| dc.description.abstract | This is a report of the study commissioned by the Uganda National Commission for UNESCO (UNATCOM) in 2011 to document the state of biodiversity management in Uganda. The study encompasses a brief description of the status of biodiversity in Uganda, management arrangements, strategies and practices as well as management issues, concerns and requirements.
The study captures the legal and policy measures and institutional arrangements and practices as
well as traditional or cultural practices directed towards conservation and management of Uganda's biological diversity resources. The analysis of the national and international frameworks (policies, legislation and regulations) and institutional arrangements indicates that they are designed to promote biodiversity management in
Uganda. However, their adequacies in achieving good management vary due to a number of factors
including their relevance or applicability as well as the capacities to apply these frameworks.
While the mandate to manage biodiversity in Uganda lies with government institutions, there are provisions for collaboration and partnership with non-state actors such as private sector, NGOs and communities. There are, however, challenges concerning institutional mandates, capacities and institutional collaboration. Arrangements for international cooperation also face challenges of legal recognition, coordination as well as capacities to perform at international arena. Several management strategies and measures have been applied to address emerging concerns such as population pressures and economic constraints and hardships.
At national level, biodiversity management is undertaken by respective ministries and lead agencies through legal and policy measures, international and regional cooperation, decentralized natural resources and environmental management, mainstreaming biodiversity management into development plans at macro-economic and sectoral levels and, through declaration of biodiversity conservation areas or protected areas. The main challenge has been capacity to enforce laws and policies, management of protected areas, participation in international and regional processes and management of decentralized functions.
There are concerns regarding biodiversity management in Uganda. These include declining species abundance largely due to over-usefor instance, mahogany tree species, shrinking habitats for example, wetland dependent species and habitat or ecosystem degradation, especially of non-protected ecosystems/habitats. These loses are largely attributed to unsustainable uses of biodiversity resources or habitat loss due to conversion of habitats into other commercial land/water uses or habitat degradation. Additional concerns include local extinctions, invasive species, human-wildlife- conflicts, inadequate data about Uganda's biological resources, weak reporting on state of biodiversity at national and sectoral levels as well as weak institutional collaboration among the lead agencies and with other stakeholders.
The study notes that national capacity for biodiversity management is inadequate in terms of institutional arrangements and technical and financial resources to back up the strong legal, policy and institutional framework.
The study makes some recommendations to address biodiversity management concerns and requirements.
On management concerns, the study makes the following recommendations:
a. Declining species abundance: Lead agencies responsible for managing wildlife, forestry, wetlands and fisheries resources undertake comprehensive assessment of candidate species in order to confirm their status.
b. Invasive Species: that NEMA in collaboration with lead agencies undertakes a comprehensive assessment of alien and non-alien invasive species and develop and implement invasive species management strategies and plans.
c. Human-Wildlife Conflict: that UWA and NFA:
i. Promote approaches and interventions for managing problem animals as well as for
addressing conflicts between people and wildlife.
ii. Promote stakeholders engagement in managing problem animals. iii. Promote the understanding of issues and dynamics of problem animals. iv. Mobilize financial, technical and logistical resources for managing problem animals.
d. Inadequate data: that NEMA in collaboration with lead agencies undertakes a comprehensive assessment of data and information needs, develop and implement information management systems for enhancing information sharing among lead agencies and with research institutions. It is further recommended that Lead agencies in collaboration with research institutions undertake biodiversity assessments and inventories to address gaps in information on Uganda's biodiversity.
e. Weak reporting: that NEMA strengthens current reporting arrangements and procedures in order to address reporting at species and habitat levels.
f. Weak institutional collaboration: it is recommended that NEMA strengthens institutional collaboration among the lead agencies and with other stakeholders.
On management requirements, the study recommends the following actions to be implemented by
NEMA in collaboration with lead agencies:
a. Strengthening capacity for biodiversity management by undertaking comprehensive capacity needs assessment, designing and implementing capacity building programme. Specifically, there is need to strengthen human sources and technical expertise in Lead agencies as well as institutional capacity to implement policies and enforce legislation and, participation in international and regional processes.
b. Strengthening capacity of districts to fulfill their mandate of decentralized natural resources and environment management.
c. Strengthening private sector organizations participation in biodiversity management through defining their objectives and providing incentives for their participation. d. Lobbying for increase in budgets for biodiversity management and diversifying sources funding.
In addition, it is recommended that UNATCOM facilitates the development and implementation of
strategies and policies for trans-boundary biosphere reserves.
Further, it is recommended that UWA and NFA improve infrastructure and facilities for biodiversity management in the protected areas.
On biodiversity trends, the study recommends the following actions for implementation by NEMA in collaboration with Lead agencies: a. Develop and elaborate on actions for addressing the direct drivers and underlying causes of
biodiversity loss in Uganda.
b. Develop practices for sustainable biodiversity management and conservation, including restoration
of degraded areas. c. Define and promote stakeholder engagement in implementing Uganda's NBSAP.
d. Facilitate the development of tools and methodologies for assessing and monitoring biodiversity in Uganda as well as its contribution to economic development and livelihoods.
e. Strengthen national and institutional capacities for participation in regional and internal processes.
f. Develop and implement long term biodiversity management plans for Uganda.
Over-all, the study notes that the current state of biodiversity management in Uganda is strong on policy and institutional frameworks but weak on application. It is imperative therefore that government-led action be taken to ensure that our biodiversity, which is essential for human survival as well as promotion of economic activities, like ecotourism are protected for the present and future generations. | en_US |
