Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

European banks risk legal onslaught, reputational damage by backing controversial EACOP project

Published

on

StopEACOP coalition warns of imminent litigation and formal complaints against seven unnamed European banks considering financing the destructive and controversial pipeline
The StopEACOP coalition warned today that seven European banks will be walking into a minefield of litigation, formal complaints, and severe reputational damage, if they go ahead with their reported promise to finance the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) which to many is highly controversial.

Earlier this month, Ugandan media reported that two Chinese and seven European banks “have promised to finance” the damaging pipeline project, which has been seeking a US $3 billion project finance loan from commercial banks since as early as 2017. This followed a report the previous month claiming that nine European banks would finance the project. In that report, Uganda’s Minister of Energy and Mineral Development, Hon. Ruth Nankabirwa, was quoted as saying that finance from European banks “was a requirement from China that let this project not be seen as Chinese banks only.” The project has not yet reached financial close, meaning the loan has not yet been agreed, and insurance for the project is not yet in place.

Zaki Mamdoo, StopEACOP Campaign Coordinator, said: “If it is true that seven European banks have promised to finance the EACOP, they should know that we will use all avenues available, including all legal avenues, to hold them accountable. This project is already mired in well-documented human rights abuses, and any bank stepping in to support it at this stage will be complicit in these.”

Ryan Brightwell, Human Rights Campaign Lead at BankTrack said: “The largest banks in Europe can see EACOP poses immense risks, and have said they will steer clear. If seven European banks have really agreed to finance the project, they should know they will face a huge reputational hit, as well as likely official complaints and legal challenges. They should not allow themselves to be used to greenwash a project which Chinese financiers find too controversial to shoulder alone.”

Diana Nabiruma of Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) said, “News that any financial institution, European or Chinese, is interested in supporting the EACOP, is surprising. The project’s proponents have shown such a disregard for the wellbeing of the affected people so much so that in August, they sued 80 people including the terminally ill, the elderly and others, so that their land could be forcefully taken for the project. Reports on the impact that oil activities are having on Murchison Falls National Park also paint a dire picture. No responsible bank should finance the destruction of people and nature.”

The $5 billion EACOP project, spearheaded by TotalEnergies, aims to transport crude oil from Uganda’s oil fields to a terminal in Tanga, Tanzania. On September 6th, 2024, 20 anti-EACOP activists and some of the project-affected people were released after spending nearly a week in prison for protesting against the controversial pipeline. Just a month earlier, police had arrested 50 people, including 47 students, who were preparing to voice opposition to EACOP.

Environmental and human rights groups have persistently highlighted the potential hazards of the controversial EACOP, including severe impacts on wildlife habitats, the displacement of communities, and the exacerbation of climate change through increased greenhouse gas emissions. Many field investigation reports, including a recent Human Rights Watch report, have also documented and denounced the inadequate compensation and significant disruption experienced by residents displaced by the pipeline’s construction.

At least 27 banks have already refused to join the project finance loan for EACOP, including Japan’s SMBC, formerly an advisor on the loan, and the UK’s Standard Chartered, which spent over a year undertaking due diligence on supporting it. In addition, 29 major (re)insurers have ruled out support for the pipeline.

European banks that are not listed on the StopEACOP Bank Checklist as having ruled out support for the project are urged to make contact with the coalition to make their position clear.

Original Source: Banktrack

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

“Vacant Land” Narrative Fuels Dispossession and Ecological Crisis in Africa – New report.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

Over the years, the African continent has been damaged by the notion that it has vast and vacant land that is unused or underutilised, waiting to be transformed into industrial farms or profitable carbon markets. This myth, typical of the colonial era ideologies, has justified land grabs, mass displacements, and environmental destruction in the name of development and modernisation.

A new report by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) titled “Land Availability and Land-Use Changes in Africa (2025)” dismisses this narrative as misleading. Drawing on satellite data, field research, and interviews with farmers across Africa, including Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, the study reveals that far from being empty, Africa’s landscapes are multifunctional systems that sustain millions of lives.

“Much of the land labelled as “underutilised” is, in fact, used for grazing, shifting cultivation, gathering wild foods, spiritual practices, or is part of ecologically significant systems such as forests, wetlands, or savannahs. These uses are often invisible in formal land registries or economic metrics but are essential for local livelihoods and biodiversity. Moreover, the land often carries layered customary claims and is far from being available for simple expropriation,” says the report.

