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

Food systems in conflict areas: Architectures of armed conflict are turning food and hunger into weapons of war.

Published

on

By the Witness Radio team.

War now extends beyond guns and bombs, with food systems becoming strategic tools in modern conflict, a crucial factor for understanding global security and the deliberate targeting of food as a weapon.

Fields are burned before harvest. Irrigation systems are destroyed. Fishing zones are blocked. Grain silos are bombed. Seeds are contaminated or confiscated. Entire communities are cut off from their ability to grow or buy food for months or years, deliberately harming people’s access to food.

The result is not only displacement or destruction, but a slower, more deliberate outcome: hunger. In many cases, it functions not as a side effect of war but as a method of weakening populations and reshaping control over land, resources, and survival itself.

A new position paper by La Via Campesina, representing over 200 million peasants, Indigenous peoples, farmers, and rural workers, argues that controlling land and food is a deliberate political act, and that defending these resources is vital to life itself. This underscores the critical need for collective action to safeguard food security.

The report frames war and hunger as interconnected forces within a global political order, highlighting the widespread implications of targeting food systems.

The document states that “war and hunger are two faces of the same system,” and adds that defending land and food systems is inseparable from defending life itself.

La Via Campesina describes the current global moment as one defined by overlapping conflicts across Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, Yemen, the Sahel, Myanmar, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and other regions. Rather than isolated crises, the report suggests these wars reflect a broader global system shaped by intensifying geopolitical competition, expanding military industries, weakening international governance, and growing pressure on land, water, and food systems.

“Rare earth elements, fossil fuels, water, and agricultural land are the true stakes of most contemporary conflicts. The targeting of Ukrainian grain exports, the scramble for Congolese cobalt, and the siege of Gaza’s fishing grounds all reflect this logic,” the paper reveals.

The rural poor, who produce most of the World’s food, are bearing the heaviest burden. They face poverty, hunger, displacement, and vulnerability.

Modern conflicts target food infrastructure-irrigation, grain reserves, and seed banks-highlighting how warfare deliberately undermines food security and calls for increased vigilance.

“The use of starvation as a weapon of war is strategic. Throughout history, empires understood that destroying a people’s capacity to feed themselves is among the most effective tools of subjugation.” La Via Campesina describes.

Across the cases examined in the report, La Via Campesina argues that controlling food has long been a way of controlling populations. What is different today, it suggests, is the scale, coordination, and technological sophistication through which food systems are disrupted in modern warfare.

In Gaza, the report cites widespread destruction of agricultural land and severe restrictions on fishing areas, alongside repeated disruptions of food supply corridors. Humanitarian assessments referenced in the paper indicate that more than 80% of farmland has been damaged or rendered unusable, deepening already severe food insecurity and famine risk warnings.

In Yemen, years of restrictions on key ports, particularly Hudaydah, through which most food imports enter, have significantly limited access to essential supplies. Combined with ongoing conflict, this has contributed to one of the most severe and prolonged hunger crises in the world.

In eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, cycles of armed violence have repeatedly destroyed crops and forced farming communities from their land. In many areas, agricultural production has collapsed entirely due to insecurity and the presence of armed groups controlling rural territory. The result has been persistent and widespread food insecurity affecting millions of people.

In Sudan, the conflict has similarly disrupted food systems through the looting of grain stores, destruction of farms, and mass displacement of rural populations. Entire agricultural regions have been emptied, turning once-productive farmland into zones of acute hunger.

The environmental degradation in war zones, including soil contamination and deforestation, is linked directly to global climate and resource crises, calling for a heightened awareness of these interconnected issues.

The report also links these local environmental impacts to global ecological pressures. It argues that as climate instability, water scarcity, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss intensify, competition over natural resources is increasing. In this context, land, water, and fertile agricultural regions become strategic assets in broader geopolitical struggles.

What emerges from both the data and case studies is a picture of hunger that is not only humanitarian but deeply political. It is shaped by conflict, resource control, and global systems that determine who can produce food, who can access it, and who is excluded from both.

In this sense, the report suggests, war is no longer confined to battlefields. It extends into wheat fields, fishing waters, seed banks, and supply routes. Hunger becomes not just a consequence of war, but one of its most powerful instruments.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Experts warn that without Africa’s control over resources and climate financing, the continent faces the risk of entering a new era of “green colonialism”.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team

As the global push for clean energy accelerates, African governments are under mounting pressure to move away from fossil fuels and embrace renewable energy. But economists, political leaders, and climate justice advocates are warning that Africa’s transition could reproduce the same unequal economic structures established during colonialism unless the continent gains greater control over its resources, industries, and financing systems, inspiring a sense of agency and possibility.

Although Africa contributes less than 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, it is among the regions most vulnerable to climate change. The continent continues to suffer disproportionately from a crisis largely caused by industrialized nations, including prolonged droughts and devastating floods, which greatly affect its people.

Governments across Africa are increasingly adopting renewable energy policies promoted as pathways toward sustainable development. Despite being promoted, a growing number of experts argue that the transition risks becoming another extractive project in which African resources fuel foreign industries while local communities remain impoverished.

The global transition to clean energy has sharply increased demand for minerals such as cobalt, lithium, graphite, manganese, and copper, which are abundant across Africa and critical for batteries, electric vehicles, and renewable energy technologies.

At the same time, the continent possesses vast renewable energy potential. According to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), Africa could generate significantly more renewable energy than it currently consumes.

In an interview with Witness Radio, Tunisian economist and President of the Global Institute for Sustainable Prosperity, Fadhel Kaboub, said Africa’s role in the global transition should go beyond merely supplying raw materials to industrialized countries.

“We cannot decarbonize a system that hasn’t been structurally economically decolonized yet. Africa has the potential to become an energy powerhouse globally, an industrial powerhouse, and as a result, an economic and geopolitical powerhouse.” Kaboub reveals.

Kaboub argued that the current global economic system continues to place African countries at the bottom of supply chains, echoing colonial patterns. This pattern is vital for economists and global citizens to understand.

“Africa was assigned the role of supplying cheap raw materials while importing finished products and technologies. The danger is that the green transition is reinforcing the same model instead of transforming it,” he added.

Across the continent, activists and researchers are increasingly raising concerns about what they describe as “green colonialism,” where climate and environmental projects dispossess communities while benefiting foreign governments and corporations.

In several African countries, including Uganda, large-scale carbon offset projects have been linked to land conflicts and forced displacement. Critics say some carbon markets allow polluting corporations in the Global North to continue emitting greenhouse gases while using African land and forests to offset their emissions.

Environmental advocates warn that unless African governments ensure local ownership and value addition in mining linked to renewable energy, the continent risks repeating the history of raw material extraction, which is key for informed policy decisions.

Africa’s green transition discussions also focused on climate financing as a key point of debate. African leaders have repeatedly criticized rich countries for not sufficiently financing adaptation and renewable energy projects, despite their historic role in spewing the bulk of the World’s carbon emissions.

At the COP29 climate Summit in November 2024 in Azerbaijan, His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, warned that many African countries are trapped between debt repayment obligations and climate adaptation needs.

“Africa did little to cause the climate crisis, yet the debt climate trap has saddled many of its nations with a tragic choice: Eschew repayments to fund adaptation to climate shocks and risk default- a financial purgatory where development indicators plummet; or honor obligations and compromise on resilience, thus entrenching vulnerability to development-shuttering climate events,” he added.

Speaking during the Africa Climate Summit 2025, former Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn said debt restructuring must become part of global climate discussions.

“Unless we confront the debt crisis head-on, efforts to finance Africa’s climate ambitions will continue to fall short,” Desalegn said.

Kaboub believes the financing crisis reflects a broader historical injustice. “The industrialized world has consumed most of the global carbon budget that creates a climate debt owed to Africa and the Global South.” He revealed.

Some African economists and climate justice groups are calling for climate reparations, not more loans that deepen dependency, to address historical injustices and support equitable development.

“The future of Africa’s green transition depends on who controls it. If Africa controls its resources, industries, and development path, the transition could become a tool for liberation. If not, it risks becoming another phase of exploitation under a green banner.” Kaboub concluded.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Rising fertilizer dependence sparks debate over Africa’s agricultural future; experts call for urgent critical review process.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

In March this year, the United Nations World Food Program (WFP) warned that the number of people facing acute hunger globally could rise sharply if escalating conflict in the Middle East continues to destabilize the global economy, projecting that nearly 45 million additional people could slide into acute food insecurity.

Since 28 February 2026, the United States and Israel have been engaged in a war with Iran and its regional allies. The conflict began when the US and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, targeting military and government sites and assassinating several Iranian officials, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Iran responded with missile and drone strikes on Israel, US bases, and US-allied Arab countries in West Asia, and the temporary closure of the Strait of Hormuz, disrupting global trade.

As global tensions continue, experts have revealed that they are disrupting fertilizer supply chains and driving up prices, an issue likely to threaten food security and make policymakers feel responsible for safeguarding Africa’s future.

A recent report by GRAIN, an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO), argues that Africa’s increasing reliance on imported chemical fertilizers is exposing farmers and food systems to economic, political, and environmental risks.

Titled “Can African Food Systems Thrive Without Chemical Fertilizers?”, the report links recent fertilizer price spikes to conflicts such as the Russia-Ukraine war and the recent escalation involving Iran, Israel, and the United States. According to the report, these crises have disrupted the movement of fertilizers and raw materials, such as natural gas and sulfur, pushing prices beyond the reach of many African farmers.

According to the report, the African fertilizer market is currently worth around US$10–15 billion and is projected to grow to US$20 billion over the next four years. It adds that the largest fertilizer manufacturers — including Yara of Norway, OCP of Morocco, PhosAgro of Russia, Nutrien of Canada, and Mosaic of the United States — are seeking to expand their presence in this fast-growing, highly profitable market.

GRAIN researcher Ange David Baimey told the Witness Radio team that growing concerns about the ongoing impact of global conflicts on African agriculture drove the investigation.

“As you can see, the recent crisis involving Iran, the USA, and the Middle East created a lot of uncertainty concerning how fertilizers can continue reaching African countries. Before this, we also had the Ukraine crisis and COVID-19. If you look at the last six years, these crises have seriously affected agriculture in Africa.” Ange, who participated in the research, told Witness Radio.

For decades, many African governments, donors, and agribusinesses have promoted chemical fertilizers as essential for increasing food production. However, the report highlights that relying on organic and sustainable practices-such as indigenous knowledge, crop diversity, and soil fertility methods-can be safer and more resilient. Showcasing successful case studies can help policymakers see practical alternatives to dependency.

“The only solution to the best agricultural practices is not chemical fertilizers. Farmers have tested and agreed that organic fertilizers are the answer. Ange further mentioned.

According to the report, the push for chemical fertilizers accelerated during the Green Revolution period, driven largely by multinational agribusiness interests seeking profits from agricultural inputs.

“The Green Revolution is not the beginning of agriculture in Africa. Our systems existed before chemical fertilizers. What we see now is a system where companies are making profits while creating dependency.” He said.

The report notes that many African countries import significant quantities of fertilizers from Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman. Countries including Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya, and Mozambique remain highly dependent on these imports, making them vulnerable to supply disruptions and rising global prices.

Although African governments spend billions of dollars on fertilizer subsidy programs, many small-scale farmers still struggle to afford the products. In some countries, fertilizer prices are significantly higher than global averages due to import dependency, market concentration, and the dominance of multinational corporations in the supply chain.

“In our research, we also discovered that African farmers often pay more for the same fertilizers than farmers in Europe or the United States. The market is controlled by powerful companies whose goal is profit.” Ange explained.

The report identifies major corporations such as Yara International, OCP Group, and Dangote Group as key players shaping Africa’s fertilizer markets.

“These companies have huge influence and power in African agriculture. Governments must examine even discussions around continental trade agreements carefully because the same multinational companies may continue dominating the market.” Ange observed.

Beyond economic concerns, the report also highlights environmental and health impacts associated with chemical fertilizers, including soil degradation, water pollution, and increased pesticide use. The report advises African countries to adopt organic approaches to improve their yields, human and soil health, and to avoid environmental shocks.

“A change of course off the chemical fertilizer treadmill and towards agroecology is even more urgent in the face of the climate crisis. Climate scientists are calling today for a 42% global reduction in fertilizer use by 2050, to keep the planet livable.” The report noted.

Experts urge African leaders to use these global shocks as an opportunity to rethink Africa’s agricultural direction. “If you are dependent upon another person for your food, what happens when that person cuts off access? That is the situation Africa is in. The COVID crisis, the Ukraine war, and now the Gulf crisis all prove that reliance on imported fertilizers is dangerous. Africa can feed itself. The question is whether governments are willing to assist with that transition.” He concluded.

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's newsletter