Constitutional environmental protection in Tanzania

INTRODUCTION

The Constitution of the United Republic of Tanzania have included in it the bill of rights. It is now arguable that one of the important rights that should be protected is the right to a healthy environment, which is not yet clearly included in many constitutions. The environmental law does not only provide for the rights to a healthy environment, it also provides for the protection of the whole ecological system which includes flora, fauna and other micro organism which are also rarely included in the constitutions. The Constitution of Uganda have included in it some provisions that protects the environment. On the side of Tanzania, in the case of Festo Belegele and 729 other vs Dar es City council[1], the judges argued that there are certain provisions in the constitution that provided for the environmental rights.

THE ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION IN THE TANZANIAN CONSTITUTION

In the case the judges where on the opinion that, since the constitution provided that ''Every person has the right to live and to the protection of his life by the society in accordance with the law'', and therefore this also included to the right to a healthy environment which supports any human being's life. Despite that the provision is not clear as to the direct protection of the environment, also the protection of the environment does not only involve the protection of people's environment.

In example the Ugandan constitution has not only provided separately the right to life  and the right to a clean and healthy environment, it has also obligated the state to provide development in a sustainable manner in managing land, air and water resources for the present and future generations. Together with those the Ugandan Constitution has also provided many other provision that protects strongly the environment.

Different from the Tanzanian constitution the Ugandan Constitution has also provided expressly for the protection the natural resources; water bodies, flora minerals, oil, flora, fauna, etc. The constitution has provided for their protection in the part of state objective, which is binding and enforceable as any other provision in the constitution. Through this the rights to and duties towards protecting the environment here specifically the natural resources have been clearly stipulated, quite different from the Tanzanian constitution.

The Tanzanian constitution have not addressed upon the right of workers towards working in a healthy environment. This can led to contradicting interpretation by the courts unlike having a clear provision like in the Ugandan constitution. The Ugandan constitution have obligated the parliament to enact law that provide for the right of persons to work under satisfactory, safe and healthy conditions. This creates a greater opportunity of Ugandans enforcing right to healthy environment even in employment areas than Tanzanians.

Though mining activities having greater chances to environmental pollution the Tanzanian constitution have not provide for clear guiding provisions towards mining activities like the Ugandan constitution.

The Ugandan constitution have provided that, all sort of minerals exploitation should be done considering the interests of the individual land owners, local governments and the Government. This creates a good frame work of laws to be enacted by the parliament of Uganda different from the case in Tanzania where the parliament is not such bound by any provision in the constitution which can led to enactment of bad law which regulates mining activities.

The Tanzanian constitution have also not included in it provisions that guarantee the protection of the Tanzanian culture and heritage which may protect the antiquities, monuments, historical sites and other cultural aspects involving the traditional languages and the national language.

The constitution of Uganda on its hand have provided for every person a  right to enjoy, maintain and promote any culture, cultural institution, language and tradition in community. It has also obligated the state to preserve cultural values and practices and it has encourage the development, preservation of all Ugandan languages including the national language and its heritage. If these provisions where in the Tanzania constitution, lawyers and other organizations with advocate for the protection of Tanzanian culture would have an easier way to do so.

In Tanzania the constitution have been silent in the promotion and preservation of recreation areas, something which is important for having a ''healthy environment''. The Ugandan Constitution have also obligated the state to develop parks national reserves, recreation areas, ensure the conservation of natural resources and promote the rational use of natural resources in safeguarding and protecting the biodiversity[2]. Recreation areas are useful and recommended by doctors in reducing stress and any psychological problems which may hinder ''a right to life''.

Some have argued more that the provision in article 26, 27 and 28 in the Tanzanian constitution also speaks of environmental rights. But something that can be noted in the provisions is, firstly the are more of duties than rights and secondly they are duties to the citizen and not the government, where if they were duties to the government, they could be in some way or the other, rights which the citizen could demand from the state.

CONCLUSION

In coming to a conclusion, it can be argued that the constitution of United Republic of Tanzania have less spoken and therefore less protected the environment especially when comparing it with other constitutions like of the Republic of Uganda. This can have several effects even though there may be other substantive laws. The substantive laws may be badly enacted or wrongly amended and cause several injustice to environmental rights without having any remedies from the constitution. Hence it is necessary to include environmental rights the next constitution.