Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Opinion: USAID needs an independent accountability office to improve development outcomes

Published

on

A man inspects USAID-donated ventilators on their way to Indonesia in the fight against COVID-19. Photo by: Nalendro Photoworks / USAID

As always, and during this pandemic in particular, many are looking to the U.S. Agency for International Development for the U.S. response to global needs. Acting USAID Administrator John Barsa recently appeared before Congress to discuss foreign assistance priorities for the next fiscal year. He answered questions related to cuts for USAID in the administration’s proposed budget and USAID’s efforts to support the development of an effective COVID-19 vaccine.

What was not discussed — but should be a top priority — is a key outstanding congressional directive to USAID to strengthen accountability for its development activities. The congressional directive creates an opportunity for USAID, and for those concerned with whether USAID’s programs are meeting their objectives, to take overdue action to ensure that the agency understands whether taxpayer money has met its mark.

In response to reports of human rights abuses tied to USAID’s support of certain conservation projects, including allegations of torture and rape by ecoguards, Congress, in its explanatory statement for the fiscal year 2020 appropriations legislation, directed USAID to work with its implementers to prevent these abuses from reoccurring.

Further, Congress called on USAID to ensure that “effective grievance and redress mechanisms for victims of human rights violations and other misconduct exist.”

Public information on USAID’s response is not currently available, but as USAID sets its course for the fiscal year ahead, it should prioritize addressing this congressional directive. From our experience supporting communities impacted by development projects, we recommend that USAID create an agency-level independent accountability office to do so.

First created by the World Bank, accountability offices are community feedback tools that address complaints from project-impacted people by either conducting a compliance review to see if environmental and social policies were properly followed in the course of a project or convening a bespoke dispute resolution process between the communities, clients, and other parties.

Accountability offices are housed within the very institutions they hold accountable and are given sufficient independence from management to be credible.

The experiences of communities in Haiti forced from their farmland in 2011 to make way for the Caracol Industrial Park, a large industrial facility financed by USAID, the Inter-American Development Bank, and others, demonstrates the importance of accountability offices — and USAID’s current accountability gap. In addition to taking 250 hectares of the most fertile agricultural land in the area, the park has had negative environmental impacts, including significant pollution from the USAID-financed power plant within the park.

After trying to address their issues with the industrial park through various channels, the communities filed a complaint to IDB’s accountability office, also known as MICI, in 2017 to address harm related to IDB’s involvement in the project.

MICI facilitated a dialogue process between the communities, the Haitian government, and IDB, which resulted in a historic agreement to replace farmland and restore livelihoods.

Unfortunately, the affected communities have not had the same opportunity to address grievances with USAID, as it lacks an accountability office, and many of the environmental challenges posed by the industrial park and its associated facilities remain unresolved.

To be truly effective, USAID should ensure that its accountability office applies to all of its projects and not just its conservation work.

Although USAID’s conservation projects sparked congressional action, it is indisputable that negative impacts can result from other projects as well. Data from the Accountability Console, a comprehensive database of accountability office complaints, reveals that grievances can arise in a range of sectors, from infrastructure projects to education programs, and across financial instruments.

It would also be a mistake for USAID to respond to the directive by pushing its obligation down to implementing partners.

Although implementing partners could address certain discrete issues at the project level, the agency needs to know about — and have a hand in addressing — environmental and social non-compliance.

In addition to addressing grievances, institution-wide accountability offices provide lessons from cases to ensure that future projects are more sustainable. Plus, that decision would put USAID out of step with the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation, which has an accountability office — as did its predecessor, the Overseas Private Investment Corporation — as well as other bilateral aid agencies with accountability offices, like in France and Japan.

An independent accountability office would also be a fundamental component of USAID’s Journey to Self-Reliance strategy, as it would amplify the voice of the very people impacted by USAID’s projects.

Unaddressed grievances can undermine a project’s sustainability and lead to conflict, affecting a country’s ability to transition effectively from international aid. An accountability office would only further USAID’s existing commitment to seeing local solutions through “effectively, inclusively, and with accountability.”

The COVID-19 crisis has been a shock to the global system, with development institutions responding rapidly to address the health and economic impacts. USAID has a role to play in the response and should know whether its money meets its mark.

By creating an accountability office now, USAID can be well-positioned to ensure its projects — including those addressing the pandemic — avoid harm and achieve their intended impact.

Source: Devex

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Land Grabbing Crisis Escalates in Uganda: Mayiga Urges Citizens to Secure Land Documents

Published

on

The Katikkiro of Buganda, Charles Peter Mayiga has issued a stern warning about the widespread threat of land grabbing in Uganda, that is destabilising communities and robbing citizens of their rightful property. Mayiga’s remarks came during a strategic meeting with Masaza Chiefs at Bulange, the administrative heart of the Buganda Kingdom.

According to Mayiga, land grabbing is no longer an isolated issue but a well-organised scheme that thrives on exploitation of unclear land ownership, missing documentation, and the absence of rightful landowners.

“Land grabbing is becoming a national crisis,” Mayiga said. “It is being driven by people who have access to the district land boards, judicial offices, law enforcement agencies, and even local government leaders such as RDCs, RCCs, and LCs. They use these connections to manipulate the system and claim land illegally.”

Mayiga warned that if left unaddressed, the issue will not only affect individuals but also undermine national development, destroy community cohesion, and increase poverty through the displacement of vulnerable landowners.

To protect themselves, the Katikkiro urged all Ugandans—especially those in Buganda—to ensure that their land is properly documented.

He emphasised the importance of obtaining and safeguarding legal documents such as land titles, sale agreements, and clear boundary demarcations.

“You must secure your land,” Mayiga stressed. “Have the right documents in place. Make sure your land is clearly demarcated and that all agreements are formalised. This is the only way we can defend ourselves.”

Mayiga also called on cultural leaders, legal professionals, and local governments to assist communities in navigating land registration processes and to stand against corrupt practices that enable land theft.

Buganda, with its vast and historic Mailo land system, has been one of the regions most affected by land-related conflicts. The Kingdom has consistently advocated for stronger protections for landowners and reforms to reduce exploitation and legal ambiguity.

Source: NilePost

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

A decade of displacement: How Uganda’s Oil refinery victims are dying before realizing justice as EACOP secures financial backing to further significant environmental harm.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

“Laws are like spider webs: they catch the weak and let the powerful go free,” said Anacharsis, a Greek philosopher. These ancient words still ring painfully true for thousands of residents from Kyakaboga Sub-county in Hoima District, Uganda, who were displaced over a decade ago to pave the way for the country’s first oil refinery project. Despite 13 long years of broken promises and unending court delays, these communities continue to fight for justice, their unwavering resilience a source of inspiration.

Recently, the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) project secured financial backing, including both debt and equity. The project is estimated to cost around $5 billion, with the project owners contributing about $2 billion in equity and raising an additional $2.4 billion – $3 billion in external debt. Funds were secured from Standard Bank, Stanbic Bank Uganda, KCB Bank Uganda, and the Islamic Corporation for the Development of the Private Sector in Saudi Arabia, among the financiers backing the project.

Many people consider EACOP to be responsible for causing significant environmental harm in Uganda. The project is projected to impact numerous protected areas, including forests and national parks, and could potentially lead to the destruction of habitats and displacement of endangered species. Additionally, the pipeline’s construction and operation pose risks to water resources, including the Lake Victoria basin, which is a vital source of water for millions.

In 2012, the Ugandan government compulsorily acquired 29 square kilometers of land affecting over 13 villages in Buseruka Sub-county. More than 7,000 people, including 3,500 women and 1,500 children, were evicted to make way for the oil refinery. The project, touted as a symbol of national progress, instead left a trail of disrupted lives and systemic injustices —a stark reminder of the moral outrage that underlies this issue.

According to the Petroleum Authority of Uganda, the Resettlement Action Plan (RAP) for the refinery offered affected people two options: cash compensation or resettlement with new houses built by the government. However, to date, many remain uncompensated, and others who opted for cash claim that their land and property were undervalued.

