Ban on products linked to deforestation is a big issue

In a little over three months we will ring in a new year—2025–where a European Union (EU) ban on the import of commodities linked to deforestation will kick in. Fingered as a deforestation hotspot, Uganda will face the unenviable task of certifying that her goods have not harmed forests after a cutoff date of December 31, 2020.

The origin of the country’s products will have to be traced using geolocation data. Experts predict that oil seeds will be gravely affected, with well-documented deforestation sprees on the islands of Ssese expected to not only come into sharp focus but also impact the bottom line. There are also fears that coffee—another vitally important cash crop that contributes rather heavily to the country’s forex—has, mostly, planted its roots in forested areas.

The move to stop any kind of deforestation from supplying the EU market and the 2,000-member cap on each legally registered grower group poses several pain points for Uganda. Yet even more troubling is how the government of Uganda has opted to respond to the challenge before it. An Agriculture ministry top official recently told this newspaper that the EU's new regulatory approach to organic farming affords Uganda the opportunity to reach other alternative markets.

Since the global organic market exceeds €100 billion, the likelihood of Uganda finding alternative markets is indeed not underwhelming. Yet, make no mistake, moving on from the EU market will smack of choosing to deny the existence of challenges instead of outpacing them. We believe that such a response is bound to reap the whirlwind. This is simply because the country’s burgeoning deforestation-linked exports are, in a sense, quite insidious.

Look closely and you will see that agricultural expansion has fuelled forest degradation. Science is unmistakable in describing the implications of such degradation. It would therefore be rather disheartening if, as appears to be the case, our leaders choose to kick the proverbial can down the road. Such a clumsy attempt should be called out for what it truly is, an unmitigated disaster.

It is important to note that the EU ban on deforestation-linked goods will inflict pain in some places while alleviating it in others. Well intentioned, the EU’s stringent rules tackle the growing problem of climate change as nature continues to die faster than humans. In fact, such is the scale of the global biodiversity crisis that the EU anti-deforestation law could, going forward, cover other ecosystems with heavy carbon content.

The crux of the matter then is that the government of Uganda has to do a lot more to not just protect nature but also to conserve it while also restoring the same. State actors have to find a way in which to keep in check powerful agribusiness and mining interests. Responsible authorities should move to bring to bear telling pressure in the shape of strong environmental regulations.

 A concerted effort is of the essence, with the civil society, for one, expected to articulate the error of a way that sees gains in forest clearances. These must solely be seen through the lens of short-term gains. Climate education must drum up the long-term benefits of reforestation of vast swathes of the country.

Our commitment to you

We pledge:

• To be accurate and fair in all we do.
• To be respectful to all in our pursuit of the truth.
• To refuse to accept any compensation beyond that provided by Monitor Publications Ltd. for what we do in our news gathering and decision-making.

Further, we ask that we be informed whenever you feel that we have fallen short in our attempt to keep these commitments.