MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
The African Development Bank and the Tree Plantations Industry
Published
6 years agoon

“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
Related posts:

The enduring legacy of a little-known World Bank project to secure African plantations for European billionaires
Witness Radio – Uganda, Community members from Mozambique and other organizations around the world say NO to more industrial tree plantations
Open letter to African Development Bank and Nordic Development Fund: Address reprisals against Paten Clan
You may like
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
Ahead of COP17, development banks must confront mining’s role in accelerating desertification
Published
1 day agoon
August 24, 2026
Environmental defenders warn ahead of UNCCD’s COP17 in Mongolia that development banks are financing critical mineral projects that accelerate desertification, water depletion and deforestation while claiming to support a just energy transition.
When governments gather in Ulaanbaatar from 17 to 28 August for the 17th Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), they will pledge to restore degraded land and strengthen resilience to drought. Yet many of these same governments, as shareholders of public development banks, continue to finance large-scale mining projects that degrade fragile ecosystems, deplete scarce water resources, and accelerate desertification.
That contradiction is already evident in the run-up to the summit. In a communiqué ahead of COP17, Mongolia’s foreign minister highlighted the country’s ambition to combat desertification through artificial intelligence data centres powered by renewable energy. But while presented as part of a green future, data centres and the infrastructure that supports them are driving demand for critical minerals such as copper, lithium and rare earth elements. Their expansion risks intensifying the very mining impacts that contribute to land degradation and water scarcity in arid regions.
The production of one metric ton of lithium, for instance, requires between 1 and 2 million liters of water to produce. Gold and copper mining operations use chemicals for exploration and extraction, which need further water to be diluted; and this water, once contaminated, is then discharged back into the natural world. Over the years, the mining sector has developed standards to address or mitigate these impacts. Way too often, however, companies fail to comply with such benchmarks.
Mongolia, this year’s COP17 host, illustrates this tension well. Nearly 80 per cent of the country’s land is already degraded or affected by desertification, according to the government. Yet, development banks are expanding support for critical mineral mining in the country, while failing to ensure compliance with social and environmental safeguards.
For more than a decade, pastoralist communities and environmental defenders in Mongolia have warned that Rio Tinto’s Oyu Tolgoi copper mine is heavily affecting South Gobi’s scarce water resources. Herders report that their land and wells have become increasingly dry since the mine began operating. Yet, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) invested a combined US$350 million in the project in 2024.

Development banks are financing desertification
Historically, public development banks have been cautious about investing directly in large-scale mining projects, due to the high social and environmental risks involved. In recent years, however, they have been heavily investing in this sector.
In November 2025, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), after avoiding mining investments for four decades, approved a controversial new Energy Policy that opens the door to financing critical mineral extraction. One of its flagship projects is the Reko Diq mine in Balochistan, Pakistan, which several development banks are funding. The mine, which sits in a highly militarised and conflict-affected region, threatens an already hyper-arid desert ecosystem with further land degradation and desertification.
In May 2026, also the World Bank Group unveiled a new strategy for metals and minerals, pledging to “quintuple support to the sector in the next five years”. Argentina is one of the target countries for this new strategy: since 2024, the World Bank has already committed nearly USD 2 billion in loans and an additional USD 1.9 billion in guarantees to support projects involving reforms and deregulation of the energy and mining sectors, as well as investments in logistical and strategic infrastructure for those sectors. These investments feed into the Incentive Scheme for Major Investments (RIGI), a government program granting extensive fiscal, legal and export benefits to large-scale extractive projects.
The World Bank and IDB Invest also funded the controversial Sal de Vida lithium mine, in a salt flat in the Catamarca province affected by seven other lithium mines. Water, already scarce in this arid territory, is disappearing quickly. As a result of mining activities, the Trapiche River has completely dried up and for local herders finding water and food for their llamas, goats or sheep is becoming a daily challenge.

In Zambia’s Copperbelt, approximately 5,000 people across eight communities surrounding the Nchanga and Konkola copper mines have endured decades of water and soil pollution. These impacts are rarely described as desertification, yet the loss of fertile soil, vegetation, water and agricultural livelihoods feeds directly into the wider degradation of productive land.
Zambia’s own commitments under the UNCCD set a target to rehabilitate all land degraded by mining and quarrying by 2030, in part to mitigate current desertification trends. Nevertheless, the World Bank’s US$65.6 million Zambia Mining and Environmental Remediation and Improvement Project, which explicitly targeted polluted mining areas in Chingola, brought no direct remediation to these eight communities.
Mining-affected communities call for stronger safeguards
From Mongolia to Pakistan, to Zambia and Argentina, local communities and civil society groups are sounding the alarm around the irreversible harms of this new wave of extractivist projects undertaken in the name of the “just” energy transition.
According to the UN, “up to 40% of the world’s land is degraded, affecting more than 3 billion people worldwide and with dire consequences for our climate, wildlife and livelihoods.” Drought, land degradation and desertification are already costing the global community an estimated US$ 878 billion every year. Yet, the concerns of mining-affected communities and environmental activists are either being ignored or used as a pretext to stigmatise them as “anti-development”, criminalise them and attack them.
The UNCCD promises, “we have the power to bring land back to life”. But to do so, governments and public development banks need to go beyond slogans and explicitly recognise the impacts that productive sectors like large-scale mining have on land degradation, water resources and the ecological integrity of ecosystems.
Ana Pandigracio, Biodiversity Director at Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN), a former elected member of the UNCCD CSO Panel for Latin America and the Caribbean (2022–2024) and former elected IUCN Councillor (2021–2025), recommends that, to mitigate these impacts, they commit to not supporting further mining expansion in arid zones and require existing projects to comply with robust environmental safeguards and the highest applicable standards, including those set out by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
As a group of CSOs recommended during a previous UNCCD conference, governments and development banks should also support community-led initiatives, particularly those led by women, youth, pastoralists and Indigenous Peoples, and integrate their knowledge into drought management strategies.
Economic development should not come at the cost of greater land degradation, worsening water scarcity or mounting social and environmental harms for current and future generations. Instead, public development banks need to invest in community-led solutions that protect, restore and sustainably manage ecosystems while respecting the rights of the communities that depend on them.
Source: rightsindevelopment.org
Related posts:

UNCCD COP17 kicks off in Mongolia, drawing nations together to tackle urgent issues of land, drought, and food security.
UNCCD COP16: NGOs issue a stark warning and call for urgent actions to deal with the escalating threats of desertification, land degradation, and drought.
Civil society groups at UNCCD COP17 are calling for urgent action on land rights, drought, and vital funding.
Accountability in Crisis: Development banks, while funding Asia’s energy transition, are accused of silencing Asian local and Indigenous communities, highlighting the central tension between a clean-energy push and the repression of those most affected.
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
Smallholder farmers and civil society organizations have launched a dynamic media campaign for the inaugural Eastern Africa Indigenous Seed Conference, inviting more smallholder farmers to join the agroecology movement.
Published
1 day agoon
August 24, 2026
By the Witness Radio team
NAIROBI, Kenya: Seed sovereignty champions, farmers, researchers, and civil society groups from across East Africa have united to launch a media campaign for the first Eastern Africa Indigenous Seed Conference. Their call is urgent: recognize and protect farmer-managed seed systems as seed regulations, commercialization, and the loss of indigenous diversity threaten the region. The campaign aims to rally smallholder farmers for the conference, highlighting how indigenous seeds and ancestral wisdom can revive biodiversity, combat climate change, and secure food sovereignty.
Set for 17 to 20 November 2026 at the Catholic University of Eastern Africa in Nairobi, the four-day conference will gather farmers, pastoralists, researchers, policymakers, seed guardians, civil society, and development partners to shape the future of indigenous seeds and food systems in the region.
The conference will be held under the theme “Realizing the Right to Food through Seed Sovereignty.”
This launch comes as farmers and seed sovereignty advocates question whether East Africa’s seed laws and regulations truly honor the farmer-managed systems that for generations have allowed communities to select, conserve, exchange, and replant their own seeds.
Activists warn that the growing focus on certified and commercial seed systems threatens traditional knowledge, reduces local seed diversity, and undermines farmers’ freedom to save, exchange, and reproduce varieties adapted to their land.
Daniel Wanjama, Executive Director of Seed Savers Network, said farmer-managed seed systems remain central to food production across the region, arguing that commercial seed systems cannot provide the seed diversity farmers need in different environments.
Wanjama added that about 80 percent of the seeds farmers use in the region come from farmer-managed seed systems, underscoring the importance of supporting farmers in conserving and developing their own varieties.
“There is no commercial seed system that can provide the seeds that farmers need because diversity is part of a resilient mechanism,” he said.
He emphasized that preserving a wide variety of locally adapted seed varieties is crucial as farmers face mounting challenges from climate change.
Wanjama also pointed out a troubling disconnect between current seed policies and the realities faced by smallholder farmers across face across “The policies across the region are not aligned, and just to give you an example, recently last year in Kenya, the high court found the act that is governing the seed sector in Kenya was unconstitutional because it is limiting the farmers’ rights in being able to access seeds,” he said.
He argued that some African seed laws borrow regulatory models from highly commercialized agricultural systems abroad, making them ill-suited for local contexts.
“The laws are cut and paste from the global north where farming is largely commercial and large-scale; they don’t fit our circumstances. That’s why we need to come together and discuss what we can do about it,” he added.
Amid the seed sovereignty debate, African farmers and civil society organizations are championing Farmer-Managed Seed Systems, building community seed banks, and pushing for greater recognition of farmers as stewards of seed conservation and exchange.
In Uganda, farmers and civil society groups are increasingly turning to community-driven seed conservation, offering a grassroots alternative or complement to formal seed supply systems.
Nancy Mugimba, National Coordinator of the Eastern and Southern Africa Smallholder Farmers Forum (ESAFF) Uganda, said farmers sometimes face planting delays because existing support systems provide inadequate access to seed.
She said some of the seeds provided to farmers are also not necessarily suited to the conditions of particular communities.
Mugimba noted that efforts are now focused on strengthening community seed banks, empowering farmers to cultivate and safeguard the varieties they know and trust.
“We have introduced seed banking in communities, which is not new because farmers were already doing it at home. We have just increased capacity to ensure it works effectively,” she said.
She observed that farmers are more motivated to protect indigenous varieties when they see their vital role in sustaining food supplies and ensuring seed access within their communities.
Panelists urged governments to boost support for farmer-managed seed systems, advocating for multiplying indigenous varieties beyond research and breeding. They stressed that empowering community seed banks and local seed multiplication would expand access to diverse, locally adapted varieties.
The discussions also showcased the diverse strategies emerging across East Africa to revitalize and improve seed systems.
In Tanzania, the seed sector is undergoing reforms to expand access to and use of improved seed while strengthening seed production, quality assurance, and commercial distribution. The Tanzania Seed Sector Development Strategy (TSSDS), approved in May 2026 and covering up to 2030, aims to double the area under improved seed from about 3 million to 6 million hectares and expand the agro-dealer network from around 3,000 to 12,000 to improve farmers’ access to quality seed.
Daud Manongi, Program Lead for the Biodiversity Conservation Program at Tanzanian organization TABIO, said farmers still face restrictions on selling seed within the country’s formal regulatory framework.
“Our farmers are currently not allowed to sell their seeds within the developed framework, but so far we have approved seeds,” Manongi said.
He said the Tanzanian government has approved 13 local varieties for wider production and use. At the same time, discussions are ongoing with the Tanzania Seed Certification Agency (TASC) on how to make registration and market processes more accessible to smallholder farmers.
Manongi noted that farmers and organizations championing local varieties still face hurdles like taxation and limited dialogue with policymakers.
“There is inconsistent engagement with policymakers, and sometimes it is difficult for them to cooperate with farmers on accessing locally adapted varieties because of tax issues,” he said.
He also said agricultural extension services often prioritize commercial seed production, leaving farmers with little support for indigenous varieties.
According to Manongi, farmers urgently need access to knowledge about indigenous seed production and conservation to boost the availability of locally adapted varieties.
Activists insist that farmers’ power to conserve, exchange, and reproduce seeds is deeply tied to food security, biodiversity, cultural heritage, and the resilience of communities facing climate change.
The inaugural Eastern Africa Indigenous Seed Conference, organized by Seed Savers Network with partners like Witness Radio, promises to be a vital regional platform for these urgent issues.
This November, the conference will spotlight the defense of farmer-managed seed systems against corporate and legal pressures, while also strengthening climate resilience, safeguarding biodiversity, and weaving stronger regional networks among farmers, researchers, policymakers, and civil society.
The event comes as climate change, biodiversity loss, commercial agriculture, and shifting policies intensify strain on traditional farming systems across the region.
For smallholder farmers, seed sovereignty is about more than where seeds come from. Advocates say it is a question of who holds the power over food production, and whether farmers will retain the freedom and ability to save, share, and reproduce the seeds that sustain their communities.
Related posts:

1st Eastern Africa Indigenous seed conference 2026
1st Eastern Africa Indigenous Seed Conference 2026 | EA-ISC Nairobi
The Indigenous Seeds movement in East Africa is convening in Kenya, with the potential to reshape the region’s food systems.
The EAC Seed & Plant Varieties Bill, 2025, is a potential threat to smallholder farmers, as it aims to disengage them from the agriculture business, according to experts.
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
Civil society organizations across East Africa have revived their campaign against the EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025, just as the regional parliament opens the floor to public consultations.
Published
1 day agoon
August 24, 2026
By the Witness Radio team
Civil society organizations across East Africa have increased their opposition to the proposed East African Community (EAC) Seeds and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025, warning that some provisions threaten to erode farmer-managed seed systems and give commercial seed interests greater power.
Earlier last week, the organizations met online to plan their advocacy ahead of the public hearings on August 27 and 28.
The EAC Seeds and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025, was introduced before the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) in June 2025. The legislation seeks to establish a harmonized regional framework for seed certification, registration, evaluation, and plant variety protection across EAC partner states.
Civil society groups and smallholder farmer advocates warn that the Bill could restrict the use, exchange, and sharing of farmer-managed seeds while tightening intellectual property rules in favor of commercial plant breeders.
During the webinar, champions of agroecology, food sovereignty, and farmers’ rights discussed how to shape the legislative process and present alternative proposals at the upcoming hearings.
Doreen Akware from the Center for Food and Adequate Living Rights (CEFROHT) told participants that the public hearings are scheduled for August 27 and 28, with stakeholders expected to present their views on the proposed legislation.
Akware said the relevant committee will compile the hearings’ views into a report before the Bill moves to the next stages of consideration.
The EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025 has passed several legislative stages, including publication and introduction in the East African Legislative Assembly. It is now before the relevant EALA committee and will go to public hearings before the Assembly considers it further.
If enacted, the legislation would establish a regional framework governing the evaluation, release, registration and certification of plant varieties and seeds across EAC partner states.
Participants noted the proposed legislation arrives as governments across the region urge farmers to adopt more sustainable, locally rooted agricultural practices.
Dr David Kabanda, Executive Director of CEFROHT, said communities in Uganda are already experiencing what he described as “seed poverty”, where farmers increasingly depend on commercial seed suppliers instead of saving and reusing seed from previous harvests.
Kabanda acknowledged some government programs distributing improved seeds are well-meaning but cautioned that growing reliance on commercial seed risks undermining the tradition of seed-saving.
“If we are coming up at the East African level to promote the intellectual property of seed breeders and also only highlighting or certifying seeds which they only understand in the context of a framework of only plant breeders without farmers’ rights and community seed systems on board, then we are destined to a very precarious time ahead of us,” Kabanda warned.
He insisted that true sustainability in agriculture and food systems is impossible if communities are excluded from decisions about the seeds and resources they rely on.
Kabanda also voiced worries about how the proposed regional law could impact national sovereignty, farmers’ rights, and the future of community-managed food systems.
Simon Degelo, senior adviser on seed systems at SWISSAID, raised concerns about provisions that could criminalize or restrict the sale and exchange of farmer-managed seeds lacking formal certification.
Degelo argued that requiring farmers to certify seeds before exchange or sale could put farmer-managed seed systems at a disadvantage against commercial seed companies.
He also questioned the Bill’s vague approach to plant variety protection and intellectual property rights, noting key provisions are postponed for future decisions instead of being detailed now.
“At least the essential provisions should be part of the law. We don’t even know what would be coming in the plant variety protection because the provisions are not in the law,” he said.
Degelo also warned the new regional framework might clash with existing national laws in EAC countries, especially where seed legislation is already involved in legal or constitutional disputes.
Over 60 participants from East Africa and beyond joined the webinar, pooling ideas and strategies to make their voices heard at the upcoming public hearings.
The organizations are rallying farmers’ groups, civil society, researchers, and other stakeholders to participate in the hearings and engage with EALA members.
Their main concern is to ensure that any regional seed law upholds farmers’ rights, safeguards community seed systems, and does not tip the scales in favor of commercial seed companies and plant breeders.
The organizations plan to use the public hearings to challenge restrictive provisions and demand greater recognition for farmer-managed seed systems.
This debate unfolds as East African nations work to harmonize agricultural policies and boost regional trade. Civil society groups insist that harmonization must not sacrifice farmers’ centuries-old ability to save, share, and nurture locally adapted seeds.
The proposed legislation now faces a pivotal test in the weeks ahead, as stakeholders ready their submissions to EALA and press for a seed governance framework that strikes a fair balance between commercial interests, farmers’ rights, biodiversity, and food sovereignty.
Related posts:

CSOs and Smallholder farmers are urgently convening to scrutinize the EAC Seed & Plant Varieties Bill, 2025.
The EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025 targets organic seeds, aiming to replace them with modified seeds, say smallholder farmers.
Smallholder farmers and civil society organizations have launched a dynamic media campaign for the inaugural Eastern Africa Indigenous Seed Conference, inviting more smallholder farmers to join the agroecology movement.
Happening shortly! Kenya’s upcoming court ruling on the Seed Law could have a significant impact on farmers’ rights, food sovereignty, and the country’s food system.
Ahead of COP17, development banks must confront mining’s role in accelerating desertification
Smallholder farmers and civil society organizations have launched a dynamic media campaign for the inaugural Eastern Africa Indigenous Seed Conference, inviting more smallholder farmers to join the agroecology movement.
Civil society organizations across East Africa have revived their campaign against the EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025, just as the regional parliament opens the floor to public consultations.
Civil society groups at UNCCD COP17 are calling for urgent action on land rights, drought, and vital funding.
Africa’s El Niño Economic Impact: $20B at Risk in 2026
Uganda is grappling with mounting land struggles as the needs of refugees collide with the rights and hopes of the communities that host them.
Minister Nabakooba wants special land title issuance halted
Who buys Rwanda’s smuggled coltan? The global journey of conflict coltan from DRC to the world’s electronics
Innovative Finance from Canada projects positive impact on local communities.
Over 5000 Indigenous Communities evicted in Kiryandongo District
Petition To Land Inquiry Commission Over Human Rights In Kiryandongo District
Invisible victims of Uganda Land Grabs
Resource Center
- CAN AFRICAN FOOD SYSTEMS THRIVE WITHOUT CHEMICAL FERTILISERS
- Land And Environment Rights In Uganda Experiences From Karamoja And Mid Western Sub Regions
- REPARATORY AND CLIMATE JUSTICE MUST BE AT THE CORE OF COP30, SAY GLOBAL LEADERS AND MOVEMENTS
- LAND GRABS AT GUNPOINT REPORT IN KIRYANDONGO DISTRICT
- THOSE OIL LIARS! THEY DESTROYED MY BUSINESS!
- RESEARCH BRIEF -TOURISM POTENTIAL OF GREATER MASAKA -MARCH 2025
- The Mouila Declaration of the Informal Alliance against the Expansion of Industrial Monocultures
- FORCED LAND EVICTIONS IN UGANDA TRENDS RIGHTS OF DEFENDERS IMPACT AND CALL FOR ACTION
Legal Framework
READ BY CATEGORY
Newsletter
Trending
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoMinister Nabakooba wants special land title issuance halted
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoYouth activists detained as they boldly petition Parliament, demanding a future for Uganda free from oil dependency.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoFour youth activists now face public nuisance charges after their arrest during a bold march toward Parliament.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoUNCCD COP17 kicks off in Mongolia, drawing nations together to tackle urgent issues of land, drought, and food security.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoExperts rally the region to unite behind East Africa’s transformative Agroecology Bill.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoCivil society groups at UNCCD COP17 are calling for urgent action on land rights, drought, and vital funding.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoSouth Africa’s top court blocks Shell oil exploration off country’s Wild Coast
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoGovt targets land grabbers with first national public-land register
