ACODE Policy Briefing Paper No. 7, · PDF fileACODE Policy Briefing Paper No. 7, 2004 THE POLITICS OF INVESTMENT AND LAND ACQUISITION IN UGANDA A Case Study of Pian Upe Game Reserve

ACODE Policy Briefing Paper No. 7, 2004



THE POLITICS OF INVESTMENT AND LANDACQUISITION IN UGANDA

A Case Study of Pian Upe Game Reserve

Godber W. Tumushabe*Arthur Bainomugisha**

ACODE Policy Briefing Paper N0. 7, 2004

©ACODE

* Godber Tumushabe is an Advocate, Policy Analyst and Executive Director-Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment. He also lecturesInternational Law and Environmental Law at Makerere University.

** Arthur Bainomugisha is a Peace and Security Analyst and Manager of the Peaceand Conflict Programme of Advocates Coalition for Development andEnvironment (ACODE).


Table of Contents Page

List of Acronyms........................................iii

1. Introduction.............................................1

2. Background..............................................3

Map of Pian Upe Game Reserve.........................5

3. The Illegality of the Process to Degazette

Pian Upe.................................................6

4. When Wealth and Political Power Confine the

Rule of Law to Post Mortem...........................9

5. The Land Act: Restricting Abuse of Discretionary

Political Power.........................................14

6. When degazettement becomes a political,

rather than a Policy Process.........................15

7. Stakeholder Analysis..................................17

8. What are the implications of the proposed

degazettement?......................................23

8.1. Environmental law Enforcement and

Compliance .....................................23

8.2. Non – Compliance with existing laws

on wild life undermines Government .......23

8.3. The permit system is being misused.........24

9. Government should consider other options

other than degazettement..........................25

10. Conclusion.............................................29

11. List of References....................................30i


List of figures

Figure 1: Interface between nature, wealth

and power in the decision making

process.....................................10

Figure 2: Procedure for Excising Land from

Protected Areas...........................27

List of tables

Table 1: Description of Selected Stakeholders in

the Pian Upe Debate.....................20

ii


List of Acronyms

ACODE Advocates Coalition for Development and

Environment

CHA Controlled Hunting Area

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Study

KSW Kakira Sugar Works

NEMA National Environmental Management Authority

PEAP Poverty Eradication Action Plan

SI Statutary Instrument

UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority

iii


1. Introduction

Over the last decade, the Government of Uganda hasadopted a consistent pattern of considering protectedareas as lands available for private appropriation especiallywhen dealing with foreign private investments. Thepractice could negatively impact on the livelihoods ofnatural resource dependent communities and undermineUganda’s commitments to major regional and internationalenvironmental legal instruments1. This pattern is wellestablished with reference to a number of cases. Forexample in 1997, Government successfully degazettedNamanve Forest Reserve. In 2002, after unsuccessfulattempts to degazette Butamira Forest Reserve,Government granted a land use permit to Kakira SugarWorks (U) Ltd., (KSW) to turn the Forest Reserve into asugar cane plantation. In 2000, Government authorizedthe degazzettement of a series of forest reserves on BugalaIslands of Lake Victoria. In all these cases, Governmentconducted itself as the proponent of the investmentprojects, trading wealth for fiction- a scenario that istantamount to the abuse of the public trust enshrined inthe 1995 Constitution.

This policy briefing paper has three specific objectives.First, it is intended to provide an independent legal analysisof the legal issues surrounding the proposed degazettement

1. Uganda is a party to major global environmental agreements, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992, the Lusaka Agreement, and the Algiers Convention, which commit Parties to establish a network of protected area systems for the conservation of nature and natural resources.

1


of Pian Upe Game Reserve. Second, by applying the nature,wealth and power analytical framework, we intend toshow that politically motivated degazzettement ofprotected areas for the wealthy and politically powerfulpeople is the single biggest threat to the natural resourcesheritage of Uganda2. And third, we seek to challenge whatis slowly becoming a dominant thinking that protectedareas are available to Government to “to dish out” toprivate and corporate interest in complete disregard ofthe beneficiary interest of the Ugandan people. Wecontend that the proposed degazettement of part of PianUpe Game Reserve is consistent with this growing patternof abuse of public trust. Fortunately, Government isincreasingly recognizing the importance of maintaining theprotected area system of natural resources. What is neededis more analytical work and advocacy to demonstrate thesocio-economic and political relevance of these resourcesin sustaining rural livelihoods and achieving the policyobjectives and targets set out in the Poverty EradicationAction Plan (PEAP).

2

2. Vicky Luyima, et al., High Level Policy Dialogue on Nature, Wealth and Power: Balancing Nature, Wealth and Power Through the PEAP Revision Process. ACODE Public Policy Dialogue Series No.3, 2004


2. Background

Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve is one of Uganda’s largestwildlife reserves with a total land area of 2,304 sq. km. Itis located in Nakapiripit District in Karamoja region. Thereserve stretches from the foothills of Mt. Kadam at theKenya-Uganda border to Kyoga. The reserve is made up ofa savannah and wetland ecological system in the northand south. The reserve is endowed with unique importantwildlife species such as topi, hartebeest, eland, zebra,leopard, lion, buffalo, giraffe, bright’s gazelle, and others.The reserve holds the last population of the roan antelopeand ostriches, which are threatened by extinction inUganda. The reserve is also a route for migratory speciesof birds from Europe. Millions of birds migrate southwardsduring winter and use Pian Upe wetlands on their wayback and forth.

The area comprising Pian Upe Game Reserve is importantfor conservation of biodiversity. In terms of landscape,the area is characterized by dramatic and spectacularlandscapes, comprising of the volcanic mountain of Napak,which is a water catchment area, the foothills of MountKadam, the inselbergs and hills adjacent on Greek River,and the grasslands and wetlands around Lake Opeta. Thevegetation area comprises a mix of Acacia seyal,depranolobium and Setaria grassland, with dryHyparrhenia grass savannah. In the South East, thedominant vegetation type is Acacia-lannea-Combretun-Lonchocarpus savannah with Themeda grassland. In 1960sthe area was reknown for its large population of topi,hartebeest, eland, zebra, buffalo, giraffe, roan antelope,bright’s gazelle, leopard, lion, and others. The wetland

3


of Lake Opeta outside the Reserve in the south isconsidered to be of great importance for birdconservation, and there have been calls at the internationallevel to accord this area a higher-level protection3. Thisarea is the only true wetland in Karamoja4.

Pian Upe was gazetted as a wildlife reserve in 1964 underS.I 2205 of 1964 [known as the Game Reserve Declaration(No. 5) Notice of 1964]. It is listed in the Sixth Scheduleto the Game (Preservation and Control) Act6. Although theGame (Preservation and Control) Act was repealed by theUganda Wildlife Statute7, the Sixth Schedule was savedby section 94(1)(a) of the Statute. Consequently, Pian Upeto date has a status of a wildlife reserve and forms part ofthe public trust resources protected under Article 237 ofthe Constitution and section 45 of the Land Act, 1998.

In spite of its protected status, access to the wildlifereserve and some of the resources that are important forlivelihoods was guaranteed under the gazettementinstrument8. In particular, the Karamajongo localcommunities continue to graze their cattle and get waterfrom the swamps in the Reserve. The Reserve serves as agrazing area during the dry season. It is estimated thatover 20,000 heads of cattle move to the Opeta area duringthe dry season mainly during the months of October –February, to the south of the Pian Upe Game Reserve and

3. Protected Area Systems Plan (PASP) 2002: Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), page 2.4. Ibid.5. See also the schedule attached to S.I No. 136 of 1965 (cited as Game Reserves Declaration (Amendment) Notice 1965).6. Cap 226 of the Laws of Uganda.7. Statute No. 14 of 1996. See sections 94 and 26.8. The Game Reserve Declaration (No.5) Notice, S.I 220 of 1964.

4


in East Teso Controlled Hunting Area (CHA)9. Generally,the resources in the Reserve are accessed by every oneon permission from the authority responsible for themanagement of the reserve: Uganda Wildlife Authority(UWA).

Map of Pian Upe Game Reserve

Source: Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)

5

9. Supra.


3. The Illegality of the Process to Degazette PianUpe

Until 1995 when the new Constitution of Uganda waspromulgated, degazettement of protected areas was asimple process that could be executed by a Minister througha statutory instrument. Because of the continuous abuseof this statutory discretion during the 1970s and 1980s,the Constituent Assembly agreed to enshrine provisions inthe Constitution to check this abuse. We therefore arguethat the effect of Article 237(2)(b) of the 1995 Constitutionread together with section 44 of the Land Act prohibitsany form of alienation of the natural resources coveredby these legal provisions. Indeed, any attempts atdegazzettement without changing these legal provisionsis null and void.

It is not exactly clear when the Government of Ugandamade a decision to consider the degazzettement of PianUpe Game Reserve in favor of allocating the land forprivate investment. Although the available information isscanty, this information suggests that since January 2003,efforts have been made to degazzette part of Pian UpeGame Reserve amounting to 1,903 sq. km of land area.According to official correspondence from the Office ofthe Prime Minister10, this constitutes 75% of the currentland area of the Reserve. In February 2003, the NationalEnvironment Management Authority (NEMA) gave its opinionto the Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industry on theproposed degazzettement.11 In his communication, the

6

10.See letter of May 15, 2003 from Prime Minister Apolo Nsibambi to Ambassador Bujeldain Abqalla, the Libyan Ambassador to Uganda (Letter Ref. ADM/239/309/01).11. See NEMA/4.5, February 28, 2003. Accordingly, this letter was in response to a letter dated 13th February 2003 from M/S African Integrated Development Co. Ltd and another letter dated January 8, 2003 (UIA/ED/1/2003) from the Uganda Investment Authority. The researchers have not had access to these two correspondences.


Executive Director of NEMA brought to the attention ofthe Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Trade, Tourismand Industry the legal requirements for an EnvironmentalImpact Study (EIS) for any such proposed degazzettementincluding any major change of land use.12 NEMA correctlystated that “the submission of the terms of reference foran EIS by M/S African Integrated Development Co. Ltd, asa developer can only come after a decision has been takenon the proposed land use change based on the EIS done bythe lead agency.” Lastly, NEMA gave its interpretation ofthe relevant provisions of the law, which confirms ourearlier argument in the case of Butamira Forest Reserve13 and noted as follows:

This particular case has also seen two major developmentsthat relate to the issue of politically motivateddegazettement of protected areas. First, unlike in thecase of Butamira Forest Reserve where NEMA maintaineda conspicuous silence14, in this case, it has risen to theoccasion and even addressed itself to the matters of the

7

Lastly, our understanding of the Constitution, the Land Act,1998 and the Uganda Wildlife Statute, 1996 when read togetheris to the effect that alienation (for that matterdegazzettement) of a Game Reserve or National Park is notpermitted. What the above laws permit is the issuance ofpermits, concessions or licenses in Game Reserves and NationalParks, among the other reserved natural resources.

12. See section 16 and 17 of the Uganda Wildlife Statute, 1996; section 20-23 and 3rd Schedule to the National Environment Statute, 1995; and the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 1998.13. Tumushabe, G.W., et al., (2001): Sustainable Utilizing our Natural Heritage: Legal Implications of the Proposed Degazettement of Butamira Forest Reserve. ACODE Policy Research Series, No. 4, 2001.14 To date, NEMA has failed to respond to an ACODE request to have access to any information related to the environmental impact assessment for the Butamira Forest Reserve. ACODE has initiated legal proceedings against NEMA and the Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda challenging their decision to grant a land use permit to KSW . See Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment & Another versus the Attorney General & Another, Misc. Cause No. 100 of 2004.


illegality of the proposed government actions. The seconddevelopment is the unanimity in the interpretation of theeffect of Article 237(2)(b) of the Constitution and section45 of the Land Act, 1998 by the National EnvironmentManagement Authority and the Attorney General.

In March 2003, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry ofTourism, Trade and Industry sought a legal opinion fromthe Solicitor General about the proposed degazzetmentof Pian Upe Game Reserve15. In his advisory opinion16

Attorney General Francis Ayume (RIP), after addressinghimself to the provisions of Article 237(2)(b) of theConstitution and section 45 of the Land Act, 1998, opinedas follows:

The implication [of this position] is that government is trusteeand as such its powers to deal with such natural resources arenot absolute; rather they are subject to the interests and wishesof the people of Uganda. In fact, section 45(4) of the Land Actgoes further to expressly prohibit Government or a localgovernment from leasing or otherwise alienating any of theaforementioned resources. The effect of this is that any actof Government or a local government which ultimately resultsin the transfer of any of the natural resources specified inArticle 237(1)(b) of the Constitution and section 45(1) of theLand Act will be unlawful.

The Attorney General confirms our analysis in the case ofthe proposed degazzetment of Butamira Forest Reserveby arguing that the only way Government or a localgovernment can deal with protected natural resources isby way of a permit, concession or license as stipulated insection 45(5) of the Land Act, 1998. But even then, he

8

15 See letter reference WC/121/02 of 31st March, 2003.16. See letter reference MJ/AG/87 dated May 19, 2003.


rightly cautions that section 45(5) of the Land Act “doesnot vitiate the prohibition in sub-section (4), that is tosay, not to lease out or otherwise alienate the afore-mentioned natural resources. In order for concessions,licenses, or permits to be lawfully granted, they must bein respect of a business related to wildlife managementor one which has an impact on wildlife management andconservation areas. The proposed activity by the investorin commercial crop farming does not fit in what isenvisaged in sub-section (5) of section 45 of the LandAct.”17

4. When Wealth and Political Power Confine the Ruleof Law to Post Mortem

The ongoing process to degazzette Pian Upe Game Reserveserves to underpin the role of wealth ad power ininfluencing policy and administrative decisions overnature. One is therefore able to understand that in somecases, the wealthy and the politically powerful can changethe course of decision making and hence confine the ruleof law to the role of a post mortem. This can be discernedfrom the sequence of the decision making process.

In theory, the nature of the protection granted to theprotected areas and other natural resources protectedunder the Constitution requires a more elaborate procedurewhen dealing with these resources. The procedures mustentail two stages. First, it requires removing thoseresources from the ambit of the Constitution. This stage

9

17. It is important to note that the Attorney General’s opinion vindicates our position in the case of Butamira Forest Reserve where we have maintained that the change of land use by way of a permit is an illegal act that does not conform to the legal standard of protection of natural resources provided under article 237(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 45 of the Land Act.


would require a constitutional amendment18. The secondstage would entail decisions over the change of land useand involve using the EIA precess. Indeed, one can tenablyargue that in the absence of influence of political powerand wealth, it is unlikely that any Ugandan would havethe benefit of circumventing the first process as we seein the case of Pian Upe.

Figure 1: Interface between nature, wealth and powerin the decision making process.

10

Natural Resources Protected underArticle 237(2) including forestreserves, national parks, wetlands,rivers and river banks, game reservesand national parks, etc.

Section 45(5) of the Land Actprovides mechanisms forharnessing the wealth providedby natural resources throughallocation of concessions,permits and licenses.

Because of the restrictions imposed bysection 45(4), the wealthy using theirpolitical connections attempt tocircumvent the legal restrictions andthe due process. Agencies such asNEMA or UWA are reluctant to objectbecause of fear of political reprisals.They will sacrifice expert opinion atthe alter of political expedience.

The Legislature as the guarantor of the publictrust is the ultimate “court of appeal” for thepublic who are the beneficiary of the trust. Butthe politically powerful and the rich will alsoattempt to use it to legitimize their decisions.So, it is the ultimate arbiter – but it is also apoint of convergence between wealth and power

DECISION GO/NO GO

DECISION GO/NO GO

Section 45(4) of the LandAct aims at preserving theintegrity of naturalresources and the long-term proprietary interestsof all Ugandans of all Ugandans.

DECISIONGO/NO GO

r p

,

.

Natural Resources Protected underArticle 237(2) of the Constitutionincluding forest reserves, nationalparks, wetlands, rivers and riverbanks, game reserves and nationalparks, etc.

18. In fact, one could argue that even Government recognizes this point and this is the reason why issues of land acquisition for investment were included in the Terms of Reference for the Constitutional Review Commission.


It is therefore argued that both the National EnvironmentManagement Authority and the Learned Attorney Generalseem to have misdirected themselves on the right processof dealing with natural resources within the ambit of thelegal provisions that they have rightly cited. In its opinion19

NEMA states that the right procedure to follow is for thelead agency to first undertake an environmental impactstudy focusing on the proposed change of land use. Thisstatement implies that once the lead agency has undertakenthe EIS and a decision has been made to change the landuse of the area, the developer can go ahead and do an EIAfor the proposed development. We would like to arguehowever that this can be a correct legal position only ifyou “vitiate” the prohibition in section 45(4) of the LandAct, 1998. As long as this prohibition exists and the onlyallowable application of such resources is by way ofconcessions, permits or licenses, “any act of Governmentor a local government which ultimately results in thetransfer of ownership of any of the natural resourcesspecified in Article 237(1)(b) of the Constitution and section45(1) of the Land Act will be unlawful”20.

On the other hand, the Learned Attorney General has opinedas follows:

19. Ibid. NEMA/4.520. Per Learned Attorney General Francis Ayume. Ibid. Ref. MJ/AG/87.21. Ibid. MJ/AG/87. The Learned Attorney General ends his letter by a caution that it would require a lot of lobbying to secure parliamentary approval.

11

“The only other option (other than by way of concession,permit or license) for consideration is for the Ministerresponsible for wildlife to exercise his powers under section94(2) of the Uganda Wildlife Statute to proceed to amend theSixth Schedule to the Game (Preservation and Control) Act, bystriking Pian Upe off the list of areas gazetted as wildlife reservesso that it ceases to be covered by Article 237(1)(b) of theConstitution and section 45(1) of the Land Act, 1998. TheMinister does so by way of a Statutory Instrument with priorapproval of Parliament signified by its resolution under section94(2) of the Uganda Wildlife Statute, 1996”21.


We would like to differ from the Attorney General’s advicefor at least three main reasons, and argue that this onlyprovides Government with some justification to continuewith its attempt to circumvent the law protecting publictrust properties in the country.

First, the ownership status of natural resources includinggame reserves is established and protected under Article237(2)(b) of the Constitution. We have argued elsewherethat the high standard of protection provided for theseresources under the Constitution was based on theproposals of the Ugandan citizens submitted to the OdokiConstitutional Commission22. In its report, the OdokiCommission recommended that “the Constitution shouldvest the ownership, control and right of exploitation ofimportant natural resources including land, water,minerals, oil, and forests in the people of Uganda, withthe State as the guarantor of the peoples’ interest”23

(emphasis ours).

Article 237(2)(b) of the Constitution, in our view, is asocial contract between the people of Uganda and theState to protect the resources mentioned there andguarantee their permanent availability for public users.Any derogation from that position without changing theprovisions of this contract may be construed to amount toan abuse of the trust vested in the State by the people ofUganda. Contrary to the opinion of the Attorney Generalon this particular matter, the only option would be for theState to seek to alter that social contract by way of seekingan amendment to Article 237(2)(b) of the Constitution.

22. Tumushabe, G.W., et al. Ibid23. See Report of the Uganda Constitutional Commission, para 23.63 cited in Tumushabe, G.W., et al, 2001.

12


The second question is whether Parliament can changethe status quo by amending section 45(4) of the Land Act,1998. In its wisdom, Parliament sought to further theprotection granted to natural resources under theConstitution by limiting the trust powers of Governmentunder section 45(4). This restriction ought to be seen inthe light of the findings and recommendations of the OdokiConstitutional Commission in which it recognized theconcern by the people of Uganda that the State hadpreviously used its position to abuse and misuse naturalresources. Consequently, it is only Parliament, which canalter this position by way of amendment to section 45(4)of the Land Act, 1998. However, given the constitutionallogic of Article 237, the only way that Parliament can makeits actions legitimate is to go back to the substance ofArticle 237(2)(b) and address the social contract issuescontained in that Article.

That brings us to the third reason which relates to thevalidity of an amendment to the Schedules to the Game(Preservation and Control) Act by way of a StatutoryInstrument. It is argued that by section 45(4) of the LandAct, 1998, the powers of the Minister under section 94(2)of the Uganda Wildlife Statute (which is a 1996 legislation)were vitiated if the effect of such an amendment is tolease out or otherwise alienate any of the natural resourcescovered by Article 237(2)(b) of the Constitution and section45(1) of the Land Act. To the extent that the revocationof the Schedules to the Game (Preservation and Control)Act by way of a Statutory Instrument would effectivelyamend substantive provisions of the Land Act and go againstthe spirit and constitutional logic of Article 237(2)(b), onefinds the Attorney General’s interpretation of the powersof the Minister under the Wildlife Statute untenable.

13


It is therefore pertinent that unless the social contractcontained in Article 237(2)(b) of the Constitution betweenthe State and the people of Uganda and the limits ofexercise of trust authority imposed by Parliament undersection 45(4) of the Land Act is revisited, the numerousacts of degazettement could amount to an abuse of trustpowers and the due process of the law. The final dispositionof this matter is therefore another test to the Governmentwith respect to compliance with laws governing naturalresources and the environment, adherence to the rule oflaw and promotion of good governance.

5. The Land Act: Restricting Abuse of DiscretionaryPolitical Power

As already argued above, section 44(5) of the Land Actsets the limits within which the State as a trustee of naturalresources can deal with natural resources. Sub-section(5) of section 44 provides that “The Government or alocal government may grant concessions or licenses orpermits in respect of any natural resource referred to inthis section subject to any law.” And it is under thisprovision that agencies charged with the management ofprotected areas can find “cover” against politicallymotivated degazettement of natural resources. In fact,any amendment to the Land Act whose effect is to removeor water down the effect of section 44(5) is like givingthe politicians and their wealthy allies a “blank cheque”.

It is important to note that the three allowable instrumentsthrough which natural resources can be used have twoimportant dimensions that conform to Article 237(2)(b) ofthe Constitution. First, the legal status of the trust property

14


remains intact and the investor is given user rights of alimited duration. On the contrary, we contend thatdegazettement destroys the proprietary interests of thebeneficiary (the people of Uganda), disenfranchises themand diminishes any opportunities for access to thoseresources. This is because, after degazettement, theGovernment effectively becomes the land lord and willbe able to allocate land as it wishes, and in some cases, ashas been demonstrated in Kenya during the Moi regime24,such land is used to buy political patronage and royalty –hence undermining democracy.

Secondly, because concessions, permits or licenses do notgive absolute ownership and the land continues to vest inthe original owner (the people of Uganda), Governmentis able to impose sustainable development conditions onthe holder of such rights. Given that Uganda’s naturalresource is the foundation for economic growth and thebasis of livelihoods for many rural people, the right toregulate how these resources are accessed andappropriated must remain a cornerstone of national policyand practice.

6. When degazettement becomes a political, ratherthan a policy process

It is important to observe that one of the biggest mistakesby the Government and why its actions could continue toundermine sustainable development and the rule of law isthe handling of public policy issues as political issues. Itshould be noted that issues of land use change are within24. For a detailed discussion on this issue, see Veit, P. 1998. Africa’s Valuable Assets: A Reader in Natural Resources Management. The World Resources Institute. Washington D.C.

15


the remit of public policy agencies such as the NationalEnvironment Management Authority, the Uganda LandCommission and the Uganda Wildlife Authority in the caseof Pian Upe Game Reserve. However, it is apparent thatthese agencies are performing their statutory mandatesunder the undue pressure and influence of the politicalstructures of Government.

This observation can be borne by the level of involvementof the Prime Minister’s office in the instant case. In a May15, 2003 letter to Ambassador Bujeldain Abqalla of Libya,in which he communicated the decisions of a meeting heconvened on May 12, 2003, Prime Minister Apolo Nsibambigave a detailed plan on how the degazettement processwould be handled25. First, he suggested that the AttorneyGeneral would give his legal opinion on the legality ofdegazetting the Game Reserve by 20th May 200326. Heinformed Ambassador Abqalla that the Minister of Tourism,Trade and Industry would prepare a Cabinet Memo whichwould be with the Cabinet Secretariat by September 1,2003 and Cabinet would be expected to give its approvalby 5th September 2003.

However, the most curious aspect of this process is theproposed involvement of the Movement Caucus. It wasproposed that after Cabinet approval of the Cabinet Memo,the Minister of State for Investment27 would ask the thenChairman of the Movement Parliamentary Caucus MP Lt.Kinobe “to arrange for a meeting of the Caucus so thatMembers of Parliament may fully understand and support

25. At the time of preparing this briefing paper, the researchers have not had access to the proceedings of the said meeting.26. The legal opinion of the Learned Attorney General is contained in a letter dated a day before May 20th i.e. May 19th 2003 (See letter ref. ADM/239/309/01.)27. Minister Sam Kutesa is the Minister of State for Investment.

16


the project.” This approach would have the effect ofpoliticizing what would ordinarily be a policy issue to behandled by institutions that have been vested with decisionmaking responsibilities by Parliament. The involvementof any caucus of Parliament would only be necessary ifGovernment realized that what it needs to do is to seekto alter the social contract embedded in Article 237(2)(b)by way of constitutional amendment.

As already discussed, the change of land use is purely apolicy matter that ought to be based on very scientificand socio-economic considerations as enumerated in anenvironmental impact assessment. That EIA can be validin the case of Pian Upe only after the trust-beneficiaryquestions highlighted above are addressed and in theadvisory opinion of the then Attorney General FrancisAyume (RIP). Unless the constitutional position is altered,referring the Pian Upe issue to the Movement Caucus islike addressing it to a “wrong forum” and is a whollyinappropriate measure. It simply re-emphasizes ourargument that unless political power is exercisedjudiciously, its alliance with the wealthy forces in societyis a major threat to natural resources management inparticular and sustainable development in general.

7. Stakeholder Analysis

Most often, the term stakeholder is used very looselywithout a clear delineation of what is at stake. It istherefore important to critically analyze what is at stakein the case of the proposed degazettement of Pian UpeGame Reserve. Understanding what is at stake and applyingthe nature, wealth and power analytical framework

17


provides us an opportunity to analyze the stakeholders ina more delineated manner and enables us to see theinteraction among these stakeholders. In our opinion thebiggest issue at stake is the disenfranchisement of Ugandanswho are the legitimate owners of Pian Upe Game Reserve.This is because degazettement of any protected areas hasseveral implications.

First, degazettement effectively changes the ownershipstatus of the land in question and hence changes the rulesof access and appropriation. In this case, the Ugandancitizens and Government of Uganda become the losers.While a few individuals in position of political power andthe investor may gain free or “subsidized”28 access toland, the people of Uganda would be the net losers.Secondly, the successful degazettement of this reservewill set a bad precedent and send more signals to areas,which host these national assets to seek to degazettethem. This result will be more serious as the populationincreases quantitatively but not qualitatively. We haveargued that the case of Namanve Pre-Urban Forest Reserve,the proposed degazettement of forest reserves in BugalaIsland and recently the case of Butamira Forest Reserve allpoint to a consistent pattern of Government actingenthusiastically to degazzette protected lands to satisfythe curiosity of individual investors.

Thirdly, in all the cases cited, Government hasdemonstrated considerable readiness to undermine its ownlegislation by shifting “legal goal posts”. The business ofsecuring land for private investments cannot be undertaken

28. For example, in this case, the Ugandan taxpayer has to pay for the costs of the scoping exercise and, if degazettment is allowed, the taxpayer will also cover the cost of redrawing the boundaries of the Reserve.

18


on a reactive basis but should be based on proper researchand follow established procedures. It must be done withinthe limits set by the Constitution and the Land Act. Doingit otherwise undermines respect for the law and createsroom for “influence peddling” and corruption, and erodesconfidence of the public in the public agencies that arecharged with the task of managing these resources.

The case of the proposed degazettement of Pian UpeWildlife Reserve therefore represents a complex set ofstakeholders with varying and to some degreeirreconcilable interests. These interests are irreconcilableunless all the stakeholders regard the law as the basicframework within which to resolve the issues. In thissection, stakeholders are identified in the light of theirroles and the current nature of their involvement in theproposed degazettement process. Consequently, taking intoaccount the issues raised here and without claiming to beexhaustive, the following table summarizes the keystakeholders and the nature of their interests in the caseof the proposed degazettement of Pian Upe Game Reserve.

19


20

Stak

ehol

der

Issu

e Th

e lo

cal c

omm

unit

ies

in K

aram

oja

Thei

r in

tere

sts

may

var

y de

pend

ing

on o

ccup

atio

ns a

nd t

here

fore

nee

d to

add

ress

po

tent

ial c

onfl

icts

bet

wee

n pa

stor

alis

t Ka

ram

ojon

g an

d cu

ltiv

ator

s. C

omm

unit

ies

may

al

so b

e ex

cite

d ab

out

the

dega

zett

men

t in

the

hop

e th

at t

hey

will

get

acc

ess

to la

nd o

r ge

t jo

bs a

s a

resu

lt o

f th

e in

vest

men

t. H

owev

er,

the

issu

e of

deg

azet

tmen

t of

som

e of

th

e pr

otec

ted

area

s in

Kar

amoj

a ha

s be

en o

n th

e ta

ble

for

a w

hile

but

it is

onl

y af

ter

M/S

A

fric

an In

tegr

ated

Dev

elop

men

t Co

. ca

me

on t

he r

adar

scr

een

that

we

see

dega

zett

men

t be

ing

purs

ued

wit

h su

ch v

igor

. D

egaz

ettm

ent

is t

here

fore

no

guar

ante

e th

at t

he

Kara

maj

ong

will

get

acc

ess

to d

egaz

ette

d la

nd.

Gov

ernm

ent

of

Uga

nda

Off

ice

of

the

Pres

iden

t

The

exac

t in

tere

sts

of t

he O

ffic

e of

the

Pre

side

nt a

re n

ot c

lear

at

the

mom

ent

espe

cial

ly

sinc

e w

ildlif

e m

anag

emen

t fa

lls u

nder

the

Min

istr

y of

Tou

rism

, Tr

ade

and

Indu

stry

. W

hat

is c

lear

tho

ugh

is t

hat

seve

ral o

f th

e co

rres

pond

ence

s se

en d

urin

g th

e pr

oces

s of

wri

ting

th

is b

rief

are

cop

ied

to v

ario

us P

rinc

ipal

Pri

vate

Sec

reta

ries

and

Adv

isor

s to

the

Pr

esid

ent.

We

can

only

not

e th

at P

resi

dent

Mus

even

i is

on r

ecor

d vo

uchi

ng f

or m

any

inve

stm

ent

proj

ects

and

thi

s co

uld

acco

unt

for

his

offi

cial

s ke

epin

g hi

m in

form

ed o

f w

hat

is g

oing

on

wit

h re

spec

t to

the

pro

cess

of

dega

zett

men

t.

Parl

iam

ent

of U

gand

a Th

e Pa

rlia

men

tary

Com

mit

tee

on T

ouri

sm,

Trad

e an

d In

dust

ry w

ill p

roba

bly

have

the

fi

rst

oppo

rtun

ity

to s

crut

iniz

e th

e pr

opos

ed S

tatu

tory

Inst

rum

ent.

Its

reco

mm

enda

tion

s to

the

ple

nary

of

the

Hou

se m

ay d

eter

min

e ho

w P

arlia

men

t co

nduc

ts it

self

in f

utur

e w

ith

resp

ect

to c

onst

itut

iona

l iss

ues,

the

man

agem

ent

of n

atur

al r

esou

rces

and

the

di

scha

rgin

g of

the

tru

st r

espo

nsib

iliti

es v

este

d in

the

Sta

te u

nder

Art

icle

237

(2)(

b) o

f th

e Co

nsti

tuti

on.

Equa

lly im

port

ant

is t

he M

ovem

ent

Cauc

us.

Will

it m

ake

a po

litic

al d

ecis

ion

to h

andl

e a

pure

ly p

olic

y m

atte

r. O

r w

ill it

ris

e to

the

occ

asio

n an

d gi

ve t

he r

ight

gu

idan

ce t

o G

over

nmen

t. In

the

fin

al a

naly

sis,

the

fin

al d

ecis

ion

rest

s w

ith

the

Hou

se a

nd

its

cons

titu

tion

al d

uty

to g

uara

ntee

the

ful

fillm

ent

of t

he s

ocia

l con

trac

t un

der

Art

icle

23

7(2)

(b).

Tabl

e 1:

Des

crip

tion

of

Sele

cted

Sta

keho

lder

s in

the

Pia

n U

pe D

ebat

e

Off

ice

of t

heP

resi

den

t

,

??


no

t b

ee

n m

uch

do

no

r in

volv

em

en

t in

th

is c

ase

. H

ow

eve

r, d

on

ors

21

no

t b

ee

n m

uch

do

no

r in

volv

em

en

t in

th

is c

ase

. H

ow

eve

r, d

on

ors

.

Stak

ehol

der

Issu

e ()(

)St

atu

tory

age

nci

es

Th

e k

ey

age

nci

es

he

re a

re t

he

Nat

ion

al E

nvi

ron

me

nt

Man

age

me

nt

Au

tho

rity

(N

EM

A),

th

e

Uga

nd

a W

ild

life

Au

tho

rity

(U

WA

) an

d t

he

Uga

nd

a In

vest

me

nt

Au

tho

rity

(U

IA).

Wh

ile

UIA

is

the

mai

n p

rop

on

en

t o

f th

e p

roje

ct,

UW

A h

as s

tatu

tory

re

spo

nsi

bil

ity

to d

isch

arge

th

e

tru

st r

esp

on

sib

ilit

ies

vest

ed

in

th

e S

tate

wit

h r

esp

ect

to

wil

dli

fe m

anag

em

en

t. U

WA

’s b

ig

dil

em

ma

sho

uld

be

ho

w i

t ca

n a

bu

se t

hat

sta

tuto

ry r

esp

on

sib

ilit

y ve

ste

d i

nto

it

by

the

p

eo

ple

s’ r

ep

rese

nta

tive

s in

Par

liam

en

t an

d f

acil

itat

e t

he

re

du

ctio

n i

n t

he

siz

e o

f th

e

wil

dli

fe p

rote

cte

d a

rea

est

ate

wit

ho

ut

add

ress

ing

ou

tsta

nd

ing

eco

logi

cal

and

le

gal

issu

es

rais

ed

in

th

is b

rie

fin

g p

ape

r. F

or

its

par

t, N

EM

A’s

ro

le i

s to

pro

mo

te s

ust

ain

able

d

eve

lop

me

nt,

pro

vid

e o

vers

igh

t o

ver

en

viro

nm

en

tal

man

age

me

nt

and

su

pe

rvis

e a

nd

co

nsi

de

r E

IA’s

su

bm

itte

d t

o i

t b

y p

rop

on

en

ts o

f p

roje

cts.

Its

big

gest

ch

alle

nge

is

to

de

term

ine

th

e l

ow

est

co

mm

on

le

gal

de

no

min

ato

r as

to

wh

en

it

sho

uld

co

nsi

de

r an

EIA

. D

oe

s it

pro

cee

d t

o c

on

sid

er

the

EIA

in

th

e e

ven

t th

e l

ega

l p

roce

ss h

as b

ee

n a

bu

sed

an

d

the

reb

y co

nd

on

an

ill

ega

lity

. A

dm

inis

trat

ive

ag

en

cie

s an

d

de

par

tme

nts

of

Go

vern

me

nt

Th

e i

nd

ivid

ual

ro

le o

f th

ese

age

nci

es

is n

ot

ne

cess

aril

y cl

ear

– b

ut

Cab

ine

t w

ill

pro

vid

e

the

lim

eli

ght

for

the

de

gaze

ttm

en

t p

roce

ss t

o p

roce

ed

.

C

ivil

so

cie

ty

org

aniz

atio

ns

A n

um

be

r o

f ci

vil

soci

ety

org

aniz

atio

ns

are

in

volv

ed

in

th

is c

ase

. N

ota

ble

are

th

e

Ad

voca

tes

Co

alit

ion

fo

r D

eve

lop

me

nt

and

En

viro

nm

en

t (A

CO

DE

) an

d U

gan

da

Wil

dli

fe

Soci

ety

(U

WS)

. T

he

mai

n s

tak

e o

f th

ese

org

aniz

atio

ns

is t

o p

rom

ote

co

mp

lian

ce w

ith

e

xist

ing

nat

ura

l re

sou

rce

s la

ws,

en

suri

ng

a le

vel

pla

yin

g fi

eld

fo

r ac

cess

to

lan

d a

nd

n

atu

ral

reso

urc

es

and

bu

ild

ing

a st

ron

g fo

un

dat

ion

fo

r d

em

ocr

atic

go

vern

ance

by

chal

len

gin

g go

vern

me

nt

inst

itu

tio

ns

to e

xe

rcis

e t

he

ir p

ow

ers

an

d r

esp

on

sib

ilit

ies

wit

hin

th

e l

imit

s se

t b

y th

e l

aw.

In

tern

atio

nal

NG

Os

CA

RE

, C

ITE

S

Do

no

rs

To

dat

e,

the

re h

asn

’t b

ee

n m

uch

of

do

no

r in

volv

em

en

t in

th

is c

ase

. H

ow

eve

r, d

on

ors

h

ave

be

en

ban

kro

llin

g al

mo

st e

very

oth

er

age

ncy

of

Go

vern

me

nt

resp

on

sib

le f

or

nat

ura

l re

sou

rce

s m

anag

em

en

t. C

urr

en

tly,

th

e W

orl

d B

ank

pro

vid

es

the

bu

lk o

f fu

nd

ing

for

the

o

pe

rati

on

s o

f th

e U

gan

da

Wil

dli

fe A

uth

ori

ty a

nd

th

e N

atio

nal

En

viro

nm

en

t M

anag

em

en

t A

uth

ori

ty.

Oth

er

do

no

rs s

uch

as

DF

ID,

NO

RA

D,

the

Eu

rop

ean

Un

ion

, e

tc p

rovi

de

su

bst

anti

al s

up

po

rt t

ow

ard

s th

e m

anag

em

en

t o

f th

e n

atu

ral

fore

st e

stat

e.

Th

ese

do

no

rs

hav

e a

sta

ke i

n h

ow

th

e r

eso

urc

es

the

y h

ave

in

vest

ed

in

wit

h t

he

ir t

axp

aye

rs’

mo

nie

s w

ill

be

de

alt

wit

h a

t th

e n

atio

nal

le

vel.

are

th

e N

atio

nal

En

viro

nm

en

t M

anag

em

en

t A

uth

ori

ty (

NE

MA

), t

he

? i

t p

roce

ed

to

co

nsi

de

r th

e E

IA i

n t

he

eve

nt

the

le

gal

pro

cess

ha

s b

ee

n

Fo

r e

xam

ple

, w

ill

the

reb

y co

nd

on

an

ill

ega

lity

.

abus

ed a

nd


22

pM

/S A

fric

a In

tegr

ated

D

evel

opm

ent

Co.

Ltd.

Th

is c

ompa

ny is

sta

ted

in s

ome

of t

he c

orre

spon

denc

es a

vaila

ble

as t

he p

ropo

nent

of

the

prop

osed

inve

stm

ent.

How

ever

, ve

ry li

ttle

is k

now

n ab

out

the

com

pany

or

its

shar

ehol

ders

. It

is n

ever

thel

ess

know

n to

be

owne

d by

Lib

yan

or It

alia

n bu

sine

ssm

en o

r bo

th.

At

the

Regi

stry

of

Com

pani

es,

it is

con

side

red

ther

e is

no

reco

rd o

f th

is c

ompa

ny.

Cons

eque

ntly

, un

til n

ow,

we

cons

ider

thi

s co

mpa

ny t

o be

fic

titi

ous

but

it is

the

one

tha

t is

sup

pose

d to

rec

eive

and

dev

elop

1,9

03 s

q. k

m o

f th

e la

nd t

o be

deg

azet

ted

from

Pia

n U

pe G

ame

Rese

rve.

Th

e pe

ople

of

Uga

nda

All

said

and

don

e, it

is t

he in

tere

st o

f th

e pe

ople

of

Uga

nda,

whi

ch is

at

stak

e. W

ildlif

e pr

otec

ted

area

s to

geth

er w

ith

othe

r na

tura

l res

ourc

es c

onst

itut

e pa

rt o

f ou

r na

tion

al

heri

tage

. Th

ey a

re s

catt

ered

all

over

the

cou

ntry

and

wha

t de

cisi

on is

mad

e w

ith

resp

ect

to o

ne o

f th

em m

ay a

ffec

t th

e de

cisi

ons

we

mak

e w

ith

resp

ect

to t

he o

ther

s in

the

fu

ture

.

The

Liby

an

Gov

ernm

ent

As

alre

ady

indi

cate

d, o

ne o

f th

e le

tter

s se

en b

y th

e re

sear

ch t

eam

pre

pari

ng t

his

brie

f w

as a

ddre

ssed

to

the

Liby

an A

mba

ssad

or in

Uga

nda.

At

this

sta

ge,

it is

not

cle

ar w

hat

his

stak

e or

inte

rest

is in

thi

s m

atte

r. C

ould

he

be v

ouch

ing

for

a Li

byan

com

pany

or

coul

d he

be

a sh

areh

olde

r in

the

com

pany

? W

hen

the

tim

e co

mes

to

deba

te t

he p

ropo

sed

dega

zett

men

t in

stru

men

t, it

may

be

usef

ul f

or t

he A

mba

ssad

or t

o ap

pear

bef

ore

the

rele

vant

com

mit

tee

of p

arlia

men

t to

pro

vide

add

itio

nal i

nsig

hts

abou

t th

e na

ture

and

sc

ope

of h

is o

r he

r G

over

nmen

t’s

inte

rest

s.

Stak

ehol

der

Issu

e Th

e

the

re is

no

reco

rd o

f th

is c

ompa

ny.


8. What are the implications of the proposeddegazettement?

If the attempts to degazette Pian Upe Game Reserve weresuccessful, this degazettement would have a series of farreaching implications. For purposes of this policy briefingpaper, we will analyze the potential implications alongthe nature, wealth and power framework.

8.1. Environmental law enforcement and compliance

Over the last 17 years of the NRM Government, there hasbeen tremendous progress in developing environmentallegislation and establishing and building institutions topromote effective environmental management. TheNational Environment Management Authority (NEMA), theUganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) and recently the NationalForestry Authority have been created during this period.Although these institutions have made significant effortsto discharge their mandates in the areas of environmentallaw compliance and enforcement, they are still “suffering”because they lack the independence to do their work.The current political involvement in degazettement ofPian Upe can only have the effect of further weakeningthese institutions and undermining efforts to achieveeffective law enforcement and compliance.

8.2. Non-compliance with existing laws on wildlifeundermines governance

The continuing attempts by Government to “bend” thelaws on protecting public trust properties constitute anassault on good governance and democratization. Like we

23


have argued elsewhere29, politically motivateddegazettement of protected areas in favor of specificindividuals whether natural or corporate undermines publicconfidence in institutions of environmental governance.It is also important to note that the mishandling of ButamiraForest Reserve Inquiry resulted in the change in membershipof the Parliamentary Committee on Natural Resources andput the credibility of the Committee and the House atstake. The case of Pian Upe presents another challenge tothe elected peoples’ representatives to see whether theywill ensure that laws are implemented impartially andfairly or whether we will continue to shift legal goal postsin favour of specific individuals and selected investorswith particular connections to political authorities. Theapparent strong involvement of the political structures inwhat would otherwise be a purely policy matter erodespublic confidence in government institutions andundermines good governance.

8.3. The permit system is being misused

It is argued that until the permit awarded in the case ofButamira Forest Reserve is challenged and rescinded, ithas set a bad precedent in dealing with resources of atrust nature. As already argued above, natural resourcesprotected under Article 237(2)(b) and section 45 of theLand Act, 1998 are not supposed to be alienated orotherwise leased out. The use of a permit in this case is adeliberate attempt to circumvent the protection grantedwith respect to these resources. The instruments providedfor in section 45(5) of the Land Act are essentially to begranted for activities consistent with the status of the

24

29. See Tumushabe, G., et al. Supra.


protected area. Awarding a permit to drain Lake Victoriaand use it as a golf course or turn a forest reserve into asugar cane plantation is a gross abuse to the wisdom ofthe framers of the 1995 Constitution, the legislature whichenacted the Land Act and the due process of the law.

9. Government should consider other optionsother than degazettement

When considered in the overall context of nationalsustainable development, there are three broad optionsavailable to Government when considering how to dealwith natural resources such as Pian Upe or other suchresources.

First, it should be recognized that Government has beenmaking efforts to attract private investments into thecountry as a strategy to promote development, createjobs and modernize the country. However, in its pursuitof this noble objective, Government faces acute shortageof land that can be made available to investors. It isperhaps for this reason that Government is turning tonatural resources and other protected resources as a wayof addressing the problem of land shortage for investment.

Although Government recognizes this problem, it isattempting to solve it in a rather reactive manner,parceling a chunk of land for investor X here and anotherchunk for investor Z there. It is becoming evident thatGovernment does not have a clear understanding of theamount of land that it requires for investment nor does ithave a strategy for securing that land. What Governmentshould do is to estimate the land that will be required for

25


private investment projects in the country over a periodof time and then consider various strategies for securingthat land. If the only option available is to get this landfrom protected areas, it should then pursue the processof amending Article 237(2)(b) of the Constitution. Ad hocapproaches to address this issues as is exemplified bycurrent attempts to degazette part of Pian Upe and othercases cited in this brief undermines the rule of law,diminishes the confidence of the relevant public agenciesand creates room for corruption and abuse of authority.

The second option is for Government to have faith in itspolicies and consider these resources as part of our naturalheritage that have to be utilized on a sustainable basisbased on the principles of responsibility, accountabilityand equity. In his 1996 Election Manifesto, PresidentMuseveni spelt out the vision of his Government as far asenvironmental management is concerned. He wrote that:

The government policy on the environment is toencourage rational and sustainable use of naturalresources in order to preserve them for the futuregenerations. ……… Soils will be protected, forests andwetlands will be conserved and restored, and fishstocks will be exploited using acceptable equipmenton a sustainable basis. …….. This will continue to bethe policy of my government towards theenvironment30.

In his 2001 Election Manifesto, President Museveni againreiterated the above commitment by declaring that “Mygovernment’s policy on the environment is to ensurerational use of natural resources while at the same timeensuring the sustainability of the resources for the future31.”30. Museveni, Y.K., 1996. Tackling the Tasks Ahead: Election Manifesto, 1996.31. Museveni, Y.K., 2001. Consolidating the Achievements of the Movement: 2001 Election Manifesto. January, 2001

26


It may be argued that these election promises havecontinued to be the cornerstone of environmental policydevelopment of the Museveni Government. All the policiesthat have been promulgated by Government recognizethe centrality of natural resources in Uganda’s quest foreconomic renewal and sustainable development. Theyplace strong emphasis on protecting forest reserves,wildlife protected areas, wetlands and riverbanks, fisheries

FIGURE 2: Procedure for Excising Land from Protected Areas

Tumushabe, G., 2004

27

Step 2 Step 1 Step 3 Step 5 Step 4

Determine theamount of landrequired forprivate investment overthe next 10-15years.

Determine wherethe land should beacquired: From former

unoccupied public land;

Excision fromprotected area?

Introduce constitutional amendment toexcise givingjustification andhow the excisedland will bemanaged.

Create Land Bankmanaged byUganda LandCommission orUganda Investment Authority.

Establish transparent procedures forallocating the landto different types ofinvestors includingcommunity groups.

Step 4

Step 3

Step 5

area?

Step 2


resources, etc. What is intriguing though is that the twopolitical terms of President Museveni as elected Presidenthave been characterized by a series of unfulfilled promisesand broken commitments. Environmental managementinstitutions including the National EnvironmentalManagement Authority remain grossly under funded orunfunded at all, more land from protected areas has beenofficially expropriated during this period than under anyprevious regimes,and Government has been consistent insending out mixed signals with regard to conservation anddevelopment.

What is needed therefore is for Government policy makersand practitioners to take advantage of the President’selectoral promises to promote those actions that supportthe President’s vision on environment and naturalresources. For example, more targeted investments inareas such as tree farming, wildlife ranching and othernature based enterprises would not only fulfill thePresident’s election pledges to the people of Uganda, suchinvestments would also strengthen Uganda’s long-termeconomic development aspirations and build peoples’confidence in electoral processes. Committing to one thingand doing something else neither promotes sustainabledevelopment, nor does it build confidence in Government.

28


10. Conclusion

In this policy briefing paper, we have argued that boththe proposal to degazette Pian Upe Game Reserve andthe procedure being followed is not only flawed but alsocontrary to existing laws. Further, all that is being donegoes against the spirit of the 1995 Constitution. We havenoted that this proposal conforms to a consistent patternwhere government is continuously turning to protectedarea lands to secure land for private investors in disregardof its trust responsibilities as set out in the Constitution.Unless this pattern is halted and a more strategic approachadapted to addressing current land shortage problems, thepractice undermines environmental law enforcement andcompliance and contradicts the policy commitments andelectoral promises of President Museveni’s Governmentto the people of Uganda. Securing land for privateinvestments as noble as it is should not compromise theobjectives of sustainable development and should beachieved within the limits of the rule of law. Building anational consensus on the various options that could bepursued requires more policy discussions to provideappropriate foundations for future decision making in thisarea.

29


List of References

1. Environment Impact Assessment Regulations S.I No.13 of 1998.

2. Museveni, Y.K., 1996. Tackling the Tasks.Ahead: Election Manifesto, 1996. Kampala.

3. Museveni, Y.K., 2001. Consolidating the Achievementsof the Movement: Election Manifesto, 2001. Kampala.

4. Okoth-Ogendo, H.W.O. & Tumushabe, G.W., 1999.Governing the Environment: Political Change andNatural Resources Management in Eastern andSouthern Africa, 1999. ACTS Press. Nairobi.

5. The Civil Procedure Act Cap 65, Vol.IV, Laws ofUganda, 2000.

6. The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995.7. The Game Reserves Declaration (Amendment) Notice

S.I No. 136 of 1965.8. The Game Reserve Declaration (No.5) Notice S.I 220

of 1964.9. The Land Act No. 16 of 1998.10. The Local Government Act No. 1 of 1997.11. The National Environment Policy for Uganda, 1994.12. The National Environment Statute No. 4 of 1995.13. The Republic of Uganda, Parliament of Uganda 1898:

Land Act Hansard 22nd June 1998, 3rd Secession ofthe 6th Parliament.

14. The Uganda Forestry Policy, 2001.15. The Uganda Wildlife Policy, 1999.16. The Wildlife Statute No. 14 of 1996.17. Tumushabe, G.W., et al (2001). Sustainably Utilizing

Our Natural Heritage: The Legal Implications of theProposed Degazzetment of Butamira Forest Reserve.ACODE Policy Research Series, No. 4, 2001. Kampala.

30


Documents

ACODE Policy Briefing Paper No. 7, · PDF fileACODE Policy Briefing Paper No. 7, 2004 THE POLITICS OF INVESTMENT AND LAND ACQUISITION IN UGANDA A Case Study of Pian Upe Game Reserve