Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

The EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025 targets organic seeds, aiming to replace them with modified seeds, say smallholder farmers.

Published

on

By Witness Radio team.

Ssetabi Rauben, a smallholder farmer from Kicuculo village in Mubende district, has a deep connection to farming that dates back to his youth. His personal journey into farming, driven by his family’s need for a livelihood, is a testament to the importance of smallholder farmers in our agricultural system. Ssetabi’s story is just one of many that highlight the potential impact of the EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025 on individual farmers.

“With no chance for going further in education, my father gave me land to start a living, and I had to move on. I didn’t go far with my education, so the only resort was to do agriculture since it was my family’s source of living,” He said in an interview with the Witness Radio team.

At 26, Ssetabi, a father of one, dedicates most of his two-acre farm to maize and beans. However, his future in farming, a field he knows best, is under threat. The local seeds he relies on may be outlawed by the 2025 Seed and Plant Varieties Bill of the EAC, potentially dimming his hopes.

The Seeds and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025, recently introduced by the Council of Ministers of the East African Community (EAC), is part of a long-term drive to unify seed regulations across the region.

The draft Bill, as witnessed by Witness Radio, aims to provide for the coordination of evaluation, release, and registration of plant varieties among Partner States; to establish standard processes for seed certification and protection of plant varieties within the Community; and to provide for related matters. According to its promoters, the Bill, based on Article 106 of the Treaty, aims to provide for seed certification, testing, and marketing, thereby facilitating and creating an enabling environment for private sector seed multiplication and distribution.

However, the bill has sparked opposition from civil society organizations, farmer networks, and development partners across the EAC. They argue that it could consolidate corporate control over seeds, curtail the rights of smallholder farmers, and jeopardize agro-biodiversity.

Further, analysis by experts reveals that provisions that risk restricting farmers’ traditional practices of saving, exchanging, and selling seed could have far-reaching consequences for food security, agro-biodiversity, and the livelihoods of millions of rural households.

According to civil society organizations, the Bill threatens to criminalize or restrict traditional practices like breeding, saving, sharing, exchanging, and selling farm-saved seeds. It supports breeders’ rights instead of farmers’ rights. The Bill places a heavy focus on commercial and certified seeds, which could undermine the diverse, locally adapted varieties essential for resilience against climate change, pests, and diseases. This overlooks the importance of farmer-managed seed systems, which are not only central to rural livelihoods and food sovereignty but also an integral part of our cultural heritage.

Many voices warn of serious weaknesses of the bill, which lead to further marginalization of indigenous and smallholder farmers and offer no legal recognition or protection for local farmer-managed seed systems. Despite this, smallholder farmers who are likely to be affected produce the highest amounts of food in the world.

In a critical discussion about the draft bill by Civil Society Organisations and smallholder farmers across East Africa and beyond, several experts on the topic voiced their concerns. Their united front of opposition, a powerful force against the bill, underscores the collective voice’s strength in shaping the bill’s fate.

Dr Peter Munyi, a professional lawyer with extensive experience in agricultural law, explained that the draft stipulates strict testing procedures for seed varieties, with criteria such as distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability being decisive for seed approval. He, however, mentioned that indigenous or farmer-managed seed systems, which are crucial for biodiversity and local food security, are often unable to meet these criteria.

He added, “The testing takes place in laboratories and the value for use and cultivation entails multi-location trials, which is also very expensive, and the only people who can really afford these tests would be commercial seed breeders, perhaps research institutions that USDA and other agencies also fund.”

Mariam Mayet, Executive Director of the African Center for Biodiversity, revealed that the bill is discriminatory and inequitable in its approach because it doesn’t treat all farmers and seeds equally. Her insights add weight to the concerns raised by smallholder farmers and civil society organizations.

Considering the reality of the lives of small-holding farmers, such as Mr. Ssetabi, it is clear that the bill would place an unreasonable burden on the local small farming community.

“We plant and replant our seeds. Our system, inherited from our fathers, has always involved

harvesting, selecting the best breeds, and replanting them; now, if there is a shift as the bill proposes. It’s challenging for people like me because seeds can be expensive at times. Having to buy new seeds every planting season will deepen us into poverty, and people will soon abandon agriculture for those with money.” This financial burden is a stark reality for smallholder farmers like Ssetabi, and the bill only exacerbates their economic struggles.

