STATEMENTS

‘Make natural forests untouchable’

Published

4 years ago

April 16, 2021

Last November, Attilio Pacifici, the head of the EU Delegation in Uganda led seven other ambassadors from France, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Sweden, Denmark and Austria on a mission to western and northern Uganda to have firsthand experience of the level of pressure Uganda’s natural resource assets such as Bugoma forest (Hoima District) and Zoka forest (Adjumani District) are currently facing. In an email interview, Pacifici told The Independent’s Ronald Musoke why the mission was important.

What were your impressions when you visited some of these forests during your expedition?

This visit was a joint mission to the west and north of Uganda where we had the chance to visit iconic forests like Bugoma and Zoka but also national parks like Murchison Falls. During this mission, we were honoured with the participation of high-level government officials and we had the opportunity to jointly exchange with very committed civil society actors on the ground.

The visit demonstrated the risks faced by some of the last protected forests in Uganda and the need to step up efforts to protect them and preserve the ecosystem services they provide. Our main message was and remains that development can and needs to go hand in hand with environmental conservation.

Conservation has a strong economic value, which needs to be promoted, and we are here to support this agenda. That is why in all our engagement, we have stressed the importance of striking the right balance between environmental protection and economic development.

I know you are aware from what you saw that deforestation is happening at an alarming rate across the country, even when the country has robust laws governing forests. What, in your opinion, will it take to control this problem?

Tackling the challenge of deforestation will require a holistic approach and high level of commitment from governments, development partners, private sector, civil society organisations, the media, ordinary citizens; all of us. I am sure you know that already Uganda’s forest cover has plummeted from 24% of its area in 1990 to about 12.5% today.

This is a big challenge that requires collective action. It is also important that government should provide strong, consistent and broad support to the forest management authorities and the law enforcement agencies. For one, we have to make the natural forests untouchable in every sense of the word.

We have to make the traditional sources of biomass energy very expensive while ensuring that alternative sources of clean energy are made available and cheaper to meet the most basic household needs. Once degraded, the cost of restoring a natural forest is colossal. It is not as easy as planting a couple of trees because as you know in Uganda the natural forests have historically had vast and varied species unlike in Europe where the species are limited.

At a regional level, a formal mechanism should be established, to regulate cross-border trade and movement of forest products in the region. The problem of unregulated trans-boundary forest management and trade has resulted into forest products illegally acquired from one country being a legal import in the receiving country. This makes it difficult to regulate trade in forest products.

The EU has been supporting a project called the SPGS as one of the possible mechanisms to grow back and also conserve Uganda’s forests. Looking at the rate of deforestation that has been inflicted on the country’s forests over the last 16 years (since 2004 when this scheme began) vis a vis the trees that have been planted, how would you rate the success of this project?

The Sawlog Production Grant Scheme (SPGS) has been implemented in Uganda over the last 16 years supporting the establishment of over 80,000 hectares of quality commercial plantations and woodlots across the country. In terms of contribution to the forest cover vis-avis deforestation, SPGS contribution remains limited.

However, the main objective of the SPGS project is to promote quality wood products and ensure that plantations are managed to provide saw logs for timber, building and utility poles, and fuel wood. Providing alternative sources of wood from fast growing tree plantations is a way of reducing pressure on natural forests on both private land and Central Forest Reserves (CFR) but it is not an end in itself.

Our support has been fundamental in creating a critical mass of plantations that provide valuable raw materials for industries and generate rural jobs. The plantations have been established in deforested areas complying with international sustainability practices. SPGS is now a model which is being replicated in many other countries such as Rwanda and the DR Congo.

Today, most of the industrial wood used in Uganda is sourced from plantations – and this has played a leading role in reducing the pressure from natural forests. But this is not enough. Protection of natural forests cannot be substituted with establishing commercial plantations of a few tree species, as is currently the case. We have to make sure that the natural forests—what is left of them—is untouchable.

What is your opinion in regards to some conservation experts who think monocropped forests are a defective idea of forest restoration?

My personal view is that this is an inevitable evil. However, monocultures as such need not be a problem – provided that they are not large contiguous areas and are part of carefully designed sustainable landscapes that include areas for conservation of biodiversity. Even at large-scale, the plantations can be fine when they are established in a mosaic manner with ecological corridors improving the conservation function.

****

Original Source: THE INDEPENDENT

Related Topics:deforestation environment environment rights Forests Natural forests Uganda's forests

Up Next

OPINION: Land rights for small producers: a critical solution to the world’s food systems

STATEMENTS

Breaking: There has been an alarming Rise in Forced Land Evictions in Uganda; over 360,000 Ugandans were Displaced in the First Half of 2024.

Published

2 weeks ago

November 6, 2024

witnessradio.org

For Immediate Release:

Breaking: There has been an alarming Rise in Forced Land Evictions in Uganda; over 360,000 Ugandans were Displaced in the First Half of 2024.

Kampala, Uganda -October 5th, 2024; Witness Radio releases its mid-year report on forced land eviction, revealing a sharp increase across Uganda between January and June 2024. The report reveals staggering statistics: 90 documented land evictions have affected at least 363,021 Ugandans, with over 121,000 hectares of land under threat of being seized.

These occurrences are happening following a presidential directive on land evictions, with the majority of cases of evictions being characterized by violence, human rights violations/abuses, and total disrespect of communities’ land and environmental rights. Government security forces and private security firms and militias have been documented acting on behalf of wealthy investors and government agents and have been implicated in the use of excessive force, resulting in a series of human rights abuses, including death.

“Witness Radio is concerned about the unabated forced land evictions and foresees a large population losing its livelihood to land-based investments as the country enters a period of general elections,” Says Jeff Wokulira Ssebaggala, Country Director, Witness Radio—Uganda.

He attributed forced evictions to the government’s industrialization of Uganda’s land. This industrialization must be carefully implemented to protect smallholder farmers’ land and promote food security and sovereignty.

Key Findings:

Attacks on Land and Environmental Defenders: In the period under review (between Jan and June 2024), 65 attacks on land and environmental defenders (LEDs) and climate activists challenging illegal land evictions and corporate harm on the environment in Uganda.
Affected Population: Over 360,000 Ugandans were displaced, with a daily average of 2,160 people losing their livelihood. Land is targeted for oil and gas extraction, mining, agribusiness, and tree plantations for carbon offsets. While some investments have taken shape on the grabbed land, other pieces of grabbed land are still empty but under the guardship of military and private security firms.
Land Under Threat: More than 121,000 hectares of land are at risk of being grabbed by influential investors and government agents.
Complete Evictions: 22,962 individuals have been entirely evicted from their land, and land grabbers have fully grabbed 7,150.7 hectares of land.
Pending Evictions: 340,059 Ugandans face imminent eviction threats, with over 114,292 hectares of land at risk of being seized.
Regional Impact: The Central region remains the epicenter of evictions, recording 52 cases. This is followed by 24 cases in the Western region, 8 in the Northern region, and 6 in the Eastern region.
Number of Cases documented: 90 land eviction incidents reported, affecting all regions of Uganda.

Eviction frequency.

Nearly four cases of land evictions are reported weekly, affecting approximately 15,126 people and threatening 5,060.12 hectares of land across the country.

An estimated 2,160 Ugandans face evictions daily to give way to land-based investments, with 723 hectares of land at risk of being grabbed daily.

Despite government interventions and promises to halt evictions, including directives from President Museveni, the report reveals that land grabbers frequently ignore these orders, deploying armed security forces, private militias, and police to carry out brutal evictions. Left without compensation or legal recourse, vulnerable communities are often displaced in favor of multinational corporations and influential local investors.

Case Highlights: The report details harrowing incidents like the murder of smallholder farmer Dan Ssebyala in Nakasongola, a district plagued by violent evictions involving absentee landlords and influential investors. Armed men ambushed Ssebyala following a confrontation over disputed land. This is just one of many incidents where land defenders are attacked, silenced, or even killed for opposing forced evictions.

In Kiryandongo District, security groups working for Major Taban Amin were documented torturing elected local leaders such as Councilor Fred Kangume after he opposed Amin’s illegal eviction of over 700 families. Such violent tactics have been reported as a commonly used approach to intimidate defenders and community leaders and silence opposition.

Impact on Communities:

Food Insecurity: Evictions often destroy crops and livestock, exacerbating food shortages and malnutrition
Loss of Livelihoods: Displaced families lose their homes and agricultural land, forcing many into poverty.
Violence and Trauma: Communities face violence, arrests, and intimidation for defending their land, leading to physical and psychological trauma.
Disruption of Education: Forced displacement disrupts children’s access to education as schools are often destroyed in the eviction process.

Call for Action: Witness Radio Uganda calls on the government to strengthen the enforcement of land laws, protect local communities from illegal evictions, and ensure justice for victims. Additionally, investors must adhere to international human rights standards and respect the communities they operate in. Financial institutions funding these projects must conduct thorough due diligence to prevent further human rights abuses.

For more information and to access the full report, please contact:

Mr. Tonny Katende

Research and Media Officer, Witness Radio – Uganda

Phone: +256 703085430

Email: news@witnessradio.org

Website: www.witnessradio.org

You can download a full report here: Forced Land Evictions In Uganda.

STATEMENTS

Reflecting on Shortcomings of the World Bank’s Dispute Resolution Service

Published

3 months ago

August 12, 2024

witnessradio.org

As civil society organizations that have supported communities around the world to use dispute resolution processes at Independent Accountability Mechanisms (IAMs), we welcome the External Review Team’s recommendations for strengthening the World Bank’s Accountability Mechanism – the Inspection Panel and the Dispute Resolution Service (DRS). This statement focuses primarily on the implementation of dispute resolution since the reforms to accountability at the World Bank added the DRS.

Several of our organizations pushed for the modernization of the Inspection Panel’s toolkit and still believe that communities should be able to access both dispute resolution and compliance review to address concerns with World Bank-supported projects. Our organizations supported the first few cases to go to DRS – Uganda: Second Kampala Institutional and Infrastructure Development Project (KIIDP-2) and Nepal: Nepal-India Electricity Transmission and Trade Project and its Additional Financing – and cases where dispute resolution was offered, Bolivia: Santa Cruz Road Corridor Connector Project (San Ignacio – San Jose) and Tanzania: Resilient Natural Resource Management for Tourism and Growth Project (REGROW). Our experience with the case handling process thus far demonstrates that meaningful changes need to be made to the Accountability Mechanism, Dispute Resolution Service, and the interaction between compliance review and dispute resolution functions. This review should result in a system that is
more respectful of communities’ agency and leads to the effective resolution of grievances.

Additionally, we agree with the ERT that a comprehensive external review should be conducted within 24-months of the effectiveness of the DRS. We have identified the following challenges that need to be addressed:

Accessibility and Requester Choice

As discussed in the External Review Team’s draft report, requesters, the very people who submit a request for accountability, should have the opportunity to clearly express their desire for the Inspection Panel to conduct compliance review and to therefore reject a dispute resolution process. In this case, the AM Secretary should not then offer a borrower government the option of dispute resolution. Doing so ignores and disrespects requesters’ agency to decide what type of accountability process to pursue, and it also puts impacted requesters at risk of retaliation from a government that has an interest in engaging in dispute resolution.

In the Bolivia case, the AM secretary offered the Bolivian government dispute resolution after the requesters had clearly rejected the option, which put the requesters at risk of retaliation and caused the Bolivian government to delay the Inspection Panel’s access to the country for a site visit. The same issue arose in Tanzania, where the government publicly expressed to the media that it will be pursuing the DR process though the requestors had clearly rejected the option. This caused great concern to the requesters, who have chosen to remain anonymous throughout the process due to fear of retaliation. They were made to believe that their names would be disclosed
and they would be forced to engage with the government, resulting in personal risks to their safety. This also added an unnecessary delay in moving forward with the investigation.

We agree with the ERT’s recommendation: The AM Secretary should offer DR not concurrently to both parties, but first to the requesters. If the requesters after 5 working days decide to proceed with the compliance investigation, they should be allowed to do sowithout any further interruption. In such a case, AM Secretary should not provide
information about DR nor offer DR to the other party.

Power Imbalances Throughout the Dispute Resolution Process.

In the Nepal and Uganda cases, we also noted several instances where the DRS and its mediators’ actions exacerbated power imbalances between the communities and the government. In the Uganda case, there were several instances where the mediators and DRS seemed to defer to the timelines and directions of the government. As discussed in a previous statement, power imbalances were especially stark towards the end of the process, where the government seemed to be directing the process of reaching and signing a final agreement and pushing desperate community members to accept any sort of deal. This situation underscored the need for the DRS to adopt a more balanced approach, ensuring that the community’s voice is equally heard and respected throughout the process. In the Nepal case, the process did not appear free and fair, with mediators appearing to favor the position of the government.

To address these issues, the DRS should implement stronger measures to manage power imbalances. This includes continuous consultations with communities, ensuring their concerns and timelines are given equal weight. Additionally, mediators should be empowered to take a firmer stance when necessary to prevent one party from dominating the process. The DRS should ensure that no single party can unilaterally determine the scope or direction of a dispute resolution meeting, and mediators should be trained to recognize and mitigate power imbalances actively.

Furthermore, the DRS should establish clear protocols to ensure that any decisions made, especially those regarding the finalization of agreements, are done with the full participation and consent of all involved parties. This includes providing ample time for community members to review and understand the terms of any agreement and offering independent legal and advisory support to help them navigate the process.

Exacerbation of Community Conflict

It is not uncommon for individual community members to have differing interests in a dispute resolution process. Mediators must be attuned to these differing interests and proceed in a manner that does not exacerbate community conflict. Unfortunately, in the Nepal and Uganda cases, the DRS and mediators exacerbated tensions in the affected communities. In Uganda, when the elected representatives agreed to terminate the dispute resolution process, the DRS still proceeded with the process with other members of the community.

In Nepal, the agreement facilitated by the DRS has created division within the community and jeopardized communal harmony. It is our perception that the DRS worked with some community members to the exclusion of others, and today, original requesters who opposed elements of the DRS-facilitated agreement or did not sign the agreement face retaliation by other members of the community, as well as by the government. Additionally, we are concerned that the DRS, in an effort to get an agreement, favored the views of community members who were not the original requesters to the Inspection Panel complaint.

Community conflict can be particularly exacerbated in circumstances where the dispute resolution process is restricted to an “All or Nothing” prospect, which increases the stakes of the process. This was unfairly the case in Nepal and Uganda where the AM Secretary refused to allow the prospect of unresolved issues transferring to the Inspection Panel for investigation, despite the fact that the final DRS procedures allow for partial agreements and for unresolved issues being transferred to the Inspection Panel. Going forward, in addition to allowing for partial agreements, we agree with ERT’s recommendation that a provision should be introduced into the AM operating procedures that requesters who originally submitted the request to IPN but then subsequently left the DR process should be given the option of proceeding with a compliance investigation after the DR agreement has been signed. The DRS outcome report should state how many of the requesters who submitted the request for registration signed the DR agreement.

Timelines for Dispute Resolution.

Although concrete timelines for IAM processes are important for ensuring predictability and facilitating the timely resolution of grievances, the strict 18-month timeline for the DRS process put undue pressure on the parties in Uganda to reach an agreement. In that case, this pressure was exacerbated by the unfair limit on partial agreements. In circumstances where communities are negotiating with powerful governments, the pressure to reach any agreement, even if it doesn’t fully address grievances, is made even more stark as the deadline approaches.

We agree with the ERT report’s recommendation to allow for timeline extensions to 20 months, though there may be circumstances where even more time could be constructive.

The 24-month review of the DRS should further explore the timelines issue and what additional flexibility is needed.

Transparency.

As discussed by the ERT’s draft report, the DRS falls far behind other independent accountability mechanisms on the transparency of DR agreements. Again, given power imbalances, transparency of agreements helps keep the parties accountable to the agreement and is important for institutional accountability. In our experience, the DRS seems to confuse transparency of the overall agreement with transparency of commitments to particular individuals (such as compensation amounts), which individuals might prefer to have kept confidential. We agree with the ERT draft report’s recommendation that reporting should specify the issues to which the parties have agreed and those to which they have not.

We are also concerned that the DRS has no fair and predictable process in place for how decisions on confidentiality of agreements should be reached in the first place. In the Uganda case, the decision to keep the specific terms of the agreement confidential was made in the final few days of the negotiations, without some requesters’ involvement and without involvement of requesters’ advisors. Again, given power imbalances, it’s obvious that some communities will
feel pressured to agree to confidentiality of an agreement even when it is against their best interests. We call on the 24-month review to evaluate how these decisions have been reached in practice.

