Obtain investment permit, and solve environmental problems

Such calls are a reminder of the often intense differences between central government agencies wishing to propel investments everywhere in the country and local authorities particularly when it concerns land ownership and use.

When such land is disposed of there is an earning pattern that goes around and when this isn’t met it becomes a let-down.

In other words, this insistence on involvement of district officials is to invite a veto on investments at the district level.

Since that appeal centres on the need to avoid environmental drawbacks, it needs to be met fast. District officials will be involved in facilitation of the project, with the starting point of implementation being to solve environmental problems noticed on the ground.

That would be worlds different from withholding a certificate, as the issue of a permit is merely willingness to stamp some papers and often reluctance is tied to extortions or bribes.

Indeed, it isn’t vital that district officials stand as the reference point as to environmental problems which may exist and act as liaison officers and supervisory authority on clearing such snags wherever they are noticed.

That stage of project implementation doesn’t need a permit but simply inspection, as there are laws about obstruction of regulatory demands in the course of investment.

Investors don’t slap the law in the face and will readily pay for work to be done to solve the problems, not just pay the district for the work to be done. This wish on the part of districts is an impediment targeting some gain.

What can be done in relation to investment projects in peri-urban areas can also be applied to urban infrastructure, where people with businesses in particular areas can help with improving roads by having usable drainage canals on road edges.

But municipal councils don’t want them to hire work teams to build side-roads and insist on providing the cash involved to the municipality, which sends a cold shiver down the spines of investors.

As a result, the roads are in poor shape but neighbours are rich, often owing to the fact that recalcitrant municipal authorities wish to make a quick buck from each road improvement project decided.

This is yet another area of reform whose time may have come – so that national authorities handle large-scale infrastructure projects and inner city roads are contracted to individuals.

These individuals maintain drainage and other systems and get periodic payments for that from the councils which, much like those investors, can raise bonds for the purpose, aside from regular revenues.

Roads are maintained and investors are paid but, when municipalities do it, roads may remain in pathetic state until the government is pushed to issue fat cheques. It would pay to look well deep into these muddy waters.