Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

A call for civil disobedience against the privatisation of peasant seeds

Published

on

For thousands of years, communities have nurtured and taken care of the crops and seeds that sustain us. Seeds are part of human history, work and knowledge systems, and our relationship with them is a never-ending conversation of care. This mutual nurturing has given rise to specific ways of cultivating, sharing, feeding and healing that are linked to community norms, responsibilities, obligations and rights.

People’s freedom to work with seeds hinges on the responsibility of communities who defend and maintain them, who care for them and enjoy the goods they provide. And this freedom is under threat.

Today there is a strong assault on people’s seeds. It comes from the drive to regulate, standardise and privatise seeds to expand markets for corporations. This is done through plant breeders’ rights and patent laws, as well as seed certification schemes, variety registers and marketing laws. Whatever the form, it is about legalising abuse, dispossession and devastation.

Today’s attack on seeds aims to put an end to peasant and Indigenous agriculture, an end to independent food production. Where peasant food sovereignty prevails, it is difficult to turn us into cheap and dependent labour, people without territory and without history. We face a coordinated political and technocratic crusade to impose uniform and rigid laws and regulations in favour of agroindustry. There is a determined effort to discredit people’s historical practices and ancestral indigenous peasant knowledge in order to make us dependent on corporations. Communities who have resisted have faced criminalisation, repression, and even imprisonment

Whether in Africa, Asia, Europe or the Americas, communities are fighting this pressure and we are united and mobilised to actively support them.

In Benin, social movements have stopped the national parliament from discussing a law proposal to join UPOV, the Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties. UPOV sets global standards for seed privatisation in favour of transnationals like Monsanto/Bayer, Syngenta and Corteva.

– In Guatemala, Indigenous peoples are in the streets demanding that their government’s proposed bill to adopt UPOV standards be scrapped as well. They call it “the Monsanto Law” and its rejection is part of an ongoing nationwide strike.

– In El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, groups are working together to prevent the adoption of a new ruling that would open the doors to genetically modified seeds in all three countries at once.

– In Thailand, civil society organisations are fighting hard against free trade agreements that impose UPOV instead of protecting the rights of farmers and other rural communities to maintain and use their local seeds.

-In Indonesia, farmers and civil society organisations continue to reject UPOV, which is being imposed through free trade negotiations and under pressure from countries like Japan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4pD_yZG1lc

-In the Philippines, farmers, scientists, concerned citizens and civil society organizations filed an environmental case to the Supreme Court to stop the commercial propagation of the genetically modified golden rice that is patented by Syngenta and other agrochemical corporations. Moreover, Filipino farmers are spearheading the fight for the recognition and strengthening of farmers’ rights to seeds and farmers’ seed system by forwarding seed commoning as an alternative to the UPOV-like laws in the country.

– Internationally, peasant and other social movements are also trying to get the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) translated into enforceable national laws.

We are determined to resist the dispossession of seeds from the hands of the people. We vigorously oppose registration, certification, patenting and marketing schemes, treaties, conventions, national and international laws and legal frameworks such as UPOV and other seed laws that promote the dispossession of the common goods and knowledge of our peoples.

We, as peoples in resistance, guardians of the seeds, will continue keeping, sharing and reproducing our seeds so our presence will germinate from our roots.

Signatories (Only organisation name displayed):

ABSDD/Slow Food

Burkina Faso

Acción Comunal

Colombia

ACDIC

Cameroun

AFSA

Africa region

agrarinfo.ch

Switzerland

AgriMovement

Lebanon

AIFFRS

India

AKban Mague

Colombia

Alexander von Humboldt Foundation

USA

A lo Verde Escuela de Huertos Agroecologicos

Ecuador

Alliance pour le Développement Durable et pour l’Environnement

Côte d’Ivoire

Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture

India

Amigos unidos con amor hojas de agricultura

Colombia

Anti-mining struggle committee

India.

