Category: Press Releases

By Gloria Acayo

As the government embarks on the legal reforms in the Land Sector, it is imperative to be conscious and critical on the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent especially during compulsory land acquisition. The ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development is undertaking on reforms of land laws and enacting new policies to protect the land rights of the people. Among the laws under review is the Land Acquisition Act 1965 which is now Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill 2018 (LAB) and a draft Land Acquisition Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy (LARRP). One would wonder why all these amendments and new enactments?

We should be informed that all this time Uganda has been using the Land Acquisition Act that was enacted in 1965. The reform came in after an attempt by government in 2017 to amend Article 26 of the 1995 constitution of Uganda to grant government of Uganda rights to compulsorily acquire land even when the compensation amount is disputed. The amendments however have dealt away with this issue and the government will only be allowed to continue to acquire land if the dispute is not in regard to the compensation rate. In this regard the money shall be deposited in the court.

The proposed reforms legislation will provide a framework for addressing the key issues relating to land acquisition and support the Government in acquiring land for development purposes without depriving communities of their right to prompt, fair and adequate compensation prior to taking away of land by the state as enshrined in Article 26. Article 26 of the constitution bars compulsory deprivation of right to or interest in property except where the taking of possession or acquisition is necessary for public use or in the interest of defense, public safety, public order, public morality or public health and upon prompt payment of fair and adequate compensation, prior to the taking of possession or acquisition of the property.

However, the Constitution is not clear on what constitutes public use and public interest, this leaves Government with a margin of discretion in determining “public use” and “public interest” and the broad definition of conditions permitting compulsory acquisition implies a risk that all large projects are deemed to be in the public interest with involuntary resettlement being the norm. As a result, we have seen land being removed from public use to private use, a good example is the giveaway of prime 15.1-acre land of Shimoni Demonstration Primary School and the teachers’ college, worth Ug. Shs.15b to a Saudi Arabian investor named Prince Aliwaleed Bin Talal trading under Kingdom Hotel Investments to construct a multi-billion hotel in preparation for the 2007 Commonwealth summit. The other examples are the Kololo school land saga of 2009 and Kitante school land saga 2011.

The attempt to define what amounts to public interest, use and purpose in the two proposed legislations is a positive move on the side of the government. In the proposed legislations what amounts to public interest, use and purpose includes; transportation uses including roads, canals, highways, bridges, wharves and airports, public building including schools, libraries, hospitals, factories, religious institutions, public housing, Public utilities for water, sewage, electricity, gas, communication, irrigation and drainage, and reservoirs and finally public parks, play grounds, gardens, sports facilities and cemeteries and national defense.
The new reforms if adopted will give an opportunity to the legitimate land owners to contest acquisitions especially where the land is acquired for a contrary purpose other than that provided for under the law.

It is key to note that if government invokes Article 26 (2), the legitimate land owners cannot contest compulsory land acquisitions. However, much as the communities may not have the powers to stay government from compulsorily acquiring their land, they do have the right to know the government’s intentions of taking their land and the impact of the intended development project on their environment, livelihood, social harmony and stability. These rights are enshrined under the national objectives X, where the constitution provides that the state shall take all necessary steps to involve the people in the formulation and implementation of development plans and programmes which affect them. Further, Article 41 provides for the right to access information. Together, these provisions guarantee what we know as the right to Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC).

Free Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a principle governed by international instruments especially the International Labour Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). Article 10 of the UNDRIP is to the effect that Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. Similarly, the declaration notes that no relocation shall take place without the free prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return. Much as Uganda has not ratified to the two conventions, it is in the spirit of inclusive development, and good practice that the principle should be promoted in Uganda context during land acquisition.

Uganda is one of the states that ratified the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGTs). These principles promote good governance of land, fisheries and forests. The VGGTs principle 1 and 2 calls for recognizing, respecting and safeguarding all legitimate tenure right holders and their rights whether formally recorded or not. The VGGTs give responsibility to the government to take reasonable measures to identify, record and respect legitimate tenure right holders and protect them against the arbitrary loss of their tenure rights, including forced evictions that are inconsistent with their existing obligations under national and international law.

Reflecting on Uganda’s experience of land acquisition by the government for development projects including that in the Albertine regions, the consultation process has not been so participatory as affected community mostly are not given adequate information to enable them make informed decision. Several brutal evictions have been reported in the media to have taken place without communities’ consent to the land acquisition or knowledge of the project, or even compensation for some communities and there are instances where the community are informed of the acquisition but have not been given opportunity to understand and appreciate the nature and impact of the project on their livelihood.

In Kabarole a community were stopped from utilizing some of the Crater lakes that they survived on for decades after the District Local Government leased the lakes to a private company for Fish restocking without consulting the user community, the situation in Mubende with the Kaweeri Coffee Company is not any different whereby communities were evicted without their consent or knowledge of development of the project and the case is pending in court up to date, the community of Kyangwali suffered inhumane treatment since 2014 to January 2019 when the President gave a directive to halt their evictions as their land was under threat of being taken with the intention of providing land for refugee settlements against their consent , communities of Amuru in Lakang village in 2006 faced threats of their land being given to Madhivani for sugarcane plantation against their consent.

The negative effects of these actions has had an insurmountable consequence to the lives and livelihoods of the affected communities and has caused food insecurity. It is worth saying that the clashes between government and community during compulsory land acquisition are because of the inadequate participatory consultation processes that is carried out the government.

The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development is developing guidelines on Free Prior and Informed Consent to enable community meaningful participation during the land acquisition processes in Uganda. This will give communities an entry point to meaningfully engage with government on the development programmes that will affect their livelihoods.

As the process of compulsory land acquisition is on going in the country, we urge all stake h should be engaging, inclusive and participatory on the side of the government, development partners and the Communities. Communities should be given prior information to enable them make informed decision. This will make development in Uganda more inclusive and equitable.

By Rebecca Apio

Despite the legal framework being very progressive in terms of gender equality, women in Uganda have continuously experienced gender discrimination in access to land and other natural resources.  Women bear the brunt of human rights violations and yet when these violations occur, legal redress is inaccessible for them. The legal framework, notably The 1995 Constitution under Article 33 guarantees women equal rights with men and Article 21 prohibits discrimination based on gender and accords men and women the same status and rights with Article 32 providing for affirmative action in favour of marginalized groups.

The Land Act Cap 227 as amended under Section 34A provides for spousal’s security of occupancy of family land. Section 39 requires the spousal consent in transactions involving family holdings while Section 28 explicitly prohibits decisions affecting customary land that deny women access to ownership, occupation or use of any land as well as decisions that impose conditions violating the constitutional provisions that protects women.

The National Land Policy 2013, under Section 4.10 acknowledges the failure of Uganda formal laws to overcome discriminatory practices concerning women’s land and inheritance. The implementation and enforcement of the legal framework have for a long time remained a challenge while women continue to suffer human rights violations.

In most cases, women’s rights to land are determined by their relationships with male counterparts who are usually their fathers or husbands as compared to the male counterparts whose land rights are by birth. It is thus clear that in the absence of the male counterpart be it by death, separation or divorce, the women stand a high risk of being dispossessed of their land rights. The situation gets worse  in cases where a woman is in cohabitation which is a very common practice in the communities today.

Whereas the Constitution as well as the Succession Act guarantees widows the right to inheritance, implementation of this legal framework remains a far cry especially for the illiterate and rural women who are unable to access justice when their inheritance rights are violated. Even with the law providing for Alternative Dispute Resolution mechanisms (ADR) as a medium of settlement of dispute which should have been an option for women as opposed to the statutory system, the distorted role of the traditional institution have made it difficult for when to realize their rights through ADR. In some instances, the traditional leaders are unaware of the law of women’s rights and some are biased against women’s rights.

The achievement of gender equality especially in respect to land rights therefore calls for a concerted effort by all stakeholders right from community level to the national level. Deliberate action has to be taken to determine what is right in human social relations in as far as land is concerned. There is need to amend the existing gaps in the legal framework,  implement and enforce  the existing legal framework as a way to ensure that women enjoy their land rights.

About the Author: Rebecca Apio works with The Land Justice Network

By Jimmy Ochom

The 1995 Constitution of Uganda under Article 237 vests land in the citizens of Uganda to be held in accordance with four land tenure systems. Article 237 (3) provides for the tenure systems as (a) customary, (b) freehold, (c) mailo (d) leasehold. For Mailo land there is a Mailo Registry which elaborates a method which the land details are captured that is to say, County, Block & Plot no; * For Leasehold there exists a Leasehold Register which elaborates a method that is to say/ Volume & Folio Number; For Freehold Freehold Register Volume & Folio Number and finally for customary land the law is silent. For customary land, nonexistence of a customary land registry obviously does not provide for an elaborate method under which land shall be captured, this in its self makes ownership under customary nature very insecure.

Under section 4 (a) it states that all citizens owing land under customary tenure may acquire a certificate of customary ownership in a manner prescribed by parliament. This article gives as a chance to influence parliament to enact a law which in its self-addresses the legal loophole. A number of suggestions have been made on how this can be solved, we either come up with a customary land act which specifically captures the customary tenure in a manner in which land is owned by different cultures and customs considering that the customs are not discriminatory in nature. That will entail documenting all customs owned by different customs when it comes to land management.

Perhaps this new law can address the issue of coming up with customary land Register which stipulates or elaborates the methods and manner in which land can be owned under that tenure system. This idea is further supported by the National land policy of 2013 under Chapter 4 which provides for land tenure framework. The policy recognizes that a majority of the people in Uganda own their land under customary tenure. The policy further acknowledges that the tenure system is faced with a number of challenges some of which include:

1. That the tenure does not provide security of tenure

2. Because of its ambiguous nature it does not support advancement of land markets, therefore government is losing a lot of money since it cannot be able to tap in to this form of tenure which literally is what 85 percent of Ugandans are subscribed to which is rather a shame.

3. It greatly discriminates against women since it gives power to customs to take on its management. A few laws under land act and land regulations try to mention some laws but a lot is lacking in terms of procedure. The procedure is still ambiguous.

Despite various attempt the little legal provisions leanly scattered over the Land Act and Land Regulations, customary land by nature still faces these problems. It is regarded inferior in practice and what makes it worse is the fact that the same law devalues it by encouraging sections under the Land Act and Regulations to convert it into free hold or lease hold. The problem of devaluing of land further is seen in registration, it should be noted that customary land tenure under the CCO is not captured in the National Land Information system, as yet, thus leading to more concerns about its apparent inferiority to other land tenure systems and its non-acceptance by the financial institutions.

Policy statement 39(a) states that the state shall recognize customary to be at par or same level like other forms of tenure systems and (b) states that the state shall establish a land registry system for registration of land rights under the customary tenure.
Much as the Land Act, Cap.227, Section 4 (1) provides a mechanism for protection of customary land rights by providing, inter alia, that any person, family or community holding land under customary tenure on former public land may acquire a Certificate of Customary Ownership in respect of that land in accordance with the Land Act. Acquisition of a certificate under customary tenure is meant to reduce the danger of unlawful appropriation associated with the rapidly increasing land values, land conflicts, and evictions among others, it is it is still failing to meet standards of protecting the tenure security of people who own it.

The national land policy 2013 has tried to come up with a number of strategies it aims to put in place in order to achieve equal footing of the customary tenure with other forms of tenures. It provides that government shall design and implement land registry system to support the registration of land rights under customary tenure; issue certificates of title customary ownership based on the customary land registry that is will be put in place.

Currently what beats my understanding is that a number of CCOs are being issued out all over the country but the question is, are they in conformity with the what the policy stipulates?; document customary rules applicable to specific communities; at district or subcounty level; make an inventory of common property resources owned by communities and vest these resources in communities to be managed under the customary law. The policy also stipulates that government will facilitate the design and evolution of a legislative framework for customary tenure and lastly strengthen traditional land management and administration institutions.

Why is government not fast enough particularly on this elaborate part of the policy? Should we say its not ready for the possible challenges that will come with a land registry. Should we say they are having arguments amongst each other. What exactly is the problem. With the expiry of the National land policy implantation plan this year I expect that civil society as a whole takes it upon them selves to push for this cause in the next implementation plan that is yet to be designed for the next five years.

Lets push for the amendment of the Land act cap 227 to permit only individually owned customary land to be converted, for amendment of the Registration of titles Act cap230 to place customary tenure at the same level with other tenures, modification of the rules of transmission of land rights under customary land tenure to guarantee gender equality and equity, make provisions for joint ownership of family land by spouses, for provision for registration of customary land held and trusteeship by traditional institutions or cultural leaders on behalf of communities in the names of a trustee.

About the Author. Jimmy Ochom is the Land Rights Coordinator at Oxfam in Uganda

Food loss and waste refers to the edible parts of plants and animals that are produced or harvested for human consumption but that are not ultimately consumed by people. In particular, “food loss” refers to food that spills, spoils, incurs an abnormal reduction in quality such as bruising or wilting, or otherwise gets lost before it reaches the consumer. It is the unintended result of an agricultural process or technical limitation in storage, infrastructure, packaging, or marketing. On the other hand, Food waste -refers to food that is of good quality and fit for human consumption but that does not get consumed because it is discarded—either before or after it spoils. This is usually the result of negligence or a conscious decision to throw food away.

Food loss can either be attributed to reduction in the volume or weight of food available for human consumption or, to a loss in the nutritional value, caloric value and edibility of crops. The latter are more difficult to assess.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 32 percent of all food produced in the world was lost or wasted in 2009, an estimate based on weight. When converted into calories, global food loss and waste amounts to approximately 24 percent of all food produced. Essentially, one out of every four food calories intended for people is not ultimately consumed by them.

In developing countries, more than 40% of losses occur at the postharvest and processing stages, while in the developed countries, more than 40% of losses occur at the retail and consumer levels. The total food waste by consumers in industrialized countries (222 million tons) is almost equal to the entire food production in sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tons). FAO study 2011.

Food loss and waste have many negative economic and environmental impacts. Economically, they represent a wasted investment that can reduce farmers’ incomes and increase consumers’ expenses.

Environmentally, food loss and waste inflict a host of impacts, including unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions and inefficiently used water and land, which in turn can lead to diminished natural ecosystems and the services they provide.

Roots and tubers experience the greatest amount of loss and waste―63% on a caloric basis. 42% is the rate for fruits and vegetables, and about a quarter of cereals and seafood produced are lost or wasted.
As earlier noted, there is a difference in the nature and magnitude of food loss and waste between developing and developed countries as they occur along the stages in the value chain. For developing countries, more losses occur early in the value chain especially at production and post-harvest handling

In developing countries, poor storage facilities give room for many factors that affect food availability both qualitative and quantitatively. These include among others warmth/ humidity that can cause rot in fruits and discolouration in grains; rodents that consume part of the produce; fungi that create poisons like aflatoxin in the grains; poor packaging that can cause physical loss during transportation and retail of food; poor infrastructure and transportation that cause damage to the food and food spoilage especially for fresh foods due to delays; inadequate market facilities; and unsanitary, crowded and poor refrigeration.

In developed countries, more losses happen in the later stages of the value chain. Food is normally discarded as a result of failure to adhere to standards and during manufacture at sorting, trimming and transportation stages. At the retail stores, extreme or unfavourable temperatures cause losses significantly in fruits and vegetables. Many times food is still safe to eat at the best before date indicated on its packaging but it is thrown away once the date reaches. Additionally, many households in developed countries throw away a lot of food as left overs because of excesses during cooking, preparation and serving.

Big inefficiencies suggest big savings opportunities. It is estimated that if the current rate of food loss and waste were cut in half―by the year 2050, the world would need about 1,314 trillion kilocalories (kcal) less food per year than it would in the business-as-usual global food requirements scenario.

The world faced an analogous failure of efficiency in the 1970s with energy. In the face of record oil prices and growing demand, the world waged war on energy wastefulness and significantly improved its energy efficiency. Yet a “war on waste” has yet to be waged when it comes to food. With food prices recently hitting historic highs and global food demand continuing to rise, now is the time.

This non-exhaustive list hints at the spectrum of approaches that could be available across selected stages of the food value chain to reduce food loss and waste. We shall high-light some of them in our subsequent newsletters.

James Kaija Amooti
Executive Director, Food Talk Uganda