not technically Environment Law development within these areas, report. Loss of land area to be linked to feasible, includes prohibit development in as provided an ESIA is DLIs. measures to mitigate or protected wetlands and approved, permission is offset impacts or restrict development normally always granted. program activities. activities in buffer zones Follow-up on projects is around lakes and along lacking, so non-compliance with rivers. The Forestry and mitigation measures, standards Tree Planting Act and the and best practice is not ensured. Uganda Wildlife Act Municipalities themselves prohibit development in reacting to land pressures have parks and conservation also requested degazettment of areas within their forest reserves for development purview unless and proposed infrastructure permission is first development in wetland areas. obtained and require an EIA for proposed activities in natural areas with lesser protection, such as forest and wildlife reserves. Takes into account The Historical The Department of Museums No significant risk provided No action required potential adverse Monuments Act protects and Monuments is contacted in physical cultural property has effects on physical declared monuments or case of ESIA’s identifying a been identified in screening. cultural property and, discovered items that risk to physical cultural as warranted, provides might be classed as resources, however, this relies adequate measures to monuments. The EIA on the environmental avoid, minimize, or Regulations require practitioner identifying the mitigate such effects. consideration of impacts presence of PCR. In practice on culture and cultural there is little knowledge beyond resources. The ESSF a few known historical sites and requires information on monuments unless communities PCR, and the ESMP will give information during include mitigation consultations. Independent measures when any PCR Archeological investigations are could be affected. rare as part of ESIA. For municipal screening, the ESSF covers PCR, but again this is reliant on the MEO identifying
not technically feasible, includes measures to mitigate or offset impacts or program activities. Environment Law prohibit development in protected wetlands and restrict development activities in buffer zones around lakes and along rivers. The Forestry and Tree Planting Act and the Uganda Wildlife Act prohibit development in parks and conservation areas within their purview unless permission is first obtained and require an EIA for proposed activities in natural areas with lesser protection, such as forest and wildlife reserves. development within these areas, as provided an ESIA is approved, permission is normally always granted. Follow-up on projects is lacking, so non-compliance with mitigation measures, standards and best practice is not ensured. Municipalities themselves reacting to land pressures have also requested degazettment of forest reserves for development and proposed infrastructure development in wetland areas. report. Loss of land area to be linked to DLIs. Takes into account potential adverse effects on physical cultural property and, as warranted, provides adequate measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such effects. The Historical Monuments Act protects declared monuments or discovered items that might be classed as monuments. The EIA Regulations require consideration of impacts on culture and cultural resources. The ESSF requires information on PCR, and the ESMP will include mitigation measures when any PCR could be affected. The Department of Museums and Monuments is contacted in case of ESIA’s identifying a risk to physical cultural resources, however, this relies on the environmental practitioner identifying the presence of PCR. In practice there is little knowledge beyond a few known historical sites and monuments unless communities give information during consultations. Independent Archeological investigations are rare as part of ESIA. For municipal screening, the ESSF covers PCR, but again this is reliant on the MEO identifying No significant risk provided physical cultural property has been identified in screening. No action required