SPECIAL REPORTS AND PROJECTS
MONOCULTURE TREE PLANTATIONS – Uganda – Promotion of plantation agriculture – a disgrace to human kind and environment
Published
3 years agoon

20 years of suffering monoculture effects in Uganda, more hectares of land benefiting local communities continue to be given out to investors for monoculture tree plantations. Forest give aways are done for the cheap, short term economic gains at the expense of environment and people, without proper assessment of the vital roles of the forest…
Uganda like many other African countries is in the campaign drive of promoting plantations under the guise of creating income and other benefits for Ugandans, destroying a lot of natural resources including forests, wetlands and up hills. In the past ten years, thousands of hectares of forests have been destroyed and replaced by monocultures.
But Uganda shows, at the same time, a commitment internationally to forest protection and reducing deforestation as one of the countries in Africa participating in REDD+. After its Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP) was approved at the 9th meeting of the World Bank’s Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF)’s Participants Committee (PC), based on the status of Uganda´s forest and its benefits for forest dependent communities and forest owners, Uganda will receive US$3.4 million to prepare a REDD-+ strategy, a reference scenario and a system of measurement, reporting and verification (MRV).
However, this commitment contradicts with the current expansion of monoculture plantations in the country. An example happened when in August 2011 the government decided to use the shortage of sugar in the country as an excuse to propose to give away 7,100 hectares of forest land to MEHTA, the owner of Sugar Corporation of Uganda (SCOUL), to expand its sugar plantation. People resisted, including reporting in the media, the local leaders and also CSOs while the international community was also made aware, amplifying the voices of Ugandans and forcing the government to halt the giveaway of the forest.
A country like Uganda, which is signatory to a number of conventions like CBD and Ramsar (on the issue of wetlands), shouldn’t have thought of giving the forest for the cheap, short term economic gains at the expense of environment and people, without proper assessment of the vital roles of the forest and also without understanding the various underlying causes that lead to failures within the sugar processing industries. It is worth noting that the current machinery used in the extraction of sugar from the canes is outdated. It dates back to the 1960s which means that the efficiency has gone down. In other words, sugar production could be increased by improving technology rather than converting more forest lands into arable land for more monocultures. And in spite of Uganda´s commitment in halting deforestation, projects like this one encourages deforestation and forest degradation
In the same vein, the Ugandan government is promoting oil palm plantations in Kalangala, funded by a number of financial institutions like IFAD/World Bank and oil palm companies like Wilmar and others. A lot of contradictions and violations have been recorded including disrespect of the CBD convention, with a lot of flora and fauna being destroyed. Again, the government has double standards promoting oil palm at the expense of natural forests and promoting REDD+ allegedly for the conservation of forests. Around 10,000 hectares of land have been planted with oil palm. People in Kalangala have been deprived of their rights to clean water and a sound environment, they are exposed to cultural erosion, their livelihoods have been compromised, and they face food insecurity just to mention but a few of the consequences.
Another example of a plantation project with impacts on local communities is in Kikonda, forest , in the Kyankwanzi district, where the South Africa-based firm Global Woods established a pine plantation in 2002, displacing traditional communities who have been using the forest reserve for agriculture. The impacts of that action are even being felt today.
Also REDD initiatives, as is the case with plantation development, have been causing impacts on local forest-dependent people in Uganda. For example, due to a REDD programme, the government evicted indigenous groups. The ‘pygmies’ of the Semliki forest have been living in the forests since time immemorial but the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) – in close collaboration with the National Forest Authority – evicted them as if they were encroachers.
Uganda must develop a mechanism that regulates plantation development in such a way that it does not override the existing natural forests and the rights of the local people. Any meaningful development should put people at the centre and include social aspects. Moreover, the case of Uganda reveals that a common approach is needed, so that both the forest destruction gets really halted and development projects like plantations do not have negative impacts on people and the environment but are set up in such a way that they can benefit people. Such a project design can only take place if people are meaningful involved and able to give their consent or not to development plans with huge impacts on their livelihoods.
David Kureeba, National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE), F@B Friends of the Earth Uganda, e-mail: kureebamd@yahoo.com
Related posts:





You may like
DEFENDING LAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS
Statement: The Energy Sector Strategy 2024–2028 Must Mark the End of the EBRD’s Support to Fossil Fuels
Published
2 months agoon
September 27, 2023
The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) is due to publish a new Energy Sector Strategy before the end of 2023. A total of 130 civil society organizations from over 40 countries have released a statement calling on the EBRD to end finance for all fossil fuels, including gas.
From 2018 to 2021, the EBRD invested EUR 2.9 billion in the fossil energy sector, with the majority of this support going to gas. This makes it the third biggest funder of fossil fuels among all multilateral development banks, behind the World Bank Group and the Islamic Development Bank.
The EBRD has already excluded coal and upstream oil and gas fields from its financing. The draft Energy Sector Strategy further excludes oil transportation and oil-fired electricity generation. However, the draft strategy would continue to allow some investment in new fossil gas pipelines and other transportation infrastructure, as well as gas power generation and heating.
In the statement, the civil society organizations point out that any new support to gas risks locking in outdated energy infrastructure in places that need investments in clean energy the most. At the same time, they highlight, ending support to fossil gas is necessary, not only for climate security, but also for ensuring energy security, since continued investment in gas exposes countries of operation to high and volatile energy prices that can have a severe impact on their ability to reach development targets. Moreover, they underscore that supporting new gas transportation infrastructure is not a solution to the current energy crisis, given that new infrastructure would not come online for several years, well after the crisis has passed.
The signatories of the statement call on the EBRD to amend the Energy Sector Strategy to
- fully exclude new investments in midstream and downstream gas projects;
- avoid loopholes involving the use of unproven or uneconomic technologies, as well as aspirational but meaningless mitigation measures such as “CCS-readiness”; and
- strengthen the requirements for financial intermediaries where the intended nature of the sub-transactions is not known to exclude fossil fuel finance across the entire value chain.
Source: iisd.org
Download the statement: https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2023-09/ngo-statement-on-energy-sector-strategy-2024-2028.pdf
Related posts:





SPECIAL REPORTS AND PROJECTS
Will more sovereign wealth funds mean less food sovereignty?
Published
8 months agoon
April 13, 2023
- 45% of Louis Dreyfus Company, with its massive land holdings in Latin America, growing sugarcane, citrus, rice and coffee;
- a majority stake in Unifrutti, with 15,000 ha of fruit farms in Chile, Ecuador, Argentina, Philippines, Spain, Italy and South Africa; and
- Al Dahra, a large agribusiness conglomerate controlling and cultivating 118,315 ha of farmland in Romania, Spain, Serbia, Morocco, Egypt, Namibia and the US.
Sovereign wealth funds invested in farmland/food/agriculture (2023)
|
|||
Country
|
Fund
|
Est.
|
AUM (US$bn)
|
China
|
CIC
|
2007
|
1351
|
Norway
|
NBIM
|
1997
|
1145
|
UAE – Abu Dhabi
|
ADIA
|
1967
|
993
|
Kuwait
|
KIA
|
1953
|
769
|
Saudi Arabia
|
PIF
|
1971
|
620
|
China
|
NSSF
|
2000
|
474
|
Qatar
|
QIA
|
2005
|
450
|
UAE – Dubai
|
ICD
|
2006
|
300
|
Singapore
|
Temasek
|
1974
|
298
|
UAE – Abu Dhabi
|
Mubadala
|
2002
|
284
|
UAE – Abu Dhabi
|
ADQ
|
2018
|
157
|
Australia
|
Future Fund
|
2006
|
157
|
Iran
|
NDFI
|
2011
|
139
|
UAE
|
EIA
|
2007
|
91
|
USA – AK
|
Alaska PFC
|
1976
|
73
|
Australia – QLD
|
QIC
|
1991
|
67
|
USA – TX
|
UTIMCO
|
1876
|
64
|
USA – TX
|
Texas PSF
|
1854
|
56
|
Brunei
|
BIA
|
1983
|
55
|
France
|
Bpifrance
|
2008
|
50
|
UAE – Dubai
|
Dubai World
|
2005
|
42
|
Oman
|
OIA
|
2020
|
42
|
USA – NM
|
New Mexico SIC
|
1958
|
37
|
Malaysia
|
Khazanah
|
1993
|
31
|
Russia
|
RDIF
|
2011
|
28
|
Turkey
|
TVF
|
2017
|
22
|
Bahrain
|
Mumtalakat
|
2006
|
19
|
Ireland
|
ISIF
|
2014
|
16
|
Canada – SK
|
SK CIC
|
1947
|
16
|
Italy
|
CDP Equity
|
2011
|
13
|
China
|
CADF
|
2007
|
10
|
Indonesia
|
INA
|
2020
|
6
|
India
|
NIIF
|
2015
|
4
|
Spain
|
COFIDES
|
1988
|
4
|
Nigeria
|
NSIA
|
2011
|
3
|
Angola
|
FSDEA
|
2012
|
3
|
Egypt
|
TSFE
|
2018
|
2
|
Vietnam
|
SCIC
|
2006
|
2
|
Gabon
|
FGIS
|
2012
|
2
|
Morocco
|
Ithmar Capital
|
2011
|
2
|
Palestine
|
PIF
|
2003
|
1
|
Bolivia
|
FINPRO
|
2015
|
0,4
|
AUM (assets under management) figures from Global SWF, January 2023
|
|||
Engagement in food/farmland/agriculture assessed by GRAIN
|
Related posts:





SPECIAL REPORTS AND PROJECTS
Farmland values hit record highs, pricing out farmers
Published
1 year agoon
November 21, 2022

The East Africa regional court dismisses a case challenging the construction of the EACOP project.

East African Court of Justice is to decide whether it has jurisdiction to try the EACOP case filed by Four East African NGOs today.

Report links 1,600 deaths to pesticide poisoning

New Report: Only 0.3% of Climate Change Funding Reaches Family Farmers

The East African Court of Justice fixes the ruling date for a petition challenging the EACOP project.

Court issues fresh criminal summonses against army general, police chief and presidential representative and others in a private criminal case.

Breaking: The army general, police chief, presidential representative, and others are appearing before the Hoima Chief Magistrate court today.

Land and environmental rights defenders, CSOs, scholars, and government to meet in Kampala to assess Uganda’s performance on the implementation of the UN Guiding principles on Business and Human Rights in Uganda.

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
Legal Framework
READ BY CATEGORY
Newsletter
Trending
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK4 days ago
East African Court of Justice is to decide whether it has jurisdiction to try the EACOP case filed by Four East African NGOs today.
-
FARM NEWS1 week ago
Report links 1,600 deaths to pesticide poisoning
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK3 days ago
The East Africa regional court dismisses a case challenging the construction of the EACOP project.