Mabira councils opposed give-away
Apr 09, 2007
THE controversy over Mabira Forest has deepened with some local political leaders dismissing claims that they approved the degazettement of part of the reserve to allow sugarcane growing.
By Gerald Tenywa
THE controversy over Mabira Forest has deepened with some local political leaders dismissing claims that they approved the degazettement of part of the reserve to allow sugarcane growing.
The Wakisi LC3 chairperson, Apollo Massa, said the sub-county, which borders the forest, had never passed any resolution giving away the forest.
“I affirm my earlier position that Mabira should not be touched,’’ he asserted, adding that Mehta had only held an awareness meeting with them, without any concrete resolutions.
Last week, the environment minister, Maria Mutagamba, told the press at the Media Centre in Kampala that four sub-counties on the eastern side of the forest to be affected by the degazettment had approved the forest give-away.
However, Massa said the team had only told them of socio-economic benefits such as schools that would be constructed after the take-over of the forest.
“It is not on record anywhere that we resolved to give away Mabira. I can’t answer for everyone because I respect people’s opinions. But what we had was a mere awareness meeting without any resolution.â€
The acting Nagojje LC3 chief, Simon Ochwo, said his council had never approved the give away.
“There are many advantages such as employment that Mehta has given to the local people. But natural forests have priceless roles like rain making and protection of soil as well as rivers.’’
He said his sub-county, which now has many trees, had ceased to be of interest to Mehta.
“We now understand that they are pushing for eastern side of the forest, which was degraded by encroachers about two decades ago.â€
The Mabira Forest saga began a few weeks ago when The New Vision reported that 7,100 hectares of the forest were to be given to the Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd, owned by Mehta, for sugarcane planting.
Since then, there has been a strong public outcry, with several civil society groups threatening legal action if the forest is given away.
THE controversy over Mabira Forest has deepened with some local political leaders dismissing claims that they approved the degazettement of part of the reserve to allow sugarcane growing.
The Wakisi LC3 chairperson, Apollo Massa, said the sub-county, which borders the forest, had never passed any resolution giving away the forest.
“I affirm my earlier position that Mabira should not be touched,’’ he asserted, adding that Mehta had only held an awareness meeting with them, without any concrete resolutions.
Last week, the environment minister, Maria Mutagamba, told the press at the Media Centre in Kampala that four sub-counties on the eastern side of the forest to be affected by the degazettment had approved the forest give-away.
However, Massa said the team had only told them of socio-economic benefits such as schools that would be constructed after the take-over of the forest.
“It is not on record anywhere that we resolved to give away Mabira. I can’t answer for everyone because I respect people’s opinions. But what we had was a mere awareness meeting without any resolution.â€
The acting Nagojje LC3 chief, Simon Ochwo, said his council had never approved the give away.
“There are many advantages such as employment that Mehta has given to the local people. But natural forests have priceless roles like rain making and protection of soil as well as rivers.’’
He said his sub-county, which now has many trees, had ceased to be of interest to Mehta.
“We now understand that they are pushing for eastern side of the forest, which was degraded by encroachers about two decades ago.â€
The Mabira Forest saga began a few weeks ago when The New Vision reported that 7,100 hectares of the forest were to be given to the Sugar Corporation of Uganda Ltd, owned by Mehta, for sugarcane planting.
Since then, there has been a strong public outcry, with several civil society groups threatening legal action if the forest is given away.