Opportunities for Benefit Sharing in

Uganda’s REDD Program

By Joshua Zake, Senior Program Officer Environment and Natural Resources/Coordinator Uganda Forestry

Working Group, Environmental Alert

P.O. Box 11259 Kampala, Uganda, Tel:

0412510215; joszake@gmail.com;

Website: http://www.envalert.org

Presented during the National Seminar organized by the Institute for security Studies and the Ministry of Environment

and Mineral Resources, 20th September 2010, Intercontinental Hotel, Nairobi, Kenya

Outline of Presentation

• An update on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) process in Uganda, who are involved?

• Key definitions and principles for benefit sharing

• Opportunities for advancing benefit sharing in Uganda

• A case study on benefit sharing in Uganda

• Underlying challenges with regard to benefit sharing

• Conclusions

An update on REDD process in Uganda

• Uganda is under Phase I - the preparation of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) Readiness Preparation proposal (R-PP)

• A National level Steering Committee was established to oversee the all process

• Overall coordination of the process is done by the National Forestry Authority

• Uganda is participating by preparing a national REDD-PLUS Readiness Preparation Proposal (R-PP)

An update on REDD process in Uganda

• R-PP - Financial support from the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) (via World Bank) and from Norwegian Government

• A National Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) working group was established to provide technical input into the process. It meets on a regular basis and is convened by the Ministry of Water and Environment with representatives from Government, Civil Society/NGOs, Private Sector, Academia/Research Institutions, Cultural Institutions, Forest Dependent People/Community and, Development partners. Also a lot information exchange is done on line

• Regional consultations were organized – so far 5 have been organized

An update on REDD process in Uganda

• Extended consultations targeting special interest groups are underway

• Studies on particular Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) issues (e.g. understanding the drivers of deforestation and degradation; relevant forest governance issues, SESA) commissioned and draft reports disseminated among key stakeholders for review and subsequent input

• Some NGOs (e.g. Environmental Alert, Uganda Forest Working Group, National Association of Professional Environmentalists, IUCN, Uganda Coalition for Sustainable Development) in consultation with National Forestry Authority have organized various awareness workshops on REDD issues targeting different stakeholders in the country

An update on REDD process in Uganda

Underlying challenges in the REDD process:

• Institutional and regulatory capacities: REDD will impose additional pressure on existing forest sector institutions as well as the possibility of finding loopholes and inadequacies in the policy and regulatory frameworks which may need to be rectified;

• Forest Law Enforcement and Governance: REDD is driven by factors outside forest sector and the challenge will be enforcing regulations that may not apply to another sector. Even when the laws are harmonized, agriculture is not a law enforcement agency and it may not re-orient easily to the new requirements for REDD;

• Challenge of land-use policy and practice: land ownership in Uganda is largely a private matter and the current decisions favor deforestation to agriculture. Tackling this challenge will need both the explanation of the need for activities that favor REDD but also the entire land use paradigms.

An update on REDD process in Uganda

Underlying challenges in the REDD process:

• Challenges associated with assessing measurable impacts: the current state of assessing deforestation and forest degradation are based on biomass measurements. We still have the challenge of assessing their effectiveness as the main measures of REDD and if they don’t, adjusting them to be compliant and or establishing new ones.

• Other challenges will emerge as the national and international REDD strategies are formulated and implemented.

Expected opportunities from the Readiness Preparation proposal (RPP) Process

• An overall plan on how reduction in the rate of deforestation and forest degradation in the most vulnerable areas of the country and how this would be achieved;

• A process or mechanism by which the behaviors of individual who perpetrate deforestation and forest degradation would be changed in favor of reducing deforestation and forest degradation;

• A plan for providing incentives that enhance forest conservation and sustainable management of forests;

• A plan for addressing many of the direct and indirect drivers of deforestation including those drivers that lie outside of the forest sector, especially in agricultural policies and markets;

Expected opportunities from the RPP process

• A plan that allows for enhancement of the regulatory and institutional framework and capacity to handle REDD at all scales for the national economy;

• A plan for mobilizing resources required to meet the implementation of REDD sector policies on the ground; including but not limited to alternative livelihoods and alternative income activities and energy conservation measures;

• A plan to monitor and assess the effectiveness of REDD actions including emissions reductions, maintenance as well as enhancement of carbon stocks.

Key definitions

• Benefit-sharing involves a balance between access to forest resources and fair and equitable sharing of the benefits of their use through a wide variety of monetary and non-monetary mechanisms.

• The objective of sharing benefits is to achieve fairness, equity, create incentives and provide resources for the conservation and sustainable use of forest resources and services.

Key definitions

Benefits that may accrue and be shared in a Collaborative Forest Management arrangement may include the following:

• Benefits in kind such as support to community development activities; availability of land for tree planting in CFRs;

• The transfer of technology or skills to local communities to properly manage their income generating initiatives;

• Training in in-situ and ex-situ conservation and management, information technology and management;

Key definitions

Benefits that may accrue and be shared in a Collaborative Forest Management arrangement may include the following:

• Community institutional development and/ or strengthening;

• In the case of commercialization, also monetary benefits from timber extraction;

• Funding of community projects through grants;

• Employment opportunities through contract s and as tour guides in eco-tourism centres in Central Forest Reserves.

Key principles and perspectives for

benefit sharing

Some of the principles included in benefit sharing pertain to:

• Access rights - Access rights must be consistent with national laws and policies (section 14 and 33 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (NFTPA). Access to forest resources and benefit sharing is vital for the conservation and sustainable use of the resources;

• Commercial use;

• Traditional use of forest resources.

Key principles and perspectives for

benefit sharing

Beneficiaries shall use forest resources only for purposes consistent with the terms under which they were originally acquired, and go return to the negotiating table if additional uses are desired.

• Documentation of traditional knowledge pertaining to use of forest resources and sharing of such knowledge with other stakeholders shall be encouraged.

• Access to funding from National Forestry Authority (NFA), especially for technology transfer shall be encouraged. This should be seen as part of corporate social responsibility by NFA.

• Cooperation between districts and lead institutions will facilitate access to forest resources and benefit sharing where a forest reserve is shared between such districts and institutions (e.g. dual management areas by NFA and Uganda Wildlife Authority.

Why benefit sharing?

• Provides motivation for

stakeholders involved

especially the frontline

dependent communities

• Provides a window for

management of different

interests around a forest

resource thus mutually

address any potential conflicts

which may arise Forest degradation on private land in Zoka

community, Adjumani district, West Nile region in

Uganda

Opportunities for benefit sharing • There are existing experiences/lessons on benefit

sharing through various case studies such as those under the Uganda Wildlife Authority and National Forestry Authority (NFA) especially on management of central forest reserves where collaborative forest management arrangements were through development and implementation of forest management plans with stakeholders e.g. Namatale Central Forest Reserve in Mbale Distrct in 1998 and spread to other Central Forest Reserves (Budongo, Sango Bay, Mabira, Kalinzu, Echuya, Bugoma)

• So far only 30 agreements covering only about 22,000 ha (3% of the total forest area occupied by natural forests and woodlands (NFA Annual report 2006/7)

• There exists a policy and legislative framework under the Wildlife sector promoting and supportive of benefit sharing

• NFA has initiated a consultative process to develop a policy on benefit sharing in the forestry sector

A Case of benefit sharing

• In1995, the Uganda National Parks (UNP) established a policy to share its revenue with communities adjacent to national parks. Indeed upon the enactment of the Uganda Wildlife Act in 1996, under Section 70(4) the UNP successor institution – Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) was legally obliged to share 20% of its park entry fees with the local governments surrounding the protected area from which the fees were collected.

• The overall goal for sharing revenue is to enable communities living adjacent to protected areas to experience the economic benefits they accumulate so that the communities may improve their welfare, and ultimately work with UWA and local governments to sustainably manage the resources.

Existing Institutional framework to support

benefit sharing

• Uganda Wild life Authority – has mandate over management

of wildlife reserves and game parks;

• National Forest Authority – has mandate over management of central forest reserves;

• Forest Sector Support Department – provides overall policy guidance;

• District Forest Services – has mandate over management of local forest reserves, community and private forests;

Existing Institutional framework to

support benefit sharing

• Local Governments – under the decentralized system, they

are expected to sustainably manage local natural resources;

• Uganda Forest Working Group – for information sharing, monitoring policy implementation, advocacy;

• Community associations on collaborative forest management – a national umbrella organization called Uganda National Network of Collaborative Forest Management Associations (UNETCOFA) was established

Underlying challenges with regard to

benefit sharing in Uganda

• Limited awareness about concept and principles of benefit sharing among key stakeholders especially at the local level;

• Land tenure insecurity;

• Escalated deforestation and degradation result in total loss of forest resources;

• Negotiation of agreements takes long and there is tendency of poor implementation given that few community leaders have access to them and can read and understand them

Underlying challenges with regard to

benefit sharing in Uganda

• National Forestry Authority and Uganda Wildlife Authority

still retain the greater power and control over the forest sections covered under the agreements e.g. granting of permits and license for products extraction;

• Population pressure – too many people depending on limited inelastic resources;

• Varied stakeholder interests which can result into conflicts;

• Emerging local governments (now 112 districts) with varied capacity levels to advance benefit sharing among other sustainable forestry management initiatives;

Underlying challenges with regard to

benefit sharing in Uganda

• Limited facilitation of District Forest Services in terms of financial

and human resources to advance forest extension and benefit sharing among stakeholders in local and community forests;

• Weak community organization especially under forests on private land (which form 64% of the total forest cover in Uganda);

• Institutional challenges e.g. corruption and poor governance;

• Limited resources allocation for instance many central forest management plans have been developed yet inadequate implementation is done.

Conclusions

• There are successful experiences of benefit sharing in Uganda especially in the Wildlife sector and few in the forest sector under Collaborative Forest Management arrangements. These should used as stepping stone to advance benefits sharing;

• A lot is still desired to be done targeting a larger portion of the forest estate i.e. local forest reserves, community forests and private forests. Underlying gaps and challenges in this respect need to addressed;

• A clearer definition of benefits in the context of Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation needs to be done. Aspects of carbon tenure i.e. ownership and rights are equally useful and pertinent to inform benefit sharing mechanisms;

• In the same vain, a regime and mechanisms for sharing these benefits needs to be discussed and implemented.

Thank you for listening!

Asante sana!!