Final Technical Report

"Strengthening Fisheries Management in ACP Countries"

PROJECT TITLE:

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR THE REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF THE

FISHERIES BILL IN UGANDA

Project ref. N°EA-2.3-B11A

Region: Eastern Africa

Country: Uganda

Date: March 2013

Assignment executed by Lydia Ochieng-Obbo

Project Funded by the European Union. This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union. The Contents of this publication are the sole responsibility of Lydia Ochieng-Obbo and can in no way be taken to reflect theThe views content of the of thisEuropean document Union.” does not necessarily reflect the views of the concerned governments.”

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... 4 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ...... 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE ASSIGNMENT ...... 1 1.3 APPROACH TO THE ASSIGNMENT AND DELIVERY OF THE ASSIGNMENT ...... 1 1.4 OUTLINE OF THE REPORT ...... 1 2. SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS - FINDINGS, CHALLENGES & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 3 2.1 OVERVIEW...... 3 2.2 CURRENT POLICY, STRATEGIC AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK ...... 3 2.2.1 Description ...... 3 2.2.2 Analysis / Challenges in the policy framework ...... 7 2.2.3 Recommendations ...... 10 2.3 CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANISATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ...... 11 2.3.1 Description ...... 11 2.3.2 Analysis / Challenges in the current institutional arrangements...... 14 2.3.3 Recommendations ...... 16 2.4 THE FISHERIES SECTOR ...... 16 2.4.1 Description ...... 16 2.4.2 Analysis / Challenges in the fisheries sector ...... 17 2.4.3 Recommendations ...... 19 3 OPTIONS FOR MODERN & RESULT ORIENTED INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS ...... 20 3.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 20 3.2 LESSONS FROM THE OTHER INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS ...... 21 3.3 SUITABILITY OF ARRANGEMENTS TO THE UGANDAN SITUATION ...... 23 3.4 OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR UGANDA’S FISHERIES SECTOR ...... 23 3.5 PROS AND CONS OF THE THREE OPTIONS ...... 24 3.6 RECOMMENDED OPTION FOR INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR UGANDA...... 28 3.7 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 31 3.8 IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS ...... 32 4 CONCLUSION ...... 32

ANNEXES ...... 36

Annex 1 Terms of Reference Annex 2 SWOT analysis of fisheries sector Annex 3 Current macro structure of MAAIF showing fisheries sector Annex 4 Current macro structure of Directorate of Fisheries Resources Annex 5 List of documents and reports consulted Annex 6 List of people interviewed Annex 7 Photographs Annex 8 Proposed amendments to the policy framework Annex 9 Proposed amendments to the organisational structure Annex 10 Examples of co-existing fisheries authorities and departments

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

List of Tables

TABLE 1LINKAGE BETWEEN SPECIFIC TERMS OF REFERENCE AND KEY ACTIVITIES ...... 2 TABLE 2 FISHERIES INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS WITHIN THE COUNTRIES OF THE EAST AFRICAN REGION ...... 23 TABLE 3 SUITABILITY OF SELECTED INSTITUTIONAL BEST PRACTICE TO UGANDA’S CIRCUMSTANCES ...... 25 TABLE 4 PROS AND CONS OF PROPOSED OPTIONS ...... 27 TABLE 5 MAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF OPTION C ...... 28 TABLE 6 FUNCTIONS OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN RELATION TO PROPOSED FUNCTIONS FOR THE DIFR ...... 30 TABLE 7 FUNCTIONS OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT IN RELATION TO PROPOSED FUNCTIONS FOR THE UFMA ...... 30 TABLE 8 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX AND ACTION PLAN ...... 33

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Acknowledgements This is to acknowledge with gratitude the support and understanding accorded by the various actors in the fisheries industry in Uganda that has enabled the completion of this assignment. I am grateful to all those who gave me their time and shared with me their views, ideas and information on the fisheries sector without which the finalisation of this Final Technical Report would not have been possible.

I would like to start by thanking the EU Fish II Project Team led by Mr John Purvis, Fisheries Policy Expert at the ACP Fish II Coordination Unit in Brussels and Mr Koane Mindjimba, the Regional Manager for Eastern Africa, who hand held me during the entire assignment and took time to correct the first draft and provide constructive guidance and criticism on the final product, Mr Patrick Seruyange, Operations Officer, Rural Development, EU Delegation to Uganda in Kampala for sharing useful information about the sector. In the same breath I appreciate the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries Resources (MAAIF) Mr Vincent Rubarema and his Senior Staff from the Planning and Policy Departments who met with Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association (UFPEA) and myself and gave us useful insights. The Staff from the Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR), MAAIF, led by the Ag. Commissioner Mr Lovelock Wadanya including Mrs Daisy Olyel Aciro and Mr Eric Nadiope the incumbent and alternate ACP Fish II Focal Points in DFR are appreciated for their support and contribution to this Report.

I thank Mr Sujal Goswami, Mr Philip Borel, Mrs Ovia Katiti Matovu and Mr William Tibyasa from UFPEA and their members, for their support, understanding and collaborative approach. My gratitude would be incomplete without mentioning Mr John Mubiru, Chairman of the Association of Fishers and Lake Users of Uganda (AFALU) and his team for the perspective of the fisher folk and lake users. Dr Maggie Kigozi and the team from Uganda Fish Net Manufacturers Ltd, your insight from the input supplier perspective was invaluable.

I would also like to appreciate the help of Dr Konstatine Odgongkara, Senior Socio-Economist, National Fisheries Resources Research Institute (NaFFIRI), who assisted me in meeting the technical people at NaFFIRI and Kajjansi. I thank Dr John Balirwa and his team; Dr Dismas Mbabazi of Kajjansi Aquaculture Research and Development Centre (KARDC) and his team as well as Mr Dick Nyeko and Dr Olivia Mkumbo and their team at Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation (LVFO) who provided valuable background information about the sector generally and the journey towards creating a Fisheries Authority including the regional perspective of the problems in the fisheries sector.

My gratitude also goes out to Dr Jolly Zaribwende of the Dairy Development Authority, Mr Henry Ngabirano of the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA) and Mr Maxwell of the National Forest Authority who shared their invaluable insights into how their respective authorities were established and how they relate with the Parent Ministry.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the following people - Mary Kusambiza and Juliet Nazziwa Musoke - for helping with the literature review and for the input into the first Draft of this Report. My assistants Jane Namukwaya Mawejje and Douglas Were for helping me with the field visits, scheduling of appointments, typing the informant interview notes and sorting out the field photographs, Julietta Edwina Achieng for helping me to check out the statistics on fisheries. Stanslaus Matovu Lwanga, I cannot thank you enough for helping me through the maze of tables and text during the final structuring of the Report to make it more organised and readable. It took time but it was worth it all the way.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Disclaimer The thoughts and arguments presented in this Report do not in way purport to reflect the views, official or personal of the persons mentioned above or the institutions they represent or the sponsors of this assignment. They are the Consultant’s personal interpretation and understanding of the views expressed by various people and gathered during the conduct of the assignment. Therefore, the representation of the issues as discussed in this Report and any shortcomings that may arise as a result thereof, are the responsibility of the Consultant and should not in any way be attributed to the persons mentioned above and or others on the list of people interviewed and met that is contained in this Report.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific (Group of States) AFALU Association of Fishers and Lake Users of Uganda AFIPEK Association of Fish Processors and Exporters of Kenya AFMA Australian Fish Management Authority ATAAS Agricultural Technology and Agro Business Advisory Services BAFS Bank Advisory Forms BMU Beach Management Unit CA Competent Authority CCRF Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (FAO) CDO Cotton Development Authority CSO Civil Society Organisation DDA Dairy Development Authority DFR Department of Fisheries Resources DFTR Draft Final Technical Report DIFR Directorate of Fisheries Resources DSIP Development Strategy and Investment Plan EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EAC East African Community EAIFFPA East African Industrial Fishing and Fish Processors Association EU European Union FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation (of the United Nations) FGD Focus Group Discussion FSSP Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan FTI Fisheries Training Institute FTR Final Technical Report GDP Gross Domestic Product HRD Human Resource Development IFMP Implementation of a Fisheries Management Plan ILMA Integrated Lake Management Approach IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing) KARDC Kajjansi Aquaculture Research and Development Centre LMO Lake Management Organisation LVBC Lake Victoria Basin Commission LVFO Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MoH Ministry of Health MoES Ministry of Education and Sports MoJCA Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs MoPS Ministry of Public Service MOU Memorandum of Understanding MTIC Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives MTTI Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industry NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services NaFIRRI National Fisheries Resources Research Institute NARO National Agricultural Research Organisation NEMA National Environment Authority NFA National Forestry Authority NFP National Fisheries Policy

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

NFT National Fisheries Task Force NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NPFMP Nile Perch Fishery Management Plan PEAP Poverty Eradication Plan PMA Plan for Modernization of Agriculture PPP Public-Private Partnership PS Permanent Secretary PSFU Private Sector Foundation Uganda RFU-EA Regional Facilitation Unit for Eastern Africa (ACP Fish II Programme) RPOA Regional Plan of Action SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats TA Technical Assistance TIFPA Tanzania Industrial Fishing and Processors Association TOR Terms of Reference UBOS Uganda Bureau of Standards UCDA Uganda Coffee Development Authority UFA Uganda Fisheries Authority UFFCA Uganda Fisheries and Fish Conservation Association UFMA Uganda Fisheries Management Authority UFPEA Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association URA Uganda Revenue Authority UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority WAFICOS Walimi Fisheries Cooperative Society

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Executive Summary

Background Over the last ten years the fisheries sector has played an important social and economic role in Uganda as the second largest foreign exchange earner after coffee, contributing 2.5% of GDP and 12% to agricultural GDP.1 Experts have warned that unless drastic measures are taken to reverse the indiscriminate depletion of the fishery resources mainly due to inappropriate fishing practices, the sector will not only cease to be Uganda’s second foreign exchange earner but the livelihoods of over 1,300,000 people who depend on it for food, income and employment generation will be adversely affected.2 For instance, the Nile perch, the predominant commercial fish species in Lake Victoria, has suffered a drastic decline in the level of its stocks from around 1 million metric tons in 2000 to approximately 350,000 metric tons in 2012.3 Therefore urgent sound management measures are required to reverse this downward trend.

Between 2004 and 2007, the Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) (the Competent Authority (CA)) under the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) worked hand in hand with other stakeholders led by Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters (UFPEA) to produce a new policy, strategic and legal and regulatory framework for the fisheries sector.

However, all the above efforts stalled when there was a change of opinion by the MAAIF between 2007 and 2008 with regard to the nature and structure of the optimal institutional framework, whereby MAAIF started pursuing the option of converting the DFR into a directorate in place of the Authority. Since then efforts towards creating an independent institutional framework for the sector stalled.

As key stakeholders in the process, the UFPEA required Technical Assistance (TA) to review and analyse successive versions of the draft Fisheries Bill (2004 - 2007), as well as the underlying principles and approached the ACP Fish II Programme to provide such support to retain a consultant who undertook the assignment.

Purpose and Objective of the Assignment The purpose of this assignment is to propose new modern and results-oriented institutional arrangements consistent with the thinking behind the 2004 National Fisheries Policy (NFP), after a thorough analysis of the existing (Fisheries Act of 1964) and/or proposed legal and regulatory framework (the Fisheries Bill 2007) alongside efforts and developments towards achieving the intended reforms in the sector that have taken place since 2004 to date.

The Consultant took a three phased approach to the assignment as set out in the Terms of Reference.

Findings, Analysis and Recommendations Current Policy Framework International and Regional Policy Instruments Uganda is a signatory to a number of international and regional conventions and agreements that have a bearing on the fisheries sector and influence a number of issues especially regarding the preservation of environment, biodiversity of the water bodies, the natural resources and sharing of common water bodies with countries within the East African region in general and Nile Basin in particular.

National Policies and Fisheries Policy

1 Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2011. 2 These include -fishers, boat owners, fish traders, local business enterprises at fish landing sites and the wider economies of villages and towns. 3 Information Sourced from UFPEA records. 1

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

In addition to the above but more importantly the fisheries sector is guided by a series of national policies top of which is the National Development Plan 2010/11 – 2014/15, followed by the Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP) 2010/11 – 2014/15, the Fisheries Policy of May 2004, and the Provisional Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan of 2004. The Draft Business Plan of 2005 was developed but was not adopted.

Analysis/challenges The National Policy framework documents overall fall short of articulating the key issues that need to be addressed in enough detail especially as regards the policy, legal and institutional arrangement challenges.

The key issues affecting the National Fisheries Policy (NFP) include: Lack of sufficient alignment with the NDP as the overarching policy framework in terms of areas of socio-economic development and private sector involvement aspects of the sector; Delays in implementing key recommendations, despite a concerted private sector advocacy agenda on the said issues to date; Policy provisions were not properly articulated in the 2007 Bill.

Recommendations The nature of factors affecting the sector dictate that the policy framework needs updating and or upgrading to focus on issues that have emerged since 2004, while taking into account the metamorphosis and escalation of some of the long term issues. The National Policy frameworks should in their next revision show more emphasis on the sector and the key issues affecting it in order for it to be given sufficient attention and resources in the budgeting process.

Current Legal and Regulatory Framework Fisheries Legislation and Supporting Regulations The Legal framework directly affecting the fisheries sector includes a number of legislations, of which are the following are key:-

The Fisheries Act of 1951 The current fisheries legal framework is primarily reliant on the 1951 Fisheries Act4 together with the amendments introduced over the years to curb the illegalities, provide for issuance of licenses and permits over different activities, and provide for quality assurance measures to meet market demands especially from Europe and the establishment of a Fish Fund.

The Fisheries Bill 2007 The first bill was developed in 2004 and it passed through a rigorous consultative process in 2005 and 2006 until it culminated into the 2007 Bill. The 2007 Bill which is very similar to the 2004 Bill, was passed by Cabinet but it did not progress far beyond this point due to the apparent change in thinking within MAAIF.

The Consultant further established that the subsequent 2008 and 2009 Bills developed by MAAIF/DFR whose objective was to propose the establishment of the Directorate in place of the Fisheries Authority appear to have stagnated apart from provisions relating to the elevation of the Department of Fisheries Resources to a Directorate which were granted.

Analysis and Challenges The Fisheries Act

4 Adopted by Uganda in 1964. 2

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Most of the legal provisions in the Fisheries Law especially to do with Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) and amendments thereof have not been implemented and or amended to the extent they should have, despite the level of illegal activities within the sector. The 1951 (Adopted in 1964) Act was set up when the sector had not grown to the level it is today and its focus was mainly on regulating fishing activity and not on development of the sector and management of the resources. It can no longer serve the purpose and objectives of the sector as is today. While there have been amendments to the Act over the years, most have been ad hoc, selective, and geared to addressing short term crises and therefore not very long term or able to bring about a fundamental change as is currently needed.

