By Witness Radio team

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), unveiled with great fanfare on November 6th, 2025, as a pre-event ahead of the 30th UN Climate Conference in Belém, is already facing a storm of criticism from civil society and environmentalists.

More than 200 civil society organizations, Indigenous networks, and environmental justice groups from every corner of the globe are demanding an immediate halt to the initiative, calling it “a false solution that will deepen forest destruction rather than stop it.”

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) is a proposed global financing mechanism intended to support the long-term protection of tropical forests. Its goal, according to those behind it, is to offer stable, ongoing funding to countries that preserve or expand their forest cover, using investment-generated returns to reward practical conservation efforts.

But activists warn that the facility is being promoted as a bold new funding model for forest conservation. Yet, in reality, it is built on a financial structure that they say will benefit wealthy investors while burdening tropical forest nations with more debt, potentially leading to their further exploitation.

While in Belém, Brazil, on November 6th, global leaders officially launched the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF), with a collective investment of USD $5.5 billion following an initial US$1 billion committed by Brazil in September this year.

COP30 is the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place in Belém, Brazil, from November 10th to 21st, 2025. UN Climate Change Conferences (or COPs) take place every year, and are the World’s only multilateral decision-making forum on climate change that brings together almost every country.

According to the Fund promoters, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) emerges as an innovative, essential, and strategic financing solution designed to permanently protect tropical forests, the biological and climatic pillars of our planet, through addressing the climate crisis, combating biodiversity loss, and recognizing Indigenous Peoples and traditional Communities in climate justice.

The TFFF’s governance is split into two parts: The Tropical Forest Investment Fund (TFIF), run by the World Bank under its own governance system, responsible for managing investments and deciding how much money is available for forest payments, and the TFFF Secretariat, which oversees monitoring, reporting, and the distribution of those payments to participating countries.

But environmentalists argue that this financial model reveals a more profound, more troubling logic. They say the initiative is a colonial plan by Northern elites, for Northern elites, and designed by wealthy investors who get paid first. At the same time, forest peoples receive only “what is left.”

“TFFF is yet another trap that will not stop deforestation. TFFF is a colonial plan of Northern elites, by Northern elites, and for Northern elites that will make the rich richer by extracting wealth from the global South. Initiatives like this one end up reinforcing a capitalist, racist, colonialist, and patriarchal vision of the world that only deepens the current injustices and manifold crises,” they wrote in a petition calling individuals to join efforts to stop the initiative.

The TFFF claims to be a “new hope” for tropical forests worldwide. However, it’s not designed to address the drivers of deforestation, but to benefit investors in financial markets that are actually driving deforestation.

Far from protecting forests and their communities, this new market-based initiative will actually reinforce a capitalist, racist, colonialist, and patriarchal worldview that only deepens current manifold crises and injustices. It could lead to the displacement of indigenous communities and the loss of their traditional lands, a direct violation of their rights, and a significant social injustice.

The World Bank is set to host the TFIF and influence daily fund management. Activists argue that this Bank has a long record of financing projects that violate community rights, promote industrial plantations, and deepen debt crises in the global South. For instance, the Bank’s support for large-scale infrastructure projects has often led to the displacement of local communities and environmental degradation.

For critics, this is proof that the TFFF is yet another top-down, Northern-led mechanism destined to repeat past failures. Similar initiatives in the past have often failed to address the root causes of deforestation, instead focusing on market-based solutions that benefit investors more than local communities.

It is high time to address the root causes of deforestation: unjust economic relations and trade, land grabbing by agribusiness, and expansion of mining and other extractive industries. These are the systemic issues that perpetuate deforestation and environmental degradation. Our commitment is to resist struggles against large-scale projects that destroy forests and fuel climate chaos. TFFF will undermine solidarity among communities protecting their territories.

By Witness Radio team.

Over the years, the African continent has been damaged by the notion that it has vast and vacant land that is unused or underutilised, waiting to be transformed into industrial farms or profitable carbon markets. This myth, typical of the colonial era ideologies, has justified land grabs, mass displacements, and environmental destruction in the name of development and modernisation.

A new report by the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA) titled “Land Availability and Land-Use Changes in Africa (2025)” dismisses this narrative as misleading. Drawing on satellite data, field research, and interviews with farmers across Africa, including Zambia, Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe, the study reveals that far from being empty, Africa’s landscapes are multifunctional systems that sustain millions of lives.

“Much of the land labelled as “underutilised” is, in fact, used for grazing, shifting cultivation, gathering wild foods, spiritual practices, or is part of ecologically significant systems such as forests, wetlands, or savannahs. These uses are often invisible in formal land registries or economic metrics but are essential for local livelihoods and biodiversity. Moreover, the land often carries layered customary claims and is far from being available for simple expropriation,” says the report.

“Africa has seen three waves of dispossession, and we are in the midst of the third. The first was the alienation of land through conquest and annexation in the colonial period. In some parts of the continent, there have been reversals as part of national liberation struggles and the early independence era. But state developmentalism through the post-colonial period also brought about a second wave of state-driven land dispossession.” This historical context is crucial to understanding the current state of land rights and development in Africa. Said Ruth Hall, a professor at the Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAS), at the University of the Western Cape in Cape Town, South Africa, during the official launch of the report.

The report further underestimates the assumption that smallholder farmers are unproductive and should be replaced with mechanised large-scale farming, leading to a loss of food sovereignty.

“The claim that small-scale farmers are incapable of feeding Africa is not supported by evidence. Africa has an estimated 33 million smallholder farmers, who manage 80% of the continent’s farmland and produce up to 80% of its food. Rather than being inefficient, small-scale agro-ecological farming offers numerous advantages: it is more labour-intensive, resilient to shocks, adaptable to local environments, and embedded in cultural and social life. Dismissing this sector in favour of large-scale, mechanised monocultures undermines food sovereignty, biodiversity, and rural employment.” Reads the Report.

The idea that industrial agriculture will lift millions out of poverty has not materialised. Instead, large-scale agribusiness projects have often concentrated land and wealth in the hands of elites and foreign investors. Job creation has been minimal, as modern farms rely heavily on machinery rather than human labour. Moreover, export-oriented agriculture prioritises global markets over local food security, leaving communities vulnerable to price fluctuations and shortages.

“The promise that agro-industrial expansion will create millions of decent jobs is historically and economically questionable. Agro-industrial models tend to displace labour through mechanisation and concentrate benefits in the hands of large companies. Most industrial agriculture jobs are seasonal, poorly paid, and insecure. In contrast, smallholder farming remains the primary source of employment across Africa, particularly for young people and women. The idea that technology-intensive farming will be a panacea for unemployment ignores the structural realities of African economies and the failures of previous industrialisation efforts.”

Additionally, the assumption that increasing yields and expanding markets will automatically improve food access overlooks the structural causes of food insecurity. People’s ability, particularly that of the poor and marginalised, to access nutritious food depends on land rights, income distribution, gender equity, and the functioning of political systems. In many countries, high agricultural productivity coexists with hunger and malnutrition because food systems are oriented towards export and profit rather than equitable distribution and local nourishment. It highlights the urgent need for equitable food distribution, making the audience more empathetic and aware of the issue.

Furthermore, technological fixes such as improved seeds, synthetic fertilizers, and irrigation are being promoted as solutions to Africa’s food insecurity, but evidence suggests otherwise. The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) spent over a decade pushing such technologies with little success; hunger actually increased in its target countries.

These high-input models overlook local ecological realities and structural inequalities, while increasing dependence on costly external inputs. As a result, smallholders often fall into debt and lose control over their own seeds and farming systems. It underscores the importance of understanding and respecting local ecological realities, making the audience feel more connected and responsible.

Africa is already experiencing an increased and accelerating squeeze on land due to competing demands including rapid population growth and urbanisation, Expansion of mining operations, especially for critical minerals like cobalt, lithium, and rare-earth elements, which are central to the global green transition, The proliferation of carbon-offset projects, often requiring vast tracts of land for afforestation or reforestation schemes that displace existing land users, Rising global demand for timber, which is increasing deforestation and land competition as well as Agricultural expansion for commodity crops, including large-scale plantations of palm oil, sugarcane, tobacco, and rubber.

“In East Africa, we see mass evictions, like the Maasai of Burunguru, forced from their ancestral territories in the name of conservation and tourism. In Central Africa, forests are cleared for mining of transitional minerals, destroying ecosystems and livelihoods. Women, a backbone of Africa’s food production, remain the most affected, and least consulted in decisions over land and resources and things that affect them.” Said Mariam Bassi Olsen from Friends of the Earth Nigeria, and a representative of the Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa.

The report urges a shift away from Africa’s high-tech, market-driven, land-intensive development model toward a just, sustainable, and locally grounded vision by promoting agroecology for food sovereignty, ecological renewal, and rural livelihoods, while reducing the need for land expansion through improved productivity, equitable food distribution, and reduced waste.

Additionally, a call is made for responsible urban planning, sustainable timber management, and reduced mineral demand through circular economies, as well as the legal recognition of customary land rights, especially for women and Indigenous peoples, and adherence to the principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) for all land investments.

By the Witness Radio team.

Despite the challenges, the community in Koch Parish, Nebbi Sub-County, in Nebbi District, near the Congolese border, has shown remarkable resilience. The Army seized approximately 100 acres of land, including private buildings, that members of the local Koch community had used for over 150 years to establish an Army barracks. Their resilience in the face of such a significant loss is genuinely inspiring.

The UPDF, as described on its website, is a nonpartisan force, national in character, patriotic, professional, disciplined, productive, and subordinate to the civilian authority as established under the constitution. Furthermore, it states that its primary interest is to protect Uganda and Africa at large, providing a safe and secure environment in which all Ugandan citizens can live and prosper.

However, according to a whistleblower, when the UPDF seized their land, no military chiefs offered prior communication, consultation, compensation, or resettlement. Instead, Uganda’s national Army only occupied people’s land forcefully, and not even the section commanders offered an official explanation.

“Citizens just woke up to a massive Army deployment in their fields,” wrote a whistleblower in an exchange with Witness Radio.

The occupied area in Koch Parish is not just a piece of land, but a home to the members of the Pangero chiefdom. This community belongs to the Alur kingdom, which spans north-western Congo and western Uganda, north of Lake Albert.

The reality and daily life of the Pangero community, which typically lives in a closely connected and communal manner, have been significantly impacted by the loss of both private and communal land. Not only is the cultural identity associated with land and community life at risk, but access to cultural sites, such as the graves of ancestors, is now denied.

Members of the local community who resisted the unlawful seizure of their land were reported to have been harassed and defamed. Despite these challenges, they continue to fight for their rights, making negotiations with the UPDF significantly more challenging.

Beyond the human suffering, the takeover also raises serious legal questions under Ugandan land law. Under Ugandan law, this action by the UPDF constitutes an illegal act. In principle, the government and, by extension, the Army are entitled to take over land if it is in the public interest, and are subject to fairly compensating the landowners.

However, this is subject to the condition that their intention is clearly communicated in advance and that negotiations take place with the previous residents, resulting in a mutual agreement on the necessary and appropriate compensation.

When faced with community resistance, the Army was compelled to conduct a survey and valuation of the land occupied by the UPDF in 2023 and 2024.  However, land defenders in the area claim that the process was marred by irregularities in some cases, against the will and in the absence of many landowners.

“The community was also pressured by the Koch Land Committee responsible for the review. Despite that it was supposed to represent the local population, it was not democratically elected by consensus, as is tradition in Alur communities, and was comprised of an imposed elite.” A local defender told Witness Radio

At an announcement meeting facilitated by officials from the UPDF Land Board, their national surveyor, and the Commander of Koch Army Barracks on September 19, 2025, community members were compelled to sign documents for meager compensation for land that had been seized five years prior.

“Residents whose land was surveyed before were given two choices: To sell their land to the Army by accepting the offered compensation, or to refuse the UPDF’s offer. In the latter case, however, it would be necessary to contact the Army headquarters in Mbuya, which is far away, to assert one’s claims or submit a petition.” Says another defender. Despite signing for this money, as of the writing of this article, the community claims it had never received it, almost two months later.

Mr Opio Okech, who attended the meeting himself, disapproves that this equates to a forced decision to sell, as the further necessary measures seem almost impossible for those affected without legal knowledge or external support.

“The problem here from the government was to enter upon the land, stay for long without adequate awareness creation, then decide we are going nowhere. Come for compensation. This looks, smells, and walks like a forceful eviction, “he mentions.

The effects of forced land acquisition by the UPDF in Koch Parish pose a high risk of home and landlessness, rises in youth criminality, and recurring poverty, primarily affecting women and children. Furthermore, the dispersal of the traditional community of the Pangero chiefdom is most likely to result in a severe loss of cultural heritage.

The Ugandan government has a duty here to look after the needs of this traditional community beyond compensation. This could include providing alternative land on which the traditional communal way of life could continue.

Witness Radio had not received a response from Army spokesperson Mr. Felix Kulayigye regarding the land grab, despite several attempts. However, since the initial takeover in 2020, another land grab by the same agency is looming in the same Kochi community for the expansion of the Army barracks.

According to sources, the UPDF intends to acquire more than 1,000 acres in total, nearly half of Koch Parish, leaving residents in fear and uncertainty.

“People are now panicking because they have heard speculations that more land is being

targeted for expansion. They are concerned about the impunity of the national Army, since the land that was grabbed five years ago has not been paid for, and now there are reports that more than 1,000 acres of community land are being targeted.” Mr. Okello further revealed.

The fate of the Pangero chiefdom is not an isolated case. Across Uganda, communal lands belonging to traditional clans and kingdoms continue to face similar threats from investors and state actors. Although Ugandan law recognizes customary ownership, enforcement often remains weak, and those affected rarely have access to the information or resources needed to defend their rights.