Connect with us

MEDIA FOR CHANGE NETWORK

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

Published

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

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