Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Insurance firms should shun the East African Crude Oil Pipeline

Published

on

Police officers detain a Ugandan activist during a demonstration on September 15, 2023, over plans to build the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), in Kampala, Uganda [File: Abubaker Lubowa/Reuters]

The project is already devastating local communities and will contribute to climate change if completed.

Last year was the hottest on record, with extreme weather events in many corners of the globe. It was also the year in which countries reached a landmark agreement at the UN Climate Conference (COP28) to begin “transitioning away from fossil fuels”.

If governments are to comply with this agreement and avert global climate collapse, there cannot be any new expansion of coal, oil and gas production. This includes the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), one of the largest and most controversial fossil fuel projects currently under development.

Financing for EACOP is yet to be secured, but if it is and the project moves forward, a 1,443km (897-mile) pipeline will stretch from oil fields in western Uganda to the port of Tanga in eastern Tanzania.

The project’s completion would not only contribute to increased greenhouse gas emissions which fuel climate change but also harm local communities. That is why, Human Rights Watch is calling on insurance firms to stop providing support for it.

The pipeline is planned to traverse some of Africa’s most sensitive ecosystems, including Murchison Falls National Park and the Murchison Falls-Albert Delta Ramsar site. Pipeline ruptures, inadequate waste handling, and other pollution impacts would cause significant damage to the land, water, air and the species that rely on them.

Our research found that the project’s initial land acquisition process has already devastated thousands of people’s livelihoods in Uganda, causing food insecurity and household debt that has resulted in children dropping out of school.

During our interviews with local communities, many described being largely self-sufficient before the project began, using revenue from coffee, bananas and other cash crops to pay for school fees and other household expenses. When their land was allocated for the pipeline construction, they were not compensated immediately for it.

They waited an average of three to five years after the land evaluation process took place, and interviewees repeatedly told Human Rights Watch that the payments they received were not adequate to purchase replacement land. They said they were worse off than they were previously.

While they were waiting for compensation, many farmers understood that they were not permitted to access their land to tend perennial crops, and were therefore deprived of crucial income.

Residents described how the payment delays impacted their food security, pushing them to sell household assets, including livestock, or borrow money from predatory lenders at excessive rates to buy the food they would have previously grown on their plots and cover other expenses. This has left many families poorer and more insecure about their future.

If the pipeline is completed, more than 100,000 people in Uganda and Tanzania will permanently lose land to make way for it.

Civil society groups in Uganda and Tanzania have called for the pipeline not to be built, citing climate, environmental and social risks. Ugandan civil society groups say that, instead of building the pipeline, the Ugandan government should develop its abundant renewable energy resources – particularly solar and hydropower – to drive economic development and secure access to energy without further contributing to climate change.

Their demands have been met with hostility from the Ugandan authorities. Our research documented the Ugandan government’s systematic harassment, arbitrary arrests of and threats against environmental defenders and anti-fossil fuel activists for raising concerns over the pipeline project and oil development.

In this context, it is deeply troubling that insurance companies are enabling this and other big fossil fuel projects by providing insurance for them. This is despite the fact that new oil projects are wholly inconsistent with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoiding the worst consequences of climate change.

In late 2023, Human Rights Watch wrote to 15 insurance and reinsurance companies and shared our findings on the grave environmental and human rights risks associated with the pipeline. Only two companies – Lloyd’s of London and Chubb – responded to us, and neither agreed to reassess their involvement in the project.

In early March, civil society groups across the world organised a global week of action to end fossil fuels, including confronting insurance companies about their role in the climate crisis and asking them to rule out support for fossil fuel projects. Anti-fossil fuel activists held peaceful protests at regional offices of the insurance companies still involved in the East African project with the message: “Insure our futures, not fossil fuels.” Increasing numbers of insurers have made public commitments to not underwrite the pipeline, but others have persisted.

Continued support for EACOP is a mistake. By underwriting the project, insurers are helping to build the longest heated oil pipeline in the world at a time when the world is warming at dangerous levels. Insurance companies should refuse to support this project.

Original Source: Aljazeera

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Global hunger falls, but millions in Africa still go without food, says UN

Published

on

Geneva | Global hunger has declined for the third consecutive year, offering renewed hope that progress against food insecurity is possible. Yet for Uganda and the rest of Africa, the latest United Nations findings are a reminder that the continent continues to carry the heaviest burden of hunger despite improvements in many parts of the world.

The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2026 (SOFI 2026) report, released jointly by five UN agencies, estimates that 645 million people experienced hunger in 2025, down from 659 million in 2024 and 688 million in 2022.

The figures indicate that global efforts to improve food security are beginning to bear fruit, but not fast enough to achieve the Sustainable Development Goal of ending hunger by 2030.

For Uganda, the report presents a mixed picture. While global hunger is declining, Africa has overtaken Asia as the region with the highest number of hungry people. Approximately 309 million Africans experienced hunger in 2025, compared to 292 million in Asia.

One in every five Africans remains undernourished, and more than half of the continent’s population continues to face moderate or severe food insecurity. These findings come at a time when Uganda is striving to transform agriculture from subsistence farming into a commercial, climate-resilient sector.

Agriculture remains the backbone of Uganda’s economy, employing the majority of the population and contributing significantly to export earnings. Yet erratic rainfall, prolonged droughts in some regions, flooding in others, crop pests, high post-harvest losses and fluctuating food prices continue to threaten food security for many households.

The UN report notes that while 2.1 billion people worldwide still experience moderate or severe food insecurity, Africa accounts for the highest share, with 56.6 per cent of its population unable to consistently access sufficient, safe and nutritious food. This means many families are forced to reduce meal sizes, skip meals altogether or settle for less nutritious diets. For Uganda, where rural communities depend heavily on rain-fed agriculture, climate change remains one of the biggest threats to food production.

Recent seasons have demonstrated how prolonged dry spells and unpredictable weather patterns can reduce harvests, increase food prices and place vulnerable households at greater risk of hunger.

The report also highlights another growing concern that resonates with Uganda’s public health priorities: malnutrition is no longer only about hunger. While millions still lack enough food, obesity and poor-quality diets are increasing across the world.

Globally, the prevalence of adult obesity rose from 12.1 per cent in 2012 to 16.2 per cent in 2024. At the same time, nearly 150 million children under five remain stunted due to chronic undernutrition, while only about one-third of children aged between six and 23 months consume sufficiently diverse diets.

Uganda has made progress in reducing child stunting over the past decade, but nutrition experts continue to warn that poor infant feeding practices, limited dietary diversity and food insecurity remain major contributors to child malnutrition. The challenge is compounded by rising food costs, making nutritious foods such as fruits, vegetables, dairy products and animal proteins increasingly difficult for many households to afford.

The report reveals that the average global cost of a healthy diet has risen sharply to 4.28 purchasing power parity dollars per person per day in 2025, compared to 2.94 dollars in 2017. Although fewer people globally are unable to afford healthy diets than four years ago, Africa is moving in the opposite direction.

More than two-thirds of Africans, 66.6 per cent of the population, could not afford a healthy diet in 2025. This is more than double the proportion recorded in Asia and Latin America.

For Uganda, where inflation in food prices periodically affects household purchasing power, the findings reinforce the importance of investing across the agricultural value chain rather than focusing solely on increasing production. According to the report, between 70 and 75 per cent of the price consumers pay for food is determined after it leaves the farm, through transport, storage, processing, wholesale and retail costs.

This suggests that investments in rural roads, irrigation, cold storage facilities, food processing, market infrastructure and efficient transport systems could significantly reduce food costs while increasing farmers’ incomes.

Reducing post-harvest losses, estimated to claim a substantial share of agricultural produce in Uganda each year, would also improve food availability without requiring additional land for cultivation. The report further warns that progress made globally could easily be reversed.

Ongoing conflict in the Middle East, rising energy and fertiliser prices, declining humanitarian funding and increasingly frequent climate shocks all threaten future food security. Even under optimistic projections, between 510 million and 520 million people could still be hungry by 2030, well above the level required to meet the global Zero Hunger target.

For Uganda, these global developments matter because the country remains connected to international food, fuel and fertiliser markets. Higher import costs translate into more expensive agricultural inputs and higher food prices, placing additional pressure on both farmers and consumers.

The UN agencies argue that reducing the cost of healthy diets will require targeted investments in agriculture, stronger food value chains, research and innovation, improved irrigation, climate-smart farming practices, better trade policies and social protection programmes that support vulnerable households.

Ultimately, the report offers both hope and caution. It demonstrates that hunger can be reduced through sustained investment and sound policies, but it also makes clear that progress is uneven and fragile.

Strengthening agricultural resilience, improving nutrition, expanding food processing and ensuring affordable access to healthy diets will be essential for countries in Sub-Saharan Africa in order to contribute meaningfully to the global ambition of ending hunger by 2030.

As the report concludes, a world where healthy food is affordable and accessible to everyone remains within reach, but only if governments, development partners, the private sector and communities work together to build food systems that are more resilient, inclusive and sustainable.

Source: independent.co.ug

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Wars are disrupting food systems, and ending world hunger requires urgent global action, experts say.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

Conflicts far from the world’s farms are reshaping how food is produced, traded, and accessed. Rising energy costs, fertilizer disruptions, and threatened trade routes expose the fragility of global food systems, increasing production costs and leaving millions vulnerable to hunger.

The global food crisis is deepening as multiple shocks put increasing pressure on food systems worldwide. According to the World Food Program (WFP), hundreds of millions of people face crisis-level hunger, with conflict, climate change, economic instability, and displacement driving food insecurity. Countries already struggling with poverty and fragile economies remain the hardest hit.

More than 295 million people across 53 countries and territories faced acute hunger in 2024, according to the Global Report on Food Crises. This was an increase of nearly 14 million compared with 2023, driven mainly by conflict, economic shocks, climate extremes, and displacement.

The war in Ukraine showed how conflict in one region can disrupt food supplies worldwide. Ukraine is one of the world’s leading exporters of wheat, maize, and sunflower oil, while Russia remains a major supplier of fertilizers and agricultural inputs. Disruption of Black Sea trade routes and uncertainty over exports triggered sharp increases in food and fertilizer prices, affecting farmers and consumers thousands of kilometers away.

Although global grain markets have gradually stabilized since the initial shock, experts say the structural vulnerabilities exposed by war remain unresolved. Many countries still rely heavily on a handful of exporters for staple foods and farm inputs, leaving them exposed whenever geopolitical tensions escalate.

Similar concerns are emerging from the Middle East. Disruptions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s busiest shipping corridors, have raised fears over global supplies of oil, natural gas, and fertilizers. Because modern agriculture depends heavily on fuel and fertilizer, a prolonged interruption in these supplies has immediate consequences for food production.

During a ministerial meeting of the MED 9++ countries on “Supporting Food Security and Access to Fertilizers”, United Nations Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Q.U. Dongyu warned that the current crisis extends far beyond geopolitics, affecting food production, trade, agricultural inputs, and access to food worldwide.

“This is not only a geopolitical crisis, but also a disruption at the core of the global agrifood system,” he said.

He explained that agriculture follows fixed seasonal calendars and that fertilizers must be applied at precise stages of crop development.

“Agriculture operates on a crop calendar that cannot be postponed. Fertilizers must be applied at specific moments in the crop cycle. If they do not arrive on time, yields are reduced, regardless of what happens later.” He added.

According to QU Dongyu, even delays of a few weeks could reduce harvests, tighten food supplies through 2026 and 2027, and raise food prices worldwide, particularly in import-dependent countries across Africa and Asia.

Agricultural economist Dr. Joseph Glauber, a senior research fellow at the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and former Chief Economist at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), says today’s food crisis is increasingly driven by rising production costs rather than shortages alone.

In an interview with Witness Radio, Dr. Glauber said energy prices are now one of the biggest factors pushing up food costs.

“The biggest link has been through energy. Higher energy prices mean higher shipping, transport, and processing costs. Consumers don’t eat wheat; they eat bread and processed foods that require energy throughout the production chain,” he added.

