Selective Enforcement Won't Help: NEMA, Wake Up!

Briefs.

• Bias in Enforcement: NEMA's actions in Lubigi show bias, demolishing poor homes but sparing the affluent structures.

• Historical Inaction: NEMA's long periods of inaction despite ongoing environmental violations and encroachments stimulate wonder.

• Demand for Proactivity: NEMA ought to adopt proactive, equitable enforcement rather than reactive measures after encroachments occur.

The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) is a government institution established with the aim of managing, safeguarding and overseeing our environment, ensuring that our country’s natural resources are preserved for approaching generations. The most recent steps in Lubigi are indicative of NEMA’s modus operandi in view of its role. A few days ago, NEMA took drastic steps against encroachment, demolishing residences that were in the wetland. Nevertheless, this encroachment manifested connotations of partisanship and a deficiency of equity as a gas and police station were conspicuously left untouched. This biased enforcement reaffirms the troubling trending dictum, “When the less privileged exploit the wetlands, it is encroachment; when the affluent do the same, it is development.” How does NEMA justify this disparity, yet we share the same environment? This and many other biased actions not only undermine public trust but go ahead to reaffirm the need of a shift from reactive to proactive equitable measures in enforcement of environmental laws.

For many years, NEMA has manifested itself as a toothless barking dog, staying silent and reluctant to act as certain individuals cause mayhem on our mother, nature. Wetlands have been encroached upon in the disguise of development, as NEMA pays a deaf ear.

After a great time of inaction, NEMA got up in action, demolishing a good number of structures in Lubigi wetland, in a manner that gave the impression of being selective and biased. Residential homes were shattered, yet a fuel station and police station were left standing. One would wonder why homes of the less privileged are targeted whereas structures of the affluent stand untouched.

This entire drama leaves us questioning how we can trust an authority that does selective enforcement. If, as NEMA asserts, that the standing gas station obtained permission to operate within the red areas, then we question if development is only valid when it benefits the affluent.

I think a proactive enforcement will do us better. NEMA is locally situated in its area of jurisdiction. In fact, all this mayhem is done in its presence as it watches, and on many occasions, paying a deaf ear. It is imperative for it to take deterrent measures other than waiting for encroachment, constructions going on and it comes in to demolish structures. The ideal would be deterring encroachment rather than carrying out a postmortem of the encroachment. Would we even be facing this crisis if NEMA had acted earlier?

Can we truly claim to protect the environment if our actions favour a select few? It cannot be. There is a need of equity in enforcement. It is becoming part of us a country to permit investors operate from wetlands. I do not think that investors can only carry out their activities from wetlands alone.

Alloting investors space in wetlands is temporary development but trouble in the long run. Laws ought not to work on ground of economic status, they must apply equally.

At this time when homes are destroyed, what becomes of the lives uprooted in the name of enforcement?  Courtesy would call for compensation. The displaced residents are in a time of dire need for support. Though they might have been in wrong according to the verdict of NEMA, the humane and just part of the authority deems compensation a must since these dwellers never built overnight. I think NEMA is made of sensitive human beings who have the same feelings as those of the displaced. If NEMA is to demonstrate justice, it must have in mind, replacement and compensation plans of the affected.

This selective enforcement by NEMA is not only an environmental issue but also an image of the many systematic and systemic inequities in our country. In view of fulfilling its mandate, it ought to adopt a genuine proactive approach and put aside partisan interests of a select few. In this, we mean uniform enforcement of laws that overlooks economic status and prioritizing preventive measures before encroachment befalls us.

The environment is and continues to stand as our shared heritage; the affluent should not jeopardize it by their interests. It is the high time NEMA rose above its past failures, become a truly natural resources custodian and preserve our natural future. In all this, we are not spotting failures or attempting to dislodge it from its mandate, we are rather demanding for equitable enforcement, for the sake of our mother -nature and our predecessors.