The Fisheries Bill 2007 The 2007 Bill gives responsibilities to the Minister of State for Fisheries without providing the necessary administrative structure below the office to assist in carrying out the ministerial functions. The 2007 Bill falls short of clearly articulating the roles and responsibilities of the Directorate of Fisheries should play once the Authority is established, how it should be structured and clear guidelines on how it is going to relate to the Ministry and the Directorate. The funding sources provided for in the 2007 Bill are not exhaustive as they do not include certain funds paid to the consolidated fund by the industry and other actors like the fisher folk. The Bill is not strong on provisions that regulate the domestic and regional trade in and consumption of fish especially as it relates to food quality and food security. The Bill is weak on sanctions and punitive measures for those who engage in illegal activities or flout its provisions. There appears to be selective application of the Legal and Regulatory Framework because the majority of actors fishing in Uganda’s waters or locally trading, processing and exporting fish and fish products are not licensed and or registered and neither are they members of the known associations. This makes it difficult to bring them within the ambit of the law and effecting revenue collection.

Key Recommendations The Fisheries Bill 2007 should be updated and a new Law to replace the archaic Fisheries Act of 1951, passed to give effect to the planned policy, strategic and institutional reforms. The Amendments should focus on the following priority areas:-

Clearly articulating within the new Bill, what the roles of the sector Minister, Directorate will be vis-à-vis those of the Fisheries Authority if it is established in the form proposed in this Report. Provide clear provisions that focus on the food quality and safety aspects of the sector especially as they relate to the domestic and regional markets, which are not presently emphasised. Provide stronger punitive sanctions for those found to be operating outside the law. Amend the law to regulate all actors that are involved in the fisheries sector including aquaculture activities.

Institutional and Organisational Arrangements (Based on co-management) The Ministry and Department of Fisheries Resources The Department of Fisheries Resources under MAAIF is headed by a Minister of State below whom is a Permanent Secretary who, as accounting officer, caters for the whole of MAAIF. The Department of Fisheries Resources is under the Directorate of Animal Resources which arrangement makes it difficult for the fisheries sector to get direct attention, funding and currently operates without a substantive head of Department. At the lower level are Fisheries Units within the Local Governments in which the water bodies are located and which are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Local Governments, leaving no direct linkage with the Department.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Analysis and Challenges DFR/DIFR The DFR/DIFR is in a state of flux and continues to run under the yolk of constraints key of which include the following:-

Presently the Department is run without a proper head since the removal of the substantive Commissioner almost 3 years ago. The decentralisation of the administrative units in which the fisheries resources are found has led to less than optimal control by the DFR of the fisheries resources overall. The functional set-up of the Directorate as currently proposed has inadequate detail on how the directorate is to engage with the private sector. Inadequate funding levels were cited as the biggest challenge that has affected the ability of the DFR to fulfil its mandate. There is inadequate human capacity and resources to undertake the broadened mandate. Corruption was also cited by a number of informants as a major hindering factor in the exercise of functions intended to supervise fishing activities. The open access policy to the water bodies introduced by the Government between 1990 and 2000 has attracted a lot of people into the sector without the requisite controls on exit and entry.

BMUs and LMOs The Beach Management Units (BMUs)’ governance and funding mechanisms are yet to be properly established, implemented or enforced leading to improper and less than desirable leadership and work methods. Lack of proper mechanisms and clear guidelines for collecting and accounting for revenue encourages corrupt tendencies through rent seeking and open illegal trading in immature fish.5 BMU’s are faced with insecurity especially in their effort to police the water bodies which discourages them from effectively playing their role in order to protect themselves. The Lake Management Units just like the BMUs have suffered more or less the same fate as BMUs as far as governance, and funding mechanisms are concerned. The end of donor funding in 2004 and inability of the local governments to bridge the gap and little support from the Central Government explain their dismal performance.

Fisheries Research Institutions Fisheries Research Institutions are not given the necessary priority during budgetary allocations, which are channelled through National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO). Low uptake of research findings into the planning, development and management of the Sector as whole by the DIFR and other actors in the Government and Private Sector, who would be the primary beneficiaries is another constraint.

Recommendations Establish an optimal institutional framework for the sector with a clear division of roles and robust implementation mechanisms of agreed proposals. Align the chosen option with best practices in the region and strengthen efforts towards existing regional arrangements geared to protecting, developing and growing of the Fisheries sector in the region. The Government should enhance its contribution to the regional efforts and support the anchoring of the LVFO into the EAC Secretariat. Create an elaborate mechanism to cater for a closer supervisory framework for the co- management arrangement and enhance the capacity of private sector associations to make them viable partners.

5 See Francis Kagolo - under the Save Lake Victoria Campaign – BMU Perpetuating Illegal Fishing; New Vision; April 23rd 2013. 4

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Fisheries Sector Overview The Sector is largely based on capture Fisheries from five major lakes of Victoria, Kyoga, Albert, George and Edward with Victoria and Kyoga being the greatest contributors.6 There is a nascent Aquaculture Sub-Sector and emerging cage farming which needs to be nurtured. The Fisheries sector’s performance has been declining progressively over the years starting with dwindling volumes of the fish catch, to the reducing variety of species from the various water bodies especially Lake Victoria, to a reduction in the export tonnage and value.

Political and Socio-economic Environment Issues The analysis notes that the political and socio-economic environment within which the fisheries sector operates has been affected over the years by key developments which include amongst others: - 1) The 1997 Decentralisation Policy where districts suitable for fisheries and aquaculture development are divided into difficult to manage smaller units, detached the Fisheries Officers at the central level and the fisher folk further from MAAIF/DFR control and supervision; 2) the establishment of the co- management framework through BMUs and Lake Management Organisations (LMOs) in 2003; and 3) the Open Access Policy, which has seen the irregular uncoordinated and uncontrolled influx of people onto the water bodies without proper control mechanisms.

Pre and Post-harvest and Infrastructure Challenges The sector is saddled with a number of capacity and infrastructure challenges. Below are some of the manifestations of these challenges: - Lack of adequate facilities for seed multiplication and artificial propagation for restocking and stock enhancement for both capture fisheries and aquaculture; Poor data collection due to limited resources to cover a number of water bodies with many scattered small fish landing sites; Inadequate knowledge on the status of fish stocks in all water bodies on which to establish sustainable levels of fishing with the exception of Lake Victoria.7 The fisheries sector has been working without sufficient funds to meet its growing needs. Poor road network to the landing sites and inadequate facilities at the landing sites yet the ones completed with assistance of donor funds are lying idle and not in use.

Establishment and Enforcement of Fisheries Standards for Fishing Gear Although the current legal framework is very clear on what is allowed as legal fishing gear, implementation and enforcement of these regulations is very poor and lacking.

Environmental Issues The resurgence of water hyacinth and the emergence of new weeds pose a serious problem for aquatic life in the water bodies especially Lake Victoria. Climate change remains a threat to the fishing and aquaculture development in the country. Human activities (including farming and construction of factories around the lake shores and river banks) are other environmental hazards affecting Uganda’s water bodies.

6 See Consultancy to Study and Make Recommendations on the Draft Fisheries Bill 2004, Final Report August 11, 2005, Development Options, at pages 5-8. 7 The proposal to expand the coverage of the LVFO to all water bodies across the East African Countries could go a long way in ensuring that fish stocks of different species in all the water bodies are periodically monitored and established. 5

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

The rampant use of plastic bags to create sinkers and floaters for suspending the fishing nets is introducing non-biodegradable debris onto lake floors, which are the natural habitat and breeding grounds for fish. There has been an increase in uncontrolled and unregulated sand mining in the lakes which could have detrimental environmental effects and a negative impact on fish reproduction and conservation.

Socio-economic Issues The prevalence of HIV/AIDS - The fishing communities are particularly vulnerable to HIV/AIDS because of the high mobility of the fisher folk, the daily cash income and the lower status of women in many of the local cultures.

Some fishing islands in Lake Victoria are overcrowded and with very poor sanitation methods hence leading to the spewing of sewage directly into the lake.

Recommendations Increase funding to the sector with a result oriented institutional arrangement to enable it to address the pre and post handling challenges and invest in infrastructure development. Develop and enforce a clear and transparent licensing mechanism for the fisheries sector. Move towards rationalising and harmonising the various charges and levies paid at different levels of the value chain especially given the recent move towards establishing a fisheries export levy in the 2013/2014 Budget. Work with the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UBOS) under the auspices of the Ministry of Trade Industry and Cooperatives (MTIC) and the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) to set up standards to regulate the importation, manufacturing and use of fishing gear. Reduce tariffs on authorised fishing gear, enforce the ban on the importation and manufacture of illegal gear in Uganda and increase taxes on imports of finished gear and or materials used in the other sectors to produce illegal nets (seine nets popularly known as “Kokota” as well as monofilament nets). The DIFR and private sector should work closely with the Ministry of Health (MoH) to ensure that health and sanitary standards are observed by the communities that live and work near the lakes and landing sites.

Options for Modern and Result Oriented Institutional Arrangements The DFR, which is currently in charge of the sector, has increasingly faced challenges in tackling problems facing the sector due to structural inadequacies within MAAIF, inadequate resources both human and financial which have consistently left it unable to tackle the growing responsibility of developing the sector, controlling and protecting the use of the natural resource and guiding the development of alternative ways of increasing availability of the fisheries resources using technology.

The state of the sector today and the findings and observations discussed in Section Two, clearly illustrate the need for the fisheries sector to develop a functional institutional arrangement with distinct and devolved roles between the public and private sectors at the domestic, regional and international levels and feeding into other related agencies whose work affects or impacts on the sector.

Lessons from the Other Institutional Frameworks Lessons from Uganda According to a study done by Development Options in 20058 a comparative analysis of existing authorities yielded the following key lessons:-

8 Development Options – Final Report on Consultancy to Study and Make Recommendations on the Draft Fisheries Bill 2004 , August 11 2004. 6

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

1. The Objectives and Functions for which the authority is established must be clear and must relate to each other and functions should not overlap. 2. The Governance Structure should comprise of a lean Board not exceeding 10 to 11 members and should have a mix of both public and private sector representation while avoiding domination of one group especially the public and quasi public sector. 3. Although there is a general drive towards sustainability and most of Authorities are funded through a Cess or levy, funding mechanisms should still include a government subvention given that the services to be provided are for the public good. 4. In almost all cases the relationships between the parent Ministry, the residual department in the Ministry if any and the Authority is not articulated within the law, often leading to conflict due to overlap or lack of clarity of roles

Lessons from Outside Uganda An analysis of the institutional arrangements from outside Uganda shows a growing tendency towards separation of the core functions between the Ministry and authorities to be along the lines of policy, legal and regulatory frameworks on one hand and the management and development of the sector on the other hand with the supportive functions of research and training split into additional separate institutional arrangements. Mozambique and Australia are two examples of countries that have established entities separate from but closely linked to the Ministry to run the fisheries sector. Australian examples is where the established entities are separate from but are structurally closely linked to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and to the Parliamentary Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

Options for Consideration for Uganda’s Fisheries Sector Three options were considered: 1) Option A - maintain status quo where the transformation of the Department of Fisheries Resources into a Directorate is to work as the reformed institutional arrangement that will carry out all functions originally envisaged for the Authority; 2) Option B - create a Fisheries Authority to completely take over the work of the Department of Fisheries Resources as originally envisaged under the 2007 Bill; 3) Option C - create a Fisheries Authority as proposed in Option B above but maintain a lean Directorate for Fisheries within the MAAIF to co- exist with the Authority.

Recommended Option for Institutional Framework for Uganda This Report proposes that the fisheries sector in Uganda would be best served if it adopted Option C. The main characteristics and roles of the proposed institutions are summarized in the table below:-

Main Characteristics of Preferred Option C

A lean DIFR within MAAIF as Competent Authority d with Policy legal and regulatory framework , quality assurance, standards setting and bi lateral, regional and international relations liaison. A UFMA –Governing private sector led Board of 9 to 11 member with Public and Private sector representation, with management development, monitoring control regulation functions of both capture and culture Fisheries, and closer liaison with Fisheries research and training institutions Fisheries Development Fund - For Ring fencing funds generated from the sector and those received from the Government for ploughing back into the sector.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Proposed Organisational and Functional Arrangements The table below is a summary of the proposed internal functional divisions proposed for the DIFR and the UFMA.

Proposed Organisational Units for the Proposed Organisational Units for the DIFR UFMA Policy, Legal and Regulatory Development Fisheries Development and Management. Quality Assurance and Safety. Fisheries Control and Regulation Bilateral, Regional and International Finance and Administration Organisation and Liaison Corporate Services.

Implementation Action Plan Lastly, the Report provides for a phased implementation arrangements to tackle the preparation stage which entails the formation of committees and establishing of dialogue over the matter; reform stage which entails the updating of the policy and legal framework, building on initial work which was done and finally the implementation stage which will entail the putting in place of the agreed reforms. See Matrix in Table 9 on page 72.

Additional Considerations It is expected that for the process to run smoothly and for the above processes to be handled expeditiously, there will be a need for retaining of technical assistance to support the proposed institutional arrangements. The skills that may be required as identified in earlier reports include: -

Policy, legal analysis, regulatory reform and advocacy Organisation design and development including the important aspect of change management Financial Analysis and planning, Project management and procurement Training and capacity building in various areas beyond fisheries Negotiations, consensus building and communication9

Conclusion The review of the policy, legal strategic and institutional arrangements for the fisheries sector enabled the identification of the gaps and challenges that have impeded the movement towards full implementation of the policy, the passing of the 2007 Bill and finally establishment of the Authority.

There is an urgent need for an updated policy, strategic, legal and regulatory framework, to address the challenges in the sector and support the proposed robust institutional arrangement that will enable the implementation and enforcement of the additional key recommendations made in this Report. The Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan will have to be updated and corresponding references to it in other policy related documents updated to give the proposed Institutional framework a sound base for synchronizing its own strategic focus.

Finally, the proposals presented in this Report will need agreement at the highest possible political level. Internally, the sector will need agreement on some critical action points contained in the Implementation Action Plan which has been developed with the thinking that there is need for a strategically phased and sequenced approach to implementation.

9 Reproduced from Dr. Arthur E. Neiland, Consultancy Report No. 15, Development of a Proposal for Funding the Uganda Fisheries Authority, 2005, 8

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

1. Introduction

1.1 Background Over the last ten years the fisheries sector has played an important social and economic role in Uganda as the second largest foreign exchange earner after coffee, contributing 2.5% of GDP and 12% to agricultural GDP.10 Experts have warned that unless drastic measures are taken to reverse the indiscriminate depletion of the fishery resources mainly due to inappropriate fishing practices, the sector will not only cease to be Uganda’s second foreign exchange earner but the livelihoods of over 1,300,000 people who depend on it for food, income and employment generation will be adversely affected.11 For instance, the Nile perch, the predominant commercial fish species in Lake Victoria, has suffered a drastic decline in the level of its stocks from around 1 million metric tons in 2000 to approximately 350,000 metric tons in 2012.12 Therefore urgent sound management measures are required to reverse this downward trend.