ANAGAVEC

Ecuador

APBREBES

Global/Switzerland

Aravali Bachao

India

ARBA (Asociación para la recuperación del bosque autóctono)

Spain

Aseas

Colombia

Asoproorgànicos

Colombia

Association des Jeunes Agriculteurs de la Casamance

Senegal

Asociación de mujeres unidas por el desarrollo juanchopuquio encañada

Peru

Asociación Ecoaldea Aldeafeliz

Colombia

Asociacion Agroecologia y Fe

Bolivia

Asociación PROBIVIR

Colombia

Association pour la Défense de l’environnement et des Consommateurs (ADEC)

Sénégal

Asociación Shuar Sharup de cuidado y protección de semillas.

Ecuador

Association Sénégalaise des Producteurs de Semences Paysannes

Senegal

Association Tunisienne de Permaculture

Tunisie

Atukpamba y Red de Guardianes de Semillas de Ecuador

Ecuador

Audace Institut Afrique

Côte d’Ivoire

Bangladesh Agricultural Farm Labour Federation (BAFLF)

Bangladesh

Badabon Sangho

Bangladesh

Bendito Prashadam

Colombia

BioThai

Thailand

Biodiversity and Biosafety Association of Kenya

Kenya

Biodiversity Information Box

Japan

Biowatch South Africa

South Africa

Bhartiya Kisan Union (BKU)

India

Building Futures

USA

Cabildo Indígena de la cuenca del Río Guabas

Colombia

Cámara Verde de la Amazorinoquía

Colombia

Campesinos construyendo futuro

Colombia

Caritas Diocese of Malakal (CDoM)

South Sudan

Casa de semillas El Origen

Colombia

CCPA

Sénégal

CEIP

Colombia

CENDA

Bolivia

CERAI

Spain

Chile Mejor sin TLC

Chile

Chilis on Wheels

United States

C.netzero

DRC

City Mouse Garden

United States

COAG

Spain

Coati

Colombia

Cocapeutas Cooperatica Mujeres Medicina

Peru

Colectiva de mujeres Muralistas

Colombia

Colectivo Agroecológico Del Ecuador

Ecuador

Colectivo Cultura Saravita

Colombia

Colectivo por la Autonomía / Saberes Locales

México

Colombia Humana

Colombia

Colectivo Minga de soberanía alimentaria deChia

Colombia

Colectivo Semilla Negra

México

Colectivo Xiegua

Colombia

Comité de Derechos Humanos de la Sierra Norte de Veracruz

México

Comité Ouest Africain des semences Paysannes

West Africa

Commission of Charity and Social Actions – Caritas Dalat

Viet Nam

Comunidad Moneda Luna

Colombia

Comunidad Rural de la Buitrera

Colombia

comunidad kishuar Amazanga

Ecuador

Cooperativa Huacal

México

Coordinadora Ambiental Popular de Santa Rosa de Cabal

Colombia

COPAGEN

West Africa

CORDES MAELA RENAF

Colombia

Corpalabra

Colombia

CORPONIMA

Colombia

Corporación Aluna

Colombia

Corporación Creare Social

Colombia

Corporación Compromiso

Colombia

Corporacion Frutos de Utopía

Colombia

Corporación Síntesis

Colombia

Corredor biológico Montes del aguacate costa Rica

Costa Rica

CREATE

INDIA

CSRD

India

CSFdeepinnerMusic

Netherlands

Cuatro Rumbos Para Ti

México

CULTIVISA

Colombia

Cultivo Lo Nuestro

Colombia

Custodios de Semillas Ancestrales

Colombia

Darbar Sahitya Sansada

India

DESMI, A.C.

México

Ecofeminisarte

Colombia

Ecosinergia

Colombia

EdibleBristol

UK

El Jilote, SPG

México

Enda Pronat

Senegal

ESAL

Colombia

Escuela de Líderesas del Ecuador, y mujeres por el cambio, y defensa por la salud de los pueblos

Ecuador

Evobiota Consultancy Corporation

Philippines

Extinction Rebellion València

España

FAEB / Federation Agroecologique du Benin

BENIN

FIAN Indonesia

Indonesia

Finca Carrizales

Colombia

Frente de lucha Ambiental Delia Villalba

Uruguay

Friends of the Earth Nigeria

Nigeria

Fundacion Ambiental

Colombia

Fundacion Avá

Argentina

Fundación Julia Márquez

Colombia

Fundacion Biosistemas Integrados

Uruguay

Fundación la COSMOPOLITANA

Colombia

Fundacion Luna Arte

Colombia

Fundación Runakawsai

Ecuador

Gealac

Peru

Gender Justice

Zambia

Glesi

Netherlands

Good Food Community

Philippines

GRAIN

International

Grassroots klimaatboerderij

Belgium

Grassroots Trust

Zambia

Groupe d’action Écologique pour le développement intégral

RDC

Grow Local Colorado

United States

Grupo Allpa

Ecuador

Grupo Raquira Silvestre SAS

Colombia

Grupo Semillas

Colombia

HEKS Swiss Church Cooperation

Switzerland

Humaine

Belgique

Huerta comunitaria y Jardín Polinizador Con Ojos de Amor

Colombia

Huerta Marsella

Bogota

Huertas Swa Cho

Colombia

Huerto Agroecológico Atemajac

México

Incredible Edible Lambeth

United Kingdom

Indigenous Women and Girls Initiative

Kenya

Instituto Agroecológico Latinoamericano México

México

Instituto Humanitas

Perú

ISRA

Sénégal

JAL Diviso

Colombia

Joint Action for Water

India

Junta de agua vereda laureles

Colombia

JVE Côte d’Ivoire

Côte d’Ivoire

Kikandwa Environmental Association

Uganda

Laboratorio de Tierras

Ecuador

La Via Campesina East and Southern Africa

Zimbabwe

La Tucaneta

Colombia

Lapapaya

Colombia

La Cité Idéale

Burkina Faso

La Cuica Cósmica

Ecuador

La Savia

Colombia

Les amis de la Terre

Togo

Lideresa social

Colombia

Kansas interfaith Action

USA

Karnataka State Farmers Association (KRRS)

India

Malaysian Food Sovereignty Forum (FKMM)

Malaysia

MASIPAG

Philippines

Mesa Departamental de Diálogo y Concertación Agraría, Étnica y Popular de Nariño

Methods Lab

United States

MINGAnet

Colombia

Mink’a Comunicación

Argentina

Mirachik

Ecuador

Mouvement d’Action Paysanne

Belgium

Mouvement des jeunes pour l’agriculture,l’agroécologique,et Agro pastorale (M.J.A.A.P)

R.D.Congo

Movement for Land and Agricultural Reform (MONLAR)

Sri Lanka

Movimiento Agroecológico de América Latina y el Caribe-MAELA

Colombia

Movimiento Campesino de Papaye

Haïti

Movimiento pacto histórico

Colombia

Movimiento Rural Cristiano

España

Mujeres que reverdecen

Colombia

Munsenga cooperative

Zambia

National Alliance for Agroecology The Gambia

Gambia

NeverEndingFood.org

Malawi

Ntaamba Hiinta Development Trust

Zambia

Ofraneh

Honduras

ojoVoz

Mexico

OK Seed Project

Japan

ONG YVEO

Côte d’Ivoire

Organisation des Ruraux pour une Agriculture Durable

Benin

Organización campesinos construyendo futuro (OCCF)

Colombia

Panitar Pally Unnyan Samiti

India

Paralegal Alliance Network

Zambia

Perkumpulan INISIATIF

Indonesia

Perkumpulan Kediri Bersama Rakyat (KIBAR)

Indonesia

Plataforma del País Valencià per un tren públic, social i sostenible que vertebre el territori i refrede el planeta

Spain

Primavera Zur

Colombia

Promotores ambientales del eje cafetero

Colombia

Proyecto agroecologico familiar y educativo ambiental sueño verde

Colombia

PTR Associates

USA

Punarchith

India

RADD

Cameroun

Radio Bénin

Bénin

RECHERCHE SANS FRONTIÈRES RSF

RD Congo

Red de Agricultores Urbanos Bogotá

Colombia

Red de consumo Responsable y consciente

Colombia

Red Colombiana de Agricultura Biológica de Antioquía

Colombia

Red de Custodia de Semillas Criollas y Nativas (CESTA)

