Friday 21 January 2005

The call comes as WWF launches a report, Where are all the SEAs?, looking at the use of strategic environmental assessments (SEA) in oil and gas developments. It reveals that the World Bank identified 21 lending operations subject to some kind of strategic environmental analysis between 1997 and 2001. But shockingly none of the SEAs identified during this period were concerned with the oil and gas sector.

James Leaton, WWF Extractive Industries Policy Officer, said: "It's time the boards of international finance institutions made a clear statement that finance for large oil and gas programmes will not be approved in future in the absence of a strategic environmental assessment."

The report comes as the International Finance Corporation is consulting on its Environmental Safeguards and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is revising its Energy and Natural Resources Policies. Both of these institutions have articulated their support for conducting SEAs, but neither have been able to deliver.

A series of the largest and most controversial oil and gas developments undertaken in the last decade have proceeded in the absence of an SEA, including projects funded by significant World Bank and EBRD loans:

• Sakhalin oil and gas development project
  The Sakhalin oil and gas development project is being led by Shell. The EBRD has ruled that the current environmental impact assessments are "unfit for purpose." No SEA for the series of oil projects around Sakhalin Island has ever been undertaken for the social, economic and environmental damage to the environment of Sakhalin Island and the people who depend on it for their livelihoods. This is despite the EBRD's Natural Resources policy making an SEA for Sakahlin a specific objective in 1999. The EBRD are still considering whether to finance the project.
• Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
  Again with the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, no SEA was ever undertaken for the proposals. Therefore no assessment has ever been carried out on the alternatives for, and the cumulative impacts of, the different components of the project.
• Chad-Cameroon pipeline
  The Chad-Cameroon pipeline never had a SEA. It was inaugurated in 2004 amidst complaints from local communities over the social and environmental consequences of the project. The World Bank's Inspection Panel investigated the World Bank's involvement in this and was strongly critical of the absence of a SEA.

The huge scale of these programmes is illustrated by the fact that each represents the largest ever foreign investment in the respective regions. The subsequent problems that many of these projects have encountered have illustrated precisely the difficulties that SEAs can help to prevent.

WWF is concerned that oil and gas programmes proposed for key ecoregions around the world will devastate decades of work to protect both biodiversity and livelihoods. For example frontier areas such as the East and West African coastline are subject to exploration activity. WWF is working with partners to promote discussion of strategic environmental and social issues in these regions.

Woodside Energy has already confirmed discoveries in offshore Mauritanian blocks. This coastline is vital for a fishing industry worth EUR 500m per year, as well as being globally significant habitats for monk seals and sea turtles. The lack of experience in this region of oil and gas impacts makes it important to increase awareness of the options and tools available to decision-makers. There is a real danger that mistakes will be repeated in these regions, with belated consultations, lack of transparency, and minimal environmental standards.

The use of SEAs offers significant advantages to all parties in the context of major development programmes, including industry, financial institutions, governments and local communities. The report highlights the potential advantages of SEA that go beyond reduced environmental impact and improved environmental management. Potential benefits include: greater certainty about the scope and limits of future development; the identification of future risks; the ability to demonstrate transparent decision-making; efficiencies of addressing significant issues at earlier stages, and; a reduction in the potential for future conflict over resource-use.

"Over the years examples of flawed projects provide clear evidence to the hazards of neglecting SEAs. Widespread implementation of SEAs in the context of oil and gas programmes and projects needs to happen now," Said James Leaton.

"IFI shareholders and policymakers have expressed the desire to see SEAs applied to such projects. Implementation of SEA policies by IFIs is long overdue; it is time to deliver."