Hidden costs of non-compliance with social safeguards in Uganda’s hydropower sector

__________________

OPINION

By James Tayebwa Bamwenda

Hydropower plays a pivotal role in Uganda’s pursuit of reliable electricity, green energy, and sustainable economic growth. Flagship projects such as Karuma (600 MW) and Bujagali, financed through foreign capital and implemented by private contractors, promise significant national benefits.

However, non-compliance with social safeguard instruments, such as Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIAs), Environmental and Social Management Plans (ESMPs), and audits, has led to far-reaching economic, social, and environmental costs.

Affected persons and communities have borne the impact of delayed compensation, displacement, and livelihood loss, while the state faces reputational and financial burdens due to persistent implementation gaps.

Social safeguards originated from global concerns in the 1980s and 1990s over the negative social consequences of large-scale development projects.

The World Bank and other international institutions introduced safeguard policies to ensure that affected communities were protected from displacement and loss of livelihood. These efforts were later reinforced through frameworks such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standards, and the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework (ESF). In Uganda, social safeguards are grounded in the Constitution (1995), the Land Act (1998), the Land Acquisition Act (1965), the National Environment Act (2019), and the National Resettlement and Compensation Policy (2017 draft).

Additionally, the National Social Safeguards Policy under the Ministry of Gender, Labour, and Social Development provides guidelines for inclusive and equitable implementation. Yet, enforcement remains weak due to limited coordination, low public awareness, and institutional capacity constraints.

Evidence from the Karuma Hydropower Project in Kiryandongo and Oyam districts reveals that 465.52 hectares of land were acquired, displacing 3,735 people, including 280 landowners and 134 tenants.

Of 119 households who opted for relocation, many have not been resettled. Although Parliament approved a supplementary budget of sh28 billion for compensation, only sh4.2 billion was disbursed.

Vulnerable groups, widows, the elderly, the disabled, and people living with HIV remain in risky conditions without adequate housing or services.

Also, the Bujagali Hydropower Project submerged farmlands and fishing grounds, destroying livelihoods. Resettled communities at Naminya raised complaints about poor housing quality, lack of land titles, and unfulfilled commitments to build essential facilities like a health centre, community market, and access roads. Consultations were often mechanical, with affected persons informed but not meaningfully engaged in resettlement planning.

Social vulnerabilities also emerged during project implementation. In Oyam District, local leaders documented about 20 children fathered by Chinese workers at Karuma who were later abandoned.

The contractor, Sinohydro, dismissed these as private matters, leaving mothers without economic or legal recourse. Such cases highlight gendered harms and long-term social implications, including single motherhood, poverty, and social stigma.

Delays in compensation and undervaluation of land have further impoverished displaced families, mainly those dependent on agriculture and fishing. Many affected persons continue to live in temporary or unsafe conditions, with promised infrastructure such as schools, clinics, and roads still unfulfilled.

ESIAs, ESMPs, and Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) are designed to anticipate and mitigate adverse impacts through consultation, monitoring, and compliance audits.

However, in practice, these tools are often reduced to procedural requirements for securing project approval rather than binding commitments. For example, the RAP for Karuma was approved, but implementation has lagged, with frequent delays in compensation and weak enforcement of audit recommendations.

Uganda’s legal frameworks, such as Article 26 of the Constitution on property rights, the Land Act, and the Environment Act, mandate fair compensation and resettlement, yet outdated valuation standards, poor enforcement, and weak grievance mechanisms continue to undermine compliance.

Coordination across key institutions, including the Ministry of Energy, NEMA, Ministry of Lands, and Ministry of Gender, remains limited, causing overlaps and accountability gaps.

The costs of non-compliance are multifaceted. Financially, project delays increase expenditure due to inflation, legal fees, and supplementary budgets. Socially, grievances over compensation and resettlement foster mistrust, protests, and petitions, such as the one filed by Karuma Project Affected Persons (PAPs) to the President.

Gendered harms, like the abandonment of mothers and children, deepen social inequality. Environmentally, failure to follow ESMPs results in polluted water sources, unsafe housing, and inadequate health outcomes. Politically, donor confidence weakens, threatening future funding.

To reverse these trends, Uganda must strengthen the enforceability of safeguard instruments, with clear penalties for non-compliance and standardised compensation procedures.

The government should ensure the timely implementation of RAPs, prioritise funding for vulnerable groups, and introduce legal provisions for child protection and paternity recognition in cases involving foreign workers. Institutional coordination should be enhanced through joint committees involving energy, land, environment, and gender ministries, as recommended by Parliament.

Most importantly, communities must be meaningfully engaged in planning, monitoring, and grievance resolution. Public disclosure of audit reports and enforcement of corrective measures are essential for transparency.

Proper implementation of social safeguards is not only procedural, it is foundational to inclusive and sustainable development. When effectively enforced, Uganda’s hydropower projects can deliver on their promise of clean energy and economic growth without compromising the rights, dignity, and well-being of its people.

The writer is a lecturer, Victoria University, PhD Candidate Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology at Makerere University, a Scholar of Social Safeguards.