Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Trees for Global Benefits: “Climate neutral” burgers in Sweden. Starvation in Uganda

Published

2 years ago

on

The Swedish fast food chain Max Burgers AB claims to have had more than three million trees planted in the tropics. “Planting trees is an effective way to remove carbon dioxide,” the company states on its website. “Since 2018, MAX has been funding trees that capture the equivalent of 110% of our entire value chain’s greenhouse gas emissions.”

But a new investigation by Staffan Lindberg in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet reveals that some of the farmers in Uganda who planted trees for Max Burgers carbon credits are now cutting down the trees and making them into charcoal. The farmers faced starvation, because the trees were planted on their farmland.

Max Burgers buys carbon credits from a project in Uganda called Trees for Global Benefits, that has been running since 2003. The project is managed by a Ugandan organisation called Ecotrust.

Under the scheme, farmers plant trees on their land and receive income from the sales of carbon credits. It is certified under the Plan Vivo standard.

According to the Plan Vivo website,

The project operates as a market-based solution that reduces unsustainable exploitation of forest resources and the decline of ecosystem quality, while diversifying and increasing incomes for rural farmers and their families.

In 2013, the project won an award from SEED, which was founded by UNEP, UNDP, and IUCN. In a video produced by SEED, Pauline Nantongo Kalunda, the executive director of Ecotrust, says, “The main objective of this enterprise is to combine carbon sequestration activity with livelihoods improvements.”

Kalunda is on the Board of Trustees of Plan Vivo.

Share

The hunger forest

Lindberg calls the Ecotrust project the “hunger forest”. Ecotrust persuaded farmers to plant trees on land where they grew crops. But the farmers had only small areas of land. When the trees took over the land, the farmers could no longer grow food for their families.

The Aftonbladet investigation is not the first critique of the Trees for Global Benefits project. In 2017, Elina Andersson and Wim Carton from Lund University wrote a study that highlights problems with the project. “Our study shows that there is widespread confusion among farmers about what the project is basically about,” Andersson and Carton write.

Farmers did not know who was buying the carbon credits.

One farmer said,

They do not have many benefits, these carbon trees. They are not easily grown and they take time. I had to replace so many of them because they dried out. They started to dry from the top and then they refused to grow. I wouldn’t plant these trees again, but rather eucalyptus and maybe some fruit trees.

Farmers had to pay the full cost of replacing damaged and dead trees, regardless of whether the trees were damaged by fire, vandalism, insects, or wild animals.

Andersson and Carton write about the “flawed basis on which the local population had the opportunity to make informed decisions regarding participation” in the tree planting project.

Contracts were written in English which few of the villagers speak.

Almost all the farmers they spoke to said they did not know how much compensation they would receive from the project. One farmer told Andersson and Carton that,

People planted trees before they knew how much they would get. And they did not negotiate the price with the buyers. So they don’t know if they got all their money, or if they just got half of it. If you tell prices in terms of percentage, how can an old man understand? They are not giving the correct information. transparency is lacking. Most people don’t even know what they are selling.

Lack of land is a major problem in the project area, Andersson and Carton note, particularly among the poorest households.

“It cannot be ruled out that,” they write, “through the project, poor small farmers risk being locked into a type of land use for a long time that reduces their ability to adapt to deal with temporary crises as well as long-term changes, which in the worst case can mean long-term negative effects on their life situation.”

They also note that payments from Ecotrust are often greatly delayed or not received at all.

In 2019, an article in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter took a critical look at the Trees for Global Benefits project.

And in 2022, Global Forest Coalition published a report about the project with the title, “A case study on the failures of carbon offsetting”. The researchers spoke to more than 100 community members. They write that,

The clear message from all communities was that the project was not delivering its promised benefits, and participants were growing increasingly bitter and desperate.

The lead author of the report was David Kureeba, a programme officer with Friends of the Earth Uganda.

The report concludes that the Trees for Global Benefits project “is one of a growing number of global greenwashing exercises that are not only failing to reduce the amount of carbon being released into the atmosphere but also inflicting adverse environmental, social, and economic impacts on the local communities involved”.

“A chance to earn money”

Aftenbladet’s journalist Staffan Lindberg and photographer Niclas Hammarström travel to the project area in Uganda. There they find farmers cutting down the trees, to sell them as charcoal.

A farmer called Samuel Byarugaba tells Lindberg that a man from Ecotrust turned up eight years ago. He said Ecotrust could offer the family a chance to earn money.

Samuel signed the contract despite having only two acres of land, and the fact that all his land was being used to grow food. He didn’t receive a copy of the contract. The man from Ecotrust later showed him how to plant the trees, seven metres apart. That was the only education he received about tree planting.

After three years, the trees formed a canopy over the food crops. The trees took the light, the water, and the nutrients. Samuel’s sweet potatoes and bananas died. Nothing could grow under the trees. Samuel, his wife, and 15 children and grandchildren were without food.

He tells Lindberg,

“I used to be something called a model farmer. People came to me to learn about farming and I was proud to show our farm. We had enough food to eat our fill and were able to sell the excess. Now everything disappeared.”

The first payment from Ecotrust should have come in the first year. When it arrived, one year later, it was equivalent to a little more than US$100. Enough for a couple of weeks of food.

Samuel has only received two more payments of the same amount since then. He has been forced to beg from relatives for his family to survive.

Lindberg reports that now he’s cutting all the trees down. He will plant bananas and sweet potatoes again.

“My children have no food”

Rosset Kyampaire is a widow, and mother of four. She has only one acre of land. Ecotrust still persuaded her to sign the contract.

She planted 200 trees on her land. After two years, the beans and cassava withered. After three years, she had no harvest at all.

After eight years, she has received no money from Ecotrust. Instead she got excuses: “This is how white people work,” and “Have patience,” and “It will arrive later this year.”

To survive, she has to work as a day labourer on other people’s farms. She earns less than US$1.5 a day. It’s not enough.

“I am so stressed,” Rosset tells Lindberg. “My children have no food.”

She has already started cutting down the trees. “It’s my only chance,” she says.

Where is the food? Look around, where is it?

Jorum Baslina is a local leader in the village of Kigaaga. He also joined the project. “Ecotrust just wants to grow as many trees as possible,” he tells Lindberg. “They urge us: plant more!”

Jorum says there is no transparency. Ecotrust did not tell the farmers how much they would receive, or why the money has not been paid. He shows Lindberg a contract, written in English, and says that,

Many here can barely write their own names. And almost no one knows English. Why don’t we get the agreement in our own language? And why doesn’t it say how much we should get?

Jorum has acted as a spokesperson for other people involved in Ecotrust’s project. He says that of the 100 farmers he’s in contact with, only six or seven are happy with the project and they had unused land to plant on and were the first to join.

“The rest of us are much poorer than before,” Jorum tells Lindberg. “Almost everyone has started cutting down the trees or is planning to do so. Where is the food? Look around, where is it?”

“We are starving”

Ecotrust came to Herbert Rukundo’s farm nine years ago and promised that the trees would bring money, every year. Herbert tells Lindberg that,

We dreamed of being able to keep the children in school and maybe rebuild the house a little so that it was beautiful, even buying a motorcycle to drive to church. Instead we were forced to starve. Now we’ve chopped it all down and turned it into charcoal.

Last year, Herbert cut down all his trees. Not long afterwards, the coordinator from Ecotrust visited his farm and accused Herbert of breach of contract. The Ecotrust coordinator threatened that if Herbert did not replant all the trees he would have to face the police and prison.

Hubert replied that as things are, “We are starving.”

Hubert tells Lindberg that Ecotrust didn’t want to listen. “Now I can’t sleep at night,” he says.

Mauda Twinomngisha wanted to send her three daughters to university. “I wanted them to have a better life than me and my husband had. It was for their future that we signed up,” she tells Lindberg.

But when the food disappeared, she had to take the girls out of school. All three have been married off as child brides, aged 14, 15, and 16.

Two years ago, Mauda decided to cut down the trees. “Then a woman from Ecotrust came here,” she tells Lindberg. The woman was very angry. She told Mauda to remove her bananas and plant trees. “But we had no choice,” Mauda says.

Wilson Akiiza and Violet Mbabaazi planted 600 trees on their three acres of land. “Now we have no food”, Wilson tells Lindberg. “Ecotrust never explained how much money I would get, only that it would come every year. Now I am the coordinator for 89 farmers who are part of the project. Nobody has food.”

Robert Sunday has also cut down all his Ecotrust “carbon trees” and made charcoal with them. With the money from the charcoal, he will buy cassava plants.

In the 10 years since he planted the trees, he received two payments, of about US$50 each.

He has only one acre, from which he used to feed 10 people. “Ecotrust must have understood that the family would never make it,” Lindberg writes. “Nevertheless, they were pushed to plant.”

Auditor: “Food security not an issue”

Aftonbladet’s research team visited nine farms in two districts, Hoima and Kikuube. All of them planted trees for Ecotrust on land that they previously used for growing crops. Hunger was the result.

One family received no money at all. All of the others received fewer payments than the contract promised. Ecotrust has not explained to any of them why the money has not been paid out.

None of the nine families has received enough money to cover the cost of food lost to the “carbon trees”.

None of the families could explain how carbon trading works, who bought the carbon credits, or how much money they should have received. Most of them did not receive a copy of the contract they signed.

Two of the families told Lindberg that they were forced to marry off underage daughters.

One eight of the farms, all or some of the trees have now been cut down to make way for food crops. The timber has been sold as charcoal.

Lindberg acknowledges that the Aftonbladet research is not comprehensive. Several thousand farmers are involved in the project, spread over a large area.

But David Kureeba, the lead author of Global Forest Coalition’s 2022 report about the project, tells Lindberg that the problem is widespread and systemic. “We are 45 million people crowded in Uganda,” Kureeba says, “and the vast majority are already living on the verge of starvation. They have no land to spare.”

The Global Forest Coalition report is based on interviews with more than 100 farmers. That report came out 18 months ago. “Since then the situation has worsened further,” Lindberg writes. “Why haven’t those responsible reacted?”

Under Plan Vivo’s rules, the project has to be inspected every six years. The most recent audit was in 2019, carried out by Environmental Services, Inc, a US-based company.

The lead verifier was Guy Pinjuv, who has since moved on to become Senior Advisor for Carbon and MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification) at Conservation International.

A 2017 article describes Pinjuv’s US$600,000 house that he built in Nevada on a one acre plot of land that he bought for just US$150,000 in 2014. In the article, Pinjuv describes his work:

“If someone wants to slow down deforestation, I’m the guy who goes and checks to make sure they calculated everything correctly. And if there’s a tribe there, I’m the guy who goes and meets the chief and makes sure they’re not planning a revolution . . . that sort of stuff.”

The 2019 Environmental Services audit report states that, “In general food security does not appear to be an issue and project activities are maintaining or increasing food production.” There is no mention of the systemic hunger that, as Lindberg writes, “seems to be integrated into the core of the project”.

“Africa’s poor, who did the least to cause the climate crisis, will pay the price when we have to change,” Lindberg writes.

Lindberg highlights the inequity of the situation. “At Swedish hamburger restaurants, guests order from climate-neutral menus. In the hunger forest, the children wait in vain for food.”

Source: reddmonitor.substack.com

Related posts:

Some of the community smallholder farmers cultivating on their farm land.
Protect family farming land to guarantee global food sovereignty and Climate change adaptation and mitigation – Global conference on Family Farming. Uganda is Getting 3 Million New Trees Sweden postpones carbon payment to Uganda tree farm where locals have been evicted Uganda reverses forest destruction by inviting in … loggers Starvation is rooming in Kiryandongo district as families count losses after missing the seventh planting season consecutively to a multinational.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Ten out of sixteen Rooted in Resistance activists now face charges and have been sent to Luzira Prison after standing up against Uganda’s oil development.

Published

1 day ago

on

September 1, 2026

By

By the Witness Radio Team

Ten young members of the Rooted in Resistance Movement have been charged by a Buganda Road Court magistrate and sent to Luzira Prison after their arrest during a protest challenging Uganda’s oil projects.

On Monday morning, August 31, 2026, the activists joined over 16 members of their youth-led movement in a bold attempt to deliver petitions to Parliament and TotalEnergies’ offices in Kampala, voicing strong opposition to Uganda’s ongoing investment in fossil fuel projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline (EACOP).

After a night in police custody, ten of the activists were brought before the Buganda Road Chief Magistrate’s Court on Tuesday, September 1.

They were charged with being a nuisance on a public road, contrary to Section 67(1)(c) of the Roads Act, Cap. 346.

The accused, Rahmah Namuddu, Dorothy Asio, Sharifah Nantongo, Sharon Shaluwatino, Nyamadri Lucky, Daniel Mugabe, Shakirah Kasoga, Isaac Akampurira, Ivan Ochola and Enock Opolot pleaded not guilty to the charges read to them.

The activists were represented by lawyers Counsel Peter Odur and Counsel Doreen Namara. The court subsequently remanded them to Luzira Prison until September 18, 2026.

The remaining six activists arrested during the protest were still being held at Wandegeya Police Station by Tuesday. They are Mukiibi Isaac, Mawanda Arafat, Mugerwa Nicholas, Opio Innocent, Friday John and Onyango Ronald.

The arrests followed a vivid demonstration in which activists, clad in orange T-shirts emblazoned with “Rooted in Resistance,” marched with banners and placards denouncing Uganda’s oil ambitions.

Among the messages displayed were “No to Oil,” “Oil is temporary, nature is permanent,” and “Uganda deserves an oil-free future.”

Rooted in Resistance, once called Students Against EACOP, has become a persistent voice against fossil fuel expansion in Uganda, especially targeting EACOP and the Tilenga oil project.

In a statement shared on social media, the movement emphasized its commitment to non-violence as Uganda nears oil production. The activists insisted that economic progress must not silence those who dare to question it.

The group demanded the immediate release of their fellow activists and condemned the government’s use of excessive force against peaceful demonstrators.

“We demand their unconditional release and call upon the government to refrain from further using lethal force against peaceful protesters amidst a societal climate and economic collapse in Uganda,” Rooted in Resistance said in a post on its X account.

These arrests are just the latest in a series for Rooted in Resistance, whose members have faced detention during earlier protests against Uganda’s oil ventures.

On August 10, 2026, four members of the movement were also arrested and charged with being a public nuisance, the group said.

In its latest petition, Rooted in Resistance urged Parliament to rethink what it sees as Uganda’s heavy reliance on petroleum for development.

“Rooted in Resistance calls upon Parliament to exercise its constitutional responsibility to protect the national interest and reconsider Uganda’s petroleum-dependent development model,” the statement reads.

The activists argue that their petition is based on citizens’ constitutional rights to participate in governance, express themselves and assemble peacefully, including the rights provided for under Article 38 of the Constitution.

They are urging Parliament to stop expanding oil infrastructure and to launch an open, transparent review of Uganda’s petroleum policies and agreements.

The movement also demands greater government investment in areas like agriculture, manufacturing, renewable energy, tourism, technology, education, innovation and homegrown enterprises.

The activists warn that tying Uganda’s future to petroleum extraction could trap the country in fossil fuel dependence and put communities and ecosystems at risk.

They have urged TotalEnergies to channel its investment and expertise into sectors that promise lasting benefits for Ugandans.

“We urge TotalEnergies to redirect meaningful investment and expertise towards renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, agro-processing, local manufacturing, tourism conservation, technology, skills development and youth enterprise which support livelihoods,” the group said.

This latest protest unfolds as Uganda edges nearer to commercial oil production, with major projects like TotalEnergies’ Tilenga and CNOOC’s Kingfisher set to shape the nation’s oil future.

EACOP, a 1,443-kilometer heated crude oil pipeline, is being developed to transport crude oil from Uganda’s oil fields in the Albertine region to the port of Tanga on Tanzania’s Indian Ocean coast.

The pipeline is expected to transport crude produced from Uganda’s upstream oil projects, including the Tilenga project operated by TotalEnergies.

Though the government and oil companies tout these projects as vital for Uganda’s economy, environmental and human rights activists warn of serious risks to communities, biodiversity and the environment.

Rooted in Resistance is now urging both Parliament and TotalEnergies to rethink Uganda’s current path toward petroleum expansion.

“Rooted in Resistance therefore calls upon Parliament and TotalEnergies to listen, engage and reconsider the current direction of petroleum expansion. Our demand is clear: an oil-free economy, economic freedom, environmental protection and development that leaves Uganda stronger, not more dependent, for generations to come,” the movement said in its petition.

Related posts:

Breaking: Sixteen Rooted in Resistance activists arrested and detained as they boldly protested Uganda’s oil ambitions. Four youth activists now face public nuisance charges after their arrest during a bold march toward Parliament. Ugandan Activists Face Criminal Charges Following Pipeline Protest Youth activists detained as they boldly petition Parliament, demanding a future for Uganda free from oil dependency. Breaking: 15 Anti-EACOP Activists have been charged with common nuisance and remanded to Luzira prison.
Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Civil society organizations are rallying for a robust grievance mechanism in the EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill.

Published

1 day ago

on

September 1, 2026

By

By the Witness Radio team

In Uganda, civil society organizations are urging lawmakers to revise the proposed East African Community Seed and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025, with a special focus on ensuring farmers have a clear path to seek justice and redress.

The organizations point out that although the proposed law prioritizes seed certification, regulation, and breeders’ rights, it leaves farmers without a clear way to seek justice when certified or commercial seeds fail and lead to losses.

This concern came to the forefront during public hearings in Uganda, where the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA) gathered input from civil society organizations and other stakeholders before the Bill’s second reading.

Mr. Lubega Jonathan, a policy analyst at SEATINI Uganda, said farmers should not only be expected to comply with requirements under the proposed law but should also have clear avenues to challenge decisions and seek redress when they suffer losses.

He said the Bill should provide mechanisms for resolving disputes involving farmers, seed companies and breeders, particularly where farmers suffer losses after purchasing seed through the formal seed system.

“At least in such scenarios, there should be a mechanism for farmers to seek justice when the seeds provided by a breeder fail to germinate,” Lubega said.

He emphasized that the issue goes beyond seed certification; it is about what happens when seeds do not perform as promised. Farmers risk losing money, missing crucial planting seasons, or facing poor harvests. Yet, the Bill remains vague on who is accountable and where farmers can turn for compensation or support.

CSOs are demanding clear guidelines on how farmers’ complaints will be addressed, which bodies will resolve disputes, whether appeals are possible, and what remedies will be available to those who incur losses.

Beyond grievance and redress, the organizations warn that the Bill’s heavy focus on certification could put up barriers for farmer-managed seed systems, especially if the process becomes expensive or bogged down in bureaucracy.

Lubega cautioned that drawn-out certification processes and hidden costs could stifle local seed systems’ ability to operate across borders, threatening the EAC’s goal of eliminating non-tariff trade barriers.

“If we do not house the farmer market seed systems or varieties, there will be a barrier to trade, especially without clarity on certification costs and procedures. The lengthy bureaucratic processes will create a non-tariff barrier, which the community is ideally working to push against. Therefore, we could consider and reduce, or if we do not reduce, we factor in the farmer-managed seed systems,” he said.

The CSOs are urging the regional framework to honor both commercial and farmer-managed seed systems, highlighting that smallholder farmers have always been at the heart of selecting, saving, exchanging, and developing seeds in their communities.

Hakim Baliraine, National Chairman of the Eastern and Southern Africa Smallholder Farmers Forum (ESAFF-Uganda), said farmers should be recognized as important actors in seed development rather than being treated primarily as consumers of commercial seed.

“We want the law to define farm-managed seed systems, land races, community seed banks and farmers’ rights because this bill ties breeders to commercial seed production, forgetting that we, the small-scale farmers, have been the original breeders,” Baliraine said.

He further called for smallholder farmers to have a stronger voice in decisions about seed registration and regulation.

“Seed is tied to very many things, especially in Uganda. Seed is about our culture and inheritance, and therefore we shouldn’t look at it only for profit because, for us, seed is life and it’s part of us. That’s why we need to be at the decision-making table to see who is registering on this seed so we also give our input,” he said.

The organizations stress that acknowledging these systems is vital, as farmers still save, exchange, and share seeds. Community seed banks and indigenous varieties, in turn, are pillars of food security and biodiversity.

Agnes Kirabo, Executive Director of the Food Rights Alliance, said the debate should also address the broader challenges farmers face in accessing quality seed, including counterfeiting and the sale of grain as seed.

“The truth is that in our farming and agri-food systems in Africa and Uganda, farmers and consumers are constrained in accessing quality seeds because there is a lot of counterfeiting and trading in grain as seed. This impacts the productivity and investments of farmers, and this is a problem that is being addressed in the background of this instrument,” Kirabo said.

As a result, CSOs are urging that the final law strike a balance between regulating the seed sector and giving greater weight to farmers’ rights, with accessible ways for them to resolve disputes.

They are calling for the Bill to spell out exactly how complaints involving seed producers, breeders, and traders will be handled, who will have the authority to resolve them, and what options farmers have when they experience losses.

They also insist that farmers deserve a meaningful seat at the table in decisions on seed registration and regulation, instead of being sidelined by rules made solely for the commercial sector.

The EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill, 2025 seeks to establish a harmonized regional framework for the regulation, testing, certification and marketing of seeds, while providing for the protection of plant breeders’ rights across the East African Community.

Public hearings where stakeholders submitted their views and recommendations on the Bill have now been concluded across the EAC partner states.

The submissions are expected to inform the East African Legislative Assembly’s report before the Bill proceeds to its second reading.

Related posts:

Civil society organizations across East Africa have revived their campaign against the EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025, just as the regional parliament opens the floor to public consultations. The EAC Seed & Plant Varieties Bill, 2025, is a potential threat to smallholder farmers, as it aims to disengage them from the agriculture business, according to experts. The EAC Seed and Plant Varieties Bill 2025 targets organic seeds, aiming to replace them with modified seeds, say smallholder farmers. CSOs and Smallholder farmers are urgently convening to scrutinize the EAC Seed & Plant Varieties Bill, 2025. Smallholder farmers and civil society organizations have launched a dynamic media campaign for the inaugural Eastern Africa Indigenous Seed Conference, inviting more smallholder farmers to join the agroecology movement.
Continue Reading

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

Breaking: Sixteen Rooted in Resistance activists arrested and detained as they boldly protested Uganda’s oil ambitions.

Published

2 days ago

on

August 31, 2026

By

By the Witness Radio team

In Kampala, police detained 16 young environmental activists from the Rooted in Resistance Movement as they attempted to deliver petitions to Parliament and TotalEnergies, challenging Uganda’s ongoing push for oil production and infrastructure.

The arrests unfolded on Monday morning, August 31, 2026, as the activists split into two determined groups: ten were apprehended near Parliament, while six others were arrested near the TotalEnergies offices in Kampala.

Six activists now sit in Wandegeya Police Station, while the remaining ten are held at Central Police Station (CPS) Kampala, according to group leader Maktum Kajubi.

With these latest arrests, nearly 20 Rooted in Resistance activists have been detained in under a month, the group reports.

On August 10, authorities arrested four other members of the group and charged them with being a public nuisance.

The young protesters carried bright orange banners and placards, their messages ringing out: “No to Oil,” “Oil is temporary, nature is permanent,” and “Uganda deserves an oil-free future.”

Those arrested include Mukiibi Isaac, Mawanda Arafat, Mugerwa Nicholas, Opio Innocent, Friday John and Onyango Ronald, among others.

Rooted in Resistance, once called Students Against EACOP, is a Ugandan youth-led movement fiercely opposing fossil fuel projects like the East African Crude Oil Pipeline—their vision: a sustainable, oil-free, people-first economy.

These latest arrests come as activists ramp up their campaign, challenging Uganda’s deepening reliance on petroleum extraction.

In a press statement seen by Witness Radio, the group called on Parliament to reconsider what it described as Uganda’s petroleum-dependent development model.

“Rooted in Resistance calls upon Parliament to exercise its constitutional responsibility to protect the national interest and reconsider Uganda’s petroleum-dependent development model,” the statement reads.

The activists emphasized that their petition rests on citizens’ constitutional rights to participate in governance, express themselves, and assemble peacefully, as outlined in Article 38.

They urge Parliament to freeze any further oil infrastructure expansion and transparently review Uganda’s petroleum policies and agreements.

The group also calls for national investment to be channeled into agriculture, manufacturing, renewable energy, tourism, technology, education, innovation, and homegrown enterprises.

Activists insist Uganda’s economic future should break free from petroleum, pointing to other sectors that promise broader and longer-lasting opportunities for all citizens.

They urge TotalEnergies to rethink its role in oil projects and instead invest its resources and expertise in sectors that could deliver lasting benefits for Ugandans.

“We urge TotalEnergies to redirect meaningful investment and expertise towards renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, agro-processing, local manufacturing, tourism conservation, technology, skills development and youth enterprise which support livelihoods,” the group said.

The activists are pressing Parliament to put long-term national interests and intergenerational justice at the heart of Uganda’s economic planning.

“The future of Uganda must not be determined by what lies beneath our soil when the country’s greatest resource is the people who live upon it,” the statement says.

EACOP is a 1,443-kilometer heated crude oil pipeline being developed to transport crude oil from Uganda’s oil fields in the Albertine region to the port of Tanga on Tanzania’s Indian Ocean coast.

The pipeline will transport crude produced from Uganda’s upstream oil projects, including TotalEnergies’ Tilenga project in the Lake Albert region.

To the activists, the pipeline is far more than just infrastructure. They warn that ongoing oil investment could trap Uganda in fossil fuel dependency and expose communities and ecosystems to grave environmental and social dangers.

Now, the movement is urging both Parliament and TotalEnergies to rethink Uganda’s current path.

“Rooted in Resistance therefore calls upon Parliament and TotalEnergies to listen, engage and reconsider the current direction of petroleum expansion. Our demand is clear: an oil-free economy, economic freedom, environmental protection and development that leaves Uganda stronger, not more dependent, for generations to come,” the movement adds in their petition.

Related posts:

Youth activists detained as they boldly petition Parliament, demanding a future for Uganda free from oil dependency. Four youth activists now face public nuisance charges after their arrest during a bold march toward Parliament. Anti-oil pipeline activist in Uganda detained, pressure group says Breaking: 15 Anti-EACOP Activists Arrested in Kampala While Marching to Parliament Breaking: Ugandan Court jails eight Anti-EACOP activists as crackdown on dissent deepens.
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