By the Witness Radio team.

Long criticized for the harms its projects cause to communities and the environment, the World Bank Group has now announced a sweeping overhaul of its accountability system, aiming to improve justice for those affected.

For years, communities and civil society groups have used the World Bank’s accountability mechanisms—including the IDA Inspection Panel, Dispute Resolution Service, and IFC/MIGA Compliance Advisor Ombudsman—to file complaints about funded projects. However, critics say these mechanisms often fail to provide effective remedies to those harmed by World Bank investments.

The Boards of IBRD, IDA, IFC, and MIGA have approved a single, integrated World Bank Group Independent Accountability Mechanism (IAM).

Approved on July 8, 2026, this decision will unify the World Bank Accountability Mechanism, the Inspection Panel, and the IFC/MIGA Compliance Advisor Ombudsman into one system.

A June 9 World Bank statement said the new mechanism will operate independently, report directly to the Boards, and be led by a Vice President/Director General.

“The integrated IAM will carry out three functions—compliance, dispute resolution, and advisory services—and is designed to make accountability simpler and clearer for complainants,” the World Bank said.

Furthermore, the reform aims to reduce fragmentation and strengthen coherence across World Bank Group operations.

The Bank said the new policy will build on current experience and maintain existing protections during the transition. The framework will be developed with Board oversight and stakeholder consultations.

The statement says transparent, competitive recruitment for the Vice President/Director General will begin immediately under Board leadership, while current mechanisms continue.

“In the interim, all three existing mechanisms will continue to function under their existing policies and mandates. No active or pending cases will be affected.” The statement says.

While supporting accountability efforts, civil society groups have raised concerns about the mechanism’s leadership selection.

In a letter to the Boards, seven civil society groups, joined by 38 others, called for a transparent, inclusive recruitment process for new IAM leadership.

“A strong hiring process for IAM leadership is crucial to the independence and legitimacy of an IAM,” the organizations wrote.

The participation of external stakeholders, especially civil society, is standard in IAM hiring. The CAO DG/VP process has included civil society on the selection committee for years,” they added.

The organizations warned that failing to meet CAO standards undermines the Bank’s commitment to non-regression.

“We will consider any selection process that falls below the standard set by the CAO DG/VP hiring process, as enshrined in the CAO’s policy and established through past practice, as a violation of your commitment to non-regression,” the letter states.

Under the CAO policy, independence requires a transparent, participatory selection with stakeholders from civil society and business.

The groups urge the Boards to guarantee civil society a formal role in recruitment.

“We strongly urge the Board to formally confirm that civil society representatives will have a structured role in the current recruitment process for the Vice President/Director General of the new IAM,” the letter adds.

This decision to integrate accountability mechanisms also follows recommendations from a World Bank Group Task Force that reviewed the effectiveness of the current system.

The Task Force found that while current mechanisms are broadly effective, they face major challenges with accessibility, consistency, and delivery of remedies.

As the World Bank Group advances these reforms, civil society engagement in recruitment will be pivotal to ensure accountability and justice are strengthened, not weakened. The coming months will be decisive in whether the new Independent Accountability Mechanism fulfills its promise and secures the lasting trust of the communities it serves.

By the Witness Radio team.

Up to half of the world’s rangelands are already degraded or at risk because of climate change, unsustainable agricultural expansion, and severe droughts. These landscapes provide food and feed for about 2 billion people worldwide, accounting for nearly 70 percent of the feed produced for livestock, making them among the most important yet least protected ecosystems for food security, biodiversity, and pastoral livelihoods.

This year’s Desertification and Drought Day, observed on 17 June 2026 under the theme “Rangelands: Recognize. Respect. Restore.”, highlighted pastoral mobility as an urgent and essential approach to protecting rangelands amid climate threats.

Scientists and policymakers worldwide warn that rangelands face increasing threats from land degradation, climate change, and competing land uses, jeopardizing livelihoods and ecological stability in dryland regions.

In a video message marking the day, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres emphasized the importance of Indigenous and pastoral knowledge systems in protecting fragile ecosystems. He said,

“This year also marks the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists—a chance to support pastoralists and Indigenous Peoples whose traditional knowledge can help protect these ecosystems. To protect our future, we must protect the land.”

His message highlights the global recognition that pastoral mobility, once seen as outdated, is now a vital survival strategy amid scarcity and climate unpredictability.

The United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) Executive Secretary, Yasmine Fouad, also stressed that rangeland restoration must move from policy commitments to practical implementation at scale. She noted that “as droughts intensify and competition over land and water resources grows, restoring rangelands must become part of how countries strengthen resilience, secure food systems, reduce risk and support livelihoods.”

Yasim’s views underscore concerns within the UN that continued rangeland degradation will increase food insecurity, displacement, and ecological collapse if not urgently addressed.

From a research and policy perspective, Dr. Michael Brüntrup, an Agricultural Economist and Senior Researcher at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), explains that pastoralism remains central to global land use systems and rural economies. He observes in his 2026 analysis that sustainable pastoralism relies on mobility and ecological balance, following natural vegetation cycles and enabling ecosystem regeneration. Restricting mobility undermines rangelands’ ecological integrity.s.

These global trends are stark in Uganda’s cattle corridor, spanning about 84,000 square kilometers—44 percent of the country’s landmass. This vast zone stretches from southern and central Uganda to the northeastern drylands of Karamoja and is home to pastoral and agro-pastoral communities whose livelihoods rely on seasonal livestock migration for pasture and water. But these systems face mounting pressure. Climate change worsens droughts and reduces pasture. Land fragmentation and privatization disrupt traditional mobility. Large-scale agricultural projects further reduce grazing land, fueling competition and conflict. A major structural shift has also contributed to these challenges. Uganda’s transition from customary communal land governance to individualized land tenure systems has weakened traditional pastoral management practices. This transformation has reduced land-use flexibility, disrupted seasonal mobility patterns, and increased exposure to land grabbing and displacement.

Although Uganda has established legal and policy frameworks governing land and environmental management, implementation gaps continue to undermine pastoral resilience. Pastoral mobility is still weakly integrated into national land-use planning, communal grazing systems are insufficiently protected, and regional frameworks such as the IGAD Protocol on Transhumance remain only partially domesticated.

The 2026 Desertification and Drought Day coincided with the International Year of Rangelands and Pastoralists, reinforcing global calls to recognize, respect, and restore these ecosystems. While the main global observance was held in Kenya, Uganda’s rangelands remain part of the same fragile ecological system and face similar pressures from climate change, land degradation, and governance challenges.

Ultimately, experts and global leaders agree that the future of rangelands depends on urgent government action: recognizing pastoral mobility as an essential land-use system, strengthening tenure security, and investing in ecosystem restoration. As the United Nations Secretary-General emphasized, protecting land is inseparable from protecting humanity’s future. Now is the time for governments to act decisively to secure these vital landscapes for future generations.

By the Witness Radio team.

Civil society organizations warn that the African Development Bank’s (AfDB) newly launched New African Financial Architecture for Development (NAFAD) may reinforce existing challenges in African food systems and investment priorities.

The concerns follow the AfDB Annual Meetings in Brazzaville, Republic of Congo, from 25–29 May 2026, during which the Bank and its partners endorsed NAFAD as a framework for mobilizing large-scale development financing across Africa.

The meetings produced three outcomes: AfDB Board of Governors’ endorsement of NAFAD and its Four Cardinal Points; the launch of the African Economic Outlook 2026, estimating a $400 billion annual financing gap; and the Brazzaville Appeal, inviting civil society, diaspora, and philanthropists to support the initiative’s vision and objectives.

Meanwhile, civil society organizations such as the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) and Stop Financing Factory Farming (S3F) have issued a joint statement expressing reservations about the initiative’s direction, particularly its implications for African food systems. The groups argue that Africa’s problem is not capital shortage but governance and investment decisions.

“Africa does not have a capital shortage. It lacks democratic control over capital allocation. NAFAD addresses capital, but not governance,” the statement says.

The statement notes that Africa holds about $4 trillion in domestic savings—much of it invested outside the continent—including pension, sovereign wealth, and insurance funds. It also highlights the decline in global aid levels. These factors underscore the need to mobilize African capital for development.

However, the organizations caution that, without safeguards, the initiative may replicate existing industrial, input-intensive investment models in agriculture.

They state NAFAD lacks a clear definition of “productive investment” and specific commitments to agroecology, smallholder systems, or land rights.

It further argues that without a binding investment framework, the initiative may simply follow AfDB’s agricultural priorities.

NAFAD does not propose a new architecture. It aims to capitalize on the existing one by leveraging African savings, possibly shifting power centers while retaining the extractivist structure.

The statement also references a 2025 AFSA assessment of 20 AfDB agricultural projects using an agroecology evaluation tool, which reportedly found low alignment with agroecological principles across all projects reviewed, including flagship programs such as the Technologies for African Agricultural Transformation (TAAT) and Special Agro-Industrial Processing Zones (SAPZ).

Civil society groups also voice concern about rising private-sector agribusiness investments in African agriculture by firms such as ETG, Zambeef, and DAL Group.

Another concern is what organizations call “natural capital financialization,” including carbon markets and biodiversity financing. They argue that such methods could risk land dispossession unless strong community protections are in place.

“All NAFAD-funded carbon, biodiversity, and ecosystem service programs must require binding FPIC, protect land rights, and have independent oversight with community-defined benefit sharing.”

Furthermore, the statement questions NAFAD’s governance, arguing that key stakeholder groups, such as farmer organizations and land rights movements, were not adequately represented in its design.

African pension funds, sovereign wealth, and diaspora capital could finance a large-scale agroecological transition—supporting farmer-managed seeds, territorial markets, community land tenure, and biodiverse food systems. This is the financial architecture Africa’s producers need. It requires political will to define African financial sovereignty by including the people whose labor secures Africa’s food supply, the organizations add.

The groups note that, while the Brazzaville Appeal invites civil society to “embrace the vision” of NAFAD, this should also mean greater participation in shaping its design, not just its implementation.

Despite concerns, AFSA and S3F remain open to engaging with AfDB and partners. They will independently monitor NAFAD’s impact on communities, land, and biodiversity.

They also called for reforms: a binding investment mandate with agroecological requirements, independent audits of AfDB agricultural programs, stronger protections for community land rights, and greater transparency across all NAFAD investments.

AfDB has not yet publicly responded to the specific concerns in the statement.