Colombia

Red de foresteia análoga

Ecuador

Red de huertos agroecológicos de Cali

Colombia

Red de huertos urbanos

Colombia

Red de Resersvas / Resnatur

Colombia

Red de semillas criollas y nativas

Uruguay

Red de semillas libres de Colombia

Colombia

Red Distrital de Agricultores

Colombia

Red en defensa del Maiz

México

Red Kunagua

Colombia

Redmac

Colombia

REDMUNORCA

Colombia

Red de Pueblos Hermanos

Colombia

Red de jóvenes por la Agrobiodiversidad

Perú

Red Yuma

Colombia

Regional Schools and Colleges Permaculture

Kenya

Reservorio de Semillas Techotiva

Colombia

RESNATUR – Red de reservas

Colombia

Reseau JINUKUN

Benin

Resource Institute of Social Education

India

Salt Films

India

Sanwad

India

Save Earth Save Life Movement

India

Save Our Rice Campaign

India

Secretaria de educación de Bogotá

Colombia

Seed In A Box

Lebanon

Semillas de Nuestra Tierra

México

Semilla Nativa Colombia

Colombia

Semillas de Identidad – SWISSAID

Colombia

Serikat Buruh Migran Indonesia Kalbar

Indonesia

SERVIHUERTA

Colombia

Siyada network

Arab région

Société civile environnementale et agro-rurale du Congo

RDC

Sociedad libre y Neocampesina

Colombia

Soil if Cultures

New Zealand

South India Coordination Committee of Farmers Movements

India

SSN

England

Ssfafrica.com

Zambia and Africa

Sukrutham

India

Synergie Nationale des Paysans et Riverains du Cameroun

Cameroun

Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity

Tanzania

Tamizhaga Vivasayigal Sangam

India

The Ecocene Project

India

The Failing Farmer

Tunisia

The Hummingbird Foundation

Kenya

The Sixth Element School

India

The Utopian Seed Project

USA

Tierra Fertil

Colombia

Tinto to go

Colombia

Tlalixpan, sobre la faz de la tierra

México

Unillanos

Colombia

Unión de Organizaciones de la Sierra Juárez Oaxaca

México

Union Démocratique de l’Agriculture

Maroc

Unión de Organizaciones de la Sierra Juárez Oaxaca

México

Unión nacional de organizaciones regionales campesinas

autónomas (UNORCA)

Mexico

Union Régionale des Associations Paysannes de DIOURBEL URAPD

Senegal

Uruguay Soberano

Uruguay

Waia Reserva Sagrada

Colombia

We Are the Solution

Senegal

West africa sea turtles conservation network

Côte d’Ivoire

WFDFFM

Indonesia

Wild Webcap

Australia

Women’s Alliance MN

United States

WMW/ATPA

Tunisie

xermoladas

Spain

Youth talk

RDC

Yuva Kaushal Vikas Mandal

India

Zambian Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity

Zambia

Source: GRAIN

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

A decade of displacement: How Uganda’s Oil refinery victims are dying before realizing justice as EACOP secures financial backing to further significant environmental harm.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

“Laws are like spider webs: they catch the weak and let the powerful go free,” said Anacharsis, a Greek philosopher. These ancient words still ring painfully true for thousands of residents from Kyakaboga Sub-county in Hoima District, Uganda, who were displaced over a decade ago to pave the way for the country’s first oil refinery project. Despite 13 long years of broken promises and unending court delays, these communities continue to fight for justice, their unwavering resilience a source of inspiration.

Recently, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project secured financial backing, including both debt and equity. The project is estimated to cost around $5 billion, with the project owners contributing about $2 billion in equity and raising an additional $2.4 billion – $3 billion in external debt. Funds were secured from Standard Bank, Stanbic Bank Uganda, KCB Bank Uganda, and the Islamic Corporation for the Development of the Private Sector in Saudi Arabia, among the financiers backing the project.

Many people consider EACOP to be responsible for causing significant environmental harm in Uganda. The project is projected to impact numerous protected areas, including forests and national parks, and could potentially lead to the destruction of habitats and displacement of endangered species. Additionally, the pipeline’s construction and operation pose risks to water resources, including the Lake Victoria basin, which is a vital source of water for millions.

In 2012, the Ugandan government compulsorily acquired 29 square kilometers of land affecting over 13 villages in Buseruka Sub-county. More than 7,000 people, including 3,500 women and 1,500 children, were evicted to make way for the oil refinery. The project, touted as a symbol of national progress, instead left a trail of disrupted lives and systemic injustices —a stark reminder of the moral outrage that underlies this issue.

According to the Petroleum Authority of Uganda, the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the refinery offered affected people two options: cash compensation or resettlement with new houses built by the government. However, to date, many remain uncompensated, and others who opted for cash claim that their land and property were undervalued.

“At the time of compensation, we realized that the government was not paying us fairly as promised,” said Abigaba Esther Mpabaisi, one of the displaced residents. “Some villages in the same locality were compensated using different rates.” She added.

In response to these over-arching concerns, the residents, through their organization, the Oil Refinery Residents Association (ORRA), filed a case at the High Court in Kampala in 2014, seeking redress for forced evictions and human rights violations. Their courage in the face of a decade-long pursuit of justice, frustrated by systemic delays, shifting court venues, and what they describe as deliberate obstructions by state agencies, is truly admirable.

Christopher Opio, the ORRA leader, said the Court of laws meant to protect the poor had let them down: “We went to court, just like we have tried many other things. But the court has let us down. Even today, over 47 families have never received houses as part of the resettlement.” Opio added.

Uganda’s oil development efforts have repeatedly come under fire for forced land takeovers, delayed and inadequate compensation, and coercion accompanied by gross human rights abuses and violations. Despite communities turning to courts as a last resort for justice and demanding accountability for the harm caused to them, they are often left disillusioned.

Uganda’s judicial system operates with a stark contrast in the treatment of cases. While cases filed by powerful institutions often move swiftly, those filed by people experiencing poverty against the state or investors are subjected to years of postponements. A glaring example is the case in Buliisa District, where the government sued 42 families who refused undervalued compensation for their land for the Tilenga project, part of Uganda’s oil development activities.

The Tilenga project, is a major oil development in Uganda’s Albertine Graben, specifically in the Buliisa and Nwoya districts and it has caused displacement of local communities. The courts delivered judgment just four days after the case was filed, upholding the eviction of the families, who were also the legal landowners.

Meanwhile, the Kabaale case continues to stall. 75-year-old Kato Phinehas, who is also among those affected, reveals that the transfer of the case from one court to another is another factor that victims see as a deliberate effort by the state and courts to deny them justice.

“We started from the High Court in Kampala. There, government officials who were party to the case kept dodging us. Many times, the case was scheduled, but they would be absent, and it would be adjourned for several months. Despite little progress, the case was, to our surprise, referred to the Masindi High Court.

We decided not to give up. We followed the case to Masindi, but it was bounced back to the Kampala High Court. In Kampala, they told us the case had been sent to Masindi. Then, in Masindi, after a long wait, the case was referred to the Hoima High Court. However, in Hoima, they informed us that the files could not be traced. We later learned the case files were still in Masindi allegedly because there was no transport to deliver them to Hoima.

The judicial delays have taken a personal toll on individuals like Kato Phinehas. At 75 years old, he wonders if he will live to see the end of these delays. “this shocked us. We asked ourselves: how can a whole government fail to transport case files from Masindi, which is nearby? I’m 75 years old now, you can see me. I wonder: if these judicial delays continue for another ten years, will I still be alive to pursue this case?”

In addition, the eviction took a toll on the socio-economic life of residents, as Wandera John Bosco explains.

“I have been so much disturbed by the displacement because they evicted us from Kabaale and brought us here in Buseruka, about 25 kilometers away. In Kabale, we were flourishing in our work, had good business, and people were carrying out their daily activities, including farming, which yielded a lot and allowed them to thrive. This is a different case here. Life is hard,” said Wandera John Bosco, one of the Oil Refinery Project Affected Persons.

The economic effects have been severe. Many families who relied on farming lost their livelihoods. With no land and no crops, they couldn’t pay school fees. Children dropped out in large numbers.

