Implementation of migration measures resulting from environmental impact assessment in selected industrial projects in Kampala District.

Abstract

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was recognized in Uganda as a tool of environment management back in 1995 when the National Environment Statute (now Act Cap 153) was enacted. The Act called for EIA to examine all development activities likely to negatively impact on the environment before they are implemented. However, despite EIA being carried out on most development projects, it is uncommon for developers of projects to use the EIA reports as a basis for environmentally sound implementation of their projects (Ecaat, 2004).

Industrialization in Kampala has increased and though this indicates development opportunities, it has had serious environmental consequences. Uganda’s National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) for example is experiencing rising treatment costs because of increased pollution of Lake Victoria from industrial effluents (Lwasa, 2004). There is therefore need to determine whether the actual implementation of projects subjected to EIA fulfils the predictions and recommendations made in the EIA reports. This study therefore sought to asses the implementation of the EIA recommended mitigation measures and was carried out in selected industries in Kampala District with the specific objectives to: i. Identify the recommended mitigation measures, ii. Establish the levels of mitigation measure implementation, iii. Establish the strategies used to implement mitigation measures, iv. Identify the challenges faced in implementing mitigation measures. This study analyzed details of mitigation measure implementation from 10 industries located within Ntinda-Nakawa and Port-Bell industrial areas. Both qualitative and quantitative methods were used to collect data. Mitigation measures were identified through document review of EIA reports, the managers of industries were interviewed, while the workers were given questionnaires and FGDs were carried out among community members. The data collected was descriptively analyzed and the following conclusions made; i. The recommended mitigation measures only focused on the construction and operation phases, ignoring the project design phase of the projects' life cycle. ii. The level of mitigation measure implementation was low with only 21-40% of the recommended mitigation measures having been implemented. There was also no significant difference in the levels of implementation between wet and dry industries. iii. The best strategies for implementation of mitigation measures such as monitoring and audits were not adopted by the developers of the industries. Developers did not have any clear strategies for implementation of mitigation measures. iv. The biggest challenge to the implementation of mitigation measures are the high financial costs coupled with inadequate resources to enforce the implementation process.

It is recommended that, mitigation measures for the industrial projects should focus on all the phases of the project life cycle. EIA follow up should also be strengthened as this stage of the EIA process has generally been neglected, yet it is during this stage that mitigation measures are implemented. EIA practitioners should endeavor to include in the EIA reports the cost-benefit analysis of implementing mitigation measures such that developers are aware of the costs involved right from project design before approval by the Authority. Even before approval of the projects, there should be consent by the developers that they will meet the costs of impact mitigation.