Maria, you have glossed over many issues on Mabira!
Apr 05, 2007
<b>Ofwono Opondo</b><br><br>Dear Hon. Maria Mutagamba, The Minister of Water and Environment, <br>Government of the Republic of Uganda, Kampala. Ugandans have read your lengthy request to cabinet to allow degazzetting 7,100 hectares of what you correctly described as “tropical moist forest†f
Ofwono Opondo
SAYING IT WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR
Dear Hon. Maria Mutagamba, The Minister of Water and Environment,
Government of the Republic of Uganda, Kampala. Ugandans have read your lengthy request to cabinet to allow degazzetting 7,100 hectares of what you correctly described as “tropical moist forest†for sugarcane growing and sugar production by the Mehta Group under SCOUL.
Unfortunately, your request is flimsy, contradictory, and doesn’t even tally with your own findings contained in the Inter-Ministerial sub-committee report whose primary recommendation is that Mabira Central Forest Reserve be left intact for various valid economic, ecological and environmental reasons, which you chose to gloss over.
In fact, your paper to cabinet is escapist as it avoids critical issues, and begs for more questions than providing valid and concrete answers which the public wants. And if this is the basis upon which you would like 7,100 hectares of Mabira destroyed for sugarcane then cabinet should tear your paper down without wasting time.
Mrs Mutagamba, you admit that only 30 percent of the national forest cover is under the direct ownership by the government while 70 percent is private, yet the Government wants to destroy its tiny part while leaving private owners the freedom to do as they wish!
According to you, it takes “six to eight decades†for a tropical moist forest to fully grow, which ought to be a very strong reason for Mabira, including the degraded areas, to be left to regenerate.
It is as strange as it is interesting that you chose to heavily rely on the ‘expert’ advice and resolution from a local sub-county council, and area MP Norman Muwulize (Buikwe West) to conclude that SCOUL be given the 7,100 hectares! Mabira Central Forest Reserve does not belong only to the immediate neighbouring communities of Nagojje, Ntunda, Wakisi, and Najjembe sub-counties and as such even if they were consulted that consultation cannot be purported to have been exhaustive or binding on the rest of Uganda.
I would like to know from Muwulize the specific dispensaries and schools his constituency of Buikwe West have got from SCOUL. You enumerated advantages of SCOUL like sugar production, direct employment, tax revenue, roads, schools, and dispensaries, which may not be questionable. However, you should have been prudent enough to disclose how many schools and dispensaries SCOUL has built since 1924 instead of the future promises intended to lure government to grant land on the cheap.
It has taken SCOUL 83 years to reach 50,000 tonnes of sugar production annually, why do you now believe that with 7,100 hectares production will jump to 110,000 tonnes and save Uganda $25m annually in foreign exchange? It is still possible for the government to redeem its credibility with regard to the intended destruction of Mabira by exploring free and open land elsewhere, but also asking SCOUL to improve production methods as well as helping outgrowers.
I don’t agree with you that granting SCOUL more free land in a tropical forest reserve “is part of the strategy to widen the scope of outgrower participation†as you state in your paper to cabinet. On the contrary you are trying to spoonfeed SCOUL instead of it depending on market forces.
It is true most outgrowers are small producers but it is no secret either that SCOUL has been offering low prices hence the outgrowers’ reluctance to expand production, and instead shifting to more viable crops like potatoes, maize, fruits, and vanilla.
Most of the 3,500 jobs you claim SCOUL will provide are unskilled similar to peasant crop agriculture. There is historical evidence that many migrant workers from West Nile who work in sugar plantations are not any better than peasants in social outlook, income, and educating their children.
You further claim that SCOUL will preserve the ecology by not ‘developing’ the areas near the banks of River Nile, and shores of Lake Victoria, in addition to planting more trees. May we know how much forest SCOUL has planted since 1924 to believe them? If Mabira is cut down, what will provide water and catchment ecosystem for lakes Victoria and Kyoga, and River Nile, which you rightly pointed out is currently done by Mabira?
It is strange that you are asking the lands minister to avail you land which formerly belonged to the Ministry of Agriculture that was “passed over†to the Prime Minister’s office for supporting other investors, which you now wants to turn into a forest reserve!
Where is this land which formerly belonged to the Ministry of Agriculture and what has happened to the initial planned investments on it? At any rate how long will it take for the new forest to grow to the present size of Mabira?
It is possible for the government to try to comply with the legal requirement for degazzetting Mabira but that alone does not mean it is the prudent thing to do right now.
SAYING IT WITHOUT FEAR OR FAVOUR
Dear Hon. Maria Mutagamba, The Minister of Water and Environment,
Government of the Republic of Uganda, Kampala. Ugandans have read your lengthy request to cabinet to allow degazzetting 7,100 hectares of what you correctly described as “tropical moist forest†for sugarcane growing and sugar production by the Mehta Group under SCOUL.
Unfortunately, your request is flimsy, contradictory, and doesn’t even tally with your own findings contained in the Inter-Ministerial sub-committee report whose primary recommendation is that Mabira Central Forest Reserve be left intact for various valid economic, ecological and environmental reasons, which you chose to gloss over.
In fact, your paper to cabinet is escapist as it avoids critical issues, and begs for more questions than providing valid and concrete answers which the public wants. And if this is the basis upon which you would like 7,100 hectares of Mabira destroyed for sugarcane then cabinet should tear your paper down without wasting time.
Mrs Mutagamba, you admit that only 30 percent of the national forest cover is under the direct ownership by the government while 70 percent is private, yet the Government wants to destroy its tiny part while leaving private owners the freedom to do as they wish!
According to you, it takes “six to eight decades†for a tropical moist forest to fully grow, which ought to be a very strong reason for Mabira, including the degraded areas, to be left to regenerate.
It is as strange as it is interesting that you chose to heavily rely on the ‘expert’ advice and resolution from a local sub-county council, and area MP Norman Muwulize (Buikwe West) to conclude that SCOUL be given the 7,100 hectares! Mabira Central Forest Reserve does not belong only to the immediate neighbouring communities of Nagojje, Ntunda, Wakisi, and Najjembe sub-counties and as such even if they were consulted that consultation cannot be purported to have been exhaustive or binding on the rest of Uganda.
I would like to know from Muwulize the specific dispensaries and schools his constituency of Buikwe West have got from SCOUL. You enumerated advantages of SCOUL like sugar production, direct employment, tax revenue, roads, schools, and dispensaries, which may not be questionable. However, you should have been prudent enough to disclose how many schools and dispensaries SCOUL has built since 1924 instead of the future promises intended to lure government to grant land on the cheap.
It has taken SCOUL 83 years to reach 50,000 tonnes of sugar production annually, why do you now believe that with 7,100 hectares production will jump to 110,000 tonnes and save Uganda $25m annually in foreign exchange? It is still possible for the government to redeem its credibility with regard to the intended destruction of Mabira by exploring free and open land elsewhere, but also asking SCOUL to improve production methods as well as helping outgrowers.
I don’t agree with you that granting SCOUL more free land in a tropical forest reserve “is part of the strategy to widen the scope of outgrower participation†as you state in your paper to cabinet. On the contrary you are trying to spoonfeed SCOUL instead of it depending on market forces.
It is true most outgrowers are small producers but it is no secret either that SCOUL has been offering low prices hence the outgrowers’ reluctance to expand production, and instead shifting to more viable crops like potatoes, maize, fruits, and vanilla.
Most of the 3,500 jobs you claim SCOUL will provide are unskilled similar to peasant crop agriculture. There is historical evidence that many migrant workers from West Nile who work in sugar plantations are not any better than peasants in social outlook, income, and educating their children.
You further claim that SCOUL will preserve the ecology by not ‘developing’ the areas near the banks of River Nile, and shores of Lake Victoria, in addition to planting more trees. May we know how much forest SCOUL has planted since 1924 to believe them? If Mabira is cut down, what will provide water and catchment ecosystem for lakes Victoria and Kyoga, and River Nile, which you rightly pointed out is currently done by Mabira?
It is strange that you are asking the lands minister to avail you land which formerly belonged to the Ministry of Agriculture that was “passed over†to the Prime Minister’s office for supporting other investors, which you now wants to turn into a forest reserve!
Where is this land which formerly belonged to the Ministry of Agriculture and what has happened to the initial planned investments on it? At any rate how long will it take for the new forest to grow to the present size of Mabira?
It is possible for the government to try to comply with the legal requirement for degazzetting Mabira but that alone does not mean it is the prudent thing to do right now.