sign in sign up
<<
Home , Amolatar, Bayad, Busitema, Fish factory, Ggaba, Kagera River

Integrating Natural Capital into Sustainable Development Decision-Making in

A project funded by the UK Government

Fisheries Resources Accounts for Uganda

March 2021

Copyright: National Environment Management Authority National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) NEMA House Plot 17/19/21 Jinja Road P.O. Box 22255 , Uganda Email: [email protected] Website: www.nema.go.ug

Citation: NEMA (2021), Resources Accounts for Uganda,

ISBN: 978-9970-881-47-5

Editorial team

Francis Sabino Ogwal NEMA Editor-in-Chief Dr Victoria Tibenda NaFIRRI Lead Reviewer Eugene Telly Muramira NEMA Consultant Agaton Mufubi NEMA Consultant Paul Okello UBOS Quality Assurance Steve King UNEP-WCMC Editor Mark Eigenraam IDEEA Group Editor Tom Geme NEMA Editor

“Integrating Natural Capital Accounting into Sustainable Development Development Decision-making in Uganda” is a project funded by the Darwin Initiative through the UK Government, and implemented by the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA), Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBoS) and National Planning Authority (NPA) in Uganda, in collaboration with the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and the Institute for Development of Environmental-Economic Accounting (IDEEA Group). https://www.unep-wcmc.org/featured-projects/nca-in-uganda

ii | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ...... vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...... viii ACRONYMS ...... ix EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... x Introduction ...... x Findings ...... x 1.0 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Purpose of the project ...... 2 1.3 Fisheries Resources of Uganda ...... 3 2. METHODOLOGY ...... 4 2.1 Study Design ...... 4 2.2 Methodological rationale ...... 4 2.3 Data collection and working arrangements ...... 5 2.3.1 Data collection ...... 5 2.3.2 Working Arrangements ...... 5 3. CHARACTERIZATION OF UGANDA’S FISHERIES SUB-SECTOR AND RESOURCES ...... 7 3.1 Extent of Assets for Capture Fisheries ...... 7 3.2 Characterization of Uganda’s Capture Ecosystem Assets ...... 8 3.2.1 Victoria...... 8 3.2.2 ...... 9 3.2.3 The Kyoga Basin lake system ...... 10 3.2.4 ...... 12 3.2.5 ...... 13 3.2.6 ...... 14 3.2.7 Albert ...... 15 3.3 Characterization of Uganda’s Resources ...... 15 3.3 Ponds and Cages ...... 16 3.3.1 Fish ponds ...... 16 3.3.2 Fish Cages ...... 17 4. ECOSYSTEM CONDITION ACCOUNTS...... 19 4.1 Brief Overview of the state of Uganda’s water resources ...... 19 4.2 Water quality ...... 19 iii | P a g e

4.3 Invasive aquatic weeds ...... 21 4.3.1 Kariba weed (Salvinia molesta) ...... 21 4.3.2 Water hyacinth () ...... 23 4.4 Fish Breeding Areas ...... 24 4.5 Ecosystem condition account for ...... 26 5. FISH ASSET ACCOUNTS ...... 27 5.1 Stock assessment on Lake Victoria (Hydro-acoustic Surveys) ...... 27 5.2 Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria ...... 28 5.3 Analysis of Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria ...... 32 6. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES SUPPLY AND USE ACCOUNTS ...... 34 6.1 Uganda’s Capture Fisheries ...... 34 6.2 Lake Victoria Fisheries ...... 36 6.3 Lake Albert Fisheries ...... 37 6.4 Kyoga Basin Fisheries ...... 37 6.5 Lake Edward-George- Lake System Fisheries ...... 38 6.6 Lake Wamala Fisheries ...... 39 6.7 Albert Nile Fisheries ...... 40 6.8 Fisheries of Minor Lakes and Rivers of Uganda ...... 40 6.9 Uganda’s Aquaculture Fisheries ...... 41 7. UGANDA’S FISH EXPORTS AND IMPORTS ...... 43 7.1 Fish exports ...... 43 7.2 Fish imports ...... 44 8. PHYSICAL SUPPLY AND USE TABLES (PSUT) ...... 45 9. MONETARY SUPPLY AND USE ACCOUNTS ...... 69 9.1 Resource rent calculations for capture fisheries ...... 94 10. EFFORT ...... 100 11. INTEGRATED ANALYSIS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS...... 106 11.1 Integrated analysis ...... 106 11.2 Trends in Uganda’s fish stocks ...... 113 11.3 Policy recommendations ...... 119 12. NEXT STEPS FOR FUTURE ITERATIONS OF THE ACCOUNTS ...... 120 REFERENCES ...... 121 APPENDIX 3: Main Fish landing sites ...... 128 APPENDIX 4: and fish maws exports ...... 150 iv | P a g e

Appendix 5: Mukene exports 0n Lake Victoria ...... 151 Appendix 6: Fish Imports ...... 151 Appendix 7: Fisheries economic data ...... 152 Appendix 8: Aquaculture statistics ...... 153

List of Figures

Figure 1: Relationship between core SEEA-EA accounts and thematic accounts…………………. 17 Figure 2: Map of Uganda showing major Lakes & rivers…………………………………………….. 19 Figure 3: Map showing Lake Albert………………………………………………………………….. 21 Figure 4: Map showing Kyoga Basin Lakes System…………………………………………………... 22 Figure 5: Map showing Kyoga Basin Minor Lakes…………………………………………………… 22 Figure 6: Map of Lake Edward……………………………………………………………………….. 23 Figure 7: Map showing Edward-George-Kazinga Channel Lake System…………………………….. 24 Figure 8: Map showing Lake Wamala………………………………………………………………... 25 Figure 9: Map showing Albert Nile………………………………………………………………….. 26 Figure 10: Map of Central region showing location of fish ponds……………………………………. 28 Figure 11: Map of Lake Victoria showing identified cage sites………………………………………... 29 Figure 12: Map of Uganda showing location of active water monitoring zones & stations………….. 31 Figure 13: Kariba weed hotspots on …………………………………………………….. 32 Figure 14: Abundance of Kariba weed on ……………………………………………… 33 Figure 15: Map of Lake Albert showing abundance and distribution of Kariba weed………………... 33 Figure 16: Map of Northern Lake Victoria showing hotspots for water hyacinth…………………… 34 Figure 17: Water hyacinth mat on Lake Kyoga………………………………………………………. 34 Figure 18: Map of Northern Lake Victoria showing potential FBAs…………………………………. 35 Figure 19: Map of Edward-George Lake System showing potential FBAs…………………………… 36 Figure 20: Trends in Mukene stocks in Lake Victoria………………………………………………... 43 Figure 21: Trends in stocks of and other on Lake Victoria……………….. 44 Figure 22: Trends in Nile perch stocks in Lake Victoria…………………………………………….. 44 Figure 23: Trends in Uganda’s capture fisheries……………………………………………………… 46 Figure 24: Percentage of catch contribution by water body, 2018…………………………………... 46 Figure 25: Catch trends on Lake Victoria…………………………………………………………….. 47 Figure 26: Catch trends on Lake Albert……………………………………………………………… 48 Figure 27: Catch trends on Kyoga Basin Lakes……………………………………………………….. 49 Figure 28: Catch trends on Edward-George-Kazinga Channel Lake System………………………… 50 Figure 29: Catch trends on Lake Wamala……………………………………………………………. 50 Figure 30: Catch trends on Albert Nile………………………………………………………………. 51 Figure 31: Catch trends on Uganda’s minor water bodies…………………………………………… 52 Figure 32 Trends in Uganda’s fish exports…………………………………………………………... 55 Figure 33: Trends in Uganda’s fish and imports……………………………………….. 55 Figure 34: Trends in CPUE on Lake Victoria, 2000-2018…………………………………………… 126 Figure 35: Gill nets entangled by Kariba weed at Kayago landing site, Lake Kyoga………………….. 130 Figure 36: Thick mats of Kariba weed render boat take-off and docking difficult on Lake Albert…... 130

List of Tables

Table 1: Size and Location of Uganda’s Major Fish Supplying …………………………. 19 Table 2: Water Quality Condition of Lake Victoria………………………………………………... 31 Table 3: Lake Victoria Ecosystem condition accounts……………………………………………... 36 Table 4: Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria; 2016 – 2019………………………………………… 40 Table 5: Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria; 2015 – 2016………………………………………… 40 Table 6: Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria; 2010 – 2015………………………………………… 41 v | P a g e

Table 7: Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria; 2009 – 2010………………………………………… 41 Table 8: Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria; 2009 – 2019 ……………………………………...... 42 Table 9: Fish Catch by water body (‘000 tons) 2001 – 2018…..…………………………………... 45 Table 10: Aquaculture production scales in Uganda………………………………………………… 53 Table 11: Aquaculture production in Uganda……………………………………………………….. 53 Table 12: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2018……………………………………………………… 57 Table 13: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2018……………………………………………………………………………… 59 Table 14: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2016……………………………………………………… 61 Table 15: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2016……………………………………………………………………………… 63 Table 16: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2015……………………………………………………… 65 Table 17: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2015……………………………………………………………………………… 67 Table 18: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2011……………………………………………………… 69 Table 19: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2011……………………………………………………………………………… 71 Table 20: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2010……………………………………………………… 73 Table 21: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2010……………………………………………………………………………… 75 Table 22: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2009……………………………………………………… 77 Table 23: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2009……………………………………………………………………………… 79 Table 24: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2018……………………………………………. 82 Table 25: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2018………………………………………………………………………………………... 84 Table 26: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2016……………………………………………. 86 Table 27: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2016………………………………………………………………………………………... 88 Table 28: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2015……………………………………………. 90 Table 29: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2015………………………………………………………………………………………... 92 Table 30: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2011……………………………………………. 94 Table 31: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2011………………………………………………………………………………………... 96 Table 32: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2010……………………………………………. 98 Table 33: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2010………………………………………………………………………………………... 100 Table 34: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2009……………………………………………. 102 Table 35: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2009………………………………………………………………………………………... 104 Table 36: Resource rent (UGX) 2009-2018…………………….…………………………...... 107 Table 37: FS on the Ugandan side of Lake Victoria, 2000-2016…………………………………...... 113 Table 38: FS on Lake Albert, 2007-2018……………………………………………………………... 113 Table 39: FS on Kyoga Basin Lakes, 2008-2013……………………………………………………… 113 Table 40: FS on Lake Edward, 2006-2018…………………………………………………………… 116 Table 41: FS on Lake George and Kazinga Channel, 2011-2013…………………………………….. 116 Table 42: FS on Lake Wamala, 2012…………………………………………………………………. 117 Table 43: FS on Albert Nile, 2012…………………………………………………………………… 117 Table 44: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2018……………………………………………... 119 Table 45: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2016……………………………………………... 120 Table 46: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2015……………………………………………... 121 Table 47: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2011……………………………………………... 122 Table 48: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2010……………………………………………... 123 Table 49: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2009……………………………………………... 124 vi | P a g e

FOREWORD

The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) in collaboration with the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), National Planning Authority (NPA), the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), and the Institute for the Development of Environmental-Economic Accounting (IDEEA) developed Fisheries Resources Accounts for Uganda. The Accounts are one of the outputs of the project titled Integrating Natural Capital into Sustainable Development Decision-Making in Uganda funded by the Darwin Initiative through UNEP-WCMC. The other two outputs are land and soils improvement accounts; tourism and accounts.

The project supports Uganda in the following areas;

(i) the delivery of Uganda Green Growth Development Strategy and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP); (ii) integration of the value of biodiversity into national reporting, poverty reduction, and planning processes; (iii) organizing biodiversity related natural capital data using internationally endorsed accounting frameworks; (iv) enabling decision-makers to implement integrated environmental-economic planning for green growth, poverty alleviation and attaining the Sustainable Development Golas and Aichi Targets; and (v) developing capacity of account compilers and users to institutionalize the accounting approach.

The Fisheries Resources Accounts are a very useful tool for keeping track of the status of fisheries resources not only for economic development, but also for improvement of livelihoods of local communities, investment in conservation and management of Uganda’s fisheries resources and integration of NCA into the national accounts and reporting systems especially by Uganda Bureau of Statistics; National Planning Authority; Ministry of Agriculture Industries and Fisheries; Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development.

We, therefore, call upon all relevant stakeholders to embrace the information presented on Uganda’s Fisheries Resources. Further stakeholders ought to institutionalise the natural capital approach such that this and more information related to the sub-sector is generated and routinely used in informing decision making.

Dr Tom O. Okurut Dr Chris N. Mukiza Dr Joseph Muvawala EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEMA UBOS NPA

vii | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Fisheries Resources Accounts were developed with financial support from UK Government’s Darwin Initiative, and with technical support from experts in various fields. Technical support was provided by the team at UNEP-WCMC, the Institute for the Development of Environmental- Economic Accounting (IDEEA Group) and the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) during the development of the fisheries accounts (Annex 1).

The Expert Working Group (Annex 2) was instrumental in the sharing of data and technical review of the draft reports, which enhanced the quality of the Fisheries Resources Accounts. We also extend our appreciation to the following institutions for their immense contribution to the development of the Fisheries Resources Accounts through the staff they nominated to the EWG;

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries Ministry of Housing and Urban Development Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities Ministry of Water and Environment Ministry of Local Government Uganda Bureau of Statistics National Planning Authority Uganda Wildlife Authority National Forestry Authority National Environment Management Authority National Fisheries Resources Institute National Forestry Resources Research Institute Nature Uganda International Union for Conservation of Nature

We commend NEMA staff for effectively coordinating and organising EWG meetings that were very vital for the development and finalisation of the fisheries resources accounts. In particular, NEMA would like to thank Mr Francis Sabino Ogwal for the overall coordination of the project, Mr Godwin Kamugisha and Ms Monique Akullo for supporting Project Coordinator as well as Mr Tony Achidria, Mr William Lubuulwa and Mr Isaac Tindyebwa for working on the communication components of the project. Leadership from the Uganda Bureau of Statistics particularly Ms Aliziki Kaudha Lubega together with the dedicated team from the Bureau: Mr Sam Echoku, Mr Edgar Niyimpa, Mr Christopher Tumuhirwe and Mr Roland Muhumuza are dearly thanked for the support and insights shared. Gratitude is also extended to Ms Margaret Nakirya (UBOS) and Mr Ronald Kaggwa (NPA) for working tirelessly during the development of the project and also its implementation. Lastly, but not least Mr Tom Geme is also thanked for managing the day-to-day activities of the project and seeing to it that it is soundly completed.

viii | P a g e

ACRONYMS BMSY Biomass at Maximum Sustainable Yield BRP Biological Reference Point CAS Catch Assessment Survey CBD Convention on Biological Diversity COP Conference of Parties CPUE Catch per Unit Effort DFR Directorate of Fisheries Resources Management DWRM Directorate of Water Resources Management EWG Expert Working Group FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the FMSY Fishing Mortality at Maximum Sustainable Yield FS Frame Survey GDP Gross Domestic Product GDSA Gaborone Declaration for Sustainability in IDEEA Institute for Development of Environmental Economic Accountings IIED International Institute for Environment and Development IISD International Institute for Sustainable Development ITQ Individual Transferable Quotas LVFO Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries MEY Maximum Economic Yield MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MTIC Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives MWE Ministry of Water and Environment NaFIRRI National Fisheries Resources Research Institute NARO National Agricultural Research Organization NBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan NCA Natural Capital Accounting NEMA National Environment Management Authority NPA National Planning Authority NSOER National State of the Environment Report PSUT Physical Supply and Use Table SDGs Sustainable Development Goals SEEA-EA System of Environmental Economic Accounts – Ecosystem Accounting SEEAF System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Fisheries SNA System of National Accounts UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics UIA Uganda Investment Authority UNEP-WCMC UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre URA Uganda Revenue Authority WMZ Water Monitoring Zone WTO World Trade Organization

ix | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) has developed a set of Fisheries Resources Accounts in collaboration with the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), National Planning Authority (NPA), Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), the Institute for International Environment and Development (IIED), and the Institute for the Development of Environmental-Economic Accounting (IDEEA).

The project was funded by the Darwin Initiative through UNEP-WCMC and aims to support: (i) the delivery of Uganda’s National Development Plan, Green Growth Development Strategy and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP); (ii) the integration of the value of biodiversity into national reporting, poverty reduction, and planning processes; (iii) organizing biodiversity related natural capital data using internationally endorsed accounting frameworks; (iv) enabling decision-makers to implement integrated environmental-economic planning for green growth, poverty alleviation and attaining the SDGs and Aichi Targets; and (v) developing capacity of account compilers and users to institutionalize the accounting approach. These objectives are implemented by developing three biodiversity-related natural capital accounts (NCAs) i.e., the Fisheries Accounts, Land and Soils Improvement accounts, and Tourism and Biodiversity accounts. All three sets of accounts have been compiled in accordance with the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA) framework, developed under the auspices of the United Nations Statistics Division.

The purpose of the Fisheries Accounts is to support UBOS, National Planning Authority, Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industries and Fisheries, and Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development to integrate Natural Capital accounts in National accounts and reporting systems.

FINDINGS Extent of Fishery Resources

Lake and river ecosystems (Capture fisheries): Lakes and rivers constitute Uganda’s freshwater ecosystem. Uganda has 165 lakes, of which five are categorized as major lakes i.e., Lake Victoria (29,584 sq. Km-Ugandan side), Lake Albert (3,162 sq. km-Ugandan side), Kyoga (2,583 sq. km), Edward (675 sq. km-Ugandan side) and George (250 sq. km). The other important sources of fish are Lake Wamala (118 sq. km) and the Albert Nile (220 km). There are also 160 minor lakes. Minor lakes are particularly important source of food and livelihoods to the rural poor. However, they seem to be neglected when it comes to the implementation of national fisheries policies. As such, they have been abused and overexploited resulting into depletion of their fish stocks. For instance, in 2004 minor lakes contributed 9 per cent to national total catch but this declined to just 2 per cent in 2018.

x | P a g e

Fish ponds and cages: Fish ponds and cages are the major aquaculture production systems in Uganda. The country has a huge aquaculture production potential; however, the sub-sector is still in its infancy, with majority of the farmers still practicing at a small scale. Most of the aquaculture farmers are located in the central region districts of Kampala, Wakiso, Mpigi and Masaka. There are approximately 20,000 farmers using approximately 25,000 ponds (of average size 500 sq. meters) and 3,000 cages located on different water bodies.

Ecosystem Condition Accounts

To understand the ecosystem condition, we rely on water quality profiles of different water bodies. Water quality monitoring in Uganda is mainly carried out in particular areas on major lakes and rivers, leaving out information on the genral water quality status of Uganda’s water bodies. In this way, there are no lake-wide water quality monitoring records, particularly on physico-chemical water quality parameters. The few water quality studies conducted are oriented around specific objectives (on particular water body segments/areas) and are not intended to assess the ecosystem condition of the entire water body. Available records indicate that Kariba weed and water hyacinth are the common invasive aquatic weeds on Uganda’s waters bodies. These are fairly well studied, and their hotspots have been mapped on Lake Kyoga, Lake Kwania, Lake Albert and Lake Victoria.

Fish Asset Accounts

The physical asset accounts for fisheries help track how the fisheries resources are changing within the economy. The disaggregation to species level provides important information on what is happening to supplement information on the physical and monetary flows from the supply and use accounts, as it identifies where the resource base is over exploited in pursuit of income. Uganda’s lakes and rivers are richly endowed with more than 500 fish species. The species of highest economic value include: Nile perch, Nile , Mukene, and Muziri. Tracking changes in fisheries natural capital requires regular stock monitoring. However, although Uganda is a signatory to the1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement, there are no funds allocated to undertaking stock assessment on most of the water bodies across the country. Currently stock assessment is conducted only on Lake Victoria.

Stock assessment conducted on Lake Victoria indicates a general decline in the stocks of Mukene, Haplochromines and other species between 2009 and 2019. However, the stocks of Nile perch showed a significant improvement in the same time period though with a slight decline in 2016 and 2019. This declining trend has been attributed to and use of illegal and unregulated fishing gears such as beach seines and fish finders, particularly for Mukene fishery. On the other hand, the decline in the stocks of Haplochromines and other species has been attributed to increase in the stock of Nile perch, which is a predator to this fishery. In effect, Nile perch and Haplochromines (and other species) in Lake Victoria stock trends exhibit a predator-prey relationship.

xi | P a g e

Physical Supply and Use Tables

The purpose of the Physical Supply and Use Tables (PSUT) is to track the ability of the fish ecosystems to supply provisioning services (i.e., fish). Lakes and rivers are the major ecosystems supplying fish in Uganda, with capture fisheries accounting for 80% of total national fish harvest. Fish catches exhibit fluctuations, with the highest and lowest catch values in about a decade recorded in 2011(493,840 metric tons) and 2018 (345,000 metric tons - the lowest catch value in over 15 years) respectively. Further to this, research reveals an increasing number of fishers and fishing crafts on all major water bodies across the country, however, this increase has not translated into any significant increase in the quantity of catch over the years. Fisheries statistics records show fish catches from different water bodies. Between 2017 and 2018, Lake Albert surpassed Lake Victoria as Uganda’s major capture fisheries supplier. In 2018, Lake Albert contributed 43% to the total national catch ahead of Lake Victoria (40%) and Lake Kyoga (12%). The rest of the water bodies including minor lakes and rivers contributing just 5% to the total national catch in the same year. The major species in Uganda’s capture fisheries include: Nile perch, , Mukene, Muziri, Ragoogi, North African , Marbled , Semutundu, Nile barb and Bayad. These are the ten species of highest economic value (or contributing a significant proportion of catches) on major water bodies in Uganda.

Uganda’s capture fisheries resources are experiencing immense pressure due to over-fishing and the rampant use of illegal and unregulated fishing gears. Beach seines and fish finders are some of the common illegal fishing gears used on Uganda’s major water bodies. This has resulted into a general decline in fish catches. For instance, Lake Victoria’s Mukene, and other fish stocks have been declining since 2010. The decline in fish stocks has resulted in a reduction in Uganda’s fish and fish products export rate. For instance, in 2005, Uganda exported 36,600 metric tons of fish and fish products, but the exports declined to 16,594 metric tons in 2016. As a result, there has been a general downward trend in the economic indicators of the sub-sector. The sub-sector’s contribution to GDP has been declining since 2006, i.e., 1.9% (FY 2006/2007) to 1.6% (FY 2014/2015) to 1.5% (FY 2017/2018) (UIA, 2009; UBOS, 2018). However, with Lake Victoria’s Nile perch stocks on a recovery trajectory in recent years, Uganda’s fish exports have started to show improvement, for instance, from 16,594 metric tons (in 2016) to in 20,364 metric tons (in 2018).

Declines in capture fisheries have stimulated aquaculture production, from 1,500 metric tons of fish in 2005 to 100,000 metric tons in 2010, and 120,000 metric tons by 2018. The main fish species farmed are North African catfish and Nile tilapia. Production from aquaculture accounts for about 20% of the total fish harvest in the country. Although it is largely supported by small scale fish farmers, commercial large-scale farmers are slowly developing an interest. Currently, aquaculture is mainly concentrated in the central region districts of Kampala, Wakiso, Masaka, and Mpigi. However, there are efforts to extend to other regions and districts across the country, using different production systems such as cages (mainly on Lake Victoria), tanks and ponds. Encouraging aquaculture will reduce the pressure on the rapidly declining stocks of capture xii | P a g e fisheries. However, there is also a need to tackle the challenge of quality and affordability of fish seeds and feeds, as well as skill development among farmers and access to capital.

Monetary Supply and Use Accounts

Monetary information is essential because it informs economic planning for the fisheries sector. It also helps to determine investment levels, support and infrastructure development and what the likely returns may be in monetary terms and with respect to food security and employment. This information also reveals the level of economic activity that is dependent on the sustainable management of capture fisheries ecosystems, their fish stocks and the pressures they face. For example, monetary information reveals that there has been a general increase in revenue from Uganda’s fisheries including aquaculture; from UGX 495,617,071,472 in 2009 to UGX 1,660,546,228,542 in 2016. However, due to the sharp decline in the catches from captures in 2017 and 2018, the revenue declined to UGX 1,221,521,351,985 in 2018. These estimates were computed from beach value prices of the catch.

Resource rent

In the early days of environmental accounting, resource rent was calculated to derive the value of assets. However, more recently rent has been analyzed to assess resource management in terms of economic efficiency, sustainability and other socio-economic objectives such as employment and equity. In this study, with the exception of 2009 and 2010, where rents were negative, there was a general increase in the rent from 2011 (UGX 422,868,425,649) to 2016 (UGX 480,107,411,586). However, the sharp fall in catches in 2018 resulted in a sharp decline in the rent to just UGX 172,519,846,425.

In terms of resource rent by water body, Albert Nile had the worst performance, registering negative rents throughout the accounting period. This was followed by Lake Kyoga which also registered negative rents for most of the years. However, in terms of rents per species, particularly on Lake Victoria, Nile perch fishery had the best performance while Nile tilapia was the most economically inefficient fishery. The good performance of Nile perch can be attributed to improvement in stocks of the fishery, while the poor performance of Nile tilapia can be attributed to the evident declining stocks of this fishery. The negative resource rents generally indicate economic inefficiency of the fishing regime.

Policy recommendations Based on findings of this study, the proposed recommendations include: • Conducting regular stock assessments and catch assessments on all major water bodies across the country. • Regulating the fishing effort and control use of illegal fishing gears. Vessel decommissioning mechanisms could check overfishing and facilitate fish stock recovery. • Controlling overfishing and curbing the use of illegal and unregulated fishing gears rampant on many water bodies across the country, including the use of fish finders. xiii | P a g e

• Conducting regular Frame Surveys on all water bodies across the country including minor water bodies to regularly monitor fishing effort. • Restricting fishing by creating and enforcing no-fishing seasons (fishing holidays) to facilitate fish stock recovery. • Setting fishing standards such as standardization fishing gears and vessels. Additionally, there should be standard maximum allowable catch per fishing effort (fishing quota). • Promoting aquaculture (currently concentrated in central region) across the entire country. This will reduce the immense pressure on the capture fisheries. • Identifying and gazetting more Fish Breeding Areas (FBAs) including gazetting some areas (particularly those associated FBAs) in the lakes as no fishing zones, and increasing efforts in wetland protection and conservation. • Establishing baseline lake-wide water quality monitoring programmes to regularly assess the ability of the ecological condition of the water bodies to support fisheries resources. • Developing and implementing a monitoring mechanism to capture regional fish exports and imports that often go unrecorded. • Setting a standard on fish factory processing with emphasis on value addition such as fish canning. • Reducing post-harvest losses for Mukene fishery, currently estimated at about 30%. • Based on the declining fish stocks and catches, it’s not logical or economical to set up new fish factories. Emphasis should be put on improving the quality and value addition of the fish products from the existing factories e.g., fish canning for export.

xiv | P a g e

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND The National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) in collaboration with the UN Environment Programme - World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), National Planning Authority (NPA), Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), the Institute for International Environment and Development (IIED) and the Institute for the Development of Environmental- Economic Accounting (IDEEA) implemented a project on Integrating Natural Capital into Sustainable Development Decision Making in Uganda. This project was funded by the Darwin Initiative through UNEP-WCMC and aims to support: (i) the delivery of the Ugandan National Development Plan, Green Growth Development Strategy and the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP); (ii) the integration of the value of biodiversity into national reporting, poverty reduction, and planning processes; (iii) organizing biodiversity related natural capital data using internationally endorsed accounting frameworks; (iv) enabling decision-makers to implement integrated environmental-economic planning for green growth, poverty alleviation and attaining the SDGs and Aichi Targets; and (v) developing capacity of account compilers and users to institutionalize the accounting approach. These objectives are expected to be achieved through three biodiversity-related natural capital accounts (NCAs) i.e., Fisheries Resources Accounts, Land and Soils Improvment Accounts, and Tourism and Biodiversity Accounts.

Biodiversity is an essential part of Uganda’s ‘natural capital stock’, underpinning the delivery of the ecosystem services that support economic activity and the well-being of its people. However, the value of biodiversity is often neglected in traditional assessments of economic progress and development planning. This encourages inefficient and unsustainable growth, requiring investment in manufactured infrastructure to replace the benefits provided by nature. The loss of benefits disproportionately impacts the rural poor since much of their real income is dependent upon ecosystem services. Natural capital accounting is one of the tools used to highlight the implications of biodiversity loss to policy makers.

Natural capital accounting involves the use of consistent and comparable data to show how natural resources contribute to the economy and how the economy affects natural resources. This will facilitate the mainstreaming of the benefits of biodiversity management into sector development planning, which in turn delivers on national priorities for green growth, poverty alleviation and biodiversity enhancement. Natural capital accounts (NCAs) paint a broader picture of economic development than standard measures such as gross domestic product (GDP). NCA is part of the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA). In 2014, the United Nations approved the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Central Framework (SEEA CF) as a global standard consistent with the System of National Accounts (SNA), the internationally agreed standard set of recommendations on how to compile measures of economic activity (UN et al., 2014). The United Nations Statistical Commission has also very

1 | P a g e recently adopted the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting framework at its 52nd session in March 2021 (UNSD, 2021)

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) also recognizes the importance of NCA and recommends that governments adopt strategic plans and policies that prioritize biodiversity conservation and explicitly capture the contribution of biodiversity in National Accounts. For instance, Aichi Target 2 states that by 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values should have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and incorporated into national accounting and reporting systems, as appropriate. This is also reflected in SDG Target 15.9.1.

In addition, decision XIII/3 paragraph 18 (b) of the Conference of the Parties (COP) invites Parties and other Governments, in collaboration with relevant national and international organizations and initiatives to introduce or scale up the use of environmental economic accounting and natural capital accounting, as well as diverse methods and methodologies to assess the multiple values of biodiversity. Uganda recognizes these objectives in Targets 1.1 and 4.1 of her National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). This project also supports the attainment of NBSAP target 4.1.6 that calls for biodiversity accounting in pursuit of incentives for conservation and sustainable use (reflecting the enabling environment for Aichi Target 3).

The objective of these targets is to establish information systems to support more holistic integrated economic and land use planning, which consider biodiversity better, the impacts of managing biodiversity and ecosystem services biodiversity provides. Such an integrated approach would be a significant improvement from traditional planning regimes. This project therefore aims to deepen the implementation of Target 2. This includes generating the policy support information for natural capital management called for in Uganda’s Green Growth and Development strategy. It also responds to the Gaborone Declaration for Sustainability in Africa (GDSA) and the support requested by Parties in UNEA Resolution 2/13 specifically relating to natural capital, capacity building and technical assistance.

1.2 PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT The overall purpose of the project was to develop Fisheries Resources Accounts to support UBOS, National Planning Authority, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries, and Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development, in integrating natural capital accounts in national accounts and reporting systems. Products from the project support Uganda to deliver on the country’s Green Growth Development Strategy, National Development Plan, National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP), Aichi Target 2 and SDG 15.9, through integrated planning that recognizes the value of biodiversity and poverty reduction.

2 | P a g e

1.3 FISHERIES RESOURCES OF UGANDA

The fisheries sub-sector remains the second highest foreign exchange earner and a very important contributor to Uganda’s economic growth and social transformation. The sub-sector has dominated non-traditional agricultural exports since 2005 and contributes about 12% of the agricultural GDP, and about 1.5% of total National GDP annually. In 2009 Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) estimated investment in this sub-sector at US$ 200 million with the sub-sector employing over 700,000 people. The sub-sector has since grown, offering employment to an estimated 1-1.5 million people in the production and marketing value chain (NEMA, 2016). In 2016 fish catches from Uganda’s waters were estimated at 467,528 metric tons with an estimated beach value of UGX 442 billion. Exports from fish and fish products to regional and international markets were valued at US$153 million with an added value of about UGX 1,521 billion in the same year.

Uganda’s waters are estimated to have a potential of producing 600,000 metric tons of capture fisheries per annum (NaFRRI, 2013). In 2018, production from aquaculture was estimated at 120,000 metric tons from 20,000 farmers involved in aquaculture countrywide, producing from approximately 25,000 ponds and 3000 cages. Uganda is the second largest aquaculture producer in Sub-Saharan Africa after Nigeria (FAO, 2017). Aquaculture production in Uganda increased from just over 800 metric tons (in 2000) to 120,000 metric tons (in 2018). Production is mostly composed of (51%) and Nile tilapia (49%).

While the fisheries sub-sector paints an economically promising picture, the status of the sub- sector is rapidly changing with increasing concerns over depletion of stocks due to use of indiscriminate fishing methods, trade in illegal unregulated and unrecorded (IUU) immature fish and general weaknesses in the governance of the sub-sector. This has resulted into low catch which has affected the contribution of the sub-sector to the national GDP and foreign earnings (exports). There has been a downward trend in the sector’s economic indicators since 2004/2005 FY; for example, the sector’s contribution to GDP fell from 1.9% (FY 2006/2007) to 1.6% (FY 2014/2015) to 1.5% (FY 2017/2018) (UIA, 2009; UBOS, 2018). This study provides information critical for policy making for sustainable management of fish stocks and supporting the small-scale fisheries sector to provide livelihoods, fish for consumption and for export.

3 | P a g e

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1 STUDY DESIGN The Fisheries accounts were developed based on the System of Environmental–Economic Accounting Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EA) Framework (UNSD, 2021). As the SEEA EA was only adopted as an international standard in March 2021, the accounts presented have been compiled using the SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) framework and associated Technical Recommendations (UN et al., 2014b, 2017). However, they are considered to be consistent with the approach set out in the recently adopted SEEA EA (UNSD, 2021). The SEEA EA framework offers an opportunity to represent an in-depth perspective of the fisheries sector. It focuses on ecosystems by considering both their extent and conditions, as well as their capacity to deliver provisioning, regulating and cultural services which are particularly important for . The study was hinged on the draft SEEA Methodological Note (https://www.unep-wcmc.org/featured-projects/nca-in-uganda) which draws on the SEEA-EEA Technical Recommendations (UN et al, 2017) and the SEEA for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (SEEA AFF) (FAO, 2016) into a sequence of practical and logical steps. It provides a framework on how to compile a set of Integrated Fisheries Accounts that can be used to inform policy, management and better valuation of the fisheries sector to support its management in a sustainable way that contributes to Uganda’s green growth ambitions. The accounts organize information on fish “Stocks”, the ecosystems in which they are found, and the “flows” of ecosystem services (i.e. fish provisioning) they provide to key economic units (government, households and businesses) in Uganda. This is illustrated by the relationship between core SEEA- EA accounts and thematic accounts (Figure 1), which was the basis for production of physical fisheries accounts covering ecosystem extent accounts, ecosystem condition accounts, and fish asset accounts.

Figure 1: Relationship between core SEEA-EA accounts and thematic species accounts for fisheries

Adapted from UNEP-WCMC, IDEEA, NPA, NEMA and UBoS (2019).

2.2 METHODOLOGICAL RATIONALE

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) consists of a set of satellite accounts for the environment intended to incorporate the role of the environment in the economy and to explicitly reflect it in the System of National Accounts (SNA). SEEA has a similar structure to the

4 | P a g e

SNA, which involves recording stocks and flows of environmental goods and services. It provides a set of aggregate indicators which are used to monitor environmental-economic performance both at the sector and macroeconomic level, as well as a detailed set of statistics to guide resource managers towards policy decisions intended to improve future environmental-economic performance.

The SEEA also directly links environmental data to the economic accounts through a shared structure, set of definitions and classifications. The advantage of this database is that it provides a tool used to integrate environmental-economic analysis and to overcome the tendency to divide issues along disciplinary lines, in which analyses of economic issues and of are carried out independently of one another.

Finally, the SEEA covers all the important environmental-economic interactions, a feature that makes it ideal for addressing cross-sectorial issues, such as fisheries management. It is not possible to promote sustainable fisheries purely from the narrow perspective of managing fish stocks; rather, an ecosystem-wide approach is needed that can address threats to the health of fish habitats. These threats can come from changes in land use, pollution, forest cover, water flow, and other environmental components. As satellite accounts to the SNA, the SEEA is linked to the full range of economic activities, with a fairly comprehensive classification for environmental resources. For this reason, the SEEA includes information about all critical environmental stocks and flows that may affect natural capital including fisheries.

2.3 DATA COLLECTION AND WORKING ARRANGEMENTS

2.3.1 DATA COLLECTION An initial desk review was conducted to help the consultants further understand the issues, key players and data sources in the sector in Uganda. The review was important in developing data collection instruments targeting various data sources. The desk review, meetings, consultations and field visits were undertaken to generate information that was arranged into a data system to reflect the opening fisheries stock and other ecosystem assets, the changes that occurred during the accounting period and the closing fisheries stocks, other ecosystem assets and associated ecosystem service flows.

2.3.2 WORKING ARRANGEMENTS A small Technical Committee (Expert Working Group, EWG) was constituted to work with the consultants. The EWG was engaged in the development of the accounting approach and identification of key datasets required for the development of the fisheries accounts. Metadata on all datasets contributing to the compilation of the accounts was recorded in a metadata base following UBOS Data Quality Assurance Frameworks. The metadata base structure was reconciled with UBOS data collection tools in advance of the data collection process (following

5 | P a g e a common template). This was intended to establish a foundation for the institutional relationships between data providers and UBOS to facilitate regular and long-term production of the accounts.

6 | P a g e

3. CHARACTERIZATION OF UGANDA’S FISHERIES SUB-SECTOR AND RESOURCES

Uganda’s fisheries sub-sector is very diverse, covering many aspects of capture and cultured fisheries. Understanding of Uganda’s fisheries sub-sector therefore entails ascertaining various aspects of ecosystems for capture and cultured fisheries, which include; (i) Size and location of major lakes and rivers (ii) Fish landing sites (iii) Size and number of fish ponds and cages

3.1 Extent of Ecosystem Assets for Capture Fisheries

Major ecosystems for capture fisheries in Uganda are lakes, rivers and wetland system. Farmed fish, on the other hand, are produced on fish farms manifesting as ponds but increasingly also as cages on rivers or lakes. Lake and river ecosystems account for over 80% of the total fish output in the country. There are five major lakes, and numerous minor lakes and rivers supplying fisheries resources in Uganda (Table 1). Major lakes include: Lake Victoria, Lake Kyoga, Lake Albert, Lake Edward and Lake George located in different ecological zones of the country (Figure 2). Lake Wamala is the most important minor lake while Albert Nile is the most important river.

Table1: Size and Location of Uganda’s Major Fish Supplying Ecosystems

Water body Size Location (Coordinates) Source Lake Victoria 29,584 sq. km (43%) Ugandan side 1°S 33°E LVFO, 2016 Lake Albert 3,162 sq. km (60%) Ugandan side 1°41′N 30°55′E Walker, 1972 Lake Edward 675 sq. km (29%) Ugandan side 0°20′S 29°36′E Kamanyi and Mwene, 1990 Lake Kyoga 2,583 sq. km 1°30′N 33°0′E Twongo, 2001 Lake George 250 sq. km 0°00′N 30°12′E NaFIRRI, 2013 Lake Wamala 118 sq. km 00°20′44″N 31°53′16″E Okaranon, 1993 Albert Nile 220 km 1°41′N 30°55′E NaFIRRI, 2012

7 | P a g e

Figure 2: Map of Uganda showing major Lakes & rivers Source: NaFIRRI, 2013

3.2 Characterization of Uganda’s Capture Fishery Ecosystem Assets

3.2.1 LAKE VICTORIA Lake Victoria, with a surface area of 68,800 km2, is the second largest freshwater body in the World. The largest part of the lake, i.e., 35,088 km2 (51%) is in , followed by the part in Uganda which is 29,584 km2 (43%), and the part in measuring 4,128 km2 (6%). The Lake has a shoreline length of 3,450 km: 1,150 km (33%) in Tanzania, 1,750 km (51%) in Uganda and 550 km (16%) in Kenya. The lake’s fisheries support a vibrant fish export industry, which is one of the major foreign exchange earners of the lacustrine states. The lake is also a very important source of highly proteinous food and offers employment to people in the (EAC). It supports one of the world’s most productive inland fisheries of commercial value e.g., Nile perch ( niloticus), Mukene (Rastrineobola argentea), Tilapiine and Haplochromines (fulu/furu/nkejje) fisheries. The total catch from this lake is around a million metric tons of which 53.7% is from the Tanzania, followed by 29.7% from Uganda and 16.6% from Kenya (Regional Catch Assessment Survey Synthesis Report 2005-2014).

8 | P a g e

Lake Victoria’s fisheries resources are dynamic, and have changed considerably since the emergence of the Nile perch fishery in the late 1970s (Acere, 1985; 1995). The Nile perch fishery stimulated a high demand for fish on the export market, which led to the establishment of plants within the riparian countries. This incentive created by the export market has fuelled rapid increase in fishing effort. This has been instigated by the high unemployment levels and limited alternative livelihood options especially among the youth, who have ventured into fishing for economic reasons (LVFO, 2016). The 2016 Frame survey on Lake Victoria’s Uganda side recorded 556 landing sites (Appendix 1) and a total number of 69,740 fishers using 30,390 fishing crafts. This has exerted immense pressure on the Lake’s fisheries resources.

3.2.2 LAKE ALBERT Lake Albert is currently the most productive lake in Uganda followed by Lake Victoria (UBOS 2018). The lake is one of the trans-boundary water bodies shared between Uganda (60% by area) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (40%) (Figure 3). In Uganda, the lake is shared by five riparian districts namely: Ntoroko, Kibaale, , Buliisa and Nebbi. The lake covers a total estimated surface area of 5,270 km2, with approximately 60% of its waters within Uganda (Walker, 1972). It is located in the western part of the great rift-valley at 618m above sea level. The central parts of the lake are characterized by steep escarpments, whereas the northern and southern parts lie in a plain of the rift valley. The plains are gently sloping, resulting in shallow swampy inshore waters in many places. The major inflowing rivers are the Semliki and Kafu in the south, and the Victoria Nile at the northern tip. The lake has a diverse fish fauna which includes small pelagic Mesobola bredoi (Muziri)-51% and Brycinus nurse (Ragoogi)-34%, which are the dominant species (NaFIRRI, 2012). Others include Lates niloticus Nile perch, niloticus Tilapia, and Hydrocinus forskalli etc. There are 107 fish landing sites (Frame Survey, 2018) on the lake side located in Uganda (Appendix 1). The main Fishing craft are Congo Barque and the majority of the fishers (45%) are involved in fishing of Brycinus nurse (Ragoogi) and Neobola bredoi (Muziri).

9 | P a g e

Figure 3: Map showing Lake Albert Source: NaFIRRI, 2018

3.2.3 THE KYOGA BASIN LAKE SYSTEM The Kyoga Basin has two major lakes i.e., Kyoga and Kwania (Figure 4) with a total area of 1,800 and 783 km2, respectively. Besides these two major lakes, there are two other medium sized minor lakes, i.e., Bisina and Nakuwa with an area of 130 and 83 km2 respectively, and about 30 other minor lakes (Twongo, 2001, Muhoozi et.al 2009), (Figure 4 and 5). The fisheries of Lake Kyoga and, to some extent, Lake Kwania have been fairly well studied compared to the rest of the minor lakes in the basin where scanty information is available. One of the main setbacks relating to the available information on Lakes Kwania and Kyoga is the ambiguous reference to the two systems as Lake Kyoga (NaFIRRI, 2015). In 2014, twenty-nine fish taxa were recorded in the Kyoga basin lakes and the major species include Nile , Nile perch, . Aethiopicus (), Mukene and Clarias gariepinus (North African catfish). Information available from the Frame Surveys indicate that the number of landing sites on Kyoga basin Lakes has remained fairly stable at 366 between 2008 and 2013 (Appendix 1). However, despite the stability in number of landing sites, the total number of fishers and fishing crafts operating on the Kyoga basin lake system has continued to sour, resulting in severe decline in the Lake’s fish stocks.

10 | P a g e

Figure4: Map showing Kyoga Basin Lakes System Source: NaFIRRI, 2015

Figure 5: Map showing Kyoga Basin Minor Lakes Source: NaFIRRI, 2014

11 | P a g e

3.2.4 LAKE EDWARD Lake Edward, which is shared between Uganda (29%) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (71%), is located in the western at an elevation of 920m above sea level, with its northern shores a few kilometres south of the (0020’S 29036’E) (Figure 6). Lake Edward is 77 km long and 40 km wide at its maximum points and covers an area of 2,325 km2, with an average depth of 17m and maximum depth of 112m, which is about 3.5 km from the western (Congo) shore (Kamanyi and Mwene, 1990; NaFIRRI, 2008). The lake’s major inflows are from the Nyamugasani River which drains the southwestern end of the , and the Ishasha, and the Bwindi rivers which drain the Kigezi, highlands and Virunga volcanoes in the South.

Lake Edward is connected to the shallow Lake George through the 36 km Kazing channel. Flow through Kazinga Channel is barely measurable, because the two lakes are at nearly the same elevation, although net transport is towards Lake Edward (Kamanyi and Mwene 1990, NaFIRRI 2008). Lake Edward is presently open, draining to Lake Albert to the north via , but water loss by evaporation currently exceeds surface outflow by about 20% (Kamanyi and Mwene, 1990; Crespi and Ardizzone 1995, NaFIRRI, 2008). Lake Edward is also an important reservoir for tropical in the Upper Nile Watershed, and the equatorial headwaters of the main River Nile (Kamanyi and Mwene, 1990; NaFIRRI, 2008). Most of the lake is bordered by Queen Elizabeth National Park (QENP) in Uganda and in Democratic Republic of Congo. The lake is one of the major water bodies for fisheries resources production in Uganda and has five gazetted landing sites (Appendix 1).

Figure 6: Map of Lake Edward Source: NaFIRRI (2018)

12 | P a g e

3.2.5 LAKE GEORGE Lake George is a shallow lake with a mean depth of 2.5m, a maximum depth of 4m and an area of 250 km2. It is situated astride the equator in the western arm of the Valley at an altitude of 914m (Figure 7). Most of the lake is bordered by savannah vegetation but the north- eastern sections are bordered by wetlands. The lake has four major inflowing rivers which include three rivers originating from the Rwenzori Mountains i.e., River Simbwe, River Nsongwe River Mobuku and the fourth, River , the westerward flowing tributary of River Katonga (Ogutu-ohwayo et al., 1997). Lake George is shared by , and districts, and three quarters of the lake is located in the QENP. The fisheries are an important source of food, livelihood and income to residents in the landing sites and to urban dwellers in western and central Uganda.

The fish fauna of the Lakes Edward and George is as diverse as its geological history (NaFIRRI, 2008). The lake shares some fish species with Lake Albert and others with Lakes Victoria and Kivu. Geological evidence suggests that Lake Edward has had a connection with Lake Victoria up to probably the early Pleistocene period, approximately one million years ago (Ruseel, 1999). Thus, most of the in the Lakes Edward and George are similar to those of Lakes Victoria and Kivu suggesting a common ancestry. Lakes Edward, George and Kazinga channel are home to many fish species with the commercial fisheries dominated by the Nile Tilapia, docmak (Semutundu), Marbled lungfish and North African catfish. The other fish species include over 50 unexploited haplochromines (Nkejje) that dominate the lake’s fish biomass (NaFIRRI, 2008). The lake is one of the main fishing grounds for Uganda, and has eight fish landing sites in addition to two landing sites on Kazinga channel and five landing sites on Lake Edward, giving a total of fifteen landing sites on Edward-George-Kazing channel lake system (Appendix 1).

Figure 7: Map showing Edward-George-Kazinga Channel Lake System Source: NaFIRRI, 2013 13 | P a g e

3.2.6 LAKE WAMALA Lake Wamala is one of the small lakes in Uganda, and lies between latitudes 0 15; and 0o 25' N 31o 45' to longitude 32o 00' E, longitude and at an altitude of 1000m above sea level (Figure 8). Following the 1961 heavy rains the lake expanded from about 100 to 118 sq. km and the swamps covered almost 60 sq. km (Okaranon 1993). This lake was first stocked with Oreohromis niloticus then and then Tilapia zillii after which it was officially opened for in 1960 (NaFIRRI, 2012). The main species in this lake include Clarias gariepinus, Protopterus aethiopicus, and Oreochromis niloticus. Paddled parachute boats (bawo tatu) are the main craft on Lake Wamala, exploiting various fish species in the fishery. There are 26 landing sites on Lake Wamala covering the three riparian districts of , and Gomba (Appendix 1).

Figure 2: Map showing Lake Wamala Source: NaFIRRI, 2012

14 | P a g e

3.2.7 ALBERT NILE Albert Nile is a section of the great river Nile that starts from the northern tip of Lake Albert and travels about 220 km to Uganda-South border (Figure 9). The stretch traverses an area characterized by gentle slopes and numerous flood plains surrounded by swamps. The main fish species in this river section include Oreochromis niloticus (Nile tilapia), Ragoogi (B. nurse), North African catfish (C. gariepinus), bynni (Nile barb), Marbled lungfish (P. aethiopicus), and Bagrus Bayad (Bayad). A frame survey conducted in 2012 recorded 126 fish landing sites on the Albert Nile (Appendix 1) (NaFIRRI, 2012). The main fishing crafts are Dug-out canoes, Congo Barque, and Parachute. The major fishing gears used on this river include gillnet, long lines and cast nets.

Figure 9: Map showing Albert Nile Source: NaFIRRI, 2012 3.3 Characterization of Uganda’s Aquaculture Resources

Small-scale fish farmers in Uganda are divided into three segments i.e., segment I, II and III.

Segment I The segment I farmers produce between 1-5 tons/year, based on two production systems cultivating Nile tilapia and African catfish from small earthen ponds of approximately 600sq meters and square cages (High Density Low Volume). The ponds are constructed with family labor and the cages are locally fabricated from bamboo or metal bar frames. The production can be classified as extensive.

15 | P a g e

Segment II The farmers in this segment produce 6-40 tons/year. The earthen ponds are approximately 1000 sq. meters and square cages (Low Density High Volume) are used to cultivate Nile tilapia. The ponds are constructed with hired labor and the cages are locally fabricated from bamboo or metal bar frames. The production intensity can be classified as extensive to semi-intensive.

Segment III These farmers produce 41-50 tons/year. In this segment only cage farmers are active, focusing on the production of Nile tilapia. Square cages are self-made or imported from China. The construction of cages occurs with hired labor and the production intensity can be classified as semi-intensive.

Uganda has an enormous potential for aquaculture and production is projected to reach 240,000 metric tons/year in the next ten years (WCDI, 2018). However, this will be achieved upon realization of strategic measures to tackle the challenges faced by the sector. Aquaculture farmers in Uganda are currently facing challenges such as: (i) Lack of high quality and affordable fish feeds (ii) Lack of high quality and affordable seeds (iii) Lack of capital to expand the scale of production (iv) Lack of stable markets (v) Lack of knowledge and skills (vi) Environmental issue

3.3 Fish Ponds and Cages

3.3.1 FISH PONDS Aquaculture is practiced in almost all . There are approximately 20,000 farmers involved in the production of fish through aquaculture countrywide; many of these are locted in the central region; (Figure 10). They produce from 25,000 ponds (average surface area of 500 square meters), and just over 3000 cages (Figure 11). Currently, production from aquaculture is estimated at 120,000 metric tons/year, accounting for approximately 20% of total fish harvest (WCDI, 2018). However, many farmers are small scale with very few large-scale intensive or semi- intensive farms of generally low input and output production. There are approximately 2000 emerging commercial aquaculture farmers and 3000 considered as progressive small-scale fish farmers producing between 1,500kg/ha for subsistence to 20,000kg/ha per year for emerging commercial fish farmers.

16 | P a g e

Figure 10: Map of Central region showing location of fish ponds Source: NaFIRRI, 2013

3.3.2 FISH CAGES Cage farming in Uganda is primarily concentrated in districts along the shores of Lake Victoria particularly Rakai, Masaka, Mpigi, Wakiso, Kampala, Jinja, Mayuge, Busia, and numerous islands (Figure 11). Cages are laid in rows spaced at least 2m apart and placed in water deep enough for the cage bottom to be at least 2-3m above the bottom sediments. The area should be accessible to facilitate routine maintenance and feeding, and in a place where they can be easily secured.

17 | P a g e

Figure 11: Map of Lake Victoria showing identified cage sites Source: NaFIRRI, 2016

18 | P a g e

4. ECOSYSTEM CONDITION ACCOUNTS

4.1 BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE STATE OF UGANDA’S WATER RESOURCES Total renewable water resources for Uganda amount to 43km3/year, with internal contribution of approximately 14km3/year and external contribution of 29km3/year (MWE, 2013). Water resources are impacted by a wide range of anthropogenic and natural factors such as urbanization, industrialization and climate variations, which lead to severe impacts. These factors affect both the quality and quantity of water in rivers, lakes and groundwater bodies. For example, there was a net gain in lake levels during 2015 and the earlier part of 2016 due to increased precipitation and regulation of the lakes. However, the intense and prolonged drought experienced in 2016 and 2017 led to a decline of observed water levels in most water bodies in the country (DWRM 2016; NSoER 2016/2017).

In fulfilment of its mandate to sustainably manage the water resources in the country, the Ministry of Water and Environment, through the Directorate of Water Resources Management conducts regular monitoring and assessment of the status of water resources in the country. Figure 12 shows the location of the four water monitoring zones (WMZ) in Uganda (i.e., Victoria WMZ, Kyoga WMZ, Albert WMZ, and Upper Nile WMZ). The Directorate runs various networks for monitoring water quality, quantity, as well as compliance and enforcement to laws and regulations. This is intended to produce information on the condition of water resources in the country, which forms the basis of early warning systems (NSoER 2016/2017).

However, for this particular study, the purpose of the ecosystem condition accounts is to track the ecological ability of the aquatic systems to support fish production and supply in the short, medium to long term. Key parameters defining the condition of ecosystems include the following:

(i) Water quality (including important parameters such as Dissolved Oxygen, Turbidity, pH) and key industrial discharges and other point sources of pollution (ii) Ecological quality of lakes and rivers (alien abundance, , algae condition/chlorophyll a) (iii) Extent of fish breeding areas

4.2 WATER QUALITY The Directorate of Water Resources Management (DWRM) conducts water quality monitoring excercises based on three water quality objectives and criteria which include:

1. Ambient monitoring intended for trend detection and defining ecological healthy and functionality 2. Effluent monitoring intended for calculating pollutant loads and discharge impacts on water resources 3. Operational monitoring intended for determining operational use and domestic water supply

19 | P a g e

These quality objectives address numerous water quality parameters including Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Temperature, Turbidity, Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD), Nutrients (Nitrogen - N & Phosphorus - P), and pH etc. One of the critical parameters for ambient water quality monitoring is assessment of turbidity, and trend development is important for observing the rate of deterioration of a given water body. However, it is important to note that water quality monitoring on Uganda’s water bodies is very limited and that there is an urgent need for a more focused and consistent effort in this area (Table 2).

Figure 12: Map of Uganda showing location of active water monitoring zones & stations Source: DWRM, 2016; NSOER 2016/2017

Table 2: Water Quality Condition of Lake Victoria

Parameter Year 2009 2011 2015 2016 2018 Temperature (OC) 25.09 24.58 24.12 24.67 24.66 Dissolved Oxygen (mgl-1) 8.30 7.88 6.06 7.19 7.54 Turbidity - Secchi (m) 2.80 2.70 1.80 2.82 2.29

Source : LVFO (2019), NaFIRRI (2009) ; Bagalwa et al (2014) ; Mulongaibalu et al (2011) 20 | P a g e

4.3 INVASIVE AQUATIC WEEDS Invasive weeds are a big problem on many major water bodies. Although there is an effort to reduce or eliminate them, they continue to spread because of their ability to quickly regenerate. These weeds include; Kariba weed (Salvinia molesta) and Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes). Lake Kyoga, Albert and Kwania are the hotspots for these weeds.

4.3.1 KARIBA WEED (Salvinia molesta) Kariba weed is an invasive alien waterweed that was first recorded in Uganda in sheltered bays of Lake Kyoga in June 2013 (Wanda et al. 2015). This waterweed has become a common feature on Lake Kyoga (Figure 13) and its associated rivers, and swamps, and has spread to other Lakes including Kwania (Figure 14), Albert (Figure 15) and Kimira (Lake Victoria basin) in . In 2020, it has been spoted on Lake Vicoria in at Dewe landing site in Wakiso distict (Bakunda Aventino, 2020). Kariba Weed is a free-floating waterweed that grows profusely and forms extensive dense mats over still- or slow-moving waters (Forno & Harley, 1979). The rapid growth of Kariba weed results in dense mats that cover the water surface and block light from penetrating the water column (Mitchell & Tur, 1975). This affects gasesous exchange between the water surface and the atmosphere. The weed reproduces only vegetatively, and rapid propagation is aided by its fragile stolons that break easily under the influence of any disturbance e.g., by winds, waves, water currents and movement of boats (Wanda et al. 2015). The broken pieces easily disperse to other locations where they multiply to form thick mats.

Figure 13: Kariba weed hotspots on Lake Kyoga (2016)

Source: NaFIRRI November, 2016; NSoER (2016/17)

21 | P a g e

Under optimal conditions, Kariba weed can double its biomass every two to three days, and can double in size covered in four to 10 days (Mitchell & Tur, 1975). This rapid multiplication creates extensive mats of the weed on invaded water systems which adversely affects environmental services of such water bodies. A study conducted by NaFIRRI between October-December 2016 revealed that the cover abundance and hotspots of Kariba weed on Lake Kyoga, Kwania and Albert was greatest in the sheltered zones. Wave and wind actions blow the weed out into the open water aiding its spread. The total area covered with the weed on Lake Kwania by October 2016 was 9,090 ha with Amai area in having the highest cover abundance of 1,752 ha (NaFIRRI, 2016). The study showed that from the shoreline to open waters, the waterweed varied in width between 0.002 and 1 km. Analysis of riparian district shows that by cover abundance, Amolatar was the worst hit with 5,850 ha, followed by and then Dokolo with 2,715 ha and 525 ha respectively.

Figure 14: Abundance of Kariba weed on Lake Kwania, October-December, 2016

Source: NaFIRRI, (2016); NSoER, 2016/2017

22 | P a g e

Figure 15: Map of north-central zone of Lake Albert showing abundance and distribution of Kariba weed, 2015 Source: Wanda et al. 2015

4.3.2 WATER HYACINTH (Eichhornia crassipes) Water hyacinth is a perennial herbaceous floating freshwater weed that belongs to the Family Pontederiaceae. This hydrophyte shows considerable variation in both leaf and flower form and colour, which also depend on the age of the plant. The flowers are bluish purple, large and self- fertile. The seeds are produced in large numbers and are contained in capsules, each capsule containing up to 300 seeds (Manson and Manson, 1958). The seeds can remain viable for 5-20 years (Matthews et al., 1977). The plant can also reproduce vegetatively through the production of horizontal stolons. Water hyacinth was common on Lake Victoria and Lake Kyoga in the late 1990s and early (Figure 16 and 17). Water hyacinth invaded Lake Victoria in the 1980s, and by 1998, the weed had attained peak coverage of approximately 2000 ha in Uganda’s part of the Lake. However, control interventions, particularly by biological means, significantly reduced the coverage to approximately 200 ha in 2012 (Wanda et al 2015). Major hotspots were mainly found in Bays including; MacDonald (52.1 ha); Fielding (38.0 ha); Bunjako (33.7 ha); Murchison (17.1 ha); Lwera (8.5 ha); Napoleon Gulf (2.9 ha); Berkeley (2.1 ha); Ssesse islands (47.8 ha) and river.

23 | P a g e

Figure 16: Map of Northern Lake Victoria showing hotspots for water hyacinth in March 2012 Source: NaFIRRI, 2013

Figure 17: Water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) mat on Lake Kyoga Source: NSoER, 2016 4.4 FISH BREEDING AREAS The Fish Breeding Areas (FBAs) are particular habitats in water where fish and nurture their hatched fingerlings. Some fish species like Barbus atrianalis and Clarias gariepinus migrate between open lakes and rivers or wetlands to spawn and take care of their fingerlings before returning to open waters as juveniles. Fish breeding and nursery grounds occur in shallow calm bays along the lakeshore and along calm shallow shores of islands. In 2013 NaFIRRI identified and mapped 147 potential breeding areas for high commercial fish species on Lake Victoria (Figure 18) and 55 on Lake Edward, George and Kazinga Channel (Figure 19). Characteristics of FBAs include:

24 | P a g e a) Calm waters with less frequent turbulent waves b) Shallow waters with submerged vegetation (such as wetlands) c) Clear sandy or rocky water bottoms d) Nutrient rich with suitable temperature mix e) Inhabited by juvenile /immature fish f) Refugia for fish vulnerable to predation and other natural calamities Protection of FBAs is a critical step in limiting harvesting of brood stock and immature fish. However, there is now a general agreement among fisheries stakeholders (fisheries researchers, managers, fisher folk) that there has been dramatic decline in commercial fish stocks in all major water bodies of Uganda over the past few decades largely due to overfishing of brood stock and immature fish. Without adequate regulation, unscrupulous fishers will continue harvesting spawning brood stock, immature fish and destroying juvenile fish and fish eggs in FBAs. Other dangers threatening FBAs include: water pollution, sand mining in lakes/rivers/wetlands and wetland degradation. To protect FBAs and to regulate fishing activities, the Directorate of Fisheries Resource Management and Development has developed guidelines to identify and gazette FBAs as no fishing zones. Guided by the vision: “a modern, productive, profitable and sustainable fisheries and aquaculture sub-sector”, the FBAs Statutory Instrument enshrined in the National Fisheries & Aquaculture Policy, 2018, gives guidelines for Identification, Management & Protection of FBAs. Based on this instrument, the process to gazette these breeding/nursery grounds is currently underway.

Figure 18: Map of Northern Lake Victoria showing potential FBAs Source: NaFIRRI, 2013

Figure 19: Map of Edward-George Lake System showing potential FBAs (Source: NaFIRRI, 2013)

25 | P a g e

4.5 ECOSYSTEM CONDITION ACCOUNT FOR LAKE VICTORIA

There is generally limited data on ecosystem condition of most lakes and rivers in Uganda. Limited data is available for Lake Victoria’s water quality, aquatic invasive weeds, and fish breeding areas (FBAs). Currently there are no gazetted fish breeding areas on all water bodies across the country. However, in 2013, 147 and 55 potential FBAs were identified and mapped on Lake Victoria and Edward-George Lake system respectively (Figures 18 and 19) by NaFIRRI. The process to gazette the identified potential FBAs is underway.

Table 3: Lake Victoria Ecosystem condition account

Year Abiotic ecosystem condition indicators Invasive weed coverage (ha) Fish Breading Areas Temperature Dissolved Turbidity-Secchi Water Kariba weed Identified Gazetted (oC) oxygen (mg-l) (m) hyacinth (ha) (ha)

2009 25.09 8.30 2.80 ND ND ND N/A 2011 24.58 7.88 2.70 ND ND ND N/A 2012 ND ND ND 200 ND ND N/A 2013 ND ND ND ND ND 147 0 2015 24.12 6.06 1.80 ND ND ND N/A 2016 24.67 7.19 2.82 ND ND ND N/A 2018 24.66 7.54 2.29 ND ND ND N/A

ND = No Data; N/A = Not Applicable

The ecosystem condition measurements in Table 3 above, which represent average condition values for the lake, fall within normal ranges for most parameters (Temperature 20-30 oC; DO >1 ≥5 mgl-1). However, there are pollution hotspots especially in closed bays and near landing sites where pollution parameters are high. This explains the correlated signs of eutrophication and invasive weed proliferation e.g., in the Murchison Bay, receiving wastewater from Kampala city.

26 | P a g e

5. FISH ASSET ACCOUNTS

The Physical Asset Accounts for fisheries help track how the fisheries resources are changing within the economy. The disaggregation to species level provides important information on what is happening to supplement information on the physical and monetary flows from the supply and use accounts, as it identifies where the resource base is over exploited in pursuit of income. The main items in this set of accounts includes total fish biomass (capture fisheries and aquaculture) by species for the different lakes and rivers. These accounts also reflect the annual changes in fisheries stocks due to additions from natural growth or other forms, and reductions arising from gross catch/harvest, natural losses, or other catastrophic losses (Table 4-8). The integration of these changes to opening stock generates net change in stock and the year’s closing stock. Uganda’s water bodies are endowed with a rich species (indeed more than 500 species). However, for the purpose of this particular study, we only considered species of highest commercial value (or highest quantity of catch) on each water body. The fish species reflected in the fish asset accounts are those that contributed more than 5% of the total catch per water body. On the other hand, fish species that contributed less than 5% of the total catch per water body were generally categorized together as others.

5.1 STOCK ASSESSMENT ON LAKE VICTORIA (HYDRO-ACOUSTIC SURVEYS)

A fish stock can be defined within a biological or management context. NOAA Fisheries (2012) refers to a “biological” fish stock as “a group of fish of the same species that live in the same geographical area and mix enough to breed with each other when mature.” A management stock, on the other hand, “may refer to a biological stock, or a multispecies complex that is managed as a single unit” (NOAA Fisheries, 2012). A fisheries stock assessment is very important in guiding fisheries managers in making informed decisions to ensure sustainability and maximization of economic benefits from the fishery. It enables fisheries managers to establish the status of the fishery i.e., to determine whether the fishery is overfished, nearly overfished, under-exploited, or rebuilding. The estimation of stock abundance in Lake Victoria is conducted using hydro-acoustic surveys. This method involves the use of underwater sound(s) to detect, enumerate, and measure the distribution of fish and other living marine and freshwater resources in the Lake. Hydro-acoustics enable direct data collection from the population and measures the distribution of over large spatial scales. In addition to being cost effective and environmentally friendly, hydro- acoustics are not hampered by issues such as water clarity, strong currents or diver depth limits. However, the method has limited ability to estimate fish close to the surface and to the bottom, and to differentiate species. As such hydro-acoustic surveys on Lake Victoria are often carried out concurrently with bottom net hauls to gain species-specific information, and also provide most accurate calculations of fish lengths and weight. Hydro-acoustic surveys conducted by LVFO on Lake Victoria reveal a general declining trend in the Lake’s fish stocks over the years. For instance, there was a 19% decrease in the Lake’s total fish biomass from 980,621 metric tons (in 2009) to 795,043 metric tons (in 2010). However, in

27 | P a g e

2015 the Lake’s total fish biomass increased to 1,116,905 metric tons (approximately a 40% increase) before declining to 900,378 metric tons (approximately a 20% decline) in 2019. Stock assessments over the years reveal varying trends in the stocks of the different fishery of the Lake.

For instance, since 2009, there has been a general noticeable decline in Mukene stocks (Figure 20), Haplochromines and others (Figure 21), but a general increase in Nile perch stocks (Figure 22). The decline in Mukene stocks has been attributed to overfishing and use of illegal fish finder systems to target the fishery. On the other hand, the decline in haplochromines stock has been due to increase in Nile perch stocks. Haplochromines form a major component of the Nile perch diet, and the observed trend of haplochromine stock matches that of its predator. Although Nile perch is currently dominated by small individuals that prefer Caridina nilotica as their prey, protection of haplochromines should be prioritized if sustainability of the commercially important (adult) Nile perch is to be realized.

Despite the improvement in biomass, majority of the Nile perch have remained small in size i.e. less than 50cm total length (TL) (the minimum length permitted by law to be harvested). This trend, which has persisted for the last four years, is unexpected and highly worrying because it suggests that Nile perch is not recruited at all into the slot size, and therefore, fishers are only left with an insignificant portion of the stock to exploit. The reasons for such a trend, i.e. in a span of four years, fishes around 30—40cm (1—year class) not transiting (to the 2, 3, and 4— year classes at all) warrant a serious investigation (LVFO, 2017). Even with high biomass, a fishery can never perform well with such a skewed population structure.

5.2 Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria

The fish asset accounts show the total biomass of all fish species in Uganda. These accounts provide important information on what is happening to supplement information on the physical and monetary flows from the supply and use accounts, as it identifies where the resource base is over exploited in pursuit of income. However, at the current time, stock assessment data is only available for Lake Victoria for the years 2009, 2010, 2015, 2016 and 2019 based on the hydro- acoustic surveys described above. These have been used to generate the Fish Asset Accounts for Lake Victoria presented in Tables 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

28 | P a g e

Table 4: Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria: 2016 – 2019

Species Additions to stock Reductions in stock

Total Total

stock

losses

(tons),2016 Other Other

(tons), 2019 (tons),

Natural Natural

to stock to

Closing stock stock Closing

additions

regrowth

Opening stock stock Opening

reductions

Gross catch Gross

Catastrophic Catastrophic

reductions to to reductions

Natural losses Natural

Net change in stock in change Net Total additions additions Total

Nile perch 393,353.00 ND ND 176,138.60 199,146.60 ND ND ND 199,146.60 -23,008.00 370,345.00

Mukene 342,920.00 ND ND 263,899.20 241,072.20 ND ND ND 241,072.20 22,827.00 365,747.00 others 178,334.00 ND ND 69,803.20 83,851.20 ND ND ND 83,851.20 -14,048.00 164,286.00

All species 914,607.00 ND ND 509,841.00 524,070.00 ND ND ND 524,070.00 -14,229.00 900,378.00 ND=No Data

Table 5: Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria: 2015 – 2016

Species Additions to stock Reductions in stock

Total Total

stock

losses

(tons),2015 Other Other

(tons), 2016 (tons),

Natural Natural

to stock to

Closing stock stock Closing

additions

regrowth

Opening stock stock Opening

reductions

Gross catch Gross

Catastrophic Catastrophic

reductions to to reductions

Natural losses Natural

Net change in stock in change Net Total additions additions Total

Nile perch 448,146.00 ND ND 131,950.40 186,743.40 ND ND ND 186,743.40 -54,793.00 393,353.00

Mukene 431,861.00 ND ND 137,116.80 226,057.80 ND ND ND 226,057.80 -88,941.00 342,920.00 others 236,898.00 ND ND 20,064.80 78,628.80 ND ND ND 78,628.80 -58,564.00 178,334.00

All species 1,116,905.00 ND ND 289,132.00 491,430.00 ND ND ND 491,430.00 -202,298.00 914,607.00 ND=No Data

29 | P a g e

Table 6: Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria: 2010 – 2015

Species Additions to stock Reductions in stock

Total Total

stock

losses

Other Other Other

(tons), 2010 (tons), 2015 (tons),

Natural Natural

to stock to

Closing stock stock Closing

additions

regrowth

Opening stock stock Opening

reductions

Gross catch Gross

Catastrophic Catastrophic

reductions to to reductions

Natural losses Natural

Net change in stock in change Net Total additions additions Total

Nile perch 177,588.00 ND ND 726,702.40 456,144.40 ND ND ND 456,144.40 270,558.00 448,146.00

Mukene 411,848.00 ND ND 572,187.80 552,174.80 ND ND ND 552,174.80 20,013.00 431,861.00 others 205,607.00 ND ND 223,351.80 192,060.80 ND ND ND 192,060.80 31,291.00 236,898.00

All species 795,043.00 ND ND 1,522,242.00 1,200,380.00 ND ND ND 1,200,380.00 321,862.00 1,116,905.00 ND=No Data

Table 7: Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria: 2009 – 2010

Species Additions to stock Reductions in stock

Total Total

stock

losses losses

Other Other Other

(tons), 2009 (tons), 2010 (tons),

Natural Natural

to stock to

Closing stock stock Closing

additions additions

regrowth

Opening stock stock Opening

reductions

Gross catch Gross

Catastrophic Catastrophic

reductions to to reductions

Natural losses losses Natural

Net change in stock stock in change Net Total additions additions Total

Nile perch 178,307.00 ND ND 145,288.40 146,007.40 ND ND ND 146,007.40 -719.00 177,588.00

Mukene 456,122.00 ND ND 132,471.80 176,745.80 ND ND ND 176,745.80 -44,274.00 411,848.00 others 346,192.00 ND ND -79,108.20 61,476.80 ND ND ND 61,476.80 -140,585.00 205,607.00

All species 980,621.00 ND ND 198,652.00 384,230.00 ND ND ND 384,230.00 -185,578.00 795,043.00 ND=No Data

30 | P a g e

Table 8: Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria: 2009-2019

Species Additions to stock Reductions in stock

Total Total

stock

losses

(tons),2009 Other Other

(tons), 2019 (tons),

Natural Natural

to stock to

Closing stock stock Closing

additions

regrowth

Opening stock stock Opening

reductions

Gross catch Gross

Catastrophic Catastrophic

reductions to to reductions

Natural losses Natural

Net change in stock in change Net Total additions additions Total

Nile perch 178,307.00 ND ND 931,423.00 739,385.00 ND ND ND 739,385.00 192,038.00 370,345.00

Mukene 456,122.00 ND ND 804,670.00 895,045.00 ND ND ND 895,045.00 -90,375.00 365,747.00 others 346,192.00 ND ND 129,414.00 311,320.00 ND ND ND 311,320.00 -181,906.00 164,286.00

All species 980,621.00 ND ND 1,865,507.00 1,945,750.00 ND ND ND 1,945,750.00 -80,243.00 900,378.00 ND=No Data

31 | P a g e

5.3 Analysis of Fish Asset Accounts, Lake Victoria

From 2009-2015, there was a gradual increase in Mukene stocks (Figure 20), Haplochromines and other species (Figure 21). However, the stocks of these fisheries all declined rapidly in 2016, with Mukene stocks showing a slight recovery in 2018. These declining stocks have been attributed to overfishing and the use of illegal fish finder systems to target the fishery. On the other hand, Nile perch stocks rapidly increased from 2010-2015 before experiencing a contraction in 2016 (Figure 22). Figures 21 and 22 show similarities in the trends typical of predator-prey relationships. Haplochromines form a major component of the Nile perch diet, and the observed haplochromine trend matches that of its predator. Although Nile perch is currently dominated by small individuals that prefer Caridina nilotica as their prey, protection of haplochromines should be prioritized if sustainability of the commercially important (adult) Nile perch is to be realized as portrayed by figures 21 and 22 between 2017 and 2019.

Trends of Mukene stock in Lake Victoria 500,000

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000 Biomass Biomass (metric tons) 150,000

100,000

50,000

0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 20: Trends in Mukene stocks in Lake Victoria

32 | P a g e

Trends in stocks of Haplochromines and other species on Lake Victoria 400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000

Biomass Biomass (metric tons) 100,000

50,000

0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 21: Trends in stocks of Haplochromines and other species on Lake Victoria

Trends of Nile perch stock in Lake Victoria 500,000

450,000

400,000

350,000

300,000

250,000

200,000

150,000 Biomass Biomass (metric tons) 100,000

50,000

0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 22: Trends in Nile perch stocks in Lake Victoria

33 | P a g e

6. ECOSYSTEM SERVICES SUPPLY AND USE ACCOUNTS

6.1 Uganda’s Capture Fisheries Uganda’s capture fisheries resources are contributed by five major Lakes which include: Lakes Victoria, Albert, Kyoga, Edward, and George (Figure 2). Lake Wamala and Albert Nile are the other water bodies that have a significant contribution to Uganda’s capture fisheries. For the purpose of compiling the Ecosystem Service Supply and Use Accounts, we only considered species of the highest commercial value (or highest quantity of catch) on each water body on an individual basis (i.e., with their own row in the account). These are the fish species that contributed more than 5% of the total catch per water body. The remaining fish catches are considered in aggregate as ‘Others’. Data from catch assessment surveys (CAS) conducted annually by NaFIRRI indicate that Uganda’s capture fisheries have been fluctuating since early 2000s (Table 9). There has been a gradual increase in catches from 2001(220,700 metric tons) to 2016 (467,530 metric tons) although anomalies of high catches occurred in 2004-2005 (434,800 -416,800 metric tons) and 2011 (493,840 metric tons) (Figure 23). However, catches declined sharply between 2017 and 2018 (345,800 metric tons). This decline has been attributed to overfishing and use of illegal and an unregulated fishing gears that have caused a decline in the fish stocks as shown in figures 20 and 21 above. Table 9: Fish Catch by water body (‘000 tons) 2001-2018

Year Lake Lake Lake Lake Edward, Lake Albert Other water Total Victoria Albert Kyoga George, Kazinga Channel Wamala Nile bodies 2001 131.80 19.60 8.40 6.40 - - 4.50 220.70 2002 136.10 9.40 5.60 5.20 - - 5.60 221.90 2003 175.30 9.50 2.90 5.90 - 5.60 8.30 247.50 2004 253.30 56.40 68.50 9.60 - 6.40 40.60 434.80 2005 253.30 56.40 68.40 9.60 - 5.00 24.10 416.80 2006 215.90 56.40 60.00 8.80 - 5.00 21.10 367.20 2007 223.10 6.40 0.00 8.80 - 5.00 21.00 374.30 2008 219.50 56.50 60.00 8.80 - - 20.00 364.80 2009 221.30 6.50 60.00 8.80 - - 20.00 366.60 2010 162.93 55.81 1.71 4.50 5.60 5.20 10.30 396.05 2011 175.82 163.95 61.59 5.30 75.11 5.00 7.08 493.84 2012 185.00 52.56 44.05 5.21 5.71 5.04 9.55 407.12 2013 193.00 60.00 40.00 6.25 4.50 5.50 10.00 419.25 2014 245.00 152.00 38.00 6.25 4.59 5.39 10.50 461.73 2015 238.63 149.04 41.77 6.35 4.19 5.12 9.77 454.87 2016 252.80 148.16 40.71 6.64 3.96 5.38 9.88 467.53 2017 133.23 171.77 41.54 3.07 5.06 2.54 9.32 366.53 2018 138.04 148.64 40.13 3.07 4.30 2.79 8.82 345.80 Source : DFR, NaFIRRI, 2016 ; NSoER, 2016/2017 ; MAAIF, UBOS, 2019

34 | P a g e

Although Uganda’s capture fisheries’ maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is estimated at 600,000 metric tons per annum, current catch trends suggest that a lot must be done if this is to be achieved. The steadily increasing fishing effort on major water bodies across the country has in fact had an antagonistic effect as exhibited by the diminishing catch per unit effort (CPUE) over the years. The CPUE on Lake Victoria for instance declined from 15.1 metric tons/boat/year (in 2004) to just 4.5 metric tons/boat/year (in 2018), indicating a 70% decline in CPUE between 2004 and 2018. This has been mainly due to unsustainable fishing practices characterized by overfishing and use of illegal fishing gears which catch immature fish and brood stock resulting into a decline in fish stocks.

Trends in Uganda's capture fisheries 600

500

400

300

200

Catch ('000 metric tons) 100

0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 23: Trends in Uganda’s capture fisheries

Contribution to total national catch by water body 2% Lake Victoria Albert Nile 1% Lake Kyoga 40% 43% Lake Edward-George-Kazinga channel Lake Albert 1% 1% Lake Wamala 12% Others

Figure 24: Percentage of catch contribution by water body, 2018

35 | P a g e

6.2 Lake Victoria Fisheries Although Lake Albert surpassed Lake Victoria in the quantity of catches in 2017 and 2018 as shown in Figure 24 above, Lake Victoria remains Uganda’s most important fisheries resource. For instance, Lake Victoria contributed 40% to the total national catch in 2018, compared to 43% contributed by Lake Albert. Lake Victoria still had the highest economic importance as shown in the later section of monetary accounts. This is because Lake Victoria’s fishery, particularly Nile perch and Nile tilapia, attract a very high economic value compared to the dominant fishery of Lake Albert (Muziri and Ragoogi), which are small pelagic fisheries of low economic value.

Lake Victoria registered a rapid increase in catches from 2001 (131,800 metric tons) to 2004 and 2005 (253,300 metric tons), a record high catch value. This was followed by a gradual decline in amount of catch from 2006 (215,900 metric tons) to 2009 (221,300 metric tons), before recording a sharp decline in 2010 (162,930 metric tons). There was a gradual increase in catches from 2010 to 2016 (252,800 metric tons), before a sharp decline in 2017 to a record low value on the Lake of 133,230 metric tons as shown in figure 25 below. Lake Victoria has three major species of economic importance which include; Nile perch, Nile tilapia, and Mukene. Other species include: Clarias spp, Protopterus spp, spp, Bagrus spp and Haplochromines.

Catch trends on Lake Victoria 300

250

200

150

100

Catch ('000 metric tons) 50

0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 25: Catch trends on Lake Victoria

36 | P a g e

6.3 Lake Albert Fisheries Lake Albert catches exhibit very volatile trends characterized by irregular peaks and troughs (Figure 26). For instance, there was a rapid increase in the number of catches from 2003 (9,500 metric tons) to 2004 (56,400 metric tons). This value was maintained until 2006 before a sharp decline in 2007 (6,400 metric tons). This was followed by a sharp increase in 2008 (56,500 metric tons) and a sharp decline in 2009 (6,500 metric tons).

Another rapid increase in catches was recorded in 2010 (55,810 metric tons) to 2011 (163,950 metric tons), a record high catch value for the Lake. Yet another rapid decline was recorded in 2012 (52,560 metric tons) and 2013 (60,000 metric tons), before a sharp increase in 2014 (152,000 metric tons) and a gradual downward trend in 2015 (149,040 metric tons) and 2016 (148,160 metric tons). This was followed by a slight increase in 2017 and a decline in 2018. The inconsistencies in catches of Lake Albert are an indicator of volatile fish stocks. However, the volatility seems to have stabilized between 2014 and 2017 (Figure 34). The major species in Lake Albert include: Muziri, Ragoogi, Nile perch, and Nile tilapia. Other species include; Hydrocinus forskalli, Clarias spp, Protopterus spp etc.

Catch trends on Lake Albert 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60

40 Catch ('000 metric tons) 20 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 26: Catch trends on Lake Albert

6.4 Kyoga Basin Lakes Fisheries

Lake Kyoga is the third most important lake for Uganda’s fisheries resource. The lake was the second most important fisheries resource in the sub-sector during the 1970s and 1980s. However, due to poor fishing practices characterized by unregulated and illegal fishing, the lake’s fish stocks severely declined drastically affecting the number of catches. Major species in this lake include Nile perch, Nile tilapia, and Mukene. Other species include: Clarias spp, Protopterus spp, Haplochromines etc. Like Lake Albert, Lake Kyoga’s catch trends are volatile, characterized by

37 | P a g e irregular peaks and troughs (Figure 27). For instance, there was a rapid increase in the quantity of catches from 2003 (2,900 metric tons) to 2004 (68,500 metric tons) and 2005 (68,400 metric tons). This was followed by a sharp decline in 2006 (60,000 metric tons) before recording a record low value in 2007. A sharp increase followed in 2008 and 2009 (60,000 metric tons) and a sharp decline in 2010 (1,710 metric tons). Another sharp increase was recorded in 2011 (61,590 metric tons) and a gradual decline until 2018 (40,130 metric tons). Like Lake Albert, Lake Kyoga catches exhibited very high inconsistencies particularly between 2006 and 2011. The sharp peaks and troughs in the catches are indicators of over-fished stocks.

Catch trends on Kyoga Basin Lakes 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

10 Catch ('000 metric tons) 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 -10 Year

Figure 27: Catch trends on Kyoga Basin Lakes

6.5 Lake Edward-George-Kazinga Channel Lake System Fisheries Like the other major water bodies in the country, Edward-George-Kazinga Channel Lake System catches have been fluctuating since 2001 (Figure 28). A major contraction in the number of catches occurred in 2010 (4,500 metric tons) registering a sharp decline from 2009 (8,800 metric tons). From 2011 (5,300 metric tons) the lake system recorded a general gradual increase in the catches until 2016 (6,640 metric tons) before experiencing a sharp decline in 2017/2018 (3,070 metric tons). Major fish species in the lake system include: Nile tilapia, Semitone, Marbled lungfish, North African catfish and Haplochromines.

38 | P a g e

Catch trends on Edward-George-Kazing Channel Lake system 12

10

8

6

4

2 Catch ('000 metric tons) 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 28: Catch trends on Edward-George-Kazinga Channel Lake System

6.6 LAKE WAMALA FISHERIES

Although commercial fishing was opened in the 1960s, the lake’s catch records were irregular until 2010. The lake experienced a boom in its catch in 2011 (75,110 metric tons) from a mere 5,600 metric tons in 2010 (Figure 29). However, this was followed by a sharp decline in the catches in 2012 (5,710 metric tons), and then a gradual downward trend in the lake’s catch and persistently recording the lowest catch value in 2016 (3,960 metric tons). Major species of the Lake include North African catfish, Marbled lungfish, and Nile tilapia.

Catch trends on Lake Wamala 80 70 60 50 40 30 20

Catch ('000 metric tons) 10 0 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 29: Catch trends on Lake Wamala

39 | P a g e

6.7 Albert Nile Fisheries

Like Edward-George-Kazinga Channel Lake System, Albert Nile’s catches have been fairly stable since early 2000s. Like the rest of the water bodies across the country, the river recorded its highest catches in 2004 (6,400 metric tons). However, since 2005, the river has recorded a general decline in its catches, registering a slight gradual increase in 2012 to 2014, a sharp decline in 2017 (2,540 metric tons), and a record low catch value (Figure 30). The records show data gaps in the river’s catches, for instance there was no catch data in 2001, 2002, 2008 and 2009. These inconsistencies in data collection hinder timely policy interventions and are contributing factors to the river’s declining stocks. Frame Surveys (FS) to determine fishing effort on the river are also irregular and inconsistent. Major species on the river include Nile tilapia, Ragoogi, North African catfish, Nile barb, Marbled lungfish, and Bayad

Catch trends on Albert Nile 7

6

5

4

3

2

Catch ('000 metric tons) 1

0 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 30: Catch trends on Albert Nile

6.8 Fisheries of Minor Lakes and Rivers of Uganda Uganda is endowed with a large number of resources, with open waters covering approximately 18% of its total territorial surface area. Although most of the minor lakes (satellite) and rivers are not regarded as important for commercial fishing, they are very important in supporting rural livelihoods. There are indications, however, that the contribution of minor lakes and rivers in the national catch statistics is an under estimation. Minor lakes and rivers are generally neglected in the implementation and regulation of national fisheries policies. As such there is generally no accurate database for tracking catches and fishing efforts on these water bodies. This results into under reporting in terms of catches.

On the other hand, lack of effort in regulating fishing activities on these water bodies makes them vulnerable to over exploitation and these often suffer the “tragedy of the commons” with

40 | P a g e eventual decline and depletion in fish stocks. For instance, there was a rapid increase in the amount of catch from minor lakes and rivers in the early 2000s attaining a peak in 2004 (40,600 metric tons) which was 9% of the total national catch that year. However, since 2005 the catches have exhibited a general downward trend recording 8,820 metric tons (in 2018) which is just approximately 2% of the total national catch (Figure 31). This calls for regular monitoring and strict enforcement of the fishing regulations on minor lakes/rivers to facilitate stock recovery and encourage sustainable fishing. Focus on market contribution often results in an underappreciation of the importance of small-scale fisheries (Grafeld et al., 2017) and yet the sub-sector contributes significantly to world food security and nutrition (World Bank, 2012).

Catch trends on minor lakes s and rivers 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Catch ('000 metric tons) 5 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 31: Catch trends on Uganda’s minor water bodies

6.9 Uganda’s Aquaculture Fisheries

Fish farming was first introduced in Uganda in the 1940s as a subsistence activity to provide cheap animal protein to rural households. has since become an important source of fish supply supplementing capture fisheries. The transition to commercial aquaculture gained momentum in mid 2000s and has since maintained an average annual increase of about 15%. Uganda is now among Africa’s top five aquaculture producers. The national aquaculture production capacity comprises of about 20,000 aquaculture farmers producing a total of 120,000 metric tons of fish from approximately 25,000 ponds and over 3,000 cages, contributing approximately 20% of Uganda’s total fish production (MAAIF, 2018). However, most of the farmers are small holder farmers practicing extensive and semi-intensive pond and cage culture. Large scale farmers run intensive systems and cage culture. The commonly farmed fish are Nile tilapia and North African catfish. The Department of Aquaculture Management and Development

41 | P a g e under the Directorate of Fisheries Resources (DiFR) of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) is directly responsible for aquaculture development in Uganda. It provides guidelines on all matters pertaining to aquaculture in collaboration with other Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs). 6.9.1 Aquaculture production systems in Uganda Aquaculture production systems in Uganda are classified based upon: (i) Intensity of production (ii) Scale of production

6.9.2 Intensity of production With regard to intensity of production, three systems are practiced in Uganda and these include: (i) Extensive system This is a low-input low-output system. Fish is stocked at low density in earthen ponds and are not given feeds. Some ponds are fertilized while others are not.

(ii) Semi-intensive system These are medium densities with combined use of natural and artificial feeds in earthen ponds.

(iii) Intensive system This is characterized by high stocking densities, water quality enhancement and use of nutritionally complete feeds (diets).

6.9.3 Scale of production Aquaculture production systems may be small, medium or large, depending on total farm surface area, total water volume used for production or fish tonnage produced per year. Table 10: Aquaculture production scales in Uganda

Scale of production Tonnage produced per year (metric tons/year) Small scale <10 Medium scale 10-50 Large scale >50 Source: MAAIF, 2018 Table 11: Aquaculture production in Uganda

Species Production (Metric tons) 2009 2010 2011 2015 2016 2018 Nile tilapia 44,240.00 56,200.00 46,480.00 57,624.00 74,654.00 58,800.00 North African catfish 34,760.00 43,800.00 36,520.00 59,976.00 43,187.00 61,200.00 Total 79,000.00 100,000.00 83,000.00 117,600.00 117,841.00 120,000.00 Source: MAAIF, NaFIRRI, FAO (2018)

42 | P a g e

7. UGANDA’S FISH EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

7.1 Fish exports The fisheries sub-sector is the second highest foreign exchange earner in Uganda. In 2018, Uganda earned US $ 153 million from export of 20,364 metric tons of fish and fish products to regional and international markets. Fish products exported include fresh fish (not chilled), chilled and frozen fish, dry/, fish maws, , , fish skins and live (ornamental) fish. Fresh fillets are the main fish products exported from Uganda, accounting for 76% of total quantity and 78% of total value (UIA, 2009).

The European Union is the major market for Uganda’s fish, accounting for 75% of the total exports, with France, Belgium and Netherlands as the front runners. Uganda is the 5th exporter in France, ranking just behind large fish suppliers such as China with a market share of 10.9%, Norway (9.8%), Chile (7.2%) and USA (6.3%), (UIA, 2009). The regional market for fish is also gradually rising, with Kenya, Sudan, DR Congo and Rwanda being the major export market for Uganda’s fish products. However, export data on Uganda’s fish and fish products is not well recorded and the present values are thought to be an under estimation. For instance, the fish exports captured by DFR is mainly for Nile perch and fish maws.

Fish and fish products exports have exhibited a downward trend since the year 2005 when Uganda recorded the highest fish exports of 36,600 metric tons (Figure 32). The lowest record value of exports since 2000 was observed in the year 2017 at 14,248 metric tons. This trend can be explained by the steady decline the fish catch in Uganda’s waters in the subsequent years following 2005 due to illegal fishing (using illegal and an unregulated fishing gears).

The catch of immature fish using illegal gears resulted in a decline in fish stocks and the subsequent decline in the quantity of catch and fish exports in the years after 2005. However, the sub-sector has started to register some improvements in both quantity of fish catches and exports.

43 | P a g e

Trends of fish exports in Uganda 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000

10,000 Exports (metric tons) 5,000 0 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Year

Figure 32: Trends in Uganda’s fish exports

7.2 FISH IMPORTS

Imports of fish and fish products have continued to exhibit an upward trajectory since the mid 1990s. According to data from the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives (MTIC), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), and Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), these products include live ornamental fish and filleted fish for consumption. Expenditure on these products has been increasing since 1996 (Figure 33). However, there was contraction in 2013 and 2015 before a sharp rise in 2016 to 2018

100.0

90.0

80.0

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

Expenditure(million US$) 20.0

10.0

0.0

Figure 33: Trends in Uganda’s fish and fish products imports 1996-2018

Source: MTIC, URA, CAA (2019)

44 | P a g e

8. PHYSICAL SUPPLY AND USE TABLES (PSUT)

These record the flows of ecosystem services (fish) supplied to economic units in the accounting period. Within the SEEA EA, the concept of the supply of ecosystem services is equal to the use (or receipt) of ecosystem services. This metric was tracked using biomass measurements (tons) in PSUT. Transactions between ecosystems and economic units and subsequent transactions between the economic units and consumers were also tracked. These are all reflected in tables 12-23 below. These tables provide opportunity to integrate with physical flow accounts as set out in the SEEA AFF and also capture the impact of fish imports in the economy. Data on exports was captured and analyzed under SNA products and service consumers while Imports were captured in SNA products and service producers.

45 | P a g e

Table 12: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2018

Ecosystem service suppliers Classifications Ecosystem service users Natural Others River Other water Aquacultur Total Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems Ecosystems bodies e supplied Households & Lake Edward, Ponds Businesses Government Lake Lake Lake George Lake Minor (All capture Total used Albert Nile & (All Victoria Albert Kyoga & Wamala lakes/rivers fisheries) aquaculture Kazinga Cages fisheries) channel

Physical Supply Ecosystem Services (tons), 2018

Nile perch Fish 52,455.20 8,918.40 5,216.90 66,590.50 Nile tilapia 13,804.00 10,835.10 859.60 860 418.50 58,800.00 85,577.20 Mukene 63,498.40 22,071.50 85,569.90 Muziri 77,292.80 77,292.80 Ragoogi 54,996.80 390.60 55,387.40 Semutundu 675.40 675.40 North African catfish 399.10 2,107.00 334.80 61,200.00 64,040.90 Marbled lungfish 798.20 1,290.00 223.20 2,311.40 Nile barb 223.20 223.20 Bayad 195.30 195.30

others 8,282.40 7,432.00 2,006.50 337.70 43.00 1,004.40 8,820.00 27,926.00 138,040.0 148,640.0 3,070.0 120,000.0 465,790.0 Total 40,130.00 4,300.00 2,790.00 8,820.00 0 0 0 0 0

46 | P a g e

Physical Ecosystem Services Use (tons), 2018

Nile perch Fish 66,590.50 66,590.50 Nile tilapia 58,800.00 26,777.20 85,577.20 Mukene 85,569.90 85,569.90 Muziri 77,292.80 77,292.80 Ragoogi 55,387.40 55,387.40 Semutundu 675.40 675.40 North African catfish 61,200.00 2,840.90 64,040.90 Marbled lungfish 2,311.40 2,311.40 Nile barb 223.20 223.20 Bayad 195.30 195.30

0thers 27,926.00 27,926.00

Total 120,000.00 345,790.00 465,790.00

47 | P a g e

Table 13: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2018

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Export

Imports

Businesses Businesses

Households Households Households

Government Government

Total produced Total

Total consumed Total Change in inventory in Change

SNA Physical Ecosystem Supply Goods & Services (tons), 2018

Nile perch 66,590.50 66,590.50 Nile tilapia 85,577.20 85,577.20 Mukene 85,569.90 85,569.90 Muziri 77,292.80 77,292.80 Ragoogi 55,387.40 55,387.40

Semutundu Fish 675.40 675.40 North African catfish 64,040.90 64,040.90 Marbled lungfish 2,311.40 2,311.40 Nile barb 223.20 223.20

Bayad 195.30 195.30

Others 27,926.00 3,378.30 31,304.30

Total 465,790.00 3,378.30 469,168.30

48 | P a g e

SNA Physical Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (tons), 2018 Nile perch 14,050.60 32,175.90 20,364.00 66,590.50 Nile tilapia 5,650.00 79,927.20 85,577.20 Mukene 1,808.20 64,712.18 19,049.52 85,569.90 Muziri 16,308.78 60,984.02 77,292.80 Ragoogi 11,686.74 43,700.66 55,387.40 Semutundu 142.51 532.89 675.40 Fish North African catfish 599.50 63,441.40 64,040.90 Marbled lungfish 487.71 1,823.69 2,311.40 Nile barb 47,10 176.10 223.20 Bayad 41.20 154.10 195.30

Domestic 5,892.40 22,033.60 27,926.00 Others Imports 3,378.30 3,378.30

Total 56,714.74 373,040.04 19,049.52 20,364.00 469,168.30

Table 14: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2016

Ecosystem service suppliers Classifications Ecosystem service users Natural Others River Other water Aquacultur Total Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems Ecosystems bodies e supplied

Households & Lake Edward, Ponds Businesses Government Lake Lake Lake George Lake Minor (All capture Total used Albert Nile & (All Victoria Albert Kyoga & Wamala lakes/rivers fisheries) aquaculture Kazinga Cages fisheries) channel

49 | P a g e

Physical Supply Ecosystem Services (tons), 2016

Nile perch Fish 96,064.00 8,889.60 5,292.30 110,245.90 Nile tilapia 25,280.00 10,991.70 1,859.20 792.00 807.00 74,654.00 114,383.90 Mukene 116,288.00 22,797.60 139,085.60 Muziri 77,043.20 77,043.20 Ragoogi 50,374.40 753.20 51,127.60 Semutundu 1,460.80 1,460.80 North African catfish 863.20 1,940.40 645.60 43,187.00 46,636.20 Marbled lungfish 1,726.40 1,188.00 430.40 3,344.80 Nile barb 430.40 430.40 Bayad

376.60 376.60

others 15,168.00 11,852.80 1,628.40 730.40 39.60 1,936.80 9,880.00 41,236.00 252,800.0 148,160.0 6,640.0 117,841.0 585,371.0 Total 40,710.00 3,960.00 5,380.00 9,880.00 0 0 0 0 0 Physical Ecosystem Services Use (tons), 2016

Nile perch Fish 110,245.90 110,245.90 Nile tilapia 74,654.00 39,729.90 114,383.90 Mukene 139,085.60 139,085.60 Muziri 77,043.20 77,043.20 Ragoogi 51,127.60 51,127.60 Semutundu 1,460.80 1,460.80

50 | P a g e

North African catfish 43,187.00 3,449.20 46,636.20 Marbled lungfish 3,344.80 3,344.80 Nile barb 430.40 430.40 Bayad 376.60 376.60

0thers 41,236.00 41,236.00

Total 117,841.00 467,530.00 585,371.00

Table 15: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2016

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Total Total

Export

Imports

produced

inventory

Change in in Change

consumed

Businesses Businesses

Households

Households Households

Government Government SNA Physical Ecosystem Supply Goods & Services (tons), 2016

Nile perch 110,245.90 110,245.90 Nile tilapia 114,383.90 114,383.90 Mukene 139,085.60 139,085.60 Fish Muziri 77,043.20 77,043.20 Ragoogi 51,127.60 51,127.60

Semutundu 1,460.80 1,460.80

51 | P a g e

North African catfish 46,636.20 46,636.20 Marbled lungfish 3,344.80 3,344.80 Nile barb 430.40 430.40

Bayad 376.60 376.60

Others 41,236.00 2,111.00 43,347.00

Total 585,371.00 2,111.00 587,482.00 SNA Physical Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (tons), 2016

Nile perch 23,261.88 70,390.02 16,594.00 110,245.90 Nile tilapia 8,383.01 106,000.89 114,383.90 Mukene 29,347.06 72,775.93 36,962.61 139,085.60 Muziri 16,256.12 60,787.08 77,043.20 Ragoogi 10,787.92 40,339.68 51,127.60 Semutundu 308.23 1,152.57 1,460.80 Fish North African catfish 727.78 45,908.42 46,636.20 Marbled lungfish 705.75 2,639.05 3,344.80 Nile barb 90.81 339.59 430.40

Bayad 79.46 297.14 376.60

Domestic 8,700.80 32,535.20 41,236.00 Others Imports - 2,111.00 2,111.00

Total 98,648.82 435,276.57 36,962.61 16,594.00 587,482.00

52 | P a g e

Table 16: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2015

Ecosystem service suppliers Classifications Ecosystem service users Natural Others Others River Total Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems water Aquaculture Ecosystems supplied bodies Households Lake & Ponds Government Edward, Businesses Lake Lake Lake Minor (All capture Total used Lake Albert George & Albert Nile & (All Victoria Kyoga Wamala lakes/rivers fisheries) Kazinga aquaculture cages channel fisheries)

Physical Supply Ecosystem Services (tons), 2015

Nile perch Fish 90,679.40 8,942.40 5,430.10 105,051.90 Nile tilapia 23,863.00 11,277.90 1,778.00 838.00 768.00 57,624.00 96,148.90 Mukene 109,769.80 23,391.20 133,161.00 Muziri 77,500.80 77,500.80 Ragoogi 50,673.60 716.40 51,390.00 Semutundu 1,397.00 1,397.00 North African catfish 825.50 2,053.10 614.40 59,976.00 63,469.00

Marbled lungfish 1,651.00 1,257.00 409.60 3,317.60 Nile barb 409.60 409.60 Bayad 358.40 358.40

others 14,317.80 11,923.20 1,670.80 698.50 41.90 1,843.20 9,770.00 40,265.40

Total 238,630.00 149,040.00 41,770.00 6,350.00 4,190.00 5,119.60 9,770.00 117,600.00 572,469.60

53 | P a g e

Physical Ecosystem Services Use (tons), 2015

Nile perch Fish 105,051.90 105,051.90 Nile tilapia 57,624.00 38,524.90 96,148.90 Mukene 133,161.00 133,161.00 Muziri 77,500.80 77,500.80 Ragoogi 51,390.00 51,390.00 Semutundu 1,397.00 1,397.00 North African catfish 59,976.00 3,493.00 63,469.00

Marbled lungfish 3,317.60 3,317.60 Nile barb 409.60 409.60 Bayad 358.40 358.40

0thers 40,265.40 40,265.40

Total 117,600.00 454,869.60 572,469.60

54 | P a g e

Table 17: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2015

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Export

Imports Imports

inventory

Change in in Change

Businesses Businesses

Households Households

Households

Government Government Government

Total produced Total Total consumed consumed Total

SNA Physical Ecosystem Supply Goods & Services (tons), 2015 Nile perch 105,051.90 105,051.90 Nile tilapia 96,148.90 96,148.90 Mukene 133,161.00 133,161.00 Muziri 77,500.80 77,500.80 Ragoogi 51,390.00 51,390.00 Semutundu

Fish 1,397.00 1,397.00 North African catfish 63,469.00 63,469.00 Marbled lungfish 3,317.60 3,317.60 Nile barb 409.60 409.60 Bayad 358.40 358.40

Others 40,265.40 2,999.20 43,264.60

Total 572,469.60 2,999.20 575,468.80

55 | P a g e

SNA Physical Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (tons), 2015

Nile perch 22,165.95 64,100.95 18,785.00 105,051.90 Nile tilapia 8,128.75 88,020.15 96,148.90 Mukene 28,096.97 57,223.82 35,061.21 12,779.00 133,161.00 Muziri 16,352.67 61,148.13 77,500.80 Ragoogi 10,843.29 40,546.71 51,390.00 Semutundu 294.77 1,102.23 1,397.00 Fish North African catfish

737.02 62,731.98 63,469.00 Marbled lungfish 700.01 2,617.59 3,317.60 Nile barb 86.43 323.17 409.60 Bayad 75.62 282.78 358.40

Domestic 8,496.00 31,769.40 40,265.40 Others Imports 2,999.20 2,999.20 Total 95,977.48 412,866.11 35,061.21 31,564.00 575,468.80

56 | P a g e

Table 18: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2011

Ecosystem service suppliers Classifications Ecosystem service users Natural Others Others River Aquacultur Total Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems water Ecosystems e supplied bodies Household Lake s & Governmen Ponds Edward, Minor Businesses t (All Lake Lake Lake Lake Total used George & Albert Nile lakes/riv & (All capture Victoria Albert Kyoga Wamala Kazinga ers aquaculture fisheries) Cages channel fisheries)

Physical Supply Ecosystem Services (tons), 2011

Nile perch Fish 66,811.60 9,837.00 14,165.70 90,814.30 Nile tilapia 17,582.00 29,563.20 1,484.00 15,022.00 750.00 46,480.00 110,881.20 Mukene 80,877.20 10,470.30 91,347.50 Muziri 85,254.00 85,254.00 Ragoogi 55,743.00 700.00 56,443.00 Semutundu 1,166.00 1,166.00 North African catfish 689.00 36,804.00 600.00 36,520.00 74,613.00 Marbled lungfish 1,378.00 22,533.00 400.00 24,311.00 Nile barb 400.00 400.00 Bayad 350.00 350.00

others 10,549.20 13,116.00 7,390.80 583.00 751.00 1,800.00 7,080.00 41,270.00 175,820.0 163,950.0 7,080.0 576,850.0 Total 61,590.00 5,300.00 75,110.00 5,000.00 83,000.00 0 0 0 0

57 | P a g e

Physical Ecosystem Services Use (tons), 2011

Nile perch Fish 90,814.30 90,814.30 Nile tilapia 46,480.00 64,401.20 110,881.20 Mukene 91,347.50 91,347.50 Muziri 85,254.00 85,254.00 Ragoogi 56,443.00 56,443.00 Semutundu 1,166.00 1,166.00 North African catfish 36,520.00 38,093.00 74,613.00 Marbled lungfish 24,311.00 24,311.00 Nile barb 400.00 400.00 Bayad 350.00 350.00

0thers 41,270.00 41,270.00 576,850.0 Total 83,000.00 493,850.00 0

58 | P a g e

Table 19: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2011

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Total Total

Export

Imports Imports

inventory

Change in Change

Businesses Businesses

produced

consumed

Households Households Households

Government Government Government

SNA Physical Supply Ecosystem Goods & Services (tons), 2011

Nile perch 90,814.30 90,814.30 Nile tilapia 110,881.20 110,881.20 Mukene 91,347.50 91,347.50 Muziri 85,254.00 85,254.00 Ragoogi 56,443.00 56,443.00 Semutundu

1,166.00 1,166.00 Fish North African catfish 74,613.00 74,613.00 Marbled lungfish 24,311.00 24,311.00 Nile barb 400.00 400.00 Bayad

350.00 350.00

2,609.00 Others 41,270.00 43,879.00

59 | P a g e

Total 576,850.00 2,609.00 579,459.00 SNA Physical Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (tons), 2011 Nile perch 19,161.82 54,320.48 17,332.00 90,814.30 Nile tilapia 13,588.65 97,292.55 110,881.20 Mukene 13,492.02 31,700.23 27,404.25 18,751.00 91,347.50 Muziri 17,988.59 67,265.41 85,254.00 Ragoogi 11,909.47 44,533.53 56,443.00 Semutundu 246.03 919.97 1,166.00 Fish North African catfish

8,037.62 66,575.38 74,613.00 Marbled lungfish 5,129.62 19,181.38 24,311.00 Nile barb 84.40 315.60 400.00 Bayad

73.85 276.15 350.00

Domestic 8,707.99 32,562.11 41,270.00 Others Imports 2,609.00 2,609.00 Total 98,420.06 417,551.79 27,404.25 36,083.00 579,459.00

60 | P a g e

Table 20: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2010

Ecosystem service suppliers Classifications Ecosystem service users Total Natural Others Other River Aquacultur Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems water supplied Ecosystems e bodies Household Lake s & Governmen Edward, Ponds Businesses t (All Lake Lake George Lake Minor Total used Lake Albert Albert Nile & (All capture Victoria Kyoga & Wamala lakes/rivers aquaculture fisheries) Kazinga Cages fisheries) channel

Physical Supply Ecosystem Services (tons), 2010

Nile perch Fish 61,913.40 3,348.60 391.00 65,653.00 Nile tilapia 16,293.00 816.00 1260.00 1120.00 780.00 56,200.00 76,469.00 Mukene 74,947.80 289.00 75,236.80 Muziri 29,021.20 29,021.20 Ragoogi 18,975.00 728.00 19,703.00 Semutundu 990.00 990.00 North African catfish 585.00 2,744.00 624.00 43,800.00 47,753.00

Marbled lungfish 1,170.00 1,680.00 416.00 3,266.00 Nile barb 416.00 416.00 Bayad 364.00 364.00

others 9,775.80 4,465.00 204.00 495.00 56.00 1,872.00 10,300.00 27,167.80 162,930.0 100,000.0 346,039.8 Total 55,809.80 1,700.00 4,500.00 5,600.00 5,200.00 10,300.00 0 0 0

61 | P a g e

Physical Ecosystem Services Use (tons), 2010

Nile perch Fish 65,653.00 65,653.00 Nile tilapia 56,200.00 20,269.00 76,469.00 Mukene 75,236.80 75,236.80 Muziri 29,021.20 29,021.20 Ragoogi 19,703.00 19,703.00 Semutundu 990.00 990.00 North African catfish 43,800.00 3,953.00 47,753.00

Marbled lungfish 3,266.00 3,266.00 Nile barb 416.00 416.00 Bayad 364.00 364.00

0thers 27,167.80 27,167.80 100,000.0 346,039.8 Total 246,039.80 0 0

62 | P a g e

Table 11: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2010

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Export

Imports Imports

inventory

Change in Change

Businesses Businesses

Households Households Households

Government Government Government

Total produced Total Total consumed consumed Total

SNA Physical Supply Ecosystem Goods & Services (tons), 2010

Nile perch 65,653.00 65,653.00 Nile tilapia 76,469.00 76,469.00 Mukene 75,236.80 75,236.80 Muziri 29,021.20 29,021.20 Ragoogi 19,703.00 19,703.00 Semutundu

Fish 990.00 990.00 North African catfish 47,753.00 47,753.00 Marbled lungfish 3,266.00 3,266.00 Nile barb 416.00 416.00 Bayad 364.00 364.00

2,248.50 Others 27,167.80 29,416.30

63 | P a g e

Total 346,039.80 2,248.50 348,288.30

SNA Physical Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (tons), 2010

Nile perch 13,852.78 35,102.22 16,698.00 65,653.00 Nile tilapia 4,276.76 72,192.24 76,469.00 Mukene 11,112.47 41,008.29 22,571.04 545.00 75,236.80 Muziri 6,123.47 22,897.73 29,021.20 Ragoogi 4,157.33 15,545.67 19,703.00 Semutundu 208.89 781.11 990.00 Fish North African catfish

834.08 46,918.92 47,753.00 Marbled lungfish 689.13 2,576.87 3,266.00 Nile barb 87.78 328.22 416.00 Bayad 76.8 287.20 364.00

Domestic 5,732.41 21,435.39 27,167.80 Others Imports 2,248.50 2,248.50 Total 47,151.90 261,322.36 22,571.04 17,243.00 348,288.30

64 | P a g e

Table 22: Physical Supply and Use Table, 2009

Ecosystem service suppliers Ecosystem service users Natural Others Other River Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems water Aquaculture Classifications Ecosystems Total bodies supplied Households Lake & Ponds Government Edward, Businesses Lake Lake Lake Lake Minor (All capture Total used George & Albert Nile & (All Victoria Albert Kyoga Wamala lakes/rivers fisheries) Kazinga aquaculture Cages channel fisheries)

Physical Supply Ecosystem Services (tons), 2009

Nile perch Fish 84,094.00 390.00 13,800.00 98,284.00 Nile tilapia 22,130.00 28,800.00 2,464.00 44,240.00 97,634.00 Mukene 101,798.00 10,200.00 111,998.00 Muziri 3,380.00 3,380.00 Ragoogi 2,210.00 2,210.00 Semutundu 1,936.00 1,936.00 North African catfish 1,144.00 34,760.00 35,904.00 Marbled lungfish 2,288.00 2,288.00 Nile barb - Bayad -

others 13,278.00 520.00 7,200.00 968.00 20,000.00 41,966.00

Total 221,300.00 6,500.00 60,000.00 8,800.00 - - 20,000.00 79,000.00 395,600.00

65 | P a g e

Physical Ecosystem Services Use (tons), 2009

Nile perch Fish 98,284.00 98,284.00 Nile tilapia 42,240.00 53,394.00 97,634.00 Mukene 111,998.00 111,998.00 Muziri 3,380.00 3,380.00 Ragoogi 2,210.00 2,210.00 Semutundu 1,936.00 1,936.00

North African catfish 34,760.00 1,144.00 35,904.00 Marbled lungfish 2,288.00 2,288.00 Nile barb - - Bayad - -

0thers 41,966.00 41,966.00

Total 79,000.00 316,600.00 395,600.00

66 | P a g e

Table 23: PSUT for SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services, 2009

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Total Total

Export

Imports Imports

inventory

Change in Change

Businesses Businesses

produced

consumed consumed

Households Households Households

Government Government Government

SNA Physical Supply Ecosystem Goods & Services (tons), 2009 Nile perch 98,284.00 98,284.00 Nile tilapia 97,634.00 97,634.00 Mukene 111,998.00 111,998.00 Muziri 3,380.00 3,380.00 Ragoogi 2,210.00 2,210.00 Semutundu 1,936.00 1,936.00 Fish North African catfish 35,904.00 35,904.00 Marbled lungfish 2,288.00 2,288.00 Nile barb - - Bayad - -

2,088.70 Others 41,966.00 44,054.70

Total 395,600.00 2,088.70 397,688.70

67 | P a g e

SNA Physical Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (tons), 2009

Nile perch 20,737.92 60,293.08 17,253.00 98,284.00 Nile tilapia 11,266.13 86,367.87 97,634.00 Mukene 16,542.11 61,856.49 33,599.40 111,998.00 Muziri 713.18 2,666.82 3,380.00 Ragoogi 466.31 1,743.69 2,210.00 Semutundu 408.50 1,527.50 1,936.00 Fish North African catfish

241.38 35,662.62 35,904.00 Marbled lungfish 482.77 1,805.23 2,288.00 Nile barb - - - Bayad

- - -

Domestic 8,854.83 33,111.17 41,966.00 Others Imports 2,088.70 2,088.70

Total 59,713.13 287,123.17 33,599.40 17,253.00 397,688.70

68 | P a g e

9. MONETARY SUPPLY AND USE ACCOUNTS

Monetary information is essential to informing economic planning for fisheries, determining investment levels in fisheries support and infrastructure development and understanding the likely returns in monetary terms and with respect to food security and employment. It will also clearly reveal the level of economic activity that is dependent on the sustainable management of capture fishery ecosystems, their fish stocks and the pressures they face. As a pragmatic approach, the monetary value of ‘fish provisioning’ service for capture fisheries (i.e., supplied by lakes and rivers) and aquaculture are based on the landed value for the catch. This is also equivalent to the monetary value associated with sale of fish to consumers in the SNA Production and Consumption Table. Assigning market price to the ‘fish provisioning’ service clearly results in an over estimation of the ecosystem contribution to the production process associated with the harvesting of fish.

The Monetary Supply and Use Accounts follow the same format as the Physical Supply and Use Accounts. An additional row has been added in the SNA Products and Services Accounts for Value addition from fish processing. This specifically relates to value addition activities associated with Nile Perch processing for the export market. Essentially, this is a balancing item to ensure the monetary information on SNA fish production matches with the SNA Consumption for the export of this fish species only. For clarity, the change in inventory column in the SNA Production and Consumption table reflects the value of post-harvest loss.

In order to isolate the contribution of ecosystems to the value of landed fish, the resource rent approach was used. Under this approach, the value of the of ‘fish provisioning’ service can be estimated from the fish landing price by subtracting all costs for capital and labor. This is discussed more in detail in section 9.1. However, as shown in section 9.1 resource rents can be negative where wages are low or subsidies to the fishery sector are high. Whilst this has important implications for economic welfare analysis, these negative values cannot be used in accounting tables, as the ecosystem contribution to the production process clearly does have a value for the activity to exist.

69 | P a g e

Table 24: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2018

Ecosystem service suppliers Ecosystem service users Natural Others

River Other water Aquacu Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems Ecosystems bodies lture Total Classifications Lake supplied Households & Edward, Ponds Government Businesses Lake Lake Lake George Lake Minor (All capture Total used Albert Nile & Victoria Albert Kyoga & Wamala lakes/rivers (All aquaculture fisheries) Kazinga Cages fisheries) channel

Ecosystem Service Supply (UGX), 2018 Nile perch 310,032,6 52,711,56 30,834,11 393,578,35 Fish 82,826.00 1,075.00 1,833.00 5,734.00 Nile tilapia 303,43 71,234,34 55,913,59 4,435,891 4,437,955,1 2,159,632,8 441,613,69 2,284,4 1,052.00 0,896.00 ,015.00 80.00 41.00 5,384.00 00.00 Mukene 47,623,35 16,553,47 64,176,826,

5,511.00 0,500.00 011.00 Muziri 57,969,05 57,969,058,

8,950.00 950.00 Ragoogi 41,247,21 292,947,26 41,540,162,

5,022.00 6.00 288.00 Semutundu 1,576,699 1,576,699,0

,012.00 12.00 North 781,579,55 142,86 African 931,685,7 4,918,721,9 149,501,36 2.00 9,380,4 catfish 80.00 69.00 7,701.00 00.00 Marbled 1,863,371 3,011,462,4 521,053,03 5,395,887,0 lungfish ,559.00 30.00 4.00 23.00 Nile barb 521,053,03 521,053,03

4.00 4.00 Bayad 455,921,40 455,921,40

5.00 5.00

70 | P a g e

19,334,98 17,349,75 4,684,108 788,349,5 100,382,08 2,344,738,6 20,589,998,94 65,192,325, others 9,481.00 8,744.00 ,036.00 06.00 1.00 55.00 0.00 443.00 448,225, 169,277, 107,985, 446,30 1,221,521, 9,595,99 12,468,52 7,076,925, 20,589,998, Total 368,870. 593,791. 281,265. 1,664, 351,985.0 6,872.00 1,660.00 787.00 940.00 00 00 00 800.00 0

Ecosystem Service Use (UGX), 2018

Nile perch 393,578,355,7 393,578,355,73 Fish 34.00 4.00 Nile tilapia 303,432,284,40 138,181,410,9 441,613,695,38

0.00 84.00 4.00 Mukene 64,176,826,01 64,176,826,011.

1.00 00 Muziri 57,969,058,95 57,969,058,950.

0.00 00 Ragoogi 41,540,162,28 41,540,162,288.

8.00 00 Semutundu 1,576,699,012 1,576,699,012.0

.00 0 North

African 142,869,380,40 6,631,987,301 149,501,367,70

catfish 0.00 .00 1.00

Marbled 5,395,887,023 5,395,887,023.0 lungfish .00 0 Nile barb 521,053,034.0 521,053,034.00 0 Bayad 455,921,405.0 455,921,405.00 0 65,192,325,44 65,192,325,443. 0thers 3.00 00 446,301,664,8 775,219,687 1,221,521,351, Total 00.00 ,185.00 985.00

71 | P a g e

Table 25: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2018

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Total Total

Export

Imports

inventory

Change in Change

Businesses Businesses

produced

consumed

Households Households Households

Government Government

SNA Ecosystem Supply Goods & Services (UGX), 2018

Nile perch 393,578,355,734.0 393,578,355,734.

0 00 Nile tilapia 441,613,695,384.0 441,613,695,384. 0 00 Mukene 64,176,826,011.0 64,176,826,011.00 0 Muziri 57,969,058,950.0 57,969,058,950.00 0 Ragoogi 41,540,162,288.0 41,540,162,288.00 0 Semutundu 1,576,699,012.00 1,576,699,012.00 Fish North African catfish 149,501,367,701.0 149,501,367,701. 0 00 Marbled lungfish 5,395,887,023.00 5,395,887,023.00 Nile barb 521,053,034.00 521,053,034.00

Bayad 455,921,405.00 455,921,405.00

336,330,00 401,522,325,443. Others 65,192,325,443.00 0,000 00 447,320,044,157.0 447,320,044,157. Value addition via fish processing 0 00

72 | P a g e

1,668,841,396,1 336,330,0 2,005,171,396, Total 42.00 00,000 142

SNA Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (UGX), 2018 Nile perch 83,045,059,65 190,173,340,3 567,680,000, 840,898,399,9

7 00 000 57 Nile tilapia 29,156,333,45 412,457,361,9 441,613,695,3

0 00 50 Mukene 4,853,368,201 14,287,006, 64,176,826,01 1,356,137,343 5 653 1 Muziri 12,231,470,83 45,737,588,11 57,969,058,95

9 2 1 Ragoogi 32,775,189,09 41,540,162,28 8,764,973,193 5 8 Semutundu 332,684,892 1,244,014,120 1,576,699,012 Fish North African catfish 148,101,854,7 149,501,367,6 1,399,512,967 00 67 Marbled lungfish 1,138,542,901 4,257,344,123 5,395,887,024 Nile barb 109,953,396 411,099,639 521,053,035 Bayad 96,180,040 359,741,365 455,921,405

13,755,613,35 51,436,712,09 65,192,325,44 Domestic 1 1 2 Others 336,330,000,0 336,330,000,0 Imports 00 00 151,386,462, 1,271,817,9 14,287,00 567,680,00 2,005,171,3 Total 029 27,460 6,653 0,000 96,142

73 | P a g e

Table 26: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2016

Ecosystem service suppliers Ecosystem service users Natural Others Other River Aquacultur Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems water Classifications Ecosystems e bodies Total

Lake supplied Households & Edward, Ponds Government Minor Businesses Lake Lake Lake George Lake (All capture Total used Albert Nile lakes/rive & Victoria Albert Kyoga & Wamala (All aquaculture fisheries) rs Kazinga Cages fisheries) channel

Ecosystem Service Supply (UGX), 2016

Nile perch 567,779,3 52,541,34 31,279,75 651,600,45 Fish 55,400 0,749 8,104 4,253 Nile tilapia 130,455,2 56,721,71 9,594,239 4,087,047,0 4,164,453,2 385,245,47 590,268,16

40,600 1,572 ,850 96 91 2,100 4,509 Mukene 87,215,18 17,098,04 104,313,22

5,984 0,417 6,401 Muziri 57,781,86 57,781,860,

0,698 698 Ragoogi 37,780,44 564,894,72 38,345,342,

7,379 8 107 Semutundu 3,410,189 3,410,189,3

,394 94

North African 2,015,111 4,529,799,7 1,507,131,8 100,818,62 108,870,66

catfish ,914 67 95 6,300 9,876

Marbled 4,030,223 2,773,346,7 1,004,754,5 7,808,325,2 lungfish ,829 96 97 22 Nile barb 1,004,754,5 1,004,754,5

97 97 Bayad 879,160,27 879,160,27

2 2

74 | P a g e

35,409,19 27,669,97 3,801,446 1,705,094 4,521,395,6 23,064,53 96,264,081, others 92,444,893 5,456 0,458 ,063 ,697 86 3,960 213 820,858, 175,773, 108,900, 20,754,8 11,482,63 13,646,54 23,064,5 486,064,0 1,660,546, Total 977,440 619,284 956,156 59,684 8,552 5,066 33,960 98,400 228,542

Ecosystem Service Use (UGX), 2016

Nile perch 651,600,454,2 651,600,454,25

53 3 Nile tilapia 385,245,472,10 205,022,692,4 590,268,164,50

0 09 9 Mukene 104,313,226,4 104,313,226,40

01 1 Muziri 57,781,860,69 57,781,860,698 8 Ragoogi 38,345,342,10 38,345,342,107 7 Semutundu Fish 3,410,189,394 3,410,189,394 North African 100,818,626,30 108,870,669,87 8,052,043,576 catfish 0 6

Marbled lungfish 7,808,325,222 7,808,325,222

Nile barb 1,004,754,597 1,004,754,597 Bayad 879,160,272 879,160,272

96,264,081,21 0thers 96,264,081,213 3 486,064,098,4 1,174,482,1 1,660,546,228, Total 00 30,142 542

75 | P a g e

Table 27: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2016

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Total Total

Export

Imports

inventory

Change in Change

Businesses Businesses

produced

consumed

Households Households Households

Government Government

SNA Ecosystem Supply Goods & Services (UGX), 2016

Nile perch 651,600,454,253 651,600,454,253 Nile tilapia 590,268,164,509 590,268,164,509 Mukene 104,313,226,401 104,313,226,401 Muziri 57,781,860,698 57,781,860,698 Ragoogi 38,345,342,107 38,345,342,107

Semutundu 3,410,189,394 3,410,189,394 Fish North African catfish 108,870,669,876 108,870,669,876 Marbled lungfish 7,808,325,222 7,808,325,222 Nile barb 1,004,754,597 1,004,754,597

Bayad 879,160,272 879,160,272

204,480,00 Others 96,264,081,213 300,744,081,213 0,000

Value addition via fish processing 336,561,357,834 336,561,357,834

76 | P a g e

1,997,107,586,3 204,480,0 2,201,587,586, Total 76 00,000 376 SNA Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (UGX), 2016

Nile perch 137,487,666,9 416,035,145,1 434,639,000, 988,161,812,0 00 00 000 00 Nile tilapia 43,259,793,78 547,008,370,8 590,268,164,5

3 00 83 Mukene 22,010,089,57 54,581,438,06 27,721,698, 104,313,226,4

1 8 762 01 Muziri 12,191,976,20 45,589,884,49 57,781,860,69

7 0 7 Ragoogi 30,254,477,62 38,345,342,10 8,090,864,485 2 7 Semutundu 719,552,763 2,690,636,630 3,410,189,393 Fish North African catfish 107,171,691,5 108,870,669,8 1,698,978,393 00 93 Marbled lungfish 1,647,550,085 6,160,775,136 7,808,325,221 Nile barb 211,992,948 792,761,649 1,004,754,597

Bayad 185,496,748 693,663,524 879,160,272

20,311,730,47 75,952,350,73 96,264,081,21 Domestic 4 8 2 Others 204,480,000,0 204,480,000,0 Imports - 00 00 247,815,692, 1,491,411,1 27,721,69 434,639,00 2,201,587,5 Total 357 95,257 8,762 0,000 86,376

77 | P a g e

Table 28: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2015

Ecosystem service suppliers Ecosystem service users Natural Others Others River Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems water Aquaculture Classifications Ecosystems bodies Total supplied

Households & Lake Edward, Ponds Government Businesses Lake George & Minor (All capture Total used Lake Albert Lake Kyoga Lake Wamala Albert Nile & (All Victoria Kazinga lakes/rivers fisheries) aquaculture channel cages fisheries)

Ecosystem Service Supply (UGX), 2015 Nile perch 535,954,064 52,853,411, 32,094,215, 620,901,691,23

,800 347 083 0 Nile tilapia 123,142,935 58,198,621, 3,963,197,1 297,363,638,7 496,168,033,46 9,175,214,314 4,324,426,094 ,400 773 84 00 5 Mukene 82,326,581, 17,543,236, 99,869,817,873 611 262 Muziri 58,125,057, 58,125,057,494 494 Ragoogi 38,004,845, 537,294,98 38,542,140,270 285 5 Semutundu Fish 3,261,250,399 3,261,250,399

North African 1,434,296,5 140,011,992,8 148,166,286,03 1,927,102,509 4,792,894,198 catfish 25 00 2

Marbled 956,197,68 lungfish 3,854,205,017 2,934,425,019 7,744,827,719 3 Nile barb 956,197,68 956,197,683 3 Bayad 836,672,97 836,672,973 3 33,424,431, 27,834,316, 3,900,427,4 4,302,889,5 22,807,742, others 1,630,625,200 97,814,167 93,998,247,542 613 934 64 74 590

78 | P a g e

774,848,01 176,817,6 111,736,5 19,848,397, 12,149,559, 12,986,74 22,807,74 437,375,631 1,568,570,222, Total 3,424 31,060 00,582 439 478 6,607 2,590 ,500 680

Eecosystem Service Use (UGX), 2015

Nile perch 620,901,691, 620,901,691 Fish 230 ,230 Nile tilapia 297,363,638 198,804,394, 496,168,033

,700 765 ,465 Mukene 99,869,817,8 99,869,817,

73 873 Muziri 58,125,057,4 58,125,057,

94 494 Ragoogi 38,542,140,2 38,542,140,

70 270 Semutundu 3,261,250,39 3,261,250,3

9 99 North African 140,011,992 8,154,293,23 148,166,286

catfish ,800 2 ,032

Marbled 7,744,827,71 7,744,827,7 lungfish 9 19 Nile barb 956,197,683 956,197,683 Bayad 836,672,973 836,672,973

93,998,247,5 93,998,247, 0thers 42 542 437,375,63 1,131,194, 1,568,570, Total 1,500 591,180 222,680

79 | P a g e

Table 29: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2015

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Total Total

Export

Imports Imports

inventory

Change in Change

Businesses Businesses

produced

Households Households

consumed consumed

Households

Government Government Government

SNA Ecosystem Supply Goods & Services (UGX), 2015

Nile perch 620,901,691,230 620,901,691,230 Nile tilapia 496,168,033,465 496,168,033,465 Mukene 99,869,817,873 99,869,817,873 Muziri 58,125,057,494 58,125,057,494 Ragoogi 38,542,140,270 38,542,140,270 Semutundu 3,261,250,399 3,261,250,399 Fish North African catfish 148,166,286,032 148,166,286,032 Marbled lungfish 7,744,827,719 7,744,827,719 Nile barb 956,197,683 956,197,683 Bayad 836,672,973 836,672,973

274,380,000,0 Others 93,998,247,542 368,378,247,542 00 Value addition via fish processing 305,091,849,469 305,091,849,469

80 | P a g e

274,380,000 Total 1,873,662,072,149 2,148,042,072,149 ,000

SNA Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (UGX), 2015

Nile perch 131,010,251 378,864,049,7 418,543,000,0 928,417,301,200 ,500 00 00 Nile tilapia 41,947,707, 454,220,326,3 496,168,033,474 174 00 Mukene 21,072,530, 42,917,464,43 26,295,662, 7,160,400,000 97,446,057,326 821 3 072 Muziri 12,264,388, 45,860,669,46 58,125,057,494 031 3 Ragoogi 8,132,391,5 30,409,748,67 38,542,140,270 97 3 Semutundu 688,130,838 2,573,119,561 3,261,250,399 Fish North African catfish 1,720,548,8 146,445,737,2 148,166,286,068 68 00 Marbled lungfish 1,634,150,2 6,110,677,475 7,744,827,720 45 Nile barb 201,767,983 754,429,700 956,197,683 Bayad 176,532,395 660,140,578 836,672,973

19,833,631, 74,164,615,91 Domestic 93,998,247,542 632 0 Others 274,380,000,0 Imports 274,380,000,000 00 238,682,03 1,457,360,9 26,295,66 425,703,400 2,148,042,072,1 Total 1,084 78,993 2,072 ,000 49

81 | P a g e

Table 30: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2011

Ecosystem service suppliers Ecosystem service users Natural Others Others River Aquacultur Total Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems water Ecosystems e supplied bodies Classifications Household Lake s & Governmen Ponds Edward, Minor Businesses t (All Lake Lake Lake Lake Total used George & Albert Nile lakes/riv & (All capture Victoria Albert Kyoga Wamala Kazinga ers aquaculture fisheries) Cages channel fisheries)

Ecosystem Service Supply (UGX), 2011

Nile perch 311,315,13 45,836,455 66,006,453 423,158,03

0,900 ,689 ,223 9,812 Nile tilapia 49,277,757 82,857,933 4,159,264, 42,102,745 2,102,054,2 130,271,30 310,771,06

,098 ,605 676 ,258 50 8,700 3,587 Mukene 42,000,419 5,437,341, 47,437,761,

,609 963 572 Muziri 44,273,339 44,273,339,

,994 994 Ragoogi 28,947,953 363,517,70 29,311,470,

,073 0 773 Semutundu Fish 2,586,870, 2,586,870,1

110 10 North African catfish 1,528,605, 81,652,802 1,331,151,0 81,022,724, 165,535,28

065 ,340 00 200 2,605 Marbled lungfish 3,057,210, 49,991,375 887,434,00 53,936,019,

130 ,805 0 935 Nile barb 887,434,00 887,434,00

0 0 Bayad 776,504,75 776,504,75

0 0 23,404,296 29,098,960 16,397,118 1,293,435, 1,666,157, 3,993,453,0 15,707,5 91,561,002, others ,882 ,860 ,018 055 335 00 81,800 950

82 | P a g e

425,997,6 148,156,7 170,698,8 12,625,38 175,413,0 10,341,54 15,707, 211,294,0 1,170,234, Total 04,489 09,616 46,809 5,036 80,738 8,700 581,800 32,900 790,088

Ecosystem Service Use (UGX), 2011

Nile perch 423,158,039 423,158,03

,812 9,812 Nile tilapia 130,271,30 180,499,754 310,771,06

8,700 ,887 3,587 Mukene 47,437,761, 47,437,761

572 ,572 Muziri 44,273,339, 44,273,339

994 ,994 Ragoogi 29,311,470, 29,311,470

773 ,773 Semutundu Fish 2,586,870,1 2,586,870,

10 110 North African catfish 81,022,724, 84,512,558, 165,535,28

200 405 2,605 Marbled lungfish 53,936,019, 53,936,019

935 ,935 Nile barb 887,434,00 887,434,000 0 Bayad 776,504,75 776,504,750 0 91,561,002, 91,561,002 0thers 950 ,950 211,294,0 958,940,75 1,170,234 Total 32,900 7,188 ,790,088

83 | P a g e

Table 31: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2011

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Total Total

Export

Imports Imports

inventory

Change in Change

Businesses Businesses

produced

consumed

Households Households Households

Government Government Government

SNA Ecosystem Supply Goods & Services (UGX), 2011

Nile perch 423,158,039,81 423,158,039,812 2 Nile tilapia 310,771,063,58 310,771,063,587 7 Mukene 47,437,761,572 47,437,761,572 Muziri 44,273,339,994 44,273,339,994 Ragoogi 29,311,470,773 29,311,470,773 Semutundu

2,586,870,110 2,586,870,110 Fish North African catfish 165,535,282,60 165,535,282,605 5 Marbled lungfish 53,936,019,935 53,936,019,935 Nile barb 887,434,000 887,434,000 Bayad

776,504,750 776,504,750

203,580,000,00 295,141,002,95 Others 91,561,002,950 0 0

84 | P a g e

183,096,886,06 Value addition via fish processing 183,096,886,061 1 203,580,000,0 1,556,911,676, Total 1,353,331,676,149 00 149

SNA Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (UGX), 2011

Nile perch 89,286,358,98 253,111,545,6 265,196,000,0 607,593,904,58

7 00 00 7 Nile tilapia 38,085,439,31 272,685,624,3 310,771,063,61

2 00 2 Mukene 16,462,278,14 14,231,328, 7,006,554,398 8,398,400,000 46,098,561,012 2 472 Muziri 34,931,667,33 9,341,672,661 44,273,339,994 3 Ragoogi 23,126,751,99 6,184,718,775 29,311,470,773 8 Semutundu 545,838,468 2,041,031,642 2,586,870,110 Fish North African catfish 17,832,143,16 147,703,139,4 165,535,282,56

8 00 8 Marbled lungfish 11,380,497,98 42,555,521,94 53,936,019,935 8 7 Nile barb 187,248,574 700,185,426 887,434,000 Bayad

163,842,502 612,662,248 776,504,750

19,319,415,99 72,241,808,81 Domestic 91,561,224,808 4 4 Others 203,580,000,0 203,580,000,00 Imports 00 0 199,333,730,8 1,069,752,216 14,231,32 273,594,400 1,556,911,676, Total 27 ,850 8,472 ,000 149

85 | P a g e

Table 32: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2010

Ecosystem service suppliers Classifications Ecosystem service users Total Natural Others Other River Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems water Aquaculture supplied Ecosystems bodies Household Lake s & Governmen Edward, Ponds Businesses t (All Lake Lake George Lake Minor Total used Lake Albert Albert Nile & (All capture Victoria Kyoga & Wamala lakes/rivers aquaculture fisheries) Kazinga Cages fisheries) channel

Ecosystem Service Supply (UGX), 2010 Nile perch 216,445,18 11,706,561, 1,366,919 229,518, Fish 5,700 610 ,187 666,497 Nile tilapia 35,450,781, 1,775,476 2,741,544 2,436,928 1,697,146,6 122,281,589,8 166,383,

897 ,464 ,540 ,480 20 00 467,801 Mukene 20,610,420, 79,474,13 20,689,8

157 3 94,290 Muziri 7,980,742,9 7,980,74

36 2,936 Ragoogi 5,218,068,0 200,197,81 5,418,26

75 6 5,891 Semutundu 1,952,960 1,952,96

,130 0,130 North African 1,154,021 5,413,053 1,230,956,6 86,403,690,60 94,201,7 catfish ,895 ,128 88 0 22,311 Marbled lungfish 2,308,043 3,314,114 820,637,79 6,442,79

,790 ,160 2 5,742 Nile barb 820,637,79 820,637,

2 792 Bayad 718,058,06 718,058,

8 068 19,284,593, 8,808,047,4 402,428,1 976,480,0 110,470,4 3,692,870,0 20,318,676, 53,593,5 others 575 55 48 65 72 64 100 65,879

86 | P a g e

291,790,9 33,713,42 3,624,29 9,133,05 11,274,5 9,180,504, 20,318,67 208,685,280 587,720, Total 81,329 0,076 7,932 0,420 66,240 840 6,100 ,400 777,337

Ecosystem Service Use (UGX), 2010

Nile perch 229,518,666 229,518,66 Fish ,497 6,497 Nile tilapia 122,281,58 44,101,878, 166,383,46

9,800 001 7,801 Mukene 20,689,894, 20,689,894

290 ,290 Muziri 7,980,742,9 7,980,742,

36 936 Ragoogi 5,418,265,8 5,418,265,

91 891 Semutundu 1,952,960,1 1,952,960,

30 130 North African 86,403,690, 7,798,031,7 94,201,722 catfish 600 11 ,311 Marbled lungfish 6,442,795,7 6,442,795,

42 742 Nile barb 820,637,79 820,637,792 2 Bayad 718,058,06 718,058,068 8 53,593,565, 53,593,565 0thers 879 ,879 208,685,2 379,035,49 587,720,7 Total 80,400 6,937 77,337

87 | P a g e

Table 33: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2010

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Total Total

Export

Imports Imports

inventory

Change in Change

Businesses Businesses

produced

consumed consumed

Households Households Households

Government Government Government

SNA Ecosystem Supply Goods & Services (UGX), 2010 Nile perch 229,518,666,49 229,518,666,4

7 97 Nile tilapia 166,383,467,80 166,383,467,8 1 01 Mukene 20,689,894,29 20,689,894,290 0 Muziri 7,980,742,936 7,980,742,936 Ragoogi 5,418,265,891 5,418,265,891 Semutundu 1,952,960,130 1,952,960,130 Fish North African catfish 94,201,722,31 94,201,722,311 1 Marbled lungfish 6,442,795,742 6,442,795,742 Nile barb 820,637,792 820,637,792 Bayad 718,058,068 718,058,068

136,125,000,000 189,718,565,8 Others 53,593,565,879 79

88 | P a g e

136,359,535,08 136,359,535,0 Value addition via fish processing 2 82 724,080,312,4 860,205,312, Total 136,125,000,000 19 419

SNA Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (UGX), 2010 Nile perch 48,428,723,21 122,715,851,7 193,538,000,0 364,682,574,91

0 00 00 0 Nile tilapia 157,077,969,4 166,383,467,83 9,305,498,434 00 4 Mukene 11,277,156,72 3,055,895,913 6,206,968,287 1,345,500,000 21,885,520,925 5 Muziri 1,683,935,880 6,296,807,057 7,980,742,937 Ragoogi 1,143,253,278 4,275,012,613 5,418,265,891 Semutundu 412,074,587 1,540,885,543 1,952,960,130 Fish North African catfish 92,556,343,53 1,645,378,773 94,201,722,311 8 Marbled lungfish 1,359,437,792 5,083,357,950 6,442,795,742 Nile barb 173,162,465 647,475,327 820,637,792 Bayad 151,502,362 566,555,706 718,058,068

11,308,250,68 42,285,315,19 Domestic 53,593,565,879 6 3 Others 136,125,000,0 136,125,000,00 Imports 00 0 78,667,113, 580,447,730 6,206,968,2 194,883,500 860,205,312,4 Total 380 ,752 87 ,000 19

89 | P a g e

Table 34: Monetary Supply and Use Table (UGX), 2009

Ecosystem service suppliers Ecosystem service users Natural Others Other River Type of Economic Unit Lake Ecosystems water Aquaculture Total supplied Ecosystems bodies Classifications Households & Governmen Lake Edward, Ponds Businesses t (All George & Lake Minor Total used Lake Victoria Lake Albert Lake Kyoga Albert Nile & (All capture Kazinga Wamala lakes/rivers aquaculture fisheries) channel Cages fisheries) Ecosystem Service Supply (UGX), 2009

Nile perch 187,791,320,5 870,913,68 30,816,945,60 219,479,179,7 Fish 00 0 0 80 Nile tilapia 31,385,053,69 40,844,534,40 62,741,743,12 138,465,808,0 3,494,476,832 0 0 0 42 Mukene 27,701,780,75 30,477,455,75 2,775,675,000 0 0 Muziri 919,782,50 919,782,500 0 Ragoogi 601,396,25 601,396,250 0 Semutundu 2,492,067,600 2,492,067,600 North African 44,743,941,00 46,216,526,40 catfish 1,472,585,400 0 0 Marbled lungfish 2,945,170,800 2,945,170,800 Nile barb - Bayad -

17,091,773,55 669,357,00 25,744,500, 54,019,684,35 others 9,268,020,000 1,246,033,800 0 0 000 0

90 | P a g e

263,969,928 3,061,449, 83,705,175, 11,650,334, 25,744,50 107,485,684 495,617,071 Total - - ,490 430 000 432 0,000 ,120 ,472

Ecosystem Service Use (UGX), 2009

Nile perch 219,479,17 219,479,179,7 Fish 9,780 80 Nile tilapia 62,741,743, 75,724,064, 138,465,808,0

120 922 42 Mukene 30,477,455, 30,477,455,75

750 0 Muziri 919,782,50 919,782,500 0 Ragoogi 601,396,25 601,396,250 0 Semutundu 2,492,067,6 2,492,067,600 00

North African 44,743,941, 1,472,585,4 46,216,526,40 catfish 000 00 0 Marbled lungfish 2,945,170,8 2,945,170,800 00 Nile barb - - Bayad - -

54,019,684, 54,019,684,35 0thers 350 0 107,485,6 388,131,3 495,617,071 Total 84,120 87,352 ,472

91 | P a g e

Table 35: SNA products and services associated with fish provisioning ecosystem services (UGX), 2009

Producers Consumers

Type of Economic Unit Type of Consumer

Classifications

& &

Total Total

Export

Imports Imports

inventory

Change in Change

Businesses Businesses

produced

consumed consumed

Households Households Households

Government Government Government

SNA Ecosystem Supply Goods & Services (UGX), 2009

Nile perch 219,479,179,78 219,479,179,780 0 Nile tilapia 138,465,808,04 138,465,808,042 2 Mukene 30,477,455,750 30,477,455,750 Muziri 919,782,500 919,782,500 Ragoogi 601,396,250 601,396,250 Semutundu

2,492,067,600 2,492,067,600 Fish North African catfish 46,216,526,400 46,216,526,400 Marbled lungfish 2,945,170,800 2,945,170,800 Nile barb - - Bayad

- -

105,094,000,00 159,113,684,35 Others 54,019,684,350 0 0

92 | P a g e

125,406,118,71 Value addition via fish processing 125,406,118,714 4 105,094,000,0 726,117,190,1 Total 621,023,190,186 00 86

SNA Ecosystem Goods & Services Use (UGX), 2009

Nile perch 46,310,098, 134,641,200,5 163,934,00 344,885,298,50

007 00 0,000 7 Nile tilapia 15,977,772, 122,488,036,0 138,465,808,02

026 00 6 Mukene 4,501,521,6 16,832,697,34 9,143,236,725 30,477,455,750 84 1 Muziri 194,074,10 725,708,393 919,782,501 8 Ragoogi 126,894,60 474,501,641 601,396,250 9 Semutundu 525,831,41 1,966,236,188 2,492,067,601 3 Fish North African catfish 310,710,37 45,905,816,03 46,216,526,401 1 0 Marbled lungfish 621,433,61 2,323,737,187 2,945,170,800 3 Nile barb - - - Bayad

- - -

11,398,158, 42,621,525,80 Domestic 54,019,684,350 547 3 Others 105,094,000,0 105,094,000,00 Imports 00 0 79,966,49 473,073,459 9,143,236,7 163,934,0 726,117,190,1 Total 4,378 ,083 25 00,000 86

93 | P a g e

9.1 RESOURCE RENT CALCULATIONS FOR CAPTURE FISHERIES

Resource rent is defined as the excess profit owing to the scarcity of a resource; it is valued as the cost of production minus the marginal exploitation costs. For fisheries, there are two approaches to measuring rent: a market-price approach and the residual value approach (FAO, 2004). The market price approach is established by a trading mechanism such as Individually Transferable Quotas (ITQ). A market price for the value of fish in situ (rent) may be established when there are well-defined property rights such as individual catch quotas or, more rarely, quotas of harvesting effort, or territorial fishing rights, and when there is a well-functioning competitive market where these rights are freely traded. Under such conditions, economic theory predicts that the total market value of the fishing rights will approximate the economic value of the fish stock, minus any transaction costs for trading of fish rights. However, there are a number of conditions which may distort market prices for fishing entitlements, and, as such, market-determined rent is rarely observed for most of the world’s fisheries.

Consequently, the most commonly used method for measuring rent, not only for fisheries but for most other resources as well, is the residual value approach (FAO, 2004). This method uses data on revenues and costs to estimate rent as a residual of the two. Rent is calculated as the difference between revenue and average cost rather than marginal cost, because data about marginal costs are generally not available. Rent is calculated by the formula below;

푹푹 = 푻푹 − (푰푪 + 푪푬 + 푪푭푪 + 푵푷) where RR is resource rent, TR is total rent, IC is intermediate consumption, CE is compensation of employees, CFC is consumption of fixed capital (depreciation), NP is normal profit. NP = i x K, where i is the rate of return on capital and K is the value of fixed capital stock invested in the sector.

In the early days of environmental accounting, resource rent was calculated to derive the value of assets but its usefulness as a resource management tool was often not recognized. As such, more recently rent has been analyzed to assess resource management in terms of economic efficiency, sustainability and other socio-economic objectives such as employment and equity. In management of public resources like fisheries, government policy is therefore often guided by two alternative objectives i.e., promotion of commercial exploitation to maximize resource rent or promotion of a combination of socio-economic objectives, in which case social welfare is prioritized over economic efficiency (FAO, 2004).

94 | P a g e

Table 36: Resource rent (UGX) (2009-2018)

Lake Victoria

Resource rent 2018 2016 2015 2011 2010 2009

Nile perch

Total revenue 310,032,682,826 567,779,355,400 535,954,064,800 311,315,130,900 216,445,185,700 187,791,320,500

Intermediate consumption 77,508,170,700 141,944,838,900 133,988,516,200 77,828,782,730 54,111,296,430 46,947,830,130

Compensation of employees 145,081,294,800 145,081,294,800 133,947,557,600 109,632,600,500 109,632,600,500 115,019,325,700

Consumption of fixed capital 9,617,948,400 9,617,948,400 8,469,804,416 5,801,614,650 5,801,614,650 5,157,771,941

Normal profit 12,823,931,200 12,823,931,200 11,293,072,550 7,735,486,200 7,735,486,200 6,877,029,254

Rent 65,001,337,726 258,311,342,100 248,255,114,034 110,316,646,820 39,164,187,920 13,789,363,475

Nile tilapia

Total revenue 130,455,240,600 123,142,935,400 49,277,757,098 35,450,781,897 31,385,053,690 71,234,341,052 Intermediate consumption 17,808,585,260 32,613,810,150 30,785,733,850 12,319,439,270 8,862,695,473 7,846,263,423

Compensation of employees 53,093,954,160 53,093,954,160 46,239,719,760 44,069,212,200 44,069,212,200 41,450,543,160

Consumption of fixed capital 409,138868 409,138868 368,012,041 323,131,913 323,131,913 322,093,524

Normal profit 545,518,490 545,518,490 490,682,722 430,842,550 430,842,550 429,458,032

Rent -622,855,726 43,792,818,932 45,258,787,027 -7,864,868,835 -18,235,100,239 -18,663,304,400

Mukene

Total revenue 47,623,355,511 82,326,581,611 42,000,419,609 27,701,780,750 87,215,185,980 20,610,420,157 Intermediate consumption 11,905,838,880 21,803,796500 20,581,645,400 10,500,104,900 5,152,605,038 6,925,445,188

Compensation of employees 27,444,826,760 27,444,826,760 25,338,609,400 20,742,168,200 20,742,168,200 21,760,367,200

Consumption of fixed capital 1,173,255,816 1,173,255,816 1,113,753,983 826,190,754 826,190,754 797,188,554

95 | P a g e

Normal profit 1,564,341,088 1,564,341,088 1,485,005,311 1,101,587,672 1,101,587,672 1,062,918,072

Rent 5,535,092,967 35,228,965,820 33,807,567,517 8,830,368,083 -7,212,131,507 -2,844,138,260

Others

Total revenue 19,334,989,481 35,409,195,456 33,424,431,613 23,404,296,882 19,284,593,575 17,091,773,550

Intermediate consumption 4,833,747,370 8,852,298,863 8,356,107,903 5,851,074,220 4,421,148,393 4,272,943,388

Compensation of employees 22,135,662,120 22,135,662,120 19,051,256,640 18,655,820,040 18,655,820,040 17,223,460,800

Consumption of fixed capital 133,634,794 133,634,794 118,390,856 107,720,369 107,720,369 104,770,939

Normal profit 178,179,725 178,179,725 157,854,474 143,627,158 143,627,158 139,694,585

Rent -7,946,234,528 4,109,419,954 5,740,821,740 -1,353,944,905 -4,043,722,385 -4,649,096,162

Total rent 61,967,340,439 341,442,546,806 333,062,290,318 109,928,201,163 9,673,233,789 -12,367,175,347

Lake Albert

Total revenue 169,277,593,791 175,773,619,284 176,817,631,060 148,156,709,616 33,713,420,076 3,061,449,430

Intermediate consumption 5,078,327,811 5,273,208,576 5,304,528,930 4,444,701,288 1,011,402,602 91,843,483

Compensation of employees 44,150,503,800 39,233,805,000 39,233,805,000 28,862,171,000 28,862,171,000 26,113,536,800

Consumption of fixed capital 1,281,640,896 1,118,614,259 1,118,614,259 894,272,237 894,272,237 553,688,456

Normal profit 1,708,854,528 1,491,485,678 1,491,485,678 1,192,362,982 1,192,362,982 738,251,275

Rent 117,058,266,756 128,656,505,771 129,669,197,193 112,763,202,109 1,753,211,255 -24,435,870,584

Lake Kyoga

Total revenue 107,985,281,265 108,900,956,156 111,736,500,582 170,698,846,809 3,624,297,932 83,705,175,000

Intermediate consumption 17,277,644,990 17,424,152,980 17,877,840,080 27,311,815,490 579,887,669 13,392,828,000

Compensation of employees 91,099,925,020 91,099,925,020 91,099,925,020 67,492,777,300 67,492,777,300 67,492,777,300

96 | P a g e

Consumption of fixed capital 960,292,965 960,292,965 960,292,965 748,548,299 748,548,299 748,548,299

Normal profit 1,280,390,620 1,280,390,620 1,280,390,620 998,064,399 998,064,399 998,064,399

Rent -2,632,972,330 -1,863,805,429 518,051,897 74,147,641,321 -66,194,979,735 1,072,957,002

Lake Edward, George & Kazinga channel

Total revenue 9,595,996,872 20,754,859,684 19,848,397,439 12,625,385,036 9,133,050,420 11,650,334,432

Intermediate consumption 287,879,906 622,645,790 595,451,923 378,761,551 273,991,513 349,510,033

Compensation of employees 7,136,168,000 7,843,737,200 7,843,737,200 5,636,363,200 5,636,363,200 5,636,363,200

Consumption of fixed capital 114,238,476 116,249,856 116,249,856 76,200,774 76,200,774 76,200,774

Normal profit 152,317,968 154,999,808 154,999,808 101,601,032 101,601,032 101,601,032

Rent 1,905,392,522 12,017,227,030 11,137,958,652 6,432,458,479 3,044,893,901 5,486,659,393

Lake Wamala

Total revenue 12,468,521,660 11,482,638,552 12,149,559,478 175,413,080,738 11,274,566,240 -

Intermediate consumption 3,117,130,415 2,870,659,638 3,037,389,868 43,853,270,180 2,818,641,560

Compensation of employees 5,395,512,720 5,395,512,720 5,395,512,720 5,395,512,720 5,395,512,720

Consumption of fixed capital 19,068,845 19,068,845 19,068,845 19,068,845 19,068,845

Normal profit 25,425,126 25,425,126 25,425,126 25,425,126 25,425,126

Rent 3,911,384,554 3,171,972,223 3,672,162,919 126,119,803,867 3,015,917,989 -

Albert Nile

Total revenue 7,076,925,787 13,646,545,066 12,986,746,607 10,341,548,700 9,180,504,840 -

Intermediate consumption 212,307,774 409,396,352 389,602,398 310,246,461 275,415,145

Compensation of employees 16,213,615,600 16,213,615,600 16,213,615,600 16,213,615,600 16,213,615,600

97 | P a g e

Consumption of fixed capital 145,957,684 145,957,684 145,957,684 145,957,684 145,957,684

Normal profit 194,610,245 194,610,245 194,610,245 194,610,245 194,610,245

Rent -9,689,565,516 -3,317,034,815 -3,957,039,320 -6,522,881,290 -7,649,093,834 -

GRAND TOTAL 172,519,846,425 480,107,411,586 474,102,621,659 422,868,425,649 -56,356,816,635 -30,243,429,536

98 | P a g e

Results in Table 36 above show that negative rents accrue to many fisheries from Uganda’s waters. This is partly due to the declining fish stocks in Uganda’s water bodies which has raised the marginal cost of production (fishing), resulting in diminishing catch per unit effort (CPUE). Low CPUE is really an indicator of economic inefficiency of a fishing regime. For instance, Figures 20 and 21 indicate that Mukene and other species (including Tilapia) on Lake Victoria have generally had their stocks diminishing (due to overfishing) since 2009, and this trend is consistent with negative rents for these fisheries (Table 36) in the same accounting period. On the other hand, Figure 22 indicates that Nile perch stocks in Lake Victoria have been improving (recovering), and this is also consistent with the positive rents accruing to Nile perch in Table 36. Lake Kyoga and Albert Nile were the worst in terms of economic efficiency, with Albert Nile registering negative rents throughout the accounting period (2009-2018).

The other explanation for the observed negative rents is open-access fishing regimes on Uganda’s waters. This regime inherently prioritises socio-economic objectives over economic efficiency. In such fishing regimes, it is not uncommon to find that fishing rents are zero or even negative, and in such cases the asset value of fish is treated as zero (FAO, 2004). This may be perplexing to fishers that the economic value of a fish stock could be zero when their livelihood depends on it. In simple terms, it means that the revenue from fishing does not cover all the costs of fishing. In such a case, the other costs are often covered by subsidies from the government. The economic interpretation of negative rents is that the fishery is being managed in an economically sub-optimal way and is therefore economically inefficient. However, while economically inefficient, fisheries management may achieve other non-economic objectives that are important to society.

When the value of an important resource, like a fish stock, has an economic value of zero (negative rent) as is the case in Table 36, it is important for fisheries managers to ask what the value of the stock would be under optimal management. This could be achieved by analysis with a bio-economic model to show how resource rent might change with the rate of exploitation of the fish stock. However, in estimating the potential optimal value of fish stocks, the optimal value of fisheries should not be mistaken for the ‘true’ value of fisheries and substituted for the actual value of fisheries in the accounts. This is because the SNA and the SEEA are measures of economic activity not economic welfare. Consequently, the accounting practices of the SNA and the SEEA require asset valuation based on current value, not potential value.

99 | P a g e

10. FISHING EFFORT

Fishing effort is a measure of the amount of fishing. It includes a combination of inputs into the fishing activity such as the number of fishing crafts and gears used, and time spent fishing. The catch per unit effort (CPUE) may be an indicator of the change in stock size, assuming that population density and population size are correlated and that the catch per unit effort increases as the population densities increase. It also provides important socio-economic information on the numbers of individuals engaged in fishing livelihood activities. Information on fishing effort on Uganda’s waters is obtained from Frame SAurveys that are supposed to be conducted every two years. Frame Survey (FS) A Frame Survey is a census-based approach in which data is collected on all fishing crafts and gears operating on a given water body. A Frame Survey is an important tool for generating information required for fisheries management and research. It provides baseline data (sampling frame) for designing Catch Assessment Surveys (CAS) and other fisheries surveys, such as socio- economic surveys. FS also provides indicators for the evaluation of management interventions, and baseline data for fisheries planning and development. The overall objective of a Frame Survey is to provide information on the composition, magnitude and distribution of fishing effort, available facilities and services at landing sites to guide fisheries planning, management and infrastructure development (FS SOP 2016). The specific objectives of FS include to provide information on: (i) Number of fish landing sites (ii) Number of fishers (iii) Number and types of fishing crafts and their mode of propulsion (iv) Number, types and sizes of fishing gears used on the lake and their mode of operation and (v) Craft/gear combinations by target species. Fishing effort on Lake Victoria Fishing effort on Lake Victoria has been increasing steadily over the years in all dimensions i.e. number of fishers and number of fishing crafts and gears (Table 37). For instance, between 2000 and 2016, the number of fishers and fishing crafts and gears increased more than two-fold. Data from 2016 FS recorded 69,740 fisher and 30,390 fishing crafts. The main fishing crafts include: Sesse boats (Sesse flat one end, and Sesse pointed both ends), and Parachute boats. Major fishing gears include: gillnets and hooks. Most of the fishers target Nile perch, Nile tilapia and Mukene.

100 | P a g e

Table 37: FS on the Ugandan side of Lake Victoria, 2000-2016

Indicator Year

Description 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

Number of Landing sites 597 552 554 481 435 503 555 567 556

Number of fishers 34,889 41,674 37,721 54,148 51,916 56,957 63,921 64,617 69,740

Total number of fishing crafts 15,544 18,609 16,775 24,148 23,446 23,628 27,971 28,234 30,390

Crafts using engines 2,031 3,250 3,173 5,047 5,595 6,334 9,351 9,955 11,495

Gillnets by mesh size <5” 54,454 52,846 56,246 91,740 76,908 66,532 59,585 78,571 78,070

Gillnets by mesh size ≥5” 243,209 374,642 402,351 498,037 327,098 307,052 423,155 1,015,225 955,377

Total gillnets 297,663 427,488 458,597 589,777 404,006 373,584 482,740 1,093,796 1,033,447

Total small seines (Mukene fishing) 2,452 1,296 1,181 1,608 2,334 2,699 7,343 6,227 5,781

Number of Hooks 250,038 933,038 977,183 2,301,469 2,783,428 2,593,497 4,430,917 4,591,700 4,552,922

Other gears 13,507 7,785 7,960 2,605 21,468 25,014 24,835 33,971 43,298

Source: DFR, MAAIF, 2016; LVFO, 2016

Fishing effort on Lake Albert Like the other major water bodies across the country, the fishing effort on Lake Albert has increased over the years (Table 38). The number of fishers increased from 15,364 (in 2007) to 27,944 (in 2018). The number of fishing crafts has also been growing rapidly. For instance, the number of crafts increased from 5,764 (in 2007) to 9,781 (in 2018). The main fishing crafts are Congo Barque and a few Sesse boats. The main fishing gears include gillnets, hooks and small seines. Most of the fishers target Muziri, Ragoogi, Nile perch and Nile tilapia.

Table 32: FS on Lake Albert, 2007-2018

Description 2007 2012 2016 2018

Landing sites 72 68 72 100

Fishing crafts

Congo Barque 5,596 6,037 8,377 7,605

Parachute 4 151 59 2

Sesse 157 175 214 2,127

others 7 10 2 5

Total no. crafts 5,764 6,216 8,672 9,781

Gears

Gillnets <4 inches 54,350 102,457 84,206 57,237

Gillnets >4 inches 42,365 42,374 13,184 16,325

Total Gillnets 96,715 144,831 97,390 73,562

101 | P a g e

Long lines 1,965,576 745,706 1,699,380 1,854,706

Small seines 1,619 2297 3,406 3,079

Outboard engines 311

Number of fishers 15, 364 15, 424 23,722 27,944

Source: NaFIRRI, 2018

Fishing effort on Kyoga Basin Lakes The FS conducted in 2008 and 2013 indicate an increasing fishing effort on the lake. The number of fishers has been soaring on the lake over the years (Table 39), increasing from 20,640 (2008) to 28,953 (2013). The number of fishing crafts also increased from 11,765 (2011) to 14,838 (2013). Main fishing crafts include parachute boats, sesse boats, dugouts and rafts. The major fishing gears include gillnets, hooks, small seines, cast nets and traps. However, there are still rampant cases of illegal gears (beach/boat seines) on Kyoga Basin Lakes, where illegal gears increased from 998 (2011) to 1,217 (2013). Most of the fishers target Nile tilapia, Nile perch and Mukene.

Table 39: FS on Kyoga Basin Lakes, 2008-2013

Description Year

2008 2013

Landing sites 354 366

Fishing crafts

Sesse 3,319 3,074

Parachute 6,677 10,521

Dugout 983 1,224

Rafts 19 50

Others 767

Total no. crafts 11,765 14,838

Gears

Total no. Gillnets 153,346 181,010

Hooks 167,051 689,706

Small seines 405 913

Cast nets 296 1,082

Traps 11,747

Beach/boat seines (illegal) 998 1,217

Outboard engines 47 95

Number of fishers 20,640 28,953

Source: NaFIRRI, 2015

102 | P a g e

Fishing Effort on Edward-George-Kazinga Channel Lake System Number of Fishers Frame Surveys conducted by NaFIRRI on Edward-George-Kazinga Channel Lake System in 2011 and 2013 reveal a rapid increase in the amount of fishing effort on the lake system in terms of number of fishers and number of fishing crafts and gears (Tables 40 and 41). In 2011, the number of fishers operating on the lake system was 1,887 who were distributed as follows: Lake Edward, 684 (36%); Lake George 1,103 (59%) and Kazinga channel 100 (5%). However, the number fishers increased to 3,730 and the distribution was: 953 (35%) on Lake Edward, 1,579 (58%) Lake George and 198(7%) on Kazinga channel. Despite the fact that the number of fishers doubled between 2011 (1,887 fishers) and 2013 (3,730 fishers), there was no significant change in the catch between 2011 (5,300 metric tons) and 2013 (6,250 metric tons). This shows diminishing catch per unit effort (CPUE), which is an indicator of an unsustainable fishing regime. Number of fishing crafts The total number of fishing crafts operating on the Edward and George basin lakes and Kazinga channel was 932 in 2011 distributed as follows: Lake Edward,330 (35%), George, 552 (58%) and Kazinga channel, 58 (5%). This number increased to 1,297 crafts which were distributed as follows: 469 (36%) on Lake Edward, 729 (56%) on Lake George and 99(8%) on Kazinga channel. This indicates approximately a 40 % increase in the number of fishing crafts between 2011 and 2013. The type of boats used on Lake Edward are Sesse flat at one end, while parachute is the only type used on the Lake George and Kazinga side. The type of fishing crafts used on this lake system is mainly influenced by water body depth i.e. large sesse boats are more suitable in Lake Edward’s deep waters, while the small parachute is more suitable in the shallow waters of Lake George and Kazinga channel. Fishing Gears The 2011/2013 FS revealed that gillnets, hooks, cast nets and traps are the main gears used on this Lake System. In 2011, the number of gillnets was 49,085. However, the number increased to 59,356 in 2013, indicating a 21% increase. Hooks are the other important gear in the Edward- George systems. In 2011 there were 166,050 hooks but they increased to 365,200 in 2013, indicating a more than two-fold increase in the number of hooks. In this Lake System the hooks mainly target Marbled lungfish and North African catfish. Other gears mainly target Nile tilapia, and Semutundu.

103 | P a g e

Table 40: FS on Lake Edward, 2006-2018

Description 2006 2011 2013 2017 2018

Landing sites 5 5 5 5 5

Fishing crafts (Sesse Flat) 242 277 417 186 299

Gears

Gillnets <4 inches 924 20 445 4,480 0

Gillnets >4 inches 10,136 15,345 26,585 8,770 23,385

Total Gillnets 11,060 15,365 27,030 13,250 23,385

Long lines 129 16,705 100,600 44,800 30,450

Outbard engines 17 39

Number of Fishers 491 684 953 837 917

Source: NaFIRRI, 2018

Table 41: FS on Lake George and Kazinga Channel, 2011-2013

Descriptions Lake George Kazinga channel

2011 2013 2011 2013

Number of landing sites 7 8 2 2

Number of parachute boats 552 729 50 99

Number of Sesse boats 53 52

Gillnets <4 inches 26,938 24,237 2,317

Gillnets >4 inches 2,849 3,810 1,893 1,602

Total Gillnets 29,787 28,047 1,893 3,919

Long lines 121,100 215,320 10,600 49,300

Hand lines 200 60

Traps 10 163

Number of fishers 1,103 1,579 100 198

Source: NaFIRRI, 2015

Fishing Effort on Lake Wamala A 2012 FS conducted by NaFIRRI indicated that there were about 616 fishers and 614 fishing crafts on Lake Wamala. However, these numbers were expected to have changed drastically, but no recent FS has been conducted since 2012. All the fishing crafts on the lake are parachute boats. Hooks and gillnets are the fishing gears on the Lake (Table 42). Most fishers target North African Catfish Marbled lungfish, and Nile tilapia.

104 | P a g e

Table 42: FS on Lake Wamala, 2012

Descriptions Total Number

Landing sites 26

Fishers 616

Fishing crafts (Parachute) 614

Gill nets 4838

Long line hooks 96307

Hand line hooks 422

Source: NaFIRRI, 2012 Fishing effort on Albert Nile Although FS are supposed to be conducted every after two years (biannually), there has been no FS on Albert Nile for eight years now. The last FS conducted on the river was in 2012 (Table 43). According to a 2012 FS, there were about 4,500 fishers and 2,681 fishing crafts on Albert Nile (Table 43). These numbers were expected to have changed drastically, but no recent FS has been conducted since 2012. The major fishing crafts on the river are the dugout, Congo barque and parachute. Most fishers target Nile tilapia, Ragoogi, North African catch fish, Nile barb, Marbled lungfish and Bayad.

Table 43: FS on Albert Nile, 2012

Descriptions Total Number

Landing sites 126

Fishers 4,501

Fishing crafts

Congo Barque 569

Dugout 1,543

Parachute 545

Sesse 24

Fishing crafts (Overall) 2,681

Gill nets 30,769

Long line hooks 145,338

Hand line hooks 275

Traps 935

Cast nets 303

Outboard engines 03

Source: NaFIRRI, 2012

105 | P a g e

11. INTEGRATED ANALYSIS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

11.1 Integrated analysis

Integrated analysis integrates physical information on fish stocks, flows and pressures, and data on economic activity. It puts into consideration socio-economic conditions in the fisheries for the accounting period as shown in Tables 44-49, based on the template of the methodological notes as shown in Table 8 (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/featured-projects/nca-in-uganda). The purpose of integarated analysis is to ensure sustainable utilization of fisheries resources in order to promote sustainable development. John Hicks (1946) provided a very strong statement about economic sustainability when he defined “Income” as “the maximum amount an individual can consume during a period and remain as well off at the end of the period as at the beginning.” Hicks' statement has generally been interpreted as the amount of income that can be spent without depleting the wealth that generates the income. Hence, sustainability requires non- decreasing levels of capital stock over time, or, at the level of the individual, non-decreasing per capita capital stock. The fundamental objective of fisheries managers is therefore to maximize the welfare derived from fishery resources by present and future generations. This requires the conservation of these resources and limiting harvesting rates to a sustainable level. The principles of fisheries management are therefore consistent with strong sustainability incorporated into the1995 UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UN 1995).

Tables 44-49 below presents a comprehensive overview of the state of the stocks, measures of the catches and the various pressures of the fishery including pollution, invasive aquatic weeds, Fish Breeding Areas, economic and socio-economic data on fisheries sub-sector. The integrated analysis in section 11.2 attempts to explain the results in the tables and relate them to policy questions identified by key stakeholders at the beginning of this study. These policy questions are highlighted in Table 2 of the methodological notes (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/featured- projects/nca-in-uganda).

106 | P a g e

Table 44: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2018

Socio-economic Fisheries data Economic data Information on fisheries pressures

data

-

fished)

-

Fishery

2018 (‘ $) 000 US

Qualitative assessment of of assessment Qualitative fished, (under stock fishery over fully fished, capture from Catch (tons) fisheries fishery of value Nutritional catches locally consumed Catch (tons) (post inventory in Change tons loss), harvest catch of value Monetary (Mil. UGX) catch of value Export grounds/FBAs Nursery weeds Invasive of (No. effort Fishing fishermen/boats) by fisheries in Employment gender

69,740 fishers 69,391 Male Lake Source of 147 potential Over fished 138,040 96,628 19,049.52 448,225 128,878.68 and 30,390 fishers and 349 Victoria animal protein FBAs boats female fishers

Source of Kariba weed 23,722 fishers Lake Albert Near over fished 148,640 133,776 ND 169,278 12,274.16 ND ND animal protein infestation and 8,672 boats

Kariba weed & 28,953 fishers Source of Lake Kyoga Over fished 40,130 32,104 ND 107,985 12,274.16 ND water hyacinth and 14,838 ND animal protein infestation boats

Lake Edward, Source of 55 Potential 2,730 fishers George & Over fished 3,070 2,763 ND 9,596 ND ND ND animal protein FBAs and 1,245 boats Kazinga Channel

Lake Source of 616 fishers and Over fished 4,300 3,010 ND 12,469 ND ND ND ND Wamala animal protein 614 boats

Source of 4,501 fishers Albert Nile Over fished 2,790 2,511 ND 7,077 ND ND ND ND animal protein and 2,681 boats

Other Source of water Over fished 8,820 ND ND 20,590 ND ND ND ND ND animal protein bodies ND = No data 107 | P a g e

Table 45: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2016

Socio-economic Fisheries data Economic data Information on fisheries pressures

data

-

fished)

-

consumed locally locally consumed Fishery

2016 (‘ $) 000 US

Qualitative assessment of of assessment Qualitative fished, (under stock fishery over fully fished, capture from Catch (tons) fisheries fish of value Nutritional catches Catch (tons) (post inventory in Change tons loss), harvest catch of value Monetary (Mil. UGX) catch of value Export grounds/FBAs Nursery weeds Invasive of (No. effort Fishing fishermen/boats) by fisheries in Employment gender

69,740 fishers 69,391 Male Lake Source of 147 potential Near over 252,800 176,960 36,963 820,859 101,415.72 ND and 30,390 fishers and 349 Victoria animal protein FBAs fished boats female fishers

23,722 fishers Near over Source of Kariba weed Lake Albert 148,160 133,344 ND 175,774 9,658.64 ND and 8,672 ND fished animal protein infestation boats

Kariba weed & 28,953 fishers Source of Lake Kyoga Over fished 40,710 32,568 ND 108,900 9,658.64 ND water hyacinth and 14,838 ND animal protein infestation boats

Lake Edward, 2,730 fishers Near over Source of 55 Potential George & 6,640 5,976 ND 20,755 ND ND and 1,245 ND fished animal protein FBAs Kazinga boats Channel

Lake Source of 616 fishers Over fished 3,960 2,772 ND 11,483 ND ND ND ND Wamala animal protein and 614 boats

4,501 fishers Source of Albert Nile Over fished 5,380 4,842 ND 13,646 ND ND ND and 2,681 ND animal protein boats

Other Source of water Over fished 9,880 ND ND 23,065 ND ND ND ND ND animal protein bodies ND = No data 108 | P a g e

Table 46: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2015

Fisheries data Economic data Information on fisheries pressures Socio-economic data

catch catch

fished)

-

catch

gender

(Mil.UGX)

harvest loss), tons loss), harvest

(‘ US $) 000

-

fisheries (tons) fisheries weeds Invasive

Fishery fishermen/boats)

Catch from capture capture from Catch

Change in inventory inventory in Change

Fishing effort (No. of (No. effort Fishing

Export value of catch of value Export

Nursery grounds/FBAs Nursery

Nutritional value of fish fish of value Nutritional

fully fished, over fully fished,

(tons) Monetary value of of value Monetary

2015 (post

Qualitative assessment of of assessment Qualitative

Catch consumed locally consumed Catch

Employment in fisheries by fisheries in Employment

fishery stock (under fished, fished, (under stock fishery

Lake Source of 147 potential 64,617 fishers 64,294 male fishers Near 238,630 167,041 35,061.21 774,848 104,279.83 ND Victoria over animal protein FBAs and 28,234 boats and 323 female fishers fished Near Source of Kariba weed 23,722 fishers Lake Albert over 149,040 134,136 ND 176,818 9,848.08 ND ND animal protein infestation and 8,672 boats fished

Over Source of 28,953 fishers Lake Kyoga 41,770 33,416 ND 111,737 11,079.09 ND ND ND fished animal protein and 14,838 boats

Lake Edward, Over Source of 55 Potential 2,730 fishers and George & 6,350 5,715 ND 19,848 ND ND ND fished animal protein FBAs 1,245 boats Kazinga Channel

Lake Over Source of 616 fishers and 4,190 2,933 ND 12,150 ND ND ND ND Wamala fished animal protein 614 boats

Over Source of 4,501 fishers and Albert Nile 5,120 4,608 ND 12,987 ND ND ND ND fished animal protein 2,681 boats

Other Over Source of water 9,770 ND ND 22,808 ND ND ND ND ND fished animal protein bodies ND = No data

109 | P a g e

Table 47: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2011

Fisheries data Economic data Information on fisheries pressures

fished)

-

(tons)

catch (tons)

gender

(Mil. (Mil. UGX)

harvest loss), tons loss), harvest

-

(‘ US $) 000

Invasive weeds Invasive fisheries fisheries

Fishery fishermen/boats)

Catch from capture capture from Catch

Change in inventory in Change

Fishing effort (No. of (No. effort Fishing

Export value of catch catch of value Export

Nursery grounds/FBAs Nursery

(post

Nutritional value of fish fish of value Nutritional

fully fished, over fully fished, locally consumed Catch Monetary value of catch of value Monetary

2011

Qualitative assessment of of assessment Qualitative

Employment in fisheries by fisheries in Employment fishery stock (under fished, fished, (under stock fishery

Near over fished Water Lake Source of animal 56,957 fishers 175,820 123,074 27,404.25 425,998 70,566.78 ND hyacinth ND Victoria protein and 23,455 boats infestation

Lake Source of animal 15, 424 fishers Near over fished 163,950 147,555 ND 148,157 10,059.17 ND ND ND Albert protein and 6,216 boats

Lake Source of animal 20,640 fishers Overfished 61,590 49,272 ND 170,699 13,717.05 ND ND ND Kyoga protein and 11,765 boats

Lake Edward, Source of animal 1,887 fishers and George & Over fished 5,300 4,770 ND 12,625 ND ND ND ND protein 879 boats Kazinga Channel

Lake Source of animal 616 fishers and Near over fished 75,110 52,577 ND 175,413 ND ND ND ND Wamala protein 614 boats

Source of animal 4,501 fishers and Albert Nile Over fished 5000 4,500 ND 10,342 ND ND ND ND protein 2,681 boats

Other Source of animal water Over fished 7,080 ND ND 15,708 ND ND ND ND ND protein bodies

110 | P a g e

Table 48: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2010

Socio- Fisheries data Economic data Information on fisheries pressures

economic data

fished)

-

fished, fully fished, fished, fully fished,

(tons) (tons)

gender

(Mil. (Mil. UGX)

over

harvest loss), tons loss), harvest

(‘ US $) 000

- Invasive weeds Invasive

Fishery fishermen/boats)

Change in inventory inventory in Change

Fishing effort (No. of (No. effort Fishing

Export value of catch catch of value Export

Nursery grounds/FBAs Nursery

Catch consumed locally locally consumed Catch Monetary value of catch catch of value Monetary

2010 (post

Employment in fisheries by fisheries in Employment

Catch from capture fisheries fisheries capture from Catch

Nutritional value of fish catch fish of value Nutritional

stock (under (under stock Qualitative assessment of fishery fishery of assessment Qualitative Near over fished ND Lake Source of animal 56,957 fishers and 162,930 114,051 22,571.04 291,790 81,453.98 ND ND Victoria protein 23,455 boats

ND Lake Source of animal 15, 424 fishers and Over fished 55,810 50,229 ND 33,713 4,300.85 ND ND Albert protein 6,216 boats

ND Source of animal 20,640 fishers and Lake Kyoga Overfished 1,710 1,368 ND 3,624 860.17 ND ND protein 11,765 boats

Lake ND Edward, Source of animal 1,887 fishers and George & Over fished 4,500 4,050 ND 9,133 ND ND ND protein 879 boats Kazinga Channel

ND Lake Source of animal 616 fishers and Over fished 5,600 3,920 ND 11,275 ND ND ND Wamala protein 614 boats

ND Source of animal 4,501 fishers and Albert Nile Over fished 5,200 4,680 ND 9,181 ND ND ND protein 2,681 boats

Other ND Source of animal water Over fished 10,300 20,319 ND ND ND ND ND ND protein bodies ND = No data

111 | P a g e

Table 49: Integrated analysis for fisheries sector, 2009

Socio- Fisheries data Economic data Information on fisheries pressures

economic data

catch

fished)

-

(tons)

harvest loss) harvest -

fishery of assessment

(Mil. (Mil. UGX)

over

(‘ US $) 000

Invasive weeds Invasive fishermen/boats)

Fishery (post

Change in inventory inventory in Change

Fishing effort (No. of (No. effort Fishing

Export value of catch catch of value Export Nursery grounds/FBAs Nursery

2009 catch of value Monetary

Catch from capture fisheries fisheries capture from Catch

Catch consumed locally (tons) locally consumed Catch

Nutritional value of fishe of value Nutritional

stock (under fished, fully fished, fished, fully fished, (under stock

Qualitative Qualitative Employment in fisheries by gender by fisheries in Employment ND ND ND Lake Source of animal 51,916 fishers and Near over 221,300 154,910 263,970 75,041.24 Victoria protein 33,599.40 21,836 boats fished ND ND ND Lake Source of animal 15, 364 fishers and Over fished 6,500 5,850 ND 3,061 350.66 Albert protein 5,764 boats

ND ND ND ND Lake Source of animal 20,640 fishers and Overfished 60,000 48,000 83,705 12,273.1 Kyoga protein 11,765 boats

Lake ND ND ND ND ND Source of animal 1,887 fishers and 879 Edward & Over fished 8,800 7,920 11,650 protein boats George ND ND ND ND ND ND Lake Source of animal 616 fishers and 614 Over fished ND ND Wamala protein boats

ND ND ND ND ND ND Source of animal 4,501 fishers and Albert Nile Over fished ND ND protein 2,681 boats

Other ND 25,745 ND ND ND ND ND Source of animal water Over fished 20,000 ND protein bodies ND = No data

112 | P a g e

11.2 Trends in Uganda’s fish stocks

One of the key policy questions in Table 2 of the methodological notes (http://www.unep- wcmc.org/featured-projects/nca-in-uganda) was on the trends in Uganda’s fish stocks. Currently, stock assessment is conducted for Lake Victoria only as shown in the fish asset accounts section (Tables 4-8). Stock assessments conducted by LVFO on Lake Victoria (2009-2019) reveal declining stocks of Mukene, Haplochromines and other species including Nile tilapia (Figures 20 and 21). Although Figure 22 shows that the stock of Nile perch has been improving since 2010, the fish’s size has largely remained small i.e., less than 50cm total length (TL) which could be an indicator that the fishery is also still under recovery. However, further investigations are required to ascertain why the fishery has failed to attain full size. Figures 21 and 22 exhibit a predator-prey relationship between Nile perch (predator) and Haplochromines (prey). The improvement in the stock of Nile perch between 2010 and 2016 could be one of the factors responsible for the decline in the stock of Haplochromines in the same period.

The decline in fish stocks has been mainly due to over-fishing as demonstrated by the rapidly increasing fishing effort over the accounting period as indicated in Tables 37-43. The above Tables also indicate the presence of illegal and unregulated fishing gears on many water bodies across the country. These gears are used to catch immature fish and brood stock leading to decline of fish stock. Furthermore, although the limited available ecological and water quality data (Table 3) indicates that the average value for most of the ecosystem condition indicators fall within the normal range, there are several hotspots with local pollution such as bays and near landing sites where the ecosystem condition has drastically deteriorated. The deteriorating ecosystem condition results into fish mortalities which when coupled with limited fish recruitment in natural waters (Tables 4-8) has adversely affected fish stocks. Untreated effluent discharges and nutrient pollution is eminent on many water bodies across the country exhibited episodes of invasive weed proliferations (Figures 13-17).

Wetland degradation has contributed to the decline in Uganda’s fish stocks. Wetlands are important breeding and nursery grounds for some fish species such as Barbus atrianalis and Clarias gariepinus (North African catfish) that migrate between open lakes and rivers or wetlands to spawn, and take care of their fingerlings before returning to open waters as juveniles. However, assessments by NEMA (2017), indicate that Uganda loses approximately 850 km2 of its wetlands annually. As such, wetland loss is also contributing to declining fish stocks in Uganda’s waters bodies. Figures 18 and 19 show 147 and 55 identified potential FBAs on Lake Victoria and Edward- George Lake system. However, these are yet to be gazetted.

113 | P a g e

Another important question from the stakeholders was on the implication of the declining fish stocks on domestic and export markets. Figure 32 indicates a general declining trend in Uganda’s fish exports since 2004. Although Tables 44-49 indicate a general increase in the value (USD) of Uganda’s fish exports, there has been a decline in the quantity of fish exports (metric tons). The decline in fish stocks has resulted into low catches, not even sufficient to cater for the domestic demand, and very limited surplus for the export market. In fact, Figure 33 indicates an upward trajectory of fish imports since the mid-2000s. The imports supplement the domestic supply (highlighted the PSUTs) which is insufficient to cover the domestic demand. Obviously, this imported fish is more expensive and not affordable to most of the population and this has implications on food security and diet for most Ugandans, who depend on fish as the major source of animal protein.

The declining fish stocks in Uganda’s water bodies has also had implications on catch per unit effort (CPUE). Figure 34 indicates diminishing CPUE on Lake Victoria over the years. The CPUE on Lake Victoria was about 15.1 metric tons /boat/year but by 2018 it had declined to about 4.5 metric tons /boat/year (Figure 34), indicating a 70% decline in CPUE. The declining CPUE has not only increased the costs of fishing and threatened the livelihoods of fishing communities but has also exacerbated unsustainable fishing practices by the desperate fishers who have resorted to use of illegal fishing gears on many water bodies across the country (Tables 37-43). Furthermore, increased economic costs of fishing on Uganda’s waters have also resulted into reduction of resource rent (or negative rents) as shown in Table 36.

Trends in CPUE on Lake Victoria 16 14 12 10 8 6 4

CPUE (metric (metric CPUE tons/boat) 2 0 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year

Figure 34: Trends in CPUE on Lake Victoria, 2000-2018

Additionally, in line with policy concern on the implication of declining fishing stocks to livelihoods of lakeside communities, Tables 44-49 indicate that a significant number of Ugandans depend on fishing for their livelihood. Uganda’s fisheries sub-sector plays a significant role in attainment of

114 | P a g e many socio-economic objectives in the society. Total employment in the sub-sector is estimated between 1-1.5 million people in production and marketing value chain (NEMA, 2016), and approximately 5.3 million people directly depend on the sub-sector for livelihood (DFR, 2011). Many Ugandans are employed in various areas of fish value chain, such as , industrial fish processing, and fish trade at local, regional and international markets. Declining fish stocks therefore pose a critical threat to job security and livelihoods for many Ugandans. The decline in fish stock has resulted in reduction in revenue from fisheries sector. For instance, decline in fish stocks between 2016 and 2019 (Table 4) is noticeable in the decline in catch from 2016 to 2018 (Table 9), which is later manifested in decline of fisheries revenue in the Monetary Supply and Use Tables. This has implications on reducing incomes of fishing communities resulting into eminent cases of poverty among fishers. However, it is also important to note that employment in the sub-sector faces a serious gender disparity, with the curve skewed disproportionately towards the male gender. For instance, Frame Surveys conducted on Lake Victoria in 2016 indicated that 99.5% of the fishers are male (Table 44-46). However, most of the artisanal fish processors are women (FAO, 2017).

Furthermore, in response to the policy question on the implication of declining fish stocks on nutrition in the general population, Tables 44-49, indicate that most of the fish caught in Uganda’s waters is consumed locally i.e., approximately 70% for Lake Victoria and 90% for the rest of the water bodies. Fish is the most common and cheapest source of animal protein in Uganda. Uganda’s annual per capita consumption of fish is estimated at about 12.5 kg, which is less than the recommended average per capita fish consumption of 17 kg and the global average of 20.5 kg (DFR, 2014; FAO, 2020). Declining fish stocks are resulting in low catches, thus increasing fish prices beyond affordability of many ordinary Ugandans. This is likely to widen the gap between Uganda’s annual per capita fish consumption and the global average per capita consumption, with subsequent increase in cases of malnutrition (protein deficiencies).

Regarding the policy question on setting standards for fisheries practice, this study recommends the following mechanisms: (i) Standardization of fishing crafts and fishing gears thereby limiting incidences of illegal and unregulated fishing gears (Tables 37-43). (ii) Setting maximum allowable catch per vessel-gear combination per fishing day. These measures will reduce overfishing evident in Tables 44-49, and encourage stock recovery. (iii) Setting species specific vessel-gear combinations to facilitate monitoring and regulation of fishing effort by fish species. (iv). Setting standards intended to reduce post-harvest losses. For instance, Tables 38-43 indicate that Lake Victoria suffers approximately 30% post-harvest losses of Mukene fishery. (v). There is also a need to set standards on fish processing facilities, with emphasis on improved efficiency and value addition e.g., by canning fish for export and domestic markets, which is currently lacking. On the other hand, regarding the policy concern concerning the level at which government should levy tax on catch, the study recommends that tax be levied on catch when the domestic per capita fish consumption has exceeded the recommended average of 17 kg. For instance, achievement of the recommended average for approximately 43 million Ugandans currently, would require

115 | P a g e domestic supply to increase to over 731,000 metric tons of fish from the 2018 level of 345,800 metric tons (Tables 9 and Table 12), indicating a very big deficit in domestic supply. As such introducing tax levies on catches currently will drastically increase fish prices depriving majority of poor Ugandans from the currently most affordable source of animal protein. The upward trajectory of Uganda’s fish imports (Figure 33) over the years demonstrates an effort intended to bridge the deficit between the domestic supply and domestic demand. However, it should be noted that imported fish cannot really substitute domestic production as it is often more expensive for most Ugandans. Figure 32 also demonstrates a downward trend in Uganda’s fish exports reaffirming deficiencies in domestic supply.

Reporting on SDG 14.4.1 was another very important policy concern highlighted in Table 2 of methodological notes (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/featured-projects/nca-in-uganda). Indicator 14.4.1 reports the proportion of fish stocks within biologically sustainable levels. The indicator measures the sustainability of capture fisheries by abundance. The global metadata indicates that fish stocks are within biologically sustainable levels if abundance is at or higher than the level that can produce the MSY. Indicator 14.4.1 also measures progress towards SDG Target 14.4; “By 2020, effectively regulate harvesting and end overfishing, illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing and destructive fishing practices and implement -based management plans, in order to restore fish stocks in the shortest time feasible, at least to levels that can produce MSY as determined by their biological characteristics.”

Uganda’s MSY for capture fisheries is estimated at 600,000 metric tons/year. MSY is one of the most common biological reference points (BRPs) used in fisheries management. MSY has been defined as the highest theoretical equilibrium yield that can be continuously taken (on average) from a stock under existing (average) environmental conditions without significantly affecting the reproduction process (FAO, 2020). MSY is used as a reference point for two different indicators: biomass (reflected in Tables 4-8 for Lake Victoria) and fishing mortality (shown in Table 9 and in PSUTs). Some other examples of BRPs are those established in relation to other indicators such as total biomass, spawning stock biomass, and fishing mortality rates. Deriving these indicators will enable accurate reporting on SDG 14.4.1. Tables 4-8 (for only Lake Victoria) indicate that Uganda’s fish stocks are within biologically sustainable levels. However, at the stock size producing MSY, a fishery may already show serious signs of economic overfishing i.e. fishing at a level where a significant part of the potential resource rent is wasted (IISD, 2020). This seems to be the case in Table 30 where negative resource rents were recorded for some fishery or years over the accounting period.

Although MSY is the most commonly applied reference point in fisheries management, there is also increasing interest in the application of the maximum economic yield (MEY) as an alternative target. MEY is an economic reference point and is defined as the sustainable catch or effort level for a commercial fishery that allows net economic returns to be maximized. Therefore, MEY is the level of catch that provides the maximum economic benefits or profits. It represents the amount of fishing effort and catch that maximizes economic profits over time. Since 2007, MEY has been considered as the primary economic reference point for commonwealth fisheries. On

116 | P a g e

Lake Victoria (Ugandan part), MEY was recorded in 2004 (15.1 metric tons/boat/year) when a fishing effort of 16,775 boats yielded 253,300 metric tons of fish. Although the fishing effort on the lake has been soaring (with number of fishing crafts rising to 30,390 by 2016), the yield in 2018 declined to 138,040 metric tons of fish which is equivalent to just 4.5 metric tons/boat/year (Figure 34). This trend on Lake Victoria should give an indication of the trends on other water bodies across the country whose specific details are not discussed here due to lack of regular data on Frame Surveys.

Based on the declining trends in fish stocks, catches, CPUE and MEY discussed above, Uganda’s fish stocks cannot support more economic activity at the moment. For instance, Table 9 and PSUTs indicate that catches from capture fisheries have been declining drastically since 2017. It is thus not economical to build new fish processing facilities. However, improving processing technology and value addition of the current processing facilities e.g., processing canned fish would generate more revenue from the sub-sector.

Another policy concern highlighted in the methodological notes was on environmental and ecological pressures on fisheries resources. Figures 13, 14, 15, and 16 indicate that invasive aquatic weeds are one of the key ecological pressures affecting the condition of Uganda’s capture fisheries ecosystems. Kariba weed and water hyacinth are the two aquatic weeds that periodically infest Uganda’s Lakes. These weeds are often common on Lake Kyoga, Lake Kwania, Lake Albert and Lake Victoria. Effects of these weeds on fisheries include:

(i). Water quality beneath the invasive weed mats becomes degraded through a decrease in dissolved oxygen, pH and other important water quality parameters necessary for fish survival.

(ii). Interference with the fish breeding cycle. Fishes such as Nile tilapia are common in near- shore or shallow areas where they nest and nurse their young. Infestations of weeds at such sites results into decomposing weed mass that fouls fish breeding and nursery grounds thereby impairing the life cycle of such fishes. The invasive weeds also have an impact on native submerged plants that the fish depend on for shelter and nesting.

(iii). Destruction of fishing gears. Weeds also entangle fishing gears especially gill nets (Figure 35), thus leading to poor fish catches and loss of the gear itself.

(iv). The weeds also impair boat movement and docking which adversely affects fishing activities (Figure 36). Extensive coverage on the main parts of a lake especially the sheltered bays, block the water ways, making it difficult for fishermen to access the fishing grounds. This increases on the fuel consumption for boats using outboard engines and takes a lot of energy and time for those using paddles. This significantly increases the costs of fishing and thus drastically affecting the incomes of the fishers.

117 | P a g e

Figure 35: Gill nets entangled by Kariba weed, Lake Kyoga, Amolatar District (July, 2015)

Adapted from Wanda, 2015

A B

Figure 36: Boat take-off (A) and docking (B) rendered difficult due to thick mats of Kariba weed at Bugoigo landing site, Lake Albert (February, 2016)

Adapted from Wanda, 2016

The economic loss due to no action on fisheries’ ecological and fishing pressures is enormous. No action has drastic effects on fish stocks in the lakes which in turn has impacts on many aspects of the fisheries sector. For instance, declining stocks have resulted into in diminishing catches thereby resulting into low revenue from the fisheries as shown in the Monetary Supply and Use Tables and the SNA Tables above. Declining stocks have also resulted in diminishing CPUE (Figure 34) which has drastically increased the costs of fishing, in fact leaving some fishers without any source of livelihood (employment). The decline in fish stocks as a result of environmental pressures has yielded negative rents on most water bodies in Uganda (Table 36). The resulting declines in catches have also led to declines in Uganda’s fish exports (Figure 32) resulting into loss of foreign exchange.

118 | P a g e

11.3 Policy recommendations

From an integrated analysis, a comprehensive overview of the key data relevant to fisheries allows physical information on fisheries stocks, flows and pressures, alongside information from the national accounts on economic activity and additional socioeconomic data, to be presented to decision makers. In conjunction with more detailed information organized throughout the accounts, management and policy interventions to improve environmental, social and economic outcomes associated with the fisheries sub-sector can be identified. Based on the findings of this study, the proposed recommendations include:

• Conducting regular stock assessments and catch assessments on all major water bodies across the country. • Regulating the fishing effort and control use of illegal fishing gears. Vessel decommissioning mechanisms could check overfishing and facilitate fish stock recovery. • Controlling overfishing and curbing the use of illegal and unregulated fishing gears rampant on many water bodies across the country including use of fish finders. • Regular Frame Surveys on all water bodies across the country including minor water bodies to regularly monitor fishing effort. • Restricting fishing by creating and enforcing no-fishing seasons (fishing holidays) to facilitate fish stock recovery. • Setting fishing standards such as standardization fishing gears and vessels. Additionally, there should be standard maximum allowable catch per fishing effort (fishing quota). • Promoting aquaculture (currently concentrated in central region) across the entire country. This will reduce the immense pressure on the capture fisheries. • Identifying and gazetting more Fish Breeding Areas (FBAs) incudling gazette some areas (particularly those associated FBAs) in the lakes as no fishing zones, and more effort in wetland protection and conservation. • Establish baseline lake-wide water quality monitoring programmes to regularly assess the ability of the ecological condition of the water bodies to support fisheries resources. • Developing and implementing a monitoring mechanism to capture regional fish exports and imports that often go unrecorded. • Setting a standard on fish factory processing with emphasis on value addition such as fish canning. • Reducing post-harvest losses for Mukene fishery, currently estimated at about 30%. • Based on the declining fish stocks and catches, it is not logical or economical to set up new fish factories. Emphasis should be placed on improving the quality and value addition of the fish products from the existing factories e.g. fish canning for export.

119 | P a g e

12. NEXT STEPS FOR FUTURE ITERATIONS OF THE ACCOUNTS

The accounts produced in the current report are baseline accounts. It is therefore imperative that key stakeholder Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) identified in the metadata dictionary continue to produce data regularly on the specified indicators to facilitate UBoS to continue the production of these accounts on a regular basis. Responsible MDAs should really ensure that stock assessments, Frame Surveys and catch assessment surveys are conducted regularly on all major water bodies across the country. There is a need for the establishment of lake-wide ecosystem condition monitoring systems that guarantee the generation of regular water quality data to facilitate regular assessment of the suitability of fish ecosystem condition. Furthermore, the establishment of MOUs among key MDAs on data sharing and collaborative research would also greatly facilitate future production of these accounts

120 | P a g e

REFERENCES

African Development Fund (2001). Fisheries Development Project for Uganda: Appraisal Report. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 32(7):458-462. Anne Mette Kjær, Fred Muhumuza, Tom Mwebaze and Mesharch Katusiimeh (2012). DIIS Working Paper 2012:04: The political economy of the fisheries sector in Uganda: ruling elites, implementation costs and industry interests.

Creagh, C., 1991/1992. A marauding weed in check. Ecosystem 70 (Ausral.): 26-29. Directorate of Fisheries Resources (2010). National report of the frame survey 2010 on the Uganda side of Lake Victoria. Directorate of Fisheries Resources (2012). National report of the frame survey 2012 on the Uganda side of Lake Victoria. FAO (2004). Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles: The Republic of Uganda.

FAO (2016). Lessons learned in water accounting: The fisheries and aquaculture perspective in the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) framework. FAO fisheries and aquaculture technical paper. FAO (2016). Lessons learned in water accounting: The fisheries and aquaculture perspective in the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) framework.

FAO (2016). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: SEEA AFF

Forno, I. W. and Harley, K. L. S., 1979. The occurrence of Salvinia molesta in Brazil. Aquatic Botany 6: 185-187 Fulai Sheng (1998). Real Value for Nature: An Overview of Global efforts to Achieve True Measures of Economic Progress. World Wide Fund for Nature CH-1196 Gland Switzerland. Gil Yaron and Yakobo Moyini (2004). The role of environment in increasing growth and reducing poverty in Uganda: Technical report.

Global Green Growth Institute (2016). Environment and Natural Resource Accounting: Training Module for Trainers.

Gopal K. Kadekodi. Valuation and Accounting for Environmental and Natural resources. CMDR Monograph Series No. – 28.

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) (2019). Mainstreaming values of small-scale fisheries in national accounts.

121 | P a g e

INTOSAI Working Group on Environmental Auditing (2010). Environmental Accounting: Current Status and Options for Supreme Audit Institutions.

Jane Harkness and David Bain (2007). Fisheries Accounts, a summary of current work in New Zealand and Australia: Issue paper for the London group meeting Rome, 17-19 December 2007.

Kadekodi, G. K. (2001). Valuation of natural resources: what have we learnt from Indian Experience? Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 56(3), 285-312.

Kevin Obiero, Silke Drexler, Adamneh Dagne, Robinson Odong, Herwig Waidbacher, Peter Akoll, Boaz Kaunda-Arara and Paul Meulenbroek (2019). The Contribution of Fish to Food and Nutrition Security in Eastern Africa: Emerging Trends and Future Outlooks. Sustainability: 11, 16- 36

Konstantine Odongkara (2006). Generation, flow and utilisation of information on the regional fish trade. Konstantine Odongkara (2006). Socio-economic baseline survey of the fishing communities of Lake Victoria, Uganda. Konstantine Odongkara and Baker Ntambi (2007). Monitoring of the socio-economic status of fisher communities on Lake Victoria, Uganda. Konstantine Odongkara and Michael Kaidhiwa (2007). Survey of fish factory agents on Lake Victoria, Uganda. LVEMP (2005). Lake Victoria environment report – Uganda water quality and ecosystems status.

LVFO (2009). Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) project for Lake Victoria: A report of the lake-wide hydro-acoustic survey. LVFO (2010). Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP) project for Lake Victoria: Report of the lake-wide hydro-acoustic and environmental survey. LVFO (2010). Regional status report on Lake Victoria bi-ennial Frame Surveys between 2000 and 2010. LVFO (2012). Regional status report on Lake Victoria bi-ennial Frame Surveys between 2000 and 2012. LVFO (2015). Fisheries Management Plan III (FMP III) for Lake Victoria Fisheries 2016 – 2020

LVFO (2016). The state of Lake Victoria Dagaa: Quantity, Quality, Value addition, Utilization, and Trade in East African region for improved Nutrition, food security and Income.

LVFO (2017). Regional status report on Lake Victoria bi-ennial Frame Surveys between 2000 and 2016.

LVFO (2019). A report of the lake-wide hydro-acoustic survey.

122 | P a g e

Mitchell, D. S. and Tur, N.M., 1975. The rate of growth of Salvinia molesta (S. auriculata Auct.) in laboratory and natural conditions. Journal of Applied Ecology. 12: 213225. Mitchell, D. S., 1969. “The ecology of vascular hydrophytes on Lake Kariba,” Hydrobiologia 34: 448-464. Mungatana E., Lima H., Tembe A., and Ziegler-Bohr (2013). Fisheries Resource Accounts for the Maputo Coastal Districts of Mozambique. Implementing Environmental Accounts: Case Studies from Eastern and Southern Africa. Eco-Efficiency in Industry and Science 28. Springer Science. NaFIRRI (2002). Report of frame survey of the Kyoga Basin Lakes 2002.

NaFIRRI (2003). Workshop report: Globalisation and fish utilisation and marketing study. NaFIRRI (2006). A report of the fisheries catch assessment survey in the Ugandan waters of Lake Victoria for the March 2006 survey.

NaFIRRI (2006). Contribution of Lake Victoria fisheries to economic growth, poverty reduction and development: Literature Review and Data. NaFIRRI (2006). Monitoring of adoption and socio-economic impacts of fisheries management measures on Lake Victoria, Uganda. NaFIRRI (2007). Governance in co-management on the Lake Victoria fisheries, Uganda. NaFIRRI (2008). A baseline survey of water quality, , fisheries and socioeconomics on Lake Edward for proposed seismic surveys in block 4B.

NaFIRRI (2008). Draft report of Frame Survey of the Kyoga Basin Lakes 2008.

NaFIRRI (2011). Final report of the Fisheries Catch Assessment Survey in the Ugandan waters of Lake Victoria for the May 2011 survey.

NaFIRRI (2012). A report of the Fisheries Catch Assessment Survey in the Ugandan waters of Lake Victoria for the March 2006 survey

NaFIRRI (2012). Report of Catch Assessment Survey of Lake Albert – Albert Nile conducted in July 2012.

NaFIRRI (2012). Report of the Frame Survey of Lake Albert conducted in May 2012.

NaFIRRI (2012). Report on Lake Wamala Fisheries Catch Assessment Survey 2012.

NaFIRRI (2014). Final report of the Fisheries Catch Assessment Survey in the Ugandan waters of Lake Victoria for the May 2014 survey.

NaFIRRI (2014). Technical report: Strategies to improve profitability and market access for fisheries enterprises on Lakes Albert, Kyoga and Victoria, Uganda.

123 | P a g e

NaFIRRI (2015). Report of Frame and Catch Assessment Surveys on the Kyoga Basin Lakes 2013/2014.

NaFIRRI (2015). Technical report of Frame and Catch Assessment Surveys of Lakes Edward and George; and the Kazinga channel conducted in January and July 2011- 2013. NaFIRRI (2016). Draft report for Identification of potential sites for Cage Aquaculture on Lake Victoria Uganda.

NaFIRRI (2016). Final Report of Fisheries Catch Assessment Survey Conducted in December 2015 on the Ugandan Waters of Lake Victoria. NaFIRRI (2016). Final report of the Fisheries Catch Assessment Survey conducted in December 2015 on the Ugandan waters of Lake Victoria.

NAFIRRI (2016). NaFIRRI (2012). Report of Lake Wamala Fisheries Frame Survey 2012.

NaFIRRI (2018). National report of the Frame Survey 2018 on the Ugandan side of Lakes Edward and Albert. NaFIRRI 2016. Control of Kariba weed (Salvinia molesta) on Uganda’s water systems. National Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy (2017). Optimising benefits from Fisheries and Aquaculture Resources for Socio-Economic Transformation.

National Science Foundation (2017). Support to resource monitoring for Lake Victoria: Report of the Lake-wide hydro-acoustic and environmental survey. NBI and NaFIRRI (2018). National report of the Frame Survey 2018 on the Uganda side of Lakes Edward and Albert.

NEMA (2016). National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan II (2015-2025): Supporting Transition to a Middle-Income Status and Delivery of Sustainable Development Goals.

NEMA (2017). National State of the Environment Report (2016/2017). Restoring the Environment for Livelihood Improvement and Sustainable Economic Development. Odongkara K., B. Mbilingi, J. Akumu, R. Okura and A. Nasuuna, 2016: Study of dagaa trade on Lake Victoria for improved nutrition, food security and incomes Uganda Country Report. NaFIRRI, LVFO Ola Flaaten (2018). Fisheries and Aquaculture Economics. 2nd edition.

Oliver, J. D. (1993). A review of the biology of giant salvinia.

Pieterse, A. H., Kettunen, M., Diouf, S., Ndao, I., Sarr, K., Tarvainen, A., Kloff, S., Hellsten, S (2003). Effective Biological Control of Salvinia molesta in the Senegal Porras, I. etal. (2019). No Hidden Catch. Mainstreaming Values of Small-Scale Fisheries in National Accounts. London, UK. Available at http://pubs.iied.org/pdfs/1664IIED.pdf.

124 | P a g e

Sculthorpe, C. D. (1985). The Biology of Aquatic Vascular Plants. Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd., London, 610 pp. Statutory Instruments 2010 No. 33: The Fish (Fishing) rules, 2010. Stuart Heather-Clark and Albert de Jong (2007). Lake Overview Report: Strategic Environmental and Social Overview of Lake Albert, Uganda. Swaibu Mbowa, Tonny Odokonyero and Anthony Munyaho (2017). Harnessing floating cage technology to increase fish production in Uganda. The World Bank (2012). Hidden Harvest: The Global Contribution of Capture Fisheries.

Trevor Hutton and U.R. Sumaila (2002). Natural resource accounting and South African fisheries: A Bio-economic assessment of the west coast deep-sea hake fishery with reference to the optimal utilisation and management of the resource. CEEPA Discussion Paper Series.

Uganda Bureau of statisitcs (2013, 2016, 2017, 2018). Statistical abstract.

UN (1999). Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting. An Operational Manual. Studies in Methods and Handbook of National Accounting Series F, No 78. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs-Statistics Division, New York. United Nations (2000). Handbook of National Accounting: Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting-An Operational Manual.

United Nations Conference on trade and development (2017). Fishery exports and the economic development of least developed countries: Bangladesh, Cambodia, The Comoros, Mozambique, Myanmar and Uganda.

UN, European Commission, FAO, IMF, OECD, World Bank, 2014a. System of Environmental Economic Accounting 2012—Central Framework. New York. UN, European Commission, FAO, OECD, World Bank, 2014b. System of Environmental Economic Accounting 2012— Experimental Ecosystem Accounting. New York. UN, UNEP, CBD, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2017. Technical Recommendations in support of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012. White cover publication. UNEP-WCMC, IDEEA, NPA, NEMA & UBoS (2019). Draft Methodological Note: Fisheries Accounts Vol 1. Darwin funded project: Integrating Natural Capital into Sustainable Development Decision Making in Uganda. UNSD, 2021. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting: Final Draft. New York.

Wadda and Rukunya (2002). The Contribution and Status of Physical Removal in Sustainable management of water hyacinth.

125 | P a g e

Wanda, F.M., Matuha, M and Amondito, B (2015). Status of Kariba Weed (Salvinia molesta) infestation, its impacts and control options on Uganda’s water systems. Mulongaibalu, M., Muderhwa, N., Bagalwa, JJM., and Mujugu, EK. 2011. Assessment of physicochemical parameters in relation with fish ecology in Ishasha River and Lake Edward, Valley, . Int.J. Curr.Microbiol. App.Sci; 3(6): 230-244

126 | P a g e

APPENDIX 1: UNEP-WCMC, IDEEA Group and IIED Team

# Name Institution/Organization Email address 1 Dr Steven King UNEP-WCMC [email protected] 2 Mark Eigenraam IDEEA Group [email protected] 3 Nadine Bowles- UNEP-WCMC [email protected] Newark 4 Sarah Ivory UNEP-WCMC [email protected] 5 Rosalind Goodrich IIED [email protected] 6 Steve Bass IIED [email protected]

APPENDIX 2: The Experts Working Group

# Name Institution/Organization Email address 1 Francis Ogwal NEMA [email protected] 2 Ronald Kaggwa NPA [email protected] 3 Sam Echoku UBOS [email protected] 4 Edgar Niyimpa UBOS [email protected] 5 Christopher Tumuhirwe UBOS [email protected] 6 Lorika Carol Brenda OPM [email protected] 7 Richard Kyambadde MWE richard.kyambadde.yahoo.co.uk 8 James Omoding IUCN [email protected] 9 Dianah Nalwanga Nature Uganda [email protected] 10 Amos Ochieng MUK [email protected] 11 Fred Onyai NEMA [email protected] 12 Tony Achidria NEMA [email protected] 13 Richard Kapere UWA [email protected] 14 Tom Geme NEMA [email protected] 15 Aaron Werikhe NPA [email protected] 16 Justine Namaalwa MUK [email protected] 17 Victoria N. Tibenda NAFIRRI [email protected] 18 Godwin Kamugisha NEMA [email protected] 19 Aventino Bakunda MAAIF [email protected]

20 Laban Musinguzi NAFIRRI [email protected]

127 | P a g e

22 Andrew Byamugisha MAAIF [email protected] 23 John Diisi NFA [email protected] 24 Jerome S. Lugumira NEMA [email protected] 25 Sam Gwali NEMA [email protected] 26 Judith Angweth MLHUD [email protected] 27 Sylvia Tumusiime NFA [email protected] 28 Consolota Acayo MAAIF [email protected] 29 Jovan Lubega MAAIF [email protected] 30 Moses Isabirfye University [email protected]

APPENDIX 3: MAIN FISH LANDING SITES

Landing site District Water body Bugoba Victoria Kalega Buikwe Victoria Nanso Buikwe Victoria Kiyindi Buikwe Victoria Busagazi Buikwe Victoria Kigaya Buikwe Victoria Buyoka – Kukola Buikwe Victoria Koko Buikwe Victoria Nansagazi Buikwe Victoria Kaazi Buikwe Victoria Muyubwe Buikwe Victoria Nalumuli Buikwe Victoria Senyi ssebukunja Buikwe Victoria Nalyazi Buikwe Victoria Kigugo Buikwe Victoria Kiwuluguma mwubya Buikwe Victoria Nkombwe Buikwe Victoria Kiyindi Buikwe Victoria Ssenyi Buikwe Victoria Buwagajjo Buikwe Victoria

128 | P a g e

Kikondo Buikwe Victoria Butembe Buikwe Victoria Busana Buikwe Victoria Nile Buikwe Victoria Bugungu Buikwe Victoria Bukaya Buikwe Victoria

Lukonda Buvuma Victoria Kyanamu Buvuma Victoria Tome Buvuma Victoria Kaziru Buvuma Victoria Mpongo / Ddembe Buvuma Victoria Malya Bwanika Buvuma Victoria Makopa Buvuma Victoria Mawungwe island Buvuma Victoria Nalubaale Buvuma Victoria Lyabalume Buvuma Victoria Namatale – Mulonge Buvuma Victoria Kaziru Buvuma Victoria Bukayanja Buvuma Victoria Kiwololo Buvuma Victoria Gunda (Mpata) Buvuma Victoria Kiruguma Buvuma Victoria Nyenda Buvuma Victoria Kaserere Buvuma Victoria Damba Buvuma Victoria Kalambi Buvuma Victoria Lyabaana Buvuma Victoria Bushenyi Buvuma Victoria Muwama Buvuma Victoria Zinga Buvuma Victoria Lwazi Buvuma Victoria Kiziba Buvuma Victoria

129 | P a g e

Mubaale Buvuma Victoria Kijjaka II Buvuma Victoria Maungwe Buvuma Victoria Wakikere Buvuma Victoria Kassenyi Buvuma Victoria Nkatta Buvuma Victoria Samba Buvuma Victoria Liibu Buvuma Victoria Nsinga Buvuma Victoria Bukuzi Buvuma Victoria Kibulwe (Ziiru) Buvuma Victoria Luwero Buvuma Victoria Kijjaka I Buvuma Victoria Kifulu Buvuma Victoria Mubaale Buvuma Victoria Kulwe Buvuma Victoria Muguudo Buvuma Victoria Kitamiro Buvuma Victoria Kembo Nairambi Buvuma Victoria Maye Buvuma Victoria Nvuza Buvuma Victoria Namuziru Buvuma Victoria Namiti Buvuma Victoria Yuwe, & Kachanga Buvuma Victoria Kirewe Buvuma Victoria Bwiri & (Wokayi) Buvuma Victoria Namakeba Buvuma Victoria Ndotwe Buvuma Victoria Lubya Buvuma Victoria Kasimizi Buvuma Victoria Namugombe Buvuma Victoria Kachanga Buvuma Victoria Lukale Buvuma Victoria

130 | P a g e

Lufu Buvuma Victoria Tojjwe Buvuma Victoria Kasaali A Buvuma Victoria Bugoba (Buvuma Is) Buvuma Victoria Lingira (Buvuma Is) Buvuma Victoria Bbanga Buvuma Victoria Ziinga Buvuma Victoria Lukoma Buvuma Victoria Kirongo Buvuma Victoria Serinya Buvuma Victoria Lukalu island Buvuma Victoria Bukwaya Buvuma Victoria Lwazzi Buvuma Victoria Ziiru Muto Buvuma Victoria Kalungi Buvuma Victoria Kyanja Buvuma Victoria Malijja Wabuziba Buvuma Victoria Kerenge Buvuma Victoria Kibibi island Buvuma Victoria

Nsonga Mukono Victoria Buwanzi Mukono Victoria Wakisi Mukono Victoria Katosi Mukono Victoria Bulebi Mukono Victoria Nangoma Mukono Victoria Kizuru Sanga Mukono Victoria Sowe Mukono Victoria Buzindere Mukono Victoria Bugula/Mbeya/Nakitokota Mukono Victoria Kibanga - Namusenyu Mukono Victoria Sumbwe Mukono Victoria Kamwanyi Mukono Victoria

131 | P a g e

Mpenjja Mukono Victoria Kikoko Mukono Victoria Kijjiko Mukono Victoria Bubanzi Mukono Victoria Bulebi Mukono Victoria Bulago Kawunguli Mukono Victoria Lubembe Mukono Victoria Lugumba Mukono Victoria Kisu Mukono Victoria Nambu Mukono Victoria Kachanga Kisigala Mukono Victoria Zingoola Mukono Victoria Nsazzi- Kansambwe Mukono Victoria Kiimi Mukono Victoria Kakunyu Mukono Victoria Kinaggaba Mukono Victoria Kiwafu Agali Awamu Mukono Victoria Kitosi Mukono Victoria Nyanama – Kimufu Mukono Victoria Kachanaga Mukono Victoria Namugambe Mukono Victoria Kaazi Mukono Victoria Maala Mukono Victoria Muwoma Mukono Victoria Kalyambuzi Mukono Victoria Busiro Mukono Victoria Musenyi Mukono Victoria Myende – Ssasa Mukono Victoria

Nalyoba Busia Victoria /Maduwa Busia Victoria

Ggaba Kampala Victoria

132 | P a g e

Munyonyo Kampala Victoria Kampala Victoria

Ggolo Mpigi Victoria Kiwanga/Mayuni Mpigi Victoria Makungu Mpigi Victoria Buwama (Katebo) Mpigi Victoria Bukiina Mpigi Victoria Kamaliba Mpigi Victoria Buvumbo Mpigi Victoria Namirembe Mpigi Victoria Buzaami Mpigi Victoria Namugeye Mpigi Victoria Ssenyondo Mpigi Victoria Ssanya Mpigi Victoria Lwalalo Mpigi Victoria Kamutenga Mpigi Victoria Mamba Mpigi Victoria Runoni Mpigi Victoria

Lambu Masaka Victoria Ddimu Masaka Victoria Nakiga Masaka Victoria Makonzi Masaka Victoria Kalokoso-Katikamu Masaka Victoria Kamuwunga Masaka Victoria Lambu Masaka Victoria Namirembe Masaka Victoria Ddimo Masaka Victoria Malembo Masaka Victoria Kisuku Masaka Victoria Bulingo Masaka Victoria Bukakata Masaka Victoria

133 | P a g e

Kaziru Masaka Victoria Mitondo Masaka Victoria Bbale Masaka Victoria

Kasensero Rakai Victoria Sango Bay Rakai Victoria Kasensero Rakai Victoria Kyabasimba Rakai Victoria Lukunyu Rakai Victoria Nazigo Rakai Victoria Musambwa Rakai Victoria

Kigungu Wakiso Victoria Busabala Wakiso Victoria Mutungo/Nakabugo Wakiso Victoria Makusa island Wakiso Victoria Nakiwogo Wakiso Victoria Kaggulube Wakiso Victoria Busabala Wakiso Victoria Gerenge Wakiso Victoria Bugiri- Kasenyi Wakiso Victoria Mukuuba Wakiso Victoria Kitinda Kitubuulu Wakiso Victoria Lwnjaba Wakiso Victoria Kooko Wakiso Victoria Kyanvubu Wakiso Victoria Buuvi Wakiso Victoria Buganga Wakiso Victoria Kinywante Wakiso Victoria Gulwe Wakiso Victoria Balabala Wakiso Victoria Kyanjazi Wakiso Victoria Ddewe Wakiso Victoria

134 | P a g e

Bugonga Wakiso Victoria Kigungu Wakiso Victoria Lwamunyu island Wakiso Victoria Kojja Wakiso Victoria Kibamba Wakiso Victoria Nangombe/Lugumba Wakiso Victoria

Nakatiba Kalangala Victoria Namisoke/Misisi Kalangala Victoria Buyange Kalangala Victoria Ssemawundo Kalangala Victoria Kaazi Kalangala Victoria Kusu Kalangala Victoria Lulindi Kalangala Victoria Banda Kalangala Victoria Bossa Kafuna Serinya Kalangala Victoria Kaaya Kalangala Victoria Kamese Kalangala Victoria Kachanga Kalangala Victoria Luwungulu Kalangala Victoria Misonzi Kalangala Victoria Kitobo Kalangala Victoria Luku/Nabisukiro Kalangala Victoria Njoga Kalangala Victoria Senero Kalangala Victoria Kasenyi Kalangala Victoria Kasekulo – Ttuni Kalangala Victoria Bbanga Kalangala Victoria Mutambala Kalangala Victoria Kibanga Kalangala Victoria Buziga Kalangala Victoria Lutoboka Kalangala Victoria Mwena Kalangala Victoria

135 | P a g e

Lukuba Kalangala Victoria Lwanabatya Kalangala Victoria Ntuwa Kalangala Victoria Nakibanga Kalangala Victoria Kisaba Kalangala Victoria Buyiri Kalangala Victoria Nkose-Lugala Kalangala Victoria Butulume Kalangala Victoria Nkese Kalangala Victoria Ddamba Kalangala Victoria Kagonya- Bufumira Kalangala Victoria Mukaka Kalangala Victoria Bbungo Kalangala Victoria Kyagulanyi Kalangala Victoria Nakatiba Kalangala Victoria Lwabaswa Kalangala Victoria Kagonya Kalangala Victoria Kisujju Kalangala Victoria Kivunza Kalangala Victoria Buyigi Kalangala Victoria Mukalanga Kalangala Victoria Ddaje Kalangala Victoria Kamwanyi Kalangala Victoria Kaazi Bujumba Kalangala Victoria Kasamba Bujumba Kalangala Victoria Buddu Kalangala Victoria Lwabalega Kalangala Victoria Kyeserwa Kalangala Victoria Kacungwa Kalangala Victoria Mirindi Kalangala Victoria Busindi Kalangala Victoria Gunga Kalangala Victoria Nkose-Katooke Kalangala Victoria

136 | P a g e

Kitu/Nalukandule Kalangala Victoria Lwazi Jaana Kalangala Victoria Lwazi Bubeke Kalangala Victoria

Bukagabo Mayuge Victoria Dembe Mayuge Victoria Maganda Sagati island Mayuge Victoria Kabuka Mayuge Victoria Maliudhi Mayuge Victoria Wamala Mayuge Victoria Serinyabi Mayuge Victoria Nakirimira Mayuge Victoria Nakalanga Mayuge Victoria Nkombe Mayuge Victoria Kaaza Mayuge Victoria Gori Mayuge Victoria Walumbe Mayuge Victoria Naluwerere Mayuge Victoria Namugongo Mayuge Victoria Masaka Mayuge Victoria Bubinge Mayuge Victoria Musimbi Miyanzi Mayuge Victoria Bugoto Mayuge Victoria Masolya/Malongo Mayuge Victoria Ntikalu Mayuge Victoria Bwondha Mayuge Victoria Lwanika Mayuge Victoria Namoni Mayuge Victoria Busuyi Mayuge Victoria Buluba Mayuge Victoria Misoli A & B Mayuge Victoria Igulubi Mayuge Victoria Kayanja Mayuge Victoria

137 | P a g e

Mubembe Mayuge Victoria Bumba Mayuge Victoria Busaabala Mayuge Victoria

Masese Jinja Victoria Kisima I island Jinja Victoria Kisima II island Jinja Victoria Wanyange Jinja Victoria Ripon Jinja Victoria Wairaka Jinja Victoria Kibibi Jinja Victoria East Bank Jinja Victoria Nkalanga Jinja Victoria

Wayasi Namayingo Victoria Buyanga Namayingo Victoria Buraba Namayingo Victoria Bugoma Namayingo Victoria Bumeru A Namayingo Victoria Butanira A Namayingo Victoria Lufudu Namayingo Victoria Musoli Namayingo Victoria Mulombi Namayingo Victoria Rabachi Namayingo Victoria Lugaga Namayingo Victoria Buduma Namayingo Victoria Gorofa Namayingo Victoria Namavundu Namayingo Victoria Bumeru B Namayingo Victoria Busiro Namayingo Victoria Bumeru C Namayingo Victoria Bumalenge Namayingo Victoria Sibale Namayingo Victoria

138 | P a g e

Migingo Namayingo Victoria Bugege Namayingo Victoria Namayingo Victoria Sikinga Namayingo Victoria Buhoba Namayingo Victoria Radanga Namayingo Victoria Mwango Namayingo Victoria Labolo Namayingo Victoria Yebe Namayingo Victoria Singila Namayingo Victoria Bukana Namayingo Victoria Butanira B Namayingo Victoria Hakari Namayingo Victoria Bissa Namayingo Victoria Maninga Namayingo Victoria Lubango Namayingo Victoria Buyondo Namayingo Victoria Sidome Namayingo Victoria Mulwanda Namayingo Victoria Lugala Namayingo Victoria Siamulala/Hama Namayingo Victoria Kandege Namayingo Victoria Mayanja Namayingo Victoria Kwomutumba Namayingo Victoria Mukeri Namayingo Victoria Matiko Namayingo Victoria Mpanga Namayingo Victoria Maruba Namayingo Victoria Matolo Namayingo Victoria Siiro Namayingo Victoria

Wakawaka Bugiri Victoria Namatu Bugiri Victoria

139 | P a g e

Lwenge Bugiri Victoria

Kikooge Nakasongola Kyoga Moone Nakasongola Kyoga Kansiira Nakasongola Kyoga Kasenyi Nakasongola Kyoga Kikoiro Nakasongola Kyoga Kibuye Nakasongola Kyoga Zengebe Ferry Nakasongola Kyoga Lwampanga Nakasongola Kyoga Zengebe Mayinja Nakasongola Kyoga Ninga Nakasongola Kyoga Kisenyi Nakasongola Kyoga Kyalusaka Nakasongola Kyoga Irima Nakasongola Kyoga Dagala Nakasongola Kyoga Kachanga Nakasongola Kyoga Kasambya Nakasongola Kyoga Tumba Nakasongola Kyoga Kikaraganya Main & church Nakasongola Kyoga Kityoba Nakasongola Kyoga Kadubba Nakasongola Kyoga Kamuli Nakasongola Kyoga

Merok Soroti Kyoga Bukwnga Soroti Kyoga Lalle Soroti Kyoga Obango Soroti Kyoga Opuure Soroti Kyoga Akocho Soroti Kyoga Bugondo Soroti Kyoga Kibuka Soroti Kyoga Ogelak Soroti Kyoga

140 | P a g e

Apapai Soroti Kyoga Agirigiroi Soroti Kyoga Iruko Soroti Kyoga Ajuba Soroti Kyoga Akwangalet Soroti Kyoga Kagwara Soroti Kyoga Kachorombo Soroti Kyoga Asinge Soroti Kyoga Adiding Soroti Kyoga Opiya Soroti Kyoga Kateng Soroti Kyoga Pingire Soroti Kyoga Akaramai Soroti Kyoga Mulondo Soroti Kyoga Mugarama Soroti Kyoga Ongaro Soroti Kyoga Chamadok Soroti Kyoga Namutinda Soroti Kyoga Merok Soroti Kyoga Bukwnga Soroti Kyoga Lalle Soroti Kyoga Obango Soroti Kyoga Opuure Soroti Kyoga Olupe Soroti Kyoga Ojetenyang Soroti Kyoga Ateesa Soroti Kyoga

Singabwire Kaberamaido Kyoga Sangai Kaberamaido Kyoga Atubot Kaberamaido Kyoga Lela Kaberamaido Kyoga Abirabira Kaberamaido Kyoga Owidi Kaberamaido Kyoga

141 | P a g e

Ongaroi Kaberamaido Kyoga Okille Kaberamaido Kyoga Swagere Kaberamaido Kyoga Byayale Kaberamaido Kyoga Apai Kaberamaido Kyoga Doya Kaberamaido Kyoga Bugoi Kaberamaido Kyoga Ayago Kaberamaido Kyoga Ogodia Kaberamaido Kyoga

Kikota Kayunga Kyoga Kyedicho Kayunga Kyoga Kalenge Kayunga Kyoga Kawongo Kayunga Kyoga Kitwe Kayunga Kyoga

Akuli Lira Kyoga Obelower Lira Kyoga Aoa Lira Kyoga Wii Gudu Lira Kyoga Kitaleba Lira Kyoga Oulo Lira Kyoga Kitwee Lira Kyoga Kampala Lira Kyoga Lakoranga Lira Kyoga Nalobwoyo Lira Kyoga Muntu Lira Kyoga Muchora A Lira Kyoga Manyanga Lira Kyoga Musoma Lira Kyoga Muchora B Lira Kyoga Gozwe Lira Kyoga Mbiko Lira Kyoga

142 | P a g e

Oribcan Lira Kyoga Lenko Lira Kyoga Nkongoro Lira Kyoga Namasale Lira Kyoga Kayago Lira Kyoga Opati Lira Kyoga Tea – Atoke Lira Kwania Nakazara Lira Kwania Amuk Lira Kwania Adero Lira Kwania Adyedo Lira Kwania Owango Lao Lira Kwania Etam Lira Kwania Ojem Lira Kwania Abeja Lira Kwania Kitara Lira Kwania Owiri Lira Kwania Daraza Lira Kwania Awon Angiro Lira Kwania Amai Lira Kwania Abale Lira Kwania Agweng Lira Kwania Awee Lira Kwania Bata Lira Kwania

Ayei Apac Kwania Akokoro Main Apac Kwania Wigweng Apac Kwania Wansolo Apac Kwania Kiga Apac Kwania Abei / Agee Apac Kwania Gweng Apac Kwania Otura Apac Kwania

143 | P a g e

Abali Apac Kwania Akukuru Apac Kwania Dog-bot Apac Kyoga Adok-dong Apac Kyoga Bung Apac Kyoga Agella Apac Kyoga Anwangi Apac Kyoga Atuma Apac Kyoga Agweng Apac Kyoga Ramtama Apac Kyoga Pabbo Apac Kyoga Apalamio Apac Kyoga Te – Tugo Apac Kyoga Acholi inn Apac Kwania Isunga Apac Kwania Kwibale Apac Kwania

Agule Katakwi Bisina Akurao-Olilim Katakwi Bisina Asubaki Katakwi Bisina Kokorio-Opooti Katakwi Bisina Apule Katakwi Bisina Operu-Lengo Katakwi Opeta Emac Katakwi Bisina

Ojaluon Kumi Opeta Nyalaculi Kumi Opeta Okutot Kumi Opeta Nabioto Kumi Bisina Akide Kumi Bisina Oseera Kumi Bisina Mowlem Kumi Bisina Agule Kumi Bisina

144 | P a g e

Kakor Kumi Bisina Opelu Kumi Gawa Aciisa-Ogudo Kumi Nyaguo

Opeta Pallisa Gurumaire Kapala – katek Pallisa Kawi Apapa – Kareu Pallisa Kawi Najeneti water supply Pallisa Lemwa Agule – Obungai Pallisa Kawi Yosam Pallisa Nyaguo Daraja Pallisa Gigate Angod- Agule Pallisa Kayi Kampala Pallisa Nyaguo Ogudo Pallisa Nyaguo Nyansala Pallisa Nyansala

Issisi Buyende Kyoga Iremerya Buyende Kyoga Kakooge Buyende Kyoga Igoola Buyende Kyoga Kiwaba Buyende Kyoga Kigingi Buyende Kyoga Kyanfuba Buyende Kyoga Bukungu Buyende Kyoga Kyankole Buyende Kyoga Kyanganyaza Buyende Kyoga Miseru Buyende Kyoga Busulumba Buyende Kyoga Iyingo Buyende Kyoga Buyumba Buyende Kyoga Ngole Buyende Kyoga Budipa LN Buyende Nakuwa Lugonyola Buyende Nakuwa

145 | P a g e

Nangala Kaliro Nakuwa Kitega Kaliro Nakuwa Nawaikoke Kaliro Nakuwa Namawa Kaliro Nakuwa Gaba Kaliro Nakuwa Nangala Kaliro Nakuwa Panyolo Kaliro Kyoga Isalo Kaliro Kyoga Butambala Kaliro Kyoga

Kiribairya Kamuli Kyoga Bandaali Kamuli R. Nile Malugulya Kamuli R. Nile Nsagabiyile Kamuli R. Nile Kadungu Kamuli R. Nile Kyamatende Kamuli R. Nile Kibunye Kamuli R. Nile Kiige Kamuli R. Nile

Kashaka Bushenyi George Katunguru B Bushenyi George Mahyoro Kamwenge George Kainja Kamwenge George Kasenyi Kasese George Hamukungu Kasese George Kahendero Kasese George Katunguru K Kasese George Kazinga Bushenyi Edward Kishenyi Bushenyi Edward Kabatoro Kasese Edward Kayanja Kasese Edward Rwenshama Rukungiri Edward

146 | P a g e

Bugoigo Buliisa Albert PIIDA A Buliisa Albert Butiaba PIIDA B Buliisa Albert Nyamukuta Buliisa Albert Sonsio Buliisa Albert Boma Buliisa Albert Kamagongolo Buliisa Albert Kawaibanda Buliisa Albert Walukuba Buliisa Albert Kabolwa Buliisa Albert Kalolo Buliisa Albert Karakaba Buliisa Albert Wakened Buliisa Albert Wanseko Buliisa Albert

Kachankumu Bundibujo Albert Kamuga Bundibujo Albert Kanara Bundibujo Albert Katanga Bundibujo Albert Mulango Bundibujo Albert Ntoroko Bundibujo Albert Rwangara Bundibujo Albert

Buhuma Hoima Albert Fofo Hoima Albert Hoima – Uganda Hoima Albert Kabanda Hoima Albert Kaiso Hoima Albert Kiryamboga Hoima Albert Kisagi Hoima Albert Mbegu Hoima Albert Nana Hoima Albert

147 | P a g e

Rwantale Hoima Albert Tonya Hoima Albert Buringa (Nkondo II) Hoima Albert Ndokore (Nkondo II) Hoima Albert Nkondo I Hoima Albert Nkondo II Hoima Albert Nyawaiga Hoima Albert Sebagaro Hoima Albert Kyehoro Hoima Albert Bikunyu Hoima Albert Hoima – Kenya Hoima Albert Kabahwa Hoima Albert Kibiro Hoima Albert Kyabarangwa Hoima Albert Nyamusoga Hoima Albert Petye Hoima Albert Runga Hoima Albert Songagage Hoima Albert Waaki Hoima Albert Busigi Hoima Albert Kachunde Hoima Albert Kiina Hoima Albert Kyabashambu Hoima Albert Kyakapere Hoima Albert Kyenyanja Hoima Albert Nsonga (Bugoma) Hoima Albert Nsunzu (Bugoma) Hoima Albert Ssenjojo (Songa Roa) Hoima Albert Ususa Hoima Albert

Kabukanga Kibale Albert Kamina Kibale Albert Kitebere Kibale Albert

148 | P a g e

Ndaiga Kibale Albert Nguse Kibale Albert Nyamasoga Kibale Albert Rwebigongoro Kibale Albert

Angumu Nebbi Albert DEI A Nebbi Albert DEI B Nebbi Albert DEI C Nebbi Albert Kayoanga Nebbi Albert Singla Nebbi Albert

Buzibazi Mityana Wamala Mawanga Mityana Wamala Kyandalo Mityana Wamala Katiko Mityana Wamala Lubaja B. Mityana Wamala Lubaja A. Mityana Wamala Karyankoko Mityana Wamala Kimuli Mityana Wamala Butebi Mityana Wamala Nkonya Mityana Wamala Bukanaga Mityana Wamala Gombe Mityana Wamala Lusarila Mityana Wamala Kalitunsi Mityana Wamala Lwanju (Island) Mityana Wamala Lwakalonge Mityana Wamala

Mamba Gomba Wamala Maseregenya Gomba Wamala Lukunyu Gomba Wamala Lunoni Gomba Wamala

149 | P a g e

Nabuyindo Gomba Wamala

Bugolo Mubende Wamala Bagwe Mubende Wamala Kyayi Mubende Wamala Wamala Mubende Wamala Kampanzi Mubende Wamala

Source: Statutory Instruments 2010 No. 33: The Fish (Fishing) rules, 2010

APPENDIX 4: NILE PERCH AND FISH MAWS EXPORTS

Year Volume (tons) Value (‘000 US$) 1991 4,751 5,309 1992 4,831 6,451 1993 6,037 8,807 1994 6,563 14,769 1995 12,971 25,903 1996 16,396 39,781 1997 9,839 28,000 1998 13,805 34,921 1999 13,380 36,608 2000 15,876 34,363 2001 28,672 80,398 2002 25,169 87,574 2003 25,111 86,343 2004 30,057 102,917 2005 36,600 143,618 2006 32,855 136,851 2007 28,400 117,364 2008 23,503 115,306 2009 17,253 87,665 2010 16,697 86,017 2011 17,332 91,447

150 | P a g e

2012 20,562 115,508 2013 18,909 123,189 2014 17,597 134,791 2015 18,785 123,101 2016 16,594 120,733 2017 14,248 136,057 2018 20,364 153,427 Source: DFR (2019)

APPENDIX 5: MUKENE EXPORTS 0N LAKE VICTORIA

Year Exports (tons) Value (US$ ‘000) 2010 545 598 2011 18,751 2,896 2012 18,070 2,913 2013 13,765 2,315 2014 10,450 1,846 2015 12,779 2,106 Source: LVFO, 2016 APPENDIX 6: FISH IMPORTS Year Metric tons Value (mil US$) 2009 2,088.70 56.2 2010 2,248.50 60.5 2011 2,609.00 70.2 2015 2,999.20 80.7 2016 2,111.00 56.8 2017 2,657.30 71.5 2018 3,378.30 90.9 Source: UBOS, URA, CAA, 2019

151 | P a g e

APPENDIX 7: FISHERIES ECONOMIC DATA

Beach value estimates (Ugx)/ton Species Year 2009 2010 2011 2015 Nile perch 2,233,112 3,495,957 4,659,597 5,910,428 Nile tilapia 1,418,213 2,175,829 2,802,739 5,160,413 Mukene 272,125 274,997 519,311 749,993 Others 1,287,225 1,972,687 2,218,585 2,334,467 Source: CAS 2005-2015, NaFIRRI (2015) Intermediate consumption (%) Lake Lake Albert Lake Kyoga Lake Victoria Factory processors 3.0 12.0 24.0 Artisanal processors - 4.0 1.0 Total 3.0 16.0 25.0 Source: Odongkara et al., (2014) Attributes of capital investment Rate (Percent) Source Consumption of fixed capital 15 FAO (2004) Return on capital / Normal profit 20 FAO (2004) Source: FAO, 2004 Outboard engines Lake Engine power Cost per engine (Ugx) Life span of engine (Years) Lake Albert <10 HP 4,087,800 9 10-20 HP 8,963,200 10 Lake Victoria <10 HP 3,184,615 11 10-20 HP 5,521,300 10 Source: Odongkara et al., (2014) Main boat types by water body Lake Main boat type Unit cost (Ugx) Life span (Years) Lake Albert Congo barque 636,336 3.1 Lake Kyoga Ssese 656,429 4.1 Parachute 347,514 3.6 Lake Victoria Ssese 989,571 4.2 Parachute 207,045 2.9 Source: Odongkara et al., (2014) Fishing labor costs by water body Lake Average number of Payment rate (Ugx)/day Payment rate for Mukene fishing crew/ boat workers/day Lake Albert 2 11,630 -

152 | P a g e

Lake Kyoga 2 11,204 31,237 Lake Victoria 2 16,899 22,378 Source: Odongkara et al., (2014) Average number of fishing days by species Species Average number of Days Comment days fished/week fished/year Nile perch 5 260 Fishing occurs throughout the year Nile tilapia 5 260 Fishing occurs throughout the year Mukene 5 130 Fishing does not occur during full moon (as it’s considered not paying) Muziri 5 130 Fishing does not occur during full moon (as it’s considered not paying) Ragoogi 5 130 Fishing does not occur during full moon (as it’s considered not paying) Others 5 260 Fishing occurs throughout the year Source: Odongkara et al., (2014)

APPENDIX 8 : AQUACULTURE STATISTICS District No. of ponds Size of Unit (M2) Yumbe 10 3,000 Wakiso 682 531,286 283 199,253 Soroti 71 32,941 Sironko 404 732,949 Serere 231 73,411 Rubirizi 15 2,414 Pallisa 79 30,757 Pader 20 13,032 Oyam 13 7,930 Nwoya 6 2,465 Ntungamo 277 64,975 Ntoroko 3 856 Nebbi 8 66 Namayingo 26 6,414 Nakasongola 6 2,000 Nakaseke 4 6,000 Mukono 515 266,160 Mpigi 128 132,650 Moyo 38 11,400 Mityana 33 15,650 Mitooma 41 12,070

153 | P a g e

Mbale 194 73,760 Mayuge 88 10,433 7 2,100 Masaka 183 373,372 Maracha 96 18,022 Manafwa 227 51,806 Lwengo 117 220,869 Luuka 137 40,928 Lira 439 479,313 Lamwo 1 400 247 59,900 Kumi 109 49,286 Kole 113 53,588 Koboko 151 116,444 Kitugum 60 25,642 Kisoro 176 42,111 Kiboga 19 9,905 Kibaale 153 32,169 Kayunga 96 34,549 Katakwi 43 6,675 Kasese 138 37,952 Kapchorwa 10 5,000 Kanungu 282 142,681 Kamwenge 73 67,138 Kamuli 198 74,714 Kampala 146 101,103 Kalungu 58 39,382 Kalangala 176 1,489 Kaberamaido 411 139,120 Kabarole 45 8,130 Kabale 706 91,577 Isingiro 133 43,021 224 80,717 Ibanda 10 5,000 Hoima 53 11,297 Gulu 599 261,571 Gomba 87 71,709 Dokolo 1 500 Buvuma 40 5,817 Bushenyi 109 61,280 Buyikwe 112 56,000 Bugiri 283 34,880 Bududa 2 600 Budaka 17 23,156

154 | P a g e

Arua 47 18,171 Bukomansimbi 53 200,927 Bulisa 4 815 Apac 119 65,623 Amuru 209 290,824 Ajumani 126 57,304 Alebtong 106 37,758 Rakai 1 500 Kaliro 1 500 Source: MAAIF, 2018

155 | P a g e

156 | P a g e