“At the time of compensation, we realized that the government was not paying us fairly as promised,” said Abigaba Esther Mpabaisi, one of the displaced residents. “Some villages in the same locality were compensated using different rates.” She added.

In response to these over-arching concerns, the residents, through their organization, the Oil Refinery Residents Association (ORRA), filed a case at the High Court in Kampala in 2014, seeking redress for forced evictions and human rights violations. Their courage in the face of a decade-long pursuit of justice, frustrated by systemic delays, shifting court venues, and what they describe as deliberate obstructions by state agencies, is truly admirable.

Christopher Opio, the ORRA leader, said the Court of laws meant to protect the poor had let them down: “We went to court, just like we have tried many other things. But the court has let us down. Even today, over 47 families have never received houses as part of the resettlement.” Opio added.

Uganda’s oil development efforts have repeatedly come under fire for forced land takeovers, delayed and inadequate compensation, and coercion accompanied by gross human rights abuses and violations. Despite communities turning to courts as a last resort for justice and demanding accountability for the harm caused to them, they are often left disillusioned.

Uganda’s judicial system operates with a stark contrast in the treatment of cases. While cases filed by powerful institutions often move swiftly, those filed by people experiencing poverty against the state or investors are subjected to years of postponements. A glaring example is the case in Buliisa District, where the government sued 42 families who refused undervalued compensation for their land for the Tilenga project, part of Uganda’s oil development activities.

The Tilenga project, is a major oil development in Uganda’s Albertine Graben, specifically in the Buliisa and Nwoya districts and it has caused displacement of local communities. The courts delivered judgment just four days after the case was filed, upholding the eviction of the families, who were also the legal landowners.

Meanwhile, the Kabaale case continues to stall. 75-year-old Kato Phinehas, who is also among those affected, reveals that the transfer of the case from one court to another is another factor that victims see as a deliberate effort by the state and courts to deny them justice.

“We started from the High Court in Kampala. There, government officials who were party to the case kept dodging us. Many times, the case was scheduled, but they would be absent, and it would be adjourned for several months. Despite little progress, the case was, to our surprise, referred to the Masindi High Court.

We decided not to give up. We followed the case to Masindi, but it was bounced back to the Kampala High Court. In Kampala, they told us the case had been sent to Masindi. Then, in Masindi, after a long wait, the case was referred to the Hoima High Court. However, in Hoima, they informed us that the files could not be traced. We later learned the case files were still in Masindi allegedly because there was no transport to deliver them to Hoima.

The judicial delays have taken a personal toll on individuals like Kato Phinehas. At 75 years old, he wonders if he will live to see the end of these delays. “this shocked us. We asked ourselves: how can a whole government fail to transport case files from Masindi, which is nearby? I’m 75 years old now, you can see me. I wonder: if these judicial delays continue for another ten years, will I still be alive to pursue this case?”

In addition, the eviction took a toll on the socio-economic life of residents, as Wandera John Bosco explains.

“I have been so much disturbed by the displacement because they evicted us from Kabaale and brought us here in Buseruka, about 25 kilometers away. In Kabale, we were flourishing in our work, had good business, and people were carrying out their daily activities, including farming, which yielded a lot and allowed them to thrive. This is a different case here. Life is hard,” said Wandera John Bosco, one of the Oil Refinery Project Affected Persons.

The economic effects have been severe. Many families who relied on farming lost their livelihoods. With no land and no crops, they couldn’t pay school fees. Children dropped out in large numbers.

“I dropped out of school in 2012,” said Tumwebaze Innocent, who was in secondary school when the evictions happened. “The government imposed a cut-off date and banned cash crops that grow beyond six months. And parents, including mine, had no alternative source of survival, which caused many of us to stop education,” he added.

Despite Article 126(2)(b) of Uganda’s Constitution, which mandates that “justice shall not be delayed,” these communities are trapped in a judicial limbo.

Community leaders are now urgently calling on Parliament, the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs, and the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development to intervene not only to expedite the court case but also to revisit the entire compensation process. The need for new, fairer valuations based on current land rates and appropriate compensation for families still residing in inadequate or temporary housing is immediate and pressing.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Carbon Markets Are Not the Solution: The Failed Relaunch of Emission Trading and the Clean Development Mechanism

Published

on

In light of the growing number of cold and hot wars around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. Meanwhile, supposed solutions, such as carbon emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, continue to be promoted. As Maria Neuhauss argues, this is a bluff with far-reaching consequences.

There was more bad news in January 2025: The European Earth observation program Copernicus and the World Meteorological Organization reported that the global average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This marked the first time the average global temperature exceeded the 1.5-degree target established in the Paris Climate Agreement.

In light of the growing number of crises and conflict hotspots around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. While 1.4 million people demonstrated for more climate protection in Germany in September 2019, according to Fridays for Future, it is now almost impossible to speak of a climate movement. The catalyst for the third German ‘movement cycle’ was undoubtedly the rebranding of Last Generation in December 2024. The group had been decimated by state repression and media agitation in the preceding months. The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement at the beginning of this year made it clear that defenders of the fossil fuel status quo have gained momentum and intend to achieve their goals without compromise. However, as global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the material world follows its own rules, the problem of global warming will likely resurface in the collective consciousness in the foreseeable future. Whether through heat waves, extreme weather events, water shortages, or forest fires. The question is whether and what new answers and approaches a reinvigorated climate movement will develop if it does not limit itself to ‘solidarity prepping’ and actually wants to influence the course of events.

Central to this is not only resolute resistance against fossil inertia forces, but also testing the actions of liberal actors. Although they acknowledge the problem of climate change and claim to want to solve it, the measures they take are inadequate at best or, at worst, create new profit opportunities for the industries that must be phased out. This is far from a comprehensive solution to the ecological crisis, which encompasses more than just climate change. Emission trading and the associated offset mechanisms that are part of the international climate negotiations are one example that illustrates this well.

‘Climate math’ of flexible mechanisms

Emission trading is based on the idea that greenhouse gas emissions are still possible but must be justified with corresponding ‘pollution rights.’ The number of certificates is limited and should decrease over time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Emission trading provides fundamental flexibility by allowing certificates to be bought and sold. Ultimately, this is intended to achieve the most cost-efficient climate protection possible because emission-reducing measures are expected to be implemented first where they can be done quickly and cheaply. This allows one to profit from selling unused emission allowances to other actors who initially shy away from such measures. These actors must buy the allowances until the increased prices resulting from the shortage make emission-reducing measures unavoidable. At least, that’s the theory.

Emission trading is closely linked to the concept of climate neutrality, which plays a central role in climate policy. Greenhouse gas emissions are offset by preventing emissions, using natural carbon sinks, or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The trick to this ‘climate math’ is that, as long as emissions are compensated for, they do not count, even if greenhouse gases continue to be released into the air. These compensation measures are called ‘offsets.’

The idea that not all emissions must be reduced but can, in principle, be bought out of this obligation is based on the global inequalities that have developed historically and that fundamentally structured the first global climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. In line with the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ approach, the protocol only required industrialized countries to reduce emissions because they were mainly responsible for the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), industrialized countries could partially buy their way out of this responsibility by financing emissions-reduction measures in developing and emerging countries. The CDM has therefore been described as a modern “indulgence trade” (Altvater & Brunnengräber, 2008). This allowed industrialized countries to reconcile their energy production methods with the need for climate protection while outsourcing conflicts over the energy transition, such as land use, to the Global South (Bauriedl, 2016).

Social and environmental shortcomings of the CDM

From a climate protection perspective, however, it only makes sense to include emission reductions in developing and emerging countries in the emissions balance of industrialized countries if the investments actually help reduce emissions – that is, if the projects would not have been realized without investments from the Global North. Conversely, if projects under the CDM are not additional, such as if a dam would have been built without investments from the Global North, companies in industrialized countries can claim emission credits without actually helping to reduce emissions. This is because the emissions would have been avoided anyway. This would result in an overall increase in emissions.

