Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Restoring Our Land: Tackling Degradation for Climate Resilience, Food Security, and Sustainable Development at COP16

Published

on

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

Land degradation is not just an environmental problem. It increases risks to human health and the spread of new diseases. It is a driver of forced migration and conflicts over scarce resources. It is a leading contributor to climate change, biodiversity loss, poverty, and food insecurity. In other words, it is at the core of sustainable development.

Up to 40% of the world’s land is degraded. Between 2015 and 2019, at least 100 million hectares of healthy and productive land were degraded every year—a cumulative area twice the size of Greenland. Droughts are hitting more often and harder all over the world, driven or amplified by both climate change and poor land management.

Tree planting
People from Ukamo village in Ethiopia take part in a tree planting project as part of the government’s “Safety Net” programme which gives vulnerable farmers work. (Photo by Mike Goldwater)

Restoring degraded land and soil, and investing in drought resilience, are some of the most cost-effective actions countries can take to reduce the high human, social and economic impacts of drought—simultaneously increasing food, water and energy security while reducing displacement and conflict drivers. Thirty years ago, with the adoption of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), countries agreed to walk together down this path.

What Drives Land Degradation and Desertification?

Land degradation is the long-term decline in the quality of land that leads to the reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity of land. In the drylands, land degradation is known as desertification. According to the Global Land Outlook, drylands cover more than 45% of the Earth’s land surface, provide 44% of the world’s agriculture, support 50% of the world’s livestock, and are home to one in three people worldwide. Experts estimate that, if not reversed, land degradation will drive 700 million people out of their homes by 2050 because they will no longer be able to feed themselves or have access to sufficient water.

The dominant drivers of land degradation include agriculture and related land-use changes, unsustainable management or over-exploitation of resources, natural vegetation clearance, nutrient depletion, overgrazing, inappropriate irrigation, excessive use of agrochemicals, urban sprawl, pollution, mining and quarrying, among others.

Deforestation is one of the most significant causes of land degradation. Tree roots help bind soil particles, thus maintaining their quality. When trees are cut down, the soil particles tend to disperse, negatively impacting the quality of the soil.

Another driver of land degradation is a lack of land tenure security. When people own their land, they are more likely to make the long-term investments needed to sustainably manage land, such as practicing crop diversity and agroforestry. Even though land constitutes the main asset from which the rural poor derive their livelihoods, millions of farmers, especially women, do not own their land. In many countries, the laws or customs hinder women’s ownership of land. In more than 100 countries, women are dispossessed from their land when they lose their husbands. This is a key issue to global land restoration since women are more likely to invest in diverse food systems, which boost soil health, while men focus primarily on cash crops and monoculture.

What is the UN Convention to Combat Desertification?

In 1991, African environment ministers decided to prioritize their proposal for the negotiation of a new convention to combat desertification as one of the concrete recommendations to be adopted at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED or Earth Summit) to be held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in June 1992. They hoped a convention would help them gain access to additional funding to combat desertification, land degradation, and drought.

Leading into the final days In Rio, delegates had reached agreement on much of the desertification chapter of Agenda 21, the UNCED outcome, including the definition of desertification: “Land degradation in arid, semi-arid and dry sub-humid areas resulting from various factors, including climate variations and human activities.” However, there was still opposition to a convention. Many developing countries resisted the idea of a special convention for Africa, since they also faced land degradation. Industrialized countries maintained that desertification was a local problem and did not warrant a treaty. It wasn’t until the final hours of the Earth Summit that a deal was finally struck and the call for a convention was included in Chapter 12 of Agenda 21.

Negotiations on the Convention began in May 1993 and were completed in five meetings over fifteen months. At the first session in Nairobi, Kenya, the International Negotiating Committee held a one-week seminar to inform negotiators of the substantive issues related to desertification and drought, demonstrating that land degradation affected people around the world. This led to a serious discussion on how to create a global convention that still gave priority to Africa. When Committee Chair Bo Kjellén suggested including a special annex for Africa under the Convention, other regions insisted on annexes for their regions.

At the second meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, in September 1993, governments agreed to negotiate four annexes simultaneously, while giving special attention to Africa. In the end, the Convention includes regional implementation annexes for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia, and the Northern Mediterranean. A fifth annex, for Central and Eastern Europe, was adopted in 2000.

