MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
The African Development Bank and the Tree Plantations Industry
Published
6 years agoon

“Plantations are not forests”, members of communities from Zambezia province, in Mozambique.
In June 2019, the report “Towards Large-Scale Commercial Investment in African Forestry,”
(1) made a call to development-funding agencies, mainly from Europe, and the World Bank,
to provide aid money to a new Fund for financing 100,000 hectares of (new) industrial tree
plantations, to support the potential development of 500,000 hectares, in Eastern and
Southern Africa. This money, according to the report, would be crucial for private investors to
generate profits from the plantations. The new Fund would be headquartered in the tax
haven of Mauritius.
The African Development Bank (AfDB) and WWF Kenya produced this report with funding
from the World Bank’s Climate Investment Funds. The purpose of the report is to assist the
AfDB “in evaluating and designing alternative private funding models for commercial forestry
in Africa with a view to ultimately establishing, or aiding the establishment of, a specialized
investment vehicle for commercial forestry plantations.” The report declares that the
development agencies from Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, the United
Kingdom and The Netherlands are interested.
Essentially, the report is a praise to industrial monoculture plantations. It repeats, without
providing any evidence, most of the deceiving arguments that plantations companies use in
their propagandas to cover up the impacts of this devastating industry. The report’s focus is
on outlining the possible financial instruments that would attract companies to this region and
make their investments most profitable.
The report identifies “readily available projects with the potential to establish almost 500,000
ha of new forest (sic) on about 1 million ha of landscape, not including areas that existing
companies and developers are already planning to use for own expansion. It also excludes
early stage or speculative projects.” (italics added) In particular, the report identifies “viable
plantation land” in ten countries: Angola, Republic of Congo, Ghana, Mozambique, Malawi,
South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe.
The report further affirms that “Africa may be positioned to have the most profitable
afforestation potential worldwide.” And, then, it goes into explaining the possible investment
schemes that can make profit-oriented business and afforestation objectives (from climate or
voluntary targets) to be aligned and, thus, generate more profits for shareholders.
None of the pages in the report mention, however, not even indirectly, the overwhelming
amount of information that evidences the many negative impacts that industrial plantations
cause to communities and their environments. The report’s authors chose to ignore
plantations companies’ destruction of forests and savannahs; erosion of soils; contamination
and dry-up of water sources; overall violence inflicted on communities which include
restriction of movement, criminalization when resistance emerges, abuse, harassment and
sexual violence in particular to women and girls; destruction of livelihoods and food
sovereignty; destruction of cultural, spiritual and social fabrics within and among
neighbouring communities; few precarious and hazardous jobs; unfulfilled “social” projects or
promises made to communities; destruction of ways of living; rise in HIV/AIDS; and the list
goes on.
In front of this, on September 21, 2020, the International Day of Struggle against
Monoculture Plantations, 121 organisations from 47 countries and 730 members from
different rural communities in Mozambique that are facing industrial tree plantations,
disseminated an open letter to demand the immediate abandonment of any and every
afforestation programme based on large-scale monoculture plantations. (2)
The report, nonetheless, brags about having used a “sector-wide consultation exercise.”
For the authors, the sector includes “industry participants ranging from investors, industrial
players, and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) through to forestry fund managers
(…) To further enrich and triangulate inputs to the study, the team also participated in three
forestry industry events and consulted with a broad range of personal contacts in the sector.”
The report also mentions consultations made to Development Finance Institutions and
agencies as well as oil and other industrial companies. It is clear however how communities
living in or around the almost 500,000 hectares of land identified to be transformed into
industrial monocultures, are not considered part of the sector. Nor were considered the many
communities and groups that have been resisting for decades the plantations in the countries
the report use as examples: Tanzania, Mozambique, Ghana and Brazil. (3)
The report further sustains that the NGO Conservation International confirmed “that it sees
potential in associating large global businesses with the forestry sector.” It further mentions
WWF and The Nature Conservancy – namely, the same category of NGOs mainly concerned
on promoting programs and policies that are aligned with corporate interests as an easy way
to keep their funding, projects and investments.
The purely financial focus of this report, with an eye on how to make most profits, should not
come as a surprise though. It was prepared by a company called Acacia Sustainable
Business Advisors (4), which was set up by Martin Poulsen, a development banker active in
rising private Equity Funds particularly in Africa. Equity Funds try to offer big returns by
spreading investments across companies from different sectors. (5) One co-author of the
report was Mads Asprem, the ex-director of Green Resources, a Norwegian industrial tree
plantation and carbon offsets company. Green Resources’ tree plantations in Mozambique,
Tanzania, and Uganda have resulted in land grabs, evictions, loss of livelihoods and
increased hunger for local communities. (6)
The report also shows the possible responses that investors could have to potential
“barriers”. One “structural barrier” identified is called “stakeholder relations,” a very vague
concept that seems to be related to possible conflicts with communities living in or around
the plantation projects. The term “conflicts” however is not mentioned once in the whole
report. The recommended response to this “barrier” is to “Use AfDB or other MDB
[Multilateral Development Bank] “honest broker” profile to convene stakeholders.” So it
seems that the strategy is to use development banks to make communities believe that the
project has the intention of improving (developing) people’s lives. Another “structural barrier”
identified in the report is “land tenure challenges,” to which the recommended response is to
“Follow FSC and other best practices.” This, of course, is recommended despite the vast
amount of information that shows how, in practice, FSC certifies as “sustainable” industrial
tree plantations that destroy peoples’ livelihoods.
When the climate and development agendas blend for profit
It is relevant to underline how the report makes use of the Sustainable Development Goals
(SDG) and the need for climate change mitigation and adaptation in the African region to
promote the further expansion of industrial plantations. It goes as far as to conclude that
“Channelling financial resources to such efforts [afforestation in the framework of the SDGs]
is within the mandate of international development organizations and special climate funds.”
The report also states that “preliminary interviews yielded information that some oil
companies are already forming alliances with sustainable forestry investment companies.”
This despite the fact that oil and gas companies are a fundamental driver of climate change,
which would undermine any possible positive outcome for the climate. Besides, these
‘alliances’ also give these companies an easy way out of any responsibility for their business
operations. This is clearly exemplified with the announcement of oil giant companies, such as
Italian ENI and Anglo-Dutch Shell, to invest in mega tree plantation projects to supposedly
“compensate” their mega levels of pollution they provoke. These two companies are
responsible for environmental disasters and crimes as a result of their fossil fuel activities in
many places across the globe. (7)
The African Development Bank is complicit in this strategy. While the Bank finances this
report encouraging the expansion of industrial plantations in Africa as a climate solution, it
finances in Mozambique a new gas extraction mega-project in the Cabo Delgado province,
undertaken by a consortium of companies including ENI.
This report is one more proof of how investments from profit-seeking corporations are put in
front of the social well being of people in the name of development and now also of
addressing climate change. There is no “unused” or “degraded” land available at the scale
proposed, which means countless people in Africa will be directly and indirectly affected if
this expansion plan materialise.
Another relevant omission of the report is how it bluntly assumes that the current scarcity of
investment in large-scale tree plantations in this African region is due to the few investment
opportunities available. However, the communities and groups on the ground organizing
almost on a daily basis to oppose the seizing of their lands and lives by these plantations
companies, have clear that their resistance has been successful to halt the expansion of
these plantations in many places. And as the open letter launched on September 21st said,
communities around the world “will certainly resist this new and insane expansion plan
proposed in the AfDB and WWF-Kenya.”
(1) AfDB, CIF, WWF, Acacia Sustainable, Towards large-scale investment in African forestry, 2019,
http://redd-monitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/towards_largescale_
commercial_investment_in_african_forestry.pdf
(2) Open Letter about investments in monoculture tree plantations in the Global South, especially in
Africa, and in solidarity with communities resisting the occupation of their territories, 2020,
https://wrm.org.uy/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/carta-con-firmas-en-inglés_upd201008.pdf
(3) See more information on resistance struggles against plantations here: https://wrm.org.uy/browseby-
subject/international-movement-building/local-struggles-against-plantations/
(4) Acacia Sustainable Business Advisors, https://www.acaciasba.com/about
(5) Groww, Equity Mutual Funds, https://groww.in/p/equity-funds/
(6) REDD-Monitor, How WWF and the African Development Bank are promoting lang grabs in Africa,
2020, https://redd-monitor.org/2020/09/22/international-day-of-struggle-against-monoculture-treeplantations-
how-wwf-and-the-african-development-bank-are-promoting-land-grabs-in-africa/ ; The
Expansion of Tree Plantations on Peasant Territories in the Nacala Territories: Green Resources in
Mozambique, 2018, https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/recommended/the-expansion-oftree-
plantations-on-peasant-territories-in-the-nacala-corridor-green-resources-in-mozambique/ ; WRM
bulletin, Green Resources Mozambique: More False Promises! 2018, https://wrm.org.uy/articles-fromthe-
wrm-bulletin/section1/green-resources-mozambique-more-false-promises/ ; WRM bulletin, Carbon
Colonialism: Failure of Green Resources’ Carbon Offset Project in Uganda, 2018,
https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/section1/carbon-colonialism-failure-of-greenresources-
carbon-offset-project-in-uganda/ ; WRM bulletin, Tanzania: Community resistance against
monoculture tree plantations, 2018,
https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/section1/tanzania-community-resistance-againstmonoculture-
tree-plantations/ ; and WRM bulletin, The farce of “Smart forestry”: The cases of Green
Resources in Mozambique and Suzano in Brazil, 2015, https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrmbulletin/
section1/the-farce-of-smart-forestry-the-cases-of-green-resources-in-mozambique-andsuzano-
in-brazil/
(7) REDD-Monitor, NGOs oppose the oil industry’s Natural Climate Solutions and demand that ENI
and Shell keep fossil fuels in the ground, 2019, https://wrm.org.uy/other-relevant-information/ngosoppose-
the-oil-industrys-natural-climate-solutions-and-demand-that-eni-and-shell-keep-fossil-fuels-in the-
ground /
WRM Bulletin
Related posts:

The enduring legacy of a little-known World Bank project to secure African plantations for European billionaires
Witness Radio – Uganda, Community members from Mozambique and other organizations around the world say NO to more industrial tree plantations
Open letter to African Development Bank and Nordic Development Fund: Address reprisals against Paten Clan
You may like
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
Kiryandongo district, a notorious hotspot for land grabs in Uganda: A bitter land dispute spanning 22 years has left residents landless and food-insecure, while the investor anxiously guards his investment.
Published
20 hours agoon
November 2, 2026
Special report by Witness Radio Team
In Uganda’s Kiryandongo district, a simmering land dispute has forced residents into a relentless struggle to reclaim ancestral land. They insist their family roots run deep in this soil, now swallowed by a vast agricultural estate purchased by an investor.
But the owners of Kisirizi Excellence Center (EA) Ltd, whose agricultural venture sprawls across 751 hectares, reject the residents’ claims. Renewed calls to return the land have stirred anxiety about the safety of their investment and the well-being of their farm workers.
“We fear violence. We fear for our investment and the lives of the workers on the farm,” Patrick Byabakama Kaberenge, the company’s managing director, told Witness Radio.
Kiryandongo District, nestled in Uganda’s midwest, has become a battleground for land disputes fueled by large-scale agricultural investments. In 2020, Witness Radio and its partners revealed that these projects had uprooted over 35,000 people from their land. The investigation spotlighted Kiryandongo Sugar Limited and Great Seasons SMC Limited, while in 2023, Somdiam joined the list of companies embroiled in controversial land takeovers for sugarcane cultivation.
Drawn by the district’s fertile soil, major agricultural projects have flocked to Kiryandongo, while oil development has only intensified the scramble for land. Against this backdrop, the Buhomoozi Parish dispute raises urgent questions: How are residents’ land rights safeguarded when new owners take over?
In Buhomoozi Parish, Kigumba Sub-county, the land dispute has ignited passionate demands from residents who say their families have called this land home for generations. Meanwhile, the investor now farming the contested property is seeking government protection for what he believes is rightfully his.
At the heart of the conflict are land deals involving businessman Mutebi Amans Kibibi and Byabakama with his partners. Residents allege these transactions triggered the eviction of over 500 people from their homes.
Documents seen by Witness Radio confirm that Byabakama holds a registered title to the property he claims to have bought from Mutebi. Yet residents challenge the registration’s legitimacy, arguing it now covers land their families have lived on for decades.
Asiimwe Moses Mwendwa, representing some affected residents, told Witness Radio that shifting land ownership and altered mapping have tangled claims and erased cherished community land.
Asiimwe maintained that the Church of God of East Africa and a property associated with Captain Omar Muhammed occupied separate parcels, with community land lying between them.
“We cannot now trace our origin. Our land was not titled, but it existed. People were living on it. When the rich men came in 2004, they evicted us and took it,” he said.
Asiimwe described the disputed land as a 500-acre stretch nestled between two registered properties: Plot 30 at Kisirizi Mixed Farm, owned by Captain Omar Muhammed, and a parcel at Kinyoga-Kaduku under the Church of God of East Africa.
Asiimwe recounted that the trouble began when Mutebi Kibibi acquired two titled properties that flanked land occupied by residents without formal titles. Rather than leaving the community land intact, Mutebi allegedly forced out the residents in 2014 and absorbed their land into a single, consolidated property.
Residents say this process wiped away the boundaries of land their families had known for generations, leaving them homeless and dispossessed. They allege that Byabakama and his partners later took over the property, insisting they bought a single registered parcel from Mutebi.
“Some people had occupied the land since the 1930s. It was terrible. People were evicted, some were beaten, and others lost their lives,” he told Witness Radio.
These allegations raise urgent questions about protecting customary land rights, the murky circumstances of land transfers, and the ethical duties of businesses acquiring contested property.
Uganda’s Constitution protects property rights and prohibits torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Land Act, 1998, also recognizes customary tenure, including rights that may arise from family and communal land arrangements. The application of these protections to the disputed property depends on the facts and the relevant legal records.
At the international level, the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights establish that businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights, avoid causing or contributing to adverse impacts and address harms in which they are involved. The principles also emphasize access to effective remedies for people whose rights have been violated.
Desperate for justice, the affected residents petitioned the State House Lands Unit, urging the government to step in and resolve the dispute.
The State House Lands Unit, which handles land matters, became the residents’ last hope. They hoped this intervention would untangle the competing claims and determine whether the investor’s title truly covered their ancestral land.
Mr. Osaja Peter, a 61-year-old community leader and land defender who says he was born on the disputed land, told Witness Radio that a State House team conducted a site visit and made a decision concerning the dispute.
“A locus visit was done by State House and led by counsel Susan Abbo, and the ruling was that Byabakama should go back on the land that he bought,” Osaja said.
Yet the details and current status of the alleged ruling remain unclear.
Peter recalled that his grandfather settled in Kaduku II, Kigumba, back in the late 1930s. He claims his family lost nearly 70 acres in the turmoil of the disputed takeover.
“At that time, over 500 people were evicted from our land, which covered the three villages of Nyama I, Kaduku II and Kinyonga II. We just saw the bullets, and when people see bullets, they run away. Some have remained lame, while others died because of injuries. Many are struggling to rebuild their lives,” he said.
Mr. Byabakama, now 70 and once the acting deputy governor of the Bank of Uganda, said he and 30 partners founded Kisirizi Excellence Center (EA) Ltd with a vision for commercial farming, focusing on animal husbandry.
“We wanted to do commercial farming,” he told Witness Radio.
In 2006, Byabakama and his partners purchased land at Kisirizi, Plot 80, Block 9, measuring about 751 hectares, from Mutebi Kibibi.
According to documents reviewed by Witness Radio, Omari Mohamed had previously mortgaged the land, but allegedly failed to meet the loan obligations. Uganda Development Bank subsequently exercised its powers under the mortgage arrangement and sold the property to Mutebi Kibibi.
Before sealing the deal, Byabakama said he and his partners conducted thorough due diligence, inspected the land, and confirmed its boundaries with local leaders and community members.
“We spent around three days inspecting the land. Apart from the seller, Mr Mutebi, there was no other person occupying the said land,” he said.
Byabakama said an independent surveyor, Angellus Mawa of Geomaps, opened the boundaries in the presence of community members and local leaders, including then Kigumba Sub-county LC III chairperson Mary Matunda and other officials.
He explained that this careful inspection, combined with checks at the land office, reassured the partners that the property was safe to buy.
“Upon confirming that there were no registered encumbrances on the land at the land office, we agreed to buy the land from Mutebi,” he said.
Yet the residents tell a different story. They allege their land once lay between two registered properties, but was swept up into the land Mutebi acquired and eventually passed to Byabakama.
The affected families formally brought the dispute to the State House Lands Unit’s attention.
In a letter dated July 2023, Susan Obbo, Senior Private Secretary to the President in Charge of Land Matters, invited Byabakama to a meeting on allegations that residents occupied land between two registered properties.
The letter identified one property as Plot 30 at Kisirizi Mixed Farm, associated with Omar Mohammed, and the other as Plot 66, Block 9, at Kinyogonya-Kaduku, registered in the name of the Church of God of East Africa.
According to the letter, the petitioners alleged that Mutebi and Byabakama had acquired the two properties, Kisirizi Mixed Farm and the Church of God of East Africa, and incorporated the intervening land occupied by residents, despite the community’s claims that the land had previously existed as a separate area with identifiable boundaries.
The letter further stated that the petitioners did not object to the purchase of the two registered properties but alleged that the intervening community land had been incorporated into them, resulting in the eviction of residents.
In response to the State House letter, Byabakama disputed the allegation that he had acquired multiple parcels or participated in an amalgamation of community land.
In a response submitted on behalf of the investor, his representatives, H&G Advocates, said their client acquired a single registered parcel identified as LRV 1759, Folio 15, Plot 80, Kibanda Block 9, at Kisirizi, along Masindi Port Road.
“Our client does not know about the alleged amalgamation of two land parcels mentioned in your letter or the persons who allegedly occupied an untitled parcel of land between two alleged titled parcels. Our client bought a single parcel of land comprised in LRV 1759, Folio 15, Plot 80, Kibanda Block 9, at Kisirizi, Masindi Port Road, Masindi. This can be verified from the land office,” the response stated.
Byabakama also said that after the company began commercial farming, nine people complained that a previous owner had given them extremely short notice to vacate their homes before the 2006 purchase.
He said the company asked why the complainants had not pursued the previous owner in court but agreed to help them maintain peaceful relations with neighboring communities.
According to the company’s response to State House, the partners agreed between 2006 and 2009 to provide the nine complainants with household resources and some land for cultivation, with the assistance of local leaders. The company said it believed it had no legal obligation to settle the claims.
But this response left the residents’ deeper grievances unresolved, especially their claims about lost boundaries and the absorption of their land into the registered property.
A State House official, who spoke to Witness Radio on condition of anonymity, said the matter remained under investigation.
“People are saying the land had two titles initially, and that Byabakama’s title overlapped with the others. They have no problem with Byabakama; rather, they have an issue with Mutebi, who sold the land to Byabakama. The land in the middle was also titled with the larger part and also got taken,” the official said.
The official explained that authorities plan to retrace the boundaries of the old properties and compare them with the land now under Byabakama’s title.
“We are going to open the boundaries of the former titles and compare them with his title to find out the truth. We will inform you once the investigations are complete,” the official said.
Former Kigumba Sub-county LC III chairperson Mary Matunda, meanwhile, told Witness Radio that the alleged evictions and burning of houses occurred before Byabakama acquired the property.
She said local leaders knew the incidents happened when Mutebi owned the land and argued that Byabakama and its partners should not be blamed for actions that allegedly took place before their purchase.
Byabakama said the company coexisted peacefully with neighboring communities until residents reignited their demands to return the disputed land.
For the families caught in the dispute, this is about far more than lines on a map. It is about ancestral land, lost homes, shattered livelihoods, and community bonds built over generations that are unraveling.
“What we have suffered is enough. Let the injustices that occurred be solved,” the residents said, vowing to continue pursuing their claims.
For Byabakama and his partners, the dispute casts a shadow over an agricultural investment they insist was acquired lawfully and with careful due diligence.
Now, the fate of the land hangs on the State House Land Unit’s findings from its investigation into the tangled history of transfers and boundaries.
Until those questions are resolved, the residents’ demands and the investor’s defense remain in conflict, leaving the future of the disputed land uncertain.
Related posts:

Lira siblings reclaim father’s land after bitter family dispute
Government orders arrest of notorious land grabber in Mubende district.
Land grabs at gunpoint in Kiryandongo district – Uganda – New report
State House Anti-Corruption Unit nets a surveyor implicated in Mubende district land-grabs
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
Govt tightens human rights protections in extractive industry
Published
1 day agoon
November 2, 2026
The proposed mechanism is expected to provide a formal and accessible avenue for individuals and communities to seek redress when their rights are violated by business operations, including corruption, gender-based violence, child labour, labour rights violations, unfair compensation and other business-related grievances.
Bernard Mujuni, the commissioner for equity and rights at the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, said the initiative is intended to bridge existing gaps in access to justice, particularly for vulnerable communities affected by large-scale investments in oil and gas and mineral extraction in many parts of the country.
The Ugandan government is developing a national grievance redress and accountability mechanism to enable communities affected by business activities to report human rights violations, unfair compensation, corruption and other abuses, in the extractives sector.
The proposed mechanism is expected to provide a formal and accessible avenue for individuals and communities to seek redress when their rights are violated by business operations, including corruption, gender-based violence, child labour, labour rights violations, unfair compensation and other business-related grievances.
Bernard Mujuni, the commissioner for equity and rights at the Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development, said the initiative is intended to bridge existing gaps in access to justice, particularly for vulnerable communities affected by large-scale investments in oil and gas and mineral extraction in many parts of the country.
He made the remarks on Friday (October 23) at the Uganda Media Centre while announcing the Seventh National Forum on Business and Human Rights, which will take place from October 26 to 28 at the Sheraton Kampala Hotel.
The Government is encouraging businesses to integrate human rights considerations into their operations, especially in sectors involving land acquisition, natural resources, large-scale infrastructure projects and extractive industries
“An individual should be able to access remedies when a violation takes place in business operations,” said Mujuni.
He said some communities affected by development projects often lose out during compensation processes, with intermediaries allegedly taking substantial portions of money intended for project-affected persons, leaving them with little recourse.
It is hoped the new grievance mechanism will strengthen accountability by providing a recognised platform through which such concerns can be reported, investigated and resolved.
Oil pipeline
Mujuni pointed to Uganda’s oil pipeline project as an example of growing efforts to integrate human rights considerations into major investments, particularly in relation to land rights, compensation and community engagement
“This is a milestone for this country,” he said, while commending President Yoweri Museveni for supporting Uganda’s business and human rights agenda.
Mujuni stressed that investors must engage meaningfully with affected communities and respect their rights to land, livelihoods and other resources.
He cautioned against the appropriation of community-owned resources without adequate consultation and compensation, warning that failure to address legitimate grievances could spark disputes, delay projects and increase operational costs.
“Human rights concerns should be dealt with before they escalate into conflict, litigation or disruptions that can ultimately affect investment outcomes.”
The extractives sector will be a key area of discussion at the upcoming forum, with participants expected to examine the human rights implications of resource exploitation, protection of affected communities and the role of environmental and human rights defenders.
Abuses in sugar plantations
Beyond the extractives sector, concerns were raised about persistent labour rights violations in large-scale agricultural enterprises, particularly sugarcane plantations.
Child labour, sexual harassment, workplace exploitation and violence against women and girls were cited as some of the challenges identified during inspections conducted by the gender ministry in districts such as Mayuge and Hoima
Working alongside labour officers, community development officers and other stakeholders, the ministry has undertaken a series of human rights inspections aimed at ensuring compliance with labour standards.
Mujuni said such abuses not only undermine workers’ dignity and wellbeing but can also disrupt business operations and damage investor reputations.
The initiative, dubbed Advancing Respect for Human Rights by Businesses in Uganda, is being implemented by the ministry in partnership with Enabel, the Belgian Agency for International Cooperation, with support from the European Union.
Sector-based minimum wage
It is understood the Government is reviewing several labour-related issues, including minimum wages, workers’ compensation and protections for domestic workers
Ongoing research and consultations are intended to guide future policy proposals following a directive from President Museveni that a comprehensive study be undertaken before the Government adopts a minimum wage framework.
Rather than introducing a blanket minimum wage across all sectors, the Government is exploring the possibility of sector-specific wage structures that consider the unique circumstances of different industries.
Human rights forum
The Seventh National Forum on Business and Human Rights will be held under the theme: “Reflecting on Progress and Strengthening Commitment: The Journey of Uganda’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights.”
Discussions will focus on labour rights and decent work, land and natural resources, environmental protection and climate justice, access to remedies, consumer protection, corporate accountability, as well as technology, digital rights and data protection.
Mujuni urged workers to report cases of intimidation, mistreatment and sexual harassment through established workplace channels, including human resource departments and sexual harassment committees.
He revealed that the SAUTI reporting mechanism receives about 200 cases daily, which are processed and referred to relevant authorities for action
The SAUTI 116 toll-free platform brings together multiple institutions capable of investigating complaints and ensuring victims receive appropriate support and justice.
Related posts:

Land and environmental rights defenders, CSOs, scholars, and government to meet in Kampala to assess Uganda’s performance on the implementation of the UN Guiding principles on Business and Human Rights in Uganda.
A multisectoral meeting has kicked off in Kampala to discuss progress in implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and other related standards and principles.
Five years after Uganda’s National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights, are local communities hosting land-based investment projects seeing change?
UN Human Rights Chief urges EU leaders to approve key business and human rights legislation
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK
African faith leaders are raising their voices for reparations as AGRA’s 20-year legacy faces intense scrutiny.
Published
4 days agoon
October 30, 2026
By the Witness Radio team.
Africa grapples with some of the world’s most severe food security challenges. Today, 309 million people go hungry—outnumbering even Asia’s 292 million. The continent pours between US$70 billion and US$100 billion annually into food imports.
Despite decades of effort by governments, development partners, and countless organizations to improve agriculture and uplift smallholder farmers, these challenges remain. A flagship initiative, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), launched in 2006 with backing from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, now marks two decades of striving to transform African agriculture.
In a statement marking its 20th anniversary this year, the organization described the milestone as an opportunity to reflect on two decades of working with governments, farmers, research institutions, the private sector and development partners to strengthen Africa’s food systems.
Yet African faith leaders argue the initiative has fallen short of its promise to reduce hunger and improve food security. They are now demanding that the Gates Foundation be held accountable for the consequences of the agricultural model it has championed.
On Thursday, October 29, 2026, faith leaders from more than 20 African countries held an online press conference after delivering an open letter to the Gates Foundation on October 28.
The letter, titled African Faith Leaders Demand Reparations from the Gates Foundation and signed by 625 faith leaders with backing from 360 organizations and partners, urges the Foundation to provide reparations and shift its funding toward smallholder farmers, indigenous seeds, healthy soils, and agroecological farming systems.
The leaders contend that AGRA’s Green Revolution approach has failed to tackle hunger and, worse, has eroded food sovereignty and weakened communities’ control over their own food systems.
They add that AGRA has received more than US$1.5 billion since its establishment, with approximately two-thirds of the funding coming from the Gates Foundation.
“The Green Revolution promised to halve hunger. Instead, 55 million more people in AGRA’s focus countries are going hungry today than when it began,” said Ms. Francesca de Gasparis, Executive Director of the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI).
“When a strategy fails this badly, for this long, continuing to fund it perpetuates harm. We are calling on the Gates Foundation to take the independent research seriously and change its approach,” Ms. de Gasparis added.
The leaders’ concerns are informed by research from Tufts University and the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), which found that the number of undernourished people in AGRA’s 13 focus countries increased by 58% between 2004–2006 and 2022–2024.
AGRA has pushed back against these findings, challenging both the research and its methodology. This debate has reignited doubts about whether two decades of investment have truly improved livelihoods and food security for Africa’s smallholder farmers.
In the online discussions that followed the letter’s launch, faith leaders urged the Gates Foundation, AGRA, African governments, and development partners to place the sovereignty and well-being of African people at the heart of all agricultural investments.
“African people must be the architects of their own agricultural future. The church does not oppose science but demands science that saves lives,” said Rev. Dr. Tolbert Thomas Jallah, a faith leader from Liberia.
Rev. Dr. Jallah said science must serve humanity, innovation must serve the public good, and technology should strengthen communities’ ability to feed themselves.
The faith leaders said they had previously raised similar concerns with the Gates Foundation. In 2021, they wrote to the Foundation asking it to stop funding Green Revolution programs. SAFCEI said it later met with Foundation representatives, but those engagements did not result in a meaningful response to their concerns.
The press conference brought together representatives from Liberia, Kenya, Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Zimbabwe and South Africa, while the letter’s signatories came from more than 20 countries across West, East and Southern Africa.
The faith leaders also voiced concerns about how corporate-driven agriculture affects women, who are the backbone of food production and household food security throughout Africa.
Ms. Josephina Ngishoono, representing the Namibia Council of Churches, emphasized that women shoulder much of the burden when agricultural systems put commercial interests ahead of the needs of farming communities.
She pointed out that while women are major contributors to food production, they still face unequal access to land, resources, agricultural knowledge, and decision-making power.
“Corporate-led agriculture that prioritizes patented seeds, chemical inputs, as well as monoculture, risks undermining the women’s traditional knowledge systems, the agroecological practices that have been passed down from generations,” Ms. Ngishoono said.
She warned that when women lose control over seeds and farming decisions, their financial independence and their power to choose what and how to grow food for their families are put at risk.
She called for women to be recognized as agricultural leaders in their own right, not just as passive beneficiaries of development programs.
She further urged the Gates Foundation to champion community seed banks, indigenous seeds, community-managed seed systems, composting, soil restoration, and research led by local communities in agroecology.
“There is a need to protect farmers’ rights and their seed sovereignty and to prioritize public health, environmental health, and long-term food security,” she said.
Ms. Gorata Ramokgothwane of the Botswana Council of Churches highlighted how climate change relentlessly undermines food sovereignty and food security throughout sub-Saharan Africa.
She voiced alarm over the push for farming systems that rely heavily on chemical inputs, cautioning that these methods could damage fragile ecosystems and erode traditional farming practices.
Speaking for women faith leaders, Ms. Ramokgothwane called for a powerful regional movement to advance community-led agroecology throughout Southern Africa.
“As councils of churches in the region, we must identify and intensify our efforts in resource mobilization towards grassroots solidarity in advancing indigenous or traditional preservation,” she said.
She pointed to communities in Botswana that use leadwood ash to preserve seeds for beans, millet, and sorghum, showcasing these traditions as vital knowledge that can fortify local food systems.
“Some communities have resorted to seed banks dedicated to preserving native staples, such as millet, sorghum, beans, and some traditional vegetables,” she added.
Ms. Ramokgothwane said these methods could empower communities to break free from costly agricultural inputs, safeguard indigenous foods, and sustain ecological balance.
She also cautioned that women smallholder farmers are especially at risk when input prices soar or harvests fall short of covering costs. She added that restrictive seed laws can further limit farmers’ ability to save and share traditional seeds.
“As women of faith and leaders in our communities, we know that the Gates Foundation has the moral obligation to independently analyze the needs of smallholder farmers and support the seed-saving practices in irrigation for smallholder farmers,” she said.
Muslim faith leaders in Africa were also represented at the discussions by Dr Sheik Hassan Kenyamari, Chairman of Muslim Provinces in Africa.
Dr Kenyamari voiced unease about the direction, priorities, and lasting consequences of agricultural innovations backed by the Gates Foundation, especially through its partnership with AGRA.
He insisted that Africa’s agricultural transformation must put farmers, communities, ecological integrity, and the right to food above narrow productivity goals and commercial interests.
AGRA, however, rejects claims that its agricultural model has failed, arguing that its progress over the past 20 years should be assessed against the broader challenges facing African food systems.
In its August 2026 Impact, Learning and Foresight Report, the organization says agricultural output across Africa has roughly doubled in real terms since 2005, while cereal yields have increased by about 40%.
It also points to the growth of local seed companies, agricultural input distribution networks and community extension services as evidence of progress.
Related posts:

Failed Green Revolution: African Leaders Demand Reparations from Gates Foundation.
African Food Systems Summit 2024: Do not use it to promote failed agricultural models – African Faith Leaders.
A coalition of 625 African faith leaders will gather, united in their call for reparations in response to what they describe as the failure of a Gates-backed agricultural model.
AGRA’s Silent Takeover: The Hidden Impact on Africa’s Agricultural Policies.
Kiryandongo district, a notorious hotspot for land grabs in Uganda: A bitter land dispute spanning 22 years has left residents landless and food-insecure, while the investor anxiously guards his investment.
Govt tightens human rights protections in extractive industry
African faith leaders are raising their voices for reparations as AGRA’s 20-year legacy faces intense scrutiny.
149 CSOs and groups demand answers from banks over $3.7bn in EACOP financing
Tanzanian Government Abducts Maasai Villagers in an Unconscionable Attack on Indigenous Land Defenders
Environmental and human rights advocates are urging the world to hold global investors accountable for their actions.
World Food Day 2026: Building healthy diets means reimagining how we grow, share, and enjoy our food.
Sweeping investments are fueling widespread land grabbing and deepening rights violations across Uganda – Report.
Innovative Finance from Canada projects positive impact on local communities.
Over 5000 Indigenous Communities evicted in Kiryandongo District
Petition To Land Inquiry Commission Over Human Rights In Kiryandongo District
Invisible victims of Uganda Land Grabs
Resource Center
- CAN AFRICAN FOOD SYSTEMS THRIVE WITHOUT CHEMICAL FERTILISERS
- Land And Environment Rights In Uganda Experiences From Karamoja And Mid Western Sub Regions
- REPARATORY AND CLIMATE JUSTICE MUST BE AT THE CORE OF COP30, SAY GLOBAL LEADERS AND MOVEMENTS
- LAND GRABS AT GUNPOINT REPORT IN KIRYANDONGO DISTRICT
- THOSE OIL LIARS! THEY DESTROYED MY BUSINESS!
- RESEARCH BRIEF -TOURISM POTENTIAL OF GREATER MASAKA -MARCH 2025
- The Mouila Declaration of the Informal Alliance against the Expansion of Industrial Monocultures
- FORCED LAND EVICTIONS IN UGANDA TRENDS RIGHTS OF DEFENDERS IMPACT AND CALL FOR ACTION
Legal Framework
READ BY CATEGORY
Newsletter
Trending
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoEnvironmental and human rights advocates are urging the world to hold global investors accountable for their actions.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoWhy are secure land rights key to Africa’s climate resilience and the protection of its natural treasures?
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoA coalition of 625 African faith leaders will gather, united in their call for reparations in response to what they describe as the failure of a Gates-backed agricultural model.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoHigh land title costs, bureaucracy, and distance leave women struggling to secure land rights in Africa.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK1 week agoFrom grassroots action to policy transformation: How local environmental solutions spark enduring change.
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoBiodiversity Goals: The world has no time to meet its 2030 goals.
-
FARM NEWS2 weeks agoUganda Leads Africa in Certified Organic Farmland Ahead of First Organic, Nature Expo
-
MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK2 weeks agoLands Ministry tightens rules for replacing lost titles, gives landowners 30 days to object