“I dropped out of school in 2012,” said Tumwebaze Innocent, who was in secondary school when the evictions happened. “The government imposed a cut-off date and banned cash crops that grow beyond six months. And parents, including mine, had no alternative source of survival, which caused many of us to stop education,” he added.

Despite Article 126(2)(b) of Uganda’s Constitution, which mandates that “justice shall not be delayed,” these communities are trapped in a judicial limbo.

Community leaders are now urgently calling on Parliament, the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, and the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development to intervene not only to expedite the court case but also to revisit the entire compensation process. The need for new, fairer valuations based on current land rates and appropriate compensation for families still residing in inadequate or temporary housing is immediate and pressing.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Carbon Markets Are Not the Solution: The Failed Relaunch of Emission Trading and the Clean Development Mechanism

Published

on

In light of the growing number of cold and hot wars around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. Meanwhile, supposed solutions, such as carbon emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, continue to be promoted. As Maria Neuhauss argues, this is a bluff with far-reaching consequences.

There was more bad news in January 2025: The European Earth observation program Copernicus and the World Meteorological Organization reported that the global average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This marked the first time the average global temperature exceeded the 1.5-degree target established in the Paris Climate Agreement.

In light of the growing number of crises and conflict hotspots around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. While 1.4 million people demonstrated for more climate protection in Germany in September 2019, according to Fridays for Future, it is now almost impossible to speak of a climate movement. The catalyst for the third German ‘movement cycle’ was undoubtedly the rebranding of Last Generation in December 2024. The group had been decimated by state repression and media agitation in the preceding months. The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement at the beginning of this year made it clear that defenders of the fossil fuel status quo have gained momentum and intend to achieve their goals without compromise. However, as global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the material world follows its own rules, the problem of global warming will likely resurface in the collective consciousness in the foreseeable future. Whether through heat waves, extreme weather events, water shortages, or forest fires. The question is whether and what new answers and approaches a reinvigorated climate movement will develop if it does not limit itself to ‘solidarity prepping’ and actually wants to influence the course of events.

Central to this is not only resolute resistance against fossil inertia forces, but also testing the actions of liberal actors. Although they acknowledge the problem of climate change and claim to want to solve it, the measures they take are inadequate at best or, at worst, create new profit opportunities for the industries that must be phased out. This is far from a comprehensive solution to the ecological crisis, which encompasses more than just climate change. Emission trading and the associated offset mechanisms that are part of the international climate negotiations are one example that illustrates this well.

‘Climate math’ of flexible mechanisms

Emission trading is based on the idea that greenhouse gas emissions are still possible but must be justified with corresponding ‘pollution rights.’ The number of certificates is limited and should decrease over time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Emission trading provides fundamental flexibility by allowing certificates to be bought and sold. Ultimately, this is intended to achieve the most cost-efficient climate protection possible because emission-reducing measures are expected to be implemented first where they can be done quickly and cheaply. This allows one to profit from selling unused emission allowances to other actors who initially shy away from such measures. These actors must buy the allowances until the increased prices resulting from the shortage make emission-reducing measures unavoidable. At least, that’s the theory.

Emission trading is closely linked to the concept of climate neutrality, which plays a central role in climate policy. Greenhouse gas emissions are offset by preventing emissions, using natural carbon sinks, or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The trick to this ‘climate math’ is that, as long as emissions are compensated for, they do not count, even if greenhouse gases continue to be released into the air. These compensation measures are called ‘offsets.’

The idea that not all emissions must be reduced but can, in principle, be bought out of this obligation is based on the global inequalities that have developed historically and that fundamentally structured the first global climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. In line with the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ approach, the protocol only required industrialized countries to reduce emissions because they were mainly responsible for the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), industrialized countries could partially buy their way out of this responsibility by financing emissions-reduction measures in developing and emerging countries. The CDM has therefore been described as a modern “indulgence trade” (Altvater & Brunnengräber, 2008). This allowed industrialized countries to reconcile their energy production methods with the need for climate protection while outsourcing conflicts over the energy transition, such as land use, to the Global South (Bauriedl, 2016).

Social and environmental shortcomings of the CDM

From a climate protection perspective, however, it only makes sense to include emission reductions in developing and emerging countries in the emissions balance of industrialized countries if the investments actually help reduce emissions – that is, if the projects would not have been realized without investments from the Global North. Conversely, if projects under the CDM are not additional, such as if a dam would have been built without investments from the Global North, companies in industrialized countries can claim emission credits without actually helping to reduce emissions. This is because the emissions would have been avoided anyway. This would result in an overall increase in emissions.

In fact, the additionality of many projects financed under the CDM has been questioned over the years (Öko-Institut, 2016). However, less attention has been paid to the fact that CDM projects have repeatedly led to the displacement of local people and land grabbing. For example, a reforestation project in the Kachung Central Forest Reserve in Uganda displaced many neighboring villagers who used to farm and graze their cattle there. Plagued by food insecurity, hunger, and poverty, the population was denied access to the land when CDM-approved plantations were established, further worsening their situation. The monoculture plantations also had negative ecological consequences (Carbon Market Watch, 2018). Thus, the CDM perpetuated colonial conditions on several levels. The mechanism ended with the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2020. However, credits issued beforehand can still be used under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Price incentives instead of bans

A critical review of emission trading is also urgently needed. It is failing as a suitable means of climate protection on several levels. For example, in the case of the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the continued generous allocation of free certificates, particularly to energy-intensive industries, protects those responsible for high CO₂ emissions from strict requirements. Additionally, the emission trading approach suffers from the fact that it is unclear whether, or to what extent, the price of emissions certificates influences investment decisions in favor of climate protection. According to various studies, the price would need to be between EUR 140 and 6,000 per ton of CO₂ to achieve the 1.5-degree target (IPCC, 2018).

However, local industry is already complaining about excessively high electricity prices (the average certificate price in 2024 was €65 per ton of CO₂), causing the government to worry about the location’s attractiveness. Given this, can we really expect politicians to force energy-intensive industries to do more to protect the climate with much higher certificate prices? Ultimately, this reveals a fundamental flaw in emission trading: its indirect effect. Instead of using targets and bans, the idea is to persuade companies to cut emissions through price incentives. However, this approach puts climate protection in the hands of actors who primarily follow the profit motive and do not necessarily translate the price signal into climate protection measures. This explains why companies enrich themselves from emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism wherever possible (CE Delft, 2021).

For those who design and control emission trading systems, the aforementioned criticisms are merely one reason to continue supporting and refining the chosen method. This is also true for the EU, which, after a period during which emission trading was considered ineffective due to low prices, reinvigorated the system at the end of the 2010s. For instance, the EU introduced the market stability reserve. The goal is to maintain public confidence in the effectiveness of this instrument because it is the global climate protection tool. However, evaluations of its effectiveness are rare and provide little cause for optimism. According to an evaluation of various studies, the EU ETS achieves only 0 to 1.5% emission reductions per year (Green, 2021).

History and responsibility are being erased

This makes the ongoing negotiations at UN climate conferences concerning the implementation of global emission trading and a new Clean Development Mechanism all the more critical. In addition to the question of how financially weak countries will be compensated for climate-related damage and losses, the annual COPs primarily address Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement. Article 6 regulates international cooperation, i.e., the extent to which a country can count mitigation measures or emission avoidance elsewhere in its climate balance. Last year’s COP29 in Baku further advanced the operationalization of this article. Based on this, old CDM projects can now be transferred to the new Sustainable Development Mechanism under certain conditions. However, the first project to clear this hurdle reportedly reported emission reductions up to 26 times higher than expected based on scientific evaluation (Mulder, 2025).

Despite urgent warnings, world climate conferences seem determined to repeat past mistakes. The focus is on profit. As Tamra Gilbertson summed up in an interview with Chris Lang, the climate is the last priority. After all, trade processes will incur deductions in the future that will flow into the international adaptation fund. However, according to Gilbertson, this is also due to the fact that the climate conferences have failed to reach viable agreements on financing climate damage and adaptation measures in poorer countries thus far. Instead, emission trading is expected to deliver the necessary funds. “This is where common but differentiated responsibilities are eradicated. History and responsibility are erased, and capitalism in the form of carbon markets takes its place” (Lang, 2024).

While these processes are difficult for the public to understand, the escalating climate crisis requires critical attention more than ever. The problems associated with emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism urgently need to be exposed as distractions from the real task at hand: rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Govt launches Central Account for Busuulu to protect tenants from evictions

Published

on

In a bid to shield lawful tenants from arbitrary evictions and resolve long-standing land conflicts, Lands Minister Judith Nabakooba has announced the establishment of a centralized government account where tenants can deposit nominal ground rent, locally known as busuulu.

The move, she said, is a direct response to complaints raised by tenants during President Yoweri Museveni’s recent tour of the Buganda region, where multiple communities voiced frustration over landlords who are either absent, untraceable, or outright refuse to accept rent payments.

Speaking to the press on Saturday, Nabakooba said the government account now offers tenants a legal channel to fulfill their obligations—effectively eliminating the loophole used by some landlords to accuse tenants of non-payment and justify evictions.

“Government remains committed to securing the rights of bibanja holders through lawful means,” Nabakooba said. “The public should not be misled by political messages that discourage participation in these programs.”

She stressed that lawful and bona fide occupants, commonly referred to as bibanja holders, are protected under Uganda’s Constitution and Land Act, and cannot be legally evicted as long as they pay their annual ground rent.

New Legal Backing and Clear Fee Structure

The new system is backed by an amendment to Statutory Instrument No. 55 of 2011, now updated as Statutory Instrument No. 2 of 2025, which outlines the fixed ground rent rates tenants must pay based on location:

  • Cities – Shs 50,000

  • Municipalities – Shs 40,000

  • Town Councils – Shs 30,000

  • Town Boards – Shs 20,000

  • Rural Areas – Shs 5,000

Nabakooba clarified that these rates are standardized and non-negotiable, emphasizing that busuulu is not subject to arbitrary pricing by landlords. The fees have remained unchanged since their introduction in 2011.

See also  Canada Launches New Selection Categories For Express Entry

Certificates of Occupancy and Digital Access

To strengthen tenant security and provide legal recognition, the minister encouraged bibanja holders to apply for Certificates of Occupancy, documents that officially confirm their right to occupy and use the land.

So far, the ministry has mapped more than 96,000 bibanja across several districts, and over 500 certificates have already been issued in Mubende, Mityana, Kassanda, Kiboga, and Gomba.

“This effort is not just about securing tenure,” Nabakooba noted. “It’s about giving rural tenants the confidence to invest, farm, and participate meaningfully in the market economy.”

To enhance transparency and public access, the Ministry of Lands has also launched an online portal and mobile app, where tenants can:

  • Verify the status of their Certificate of Occupancy

  • Check the identity and details of the registered landowner

  • Confirm whether the land they occupy is formally registered

The digital system is part of a broader government strategy to curb land fraud, prevent illegal sales, and guard against evictions—especially in cases where land is sold without the knowledge of long-standing tenants.

Bridging the Landlord-Tenant Divide

Nabakooba also called on landlords to work with government efforts rather than resist them. She acknowledged the strained relationship between landlords and tenants in many parts of Uganda but urged both parties to see these reforms as a path toward harmony and fairness.

“This is not about taking land away from landlords,” she explained. “It is about creating a transparent system where both landlords and tenants benefit, and land-related violence is minimized.”

The centralized busuulu collection initiative aims to deter unscrupulous evictions, encourage documentation of land relationships, and reduce tensions—particularly with newer landlords unfamiliar with traditional land use agreements.

See also  Lil Uzi Vert Teases Release Of Eternal Atake 2 With Album Trailer Shoot

As land remains a sensitive and politically charged issue in Uganda, especially in the Buganda region, government efforts like this one are seen as key to reducing conflict and promoting economic security for millions of rural families.

The Ministry says more sensitization campaigns will follow to help both tenants and landlords understand the new system, how to access the digital platforms, and the legal safeguards now in place.

Source: pressug.com

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter