|
Home
|
With weak government institutions in Uganda; oil impacts cannot be predicted |
|
Oil Info-Response
1. Permit me to respond to Mr. Moses Mapesa, the Executive Director of Uganda Wildlife Authority’s (UWA) article that appeared in the New Vision paper of 26th August 2009 under the heading “Protected areas will not be affected by oil activities”.
2. In the article, Mr. Mapesa stated that there will be no degazettement of any protected area or any part of it because of oil activities, and there will be no any disruption of tourism activities. Mapesa even went ahead to say that for any one to think that any reserve or part of it will be degazetted because of oil activities, it is simply a wild imagination. Mapesa said that no animal is likely to migrate because of oil activities and he reminds us about a study that was undertaken to assess whether oil production can co-exist with nature conservation and that the conclusion of the study was that its okay as long as mitigation measures are implemented. As a director of UWA, Mr. Mapesa concluded his article by appealing to Ugandans to objectively contribute in addressing any possible challenges that may manifest themselves in form of negligence, corruption, political, ethnic statements and others that may affect the oil industry.
3. But there is a problem. Mr. Mapesa, where do you get the confidence to think that it is wild imagination for Ugandans to worry about the possible social, economic, environmental, political and other negative impacts that may come as a result of oil activities? As you know very well, you are a director of a public institution and as such, if you are to do justice to Ugandans, guide them on the basis of facts and examples that can explain and show cause why Ugandans should not be worried about a Uganda with oil. You mentioned that many institutions such as Petroleum Exploration and Production Department (PEPD), National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), National Forestry Authority (NFA), Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) and others are working together with three international NGOs namely; Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), World Wide Fund (WWF) and World Conservation Union (IUCN). In the first place and with due respect, why are you selectively working with only international NGOs while isolating Ugandan local NGOs?
4. I see, you seem to suggest that because we have institutions, then Ugandans should not worry about the management of their country, instead, they should leave it to the likes of UWA to do the needful. But as you may know, Ugandans have lost trust in public institutions and this is why you can have all sorts of accountability institutions such as the Inspectorate of Government (IGG), the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament (PAC), the Auditor General and others with all the relevant laws and policies, but Ugandans must first die to stop Mabira forest reserve from destruction by the government, NSSF beneficiaries continue to lose their hard earned incomes, NFA staff continue to be killed in cold blood, UWA fight with police in the Queen Elizabeth National Park and, you allocate the highest budget to the road sector but you remain with the poorest roads in the region. Why? The answer lies in appreciating one thing, apart from the EIA on the EPS where a public hearing was conducted, the rest of EIAs on oil exploration whether in Hoima, Bulisa, Amuru or Kanungu have been conducted secretly, and any mitigation measures provided in the reports will be hard or impossible to implement because they lack the necessary popular support.
5. In the article, you rightly recognized the need for Ugandans to work together to guard against any oil related challenges of corruption and others, but you deliberately remained silent on the kind of trade-offs that must be made in order to enjoy the benefits of oil. In any case, I haven’t heard any Ugandan saying that we should not exploit oil, but what they are saying is one, let’s plan well and do participatory feasibility studies because there are important, and not because it is a condition for donors to give money for building a refinery. So, what Ugandans need, is a transparent process to enable them make appropriate trade-offs. And Mr. Mapesa, it is wrong for you to claim that no game reserve will be degazetted at this time. I believe, as a country, instead of continuing with illegal oil activities in game reserves as it is right now happening, we can degazette as long as we are convinced that there is value for money, and yes, these are hard realities but its better that way than continuing with illegalities.
6. It is failure to face these kinds of realties which make the likes of Mapesa get genuine concerns of Ugandans wrong and, it is here where I respectfully beg to provide some cases that justify reasons why all right thinking Ugandans should ignore any baseless assurances on the oil development processes in Uganda. For instance, as a technocrat, if you cared to read, you would discover that on 5th August, 2009, the Civil Society Coalition on Oil (CSCO), a coalition of over 30 registered NGOs including World Wide Fund (WWF), World Conservation Society (WCS), the two NGOs you claim to work with and Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO) which I work with and others submitted comments on both the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and the Addendum Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in respect of the now suspended Early Production Scheme (EPS) following a public hearing and NEMA’s advert of 12th January, 2009 respectively. Now, it is over seven months since the submission of our comments but we have never received any reply from NEMA, and if NEMA can ignore such comments, how then do you expect NGOs to work with it?
7. In the comments, the CSCO indicated that it was dangerous for Uganda to continue with oil exploration and production activities in Uganda before conducting any feasibility studies on the value for money and before putting in place the following plans (1) waste management plan (2) ecological impacts monitoring plan (3) social impacts monitoring plan (4) community grievances management plan (5) waste disposal facilities plan (6) hydrology monitoring plan (7) transportation and traffic control plan and other relevant plans. To our dismay as NGOs who believe that we are partners in development of our country, NEMA chose to ignore our comments and instead went ahead to approve the EPS. And i am sure, had it not been the failure of the government and Tullow oil to get a “reckless money lender”, the EPS construction would have started in June, 2009. And now, tell me how such a venture can benefit Ugandans when you government agencies (UWA) continue to disregard people’s legitimate concerns as mere wild imaginations?
8. Mr. Mapesa, why don’t you tell Ugandans the truth that our institutions are so weak to implement any oil mitigation measures, and that without deliberate efforts to strengthen them, the oil resource will no doubt become a curse to Uganda. In any case, where do you get the powers to allege that no game park or any part of it will be degazetted? As a lawyer, I know that institutions such as UWA, NFA, NEMA and others apart from giving mere advice to the executive and parliament have no powers of degazettement of any reserves in Uganda. And remember, as UWA, you are managing those game reserves (including the Kaiso Tonya reserve) in trust for the people of Uganda, and I am not sure whether you have consulted the people of Uganda as to whether oil activities should be allowed in the game reserves or not. If you have no law that backs your declarations and you have not consulted people, then, be kind and stop calling your fellow Ugandans speculators.
9. But now that you have made yourself a spokesperson of PEPD, NEMA, NFA and others and you have given yourself powers beyond what is in the current national legal framework, let me ask you some questions; why was UWA fighting with police in the Queen Elizabeth National Park to evict the Balalo? If NFA has powers, why did Ugandans first die in order to save Mabira forest from destruction and, why are NFA staff being killed in cold blood? More so, where was NEMA when oil mud wastes were being dumped in a village in Amuru district and now crops cannot grow on the damping site? , and how much money has NEMA put aside for monitoring oil activities? How much has PEPD so far collected in signature bonuses as money to benefit Ugandans and justify any trade off that we must make? And lastly, do you know that the Hoima District Environment Office like many others in the country has no electricity, no working computer and the staff in the office even does not have a small car for field activities? Surely, why do you want Ugandans to believe that we have functioning institutions and that an officer who has no tools of trade can still be useful to his or her boss? Unfortunately, while you Mr. Mapesa, you are comfortable in your 4W drive cars, you assume that the poor officer will feed you with the right information upon which you can base on to make right decisions for the country. Dear Ugandans, we are in danger.
10. Clearly, oil is not inherently a problem in itself, but if you want to know what an oil industry can do to a corrupt country like Uganda, you must read about Nigeria. And indeed, in so many ways, Uganda to day is very similar to Nigeria because there all characterized by high levels of corruption, nepotism, weak institutions, etc. So, let me use Nigeria as an example to show Ugandans why there is need to be concerned and take necessary pre-caution as we continue with our oil development processes.
11. In Nigeria, you will find that when oil was discovered over 51 years ago, the government’s insatiable appetite for oil revenues incapacitated the sense and reason of the leaders who had powers and control over the industry. They ignored the citizens’ concerns and went with oil companies. To day, the Nigeria’s richest oil region of Niger Delta is suffering several oil impacts including those which were not anticipated at the commencement of oil production. For instance, in March 2000, the Shell’s rusting storage tank ruptured and leaked over 25 tons of tetra-ethyl-lead into the community’s environment, in July 2001, a pipeline leaked more than 1 million liters and polluted water sources and now, even the poorest person in the Delta must buy water for domestic use and on 8th August 2008, an oil refinery dumped toxic chemicals into the Merebank Community. With all these transgressions, oil companies continue to collude with the Nigerian government to make more profits amidst poverty and disease in the Nigeria’s oil rich local communities. Further more, on May 2009, the Nigerian government made an assault against the Niger Delta residents and attacker left the villages of Opuye, Okerenkoro, Kurutie and Oporoza burned to the ground with hundreds of Ijaw people, many of them civilians dead. Dear Mr. Mapesa, with all these hard realities and examples, there is every reason for Ugandans to worry about oil in game reserves and water sources.
12. Last but more important, Ugandans must appreciate that Uganda is a very poor country with weak government structures which cannot be considered politically and socially stable, but all the current environmental impact assessment reports prepared by the oil companies concerning oil in the Albertine Graben and other parts have no section addressing possible environmental and social risks that may result from such circumstances. So, where is our hope Mr. Mapesa? The cries of women and children in Sudan’s Abeyi, Angola’s Kabinda, Chad’s southern part, Nigeria’s Niger Delta and others is a clear reminder for us to avoid taking things for granted.
Dickens Kamugisha
CEO, AFIEGO |
|
