GULU UNIVERSITY

NAME: AMOLA ARTHUR ISAAC

REG No: 18/U/1802/GBL/PS

COURSE UNIT: ENVIROMENTAL LAW & POLICY

LECTURER: Ms. ATIM GRACE

Question

Critically analyze the polluter pays principle and its effectiveness in Uganda.
The Polluter Pays Principle is traced back in 1972 & 1974 OECD Recommendations stating the
polluter should bear the costs of pollution, prevention and controlling any pollution that he
originates.1 This quantifies as a practice that imposes liability onto a person who pollutes the
environment because of the principle, ‘he who pollutes the environment bears the burden of
repairing the damage caused.’ A polluter per Paragraph 4 of the OECD is referred to as a person
who directly or indirectly causes deterioration of the environment 2 emphasizing the intention of
preserving the environment for the welfare of citizens and generations reflected as per the Rural
Litigation and Entitlement v Ultar Pradesh 3. Henceforth in my opinion, this principle entails
the polluter should bear the expenses of carrying out the above mentioned measures decided by
public authorities to ensure that the environment authorities to ensure that the environment is in-
acceptable state.

This paved way for the Rio Declaration that was formed in 1992 stipulating the extension
liability as an initiative. Principle 16 of this declaration further equipped the national authorities
to promote international costs and usage of economic instruments whilst taking into account that
the polluter should bear the cost of pollution irrespective of international trade and instruments.
This is sighted in Mc Mehta v Karmal North4 advocating, ‘one who pollutes the environment
must pay to reverse the damage caused by his act’. As a matter of fact, emphasis of this principle
advocates for allocation of charge on a polluter for all the effect of his activity created for other
person's and in the environment as well.

This principle was first applied in India as a policy recommended to safeguard her citizens from
environmental threats caused by modern industrialization. 5 Justice Dalveer in his dictum
endorses it in Indian Action for Environmental Legal Action v Union of India 6 as a financial
cost, preventing or remedying the damage caused by pollution. This however laid the foundation
and outbreak of this principle to farfetched society emerging policies implemented to protect and
safeguard her citizens from dangerous substances that may endanger her citizens.
1
Recommendation on Guiding Principles Concerning International Economic Aspects of Environmental Policies C
(72) 128
2
Communication from the Commission to the Council regarding cost allocation and action by public authorities on
environmental matters. Principles and modalities, OECD, L 194/2-4 (25 th July, 1975)
3
[1978] ILR 33
4
[1987] 1 SCC 388
5
The Polluter Pays Principle in Effect at the National Green Tribunal in India by Mrinalini Shinde, ‘The Journal of
Health, Environment & Education (2017 at 9, 10-18 https://hee-journal.uni.koeln.de Accessed on 12th July, 2021
6
[2011] 8 SCC 161
According to Uganda’s jurisprudence, Objective XXV of the National Objective entails
stakeholders to protect and preserve the environment because every citizen has an obligation to a
7
clean and healthy environment. This is witnessed through access to both civil and criminal
actions as an initiative of enforcing environmental laws and regulations in that it's the burden if
the citizens to meet the cost of preventing the damage caused by pollution in carrying out
remedial measures..

The applicability of the Polluter pays principle in Uganda has portrayed its effectiveness as
follows;

Suffice of the National Environmental Management Authority as the body manifest agency is
responsible for coordinating and monitoring all aspects of environmental management in
Uganda. This is endorsed by Justice Katureebe in Godfrey Amooti v National Environmental
Management Authority8 whilst dismissing the petition on grounds that NEMA as a body has
the obligation and free will to protect the environment. 9 Thus in my point of analysis, NEMA is
mandated to ensure sufficient regulation policies whilst coordinating the management of
environmental concerns in Uganda clearly promising her citizens to deliver onto her obligation,
thus the principle is effective in Uganda.

This principle has also paved way for various legislations enacted to restore the lost or damaged
ecosystems and reversing the degradation of the environment and natural resources. 10 This is
endorsed by Justice Katureebe JSC in National Forestry Authority v Kiwanuka11 stipulating
the initiative to restore any lost damage reflected onto the environment. It should also be noted
that in as much as the State owes her citizens the benefit to a clean and safe environment, 12 keen
interest should be drawn unto policies that implement the opportunity to protect and create a
befitting environment, thus the principle is effective in Uganda.

Personal accountability is also sighted through an increased access to court both on civil and
criminal matters whilst enforcing the restoration of environmental standard. 13 This is illustrated

7
1995 Constitution of Uganda Article 39 and National Environment Act 2019 Section 3
8
Constitutional Appeal 2011
9
National Environment Act 2019 Section 67
10
National Environment Act 2019 Section 5 (f)
11
Civil Appeal 2009
12
ibid
13
National Environment Act 2019 Section 4 (2)
in Oleum Gas Leak case14 interpreting the principle to impose personal liability onto the
polluter for any damage foreseen in the environment. Justice Mwangusya affirms to this dictum
as per Green watch v Attorney General and NEMA 15 stipulating the fact that every person has
a right to enforce actions on a people who misuse the environment. Henceforth, keen interest
should be reflected on environmental conservation through imposing liability onto people, thus
the principle is effective in Uganda.16

Significant reduction on the manufacturing of harmful and hazardous products is revealed

because of the restrictions in form of penalties, fines or even compensation. 17 It should be noted
that, today, most activities relating to environment requires a license to be issued amongst these
includes, importing, manufacturing and disposition of waste substance. This is illustrated by
Justice Kakuru in Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria Control v Attorney General 18
aligning the initiative that every polluter should be held accountable for the environmental
impacts of their products to the community. Thus, in my point of view this entails that the burden
of environmental policies must be imposed on those who violate it thus being effective in
Uganda.

Assurance bonds are sighted as a tool for expanding public sector control over the use of natural
resources against the worst environmental impact whilst implementing policies that require
issuers disclosing to investors the type of temporary investment for balance of allocated
proceed.19 This is quite evident per Ismail Serugo v Attorney General20 where emphasis
stipulates the right to present a constitutional petition was vested not only in the person who
suffers the injury but also in any other person. As a matter of fact, in my opinion the idea that
people should be held accountable for their actions is farfetched a norm based on proposals
ranging from taxes, thus effective in Uganda.

14
[1987] SC 965
15
Miscellaneous Cause No 140/2002
16
National Environment Act 2019 Part XVII
17
‘Health and Environmental Benefits of Reduced Pesticide Use in Uganda: An Experimental Economic Analysis’ by
Jackline Bonabana Wabbi & Daniel B Taylor page 1’ https://core.ac.uk>pdfPDF Accessed on 12th July, 2021
18
Constitutional Petition 2001
19
www.nortonrosefulbright.com Green bonds |Uganda |Global law firm |Norton Rose Fulbright Accessed on 12 th
July, 2021
20
HCCS No 5/2003
 Byelaws have also been formulated as a pollution control measure through issuing fines by city
court for littering the city.21 This is because the protection of environment is a clear necessity
regulated by provisions for conservation through prohibiting any illegality. Further, evidence
reaching the author extends Uganda Revenue Authority policies on importation of commodities
whose lifespan clearly exceeds seven years from the date of manufacture are restricted by these
laws as an insurance policy. In my point of analysis, these byelaws are estranged to protect the
community from any outcome that may befall because of the Polluter pays principle, thus
effective in Uganda.

Pollution licenses have been formulated as an initiative of limiting people’s wishes to exceed the
standards requiring any person who has harmed the environment to take action and restore it. 22
This is because a restoration order prohibits any person whose activities cause or likely to cause
pollution to the environment.23 This is evident per Godfrey Amooti v National Environmental
Management Authority24 where Justice Katureebe emphasized the fact the State has a
constitutional duty to protect the environment and consider the public interest to ensure that the
developer’s rights would not prejudice the rights of others. 25 However in my point of view, it
should be noted that these pollution licenses are envisaged to be applicable where activities
likely cause pollution beyond the established standard.

However, the applicability of the Polluter pays principle has not been effective in Uganda
because of the following;

Failure to restore the environment to its original state is a clear indication of the inefficiency of
the principle developing a negative attitude of wholly embracing it in Uganda.26 This is portrayed
because of the limited distribution of sufficient information about the Polluter pays principle
hence crippling the effective community communication. 27 In a nutshell, I strongly suggest that

21
Step by Step Guidelines For Making Ordinances and Byelaws for Local Government in Uganda (REVISED EDITION)
by Onesmus Mugyenyi, Dickens Kagarura ACODE Policy Briefing Paper Series No 54 (2020)
22
National Environment Act 2019 Part VIII
23
ibid
24
ibid
25
1995 Constitution of Uganda Article 17 (1) (8)
26
www.monitor.co.ug ‘Why restoring Uganda’s forest is a challenging task’ Accessed on 12 th July, 2021
27
Key issues in Uganda’s energy sector Pro-Bio diversity Conservationists in Uganda (PROBICOU) by Robert
Tumwesigye, Paul Twebaze, Nathan Makuregye and Ellady Muyambi at (24-28)
the State should be held accountable for safety and sufficiency of our environment by
implementing policies that safeguard the nature and beauty of the environment.

In addition, high costs of implementing the Polluter pays principle is crippling the effectiveness
in Uganda. This is witnessed on the uncalled increase on permit clearance taxes that makes it
quite impossible for one to establish any plant 28 because this requires constant supervision from
NEMA thus, incurring huge costs of maintenance policies and bureaucracy.

Exceptions to this principle would not be applied where measures to safeguard the environment
are endangered in the social and economic policies in Uganda. This is evident in situations of
expenditures incurred as a restoration remedy with the effect of holding back regional
development.

To sum up my endorsed research, it should be stated that the Polluter pays principle entails the
effectiveness of safeguarding her community by imposing strict liability onto the polluter to bear
costs for endangering the environment.

BIBIOLOGRAPHY
1995 Constitution of Uganda as Amended
National Environment Act 2019
28
www.monitor.co.ug ‘Proposed taxes will increase cost of doing business by Ismail Musa Ladu’ Accessed on 12 th
July, 2021
Rural Litigation and Entitlement v Ultar Pradesh [1978] ILR 33
Mc Mehta v Karmal North [1987] 1 SCC 388
Indian Action for Environmental Legal Action v Union of India [2011] 8 SCC 161
Godfrey Amooti v National Environmental Management Authority Constitutional Appeal
2011
National Forestry Authority v Kiwanuka Civil Appeal 2009
Oleum Gas Leak case [1987] SC 965
Green watch v Attorney General and NEMA Miscellaneous Cause No 140/2002
Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria Control v Attorney General Constitutional Petition
2001
Ismail Serugo v Attorney General HCCS No 5/2003
Recommendation on Guiding Principles Concerning International Economic Aspects of
Environmental Policies C (72) 128
Communication from the Commission to the Council regarding cost allocation and action by
public authorities on environmental matters. Principles and modalities, OECD, L 194/2-4 (25 th
July, 1975)
Step by Step Guidelines For Making Ordinances and Byelaws for Local Government in Uganda
(REVISED EDITION) by Onesmus Mugyenyi, Dickens Kagarura ACODE Policy Briefing
Paper Series No 54 (2020)
Key issues in Uganda’s energy sector Pro-Bio diversity Conservationists in Uganda
(PROBICOU) by Robert Tumwesigye, Paul Twebaze, Nathan Makuregye, and Ellady Muyambi
at (24-28)
The Polluter Pays Principle in Effect at the National Green Tribunal in India by Mrinalini
Shinde, ‘The Journal of Health, Environment & Education (2017 at 9, 10-18 https://hee-
journal.uni.koeln.de Accessed on 12th July, 2021
‘Health and Environmental Benefits of Reduced Pesticide Use in Uganda: An Experimental
Economic Analysis’ by Jackline Bonabana Wabbi & Daniel B Taylor page 1’
https://core.ac.uk>pdfPDF Accessed on 12th July, 2021
Constitutional Petition 2001
www.nortonrosefulbright.com Green bonds |Uganda |Global law firm |Norton Rose Fulbright
Accessed on 12th July, 2021
www.monitor.co.ug ‘Proposed taxes will increase cost of doing business by Ismail Musa Ladu’
Accessed on 12th July, 2021