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

Ugandan Farmers Sue EACOP in London in Last Minute Effort to Stop Crude Oil Pipeline

Published

on

Local farmer Okumu Weke next to an EACOP route beacon in Nyamtai village, Kikuube District in western region of Uganda. Credit: Maina Waruru/IPS

NYAMTAI, Uganda, Apr 3 2026 (IPS) – Environmental activists and farmer groups opposed to the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), the world’s longest heated oil pipeline, are mounting a last-ditch legal effort meant to stop its construction in a suit they plan to have filed in London, UK,  believing that it stands a chance to stop the controversial project despite being at the 78 percent completion stage.

The groups have engaged the services of the London law firm of Leigh Day, one of the UK’s leading environmental and public interest litigation firms, which in the past has won landmark compensation cases for northern Kenyan communities affected by unexploded UK military munitions, among others.

With the pipeline construction said to be nearly 80 percent complete, the groups believe their petition stands a good chance of success since EACOP is owned by a company registered at the Companies House in London – the EACOP Ltd.

This is despite the controversial 1,443 km pipeline, principally owned by TotalEnergies with a 62 percent stake, meant to evacuate crude from Western Uganda oilfields to the Indian port of Tanga in Tanzania, which has survived several suits filed in the region and in France and, despite the withdrawal of several would-be financiers, looks all set for completion later in the year, with the first oil exports due in October 2026.

Other owners of the pipeline are the governments of Uganda and Tanzania via the Uganda National Oil Company (UNOC – 15 percent) and the Tanzania Petroleum Development Corporation (TPDC – 15 percent), and the Chinese multinational China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC – 8 percent).

The plaintiffs, who include project-affected persons (PAPs) from across Uganda, are buoyed by the support of the global campaign group Avaaz, which in February initiated a fundraising effort to help with costs of the suit, ahead of its expected commencement in May.

They claim that the pipeline will violate rights protected by the Ugandan Constitution, which gives every citizen the right to a clean and healthy environment.

The local farmers allege that the construction and operation of the pipeline will have a material impact on global temperatures with severe consequences both worldwide and in Uganda. Further, they alleged that the pipeline is in breach of EACOP Ltd’s own legal obligations under Uganda’s National Environment Act and National Climate Change Act.

Snaking through Uganda and Tanzania, it will tear through some of the planet’s “most wondrous ecosystems”, carving up elephant sanctuaries, protected forests, and more than 200 rivers.

In addition, the massive infrastructure, also the longest crude oil pipeline in Africa, will result in almost 400 million tonnes of emissions over its lifetime and have a major impact on climate change, they claim.

Besides, they argue that the emissions released by oil carried by the pipeline will ‘materially’ contribute to global warming and fear the impact this will have on them and their livelihoods, as well as on the environment and the health of Ugandans.

EACOP is expected to result in more than 372 million tonnes of CO₂e, or greenhouse gas, emissions—more than 58 times Uganda’s total annual emissions, they contend.

Uganda is particularly impacted by climate change, having already suffered from “record-breaking occurrences of floods, devastating and frequent droughts and erratic rainfall patterns”, according to a report sent by the Ugandan government to the UN, which will only increase as climate change worsens.

“The case is one of a growing number of legal claims seeking to hold global energy companies and infrastructure providers to account for the emissions resulting from their extraction of fossil fuels,” Leigh Day said in a statement.

“Our clients believe the EACOP pipeline will result in enormous damage to the global climate as well as severe damage to their local environment. The EACOP will lead to a huge amount of oil being burnt in a world where the UN has confirmed there are already far more fossil fuels slated for extraction than required if we are to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, said Leigh Day solicitor Joe Snape, who will represent the group.

The fact that the pipeline is operated and financed by a UK-registered company highlights the role UK corporates often have in fossil fuel extraction projects in the Global South, he added

He further noted, “Our clients are already living on the frontline of the climate crisis and argue this pipeline will only exacerbate the impact they, and other vulnerable communities around the world, experience on their lives and livelihoods. They are calling for the pipeline construction and operations to be halted to stop this damaging impact on the climate in Uganda and elsewhere around the world.”

While around a third (460 km) of the pipeline will run through the basin of Lake Victoria, Africa’s largest lake, local environmentalists  warn that a spill or leak could potentially result in catastrophic effects for the lake, which is a vital water resource in the region and a significant source for the River Nile.

The pipeline will also run through and disturb important habitats and nature reserves, including Murchison Falls National Park, the Taala Forest Reserve, and the Bugoma Forest. The pipeline will reportedly disturb around 2,000 square kilometres of protected habitats, impacting rare and endangered species that inhabit them, such as Eastern Chimpanzees and African Elephants.

For its part, Avaaz said its fundraising effort will support the “groundbreaking” court helping expose the environmental abuses and climate devastation that this project will cause. Further, it will help to defend land rights for Indigenous and frontline communities and “continue the quest to protect life on Earth.”

“With help from Avaaz members, communities in East Africa have already fought this project through regional courts — but their case was dismissed on a technicality. This new lawsuit in the UK is the last remaining path to stopping this monster pipeline. Legal experts believe it offers a far better shot at a fair, independent hearing — with a real possibility of success,” the campaign noted.

The group promised to “stage an epic media stunt” around the launch of the court case, increasing pressure on insurance companies to walk away from the project, and support families in Uganda and Tanzania who are fighting evictions, providing cash assistance for food, medicine and other basic necessities.

The USD 5.6 billion project was initiated in 2016 amid delays, resistance, and scrutiny. Over the past two years, EACOP has accelerated, with infrastructure taking shape along its route and at its two key oil fields: Tilenga, awarded to TotalEnergies, and Kingfisher, awarded to CNOOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Source: Inter Press Service News Agency

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Minister Cancels Contested 12-Square-Mile Land Title in Mubende

Published

on

Residents accuse local leaders and private actors of violent evictions and land grabbing, as the Lands minister intervenes, orders arrests, and revokes a disputed title he says was fraudulently acquired.

The State Minister for Lands, Sam Mayanja, has ordered the cancellation of a 12-square-mile land title in Buweekula South Constituency in Mubende District, declaring that the late Christopher Obeya illegally acquired the land.

The directive followed a stakeholders’ meeting and locus visit during which residents reported alleged impunity by a manager hired by Obeya’s estate, who is accused of overseeing violent evictions, including the shooting of a kibanja holder.

Hundreds of residents from Buweekula South told the minister they had lived on the land for decades but were forcefully evicted.

“We have lived on this land for decades, but we are being treated like strangers. Our homes were destroyed, and some of us were beaten when we resisted eviction,” said Frank Namanya, a resident.

The contested land, located at Block 375, Plot 3, measures 12 square miles and spans three villages—Kibuye Vuga, Njajaazi, and Gogonya. It was originally public land before the Uganda Land Commission issued a title to Erineo Kunobwa and Joseph Yumbe in 1987.

The title was later transferred in 1990 to Musose Mutabiingwa and Francis Katabalwa as tenants in common without being surrendered back to the commission, and was eventually transferred to Christopher Obeya in 2005.

Residents said that following Obeya’s death, his estate administrators hired Andrew Akandwanaho, who, together with private security personnel, allegedly carried out forceful evictions.

“The manager came with armed men and started evicting people violently. One of our people was shot dead for refusing to leave his land,” said Moses Kasumba, another resident.

Locals also accused Mubende District Chairperson Michael Muhereza Ntambi and Resident District Commissioner (RDC) Fred Nayebare Kyamuzigita of owning portions of the contested land, where they allegedly graze cattle, and of failing to address community concerns.

“Leaders who are supposed to protect us are instead using this land for their own benefit, and the district chairperson has cows on this land. They have ignored our cries for help,” Namanya added.

In response, Mayanja directed the District Police Commander in Mubende to arrest Andrew Akandwanaho over alleged unlawful evictions and the reported shooting.

“No one is above the law. I have directed the police to immediately arrest the manager responsible for these illegal evictions and the reported shooting,” Mayanja said.

He further ordered the cancellation of the land title held by the late Obeya, stating that it had been fraudulently obtained and that the land would revert to the Mubende District Land Board.

“This title was obtained fraudulently and cannot stand. The land reverts to the district for proper management in the interest of the rightful occupants,” he said.

The minister also expressed dissatisfaction with the district leadership, accusing them of possible involvement in land grabbing and warning of further action.

“If the district leadership is implicated in land grabbing, they must step aside. I will not hesitate to involve the State House Anti-Corruption Unit,” Mayanja warned.

He further claimed that the district chairperson had sought a private meeting with him under unclear circumstances.

“Why have you been calling me asking for a secret meeting with me?” Mayanja asked during the meeting, drawing reactions from residents.

RDC Kyamuzigita denied the allegations that he owns or grazes cattle on the disputed land.

“I have not even made five months in Mubende, and my cows are in Nyabushozi, so those are allegations,” he said.

He added that he would investigate claims regarding the district chairperson’s alleged involvement.

“Honourable Minister, I did not know whether the chairperson has cows on this land, and I am going to take action on that,” Kyamuzigita said.

Although the district chairperson was present at the meeting, Minister Mayanja denied him the opportunity to respond to the accusations before the residents.

Source: nilepost.co.ug

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Global Peasant Movement calls for action against escalating land grabs and repression.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

For more than eight years, the landscape of Kiryandongo district in western Uganda has undergone significant changes, shifting from being occupied by local farmers to a violent takeover by multinational companies.

What used to be small farms, homesteads, and community life is now dominated by endless stretches of sugarcane and grain plantations, disrupting local economies and social bonds. Families who once cultivated food and built futures now face displacement, dispossession, and uncertainty about their livelihoods and community cohesion.

“They found us living in peace. Now everything is broken: families, dreams, livelihoods. investors forcibly took away our land.” Benon Beryaija told Witness Radio, recalling the past.

Despite displacement, criminalization, and fear, some land defenders remain steadfast, inspiring the audience to value resilience and collective resistance.

Benon Beryaija, the chairperson of the Kiryandongo land eviction victims, is at the center of the resistance and continues to organize locals despite threats, arrests, and violence.

“The bigger group left, but we remain resolute. “We are defending what belongs to us; our land that was grabbed by multinationals. It is a very hard fight, and it is threatening my life. I have been arrested and tortured for defending my people.”

His experience reflects a broader pattern across Uganda and beyond, where land and environmental defenders increasingly face intimidation, legal harassment, and violence.

The situation in Kiryandongo mirrors a growing global crisis. A global coalition of small-scale farmers and rural movements has issued a strong call for international mobilization against land dispossession, state repression, and what it describes as a growing “neocolonial offensive” targeting rural communities worldwide.

In a statement released ahead of the International Day of Peasant Struggles on April 17, La Via Campesina warned that agribusiness expansion, militarisation, and restrictive trade policies are accelerating land grabs and undermining food sovereignty across continents.

Founded in 1993, La Via Campesina brings together millions of peasants, landless workers, Indigenous peoples, pastoralists, fishers, migrant farmworkers, and rural women and youth, all of whom advocate for food sovereignty and peasant agriculture.

The annual commemoration marks 30 years since the Eldorado do Carajás Massacre in Brazil, where military police killed 21 landless workers during a protest for agrarian reform. The movement says the anniversary is a reminder of “ongoing violence in our territories” and the continued impunity for crimes against land defenders.

Peasant movements warn that land grabbing is being accelerated by agribusiness expansion, extractive industries, and global financial interests often backed by foreign capital and state support.

“They do not come to restore democracy,” the statement reads. “They come to steal the land we cultivate,” accusing multinational corporations and governments of turning land and ecosystems into “speculative assets.”

Recent findings from the Food and Agriculture Organization, in collaboration with the International Land Coalition and CIRAD, reinforce these concerns. Their “Status of Land Tenure and Governance” report estimates that more than 1.1 billion people, about 23 percent of the global adult population, live under constant fear of losing their land or homes within the next five years.

The report identifies commercial pressures as a major driver of land insecurity, echoing concerns raised by peasant movements.

The statement also criticizes global trade systems, particularly agreements negotiated under the World Trade Organization, arguing that they favor multinational corporations at the expense of smallholder farmers.

La Via Campesina has called for agriculture to be removed entirely from WTO frameworks, saying free trade agreements undermine national sovereignty and expose local producers to unfair competition.

“We WARN that the capitalist and neocolonial offensive is not limited to direct violence: neoliberal trade policies are also deadly for rural life. Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), such as Mercosur’s with the European Union and others, are instruments of submission that dismantle national sovereignty to favor transnationals. We reject treating food as a commodity and trade as a weapon; we demand that tariffs be legitimate tools to protect small producers from dumping, not levers of geopolitical coercion wielded by empire.” The statement adds.

Beyond economic pressure, the group reveals what it calls the systematic criminalization of those defending land, water, and natural resources. Across Latin America, Africa, and Asia, activists are increasingly labeled as “terrorists,” arrested, or subjected to prolonged legal battles.

“The capitalist and colonial system that represses and dispossesses our peoples continues unabated to this day, enabling land grabbing, protecting the elites, and criminalizing those who fight for the land through laws and selective judicial processes and other forms of persecution.” The statement from the group mentioned

This trend is evident in many countries, including Uganda, where communities resisting land-based investments, including infrastructure, oil, and plantation projects, have faced arrests, intimidation, and shrinking civic space.

As April 17 approaches, La Via Campesina is calling for coordinated global action from protests and community dialogues to solidarity campaigns.

It is also urging governments to implement international frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to protect land rights and food sovereignty.

“There is no peace without justice. And no justice without resistance and collective action,” the movement sa

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter