By the Witness Radio team

When oil companies pack up after years of drilling, the pollution, scarred landscapes, and shattered livelihoods often linger long after the last rig is gone.

Communities in oil-producing regions are often left to grapple with poisoned water, rusting skeletons of abandoned infrastructure, and lost income from farming, fishing, and other ways of life. Meanwhile, the question of who will foot the bill for restoring the environment hangs in the air.

Now, three international civil society organizations are raising their voices, demanding that oil and gas companies take real responsibility when they shut down operations or hand over their assets to new investors.

The Stakeholder Democracy Network (SDN), the Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense (AIDA) and the Center for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) have submitted the International Principles for Responsible Divestment from Fossil Fuels to the United Nations Working Group on Business and Human Rights.

These principles arrive at a time when countries are under mounting pressure to break free from coal, oil, and gas in the fight against climate change. Yet the organizations warn that companies must not use this transition as an excuse to abandon communities or leave their mess behind.

“Rapid closure and responsible closure of the fossil fuel industry are not mutually incompatible agendas. Both are vital to achieve climate and environmental justice and a just energy transition,” the principles state.

The proposed standards lay out a clear roadmap for what companies must do before walking away from fossil fuel projects, and what governments should demand in return.

According to the principles, companies are expected to inform communities about plans to close operations or sell assets, including when the changes will happen and what environmental and financial obligations remain outstanding.

They should also involve affected people in decisions about their own future, rather than making choices in secret boardrooms.

“This information must include divestment timelines and modalities, as well as full disclosure of all outstanding environmental and financial liabilities. Companies should proactively create spaces for participation and dialogue, so that affected people, regulators and government authorities receive relevant information and can meaningfully influence corporate decision-making.” The principles further state.

Another key demand is that companies must pay for the harm they have caused, from cleaning up polluted lands and waters to safely dismantling infrastructure and restoring damaged ecosystems.

The organizations are also pushing for companies to compensate those whose livelihoods, health, culture, and communities have suffered. This could mean financial payments, restoring sacred cultural sites, and publicly admitting the harm they have done.

When companies sell off their assets, the principles insist they must ensure that new owners have both the resources and expertise to run operations safely and cover all future closure and restoration costs.

The principles also highlight the fate of workers and communities whose lives depend on oil. They call for new livelihood opportunities, job transition programs, and social safety nets for those facing job loss when the wells run dry.

The principles also place the onus on governments, urging them to ensure oil companies do not walk away from environmental damage or leave obligations unresolved when they shut down or sell off their assets.

They urge states to craft clear, transparent plans for phasing out fossil fuel extraction, with affected communities and workers at the table for every decision that could reshape their lives.

Governments are also expected to overhaul their laws and regulations, closing loopholes that let companies slip away from projects without cleaning up pollution, restoring ecosystems, or compensating those harmed.

“States should ensure that their existing legal and regulatory frameworks related to fossil fuel divestment, including investment laws and treaties, are aligned with these Principles and that these Principles are made obligatory for companies by enshrining them in law and effectively enforcing them.” The 4-page document reads

Before any asset sale or project closure gets the green light, the principles say governments should demand independent environmental and social assessments, plus thorough reviews of infrastructure and decommissioning costs.

They also urge states to ensure companies set aside enough money for environmental clean-up and infrastructure dismantling before approving any closure plans.

When assets change hands, governments should scrutinize whether the new buyers have the money, know-how, and management skills to run the facilities safely and meet all environmental obligations left on the table.

The principles sound the alarm against letting companies hand over assets to brand-new businesses or operators with no track record of safe management, which could leave governments and communities footing the bill when disaster strikes.

They also tackle cases where previous owners have already left a trail of environmental damage. Here, governments should ensure new owners handle the clean-up while protecting affected communities’ right to seek compensation and justice from those who caused the original harm.

The organizations are also pressing governments to publish yearly updates on all proposed, approved, and rejected oil and gas asset sales and project closures, including whether companies have kept their environmental and social promises.

These concerns are painfully clear in Nigeria’s Niger Delta, where decades of oil extraction have left communities battling pollution and the collapse of their livelihoods.

Oil spills have poisoned water sources, ruined farmland, and shattered fishing livelihoods, forcing many residents to bear the high cost of an industry that has reaped enormous profits.

A United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) assessment of Ogoniland in 2017 documented extensive oil contamination and recommended a long-term environmental clean-up.

Meanwhile, some international oil companies that once operated in the region are selling off their stakes to new investors, sparking urgent questions about who will shoulder responsibility for pollution and other lingering obligations.

In March 2025, Shell completed the sale of its Nigerian onshore subsidiary, the Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), to Renaissance Africa Energy.

TotalEnergies followed with an agreement announced in January 2026 to sell its 10 percent non-operated interest in the Renaissance joint venture’s licenses to the Nigerian consortium Vaaris.

On October 27, 2026, TotalEnergies announced that it had completed the sale for US$800 million.

The company said it would retain its full economic interest in three gas licenses – OML 23, OML 28 and OML 77 – which currently account for 50 percent of Nigeria LNG’s gas supply. The transaction therefore covers its interest in the joint venture’s oil assets, rather than a complete withdrawal from its Nigerian operations.

Civil society organizations are raising doubts about whether these deals offer enough transparency on outstanding environmental damage, clean-up plans, and compensation for the communities left in the wake.

Dr Isaac ‘Asume’ Osuoka, Director of Social Action, said the people living in oil-producing areas should not be forgotten when companies negotiate the sale of their assets.

“This case is about people, not just oil assets. It is about children growing up with poisoned water, families breathing polluted air, and communities losing their health and livelihoods while international oil companies walk away with decades of profits,” Osuoka said.

He insisted that affected communities must not become corporate sacrifice zones and urged TotalEnergies to prove that its exit will not deepen existing human rights abuses.

Mr. Simon Taylor, co-founder of Hawkmoth, also questioned the transparency surrounding the transaction.

Taylor pointed to TotalEnergies’ previous involvement in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, arguing that the company should be transparent about the public-interest implications of its asset sale.

By the Witness Radio team.

As investment in large-scale agricultural enterprises surges across Africa, the spotlight is turning to development finance institutions and their power to determine which farming systems thrive and which are left behind.

Multilateral development banks and other financial institutions are playing a bigger role in shaping Africa’s agricultural landscape, funding everything from business models to infrastructure and production systems. Industrial livestock farming stands at the center of heated debate, with experts warning that its rise could sideline smallholder farmers, pastoralist communities, and agroecological food systems.

These pressing concerns took center stage during a webinar hosted by the Stop Financing Factory Farming (S3F) coalition, where participants explored how financing industrial livestock farming in Africa impacts farmers, the environment, climate, and public health.

The S3F Africa Regional Coordinator, Mariann Bassey-Olsson, said financial decisions made by development institutions have consequences beyond the businesses receiving the money.

“Since public money shapes food futures, what banks fund today decides what people eat and their livelihoods,” she said.

She pointed out that Africa’s livestock production is a tapestry of pastoralism, mixed crop-livestock farming, and commercial ventures. She urged that agricultural investment should honor this diversity instead of pushing industrial production as the default path.

“We must strengthen our diverse, locally appropriate and sustainable livestock systems, not replace them with industrial models,” she said.

Miriann also challenged the surge in support for agribusinesses, highlighting the stark contrast with the limited financing that reaches agroecological and community-led food systems.

“Factory farming is a finance story that depends on capital, infrastructure and policies that enable its expansion, yet public and private finance increasingly support agribusinesses while far less reaches agroecological community-led food systems,” she said.

Ms. Lizah Makombore of the University of Vermont said existing patterns of industrial production and consumption are pressuring ecosystems and making it difficult to achieve sustainable development goals.

“Because our food systems play such a monumental role in this crisis, they are now undeniably a growing cause for deep transformation,” she said.

Makombore called for a stronger embrace of agroecological farming, emphasizing that agricultural approaches must be rooted in local cultures, wisdom, and environmental realities.

She also highlighted the alarming decline in soil health and stressed the importance of weaving indigenous knowledge and cultural values into sustainable food systems.

“We therefore need to think about how we can shape the context using our cultural values and how we can reclaim our cosmovision, such as Ubuntu,” she said.

Citing an assessment by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) on financing for agroecology through the Green Climate Fund, Makombore said 79% of the funding assessed supported factory farming and other non-agroecological agricultural systems.

She added that agroecological systems received 10.3%, while agroecology received 10.6%.

Mr. Michael Farrelly of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) cautioned that investment figures alone cannot reveal whether farmers are truly gaining control over their production or reaping the rewards of funded businesses and programs.

“More finance doesn’t automatically mean more power or better incomes for farmers,” he

said.

Farrelly pointed to the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP), the African Union framework guiding agricultural development across member states, as an important influence on investment priorities.

He said the program’s 2026–2035 implementation period has a $100 billion investment target combining public and private financing.

He also referred to regional agricultural policy platforms and summits where governments are seeking to attract private investment into the sector.

Farrelly urged closer scrutiny of the fine print of these investments, especially when they fuel the growth of large commercial agricultural enterprises.

He warned that as corporate agribusinesses gain ground, small-scale producers risk becoming more dependent on commercial buyers, facing mounting debt, and losing their grip on livestock production and marketing.

“The World Bank is helping shape both the businesses and the rules under which they operate. The authors of the report warn that farmers can become more dependent on corporate buyers and debt with less control over their livestock. Some programs aim to reduce the share of people working in agriculture.” He said.

Ms. Nne Nelly Umoren of the Green Leaf Advocacy and Empowerment Center voiced concerns about the hidden social and environmental costs that often accompany large industrial investments, such as fertilizer production.

Citing the Nduruma fertilizer industry, she questioned whether the economic promises of industrial projects truly reflect the realities faced by surrounding communities.

She noted that while such investments are often touted as engines of job creation, increased production, and economic growth, it is crucial to weigh these benefits against the environmental and social burdens local communities’ shoulder.

“They make us believe that investment is for production and for economic growth, food security, and also for the future food of Africa, especially the Nduruma fertilizer,” she said.

“The question behind this is: does industrial growth genuinely improve people’s lives and strengthen food systems? Does it really create economic benefit for investors while transferring environmental and social costs to the local communities?” she asked.

Umoren called for a sharper focus on the lived experiences of communities impacted by industrial projects and a closer look at how the benefits and costs of these investments are shared.

The experts urged that agricultural and development finance should prioritize approaches that empower local food systems and uplift small-scale producers.

They argued that Africa’s food security cannot be achieved through a one-size-fits-all model. Still, they must instead honor the continent’s rich tapestry of farming systems and ecological landscapes.

By the Witness Radio team.

For generations, smallholder farmers across Africa have carefully saved, replanted, and exchanged seeds, nurturing crop varieties that sustain their families and communities. But as governments introduce stricter seed regulations, many are now questioning just how secure these age-old practices truly are.

A new African Union (AU) policy framework on Farmer-Managed Seed Systems aims to shift this landscape by honoring the vital role of farmers who produce, preserve, and share seeds beyond formal commercial channels. Yet concerns are growing that the framework’s promise may fall short if national seed laws continue to restrict the very rights it aims to champion.

Farmers, civil society organizations, and legislators voiced these worries during a post-summit webinar on November 4, 2026, delving into the new continental policy’s impact and its significance for ongoing efforts to harmonize seed laws within the East African Community (EAC).

The evaluation convening was spearheaded by the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT), the Swiss Foundation for Development Cooperation (SWISSAID) and the Eastern and Southern Africa Small Scale Farmers’ Forum (ESSAF).

These discussions built on the momentum of the inaugural Africa Seed Summit, held from October 5 to 7 in Ezulwini, Eswatini, under the banner Resilient Seed Systems for a Food Secure Africa. Hosted by the African Union Commission and the Government of Eswatini, the summit united African leaders, agriculture ministers, seed experts, farmer organizations, and private sector voices to chart the future of seed systems across the continent.

Key outcomes included the Ezulwini Declaration on African Seed Systems, the unveiling of the 2025 Seed Sector Performance Index Status Report, and a refreshed 10-year action plan for the Africa Seed and Biotechnology Program.

The summit also set a new continental policy course, recognizing farmer-managed seed systems as a lifeline for smallholder farmers and urging greater investment in community seed banks, farmer networks, agricultural biodiversity, and the safeguarding of plant genetic resources.

Yet for farmers and the organizations that stand with them, true recognition means being able to keep using and sharing the seeds they have carefully preserved through generations.

The National Coordinator of ESSAF Uganda, Mrs. Nancy Mugimba, said farmers remain at the center of food production, calling for discussions about food security to go beyond the quantity of food produced to consider the quality and resilience of the seeds from which it comes.

She argued that indigenous seeds managed by smallholder farmers have an important role in helping communities withstand difficult agricultural conditions.

“All the seeds are not uniform, but when it comes to issues of hunger, you’ll find that it is usually the indigenous seeds that are managed by the small-scale farmers that are resilient to all these conditions,” she said.

Mugimba stressed that farmers’ ability to maintain and access a rich diversity of seeds is crucial as communities face drought, shifting weather patterns, and looming food shortages.

While the AU framework recognizes the value of farmer-managed seed systems, its approach to farmers’ rights has sparked concern among civil society groups that support smallholder farmers.

Mrs. Joan Kembabazi from CEFROHT welcomed the spotlight on farmer-managed seed systems but questioned whether the framework truly offers enough safeguards for farmers to freely save, use, exchange, and sell their seeds.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) recognizes farmers’ rights to save, use, exchange and sell farm-saved seeds, subject to national law. However, Kembabazi said the AU framework does not adequately address how to protect these rights where national laws impose restrictions.

She cautioned that tying farmers’ rights to national seed laws could undermine the very protections the continental framework is meant to deliver.

“If there are any national seed laws that have already been developed that would not uphold the rights of farmers, then this particular conflict is going to limit how much of the farmers’ rights can be exercised in relation to saving, using and exchanging seed as something we think is a very big weakness with this law,” she said.

Kembabazi also cast doubt on the framework’s legal muscle, pointing out that as a policy instrument, it lacks the force of a binding treaty. Member states are encouraged, but not required, to align their national laws with its recommendations.

She also pointed out gaps in how the framework addresses farmers’ rights to sell seeds. She noted its scant attention to legal conflicts with instruments like the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) and national seed marketing laws.

These concerns are especially pressing in East Africa, where efforts to harmonize seed regulations are unfolding alongside calls for stronger recognition of agroecology and farmer-managed seed systems.