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
Communities once resettled by President Museveni in Kiryandongo now find themselves losing their land to a sugarcane investor, accusing the Uganda Land Commission of granting a leasehold behind their backs.
Published
4 days agoon
August 6, 2026
By the Witness Radio team.
For over ten years, families in Ranch 11, Kiryandongo District, cherished the hope that they had at last found a true home.
Their path to Ranch 11 was paved with hardship and repeated displacement. Some families, as Witness Radio discovered, were forced out of conservation areas, while others lost their homes amid political turmoil. When the government finally allocated them land through the Office of the President, they dared to believe their long search for safety was over.
Yet now, the very land they say President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni gave them has become the heart of a fresh conflict, as a sugarcane company lays claim to it.
Residents now accuse the Uganda Land Commission of quietly leasing part of Ranch 11 to sugarcane investor M/S Muhazi Heritage, leaving out the very communities who had built lives there for over a decade.
For families like Fred Kangume’s, this so-called development feels like yet another eviction, carried out without the voices or consent of those who call the land home.
“We were resettled on this land on orders of the President. And now we are surprised that an investor was given the same land without our consent or being informed,” Kangume told Witness Radio.
A Witness Radio investigation reveals a troubling contradiction: while official documents show attempts to secure land for these communities, the Uganda Land Commission later handed over more than 1,000 hectares of that very land to Muhazi Heritage through a lease agreement.
This dispute now sparks a deeper question about land governance in Uganda: how can families settled by government order lose their land when another state body gives it away to a private investor?
Several correspondences reviewed by Witness Radio indicate that President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni directed the Ministry of Lands to allocate land in Kiryandongo to approximately 750 landless families, including the Nubian and Kibyama communities who had converged in Kigumba and were living in difficult conditions in makeshift settlements.
The affected groups included about 350 families who had been evicted from the Karuma Wildlife Reserve in 1999 and 404 Nubian families who had been displaced from different parts of Uganda during and after the 1978/79 political turmoil.
According to information obtained by Witness Radio from the office of the Minister of State for Lands, the history of displacement for some of these families dates back to the 1970s.
During the government of former President Idi Amin, authorities established the Palestinian Farm at Kiroko in Kiryandongo Sub-county, displacing hundreds of families from their land.
The documents indicate that the affected families were neither compensated nor resettled after losing their land. As a result, some moved to neighboring public land, which was later gazetted as part of the Karuma Forest Reserve.
Years later, these same families faced another displacement when the Uganda Wildlife Authority evicted them from the reserve, leaving many without homes, land for cultivation, or reliable sources of livelihood.
The second group comprised members of the Nubian community who, after returning from exile, found that their former homes and properties in places such as Gulu, Lira, Soroti, and other parts of Uganda had been taken over during insurgencies. They also faced a challenging social and political environment, forcing many to seek refuge among friends and relatives in Masindi District.
With both groups facing prolonged landlessness and uncertainty, they petitioned President Museveni in 2000, requesting government intervention and resettlement.
A 2001 correspondence from the Ministry of Lands to the Office of the President states that government officials identified Ranch 11, part of the former Bunyoro Ranching Scheme, as available land that could be used to resettle the landless families.
The document states: “Within Masindi District, currently Kiryandongo District, was a vacant Ranch No. 11… which according to the Ranches Restructuring exercise was allocated to the Office of the President and could in this circumstance be subdivided to settle the landless 750 families.”
In 2006, President Museveni directed that the communities be resettled on approximately 5.5 square miles of land in Ranch 11.
For these families, the directive represented a new beginning and what they hoped would be an end to decades of displacement. In 2013, with support from local leaders and officers from the Ministry of Lands, the affected communities were resettled on the land.
Over the years, residents had built homes, established trading centers, and invested in agriculture. But according to residents, the land was never fully surveyed, and individual ownership documents were never issued.
In 2023, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) of Kiryandongo District requested financial support from the Ministry of Finance to facilitate the resettlement process for these categories: “Nubian community and families displaced from Karuma Wildlife Reserve.”
A letter from Permanent Secretary Ramathan Ggoobi informed the district that Shs200 million (about $53,428 USD) would be provided for the exercise. The funds, according to the letter, were to be budgeted under the Transitional Development Grant for the 2023/24 financial year.
Yet as communities waited in hope for official land documents, a separate process was quietly granting the same land to an investor.
Documents obtained by Witness Radio show that the Uganda Land Commission, during the Commission’s meeting of 4 August 2023 under Minute 64/2023(a)(04), approved the allocation of 1,059.89 hectares of land, equivalent to four square miles, to Muhazi Heritage.
The company received a five-year lease, renewable up to 49 years. On 17 December 2024, the Uganda Land Commission issued a certificate of title to Muhazi Heritage.
This turn of events stunned residents, who insist they were never consulted despite being the rightful occupants. Instead of security, the allocation sparked another wave of violent evictions as the company pressed for full control and communities fought back against what they called blatant land grabbing.
Charles Kalakire, the chairperson of Kimogola B village, told Witness Radio that local leaders were not involved in the allocation process.
“I was never consulted when the Uganda Land Commission awarded land to the company, which had legally known sitting tenants,” Kalakire said.
He added that he only learned about changes in land allocation after receiving information from district security officials.
“I got this information from the Resident District Commissioner (RDC), a president’s representative in the district, and the District Internal Security Officer (DISO) that land had now moved from the hands of the people to the investor,” he added.
Residents say the investor’s deal left just 1.5 square miles for over 750 families. For many, the conflict has spilled from paperwork into daily life.
“The situation is worse; people are beaten and forced to receive compensation, a level of impunity which forced the state minister of lands, Hon Sam Mayanja, to intervene and cause harmony in the area.” Mr. David Bakundaki, another resident, said.
During his visit to Kimogora in 2024, Mayanja revealed that the investor had requested the commission to allocate his company the entire Ranch 11 measuring over 5.5 square miles.
Based on his guidance, through a 2024 letter to the commission, he ordered the commission to allocate 4 square miles, and the remaining 1.5 square miles be used to resettle the affected people. The company was also directed to compensate residents, support relocation, and provide infrastructure including schools, health facilities, and roads as part of corporate social responsibility.
However, residents and leaders say the remaining land is already occupied, making relocation difficult.
“The people who have been occupying the four-square miles are now being packed into the 1.5 square miles. They are being allocated a quarter acre. On top of that, the allocations are now creating land tensions with those they found in.”
“Also, those who have received compensation have got peanuts, 200,000, 300,000 Uganda shillings, which can’t afford to cater for their families or buy land elsewhere, and the responsibility that had to come along with resettling people was never fulfilled.” Mr. Godfrey Kiviri, former chairperson of Mutunda A village, told Witness Radio.
Meanwhile, those refusing to leave their land face violence from company workers, supported by security forces.
The Ranch 11 saga lays bare a deep contradiction in Uganda’s land management: a government meant to restore dignity to the displaced later hands their land to a private sugarcane investor.
For these communities, the fight has become about more than land. It is now a struggle for trust, accountability, and the hope that government promises to its most vulnerable will be honored.
Related posts:

Happy 2025 to you all! Please join Witness Radio again this year to protect thousands of local farmers who are losing their land to a tree plantation owned by a Taiwan investor.
Pushing Back: World Bank project affected community petitions President Museveni over looming evictions by NEMA.
As the court starts to hear a case filed against Kiryandongo Sugar Limited, president Museveni offers to compensate forced eviction victims
Museveni promises to pay evictees of Kiryandongo sugar factory land
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
News: Kapapi Land dispute: Security investigate gunfire exch
Published
4 days agoon
August 6, 2026
HOIMA — Security in Hoima district is investigating circumstances under which police personnel and Uganda People’s Defence Forces (UPDF) officers deployed at the disputed Kapapi land in Kapapi sub-county, Hoima district, exchanged gunfire and left two vehicles damaged.
The incident occurred last Sunday at night as UPDF officers deployed on the disputed land attempted to arrest Capt. Rogers Karamagi, the manager of Brig. Gen. Peter Akankunda Nabasa on the land.
Brig. Gen. Nabasa got involved in the Kapapi land dispute after Moses Byangire, the administrator of the late Tito Byangire’s estate leased 700 acres of land to the general for 10 years in Kigorobya, Hoima District.
The deployment of UPDF soldiers on the land was after the 2,000 residents who were evicted from the land measuring about three square miles petitioned the former lands state minister, Dr Sam Mayanja (now Attorney General), seeking his intervention.
When Mayanja visited the land in October last year, he ordered the Commander of the Field Artillery Division based in Masindi, Maj. Gen. Daniel Kakono, to deploy security on the disputed land to protect the evictees and to disarm private security personnel who had deployed there.
Since then, UPDF soldiers have been deployed on the land and have not been allowing any agent to step on the land covering over four villages, including Waki South, Waki North, Runga, Kapapi Central and Kiryateete, all within Kapapi sub-county.
How it startedAccording to Brig. Gen. Nabasa, on the fateful day, Karamagi was coming from Kapapi sub-county driving a Toyota Mark X registration number UBR 117L when soldiers started trailing him.
Nabasa explained that when Karamagi realised that some people were following him, he drove off the main road and hid the car at the home of a one Nyakahara Mudede in Kapapi 1 village.
While in his hideout, Karamagi reportedly called police officers from Kigorobya police station to intervene and rescue him from the group, which wanted to arrest him.
However, shortly after police arrived at the scene in a Toyota Corolla XS, UAK 227D, one of the UPDF officers also showed up and attempted to grab Karamagi.

The Toyota Corolla (UAK 227D) used by police officers from Kigorobya sub-county to rescue Karamagi was also damaged during the scuffle. (Photo by Peter Abaanabasazi)
According to eyewitness, a scuffle ensued during which police and the UPDF officers exchanged gunfire. In the process, Karamagi’s car and another used by police officers had their tyres flattened.
“Karamagi was my manager before they had blocked us from this land. All along, they have been tracking him; I do not know what they need from him,” Nabasa said.
Mudede said that several bullets that were fired left the residents in the area in panic.
Authorities speak out
When contacted for a comment, Christopher Ayine, the Hoima deputy resident district commissioner, confirmed the incident.
Ayine said they have instructed the Hoima district police commander and the Albertine regional police commander to investigate the matter. “Whoever will be found in the wrong will be arrested.”
The Albertine Regional Police Spokesperson, Julius Allan Hakiza, declined to comment on the matter and referred New Vision to the UPDF.
Maj. Flavia Terimulungi, the UPDF 1st division public information officer, said that the army was following up on the issue.
Source: newvision.co.ug/
Related posts:

UPDF General on the spot over fresh evictions in Hoima
Minister orders for reinstatement of a local community back onto its land.
EACOP PAPs have started a private criminal proceeding against Army General, Hoima Police Commander and others over their criminal acts during illegal land evictions.
Breaking: The army general, police chief, presidential representative, and others are appearing before the Hoima Chief Magistrate court today.
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
Uganda is grappling with mounting land struggles as the needs of refugees collide with the rights and hopes of the communities that host them.
Published
1 week agoon
August 1, 2026
By the Witness Radio team.
For more than ten years, hundreds of families in Kikuube District have fought to piece their lives back together after losing their land to the ever-expanding Kyangwali Refugee Settlement.
One such person is Mr. Ahumuza Busingye, a community leader who recalls how, in 2013, many families were uprooted when the government seized their land to make room for more refugees.
“We have been suffering since 2013 when we were evicted from our land to expand Kyangwali camp. “The problem is we are often displaced from fertile land which is given to refugees. That hurts us. Our families have grown, but we have no place to settle them. We now live in an informal settlement with no land to farm and sustain ourselves,” said Mr. Busingye.
Mr. Busingye’s experience mirrors a rising dilemma in Uganda, a nation celebrated worldwide for its welcoming approach to refugees. Unlike countries that restrict refugees to camps, Uganda offers land for settlement, freedom to move, opportunities to work and start businesses, and access to schools, healthcare, and public services. These progressive policies have transformed Uganda into Africa’s largest haven for refugees and one of the most significant hosts on the planet.
Yet, even as Uganda’s refugee policy draws global praise, tough questions linger about how the country can keep protecting refugees without sacrificing the land rights, livelihoods, and futures of its own people.
This challenge formed the central theme of an X Spaces discussion organized by UCOBAC (Uganda Community Based Association for Women and Children Welfare) in partnership with AWO International and co-hosted by NBS TV under the theme, “Understanding Land Governance: Issues Affecting Refugee and Host Communities in Uganda.”
The event brought together voices from government, academia, humanitarian groups, and the legal sector to tackle rising land governance issues in refugee-hosting districts and to seek ways for refugees and host communities to live together in harmony.
Uganda now shelters almost 1.9 million refugees and asylum seekers, most of them women and children escaping violence in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and nearby nations. As new arrivals pour in and families grow, the hunger for land intensifies, sparking fresh challenges for both refugees and the communities that welcome them.
Dr. Brian Makabayi, a lecturer in the Department of Geomatics and Land Management at Makerere University, argued that refugee settlements should no longer be viewed as temporary humanitarian interventions.
“The issue is not only humanitarian assistance where we are trying to solve the problem temporarily. These communities have stayed for long periods, and if these issues are not properly managed, they can become violent,” he said.
Citing research from districts like Adjumani, Makabayi pointed out that refugees now make up nearly half the population in some places. As families expand but land stays the same, the struggle for space grows ever more intense.
“Many refugees lease farmland from host communities to supplement the small plots allocated to them. However, conflicts often emerge when landowners decide to reclaim their land for personal use, sale, or lease to other people before previous agreements expire.” He further added.
Ms. Claire Birungi Agaba, the Information, Counseling and Legal Assistance Specialist at the Norwegian Refugee Council, said many of the land disputes her organization handles arise from informal and undocumented land agreements.
She explained that land transactions between refugees and host communities are frequently based on verbal agreements without written records specifying land size, duration of use, payment arrangements or responsibilities of each party. As a result, disputes over boundaries, crop destruction, unexpected evictions and changing rental terms have become increasingly common.
“Many host families themselves occupy customary land that has never been formally documented, making it difficult to prove ownership whenever disagreements arise.” She said.
Responding to concerns about land acquisition, Agnes Baseera, Protection Officer (Legal) in the Office of the Prime Minister’s Department of Refugees, said the government does not allocate land for refugee settlements arbitrarily.
According to Baseera, establishing refugee settlements involves close collaboration between the Office of the Prime Minister, district local governments, line ministries, development partners and host communities.
She explained that before any land is designated, the government verifies ownership, assesses the suitability of the land and considers factors such as security, access to water, food availability and the capacity of social services.
“The host communities are always part of this process,” Baseera said, adding that consultation remains central to the government’s refugee settlement policy.
Eunice Nabakwa, Principal Land Officer at the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, argued that securing customary land rights is essential to reducing future conflicts.
She noted that more than 75 percent of Uganda’s land is held under customary tenure, much of it without formal documentation. Since many refugee settlements are located on customary land, uncertainty over ownership and boundaries often fuels disputes.
To address this, the Ministry is implementing systematic land adjudication, demarcation, mapping and certification programs, including the issuance of Certificates of Customary
Ownership (CCOs).
These initiatives are intended to formally recognize customary land rights, strengthen tenure security, clarify boundaries and improve local land administration.
Related posts:

COVID-19 unending effects: Demand for land to host refugees in Uganda caused forced land displacement and pushed the refugee-hosting community into Internally Displaced Camps (IDPs).
Adjumani officials worry as refugees strip the land bare
Indigenous communities lost over 9 square miles; coerced to accommodate refugees
13 years after the refugee host community was forcefully evicted to expand a refugee settlement, thousands remain unsettled.
Karamoja stands on the brink, with nearly half a million people gripped by acute hunger.
Rising demand for cow dung pushes prices up
Communities once resettled by President Museveni in Kiryandongo now find themselves losing their land to a sugarcane investor, accusing the Uganda Land Commission of granting a leasehold behind their backs.
News: Kapapi Land dispute: Security investigate gunfire exch
Africa’s El Niño Economic Impact: $20B at Risk in 2026
Campaigning LC I Chairpersons Barred from Land Transactions Until Polls End.
Mbale City Senior Lands Officer Charged with Abuse of Office Over Sale of Govt Property
Researchers sound the alarm: Uganda’s oil development threatens the nation’s vital wetlands.
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
-
FARM NEWS1 week agoAfrica’s El Niño Economic Impact: $20B at Risk in 2026
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoResearchers sound the alarm: Uganda’s oil development threatens the nation’s vital wetlands.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoWho buys Rwanda’s smuggled coltan? The global journey of conflict coltan from DRC to the world’s electronics
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoUganda is grappling with mounting land struggles as the needs of refugees collide with the rights and hopes of the communities that host them.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoAs TotalEnergies’ profits soar, calls are growing for the company to answer for the human rights abuses and environmental damage linked to EACOP.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoBreaking: El Niño looms over East Africa and Asia, bringing the specter of floods and disease outbreaks.
-
FARM NEWS2 weeks agoFive counties roll out agroecology policies to boost climate resilience
-
NGO WORK6 days agoThe Great “Green” Heist: When Artificial Intelligence and Arms Dealers Seize the Minerals of the South
