Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Potential threat to areas of
biodiversity importance from current and
emerging oil and gas
activities in Africa
June 2016
The United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)
is the specialist biodiversity assessment centre of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP),
the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation. The Centre has been in operation
for over 30 years, combining scientific research with practical policy advice.
Copyright: 2016 United Nations Environment Programme
Copyright release:
Acknowledgements:
This publication may be reproduced for educational or non-profit purposes
without special permission, provided acknowledgement to the source is
made. Reuse of any figures is subject to permission from the original rights
holders. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other
commercial purpose without permission in writing from UNEP.
Applications for permission, with a statement of purpose and extent of
reproduction, should be sent to the Director, UNEP-WCMC, 219
Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK.
We thank BirdLife International and IHS for data provision, and the following internal and external advisors: Annelisa Grigg, Matt Jones and Mike Harfoot (UNEP-WCMC), and Mark Johnston (BP).
Disclaimer: The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of
UNEP, contributory organisations or editors. The designations employed
and the presentations of material in this report do not imply the expression
of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UNEP or contributory
organisations, editors or publishers concerning the legal status of any
country, territory, city area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation
of its frontiers or boundaries or the designation of its name, frontiers or
boundaries. The mention of a commercial entity or product in this
publication does not imply endorsement by UNEP.
Citation: Leach, K. Brooks, S.E., Blyth, S. (2016) Potential threat to areas of
biodiversity importance from current and emerging oil and gas activities in
Africa. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, U.K.
Cover photo
Kilimanjaro National Park, Tanzania. © 2016 Oleg Znamenskiy
1
Contents
Figures ........................................................................................................................................................ 2
Tables .......................................................................................................................................................... 3
Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 4
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Definition of threat ........................................................................................................................ 7
2. Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Data.................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.2 Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 9
3. Results ............................................................................................................................................ 10
3.1 Potential threat to areas of biodiversity importance from oil and gas contract blocks ......... 10
3.1.1 Potential threat to protected areas ................................................................................... 13
3.1.2 Potential threat to Key Biodiversity Areas ....................................................................... 16
3.2 The size and type of operating companies in areas of biodiversity importance ..................... 19
3.3 Potential future threat to areas of biodiversity importance from oil and gas bidding and application blocks ........................................................................................................................ 22
3.4 Potential threat to areas of biodiversity importance from oil and gas pipelines ................... 26
4. Discussion and conclusions ........................................................................................................ 30
5. References ..................................................................................................................................... 37
Appendix 1 – IUCN protected area management categories ........................................................... 39
2
Figures Figure 1 Total area of onshore (orange) and offshore (blue) oil and gas contract blocks in each
country......................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 2 Density of current contract blocks, i.e. count of blocks occurring in each 100 x 100 km
grid cell in Africa. Values range from 0, with a low density, to 74, with a very high density
of contract blocks. ....................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 3 Overlap of protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) with contract blocks. The
first map (a) shows those that overlap (reds) and those that do not (greens), while the
second (b) shows the degree of the overlap in the Eastern Africa region. The number of
areas in each category are also listed. ....................................................................................... 12 Figure 4 Overlap of protected areas with contract blocks. The first map (a) shows those that
overlap (red) and those that do not (green), whilst the second (b) shows the degree of the
overlap in the Eastern Africa region. The number of protected areas in each category are
also listed. .................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 5 Total overlap between protected areas and contract blocks as a proportion of the total
area occupied by protected areas in each country. African countries which have less than
100km2 overlap are not shown. ................................................................................................. 14 Figure 6 Average percentage overlap of protected areas with contract blocks (blue) with 95%
confidence limits and total area coverage (km2) (orange points) (a) habitat; terrestrial,
coastal or marine, (b) designation type; international, national or regional, (c)
international site type; Ramsar site, UNESCO-MAB Biosphere reserve or World Heritage
Site, and (d) IUCN protected area management category. .................................................... 15 Figure 7 Overlap of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) with contract blocks. The first map (a) shows
those that overlap (red) and those that do not (green), whilst the second (b) shows the
degree of the overlap in the Eastern Africa region. The number of KBAs in each category
are also listed. ............................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 8 Total overlap between Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and contract blocks as a proportion
of the total area occupied by KBAs. African countries which have less than 100km2
overlap are not shown. ............................................................................................................... 17 Figure 9 Average percentage overlap of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) with contract blocks and
95% confidence limits (blue) plus total area coverage (km2) (orange points) for each (a)
type; KBAs and Alliance for Zero Extinction sites (AZEs), and (b) habitat; marine or
terrestrial. .................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 10 Operator types and sizes in Africa proportionally represented by number of contract
blocks managed; privately owned operators (blue), national (orange) and government
(green). ........................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 11 Average percentage overlap (blue) of protected areas (a) and KBAs (b) with contract
blocks for different operator types and sizes (based on the number of countries in which
they operate) with 95% confidence limits for each and total overlap (km2) represented by
orange points. ............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 12 Density of future bidding and application blocks, i.e. count of blocks occurring in each
100 x 100 km grid cell in Africa. ................................................................................................ 22 Figure 13 Current and potential future overlap of protected areas (PAs) (a) and KBAs (b) with
concessions. Protected areas or KBAs under increasing future threat are shown in purple,
those facing new potential threat are shown in pink, those under current threat are
shown in orange and those where no overlap has been detected in green. The number of
protected areas or KBAs in each category are also listed. ..................................................... 24 Figure 14 Average percentage overlap of the increase in threat to protected area (PA) habitats and
designations (a) and average percentage overlap of those facing future, but not current,
3
threat (b) with 95% confidence limits shown, and total overlap (km2) represented by
orange points. Sample sizes are shown in bold to the left of each bar. ............................... 25 Figure 15 Potential threat of pipelines to protected areas (a) and KBAs (b) shown as total
combined distance of intersects plus insets to Eastern Africa in (c) and (d). The number
of protected areas or KBAs in each category are also listed. ................................................. 27 Figure 16 Total length (km) of operating, potential and planned pipelines intersecting with
protected areas (PAs) and KBAs. The varying colours represent different content (oil,
water or gas) and positioning (above ground, buried, submerged or unknown). .............. 29
Tables Table 1 Regional breakdown of protected areas (PAs), Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and contract
blocks in Africa, as well as area occupied by onshore and offshore contract blocks (km2)
in each region and overall values for Africa. ........................................................................... 12 Table 2 Number of overlapping protected areas and KBAs with current contract blocks, associated
with different operator types and sizes. Bold numbers indicated the operator type and
size with the highest value for each column. ......................................................................... 20 Table 3 Total length of pipelines (km) intersecting with protected areas (PAs) and KBAs by
country /designation. Overlaps were not found for PAs with IUCN status ‘Not Assigned’.
..................................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 4 Summary of country analyses, highlighting priority countries that are facing high
potential threat to protected areas (PAs) and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) from current
and future oil and gas development, and pipelines. .............................................................. 35
4
Summary There is a high level of current interest from international investors in Africa following substantial oil discoveries. Releasing this economic opportunity while safeguarding the environment and communities is challenging, particularly for those countries where resources to understand and manage the environmental impacts of the sector may be low. Identifying areas where oil and gas development has the potential to impact on areas of biodiversity importance currently and in the future can enable governments, donors and civil society to prioritise their efforts to engage with this industry. Similarly, it can give business and investors insights into the potential risks of operating in a certain country. Here, we assess the potential threat of oil and gas installations and associated pipelines to areas of biodiversity importance (protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas) across Africa using data on existing contract blocks, future bidding/ application blocks and pipelines. The overlap of a contract or bidding/ application block with an area of biodiversity importance is used in this study as an indicator of threat, however we recognise the caveats with this approach and outline these below. We also assess the relative threat of different sizes and types of operating company to biodiversity, based on the degree to which their contract blocks overlap areas of biodiversity importance.
Key findings:
20% of currently identified areas of biodiversity importance (protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas) are currently covered by oil and gas contract blocks, with the highest degree of overlap in Djibouti, Malawi, Somalia, South Sudan and Zambia.
266 protected areas (7 % of all African Protected areas) overlap with future oil and gas activities, with South Africa, Zambia, Guinea-Bissau and Uganda likely to be more threatened than other countries.
12 protected areas designated under international conventions and agreements are potentially threatened by increasing future exploitation and one designated as IUCN management category Ia, a strictly controlled nature reserve, overlap with current oil and gas contract blocks by an average of 20%.
Marine and coastal protected areas and KBAs show a high degree of current and future overlap with oil and gas concessions. This suggests the continued need for marine spatial planning that integrates biodiversity data for improved operational decisions in the marine environment.
