MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The Agony of a Tree-Planting Project on Communities’ Land in Uganda

Published

5 years ago

September 28, 2020

Some mothers who lost children due to the lack of food after New Forests Company’s evictions. Ph: witnessradio.org

The large-scale plantations from UK-based New Forests Company (NFC) have meant violence, forceful evictions and misery for thousands of residents from Mubende, Uganda. More than 15 years after the company began its operations in Uganda, affected communities still confront the long-lasting and severe damages.

Misery is what fills the hearts of the residents of seven villages in the Mubende district where the New Forests Company illegally evicted close to 1000 households from their land.

The UK-based New Forests Company (NFC) was founded with the vision of creating “sustainable timber products” in East Africa amidst rampant deforestation NFC plantations are also a carbon project, which generates additional profits for the Company from the selling of carbon credits. The first tree was planted in Mubende, Uganda, in 2004. Since then, the Company has rapidly expanded with four new plantation areas in Uganda as well as in Tanzania and Rwanda.

The expansion has however come with unimaginable pain to hundreds of households and gross human rights abuses, mainly in the Mubende district. Between 2006 and 2010, more than 10,000 people were evicted from their lands in the district of Mubende, in some cases with the use of violence, to make way for the NFC plantations.

NFC and the World Bank, one of the Company’s financial supporters, were once in dialogue with their evictees but abandoned them. According to documents seen by Ugandan media platform witnessradio.org, NFC was dragged into dialogue with its evictees after a critical report exposed in 2011 the lack of respect for communities’ human rights in the name of a carbon credit project. (1) The report, which was released by the NGO Oxfam, accused NFC and its security agents for committing human rights violations/abuses with impunity. The World Bank appointed a mediator from the Office of Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman (CAO). The CAO handles complaints from communities affected by investments made by the International Finance Corporation, the private sector arm of the World Bank.

By 2011, NFC had attracted investment from international banks and private equity funds. These include the European Investment Bank (EIB), EU’s financing institution, that had loaned NFC five million Euros (almost US 6 million dollars) to expand one of its plantations in Uganda. The Agri-Vie Agribusiness Fund, a private equity investment fund, focused on food and agribusiness in sub-Saharan Africa, had invested US 6.7 million dollars in NFC. Agri-Vie is in itself backed up by development finance institutions, notably the World Bank’s private sector lending arm, the International Finance Corporation (IFC). But the most significant investment came from UK bank HSBC (around US 10 million dollars), which gave HSBC 20 per cent ownership of the Company and one of the six seats on the NFC Board. All these investors have, in theory, social and environmental standards in order to maintain and manage their own portfolios.

Long-lasting suffering and violence

After a15-months long dialogue facilitated by the CAO, evictees were offered very little compared to what they owned before. The little payments were not based on the results of any valuation exercise to assess what the evictees had lost due to the violent and forceful evictions.

Witnessradio.org has uncovered that during the dialogue, NFC forced evictees to establish a Cooperative club if they were to get any payment from the company. Also, evictees were forced to pay subscription fees to become a member of the club and benefit from the company’s contribution. Many could not afford this fee, but the handful of people that managed to pay their subscription fees to the Cooperative, were at the end of the day given an acre of land each (less than half an hectare). Only 48% of the 10,000 evictees received this piece of land.

Our investigations indicate that after NFC paid 600,000,000 Uganda Shillings (close to US 180,000 dollars) through the Cooperative club’s account for 8,958 hectares of land and other damages suffered by the evictees, the stakeholders involved abandoned the evictees to suffer the anguish.

The Company’s plantations have shuttered lives and caused irreparable damages to the affected communities.

According to the evictees, NFC’s plantations have caused a big number of deaths among children due to malnutrition. At the time of the evictions, all children dropped out of schools and married at a tender age. Further, many families of the evictees began to live in refugee camps after failing to obtain food to feed their families, while hundreds of families broke up. And the list of long-standing impacts goes on.

The testimonies of forceful evictions and lack of due compensation overshadow the social development projects that the company flags whenever it talks about its achievements.

Shantel Tumubone, aged 50, and her family, was evicted 10 years ago from their ancestral home in Kyamukasa Village, Kitumbi Sub-county, Kassanda District. They were promised compensation that would enable them to find alternative land for their settlement.

She moved to a nearby village as she looked for land in anticipation of receiving compensation. “I have waited for the money to date. There is no single coin that we have received as compensation and we don’t know if it will happen” Tumubone, whose hope is fading away, tells witnessradio.org.

After waiting in vain, Tumubone managed to get casual employment on a farm in the Kabweyakiza Village, which is a few kilometres from where she used to live with her family. Having lost everything during the eviction, Tumubone later lost her husband because they could no longer afford the medical bills. Even worse, she did not have where to bury her husband and, thus, a swap deal was made between her and the plantations company: in exchange of her carrying out casual work in the plantations for eight months, the Company would give her a piece of land in her former village valued at 1 million Uganda Shillings (around US 270 dollars) so that she could bury her husband.

Tumubone is one of the many people who have been driven into poverty and landlessness by the New Forests Company. People who used to own land for cultivation and survival have been turned into beggars, while several others have become labourers at the Company working on what used to be their land.

Many of the people that Witnessradio.org spoke to dispute reports of due consultation and of compensation for alternative land.

“We were never consulted or agreed to what the New Forests Company did. We have been reduced to paupers and who would choose such a life. I personally used to own 15 acres [6 hectares] of land where I planted a variety of crops,” said one of the residents who is now a casual labourer at the Company’s plantations.

Despite all this, in its 2011 report to the UN, the New Forests Company claims that the people vacated their land voluntarily and peacefully, which does not tally with the situation at hand when you talk with and listen to the affected communities.

FSC: Certifying devastation

What is also striking is that NFC managed to obtain an FSC certification for its plantations, which allegedly vouches for a company’s “socially beneficial” practices. The FSC certification is supposed to ensure that products with the seal come from responsibly managed plantations that provide environmental, social, and economic benefits.

In an audit report conducted in 2010, FSC declared regarding the evictions that the company had followed peaceful means and acted responsibly.

With the situation in the areas where the New Forests Company is implementing its tree planting projects, there is no doubt that the company is flouting the certification company’s standard criteria in acquiring land. In consequence, many homeless people have been left with limited hope of returning to their land and homes.

The chairperson of the displaced households, Mr. Julius Ndagize, has said that several meetings with the managers of the New Forests Company have not been fruitful.

“The Company only managed to resettle a few families after we managed to secure 500 acres [200 hectares] of land in Kampindu Village, where each family managed to get an acre of land and the rest are landless”. Says Mr. Ndagize.

Background to the increasing large-scale investment

Following the spike in commodity prices in 2007-2008, investors expressed interest in 56 million hectares of land for agriculture and timber production, and Sub-Saharan Africa accounted for 2/3 of this expressed demand. Despite the poor record of large agricultural investments in Africa and parts of Asia, the global median project size of 40,000 hectares implies that these investments could have major implications for rural land rights and existing land users, especially smallholders.

Alarmingly, countries with weak legal frameworks for recognizing rural land rights as well as poor environmental regulation for business operations are most likely to be targeted by large-scale investments.

The Ugandan constitution states that “land in Uganda belongs to the citizens of Uganda”. But stories of non-compensation for over ten years point to gross abuse of the Ugandan law and total abuse of the citizens’ rights to whom the land belongs.

Forced evictions also constitute gross violations of a range of internationally recognized human rights, including the human rights to adequate housing, food, water, health, education, work, security of the person, freedom from cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and freedom of movement.

The impacts of forced evictions go far beyond material losses, leading to deeper inequality and injustices, marginalization, and social conflicts.

With the evictions happening in Uganda unabated, there is no doubt that the margin between the rich and poor is widening on top of gross abuse of human rights.

The Witness Radio team, Uganda
witnessradio.org

(1) WRM Bulletin 171, Uganda: New Forests Company – FSC legitimizes the eviction of thousands of people from their land and the sale of carbon credits, 2011; and Oxfam International, The New Forests Company and its Uganda plantations, 2011

Original Post: wrm.org

Up Next

Artisanal miners’ agonizing tales at the hands of mineral police

Don't Miss

Government issues strict guidelines on mortgaging public land

Click to comment

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Carbon Markets Are Not the Solution: The Failed Relaunch of Emission Trading and the Clean Development Mechanism

Published

2 hours ago

June 21, 2025

witnessradio.org

In light of the growing number of cold and hot wars around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. Meanwhile, supposed solutions, such as carbon emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism, continue to be promoted. As Maria Neuhauss argues, this is a bluff with far-reaching consequences.

There was more bad news in January 2025: The European Earth observation program Copernicus and the World Meteorological Organization reported that the global average temperature in 2024 was 1.6 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. This marked the first time the average global temperature exceeded the 1.5-degree target established in the Paris Climate Agreement.

In light of the growing number of crises and conflict hotspots around the world, attention to climate issues has noticeably declined, at least in Germany. While 1.4 million people demonstrated for more climate protection in Germany in September 2019, according to Fridays for Future, it is now almost impossible to speak of a climate movement. The catalyst for the third German ‘movement cycle’ was undoubtedly the rebranding of Last Generation in December 2024. The group had been decimated by state repression and media agitation in the preceding months. The U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement at the beginning of this year made it clear that defenders of the fossil fuel status quo have gained momentum and intend to achieve their goals without compromise. However, as global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the material world follows its own rules, the problem of global warming will likely resurface in the collective consciousness in the foreseeable future. Whether through heat waves, extreme weather events, water shortages, or forest fires. The question is whether and what new answers and approaches a reinvigorated climate movement will develop if it does not limit itself to ‘solidarity prepping’ and actually wants to influence the course of events.

Central to this is not only resolute resistance against fossil inertia forces, but also testing the actions of liberal actors. Although they acknowledge the problem of climate change and claim to want to solve it, the measures they take are inadequate at best or, at worst, create new profit opportunities for the industries that must be phased out. This is far from a comprehensive solution to the ecological crisis, which encompasses more than just climate change. Emission trading and the associated offset mechanisms that are part of the international climate negotiations are one example that illustrates this well.

‘Climate math’ of flexible mechanisms

Emission trading is based on the idea that greenhouse gas emissions are still possible but must be justified with corresponding ‘pollution rights.’ The number of certificates is limited and should decrease over time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Emission trading provides fundamental flexibility by allowing certificates to be bought and sold. Ultimately, this is intended to achieve the most cost-efficient climate protection possible because emission-reducing measures are expected to be implemented first where they can be done quickly and cheaply. This allows one to profit from selling unused emission allowances to other actors who initially shy away from such measures. These actors must buy the allowances until the increased prices resulting from the shortage make emission-reducing measures unavoidable. At least, that’s the theory.

Emission trading is closely linked to the concept of climate neutrality, which plays a central role in climate policy. Greenhouse gas emissions are offset by preventing emissions, using natural carbon sinks, or removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The trick to this ‘climate math’ is that, as long as emissions are compensated for, they do not count, even if greenhouse gases continue to be released into the air. These compensation measures are called ‘offsets.’

The idea that not all emissions must be reduced but can, in principle, be bought out of this obligation is based on the global inequalities that have developed historically and that fundamentally structured the first global climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol of 1997. In line with the ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ approach, the protocol only required industrialized countries to reduce emissions because they were mainly responsible for the high concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However, under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), industrialized countries could partially buy their way out of this responsibility by financing emissions-reduction measures in developing and emerging countries. The CDM has therefore been described as a modern “indulgence trade” (Altvater & Brunnengräber, 2008). This allowed industrialized countries to reconcile their energy production methods with the need for climate protection while outsourcing conflicts over the energy transition, such as land use, to the Global South (Bauriedl, 2016).

Social and environmental shortcomings of the CDM

From a climate protection perspective, however, it only makes sense to include emission reductions in developing and emerging countries in the emissions balance of industrialized countries if the investments actually help reduce emissions – that is, if the projects would not have been realized without investments from the Global North. Conversely, if projects under the CDM are not additional, such as if a dam would have been built without investments from the Global North, companies in industrialized countries can claim emission credits without actually helping to reduce emissions. This is because the emissions would have been avoided anyway. This would result in an overall increase in emissions.

In fact, the additionality of many projects financed under the CDM has been questioned over the years (Öko-Institut, 2016). However, less attention has been paid to the fact that CDM projects have repeatedly led to the displacement of local people and land grabbing. For example, a reforestation project in the Kachung Central Forest Reserve in Uganda displaced many neighboring villagers who used to farm and graze their cattle there. Plagued by food insecurity, hunger, and poverty, the population was denied access to the land when CDM-approved plantations were established, further worsening their situation. The monoculture plantations also had negative ecological consequences (Carbon Market Watch, 2018). Thus, the CDM perpetuated colonial conditions on several levels. The mechanism ended with the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol in 2020. However, credits issued beforehand can still be used under the Paris Climate Agreement.

Price incentives instead of bans

A critical review of emission trading is also urgently needed. It is failing as a suitable means of climate protection on several levels. For example, in the case of the European Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), the continued generous allocation of free certificates, particularly to energy-intensive industries, protects those responsible for high CO₂ emissions from strict requirements. Additionally, the emission trading approach suffers from the fact that it is unclear whether, or to what extent, the price of emissions certificates influences investment decisions in favor of climate protection. According to various studies, the price would need to be between EUR 140 and 6,000 per ton of CO₂ to achieve the 1.5-degree target (IPCC, 2018).

However, local industry is already complaining about excessively high electricity prices (the average certificate price in 2024 was €65 per ton of CO₂), causing the government to worry about the location’s attractiveness. Given this, can we really expect politicians to force energy-intensive industries to do more to protect the climate with much higher certificate prices? Ultimately, this reveals a fundamental flaw in emission trading: its indirect effect. Instead of using targets and bans, the idea is to persuade companies to cut emissions through price incentives. However, this approach puts climate protection in the hands of actors who primarily follow the profit motive and do not necessarily translate the price signal into climate protection measures. This explains why companies enrich themselves from emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism wherever possible (CE Delft, 2021).

For those who design and control emission trading systems, the aforementioned criticisms are merely one reason to continue supporting and refining the chosen method. This is also true for the EU, which, after a period during which emission trading was considered ineffective due to low prices, reinvigorated the system at the end of the 2010s. For instance, the EU introduced the market stability reserve. The goal is to maintain public confidence in the effectiveness of this instrument because it is the global climate protection tool. However, evaluations of its effectiveness are rare and provide little cause for optimism. According to an evaluation of various studies, the EU ETS achieves only 0 to 1.5% emission reductions per year (Green, 2021).

History and responsibility are being erased

This makes the ongoing negotiations at UN climate conferences concerning the implementation of global emission trading and a new Clean Development Mechanism all the more critical. In addition to the question of how financially weak countries will be compensated for climate-related damage and losses, the annual COPs primarily address Article 6 of the Paris Climate Agreement. Article 6 regulates international cooperation, i.e., the extent to which a country can count mitigation measures or emission avoidance elsewhere in its climate balance. Last year’s COP29 in Baku further advanced the operationalization of this article. Based on this, old CDM projects can now be transferred to the new Sustainable Development Mechanism under certain conditions. However, the first project to clear this hurdle reportedly reported emission reductions up to 26 times higher than expected based on scientific evaluation (Mulder, 2025).

Despite urgent warnings, world climate conferences seem determined to repeat past mistakes. The focus is on profit. As Tamra Gilbertson summed up in an interview with Chris Lang, the climate is the last priority. After all, trade processes will incur deductions in the future that will flow into the international adaptation fund. However, according to Gilbertson, this is also due to the fact that the climate conferences have failed to reach viable agreements on financing climate damage and adaptation measures in poorer countries thus far. Instead, emission trading is expected to deliver the necessary funds. “This is where common but differentiated responsibilities are eradicated. History and responsibility are erased, and capitalism in the form of carbon markets takes its place” (Lang, 2024).

While these processes are difficult for the public to understand, the escalating climate crisis requires critical attention more than ever. The problems associated with emission trading and the Clean Development Mechanism urgently need to be exposed as distractions from the real task at hand: rapidly phasing out fossil fuels.

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Govt launches Central Account for Busuulu to protect tenants from evictions

Published

2 hours ago

June 21, 2025

witnessradio.org

In a bid to shield lawful tenants from arbitrary evictions and resolve long-standing land conflicts, Lands Minister Judith Nabakooba has announced the establishment of a centralized government account where tenants can deposit nominal ground rent, locally known as busuulu.

The move, she said, is a direct response to complaints raised by tenants during President Yoweri Museveni’s recent tour of the Buganda region, where multiple communities voiced frustration over landlords who are either absent, untraceable, or outright refuse to accept rent payments.

Speaking to the press on Saturday, Nabakooba said the government account now offers tenants a legal channel to fulfill their obligations—effectively eliminating the loophole used by some landlords to accuse tenants of non-payment and justify evictions.

“Government remains committed to securing the rights of bibanja holders through lawful means,” Nabakooba said. “The public should not be misled by political messages that discourage participation in these programs.”

She stressed that lawful and bona fide occupants, commonly referred to as bibanja holders, are protected under Uganda’s Constitution and Land Act, and cannot be legally evicted as long as they pay their annual ground rent.

New Legal Backing and Clear Fee Structure

The new system is backed by an amendment to Statutory Instrument No. 55 of 2011, now updated as Statutory Instrument No. 2 of 2025, which outlines the fixed ground rent rates tenants must pay based on location:

Cities – Shs 50,000
Municipalities – Shs 40,000
Town Councils – Shs 30,000
Town Boards – Shs 20,000
Rural Areas – Shs 5,000

Nabakooba clarified that these rates are standardized and non-negotiable, emphasizing that busuulu is not subject to arbitrary pricing by landlords. The fees have remained unchanged since their introduction in 2011.

See also Canada Launches New Selection Categories For Express Entry

Certificates of Occupancy and Digital Access

To strengthen tenant security and provide legal recognition, the minister encouraged bibanja holders to apply for Certificates of Occupancy, documents that officially confirm their right to occupy and use the land.

So far, the ministry has mapped more than 96,000 bibanja across several districts, and over 500 certificates have already been issued in Mubende, Mityana, Kassanda, Kiboga, and Gomba.

“This effort is not just about securing tenure,” Nabakooba noted. “It’s about giving rural tenants the confidence to invest, farm, and participate meaningfully in the market economy.”

To enhance transparency and public access, the Ministry of Lands has also launched an online portal and mobile app, where tenants can:

Verify the status of their Certificate of Occupancy
Check the identity and details of the registered landowner
Confirm whether the land they occupy is formally registered

The digital system is part of a broader government strategy to curb land fraud, prevent illegal sales, and guard against evictions—especially in cases where land is sold without the knowledge of long-standing tenants.

Bridging the Landlord-Tenant Divide

Nabakooba also called on landlords to work with government efforts rather than resist them. She acknowledged the strained relationship between landlords and tenants in many parts of Uganda but urged both parties to see these reforms as a path toward harmony and fairness.

“This is not about taking land away from landlords,” she explained. “It is about creating a transparent system where both landlords and tenants benefit, and land-related violence is minimized.”

The centralized busuulu collection initiative aims to deter unscrupulous evictions, encourage documentation of land relationships, and reduce tensions—particularly with newer landlords unfamiliar with traditional land use agreements.

See also Lil Uzi Vert Teases Release Of Eternal Atake 2 With Album Trailer Shoot

As land remains a sensitive and politically charged issue in Uganda, especially in the Buganda region, government efforts like this one are seen as key to reducing conflict and promoting economic security for millions of rural families.

The Ministry says more sensitization campaigns will follow to help both tenants and landlords understand the new system, how to access the digital platforms, and the legal safeguards now in place.

Source: pressug.com

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Despite harsh repression, opposition to the EACOP pipeline in Uganda remains strong

Published

1 week ago

June 12, 2025

witnessradio.org

On March 19, 2025, student members of the Justice Movement Uganda, including Ibrahim Mpiima (left), protest in the streets of Kampala against the EACOP oil project and its consequences for the climate and local populations. (Bruce Nahabwe)

“We will keep protesting until our demands are met. This project isn’t sustainable. The world is moving towards renewable energy, and Uganda should follow suit,” says Ibrahim Mpiima, team leader of Justice Movement Uganda, a student-led protest group of around a hundred members opposing the East African Crude Oil Pipeline Project (EACOP)—the world’s longest heated oil pipeline.

“We protest whenever we can. The only thing holding us back is money. But as soon as we raise enough, we make banners, buy disposable mobile phones, secure safe houses in case things go wrong—and then we go.” This local group is part of a broader movement, StopEACOP, a coalition of international NGOs that joined forces “for greater solidarity, visibility and funding,” explains the student from Kyambogo University in Kampala.

Despite all the precautions taken by Ibrahim Mpiima and around 30 of his fellow students, he was arrested at the demonstration on 19 March. Taken by force with three other activists to the capital’s high-security prison, he was beaten and tortured before ultimately being released on 3 April. In a story published on social media, Mpiima also accuses security agents of raping him during his detention.

Martha Amviko, an activist with Extinction Rebellion, was also at the protest. “We wanted to march to Parliament to hand in our petition demanding an end to the project. But no sooner had we unfurled our banners than the police appeared. I managed to escape, but not everyone was so lucky. Once they take you away in the police vans, you know you’re going to be badly beaten. The violence is systematic.”

Although protests began several years ago, over the past year around 100 people have been arrested and threatened with prosecution in Uganda for taking part in peaceful demonstrations against oil projects backed by the government.

The EACOP pipeline is expected to stretch approximately 1,400 kilometres, running from Murchison Falls National Park in Uganda to the port of Tanga in Tanzania. It will transport oil from 400 wells in the Tilenga and Kingfisher fields to the coast, where it can be exported to international markets. An estimated 246,000 barrels of oil are expected to flow through the pipeline each day over its projected 25-year operational lifespan.

Presented to the public as opportunities for development, these projects are backed by the governments of Uganda and Tanzania, along with oil giants TotalEnergies and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC). Initially estimated at US$3.5 billion in 2020, costs have continued to climb. Both countries hope the pipeline will generate substantial revenue and create jobs, both during construction and for ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure.

In a country like Uganda, where per capita income is around US$1,000 per year, the government is banking on oil wealth to lift the nation out of poverty. “We believe this will serve as a catalyst for economic growth,” said Robert Kasande, an official at Uganda’s Ministry of Energy, during the signing ceremony in 2021.

The human cost of pipeline construction

On the ground, however, some residents are facing serious disruptions to their lives and livelihoods. One of them is Geoffrey Byakagaba, a 45-year-old farmer and father of eight, who was stripped of part of his land to make way for the project. “In 2017, Total took ownership of our land in the village. There were several types of compensation on offer. I chose the ‘land for land’ option. They took my land, but to this day, I haven’t been compensated,” he says.

Byakagaba still lives in Kasenyi, in Uganda’s Buliisa district, where the town is currently preparing to host a processing plant for the Tilenga project. He says his standard of living has dropped significantly. “Before the project, I used to grow cassava and sweet potatoes. We ate what we needed and sold the rest. I had 20 to 25 animals—cows and goats. Today, I’m down to just about ten, and my harvest barely feeds the family.”

Due to this loss of income, Byakagaba had to move his children to different schools. “They’re still in school, but in neighbourhoods we’re not happy with.” Since then, he has been surviving by doing odd jobs and selling what he catches fishing. Still, compared to other residents of Kasenyi, he considers himself fortunate. “Luckily, I didn’t live on the land I farmed, so I still have somewhere to stay. That’s not the case for everyone.” He adds: “And I didn’t accept their money. Total’s compensation would never have allowed me to buy land. They offered just 3.5 million shillings per hectare [around €850], but today, buying a hectare around here costs between 10 and 15 million [€2,500 to €3,500]. I would have been ruined. Some people were.”

Geoffrey Byakagaba is the fifth generation of his family to live on this land. For him, it holds far more than just market value.

“This is where I grew up. I inherited nine hectares from my parents, but now I have less than half of that left. If I were to die today, my children would be landless. I’m not just fighting for my rights, but also to leave something behind for my children.”

In April 2021, frustrated by the situation, he decided to file a land-grabbing lawsuit in the High Court of Masindi, seeking fair compensation from the developers of the EACOP project. As he told Equal Times, he was soon labelled a saboteur—not only by the project’s backers but also by the Ugandan authorities—for daring to protest and for speaking to Italian journalist Federica Marsi. Marsi was arrested shortly thereafter, along with Ugandan human rights defender Maxwell Atuhura.

As of 2025, according to Geoffroy Byakagaba, the situation remains unchanged and he is still waiting for compensation. He is not alone. Byakagaba is one of an estimated 118,000 people who have been fully or partially displaced due to the Tilenga and EACOP projects.

One of them is the grandmother of activist Ibrahim Mpiima. “She was evicted from her land in Hoima, so she came to live with us in Kampala. With the compensation she received, she couldn’t afford to buy any land. Because of that, she never felt at peace. And now she has passed away,” says the young man. It was this experience that prompted him to get involved in the campaign against the project while still a student. “At the time, I didn’t know much about EACOP, but seeing what happened to my grandmother made me want to understand it better. Then I realised that most people know nothing about the project or its consequences. Some even believe it’s a development scheme that will lift Uganda out of poverty—when in reality, huge numbers of people have lost their land. We have to fight this misinformation,” he says angrily.

Opponents of the project face harsh repression

Even before the project was officially approved, anti-EACOP mobilisation had already begun to take shape nationally. The movement went global in 2018, coinciding with the major student protests led by Fridays For Future. The world began to take notice of EACOP and its alarming scale—the fifteen protected areas that it will cut through, its proximity to the Great Lakes (Lake Albert and Lake Victoria), one of Africa’s most important sources of fresh water, and its massive projected carbon footprint: 34 million tonnes of CO² per year, compared to Uganda’s annual emissions of just 5 million tonnes. All these reasons have led scientists to describe the project as a ‘carbon bomb’.

In Uganda, authorities have responded in a press release issued by the Ugandan oil authority by describing the international protest movement #StopEacop as a misguided opposition movement bordering on racism and colonialism. According to an investigation by the British media outlet DeSmog, TotalEnergies reportedly hired a South African public relations agency to “squash all the negative PR” surrounding the oil projects. To achieve this, a full-scale campaign has been launched both on the streets and across social media.

For Dickens Kamugisha, CEO of the non-profit AFIEGO (Africa Institute for Energy Governance), which has been tracking the EACOP case for years, this comes as no surprise. “Unfortunately, we have both a weak judicial system and a government that uses the police to punish community members who speak out. Many people have been arrested, intimidated and imprisoned.”

“Here, if you oppose what the government and the company (TotalEnergies, editor’s note) are doing, you become the enemy. And once you’re in their sights, you have to face the consequences.”

Ibrahim Mpiima has always been aware of the risks, having already been arrested once in 2023. “It’s our responsibility. I’m afraid of ending up in prison, of being beaten. I’m really afraid. But if we, the people who are informed, don’t protest, then we will have betrayed all those who believe in us,” he told Equal Times a few days before the demonstrations in March. Reached again by phone after his release from detention, where he endured torture, he said the ordeal had taken its toll: “I feel depressed. I haven’t fully recovered physically or mentally. The feeling is still fresh in my mind, as if it happened yesterday.”

Martha Amviko was also arrested in August 2024 and spent two weeks in prison. “They took us to Luzira, the high-security prison. They put me in the same cell as criminals, people who had committed murder, even though I was being charged with disturbing the public order,” she recalls. “It was overcrowded. From time to time, the guards would call us into their offices where they beat us and did everything to break our spirit.” Despite this ordeal, she insists, “I’d rather die than leave things as they are today. The people building this pipeline will be dead in 20 to 30 years. We are the generation who will have to live with their decisions—us and our children. We cannot give up the fight.”

Indeed, on 23 April, despite the ongoing repression, another demonstration was held in Kampala. Eleven activists were arrested. At the time of writing, they remain behind bars in Luzira high-security prison.

This article has been translated from French by Brandon Johnson

Source:Equal Times