Let NRM lead Mabira debate
Sep 15, 2011
Both Moses Byaruhanga’s “Mabira discussion needs a balanced approach,†and John Ken Lukyamuzi’s “Museveni is a witty intellectual,†in the New Vision of September 13, were excellent pieces by two passionately different people facing different sides of the Mabira forest give-away debate.
Both Moses Byaruhanga’s “Mabira discussion needs a balanced approach,†and John Ken Lukyamuzi’s “Museveni is a witty intellectual,†in the New Vision of September 13, were excellent pieces by two passionately different people facing different sides of the Mabira forest give-away debate.
Lukyamuzi, this time, tried to be as environmentally ‘professional and scientific’, civil, and candid even providing some figures, which need cross-checking. The NRM must lead this debate and not leave it to be hijacked by a pseudo opposition.
I am also as passionate on environmental concerns and in particular saving Mabira forest, and allowing even what is being described as “degraded,†to regenerate itself into the thick tropical rain forest that it once was, and so, in that, I fully associate with Ken Lukyamuzi’s passion.
In Tororo, I am a relatively big forest farmer, because there, with high population density and fragmented clan land, it is difficult, if not impossible, to devote five acres of family farmland to trees.
The Padhola still consider forests as very long-term investment that humans with a life expectancy of 43 years should not engage in.
Moses Byaruhanga and President Museveni may have got the economic, investment, trade, job creation and salary income figures from sugarcane expansion all right, but still, are not as convincing as to why Mehta and, indeed, Uganda, cannot grow sugarcanes elsewhere in already open spaces that are abundantly available.
There is no dispute that the economy including sugar production and tax revenues have been going up since NRM came in, as Byaruhanga’s piece seem to suggest. There is also an argument that we give the forest to Mehta rather than perhaps to small out-growers allegedly because sugarcane is an unprofitable low priced crop. Now taking this argument at its face value, would Byaruhanga tomorrow suggest that we give peasant land holdings on which they grow potatoes and cassava to big producers just because they are un-productive? Indeed, for Byaruhanga, nobody, except the naive and less informed does not appreciate that actually the biggest threat to our natural forests are the poor peasants engaged in rudimentary bush clearing for agricultural, animal husbandry, and wood fuel survival.
However, since the Government has not yet given them better and appropriate technologies and alternatives, we must resist the Mehtas from flagrantly destroying natural forests since they have not exploited all the existing technology to increase sugar production.
Mehta and other big players have the means to either buy their own land at open market value or acquire relevant technology but have chosen not to do so, preferring political freebies.
President Museveni has challenged his critics to convince him as to why part of Mabira should not be given away.
Personally, I find this challenge untenable because it would appear Museveni is trying to shift the burden of proof from himself to the critics. It is the president who said that parts of Mabira has been degraded and should be given to Mehta, and as such, he ought to be the one to convince the public that every option has been explored.
There is an urgent need for the NRM to refocus and re-engage critically on national policy matters with every Ugandan, however superficial, or belligent they may be. It is, therefore, good that President Museveni cast aside his original position, and invited political detractors to Ntungamo to explore the Mabira issue.
To Museveni’s credit, Lukyamuzi has been the first to openly disclose its contents, and his own impression of Museveni as a “witty intellectual.†So, for those who have been banking on a clumsy government handling of Mabira round two to cause political havoc, let them read Lukyamuzi’s take. There is no reason to vow to spill blood when both sides of the Mabira aisle can engage in civilised and informed discourse.
The writer is NRM deputy spokesman
Lukyamuzi, this time, tried to be as environmentally ‘professional and scientific’, civil, and candid even providing some figures, which need cross-checking. The NRM must lead this debate and not leave it to be hijacked by a pseudo opposition.
I am also as passionate on environmental concerns and in particular saving Mabira forest, and allowing even what is being described as “degraded,†to regenerate itself into the thick tropical rain forest that it once was, and so, in that, I fully associate with Ken Lukyamuzi’s passion.
In Tororo, I am a relatively big forest farmer, because there, with high population density and fragmented clan land, it is difficult, if not impossible, to devote five acres of family farmland to trees.
The Padhola still consider forests as very long-term investment that humans with a life expectancy of 43 years should not engage in.
Moses Byaruhanga and President Museveni may have got the economic, investment, trade, job creation and salary income figures from sugarcane expansion all right, but still, are not as convincing as to why Mehta and, indeed, Uganda, cannot grow sugarcanes elsewhere in already open spaces that are abundantly available.
There is no dispute that the economy including sugar production and tax revenues have been going up since NRM came in, as Byaruhanga’s piece seem to suggest. There is also an argument that we give the forest to Mehta rather than perhaps to small out-growers allegedly because sugarcane is an unprofitable low priced crop. Now taking this argument at its face value, would Byaruhanga tomorrow suggest that we give peasant land holdings on which they grow potatoes and cassava to big producers just because they are un-productive? Indeed, for Byaruhanga, nobody, except the naive and less informed does not appreciate that actually the biggest threat to our natural forests are the poor peasants engaged in rudimentary bush clearing for agricultural, animal husbandry, and wood fuel survival.
However, since the Government has not yet given them better and appropriate technologies and alternatives, we must resist the Mehtas from flagrantly destroying natural forests since they have not exploited all the existing technology to increase sugar production.
Mehta and other big players have the means to either buy their own land at open market value or acquire relevant technology but have chosen not to do so, preferring political freebies.
President Museveni has challenged his critics to convince him as to why part of Mabira should not be given away.
Personally, I find this challenge untenable because it would appear Museveni is trying to shift the burden of proof from himself to the critics. It is the president who said that parts of Mabira has been degraded and should be given to Mehta, and as such, he ought to be the one to convince the public that every option has been explored.
There is an urgent need for the NRM to refocus and re-engage critically on national policy matters with every Ugandan, however superficial, or belligent they may be. It is, therefore, good that President Museveni cast aside his original position, and invited political detractors to Ntungamo to explore the Mabira issue.
To Museveni’s credit, Lukyamuzi has been the first to openly disclose its contents, and his own impression of Museveni as a “witty intellectual.†So, for those who have been banking on a clumsy government handling of Mabira round two to cause political havoc, let them read Lukyamuzi’s take. There is no reason to vow to spill blood when both sides of the Mabira aisle can engage in civilised and informed discourse.
The writer is NRM deputy spokesman