IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICY
RESPONSE PACKAGES to Promote Sustainable Management of Fisheries in Uganda
Boaz Blackie Keizire
Senior Fisheries Economist bboaz.maaif@infocom.co.ug

• The Uganda Fisheries Policy Environment
[ contents and key policy areas]
•
The EPRC/UNEP Study - highlights of the study findings and key policy recommendations
•
The Workshop -
– as a consultative process
– key recommendations [in relation to EIs and CAC]
•
What is Uganda doing so far in terms solving fisheries management problems [CAC Vs Eis]
•
Conclusions

• Contributes 2.2% to total GDP
• Second largest foreign exchange earner to the economy
• employs over 700,000 people directly and over 1,000,000 people indirectly
• Export earnings have increased from US$30 million in 1999 to US$78 million in 2001 and now have been recorded at US$ 85.8 million in 2002.

•
National Vision
•
Fisheries Vision:
“ an ensured sustainable exploitation of the fishery resources at the highest possible levels, thereby maintaining fish availability for both present and future generations without degrading the environment”

•
•
•

Uganda’s Obligations under
International Law
•
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
•
The Permanent Tripartite Commission (PTC)
•
The Ramsar Convention
•
The Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species (CITES)
•
Technical Corporation for the Promotion of the
Development and Environmental Protection of the Nile Basin (Tecconile) 1992

•
Convention for the establishment of the lake Victoria Fisheries Organization 1994
•
Agreement on the Preparation of a
Tripartite Environmental Management
Programme for Lake Victoria 1994
•
The FAO Code of Conduct for
Responsible Fisheries 1995

• resource depletion through over-fishing aggravated by use of destructive fishing gear and methods;
• eutrophication of the lakes and other forms of pollution;
• infestation and rapid spread of water hyacinth and the environmental impacts of the different control options;
• inadequate information on the fisheries resources and the state of the aquatic environmental to guide management decisions;
• an inappropriate regulatory framework; and
• inadequate funding for the fisheries sector activities .

•
The underlying causes for these issues are:-
• inappropriate mechanisms for controlling access to fisheries resources;
• inadequate monitoring, extension and enforcement mechanisms;
• inadequate mobilisation and involvement of the communities in development and management of fisheries resources;
• ill-equipped extension services and inadequate research work both of which critically hinder capture fisheries and aquaculture development;
• inadequate fisheries infrastructure; and an
• absence of regional mechanisms for co-operation and management of some of the shared lakes especially
Albert and Edward.

•
Lead Agency & Intersectional Linkages
•
Current Roles and mandates
• Centre Roles
•
Local Government Roles
•
Roles of communities
•
NGOs and CBOs
• Role of the private sector
• Education, training and Research institutions

The overall fisheries sector goal is to ensure increased and sustainable fish production and utilisation by properly managing capture fisheries, promoting aquaculture and reducing post harvest losses

•
In this:
–
Policy areas & statements are mentioned
– the underlying policy Objectives and
Strategies

Policy Area 1. Sustainable management and development of fisheries
•
Fisheries will be managed and developed to promote socially, economically and environmentally sustainable use and development of the resources so as to meet the needs of present generations without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

Decentralisation and community involvement in fisheries management
•
Stakeholders will be involved in the management of fisheries by devolving some decision-making responsibilities to local governments and communities.

District, sub-county and community cooperation in fisheries management
Districts, sub-counties and communities will co-operate in the management of shared fisheries and aquatic ecosystems

•
Public, private sector and community based investment in the fisheries sector that is environmentally, socially and economically sustainable will be promoted.

Participatory planning and policymaking will form the basis of fisheries management.

Effective systems for the collection, compilation, analysis, storage and dissemination of information will be established for planning, management, monitoring and evaluation purposes.

Adverse environmental impacts on fisheries will be minimised and mechanisms will be established at appropriate levels to achieve this

•
Aquaculture fish production will be increased so as to reduce the gap between fish supply and the increasing demand for food fish

Measures will be promoted to ensure that the quality, wholesomeness, safety for human consumption and value of harvested fish and fishery products is secured and/or enhanced

Measures will be taken to achieve sustainable increases in the value and volume of fish marketed for national consumption and export

The Government will promote comprehensive training and advisory programmes so as to build human resource capacity to increase levels of knowledge, skill and expertise in the public and private fisheries subsectors

Social, economic, environmental and technical investigation of issues pertinent to fisheries, including the development of appropriate technologies, will be promoted in response to fisheries development and management needs.

•
Institutional requirements
•
The proposed Central Lead Agency
•
The Law - Fish Act (1964)
• other issues like M&E

•

• Jan 1997 - August 1999 - UNEP conducted a Uganda country study on the environmental impacts of trade liberalisation in the fisheries sector.
• The study identified significant linkages between recent trade reforms on increased trade activity and environmental degradation.

• The study also proposed policy instruments that promise to effectively halt trade-related environmental degradation and ensure that
Uganda’s trade remains sustainable over the long-term.
• The key recommendation of the study was a need to assist national institutions to implement the recommended instruments and the need for a project to mobilize national teams to select and implement policy options identified in the study

• As a result, UNEP agreed to finance a project to the Government of Uganda
(through the Ministry of Agriculture,
Animal Industry and Fisheries) under the
Department of Fisheries Resources to implement policy options identified in the study.
•
June 2002 an MoU was signed between
MAAIF and UNEP with EPRC and NEMA as corroborators to this effect

• Enhance co-ordination and co-operation between relevant national organisations working on fisheries related activities.
• Enhance awareness and capacity of policymakers and private sector to implement strategic management responses – particularly Economic
Instruments to promote sustainable management of fisheries in three selected districts:
• Increase understanding of the constraints and impediments to the successful implementation of economic instruments and identification of ways to achieve better results.
• Raise consensus among national stakeholders on approaches to address the sustainable management of fisheries.

• National stakeholder workshop to outline programme of work and strategy for implementation,
• Review policy recommendations from the study in order to identify those that can be implemented.
• Identify ways to proceed and plan of action for implementing the selected policy package: including entity(ies) responsible for the implementation of each policy measure
• Implementation of the selected policy packages.

• To develop a strategy for implementation of
"Implementation of Policy Response Packages to Promote Sustainable Management of
Fisheries in Uganda" project.
•
Review policy recommendations arising from the country study in order to identify those that can be implemented,
• Develop a plan of action for implementing the selected policy packages .

• What were the policy recommendations in the EPRC/UNEP
Study
• We look at each policy area and workshop recommendation
• Institutional actors are also proposed for each policy recommendation

Action1 : Apply the quota system to fish processing plants
Actor - DFR, FIRRI & UFPEA
Action 2: Strengthen MCS & harmonize with other countries for shared waters
Actor: DFR, Local Authorities & LVFO

Action 3: Develop a mechanism for ensuring compliance to regionally agreed decisions
Actor 3: LVFO
Action 4 : Sensitize resource users on responsible fisheries.
Actors: DFR, FIRRI, NGOs, Local Governments,
NAADS, etc
Action 5: Control of fishing effort
Actor 5: DFR & Local Authorities

Action 1 : Promote integrated aquaculture.
Actor 1: DFR, FIRRI, Local Authorities,
NGOs, Private Sector
Action 2 : Promote culture of Nile perch.
Actor 2: DFR, FIRRI, Local Authorities,
NGOs, Private Sector
Action 3: Promote production of feeds for fish farming
Actor 3: FIRRI & private sector

Action 1 : Develop mechanisms for involving communities in data collection.
Actor 1: DFR, FIRRI, NGOs & Local Authorities
Action 2 : Harmonize data collection and reporting nationally
Actor 2: DFR, FIRRI, NGOs & Local Authorities
Action 3 : establish a reliable information and database system.
Actor 3: DFR & FIRRI

Action 1: Expedite the update of the Fisheries
(Act) and development of the associated ordinances and bylaws.
Actor1: DFR, Local Authorities & Ministry of Justice, NGOs

Recommendation on quality control and infrastructure
Action 1 : Sensitize stakeholders on hygienic handling of fish.
Actor 1: DFR, NGOs, CBOs, Local Authorities
Action 2: Provide cold storage facility on boats, landing sites and transport facilities.
Actor 2: DFR, Private sector & Local Authorities
Action 3 : Extend electricity supply and safe water to key landing sites.
Actor 3: Ministry of Energy, PMA & MoFPED

Action 4 : Improve roads to landing sites
Actor 4: Local Authorities, MoWHC
Action 5: Lobby for reduction of freight charges on fish exports.
Actor 5: DFR, UFPEA, MoWHC, CAA

Policy recommendations on pollution
Action 1: Ensure effective monitoring of effluent discharge standards
Actor 1: DWD, NEMA, Private Sector
Action 2: The polluter pays principle should be applied.
Actor 2: NEMA, MoFPED
Action 3: Provide technologies for treatment of water and sewage at landing sites.
Actor 3: NWSC, DWD, MUIENR

Action 1 : Eco-labeling
Actor 1: DFR, UNBS, UFPEA, Private Sector
Action 2 : Value addition
Actor 2: UFPEA, DFR
Action 3 : Promotion
Actor 3: UEPB, UFPEA, DFR

•
Strong MCS
•
Strong Emphasis on Co-management
•
Quality Assurance activities and ensuring harmonization
• others