Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
"Strengthening Fisheries
Management in ACP Countries"
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
the views of the European Union.” The content of this document does not necessarily reflect the views of the concerned governments.”
Final Technical Report
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
“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”
1
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.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
2
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.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
3
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”
4
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.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
5
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.
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 of which are not uniformly applied especially at
the landing sites. Hence 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.
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.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
6
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.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
7
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”
8
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 DIFR Proposed Organisational Units for the
UFMA
Policy, Legal and Regulatory Development
Quality Assurance and Safety.
Bilateral, Regional and International
Organisation and Liaison
Fisheries Development and Management.
Fisheries Control and Regulation
Finance and Administration
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,
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
1
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.
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.
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”
2
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
A list of the people interviewed is in the Annex to this Report.
No. Terms of Reference / Key
Activities Method of Delivering
1 Review and critically analyse
the current policy and Legal
frameworks (including the
successive versions of the
Fisheries Bill), as well as the
institutional arrangements in
terms of strengths,
weaknesses/constraints/gaps,
opportunities and threats.
Prepared an inception report.
Prepared a work plan.
Submitted work plan and Inception Report to UFPEA,
DFR and RFU-EA for their comments.
Reviewed and analysed available literature including
study reports, current policy, strategic plan, legal and
institutional framework.
Reduced findings, recommendations and proposals into
a technical report.
2 Consult stakeholders in
Uganda on the most effective
and efficient institutional
arrangements.
Drafted interview tools and interview schedule which
was updated as interviews were secured and completed.
Conducted informant interviews and Focus Group
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-
oriented new institutional
arrangements consistent with
the 2004 NFP.
Studied existing policy and legal framework, identified
gaps and came up with proposals for updating existing
policy and on appropriate changes to the legal and
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.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
3
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 bio-
diversity 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”
4
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”
5
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”
6
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”
7
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”
8
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”
9
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”
10
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”
11
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”
12
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.37
This 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”
13
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”
14
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”
15
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”
16
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”
17
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”
18
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”
19
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. 55
The 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”
20
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”
21
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”
22
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”
23
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.60
ADNAP 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 / Department of Fisheries
Authority or Executive Agency
Separate Research and 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”
24
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”
Page 25
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 /
Key
Characteristics
A Directorate or
Department of
Fisheries within a
Ministry of
Agriculture Animal
Industry and
Fisheries.
Fisheries sector is
under an
independent
Directorate or a
Department under
the Directorate of
Animal Industry
within the Ministry.
Usually has a
Deputy Minister
but share
Accounting Officer
with other sectors
An Independent Ministry of Fisheries - similar to what Kenya had until advent of the new Government in March 2013,. An independent
Ministry with a
separate Senior
Minister and
Permanent
Secretary or
Accounting Officer
An all - encompassing
Regulatory Authority which
caters for all sectors including
Fisheries (Kenya excluded
Livestock). E.g. Agricultural,
Fisheries and Food
Authority established by the
Agricultural Fisheries and
Food Authority Act 13 of 2013
of Kenya.
An Independent Fisheries Authority-
working alongside the parent Ministry.
Under the Australian Model the Authority
exists alongside the Australian Ministry
for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry.
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.
An Agricultural Development Board- to
handle more or less all the sub-sectors
under the agriculture portfolio including
fish. An Agricultural Development Board
that covers agriculture, animal resources
and Fisheries and63 works concurrently
with the Ministry of Agriculture and
Animal Resources, as in the 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
A Regulatory
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.
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.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
Page 26
Model Model 1 -
Directorate or
Department
within a Ministry
Model 2 - Independent
Ministry
Model 3 – All Encompassing Regulatory
Authority
Model 4–
Independent
Fisheries Authority
Model 5–
Agricultural
Development
Board
Model 6 –Specialized
Regulatory Authority
Country
Where
Applied
Uganda - Headed
by a Department
under the
Directorate of
Animal Industry.
Kenya - Ministry was
collapsed back into the
Ministry of Agriculture,
Livestock and Fisheries to
meet the Constitutional
requirement of a lean cabinet
of 18 Ministries overall.
Kenya - 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.
Australia,
Mozambique -See
discussion on
Australian and
Mozambican
examples above.
Rwanda Tanzania - For example the
Tanzanian Government formed the
Deep Sea Regulatory Authority in
199864 to handle the Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ) over which
Tanzania claims rights over fishing
and other economic activities
Model Type Model 1 -
Directorate or
Department within
a Ministry
Model 2 Independent
Ministry
Model 3 – All Encompassing
Regulatory Authority
Model 4 – Independent
Fisheries Authority
Model 5 –
Agricultural
Development Board
Model 6 –Specialized
Regulatory Authority
Suitability to
Uganda
Circumstances
Similar to status quo
and experience over
the past 11 years
shows that the
Directorate cannot in
its current form bring
about the desired
change
Though desirable, is not
achievable in the current
economic situation of
national budgetary
constraints and where the
natural progression should
be for a smaller public
administration framework.
Entails creating one big Authority to
handle more or less all the sub-
sectors under the agriculture
portfolio which in Uganda’s current
circumstances may be very
complex, lengthy and costly
because it would require a
complete over-haul of the entire
agriculture sector.
Is a phenomenon that is
common in developed
countries but beginning to
take root in Africa. Available
literature shows that if
properly established can be
successfully used to address
the problems Uganda is
grappling with at the
moment.
In Uganda’s current
circumstances may be
very complex, lengthy
and costly because it
would require a complete
over-haul of the entire
Agricultural sector.
Not suitable to Uganda at the
moment although it could be
considered for instance when
the sector grows bigger and
becomes self-sufficient to
warrant an authority for
Capture and Culture
Fisheries respectively or by
Water bodies.
.
64
Established under the Deep See Regulatory Authority Act of 1998.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
Page 27
Table 4 Pros and Cons of Proposed Options
Options Advantages Disadvantages
Options A –
Directorate
under MAAIF
The Directorate has been granted only
requires finalising establishment.
Permission to retain funding granted
needs implementation.
Team of highly qualified senior
technical staff
Office space and available
Likely to be less costly.
Staff to get slightly better salaries and
option to climb up one notch.
Top down approach with little
room for involving stakeholders
Inflexible and protracted
Government procedures not
supportive of urgently needed
changes.
Bureaucracy and delays in
getting decisions made and
implemented.( 11 years to decide
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
Fisheries
Authority to
Replace DIFR
NB – This
option is not
likely to be
considered this
time around
but it is
possible to
move towards
from after
Option C.
Autonomy gives freedom to make timely
decisions without interference.
Funding can be collected in house and
managed under Board oversight.
Allows long term planning because of
expectation of continuous flow of
income
Ability to connect research training
needs and development
Independence may create issues
with quality assurance of
completely detached from
Government.
Acceptability levels low as seen
in the first attempt.
Costs of deregulating the DFR
and retrenching staff could be
very high against establishment
of new Organisation.
Self funding could be affected by
changes in government policy on
retention of funding
Option C –
Lean
Directorate
with an
Authority
Supported by both DIFR and Private
sector and have worked together on
crafting the functions roles of each.
Possibility of sharing Fisheries facilities
in the interim high and could reduce
costs. ( Bugoloobi Ice Plant)
Division of roles agreed between
Directorate and Authority made easy
because of Government clear mandate.
Competent authority role to remain with
DIFR so no problem of getting
accreditation.
Creates avenue for ring fencing funds
for the sector to put in priority areas
that the DIFR could not do alone
Allows room for participation of all
stakeholders and for their control and
management
Ability to operate as a business and
A new institution so costs could
be prohibitive
Could be seen as yet another
attempt to dismember the MAAIF
Possible overlaps with DIFR is
roles and responsibilities and
reporting lines not clearly defined
Retention of DIFR though lean
could make Authority too closely
linked and create friction and
insufficient freedom.
If linkages between the two are
not clearly defined on areas
retained by either could be source
of conflict.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
Page 28
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
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
Page 29
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.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
Page 30
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
Management
Proposed Functions of the DIFR
Information
gathering and data
Collection
Setting Clear Goals
and Objectives
Formulating Rules
and Guidelines
Holding
Consultations with
Stakeholders
Timely Decision
making and
allocation of
resources
To draft enact and review policies, strategies, regulatory frameworks
and programs that promote and guide the Fisheries sector.
To provide guidance on the policies, strategies, regional and
international obligations that govern the Fisheries sector.
To provide guidance in the development and management of the
Fisheries sector.
The Directorate shall play the role of the Competent Authority for fish
quality and safety in Uganda,
Provide frameworks for collaboration with neighbouring countries,
domestic regional and international institutions and Organisations with
regard to management of trans-boundary Fisheries Resources.
To carry out surveys to collect management data in collaboration with
research.
Table 7 Functions of Fisheries Management in Relation to Proposed Functions for the UFMA
Functions of Fisheries
Management
Proposed Functions for the UFMA
Information gathering
and data Collection
Analysing and
forecasting
Planning
Setting Clear Goals
and Objectives
Holding Consultations
with Stakeholders
Timely Decision
making and allocation
Establish integrated management strategies, frameworks, programs and
processes for the efficient and effective management of Uganda’s capture
and culture Fisheries that are sustainable and environmentally and
socially desirable.
