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

In Kasanda District, a grandmother faces eviction as her own grandchildren join forces against her.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team

For over sixty years, Mastula Nyirabatusi has cherished her land in Kyakayongo Village, Nalutuntu Sub-county, Kasanda District. Now 80, she sees it as the heart of her life, a place she bought in 1964 and where she has raised her family for generations.

Today, Mastula finds herself locked in a bitter struggle with two of her grandchildren over the very land she calls home.

The ongoing battle has left the older woman frail. Her family says the relentless conflict and looming eviction have taken a toll on her health.

Mastula’s family says her grandchildren, Lovinsa Mukantagala and Ninkuuze Esther, claim that the approximately 10-acre piece of land belongs to their late father, Jamil Kaberuka.

However, Mastula disputes the claim. She says she bought the 10-acre land in Kyakayongo from Nyonyintono Musolobindo in 1964 for 130 shillings and has lived on it ever since.

What began as a family quarrel at local council meetings has spilled into the courts, tearing Mastula’s family apart. One of her sons, Byakatonda Diriisa, has spent over seven months in jail for defending his mother’s land.

But the family’s land dealings go further back. Mastula’s brother, Sulaiman Baragwiza, lived in Mityana-Busundo. According to Mastula’s family, he died leaving behind two sons, Muzindusi Abdallah and Jamil Kaberuka.

According to the family, Mastula later sold land that had belonged to her late brother, Sulaiman Baragwiza, in Mityana and used part of the money to acquire about three acres in Kyamwendwa Village, Kassanda District, for Baragwiza’s two sons.

In 1978, Mastula handed the land agreement to Muzindusi Abdallah, the elder of the two brothers, after he had started a family. Kaberuka, however, remained under Mastula’s care because he was younger at the time.

Florence Nabawanuka, one of Mastula’s daughters, says Kaberuka left his aunt’s home when he grew up and was never heard from again.

“Kaberuka disappeared from the village, and none of us got to know of his whereabouts ever since then,” Nabawanuka says.

In 2015, Kaberuka’s children, Lovinsa and Ninkuuze, appeared and presented an agreement they said showed Mastula had sold her 10 acres to their late father.

The document allegedly indicated the transaction took place in 1998. They first presented it to the Local Council Two committee and later to the Local Council One committee, chaired at the time by Okello Emmanuel.

Local leaders interviewed for this story questioned the document because of inconsistencies in the date and circumstances under which it was allegedly made.

Mr. Oyiire Samuel, the chairperson of Kyakayongo Village, says residents had always known Mastula as the person occupying and using the land.

“We all grew up seeing Mastula as the rightful owner settling on that land. The agreement Kaberuka’s daughters presented is fake because it shows it was written in 1988, yet their father left the village in 1985. Therefore, he could not have been given any land. Mastula also says she has never sold her land,” Oyiire says.

Oyiire wondered how the girls could forcefully take their grandmother’s land when he took care of their father. “This is totally unbelievable and can only be done by an insane person. They should thank the older woman instead of trying to take her land. At eighty, where do they want her to go?” he added.

To end the dispute, the local council advised Mastula to surrender part of her 10-acre land to the two grandchildren. Mastula agreed and gave them about two and a half acres from the 10-acre land.

Although the family says the parties signed an agreement, they told Witness Radio they were surprised when the grandchildren took the matter to court, claiming Mastula was illegally settling on their land.

The Grade One Court in Kiganda eventually ordered the grandchildren to vacate the land and keep away from Mastula. The grandchildren appealed to the High Court in Mubende.

However, the Mubende High Court overturned the Grade One Court judgment, ruling that Mastula should remain on the land during her lifetime, after which the grandchildren could take possession when she dies.

The court’s decision only deepened the rift, as Mastula’s family voiced their strong disagreement with the ruling.

Mastula’s children were dissatisfied with the decision and subsequently appealed to the Court of Appeal, where the matter remains pending.

As the legal battle dragged on, its ripple effects began to touch every corner of Mastula’s family.

According to accounts gathered by Witness Radio, the group, with support from area police, caused the arrest of Mastula’s son, Byakatonda Diriisa. The court accused him of trespassing on his mother’s land and sentenced him to one year in jail.

“He was supporting our mother to resist the eviction. Because he was the obstacle, they decided to lock him in jail to complete their plans,” Nabawanuka added.

According to Diriisa’s wife, Nabirye Amiina, he has spent more than seven months in custody, which has affected both his family and Mastula’s family.

“We are no longer getting all the necessary family needs since my husband was taken to prison, though he is innocent. This also caused four of our children to drop out of school due to lack of fees,” she added.

For Mastula’s family, the land dispute is more than a fight over property. It has shaken the health of an 80-year-old matriarch, cut off the family’s livelihood, and, relatives say, shattered the education of four children.

For Mastula, this legal storm comes at a time when she should be enjoying peace on the land she has tended for decades. Instead, her family says her health has declined steadily as the conflict rages on.

Mastula’s lawyer, Alex Tusiime, says his client has evidence supporting her claim and calls for a fair hearing in court.

“We are going to try our level best to see that Mastula gets justice. There could have been delays in the past by her former lawyers, but we are to do whatever it takes because we have the proof that the land belongs to Mastula,” Tusiime added.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Nimule residents raise alarm over alleged land grabbing

Published

on

Residents of the border town of Nimule in South Sudan’s Eastern Equatoria state have raised concerns over alleged land grabbing, accusing some members of the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF) of occupying ancestral land and forcing local residents from their property.

The concerns were raised on Tuesday during a monthly forum on women’s rights to land and property organised by the Women’s Foundation for Humanity.

Andua Florence, a Nimule resident, told Radio Tamazuj that some army personnel had allegedly occupied her family’s land. She said her case was before the High Court in Nimule but that she was still waiting for a ruling.

“My case started from the B-court, then went to the county court, and finally the county court directed me to transfer it to the High Court,” Florence said. “When my case was transferred to the High Court, I had to get a lawyer.”

Florence said she had spent about 6 million South Sudanese pounds pursuing the case and was waiting for the court to deliver its ruling.

“This is my grandfather’s place, and we are the landowners of this place,” she said. “We are currently the seventh generation on that piece of land.”

Florence alleged that the people occupying the land are soldiers who claimed to have settled there in the 1990s.

She said the land was occupied while she was in Uganda as a refugee and that she had struggled to reclaim it since returning.

Florence said several land disputes in Nimule had reached the High Court, with some cases remaining there for nearly a year without a ruling. She said the lengthy legal process had imposed a financial burden on families pursuing their claims.

Grace Juan, a female chief in Nimule, echoed the concerns, saying many residents are being forced from their land.

Dorothy Drabuga, founder and executive director of the Women’s Foundation for Humanity, said land grabbing and inheritance rights were among the issues discussed during the monthly forum.

“We had a meeting with a women’s group. It is a monthly forum where we look at the challenges affecting women in Nimule, especially land rights and the right of inheritance,” Drabuga said.

Drabuga said some land disputes had moved through several levels of the court system and were now before the High Court, where the parties had hired lawyers.

“These cases have been going on for almost a year,” she said, adding that some people summoned to court had failed to appear.

Drabuga said some of the disputes involved ancestral land where generations of families had lived and buried relatives.

“This is ancestral land where the parents and grandparents have been buried, but somebody from another state is claiming that this land belongs to him or to them,” she said.

Drabuga said she is aware of at least five such cases before the High Court.

“There are many. So far, the ones I am aware of are five,” she said.

She said the failure of some parties to attend court had contributed to delays, but expressed hope that they would appear at upcoming hearings.

South Sudan has struggled with land disputes and competing claims over property, particularly in urban and border areas, where population movements and displacement have complicated land ownership.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

New revelations: TotalEnergies is investing in countries facing political and economic risks, raising fresh questions about the company’s investment strategy.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio Team

Oil may not yet flow from Uganda’s wells, but for people near the oil fields in midwestern Uganda and along the pipeline corridor, the oil saga has been shaping their lives for years.

They have felt its impact through land they claim is no longer theirs, homes uprooted, roads and infrastructure cutting through fields they once cultivated, and lingering uncertainty after the announcement that their land was needed for a project promising to reshape Uganda’s future.

Uganda stands on the brink of a moment waited for nearly twenty years. The nation is set to produce its first commercial oil this September, and the government touts’ oil as a gateway to new revenue, jobs, infrastructure, and a path toward middle-income status.

Yet as Uganda readies itself for its first barrels, new findings about the French oil giant at the industry’s heart raise a broader question: beyond profits, what is at stake?

These revelations also shed light on TotalEnergies’ broader investment strategy and its growing presence in countries marked by deep political, economic, and human-rights challenges.

TotalEnergies is the operator of the Tilenga oil project in western Uganda and a major shareholder in the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP), which is intended to transport crude from Uganda’s oil fields to the Tanzanian coast.

A 2026 analysis by German environmental organization Urgewald, based on its Global Oil & Gas Exit List (GOGEL), found that more than half of TotalEnergies’ planned short-term oil and gas development is located in countries classified as autocracies or hybrid regimes.

Of the 7,829 million barrels of oil equivalent identified by Urgewald as part of the company’s planned short-term development, 4,178 million barrels are in those countries. More than 3,700 million barrels are also in countries classified as having high or extreme political and economic risks.

Uganda is among the countries listed in the analysis. Together, Uganda and Mozambique account for about 40 percent of TotalEnergies’ planned short-term upstream expansion. When Iraq is included, the three countries account for more than half of the company’s planned expansion.

The findings do not suggest that Uganda, Mozambique and Iraq share the same political systems or social circumstances. Instead, the three countries stand out in Urgewald’s analysis because of the scale of TotalEnergies’ planned upstream expansion there.

In Uganda, the company is involved in the Tilenga oil project and EACOP. In Mozambique, TotalEnergies is involved in the Mozambique LNG project, while Iraq is another major destination for the company’s planned upstream expansion.

Taken together, these findings position Uganda’s inaugural oil production as a key piece in TotalEnergies’ sweeping global ambitions.

For communities touched by Uganda’s oil ventures, the promise of economic transformation has often arrived as land disputes, compensation battles, and resettlement struggles—realities woven into the fabric of these projects.

The EACOP pipeline carves its way through ten Ugandan districts, demanding land for its path and the infrastructure that follows.

While officials insist that land acquisition and compensation have been handled justly, many in affected communities voice grievances over what they see as insufficient payment for their land, homes, crops, and possessions.

Among them is Bwowe Ismail, a resident of Bethlehem village in Kyotera District. Bwowe told Witness Radio that his land was taken for the project after he demanded compensation he believed matched the value of his land and property.

He says that instead of receiving the compensation he sought, authorities intimidated him and later arrested him.

“Instead of compensating me fairly as I wanted, state authorities intimidated [me], enabled my arrest and accused [me] of sabotaging a government initiative,” Bwowe said.

Bwowe says that on one occasion he was arrested and accused of stealing money from a wealthy man in his village, an allegation he denies.

“They arrested me [and said] that I stole money from someone. I am a respected man in the society and could not do this. They just did it to shame me,” he said.

According to Bwowe, TotalEnergies offered to support his legal representation if he agreed to sit with the company and accept the compensation, but he refused.

He says that after he continued to reject the compensation and resisted what he described as intimidation, the government sued him and others who refused compensation. It asked the court to allow the money to be deposited into court accounts. The court ruled for the government.

Bwowe’s ordeal mirrors a broader struggle over land acquisition and compensation faced by communities in Uganda’s oil regions. More broadly, his story reveals how these conflicts can spiral far beyond the loss of land itself.

In its report, Our Trust is Broken: Loss of Land and Livelihoods for Oil Development in Uganda, Human Rights Watch reported that EACOP and other oil developments have affected more than 100,000 people in Uganda and Tanzania. The report also raised concerns about compensation, resettlement, and the effects of oil development on communities and biodiversity.

For many affected communities, seeking justice remains an uphill battle. Their worries about Uganda’s oil projects extend well beyond land.

Environmental activists and organizations challenging Uganda’s oil expansion have found themselves facing arrests and criminal charges.

In August, 20 youth activists associated with Rooted in Resistance were arrested while delivering petitions to TotalEnergies and Parliament calling for an end to fossil-fuel expansion.

These arrests are part of a growing pattern of detentions and prosecutions targeting activists who oppose EACOP and other oil projects.

Brighton Aryampa, team lead at Youth for Green Communities, an organization that provides legal representation to environmental activists, says the treatment of protesters raises questions about Uganda’s civic space.

“The government is deliberately using legal action against Stop EACOP activists to suppress dissent, free speech, the right to peaceful protest, and public participation. This taints Uganda as a country that undermines democratic principles of free expression and open discourse, as hundreds of Stop EACOP activists have been arrested and charged,” Aryampa said. Concerns about civic space arise as Uganda faces mounting criticism for its record on political freedoms, free expression, treatment of human-rights defenders, and access to justice.

The country ranks 125th out of 142 countries in the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index. Freedom House classifies Uganda as “Not Free”, while CIVICUS gives the country a “Repressed” civic-space rating of 28 out of 100.

All these conditions shape the complex landscape in which Uganda’s oil projects are taking root.

Urgewald describes TotalEnergies as one of the world’s most aggressive oil and gas expanders.

Its 2026 analysis found that TotalEnergies has the largest short-term expansion plans among its major oil and gas peers in authoritarian states and countries classified as high-risk for business.

Sonja Meister, an energy campaigner at Urgewald and author of the analysis, says the company is taking significant risks through its expansion strategy.

“TotalEnergies is taking a huge risk with its fossil fuel expansion and disregarding the repercussions for communities on the ground. This game of roulette has serious consequences for civil society, ecosystems, and the climate alike,” Meister said in an email exchange with Witness Radio.

For Uganda, the significance of the findings lies not just in the amount of oil expected to be produced but in where the country’s projects sit within TotalEnergies’ wider portfolio and what that suggests about the company’s approach. This matter because Uganda is one of several countries where the company pursues major upstream investments despite political, economic, and governance risks identified by organizations such as Urgewald.

Uganda is one of several countries where the company is pursuing major upstream investments despite political, economic, and governance risks identified by organizations such as Urgewald.

This does not mean TotalEnergies’ investments will have identical impacts everywhere or that Uganda’s oil sector will mirror outcomes seen in other countries. Still, it raises pressing questions about how the company weighs political and economic risks, safeguards communities, and responds to human-rights issues as they emerge.

It also sparks important questions about how the company evaluates political and economic risks, shields communities during major developments, and handles human-rights concerns as they surface.

TotalEnergies’ expansion also depends on access to financial markets and investors. According to Urgewald’s analysis, bonds have become an increasingly important source of financing for TotalEnergies compared with loans.

Among the company’s major investors are French financial institutions including Crédit Agricole and Amundi. Deutsche Bank, primarily through DWS, is also a major investor, while German DZ Bank, primarily through Union Investment, is another significant investor.

Urgewald notes that these investors have yet to pledge to stop buying new TotalEnergies bonds, urging financial institutions to rethink their ties to the company and its fossil-fuel ambitions. This financing dilemma is pivotal because TotalEnergies’ expansion hinges on continued access to capital and investors.

Meister says continued expansion depends heavily on access to finance. “TotalEnergies relies on the financial industry’s continuous support. Without new bonds, it would be much harder for the group to finance its destructive expansion projects such as ‘Mozambique LNG’ or ‘EACOP’,” she said.

She said banks and investors financing the company should reconsider their role.

“The banks and investors involved must recognize their responsibility and not sink further funds into these risky endeavors,” Meister said.

The government has hailed Uganda’s first oil production as a landmark economic achievement.

For communities living in the shadow of oil developments, however, the road to first oil has already meant land seizures, compensation wrangles, forced relocations, and at times, direct clashes with authorities and oil firms.

Meanwhile, Urgewald’s research situates Uganda within a sweeping trend of TotalEnergies’ global fossil-fuel expansion, especially in countries flagged for serious political, economic, or governance risks.

Witness Radio sought a response from TotalEnergies Uganda to the concerns raised in this story, including issues relating to land acquisition, compensation, treatment of protesters and the company’s wider expansion strategy. We contacted the company’s Corporate Affairs Manager, Anita Kayongo, by email and telephone but had not received a response by the time of publication.

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