In fact, the additionality of many projects financed under the CDM has been questioned over the years (Öko-Institut, 2016). However, less attention has been paid to the fact that CDM projects have repeatedly led to the displacement of local people and land grabbing. For example, a reforestation project in the Kachung Central Forest Reserve in Uganda displaced many neighboring villagers who used to farm and graze their cattle there. Plagued by food insecurity, hunger, and poverty, the population was denied access to the land when CDM-approved plantations were established, further worsening their situation. The monoculture plantations also had negative ecological consequences (Carbon Market Watch, 2018). Thus, the CDM perpetuated colonial conditions on several levels. The mechanism ended with the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2020. However, credits issued beforehand can still be used under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Price incentives instead of bans

A critical review of emission trading is also urgently needed. It is failing as a suitable means of climate protection on several levels. For example, in the case of the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the continued generous allocation of free certificates, particularly to energy-intensive industries, protects those responsible for high CO₂ emissions from strict requirements. Additionally, the emission trading approach suffers from the fact that it is unclear whether, or to what extent, the price of emissions certificates influences investment decisions in favor of climate protection. According to various studies, the price would need to be between EUR 140 and 6,000 per ton of CO₂ to achieve the 1.5-degree target (IPCC, 2018).

However, local industry is already complaining about excessively high electricity prices (the average certificate price in 2024 was €65 per ton of CO₂), causing the government to worry about the location’s attractiveness. Given this, can we really expect politicians to force energy-intensive industries to do more to protect the climate with much higher certificate prices? Ultimately, this reveals a fundamental flaw in emission trading: its indirect effect. Instead of using targets and bans, the idea is to persuade companies to cut emissions through price incentives. However, this approach puts climate protection in the hands of actors who primarily follow the profit motive and do not necessarily translate the price signal into climate protection measures. This explains why companies enrich themselves from emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism wherever possible (CE Delft, 2021).

For those who design and control emission trading systems, the aforementioned criticisms are merely one reason to continue supporting and refining the chosen method. This is also true for the EU, which, after a period during which emission trading was considered ineffective due to low prices, reinvigorated the system at the end of the 2010s. For instance, the EU introduced the market stability reserve. The goal is to maintain public confidence in the effectiveness of this instrument because it is the global climate protection tool. However, evaluations of its effectiveness are rare and provide little cause for optimism. According to an evaluation of various studies, the EU ETS achieves only 0 to 1.5% emission reductions per year (Green, 2021).

History and responsibility are being erased

This makes the ongoing negotiations at UN climate conferences concerning the implementation of global emission trading and a new Clean Development Mechanism all the more critical. In addition to the question of how financially weak countries will be compensated for climate-related damage and losses, the annual COPs primarily address Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement. Article 6 regulates international cooperation, i.e., the extent to which a country can count mitigation measures or emission avoidance elsewhere in its climate balance. Last year’s COP29 in Baku further advanced the operationalization of this article. Based on this, old CDM projects can now be transferred to the new Sustainable Development Mechanism under certain conditions. However, the first project to clear this hurdle reportedly reported emission reductions up to 26 times higher than expected based on scientific evaluation (Mulder, 2025).

Despite urgent warnings, world climate conferences seem determined to repeat past mistakes. The focus is on profit. As Tamra Gilbertson summed up in an interview with Chris Lang, the climate is the last priority. After all, trade processes will incur deductions in the future that will flow into the international adaptation fund. However, according to Gilbertson, this is also due to the fact that the climate conferences have failed to reach viable agreements on financing climate damage and adaptation measures in poorer countries thus far. Instead, emission trading is expected to deliver the necessary funds. “This is where common but differentiated responsibilities are eradicated. History and responsibility are erased, and capitalism in the form of carbon markets takes its place” (Lang, 2024).

While these processes are difficult for the public to understand, the escalating climate crisis requires critical attention more than ever. The problems associated with emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism urgently need to be exposed as distractions from the real task at hand: rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter