While the Ugandan government continues to advocate for the resettlement of people living in landslide-prone areas, its actions tell a different story.
President Museveni recently cautioned against settling in areas with gradients above 30 degrees. However, government investments in these very locations contradict his warnings.
The extension of essential services such as schools, health facilities, and water infrastructure to these high-risk areas inadvertently encourages permanent settlement.
Although the intention behind these investments might be to serve the populace, they act as a "pull factor," prompting people to remain in these dangerous zones.
One of the most notable projects is the Bududa-Nabweya Gravity Flow Scheme, where the government invested over Shs20 billion to serve the community atop Nabweya Hill.
Several sub-counties earmarked as landslide red zones, including Bufuma, Mabono, Bukalasi, and Bundesi, continue to host schools and health facilities, reinforcing settlement.
During the district budget conference, implementing partners pledged to extend services to such areas despite the evident risks.
Over the years, government facilities in landslide-prone areas have repeatedly fallen victim to natural disasters, highlighting the risks of continued settlement and the contradictions in disaster management policies.
In 2023, a landslide partially destroyed Masugu Primary School, which had been serving the local community in Bulambuli District.
This was followed by a more devastating landslide in December 2024, which buried an entire community in the same area.
In 2010, a massive landslide buried Nametsi Health Centre III in Bududa District, killing staff, patients, and pupils who had sought refuge in the facility.
Despite this tragedy, settlements in Nametsi have continued to grow, with leaders pushing for the reconstruction of services in the area.
Bududa District Chairperson Milton Kamooti acknowledged that while some high-risk schools were closed by the government, local communities have reopened them as informal schools.
"By not providing essential services, the government is denying children access to education and mothers access to healthcare," he remarked.
He further noted that high-risk areas remain attractive for resettlement, explaining why some relocated families have returned.
Speaking at the Bubita Sub-county offices last year, MP Isaac Modoi urged the Prime Minister to extend services to places like Nametsi, arguing that people still live there despite past landslides.
This contradiction not only undermines the government's commitment to resettlement but also violates provisions in the National Environment Act and the Hilly and Mountainous Area Management Regulations, 2000.
In an interview with the Nile Post, the Permanent Secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM), Alex Kakooza, said, “It’s not right. We cannot be moving people and at the same time building infrastructure.”
Kakooza pledged to follow up and ensure that no ongoing government infrastructure projects exist in areas earmarked as extremely prone to landslides.
Bududa Resident District Commissioner (RDC) Elijah Madoi acknowledged the policy gap, emphasizing that the government must reassess its approach to building infrastructure in high-risk areas.
"We may not have seen the challenge before, but now we recognize the risks. There are places with hospitals that show signs of disaster vulnerability," he stated.
Experts, including Makerere University environmental researcher Dr. Isaac K. Omolo, have highlighted these contradictions in their research.
In the study Landslide Risk Management in Uganda: A Multi-level Policy Approach, Omolo and colleagues point out that “politicians often prioritize short-term votes over long-term safety, which results in misguided infrastructure development in high-risk zones.”
He suggests a more balanced approach, combining risk-informed urban planning and community-based environmental education.
Similarly, in their research paper Environmental Disaster Governance in Uganda, Dr Mary Nambuya, Dr Julius Katuramu, and Dr George Okot discuss how political influence and short-term decision-making have hindered the effective implementation of disaster policies.
The authors argue that land-use planning must be better integrated with environmental considerations to prevent disaster risks.
They also stress that the lack of a unified disaster risk management policy and weak enforcement mechanisms contribute to the persistence of settlements in vulnerable zones.
Experts from the Uganda National Disaster Risk Reduction Platform and the Uganda Meteorological Authority emphasize the need for stricter land-use regulations.
Without firm action, Uganda’s landslide-prone areas will remain a stage for disaster, with relocation efforts reduced to mere political theater—until the next tragedy strikes.