Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The African Development Bank and the Tree Plantations Industry

Published

on

“Plantations are not forests”, members of communities from Zambezia province, in Mozambique.

In June 2019, the report “Towards Large-Scale Commercial Investment in African Forestry,”
(1) made a call to development-funding agencies, mainly from Europe, and the World Bank,
to provide aid money to a new Fund for financing 100,000 hectares of (new) industrial tree
plantations, to support the potential development of 500,000 hectares, in Eastern and
Southern Africa. This money, according to the report, would be crucial for private investors to
generate profits from the plantations. The new Fund would be headquartered in the tax
haven of Mauritius.
The African Development Bank (AfDB) and WWF Kenya produced this report with funding
from the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds. The purpose of the report is to assist the
AfDB “in evaluating and designing alternative private funding models for commercial forestry
in Africa with a view to ultimately establishing, or aiding the establishment of, a specialized
investment vehicle for commercial forestry plantations.” The report declares that the
development agencies from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the United
Kingdom and The Netherlands are interested.
Essentially, the report is a praise to industrial monoculture plantations. It repeats, without
providing any evidence, most of the deceiving arguments that plantations companies use in
their propagandas to cover up the impacts of this devastating industry. The report’s focus is
on outlining the possible financial instruments that would attract companies to this region and
make their investments most profitable.
The report identifies “readily available projects with the potential to establish almost 500,000
ha of new forest (sic) on about 1 million ha of landscape, not including areas that existing
companies and developers are already planning to use for own expansion. It also excludes
early stage or speculative projects.” (italics added) In particular, the report identifies “viable
plantation land” in ten countries: Angola, Republic of Congo, Ghana, Mozambique, Malawi,
South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The report further affirms that “Africa may be positioned to have the most profitable
afforestation potential worldwide.” And, then, it goes into explaining the possible investment
schemes that can make profit-oriented business and afforestation objectives (from climate or
voluntary targets) to be aligned and, thus, generate more profits for shareholders.
None of the pages in the report mention, however, not even indirectly, the overwhelming
amount of information that evidences the many negative impacts that industrial plantations
cause to communities and their environments. The report’s authors chose to ignore
plantations companies’ destruction of forests and savannahs; erosion of soils; contamination
and dry-up of water sources; overall violence inflicted on communities which include
restriction of movement, criminalization when resistance emerges, abuse, harassment and
sexual violence in particular to women and girls; destruction of livelihoods and food
sovereignty; destruction of cultural, spiritual and social fabrics within and among
neighbouring communities; few precarious and hazardous jobs; unfulfilled “social” projects or
promises made to communities; destruction of ways of living; rise in HIV/AIDS; and the list
goes on.

In front of this, on September 21, 2020, the International Day of Struggle against
Monoculture Plantations, 121 organisations from 47 countries and 730 members from
different rural communities in Mozambique that are facing industrial tree plantations,
disseminated an open letter to demand the immediate abandonment of any and every
afforestation programme based on large-scale monoculture plantations. (2)
The report, nonetheless, brags about having used a “sector-wide consultation exercise.”
For the authors, the sector includes “industry participants ranging from investors, industrial
players, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) through to forestry fund managers
(…) To further enrich and triangulate inputs to the study, the team also participated in three
forestry industry events and consulted with a broad range of personal contacts in the sector.”
The report also mentions consultations made to Development Finance Institutions and
agencies as well as oil and other industrial companies. It is clear however how communities
living in or around the almost 500,000 hectares of land identified to be transformed into
industrial monocultures, are not considered part of the sector. Nor were considered the many
communities and groups that have been resisting for decades the plantations in the countries
the report use as examples: Tanzania, Mozambique, Ghana and Brazil. (3)
The report further sustains that the NGO Conservation International confirmed “that it sees
potential in associating large global businesses with the forestry sector.” It further mentions
WWF and The Nature Conservancy – namely, the same category of NGOs mainly concerned
on promoting programs and policies that are aligned with corporate interests as an easy way
to keep their funding, projects and investments.
The purely financial focus of this report, with an eye on how to make most profits, should not
come as a surprise though. It was prepared by a company called Acacia Sustainable
Business Advisors (4), which was set up by Martin Poulsen, a development banker active in
rising private Equity Funds particularly in Africa. Equity Funds try to offer big returns by
spreading investments across companies from different sectors. (5) One co-author of the
report was Mads Asprem, the ex-director of Green Resources, a Norwegian industrial tree
plantation and carbon offsets company. Green Resources’ tree plantations in Mozambique,
Tanzania, and Uganda have resulted in land grabs, evictions, loss of livelihoods and
increased hunger for local communities. (6)

The report also shows the possible responses that investors could have to potential
“barriers”. One “structural barrier” identified is called “stakeholder relations,” a very vague
concept that seems to be related to possible conflicts with communities living in or around
the plantation projects. The term “conflicts” however is not mentioned once in the whole
report. The recommended response to this “barrier” is to “Use AfDB or other MDB
[Multilateral Development Bank] “honest broker” profile to convene stakeholders.” So it
seems that the strategy is to use development banks to make communities believe that the
project has the intention of improving (developing) people’s lives. Another “structural barrier”
identified in the report is “land tenure challenges,” to which the recommended response is to
“Follow FSC and other best practices.” This, of course, is recommended despite the vast
amount of information that shows how, in practice, FSC certifies as “sustainable” industrial
tree plantations that destroy peoples’ livelihoods.
When the climate and development agendas blend for profit
It is relevant to underline how the report makes use of the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDG) and the need for climate change mitigation and adaptation in the African region to
promote the further expansion of industrial plantations. It goes as far as to conclude that
“Channelling financial resources to such efforts [afforestation in the framework of the SDGs]
is within the mandate of international development organizations and special climate funds.”
The report also states that “preliminary interviews yielded information that some oil
companies are already forming alliances with sustainable forestry investment companies.”
This despite the fact that oil and gas companies are a fundamental driver of climate change,
which would undermine any possible positive outcome for the climate. Besides, these
‘alliances’ also give these companies an easy way out of any responsibility for their business
operations. This is clearly exemplified with the announcement of oil giant companies, such as
Italian ENI and Anglo-Dutch Shell, to invest in mega tree plantation projects to supposedly
“compensate” their mega levels of pollution they provoke. These two companies are
responsible for environmental disasters and crimes as a result of their fossil fuel activities in
many places across the globe. (7)
The African Development Bank is complicit in this strategy. While the Bank finances this
report encouraging the expansion of industrial plantations in Africa as a climate solution, it
finances in Mozambique a new gas extraction mega-project in the Cabo Delgado province,
undertaken by a consortium of companies including ENI.
This report is one more proof of how investments from profit-seeking corporations are put in
front of the social well being of people in the name of development and now also of
addressing climate change. There is no “unused” or “degraded” land available at the scale
proposed, which means countless people in Africa will be directly and indirectly affected if
this expansion plan materialise.
Another relevant omission of the report is how it bluntly assumes that the current scarcity of
investment in large-scale tree plantations in this African region is due to the few investment
opportunities available. However, the communities and groups on the ground organizing
almost on a daily basis to oppose the seizing of their lands and lives by these plantations
companies, have clear that their resistance has been successful to halt the expansion of
these plantations in many places. And as the open letter launched on September 21st said,

communities around the world “will certainly resist this new and insane expansion plan
proposed in the AfDB and WWF-Kenya.”

(1) AfDB, CIF, WWF, Acacia Sustainable, Towards large-scale investment in African forestry, 2019,
http://redd-monitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/towards_largescale_
commercial_investment_in_african_forestry.pdf
(2) 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, 2020,
https://wrm.org.uy/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/carta-con-firmas-en-inglés_upd201008.pdf
(3) See more information on resistance struggles against plantations here: https://wrm.org.uy/browseby-
subject/international-movement-building/local-struggles-against-plantations/
(4) Acacia Sustainable Business Advisors, https://www.acaciasba.com/about
(5) Groww, Equity Mutual Funds, https://groww.in/p/equity-funds/
(6) REDD-Monitor, How WWF and the African Development Bank are promoting lang grabs in Africa,
2020, https://redd-monitor.org/2020/09/22/international-day-of-struggle-against-monoculture-treeplantations-
how-wwf-and-the-african-development-bank-are-promoting-land-grabs-in-africa/ ; The
Expansion of Tree Plantations on Peasant Territories in the Nacala Territories: Green Resources in
Mozambique, 2018, https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/recommended/the-expansion-oftree-
plantations-on-peasant-territories-in-the-nacala-corridor-green-resources-in-mozambique/ ; WRM
bulletin, Green Resources Mozambique: More False Promises! 2018, https://wrm.org.uy/articles-fromthe-
wrm-bulletin/section1/green-resources-mozambique-more-false-promises/ ; WRM bulletin, Carbon
Colonialism: Failure of Green Resources’ Carbon Offset Project in Uganda, 2018,
https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/section1/carbon-colonialism-failure-of-greenresources-
carbon-offset-project-in-uganda/ ; WRM bulletin, Tanzania: Community resistance against
monoculture tree plantations, 2018,
https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/section1/tanzania-community-resistance-againstmonoculture-
tree-plantations/ ; and WRM bulletin, The farce of “Smart forestry”: The cases of Green
Resources in Mozambique and Suzano in Brazil, 2015, https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrmbulletin/
section1/the-farce-of-smart-forestry-the-cases-of-green-resources-in-mozambique-andsuzano-
in-brazil/
(7) REDD-Monitor, NGOs oppose the oil industry’s Natural Climate Solutions and demand that ENI
and Shell keep fossil fuels in the ground, 2019, https://wrm.org.uy/other-relevant-information/ngosoppose-
the-oil-industrys-natural-climate-solutions-and-demand-that-eni-and-shell-keep-fossil-fuels-in the-
ground /
WRM Bulletin

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

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