Differences over financial resources nearly caused the negotiations to collapse. Developing countries called for a special fund as the centerpiece of the new convention. Industrialized countries rejected binding obligations to increase financial assistance to affected countries, insisting that existing resources could be used more effectively. The deadlock was broken only after the United States proposed establishing a “Global Mechanism” to improve monitoring and assessment of existing aid flows and increase donor coordination. Many developing countries were not happy, but believed they had to accept the Global Mechanism on the final night because if there was no agreement on finance, there would be no convention. On 17 June 1994, delegates adopted the UNCCD, four regional implementation annexes, and a resolution calling for urgent action for Africa.

The Convention recognizes the physical, biological, and socio-economic aspects of desertification and the importance of redirecting technology transfer so that it is demand-driven. The core of the convention is the development of national, subregional and regional action programmes by national governments in cooperation with donors, local populations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In fact, the Convention was the first to call for the effective participation of local populations and organizations in the preparation of national action programmes. This innovation led the first “sustainable development” convention to also be referred to as a “bottom-up” convention.

The UNCCD was opened for signature in October 1994 and entered into force on 26 December 1996. Today, there are 197 parties, representing universal ratification.

United for Land cover
Released in 2024, Unite for Land provides an overview of the first 30 years of the UNCCD.

Promoting Land Degradation Neutrality

In 2008, a group of scientists was asked by the UNCCD Executive Secretary to examine if the Convention could use the offsetting principle already practiced by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and applied to deforestation at one site by planting trees elsewhere. The idea was to use this offsetting principle to lead to zero-net land degradation and expand the reach of the Convention to address land degradation globally, not just in the drylands.

The Secretariat and like-minded countries then advocated for endorsement of this concept of land degradation neutrality (LDN) by the UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20) in June 2012 and its inclusion as one of the targets under the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). This would enable LDN to gain traction and effectively link land degradation as a driver of poverty, climate change and biodiversity loss, and demonstrate the relevance of productive land to global sustainability. The Rio+20 outcome, The Future We Want, highlights the need for urgent action to reverse land degradation and achieve a land-degradation neutral world.

After Rio+20, the UNCCD pushed forward with LDN on a variety of fronts. First, in 2013, the 11th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) established a working group to develop a science-based definition of LDN (Decision 8/COP.11). In late 2014, the Secretariat set up the LDN pilot project, through which 14 affected countries worked to translate LDN into national targets.

Meanwhile, in New York, the UNCCD and its supporters successfully lobbied for including a target on LDN in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). When the 17 SDGs and 169 targets were adopted by the UN General Assembly in September 2015, they included target 15.3: “By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.” For the first time, the UNCCD had successfully placed an item at the forefront of the international agenda.

Tree planting
Afrormosia growing scheme at the Compagnie Forestiere et de Transformation (CFT) in Kisangani, DRC. (Photo by Axel Fassio/CIFOR (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0))

The following month, UNCCD COP12 convened in Ankara, Turkey, and endorsed the science-based definition of LDN submitted by the working group:

“Land degradation neutrality is a state whereby the amount and quality of land resources necessary to support ecosystem functions and services and enhance food security remain stable or increase within specified temporary and spatial scales and ecosystems” (decision 3/COP.12).

And, in what some viewed as a ‘game changing’ accomplishment, COP12 agreed that striving to achieve SDG target 15.3 is a “strong vehicle for driving implementation of the UNCCD,” and invited countries to set voluntary targets to achieve LDN. The Global Mechanism and the UNCCD Secretariat established the LDN Target Setting Programme to assist countries in setting national baselines and creating voluntary national LDN targets and associated measures. Since then, 131 countries committed to setting LDN targets and more than 100 have already set their targets.

In 2017, the Convention’s Science-Policy Interface (SPI) published the Scientific Conceptual Framework for Land Degradation Neutrality, which provides a scientific foundation for understanding, implementing and monitoring LDN. It was designed as a bridge between the vision and the practical implementation of LDN by defining LDN in operational terms. The SPI developed three indicators, which created a clear pathway for monitoring LDN—both for the Convention and SDG 15.3:

  • trends in land cover;
  • trends in land productivity or functioning of the land; and
  • trends in carbon stocks above and below ground.

But there were concerns. Some countries and members of civil society at COP12 were worried about the focus on LDN as a central UNCCD target. Some likened it to opening a door to land grabs and greenwashing. So while the UNCCD COP called for the restoration of 1.5 billion hectares of land by 2030 to achieve a land-degradation neutral world, it was also essential to acknowledge land rights and inclusive land governance arrangements at the national and sub-national levels. The land tenure decision at COP14 did just that.

Already countries have pledged to restore 1 billion hectares of land, but there is still more work to be done to make these pledges a reality.

2018-2030 Strategic Framework

In 2017, COP13 in Ordos, China, adopted the UNCCD 2018−2030 Strategic Framework, which has three main components: a vision, strategic objectives and an implementation framework.

The vision commits parties to “A future that avoids, minimizes, and reverses desertification/land degradation and mitigates the effects of drought in affected areas at all levels and strive to achieve a land degradation neutral world consistent with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, within the scope of the Convention.”

The Framework’s five strategic objectives are designed to guide the actions of all UNCCD stakeholders and parties until 2030:

  1. To improve the condition of affected ecosystems, combat desertification/land degradation, promote sustainable land management and contribute to land degradation neutrality
  2. To improve the living conditions of affected populations
  3. To mitigate, adapt to, and manage the effects of drought in order to enhance resilience of vulnerable populations and ecosystems
  4. To generate global environmental benefits through effective implementation of the UNCCD
  5. To mobilize substantial and additional financial and nonfinancial resources to support the implementation of the Convention by building effective partnerships at global and national level

The implementation framework defines the roles and responsibilities of parties, UNCCD institutions, partners and stakeholders in meeting the strategic objectives.

In Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, in 2022, COP15 launched a midterm evaluation of the Strategic Plan. The results of this evaluation, overseen by an intergovernmental working group, will be discussed at COP16, which is expected to adopt a decision on enhancing the implementation of the Strategic Framework for its final five years and restoring the necessary hectares of land to achieve a land degradation neutral world.

What’s Next?

UNCCD COP16 convenes in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, from 2-13 December 2024, under the theme “Our Land. Our Future.” The COP will commemorate the 30th anniversary of the UNCCD and a special segment will bring together leaders and high-level officials to commit to accelerate action to combat land degradation and desertification and improve drought resilience.

COP 16 social media card
A social media image for UNCCD COP 16 underlines how land degradation is a youth issue.

In addition to the midterm evaluation of the Strategic Plan and adopting the UNCCD’s biennial budget, COP16 is expected to negotiate and adopt decisions aimed at:

  • accelerating restoration of degraded land between now and 2030;
  • boosting drought preparedness, response and resilience;
  • ensuring land continues to provide climate and biodiversity solutions;
  • boosting resilience to sand and dust storms;
  • scaling up nature-positive food production by protecting and restoring grasslands and rangelands;
  • enhancing ongoing efforts to address desertification/land degradation and drought as one of the drivers that causes migration;
  • strengthening women’s right to land tenure to advance land restoration; and
  • promoting youth engagement, including decent land-based jobs for youth.

COP16 is also expected to catalyze new initiatives on land restoration and drought resilience that build on the G20 Global Land Initiative.

For the first time, the COP will include an Action Agenda, which will highlight voluntary commitments and actions and include thematic days:

  • Land Day on 4 December will focus on the importance of healthy land for combating climate change, creating jobs and alleviating poverty, with an emphasis on nature-based solutions, land restoration, and private sector engagement.
  • Agri-food System Day on 5 December will highlight sustainable farming practices for resilient crops and healthy soils while protecting ecosystems.
  • Governance Day on 6 December will address inclusive land governance.
  • People’s Day on 7 December will focus on the role of youth, women and civil society in decision-making.
  • Science, Technology and Innovation Day on 9 December aims to accelerate scientific solutions for land health and resilience.
  • Resilience Day on 10 December will focus on policies and technologies to build societal and planetary resilience in the face of climate change.
  • Finance Day on 11 December will engage financial stakeholders to showcase innovative funding mechanisms and partnerships for land and drought resilience initiatives.

COP16 will also build upon the COPs of the CBD in October 2024 and the UNFCCC in November 2024, improving synergies between the three “Rio Conventions” and promoting the implementation of the SDGs.

As UNCCD Executive Secretary Ibrahim Thiaw said in his foreword to the second edition of the Global Land Outlook report, “Governments and stakeholders cannot stop the climate crisis today, biodiversity loss tomorrow, and land degradation the day after.” The international community needs to tackle all these issues together. Achieving climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals is impossible without healthy land.

In 1994 the adoption of the UNCCD started the world down the path to reversing land degradation, desertification and drought. COP16 is expected to reaffirm this global commitment for present and future generations.

Pamela Chasek, Ph.D., is the Co-founder and Executive Editor of the Earth Negotiations Bulletin.

Original Source: Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB)

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

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Govt launches Central Account for Busuulu to protect tenants from evictions

Published

on

In a bid to shield lawful tenants from arbitrary evictions and resolve long-standing land conflicts, Lands Minister Judith Nabakooba has announced the establishment of a centralized government account where tenants can deposit nominal ground rent, locally known as busuulu.

The move, she said, is a direct response to complaints raised by tenants during President Yoweri Museveni’s recent tour of the Buganda region, where multiple communities voiced frustration over landlords who are either absent, untraceable, or outright refuse to accept rent payments.

Speaking to the press on Saturday, Nabakooba said the government account now offers tenants a legal channel to fulfill their obligations—effectively eliminating the loophole used by some landlords to accuse tenants of non-payment and justify evictions.

“Government remains committed to securing the rights of bibanja holders through lawful means,” Nabakooba said. “The public should not be misled by political messages that discourage participation in these programs.”

She stressed that lawful and bona fide occupants, commonly referred to as bibanja holders, are protected under Uganda’s Constitution and Land Act, and cannot be legally evicted as long as they pay their annual ground rent.

New Legal Backing and Clear Fee Structure

The new system is backed by an amendment to Statutory Instrument No. 55 of 2011, now updated as Statutory Instrument No. 2 of 2025, which outlines the fixed ground rent rates tenants must pay based on location:

  • Cities – Shs 50,000

  • Municipalities – Shs 40,000

  • Town Councils – Shs 30,000

  • Town Boards – Shs 20,000

  • Rural Areas – Shs 5,000

Nabakooba clarified that these rates are standardized and non-negotiable, emphasizing that busuulu is not subject to arbitrary pricing by landlords. The fees have remained unchanged since their introduction in 2011.

See also  Canada Launches New Selection Categories For Express Entry

Certificates of Occupancy and Digital Access

To strengthen tenant security and provide legal recognition, the minister encouraged bibanja holders to apply for Certificates of Occupancy, documents that officially confirm their right to occupy and use the land.

So far, the ministry has mapped more than 96,000 bibanja across several districts, and over 500 certificates have already been issued in Mubende, Mityana, Kassanda, Kiboga, and Gomba.

“This effort is not just about securing tenure,” Nabakooba noted. “It’s about giving rural tenants the confidence to invest, farm, and participate meaningfully in the market economy.”

To enhance transparency and public access, the Ministry of Lands has also launched an online portal and mobile app, where tenants can:

  • Verify the status of their Certificate of Occupancy

  • Check the identity and details of the registered landowner

  • Confirm whether the land they occupy is formally registered

The digital system is part of a broader government strategy to curb land fraud, prevent illegal sales, and guard against evictions—especially in cases where land is sold without the knowledge of long-standing tenants.

Bridging the Landlord-Tenant Divide

Nabakooba also called on landlords to work with government efforts rather than resist them. She acknowledged the strained relationship between landlords and tenants in many parts of Uganda but urged both parties to see these reforms as a path toward harmony and fairness.

“This is not about taking land away from landlords,” she explained. “It is about creating a transparent system where both landlords and tenants benefit, and land-related violence is minimized.”

The centralized busuulu collection initiative aims to deter unscrupulous evictions, encourage documentation of land relationships, and reduce tensions—particularly with newer landlords unfamiliar with traditional land use agreements.

See also  Lil Uzi Vert Teases Release Of Eternal Atake 2 With Album Trailer Shoot

As land remains a sensitive and politically charged issue in Uganda, especially in the Buganda region, government efforts like this one are seen as key to reducing conflict and promoting economic security for millions of rural families.

The Ministry says more sensitization campaigns will follow to help both tenants and landlords understand the new system, how to access the digital platforms, and the legal safeguards now in place.

Source: pressug.com

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter