Report of The Parliamentary Committee On Natural Resources On Sand Mining in Uganda

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON
SAND MINING IN UGANDA
16th NOVEMBER 2016
Page 1 of 56
TABLE Of CONTENTS
ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................................................4
1.0
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 5
1.1
Scope of Work ........................................................................................5
1.2
Terms of Reference ....................................................................................................... 7
1.3
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 7
1.4
Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.0
BACKGROUND ON SAND MINING IN UGANDA ........................................................ 10
2.1
Areas of Focus ............................................................................................................. 12
2.1.1
Sand Mining in Lwera Wetland ......................................................................... 12
2.1 .2
Sand Mining in Lake Victoria ............................................................................. 13
2.2
3.0
Best Sand Mining Practices ....................................................................................... 13

COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................... 14
TOR 1: INVESTIGATION INTO THE STATUS OF SAND MINING IN LWERA WETLAND,

LEGALITY OF OPERATIONS, OWNERSHIP OF TITLES AND NATIONALITY OF PERSONS
INVOLVED ................................................................................................................................. 14
3.1
Land Titles in Lwera Wetland .................................................................................... 18
3.2
Certificates of Approval of Environmental Impact Assessment ........................ 21
3.3
Sand Mining Permits issued by NEMA ..................................................................... 22
3.4
Addendums to Wetland User Permits ..................................................................... 28
3.5
Sand Mining Methods ................................................................................................30
TOR 2: INVESTIGATION INTO THE STATUS OF SAND MINING IN LAKE VICTORIA,

LEGALITY OF OPERATIONS AND NATIONALITIES OF PERSONS INVOLVED .................... 31
3.6
Certificate of Approval of Environmental Impact Assessment ......................... 33
3.7
Dredging in Lake Victoria ..........................................................................................33
TOR 3: INVESTIGATION INTO SAND MINING ENCROACHING KYEWAGA CENTRAL

FOREST RESERVE ......................................................................................................................34
~~~~:G ~~T~~~~H~~~ ~.E~~~.~~~F~~ R.~~~.L~~~.~~ ~~.~ ~~~.~.~~~E~~.~~.~~~.~;;[)

..
3.8
..
..
..
Sand Mining Regulations ...........................................................................................36
3.9 of ::nd Mining Guidelines ................~ .......................................... 37

2
3.1 0
Sand Extraction Limits .............................................................................................37
3.11
Statutory Instrument banning the transporting of wet sand .......................... 39
3.12
Restoration Orders ...................................................................................................39
3.13
Restoration plans .........................................................................................................41
3.14
Coordination of Lead Agencies .......................................................................... 42
3.14.1
Licencing ...............................................................................................................42
3.14.2 Compliance Enforcement ....................................................................................44

3.14.3 Routine monitoring ...............................................................................................46
3.14.4
National Physical Development Plan .............................................................. 47
TOR 5: ESTABLISHING THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SAND MINING IN

UGANDA ...................................................................................................................................48
3.1 6
Impact of Fish stock ....................................................................................................48
3.17
Local Content ..........................................................................................................49
3.18
Employment .................................................................................................................51
3.19
Levy Assessments .....................................................................................................52
3.20
Exportation of Sand ..................................................................... ,.............................. 53
3.21
Taxes from Sand Mining ..................................................... ,....................................... 54
3.22
Community Relations .......................................................... ,...................................... 54
4.0
CONCLUSION .......... ,..........................................................................................................56
ACRONYMS
DEO
District Environment Officer
El A
Environmental Impact Assessment
KCCA
Kampala Capital City Authority
LTD
Limited
MAA IF
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
NEMA
National Environment Management Authority
PAYE
Pay As You Earn
PPDA
Public Procurement and Disposal Authority
UIA
Uganda Investment Authority
URA
Uganda Revenue Authority
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Prior to 2010, sand mining in Uganda was largely on small scale and was
characterised by use of rudimentary tools such as spades for its extraction.
However, the period between 2005 and 2010 witnessed a ten- fold increase
in construction activities 1 which has been linked to a higher demand for sand.
As a result, sand mining has increased in areas such as Lwera wetland and
the use of advanced technology has been on the rise in the wetland.
The plenary sitting of the 18th of August 2016 noted with concern some of the
negative consequences of the increased sand mining activity such as
destruction of breeding and spawning grounds of fishes that had resulted into
decline of stocks and ultimately affecting the country's fish exports and
environmental degradation of wetlands, among other issues.
The Speaker referred the matter to the Committee for further investigation.
Pursuant to Rule 147(e) and 177(a) (e) of the Rules of Procedure of
Parliament, the Committee on Natural Resources therefore presents this
report as a summary of its findings and recommendations to the House for
consideration.
1.1
Scope of Work
The Committee concentrated on investigating sand mining in Lwera Wetland

and Lake Victoria and its shores in Wakiso District as was guided by the
debate that ensued in Parliament on the 18th of August 2016.
In order to guide the investigation into sand mining activities, the Committee
reviewed the Hansard of 18th of August 2016, and identified concerns as were
raised on the floor. These included but are not limited to:
a) Sand excavation from Lake Victoria
Members noted that there was a dredger excavating sand directly from Lake
Victoria. The use of the dredger was thought to be disrupting the breeding
patterns of fish in the lake and also resulted into increased costs of sand.
Members were also concerned about ownership of the dredger and whether
dredging of sand from the Lake had been authorised.
b) Sand Mining in Wetlands
lt was also of concern that a number of investors owned land titles in Lwera
wetland which title ownership is prohibited in the country. The number of
investors mining sand and their identity remained unclear.
Also noted were
the discrepancies in issuance of the titles. Further it was alleged that locals
do not easily obtain land titles as compared to foreigners, in this case
suspected to be Chinese nationals.
c) Environmental Degradation and reduction of fish stocks in Lake Victoria
As a result of the methods used in extracting the sand, Members reported
that the topography of Lwera had been distorted and that mining had
caused formation of open pits. The degradation of wetlands ultimately
resulted into reduced fish stocks in Lake Victoria since wetlands are breeding
grounds for fish.
d) Local content
Members inquired whether sand mining was being carried out by Ugandans
or foreigners (Chinese). They further inquired if such investors had indeed
acquired licenses to come and mine sand and whether they had paid the
$100,000 which they are supposed to deposit as investors in the country.They
further inquired if there was any mechanism in place to ring fence sand
mining to be a preserve for Ugandans.
e) Eventual use of sand
There was concern raised whether there was any sand being exported for
glass manufacturing despite the public debate on limiting exportation of
minerals without any value addition.
Page 6 of 56
lt should however be noted that although there were other concerns raised,
especially on fish, this Committee did not investigate them since they are
outside its jurisdiction.
1.2
Terms of Reference
In line with the issues raised in the House, the Committee was directed to
investigate the above allegations and report back to the House in October
2016. The Committee therefore set the following as its terms of reference in
order to execute this assignment:
a) To investigate the status of sand mining in Lwera Wetland, legality of
operations, ownership of titles and nationalities of persons involved;
b) To investigate the status
of sand mining in Lake Victoria, legality of
operations, nationalities of persons involved in mining sand in the Lake;

c) To investigate effect of sand mining on Kyewaga Central Forest
Reserve;
d) To establish measures in place for regulation and management of sand
mining in Uganda; and
e) To establish the socioeconomic impacts of sand mining in Uganda.
1.3
Methodology
The Committee adopted the following methodology;

1. Review of existing relevant legislative framework, Environmental Impact
Statements of mining companies, environmental certificates, wetland and
lake
permits,
environmental
monitoring
reports,
environmental
improvement notices, investment licences, certificates of incorporation,

land
titles,
ministerial statements, written
statements
from
government agencies and other relevant information sources.
Page 7 of 56
relevant
2. Inspection of mining sites around Lake Victoria within Wokiso District os well
os Lwero wetlond situated in Kolungu and Mpigi Districts. 11 sites were
inspected and a checklist that guided the inspections is attached as
Annex 1.
In Lwero wetland, sites inspected included:
a) Plot 8, Block 149 in Komuwunga village, Kyamulibwa Parish, Bukulula
Sub County, Kalungu District. This site is run by He Sho Duo Company
Limited and belongs to Chinese investors.
b) Plot 20, Block 149 in Kamuwunga village, Kyomulibwo Parish, Bukulula
Sub County, Kalungu District. This site is run by Lukaya Sand Dealers and
belongs to Chinese investors.
c) Plot 8, Block 149 in Kamuwungo- Lwobitete village, Kyomulibwa Parish,
Bukulula Sub County, Kalungu District. The site belongs to Seroma
Limited whose proprietors ore Robert Ssekidde and Morgoret Ssekidde.
d) Plot 8, Block 415 in Nobyewongo village, Nkozi Sub County, Mpigi
District. The site is run by Capitol Estates, a company owned by John
Sebolamu.
e) Plot 42, Block 415 in Lwero- Komalibo village, Mugge Parish, Nkozi Sub
County, Mpigi District. This site belongs to Birungi Simpson.
f)
Plot 10, Mawokoto Block 338 in Nosita village, Nkozi Sub County, Mpigi
District. The site belongs to Zhongs Industries Limited, Chinese investors.
g) Plot 60, Block 415 in Ntinzi village, Mugge parish, Nkozi Sub County,
Mpigi District. The site belongs to Tesco Industries Ltd a company
owned by Drake Lubega.
h) Plot 38, Block 415 at Bwera Mpigi District. This site belong to Mr.
Abomugisha Peter a local businessman
i)
Plot 10, Mawokoto Block 338 Ntinzi, Nasita Village, Nkozi sub-county,
Mpigi
Page 8 of 56
site belongs to Zhongs Industries Limited
The Committee also inspected Mango Tree Group Limited's operation

area on the shores of Lake Victoria at Bugiri - Bukasa village, Sabagabo
Kisubi Parish, Sabadu Katabi Sub County, Wakiso District.
Also inspected was a site belonging to Aka & Bino Fish Farming Project in
Kitinda village, Katabi Sub County on a plot adjacent to Kyewaga Central
Forest Reserve in Wakiso District. The proprietor of the project is
Twinomugisha Moses.
3. The Committee held focus group discussions with residents of Kamaliba
fishing village communities and interacted with individuals in the proximity
of sand mining sites.
4. Consultative meetings were aslo held with the following stakeholders:

i.
Abomugisha Peter
ii.
Aqua World (U) Ltd
iii.
Birungi Simpson
iv.
Capital Estates
v.
Kalungu District Local Government
vi.
Lukaya Sand Dealers
vii.
Lukaya Town Council
viii.
Mango Tree Group Limited
ix.
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
x.
Ministry of Internal Affairs
xi.
Ministry of Lands and Urban Development
xii.
Mpigi District Local Government
xiii.
National Environment Management Authority
xiv.
National Planning Authority
xv.
Seroma Limited
xvi.
Tesco Industries Ltd
xvii.
Page 9 of 56
Authority
xviii.
1.4
Uganda Revenue Authority
xix.
Wakiso District Local Government
xx.
Zhongs Industries Limited
limitations
Several limitations were encountered during this investigation. However, these

were not substantial to alter the findings. These included:
(a) Most people found at the sites fled upon seeing the Committee
members. Hence the Committee could not interact with them;
(b) Delayed responses and in some instances non- response from
identified stakeholders; and
(c) Although there was need to inspect more sites, due to financial and
time constraints, Committee restricted its investigations to Wakiso,
Kalungu and Mpigi Districts.
2.0
BACKGROUND ON SAND MINING IN UGANDA
This section gives background information on sand mining in Uganda, Lwera

wetland and Lake Victoria.
Sand is a natural unconsolidated granular material formed by weathering of

rocks and consequently transferred and deposited inland, riverine or
lacustrine (lake systems).
According to a British Geological Mining survey, most of the sands found in

Uganda are from alluvial or beach systems .They include deposits found in
river courses and beaches. Beach deposits rich in silica have been reported
at the shores of Lake Victoria and the islands within the lake. Several locations
like Diimu and Bukakata in Masaka district, Lwera in Kalungu district, Nalumuli
Bay and Nyimu Bay and Kome Island in Mukono District were confirmed to
Page 10 of 56
historically have deposits of silica sand. In the 1960s, the East African Glass
Works Limited mined and used glass sands from Bukakata for making glass 2 .
Figure 1 is a historic map of sites with sand around Lake Victoria.

Jinj.a
(J
40
L...--L---'------'---.J
Lake Victoria
Figure 1: Silica sand deposits around Lake Victoria3
Presently there is an increase in sand mining in the areas of Lwera, Katosi,

Kasenyi, Kyewaga and Kalangalo. Other areas include Lutoboka, Mwena,
Kagonya, Kivunza, Wanseko, Butiaba, Kaiso- Tonya among others.
2.1 Area of Focus

In this investigation, as articulated in the terms of reference, emphasis was
placed on sand mining in Lwera wetland and Lake Victoria
Mothers,
S.
(1994).
The
Industrial
Mineral
Potential
http://www .bgs.ac.u k/research/international/ dfid-kar/W C9 400 l_col.pdf

3
ibid
Page 11 of 56
of
Uganda.
Retrieved
from
2.1.1 Sand Mining in Lwera Wetland

Lwera wetland is a permanently water logged area that forms part of
Greater Katonga wetland system bordering River Katonga and Lake Victoria,
and is located in the Districts of Mpigi and Kalungu.
At an altitude of 1,158 metres above sea level, the wetland has an area of
about 237km2 and drains directly into Lake Victoria. Kampala - Masaka
highway crosses through the wetland and is the main access road to wetland
where the sand mining is currently taking place.
The sand in the wetland developed on sediments deposited more than 60

million years ago. Below it are a couple of profiles derived from historical
depositions that accompanied changes in the lake's area over the years
since its creation. The most recent activity is traced in 1962 when Lake
Victoria levels rose by 4 metres resulting into inundation and deposition of
large deposits of sand from the lake into Lwera wetland. Similar actions are
forecast in 2022.
Although sand mining had been carried out in the wetland on artisanal or
small scale for more than 30 years, the sand borrow pits were until 1997
restored by inundation following El-nino rains 4 .
In the past, sand miners used rudimentary tools such as spades. However in
early 2010, sand mining technology was upgraded to use of excavators. The
technology upgrade was driven by increased demand for sand for
construction industry which made sand mining a commercial undertaking.
From the year 2013, sand miners started using sophisticated technologies
4
National Environment Management Authority presentation to the Committee on Natural

Resources on the 25th
6
Page 12 of 56
particularly dredgers that extract massive volumes of sand in a short period of

time.
2.1.2 Sand Mining in Lake Victoria
Lake Victoria is Africa's largest fresh water lake with a surface area of about
69,000 square kilometres. lt is a major economic resource that is crucial for
development
of
agriculture,
fisheries,
tourism,
trade,
transport
and
communications, water, energy and industry.

The Lake Victoria basin in Uganda has many wetland systems. These include
Kirinya wetland system, Nakivubo wetland, Kinawataka wetland, River Rwizi
wetlands system, Lake Mburo/Nakivale wetland system, Lake Wamala
wetland system, River Katonga wetland system, Lake Kijanebalola-Bukoora
wetland system, Sango Bay-Musambwa lsland-Kagera Wetland System,
Nabajjuzi-Nakaiba wetland system among others.
The wetlands in the Lake Victoria basin possess a lot of biodiversity which is a
major source of tourism attraction, purifies effluent discharges before it enters
the lake, have fertile soils that are a major cause of encroachment and lately
possess commercial sand deposits.
In the past sand was mined at its shorelines but with advancement of
technology and introduction of dredgers, sand mining is being undertaken
within the lake, as witnessed around Bukasa in Wakiso District.
2.2
Best Sand Mining Practices
Some best sand mining practices that promote sustainable use of sand
resources include:
Conducting EIAs
Display of EIA certifJc{)te at sites
Page 13 of 56
3.0
Undertaking regular environmental audits
Adhering to buffer zones (areas of no extraction)
Mining within restricted extraction limits i.e. depth and volume
Stockpiling overburden for post- mine activities
Restoration of mined sites
Fencing of mining sites
Protecting sites from erosion
Proper waste management
Maintaining proper nature of environment
Maintaining supporting infrastructure particularly access roads
Ensuring smooth community relations in vicinity of sites
Employing as many local people as possible
Regular monitoring and compliance enforcement

COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee made observations that are explained under their respective
Terms of Reference. Where appropriate, recommendations are made.
3.1
TOR 1:
INVESTIGATION INTO THE STATUS OF SAND MINING IN
LWERA WETLAND, LEGALITY OF OPERATIONS, OWNERSHIP OF TITLES

AND NATIONALITY OF PERSONS INVOLVED
The Committee sought to establish the number of companies mining sand

within Lwera wetland, nationalities of persons involved in sand mining;
whether indeed miners held land titles within wetlands; whether the
companies carrying out sand mining had fulfilled the necessary requirements
authorizing the mining of sand and if procedures for award of permits,
licenses and addenda were adhered to. The Committee consequently finds
and recommends as follows:
Page 14 of 56
3.1.1 Status of Sand Mining in Lwera Wetland.

According to the Ministerial Policy Statement delivered by Minister of State for
Environment on the 23rd of August 201 6, records from the sites visited by the
Committee, additional documents submitted by NEMA on the 3rd November
2016 and information presented by the District Local Government Leaders, it
was established that Lwera wetland has at least 24 sand mining sites as
highlighted under Annex 2. According to NEMA's statement of 3rd of
November 2016, of all these sites only 4 namely; Registered Trustees of
Masaka Diocese, River Katonga Investments Ltd, Seroma Limited and Parkson
Hongkong Investments Limited have valid permits, two namely Aqua World
and Capital Estates have been issued with restoration orders, 7 namely
Birungi Simpson (Kamaliba Village), Birungi Simpson (Nabyewanga village),
He She Duo Company Limited, DM W Uganda Limited, Zou Yunyan, Lukaya
Sand Dealers and You Jing Shu have had their activities halted, one of Tesco
Industries permit cancelled but later waived, 3 sites namely Abomugisha
Peter, Zhongs Industries and Mulongo Kato have no permits while the status
of the remaining 7 sites is unknown. This therefore implies that the wetland
has both sand miners regulated by NEMA and some illegal ones.
The current situation in Lwera wetland also reveals that there are miners
excavating sand under the guise of fish farming. These include Aqua World
(U), and Capital Estates. Others such as Birungi Simpson, Seroma Limited were
issued permits to extract sand, after which the ponds would be used for fish
farming.
The Committee notes that although the miners had carried out Environmental
Impact Assessments, the companies still have to obtain permits from MAAIF
under Rule 14 (1) of the Fish Aquaculture Rules of 2003, which clearly provides
Page 15 of 56
that; no person, institution, organisation or establishment shall engage in fish

breeding without a permit issued by the Chief Fisheries Officer.
Although there exists a provisional letter permitting Aqua World to undertake

fish pond and cage production in Lwera, this letter is dated 06/02/2014 for a
period of one year and is therefore currently invalid. Monitoring reports by
MAAIF indicate unsuitability of the site, inexperience of personnel among a
host of other shortcomings on the Aqua World site5,6.
Capital Estates possess a certificate issued on the 28/9/2016 a day before the.
Committee's visit. This document was initially not submitted to the Committee
which casts doubt on its authenticity. Furthermore, the Ministry did not
provide evidence of the application process for this permit, the site doesn't
appear in any of its monitoring reports and the list that was submitted to the
Committee on the 28th of October 201 6 contains companies which were
issued certificates before the date expired. For example company 40,
Bunakanda Cage fish farming project whose certificate was issued on
12/11/20167 (Attached as Annex 3). This therefore raises issues of authenticity

of this list.
While appearing before the Committee, the MAAIF stated that; Possession of
a wetland permit from NEMA, does not exempt prospective commercial fish
farmers from obtaining a fish farming permit issued by MAAIF, rather this is
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, (2013). Inspection and Monitoring
Report on Aqua World.
6
Jackson, W. L. (20 15). Letter, requesting for Hydrologist and a Water Engineer to Help in the
Process of Suitability Site Analysis of Lwera- Mpigi District.
7
Company highlighted in Annex 3.
Page 16 of 56
-~~'7---
treated as evidence of having carried out an EIA which is a requirement for

obtaining a permit for commercial fish farming.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries further advised that
the Lwera wetland was unsuitable for fish farming because of encumbrances
in its drainage, which hinder easy flow of water out of ponds and the fact
that sand mining interferes with fish ecology. This therefore implies that the fish
farming in Lwera should not be permitted by the MAAIF. s
However to the Committee's dismay the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal

Industries and Fisheries went ahead and issued fish farming permits to Capital
Estate and Aqua World (U) Ltd.
Recommendations
The Ministry of Agriculture; Animal Industries and Fisheries should cancel the
fish farming permits issued to Aqua World (U) Ltd and Capital Estates with
immediate effect.
3.1.2 Nationality of sand miners

lt was established that sand mining in Lwera wetland was being undertaken
by both Ugandan and foreign investors. Out of the 11 sites visited by the
Committee only four companies belonged to non- Ugandans. These were
Zhong Industries, He sha Dou, Lukaya sand dealers and Mango Tree
Investments.
a Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (2016) Brief for the Committee to Natural
Resources- The Parliament of lr.r.-..rlr.
Page 17 of 56
3.1.3 Ownership of Land Titles within the Wetland

Article 237(2) (b) of the Constitution provides that Government or a Local
Government shall hold in trust for the people and protect natural lakes, rivers,
ground water, natural ponds, natural streams, wetlands, forest reserves,
national parks and any other land reserved for ecological and touristic
purposes for the common good of the citizens of Uganda.
The Constitution, under article 237 (2) (b) created a public trust over
renewable resources such as natural lakes, rivers and wetlands vesting them
in the state to hold and protect for the common good of all citizens of
Uganda. However, the Committee established that the companies and
individuals as listed in table 1 possessed land titles issued after 1995.
Table 1: List of land titles of sand Miners in Lwera Wetland

Developer
Land Title No.
Year of issue
Area
Zhongs Industries Ltd
Leasehold Volume HQT232
2014
59.4900
Folio 20 Mawokota Block
hectares
338 Plot 10 at Ntinzi, Mpigi

district- MAW338/1 0
Seroma Ltd
Freehold Register Volume
2016
199.8300
hectares
MSK254 Folio 16 Block 149

Plot 8 at Kamuwunga Lwabitete
John Ssebalamu
Leasehold
Register
2012
LRV.4346/19 Volume 4407
256.588
hectares
Folio 22 at Mabira - Lwera

(converted to Freehold)
Lukaya Sand Dealers
Leasehold Register Volume

MSK132
Folio
2015
72.9300
hectares
LAN.112/147
Samuel Kakande

HQT126 Folio 8 Block 415
Page 18 of 56
2014
116.7500
hectares
Year of issue
land Title No.
Developer
Area
Plot 9 at Mabira, Lwera

HQT154 Folio 15 Block 415
122.9250
Plot 10 at Mabira, Lwera
hectares
Tesco Industries
40.5090
2015
HQ429 Folio 21 Mawokota
hectares
Block 415 Plot 60 at Mabira

Lwera
Peter Abomugisha
2013
14.484
hectares
1434 Folio 20 Mawokota

Block 415 Plot 38 at Bwera
Section 44(6) of the Land Act, Cap 227, explicitly restricts Government or any
local Government to lease out or otherwise alienate any natural resource.
lt is further important to note that the Solicitor General
has opined that:
a) The continued issuance of certificate of land titles in Wetlands by the

Uganda Land Commission, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban
Development and District Land Boards is illegal as it is contrary to Article
237(2) (b) of the Constitution, section 44(4) of the Land Act and
Statutory
instrument
No.l53-3
of
the
National
Environment
Management Act.
b) The Continued surveying and allocation of plots in wetlands, riverbanks
and lakeshores is illegal as it is contrary to the National Environment
(wetlands, Riverbanks and Lakeshores Management Regulations No.
153-5).
c) The Environment Impact Assessment Certificates that have been issued
in wetlands illegally can be cancelled by the Executive Director of the
A letter by Solicitor General date July 20th 2012 reference ADM/7 /167/01 to the Permanent
Secretary Ministry of Water and Environmet~t
9
Page 19 of 56
Regulation 28 of the National Environment ( Environmental Impact

Assessment) Regulations No.153-1
d) Government is not obliged to pay compensation for land titles in
wetlands issued after the 1995 Constitution as they have been issued
illegally contrary to Article 237(2) (b) of the Constitution and section
44( 1) and (4) of the Land Act. The Commissioner for Land Registration is
authorised to cancel land titles issued in error, illegally or wrongfully
issued.
Despite this advise, the Uganda Land Commission and District Land Boards
have consistently perpetuated an illegality with impunity issuing land titles in
Wetlands.
While appearing before the Committee, the Minister of Lands informed the
Committee that:
a) Cabinet had approved operating guidelines and criteria that will be
used in the cancellation process as well as need to set up a Wetland
Fund.
The criteria approved by the Policy Committee on the
Environment includes the following:
The certificates proposed for cancellation should have been

issued after 1995
Certificates of title for cancellation should include those arising

from sub divisions of the original (mother) land titles created after
1995; those straddling both wetlands/open water bodies; those
straddling both dry land and open water; and those straddling
both dry land and wetland.
b) The Ministry awaits the development of a Wetland Atlas in the entire

Country. However the Committee notes that the Wetlands
Atlas~--\:~--
published in July 2015 to guide the process covers only Kampala,

Mukono
Page 20 of 56
was published. Therefore when the
cancellation exercise commences it will not cover the entire country

because most of it is not mapped.
The Committee further observed that some of the leaseholders had violated
conditions of the leases and had not applied for change of land use. For
instance, the land leased to Mr John Sebalamu was intended for cattle
ranching while land belonging Pastor Samuel Kakande was restricted to
farming, both of which are now used for sand mining under the guise of fish
farming.
Recommendation
The Commissioner Land Administration should cancel the titles issued in the
Lwera wet/and and the Minister for Lands; Housing and Urban Development
should report to Parliament within three weeks on the progress of the
cancellation of the titles.
3.1.4
Legality of Operations
3.1.4.1
Adherence to Activities in the Certificates of Approval of

The Committee noted that Aqua World (U) Limited was issued Certificate of
Approval of Environmental Impact Assessment (NEMA/EIA/4988) by NEMA to
establish fish cages but instead illegally engaged in commercial sand mining.
However after receipt of environmental improvement notices and seeking of
guidance from NEMA, the company attained a permit for sand mining.
Zhongs Industries Ltd was issued a Certificate of Approval of Environmental

Impact Assessment (NEMA/EIA/77 655) for sand mining. As part of the
conditions of approval particularly Paragraph l.O(iii), the company was
expected to apply for and obtain a wetland resource user permit from NEMA
Page 21 of 56
so as to carry out commercial sand mining in Katonga wetland system.

However the company lacked a wetland permit and was therefore illegally
mining sand.
Recommendation
NEMA should halt sand mining activities being undertaken without certificate
of Approval of Environmental Impact Assessment and also institute legal
actions against them.
3.1.4.2
Abuse of Sand Mining Permits issued by NEMA
The Committee established that NEMA regulated 14 sand miners in Lwera

wetland through issuance of Wetland Resource User Permits (Annex 2), each
costing UGX 100,000.
Salient generic conditions contained in the Wetland User permits issued by
NEMA to sand miners in Lwera wetland included:
a) Restoration of sand borrow pits
b) No sale of wet sand
c) Mining at least 200 metres from Kampala - Masaka highway
d) Seeking authorisation from UNRA for connecting feeder roads to
Kampala - Masaka highway
e) Mining at least 200 metres from the protected zone of Lake Victoria
f)
Permit may be withdrawn or cancelled when conditions are violated
However the Committee found that most companies had violated their
permit conditions. They included the following:
a) He Sha Duo Company Limited
The Committee found that;
a number of sand borrow pits were not restored raising safety
risks for they were filled with water and overgrown floating
weeds.
no EIA was
Page 22 of 56
for its dredger.
Plate 1: He Sha Duo Company Limited

floating dredger
Plate 2: Open borrow pits at He Sha Duo

Company Limited site
b) Capital Estates
The Company;
established fish ponds within 200 metres of Lake Victoria protected
zone;
erected permanent structures in wetland.
transported wet sand contrary to the condition in the permit.
Plate 3: Permanent structures developed

by Capital Estates in Lwera wetland
Plate 4: Capital Estates ponds joined to Lake

Victoria
c) Lukaya Sand Dealers

The company;
was mining sand within 200 metres from Kampala - Masaka
highway weakening(th stability of the road and making it prone
to flooding.
had encroached on
road buffer zone by 20 metres.
Page 23 of 56
had encroached on the road buffer zone by 20 metres.

was transporting wet sand.
had not restored the sand borrow pits.
Didn't not undertake an El A for its dredger.
Plate 5: Unrestored sand borrow pits at

Lukaya Sand Dealers site
Plate 6: Committee Members inspecting

d) Birungi Simpson's Site

sand mining is taking place within 247 metres of Lake Victoria
protected zone.
the company is transporting wet sand and heavy trucks ferrying
sand have made community road impassable 1o contrary to the
condition 2{ii) in one of its permits.
While the permit NEMA/RB/LS/WT/381 under condition 3{iii)
required that the sand pits excavated for sand be transformed
into fish ponds within two years from date of issuance of permit,
there was no evidence of such undertaking, given that MAAIF
had not yet approved the project,
suitability of site for fish farming had not yet been ascertained
and ponds were overgrown with vegetation due to stagnant
water at site.
10
National Environment Management Authority (November, 2015). Letter, Notice to Halt/

Stop Sand Mining Activities in the
of Kamaliba and Nabyewanga in Mugge Parish,
Nkozi Sub- County, Mpigi District.
Page 24 of 56
Plate 7: Sand borrow pits within Lake

Victoria protected zone at Birungi's site

Birungi Simpson site
e) Aqua World (U) Ltd

(i) the site had open pits within the 200 metres of Lake Victoria
protected zone.
(ii) There was a non-water borne toilet (pit latrine) in a borrow pit.
(ii) the fish farming permit (N EMA/RB/LS/WT/370) was violated because
the company is now engaged in commercial sand mining activities.
Plate 9: Sand borrow pits joined to Lake

Victoria at Aqua World (U) Ltd site
f) Tesco Industries ltd
Page 25 of 56
Plate 10: Non water borne toilet constructed

in Lake Victoria protected zone
(i) sand mining is being undertaken within 200 metres from Kampala Masaka highway weakening the stability of the road and making it
prone to flooding.
(ii) The Company encroached on road buffer zone by 140 metres.
(iii) The site had unrestored sand borrow pits

Tesco Industries site
Plate 12:Unrestored sand borrow pits at Tesco

Industries site within the highway buffer zone
g) Seroma Ud

(i) sand mining activities are taking place with open and unrestored
sand borrow pits.
(ii) the company installed a dredger without undertaking EIA for the
equipment.
Page 26 of 56

Seroma Ltd site
Plate 14: Dredging equipment installed at

Seroma Ltd site
The Committee also noted that Peter Abomugisha and Zhongs Industries
Limited were mining sand illegally without wetland user permits.
Plate 15: Excavator mining sand at Peter

Abomugisha site

Peter Abomugisha site
Plate 17: Sand suction at Zhongs Industries

Limited site
Plate 18: Brown sand quarry at Zhongs

Industries Limited site
The Committee noted that among all companies that had failed to comply
with their permit conditions, only Tesco Industries Ltd was sanctioned by
having its permit cancelled. However the permit's cancellation has since
been waived pending compliance to NEMA directives as agreed in a
meeting between NEMA and Tesco
November 2015.
Page 27 of 56
stries. The meeting was held on
9th
of
NEMA also issued Notices to show cause why permits may not be cancelled
to Lukaya Sand Dealers, He Sha Duo Company Ltd and Zou Yun Yan. Through
the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions criminal proceedings were
instituted against 17 persons for violating conditions of their permits and
degrading Lwera wetland.
Recommendations
a) NEMA should cancel all permits whose conditions have been violated
by companies or individuals.
b) NEMA should issue restoration orders to these companies and ensure
enforcement of these orders within 1 (one month).

c) NEMA should through the Ministry of Water and Environment report to
Parliament on the progress of the restorations with 3 (three months).

d) NEMA should institute legal sanctions against all Companies/individuals
who have violated the conditions of the permits as provided for in the
National
Environment
Act
and
National
Environment
(wetlands~
Riverbanks and Lakeshores Management Regulations.
3.1.4.3
Irregular Issuance of Addenda to Wetland User Permits
The Committee noted with concern that NEMA irregularly issued Addendums
or variations to Aqua World (U) Ltd and Seroma Ltd wetland user permits
permitting without prior Environmental Audit and subsequent Environmental
Impact Assessment to inform the variance in permit conditions.
The Committee observed that Aqua World (U) Ltd on 26th July 2016 wrote to
NEMA seeking guidance on how to mine sand on its site given the change in
interest from fish farming. N EMA instead of granting guidance on how to
acquire a sand mining permit, issued the company with an addendum
permitting sand mining on 23rd August 2016 without prior Environmental Audit
l
Page 28 of 56
'
and subsequent Environmental Impact Assessment to inform the variance in

the earlier permit conditions. The addendum is valid until 12th September
2017.
lt should be noted that the Addendum was issued 23 days after seeking of
guidance and 15 days after the issue of an environmental improvement
notice. The time was insufficient to undertake comprehensive assessments
and consultations to inform the issuance of an addendum.
The Committee further noted that NEMA had issued an Addendum to

Seroma Limited's Sand Mining Permit (NEMA/RB/LS/WT/492, issued on 14th of
June 2016) permitting use of dredging machines. This was done without prior
assessment of extraction capacity of the machines and whether they are
likely to have any adverse impacts on the wetland. The Committee observed
the machines installed on site. The Addendum was issued on 22nd July 2016,
only five weeks after issuance of the permit and is valid until 14th June 2017.
Recommendations
a) NEMA should immediate stop issuing addendums to wet/and or lake
user
permits
without
prior
independent
Environmental
Impact
Assessment or environmental audit for alternative equipment or

activities.
b) NEMA should ensure that Aqua World (u) ltd and Seroma Limited
undertake independent EIAs for sand mining and the dredging
equipment respectively and report back to the Committee in 3 months.
c) Parliament should pass a resolut(on strongly condemning the NEMA for
its failure to effectively carry o

Page 29 of 56
i s mandate as stipulated under Article
245 of the Constitution and sections 5 and 6 of the National Environment

Act Cap 153.
Inadequate scrutiny of Sand Mining Methods
3.1.4.4
Two major mining methods were observed in the mining sites visited by the
Committee. They included the following:
a) Dry pit mining - Pits were excavated on dry wetland beds with
bulldozers and loaders.
b) Wet pit mining - Hydraulic sand extracting units and bulldozers were
used to extract sand from below the water table.
Figures 19 to 22 illustrate some of these methods.
The Committee further observed that sand mining technology was used
without adequate scrutiny by NEMA. This poses the risk of extracting sand
beyond its regeneration capacity.
Recommendation
a) Effective December 20 16; NEMA should ensure that sand miners
undertake independent assessment and acquire certification of sand
mining technology.
b) NEMA should develop capacity to guide on appropriate sand mining
methods.
Page 30 of 56
Plate 19: Stationery dredger and suction at

Plate 20: Floating dredger at He

Company Limited site
Plate 21: Sand washing and sieving

equipment at Zhongs Industries Ltd site
Plate 22: Excavator at Capital Estates Sand

Mining site
3.2
TOR 2:1NVESTIGATION INTO THE STATUS OF SAND MINING IN LAKE

VICTORIA, LEGALITY OF OPERATIONS AND NATIONALITIES OF
PERSONS INVOLVED
The Committee sought to find out whether there was any sand mining taking
place within Lake Victoria, nationalities of persons involved and the legality of
these operations. The committee found the following;
3.2.1 Status of Sand Mining in lake Victoria
Sand mining within water bodies is relatively new in Uganda. lt is largely being
spearheaded in Lake Victoria by Mango Tree Group Limited, a company
owned by Chinese nationals. Although Mango Tree Group hod been issued
with a license to build a ship yard, the Company is now engaged in sand
mining under the guise of clearing Lake Victoria's waterways. Figures 23 to 26
illustrate some of the activities at the site.
Page 31 of 56
Plate 23: Part of the ship being used by

Mango Tree Group for sand mining
Plate 24: Some of the equipment at the

Mango Tree Site
Plate 25: Some of the equipment (sand

aerator) at the Mango Tree Site
Plate 26: Part of the unconstructed ship

yard at the Mango Tree Group Site
Page 32 of 56
3.2.2 LEGALITY OF OPERATIONS
Adherence to Activities in the Certificate of Approval of
3.2.2.1
Mango Tree Group Limited was issued with a Certificate of Approval of

Environmental Impact Assessment {NEMA/EIA/8694) for ship building activities
and ship yard. The company's ship caught fire and was damaged but it did
not inform NEMA of any malfunctioning os required under Paragraph 5 {xxxiii)
of their Certificate of Approval of Environmental Impact Assessment.
The Committee noted that the company has never received approval and
certification for its Environmental Impact Assessment for sand mining. The
Committee was informed by NEMA that this application was still under
review.
Secondly the company hod no permit to use the Lake and was illegally
mining sand in Lake Victoria under the pretext of clearing the navigation
route to Bukoso and Port Bell ports.
Recommendations
a) The Minister of Water and Environment should stop sand mining in water
bodies with immediate effect until NEMA issues guidelines.
b) NEMA should institute legal sanctions with immediate effect against

Mango Tree Ltd as provided for under the National Environment Act
and regulation 36 and 37 of the National Environment (wetlands,
Riverbanks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations, 2000.
3.2.2.2
Illegal Dredging of sand in Lake Victoria
On 4th May 2016, the Minister of Water and Environment issued a river
dredging licence under Section 4
Page 33 of 56
Act {1907) to Mango Tree
Group Limited to dredge the shores of Lake Victoria. The Committee

observed that the Rivers Act does not apply to lakes but rather to rivers,
Aswo, Kofu, Kogero, Kotongo, Muyonjo, Nile, Semiliki, Sezibwo and any other
that may be added to the Fifth Schedule of the Act.
Recommendation
The Minister of Water and Environment should with immediate effect revoke
the river dredging licence issued to Mango Tree Group Limited.
3.3
TOR 3:1NVESTIGATION INTO SAND MINING ENCROACHING ON

KYEWAGA CENTRAL FOREST RESERVE
The Committee observed that sand mining being undertaken in Kitindo

village, Kotobi Sub County hod encroached on Kyewogo Central Forest
Reserve in Wokiso district.
The site belongs to Aka & Bino Fish Forming Project which was permitted to
undertake fish forming. The Company was engaged in illegal activities os it
locked a wetland user permit to mine sand. The project was a cause of
nuisance to residents for vibrations from huge trucks ferrying sand had
damaged access roads, cracked houses and walls as reported in a
complaints document that was submitted to the Wakiso District Local
Government on the 22/08/2011.
Following violation of conditions in the permit viz sand mining rather than fish
farming and encroachment on Kyewaga Central Forest Reserve, NEMA
cancelled the project's Certificate of Approval of Environmental Impact
Assessment (NEMA/EIA/2544) on 22nd October 2013.
Page 34 of 56
On further inspection of the site, the Committee noted that some of the
ponds that had been dug for fish were now being backfilled with murrum as
evidenced in fig 28 below.
!
I
Plate 27 Aka & Bino sand extraction

extending into the Lake Victoria
Plate 28: Aka & Bino sand extraction

extending into the Lake Victoria
Plate 28Aka & Bino sand fish ponds being

backfilled with murram
Recommendation
a) The National Forestry Authority should issue restoration orders to Aka &
Bino Fish Farming and report to Parliament within one month.

b) NEMA should institute legal sanctions with immediate effect against
Aka & Bino Fish Farming Project as provided for in the National
Environment Act and regulation 36 and 37 of the National Environment
(wetlands; Riverbanks and Lakeshores Management) Regulations;
2000.
Page 35 of 56
I~
II
3.4
TOR 4:ESTABUSHING
MEASURES
FOR
REGUlATION
AND
MANAGEMENT OF SAND MINING IN UGANDA
Following the growth of the construction industry in Uganda, demand for

sand arose attracting a number of local and foreign investors into sand
mining.
This
necessitates guidelines,
regulations,
coordination
of lead
agencies, routine monitoring, enforcement and physical planning. Below are

the findings and recommendations regarding regulation and management
of sand mining in Uganda.
Sand Mining Regulations
3.4.1
Article 244(5) of the Constitution of Uganda provides that sand commonly

used for building or similar purposes is not a mineral.
The Constitution
however mandates Parliament in Article 244(6) to regulate the exploitation of

any substance excluded from the definition of a mineral when exploited for
commercial purposes.
In accordance with Article 244(6), Parliament passed the Mining Act, 2003
which clearly categorizes sand into two:
a) As a building mineral: if it is mined by a person from land owned or
lawfully occupied by him or her for his or her own domestic use in
Uganda for building, or mined by a person for his or her own use for
road-makingll; and
b) As an Industrial mineral: if it is commercially mined by a person for use
in Ugandal2.
lt is on this basis that the Auditor General noted that there are no regulations
for the mining of sand, clay, murram
11
12
See Section 2 of the Mining Act, 2003

ibid
Page 36 of 56
quarrying used for
commercial purposes contrary to the Mining Act. As a result Government

cannot levy royalties on sand mining activities.13 Failure to levy royalties on
commercialized sand materials means loss of revenues to the National
Treasury.
Recommendation
a) In line with section 2 of the Mining Act the Minister of Energy and
Mineral Development should issue regulations for the exploitation of
sand as an Industrial mineral in Uganda within three months.
b) The Minister of Energy and Mineral Development should develop and
publish an Atlas for minerals including sand in Uganda.
3.4.2 Sand Mining Guidelines

The Committee observes that lack of guidelines makes monitoring of sand
mining by local governments difficult on issues such as adherence to buffer
zone limits, extraction depth, volumes extracted and management of
violations among others.
Recommendation
NEMA in consultation with the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development
should develop National Sand Mining Guidelines by April 2017 and the
guidelines be disseminated to licenced sand miners in the Country.
3.4.3 Sand Extraction limits

The Committee observed that;
a) Wetland and lake permits issued for sand mining by NEMA only
demarcate boundaries of extraction. With the exception of Aqua World
13 0ffice of the Auditor General, 2015. Annual

Performance Report
Page 37 of 56
of the Auditor General for the Year ended 30th June 2015 -
(U) Ltd and Seroma Limited sites where extraction was prohibited beyond
4 metres, other sites lacked guidelines on excavation depth. Whereas
NEMA advised that the excavation depth should not exceed 4m, it does
not have scientific backing for this limit.
b) NEMA does not monitor or record excavation depth by the different
miners.
c) While NEMA recommends fish forming as one of the restoration measures,
the Authority has not consulted with MAAIF which is the competent
authority on fish farming. Hence, during its consultative meeting with the
Committee, the Fisheries department of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal
Industry and Fisheries submitted that fish performs best in ponds of depths
ranging from 1.5m to 2m and strongly advised that that Lwero wetland
was not suitable for fish forming due to its nature of drainage.
d) Sand mining technology is continuously evolving and NEMA lacks
capacity to certify the technology to establish extraction volumes. All
sites lacked measuring equipment and records of how much sand had
been extracted. Hence it was difficult to determine how much sand has
been mined for commercial purposes. This poses the risk of extracting
sand beyond its regeneration capacity. For instance the Mango Tree Ltd
dredger has the capacity to dredge up to depth of 20 metres and
extract 1,000 tonnes of sand a day from Lake Victoria.
e) NEMA lacks a detailed cadastre map indicating areas with commercial
sand deposits. A cadastre would be a basis for setting extraction depth
and volumes. Consequently in May 2015, NEMA issued a permit
(NEMA/RB/LS/WT/41 0) to You Jing Shu to undertake sand mining on Plot
26 Block 149 in Lugalama - Kamuwunga village, Kyamulibwa Parish,
Bukulula Sub County in Kalungu district. Unfortunately the developer was
unable to attain comm rei I deposits on the land hence abandoning
the site.
Page 38 of 56
Recommendations
a) Cadastre mapping be undertaken to establish areas with sand deposits
that are viable for commercial sand mining by October 20 17.
b) NEMA should issue sand mining permits based on evidence that sites
have commercially viable sand deposits.
c) The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development should undertake a
comprehensive study by October 2017 to establish the regeneration
rate of sand in Uganda ..
d) NEMA
should ensure that sand miners
undertake
independent
assessment and acquire certification of sand mining equipment.
3.4.4 Statutory Instrument banning the transporting of wet sand

During the Budget Speech of FY2015/16, the Minister of Finance, Planning
and Economic Development informed the country that the Minister of Works
and Transport was to issue a Statutory Instrument banning the transportation
of wet sand. This was aimed at controlling overloading of sand transportation
trucks which are prone to axle overloading that seriously damages roads. The
Committee however noted that to date, trucks are still ferrying wet sand on
Kampala - Masaka highway as is the case across other roads in the Country.
Recommendation
The Minister of Works and Transport should issue a Statutory Instrument
banning the transporting of wet sand by Janaury 2017.
3.4.5 Restoration Orders

The Committee
observed
that
number of restoration
orders
and
improvement notices had been issued to mining companies by district local

governments as well as NEMA.
companies particularly regard
Page 39 of 56
o~ever
these were largely ignored by mining
demolition of permanent structures in
wetland, restoration of sand borrow pits and stopping mining in nonpermitted areas in wetland or lake protected zones.
For example in October 2015, Capital Estates was ordered to demolish

permanent structures in form of concrete pillars that were constructed in the
wetland. To date they still exist. This was attributed to the fact the NEMA did
not respond to Capital Estates reconsideration request (ref: CE/NEMA03/2015 dated 16th November 2016) within 30 days of receipt of request to
confirm, vary, suspend or withdraw the restoration order as required under

Section 69(4) of the National Environment Act.
The Committee notes that the increasing degradation of the environment

through sand mining is exacerbated by failure of taking legal action against
miners that violate the restoration orders. Despite being required to enforce
the restoration orders under Section 70(1) of the National Environment Act,
NEMA had not enforced any restoration orders.
Upon examination of copies of the restoration orders submitted, the

Committee found that NEMA does not specify as required under Section
68(2) (f) of the National Environment Act, any penalties which may be
imposed if the orders were ignored.
More importantly, the Committee notes that the National Environment Act
does not provide for express penalties to environmental offenders.
Recommendations
a) In line with Section 9.2, objective l of the Environment and Natural
Resources Subsector articulated in the NDP 11 of restoring degraded

fragile ecosystems.
Page 40 of 56
estoration and Rehabilitation Bill be presented
before Parliament with the view of mitigating the effects of the rampant
environmental degradation
b) NEMA should within 3 months enforce all environmental restoration
orders that have not been compiled with by companies or individuals
degrading the environment as provided for under section 68 and 70 of
the National Environment Act.
c) NEMA should institute legal proceedings in courts of law against all
non-compiling sand mining companies or individuals by January 20 77.
d) In line with Section 94 of the National Environment Act, the NEMA Board
and Policy Committee should advise the Minister responsible for
Finance to prescribe sand mining as one of the activities that require
performance deposit bonds. The refundable performance bonds for
sand mining should take effect at the beginning of FY20 77I 78 and will
be essential in financing restoration activities.
e) NEMA should enforce the demolition of permanent structures erected
by Birungi Simpson, Capital Estates and Aqua World (U) Ltd in Lwera
Wet/and
f) There is urgent need to amend the National Environment Act to provide
for express penalties to environmental offenders.
3.4.6 Restoration plans

The Committee observed that sand mining permits issued by NEMA require
that decommissioning and restoration plans be submitted to the Authority at
least three months prior to decommissioning any of the project components
or os prescribed by the relevant lead agencies.
N EMA advises mining to be carried out over large tracts of approved plots in
a span of time ranging between,,9ne and five years while the restoration of
the
mined
area is only
giv~onsideration
\
Page 41 of 56
~~
i'
three
months prior to
decommissioning.
The
Committee observes that
this
period
may be
inadequate to comprehensively plan restoration activities for mined areas,

which is aggravated by the fact that the extracted volumes are unknown
and not periodically regulated during the course of the mining project.
The Committee further observed that mining sites had abandoned areas or
pits on their sites and had not been decommissioned or restored at all. The
Committee also noted none of the companies reported to have submitted
any decommissioning and restoration plans to NEMA.
Recommendation
Restoration plans should be submitted to NEMA at inception of the project
and continuously updated throughout the project's life. This will ensure
commitment by miners and ease monitoring by NEMA and lead agencies.
3.4. 7 Coordination of Lead Agencies

3.4. 7.1
Licencing
The Committee noted that licencing agencies were not coordinated and
undertook inadequate due diligence in assessment of foreign investors. UIA is
the first institution to licence any foreign investor with an Investment Licence.
Hence it is prudent that all other licencing institutions make reference to the
investment licence before issuance of any other licence or permit to foreign
investors so as to ensure uniformity in regulation of activities. However this was
not the practice.
For instance, the Committee observed that Certificate of Registration and
Clearance for Non-Citizens (MTIC/CNC/2016/0475) was issued to Mango tree
Group Limited to trade in Uganda to undertake ship building, sand mining,
port construction and marketing in Bugiri, Kawuku, Wakiso district. The
Certificate is a pre
Page 42 of 56
dition for issuance of trading license to non-Ugandans.
Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives issued the certificate on 13th

January 2016.
The Committee also noted trading licence issued by KCCA which indicates
that the company registered its nature of business as Surveyors, Engineers,
Valuers and Architects. The Licence was issued on 14th January 2016. On the
other hand, URA Certificate of Registration indicates the company's nature of
business activities as real estate. This Certificate was issued on 25th January
2016.
Furthermore, the Committee noted on 15th January 2016, PPDA issued the
company a Certificate of Registration indicating in supplies category: marine
and fresh water products as well as supply of spare parts of boats. In works
category, the company undertakes civil engineering and assembling of
boats.
The Committee also noted that UIA licences companies depending on
documentation submitted to it by the applicants without undertaking due
diligence in their Countries of origin and requiring certificate of good
conduct from investors.
For instance, the Committee ascertained that
Mango tree Group Limited was issued three (3) Investment licences i.e. for
Ship and Boat building; sand extraction and mining; as well as water transport
services. This was undertaken without acquiring clearance from the Financial
Intelligence Authority and coordination with foreign missions to undertake
due diligence. This poses a risk of money laundering.
Like any the other agencies, the Committee observed that the Directorate of
Immigration and Citizen Control issued work permits without undertaking an
on foreign investors and ascertaining whether
the permits are
renewal consideration.
Page 43 of 56
Af(((
Based on the above, the Committee noted that there is no direct correlation
between what the foreign company was initially licenced to undertake and
eventual activities undertaken. There is also no coordination of Government
agencies in the regulation of activities of foreign companies.
Recommendations
a) NEMA should with immediate effect, require all companies owned by
foreigners to attach their investment licenses to their Project Briefs;
Environmental Impact Assessment Statements and Environmental
Audits.
b) Lead Agencies should coordinate their licensing processes to enhance
synergies required for regulation of sand mining and other investors
within the country.
3.4.7.2
Compliance Enforcement
The Committee was informed that NEMA did not share copies of Wetlond or
Lake Permits, sand mining guidelines and restoration notices with Local
Governments and local leaders as indicated in their correspondences. The
Committee noted that this adversely affected monitoring and coordination
of sand mining activities. Therefore local governments and local leaders were
not aware which companies were authorised to undertake mining in their
areas of jurisdiction.
For instance during the Committee's consultation meeting at Lukayo Town

Council offices, it was reported by Kolungu District Local Government that
Seromo Ltd was not among the companies that hove ever been permitted
to undertake sand mining in Lwera. Yet the company hod earlier on attained
its Certificate of Approval for n ironmentol Impact Assessment to undertake
Page 44 of 56
sand mining on 14th June 2016, a copy of which was submitted to the
Committee by NEMA.
Furthermore,
the
Committee
observed
that
NEMA and
district local
governments lacked regular monitoring reports on the level of compliance of

each permit issued to sand miners. In cases where monitoring effort was
undertaken and NEMA is informed of violations of wetland permits, no action
had been taken. For instance no action was taken on a letter from the Mpigi
District Local Government to NEMA (Ref: 553/1 dated 19th September 2016)
requesting for inspection of sand mining sites belonging to Aqua World (U)
Ltd, Birungi Simpson, Capital Estates, Abomugisha Peter and Mulongo Kato
who
had
neglected
environment
improvement
notices
and
advice
accordingly, leading to continued degradation of the environment.
The Committee further observed that although Section 14(2) (e) of the
National
Environment Act requires
NEMA to
coordinate with
District
Environment Committees on all issues relating to the management of

environment, existence and functionality of the committees is insufficient. This
was mainly attributed to insufficient funding and empowerment.
Recommendations
a) NEMA should within 2 months avail copies of all lake and wet/and user
permits for sand mining for the last 5 years to all District Local
Governments as a means of ensuring regular monitoring, tracking of
compliance and reporting.
b) The Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development should
establish a Conditional Grant for District Environmental Inspection in

FY20 17I 18. This would
local governments.
Page 45 of 56
funds for environmental monitoring in
c) The Minister responsible for finance should report to Parliament within 6
months on the establishment of the Conditional Grant for district

environmental inspection.
3.4.7.3
Routine monitoring
The Committee observed that NEMA in collaboration with Environmental

Protection Force undertook regional quarterly monitoring inspections, with
the last one undertaken in April 2016.
The Committee was concerned that NEMA had largely delegated its
monitoring role to financially and technically constrained District Local
Governments and Environmental Protection Force. As a consequence once
permits and licenses were issued, routine monitoring was inadequate. For
instance Aqua World was issued a license in May 2014, though the only
evidence of monitoring of its activities by Mpigi District authorities was on 18th
July and gth August 2016 as per status report and improvement notice
respectively. Further, the current DEO of Mpigi District has been in acting
position for the last 1V2 years and reported to have not submitted any
monitoring reports to NEMA during that period.
The Committee also noted that the district local authorities were constrained
financially
to
undertake
environmental
monitoring.'
For
instance
the
Committee was informed by the Chief Administrative Officer of Mpigi District

that they were allocated only UGX 3 million annually for environmental
inspection. He further informed the Committee that the District also received
a conditional grant for environmental and natural resources (non-wage)
particularly for wetland inspections annually amounting to UGX 12 million. The
Committee
notes
that
environmental inspection in
Page 46 of 56
this
is
insufficient
district.
to
effectively
undertake
The Committee also noted that of all illegal sand miners in Lwera, the Ministry
of Water and Environment was only able to enter an Environmental
Compliance
Agreement
with
Abomugisha
Peter.
The
compliance
agreement (DEA/168/250/01) was entered in February 2015. However when

the Committee inspected Lwera wetland, Abomugisha was found mining
without a wetland resource user permit. This indicated that the Ministry does
not undertake regular monitoring so as to
ensure
compliance with
agreements signed.
Recommendation
a) The Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development should
establish a Conditional Grant for District Environmental Inspection in
FY2017/18.
b) NEMA should undertake monitoring of sand mines at least once every
two months.
3.4.8 National Physical Development Plan

Section 3 of the Physical Planning Act, 2010 declares the whole of Uganda as
a planning area hence the need for a National Physical Development Plan.
However to date there is no National Physical Development Plan.
lt is important to note that in the Ministerial Policy Statement of Lands Housing

and
Urban
Development
FY2016/17,
development
of the
plan
and
enforcement of physical development plans at the district level was an

unfunded priority that required UGX 8.7 billion.
This has led to continued haphazard development across the Country and
difficulty in spatial designation of land uses. This is further constrained by weak
physical planning committees in
Page 47 of 56
Government authorities.
Based on the above, districts in which sand mining is being undertaken, Local
Governments had not forecast and planned for the activity.
Recommendation
The Minister in charge of Lands Housing and urban Development should
report to parliament within three months on the progress made in the
development of the National Physical Development Plan.
3.5
TOR 5:ESTABLISHING THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SAND

MINING IN UGANDA
A number of socioeconomic impacts have arisen from sand mining in

Uganda. The Committee particularly set out to investigate the uses of sand
mined in Uganda, impact on fish stock, local content, employment, levies,
sand exports, taxes collected from sand mining and community relations.
Below are the findings and recommendations.
3.5.1
Uses of Sand Mined in Uganda
The Committee observed that the sand mined in Uganda is mainly used for
building homes and infrastructural works within Uganda. lt was also asserted
by the sand miners that the sand mined was used in on-going infrastructural
development projects such as Kampala - Entebbe Express highway, Karuma
and lsimba hydropower dams. Companies were also bidding to supply sand
for the expansion of Entebbe International Airport.
3.5.2 Impact of Fish stock
The Committee noted that although it was an undisputed fact that fish stocks
were reducing in Lake Victoria,
re was no scientific study to entirely
attribute the reduction to sand
g. The Ministry of Agriculture, Animal
Page 48 of 56
Industry and Fisheries however asserted that sand mining destroyed critical
fish breeding and nursery areas particularly wetlands thereby interfering with
the food web. Removal of sand harvested millions of fish eggs and sound by
dredging equipment interfered with ecology. The Ministry condemned sand
mining activities undertaken under the guise of aquaculture fish farming as it
isdetrimental to the sustainability of the fisheries industry in Uganda.
Recommendation
a) NEMA should with immediate effect institute legal sanctions against
illegal sand miners as provided for in the National Environment Act and
National
Environment
(wetlands,
Riverbanks
and
Lakeshores
Management Regulations. See Annexl for list of companies
b) M AA IF should carry out further studies to ascertain the impact of sand
mining on fish stocks and management of fish breeding areas as well

as instituting measures in the interim to protecting fish breeding
grounds.
3.5.3 local Content

The Committee observed that local people were being pushed out of sand
mining industry by the introduction of hydraulic and mechanical equipment
or units.
The Committee notes that the equipment used is highly capital intensive and
cannot be afforded by local people. As a consequence most local people
are excluded from the lucrative sand mining. Also a few local investors
involved in sand mining were not fully
Page 49 of 56
o\mplying with existing laws.
All foreign mining companies that the Committee interacted with had no
local shareholders.
Table 2: List of Companies and their proprietors

District
Company
Mpigi
Zhongs
Industries Ltd
Aqua World
Ltd
Tesco
Industries
Wakiso
Kalungu
Capital
Estates
Mango Tree
Group
Limited
Lukaya Sand
Dealers
He Sha Duo
Co.Ltd
Seroma Ltd
Type
Investors
Foreign
of
Names
I Proprietor
Share
distribution
2. Lin Lixia
50
50
Local
Samuel Kakande
Local
Francis
Drake
Lubega
2. Bonita Lubega
3. Charles Lubega
4. McDonald Lubega
5. lsaac
Matovu
Lubega
Sebalamu John
4080
1. Zhong Shuangquan
1.
Local
Foreign
1.
Fan Shu Chun
2. Shi Jian Feng

Foreign
1. Sun Xia Nzhong
2. Zheng Junqinq
Foreign
1.
He Wei cai
2. He Han Xiu
Local
Robert Bell Ssekidde

B.
Ssekidde
3. America Babumba
Kisakye
4. Castro
Robertson
Kisuule
5. Mark
An old
Senabulya
6. Cynthia
Naume
Nakilanda
1.
5
5
5
5
-
24,000,000
6,000,000
50
50
80
20
-
2. Margaret
The Committee in October 2016, noted that a compliance assessment by UIA

was undertaken on all Investment licences issued to sand mining investors. lt
was established that there is growing public concern about the involvement
of foreign investors in sand
mh~~ing
that sand mining should be a
Page 50 of 56
activities. Sections of the public asserted
serve of local people.
Recommendation
Sand mining permits should be ring-fenced for only local investors.
3.5.4 Employment
The Committee observed that at most, mining sites employed about 10
people mainly to operate equipment, offer security and administrative
services. In foreign owned mining sites, local people worked under the
guidance of foreigners who failed to provide to the Committee copies of
their work permits. This was noted at Lukaya Sand Dealers site which was
managed by Chinese and Zhongs Industries Limited site where a Kenyan (Ms
Leah Jike) was employed as a Sales Manager.
The committee noted that foreign employees at sand mining sites had
intermittent short visitor visas. Foreign employees frequented border posts with
the intention of instant crossing over to Kenya and back to Uganda so as to
obtain valid visitor visas. For instance Chinese employees at Lukaya Sand
Dealers i.e. Chen Yunwei and Chen Zhonghua working in Lwera had 2 month
single entry visas at Busia Immigration Centre issued in June and August 2016.
They were due to expire on 6th October 2016. At the time of compiling this
report, the Managing Director of Lukaya Sand Dealers affirmed to the
Committee that Yunwei and Zhonghua had no valid visas and work permits
Attached as Annex 4.
The Committee directed the Directorate of Immigration to inspect mining
sites to ascertain the status of the immigrants. In October 2016, the
Directorate arrested 23 illegal immigrants from Korea and Chinese and were
accordingly deported. See
Page 51 of 56
To
the
Committeels
dismay,
the
Directorate
of
Immigration
lacked
automated records for quick ascertaining of location of foreigners in real time

as they are in Uganda.
While acquiring investment visas, the foreign investors overstate the number
of people they are to offer employment. In actual operations, they employ
far less number than indicated to Uganda Investment Authority. For instance
Mango Tree Group Limited indicated that it was to employ 65 people in its
mining operations. In its brief to the committee, the company indicated it
employed 120 people. The Committee however established that as at August
2016, the company only employed 23 people as indicated in its Pay As You
Earn (PAYE) returns to Uganda Revenue Authority. Of the 23 employees, 14
were foreign residents (61 %) and 9 local people (39%).
Recommendations
a) The Directorate of Immigration and Citizen Control should regularly
undertake impromptu inspections to all foreign owned companies so
as to ascertain the legality of the immigrants.
b) The Directorate of Immigration and Citizen Control should automate
their records for easy access and real time regulation of all foreigners
within the country.
c) The Directorate of Immigration and Citizen Control should set up
stringent measures to ensure that foreigners issued with Visitors Visa
should not engage in any employment in Uganda.
3.5.5 levy Assessments

The Committee observed that there is great difficultly and disparity on how to
monitor, regulate and assess
levies,~r
FY2015/16 Lukaya Town Council

Page 52 of 56
sand mining operations. For instance in
ed a flat annual fee of UGX 18 million
from every mining company earning a total of UGX 36 million. While Mpigi
District Local Government levied UGX 5 million as monthly rental fee from
each sand miner and in 1st Quarter of FY2016/17 the District had so far earned
UGX 62 million.
In the case of Mpigi district, the levy collections were subjected to an

allocation formula where sub county where sand mining is undertaken retains
65% and district receives 35%. After which the district allocates only UGX
million for environmental inspection.
Recommendations
a) Local Government Authorities should allocate adequate funding to
environmental inspection.
b) URA should guide on how to assess levies for sand mined.
3.5.6 Exportation of Sand

The Committee noted that sand is not a restricted export in Uganda. The
Minerals (Prohibition of Exportation) Act, Cap 147 only prohibits exportation of
copper.
The Committee established that as of 14th October 2016, 42 companies

registered with URA (Annex 5) had exported 63,380 kilograms of sand worth
UGX 11.5 million in the period 2012-2016.
Destinations included Kenya, Canada, France, Tanzania and United States of

America among others. The Committee was informed by URA that the
highest quantity was 15,000 kilograms exported by Rolax International (U) Ltd
in 2013 to Kenya while the
was 3 kilograms exported by Tullow
Page 53 of 56
(
Uganda Ltd to Great Britain. lt is important to note that from the list presented
to the Committee by URA, none of the exporters was involved in sand mining.
3.5.7 Taxes from Sand Mining

During the period July 2013 to October 2016, URA had so far collected a total
tax of UGX 14.9 billion from 13 licensed sand mining companies. Collections
were received in form of income tax, domestic tax and custom payments.
The Committee observed that that while issuing permits, NEMA does not
require tax clearance certificates from prospective sand miners. As a
consequence many sand miners are not captured and tracked by URA.
Recommendation
In accordance with the Income Tax Act, NEMA should require a valid tax
clearance certificate from sand miners before issuance or renewal of wetland
or lake user permits.
3.5.8 Community Relations

The Committee noted tensions building up between communities living in
Kamaliba fishing village with Birungi Simpson, Aqua World (U) Ltd and LC Ill
Chairperson, Nkozi Sub County.
Residents reported to the Committee the following:

a) Birungi Simpson intimidated the populance through anonymous calls
and had reported him to Police. Threatened to have local people
evicted
and
through
his
sand
mining
activities
had
removed
community road leading to Kamuga. Hence primary school going

children had to trek longer rotte to Kamuga. Residents were beaten
;
and some disabled;

Page 54 of 56
mf
mm
b) Aqua World (U) Limited had heavily deployed security operatives that
threatened local residents; and
c) Mr Lubega Paul, LC Ill Chairperson of Nkozi Sub County threatened to
have local leaders of Kamaliba fishing village imprisoned.
During the inspection of Kamaliba fishing village, the Committee:

a) Witnessed hostile relations between residents and the manager of
Birungi Simpson's site;
b) Stopped a brawl between LC Ill Chairperson of Nkozi Sub County and
LC I of Kamaliba fishing village; and
c) Witnessed police deployment at Aqua World (U) Ltd sites.
Recommendation
a) The Chief Administrative Officer and the District security Committee of
Mpigi district should with immediate effect, convene a meeting
between sand miners and residents with
the
aim
of ensuring
harmonious coexistence.
b) Government Security forces should refrain from providing protection to
private persons and properly as was witnessed at the Aqua World site.
c) The District Police Commander of Mpigi should with immediate effect
investigate the complaints of intimidation and harassment of the
residents of Kama/iba.
d) The Resident District Commander and the CAO should ensure that the
community road which was blocked by Birungi Simpson is opened and
restored to enable the children access the only primary school in the
area.
Page 55 of 56
4.0
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Committee notes that sand is a resource that is important

for the
country's
construction
and
infrastructure
needs.
However its
exploitation should be sustainable and not detrimental to the environment.

Sand miners should be regulated and guided so as to ensure that sand will
meet today's needs as well as those for future generations, without
jeopardising the development of other sectors such as fisheries.
Whereas the findings in this report are based on the districts of Mpigi, Kalungu
and Wakiso, the Committee notes that this is largely the case in the entire
Country.
Rt. Hon. Speaker and Members, in light of the findings and recommendations
herein, the Committee recommends that the House adopts this report for
improved management of sand mining in Uganda.
I beg to move.
Page 56 of 56
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES WHO SIGNED THE

REPORT
No
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
NAME
Hon. Byarugaba Alex, Chairperson
Hon. Dr. Keefa, KiwanukaV/Chairperson
Hon. YeriOfwono Apollo
Hon. Bigirwa Norah Nyendwoha
Hon. BiyikaSonga Lawrence
Hon. DhamuzunguGeofrey
Hon. Lokeris Samson
Hon. Angura Fredrick
Hon. Masiko Winfred K
Hon. Silwanyi Solomon
Hon. Nankabirwa Ann Maria
Hon. Nambeshe John Baptist
Hon. BumbaSydaNamirembe
Hon. WamakuyuMudimi
Hon. Nsamba Patrick Oshabe
Hon. Tayebwa Thomas
Hon. YagumaWilbeforce
Hon. lkojo John Bosco
Hon. Ngabirano Charles
Hon. Mutebi David Ronnie
Hon. Oula Innocent (Brig)
Hon. Okumu Regan
Hon. AlioniYorkeOdria
Hon. Aogon Silas
Hon. Katwesigye Oliver Koyekyenga
Hon. Ntende Robert
Hon. Baryayanga Andrew Aja
Hon. Simon Oyet
Hon. Herbert Edmund Ariko
Hon. Jimmy Michael Akena
Hon. Florence Namayanja
CONSTITUENCY
SIGNATURE
lsingiro South
-~""~:::: t!~
Kiboga East
Tororo Municipality
!3!
DWR Buliisa
~/"
Ora County
Budiope East
~
' "
Dodoth East
Tororo South
;:'' r /.
""'~
DWR Rukungiri
Bukhooli Central
DWR Kyankwanzi
Manjiya County
~
Nakaseke North
Elgon County
'l)
Kasanda North
.,..,.
A
--et
Ruhinda North
fj~
Kashari County North
Bukedea County
Rwampara County
-<t2l..
Buikwe South
UPDF
Aswa South
Aring South
Kumi Municipality
,r
DWR Buhweju
(.:Lr:Ji " \ /
~
Bunya South
Kabale Municipality
Nwoya
Soroti Municipality
Lira Municipality
Bukoto East
--,
''l
'L-ll
d-~~~
ANNEX 1
OBSERVATIONS PARAMETERS FOR SAND MINING INVESTIGATION
Display of EIA certificate - For any project that acquired EIA certificate, it
is o condition thot the certificate should be displayed clearly at the
project site.
Certificate of incorporation - This too needs to be displayed at the

premises. lt gives indication whether the company is legally registered in
Uganda.
Fencing of mining sites - This is for control of access of non-authorised

persons and encroachment.
Distances from Lake Shoreline - Activities within two hundred meters

measured from the low water mark of o lake require o permit and no land
title should be issued within this protected zone.
Mode of mining
Qualities of roods- Damaged roods ore o sign of overloading.
Loading of trucks - Every truck has o permitted axle load. The Minister of
Works and Transport was to issue o statutory instrument in FY2015/16
banning the transporting of wet sand. This was intended at controlling
overloading of sand transportation trucks which ore prone to axle
overloading that seriously damages roods.
Employment of Ugandans- For any mining activity, it is o requirement that

it employs os many Ugandans os possible os compared to foreign workers.
However there is no ratio specified
Aesthetic of area - every site has to be maintained in on organised

manner to ensure smooth operations and safety of people that access it.
Waste management - Every mining activity generates wastes which

should be stored and disposed of properly os per prevailing best practice.
DOCUMENTS TO BE SOUGHT OUT
EIA Certificate- Every mining activity requires approval from NEMA
Certificate of incorporation - Every company operating in Uganda is

required to be registered by the Uganda Registration Bureau.
Mining lease - every mining activity requires a licence from the Ministry of
energy and mineral development.
Lake or wetlond permit - for any extractive activity to be carried out in

protected zones of wetlond or lake require permit issued by NEMA
Pollution licence -Wastes ore generated by mining ore meant not to be

released to the environment beyond permissible levels. If the quality of
wastes exceeds permissible levels then a pollution licence or waste
discharge permit issued by NEMA is required
Investment licence - Every foreign investor is expected to hove on

investment licence that has conditions that govern how business is
conducted.
Extraction limit
for Sand
List of
Date of
Issue
SIN
---
380
Birungi
Simpson
398
370
399
459
411
355
Aqua \f\Jorld
(U) Limited
------
Kamaliba
Village Mugge
Parish, Nkozi
Sub County,
Mpigi District
Nabyewanga
Village, Nkozi
Sub County,
Mpigi District
Ntinzi Village,
Mugge Parish,
Nkozi S/C,
Mpigi District
Kamaliba
Village, Nkozi
Sub-County,
Mpigi District_
Ntinzi Village,
Mugge Parish,
Nkozi SubCounty, Mpigi
District
The
Registered
Trustees of
M as aka
Diocese
DMW
Uganda
Limited
---DMW
Kakwanzl
Uganda
Village, Kiti
Limited
Parish,
Bukulula
Kalungu
District
Nabyewanga
Capital
Village, Nkozi
Estates
Sub-County
Mpi i District
Kamuwunga
Village,
Status as of
to date
2na
2n
December,
December,
2013
2017
'}no
c..
2n
December,
December,
2014
2017
stnM~-
5 May,
2015
2018
1i
-----
1i
September,
September,
20'14
2017
-StR May,
2015
5 May,
Activity halted
because
of
violations
of
permit
conditions
Activity halted
because
of
violations
of
permit
conditions
Cancelled
Restoration
Order issued
Permit Valid
2018
6th April,
6th April,
20'16
2017
6th June,
8 June,
2015
2018
2i
Sand mining
halted due to
land conflict _ j
Sand mining
halted due to
land conflict
Restoration
Order issued
2014
412
Activity halted
because
of
violation
of
permit
I conditions
10
7t1
I Permit valid
to date
433
1 "1
__L_
12
I
I
-~-
426
13
Ud
Parkson
Hongkong
Investments
Ud
---Zou Yunyan
Lwera, !'Jtinzi
Mpigi District
4i0
September,
2015
2018
i'
7t
September)
i5
1\J\abira, Lwera
Mpigl District
Kamuwunga
village, in
Bukulula Sub
CountyKalungu
District
Block 149, Plot
Lukaya Sand
Dealers
Company
Limited
--~
492
----------
Mpigi District
Katonga
Investments
Seroma
Lirnited
8 In
Kamuwunga
Village in
Bukululu Sub
County In
Kalungu
District
Plot 26 Block
149 at
Lugalama,
Kamuwunga
Village,
You ,Jing Shu
Parish,
Bukulula SubCounty,
Kalungu
District
Plot 47, Block
Permit valid
September)
2018
m-
September,
September)
2015
2018
1i
1i
August,
Activity halted
because
of
violation
of
permit
conditions
Activity halted
of
because
violation
of
permit
conditions
2015
August,
2018
14th June,
2016
i4 1h June- Permit valid
20'17
28lli May,
2015
28t May,
20'18
18t
November,
2018
Activity halted
because
of
of
violation
permit
conditions
ANNEX 2
List of permits issued in Lwero Wetlond in Kolungu and Mpigi District.
Sr.
No
Permit Number
Name
of Location
Developer/
Company
1.
No permit
Abomugisho
Peter
Komolibo,
Ref ENV /16/2,
Mugge Parish, environment
sub- improvement
Nkozi
county
notice
from
Mpigi
Local
Government
2.
No wetland permit
Zhongs
Industries
Kotongo
wetlond
Dote of Issue
Certificate of
Approval
of
El A in place
(ref
MAA
12/10/16,
Mayende and
Associated
Advocates,
Annex D)
3.
No permit
Mulongo Kato
Komolibo,
Ref ENV /16/5,
Mugge Parish, environment
sub- improvement
Nkozi
county
notice
from
Mpigi
Local
Government
4.
NEMA/RB/LS/WT /377
Birungi
Simpson
16,
Plot
Nobyewongo
Village,
Nkozi
County,
Sub
Mpigi District
5.
NEMA/RB/LS/WT /461
Zou Yunyon
14th November
2015
(Ref
Ministerial
Statement,
23/08/201 6)
Block 415, Plot 25th April 201 6

7,
Mabira (Ref Ministerial
Lwera,
District
6.
Mpigi Statement,
23/08/201 6)
NEMA/RB/LS/WTI 488 Sandco lmpex Plot 71, Block pt September

415,
2016
(Ref:
(U) Ltd
Nabyewanga
NEMA Doe 15)
Village, Mugge
Parish, . Nkozi
County,
SubMpigi District
CERTIFICATES ISSUED AROUND lAKE VICTORIA FOR AQUACUlTURE
NAME OF ESTABUSHEMENT
S/NO.
DISTRICT
Buikwe
Bugonga
2 I.G investments
Buikwe
Njeru
Buikwe
Ngongwe
Buikwe
Buikwe
Kagumba Bay
Ssi-bukuunja
Busia
Majanji
3/7/2015
Development
Africa
Ltd
4 Runoni Traders Ltd

5 Gold Band Fisheries
6
Essensho Integrated fish Farm
7 Marine Ht:uvcst Limited
10
11
12
Majanji
10/10/2016
13/9/2016
Tome Youth Development Group
Buvuma
Tome Bay
2/2/2016
Kcmbo Youth DevelopmP.nt Grot.Jp
Buvuma
Tome Bay
2/2/2016
M/S KcbtJjjr:J Kohnna Farmers Association Ouvuma
Ouwooya
28/9/2016
Bakuyitako Olaba Farmers Association
Buvuma
Buwooya
28/9/2016
Buvuma
Buwooya
28/9/2016
Munaku
Kawama
Farmers
Jinja Agricultural Development Agency

Jinja(JIADE)
M asese
5/9/2014
Jinja
Budondo
4/5/2015
Jinja
Kagoma
9/7/2015
M/S Plant for Africa Cage Farm
Jinja
Kagoma
9/7/2015
Mayable Savings and Credit Society
Jinja
15 M/S Andrew Muguwa

16 Plant for Africa fish Farm
18
M asese
Jinja
River Nile
20 John B Musoke
21 Ssese Trading Company
Kalangala
Bujumba
Bufumira
24
isaland
Association (BIDA)
fV1/S
25
Development
5/1/2016
6/6/2016
1/7/2015
" 6/9/2015
Buyovu Island
Kalangala
Mugoye
10/11/2015
Kalangala
Town council
20/10/2015
Kalangala
Bufumira
26/4/2016
Town council
28/9/2015
Town council
29/3/16
'
Assembiies of God
Kalangala
Pastorate Cage fish Faring Project
Ssese Progressive fishing Cooperative
Kalangala
Pentecostal
26 society
Division
Napoleon Gulf
19 Soul foundation
22 M/S Kenval Worldwide Ltd

23 M/S Fish Baron.s (U) Ltd
2/9/2016
Majanji
13 Association
17
11/9/2015
12/11/2015
Busia
M/S
14
2006
3/9/2014
Busia
---- ..
8 M/S Geossy fish Farm
ISSUED
1 SoN Fish Farm

M/S Agro
3 (ADAl)
'
DATE
SUBCOUNTY
Kalangala
!FISH FARM
~7
Ltd
Bossa Shaft Victoria Fish
--
& MRs. Ssemwanga Moses
21/9/2016
Kampala
Kawembe Division
25/3/2015
31 Moshimoshi fish Farm
Kampala
Munyonyo
32
33
34
35
30
Lwebs Agali Awamu fish Farmers
Masaka
L.Nabugabo
Aqua World (U) Ltd
Masaka
Bukakata
Nature's Finest (U) LTd NFL
M as aka
Bukakata
Aqua World (U) Ltd
Mpigi
Lwera
25/5/2015
9/9/2016
15/1/2012
18/7/2014
6/2/2014
Capital Estates Cage Culture Project
Mpigi
Lwera, Mawokota
28/9/2016
M/S Bugonzi Holdings Limited Fish Farm
Mukono
Koornc
Mukono
Katosi
7/7/2015
Mukono
Kome
9/3/2015
Bunakanda Cage fish arm,ng
Mukono
Bunankanda Bay
Serwadda Hannington Cage Production
Mukono
Kome Islands
17/4/2015
Mukono
Koome
17/4/2015
Akwata Ernpola Fish Caging Project
Mukono
Koorne
18/2/2014
M/S Aiistant Aquaculture Ltd
Mukono
Koome
22/10/2015
Mukono
Kome
Orchfds Village Ltd
37
38 N/\M Fish CompJny Limited
Lukooya Mukome (Lumu) Aqua Cage
39 Fish Production
40
41
M/S Deogracious & Geofrey Cage fish
42
43
44
Farming enterprise
45 Nyanja Fisheries Ltd
r-
20/10/2015
Makindye Division
36
Division
.6
Kampala
~9
'I'll
Munyonyo,
;e
Ltd
:8
8/9/2015,
Mwena
2/12/2015
26/2/2015
4/2/2014
Sentwa Island, Kibanga
Buwuka Aqua Farms Ltd
Mukono
46
47 Ferdsult Engineering Co, Ltd
Mukono
Koome
48 Sekalala Cages
Mukono
Namusenyu
Nakasongola
Lwarnpanga
49
Twin Fish
IVe
;o
,]_
'2
;3
Water Town Fish Farm

y.
fish Farm
1/
N2M
,pa ty Ltd
15/9/2015
'.
.4
tv
1/
renewed
27/4/2015,
8/8/2016
Port
"
12/11/2016
1maymgo
1g.1m
'akiso
L11ga
Ngoma
7/7/ .5
;f'l .4
2/r/ 115
54
55
Stoney Beach Fisheries Cage Fish Farm
Wakiso
Katabi
M/S Kitende Bweya Fish Farm
Wakiso
Go m be
7/7/2015
Katabi
8/9/2015
M/S Club 9 Enterprise Cage Farming

Wakiso
56 Project
57 Biira integrated fish Farm
Wakiso
58 Sama Fish Farm
Wakiso
3/10/2015
Busiro East
Katabi
12/10/2015
UMABBULEP Community fish Farming

Wakiso
59 Project
ssabagabo Makindye
Wakiso
ssabagabo Makindye
60
Kimoyo Fish Farm Ltd
10/7/2015
12/10/2015
12/10/2015
~---
Semakobe Fish Farm
Wakiso
ssabagabo Makindye
M/S Pearl Aquatics
Wakiso
Garuga, Gerenge Tende
2/8/2016
6.3 Sa bra and Sons Co. Ltd
Wakiso
Go m be
5/1/2016
Wakiso
Katabi
11/7/2016
Wakiso
Go m be
11/10/2016
Victoria's Treasures Ltd
Wakiso
Garuga- Bugabo Bay
24/3/2016
67 Victoria Aqua Farm Limited
Wakiso
Kitiko Bay
24/3/2016
Wakiso
Katabi
27/6/2014
61
62
64
Odongo Emmanuel and Family
65 Luuka Fish Farm

66
68
St. Joseph's Technical institute Kisubi
12/10/2015
October 14, 2016
URA/CG/5.0
The Chairperson
Committee on Natural Resources
The Parliament of Uganda
P 0 Box 7178
COMMITTEE ON
RESPONSES
RESOURCES
12,2016
Following the Uganda Revenue Authority appearance before the

above Committee on 12th October 2016, below are the responses
to the issues you requested for further clarification;
1. Tax payments made
the persons issued with Permits in
Lwera Wetland in ..........................
Mpingi Districts
fii,
The list provided indicated 17 permits were issued between 2013

and 2015 to 14 operators.
These operators have paid Shs.
14,9710,713,716 for t]Je period July ~013 to date. B~low are the
payment details.
,.
,.
S.NO.
'
TAX PAYER DETAILS
Tin
Taxpayername
1 1000254376 Mr. SIMPSON BIRUNGI
2 1007608274 PARKSON HONGKONG INVESTMENTS UGANDA LIMITED
3 1008042416 HE SHA DUO COMPANY LIMITED
4 1009358996 LUKAYA SAND DEALERS Ll MITED
5 1000075323 TESCO INDUSTRIES Ll MITEO
6 1002840144 AQUA WORLD (U)LIMITEO
7 1000313066 THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF MASAKA DIOCESE
8 1007040344 DMW(U)LTO
9 1000391063 Mrs. ZOU YUNYAN
10 1000356164 Mr. YOU JINGSHU
11 1008038177 WAKONEY AND AB GENERAL TRADING COMPANY LIMITED
12 1000786809 ZHONGS INDUSTRIES LIMITED
13 1007351828 MANGO TREE GROUP LIMITED
TOTAL
PAYMENTS MADE FROM JULY 2013 TO DATE

Business Start Dt
lncometax EDR Domestic Tax Payments Customs Payments Total Tax Paid
1-Aug-01
67,996,445
227,410,017
295,406,462
13-Mar-15
18-May-15
5,780,000
50,942,975
56,722,975
3D-Mar-15
1-Jul-15
320,000
21,444,385
21,764,385
16-Dec-14
8-Aug-16
1-Jan-06
lJan-06
1,332,856,530
7,191,462,051 8,524,318,581
16-Apr-13
11-0ct-13
360,000
360,000
1-Dec-96
1-Jan-00
381,656,083
508,472,485
126,816,402
23-May-01
1-Jul-14
3-Jun-00
1-Sep-00
16,142,950
16,142,950
3Q-Jun-00
3D-Jun-OO
73,343,350
73,343,350
1-Jul-15
19-Aug-15
9,186,993
44,351,315
53,538,308
26-Nov-09
1-Sep-11
118,661,499
5,177,093,640 5,295,755,139
1Q-Feb-15
1D-Feb-15
48,304,933
76,584,148
124,889,081
2,054,608,783
12,916,104,933 14,970,713,716
2. Environmental Levy paid

As we explained to the Committee, Environmental Levy is not
imposed on sand mining. Therefore the figures provided below
relate to imports of used motor vehicles and second hand
clothes.
Period
136,280,360,407
40,797,859,594
177,078,220,001
2016 2017
Total
3 . List of Exporters
Sand
From, the available records, 63,380 ,kilograms of sand were
exported from Uganda during the period 2012 to 2016. Details
are contained in the attachment.
4. Taxation of the Sand Miners
For domestic taxation purposes, sand mining is taxed like any
other economic activity. Sale of sand therefore does not attract
any specialized treatment. However, to enable us keep track of
the licensed sand miners, we suggest that NEMA as the
regulator of the sand mining activities should include provision
,, of Tax Clearance Certificate''as one of the 'conditions to be
satisfied before issuance or ;renewal of Permits to the sand
m1ners.
"Developing Uganda Together"
Dicksons C. Kateshumbwa
Ag. COMMISSIONER GENERAL
List of Sand Exporters
\I
the period 20
Name of Exporter
Destination Country
TIN
1000705557 Mr. HABIBU YEGO
KE
1000059651 JOFRA INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS LIMI CD
1000059651 JOFRA INTERNATIONAL FORWARDERS LIMI CD
1000171284 TOTAL E & P UGANDA B. V.
FR
1000066548 COAST FREIGHT INTENATIONAL LIMITED
SE
1000026050 SDV TRANSAMI (UGANDA) LIMITED
SE
1000322642 ELEGANT RESOURCES LIMITED
zw
1000028625 DAVIS & SHIRTLIFF INTERNATIONAL LIM
so
1000032191 SKYNET(UGANDA) LIMITED
ZA
1000724864 ARAMEX UGANDA LIMITED
ZA
1001240873 ROVALCO RESOURCES LIMITED
TR
zw
1000724864 ARAMEX UGANDA LIMITED
1000025228 WAGAGAI LlrVIITED
NL
1000175899 TULLOW UGANDA LIMITED
GB
1000344341 ROLAX INTERNATIONAL (U) LIMITED
KE
1002194704 PRECIOUS MINING UGANDA LIMITED
IN
1002194704 PRECIOUS MINING UGANDA LIMITED
IN
1001037746 FLEMISH INVESTMENTS LIMITED
TZ
1001037746 FLEMISH INVESTMENTS LIMITED
TZ
ZA
1000032191 SKVNET(UGANDA) LIMITED
ZA
1000024013 GENERAL AGENCIES UGANDA LIMITED
AU
1000029060 PARTH CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
SD
1000026050 BOLLOREAFRICA LOGISTICS UGANDA L1
FR
1000025984 KAMPALA DOMESTIC STORE
CD
ZA
1000059399 SPEDAG INTERFREIGHT UGANDA LIMITED
FR
1000059827 J.M. FREIGHT SERVICES LIMITED
us
29 1000046092 PAT-DRILL UGANDA LIMITED,
TZ
30 1000026229 TULLOW UGANDA OPERATIONS PTY LIMITE GB
31 1006247302 AFRICAN PANTHER RESOURCES 'U' LTD
TZ
32 1006247302 AFRICAN PANTHER RESOURCES 'U' LTD
TZ
33 1000024410 CIVICON LIMITED
CD
34 1000226277 JESVTECHNICALSERVICES LTD
CD
35 1000275982 BAO CHANG INTERNATIONAL (U) LTD
Bl
36 1008374612 ELGON MINERALS UGANDA LIMITED
TZ
37 1008374612 ELGON MINERALS UGANDA LIMITED
TZ
38 1008374612 ELGON MINERALS (U)LTD
TZ
TZ
TZ
TZ
42 1000275982 BAO CHANG INTERNATIONAL (U) LTD
Bl
TOTAL
S.No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to
Quantity In Kgs
3,000
2,500
2,500
67
44
44
1,708
150
131
393
30
1,683
I
5
3
15,000
494
276
10
107
21
161
50
50
31
569
177
26
501
4,000
250
1,000
1,040
11,000
4,000
35
259
290
3,"730
2,910
2,581
2,545
10
63,380
USHSVALUE Year of Export
2,982A56
1,750,000
1,750,000
471,691
130,137
130,137
122,935
88,983
73,346
49,547
24,774
24,587
16,684
13,014
2,295,912
700,062
393,206
134,473
133,975
129,514
116,766
67,237
12,947
343,265
256,836
247,398
50,283
26,596
1,876,808
74,936
3,440
3,440
99,950,895
343,115
251,740
33,628
33,628
33,464
33,258
33,258
33,254
9,760
115,251,385
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
201i
2012
2012
2012
2012
2012
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2013
2014
2014
2014
2014
2014
2015
2015
2015
2015
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
\I
i'
T
NEMA House
Plot 17,19 & 21, Jinja Road.
P.O.Box 22255, Kampala, UGANDA.
Te!: 256-414- 251064, .251065, 251 0~

342.758, 342759, 3427
Fax: 256-414-257521 I 23:2f;)80
E-nrail: [email protected]
Website: www.nemaug.org
November, 2015
Mr. Blrungi Simpson,

P.O. Box 27109,
Tel: +256-702476201
F~eference
is
made
to
the
wetland
resource
use
Permit
Nos:
N
1 and NEMA/RB/LS/WT/380 issued to you by this Authority
for undertaking sand mining activities in the Villages of Kamaliba and Nabyewanga
in Mugge Parish, Nkozi Sub-County, Mpigi District. This Authority has carried out
environmental inspections of the sites approved for sand mining and we have
noted with concern the following:
(i)
The sand mining activities left behind open and un-restored pits/ditches that
pose a threat to the surrounding community that graze their anirnals in this
wetland and the children who intensively use the community roads that
traverse the Wetland to other villages;
(!!)
[t was also observed that the community road in Nabyewanga Village has
been rendered irnpassable by the heavy trucks that used tb ferry sand from
your site, yet no efforts have been put in place to repair and maintain it
Tile
rpose
this communication therefore is to direct
to halt further sand
mining and submit a restoration plan to this Authority for the sand pits left behind
the !\labyewanga community road to ensure easy mobility by other
stlould be submitted to National Environment
restoration
(NEM/\) within 30 days from the date
receipt of this
vour com
nee in
rnatfpr
of
c. c
Secretary
and Environment
c.c
The Liaison Officer

Environmental Protection Force
NEMA House
c.c
The District Environmental Officer

Mpigi District Local Government
of
NEMA House
P!ot 1'7,19& 21,JinjaH.oad.
P.OJ3ox 22255, !'\arnpa!a, UGANDA.
Tei:
256-414~
251064, 25'1065, 251
342759,
15
WHbsih~:
Tesco Industries
24536,
www.nemaug.org
.,!
+256-772429520
I hereby refer to NE1VIA Permit No.398 issued to you by this Authority for undertaking sand
n1ining
on
60 and 69 Block 415 in Ntinzi Village, Mugge Parish, Nkozi SubDistrict, and our subsequent correspondence to you dated 6th October, 2015
\Vhich you were directed to demolish the pern1anent structures that you have constructed in
the wetland and to operate vvithin
terms and conditions of the pern1it issued to you for
sand n1ining.
'-'"''""~H .. .__..,...""'
on
5th
34~
Fax: 256-414-257521/232680
c-.m.aii: [email protected]
this Authority in L\vera vvetland on 20th October, 2015

to construct pcrn1anent structures in this \Vetland even after
to
to construction.
is to
you that Pern1it No.398 that was issued to
]\;fay,
15 _has been cancelled and this Authority -vviH proce'ed to
activities at the site within a period of 7 (Seven) days, 'l[rom
will proceed to recover as a civil
other authorized '"'""'''"'r\,.,
C,C
c.c
C.,C
c.c
Oft1ccr
Environmental Protection Force
NEMA ~-"-""""'-''"-'
c.c
Govenunent
NEtv!A House
Plot H,19 & 21, Jinja Roild.
P.O.Box 2225!), !'\ampala, UGANDA.

T(~f:
256-414 251064, 25'!065, 251C
342758,342759,3427
Fmc 256-414~~57521 /23.2.680
E-rnall: ilrfo<f!l,nemaug.org
Website: www.nem.aug.or9
!:rid ay, 30 October 2015

Company l.,imltcd
'rcl: 1256776166888/703008888
NOT
FOR NON-
made
to
th c
[~n v iron mental
Restoration
Order
N Lf\1 A/Ei\0/K;\ L/J lJN/02/20 15 isst1cd tn you in Junc 20 I 5, your response to the same
dated l
August 20 l \ and Permit No. NFlVlA/RB/LS/\VT/426 granted to you on 1ih
20 I 5 fo t sand mining on part of Block ! 49 P lcJt 20 Kam uwunga Vi llagc,
Kv;:1!1lul
P:-1ri"h in Bukululu Sub .. Cou11ty Kulungu DistricL As requrred under the
Nntional
ironmcnt Act Cap.l5J, Environn1Ciltal Inspectors carried out environmental
is
in L\vcrn \Vet land in October, 20 !5, The finding of the inspections indicated
the f()! !.owing:

(a) You
vehemently refused/ignored to comply with the prov1srot1S of the
Environmental l\cstoration ()rdcr issued to you on
June, 20 !5. The murrum
car
deposited on the site has not been removed including the structures erected
(b)
have continued to deposit more rnurrurn and erect more structures in Lwera
of the Environmental
beyond those found nt the site M the time of
Re:)torat!on Ordct in (i) above in June 20 I 5. This is contrary to your earl
request
to use
8n~a to construct an access on the perm
ilf'(';) li!ldl'r
(c)
Pt'''''' ir "-!
~\!
adamantly refused to implcn1cnr the s<.1nd mining activities on the

t
it
426 issued to you on I i
11
t-h,_~..,,,.il-,--,... ,.,.
the
evoked
proceed to take all the
embarrassment
vacate
condemned
avoid
the above, Sand Mining outside the permitted area is a

serious violation. You are directed to show cause within Seven days from the
receipt of this notice
the Permit No. NEMA/RB/LS/WT/426 granted
to
on I ih August
15 should not be cancelled. Please note that if no
comxnunication is received tlorn you within Seven days, this Authority shaH
to cancel
Permit without any further notice/c01nmunication.
c.c
The Hon. rvfinister

lYfinistry of Water and Environment
c.c
Permanent Secretary
Ministry Water and Environment
Force
c.c
NEM.A House
Plot 17,19 & 21, Jinja Road.

P.O.Box 22255, K.ampa!a, UGANDA.
Te!: 256-414;;'251064,251065, 2.51

34275~342759,342
Fa){: 256-414-257521/232680
E~mail:
[email protected]
Website: www.nemaug.org
11
Friday 30[ October, 201 S

The Proprietor,
He Sha Duo Comrany T
P.O. Box 12052,
I5Rl0
Tcl:
it/
.RE:
Reference is made to the National Envirom11ent IVic:magement Authorjty (1'-JE!viA) Permir No.
issued to you by this Authority for carrying out sand mining activities
at the above stated location nnd the Project Brief (PB) that you submitted to this Authority,
detailing the activities to be undertaker1 at the sand mining site on Plot 8 Block 149 in
Ka.mu\vunga Village, Kyamulibwa Parish, Bukulula Sub-County, Bucldu County, Kalungu
District. This Authority has canied out environmental inspections of the said sand mining site
anci lhc findings of the inspections revealed tbc following:
(i)
You are underiaking sand mining activities using a methodology outside those indicated in
the PB which was the basis of issuance of Permit No.
12. The use of
floating excavator/dredger that sucks sand from below 5 metres is illegaJ.
(ii)
have illegally connected an access road to your site off the lY1asaka-Kampala highway,
vvithout authorizatjon il"om the Uganda National Roads Authority (lJ"l\JRA) as \vas required
in condition (iv) of the Permit
(i
rhere
IS
no
the wet.land resource use permit at the sand mining
to guide
~I
c.c
and
c.c
c.c
The Pennanent >JV,.~~.,,.,~L.. ~

lVfinistry of Water and Enviromnent
Liaison Officer
Environn1ental Protection Force

NEJ\;1A IIouse .
c. c.
The District Envirom11ental

Kalungu District Local Government
. -------~-~----~--~--------~.-----------
1\lEM/-\ Houso
Plot "17, i 9 & 2 L ,l;rj:; :, .:;;:;_t.
P.OJkx 2225::i. f~-~!mp.if:,, UG;.\ND/\.
Tel: :;:sG-414- 2510fill, :!5HH15, 251C
NElVIA/4.2.S
342'l5H, 34-27S0, 3427

F;.:~x:
236-4'!4-.:i.:.- ,':;<::!
_ 30 Octo her 201)

l\!lrs. /ou Yun '{;,m,
P.O. Bnx :1.3CJ 13.
d-
KAlVlPAlJA.
Tel: +25 6-77249286 7
,t../"l,/""'-,. ...,\.._........--~~-:.---
i${n: fVlr. Vou ,Jing Shu
~"'
SHOlJLD
rc!cr
to
National
Environment fVIanagement Authority (NEf\/1/$ Permit No.

issued to you by this Authority Cor undertaking sand mining
activitic:i on Plot 7 Block 415 rvtabira, Lwcra, l\:lawokota County, lV!pigi Disttict. This
,~\uiiHHity h<ls GltTicd out environmental inspections or the sand mining site <tnd the
l!m1ing~; ()[' lhl' inspections revc<llcd that you arc undertaking activities al the site that arc
ctlit~::n' 1u conditions (iv). (v), (vi) ur 1hc. permit issued to you !'nr sand minlllg as
imlica\ccl he1c f,c]m\:
N
(i)
\'ou :1rc UJH.krtaking sand mining activities in a distance of less thnn 200rn Crom the
l<<tmpala-fVLlsdka higll\vay contrary to condition (vi) o['thc permit~
(i!)
\'ou hnvc ilkgallyconncctcd nn access road to your site o1T the l\1asaka-Kampilla
\Vi t hout authorization llom the lJ ganda Nation a I Roads !\ uthority
(UNRA) as was required in condition (iv) of the Permit. It was also observed that
the access road tn the: site was not reinforced with harclcorc and appropriate size or
culvert; as requitcd in condition (v) ofthc permit;
,
h igll\vay,
( i'ii:l, The temporary structures constructed in the vvctland have been turned into a ful[ynedged settlement !'or accommodation hence posing clw! lcngcs in the nnnagc:mcnl
frum the scltlcmcnt contrary to the
ot' vt'!lucnt and other domestic waste
1'-J;1Iin11;1l J.';w\rnnm'lt /\r_'1 ('''j' 1 ~J,
(iv) TliL:rc is no dispL1y or the wctland resource use permit

U i d i._' :1 C t i V l t i \.~ S ::ll i h1..:' S i t 1.:'
:>~-!,?138()
E-mnil: into(@t1emau~.I-G~\l
Web:;if.c:. www.tH:nt<:Hlf"J cr~l
111
{lt
the :;~md mining site to
puqlUSc
.
d..
lSSUC
to
or this ]c:Uc'r JS
)'OlJ O!i lh
/
l]
to
direct )'OU to
')f)l~
l
jJ
, d.
) S 10tLCt
shovv
not
to your compliance in this matter.
Dr. Tom 0. Okurut
EX
c ('
VE
RECTOR
The lion. rv!iniskT

l\~1inistry
or \V<!tcr and Environment
PALA
c.c
The Permanent Sccrct~l1)'

l\~1inis1ry ol \Vater and Environment
PALA
c.c
lhc Liaison O!'J!ccr

Environmental Pnicction Force
NL!\L\ l louse
fVI PALA
l~ .c
Jhc f) i strict Ln vi ronmcn tal 0 l'l!ccr

~/Ir)igi District l.oca l (}ovl'l'llmcnt
JVIPIGI
~)
CE!USC
within
\V h)'
J) C rl1l i t
NEMA House
Plot 17,19 & 21, .Jlnja Road,
P.O.Box 22255, Kampala, UGANDA.
Tel: 256-414- 25'1064, 251065, 25"1068
342759,342'717
7178
Fax: 256-414-25752.1 I 2326UO

E-mail: [email protected]
VVebsite: www.nemaug.org
KAMPALA -UGANDA,
Reference is made to yours
2016, referenced
01
Our records show that, on several occasionsf TESCO Industries

was warned and
given directives over the violations of permit conditions, and the same were
collected by Mro Drake Lubega.
Upon issue of the cancellation notice, Mr. Lubega was contacted to receive the letter
but he requested for the ~~eeting with the Authority,_ before the cancellation is
effected, Following
request, a letter
to a meeting to show cause
cancel!alion
be effected was issued, and received
him on 5th
November 2015
During the meeting held on gth November
the activities of Tesco Industries Ltd
were suspended
Tesco Industries Ltd was directed to demolish all illegal
structures, remove all debris and restore the site within 7 days to the Authority's
as
dtrectives, and or
suspended,
slamJs
1.
2.
4.
5.
G.
7.
8.
9. J\1R. ElRUrvHRA
EPF,
LO, NEl\1A
NEiv1A
TESCO IND.USTIUES
KIRUlVIIRA & CO ADVOCATES
KIRU1\1.IRA & CO ADVOCATES
Agenda
1. Con1n1 unication fron1 the Chainnan
2.
frmn Tesco industries_ Drake Lubega
3. Statc~lnent on breach of Pern1it Conditions from the NR1'vi (Aq)
4. Hesponse to breach of conditions
5. H.eso1utions/ Recomn1endations
Minute I: oom.1nunication from the Chairman
The Deputy Executive Director chaired the meeting and welcomed members to the n.1eeting.
highlighted.
the main objective of the meeting was for the Management of Tesco
to
cause why the permit No. 398 on plots 60& 69 Block
Ntinzi village,
Mugge Parish, Nkoz;i SIC, lVlpigi d1stnct, issued to them fo.r sand tnining in Lwcra should
not be cancelled. Chairman mnphasized that inspection findings show that pennanent
have been erected yet
were not
of the approved activities hence a
violation of both the law and the
conditions.
tasked
remained defiant
Lt.d to explain why they
pennit condition::3 whi eh wnn iflfluod
cause as to "vvhy
the developer;
not
how~ver
acknowledged
that he did not
so.
thereafter requested NEIVIi\ to

and
to rectify
was not available to mn.ke a

he was given ample ti1ne to
(21
hirn for not co1nplying with son1e of the pennit

had gone wrong at the site in Lwera if given
1.Dore
on
conditions in
1.
111.
the n1eeting
and specifically:-
had been total violations of
pern1it
There was no display of the wetland resource use pennit at the sand Inining site.
There was no written authorization frmn the Uganda National Roads Authority
(lJJ\fRA)
connecting access road to the l{anlpala-lVfasaka highway.
Pennanent structures had been erected contrary to the pennit conditions.
of access ro~HI to the sand deposits did not follow guidance provided
the permit regulating activities at the project site.
of pe:n11anent
wa,s being
50 meters fron1 the Kan1pala- Masaka
Highway \Nithin the wetland,
despite orders to stop dumping.
rnu.rran1 v;as to pave an
ATTENDANCE FORM
TeL No.
Designation &
E=mail
Addre~
Institution I Organization
---------~---------------------------~-----------------~-----------------
i'
~::_
\-;,_;~
___
)
c
-~~~-~~- ~~-
() 2J _W
0/
):::J3/
j~
c;v~-~~~~2- _~--~ ~~~~2~;~L-~:-~:::::L:...::..:~i'l.--.:2:t~--_::_:::_~~__::_~_=,__::_:_::_:_~_L _____ !_:_~::.::._
p
b
\ . '
!l d-...r!D
\;~-D~-::'"--\
~~_Q \l\~~~ ' ~0!-~~~L~___],J~~- . _, (b,~~~~-------
:-!
('-
cl
('J
~
~
--J)
c{J
("'~
:
(-t--
(0
-
----~~~------------
,)
j
\1
i(
~
t7
~-
'. CJ)
.(J
('~
~
Q)
rll
(\
~.\
~-1
c-1..
0--.
V)
en
\..)
()
_J)
,....-1.:
!-
<)
""J
/'-'
;YI
I'
;''-.J .
rJ
~~
cU
(1-[1-!
0:
''7
""'
_J
~
<:j-
!'(~
'JJ
~
~?
~i
rQ'
I::Cj.
c-
rl<
'w
~
--
.,....-
~
Jb
,-2
STATUS
ABOUTT
GO TREE CASE
INV/907/16
Kim Sein
Korean
745332081
Mango tree
group
Had no
passport at
the moment
Arrested
INV/908/16
Jang Inbok
Korean
745439263
Mango tree
group
Had no
passport at
the moment
Arrested
INV/909/16
Y ang Xiao Bao
Chinese
G38850991
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitor's
pass v/u
2.11.16
Arrested
INV/910/16
Jang Qing
Chinese
Mango tree
group
Had no
passport at
moment
Arrested
INV/911/16
Jang Wen
Chinese
Mango tree
group
Had no
passport at
the moment
Arrested
INV/912/16
Li Shiren
Chinese
Mango tree
group
Working on
VPv/u
01/11116
Arrested
83375610
Subject was
successfully
removed out of
the country on
26th 110/2016
Subject was
Bonded
successfully
removed out of
the country on
26th 110/2016
Subject was working
Subject is a PI.
Pay surge of
on visitor's pass
contrary to
USD 1200 &be
immigration laws
removed to
lfhome country.
Has availed a
M:urn air ticket
26t11/Nov/16
Bonded
No decision
could be taken
in absence of the
passport.
Subject claims to have Attach evidence
left passport to
ofEP
parliament. Evidence
Prepayment and
of EP application
passpmi
attached
Subject was working
Subject is a PI.
on visitor's pass
Pay surge of
USD 1200 &be
removed to
home country.
Has availed a
Bonded
--
INV/913/16
Zhang Chuqing
Chinese
E83242239
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitor's
pass v/u
01.11.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on visitors pass
contrary to
immigration laws
INV/914116
Luo Zhibin
Chinese
E80885480
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitor's
pass v/u
01.11.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on visitors pass
contrary to
immigration laws
INV/915/16
Jin Xiaomo
Chinese
E00713643
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitor's
pass v/u
13.11.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on visitor's pass
contrary to
immigration laws
INV/916116
Hon Y ong Shan
Chinese
E84430621
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitor's
pass v/u
29.11.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on visitor's pass
INV/917/16
Wang Duoging
Chinese
G40242883
Mango tree
group
Working on
expired
special Pass
Arrested
Subject was working

on expired SP contrary
to immigration laws
INV/918116
Kim Song Chol
Korean
745230456
Mango tree
group
Had no
passpmi at
the moment
Arrested
Subject was working

on expired SP contrary
to immigration laws
return air ticket

for 26th/Nov/16
Subject is a PI.
Pay surge of
USD 1200 &be
removed to
home country.
Subject is a PI.
Pay surge of
USD 1200 & be
removed to
home country.
Has availed a
return air ticket
for 26th/Nov/16
Subject is a PI.
Pay surge of
USD 100 & be
removed to
home country.
Has availed a
retun1 air ticket
for 26th/N ov/16
Subject is PI.
Pay surge of
USD 3000 & be
removed to
home country.
Subject is PI.
Pay surge of
USD 2300 & be
removed to
home country.
Subject was
successfully
removed out of
the country on
26th 110/2016
INV/919/16
GaoKe
Chinese
E52550974
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitor's
pass v/u
26.10.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on Visitors pass
INV/920116
Li Gui Cai
Chinese
E83375607
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitor's
pass
v/u2.11.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on visitor's pass
contrary to
immigration laws
INV/921/16
Li Gui Hua
Chinese
G38850989
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitor's
pass v/u
01.11.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on visitor's pass
contrary to
immigration laws
INV/922116
Su Gaolong
Chinese
E83375608
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitor's
pass v/u
1.11.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on visitor's pass
contrary to
immigration laws
Subject is PI.
Pay surge of
USD 3000 & be
removed to
home country.
Has availed a
return air ticket
for 26th/Nov/16
Subject is a PI.
Pay surge of
USD 1200 & be
removed to
home country.
Has availed a
return air ticket
for 26th/Nov/16
Subject is a PI.
Pay surge of
USD 1200 & be
removed to
home country.
Has availed a
return air ticket
for 26th/Nov/16
Subject is a PI.
Pay surge of
USD 1200 &be
removed to
home country.
Has availed a
retun1 air ticket
for 26t11/Nov/16
INV/923/16
Liang Xigoyan
Chinese
E62269874
Mango tree
group
Working on
Visitor's
pass
exp1nng on
29.11.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on visitor's pass
INV/924116
Jiang Cheng Tao
Chinese
E8769553
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitors pass
v/u 29.11.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on Visitor pass
INV/925/16
Zhang Hui ming
Chinese
E15608809
Mango tree
group
Working on
expired
visitor's
pass
Arrested
Subject was working

on visitors pass
contrary to
immigration laws
INV/926/16
Li Shuchang
Chinese
E43964757
Mango tree
group
Working on
visitor's
pass v/u
05.11.16
Arrested
Subject was working

on visitors pass
contrary to
im1nigration laws
INV/927/16
Cheng Simshun
Chinese
G44818264
Mango tree
group
Had no
passport at
the moment
Arrested
Subject claims to have

left passport to
parliament. EP
submission receipt
attached
Subject is P I.
Pay surge of
USD 3000 & be
removed to his
home country.
Has availed a
return air ticket
for 26th/Nov/16
Subject is a PI.
Pay surge of
USD 3000 & be
removed to
home country.
Subject is a PI.
Pay surge of
USD 3000 &be
removed to
home country.
Subject is a PI.
Pay surge of
USD 900 &be
removed to
home country.
Has availed a
return air ticket
for 26th/Nov/16
Subject to avail
evidence of
prepayment of
EP & Security
bond. Subject to
remain on bond
till EP
application is
concluded by
immigration
INV/928/16
Yi Huairen
Chinese
E80874690
Mango tree group
Working
on visitor's
pass v/u
01.11.16
Arrested
Subject was
working on
visitor's pass
INV/929116
Cao Peisun
Chinese
E83375609
Mango tree group
Working
on visitor's
pass v/u
01.11.16
Arrested
Subject was
working on
visitor's pass
Subject is PI.
pay surge of
USD 1200 &be
removed to
home country.
Has availed a
return air ticket
for 26th/Nov/16
Subject is P I.
pay surge of
USD 1200 &be
removed to
home country.
Has availed a
return air ticket
for 26th/N ov/ ~L
- -
.. ---
- - - - -------------------
--
------------
-----------

Report of The Parliamentary Committee On Natural Resources On Sand Mining in Uganda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report of The Parliamentary Committee On Natural Resources On Sand Mining in Uganda

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report of The Parliamentary Committee On Natural Resources On Sand Mining in Uganda

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES ON

SAND MINING IN UGANDA

16th NOVEMBER 2016

Scope of Work ........................................................................................5

Terms of Reference ....................................................................................................... 7

BACKGROUND ON SAND MINING IN UGANDA ........................................................ 10

Areas of Focus ............................................................................................................. 12

Sand Mining in Lwera Wetland ......................................................................... 12

Sand Mining in Lake Victoria ............................................................................. 13

Best Sand Mining Practices ....................................................................................... 13

TOR 1: INVESTIGATION INTO THE STATUS OF SAND MINING IN LWERA WETLAND,

Land Titles in Lwera Wetland .................................................................................... 18

Certificates of Approval of Environmental Impact Assessment ........................ 21

Sand Mining Permits issued by NEMA ..................................................................... 22

Addendums to Wetland User Permits ..................................................................... 28

Sand Mining Methods ................................................................................................30

TOR 2: INVESTIGATION INTO THE STATUS OF SAND MINING IN LAKE VICTORIA,

Certificate of Approval of Environmental Impact Assessment ......................... 33

Dredging in Lake Victoria ..........................................................................................33

TOR 3: INVESTIGATION INTO SAND MINING ENCROACHING KYEWAGA CENTRAL

~~~~:G ~~T~~~~H~~~ ~.E~~~.~~~F~~ R.~~~.L~~~.~~ ~~.~ ~~~.~.~~~E~~.~~.~~~.~;;[)

Sand Mining Regulations ...........................................................................................36

3.9 of ::nd Mining Guidelines ................~ .......................................... 37

Sand Extraction Limits .............................................................................................37

Statutory Instrument banning the transporting of wet sand .......................... 39

Restoration Orders ...................................................................................................39

Restoration plans .........................................................................................................41

Coordination of Lead Agencies .......................................................................... 42

3.14.2 Compliance Enforcement ....................................................................................44

National Physical Development Plan .............................................................. 47

TOR 5: ESTABLISHING THE SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF SAND MINING IN

Impact of Fish stock ....................................................................................................48

Local Content ..........................................................................................................49

Levy Assessments .....................................................................................................52

Exportation of Sand ..................................................................... ,.............................. 53

Taxes from Sand Mining ..................................................... ,....................................... 54

Community Relations .......................................................... ,...................................... 54

CONCLUSION .......... ,..........................................................................................................56

District Environment Officer

Environmental Impact Assessment

Kampala Capital City Authority

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries

National Environment Management Authority

Pay As You Earn

Public Procurement and Disposal Authority

Uganda Investment Authority

Uganda Revenue Authority

The Committee concentrated on investigating sand mining in Lwera Wetland

Also noted were

of sand mining in Lake Victoria, legality of

operations, nationalities of persons involved in mining sand in the Lake;

The Committee adopted the following methodology;

improvement notices, investment licences, certificates of incorporation,

ministerial statements, written

government agencies and other relevant information sources.

site belongs to Zhongs Industries Limited

The Committee also inspected Mango Tree Group Limited's operation

4. Consultative meetings were aslo held with the following stakeholders:

Aqua World (U) Ltd

:G TH~ ~.E~.~F R.~.L~. ~~.~ ~~~.~.~E..~.~;;[)