Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The African Development Bank and the Tree Plantations Industry

Published

5 years ago

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

Related posts:

Monoculture tree plantations are a false climate solution 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 CSOs to African Development Bank: Don’t fund EACOP Open letter to African Development Bank and Nordic Development Fund: Address reprisals against Paten Clan
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Breaking: Ugandan Court jails eight Anti-EACOP activists as crackdown on dissent deepens.

Published

2 days ago

on

April 18, 2026

By

By the Witness Radio team.

KAMPALA, Uganda—The Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court sentenced eight environmental activists to 11 months in prison for “public nuisance.” The court ruled that their protest against the East African Crude Oil Pipeline unlawfully disrupted traffic in central Kampala.

The group includes Akram Katende, Ismail Zziwa, Teopista Nakyambadde, Shammy Nalwadda, Dorothy Asio, Shafik Kalyango, Noah Kafiiti, and Keisha Ali. They were sentenced on Friday, April 17, 2026, by a Grade One Magistrate. The court convicted them of nuisance on the road, contrary to section 65(e) of the Road Act Cap. 346.

In a judgment delivered by Chief Magistrate H/W Achayo Rophine, the court found that the activists had “placed themselves on the road in a manner that caused danger or inconvenience to traffic.

The activists, operating under the umbrella of Rooted in Resistance, formerly Students Against EACOP Uganda, were arrested on August 1, 2025, while marching toward Stanbic Bank Uganda’s headquarters. They were protesting the bank’s alleged role in financing the controversial East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

They have been on remand for more than eight months after being repeatedly denied bail.

In her ruling, Magistrate Achayo relied heavily on police testimony and video evidence, which she said showed the activists standing and sitting in the middle of Hannington Road, holding

placards reading “Stop EACOP” and refusing orders to disperse.

The court concluded that the protest constituted an unlawful assembly, noting that the group had not notified authorities in advance and had failed to comply with police instructions to clear the road.

Citing Article 43 of the Constitution, she ruled that the activists’ actions prejudiced the rights of other road users and the public interest, particularly by causing a traffic jam in a busy section of Kampala.

“The accused persons… caused inconvenience on the road with their unlawful assembly,” the judgment reads.

Despite the relatively minor nature of the offense, which carries a maximum sentence of one year, the activists had already spent most of that time in detention before conviction.

Their prolonged remand has drawn criticism from legal observers and human rights advocates, who argue that the case reflects a broader pattern of punitive pre-trial detention.

Defense lawyer Kato Tumusiime condemned the ruling and announced plans to appeal to the High Court, describing the decision as an attack on fundamental freedoms.

He argued that the conviction is “intended to silence freedom of expression and speech in Uganda.”

“The judgment is unfair, and we intend to appeal it,” lawyer Kato Tumusiime said.

The case is part of a growing number of arrests linked to opposition to the East African Crude Oil Pipeline, a major regional infrastructure project.

In April 2025, another group of activists, commonly known as KCB 11, protesting against KCB Bank Uganda’s involvement in the project, were detained for three months under similar circumstances.

Campaigners say these cases point to a systematic use of the justice system to deter protest against powerful economic interests.

The East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP) is a 1,443-kilometer heated crude oil pipeline designed to transport crude oil from western Uganda’s Lake Albert region to the port of Tanga in Tanzania. The project is being developed by a consortium led by TotalEnergies and China National Offshore Oil Company, alongside the governments of Uganda and Tanzania.

Supporters of the project say it is central to Uganda’s economic ambitions, expected to generate revenue, create jobs, and enable the country to become an oil exporter.

However, environmental groups and civil society organizations have raised concerns about its impact. Critics point to the displacement of communities during land acquisition, potential risks to ecosystems, and the project’s contribution to global carbon emissions.

Despite opposition, the project has already entered the implementation phase. Construction activities are ongoing in both Uganda and Tanzania, and land acquisition processes have largely progressed, although some disputes remain. Uganda continues to target its first oil production within the next few years.

These concerns have fueled a wave of protests, targeting financial institutions seen as backing the pipeline.

Campaigners have also criticized companies and financiers linked to the project for failing to speak out. StopEACOP Campaign Coordinator Zaki Mamdoo has argued that corporate silence in the face of arrests is not neutral, pointing to evidence of communication between project developers and Ugandan authorities.

“At COP28, when I confronted TotalEnergies CEO Patrick Pouyanné over the arrest of yet another group of anti-EACOP activists, he confirmed to me that the company was in direct communication with Ugandan authorities over the detention of those activists. That demonstrates that the companies behind EACOP are not passive observers of the repression meted out by the authorities”, said StopEACOP Campaign Coordinator, Zaki Mamdoo.

Related posts:

12 anti-Eacop activists decry delayed justice after spending 100 days on remand Breaking: 15 Anti-EACOP Activists have been charged with common nuisance and remanded to Luzira prison. Crackdown on EACOP protesters intensifies: 35 Activists arrested in just four months. Breaking: Buganda Road Court grants bail to 15 stop EACOP activists after 30 days in prison. Breaking: 15 Anti-EACOP Activists Arrested in Kampala While Marching to Parliament
Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Govt launches war on land fraud, illegal evictions

Published

2 days ago

on

April 17, 2026

By

The government has warned that the growing wave of land-related crimes across the country, caused by unscrupulous land agents, fraudulent transactions, and family inheritance disputes, is increasingly undermining investment confidence and tenure security.

Lands Minister Judith Nabakooba said the persistent rise in land offences is eroding public trust in the land administration system and slowing down wealth creation efforts, especially in both urban and peri-urban areas.

“The trend is mainly being contributed to by unscrupulous land agents, overzealous administrators of estates, forgeries of land transaction documents, absentee landlords and tenants who disregard their obligations, and this has hurt investment and wealth creation, necessitating immediate coordinated intervention,” Ms Nabakooba said.

She explained that many of the disputes occur in high-risk settings such as unregistered customary land, contested ownership, inheritance wrangles, and large-scale land transactions where verification systems are weak, bypassed, or manipulated by actors familiar with legal loopholes.

Despite Uganda’s existing legal safeguards, including Article 237 of the Constitution, the Land Act, the Succession Act, and the Mortgage Act, officials say enforcement gaps continue to be exploited.  Data from the ministry’s Sustainable Urbanization and Housing Programme report shows that the level of digitised land services has increased from 45 percent to 82 percent, significantly improving efficiency and reducing delays in service delivery.

 The same report indicates that the time taken to conduct a land search has reduced from five days to one day at physical offices, and to as little as five minutes through online platforms. Processing times for land transactions such as transfers and mortgages have also dropped from 15 days to about 11 days, marking progress in service delivery reform.

In addition, systematic land demarcation and certification efforts have expanded, with surveyed land parcels increasing from 66,148 to 469,656. Certificates of Customary Ownership have also risen significantly from 9,325 to 80,898, reflecting government efforts to formalise tenure systems and reduce disputes in customary land areas.

 To curb illegal evictions and related abuses, government introduced Administrative Circular No. 1 of 2025, which tightened procedures governing evictions nationwide. The directive requires that no eviction be carried out without the involvement of District Security Committees in consultation with the Ministry of Lands.

“Eviction or demolition shall only be carried out between 8am and 6pm, and no eviction or demolition shall be carried out during weekends or public holidays. Each demolition shall be carried out in a manner that respects and upholds human rights and dignity,” Ms Nabakooba said.

 Beyond enforcement measures, the ministry says it is pushing broader reforms aimed at strengthening governance and reducing fraud.  These include allowing tenants to deposit nominal ground rent (busuulu) with the Uganda Revenue Authority in cases where landlords are absent or refuse payment, alongside plans to deploy blockchain technology and artificial intelligence in land transactions.

Also mass land titling to resolve boundary disputes is being undertaken.  “Government remains committed to ensuring social justice and harmony in land ownership, and all stakeholders must comply with established legal procedures. All Resident District Commissioners should remain vigilant in maintaining law and order,” Ms Nabakooba added.

 However, concerns remain about enforcement at district level, particularly in high-conflict areas where vulnerable groups continue to face intimidation and forced evictions.  Mr Twaha Ssembalirwa, a legal expert from Atlas Advocates, said the rise in land-related crimes reflects weak enforcement rather than a lack of legislation.

“Uganda has a fairly robust legal framework on land, but the challenge lies in enforcement. Corruption in land transactions is mostly among the big wigs in most of the cases we handle, plus low public awareness, especially among people dealing with customary and unregistered land,” he said.

Original Source: monitor.co.ug

Related posts:

Govt launches Central Account for Busuulu to protect tenants from evictions Uganda’s president stops plans seeking to review and amend the Land Act CAP 227 that sought to curb widespread illegal land evictions. Breaking; Lands Minister directs police chief to arrest armed mobs involved in forced and illegal land evictions. Govt sues 41 people for shunning sh711m EACOP compensation Rwot Acana, UPDF clash over evictions from govt ranches
Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Agroecological farming: EAC Bill moves to Parliament to establish a regional legal framework to protect and promote sustainable farming and food systems.

Published

5 days ago

on

April 15, 2026

By

Hon. Gideon Gatpan Thoar, Chairperson of the EALA Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources, presenting during a plenary sitting of the Assembly.

By the Witness Radio team.

The East African Legislative Assembly has taken a critical procedural step toward introducing the EAC Agroecology Bill, 2026, as the Chairperson of the Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources was formally granted leave from the House to draft and table the proposed law.

The move marks the Bill’s official entry into the legislative process, which could significantly impact regional farmers, policymakers, and civil society by reshaping food systems and governance across East Africa.

The Bill aims to empower smallholder farmers and promote inclusivity by embedding agroecology into law across the East African Community, fostering hope for a more sustainable future for these farmers.

In an interview with Witness Radio, the Chairperson of the Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources in the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA), Hon. Gideon Gatpan Thoar, described the Bill as a long-overdue effort to give legal backing to a system already practiced by millions of farmers across the region.

“The purpose of this bill is to establish a regional legal framework to mainstream agroecological farming,” the Chairperson said, emphasizing that the law seeks to move agroecology from policy discussions into enforceable regional commitments.

The proposed law draws from the 13 FAO principles, integrating indigenous knowledge, cultural practices, and scientific innovation to strengthen its regional relevance.

“We want to promote practices that are consistent with our people, that are known to our cultures and traditions, and integrate them with science. There must be co-creation and inclusivity, especially for smallholder farmers,” he explained.

This framing positions agroecology not just as a farming method, but as a knowledge system shaped by communities themselves, challenging dominant agricultural models often driven by external actors.

The Bill emerges amid the ongoing expansion of industrial agriculture supported by global corporations and financiers, which may resist the shift towards agroecology. Understanding how the Bill will navigate or counteract this resistance is crucial for stakeholders concerned about regional agricultural transformation.

Despite this well-developed narrative, smallholder farmers remain the highest food producers. Yet the Chairperson acknowledged this imbalance of power, noting that agroecology faces stiff competition.

“There is a big fight from conventional agriculture. Big corporations are sponsoring data; they have a lot of money, and they have subsidized it,” he said.

Rather than banning industrial agriculture, whose adverse impacts on both smallholder farmers and the environment are evident, the Bill introduces a different strategy, one centered on protection and choice. It seeks to create legal and economic space for agroecological farmers, many of whom have historically been marginalized.

“We are not forcing a transition. We are creating a situation where there is choice and support for those who have been left behind, mainly women, youth, and smallholder farmers,” He clarified. This approach aims to foster hope and confidence that the new law will support sustainable options for all farmers.

The proposed law will also avoid the usage of highly hazardous pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, instead relying on ecological processes.

“We are very keen on highly hazardous agrochemicals… agroecological farmers will not be using them,” the Chairperson stated, emphasizing that support systems will drive the transition, fostering optimism for farmers’ sustainable options.

Uganda recently ordered the phase-out and restrictions on several commonly used agricultural chemicals, citing risks to human health, the environment, and the country’s ability to compete in the export market. The Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry, and Fisheries (MAAIF) said the decision was made after its Agricultural Chemicals Review Committee reviewed the chemicals and their “safety, trade, and national interest concerns.”

The Ministry said in the letter, “The actions and decisions made by the government are based on concerns for safety, trade, and the national interest.” Alpha-cypermethrin, atrazine, butachlor, dimethoate, and propanil are some of the chemicals that will be phased out. Importation will be banned right away, and the chemicals will be completely removed by the end of 2026.

While several East African countries already have agroecology strategies, such as Uganda’s NAS and Kenya’s strategy, these lack enforcement mechanisms. The regional Bill aims to establish binding compliance measures that will guide and harmonize national laws, ensuring effective implementation across the region.

“The regional law will be an anchor, reflecting in national systems to foster trust and regional unity,” the Chairperson explained, encouraging confidence in the legislative process.

The legislative process is ongoing, with the Bill expected to undergo drafting, committee review, and public consultations before a final vote, likely within several months.

Related posts:

African Food Systems Summit 2024: Do not use it to promote failed agricultural models – African Faith Leaders. EALA members renew push for unified sub-regional Agroecology Law during Mukono meeting. East African lawmakers and CSO leaders are meeting in Uganda to draw up plans to promote Agroecology as an alternative to climate change mitigation. Protect family farming land to guarantee global food sovereignty and Climate change adaptation and mitigation – Global conference on Family Farming. Using agroecology as a climate adaptation strategy and fighting extreme weather: A case of a retired teacher farming on a rocky terrain in Mukono, Uganda.
Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter