Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Monoculture tree plantations are a false climate solution

Published

on

Yesterday was the 16th International Day of Struggle against Monoculture Tree Plantations. In 2004, rural communities in Brazil declared the day to commemorate the resistance against the expansion of monoculture tree plantations in Brazil. Through solidarity statements and actions around the world the day has evolved to become an International Day of Struggle.

This year, a group of organisations from African countries, together with the World Rainforest Movement, has issued an open letter about investments in monoculture tree plantations in the global South, particularly in Africa.

The letter is a response and critique of a June 2019 report titled, “Towards Large-Scale Commercial Investment in African Forestry”. The report was prepared by an outfit called Acacia Sustainable Business Advisors, which was set up by Martin Poulsen, a development banker. One of his co-authors for the study was Mads Asprem, the ex-CEO of Green Resources, a Norwegian industrial tree plantation and carbon offsets company. Green Resources’ land grabs in Mozambique, Tanzania, and Uganda have resulted in loss of land, evictions, loss of livelihoods and increased hunger for local communities.

The study was produced for the African Development Bank and WWF Kenya, with funding from the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds.

The Open Letter (signed by 117 organisations and people) is posted here in full:

International Day of Struggle against Monoculture Tree Plantations

Open Letter about investments in monoculture tree plantations in the global South, especially in Africa, and in solidarity with communities resisting the occupation of their territories.

September 21st is the International Day of Struggle against Monoculture Tree Plantations. Unlike others, this Day was not created by the United Nations (UN) or by governments. The Day was created in 2004 by rural communities, gathered in the Brazilian hinterland, to denounce and shed light on the impacts of monoculture tree plantations on their territories, and affirm their determination to resist such plantations and take back their territories from the hands of corporations.

16 years later, the Day remains as relevant as ever: there is a real danger of a gigantic, worldwide expansion of monoculture tree plantation. This is promoted as a solution to prevent climate chaos and to the industrialized world’s dependence on oil, gas and coal. A group of governments, corporations, consultants, investors and major conservationist NGOs have come together to put their mega-plans[1] for tree plantation expansions on the table.

Although highly questioned, a forest as defined by the FAO (UN Food and Agriculture Organization) and several national governments mistakenly includes monoculture tree plantations. In their eyes, plantations are “planted forests”. This definition favours only the plantation corporations, thus guaranteeing their main objective: generating profits.

Africa is the continent with “the most profitable afforestation potential worldwide”, according to a report produced in 2019 by consultants for the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the conservationist NGO WWF-Kenya. “The study has identified around 500,000 ha of viable plantation land in ten countries: Angola, Republic of Congo, Ghana, Mozambique, Malawi, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.” The study proposes the speedy creation of a Fund, headquartered in a tax haven (Mauritius), to finance the planting of the first 100,000 hectares of trees.

In order for these plantations to generate profits for private investors, the study claims that aid will be necessary from European public international cooperation agencies, i.e., taxpayers’ money from Northern European countries, namely, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands, as well as from the World Bank via the International Finance Corporation (IFC), which makes loans to private companies.

The study and its recommendations leave us perplexed and indignant, given the false assumptions and inconsistencies on which it is based (see Annex I for a more detailed description). Below, we present a summary of our main criticism.

The study repeats the same treacherous and false promises that corporations and their advocates always make. It states that plantations improve communities’ living conditions, create jobs, improve the soil and the quality and quantity of water. The corporations’ ‘social’ projects would be attractive to the communities. However, plantations lead to a large number of violations of rights, create very few poorly-paid and dangerous jobs, destroy forests and savannas, degrade soils, contaminate and dry up water sources and destroy communities’ way of life. With the plantations, guards arrive who will restrict communities’ freedom of movement; cases of abuse, sexual violence against women and HIV/AIDS infections increase in number. The promise of ‘social’ projects, often not fulfilled, is the main bargaining chip for corporations to gain access to communities’ lands.

The study refers to land conflicts only as “challenges” and the proposed solution is to “follow FSC and other best practises”. Firstly, the 500,000 hectares that the study suggests corporations should plant as monoculture tree plantations are not abandoned or degraded lands. Corporations always want fertile lands, usually flat and with availability of water – in other words, lands that tend to be used by communities. By recommending the FSC, the study ignores ample documentation that proves that the FSC does not solve plantations’ structural problems, and land conflicts even less. The FSC deceives consumers by considering the model of large-scale monoculture plantations “sustainable”, for it always leads to large tracts of land being controlled by corporations and to the intensive use of agro-chemicals and synthetic fertilizers. So far, compensation for the populations that have lost their lands and means of subsistence has always been derisory or inexistent. Meanwhile, the social, environmental, economic and cultural damage caused by monoculture tree plantations in rural areas of African countries has never been compensated by corporations. There exists no way to calculate the damage and much of the harm done is irreparable.

The study references a World Bank/IFC project in Mozambique, stressing that “one important element of the IFC approach will be to define and register land rights”. In fact, the World Bank, as well as financing plantations, has a policy of encouraging governments in countries of the South to speed up the granting of individual deeds and, therefore, the privatization of land, in an attempt to prevent its collective recognition as community land. The World Bank has been promoting the handing over of community lands to private capital all over the world. It is important to highlight the fact that in recent years, the government of Mozambique has put in place a number of reforms in the forestry sector. These include a review of the Forestry Policy and its Implementation Strategy and, very recently, a public consultation process with a view to also reviewing the National Land Policy. In all of these processes the World Bank is the common denominator in terms of promotion and financial “support”. This review is taking place under the pretext of improving transparency and efficacy in land management and policies, and will inevitably force an alteration of the Land Law and respective Regulation, thus legitimizing the occupation of community lands which provide living conditions for communities and peoples.

The study states that the tree plantations would be “a stable, long-term carbon sink”, and result in “substantial adaptation benefits” vis-à-vis climate change at the local level. By stating this, the study ignores a growing body of scientific work showing that monoculture tree plantations are a false climate solution. The experiences of communities all over the world with monoculture tree plantations show that they create a local environment even less prepared for responding to the ever more perceptible impacts of climate change.

The study states that “Global oil and industrial companies” want to “become part of the solution rather than a major part of the problem. They are beginning to see the potential of forestry investments.” Oil and gas companies are an integral part of the climate crisis, regardless of such proclamations. They have not shown any interest in solving it; on the contrary, they intend to invest first and foremost in false solutions – after all, profits are above all else.

Other false statements include: “the world will need the type of intensive afforestation (…) that the Brazilian forestry industry is implementing”; and that Brazil’s neighbour, Uruguay, is “the world’s most recently developed forestry country”. The truth is that the Brazilian experience with industrial tree plantations over the course of the last few decades has led to numerous land conflicts and environmental degradation. Municipalities with the highest concentrations of plantations are among the poorest, compared with those with diversified agriculture based on smallholders. In Uruguay, the same negative impacts occur. Rural areas have seen a massive exodus of people, with the rural population reduced by half. Furthermore, citizens of Uruguay have taken on an enormous debt, owing to a recent contract between its government and Finnish multinational UPM. According to this contract, the government agreed to carry out multi-million dollar infrastructure works to service UPM and the export plans of its second pulp factory.

The study also states that “The main barrier to successful investments in African greenfield planting is low historic returns. New planting by private companies has ground to a halt in recent years.” This not only reveals that profits are what really matters to private investors, but also that the authors of the study deliberately ignore the main reason why the expansion of industrial plantations has been impeded in various African countries: the resistance of communities against such monoculture plantations.

The study also seeks to attract investors, suggesting “the possibility of planting [trees] at significantly lower costs (…), more or less half of 10 years ago (…)”. Promising companies that they will have to spend less means that the weight of the industrial plantation projects from the proposed fund will fall even more upon already indebted African countries and, consequently, on their populations, particularly rural communities that run the risk of losing their most fertile lands.

It is important to stress that a “conservationist” NGO is a co-producer of this study that promotes investments that will benefit first and foremost private companies. The study itself reveals how NGOs like WWF should no longer be considered NGOs since they function and act as the ‘right hand of the plantation industry’.

The report refers to a non-public version of the study which has not been disclosed to the public as far as we are aware. The report also notes that “(…) there is a clear coalition of DFIs [development finance institutions] interested in further discussion on this topic [creation of the Fund], including: CDC [United Kingdom], Finnfund [Finland], IFC [World Bank], NDF [Nordic countries: Finland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland] and FMO [The Netherlands]”. This demonstrates that decisions about investments are being made without the participation of the communities and other civil society organizations and social movements from the regions in question, i.e., the parties most affected. How can it still be acceptable in the 21st century that public international cooperation agencies use money from their taxpayers in this way? Hiding their decisions from their own citizens and from the populations that will be affected? When plantation corporations and their investors, after everything has been decided, state that they are applying the principle of communities’ “free, prior and informed consent”, does this merit any credibility?

We demand that the non-public version of this study be published immediately by the AfdB and WWF-Kenya, so that its content may be known to the communities and organized civil society in the countries where they intend to implement their plans.

We reiterate our indignation with regard to the channelling of public resources towards private investments, through tax havens, to be invested in highly damaging activities, such as large-scale monoculture plantations.

We further demand a wide-ranging review of the process of allocation of land to plantation corporations, ensuring the return of land to the communities that depend on this land, today and in the future. In Mozambique, for example, peasant agriculture constitutes the main guarantee of subsistence for more than 80% of the population, and the land is the only thing to which communities can resort to ensure food safety and sovereignty.

We reiterate our solidarity on this September 21st with the legitimate and just struggles of communities around the world that resist the advance of plantations and strive to take back their lost lands. They must be remembered and made visible every day. And they will certainly resist this new and insane expansion plan proposed in the AfDB and WWF-Kenya study and commented on in this Open Letter.

We appeal to the solidarity and unity, so that together we may demand the immediate abandonment of any and every afforestation programme based on large-scale monoculture plantation.

The Struggle Continues!
Plantations Are Not Forests!

Signed by:

  • ADECRU (Mozambique)
  • Justiça Ambiental (Mozambique)
  • Missão Tabita (Mozambique)
  • SUHODE Foundation (Tanzania)
  • WRM (International)

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Protect family farming land to guarantee global food sovereignty and Climate change adaptation and mitigation – Global conference on Family Farming.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

The VIII Global Conference on Family Farming has concluded with resounding commitments and actionable steps towards amplifying the vital contribution of family farming to global sustainability efforts.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) describes the Family farmers as the majority of the World food basket calling them the major investors in agriculture and the backbone of the rural economic structure.

With over 200 representatives of leading Family Farming organizations, regional platforms, governments, international bodies, research centers, consumer organizations, philanthropic entities, women and youth organizations, as well as National Committees of Family Farming from all five continents, the conference served as a crucial platform to address the interconnected challenges of climate, food, and environmental crises.

The recent VIII Global Conference on Family Farming held in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain between the 19th and 21st of March 2024, was organized by the World Rural Forum (WRF) in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain. According to the World Rural Forum (WRM), the Conference provided a valuable space to reflect on achievements, identify areas for improvement and challenges, both existing and emerging, and propose a solid and steadfast path forward at all levels: national, regional, and global. We share experiences and build common desires and references that inspire us towards a more equitable, prosperous, and resilient future for all humanity.

Central to the conference’s discussions was the recognition of family farmers’ pivotal role in ensuring the sustainability of our planet. Consisting of Indigenous Peoples, traditional communities, pastoralism, livestock, fisheries, and mountain farming, family farmers play a catalytic role in economic development, food production, natural resource management, and resilient development.

According to the United Nations Decade of Family Farming (2019-2028), significant progress has been made. In 2022, the National and Regional Action Plans Synthesis Report study conducted by the World Rural Forum (WRF) with the support of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to monitor the progress in the implementation of the United Nations Decade of Family Farming 2019-2028 (UNDFF) through National and Regional/Sub-regional Action Plans showed that there was remarkable advance in various countries in particular as a result of the strong support and collaboration among key stakeholders to put the UNDFF on top of the agenda.

On the 20th December 2017, the United Nations General Assembly adopted – Resolution 72/239 that declared 2019 – 2028 as the United Nations Decade of Family Farming (UNDFF), recognizing the enormous contribution of Family Farming to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the “role that family farms play in improving nutrition and ensuring global food security, eradicating poverty, ending hunger, conserving biodiversity and achieving environmental sustainability”. The resolution encourages all States to develop, improve, and implement public policies on family farming and share their experiences and best practices of family farming with other States.

However, formidable challenges persist, necessitating intensified collaborative efforts and renewed political commitments, the conference provided a platform to showcase successful initiatives and agree upon key actions to advance the goals of the Decade and address emerging challenges.

Among the resolutions put forth were resolute commitment to scaling up the role of family farming in transforming food systems towards sustainability, guided by the UNDFF 2019-2028 and the Global Action Plan. Emphasis was placed on the need for comprehensive policies recognizing the multidimensionality of family farming and its links to crucial agendas such as food security, biodiversity, and poverty alleviation.

Furthermore, the conference highlighted the importance of strengthening the National Committees of Family Farming (NCFF) as platforms for multi-stakeholder dialogue and the promotion of effective policies. Initiatives aimed at ensuring the economic sustainability of family farming, empowering rural youth, and reducing gender inequalities were also underscored.

Climate change adaptation and mitigation were recognized as central to the role of family farming, emphasizing the need for sustainable production methods and the incorporation of agroecology. Land tenure security emerged as a fundamental pillar for achieving sustainable development goals and promoting food sovereignty.

Additionally, there was a call to intensify networking among diverse actors, including governments, international organizations, research centers, and civil society, to drive forward the Decade’s objectives in alignment with the 2030 Agenda.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Food inflation: The math doesn’t add up without factoring in corporate power

Published

on

Large farmers’ protests broke out in at least 65 countries over the past year. From India to Kenya through Colombia and France, desperation has hit a breaking point. Farmers warn that without better prices and more protection, their future is at risk. Peasant movements like La Via Campesina, for over three decades now, have denounced the World Trade Organisation and the growing number of bilateral free trade agreements for destroying their livelihoods.

However, these protests unfold against the backdrop of record-high global food prices. The prices spiked first during the pandemic and then again at the start of the war in Ukraine hitting an all-time high in 2022. Food prices have been rising faster than other products: if the global general consumer price index (CPI) doubled between 2021 and 2022, the food CPI inflation almost tripled. According to the World Food Organisation (FAO) food price index, even if international prices have moderated in 2023, they are still higher than in 2019 (see Graph 1). And all indications are that this is a crisis of prices, and not a food shortage at the global level. For the past 20 years, world grain production has exceeded available stocks.

The impact of these food price increases on millions of people, especially the poor, is devastating. In 2022, 9.2% of the world’s population was chronically hungry, an increase of 122 million people since 2019.

But, as this year’s farmers’ protests make clear, the increase in food prices is not going into their pockets. So, who is benefiting from these food price rises?

Volatility by design

The FAO and corporate executives have attributed recent food price increases to disruptive supply chains for oil, gas, fertilisers and staple goods. This is a half truth, and thus deceptive. They don’t mention how the current structure of the food system encourages and amplifies such disruptions.

For decades, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have promoted structural adjustment policies, and green revolution technologies (hybrid seeds + chemical pesticides and fertilisers) across the world. We now have a global food system designed around the production of a small number of agricultural commodities (wheat, rice, maize, soybeans, palm oil) in a few areas of the world totally devoted to the massive industrial production of monocultures dependent on the supply of inputs, and concentrated in the hands of a few companies. Any disruptions within this global system, be it war or drought, can have major impacts on people’s access to food.

This is particularly acute in countries of the global South that are now highly dependent on food imports because of policies imposed on them through multilateral banks and free trade agreements. Moreover, we are entering a period of intense climate crisis, water crisis, geopolitical tensions, and declining crop yield gains that are set to generate more frequent and more severe disruptions.

For some, however, this volatility is an opportunity. Because of deliberate policies implemented since the 1980s (see box), there is today a large and growing part of the financial sector that profits from shifts in food prices using what are called “derivatives”. In theory, the use of these instruments helps buyers and sellers to lock in prices and protect themselves against the risk of price fluctuations. The most common and important of these instruments are futures contracts, which are agreements to buy or sell agricultural commodities at a specified future date. In futures markets, it is not the agricultural product itself that is traded, but the contract. The price of the contract changes according to supply and demand. But price variations on the futures markets have a direct influence on price fluctuation of the goods to which the futures contract relate. For example, if the price of a wheat futures contract rises, this indicates that the estimated future price of wheat is high. Consequently, the real current price of wheat rises. With increased activity in the financial futures markets, food trading has come to be referenced to futures prices. In a vicious circle, the volatility of food prices attracts more speculative money into the commodity futures market. This, in turn, amplifies the volatility of the futures markets and pushes up or down real food prices.

The price volatility experienced during the 2007 – 2008 food price crisis was partly a result of a surge in financial speculation. Similarly, when the war in Ukraine began, investments in commodity futures and commodity-linked funds rocketed. Speculative positions in the Paris wheat market increased from 35 million euros in January 2021 to 1 billion euros in March 2022. A report by IPES-Food found that the price of wheat on futures markets rose 54% in nine days, and the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission noted that volatility was 20% higher than normal. While this drove price increases that penalised consumers, hedge funds and pension funds speculating on food markets made huge profits.
The world’s agricultural trading companies have also benefited massively from this situation, including through their participation in financial markets. In 2022, profits achieved by the top five firms in this sector doubled and even tripled compared to the period 2016 – 2020. A report by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development found that corporate profits of global food traders “appear to be strongly linked to periods of excessive speculation in commodity markets and to the growth of shadow banking – an unregulated financial sector that operates outside traditional banking institutions”.

They have some important advantages over purely financial players. For one, as ‘commercial actors’ they are not subject to the same restrictions or regulations of financial actors on commodity trading markets. Also, because of their global presence they have the most in-depth and up-to-date information about the availability of products and are the first to know about poor harvests or bumper crops. A study by SOMO found that the largest agricultural commodity trading companies ADM, Bunge, Cargill, COFCO International and Louis Dreyfus (usually referred to as “ABCCD”) control 73% of the global grain and oilseed trade as well as a combined 1 million hectares of farmland.

A perverse and well prepared alignment of the stars in the 1980s

Three parallel developments in the 1980s were key to financialising the global food system. First, the liberalisation of agricultural markets was promoted by the World Bank and other international agencies. Until then, governments in different regions had adopted policies to protect farmers from production risks. Second, financial markets were deregulated in the United States and investment banks and commodity trading firms began marketing index funds that tracked the prices of various commodities. In addition, large institutional investors (such as pension funds) sought to diversify their investments. To hedge their risks, they increased their investments in commodity derivatives and physical assets. As a result, a growing number of financial players began to speculate on food prices.

Third, like other companies, agribusiness companies experienced a dramatic shift in ownership with the entry of large asset management firms. CEO salaries became linked to the value of shares, creating a strong incentive to restructure companies in ways that generated more profit for shareholders. To this end, mergers and acquisitions multiplied, laying the foundations for today’s deep corporate concentration in the agri-food sector.

Source: Jennifer Clapp and S. Ryan Isakson, “Speculative Harvests: Financialization, Food, and Agriculture”, Agrarian Change & Peasant Studies, 2021.

Price manipulation and sellers’ inflation

Financial markets are not the only space where big agribusiness and food companies have an impact on food prices. A growing number of voices, such as the economist Isabella Weber, point to the monopoly power of corporations as a major factor in recent price inflation, including with food. What they call “sellers’ inflation” happens in contexts of supply-chain bottlenecks and cost shocks. When price hikes in upstream sectors (such as the gas needed for fertilisers) spread along the supply chain, companies in downstream sectors pass on cost increases to protect margins and even take the opportunity to increase margins. They can raise prices knowing that all their competitors will do the same.

Such strategies are only possible in contexts where a handful of companies have the power to set prices, as is the case in the food and agriculture sector. For example, just four companies, Bayer, Corteva, Syngenta and BASF control half of the seed market and 75% of the global agrochemicals market. Since 2018, their profits have nearly doubled. On the fertilisers side, the global market is controlled by a small number of companies. Four of them control a third of all nitrogen fertiliser production. From 2018 to 2022, the profits of the top 9 fertiliser corporations more than tripled, as they increased prices far beyond the production costs. Another example can be found in the world’s second largest meat processor, Tyson. The company more than doubled its margins and profits at the end of 2021. This was due to price increases it initiated and then continued to raise to protect margins against cost pressures from grain prices. A similar strategy was followed by large branders as Nestlé, Unilever and Mondelez who increased prices and ended by recording high profits in 2022.

This combination of monopoly power and unregulated activity in financial markets allows agricultural commodity traders, big agribusiness and food companies to make huge profits from food price rises.

Countering corporate power in food systems

The big culprit when it comes to today’s high food prices for consumers and low prices for farmers is corporate power. The climate crisis will only make this situation worse, unless urgent actions are taken to dismantle corporate power and shift to more localised food systems, based on diversified food production and catered to people’s food needs. The struggle against free trade agreements, at the forefront of many of today’s farmers’ protests, is therefore critical.

At the same time, actions are needed to reign in the power of those actors in the casino economy who are amplifying food price volatility and increases. When it comes to financial speculation, an important driver in food price volatility, regulations need to be tightened. And, to tackle the so-called “sellers’ inflation”, we need measures to prevent profiteering, which could include taxes on windfall profits anti-trust measures, and, more importantly public controls over food prices and programmes that ensure a fair, equitable and secure distribution of nutritious foods to everyone.

Source: grain.org

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Criminalization of planet, land, and environmental defenders in Uganda is on the increase as 2023 recorded the soaring number of attacks.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

Close to 200 community human rights defenders and activists have paid a price for protecting the planet, land, and environmental rights in Uganda in the year 2023, Witness Radio – Uganda reports.

The abridged report titled “The State of Planet, Environmental, and Land Rights Defenders in Uganda 2023” by Witness Radio documented 181 cases of arbitrary arrests, detentions, imprisonments, disappearances, and other retaliatory attacks.

Witness Radio‘s findings reveal a disturbing pattern wherein all arrests are marked by extreme violence, particularly targeting those who boldly stand up to fight for nature, food sovereignty, and biodiversity and mobilize communities to push back violence against them. Beyond the mere detentions, these defenders often fall victim to kidnapping, torture, and arbitrary arrest, fostering an atmosphere of fear among them and the communities they represent.

Nevertheless, defenders who persist and stand up for their beliefs are at a higher risk of violent attacks from investors and their agents. Notably, the Western region emerges as a fiery epicenter for the unjust criminalization of these brave individuals, where the flames of oppression burn most intensely. It is followed by Central, Northern and Eastern regions respectively.

The report also highlights a concerning trend in Uganda’s agricultural sector, marked by a significant increase in violent and retaliatory attacks and detentions. It is closely followed by similar issues within the oil sector, as the infrastructure sector underscoring the urgent necessity for comprehensive action to address the escalating threats and attacks faced by land and environmental defenders in Uganda.

Witness Radio’s Community Empowerment officer, Ms. Bulyerali Joan, reveals that the prevalence of the continued unforceful evictions and escalating criminalization of community land and environmental defenders is a result of insufficient due diligence by both government entities and investors in their business investments.

“Land and environmental rights defenders are consistently targeted for arrest as a means to intimidate them into relinquishing their land. The collusion between the police, who are tasked with protecting the community, and investors results in the detention of these defenders, leaving them vulnerable to the whims of the investors. Furthermore, the government and various project funders fail to conduct proper due diligence to ensure that the entities they support uphold human rights standards,” Ms. Bulyerali emphasized.

“Over the past years, we have been documenting the complicity between the police, army, and private security guards in carrying out illegal evictions, as well as their roles in suppressing protesters advocating for land and environmental rights,” added Ms. Bulyerali. “Unfortunately, 2023 has seen a continuation of this pattern, with the police, private guards, and army actively involved in violent evictions, resulting in the arrests and detentions of critics of various projects.”

In one of the communities mentioned in the report, Rwabunyonyi village in Hoima district, a community member named Venessa not real name due to fear of retaliation from land grabbers, disclosed that in March 2023, 21 land defenders were forcibly arrested by local police, allegedly in collusion with land grabbers. Shockingly, these defenders were falsely charged with murder and aggravated robbery, a blatant attempt to silence them and instill fear among the communities they represent.

“Our land remains heavily guarded by private security personnel, preventing us from accessing and utilizing it for our livelihoods. These guards have intensified violence against us and persistently target our land for large-scale investments” Vanessa told Witness Radio.

Shockingly, despite Junior Lands Minister Mr. Sam Mayanja’s attempt to intervene and protect the community from land grabbing on August 24, 2023, security guards affiliated with the Pyramid Private Security group stationed on the land resorted to threatening him with gunfire.

According to the Rwabunyonyi community members, they perceive this act as demonstrating the impunity with which these powerful land grabbers operate to the extent of ordering the guards to shoot at the minister. They questioned how ordinary citizens like themselves could challenge the oppressive tactics of these guards if they showed no fear in confronting high-ranking officials.

In the oil sector, the controversial East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) has persistently inflicted detrimental effects on the very individuals it purports to benefit. From unfair compensations and land grabbing to relentless harassment and violent arrests of critics, its impact is starkly evident. Notably, among those forcefully arrested and falsely charged for raising legitimate concerns about the environmental damage caused by the pipeline project is Bob Barigye.

Barigye, a climate activist and an advocate for social justice and human rights, working with the African Initiative on Food Security and Environment (AIFE) was arbitrarily arrested and detained more than three times in 2023. He recounted one harrowing incident on January 24th 2023, while in Kampala. He revealed that during this arrest, 15 police officers manhandled and severely beat him. The catalyst for the activist’s arrest was his involvement in organizing a debate addressing the environmental, human rights, and economic ramifications of the EACOP project.

Barigye further described being forcefully placed into a police van, where officers compelled him to lie on the floor beneath the seats. He was then transported to and detained at Wandegeya Police Station, in Kampala district. He reported being charged with obstructing police officers while on duty before being released on police bond on January 27th 2023.

Despite the increasing number of reported cases, the report anticipates a potential reduction in land evictions shortly. This optimism follows President Yoweri Museveni’s decision to ban the involvement of the army in evictions. Museveni’s action was later complemented by the Minister of Internal Affairs, Kahinda Otafiire, who warned against the participation of both police and private guards in illegal land evictions.

Following growing concerns about the army’s role in carrying land evictions, in December 2023 the President announced a ban prohibiting the involvement of the Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) in land matters and guarding grabbed land claiming, that the actions by the army deviate from its primary mandate of securing the country’s borders.

Additionally, Otafiire, earlier this year cautioned police’s involvement in illegal land evictions and added that he has always advised the Ugandan police to stay away from land involving conflicts. Otafiire also gave a directive barring private security company groups from manning people’s land.

The report also advises the government to enforce regulations mandating thorough human rights and environmental due diligence processes before endorsing any land-based investments. It suggests conducting periodic evaluations of such investments. The Uganda Investment Authority should engage with investors and companies to establish Internal Grievances Appeal Mechanisms to address adverse social and economic effects of their operations, among other measures, to curb rising criminalization.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter