New Cabinet paper balanced
The new Cabinet paper on the proposed degazettement of Mabira Forest, exclusively published by this newspaper, is a balanced one. It gives both the benefits and the disadvantages of turning part of the forest into a sugar cane plantation. It weighs the economic gain against the ecological damage.
The new Cabinet paper on the proposed degazettement of Mabira Forest, exclusively published by this newspaper, is a balanced one. It gives both the benefits and the disadvantages of turning part of the forest into a sugar cane plantation. It weighs the economic gain against the ecological damage.
The problem is that, whereas economic benefits can be valued, it is hard to put a figure on environmental destruction. How does one measure the consequences of climate change? How does one put a value to soil erosion, drought, floods and land slides?
Yet, to its great merit, the Cabinet paper did put an ecological value to the forest. “At current market rates and for tropical high forests, a hectare of forest conserved can attract a financial compensation of up to $44,550. This would in the case of the 7,100 ha translate to $316.3m,†it reads. In other words, Uganda can get an estimated sh560b annually in carbon credit.
It suffices to compare that figure with the benefits from sugarcane production as listed in the paper: $25m in savings in foreign exchange, sh3b in annual earnings of the 3,500 workers and sh11.5b in expected taxes – provided Mehta stops making losses and actually starts paying taxes. All this totals up to sh59.5b. So even in purely economic terms, it is almost ten times more profitable to keep the forest than to give it away.
But another obstacle has cropped up. As this newspaper revealed, the Government agreed with the World Bank that Mabira should be kept to reduce the negative impact of building Bujagali Dam. Cutting the forest, one might find, lowers the water levels of the Upper Nile and Lake Victoria to such an extent that Bujagali cannot produce the expected power output.
Nobody doubts the President’s wisdom that Africa’s future lies in processing. Processed goods multiply the value of raw materials, create jobs and reduce trade deficits. The question, however, is whether a forest needs to be cut for this purpose when alternative land is available.
The problem is that, whereas economic benefits can be valued, it is hard to put a figure on environmental destruction. How does one measure the consequences of climate change? How does one put a value to soil erosion, drought, floods and land slides?
Yet, to its great merit, the Cabinet paper did put an ecological value to the forest. “At current market rates and for tropical high forests, a hectare of forest conserved can attract a financial compensation of up to $44,550. This would in the case of the 7,100 ha translate to $316.3m,†it reads. In other words, Uganda can get an estimated sh560b annually in carbon credit.
It suffices to compare that figure with the benefits from sugarcane production as listed in the paper: $25m in savings in foreign exchange, sh3b in annual earnings of the 3,500 workers and sh11.5b in expected taxes – provided Mehta stops making losses and actually starts paying taxes. All this totals up to sh59.5b. So even in purely economic terms, it is almost ten times more profitable to keep the forest than to give it away.
But another obstacle has cropped up. As this newspaper revealed, the Government agreed with the World Bank that Mabira should be kept to reduce the negative impact of building Bujagali Dam. Cutting the forest, one might find, lowers the water levels of the Upper Nile and Lake Victoria to such an extent that Bujagali cannot produce the expected power output.
Nobody doubts the President’s wisdom that Africa’s future lies in processing. Processed goods multiply the value of raw materials, create jobs and reduce trade deficits. The question, however, is whether a forest needs to be cut for this purpose when alternative land is available.