1.2 Purpose and Objective of the Assignment The purpose of this assignment is to propose new modern and results-oriented institutional arrangements consistent with the thinking behind the 2004 National Fisheries Policy (NFP), after a thorough analysis of the existing (Fisheries Act of 1964) and/or proposed legal and regulatory framework (the Fisheries Bill 2007) alongside efforts and developments towards achieving the intended reforms in the sector that have taken place since 2004 to date.

1.3 Approach to the Assignment and Delivery of the Assignment The Consultant took a three phased approach to the assignment whose details showing the linkage between the specific Terms of Reference and the key activities undertaken by the Consultant to ensure their delivery and the manner in which the Consultant addressed the specific Terms of Reference are in the table below: -

1.4 Outline of the Report This Report is divided into four sections. Section One - comprises the background and context for the review; Section Two – which comprises the findings from the analysis, including findings on the current status focussing on the policy legal and institutional arrangements; the challenges faced by the sector and recommendations; Section Three – Focuses on Options for Modern Result Oriented Institutional Arrangements and proposes options for institutional and Organisational restructuring in the short, medium to long term, and identifies challenges to implementing the expected reforms. The

10 Uganda Bureau of Statistics 2011. 11 These include -fishers, boat owners, fish traders, local business enterprises at fish landing sites and the wider economies of villages and towns. 12 Information Sourced from UFPEA records.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

recommendations in the report have been adjusted to take the recent discussions that have been taking place between MAAIF/DIFR and the private sector led by key leaders from industry, farmers and fishermen/traders; Section Four is the Conclusion and Section Five comprises of the

Table 1Linkage between Specific Terms of Reference and Key Activities

Terms of Reference / Key No. Method of Delivering Activities

1 Review and critically analyse Prepared an inception report. the current policy and Legal Prepared a work plan. frameworks (including the Submitted work plan and Inception Report to UFPEA, successive versions of the DFR and RFU-EA for their comments. Fisheries Bill), as well as the Reviewed and analysed available literature including institutional arrangements in study reports, current policy, strategic plan, legal and terms of strengths, institutional framework. weaknesses/constraints/gaps, Reduced findings, recommendations and proposals into opportunities and threats. a technical report.

2 Consult stakeholders in Drafted interview tools and interview schedule which Uganda on the most effective was updated as interviews were secured and completed. and efficient institutional Conducted informant interviews and Focus Group arrangements. Discussions. Took photographs during field visits and informant interviews. Held meetings with UFPEA and officials from MAAIF to discuss the Fish Levy alongside old and new thinking for the Institutional Framework under which monies collected would be managed.

3 SWOT Analysis. Using the information obtained from 1 and 2 above carried out a SWOT analysis to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats which characterize the sector. A copy of the SWOT analysis is reproduced in the table below

Propose modern and results- Studied existing policy and legal framework, identified oriented new institutional gaps and came up with proposals for updating existing arrangements consistent with policy and on appropriate changes to the legal and the 2004 NFP. regulatory framework. Developed proposals for an institutional framework with clear role division and implementation mechanisms while aligning them with best practices in the region and beyond. Included proposals to ensure adequate financial and human resources are deployed to support implementation of agreed reforms.

A list of the people interviewed is in the Annex to this Report.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

2. Situational Analysis - Findings, Challenges & Recommendations

2.1 Overview Despite the seemingly positive developments that include several initiatives towards developing the sector, the findings on the ground indicate that Fisheries Resources in the lakes continue to decline due to over-fishing through use of prohibited fishing gear, poor and inadequate protection of the breeding grounds and poor conservation and environmental protection mechanisms for the water bodies and their shores. Most of the immature fish finds its way into the regional markets of the Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan and Rwanda. Hence the Fisheries Sector as a key foreign exchange earner and source of livelihood and wealth for a substantial part of the population is under threat of losing its position. Both private and public sector actors are concerned about the reducing Fisheries Resource which has seen the earning from exports drop from approximately US$ 150 million in 2005 to US$ 80 million in 2011 a 46.7% drop in 6 years). Therefore drastic measures are needed to address the weaknesses in the policy, legal and institutional arrangements governing the sector without further delay.

The information gathered from the literature review, informant interviews and focus group discussions indicates that there have been numerous efforts towards identifying the challenges facing the Fisheries Sector, whose key issues and indeed solutions are well documented, but what has been lacking is commitment to the call for action and implementation of the key interventions needed to reverse the downward trend. The Consultant used the findings from the interview and literature review to undertake an analysis of the sector using the SWOT analysis a summary of which is contained in Annexure1 to this Report.

Section Two is a summary of the assessment of the key policy, strategic and legal documents and information gathered from stakeholder engagements which it lays out as findings, challenges and recommendations alongside three key areas as follows: -

1. Current Policy, Strategic and Legal Framework 2. Current Institutional and Organisational Arrangements (Based on co-management). 3. The Fisheries Sector

2.2 Current Policy, Strategic and Legal Framework 2.2.1 Description A selection of previous studies and reports on the Fisheries sector in Uganda, contains detailed analyses of the policy framework which indicate overall that the Government and indeed the private sector actors had ably identified the key policy issues affecting the growth and development of the sector and come up with strategies on how they could be addressed at that time, but fell short at the implementation level. Below is an analysis and review of the key policy instruments: -

International / Global Policy Level Uganda is a signatory to a number of International Treaties, Conventions and Codes of Conduct which have an impact on the Fisheries Sector in as far as they govern international best practices on biodiversity and conservation of the environment, wetlands, endangered species and the conduct and handling of Fish as a food product. Below is a list of some of these obligations: -

The Convention of Biological Diversity of 1992 under the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) on which Uganda is represented by the Ministry of Water and Environment and other Environment conservations NGOs and CSOs. The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of 1971 The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF).

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Regional Policy Level In addition to the above Uganda is a signatory to a number of Regional Treaties and agreements, which bring regional policy dimensions to bear on the domestic Fisheries Policy framework. The Regional Treaties and Conventions include: -

The Treaty of the East African Community (EAC) Technical Corporation for the Promotion and Development of and Environmental protection of the Nile Basin (TECCONILE 1992), Convention for the Establishment of the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation (LVFO) 1994 The Lake Victoria Plan of Action to Prevent and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing on Lake Victoria and its Basin, May 2004 The LVFO Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity in Lake Victoria, of 2007

National Policy Instruments Finally, there are overarching National Policy Instruments, which underpin the Fisheries Sector Policy framework. These documents lay down the broad National Policy framework and include the following: -

The National Resistance Movement (NRM) Party Manifesto 2011-2016 The NRM Party Manifesto 2011-2016 is increasingly playing a significant role in Uganda’s Policy arena. Under the theme of “Prosperity for All – Better Service for All and Employment Creation”, it contains two major interventions for the Fisheries Sector which are to; a) “support and guide the protection and conservation of wild fisheries resources and their critical habitats; and b) promote and support intensive fish farming; fish feeds production and marketing and develop the value chain for fish for local, regional and international export markets.13

Vision 2040 Launched by the President in April 2012 to coincide with Uganda’s 50th Independence Anniversary, it provides plans and strategies to operationalize the Ugandan vision, which is “A transformed Ugandan society from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country within 30 years”. Government plans to invest directly in strategic areas to stimulate the economy and facilitate private sector growth by developing the necessary water development infrastructure for irrigation, water for consumption, industrial development, livestock rearing, fisheries, hydro - power generation and others. Under this National Vision, to promote commercial agriculture, Government plans to sustainably use water resources for irrigation, livestock watering, Fisheries and Aquaculture.

National Development Plan 2010/11- 2014/15 ‘The National Planning Authority (NPA) formulated the five year National Development Plan (NDP) 2010/11-2014/15 to replace the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) that had focused mainly on reducing the poverty but was unable to elicit the necessary stimuli for socio- economic transformation due to its emphasis on social services and less on productive sectors of the economy. The NDP is the first in a series of six NDPs that will have to be implemented in order to realize the 30 year Vision of 2040.’14

The National Export Strategy 2008 – 2012 15 The NEs, singles out the Fisheries Sector amongst the twelve strategic export sectors having been considered for the following major factors: - a) Possession or potential to possess a significant competitive advantage; b) Possession or potential to possess high value-addition; c) Extent of

13 The expectation is that with these efforts, fish production would increase from 473,000 MT in 2011 to 629,000 MT by 2016. 14 Abel Rwendeire, Deputy Chairman NDP, Key Note Address at the Celebration of Golden Jubilee of Uganda’s Independence at Bunkerei Im Augarten, Obere Augartenstrasse 1a,1020 Vienna, 7th October 2012. 15 The NEs is currently under review and preparation for the next phase is under way to cover 2017 – 2015. The plan is to reduce the priority sectors to focus on a few.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Contribution to development (employment, incomes, etc.);and d) High-growth in international demand.

The NES proposes a comprehensive management framework of several objectives and actions to address the critical issues affecting the Sector most of which are mirrored in other related policy documents and in this Report, and entail focusing on the Sector’s development, competitiveness, human capital, export competency and institutional perspectives. Amongst its key recommendation is the proposal to include and exert a control mechanism over all actors in the Fisheries Value chain.16 This is in line with what the private sector is proposing in this Report.

The Competitiveness and Investment Climate Strategy (CICS) The NEs focus on the Fisheries Sector is closely aligned with the Competitiveness and Investment Climate Strategy (CICS) 2011 - 2015 agenda aimed at reducing poverty and making Ugandans prosperous by focusing on the Unleashing of Growth Clusters amongst five key areas. The CICS like the NEs identifies the Fisheries Sector as amongst 7 clusters capable of having the most significant impact on Uganda’s economic objectives, which include employment creation and income generation.

The Diagnostic Trade Integrated Study (DTIS) ‘The April 2013 Report Update for the Diagnostic Trade Integrated Study (DTIS) for Uganda of October 2006, provides amongst other things, a detailed analysis of principal export products, including Fisheries.’ It underscores the dismal performance of the Fisheries Sector ‘where performance was notable for its lack of implementation.’ It adds that ‘In fisheries particularly, this is worrisome because the industry is crucial for the dynamism for Uganda’s growth and confronts enormous managerial problems.’17

The Fisheries Sector Policy Instruments The current Fisheries Sector policy and legal framework comprises of a number of key policy documents and instruments as follows: -

The Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP),2010/11 – 2014/15 The Provisional Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan, 2004. The National Fisheries Policy, May 2004 UFA Business Plan of 2005 (Not adopted)

The discussion which follows below gives highlights of the key provisions in these instruments and how they relate to the Fisheries Sector: -

The Agriculture Sector Development Strategy and Investment Plan (DSIP) The DSIP2010/11 – 2014/15is part of a broader framework of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) to which Uganda committed itself by signing the Uganda CAADP Compact on March 31 of 2010. In the CAADP, Uganda committed to the principle of agriculture-led growth as a main strategy; the pursuit of a 6 % average annual growth rate for the agricultural sector; and to increasing the share of the national budget allocated to the agricultural sector to an eventual target of 10 %. The DSIP is the foundation document for the CAADP Compact, a vehicle for moving the sector towards achieving both the national and CAADP outcomes and targets.18 The DSIP is implemented under two major components namely: - 1) The Agricultural Technology and Agribusiness Advisory Services (ATAAS) launched in 2012, with a view to improving the interface between agricultural research and advisory services (extension) and 2) The Non ATAAS which comprises commodity value chains including fisheries; technical in put (seeds, fertilizer,

16 See pages 124 and 125 of the NES Report 2008-2012. 17 World Bank; DTIS Update Report, April 2013, at page 45. 18 Uganda is far from meeting this undertaking because its budgetary contribution to agriculture reduced from about 6% in the FY 2012/13 financial year to 3% in the FY 2013/14.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

mechanisation, and water for agricultural production) and Institutional Reforms, Capacity Development and Communication.

The Provisional Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan (FSSP) There are 8 FSSP policy focus areas and they are a) Sustainable, environmentally sound management and development of capture fisheries; b) Sustainable aquaculture development; c) Post-harvest development; d) Investment, promotion and marketing; e) Information; f) Human resource development; g) Institutions, processes and funding mechanisms; h) Planning and policy-making.

The National Fisheries Policy (NFP) 2004 The NFP of 2004 has 13 strategic policy areas which include: a) Sustainable Fisheries management and development; b) Decentralization and community involvement in management; c) District, Sub- County and community partnerships in management; d) Institutions and funding mechanisms; e) Investment in fisheries; f) Planning and policy making; g) Information Dissemination; h) Environment and fisheries; I) Aquaculture; j) Post-harvest fish quality and added value; k) Fish marketing and trade; l) Human Resource Development (HRD); and m) Research.These strategies were developed to align with Uganda’s Vision 2025, the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) and the Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture (PMA) which constituted the National planning framework of the time but this has as indicated above since been replaced with the National Development Plan 2010/11 to 2014/15, and Vision 2040.

The UFA Draft Business Plan of 2005 A Draft Business Plan for the UFA had been drawn up by MAAIF with the help of a Consultant, working closely with Industry as part of the then effort to set up an independent Fisheries Authority but was never approved. Although not adopted it is important to document its existence to show how far efforts to set up an Authority had reached. The Consultant reviewed a copy from the UFPEA offices.

However, thechallenges facing the policy, strategic and legal framework for the Fisheries Sector is perhaps its greatest opportunity because it gives the stakeholders an opening to revisit the policy documents, to bring them in line with current trends and thinking and correct some of the assumptions that are no longer relevant, along the following recommendations: -

Fisheries Legislation and Supporting Regulations The Legal framework directly affecting the Fisheries Sector includes amongst others the following pieces of legislation:-

1. The Fish Act of 1951, Chapter 197 of Laws of the Uganda and the Regulations made there under. 2. The Fish (Beach Management) Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 35 of 2003 3. The Fish (Aquaculture) Rules, Statutory Instrument No. 81 of 2003 4. The Fish (Closed Area) Rules, Statutory Instrument 197 of 2008 5. The Fish (Amendment) Act, No. 5 of 2011 6. Draft Fisheries Bill of 2007 19

Other pieces of legislation that govern other sectors but have an impact on the Fisheries Sector and need to be harmonized with those listed above include: -

1. National Environment Act, of 1995, Chapter 153 of the Laws of Uganda and the regulations made thereunder. 2. The Water Act, 1997, Cap 152 3. The Food and Drugs Act, Chapter 278 of the Laws of Uganda

19 Findings from Informant interviews indicate that the most current and authentic Bill is that of 2007. There appears to be another Draft Bill of 2008, which does not appear to have reached Cabinet.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

4. The Forest Act Chapter 146 of the Laws of Uganda 5. The Income Tax Decree with respect to taxes on Fisheries inputs and income. 6. Inland Water Transport (Control) Act Chapter 356 of Law of Uganda 7. The Local Government Act, Chapter. Of 1997.

