• Version
• Download 0
• File Size 100.79 KB
• File Count 1
• Create Date April 12, 2025
• Last Updated April 12, 2025

ESIA for Hoima Sugar Limited in Bugoma Forest is destructive.

The document discusses the controversial decision by Uganda's National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) to approve the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) for Hoima Sugar Limited's activities in Bugoma Central Forest Reserve. Below is a summary of the key points:

Summary

NEMA's Approval of Hoima Sugar Limited's ESIA

• On August 14, 2020, NEMA approved Hoima Sugar Limited's ESIA, allowing the company to use approximately 22 square miles of Bugoma Forest for sugarcane cultivation, urban development, and ecotourism.

• Despite conditions for conservation, Hoima Sugar violated these terms by deforesting protected areas, sparking widespread criticism from civil society organizations (CSOs), environmentalists, and local communities.

Key Concerns Raised

1. Threat to Biodiversity:

   • Bugoma Forest is a biodiversity hotspot home to endangered species like the Ugandan mangabey and serves as a critical carbon sink.

   • Its partial conversion into sugarcane plantations threatens ecological sustainability and climate resilience.

2. Procedural Irregularities:

   • Inadequate Stakeholder Consultation: NEMA failed to engage affected communities and CSOs adequately during the ESIA process.

   • Flawed Scoping: The ecological impact of converting forest land was insufficiently assessed.

   • Violations Post-Approval: Hoima Sugar deforested areas designated for preservation, and NEMA has been slow to enforce restoration orders issued in 2022.

   • Lack of Public Hearings: NEMA did not hold public hearings despite widespread opposition to the project.

   • Conflict of Interest: Allegations suggest external pressures influenced NEMA's decision-making.

3. Legal and Policy Gaps:

   • The Land Acquisition Act (Cap 226) and its proposed amendment (Land Acquisition Bill 2018) lack mandatory environmental safeguards and provisions for community consent.

   • Weak enforcement of Uganda’s National Environment Act (2019), particularly Section 64, which mandates forest protection.

4. International Commitments:

   • The approval undermines Uganda’s commitments to international agreements like the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and the Paris Agreement.

Recommendations

• Suspend Hoima Sugar Limited’s ESIA certificate pending an independent review.

• Enforce restoration orders with clear timelines and penalties for non-compliance.

• Amend national laws (e.g., Land Acquisition Act/Bill) to mandate environmental assessments and community consent for projects affecting protected areas.

• Strengthen inter-agency oversight between NEMA, the National Forestry Authority (NFA), and other stakeholders.

The Bugoma Forest case highlights systemic failures in Uganda’s environmental governance. NEMA’s approval prioritizes short-term economic gain over long-term ecological sustainability, violating national laws and international obligations. Urgent reforms are needed to protect Bugoma Forest, address legal gaps, empower affected communities, and uphold Uganda’s environmental commitments.

The document concludes with a call to action inspired by African wisdom and Wangari Maathai’s advocacy for environmental empowerment: safeguarding Bugoma Forest is not just about preserving nature but ensuring a sustainable future for generations to come.