“Africa has seen three waves of dispossession, and we are in the midst of the third. The first was the alienation of land through conquest and annexation in the colonial period. In some parts of the continent, there have been reversals as part of national liberation struggles and the early independence era. But state developmentalism through the post-colonial period also brought about a second wave of state-driven land dispossession.” This historical context is crucial to understanding the current state of land rights and development in Africa. Said Ruth Hall, a professor at the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAS), at the University of the Western Cape in Cape Town, South Africa, during the official launch of the report.

The report further underestimates the assumption that smallholder farmers are unproductive and should be replaced with mechanised large-scale farming, leading to a loss of food sovereignty.

“The claim that small-scale farmers are incapable of feeding Africa is not supported by evidence. Africa has an estimated 33 million smallholder farmers, who manage 80% of the continent’s farmland and produce up to 80% of its food. Rather than being inefficient, small-scale agro-ecological farming offers numerous advantages: it is more labour-intensive, resilient to shocks, adaptable to local environments, and embedded in cultural and social life. Dismissing this sector in favour of large-scale, mechanised monocultures undermines food sovereignty, biodiversity, and rural employment.” Reads the Report.

The idea that industrial agriculture will lift millions out of poverty has not materialised. Instead, large-scale agribusiness projects have often concentrated land and wealth in the hands of elites and foreign investors. Job creation has been minimal, as modern farms rely heavily on machinery rather than human labour. Moreover, export-oriented agriculture prioritises global markets over local food security, leaving communities vulnerable to price fluctuations and shortages.

“The promise that agro-industrial expansion will create millions of decent jobs is historically and economically questionable. Agro-industrial models tend to displace labour through mechanisation and concentrate benefits in the hands of large companies. Most industrial agriculture jobs are seasonal, poorly paid, and insecure. In contrast, smallholder farming remains the primary source of employment across Africa, particularly for young people and women. The idea that technology-intensive farming will be a panacea for unemployment ignores the structural realities of African economies and the failures of previous industrialisation efforts.”

Additionally, the assumption that increasing yields and expanding markets will automatically improve food access overlooks the structural causes of food insecurity. People’s ability, particularly that of the poor and marginalised, to access nutritious food depends on land rights, income distribution, gender equity, and the functioning of political systems. In many countries, high agricultural productivity coexists with hunger and malnutrition because food systems are oriented towards export and profit rather than equitable distribution and local nourishment. It highlights the urgent need for equitable food distribution, making the audience more empathetic and aware of the issue.

Furthermore, technological fixes such as improved seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and irrigation are being promoted as solutions to Africa’s food insecurity, but evidence suggests otherwise. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) spent over a decade pushing such technologies with little success; hunger actually increased in its target countries.

These high-input models overlook local ecological realities and structural inequalities, while increasing dependence on costly external inputs. As a result, smallholders often fall into debt and lose control over their own seeds and farming systems. It underscores the importance of understanding and respecting local ecological realities, making the audience feel more connected and responsible.

Africa is already experiencing an increased and accelerating squeeze on land due to competing demands including rapid population growth and urbanisation, Expansion of mining operations, especially for critical minerals like cobalt, lithium, and rare-earth elements, which are central to the global green transition, The proliferation of carbon-offset projects, often requiring vast tracts of land for afforestation or reforestation schemes that displace existing land users, Rising global demand for timber, which is increasing deforestation and land competition as well as Agricultural expansion for commodity crops, including large-scale plantations of palm oil, sugarcane, tobacco, and rubber.

“In East Africa, we see mass evictions, like the Maasai of Burunguru, forced from their ancestral territories in the name of conservation and tourism. In Central Africa, forests are cleared for mining of transitional minerals, destroying ecosystems and livelihoods. Women, a backbone of Africa’s food production, remain the most affected, and least consulted in decisions over land and resources and things that affect them.” Said Mariam Bassi Olsen from Friends of the Earth Nigeria, and a representative of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa.

The report urges a shift away from Africa’s high-tech, market-driven, land-intensive development model toward a just, sustainable, and locally grounded vision by promoting agroecology for food sovereignty, ecological renewal, and rural livelihoods, while reducing the need for land expansion through improved productivity, equitable food distribution, and reduced waste.

Additionally, a call is made for responsible urban planning, sustainable timber management, and reduced mineral demand through circular economies, as well as the legal recognition of customary land rights, especially for women and Indigenous peoples, and adherence to the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all land investments.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Uganda’s Army is on the spot for forcibly grabbing land for families in Pangero Chiefdom in Nebbi district.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

Despite the challenges, the community in Koch Parish, Nebbi Sub-County, in Nebbi District, near the Congolese border, has shown remarkable resilience. The Army seized approximately 100 acres of land, including private buildings, that members of the local Koch community had used for over 150 years to establish an Army barracks. Their resilience in the face of such a significant loss is genuinely inspiring.

The UPDF, as described on its website, is a nonpartisan force, national in character, patriotic, professional, disciplined, productive, and subordinate to the civilian authority as established under the constitution. Furthermore, it states that its primary interest is to protect Uganda and Africa at large, providing a safe and secure environment in which all Ugandan citizens can live and prosper.

However, according to a whistleblower, when the UPDF seized their land, no military chiefs offered prior communication, consultation, compensation, or resettlement. Instead, Uganda’s national Army only occupied people’s land forcefully, and not even the section commanders offered an official explanation.

“Citizens just woke up to a massive Army deployment in their fields,” wrote a whistleblower in an exchange with Witness Radio.

The occupied area in Koch Parish is not just a piece of land, but a home to the members of the Pangero chiefdom. This community belongs to the Alur kingdom, which spans north-western Congo and western Uganda, north of Lake Albert.

The reality and daily life of the Pangero community, which typically lives in a closely connected and communal manner, have been significantly impacted by the loss of both private and communal land. Not only is the cultural identity associated with land and community life at risk, but access to cultural sites, such as the graves of ancestors, is now denied.

Members of the local community who resisted the unlawful seizure of their land were reported to have been harassed and defamed. Despite these challenges, they continue to fight for their rights, making negotiations with the UPDF significantly more challenging.

Beyond the human suffering, the takeover also raises serious legal questions under Ugandan land law. Under Ugandan law, this action by the UPDF constitutes an illegal act. In principle, the government and, by extension, the Army are entitled to take over land if it is in the public interest, and are subject to fairly compensating the landowners.

However, this is subject to the condition that their intention is clearly communicated in advance and that negotiations take place with the previous residents, resulting in a mutual agreement on the necessary and appropriate compensation.

When faced with community resistance, the Army was compelled to conduct a survey and valuation of the land occupied by the UPDF in 2023 and 2024.  However, land defenders in the area claim that the process was marred by irregularities in some cases, against the will and in the absence of many landowners.

“The community was also pressured by the Koch Land Committee responsible for the review. Despite that it was supposed to represent the local population, it was not democratically elected by consensus, as is tradition in Alur communities, and was comprised of an imposed elite.” A local defender told Witness Radio

At an announcement meeting facilitated by officials from the UPDF Land Board, their national surveyor, and the Commander of Koch Army Barracks on September 19, 2025, community members were compelled to sign documents for meager compensation for land that had been seized five years prior.

“Residents whose land was surveyed before were given two choices: To sell their land to the Army by accepting the offered compensation, or to refuse the UPDF’s offer. In the latter case, however, it would be necessary to contact the Army headquarters in Mbuya, which is far away, to assert one’s claims or submit a petition.” Says another defender. Despite signing for this money, as of the writing of this article, the community claims it had never received it, almost two months later.

Mr Opio Okech, who attended the meeting himself, disapproves that this equates to a forced decision to sell, as the further necessary measures seem almost impossible for those affected without legal knowledge or external support.

“The problem here from the government was to enter upon the land, stay for long without adequate awareness creation, then decide we are going nowhere. Come for compensation. This looks, smells, and walks like a forceful eviction, “he mentions.

The effects of forced land acquisition by the UPDF in Koch Parish pose a high risk of home and landlessness, rises in youth criminality, and recurring poverty, primarily affecting women and children. Furthermore, the dispersal of the traditional community of the Pangero chiefdom is most likely to result in a severe loss of cultural heritage.

The Ugandan government has a duty here to look after the needs of this traditional community beyond compensation. This could include providing alternative land on which the traditional communal way of life could continue.

Witness Radio had not received a response from Army spokesperson Mr. Felix Kulayigye regarding the land grab, despite several attempts. However, since the initial takeover in 2020, another land grab by the same agency is looming in the same Kochi community for the expansion of the Army barracks.

