Your mail: Pesticides driving out nsenene 

November, the month popularly known as the month of grasshoppers (nsenene), a delicacy in central Uganda, ended, leaving many in tears, counting losses after investing heavily in a lucrative business that could have already eluded them.

Climate change manifesting itself in the form of the on-going torrential el nino rains, is blamed for the disappearance of grasshoppers but that could be only part (if at all) of the story. Central Uganda is one of the leading regions in Uganda in the abuse and misuse of agrochemicals and pesticides in particular.

A survey we conducted in Container Village in 2014 revealed that herbicides (the pesticides used to control weeds) account for 67 per cent of the pesticides used in central Uganda.

Farmers have found it convenient to defoliate the land using toxic chemicals (pesticides) as an alternative to tillage that is deemed to be labour-intensive and costly.

The most popular herbicides deployed to defoliate the land in preparation for planting or to control weeds in perennial crops like bananas and coffee as well as annuals like maize are glyphosate popular known in various names as Roundup, ‘Weed Master’, ‘Weed Go’, etc., and 2,4-D.

These pesticides have devastating effects on other living organisms that depend on vegetation for nutrition. Grasshoppers, for example, are herbivorous (feed on grass). When exposed to high pesticide residues in sprayed grass, grasshoppers and their young can be decimated and obliterated.

Consumers of these grasshoppers can also be exposed to pesticide residues with detrimental health consequences. Persistent use of pesticides without regulation increases resistance, resulting in increased use of such toxins. This could be the most probable reason for the disappearance of grasshoppers and extinction could be looming, if their habitat is not healed.

Grasshoppers could have also suffered the loss of their habitat. These grasshoppers feed on a particular vegetation that is not so common but localised within central Uganda.

There are so many changes to land use and management taking place without planning, some of which, involve massive clearance of vegetation. Mapping out the hotspots of grasshoppers, exclusion of any pesticide activities and conservation of such landscapes will be key to restoration of such habitats and rejuvenation of nsenene.

Giregon Olupot,
Makerere University

Let’s preach forgiveness

Enough is enough! No one has the right to take the life of another with afore malice. For the past few weeks, local newspapers have been awash with stories/opinions about Idi Amin.

The permission sought by former Obongi MP Hassan Fungaro Kaps from the state to have something visually attractive put in place to keep the legacy of the former head of nation unextinguished has presumably opened a can of worms.

After attaining independence in 1962, Uganda has been riddled with a number of problems – military coups, dictatorship, violation of human rights, rebellions and greed for power, to mention but a few.

Regardless, Ugandans have zeroed on the late President Amin, barraging him with criticism endlessly. Instead of preaching reconciliation, peace, unity and forgiveness, do those repeatedly attacking the deceased former leader over the alleged crimes committed against humanity during his reign, really know how much physiologically and psychologically trauma the family he left behind go through?

It is only the weak that can never forgive!

This trend of attacking leaders posthumously must be worrying because the families of today’s leader(s) will likely face similar physiological and psychological pains in the near future.

Muzamil Alamiga,
Arua City.

Stiff UNBS demands hurting businesses

Ugandan commodities are still facing stiff foreign competition due to production of substandard commodities that do not comply with Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) agreed benchmark. UNBS requires industrialists/manufacturers to follow the mandatory procedures before sale of their products on the market.

These include the product certification Quality Mark (Q-Mark), ensure proper packaging and labelling of finished products. Among UNBS requirements, it has become challenging for local infant industries to obtain the Q-Mark as a statutory requirement for them to sell their products on the market.

The process is complicated and many manufacturers are not aware of the steps involved in obtaining the Q-mark. UNBS certifies each particular product upon fulfilling all the requirements/processes for acquiring a Q-Mark. This explains why most of the manufacturers
have failed to obtain product certification as a result of stiff bureaucratic tendencies and have been seen operating behind the curtains.

Section (1) (f) of the UNBS Act mandates UNBS to enforce standards in protection of the public against harmful, dangerous, and substandard products while clause 20 of the same Act prohibits manufacture, sale, distribution or holding for the purpose of selling any product that does not meet compulsory Uganda standards.

The 2017/2018 UNBS performance report highlighted that 54 per cent of the products on the market are substandard, proving how Ugandans are at risk of adverse effects arising from production of such substandard products.

Regarding acquisition of Q-Mark, a number of manufacturers lament that the overall cost of acquiring a UNBS mark exceeds the official fees charged. From inquiries made by Gateway Research Centre, many producers informally pay some UNBS officials to carry out a pre- inspection audit so that when the main inspection comes, they are ready.

The cost can thus go up to Shs 2 million and above depending on the size of the production plant. Micro and small enterprises have to pay a certification fee of Shs 500,000, while medium and large enterprises pay Shs 1,00,000 to be issued with a permit to use the quality mark valid for a period of 12 months.

However, manufacturers say this has to be reduced due to many product ranges they deal in, of which each product has to be certified independently, and that becomes too costly for them.

The one-year period for the Q-mark renewal is also too short as most of these manufacturers are still at infant stages. There is need to increase the period to at least three years to allow them build a firm foundation.

Vicent Kibira & Jonah Kiberu,
Kampala.

Refugees should reduce use of firewood

The refugee crisis has emerged as a significant contemporary concern, having multidimensional repercussions across the globe. In Uganda, one of the world’s largest refugee-hosting nations, this issue takes on essential implications, especially in terms of environmental consequences.

Recently, Hilary Onek, the state minister for Relief, Disaster Preparedness and Refugees, left many Ugandans in utter disbelief when he said that Uganda invests a staggering $1.3 billion (Shs 4.944 trillion) in refugee response, of which 80 per cent is used for purchasing firewood for cooking for refugees.

This not only raises questions about the reality in allocation of these funds but also the sheer magnitude of this expenditure towards degradation of the environment. Accommodating refugees is indeed a humanitarian mandate, underscored by international law and human
rights norms.

However, an intriguing challenge emerges when we scrutinize the environmental implications of this allocation. In skillfully tending to the needs of the refugee populace, Uganda is unwittingly contributing to deforestation and ecosystem degradation. Uganda’s forest cover has been on the decline due to industrialization, combined with the high demand for cooking fuel, especially in the refugee-hosting areas.

The Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2020 report, stated that refugees are responsible for about 61 per cent of the deforestation in refugee-hosting areas. This alarming trend not only paves way for an ecological hazard but exacerbates the challenges surrounding the refugee crisis.

Moreover, the depletion of these forests disrupts the livelihood of the natives, and instigates a severe imbalance in the country’s already strained resources. The mass destruction of forest cover has a grave impact on the integrity of ecosystems and inflates the threat of climate change.

If the claim made by Onek is accurate, it is concerning and it is time for the government to reevaluate its priorities, explore sustainable alternatives, and ensure transparency in the allocation of these funds to minimize the environmental impacts.

Gladys Rosette Nandutu,
Kampala.

letters@observer.ug