Sugar is political candy, the President cant resist dishing it out. Big time problem, gone are the days when the Presidents word moved the rural population, this is a new era now, every word the President says has to travel the super information highway and challenged by equally fast ideas. This is the time when the President has to make a big change, its high time he got rid of his hippee aged advisers whose advice is handicapped of reasons leading to all Presidents calls being chopped up by the hip hop face book activist aiming for his jugular.
Back to Mabira, sorry for the digression, there is a compromise but no one is talking about it and that is what I want to address. Off course this will not go down well for those who are championing the idea that the President is merely encroaching on Buganda’s land but anyways I will put it out for discussion.
Deforestation and canopy destruction can be disassociated or rebalanced. If I plant the same amount of trees as I destroyed the equation will be balanced I argue. That is the compromise. He who wants to destroy the forest must equally agree to plant the same number of trees he cut and it doesn’t have to be in the same region. The companies that want to plant sugar should be mandated to carry on a reforestation program at per with the destruction caused. Climate and trees is an issue of carbon sequestration and heat absorption. I believe a tree in isolation will do what a tree married in a canopy will do. A big Mabira forest can be compensated for by Mini-Mabira forests dispersed all over the country.
The issue of forest cutting is not going to be limited to this government alone, future governments will face this issue too especially with the rapid increase in population, need for socio-economic development programs, they will always be need for more land and just like all rain forests in the world are facing the world need for timber and more the enemies of the forests are here to stay. We need coordinated and environmentally sound development. We definitely have to get scientist think of the post mega rain forest canopy era.
The issue of the Mabira forest being the catchment area for Lake Victoria waters as the major argument from the activists is another disputable fact if you consider the fact that this lake receives most of its water direct from thousands of small streams the largest stream flowing from the Kagera River which originates in Burundi. So Lake Victoria is not going to dry.
So yes we can have both, the discussion should be geared that way, the activist reasons can be addressed as we meet the need for sustainable development.
Dr.Eddie Kayondo, M.D
Ugandan residing in USA
Comments
Dr. Kayondo is wrong on three issues. 1. he says, ‘I believe a tree in isolation will do what a tree married in a canopy will do.’ wrong. an isolated tree cannot create the same environmental benefits as a tree in a canopy. a forest is not just trees, its the whole ecosytem, the marshland, the shrubs, the streams and all the flora and fauna. (from wikipedia the concept of a forest ecosystem includes additional species (such as smaller plants, fungi[2], bacteria, and animals) as well as physical and chemical processes such as energy flow and nutrient cycling.) A forest, if you ask many who have stayed near forests, is a source of livelihood for people who arent fortunate enough to earn a salary and get their food from the market. An isolated tree cannot replicate what a tree married in a canopy can.
2. Dr. Kayondo is wrong to say that Mabira isnt the catchment area for Lake Victoria. whereas its true very many small rivers from as far a Rwanda contribute to Lake Vic, Mabira and other small forests, swamps and streams around Kampala play a huge role. we cannot forget about the contribution of these small streams and the forests around the Ugandan side of Lake Vic while hoping that since the bigger rivers are from Rwanda and beyond we can destroy Mabira and other forests close to the lake and get away with it.
3. Dr. Kayondo also disregards the benefits of forests in economic development. Its true the other countries developed by destroying forest cover, creating residential areas and huge farms but they did this at a time when the effects of climate change were unknown. as you say today information travels very fast on the internet, ugandans are well aware of the effects of uncontrolled economic development, they know that reckless deforestation will get you a sugar plantation but will ensure you will have an unstable rain pattern forcing you to rely more and more on irrigation to maintain the same sugarcane you planted. this irrigation will mean you will be pumping more and more water from the nearby lake and river for the sugarcane to grow. I can go on and on but my point is made. what about small farmers across the country who cannot afford to irrigate but who instead tag their planting season on the known weather patterns, what will you do to them when they prepare their land ready for the rains so they can plant their seeds, but the drought goes on unabated for another three months? already the effects of these unnatural weather patterns are being seen with reduced crop yield. Am not sure if you have a friend in Uganda who is engaged in farming, they would tell you its increasingly difficult to predict the seasons. this is partly responsible for the food shortages and the inflation in Uganda right now. So you will take down Mabira, plant sugarcane and in ten years sugar will be costing say Shs1000 but the small farmer in the village will not be able to buy it because he wont earn from his subsistence farm because the rains would have failed the season before. Sugar will be in the market, but how many will not be able to buy it by selling their excess food from their gardens?
Question to Dr. Kayondo. If Lake Victoria is only because of the small streams outside Mabira, why is it located where it is today, and not else where or even where the streams originate.
Second and simple logic; natural forests do not grow every and anywhere, there are conditions why the echo system is such that natural forests are found where they are with the attendant features.
Now let me use Dr. Kayondo’s very approach to analysis. Since he thinks it is simple mathematics to replace a natural forest by planting another forest ideally he is saying; Mabira (less trees plus sugar canes) is the same as another forest planed elsewhere. Why would one cut down Mabira for sugar cane to plant another forest instead of simply planting sugar cane in that other area where you want to plant a forest after destroying one? Is this a case of reverse intelligence?