By the Witness Radio Team

Oil may not yet flow from Uganda’s wells, but for people near the oil fields in midwestern Uganda and along the pipeline corridor, the oil saga has been shaping their lives for years.

They have felt its impact through land they claim is no longer theirs, homes uprooted, roads and infrastructure cutting through fields they once cultivated, and lingering uncertainty after the announcement that their land was needed for a project promising to reshape Uganda’s future.

Uganda stands on the brink of a moment waited for nearly twenty years. The nation is set to produce its first commercial oil this September, and the government touts’ oil as a gateway to new revenue, jobs, infrastructure, and a path toward middle-income status.

Yet as Uganda readies itself for its first barrels, new findings about the French oil giant at the industry’s heart raise a broader question: beyond profits, what is at stake?

These revelations also shed light on TotalEnergies’ broader investment strategy and its growing presence in countries marked by deep political, economic, and human-rights challenges.

TotalEnergies is the operator of the Tilenga oil project in western Uganda and a major shareholder in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), which is intended to transport crude from Uganda’s oil fields to the Tanzanian coast.

A 2026 analysis by German environmental organization Urgewald, based on its Global Oil & Gas Exit List (GOGEL), found that more than half of TotalEnergies’ planned short-term oil and gas development is located in countries classified as autocracies or hybrid regimes.

Of the 7,829 million barrels of oil equivalent identified by Urgewald as part of the company’s planned short-term development, 4,178 million barrels are in those countries. More than 3,700 million barrels are also in countries classified as having high or extreme political and economic risks.

Uganda is among the countries listed in the analysis. Together, Uganda and Mozambique account for about 40 percent of TotalEnergies’ planned short-term upstream expansion. When Iraq is included, the three countries account for more than half of the company’s planned expansion.

The findings do not suggest that Uganda, Mozambique and Iraq share the same political systems or social circumstances. Instead, the three countries stand out in Urgewald’s analysis because of the scale of TotalEnergies’ planned upstream expansion there.

In Uganda, the company is involved in the Tilenga oil project and EACOP. In Mozambique, TotalEnergies is involved in the Mozambique LNG project, while Iraq is another major destination for the company’s planned upstream expansion.

Taken together, these findings position Uganda’s inaugural oil production as a key piece in TotalEnergies’ sweeping global ambitions.

For communities touched by Uganda’s oil ventures, the promise of economic transformation has often arrived as land disputes, compensation battles, and resettlement struggles—realities woven into the fabric of these projects.

The EACOP pipeline carves its way through ten Ugandan districts, demanding land for its path and the infrastructure that follows.

While officials insist that land acquisition and compensation have been handled justly, many in affected communities voice grievances over what they see as insufficient payment for their land, homes, crops, and possessions.

Among them is Bwowe Ismail, a resident of Bethlehem village in Kyotera District. Bwowe told Witness Radio that his land was taken for the project after he demanded compensation he believed matched the value of his land and property.

He says that instead of receiving the compensation he sought, authorities intimidated him and later arrested him.

“Instead of compensating me fairly as I wanted, state authorities intimidated [me], enabled my arrest and accused [me] of sabotaging a government initiative,” Bwowe said.

Bwowe says that on one occasion he was arrested and accused of stealing money from a wealthy man in his village, an allegation he denies.

“They arrested me [and said] that I stole money from someone. I am a respected man in the society and could not do this. They just did it to shame me,” he said.

According to Bwowe, TotalEnergies offered to support his legal representation if he agreed to sit with the company and accept the compensation, but he refused.

He says that after he continued to reject the compensation and resisted what he described as intimidation, the government sued him and others who refused compensation. It asked the court to allow the money to be deposited into court accounts. The court ruled for the government.

Bwowe’s ordeal mirrors a broader struggle over land acquisition and compensation faced by communities in Uganda’s oil regions. More broadly, his story reveals how these conflicts can spiral far beyond the loss of land itself.

In its report, Our Trust is Broken: Loss of Land and Livelihoods for Oil Development in Uganda, Human Rights Watch reported that EACOP and other oil developments have affected more than 100,000 people in Uganda and Tanzania. The report also raised concerns about compensation, resettlement, and the effects of oil development on communities and biodiversity.

For many affected communities, seeking justice remains an uphill battle. Their worries about Uganda’s oil projects extend well beyond land.

Environmental activists and organizations challenging Uganda’s oil expansion have found themselves facing arrests and criminal charges.

In August, 20 youth activists associated with Rooted in Resistance were arrested while delivering petitions to TotalEnergies and Parliament calling for an end to fossil-fuel expansion.

These arrests are part of a growing pattern of detentions and prosecutions targeting activists who oppose EACOP and other oil projects.

Brighton Aryampa, team lead at Youth for Green Communities, an organization that provides legal representation to environmental activists, says the treatment of protesters raises questions about Uganda’s civic space.

“The government is deliberately using legal action against Stop EACOP activists to suppress dissent, free speech, the right to peaceful protest, and public participation. This taints Uganda as a country that undermines democratic principles of free expression and open discourse, as hundreds of Stop EACOP activists have been arrested and charged,” Aryampa said. Concerns about civic space arise as Uganda faces mounting criticism for its record on political freedoms, free expression, treatment of human-rights defenders, and access to justice.

The country ranks 125th out of 142 countries in the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index. Freedom House classifies Uganda as “Not Free”, while CIVICUS gives the country a “Repressed” civic-space rating of 28 out of 100.

All these conditions shape the complex landscape in which Uganda’s oil projects are taking root.

Urgewald describes TotalEnergies as one of the world’s most aggressive oil and gas expanders.

Its 2026 analysis found that TotalEnergies has the largest short-term expansion plans among its major oil and gas peers in authoritarian states and countries classified as high-risk for business.

Sonja Meister, an energy campaigner at Urgewald and author of the analysis, says the company is taking significant risks through its expansion strategy.

“TotalEnergies is taking a huge risk with its fossil fuel expansion and disregarding the repercussions for communities on the ground. This game of roulette has serious consequences for civil society, ecosystems, and the climate alike,” Meister said in an email exchange with Witness Radio.

For Uganda, the significance of the findings lies not just in the amount of oil expected to be produced but in where the country’s projects sit within TotalEnergies’ wider portfolio and what that suggests about the company’s approach. This matter because Uganda is one of several countries where the company pursues major upstream investments despite political, economic, and governance risks identified by organizations such as Urgewald.

Uganda is one of several countries where the company is pursuing major upstream investments despite political, economic, and governance risks identified by organizations such as Urgewald.

This does not mean TotalEnergies’ investments will have identical impacts everywhere or that Uganda’s oil sector will mirror outcomes seen in other countries. Still, it raises pressing questions about how the company weighs political and economic risks, safeguards communities, and responds to human-rights issues as they emerge.

It also sparks important questions about how the company evaluates political and economic risks, shields communities during major developments, and handles human-rights concerns as they surface.

TotalEnergies’ expansion also depends on access to financial markets and investors. According to Urgewald’s analysis, bonds have become an increasingly important source of financing for TotalEnergies compared with loans.

Among the company’s major investors are French financial institutions including Crédit Agricole and Amundi. Deutsche Bank, primarily through DWS, is also a major investor, while German DZ Bank, primarily through Union Investment, is another significant investor.

Urgewald notes that these investors have yet to pledge to stop buying new TotalEnergies bonds, urging financial institutions to rethink their ties to the company and its fossil-fuel ambitions. This financing dilemma is pivotal because TotalEnergies’ expansion hinges on continued access to capital and investors.

Meister says continued expansion depends heavily on access to finance. “TotalEnergies relies on the financial industry’s continuous support. Without new bonds, it would be much harder for the group to finance its destructive expansion projects such as ‘Mozambique LNG’ or ‘EACOP’,” she said.

She said banks and investors financing the company should reconsider their role.

“The banks and investors involved must recognize their responsibility and not sink further funds into these risky endeavors,” Meister said.

The government has hailed Uganda’s first oil production as a landmark economic achievement.

For communities living in the shadow of oil developments, however, the road to first oil has already meant land seizures, compensation wrangles, forced relocations, and at times, direct clashes with authorities and oil firms.

Meanwhile, Urgewald’s research situates Uganda within a sweeping trend of TotalEnergies’ global fossil-fuel expansion, especially in countries flagged for serious political, economic, or governance risks.

Witness Radio sought a response from TotalEnergies Uganda to the concerns raised in this story, including issues relating to land acquisition, compensation, treatment of protesters and the company’s wider expansion strategy. We contacted the company’s Corporate Affairs Manager, Anita Kayongo, by email and telephone but had not received a response by the time of publication.

By Milliam Murigi

Two decades after the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) promised to transform African agriculture through improved seeds, synthetic fertilisers and better market access, a new report says hunger has instead increased across the countries targeted by the initiative.

The report dubbed, The Green Revolution Has Failed Africa: Twenty Years of Evidence and What Works Instead, finds that the number of chronically undernourished people across AGRA’s 13 priority countries increased by 58 per cent between 2006 and the latest available data. This is nearly twice the 31 per cent increase identified in an earlier assessment published in 2020.

These countries include Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia.

“The issue is larger than whether AGRA met the targets it announced in 2006. It is whether two decades of increased fertiliser use, public subsidy, commercial seed promotion and policy reform accelerated productivity, used land more efficiently, strengthened resilience and improved food security,” reads part of the report prepared by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA).

Further, the fertiliser use more than doubled across the countries during the period, while the area under cultivation expanded by 46 per cent. Despite this expansion, growth in staple-crop yields slowed compared with the 12 years before AGRA was established.

Much of the increase in food production therefore came from bringing more land under cultivation rather than significantly increasing productivity on existing farmland.

“This is not an argument against improved seeds, fertiliser or new technology. Farmers need science, finance, infrastructure and strong public support. The question is what kind of food system these investments are building, who controls it and who benefits,” reads another part of the report

The expansion also came with a shift towards maize monocultures, while traditional drought-resilient crops such as millet and sorghum lost ground. Malawi provides what the report describes as a striking example of the disconnect between agricultural productivity and food security. The country recorded the strongest yield growth among the countries studied, yet the number of people facing hunger increased by 61 per cent.

The findings suggest that producing more of a single crop does not necessarily make households more food secure, particularly when farming systems are vulnerable to drought, high input costs and other shocks.

“The shift displaced crops important to nutrition, local food cultures and resilience under dry conditions, while increasing dependence on maize, commercial seed and purchased inputs,” reveals the report.

AFSA identifies Senegal as a contrasting example. The country was not among AGRA’s priority countries but reduced hunger by about half over the same period, bringing the prevalence of undernourishment below five per cent of the population.

At the same time, millet production increased by 85 per cent and sorghum production by 75 per cent. The report attributes Senegal’s progress partly to maintaining diversified farming systems rather than relying heavily on a single crop and an input-intensive production model. It also notes that Senegal used substantially less fertiliser than countries such as Zambia.

“The agroecological alternative isn’t theoretical. Farmers are already building it. Restoring soils, protecting their seeds, diversifying their farms and reducing dependence on expensive external inputs. It’s time to fund what works,” said Dr. Million Belay, AFSA General Coordinator.

The report argues that agroecology including farmer-managed seed systems, soil restoration and diversified farming offers an alternative to approaches that make farmers increasingly dependent on purchased seeds, fertilisers and other external inputs.

The findings are particularly relevant for Zambia, where agricultural policy has heavily prioritised subsidised inputs and maize production.

Mutinta Nketani, National Coordinator of the Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity, said Zambia allocates up to 72 per cent of its agriculture budget to subsidising a single input package. Yet maize yields increased by only 14 per cent while the amount of land under cultivation nearly doubled.

“After billions poured into AGRA-aligned policies, farmers have only grown hungrier and more in debt,” Nketani said.

The AFSA report comes as African governments prepare a new 10-year agricultural strategy under the Kampala CAADP framework. The strategy is expected to guide billions of dollars in agricultural, development and climate financing across the continent.

AFSA is cautioning governments and development partners against repeating what it describes as the shortcomings of the previous agricultural development model.

The organization says there is now an opportunity to redirect agricultural financing towards approaches that strengthen farmers’ resilience rather than increasing dependence on external inputs.

“Africa does not need another Green Revolution. We need a food systems transformation rooted in our people, our biodiversity, our knowledge and our right to determine our own agricultural future,” adds Belay.

The organisation recommends shifting 10 per cent of existing agricultural financing towards farmer-managed seed systems, soil health and diversified production by 2028. It proposes increasing this to 25 per cent by 2030 and 33 per cent by 2035.

Six African countries already have national agroecology laws, while another five are developing similar legislation, according to the report.

For AFSA, the issue is therefore not whether Africa needs to invest more in agriculture, but where that investment should go.

“African farmers must stop being treated as beneficiaries of someone else’s transformation,” Belay writes in the report’s foreword. “They must be its authors.”

Source: news.scienceafrica.co.ke/

By the Witness Radio team.

Civil society organizations throughout the East African Community are raising their voices, urging that smallholder farmers and farmer-managed seed systems practitioners receive the recognition they deserve in the upcoming East African Community Seed and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025.

This call to action follows public hearings held across EAC partner states from August 26 to 28, 2026. Diverse voices gathered to shape the future of regional seed legislation. However, participation by smallholder farmers and farmer-managed seed systems practitioners was limited.

These hearings united government officials, farmers, civil society groups, researchers, seed regulators, commercial seed sector representatives, and other stakeholders, all eager to share their perspectives and recommendations on the Bill.

The proposed legislation aims to create a unified approach to seed and plant variety regulation across the region. It covers seed certification, variety release, and the movement and trade of seeds across borders.

Civil society organizations from several countries argue that the proposed framework overlooks the vital role of smallholder farmers and farmer-managed seed systems practitioners who have sustained farming communities for generations.

They emphasize that although the formal and commercial seed sector is important, farmers must retain the freedom to save, exchange, multiply, and replant seeds within their communities.

In Kenya, civil society organizations participated in the public hearings, advocating for recognition of farmers, farmer-managed seed systems, traditional landraces, and community seed banks.