The Fisheries Act of 1951 The current Fisheries legal framework is primarily reliant on the 1951 Fisheries Act 20 with the above mentioned amendments that have been introduced over the years to curb the illegalities, provide for issuance of licenses and permits over different activities, and provide for quality assurance measures to meet market demands especially from Europe and the establishment of a Fish Fund.

The Fisheries Bill 2007 The first bill was developed in 2004 and it passed through a rigorous consultative process in 2005 and 2006 until it culminated into the 2007 Bill. The 2007 Bill was passed by Cabinet and sent to the First Parliamentary Counsel in the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs (MoJCA) who after the necessary consultations prepared the final draft and sent it back to MAAIF to prepare a Certificate of Compliance and Financial Implication, so that it can be sent back to Cabinet and finally readied for presentation to Parliament. The Bill however did not progress beyond this point due to the apparent change in thinking within MAAIF. The Consultant has established that there are no fundamental differences between the 2004 and the 2007 Bills.

The Consultant further established that subsequently MAAIF internally prepared the 2008 and 2009 Bills, whose objective was to enable the establishment of the Directorate of Fisheries Resources in place of the Authority. The Bills appear to have stagnated although some of their provisions like the elevation of the Department of Fisheries Resources to a Directorate have since been approved.

2.2.2 Analysis / Challenges in the policy framework The International and Regional Policy Instruments Uganda is committed to adhering to the International and Regional instruments relating to the Fisheries Sector that it signed onto. However, budgetary, human resource constraints and weak institutional arrangements hinder its ability to implement and or slow down implementation of some of these important undertakings.

The National Policy Instruments The NDP’s focus on the Fisheries Sector is greatly skewed towards Aquaculture and its key Sector programs / projects for the five year plan period, do not feature the Fisheries Sector as prominently as one would have expected given its importance and the challenges identified in the plan. Whereas the NEs, CICS and DTIS single out Fisheries as a priority Sector, the NDP and other policy documents do not appear to do so. As a result they lack sufficient specifics and follow through on how they intend to handle the challenges facing the Sector and how they intend to raise resources to address them. DSIP - The Non - ATAAS Action Plan for the Fisheries Sector has a public sector orientation which leaves out concrete proposals on engaging the private sector yet the private sector, LGs and civil society are supposed to implement the intended programmes.21 For instance the Action Plan does not mention how the existing public private sector partnerships are to be strengthened and or formalised.22 Apart from mentioning the need to strengthen the link between MAAIF and the LGs, restructuring the MAAIF and undertaking further functional analyses of different service providers, there appears to be little in terms of fundamental ground shifting around what kind of institutional arrangements are needed to revamp the fledgling Fisheries Sector. The Provisional Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan - assumes that decentralization would offer

20 The 1951 Colonial law was adopted by Uganda in 1964, revised in 1970 and finally in 2000. 21 MAAIF - Proposed Action Plans for the Agricultural Revolution of Uganda, October 2012, at page 6. 22 These are the Self Policing Mechanisms and National Task Force Arrangement.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

opportunities for participatory resource management at the lowest level, without adequate focus on the need to ensure that there were competent service providers, strong local governance structures and skilled human resources at the community level.

The National Fisheries Policy 2004 The NFP 2004 and the original proposals for establishing efficient institutional arrangements, although largely unimplemented, have been overtaken by events and are out of sync due to a number of changes in the socio-economic environment in which the Sector currently operates.23 Below are the key issues: The NFP 2004 lacks sufficient alignment with the NDP as the overarching policy framework in terms of socio-economic development and private sector involvement aspects of the Sector. These are critical because the Sector is largely private sector led and has increasing socio-economic dimensions due to the growing number of people depending on it for their economic and social livelihood. Since 2007/2008 there has been little tangible follow-up on implementing the key recommendations in the policy framework, despite a concerted private sector advocacy agenda on the said issues to date.24 The little that has been achieved has been on an ad hoc basis as and when there has been a crisis. For instance, responding to the banning or possibility of banning of Fisheries exports into the European Union, Uganda’s biggest external fish market has often catalysed action.25 In 2008, MAAIF and the Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) shifted away from the policy of establishing an Authority in favour of a Directorate. The argument has since been that the Directorate can ably perform the functions that were originally envisaged under the Authority.26 Since then, the DFR has been working on perfecting the establishment of a Directorate which the Ministry of Public Service (MoPS) granted them in 2010, but whose actualization has been facing challenges of a moratorium on recruitment of staff and inadequate funding.27

Provisional Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan 2004 The major problem with the Strategy is that it is a provisional arrangement dating back to 2004. This means that it was never formally completed and this could have affected its adoption and implementation. Critical issues to do with community /partnership involvement in the management of Fisheries Resources especially at the district level and the all important research aspects are not prioritized in the Strategic Plan yet they are critical to the success of the development of the Sector. The Strategy is not wholly in tandem with the 2007 Bill with respect to sources of funding. The Strategic Plan relies on two major sources of funding namely; the export levy, the income accruing to Local Governments from permits, taxes and landing site tenders. This leaves out other sources of funding which are specified in Section 31 of both the 2004 and 2007 whose details should ideally be contained explicitly in the Strategic Plan.

The Consultant noted that there is not enough uniformity in the approaches to developing the Fisheries Sector in the various policy instruments that she reviewed with the exception of the NEs and the CICS

23 Uganda is famous for producing very well written policy instruments but most never get implemented either because they lack the goodwill and commitment of the chief implementers or the funding required to support implementation is never released or is released late. 24 There have been diametrically opposed schools of thought on the institutional framework. One is in support of converting the current DFR into a Directorate and the other is for the UFA as proposed in the 2007 Bill with modifications. The Bill fell short of clarifying the residual role of the DFR and the Ministry and this could be the reason behind those opposing the UFA. Please note that Footnote 5 above (p. 2) also talks of three schools of thought concerning the most appropriate institutional framework. 25 The ban during 1998 and 1999 cost Uganda a loss of close to US$2.6 million and was due to fish exports from Uganda failing to meet the EU quality assurance standards. 26 MAAIF and DFR during the discussion on the Budget Framework Paper proposed a fish levy of 2% on export earnings based on information and figures gathered in 2004 which are grossly out of date as the export earnings from the sector have been reduced to ¼ of what they were back then and the number of factories reduced from 20 to about 14 to date. 27 The establishment of a Fish Fund to support its activities by retaining some earnings and the overall inadequate funding to the Department was never completed although a law to that effect was passed.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

documents. This portends for inadequate focus on and prioritisation of Sector issues in terms of strategic direction, resource allocation and implementation arrangements and responsibility.

Fisheries Act Most of the legal provisions in the Fisheries law especially to do with Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) and amendments thereof have not been implemented and or amended to the extent they should, given the level of illegal activities within the sector.28 The 1951 /1964 Act was set up when the sector had not grown to the level it is today and its focus was mainly on regulating fishing activity and not on development of the sector and management of the resource. It therefore can no longer serve the purpose and objectives of the sector as is today. While there have been amendments to the Act over the years, most have been ad hoc, selective, geared to addressing short term crises and therefore not very long term or able to bring about a fundamental change as is currently needed.

The proposed Fisheries Bill 2007 The proposed 2007 Bill was not passed and neither were the subsequent attempts at coming up with a new framework of a restructuring the Department into a Directorate through the 2008 and 2009 Draft Bills.29 See earlier discussion on this matter. The 2007 Bill gives responsibilities to the Minister of State for Fisheries30 without providing the necessary administrative structure below the Minister’s office to assist in carrying out the Ministerial functions. The 2007 Bill falls short of clearly articulating the role of the Directorate for Fisheries Resources once the Authority is established, how it should be structured and clear guidelines on how it would relate to the Minister on one hand and the Authority on the other hand. There is a fear that if these roles are not clearly spelt out the Minister, Directorate and Authority’s roles could clash and hamper the development of the Sector. The funding sources provided for in the 2007 Bill are not exhaustive as they do not include all funds paid to the consolidated fund by the industry and other actors like the fisher folk. The proposed levy focuses on exports only; yet current thinking is that the levy should be extended to apply to other actors along the value chain for instance those who export fish to the regional markets, and those who export high value fish bio-products such as fish maw. The Bill does not have a provision for the establishment of a Fish Fund31 or a dedicated account on which monies collected from the sector should be banked and ring fenced for ploughing back into the sector. The Bill is not strong on provisions that regulate the domestic trade and consumption of fish especially as it relates to food quality and food security. When you visit the landing sites and compare the level of hygiene practiced on the side where fish for export is handled and the one where fish for the domestic market is handled you will notice a very big difference and yet some of this fish is what ends up on the regional market and could easily slip into the factories. Selective Application of the Legal and Regulatory Framework –The majority of actors either fishing Uganda’s waters or locally trading, processing and exporting fish and fish products especially within the region, are not licensed and or registered. In addition many of these actors are not members of the known associations making it difficult to supervise and monitor their activities. This affects the enforcement of the set rules and regulations governing the sector and impacts on revenue collection potential of the sector.

28 Representatives of the Fish Processors and Exporters opine that even if all that Uganda did was to implement the existing Fisheries laws and regulations we would make a significant difference. 29 Copies of these bills were never distributed and or discussed with Stakeholders. 30 See Section 6-9 of the Fisheries Bill 2007. 31 The initial proposal in the Provisional Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan was to establish a Fisheries Management and Development Fund and to have a separate Fund for the Regional initiatives on the joint water bodies.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

In addition it affects the sustainability of the private sector associations who find themselves unable to attract these members and to influence or discipline them yet most of them are the biggest culprits when it comes to flouting the Fisheries rules and regulations.

2.2.3 Recommendations The analysis and findings above give rise to the following recommendations most of which have been around awaiting implementation: -

The Policy Framework - The overall policy framework for the Fisheries Sector needs revisiting to focus on new issues that have emerged since 2004,while taking into account the metamorphosis and escalation of some of the long term issues. Recent efforts to go back to the drawing board are focusing on updating the Legal framework as a priority to stem the tide of decline. However, there is need to align the changes in the regulatory framework with corresponding changes in the policy, strategic and or business plan frameworks so that the three sets of documents actually talk to each other.32 Fisheries policy documents should align with the NDP and other Government Policy documents that have an impact on the Fisheries Sector. This will create a solid base for anchoring the proposed changes to the legal and regulatory framework, in Government policy priorities and objectives. Develop a new Business Plan after amending or updating the Fisheries Sector Strategic Plan. The Fisheries Act and Fisheries Bill - The Fisheries Bill 2007 should be updated and a new bill presented to Cabinet and passed by Parliament to replace the archaic Fisheries Act of 1951 and to give effect to the planned policy, strategic and institutional reforms. The Amendments should focus on the following priority areas:-

o In light of the proposal to revisit the establishment of a Fisheries Authority and maintain a lean Directorate of Fisheries to act as the Competent Authority for purposes of regulating quality assurance and other aspects as indicated above, there is a need to state clearly what the role of the Directorate will be vis-à-vis the Fisheries Authority within the Bill. o Amend the law to regulate all actors that are involved in the Fisheries Value Chain including aquaculture activities to support institutional arrangements intended to foster development and protection of the Fisheries and aquaculture sectors in the country. o The proposal to extend the charges under the Fisheries Sector especially the levy beyond the fish exporters and eventually be introduced possibly at a lower rate to cover aquaculture should be followed up and implemented. This will make collection of the different taxes and levies equitable, easier and will plug loopholes for revenue leakage.33 o The organised Private Sector proposes that a provision be included in the law to persuade all actors in the sector to join or form organised associations and or cooperatives through which they can receive services. This way they can be licensed for ease of identification and ease self - regulation from the peers. o Provide clear provisions that focus on the food quality and security aspects of the sector especially as they relate to the domestic and regional markets, which are not presently emphasised. o Research and Training - The provisions relating to research and training currently under miscellaneous items in Section 137 should be given better prominence in the law as it is very important to the sector and the roles and relationships between the research and training institutions be clearly articulated within the proposed institutional framework including reporting arrangements. The proposal is to have this under the Authority as opposed to having

32 According to Philip Borel - Vice Chairman UFPEA, in view of the real urgency, the process of making changes to the policy need not entail a full blown reformulation but rather an update and or upgrade of the policy instruments 33 A system similar to that instituted by URA where money is paid directly into the bank using Bank Advice Forms (BAFS) should be adopted.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

it under the MAAIF. The proposal by MAAIF to put in place a regulatory framework for the training institutions should be pursued. o It is also important to provide for more detailed transitional arrangements to cater for the time between the passing of the law and actual establishment of the Authority. This will include clear guidelines on how existing staff in the Directorate will be handled especially those who do not get absorbed in the new entity.34 o The New bill should have stronger punitive sanctions for those found to be operating outside the law. For instance penalties for using illegal gear, fishing, buying, transporting and trading in immature fish should attract substantial penalties to make it costly to engage in this illegal business. o The Authority when established should have equal representation from the public and private sectors with private sector leadership. A more detailed presentation of the proposed changes to the law is contained in the Technical Outputs in Annex 5 to this report.

2.3 Current Institutional and Organisational Arrangements 2.3.1 Description The Ministry for Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries Resources (MAAIF) The current institutional arrangements for the sector comprises at the top the Minister for Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries Resources (MAAIF), under whom are three Ministers of State one of whom is in charge of Fisheries.35 Below them is a Permanent Secretary who as accounting officer, caters for the whole of MAAIF. Under the Permanent Secretary are two Directorates of Agriculture and Animal Industry and beneath the latter are two departments one for Animal Resources and the other for Fisheries Resources. At the lower level are Fisheries Units within the Local Governments in which the water bodies are located and all of which are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry for Local Governments.36

The Current Macro Structure of MAAIF showing the Fisheries Department in relation to other sectors is attached as Annex 3.

Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) / Directorate of Fisheries (DIFR) The Fisheries Sector has for long been managed by a Department under the Directorate of Animal Industry until 2010, when the MOPS permitted MAAIF to establish the Directorate of Fisheries Resources (DIFR). The change of direction from the Policy, which had been adopted by the Government, in 2004 was not widely shared amongst all stakeholders. The reasons for this shift in policy appears to have been driven by fears amongst decision makers: - a) that establishment of the Authority would further fragment MAAIF, which had seen most core sectors like Coffee, Dairy, Cotton and the research arms establish independent or semi independent institutions; b) split the already meagre resources of the Ministry; c) the lack of a clear framework on how existing staff in the Directorate were to be handled; and finally; d) the possibility that the Authority could fail to raise sufficient funding to pay its way. However, the Directorate is yet to be fully established and has been transitioning organically from a Department, due to inadequate funding from the Government and the moratorium on recruitment by MOPS. To date the Directorate is operating under an Acting Commissioner while the appointment of a Director is awaited.

See the Organisational Structure for the Directorate as of presented in the MAAIF Functional Review of 2010, in Annex 4.

