Referendum symbols not eco-friendly
WE have learnt with concern the decision by the Electoral Commission to use an elephant and a tree as symbols in the forthcoming referendum on opening up of political space slated for July 2005.
Achilles Byaruhanga
WE have learnt with concern the decision by the Electoral Commission to use an elephant and a tree as symbols in the forthcoming referendum on opening up of political space slated for July 2005.
Whilst the choice of symbols may seem like recognition of our green environment, the use of the tree and elephant could have far-reaching consequences for the environment and natural resources.
Uganda is well endowed with a beautiful environment and has been described as one of the most beautiful countries in Africa. Sir Winston Churchill described her as the Pearl of Africa in 1950s.
However, this rich diversity has been degraded over time, sometimes due to poor political decisions. A country that was steaming with wildlife in the 1960s, with thousands elephants, buffalo, giraffes, rhinos, etc, as well as impenetrable wetlands and forests is now left with only pockets of intact habitats.
The elephant in particular is globally threatened and at the verge of extinction in Uganda. It is also a Number One tourist attraction to Uganda. There are less than 3,000 elephants left in Uganda today compared to over 60,000 in 1960s. The rhinos and others species are already extinct.
Political instability reduced the herd of elephants to less than 15,000 in early 1970s. By 1980s there were 4,300 and early 1990s we only had 1,200. The numbers have been recovering since 1990s to about 1,900 individuals in 1995 and 2,200 in 2000.
Over the last decade, Uganda Wildlife Authority, a conservation organisation at national and international levels have joined hands to ensure conservation and recovery of this species. The numbers have recovered to the current 3,000 elephants. It is, therefore, ridiculous for the commission to decide to put this highly threatened animal to such disrepute.
We are also concerned that efforts in tree planting in the last decade could go to waste if the tree is used as a symbol. This will certainly be a disaster for our environment. The tree is proposed for the YES symbol. Assuming this becomes the most popular group (side) and at least half of 20 million Ugandans carry a tree everyday, we would lose 10 million trees daily.
If the campaign period takes one month, then we shall lose 300 million trees in just one month of the campaign period or if everybody participated to support one side then we could easily lose 600 million trees in just one month. Trees have already suffered immense destruction in previous political activities.
I can imagine how the YES side are going to express themselves, through carrying trees or branches. How is the NO side going to express themselves? Carrying tusks or ears of elephants? All this will be illegal under Convention in International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) and the laws of Uganda (Wildlife Statute 1995).
The bigger question is how will you prevent it? Political activities are sometimes highly unpredictable and the use of such symbols can result into unexpected repercussions. How do you ask me to choose between the elephant and a tree for my support to a political ideology?
Some individuals cannot put on a shirt or dress that is white and green, or blue and red because these colours are used or represented political groups of different ideology. This may occur with the proposed symbols in the referendum. That would mean polarising the population between people who hate trees and those who would swear to eliminate elephants.
Tree planting could become a taboo in the next month because you would be identified as a staunch supporter of the ‘YES’ side and probably eliminate the elephant to completely erase any signs of the Movement system of governance.
We need to recognise the efforts of conservation groups and government lead agencies such Uganda Wildlife Authority, National Forestry Authority, Wetlands Inspection Division, NEMA, which are striving to create a good image of nature to the public through awareness.
The symbols are inappropriate and likely to cause irreparable damage to our national heritage, the environment. I urge the electoral commission to reconsider the symbols proposed.
I also urge the commission not to join the archives of history as one of the agents, who have decimated our environment in disrespect to the national conservation efforts.
The writer is the director of Nature Uganda, a local NGO and partner of BirdLife International
WE have learnt with concern the decision by the Electoral Commission to use an elephant and a tree as symbols in the forthcoming referendum on opening up of political space slated for July 2005.
Whilst the choice of symbols may seem like recognition of our green environment, the use of the tree and elephant could have far-reaching consequences for the environment and natural resources.
Uganda is well endowed with a beautiful environment and has been described as one of the most beautiful countries in Africa. Sir Winston Churchill described her as the Pearl of Africa in 1950s.
However, this rich diversity has been degraded over time, sometimes due to poor political decisions. A country that was steaming with wildlife in the 1960s, with thousands elephants, buffalo, giraffes, rhinos, etc, as well as impenetrable wetlands and forests is now left with only pockets of intact habitats.
The elephant in particular is globally threatened and at the verge of extinction in Uganda. It is also a Number One tourist attraction to Uganda. There are less than 3,000 elephants left in Uganda today compared to over 60,000 in 1960s. The rhinos and others species are already extinct.
Political instability reduced the herd of elephants to less than 15,000 in early 1970s. By 1980s there were 4,300 and early 1990s we only had 1,200. The numbers have been recovering since 1990s to about 1,900 individuals in 1995 and 2,200 in 2000.
Over the last decade, Uganda Wildlife Authority, a conservation organisation at national and international levels have joined hands to ensure conservation and recovery of this species. The numbers have recovered to the current 3,000 elephants. It is, therefore, ridiculous for the commission to decide to put this highly threatened animal to such disrepute.
We are also concerned that efforts in tree planting in the last decade could go to waste if the tree is used as a symbol. This will certainly be a disaster for our environment. The tree is proposed for the YES symbol. Assuming this becomes the most popular group (side) and at least half of 20 million Ugandans carry a tree everyday, we would lose 10 million trees daily.
If the campaign period takes one month, then we shall lose 300 million trees in just one month of the campaign period or if everybody participated to support one side then we could easily lose 600 million trees in just one month. Trees have already suffered immense destruction in previous political activities.
I can imagine how the YES side are going to express themselves, through carrying trees or branches. How is the NO side going to express themselves? Carrying tusks or ears of elephants? All this will be illegal under Convention in International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) and the laws of Uganda (Wildlife Statute 1995).
The bigger question is how will you prevent it? Political activities are sometimes highly unpredictable and the use of such symbols can result into unexpected repercussions. How do you ask me to choose between the elephant and a tree for my support to a political ideology?
Some individuals cannot put on a shirt or dress that is white and green, or blue and red because these colours are used or represented political groups of different ideology. This may occur with the proposed symbols in the referendum. That would mean polarising the population between people who hate trees and those who would swear to eliminate elephants.
Tree planting could become a taboo in the next month because you would be identified as a staunch supporter of the ‘YES’ side and probably eliminate the elephant to completely erase any signs of the Movement system of governance.
We need to recognise the efforts of conservation groups and government lead agencies such Uganda Wildlife Authority, National Forestry Authority, Wetlands Inspection Division, NEMA, which are striving to create a good image of nature to the public through awareness.
The symbols are inappropriate and likely to cause irreparable damage to our national heritage, the environment. I urge the electoral commission to reconsider the symbols proposed.
I also urge the commission not to join the archives of history as one of the agents, who have decimated our environment in disrespect to the national conservation efforts.
The writer is the director of Nature Uganda, a local NGO and partner of BirdLife International