Last update:
2014-09-21

Sugarcane plantation in Mabira Forest Reserve, Uganda

Description:

The Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited (SCOUL) asked the Government of Uganda for an allocation of 7,100 hectares of Mabira Central Forest Reserve to expand its sugarcane production operations.

See more
Basic Data
Name of conflict:Sugarcane plantation in Mabira Forest Reserve, Uganda
Country:Uganda
State or province:Central region of Uganda
Location of conflict:Mukono District
Accuracy of locationHIGH (Local level)
Source of Conflict
Type of conflict. 1st level:Biodiversity conservation conflicts
Type of conflict. 2nd level:Deforestation
Establishment of reserves/national parks
Land acquisition conflicts
Specific commodities:Land

Carbon offsets
Biological resources
Sugar
Project Details and Actors
Project details

The Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited presented a proposal to the Government of Uganda to expand its sugarcane production, a project that they report would save foreign exchange between USD 20-25 million each year.

See more
Project area:7100
Type of populationRural
Start of the conflict:2007
Company names or state enterprises:Sugar Corporation of Uganda Limited (SCOUL) from India - owned by Mehta Group (India, Uganda)
Mehta Group from India
Relevant government actors:National Forestry Authority , Uganda Wildlife Authority , Parliamentary Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, National Environment Management Authority- Uganda, Buganda Kingdom
International and Finance InstitutionsThe World Bank (WB) from United States of America
European Union (EU)
Environmental justice organizations (and other supporters) and their websites, if available:Nature Uganda, BirdLife International, National Environment Management Authority (NEMA, Uganda), National Association of Professional Environmentalists (NAPE);, Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment
Conflict and Mobilization
IntensityHIGH (widespread, mass mobilization, violence, arrests, etc...)
Reaction stagePREVENTIVE resistance (precautionary phase)
Groups mobilizing:Indigenous groups or traditional communities
International ejos
Local ejos
Local government/political parties
Local scientists/professionals
Religious groups
The King of Buganda
Forms of mobilization:Creation of alternative reports/knowledge
Development of a network/collective action
Development of alternative proposals
Involvement of national and international NGOs
Media based activism/alternative media
Public campaigns
Street protest/marches
Property damage/arson
Appeals/recourse to economic valuation of the environment
Boycotts of companies-products
Impacts of the project
Environmental ImpactsPotential: Biodiversity loss (wildlife, agro-diversity), Global warming, Loss of landscape/aesthetic degradation, Soil contamination, Soil erosion, Waste overflow, Deforestation and loss of vegetation cover, Surface water pollution / Decreasing water (physico-chemical, biological) quality, Large-scale disturbance of hydro and geological systems
Health ImpactsVisible: Violence related health impacts (homicides, rape, etc..), Deaths
Socio-economical ImpactsVisible: Violations of human rights
Potential: Loss of livelihood, Loss of traditional knowledge/practices/cultures, Loss of landscape/sense of place
Outcome
Project StatusStopped
Conflict outcome / response:Criminalization of activists
Deaths, Assassinations, Murders
Negotiated alternative solution
Repression
Strengthening of participation
Violent targeting of activists
Application of existing regulations
Development of alternatives:Buganda Kingdom and other institutions had offered over 15,000 sq. miles of land elsewhere to save the forest. Uganda is utilizing only 48% of its arable land and the rest of 52% is either idle or underutilized.The investors should be encouraged to utilise this idle land instead of degrading natural forest reserves or national parks.
The sugar companies could improve or increase their sugar production without any forest give aways by employing better technology and more efficiency on existing land under sugar plantation.
The sugar producers could also alternatively work with outgrowers schemes which would give more families and households reliable income and support government strategy of poverty alleviation.
Do you consider this an environmental justice success? Was environmental justice served?:No
Briefly explain:Even though the Ugandan Government withdrew the decision to degazette the forest in September 2007,
there are fears that the project could be revived due to the recent government claims that Mabira Forest is the only suitable land for sugarcane production.
Sources and Materials
Related laws and legislations - Juridical texts related to the conflict

Forest Act 1947 Cap 146;

Water Act 1997;

The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act 2003.

The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda 1995;

References to published books, academic articles, movies or published documentaries

Nature Uganda website and poster on Mabira Forest; BirdLife International Online news.

Links to general newspaper articles, blogs or other websites

Birdlife
[click to view]

Nature Uganda
[click to view]

Meta information
Contributor:Serah Munguti
Last update21/09/2014
Comments
Legal notice / Aviso legal
We use cookies for statistical purposes and to improve our services. By clicking "Accept cookies" you consent to place cookies when visiting the website. For more information, and to find out how to change the configuration of cookies, please read our cookie policy. Utilizamos cookies para realizar el análisis de la navegación de los usuarios y mejorar nuestros servicios. Al pulsar "Accept cookies" consiente dichas cookies. Puede obtener más información, o bien conocer cómo cambiar la configuración, pulsando en más información.