32% of African Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites overlap with current contract blocks highlighting that unless effective impact mitigation, principally avoidance of these areas, is actively adopted, such impacts could threatened certain species with global extinction
Efforts to improve practice need to be extended to reach single country companies and very large national companies which operate in blocks that overlap with areas of biodiversity importance to a greater extent than that for privately owned multinational companies where much civil society effort for engagement is currently focused.
Over 12,000 km of oil and gas pipelines intersect with protected areas and more than 10,000 km with KBAs in Africa, potentially affecting 5% of protected areas and 11% of KBAs within Africa
This work is of relevance to a wide range of stakeholders. While biodiversity data may be
accessed prior to project development as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment, the use
of these data to inform decisions on offering contract blocks is far less common. This work can
help prioritise efforts by the conservation and donor community to ensure that appropriate
5
consideration is given to the avoidance of biodiversity impact in areas of high potential threat.
For governments and companies this report highlights those countries and operations where
more robust impact avoidance and mitigation strategies are needed and where stakeholder
scrutiny of oil and gas operations may be greatest. For the finance sector, it can highlight
potential risks within their investment portfolio.
6
1. Introduction As is the case for all major types of development, oil and gas production can have adverse effects
on biodiversity, which can be severe when not managed effectively. Long term energy needs are
expected to show significant increases, so there is a need for oil and gas companies to manage
potential threats to biodiversity while increasing production. Oil and gas development is likely to
have substantial direct, and also indirect impacts on biodiversity (e.g. Jones et al., 2014), for
example, through infrastructure development, agricultural conversion, water pollution and
human migration, which may also have major direct threats alone. In addition, increased use of
natural gas, and therefore pipelines, is controversial due to likely habitat fragmentation within
the various ecosystem types they traverse and also due to possibly detrimental secondary impacts
in undeveloped areas (EBI, 2003). These direct and indirect impacts are likely to be more severe
in some environments than others, due in part to the vulnerability and irreplaceability of the
biodiversity present. These impacts are expected to intensify in Africa with the growing oil and
gas sector in the continent. There have been a substantial number of oil discoveries in many
African nations, with high interest from international investors (Foss, 2008). Previous studies on
mining have predicted potential threat to biodiversity in Central Africa, in particular the
Albertine Rift Mountains and Congo rainforest where threats were found to be spatially random
because of the sporadic occurrence of minerals (Edwards et al., 2014). While there are growing
efforts to develop and revise national legislation for governing the oil and gas sector in many
African countries, there are often capacity and resourcing constraints to effectively monitor and
enforce biodiversity impact mitigation requirements (Brooks and Wright, 2016). There is
therefore a need to prioritise international efforts to areas where impacts are likely to be most
severe.
There have been a number of regional and global assessments of the threat posed by extractive
activities to protected areas recognised under the World Heritage (WH) convention. These
studies have shown that a significant proportion of WH sites face some degree of threat from oil
and gas, based on their proximity to active operations (UNEP –WCMC, 2013) or the overlap with
concessions (WWF, 2015). For sub-Saharan Africa, Osti et al. (2011) found that 27% of WH sites
overlapped with oil and gas concessions, although no active drilling was identified as taking place
within the WH sites.
These studies have been important in providing an evidence base for the ongoing campaigns to
safeguard WH sites from extractive development that has been deemed incompatible with WH
status by the UNESCO WH committee. In addition, however, there is recognition that extractive
operations are incompatible with many aspects of protected area management (e.g. Dudley ed.,
2008); this is detailed in the management category application guidelines and there have been
calls to prohibit extractive operations within other protected area designations. These mostly
relate to mining (e.g. IUCN, 2000), however protected areas feature within the lending
requirements of many financial institutions (e.g. International Finance Corporation) and indeed
such requirements also extend to other areas of biodiversity importance, including Key
Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). Therefore this study builds on previous assessments by extending the
scope to all protected area designations and KBAs, while limiting the scope to Africa to reflect the
increasing importance of the oil sector in this continent.
As a result of the potential threat that extractive operations pose to protected areas and other
areas of biodiversity importance, companies may come under pressure from civil society and
campaign groups to avoid and mitigate impacts within these sites. There are many high profile
examples of such pressure being targeted at large multinational companies. However, it is
currently unknown to what extent multinational enterprises are more likely to be operating in
7
these high threat areas, as opposed to the diverse array and size of private and government
entities. The size and type of companies is considered to be a contributing factor to the likely
mitigation approaches adopted, and the potential likelihood of operating in high risk areas.
Understanding the contribution of different types of companies to the overall threat on areas of
biodiversity importance could help to direct efforts towards changing the behaviour of companies
with the greatest potential to impact on biodiversity.
Protected areas currently cover ~15% of terrestrial and ~3% of marine extent, which equates to
19.7 million km2 (Butchart et al. 2015); in Africa protected areas cover ~14% of terrestrial and ~2%
of marine extent, equating to 4.5 million km2 (Brooks et al., 2016). Site conservation is necessary
for a large number of threatened species, but sometimes protected areas fail to provide enough
area for this to take place, so KBAs were introduced as areas large enough or sufficiently
connected to support important species (Bibby, 1998). KBAs are based on criteria of vulnerability
and irreplaceability (Eken et al., 2004), and provide an additional measure of biodiversity
importance. KBAs are an ‘umbrella’ designation and include Important Bird Areas (IBAs),
Important Plant Areas (IPAs), Important Sites for Freshwater Biodiversity and Alliance for Zero
Extinction (AZE) sites1.
Here, we aim to provide a regional assessment of the potential threat of oil and gas installations
and associated pipelines to protected areas and key biodiversity areas across Africa. Based on the
overlap of existing contract, future bidding/ application blocks and pipelines for oil and gas
activities with these areas of biodiversity importance, this report will highlight areas with the
greatest levels of potential threat, now and in the future. This report identifies the types and size
of companies operating in areas where there is a potential conflict between biodiversity and oil
and gas activities, to inform strategies to mitigate those potential threats.
1.1 Definition of threat
The overlap of a contract or bidding/ application block with an area of biodiversity importance is
used in this study as an indicator of threat. This study acknowledges however that overlap
between areas of biodiversity importance and oil and gas concessions is a single measure of
threat. It is recognised that oil and gas extraction is unlikely to take place across the entire block
area and that impact on the biodiversity features shown in this study may be avoided. For this
reason overlap between contract and future bidding/ application blocks, as well as pipelines, and
biodiversity represents a potential rather than realised impact.
The current study will not account for the potential for oil and gas installations within the
concession area to mitigate impacts within these areas, or even offer positive contributions such
as financing the management of protected areas or preventing other developments from taking
place. In addition, these assessments of threat look at oil and gas in isolation and do not take
account of cumulative impacts resulting from the range of developments in the area. The
resulting impact of an oil and gas operation will depend on these other existing pressures, the
specific environmental sensitivities of the area, the governance structures in place and the impact
mitigation approaches adopted.
1 For more information: http://www.biodiversitya-z.org/content/key-biodiversity-areas-kba
8
2. Methodology 2.1 Data
The first section of the analysis was based on current contract blocks which included areas
where activities are occurring as well as those where the reserves are currently unexploited but
may become exploited within the terms of the contract. Contract blocks can be licensed for any
duration between 1 and 30 years. Oil and gas contract block data were obtained from the IHS
Contract and Blocks database (www.ihs.com), a leading industry database available to United
Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). The
IHS International Exploration and Production database contains in excess of 125,000 historic and
current contracts and blocks worldwide and attributes include location, date contract awarded,
contract stages, commitments, activity, operator type and size. Data were downloaded in
September 2015. There were no current contract blocks in the following African countries:
Burkina Faso, Eritrea, Lesotho, Mayotte, Rwanda, Saint Helena, Swaziland and Togo; therefore
these were excluded from the analysis. However, the absence of current contract blocks does not
indicate the country will not make oil discoveries in future. Our results for the continent as a
whole are therefore likely to underestimate the total potential threat to biodiversity.
The second section of the analysis was based on future bidding and application blocks. These
are concessions that are currently being offered by governments for companies to bid on for
exploration or production, or where applications have been made to the government to allow
exploration and production rights over the area. These datasets were also available from IHS and
were downloaded in February 2016 and combined into a single dataset of ‘future bidding and
application blocks’. Some contract blocks reverted back to application or bidding blocks by
February 2016, and these were therefore erased from the dataset as they would already be
captured within the current contract blocks dataset.
The final part of the analysis used pipeline data, also available from IHS, and included planned,
potential and operating pipelines. These data were downloaded in February 2016 and are
presented as total combined pipeline distance (km) within areas of biodiversity importance
Protected area spatial datasets were available from UNEP-WCMC within the World Database on
Protected Areas (WDPA), and Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) datasets were available from BirdLife
International’s Data Zone. The protected area dataset was downloaded in January 2015 and the
KBA dataset in July 2015. Both datasets were projected into a Mollweide equal area projection to
allow accurate area calculations. For 28% of all WDPA records in Africa, only a point location
was available for the spatial description of the protected area. These were represented as
proportional circles, buffered by the reported area if available and if not to 1 square kilometre, to
allow them to be included in the analysis. KBA points were treated in the same way. Protected
area attributes included within the WDPA include the date of designation.
The limitations in working with these datasets should be noted. Protected area and KBA datasets
are known to be incomplete for many countries and heavily biased towards key sites for
conservation (Juffe-Bignoli et al., 2014; UNEP-WCMC, 2015). They may also contain spatial
inaccuracies in the form of misalignments, but these are dealt with as best as possible in the
current report by removing very small overlaps and intersections. Updates were made to the
WDPA for South Africa (n = 19 new records), Somalia (all protected areas have now been
removed), Ramsar (n = 34 new records) and World Heritage sites (n = 1 new mixed site) after the
analysis was conducted and therefore the potential threat to these may have changed. In
9
addition, it should be noted, that IHS data are based on a snapshot of industry databases and
therefore only include projects up until the date of download; September 2015 for current
contract blocks and February 2016 for future application or bidding blocks.
2.2 Analysis
Potential threat of oil and gas contract blocks, and bidding/ application blocks, to areas of
biodiversity importance (protected areas and KBAs) was assessed using area overlap. All spatial
analyses were completed in ArcGIS version 10.2. Overlap was categorised as follows: 1-25%, 26-
50%, 51-75%, 76-99% and >99% of protected area/ KBA overlap with contract blocks. The latter
categories represent areas of higher potential threat. Overlaps less than 1% were not included
because they might arise from spatial data misalignment. Those between categories, for example
50.2%, were rounded to the closest category. To assess the proportion of cases where protected
areas were designated before or after the contracts were awarded, the dates of protected area
designation and awarded contract were compared. This controlled for repeat instances where a
single protected area repeatedly intersects with a single contract block.
Potential threat of oil and gas pipelines to areas of biodiversity importance was assessed by
measuring the summed distance of intersects. Intersects were categorised as follows: 100 m-10
km, 11 km-50 km, 51 km-100 km, 101 km to 200 km and >200 km intersect. Intersects less than 100
m were not included because they could also arise from spatial data misalignment. Again, those
between categories, for example 10.6 km, were rounded to the closest category.
We assessed the type and size of operating companies in areas of high threat to inform
conservation strategies within these areas. While a number of companies typically have an
interest in any single contract block, only the company that is the ‘operator’ i.e. responsible for
operations was the company selected for this analysis. Operating companies’ names were
standardised and consolidated in order to enable multinational companies to be distinguished
from more local or national companies. The relative ‘size’ of operating companies was inferred
from the number of blocks/countries worldwide in which a company operates; very small
(operate in a single block), small (operate in a single country), medium (operate in 2-5 countries),
large (operate in 6-10 countries) and very large (operate in more than 11 countries). Company
‘type’ was based on four categories as provided within the IHS database: government control (a
company in which a government has the controlling share: >50%), government entity (a company
owned 100% by a government), national company (a company owned by the state, but which acts
as an independent company) or privately owned company.
10
3. Results 3.1 Potential threat to areas of biodiversity importance from oil and gas
contract blocks
Contract blocks are those for which a contract has been signed and include currently exploited and
areas for which exploitation is likely within the terms of the contract. As this does not include
information on oil and gas installations, the threat that these pose is considered potential and it
remains possible for activities to avoid areas of biodiversity importance within concessions. In addition,
while we have termed these current contract blocks as the contract is in place it can be between 0 and
30 years from being awarded a block to carrying out physical activities.
There are a total number of 2,719 oil and gas
contract blocks in Africa, with a combined area
of 9,030,084 km2 (Table 1). Approximately 62%
are onshore, occupying 20% of Africa’s total
land area, with deep and shelf offshore
contract blocks occupying 19% of Africa’s total
EEZ area. Figure 1 highlights the area of
contract blocks in each country, organised into
the five African regions. Algeria has by far the
greatest area of onshore blocks and South
Africa the most offshore; 16 countries have
solely offshore and 12 solely onshore blocks
(Figure 1).
Figure 1 Total area of onshore (orange) and offshore (blue) oil and gas contract blocks in each country.
01020304050607080
Are
a (
km
2)
x 1
0,0
00
Eastern Africa
Onshore Offshore
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Are
a (
km
2)
x 1
0,0
00
North Africa
Onshore Offshore
01020304050607080
Are
a (
km
2)
x 1
0,0
00
South AfricaOnshore Offshore
01020304050607080
Are
a (
km
2)
x 1
0,0
00
Western Africa
Onshore Offshore
01020304050607080
Are
a (
km
2)
x 1
0,0
00
Central AfricaOnshore Offshore
01020304050607080
Are
a (
km
2)
x 1
0,0
00
East Africa
Onshore Offshore
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Are
a (
km
2)
x 1
0,0
00
North Africa
Onshore Offshore
01020304050607080
Are
a (
km
2)
x 1
0,0
00
South AfricaOnshore Offshore
01020304050607080
Are
a (
km
2)
x 1
0,0
00
West Africa
Onshore Offshore
11
The spatial distribution of oil and gas contract blocks in Africa shows high densities along the North
coast and around the Gulf of Guinea extending along the coast of Angola (Figure 2). Most countries have
at least one contract block, but Central African countries, such as the Democratic Republic of Congo,
seem to have fewer contract blocks than others. The Northern African region has by far the most
contract blocks compared to any other region, with the largest area of onshore contract blocks.
Southern Africa has nearly double the total area of offshore contract blocks compared to Western Africa,
despite Western Africa appearing to have a higher density of blocks (see Figure 2).
Figure 2 Density of current contract blocks, i.e. count of blocks occurring in each 100 x 100 km grid cell in Africa. Values range from 0, with a low density, to 74, with a very high density of contract blocks.
The large number and widespread distribution of offshore and onshore contract blocks in Africa may
present multiple opportunities for overlaps with areas of biodiversity importance, such as protected
areas and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs). There are 7,320 protected areas and 1,414 KBAs in Africa, with a
much larger number of both these, i.e. areas of biodiversity importance, in the Southern (30%), Western
(28%) and Eastern (29%) regions (Table 1). Central (5%) and Northern (8%) regions, on the other hand,
have much fewer.
12
Table 1 Regional breakdown of protected areas (PAs), Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and contract blocks in Africa, as well as area occupied by onshore and offshore contract blocks (km2) in each region and overall values for Africa.
Region Number
of PAs
Area of
PAs (km2)
Number
of KBAs
Area of
KBAs (km2)
Number of
contract
blocks
Area of onshore
contract blocks
(km2)
Area of offshore
contract blocks
(km2)
Central 350 1,414,472 153 686,428 553 1,112,971 290,697
Eastern 2,102 1,262,996 495 486,720 184 1,235,890 590,724
Northern 601 993,818 312 128,743 1,267 2,026,963 777,797
Southern 2,203 1,212,726 225 270,342 322 954,369 809,331
Western 2,064 1,079,903 229 614,164 393 736,409 494,934
Total 7,320 5,963,917 1,414 436,078 2,719 6,066,603 2,963,483
Overlaying the contract blocks with a combined dataset of protected areas and KBAs shows that 29% of
the combined number overlap with contract blocks; equivalent to ~20% of the total area occupied by
protected areas and KBAs in Africa (Figure 3a). 54% (n = 1,107) of those that overlap exhibit complete
(>99%) overlap and 46% (n = 950) partial (1-99%) overlap. These figures are shown in Figure 3b with a
more detailed map for the Eastern Africa region, highlighting areas of high potential threat to
biodiversity from oil and gas development in South Sudan, Ethiopia and Northern Kenya, and extending
along a transect South West from the Kenyan coast through Tanzania, Malawi and into Zambia.
Figure 3 Overlap of protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) with contract blocks. The first map (a) shows those that overlap (reds) and those that do not (greens), while the second (b) shows the degree of the overlap in the Eastern Africa region. The number of areas in each category are also listed.
(a) (b)
13
3.1.1 Potential threat to protected areas
Analysing the potential threat to protected areas alone reveals that 20% overlap with contract blocks
(Figure 4a), with 57% (n = 865) of those that overlap exhibiting complete overlap (Figure 4b). On a
continental level most regions show some degree of overlap between protected areas and contract
blocks, especially in the Niger Delta, Namibia and South Sudan, but Western Africa shows relatively less
overlap. This is probably due to the higher numbers of protected areas in Eastern regions. In Eastern
Africa, protected areas along the Kenyan and Tanzanian coastline are potentially highly threatened, i.e.
a large degree of overlap with contract blocks, as well as protected areas in southern Malawi and eastern
Zambia. Under particularly high threat are large protected areas in Zambia, for example North & South
Luangwa National Parks and West Zambezi & Bangweulu Game Management Areas.
Figure 4 Overlap of protected areas with contract blocks. The first map (a) shows those that overlap (red) and those that do not (green), whilst the second (b) shows the degree of the overlap in the Eastern Africa region. The number of protected areas in each category are also listed.
(a) (b)
14
In our country-level analysis, the total area of overlap between protected areas and contract blocks is
represented as a proportion of the total protected area coverage per country to standardise the results.
Figure 5 shows that most countries have a relatively small area of overlap given the cumulative coverage
of their protected areas, but some, notably Djibouti, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Niger and Somalia, have
large overlaps relative to the size of their protected areas, placing them under greater potential threat. It
must be noted however that since this analysis was carried out, all protected areas in Somalia have been
removed from the dataset as there are currently none that are recognised by the national government.
In terms of absolute values, the largest areas of overlap between protected area and current contract
blocks are found in Niger (107,713 km2), Chad (102,757 km2) and Zambia (100,004 km2).
Figure 5 Total overlap between protected areas and contract blocks as a proportion of the total area occupied by protected areas in each country. African countries which have less than 100 km2 overlap are not shown.
Chad
South Sudan
Djibouti
SomaliaSudan
Malawi
Zambia
Guinea-Bissau
Niger
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Central
Eastern
Northern
Southern
Western
15
The average percentage overlap of protected areas with contract blocks was calculated to assess the
relative potential threat across different protected area types. This showed a greater degree of overlap in
marine and coastal compared to terrestrial protected areas. This could be, in part, due to the larger
average size of coastal (1,406 km2) and marine (922 km2) protected areas, compared to terrestrial (791
km2) but may also be due to the larger size of offshore blocks (Figure 6a).
Protected areas recognised under international conventions and agreements show an average overlap
with contract blocks of 27%, which is greater than that for nationally and regionally designated
protected areas (Figure 6b), and Ramsar sites have, on average, greater overlap with contract blocks,
compared to other internationally recognised protected areas (Figure 6c). Internationally recognised
protected areas are on average much larger in area (2,183 ±889 km2) than nationally (594 ±98 km2) and
regionally designated sites (142 ±206 km2), which may explain the greater degree of overlap.
Exploring IUCN management categories in nationally designated protected areas (for more information
see Appendix 1) shows that category Ib sites (Wilderness Areas) overlap to a large extent (36% on
average) and are closer to contract blocks, but again this may be due to the large area covered by
category Ib sites, which is the second largest (5,325 ±5,285 km2) after category V sites (5,880 ±7,598 km2).
Importantly, IUCN category Ia sites are relatively small in area but overlap by nearly 20% with contract
blocks, which is important given that these are strict nature reserves where any human activity should
be strictly limited and controlled. These strict nature reserves include: Tsingy de Bemaraha in
Madagascar, Reserve Naturelle de Beni-Saleh in Algeria and Wadi El Assuti in Egypt (Figure 6d).
Figure 6 Average percentage overlap of protected areas with contract blocks (blue) with 95% confidence limits and total area coverage (km2) (orange points) (a) habitat; terrestrial (n = 7,250), coastal (n = 166) or marine (n = 264), (b) designation type; international (n = 479), national (n = 7,195) or regional (n = 6), (c) international site type; Ramsar site (n = 360), UNESCO-MAB Biosphere reserve (n = 73) or World Heritage Site (n = 46), and (d) IUCN protected area management category; Ia (n = 44), Ib (n = 21), II (n = 328), III (n = 41), IV (n = 365), V (n = 41), VI (n = 223) and Not Reported (n = 6,491).
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Terrestrial Coastal Marine
To
tal are
a (
km
2)Th
ousands
Avera
ge %
Overla
p
% Overlap Area
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
International National Regional
To
tal are
a (
km
2)
Th
ousands
Avera
ge %
Overla
p
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ramsar MAB World Heritage
To
tal are
a (
km
2)
Th
ousands
Avera
ge %
Overla
p
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Ia Ib II III IV V VINot Reported
To
tal are
a (
km
2)
Th
ousands
Avera
ge %
Overla
p
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
16
For the 1,529 protected areas that overlap with contract blocks, there are a total of 1,339 overlaps for
which the dates of protected area designation and contract awarded are known. In 85% of these cases
the protected area was established prior to the contract being awarded; 13% of cases the protected area
was designated after the contract was awarded; and 2% of cases this occurred within the same year. In
the case of protected areas recognised under the international conventions and agreements there are a
total of 272 overlaps for which the dates are known. In 72% of cases the protected area was established
prior to the contract being awarded; 24% of these cases, the protected area was designated after the
contract was awarded; and 4% of cases this occurred within the same year.
3.1.2 Potential threat to Key Biodiversity Areas
Analysing the potential threat to KBAs alone reveals that although 64% of KBAs do not overlap with
contract blocks (Figure 7a), of those that do, 46% exhibit complete overlap (Figure 7b). As with
protected areas, on a continental level most countries have some degree of overlap between contract
blocks and KBAs, but this is greater in Eastern and Southern Africa, with Western Africa having
relatively few overlapping or nearby KBAs. The KBAs with the greatest degree of overlap, are Namizimu
and Mount Mulanje Forest Reserves in Malawi, and Bangweulu Swamps and Liuwa Plain National Park
in Zambia. There is a high degree of similarity between the KBA and protected area analysis due to many
protected areas (~70%) also being designated as KBAs.
Figure 7 Overlap of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) with contract blocks. The first map (a) shows those that overlap (red) and those that do not (green), whilst the second (b) shows the degree of the overlap in the Eastern Africa region. The number of KBAs in each category are also listed.
(a) (b)
17
As with protected areas, the total area of overlap between KBAs and contract blocks per country is
represented as a proportion of the total KBAs area per country to standardise the results. On a country-
level, notable overlaps (> 40% proportional coverage of KBAs) are seen in Burundi, Democratic Republic
of Congo, Malawi, Somalia, South Sudan and Zambia (Figure 8). In terms of absolute values, the largest
areas of overlap between KBAs and current contract blocks are found in Djibouti (59,566 km2),
Botswana (50,309 km2) and Tanzania (46,207 km2).
Figure 8 Total overlap between Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) and contract blocks as a proportion of the total area occupied by KBAs. African countries which have less than 100km2 overlap are not shown.
Burundi
DRC
South Sudan
Somalia
Malawi
Zambia
Mali
Niger
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Central
Eastern
Northern
Southern
Western
18
The average percentage overlap of KBAs with contract blocks was calculated to assess the relative
potential threat across different KBA types. KBAs overlapped by a greater extent in marine compared to
terrestrial areas, even though marine KBAs on average cover less area (Figure 9a). This may in part be
driven by the larger size of offshore contract blocks. Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites, which fall
under the KBA ‘umbrella’ designation, overlap less, on average, with current contract blocks than other
KBAs (IBAs, IPAs etc.), but other KBAs also tend to be much larger in terms of area. (Figure 9b). Of the
81 AZE sites in Africa, 26 are overlapping with contract blocks by an average of nearly 20%. The vast
majority of which (>80%) are located in Eastern Africa, principally Tanzania and Madagascar.
Figure 9 Average percentage overlap of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) with contract blocks and 95% confidence limits (blue) plus total area coverage (km2) (orange points) for each (a) habitat; marine (n = 162) or terrestrial (n = 1,321) and (b) type; KBAs (n = 1,402) and Alliance for Zero Extinction sites (AZEs; n = 81).
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Terrestrial Marine
To
tal are
a (
km
2)
Th
ousands
Avera
ge %
Overla
p
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
AZEs KBAs
To
tal are
a (
km
2)
Th
ousands
Avera
ge %
Overla
p
% Overlap Area(a) (b) (a) (b)
19
3.2 The size and type of operating companies in areas of biodiversity
importance
The relative ‘size’ of operating companies was inferred from the number of blocks/countries worldwide
in which a company operates; very small (operate in a single block), small (operate in a single country),
medium (operate in 2-5 countries), large (operate in 6-10 countries) and very large (operate in more than
11 countries). Company ‘type’ was based on four categories: government control (a company in which a
government has the controlling share: >50%), government entity (a company owned 100% by a
government), national company (a company owned by the state, but which acts as an independent
company) or privately owned company. While a number of companies typically have an interest in any
single contract block, only the company that is the ‘operator’ i.e. responsible for operations was the
company selected for this analysis.
There are currently 537 operating companies in Africa. Government controlled or owned and privately
owned operators tend to be very large operators that operate in more than 11 countries, whereas national
companies tend to operate in 2-5 countries (Figure 10).
Figure 10 Operator types and sizes in Africa proportionally represented by number of contract blocks managed; privately owned operators (blue), national (orange) and government (green).