Beach Management Units and Lake Management Organisations

34 These omissions in previous bills to address matters relating to retrenchment, retirement and redundancy, are in the Consultant’s view, indirectly correlated with the stagnation of the establishment of the authority and other related proposals. 35 The Current Minister of State for Fisheries is Hon. Ruth Nankabirwa. 36 Most Fisheries Officers are now under the various Local Governments making it difficult for the DFR to supervise and discipline them. The Dairy Development Authority is also experiencing a similar problem in that the Dairy Development Officers under the various Local Governments are not under their control. The DDA has devised a mechanism of working with them through MOUs.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

In addition to the above the Government in a bid to undertake an Integrated Lake Management Approach (ILMA) introduced the Beach Management Units (BMU’s) and Lake Management Organisation (LMO) to ensure that the people who derive livelihood from fishing the lakes are involved in their sustainable management. Although created by the Government, they are essentially private sector led and managed but not properly supervised. To date some of the BMU’s are trying to become highly organised and institutionalised although most are struggling under the yolk of poor governance structures, inadequate financing and resource mobilisation arrangements, corruption and political interference.

‘The biggest and most successful LMO in Uganda is the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization (LVFO), which is discussed in detail under Regional organizations below. The exit of the DFID funded Integrated Lake Management (ILM) project from Uganda in 2004, tested the survival of the other newly formed lake management organizations.37This was because the Local Governments failed to meet their financial commitments to maintain small secretariats of these organizations and provide support to lake wide activities. Little support to these LMOs was also provided by national government and hence their dismal performance.’38

Regional Institutional Arrangements An example of a Regional Institutional arrangement is the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organisation (LVFO), a regional entity whose role is to coordinate and manage Fisheries Resources of Lake Victoria. The Organization was formed through a Convention signed in 1994 by the three East African Community (EAC) Partner States of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania sharing Lake Victoria. The objective of the LVFO is to foster cooperation among the Partner States by harmonizing national measures, developing and adopting conservation and management measures for the sustainable utilization of living resources of Lake Victoria for maximum socio-economic benefits of all East Africans through a joint mechanism for managing Lake Victoria. Through the Regional Plan of Action for Management of Fishing Capacity (RPOA-Capacity) developed in collaboration with the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and approved for implementation by the LVFO Council of Ministers the LVFO has been spearheading the prevention, deterrence and elimination of illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing on Lake Victoria.

The Fisheries Training Institute The Fisheries Training Institute (FTI) in Entebbe was meant to provide a training ground for human resource in the Sector. At one point it had been taken over by the Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) until July 2010 when a Cabinet directive it reverted back to MAAIF. Unfortunately it is still in a state of disrepair partly due to inadequate funding but also due to the incomplete legal process which left some aspects of the schools activities under the MoES.

Fisheries Research Institutions Uganda has one major of Fisheries Research Institution. The National Fisheries Resources Research Institute (NaFFIRI) supports the sector by conducting basic and applied research of national and strategic importance in Aquaculture, Capture fisheries, Water environment, Socio-economic and Marketing and Information Communication Management and emerging issues in the Fisheries Sector. The Kajjansi Aquaculture Research and Development Center (KARDC) a branch of NaFFIRI, is dedicated to aquaculture research and development. These two institutions have done a tremendous amount of useful research despite the meager resources allocated to R&D especially in the Fisheries Sector.

Private Sector Organisations / Initiatives

37 Lake George Basin Integrated Management Organization (LAGBIMO) and Lake Kioga Integrated Management Organization (LAKIMO). 38 James Scullion; Occasional Paper 13, Inland Fisheries Co – Management in EA , 2007

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

On the private sector side, there are private sector associations, which are providing an institutional framework for self-regulation or self-monitoring on top of advocating for a better and competitive environment for their members and the sector. These associations include: -

1. The Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association (UFPEA) - which commissioned this study brings together 14 fish processors and exporters in Uganda. Since 1993, to advocate for policies that favour the sector and succeeded in transforming the industry and provide other critical member services. 2. The Association of Fishers and Lake Users of Uganda (AFALU) - comprises of fisher folk and is mainly operating in Mukono District. Its members include grass root fishermen and women, boat owners, traders, fishmongers and other involved in handling and dealing in fish in one way or other. 3. Uganda Fisheries and Fish Conservation Association (UFFCA) - which is mainly operational on Lake Albert and on Lake Victoria in Busoga, Eastern Uganda although not very active of late. Its focus is on 4. Walimi Fish Farmers’ Cooperative Society (WAFICOS) - is a legally registered fish farmer's co-operative under the Uganda Co-operative Alliance (UCA)39 whose role is to bring together fish farmers in Uganda to advocate for the development of the Aquaculture Sub-sector. 5. The East African Industrial Fishing and Fish Processors Association (EAIFFPA) - which brings together the three national fish processors and exporters private sector associations in Uganda (Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association (UFPEA), Kenya (Association of Fish Processors and Exporters, Kenya) (AFIPEK) and Tanzania (Tanzania Industrial Fishing and Processors Association (TIFPA). It is currently the focal point for the Self Monitoring and Control and Monitoring Mechanism in the East African Region.

The Self Monitoring and Control Mechanism 40 The objective of EAIIFPA’s undertaking the Self Monitoring and Control initiative is ‘to fight the illegal fishery, optimizing the catches and safeguarding the future of the industry. Although the self- monitoring is not part of the Regional Plan of Action for the Management of Fishing Capacity in Lake Victoria developed in 2007, it is seen as a very important addition to it.’ 41

The Self Regulation and Monitoring Mechanism has reduced the number of immature fish which end up at the factory gate by ensuring the fishermen who deliver immature fish to the factories do not get paid for it and factories give it away to charity. The mechanism has worked quite well that some factories have been closed on account of dealing in immature fish.42 The Self Policing Mechanism is funded fully through collections from the Fish Processors where the factories contribute up to UGX 350,000/= per month for fuel and allowances for the inspectors.

Private - Public Sector Initiative - The National Task Force Mechanism A National Fisheries Task Force (NFT) was initiated by UFPEA in 2007, constituting Officers from Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR), Uganda Fish Processors and Exporters Association (UFPEA), Uganda Police, Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), Beach Management Unit (BMU) representative with the objective of enforcing relevant laws and controlling illegal importing and criminal use of illegal fishing gears, trading in immature fish, trading without proper documentation, smuggling and practicing Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing; promoting enforcement through joint and synergistic action with relevant Departments; and regulating transactions and trafficking in contraband fish and Fisheries related products.

39 ‘Walimi’ is a Swahili word that means ‘farmers’. 40 See Hilde De Beule at Note 36. 41 ibid, at page iii. 42 At least 6 Factories were closed due to illegal practices since the onset of the self monitoring mechanism in 2007 but many others have closed because they were working below capacity levels due to lack of product arising from low fish catches and the recent slump in market demand especially from Europe due to the recent economic squeeze.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

NTF was active for a while during which time it was able to develop a standard operational manual on monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS); a concept paper on support to enforcement which was presented it to the Permanent Secretary; Guidelines on importation and marketing of fishing gears; facilitated the stamping out of fish poisoning activities in Mityana and Mayuge and they developed a database on Fisheries illegalities. The NTF mechanism did not go very far because it lacked a clear institutional arrangement, funding, means of enforcing its decisions and the avowed and equal levels of commitment of all the parties involved. 43

The Proposed Agricultural Police Force The Ministry has indicated that it intends to set up an Agricultural Police Force similar to the URA Anti Smuggling Unit, to curb the rampant illegal activities in the sector by using it to enforce the law and regulations governing the Sector and to apprehend and prosecute wrong doers. This will include a specialised marine and land force to take care of the three sectors under MAAIF. The Consultant was unable to establish details on how far this effort had gone and what its relationship with the National Police Force and Army will be. It is also not clear how it will be funded, who will command it and how and to what extent it builds on the original idea of having a dedicated Fisheries Surveillance Force as proposed in the 2007 Bill.

2.3.2 Analysis / Challenges in the current institutional arrangements General Observations Inadequate funding for the agricultural Sector and MAAIF as a whole is a deterrent to implementing of agreed policy objectives including the ones for the Fisheries Sector. Corruption was sighted by a number of informants as a major hindering factor in the exercise of functions intended to supervise fishing activities, especially policing the waters to deter illegal fishing and the use of illegal gear. Some officials charged with the responsibility of enforcing regulations and law and order have been sighted by the same informants as being complicit in the illegal activities they were engaged to fight.44 Hence, defeating the fight against the vices that are leading to the depletion of the resources and degradation of the water bodies’ eco system. Lack of a modern legal framework is encouraging corruption and the continued use of illegal gears and illegal destructive fishing methods, which have led to the depletion of the Fisheries Resources45. The decentralisation of the administrative units in which the Fisheries Resources are found has led to less than optimal liaison and control by the MAAIF/DFR of the Fisheries Resources overall. This is partly due to inadequate funding and partly due to the fact that the Fisheries Officers are now under the control and direction of the Local Governments hence making it impossible for the DFR to supervise them.

Department / Directorate of Fisheries Resources (DFR / DIFR) The DFR/DIFR is in a state of flux and continues to run under the yolk of constraints key of which include the following:-

Presently the Department is run without a proper head since the removal of the substantive Commissioner almost 3 years ago and the Director (Commissioner?) is yet to be appointed. This has greatly affected the strategic decision-making process and led to stagnation and the reversal of the reform momentum ignited by the challenges that affected the sector between 2004 and 2006. The functional set-up of the Directorate as currently proposed has inadequate detail on how the directorate is to engage with the private sector especially industry (UFPEA) and the fish traders, fisher folk associations and the nascent aquaculture sector. Most of the engagement in this regard

43 Nancy Gitonga on the National Task Force Mechanism in Uganda. 44 Some BMUs are manned by people who engage in illegal fishing and they cannot police themselves, while some Officials have been accused of inaction in the face of rampant illegality while would be pro active enforcers have been threatened by armed groups on the water bodies. 45 See Yasiin Mugerwa; Monitor of 23rd February 2013.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

focuses on Civil Society and NGOs and yet in practice they tend to have a narrow agenda that does not necessarily address all the Fisheries issues especially the business related ones. Inadequate funding levels were sighted as the biggest challenge that has affected the ability of the DFR to fulfil its mandate. One of the interviewees mentioned that the Department is under resourced and even never receives all the money allocated to it within the budget. For instance it is allocated UGX 4 billion a year but only a small fraction of this money is received and even then this is often disbursed late. Although the Department was given permission to retain some of the money collected through licensing this has not been implemented. There is inadequate human capacity and financial resources to undertake the broadened mandate including building the capacity of fish inspectors as well as providing them with the requisite technical resources.

Co- Management System – BMU’s / LMOs Inadequate regulatory and supervision capacity by the DFR, of Local Governments and BMU’s has made them less effective than envisaged. The BMU’s governance and funding mechanisms are yet to be properly established, streamlined and or implemented / enforced. Coupled with low understanding of co-management among the different stakeholders, including the roles of the BMUs and inadequate vetting of candidates (read Chairmen) most are run without proper and most times less than desirable leadership. 46 BMU’s officials are often faced with insecurity especially in their effort to police the water bodies. Wrong elements engaged in illegal activities are usually heavily armed or get support from some rogue elements in the security and police forces. This has put the lives and properties of some of the BMU members in danger and discouraged them from effectively playing their role. Lack of proper funding mechanisms and clear guidelines for collecting and accounting for revenue, most BMU officials work more or less like volunteers while others have taken advantage of vacuum to engage in corrupt tendencies through rent seeking and open trading in immature fish.47 LMO’s like BMUs are not adequately funded by both the local and Central government and neither has their governance been properly established to meet the objectives for which they were established.

The Fisheries Training Institute (FTI) The school is ill equipped, underfunded and having some elements still under the control of the Ministry of Education has created coordination and control problems for the Sector. The school faces stiff competition from Universities, which are now offering degree courses in Fisheries management but also in food science and technology, which the Institute does not offer. The findings also indicate that the courses taught at the Institute are no longer relevant to the sector’s growing and more complex and technologically advanced needs.

Fisheries Research Institutions– A concern was raised regarding inadequate prioritization and consideration of the Fisheries Research Institutions needs during budgetary allocations, which are channeled through National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO) and MAAIF. There was also a very low uptake of research findings into the planning and development and management of the sector as whole by the DIFR and other actors in the Government who would be the primary beneficiaries.

Private Sector Initiatives

46 See also Konstantine Odongkara; “Beach Management Units: Uganda’s Experience” A Paper presented at the Regional Seminar for The East African Communities’ Organization for Management of Lake Victoria Resources (ECOVIC - Uganda Chapter) as part of the activities marking the World Fisheries Day, at the Brisk Recreation Center, Jinja: 24 November, 2009. 47 See Francis Kagolo - under the Save Lake Victoria Campaign – BMU Perpetuating Illegal Fishing; New Vision; April 23rd 2013.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

A recent study by Hilde De Beule on the Self Monitoring Mechanism across the three East African Countries of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania indicates a level of frustration amongst the Fisheries Industry Associations due to lack of reciprocal enthusiasm from the respective Fisheries Departments, and this she argues is threatening to reverse the gains made if not addressed.48 For instance some of the fish which is turned away at the factories ends up on the mostly informal, illegal domestic and regional markets.

There is no clear framework for linking the DIFR with private sector actors despite the BMU legal framework, which has not worked that well. As a result of this anomaly Public / Private Sector efforts like the Self Policing Mechanism and the initiated by UFPEA and the National Task Force to curb rampant malpractices have hit a dead end as the DIFR has no locus within which to carry through the recommendations that ensue from these arrangements.

2.3.3 Recommendations The key recommendations from the analysis of the current Institutional arrangements are summarised as follows: -

1. Establish an optimal institutional framework for the sector with a clear division of roles and robust implementation mechanisms of agreed proposals. The detailed proposals on the proposed framework are contained in Section 3 of this report and the Technical Outputs, which are in Annex 5 to this report.49 2. Align the chosen option with best practices in the region and strengthen efforts towards existing regional arrangements geared to protecting, developing and growing of the Fisheries sector in the region. These include the National Fisheries Task Force and UFPEA driven the Self Policing Mechanisms. 3. Create an elaborate mechanism within the new institutional arrangement to cater for a closer supervisory framework for the co-management arrangement that has been developed including provisions for building the capacity of private sector associations to make them viable partners. 4. MAAIF proposal to establish an Agriculture Police Force appears to be a long-term plan as this will be a very big force yet the Fisheries sector needs a force to be established as soon as possible. The design of the force should allow for separate wings to cater for Agriculture (Crops), Livestock and Fisheries Resources because each has different demands and therefore forces working in each will require respective specialised training. Members to serve in the Fisheries sector should preferably be drawn from the marine police, as they need to have skills to man the surveillance boats that have been in disuse over time.

2.4 The Fisheries Sector 2.4.1 Description The Sector is largely based on capture Fisheries from five major lakes of Victoria, Kyoga, Albert, George and Edward with Victoria and Kyoga being the greatest contributors.50 There is a nascent Aquaculture Sub-Sector and emerging cage farming which needs to be nurtured. The Fisheries sector’s performance has been declining progressively over the years starting with dwindling volumes of the fish catch, to the reducing variety of species from the various water bodies especially Lake Victoria, to a reduction in the export tonnage and value. As indicated in the background to this report, fish exports have reduced from about US$145 million in 2004/2005 to US$ 80 million in2011/12. Similarly the tonnage exported has reduced from 40,000 tonnes per year in 2004/2005 to slightly over 15,000 during the same period. Uganda, which holds 43% of Lake Victoria area, contributes only

48 See Hilde De Beule – FTRon Case Study of Lake Victoria Industrial Fish Processors And Exporters Associations and their Efforts to Fight Against Illegal Fishing Through the Self-Monitoring and Control Initiative. 49 Current developments in MAAIF point towards revisiting the Authority as opposed to going with the Directorate as an alternative. private sector involvement especially in the management of the funding to the sector to which they contribute substantively, needs serious consideration by the public sector actors. 50 See Consultancy to Study and Make Recommendations on the Draft Fisheries Bill 2004, Final Report August 11, 2005, Development Options, at pages 5-8.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

18.6% of the total catch as compared to Kenya which holds 6% but contributes 14.6% while Tanzania which holds 51% contributes 66.6% of the total annual catch of approximately 800,000 tonnes.

Overarching Political, Social and Economic Environment Issues The analysis notes that the political and socio-economic environment within which the Fisheries Sector operates has been affected over the years by the following endogenous and exogenous developments which have directly or indirectly influenced the sector as follows:-

1. The 1997 Decentralisation Policy in Uganda which of recent has seen the districts suitable for Fisheries and aquaculture development divided into more relatively un-viable and therefore difficult to manage smaller units, detaching the Fisheries officers at the District level and the fisher folk further from MAAIF/DFR control and supervision. 2. The HIV/AIDS pandemic has over the last 20 years affected the fishing communities especially around Lake Victoria, creating a host of other social problems that affect the development of the sector in general. 3. The re-establishment of the East African Community (EAC) in 2000 which has called for closer collaborations on managing the common water bodies amongst the East African States and led to consolidating efforts by creating inter-state Lake Management Agencies as well as regional treaties and plans of action on Fisheries Resources management. 4. The establishment of the co-management framework through Beach Management Units (BMUs) and Lake Management Organisations (LMOs) in 2003 which sought to involve the fishing community in the governance and management of the Fisheries Resource and the water bodies. 5. The Global Economic crisis which has created erratic demand for the fish products especially in the European market in the last two to three years leading to decreased demand in Europe and greatly affecting export volumes and prices. 6. The Open Access Policy, which has seen the uncoordinated irregular, unregulated, and uncontrolled (IUU) influx of people onto the water bodies without proper control mechanisms.

2.4.2 Analysis / Challenges in the fisheries sector Open Access Policy The open access policy to the water bodies introduced by the Government between 1990 and 2000 has attracted many unregulated people along different levels of the fisheries value chain and into the Sector. Coupled with weak and inadequate licensing mechanisms it has led to the proliferation of unauthorised fishing vessels on the lake whereby according to the 2010 LVFO Frame Survey, of the 56,957 vessels found operating on the Uganda side of Lake Victoria, only 13,450 or 24% had been registered and licensed.51

The image below shows immature Nile Perch fish being sold at one of the landing sites caught using the banned monofilament net and mosquito nets.

Environmental, Human Activity Related Challenges The Value for Money Audit undertaken by the Auditor General in June 2010/2011 indicates that pollution and environmental degradation on the lake had led to the extinction of a large number of fish species.52 The resurgence of water hyacinth and the emergence of new weeds pose a serious problem to the water bodies especially Lake Victoria and have impacted on the aquatic life by affecting the regeneration of the fish biomass. Climatic change remains a threat to the fishing and aquaculture development in the country. Erratic rainfall and drought patterns have led to lengthy drought periods fluctuating water levels

51 Yasiin Mugerwa; Government Loses Billions in Illegal Fishing Annually, Monitor, February, 21st, 2013 52 ibid;

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

and the reduction of some lakes and rivers all of which have affected fish multiplication and growth. Human activities around the lakeshores are another environmental hazard affecting Uganda’s water bodies. For instance Lake Wamala in Mityana District in the mid South West is reported to be dying due to cultivation near the lakeshores, which has led to silting, and the shrinking of the lake over the years. Other activities include the flower farms and factories, which spew effluent into the water bodies. The rampant use of plastic bags to create sinkers and floaters for suspending the fishing nets is introducing non-biodegradable debris onto lake floors, which are the natural habitat and breeding grounds for fish.

Use of these plastic bags was sighted at one of the landing sites during the field visit as is shown in the picture below: -

Socio- Economic Issues The prevalence of HIV/AIDS - The fishing communities are particularly vulnerable to HIV/AIDS because of the high mobility of the fisher folk, the daily cash income and the lower status of women in many of the local cultures. Some fishing islands in Lake Victoria are overcrowded and with very poor sanitation methods hence leading to the spewing of sewage directly into the lake.

Pre and Post Harvest and Infrastructure Issues The sector is saddled with a number of capacity issues ranging from input supplies, tools, infrastructure, planning and implementation of the said plans, gathering and interpreting scientific information, and investment capital especially in the still nascent area of aquaculture. Below are some of manifestations of these issues: -

Management Planning Tools- Inadequate species-specific management plans – Although Lake Victoria has specific management plans for some species such as Nile perch (Nile Perch Fisheries Management Plan, NPFMP), but there is need to expand this to other water bodies and species in the country whose plans are inadequate. There is also a problem of lack of implementation and enforcement of these plans once they are developed and approved. Information and Data Collection - Poor data collection due to limited resources to cover a number of water bodies with many scattered small fish landing sites. Inadequate knowledge on the status of fish stocks in all water bodies on which to establish sustainable levels of fishing with the exception of Lake Victoria where the LVFO conducts periodic surveys.53 Financial and Budgetary Constraints - The Agriculture Sector Budget has been oscillating between 3 and 6 % of the total budget and this is hardly enough to meet all Sector needs. For example the Fisheries Sector has been working without sufficient funds to meet its growing needs. Lack of capital for investment in aquaculture and lack of organized market for farmed fish;

Inputs, Infrastructure, and Equipment Expensive and unaffordable inputs especially fish feed - lack of feeds to sustain the real opportunities in aquaculture have hampered the development of the Aquaculture subsector which could help stem the scarcity of the raw material on the capture side. Lack of adequate facilities for seed multiplication and artificial propagation for restocking and stock enhancement for both capture and aquaculture fisheries.

53 The proposal to expand the coverage of the LVFO to all water bodies across the East African Countries could go a long way in ensuring that fish stocks of different species in all the water bodies are periodically monitored and established.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

The roads leading to and from most of the landing sites are in a sorry state and need to be refurbished in order to ease transportation of fish from the lake to the market. An example of an impassable road is Kasensero Landing Site. The numerous landing sites built using Government resources under the Irish Aid program are not fully utilised.54 The site at Majanji was commissioned but is not usable due to lack of power and an inadequate ice plant but also due to lack of movement towards creating a PPP that would enable the private sector to lease and run it. 55The Consultant also found the security arrangements at the site lacking. The image below was taken at Majanji Landing Site: -

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) Measures Fees, Charges, Taxes and Levies The current licensing and fees regime comprises of many different charges, fees and levies paid along various points of the Fisheries value chain, but most are not uniformly applied especially at the landing sites. Most people engaged in fishing are not licensed nor do they pay all their dues. A case in point is that whereas volumes of regional fish exports surpass by far the export volumes, the majority of the traders involved are not licensed nor do they pay taxes. Weak control mechanisms arising out of poor entry and exit mechanisms, (registration and licensing) constrain and frustrate the monitoring and surveillance effort. Inadequate supply of Surveillance Vessels, lack of marine trained manpower, a dedicated Surveillance Force and financial resources is constraining the MCS activities on Uganda's water bodies

Standards and Illegal Fishing Gear Although the current legal framework is very clear on what is allowed as legal fishing gear and on what is considered as the right size of fish to catch by specie, a big number of fishermen still use illegal fishing methods and tools. The fishermen argue that the legally acceptable nets and other gear attract high tariffs and are therefore expensive, while others noted that the insecurity on the lakes which has led to theft of boats, nets and other gear discourages them from buying expensive ones when others are using cheaper though illegal ones. Lastly the illegal nets come freely into the country primarily because some of them can be used in the manufacture of other goods.

2.4.3 Recommendations This report therefore recommends the following measures to improve on mechanisms for , managing, developing, regulating and controlling the Fisheries Sector: -

Overarching Political, Social and Economic Issues 1. The Open Access policy needs to be revisited alongside proposals for strengthening the legal framework and enhancing the MCS mechanisms starting with a clear entry and exit policy as indicated in the discussion below. 2. Detachment of MAAIF from the Riparian Districts through Decentralisation - The proposal by MAAIF to… should be taken up and implemented so as to bridge the gap between MAAIF, the proposed UFMA on one hand and the LGs on the other hand. 3. Co – Management Framework – See recommendations under the institutional arrangement above. 4. Global Economic Crisis Challenges - The proposals in the just ended National Export Strategy (NES) (year) is to encourage diversification through value addition, efficient utilisation of fish

54 Other similar Landing sites around the country funded by the EU under the Implementation Fisheries Management Plan (IFMP); Kalangala Landing Site funded through ICELANDIC Aid and others by the African Development Bank worth millions of shillings are lying idle and in disuse.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

by - products, stimulating local fish consumption beyond the Nile Tilapia and formalising the hitherto informal Regional Trade to maximise control and revenue collection. 5. The EAC Opportunities - Uganda needs to put in place mechanisms that will enable it to harness regional opportunities through the strengthening of the existing regional organisations through increased funding. Socio – Economic Issues – 1. The Fisheries Sector through the proposed Uganda Fisheries Management Authority (UFMA) and MAAIF should work closely with the Ministry for Health (MOH) to create collaborative mechanisms to tackle health issues at the landing sites and among the fisher community. Environment and Human Activity – 1. Develop concrete mechanisms for collaborative approaches through MOUs between MAAI /proposed UFMA and other related Government agencies to jointly address environmental and human activity related issues that are threatening the water bodies. 2. Through the NTF conduct joint surveillance exercises and impose punitive measures for offenders. Monitoring Control and Surveillance (MCS) 1. Develop and enforce a clear and transparent licensing mechanism for the Fisheries including licensing of boats on the lake, the fisher folk and let the licensing have elements of demarcating fishing areas to streamline and make policing of illegal fishing activities on the lake easier and workable. 2. Move towards rationalising and harmonising the various charges and levies paid at different levels of the value chain especially given the recent move towards establishing a Fisheries export levy in the 2013/2014 Budget. For instance the hitherto numerous charges as mentioned earlier in the report (with the exception of corporate tax) and which are paid at the different levels should be reduced to two or three including the fish levy whose import is to specifically finance the development of the sector. 3. Establish a Fisheries Surveillance Force and to equip it with weapons and tools to undertake surveillance activities on the lake and help enforce the regulations.

Fisheries Standards for Fishing Gear 1. Collaborate with the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UBOS) under the auspices of the Ministry of Trade Industry and Cooperatives (MTIC) and the Uganda Revenue Authority (URA) to set up standards to regulate the importation, manufacturing and use of fishing gear and weed out the rampant use of illegal fishing gear such as monofilament, other undesirable nets such as mosquito nets and wrong size fishing hooks. 2. URA and the Government should consider reducing tariffs on authorised fishing gear, enforce the ban on the importation and manufacture of illegal gear in Uganda and increase taxes on imports of finished gear and or materials used in the other sectors which cross over into the Fisheries sector and are used to produce illegal nets (seine nets popularly known as Kokota as well as monofilament nets).

3 Options for Modern & Result Oriented Institutional Arrangements

3.1 Introduction The structure of an Organisation is determined by several factors, including the environment in which it operates. The Fisheries Sector operates in a changing and dynamic environment, which requires that any structural and Organisational reform, gives it the flexibility to make and enforce timely decisions,56 set realistic targets and performance indicators in order to deliver on its mandate.

56 Staff at the DFR / DIFR generally feel that there is a high level of indecision or slow pace at which decisions are made in Government, mainly due to absence of clear policy implementation roadmaps, and or frameworks but also most plans are never funded once developed.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

The development and management of the Fisheries Resources is one of the most researched and most discussed topics and continues to be on the top agenda of a number of international organisations mainly because of its impact on food security and nutrition issues, the environment and conservation of biodiversity as well as being a source of livelihood, income and potential foreign exchange earner as a tradable commodity.

The Department of Fisheries Resources (DFR) which is currently in charge of the sector has increasingly faced challenges in tackling problems facing the Sector due to structural inadequacies within MAAIF, inadequate resources both human and financial which have consistently left it unable to tackle the growing responsibility of developing the Sector, controlling and protecting the use of the natural resource and guiding the development of alternative ways of increasing availability of the Fisheries Resources using technology. According to one of the Senior Officials of the DIFR “the problems in the sector today require timely responses backed by easily accessible substantial financial and other resources which a Government Department however well intentioned is incapable of delivering, given the bureaucratic and complex nature of governments.”

Private Sector actors among the fishermen, lake users, fish farmers and processors have mobilized themselves into industry associations whose goal is among others to work closely with and support the DFR to put in place self regulating mechanisms that are meant to reverse the rampant increase in use of illegal fishing gear, overfishing, the catching and trading in undersized fish as well as the wanton destruction of the water bodies through environmentally unfriendly human activity and the destruction and depletion of fish breeding grounds.

The proposals for reform seeks to build on a number of developments and efforts discussed in the Section Two of this report the most significant of which is the upgrading of the Department of Fisheries to a Directorate, giving the Fisheries Sector a level of autonomy within the MAAIF structure, and weaning it from the already wide Directorate of Animal Industry, under which it has been unable to achieve a level of development, commensurate with its potential contribution to the economy and to the livelihoods of people who depend on it for sustenance.

The state of the sector today and thefindings and observations discussed in Section Two, clearly illustrate the need for the Fisheries Sector to develop a functional institutional arrangement with distinct and devolved roles between the public and private sectors at the domestic, regional and international levels and feeding into other related agencies whose work affects or impacts on the sector. This calls for an examination of other frameworks that have been created within Uganda, the region and beyond to gather best practices that will inform the decisions on the nature of institutional framework to be adopted.

3.2 Lessons from the Other Institutional Frameworks Lessons from Uganda The model of creating separate Authorities to take care of sectoral matters or specific roles within the economy is not new to Uganda, which has a number of Authorities both under the MAAIF and other Ministries. For example the National Forest Authority (NFA) is under the Minister for Water and Environment (MoWE), the Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS), the Uganda Export Promotion Board (UEPB) and the Uganda Investment Authority (UIA) are under the Ministries in charge of Trade and Finance respectively.

Under MAAIF there is the Uganda Coffee Development Authority (UCDA), the Cotton Development Authority (CDO), and the Dairy Development Authority (DDA), which are charged with the

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

management of the Coffee, Cotton and Dairy Sectors. According to the study done by Development Options in 200557 a comparative analysis of existing authorities yielded the following key lessons: -

1. The Objectives and Functions for which the authority is established must be clear and must relate to each other and functions should not overlap. 2. The Governance Structure should comprise of a lean Board not exceeding 10 to 11 members and should have a mix of both public and private sector representation while avoiding domination of one group especially the public and quasi public sector. 3. Although there is a general drive towards sustainability and most of Authorities are funded through a cess or levy, funding mechanisms still include a government subvention given that the services to be provided are for the public good and the tendency for funding from the levy to be dependent upon level of exports/imports, services provided and license fees collected all of which are subject to fluctuations. 4. In almost all cases the relationships between the parent Ministry, the residual department in the Ministry if any and the Authority is not clearly articulated within the law often leading to conflict due to overlap or lack of clarity of roles.

Lessons from Outside Uganda An analysis of the institutional frameworks governing the Fisheries Sector amongst countries in the East African region and beyond, shows that although there are more similarities than differences especially with regard to objectives and functionality, the approaches differ from country to country especially with regard to the roles and internal Organization. The analysis also shows a growing tendency towards separation of the core functions between the Ministry and authorities to be along the lines of policy, legal and regulatory frameworks on one hand and the management and development of the sector on the other hand with the supportive functions of research and training split into additional separate institutional arrangements. Below is a brief description of five examples of institutional arrangements from within and without the East African region: -

1. A Directorate or Department of Fisheries within a Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries where the Fisheries Sector is under an independent Directorate or a Department under the Directorate of Animal Industry, which is similar to the current Uganda model. 2. An independent Ministry of Fisheries similar to what Kenya had until the advent of the new Government in March 2013, when it was collapsed back into the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries to meet the Constitutional requirement of a lean cabinet of 18 Ministries overall. 3. An all-encompassing Authority which caters for all sectors including Fisheries (Kenya excluded Livestock). A case in point is the Agricultural, Fisheries and Food Authority established by the Agricultural Fisheries and Food Authority Act 13 of 2013by the Kenyan Government. The Authority will work alongside the Department of Fisheries in the Ministry of Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries and will manage the Fisheries Sector under the current Fisheries Act of 1989. The Consultant was not able to establish how the roles between the two are going to be divided because the information was not readily available. 4. An independent Fisheries Authority similar to the Australian Model where the Authority exists alongside the Australian Ministry for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry. The Authority is established by the Fisheries Administration Act 161 of 1991and governed by the Fisheries Management Act 162 of 1992. The legal framework for the Australian model is very elaborate and detailed on the roles and responsibilities of all the actors as well as the reporting requirements amongst the different players. 5. An Agricultural Development Board that covers agriculture, animal resources and Fisheries and58 works concurrently with the Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources, as in the

57 Development Options – Final Report on Consultancy to Study and Make Recommendations on the Draft Fisheries Bill 2004, August 11 2004.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

case of Rwanda. This appears to be very similar to the Kenyan model but the latter specifically states that one of the Departments of the Authority shall be that of Fisheries. 6. An Authority which is established to deal with a specific section of the Fisheries Sector or fishing zone or water body especially on high seas and oceans. For example the Tanzanian Government formed the Deep Sea Regulatory Authority in 199859 to handle the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) over which Tanzania claims rights over fishing and other economic activities.

The Australian and Mozambican Examples Mozambique and Australia are two examples of countries that have established entities separate from but closely linked to the Ministry to run the Fisheries Sector. The Mozambican Government established the National Administration of Fisheries (Authority) (Administração Nacional das Pescas- ADNAP) to manage the Fisheries Sector with support from other institutions.60ADNAP is run alongside the Ministry of Fisheries which has National and Provincial levels. The Australian Government on the hand established the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), which is in charge of managing the Fisheries Resources of the Australian commonwealth but structurally is also closely linked to the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry and to the Parliamentary Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

An analysis of AFMA’s institutional arrangements, which have been in existence for almost 20 years, shows that an elaborate legal framework which clearly spells out the roles and responsibilities of the different actors in the sector, the Ministry inclusive, with clear reporting lines, is a pre-requisite if a seemingly independent institution is to work harmoniously with the parent Ministry like, AFMA has done. A table showing the institutional, functional and governance arrangements for the Fisheries Sectors from selected countries is contained in the Annex to this report.

3.3 Suitability of arrangements to the Ugandan situation As a result of the review of the arrangements implemented in different parts of the world and region, Table 3 was drawn up as a summary. The table 2 below shows the Fisheries Institutional arrangements within the East African countries and indicates a leaning towards a separate authority for the Fisheries and other agriculturally leaning Sectors:

Table 2 Fisheries Institutional Arrangements within the Countries of the East African Region

Country Ministry with Directorate / Authority or Executive Separate Research and Department of Fisheries Agency Training Institutions Burundi INE INE Kenya Uganda None Rwanda Tanzania Key: INE – Information Not Established. 3.4 Options for Consideration for Uganda’s Fisheries Sector The informant interviews and literature review came up with the following as options for the Fisheries Sector institutional arrangement, that have been considered and discussed extensively by stakeholders and previous consultants in Uganda:-

58 The Consultant was unable to get sufficient details in how the Fisheries Sector issues are addressed under both the Ministry and the Board in the Rwandan example. 59 Established under the Deep See Regulatory Authority Act of 1998. 60 The National Institute for Fisheries Research (IIP) and the National Institute for Fish Inspection (INIP); the National Institute for the Development of Small Scale Fisheries(IDPPE), the National Institute for the Development of Aquaculture (INAQUA), the Fisheries Promotion Fund (FFP) and the Fisheries School (EP).

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Option A Maintain the status quo by finalising the transformation of the Department of Fisheries Resources into a Directorate to work as the reformed institutional arrangement that will carry out all functions originally envisaged for the Authority. Recent thinking includes the creation of a mechanism for engaging the Private Sector into the administration and management of the sector through Stakeholder Platforms that would meet regularly under the auspices of MAAIF/DIFR to discuss issues concerning the sector.

Option B Create a Fisheries Authority to completely take over the work of the Department of Fisheries Resources. The Fisheries Authority to report to the Minister for Fisheries who will be responsible for appointing its Board of Directors and to have the Directorate scraped and staff not taken on by the authority retrenched. This was the option that was included in the 2004 NFP and the 2007 Fisheries Bill and was not implemented due to lack of support from within the Fisheries Department, MAAIF and the then Minister of State.

Option C Create a Fisheries Authority as proposed in Option B above but maintain a lean Directorate for Fisheries within the MAAIF. The proposal envisages that the leaner Directorate will be in charge of developing policy and legal and regulatory framework, quality assurance and standards enforcement and bilateral, regional and international liaison and negotiations on Fisheries related matters. The Authority on the other hand will take charge of managing and developing the sector focussing on control, regulation aspects of both the capture and culture Fisheries Subsectors and ensuring that the research and training aspects are properly linked with sector objectives and aspirations. 61

3.5 Pros and cons of the three Options Given the challenges stated in Section Two and given that for over 10 years the Directorate of Fisheries has not been able to stem the tide of decline even with its enhanced status from a Department, there is need to look and try other options guided by best practice in the region and beyond. Lessons from the Coffee, Dairy, Cotton and Forestry sub-sectors indicate that co-existence between authorities and their parent ministries is possible although it is not a panacea for Government to abdicate its overall responsibility for the sector. The pros and cons of the three options are set out in the Table 4 below.62

61 Option C has an alternative in the event that the Department cannot get to Directorate Status. There is a proposal that if there is no justification for having three Departments then the Directorate Status cannot stand. This means that the Department Status would stay and remain under the Directorate of Animal Industry. It is therefore in the interest of the Industry to strive for an Independent Directorate. 62 Adopted from Consultancy Report 13, on Strengthening Fisheries Institutional Development in Kenya, July 2005, by B F Blake and Consultancy Report 15 on the Development of a Proposal for Funding the Uganda Fisheries Authority July 2005 by Arthur E Neiland.

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Table 3 Suitability of Selected Institutional Best Practice to Uganda’s Circumstances The table below is a comparative presentation of the 6 models’ characteristics, form and countries where they are applied and finally their suitability to the Ugandan circumstances.

Model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Description / A Directorate or An Independent An all - encompassing An Independent Fisheries Authority- An Agricultural Development Board- to A Regulatory Department of Ministry of Regulatory Authority which working alongside the parent Ministry. handle more or less all the sub-sectors Authority–which is Key Fisheries within a Fisheries - similar caters for all sectors including Under the Australian Model the Authority under the agriculture portfolio including established to deal to what Kenya had Characteristics Ministry of Fisheries (Kenya excluded exists alongside the Australian Ministry fish. An Agricultural Development Board with a specific until advent of the Agriculture Animal new Government in Livestock). E.g. Agricultural, for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry. that covers agriculture, animal resources section of the Industry and March 2013,. Fisheries and Food Authority is established by the Fisheries and Fisheries and63 works concurrently Fisheries sector or Fisheries. An independent Authority established by the Administration Act 161 of 1991and with the Ministry of Agriculture and fishing zone or Fisheries sector is Ministry with a Agricultural Fisheries and governed by the Fisheries Management Animal Resources, as in the case of water body under an separate Senior Food Authority Act 13 of 2013 Act 162 of 1992. The legal framework for Rwanda. This appears to be very similar especially on high independent Minister and of Kenya. the Australian model is very elaborate to the Kenyan model but the latter seas and oceans. Directorate or a Permanent and detailed on the roles and specifically states that one of the Department under Secretary or responsibilities of all the actors as well as Departments of the Authority shall be the Directorate of Accounting Officer the reporting requirements amongst the that of Fisheries Animal Industry different players. within the Ministry. Usually has a Deputy Minister but share Accounting Officer with other sectors

63 The Consultant was unable to get sufficient details in how the Fisheries Sector issues are addressed under both the Ministry and the Board in the Rwandan example.

Page 25

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Model Model 1 - Model 2 - Independent Model 3 – All Encompassing Regulatory Model 4– Model 5– Model 6 –Specialized Directorate or Ministry Authority Independent Agricultural Regulatory Authority Department Fisheries Authority Development within a Ministry Board

Country Uganda - Headed Kenya - Ministry was Kenya - The Authority will work alongside the Australia, Rwanda Tanzania - For example the Where by a Department collapsed back into the Department of Fisheries in the Ministry of Mozambique -See Tanzanian Government formed the Applied under the Ministry of Agriculture, Agriculture Livestock and Fisheries and will discussion on Deep Sea Regulatory Authority in Directorate of Livestock and Fisheries to manage the Fisheries sector under the current Australian and 199864 to handle the Exclusive Animal Industry. meet the Constitutional Fisheries Act of 1989. The Consultant was not Mozambican Economic Zone (EEZ) over which requirement of a lean cabinet able to establish how the roles between the two are examples above. Tanzania claims rights over fishing of 18 Ministries overall. going to be divided because the information was and other economic activities not readily available.

Model Type Model 1 - Model 2 Independent Model 3 – All Encompassing Model 4 – Independent Model 5 – Model 6 –Specialized Directorate or Ministry Regulatory Authority Fisheries Authority Agricultural Regulatory Authority Department within Development Board a Ministry

Suitability to Similar to status quo Though desirable, is not Entails creating one big Authority to Is a phenomenon that is In Uganda’s current Not suitable to Uganda at the Uganda and experience over achievable in the current handle more or less all the sub- common in developed circumstances may be moment although it could be Circumstances the past 11 years economic situation of sectors under the agriculture countries but beginning to very complex, lengthy considered for instance when shows that the national budgetary portfolio which in Uganda’s current take root in Africa. Available and costly because it the sector grows bigger and Directorate cannot in constraints and where the circumstances may be very literature shows that if would require a complete becomes self-sufficient to its current form bring natural progression should complex, lengthy and costly properly established can be over-haul of the entire warrant an authority for about the desired be for a smaller public because it would require a successfully used to address Agricultural sector. Capture and Culture change administration framework. complete over-haul of the entire the problems Uganda is Fisheries respectively or by agriculture sector. grappling with at the Water bodies. moment.

64 Established under the Deep See Regulatory Authority Act of 1998.

Page 26

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Table 4 Pros and Cons of Proposed Options

Options Advantages Disadvantages Options A – The Directorate has been granted only Top down approach with little Directorate requires finalising establishment. room for involving stakeholders under MAAIF Permission to retain funding granted Inflexible and protracted needs implementation. Government procedures not Team of highly qualified senior supportive of urgently needed technical staff changes. Office space and available Bureaucracy and delays in Likely to be less costly. getting decisions made and Staff to get slightly better salaries and implemented.( 11 years to decide option to climb up one notch. on institutional arrangement) Funding for the DIFR is part of overall MAAIF budget; allocations released late, limited operational funds. Unlikely to make needed rapid changes in sector development

Option B Autonomy gives freedom to make timely Independence may create issues Fisheries decisions without interference. with quality assurance of Authority to Funding can be collected in house and completely detached from Replace DIFR managed under Board oversight. Government. NB – This Allows long term planning because of Acceptability levels low as seen option is not expectation of continuous flow of in the first attempt. likely to be income Costs of deregulating the DFR considered this Ability to connect research training and retrenching staff could be time around needs and development very high against establishment but it is of new Organisation. possible to Self funding could be affected by move towards changes in government policy on from after retention of funding Option C. Option C – Supported by both DIFR and Private A new institution so costs could Lean sector and have worked together on be prohibitive Directorate crafting the functions roles of each. Could be seen as yet another with an Possibility of sharing Fisheries facilities attempt to dismember the MAAIF Authority in the interim high and could reduce Possible overlaps with DIFR is costs. ( Bugoloobi Ice Plant) roles and responsibilities and Division of roles agreed between reporting lines not clearly defined Directorate and Authority made easy Retention of DIFR though lean because of Government clear mandate. could make Authority too closely Competent authority role to remain with linked and create friction and DIFR so no problem of getting insufficient freedom. accreditation. If linkages between the two are Creates avenue for ring fencing funds not clearly defined on areas for the sector to put in priority areas retained by either could be source that the DIFR could not do alone of conflict. Allows room for participation of all stakeholders and for their control and management Ability to operate as a business and

Page 27

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Options Advantages Disadvantages deliver on performance indicators because of private sector orientation. With the right Board could be an institution to trust with funds for the sector. Capable of quick turnaround time on critical issues due to timely decision making process. Creates room for linkages with research and training and could ease access to funding Easily creates mechanism for Co- management which because of the huge private sector involvement has proved difficult for DIFR to navigate. High chances of raising revenue including donor funding. Potential for attracting high calibre staff from within and outside the sector.

3.6 Recommended Option for Institutional Framework for Uganda This Final Technical Report proposes that the Fisheries Sector in Uganda would be best served if it adopted Option C given that the gains to be made with regard to streamlining private sector and fisher folk’s involvement in taking responsibility for balancing between competing objectives of resource exploitation and resource protection on one hand and supporting the generation of funds for developing the sector on the other hand, far outweigh the concerns mainly on cost and funding related issues and the potential conflict and duplication of roles between the Authority and the Directorate. The Table below summarises the main characteristics of Option C mentioned on 40 above.

Table 5 Main Characteristics of Option C

A lean DIFR within MAAIF as Competent Authority d with Policy legal and regulatory framework, quality assurance, standards setting and bi lateral, regional and international relations liaison. A UFMA –Governing private sector led Board of 9 to 11 member with Public and Private sector representation, with management development, monitoring control regulation functions of both capture and culture Fisheries, and closer liaison with Fisheries research and training institutions Fisheries Development Fund - For Ring fencing funds generated from the sector and those received from the Government for ploughing back into the sector.

Key Considerations Institutions and organisations are greatly influenced by the environment in which they operate. The current environment is very dynamic and calls for a framework that will allow timely decisions, setting and implementing realistic targets within an equally dynamic policy, legal and regulatory

Page 28

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda” framework. According to Dr Arthur E Neiland,65 the key factors to consider when establishing a successful fish management framework as presented from a 2005 study on the subject include: -

1. Cooperation and communication between all stakeholders; 2. Sufficient institutional capacity (including policy and legislation) to ensure that biological, economic and social objectives are met; 3. An ability to deal with the complexity of multiple stakeholders and multiple and often conflicting objectives between stakeholders and related sectors; 4. Creating appropriate incentives including fiscal systems and user-rights frameworks.66

Additional issues for consideration include:-

Top leadership within the Ministry and Government – The Permanent Secretary, MAAIF and the Ag. Commissioner for Fisheries Resources, have taken the lead and are championing the effort of revisiting the idea of establishing an Authority for the Fisheries Sector. It is expected that they will continue to coordinate this effort and ensure commitment to the required changes by the top policy makers in the Ministry starting with the Minister of State for Fisheries; followed by the staff of the Fisheries Directorate and other staff in MAAIF. Attitude Change – The proposals made require a paradigm shift in attitude of both MAAIF and other stakeholders in the sector. Leadership will be required at all levels to ensure appreciation of the need for the changes by devoting time and resources to training and counselling. Resources –Having the critical resources to manage the change will determine how quickly and how successful the reforms will be. Therefore adequate human and financial resources must be made available to facilitate planning and implementation of the recommended changes. It is important to have an early discussion of budgets and potential sources of funding. There is need to develop a comprehensive Financing Strategy to determine what the resource outlay will be and potential sources. An early understanding of the human resource needs will entail a human resource audit of the existing staff so that when planning for staffing the Authority the existing staff compliment and its capacities are known. Performance Management Imperatives– It is very important that early thinking goes into the development of performance targets as well as monitoring tools for the Reform Process to start with as a means of measuring progress towards the reforms. Communication Strategy – There is a need to ensure that all stakeholders are regularly informed of the developments and progress towards reform effort. This will require the use of a mixture of approaches which include the use of IT and mobile telephone network to reach especially the fishermen who may not have access to internet technology.

Proposed Changes to the Functional and Organizational Arrangements One of the concerns of the stakeholders in the Fisheries Sector regarding the recommended Option C (Comprising of a DIFR, UFMA and a Fish Development Fund), is the potential conflict between the residual Directorate of Fisheries and the Authority when created. It is therefore imperative that the objectives and functions of the two are determined and clearly articulated to avoid duplication and overlap. It is very important to ensure that the initial discussion focuses on the functionality of the proposed entities and not the jobs and this will guide the development of an appropriate structure. The functional arrangements described below will be further refined by the Organisation Development team which will probably work with the Committee or such team as they will deem fit to develop the initial strategic objectives of the Authority within an updated strategic/business plan.

65 See Consultancy Report No 15, Development of a Proposal For Funding the Uganda Fisheries Authority. 66 Quoting Cunningham & Bostock, 2005 as quoted by Dr Arthur E. Neilland.

Page 29

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Once the functions for the two entities are agreed and established the next step is to determine the form or organisational structures or what internal arrangements will be required to enable the two entities carry out the proposed functions.

Proposed Functions for the DIFR and the UFMA The separation of functions between the DIFR and UFMA must be guided by what is commonly accepted as the key functions of Fisheries Management. During pre 2013/2014 Pre - Budget discussions on the institutional arrangements, the stakeholders comprising selected representatives from MAAIF and the Private Sector reviewed the current functional arrangements of the DIFR and those for UFA which were originally included in the 2007 Bill.

The Consultant was then requested to come up with a draft, which was reviewed by a small Task Force comprising technical representatives from the DIFR and key private sector representatives to come up with an agreed draft. It is expected that these draft functions will be subjected to further discussion and refinement before they are finally presented for approval. The outcome of the proposed functions against key functions of Fisheries Management is summarised in the tables below.

Table 6 Functions of Fisheries Management in Relation to Proposed Functions for the DIFR

Functions of Fisheries Proposed Functions of the DIFR Management Information To draft enact and review policies, strategies, regulatory frameworks gathering and data and programs that promote and guide the Fisheries sector. Collection To provide guidance on the policies, strategies, regional and Setting Clear Goals international obligations that govern the Fisheries sector. and Objectives To provide guidance in the development and management of the Formulating Rules Fisheries sector. and Guidelines The Directorate shall play the role of the Competent Authority for fish Holding quality and safety in Uganda, Consultations with Provide frameworks for collaboration with neighbouring countries, Stakeholders domestic regional and international institutions and Organisations with Timely Decision regard to management of trans-boundary Fisheries Resources. making and To carry out surveys to collect management data in collaboration with allocation of research. resources

Table 7 Functions of Fisheries Management in Relation to Proposed Functions for the UFMA

Functions of Fisheries Proposed Functions for the UFMA Management Information gathering Establish integrated management strategies, frameworks, programs and and data Collection processes for the efficient and effective management of Uganda’s capture Analysing and and culture Fisheries that are sustainable and environmentally and forecasting socially desirable. Planning Set up a collaborative framework with other relevant Government Setting Clear Goals institutions, and organisations whose work impacts on the sector in and Objectives relation to the activities of the Authority. Holding Consultations Establish a dynamic framework for effective co-management by all with Stakeholders stakeholders involved in the sector including local authorities, Beach Timely Decision Management Units and Lake Management Organisations, fishing making and allocation communities, fish farmers, processors, traders and service organisations. Support and implement programs geared at promoting key areas required

Page 30

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Functions of Fisheries Proposed Functions for the UFMA Management of resources for the effective development of aquaculture. Implementing and Liaise with the Fisheries Research and Training Institutions to prioritise enforcing rules and and ensure demand driven research and adequate skills for management regulations and development of the Fisheries Sector. Effectively enforce the Fisheries laws and regulations for the sustainable exploitation of Fisheries Resources. Establish and manage a Fisheries Development Fund and a sustainable funding mechanism for the sector, with revenues earned from fish levy on exports, fish related activities and other sources ploughed back for research, development and management of the Fisheries. Manage and implement a mandatory requirement for all Fisheries operators to belong to key stakeholder associations, recognised by the Authority for ease of ensuring implementation of national policies, regulations and adherence to performance standards. In conjunction with the DIFR establish mechanisms for managing the conservation, improved production and productivity of the Fisheries Resources; In conjunction with the DIFR, work with counterpart institutions in the region and regional Organisations to enforce policies and regulations that govern Trans-boundary fishing and fish trading in consonance with regional and international obligations. Manage the implementation of a clear framework to control IUU and to promote fish trading in consonance with regional and international obligations. Collaborate with the Competent Authority in ensuring fish product quality and safety are maintained in accordance with national regional and international standards. Provide for promotion of infrastructure development along the production chain.

Establishment of a Fisheries Development Fund The initial proposal in the 2007 Bill was to establish a Fisheries Trust Fund through which moneys from the sector could be channelled and ring fenced for ploughing back into the sector as mentioned elsewhere in this report.

This Report proposes that the Fund should be established under the Authority but not as a Trust because establishing a Trust will be close to creating another organ within the Authority and it will require appointing Trustees to take care of the Fund hence creating another governance layer. Secondly, Trusts are registered under the Ministry of Land and Housing and the process is lengthy and difficult to change.

The Fund should have a separate account and ideally should follow the Tanzanian example where a special committee under the Board of Directors is appointed to provide oversight over the Fund’s management and utilisation. The Committee should have representatives from MoFPED, DIFR and the Chairperson of the Board of Directors of the Authority.

3.7 Additional Considerations It is expected that for the process to run smoothly and for the above processes to be handled expeditiously, there will be a need for retaining of technical assistance to support the Public- Private Sector Committee. The skills that are required as identified in earlier reports include:-

Page 31

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Policy, Legal Analysis, Regulatory Reform and advocacy Organisation design and development including the important aspect of Change Management Project Management and Procurement Training and capacity building in various areas beyond fisheries. Negotiations, Consensus building and Communication Financial Analysis and planning.67

A more detailed proposal on this Option including a description of the tentative organisational arrangements for the DIFR and those for the proposed Authority is contained in the Annex to this Report.

3.8 Implementation Arrangements Given the potential for reforms and change to have negative rather than positive results if not properly handled, it would be best to adopt a transitional approach towards implementing the reforms over the short, medium to long term by proceeding as shown in Table 8.

4 Conclusion The review of the policy, legal strategic and institutional arrangements for the Fisheries Sector enabled the identification and re-affirmation of the gaps and challenges that have impeded the movement towards full implementation of the policy, the passing of the 2007 Bill and finally establishment of the Authority. This Report comes at a time when MAAIF and the DIFR have had a change of mind and have agreed to revisit the idea of establishing an Authority in place of having a Directorate to perform the functions originally envisaged by the Authority.

Following this change at the Ministry, Industry Representatives and the Fisheries Private Sector envisage a model similar to the Australian model where an independent Authority (The Uganda Fisheries Management Authority) will co-exist with a Directorate of Fisheries in MAAIF with clearly differentiated roles and responsibilities interned into the rubric of the law.

The Report notes that the focus of this new initiative is on updating the 2007 Bill and getting the legal aspects out of the way and this is commendable, with a caveat that the Law must be anchored in an equally updated Policy to sharpen its strategic focus and bring it in line with the current Government development plan objectives and vision.

Secondly the issue of funding is very critical to the success of the proposals in this Report, hence the strong recommendation to establish a Fisheries Development Fund under the ambit of the Authority in order to give the Private Sector an opportunity to ensure that the money collected from the Sector is ploughed back to address the most critical challenges of the day.

Finally, the proposals presented in this Report are the outcome of several months of back and forth consultations and represent what appears to be the emerging consensus between the Ministry represented by the Directorate of Fisheries and the Industry and other Stakeholders consulted. There will be need to agree and prioritise the recommendations and the critical action points contained in the Implementation Action Plan and have them developed further with a strategically phased and sequenced approach, so as to transition gradually from the status quo to the proposed institutional arrangement.

67 Reproduced from Dr. Arthur E. Nelland, Consultancy Report No. 15, Development of a Proposal for Funding the Uganda Fisheries Authority, 2005,

Page 32

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Table 8 Implementation Matrix and Action Plan

Sequencing Objective Actions Observations Time Frame Proposals 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Responsibility First Phase Undertake Formalise on going public/ private The Committee chaired by implementation of sector dialogue under a formal PS MAAIF, should reforms that could go arrangement through a recognised comprise: key officials from ahead immediately, Committee within the Ministry to the DIFR/MAAIF; without requiring external spearhead the reforms Representatives from the approvals or that could Create Task Forces for specific research and training be implemented in the assignments under this committee to institutions; key private short term handle designated assignments of sector representatives and this phase and other phases. other institutions whose Broadening Committee to include work affects the Fisheries other stakeholders in the sector to sector to spear head make process all inclusive. consultation on preliminary Develop and agree mechanisms for issues that need raising funds to support the initial agreement on the reform effort. proposed reforms.

Raise Funds and start the process Actors MAAIF, MoFPED DIFR, UFPEA, BMUs Finalise formation of Fisheries AFALU, WAFICOS, Directorate and appoint the Head to Donors. strengthen and shorten the decision making process.

Page 33

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Observations Time Frame Sequencing Objective Activities Proposals 2013 /14 2014/15 2015/16 Responsibility Second Undertake implementation of reforms that Finalize updating of the Policy and The proposal should Phase require careful consideration, sequencing Sector Strategic Framework establish the viability of the and external approvals and processes in alongside the updating and revising two institutions and their the medium to long term. of the 2007 Bill, build and obtain ability to provide the stakeholder consensus and intended services. agreement on the changes and have The proposals would have them approved by Cabinet and to be approved by the Parliament. Government as it is Building on initial work done in this expected that the area, develop a proposal with Government will provide appropriate technical assistance for some seed funding to the Restructuring of the DIFR and support the process. Establishment of a Fisheries Authority The funds to be raised detailing the organisational and should include the cost for institutional arrangements as well as developing offices for the staffing requirements and use it as a authority and some of the basis for raising funds internally and informants propose the externally to support the reform. former ice plant premises to Develop a new and or update the be a suitable place. existing business plan with an appropriate Implementation Matrix Actors MAAIF, MoFPED and Work Plan with costs, timelines DIFR, UFPEA, BMUs and responsibilities AFALU, WAFICOS, Raise funding and or establish Donors. sources of funds and obtain permission to support direct appropriations from funds collected from the sector.

Page 34

“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”

Time Frame Sequencing Objective Activities Observations, Proposals 2013 /14 2014/15 2015/16 Responsibility Third Implementation Phase of the agreed Identify temporary The realistic private sector Phase and approved reforms in accordance office premises. expectation is that the with the proposals above and these Proposal is to have planning process could take will follow the implementation the current space at about 6 months to a year to strategy that would have been former Fisheries Ice have what is required in place developed as part of the Proposal in Plant in Bugoloobi and given the urgent need to the Second Phase above. renovated and used in reverse the decline in the the initial stages as sector the target should be to finalisation for a start implementation of the proper permanent agreed reforms at the structure is underway. beginning of next year or next financial year with a view to having an Authority beginning Work through the 2015. There is a need to avoid Committee to retain rushing the process to give Consultants to undertake time to the numerous the recruitment and processes, functions, skills organisational capacities that are needed to development. be in place before in order to Establish and launch the have an orderly transition Authority and into the new institutional restructured DIFR. arrangement.

Actors MAAIF, MoFPED DIFR, UFPEA, BMUs AFALU, WAFICOS, Donors.

Page 35