A lifeline crop for the Banyakigezi, (irish) potato was both a staple food and a main household income source throughout the Kigezi Highlands. Unfortunately, the crop has been decimated by pests and diseases, particularly bacterial wilt and late blight.
Where as research shows that potato can yield over 30mt/hectare, yields in the Kigezi highlands range between 4-7 mt/ha. Latest estimates show production declining even further per unit of cultivated land to the extent that most farmers have abandoned their lifeline crop.
Having realised the potato’s economic significance to communities in the Kigezi highlands, agricultural researchers and development institutions have over the years attempted to increase production of the crop by introducing higher-yielding, pest-resistant varieties into the farming system. The varieties have included: Uganda 11 (Rutuku) of 1973; Sangema of 1980; Cruza of 1983; Victoria of 1992; Kisoro of 1992; Kabale of 1992; NAKPOT 1 of 1999; NAKPOT 2 of 1999; and NAKPOT 3 of 1999). However the success of nearly all these varietal introductions was severely short-circuited by mediocre extension support and consequent low farmer adoptions.
Efforts by development organizations, including the South Western Reconstruction Project (SWARP), the African Highlands Initiative (AHI), PRAPACE, AFRICARE which provided farmers with production skills were disjointed and paid little attention to clean potato seed supply systems. Farmers continued deriving their seed from the previous harvest because organised potato seed production businesses were un-available and/or never received any support from the development organisations.
The inception of NAADS in Kabale in 2001, and its subsequent expansion to the rest of the Kigezi Highland districts of Kisoro, Kanungu, and Rukungiri gave potato farmers hope; hope which was rooted within the NAADS’ professed philosophy of integrated farmer access to knowledge, information and technology for profitable agricultural production. Between 2001 and 2005, NAADS focussed on strengthening capacity of farmer groups to produce improved potato seed at farmer-managed technology development and multiplication sites. In Kabale district, this had the immediate impact of increasing the number of potato seed producers from 1 group (Uganda National Seed Potato Producers Association –UNSPPA) before 2001, to more than 100 (albeit small-scale) by 2005.
However, the emerging (trainee) potato seed production groups required sustained technical mentoring through farmer advisory services---which were being delivered through the NAADS framework. The groups needed to learn potato seed quality control processes; integrated disease and pest management; entrepreneurship and marketing skills development; group dynamics; etc before they could become qualified clean potato seed producers.
Unfortunately, the restructuring of the NAADS which came after the 2007 presidential suspension altered the programme’s learning orientation. Accused of over-teaching farmers, NAADS was essentially converted into an input supply-oriented organisation with a minimal farmer advisory and training component. NAADS now had to source and supply thousands of metric tonnes of agricultural inputs, including potato seed. In an instant, the trainee potato seed producer groups were tipped to become commercial seed suppliers. After all, they were the only option available in an environment characterised by long-term neglect of the potato seed production sector.
Over the last three years, these half-baked seed potato producers have under the auspices of NAADS, supplied thousands of metric tonnes of contaminated/diseased potato seed to farmers that have received little or inadequate training about potato agronomy. In essence, the restructured NAADS has facilitated the trainee potato seed producers to become agents of contamination; to inoculate the entire farming system with pest and disease agents. The impact is devastating: late blight and bacterial wilt have scoured the entire Kigezi farmlands; diminishing production to its lowest levels in 30 years!
Courtesy of NAADS, the lifeblood of the Banyakigezi is gone or nearly so! Anybody who has travelled to Kigezi over the last few months and talked with farmers must have noted the cynicism farmers ascribe to NAADS: “NAADS has totally killed our gardens!”
Will NAADS ever redeem its credibility, given the increasing incidences of corruption and embezzlement of programme funds; and now its association with the spread of the decimating bacterial wilt and late blight in the Kigezi highlands, and perhaps other regions?
Published in Sunday Monitor, January 6, 2010: http://www.monitor.co.ug/OpEd/Commentary/-/689364/836418/-/view/printVersion/-/j9l2cpz/-/index.html
30 December 2009
20 October 2009
We Are Under Obligation to Cooperate With ICC
On July 14th 2008, Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir made history: he became the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The ICC charged the Sudanese leader with three counts of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity, and two counts of murder. He was accused of running a campaign of genocide that had afflicted Sudan's western Darfur region for more than four years; killing 35,000 people outright, at least 100,000 through 'slow death' and forced 2.5 million to flee their homes. Overall the United Nations put the death toll to roughly 300,000.
As expected, President Bashir shot back at the ICC, accusing the international institution of orchestrating an imperialist witch-hunt of African nationalist leaders. The Sudanese government swore never to let their leader get arrested.
Regrettably, Sudan’s position was supported by African governments, who at the conclusion of the African Union Summit in Sirte, Libya, released a resolution stating that AU member states shall not cooperate with the ICC regarding the arrest and surrender of President Omar al-Bashir.
Clearly, the position taken by AU member states ignored the plight of millions of women, children and men that have been victims of Sudan’s violence. Rather, it put the AU on the precarious side of one individual accused of mass murder.
Despite this absurdity, the fact remains that the AU resolution can’t erase the legal obligations of the 30 African countries which have ratified the ICC treaty, including Uganda.
The ICC is a permanent tribunal that prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The court came into being on 1 July 2002 when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force. As of October 2009, 110 states were members of the Court, and a further 38 countries had signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.
Uganda ratified the Rome Statute on 14th June 2002 as state party number 68, thereby binding itself to ICC obligations, among which is to cooperate in arresting and surrendering indicted suspects. President Museveni’s stance to invite Bashir to attend the AU summit on refugees due to be held in Uganda therefore contravenes the ICC Rome Statute.
In case the President doesn’t know, not cooperating with ICC’s indictment of Bashir isn’t a choice for Uganda as an ICC member state! And not cooperating should and will bring hefty consequences! Uganda gains nothing by shielding Bashir from capture; but it stands to loose if it joins the ranks of belligerent African countries that are bent on abrogating their international obligations. We could be isolated internationally through economic or political sanctions; ICC – which amazingly at the moment is handling the Joseph Kony case of as per Uganda’s request could black-list us.
But I doubt that President Museveni as a person would suffer any pain in the event of international isolation; his sustenance would continue to be met from state coffers. Evidence from Zimbabwe attests to this argument. On the other hand, the ordinary mwanainchi, whose well-being (health, production, education, name it) is well linked by how much aid flows from the international community will without doubt be the one to feel the pinch in the event of international isolation.
Only one type of sanction can hurt President Museveni as a person: an international travel ban imposed on him. It won’t take him long to succumb to the reality of ICC member states closing their airspaces, and refusing landing rights to his Presidential jet! Such a sanction will be effective in getting Museveni to comply with ICC obligations, yet too targeted to affect the ordinary mwanaichi.
The ICC is designed to exercise its jurisdiction across 110 countries. While Museveni may opt not to cooperate with ICC, he should know that in addition to damaging his own reputation, it won’t completely save his colleague Bashir from The Hague. Like other indicted war crimes suspects before him, he will eventually be extradited to The Hague.
Published in Daily Monitor on 19th October 2009: http://allafrica.com/stories/200910190584.html
The ICC charged the Sudanese leader with three counts of genocide, five counts of crimes against humanity, and two counts of murder. He was accused of running a campaign of genocide that had afflicted Sudan's western Darfur region for more than four years; killing 35,000 people outright, at least 100,000 through 'slow death' and forced 2.5 million to flee their homes. Overall the United Nations put the death toll to roughly 300,000.
As expected, President Bashir shot back at the ICC, accusing the international institution of orchestrating an imperialist witch-hunt of African nationalist leaders. The Sudanese government swore never to let their leader get arrested.
Regrettably, Sudan’s position was supported by African governments, who at the conclusion of the African Union Summit in Sirte, Libya, released a resolution stating that AU member states shall not cooperate with the ICC regarding the arrest and surrender of President Omar al-Bashir.
Clearly, the position taken by AU member states ignored the plight of millions of women, children and men that have been victims of Sudan’s violence. Rather, it put the AU on the precarious side of one individual accused of mass murder.
Despite this absurdity, the fact remains that the AU resolution can’t erase the legal obligations of the 30 African countries which have ratified the ICC treaty, including Uganda.
The ICC is a permanent tribunal that prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The court came into being on 1 July 2002 when the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force. As of October 2009, 110 states were members of the Court, and a further 38 countries had signed but not ratified the Rome Statute.
Uganda ratified the Rome Statute on 14th June 2002 as state party number 68, thereby binding itself to ICC obligations, among which is to cooperate in arresting and surrendering indicted suspects. President Museveni’s stance to invite Bashir to attend the AU summit on refugees due to be held in Uganda therefore contravenes the ICC Rome Statute.
In case the President doesn’t know, not cooperating with ICC’s indictment of Bashir isn’t a choice for Uganda as an ICC member state! And not cooperating should and will bring hefty consequences! Uganda gains nothing by shielding Bashir from capture; but it stands to loose if it joins the ranks of belligerent African countries that are bent on abrogating their international obligations. We could be isolated internationally through economic or political sanctions; ICC – which amazingly at the moment is handling the Joseph Kony case of as per Uganda’s request could black-list us.
But I doubt that President Museveni as a person would suffer any pain in the event of international isolation; his sustenance would continue to be met from state coffers. Evidence from Zimbabwe attests to this argument. On the other hand, the ordinary mwanainchi, whose well-being (health, production, education, name it) is well linked by how much aid flows from the international community will without doubt be the one to feel the pinch in the event of international isolation.
Only one type of sanction can hurt President Museveni as a person: an international travel ban imposed on him. It won’t take him long to succumb to the reality of ICC member states closing their airspaces, and refusing landing rights to his Presidential jet! Such a sanction will be effective in getting Museveni to comply with ICC obligations, yet too targeted to affect the ordinary mwanaichi.
The ICC is designed to exercise its jurisdiction across 110 countries. While Museveni may opt not to cooperate with ICC, he should know that in addition to damaging his own reputation, it won’t completely save his colleague Bashir from The Hague. Like other indicted war crimes suspects before him, he will eventually be extradited to The Hague.
Published in Daily Monitor on 19th October 2009: http://allafrica.com/stories/200910190584.html
11 August 2009
Museveni’s tribalism endears me to FDC’s “One Uganda-One-People” slogan
No! Iam neither an FDC member, nor have I ever been its sympathizer, but the recent wave of abhorrent tribalist insinuations from President Museveni --- specifically that strategic jobs in Bunyoro be “ring-fenced” for the indigenous Banyoro endears me quite nostalgically, to FDC’s 2006 campaign slogan: “one-Uganda-one people!
It is inconceivable how a sitting President, who swore to defend, preserve and protect the constitution of the republic that he leads – can recklessly recommend that relevant constitutional provisions guaranteeing all Ugandans to live wherever they wish live in Uganda; or vie for any public office of their choice – be abrogated. Of course seeking a public office has a caveat attached – i.e. – being of the right character, state of mind, age, etc. But nowhere, either in the constitution or other electoral laws, is it mentioned that the right ethnicity is a requirement for a particular public office. It therefore does not require somebody to be a constitutional lawyer to tell that Museveni’s proposal to quarantine jobs in Bunyoro for Banyoro has a treasonable stint for which he should be held personally accountable.
In 2006, FDC run a vibrant presidential campaign geared towards national reconciliation, social-economic, and political integration. They argued that Museveni’s government had created two Ugandas---the north and the south; the haves and have-nots; the wealthy and the impoverished; the politically privileged and the suppressed; the Bahima and other ethnicities; name it. Uganda, FDC further argued, was on the verge of an implosion and therefore needed a detour in political leadership – oriented towards “one-Uganda-one-people.” Unfortunately, Ugandans then either chose not to, or were denied the opportunity, to freely decide whether indeed they had to politically detour.
Iam certain that even the most fervent FDC activists at the time, perhaps including their President Colonel Kiiza Besigye, could not envision how much more the country would be polarised further under Museveni’s regime. Indeed it can be said that the wanton dissolution of the nation into ethnic districts is only a spice to tribal profiling. My guess is that the Bunyoro saga will not be the last. In fact, Ugandans should brace for more state-inspired tribal malaise.
What is interesting is that Museveni’s tribalist stance has fully aligned him with other notable tribalists, some of which are his foes. An example is Hon. Betty Olive Kamya and her federo clique that is calling for a “Buganda for Baganda.” In essence, Museveni no longer has the moral spinal cord to deny Baganda federalists what they have been agitating for! No wonder Hon. Kamya remarked of Museveni that: “he has finally walked the Uganda Federal Alliance talk,” before shamelessly adding that “leaders should be regional to fight for regional equity.” How absurd!
While I loathe Betty’s ultra tribalist orientation, I will be the first to challenge President Museveni to yield to demands for a Federal Buganda in whatever form Betty and her federo clique want it. This is because it will not be fair to “ring-fence” Bunyoro jobs for Banyoro, yet persistently refuse to “ring-fence” Buganda jobs for Baganda as demanded by the federolists. My only consolation would be that while I head back to Kabale to grow tomatoes, potatoes and cabbages in my ancestral home, Museveni will also have no option but to recoil to Rwakitura because his own tribalist policies will have rendered him an alien species in Buganda. That would be the classical way of “walking the talk!”
If Museveni is not ready for the Buganda infernal, he should not trigger the Bunyoro blaze for this will be followed by similar unstoppable after-shocks in Busoga, Bugisu, Acholi, Lango, and elsewhere – for non-indigenous residents living or working there!
President Museveni ought to be ashamed that while he is seen to be advocating for East-African Federation characterized by among other elements – free movement of labour, capital, and other means of production across the five member-countries, he is presiding over a vicious campaign to dismember the Ugandan community along ethnic lines!
As FDC president chanted during the 2006 presidential campaign, the only way to go is “One-Uganda-one-people!”
Published in the Daily Monotor on 10th August 2009 on: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Museveni_s_tribal_letter_endears_me_to_FDC_slogan_89418.shtml
It is inconceivable how a sitting President, who swore to defend, preserve and protect the constitution of the republic that he leads – can recklessly recommend that relevant constitutional provisions guaranteeing all Ugandans to live wherever they wish live in Uganda; or vie for any public office of their choice – be abrogated. Of course seeking a public office has a caveat attached – i.e. – being of the right character, state of mind, age, etc. But nowhere, either in the constitution or other electoral laws, is it mentioned that the right ethnicity is a requirement for a particular public office. It therefore does not require somebody to be a constitutional lawyer to tell that Museveni’s proposal to quarantine jobs in Bunyoro for Banyoro has a treasonable stint for which he should be held personally accountable.
In 2006, FDC run a vibrant presidential campaign geared towards national reconciliation, social-economic, and political integration. They argued that Museveni’s government had created two Ugandas---the north and the south; the haves and have-nots; the wealthy and the impoverished; the politically privileged and the suppressed; the Bahima and other ethnicities; name it. Uganda, FDC further argued, was on the verge of an implosion and therefore needed a detour in political leadership – oriented towards “one-Uganda-one-people.” Unfortunately, Ugandans then either chose not to, or were denied the opportunity, to freely decide whether indeed they had to politically detour.
Iam certain that even the most fervent FDC activists at the time, perhaps including their President Colonel Kiiza Besigye, could not envision how much more the country would be polarised further under Museveni’s regime. Indeed it can be said that the wanton dissolution of the nation into ethnic districts is only a spice to tribal profiling. My guess is that the Bunyoro saga will not be the last. In fact, Ugandans should brace for more state-inspired tribal malaise.
What is interesting is that Museveni’s tribalist stance has fully aligned him with other notable tribalists, some of which are his foes. An example is Hon. Betty Olive Kamya and her federo clique that is calling for a “Buganda for Baganda.” In essence, Museveni no longer has the moral spinal cord to deny Baganda federalists what they have been agitating for! No wonder Hon. Kamya remarked of Museveni that: “he has finally walked the Uganda Federal Alliance talk,” before shamelessly adding that “leaders should be regional to fight for regional equity.” How absurd!
While I loathe Betty’s ultra tribalist orientation, I will be the first to challenge President Museveni to yield to demands for a Federal Buganda in whatever form Betty and her federo clique want it. This is because it will not be fair to “ring-fence” Bunyoro jobs for Banyoro, yet persistently refuse to “ring-fence” Buganda jobs for Baganda as demanded by the federolists. My only consolation would be that while I head back to Kabale to grow tomatoes, potatoes and cabbages in my ancestral home, Museveni will also have no option but to recoil to Rwakitura because his own tribalist policies will have rendered him an alien species in Buganda. That would be the classical way of “walking the talk!”
If Museveni is not ready for the Buganda infernal, he should not trigger the Bunyoro blaze for this will be followed by similar unstoppable after-shocks in Busoga, Bugisu, Acholi, Lango, and elsewhere – for non-indigenous residents living or working there!
President Museveni ought to be ashamed that while he is seen to be advocating for East-African Federation characterized by among other elements – free movement of labour, capital, and other means of production across the five member-countries, he is presiding over a vicious campaign to dismember the Ugandan community along ethnic lines!
As FDC president chanted during the 2006 presidential campaign, the only way to go is “One-Uganda-one-people!”
Published in the Daily Monotor on 10th August 2009 on: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Museveni_s_tribal_letter_endears_me_to_FDC_slogan_89418.shtml
25 June 2009
Uganda should revert to Electoral Colleges
While three out of every ten Ugandans continue to wallow in biting poverty without access to basic necessities of life; and where as nearly 70% of the population in Northern Uganda face imminent hunger and starvation; the country is preparing to spend more than 500 billion shillings in electoral activities in the run-up to the 2011 elections.
Recently, EC commissioner Tom Buruku asked Parliament to intervene and compel the Ministry of Finance to release Shs105 billion to support the Uganda Electoral Commission’s operations budget for 2009/2010 – focussing on activities like voter registration, update of register and purchase of electoral equipment. Around the same time, EC Secretary Sam Rwakoojo told MPs that the EC projects the 2011 elections to cost Shs198 billion.
More over, it has been revealed that the ruling National Resistance Movement has drawn a Shs20 billion budget for activities culminating in the election of party flag bearers for the 2011 general elections. The party also plans to spend nearly an extra Shs30 billion to sponsor the campaigns of its flag bearers from village to the parliamentary level during the general elections. It is understood that other political parties are also mobilising colossal funds to match the NRM party spending.
How immoral! Can anything justify such colossal electoral spending in a country with staggering numbers of poverty-stricken citizens? Are Ugandans assured of a verifiable value for such colossal electoral spending?
There is no contradiction on the fact that Uganda needs a democratic system of governance. However, it should be a system that we can afford given the compelling development needs. There are plenty of lessons to learn from. For instance, NRM during the rebel days erected democratic structures (Resistance Councils - RCs) for their bush constituencies using electoral college systems. Being an impoverished rebel movement, it did not spend any money to elect those RCs.
Even after the NRM guerrillas had captured state power, they interpolated the bush era democratic model across the country, culminating in the election of vibrant democratic RC structures at village, parish, sub-county, county, district and national levels – using electoral colleges. Indeed National Resistance Council (NRC) of the late 1980s to early 1990s could pass as one of the most vibrant parliaments of the NRM era!
If we could have vibrant democratic institutions then without spending a lot, why is this craze about big electoral spending and the so-called universal adult suffrage? It hasn’t delivered a better democracy over the last 10 years or so; indeed the last couple of parliaments have been the most morally corrupt and legislatively inefficient. The last two parliaments as well as District Councils have been politically compromised, consequently resulting into gross failure to dispense their oversight functions. Yet, these were elected through the wasteful and expensive universal adult suffrage system.
The essential elements of democracy were defined by philosophers during the “Age of Enlightenment” (17th/18th centuries) as separation of powers; basic civil rights/human rights; religious liberty; and separation of church and state. The term “democracy” is known to come from the Greek language meaning "rule by the people". And U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) is reported to have defined democracy as: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” However, democracy is only remains the desired end!
It is important to realise that the means to democracy remains discretionary! Governments have to make a choice among the various options. But for the impoverished Uganda, the economic predicament dictates that cost considerations be the overriding criterion for choosing the means to attaining a democracy---and I would argue that the more affordable electoral college system should be preferred over the universal adult suffrage.
As to whether electoral collages deliver the best democracy is not an issue; after all, even Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), the British war-time leader contented that there is no such thing as the "perfect form of democracy" on earth! Let’s strive for a working democracy within our means! Electoral colleges worked in the 1980s and early ‘90s; they can work now and in the future.
Published in the Daily Monotor, July 7, 2009: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Uganda_should_revert_to_electoral_colleges_87643.shtml
Recently, EC commissioner Tom Buruku asked Parliament to intervene and compel the Ministry of Finance to release Shs105 billion to support the Uganda Electoral Commission’s operations budget for 2009/2010 – focussing on activities like voter registration, update of register and purchase of electoral equipment. Around the same time, EC Secretary Sam Rwakoojo told MPs that the EC projects the 2011 elections to cost Shs198 billion.
More over, it has been revealed that the ruling National Resistance Movement has drawn a Shs20 billion budget for activities culminating in the election of party flag bearers for the 2011 general elections. The party also plans to spend nearly an extra Shs30 billion to sponsor the campaigns of its flag bearers from village to the parliamentary level during the general elections. It is understood that other political parties are also mobilising colossal funds to match the NRM party spending.
How immoral! Can anything justify such colossal electoral spending in a country with staggering numbers of poverty-stricken citizens? Are Ugandans assured of a verifiable value for such colossal electoral spending?
There is no contradiction on the fact that Uganda needs a democratic system of governance. However, it should be a system that we can afford given the compelling development needs. There are plenty of lessons to learn from. For instance, NRM during the rebel days erected democratic structures (Resistance Councils - RCs) for their bush constituencies using electoral college systems. Being an impoverished rebel movement, it did not spend any money to elect those RCs.
Even after the NRM guerrillas had captured state power, they interpolated the bush era democratic model across the country, culminating in the election of vibrant democratic RC structures at village, parish, sub-county, county, district and national levels – using electoral colleges. Indeed National Resistance Council (NRC) of the late 1980s to early 1990s could pass as one of the most vibrant parliaments of the NRM era!
If we could have vibrant democratic institutions then without spending a lot, why is this craze about big electoral spending and the so-called universal adult suffrage? It hasn’t delivered a better democracy over the last 10 years or so; indeed the last couple of parliaments have been the most morally corrupt and legislatively inefficient. The last two parliaments as well as District Councils have been politically compromised, consequently resulting into gross failure to dispense their oversight functions. Yet, these were elected through the wasteful and expensive universal adult suffrage system.
The essential elements of democracy were defined by philosophers during the “Age of Enlightenment” (17th/18th centuries) as separation of powers; basic civil rights/human rights; religious liberty; and separation of church and state. The term “democracy” is known to come from the Greek language meaning "rule by the people". And U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) is reported to have defined democracy as: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” However, democracy is only remains the desired end!
It is important to realise that the means to democracy remains discretionary! Governments have to make a choice among the various options. But for the impoverished Uganda, the economic predicament dictates that cost considerations be the overriding criterion for choosing the means to attaining a democracy---and I would argue that the more affordable electoral college system should be preferred over the universal adult suffrage.
As to whether electoral collages deliver the best democracy is not an issue; after all, even Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965), the British war-time leader contented that there is no such thing as the "perfect form of democracy" on earth! Let’s strive for a working democracy within our means! Electoral colleges worked in the 1980s and early ‘90s; they can work now and in the future.
Published in the Daily Monotor, July 7, 2009: http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/opinions/Uganda_should_revert_to_electoral_colleges_87643.shtml
Tinyefuza should find a better reason for land-grabbing
The story carried in the New Vision of Wednesday, 24th June, 2009 entitled “Seize idle land, says Tinyefuza” reports General David Tinyefuza as having said that there should be a limit to the size of land individuals can acquire; and that idle land be seized and given to others to “develop.”
This resonates with the on-going debate about land reforms and the proposed kangaroo justice systems for land arbitration in which land cases will be adjudicated not by courts of law, but the Minister of Lands using administrative directives to Resident District Commissioners, police, land boards and land committees.
While the kangaroo justice systems are meant to protect those who illegally settled on people’s land prior to the 1995 constitution, General Tinyefuza’s latest drive for seizing un-used land will open flood gates for fresh land-grabbing!
By recommending that idle land be seized and given to others to “develop”, Tinyefuza knows full well in his mind that majority of Ugandans; the peasants will not join the race since they would not have capacity to “develop” any seized lands. Peasants will be effectively marginalised by the requirement to demonstrate ability to “develop” the seized land. The grabbing will therefore be meted by, and benefit only the economically muscled – the likes of General Tinyefuza and his compatriots.
What I failed to understand though from General Tinyefuza’s proposals is whether his concern for lack of government-imposed ceilings on land holding and acquisition was genuine. He certainly is one of the privileged Ugandans with more than the average household land holding in Kabale district – which according to latest statistics, stands at 2.4 hectares per a seven member household. More over, these 2.4 hectares are often heavily fragmented into 10 – 15 parcels scattered over a ten square kilometre area. I challenge the General to voluntarily donate part of his land to the land-strapped Bakiga, or even indeed any of his less fortunate kins from Ankole. He has to be seen to be walking-the-talk!
I appreciate that inequality in terms of land holding is a serious issue requiring attention, but General Tinyefuza’s proposal to seize idle land for those who can “develop” it is not a solution. On the contrary, his proposal will be a licence for fulfilling the biblical philosophy: “For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance…” (Mathew 25:29).
Land is a tradable commodity, and as long as Uganda remains a free market economy, Tinyenfuza’s neo-marxist thoughts will be abhorred. Those who have capacity to develop land are not in short supply of land. Therefore Tinyefuza should think of another reason for land-grabbing!
Published in New Vision, June 28, 2009: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/686211
This resonates with the on-going debate about land reforms and the proposed kangaroo justice systems for land arbitration in which land cases will be adjudicated not by courts of law, but the Minister of Lands using administrative directives to Resident District Commissioners, police, land boards and land committees.
While the kangaroo justice systems are meant to protect those who illegally settled on people’s land prior to the 1995 constitution, General Tinyefuza’s latest drive for seizing un-used land will open flood gates for fresh land-grabbing!
By recommending that idle land be seized and given to others to “develop”, Tinyefuza knows full well in his mind that majority of Ugandans; the peasants will not join the race since they would not have capacity to “develop” any seized lands. Peasants will be effectively marginalised by the requirement to demonstrate ability to “develop” the seized land. The grabbing will therefore be meted by, and benefit only the economically muscled – the likes of General Tinyefuza and his compatriots.
What I failed to understand though from General Tinyefuza’s proposals is whether his concern for lack of government-imposed ceilings on land holding and acquisition was genuine. He certainly is one of the privileged Ugandans with more than the average household land holding in Kabale district – which according to latest statistics, stands at 2.4 hectares per a seven member household. More over, these 2.4 hectares are often heavily fragmented into 10 – 15 parcels scattered over a ten square kilometre area. I challenge the General to voluntarily donate part of his land to the land-strapped Bakiga, or even indeed any of his less fortunate kins from Ankole. He has to be seen to be walking-the-talk!
I appreciate that inequality in terms of land holding is a serious issue requiring attention, but General Tinyefuza’s proposal to seize idle land for those who can “develop” it is not a solution. On the contrary, his proposal will be a licence for fulfilling the biblical philosophy: “For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance…” (Mathew 25:29).
Land is a tradable commodity, and as long as Uganda remains a free market economy, Tinyenfuza’s neo-marxist thoughts will be abhorred. Those who have capacity to develop land are not in short supply of land. Therefore Tinyefuza should think of another reason for land-grabbing!
Published in New Vision, June 28, 2009: http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/686211
15 March 2009
Warehouse Receipt System is far-fetched
In his article entitled “Why farmers need to produce for the market” (New Vision, 12 March 2009), Mr. Ambrose Bugaari argues passionately about the need for market orientation in the agricultural sector. He underscores the establishment of producer organisations; creation of certified rural agricultural commodity bulking centres; and scaling-up of warehouse receipt systems – as some of the measures to improve agricultural marketing.
His views indeed resonate some of the latest policy directions that many poor countries around the world, Uganda inclusive, consider as eminent pathways for rural transformation. Consider the warehouse receipt system for example. They have potential for improving overall efficiency of markets, particularly in the agribusiness sector, because producers and commercial entities can convert inventories of agricultural raw materials or intermediary or finished products into a readily tradable device.
Since warehouse receipts are negotiable instruments, they can be traded, sold, swapped, and used as collateral to support borrowing. They also provide farmers with an instrument that will allow them to extend the sales period of modestly perishable products well beyond the harvesting season.
However, In order for a warehouse-receipt system to be viable, the economy within which it operates must meet certain conditions. For instance the prospective recipient of a warehouse receipt should be able to determine, before acceptance, if there is a competing claim on the collateral underlying the receipt.
Secondly, the warehouse system requires sound operational architecture – such as reliable warehouse certification, guaranteeing basic physical and financial standards; the existence of independent determination and verification of the quantity and the quality of stored commodities, based on a national grading system; and the availability of property and casualty insurance extending to agricultural commodities.
Thirdly, a key prerequisite for the acceptability of warehouse receipts by the trade and by banks is the existence of a performance guarantee for warehouses, assuring that the quantities of goods stored match those specified by the warehouse receipt and that their quality is the same as, or better than, that stated on the receipt. Without this guarantee, farmers and traders will be reluctant to store their crops, and banks will be hesitant to accept warehouse receipts as secure collateral for financing agricultural inventories.
While I don’t want to sound a pessimist, I can’t realistically see these pre-conditions being met in the foreseeable future in Uganda. There is simply too much corruption in the system; regulatory institutions are riddled with incompetence at national level; while being non-existent at district and lower governance levels. In any case, there is considerable loss of public trust in collective marketing owing to the past fiascos, and I can guarantee that most commercial banks will remain sceptical about dealing with anybody who comes with a promissory note based on agricultural inventory.
Moreover, looking at the quality of government investments (in roads which don’t last a year; schools which crumble before they are commissioned; hospitals whose supplies are never delivered; etc), I doubt that there will be sufficient government commitment and investment of the required calibre to guarantee safe storage of agricultural products in rural warehouses. Letting the private sector to run rural warehouses will obviously make the service too costly for the impoverished farmers.
What I don’t doubt is that the government of Uganda will force through some legal framework on the warehouse receipt system. In fact, that is inevitable given the hysteria that has enshrouded the concept of agricultural warehousing in the recent past. However, government ought to know that passing frameworks is the easiest part; the devil will be in the details of operationalising such frameworks and ensuring they deliver benefits to farmers.
In any case, one needs to ask whether farmers have enough produce to warehouse when nearly one third of the country’s population is reportedly facing starvation! Therefore where as Mr. Ambrose Bugaari contended that the supply-driven, government interventionist approach is doomed, I strongly differ! Such an approach is what exactly we need at the moment to enable the starving farmers escape hunger. Talk of the warehouse receipt system, while undoubtedly good, is far-fetched for the impoverished rural farmers.
His views indeed resonate some of the latest policy directions that many poor countries around the world, Uganda inclusive, consider as eminent pathways for rural transformation. Consider the warehouse receipt system for example. They have potential for improving overall efficiency of markets, particularly in the agribusiness sector, because producers and commercial entities can convert inventories of agricultural raw materials or intermediary or finished products into a readily tradable device.
Since warehouse receipts are negotiable instruments, they can be traded, sold, swapped, and used as collateral to support borrowing. They also provide farmers with an instrument that will allow them to extend the sales period of modestly perishable products well beyond the harvesting season.
However, In order for a warehouse-receipt system to be viable, the economy within which it operates must meet certain conditions. For instance the prospective recipient of a warehouse receipt should be able to determine, before acceptance, if there is a competing claim on the collateral underlying the receipt.
Secondly, the warehouse system requires sound operational architecture – such as reliable warehouse certification, guaranteeing basic physical and financial standards; the existence of independent determination and verification of the quantity and the quality of stored commodities, based on a national grading system; and the availability of property and casualty insurance extending to agricultural commodities.
Thirdly, a key prerequisite for the acceptability of warehouse receipts by the trade and by banks is the existence of a performance guarantee for warehouses, assuring that the quantities of goods stored match those specified by the warehouse receipt and that their quality is the same as, or better than, that stated on the receipt. Without this guarantee, farmers and traders will be reluctant to store their crops, and banks will be hesitant to accept warehouse receipts as secure collateral for financing agricultural inventories.
While I don’t want to sound a pessimist, I can’t realistically see these pre-conditions being met in the foreseeable future in Uganda. There is simply too much corruption in the system; regulatory institutions are riddled with incompetence at national level; while being non-existent at district and lower governance levels. In any case, there is considerable loss of public trust in collective marketing owing to the past fiascos, and I can guarantee that most commercial banks will remain sceptical about dealing with anybody who comes with a promissory note based on agricultural inventory.
Moreover, looking at the quality of government investments (in roads which don’t last a year; schools which crumble before they are commissioned; hospitals whose supplies are never delivered; etc), I doubt that there will be sufficient government commitment and investment of the required calibre to guarantee safe storage of agricultural products in rural warehouses. Letting the private sector to run rural warehouses will obviously make the service too costly for the impoverished farmers.
What I don’t doubt is that the government of Uganda will force through some legal framework on the warehouse receipt system. In fact, that is inevitable given the hysteria that has enshrouded the concept of agricultural warehousing in the recent past. However, government ought to know that passing frameworks is the easiest part; the devil will be in the details of operationalising such frameworks and ensuring they deliver benefits to farmers.
In any case, one needs to ask whether farmers have enough produce to warehouse when nearly one third of the country’s population is reportedly facing starvation! Therefore where as Mr. Ambrose Bugaari contended that the supply-driven, government interventionist approach is doomed, I strongly differ! Such an approach is what exactly we need at the moment to enable the starving farmers escape hunger. Talk of the warehouse receipt system, while undoubtedly good, is far-fetched for the impoverished rural farmers.
10 March 2009
How safe is Uganda's airspace?
With nine plane accidents occurring in Uganda in nine years, our airspace might be one of the most unsafe in the world! Just consider the following statistics:
1) March 8, 2009 – A Somalia-bound Illyushin 76 plane operated by Aerolift crashes and sinks into Lake Victoria soon after taking-off at Entebbe International Airport, killing all 11 people on board;
2) February 20, 2009 – An Antonov 12 cargo aircraft also operated by Aerolift from Entebbe International Airport to Ukraine crashes at Luxor while attempting to take off after a refuelling stopover. All the aircraft’s five-member crew are killed upon impact;
3) April 21, 2008 – A Kenya Airways plane overshoots the runway at Entebbe airport but the aircraft and passengers are all safe;
4) September 25, 2007 – A twin-engine, eight-seater French-made aircraft belonging to Furgo Airborne Surveys crashes soon after take-off at Entebbe International Airport, killing two people;
5) June 16, 2006 – A Uganda People's Defence Forces aircraft crashes and sinks into Lake Victoria during a military exercise;
6) April 30, 2006 – A South African chartered plane goes missing in the DR Congo and is found crashed on the mountains bordering Uganda;
7) March 19, 2005 – A Boeing 707 cargo plane headed for Togo from Ethiopia with 3.2 tonnes of cargo plunges into Lake Victoria as it lands to refuel at Entebbe International Airport;
8) January 8, 2005 – A DR Congo-registered cargo plane belonging to Service Air Company crashes near Entebbe International Airport, killing its six-member Russian crew;
9) April 30, 2000 – A DAS Air Cargo DC-10 aircraft from London with over 50 tonnes of cargo crashes into Lake Victoria as it lands at Entebbe International Airport. All crew members miraculously survive;
Entebbe International Airport has been reported as having some of the best air space management radar systems (further revamped ahead of CHOGM). This not withstanding, more plane crashes and accidents have occurred in Uganda compared with other international airports anywhere else in the Africa.
It seems Uganda Civil Aviation Authority CAA takes the blame for most of the mishaps given that it has glaringly failed to exercise its air control functions. At the moment, CAA is one of the airport regulatory authorities in the world which still allow obsolete, poorly serviced, soviet-era planes not only to use our air space, but also land and take off at our International Airport. While you will not hear of an Illyushin or Antonov, or any carrier without a sound service record landing or taking off any where else where a reputable airports regulatory body is in charge, Uganda remains the safe haven for aircrafts which will soon have no where else to land.
True, Uganda CAA has for some time now enforced ICAO rules on registration of old planes and continues to refuse to register any of them in Uganda. However, it has utterly failed to ban such aircraft from actually flying in and out of Uganda as long those ramshackled planes are on the registry of other countries. Powerful businessmen such as Sam Engola (the owner of Aerolift) whose planes have been involved in the most recent air accidents) take advantage of CAA impotence to get their obsolete planes registered in countries such as the DR Congo, and then freely maraud in our airspaces.
To the shrewd businessmen, Antonovs, Iljushins and other out-dated, poorly serviced planes provide a silver-lining because of their cheapness. However, their accident record across the African continent makes a horrific reading. It is therefore high time Uganda CAA enforced a complete ban on such aircraft operating in Uganda’s airspace to save not only the lives of innocent passengers and but also restore the its own credibility, and that of the Government of Uganda.
I hate to see the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications wanting to be seen doing his job by appointing meaningless committees to “investigate the cause of crash” instead of ensuring CAA does what it’s supposed to do!
Uganda already has too much carnage on the road, air carnage would be a sour icing on an already sour cake!
Published on: http://newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/674236
1) March 8, 2009 – A Somalia-bound Illyushin 76 plane operated by Aerolift crashes and sinks into Lake Victoria soon after taking-off at Entebbe International Airport, killing all 11 people on board;
2) February 20, 2009 – An Antonov 12 cargo aircraft also operated by Aerolift from Entebbe International Airport to Ukraine crashes at Luxor while attempting to take off after a refuelling stopover. All the aircraft’s five-member crew are killed upon impact;
3) April 21, 2008 – A Kenya Airways plane overshoots the runway at Entebbe airport but the aircraft and passengers are all safe;
4) September 25, 2007 – A twin-engine, eight-seater French-made aircraft belonging to Furgo Airborne Surveys crashes soon after take-off at Entebbe International Airport, killing two people;
5) June 16, 2006 – A Uganda People's Defence Forces aircraft crashes and sinks into Lake Victoria during a military exercise;
6) April 30, 2006 – A South African chartered plane goes missing in the DR Congo and is found crashed on the mountains bordering Uganda;
7) March 19, 2005 – A Boeing 707 cargo plane headed for Togo from Ethiopia with 3.2 tonnes of cargo plunges into Lake Victoria as it lands to refuel at Entebbe International Airport;
8) January 8, 2005 – A DR Congo-registered cargo plane belonging to Service Air Company crashes near Entebbe International Airport, killing its six-member Russian crew;
9) April 30, 2000 – A DAS Air Cargo DC-10 aircraft from London with over 50 tonnes of cargo crashes into Lake Victoria as it lands at Entebbe International Airport. All crew members miraculously survive;
Entebbe International Airport has been reported as having some of the best air space management radar systems (further revamped ahead of CHOGM). This not withstanding, more plane crashes and accidents have occurred in Uganda compared with other international airports anywhere else in the Africa.
It seems Uganda Civil Aviation Authority CAA takes the blame for most of the mishaps given that it has glaringly failed to exercise its air control functions. At the moment, CAA is one of the airport regulatory authorities in the world which still allow obsolete, poorly serviced, soviet-era planes not only to use our air space, but also land and take off at our International Airport. While you will not hear of an Illyushin or Antonov, or any carrier without a sound service record landing or taking off any where else where a reputable airports regulatory body is in charge, Uganda remains the safe haven for aircrafts which will soon have no where else to land.
True, Uganda CAA has for some time now enforced ICAO rules on registration of old planes and continues to refuse to register any of them in Uganda. However, it has utterly failed to ban such aircraft from actually flying in and out of Uganda as long those ramshackled planes are on the registry of other countries. Powerful businessmen such as Sam Engola (the owner of Aerolift) whose planes have been involved in the most recent air accidents) take advantage of CAA impotence to get their obsolete planes registered in countries such as the DR Congo, and then freely maraud in our airspaces.
To the shrewd businessmen, Antonovs, Iljushins and other out-dated, poorly serviced planes provide a silver-lining because of their cheapness. However, their accident record across the African continent makes a horrific reading. It is therefore high time Uganda CAA enforced a complete ban on such aircraft operating in Uganda’s airspace to save not only the lives of innocent passengers and but also restore the its own credibility, and that of the Government of Uganda.
I hate to see the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications wanting to be seen doing his job by appointing meaningless committees to “investigate the cause of crash” instead of ensuring CAA does what it’s supposed to do!
Uganda already has too much carnage on the road, air carnage would be a sour icing on an already sour cake!
Published on: http://newvision.co.ug/D/8/21/674236
3 March 2009
Who will gun Wenger out of the gunners?
One day, a Ugandan woman who was cleaning her house poured hot water on a family of bed-bugs. While the baby bugs writhed in pain, the mother bug assured them not to worry because “whatever is hot gets cold in the end.” Indeed it did get cold but by that time, the entire family of bed-bugs had perished.
For three years, Arsenal has been under fire, conceding silly goals and finding difficulty to score. It has lost its place in the “big four” and continues its melodramatic slide from grace with its last league game win as far away as January 17. And where as it still remains undefeated in its last 15 games in all competitions, nine of those have been draws! Arsenal’s attack which used to disorganise defences with hurricane force has been rendered harmless by a confidence crisis which rather than ease out, seems to be deepening week in, week out. To delight of MAN-U’s noisy, spiteful fans, and indeed those of Liverpool and Chelsea, the Emirates guns have been silent for far too long; the gunners have been mercilessly out-gunned for far too much!!!
Arsene Wenger’s assurance of an eventual return to form will be synonymous with those of the mother bed-bug which gave false hopes to the baby bugs. It would do the fans and the club good if Wenger divorced the club right away on his own accord. That would be a more honourable exit befitting his contribution to the club. While no arsenal fan will dispute the fact that his contribution to the club has been immense, we don’t have to wait for what is hot to get cold because by that time, Arsenal will be in the Championship outfit.
At the moment, Wenger is untouchable, having won the unshakable trust of the Arsenal Board over the last decade or so. The fans can only heckle and boo him. As for the players, well – except if they would do it the Togo way: recall that Togolese players went on strike during their last international competition by hanging their boots unless their demands (allowances) were met. Perhaps Adebayor could help lead such a strike given his Togolese experience?
People will argue that Arsenal woes emanate from the ever growing injury list – which in truth is a key factor, but who in hell stopped Wenger from deepening his squad, to provide the necessary depth with experienced players that would cushion against injuries? If there is no other reason for Wenger to go, this certainly would be sufficient! As the Ugandan saying goes, ohingire ahorobi nawe nahinguuka (even the one digging on a soft ground rests!)
I have been, and I will remain a staunch, eternal arsenal fan but quite frankly, I need to be a happier fan than I have been over the last three years or so. Arsene Wenger’s youth policy – which he is keen to die defending, has painfully made Arsenal an ordinary club. At the moment, Arsene Wenger’s departure from the emirates stadium is the only option to turn-over a new chapter, and perhaps re-load those silent guns with lethal ammunition capable of terrorising league defences once again. The question is: who will gun Arsene Wenger out of the gunners?
For three years, Arsenal has been under fire, conceding silly goals and finding difficulty to score. It has lost its place in the “big four” and continues its melodramatic slide from grace with its last league game win as far away as January 17. And where as it still remains undefeated in its last 15 games in all competitions, nine of those have been draws! Arsenal’s attack which used to disorganise defences with hurricane force has been rendered harmless by a confidence crisis which rather than ease out, seems to be deepening week in, week out. To delight of MAN-U’s noisy, spiteful fans, and indeed those of Liverpool and Chelsea, the Emirates guns have been silent for far too long; the gunners have been mercilessly out-gunned for far too much!!!
Arsene Wenger’s assurance of an eventual return to form will be synonymous with those of the mother bed-bug which gave false hopes to the baby bugs. It would do the fans and the club good if Wenger divorced the club right away on his own accord. That would be a more honourable exit befitting his contribution to the club. While no arsenal fan will dispute the fact that his contribution to the club has been immense, we don’t have to wait for what is hot to get cold because by that time, Arsenal will be in the Championship outfit.
At the moment, Wenger is untouchable, having won the unshakable trust of the Arsenal Board over the last decade or so. The fans can only heckle and boo him. As for the players, well – except if they would do it the Togo way: recall that Togolese players went on strike during their last international competition by hanging their boots unless their demands (allowances) were met. Perhaps Adebayor could help lead such a strike given his Togolese experience?
People will argue that Arsenal woes emanate from the ever growing injury list – which in truth is a key factor, but who in hell stopped Wenger from deepening his squad, to provide the necessary depth with experienced players that would cushion against injuries? If there is no other reason for Wenger to go, this certainly would be sufficient! As the Ugandan saying goes, ohingire ahorobi nawe nahinguuka (even the one digging on a soft ground rests!)
I have been, and I will remain a staunch, eternal arsenal fan but quite frankly, I need to be a happier fan than I have been over the last three years or so. Arsene Wenger’s youth policy – which he is keen to die defending, has painfully made Arsenal an ordinary club. At the moment, Arsene Wenger’s departure from the emirates stadium is the only option to turn-over a new chapter, and perhaps re-load those silent guns with lethal ammunition capable of terrorising league defences once again. The question is: who will gun Arsene Wenger out of the gunners?
4 February 2009
Its action, not rhetoric that Ugandans want from NEMA
Ronald Musoke’s article (NEMA’s regular exposure of polluters good, New Vision, January 18, 2008) applauding NEMA for its plan to expose polluters in the media is utterly disappointing. Disappointing because merely listing environmental criminals in the media will not arrest the massive environmental damage the country has suffered over the last three decades – owing to policy and institutional failure.
The perpetrators of environmental crime are known not only to NEMA but the general public. In any case, the majority of industrial polluters operate based on EIAs which have been fraudulently approved by NEMA. The public has itself exposed various environmental violations and implored NEMA to take action – alas to no avail. So of what relevance will be the listing?
NEMA - the principal government agency for the management of the environment with the mandate to coordinate, supervise and monitor all activities in the field of environment has not delivered on its obligations. And of course, so are other government agencies responsible for implementing the Wildlife Act, National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, Regulations on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing, Wetlands Policy 1994, Wildlife Policy 1996, Fisheries Policy 2000, Forest Policy 2001 and the National Energy Policy 2000, among others.
The National Environment Act, (Cap 153, Section 7) empowers NEMA to enforce adherence to environmental regulations and standards as laid down in various instruments. NEMA also 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.
There are other economic instruments too, such as environmental taxation, which NEMA could unleash to enforce compliance with environmental legislation. Environmental taxes have recently become popular internationally as a type of tax which successfully meets the goal of allocating liability according to the source of environmental harm. There are myriad environmental tax regimes but the most eminent falls within the polluter-pays principle.
The principle aims to ensure that the polluter bears the cost of damage and/or cost incurred in controlling the pollution (the abatement costs and environmental recovery cost). In addition, it recognises that the burden of proof in demonstrating that a particular technology, practice or product is safe should lie with the developer, not the general public. From a legal point of view, liability is founded on the principle that we are responsible and accountable to others for our actions.
It is therefore inconceivable that despite all such leverage, NEMA rather than enforce the law has opted for the exhibitionist approach of merely listing polluters in the media while the plunder, degradation, and abuse of the environment continue. Like most other Ugandan bodies, Iam certain the underlying reason for such exhibitionism is to increase NEMA’s public visibility so that it is seen to be active – albeit doing nothing!!
By its own account, NEMA acknowledges that the economic value of environmental degradation in Uganda ranges between 4% - 12% of the Gross National Product (GNP). And because most Ugandans directly depend on environmental resources for their livelihoods, environmental degradation has fomented unprecedented poverty. It is therefore almost treasonable that NEMA has chosen to lament about those who pollute the environment (by merely listing them in the media) instead of apprehending them!
If I may use the words of one of the French encyclopaedists during the French revolution, the problems of the day won’t be solved by words, but by sweat and blood! Ugandans need action rather than rhetoric to arrest the environmental down spiral. NEMA should bring all those who abrogate existing environmental legislation to account without fear or favour. Otherwise, NEMA’s top management officials should be apprehended themselves for neglect of duty and professional incompetence.
The perpetrators of environmental crime are known not only to NEMA but the general public. In any case, the majority of industrial polluters operate based on EIAs which have been fraudulently approved by NEMA. The public has itself exposed various environmental violations and implored NEMA to take action – alas to no avail. So of what relevance will be the listing?
NEMA - the principal government agency for the management of the environment with the mandate to coordinate, supervise and monitor all activities in the field of environment has not delivered on its obligations. And of course, so are other government agencies responsible for implementing the Wildlife Act, National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, Regulations on Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit Sharing, Wetlands Policy 1994, Wildlife Policy 1996, Fisheries Policy 2000, Forest Policy 2001 and the National Energy Policy 2000, among others.
The National Environment Act, (Cap 153, Section 7) empowers NEMA to enforce adherence to environmental regulations and standards as laid down in various instruments. NEMA also 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.
There are other economic instruments too, such as environmental taxation, which NEMA could unleash to enforce compliance with environmental legislation. Environmental taxes have recently become popular internationally as a type of tax which successfully meets the goal of allocating liability according to the source of environmental harm. There are myriad environmental tax regimes but the most eminent falls within the polluter-pays principle.
The principle aims to ensure that the polluter bears the cost of damage and/or cost incurred in controlling the pollution (the abatement costs and environmental recovery cost). In addition, it recognises that the burden of proof in demonstrating that a particular technology, practice or product is safe should lie with the developer, not the general public. From a legal point of view, liability is founded on the principle that we are responsible and accountable to others for our actions.
It is therefore inconceivable that despite all such leverage, NEMA rather than enforce the law has opted for the exhibitionist approach of merely listing polluters in the media while the plunder, degradation, and abuse of the environment continue. Like most other Ugandan bodies, Iam certain the underlying reason for such exhibitionism is to increase NEMA’s public visibility so that it is seen to be active – albeit doing nothing!!
By its own account, NEMA acknowledges that the economic value of environmental degradation in Uganda ranges between 4% - 12% of the Gross National Product (GNP). And because most Ugandans directly depend on environmental resources for their livelihoods, environmental degradation has fomented unprecedented poverty. It is therefore almost treasonable that NEMA has chosen to lament about those who pollute the environment (by merely listing them in the media) instead of apprehending them!
If I may use the words of one of the French encyclopaedists during the French revolution, the problems of the day won’t be solved by words, but by sweat and blood! Ugandans need action rather than rhetoric to arrest the environmental down spiral. NEMA should bring all those who abrogate existing environmental legislation to account without fear or favour. Otherwise, NEMA’s top management officials should be apprehended themselves for neglect of duty and professional incompetence.