CARE International in Uganda
Governance Context Analysis of FOREST
Programme
Validation Workshop
4-6 March 2013
1
Contents
1.0
Introduction................................................................................................................................ 4
2.0
The FOREST Programme ...................................................................................................... 4
2.1
Programme Intervention Logic ........................................................................................... 5
2.2
Salient features of the FOREST Programme................................................................... 5
An Introduction to CARE’S Governance Context Analysis Guidance Note .................... 6
3.0
3.1
Elements to consider when conducting a governance assessment............................. 6
3.2
Key issues to consider when analyzing institutions, spaces and actors ..................... 6
3.3
Linkages to the Governance Programme Framework (GPF) ........................................ 7
4.0 Governance Context Analysis of the FOREST Programme ................................................... 8
4.1
Governance Issues in the Forestry Sector ....................................................................... 8
4.1.1
Immediate and underlying causes of the degradation of forest resources in
Uganda 8
4.2
Formal Institutions ................................................................................................................ 9
4.2.1
4.3
Informal Institutions ............................................................................................................ 10
4.3.1
4.4.
Information gaps on Formal institutions .................................................................. 10
Information gaps on Informal Institutions ................................................................ 11
Governance Spaces .......................................................................................................... 11
4.4.1
Invited/ Formal Spaces .............................................................................................. 11
4.4.2
Claimed Spaces ......................................................................................................... 11
4.4.3
Information gaps on Governance Spaces .............................................................. 12
4.5.
Stakeholders ....................................................................................................................... 12
4.5.1
Stakeholders in the Public Arena ............................................................................. 12
4.5.2
Civil Society bodies and International Organisations ........................................... 12
4.5.3
Information gaps on Stakeholders ........................................................................... 13
5.0
5.1
Supplementary Information from Group Work ................................................................... 13
Formal institutions most relevant to the programme..................................................... 13
2
5.2
Informal Institutions ............................................................................................................ 14
5.3
Governance Spaces for the FOREST Programme ....................................................... 14
5.4
Key Stakeholders for the Forest Programme ................................................................ 15
6.0
Feedback on Governance Context Analysis Tool ............................................................. 20
7.0
Conclusion and Next Steps .................................................................................................. 21
Annexes ................................................................................................................................................. 22
Annex 1 Workshop – Programme .................................................................................................... 23
Annex 2 List of Participants .............................................................................................................. 25
Annex 3 Institutions .......................................................................................................................... 26
Annex 4 Governance Spaces ............................................................................................................. 27
3
1.0
Introduction
CARE International in Uganda (CIU) with support from CUK recently conducted a 2 day workshop (4 - 6
March 2013) in Kampala to review its Forest Resources Sector Transparency (FOREST) Programme
Document. The workshop that was attended by CIU staff and its partners under the new FOREST
programme had two main objectives:
1. To further improve the quality of the governance context analysis and programme design of
the final draft of the FOREST programme document; and
2. To test the appropriateness and usefulness of the CIU Governance Context Analysis
Guidance Note in the above process.
The workshop included presentations on the FOREST Programme Design; CARE’s Governance Context
Analysis Tool; Governance Context of the Forestry Sector and key elements of the governance
components in this sector. The participatory approach adopted provided the workshop participants the
opportunity to review and discuss the proposed programme design taking into account the governance
issues affecting the Forestry Sector in Uganda. The participants were specifically tasked with checking
the accurateness, comprehensiveness and consistency of the design document using the CIUK analytical
framework.
While the workshop generated a lot of supplementary information, it is envisaged that further actions will
be required by both CIU and its implementing partners to fill knowledge gaps on governance issues in the
Forestry sector and identify additional opportunities for leverage. It was also agreed that due to time
constraints and the limitations of a workshop setting, the partners would within their organisations,
undertake a more in-depth analysis of the institutions, spaces and actors relevant to their specific
interventions in order to facilitate a more targeted approach.
2.0
The FOREST Programme1
The FOREST Programme will be implemented by CIU in partnership with a few national CSOs. At
present, PANOS, ACODE, ACCU, EA, UOBDU and JESE have been asked to submit their project
proposals. The 5 year programme (2013-2017) will be supported by CARE Danmark with resources from
DANIDA’s NGO framework funding.
Building upon CIU’s previous interventions, the FOREST programme will support civil society and the
media to influence further changes in the governance and management of the forestry sector. The
overall objective for the programme will be to increase transparency, accountability and responsiveness
in forest governance for the benefit of poor Ugandan citizens. The FOREST programme will therefore
support civil society organisations (CSOs) and the media to:
• empower poor natural resource dependant citizens to participate in forest governance;
• monitor implementation of forest policies and laws; and
• advocate for fair and appropriate forest laws and regulations at the national and global
level.
1
1
See “Forest Resources Sector Transparency in Uganda – Programme Document – Final Draft, 20/12/12”
4
In order to do this effectively, CSOs must improve their own legitimacy, accountability and transparency.
CSOs must also strengthen their internal coordination mechanisms and collaboration with other
stakeholders, and be prepared to link their efforts to national and international initiatives focusing on the
improvement of forest governance.
2.1
Programme Intervention Logic
Below is a summary of the programme design - the proposed strategies and expected outcomes.
Theory of Change: If CARE supports strategic CS partners interested in forest governance, if these
partners plan, coordinate and build key technical capacities, if the partners work to strengthen their
capacities to represent and empower interest groups…. Then CSOs will increase their legitimacy and
ability to effectively represent the interests of poor forest dependant citizens, then CSOs will have a
credible legitimate and strong voice in collaboration and coordination with other key stakeholders, then
CSO will effectively monitor corruption which will lead to appropriate forestry laws and regulations being
developed and implemented and poor and vulnerable citizens participating and benefiting from good
governance in the forestry sector.
2.2
Salient features of the FOREST Programme

Building synergies between partner initiatives.

Increased learning vertically and horizontally.

Networking and collaboration.

Strong focus on learning, reflection and sharing beyond the borders of Uganda.

Strengthening complementary measures aimed at fostering transparency and/or increasing citizens’
awareness.
5
3.0
An Introduction to CARE’S Governance Context Analysis Guidance Note
Governance is steadily gaining ground in CARE’s work, having been identified as an underlying cause of
poverty and social injustice; a core element of development; and a key component therefore of CARE’s
theories of change (TOC). To this effect, CARE has recently developed a Governance Context Analysis
Guidance note to supplement its Governance Programming Framework (GPF), in order to support a more
systematic assessment and integration of governance issues in its programming.
It is believed that a sound governance analysis at country and/or programme level will increase the
opportunities to design strategies and programmes that effectively address barriers and deliver
sustainable change in the diverse contexts in which CARE operates. In addition to traditional situational
analyses, CARE is now encouraging its country offices (COs) to undertake political economy (PE)
analyses. This will enable COs gain a nuanced understanding of the political factors i.e. the power
dynamics, underlying interests, incentives and institutions that promote or undermine change within
specific sectors. PE analyses reduce reliance on technical fixes and the risk therefore of establishing
programmes that are neither effective nor strategic.
3.1
Elements to consider when conducting a governance assessment
CARE’s governance context analytical framework will support a closer examination of the institutions,
actors and practices that regulate specific sectors and identification of factors that influence performance.
The framework includes an analysis of:
1.
Institutions: to examine the “rules of the game”; and to understand the enabling (or disabling)
environment i.e. the factors that may favor or affect the implementation of formal rules. The
analysis should include both formal institutions2 and informal institutions3.
2.
Governance Spaces: to examine the opportunities for interaction and participation of different
actors in “invited” and “claimed” spaces.
3.
Stakeholders/ key actors: to obtain an appreciation of the different types of actors, power
dynamics and differing incentives and constraints that may promote or undermine change/
reforms.
3.2
Key issues to consider when analyzing institutions, spaces and actors
 There is frequently tension between formal and informal rules.
 Informal rules normally regulate how things happen, particularly where governance
structures are weak.
 Institutional reforms succeed only when key actors have an incentive to make them succeed.
 When their interests are threatened, some actors will frustrate and undermine reform.
2
3
Institutions are not buildings or organisations but the legal and regulatory framework i.e. laws & policies
Informal institutions refer to defacto practices, social norms & traditions, kinship structures, patronage systems
6
3.3
Linkages to the Governance Programme Framework (GPF)
The GPF indicates the domains of change which CARE believes are required to achieve equitable and
sustainable development. It is expected therefore that the governance components of any CARE
programme should aim to achieve the changes represented in the GPF Pyramid below. The GPF needs
to be used in conjunction with a thorough analysis of the governance context (using the Governance
Context Analysis Guidance note). The latter should include a) understanding the formal and informal
structures and norms that govern how power is exercised; b) considerations of the most effective and
legitimate ways of engaging with the context; and c) an assessment of the risks involved in intervening.
Points to remember when applying the GPF Pyramid
 The GPF pyramid is not exclusive but provides a framework of possible areas of intervention
for programmes addressing Governance issues.
 The GPF describes the changes aimed for, but not how these changes will be achieved.
 Depending on the context, the domains are likely to be overlapping, interdependent and
dynamic.
 Change needs to take place and be sustained in all three domains to achieve impact.
 Horizontal and vertical linkages i.e. how domains operate at local, national and global level
are equally important.
 Social groups are heterogenous – different actors have differential power and interests.
 Any challenge to the prevailing patterns of governance is likely to trigger resistance by
those with something to lose.
7
4.0 Governance Context Analysis of the FOREST Programme
The presentation of the desk review of the FOREST programme document was preceded by a short
summary of the operating governance environment at the macro-level4. The objective of this analysis was
to increase participants’ appreciation of the inherent complexity of the governance challenges by
illustrating the linkages between governance issues at the macro level and at the sector level. The
analysis sought to provide some insights on some of the systemic constraints, incentives and the vested
interests of multiple actors that have undermined the implementation of institutional reforms in different
sectors, the Forestry sector inclusive.
Like many emerging democracies, Uganda has made significant progress in improving its governance
systems, but there remains an evident dichotomy between the formal and informal institutions in Uganda.
The broader governance context in Uganda presents a complex hybrid of elements comprising of both
drivers and constraints for good governance. While considerable effort has gone into effecting
institutional reforms, articulating a development agenda and developing a constitutional framework that
espouses democratic principles, human rights and freedoms, accountability, rule of law and state-society
reciprocity; there are also indicators of the increasing centralisation of power, wide spread use of a
patronage system, shrinking of civic space and press freedoms; impunity and occasional disregard of the
rules.
Political economy analyses undertaken by different analysts 5 suggest that the overarching challenges for
governance in Uganda today largely stem from a neo-patrimonial state inherited from Uganda’s colonial
history. Post colonial governments have continuously struggled to balance the institutionalization of good
governance principles with competing interests of legitimacy and political survival. Political incentives
which have perpetuated the neo-patrimonial power structure and the fusion of public and private domains
in contemporary Uganda have generated governance deficits which from time to time extend and
influence the management of public institutions. Political considerations have for example contributed to
the weakening and subordination of formal institutions of governance to the interests of a very powerful
executive; the exclusion of divergent opinions; declining political and social accountability and
transparency from the political elite and public institutions respectively; non-compliance and weak law
enforcement; and subsequently, escalating corruption and inefficient delivery of social services. In the
Forestry sector for example, private interests have superseded public interests and the failure to
implement institutional reforms and the continued encroachment of forests is linked to the political and
economic goals of a powerful elite.
4.1
Governance Issues in the Forestry Sector
This section presents a summary of the findings of the desk review of the FOREST Programme Design
Document. The CIU governance context analysis tool was used to review the design document in order to
assess the breadth of its governance assessment and to identify any knowledge gaps. The review
established that the document was fairly thorough in its analysis of the governance issues affecting the
Forestry sector and had identified both the enablers and constraints for the implementation of reforms in
the sector, albeit with a few gaps.
4.1.1
Immediate and underlying causes of the degradation of forest resources in Uganda
The challenges being experienced in the Forestry sector are a consequence of the broader development
challenges facing the country. Rapid population growth, limited economic opportunities, wide spread
poverty and urbanization have generated a high demand for agricultural land, housing, fuel wood and
timber. Although the National Development Plan underscores the important role of the forestry sector to
4
The information was obtained from political economy (PE) analyses of the country.
African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) – Country Review Report 2009, Rubongoya.J 2007, NGO Forum Civil Society Report, 2006,
Afrobarometer 2009, UGMP report on governance trends (2004 - 2008).
5
8
the attainment of the country’s development goals, the policy emphasis on economic growth and foreign
investment has contributed to the conversion of forests into industrial land and thereby increasing threats
to biodiversity as well as the livelihoods of forest dependant communities. .
Even though many actors and factors have contributed to the problem, the inability to curb the
degradation of forests is attributed to gaps in stewardship and the manner in which forest resources are
managed. Forest governance in Uganda as elaborated below is characterized by a lack of transparency
and accountability, insufficient participation of key stakeholders in decision-making processes and poor
co-ordination of forest management agencies. These have contributed to the high levels of corruption in
the sector; illegal logging; illegal and unplanned forest conversion and conflicts over ownership and
access rights.
4.2
Formal Institutions
Funding: The analysis indicates that the sector mainly depends on donor support and funds from the
central government as well as revenues generated from fees. There however has been a decline in
budgetary allocations from 2.4% (2004/5) to 1.9% (2011/12) – an indicator of the declining prioritization of
the sector. Further budget shortfalls are expected due to the withdrawal of some major donors on account
of the failure to implement reforms and gross misappropriation of funds. Furthermore, funding does not
correspond with the decentralized roles and responsibilities and local governments are as a result hardly
receiving any funding.
Legal and Regulatory framework: There is a legal and policy framework in place to guide the
sustainable management of forest resources in Uganda and includes: i) the key legislation and national
policies that have been introduced by the Government of Uganda (GoU) on forests, wetlands, wildlife,
land, oil & gas ii) international instruments on environmental protection that have been ratified by GoU;
and iii) constitutional provisions supporting citizen rights and participation in forest governance (see
annex 2).
Policy Implementation: Unfortunately, the anticipated outcomes have not been realised as evident by
the poor implementation of policy reforms and enforcement of forestry laws. Key obstacles identified
include both capacity and political economy issues:

inadequate financing (particularly at the local government level) to support the effective
administration of forests as well as poor financial management

weak technical capacities including insufficient data/ knowledge of forest boundaries and poor
information management systems within the sector; and hence and inability of forest
management agencies to administer and monitor forest tenure and resources

overlapping roles and poor co-ordination between the various agencies mandated to manage
forest resources

lack of clarity and consistency within and between laws in related sectors (forestry, agriculture
and energy) – not always advancing common objectives

flaws within the policy framework with some of the laws being described as unrealistic and
unenforceable

the narrow interests of private individuals and high level corruption perpetuated by some actors
(politicians, bureaucrats/ resource managers/ forest authorities and local leaders) with vested
political and economic interests
9

slow translation of policy into action particularly in relation to those provisions aimed at
strengthening accountability mechanisms and protecting the rights of forest dependant
communities i.e. collaborative forest governance arrangements.
Corruption and rent seeking: Circumventing of formal rules has created an environment for both grand
corruption and rent seeking in the forest sector. The different types of corruption cited include: undue
influence from the political elite, administrative corruption, procurement for kick-backs and
misappropriation of funds and revenue. Corruption is most prevalent in issuance of logging permits,
valuation of timber, collection of revenue from timber sales and conversion / de-gazetting of forest
reserves and provision of illegal land titles.
Impact of corruption: The analysis shows that corruption in the forest sector has led to huge economic
losses. Illegal logging and timber trade is costing government huge revenue/tax losses; affecting
provision of social services; affecting livelihoods of resource adjacent communities; and is likely to lead to
negative long term economic impacts caused by environmental degradation and climate change.
4.2.1
Information gaps on Formal institutions

Level of Public support for reforms: What impact if any, has the poor implementation of
reforms had on current expectations of stakeholders? This is important for establishing
potential public support for programme interventions in view of previous experiences.

Extent of regulatory proliferation: While the overlapping jurisdictions have been identified as
a key challenge for the proper co-ordination and enforcement of forestry laws, the analysis
does not show where the mis-alignment lies and which areas therefore require reform.

Feasibility of existing laws: The analysis contends that some parts of the existing legislation
are not realistic and/or are inconsistent with other laws/policies; but has not specified the
problematic provisions that need to be amended or eliminated. Those rules and regulations in
need of reform should be identified.

Challenges in effecting sanctions: Although the document extensively discusses corruption in
the forest sector, there is no mention of any sector specific anti-corruption measures/
sanctions that have been put in place, and if in existence, why they have failed. What is the
level of influence of private/ foreign investors on the forestry sector?

Funding: Where and how are decisions over funding made?
4.3
Informal Institutions
Informal institutions play a major role in determing whether specific interventions succeed or fail. The
analysis indicates that informal institutions and the following in particular have been instrumental in
undermining the formal governance mechanisms in the forestry sector.

Patrimonial ties, a system of patronage and a focus on the consolidation of political support are
negatively affecting the implementation of reforms in the forestry sector.

The unwritten but evident emphasis on production and investment in industry rather than
conservation is also greatly contributing to the continued destruction of forests.
10
4.3.1
Information gaps on Informal Institutions
Additional information is required on the following:

Informal rules preventing the implementation of relevant legislation have not been exhaustively
discussed. What other informal rules have shaped the conservation/ degradation of forests in
Uganda.

Identify structural issues that are preventing the formal rules from being implemented.

The analysis should also include good elements within the informal rules i.e. customs and
traditions that are supportive of the policy reforms in the forest sector.
4.4.
Governance Spaces
The analysis identifies insufficient public control over those managing the forest resources as a key
challenge for the implementation of reforms. Although there are provisions in the relevant legislation, little
has been done to operationalize opportunities for genuine participation by different stakeholders. There is
as a result an absence of strong downward accountability mechanisms in the Forestry sector.
4.4.1
Invited/ Formal Spaces
Existing Spaces: Existing governance spaces at the National and District levels include the National
Environment Management Authority, the National Forestry Authority, the District Forest Office and District
Councils. However these spaces are not readily accessible which has undermined civil society oversight.
due to among others, the lack of clarity on roles of the different bodies..
CSO Participation: Although there are provisions for CSO representation in the NEMA and NFA Boards,
participation in governance spaces appears to be constrained by the institutional set-up. According to the
analysis, the spreading of responsibilities across various agencies has contributed to some confusion and
lack of clarity over the governance roles and mandate of each.
The analysis also shows that CSO participation has been constrained by internal weaknesses including
limited knowledge and understanding of the regulatory framework and policy processes in general; and
technical capacities for advocacy/ communications as well as in-depth knowledge of the Forestry sector
and therefore inability to effectively represent public concerns and engage on forest tenure and
management issues.
Representation of indigenous and community groups Community participation: The existing
spaces are not inclusive. The delayed enactment of regulations providing for the collaborative
management of the forest resources has hampered the participation of local communities in forest
management and governance. It would appear that this has been deliberately so for those who benefit
from the continued lack of transparency, accountability and multi stakeholder participation in forest
governance.
4.4.2
Claimed Spaces
Forms: The analysis indicates the existence of CSO activity that should ideally extend their scope for
policy influence: advocacy campaigns, district forest sector platforms, community monitoring and
participation in regional policy forums.
11
CSO participation: However, limited technical capacities and issues of legitimacy, financing, poor coordination and networking as well as a restrictive environment are cited as hampering CSOs’ ability to
effectively engage forest authorities/ policy makers and/or influence forest governance through these
claimed spaces.
Community participation: Although there have been efforts to strengthen community rights in resource
management, the lack of capacity and information on rights over forest resources, responsibilities and
knowledge on opportunities for engagement – have affected communities’ ability to engage forest
authorities.
4.4.3
Information gaps on Governance Spaces

Power analysis: Who and where does the power of veto in decision making processes lie in
relation to the Forestry sector?

Size and Inclusiveness of existing spaces: More information is required on specific spaces
both within the broader ENR sector and in other governance spaces at the regional,
national, district that are available for citizen engagement. It is important to investigate
the extent to which policy processes are open to CSO engagement; to which needs and /or
other actors are these spaces responding?

Extent to which operating environment constrains CSO work: It is necessary to analyse
the operating environment and its impact on civic engagement and thereafter explore how
CSOs can adapt. This analysis should also identify new/ emerging opportunities and
approaches for engagement in challenging contexts.

Media: Some analysis is also required on media engagement in a challenging context and
particularly in the current context that is pushing for upward accountability – compliance
with rules and regulations and how that is likely to affect media operations.
4.5.
Stakeholders
Understanding the rules and spaces is one part of the puzzle. A clear understanding of the actors and the
power relations – capacities, incentives and influence – is the other. Forest management issues are
complex and involve multiple actors with diverse interests. The Programme Design Document has
identified the following categories as some of those who are important in influencing, making and
implementing policy reforms.
4.5.1
Stakeholders in the Public Arena
Those identified include different bodies in the Environment and Natural Resource Sector (ENR) at the
national level and district level; Politicians and local leaders
4.5.2
Civil Society bodies and International Organisations
These include national NGOs, Associations, Umbrella bodies/ Networks, Think Tanks and Community
Based Organisations (CBOs); development agencies/ UN bodies, research institutions/ associations and
donors including those supporting governance and environment related issues.
12
4.5.3
Information gaps on Stakeholders
Movers and Shakers: There is need to map the most influential public sector stakeholders at the
national and district level in order to identify the real movers and shakers on policy issues in the
sector.
Values and Incentive structure: What incentives make major actors put public interests before
private interests. Who stands to gain from the status quo, and who loses?
Stakeholders: Broaden the scope of stakeholders to add new and nontraditional types in order to
create multi-stakeholder coalitions for change. The analysis is particularly weak on the private
sector stakeholders (corporations and businesses, individual business leaders, financial institutions,
professional associations and other interest groups).
Power relations: Examine the power structures and the formal and informal relationships between
stakeholders; and how they affect policy implementation.
5.0
Supplementary Information from Group Work
Following discussions around the findings of the desk review, participants were divided into 3 groups and
tasked with the duty of generating supplementary information on Institutions, Spaces and Stakeholders
The group discussions focused on: i) establishing whether the listed institutions/ spaces/ stakeholders
were all relevant for the FOREST programme; ii) identifying additional institutions/ spaces/ stakeholders
not listed; and iii) identifying those institutions/ spaces/ stakeholders considered most important for the
programme.
5.1











Formal institutions most relevant to the programme
Constitution – article 39 National Environment
Act and National Environment Policy
Local Government Act 1997
Land Use Policy
National Forestry Policy
Uganda Wildlife Act Cap 200
National Forestry and Tree Planting Act
Wildlife policy of 1997
Forest regulations
Access to Information Act
Anti Corruption Act 2009
National Gender Policy











Forest Law Enforcement Governance
Transparency (FLEGT)
Climate change policy
REDD+ issues
Forest certification
Guidelines for private sector operations
International conventions
Convention on Biodiversity
Kyoto Protocol
ENR Sector Investment Plan/ MTEF
Public Order Management Bill
White paper on Bail conditions
13
5.2
Informal Institutions
Participants noted that there existed cultural/ traditional norms, values and practices that are supportive of
the conservation of forests, and that which could be utilized to promote the programme goals. Also listed
were those beliefs and ideologies that are currently undermining reforms.
Positive









Negative
Beliefs of the mystical powers of forests/ specific
tree species (ex: Nakayima tree, Damula stick)
Preservation of some species ex: Olwedo and raffia
tree – believed to protect communities in lightening
prone areas
Medicinal value of trees ( forests perceived as labs)
Aesthetic value of forests for tourism
Preservation of forests for grazing lands
Kingdoms/ chiefdoms for their mobilizing /
sanctioning powers
Religious institutions engaged in conservation/
private forests
Totems and clans
Sanctions generated from clan councils
Common property regimes (traditional
tenure systems which have not been put into
law but influence practices)
Belief that forests are reserve land for
agriculture and instant source of capital;
Beliefs around regeneration of forests
Political protection of encroachers for votes
Rent seeking behavior of forest resource
managers and law enforcement officers





The following however were listed as the most critical for the FOREST Programme partners: i) Common
property regimes; ii) Political protection of encroachers for votes; iii) perceptions of forests as reserve land
for agriculture; iv) Rent seeking behavior of forest resource managers and law enforcement officers; and
v) perceptions of forests as an instant source of capital.
5.3
Governance Spaces for the FOREST Programme
Formal/ Invited
International
National
Informal/ Claimed

APLA

Side events at the UNCC

EA Civil Society Forum

Pan African Climate Justice Alliance

African Ministerial Conference

INGO facilitated campaigns (CARE, OXFAM)

International Timber Organisations

UN Convention on Anti Corruption

Policy Committee on Environment in

Uganda Forest Working Group
OPM

Forest Learning Group

Water and ENR sector working group

Climate Action – worked

ENR sub sector working group

Uganda Poverty and Conservation Learning

NFA

NEMA

Civil Society Budget Advocacy Group

Parliamentary Forum on NR/ Oil &

Media (SMS/ Print/ Broadcast)
Gas

Email groups

UNCC

RAMSAR

CBD
Group
14
District

District natural resource committee

Local Forestry Committees

District Technical Planning

Media Campaigns (Theatre/ public events)
Committees

Church
District Land Committees/ Sub-

Reporting illegal activities using Informers
county land committees

Community based monitoring groups
Media (local radio/TV stations/

Engaging with Parliament
social media

Inter-district forum on forest


Advocacy and policy influencing coalition

platforms
The following informal spaces – i) Reporting illegal activities using Informers; ii) Media Campaigns
(Theatre/ drama/ public function); and iii) Community monitoring of illegal practices were considered to be
some of the spaces that would support genuine engagement between the power holders and rights
claimants.
5.4
Key Stakeholders for the Forest Programme
Below is a list of an array of stakeholders with some level of influence and interest in the Forestry sector
and its management.
Civil Society
International/ Regional bodies

ENR CSO Network

FAO

Uganda Forestry Working Group

UNDP

Uganda Network for Collaborative Forest

ICRAF – International
Association

Kingdoms/ Chiefdoms

PELUM

UGADEV

National Tree Planting Movement

Africa Forest Forum

Uganda Forestry Association

Forest Standard Development Group

NGOs working in the Forestry Sector under the

WWF
NGO Forum

WCS

Religious Institutions

IUCN

Uganda Coalition for Sustainable Development

Swedish Co-operative Centre
Private Sector
Public Sector

Uganda Timber Growers Association

Ministry of Energy

Timber Dealers Association

Parliamentary Committee on Natural

Charcoal deals

National Forest Research Institute

Multi Media ( SMS, Mobile)

College of Agriculture and Environmental

Uganda Traditional and Herbalist Association

Uganda Tea Growers Association

Environmental Police

Sugar Plantation

District Natural Resource Committee

New Forest Company

UPDF - Army / Veterans

Green Resources

IGG

UMA

Judiciary - Anti Corruption Court

SGS

Uganda Investment Authority

Nile Ply
Sciences
15
Although all the listed stakeholders are important, it was agreed that the FOREST Programme Partners
should endeavor for more engagement with the following stakeholders.
1. Public Sector: National Forestry Authority and the Parliamentary Committee on Natural
Resources.
2. Private Sector: Uganda Tree Growers Association and the Uganda Media. (Media and Forest
Governance needs to be strengthened due to lack of capacity; and failure to make linkages
between forest governance issues and macro level issues).
3. Civil Society: The Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) CSO Network
4. International agencies: WWF and Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT)
Below is an in-depth analysis of the above listed stakeholders.
16
National Forestry Authority
Role / Mandate
Interests pursued
Power /resources
for influencing
Allegiances
Incentives
Capacities
Accountability
Responsiveness
Licensing
investment in the
CFR
Sustainably
managing the forest
estate
Mandated by
constitution and the
national forest and
tree planting act)
MDAs: Lands, Env,
Trade &
Investment) Donors
Private investors
Communities
neighboring the
CFRs
INGOs supporting
forestry sector
Well facilitated
Demand for forest
products
Have estab’ admin
structures at
national and local
levels
Accountable to the
executive and
legislature
Under pressure to
financially sustain
the institution
CFM process
recognizes the
rights and
responsibilities of
poor
Resources- forest
from which they can
generate funds
Anticipated political
reward from the
executive
Fairly adequate
infrastructure &
Qualified staff
Tree planting, Law
enforcement,
Forest Revenue
collection, planning
for the National
Forest estate,
resource
mobilization)
Unofficially leasing
part of forest
estates to
individuals for
alternative land use
Perceive themselves
as being more
powerful than other
FSSD and other
forest department
Establishing a self
sustaining
institution
Donor funding
Internal revenue
Executive rather
than board and the
ministry
Skewed towards
private investors
not necessarily in
the forest sector
Promoted
investment in the
forest sector
Not able to meet
the demand for tree
planting and CFM
activities
Inadequacies on
law enforcement
and illegal timber
trade and charcoal
burning
Receptive at
different levels
/categories within
the organisation
Information can
obtained but there
are no formal
communication
channels for
information sharing
ad dissemination
Communication
system is
bureaucratic
5% tree planting
concession
reserved for local
communities
Often communities
do not have
information on the
existence of such a
provision nor
capacity to access
Apart from CFM,
there is no active
citizen involvement
at high level
No specific focus on
the poor and
marginalized
17
Uganda Tree Growers Association
Interests
pursued
Role / Mandate
Sustainable
commercial
forestry industry
Public awareness,
advocacy and
lobbying for
commercial forestry
in uganda
Power /resources
for influencing
Allegiances
Incentives
Capacities
Accountability
Responsiveness
Have the resources
and power to
influence
URA,
UIA,
NFA
Increase
profitability
They have a
national presence,
Accountable to
themselves
Motivated only by
profits
-sustainable timber
production
-Composed of
highly technical
/political people
Have information
but difficult to
ascertain what goes
on internally
Possibility of
violating community
rights (access,
labour exploitation,)
Training and research
-gain access finance
and credit
Coordinate interests
of commercial timber
traders
-well organized
Conflict between
the tree grower and
the community
Current high
demand for timber
Media Organisations
Role / Mandate
Interests pursued
Power /resources
for influencing
Allegiances
Incentives
Capacities
Accountability
Responsiveness
Entertainment
Public Interest - GG,
HR)
Enormous influence
over society
Public even if
segmented
Profits
Have defined
standards,
Open forum and
takes everybody’s
views
Provide space for
dialogue
Profits
Agenda setting
State/ Political
actors
News
Credibility
Advocacy
Promoting pluralism
Political Interests
and especially of
ruling parties
Ownership/ agenda
Advertisements
(control)
Political
interference
Ability to attract
mass audience
Journalistic skills
vary due to limited
resourcing.
Advertisers
Owners
Break leaked stories
UCC/ Media Council
Audience
Political, economic
and legal
environment
Ability to do
investigative
journalism
Poorly paid
Spaces – bimeeza,
talk shows, call –ins,
letter pages
Owners
Whistle blowers
Civil Society
Brown envelopes
18
ENR – CSO Network
Role / Mandate
Interests pursued
Power /resources
for influencing
Allegiances
Incentives
Capacities
Accountability
Responsiveness
Promotes an
enabling policy
environment
Stable and safe
natural
environment
generating services
and products
necessary for
Uganda
NGO Act
Financial resources
from members and
donors
Membership (100+)
Has adequate
technical capacities
Co-ordination
Secretariat
Driven by the needs
and desires of
Impact group
Humanitarian ethic
Thematic working
Groups
Platform for policy
engagement
Co-ordination
Derives power from
membership
Informal reps’ of
communities
Financial resources
from donors
Capacity building on
ENR governance
Specialised/
thematic groups
within network
Moral support from
MWLE
Thematic groups
within network
MWLE/ Directorate
of Environment
PACJA
Nationwide
membership
Parliamentary
Committee on ENR
& climate change
Publications
AGM
African Union
Commission for –
Dept of Agriculture
Moral support from
MWLE
Consultative
meetings
Partners
CARE/ IUCN
UNETCOFA
Organise for a single
voice
Community
participation
Claims to represent
CFM groups
Build capacity of
CFMs – forest level
networks
Compliance with
sharing of benefits
Limited financial
resources
UNETCOFA has
been paying
allegiance to
CODECA
Employment
opportunities,
Lacking in financial
capacities,
Capacity building
Technical capacity
Sharing benefits
Utilising Social
capital
Identity, belonging
Hosted at CODECA
Respect
Governance
structure disputed
Mechanism of
engagement
available but level
of responsiveness
low
19
6.0
Feedback on Governance Context Analysis Tool
At the end of the 2 day workshop, the participants were asked to share their views on the Context
analysis tool and their assessment of its usefulness.
1. Relevance in analysis of formal and informal institutions
There was consensus that the tool had been useful in ‘uncovering’ the rules of the game - both the
formal and informal institutions that impact on forest governance. It was especially useful in the
identification of informal rules/ institutions and particularly the less obvious which frequently have a
significant bearing on the formal institutions
Identifying the informal institutions also uncovered new allies and provided new entry points including
new opportunities for engagement and advocacy.
2. Relevance in analysis of spaces for participation and other forms of engagement
The methodology enabled participants to make a clear distinction between formal and informal
spaces; and highlighted the importance of not taking any space for granted and making assumptions
about its role. The exercise for example, revealed how narrower the formal space was becoming for
CSO engagement.
It was noted that awareness of the different spaces would enable the actors to select the most
appropriate space for particular interventions. Claimed spaces for example are more flexible and
create opportunities for coalition building.
However, the participants felt that the tool/ methodology did not provide for an in-depth analysis of the
different spaces, their mandates, key actors and mode of operation. Others felt that perhaps the
terminology of invited and claimed spaces was confusing.
3. Relevance and usefulness of Stakeholder analysis
The tool enhanced thinking around programme design and the need to identify and thoroughly
analyse different stakeholders
The tool was useful in identifying the different stakeholders, their level of influence, vested interests
and allegiances. This knowledge is important for the selection and prioritisation of the most critical
players and thereafter where and how to engage them.
4. Usefulness of undertaking governance analysis
The workshop was very participatory and engaging and offered useful insights on the political
economy issues in the Forest Sector. The tool in general was useful in illustrating power relations and
pivotal entry points
The workshop facilitated a discussion around the interaction between institutions, spaces and actors
which is important to designing more focused interventions addressing critical governance issues.
However the methodology did not provide for an in-depth analysis of some governance issues i.e.
political systems, decision-making processes and corruption – all of which are the underlying causes
of the governance challenges being experienced.
5. Usefulness in designing individual organisations’ FOREST project proposals
The participants noted that they had found the tool extremely useful as it probed them to think outside
the box and increased their appreciation of the need to continuously interrogate institutions, spaces
20
and actors. The new knowledge obtained would thus be utilized in refining the project proposals for
the FOREST programme and sharpening interventions.
7.0
Conclusion and Next Steps
The workshop generated significant information and also highlighted some gaps. It was thus
proposed that information/ knowledge gaps would be addressed by CARE and/or its Partners
through: i) further desk review and analysis of existing documents; and ii) through interviews with
different stakeholders, depending on the specific intervention and area of focus.
Following the workshop, CARE would undertake the following to support the completion of the design
process and launch of the programme
 Gender analysis;
 GPF analysis;
 Baseline survey;
 Review of the FOREST Programme Document;
 Establishment of a Programme Committee and;
 Launch of the FOREST Programme in June 2013.
21
Annexes
22
Annex 1 Workshop – Programme
Day One –
Tuesday 5 Feb.
Activity
Methodology
Responsibility
8:30 – 9:00 am
Registration
Registration Book
CARE Uganda
9:00 – 9:20 am
Welcome/ Introductions/
Plenary
Anne Nkutu
9:20 – 9:30 am
Over view of programme design process.
Clarification of objectives of workshop
Plenary
Sten Andreasen
9:30 – 10:00 am
Presentation of Programme Design
(Theory of Change / Domains of Change /
Goal / Objectives)
Power Point /
Hand-outs
Annet Kandole
10:00 – 10:30 am
Introduction and importance of Political
Economy/ Governance Context Analysis
in programme design processes
Power Point
Lucas - CARE UK
10:30 – 11:00 am
Tea Break
CARE Uganda
11:00 – 11:45 pm
Presentation of findings/ governance
gaps in programme design document
Power Point
Anne Nkutu
12:00 – 1:00 pm
Analysis of Governance Institutions
(formal and informal)
Group work I
(3 groups)
Annet
Feedback from group 1 (10 min.)
Plenary
1:00 – 2:00 pm
Lunch Break
CARE Uganda
2:00 – 2:30 pm
Feedback from groups 2 & 3 (10 min. per
group + 15 minutes discussion)
Plenary
Annet
2:30 – 3:15 pm
Analysis of governance spaces (invited &
claimed – at local/ district & national/
international level)
Group work II
(4 groups)
Lukas
3:15 – 4:00 pm
Feedback from groups on governance
spaces
Plenary
Anne / Sten
/Annet
4:00 pm -
Tea break/ end of Day one
23
Day Two –
Wednesday 6
Feb.
Activity
Methodology
Responsibility
8:45 – 9:00 am
Re cap of previous day proceedings
Plenary
Anne Nkutu
9:00 – 9:15 am
Stakeholder Mapping - presentation
Plenary
Sten
9:15 – 9:45 am
Review of Stakeholder Mapping
Group work III
(3 groups)
Sten
9:45 – 10:30 am
Feedback on Stakeholder Mapping +
prioritizing key stakeholders
Plenary
Sten
10:30 – 11:00 am
Tea Break
CARE Uganda
11:00 – 11:40 am
Analysis of Key Stakeholders (public
sector, private sector, civil society)
Group work IV
(3 groups)
Lukas
11:40 – 12:30 pm
Feedback session on stakeholder
analysis
Plenary
Lukas
12:30 – 1:00 pm
How will the governance context
analysis inform your project
interventions?
Group work V
(partner groups)
Annet
1:00 – 2:00 pm
Lunch Break
2:00 – 3:00 pm
Feedback from partner groups
Plenary
Annet
3:00 – 4:00 pm
Evaluation of the tool (Governance
Context Analysis guidance note)
Buzz groups &
feedback forms
Lukas
4:00 – 4:20 pm
Next Steps – and Closing of workshop
Plenary
Sten/ Annet
CARE Uganda
24
Annex 2 List of Participants
Name
Organisation
Email Contact
1.
Sten Andreasen
CARE International in Uganda
sandreasen@co.care.org
2.
Annet Kandole
“
Akandole@co.care.org
3.
Ephrance Nakiyingi
ACCU
ephrahn@accu.org
4.
Dezi Irumba
CARE International in Uganda
dirumba@co.care.org
5.
Peter Okubal
PANOS Eastern Africa
Peter.okubal@panosea.org
6.
Anne Nkutu
NCG Uganda
annenkutu@ncguganda.co.ug
7.
Charles Walaga
Environmental Alert
ccwalaga@yahoo.com
8.
Ceaser Kimbugwe
“
ckimbugwe@envalert.org
9.
Edith Kabesiime
CARE International in Uganda
ekabesiime@co.care.org
10.
Lynn Najjemba
PANOS eastern Africa
lynn.najjemba@panosea.org
11.
Lukas Van Trier
CARE International (UK)
vantrier@careinternational.org
12.
Anna Amumpiire
ACODE
amumpiire@acode-u.org
13.
Charles Owuor
CARE International in Uganda
cowuor@co.care.org
14.
Tom Balemesa
ACODE
tom.balemesa@acode-u.org
15.
Patrick Baguma
JESE
Jpbaguma@jese.org
16.
Evelyn Busingye
JESE
evelyneb2004@yahoo.com
“
“
“
“
25
Annex 3 Institutions
Constitution of Uganda:
of the fundamental and other human rights and freedoms.
– provides for Equality and freedom from discrimination.
– protection from deprivation of property and sets preconditions and ensure fair and due
process in the event it happens
sociate including; joining associations and civil society
organizations among others
– provides affirmative action for the marginalized groups, rights of women and
rights of minorities respectively.
s for citizens participation in decision making processes of government, a
right to a clean and healthy environment and access to information respectively.
National Environment Act:
NEA CAP153, SECTION 45(5) provides for traditional uses of forests which are indispensable to the local
communities and are compatible with the principle of sustainable development shall be protected.
Key legislation on natural resources:
National Environment Policy 1995, Petroleum Exploration and Production Act 1993, Petroleum
(Exploration and Production) Regulations 1993, The Wetlands Policy 1995, Wildlife Policy of 1997, the
Local Government Act 1997, the Land Act CAP 227, the Land Use Policy 1998, National Forest Policy
2001, National Environment Act CAP 153, Uganda Wildlife Act CAP 2000, the National Forestry and Tree
Planting Act 2003, and recently the National Oil and Gas Policy for Uganda 2008 and the Oil and Gas
Revenue Management Policy 2012. The Land Policy, forest regulations and guidelines have been drafts
for the last 5 years, ongoing is the process of developing the Petroleum (Exploration, Development and
Production) Bill 2012, Petroleum (Refining, Gas Processing and Conversion, Transportation and Storage)
Bill 2012 and the Public Finance Bill 2012.
Key international treaties that Uganda is signatory to:
Convention on Biological Diversity, Kyoto Protocol, East African Protocol on Environment and Natural
Resources, Lusaka Declaration of the ICGLR Special Summit to Fight Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and the African Convention on Conservation of Natural Resources; Convention on Biological
Diversity
Other related legislation
Access to Information Act (2005):
SECTION 5(1) and (2) provide for the right to access and emphasizes provision of accurate and up to date
information;
The Local Government Act: one of three objectives of the LGA is to provide for decentralization at all
levels of local governments to ensure good governance and democratic participation in, and control of,
decision making by the people (CAP 243)
26
Annex 4 Governance Spaces
Claimed Spaces
National/ International



























District/ Local
Uganda Forest Working Group
Forest Learning Group
Climate Action – worked
Uganda Poverty and Conservation
Learning Group
Civil Society Budget Advocacy
Group
Media (SMS/ Print/ Broadcast)
Email groups
Side events at the UNCC
Pan African Climate Justice
Alliance
INGOs facilitated campaigns
(CARE, OXFAM)
Invited Spaces







Advocacy and policy influencing
coalition platforms
Media Campaigns (Theatre/
drama/ public function) (2)
Church
Reporting illegal activities using
Informers (1)
Community based monitoring
groups
Engaging with Parliament
Community monitoring of illegal
practices (3) e.g. Masindi
Regional policy – district natural
resource committee
Inter-district forum on forest
governance





Policy Committee on Environment
in OPM
Water and Environmental sector
working group
ENR sub sector working group
Water sub sector
NFA
NEMA
Parliamentary Forum on Natural
Resources/ Oil & Gas
African Ministerial Conference
UNCC
United Nations Convention on Anti
Corruption
RAMSAR
CBD
International Timber Organisations
APNAC
EA Civil Society Forum
Local Forestry Committees
District Technical Planning
Committees
District Land Committees
Sub-county land committees
Media (local radio/tv stations/
social media)
27