MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
Monoculture tree plantations are a false climate solution
Published
6 years agoon

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)
Related posts:

The African Development Bank and the Tree Plantations Industry
MONOCULTURE TREE PLANTATIONS – Uganda – Promotion of plantation agriculture – a disgrace to human kind and environment
12 Replies to 12 Lies about Industrial Tree Plantations: New edition of a WRM briefing paper
Colonization and Monoculture Plantations: Histories of Large-Scale ‘Grabbings’
You may like
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
The economic promise of climate action: How governments, businesses, and communities can join forces for a sustainable future.
Published
23 hours agoon
November 5, 2026
By the Witness Radio team.
Climate action is no longer just an environmental concern; it has become an economic imperative as governments and businesses face mounting costs from climate disasters, energy insecurity, and environmental harm.
Investing in renewables, land restoration, and climate resilience not only safeguards economic growth and livelihoods but also helps prevent future losses. But capital alone is not enough; lasting progress demands steady government policies, private-sector commitment, and true community engagement.
These urgent topics took center stage at a high-level discussion hosted by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ahead of COP31, where leaders from international institutions, business, and the environmental sector explored how partnerships can speed up climate action.
Presenting the OECD’s economic analysis, Mr. Jaime de Bourbon de Parme, the OECD Environment Director, argued that despite uncertainty in international climate negotiations, the real economy continued to move toward cleaner energy and climate-related investment.
“What hasn’t been stalling is the real economy,” he said, arguing that the focus was increasingly shifting from setting climate ambitions towards implementing them.
He said clean energy is becoming important not only for reducing emissions but also for strengthening energy security and reducing dependence on volatile fossil fuel markets.
“Fossil fuels were seen as a stable energy source and renewable energy was the new kid on the block. Now we see that fossil fuels are seen as a source of instability, and renewable energy is a source of stability going forward,” Jaime said.
Jaime also pointed to the growing investment in clean energy, noting that of approximately $3 trillion invested in energy systems, about $2 trillion went towards clean energy, compared with $1 trillion for fossil fuels. He adds that early investment in climate action is therefore not simply an environmental choice but an economic decision.
“The costs today are cheaper than in five years or in 10 years or in 15 years. So, acting early makes sense,” he said.
To turn climate investment pledges into real progress, businesses need policies that inspire long-term confidence. Peter Bakker, President and CEO of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), noted that sustainability is fast becoming a competitive edge for companies, not just a box to tick for corporate responsibility.
Drawing on the organization’s Business Breakthrough Barometer, which surveyed more than 500 executives across more than 50 countries, Bakker said 89 percent of companies expected to maintain or increase their sustainability investments compared with the previous year.
He also noted that 85 percent of respondents wanted more government policy, rather than less, to support the transition.
He also warned against focusing solely on the supply side of the energy transition, stressing that governments must spark demand for cleaner technologies while investing in their production.
“We shouldn’t only focus on the supply side; we must focus on the demand side,” he said.
Bakker highlighted the private sector’s growing opportunities, from electrification and energy-smart buildings to cleaner ways of making goods.
Beyond energy, restoring damaged land and boosting drought resilience open new doors to blend environmental protection with economic growth.
Dr.Yasmin Fouad, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), said land degradation and drought were increasingly threatening economic stability, food security and human livelihoods.
She noted that half of global GDP depends on nature. At the same time, one-fifth of the world’s land is already degraded, affecting approximately 1.3 billion people, and restoring degraded land should be treated as an economic investment rather than an expense government can postpone.
“The studies show you that for every dollar that you are investing now as a cost to restore land, there is a revenue that comes to around $30,” Fouad said.
Yet, despite these promising economic returns, she admitted that scarce financing, budget strains in vulnerable countries, and too few projects ready to attract private capital still hold back land restoration investment.
She proposed a financing approach in which multilateral development banks help reduce investment risks, making it easier for private companies to participate in restoration projects.
“The financial architecture that was developed for renewable energy needs to be transferred and realized very quickly on land restoration,” she said, adding that under such arrangements, development banks could help reduce the risks associated with restoration projects, making them more attractive to private investors.
Fouad also emphasized the importance of aligning national policies so that investments in climate adaptation, agriculture, biodiversity and land restoration reinforce rather than compete with one another. She pointed to the UNCCD’s Business for Land initiative, which brings governments and businesses together to discuss investment opportunities in land restoration.
The initiative has attracted interest beyond agricultural companies, including businesses in the fashion, beverage. However, she emphasized that investment only works when paired with secure land rights and real community involvement full of community participation.
“If we don’t have clear land rights to allow the private sector to invest, and clarity on how many years I’m owning land, what is the legality of that, that would really prevent the private sector from pitching in,” she said.
While restoring land helps reduce environmental risks, climate resilience must also be woven into infrastructure planning and investments. Mark Fletcher, Head of Zurich Resilience Solutions for Asia-Pacific, urged businesses and governments to factor in climate risks before breaking ground, not after disaster strikes.
“The fundamental barrier today is that resilience is still treated as a recovery tool, not as a design input,” he said.
Fletcher cited research by Zurich on renewable energy assets across Southeast Asia, covering more than 1,000 wind, solar, geothermal and hydropower locations.
The assessment found that 75 percent of these sites, worth an estimated $165 billion, face high risk from climate hazards within five years. Investing in resilience from the start could slash future losses.
According to Fletcher, the study estimated that investing approximately $13 billion in resilience measures at the investment stage could prevent about $85 billion in future losses.
He suggested that insurers can nudge businesses toward resilience by rewarding reduced risks with better insurance terms, such as improved coverage and lower deductibles. protection, that property is a better risk,” he said,
Governments, financial institutions, and businesses all play vital roles in funding and driving climate action. Still, the conversation also underscored the importance of bringing communities into the heart of the transition.
Fouad cautioned that restoration projects risk causing new problems if local communities are left out of decisions about the land and resources they rely on.
“If you don’t do that, you may end up doing something that they did not participate in, and again that would cause conflict and cause migration,” she said.
Jaime also highlighted civil society’s crucial role in building trust and shaping climate investments for the long haul. He described these organizations as bridges, connecting governments and businesses with the communities their investments touch.
“Civil society has an important role in ensuring that the just transition is inclusive and sustainable. Beyond their traditional role of holding institutions accountable, civil society organizations can build relationships and act as agents of trust, helping ensure environmental initiatives are designed for long-term success. This requires a shift from criticism towards collaboration, with governments, businesses and communities working together to advance the transition,” he concluded.
Related posts:

Experts warn that without Africa’s control over resources and climate financing, the continent faces the risk of entering a new era of “green colonialism”.
PFZW scraps funding from Total and others for failure to transition into a cleaner energy mix.
Financial Institutions from Africa have made a monumental commitment of $100 billion to Africa’s green industrialization, a decision of immense significance that has the potential to shape Africa’s future.
Experts push for a National Bamboo Policy to strengthen climate mitigation efforts.
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
Gov’t Land Grabbed by Gov’t Officials: Minister Exposes Fraud Inside Lands Ministry
Published
1 day agoon
November 5, 2026
Government land across Uganda is increasingly being grabbed, encroached on and fraudulently titled, with some officials in the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development accused of facilitating illegal transactions, State Minister for Lands, Harriet Ntabazi, has said.
Ntabazi said some high-ranking government officials with access to information in the ministry had acquired titles on public land, while others had illegally occupied government property and were using it for activities not authorised by government. She also accused some ministry officials of deliberately issuing multiple titles on the same piece of land despite records showing the property belongs to government.
She said government is strengthening land information systems to prevent fraudulent transactions and improve integrity of land records. Ntabazi made the remarks on Tuesday during a regional stakeholders’ engagement on development of a comprehensive government land inventory organised by the Uganda Land Commission (ULC) at Hoima Resort Hotel in Hoima City.
She cautioned individuals illegally occupying government land to voluntarily vacate before enforcement measures are taken. She said government land, including property occupied by health facilities, police stations, district headquarters, markets, schools, road reserves, forests, game reserves, wetlands and other public institutions, must be protected from encroachment and fraud.
Ntabazi urged district technical officers, town clerks, land officers, physical planners, surveyors, natural resources officers and political leaders to ensure accurate information about public land is collected and submitted to relevant authorities. She said districts should take responsibility for establishing accurate inventories of government land instead of waiting for the Ministry or ULC.
The minister said government has embarked on identifying, verifying, profiling, registering and titling all its land to protect it from illegal occupation and land grabbing. She cited Section 3.7, Statement 27 of the National Land Policy 2013, which requires government to audit, survey, title and maintain an inventory of government and public land.
Ntabazi called on leaders and stakeholders in Bunyoro and across the country to take active role in identifying and documenting government land in their areas. She said the exercise would also enable government to establish a land bank for future expansion, industrialisation, infrastructure development and investment.
The minister however reassured lawful landowners that the exercise was not intended to dispossess people who had legally acquired land in good faith. She emphasised importance of protecting government land in Bunyoro, citing the region’s strategic importance due to ongoing oil and gas developments, construction of Kabalega International Airport and other major infrastructure projects.
ULC: Most Gov’t Land Untitled
Prof. Pen Mogi Nyeko, Chairperson of the Uganda Land Commission, said a significant portion of government land remained untitled, exposing it to encroachment and fraudulent acquisition. Nyeko said the Commission, the Ministry of Lands and local governments need to work together to protect public land.
He said a comprehensive government land inventory would help reduce land disputes arising from inadequate records while protecting environmentally fragile areas and public utility corridors. Nyeko added that reliable geospatial land data is essential for infrastructure development, service delivery and effective planning.
He called on religious institutions, civil society organisations and opinion leaders to mobilise communities to provide information about leases granted by or obtained from government.
Hoima LCV Chairperson Uthman Kadir Mugisa said the district had so far titled 60 percent of its government land, adding that local government allocates funds annually towards securing titles for public property.
However, Mugisa raised concern over allegedly fraudulent titles acquired by wealthy individuals and speculators, saying some were being used to threaten hundreds of residents with eviction. He asked the Ministry of Lands to investigate how the titles were obtained and cancel those found to have been fraudulently acquired.
Hoima City Mayor Edward Isingoma said increasing population was putting pressure on land in Bunyoro. He asked the Ministry to consider providing free land titles to residents, arguing that cost and bureaucracy made the process inaccessible to many.
Buliisa LCV Chairperson Twairi Atuhaure Wandera also reported increasing cases of land grabbing in the district, saying the situation had left many residents uncertain about security of their land.
He called on the ministry to extend free land titling services to residents through the Systematic Land Adjudication and Certification (SLAAC) programme.
Hoima Resident City Commissioner Badru Mugabi said about 70 percent of their work involved resolving land-related disputes, reflecting growing pressure on land in Bunyoro. He said some wealthy individuals had encroached on government land, adding that the proposed inventory would help safeguard public property.
The engagement attracted district surveyors, district land board committees, Resident District Commissioners, Chief Administrative Officers, LCV chairpersons and town clerks from across Bunyoro sub-region.
Source: -URN Via businessfocus.co.ug
Related posts:

Uganda’s top Lands Ministry official has been arrested and charged with Corruption and Abuse of Office, a significant event that will have far-reaching implications for land governance in the country.
Lands Ministry tightens rules for replacing lost titles, gives landowners 30 days to object
An early bird: oil-affected communities have launched a petition to the Lands Ministry, seeking protection of their rights in the face of forced acquisitions.
Lands ministry rejects call to save over 300 Masaka residents facing eviction
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
Uganda’s drive to expand oil palm farming is stirring unease among rural communities, who worry about the far-reaching effects on their lives and land.
Published
3 days agoon
November 3, 2026
By the Witness Radio Team
From Kalangala to Buvuma and Sango Bay, oil palm development has brought worries about land loss, delayed compensation, and dwindling access to natural resources. Now, as the government sets its sights on Busoga, community land defenders are questioning whether this expansion will truly uplift rural households or repeat the hardships seen elsewhere.
In Buvuma, community land defender Atanansi Musagala says some residents who surrendered land for oil palm development have waited years for compensation, some reportedly as long as a decade.
He says these delays have left families grappling to rebuild their lives after losing the land that once sustained them.
“Land is often the foundation of household survival. Families cultivate food crops, raise livestock and earn income from agricultural activities. It can also serve as a financial safety net, allowing households to sell produce or use their property to support other investments during difficult times,” Musagala told Witness Radio.
“When families lose this resource without timely compensation, rebuilding their livelihoods becomes more difficult. They may have to find alternative land, seek casual employment or depend on relatives to meet basic needs. Children’s education, household food consumption and other essential expenses may compete for whatever income remains available.”
“Even when compensation eventually arrives, the money may no longer be sufficient to purchase equivalent land or restore the economic activities that families previously depended on,” he added.
The worries about land loss and threatened livelihoods stretch beyond Buvuma. In Kalangala, the birthplace of Uganda’s oil palm program, women’s rights and land defender Prossy Gwobikira says the expansion has also strained communities’ access to natural resources and sparked environmental fears.
“You see, hundreds of people were evicted to give way for oil palm. They cut forests to plant these palm trees, and now they have gone on to destroy our lake by planting trees in the buffer zone,” she said.
In Sango Bay, Kyotera District, oil palm development has been shadowed by bitter disputes over land acquisition and compensation.
In 2022, as the government moved to clear land for the project, reports surfaced of evictions in the Sango Bay Estate. Bulldozers tore down structures belonging to those labeled as encroachers across roughly 247 square miles.
At the time, the government said it was prepared to compensate only 300 people considered bona fide occupants, out of an estimated 10,000 households living in the area.
Reports suggested that compensation had begun, yet uncertainty lingered for the many households still unsure how their claims to land and property would be resolved.
Anxiety is growing as the government eyes Busoga for oil palm expansion, touting the crop as a solution to boost rural incomes and reduce Uganda’s reliance on imported vegetable oil.
On October 21, Agriculture Minister Frank Tumwebaze told Parliament that Uganda consumes approximately 450,000 tonnes of vegetable oil annually but produces only 80,000 tonnes, leaving a deficit of 370,000 tonnes.
The country spends about US$300 million, equivalent to Shs1.25 trillion, on annual imports, he said.
To address the shortfall, the government plans to expand oil palm cultivation to approximately 100,000 hectares, with a longer-term ambition of reaching between 150,000 and 200,000 hectares within a decade.
Tumwebaze said oil palm produces between four and 10 times more oil per hectare than crops such as soybean and sunflower.
He also said farmers could earn about Shs500,000 per acre per month from the fourth year after planting, with production continuing for about 20 years.
But Musagala warns that farmers also shoulder costs that could eat into their earnings.
“Oil palm takes several years to mature, while farmers must meet the costs of seedlings, fertilizers, labor and other inputs before harvesting begins. Loan repayments can add to the pressure for those who borrow money to establish their plantations.” He added.
In Mayuge, Bugiri and Namayingo, 589.56 hectares are already under oil palm, out of the 2,817 hectares earmarked for cultivation.
As the project spreads into Busoga, community land defenders urge the government to address the challenges already reported in existing oil palm regions.
“People where this project has been, have suffered a lot. We pray that the government learns from the past mistakes and addresses the impacts that have come along with the project so that elsewhere people benefit,” Gwobikira said.
Busoga has already felt the impact of sugarcane cultivation, sparking worries over food security, land use and rural livelihoods. Now, as oil palm production expands, community land defenders are pressing the government to ensure this new investment does not deepen existing problems but instead offers farmers a steady income and safeguards their access to land and food.
Related posts:

Oil palm tree growing in Uganda: The National Oil Palm Project is threatening to evict hundreds of smallholder farmers to expand its operations.
Environmentalists raise red flags over plan to expand oil palm fields in Kalangala
Tension as Project-Affected Persons demand to meet Uganda’s President over Oil Palm growing on their grabbed land.
How Land evictions will expand its effects on the next electoral processes in Uganda
The economic promise of climate action: How governments, businesses, and communities can join forces for a sustainable future.
Gov’t Land Grabbed by Gov’t Officials: Minister Exposes Fraud Inside Lands Ministry
Uganda’s drive to expand oil palm farming is stirring unease among rural communities, who worry about the far-reaching effects on their lives and land.
Kiryandongo district, a notorious hotspot for land grabs in Uganda: A bitter land dispute spanning 22 years has left residents landless and food-insecure, while the investor anxiously guards his investment.
Tanzanian Government Abducts Maasai Villagers in an Unconscionable Attack on Indigenous Land Defenders
Environmental and human rights advocates are urging the world to hold global investors accountable for their actions.
World Food Day 2026: Building healthy diets means reimagining how we grow, share, and enjoy our food.
Court remands 10 anti-oil activists as suspect collapses in dock
Innovative Finance from Canada projects positive impact on local communities.
Over 5000 Indigenous Communities evicted in Kiryandongo District
Petition To Land Inquiry Commission Over Human Rights In Kiryandongo District
Invisible victims of Uganda Land Grabs
Resource Center
- CAN AFRICAN FOOD SYSTEMS THRIVE WITHOUT CHEMICAL FERTILISERS
- Land And Environment Rights In Uganda Experiences From Karamoja And Mid Western Sub Regions
- REPARATORY AND CLIMATE JUSTICE MUST BE AT THE CORE OF COP30, SAY GLOBAL LEADERS AND MOVEMENTS
- LAND GRABS AT GUNPOINT REPORT IN KIRYANDONGO DISTRICT
- THOSE OIL LIARS! THEY DESTROYED MY BUSINESS!
- RESEARCH BRIEF -TOURISM POTENTIAL OF GREATER MASAKA -MARCH 2025
- The Mouila Declaration of the Informal Alliance against the Expansion of Industrial Monocultures
- FORCED LAND EVICTIONS IN UGANDA TRENDS RIGHTS OF DEFENDERS IMPACT AND CALL FOR ACTION
Legal Framework
READ BY CATEGORY
Newsletter
Trending
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoEnvironmental and human rights advocates are urging the world to hold global investors accountable for their actions.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoA coalition of 625 African faith leaders will gather, united in their call for reparations in response to what they describe as the failure of a Gates-backed agricultural model.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoHigh land title costs, bureaucracy, and distance leave women struggling to secure land rights in Africa.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoFrom grassroots action to policy transformation: How local environmental solutions spark enduring change.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK4 days agoKiryandongo district, a notorious hotspot for land grabs in Uganda: A bitter land dispute spanning 22 years has left residents landless and food-insecure, while the investor anxiously guards his investment.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK7 days agoAfrican faith leaders are raising their voices for reparations as AGRA’s 20-year legacy faces intense scrutiny.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoStandard Bank faces complaint over sustainability claims linked to East African Oil Pipeline
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week ago149 CSOs and groups demand answers from banks over $3.7bn in EACOP financing
