MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Monoculture tree plantations are a false climate solution

Published

6 years ago

September 24, 2020

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)

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Communities once resettled by President Museveni in Kiryandongo now find themselves losing their land to a sugarcane investor, accusing the Uganda Land Commission of granting a leasehold behind their backs.

Published

3 days ago

August 6, 2026

witnessradio.org

By the Witness Radio team.

For over ten years, families in Ranch 11, Kiryandongo District, cherished the hope that they had at last found a true home.

Their path to Ranch 11 was paved with hardship and repeated displacement. Some families, as Witness Radio discovered, were forced out of conservation areas, while others lost their homes amid political turmoil. When the government finally allocated them land through the Office of the President, they dared to believe their long search for safety was over.

Yet now, the very land they say President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni gave them has become the heart of a fresh conflict, as a sugarcane company lays claim to it.

Residents now accuse the Uganda Land Commission of quietly leasing part of Ranch 11 to sugarcane investor M/S Muhazi Heritage, leaving out the very communities who had built lives there for over a decade.

For families like Fred Kangume’s, this so-called development feels like yet another eviction, carried out without the voices or consent of those who call the land home.

“We were resettled on this land on orders of the President. And now we are surprised that an investor was given the same land without our consent or being informed,” Kangume told Witness Radio.

A Witness Radio investigation reveals a troubling contradiction: while official documents show attempts to secure land for these communities, the Uganda Land Commission later handed over more than 1,000 hectares of that very land to Muhazi Heritage through a lease agreement.

This dispute now sparks a deeper question about land governance in Uganda: how can families settled by government order lose their land when another state body gives it away to a private investor?

Several correspondences reviewed by Witness Radio indicate that President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni directed the Ministry of Lands to allocate land in Kiryandongo to approximately 750 landless families, including the Nubian and Kibyama communities who had converged in Kigumba and were living in difficult conditions in makeshift settlements.

The affected groups included about 350 families who had been evicted from the Karuma Wildlife Reserve in 1999 and 404 Nubian families who had been displaced from different parts of Uganda during and after the 1978/79 political turmoil.

According to information obtained by Witness Radio from the office of the Minister of State for Lands, the history of displacement for some of these families dates back to the 1970s.

During the government of former President Idi Amin, authorities established the Palestinian Farm at Kiroko in Kiryandongo Sub-county, displacing hundreds of families from their land.

The documents indicate that the affected families were neither compensated nor resettled after losing their land. As a result, some moved to neighboring public land, which was later gazetted as part of the Karuma Forest Reserve.

Years later, these same families faced another displacement when the Uganda Wildlife Authority evicted them from the reserve, leaving many without homes, land for cultivation, or reliable sources of livelihood.

The second group comprised members of the Nubian community who, after returning from exile, found that their former homes and properties in places such as Gulu, Lira, Soroti, and other parts of Uganda had been taken over during insurgencies. They also faced a challenging social and political environment, forcing many to seek refuge among friends and relatives in Masindi District.

With both groups facing prolonged landlessness and uncertainty, they petitioned President Museveni in 2000, requesting government intervention and resettlement.

A 2001 correspondence from the Ministry of Lands to the Office of the President states that government officials identified Ranch 11, part of the former Bunyoro Ranching Scheme, as available land that could be used to resettle the landless families.

The document states: “Within Masindi District, currently Kiryandongo District, was a vacant Ranch No. 11… which according to the Ranches Restructuring exercise was allocated to the Office of the President and could in this circumstance be subdivided to settle the landless 750 families.”

In 2006, President Museveni directed that the communities be resettled on approximately 5.5 square miles of land in Ranch 11.

For these families, the directive represented a new beginning and what they hoped would be an end to decades of displacement. In 2013, with support from local leaders and officers from the Ministry of Lands, the affected communities were resettled on the land.

Over the years, residents had built homes, established trading centers, and invested in agriculture. But according to residents, the land was never fully surveyed, and individual ownership documents were never issued.

In 2023, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of Kiryandongo District requested financial support from the Ministry of Finance to facilitate the resettlement process for these categories: “Nubian community and families displaced from Karuma Wildlife Reserve.”

A letter from Permanent Secretary Ramathan Ggoobi informed the district that Shs200 million (about $53,428 USD) would be provided for the exercise. The funds, according to the letter, were to be budgeted under the Transitional Development Grant for the 2023/24 financial year.

Yet as communities waited in hope for official land documents, a separate process was quietly granting the same land to an investor.

Documents obtained by Witness Radio show that the Uganda Land Commission, during the Commission’s meeting of 4 August 2023 under Minute 64/2023(a)(04), approved the allocation of 1,059.89 hectares of land, equivalent to four square miles, to Muhazi Heritage.

The company received a five-year lease, renewable up to 49 years. On 17 December 2024, the Uganda Land Commission issued a certificate of title to Muhazi Heritage.

This turn of events stunned residents, who insist they were never consulted despite being the rightful occupants. Instead of security, the allocation sparked another wave of violent evictions as the company pressed for full control and communities fought back against what they called blatant land grabbing.

Charles Kalakire, the chairperson of Kimogola B village, told Witness Radio that local leaders were not involved in the allocation process.

“I was never consulted when the Uganda Land Commission awarded land to the company, which had legally known sitting tenants,” Kalakire said.

He added that he only learned about changes in land allocation after receiving information from district security officials.

“I got this information from the Resident District Commissioner (RDC), a president’s representative in the district, and the District Internal Security Officer (DISO) that land had now moved from the hands of the people to the investor,” he added.

Residents say the investor’s deal left just 1.5 square miles for over 750 families. For many, the conflict has spilled from paperwork into daily life.

“The situation is worse; people are beaten and forced to receive compensation, a level of impunity which forced the state minister of lands, Hon Sam Mayanja, to intervene and cause harmony in the area.” Mr. David Bakundaki, another resident, said.

During his visit to Kimogora in 2024, Mayanja revealed that the investor had requested the commission to allocate his company the entire Ranch 11 measuring over 5.5 square miles.

Based on his guidance, through a 2024 letter to the commission, he ordered the commission to allocate 4 square miles, and the remaining 1.5 square miles be used to resettle the affected people. The company was also directed to compensate residents, support relocation, and provide infrastructure including schools, health facilities, and roads as part of corporate social responsibility.

However, residents and leaders say the remaining land is already occupied, making relocation difficult.

“The people who have been occupying the four-square miles are now being packed into the 1.5 square miles. They are being allocated a quarter acre. On top of that, the allocations are now creating land tensions with those they found in.”

“Also, those who have received compensation have got peanuts, 200,000, 300,000 Uganda shillings, which can’t afford to cater for their families or buy land elsewhere, and the responsibility that had to come along with resettling people was never fulfilled.” Mr. Godfrey Kiviri, former chairperson of Mutunda A village, told Witness Radio.

Meanwhile, those refusing to leave their land face violence from company workers, supported by security forces.

The Ranch 11 saga lays bare a deep contradiction in Uganda’s land management: a government meant to restore dignity to the displaced later hands their land to a private sugarcane investor.

For these communities, the fight has become about more than land. It is now a struggle for trust, accountability, and the hope that government promises to its most vulnerable will be honored.

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

News: Kapapi Land dispute: Security investigate gunfire exch

Published

3 days ago

August 6, 2026

witnessradio.org

HOIMA — Security in Hoima district is investigating circumstances under which police personnel and Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) officers deployed at the disputed Kapapi land in Kapapi sub-county, Hoima district, exchanged gunfire and left two vehicles damaged.

The incident occurred last Sunday at night as UPDF officers deployed on the disputed land attempted to arrest Capt. Rogers Karamagi, the manager of Brig. Gen. Peter Akankunda Nabasa on the land.

Brig. Gen. Nabasa got involved in the Kapapi land dispute after Moses Byangire, the administrator of the late Tito Byangire’s estate leased 700 acres of land to the general for 10 years in Kigorobya, Hoima District.

The deployment of UPDF soldiers on the land was after the 2,000 residents who were evicted from the land measuring about three square miles petitioned the former lands state minister, Dr Sam Mayanja (now Attorney General), seeking his intervention.

When Mayanja visited the land in October last year, he ordered the Commander of the Field Artillery Division based in Masindi, Maj. Gen. Daniel Kakono, to deploy security on the disputed land to protect the evictees and to disarm private security personnel who had deployed there.

Since then, UPDF soldiers have been deployed on the land and have not been allowing any agent to step on the land covering over four villages, including Waki South, Waki North, Runga, Kapapi Central and Kiryateete, all within Kapapi sub-county.

How it startedAccording to Brig. Gen. Nabasa, on the fateful day, Karamagi was coming from Kapapi sub-county driving a Toyota Mark X registration number UBR 117L when soldiers started trailing him.

Nabasa explained that when Karamagi realised that some people were following him, he drove off the main road and hid the car at the home of a one Nyakahara Mudede in Kapapi 1 village.

While in his hideout, Karamagi reportedly called police officers from Kigorobya police station to intervene and rescue him from the group, which wanted to arrest him.

However, shortly after police arrived at the scene in a Toyota Corolla XS, UAK 227D, one of the UPDF officers also showed up and attempted to grab Karamagi.

The Toyota Corolla (UAK 227D) used by police officers from Kigorobya sub-county to rescue Karamagi was also damaged during the scuffle. (Photo by Peter Abaanabasazi)

According to eyewitness, a scuffle ensued during which police and the UPDF officers exchanged gunfire. In the process, Karamagi’s car and another used by police officers had their tyres flattened.

“Karamagi was my manager before they had blocked us from this land. All along, they have been tracking him; I do not know what they need from him,” Nabasa said.

Mudede said that several bullets that were fired left the residents in the area in panic.

Authorities speak out

When contacted for a comment, Christopher Ayine, the Hoima deputy resident district commissioner, confirmed the incident.

Ayine said they have instructed the Hoima district police commander and the Albertine regional police commander to investigate the matter. “Whoever will be found in the wrong will be arrested.”

The Albertine Regional Police Spokesperson, Julius Allan Hakiza, declined to comment on the matter and referred New Vision to the UPDF.

Maj. Flavia Terimulungi, the UPDF 1st division public information officer, said that the army was following up on the issue.

Source: newvision.co.ug/

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Uganda is grappling with mounting land struggles as the needs of refugees collide with the rights and hopes of the communities that host them.

Published

1 week ago

August 1, 2026

witnessradio.org

By the Witness Radio team.

For more than ten years, hundreds of families in Kikuube District have fought to piece their lives back together after losing their land to the ever-expanding Kyangwali Refugee Settlement.

One such person is Mr. Ahumuza Busingye, a community leader who recalls how, in 2013, many families were uprooted when the government seized their land to make room for more refugees.

“We have been suffering since 2013 when we were evicted from our land to expand Kyangwali camp. “The problem is we are often displaced from fertile land which is given to refugees. That hurts us. Our families have grown, but we have no place to settle them. We now live in an informal settlement with no land to farm and sustain ourselves,” said Mr. Busingye.

Mr. Busingye’s experience mirrors a rising dilemma in Uganda, a nation celebrated worldwide for its welcoming approach to refugees. Unlike countries that restrict refugees to camps, Uganda offers land for settlement, freedom to move, opportunities to work and start businesses, and access to schools, healthcare, and public services. These progressive policies have transformed Uganda into Africa’s largest haven for refugees and one of the most significant hosts on the planet.

Yet, even as Uganda’s refugee policy draws global praise, tough questions linger about how the country can keep protecting refugees without sacrificing the land rights, livelihoods, and futures of its own people.

This challenge formed the central theme of an X Spaces discussion organized by UCOBAC (Uganda Community Based Association for Women and Children Welfare) in partnership with AWO International and co-hosted by NBS TV under the theme, “Understanding Land Governance: Issues Affecting Refugee and Host Communities in Uganda.”

The event brought together voices from government, academia, humanitarian groups, and the legal sector to tackle rising land governance issues in refugee-hosting districts and to seek ways for refugees and host communities to live together in harmony.

Uganda now shelters almost 1.9 million refugees and asylum seekers, most of them women and children escaping violence in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and nearby nations. As new arrivals pour in and families grow, the hunger for land intensifies, sparking fresh challenges for both refugees and the communities that welcome them.

Dr. Brian Makabayi, a lecturer in the Department of Geomatics and Land Management at Makerere University, argued that refugee settlements should no longer be viewed as temporary humanitarian interventions.

“The issue is not only humanitarian assistance where we are trying to solve the problem temporarily. These communities have stayed for long periods, and if these issues are not properly managed, they can become violent,” he said.

Citing research from districts like Adjumani, Makabayi pointed out that refugees now make up nearly half the population in some places. As families expand but land stays the same, the struggle for space grows ever more intense.

“Many refugees lease farmland from host communities to supplement the small plots allocated to them. However, conflicts often emerge when landowners decide to reclaim their land for personal use, sale, or lease to other people before previous agreements expire.” He further added.

Ms. Claire Birungi Agaba, the Information, Counseling and Legal Assistance Specialist at the Norwegian Refugee Council, said many of the land disputes her organization handles arise from informal and undocumented land agreements.

She explained that land transactions between refugees and host communities are frequently based on verbal agreements without written records specifying land size, duration of use, payment arrangements or responsibilities of each party. As a result, disputes over boundaries, crop destruction, unexpected evictions and changing rental terms have become increasingly common.

“Many host families themselves occupy customary land that has never been formally documented, making it difficult to prove ownership whenever disagreements arise.” She said.

Responding to concerns about land acquisition, Agnes Baseera, Protection Officer (Legal) in the Office of the Prime Minister’s Department of Refugees, said the government does not allocate land for refugee settlements arbitrarily.

According to Baseera, establishing refugee settlements involves close collaboration between the Office of the Prime Minister, district local governments, line ministries, development partners and host communities.

She explained that before any land is designated, the government verifies ownership, assesses the suitability of the land and considers factors such as security, access to water, food availability and the capacity of social services.

“The host communities are always part of this process,” Baseera said, adding that consultation remains central to the government’s refugee settlement policy.

Eunice Nabakwa, Principal Land Officer at the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, argued that securing customary land rights is essential to reducing future conflicts.

She noted that more than 75 percent of Uganda’s land is held under customary tenure, much of it without formal documentation. Since many refugee settlements are located on customary land, uncertainty over ownership and boundaries often fuels disputes.

To address this, the Ministry is implementing systematic land adjudication, demarcation, mapping and certification programs, including the issuance of Certificates of Customary

Ownership (CCOs).

These initiatives are intended to formally recognize customary land rights, strengthen tenure security, clarify boundaries and improve local land administration.