On what basis was a wetland bought?
Jun 09, 2009
EDITOR—For some time, the media has been awash with stories pertaining to a Dutch ‘investor’, Ronald Scheer, who was blocked by NEMA and subsequently taken to court for building a storied house in a lakeshore wetland. It is claimed Scheer wants to b
EDITOR—For some time, the media has been awash with stories pertaining to a Dutch ‘investor’, Ronald Scheer, who was blocked by NEMA and subsequently taken to court for building a storied house in a lakeshore wetland. It is claimed Scheer wants to build an ICT facility.
Your editorial of June 2009 raised pertinent issues and also controversies over this case.
It asserts that Scheer received a grant of sh750m from the Netherlands government for his project. Furthermore, it mentions that KCC and the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) cleared the project and Scheer did not know about NEMA. So he invested sh1.8b in the wetland.
This case requires critical analysis of six factors: lfirst, in the process of acquiring the land, did Scheer work with a lawyer? If yes, on what basis did he proceed to buy a wetland for
his project?
- Did the lawyer, if Scheer had one, advise him that under the law, whoever intends to use an area of a wetland measuring about 50 metres x 50 metres requires to undertake an environment impact study and did he do it?
- What conditions were attached to the grant given by the Netherlands government? The Nerthelands is very sensitive on environment issues.
- Is Scheer sincere that he was really building an ICT facility and not a home?
- Did he seek guidance from NEMA or UIA prior to commencing his project? What advice was he given? Did he heed to it?
- Finally, what does the law in Uganda say about undertaking projects in lakeshores, wetlands and riverbanks?
Article 237 2 (b) of the Constitution holds wetlands in trust, meaning wetlands cannot be owned, sold or bought. It is crystal clear even to the unschooled eye that Scheer’s project was in a wetland. Sections 44 and 45 of the Land Act Cap 227 (1998) controls use of wetlands and lakeshores and requires developers to observe, among others, the National Environment Act Cap 153 (1995).
Section 38 of the latter prohibits building, drilling or drainage of wetlands. In addition, Section 18 of the Investment Code (1991) requires developers to ensure that their activities do not cause injury or destruction to the environment. In addition, the Town and Country Planning Act Cap 30, requires a developer to seek relevant approvals to ensure that his project conforms to the planning of the area of interest. Did Scheer violate any of these requirements?
Two principles are used to apply these laws namely; the precautionary principle (EIA, permits, compliance assistance, consultations, etc) and the polluter pay (fines, court orders, prosecution).
If Scheer overlooked procedures, as evidence indicate, is it NEMA to blame for enforcing the law or Scheer for being naïve or intransigent? It seems Scheer was taking Uganda for granted!
James Ssibyangu
Kampala
Your editorial of June 2009 raised pertinent issues and also controversies over this case.
It asserts that Scheer received a grant of sh750m from the Netherlands government for his project. Furthermore, it mentions that KCC and the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) cleared the project and Scheer did not know about NEMA. So he invested sh1.8b in the wetland.
This case requires critical analysis of six factors: lfirst, in the process of acquiring the land, did Scheer work with a lawyer? If yes, on what basis did he proceed to buy a wetland for
his project?
- Did the lawyer, if Scheer had one, advise him that under the law, whoever intends to use an area of a wetland measuring about 50 metres x 50 metres requires to undertake an environment impact study and did he do it?
- What conditions were attached to the grant given by the Netherlands government? The Nerthelands is very sensitive on environment issues.
- Is Scheer sincere that he was really building an ICT facility and not a home?
- Did he seek guidance from NEMA or UIA prior to commencing his project? What advice was he given? Did he heed to it?
- Finally, what does the law in Uganda say about undertaking projects in lakeshores, wetlands and riverbanks?
Article 237 2 (b) of the Constitution holds wetlands in trust, meaning wetlands cannot be owned, sold or bought. It is crystal clear even to the unschooled eye that Scheer’s project was in a wetland. Sections 44 and 45 of the Land Act Cap 227 (1998) controls use of wetlands and lakeshores and requires developers to observe, among others, the National Environment Act Cap 153 (1995).
Section 38 of the latter prohibits building, drilling or drainage of wetlands. In addition, Section 18 of the Investment Code (1991) requires developers to ensure that their activities do not cause injury or destruction to the environment. In addition, the Town and Country Planning Act Cap 30, requires a developer to seek relevant approvals to ensure that his project conforms to the planning of the area of interest. Did Scheer violate any of these requirements?
Two principles are used to apply these laws namely; the precautionary principle (EIA, permits, compliance assistance, consultations, etc) and the polluter pay (fines, court orders, prosecution).
If Scheer overlooked procedures, as evidence indicate, is it NEMA to blame for enforcing the law or Scheer for being naïve or intransigent? It seems Scheer was taking Uganda for granted!
James Ssibyangu
Kampala