 |
Lawyers' Environmental Action Team (LEAT) leat@mediapost.co.tz |
|
...and Legislative Foot-draggingA closer scrutiny would reveal, however, that the official rhetoric on the need for incorporating EIA into law has not been matched by concrete deeds. Legislative developments reveal a rather disturbing continuity with the past practice which has been characterized by sectoralism in environmental and natural resource management despite the deafening rhetoric about the need for cross-sectoral, multidisciplinary approaches in that respect. The Government has also so far resisted enacting a comprehensive framework environmental legislation despite policy promises (op. cit., para. 70) and repeated calls in publicist literature and the submission of two draft proposals in the early1. It is, however, in relation to foreign investment that the continuity in past policies is even more striking and disturbing. As I have shown, there was no obligation on investors to mitigate the negative impacts of their ventures on the environment under the 1990 legislation. That legislation was repealed and replaced by the National Investment Act, 19972, which was enacted - according to its preamble - "to provide for more favourable conditions for investors...." This it has done admirably, as it gives investors extraordinarily generous incentives in the form of tax reliefs and concessional tax rates (op. cit., §19, 20)3 ; and guarantees and protections in the form of unconditional transfer of capital, profits, etc. and guarantees against expropriation, nationalization or compulsory acquisition (op. cit., §21, 22). Investors are even entitled to an initial automatic immigration quota of up to five persons during the start up period which quota may be raised under certain circumstances (op. cit., §24(1)(2). In addition to these generous incentives, the Government also seems to have resisted calls to subject foreign investors to any standards of responsible environmental behaviour by not making any mandatory or voluntary EIA requirements in all investment projects, foreign or local. In fact, under this law, there is absolutely no mention of the word 'environment' anywhere and no environmental obligations whatsoever are imposed upon investors. A recent study commissioned by the Vice President's Office (VPO) had this to say as regards the Act: "The fact that the Tanzania Investment Act imposes no specific requirements for investors to comply with any environmental conditions would appear to be a significant step backwards, as the original Bill for the Act which was submitted to Parliament (in 1997) had a provision requiring the TIC to "liaise with appropriate bodies or agencies to ensure that investment projects use environmentally viable technology to restore, preserve and protect the environment."4 This provision was deleted in the final version of the Bill which was enacted into law. It was an important provision that could have ensured that the TIC vets, at the application stage, investors who are out to maximize short-term profits at the expense of the environment. That it was removed from the final Bill suggests that the various political statements and "pledges" about the Government's strong commitment to environmental issues is (sic!) empty rhetoric which cannot stand up to rigorous scrutiny" (LEAT, 1999: 23).
This is in sharp contrast with the considerable lengths taken to attract these new economic 'messiahs' as shown above; as well as by the fact that such mundane and elementary matters as incorporation and registration of companies, filling in of VAT, investment registration and immigration forms and the obtaining of necessary approvals, licenses, facilities or services will be done or 'facilitated' for them by the Tanzania Investment Centre! (op. cit., §18(1). They need not even apply for their own immigration permits as this will be done on their behalf by the TIC!5
|