Dr. Glauber noted that while global prices for crops such as wheat and maize have risen only modestly, fertilizer and energy costs have risen much faster, leaving many farmers with shrinking profit margins.

“For farmers, profits have declined because input costs have risen faster than the prices they receive for their produce,” he said.

According to Dr. Glauber, African countries face unique challenges because they depend heavily on imported fertilizers and face higher transport costs than larger importing economies.

“Africa is quite vulnerable because shipment sizes tend to be smaller and transport costs are relatively higher,” he explained.

He noted that although fertilizer use varies significantly between African countries, higher prices are already putting enormous pressure on farmers across the continent.

Beyond these immediate impacts of war, experts say the world faces a broader systemic crisis. The Club of Rome has also warned that shocks from the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, to disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz and increasing geopolitical instability, have exposed profound weaknesses in global food systems.

The organization says food security can no longer be viewed apart from peace, climate resilience, and energy security. Governments should instead pursue integrated approaches that strengthen local food production and reduce dependence on vulnerable international supply chains.

Experts are calling for an end to armed conflicts that threaten food production, investment in regenerative agriculture, stronger land rights for smallholder farmers, diversification of food crops beyond the world’s heavy dependence on wheat, maize, rice, and soybeans, expanded regional trade, and a faster transition away from fossil fuel-dependent agriculture.

Hunter Lovins, President of Natural Capitalism Solutions and a member of the Club of Rome, says the world already knows many needed solutions.

“This is not a warning about some distant future. It is a warning about next year’s harvest. We know what works. What we lack is not solutions, but the political will to invest in them before the crisis, rather than after,” she said.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Campaigning LC I Chairpersons Barred from Land Transactions Until Polls End.

Published

on

The Ministry of Lands has restricted LC I chairpersons seeking re-election from handling land transactions until after the July 28 village elections to prevent fraud, disputes and irregularities during the campaign period.

The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development has temporarily barred Local Council I (LC I) chairpersons seeking re-election from participating in land-related transactions, citing concerns over possible fraud and disputes during the election period.

In a public notice issued on Thursday, the ministry directed all campaigning LC I chairpersons to stop witnessing, endorsing, recommending or overseeing land transactions until the electoral process is concluded.

The directive comes as campaigns for village chairperson elections enter the final days ahead of polling on July 28.

“The advisory has been issued as a precautionary measure to safeguard the integrity of land transactions during this transition period and to minimise the risk of disputes, fraud, or other irregularities that may arise,” the ministry said in the notice.

The ministry advised members of the public against relying on LC I chairpersons who are actively campaigning for services involving the witnessing of land sale agreements, verification of ownership, handling of boundary disputes or any other transaction requiring local administrative involvement.

Individuals with urgent land matters were encouraged to seek assistance from qualified legal practitioners or use other lawful channels until the elections are completed.

“The Ministry urges the public to exercise patience until the election process is concluded. This precaution will help prevent costly mistakes and safeguard the interests of all parties,” the notice added.

The temporary restriction comes amid continued concerns over land disputes, which remain among the leading sources of conflict in Uganda, with local leaders often playing a key role in verifying ownership and facilitating village-level transactions.

Although LC I chairpersons do not have the legal mandate to transfer land ownership or issue titles, they are commonly relied upon during land transactions because of their knowledge of residents and local land histories.

They often help confirm the identity of sellers, identify boundaries and witness sale agreements alongside members of their executive committees, providing community-level verification before transactions are completed.

Legal experts have previously cautioned that LC I endorsements only provide local credibility and do not replace formal requirements under Uganda’s land laws. Buyers are still required to conduct proper due diligence before purchasing land.

According to the Electoral Commission roadmap, elections for Village (LC I) chairpersons will be held on July 28 across Uganda’s 71,214 villages. Elections for Parish (LC II) chairpersons will follow on August 10.

The Ministry of Lands said LC I chairpersons will resume their normal involvement in land-related matters after the conclusion of the electoral process.

Source: nilepost.co.ug

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates