Yes Mr President, there’s no justification for settling in a wetland

Over the last week, the National Environment Management Authority (Nema) has been in the news for evicting residents of the Lubigi Wetland in Nansana, in Wakiso District.

Several houses that had stood there were demolished without a second thought. The matter attracted a lot of public concern, as it was deemed as Nema beating up on little defenceless residents, instead of going after large scale investors, who had done much the same thing elsewhere.

Joel Ssenyonyi, the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament, went to the scene to see for himself the extent of the devastation there, a matter that got many coming to raise their concern.

Ssenyonyi was particularly concerned that Nema had waited too long to stop encroachment on the wetland, but had also acted abruptly without sufficient warning before evicting the residents. However, matters got to a head when the police unleashed teargas and bullets to disperse the gathering. The whole experience also upset the Speaker of Parliament and several MPs who felt that the police action was unjustified.

Later, the President picked up on the matter, acknowledging Ssenyonyi’s concerns, but also asking about the rationale behind settling in a wetland. The President correctly argued that there was no justification for settling in a wetland, whether Nema had certified it or not.

What he was indirectly alluding to was that even the big shots settled in wetlands were wrong and possibly on borrowed time, if what we hear from Nema is anything to go by.

While the President may have dismissed those encroaching on wetlands as misguided, there is a logic behind this problem. The informal nature in which land transitions are carried out in the country, lends itself to unscrupulous dealers, who sell unsuitable land, usually wetlands to poor, unsuspecting buyers. There is a need to improve regulation in this area, to ensure only suitable land gets sold or bought, and those seeking to settle there should operate under approved circumstances, preferably by the local government in the area.

However, the Nema should not be seen or be perceived to be acting tough against poor residents, while looking the other way when the big shots settle in the same wetlands. The regulator should also be clear when explaining what sustainable settlement in wetlands means, and how it works.

Modern architecture, especially as seen in Netherlands, has devised ways of using these spaces for sustainability without hurting the natural ecosystem, but this does not seem to have attracted the attention of developers.

Housing developers need to realise that as much as it is critical to meet the national shelter deficit, it is more important to protect the environment and mitigate the climate change impact.