It’s hard to imagine that truly vast oil and gas resources that are being discovered in Africa be left in the ground as stranded assets amidst low levels of economic development in the region.

Energy and climate change are important topics in the sustainable development discourse globally and in Uganda. Indeed, the two touch almost all sectors and achievements socio-economic and environmental sustainability. Energy is a key driver of climate change because it is the main source of greenhouse gases that are responsible for global warming and hence climate change.
It’s true to avoid Climate catastrophe, the UNFCCC supervisory body of Article 6 paragraph 4 of the Paris Agreement must recognize that th e world no longer has time for misplaced reliance on market based emissions trading systems, But global south (high emitters) should understand this as an outcome of their half-baked promises year in year out at the annual conference of parties (COP).

There is an-ongoing debate fronted by a group of scientists assembled by the United Nations whose mandate is to monitor and assess all global science related to climate change (IPCC), The argument is about global south countries keeping their natural resources (including oil and gas) in the ground (as a stranded asset) in the name of conserving environment.

We must acknowledge that for African governments, keeping oil, gas and other natural resources in the ground would be economically rational if global north offered a considerable financial compensation for rather having a stranded asset, with the latest major oil discoveries in Uganda and with latest Senegal, the Overall contribution to GDP in Senegal for example is expected at 5% but when the global north intervenes that this 5% contribution to their GDP should be kept in the ground then a compensation similar to that should come to play as opposed to keep it in the ground when the country is languishing in extreme poverty.

Equity and equality should be a key consideration in climate action , Last year while at Africa climate summit(ACS) in Kenya’s capital Nairobi where African leaders where lobbying for more climate finance, H.E Paul Kagame representing Rwanda asked a delegation from the global north “who gave you powers to emit more than us, now it’s time for you to pay” . Joe Biden’s special envoy on climate change Mr John Kerry ‘s response was let us re-strategize on the modalities of climate financing where he concluded with announcement of $4million for climate related migrations, Since then, that commitment has never been fulfilled orchestrated by a less flow of financial resources to global south-countries.

The point I’m making is, let the global north full fill their commitments otherwise we shall be conserving poverty in the name of environment.

Despite the enduring interests of global firms, once a major oil or gas discovery is made, The challenge for African governments and their commercial partners is finding finances to develop the projects. Africa typically seeks financing from developed finance institutions (DFIs) and multilateral development banks. These institutions have, however, imposed policies restricting fossil fuel financing in recent years committed to ending fossil fuels.
The efforts geared towards ending fossil fuels were a land-mark outcome In 2015, During COP21 in Paris the main agreement was to cut global greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit global temperature increase as close as possible to 1.5 degrees Celsius where 186 countries member states by then submitted carbon reduction targets known as “intended nationally determined contributions” which outlined how each country would cut its emissions but key to note is there was no one –size –fits all approach for the NDCs and hence the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibilities( CBDR) literally meaning that developed countries (global north) were to help developing countries in their mitigation and adaptation strategies.
So in all this debate of keeping our natural resources in the ground, the western countries should be talking in terms of compensation (more grants but not loans), I personally blame all this on the developed countries who have been slow to deliver on the pledge, first made in 2015 to provide $100bn every year for mitigation and adaptation initiatives to global south. But also one wonders why it seems good for environment when Germany discovers new coal fields but very deadly for the planet and humanity when Uganda discovers her oil and gas. To me, the discussion should rather be how do we sustainably extract these natural resources more specifically to Vulnerable and least Developed Countries (LDCs) who are viewing these resources as key enablers of the desired development levels.

It’s really hard for African countries to justify leaving oil and gas in the ground, when these resources can potentially generate billions of dollars. Uganda, for example the anticipated oil revenues are worth half a country’s GDP and this means a lot for a developing country like Uganda. Gas can also make a major contribution to power generation and can help close the continent’s energy gap. Over 90% Uganda’s population continue to rely on bio-gas as source of fuel.

For 31 years, the UN will convene in Baku, Azerbaijan for COP29 (Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC) to effectively tackle the global challenge of climate change. This year, in the face of relentless global warming and more severe climate disasters, we ask, what do we really need to do to effectively tackle the threat to our world? One answer is clear, but not easy in the face of the heavy emitters.
At COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, we need to push for new climate finance goals with the finance mechanism taking a grants approach as opposed to loans, this is totally different to providing direct compensation in return for not developing oil and gas. The former is in line with the polluter pay principle where developed countries are obliged to pay for their losses and damages.

The writer is a Natural resource economist.