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

“No Land, No Life” – Women at the East Africa Convergence Refuse to Move out Quietly

Published

on

They came from forests, coastlines, grazing territories, and farmlands. In total, 45 women from Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and communities across DRC, South Africa, and Zimbabwe gathered in Limuru, Kenya, for the East Africa Land and Climate Justice Convergence. Through plenaries and group discussions, storytelling, drawings and celebrations, they shared stories of trauma, injustice and despair. But they also told stories of resilience, movement building and leadership in the fight against land dispossession and big extractive projects. Each discussion reinforced that protecting the commons through collective stewardship is a powerful alternative to the current development model that encloses, destroys and dispossesses people and the environment.

(Day One Women’s Land and Climate Convergence 2026 graphic documentation. Image: WoMin)

A central theme throughout the convergence was the role of indigenous knowledge systems in the protection and care of communal land. The women participants shared various examples of governance practices that enable balance between human and non-human life, resolving conflicts, and sustained territories across generations.

Identifying the patterns across struggles

The women were very clear about the struggles they faced and could name the forces behind them. Across all the countries represented, women identified the same patterns: government gazette communal land and other resources, corporations move in, laws are poorly enforced, and Indigenous voices are pushed out. In this process, women suffer the most. They suffer twice — they lose land, and they carry the burden of survival when food, water, and dignity disappear.

Participants pointed to problems within their communal governance, which often grants women little to no control of the communal resources even though women are the primary users and the most consistent stewards of these resources. Alongside privatisation, male dominating structures in the governing systems of the commons continue to undermine women’s rights, agency and leadership.

Despite enclosure and violence, communities keep holding each other. In Namakwaland, South Africa, women organise protests against mining related dispossession. In Loliondo, Tanzania, a union of 50 women is taking land cases to the African Court in Arusha. In Kenya, the Ogiek fought 17 years through domestic courts until the African Court ordered reparations in 2022. In each of these iconic struggles, and many others across the continent, women are at the centre of the evidence, the advocacy, and the resistance.

(Day Two Women’s Land and Climate Convergence 2026 graphic documentation. Image: WoMin)

“Protecting land means protecting life”

The convergence was not an end. It was a vessel to bring women together to deepen analysis and understanding of the struggles of the commons as well as to identify collective action. And the women planned – they spoke of the need for cross-country radical solidarity, mental health support programs for the women in the frontline of the resistance, political and leadership development trainings, and support for strategic litigation as tools to enhance the struggle.

While the convergence is over, the struggle is not. As one participant said: “Maybe the biggest thing we found here is each other. We are not just fighting for land. We are fighting for a way of living where no one is left behind.”

Because as women from Turkana reminded us: “No land, no life. Protecting land means protecting life.”

(Day Three Women’s Land and Climate Convergence 2026 graphic documentation. Image: WoMin)

The graphic documentation shown throughout this article was developed in collaboration with Kenyan artist, MariaStella Kamuti. Each piece offers visual representation of the daily critical conversations and knowledge-sharing that took place throughout the convergence. They also serve as important popular education tools as we cultivate and expland the Land Commons and Care thematic area of work in East Africa and across the continent.

Source: Womin.africa

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Climate Change and Conflict : The Agony of Kasese Farmers.

Published

on

As climate change impacts various parts of the globe, Kasese District in South-Western Uganda serves as a stark example of environmental vulnerability. Global warming has accelerated the melting of glaciers in the Rwenzori Mountains. Satellite data from scientific monitoring groups reveals a striking 30% reduction in ice surface area between 2020 and 2024.

For the farming communities of Munkunyu Sub-county, this environmental challenge has created a complex crisis. The altered landscape has heightened resource competition between local Bakonzo crop farmers and Basongora cattle keepers from neighbouring Nyakatonzi Sub-county, as both communities navigate severe strains put on nature and land.

Why the land crisis is growing

Before diving deeper into the unfolding situation on the ground, it is critical to understand the primary triggers forcing these communities into confrontation:

The Glacial Melt: A 30% loss of Rwenzori ice cover in just four years is drastically altering local river volumes and weather predictability.

The Climate Double-Whammy: Farmers and pastoralists are trapped in a punishing cycle of back-to-back disasters, first catastrophic flash floods, immediately followed by extreme dry spells that leave no grass for livestock or food for households.

How floods and hungry cattle sparked a quiet war

Just eight months ago, Munkunyu’s farming families faced severe flash floods that wiped out their entire agricultural investments. In the wake of these disasters, herdsmen seeking surviving pastures moved their cattle directly into the cultivation zones. Farmers report that on 30 May 2026, livestock grazed across 217 hectares of food crops. This created immense economic and psychological strain for hundreds of households already struggling with food insecurity and school fee obligations.

Wide acres of local farmland left bare and ruined after hungry cows moved into cultivation zones to eat growing food crops. (Photo Credit: KYL)

Matsiko Loyce, a local councillor and farmer, outlines the collective weight of losing both crops and land resources:

“In October last year, we lost our crops to floods. As we began to recover with hopes of feeding our families, livestock grazed on our remaining income. It is a deeply distressing situation.”

Local herds of cattle walk through agricultural fields, destroying the remaining green crops. (Photo Credit: KYL)

The escalating pressure soon led to physical friction. When local youths attempted to block cattle from entering the remaining fields, a violent altercation broke out. Matsiko emphasises the critical need for peaceful intervention:

“Two young men trying to protect the crops were injured during the confrontation. The matter has been formally reported to the police to ensure a peaceful, lawful resolution.”

The broken 15 million shilling compensation deal

Following local mediation efforts, the pastoralists initially agreed to a compensation package of 15 million Ugandan Shillings (approx. $4,110 USD) for the 150 hectares of ruined crops.

However, the agreement faced a major setback when the June 12 deadline arrived. The pastoralists shifted their position, offering to pay only 5 million shillings (approx. $1,370 USD) with no clear assurance of whether or when the remaining 10 million shilling balance (approx. $2,740 USD) would be paid. The farmers reportedly refused this reduced offer, demanding the full fulfillment of the original 15 million shilling agreement. According to human rights defenders monitoring the situation, this delay has severely fractured community trust.

A history of lost grazing land

This resource competition is deeply linked to historical migration patterns. The Basongora are an ancient pastoralist community whose traditional lifestyle was disrupted between 1925 and 1954. During this time, colonial administrations gazetted over 90% of their ancestral grazing lands to establish Queen Elizabeth National Park.

Displaced and hit by a devastating rinderpest epidemic in 1931, many Basongora crossed into the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) before returning to Kasese in subsequent decades. Concurrently, the Bakonzo have long cultivated food and cash crops in lowlands like Nyakatonzi and Munkunyu. While these groups have maintained a delicate coexistence for decades, accelerating climate change has disrupted that balance, renewing historical anxieties over land access.

Bakonzo and Basongora elders convene near the boundary of Queen Elizabeth National Park to initiate a collaborative resource-sharing framework aimed at preventing future land disputes. (Photo Credit: KYL)

Choosing to survive together over fighting

Kato Ronald, the Executive Director of Kasese Youth Link and a human rights defender, appeals for structured mediation over conflict:

“Both the livestock and the human populations require sustenance. There is an urgent need to resolve this climate-induced conflict through a framework that ensures human security.”

Local leaders call for dialogue

As the conflict drags on, local leaders are calling for restorative justice rather than increased criminalisation to prevent further escalation. Mr. Ndyoka Isaac Kabunzu, the LCIII Chairperson for Munkunyu Sub-county, noted that recent arrests

have only heightened anxieties.

“These developments have increased community tension. Any individuals held without sufficient evidence should be released. Sustainable peace requires structural intervention over criminalisation.”

Kabunzu strongly advocated for a transparent judicial review, urging district leaders, security agencies, cultural institutions, and all stakeholders to immediately convene a dialogue aimed at addressing the root causes.

While the air in Munkunyu remains tense as communities await a resolution to the compensation agreement, the path forward relies on restoring mutual trust, establishing green compensation frameworks, and choosing joint survival over resource division.

Source: Peace Journalism Foundation East Africa

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Rights experts call for an inclusive transition as the East Africa region attracts renewable energy investments.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

NAIROBI, Kenya: As governments across East and the Horn of Africa accelerate efforts to transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy, experts have warned that the shift could deepen inequality and further trigger human rights violations if affected communities are excluded from decision-making processes.

The warning came at the 5th East and Horn of Africa Business and Human Rights Conference in Nairobi, organized by Danchurch Aid and its partners. Climate justice advocates, business leaders, and human rights experts met to discuss how the increasing investments could better align with human rights standards and responsible business conduct.

Just transition was among the key issues discussed during the two-day conference held last week, with experts emphasizing the need for inclusive approaches as East Africa attracts growing investments in renewable energy.

While there is a need and an urgency to address climate change, experts argue that the global race toward clean energy is already producing unintended consequences elsewhere, offering important lessons for Africa.

“The transition to renewable energy is inevitable, whereas justice isn’t,” Mr. Andrew Byaruhanga, the Executive Director of Resource Rights Africa, said during a panel discussion on just transition pathways.

Byaruhanga said governments and investors risk prioritizing energy targets and financial returns over the rights and welfare of communities whose land and livelihoods are affected by transition-related projects.

“The finance sector must be mobilized, not just for returns, but also for impact. Public and private sectors must align their efforts, share risks, and invest in long-term partnerships. The success of this transition, therefore, depends on empowering those most affected. Governments have a role to play in making sure that the financing architecture takes cognizance of these realities,” he added.

His remarks reflected growing concerns that renewable energy projects, despite their climate benefits, can reproduce the same patterns of exclusion and dispossession that have historically accompanied large-scale development projects.

Across the world, communities are increasingly raising concerns about land acquisition, displacement, inadequate compensation, and restrictions on civic space linked to renewable energy infrastructure and critical mineral extraction.

A recent report by the Coalition for Human Rights in Development, Financing the Transition, Silencing Defenders, documented cases across Asia where communities and environmental defenders faced intimidation, arrests, displacement, and violence while opposing energy transition projects.

Among the cases highlighted was the Jalaur River Multipurpose Project in the Philippines, where Indigenous Tumandok communities reportedly faced inadequate consultations and displacement threats linked to the construction of a hydropower dam. In India’s Assam state, local communities opposed a major solar project over concerns that it would displace more than 20,000 Indigenous residents and threaten traditional livelihoods.

Although the cases occurred outside Africa, experts in Nairobi said similar risks are emerging across the continent as governments pursue investments in renewable energy, carbon markets, and climate-related infrastructure.

Florence Shako, Executive Director of the Center for Education Policy and Climate Justice, said the transition must not come at the expense of vulnerable communities.

“We can talk about decarbonization and the fact that it’s important to transition, but we must really think about what inclusivity means for the youth, for persons with disabilities, and for people in the Global South,” she said.

Shako noted that many affected communities lack access to information, legal representation, and affordable mechanisms for seeking justice when their rights are violated. She also warned that transition projects often fail to provide alternatives for people who lose land, jobs, or sources of income.

“We need to think about replacement livelihoods and access to remedies. Otherwise, communities will continue bearing the costs while others reap the benefits.” She added.

The conference also highlighted concerns about youth exclusion from transition discussions.

According to Eric Baeni, Coordinator of the Pan African Youth Alliance on Business and Human Rights (PAYA-BHR), unemployment remains one of the biggest barriers preventing young people from engaging with climate and transition agendas.

“We are the workforce of the continent, but we are unemployed. Unemployment is the key challenge that prevents many young people from understanding and participating in the just transition.” He said.

He called for deliberate efforts to involve young people in policy discussions and ensure they benefit from employment opportunities created by emerging green industries.

The concerns raised in Nairobi come at a time when African governments are under increasing pressure to pursue low-carbon development pathways while tackling poverty, unemployment, and climate vulnerability. African countries emit only a small fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions, but are among the most vulnerable to climate-related disasters such as droughts, floods, and food insecurity.

Experts further argued that this reality requires transition strategies that prioritize local development needs rather than simply replicating models designed elsewhere.

As the conference concluded, experts called for stronger protections for human rights defenders, meaningful community participation, accessible grievance mechanisms, and investment frameworks that place affected communities at the center of decision-making.

They also urged governments to strengthen safeguards around land rights, free, prior, and informed consent, and benefit-sharing arrangements before approving major transition-related projects.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates