1. Potential Effects of Land Reclamation and Pollution on
the Total Value of Lutembe Bay Wetland, Uganda
KWAME KUSI-WIREDU ASUMADU

3. i
This document is an extract of the Master Thesis of the Author. It draws on the key problem,
findings, and recommendations of the original thesis. This booklet has been made as a
communication and an advocacy tool for IUCN Netherlands and its partners in Uganda.
“No part of this document may be reproduced without contacting the Environmental Systems
Analysis Group of Wageningen University and IUCN NL”.
Contact
Dr. Rudolf S. De Groot, Environmental Systems Analysis Group, WU Environmental Sciences, ESA.
P.O. Box 47, 6700AA , Wageningen, Netherlands. Email: dolf.degroot@wur.nl
Cas Besselink and Mathew Parr, IUCN NL, Plantage Middenlaan 2K, 1018DD Amsterdam,
Netherlands. Email: cas.besselink@iucn.nl, Mathew.parr@iucn.nl
Kwame Kusi-W. Asumadu, Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University,
Netherlands. Email: kusiwiredu@gmail.com

4. ii
Acronyms
AFIEGO African Institute of Energy Governance
ANARDE Advocates for Natural Resources Governance and Development
CBD Convention on Biological Diversity
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
IBA Important Bird Area
IUCN NL International Union for Conservation of Nature, Netherlands Committee
IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature
NAPE National Association of Professional Environmentalists
NBI Nile Basin Initiative
NEMA National Environmental Management Authority
PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal
RRA Rapid Rural Appraisal
TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
UWEC Uganda Wildlife Education Centre
WMD Wetland Management Department

5. iii
Preface
This booklet is an extract from a Master thesis of the author from Wageningen University as part of
the MSc. Environmental Sciences program. This booklet reports findings of research and have made
some recommendations for CSOs and governmental agencies to tackle wetland reclamation and
pollution. The text has been slightly modified to meet this objective but the content remains the
same as in the original thesis document. This study was developed with the help of IUCN NL and its
partners in Uganda namely NAPE and AFIEGO. The aim of this research is to provide information to
assist decision making regarding land reclamation and pollution in Lutembe Bay Wetland.
The aim is to assess the ecosystem services provided by the wetland and value it in monetary terms
using the TEEB methodology. We also assess the impacts of land use change in the study area and
estimate the monetary value of loss of ecosystem services. By providing an analysis of winners and
losers (including the magnitude of benefits and loses), it aims to minimize uncertainty of the impact
of changes in the landscape to the different end users.
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in Uganda (NAPE, Greenwatch, ANARDE and Nature Uganda) have
filed a lawsuit against NEMA and Rosebud Limited at Uganda High Court (15th
August, 2013) for
breaching constitution that seeks the right to clean and healthy environment, and protection and
right to life. The CSOs seek environmental restoration order and a permanent injunction prohibiting
Rosebud Limited (hereinafter referred to as the flower farm) from continued destruction of the
Lutembe Wetland.
With the TEEB concept being fairly new, IUCN NL realized the need to use it to expose the ecological,
economic and socio-cultural relevance of the wetland to various user groups. IUCN NL therefore
supported this scientific study to provide more information on the wetland. Findings of this study
are expected to help interested parties (Government, CSOs, etc.) argue out their interests and make
informed decisions.
“If the environment is one of the world’s bloodiest political battlefields, economics provides many of
the weapons. Environmental lawsuits and regulatory debates would be starved of ammunition if
economists did not lob their damage estimates into the fray. The trouble with these number wars is
that the estimate’s accuracy is often more akin to that of second-world-war bombers than precision-
guided missiles” The Economist, 3 December 1994, p.106. as quoted by Perman (2011)
Acknowledgments
I will like to express my sincere gratitude to IUCN NL for their support of this study. A special thanks
to the NAPE and AFIEGO staff for their support in data collection. I am also thankful to ANARDE and
Greenwatch for the information they provided. I further extend my appreciation to Vincent of WMD,
staff of Wakiso District, UWEC, and Mr. Bwanika for their inputs. Finally I thank Dr. R.S De Groot,
Mathew Parr, Cas Besselink, Rajab, Frank, Kamese, Francis, Janet, Diana, Patience, and Dickens for
their roles in delivering this study.

6. 1
Introduction
Wetlands are among the world’s most productive ecosystems and support millions of people
through the goods and services they provide (Barbier et al., 1997). Globally, wetlands are, however,
under severe anthropogenic pressures leading to biodiversity loss. They are usually given little or no
value by land developers and public officials even though they provide habitats to endangered and
unique plants and wildlife as well as important services to local communities that live close to them
(Mitsch & Gosselink, 2000; Silvius et al., 2000).
Lutembe Bay Wetland (Figure 1) is under considerable pressure from private developments through
land reclamation and pollution. Lutembe Bay Wetland supports livelihoods of its local communities
by being the both the source of raw materials and a livelihood base in itself (e.g. for fishing). It is
both a designated Ramsar site and an important bird area. Lutembe is currently threatened by the
expansion by Rosebud Company Limited (a flower farm) and the Lake Victoria View Serena Hotel.
These enterprises have reclaimed about 300ha (17%) of the wetland. Horticultural farms are agro-
chemical intensive and most of these chemicals threaten the environment. Also, clearing vegetation
in this important wetland has impacts on the wetlands functions and services it provides to its
dependents.
Figure 1: Map of Lutembe Bay Ramsar Site showing boundaries of wetland
Developed by Wetlands Management Department with support Nature Uganda and IUCN, 2013
Legend: Boxes: Communities Ellipse A: Flower farms Ellipse B: Hotel
Aim of the Study

7. 2
This study aims to assess the potential effects of land reclamation and pollution on the total value of
ecosystem services provided by the Lutembe Bay Wetland to help decision makers make informed
decisions.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study were to identify;
1. The most relevant ecosystem services provided by Lutembe Bay Wetland
2. The total value of the services identified in objective 1. These are comprised of;
a. The ecological importance/value of the Lutembe Bay Wetland
b. The socio-cultural importance/value of the wetland
c. The economic Value of the Wetland
3. The implication of land reclamation and pollution in the wetland on the values identified in
objective 2
Methodology
Qualitative research methods together with valuation methods were used for this study.
Participatory rural appraisal tools (e.g. focus group discussion and community resource mapping)
were used to collect data in four different communities (Ddewe, Mutongo, Namulanda and
Bwerenga) surrounding the wetland. Observations, key informant interviews, and secondary
information were used to assess the ecological and socio-cultural importance of the wetland.
Valuation Methods such as direct market pricing, surrogate market pricing, and benefits transfer
techniques were used to estimate the economic value of the wetland.
Figure 2: Focus Group Discussions in all four Communities
Results
The study found that Lutembe Bay Wetland provides provisioning, habitat, regulating and cultural
services to local communities, the flower farm, and the hotel. The main benefits to local
communities are water, fish, agricultural produce, medicines and construction materials. The flower
farm benefits mostly from water for irrigational purposes. The hotel also benefits from the wetland’s

8. 3
cultural and habitat services. Other services provided by the wetland include pollution control,
regulation of hydrological regimes, recreation, spiritual and inspiration, climate regulation,
biodiversity, nutrient cycling, etc.
Figure 3: Livelihood support of Lutembe Bay Wetland
Ecological Importance/Value of Lutembe
The Lutembe Bay Wetland provides a range of ecological services to its dependents. These ecological
benefits are more of regulatory and supporting services and often represent the intangible
ecosystem services such as flood control, erosion control, nutrient cycling, habitat (biodiversity),
water supply and water table regulation, microclimate regulation (De Groot et al., 2006). Ecological
value is measured through indicators such as species diversity, integrity (health), rarity and resilience
as indicated in the table below. Lutembe has a high ecological importance. This is evident in
Lutembe’s high number of plant and animal species including several rare species such as globally-
threatened, regionally-threatened and biome-restricted birds. The wetland’s integrity and resilience
are however insufficient to counter the on-going wetland reclamation and pollution from agro-
chemical use. The wetland is considered fragile because of its high and unique biodiversity. Lastly,
the wetland’s designation as a Ramsar site and an important bird area indicates its high ecological
importance.

9. 4
Table 1: Ecological Value of Lutembe Wetland
Indicator Score
Rarity High
Diversity High
Integrity (health) Medium
Resilience Low
Socio-Cultural Importance/ Value of Lutembe
Lutembe Bay Wetland also has high socio-cultural importance. It clearly possesses aesthetic and
recreation values and is of high spiritual importance to local communities, who believe that some of
their gods and ancestors (‘jjaja’) reside in the sacred sites and in the wetland itself. The aesthetic
nature of the landscape is asserted to be one of the main reasons why some part of the wetland is
being reclaimed by Lake Victoria View Serena Hotel. The wetland boasts of migratory birds and as
such is an important IBA. Although infrastructure is not currently up to the standards, birdwatchers
still visit the place during season.
The wetland hosts some flora and fauna which people relate to as totems. There are sacred sites and
shrines in both Ddewe and Bwerenga communities where traditional healing is practiced as well as
sacrifices and rituals made to honour the gods of the hunt, lake, hills, and lightening (Dungu,
Mukasa, Lubowa and Kiwanuka respectively). The existence value of Lutembe was also very high and
was assessed, based on the wetland’s designation as a Ramsar site and also using protest reports of
local communities against the expansion of the flower farm. The existence value was also assessed
based on the current lawsuit by a group of civil society organizations (NAPE, Greenwatch and
ANERDA) and the local government (Wakiso District) against the National Environment Management
Authority and Rosebud Company Limited.
Economic Value of Lutembe
The total economic value of Lutembe was estimated to be around US$ 31 million annually. Of this,
US$19 million is contributed annually by provisioning services such as food from cultivation, water,
fish, and construction materials. Cultural services contributed an estimated US$ 4 million annually
while regulatory and habitat services contributed US$ 7 million and US$ 0.7 million respectively per
year. Local communities benefit the most from the wetland with an annual estimated gain of about
US$ 15 million. Rosebud farm benefits from ecosystem services estimated to be worth US$ 12
million annually. The hotel has annual benefits estimated at US$ 4 million. The distribution of
benefits is as indicated in the figure below;

10. 5
Figure 4: Benefits of Lutembe Bay Wetland to Primary Stakeholders (x$1Million)
Impacts of Land Reclamation and Pollution
The potential environmental impacts of flower farms are not properly documented in Uganda
although information linking land degradation to extensive use of agro-chemicals exists (EACL,
2003). This kind of information is usually obtained from local communities that have no choice but
to cope with the impacts of increasing levels of pollution and habitat loss. The extensive use of agro-
chemicals (i.e. fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, and herbicides) in floriculture ensures good quality
products but also makes the floriculture industry one of the most polluting forms of agriculture
(EACL, 2003).
Land reclamation and pollution has negative effects on for example water quality, agriculture, and
beneficial insects (bees and butterflies) and also on the wetland’s habitat services. The impacts (for
this study) were assumed to be proportional to the land area reclaimed and thus 17% of the major
ecosystem services were deemed affected. The agro-chemicals used in horticulture and their
environmental impacts were assessed using secondary data. Assessment of Rosebud’s
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) indicated traces of some of these agrochemicals were found
the open waters of the wetland and also in the “borehole-waters” on Rosebud’s premises. The
environmentally unfriendly nature of these agrochemicals coupled with its leaching ability poses
severe threats to aquatic organisms, birds, soils, and insects. Environmental components such as
plants, animals, water quality, air and climate, soils and geology, and landscape are also affected by
both the flower farm and the hotel’s activities. The main services affected Provisioning (water
quality and access, fish food, medicines), Habitat (biodiversity, spawning areas, nutrient cycling),
Regulatory (flood prevention, pollution control, water recharge, microclimate regulation), and socio-
cultural (aesthetics) services.
Economic Cost of Land Reclamation and Pollution
The economic cost of land reclamation and pollution was estimated to be about US$ 5 million per
year. The cost to provisioning services was estimated to be US$ 4.4 million per year from pollution of
water, spawning areas, and fish loss. The rest relates to reduced habitat, regulating and cultural
services. Over 90% of the total costs is borne by local communities and represents about 30% loss of
$-
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
$12
$14
$16
Flower farm Hotel Local Communities
Value
Beneficiaries

11. 6
their benefits. The flower farm however loses less than 1% of its benefits as a result of land
reclamation and pollution.
Winners and Losers
Although local communities are the biggest winners, the assessment of impacts indicates that they
are going to be affected the most if land reclamation and pollution is left unchecked. Habitat
services are the backbone of other services and as such should they be destroyed, the wetland loses
its capacity to provide the services it has long been providing for free. It is interesting to note that
the flower farm benefits mainly from water use and is not anticipated to lose much of its benefits if
the water is polluted by the same agro-chemicals it uses.
Further analysis of cost of (potential) damage to the wetland resulting from reclamation and
pollution showed that the three main beneficiaries could lose up to about US$ 5 million per year and
could increase as pollution and land reclamation continues. Of this estimated costs, about 93% (US$
4.4 million) was estimated to be loss to local communities whiles the flower farm and the hotel loses
about 0.3% and 7% respectively all representing less than a US$ 1,000 loss.
Table 2: Winners and Losers of Wetland Reclamation and Pollution (x$1000)
User Group Benefits Loses Net Percentage Gained Percentage Lost
Flower Farm $ 12,000 $ 30 $ 11,970 38.71 0.3
Hotel $ 4,000 $ 270 $ 3,730 12.90 6.8
Local Communities $ 15,000 $ 4,700 $ 10,300 48.39 31.3
Total $ 31,000 $ 5,000 $ 26,000 100.00 38.3
Conclusion
The results of this study show the relationship between wetlands and user groups. It also shows the
ecological and socio-cultural importance as well as the economic value of wetlands to these end-
users. This study has shown that Lutembe Bay Wetland provides ecosystem services that are
beneficial to various user groups’ primarily local communities, the flower farm and the hotel. The
most relevant and tangible ecosystem services provided by Lutembe are provisioning services. The
provisioning services (water, fish, construction material, etc.) support the livelihoods of about 3,000
households (a population of about 12,000). These people also benefit from the other ecosystem
service components (habitat, regulatory and cultural services). The flower farm benefits mainly from
water availability whiles the hotel is anticipated to benefit from the habitat services (mainly birds for
tourism), aesthetic value and location of the wetland.
This study has been able to identify the main ecosystem services that Lutembe Bay Wetland
provides to its dependents. It has attempted to estimate the ecological and socio-cultural
importance as well as the economic value of the wetland. Putting a price on the benefits obtained
from wetlands (as done in this study) like Lutembe is one of the mechanisms to make ecological
problems visible to decision makers. The study also shows the connection of social actors and other
stakeholders to environmental goods and services, who benefits from the wetland, who losses from
pollution and destruction.

12. 7
Lastly, this study has also attempted to identify which ecosystem services are affected by land
reclamation and pollution, and provided estimates of the costs of the negative impacts on the
wetlands. Estimates of this nature show not only the total benefits but also the loss resulting from
human pressures. The difference therefore provides basis for wetland users, interested parties, and
decision makers to analyse and make informed judgements regarding wetland use and
management.
Recommendations
This study has shown that that Lutembe ecosystem provides the basic needs of local communities
(about 3,500 households) surrounding it. As such implementation of local and national laws and
regulations should be consciously geared towards improving the integrity of Lutembe. It is
recommended that since there are multiple beneficiaries, these actors are to be involved in planning
and implementation efforts to protect the wetland. This ensures sustainable use of the wetland
resources and protection of its ecological integrity and also ensures the continuous supply of
provisioning services. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) such as NAPE, ANARDE, AFIEGO, and
Greenwatch should facilitate such multi-stakeholder (government, private investors, local
communities, etc.) engagement processes to discuss and address conflicts arising from different
interests.
Local communities and private investors should be empowered with information on their rights,
limits, and responsibilities regarding the use of the wetland. Capacity building activities should be
undertaken by CSOs and Uganda Wildlife Education Centre (UWEC) for local communities to put the
latter in a position to stand up for themselves, advocate for their lawful interests, and protect the
wetland.
Collaboratively, both primary and secondary stakeholders can work to ensure wise-use of the
wetland. This can be done through information sharing. CSOs, Wetland Management Department
(WMD), Wakiso district and UWEC are therefore recommended to strengthen their relationship with
local communities to improve information sharing. This stems from the fact that CSOs were not
aware of land reclamation activities by Lake Victoria View Serena Hotel in Mutongo. CSOs and lead
agencies could work with local communities and the latter could be the ‘eyes and ears’ of these
institutions. CSOs and UWEC are to encourage local communities to report irregularities to them
and/or government officials in charge of managing the wetland. One way to achieve this feat is to
equip local community groups with training and with devices such as cameras and phones that
enable local community reporting.
It is acknowledged that flower farms and hotels bring in foreign exchange to the national economy
but care must be taken so as to make the appropriate trade-offs. Converting Lutembe into
horticultural farm and recreational area may bring financial returns but also destroys the ecological
integrity of the wetland through habitat destruction, water pollution, etc. It is evident that
maximizing the production of one ecosystem service often leads to substantial decline in the
provision of other ecosystem services as evidenced in this study and other studies (Gordon et al.,
2008). Benefits of such trade-offs accrue to some few privileged individuals whereas the costs is
borne by the majority of local communities who are already poor. The relationship between
ecosystem services should be studied and understood to assist decision making. Also, ethical
considerations of winners and losers should be made if possible before such conversions are
approved.

13. 8
Lutembe Bay Wetland is a Ramsar site that hosts rare, threatened and endemic species. Although
economic valuation depicts the benefits to primary stakeholders, it is recommended that
environmental valuation (ecological and socio-cultural importance) be taken into account in making
trade-offs. This is because economic or financial valuation is not the panacea rather a contributing
source of information (Barbier et al., 1997). Also the cost of loss of rare and endangered species are
much higher than for example reclaiming wetlands for recreational purposes (Lambert, 2003). Since
developmental projects do not exist in isolation but transcends ecological and socio-cultural
boundaries, its appraisal should factor these social and environmental costs. Projects should merit
approval if only it puts in place measures to minimize environmental and social costs.
In the instance where the flower farm is allowed by governmental agencies to operate, it is
expedient that the WMD ensures that appropriate measures are taken in disposing of effluents.
These measures could include, regular monitoring of waste and agro-chemical handling and disposal,
installation of a functional treatment plant, restoration of degraded areas and collaborative
management of the wetland. Samples of soil and water from the wetland should be monitored by
the WMD to ensure that pollution from agro-chemical use is controlled within acceptable limits.
Also, government authorities and civil society groups should monitor that the buffer zone of the
wetland is not breached by users. Where the buffer is degraded, the WMD should use their mandate
to sanction culprits to restore the degraded areas. It is also recommended that an investigation be
made into the wetland acquisition process of Lake Victoria View Serena Hotel. The hotel should be
fined for damages or asked to rehabilitate the degraded wetland on condition that they are illegally
occupying a Ramsar site. The investigation should also seek to expose governmental agencies or
influential people who facilitated the granting of permits for the hotel. Such culprits are then to be
subjected to the law.
Lutembe wetland is a public good and therefore individuals’ consumption of goods and services are
not supposed to adversely affect other users. Clear property rights should be awarded to the
primary stakeholders. This minimises conflicts and also make right-holders liable to compensation,
rehabilitation, or punishment when they pollute or discomfort other users.
References
Barbier, E. B., Acreman, M., & Knowler, D. (1997). Economic valuation of wetlands: a guide for policy
makers and planners, Gland, Switzerland.
De Groot, R., Stuip, M., Finlayson, M., & Davidson, N. (2006). Valuing wetlands: guidance for valuing
the benefits derived from wetland ecosystem services: International Water Management
Institute.
EACL. (2003). Environmental Impact Assessment for Rosebud Limited. Kampala: Environmental
Assessment Consult Limited (EACL).
Gordon, L. J., Peterson, G. D., & Bennett, E. M. (2008). Agricultural modifications of hydrological
flows create ecological surprises. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 23(4), 211-219.
Lambert, A. (2003). Economic valuation of wetlands: an important component of wetland
management strategies at the river basin scale. Conservation Finance Guide, Washington.
Mitsch, W. J., & Gosselink, J. G. (2000). The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape
setting. Ecological Economics, 35(1), 25-33.
Silvius, M., Oneka, M., & Verhagen, A. (2000). Wetlands: lifeline for people at the edge. Physics and
Chemistry of the Earth, Part B: Hydrology, Oceans and Atmosphere, 25(7), 645-652.

14. 9

15. 10

16. 11