Privately owned companies, of various sizes, operate in the greatest area of contract blocks and as a
result these types of companies operate in a large proportion of the areas where there is an overlap with
areas of biodiversity importance. For example, of the 563 and 428 contract blocks that overlap with
protected areas and KBAs respectively, 85% and 88% are under privately owned companies, with the
greatest proportion under small and medium sized enterprises, 48% and 50% respectively.
Government
National
Private
Very small
Small Medium LargeVery large
Very small
Small
Medium
Very large
Very small
Small
Medium
Large
Very Large
20
While very large privately owned companies operate within a large number of blocks (n = 567) and are
responsible for a significant total contract area (~1.8 million km2), only 17% and 14% of these contract
blocks overlap with protected areas and KBAs respectively (Table 2). A disproportionate number of
contract blocks that overlap with areas of biodiversity importance are contracted to small national
operators, i.e. these companies operate over a fairly small area (2.4% of total contract area), but are
responsible for 5% of contract blocks that overlap with protected areas and KBAs.
Table 2 Number of overlapping protected areas and KBAs with current contract blocks, associated with different operator types and sizes. Bold numbers indicated the operator type and size with the highest value for each column.
Operator type
Operator size
Total block size (km2)
Total number of
blocks
Number overlapping completely with PAs
Number overlapping
partially with PAs
Number overlapping completely with KBAs
Number overlapping
partially with KBAs
Government control
Medium 32,850 19 0 2 0 2
Large 46,262 16 0 0 0 0
Very large 146,333 24 0 6 0 5
Government entity
Very small 47,965 4 0 2 0 1
Medium 3,412 1 0 1 0 1
Large 13,622 4 0 0 0 0
Very large 5,287 16 0 4 0 1
National company
Very small 48,005 7 0 3 0 1
Small 196,858 151 2 22 4 16
Medium 976,405 260 2 21 2 12
Very large 199,014 29 3 15 1 7
Privately owned
Very small 988,132 165 6 79 0 58
Small 1,465,703 465 22 122 16 100
Medium 1,655,816 351 6 122 3 96
Large 499,611 130 1 24 0 25
Very large 1,810,211 567 14 84 13 64
TOTAL 6,325,275 2,209 56 507 39 389
21
While the total area of overlap between contract blocks and areas of biodiversity importance is an
indication of which operators could pose the greatest potential threat, it can be driven by a few cases of
extensive overlap in certain areas. For example, small private companies in Botswana, medium private
companies in Democratic Republic of Congo, and very large private companies in South Sudan.
Therefore we investigated the average percentage overlap with protected areas and KBAs of the different
types and sizes of companies. Very large national companies and very small government entities operate
in blocks that on average overlap to a greater extent with protected areas than other operator types
(Figure 11a). Very large national and small/very small privately owned companies overlap to the greatest
extent with KBAs (Figure 11b). Importantly, the very large privately owned companies, with whom
conservation organisations mostly engage, operate in blocks that on average overlap relatively little with
protected areas and KBAs. In fact of all the privately owned companies, the small and very small
enterprises show both the greatest average overlap and the greatest total overlap for both protected
areas and KBAs.
Figure 11 Average percentage overlap (blue) of protected areas (PAs) (a) and KBAs (b) with contract blocks for different operator types and sizes (based on the number of countries in which they operate) with 95% confidence limits for each and total overlap (km2) represented by orange points.
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Me
diu
m
Larg
e
Ve
ry la
rge
Ve
ry s
ma
ll
Me
diu
m
Larg
e
Ve
ry la
rge
Ve
ry s
ma
ll
Sm
all
Me
diu
m
Ve
ry la
rge
Ve
ry s
ma
ll
Sm
all
Me
diu
m
Larg
e
Ve
ry la
rge
Governmentcontrol
Government entity National company Privately owned
To
tal
Overl
ap
(km
2)
x 1
0000
Avera
ge
% O
verl
ap
0
5
10
15
20
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Me
diu
m
Larg
e
Ve
ry la
rge
Ve
ry s
ma
ll
Me
diu
m
Larg
e
Ve
ry la
rge
Ve
ry s
ma
ll
Sm
all
Me
diu
m
Ve
ry la
rge
Ve
ry s
ma
ll
Sm
all
Me
diu
m
Larg
e
Ve
ry la
rge
Governmentcontrol
Government entity National company Privately owned
To
tal
ov
erl
ap
(km
2)
x 1
0000
Avera
ge
% O
verl
ap
(a)
(b)
22
3.3 Potential future threat to areas of biodiversity importance from oil
and gas bidding and application blocks
Bidding and application blocks are those that are currently being offered by governments for companies
to bid on for exploration or production, or where applications have been made to the government for
exploration and production rights over the area. As no contracts have yet been offered for these areas,
the likelihood of future oil and gas installations is unknown. Therefore while this analysis infers future
potential threat from the location of these areas, the likelihood of impact depends on contracts being
offered and the actual location of oil and gas installations should development proceed.
The spatial distribution of future oil and gas bidding and application blocks in Africa is very different to
the distribution of current contract blocks. Bidding and application blocks are mostly clustered within
southern regions, whereas contract blocks are found in high densities along the Northern coast. But, the
densities of bidding and application blocks are also low, ranging from 0 to 6, (compared to contract
block density of 0 to 74) in each 100 x 100 km grid cell in Africa (Figure 12).
Figure 12 Density of future bidding and application blocks, i.e. count of blocks occurring in each 100 x 100 km grid cell in Africa.
23
Areas of biodiversity importance under increasing future threat
Of the 1,629 protected areas that face a current threat from oil and gas activities, 4% (n = 66) may show
an increase in threat as a result of greater coverage from future bidding and application blocks than
their current overlap with contract blocks. These areas of increasing overlap are mostly located in
Cameroon, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Morocco, Botswana, Mozambique, South Africa,
Zambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Mali (Table 4.). The average overlap of these 66 protected areas increases by
1,158 ± 898 km2 (51 ± 4%) (Figure 13).
Of the 573 KBAs that face a current threat from oil and gas activities, 5% (n = 26) may show an increase
in threat as a result of greater coverage from future bidding and application blocks than their current
overlap with contract blocks. These areas of increasing overlap are mostly located in the Tanzania,
Uganda, Botswana, Gambia, and Guinea-Bissau (Table 4.). The average overlap of these 26 KBAs
increases by 1,311 ± 978 km2 (51 ± 15%) (Figure 13b)
Areas of biodiversity importance under future, but not current, threat
In addition, a further 200 protected areas (3% of all African protected areas) that are not currently
overlapping with contract blocks, overlap with future bidding and application blocks, and may therefore
face new pressure from oil and gas in the future. These are mostly located in Congo, South Africa,
Ghana, and Guinea-Bissau. These protected areas overlap with future bidding and application blocks by
240 ±92 km2 on average; with overlaps approximately 71 ±5% of the total protected areas on average
(Figure 13a).
A further 59 KBAs (4% of all African KBAs) may also face new pressure from oil and gas in the future.
These are mostly located in Congo, Tanzania, Morocco, South Africa, Zambia, and Ghana. These KBAs
overlap with future bidding and application blocks by 532 ±277 km2 on average; with overlaps
approximately 46 ±11% of the total KBA on average (Figure 13b).
24
Figure 13 Current and potential future overlap of protected areas (PAs) (a) and KBAs (b) with concessions. Protected areas or KBAs with increasing future overlap are shown in purple, those with new future overlaps are shown in pink, those with existing overlaps are shown in orange and those where no overlap has been detected in green. The number of protected areas or KBAs in each category are also listed.
Of the 66 protected areas facing potentially increasing future threat, 12 are recognised under
international conventions and agreements; these include World Heritage sites (n = 3), for example
Salonga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo, one UNESCO Man and Biosphere reserve,
Réserve de Biosphère de l'Arganeraie in Morocco, and eight Ramsar sites (Figure 14a). These
internationally recognised protected areas show the greatest total area of increasing overlap. The
greatest average increases in overlap with future concessions are shown for IUCN II coastal, IUCN IV
terrestrial and IUCN ‘Not Reported’ (for definitions see Appendix 1), although these patterns are driven
by very few sites.
Of the 200 protected areas that may face new threat in the future, 12 are Ramsar sites and show an
average overlap of approximately 50%. Protected areas of all of the different management categories
show high average overlaps, with the IUCN category Ia Alice Glöckner Provincial Nature Reserve in
South Africa, showing 100% overlap (Figure 14b).
(a) (b)
25
Figure 14. The overage overlap between future (application and bidding) contract blocks and protected area designation (a) For those where there is increasing coverage of protected areas (b) for those where there is new coverage of protected areas. 95% confidence limits are shown, and total overlap (km2) is represented by orange points. Sample sizes are shown in bold to the left of each bar.
71 4 1
84 2 5 3
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Terrestrial Marine Terrestrial Terrestrial Terrestrial Marine
Not Reported Ia II III IV VI Not Reported
International National
To
tal overla
p (
km
2)
Th
ousands
Avera
ge %
overla
p
new future overlap
(a)
(b)
124 3 1 2 3 2
29
73 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
TerrestrialTerrestrial Coastal TerrestrialTerrestrialTerrestrialTerrestrial Coastal Marine
Ib II III IV VI Not Reported
International National
To
tal overla
p o
f in
cre
ase (
km
2)
Th
ousands
Avera
ge %
overlap o
f in
cre
ase
Increasing future overlap
148
26
3.4 Potential threat to areas of biodiversity importance from oil and gas
pipelines
As well as contract blocks there may also be threats to areas of biodiversity importance from associated
infrastructure such as pipelines. In total, approximately 12,000 km of pipeline intersects with protected
areas and 10,500 km with KBAs. Most of these intersects are in the Northern region which contains 3,783
km intersect with protected areas and 5,873 km intersect with KBAs. Pipelines are either currently in use
(operating), under construction (planned) or questionable (potential) pipelines in the future;
5% of protected areas (n = 399) are intersected by some portion of planned, potential or
operating pipeline (Figure 15a),
Six protected areas contain over 200km of pipeline: Salonga National Park in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Tamanrasset and Marais de la Macta in Algeria, Plaine de Massenya and
Plaines d'inondation du Logone et les dépressions Toupouri in Chad and Cape West Coast
Biosphere Reserve in South Africa.
11% of KBAs (n = 156) are intersected by pipelines, with 10 KBAs containing > 200km of pipeline
and these are predominantly in Algeria, Egypt and Tanzania (Figure 15b).
In the Eastern and Central African region, protected areas and KBAs within Tanzania, Kenya
and the Democratic Republic of Congo intersect with a number of planned, potential or
operating pipelines (Figure 15 c, d).
Over 12,000 km of oil and gas pipelines intersect with protected areas and more than 10,000 km with
KBAs in Africa. The majority of these are operating pipelines (85% in protected areas and 92% in KBAs),
with only a small percentage of intersects with planned or potential pipelines. Even though they are very
few planned and potential pipelines for which data currently exist, they intersect with protected areas
and KBAs by 4,400 km and 3,000 km respectively. 67% of planned or potential pipelines intersect by
more than 51 km with protected areas and 58% intersect by more than 51 km with KBAs. The countries
with the greatest amount of pipeline (operating, planned or potential) that intersects areas of
biodiversity importance are Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Nigeria and Tanzania.
Approximately 3,400 km (28%) intersects with sites designated under international conventions and
agreements, with the majority of these in Algeria, Chad and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Of the
remaining 8,600 km within nationally designated sites, 1,096 km and 1,626 km is within Egypt and
Nigeria respectively. Importantly, there are notable intersects in Algeria with IUCN Ia and II sites, in
Tanzania with Ib sites, in Uganda with III sites and in Gabon with IV sites (for definitions see Appendix
1). (Table 3).
27
Figure 15 Potential threat of pipelines to protected areas (PAs) (a) and KBAs (b) shown as total combined distance of intersects plus insets to Eastern Africa in (c) and (d). The number of PAs or KBAs in each category are also listed.
(b) (d)
(c) (a)
28
Table 3 Total length of pipelines (km) intersecting with protected areas and KBAs by country /designation. Overlaps were not found for protected areas with IUCN status ‘Not Assigned’.
Country Protected areas KBAs
International Ia Ib II III IV V VI Not Reported National Grand total Grand total
Algeria 1,066 177 0 324 0 0 0 0 16 517 1,583 2,175
Cameroon 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 72 78 78 23
Congo 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 131 0
Chad 940 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 194 1,134 0
Cote d'Ivoire 42 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 61 82 124 0
Djibouti 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 53
DRC 421 0 0 185 0 0 0 0 255 440 861 203
Egypt 151 1 0 0 9 119 44 154 766 1093 1,244 2,842
Equatorial Guinea 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0
Ethiopia 0 0 0 21 0 38 0 168 0 227 227 313
Gabon 48 0 0 0 0 159 0 0 132 291 339 276
Ghana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 38 43 43 49
Kenya 2 0 0 217 0 0 0 19 433 669 671 351
Liberia 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
Libya 0 0 0 72 0 0 0 0 47 119 119 506
Morocco 35 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 198 213 248 308
Mozambique 95 0 0 0 0 142 0 0 242 384 479 103
Namibia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 181 185 185 137
Niger 10 0 0 0 0 85 0 0 0 85 95 30
Nigeria 82 0 0 0 0 144 0 0 1,481 1625 1,707 112
South Africa 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 580 580 591 733
South Sudan 142 0 0 77 0 34 0 174 0 285 427 120
Sudan 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 217 76 375 375 0
Tanzania 128 0 5 126 0 54 0 43 386 614 742 2,087
Tunisia 75 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 138 139 214 42
Uganda 0 0 0 4 22 0 0 58 116 200 200 64
Zambia 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 176 178 178 1
Grand Total 3,399 178 5 1,056 31 872 44 842 5,588 8,616 12,015 10,528
29
Pipelines intersecting with protected areas or KBAs either transport oil, gas or water and can be found
above ground, buried, submerged or trenched with all of these positions possible onshore and offshore.
Most of the operating pipelines intersecting with protected areas and KBAs are buried oil and gas
pipelines, which intersect with protected areas and KBAs by a total of 1,342 and 1,535 km respectively.
Gas pipelines appear to dominate the known future intersections, either unknown in their position or
buried. (Figure 16).
Figure 16 Total length (km) of operating, potential and planned pipelines intersecting with protected areas and KBAs. The colours represent different content (oil, water or gas) and positioning (above ground, buried, submerged or unknown).
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Operating Potential Planned Operating Potential Planned
PAs KBAs
To
tal le
ngth
of in
ters
ectt
ing p
ipelin
e (
km
)
Gas - Above ground
Gas - Buried
Gas - Submerged
Gas - Unknown
Oil - Above ground
Oil - Buried
Oil - Submerged
Oil - Trenched
Oil - Unknown
Water - Buried
Water - Submerged
30
4. Discussion and conclusions The overlap of a contract or bidding/ application block with an area of biodiversity importance was used
in this study as an indicator of threat. It is recognised that oil and gas activities are unlikely to take
place across the entire block area and impact on biodiversity features may be avoided, and therefore an
overlap represents a potential rather than realised threat. Nonetheless the existence of a protected area
or KBA within the contracted area requires specific attention to ensure that impacts are mitigated. The
resulting impact of an oil and gas operation will depend on the range of existing pressures, the specific
environmental sensitivities of the area, the governance structures in place and the impact mitigation
approaches adopted.
Key findings
20% of the total area of protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas in Africa is currently covered by oil and gas contract blocks, with the highest degree of overlap in Djibouti, Somalia, Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
There are over 9 million km2 of contract blocks currently in Africa, covering around 20% of the total
area of protected areas and KBAs. Areas under potential threat are spread principally across Eastern,
Central and Northern Africa. In more than half of the cases where a current oil or gas contract
overlapped a protected area or KBA, the entire area was covered by the block. Protected areas in
Djibouti, Somalia and Malawi appear to be most threatened by substantial proportional overlaps, as
were KBAs in Malawi and the Democratic Republic of Congo. These results were standardised by the
total area of protected areas or KBAs in the country to control for low numbers of these areas.
While this is indicative of potential threat in these countries the likelihood of oil and gas activity within
these blocks is unknown. For example, in countries such as Somalia, political issues may lead to
redundancy of some oil and gas contracts. Equally under the current economic climate there may be
substantial delays in developing some of these areas, particularly where the costs of production are high.
While AZE sites overlap to a lesser extent with contract blocks than other types of KBAs, 32% of all
African AZE sites overlap with contracts blocks by an average overlap of nearly 20%. Given that these
sites represent a refuge for the last remaining populations of Critically Endangered or Endangered
species, there is a strong need for these sites to be recognised and avoided by oil and gas activities
within these overlapping concessions. The majority of these potentially threatened AZE sites are located
in Eastern Africa and there is therefore a need to ensure that the developing oil industry in this region in
particular takes account of the existence of these sites.
In the majority of cases the protected areas were established prior to the contract being awarded, however internationally recognised protected areas were established after the contract was awarded in a quarter of cases.
The existence of an overlap may arise due to either a contract being offered for an area that is already
designated as a protected area, or indeed a protected area may be established for an existing oil and gas
concession area. In 13% of cases the contract block existed prior to protected area establishment, but
this rises to 24% when looking only at those that are designated under international conventions and
31
agreements. Therefore while it is often important to prevent oil and gas activities within some protected
areas, the existence of a contract prior to protected area establishment can make this more challenging.
