2009-2013 and expresses situation on the ground in that region at that particular time (Blaxter et al., 2001). The analysis and description of the study are grounded in deep and varied sources of information and which also uses quotes of key participants to express views that create mental pictures of the real situation which is typical of a case study (Hancock and Algozzine, 2006).

The field work was undertaken in seven protected areas located in the three districts of Hoima, Buliisa and Kanungu. The protected areas selected were those with active petroleum development activities at the time of the research (2009 – 2013). Studies were also undertaken in two non Albertine Rift districts of Kampala and Wakiso where head offices of participating government institutions and national NGOs were located. The protected areas and districts of the Albertine Graben selected for the study are shown in Table 3.1.

3.5 Research methods

A mixed method research approach was used, which is defined as one that involves the collection and analysis of both qualitative and quantitative data (Punch, 2009). The rationale for using both qualitative and quantitative methods is to combine the strengths and overcome the weaknesses of the two methods (Punch, 2009).

Table 3.1 Districts and protected areas selected for the study

Protected Area Size Location Management IUCN PA International Petroleum Other Other Drivers 2 (km ) agency category Status development sectors stage Murchison Falls NP 3893 Masindi, Buliisa, UWA II Important Exploration and Tourism Hunting Appraisal Hydropower Amuru Districts Bird Area, Fishing development Ramsar Site Bugungu WR 501 Buliisa District UWA IV Exploration Tourism Poaching Encroachment Cattle grazing Karuma WR Masindi District UWA IV Exploration Tourism Poaching Encroachment Cattle grazing Kabwoya WR 200 Hoima District UWA IV Exploration and Tourism Hunting Appraisal Hydropower development Queen Elizabeth NP 1978 Kasese, Bushenyi, UWA II Biosphere Reserve; Exploration Tourism Poaching Rukungiri and Important Fishing Mining Kanungu Districts Bird Area, Ramsar Encroachment Site Maramagambo 443 Bushenyi and NFA/UWA IV/II Biosphere Reserve Exploration Poaching CFR 10 Rukungiri Districts Kigezi WR 256 Rukungiri and UWA IV Exploration Tourism Poaching Kanungu Districts

Source: Author See Table 2.1 for the definitions of IUCN protected area categories

10 Maramagambo is part of Queen Elizabeth National Park and Kigezi Wildlife Reserve.

3.5.1 Literature review

Literature was reviewed at global, regional and national levels to give context to the themes covered (Figure 3.3) which were based on the objectives of the study. The literature review provided the foundation for the topic of interest and focused the study (Hart, 2003). Information was gathered from journal articles, books, reports, websites, press releases as well as other relevant sources to establish published material on the subject. The literature review also helped in establishing the current level of knowledge on petroleum development and biodiversity conservation.

3.5.2 Document acquisition and analysis

During the study documents such as books, journals, reports, Acts of Parliament, policies newspaper articles and proceedings of conferences were obtained from various sources and the World Wide Web. In addition, requests for specific documents and reports on petroleum development were made to UWA, WCS, PEPD, NFA, WWF and NEMA. The importance of documents as evidence is that they can be used to corroborate and augment evidence from other sources of data collected through interviews and direct observations. In that regard, documents play an explicit role in any data collection process in undertaking a case study research (Yin, 2009). Consequently, during the field work in Uganda, effort was made to search for relevant documents from the institutional libraries of UWA, NEMA and PEPD to clarify and support the data collected during the interviews and the direct field observations.

The documents also augmented some information given by the interviewees which was felt to be sensitive, such as wildlife kills caused by the waste pits. In cases where documentary evidence was contradictory rather than corroborative, such as the number of drilled wells, or whether some wastes in particular areas had heavy metals or not, follow-up telephone calls, conversations, electronic mails or further meetings were scheduled with the appropriate respondents. In analysing documents care was taken to note that particular information was written at a specific time and for specific audiences and to achieve specific goals and objectives (Mason, 2002; Yin, 2009). The review process was therefore critical (Table 3.2) and care was taken that documents reviewed, together with some secondary data analysed, were relevant. Information from literature was corroborated by comparison with data collected through interviews and direct observations. A limitation was that some documents could not easily be accessed by the researcher from some government institutions and oil companies, because such information was deemed to be too ‘sensitive’ to be given out. Some civil society organisations were also not comfortable sharing their information because of the rivalry that existed among the different civil society organisations.

Table 3.2 An example of literature analyses and management to address study objectives

Reason for Document Source Author Aim of the Relevance to Methods How Conclusions of the Comments review Type &Title study the topic in used for convincing is study question the the information study Understand Journal Biological Rabanal et To assess Studied Transect Transect count is Seismic activity had a Authors claim that impacts of Conservation al (2010). Oil the impacts whether counts a scientific negative impact on this is the first study petroleum 143: 1017- prospecting of species would method. Study certain large rainforest- to investigate the development 1024 and its petroleum respond to duration was for dwelling mammals impacts of seismic on wildlife impacts on on loud noise six months and through substantial exploration large exploration produced by was done temporary habitat activities on wildlife rainforest wildlife. the dynamite before, during avoidance. Seismic in a tropical mammals in exploration by and after seismic operations had a rainforest but there Loango avoiding areas using counts of greater effect for large is a similar study by National of high-impact signs along mammals compared to Kolowski & Park in and difference transects to smaller territorial Alonso 2010 . Few Gabon in activity obtain encounter mammals whose studies have patterns. rates movements were more conducted impact restricted. Wildlife of terrestrial seismic responses to oil exploration on exploration are mammal complex, and future populations or any studies should therefore aspect of attempt to incorporate ecosystem. additional elements of response behaviours and evaluate other types of human disturbance.

Source: Author

3.5.3 Acquisition of other materials

Requests for primary data and other unpublished materials were made to UWA, WCS, PEPD, NFA, WWF and NEMA for data such as animal counts, tourist numbers, locations and number of drilled wells, cartographic data for analyses and further mapping. Similarly, electronic mails were exchanged with staff at the IUCN Headquarters and European Union and individuals who have undertaken research in similar fields. Data for world oil consumption, world crude oil prices and growth of Africa’s proven oil reserves were obtained from BP website. Data relating to Ugandan energy consumption, biomass usage and percentages of products were extracted from annual reports of MEMD. Data for species richness and rankings were obtained from WCS, while that used for protected area rankings were from the website of the Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Data for tourism numbers were obtained from UWA while shapefiles for maps were acquired from NFA, UWA and PEPD.

3.5.4 Site visits to Uganda

A preliminary field visit was undertaken from July to August 2010 to identify key stakeholders in the petroleum development process in Uganda, and recruit stakeholders for interviews and focus group discussions. Identification of key stakeholders was important to gain knowledge of their roles and relationships in the petroleum development process (3.3.2). This trip was also used to identify institutions with relevant data sources for the study such as cartographic data, petroleum development data, as well as data on tourism and wildlife. The trip also provided opportunity to acquire permission with the relevant institutions so that the study could be undertaken in Uganda.

The trip for the main data collection process took place from December 2010 to April 2011. During this trip interviews, focus group discussions and field visits were undertaken. The final trip which was undertaken in April 2012 was to make clarifications on information which was not clear during the analyses or to counter check information.

3.5.5 Semi structured interviews

The interview method is one of the most important data sources of a case study (Kvale, 2007). For this study, the interviews were based on a set of open ended questions (Appendix 5) developed to gain insights into the petroleum development process and to fulfil the overall aim and the objectives study so as to ensure the co-existence of the petroleum sector and biodiversity conservation in the Albertine Graben. According to Mason (2002) interviews of individuals or groups allow the researcher to attain rich, personalised information on a subject.

The first set of three interviews was treated as a pilot to make adjustments to the interview guide (Appendix 5) and the interviewing process.

A semi structured interview approach was used based on a set of questions derived from the overall aim, objectives and the DPSIR conceptual framework (Appendix 5). The interviews included officers from central government, local government, oil companies’ officers and heads of civil society organisations directly involved in the petroleum process. Their positions included directors, commissioners, technical project officers, environment officers, and heads of departments. As Kvale (2007) put it ‘ the interview is a uniquely sensitive and powerful method for capturing the experiences and lived meanings of the subjects’ everyday world. Interviews allow the subjects to convey to others their situation from their own perspective and their own words ’ (Kvale, 2007 p11).

Participants were consulted at least a week prior to the interview date by use of a letter, electronic mail or a telephone call to confirm availability and willingness to participate in the study. On the day of the interview the aim and objectives of the study were explained and a consent form was given to participants to read and sign before the start of the process. Interviewees had the option to opt out if they did not want to participate. Interviews were recorded using a sound recorder.

During the study 41 interviews involving 52 respondents representing central government institutions (25), local government offices in districts that had petroleum development activities (5), private sector developers (14), and civil society organisations represented by two international NGOs (4) as well as two local NGOs (2), a consultant and a member of parliament were undertaken. Out of the 41 interviews held, five were group interviews (four with government institutions and one with CSO) (Appendix 3). All stakeholders were chosen based on their knowledge and experiences of the industry. These were stakeholders who were directly involved in the oil and gas process, whose activities were affected by the petroleum development process and communities living in and around the protected areas. Almost half of the stakeholders interviewed represented the central government institutions through the nine government entities participating in the environmental management process of petroleum development. The detailed list of all the 52 stakeholders interviewed, their job titles, professional roles and dates of the interview are given in Appendix 3.

3.5.6 Focus groups

In addition to interviews, eight separate focus groups were held once in each of eight villages directly affected by the petroleum development in the Albertine Graben (Table 3.3). A focus group is a group interview based on particular topic involving an open-ended group discussion guided by the researcher (Robson, 2011). One advantage of this method is that it does not

discriminate against people who cannot read or write, and it can encourage participation from people reluctant to be interviewed on their own or feel that they have nothing to contribute during an interview (Robson, 2011).

Focus groups were organised through the local government offices in the districts, petroleum company offices and local council offices (the lowest administrative structure at the community level). During the meeting, community members were asked to comment on the petroleum development processes in their areas specifically their experiences with environmental management practices particularly (EIA), impacts and mitigation, compensation, social development, employment, land issues and their expectations from GoU and petroleum companies. Participants shared their experiences, knowledge and experiences with the researcher and the discussions were recorded using a sound recorder.

Table 3.1 Focus groups held in villages of Albertine Graben

Name of district Name of village No of people Date Buliisa Ngwendo 15 12/04/2011 Buliisa Kichoke 22 12/04/2011 Buliisa Wansoke 18 12/04/2011 Buliisa Kijumbya 20 13/04/2011 Buliisa Oribo 19 13/04/2011 Hoima Kaiso 10 15/04/2011 Hoima Kyero 8 15/04/2011 Rukungiri Rwensama 5 21/04/2011 Source: Author

3.5.7 Direct observations

Field visits were undertaken to assess impacts of petroleum development on the biodiversity, protected areas and the communities. A case study takes place in the natural setting of the ‘case’ therefore it is an opportunity for direct observations which are a source of evidence in a case study (Yin, 2009). For instance, direct observations were useful for assessing a range of issues: the number and types of wildlife species attracted to and killed by, waste pits; gauging the conditions of waste pits and restored sites; soil erosion; and distributions of introduced exotic species.

3.5.8 Data analysis and interpretation

The study used both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data consisted of primary and secondary data obtained from various institutions (Section 3.5.3). Names and positions of the participants were kept anonymous and the data stored in safe places with restricted access through pass words or by lock and key. At the time of analysis of the interview transcripts, 84

issues of bias, poor recall, and inaccurate articulation were minimised by corroborating the interview data with use of documents and sometimes direct observations (Yin, 2009).

Interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed and coded. These were then analysed using the content analysis method to identify themes or categories. According to Hancock and Algozzine (2006) qualitative data should be analysed based on themes or categories to show impacts, behaviour and events rather than prove relationships or test hypotheses.

Table 3.2 Examples of analysis of the qualitative data from interviews

Objective Text from interview Emerging DPSIR category component Evaluate the I think petroleum development and biodiversity National driver for Driver concept and roles conservation could co-exist because under our petroleum of protected areas current economy, nobody is going to say no to development in as tools for money since we need the money for development. protected areas biodiversity But if somebody were to provide alternative conservation options to petroleum development and revenue generation then the government may think otherwise Analyse the One of the key areas that we wanted to know was Waste Pressure process of the source of the heavy metals. We tried to ask management petroleum whether the source could be the cuttings, development and formation water or the additives. synthesize its impacts

Evaluate the The department has always wished to carry out a Importance of State concept and roles comprehensive economic valuation study of the biodiversity of protected areas Lake Albert to determine the economic worth of as tools for the lake so that the value of petroleum biodiversity development could be compared with that of conservation fisheries. Analyse the One of the impacts of petroleum development is Impacts of Impacts process of that wild animals such as the Uganda Kob get petroleum petroleum attracted to the drill sites especially at night and development on development and reasons for this behaviour are still not understood. wildlife synthesize its Similarly Nile Crocodiles were attracted to waste impacts pits at drill sites located at about 10km from River Nile and we still do not have explanations. Assess the role of Yes the local people should be empowered to Role of Response stakeholders and monitor and communicate the impacts. stakeholders contributions Representatives of CSO and the leaders of the communities should be trained so as they are able to recognize and report on any changes. They should be brought on board.

Source: Author

The identification of themes for analysis was based on the concept of protected areas, impacts of petroleum development, legislation and environmental practices, roles of stakeholders which were then related to the components of the DPSIR framework (driver, pressure, state, impact and response).

Data analysis consisted of familiarisation with data, identification of thematic framework, indexing, charting, mapping and interpretation (Ritchie and Spencer, 2002; Robson, 2011). Familiarisation was achieved by listening to the recorded interview, reading the interview transcripts for several times and corroborating the information with observational field notes and 85

the literature review (Yin, 2009). The identification of themes for analysis was based on the concept of protected areas, impacts of petroleum development, legislation and environmental practices and roles of stakeholders (Table 3.4). Mapping (relating the text to the objectives and the conceptual framework) was achieved by grouping the issues and themes as drivers, pressures, state, impacts and responses (components of the DPSIR framework) (Figure 3.2), followed by providing explanations and developing strategies to fulfil the aim and objectives of the study (Ritchie and Spencer, 2002). The preliminary findings of this study were presented at the International Association of Impact Assessors (IAIA) 2012 at Porto, Portugal for further feedback on the findings.

Figure 3.3 Linking objectives, DPSIR components, methods used and chapters of the thesis

OBJECTIVES DPSIR METHODS USED CHAPTERS COMPONENTS

Objective 1 Environmental • Literature review Chapter 2.2 Evaluate the state • Document analysis Chapter 5 concept and roles • Interview of protected • Field visit areas as tools for • Focus group biodiversity conservation

Objective 2 Drivers, Pressures, • Literature review Chapter 2.3 Processes of Impacts and • Document analysis Chapters : 4, petroleum Responses of • Interview 6, 7 development and petroleum • Field visit its impacts on development • biodiversity and Focus group communities

Objective 3 Responses • Literature review Chapter: 2.4 Evaluate the (current) to issues • Interview Chapter: 2.5 relevant of petroleum • Focus group Chapter : 7 development Chapter: 8 legislation, • Field visit environmental practices and institutional capacity for petroleum development

Objective 4 Responses • Literature review Chapter 2.5 Roles of (current) to issues • Interview Chapters : 7, stakeholders in of petroleum • Focus group 8 petroleum development • Field visit development and

protected area management

Objective 5 Responses (future) • Literature review Chapters : 9 Recommendations to issues of • Findings of the study for co-existence petroleum Ou development

Source: Author

3.7 Conclusion

This chapter described the research design and methods used in the study. The choice of mixed method strategy was based on the aim and objectives of the study to ensure co- existence of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation. The use of both qualitative and quantitative methods has the advantage of combining the strengths and overcome the weaknesses of the two methods. Figure 3.3 links the objectives of the study to the DPSIR component and the methods used to study each of the components to achieve the objectives. The research used a number of research methods to fulfil the different objectives of the study as well as to corroborate and augment other sources of information that were generated during the study. The Albertine Graben was selected as a case study because of the overlapping nature of petroleum development blocks and the protected areas of the Albertine Graben so as to examine whether the two sectors could co-exist without compromising each other. Drawing on the DPSIR framework, the following chapters examine ‘drivers and the pressures’, ‘state’, ‘impacts’ and ‘responses’ of petroleum development.

4. DRIVING FORCES AND PRESSURES OF PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT

4.1 Introduction

In this chapter the first two components of DPSIR framework (drivers and pressures) are examined to understand the role of ‘drivers’ as human needs that influence petroleum exploration and development. The ‘drivers’, also known as ‘driving forces’, trigger human activities that exert ‘pressures’ on the environment. These pressures are some of the factors that determine co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation.

The information presented in this chapter is based on literature review, document analysis and field observations (Chapter 3.5). In Section 4.2, drivers at global, regional and national levels are examined and Section 4.3 outlines the history of petroleum development in Uganda. The processes of petroleum development adopted by Uganda are discussed in Section 4.4. In Section 4.5 the pressures created by petroleum exploration and development are analysed while Section 4.6 concludes the chapter.

4.2 Driving forces of petroleum development

Driving forces are changes in the social, economic and institutional systems (and/or their relationships) which trigger, directly and indirectly, pressures on biodiversity (Maxim et al., 2009). Driving forces are understood as the social needs that require the existence of a given economic activity. These are the factors that make it necessary, or attractive, for governments and oil companies to look for more petroleum, are difficult to control and can only be managed. These factors are discussed at global, continental and national levels.

4.2.1 Global drivers

At the global level, the drivers for petroleum development are due to increased world demand (Falola and Genova, 2005) (Figures 4.1); record high oil prices that have stimulated unprecedented levels of new oil and gas exploration and extraction (Figure 4.2) (Finer et al., 2008), and reduction of oil and gas production in mature traditional regions that has led the petroleum industry to explore in new areas (Carter et al., 2006), and innovations in petroleum extraction technology like hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling (Bridge, 2008; Bebbington and Burry, 2009). Another driving factor is the opportunity for petroleum reserve replacement and petroleum reserve growth as a result of upstream competition (Bridge, 2008). Finally, the continued turbulence in the Middle East, the rise of international terrorism and focus on energy security has made it necessary to focus exploration and production elsewhere.

Figure 4.1 World oil consumption from 1980 – 2010

100000

90000

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000

30000

Thousand million barrels of daily oil 20000

10000

0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Years

Source: Based on data from British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy (2011)

Figure 4.2 World crude oil prices per barrel from 1980 – 2010

120

100

20 Crude pricesoil perbarrel in $ US

0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Years

Source: Based on data from British Petroleum Statistical Review of World Energy (2011)

4.2.2 Drivers for Africa

Africa is the main continent in the world with frequent and substantial new finds of oil and gas. Africa’s proven oil reserves rose from 53.3 billion barrels in 1980, to 132.1 billion barrels in 2010 (Figure 4.3); 10% share of total world reserves (Petroleum, 2006; Petroleum, 2011). The largest reserves are in Libya and Nigeria, which account for 3.4% and 3.0% respectively of world reserves (Petroleum, 2011). In the past 20 years, oil reserves in Africa grew by over 25%, while gas grew by over 100% (African Development Bank & African Union, 2009) . Africa’s rich oil fields and the prospects for more discoveries have transformed it into an important player and a key ‘target’ in global oil production and resource extraction (African Development Bank & African Union, 2009). The quality of Africa’s crude oil is ‘light’ and ‘sweet’ which means it is viscous and low in sulphur, and therefore easier and cheaper to refine (Ghazvinian, 2007). Africa is surrounded by water which cuts transport-related costs because existing sea-lanes can be used for quick and cheap delivery without the need to build expensive pipelines (ibid). Most sub-Saharan African countries operate on the basis of production sharing agreements (PSA), in which a foreign oil company is awarded a license to look for petroleum on the condition that it will assume the up-front costs of exploration and production. If oil is discovered in a block, the oil company will share the revenues with the host government, but only after its initial costs have been recouped (ibid).

Figure 4.3 Growth of Africa's Proven Oil Reserves from 1980 – 2010

140

120

100

ThousandMillion Barrels ofOil 20

0 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Years

Source: Author’s compilation based on data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy (2011)

Until recently, sub-Saharan oil-producing countries were not members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), apart from Nigeria. Thus, they have not been subjected to the strict limits that OPEC imposes on its members in an attempt to keep the price of oil artificially high (de Oliveira and Ali, 2006).

4.2.3 Drivers for Uganda

At the national level, energy security is one of Uganda’s drivers because it is a land locked country in East Africa. Uganda imports all its petroleum needs which by 2010 stood at 847,603m 3 and estimated to have cost US $320 million per annum (Government of Uganda, 2010). This amount constituted about 8% of total national imports and represented just over 20% of total export earnings (Government of Uganda, 2010). The petroleum products are mainly imported through the port of Mombasa in Kenya, a distance of 1300km, and the port of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania, which is even further from Kampala making Uganda vulnerable because of dependence on Kenyan and Tanzanian ports. There is also a need to reduce use of biomass in Uganda in the form of fuel wood, charcoal and residues (e.g. rice and coffee husks), which accounts for over 90% of total energy consumed and is unsustainable. The current evidence suggests a reduction in biomass use (Figure 4.4) as a result of increase in consumption of petroleum products (Figure 4.5). Therefore, demand for more electricity is another important driver; Uganda has one of the lowest electricity consumption per capita in the world, estimated at 69.5 kWh per capita in 2009. This is significantly lower than Africa’s average of 578 kWh per capita and the world average of 2,752 per capita (Government of Uganda, 2010). Uganda will need to generate 14,670 MW by 2025 to deal with estimated consumption of 1872 kWh per capita in 2025 (Government of Uganda, 2010). It is expected that part of the petroleum produced in the first and second years of production will be used for power generation (Imaka, 2011).

Revenue that will accrue from the exploitation of the petroleum resource is a powerful driver for Uganda. The expected government revenue at peak production is expected to be over US $2 billion per year. By way of comparison, government revenue without oil production in 2008 was US$2.6 billion and GDP was US$14 billion (World Bank, 2010b). Another driver is the big political capital the current National Resistance Movement (NRM) government attaches to the petroleum development process and it will therefore ensure that the process takes place while it is still in power so that all the credit goes to the NRM government (Guweddeko, 2011).

Figure 4.4 Total biomass used in Uganda, 2003 – 2010.

Total percentageof biomass used 88

87 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 Years

Source: Based on Ministry of Energy Mineral Development Annual Report (2011)

Figure 4.5 Percentages of petroleum products and electricity used 2003 – 2010

5 Petroleum 4 Electricity 3 Total Percentages consumed 2

0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2010 Years

Source: Based on Ministry of Energy Mineral Development Annual Report (2011)

4.3 Petroleum exploration in Uganda – past and present

Generally, the history of petroleum activities in Uganda can be categorized into the following stages: the preliminary exploration stage of 1927-1945, the stagnation stage of 1945-1980, and 1980 to date (Kashambuzi, 2010; Petroleum Exploration and Production Department, 2011a). The preliminary exploration period from 1927 to 1945 reported oil seepages in the region, and one deep well of 1227m was drilled at Waki B1 near Butiaba in 1938 by the Johannesburg- based African European Investment Company (Kashambuzi, 2010). This well encountered some hydrocarbon and showed presence of petroleum but was not tested.

Several shallow wells were also drilled in the areas of Kibiro and Kibuku during the 1940s and 1950s for stratigraphic purposes. There was then a period of limited or no activity between 1945 and 1980 largely due to the Second World War, colonial policy and political instability in the country (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008).

The revival period started from 1980 with the acquisition of aeromagnetic data over the entire Albertine Graben. Government commenced systematic training and capacity building of staff in petroleum related studies in the late 1980s. In 1985, the Petroleum Exploration and Production Act was enacted (amended in 2000), followed by the Regulations in 1993. In 1991, the Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (PEPD) in the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) was established. The first commercial discovery of oil in Uganda was in January, 2006 at Mputa-1 by Hardman and Energy Africa/Tullow Oil plc. After this discovery the business risk of exploring for petroleum in Uganda was reduced considerably and the Albertine Graben changed from being a frontier area, to an area with the potential to become a petroleum province. At this point, Government put a halt to licensing for petroleum exploration in the country with a view to introducing a new regulatory framework to take into consideration the reduced business risk and other aspects relevant for the desirable development of the sector (Muloni, 2011). For details of the history of petroleum exploration in Uganda see Appendix 4.

In 2013, the Albertine Graben was subdivided into ten Exploration Areas (EA) (Figure 4.6). The operating companies are Tullow Uganda Limited, Total Exploration & Production Uganda B.V. and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) Uganda Limited (Petroleum Exploration and Production Department, 2011a). Twenty one oil and gas field discoveries have been made so far, with five of these now at field development stage. The volume of petroleum is estimated at 3.5 billion barrels of oil equivalent, with about 1 billion barrels recoverable (Petroleum Exploration and Production Department, 2013). Over US $1.7 billion has been invested in the sector since 1998 (Petroleum Exploration and Production Department, 2013a).

Figure 4.6 Petroleum exploration blocks of the Albertine Graben

Source: Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (2013b)

A feasibility study for the development of a refinery in the country was completed in early 2011 by Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. The plan is to start with an initial refinery producing about 20,000 barrels of oil per day (bopd) which could be in place in the next three to four years and expand this up to 60,000 bopd immediately thereafter. Further expansion of 120,000 bopd and later to 180,000 bopd is planned when more resources are confirmed in the country (Petroleum Exploration and Production Department, 2011b).

4.4 Process of petroleum development in Uganda

Uganda follows the general approach of the oil and gas extraction industry which according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2001) can be classified into four major processes: (1) exploration, (2) well development, (3) production, and (4) site abandonment.

Exploration involves the search for rock formations associated with oil or natural gas deposits, and involves geophysical prospecting and/or exploratory drilling. Well development occurs after exploration has located an economically recoverable field, and involves the construction of one or more wells from the beginning to either abandonment if no hydrocarbons are found, or to well completion if hydrocarbons are found in sufficient quantities. Site abandonment involves plugging the well and restoring the site when a recently-drilled well lacks the potential to produce economic quantities of oil or gas, or when a production well is no longer economically viable.

4.4.1 Seismic survey

Seismic method is a petroleum exploration method in which sound energy is put into the earth using a source at specified points along a relatively straight survey line. The sound energy reflects off subsurface sedimentary rock layers and is detected by many sensors arranged along several kilometres of the survey line in 2-Dimensional (2D), or over several square kilometres in the case of a 3-Dimensional (3D), and recorded (Hyne, 2001). Line preparation may involve cutting vegetation prior to surveying the data point and sensor locations. As recording progresses along the survey line, the sensors are moved to new positions along the survey line by crews using vehicles or helicopters. The data are processed by computer to map the underlying strata and help define the size and shape of any geological structure worthy of further investigations (Exploration & Production Forum, 1993).

Picture 4.1 Shot-hole seismic line equipment in Buliisa District, Uganda

Source: Author

Several methods are available to generate the acoustic waves but the method used in Uganda for onshore surveys is the shot hole. This method involves the detonation of small explosive charges placed in small diameter holes drilled to a depth ranging from one to thirty metres (Picture 4.1). Prior to commencement of the seismic survey an access road to the exploratory block may be required as well as a base camp constructed to support the activities. A typical base camp is self-supporting and provides workforce accommodation, canteen facilities, communications, vehicle maintenance and parking areas, fuel handling and storage areas, and provision for collection, treatment and disposal of wastes. There may also be a helipad or airstrip especially for remote and difficult places to access (Exploration & Production Forum, 1993).

4.4.2 Exploratory drilling

Once a promising geological structure has been identified, the only way to confirm the presence of hydrocarbons, and the thickness and internal pressure of a reservoir is to drill exploratory boreholes (wells). The location of a drill site is dependent upon the characteristics of the underlying geological formations. Modern drilling techniques allow some flexibility in choice of location, allowing consideration of both environmental protection and logistical needs, while still reaching the reservoir development objectives (Exploration & Production Forum, 1993). When a decision is made to drill, a site is constructed to accommodate drilling operations and support services. For offshore operations, a drilling barge, semi-submersible drilling rig or a drilling ship

is used to provide all of the functions associated with drilling of the well. For onshore drilling the type of site construction is dependent on seasonal constraints, site sensitivity and geography. However, in general a self-contained support camp will be constructed. The camp will have a derrick (Picture 4.2), drilling mud handling equipment, power generators, cementing equipment and provision for collection, treatment and disposal of wastes and provision of other services mentioned in Section 4.4.1. Drilling rigs and support equipment are normally divided into modules to facilitate transportation.

Depending on access roads, site location and module size and weight, drilling rigs may be moved by land, air or water transportation (Exploration & Production Forum, 1993). The conventional process of drilling for oil and gas wells uses a rotary drill bit that is lubricated by drilling fluid or mud. During the process a system of pipes, flexible hoses and pumps draw drilling fluid from nearby tanks or mud reserve pit. Mud is made up of a base fluid (water, diesel or mineral oil, or a synthetic compound), weighting agents (most frequently barium sulphate [barite] is used), bentonite clay to help remove cuttings from the well and to form a filter cake on the walls of the hole, lignosulfonates and lignites to keep the mud in a fluid state, and various additives that serve specific functions. The drilling mud is also used to serve other purposes like controlling subsurface pressures, stabilize the well bore, and carry the drill cuttings (rock fragments generated by the drill bit) to the surface, (Exploration & Production Forum, 1993; Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Drilling mud is pumped from the surface through the hollow drill string, exits through nozzles in the drill bit, and returns to the surface through the annular space between the drill string and the walls of the hole. As the drill bit grinds downward through the rock layers, it generates large amounts of ground-up rock known as drill cuttings which become entrained in the mud flow and are carried to the surface.

In order to return the mud to the re circulating mud system, and to make the solids easier to handle, the solids must be separated from the mud. Historically, the drilling industry has used primarily water-based muds (WBM) because they are inexpensive. The used mud and cuttings from wells drilled with WBM can be readily disposed of onsite at most onshore locations (Exploration & Production Forum, 1993; Environmental Protection Agency, 2001; Oil and Gas Accountability Project, 2005). The risk of uncontrolled flow from the reservoir to the surface is further reduced by using blowout preventers, a series of hydraulically actuated steel rams that can close around the drill string or casing to quickly seal off a well. Steel casing is run into completed sections of the borehole and cemented into place. The casing and cement provide structural support to maintain the integrity of the borehole, isolate underground formations, and protect usable underground sources of water. Where a hydrocarbon formation is found, initial well tests are conducted to establish flow rates, formation pressure and the physical and chemical characteristics of the oil and gas (Exploration & Production Forum, 1993; Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).

Picture 4.2 A drilling rig in Kabwoya WR in the Albertine Graben

Source: Author

4.4.3 Field development and production

Development and production operations are conducted to extract the oil and gas from the reservoir. A small reservoir may be developed using one or more exploratory wells. Further development of the reservoir may require additional wells. A production facility may be required to separate store and transport produced fluids. The size and type of the installations needed for storing, separating and transporting oil, gas and water will depend on the nature of produced fluids and the export option selected. These options include transport by road, water-way, pipeline or some combination of these (Exploration & Production Forum, 1993).

Production is the phase of the petroleum industry in which well fluids are extracted, separated, treated, measured and prepared for delivery. It may also refer to the amount of oil or gas produced in a given period. The first step in production is to complete the well and start the well fluids flowing to the surface. Stimulation techniques may be used to enhance the flow of fluids during well completion. Once the fluid begins flowing, it must be separated into its components of oil, gas and water (Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). Finally the oil and gas are treated, measured and tested before being transported to the refinery. In addition to extracting and transporting the oil and gas, other tasks carried out during the production stage include: production enhancement, which uses techniques similar to those used to stimulate wells; well servicing, which includes routine maintenance operations such as replacing worn out or malfunctioning equipment; well work-over, which is more extensive equipment repair (Oil and Gas Accountability Project, 2005). 98

During the production phase there are also routine operations that include monitoring, safety and security inspections and periodic down-hole servicing using a wire line unit or work-over rig. In some areas, a self-contained base camp with similar functions mentioned in Section 4.4.1 will be required. The operator will be able to extract only a portion of the oil present using natural pressure and simple pumping. A range of enhanced recovery methods, including water-flood, gas injection and methods employing chemicals, gases heat may be used to increase the efficiency of oil production (Exploration & Production Forum, 1993).

4.4.4 Site abandonment

Site abandonment involves plugging the well and restoring the site either when a recently-drilled well lacks the potential to produce economic quantities of oil and gas or when a production well is no longer economically viable. The goal of this procedure is to prevent fluid migration within the wellbore, which could contaminate aquifers or surface water (Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). When a previously producing well is plugged, the down-hole equipment is removed and the perforated parts of the wellbore are cleaned of fill, scale and other debris. A minimum of three cement plugs are then placed at different levels. The first is pumped into the perforated (production) zone of the well, in order to prevent the inflow of fluid.

A second plug is placed in the middle of the wellbore. A third plug is placed within a couple hundred feet of the surface. Additional plugs may be placed anywhere within the wellbore when necessary. Fluid with an appropriate density is placed between the cement plugs in order to maintain adequate pressure. During this process, the plugs are tested to verify plug placement and integrity. Finally, the casing is cut off below the surface, capped with a steel plate welded to the casing, and at onshore sites, surface reclamation is undertaken to restore natural soil consistency and plant cover (EPA, 1992).

4.5 Pressures of petroleum development

Pressures are defined as consequences of human activities which have the potential to cause or contribute to adverse effects (impacts) (Gabrielsen and Bosch, 2003; Maxim et al., 2009). The actual undertaking of the petroleum development process as resource extraction is therefore considered as a pressure (Carr et al., 2007). This section discusses the process of petroleum development as pressure; how these development activities change the state of the environment to cause impacts is discussed in Chapter 6.

4.5.1 Pressures during seismic surveys

Pressures during seismic surveys include activities such as line preparations and creation of access roads which means clearance of vegetation and destruction of crops and property. 99

Seismic surveys also use a relatively large workforce and generate acoustic waves. The process also involves construction of facilities (e.g. camps, airstrips), establishment of fuel storage and handling area and generation of wastes. The first seismic survey in the Albertine Graben was in 1998 in Exploration Area 3 (currently unlicensed as EA3B, C and D) and since then 20 seismic surveys have been undertaken (Muloni, 2011).

4.5.2 Pressures during exploratory and appraisal well drilling

Activities during exploratory and appraisal well drilling entails creation of access roads, establishment of a camp, platform preparation, movement of rigs, 24-hour lighting, and noise and vibrations during drilling. Other activities involve generation of mud and drill cuttings, land take, vegetation clearance and ground stabilisation and blow-outs that result in oil spills. By the end of 2011, about 40% of the Albertine Graben was explored and there were 64 exploration and appraisal wells drilled, with 58 encountering oil and/or gas. More than 20 of these wells are located in protected areas and will be developed for production (see Table 4.1).

Table 4.1 Oil wells drilled in the protected areas of the Albertine Graben by 2010

Exploration Well Protected Operator Year Well Type Status of Area Type Area Drilled discovery

EA2 Mputa-1 Kabwoya WR Hardman 2005 Exploration Oil and gas Petroleum EA2 Mputa-2 Kabwoya WR Tullow Uganda 2006 Appraisal Oil EA2 Nzizi-1 Kabwoya WR Tullow Uganda 2006 Exploration Oil and gas EA2 Nzizi-2 Kabwoya WR Tullow Uganda 2007 Appraisal Oil and gas EA2 Mputa-3 Kabwoya WR Tullow Uganda 2007 Appraisal Oil and gas EA2 Mputa-4 Kabwoya WR Tullow Uganda 2007 Appraisal Oil and gas EA2 Ngege-1 Murchison FNP Tullow Uganda 2008 Exploration Oil and gas EA2 Karuka-1 Bugungu WR Tullow Uganda 2008 Exploration Oil and gas EA2 Mputa-5 Kabwoya WR Tullow Uganda 2009 Appraisal Oil and gas EA2 Karuka-2 Bugungu WR Tullow Uganda 2009 Appraisal Oil EA2 Awaka-1 Murchison FNP Tullow Uganda 2009 Exploration Dry EA2 Nzizi-3 Kabwoya WR Tullow Uganda 2010 Appraisal Oil and gas EA1 Jobi-1 Murchison FNP Heritage Oil 2008 Exploration Oil and gas d EA1 Rii-1 Murchison FNP Heritage Oil 2008 Exploration Oil discovery EA1 Mpyo-1 Murchison FNP Heritage Oil 2010 Exploration Oil discovery EA4B Ngaji-1 Queen Dominium 2010 Exploration Gas shows Elizabeth NP Petroleum

Source: Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (unpublished)

The Buffalo-Giraffe wells located in Murchison Falls NP are possibly the largest onshore field discoveries in sub-Saharan Africa, exceeding over 400 million barrels of oil (Figure 4.7).

100

Figure 4.7 Location of Buffalo-Giraffe Wells in Murchison Falls NP

--- Ramsar site boundary

The Delta

(Source: EIA Report for Buffalo-1 Well, Heritage Oil and Gas Ltd) This was the case in Murchison Falls NP at Buligi Tourism Zone and Pakuba Lodge Concession. UG_11 observed the following on the importance of site selection: We want to avoid as much as possible the visual intrusion that could affect tourism in the park. There is one exploration well that was supposed to be drilled right on the tourism circuit but we talked to the oil company officials to shift the position a bit. They have agreed and are now preparing the site next to the tourism trail instead. There is also another exploration well which is proposed just down Pakuba Lodge which is a concession to another person and that would violate the rights of the concessioner. So we are discussing with the oil companies the alternative of drilling the well from across the river and do a directional drilling. The good thing is that the company officials are a bit flexible but you know you can reach a level of flexibility and then you cannot flex any more (Government Officer, UG_11). If such exploratory wells prove to be productive it would mean that the area would have to be closed until the well has completed its production life. Hence, alternative tourism zones would be necessary as part of the mitigation to allow for co-existence. There is therefore a need for consensus among petroleum companies, conservationists, communities, and government Source: EIA Report for Buffalo-1 Well (Air Water Earth, 2008)

101

Workers’ camps and other facilities, such as access roads, were also constructed during the exploration stage. Drill site selection can be an important decision to make, particularly in protected areas, because the company’s preferred site may be near tourist accommodation, on tourism trails or close to a wildlife resource such as a watering site or mating area for wildlife.

4.5.3 Pressures during field development and production

Pressures during the field development and production are caused by drilling of more wells, establishment of production facility, generation of wastes, laying of pipelines, establishment of a refinery, transportation of the extracted oil and gas to the refinery, generation of wastes, gaseous emissions, water abstraction and routine maintenance of the facilities.

4.6 Conclusion

This chapter illustrated the driving forces of petroleum exploration and development as triggers of activities for petroleum development. At the global level the important drivers are the increased world demand for petroleum products, high oil prices, reduction of reserve volumes in traditional areas, innovations in petroleum extraction technology and continued turbulence in the Middle East (Chapter 4.2.1). Meanwhile at the continental level, Africa’s driving forces are the encouraging prospects for oil finds; easy access to European and American markets, favourable contractual agreements offered by sub-Saharan African countries, quality of the oil, and partly due to some of the African countries not being members of OPEC (Chapter 4.2.2). At the national level Uganda, is motivated by issues of energy security, the need to increase electricity production, prospect of revenue accrual from the petroleum development and the political capital that could be realised out of the petroleum development (Chapter 4.2.3).

Petroleum activities that are considered to exert pressure on biodiversity and communities are highlighted as: a) exploration which involves the search for rock formations associated with oil or natural gas deposits; b) well development which occurs after exploration has located an economically recoverable field, and involves the construction of one or more wells and; c) site abandonment that involves plugging the well and restoring the site (Chapter 4.4). The main pressures that have been identified with the petroleum exploration stage in Uganda are physical presence, waste disposal, infrastructure development, increased demand for natural resources, pollution, habitat conversion, and introduction of alien species, as well as oil spills, poaching and vehicle traffic (Chapter 4.5). The next chapter presents the two biggest national parks and four wildlife reserves affected by petroleum development in Uganda and emphasises their importance for biodiversity conservation and tourist destinations.

102

5. STATE OF BIODIVERSITY IN ALBERTINE GRABEN AS OF 2012

5.1 Introduction

In the DPSIR framework, Maxim et al (2009) define the state of biodiversity as:

The quantity and quality of biological features (measured within species, between species and between ecosystems), of physical and chemical features of ecosystems, and/or of environmental functions, vulnerable to (a) pressure(s), in a certain area (Maxim et al., 2009 p19 ) (Chapter 3.3.2).

The Uganda Wildlife Policy (Ministry of Tourism Wildlife and Antiquities, 1999) and the Uganda Forestry Policy (Ministry of Water Lands and Environment, 2001) follow the 1992 CBD definition of biodiversity (or biological diversity) as the variability among living organisms from all sources including ecosystems, and the ecological complexes of which they are a part. Accordingly, biodiversity encompasses three levels: ecosystem diversity, species diversity and genetic diversity.

The ‘pressure’ of petroleum development activities (Chapter 4.5) affect the ‘state of biodiversity’ (this chapter) through waste disposal, physical presence, infrastructure development, increased demand for natural resources, pollution, habitat conversion, and introduction of alien species, as well as oil spills, poaching and vehicle traffic. The information presented in this chapter is drawn from, analysis of documents, field observations, focus group, interviews and literature review (Chapter 3.5). It gives an overview of the state of the biodiversity in Uganda in general, and the protected areas of the Albertine Graben in particular. Consequently, the state of biodiversity is explored at species and ecosystem levels, and the importance of biodiversity in Uganda is discussed (Sections 5.2 – 5.3). In Section 5.4 specific protected areas affected by petroleum development are presented. Section 5.5 analyses the regulation of petroleum development activities and environment management in Uganda. The final section (5.6) highlights the key issues that affect the management of the state of the environment.

5.2 The biodiversity of Uganda and its importance

Document and interview analysis indicates that the state of biodiversity in Uganda is defined in terms of ecosystem diversity, species diversity and genetic diversity (National Environment Management Authority, 2009b). Meanwhile critical areas for biodiversity conservation were assessed based on species richness, abundance, rarity, endemism and threaten species (Pomeroy and Mwima, 2002; Winterbottom and Eilu, 2006; Plumptre et al., 2007; National Environment Management Authority, 2009b).

103

5.2.1 Biodiversity at the ecosystem level

Uganda covers a total area of 241,551km 2 of which farmland is the most extensive, and tropical high forests the least extensive in surface coverage. Box 5.1 shows Uganda’s different ecosystems represented as natural and modified ecosystems. Studies that have assessed Uganda’s biodiversity have done so based on either the National Biomass Study map with 13 landscape categories (Forest Department, 2003), or the earlier analysis by Langdale-Brown et al. (1964) which determined 22 main vegetation types (with 96 subtypes) (Winterbottom and Eilu, 2006). For example, Langdale-Brown’s approach was used in the detailed study of the Wildlife Protected Area System Plan of the Uganda Wildlife Authority (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 1999). Pomeroy et al (2002) used both the vegetation map of Landgale-Brown et al (1964) and maps from the Uganda National Biomass Study (UNBS) to assess the main vegetation types supporting critical species, critical sites and useful plant resources. Critical species were those on the international Red Data lists, whilst critical sites included national parks, key forest reserves and other places identified as having particular value. Sites studied were ranked highest if they had many threatened species but were also poorly protected. The study showed that Uganda’s protected areas and wetlands were important for biodiversity conservation.

Box 5.1 Major ecosystems in Uganda

Natural Ecosystems • Mountains - high altitude moorland and heath • Forests – high altitude forests, medium altitude forests, woodlands • Savannah – composed of thickets, dominating the drier areas of the country • Wetlands – areas with impeded drainage, papyrus and grass swamps • Freshwater (aquatic) – five major lakes, 160 minor lakes and extensive river systems

Modified ecosystems • Agro-ecosystems – agriculture and agro-pastoral systems • Forest plantations – of indigenous and exotic species • Urban systems – at various urban centres

Source: National Environment Management Authority (2009)

5.2.2 Biodiversity at the species level

Uganda has high species richness and fairly known taxa are those of birds, mammals, butterflies, higher plants, reptiles, amphibians and fish (Table 5.1). These contain species that are either conspicuous 11 or are of economic importance; little is known about the less conspicuous and the ‘below ground’ biodiversity (National Environment Management Authority, 2009b). Uganda has 18,783 species of plants and animals (National Environment Management Authority, 2006b), and of globally known species harbours 4.6% of the dragonflies, 6.8% of the butterflies, 7.5% of the mammals, and 10.2% of the birds (Table 5.1) (National Environment Management Authority, 2009a). The status of Uganda’s biodiversity is summarised in Table 5.2.

11 Species that are appealing to tourists to see, or researchers for study. 104

Table 5.1 Number of known Ugandan species of fauna and flora in taxonomic groups

Taxon Total no. of species Percentage of global Number of globally in Uganda species threatened species in Uganda Amphibians 86 1.7 10 Birds 1012 10.2 15 Butterflies 1242 6.8 - Dragonflies 249 4.6 - Ferns 386 3.2 - Fish 501 2.0 49 Flowering Plants 4500 1.1 40 Fungi (Polypores) 173 16 - Liverworts 275 4.6 - Mammals 345 7.5 25 Molluscs 257 0.6 10 Mosses 445 3.5 - Reptiles 142 1.9 1 Termites 93 3.4 - Other Invertebrates - - 17

Source: National Environment Management Authority (2007)

Table 5.2 Number of extinct, threatened and other species in each IUCN Red list category for Uganda

Taxon Plants Animals EX – Extinct 0 13 EW – Extinct in the Wild 0 4 CR – Critically Endangered 3 27 EN – Endangered 4 31 VU – Vulnerable 33 72 LR/cd – Lower/ conservation depended 1 18 NT – Near Threatened (includes LR/nt – Lower Risk/near threatened) 8 18 DD – Data Deficient 8 64 LC – Least Concern (includes LR/lc – Lower Risk, least concern 1 41

Source: National Environment Management Authority (2007)

5.2.3 Biodiversity at the genetic level

There is very little genetic characterization of populations in Uganda for wild and domestic species. Hence very little information was available on genetic diversity (National Environment Management Authority, 2009a), and this aspect of biodiversity is not considered further in this study, other than in relation to broader comments about maintenance of populations.

5.2.4 Value of Uganda’s biodiversity

Stakeholders UG_8, UG_13, INGO_2 and INGO_4 argued that for the importance of biodiversity to be appreciated, it should be looked at in terms of both its ecological roles and monetary value:

105

We need to understand the role of biodiversity in terms of ecological roles. For example if you go to Mt Elgon now and you ask the government the amount of money it spends on settling victims of the landslides then they begin to appreciate the value of the forests. But at the moment it is not reflected as one of the services. Another example is the role played by wetlands in Kampala. NEMA advised the government that it will need a lot of money to clean the waste and the sewage if they killed the wetlands and the government in a hard way started to appreciate the services provided by the ecosystems. In short we are packaging the values of biodiversity in piece meals, e.g. wetlands, wildlife, timber etcetera such that we don’t have the national picture of the biodiversity existing in Uganda (Government officer, UG_8):

Similarly INGO_4 observed: Well for people to be able to appreciate the value of biodiversity they want to see figures and how those figures translate into money and whether such cash makes sense to their lives is another thing altogether but at least to appreciate that something has a value. Figures like that have been missing. Much as tourism has played a big role in this country as being a major source of foreign currency earner right from sixties we have not indicated how that tourism money has translated into changing people’s life in those areas where tourism is taking place (Head of an international NGO, INGO_4)

There have been attempts to value the biodiversity of Uganda but the significant gap in doing so has been the limited ability to assign monetary values to the many goods and services it provides (UG_13). Even though there are known standard methods for such studies, the estimates are difficult and vary a lot (Pomeroy et al., 2002). For example Howard (1995) used social-cost-benefit analysis to examine the total economic value (TEV) of Uganda’s protected areas, including the country’s national parks, wildlife reserves, and forest reserves. He estimated that the benefits were worth US$123 million annually. Emerton and Muramira (1999) estimated the total economic benefits of Uganda’s biodiversity to be US$750 million. Economic Policy Research Centre (EPRC) (2010) estimated the values of Murchison Falls NP, Karuma WR, Bugungu WR and Budongo Forest Reserve and their findings are summarised in Table 5.3.

There is also the challenge of inadequate information on the conservation sites making it difficult to justify a case for protecting the biological resources (UG_13). As a result, proponents of development projects can easily demonstrate the benefits of their projects for the economy over the conservation sites (UG_13, NNGO1).

106

We have failed to make economic sense of the biological resources such that policy makers are able to appreciate their importance in economic terms. So every time, these areas are looked at as wasted areas where any other activity can be undertaken. The conservation agencies need to create a case so that everybody is able to see how important biodiversity is to this country and also to the international community and how the resources can be used to solve the problems we think we can solve by exploiting them (Deputy Head national NGO, NNGO_1).

Table 5.3 Values of Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu and Karuma WR and Budongo FR

Ecosystem products/services Value of the Value of the service/product (Ush) service/product in US$ (1US$ = Ush 2500 Value of timber stock 146 billion 58,400,000 Non-timber products (mainly wood) 4.81 billion per yr 1,924,000 Non-wood Forest products 5.425 billion per yr 2,170,000 Medicinal and pharmaceutical value 2.21 billion per yr 884,000 Soil erosion control 13.7 billion per year 5,480,000 Tourism value 110.4 billion (2008) 4,416,0000 Carbon sequestration and storage value 3.75 billion per yr 1,500,000 Option, bequest and existence value 30-4 trillion 12,000,000,000 Relocation and rehabilitation value 114.438 trillion 45,775,200,000 Watershed protection and catchment services 26.5 billion 10,600’000 Research and education 47 million 18,800 Costs to the community 2.5 billion per yr 1,000,000 Opportunity costs for MFCA (livestock husbandry) 24.5 billion per yr 9800000 Opportunity costs for BCFR (sugarcane option) 51.4 billion per yr 20,560,000 Income of the MFC 2.2 billion (2008) 880,000 Oil reserve Value not yet - established

Source: Economic Policy Research Centre (2010) The values given in the table are gross figures and do not represent livelihood impacts

According to Moyini et al (2002) the gross returns to the national economy from biodiversity are estimated at US $63.9 billion per year and this is because agriculture, fisheries, forests, tourism and art and crafts sectors are all dependent on the biodiversity resources base. It is therefore important that ecological valuation of the biological resources be undertaken to justify its existence in the phase of economic projects like petroleum development. According to Wale and Yale (2010), despite lack of consensus on valuation of biological resources for decision making, undertaking valuation strengthens the quality of information in EIA. This is because valuation of biodiversity can serve to inform policy and reminds the relevant authorities and project proponents that biodiversity is not an open access resource as is currently assumed. Estimations during the process of valuation may not reflect the correct values of biodiversity, but can serve as indications for the minimum cost of mitigation or the minimum amount that has to be charged (Wale and Yalew, 2010). Valuation of baseline data for biodiversity can be imperative, especially for petroleum development projects, to give an indication of costs in case

107

of major accidents like oil spills, such as the case in Gulf of Mexico in 2010. For example, quantitative monetary estimates of such an exercise can be used as an indication to settle legal claims that could arise as a result of damages caused to the environment and to estimate relative cost of biodiversity.

5.2.5 Threats to biodiversity in Uganda

The principal threats to biodiversity in Uganda are habitat loss, modification and alteration, unsustainable harvesting, pollution and introduction of alien species (Winterbottom and Eilu, 2006). The rate of biodiversity loss in Uganda was calculated in 2004 to be between 10-11% per decade. While these figures are high, they are below the 1.0% yearly loss recorded for the whole planet (Winterbottom and Eilu, 2006). In 1890, forests covered approximately 10,800,000 hectares (52%) of Uganda’s surface area. By 1996, forest cover had declined to about 20%. Tropical high forest cover declined from 12% of total land area in 1900 to 4% by 2000 (Forest Department, 2003).

Similarly, there was historical loss of species such as White Rhino, Cheetah, and Oryx between 1970 and 1990 (NEMA 2009). Birds and fish species continue to decline, in both numbers and distribution, throughout the country. Most of the remaining large animals are confined to protected areas, where their numbers are small and stable, or decreasing (Pomeroy and Tushabe, 2004). However, in a few cases (e.g. Mountain gorilla, African elephant and Uganda kob), the trends show some increase, partly because of increased international attention (Pomeroy and Tushabe, 2004). There are, however, very few long term studies/monitoring programmes to keep track of trends of biodiversity in relation to the threats (UG_8).

5.3 Biodiversity conservation in protected areas of Uganda and its importance

Uganda has an extensive network of protected areas that include national parks, wildlife reserves, animal sanctuaries, and community wildlife managed by the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) (Table 5.4). There are also a large number of smaller forest reserves and central forest reserves managed by the National Forest Authority (NFA) (Table 5.5). Figure 5.1 shows the distribution of these protected areas in Uganda. UWA currently manages 10 national parks, 10 wildlife reserves and five community wildlife reserves which cover 10.5% of Uganda’s land surface (UWA, 2002). On the other hand NFA manages 506 central forest reserves (Ministry of Water Lands and Environment, 2002).

108

Table 5.4 Categories of Wildlife Conservation Areas 1 in Uganda

Category Management Description Permitted Activities Authority A. Wildlife Protected Areas 2 National Central National/International Biodiversity conservation, Park (NP) Government importance for nature and recreation, scientific research UWA landscape conservation and any other economic activity. Restricted harvesting of selected resources through special authorisation. Wildlife Central Important for wildlife Wildlife and biodiversity Reserve Government preservation, utilisation and conservation, recreation, (WR) UWA and District management. Viable size for research. Sustainable Authorities management of wildlife consumptive utilisation population. permissible. B. Wildlife Management Areas 3 Wildlife Varied Area designated for a specific Depending upon designation Sanctuaries conservation purpose, including purpose preservation of critical species. Varied size but often small. Community Communities, Jointly managed with local Alternative land-use and Wildlife Cooperatives, or communities or other bodies, in consumptive utilisation Areas Local Council order to receive direct benefits permissible when compatible (CWA) from utilisation of resources, with the conservation objectives tourism, etc. of the CWA. Wildlife Use Private Area of land containing wildlife, Landowners may be authorised Rights Area Landowner owned either privately or to use non-endangered wildlife collectively, for which use rights species, based on a have been granted to the management plan, for profit. landowner(s).

Source: Ministry of Tourism Trade and Industry (1999)

1- Wildlife Conservation Area: includes a national park, wildlife reserve, wildlife sanctuary, community wildlife area, or any other area provided for under sections 18 and 19 of the Wildlife Act 1996. 2 - Wildlife Protected Area: those conservation areas gazetted as protected areas and placed under the authority of the Ministry responsible for wildlife (does not include forest reserves). 3- Wildlife Management Area: an area which is protected for the sustainable management of wildlife in that area as provided for under Sections 18 and 19 of the Statute ______

Table 5.5 Area of forest and woodland under different categories of ownership and management in Uganda Land cover in Government land Private land Total hectares Forest National Parks Private & Total Reserves & Wildlife Customary (CFR & LFR) Reserves Lands Tropical high forest 306,000 267,000 351,000 924,000 Woodlands 411,000 462,000 3,102,000 3,975,000 Forest plantations 20,000 2,000 11,000 33,000 Total Forest 737,000 731,000 3,464,000 4,932,000 Other Cover Types 414,000 1,167,000 13,901,000 15,482,000 Total 1,888,000 1,898,000 17,365,000 20,414,000

Source: National Biomass Study (1999) CFR = Central Forest Reserve LFR = Local Forest Reserve

109

Figure 5.1 Distribution of wildlife protected areas in Uganda

KVNP MKS OFS

LOWR KCWA

EMWR MWR AWR BKWR

MFNP ICWA KWR

BUWR ACWA

PUWR KTCWA

L. Kyoga L. Albert KBWR MENP RCWA

TSWR

SNP

KINP JAS Key RNP EAS National Park KAWR Wildlife Reserve KYWR Wildlife Sanctuary

QENP Community Wildlife L. Edward Area

LMNP Forest Reserve L. Victoria KIWR Wetland/Riverine Vegetation

Water

BINP 0 50 100 150 Scale in Kilometers MGNP Parallel True to Scale: 1°

National Parks Wildlife Reserves Community Wildlife Areas Wildlife Sanctuaries BINP Bwindi Impenetrable AWR Ajai ACWA Amudat EAS Entebbe KINP Kibale BKWR Bokora Corridor ICWA Iriri JAS Jinja KVNP Kidepo Valley BUWR Bugungu KCWA Karenga MKS Mt. Kei LMNP Lake Mburo EMWR East Madi KTCWA Kaiso-Tonya OFS Otze Forest MENP Mt. Elgon KAWR Katonga RCWA Rwengara Sanctuaries in QENP/Kyambura MFNP Murchison Falls KBWR Kabwoya Kahendero QENP Queen Elizabeth KWR Karuma Kashaka RNP Rwenzori KIWR Kigezi Kayanja SNP Semuliki KYWR Kyambura Kazinga MGNP Mgahinga Gorilla LOWR Lomunga Kisenyi MWR Matheniko Rwenshama PUWR Pian-Upe Sanctuaries in QENP/Kyambura TSWR Toro –Semliki Ntoroko-Kanara

Source: Lamprey et al (2003)

110

The central forest reserves cover about 7.6% of Uganda’s land surface, out of an estimated 24% of national forest cover (Nampindo et al., 2005). The management categories for the protected areas under UWA are summarised in Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 for NFA.

Wildlife is the main product for tourism development in Uganda. The contribution of the tourism industry to Uganda’s GDP was reported to be at 12.5%, the second highest contributor after postal and telecommunications sector at 39.6% (Government of Uganda, 2010). According to the World Tourism and Travel Council (cited in Government of Uganda 2010), the contribution of travel and tourism in Uganda to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was estimated at US$1,161 million in 2008. In addition, tourism contributed 7.4% of total employment (420,000 jobs). The hotels and restaurants subsector showed a strong growth in their contribution to employment from 13,898 jobs in 2001/02 to 32,796 jobs in 2006/07 (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2010).

Wildlife based tourism and conservation programmes in Uganda directly employ over 80,000 persons. However, Government of Uganda (2010) observed that due to lack of a developed tourism management information system it was difficult to accurately estimate employment in the sector. The number of tourist arrivals increased by 65% from 512,000 in 2004 to 844,000 in 2008.

Tourism earnings provide development opportunities for the rural areas especially in the communities neighbouring the protected areas. Over 600,000 Ugandans living in parishes surrounding national parks have enjoyed a number of benefits, including sharing of revenue accruing from tourism. The Uganda Wildlife Act provides for 20% of all entry fees to directly benefit the relevant communities.

5.4 Protected areas affected by petroleum development activities

In 2012, there were seven protected areas (PA) directly affected by petroleum exploration and development activities – Murchison Falls National Park (NP) and Karuma, Bugungu and Kabwoya Wildlife Reserves (WR) in the north. In the south, petroleum exploration and development activities were found in Queen Elizabeth NP and Kigezi WR and Maramagambo Forest Reserve (FR) (Figure 5.2) (see also Table 5.6).

Hartley et al (2007) conducted a continent wide assessment of PA in Africa based on their value for conservation and anthropogenic pressure. The aims of their study were to identify PA which have the greatest value, in terms of biological resources, and those which were most threatened by human development.

111

Figure 5.2 Wildlife protected areas affected by petroleum exploration and development activities in the Albertine Graben

Study Area

Source: Author

112

Hartley et al (2007) also wanted to define a decision support system for assessing the relative threats and pressures on PA in Africa through a pressure – state – response system, where threats are ‘pressures’, biodiversity value and habitat irreplaceability are ‘state’ and decision is ‘response’. They generated species irreplaceability indicators for three taxa, mammals, birds and amphibians by, counting how many protected areas a species occurs in (n), and adding 1/n to the species index (SI) of each of those PA.

Table 5.6 Protected areas affected by petroleum exploration and development activities

Protected Area IUCN Category Other Designations Murchison Falls NP II Important Bird Area Karuma WR IV Important Bird Area Bugungu WR IV Important Bird Area Kabwoya WR IV - Queen Elizabeth NP II UNESCO MAB, IBA and Ramsar Site Kigezi WR IV Important Bird Area Maramagambo FR -

Source: Author

Habitat was characterised based on climate, terrain, land cover and human population, to create an indicator of habitat irreplaceability such that the more irreplaceable a protected area habitat is, the higher it should rank in any potential prioritisation scheme. Sites studied were given a rank of ‘one’ if the habitat was irreplaceable or was important for conservation of a particular taxon. Similarly, a PA was given a rank of one if the threat was high. The authors computed two pressure indicators to quantify threats to species within PA - by (i) estimating the population pressure in the surrounding area, and (ii) quantifying the amount of agriculture found in the immediate vicinity of the protected area. The results of their assessment for conservation values and threats for PA in Uganda affected by petroleum exploration and development are shown in Tables 5.7 and Table 5.8.

Table 5.7 Country ranking* for conservation values and threats of some protected areas in Albertine Graben affected by petroleum exploration and development activities

Rankings for Irreplaceability Pressure Mammal Bird Amphibian Habitat Agricultural Population Murchison Falls NP 6 8 7 4 13 15 Bugungu WR 12 No data 6 14 11 18 Karuma WR 17 No data 15 17 3 12 Queen Elizabeth NP 2 9 8 2 18 10 Kyambura WR 9 5 10 13 12 13 Kigezi WR 4 3 11 12 6 11

Source : Compiled by the author based on Hartely et al (2007)

*Country rankings compare the importance of a PA for a conservation value of given taxa within a country for PA studied. E.g. the most important PA for particular taxon was given a rank of 1 if it is the most important PA for the conservation of that particular taxon and so on. Similarly, a PA is given a rank of 1 if it is highly threatened by agricultural or population pressure .

113

The ‘country rankings’ Table 5.7 compare the importance of a PA for a conservation value of given taxa within a country for PA studied based on calculations extracted from Hartley et al (2007). Queen Elizabeth NP and Murchison Falls NP were shown to be important for habitat irreplaceability, while Queen Elizabeth NP and Kigezi WR were important for mammal irreplaceability.

Apart from Karuma WR none of the assessed protected areas was under severe pressure from agriculture or population growth (Table 5.8). On the other hand assessments for ecosystem irreplaceability showed that Queen Elizabeth NP, Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu WR and Kigezi WR were all important for their conservation values while Karuma and Kigezi WR could be under agricultural pressure (Table 5.8).

Similarly, Plumptre et al (2003) prioritised protected areas in the Albertine Rift based on species richness, endemism and numbers of IUCN threatened species. They gave equal weights to each of five taxa (mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and plants) they used to assess conservation value. The results of their study for protected areas affected by petroleum exploration and development are shown in Table 5.9 Plumptre et al (2003) demonstrated that Murchison Falls NP and Queen Elizabeth NP were important for species richness and IUCN threatened species.

Table 5.8 Ecosystem ranking* for conservation values and threats of studied protected areas in Albertine Graben affected by petroleum exploration and development activities

Rankings for Irreplaceability Pressure Mammal Bird Amphibian Habitat Agricultural Population Murchison Falls NP 4 9 3 2 9 14 Bugungu WR 4 No data 2 40 32 21 Karuma WR 8 No data 15 10 3 10 Queen Elizabeth NP 1 11 4 1 14 8 Kyambura WR 6 5 5 8 8 11 Kigezi WR 2 2 6 7 5 9

Source : Compiled by the author based on Hartely et al (2007)

*Ecosystem rankings compare the importance of an ecosystem within a PA for given taxa for those PA studied in Africa. E.g. the most important ecosystem for conservation of a given taxon was given a rank of 1 if it is the most important PA for the conservation of that particular taxon and so on. Similarly if an ecosystem in a PA is highly threatened by agricultural or population pressure it is given the rank of 1 for that threat.

It is costly and time consuming to measure the diversity of all species at any one site let alone at many different sites. Therefore, prioritisation studies by Plumptre et al (2003) and Hartley et al (2007) serve to indicate the importance of biodiversity conservation in the Albertine Graben and this approach could routinely be applied when assessing values of biodiversity and development projects in protected areas.

114

Table 5.9 Rankings* for species number, endemic species and IUCN threatened species for some of the protected areas affected by petroleum exploration and development

Site Mammals Birds Reptiles Amphibians Plants Species richness Murchison Falls NP 5 4 12 16 16 Bugungu WR 24 Karuma WR 14 Queen Elizabeth NP 7 2 8 21 7 Kyambura WR 18 5 20 17 Endemic species Murchison Falls NP 19 21 11 18 22 Bugungu WR 19 Karuma WR 19 Queen Elizabeth NP 19 21 11 12 12 Kyambura WR 19 21 18 IUCN threatened species Murchison Falls NP 12 6 1 14 13 Bugungu WR 25 Karuma WR 15 14 Queen Elizabeth NP 9 6 2 10 13 Kyambura WR 19 10 14 24

Source: Based on Plumptre et al (2003)

*A protected area is given a rank of one if it has the highest number of given taxon, endemic species or IUCN threatened species.

5.4.1 Murchison Falls NP, Karuma WR and Bugungu WR

Murchison Falls NP covers an area of 3,877km 2 and is the largest national park in Uganda. It is the oldest park in Uganda initially gazetted as a game reserve in 1926. Both Bugungu WR (473km 2) and Karuma WR (678km 2) lie along the southern edge of Murchison Falls NP to buffer the park (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2000b; Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2001). To the north, the former Aswa-Lolim Game Reserve and Kilak Community Hunting Area (Kilak CHA) acted as corridors for wildlife dispersal into East Madi Wildlife Reserve (East Madi WR) and Zoka Forest Reserve (Zoka FR) on the eastern side of the Albert Nile. The Victoria Nile bisects the park into ‘north and south banks’ and serves as an effective barrier to terrestrial wildlife species (Wanyama et al., 2007).

Murchison Falls NP and its adjacent wildlife reserves support a wide range of ecosystems, ranging from medium altitude tropical forest, to woodlands, savanna and papyrus wetlands. It comprises of a rolling savanna and tall grassland in the centre and north, and dense thickets in the higher and wetter areas in the south (Rwetsiba and Wanyama, 2005).

It contains an important area of Borassus Palm savanna, which is only found in East Madi WR in Uganda (Nampindo et al., 2005).

115

Picture 5.1 Murchison Falls after which the park was named

Source: Author

Picture 5.2 Rothschilds’ giraffe in Murchison Falls NP - the only viable populations found in Uganda

Source: Author

116

The national park itself is significant because of its magnificent falls where the River Nile plunges 45m below through a 6m wide in the rift escarpment (Picture 5.1). The park has the last viable breeding populations of Nile crocodile and Rothschilds giraffe (Picture 5.2) in Uganda. Furthermore, it is home to Uganda’s largest population of Jackson’s hartebeest (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2001). Together the three protected areas support over 470 species of birds, 115 species of mammals and 149 species of plants (Table 5.10).

Table 5.10 Species number, endemics and threatened species in Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu WR and Karuma WR

Taxon Species number Endemic species Threatened IUCN listed species species Mammals 115 0 5 21 Birds 476 0 7 10 Reptiles 32 0 1 1 Amphibians 18 0 0 1 Plants 149 1 5 8

Source: Based on data from Wildlife Conservation Society (unpublished)

According to Nampindo et al (2005), 16 of the bird species found in the Murchison Falls NP and its adjacent wildlife reserves have not been recorded in any other wildlife protected areas in Uganda. The stretch of the River Nile from the Falls to the Delta is a critically important fish breeding area (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2001). The three protected areas support other important big mammals including African elephant, African buffalo, hippopotamus, reedbuck, leopards and lions (Rwetsiba and Wanyama, 2005).

Poaching was the main problem in the park between1970-1990 but was significantly reduced by 2000 and large mammal populations were increasing (Lamprey and Michaelmore, 1996; Lamprey, 2000). This was attributed to improved management by UWA following the restoration of law and order in Uganda (Rwetsiba and Wanyama, 2005). In the 1960s and early 1970s Murchison Falls NP was the premier tourist destination in all of East Africa, and currently attracts the second highest number of tourists after Queen Elizabeth NP (Figure 5.3). The current tourism activities are a launch trip on the River Nile, game drives in the Buligi area with some visits made to the Delta by boat for bird watching. The ‘Buligi circuit’ provides the primary routes for vehicle game viewing although part of this area is now an oil prospect. It is important for research and recreation and has great economic potential (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2001). Murchison Falls NP and its adjacent wildlife reserves are considerably overlapped by petroleum Exploration Areas (EA) 1 and 2. As a result, a lot of petroleum exploration activity has occurred especially in the west of the park (Figure 5.4).

117

Figure 5.3 Number of tourists in Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth National Parks from 1996-2010

Source: Based on Uganda Wildlife Authority (unpublished)

Figure 5.4 Location of oil and gas wells in Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu WR and Karuma WR

Source: Based on Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (unpublished) 118

Murchison Falls NP and Bugungu WR have the Warthog, Jobi, Mpoyo (Giraffe) and Karuka Wells. There are also some wells that lie close to the boundaries (Figure 5.4). Moreover, the majority of discovered petroleum resources in Uganda (67%) are located in Block 1 (Figure 4.8) where these protected areas are located. Out of the Block 1 discoveries so far, the large Buffalo-Giraffe field represents over 90% of oil in place (available oil before the commencement of production) (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010b). The considerable overlap therefore raises a lot of concern in terms of biodiversity conservation and tourism potential because, according to the Uganda Refinery Study report (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010b), future field development plans for the petroleum resource will be based on the Buffalo-Giraffe (Jobi-Mpyo) and Kingfisher discoveries.

5.4.2 Kabwoya-Kaiso Game Management Area

The Kabwoya-Kaiso Game Management Area (Kaiso-Kabwoya GMA) consists of Kabwoya Wildlife Reserve (Kabwoya WR) and the Kaiso-Tonya Community Wildlife Area (Kaiso-Tonya CWA) (Figure 5.5). This area of 200km 2 was formerly the Kaiso-Tonya Controlled Hunting Area (Kaiso-Tonya CHA) which was established in 1963. It is relatively intact area of savanna ecosystem along the 200km stretch of Lake Albert shoreline between Toro-Semliki Wildlife Reserve in the south and Murchison Falls NP in the north. In the east it is bordered by the Albertine Rift escarpment. Kaiso-Kabwoya GMA is of great significance in maintaining corridors for genetic flow in the Albertine Rift (Lamprey and Rwetsiba, 2007; Wanyama et al., 2007).

Figure 5.5 Location of oil and gas wells in Kabwoya WR

Source: Based on Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (unpublished)

119

A study by Plumptre et al (2009) indicated that the biodiversity of Kaiso-Kabwoya GMA was recovering and a summary of their findings is given in Table 5.11. Poaching in late 1970s reduced the number of large mammals in Kaiso-Kabwoya GMA. For example, sample counts made in 1982 found that Jackson’s Hartebeest had been exterminated from the area and African buffalo and Uganda kob (Picture 5.3) numbers were very low (Eltringham and Malpas, 1993).

Table 5.11 Species richness, number of endemics and threatened species in Kaiso-Kabwoya Game Management Area

Taxon Species number AR endemic Threatened IUCN listed species species species Mammals 31 0 0 0 Birds 176 0 0 0 Reptiles 20 0 0 0 Amphibians 18 0 0 0 Plants 167 0 0 0

Source: Based on Plumptre et al (2009)

Later surveys, in 1992 (Olivier, 1992) and in 1995 (Lamprey and Michaelmore, 1996), showed further declines and the waterbuck population had been reduced to 17 individuals. In 2002, a private tourism company, Lake Albert Safaris, approached UWA to obtain a concession to manage the Kaiso-Kabwoya GMA for both tourism and sport hunting. This concession was a Tri-partite Contractual Agreement between UWA, Hoima District Local Government and Lake Albert Safaris Ltd. In 2005/6, a lodge was constructed in Kabwoya WR and surveys were made in 2006 and 2007 of the large mammal populations to assess numbers and quotas for sport hunting. Further counts of mammals by Wanyama et al (2007), Lamprey and Rwetsiba (2007) and Plumptre et al (2009) all showed that the wildlife population in Kaiso-Kabwoya GMA was recovering. In 2007, efforts to supplement the natural recovery process of wildlife was made by the USAID PRIME West Project, in conjunction with Lake Albert Safaris Ltd and UWA, that relocated Jackson's Hartebeests and Waterbucks from Murchison Falls NP into Kabwoya WR. However, by the time wildlife was beginning to recover, oil exploration started in Kaiso-Kabwoya GMA. This game management area is wholly within EA2 which represents 18% of the total petroleum resources so far discovered in Uganda (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010b). There are eight fields located in Kabwoya WR with the largest being Mputa 5 (Figure 5.5). The second largest field in EA2 is Ngassa 2 which is located offshore in Lake Albert (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010b) but its development could also impact on the Kaiso-Kabwoya GMA

120

Picture 5.3 A male Uganda kob - one of the species that has recovered very well in Kabwoya- Kaiso GMA

Source: Author

5.4.3 Queen Elizabeth NP, Kyambura WR and Kigezi WR

Queen Elizabeth National Park (Queen Elizabeth NP) and the adjoining Kyambura Wildlife Reserve (Kyambura WR) and Kigezi Wildlife Reserves (Kigezi WR) form another set of protected areas in the south where petroleum exploration and development are taking place. Queen Elizabeth NP covers an area of 2,080km 2 (the second largest park in Uganda) and was established in 1952 immediately after the enactment of the National Parks Act. It was designated as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve in 1979 because of the presence of 11 fishing villages found within its boundaries which date to the time it was gazetted in 1952 (Lamprey et al., 2003).

Large carnivores are represented by lion, leopard, and Spotted hyena. Notable primates include chimpanzee and Red-tailed monkey. In the late 1980s, intensive efforts were made to rehabilitate Queen Elizabeth NP and law enforcement patrols were effective in curbing poaching.

Queen Elizabeth NP has varied habitats such as grassland, woodland, moist tropical forest and wetlands, including both fresh water rivers and lakes and saline crater lakes. It forms a continuous links with the Virunga National Park (Virunga NP) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Kasyoha-Kitomi and Kalinzu Forest Reserves as well as Kibale National Park (Kibale NP). It is an Important Bird Area (IBA) and contains critical wetlands that support

121

migratory bird species (Byaruhanga et al., 2001). Queen Elizabeth NP and its adjoining wildlife reserves boasts of 630 bird species, 102 species of mammals and 950 species of plants (Table 5.12).

Table 5.12 Species richness, number of endemics and threatened species in Queen Elizabeth NP and Kyambura WR. Data on Kigezi WR was not available.

Taxon Species number AR endemic Threatened IUCN listed species species species Mammals 102 0 6 21 Birds 630 0 7 15 Reptiles 39 0 0 0 Amphibians 17 1 1 1 Plants 950 22 5 7

Source: Based on Wildlife Conservation Society (unpublished)

Poaching is the main problem in Queen Elizabeth NP (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2011b). The problem is exacerbated by the general design of Queen Elizabeth NP and the adjacent wildlife reserves. A large number of public roads run through the park and the adjoining wildlife reserves, such that many parts of the ecosystem are easily accessed with limited control by UWA (Nampindo and Plumptre, 2005) (Picture 5.4). There are also problems associated with the 11 villages located in the park such as human wildlife conflict and expansion of the settlements (Picture 5.5).

Approximately 11km 2 of QENP was severely impacted by heavy metal contamination from the former Kilembe Mine operation (1956–1982) northwest of Kasese town (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2000a). This was caused by contaminated drainage from the mine, mine tailings, and sulphide stockpiles. Polluted run-off from two large cobalt sulphide stockpiles close to the national park boundary left broad-leaved plants de-vegetated and sterile soils along a 10km stretch extending to Lake George (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2000a). Heavy metals were found in the affected plant tissues and it is known that wildlife graze, browse and drink water in that area (Thomassen and Hindrum, 2011). Furthermore, the Rukoki and Nyamwamba Rivers carry polluted waters from the mine and its associated tailings through the park into Lake George.This pollution threatens the northern part of Queen Elizabeth NP, the Lake George ecosystem and most importantly, human health. However, the stockpile problem was being addressed by the Kasese Cobalt Company Limited (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2000a).

Queen Elizabeth NP and the adjoining wildlife reserves are overlapped by exploration areas 4A, and 4B (Figure 1.1). Exploration area 4B was licensed to Dominion Petroleum Ltd that conducted petroleum exploration in the southern part of the park (4B) which includes Ishasha sector (where the famous tree climbing lions reside) and Maramagambo FR. In June 2010 exploratory drilling took place at Ngaji which showed no viable quantities of hydrocarbons. As of 2012 no exploration was taking place in Queen Elizabeth NP.

122

Picture 5.4 One of the many roads that criss-cross Queen Elizabeth NP

Source: Author

Picture 5.5 Kisenyi Fishing Village within Queen Elizabeth NP

Source: Lamprey et al (2003)

123

5.5 Regulation of petroleum activities and environmental management in Uganda

At the national level, management of petroleum development activities can be through the use of relevant provisions in the legal and regulatory frameworks for petroleum development and by the application of the various laws and regulations for management of biodiversity (see Chapter 2.4).

5.5.1 Legal and regulatory framework for petroleum development

By 2012, the petroleum exploration and production activities in Uganda still followed the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act 1985, amended 2000 (Government of Uganda, 1985), while the downstream petroleum activities (i.e. distribution, marketing and sale of petroleum products), were implemented based on the Petroleum Supply Act of 2003 (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). The Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Regulations, 1993 gives effect to the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act 1985. The Petroleum Act 1985, amended 2000, and the Petroleum Regulations 1993 were meant for promotion, licensing and monitoring activities and became out of date when commercial quantities of petroleum were confirmed in 2006 (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). This particular law was not guided by any policy, which necessitated the Government of Uganda putting in place a new policy for petroleum development – the 2008 National Oil and Gas Policy (NOGP). This policy is a guiding framework for managing petroleum resources in Uganda and called for many changes in the legal and regulatory framework (see Chapter 7.2.1).

5.5.2 Legislation for management of biodiversity in Uganda

The national legal and regulatory frameworks for management of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in Uganda consist of the National Oil and Gas Policy, the petroleum laws and regulations, and environmental policies, laws, regulations and other relevant tools. The overall government policy on natural resource conservation is enshrined in the 1995 Constitution of the Republic of Uganda, which provides for state protection of important natural resources such as land, water, wetlands, minerals, fauna and flora on behalf of the people of Uganda (GoU, 1995). Furthermore, there are a number of Acts of Parliament relevant for biodiversity conservation and petroleum development in Uganda. These acts include the National Environment Act 1995, which is a framework law on environment, the Uganda Wildlife Act 1996 for sustainable management of wildlife resources for Uganda and the global community. Others are the National Forest and Tree Planting Act 2003, the Fish Act 1951, the Land Act, 1998, and the Public Health Act 1935, that addresses issues of public health in the workplace.

124

There are also a number of regulations that are used for management of petroleum development activities such as the Environment Impact Assessment Regulations 1998, the Waste Management Regulations 1999, the Standards for Discharge of Effluent into Water or on Land Regulations 1999, and the Delegation of Waste Discharge Functions Instrument 1999. Others are the Wetlands, River Banks and Lakeshores Management Regulations 2000, the Mountains and Hilly Areas Management Regulations 2000, the Environmental Audit Regulations 2006, the Management of Ozone Depleting Substances and Products Regulations 2001, the Noise Standards and Control 2003, the Waste Discharge Regulations 1998, and, the Water Resources Regulations 1998.

5.5.3 Biodiversity conventions for management of petroleum activities in Uganda

The importance of relevant international biodiversity conventions for management of biodiversity is discussed in Chapter 2.4.1. There are specific international conventions for environmental management relevant for Uganda’s petroleum development. For instance, Uganda signed the World Heritage Convention in 1987 and it has two sites, the Rwenzori National Park and Bwindi National Park (Chapter 1.3). These two sites have not yet been affected by petroleum development activities as of 2012, although they overlap with the Albertine Graben. Uganda is a member of the IUCN (Chapter 2.4.1) and the IUCN calls for its member countries to ban mining in protected areas with IUCN management categories (I-IV) (Chapter 2.2.3), because such protected areas play the role of biodiversity conservation, provision of ecosystem services, tourism and research among others (Chapter 2.2.2) but as of 2012 there were seven protected areas in Uganda that were directly affected by the petroleum development process. Therefore, Uganda does not observe the IUCN Recommendation 2.82 that calls on all IUCN’s member states to prohibit by law all exploration and extraction of mineral resources in protected areas. Similarly, Uganda has twelve sites designated as Ramsar sites (Chapter 1.3) and by 2012 the likely wetland to be affected by petroleum development is the Murchison Falls-Albert Delta wetland system. Other important conventions to be observed in Uganda are UNFCCC and CBD (Chapter 2.4.1). These conventions are implemented by officers known as National Focal Points found in the relevant institutions.

5.5.4 Environmental practices for management of biodiversity

By 2012 environmental practices used in Uganda included EIA, EMS, environmental auditing and environmental reporting. Environmental impact assessment

By 2012 the main tool used for evaluation of environmental issues in petroleum development process in Uganda was environmental impact assessment (EIA).

125

Figure 5.6 Flowchart of Uganda’s EIA process

Project brief forwarded to Developer Lead Agency

Submission of project brief to the Authority Authority and Lead Agency consultation on project brief

Screen 1 Screen 2 Screen 3

Whether Whether Whether project is project adequate Certify of Approval of EIA exempt requires mitigation from EIA mandatory have been

Screening EIA incorporated

Scoping Stakeholder consultations on scope

ToR

Authority, Lead Agency and Review of ToR stakeholder consultations on ToRs

EI Study and collection Public and stakeholder of information consultations

EI Study Public and stakeholder consultations

Prepare EIS EIS

Review and comment Any further stakeholder and on EIS Lead Agency comments

Approval of EIS

Certify of Approval of EIA

Decision on project Decision making Record of decision

Action by Developer

Source: National Environment Management Authority (1997)

126

In Uganda the management of environmental impacts of oil and gas exploration and development are regulated through the National Environment Act (Government of Uganda, 1995) and the EIA regulations (Government of Uganda, 1998). Uganda’s National Environment Statute (1995) defines EIA as a “ systematic examination conducted to determine whether or not a project will have any adverse impact on the environment ” (Government of Uganda, 1995 p7). According to NEMA, (1997) ‘ The use of EIA ensures that environmental impacts are considered during conception, planning and design, as well as during implementation of development policies, projects and activities at the same time that their financial, technical and institutional aspects are considered ’ (National Environment Management Authority, 1997 p1).

The EIAs in Uganda for petroleum development follow the standard process of screening, environmental impact study and decision making as outlined in the Guidelines for environmental impact assessment in Uganda (National Environment Management Authority, 1997) and summarised in Figure 5.6. The screening phase is used to determine whether a proposed petroleum project or activity will have significant impacts on the environment or not.

The environmental impact study stage consists of scoping, development and review of terms of reference, impact assessment study and preparation of the environmental impact statement 12 (EIS). This is the stage at which potential impacts of a petroleum project or an activity are identified. It involves consultations with key stakeholders among others those likely to be affected by the project; and, offers opportunities for those affected to participate in the EIA process as well as suggest mitigation measures to address the potential impacts.

The final stage of the EIA process is when regulators make a decision on whether a developer can proceed to undertake a project or not. The final decision entails a wide range of considerations such as environmental, political and economic with some elements of trade-offs and the decisions, especially for large and controversial projects, can be taken by a minister (Mwalyosi et al., 1999). Once approved, a developer is issued with a certificate of approval of the EIA which also contains the terms and conditions the developer must fulfil during the implementation of the project.

Environmental audit for compliance

Environmental audit is one of the practices petroleum companies observe and it is a monitoring mechanism. This process can be defined as:

“------a systematic, periodic and objective evaluation carried out to determine how well a facility and its management and equipment are performing in conserving the environment and its resources; and to determine the compliance

12 Environmental impact statement (EIS) is the written report presenting the results of an environment impact study 127

status with environmental regulatory requirements, the environmental management system and the overall environmental risk of the facility” (National Environment Management Authority, 2006a).

The regulatory requirement for environmental audits is set out in Section 22 (3) of the National Environment Statute. It states that: “The operator of a project for which an Environmental Impact Statement has been made shall keep records and make annual reports to the authority describing how far the project conforms in operations and activities with the statements made in the environmental impact statement ” (National Environment Management Authority, 2006a).

Similarly, Section 22 (4) of this same Act requires the project developer to take all reasonable measures to mitigate any undesirable effects not covered in the environmental impact statement and make reports on those measures as required by the Authority. In addition, the Environmental Audit Guidelines of 1999 (Regulation 31, sub-regulation) stipulate that on-going projects and programmes undergo an environmental audit “within a period of not less than twelve months and not more than thirty-six months after the completion of the project”.

5.5.5 Institutional framework for biodiversity conservation and petroleum development

There are GoU institutions and other non-government institutions participating in the petroleum development in Uganda. The GoU institutions working to address the impacts of petroleum development on biodiversity and communities are shown in Figure 5.7.

Ministry of Water and Environment

Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) is charged with the responsibility of ensuring petroleum development activities are in tandem with the requirements for protection of ground and surface water bodies. The Ministry participates in formulation and monitoring of policies regarding protection of the environment in relation to petroleum development activities. MWE regulates water use through issuance of water permits and ensures protection of water catchment and drainage areas as well as respect for Uganda’s commitments towards cooperative frameworks for basin-wide transboundary water resource management. It is responsible for ensuring that oil companies undertake self-monitoring for wastewater effluent standards and participates in monitoring and management of oil spill emergencies (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008).

128

Figure 5.7 The overlapping nature of the institutional framework for environmental management in relation to petroleum development in Uganda

Ministry of Water and

Environment

Environmental Pillar Institutions

(Government Regulators)

Multi Institutional Environmental Monitoring Committee

(Government Regulators + one CSO)

The Executive, Line Ministries, Parliament

Development Partners, Civil Society Organisations, Host Communities, Private Sector, Media

Source: Modified after Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (2013)

Other Ministries such as those hosting Water and Wetlands, Tourism and Wildlife also make sure that petroleum development conforms to the legislation. Similarly, one of the responsibilities of Ministry of Finance is to develop and harmonise accounting standards in petroleum development as well as develop and implement the principles of Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008).

The Environmental Pillar Institutions

The Environmental Pillar Institutions (EPI) – consist of entities with mandates to manage the impacts of petroleum development on the environment and communities. These are NEMA, The Directorate of Water Resources Management (DWRM), Directorate of Environmental Affairs (DEA), NFA, UWA, Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) and Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (MLHUD).

These institutions are responsible for enforcing and monitoring compliance (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). The regulatory agencies also participate in activities such as EIA evaluation, issuing guidelines and permits. Environmental management in protected areas is spearheaded by UWA and NFA as lead agencies, but they are helped by NEMA. For example, both UWA and NFA use various tools such as legislation (Sections 5.5.2 and 5.5.3), environmental practices (Section 5.5.4) and management plans (Chapter 7.5.1) for addressing

129

the petroleum impacts. Among other duties NEMA is charged with the responsibility of issuing guidelines for SEA and harmonising national performance standards in the oil and gas sector with international standards, and ensuring monitoring and environmental audits (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). However, by 2012 most of the laws and environmental practices were deficient and requirement improvement (Chapter 7).

Multi Institutional Environmental Monitoring Committee

Multi Institutional Environmental Monitoring Committee (MIEMC) – including NEMA, PEPD, UWA, DWRM, NFA, DFR, Department of Occupational Health and Safety and District Environment Officers of affected districts.

The roles of other government institutions

Other institutions responsible for petroleum development are the cabinet, parliament, relevant ministries and regulators. According to Uganda’s National Oil and Gas Policy (NOGP) the GoU is responsible for policy formulation, implementation and regulation (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). The Uganda Cabinet authorises drafting and approval of legislation to Parliament. The Parliament of Uganda ensures that relevant legislation is formulated and performance monitored through policy statements and annual budgets.

Non-government institutions

The non-government institutions consist of oil companies, development partners, host communities, CSO, media etc. The roles played by the development partners though important are not specified in the NOGP (2008).

Petroleum companies

The petroleum companies are responsibility for protecting the environment where they work or any areas in the country that are affected by their activities, but, the GoU legislates, regulates and monitors compliance (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). Similarly, according to NOGP (2008) petroleum companies should abide by Uganda’s existing legislation as well as manage emergencies that may arise out of their activities (MEMD 2008).

Civil society organisations

Participating CSO in Uganda comprise nongovernmental organisations, universities, research institutions and the media which are playing a role in awareness raising. According to the NOGP the role of the CSO are advocacy, mobilisation and dialogue with communities. Civil society is

130

also expected to ensure accountability and participate in service delivery in communities (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008).

5.5.6 Trans-boundary petroleum development activities and biodiversity conservation

Neighbouring countries that share petroleum resource are encouraged to enter into formal agreements that can serve as framework for managing the petroleum development. For example, Uganda and Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have an agreement which can be used for developing the petroleum fields that are shared by the two countries and for management of the biodiversity. The unresolved boundary issues between DRC and Uganda is a sensitive issue and has already led to political tension that resulted into the Rukwanzi Island incidence in 2007 (Chapter 7.2.3).

5.6 Conclusion

This chapter describes the current condition and the anticipated changes of the environment in the Albertine Graben. Real and anticipated petroleum development activities that affect or are likely to affect the state of biodiversity are waste disposal, physical presence, infrastructure development, increased demand for natural resources, pollution, habitat conversion, and introduction of alien species, as well as oil spills, poaching and vehicle traffic. In 2012, there were seven PAs directly affected by petroleum development activities (Section 5.4) in the Albertine Graben and these PAs are known to fulfil the objectives for which they were created. Uganda has legal and regulatory frameworks for petroleum development and management of biodiversity (Section 5.5) but by 2012, Uganda’s regulatory framework for management of real and potential environmental impacts of petroleum development were not comprehensive enough and required reforms. As a result, petroleum development was running ahead of the strengthening of legal and institutional framework. Similarly, management plans for the affected protected areas were already put in place but were not being implemented. There are also environmental practices already in place in Uganda but more practices such as strategic environmental assessment were being undertaken to address the challenges of petroleum development. The next chapter discusses the actual and potential impacts on biodiversity and communities.

131

6. ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE ALBERTINE GRABEN

6.1 Introduction

In Chapter 4, the driving forces that influence the search for, and processes of, exploration and development of petroleum that result in pressures were presented. These anthropogenic factors act on the ‘state of the biodiversity’ (Chapter 5) and have the potential to cause or contribute to adverse effects or ‘impacts’ (this chapter). According to Maxim et al (2009):

Impacts are changes in the environmental functions, affecting (negatively) the social, economic and environmental dimensions, and which are caused by changes in the state of the biodiversity (Maxim et al., 2009 p19) (Chapter 3).

Biological impacts can refer to effects on living beings and non-living compartments of ecosystems (aquatic, terrestrial and atmospheric) (Borja et al., 2006). These changes are often ‘negative’, in the sense that they affect adversely the functioning of ecosystems relative to their potential performance (Nunes et al., 2003). Examples are genetic, physiologic or behavioural anomalies, modifications in the chemical composition of air or water, or changes in the ecosystem's functioning (e.g., primary and secondary productivity) (Edwards, 2002). The socio- economic impacts tend to focus on effects on the human systems associated with changes in environmental functions, e.g. resources provision, water and air quality, soil fertility, physical and mental health, social cohesion and displacements (Bowen and Riley, 2003; Gobin et al., 2004). The information presented in this chapter is drawn from document analysis, field observations, focus group and interviews (Chapter 3.5).

This chapter assesses the impacts of petroleum development in the Albertine Graben. Section 6.2 looks at the impacts of exploration phase on wildlife in the protected areas of the Albertine Graben, while Section 6.3 evaluates the socio-economic impacts. In Section 6.4 the potential impacts of future activities of petroleum development on biodiversity are predicted while the potential impacts on the socio-economic issues are given in Section 6.5. The final Section 6.6 concludes the chapter.

6.2 Biophysical impacts of petroleum development

Biophysical impacts are caused by infrastructural development, vegetation clearance, land-take, physical presence, exploratory drilling, waste storage and management, well testing/flaring and introduction of a large workforce. These activities result in displacement of wildlife, road kills, changes in air and water quality, pollution, fragmentation of wildlife habitats, interruption of migration patterns and increased human-wildlife conflicts.

132

6.2.1 Atmospheric emissions

Air pollution may result from venting or flaring of natural gas during well testing, oil and gas processing, pipeline maintenance operations, cavitation and hydraulic fracturing (Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). There are a number of pollutants associated with these activities and they include: volatile organic compounds (VOC), nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide carbon monoxide, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulphide, particulate matter, ozone and methane. Apart from health problems these emissions contribute to air pollution and greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). However, emissions vary widely depending on local microclimate, formation geology, type of rig and drilling technology. Flaring of produced gas is the most significant source of air emissions, particularly where there is no infrastructure or market available for the gas. This is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions and thus to global warming (Exploration & Production Forum/UNEP, 1997).

6.2.2 Impacts of physical presence on wildlife

Petroleum development in protected areas can result in either animals being attracted to, or moving from, the development sites. These changes are as a result of line clearance and surveying, construction of new access roads, drilling of short holes for dynamite use, laying of long cables, introduction of large numbers of workers, generation of noise, 24-hour lighting and establishment of camps. A study in Murchison Falls NP by Ayebare (2011) tested the occurrence of wildlife species with distance from the well pads and access roads, and found that African elephants, Uganda kob, hartebeest, African buffalo and Rothschild’s giraffe showed increased habitat avoidance around well pads. A similar study by Rabanal et al (2010) in Gabon, also indicated avoidance behaviour by African elephant and chimpanzee. Two of the mammal species directly affected by the exploration activities in Murchison Falls NP are the African elephant and Rothschild’s giraffe, categorised as ‘vulnerable’ and ‘threatened’ respectively by IUCN (2012) (Table 6.1). The Rothschild's giraffe - the mammal species with the highest threat category in the area – was directly affected by physical presence (Ayebare, 2011), but other threats mentioned for this species are poaching, and habitat loss and degradation (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2012). Edwards (2010) quoted UWA wildlife officers who said that while poachers mainly target antelopes, their traps also catch threatened mammals like Rothschild’s giraffe, lion and African elephants which had to be rescued. Petroleum development activities are associated with poaching as discussed in Section 6.2.3.

According to IUCN (2012), the Rothschild’s giraffe is one of the most imperilled giraffe subspecies remaining in the world because the population is potentially close to meeting the threshold for ‘critically endangered’ depending on the number of individuals, if any, that survive

133

in South Sudan. The estimated population of Rothschild’s giraffe in Murchison Falls NP is at 930 (2010 surveys) which is a considerable increase compared to the previous population of 245 in 2005 (Rwetsiba and Wanyama, 2010).

Table 6.1 Threatened mammals in Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu WR and Karuma WR

English name IUCN Threat PA Known threats to the species Category Rothschild’s giraffe EN MFNP Poaching, habitat degradation and armed conflicts. Eastern chimpanzee EN MFNP & Poaching, habitat destruction and QENP degradation and disease Hippopotamus VU MFNP & Poaching, habitat loss and disease QENP Lion VU MFNP & Retaliatory killing, prey base depletion, QENP habitat loss and disease Leopard VU MFNP, QENP Habitat conversion, intense persecution, & KWR poisoning of carcasses Elephants VU MFNP & Poaching, habitat fragmentation, human QENP wildlife conflict

Source: Based on IUCN (2012) Red List of Threatened Species

MFNP = Murchison Falls NP, QENP = Queen Elizabeth NP, KWR = Kabwoya WR EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable

Therefore any oil activities that will significantly affect this Rothschild’s giraffe population, whether directly or indirectly, will have detrimental impacts.

Observations made by Park Rangers in Murchison Falls NP, indicated that African elephants ran away from the areas where seismic lines were being shot despite the lack of noise from the activity (UG_10). Moreover, according to UG_10 and UG_11, it was possible that the migration routes of the African elephants could have been affected because of the location of some workers’ camps and drill sites in that park. However, this was difficult to verify because of absence of baseline information on the recent migration routes for the elephants in Murchison Falls NP and the surrounding areas (see also Chapter 5.7.5). Nevertheless, UG_10 and UG_11 reasoned that the area between Murchison Falls NP, Zoka FR and Nimule NP in South Sudan is a corridor for African elephants because the animals still use this area. As a result of elephant migrations an outpost was established at Ario Ketch to protect the communities against the elephant raids. Similarly, the communities claimed that because of the establishment of the Tangi Camp for petroleum activities, the elephants were straying into their settlements and gardens since the original migration route was blocked. In 2011, there were reports of increased elephant raids in some of the villages surrounding Murchison Falls NP (Nsubuga, 2011), but other stakeholders attribute the increase in human-wildlife conflict to the resettlement of displaced people during the war in Northern Uganda back to their original homes. Three other interviewees also mentioned increased human-wildlife conflict in the area because of crop raiding as a result of displacement of wildlife from the petroleum development areas (UG_15, NNGO_1 and ULG_2). According to ULG_2, one of the impacts of petroleum

134

exploration in protected areas could be that animals like buffaloes also moved out of the protected areas into community land. There was evidence that buffaloes avoided the drill pads up to a distance of 1km and avoidance behaviour was most manifest during drilling and seismic operations (Prinsloo et al., 2011).

No direct threats were reported for the other threatened mammals species found in the area by the end of 2011. This was expected because studies have shown that reaction of animals to impacts of petroleum development is species specific (Rabanal et al., 2010; Ayebare, 2011) which makes it difficult to predict impacts of the industry on the other wildlife species found in the same area. However, one other threatened mammal species that could possibly be affected by petroleum development as a result of infrastructure development is the Eastern chimpanzee. A study in Gabon showed that chimpanzees exhibited avoidance behaviour. The general observation associated with displacement is that animals with large home ranges do move away while those with limited ranges and territorial behaviour persist in the exploration and development areas and suffer stress (Rabanal et al., 2010). Other impacts reported as a result of physical presence were disturbance to feeding and breeding habits of wildlife (UG_11). For example, there were reports that seismic lines that passed through breeding grounds (lekking ground) for mammals like Uganda kob led to the male Uganda kobs abandoning their mating grounds (UG_11). Animal stress can lead to inbreeding and other behavioural changes that eventually lead to reduced wildlife productivity (Kerley et al., 2002). However, there are no comprehensive data to validate impacts of stress on wildlife in the protected areas of the Albertine Graben.

There are also threatened birds that occur in the petroleum development area (Table 6.2), and impacts of petroleum development on such birds are still unknown. However, some of these species could potentially be affected by hunting, nesting disturbance, water pollution, vegetation clearance, and habitat modification and degradation during the development phase (Table 6.2). For instance, it is anticipated that infrastructure development could destroy eggs, chicks and nests of ground-breeding birds as result of vegetation clearance. Another potential impact on birds is the possibility of heavy metals entering the food chain and leading to increased bird mortalities. During the exploration phase a number of birds were observed utilising the waste pits and the potential impacts of the waste on these birds are not known. The waste fluids are a major source of environmental pollution and public health concern, and exposure to these waste fluids could be a significant source of wildlife mortality.

During the development phase disturbance is likely to increase because of construction of more infrastructure like roads, pipelines, power lines and other oil production related infrastructure and maintenance of facilities which will be continuous.

135

Table 6.2 Threatened bird species in Murchison Falls NP, Bugungu WR and Karuma WR

English name IUCN Threat Protected area Known threats to the species Category where bird occurs Shoebill VU MFNP & QENP Hunting, nesting disturbance, habitat modification and burning of its habitat. Lesser Flamingo NT MFNP & QENP Land reclamation, water pollution and disturbance Pallid Harrier NT Chemical pollution, vegetation clearance, habitat loss Denham's Bustard NT MFNP Hunting, habitat loss Great Snipe NT Habitat loss African Skimmer NT MFNP Pollution which may result in toxic bioaccumulation Papyrus Gonolek NT MFNP Modification and degradation of wetlands. Black-winged Pratincole NT MFNP Habitat loss

Lappet-faced Vulture VU Chemical pollution, electrocution and nest predation by humans Lesser Kestrel VU Habitat loss and degradation Nahan's Francolin EN MFNP Habitat loss and degradation Black Crowned Crane VU MFNP Industrial pollution and construction

Source: Based on IUCN (2012) Red List of Threatened Species MFNP = Murchison Falls NP, QENP = Queen Elizabeth NP, PA = Protected Area EN = Endangered, VU = Vulnerable, NT= Near threatened

6.2.3 Impacts of vehicle traffic on wildlife

Increased vehicle traffic can lead to increased wildlife kills and injury as well as affect animal behaviour, ranging patterns and population. The increases in traffic were as a result of transporting exploration materials to the exploration sites, ferrying of oil workers and undertaking the seismic survey. These activities lead to speeding, driving off-track and cutting of new tracks in the exploration areas. UWA and UG_4 reported cases of wildlife killed by vehicles during the exploration phase in the protected areas. During a presentation to the Parliamentary Committee on Tourism, Trade and Industry on April 13, 2010, Uganda Wildlife Authority Planning and Environment Impact Assessment Coordinator, Edgar Buhanga, told MPs that several small animals as well as four large mammals were killed as a result of vehicle traffic. However, claims by UWA on wildlife kills by oil company vehicles were denied by representatives from the oil industry. Even though PS_9 indicated that small animals like Monitor lizards, snakes, frogs and toads were killed by vehicle traffic, not all the killings could be attributed to oil company vehicles because the road kills occurred on public roads. By the end of 2011 road kills were ranked second in the major wildlife mortalities in Queen Elizabeth NP (Thomassen and Hindrum, 2011). It can therefore be said that coalitions between vehicles and animals are likely lead to wildlife death although not all the road kills could be attributed to activities associated with petroleum development alone.

136

Vehicle traffic is likely to increase during the development and production phase and managing the traffic and wildlife kills could therefore become a challenge. The rate of accidents involving supply vehicles associated with oil and gas activities is also likely to rise.

6.2.4 Poaching of wildlife

According to UG_10 and UG_11 there were cases of poaching in the Albertine Graben associated with petroleum development activities. The first reported incident was the killing of a male Bohor reedbuck (an antelope) in November 2009 in Kabwoya WR by Busitema Mining Services, a company contracted by Tullow Oil. This incident was widely published in the national and international press. There was a lot of concern because the male Bohor reedbuck was previously translocated from Lake Mburo NP to mate with four females to increase the population of the reedbucks in the reserve (Tenywa, 2010). According to PS_1, the six workers of Busitema Mining Services who committed the crime were arrested and charged over this poaching.

In Murchison Falls NP, there were two reported cases of poaching. One incident involved soldiers based in a military camp established in Pakwach to guard oil workers who were undertaking exploration in that area. According to UG_10, two soldiers were arrested from the Pakwach camp with smoked meat of wild game (Picture 6.1). The second reported case of poaching in Murchison Falls NP was the arrest of a driver who was carrying a poached hartebeest in an ambulance to avoid UWA security on 30 November 2010 (Picture 6.2). The apprehended driver was working for one of the companies contracted by one of the oil companies to support exploration services in the park.

Poaching is a great threat to wildlife because it reduces animal populations and may cause species extinctions. For example, the Black and White rhinos became extinct in Murchison Falls NP, Ajai WR and Kidepo Valley NP mainly due to poaching. Apart from the poachers who were arrested, there was evidence that suggested increase in such activities in the exploration areas (UG_11). According to UWA the number of snares found in Murchison Falls NP more than doubled when oil activities increased in the park from 531 traps in 2007 to 1,357 traps in 2008, and 1,225 snares in 2009 (Edwards, 2010). Similarly, according to UWA, 33 elephants were killed in Murchison Falls NP in the past seven years with 25 of the animals killed in 2011. Moreover, such elephants were reportedly killed inside the park rather than outside in retaliation for raiding people’s gardens (Ssebuyira, 2011). The association of increased poaching with exploration activities was realised as early as 2009.

137

Picture 6.1 A soldier apprehended from the Pakwach camp with smoked meat of wild game

Source: Uganda Wildlife Authority

Picture 6.2 A poached Hartebeest transported in an ambulance to beat UWA security in Murchison Falls NP on 30 November 2010 by a driver supporting oil and gas activities

Source: Uganda Wildlife Authority

138

In November 2009, the Executive Director of UWA then wrote a letter to the General Manager, Heritage Oil rejecting a request to establish another exploration camp in Simanya in Murchison Falls NP, citing increase in poaching and road kills of wildlife as reasons for his refusal:

During your recent exploration activities we noted a rise in poaching incidences (confirming our fears and therefore earlier reservations) which were evidenced by the number of wildlife snared and number of snares collected from the area within which the exploration activities were conducted. Your exploration exercises were also associated with a number of road kills within the park as a result of over speeding . We advised that you consider options for locating the camp outside the national park (Executive Director, UWA 2009).

According to G_11, the increased poaching in the protected areas was probably due to members of the community who previously worked for oil companies during the seismic surveys in the protected areas, and therefore became familiar with the protected areas, who then turned to poaching after expiry of their contracts (there was no evidence to support this during the study).

Despite the evidence of poaching in the protected areas, the oil companies believed that these cases were isolated and should not prevent petroleum exploration and development. For example, according to PS_1, even when poaching is only isolated the general perception is that oil and gas activities lead to escalation of poaching practice especially in areas where there is wildlife. Moreover, PS_1 and PS_9 explained that there is another school of thought that increased activities in the protected areas meant that there was increased security because of the presence of game rangers, private security and military personnel that worked with them in the parks. PS_9 suggested that during exploration in Queen Elizabeth NP the insecurity and poaching on the Ugandan side of the border with DRC reduced because of the presence of game rangers and security personnel stationed with the company staff at the camp. However, the claim that the presence of oil companies in the protected areas increased vigilance and improved the security situation during the exploration phase could not be independently verified by the regulatory authorities.

6.2.5 Impacts of petroleum wastes

Exploration Phase

During exploratory drilling, wastes (mainly pieces of rock particles displaced from the earth’s crust) and drilling fluid (also known as mud) are stored in large ponds measuring about 30 metres by 20 metres (Chapters 2.4.2 and Chapters 4.4.2). During the exploratory drilling these waste pits were observed to have attracted wildlife, including mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, probably because the waste pits were mistaken for water. The concern with the 139

waste pits is that they can be source of pollution to the environment if they were to leak into the surrounding areas. The chemical mixture can be toxic because of the various chemicals used in the drilling process and can also bioaccumulate and may become non-biodegradable. However, the drilling fluid used in the Albertine Graben is the water-based mud which is cheaper and less toxic than the other alternatives (Oil and Gas Accountability Project, 2005) but still has impacts on wildlife. This is because wastes associated with the drilling fluid include oil derivatives, (e.g. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PAH). They may also contain dissolved and suspended contaminants including cadmium, arsenic, and heavy metals such as mercury, copper and lead as well as hydrocarbons, hydrogen sulphide and natural gas and drilling mud additives, many of which contain potentially harmful chemicals (e.g. chromate, barite). Muds also contain bentonite clay and other additives. Bentonite is very expansive soil material which can cause soil volume change and possibly damage to surface structures (Oil and Gas Accountability Project 2005). Furthermore, rock cuttings may also contain arsenic or metals depending on the geology (Oil and Gas Accountability Project, 2005).

Therefore waste pits can pose a health threat to livestock and wildlife, especially when animals come into contact with the wastes. Observations on the reaction of wildlife to the drill sites and the impacts of the waste pits on wildlife in the Albertine Graben varied by species. For example, in Murchison Falls NP the African elephant reacted to the abandoned waste pits by breaking fences to gain access to the waste pits especially during the dry season (UG_11). Similarly, in Queen Elizabeth NP, African elephants broke the fence at Ngaji 1 drill site twice probably to access the waste pits and water melons that were accidentally introduced in the area and were growing in the fence (PS_8). Meanwhile, other mammals like warthogs and Bush pigs tried to get to the waste pits by burrowing under the fence. Once openings were created other mammals such as waterbucks, hartebeests, oribis, Uganda kobs also found their way through the fences to access ‘water’ but at times failed to come back through the fences. In most cases these trapped mammals were stressed and their normal activities like feeding and breeding were disrupted, as well as potentially falling prey to predators and poachers. Fortunately, in most cases these animals were rescued by UWA officials before being killed by predators or poachers.

Apart from mammals, some reptiles like Nile crocodiles and Monitor lizards were also attracted to the waste pits. For example, in Murchison Falls NP four crocodiles were found in Jobii East 1 and two crocodiles at Jobii East 3 drill sites (UG_11), while in Kabwoya WR a crocodile was found at Mputa 5 drilling site (UG_11). These Nile crocodiles were rescued and taken to the original habitats from where they were thought to have originated; those rescued in Murchison Falls NP were taken to R. Nile while those found in Kabwoya WR were taken to L. Albert. Some of the rescued crocodiles in Murchison Falls NP were found at locations over 10km from R. Nile (UG_11). It was therefore suspected that the crocodiles could have moved to such locations during the wet season and remained in those areas until the dry season. According to PS_2 a similar scenario was observed in Kaiso Tonya where Nile crocodiles leave Lake Albert and 140

swim up the Hohwa River to look for food when the seasonal rivers fill up with water. Subsequently, the river dried out and the crocodiles became trapped and began to look for water and mistakenly used the waste pits. It was also possible that some of the crocodiles were nesting around the areas where the drill sites were located, especially in Murchison Falls NP, because young crocodiles were observed there.

The general observation by the researcher during this study on the impacts of waste pits was that larger mammals and Nile crocodiles were not significantly affected but the impacts on smaller reptiles and amphibians were generally fatal. For example, waste pits at Ngasa 1 drill sites were observed to have killed Monitor lizards and snakes as well as amphibians (Picture 6.3). The reptiles and the amphibians that were attracted to these pits were thought to have been killed by dehydration as a result of the chemicals used in the process and the naturally occurring salts in the rocks (P_1). In the earlier drilling operations, especially at the Turaco Wells in Toro-Semliki WR, the waste pits were not protected and in one instance in 2006 cows were observed to be drinking waste water from the unprotected pits (Picture 6.4). Fortunately the waste pits in Murchison Falls NP had not been used for storage of wastes and that could have been one of the reasons why the crocodiles were not killed.

However, one crucial lesson learnt from the unused pits in the park was that drilling of future pits in the protected areas should be undertaken in stages instead of developing them all at once to allow for understanding of specific impacts of such facilities on wildlife. Another issue with the E&P wastes is their potential to contaminate soils, groundwater and surface water courses especially if their contents leak. This is more so if the E&P waste is contaminated with heavy metals as was the case with the wastes from some wells from Albertine Graben. According to UG_19 and UG_22 there were occasions when some of the waste pits flooded because of rain water which could have increased the risk of pollution.

While it is common for oil companies to manage E&P wastes properly, they can also take advantage of weaknesses in the regulatory framework. For example, drill cuttings and waste water for Turaco exploratory wells were spread at the lease site by Heritage Oil Ltd without proper testing (Johnson, 2007). The waste pits were also not fenced off as required and attracted domestic animals (Picture 6.4). Similarly, the same company dumped E&P waste onto the land of Olwoch Douglas who was given Uganda Shillings (Ugx) 600000, an equivalent of about US $240 as compensation (Multi Institutional Environment Monitoring Committee, 2009). The dump site was about 500 metres from a school and a borehole for drinking water. This dumping was contrary to the Waste Management Regulations because Heritage Oil Ltd neither informed nor sought approval from NEMA before disposing of their cuttings and other waste.

141

Picture 6.3 Dead frogs, snakes and monitor lizards in a waste pit in Ngasa 1 Well near Kaiso- Tonya GMA

Source: Author

Picture 6.4 Cows drinking E&P waste water at one of the unprotected wells at the Turaco Wells

Source: Author 142

In addition, the communities in that village were not consulted prior to dumping (Multi Institutional Environment Monitoring Committee, 2009). Moreover, when discharged into unlined pits the toxic substances in pits can leach directly into the soil and may contaminate groundwater. Lined pits can also lead to pollution via ruptures in liners or by overflowing the pit area (Environmental Protection Agency, 2001). These events can result in soil and water contamination, which can have a negative effect on both human and ecosystem health.

Similarly, a company that was hired by Neptune Petroleum Ltd also dumped some wastes on the compound of one community member in Obongi contrary to the Waste Management Regulations. The domestic effluents generated from the camps also failed to meet Uganda’s national standards for effluent discharge in relation to pH, electrical conductivity (EC), alkalinity

(total CaCO 3), total phosphorous, total Nitrogen and chemical oxygen demand (COD) and were a potential source of pollution (UG_22).

Production phase During the production phase the major waste of concern will be produce water which can easily contaminate groundwater. Produce water is formation water which occurs naturally below the surface and is extracted along with oil from the well, and can contain toxic chemicals. If the formation water is discharged into local waterways, rather than re-injected into the ground, the resulting contamination can lead to serious impacts on local residents, animals, and vegetation. In addition, waste pits, when subjected to heavy tropical rains and floods, can overflow and lead to water and soil contamination. If a pit is unlined or is not landfilled when production stops, oil and other toxins can also seep into groundwater through the earthen walls (Environmental Protection Agency, 2001).

6.2.6 Impacts of infrastructure development on integrity of protected areas

One of the key roles of the protected areas of the Albertine Graben is the provision of corridors for migration of wildlife species. For example, Kabwoya WR is the only ecological intact area of savanna along the 200km stretch of Lake Albert shoreline between Toro-Semliki Wildlife WR in the south and Murchison Falls NP in the north. Therefore, given its present location and proximity to the large Bugoma Forest Reserve, the Kabwoya-Kaiso WMA is of great importance in maintaining corridors for genetic flow in the Albertine Graben. The reserve is bound by L. Albert in the west and the escarpment in the east and is already isolated by settlements and other geographical features. For example, there are five wells in Kabwoya WR that are within a radius of about 5km and there is a dense road network in the reserve that could result in the deterioration of wildlife habitats and compromise the role played by Kabwoya WR as a corridor (Thomassen and Hindrum, 2011). As noted by PS_13:

143

If you are going to develop a good protected area system then you will need to have flow of genes. We are now managing a gene pool that is isolated and it is going to be expensive if we continue with translocations of some animals as we did (Deputy Manager P_13).

During exploration and development the need to transport workers, supplies and products, as well as locate facilities, can lead to increased access and opening up of protected areas. This can provide new access routes to an undeveloped area for people who are interested in using previously inaccessible land or resources. Such access is usually facilitated by construction of new, or upgrading of, linear infrastructure like roads, pipelines and seismic lines. For example, Kabwoya WR was originally remote and difficult to access but the oil companies constructed road networks up to the shore of L. Albert to facilitate transport of workers and mobilisation of materials during the exploration (PS_13). The construction of the road made it easy for the fishermen to access markets for their fish. Fishing practices then changed from subsistence fishing to commercial fishing (PS_13 and UG_20). Before 2007, no large vehicles or trucks could pick up fish from the shores of L. Albert in the area of Kaiso Tonya because of lack of access, but when the roads improved the fishing pressure on the lake increased because it became a commercial operation. More fishermen moved in from DRC plus others from the West Nile and the fish catches were reported to have reduced by the time of this study (P_13).

Another potential impact that could result from infrastructure development is isolation of Kabwoya WR due to unplanned settlements in the area. By 2012, there were already job seekers in the areas surrounding Kabwoya WR and settlements were increasing. In Kaiso Tonya human settlements tend to concentrate in particular places, especially those around sensitive ecological zones because of the terrain. Moreover, these are ecological zones that link the reserve to L. Albert and serve as access to the lake for water by wildlife during the dry season (P_13). More unplanned settlements could have serious implications for wildlife to access the lake as a watering point. For example, the fishing villages are located in the flat plains that connected Kabwoya WR to the lake making it difficult for the wildlife to reach the lake during the dry season. These ecologically sensitive areas were left out when the boundary adjustments for Kabwoya WR were prepared such that when the fishermen came they settled in those areas without consideration for their ecological importance. These areas have now been converted into settlements and because of the degradation some of the wetlands have completely dried up due to a fall in the water table (P_13).

There was a lot of biodiversity in those wetlands like in 2005/6. Among the sought after species were Shoebills and Sitatunga but these species locally disappeared because the wetlands were converted into settlements. The last Shoebill was sighted in 2008 up north in the community wildlife reserve in Tonya but since then no Shoebill had been seen in the areas. There were also a number

144

of wading birds that used to appear in those wetlands but they longer do (Deputy Manager, P_13).

6.2.7 Introduction of exotic plants

The movement of equipment and vehicle traffic are some of the accidental methods of introducing exotic plants into an area. However, intentional introduction of exotic species into an area also occurs. For example, some exotic plants like the Teak tree and ornamental flower Catharantthus roseus were intentionally introduced in workers camps in Kabwoya WR (Picture 6.5). While in Queen Elizabeth NP, water melon plants that were growing in the fence of the Ngaji 1 drill site attracted elephants which eventually broke the fence of the drill site (see 6.2.5). In some cases such exotic plants ended up out-competing the native plants growing in the area, although in this specific case the water melon was food for the African elephant. For instance, Prickly pear plant was introduced in Queen Elizabeth NP as an ornamental plant and as fencing material for cattle kraals; this plant spread widely and UWA had to spend a lot of money on its eradication (Thomassen and Hindrum, 2011).

Picture 6.5 Introduced exotic species of plants (Teak) and other ornamentals flower Catharanthus roseus in a camp in Kabwoya WR

Source: Author

145

6.2.8 Impacts of construction of linear infrastructure on soils

The removal of vegetation and top soil during linear infrastructure construction can lead to habitat loss, changes to surface hydrology and drainage, contamination and sedimentation of streams, especially during rainy seasons. It can also increase the risk of flooding, and disrupt habitats and migration paths. Construction activities can also cause instability in mountainous areas or steep slopes resulting into landslides especially during the rainy season. For example, construction of access roads in Kabwoya WR during the exploration phase led to erosion in some sensitive areas of the reserve (Picture 6.6).

Picture 6.6 Erosion caused by construction of access roads in Kabwoya WR

Source: Author

6.2.9 Impacts of workmen and military camps in protected areas

The establishment of work and military camps in protected areas resulted in land take and visual intrusion. The presence of camps probably affected wildlife behaviour due to habituation and deliberate feeding of animals that were attracted to these camps. Other problems associated with camps are poaching, introduction of exotic species, generation of wastes, light and noise. The presence of military camps in protected areas also portrays the image that the protected areas are not safe to visit. Camps also tend to stay longer than necessary wherever they were established and can end up using natural resources in the surrounding areas. For 146

example, at the beginning of the seismic surveys some workmen’s camps were established in Kabwoya WR and Murchison Falls NP and were supposed to be there for a specific period of time but ended up overstaying past the period stipulated in the conditions of approval of the petroleum EIA. According to PS_1, camps ended up staying longer than necessary because eventually more activities needed to be performed in those areas. This was because more time was required for drilling a well and completing it than anticipated. For instance, the well could be productive and not tested by the particular time when a drilling process was completed. Similarly, the presence of military camps in the protected areas to provide security to the oil workers, gave a false impression of insecurity and possibly scared away some tourists. A few of the security personnel were involved in poaching (UG_11) as well as keeping domestic animals like chickens in their camps that resulted in human-wildlife conflict. However, due to persistent appeals from UWA and other conservation organisations, eventually, the camps were relocated outside the protected areas (UG_11).

6.2.10 Gravel extraction

According to Multi Institutional Environment Management Committee (2007) Report, road construction materials were obtained from within the Kabwoya WR by the contractors, as well as access roads being constructed without approval by the regulators. The report also mentioned that the oil companies did not fully address mitigation of impacts as stated in the EIA. There was also negligence and lack of awareness on part of the oil company workers. UG_3 gave the following experience on gravel extraction in Kaiso Tonya:

Now let me tell you about one guy who went and excavated murram [gravel] on hillside in Kaiso Tonya. When I went there for a visit it was really an eyesore and I explained to the gentleman that the excavation site really looked ugly and it could cause land slide and erosion. But he told me that you know when that side of the hill comes down then we can have easy murram to pick and so I don’t have to go up there and risk because the murram would have come down the hill and I will scoop and put it on top of my truck. So he was trying to create landslide to make it easy for him to pick easy murram. You can see lack of awareness on the part of the company staff as well. At first I considered it as a joke and I went back after some days and I still found the thing was there with a gaping hole and I wrote to him and I said I am giving you a few weeks when I come back there again that site should have been restored otherwise you would be in trouble so eventually it was done (Government Officer UG_3).

147

6.3 Impacts of exploration phase on socio-economic issues

The socio-economic pressures during the exploration phase on the protected areas and the communities were creation of access, seismic surveys in or around homes, land take, vibrations and noise, introduction of large number of workforce in an area, establishment of camps for extraction of oil and gas and influx of people seeking for employment. These activities resulted in closure of tourism circuits, temporary restriction on fishing grounds where exploration was taking place, disruption of agricultural activities, population influx into the surrounding areas and inconveniences caused by flaring.

6.3.1 Impacts of seismic and drilling activities on tourism

Wildlife is the main product for tourism development in Uganda. The contribution of the tourism industry to Uganda’s GDP was reported to be 12.5% with an estimated value of about US$1,161million in 2008. In addition, tourism contributed 7.4% of total employment (420,000 jobs) (Government of Uganda, 2010). Furthermore, the Lonely Planet - the world’s leading tourist traffic monitor ranked Uganda as the world’s number one tourist destination of 2012. In spite of such promise, the tourism sector receives only 2.3% of the government’s budget (Businge, 2011). Petroleum development had impacts on tourism in Murchison Falls NP due to closure of the Buligi Circuit. This is a popular tourism circuit located in the northern bank of River Nile which was closed to tourism activities for three months to allow exploration drilling of Buffalo and Giraffe (Jobi and Mpyo). Petroleum development activities that affect tourism are the large work force in the protected areas especial during seismic surveys, physical presence, generation of noise and lights that scare away wildlife. Presence of petroleum exploration and development activities can therefore result in reduction of tourist numbers which in turn leads to reduction in revenue. There were also oil exploration activities in Pakuba and Tank areas both tourism zones in the same park. Meanwhile, in Queen Elizabeth NP, petroleum activities were in Ishasha Sector which is also a tourism zone. Similarly, the whole of Kabyoya WR could be considered as a tourism zone because of its size. However, by the time of the field work the majority of tourists visiting Murchison Falls NP had no idea about the petroleum exploration activities taking place in the area, but this is likely to change during the development phase (PS_12 and PS_14).

148

Figure 6.1 Number of non-resident foreign tourists to Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth National Parks

25000

20000

15000

MFNP

Tourists 10000 QENP

5000 Number ofNon Resident Foreign 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Years

Source: Uganda Wildlife Authority (unpublished)

There was no reduction in tourist numbers for Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth National Parks from 2006 to 2010 using figures obtained from UWA (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). The general trend was that the number of tourists visiting these parks was going up.

Figure 6.2 Total number of tourists to Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth National Parks

80000

70000

60000

50000

40000 MFNP 30000 QENP

20000 Totalnumber oftourists

10000

0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Years

Source: Uganda Wildlife Authority (unpublished)

149

6.3.2 Impacts of offshore seismic on fishing grounds

Seismic surveys also took place on Lakes Edward and Albert. As part of safety precautions and to prevent people tampering with the seismic equipment, access to exploration areas on these lakes was restricted during the time of the surveys. One would argue that the precaution was reasonable to avoid any risks during the surveys. However, fishermen were excluded from fishing which could have denied them the opportunity to earn their living and they were not compensated (FG_1). The oil companies reasoned that the fishermen were not compensated because seismic surveys were done during the day when there was minimum fishing activity (PS_4 and PS_7).

Oil companies also said that they discussed their areas of interest with the Beach Management Units (an arrangement at the local level to manage fishing activities) before the seismic surveys took place and allowed the fisherman to access the other parts of the lake (PS_7). In addition, they said that where their activities interfered with nets then they did compensate the owners of such property (PS_4). However, fishermen interviewed in Wanseko and Kaiso Villages denied being compensated by oil companies (FG_1). ULG_2 and ULG_3 confirmed that fishermen were not compensated for nets destroyed, and suggested that this could have happened because the prices for fishnets were not included in the list of compensation rates.

6.3.3 Impacts of seismic surveys on community or private land

Some of the onshore seismic surveys in the Albertine Graben were done on community or private land. The population in these areas are basically agriculturalists growing different types of crops. During the process of clearing for the seismic lines, crops and some property were destroyed (Picture 6.7). It also meant that part of the farmer’s land could temporarily not be used, although farmers could use parts of their unaffected land. The seismic surveys created conflict between communities affected in Buliisa District because landowners claimed that compensation provided by Tullow Oil was below the value of their property and their sentiments were summarised by ULG_4:

Tullow is destroying people’s gardens that could set in food insecurity and the compensation rate is low and it is what I would call hand-outs. Because you find that somebody's garden and cassava have gone and a garden of cassava could take him through a whole year but now it is all destroyed and you give him Ugx 200,000 (US $ 100) which may not even last for a month. What they tell us is that the district proposes the prices and the Chief Government Valuer approves it but even the approval process is not transparent. We have not met the Chief Government Valuer to explain to us how the process is carried out (Local Government officer ULG_4).

150

Thus the petroleum exploration and production activities have started to become sources of conflict between community members and the oil companies working in Buliisa. For example, according to Mugerwa (2011) on August 28 angry residents blocked Tullow Oil from passing through their road in Uribo Village (one of the villages affected by the exploration activities) due to compensation related activities. According to a representative of a local NGO in the area the frustration reflected the feelings of many people in the district affected by the exploration activities. Ten people were arrested as a result of the protest but the NGO representative said they could not accept such injustice and were ready to engage the government in order to resolve their problems.

Picture 6.7 A seismic line through a cassava garden in Buliisa District

Source: Author

6.3.4 Impacts of population influx in the surrounding areas

One of the significant changes that an oil industry brings to a remote area is the presence of hundreds of workers as well as attracting others searching for jobs. Human presence is linked to illegal activities like poaching and illegal trade in wildlife and wildlife products. The demand for natural resources also increases with rise in population. For instance, people have started grabbing land around several petroleum development areas, e.g. around Kabwoya WR, Queen Elizabeth NP, and surrounding wildlife reserves expecting to be compensated at the time of petroleum production (Thomassen and Hindrum, 2011). Many people come to the petroleum areas seeking gainful employment from the industry, but others target the secondary industries. For instance according to ULG_4:

151

Other impacts we have started to see are that the population has started to grow. We are beginning to see prostitution on increase we did not have the cases of women walking naked here in Buliisa before and people are buying their services. This is an impact on our culture because dressing in trousers for woman was also not originally here in Buliisa. There is also increase in burglary which used to be very uncommon (Local Government Officer, ULG_4) .

6.3.5 Flaring during extended well testing

According to ULG_4 the worst impact of petroleum development within the communities was the flaring during the extended well testing because the heat, the light and smoke were too much to bear. He claimed that prior to flaring people living within the radius of 300 metres were compensated, however it was later realised that the impacts of the flaring went to a kilometre and lasted for about three weeks. The increased light, noise and heat created by flaring could scare away wildlife if carried out in protected areas, apart from the pollution it may have other consequences for the tourism industry.

6.4 Potential impacts of future petroleum activities on biological resources

The anticipated pressures during the development and the production phase on the protected areas are creation of access roads, infrastructure development (e.g. oil and gas collection points, construction of a refinery), land take, generation of wastes vibrations and noise. Other potential pressures will be from construction of pipelines, increase in number of workforce, establishment of camps for extraction of oil and gas and influx of people seeking employment. The potential impacts resulting from these activities are: wildlife displacement and habituation, wildlife kills, poaching, pollution, generation of wastes, water abstraction, various emissions and concerns of safety due to sabotage and illegal activities like oil siphoning.

6.4.1 Impacts of oil spills

Spills can occur from the petroleum itself, exploration and production (E&P) wastes, improper storage and discharge of cuttings. Other sources of possible spills are leakages from machinery and vehicles and poor handling of fuel and lubricants used during activities. Oil spills can pollute aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems leading to negative changes in ecosystem functions and services of wetland and loss of associated biodiversity. Oil spills affect respiratory systems of organisms often resulting in death because oil spills cause a thick layer on water surfaces which affect air circulation and lead to anoxic conditions (Thomassen and Hindrum, 2011). The impacts of oil spills in the Albertine Graben are unknown but experiences from elsewhere show that oil spills can have direct and indirect impacts on aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Oil spills affect plant survival through blocking their respiratory and food absorption systems. Oil 152

spills will alter soil permeability, soil biota, basic nutrients, porosity which will significantly affect soil quality hence reducing soil productivity (Thomassen and Hindrum, 2011). The hydrophobic characteristic of oil obstructs water movement in the soil. Oil also contains chemicals that pollute the soil and hence affecting basic soil nutrients and soil biota. All these lead to reduced soil productivity (Thomassen and Hindrum, 2011). Similarly, oil spills as a result of poor waste disposal or handling can lead to change in water quality or pollute soils that could result into degradation of habitats and loss of biodiversity. Oil contains toxic chemicals and if spills occur in the environment, it may lead to bioaccumulation in the food web which affects the well-being of all organisms. For example, plants accumulate heavy metals from the environment and the plants are eaten by herbivores which are in turn preyed upon by carnivores (Section 6.2.5). However, there have been no major oil spills reported during the exploration phase in the Albertine Graben as yet.

When working on the lake the threat from pollution becomes more acute, which the oil companies cannot guarantee being able to prevent. This fear is expressed by ULG_4:

The other fear is on pollution of L. Albert which has been the source of our livelihood and the oil companies have some wells on the lake. Our worry is how they will manage the resource when they will start oil production because any leakage in the lake will mean disaster for us. Our view is that the technology they will use should be able to minimise the impacts (Local Government Officer ULG_4).

Indeed the Albertine Graben has the R. Nile which Uganda shares with South Sudan, Sudan and Egypt, and Lakes Albert and Edward which are shared with DRC. These water systems provide water for domestic use as well as for irrigation and support the fisheries industry which provides a livelihood for many communities living along the shores of the river and the lakes. Any pollution in the river or the lakes can therefore have major impacts.

6.4.2 Poaching of wildlife

The population in the oil and gas producing areas is anticipated to increase as such there will be increased demand on the natural resources hence increase in illegal activities. Poaching in the protected areas is therefore expected to rise because of population influx and habituation of wildlife which will make them easy prey for poachers.

153

6.4.3 Impacts of infrastructure development on integrity of protected areas

There will be increased infrastructural development during development and production phase which will open up the protected areas even more. For example, there will be opening up of more access roads, laying of pipelines and construction of power lines. Moreover, the impacts during this phase will be for a longer duration. Infrastructure development could disrupt the feeding and nesting behaviours of wildlife species as a result of physical presence and increases in noise and night lighting. Similarly, infrastructure development could directly destroy wildlife habitats and increase mortality rates. In addition, infrastructure development takes land, increases the spread of invasive species, and exacerbates human-wildlife conflicts because of displacement. Petroleum development activities may facilitate the spread of invasive species through vehicular movements and establishment of facilities like camps or offices. For example, invasive species like Lantana camara , and spear grass cover nearly 30% of land surface of Queen Elizabeth Protected Area currently (Thomassen and Hindrum, 2011). Meanwhile soil erosion in some particularly sensitive areas could become one of the challenging issues because of construction of more infrastructure during development and production.

6.4.4 Impacts of water abstraction

Oil production and processing will require large volumes of water but excessive water abstraction will lead to reduced water quantity. Petroleum development will require water for running workers camps, for well drilling and completion or abandonment, to stimulate or enhance production, as well as for refining. For instance, an earlier study for the proposed Early Production Scheme (mini refinery) in Uganda in 2008 indicated that a source of fresh water will be required to provide wash water for salt removal from the oil during refining. It also showed that in order to maintain the reservoir pressure, injection of water will be required from suitable aquifers (Environmental Resources Management, 2008). The oil in the Albertine Graben lies in a relatively shallow reservoir (approximately 1,000m below ground level) hence it is at relatively low pressure; without water injection to maintain reservoir pressure, the oil production rates would decline very rapidly. The water demand is likely to peak at approximately 5,000 barrels per day. This abstracted water will also be used for fire water and utility supply (Environmental Resources Management, 2008). A future water requirement for the planned refinery is not known but could be substantial. It is also important to note that locations of some of the wells are in sensitive areas already. For example, Ngassa 1 is located in a wetland close to the River Hohwa, only 200m from the shore of Lake Albert. Moreover, according to one PEPD representative cited in Hansen (2007) construction of all kinds is, in principle, prohibited in the 200m zone along the Ugandan side of L. Albert.

154

6.5 Potential socio-economic impacts of future petroleum development activities

Impacts will be similar to the ones mentioned in Section 6.4 but the potential impacts resulting from these activities are: disruption of tourism activities, displacement of people, increase in accidents, pollution, generation of wastes, water abstraction, various emissions and increased concerns of safety due to sabotage and illegal activities like oil siphoning.

6.5.1 Potential impacts on tourism

There were some impacts on tourism during exploration but these impacts were minimal. However, future activities could have significant impacts on tourism depending on their locations, nature, scale and duration of activities (PS_3). It is anticipated that land take and clearance within protected areas for oil and gas activities will cause changes in wildlife habitats and will reduce species range. This in turn could lead to displacement and migration of some species of wildlife which could potentially make them unavailable for viewing by tourists and hence reduce the quality of the visitor experience. Similarly, siting of facilities could cause visual intrusion to the naturalness of the landscape; and pollute the environment through noise, lighting and emissions. All these activities could affect future development of the tourism industry. For example, alternative routes for game viewing are already being introduced, possibly in preparation for closure of popular routes like Buligi Circuit which is already affected by the oil and gas activities. In December 2011, Tullow Oil and UWA commissioned a 18.5km murram road from Te Bito plains up to Murchison Falls NP. This track is possibly an alternative route to Buligi Circuit and is a shorter access route for guests to Paraa and Chobe Lodges near the top of Murchison Falls (Businge, 2011).

6.5.2 Impacts of infrastructure development on the communities

One of the negative impacts of infrastructure development will be displacement of community members and disruption of their livelihoods. According to Robert Kasende, Assistant Commissioner, in the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, the land for establishment of an oil refinery at Kabaale in Buseruka sub-county Hoima District will require 29km 2. This land will be used to set up other oil refinery-related infrastructure including waste management facilities, staff quarters for the refinery workers, a modern airport and other petrochemical industries and the land for the refinery will cover nine villages (Atuhairwe, 2012).

Related to the establishment of the refinery, is the construction of roads and pipelines in the area that are likely to displace the communities or disrupt normal activities of the communities. For example, rights of way will be cleared for the laying of pipelines; and heavy vehicles will bring pipes and dig trenches. Before being lowered into the trench, long sections of welded

155

pipes will prevent movement from one side of rights of way to the other. To minimise this disruption the pipe will be laid in a ‘spread’. This means the entire sequence of pipe stringing, welding, testing, trenching, laying and back filling will take place in sequence over a limited distance (typically 3-5km). However, after the pipe is laid, the surface is restored to its original level, excess overburden is removed and vegetation cover re-established. Product theft is often a problem and it can be dangerous if thieves tap into pipelines. Deliberate sabotage of pipelines can also occur in locations where communities are not satisfied, or in areas experiencing significant social unrest. It is for these reasons that pipelines are buried in the centre of a right of a way several metres (sometimes 25m) wide and why digging, ploughing, movement of heavy vehicles and construction of buildings may not be allowed in the right of way. As roots of large trees can also affect the pipeline, trees may also not be grown in the right of way. The affected communities could therefore be displaced and those marginally affected may have to tolerate some of the restrictions imposed on them. Since most of the communities to be affected are in rural areas some activities should be possible once the pipelines are buried.

There will be further 3,000 people displaced in Hoima District to establish an army base near the oil wells to provide security (Kwesiga and Atuhairwe, 2011). The people to be displaced will be settled on a piece of land of about 54km 2 in Kyangwali sub-county. This is part of over 256.4km 2 of Kyangwali Resettlement Camp which is under the Prime Minister's Office (Kwesiga and Atuhairwe, 2011). According to Uganda Ministry of Defence this was to ensure the integrity and safety of oil and gas facilities to be established in this part of the graben (Kwesiga and Atuhairwe, 2011). Provision of security to oil facilities is a top priority in the sector for both the economic and security reasons cited above.

These establishments will lead to displacement of communities and related compensation problems, the disruption of agricultural systems and social structures, as well as crowding of people on small pieces of lands in some cases. Displacement can lead to dependence on outside aid and undermine long-established societal practices. Contact with oil workers and migrants can lead to the rapid spread of diseases to which local communities could have no immunity (Rosenfeld et al., 1997).

6.5.3 Impacts of population influx in the surrounding areas

Oil and gas activities will attract settlements and infrastructure development that will affect the current resource use patterns in the areas affected. For example oil and gas related developments are expected to induce economic, social and cultural changes through alteration in land use patterns, migration and socioeconomic and cultural systems. Activities will increase liquid and gaseous waste streams which may affect plants, animals and people due to changes in their environment through variations in water, air, soil quality and through disturbance by noise, extraneous light and changes in vegetation cover. 156

6.5.4 Increase for demand for land in exploration areas

The demand for land in the petroleum exploration and production areas increased and led to land grabbing in those areas. Speculators have been buying land close to some of the exploration areas in the hope that they will be compensated in future when the development phase starts. Land is also likely to appreciate in those areas and speculators hope to be compensated in future (UG_4). The rich land speculators are buying strategic land from the poor who are the unsuspecting local communities. Those landless people who have been displaced from the Graben will start moving around and may put pressure on the protected areas (UG_14). According to ULG_4, they appealed to government to survey and give community members title to the land because it is communally owned and they did not have titles. Moreover surveying land is too expensive for those in the communities to afford. ULG-4 expressed his helplessness:

I should say that we are in the mercy of God because somebody will come one day and say we are all squatters because he/she would have processed the title for the whole district. There is actually a man who wants to buy the entire district. You know the kind of poverty we have and land being communal somebody comes and sweet talks you and tells you that you sell your land to me and I am not going to chase you but let me give you Ugx 1,000,000 (US $ 500) and I will register it in my names (Local Government Officer ULG_4).

Similarly, on 22 June 2010, the MP for Buliisa District, also the Chairman of National Economy and Member of the Natural Resources Committee of Parliament of Uganda, Mr. Stephen Biraahwa Mukitale told the house that powerful people in government were apportioning parcels of land in areas associated with petroleum exploration and production activities which are outside protected areas in the hope to be compensated in the future.

6.6 Conclusion

There are important trends that are already emerging during the exploration phase and will require closer observations in future. For example, one of the hypotheses for mammal displacement is that animals with large home ranges do move away while those with limited range and territorial behaviour tolerate the disturbance and may become stressed. If this hypothesis is true then there will be increased human-wildlife conflicts around the protected areas where there is petroleum exploration and development. Petroleum development activities also open up areas which are previously inaccessible to resource users such as poachers. This has led to the argument that community members previously employed during seismic surveys will have better knowledge of protected areas and resort to poaching as a means of livelihood after the seismic exercise is completed. Impacts of petroleum waste on wildlife are not yet well 157

understood because some animals that get in contact with the waste are killed while others seem unaffected.

There is need to establish the minimum level of infrastructure development that can be allowed in the protected areas without compromising the ecosystems and the scenery of the protected areas. It is also not clear how the wildlife in Kabwoya WR will be affected in terms of accessing watering points if the settlements around the reserve are not well planned. The experience with seismic surveys in Hoima and Buliisa Districts showed that compensation did not adequately take into account loss of land, annual crops, perennial crops and trees. Where land was taken and agricultural livelihood was lost, compensation only took into consideration existing crops and did not make provisions for future income streams. The issues related to compensation will continue to escalate the already brewing conflict between the communities, oil companies and the government in the area. Scenarios that will continue to develop on compensation issues will be interesting to watch because there is already growing resentment. Therefore it will be important for a study to evaluate the effects of compensation, land take around the petroleum development areas and its implications to the protected areas.

158

7. EMERGING RESPONSES FOR MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OF PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE ALBERTINE GRABEN

7.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the current ‘Responses’ by Uganda to manage the impacts of petroleum development in the Albertine Graben. A ‘Response’ in the DPSIR framework (Chapter 3.3.3) can be a regulatory action aimed at biodiversity conservation as well as various mitigation, adaptation or curative measures put in place to help conservation as a result of ‘Impacts’ resulting from ‘Pressure’ on the ‘State’ of the environment. According to European Environment Agency (2007):

Responses are the measures taken to address drivers, pressures, state or impacts. They include measures to protect and conserve biodiversity (in situ and ex situ), and include, for example, measures to promote the equitable sharing of the monetary or non-monetary gains arising from the utilisation of genetic resources (European Environment Agency, 2007 p13).

Responses can be designed to address driving forces, pressures, state or impacts. A response can be devised to reorganise a driving force (prevention, changing behaviour, etc.), to alter pressure mechanisms (e.g. improvement in technology), or to restore the state of the environment so as to reduce its sensitivity to pressures. For ‘Responses’ to achieve their intended objectives they have to be implemented, hence the need for strong institutions and adequate resources for implementation (European Environment Agency, 2007; Maxim et al., 2009).

Uganda’s current responses to manage the impacts of petroleum development are implemented through a three year programme which runs up to 2014 entitled Strengthening the Management of the Oil and Gas Sector in Uganda funded by the Norwegian Government. This programme builds on the earlier Strengthening the State Administration of the Upstream Sector programme which ended in 2009. The current programme is based on the objectives of the National Oil and Gas Policy (NOGP) for Uganda, which is to ensure that oil and gas activities are undertaken in a manner that conserves the environment and biodiversity (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). The relevant activities of the programme for the management of the environment are contained under the resource and the environmental management pillars (ibid). The main activities include the need to put in place a new legal and regulatory framework, as well as introduce a new institutional framework and enhance existing frameworks to manage the petroleum sector. In addition, the programme aims at building capacity of institutions to ensure efficient and effective implementation, and improve coordination among the participating institutions and application of environmental management practices. The information presented

159

in this chapter is drawn from document analysis, semi structured interviews, focus group, direct observations and literature review (Chapter 3.5).

In organising the chapter responses are grouped into major themes and are presented as follows: section 7.2 examines the strengthening of the relevant legal and regulatory frameworks to ensure both petroleum development and biodiversity conservation issues are sufficiently covered in the regulatory frameworks. Section 7.3 focuses on actions to establish efficient and effective institutional framework for management of environmental issues related to petroleum development and compliance monitoring. In Section 7.4, the importance of adoption of correct environmental management practices is discussed. Section 7.5 presents some of the initiatives for harmonisation of protected area management and petroleum development. Finally Section 7.6 concludes the chapter.

7.2 Strengthening Uganda’s legal and regulatory framework

The importance of regulatory frameworks in managing the impacts of petroleum development is highlighted in Chapter 2.4. The existing legal and regulatory framework in Uganda to manage petroleum development process is discussed in Chapter 5.5 and it is a combination of international conventions and national legal and regulatory frame works. Uganda has a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework for biodiversity conservation, but new policies, laws and regulations are required for management of petroleum development (Chapter 5.5). The existing legal and regulatory frameworks for petroleum development and biodiversity conservation are being strengthened by, a) developing a new legal and regulatory framework particularly for management of the oil and gas sector, and b) updating existing environmental laws and regulations for purposes of consistency.

7.2.1 Developing new legislative framework for petroleum development

By 2012, Uganda was still strengthening its legal and regulatory framework especially for the management of the petroleum sector. The NOGP was approved in 2008 and it called for the establishment of several new institutions and structures, including a Directorate of Petroleum to set and monitor policy; a Petroleum Authority to regulate the sector; a National Oil Company to hold the state’s direct investment in oil projects; and a Petroleum Fund under the management of the Central Bank to stabilize the revenue flow to the budget (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). The policy also calls for revision of the existing petroleum law and corresponding regulations to handle the development and production of oil and gas, appropriately capture recent trends and best practice in the industry, and harmonize with a future revenue management law (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). On management of environment, objective 9 of the policy calls for measures to ensure that oil and gas activities are undertaken in a manner that conserves the environment and biodiversity 160

(Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). The Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) (hereafter referred to as the Petroleum (EDP) Law) and the Petroleum (Refining, Gas Processing and Conversion, Transport and Storage) (referred to as the Petroleum (RGPCTS) law) were enacted in 2012 and 2013 respectively. These two laws repeal the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act 1985 amended 2000, and the petroleum regulations 1993 which had become inadequate and out dated because of the fast changing petroleum development process. The Petroleum Act 1985 was meant for promotion, licensing of exploration acreage and monitoring (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). For instance, the new Petroleum (EDP) law has specific provisions on environmental management for impacts of petroleum development. Furthermore, it has clauses on pollution and sections on seeking consent from executive directors of UWA and NFA before undertaking petroleum development projects in the protected areas. Equally, there are sections on penalties for violating environmental regulations to ensure compliance. The new Petroleum (EDP) law defines the role of NEMA and other environmental institutions, such as UWA and NFA in Subsection 1 of Clause 4:

4 (1) A licensee and also a person who exercises or performs functions, duties or powers under this Act in relation to petroleum activities shall take into account, and give effect to the environmental principles prescribed by the National Environment Act and other applicable laws (Government of Uganda, 2012b p15)

Formulation of the two petroleum laws is an attempt to set the governance conditions necessary for management of the environmental impacts of petroleum development in the country. However, the Parliament of Uganda was unable to resolve a few contentious issues raised during the drafting of the Petroleum (EDP) Bill before passing it into law. One of these was the vesting of too much power in the hands of the minister in charge of the petroleum portfolio, without putting in place adequate checks to ensure accountability (Global Witness, 2012; Minio- Paluello, 2012); and another was absence of parliamentary oversight of the relevant institutions, and a lack of guarantees on contract and financial transparency (Global Witness, 2012; Minio- Paluello, 2012). These issues were not acceptable to many of the stakeholders including religious leaders, community leaders, and CSO and it is feared that it may breed conflict in the Albertine Graben which may affect management of the biodiversity in the future. Despite these weaknesses of the law, it is expected that relevant institutions of government will develop the appropriate regulations to give effect to the laws so that the required governance for the management of the biodiversity can be achieved.

7.2.2 Updating existing environmental legislation to address petroleum development

As of 2012, similar to the Petroleum Act 1985 and the petroleum regulations 1993, the environmental laws and regulations had become outdated because they were developed before

161

petroleum discovery in 2006. The environmental laws and regulations do not have specific provisions for petroleum development; the main environmental laws are discussed in Chapter 5.5. By 2012, efforts were being made to update some of these laws and regulations. For instance, the Uganda Wildlife Policy of 1999 was updated and renamed as Uganda National Policy on Conservation and Sustainable Development on Wildlife Resource s and included a section on extractive industries. Objective 7 of the new Wildlife Policy is to ensure net positive impacts of exploration and development of extractive industries and other forms of development in wildlife conservation areas (Ministry of Tourism Wildlife and Heritage, 2011). Previously, such a provision did not exist in the policy. Similarly, the Uganda Wildlife Act 1996 was to be revised to ensure petroleum development is undertaken in a manner that does not affect biodiversity including those that occur outside protected areas (UG_8).

By 2012, NEMA had plans to update the National Environment Act 1995 but this had not been done. According to UG_4, the National Environment Act 1995 is to be updated to incorporate issues on transboundary, strategic environmental assessment (SEA) and climate change. Furthermore, the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act and regulations are to be revised by the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MGLSD) to accommodate issues of petroleum development (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). Similarly, guidelines and other standards were being developed. For example, by 2012 UWA had developed guidelines specifically for petroleum development for companies operating in protected areas under its jurisdiction (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2011a). More regulations are expected to be developed following the enactment of the Petroleum (EDP) and Petroleum (RGPCTS) laws. Both laws have subsections on development of new regulations specifically for management of oil and gas wastes which state that: NEMA shall make regulations concerning the management of the production, transportation, storage and treatment of waste arising out of petroleum activities 13 (Government of Uganda 2012 p15).

7.2.3 Observing international conventions and agreements

Observing international protocols and transboundary agreements is an important factor in petroleum development, to avoid reputational damage from conservationists as well as to ensure regional cooperation. It is important to observe international protocols and transboundary agreements because Uganda shares Lake Albert with its neighbours. Any oil spills in the water body could cause devastating effects on the biodiversity and the surrounding communities who depend on these resources (Chapters 6.2.9 and 6.4.6). At the global level, Uganda has obligations under various conventions and protocols implemented through officers known as National Focal Points which will need to be observed (Chapters 2.4 and 5.5.3).

13 Petroleum activity means all the operations of the industry in the value chain from exploration to decommissioning 162

Meanwhile at the regional level, Uganda has the East African Cooperation (EAC) and the agreement of cooperation with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) to respect in its petroleum development efforts. The EAC is basically for facilitation of smooth promotion and development of the petroleum industry, while the agreement of cooperation between DRC and Uganda has specific articles on petroleum development and environmental management to underpin its relevance for the development of the sector between the two countries (Kashambuzi, 2010; Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). Article 7 of the agreement states that DRC and Uganda should undertake to provide for, in their respective exploration and exploitation agreements, all the necessary provisions for the protection of the environment (Kashambuzi, 2010). By 2012, the spirit of cooperation between DRC and Uganda on issues of transboundary collaboration on petroleum development was very low. This follows an incident in 2007 at Rukwanzi Island in Lake Albert in the Southern part of the then Exploration Area 3A, in which one of the workers from IMC Geophysics Limited (contracted by Heritage Oil and Gas Limited) was killed by DRC security men (Kashambuzi, 2010). This misunderstanding on the boundary was resolved through the Ngurdoto Agreement of September 2007 between Uganda and DRC and a task force was set up to remark the boundary between the two countries; progress on this activity was not available by the time of the study. In Uganda, a Norwegian consulting firm, ARNTZEN de BESCHE Advokatfirma AS, was hired to review and make recommendations for the strengthening of the agreement (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). Probably based on the recommendations of the ARNTZEN study, Uganda was making efforts to review its environmental legal and legislative framework to take into account transboundary issues, as observed by UG_4 ‘ the National Environment Act 1995 was to be updated to incorporate issues on transboundary’ (7.2.3). The importance of observing international protocols and transboundary agreements is also emphasized by the World Bank (2010a), which argued that host countries should incorporate relevant international laws and obligations within their legal system to address environmental issues that arise from petroleum development. Furthermore, in support of transboundary issues, the World Bank (2010a) calls on host countries to set out policies to address potential environmental policies that affect neighbouring countries through notification or consultation.

7.3 Building capacity of regulatory institutions and Ugandans to manage environmental issues

The expected roles of institutions in petroleum development are defined in Chapter 2.5, and once a legal and regulatory framework is established, there is need to set up strong institutions for enforcement in order to ensure effective management of biodiversity conservation and petroleum development. The effectiveness of enforcement and oversight by the participating government entities and other stakeholders will depend on how well these institutions are organised and facilitated. This is because the numerous environmental challenges that face the

163

petroleum industry require high levels of capacities in the participating institutions. Furthermore, the roles and responsibilities of the participating entities need to be clearly defined in order to avoid overlapping or conflicting roles as well as to prevent gaps in regulatory responsibility (Extractive Industries Source Book, 2010). Government of Uganda undertook a range of activities to build the capacity of its institutions.

7.3.1 Improving institutional capacity and coordination of environmental regulators

The Government of Uganda tried to improve coordination among its participating entities in the petroleum development by establishing an arrangement called ‘Environmental Pillar Institutions’ (EPI) which is part of the institutional framework for biodiversity conservation and petroleum development (Chapter 5.5.5). The EPI was formed under the Norwegian-funded Programme: Strengthening the State Administration of the Upstream Petroleum Sector in Uganda (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a).

Among EPI the entity with the best capacity in petroleum development and exploration is PEPD (Pöyry, 2011). Capacity building for PEPD started in 1985 under the World Bank-funded project ‘Petroleum Exploration Promotion Proj ect’. The goal of the project was to attract international oil companies to invest risk capital in exploration since the government did not have the necessary financing to carry out the investment. Prior to this project there were no Ugandan personnel specialized in oil exploration technology. The original staff were drawn from the mineral sector and the project trained 15 earth scientists in petroleum geology and geophysics, eight technicians, two accountants, one lawyer, one economist and ten support personnel (World Bank, 1995). Similarly, Petrad’s capacity building programme under the Norwegian-funded programme for EPI January 2006 - June 2009, initially focused on capacity building in PEPD (Pöyry, 2011). This led to a project review report commissioned by Petrad to question the exclusion of capacity building in the environmental institutions in the first phase of the programme. The report observed that the oversight could have been due to limited focus by the relevant Ugandan environmental institutions on petroleum operations at the time when the Programme was drafted and established in 2005/2006 (ibid). At that time, the magnitude of future petroleum operations in Uganda was still unclear and it was difficult to establish a more specific petroleum related capacity building programme for the relevant environmental institutions (ibid). Consequently, the project component relating to health, safety and environment and the revenue management component were expanded in 2007 (ibid).

In addition, according to UG_4, EPI, benefited from a World Bank-funded project called the ‘Uganda Second Environmental Management Capacity Building Project (EMCBP) of 2008 ’ during which four people from NEMA, UWA, PEPD, and NARO were sent to USA to get experience with waste management. The idea was that the four initially trained people would help to build the capacity of the other government staff who were unable to attend the training on waste management (AG_4). Whether such training took place was not clear by the time this

164

study was undertaken in 2012. However, despite all these efforts the capacity of environmental institutions involved in petroleum exploration and development remains low, although focus on these institutions by GoU and development partners to build their capacity was beginning to increase (Pöyry, 2011).

7.3.2 Improving compliance enforcement of oil and gas activities

The ‘Multi Institutional Environment Monitoring Committee’ (MIEMC) was also part of the institutional framework for biodiversity conservation (Chapter 5.5.5) which was set up to monitor the activities of oil and gas exploration and development in relation to the environment (Government of Uganda, 2011). The committee is composed of the representatives of the EPI and the District Environmental Officers (DEO) of those districts located in the Albertine Graben and has three levels. At the highest level are the commissioners and heads of departments known as the ‘National Oil Executive Monitoring Committee’; the second level is the ‘Technical Monitoring Committee’, and the third level is the ‘Field Monitoring Committee’. Monitoring activities of the committee are planned such that members of the Executive level undertake field monitoring at least once a year, while members of the Technical Committee are to visit the Graben on a quarterly basis and report to the Executive level. Staff at the Field committee level are stationed in the exploration and production areas on a full time basis and have representatives from NEMA, PEPD and UWA. However, by April 2012 NEMA’s representative in the field was withdrawn to its headquarters due to lack of funding, while the UWA representative had left the organisation and joined Total Uganda and was replaced by another staff member.

By 2012, government had completed a study for putting in place an enforcement 14 and compliance 15 monitoring strategy for environmental aspects of the oil and gas sector, but the recommendations of the study were not being implemented due to lack of funds. Environmental compliance and enforcement programmes are part of a comprehensive environmental management cycle that entails stakeholders recognising environmental problems and the government’s commitment to address such problems (International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement, 2009).

7.3.3 Building the capacity of Ugandans and retaining staff

As part of skills development, the Ugandan government established the Petroleum Institute in Kigumba which opened in March 2010. This institute offers diplomas and certificate courses in petroleum related studies, and the first vocational students started a petroleum diploma course in 2010. The diploma course is intended to contribute to empowerment of the local workforce in

14 Compliance is defined as the need to meet the requirements in law, regulations, standards and permits. 15 Enforcement is the action taken to encourage or compel compliance 165

Uganda. Similarly, a programme in Petroleum Geoscience was established in Makerere University in 2009, and a MSc in Petroleum Geoscience was introduced in 2012/13.

However, retaining the graduates of such institutions at public service salary levels could prove to be difficult, and Uganda will need to attract and retain skilled staff by paying competitive salaries. Otherwise high staff turnover rates will pose risks not only in terms of capacity gaps between GoU and the petroleum companies, but also inside the national institutional system, as non-public service institutions will be able to attract graduates while government institutions working on petroleum related issues may not be able to do so (World Bank, 2010b). This puts Government at risk of being unable to control its own operators. Furthermore, while setting up the Petroleum Institute addresses medium term expertise needs, it will not address critical short term requirements. For example, according to Kashambuzi (2010) out of the 44 staff trained between 1984–2008 in PEPD, eleven (representing 25% of the staff) had left the department as of 2010.

7.4 Application of environmental management practices in petroleum development

Developing countries such as Uganda have weak or inadequate legal and regulatory frameworks especially in the early stages of petroleum development. As a result petroleum companies are called upon to adopt best environmental practices which, if adequately implemented, can reduce the negative impacts of petroleum development and exploration (Wawryk, 2002). Unlike the existing regulatory framework Uganda’s new laws have provisions on best practice (Chapter 7.2.2). The significance of application of environmental practices worldwide are recognised in Chapters 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 and specifically to Uganda in Chapter 5.5.4).

7.4.1 Enforcing EIA as environmental management tool for petroleum development

The EIA process in Uganda (Chapter 5.5.4) is the only legal process through which other stakeholders who do not directly participate in the petroleum development can contribute their views for consideration during the approval process. EIA is also one of the accepted processes by which petroleum development activities in the international designated protected areas can be permitted. Petroleum companies fulfil the requirement for undertaking EIA before any projects can proceed (UG_4), and EIAs are undertaken for each of the major activities of the petroleum development process such as seismic surveys, roads, camps and field development; but they are unable to consider cumulative impacts as well as identify impacts in a holistic and interconnected manner (Johnson, 2007). However, since EIA is undertaken for each major activity, even when the locations are close together, the EIA process has become repetitive with a lot of duplication and not well written to provide detailed assessments (ibid). The baseline studies are weak because data gathering for the EIAs tend to be for short periods. 166

The EIA guidelines in Uganda are outdated, and during the study stakeholders reported a number of challenges with practice which are explored in Chapter 8.4.1. As of 2013, NEMA was reviewing the EIA guidelines and was considering using the recommendations of the review to update the sectoral EIA guidelines developed for the energy sector which has some components on the oil and gas industry (UG_4). By 2012, NEMA had also undertaken an internal review to address the issues of the missing link of giving feedback to stakeholders on how their comments are incorporated in the decision making process; although they were still not making public such comments (UG_4). NEMA had undertaken an institutional review and needs assessment study for EPI (National Environment Management Authority, 2012a) to improve the capacity of the environmental institutions (Section 7.3.4). If the recommendations of such studies are implemented properly then they should be able to address, man-power issues. The capacity of the practitioners was also being built to address the challenge of manpower (UG_4).

7.4.2 Undertaking strategic environmental assessment in Uganda

The need to undertake petroleum SEA in Uganda arose because of the sensitivity of the Albertine Graben so as to ensure sustainable management of oil and gas in the region (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2013) and inadequacies of the EIA process (Section 7.4.1) It was also felt that since the environmental legislation formulated before Uganda’s oil discovery in 2006 did not take into consideration petroleum development issues, the SEA could help in the review of the environmental laws and policies as well as support the NOGP for sustainable management of the petroleum resource in the Albertine Graben (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2013).

By 2013, a petroleum SEA process was being completed in Uganda and it identified 18 key issues among which are safeguarding the environment, development of legislation, building institutional capacity, waste management, establishment of baseline data, community cohesion, community health and safety as well as cultural heritage, land acquisition, resettlement and regional security to be addressed to ensure co-existence (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2013). It also made a number of recommendations that will need to be implemented to ensure co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation. MEMD was responsible for developing the SEA through PEPD, but the SEA process was coordinated by NEMA. Guidance was provided by a steering committee composed mainly of EPI (Chapter 7.3.1) and representatives from Uganda Association of Impact Assessors (UAIA). Norway and Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) provided technical support in the development of the terms of reference (ToR) for the development of the SEA. The main goals of the SEA were to recommend on how to:

167

• Ensure that environmental sustainability considerations are taken into account during early stages of decision making and integrate those considerations into laws\regulations and relevant policies, plans and programs; and • Deal with high level environmental strategic aspects in general for the sector assess specific future development scenarios in this context (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2013 p7)

The recommendations of the Petroleum SEA are likely to be implemented starting from 2014 if funds are available.

7.4.3 Development of environmental monitoring plan for the Albertine Graben

As of April 2012, development of an environmental monitoring plan for the Albertine Graben (EMPAG), mainly by government institutions under the EPI and two representatives of international NGOs WWF and WCS, was completed. This plan should serve as a guiding tool for tracking the impacts related to petroleum exploration and developments in the Albertine Graben (National Environment Management Authority, 2012c). It identified a number of environmental monitoring indicators for a few selected ecosystem components (aquatic, terrestrial, physical/chemical), and some specific issues like society, management and business. It is anticipated that, over time, the monitoring indicators will demonstrate progress and changes in the ecosystem components, signalling when environmental management in the petroleum sector is on track, or giving early warnings when developments are heading in the wrong direction (National Environment Management Authority, 2012c).

The governing structure for implementation of the monitoring programme involves the Environmental Information Network (EIN) coordinated by NEMA. NEMA will need to establish a monitoring office (secretariat) for the coordination of the Monitoring Plan. EIN is composed of representatives from the relevant stakeholders of the plan area. Each representative of EIN will be responsible for ensuring that the monitoring programme is implemented within their own sector of relevance, and therefore need to establish close connections or networking with the relevant agencies and experts within their sector. EIN will also play a key role in providing direction to the evolving monitoring programme as a whole. Together with the NEMA secretariat, EIN will be responsible for the overall coordination and implementation of the monitoring programme (National Environment Management Authority, 2012c).

7.4.4 Applying environmental sensitivity atlas in the Albertine Graben

The NOGP advocates for development of physical master plans, environmental sensitivity maps and oil spill contingency plans for oil and gas producing areas and any transport corridors. In fulfilment of this requirement an ‘Environmental Sensitivity Atlas’ (ESA) was developed, to

168

serve as a working document to help environmental planners identify resources at risk, establish protection priorities and identify timely appropriate response and clean-up strategies (National Environment Management Authority, 2010). In addition, the ESA was also meant to enable oil companies and authorities to incorporate environmental considerations into exploration and contingency plans (National Environment Management Authority, 2010). The first edition of the ESA, produced in 2009, focused on areas on and around Lake Albert where oil exploration and production activities were then well advanced. The second phase of the ESA was meant to update the information provided in the first phase and capture environmental sensitivities in the additional exploration blocks (National Environment Management Authority, 2010). Therefore continuous data collection was necessary to update the gaps identified in the ESA, but there was no funding to support the activity after the Norwegian-supported programme ended. Consequently, by April 2012 the process of up-dating the ESA was halted (UG_4).

7.4.5 Establishment of waste treatment process

In Uganda, the legal and regulatory framework on waste management (National Environment Act cap 153), mandates NEMA to issue guidelines for proper management of wastes. Similarly, the new Petroleum (EPD) Law 2012 also gives NEMA the power to make regulations for management of petroleum waste (Government of Uganda, 2012a). The different types of wastes generated during the petroleum development process from exploration to decommissioning are presented in Chapter 6.2.5. By 2012 no specific waste management regulations were established by NEMA, but there were draft waste management guidelines. According to the National Environment Act 153 and the Petroleum (EPD) Law 2012 the primary responsibility for waste management lies with the person or company that generates the waste. Therefore, oil companies that generate wastes are responsible for any impacts on the environment that result from such wastes.

By 2012, there was still a challenge in treating and disposing of petroleum waste at some of the sites in the Albertine Graben because of contamination with heavy metals. Therefore the waste was stored at three consolidation sites – Kisinja, Ngassa and Mpundu – as a precautionary measure while characterisation assessments were undertaken to select acceptable disposable methods. After a number of studies by the oil companies and government authorities, content analysis of the waste was undertaken in Norway in 2011 and results passed to NEMA for determination of the best treatment and disposal process (UG_4). The analysis indicated that the waste could be disposed of at source with basic treatment (National Environment Management Authority, 2012d). By 2012, NEMA had drafted guidelines proposing that the petroleum waste be stabilised and buried in lined pits at the current storage sites (National Environment Management Authority, 2012d). Burying the waste at these sites may be ‘harmless’ but may still attract opposition from residents living nearby. For instance, according to Mugenyi (2012), NEMA placed a notice in the media in February 2012 of its intentions to

169

convert one of Tullow’s camps at the Buliisa Base Camp into a temporary waste management area to handle waste from oil drilling sites while NEMA looked for a permanent designated waste site. However, NEMA’s proposal attracted strong opposition from the residents of Nyapea Village in Buliisa District where the temporary waste treatment was to be located and the residents communicated their disapproval in a formal letter to NEMA. By 2012, this camp had not been converted into a waste treatment site by NEMA but it was not clear whether this was due to the protests or for other reasons.

The Petroleum (EDP) Law 2012 states that the future management of the production, transportation, storage and treatment of waste arising out of petroleum activities shall be carried out by entities from the oil companies. By 2012, two private companies (Providence Ltd and Green Impact Ltd) were licensed for transportation and management of the waste and more companies are to be licensed in future. Providence Ltd had already acquired land in Nwoya District, and Green Impact Ltd procured a piece of land in Buseruka close to where the refinery was to be located (UG_4).

According to NEMA (2012d) future petroleum wastes, within acceptable pollutant levels, shall be buried on site in lined pits, but those with high levels of pollutants shall be transported to the central waste treatment plant similar to those acquired by the waste treatment companies above. As a result of lack of national standards for petroleum wastes in Uganda, the United Kingdom standards for solid waste disposal were adopted for use until the Ugandan national standards are developed (National Environment Management Authority, 2012d).

7.4.6 Development of national oil spill contingency plan

The usefulness of the oil spill contingency plan (OSCP) as a tool for management of petroleum development impacts is articulated in Chapter 2.4.4. The NOGP for Uganda requires that OSCP be developed for the petroleum development areas and any transport corridors. The national oil spill contingency plan aims to provide guidance on oil spill responses and actions, including a risk analysis of the oil and gas activities. Its main objective is to provide a comprehensive framework to guide mitigation efforts (Government of Uganda, 2011). The oil spill contingency plan recognises the fact that petroleum activities take place in a sensitive ecosystem. In addition, oil transportation activities may involve oil spills/accidents which will need a comprehensive framework to guide mitigation efforts (Government of Uganda, 2011). By 2011, an international consultancy was procured to start the process and an inception workshop on risk assessment and oil spill contingency planning was held in June 2011. It would have been appropriate for Uganda and DRC to have developed a joint OSCP to provide a framework for collaboration during oil spills, and explored the options of assisting each other when a spill occurs in L. Albert, which could also affect R. Nile.

170

7.5 Harmonisation of protected area management with petroleum development

The Albertine Graben overlaps with several protected areas, and both UWA and NFA will have to manage the negative impacts associated with the petroleum development and accommodate the activities of the sector in their respective protected areas. Therefore by 2012 the following activities were being undertaken to manage the co-existence of the two sectors.

7.5.1 Developing new and updating existing management plans

To accommodate petroleum development in the protected areas, new management plans were designed to take into consideration petroleum exploration and development activities in several of the protected areas. By 2012, the General Management Plans for Queen Elizabeth NP, Maramagambo FR, Budongo FR were drafted and approved by the Board of Directors of UWA and NFA respectively and were ready for implementation. Ground truthing for updating South Maramagambo FR sensitivity atlas was also completed by NFA, while the plan for Murchison Falls NP was still being drafted in 2012. Protected areas use management plans as tools for achieving the goals for which they are established and for general park management objectives. Enforcing compliance and monitoring is achieved through established guidelines. For example, UWA uses the operational guidelines for oil and gas exploration in wildlife protected areas to ensure compliance (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2011a). UWA’s new management plan proposes to put in place a specific field monitoring unit on petroleum and strengthen the capacity of the unit by recruiting more people and training them in petroleum related issues (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2011b). In addition, the organisation was planning to procure more equipment for the unit and establish a basic laboratory (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2011b). Furthermore, UWA plans to develop specific sensitivity atlases for some of the affected protected areas, such as Queen Elizabeth PA and Murchison Falls PA, to highlight the ecologically sensitive areas found in these protected areas. The organisation was also planning to increase its research capacity and undertake long-term ecological baseline studies on biodiversity (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2011b). However, as discussed in Chapter 8.3.1, without adequate provision of funds to support the extra activities imposed upon the organisation by the petroleum development, UWA may not be able to achieve its plans.

7.5.2 Establishing alternative tourism infrastructure

One of the important considerations for improvement of protected area management is development of alternative infrastructure for tourism especially where such facilities are likely to be affected by petroleum development activities. In December 2011, a new road of 18.5km was commissioned in Te Bito plains in Murchison Falls NP as an alternative to routes that are likely to be affected by petroleum exploration and development in the park (Businge, 2011). Similar

171

alternative tourism routes may have to be developed as more and more oil reserves could be discovered in the protected areas and eventually be developed in the future.

7.5.3 Using flexible approaches while developing infrastructure in sensitive areas

By 2012, there were no established procedures for development of petroleum infrastructure in ecologically sensitive zones such as wetlands, wildlife breeding grounds and areas with large congregations of wildlife in the protected areas. According to UG_9 and UG_10, there is some level of flexibility being practiced by the oil companies as evidenced by, i) relocation of workers camps outside the protected areas, ii) transportation of waste outside the protected areas as soon as drilling activity was completed iii) accepting to shift the position of a proposed drilling site close to a tourism circuit in Buligi Tourism Circuit to another alternative site. This level of flexibility is a good sign of cooperation among the participating institutions, but it is difficult to imagine how far such flexibility could stretch in future without clear guidance. Therefore, considerations of ‘no-go’ areas by the government to avoid permanent impacts in such sensitive ecological zones is a necessary action, even though according to UWA (2011b) there are plans to develop detailed ecological sensitivity atlases for some of the protected areas to avoid such problems. These forms of flexibility by the petroleum companies can be considered as voluntary incentives by the companies (Chapter 2.4.3) and regulators can consider guiding the companies on such initiatives.

7.5.4 Applying appropriate technology to minimise impacts

One important practice that can ensure co-existence is use of appropriate technology, which is already being used in Uganda. For instance, the conventional burner which was first used in Waraga-1 Well in Kaiso Tonya, area EA2 was replaced by the more environmentally friendly Schlumberger Evergreen Burner when it was realised that Uganda’s crude oil has a high wax content (Steyn et al., 2011). The Evergreen Burner eliminates liquid fallout, visible smoke emissions, and oil dumping at the end of a burn sequence and is particularly well suited for operations in environmentally sensitive areas. This burner is also fitted with an automatic shutoff valve that prevents oil spillage at the beginning and end of a burning run (Schlumberger, 2011).

Similarly, application of knowledge, skills and technology at Ngassa2 Well demonstrated how co-existence can be achieved. This well is located on Angaara Spit between a lagoon and L. Albert and was considered to be one of the most sensitive wells drilled so far in the region. No waste was stored at Ngassa2, instead mud and cuttings were poured into dumper trucks and carried to Ngassa1. In addition, according to PS_6, because of the sensitivity of the area limited ‘murram’ (gravel) was used to stabilise the area as compared to other sites. Instead the materials ‘Neoweb’ (which helps to stabilize soil) and ‘Bidden’ were used. These two materials hold and compact the sand to create a stable area so that trucks can pass without getting stuck. 172

Furthermore, drilling was undertaken directionally, or deviated, at this well; a drilling technique recommended for sensitive areas and for reduction of physical footprint (PS_1 and PS_2).

Another example, was Tullow trying to reduce the amount of waste by recycling the mud and fluids going into the system. Thus, at the end of each drilling process the company was able to reduce the amount of waste by 40-50% (PS_1 and PS_2). These are also voluntary initiatives by Tullow which go beyond the regulatory requirements to improve performance (Chapter 2.4.3).

7.5.5 Undertaking phased development as compared to region-wide development

There is need to undertake petroleum development in phased stages so as to, a) allow for learning experience, b) reduce the implementation speed of the sector, c) ensure alignment of the development activities with environmental initiatives being put in place, and d) diffuse the pressure exerted by the oil and gas companies. This view is also supported by the Ugandan Refinery Study that was undertaken by Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd in 2010, which suggested that field development could start with the Kingfisher Field (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010b). This field is not located in any protected area and lessons that could be learned during its development are likely to provide important learning experiences for developing those fields that occur in the protected areas. By the time of the research, field development had not yet started.

7.6 Responsibilities of petroleum companies in Uganda

Petroleum companies operating in Uganda follow the laws and regulations of the country (Kashambuzi, 2010), and the importance of relevant legislation on petroleum was demonstrated by halting the licensing process until the new petroleum legislation came into force.

The petroleum companies are responsible for protecting the environment where they work or any areas in the country that are affected by their activities, but, the GoU legislates, regulates and monitors compliance (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). Petroleum companies operating in Uganda were already using environmental practice described in Chapter 5.5.4 for improving environmental performance, ensuring compliance with relevant national regulations, and using appropriate impact prevention technologies (Section 7.5.4). In addition, companies commit resources for implementation of strategy for biodiversity conservation and ensure EIA mitigation measures are implemented (P_1). As part of the monitoring process petroleum companies submit activity reports to the Commissioner of PEPD on field operational plans as well as submit periodic reports to other regulatory agencies as required by the terms and conditions specified in their permits, licences and the EIA approval certificates (National Environment Management Authority, 2012b).

173

These reports are used to enforce compliance with the approved activity plans and schedules. Similarly, petroleum companies submit periodic reports to EPI as required under the various permits, licences and the EIA approval certificates. The EIA guidelines state “The developer shall undertake to conduct self monitoring, self record-keeping and self reporting and the information gathered through monitoring shall be stored and made available during inspection ” (National Environment Management Authority, 1997 p35). In addition, the developer undertakes to monitor the environmental aspects of the project in accordance with the mitigation plan as described in the environmental impact statement (EIS) and prepare a monitoring report and make it available to the NEMA and Lead Agencies (National Environment Management Authority, 1997). Oil companies are expected to manage oil spills and establish contingency plans, but progress in development of the national oil spill contingency plan was particularly slow (Scanteam, 2013).

To a large extent petroleum companies cooperated in implementation of legislation during the exploration stage. Companies worked to ensure co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation (see Figure 7.1 for activities under trade-offs). Companies are expected to practice self-regulation, but according to Kasambuzi (2010) the self-regulation practiced by companies in Uganda was not at the expected standards. Companies are also not meeting the expectations of the communities and local government officials where they operate, because the communities expect to be employed and participate in the opportunities offered by the petroleum industry.

7.7 Influences of development partners, IFI, CSO and communities in Uganda

7.7.1 Development partners (donors)

There were a number of development partners, or donors, participating in the petroleum development process. Development partners such as Norway had already played a significant role in funding responses for management of the challenges of the petroleum development. For instance, the Oil for Development Programme implemented by the Norwegian Development Agency (NORAD) funded two programmes which were aimed at institutional capacity building of government institutions, strengthening the legal and regulatory framework for petroleum development as well as improvement of the management of the environment. The first programme Strengthening the state administration of the upstream sector in Uganda ended in 2009 and covered capacity building of PEPD, and technical studies, as well as beginning of the development of a new legal and regulatory framework for petroleum development in Uganda. The second programme Strengthening the management of the oil and gas sector in Uganda built on the first programme, and covered the key areas of environment, revenue and resource management (Section 7.3.1). Specifically for the environment, the programme funded the Environmental Sensitivity Atlas, SEA, the Environmental Monitoring Plan, Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Strategy, development of management plans for affected protected areas and updating of existing laws and regulations as well as development of new ones 174

(Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). However, as mentioned in 8.3.1, the review of the programme revealed that ‘ Progress was particularly slow regarding environmental regulations, strategic environmental assessment, framework for compliance monitoring and the national oil spill contingency plan ’ (Scanteam, 2013 p54).

NORAD’s Department for Civil Society also provided some funds in 2010-12 for the WWF Country Office to work with communities, other national CSO and some government institutions such as NEMA and PEPD in relation to petroleum development issues (Scanteam, 2013). The World Bank’s contribution to capacity building of the sector and environmental institutions was through two programmes. The programme Petroleum exploration promotion project was approved in 1985 and closed in 1993, and was implemented through the Ministry of Energy (World Bank, 1995). The programme was aimed at assembling information for attracting petroleum companies in Uganda and for building a petroleum unit in the Ministry. The second project the Second environmental management capacity building project came into effect in 2008 and closed in 2011, and was implemented through NEMA and NFA (World Bank, 2011). Meanwhile USAID, also provided funds for capacity building in EIA of government officials, private sector and CSO through WCS. Similarly, the MacArthur Foundation provided funds for capacity building through ACODE for CSCO. Other development partners were ADB, the UK- DfID and Ireland. However, there seemed to be a lack of a coordinated strategy among the development partners in provision of support to strengthen the management of the sector.

7.7.2 Civil society organisations

Participating CSOs contributed in influencing the responses put in place by GoU. For instance, a number of national and international CSO such as Civil Society Coalition for Oil and Gas (CSCO), Human Rights Network, and Global Witness, participated in the formulation of the Petroleum (EDP) Bill (Parliament of the Republic of Uganda, 2012). Other CSO, WWF and WCS participated in building the capacity of some of the environmental institutions like NEMA and UWA. In addition, WCS participated in reviewing the EIA reports and undertook research in the protected areas to assess the impacts of petroleum development. Furthermore, CSO were encouraging observance of international protocols and agreements and application of environmental tools such as SEA for decision making. CSO were also involved in demanding improved protected area management systems, access to information and participation in monitoring of the petroleum development activities. The CSO advocated transparency, harnessing public concerns and brought pressure on companies and governments. Assessing the performance of CSO on issues of petroleum development, the Scanteam Report (2013) to NORAD reported that “ The support to inform and engage civil society participation has been useful” (Scanteam, 2013 p 54), while Shepherd (2013) stated that “ Media and civil society are well developed, but frequently are part of the political debate rather than standing above it. Civil society will have a vital role to play in the successful management of Uganda’s oil, but does not yet have sufficient capacity to truly balance the views of government or opposition ” (Shepherd,

175

2013 p10). However, for the CSO to play their roles effectively and efficiently, the national NGO in particular will need to have programmes that build their capacities; however, by 2012 there were no such programmes in place or being planned.

7.7.3 Host communities

Host communities represented by organisations such as local governments of Buliisa, Kabaale, Ker Kwaro Acholi, cultural leaders of the Jonam, Bunyoro Local Oil and Gas Advocacy Group (BULOGA), participated in the formulation of Petroleum (EDP) Bill (Parliament of the Republic of Uganda, 2012). Local communities have been consulted during the EIA process, but they did not actively participate in the monitoring of compliance, although they wanted to be involved in monitoring petroleum activities that directly affected them. Communities were advocating for transparency and fair compensation for their properties that were destroyed by petroleum development activities. Host communities also wanted constructive two-way communication and dialogue with the key stakeholders such as GoU and the petroleum companies. In addition, communities are to be given some royalties in accordance with the constitution and relevant laws that are passed by the Parliament in relation to revenue management.

7.8 Conclusion

This chapter discussed the current ‘Responses’ by Uganda to manage the impacts of petroleum development in the Albertine Graben through legislation, application of environmental practices and building of institutions. This Chapter on ‘Responses’ is the last of the DPSIR components and the current linkages between the components are summarised in Figure 7.1, which should be read clockwise from drivers to responses.

‘Drivers ’ of petroleum development induce ‘Pressures ’ on the ‘State of biodiversity’ of the Albertine Graben which lead to changes in the State of the environment. The changes in the state of the environment eventually have ‘Impacts ’ on human health and biodiversity resulting in societal ‘Responses’ to manage these drivers, pressures, impacts and resultant changes in the state of the environment.

The main drivers for Uganda’s petroleum are probably increased world demand for petroleum products, high oil prices, reduction of reserve volumes in traditional areas, innovations in petroleum extraction technology and continued turbulence in the Middle East. In addition Uganda is motivated by issues of energy security, the need to increase electricity production and prospect of revenue accrual from the petroleum development.

By 2012, petroleum development in the Albertine Graben was at the exploration stage and the main pressures of concern were establishment of infrastructure, and workers camps, emissions, waste storage, establishment of workers camps, closure of the Buligi Tourism Circuit, increased traffic, noise and light emissions (Chapter 6.2). These findings are in agreement with

176

Exploration and Production Forum/UNEP (1997) that the main petroleum pressures are as a result of infrastructure development, well drilling, production and waste production (Chapter 6.4). In the communities, induced pressures included delayed and inadequate compensation, inconveniences caused by seismic surveys in or around homes, land take, vibrations, noise, large numbers of workforce, establishment of workers’ camps, and people seeking for employment (Chapter 6.3).These activities resulted in changes such as temporary restrictions on fishing grounds, disruption of agricultural activities, population influx into the surrounding areas and inconveniences caused by flaring (Chapter 6.3).

In Figure 7.1, the state of the environment is represented by the biodiversity in the protected areas of the Albertine Graben. The biodiversity is composed of species and ecosystems and the Albertine Graben is well known for its species diversity represented by mainly plants, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals, some of which are endemic and threatened (Chapter 5.2.2). The main ecosystems found in the exploration areas are tropical rain forests (e.g. Maramagambo, Budongo), savannah and wetlands. The modified ecosystem is represented by agro-ecosystems (e.g. agriculture and agro-pastoral systems) (Chapter 5.2.1).

As a result of great diversity and endemism, the region has important conservation designations; Important Bird Areas (IBA), Ramsar Sites, Biosphere Reserve, Ecoregion, and Biodiversity Hotspot in order to protect the region from threats. Accordingly, the Albertine Graben is recognised as a region of national, continental and international importance (Chapter 5.4).

Petroleum development activities had resulted in impacts which are grouped into biophysical and socio-economic. The direct biophysical impacts are wildlife displacement, wildlife kills by traffic and pollution, attraction and trapping of wildlife, interruption of wildlife migration patterns, introduction of exotic plant species, soil erosion, visual intrusion, as well as generation of noise and 24-hour lighting. The indirect impacts of exploration are increased human-wildlife conflicts, fragmentation of wildlife habitats and poaching (Chapter 6.2). The direct socio-economic impacts of exploration were creation of access roads that opened up virgin areas, inconveniences caused in or around homes, dust and nuisance by traffic, land take, vibrations and noise.

177

Figure 7.1 A DPSIR framework showing current responses required to ensure co-existence in biodiversity conservation and petroleum development

Drivers of petroleum development Pressures • Global level • During Exploration State of biodiversity in protected areas of Albertine Graben • National level • During Operations/production Species Ecosystems Conservation • Regional level • De commissioning Genes Endemic Designations Threatened

Other Stakeholders

Host communities (Community activities, Current responses to ensure co -existence

employees) Direct and indirect impacts of petroleum Development of relevant environment legislation and their development implementation: 1) Developing new legislation 2) Update existing Civil Society (NGO, Media, Universities, etc) Biophysical Economic Social Impacts legislation 3) Observing international conventions • Impacts • Direct Direct impacts • Direct impacts Building the capacity of regulatory institutions: 1) Improving Development partners (Norway USAID, etc) • Indirect impacts • Indirect institutional capacity 2) Improving compliance enforcement 3) Building impacts • Indirect impacts the capacity of Ugandans • impacts • Cumulative Cumulative Financial Institutions (World Bank), ADB • Cumulative

Application of environmental management practices: 1) Enforcing EIA practice 2) Undertaking strategic environment 3) development of the environmental monitoring plan 4) Applying environmental sensitivity atlas 5) Establishing waste management procedures 6) Developing of national oil spill contingency plan Trade -offs between conservation and petroleum

development Key Stakeholders Harmonisation of protected area management : 1) Developing new • Timing of oil and gas activities with right seasons and updating existing management plans 2) Establishing alternative • Establishment of conservation funding tourism infrastructure 3) Applying flexible approaches 4) Encouraging • Government of Uganda (cabinet, Parliament, Agreement on biodiversity offsets appropriate technology 5) Undertaking phased development Ministries) Regulators (NEMA, UWA, NFA, DWRM, Responses from donors and CSO: 1) Supporting government activities DEA, DFR, MLHUD) 2) Capacity building 3) Ensuring implementation of legislation and accountability 4) Advocating for community rights Oil Companies (Tullow, CNOOC, Total) Contractors, Share holders Responses from companies : 1) Implementation of legislation 2)

Adaptation of environmental management practices 3) Practising best practice and self-regulation 4) Working with local governments and host Source: Author communities

Key to Arrows Emerging responses for addressing environment issues Government Oil companies Environmental Conventions National Legal Institutional Communities & CSO Management Tools Global & Regional Frameworks Framework Development partners & IFI Agreements

178

Other impacts that were of concern were introduction of large numbers of worker in the affected protected areas and communities, establishment of camps for exploration activities which led to land take, closure of tourism circuits, temporary restriction on fishing grounds, disruption of agricultural activities, loss of crops and property, insufficient and delayed compensations and inconveniences caused by gas flaring for communities in Buliisa District. The indirect impacts were population influx into the surrounding areas by job seekers, prostitution, increase in crime and changes in local prices of goods (Chapter 6).

By 2012, as a result of the changes in the environment, Uganda was already making responses through initiatives to protect the environment against the impacts of oil and gas. These responses include strengthening of Uganda’s legal and regulatory framework for petroleum development and biodiversity conservation, building capacity of regulatory institutions and capacity of Ugandans, improving protected area management systems and applying environmental management tools.

The next chapter evaluates the sufficiency of the responses Uganda has put in place to address the emerging challenges of petroleum development in the Albertine Graben.

179

8. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE ALBERTINE GRABEN

8.1 Introduction

This chapter evaluates the importance of legislation and environmental practices as tools for management of environmental impacts and the role of institutions in ensuring both tools are properly implemented. It assesses the adequacy of emerging responses Uganda is already putting in place (Chapter 7) to ensure co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation. The evaluation focuses on the three themes of legislation, capacity of institutions and environmental management practices. The chapter is presented as follows: Section 8.2 evaluates the current environmental legislation to enforce compliance and monitoring, Section 8.3 analyses institutional capacities, and Section 8.4 evaluates environmental practices while Section 8.5 concludes the chapter. The analysis is based on the evidence base discussed in previous Chapters 4 – 7.

8.2 Evaluation of environmental legislation to enforce compliance and monitoring

Uganda has comprehensive environmental legislation with specific policies, laws, regulations and guidelines for sectors such as wildlife, forestry, wetlands, fisheries, water resources, mining and energy (Chapter 5.5.2 and 5.5.3). However, there has been limited implementation of the environmental legislation due to a number of challenges. The environmental legislation has become obsolete and requires updating, but this has not been achieved (Chapter 7.2.2) even seven years after the discovery of commercial levels of petroleum in the Albertine Graben in 2006.

The only piece of environmental legislation that was revised, as of 2012, is the Wildlife Policy 1999. However, this policy requires harmonisation with the Wildlife Act 1996 (Chapter 7.2.2), which also is yet to be updated. In addition, regulations also need to be developed to interpret and implement this Act (United States Agency for International Development, 2011). By 2012, UWA had developed operational guidelines (Uganda Wildlife Authority, 2011a) for oil companies to follow while working in protected areas, but these have yet to be approved by its Board of Directors (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2013). Similarly, the National Environment Act 1995 does not have provisions for establishment of offsets, management of climate change (Chapter 7.2.2), undertaking SEA, nor for NEMA to employ more staff to deal with the increased need to cope with petroleum development (Section 8.4.5).

180

NEMA has proposed a unit to specifically deal with petroleum related issues, but awaits parliamentary approval because of the inadequacies of the National Environment Act 1995. The Uganda Forestry Policy 2001, was formulated before petroleum discovery and is due for revision; the Forest Regulations and the EIA regulations for the forest sector were incomplete and no guidelines exist for petroleum activities in forest reserves (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2013). Petroleum activities that have occurred in forest reserves focussed on restoration without consideration for offsetting the value lost (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2013). The National Fisheries Policy 2004 needs revision and the Fish Act 1951 was partially amended in 2000 without consideration of petroleum issues. Therefore, there is no legislation for control of petroleum activities on fisheries (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2013). The procedures for handling compensation for loss of property and relocation of people due to petroleum development activities also have not been sufficiently addressed (Chapter 5.7.1).

The slow progress of reforming the environmental legislation to address environmental consequences of petroleum development was also echoed in a study by Scanteam, (hired by NORAD to review the Norwegian funded support programme). They reported on the slow pace of formulation of environmental regulation, undertaking the SEA, development of a framework for compliance monitoring, as well as working on the national oil spill contingency plan (Scanteam, 2013). The Scanteam report (2013) also observed that Uganda’s new petroleum legislation did not fully take into consideration the ‘polluter pays principle’, and the definition of pollution damage was restricted to effluence or discharge of petroleum wastes and did not clearly specify other pollutants such as drilling fluids, mud and cuttings. The report warned that such lack of clarity would have implications in future management of wastes, and that some of the provisions could be challenged in courts of law. The study also observed ambiguity on GoU’s position on pollution costs in case of oil spill (Scanteam, 2013).

There is, therefore, a need to reform the environmental legislation and institutional capacities to match the pace of petroleum development with management of its emerging issues, but progress has been slow in making changes (Chapter 7.2.1). This slow pace of reforms has been attributed to lack of political will both to promote biodiversity conservation over other land use issues, and to lobby for provision of adequate resources (budgets, staffing, training) for the environmental institutions and tackle corruption in such institutions (United States Agency for International Development, 2011). The general situation in Uganda is that politicians promote development over environmental protection, and as a result the majority of the EPI institutions are under-funded and under-staffed (Chapters 5.5.5 and 7.3). For petroleum companies, economic interests surpass the ecological interests and they work under tight schedules to beat deadlines, and in so doing ignore environmental concerns (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2013). Therefore, for the environmental legislation to be effective there needs to be political will for environmental management and to make the necessary reforms.

181

8.3 Assessment of institutional capacity of environmental regulatory institutions

The institutional framework for management of biodiversity conservation and petroleum development in Uganda is given in Chapter 5.5.5, and efforts by GoU to improve the capacity of EPI are presented under the emerging responses in Chapter 7.3. The government institutional framework consists of MWE with overall responsibility for environmental management in the country, EPI which is made up of institutions with mandates to manage the impacts of petroleum development, MIEMC which consists of the EPI institutions and District Environment Officers, the cabinet and the parliament. Other participating institutions are civil society organisations, host communities, the private sector and the media.

The capacity of the government institutions is assessed based on resource provision for compliance enforcement and monitoring, their technical capacity, governance issues (transparency, accountability and political will), coordination and institutional capacity.

8.3.1 Inadequate resources provision for enforcement and monitoring

One of the institutions established under this framework to undertake enforcement and monitoring is MIEMC which was launched in 2008 (Chapter 7.3.2). However, the work of MIEMC was reported by stakeholders to be irregular (UG_4, UG_15, and UG_16), and since its inception the executive level of MIEMC had visited the field only once and by April 2012 the activities of the Technical Committee were also irregular and ineffective (UG_13 and UG_20).

A key problem facing compliance monitoring in Uganda was lack of funding (UG_4, UG_13 and UG_20). For example the implementation of the activities of MIEMC committee had problems right from the beginning because of staff time and logistics (UG_13 and UG_20). When the committee was launched the arrangement was that institutions constituting the monitoring team were to fund the oil and gas monitoring activities from spare funds. This presented a logistical problem because these activities had not been included in the annual operations plans of the institutions concerned and it was not possible to align the monitoring activities with the already planned activities of the respective institutions (UG_4). Therefore lack of funding made it difficult for some of the institutions to actively participate even though the situation was alleviated to some extent by securing some funding from the World Bank by NEMA (UG_4). Once the funding from the World Bank ended, sustaining the quarterly field visits became a challenge for the committee. In the 2012/13 budget no money was allocated for the activities of MIEMC and most of the environmental programmes to support petroleum development were supported by Norway. NEMA approached USAID for funding to sustain the activities of the committee (UG_4), but depending on donor support is not the best way to sustain required monitoring activities of petroleum development activities.

182

By 2012, funding provision to government environmental institutions participating in the petroleum development process had not improved. The proportion of Government of Uganda’s annual budget allocation for the Water & Environment Sector continued to decline. In 2003/4 the sector was allocated 7.4% of the national budget, but this dropped to 3% in 2008/9 (Ministry of Water and Environment, 2009). In monetary terms, the allocations dropped from Ugx 248 billion to Ugx 184 billion in 2003-2009 in nominal terms without factoring in inflation (Ministry of Water and Environment, 2009).

Figure 8.1 Number of oil and gas wells drilled as of 2011 in the Albertine Graben

20 20

15 12 10 10 9 Number Number of wells drilled each year 5 4 4

1 1 1 1 1 0 1938 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year

Source: Based on Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (unpublished)

The Natural Resources sub-sector under MWE supports institutions such as NEMA and NFA as well as local governments (Figure 8.2). Similarly, the Water and Environment Sector provides funds for the Meteorology Department, Department for Environment Support Services, Forestry Services Support and Wetlands Management. Government’s reduction in funding for these institutions comes at a time when there is rising activity in petroleum exploration and development (Figure 8.1) which means increased workload for the environmental institutions. However, lack of funds makes it difficult to cope with the challenges posed by the industry for institutions like NEMA and NFA. This insufficient resource provision puts into question national commitments for biodiversity conservation. It was observed that inadequate funding results in weak monitoring and enforcement of standards and oil companies could compromise on compliance (UG_14, NNGO_1 and NNGO_2). 183

Figure 8.2 Linkages between Government institutions participating in environmental management to address petroleum development impacts

Government institutions participating in environmental management to address petroleum development impacts

Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Ministry of Energy and Tourism, Water and Agriculture, Land, Housing Mineral Trade and Environment Animal & Urban Participating Development Industry (MWE) Industry & Development Ministries (MEMD) (MTTI) Fisheries (MLHUD) (MAAIF)

Institutions/ PEPD UWA NEMA, DWRM Department DPPUD Department NFA of Fisheries DEA Resource

Local Governments of Environment, Fisheries and Community officers of the districts in the Albertine Graben Districts in Albertine Graben

Source: Author The main ministry for environmental management is Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) which has Environment Support Services, Forestry Services Support and Wetlands Management some of which are not part of EPI (Chapter 5.5.5). The double arrows indicate the ideal communication and coordination among the institutions to ensure co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity. However, the coordination between some of the institutions and the parent ministries were reportedly weak e.g. between NEMA and MWE as well as UWA and MTTI. The linkages between central government institutions and the local government were also weak.

184

The need for provision of commensurate resources is supported by a World Bank (2010a) study which noted that participating environmental institutions should have sufficient resources to implement their strategies and fulfil their objectives. Such resources should include sufficient budget and personnel; staff training related to the environmental management of oil and gas development, access to equipment, technologies, and information and retention of institutional knowledge. Similarly, the challenges with implementation of legislation in Uganda was also observed by Global Integrity (2012) which reported that Uganda has comprehensive legal and regulatory frameworks for the majority of its sectors with a score of 98% but it scored an average of 52% in actual implementation which left an implementation gap of around 48%. Monitoring environmental compliance in the Albertine Graben still remains a problem and was one of the main challenges faced by PEPD during the exploration phase because some companies did not abide by environmental regulations, guidelines and the mitigation measures specified in the EIA (Kashambuzi, 2010).

8.3.2 Insufficient staff and lack of technical knowledge in environmental institutions

There was insufficient staff and lack of technical knowledge in the environmental institutions. For instance, there was a limited number of staff in NEMA and UWA to handle EIAs and compliance monitoring (Chapter 7.3); and the number of environmental inspectors for petroleum development activities was also inadequate. Both NEMA and UWA had only one officer each as environmental inspectors for the whole of the Albertine Graben (Chapter 7.4.1). NEMA relies on DEOs for monitoring implementation of EIA mitigation measures, who lack knowledge, and resources (money, vehicles and equipment) to monitor implementation of petroleum development projects.

One other problem with many of the institutions making up EPI (Figure 5.7) was lack of technical capacity. There was lack of technical knowledge in all EPI except PEPD and considerations for capacity building of these institutions started only in 2008 (UG_3, UG_4, UG_8, UG_10, and UG_13). As a result one criticism against the EPI is that they are slow to respond to the pace of petroleum development (Chapter 7.3). Since 2006, GoU’s priority has been to strengthen the capacity of PEPD and revenue management departments, with limited training to EPI, which resulted in knowledge gaps in environmental management in relation to petroleum development (Chapter 7.3). As observed by the NOGP, significant training is still required to build the institutional and human capacity of EPI for the institutions to implement their mandates properly (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). In contrast efforts to build the capacity of PEPD started in 1985 while for building the capacity of EPI commenced after 2006 (Pöyry, 2011).

It was anticipated that the period when licensing and activities were suspended (while negotiating for taxes and formulation of new petroleum legislation) would have given

185

opportunities for building capacity in regulatory institutions, but the opportunity was never seized possibly because of lack of funding (UG_3). As result there was inadequate knowledge about the impacts of petroleum exploration and development activities on biodiversity, with staff needing training to advise participating institutions (UG_1, UG_8 and PS_1). Moreover, experience elsewhere has shown that building capacity when production has started is normally difficult, therefore sufficient institutional capacity may never be achieved (UG_3 and NNGO_1. There were also problems in attracting and retaining staff (Chapter 7.3.1).

The majority of the stakeholders interviewed expressed the need to have the capacity of the EPI built so as to manage petroleum exploration and development. For instance, according to UG_9, “ In the early phases of the exploration in 2006 and 2007 the environmental institutions were only involved in monitoring the activities of the sector without any attempts to build their capacity” (Government Officer, UG_9). One stakeholder from the central government observed, “To me the real problem is at the local government level because for example the District Environment Officers do not have the capacity to monitor and their capacity needs to be built (Government Officer, UG_5). Similarly, a respondent from local government said:

We do limited monitoring because I only participate in the monitoring when the technical team from Kampala comes around but I have not participated in monitoring alone and we also do not have clear monitoring indicators. We need to do a monitoring plan with specific indicators and should be done by a team otherwise the monitoring system is still weak (Local Government Officer ULG_1).

The Norwegian-funded programme (Chapter 7.3.1) was designed to contribute to capacity building at various levels within the Environmental Pillar Institutions as the Pillar’s early involvement in petroleum operations was limited, and therefore staff from the Environmental Pillar institutions required extensive training to manage the environmental component of petroleum resources (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). The training was to be provided through seminars, workshops, tailor-made courses and technical visits because the programme was not designed for long-term training (Scanteam, 2013). As part of skills development, close cooperation with Norwegian counterpart institutions was to be used for transfer of knowledge and skills (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). As such there were no long-term training courses proposed for the Environmental Pillar institutions only short term courses. One stakeholder from a central government institution commented on the trainings, “ We need to have staff who have trained and have authority to advice but not only going to field visits, workshops, or exchange visits but give technical guidance to UWA and other institutions” (Government Officer UG_8).

Therefore, the need to strengthen capacity still exists despite efforts from GoU and development partners. By 2012, NEMA had undertaken an institutional review process but the

186

recommendations of the study had not been implemented. A needs assessment study was also conducted for EPI in 2012, but the recommendations from these studies are yet to be implemented due to lack of funding. MEMD (2010a) noted that “In many cases, human capacity and technical infrastructure in government agencies is currently inadequate to handle upstream and downstream oil and gas impacts on the environment” (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a p31).

Lack of establishment of facilities for institutions was emphasized by one of the interviewees:

Capacity does not only involve human resource but also the infrastructure. For example laboratory equipment is still a big challenge in Uganda. Our laboratory is supposed to be a national reference laboratory for water quality analysis but we still do not have the equipment to do sophisticated analysis. We cannot do analysis for heavy metals (Government officer UG_16) .

The Uganda Wildlife Authority has research and monitoring systems but facilities which were needed for long-term monitoring and ensuring compliance need to be put in place (UG_8) including resources (equipment and money) to assess and evaluate petroleum exploration and development activities on biodiversity (UG_8 and UG_9).

8.3.3 Lack of transparency, accountability and political will

Representatives of environmental institutions interviewed argued that there was a lack of institutional transparency, accountability and political will, as well as problems of attitude and power relations, among the participating institutions (UG_10, UG_15, UG_16, and INGO). Participants noted that the prevailing situation could affect working together to mitigate impacts of petroleum development on the biodiversity. This is reflected in the statements made by UG_10:

Our colleagues in MEMD are using lack of baseline information to rubbish any arguments against the potential impacts of petroleum development instead of us sitting together as government institutions to find solutions to lack of baseline information. We have an attitude that is developing in some of the government institutions giving the impression that they are more important and have more political clout than the other government institutions. For example PEPD, thinks that they are now powerful and when NEMA wants to talk to them they will even rubbish them. Similarly, they will not listen to what UWA will try to tell them at times (Government officer, UG_10).

187

However, there was also a lack of trust among the participating institutions on the credibility of information collected by the other institutions. For example, according to PS_1, as a private company they undertake studies to collect baseline information in the protected areas but their worry was whether their information would be acceptable to the other stakeholders. PS_1 further said that they would have preferred joint studies, but it would take a long time to get everyone to trust their information, yet information is needed for decision making. PS_1’s fears were confirmed by an observation by one of the government officers:

I understand that the oil companies collect their baseline information independently which is not bad if they do it transparently so that they are able to do their monitoring in future. But I am also aware that some of the developers when asked to give monitoring data they try to tailor it to suit what you want to see [as a regulator] (Government officer, UG_10).

8.3.4 Weak coordination among the environmental institutions

One other factor mentioned by respondents was lack of institutional coordination among the participating institutions (Figure 8.2) and one stakeholder observed.

There is very weak coordination between the different departments and institutions and there should be harmonisation between these institutions. For example Tullow is building a health centre in Buliisa District and there was no EIA done and the structure is also located in the road reserve 16 . Tullow was reported to NEMA and was forced to do EIA but after construction work had already started. We don't have independent structure to handle such issues. They gave us a resource centre and it is the same story ( Local Government Officer, ULG_2 ).

Respondents also indicated a lack of transparency and accountability which affects development of trust and the importance of clear definition of roles for petroleum development. NEMA in particular was seen by the other institutions to have assumed the roles of the other participating entities and was acting outside its mandate at times because of its attempts to implement certain activities:

At one point NEMA seemed to have assumed overall responsibility of overseeing all the activities, including for DWRM where we are supposed to regulate waste water. For example, we did not know what happened to the waste at one of the closed sites in Bugoma for Heritage Ltd. When we visited the area we found that the cuttings had been spread in what the industry calls ‘land farming’ which was

16 Portions of land demarcated on either side of a main road in Uganda for future expansion of such roads or laying of other linear infrastructure such as electric and telephone lines 188

totally unacceptable and the company claimed that they had got approval from NEMA. So when NEMA is pursuing certain responsibilities they do it single- handedly. Moreover, even within NEMA itself there is no harmony and at times there is even confusion of roles and therefore it will be better if NEMA consults with other government institutio ns (Government officer, UG_17).

Stakeholders also said that there was a problem with the supervision of authorities, such as NEMA and UWA, because of the financial influence these institutions have, and therefore they did not easily submit to their parent ministries that were supposed to supervise them (Figure 8.2). Similarly, Pöyry (2011) also observed that there was weak coordination between NEMA and its parent Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE). On the other hand PEPD was perceived to have a lot of political power and sometimes cared little for suggestions made by the other members of the environmental pillar (Chapter 5.7.5). According to Alba (2009), good practice demands that the separation of roles between the ministry of environment or environmental agency, the environmental unit of the sector ministry and the state-owned company needs to be clearly established to avoid institutional conflicts and poor environmental monitoring.

8.3.5 Lack of equipment and institutional knowledge of environmental institutions

Government of Uganda is not yet equipped to deal with petroleum wastes and was unable to analyse the types and levels of heavy metal concentrations in the mud and cuttings, which were analysed in Norway. In addition, laboratory facilities for sample collection and analysis to monitor pollution were also lacking (Chapter 7.4.5).

Interviewees also noted that there was insufficient baseline information particularly for monitoring petroleum development activities on biodiversity (UG_8, UG_10, UG_16). For example, one participant noted that there was a spill of E&P wastes which the companies tried to clean up and by the time UWA got to the site it was difficult to prove whether it had an impact or not (UG_8). Similarly, stakeholders UG_10 and UG_14, observed that UWA should, by 2011, been collecting data on water quality in the rivers Nile and Tangi, as well as soil samples in the exploration areas before the start of the petroleum production phase; but this was not done. According to UG_3, relevant baseline information gathering should have started at the onset of the oil and gas exploration phase in order to study impacts on behavioural changes of wildlife, but no information was collected:

Let me tell you something which amused me. There was a survey which was done in Buliji area and somebody said that the animals were relocating as a result of the ground vibrations caused by seismic surveys and the animals were doing this and that, etc. I asked the person to show me the natural migration

189

patterns of these animals before the petroleum activities started to establish how the frequency of migration has changed due to petroleum development activities. I also requested him as part of evidence to show the number of animals he counted before the seismic operations started and another count of animals during and after the seismic had been completed indicating that the animal numbers had actually reduced. He said they had not done any animal census. Then I said to him how can you convince anyone scientifically because what you are claiming were observations for only one month and you did not have any baseline information to claim that animals were relocating due to seismic activities ( Government officer, UG_3).

It was noted that the capacity of the institutions could be improved by early planning to absorb activities at the initial stages of the production phase (UG_3). Ignoring the early planning process could result in serious impacts on the long-term strategic planning of Uganda. Moreover, experience shows that mistakes are bound to be made in the early stages of production phase (UG_3):

The point is that you have everything to gain when you sit down and plan and involve all the stakeholders in your planning but this is not happening. You also need to look at geo-politics because for example in eastern DRC they are fighting all the time and you have no one to buy your fuel (Government officer, UG_3).

Moreover, there seems to be a sense of urgency on part of Government of Uganda to get things done as quickly as possible which oil companies are taking advantage of given their wide experience (UG_3, UG_16). Similarly, there was lack of strategy to manage public anxiety and expectations on part of the government (Global Witness, 2010).

8.4 Evaluation of environmental management practices

Environmental management practices are important tools for management of environmental impacts of petroleum development, and these tools can be mandatory (e.g. EIA) or voluntary (e.g. SEA) (Chapters 2.4.5 and 5.5.3). The main tools being used or formulated by 2012 were waste management practices, the EIA process in Uganda, the environmental sensitivity atlas, the national oil spill contingency plan, monitoring system for Albertine Graben and the petroleum SEA. Other voluntary practices such as EMS, EMS monitoring and auditing, EPE which are implemented by companies although important were not evaluated because such practices were still being developed by the companies or referred the researcher to their websites which did not have enough information.

190

8.4.1 Weaknesses of EIA process as environmental management tool

The importance of EIA as a tool for environmental management has been discussed in Chapters 2.4.4 and 5.5.3. It is one of the tools used in Uganda for management of petroleum impacts (Chapter 7.4.1). However, stakeholders mentioned many of the inadequacies associated with the EIA process discussed in Chapter 2.4.4. Weaknesses included lack of baseline information, funding of EIA by project proponents who can compromise the outcome, EIA being undertaken when decisions are already taken, and weak public participation. The majority of stakeholders said that the EIA process in Uganda was not comprehensive and the tendency was to secure regulatory approval of oil and gas projects, rather than for the process to serve as a mechanism for minimising impacts of petroleum development projects. For instance, on the inadequacies of baseline information a participant observed:

The baseline studies are not good because the studies for the EIAs are short and need improvement. When we talk to the EIA practitioners they say that the resources given to them are inadequate to allow them collect enough baseline data. So there is need for engagement between companies and EIA practitioners so that the companies understand the importance of baseline data and try to increase on the number of days consultants can spend in the field to do a better job. There is also need to improve on the methods for doing the baseline studies. Practitioners can tell you that they used a transect method but when they begin to explain to you how they did it then you realise the inconsistencies. Practitioners need to improve on the processes of consultation so that it is more involving (Government officer, UG_9).

According to UG_4, the inconsistencies in collecting baseline data in EIA could be caused by use of general guidelines for the EIA process, and as of 2012 NEMA was considering using sectoral EIA guidelines developed for the energy sector which have some components on the oil and gas industry; but will require updating to tailor it to the needs of the industry (UG_4). However, even if all the above issues are addressed the challenge of manpower is likely to remain as an obstacle:

You know looking at the volume of EIA we are supposed to deal with and the time frame for us to come up with decision makes us compromise on the quality of the EIA review process seriously. And therefore that issue has to be addressed. The institution is overwhelmed by the volume of EIA that we have to review. You have 4-5 people to handle EIS. The situation could also be improved by training the staff so that their capacity is built to take critical decisions (Government officer, UG_4).

191

Interviewees indicated that, as a result of inadequacies in the baseline information, EIA practitioners have a problem in identifying the impacts of petroleum development. For instance, practitioners could not capture impacts on tourism as well as cumulative impacts (UG_9). In addition, when EIA practitioners go into the field they tend to focus on the direct impacts only such that the indirect impacts are not covered. Furthermore, practitioners do not consider increases in population, which could have impacts on the forests or the impacts on the community (UG_6). One participant observed that EIA for petroleum development in and around Kabwoya WR was done, but it did not give the required attention in considering the indirect impacts especially relating to social impacts (PS_13).

Participants noted that the way NEMA distributes the EIA reports for review also has loopholes; in most cases the reports end up being assigned to officers who are busy and may not have the time to read the reports, hence, delaying the approval of projects. In addition, some of the government officers are perceived to have ‘I don’t care’ attitude and never review the reports (UG_20).

My initial suggestion to NEMA was to put in place a committee of reviewers but NEMA’s argument was that the number of EIA reports they receive makes it difficult for them to engage a committee unless such a committee becomes part of NEMA staff to continuously review the reports. But my suggestion was to categorise the reports into small and big petroleum projects; whereby the big project reports like seismic surveys can be given to a Scientific Review Committee while small projects such as construction of petrol stations can be reviewed by staff of NEMA (Government officer, UG_20).

Communities and local government officials complained of the difficulty in accessing the EIA reports “ We don't receive the EIA reports even though these reports are supposed to be public and displayed ” (Local Government officer, ULG_1). Respondents said they had to lobby hard to obtain the reports (NNGO_1 and NNGO_2) and when they eventually manage to access them it can be too late to analyse and respond adequately to the issues that needed to be addressed (UG_15, NNGO2, ULG_1, and ULG_2). Occasionally, even when reports were accessed in time and reviewed, comments from participating institutions are not incorporated in the EIS (UG_15, NNGO2, ULG_1, and ULG_2).

Stakeholders also identified challenges with consultation during the EIA process and said they were consulted only on the ‘common issues’ (UG_20). For instance, one local government official noted that consultations by EIA practitioners were peripheral and they were often consulted on the obvious issues (ULG_2). It was also reported that since the communities did not have sufficient knowledge on the petroleum industry their contributions during consultations were minimal, and the main concerns of the communities were about their compensation (PS_4). Similarly, leaders in the districts where exploration and production activities were taking

192

place also complained that they were never consulted even by the central government before decisions were made (IP_1 and ULG_4).

According to UG_9 in some cases where EIA practitioners did identify the petroleum development impacts, the mitigation measures suggested to address the impacts were not feasible (UG_9). For instance, for mitigation measures for impacts on wildlife, EIA practitioners would suggest that affected animals should be translocated to other protected areas, without understanding what is involved in the translocation process (UG_9). . There were also problems with the implementation of the mitigation plans given in the EIA reports (UG_20). Respondents indicated a need to improve these by giving clear indicators and assigning responsibilities to specific people and organisations (UG_6). Stakeholders, from both central and local government reported their inability to undertake monitoring work for the petroleum activities because of lack of funds in their institutions. Respondents also mentioned the fast rate at which petroleum development was taking place, making it difficult for the regulators to monitor activities of the developers. Interviewees also observed that some EIA reports did not contain well designed environmental management plans (EMP); it was expected that the EMPs would provide costs with clearly defined roles for the different actors (UG_13).

There were strong feelings, by the communities and the local authorities, that concerns raised during consultations were never considered by regulators and proponents, e.g. employment of locals, provision of business opportunities to local people. The communities were also not happy about the compensation rates given for their crops (ULG_4). Environmental monitoring is seen as insufficient, and monitoring data are either not disclosed or not made available to the general public and affected stakeholders. Consultations with local communities focused more on the amount to be negotiated for compensation than on establishing communication links for managing environmental impacts throughout the project cycle (PS_4). Little information was communicated back to project stakeholders about the results of the consultation process to know whether their decisions were incorporated into the approval process.

There has been missing link of giving feedback to stakeholders on the process of how their comments were incorporated. However, NEMA has internal review process which has records of how decisions are reached and justifications on how such decisions are made. The challenge for NEMA now is to make such information available so as to gain back the confidence of stakeholders on the EIA decision making process (Government Officer UG_4).

Feedback is essential to build public confidence that their involvement in the process can affect project outcomes and help improve project decision making processes. Generally, there were some significant barriers to the disclosure of information about oil and gas projects in Uganda. The policy on how information about oil and gas projects should be disclosed or disseminated to the public and the affected stakeholders was not clear.

193

There are also other issues with existing EIA practice that need to be addressed. For example, the Third Schedule of the EIA regulations lists projects that need to be subject to EIA but does not provide guidance on the criteria to be used to determine which projects should be subjected to either comprehensive EIA or whether the mitigating measures proposed are sufficient to deal with the potential impacts (Figure 5.6) (UG_4). In contrast, guidelines from development partners like the African Development Bank (ADB) have clear guidelines on categories of projects and details of the EIA process required of such projects (UG_4). According to UG_4, Uganda’s current EIA guidelines do not have clear guiding principles for public participation.

In general, the petroleum EIA process in Uganda does not properly examine project alternatives, consider cumulative effects and regional impacts beyond the project level (UG_9). Similar observations were made by Johnson (2007) on quality of EIA for the petroleum sector in Uganda. Issues of quality are partly attributed to inadequate knowledge of potential impacts of petroleum development in Uganda because the EIA process relied heavily on the expertise of private consultants. When the commercial discoveries of petroleum were made in 2006, there was a lack of expertise amongst local practitioners, but this was being addressed by encouraging local practitioners to work with international experts (Schwarte, 2008). For instance, stakeholder UG_4 observed the following on issues of quality:

Quality is an issue because one of the requirements to register as an EIA practitioner is just a minimum qualification therefore anybody can register and start practising EIA which definitely compromises the quality of the reports. There has also been an increase in the EIA studies undertaken and submitted to NEMA without corresponding capacity building in the regulatory agencies. For example NEMA has not increased its capacity since 2001. In 2001, NEMA was receiving about 200 EIA reports but it could be receiving up to five or six times more than that number in 2012 but the number of staff remains the same (Government Officer UG_4).

8.4.2 Deficiencies of the Petroleum SEA process as environmental management tool

The importance of application of SEA in general is discussed in Chapter 2.4.4 and specifically regarding Uganda in Chapter 7.4.2. By 2012, the Petroleum SEA in Uganda had just been completed although general challenges with SEA such as lack of capacity and knowledge, and ineffectiveness were already evident. Stakeholders noted that, similar to the regulatory framework, the petroleum development activities were ahead of the SEA and as such it was being undertaken as an ex post process. According to UG_1 and UG_4, the reason for late commissioning of the SEA was because at the early stages of exploration government was not sure whether the oil discovery would be commercially viable or not, but as commercial viability

194

was confirmed undertaking SEA became necessary. It is true that it takes time to confirm commercial viability of hydrocarbon exploration, however it is also true that undertaking SEA in Uganda is a voluntary process, and there is a strong feeling among stakeholders that government is reluctant to undertake the SEA and that the process was being pushed mainly by civil society organisations (CSO) and the donor community (INGO_1and NNGO_1). This observation is further emphasised by the fact that financial assistance for the SEA is through the Norwegian Oil for Development (OfD) Programme, while technical support is provided by the Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment (NCEA). Similarly, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, argues development partners to develop common approaches to environmental assessment specifically focussing on SEA (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2005) (Chapter 2.4.4).

The effectiveness of the Petroleum SEA in Uganda will be assessed by how it will influence the revision of environmental legislation in Uganda made before the discovery of the petroleum resource in 2006. The NOGP was formulated in 2008 and by 2013 the petroleum laws were already approved for implementation (Section 7.2.1); it is therefore unlikely that the SEA will influence the petroleum legislation. However, the SEA can be important in influencing the revision of the National Environment Act 1996 and other pieces of legislation that have not been updated. There is also the challenge of lack of experience and clear direction on how the SEA recommendations should be implemented due to lack of legislation for the SEA (Foluke, 2012). In comparison to Ghana whose petroleum development stage is closely related to that of Uganda (petroleum in Ghana was discovered in 2007 and development is also by Tullow Oil) the SEA in Ghana led to the review of the energy policy, draft oil and gas policy and gas master plan (ibid). In addition, the SEA in Ghana created awareness on environment socio-economic and institutions in plans, policies and programmes (PPP) (ibid). It made it clear to government that all PPPs developed and issued before petroleum discovery in Ghana had to be revised to make them relevant for the petroleum developed (ibid). Uganda can therefore learn from Ghana in implementing its Petroleum SEA.

8.4.3 Challenges with the environmental monitoring plan

In 2012, an environmental monitoring plan was developed for the Albertine Graben (Chapter 7.4.3) but is not yet implemented. Its implementation was to be coordinated by EIN but coordination ability of EIN to coordinate such a huge task has not been tested and the relationship between EIN and the existing structures, like the monitoring committee, was also not clear. It is also not stated in the environmental plan whether it will supersede the existing environmental plans and structures, like the MIEMC and the EMP institutions established as a result of the Norwegian Funding. The second issue of concern is that the sources of funding to implement the monitoring plan are also not explicitly stated, although it is estimated to cost US$5-600,000 annually (National Environment Management Authority, 2012c). Drawing on the

195

current experiences of MIEMC (Subsection 7.3.3) it can be argued that without a clear source of funding and an implementation programme the plan could remain on paper.

8.4.4 Flaws of the environmental sensitivity atlas in the Albertine Graben

The details of the ESA are presented in Chapter 7.4.4 and there are two editions of the Atlas as of 2012. These two editions of the ESA have contradictory aims; in the first edition it states that areas which have high animal concentrations such as the Delta Region of the MFNP, which is also a Ramsar Site, “should be avoided to keep it pristine” (National Environment Management Authority, 2009b p28). While in the second edition, this statement has been revised to read that sensitive areas ‘ If explored should be handled with maximum care to ensure sustainable conservation of the biodiversity therein ’ (National Environment Management Authority, 2010 p41). Such statements are difficult to enforce by regulators and in, contrast, similar ecological sensitivity atlases developed elsewhere make it absolutely clear that ecologically sensitive areas should be avoided in the case of development activities (Illgner, 2008; Clausen et al., 2012). The ESA still has gaps and requires continuous data collection to update it but there were no funds to support the activity after the funds from the Norwegian-supported programme ended (Chapter 7.4.4). The ESA does not over lay sensitive areas with planned petroleum development activities making it hard to interpret areas to be affected by petroleum development. Data used for the ESA is not accessible to other stakeholders, making its use limited.

The environmental sensitivity atlas was developed to identify areas that are important for biodiversity conservation and also guide against development (National Environment Management Authority, 2009a) but it was not serving the purpose for which it was meant due to scale issues and the data gaps. One stakeholder observed:

“NEMA produced the ‘sensitivity atlas’ and it is supposed to be an important tool to guide the petroleum development by pointing out to the oil prospecting companies the ecological sensitive areas but the document turned out to be an academic exercise and cannot be used to identify alternatives sites for the petroleum development ” (Government officer, UG_13).

Another respondent observed that one reason they made an effort to develop a sensitivity atlas was to get an idea about areas in Murchison Falls NP as alternatives for tourism development, since prime areas for tourism in the park were affected (UG_8). Another participant observed that the ‘sensitivity atlas’ should have been created before the commencement of the petroleum development, and as the process began government should have identified areas to be avoided or it should have clearly spelt out activities never to be permitted in those sensitive areas (UG_14). In its current form the document is not only inadequate, but also is not being followed because exploration took place in Buffalo 1 & 2, Buligi Circuit and some key wetlands which are

196

sensitive ecological areas (UG_15). In addition, once NEMA approves the area for drilling nobody questions it, although UWA could have refused to allow the drilling of the well to take place (UG_15).

However, according to UG_7, who is also a government officer who represents one of the institutions in EPI, the sensitivity atlas is not meant to stop people from drilling in those areas, but to inform the petroleum companies to be more careful in some of the sensitive areas. According to UG_7, the atlas gives a rating of sensitivity of areas so that companies working in areas with a lot of fauna and flora are aware that certain petroleum activities need to be undertaken with more care. Another interviewee observed that because of the pressure from the petroleum development, the sensitivity atlas was developed quickly with limited data which was not meant for that purpose and no field visits were undertaken (INGO_4). This is evidenced by the glaring data gaps in the document which require more data collection. For instance, NFA did not have enough biodiversity data in the forest reserves of Maramagambo and Budongo Forest Reserves (UG_6). Similarly, UWA was planning to improve on the existing atlas and develop more specific and detailed sensitivity atlases for Queen Elizabeth NP and Murchison Falls NP in order to locate other sensitive sites such as breeding sites, animal watering holes, salt licks, roosting sites etc. (UG_8). The Fisheries Department also wanted to improve the atlas by ‘mapping’ fish breeding areas (UG_20).

It is therefore clear that guidelines are needed on use of the atlas because there seems to be no agreement on how it should be used, even though it could be an important tool in management of impacts of petroleum development in the Albertine Graben.

8.4.5 Issues with the development of national oil spill contingency plan

The process of developing the national OSCP is presented in Chapter 7.4.7. It is a regulatory requirement, as well as best practice, that preparations for disaster should include development of an oil spill contingency plan. Thus, according to the Petroleum NOGP it is the responsibility of the petroleum companies to plan and maintain efficient mechanisms to prevent or reduce harmful effects of oil spills, including the measures required to return the environment to the previous condition before the potential spill; but government will have to coordinate the activities during such a disaster (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2008). By 2012, the process of developing the oil spill contingency plan was still in its infancy, even though staff members of the environmental institutions in Uganda were trained in spill contingency planning (Scanteam, 2013). For an oil spill contingency plan to be efficiently and effectively coordinated during emergencies, there is need to undertake simulation exercises in order to test the preparedness of institutional roles assigned to the participating institutions. This requires established sources of funding for implementation. However, it was not clear whether funds would be made available for the implementation of the contingency plan because no money was made available for implementation of similar programmes such as The environmental

197

monitoring plan for the Albertine Graben (National Environment Management Authority, 2012c) , Enforcement and compliance monitoring strategy for environmental aspects of oil and gas sector activities (National Environment Management Authority, 2012b), A capacity needs assessment for the environmental pillar institutions in Uganda (National Environment Management Authority, 2012a).

8.4.6 Issues with compensation and resettlement plan

There were problems with resettlement schemes for the people affected by the petroleum development process. During the onshore seismic surveys on community land, farmers lost their crops and could not use their land for some time which affected their livelihoods. Another activity that will disrupt and affect the livelihoods of the communities is the establishment of oil refinery at Kabaale in Buseruka sub-county Hoima District covering 29km 2 were required (Chapter 6.5.2). While there are legal instruments for compensation and livelihood restoration, the communities consulted did not trust the system to provide adequate compensation for loss of their property. The communities could not bargain and negotiate for their property and were not even informed of its value. Similarly, during the seismic surveys fishermen were denied access to the sites where seismic were taking place, which affected their livelihoods by being unable to get fish to both feed their families and sell to get income. Therefore, the fishermen were demanding for loss of livelihood, income and the inconveniences caused to them. At the same time, the Buligi Circuit was closed to tourism activities and the tour operators also wanted to be compensated.

8.5 Conclusions

There are three important factors for management of environmental and social impacts for petroleum development; legislation, capacity of institutions and correct application of environmental management practices by petroleum companies.

Stakeholder evaluation indicates that legislation is key in managing environmental impacts but the process of reforming the environmental legislation in Uganda was slow as of 2012 and the slow progress could affect the management of environmental and social impacts of petroleum development. The existing environmental legislation needs to be updated and new legislation developed to address the emerging environmental challenges.

This study found that the capacity of EPI needs to be strengthened to ensure the environmental legislation is implemented. The EPI entities ensure legislation is developed and implemented and international protocols for biodiversity management are observed (National Environment Management Authority, 2012b). These environmental institutions are responsible for enforcement and compliance monitoring, issuing guidelines, permits and licenses for some of

198

the activities for the petroleum development (Government of Uganda, 2012b). They are responsible for undertaking SEAs and approval of EIAs and for creating favourable environment for ensuring that other stakeholders such as communities, NGOs, etc. participate in the process (ibid). If their capacity is not properly built then they will fail to properly perform their role and responsibilities.

As environmental management policy is shifting from mandatory to voluntary, environmental management practices have become important tools for management of environmental impacts of petroleum development. It is therefore, important that the petroleum companies in Uganda make available information on voluntary practices such as EMS, EPE and should adopt environmental reporting which are important voluntary tools that ensure companies go beyond the mandatory requirements for environmental performance (2.4.4).

199

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACHIEVING CO-EXISTENCE BETWEEN BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT IN THE ALBERTINE GRABEN

9.1 Introduction

The co-existence of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in sensitive ecosystems is a worldwide challenge because of the risks posed by petroleum development in protected areas and sensitive ecosystems. Consequently, this study focussed on whether undertaking petroleum development in the protected areas of the Albertine Graben could be achieved without compromising biodiversity conservation. It is argued that the co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation can be realised if the concept and management of protected areas as tools for biodiversity are known and the processes of petroleum development and their impacts in protected areas are analysed and appropriately managed. Similarly, there is a need for relevant legislation to be in place, environmental practices to be adopted by companies and properly applied, with efficient and effective institutional capacity for implementation of legislation, and for the key stakeholders to play their roles in the petroleum development process. The study set itself an overall aim with a set of five objectives to examine the possibility of co-existence between the two sectors. This chapter concludes by highlighting the contributions of each of the objectives in order to fulfil the research aim:

Assess how petroleum development can co-exist with biodiversity conservation in protected area and factors under which such a co-existence could occur .

The specific objectives were to: 1. Evaluate the concept and roles of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation.

2. Analyse the process of petroleum development and synthesize the environmental and socio-economic impacts particularly on wildlife, tourism and people.

3. Evaluate the relevant legislation, environmental practices and institutional capacity for addressing petroleum development in the Albertine Graben.

4. Assess the roles of stakeholders participating in petroleum development and protected areas management.

5. Develop recommendations that promote co-existence of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in protected areas.

These objectives allowed data to be gathered around the DPSIR framework (Chapters 3.3.5), which were analysed to draw out themes that need to be addressed to achieve co-existence (Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7). 200

The chapter is presented as follows. Section 9.2 sets out the conclusions discussing the contributions under each objective. Section 9.3 makes recommendations for co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation focussing around the key factors identified from the research. The reflections on the research process are discussed in Section 9.4. Section 9.5 presents suggestions for future studies and the final Section 9.6 is the final conclusion on the study.

9.2 Conclusions

In summary, the study explored the concept and management of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation, the processes of petroleum development and their impacts, the importance of legislation, environmental practices and institutions in management of petroleum development and the roles of the stakeholders involved in petroleum development and biodiversity conservation.

9.2.1 Concept and roles of protected areas as a tool for biodiversity conservation

Objective 1 : Evaluate the concept and roles of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation.

This objective was fulfilled by review of the literature on protected area management (Chapter 2.2), site visits to the affected protected areas in the Albertine Graben (Chapter 3.5.6), and interviewing protected area managers and other stakeholders involved in conservation (Chapter 3.5.4).

The evaluation of the concept and roles of protected areas as tools for biodiversity conservation shows that protected areas exist in many forms and with many objectives, but can be thought of broadly as delimited areas having specific restrictions on human activities (Jenkins and Joppa, 2009). Protected areas are important because they fulfil various roles including biodiversity conservation, provision of ecosystem services, tourism and research among others (Phillips, 2002; Leroux et al., 2010). IUCN categorises protected areas into six categories (I-VI) depending on levels of human intervention with Categories Ia and Ib the least influenced by human activities and Categories V and VI are often modified landscapes. The categorisation was introduced in large part to help standardise descriptions of what constitutes a particular protected area (Dudley, 2008).

Petroleum is important in the economy of many countries therefore, there are a number of protected areas in which petroleum development takes place, including WHS. Consequently, there have been international efforts to prevent further petroleum development in protected areas. For instance, the second IUCN World Conservation Congress held in October 2000 in Amman, Jordan adopted Recommendation 2.82 which included a section calling on all IUCN’s 201

member states to prohibit by law all exploration and extraction of mineral resources in protected areas corresponding to IUCN categories I-IV (International Union for Conservation of Nature, 2001). Members of ICMM do not undertake mining and petroleum development in protected areas which are World Heritage Sites (WHS) (International Council of Mining and Metals, 2006), while members of Framework for Responsible Mining do not undertake mining in Ramsar sites categorised as IUCN Category I-IV protected areas (Miranda et al., 2005) and HSBC does not offer financial support for undertaking energy projects in WHS or in wetlands on the Ramsar list (HSBC, 2011) and Shell, has voluntarily committed not to undertake petroleum development in WHS (Section 2.2.3).

Uganda has an extensive network of protected areas that include national parks, wildlife reserves, animal sanctuaries, and community wildlife managed by UWA and central forest reserves managed by the NFA. These protected areas are important for biodiversity conservation and wildlife is the main product for tourism development in Uganda. The contribution of the tourism industry to Uganda’s GDP was reported to be at 12.5%, the second highest contributor. However, by 2012, there were seven protected areas (PA) directly affected by petroleum exploration and development activities (Chapter 5.4). Uganda’s protected areas follow the IUCN categories of management (Chapter 2.2) and some of them have international designations such as Rwenzori National Park and Bwindi National Park are WHS and Queen Elizabeth NP is a Man and Biosphere Reserve and both Murchison Falls NP and Queen Elizabeth NP have Ramsar sites (Chapter 1.3). Uganda’s protected areas are therefore, important for tourism, research, livelihoods of communities and biodiversity conservation (Chapter 5.2.4) and petroleum development needs to be carried out in manner that does not impact on these other contributions. As of 2011 the protected areas of Uganda are serving the objectives for which they were created (United States Agency for International Development, 2011). However, petroleum development activities are already having impacts on the ecosystem and tourism in some of the protected areas (Chapter 6.2).

9.2.2 Management of petroleum development and its impacts

Objective 2: Analyse the process of petroleum development and synthesize the environmental and socio-economic impacts particularly on wildlife, tourism and people.

This objective was fulfilled through literature review (Chapter 2.3.2), interviews (Chapter 3.5.4), focus groups (Chapter 3.5.5) and direct field observations. Petroleum development is described as a non-renewable natural resource sector with a number of phases of development which are associated with environmental and social impacts (Ali and O'Faircheallaigh, 2007). Petroleum development can be divided into five basic phases of pre-bid, exploration and appraisal, development, operational and decommissioning (Energy and Biodiversity Initiative, 2003). At each of these phases, there are biodiversity and environmental considerations that have to be

202

borne in mind to ensure co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation (Osti et al., 2011).

There is relatively little work on the relationship between biodiversity conservation and petroleum development in Africa, the majority of studies on wildlife and communities come from outside Africa (Rabanal et al., 2010; Ayebare, 2011; Prinsloo et al., 2011). This has left a gap in knowledge and skills to adequately understand, monitor and manage impacts of petroleum development on wildlife and communities in Africa, hence the relevance of studies such as this research in Uganda.

Even though companies have made improvements in the management of petroleum impacts through use of appropriate technology and continuous progress ((Phillips, 2002; Carter, 2008) on environmental performance, petroleum development activities such as infrastructure development, vegetation clearance, land-take, physical presence, exploratory drilling, waste storage and management, well testing/flaring and introduction of large workforce still result in biophysical and socio-economic impacts. For instance, the main biophysical impacts that resulted during exploration in the Albertine Graben were wildlife displacement, wildlife kills by traffic and pollution, attraction and trapping of wildlife by waste pits, interruption of wildlife migration patterns, introduction of exotic plant species, soil erosion, visual intrusion, as well as generation of noise and 24-hour lighting (Chapter 6.2). The socio-economic impacts of exploration were creation of access roads that opened up virgin areas, inconveniences caused in or around homes, dust and nuisance by traffic, land take, vibration and noise, introduction of large numbers of workers in the areas and communities, establishment of camps, closure of tourism circuits, temporary restrictions on fishing grounds, disruption of agricultural activities, loss of crops and property, insufficient and delayed compensation and inconveniences (temporary displacement, heat, light, smoke) to communities caused by gas flaring (Chapters 6.2 and 6.3).

Impacts of petroleum development on biodiversity will depend on the presence and implementation of legislation, the sensitivity of animal and plant species affected; the scale of activity, the technology used and the attitude of stakeholders involved in the petroleum development. Therefore the severity, management and mitigation of impacts tend to be location, species, company and technology specific suggesting the need for area specific studies.

Uganda is putting mechanisms in place to safeguard the environment against petroleum development, but the majority of the responses are externally funded and sometimes using external expertise to design them. As of 2012, implementation of recommended activities to conserve biodiversity as a result of petroleum development had not been achieved due to lack of funding commitment from Uganda. Similarly, lack of funds led to inconsistent compliance monitoring by MIEMC and suspension of field activities for collection of baseline information and

203

data for updating the sensitivity atlas. Without the implementation of such key activities, the maintenance of the integrity of the ecosystems cannot be guaranteed to ensure the protected areas play their role. Lessons from the Chad-Cameroon Petroleum and Pipeline Development Project indicated that similar arrangements with the World Bank assistance failed to achieve its intended objectives (World Health Organisation, 2010).

9.2.3 Evaluation of legislation, environmental practices and institutional capacity

Objective 3: Evaluate the relevant legislation, environmental practices and institutional capacity for addressing petroleum development in the Albertine Graben.

Data for this objective came from literature review (Chapter 2.4), interviews (Chapter 3.5.4), focus groups (Chapter 3.5.5) and direct field observations (Chapter 3.5.6). Analysis of data drew on key themes such as the importance of legislation (Chapters 2.4, 5.5, 7.2 and 8.2), environmental practices (Chapters 2.4, 5.5.4, 7.4 and 8.4) and institutional capacity (Chapters 2.5, 5.5.5, 7.3 and 8.3) in the management of protected areas and regulation of petroleum development.

The impacts of petroleum development on the environment and communities can be minimised by a combination of methods such as use of regulatory frameworks, market-based approach and voluntary initiatives. Legislation is shown to be important for management of environmental impacts because it ensures companies comply. However, this approach involves high administrative costs, provides little room for innovation and development of environmentally friendly technologies, as well as creating confrontation between regulators and oil companies. Furthermore, most regulations for environmental management are spread across different government entities which then require a multi-sectoral approach for enforcement and compliance. The review of environmental legislation also indicates that once petroleum development commences, existing environmental legislation in the host country can become outdated and therefore not to take into consideration petroleum development issues. Undertaking petroleum development in protected areas can also create the need to harmonise the existing legislation with international initiatives such as agreements and guidelines.

In the voluntary approach, the authorities set up the guiding framework within which the companies exercise flexibility in terms of technology to ensure safety and environmental protection. It involves adopting environmental practices such as SEA, EMS, EMP, environmental monitoring, auditing and reporting as well as standards developed by international oil industry associations such as OGP and IPIECA to ensure environmental management and high environmental performance. The government’s role is to enhance transparency and disclosure of information by operators so as to gauge environmental performance. In most cases petroleum companies are powerful in terms of technical capacity,

204

research, information and influence which may not be within the regulators reach and are therefore able to innovate. Companies may also adopt the industry’s voluntary standards and codes and are more likely to be better controlled by their peers than outsiders. However, the disadvantage of the voluntary approach is that it lacks the incentives to comply and is most effective where private self-interest overlaps with the public interest. Therefore, the combination of command and control, market-based and voluntary initiatives is necessary for environmental management.

In Uganda the regulation of petroleum development as a process, and management of its impacts are effected through the use of petroleum legislation and application of the various laws and regulations for management of biodiversity (Chapter 2.5.3). As of 2012, Uganda was still using the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act 1985, amended 2000 (Government of Uganda, 1985) and the Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Regulations 1993 for management of petroleum development (Chapter 2.5.2). The latter law was not guided by any policy and was meant for promotion, licensing and monitoring activities and became out dated when commercial quantities of petroleum are confirmed in 2006 (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a) (Chapter 2.5.3). This law does not cover the needs of the emerging oil and gas industry, was not based on global industry standards and guidelines, and did not sufficiently cover environmental issues (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development, 2010a). The deficiencies in the current legislation for management of the petroleum development are covered by the NOGP formulated in 2008 and two new laws, Petroleum EDP Law 2012 and Petroleum RGPCTS Law, passed by Parliament in 2012 and 2013 respectively. However, passing of the two petroleum laws was delayed several times (for valid reasons) and new regulations for petroleum development are still to be developed (Chapter 7.2.1).

There are a number of pieces of environmental legislation used for management of impacts of petroleum on the environment (Chapter 5.5.2) with the main ones being the National Environment Act, the Uganda Wildlife Act, the National Forest and Tree Planting Act, Fisheries Act, the Land Act and the Public Health Act. However, many of these are yet to be updated to capture the emerging issues of petroleum development. Updating these environmental laws and regulations is important to ensure that enforcement issues not previously covered in the legal and regulatory framework are taken into account; institutional reforms in NEMA can take place, biodiversity offsets can be set up, the recommendation of the SEA can be implemented, petroleum development activities in sensitive ecosystems can be avoided and relevant provisions from the Agreement between Uganda and DRC can be incorporated for implementation (Chapter 7.2.2).

The capacity of the environmental institutions is still weak in matters of petroleum development and the mechanisms for maintaining the ecological integrity are also still developing. Under the Norwegian-funded programme, NEMA undertook a needs assessment study for EPI (National

205

Environment Management Authority, 2012d) in order to improve the capacity of EPI so as to safeguard the environment against petroleum development activities but implementation of recommendations from the study has not been implemented because of lack of funding.

There is slow progress in reforming the environmental legislation for addressing environmental issues and this has been a matter of concern. There is, therefore a need to reform the environmental legislation and institutional capacities to match the pace of petroleum development with management of its emerging issues, but progress has been slow in making changes (Chapter 7.2.1). This slow pace of reforms has been attributed to lack of political will both to promote biodiversity conservation over other land use issues, and to lobby for provision of adequate resources (budgets, staffing, training) for the environmental institutions and tackle corruption in such institutions (United States Agency for International Development, 2011).

9.2.4 Assessment of roles of stakeholders

Objective 4: Assess the roles of stakeholders participating in petroleum development and protected areas management.

The data for this objective were explored through from literature review (Chapter 2.4), interviews (Chapter 3.5.4), focus groups (Chapter 3.5.5) and direct field observations (Chapter 3.5.6).

Stakeholders are important in ensuring that petroleum development is undertaken in a sustainable manner (Chapter 2.3.2). This is because a company’s adoption of environmental practice to manage impacts of its activities on the environment is as a result of both regulation (2.4.1) and stakeholder demands (Jones, 2010; González-Benito et al., 2011; Garcés-Ayerbe et al., 2012). Petroleum companies are aware that their operations are a cause of concern for the environment and the communities in which they operate; as a result they are under pressure from government regulators, host communities, NGOs and the general public. It is therefore important that stakeholders understand and play their roles during the implementation process. For instance, the host state is responsible for formulation of petroleum and environmental laws, provision of oversight roles, definition of specific policies on protected areas and enforcement and monitoring of the legislation (Onorato, 2009).

The key government institutions in the petroleum development in Uganda process are the cabinet members, parliament, participating entities and local governments (Chapter 5.5.5). GoU is responsible for formulation of petroleum and environmental laws, provision of an oversight role, definition of specific policies on protected areas and sensitive areas, and information access and stakeholder involvement (Chapters 5.5.5 and 7.2). In addition, GoU ensures that there are enough resources for implementation of regulatory framework, clear mandates, roles and responsibilities for participating entities to avoid overlap in roles and regulatory gaps

206

(Chapter 7.3). GoU also ensures that environmental practices are properly applied during the petroleum development process (Chapter 7.4).

As part of good practice at a strategic level, petroleum companies in Uganda are expected to have a policy on environmental management because of the concerns about their activities. They must adopt Uganda’s legislation in their company policy and define the roles and responsibilities for environmental management (Chapters 5.5.5 and 7.6). In addition, companies are expected to commit resources for any implementation of strategy for biodiversity conservation and ensure EIA mitigation measures are implemented and report on their activities to ensure transparency (Chapter 7.6). It is the duty of the oil companies to ensure that they comply with the rules and regulations and observe best practice codes on social and environmental impacts (Chapter 5.5.5). Communities in the Albertine Graben expect companies to develop good working relations with them, provide employment and give them business and participate in provision of social services (Chapter 7.6).

Petroleum companies have responsibilities to other stakeholders as a result of impacts of their activities on the environment and on societies (Chapter 7.6). Companies are expected to comply with host country’s rules and when they default they are likely to be subjected to fines, litigation by government or other stakeholders, customer pressures to improve environmental performance, investor concerns because of loss of company reputation and fall in shares, employee concerns leading to loss of morale and NGO campaigns to persuade customers to boycott products of non-complying companies (Brady, 2005).

Civil society organisations provide information, conduct research, propose and evaluate policies, and introduce ideas and political pressure into negotiations (Brady, 2005; Evan, 2012). Civil society in Uganda contribute towards community empowerment, checks government excesses both at national and local government level, hold leaders accountable and facilitate citizen awareness on key development issues (Chapter 5.5.5). CSO contributed in influencing the responses put in place by GoU, participated in the formulation of the Petroleum (EDP) Bill, building the capacity of some of the environmental institutions, reviewing the EIA reports and undertaking research in protected areas to assess the impacts of petroleum development (Chapter 7.7.2). Furthermore, CSO were encouraging observance of international protocols and agreements and application of environmental tools as well as demanding for improved protected area management systems, access to information and participation in monitoring of the petroleum development activities (Chapter 7.7.2).

Communities were advocating for transparency and fair compensation for their properties that were destroyed by petroleum development activities and demanding for two-way communication and dialogue with the key stakeholders such as GoU and the petroleum companies (Chapter 7.7.3). In addition, communities expect to be paid royalties in accordance

207

with the constitution and relevant laws that are passed by the Parliament in relation to revenue management (Chapter 7.7.3). International financial institutions can use both technical assistance as well as leverage of their lending terms to oil companies to encourage good practice in the sector (Chapter 2.5.4).

As of 2012 there was no common platform where government officials, petroleum companies, CSOs and community representatives could come together and share lessons learned and experiences for the improvement of the petroleum development process in Uganda. There is therefore, a need to establish such a forum in which all stakeholder can come together to express their views and discuss the challenges facing Uganda’s petroleum development process.

9.3 Recommendations for co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation

Objective 5: Make recommendations that allow for co-existence of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in protected areas.

This final objective of the study develops recommendations, based on the analysis in the previous chapters of the study, to ensure co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation. The recommendations are based on the three key factors established from the research which are: 1) GoU developing relevant environmental legislation for management of petroleum impacts 2) Improving the capacity of environmental institutions making them efficient and effective 3) GoU and oil companies improving environmental practices for addressing impacts of petroleum development

Figure 9.1 presents a revised DPSIR framework showing the role of the stakeholders in influencing and applying the three factors to allow for the co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation. The figure shows that stakeholders such as host communities, civil society, development partners and financial institutions (other stakeholders) can influence governments and oil companies through lobbying and advocacy to develop, apply and modify the three factors where necessary to ensure petroleum development and biodiversity co-existence.

208

Figure 9.1 A DPSIR framework showing conditions required to ensure co-existence between biodiversity conservation and petroleum development

Drivers of petroleum development • Global level Pressures State of biodiversity in protected areas of Albertine Graben • • National level During Exploration • • Regional level During Operations/production Genes Species Ecosystems Conservation • Decommissioning Endemic Designations Threatened

Other Stakeholders Responses needed to ensure co -existence

Host communities (Community activities, GoU developing relevant environment legislation for management

employees) of petroleum impacts by: Direct and indirect impacts of petroleum 1) Updating existing legislation development 2) Developing relevant environmental legislation Civil Society (NGO, Media, Universities etc.) Biophysical Economic Social Impacts 3) Implementing the relevant legislation for environmental management • Direct Impacts • Direct

impacts • Direct impacts

Development partners (Norway, USAID, etc.) Improving the capacity of regulatory institutions making them • Indirect impacts • Indirect

efficient and effective impacts • Indirect impacts 1) Building the capacity of EPI, remunerating and retaining the trained • Cumulative impacts • Cumulative Financial Institutions (World Bank), staff • Transboun • Cumulative

2) Defining the roles, improving coordination and providing resources dary 3) Establishing infrastructure and procuring equipment 4) Improving on compliance enforcement and monitoring

GoU and Oil companies improving environmental practices for Trade -offs between conservation and petroleum addressing impacts of petroleum development: development Key Stakeholders 1) Improving the EIA practice by revising the EIA guidelines. • Timing of oil and gas activities with right seasons 2) Implementing the recommendations of the SEA • Establishment of conservation funding • Government of Uganda (cabinet, Parliament, 3) Improving the environmental sensitivity atlas Agreement on biodiversity offsets Ministries) 4) Implementing the recommendation of the monitoring plan Regulators (NEMA, UWA, NFA, DWRM, 5) Developing the oil spill contingency plan and establishing implementation fund DEA, DFR, MLHUD) 6) Oil companies undertaking voluntary initiatives to improve environmental performance Oil Companies (Tullow, CNOOC, Total) Contractors, Share holders

Emerging responses for addressing environment issues

Environmental Conventions National Legal Institutional Key to Arrows Management Tools Global & Regional Frameworks Framework Source: Author Government EIA, SEA, ESA Agreements Oil companies Communities & CSO Development partners & IFI

209

9.3.1 Developing relevant environmental legislation for management of petroleum impacts

The development of relevant legislation is one of the key factors to achieve co-existence and the presence of robust environmental legislation is important because of the many implications it has for the other factors required to ensure a balance between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation. However, given the slow progress of regulatory reforms (Chapter 8.2), it is recommended that the following actions be undertaken to strengthen the existing environmental legislation so as to reflect the emerging petroleum development issues.

• The National Environmental Act should be updated to give effect to Section 4 of Petroleum EDP Act on compliance with environmental principles. Section 4 (1) of this Act mentions the importance of the National Environment Act in relation to environmental management of petroleum activities. Similarly, Section 4 (6) states that “NEMA shall make regulations concerning the management of production, transportation, storage and treatment of waste arising out of petroleum activities” (Government of Uganda, 2012a p 16). • Similarly, the National Environment Act 1995 should be updated to incorporate the recommendations of the SEA, establishment of offsets, climate change (Chapter 7.2.2) and institutional reforms such as employing more staff in NEMA to deal with the increasing demand of petroleum development activities (Chapter 7.4.1). It is also important to ensure that there are regulations or formal guidelines for restricting companies from drilling in sensitive areas (Chapter 7.5.3), and how the ESA should be applied in relation to petroleum development in sensitive ecological zones (Chapter 7.4.4). • The updated legislation should ensure that fines levied on petroleum companies in cases of violations of compliance are a sufficient deterrent and the ‘polluter pays principle’ is enforced in relation to petroleum waste management. • The Uganda Wildlife Act 1996 should be revised to incorporate petroleum issues, regulations developed to make the Act operational, and guidelines for petroleum development activities in the wildlife parks approved. At the time of establishment of the wildlife protected areas in the 1950s, no extractive industries were considered while designing the laws, but the amended Wildlife Act 2000 allowed for ‘ any other economic activities ’. There are also cases in which the Executive Director or the responsible Minister can give permission for specific activities in national parks but, where possible, such requests should be avoided to ensure protection of sensitive ecosystems. • Both the Uganda Forest Policy 2001 and the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003 should be updated to address challenges of petroleum development in the forest reserves, and the forest regulations and guidelines be finalised as soon as possible. 210

• The National Fisheries Policy 2004 and the Fish Act 1951 should be reviewed to include oil and gas issues and fish breeding areas in the petroleum development areas mapped and gazetted. • A new policy be developed, or the existing land legislation revised, to address issues of compensation such as loss of property, future income streams, and inconveniences caused by petroleum development activities (Chapter 6.3.3). • Article 7 for environmental protection of the ‘Agreement of Cooperation for Exploration of Hydrocarbons and Exploitation of Common Fields’ of 1990 between GoU and DRC should be harmonised with Uganda’s environmental laws to allow for transboundary environmental management as stated in the NOGP. • Uganda should observe the various environmental and biodiversity conventions and protocols which it has ratified. Some of the international environmental treaties are voluntary but they will need to be domesticated into the existing national laws, regulations and petroleum contracts as required by the National Environment Act and implemented to avoid international condemnation (Chapter 7.2.3).

9.3.2 Improving the capacity of government environmental institutions making them efficient and effective

The Government of Uganda has started to build the capacity of the relevant environmental institutions involved in the petroleum development process, but training is still inadequate (Chapter 8.4). It is therefore recommended that the capacity building process should continue and the staff of the environmental institutions be trained adequately to understand issues related to petroleum development and biodiversity conservation before the full scale production of oil and gas commences. Government should ensure that there is adequate staffing in the environmental institutions to take care of the increasing work load as a result of petroleum development activities and sufficient resources are provided to ensure that the institutions are able to fulfil their mandates. The trained staff should be well remunerated in order to retain them. Furthermore, the roles and responsibilities of the environmental institutions should be clearly defined in terms of contingency enforcement and monitoring. Specifically, the following activities are required to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of compliance enforcement and monitoring.

Build capacity of EPI, remunerate and retain the staff

• Government of Uganda should consider providing long-term university training to responsible civil servants of EPI similar to the ones offered to PEPD and the staff in MEMD. The long-term training can then be complemented by short and relevant tailor made training specific to the needs of the EPI. • Recruit more staff in the environmental institutions to take care of the increasing work load as a result of the petroleum development activities such as reviewing

211

EIA, enforcing compliance, monitoring and providing security to personnel in the protected areas. • GoU should pay the environmental staff at a rate commensurate to sector practitioners, and/or offer other alternatives such as allowances, salary top-ups, in order to attract and retain the skilled staff. This will reduce the high staff turnover which poses risks of capacity gaps between GoU and the petroleum companies at the national institutional level. • EPI should attend to the concerns of their staff and appreciate the good work being done by them through recognition, bonuses, etc.

Define institutional roles, improve coordination and provide resources

• Clearly define the institutional roles of EPI and reduce gaps in institutional capacities. • Improve on institutional cooperation among the participating institutions on environmental management by improving on the coordination and holding frequent meetings to improve on communication. • Establish funding source for the petroleum activities in NEMA instead of depending on donor support. For instance this can be achieved through the use of Consolidated Fund generated by NEMA.

Establish infrastructure and procure equipment

• Government should treat the establishment of infrastructure, such as laboratories for UWA and DWRM, as a priority. For instance, UWA has plans to improve its monitoring unit by procuring more equipment for monitoring activities and establish a basic laboratory. Similarly, establishing a laboratory for DWRM to monitor the potential impacts of pollutants from oil and gas activities as mentioned in the NOGP is important.

Improve on compliance enforcement and monitoring

• EPI should formulate efficient and effective compliance strategies and implement them to address issues such as introduction of exotic species in protected areas (Chapter 6.2.6), poaching of wildlife (Chapter 6.2.3), and incidences of wildlife being trapped in fences of drill sites (Chapter 6.2.4), etc. There should be a strict code of conduct for petroleum companies working in protected areas and awareness raising on the requirements of working in such areas. Regulators should monitor more frequently to ensure compliance and the work of the MIEMC should be evaluated by a third party to improve compliance enforcement and monitoring.

212

• Government, petroleum companies and CSO should ensure all relevant environmental legislation are appropriately and timely implemented and their implementation monitored. Uganda has challenges with the implementation of its environmental legislation (Chapter 8.2) and efforts should be made to address this situation. • Regulators should ensure that earlier mistakes by oil companies such as spreading of drill cuttings without proper testing (Chapter 6.2.4), failure to fence of the drill sites or maintain fences at drill sites (6.2.4), dumping of drill cuttings at undesignated sites and attempts by oil companies to undertake certain activities without authorisation (Chapter 6.2.10), are not repeated. This can be complemented with positive lessons learnt from other regions where petroleum development occurs in protected areas and in communities (Chapter 2.6). • Regulators should encourage voluntary impact management initiatives such as self- regulation, as well as use of appropriate technology by petroleum companies to minimise impacts of petroleum development. Positive lessons learnt from the management of impacts at Ngasa 2 through use of technology and good practice (Chapter 7.5.4), and Tullow’s reduction of waste by recycling (Chapter 7.5.4) should be encouraged for all companies. • NEMA should create a database of impacts of petroleum development for monitoring and prediction of impacts. The database should be made accessible to all stakeholders. • Environmental Pillar Institutions should undertake forward planning to anticipate the needs of institutions as the phases of the petroleum develop evolve.

Ensure Oil Companies, CSO and IFI play their roles

• Petroleum companies should continue to practise self-regulation and best practice as noted in the use of technology and waste management practice to ensure environmental protection and biodiversity conservation as required by the NOGP. Similarly, petroleum companies and their contractors should ensure that all sites on which petroleum activities are undertaken are, as far as possible, rehabilitated to their original conditions before project intervention. • Civil society will need to build its capacities in order to play an effective role in future contributions. For instance, national CSO can build their capacity by working together with international NGOs, which can ensure cross fertilisation of ideas and sharing of their different levels of experiences. Civil society organisations should consider becoming shareholders of some of the petroleum companies and work together to exert pressure on petroleum companies whose performance does not conform to the required environmental standards. Civil society can officially raise complaints to countries of origin of participating oil companies if such companies do not observe environmental

213

standards. This can be done through careful lobbying of countries of origin of participating companies so that specific regulations can be invoked to manage such companies, e.g. a case of application of Alien Torts Law by US NGO for Chevron’s activities in Ecuador (Casselman, 2009). • Development partners and the international community have an obligation to ensure achievement of Millennium Development Goals including those on the environment (United Nations, 2000). They should therefore work to support government, CSOs and other stakeholders in pursuing policies that ensure long term ecological integrity and life support systems for sustainable development. Donors should continue to make resources available for capacity building in various aspects of sustainable development and refocus their efforts to ensure that capacity of other stakeholders other than government is as well built. • GoU, petroleum companies and community representatives should draw community development plans in a participatory manner so that communities know what to expect from the petroleum development process.

9.3.3 GoU and oil companies improving on environmental practices for addressing impacts of petroleum development

Environmental management practices are important tools for management of environmental impacts of petroleum development if correctly applied. The key tools used in the petroleum development process are not being properly applied in Uganda (Chapter 8.4) and require improvements.

Environmental impact assessment

The EIA process in Uganda is highlighted in Chapters 5.5.4 and 7.4.1, and weaknesses discussed in Chapter 8.4.1. There is agreement by all the stakeholders that there is lack of capacity in NEMA, and at the district level, to undertake EIA review and audit for petroleum development; EIA activities for petroleum tend to be cut-and-paste from previous cases even for wells and other infrastructure located in the same area. Stakeholders also agreed that there is a need to update the EIA process by revising the guidelines to incorporate current issues such as the petroleum development process, improve on collection of baseline information during the EIA, develop adequate guidelines for public participation, provide feedback to stakeholders and allocate sufficient resources and time for undertaking the EIA. In addition, there is need to establish independent commission to review reports and advise NEMA as part of decision making. CSO and other stakeholders should continue to build the capacity of practitioners and ensure ethical issues are addressed while conducting EIA studies. Environmental impact assessment as a decision making tool should be improved by undertaking the following actions:

214

• The process of reforming the environmental legislation and institutions should be undertaken quickly so that NEMA can recruit more staff to be dedicated to manage the environmental issues related to petroleum development such as reviewing, inspecting, auditing and follow-up work. • Government of Uganda should establish an independent third party environmental institution, similar to the South African Institute for Environmental Assessment, or Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment, which should undertake independent reviews in order to instil trust in the process, improve quality of EIA reports, avoid unnecessary delays and encourage transparency on the decision making process. • Government should avoid putting political pressure on NEMA and should instead strengthen its decision making capacity and allow it to function as an independent institution. • Project proponents should be educated about the importance of EIA and encouraged to allocate adequate resources for undertaking the study to improve on the quality of data collected. • CSOs and other partners should continue to build the capacity of the EIA practitioners to understand impacts of petroleum development and develop skills on analysis of project alternatives, impact evaluation, use of standard methods (cost- benefit analysis, multi criteria analysis, contingency valuation and use of GIS) and stakeholder consultations. Practitioners should be compelled to follow the established code of conduct in executing their duties.

Strategic Environmental Assessment for the petroleum development process

The process of petroleum SEA in Uganda is presented in Chapters 7.4.2 and 8.4.2, and by 2013 the study was not yet completed. It is recommended that the SEA should be used to influence the review of some of the environmental regulations and the field development plans for the petroleum development. However, given the challenges with the use of the ESA (Chapter 8.4.3) guidelines may be required to give direction on how the recommendations of the petroleum SEA should be implemented.

Environmental Sensitivity Atlas

The ESA is explored in Chapters 7.4.4 and 8.4.4 and recommendations for its improvement:

• EPI, and other institutions involved in the ESA process, should develop location specific and detailed ESA, for those protected areas that are impacted by petroleum development. The atlases should have detailed baseline information that can be used for predicting and monitoring biological, social and physical impacts of the petroleum development prior to, during and after the process. 215

• EPI should ensure that the ESA overlays environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, wildlife breeding grounds, watering grounds, salt licks, animal migration paths and large wildlife congregations, and designate them as ecological ‘no-go’ zones for petroleum development activities as well as indicate areas where petroleum development activities are unlikely to present major impacts. Similarly, avoid establishing infrastructure in such sensitive ecological areas through re- routing and appropriate technology such as directional drilling. In cases where infrastructure must be developed in protected and sensitive areas, strict code of conduct should be established and enforced. • Where petroleum development must occur in sensitive areas the ESA should emphasise the application of knowledge, skills and technology as was the case at Ngassa 2 Well, where petroleum activities were managed with minimum impacts. Waste pits should be designed in a way that prevents wildlife from accessing them by using wire mesh, netting and roofing. • The atlas should ‘buffer’ location of oil wells, road access, pipelines, and electric power lines to give the extent of likely impacts and indicating areas likely to be affected by petroleum development. Data for the sensitivity atlas should be made accessible to the public so that researchers and EIA practitioners can have access to such information and use them for predicting scenarios, and the ESA should be able to support the contingency planning process.

Environmental monitoring plan for the Albertine Graben

The environmental monitoring plan for the Albertine Graben (EMPAG) is discussed in Chapters 7.4.3 and 8.4.3. The EMPAG was developed to monitor the status of the ecosystem during the petroleum development process. Although by 2012 it was still not being implemented, the monitoring plan could be improved by the following activities:

Long term studies and ecological monitoring • EIN should undertake detailed baseline studies to establish existing biodiversity conditions for monitoring future environmental and socio-economic impacts. Similarly, long term studies on impacts of petroleum development on wildlife should be conducted. • EPI should implement the ecological monitoring plan for the Albertine Graben by integrating the recommendations in the institutional work plans. • EIN should undertake ecological valuation of the biological resources to justify their existence in the phases of economic projects like petroleum development. Valuation of biodiversity can also serve to inform policy and remind decision makers that biodiversity is not the open access resource imagined. It can also give an

216

indication for settling legal claims that may arise as a result of damages caused to the environment by oil spills (Chapter 5.2.4). • GoU should support the implementation of the new management plans for the protected areas and should provide sufficient resources for implementation of the plans. Similarly, government should support UWA’s field monitoring unit for petroleum development as well as assist in the development of the PA specific sensitivity atlases. By 2012 UWA did not have funds to undertake these activities (Chapter 7.5). • EPI should select relevant monitoring indicators to reflect impacts according to season, habitat sensitivity and wildlife species. For instance, amphibians and small reptiles could serve as one group of indicators for monitoring impacts of mud and cuttings on wildlife because of their sensitivity, as compared to big reptiles such as crocodiles and big mammals. Movements of big mammals can be monitored to confirm whether petroleum development is a cause of increase in human-wildlife conflict (Chapters 6.2.1 and Chapter 6.2.4).

National oil spill contingency plan

The NOGP calls for the development of OSCP and the details on the process are discussed in Chapters 7.4.6 and 8.4.4. The OSCP is an important tool to manage oil spill as well as to identify and protect environmental, cultural and economic resources at risk. However, the process of developing the OSCP was slow but GoU should:

• Ensure that the process of developing the oil spill preparedness becomes a matter of urgency and all stakeholders involved in the process are trained. Stakeholders should make sure there are enough funds to support simulation exercises to test the preparedness and efficiency of roles assigned to the participating institutions. Therefore it is important to establish an oil spill emergency fund to support coordination during oil spills and other emergencies.

9.4 Reflections on the research process

Reflections on the study cover strengths of the research process and limitations.

9.4.1Strength of the research process

During the design phase of the study the proposal benefitted from input provided by the staff of MEMD and UWA as well as consultants who had previously undertaken work in Uganda related to petroleum development and protected area management. This independent input of third parties strengthened the proposal and catered for views that could have otherwise been missed

217

had it not been for the wider circulation of the proposal for constructive criticism and feedback from people who were not part of the study.

The process of data collection and analysis provided one of the strongest points for this study. Apart from the standard methods used such as literature review, document analysis, interviews, focus groups and field observations, contact was made with institutions such as IUCN Secretariat, World Heritage Centre, European Union and some individuals who had either undertaken previous work in mining in protected areas of Africa in general or studies in protected areas of the Albertine Graben. The use of a diverse range of methods helped in sourcing data from various stakeholders which eliminated biases through triangulation. This enabled objective analysis and informed conclusions to be reached. The researcher’s previous experience in the Albertine Graben on biodiversity conservation and petroleum development was useful in the analysis and interpretation of the data. Employment in the two sectors previously also provided the opportunity to establish a number of contacts who proved quite helpful in the process of accessing relevant documents from Uganda.

9.4.2 Limitations of the study

Relevant literature was scarce in the beginning and most of literature on the impacts of petroleum on wildlife comes from North America and other parts of the world.

The process of obtaining permission from the relevant institutions was time consuming. In Uganda permissions and approvals had to be sought from the National Council of Science and Technology, the Permanent Secretary of MEMD, UWA, NFA and PEPD which took quite some time before the field work could commence. However, this was worthwhile as obtaining the right permissions made it possible to interview a number of people who otherwise would not have participated in the research. It is recommended that in future while preparing for similar research, consideration has to be made for potential delays in obtaining permission in Uganda by allowing more time especially at the preparatory stages of the research.

The majority of the key stakeholders approached for interviews were reluctant to give information at first because information on petroleum development in Uganda is considered to be very sensitive and secretive. Consequently, it took some time to build trust with the stakeholders to open up and give the opportunity to interview them even though the student had worked in the sector before. Similarly, accessing information from some government institutions, oil companies and even civil society organisations was difficult. Future studies should therefore consider allocating more time to be spent in the field to gain acceptance and trust especially if the researcher is new to the Ugandan situation and not known to the respondents.

218

The main data collection process also coincided with the Presidential and Parliamentary Elections of 2011 in Uganda. As the campaigns were going on, it became difficult to visit some of the petroleum development areas because of the fear of the researcher being mistaken for a campaign manager and associated with candidates who were promising the petroleum resource as one of their campaign issues. These unforeseen circumstances affected the duration of the field work and affected the time scheduled for completion of the work. Future research should be aware of any political activities that could hamper similar studies.

The pace of the petroleum development process was changing very quickly which meant some of the data collected for the study became irrelevant. For instance from 2010–2013 new petroleum bills were formulated, an ecological monitoring plan was designed and petroleum SEA was undertaken. These activities were some of the key issues raised by the stakeholders during the study. Consequently, the rapidly changing situation required constant updating of information on some of the key activities that formed part of the study. This limitation was overcome by having a network of reliable contacts in Uganda and using the daily Ugandan press for information on new developments.

9.5 Contribution to knowledge by the study

This study focussed on whether petroleum development can co-exist with biodiversity conservation in protected areas. It shows that there are a number of protected areas where petroleum development is already taking place including protected areas with IUCN management categories I-IV and WHS; globally, some of the protected areas in which petroleum development occur are more sensitive than those found in the Albertine Graben (Chapter 2.2.4). The occurrence of petroleum development in protected areas is likely to continue as long as there is demand for petroleum products, high oil prices, fears for energy security, need for economic development as well as need for revenue by governments.

The study therefore identified three key factors for ensuring co-existence between biodiversity conservation and petroleum development that emerged from the analysis of key themes covered under Objectives 1-4. These factors are:

1) Developing relevant environmental legislation for management of petroleum impacts 2) Improving capacity of environmental institutions and other participating stakeholders 3) Improving on environmental practices for addressing petroleum development

The interplay (through formulation of legislation and its implementation, coordination by capable institutions, as well as improvement by capable institutions) of these three factors between

219

participating stakeholders determines the success of co-existence of petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in protected areas.

9.5.1 Legislation

The study shows that the existence and implementation of legislation is one of the important factors in ensuring co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation. The legislation for management of impacts of petroleum development is a combination of international conventions and national legal and regulatory frame works. Uganda has a comprehensive legal and regulatory framework for biodiversity conservation, but new policies, laws and regulations are required for management of petroleum development. The existing legal and regulatory frameworks for petroleum development and biodiversity conservation are being strengthened by, a) developing a new legal and regulatory framework particularly for management of the oil and gas sector, and b) updating existing environmental laws and regulations for purposes of consistency.

The study notes that apart from its formulation, the success of the legislation will depend on how clearly policy objectives for petroleum development in protected areas are defined, roles of institutions are defined as well as institutional framework that is capable of coordinating a number of issues (implementation, enforcement, compliance, resource provision, flexibility and stakeholders) is important to ensure petroleum development and co-existence of biodiversity conservation. However, by 2013 the formulation of the new petroleum legislation as well as development of new environmental regulations and the process of updating existing legislation and development of environmental practices was still being externally funded mainly by the Norwegian Government. Therefore, one of the key factors that will determine co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in the Albertine Graben is the appropriate application of the legislation.

9.5.2 Institutional capacity

The study found that there are different levels of government institutions and stakeholders involved in the petroleum development and decision making process and there is a gap between existing capacities of the stakeholders involved in the petroleum development and skills required to manage the environmental impacts of petroleum development process at the national and local levels in Uganda. Strong institutional and human capacity will need to be built to respond to the first changing petroleum development phases, manage complex technical and regulatory systems as well as manage diverse range of stakeholders with competing interests. Building the institutional and human capacity can be achieved through provision of relevant skills at various levels (local and national) to ensure oversight and enforcement and monitoring of regulatory process. However, building such a system is a big challenge for Uganda because 220

it requires time and sufficient money therefore achieving the required capacity to manage the environmental impacts may never be realised.

Among the participating institutions there is little or no coordination across the different stakeholders involved in the process although coordination of issues such as implementation, enforcement, compliance, resource provision, flexibility and stakeholders is important to ensure that legislation is implemented. There is also a lot of pressure from the donors, CSOs, petroleum companies, and the communities on regulatory institutions and the impacts of such pressure still remains unknown.

The study revealed that lack of relevant knowledge and skills was already delaying the petroleum development process; for instance, the pace of the petroleum development in the Albertine Graben did not match the deployment of staff from the environmental regulating agencies. There are other studies that have expressed the problem of capacity in Uganda (Pöyry, 2011; Choudhury et al., 2012; Scanteam, 2013). A challenge with capacity was also observed in the Chad-Cameroon project and the issues of environmental institutions lagging behind is one of the challenges likely to confront other developing countries that undertake similar petroleum projects (World Health Organisation, 2010). The delay in the development process is likely to do so unless the necessary education and training programmes are made available to equip the petroleum sector with the long-term technical skills and knowledge required. This involves developing appropriate vocational and university education, research centres and allocating the funds necessary for the programme development.

There is also the need to develop the relevant institutional capacity to understand and deal with impacts because the study shows that impacts of petroleum development vary with scale, location and stakeholders involved therefore dealing with environmental impacts of a particular project on the biodiversity and people is case specific and should not be generalised. Impacts of petroleum development on biodiversity and people depends on the presence and implementation of legislation, the sensitivity of animal and plant species affected; the scale of activity, the technology used and the interaction of stakeholders involved in the petroleum development. Therefore the severity, management and mitigation of impacts tend to be location, species, company and technology specific suggesting the need for area specific studies.

In the Albertine Graben, the main biophysical impacts identified during the exploration stage were wildlife displacement, wildlife kills by traffic and pollution, attraction and trapping of wildlife such as amphibians, reptiles and mammals by waste pits, interruption of wildlife migration patterns, introduction of exotic plant species, soil erosion, visual intrusion, as well as generation of noise and 24-hour lighting.

221

The study reveals that amphibians and small reptiles in the Albertine Graben are sensitive to water based mud and cuttings which was otherwise thought to be less toxic. These species of wildlife could therefore be identified to act as indicators for monitoring impacts of mud and cuttings on wildlife because of their sensitivity, as compared to big reptiles such as crocodiles and big mammals (Chapters 6.2.5).

Management of drilling waste was the biggest challenge during the exploration phase because drilling waste from certain wells in the Albertine Graben was contaminated with heavy metals (Chapter 6.2.4). Management of drilling waste proved a challenge because of lack of institutional capacity and the relevant legislation. Contaminated drilling waste with heavy metals can contaminate soils, groundwater and surface water courses especially if leakages occur. Waste is a potential risk to livestock and wildlife especially when animals come into contact with the wastes. It is observed that although petroleum exploration was considered to be successful in terms of impacts on the biodiversity the social pressures concerning land use, compensation for crops and property destroyed as well as waste disposal remain outstanding. Some of these pressures if not well handled could form the seeds for future environmental conflicts.

The socio-economic impacts of exploration were the creation of access roads that opened up virgin areas, inconveniences caused in or around homes, dust and nuisance by traffic, land take, vibrations and noise, introduction of large numbers of workforce in the areas and communities, establishment of camps, land take, closure of tourism circuits, temporary restriction on fishing grounds, disruption of agricultural activities, loss of crops and property, insufficient and delayed compensations and inconveniences caused by gas flaring to communities (Chapters 6.2 and 6.3).

Experiences with compensation in Hoima and Buliisa Districts showed that the process did not adequately take into account loss of land, annual crops, perennial crops and trees and was also a new lesson to both the government and the oil companies. In situations where land was taken and agricultural livelihood was lost, compensation only took into consideration existing crops and did not make provisions for future income streams. There was therefore the perception by the community members that their property was worth more than provided by the law. As a way forward, there is a need to develop a new policy framework for compensation for the oil and gas sector. The policy could look at all these concerns and find a way of resolving community concerns plus how to improve on consultation with communities. The most revealing socio- economic impact of the petroleum development was the land grabbing in Buliisa District by land speculators and dissatisfaction caused by the way the compensation for loss of crops and property in the Albertine Graben was undertaken. This may require revising the current legislation for compensation or use international guidelines such as those developed by the World Bank.

222

9.5.3 Environmental practices

As is the case with legislation, the development of environmental practices such as SEA, ESA, OSCP and environmental monitoring plan were also externally supported with limited support coming from the government if any therefore making the implementation of such practices difficult. Lessons learnt from the Chad-Cameroon Petroleum and Pipeline Development Project indicated that similar arrangements with the World Bank assistance failed to achieve its intended objectives (World Health Organisation, 2010).

Globally, environmental management policy is shifting from mandatory to voluntary and environmental management practices have become important tools for management of environmental impacts of petroleum development. However, the study found that acquiring relevant environmental data on application of company voluntary practice on EMS was difficult and EPE and environmental reporting although are important voluntary tools have not been adopted by petroleum companies. The importance of such tools is that it ensures companies go beyond the mandatory requirements for environmental performance (2.4.4).

Therefore for petroleum development to successfully occur in protected areas petroleum companies must be willing to go beyond regulatory requirements and adopt voluntary practices such as self-declarations, companies must recognise certain areas as sensitive and therefore need to be avoided, petroleum activities should be undertaken in a transparent manner, companies should work in partnerships with relevant government institutions, conservation organisations, CSO, and observe stringent operating practices as well as voluntarily report on their activities.

9.6 Suggestions for future studies

The petroleum development process in the Albertine Graben is still in its nascent stage and there are many opportunities for research of an ecological and socio-economic nature.

9.6.1 Ecological studies

A number of ecological studies will be necessary to inform future decisions in the management of the protected areas in the phase of the petroleum development. These studies may include: • Long-term research on the impacts of petroleum development on the wildlife behaviour in the Albertine Graben to identify the species of wildlife that are likely to be affected by petroleum development. For instance, such a study could investigate the current observation (hypothesis) that avoidance behaviour of wildlife could be related to size of their home range and whether a mammal is likely to move away or not is determined by the animal either being territorial or not.

223

• Study on the migration patterns of the large mammals such as the African elephants, buffaloes and etcetera to confirm whether displacement of such animals are cause of increased human-wildlife conflict reported in the communities around the affected protected areas in the Albertine Graben. The study of the migration patterns should also help in delineating migrations routes to avoid locating infrastructure such as workers’ camps and drill sites in the migration routes of such mammals. • The need for continuous collection of ecological baseline data of the affected protected areas to assist in future monitoring and for updating the ecological sensitivity atlas as well as to be used in EIA studies. • There is need for research to verify the relationship between poaching and petroleum development. Such a research should verify the claim that the increase in poaching in affected protected areas is as a result of community members who previously worked in the affected protected areas during the seismic surveys. • Another study of interest is to establish the relationship between wildlife species, body size and fatality of petroleum wastes on wildlife.

9.6.2 Socio-economic

• On the socio-economic side a study on the attitude of tourists in relation to visiting protected areas affected by petroleum development will be useful. • Similarly, it will be interesting to investigate the impacts of land take, eviction and compensation on the use of natural resources especially in the affected protected areas of the Albertine Graben. • Undertaking a study to value the contribution of biological resources to justify their existence in the phase of economic projects such as petroleum development will be important. Such a study will also strengthen the quality of information in EIA. Valuation of baseline data for biodiversity can be imperative especially for petroleum development projects to give an indication of costs in case of major accidents like oil spills. • Study on mechanism for addressing grievances with affected parties especially in regard to compensation, loss of property and land take. • Petroleum development is influenced by a number of stakeholders. Understanding such influences for agenda setting, decision making and implementation in relation to biodiversity conservation in the Albertine Graben will be important.

9.7 Conclusion

This study aimed at identifying factors under which co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation could occur. Similarly, the identified factors should answer the research question “ Can impacts of petroleum development be managed in a protected area without compromising the ecosystems and communities that survive on it ?” 224

Theoretically, the co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in the Albertine Graben should be possible given that there are a number of protected areas and sensitive ecosystems in Africa, Australia, Asia, Europe and South America where petroleum development occurs (International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 2003; International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association, 2013b). The conditions identified by the study necessary for managing impacts of petroleum development activities in protected areas, sensitive ecosystems and communities are robust environmental legal and regulatory framework, efficient and effective environmental institutions to enforce and monitor the laws and regulations. Equally, co-existence will depend on how well the environmental tools are applied to predict the potential impacts of petroleum development and managed and use of relevant technology and all key stakeholders are able to play their roles responsibly.

However, by 2012, the outdated environmental regulations have not been updated, and the capacities of the environmental institutions were still weak despite efforts to develop them. Stakeholders had little trust in EIA as decision making tool and the ecological sensitivity atlas was still not useful in predicting the likely scenarios of development and setting sensitive ecosystems apart from activities of petroleum development. The oil spill response contingency planning process to identify risks and protect the environment, cultural and economic resources was still at its infancy. Majority of the environmental strategies being put in place were donor funded and it was not clear how the activities could continue once the donor support runs out. Moreover, recommendations of completed studies designed in the Norwegian-funded programme for management of the environment in relation to petroleum development could not be implemented due to lack of funds.

225

REFERENCES

Adaman, F., Hakyemez, S. & Ozkaynak, B. (2009). The Political Ecology of a Ramsar Site Conservation Failure: The Case of Burdur Lake, Turkey. Environment and Plannning C: Government and Policy, 27 , 783-800. African Development Bank & African Union (2009). Oil and Gas in Africa, Abidjan, African Development Bank & African Union. Air Water Earth (2008). Environmental and Social Impact Assessment of Buffalo-1 Onshore Oil Exploration Well in Murchison Falls National Park in Amuru District, Uganda, Kampala, Heritage Oil and Gas (Uganda) Ltd. Akani, G.C. & Luiselli, L.M. (2010). Aspects of Community Ecology of Amphibians and Reptiles at Bonny Island (Nigeria), an Area of Priority Relevance for Petrochemical Industry. African Journal of Ecology, 48 , 939-948. Alba, E.M. (2009). Extractive Industries Value Chain: A Comprehensive Integrated Approach to Developing Extractive Industries, Washington, World Bank. Alemagi, D. (2007). The Oil Industry Along the Atlantic Coast of Cameroon: Assessing Impacts and Possible Solutions. Resources Policy, 32 , 135-145. Ali, S.H. & O'Faircheallaigh, C. (2007). Introduction: Extractive Industries, Environmental Performance and Corporate Social Responsibilty. Greener Management International , 5-16. Amnesty International (2009). Nigeria: Petroleum, Pollution and Poverty in the Niger Delta., London, Amnesty International. Arimura, T.H., Hibiki, A. & Katayama, H. (2008). Is a Voluntary Approach an Effective Environmental Policy Instrument?: A Case for Environmental Management Systems. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55 , 281-295. Arinaitwe, W.P. (2012). Environmental Regulation of Upstream Sector of Oil and Gas Industry. Available at : http://academia.edu [Online]. Academia.edu. [Accessed 29 June 2013]. Atuhairwe, R. (2012). Oil Refinery Land Set for Demarcation. The New Vision, 12 March. Available at : http://www.newvision.co.ug/news/629555-oil-refinery-land-set-for- demarcation.html [Online]. Kampala, The New Vision Publications. [Accessed 12 March 2012]. Austin, D. & Sauer, A. (2002). Changing Oil: Emerging Environmental Risks and Shareholder in the Oil and Gas Industry, Washington, World Resources Institute. Australian Maritime Safety Authority (2011). National Marine Oil Spill Contigency Plan: Australia's National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea by Oil and Other Noxious and Hazardous Substance. Available at : http://www.amsa.gov.au/environment/maritime- environmental-emergencies/national-plan/contingency/oil/documents/nmoscp.pdf [Online]. Australian Maritime Safety Authority, Government of Australia. [Accessed 05 July 2013].

226

Ayebare, S.(2011). Influence of Industrial Activities on the Spatial Distribution of Wildlife in Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda. unpublished MSc Dissertation, University of Rhode Island. Balmford, A., Green, E.R. & Jenkins, M. (2003). Measuring the Change State of Nature. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 18 , 326 - 30. Bebbington, J.A. & Burry, T.J. (2009). Institutional Challenges for Mining and Sustainability in Peru. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/41/17296.short . Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. [Accessed 11 December 2009] BirdLife International (2004). State of the World's Birds, Cambridge, BirdLife International. Blanco, E., Lozano, J. & Rey-Maquieira, J. (2009). A Dynamic Approach to Voluntary Environmental Contributions in Tourism. Ecological Economics, 69 , 104-114. Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. & Malcolm, T. (2001). How to Research, Buckingham, Open University Press. Borja, Á., Galparsoro, I., Solaun, O., Muxika, I., Tello, E.M., Uriarte, A. & Valencia, V. (2006). The European Water Framework Directive and the DPSIR, a Methodological Approach to Assess the Risk of Failing to Achieve Good Ecological Status. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 66 , 84-96. Bowen, E.R. & Riley, C. (2003). Socio-Economic Indicators and Integrated Coastal Management. Ocean & Coastal Management, 46 , 299-312. Bradshaw, C.J.A., Boutin, S. & Hebert, D.M. (1997). Effects of Petroleum Exploration on Woodland Caribou in Northeastern Alberta. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 61 , 1127-1133. Brady, J. (2005). Environmental Management in Organisations: The IEMA Handbook, London and Sterling VA, Earthscan. Bridge, G. (2008). Global Production Networks and the Extractive Sector: Governing Resource- Based Development. Journal of Economic Geography, 8, 389-419. British Petroleum (2006). BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2006. Available at : http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/russia/bp_russia_english/staging/local_assets /downloads_pdfs/s/stat_Rev_2006_eng.pdf , British Petroleum. [Accessed 03 February 2012]. British Petroleum (2011). BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2011. Available at: http://www.bp.com/assets/bp_internet/globalbp/globalbp_uk_english/reports_and_public ations/statistical_energy_review_2011/staging/local_assets/pdf/statistical_review_of_wo rld_energy_full_report_2011.Pdf , British Petroleum. [Accessed 03 February 2012]. Burgherr, P. (2007). In-Depth Analysis of Accidental Oil Spills from Tankers in the Context of Global Spill Trends from All Sources. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 140 , 245-256.

227

Businge, J. (2011). Oil and Tourism: Strange Bedfellows Seem to Have Found Common Ground in Murchison Falls National Park. The Independent, 20th Dec. Available at : http://www.independent.co.ug/business/business-news/5031-oil-and-tourism [Online]. Kampala: The Independent. [Accessed 24 December 2011]. Butchart, S.H.M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J.P.W., Almond, R.E.A., Baillie, J.E.M., Bomhard, B., Brown, C., Bruno, J., Carpenter, K.E., Carr, G.M., Chanson, J., Chenery, A.M., Csirke, J., Davidson, N.C., Dentener, F., Foster, M., Galli, A., Galloway, J.N., Genovesi, P., Gregory, R.D., Hockings, M., Kapos, V., Lamarque, J.- F., Leverington, F., Loh, J., McGeoch, M.A., McRae, L., Minasyan, A., Morcillo, M.H., Oldfield, T.E.E., Pauly, D., Quader, S., Revenga, C., Sauer, J.R., Skolnik, B., Spear, D., Stanwell-Smith, D., Stuart, S.N., Symes, A., Tierney, M., Tyrrell, T.D., Vié, J.-C. & Watson, R. (2010). Global Biodiversity: Indicators of Recent Declines. Science, 328 , 1164-1168. Buysse, K. & Verbeke, A. (2003). Proactive Environmental Strategies: A Stakeholder Management Perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 24 , 453-470. Byaruhanga, A., Kasoma, P.M.B. & Pomeroy, D. (2001). Important Bird Areas in Uganda, Kampala, The East African Natural History Society. Carr, E.R., Wingard, P.M., Yorty, S.C., Thompson, M.C., Jensen, N.K. & Roberson, J. (2007). Applying DPSIR to Sustainable Development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 14 , 543-555. Carter, S.A. (2008). Mining and Conservation. Africa Analyst, 3, 1-17. Carter, S.A., Alger, K., Gorenflo, L. & Zurita, P. (2006). Ci Policy Paper: Main Streaming Biodiversity Conservation into Oil and Gas Development Biodiversity Opportunities in Latin America and the Caribbean: The Role of the IDB. Washington, Conservation International. Cashmore, M., Gwilliam, R., Morgan, R., Cobb, D. & Bond, A. (2004). The Interminable Issue of Effectiveness: Substantive Purposes, Outcomes and Research Challenges in the Advancement of Environmental Impact Assessment Theory. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 22 , 295-310. Casselman, B. (2009). Chevron Expects to Fight Ecuador Lawsuit in Us. Available at: http://www.globalpolicy.org/international-justice/alien-tort-claims-act-6-30/47982.html [Online]. Wall Street Journal. [Accessed 8 June 2013]. Chape, S., Spalding, M. & Jenkins, M.D. (2008). The World's Protected Areas: Status, Values and Prospects in the 21st Century, Berkeley, UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Chapin, F.S., Matson, A.P. & Mooney, A.H. (2002). Principles of Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology, New York, Springer-Verlag. Chevron (2013). Caring for the Environment. Available at: http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/environment/ [Online]. Chevron. [Accessed 30 June 2013].

228

Choudhury, C., Coca, N., Jeansonne, M.P., Kawamoto, K., Wilhelmsen, F., Lanier, F., Smith, D.I., Swaminathan, S. & Radon, J. (2012). Oil: Uganda's Opportunity for Prosperity, New York, Columbia School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University. Clausen, D., Johansen, K.L., Mosbech, A., Boertmann, D. & Wegeberg, S. (2012). Environmental Oil Spill Sensitivity Atlas for the West Greenland (68 0-72 0 N) Coastal Zone. Scientific Report , Aarhus University, DCE-Danish Centre for Environment and Energy, Aarhus. Coffin, A.W. (2007). From Roadkill to Road Ecology: A Review of the Ecological Effects of Roads. Journal of Transport Geography, 15 , 396-406. Conservation International (2011). Biodiversity Hotspots: Eastern Afromontane. Available at: http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/xp/hotspots/afromontane/pages/default.aspx#indept h [Online]. Conservation International. [Accessed 17 Dec 2011]. Convention on Biological Diversity (2004). COP 7 Decision Vii/30. Strategic Plan: Future Evaluation of Progress. Goal 1 - Promote the Conservation of the Biological Diversity of Ecosystems, Habitats and Biomes; Target 1.1. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=7767> [Online]. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. [Accessed 05 March 2010]. Convention on Biological Diversity (2005). Refined Guidelines on Biodiversity Considerations in EIA and SEA (Part1: Eia) Prepared in Response to Decision Vi/7-a Para 3 Ver 4. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/reviews/impact/eia-guidelines.pdf [Online]. Montreal: Secritariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. [Accessed 06 July 2013]. Convention on Biological Diversity (2010a). The Convention on Biological Diversity: About the CBD Convention. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/convention/about.shtml [Online]. Montreal: Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. [Accessed 15 March 2010]. Convention on Biological Diversity (2010b). Global Biodiversity Outlook 3. , Montreal, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Copeland, H.E., Doherty, K.E., , Doherty, K.E., Naugle, D.E., Pocewicz, A. & Kiesecker, J.M. (2009). Mapping Oil and Gas Development Potential in the Us Intermountain West and Estimating Impacts to Species. Available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/comments/info%3adoi%2f10.1371%2fjournal.pone.00074 00;jsessionid=2a056db3d4118265156223ac6930af8c. [Accessed 20 December 2011]. PLoS ONE, 4, e7400 [Accessed 10 July 2011]. Court, J., Mendizabal, E., Osborne, D. & Young, J. (2006). Policy Engagement: How Civil Society Can Be More Effective, London, Overseas Development Institute. Creasey, R. & Fischer, L. (2004). Reduction of Footprint and Restoration of Function: An Approach to Cumulative Effects Management. The Seventh Society for Petroleum Engineers International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment in Exploration. Calgary: Society for Petroleum Engineers.

229

Darnall, N., Henriques, I. & Sadorsky, P. (2010). Adopting Proactive Environmental Strategy: The Influence of Stakeholders and Firm Size. Journal of Management Studies, 47 , 1072-1094. de Oliveira, A.P.J. & Ali, H.S. (2006). Can Oil Corporations Positively Transform Angola and Equatorial Guinea?, in : Corporate Citizenship in Africa: Lessons from the Past; Paths to the Future Visser, W., McIntosh, M. & Middleton, C. (ed.). Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Ltd. Delmas, M. & Keller, A. (2005). Free Riding in Voluntary Environmental Programs: The Case of the U.S. EPA Wastewise Program. Policy Sciences, 38 , 91-106. Delmas, M. & Montiel, I. (2008). The Diffusion of Voluntary International Management Standards: Responsible Care, ISO 9000, and ISO 14001 in the Chemical Industry. Policy Studies Journal, 36 , 65-93. Delmas, M. & Toffel, M.W. (2004). Stakeholders and Environmental Management Practices: An Institutional Framework. Business Strategy and the Environment, 13 , 209-222. Dickson, N.M., Baker, A.J.M., Doronila, A., Laidlaw, S. & Reeves, R.D. (2009). Phytoremediation of Inorganics: Realism and Synergies. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 11 , 97-114. Dudley, N. (ed.) 2008. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories, Gland, IUCN Publication Services. Dyer, J.S., O'Neill, J.P., Shawn, M.W. & Boutin, S. (2001). Avoidance of Industrial Development by Woodland Caribou. Journal of Wildlife Management, 65 , 531-542. Dyer, J.S., O'Neill, J.P., Wasel, S.M. & Boutin, S. (2002). Quantifying Barrier Effects of Roads and Seismic Lines on Movements of Female Woodland Caribou in Northeastern Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80 , 839-845. ECOLEX (2013). International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co- Operation. Available at: http://www.ecolex.org/ecolex/ledge/view/recorddetails?Id=tre001109&Index=treaties [Online]. ECOLEX (FAO, IUCN, UNEP). [Accessed 05 July 2013]. Economic Policy Research Centre (2010). An Assessment of the Contribution of Protected Areas and Integration of the Use of Economic Valuation and Natural Accounting Tools, Unpublished Report, Kampala, Economic Policy Research Centre. Edwards, C.A. (2002). Assessing the Effects of Environmental Pollutants on Soil Organisms, Communities, Processes and Ecosystems. European Journal of Soil Biology, 38 , 225- 231. Edwards, J. (2010). Oil Exploration Blamed for Increased Poaching in Parks. The Independent, 12th Jan. Available at: http://independent.co.ug/index.php/business-news/54-business- news/2416 [Online]. The Independent. [Accessed 20 February 2012]. EIA (2007). Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 2030, Washington, Energy Information Administration.

230

Ekpubeni, F.A. & Ekundayo, O.E. (2002). Effects of Exposure of Crocodiles to Sub-Lethal Concentration of Petroleum Waste Drilling Fluid in the Niger Delta Basin of Midwestern Nigeria Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 76 , 291-298. Eltringham, S.K. & Malpas, R.C. (1993). The Conservation Status of Uganda's Game and Forest Reserves in 1982 and 1983. The African Journal of Ecology, 31 , 91-105. Emerton, L. & Muramira, E. (1999). Uganda Biodiversity: Economic Assessment, Unpublished Report, Kampala, IUCN. Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (2003). Integrating Biodiversity Conservation into Oil and Gas Development, Washington, Energy and Biodiversity Initiative, Conservation International. Environmental Protection Agency (1999). Understanding Oil Spills and Oil Spill Response. Available at : http://www.epa.gov/osweroe1/content/learning/pdfbook.Htm, Washington, Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Protection Agency (2001). Profile of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry, Washington, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Resources Management (2008). Environmental Impact Assessment for the Proposed Early Production System, Kaiso-Tonya Area, Block 2, Lake Albert, Uganda, Unpublished Report, Kampala, Tullow Uganda Operations (Pty) Ltd. Epstein, P.A. & Selber, J. (eds.) 2002. Oil: A Life Cycle Analysis of Its Health and Environmental Impacts. Available at: http://chge.med.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/oilfullreport.pdf Boston, Center for Health and the Global Environment, Harvard Medical School [Accessed 25 March 2013]. European Environment Agency (2007). Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010: Proposal for a Set of Indicators to Monitor Progress in Europe. EAA Technical Report No.11/2007, Copenhagen, European Environment Agency. European Union (2001). Directive 2001/42/Ec of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes on the Environment. Available at: http://www.central2013.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/downloads/document_centre/op_reso urces/04_sea_directive_2001_42_ec.pdf [Online]. European Union. [Accessed 08 July 2013]. Evan, P.J. (2012). Environmental Governance, London, Routledge. Exploration & Production Forum (1993). Exploration and Production (E&P) Waste Management Guidelines. Report No. 2.58/198, London, Exploration & Production Forum. Exploration & Production Forum/UNEP (1997). Environmental Management in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production: An Overview of Issues and Management Appproaches, London, Joint E&P Forum/UNEP Technical Publication. Exploration & Production Forum/United Nations Environment Programme (1997). Environmental Management in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production: An Overview of Issues and Management Appproaches, London, Joint E&P Forum/UNEP Technical Publication.

231

Extractive Industries Source Book (2010). Good-Fit Practice Activities in the International Oil, Gas & Mining Industries: Sector Organisation and Institutions. Available at: http://www.eisourcebook/651_6++sector+organisation+and+institutions.html [Online]. Extractive Industries Source Book. [Accessed 10 August 2012]. Falola, T. & Genova, A. (2005). The Politics of the Global Oil Industry: An Introduction, London, Praeger. Ferraro, G., Meyer-Roux, S., Muellenhoff, O., Pavliha, M., Svetak, J., Tarchi, D. & Topouzelis, K. (2009). Long Term Monitoring of Oil Spills in European Seas. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 30 , 627-645. Finer, M., Jenkins, C.N., Pimm, S.L., Keane, B. & Ross, C. (2008). Oil and Gas Projects in the Western Amazon: Threats to Wilderness, Biodiversity, and Indigenous Peoples. Available at: http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchobject.action?uri=Info%3adoi%2f10.1371%2fjournal. pone.0002932&representation=pdf. PLoS ONE, 3 , e2932 [Accessed 03 February 2012]. Fischer, T.B. (2003). Strategic Environmental Assessment in Post-Modern Times. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23 , 155-170. Flickinger, E.L. (1981). Wildlife Mortality at Petroleum Pits in Texas. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 45 , 560-564. Flickinger, L.E. & Bunck, M.C. (1987). Number of Oil-Killed Birds and Fate of Bird Carcasses at Crude Oil Pits in Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist, 32 , 377-381. Foluke, A. (2012). A Report on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for Oil and Gas Development Plans , Avan University of Applied Science, Breda, Netherlands and Netherlands Commission for Environmental Assessment. Forest Department (2003). National Biomass Study., Kampala, Kampala, Ministry of Water Land and Environment. Freeman, R.E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston, Pitman Publishing. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder Influence Strategies. The Academy of Management Review, 24 , 191-205. Fundingsland Tetlow, M. & Hanusch, M. (2012). Strategic Environmental Assessment: The State of the Art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 , 15-24. Gabrielsen, P. & Bosch, P. (2003). Internal Working Paper Environmental Indicators: Typology and Use in Reporting., Copenhagen, European Environment Agency. Gao, Z. (2000). Environmental Regulation of the Oil and Gas Industries. Available at: http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/journal/html/vol2/article2-11.Html. [Accessed 05 October 2012]. Garcés-Ayerbe, C., Rivera-Torres, P. & Murillo-Luna, J.L. (2012). Stakeholder Pressure and Environmental Proactivity: Moderating Effect of Competitive Advantage Expectations. Management Decision, 50 , 189-206.

232

Gaston, K.J., Jackson, S.F., Cantú-Salazar, L. & Cruz-Piñón, G. (2008). The Ecological Performance of Protected Areas. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 39 , 93-113. Geraci, J.R. & Aubin, D.J. (2003). Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development on Marine Mammals and Turtles, in : Long-Term Environmental Effects of Offshore of Oil and Gas Development Boesch, D. F. & Rabalais, N. N. (ed.). London, Taylor and Francis. Ghazvinian, J. (2007). Untapped: The Scramble for Africa's Oil, New York, Harcourt Inc. Gilpin, A. (1995). Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA): Cutting Edge for Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Glasson, J., Therivel, R. & Chadwick, A. (2012). Introduction to Environmental Impact Asssessment, London and New York, Routledge. Global Integrity (2012). Global Integrity Report: 2011 Executive Summary, Washington D.C., Global Integrity. Global Witness (2010). Donor Engagement in Uganda's Oil and Gas Sector: An Agenda for Action, London, Global Witness. Global Witness (2012). Uganda's Petroleum Legislation: Safeguarding the Sector, London, Global Witness. Gobin, A., Jones, R., Kirkby, M., Campling, P., G., G., Kosmas, C. & Gentile, A.R. (2004). Indicators for Pan-European Assessment and Monitoring of Soil by Water. Environmental Science and Policy, 7, 25-38. González-Benito, J., Lannelongue, G. & Queiruga, D. (2011). Stakeholders and Environmental Management Systems: A Synergistic Influence on Environmental Imbalance. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19 , 1622-1630. Government of Uganda (1985). Laws of Uganda: Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act 1985 (Ch 150), Entebbe, UPPC. Government of Uganda (1995). The National Environment Act 1995, Kampala, Government of Uganda. Government of Uganda (1998). The Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 1998, Kampala, Government of Uganda. Government of Uganda (2010). National Development Plan 2010/11 - 2014/15, Entebbe, Government of Uganda. Government of Uganda (2011). Environmental Management in Uganda's Oil and Gas Sector, Kampala, PEPD. Government of Uganda (2012a). The Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Bill, 2012, Kampala, Government of Uganda. Government of Uganda (2012b). The Petroleum (Refining, Gas Processing and Conversion, Transportation and Storage) Bill, Kampala, Government of Uganda. Government of Uganda (2013). Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of Oil and Gas Activities in the Albertine Graben, Kampala, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development.

233

Graham, D. & Woods, N. (2006). Making Corporate Self-Regulation Effective in Developing Countries. World Development, 34 , 868-883. Grigg, A. (2007). Biodiversity and the Extractive Industry: Innovative Practices and Remaining Challenges. Greener Management International, Spring 2007 , 63-76. Grover, V.L. (1983). The Reduction of Wildlife Mortality in the Sump Pits of Southeast New Mexico Carlsbad, New Mexico, USA, Bureau of Land Management. Guweddeko, F. (2011). Museveni Not the One Who Discovered Oil. Sunday Monitor, 23rd Oct. Available at: http://mww.monitor.co.ug/magazines/thoughtideas/-/689844/1259722/ [Online]. Nation Media Group. [Accessed 23 October 2011]. Hancock, R.D. & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers, New York, Teachers College Press, Columbia University. Hansen, H.J.-P. (2007). Visit to Oil Exploration Fields in Northwest Uganda: With a Special Emphasis on Kabwoya Wildlife Reserve and Kaiso-Tonya Community Wildlife Area at Lake Albert, Unpublished Report, Trondheim, Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management. Harding, L. & Nagy, J.A. (1980). Responses of Grizzly Bears to Hydrocarbon Exploration on Richards Island, Northwest Territories, Canada. Bears: Their Biology and Management, 4, 277-280. Hart, C. (2003). Doing a Literature Review: Releasing the Social Science Research Imagination, London, Sage Publication. Hart, S.L. (1995). A Natural-Resource-Based View of the Firm. Academy of Management Review, 20 , 986-1014. Hartley, A.J., Nelson, A., Mayaux, P. & Gregoire, J.-M. (2007). The Assessment of African Protected Areas: A Characterisation of Biodiversity Value, Ecosystems and Threats to Inform the Effective Allocation of Conservation Funding, Ispra, European Union, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. Henriques, I. & Sadorsky, P. (1999). The Relationship between Environmental Commitment and Managerial Perceptions of Stakeholder Importance. Academy of Management Journal, 42 , 87-99. Hillary, R. (1998). Environmental Auditing: Concepts, Methods and Developments. International Journal of Auditing, 2, 71-85. Hoffman, A.J. (2009). Shades of Green. Available At: Http://Www.Ssireview.Org/Articles/Entry/Shades_of_Green. Stanford: Stanford Social Innovation Review, Stanford Graduate School of Business. Howard, P.(1995). The Economics of Protected Areas in Uganda: Costs, Benefits and Policy Issues. MSc. Dissertation, University of Edinburgh, Scotland. HSBC (2011). Energy Sector Policy. Available at: www.hsbc.com/~/media/hsbc- com/citizenship/sustainability/pdf/070810-mining-policy.ashx [Online]. London: HSBC Holdings plc. [Accessed 01 July 2013 2013].

234

Hunt, G.L.J. (2003). Offshore Oil Development and Seabirds: The Present Status of Knowledge and Long-Term Research Needs, in : Long-Term Environmental Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development Boesch, D. F. & Rabalais, N. N. (ed.). London, Taylor & Francis. Hurley, V.M., Kepaport, K.E. & Johnson, J.K. (2009). Utility of Expert-Based Knowledge for Predicting Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73 , 278-286. Hurtig, A.-K. & San Sebastian, M. (2002). Geographical Differences in Cancer Incidence in the Amazon Basin of Ecuador in Relation to Residence near Oil Fields. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31 , 1021-1027. Hyne, J.N. (2001). Non Technical Guide to Petroleum Geology, Exploration, Drilling, and Production, Tulsa, Oklahoma, PennWell Corporation. Ifeadi, C.N. (2004). Treatment Treatment of Drill Cuttings Using Dispersion by Chemical Reaction (DRC). Available at: http://anfacal.org/Media/biblioteca_digital/Usos_ecologicos/dispersion_quimica_de_suel os_contaminados/jm-dispersion_by_chemical_reaction_dcr.pdf. DPR Health , Safety & Environment (HSE) International Conference on Oil and Gas Industry in Nigeria . Port Harcourt, Nigeria. Illgner, M.P. (2008). Wetland Sensitivity Atlas-Hunters Retreat (Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality). A Specialist Report for Terratest (Pty) Ltd, Port Elizabeth, Terratest (Pty) Ltd. Imaka, I. (2011). Oil Production Starts in a Year. Daily Monitor, 09th Nov. Available at: http://www.monitor.co.ug/news/national/-/688334/1269746/ [Online]. Nation Media Group. [Accessed 09 November 2011]. Inoni, O.E., Omotor, D.G. & Adun, F.N. (2006). The Effect of Oil Spillage on Crop Yield and Farm Income in Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 7, 41-48. International Alert (2009). Harnessing Oil for Peace and Develoment in Uganda, Kampala, Internatonal Alert. International Alert (2013). Governance and Livelihoods in Uganda's Oil-Rich Albertine Graben , Kampala, International Alert. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (2007). Environmental-Social-Health Risk and Impact Management Process. Report No 387. Available at: http://www.ogp.org.Uk/pubs/389.Pdf [Online]. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. [Accessed 06 July 2013]. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (2013). About OGP. Available at: http://www.ogp.org.uk/about-ogp/ [Online]. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. [Accessed 01 July 2013 2013]. International Chamber of Commerce (1989). Environmental Auditing. Publication No.468, Paris, International Chamber of Commerce. International Council for Bird Preservation (1992). Putting Biodiversity on the Map: Global Priorities for Conservation, Cambridge, International Council for Bird Preservation.

235

International Council of Mining and Metals (2006). Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity, London, International Council of Mining and Metals. International Finance Corporation (2012). Performance Standard1: Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts. Available at: http://www.Ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/9959ce0049800a91ab32fb336b93d75f/updated_ifc _sustainabilityframeworkcompounded_august1-2011.pdf?Mod=Ajperes [Online]. Washington: International Finance Corporation. [Accessed 07 July 2013]. International Labour Organisation (2013). Oil and Gas Production and Oil Refining Sector. Available at: http://www.Ilo.org/global/Industries-and-sectors/oil-and-gas-production-oil- refining [Online]. International Labour Organisation. [Accessed 29 May 2013]. International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement (2009). Principles of Environmental Compliance and Enforcement Handbook, Washington, International Network for Environmental Compliance and Enforcement. International Organisation for Standardization (2004). Environmental Management Systems: Requirements with Guidance for Use. Available at: https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#Iso:std:Iso:14001:Ed-2:V1:En [Online]. International Organisation for Standardization. [Accessed 2013 15 July]. International Organisation for Standardization (2009). Environmental Management: The Iso 14000 Family of International Standards. Avialble at : http://www.iso.org/Iso/theiso14000family_2009.pdf [Online]. International Organization for Standardization. [Accessed 16 July 2013]. International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (2003). The Oil and Gas Industry: Operating in Sensitive Environments. Available at: http://www.Ipieca.org/publication/oil-and-gas-industry-operating-sensitive-environments [Online]. International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association. [Accessed 06 July 2013]. International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (2013a). About Us. Available at: http://www.ipieca.org/about-us [Online]. International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association. [Accessed 01 July 2013]. International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (2013b). Our Work: Biodiversity Case Studies. Available at: http://www.Ipieca.org/topic/biodiversity/biodiversity-case-studies [Online]. International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association. [Accessed 15 July 2013 2013]. International Union for Conservation of Nature (2001). Proceedings: World Conservation Congress 4-11 October 2000 Aman Jordan, Gland and Cambridge, International Union for Conservation of Nature. International Union for Conservation of Nature (2012). IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Available at: http://www.Iucnredlist.Org [Online]. Gland, Switzerland: International Union for Conservation of Nature. [Accessed 8 February 2013].

236

International Union for Conservation of Nature and International Council on Mining and Metals (2004). Integrating Mining and Biodiversity Conservation: Case Studies from around the World, London, International Union for Conservation of Nature and International Council on Mining and Metals. ISIS Asset Management (2004). Are Extractive Companies Compatible with Biodiversity? Extractive Industries and Biodiversity: A Survey, Unpublished Report, London, ISIS Asset Management plc. Jansen, D.B., Krausman, R.P., Heffelfinger, R.J. & De Vos Jr., C.J. (2007). Influence of Mining on Behaviour of Bighorn Sheep. The Southwestern Naturalist, 52 , 418-423. Jasch, C. (2000). Environmental Performance Evaluation and Indicators. Journal of Cleaner Production, 8, 79-88. Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P. & Wood, C. (2007). Environmental Impact Assessment: Retrospect and Prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27 , 287-300. Jenkins, C.N. & Joppa, L. (2009). Expansion of the Global Terrestrial Protected Area System. Biological Conservation, 142 , 2166-2174. Jenkins, M., Green, E.R. & Madden, J. (2003). The Challenge of Measuring Global Change in Wild Nature: Are Things Getting Better or Worse? Conservation Biology, 17 , 1-4. Jobin, W. (2003). Health and Equity Impacts of a Large Oil Projects in Africa. Bulletin of the World Health Organisation, 81 , 420 - 426. Joergensen, S. (2000). The Tentative Fourth Law of Thermodynamics, in : Handbook of Ecosystem Theories and Management Joergensen, S. & Müller, F. (ed.). Boca Raton, Lewis Publishers. Joergensen, S. & Müller, F. (2000). Ecosystems as Complex Systems, in : Handbook of Ecosystems Theories and Management Joergensen, S. & Müller, F. (ed.). Boca Raton, Lewis Publishers. Johnson, C.J., Boyce, M.S., Case, R.L., Cluff, H.D., GAU, R.J., Gunn, A. & Mulders, R. (2005). Cumulative Effects of Human Development on Arctic Wildlife. Wildlife Monographs, 160 , 1-36. Johnson, L. (2007). Assessing the Impact of Energy Developments and Developing Appropriate Mitigation in the Ugandan Albertine Rift, Kampala, Wildlife Conservation Society and Uganda Wildlife Authority. Johnson, L. (2010). Oil Impact Mitigation Uganda: EIA Review 2010, Kampala, Wildlife Conservation Society. Jones, C. (2010). Exploring New Ways of Assessing the Effect of Regulation on Environmental Management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18 , 1229-1250. Jones, C., Baker, M., Carter, J., Jay, S., Short, M. & Wood, C. (2005). Introduction, in : Strategic Environmental Assessment and Land Use Planning: An International Evaluation Jones, C., Baker, M., Carter, J., Jay, S., Short, M. & Wood, C. (ed.). London, Earthscan.

237

Karageorgis, A., Kapsimalis, V., Kontogianni, A., Skourtos, M., Turner, R. & Salomons, W. (2006). Impact of 100-Year Human Interventions on the Deltaic Coastal Zone of the Inner Thermaikos Gulf (Greece): A DPSIR Framework Analysis. Environmental Management 38 , 304-15. Kashambuzi, J.R. (2010). The Story of Petroleum Exploration in Uganda: 1984 - 2008 a Matter of Faith, Kampala, Impro Publications Ltd. Kasoma, P.M.B. & Tushabe, H. (2009). Analysis of Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas in Uganda. Developing Terms of Reference for Biodiversity Sensitivity Analysis, Kampala, WWF. Kay, J.J. (2000). Ecosystems as Self Organised Holarchic Open Systems, in : Handbook of Ecosystem Theories and Management Joergensen, S. & Müller, F. (ed.). Boca Raton, Lewis Publishers. Kerley, L.L., Goodrich, M.J., Miquelle, G.D., Smirnov, N.E., Quigley, B.H. & Hornocker, G.M. (2002). Effects of Roads and Human Disturbance on Amur Tigers. Conservation Biology, 16 , 97-108. Khanna, M. (2001). Non-Mandatory Approaches to Environmental Protection. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15 , 291-324. Ko, J.-Y. & Day, J.W. (2004). A Review of Ecological Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Coastal Ecosystems in the Mississippi Delta. Ocean & Coastal Management, 47 , 597- 623. Kolowski, J.M. & Alonso, A. (2010). Density and Activity Patterns of Ocelots ( Leopardus Pardalis ) in Northern Peru and the Impact of Oil Exploration Activities. Biological Conservation, 143 , 917-925. Koziell, I. & Omosa, E. (2003). Room to Manoeuvre? Mining, Biodiversity and Protected Areas, London, International Institute for Environment and Development and WBCSD. Kratsas, R. & Parnell, J.A. (eds.) 2001. An Industry Perspective on Environmental and Social Issues in Oil and Gas Development: Case Studies from Indonesia and Ecuador, New York, Oxford University Presss. Kvale, S. (2007). Doing Interviews, London, SAGE Publications Ltd. Kwesiga, P. & Atuhairwe, R. (2011). UPDF Evicts 3000 in Oil-Rich Hoima. The New Vision, 14th Aug. Available at: http://www.newvision.co.Ug/D/8/12/762694 [Online]. Kampala. [Accessed 14 August 2011]. Lamprey, R., Buhanga, E. & Omoding, J. (2003). A Study of Wildlife Distributions, Wildlife Management Systems, and Options for Wildlife-Based Livelihoods in Uganda, Washington, The International Food Policy Research Institute. Lamprey, R.H. (2000). Aerial Counts of Wildlife in Queen Elizabeth National Park and Murchison Falls National Park 1999-2000, Kampala, Uganda Wildlife Authority. Lamprey, R.H. & Michaelmore, F. (1996). Surveys of Protected Areas, Phase I and Phase Ii, Kampala, Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities. Lamprey, R.H. & Rwetsiba, A. (2007). Report on a Large Animal Count of Kabwoya Wildlife Reserve, Hoima District, Kampala, USAID Prime West Project.

238

Langdale-Brown, I., Osmaston, H.A. & Wilson, J.G. (1964). The Vegetation of Uganda and Its Bearing on Land-Use Entebbe, Government of Uganda. Laurance, W.F., Alonso, A., Lee, M. & Campbell, P. (2006). Challenges for Forest Conservation in Gabon, Central Africa. Futures, 38 , 454-470. Laurance, W.F., Goosem, M. & Laurance, S.G.W. (2009). Impacts of Roads and Linear Clearings on Tropical Forests. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24 , 659-669. Laurence, G.W.S., Stouffer, C.P. & Laurance, W.F. (2004). Effects of Road Clearings on Movement Patterns of Understory Rainforest Birds in Central Amazonia. Conservation Biology, 18 , 1099-1109. Leknes, E. (2001). The Roles of EIA in the Decision-Making Process. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 21 , 309-334. Leroux, S.J., Krawchuk, M.A., Schmiegelow, F., Cumming, S.G., Lisgo, K., Anderson, L.G. & Petkova, M. (2010). Global Protected Areas and IUCN Designations: Do the Categories Match the Conditions? Biological Conservation, 143 , 609-616. Linke, J., Franklin, E.S., Huettmann, F. & Stenhouse (2005). Seismic Cutlines, Changing Landscape Metrics and Grizzly Bear Landscape Use in Alberta. Landscape Ecology, 20 , 811-826. Locke, H. & Dearden, P. (2005). Rethinking Protected Area Categories and the New Paradigm. Environmental Consevation, 32 , 1-10. Mace, G.M. & Baillie, J.E.M. (2007). The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators: Challenges for Science and Policy Los Indicadores De Biodiversidad Al 2010: Retos Para La Ciencia Y La Política. Conservation Biology, 21 , 1406-1413. Maritime New Zealand (2013). Responding to Spills and Pollution. Available at: http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/publications-and-forms/environmental- protection/introduction-to-marine-polllution-response.pdf [Online]. Maritime New Zealand. [Accessed 05 July 2013]. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching, Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications Ltd. Matutinovic, I. (2009). Oil and Political Economy of Energy. Energy Policy, 37 , 4251-4258. Maxim, L. & Spangenberg, J.H. (2009). Driving Forces of Chemical Risks for the European Biodiversity. Ecological Economics, 69 , 43-54. Maxim, L., Spangenberg, J.H. & O'Connor, M. (2009). An Analysis of Risks for Biodiversity under the Dpsir Framework. Ecological Economics, 69 , 12-23. McLellan, B.N. & Shackleton, D.M. (1988). Grizzly Bears and Resource-Extraction Industries: Effects of Roads on Behaviour, Habitat Use and Demography. Journal of Applied Ecology, 25 , 451-460. McLellan, B.N. & Shackleton, D.M. (1989). Grizzly Bears and Resource-Extraction Industries: Habitat Displacement in Response to Seismic Exploration, Timber Harvesting and Road Maintenance. Journal of Applied Ecology, 26 , 371-380.

239

Melnyk, S.A., Sroufe, R.P. & Calantone, R. (2003). Assessing the Impact of Environmental Management Systems on Corporate and Environmental Performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21 , 329-351. Merkl, N., Schultze-Kraft, R. & Infante, C. (2004). Phytoremediation in the Tropics: The Effect of Crude Oil on the Growth of Tropical Plants . Bioremediation Journal , 8, 177-184.Miles, B.M. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Thousand Oaks, London, SAGE Publications. Minio-Paluello, M. (2012). The Ugandan Upstream Oil Law: A Search in Vain for Accountability and Democratic Oversight, London, PLATFORM. Ministry of Energy and Energy Affairs (2013). The National Oil Spill Contigency Plan of Trinidad and Tobago. Available at: http://www.energy.gov.tt/safety_and_environment.php?mid=73 [Online]. Ministry of Energy and Energy Affairs, Government of Trinidad and Tobago. [Accessed 05 July 2013]. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (2008). The National Oil and Gas Policy in Uganda, Entebbe, Government of Uganda: Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (2010a). Strengthening the Management of the Oil and Gas Sector in Uganda: A Development Programme in Co-Operation with Norway, Kampala, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (2010b). Uganda Refinery Study Report, Kampala, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (2011). Annual Report 2010, Kampala, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development. Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (2013). Strategic Environmental Assessment (Sea) of Oil and Gas Activities in the Albertine Graben, Uganda, Kampala, Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development. Ministry of Tourism Wildlife and Antiquities (1999). The Uganda Wildlife Policy, Kampala, Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities. Ministry of Tourism Wildlife and Heritage (2011). Uganda National Policy on Conservation and Sustainable Development on Wildlife Resources, Kampala, Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Heritage. Ministry of Water and Environment (2009). Water and Environment Sector Performance Report, Kampala, Government of Uganda. Ministry of Water Lands and Environment (2001). The Uganda Forestry Policy, Kampala, Government of Uganda, Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment. Ministry of Water Lands and Environment (2002). The National Forest Plan, Kampala, Uganda, Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment.

240

Miranda, M., Cambers, D. & Coumans, C. (2005). Framework for Responsible Mining: A Guide to Evolving Standards . Available at: http://www.frameworkforresponsiblemining.org/pubs/framework_20051018.pdf. Center for Science in Public Participation (CSP 2 ) [Online]. [Accessed 13 October 2010] Morgan, R.K. (2012). Environmental Impact Assessment: The State of the Art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30 , 5-14. Moyini, Y., Muramira, E.T., Emerton, L. & Schechambo, F. (2002). The Costs of Environmental Degradation and Loss to Uganda's Economy with Particular Reference to Poverty Eradication, Nairobi, Kenya, The International Union for Conservation of Nature Eastern Africa Regional Office. Mugenyi, A. (2012). NEMA Needs More Cash to Tackle Oil Waste Challenges. The Ceo Magazine 23rd July. Available at: http://www.theceomagazine-ug.com/news/Nema-in- Need-of-More-Cash-to-Tackle-Oil-Challenges.Html [Online]. Kampala, The CEO Magazine. [Accessed 8 September 2012]. Mugerwa, F. (2011). Buliisa Residents Caught up in Land-Oil Compensation Storms. Daily Monitor, 3rd Sept. Available at: http://www.monitor.co.ug/news/national/- /688334/1229612 [Online]. Nation Media Group. [Accessed 24 September 2011]. Müller, F. (1997). State of the Art in Ecosystem Theory. Ecological Modelling, 100 , 135-161. Muloni, I. (2011). A Presentation by Minister of Energy and Mineral Development at 25th Session of the State of the Nation Platform on 03 November 2011. Kampala, Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment. Multi Institutional Environment Monitoring Committee (2007). Report on the Environmental Visit to the Petroleum Exploration Sites in Kaiso-Tonya and Butiaba-Buliisa in Exploration Area 2 (EA2) and Paraa-Pakwach in Exploration Area 1 (EA1), Kampala, Government of Uganda. Multi Institutional Environment Monitoring Committee (2009). Multi-Sectoral Team Field Environmental Monitoring Report on Oil an Gas Activities, Kampala, Government of Uganda. Munshi-South, J., Tchignoumba, L., Brown, J., Abbondanza, N., Maldonado, E.J., Henderson, A. & Alonso, A. (2008). Physiological Indicators of Stress in African Forest Elephants (Loxodonta Africana Cyclotis ) in Relation to Petroleum Operations in Gabon, Central Africa. Diversity and Distributions, 14 , 995-1008. Mwalyosi, R., Hughes, R. & Howlett, D. (1999). Introduction Course on Environmental Impact Assessment in Tanzania: Resource Handboook, London, International Institute for Environment and Development and Institute for Resource Assessment. Nakamura, M., Takahashi, T. & Vertinsky, I. (2001). Why Japanese Firms Choose to Certify: A Study of Managerial Responses to Environmental Issues. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 42 , 23-52.

241

Nampindo, S., Phillips, G.P. & Plumptre, A.J. (2005). The Impact of Conflict in Northern Uganda on the Environment and Natural Resource Management Kampala, Wildlife Conservation Society. Nampindo, S. & Plumptre, A.J. (2005). A Socio-Economic Assessment of Community Livelihoods in the Areas Adjacent to Corridors Linking Queen Elizabeth National Park to Other Protected Areas in Western Uganda, Kampala, Wildlife Conservation Society. National Environment Management Authority (1997). Guidelines for Environmental Impact Assessment in Uganda, Kampala, Government of Uganda. National Environment Management Authority (2006a). The National Environment (Audit) Regulations, 2006, Entebbe, Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation National Environment Management Authority (2006b). Third National Biodiversity Report., Kampala, Uganda, National Environment Management Authority. National Environment Management Authority (2009a). Environmental Sensitivity Atlas for the Albertine Graben, Kampala, New Era Printers, Publishers and Stationers Ltd. National Environment Management Authority (2009b). Fourth National Report to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Kampala, National Environment Management Authority. National Environment Management Authority (2010). Environmental Sensitivity Atlas for the Albertine Graben, Kampala, National Environment Management Authority. National Environment Management Authority (2012a). A Capacity Needs Assessment for the Environmental Pillar Institutions in Uganda, Kampala, National Environment Management Authority. National Environment Management Authority (2012b). Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Strategy for Environmental Aspects of Oil and Gas Sector Activities for Uganda, Kampala, National Environment Management Authority. National Environment Management Authority (2012c). The Environmental Monitoring Plan for the Albertiene Graben, Kampala, National Environment Management Authority. National Environment Management Authority (2012d). Interim Waste Management Guidelines for Oil and Gas, Kampala, National Environment Management Authority. Naughton-Treves, L., Holland, M.B. & Brandon, K. (2005). The Role of Protected Areas in Conserving Biodiversity and Sustaining Local Livelihoods. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30 , 219-252. Nilsson, M. & Dalkmann, H. (2001). Decision Making and Strategic Environmental Assessment. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, 03 , 305-327. Nishitani, K. (2009). An Empirical Study of the Initial Adoption of ISO 14001 in Japanese Manufacturing Firms. Ecological Economics, 68 , 669-679. Nsubuga, L. (2011). Facts on Nwoya Elephant Scare Were Exaggerated. The New Vision, 30th Sept. Available at: http://www.newvision.co.ug/pa/8/459/766409 [Online]. Kampala: The New Vision Publications. [Accessed 01 October 2011]. Nunes, P.A.L.D., Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M. & Nijkamp, P. (2003). The Ecological Economics of Biodiversity, Methods and Policy Applications, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

242

O'Neill, W.D. & Abson, J.D. (2009). To Settle or Protect? A Global Analysis of Net Primary Production in Parks and Urban Areas. Ecological Economics, 69 , 319-327. O’Rourke, D. & Connolly, S. (2003). Just Oil? The Distribution of Environmental and Social Impacts of Oil Production Consumption. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28 , 587-617. Ogbo, M.E., Zibigha, M. & Odogu, G. (2009). The Effects of Crude Oil on Growth of the Weed (Paspalum Scrobiculatum L.) - Phytoremediation Potential of the Plant. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 3, 229 - 233. Oil and Gas Accountability Project (2005). Oil and Gas at Your Door? A Landowner's Guide to Oil and Gas Development, Durango, Colorado, Oil and Gas Accountability Project Olivier, R.C.D. (1992). Aerial Total Counts in Uganda National Parks, Kampala, Uganda National Parks. Olson, D.M. & Dinerstein, E. (1998). The Global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving the Earth’s Most Biologically Valuable Ecoregions. Conservation Biology, 12 , 502-515. Onorato, T.W. (2009). Legal Frameworks Used to Foster Petroleum Development. In: UNDP Cambodia (ed.) Fuelling Poverty Reduction: Selected Papers from the International Oil and Gas Conference. Phnom Penh, UNDP Cambodia. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1991). Environmental Indicators, a Preliminary Set . Paris, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1993). OECD Core Set of Indicators for Environmental Performance Reviews : A sythesis Report by the Group on the State of the Environment . Paris, OECD Environmental Directorate Monographs No.83 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2005). The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness (2005) and the Accra Agenda for Action (2008). Available at: http://www.oecd.org/development/effectiveness/34428351.pdf [Online]. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [Accessed 08 July 2013]. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2006). Applying Strategic Environment Assessment: Good Practice Guidance for Development Co-Operation, Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Osti, M., Coad, L., Fisher, J., Bomhard, B. & Hutton, J. (2011). Oil and Gas Development in the World Heritage and Wider Protected Area Network in Sub-Saharan Africa. Biodiversity and Conservation, 20, 1863-1877. Owens, S., Rayner, T. & Bina, O. (2004). New Agendas for Appraisal: Reflections on Theory, Practice and Research. Environment and Plannning A, 36 , 1943-1959. Parliament of the Republic of Uganda (2012). Report of the Parliamentary Committee on Natural Resources on the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and Production) Bill 2012, Kampala, Parliament of the Republic of Uganda. Parr, L.C., Woinarski, Z.C.J. & Pienaar, J.D. (2009). Conerstones of Biodiversity Conservation? Comparing the Management Effectiveness of Kruger and Kakadu National Parks, Two Key Savanna Reserves. Biodiversity Conservation, 18 , 3643-3662.

243

Partidário, M.R. (2000). Elements of an Sea Framework— Improving the Added-Value of Sea. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 20 , 647-663. Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (2011a). The History and Progress of Petroleum Exploration and Development in Uganda. Available at: http://www.petroleum.go.ug/page.php?k=abthistory [Online]. Petroleum Exploration and Production Department. [Accessed 13 November 2011]. Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (2011b). Uganda's Oil and Gas Sector. Interview with Mr. Ernest N.T. Rubondo, Commissioner Pepd in Memd Uganda. 18th Africa Oil Week, Capetown South Africa 31 October-4 November 2011. Available at: http://www.petroleum.go.ug/page.php?k=curnews&Id=24 [Online]. Petroleum Exploration and Production Department. [Accessed 13 November 2011]. Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (2013a). Achievements in Uganda's Emerging Oil and Gas During 2012. Available at: http://www.petroleum.go.ug/page.php?k=curnews&id=56 [Online]. Petroleum Exploration and Production Department. [Accessed 23 March 2013]. Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (2013b). Maps and publications. Available at: http://www.petroleum.go.ug/publications.php [Online]. Petroleum Exploration and Production Department. [Accessed 23 March 2013]. Pezeshki, S.R., Hester, M.W., Lin, Q. & Nyman, J.A. (2000). The Effects of Oil Spill and Clean- up on Dominant Us Gulf Coast Marsh Macrophytes: A Review. Environmental Pollution, 108 , 129-139. Phillips, A. (2002). Mining and Protected Areas, London, International Institute for Environment and Development and WBCSD. Plumptre, A.J., Behangana, M., Davenport, T., Kahinda, C., Kityo, R., Ssegawa, P., Eilu, G., Nkuutu, D. & Owiunji, I. (2003). The Biodiversity of the Albertine Rift, Kampala, Wildlife Conservation Society. Plumptre, A.J., Davenport, T.R.B., Behangana, M., Kityo, R., Eilu, G., Ssegawa, P., Ewango, C., Meirte, D., Kahindo, C., Herremans, M., Peterhans, J.K., Pilgrim, J.D., Wilson, M., Languy, M. & Moyer, D. (2007). The Biodiversity of the Albertine Rift. Biological Conservation, 134 , 178-194. Plumptre, A.J., Mutungire, N., Mugabe, H., Kirunda, B., Bogezi, C., Kityo, R., Behangana, M., Turyeigurira, J. & Prinsloo, S. (2009). Biodiversity Surveys of Kabwoya Wildlife Reserve and Kaiso Tonya Community Wildlife Area, Kampala, Wildlife Conservation Society. Pomeroy, D. & Mwima, P. (2002). The State of Uganda's Biodiversity, 2002 Kampala, Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources/National Biodiversity Data Bank. Pomeroy, D. & Tushabe, H. ( 2004). The State of Uganda’s Biodiversity 2004, Kampala, Uganda, Makerere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources/National Biodiversity Data Bank.

244

Pomeroy, D., Tushabe, H., Mwima, P. & Kasoma, P.M.B. (2002). Uganda Ecosystem and Protected Area Characterisation, Kampala, Makere University Institute of Environment and Natural Resources and The International Food Policy Research Institute. Pöyry (2011). End-Review of the Development Programme "Strengthening the State Petroleum Administration of the Upstream Sector in Uganda", Oslo, Pöyry Management Consulting (Norway) AS & Norad. Prakash, A. (2000). Responsible Care: An Assessment. Business & Society, 39 , 183-209. Pressey, R.L. (1994). Ad Hoc Reservations - Forward or Backward Steps in Developing Representative Systems. Conservation Biology, 8. Prinsloo, S., Mulondo, P., Mugiru, G. & Plumptre, A.J. (2011). Measuring Responses of Wildlife to Oil Operations in Murchison Falls National Park, Kampala, Wildlife Conservation Society and Uganda Wildlife Authority. Punch, F.K. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods in Education, London, SAGE Publications Ltd. Queiroz, S.d.J., App, B., Morin, R. & Rice, W. (2008). Partnering with Extractive Industries for the Conservation of Biodiversity in Africa: A Guide for USAID Engagement, Washington, United Statest Agency for International Development. Rabanal, I.L., Kuehl, S.H., Mundry, R., Robbins, M.M. & Boesch, C. (2010). Oil Prospecting and Its Impact on Large Rainforest Mammals in Loango National Park, Gabon. Biological Conservation, 143 , 1017-1024. Ramirez, P.J. (2009). Reserve Pit Management: Risks to Migratory Birds., Cheyenne, Wyoming, United States Fish and Wildlife Services Region 6. Rapport, D. & Friend, A. (1979). Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Environmental Statistics: A Stress-Response Approach. Ottawa, Statistics Canada Catalogue Rekolainen, S., Kämäri, J., Hiltunen, M. & Saloranta, T.M. (2003). A Conceptual Framework for Identifying the Need and Role of Models in the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive. International Journal of River Basin Management, 1, 347-352. Republic of Angola (2008). Republic of Angola National Marine Oil Spill Contingency Plan. Available at: http://www.giwacaf.org/userfiles/contingency/1/angola_noscp_2010_en.pdf [Online]. Republic of Angola. [Accessed 05 July 2013]. Ritchie, J. & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative Data Analysis for Applied Policy Research, in : The Qualitative Researchers Companion Huberman, A. M. & Miles, B. M. (ed.). London, SAGE Publications. Robson, C. (2011). Real World Research: A Resource for Users of Social Research Methods in Applied Settings, Oxford, John Wiley and Sons Ltd. Rondinelli, D. & Vastag, G. (2000). Panacea, Common Sense, or Just a Label?: The Value of ISO 14001 Environmental Management Systems. European Management Journal, 18 , 499-510.

245

Rosenfeld, B.A., Gordon, L.D. & Guerin-McManus, M. (1997). Reinventing the Well: Approaches to Minimizing the Environment and Social Impacts of Oil Development in the Tropics, Washington, Conservation International. Ruiz-Marrero, C. (2003). The Troubled Marriage of Environmentalists and Oil Companies [Online]. CORPWATCH. Available at: hpp://www.corpwatch.org [Accessed 20 March 2010]. Rwetsiba, A. & Wanyama, F. (2005). Aerial Surveys of Medium-Large Mammals in Kidepo Valley and Murchison Falls Conservation Areas Kampala, Uganda Wildlfe Authority. Rwetsiba, A. & Wanyama, F. (2010). Aerial Surveys of Medium-Large Mammals in Kidepo Valley and Murchison Falls Conservation Areas, Kampala, Uganda Wildlife Authority. Sadler, B. (2011). Taking Stock of Sea, in : Handbook of Strategic Environmental Assessment Sadler, B., Aschermann, R., Dusik, J., Fischer, B. T., Partidário, M. R. & Verheem, R. (ed.). London, Earthscan. Sagoff, M. (2004). Price, Principle, and the Environment, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. San Sebastián, M., Armstrong, B., Córdoba, J.A. & Stephens, C. (2001). Exposures and Cancer Incidence near Oil Fields in the Amazon Basin of Ecuador. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 58 , 517-522. Sarker, T. (2013). Voluntary Codes of Conduct and Their Implementation in the Australian Mining and Petroleum Industries: Is There a Business Case for CSR? Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 2, 205-224. Sawyer, H., Kauffman, J.M. & Nielson, M.R. (2009). Influence of Well Pad Activity on Winter Habitat Selection Patterns of Mule Deer. Journal of Wildlife Management, 73 , 1052- 1061. Scanteam (2013). Facing the Resource Curse: Norway's Oil for Development Program, Oslo, NORAD. Schlumberger (2011). Evergreen Burner. Available at: http://www.slb.com/services/testing/surface_testing/evergreen_burner.aspx [Online]. [Accessed 20 March 2011]. Schneider, E.D. & Kay, J.J. (1994). Life as a Manifestation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Mathematical and Computer Modulling , 25-48. Schwarte, C. (2008). Public Participation and Oil Exploitation in Uganda. Available at: http://pubs.Iied.org/pdfs/14574iied.pdf, London, International Institute for Environment and Development. Shell (2013). Operating in Areas of High Biodiversity. Available at: http://www.shell.com/home/content/environment_society/environment/biodiversity/prote cted_areas/ [Online]. Shell Global. [Accessed 11 January 2013]. Shepherd, B. (2013). Oil in Uganda: International Lessons for Success, London, The Royal Institute of International Affairs.

246

Simon, J.D., O'Neill, J.P., Wasel, S.M. & Boutin, S. (2001). Avoidance of Industrial Development by Woodland Caribou. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 65 , 531-542. Sinclair, D. (1997). Self-Regulation Versus Command and Control? Beyond False Dichotomies. Law and Policy, 19 , 529-559. Smeets, E. & Weterings, R. (1999). Environmental Indicators: Typology and Overview. Technical Report No.25, Copenhagen, European Environment Agency. Smuts, R. (2010). Are Partnerships the Key to Conserving Africa's Biodiversity? Four Partnership Case Studies between Mining Companies and Conservation NGOs, Arlington, Virginia, Conservation International. Spangenberg, J.H., Martinez-Alier, J., Omann, I., Monterroso, I. & Binimelis, R. (2009). The DPSIR Scheme for Analysing Biodiversity Loss and Developing Preservation Strategies. Ecological Economics, 69 , 9-11. Ssebuyira, M. (2011). Conservationists Worry over Rising Elephant Poaching. Daily Monitor, 5th Dec. Available at: http://www.monitor.co.ug/news/national/-/688334/1284328 [Online]. Nation Media Group. [Accessed 5 December 2011]. Stattersfield, A.J., Crosby, M.J., Long, A.J. & Wege, D.C. (1998). Endemic Bird Areas of the World: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation Cambridge, BirdLife International. Stevens, P.A., Batty, W.J., Longhurst, P.J. & Drew, G.H. (2012). A Critical Review of Classification of Organisations in Relation to the Voluntary Implementation of Environmental Management Systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 113 , 206-212. Steyn, A., Jordaan, F. & Kabanda, F. (2011). Onshore and Offshore East Africa - Technology Well Testing Operations in Albertine Rift Basin, Uganda: 2006 - 2009. The 5th East Afican Petroleum Conference & Exhibition 2011: Harnessing East Africa's Oil and Gas Potential and Utilising the Resources to Create Lasting Value. Kampala: Petroleum Exploration and Production Department. Suárez, E., Morales, M., Cueva, R., Bucheli, V.U., Zapata-Ríos, G., Toral, E., Torres, J., Prado, W. & Olalla, J.V. (2009). Oil Industry, Wild Meat Trade and Roads: Indirect Effects of Oil Extraction Activities in a Protected Area in North-Eastern Ecuador. Animal Conservation, 12 , 364-373. Svarstad, H., Petersen, L.K., Rothman, D., Siepel, H. & Wätzold, F. (2008). Discursive Biases of the Environmental Research Framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy, 25 , 116-125. Taylor, P.W. (1986). Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, Princeton, Princeton University Press. Tenywa, G. (2010). Oil Workers Kill Remaining Male Reedbuck in Kabwoya. The New Vision, 11th Jan. Available at: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/18/706784 [Online]. Kampala, The New Vision Publications. [Accessed 12 January 2010]. The Energy & Biodiversity Initiative (2003). Integrating Biodivesity Conservatio into Oil and Gas Development., Washington DC, Conservation International.

247

Thomassen, J. & Hindrum, R. (2011). Environmental Monitoring Programme for the Albertine Graben, Uganda: Results from an Ecosystem Indicator Scoping Workshop in Kasese, Uganda, Trondheim, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. Thomsen, B.J., Mitchell, C., Piland, R. & Donnaway, R.J. (eds.) 2001. Monitoring Impacts of Hydrocarbon Exploration in Sensitive Terrestrial Ecosystems Perspectives from Block 78, Peru, London, Oxford University Press. Timko, J.A. & Innes, J.L. (2009). Evaluating Ecological Integrity in National Parks: Case Studies from Canada and South Africa. Biological Conservation, 142 , 676-688. Total (2013). Preserving the Environment: Protecting Biodiversity. Available at: http://www.total.com/en/preserving-the-environment/controlling-our-impacts-on-the- local-environment/protecting-biodiversity-201019.html [Online]. Total. [Accessed 30 June 2013]. Trail, W.P. (2006). Avian Mortality at Oil Pits in the United States: A Review of the Problem and Efforts for Its Solution. Environmental Management, 38 , 532-544. Transport Canada (2011). Environmental Response Systems: Managing Canada's Marine Oil Spill Preparedness and Response Regime. Available at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/publications/en/tp14471/pdf/Hr/Tp14471e.Pdf [Online]. Transport Canada, Public Works and Government Services Canada. [Accessed 05 July 2013]. Tully, S. (2004). Corporate-Ngo Partnerships as a Form of Civil Regulations: Lessons from the Energy and Biodiversity. Discussion Paper No. 22. Available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/36058/, London, Centre for Analysis of Risk and Regulation, London School of Economics and Political Science [Accessed 30 June 2010]. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2010). Statistical Abstract, Kampala, Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Uganda Wildlife Authority (1999). Wildlife Protected Areas System Plan for Uganda, Volumes 1- 5 Kampala, Uganda., Uganda Wildlife Authority. Uganda Wildlife Authority (2000a). Queen Elizabeth National Park, Kyambura Wildlife Reserve, Kigezi Wildlife Reserve: General Management Plan, Kampala, Uganda Wildlife Authority. Uganda Wildlife Authority (2000b). Wildlife Protected Area System Plan for Uganada:Detailed Proposals for Protected Area Changes Vol 4. Protected Area Assessment Programme, European Union Wildlife Support Project CA/98/04., Kampala, Uganda Wildlife Authority. Uganda Wildlife Authority (2001). Murchison Falls National Park, Bugungu Wildlife Reserve, Karuma Wildlife Reserve (Murchison Falls Protected Area): General Management Plan July 2001-June 2011, Kampala, Uganda Wildlife Authority. Uganda Wildlife Authority (2011a). Operational Guidelines for Oil and Gas Exploration and Production in Wildlfe Protected Areas, Kampala, Uganda Wildlife Authority. Uganda Wildlife Authority (2011b). Queen Elizabeth National Park, Kyambura Wildlife Reserve, Kigezi Wildlife Reserve: General Management Plan (2011-2021), Kampala, Uganda Wildlife Authority.

248

Ugochukwu, N.C.C. & Ertel, J. (2008). Negative Impacts of Oil Exploration on Biodiversity Management in the Niger Delta Area of Nigeria. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 26 , 139-147. Ulanowicz, R. (2000). Ascendency: A Measure of Ecosystem Performance, in : Handbook of Ecosystem Theories and Management Joergensen, S. & Müller, F. (ed.). Boca Raton, CRC Press. United Nations (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, New York, United Nations. United Nations (1992a). Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf [Online]. United Nations. [Accessed 06 July 2013]. United Nations (1992b). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Available at: http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf [Online]. United Nations. [Accessed 06 July 2013]. United Nations (2000). Resolution Adopted by the General Assembly: United Nations Millennium Declaration. Available at: http//www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/core_mdgs.htm [Online]. United Nations. [Accessed 09 June 2013]. United Nations (2008). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2008, New York, United Nations. United Nations (2011). The Millennium Development Goals Report 2011, New York, United Nations. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (2007). World Investment Report: Transnational Corporation, Extractive Industries and Development., New York and Geneva, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (2009). Analytical Summary of the State of Conservation of World Heritage Properties, Paris, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation. United Nations Environment Programme/Convention on Biodiversity/Conference of Parties/5/23 (2000). Final Report of the Fifth Ordinary Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, 15 - 26 May 2000. Nairobi, Kenya. Avaialable at: http://www.cbd.int/decisions/cop/?m=cop-05 , Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) [Accessed 18 July 2013]. United States Agency for International Development (2011). USAID/Uganda Environmental Threats and Opportunities Assessment (ETOA), United States Agency for International Development. Van Der Hoeven, C.A., De Boer, W.F. & Prins, H.H.T. (2010). Roadside Conditions as Predictor for Wildlife Crossing Probability in a Central African Rainforest. African Journal of Ecology, 48 , 368-377.

249

Wale, E. & Yalew, A. (2010). On Biodiversity Impact Assessment: The Rationale, Conceptual Challenges and Implications for Future EIA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 28. Wanyama, F., Tibesigwa, J.J. & Kagoda, E. (2007). Aerial Total Count of Medium-Large Mammals, Kabwoya Wildlife Reserve and Kaiso-Tonya Community Wildlife Area, Kampala, Uganda Wildlife Authority. Watts, M.J. (2005). Righteous Oil? Human Rights, the Oil Complex, and Corporate Social Responsibility. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30 , 373-407. Wawryk, A. (2002). The Adoption of International Environmental Standards by Transnational Oil Companies: Reducing the Impacts of Oil Operations in Emerging Economies. Journal of Energy and Natural Resources Law, 20 , 402 - 434. Weir, J.N., Mahoney, S.P., McLaren, B. & Ferguson, S.H. (2007). Effects of Mine Development on Woodland Caribou Rangifer Tarandus Distribution. Wildlife Biology, 13 , 66-74. Wernham, A. (2007). Inupiat Health and Proposed Alaskan Oil Development: Results of the First Integrated Health Impact Assessment/Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Oil Development on Alaska’s North Slope. EcoHealth, 4, 500-513. Winterbottom, B. & Eilu, G. (2006). Uganda Biodiversity and Tropical Forest Assessment, Kampala, USAID/Uganda. Wood, C. (2003). Environmental Impact Assessment: A Comparative Review, Harlow, Prentice Hall. Wood, C. & Jones, C.E. (1997). The Effect of Environmental Assessment on UK Local Planning Authority Decisions. Urban Studies, 34 , 1237-1257. Wood, K.A. & Harod, J.F.W.(Year). Investigation of Migratory Bird Mortality in Arkansas Oil Pits. In: Proceedings of the Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 2000 Arkansas. Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 469-477. World Bank (1991). Environmental Assessment Sourcebook, Washington, World Bank. World Bank (1995). Project Completion Report on Uganda: Petroleum Exploration Promotion Project (Credit 1561-Ug), Washington, World Bank. World Bank (2010a). Environmental Governance in Oil-Producing Developing Countries: Findings from a Survey of 32 Countries, Washington, World Bank. World Bank (2010b). International Development Association, International Finance Corporation and Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency Country Assistance for the Republic of Uganda, for the Period FY 2011-2018, Washington, World Bank. World Bank (2011). Restructuring Paper on a Proposed Project Restructuring of Second Management Capacity Building Project. Loan 4504-Ug and Loan 3477-Ug, Washington, World Bank.

250

World Health Organisation (2010). Managing the Public Health Impacts of Natural Resources Extraction Activities: A Framework for National and Local Health Authorities. Available at: http://www.oilwatchmesoamerica.org/ooc/who_managing%20public%20health%20im pacts%20%20of%20ei.pdf, Geneva, World Health Organisation [Accessed 10 Novemeber 2011]. World Parks Congress (2003). WPC Recommendation 28. Protected Areas: Mining and Energy. Available at: http://www.danadeclaration.org/pdf/recommendations28eng.pdf [Online]. World Parks Congress. [Accessed 15 July 2013]. World Wide Fund for Nature (2013). Good News for Africa's Oldest National Park: Oil and Gas Group Total Will Not Explore for Oil in Virunga National Park. Available at : http://worldwildlife.org/stories/good-news-for-africa-s-oldest-national-park [Online]. World Wide Fund for Nature. [Accessed 28 May 2013]. Wu, J. & Babcock, B.A. (1999). The Relative Efficiency of Voluntary Vs Mandatory Environmental Regulations. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 38 , 158-175. Yin, K.R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods, California, SAGE Publications. Youngquist, W. (2000). Alternative Energy Sources. Available At: Www.Hubbertpeak.Com/Youngquist/Altenergy.Htm [Online]. Oregon: Youngquist Walter. [Accessed 01 January 2010]. Zutshi, A. & Sohal, A. (2004). Environmental Management System Adoption by Australasian Organisations: Part 1: Reasons, Benefits and Impediments. Technovation, 24 , 335-357.

251

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Summary of biodiversity impacts caused by petroleum development activities

Project Stage Project Activity Potential Biodiversity Impacts Pre -bid phase • Identifications and assessments of • No impacts potential business • Assessment of environmental and social risks Exploration and Onshore : appraisal phase • Provision of access (airstrips, • Footprint impacts to (seismic) temporary roads) habitats/flora • Set up and operation of camps and fly • Disturbance of fauna camps • Noise impacts on animal • Use of resources (water, aggregate) populations • Storage of fuel • Physical disturbance of soils • Clearing of lines and layout and watercourses geophones • Contamination of soils, surface • Shot hole drilling and groundwater • Use of explosives • Landscape modification, visual • Closure of shot holes, mud pits, camps impact and access infrastructure • Mobilization of drill rig • Drilling operations • Well testing/flaring Marine • Vessel mobilization and movement • Impact on fish • Vessel emissions and discharges • Disturbance of marine • Seismic operation mammals • Anchor rig/lower legs • Disturbance of sediment and • Use of chemicals benthic populations • Mud and cuttings discharge • Contamination of sediment • Fuelling and fuel handling • Impact on seabirds, coastal • Blow-out risk habitats, etc. in event of oil spill Development Onshore phase • Set-up and operation of construction • Temporary and permanent loss (construction) camps of habitat and component • Provision of construction access ecological populations due to • Resource use (water, timber, temporary and permanent aggregate) footprint • Import of heavy plant and machinery • Soil erosion and reduction in • Vehicle movements productivity • Earthmoving, foundations, excavation • Contamination of soils, surface • Storage/use of fuel and construction and groundwater materials • Damage to cultural heritage • Generation of construction wastes Marine • Disturbance to sediment, • Mobilization and movement of vessels benthic fauna and other seabed • Vessel emissions and discharges flora and fauna • Anchoring, piling • Loss of seabed habitat • Disturbance to marine mammals Operational phase Onshore Production • Footprint • Long-term land take effects on • Visible presence ecology • Import and export of materials and • Effects on landscape and visual products amenity • Product handling, storage, use of • Soil and groundwater chemicals and fuel contamination • Solid wastes arising • Effects on water quality, aquatic • Liquid effluent ecology and resource users • Emissions to atmosphere • Effects on air quality, ecology • Noise and human health

252

Project Stage Project Activity Potential Biodiversity Impacts • Light • Global warming Marine • • Direct footprint • Loss of seabed habitat • Chemicals storage, handling and use • Interruption of fishing effort • Emissions to atmosphere • Disturbance to seabirds and • Operational noise, helicopter supply marine mammals and standby vessel movement • Effects on water quality and • Discharges to sea marine ecology • Oil spill risk • Effects on air quality and global • Light warming Risk to marine and coastal resources in event of spill

Decommissioning Onshore phase Removal of facilities and restoration of the area

Source: Adapted from Shell’s Draft Integrated Impact Assessment: Environmental Impact Assessment Module , EP 95-0370, 2002

253

Appendix 2: Scientific names of fauna and flora mentioned in the thesis

Mammals

African Buffalo Syncerus caffer

African Elephant Loxodonta africana

Amur Tiger/Siberian Tiger Panthera tigris altaica

Black Rhino Diceros bicornis

Bighorn Sheep Ovis canadensis

Bowhead Whales Balaena mysticetus

Caribou /Reindeer Rangifer tarandus

Cheetah Acinonyx jubatus

Chimpanzee Pan troglodytes

Duikers Cephalophus spp

East African Oryx Oryx beisa

Giant Forest Hog Hylochoerus meinertzhageni

Gorilla Gorilla gorilla

Gray Wolf Canis lupus

Grizzly Bear Ursus arctos

Hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius

Jackson’s Hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus

Leopard Panthera pardus

Moose Alces alces

Mountain Gorilla Gorilla beringei

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus

Ocelot Leopardus pardalis

Oribi Qurebia ourebi

Red-tailed Monkey Cercopithecus ascanius

Rothschilds Giraffe Giraffe camelopardalis

Uganda Kob Kobus kob

Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus

254

Warthog Phacochoerus africanus

White Rhino Ceratotherium simum

Wolverine Gulo gulo

Birds

African Skimmer Rynchops flavirostris

Black Crowned Crane Balearica pavonina

Black-winged Pratincole Glareola nordmanni

Denham’s Bustard Neotis denhami

Great Snipe Gallinago media

Lappet-faced Vulture Torgos tracheliotos

Lesser Flamingo Phoenicopterus minor

Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni

Nahan’s Francolin Francolinus nahani

Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus

Papyrus Gonolek Laniarius mufumbiri

Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus

Shoebill Balaeniceps rex

Reptiles

Nile Monitor Lizard Varanus niloticus

Nile Crocodile Crocodylus niloticus

Plants

Teak Tectona grandis

Prickly Pear Opuntia vulgaris

Ornamental flower Catharanthus roseus

255

Appendix 3: List and codes of main stakeholders interviewed in Uganda

Interview Code Job Title and Organisation Professional Role Date of Number Interview Government Institutions 1 UG_1 Assistant Commissioner Geology Technical, 14/03/2011 PEPD Administration & Policy UG_2 PEPD 14/03/2011 2 UG_3 Chief Technical Advisor (Oil &Gas) Technical, 15/02/2011 Administration & Policy 3 UG_4 Director, Environmental Monitoring Technical, 01/02/2011 & Compliance, NEMA Administration & Policy 4 UG_5 Director Corporate Affairs Admnistration and 11/03/2011 NFA Policy UG_6 EIA & Research Specialist Technical and 11/03/2011 NFA Administration UG_7 Coordinator GIS & Mapping Technical and 11/03/2011 NFA Administration 5 UG_8 Research & Monitoring Coordinator Technical, 11/02/2011 UWA Administration & Policy UG_9 Planning and EIA Officer Technical & 11/02/2011 UWA Administration 6 UG_10 Conservation Area Manager Technical & 13/04/2011 Administration UG_11 Senior Warden Law Enforcement Technical & 13/04/2011 UWA Administration 7 UG_12 Warden Technical & 12/02/2011 UWA Administration 8 UG_13 Commissioner Technical, 02/03/2011 Wetland Management Dept. MWE Administration & Policy 9 UG_14 Assistant Commissioner Technical, 02/03/2011 Wetland Management Dept. MWE Administration & Policy UG_15 Principal Environment Officer Technical & 02/03/2011 Department of Environment Administration Support Services MWE 10 UG_16 Assistant Commissioner Technical, 07/03/2011 DWRM, MWE Administration & Policy UG_17 DWRM, MWE Technical 07/03/2011 (monitoring) 11 UG_18 DWRM, MWE Water use 07/03/2011 regulation 12 UG_19 DWRM, EIA (Monitoring) 13 UG_20 Senior Fisheries Officer Technical & 31/01/2011 Fisheries Dept, MAAIF Administration 14 UG_21 Director Tourism Development, Technical, 26/02/2011 Wildlife and Museums & Administration & Monuments, Focal Point CITES & Policy CMS 15 UG_22 NEMA Environmental 26/04/ Monitoring (oil and 2011 gas activities) 16 UG_23 Uganda Tourism Board Technical & 16/03/2011 256

Interview Code Job Title and Organisation Professional Role Date of Number Interview Administration 17 UG_24 Director NEMA Technical & 16/03/2012 Administration 18 UG_25 Environmental Engineer PEPD Technical & 23/04/ Administration 2012 International Civil Society Organisations 17 INGO_1 Director, Uganda Programme Technical and 09/03/2011 WCS Administration INGO_2 Director WILD Programme Technical and 09/03/2011 WCS Administration INGO_3 Oil Programme Manager Technical and 09/03/2011 Administration 18 INGO_4 Country Director Technical and 07/02/2011 WWF Uganda Office Administration National Civil Society Organisations 19 NNGO_ Deputy Executive Director & Technical and 09/03/2011 1 Manager Environmental Administration Democracy Programme 20 NNGO_ Project Officer (Fundraising and Technical and 03/03/2011 2 Extractive Industry) Administration Private Sector 21 PS_1 Uganda Environmental Manager Technical and 30/03/2011 (Tullow) Administration 22 PS_2 Environmental Superintendent Technical and 10/04/2011 (Tullow) Administration 23 PS_3 Environmental Advisor (Tullow) Technical 15/04/2011 24 PS_4 Community Liaison Officer Technical 08/04/2011 25 PS_5 Environmental Advisor (Tullow) Technical 14/04/2011 26 PS_6 Environmental Field Officer (Tullow) Technical 09/04/2011 27 PS_7 Public Relations Officer (Dominion) Technical 06/04/2011 28 PS_8 Environmental Officer (Dominion) Technical 04/04/2011 29 PS_9 Environment Officer (Neptune) Technical 09/04/2011 30 PS_10 Chairman UAIA Technical and 24/04/2011 Administration 31 PS_11 Manager Great Lakes Safaris and Administration 04/04/2011 Chairman Uganda Tour Operators 32 PS_12 Manager, Red Chilli Administration 07/04/2011 33 PS_13 Deputy Manager Lake Albert Safari Technical and 15/04/2011 lodge Administration 34 PS_14 Manager Paraa Safari Lodge Administration 11/04/2011 Member of Parliament 35 MP_1 Chairman National Economy & Policy 26/04/2011 Member Natural Resources Committee Independent Person 36 IP_1 Consultant, Former IUCN Country Technical 03/03/2011 Representative Local Government 37 ULG_1 Senior Environment Officer Technical and 16/04/2011 (Hoima) Administration 38 ULG_2 Natural Resources Officer (Buliisa) Technical and 12/04/2011 Administration 39 ULG_3 District Community officer (Buliisa) Technical and 12/04/2011 Administration 40 ULG_4 Representative Buliisa Sub County Technical and 11/04/2011 (Buliisa) Administration 41 ULG_5 Representative Rwensama Village Community affairs 21/04/2011 257

Appendix 4: Timeline for exploration activities in Uganda

The Early Efforts [Pre -1980] 1925 Petroleum potential of Uganda was documented by a Government Geologist E.J. Wayland in the publication: Petroleum in Uganda, 1925. This included reports of existence of 52 oil and gas seeps, 10 of these were confirmed on Ugandan side, and 4-5 oil seeps were reported at Kasenyi and Mswa on the DRC side of the Albertine Graben. Wildcat Drilling 1936 - The first shallow stratigraphic wells were drilled by the African European Investment 1956: Company of South Africa. Butiaba Waki B-1 well was drilled in 1938. Other shallow wells drilled in Kibiro and Kibuku areas for geological correlation included 13 wells in Semliki basin and 9 wells near Kibiro oil seep. Geological surveys carried out during the 1940s and1950s established the presence of sedimentary sequences of clays and silts in the Kaiso area on the eastern shores of Lake Albert and along the Kisegi river valley in the Semliki Basin. These beds were subsequently called the Kaiso and Kisegi beds respectively, (Memoirs of the Geological Survey, 1959). Limited Activity due to: 1945 - No major petroleum exploration activities in the country. This was due to the second 1980: World War, change in policies of colonial masters and political uncertainties and unprofitability. Consistent and Modern Efforts [1980 - 2006] 1983: Aeromagnetic survey was carried out over the entire Albertine Graben. This effort was driven by the worldwide interest in exploration arising mainly from the high oil prices of the late 1970’s. 1985: Petroleum Exploration Project established to spearhead Exploration Promotion and Acquisition of Geological and Geophysical data over the Graben that lasted from the late 1980s to the early 1990s. Petroleum (Exploration and Production) Act was enacted. A World Bank Project implementation was started to support Petroleum Exploration Promotion – which in December 1993. 1986: Commencement of specialized training of petroleum aspects abroad. 1990: Cooperation Agreement between Uganda and Congo (DRC) for Joint Exploration and Development of Common fields put in place 1991: A Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) between Fina Exploration Uganda and Government of Uganda signed. Fina takes the entire Albertine Graben. The Petroleum Unit in the Geological Survey and Mines Department of the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development was transformed into the Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (PEPD) which became the technical arm of Government responsible for supervising and managing upstream petroleum activities in the country PEPD commences follow up of ground geological and geophysical surveys in areas identified by the aeromagnetic data. Albertine Graben was subdivide into nine (9) exploration areas, and promotion of exploration areas for investment was pursued 1992: Universities of Colombia, Leeds, Lubumbashi and PEPD acquire gravity data on Lake Albert in an effort to understand the Graben 1993: Petroleum Exploration and Production Regulations came into force. Fina Exploration Uganda’s license was not renewed. The company did not do any major exploration work to ensure renewal of its exploration license. 1997: Licensing of Exploration Area 3 (Semliki Basin), to Heritage Oil and Gas Limited. 1998: Heritage acquired the first 2-D seismic data (170 line km) in Uganda. 2001: Heritage acquires an additional 228.39 line km of 2-D seismic data in Semliki Basin which identified drillable prospects and confirmation of structures earlier mapped by gravity and magnetic surveys. Hardman Resources and Energy Africa was licensed to Exploration Area 2. (Northern Lake Albert Basin) 2002: Turaco-1 well was drilled by Heritage and Energy Africa with the spud date of 17th September 2002 and reached total depth of 2,487m.

258

2003: Turaco-2 Well was drilled on the same surface location as Turaco-1 but with a deviation. The well reached a TD of 2,963m. Seismic data were acquired over Lake Albert by Hardman, Energy Africa and Heritage. 2004: Heritage and Energy Africa (Tullow Oil) in July 2004 was Licensed to Exploration Area 1. Exploration Area 3A (Semliki basin) relicensed to Heritage and Energy Africa (Tullow Oil) in September 2004. Turaco-3 well was drilled by Heritage and Energy Africa and reached total depth of 2,980m. One of the horizons (zones) of the well was tested and confirmed presence of natural gas but heavily contaminated with Carbon-dioxide. More acquisition of 390 km 2 of 3-D seismic data in Semliki Basin by Heritage. Recent Developments [2005 - todate] 2005: Acquisition of 2-D seismic data over the Kaiso-Tonya area by Hardman and Energy Africa and also over the Buhuka/Bugoma area, exploration area 3A by Heritage. Exploration Area 5 (The Rhino Camp Basin) is licensed to Neptune Petroleum (Tower Resources). Drilling of Mputa-1 well by Hardman and Energy Africa in Kaiso-Tonya area. Mputa- 1 became the First Discovery Well in the Kaiso-Tonya area 2006: Drilling of Waraga-1 well by Hardman and Energy Africa in Feb/Mar 2006 reaching total depth of 2,010m. Drilling of Mputa-2 appraisal well on the Mputa discovery. Flow testing of Waraga-1 well; completed in August 2006 Drilling of Kingfisher-1 well by Heritage and Tullow Oil in Buhuka/Bugoma area; Flow testing of well completed by October 2006; Drilling of Nzizi-1 well; not flow tested. 2007: Dominion Petroleum is licensed to Exploration Area 4B (Lakes Edward and George Basin). Registered increase of interest by civil society in petroleum exploration activities. 2008: Government passes the National Oil and Gas Policy; Implementation of the Policy commences; Kingfisher-2 well flow tested during August 2008 with (14,000bopd). Heritage drills Kingfisher-3 Completion of acquisition of 485 km 2 of 3-D seismic data 2009: Commencement of drafting the Petroleum Bill; Drilling of Mputa-5, Karuka-2, Ngassa-2, Nsoga-1, Kogogole-3, Wahrindi-1, Ngara- 1, Awaka-1 and Iti-1 wells. Testing of Kasemene-1 and Kigogole-1 wells Acquisition of Full Tensor Gradiometry data Acquisition of additional seismic data in the Graben 2010: Drilling of more wells in Exploration Areas 2, 1, 5 and 4B and other associated activities Local Content study for petroleum development initiated. Feasibility Study on refining in Uganda undertaken

259

Appendix 5: Interview guide and research protocol

Themes for the interview

a) Biodiversity Conservation, Protected Areas and Petroleum Development: • Your mandate and roles in the petroleum development process in the Albertine Graben

• Your views on petroleum development projects in protected areas in relation to national laws and international conventions to which Uganda is a signitory

• Your opinion on petroleum development processes that have gone very well and those that may require improvement

• Challenges your organisation has experienced in implementing projects that are related to petroleum development

b) Petroleum development and impacts on biodiversity and protected areas: • Identified significant impacts on biodiversity by petroleum development and whether all the impacts were correctly predicted by the environmental impact studies

• Impacts of petroleum exploration on tourism, resource use and surrounding areas around the protected areas

• Identified sensitive wildlife species and ecosystems in the protected areas and whether they have been spared by petroleum development

• Whether your organisation is involved in monitoring petroleum development activities and systems put in place for systematic recording of impacts and recovery (e.g. waste disposal sites, decommissioned camps, roads, spills etc) for future monitoring

• Records of gaps in knowledge on impacts of petroleum development and uncertainities and how they have been managed in your organisation

• Evidence of non-compliance by the oil companies in the protected areas and how they have been resolved

• Knowledge on history of impact management by the companies currently involved in the Albertine Graben

• Technologies used in the Albertine Graben in comparison with other technologies used elsewhere for petroleum development

• Scale of petroleum development activities (e.g.size of land of protected areas lost to infrastructure development in protected areas)

• The dos and don’ts for petroleum development activities in protected areas

c) Roles of key stakeholders in the petroleum development process: • Collaborative initiatives with other key organisation in ensuring efficient and effective implementation of the process or lack of it

• Satisfaction with your current level of involvement and participation and how it could be improved if necessary

260

• Your views on how key stakeholders are identified for consultations

d) Decision making process in petroleum development process • Importance of environmental impact assessment (EIA) and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) in the petroleum development process

• Factors your organisation considers important for oil and gas EIA processes

• Whether you think lack of baseline studies prior to comencement of petroleum development activities will have impacts on future evaluation of impacts

• Adequacy of information and presentation of EIA for decision making

• Transparency of decision making process for increasing public confidence (e.g. whether summary evaluation reports are made public or not)

• Knowledege of decision-making tools used in management of potentially conflicting activities

• Evidence of rights of appeal against decisions taken in permiting projects in EIA in Uganda

e) Factors that could determine co-existence between petroleum development and biodiversity conservation

Guidance questions for the focus groups a) Petroleum exploration • Please can you tell me about your views on the petroleum development process since your village happens to be one of those affected by the development? • Specifically I wanted to find out how the process was done, your experiences and the impacts b) Benefits • Can you please tell me about the benefits the petroleum development has brought to your area? • If the government were to come with plans to help the communities what kinds of projects would you suggest to the government? c) Land • Please tell me about issues associated with land in your village as a result of the petroleum development process d) Employment

• Are there people from your village employed by the company and how did you choose the people to be employed? e) EIA Consultations

• Where you consulted by the EIA team and your views on the consultation process d) Co-existence • What advice would you give to ensure that the petroleum development process can be improved so that the community can benefit and the wildlife are not affected and tourism continues to grow?

261

Participant Information Sheet

University of Manchester School of Environment and Development Participant Information Sheet

What is the title of the research?

Petroleum development and biodiversity conservation in protected areas of Albertine Graben: Can they co-exist?

Who will conduct the research?

Isaiah Owiunji, PhD Student, School of Environment and Development (SED), The University of Manchester

What is the aim of the research?

The aim of the study is to assess how an extractive industry like petroleum development can co- exist with biodiversity conservation in a protected area or a sensitive ecosystem, and to identify conditions under which such a co-existence could occur.

Information on key impacts of petroleum development on biodiversity and communities will be collected and analysed to assess how the stakeholders involved in the process collaborate to address the identified impacts. Based on the identified set of conditions the study will develop a flexible framework that allows for petroleum development in protected areas using the Ugandan Albertine Rift as a case study. This is to ensure that petroleum development does not jeopardize other viable economic activities, particularly tourism

Why was my organisation chosen?

Your organisation has been chosen to participate in the research to give information on how you view the co-existence of exploration and development of petroleum on one hand and biodiversity conservation on the other, in the protected areas (national parks, forest reserves, wildlife reserves, etc) of the Albertine Graben.

What would I be asked to do if I took part?

Specifically you will be requested to give information on your organisation’s mandate, your role, your contributions in the national development process, your strategies of involvement, any impacts of petroleum development identified, collaboration/partnerships with other organisations, success of the petroleum development process so far, management challenges, capacity building for national participation, oil spill response plan, adequacy of environmental impact assessment process/strategic environmental assessment, transparency and openness, decision making process, mitigation and monitoring of impacts, etc.

What happens to the data collected?

The data will be coded and analysed to answer the overall research aim and presented in the thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Planning of the University of Manchester, UK.

How is confidentiality maintained?

262

The names of the participants will be kept anonymous while data will be coded during the analysis. Electronic data will be stored in safe places with restricted access through pass words and hard copies will be kept in cabinets under lock and key.

What happens if I do not want to take part or if I change my mind?

Participants will also have the option to opt-out if they don’t want to participate in the research. If they change their mind the information will not be used.

Will I be paid for participating in the research?

No there will be no payment for participating in the research. Benefits will be through expressing your opinion and feedback of the research findings.

What is the duration of the research?

3 years (2009 – 2012)

Where will the research be conducted?

In Uganda in and around Kampala and in the Albertine Graben

Will the outcomes of the research be published?

Yes, the outcome of the research will be published in journals and conference proceedings, and professional publications

What if something goes wrong? Actions to be taken will depend on specific situations to be addressed. If the incidence is in violation of the laws of the country then the police or any concerned local authorities will be informed of such a situation. In addition the Supervisors and the University of Manchester Administration will be informed and advice sought from them for further action to be taken. The latter will also be informed if the research process is compromised in any way.

Contact for further information

School of Environment and Development The University of Manchester Arthur Lewis Building, Oxford Road Manchester M13 9PL

E-mail: [email protected]

263

Consent Form

University of Manchester School of Environment and Development Petroleum Development and Biodiversity Conservation In Protected Areas of Albertine: Can They Co-exist?

CONSENT FORM

If you are happy to participate please read the consent form and initial it:

Please Initial Box 1. I confirm that I have read the attached information sheet on the above project and have had the opportunity to consider the information and ask questions and had these answered satisfactorily.

2. I understand that my participation in the study is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time without giving a reason and without detriment to any treatment/service

3. I understand that the interviews will be audio-recorded

4. I agree to the use of anonymous quotes although there is possibility that I could be recognised from the anonymous quotes/comments

I agree to take part in the above project

Name of participant Date Signature

Name of person taking Date Signature consent

264