According to sources, the UPDF intends to acquire more than 1,000 acres in total, nearly half of Koch Parish, leaving residents in fear and uncertainty.

“People are now panicking because they have heard speculations that more land is being

targeted for expansion. They are concerned about the impunity of the national Army, since the land that was grabbed five years ago has not been paid for, and now there are reports that more than 1,000 acres of community land are being targeted.” Mr. Okello further revealed.

The fate of the Pangero chiefdom is not an isolated case. Across Uganda, communal lands belonging to traditional clans and kingdoms continue to face similar threats from investors and state actors. Although Ugandan law recognizes customary ownership, enforcement often remains weak, and those affected rarely have access to the information or resources needed to defend their rights.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Seed Sovereignty: Most existing and emerging laws and policies on seeds are endangering seed saving and conservation on the African continent.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team

In Africa, farmers and civil society organizations are urgently warning about the adverse effects of existing policies on agrobiodiversity. These policies aim to erode centuries-old traditions of seed saving and exchange, effectively undermining seed sovereignty and intensifying dependency on commercial seed companies.

The struggle over seed sovereignty, particularly the rights of smallholder farmers, has become one of the most pressing issues for the continent’s agricultural future. As governments introduce new seed laws, such as the proposed East African Seed and Plant Varieties Act Bill of 2024, the preservation of cultural seeds and the rights of smallholder farmers are at stake.

The Communications and Advocacy Officer at Kenya’s Seed Savers Network, Tabitha Munyeri, notes that this has heightened monoculture, thereby significantly reducing the focus on indigenous plant varieties.

“There’s a lot of loss of agrobiodiversity with people focussing on a few foods, a few crops, leaving out so many other essential crops that have sustained humankind for generations and it is also important because it is coming at a time where we are having a lot of also conversations around different seed laws that are coming up for example within the EAC  we see that there is the seed and plant varieties bill of 2024 and we are looking at it as a huge setback and there is need for us to create awareness around even the policies that exist.”

She further argues that there is a need to raise awareness and sensitise farmers to the existing policies so that they can understand their effects on agrobiodiversity.

“Even for Kenya we have been having punitive seed laws for the longest time but now we are happy that courts of law are reviewing the law, but we still think that there is need to create a lot of advocacy around the seed laws and what they really mean to farmers because some of them do not understand, some of them are not even interested but once they get to know what it means and the impacts that the laws have on them then they are also able to become more vocal and more involved in the process.” She says.

Farmers in Africa have been the custodians of agricultural biodiversity, developing and maintaining numerous varieties of crops that are suited to local soils and climates. However, over the last few decades, the focus on farming has drastically declined to a handful of “high-yield” crops and imported hybrid varieties, leaving out the diverse indigenous seeds that have sustained communities through droughts, pests, and diseases.

Munyeri warns that this decline in agrobiodiversity is accelerating, driven not merely by market pressures, but by restrictive laws that criminalise and discourage traditional seed-saving practices.

In Kenya, where smallholder farmers supply more than 80 percent of the country’s food, seed systems have long depended on the informal exchange of seeds within communities. Small-hold farmers have relied on these systems to share, adapt, and innovate with seeds suited to their local conditions. However, existing laws have tended to favour the formal sector, requiring seed certification, variety registration, and compliance with intellectual property protections that most small-scale farmers cannot afford.

The 2024 Seed and Plant Varieties Act Bill, currently under discussion in several East African countries, has sparked significant controversy. It seeks to modernize agriculture and align national systems with international standards. However, smallholder farmers and critics contend that it allows corporate control over genetic resources, limiting farmers’ autonomy and threatening biodiversity. Under such a framework, only registered seed varieties can be legally traded or exchanged, effectively outlawing the informal seed networks that have sustained rural communities for centuries.

If smallholder farmers lose their rights to exchange and cultivate indigenous varieties, they may also lose control over their food systems. Dependence on improved seeds necessitates purchasing new stock each planting season, eroding self-reliance and increasing vulnerability to market fluctuations.

This awareness gap is what the Seed Savers Network hopes to address. Through training programs and advocacy initiatives, including its recently concluded regional boot camp, the organization equips participants from across Africa with knowledge about seed laws, biodiversity, and policy engagement.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter