UGANDA

1. UGANDA Integrated Assessment of the Fisheries Policy for Adequacy of integration of Economic, Environmental and Social concerns Integrated Assessment and Planning for Sustainable Development Second Review Meeting Geneva, September 21-22, 2005 Alice Ruhweza - National Environment Management Authority, Uganda

2. Background (1) • Project launched Jan04, several studies & analyses, launch wkshop sep04, brochure, website, consultative wkshops • Project Management – NEMA & Economic Policy Research Center National Technical Steering Committee - meets once a month. Composed of Government Ministries ( Health, Water, Land & Env., Local Government, Trade, Tourism and Industry, Agriculture (Plan for Modernisation of Agric), Finance, National Planning Authority/ NGOs – Advocates Coalition for Develpt. UNEP, Consultants and Other Stakeholders

3. Background (2) The original key objective of the project was to further develop local capacity to integrate ESE considerations in the design and assessment of national planning processes. This remains our overall objective Started with a view of influencing the PEAP revision process but time did not allow it and PEAP was too big Considered Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture but realised Agric. Exports e.g Coffee was no longer a strong export

4. Background (3) - Team chose to focus on the Trade Policy - Trade is recognized as an engine of economic growth, and a new policy is being drafted. Team envisaged an opportunity for ex ante assessment. • However, after preliminary analysis and a consultative workshop in August, it became clear that the trade policy was not ready for analysis. However the team discussed with the Trade Ministry the ESE considerations for the policy • After further consultations the country team chose to assess the fisheries policy

5. Background (4) Why Fisheries? The Fisheries policy is relatively new having been adopted in 2004 – offers great opportunity for a concurrent assessment Fish is Uganda’s second highest foreign exchange earner The Fish sector has very strong ESE implications

6. Background (5) The Fisheries Policy (2004) - Process began in 1999 finalized 2004. Wide stakeholder consultations Key Objectives of the Fisheries Policy - Sustainable mgmt & devpt of fisheries/ Decentralisation $ community involvement/ Environmental issues/ Fish marketing & trade/post harvest qlty/ Aquaculture/ Instns and funding mechanisms/ Human resource development – etc • Related policies and programmes - National Environment Policy/Water Policy/Wetlands Policy/Wildlife Policy... MEAs (CITES, CBD, RAMSAR, TECCONILE, FAO Conduct for responsible fisheries..etc)

7. Methods of Assessment • Root cause analysis – identify ESE issues • Pressure state response model – environment linkages • Scenario Building – spatial and temporal linkages The scenario analysis analyses whether the current policy is really an improvement over what existed before , if not, what could be done to make it even better.

8. POLICY SCENARIOS • Zero state –– without policy access to the resource goes to highest bidder(poor people marginalised); increased pollution load (effluent from breweries, abbatoirs..etc); % discards is high, invasive alien species (water hyacinth), Fish stocks declining, prices stagnant, fish ban (EU-1999); poor fishing gear (bottom trawling); reduction in biodiversity (only 3 main types left)

9. Scenarios - continued • Policy state–community management of fisheries in place, beach management units/ lake management organizations; MSY is set, monitoring and surveillance system set up, demand for fish is growing (demand gap – 50,000 metric tonnes); price of fish is rising decentralisation policy; aquaculture is promoted; resource rents introduced, ban on illegal gear; (more stringent standards (EU)

10. Scenarios (continued) • c) Ideal state- Improved policy integrating ESE-Demand of fish anticipated from the outset and measures are put in place; aquaculture or imports from other countries fulfill demand; no excess capture of fish beyond MSY; better technology-wate treatment plants; use of economic instruments • Key assumptions • a) trade in fish is good and can be increased sustainably • b) current policy is better than the situation that prevailed before it

11. Assessment Framework Economic indicators

12. Assessment framework (cont’d) Social indicators

13. Assessment framework for Fisheries (cont’d) Environment indicators

14. Initial effects on the other protein sources such as livestock meat products, and crops (beans, peas)

15. How will the changes in price or incentive in turn affect production or use of the natural resource

16. How will the changes in price or incentive in turn affect production or use of the natural resource

17. Economic/trade effects How will changes in production use affect economic/trade performance under each scenario?

18. Environmental effects • How will the changes in production or use of resource affect the environment under each scenario?.

19. Social effects (1) How will changes in production or use of resource affect social well-being and poverty in each scenario?.

20. Social effects (2)- Who are the winners and losers ?

21. Secondary effects (1) • Please describe any further, long-term social & economic/trade implications of the projected environmental changes?

22. Secondary effects (2) • Long-term environmental & economic/trade implications from the projected changes in social well-being?

23. Recommendations (1) For concurrentassessment, how should the policy/plan be re-formulated or revised? • Compliment Command and control practices with market based instruments such as environmental bonds on industries likely to pollute and punitive charges for illegal behaviour; • The groups that lose out need re-tooling on how they can integrate in the wider economy with as much ease as possible (micro-finance, and enterprise development) and this can begin within the BMUs; • The policy should take on board the special education needs and health requirements for the fishing communities • There will be need to study how the market based instruments can be designed to avoid a reduction on processors revenues proposed by policy and charges to regulate by-catch and discards. • Voluntary measures such as cleaning up pollution as part of corporate responsibility should be encouraged, although they should not detract from other official instruments, instead they should be rewarded for instance through reductions on official pollution charges

24. Recommendations (2) • How to improve the process of policy/plan-making? • Public participation: Improvement in stakeholder identification-linkages need to be understood • Inter-ministerial coordination: Use of monetary measurements to weigh trade-off or easily understandable indicators (lives lost, jobs lost) • Inter-desciplinary collaboration: Build an early rapport between the sector stakeholders and the IAP committtee, UNEP may participate in this as well • Participation of affected communities & marginalised groups: At a local government, village, parish, resource utilisation level encourage institutional development and quotas in the management structure for marginalised groups. The IAP process should also identify with these stakeholders

25. Enabling conditions • What needs to happen in order to implement the recommendations? 1. The results of the IAP need to be disseminated to all stakeholders and the findings agreed upon – NEMA/EPRC/UNEP and TSC 2. Identify national projects already implementing the recommendations and a way of inputing these findings - NEMA/EPRC/UNEP and TSC 3. For the sector of focus discussions should be held with stakeholders, especially at policy impelmentation – how can they benefit from these findings? NEMA/EPRC/UNEP and TSC 4. Identify areas where studies to clarify on the recommendations mentioned need to be carried out - NEMA/EPRC/UNEP and IAP working group/ DFR 5. Passing of the Fisheries Act by parliament will put in place a stronger legal framework and institutions that can implement the recommendations mentioned above

26. Lessons learned A. Direct ENR sectors with trade, economic and social implications as well offer immediate fertile grown in piloting IAP; B. IAP is a great tool and it should be promoted on its own merits and taught to all policy makers C. Too many tools – maybe only a few tools, which can be augmented as process goes along actually need mention; and D. IAP could be used to draw out environmental goods and services more prominently.