Tabby Munyiri of Seed Savers Network said the concern was not about rejecting the formal seed sector, but ensuring that farmers have a choice.

“We recognize the importance of the formal seed system, and we believe that farmers should be able to have an option; farmers should be able to have a choice, and that is why we are calling for an inclusive law,” Munyiri said.

She highlighted that traditional and indigenous seed varieties are crucial for preserving biodiversity and equipping farmers with more options as they adapt to shifting climate conditions.

In Uganda, civil society organizations echoed these concerns, stressing the need to explicitly recognize farmer-managed seed systems rather than relying on vague references to farmers in the proposed regional framework.

During the consultations, Dr. David Kabanda of the Center for Food and Adequate Resources Rights Africa (CEFROHT) urged lawmakers to safeguard farmers’ rights and ensure that commercial interests do not undermine farmer-managed systems.

“We need to critically and deeply think about this issue as East Africans. We can wake up to a very sad reality, and it has started happening, when a few corporate companies take over everything,” Kabanda said.

Kabanda also questioned whether the proposed Bill aligns with the international and African commitments that EAC partner states have pledged to uphold.

He cited the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, particularly Article 9, which addresses farmers’ rights. Kabanda argued that the regional legislation should reflect these commitments and criticized the Bill for what he described as inadequate attention to farmers’ rights.

In Tanzania, civil society representatives described a consultation process that brought together a wide range of stakeholders. David Manongi of the Tanzania Alliance for Biodiversity (TABIO) noted that farmers, women, youth, civil society organizations, government officials, researchers, and seed regulators all took part in the discussions.

He added that civil society organizations held preparatory meetings before the public hearing to review the Bill and consolidate concerns and recommendations.

“The meeting provided us with an opportunity to review the Bill and consolidate the concerns and recommendations,” Manongi said.

According to Manongi, stakeholders advocated measures to safeguard farmer seed systems. They focused on ensuring that farmer-managed seed systems and community seed banks are recognized within the regional framework.

In Rwanda, civil society representatives voiced worries about the lack of awareness among organizations that work directly with smallholder farmers regarding the consultations.

Dieudonne Sindikubwabo, who works with the Rwanda Organic Agriculture Movement (ROAM), said many organizations working closely with farmers were unaware that the public hearings were taking place until the process had begun.

“I work with smallholder farmers daily. But when you look at how the Bill is designed, I feel very little involvement of smallholder farmers was done,” Sindikubwabo said.

He explained that his concerns went beyond participation to the substance of the proposed legislation.

Sindikubwabo pointed out that the Bill favors commercialization but falls short in clearly outlining farmers’ rights to keep, exchange, and multiply seeds.

“The Bill is not in favor of smallholder farmers, because they are just focusing on commercialization,” he said.

In Burundi, civil society representatives questioned the inclusiveness of the consultation process, noting they were not formally invited and that farmers were missing from the discussions.

Tusiime Pauline, a legal adviser assisting Burundian civil society organizations, stressed that the absence of farmers was especially troubling since the proposed legislation will directly impact them.

“We didn’t have the farmers there because farmers were not invited,” Pauline said.

She noted that civil society representatives still attended and presented recommendations after preparing submissions and proposed amendments to the Bill. However, she lamented that the discussions largely ignored concerns about farmers’ absence.

“We managed to attend the hearings despite lacking a formal invitation. Leaving out civil society and farmers without inviting them makes the process unfair,” she said.

In Somalia, civil society representatives voiced broader worries about whether rural communities have the awareness and capacity to understand and participate in policy discussions that directly affect them.

Mohammed Hassan from the Center for Dryland Development & Resilience Systems (CDDRS) emphasized the need to share information about the proposed legislation with rural communities, especially those relying on farming and traditional production systems.

“We need to make sure information about these policies reaches rural communities, so the people directly affected can understand what is being discussed and have an opportunity to participate.”

Hassan pointed out that public awareness is crucial because many rural communities may lack sufficient information about policy debates at national and regional levels.

The stories shared by civil society representatives from six of the eight EAC partner states reveal a patchwork of experiences with the consultations, bringing a range of perspectives into the ongoing debate over seed and plant variety regulation in East Africa.

Although the proposed law aims to establish a unified regulatory framework for the region, civil society organizations are urging lawmakers to ensure it also reflects the lived realities of farmers who rely on seed systems beyond the formal commercial market.

Their submissions raise broader questions about how the regional seed system can balance commercial interests, farmers’ rights, biodiversity, and the ongoing use of indigenous and farmer-managed seed systems.

The organizations are also calling for the concerns voiced during the consultations to be genuinely considered before the Bill moves forward in the legislative process.

For farmers, the outcome of this process could determine how they access, save, exchange, and use seeds for years to come. As the EAC weighs the recommendations from the consultations, all eyes are now on how these competing perspectives will shape the next version of the proposed law.