Monitoring

Reaching an agreement is just one step of ensuring the full resolution of grievances. Active monitoring of the full implementation of the agreement is crucial to ensure that each commitment in the agreement is fulfilled in a meaningful way. For cases so far, the DRS has not been transparent about what monitoring–if any–it does. As advisors to the communities in Nepal and Uganda, we have asked for status updates on the agreements’ implementation, and the DRS has not provided us with answers sufficiently. The DRS has at times ignored our requests and at others have offered vague and incomplete answers. The ERT draft report recommends a full
substantive conclusion report after the DRS concludes monitoring. We agree and also call for the DRS to issue interim monitoring reports, drafted in consultation with the parties, so that there will be more transparency into the implementation of the agreement, and course correction can happen if need be.

Role of the Accountability Mechanism Secretary

As we reflect on the shortcomings of the World Bank Accountability Mechanism’s dispute resolution processes thus far, we see the scope and mandate of the Accountability Mechanism Secretary to have contributed to the problems. The root of the problem is the 2020 board resolutions, which establish the AM Secretary position. The board resolutions list a mix of roles for the AM Secretary, which range from substantive to administrative: For example, being tasked with offering dispute resolution to parties and drafting the report transferring a case from DR to
the Inspection Panel on one hand, and overseeing the Inspection Panel’s resources on the other hand.

In practice, it has felt to us that the AM Secretary is more or less acting as the head of the dispute resolution process, with a surprisingly high level of involvement in the Uganda and Nepal cases. For example, the AM Secretary’s decision to restrict the option of unresolved issues going to the Inspection Panel and as well as the problematic offers of dispute resolution in the Bolivia and Tanzania cases.

This presents at least an appearance of a conflict of interest, and perhaps a real one, where the face of the overall Accountability Mechanism is also partial to the dispute resolution process and has an interest in seeing as many cases go to DR and reach an agreement as possible.

The ERT’s draft report should have considered whether the role of the AM Secretary should exist at all and if so, what its mandate should be. We consider the role to be largely redundant and thus would support the elimination of the role. Of the options proposed by the draft report, we prefer Option 3, which would split the Inspection Panel and the DRS into separate entities. We expect that this option would make the AM Secretary role unnecessary.

Additional issues for the 24-month Review

The issues above are non-exhaustive, and the 24-month review of the DRS should comprehensively examine other issues affecting dispute resolution at the Bank, including:

Selection of mediators
Development and signing of a framework agreement
Respecting the role of representatives and advisors
DRS support for studies and experts to support the dispute resolution process
Communication with parties
Perceptions of partisanship of the DRS toward government parties
Information sharing, access to information, and fact finding
Retaliation management
Role of the Accountability Mechanism Secretary in dispute resolution processes
Coercion of parties to sign dispute resolution agreements
Introduction of new participants at the signing of agreements
Effects of the DRS process on local judicial processes and other avenues for justice

Conclusion

We again commend the World Bank Board for initiating this review of the accountability system at the World Bank and the External Review Team for its examination of some of the challenges with the system so far. As advisors to communities who have used the mechanism, we stand ready to provide additional insights into the implementation of the ERT’s recommendations and the review of the DRS. We hope to soon see a system that better respects community agency and better facilitates justice.

Sincerely

Witness Radio

Accountability Counsel

Bank Information Center

Lawyer’s Association for the Human Rights of Nepal’s Indigenous Peoples (LAHURNIP)

Oakland Institute

Supporters

Bretton Woods Project

Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation

CEE Bankwatch Network

Fundeps

Green Development Advocates*

International Accountability Project

Jamaa Resource Initiatives

Lumière Synergie pour le Développement

MenaFem Movement for Economic Development and Ecological Justice

Oyu Tolgoi Watch

Peace Point Development Foundation-PPDF

Rivers without Boundaries

* Supporting communities in the Cameroon:

Supporting communities in the Cameroon: Nachtigal Hydropower Project (P157734) and Hydropower Development on the Sanaga River Technical Assistance Project (P157733) case.

Previous Statements:

Joint Statement on World Bank Accountability Mechanism’s Decision to Limit Application of Operating Procedures

Acknowledging Community’s Agreement while Raising Concerns with World Bank’s Dispute Resolution Service

One Year Later, Justice is Delayed: A joint statement on the implementation of the KIIDP-2

Kawaala Community Agreement

Breaking Alert: Barely a year after signing the remedy agreement, World Bank Project-Affected
Persons (PAPs) receive fresh land eviction threats

World Bank Under Fire: Investigation Launched into Bank Financed REGROW Project in Tanzania

Redefining Impartiality: Advocating for a Community-Centered Approach to Accountability Mechanisms

STATEMENTS

Thirty-six (36) groups from all over the world have written to industrial agriculture investors, Agilis Partners Limited to stop human rights violations/abuses against thousands of indigenous/local communities, settle grievances, and return the grabbed land.

Published

5 months ago

June 27, 2024

witnessradio.org

Open Letter

26th/06/2024.

Mr. Benjamin Prinz,
Managing Director,
Agilis Partners Limited.

Dear Benjamin,

Civil Society Organizations and individuals demand justice for Ugandan community members whose lands were grabbed by agribusiness company Agilis Partners Limited.

Kiryandongo – Uganda; We, the undersigned organizations condemn human rights abuses by the agribusiness company Agilis Partners Limited (owned by two American citizens) and its financial backers against the people of Kiryandongo District where Agilis is establishing a massive industrial farm.

Thousands of people from local and Indigenous communities have been forcefully evicted from their land to make way for Agilis Partners Limited’s large-scale farming operations, in violation of international human rights law. The alarming situation involves severe human rights abuses including forced evictions and lack of prompt, fair, and adequate compensation; violations of Indigenous peoples’ right to free, prior, and informed consent; abduction, arrest, torture, and judicial harassment of human rights defenders, and alleged sexual violence against women and girls, as well as other negative social and environmental impacts.

About Agilis Partners Limited On 9 January, 2018, Agilis Partners Limited was incorporated via registration number R200000884113 as an agribusiness company in Uganda. It is owned and directed by American businessmen and brothers, Philipp Prinz and Benjamin Prinz. Through its subsidiary, Agilis Ranch 20 & 21 Investment Company (Uganda) Limited (registration # 80020000586929), it is pursuing large-scale grain agriculture in Kiryandongo District in Uganda.

In 2019, Agilis Partners received an Award for Corporate Excellence from the US Secretary of State under the category of “Sustainable Operations”. Agilis Partners has also received financial investment and support from various government [1]agencies and private foundations, including the Dutch Oak Tree Foundation, USAID, and the Common Fund for Commodities (CFC).

Since 2022, Agilis Partners Limited has been receiving funding from the World Bank through the International Finance Corporation to create a sustainable business model for 6,000 smallholder farmers and improve smallholders’ maize production, provide them with a digital marketplace, and to improve farming processes of the company.

Purpose of the Fund: The loan from the IFC is for advisory service, and the project description states that the funding aims to improve smallholders’ maize production, provide them with digital marketplace, improve farming processes of the company and, most importantly, to advise Agilis regarding compliance with the IFC’s Performance Standard 5 on Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement.

This support from foreign governments, foundations and multilateral agencies has occurred despite numerous documented incidences of violations of the rights of affected community members:

1. Evictions carried out for Agilis’ agricultural operations have not only displaced hundreds of families but have also led to the arrest and torture of individuals advocating for their land rights. Community leaders and activists who have stood up against these injustices have faced brutal treatment, aimed at silencing their voices and discouraging resistance. This blatant disregard for human rights and the rule of law is unacceptable and demands immediate
attention and action.

2. Residents of Kiryandongo have reported several human rights violations in Kiryandongo district in Kimogola and Kisalanda villages where Agilis has been operating since they evicted people from their land in 2017. People have been murdered, maliciously arrested, and tortured especially those who refused to vacate their land. People’s crops have been destroyed thus increasing the levels of poverty and hunger in the villages since most of the residents living there are farmers. Project-affected persons are not [2] allowed to grow crops on their land thus leading to people sleeping on empty stomachs. People’s cattle are abducted every day only to frustrate them into giving up so that they can leave the land for the company.

3. There is also an increase of sexual abuse amongst women and school-going girls by men working for Agilis who are brought in from distant communities. There are reports of increasing incidence of sexually transmitted diseases and early pregnancies resulting into school dropouts. [3]

Our Call for Action.

Witness Radio and its partners representing PAPs have written to Agilis Partners seeking a dialogue between the company and people who have been harmed on several occasions however, the company has not responded to any of our communications. We call upon civil society organizations globally to urgently join us and demand that Agilis Partners Limited and its financial
backers take immediate action to stop the human rights abuses and harassment committed against community members, engage in dialogue with the communities, and restore the lands to the people that have been displaced.

We also call on the World Bank and the governments of the United States of America and the Netherlands, as key financial backers of Agilis, to support an independent investigation into the human rights abuses committed by the
company. They must act swiftly to end these abuses, support the affected communities in the struggle for land rights, and hold Agilis Partners Limited accountable for all human rights abuses.

We call on the Ugandan government to protect the rights of its citizens, including their right to land, right to defend rights, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, and freedom from torture and inhumane and
degrading treatment.

The safety and rights of land and environmental rights defenders must be ensured by the government. The PAPs have been forcibly evicted, arrested, and subjected to violence. This is failure of the duty of the Ugandan government to protect their rights and the responsibility of Agilis Partners to respect rights.

We call on the United Nations bodies and regional human rights bodies to take action to ensure Agilis Partners fulfills its responsibility to respect human rights, aligned with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

Witness Radio Uganda and its partners stand in solidarity with the people of Kiryandongo and will continue to advocate for their rights and justice.
i

Signatories below;

AbibiNsroma Foundation | Ghana
Accountability Counsel | USA
Agency for Turkana Development Initiatives (ATUDIS) | Kenya
Asegis Community Network | Kenya
Asia Indigenous Peoples Network on Extractive Industries and Energy (AIPNEE) | Philippines
Asociación para la defensa de los derechos naturales | Ireland
Benet Mosop Indigenous Community Association
Buliisa Initiative for Rural Development Organisation (BIRUDO) | Uganda
Chairperson of Oil Workers Rights Protection Organization | Azerbaijan
Environmental Defender Law Center | United Kingdom
Friends of Lake Turkana | Kenya
Global Rights | Global
Green Development Advocates | Cameroon
Indigenous Peoples Rights International | Philippines
International Accountability Project | Global
Kebetkache Women Development & Resource Centre | Nigeria
League of Volunteers for Human Rights and Environment (LISVDHE) | Democratic Republic of Congo
Menafem | Egypt
Oyu Tolgoi Watch | Mongolia
PIDP | DRC
Policy Action Initiative | Kenya
Project on Organizing, Development, Education, and Research (PODER) | Mexico
Protection International | Kenya
Sengwer Indigenous Peoples Programme | Kenya
The Awakening | Pakistan
Women for Green Economy Movement Uganda | Uganda
Green Advocates International | Liberia
Jamaa Resource Initiatives Kenya | Kenya
LSD | Senegal
Narasha Community Development Group | Kenya
Network Movement for Justice and Development (NMJD) | Sierra Leone
Observatoire de la Société Civile Congolaise pour les Minerais de Paix ( OSCMP ) | DRCongo
Propurus | Peru
Turkana Extractive Consortium | Kenya
Asociación ProPurus
Witness Radio / Uganda

[1] https://www.common-
fund.org/sites/default/files/Publications/CFC_Annual_Report_2019.pdf
https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/TMResultsBase/DownLoadFile?gId=36653
https://www.dobequity.nl/dob-equity-news/dob-equity-sells-shares-in-joseph-initiative
https://common-fund.org/kupanua-project-asili-farms-ltd-uganda
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00X6RC.pdf
[2] https://www.foodbusinessafrica.com/rwandan-food-distribution-company-get-it-clinches-
investment-from-us-investor-vestedworld/
https://disclosures.ifc.org/project-detail/AS/605676/uganda-grain-development-project-agilis
https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00ZTK7.pdf
https://ug.usembassy.gov/agilis-partners-wins-2019-secretary-of-states-award-for-corporate-
excellence-november-1-2019/