Please note: you are viewing an old version of this deal. The current version can be found here: Deal #1976

Deal #1976 Version #56447

Uganda
Created at
2013-02-15
Last update
2019-06-07
Last full update
2022-09-07

Consultation of local community

Comment on consultation of local community
The company states " Prior to project commencement, there was extensive consultation with the affected communities, including public hearings. The project was initiated with support from the communities and local and district leadership". The company states that the government was responsible for acquisition of the land for the project, and that FPIC was obtained from the community members. Other data sources states that no consultation occurred.

How did the community react?

Community reaction
Mixed reaction
Comment on community reaction
Community outcries for the project to be reformed or shut-down have been ignored. Affected communities are demanding the return of land improperly taken, guarantees for the protection of community land rights, compensation for crop damage, and long term protection of community forests, water, and other natural resources. On 19 February 2015, a group of farmers filed a lawsuit against Bidco Uganda and Amos Ssempa, who leased the land to Opul. Wilmar states that the project was initiated with the support of communities and local leadership.

Displacement of people

Comment on displacement of people
Some sources state that displacement did not occur, while others state displacement occurred. One report states that thousands of community members have been displaced. 5,442 PAPs (Project Affected Persons)- 7,591 hectares have been secured. The company states that the Government was responsible for obtaining land for the project, and the company or other investors were not involved. The company further states that the land was on willing seller, willing buyer basis, and no compulsory acquisition took place. Land transactions were signed between owners and government, however the tenants were not informed- around 100 small scale farmers and their families.

Negative impacts for local communities

Negative impacts for local communities
Displacement, Other
Comment on negative impacts for local communities
The report also claims the communities suffer from degraded water sources. Three EIA were conducted. Some reports state that the project has caused food insecurity. Another recent report (2019) has found that "Contrary to the portrayal by some activists who blame the palm oil plantation for deteriorating living conditions of islanders, poor living conditions and food insecurity were the norm for the islanders long before the plantation was established.".

Promised or received compensation

Received compensation (e.g. for damages or resettlements)
Some of the displaced received new land. Some reports suggest that the community received inadequate compensation (ranging from Shs 100 000 to 1.5million) for their land and that international norms and national laws were broken. Another report states that the squatters were offered between $35 and $200. Total compensation paid as at Feb 2018 is Shs67 billion.

Promised benefits for local communities

Promised benefits for local communities
Health, Education, Roads
Comment on promised benefits for local communities
infrastructure – such as electric power, roads, ferries and medical facilities

Materialized benefits for local communities

Materialized benefits for local communities
Health, Education, Roads
Comment on materialized benefits for local communities
infrastructure – such as electric power, roads, ferries and medical facilities. Santiago 2019 states that food security is better now with the project than before the project.