Considering that smallholder farmers like Ssetabi contribute significantly to the World’s food production, the potential impact of the bill on food security is a cause for concern. Once this bill is passed, there will be a burden on food security and, hence, an increase in poverty levels. The bill’s potential impact on food security cannot be overstated, making it a critical issue for all stakeholders.

Smallholder farming accounts for approximately 75 percent of agricultural production and over 75 percent of employment in East Africa, with up to 70–80 % of seeds planted originating from farmer-managed seed systems. The bill must be reconsidered in light of these implications to prevent a potential crisis. The significant role of smallholder farmers in East Africa’s agricultural sector underscores the urgency of this issue.

“Yet, these systems are in no way recognized in the draft Bill, and the provisions of the bill would install new barriers for farmers’ seed systems and prohibit the saving, reuse, exchange, selling, and sharing in the seed system”. A civil society network raised the alarm.

Ssetabi says. “Some of us rent land, so this is another challenge. Such seeds also need fertilizers.

Now, look at the costs of renting land, seeds, and fertilizers. Don’t you think this is a ploy to remove us from the farming system?” He questioned.

The concern over the bill extends beyond Uganda to other countries where it is being introduced. In Kenya, for example, farmers and the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service (KEPHIS)—a government parastatal mandated to ensure the quality of agricultural inputs and produce, thereby safeguarding the economy, the environment, and human health—rejected the bill. They warned that its enactment could weaken government oversight and expose farmers to substandard and counterfeit seeds.

“Giving seed producers the responsibility to determine the quality of their own seeds will erode government oversight and compromise seed quality,” The Managing Director of KEPHIS, Prof Theophilus Mutui, mentioned in an article published by the Eastleigh Voice.

Civil society organizations appeal that if the bill is to proceed, it must include strong, explicit protections for smallholder farmers, particularly around exceptions to breeders’ rights.

Additionally, stakeholders should advocate for a separate legal framework or policy that recognises and supports farmer-managed seed systems. Without such measures, the region risks enshrining a seed regime that deepens inequality, erodes biodiversity, and undermines the right to food.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

NEMA says it is restoring wetlands, but poor urban families say it is using the exercise to grab their land for new infrastructure projects – now they demand compensation and resettlement.

Published

on

By Witness Radio Team.

Hundreds of residents of Kawaala Zone II in Kampala accuse the National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) of double standards and of targeting their land for upcoming mega projects. They say they have lawfully occupied it since the 1940s.

NEMA has already evicted dozens of urban poor families, but the operation was halted after engagement with the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) until a district environmental community is established.

NEMA is using the 1995 NEMA Act to carry out what it calls a “wetland restoration exercise,” but victim families call it an institutional failure to verify who lawfully occupies the land, conduct a feasibility study, and establish the cause of flooding before designating the area as wetlands.

The urban poor families, many of whom possess legally recognized land ownership documents, argue that earlier government projects such as the Uganda National Road Authority’s Northern By-Pass Road in 2004, the National Water and Sewerage Corporation’s sewage plant in 2010, and the Second Kampala Institutional and Infrastructural Development Project (KIIDP2) in 2020 compensated them, with the matter ending in World Bank-led mediation in 2024.

NEMA, which participated in the KIIIDP2 mediation as an expert agency and agreed that Kawaala is not part of the designated wetlands in Kampala, is now carrying out an eviction against the Kawaala families without due process, including sensitization, consultation, or resettlement.

“We have lived on this land for decades. We did not find a wetland here; the flooding has been caused by infrastructure projects, and we found ourselves in floods, but this is not a wetland,” Mrs. Namala Christine, who occupied the said land in 1968, told Witness Radio.

According to the residents, NEMA neither verified their ownership records nor afforded them an opportunity to be heard before issuing eviction notices.

“We only received notices ordering us to vacate. We don’t even know where the wetland is found because NEMA has never indicated that to us and sensitized us about what a wetland is,” said Abbas Ssegujja.

Kasozi says the infrastructure projects that compensated residents also changed the area’s natural landscape. He explained that the construction of the Northern Bypass, the Lubigi Sewerage Treatment Plant, commissioned in 2010, and drainage works under the first Kampala Institutional and Infrastructure Development Project (KIIDP I) altered water flows and gradually turned formerly dry land into waterlogged areas by diverting drainage water.

The second phase of the Kampala Institutional and Infrastructure Development Project (KIIDP II), financed by the World Bank, further affected residents as water flooded their homesteads.

In 2020, the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), supported by government agencies including the Uganda Police Force, the Uganda People’s Defense Forces (UPDF), and NEMA, moved to evict residents to facilitate the expansion of the Lubigi Drainage Channel. The operation was carried out without prior consultation or compensation, while KCCA alleged that the affected residents had illegally settled in a protected wetland.

Following advocacy by Witness Radio and Accountability Counsel through the World Bank’s accountability mechanism, residents were eventually compensated for losses from that project.

“Every project that took our land compensated us. But the environmental impacts they left behind have been devastating. What was once dry land has gradually become waterlogged, making life increasingly difficult,” Kasozi said.

Asked about the recent Kawaala evictions, NEMA Public Relations Officer William Lubuulwa said the Authority is carrying out environmental restoration under the National Environment Act, Cap. 181.

“It may be true that some people in Kawaala have land records or title deeds. NEMA is not saying they do not own land. What concerns us is how that land is used. Wetlands are not supposed to accommodate residential developments. Our role is to guide and sensitize these people on how to use this land. We therefore required them to vacate,” Lubuulwa told Witness Radio through WhatsApp.

However, when asked whether NEMA had previously guided the community on lawful land use or undertaken public sensitization before issuing eviction notices, he did not respond.

Regarding residents’ demands for compensation, Lubuulwa said the law does not allow compensating individuals responsible for degrading wetlands, and the residents are asking the Authority to reconsider its position.

“The Act does not work that way. A person who destroys a wetland may face a fine of up to Shs600 million or up to 12 years’ imprisonment. Government cannot compensate people for degrading wetlands,” he said.

The residents dispute NEMA’s characterization of them as wetland encroachers, saying many settled on the land decades before Uganda enacted the National Environment Statute in 1995, and when their land was not flooding.

The Buganda Land Board (BLB), which administers the land on behalf of the Buganda Kingdom, has acknowledged NEMA’s mandate to regulate environmentally sensitive areas while urging authorities to respect landowners’ rights.

It should be remembered that the evictees are bibanja holders on Buganda Kingdom mailo land in Uganda. According to documents our team has seen, they have paid busuulu, or ground rent, which they say legitimizes their land ownership.

Uganda has four tenure systems: Mailo, Freehold, customary, and leasehold. Mailo is categorized into two: private Mailo and official Mailo. In Kawaala Zone II, residents have been settling on official Mailo owned by the Buganda Kingdom.

Under Ugandan law, a Kibanja holder is a tenant who uses land without an official, registered title. Under the 1995 Constitution of Uganda and the Land Act (Cap 236), Kibanja holders are legally recognized as lawful or bona fide occupants. This gives them security of tenure and protects them from arbitrary or illegal evictions.

In a 2024 statement, the Kingdom’s Minister for Information and spokesperson, Israel Kazibwe Kitooke, cited Section 44 of the Land Act, noting that although NEMA regulates land use in wetlands and forest reserves, enforcement should follow proper procedures that protect people’s property rightThe Kingdom further urged NEMA to ensure that affected residents are not deprived of their property without due process and proper consideration, and to act accordingly.gly.

Speaking to Witness Radio, BLB Land Relations Officer Fred Kibuuka explained that paying busuulu, or ground rent, to the Buganda Land Board does not determine how land may be used.

“BLB does not regulate land use. NEMA has the responsibility to ensure environmental protection while also respecting landowners’ rights,” he said.

It should also be noted that both the Buganda Land Board and bibanja holders in Kawaala Zone II received compensation during the World Bank-funded Lubigi drainage project, KIIDP II. According to Kibuuka, this happened because each held legally recognized interests in the land, which appears inconsistent with NEMA’s current position that compensation should not be paid in wetland cases.

Victim families alleged that NEMA is targeting their land for a mega project and that their eviction is not about wetland encroachment. They said officials had earlier leaked information that several projects were being considered for their land before NEMA demolished their homes.

NEMA’s nationwide wetland restoration campaign intensified in 2024 as the government stepped up efforts to reclaim degraded wetlands. Restoration operations have since been carried out in some parts of the country before some of the Kawaala families were evicted and left homeless.

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

“No Land, No Life” – Women at the East Africa Convergence Refuse to Move out Quietly

Published

on

They came from forests, coastlines, grazing territories, and farmlands. In total, 45 women from Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania and communities across DRC, South Africa, and Zimbabwe gathered in Limuru, Kenya, for the East Africa Land and Climate Justice Convergence. Through plenaries and group discussions, storytelling, drawings and celebrations, they shared stories of trauma, injustice and despair. But they also told stories of resilience, movement building and leadership in the fight against land dispossession and big extractive projects. Each discussion reinforced that protecting the commons through collective stewardship is a powerful alternative to the current development model that encloses, destroys and dispossesses people and the environment.

(Day One Women’s Land and Climate Convergence 2026 graphic documentation. Image: WoMin)

A central theme throughout the convergence was the role of indigenous knowledge systems in the protection and care of communal land. The women participants shared various examples of governance practices that enable balance between human and non-human life, resolving conflicts, and sustained territories across generations.

Identifying the patterns across struggles

The women were very clear about the struggles they faced and could name the forces behind them. Across all the countries represented, women identified the same patterns: government gazette communal land and other resources, corporations move in, laws are poorly enforced, and Indigenous voices are pushed out. In this process, women suffer the most. They suffer twice — they lose land, and they carry the burden of survival when food, water, and dignity disappear.

Participants pointed to problems within their communal governance, which often grants women little to no control of the communal resources even though women are the primary users and the most consistent stewards of these resources. Alongside privatisation, male dominating structures in the governing systems of the commons continue to undermine women’s rights, agency and leadership.

Despite enclosure and violence, communities keep holding each other. In Namakwaland, South Africa, women organise protests against mining related dispossession. In Loliondo, Tanzania, a union of 50 women is taking land cases to the African Court in Arusha. In Kenya, the Ogiek fought 17 years through domestic courts until the African Court ordered reparations in 2022. In each of these iconic struggles, and many others across the continent, women are at the centre of the evidence, the advocacy, and the resistance.

(Day Two Women’s Land and Climate Convergence 2026 graphic documentation. Image: WoMin)

“Protecting land means protecting life”

The convergence was not an end. It was a vessel to bring women together to deepen analysis and understanding of the struggles of the commons as well as to identify collective action. And the women planned – they spoke of the need for cross-country radical solidarity, mental health support programs for the women in the frontline of the resistance, political and leadership development trainings, and support for strategic litigation as tools to enhance the struggle.

While the convergence is over, the struggle is not. As one participant said: “Maybe the biggest thing we found here is each other. We are not just fighting for land. We are fighting for a way of living where no one is left behind.”

Because as women from Turkana reminded us: “No land, no life. Protecting land means protecting life.”

(Day Three Women’s Land and Climate Convergence 2026 graphic documentation. Image: WoMin)

The graphic documentation shown throughout this article was developed in collaboration with Kenyan artist, MariaStella Kamuti. Each piece offers visual representation of the daily critical conversations and knowledge-sharing that took place throughout the convergence. They also serve as important popular education tools as we cultivate and expland the Land Commons and Care thematic area of work in East Africa and across the continent.

Source: Womin.africa

Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Climate Change and Conflict : The Agony of Kasese Farmers.

Published

on

As climate change impacts various parts of the globe, Kasese District in South-Western Uganda serves as a stark example of environmental vulnerability. Global warming has accelerated the melting of glaciers in the Rwenzori Mountains. Satellite data from scientific monitoring groups reveals a striking 30% reduction in ice surface area between 2020 and 2024.

For the farming communities of Munkunyu Sub-county, this environmental challenge has created a complex crisis. The altered landscape has heightened resource competition between local Bakonzo crop farmers and Basongora cattle keepers from neighbouring Nyakatonzi Sub-county, as both communities navigate severe strains put on nature and land.

Why the land crisis is growing

Before diving deeper into the unfolding situation on the ground, it is critical to understand the primary triggers forcing these communities into confrontation:

The Glacial Melt: A 30% loss of Rwenzori ice cover in just four years is drastically altering local river volumes and weather predictability.

The Climate Double-Whammy: Farmers and pastoralists are trapped in a punishing cycle of back-to-back disasters, first catastrophic flash floods, immediately followed by extreme dry spells that leave no grass for livestock or food for households.

How floods and hungry cattle sparked a quiet war

Just eight months ago, Munkunyu’s farming families faced severe flash floods that wiped out their entire agricultural investments. In the wake of these disasters, herdsmen seeking surviving pastures moved their cattle directly into the cultivation zones. Farmers report that on 30 May 2026, livestock grazed across 217 hectares of food crops. This created immense economic and psychological strain for hundreds of households already struggling with food insecurity and school fee obligations.

Wide acres of local farmland left bare and ruined after hungry cows moved into cultivation zones to eat growing food crops. (Photo Credit: KYL)

Matsiko Loyce, a local councillor and farmer, outlines the collective weight of losing both crops and land resources:

“In October last year, we lost our crops to floods. As we began to recover with hopes of feeding our families, livestock grazed on our remaining income. It is a deeply distressing situation.”

Local herds of cattle walk through agricultural fields, destroying the remaining green crops. (Photo Credit: KYL)

The escalating pressure soon led to physical friction. When local youths attempted to block cattle from entering the remaining fields, a violent altercation broke out. Matsiko emphasises the critical need for peaceful intervention:

“Two young men trying to protect the crops were injured during the confrontation. The matter has been formally reported to the police to ensure a peaceful, lawful resolution.”

The broken 15 million shilling compensation deal

Following local mediation efforts, the pastoralists initially agreed to a compensation package of 15 million Ugandan Shillings (approx. $4,110 USD) for the 150 hectares of ruined crops.

However, the agreement faced a major setback when the June 12 deadline arrived. The pastoralists shifted their position, offering to pay only 5 million shillings (approx. $1,370 USD) with no clear assurance of whether or when the remaining 10 million shilling balance (approx. $2,740 USD) would be paid. The farmers reportedly refused this reduced offer, demanding the full fulfillment of the original 15 million shilling agreement. According to human rights defenders monitoring the situation, this delay has severely fractured community trust.

A history of lost grazing land

This resource competition is deeply linked to historical migration patterns. The Basongora are an ancient pastoralist community whose traditional lifestyle was disrupted between 1925 and 1954. During this time, colonial administrations gazetted over 90% of their ancestral grazing lands to establish Queen Elizabeth National Park.

Displaced and hit by a devastating rinderpest epidemic in 1931, many Basongora crossed into the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) before returning to Kasese in subsequent decades. Concurrently, the Bakonzo have long cultivated food and cash crops in lowlands like Nyakatonzi and Munkunyu. While these groups have maintained a delicate coexistence for decades, accelerating climate change has disrupted that balance, renewing historical anxieties over land access.

Bakonzo and Basongora elders convene near the boundary of Queen Elizabeth National Park to initiate a collaborative resource-sharing framework aimed at preventing future land disputes. (Photo Credit: KYL)

Choosing to survive together over fighting

Kato Ronald, the Executive Director of Kasese Youth Link and a human rights defender, appeals for structured mediation over conflict:

“Both the livestock and the human populations require sustenance. There is an urgent need to resolve this climate-induced conflict through a framework that ensures human security.”

Local leaders call for dialogue

As the conflict drags on, local leaders are calling for restorative justice rather than increased criminalisation to prevent further escalation. Mr. Ndyoka Isaac Kabunzu, the LCIII Chairperson for Munkunyu Sub-county, noted that recent arrests

have only heightened anxieties.

“These developments have increased community tension. Any individuals held without sufficient evidence should be released. Sustainable peace requires structural intervention over criminalisation.”

Kabunzu strongly advocated for a transparent judicial review, urging district leaders, security agencies, cultural institutions, and all stakeholders to immediately convene a dialogue aimed at addressing the root causes.

While the air in Munkunyu remains tense as communities await a resolution to the compensation agreement, the path forward relies on restoring mutual trust, establishing green compensation frameworks, and choosing joint survival over resource division.

Source: Peace Journalism Foundation East Africa

Continue Reading

Resource Center

Legal Framework

READ BY CATEGORY

Facebook

Newsletter

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates



Trending

Subscribe to Witness Radio's news and report updates