By the Witness Radio Team.

As the world races to abandon fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy to avert climate catastrophe, development banks, governments, and corporations promote this transition as a global priority. In Asia, this transition, presented as a path to a clean-energy future, is shadowed by serious concerns about who bears its costs.

However, for many Indigenous peoples, farmers, fisherfolk, and urban poor living on lands targeted by these projects, the energy transition has led to displacement, repression, and the loss of livelihoods.

This alternative reality is documented in a new regional report, Financing the Transition, Silencing Defenders. The report details how communities raising concerns about renewable energy projects across seven Asian countries have faced reprisals ranging from harassment and arrests to military occupation and killings.

The report challenges the region’s energy transition. It argues that renewable energy projects use vast resources, burdening Indigenous and local communities who have contributed little to the climate crisis. The report documents how these projects cause displacement, loss of cultural identity, ecological disruption, health risks, and increased debt.

Security forces were often reported to have carried out reprisals. Police and the military were frequently deployed to sites. Communities described beatings, arrests, and intimidation during consultations, compensation, and construction.

Rather than providing security, the report concludes that “in most contexts, their presence does not make communities feel secure, but rather threatened and silenced.”

The report goes on to describe how, in several documented cases, security personnel forcibly entered villages, dismantled community barricades, demolished homes, and stopped peaceful protests. According to the report, these confrontations often escalated tensions and contributed to the criminalization of local resistance.

The report underscores a central argument: when communities raise concerns, their voices are systematically silenced through SLAPPs, attacks, criminalization, intimidation, and discrimination—primarily by local authorities and security forces. These practices form a system of control involving governments, security forces, corporations, and development banks to repress dissent and maintain project momentum.

The 44-page report examined 12 renewable energy and energy-transition projects across seven Asian countries—India, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Tajikistan, Thailand, and the Maldives. It was produced by the Coalition for Rights in Development, a global network representing over 100 social movements, civil society organizations, grassroots groups, and partners.

Despite variations in scale and technology among these projects, affected communities across these countries consistently reported being excluded from decision-making processes.

Many projects moved forward without real consultation or Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples. Communities said they were told about decisions after the fact, kept from key project details, or pressured to accept compensation.

As the report notes, when projects exclude rights holders from decision-making, it often leads to protests, legal challenges, and revoked permits. These outcomes raise costs and cause delays. More importantly, leaving out affected communities creates mistrust toward specific projects and the broader energy transition narrative that justifies them.

In Assam, India, Indigenous Karbi, Naga, and Adivasi communities oppose a solar project projected to affect more than 20,000 people. Community representatives report that consultations were held in only 9 of the 23 impacted villages, leaving thousands excluded from the process. They claim the project threatens livelihoods, land rights, biodiversity, bamboo forests, and elephant habitats.

“The project was approved without ensuring the communities’ Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). Consultations were held in only 9 out of 23 impacted villages, thus excluding thousands from the process,” the report states.

Researchers found that when communities attempt to challenge the harmful impacts of these projects, they are often labeled anti-development, extremists, or threats to national interests. In response, authorities, corporations, and local officials have reportedly targeted outspoken community leaders and sought to isolate them.

According to the report, “government authorities, private companies, and other actors who have a vested interest in the projects identify the most vocal community members and human rights defenders who are raising concerns and stigmatize them.”

In another case, in Pakistan, activists opposing hydropower projects reported receiving threats from authorities. They have also been accused of working against national development goals. The Madyan Hydropower Project is funded by the World Bank. The Torwali Indigenous community worries about their land, culture, and future.

Similarly, in the Philippines, environmental defenders and Indigenous leaders who oppose dam projects have faced “red-tagging.” This is a tactic that labels activists as communist sympathizers or security threats. The report says these tactics have created fear and deterred people from participating in public consultations.

Poorly planned projects imposed without meaningful consent harm communities, and those voicing concerns face intimidation and reprisals.

Many projects are led by major public development finance institutions. These include the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. These institutions are directly implicated in reported abuses and the silencing of communities.

The findings directly challenge development banks: they must choose either to fund actors implicated in human rights violations or to actively leverage their influence to uphold community rights and genuine participation in Asia’s energy transition.

“Banks can either look the other way and continue funding government and corporate entities that have historically disregarded human rights and environmental sustainability, or they can use their influence to ensure that the highest standards and safeguards are upheld. The report states that development banks have responsibilities regarding both the prevention of and response to reprisals,” the report states.

The report calls on development banks to improve environmental and social safeguards. Banks should conduct thorough risk assessments and implement measures to ensure safe, meaningful engagement with affected communities. This should happen throughout the energy transition.

Development banks invoke the push to abandon fossil fuels to underscore urgency, but the report warns that this urgency is sometimes misused to accelerate approvals, rush assessments, and limit community consultation—thereby undermining both human rights and the legitimacy of the transition.

By the Witness Radio team.

In Buvuma District, a group of Bibanja holders drove away surveyors and protested what they regarded as land-grabbing for palm oil cultivation. Residents state they have lawfully occupied the land for over seven decades. In Uganda, a Kibanja holder is a tenant who uses land without an official, registered title.

Under the 1995 Constitution of Uganda and the Land Act (Cap 227), Kibanja holders are legally recognized as lawful or bona fide occupants. This grants them significant security of tenure and protects them from arbitrary or illegal evictions.

According to sources, surveyors reportedly supported by the Resident District Commissioner (RDC) attempted land demarcation, mapping, and surveying without following due process. The RDC represents the president’s office at the district level.

The land is being claimed by Mutamba Berna, Bagagga Ali, and Nalugo Swabulah, who, according to residents, began forcibly opening boundaries in May.

More than 30 Bibanja holders report that individuals described as land grabbers are using the Resident District Commissioner’s office to conduct surveys and demarcate land without their consent.

“We have lived on this land all our lives, and now people we have never known are appearing and using the office of the RDC as a cover. They have started forceful land measurements,” Ambrose told Witness Radio.

Residents say over 45 hectares in Kigobero Village, Bukinarwa Parish, Buwooya Sub-county are threatened.

Ambrose Wazaabwe, 76, who was born and raised on the disputed land, never expected strangers to challenge the ownership his family has depended on for generations.

“I only heard rumors that landlords would take our land. Later, they started boundary surveys without our consent,” he said.

Ambrose, a farmer, relies on his five-acre plot for his family’s survival and says he is unsure how they will survive if evicted.

“I mainly farm cassava, bananas, and sweet potatoes. I also keep animals and use the income to support my family of seven,” he added.

Ambrose is among more than 30 Bibanja holders facing threats of a land eviction by a group of individuals identified as Mutamba Berna, Bagagga Ali, and Nalugo Swabulah, who have recently surfaced and are claiming ownership of the land.

Witness Radio investigations reveal that the disputed land is registered under mailo, one of Uganda’s tenure systems. Originally, Plot 1, Block 34, was registered in the name of Mulinya Yokaana (deceased), who acquired it in 1936. Since then, the land has changed hands several times, with recent claimants appearing after a 2016 transfer.

Land documents seen by Witness Radio show that in 2016, Nalugo, Lugoloobi Ibrahim, Bagagga Ali, and Babirye Aidah acquired the land, reportedly without informing Bibanja holders. In 2024, the title changed and is now under Mutamba Berna, Bagaga Ali, and Nalugo Swabulah. Witness Radio cannot verify the authenticity of these documents or whether proper notification or procedures were followed during the transfers.

When contacted, Nalugo Swabulah, one of the landlords, asserted that they are the late Yokaana’s grandchildren and rightful landowners.

The individuals allegedly sought the RDC’s help to claim the land earlier.

Isaac Kizito, another affected resident, first met the alleged landlords at the RDC’s office.

“The RDC called us to meet alleged landowners. We’d never seen them, and they didn’t seem to know each other. Next, boundaries were marked,” he said.

Ambrose says the alleged grabbers never provide documents authorizing them to survey.

“They act illegally and bring no orders. Sometimes they come at night. If right, why hide? Worst, government offices support them,” he added.

Mr. Aisu Charles, former Buwooya chairperson, doubts Swabulah’s group owns the land and suggests their documents may be forged.

“During my term, some claimed to be Yokaana’s grandchildren. When Swabulah’s group came, we found their claims lacking detail and consistency. We asked for more proof, which they never gave,” he said.

Witness Radio contacted RDC Hawah Namugenyi, who is alleged to support the claimed landlords; she declined to comment.

Per President Museveni’s directives, no evictions occur without a District Security Committee meeting led by the RDC and with the Ministry of Lands.

Nalugo Swabulah maintained that she has ownership rights over the land, insisting she holds a valid land title registered in her name and those of her relatives.

“It is not true that I am an absentee landlord. I have documents that prove our ownership of the land. Let those who claim ownership also present their documents,” she said.

Musagala Atanansi, land rights defender and Buwooya Sub-county chairperson, said Buvuma has long faced illegal land evictions by absent landlords.

“Some land grabbers seize land fraudulently. I have never seen Nalugo and her group as locals. They now market the land for sale. We, as leaders, ask—what’s the rush?” he said.

By the Witness Radio team

As Uganda faces mounting environmental pressures, environmental advocates warn that the country’s rapid surge in land-based investments is driving ecological destruction and increasing rural communities’ vulnerability.

Among the most controversial of these investments is the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), which environmentalists, human rights defenders, and affected communities say is intensifying ecological risks while triggering a wave of repression against those who oppose it.

The $5 billion EACOP project, led by TotalEnergies and partners, spans 1,444 kilometers from Hoima to Tanga. It passes through diverse ecosystems and has affected thousands through land acquisition. Experts warn that the pipeline threatens sensitive environments and may increase carbon emissions.

There has been a price to pay for opposing the project. More than 150 environmental and human rights activists have reportedly been arrested and charged in Uganda for protesting EACOP and related oil developments for their negative impacts. Michel Forst, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Environmental Defenders, last year criticizedcriticized TotalEnergies for “continually failing to protect environmental defenders adequately” and expressed concern about the project.

For many advocates, EACOP is more than just a controversial oil pipeline. This represents a new development model in Uganda in which large-scale land investments are being prioritized over environmental protection, community rights, and long-term climate resilience.

As Uganda joins the rest of the world to mark World Environment Day 2026, organizations such as Witness Radio Uganda warn that poorly planned and poorly regulated land-based investments threaten to worsen the country’s ongoing ecological crisis.

From commercial agriculture and industrial tree plantations to carbon offset projects, mining operations, and large-scale infrastructure developments, forests, wetlands, and customary lands are being transformed into investment zones at unprecedented rates. While these projects are often promoted as engines of economic growth or climate solutions, environmental defenders argue that they are accelerating deforestation, biodiversity loss, land dispossession, and climate vulnerability.

According to the Land Matrix Initiative, more than 370,000 hectares of land in Uganda have been acquired through large-scale land deals in recent years, reflecting a broader trend of intensifying pressure on land and natural resources. Although these investments are often framed as pathways to modernization, critics argue that they are reshaping land use in ways that undermine ecological stability and local food systems.

The organization cited several examples of investments whose activities raise environmental concerns. In districts such as Mubende, the Namwasa Forest Reserve has been converted into industrial tree plantations dominated by eucalyptus and pine species. Communities and environmental researchers warn that such monoculture plantations reduce biodiversity, alter water cycles, and degrade soil quality over time.

Similar patterns are emerging in other parts of the country. In Kiryandongo District, for instance, commercial agriculture has expanded into previously forested and communal lands, accelerating land degradation and restricting community access to resources on which many households depend for survival.

At the same time, carbon offset and so-called “climate-smart” agriculture projects have proliferated in Uganda in recent years. They are often promoted as the solution to climate change. However, critics say they are changing land use from food production to monoculture plantations or to carbon markets controlled from outside. Smallholder farmers often sign contracts without understanding the long-term implications, sparking concerns about land control, benefit sharing, and food sovereignty.

Witness Radio Uganda warns that unless urgent action is taken, the country risks locking itself into a development pathway that deepens both ecological breakdown and social inequality.

“Uganda is facing a silent but accelerating ecological emergency,” says Jeff Wokulira Ssebaggala, Executive Director of Witness Radio Uganda, adding that “What is being promoted as development is too often the systematic conversion of forests, wetlands, and community lands into investment zones that weaken both people and nature. If we continue on this path, we are not just losing biodiversity but also undermining the very foundation of rural survival and climate resilience.”

On World Environment Day 2026, Witness Radio is calling for urgent structural reforms, including an immediate halt to the allocation of forests, wetlands, and ecologically sensitive ecosystems to private investors; stronger independent environmental governance; recognition and enforcement of customary land rights; full implementation of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC); and an end to the criminalization of environmental and land rights defenders.