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!
No comments:
Post a Comment