Protected areas will not be affected by oil activities
Aug 25, 2009
<b>By Moses Mapesa</b><br><br>In the past two years there has been debate on whether, with the discovery of oil and gas in the protected areas, nature conservation and indeed environmental safeguards will go to the dogs.
By Moses Mapesa
In the past two years there has been debate on whether, with the discovery of oil and gas in the protected areas, nature conservation and indeed environmental safeguards will go to the dogs.
With all the excitement about overnight riches from oil, some people may be excused for the speculation. There have been accusations and counter-accusations of sabotage and concealment of information regarding oil exploration and the impact on conservation of our natural heritage.
The speculation hit an all-time high early this month when there were allegations of Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) clandestinely holding meetings with the oil companies involved in exploration works to close down Murchison Falls or part of it to tourism because of increased oil activity and with some even talking about a possible degazzettement. Wild imagination, I say.
There will be no degazettement of any protected area or any part of it because of oil exploration or production and there will not be any disruption of tourism activities. No protected area or part of a protected area will be closed. And no animal has migrated or is likely to migrate because of oil activities per se.
Several e-mails were circulated and ultimately tour operators, hotel owners and the media began calling UWA to find out the truth. UWA responded by calling a press conference on August 13, having had an extensive interview with the editor–in-chief of the New Vision on Aug 11, at UWA offices.
Later in the week, The New Vision invited me to write a regular column on conservation matters and I chose to gladly take up the offer, starting with this oil thing. Once prospecting for oil started way back in 2001 in Semliki Wildlife Reserve area, UWA, with its partners, initiated contact with the Department of Petroleum Exploration and Production (DPEP). The initial contact resulted in a commitment to share information and regular consultative meetings. As exploration works expanded to Kabwoya, Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth National parks, a working modality with all relevant Government agencies like NEMA, NFA, Fisheries, Water Department, Wetlands Inspectorate was agreed on with the participation of non-governmental organisations like Wildlife Conservation Society, WCS, World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF, World Conservation Union, IUCN.
A study was jointly commissioned to assess whether oil exploration and ultimately production can be undertaken alongside nature conservation and to address any aspects of natural resource management and socio-economic issues. The study was conducted independently by one foreign expert and a Ugandan one and the simple conclusion was that it is possible to undertake oil production within a wildlife protected area and for that matter any conservation area, without adverse impacts as long as mitigation measures are implemented. The results of the study were widely disseminated and can still be accessed from UWA and NEMA. Indeed several environment impact studies have been carried out on all aspects of the various ecosystems (plants and animals and their habitats), socio-economic aspects including tourism, communities, health, etc. The resultant impact assessment statements are subject to review by all the lead agencies and the public, including civil societies and NGOs. The statements provide for mitigation measures and are the basis for approvals by NEMA. It is those mitigation measures and other data collected during the impact studies that form the basis for monitoring.
NEMA has also spear-headed the preparation of a sensitivity atlas, to highlight areas that are ecologically vulnerable so that they can be avoided or if they can not be avoided then appropriate action taken.
Once the atlas is ready it will be accessible through established channels. There are three levels of monitoring and at each level there is a multi-disciplinary team drawn from all the relevant agencies. The first level is the field teams – these are officers ordinarily posted in the respective protected areas or nearest district headquarters, they are UWA wardens, NFA, water, fisheries and NEMA officers. As part of their day-to- day work in areas of oil exploration these officers individually and collectively are duty bound to undertake monitoring and report to their respective supervisory levels. And they must do their job.
The next level is the technical officers, who work as a team. These are drawn from the same agencies but are at managerial/specialist/coordinator level. In public service ranking, these officers are at Assistant Commissioner or Principal Officer level and are specialists in fields relevant to oil monitoring. As a team, they undertake quarterly visits (or as necessary) to the exploration areas with check-lists of issues to address or confirm that they have been addressed.
The next level to whom the reports from the technical team are addressed is the executive monitoring team composed of the chief executives/heads of institutions or departments. These collectively receive the reports and if need be undertake physical visits in addition to their routine supervisory visits. This team causes action to be taken as may be necessary, including halting any activity deemed to be hazardous, dangerous or significantly impacting on the ecosystem or the public. This team draws its authority from the NEMA Act but also from other acts like the Wildlife Act, Fisheries Act, etc.
The monitoring teams benefit from observations by any concerned persons from the public or civil society and welcome any constructive criticisms as well. The teams are multi-disciplinary and sectoral. In fact, now occupational health is part of the monitoring effort. NEMA has committed funding for the monitoring activities.
On behalf of my colleagues on the team I therefore appeal to the public to seek factual information and contribute objectively to the collective efforts of addressing the attendant challenges that may manifest in different ways, including negligence, corruption, political and ethnic statements, misinformation, etc.
As for Murchison, tourism numbers are growing at a rate of 17% annually and so are the revenue earnings. So tourism infrastructure will be expanded to accommodate this growth and more tourism products developed. And we shall maintain vigilance in monitoring for oil impacts. Following the report of the technical team in May, communication to the oil companies operating in Murchison was dispatched directing immediate action on observations made then.
So I can only request that we work together to conserve our natural heritage, harness the oil and use it to improve our livelihoods and also ensure that generations to come can still enjoy our natural heritage long after the oil is finished.
The writer is the executive director of the Uganda Wildlife Authority
In the past two years there has been debate on whether, with the discovery of oil and gas in the protected areas, nature conservation and indeed environmental safeguards will go to the dogs.
With all the excitement about overnight riches from oil, some people may be excused for the speculation. There have been accusations and counter-accusations of sabotage and concealment of information regarding oil exploration and the impact on conservation of our natural heritage.
The speculation hit an all-time high early this month when there were allegations of Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) clandestinely holding meetings with the oil companies involved in exploration works to close down Murchison Falls or part of it to tourism because of increased oil activity and with some even talking about a possible degazzettement. Wild imagination, I say.
There will be no degazettement of any protected area or any part of it because of oil exploration or production and there will not be any disruption of tourism activities. No protected area or part of a protected area will be closed. And no animal has migrated or is likely to migrate because of oil activities per se.
Several e-mails were circulated and ultimately tour operators, hotel owners and the media began calling UWA to find out the truth. UWA responded by calling a press conference on August 13, having had an extensive interview with the editor–in-chief of the New Vision on Aug 11, at UWA offices.
Later in the week, The New Vision invited me to write a regular column on conservation matters and I chose to gladly take up the offer, starting with this oil thing. Once prospecting for oil started way back in 2001 in Semliki Wildlife Reserve area, UWA, with its partners, initiated contact with the Department of Petroleum Exploration and Production (DPEP). The initial contact resulted in a commitment to share information and regular consultative meetings. As exploration works expanded to Kabwoya, Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth National parks, a working modality with all relevant Government agencies like NEMA, NFA, Fisheries, Water Department, Wetlands Inspectorate was agreed on with the participation of non-governmental organisations like Wildlife Conservation Society, WCS, World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF, World Conservation Union, IUCN.
A study was jointly commissioned to assess whether oil exploration and ultimately production can be undertaken alongside nature conservation and to address any aspects of natural resource management and socio-economic issues. The study was conducted independently by one foreign expert and a Ugandan one and the simple conclusion was that it is possible to undertake oil production within a wildlife protected area and for that matter any conservation area, without adverse impacts as long as mitigation measures are implemented. The results of the study were widely disseminated and can still be accessed from UWA and NEMA. Indeed several environment impact studies have been carried out on all aspects of the various ecosystems (plants and animals and their habitats), socio-economic aspects including tourism, communities, health, etc. The resultant impact assessment statements are subject to review by all the lead agencies and the public, including civil societies and NGOs. The statements provide for mitigation measures and are the basis for approvals by NEMA. It is those mitigation measures and other data collected during the impact studies that form the basis for monitoring.
NEMA has also spear-headed the preparation of a sensitivity atlas, to highlight areas that are ecologically vulnerable so that they can be avoided or if they can not be avoided then appropriate action taken.
Once the atlas is ready it will be accessible through established channels. There are three levels of monitoring and at each level there is a multi-disciplinary team drawn from all the relevant agencies. The first level is the field teams – these are officers ordinarily posted in the respective protected areas or nearest district headquarters, they are UWA wardens, NFA, water, fisheries and NEMA officers. As part of their day-to- day work in areas of oil exploration these officers individually and collectively are duty bound to undertake monitoring and report to their respective supervisory levels. And they must do their job.
The next level is the technical officers, who work as a team. These are drawn from the same agencies but are at managerial/specialist/coordinator level. In public service ranking, these officers are at Assistant Commissioner or Principal Officer level and are specialists in fields relevant to oil monitoring. As a team, they undertake quarterly visits (or as necessary) to the exploration areas with check-lists of issues to address or confirm that they have been addressed.
The next level to whom the reports from the technical team are addressed is the executive monitoring team composed of the chief executives/heads of institutions or departments. These collectively receive the reports and if need be undertake physical visits in addition to their routine supervisory visits. This team causes action to be taken as may be necessary, including halting any activity deemed to be hazardous, dangerous or significantly impacting on the ecosystem or the public. This team draws its authority from the NEMA Act but also from other acts like the Wildlife Act, Fisheries Act, etc.
The monitoring teams benefit from observations by any concerned persons from the public or civil society and welcome any constructive criticisms as well. The teams are multi-disciplinary and sectoral. In fact, now occupational health is part of the monitoring effort. NEMA has committed funding for the monitoring activities.
On behalf of my colleagues on the team I therefore appeal to the public to seek factual information and contribute objectively to the collective efforts of addressing the attendant challenges that may manifest in different ways, including negligence, corruption, political and ethnic statements, misinformation, etc.
As for Murchison, tourism numbers are growing at a rate of 17% annually and so are the revenue earnings. So tourism infrastructure will be expanded to accommodate this growth and more tourism products developed. And we shall maintain vigilance in monitoring for oil impacts. Following the report of the technical team in May, communication to the oil companies operating in Murchison was dispatched directing immediate action on observations made then.
So I can only request that we work together to conserve our natural heritage, harness the oil and use it to improve our livelihoods and also ensure that generations to come can still enjoy our natural heritage long after the oil is finished.
The writer is the executive director of the Uganda Wildlife Authority