Nonetheless, as protected areas are established prior to the contract being awarded in the majority of
cases, there is clearly a need for greater awareness by governments of the value of natural capital within
these areas as well as accessible data for informed decision making.
266 protected areas face potential new or increasing threat from future oil and gas activities, particularly in South Africa and Zambia.
The pattern of exploitation in the future shows bidding and application blocks mostly distributed in
Southern regions. If these areas proceed to the contracting stage, this will increase the area of coverage
of 66 protected areas, mostly in Central and Southern regions, and create new pressures for a further
200 protected areas, mostly in Southern regions. Countries where there is likely to be both an increasing
and new threat to protected areas and KBAs are South Africa, Zambia, Uganda, Guinea Bissau, Tanzania
and Democratic Republic of Congo (Table 4.). The high density of offshore future bidding and
application blocks in South Africa may be partly explained by better data accessibility and resources to
provide information on the these future activities. Nonetheless, South Africa also has an increasingly
active and integrated marine protected area network, which would potentially be threatened in the
future should contracts be awarded for these blocks. It is therefore important that there is effective
coordination between departments responsible for managing the protected area network and those
responsible for awarding oil and gas concessions to ensure these potential conflicts are addressed at the
early stage of oil development in these regions.
Other countries that will potentially face new or increasing threats to either protected areas or KBAs are
Cameroon, Congo, Morocco, Botswana, Mozambique, Ghana, and Mali (Table 4.). Therefore, within all
of these countries there is a need to raise awareness to appropriately manage development activities,
prior to the contracting phase when there is greater potential to avoid impact. While environmental
data (including protected areas and KBAs), may be accessed prior to project development as part of an
Environmental Impact Assessment, the use of these data to inform decisions on offering concessions
and their boundaries appears to be far less common.
Internationally recognised protected areas and those classified under IUCN management category Ia (strict nature reserves) and Ib (wilderness areas) face significant pressure from current and future exploitation.
Sites designated under international conventions and agreements, and nationally designated sites with
an IUCN Ib status are potentially more threatened by current contract blocks than other types of
protected areas, based on their high degree of overlap. While the large size of these areas increases the
likelihood of an overlap, this is still cause for concern. World Heritage sites for example have been
deemed to be incompatible with oil and gas activities, yet 21 sites overlap with contract blocks by an
average of 22%. Of further significance, is the relatively high degree of coverage of protected areas
(nearly 20%) with IUCN management category Ia – strict nature reserves, which are small areas within
which human use and impacts should be strictly controlled. The existence of oil and gas activities within
the vicinity of these areas is therefore a cause for concern.
The analysis of future exploitation shows that of the 66 protected areas likely to face increasing threat in
the future (based on an increase in coverage), 12 are recognised under international conventions and
agreements. However, of the 200 protected areas that are likely to face new pressures from oil and gas,
32
only 12 are recognised under international conventions and agreements and all of these are Ramsar sites.
Others facing this new threat include many within category II (national parks) and IV (habitat/species
management areas), plus the Alice Glöckner Provincial Nature Reserve in South Africa which is
categorised under IUCN management category Ia (strict nature reserves) and shows complete overlap.
Marine and coastal protected areas and KBAs show a high degree of current and future overlap with oil and gas concessions.
Coastal and marine protected areas are shown to be threatened by current oil and gas activities and are
also likely to face increasing threat in the future (based on an increase in coverage). Although this high
degree of overlap is likely due to the large size of both the protected areas and the offshore contract
blocks, this highlights the need for robust impact mitigation strategies in the marine environment
where boundaries are less defined and impacts on the biodiversity they contain far less visible. In
addition, the overlap analysis shows that the threat to KBAs is potentially greater for offshore oil and gas
compared to onshore, suggesting the continued need for integrating data on KBAs, along with other
biodiversity information, into operational decisions in the marine environment. Improved marine
spatial planning will be essential in this regard.
Single country companies and very large national companies are more likely to be operating in areas of biodiversity importance than multinational companies.
Over 500 commercial oil and gas companies operate within Africa, with the vast majority being privately
owned. Privately owned companies of all sizes (from single block to multi-national) operate in contract
blocks overlapping to the largest extent with areas of biodiversity importance. Importantly however, the
minority of these are very large multinational companies, who are more likely to be adhering to
international standards of best practice, have in house technical environmental capacity and
partnerships with conservation organisations. It is possible that this is a result of high profile companies
avoiding areas of biodiversity importance due to the associated risk. However it must be noted that,
while they are the minority, the percentage of contract blocks overlapping with areas of biodiversity
importance operated by large multinationals is not insignificant; 17 and 14% for protected areas and
KBAs respectively. Small and very small privately owned operators show both the greatest average
overlap and the greatest total overlap for both protected areas and KBAs. While other company types
are small in number compared to private companies, very large national companies and very small
government entities demonstrated a high average overlap with areas of biodiversity importance.
Therefore, while it is important for the conservation community to continue to support avoidance
strategies by high profile multinational companies, it is equally important that there is an ability to
influence smaller operators and governments where resources, motivation, and expertise for effective
impact mitigation may be less. This highlights the widely recognised need to work with governments in
the countries where there is a high level of potential threat.
33
Oil and gas pipelines intersect with 5 % of protected areas, with nearly two-thirds in internationally recognised areas, and 11% of KBAs, principally in Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Chad and Tanzania.
Pipelines were found to intersect with a number of areas of biodiversity importance, and nearly two-
thirds intersected with sites designated under international conventions and agreements. The majority
of pipelines in areas of biodiversity importance are buried, oil pipelines in Algeria, Egypt, Nigeria, Chad
and Tanzania. While most of these countries are oil producing nations with operating pipelines,
Tanzania is not yet producing oil but is emerging as an important route for exporting newly discovered
oil in the East African region. Pipelines in this country are therefore proposed and, given the significant
pipeline intersects with KBAs, there is a need to ensure biodiversity considerations, beyond protected
areas, are taken in the final routing decisions.
There are likely to be limitations with pipeline datasets, particularly for those that are not yet operating
or under construction as a result of the complex, and often, trans-boundary negotiations around
appropriate routes. While the total length of intersection can provide insight into potential threats, this
will be driven in part by geography of the country. For example, coastal countries in oil rich regions are
likely to have more pipelines. In addition, in 109 cases the protected areas were established more
recently than pipeline construction, and in 77 of these instances, this was in protected areas designated
under international conventions and agreements.
While there are limitations as to where much of the oil and gas infrastructure can be placed, due to the
fixed location of the resource, the routing of pipelines should be more flexible. A number of factors need
to be taken in to account when designing pipeline routes in order to guard against certain impacts on
biodiversity, for example through oil spills, invasive species and habitat fragmentation, but the principal
considerations are often cost and security. There is therefore an urgent need for biodiversity data to be
accessible and used to inform these decisions.
34
Conclusion
This assessment of current and future potential threat can help prioritise efforts by the conservation and
donor community to strengthen biodiversity impact mitigation approaches, including avoidance, in
areas of high potential threat. Priority countries where this analysis identifies a high degree of overlap
between current and future contract blocks and areas of biodiversity importance are identified in Table
4. This highlights countries such as Zambia with both potential current and future threats to protected
areas and KBAs.
How threats play out in the areas of overlap will depend on a number of factors, not least the option for
avoidance and the biodiversity values present, whereby certain species and habitats will be more
vulnerable to the impacts of oil and gas than others. Nevertheless, it is somewhat concerning that we see
significant levels of overlap for protected areas under the IUCN category Ia which are small strict nature
reserves where oil and gas activities would pose a very real threat, as well as a number of internationally
recognised protected areas, including World Heritage Sites which have been deemed by UNESCOs
World Heritage Committee as incompatible with oil and gas activity.
The existence of overlaps with Alliance for Zero Extinction sites highlights that unless effective impact
mitigation, principally avoidance of these areas, is actively adopted, such impacts could threatened
certain species with global extinction. There is therefore a need to raise awareness of the existence of
these areas within the vicinity of contract blocks, particularly within Eastern Africa.
Threats from oil and gas activities are not only from the oil producing infrastructure but also from the
midstream infrastructure such as pipelines. While operating pipelines that intersect with areas of
biodiversity importance are mostly located in oil producing countries, significant overlap was shown for
proposed pipeline development within Tanzania, although many pipeline routes for emerging oil
nations are undecided or likely still to change. There is therefore a need to ensure that final pipeline
routes take account of areas of biodiversity importance, those included in this study as well as through
more detailed biodiversity assessments. Fundamentally large scale and potentially trans-boundary
Strategic Environmental Assessments are needed to integrate these biodiversity considerations with
other socio-economic factors.
By looking at future threats, this analysis presents an opportunity for a more proactive approach to
safeguard areas from development prior to the exploration and production phases when there is
potentially greater opportunity for avoidance. This will be particularly important for countries such as
South Africa, Zambia, and Uganda where a high degree of overlap is anticipated.
The fact that in the majority of cases where an overlap is observed, the protected area was established
prior to the contract being awarded, highlights the need for greater awareness by governments of the
value of natural capital for long-term economic gain and social well-being. It also stresses the
importance of improved biodiversity data access and uptake by authorities responsible for offering oil
and gas concessions, and the companies bidding on them.
35
Table 4 Summary of country analyses, highlighting priority countries that are facing high potential threat to protected areas (PAs) and Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) from current and future oil and gas development, and pipelines.
Overlap with current
contract blocks2
Overlap with future
bidding/ application blocks3
Intersect with
pipelines4
PAs KBAs PAs KBAs PAs KBAs
Area
(km2) %
Area
(km2) %
Area
increase
(km2)
New
area
(km2)
Area
increase
(km2)
New
area
(km2)
Total
(km)
Total
(km)
Central Africa
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
Congo
DRC
Sudan
South Sudan
Eastern Africa
Djibouti
Ethiopia
Kenya
Somalia
Tanzania
Uganda
Northern Africa
Algeria
Egypt
Libya
Morocco
Tunisia
Southern Africa
Botswana
Malawi
Mozambique
Namibia
South Africa
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Western Africa
Gambia
Ghana
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Mali
Niger
Nigeria
2 Overlap with current contract blocks is based on total area (km2) and % coverage proportional to the total area of protected areas; red indicates >100,000 km2 or >60%, amber >50,000 km2 or >40%. 3 Overlap with future bidding/ application blocks is based on total area of increase or total new area (km2); red indicates >1,000 km2, amber >100 km2. 4 Intersect with pipelines is based on total distance of intersect (km); red indicates >1,000 km, amber >500 km.
36
Future directions
This analysis highlights the need for the donor and conservation community to work more closely with
governments of oil rich African nations within these priority countries to 1) build understanding of the
value of natural capital to society and the role that biodiversity plays within that; 2) strengthen the
governance and regulatory frameworks over oil and gas sector development; 3) ensure access to robust
data for decision making. This requires engagement within multiple ministries, including those
responsible for allocating concessions and awarding exploration and production contracts to companies.
Recent work carried out in Kenya and Uganda (Brooks and Wright 2016) highlighted that while these
countries are receiving support for developing their oil industries, which includes managing
environmental impacts, there are a number of areas that need strengthening for improved biodiversity
management. These include gaps within legal and policy frameworks, capacity of regulators to monitor
compliance, and the availability and accessibility of biodiversity data for decision making.
Equally there is a continued need to build capacity of companies to implement effective impact
mitigation, principally avoidance and minimisation of impact in ecologically sensitive sites. Significant
progress is being made by the conservation community in engaging the oil and gas majors to improve
biodiversity management strategies. These include the adoption of no-go commitments to World
Heritage sites and adopting the mitigation hierarchy to achieve goals of no net loss or net positive
impact on biodiversity. However, this study highlights the need to engage a much wider array of oil and
gas companies, including single-country operators and large national companies. A positive step in this
regard is the increasing number of finance institutions that are adopting the Equator Principles which
requires project finance to comply with the performance standards of the International Finance
Corporation, of which performance standard 6 is currently driving improved performance. This work
can help to better prioritise those countries within which engagement is needed to raise awareness of
these existing tensions, and equally help inform the finance sector to impose greater scrutiny of their
investments within certain countries.
Despite the potential negative impacts that oil and gas installations can have on biodiversity, it must be
recognised that there is also the potential for a more positive relationship. Effective impact mitigation
not only involves careful design through technology and engineering to avoid, minimise and restore
negative impacts, but can also include biodiversity offsetting and more positive additional conservation
actions. These can, for example, include supporting the effective management of protected areas or even
establishing new protected areas. For example, in response to Queensland law in Australia that requires
impacts to be offset a 15.5 km2 national park was established on Curtis Island in Queensland, Australia
by liquid natural gas projects in the area (BG group, Santos GLNG, and Australia Pacific LNG; BG, 2013).
While these initiatives are not commonly adopted and seldom embedded in national law, they illustrate
the potential that exists for well managed oil and gas developments to support the biodiversity
conservation objectives of an area.
This study looks at potential threat based purely on the location of contract blocks and oil pipelines. It
does not take into account the actual location of oil and gas wells and does not look at cumulative and
secondary impacts associated with these developments. This report therefore represents a first stage
assessment that should be followed up with more sophisticated analysis in high priority areas to better
understand potential impacts. There are likely to be significant differences in actual on-ground impacts
attributable to these developments as a result of a number of factors, including the differing needs for
associated infrastructure and developments, the environmental conditions of the area, threats from
other sectors and management practices adopted by the companies concerned. It is therefore important
to understand the differing impacts of extractive activity on biodiversity and to examine the indirect
impacts associated with ancillary infrastructure and developments.
37
5. References
Bibby, C.J. (1998) Selecting areas for conservation. Conservation science and action, pp. 176-201.
BG (2013) Sustainability Report. BG Group
Brooks, T.M. et al. (2016) Analysing biodiversity and conservation knowledge products to support
regional environmental assessments. Scientific Data, 3, 160007.
Brooks, S. E. and Wright M. A. P. (2016) Strengthening governance of the oil sector with respect to
biodiversity: Country situation analysis for Uganda and Kenya. UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK
Butchart, S.H.M. et al. (2015) Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area
targets. Conservation Letters, 8, pp. 329-337.
EBI (The Energy and Biodiversity Initiative). (2003) Integrating biodiversity conservation into oil and gas
development.
Edwards, D.P., Sloan, S., Weng, L., Dirks, P., Sayer, J. & Laurance, W.F. (2014) Mining and the African
Environment. Conservation Letters, 7, pp. 302-311.
Eken, G. et al. (2004) Key Biodiversity Areas as Site Conservation Targets. BioScience, 54, 1110-1118.
Foss, M.M. (2008) Africa: a new frontier in oil and gas exploration. Accessed: 15/01/2016:
http://www.geotimes.org/feb08/article.html?id=feature_africa.html.
IUCN (2000) World Conservation Congress Amman 2000 – Resolutions and Recommendations.
Jones, I.L., Bull, J.W., Milner-Gulland, E.J., Esipov, A.V. & Suttle, K.B. (2014) Quantifying habitat impacts
of natural gas infrastructure to facilitate biodiversity offsetting. Ecology and Evolution, 4, pp. 79-
90.
Juffe-Bignoli, D. et al. (2014). Protected Planet Report 2014. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK.
Osti, M., Coad, L., Fisher, J.B., Bomhard, B. & Hutton, J.M. (2010) Oil and gas development in the World
Heritage and wider protected area network in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation, 20, pp.
1863-1877.
UNEP-WCMC (2015) World Database on Protected Areas User Manual 1.1. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge,
UK.
UNEP-WCMC (2013) Identifying potential overlap between extractive industries (mining, oil and gas)
and natural World Heritage sites. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK.
WWF (2015) A global assessment of extractive activity within natural World Heritage Sites. WWF: UK.
38
39
Appendix 1 – IUCN protected area management categories
Category
Definition/Description Biodiversity A-Z
IUCN Category Ia – Strict Nature Reserve
Strictly protected areas set aside to protect biodiversity and also possibly geological/geomorphological features, where human visitation, use and impacts are strictly controlled and limited to ensure protection of the conservation values.
More information
IUCN Category Ib – Wilderness Area
Large unmodified or slightly modified areas that retain their natural character without permanent or significant human habitation, which are protected and managed so as to preserve their natural condition.
More information
IUCN Category II – National Park
Large natural or near natural areas set aside to protect large-scale ecological processes, along with the complement of species and ecosystems characteristic of the area, which also provide a foundation for environmentally and culturally compatible spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and visitor opportunities.
More information
IUCN Category III – Natural Monument of Feature
Areas set aside to protect a specific natural monument, which can be a landform, sea mount, submarine cavern, geological feature such as a cave or even a living feature such as an ancient grove.
More information
IUCN Category IV – Habitat/ Species Management Area
Protected areas aim to protect particular species or habitats and management reflects this priority. Many category IV Protected Areas will need regular, active interventions to address the requirements of particular species or to maintain habitats, but this is not a requirement of the category.
More information
IUCN Category V – Protected Landscape/ Seascape
Areas where the interaction of people and nature over time has produced an area of distinct character with significant ecological, biological, cultural and scenic value and where safeguarding the integrity of this interaction is vital to protecting and sustaining the area and its associated nature conservation and other values.
More information
IUCN Category VI – Protected Area with Sustainable Use of Natural Resources
Generally large areas, with most of the area in a natural condition, where a proportion is under sustainable natural resource management and where low-level non-industrial use of natural resources compatible with nature conservation is seen as one of the main aims of the area.
More information