Set up a collaborative framework with other relevant Government
institutions, and organisations whose work impacts on the sector in
relation to the activities of the Authority.
Establish a dynamic framework for effective co-management by all
stakeholders involved in the sector including local authorities, Beach
Management Units and Lake Management Organisations, fishing
communities, fish farmers, processors, traders and service organisations.
Support and implement programs geared at promoting key areas required
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
Page 31
Functions of Fisheries
Management
Proposed Functions for the UFMA
of resources
Implementing and
enforcing rules and
regulations
for the effective development of aquaculture.
Liaise with the Fisheries Research and Training Institutions to prioritise
and ensure demand driven research and adequate skills for management
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:-
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
Page 32
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,
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
Page 33
Table 8 Implementation Matrix and Action Plan
Sequencing Objective Actions Observations
Proposals
Responsibility
Time Frame
2013/14 2014/15 2015/16
First Phase Undertake implementation of reforms that could go ahead immediately, without requiring external approvals or that could be implemented in the short term
Formalise on going public/ private sector dialogue under a formal arrangement through a recognised Committee within the Ministry to spearhead the reforms
The Committee chaired by PS MAAIF, should comprise: key officials from the DIFR/MAAIF; Representatives from the research and training institutions; key private sector representatives and other institutions whose work affects the Fisheries sector to spear head consultation on preliminary issues that need agreement on the proposed reforms.
Actors MAAIF, MoFPED DIFR, UFPEA, BMUs AFALU, WAFICOS, Donors.
Create Task Forces for specific assignments under this committee to handle designated assignments of this phase and other phases.
Broadening Committee to include other stakeholders in the sector to make process all inclusive.
Develop and agree mechanisms for raising funds to support the initial reform effort.
Raise Funds and start the process
Finalise formation of Fisheries Directorate and appoint the Head to strengthen and shorten the decision making process.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
Page 34
Sequencing
Objective
Activities
Observations Proposals
Responsibility
Time Frame
2013 /14 2014/15 2015/16
Second
Phase
Undertake implementation of reforms that require careful consideration, sequencing and external approvals and processes in the medium to long term.
Finalize updating of the Policy and Sector Strategic Framework alongside the updating and revising of the 2007 Bill, build and obtain stakeholder consensus and agreement on the changes and have them approved by Cabinet and Parliament.
The proposal should establish the viability of the two institutions and their ability to provide the intended services. The proposals would have to be approved by the Government as it is expected that the Government will provide some seed funding to support the process. The funds to be raised should include the cost for developing offices for the authority and some of the informants propose the former ice plant premises to be a suitable place. Actors MAAIF, MoFPED DIFR, UFPEA, BMUs AFALU, WAFICOS, Donors.
Building on initial work done in this area, develop a proposal with appropriate technical assistance for the Restructuring of the DIFR and Establishment of a Fisheries Authority detailing the organisational and institutional arrangements as well as staffing requirements and use it as a basis for raising funds internally and externally to support the reform. Develop a new and or update the existing business plan with an appropriate Implementation Matrix and Work Plan with costs, timelines and responsibilities
Raise funding and or establish sources of funds and obtain permission to support direct appropriations from funds collected from the sector.
“Technical Assistance for the Review and Analysis of the Fisheries Bill in Uganda”
Page 35
Sequencing
Objective
Activities
Observations, Proposals Responsibility
Time Frame
2013 /14 2014/15 2015/16
Third
Phase
Implementation Phase of the agreed and approved reforms in accordance with the proposals above and these will follow the implementation strategy that would have been developed as part of the Proposal in the Second Phase above.
Identify temporary office premises. Proposal is to have the current space at former Fisheries Ice Plant in Bugoloobi renovated and used in the initial stages as finalisation for a proper permanent structure is underway.
The realistic private sector expectation is that the planning process could take about 6 months to a year to have what is required in place and given the urgent need to reverse the decline in the sector the target should be to start implementation of the agreed reforms at the beginning of next year or next financial year with a view to having an Authority beginning 2015. There is a need to avoid rushing the process to give time to the numerous processes, functions, skills capacities that are needed to be in place before in order to have an orderly transition into the new institutional arrangement. Actors MAAIF, MoFPED DIFR, UFPEA, BMUs AFALU, WAFICOS, Donors.
Work through the Committee to retain Consultants to undertake the recruitment and organisational development.
Establish and launch the Authority and restructured DIFR.