In his article entitled “World Bank lacks good intentions for Uganda” (New Vision of Monday October 29, 2007), Warren Nyamugasira launched a stinging attack on World Bank’s recent economic assessment on Uganda. He accused the international lending institution and other development partners of harbouring a hidden agenda aimed at stifling government response to spiralling poverty and declining economic growth.
This was after Wold Bank had released a Country Economic Memorandum, castigating the Ugandan government for loosing focus from its core development strategy – and instead diverting its attention to ad-hoc alternative interventions.
Compared with other developing countries, Uganda is exceptional in the degree it has made poverty the central focus of its intervention. It has a robust development strategy – the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) which provides the long-term framework for catalysing and sustaining economic growth.
According to PEAP, poverty will be reduced through better macro-economic management; enhancing production, competitiveness and household incomes; improving security and governance; and investing in human development.
Boosting private investment; eliminating corruption; enhancing transparency and accountability; modernising agriculture, natural resource conservation, infrastructural improvements and private sector skills development are elements envisaged under PEAP framework to provide a platform for a private-sector led economic growth.
While income poverty incidence reduced in the 1990s, poverty prevalence has increased since 2000. Inequality has worsened since 1997; infant and child mortality have both increased; while the poorest hardly benefit from development. The gross failures in the government’s economic growth strategy are a universal concern.
Despite these failures, World Bank, and some of us strongly believe (to Nyamugasira’s distaste) that the current development strategy is robust enough to deliver economic gains; and that we don’t need a fundamentally new approach. Government only needs to address itself adequately to the core elements of PEAP.
Corruption and abuse of office is rampant; physical infrastructural facilities are rotten; while agricultural production and marketing systems remain in shambles. Trade policies – the few that Government have negotiated are irrelevant to the rural poor – and could in fact be fuelling economic inequalities.
Moreover, fiscal indiscipline is at all-time high – considering recent revelations that government granted and eventually lost trillions of shillings in unsecured loans to its confidant businessmen and companies.
Granted, Universal Primary Education has increased school enrolment but at the expense of education quality. Few people will disagree that Universal Secondary Education will further plunge educational standards in the country – especially given government’s disproportionate attention to education facilities; teacher training, facilitation and motivation.
World Bank’s considered opinion is that rather than dismantle the current economic growth apparatus, Government needs to focus more on inherent weakness therein; plug all the loopholes, and purge the debilitating factors.
Ad-hoc alternatives such as Bona Bagagawale (Prosperity for all) don’t constitute anything fundamentally different from what we have seen. The same government experimented with Entandikwa in the 90s– which ended in disaster. The Bona Bagagawale project will, as World Bank correctly noted, promote selective lending and therefore aggravate rural inequality and poverty.
Since 2001, government has been using NAADS as the main avenue for enhancing household incomes. NAADS has a unique approach that is all inclusive – mainstreaming gender and targeting the poor through its farmer fora mechanism. The only requirement for farmers to access NAADS services is for them to join common interest farmers groups – which as experience shows, tend to be all-inclusive.
NAADS may not be bringing riches to farmers as fast as anybody would have wished but it is, and might remain the best option for three quarters of the Ugandan population. Warren Nyamugasira should explain why more farmer groups are joining NAADS every year despite his assertion that farmers loath it.
World Bank is clear: Let Government give a chance to ongoing development mechanisms rather than animatedly shift goal-posts. Fundamentally, this calls for a sustained focus and concentration on the principles of PEAP coupled with self-cleansing. We don’t have to be like the Batwa (pygmies) of Semliki and Bwindi national parks who desert their forest dwellings every time some one dies in there. Truth is sometimes bitter, but government should heed World Bank advice!
31 October 2007
25 October 2007
Ugandan women are better off
Every foreigner visiting Afghanistan can not help noticing almost instantly, the gross inequality between men and women. Gender relations in this South Asian country are rooted within the traditional “code of honour” symbolised by the reclusive behaviour of women. Ultra conservative tribal societies have successfully propagated this “code” over the generations using coercive and obnoxiously crude methods.
Reformist governments seeking to emancipate women have often found themselves entangled in crude resistance from traditionalists – who perceive any changes in gender roles as anarchical and a recipe for social disorder.
King Amanullah who ruled Afghanistan in the 1920s for instance learnt bitter lessons too late, when in 1929, traditionalist elements violently terminated his gender reformist government.
In 1978, conservative mujahidin leaders imbued with the belief that sexual anarchy would result if women were allowed to continue moving freely in public, waged a jihad against, and eventually toppled the then communist government.
The worst forms of gender discrimination though, were meted by the ultra-conservative Taliban regime (1996-2001) which considered women as a temptation; an unnecessary distraction from the service of God. Women were therefore neither to be seen nor heard in public because they would otherwise drive men away from the proscribed Islamic ways into wild temptation.
Consequently, Afghanistan has remained one of the countries in the world with the worst gender inequalities. To date, Afghanistan has the lowest female literacy rate in the world (12%). Almost 60% percent of girls under age 11 are out of school. The country has the highest rate of maternal mortality of any country except Sierra Leone. Overall, maternal mortality ratio is estimated at 1600 to 2200 deaths per 100,000 live births. On average, one woman dies every 30 minutes due to pregnancy-related factors! Depending on location, 30% to 90% of rural women can not access health care. More over, 70 - 80% of women face forced marriages, while nearly 52% of the Afghan girls are married before their 18th birthday.
The gender situation for Uganda is not enviable either. Our maternal mortality ratio of 505 per 100000 live births implies that 16 women die every day due to pregnancy-related factors. This may not be a surprising statistic since only 38% of pregnant women deliver in hospital or with skilled attendants.
Forced marriages are a recurrent phenomenon in Uganda, especially among the pastoral communities where okukiriza (lifting) is still commonly practiced by the Banyankole and Bahima pastoralists who have reasons to think the family of the girl will refuse their marriage proposal. In such cases, the girl victims may sometimes be as young as 14; “lifted” by a 50 year old man.
Moreover, women in Uganda have been noted to participate less in the labour market and face lower wages compared to men.
That not withstanding, there is reason to remain hopeful that gender disparities in Uganda can only diminish as we move ahead. Since it came to power in 1986, the current regime has been committed to addressing gender concerns nationwide – as evidenced by the presence of a Gender Policy and the National Action Plan on Women.
The 1995 Constitution of Uganda itself provides for equality for both men and women, and criminalises all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex.
There are more girls going to school; more women working their way into formal and informal employment; and more women accessing medical care. Consequently, maternal and child mortality is retracting. Most importantly though, there is more positive gender perception and sensitivity among the population – which will progressively dissolve the remaining social-cultural barriers to women emancipation.
There is no doubt that women in Uganda are enjoying more freedoms of choice, more responsibilities, more power, and more influence – today than ever before. Yet, I have neither witnessed any forms of gender-induced sexual anarchy, nor heard voices warning of an impending gender-induced social unrest or religious fallouts.
Shouldn’t we be thankful to God therefore, that Ugandans are not as apprehensive about gender-induced sexual anarchy as are our brothers in Afghanistan?
Published in the New Vision, October 30, 2007: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/594523
Reformist governments seeking to emancipate women have often found themselves entangled in crude resistance from traditionalists – who perceive any changes in gender roles as anarchical and a recipe for social disorder.
King Amanullah who ruled Afghanistan in the 1920s for instance learnt bitter lessons too late, when in 1929, traditionalist elements violently terminated his gender reformist government.
In 1978, conservative mujahidin leaders imbued with the belief that sexual anarchy would result if women were allowed to continue moving freely in public, waged a jihad against, and eventually toppled the then communist government.
The worst forms of gender discrimination though, were meted by the ultra-conservative Taliban regime (1996-2001) which considered women as a temptation; an unnecessary distraction from the service of God. Women were therefore neither to be seen nor heard in public because they would otherwise drive men away from the proscribed Islamic ways into wild temptation.
Consequently, Afghanistan has remained one of the countries in the world with the worst gender inequalities. To date, Afghanistan has the lowest female literacy rate in the world (12%). Almost 60% percent of girls under age 11 are out of school. The country has the highest rate of maternal mortality of any country except Sierra Leone. Overall, maternal mortality ratio is estimated at 1600 to 2200 deaths per 100,000 live births. On average, one woman dies every 30 minutes due to pregnancy-related factors! Depending on location, 30% to 90% of rural women can not access health care. More over, 70 - 80% of women face forced marriages, while nearly 52% of the Afghan girls are married before their 18th birthday.
The gender situation for Uganda is not enviable either. Our maternal mortality ratio of 505 per 100000 live births implies that 16 women die every day due to pregnancy-related factors. This may not be a surprising statistic since only 38% of pregnant women deliver in hospital or with skilled attendants.
Forced marriages are a recurrent phenomenon in Uganda, especially among the pastoral communities where okukiriza (lifting) is still commonly practiced by the Banyankole and Bahima pastoralists who have reasons to think the family of the girl will refuse their marriage proposal. In such cases, the girl victims may sometimes be as young as 14; “lifted” by a 50 year old man.
Moreover, women in Uganda have been noted to participate less in the labour market and face lower wages compared to men.
That not withstanding, there is reason to remain hopeful that gender disparities in Uganda can only diminish as we move ahead. Since it came to power in 1986, the current regime has been committed to addressing gender concerns nationwide – as evidenced by the presence of a Gender Policy and the National Action Plan on Women.
The 1995 Constitution of Uganda itself provides for equality for both men and women, and criminalises all forms of discrimination on grounds of sex.
There are more girls going to school; more women working their way into formal and informal employment; and more women accessing medical care. Consequently, maternal and child mortality is retracting. Most importantly though, there is more positive gender perception and sensitivity among the population – which will progressively dissolve the remaining social-cultural barriers to women emancipation.
There is no doubt that women in Uganda are enjoying more freedoms of choice, more responsibilities, more power, and more influence – today than ever before. Yet, I have neither witnessed any forms of gender-induced sexual anarchy, nor heard voices warning of an impending gender-induced social unrest or religious fallouts.
Shouldn’t we be thankful to God therefore, that Ugandans are not as apprehensive about gender-induced sexual anarchy as are our brothers in Afghanistan?
Published in the New Vision, October 30, 2007: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/594523
23 October 2007
Uganda Must Respect its International Climate Change Obligations
The Government of Uganda is a signatory to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which it signed on 13th June 1992, and later ratified on 8th September 1993. By so doing, it committed itself – without any duress - to uphold the underlying principle of the convention; namely climate change mitigation. Although it is 15 years since government ratified this convention, the country remains on a slippery slope towards a spiral of climatic catastrophes.
Recent study findings show a sustained climate warming throughout Uganda; the fastest warming regions being the Southwest of the country which has seen a 0.3 degrees centigrade change over the last ten years. Long-term climatic projections reveal a possible 5.5 degrees centigrade change over the next 100 years.
Uganda, like other poor countries of the world is extremely vulnerable to climatic variability because of its heavy reliance on exploitation of natural resources. A landmark report published by GRID in conjunction with UNEP in 2002 elaborated the extent of disruption climate change would impose on agriculture. It warned that total area suitable for growing Robusta coffee would dramatically reduce with a temperature increase of 2 degrees centigrade. Only higher altitude areas would remain suitable, the rest becoming too hot to grow coffee.
The increasing incidents of flooding, soil erosion and landslides are some of the climatic variability indicators. Although these have wrecked havoc on people’s livelihoods across the entire country over the last few months, the worst is yet to come! Some hydrological vulnerability assessments have predicted a 10 - 20% increase in flooding under future climate change scenarios.
Other than flooding, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that increase in the frequency and intensity of climatic variation could result in severe food shortages. It will reduce the productivity of Uganda’s grasslands, which support 41% of the human and 60% of the cattle population. This could lead to massive cattle deaths; appropriations and encroachment on wetter protected areas; enhanced mobility among the pastoral groups – leading to escalation of land conflicts and possibly destitution.
Although nearly 15% of Uganda's total area is water, it’s not equitably distributed. Many regions – especially the North East – are partly semi-arid and face severe water shortages. For such areas, the cyclic and increasingly frequent periods of drought will impose hasher effects on both quantity and quality of water resources.
Unfortunately, the impetus for climate change has been gaining momentum. Deforestation is on the increase; there are unprecedented air pollution levels in the country, wetland encroachment is spiraling unabated; while farmers have stuck with unsustainable, uneconomic, poverty-entrenching and environment-degrading means of production – just to mention a few!
With all this evidence, one wonders why government’s commitment to UNFCCC obligations remains shaky. Why hasn’t government devised and implemented appropriate incentive regimes and other instruments to effectively operationalise climate-related policy frameworks?
Climate change in Uganda is not a hoax; it’s real! Its causes are clearly known; and so are its implications and remedies. The government of Uganda has a choice to (a) boldly tackle the challenges of climate variability now; or (b) remain complacent, intransigent and in self-denial about climate change realities. It should stand warned though, that going for option (b) is tantamount to ignominious betrayal of the people who voted it to office. It will be high order treason against the population!
Recent study findings show a sustained climate warming throughout Uganda; the fastest warming regions being the Southwest of the country which has seen a 0.3 degrees centigrade change over the last ten years. Long-term climatic projections reveal a possible 5.5 degrees centigrade change over the next 100 years.
Uganda, like other poor countries of the world is extremely vulnerable to climatic variability because of its heavy reliance on exploitation of natural resources. A landmark report published by GRID in conjunction with UNEP in 2002 elaborated the extent of disruption climate change would impose on agriculture. It warned that total area suitable for growing Robusta coffee would dramatically reduce with a temperature increase of 2 degrees centigrade. Only higher altitude areas would remain suitable, the rest becoming too hot to grow coffee.
The increasing incidents of flooding, soil erosion and landslides are some of the climatic variability indicators. Although these have wrecked havoc on people’s livelihoods across the entire country over the last few months, the worst is yet to come! Some hydrological vulnerability assessments have predicted a 10 - 20% increase in flooding under future climate change scenarios.
Other than flooding, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has warned that increase in the frequency and intensity of climatic variation could result in severe food shortages. It will reduce the productivity of Uganda’s grasslands, which support 41% of the human and 60% of the cattle population. This could lead to massive cattle deaths; appropriations and encroachment on wetter protected areas; enhanced mobility among the pastoral groups – leading to escalation of land conflicts and possibly destitution.
Although nearly 15% of Uganda's total area is water, it’s not equitably distributed. Many regions – especially the North East – are partly semi-arid and face severe water shortages. For such areas, the cyclic and increasingly frequent periods of drought will impose hasher effects on both quantity and quality of water resources.
Unfortunately, the impetus for climate change has been gaining momentum. Deforestation is on the increase; there are unprecedented air pollution levels in the country, wetland encroachment is spiraling unabated; while farmers have stuck with unsustainable, uneconomic, poverty-entrenching and environment-degrading means of production – just to mention a few!
With all this evidence, one wonders why government’s commitment to UNFCCC obligations remains shaky. Why hasn’t government devised and implemented appropriate incentive regimes and other instruments to effectively operationalise climate-related policy frameworks?
Climate change in Uganda is not a hoax; it’s real! Its causes are clearly known; and so are its implications and remedies. The government of Uganda has a choice to (a) boldly tackle the challenges of climate variability now; or (b) remain complacent, intransigent and in self-denial about climate change realities. It should stand warned though, that going for option (b) is tantamount to ignominious betrayal of the people who voted it to office. It will be high order treason against the population!
19 October 2007
Let General Idi Amin Rest in Eternal Peace
Jenkins Kiwanuka’s article which was published in Daily Monitor of Thursday, October 18, 2007 (It takes a sadist to defend Amin) was undoubtedly well researched. It was emotionally loaded too.
However, what Jenkins forgot to take into account is the basic principle of our law – namely the “presumption of innocence;” which states that no person shall be considered guilty of an offence until finally convicted by a competent court. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, which has to convince court that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries, including Uganda, journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt was certain. They ought to use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, and use "allegedly" when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of. Iam therefore shocked and extremely disappointed that a seasoned, retired Journalist in the person of Jenkins Kiwanuka could opt for the “guilty-beyond-doubt” tone in his article.
In as far as I can recall, General Idi Amin was never convicted by any court of law, for offences Jenkins alleges he committed. From the legal standpoint, that dismisses his article as hearsay and therefore inconsequential. If Jenkins wants to vindicate himself though, he could initiate posthumous criminal prosecution procedures against the General, with a view of securing a posthumous conviction.
Iam not certain whether our judicial system allows posthumous trials – but our arsenal of seasoned lawyers could advise him accordingly. If Jenkins can’t secure a posthumous conviction for his alleged crimes, its time he left the General to rest in eternal peace. For then, however much he writes, General Idi Amin will, and can only remain a suspect!
However, what Jenkins forgot to take into account is the basic principle of our law – namely the “presumption of innocence;” which states that no person shall be considered guilty of an offence until finally convicted by a competent court. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, which has to convince court that the accused is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.
Guaranteeing the presumption of innocence extends beyond the judicial system. For instance, in many countries, including Uganda, journalistic codes of ethics state that journalists should refrain from referring to suspects as though their guilt was certain. They ought to use "suspect" or "defendant" when referring to the suspect, and use "allegedly" when referring to the criminal activity that the suspect is accused of. Iam therefore shocked and extremely disappointed that a seasoned, retired Journalist in the person of Jenkins Kiwanuka could opt for the “guilty-beyond-doubt” tone in his article.
In as far as I can recall, General Idi Amin was never convicted by any court of law, for offences Jenkins alleges he committed. From the legal standpoint, that dismisses his article as hearsay and therefore inconsequential. If Jenkins wants to vindicate himself though, he could initiate posthumous criminal prosecution procedures against the General, with a view of securing a posthumous conviction.
Iam not certain whether our judicial system allows posthumous trials – but our arsenal of seasoned lawyers could advise him accordingly. If Jenkins can’t secure a posthumous conviction for his alleged crimes, its time he left the General to rest in eternal peace. For then, however much he writes, General Idi Amin will, and can only remain a suspect!
12 October 2007
THE CONTROVERSY OF GOD’S GRACE AND GLORY
God bless my mama with eternal rest! As a devout, born-again Christian, she groomed us based on Christian principles. She would never compromise on un-Godly behaviour from her children, least of all her last born (myself). In particular, she ensured I learnt the “Lords Prayer” by heart before I was four years old and would make me recite it twice a day until the age of 12, when I joined secondary school.
For several years, the recitations were obviously part of the mechanical practice I obediently followed to avert the wrath of my displinarian mama. Frankly, I did not draw sense out of them. As I grew older, I appreciated the Lord’s Prayer as a summary of Jesus’ mission, notably the GRACE of the forgiveness of sins, which he eventually demonstrated on the cross, at Calvary. We had to glorify his name because of this Grace.
Despite this appreciation, multitudes of events occurring around the world have thrown me into quandary as to whether I had misconstrued the real meaning of God’s Grace and Glory. Pastors, priests, reverends, sheikhs and other religious leaders serve their flock “for the glory of God.” Similarly, terrorists, gangsters, hardcore criminals, and other rascals rely on the “Grace of God” to achieve their objectives and often glorify God for their actions and achievements.
There are several examples of this contrasting scenario! In 2004, I visited the site in Kanungu district, where Rev/Fr. Joseph Kibwetere and Sr. Cledonia Mwerinde had on 17th March 2000, cremated alive an estimated 1000 religious cultists. It had been four years since the infernal but I could still smell death! My legs wobbled at the sight of in-house gaping graves, underground tunnels, unventilated one square-meter large torture rooms, and tons of rubble beneath which thousands were buried. A plaque on what used to be a classroom block conspicuously caught my panicky eyes. It had the inscription: “To the Glory of God, this building was constructed….” That specific block had housed nearly 200 children, none of whom survived the infernal!
The new breed of Pentecostal pastors is not only “anointed” to serve God; they are magical in getting people to off-load their wallets! They know the right phrases and arguments to ensure their flock tithe. Pastors K. L. Dickson; Robert Kayanja; Gary Skinner; Imelda Namutebi, and Muwanguzi are examples of the domestic breed who have broken through poverty “by the Grace, and to the Glory of God.” International evangelist, Pastor Benny Hinn and several of his peers fly around the world in private jets. Benny Hinn recently came to Uganda in a luxury Gulf Stream-3 jet, reportedly commandeered by female British pilots.
Pastors attribute their incredible wealth to faithfulness to the Lord. One of them reasoned recently: “God will make you rich if you are faithful to him.” What crap! Does grace not refer to the sovereign favour of God for humankind irrespective of actions, earned worth, or proven goodness? Is his flock not faithful enough to be as rich?
The most significant controversy relating to God’s Grace and Glory though is associated with Islamic fundamentalist movements. You may recall Sheikh Osama Bin Laden’s comments shortly after the 11 September 2001 bombing of America’s twin towers and Pentagon: “….Alhamdulilla (all praise be to God), the war against infidels has entered a new phase and will, by the Grace of God succeed.” Osama’s “new phase” warfare had killed more than 3000 people and inflicted economic losses exceeding one trillion dollars.
The scripture according to Job 1:21 tells us how Job declared, after enduring every imaginable suffering: “…may the name of the Lord be praised!” Diego Maradona scored a wining goal with his hand in the FIFA World Cup quarterfinal match between Argentina and England on 22 June 1986 – which he later attributed to the Grace of God. Indeed, football enthusiasts and commentators have since referred to that goal as “the hand-of-God goal.”
It appears “God’s Grace and Glory” works for and against humanity. It’s the stick and the carrot; a means and the end; a divine gift and a fatal motivation! Is there a deeper mind-boggling controversy in the world?
For several years, the recitations were obviously part of the mechanical practice I obediently followed to avert the wrath of my displinarian mama. Frankly, I did not draw sense out of them. As I grew older, I appreciated the Lord’s Prayer as a summary of Jesus’ mission, notably the GRACE of the forgiveness of sins, which he eventually demonstrated on the cross, at Calvary. We had to glorify his name because of this Grace.
Despite this appreciation, multitudes of events occurring around the world have thrown me into quandary as to whether I had misconstrued the real meaning of God’s Grace and Glory. Pastors, priests, reverends, sheikhs and other religious leaders serve their flock “for the glory of God.” Similarly, terrorists, gangsters, hardcore criminals, and other rascals rely on the “Grace of God” to achieve their objectives and often glorify God for their actions and achievements.
There are several examples of this contrasting scenario! In 2004, I visited the site in Kanungu district, where Rev/Fr. Joseph Kibwetere and Sr. Cledonia Mwerinde had on 17th March 2000, cremated alive an estimated 1000 religious cultists. It had been four years since the infernal but I could still smell death! My legs wobbled at the sight of in-house gaping graves, underground tunnels, unventilated one square-meter large torture rooms, and tons of rubble beneath which thousands were buried. A plaque on what used to be a classroom block conspicuously caught my panicky eyes. It had the inscription: “To the Glory of God, this building was constructed….” That specific block had housed nearly 200 children, none of whom survived the infernal!
The new breed of Pentecostal pastors is not only “anointed” to serve God; they are magical in getting people to off-load their wallets! They know the right phrases and arguments to ensure their flock tithe. Pastors K. L. Dickson; Robert Kayanja; Gary Skinner; Imelda Namutebi, and Muwanguzi are examples of the domestic breed who have broken through poverty “by the Grace, and to the Glory of God.” International evangelist, Pastor Benny Hinn and several of his peers fly around the world in private jets. Benny Hinn recently came to Uganda in a luxury Gulf Stream-3 jet, reportedly commandeered by female British pilots.
Pastors attribute their incredible wealth to faithfulness to the Lord. One of them reasoned recently: “God will make you rich if you are faithful to him.” What crap! Does grace not refer to the sovereign favour of God for humankind irrespective of actions, earned worth, or proven goodness? Is his flock not faithful enough to be as rich?
The most significant controversy relating to God’s Grace and Glory though is associated with Islamic fundamentalist movements. You may recall Sheikh Osama Bin Laden’s comments shortly after the 11 September 2001 bombing of America’s twin towers and Pentagon: “….Alhamdulilla (all praise be to God), the war against infidels has entered a new phase and will, by the Grace of God succeed.” Osama’s “new phase” warfare had killed more than 3000 people and inflicted economic losses exceeding one trillion dollars.
The scripture according to Job 1:21 tells us how Job declared, after enduring every imaginable suffering: “…may the name of the Lord be praised!” Diego Maradona scored a wining goal with his hand in the FIFA World Cup quarterfinal match between Argentina and England on 22 June 1986 – which he later attributed to the Grace of God. Indeed, football enthusiasts and commentators have since referred to that goal as “the hand-of-God goal.”
It appears “God’s Grace and Glory” works for and against humanity. It’s the stick and the carrot; a means and the end; a divine gift and a fatal motivation! Is there a deeper mind-boggling controversy in the world?
Let President Museveni Freeze NEMA Funding too
A damning State of Environment Report in 1994 blasted the then Department of Environment Protection (DEP) under the Ministry of Natural Resources for being incompetent in coordinating, supervising and advising other ministries on environmental management issues. The report also ridiculed DEP for lacking adequate legal mandate and concluded that its placement under a ministry could not allow it to undertake its mandate effectively.
To address the above institutional weaknesses, government enacted the 1995 National Environment Statute, which legally established National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) with particular mandate to coordinate, monitor and supervise all activities in the field of the environment. NEMA has been operational since January 1996.
A decade after DEP’s demise, Uganda’s environment continues to plummet. We have probably seen more environmental degradation during NEMA’s “reign” than when DEP was in charge. Several protected areas have been de-gazetted, wetlands face ominous encroachment, spiralling land degradation threatens people’s survival, while water and air pollution is slipping out of control. The institutional efficiency and operational effectiveness envisaged under NEMA remains elusive.
Recently, NEMA has come under scathing public criticism for failing to enforce environmental compliance following revelation that most industries in Uganda were not complying with effluent disposal standards.
While the public has been consistent in its disapproval of NEMA’s lacklustre performance, it’s shocking that government has been glaringly silent; unbothered about holding NEMA accountable for their failures. It’s contradictory that President Museveni would readily freeze NAADS funding for alleged poor performance, yet let NEMA continue to preside over gross environmental mismanagement.
Is it because government recognises it’s partly responsible for NEMA’s failures; that political interference has often overridden NEMA’s technical recommendations; that government’s voracious drive for foreign investment and cosmetic economic gains has relegated environmental concerns; that powerful politicians have eclipsed the law and consciously degrade the environment scot-free?
NEMA draws extensive legal leverage from section 57 (2) of the Environment Statute, which states that a person who discharges hazardous waste into the environment commits an offence, and in addition to any other sentence imposed by the court, meets the cost of restoring the damage including paying for reparation and restitution to third parties. The law also empowers NEMA to issue restoration orders and to take other measures in case of non-compliance within 21 days. Unlike the defunct DEP, NEMA has “teeth” to prosecute criminals and enforce environmental compliance. Why isn’t it biting then?
NEMA lacks innovation that is unquestionably required to neutralise complex environmental problems. True, they have succeeded in establishing standards for air quality, water quality, effluent discharge, control of noxious smells, noise and vibration control, and soil quality; but what’s the relevance of standards they cannot enforce?
Taxation, refundable deposits, remedial funds, and direct controls are innovative policy instruments NEMA could use to curb environmental crime. In particular, it could invoke its legal powers under the Environment Statute to unleash the “Polluter Pays Principle” (PPP) which forces environmental criminals to bear the full cost of degradation.
Few people would disagree with the proposition that those who cause environment damage should pay for those damages. The challenge of this approach though, is in the specifics. For NEMA to apply PPP effectively, it needs to address itself to four questions: (1) who are the polluters. (2) to what extent are they polluting? (3) what is the cost of pollution to society and the cost of pollution control? (4) how much must the polluters pay to abate their pollution?
Iam aware there are no quick-fix solutions to environment problems and would therefore be the last to condemn NEMA for their gross failures. Interestingly, those who used to castigate DEP for incompetence are now in NEMA, smouldering in stinging public criticisms. NEMA’s predicament reminds me of an old Rukiga adage: “orufu rwembwa nirwe rwo’muhiigi” (what threatens a hunting dog threatens the hunter).
Luke 6:37 teaches us to be modest in our conclusions: “judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned;” so goes the holly scripture. That not withstanding, I would say if president Museveni must freeze funding to any government institution for poor performance, it should be NEMA!
To address the above institutional weaknesses, government enacted the 1995 National Environment Statute, which legally established National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) with particular mandate to coordinate, monitor and supervise all activities in the field of the environment. NEMA has been operational since January 1996.
A decade after DEP’s demise, Uganda’s environment continues to plummet. We have probably seen more environmental degradation during NEMA’s “reign” than when DEP was in charge. Several protected areas have been de-gazetted, wetlands face ominous encroachment, spiralling land degradation threatens people’s survival, while water and air pollution is slipping out of control. The institutional efficiency and operational effectiveness envisaged under NEMA remains elusive.
Recently, NEMA has come under scathing public criticism for failing to enforce environmental compliance following revelation that most industries in Uganda were not complying with effluent disposal standards.
While the public has been consistent in its disapproval of NEMA’s lacklustre performance, it’s shocking that government has been glaringly silent; unbothered about holding NEMA accountable for their failures. It’s contradictory that President Museveni would readily freeze NAADS funding for alleged poor performance, yet let NEMA continue to preside over gross environmental mismanagement.
Is it because government recognises it’s partly responsible for NEMA’s failures; that political interference has often overridden NEMA’s technical recommendations; that government’s voracious drive for foreign investment and cosmetic economic gains has relegated environmental concerns; that powerful politicians have eclipsed the law and consciously degrade the environment scot-free?
NEMA draws extensive legal leverage from section 57 (2) of the Environment Statute, which states that a person who discharges hazardous waste into the environment commits an offence, and in addition to any other sentence imposed by the court, meets the cost of restoring the damage including paying for reparation and restitution to third parties. The law also empowers NEMA to issue restoration orders and to take other measures in case of non-compliance within 21 days. Unlike the defunct DEP, NEMA has “teeth” to prosecute criminals and enforce environmental compliance. Why isn’t it biting then?
NEMA lacks innovation that is unquestionably required to neutralise complex environmental problems. True, they have succeeded in establishing standards for air quality, water quality, effluent discharge, control of noxious smells, noise and vibration control, and soil quality; but what’s the relevance of standards they cannot enforce?
Taxation, refundable deposits, remedial funds, and direct controls are innovative policy instruments NEMA could use to curb environmental crime. In particular, it could invoke its legal powers under the Environment Statute to unleash the “Polluter Pays Principle” (PPP) which forces environmental criminals to bear the full cost of degradation.
Few people would disagree with the proposition that those who cause environment damage should pay for those damages. The challenge of this approach though, is in the specifics. For NEMA to apply PPP effectively, it needs to address itself to four questions: (1) who are the polluters. (2) to what extent are they polluting? (3) what is the cost of pollution to society and the cost of pollution control? (4) how much must the polluters pay to abate their pollution?
Iam aware there are no quick-fix solutions to environment problems and would therefore be the last to condemn NEMA for their gross failures. Interestingly, those who used to castigate DEP for incompetence are now in NEMA, smouldering in stinging public criticisms. NEMA’s predicament reminds me of an old Rukiga adage: “orufu rwembwa nirwe rwo’muhiigi” (what threatens a hunting dog threatens the hunter).
Luke 6:37 teaches us to be modest in our conclusions: “judge not, and ye shall not be judged; condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned;” so goes the holly scripture. That not withstanding, I would say if president Museveni must freeze funding to any government institution for poor performance, it should be NEMA!