MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The African Development Bank and the Tree Plantations Industry

Published

6 years ago

November 16, 2020

“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

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

African communities demand land rights amid mining expansion

Published

2 days ago

July 11, 2026

witnessradio.org

Salina Sanou, a Kenyan climate justice Activist (left) and Dr Melania Chiponda, Executive Director, Shine Collab, a global feminist movement of CSOs, CBOs, and Faith based groups.. follow proceedings at the ongoing Ecofeminism 2026 Convening taking place in Harare, Zimbabwe

Community leaders, legal advocates and grassroots organisations meeting in Harare at the ongoing African Ecofeminism Convening have renewed calls for governments, mining companies and international financiers to respect community land rights as mining and large-scale development projects continue to displace families and threaten livelihoods.

Participants at the meeting shared first-hand experiences from Kenya, Zambia, Zimbabwe, South Africa and other African countries, highlighting how communities are losing ancestral land, facing forced relocations, and suffering from pollution, inadequate compensation and limited participation in decisions that directly affect their lives.

They stressed that communities should not be treated as obstacles to development but as rightful custodians of their land whose voices must be heard before any mining or infrastructure project is approved.

“We cannot continue to see communities paying the price for development while receiving little or no benefit,” Dr Melania Chiponda, Executive Director, Shine Collab, a global feminist movement of CSOs, community groups and Faith groups said during the discussions. “Development must respect people’s rights, culture and dignity. We are demanding that land compensation must in kind and not cash; land for land,” added Dr Chiponda.

Tricia Abwooli, a lawyer working for GreenFaith Africa in Uganda raised several urgent concerns, including forced displacement of families without meaningful consultation, loss of ancestral land, cultural heritage and traditional livelihoods and environmental pollution affecting community health, particularly women and children.

Abwooli noted the compensation packages that fail to account for long-term social, cultural and economic losses, weak enforcement of legal protections and limited access to justice and [lack of transparency around mining licences, geological information and development agreements.

The meeting highlighted examples of the Hanyanya community resistance and successful advocacy. Participants from Hanyanya Community in Bikita, Zimbabwe shared experiences where organised communities used research, documentation, legal action and peaceful mobilisation to delay harmful projects, negotiate improved compensation and secure commitments for schools, clinics and other essential services.

Tapiwa Gorejena,a movement legal advisor in Zimbabwe called for stronger legal action where governments and corporations fail to meet their obligations. Strategic litigation, class actions, administrative justice processes and international legal mechanisms were identified as important tools for protecting community rights.

A key message from the meeting was that affected communities must document evidence of land loss, environmental damage and human rights violations to strengthen future legal cases and advocacy efforts.

The discussions further emphasised the importance of cross-border solidarity among African communities facing similar challenges. Participants agreed that communities can learn from one another by sharing legal strategies, advocacy experiences and successful models for defending land rights.

Concerns were also raised about international investment agreements and development initiatives that often prioritise foreign commercial interests while excluding local communities from decision-making. Participants called for greater transparency, stronger accountability and legally binding commitments that protect African communities.

The meeting concluded with several immediate priorities, including strengthening community awareness of land and environmental rights, expanding access to legal support for affected communities and building stronger networks among grassroots organisations across Africa.

They also called for investigation of legal options for challenging harmful mining and development projects and exploring the establishment of community-led tribunals to ensure the voices of affected people are heard in national and international decision-making.

Community organisations reaffirmed that lasting development can only be achieved when local people are fully consulted, fairly compensated and empowered to participate in decisions affecting their land and future.

Source: kbc.co.ke

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The untold struggle of community land right defenders in eastern DRC’s three-decade war.

Published

3 days ago

July 10, 2026

witnessradio.org

By the Witness Radio team.

“My land is among the properties currently being used by rebels. I had purchased a plot right along Route 2, but an M23 officer is now renting it out to traders. He collects the fees for my own land while I suffer here in hiding. I cannot even call him, for fear of exposing myself to further danger.”

These are the words of a community land-right defender from North Kivu Province, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), living in hiding after becoming a target for defending community land rights.

According to the defender, defending land rights has come at an enormous cost. He has lost access to his property, his livelihood, and his freedom of movement. A piece of land he legally acquired is now under the control of others, and he remains unable to challenge their occupation because doing so could put his life at risk.

His story reflects a growing reality across eastern DRC, where decades of conflict have made land one of the most contested resources. As armed groups expand territorial control, communities say homes, farms, grazing areas, and commercial properties are being seized, leaving millions displaced and land rights defenders increasingly vulnerable.

Eastern DRC has endured armed conflict for more than three decades. The violence has involved government forces and multiple armed groups competing for political influence, territory, and control over valuable resources.

Since its resurgence in 2021, the March 23 Movement (M23), operating under the AFC/M23 coalition, has captured large areas of North and South Kivu, some of the country’s most strategic and resource-rich provinces.

According to the United Nations Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s July 2025 report, the control of large parts of North and South Kivu by AFC/M23 secured access to mineral-rich territories and fertile land, while increasing Rwanda’s influence in the DRC.

The report highlights the strategic importance of territorial control in the conflict, where access to natural resources, productive land, and key areas is closely linked to armed groups’ expansion and regional influence.

For communities living in these territories, territorial control has brought displacement, insecurity, and loss of ancestral land.

According to the United Nations, more than seven million people are internally displaced across the Democratic Republic of Congo, making it one of the world’s largest displacement crises.

Many displaced people who spoke to the Witness Radio team say that when fighting forces drive them from their homes, their property often becomes vulnerable to occupation.

“Many people are suffering in silence. Throughout the territory, homes, fields, and plots are being seized by force while people are being driven out so that others can settle in undisturbed. Rwandans are leaving their homes to occupy local owners’ properties. We are helpless and suffering in silence,” he said.

Another defender, whom Witness Radio identifies as Mwamba for security reasons, says his family’s struggle over land has lasted for generations and has been shaped by armed conflict.

Mwamba says his father, a traditional chief, farmer, and landowner in North Kivu, was targeted during the years of rebellion and that their family land, measuring approximately 240 hectares, was taken over.

Before the land was seized, the family ran a farm with livestock, including about 550 cattle, 250 sheep and goats, and 50 pigs.

According to Mwamba, the livestock were looted, houses were destroyed, and the farm was occupied by armed actors linked to the AFC/M23 movement during successive periods of conflict.

“My whole life, there has been conflict over our family’s property. Since the 1990s, we have never been able to use our land in peace,” he said.

The human cost has been greater than the economic losses, leading to the deaths of his family members. He recalls, “In 1997, my three older brothers were captured on the road and killed by the same group that had grabbed our land. When I later tried to organize my family to reclaim what belongs to us, I received death threats too. I had to flee because I believed I would be next.”

Today, his family lives in poverty while watching others profit from land they say has belonged to them for generations.

“All family members left to save their lives. The farm is still in their hands, and we cannot even approach it,” he said.

Also, human rights lawyer Ngoma, whose real name is withheld for safety reasons, says defending victims of land grabbing and other abuses became a threat to his own survival.

For more than a decade, Ngoma represented marginalized communities seeking justice for land seizures, killings, sexual violence, torture, and other abuses committed during the conflict.

But when M23 fighters took control of his area, his work put him in danger.

“I felt constantly at risk, to the point of receiving death threats from the very people against whom we were litigating. I faced numerous threats to my own safety and that of my family. I was forced to change my phone numbers, cut communication with people, and I could no longer move freely as a citizen,” he told Witness Radio in an exclusive interview.

Like many other human rights defenders, Ngoma eventually fled and went into hiding for safety, but the conflict and its far-reaching costs to victims remained. His departure disrupted his life and left many victims without legal representation when they needed it most. For communities whose land had been seized or whose relatives had been killed, lawyers and land defenders are often the only link to justice. When they are forced into exile or silence through threats and intimidation, victims are left with few avenues to challenge abuses, document violations, or pursue accountability.

“When the conflict escalated, that marked the beginning of my ordeal. My life was thrown into turmoil. I was forced to flee and constantly protect my family from possible attacks,” he added.

His experience reflects a wider pattern across eastern DRC, where attacks on lawyers, land defenders, and human rights activists have weakened community efforts to resist land dispossession and seek justice. As those documenting abuses are driven into hiding, armed groups tighten their control over contested territories, while many displaced families are left without the legal and human rights support needed to reclaim their land or defend their rights.

Residents say that when armed groups capture territory and civilians flee, abandoned properties can become vulnerable to occupation. Families who later attempt to return often face intimidation, threats, or the inability to reclaim their land.

Researchers widely agree that the conflict in eastern DRC has multiple overlapping drivers, including competition for political power, ethnic tensions, control of mineral resources, weak governance, and territorial control. Within this broader conflict, land remains a critical source of both livelihoods and strategic influence, making it a frequent point of contestation between armed groups and displaced communities.

Dr. Deborah S. Rogers, the International Outreach Coordinator for the coalition Mobilization for the Safeguarding of Congolese Sovereignty and Autonomy (MOSSAC), told Witness Radio that, in her view, Rwanda’s involvement in eastern DRC is closely linked to territorial expansion.

According to Dr. Rogers, Rwanda’s limited land area and growing population have increased the importance of securing additional territory. She argued that in areas under the control of the AFC/M23, civilians are frequently driven from their homes through violence and intimidation. When displaced families later attempt to return, she said, many discover that their land has already been occupied by people she identifies as Rwandans.

Human rights organizations have repeatedly raised concerns about attacks against those documenting abuses and supporting affected communities.

Between November 2025 and February 2026, several human rights defenders in North and South Kivu were reportedly targeted because of their work, according to the United Nations.

In January 2026, UN human rights experts expressed concern over allegations of attempted killings, kidnappings, torture, sexual violence, and death threats targeting defenders and their families.

The attacks have forced many defenders to choose between abandoning their work and risking their lives.

Despite years of displacement and violence, many affected families still hope to return to their ancestral lands.

“The land belongs to our families. We have lost so much, but we have not lost hope. One day, we believe justice will allow us to return,” Mwemba told our team.

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Ugandan farmers take TotalEnergies’ pipeline to UK court

Published

4 days ago

July 9, 2026

witnessradio.org

Police apprehend a Ugandan activist during a protest against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) plans in Kampala, Uganda, on 15 September, 2023. © Reuters

Four Ugandan farmers filed a case against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) at the UK’s High Court on Tuesday, seeking to have Ugandan constitutional, environmental and climate law applied to EACOP Ltd, the UK-registered company financing the project

Rights NGO Avaaz, which is supporting the case, has called it “first-of-its-kind” litigation against the $5.6 billion project, led by French energy giant TotalEnergies, which holds the majority stake.

Due to begin operating in 2027, EACOP would become the world’s longest heated pipeline, running 1,443km (897 miles) from Uganda’s oilfields near Lake Albert to the Tanzanian coastal port of Tanga.

The claim was filed before the pipeline starts operating and asks the court to enforce Uganda’s legal protections against a company incorporated in England and Wales.

EACOP has already faced several lawsuits in France, where a Paris court ruled last week that TotalEnergies was liable for emissions generated by its clients, a decision hailed as a landmark for climate law.

A ‘global test case’

The claimants argue the project would affect more than 100,000 people through land acquisition, and that it crosses critical freshwater systems and protected habitats.

“The case seeks remedies that could go to the heart of the project’s commercial viability, including an injunction to stop oil being transported through the pipeline,” Avaaz said in a statement earlier this year.

The NGO said it believes this is the first time Ugandan environmental law has been brought before a foreign court, describing EACOP as a “global test case for whether new fossil fuel megaprojects can still be forced through despite mounting legal, financial, climate and community opposition.”

Claimants say a successful ruling could ultimately prevent the pipeline from becoming operational.

Company denies harm

TotalEnergies maintains that “strict measures have been taken to avoid, mitigate and offset” the project’s environmental impact, pointing to efforts to restore forest and wetland areas and boost biodiversity nearby.

Ugandan opponents of the pipeline, meanwhile, have told local media they have faced intimidation and arrest by police in the area, where the project is seen as a political priority.

The UK claim alleges that the pipeline violates Uganda’s constitution and breaches the country’s environmental and climate legislation.

(with newswires)

Source: rfi.fr

NGO WORK1 week ago

‘Oil is a curse’: villages in Uganda face land ownership uncertainty

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks ago

NEMA says it is restoring wetlands, but poor urban families say it is using the exercise to grab their land for new infrastructure projects – now they demand compensation and resettlement.