evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Tilenga Biodiversity Offset Programme — TotalEnergies' Contested "Net Positive Impact" Pledge (Uganda)

Uganda · Buliisa · See the Uganda profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 99% 13/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

TotalEnergies pledges "positive net impact" on biodiversity near Uganda's Murchison Falls Park via Tilenga and the EACOP pipeline, targeting 80% footprint restoration — but 2024-2026 independent reports find wetland risk, water pollution and unresolved grievances.

1443 km
EACOP pipeline length
80 %
Tilenga footprint targeted for restoration to natural state
12 km
Closest distance of EACOP route to SAMUKA Ramsar wetland
117 US$ million
Estimated ecosystem-service value of SAMUKA wetland system
Tilenga Biodiversity Offset Programme — TotalEnergies' Contested "Net Positive Impact" Pledge (Uganda)

Details

Promoter
TotalEnergies E&P Uganda / Uganda Wildlife Authority — independently monitored by Earth Insight, AFIEGO and FIDH
Period
{'end': '', 'start': '2021'}
Keywords
oil and gas biodiversity offset, net positive impact, protected-area buffer zones, community grievance mechanisms

Context

TotalEnergies E&P Uganda operates the Tilenga oil development on Lake Albert, adjoining Murchison Falls National Park, and is the operating partner of the 1,443 km East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) to Tanzania's coast. Since 2021 the company has pledged a 'positive net impact on biodiversity' for the project area, covering four ecosystems: Murchison Falls National Park, savanna, wetlands and forests.

Objectives

TotalEnergies states that roughly 80% of Tilenga's physical footprint will be returned to its natural state after construction, with species-specific programmes for black rhino, chimpanzee and pangolin, and asserts the pipeline route avoids Ramsar or IUCN-protected areas.

Activities

The company's 2024 Biodiversity Report and project pages describe habitat measures and a formal offset framework with grievance mechanisms for affected communities along the Tilenga and EACOP corridor.

Results

Independent scrutiny complicates the company's picture. A June 2026 Earth Insight report found the EACOP route runs as close as 12 km from the Ramsar-listed Sango Bay-Musambwa Island-Kagera Wetland System, valued at roughly US$117 million in ecosystem services, and crosses wildlife corridors used by pangolins, African wild dogs, chimpanzees and colobus monkeys. The NGO AFIEGO reports polluted water sources, 'subpar' replacement wells and wetland siltation from trenching spoil, with community grievances largely unresolved. A December 2024 report by FIDH, Avocats Sans Frontières and CRED documented land-rights, labour and safety concerns across the Tilenga, Kingfisher and EACOP sites; TotalEnergies disputed the report's characterisation.

Conclusions

As of mid-2026, no independent, third-party-audited biodiversity outcome monitoring for Tilenga has been published. The 'net positive impact' claim remains a company target rather than a verified result, and is documented here as an evidence-based cautionary case rather than a proven practice.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Very high (> €5M) — Multinational oil development plus a 1,443 km cross-border pipeline, own-resources funded by TotalEnergies and partners — band reflects the scale of a major multinational infrastructure project.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Biodiversity commitment dates to 2021 and spans pre-construction, construction and post-construction restoration phases — a multi-year, ongoing commitment.
Staffing & skills
TotalEnergies E&P Uganda, Uganda Wildlife Authority, Government of Uganda, CNOOC (EACOP co-partner)

Conditions for success

  • Independent, third-party-audited biodiversity outcome monitoring would be needed to verify the net-positive-impact claim
  • Effective, functioning grievance mechanisms for communities affected by land, water and wetland impacts

Common failure modes

  • Pipeline route runs within 12 km of a Ramsar-listed wetland valued at ~US$117 million in ecosystem services and crosses multiple wildlife corridors
  • AFIEGO documents polluted water sources, substandard replacement wells and wetland siltation from construction
  • FIDH/ASF/CRED and AFIEGO both report unresolved community grievances despite the company's stated mitigation commitments
  • No independently audited outcome data exists to confirm the 80%-restoration or net-positive-impact targets have been met

Commonly funded by

Own resources / municipal budget

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful