final technical report - acp fish iiacpfish2-eu.org/uploads/projects/id626/ftr_ea 2.3... · the...

"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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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,


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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

http://www.lvfo.org/index.php?option=com_downloads&Itemid=62&func=fileinfo&parent=category&filecatid=1


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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;


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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).


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.


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.


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


Model 4 – Independent

Fisheries Authority

Model 5 –

Agricultural

Development Board

Model 6 –Specialized


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


Page 31


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:-


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,


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.


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.


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.

final technical report - acp fish iiacpfish2-eu.org/uploads/projects/id626/ftr_ea 2.3... · the...

Documents