Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
REPORT ON THE FANRPAN CLIMATE SMART AGRICULTURE, UGANDA NATIONAL POLICY DIALOGUE ON COMESA DOMESTIC CLIMATE FINANCING
Food Agriculture and Natural Resources
Policy Analysis Network - FANRPAN
HELD AT THE CONFERENCE HALL SCHOOL OF FOOD TECHNOLOGY, NUTRITION AND BIOENGINEERING (SFTNB)
MAKERERE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL & ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES (CAES)
ON
7TH AUGUST, 2015
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Within its Climate Change portfolio, FANRPAN is implementing the COMESA-EAC-SADC Project. The project aims to contribute to the consolidated and unified African position on climate change through creation of awareness among decision makers. Consistent with the COMESA-EAC-SADC objective, the overall goal of the project is to ensure that the impacts of climate change in the COMESA-EAC-SADC region are addressed through successful adaptation and mitigation actions which will also build economic and social resilience for the present and future generations. The specific objectives are;1) to ensure that the African climate solutions are accepted by the global community and climate change mainstreamed in national planning; 2) to support member states to access adaptation funds and other climate change financing sources and mechanism through national investments frameworks for climate adaptation in agriculture, forestry and other land uses and; 3) to strengthen capacity for national research and training institutions and implementation of research programmes. Currently, domestic climate financing in developing countries like those in Africa is characterised by a number of challenges. These include inconsistent definitions and criteria to define climate finance, inconsistence markers, indicators and codes to characterise different types of financial data and insufficient institutional arrangements including unclear roles and responsibilities of different ministries. However, there are opportunities for developing countries to establish multi stakeholder and interagency committees for climate change which can constitute climate finance working groups. The committees may include a range of actors from relevant ministries, sub national levels of government, civil society and the private sector. Such structures may assist in ensuring comprehensive understanding of climate finance processes and catalyse all inclusive planning, implementation and monitoring processes. As part of the COMESA-EAC-SADC project activities, FANRPAN convened and promotes policy dialogues to influence sustainable domestic climate financing process in its five countries namely Ethiopia, Zambia, Kenya, Swaziland and Uganda. The National policy dialogues are meant to influence a unified position on agriculture and climate change financing among key stakeholders including decision makers at country level. It was within this background that a National Policy dialogue was convened at Makerere University’s School of Food Technology, Nutrition and Bio engineering on 7th August 2015.The National Policy dialogue was attended by representatives from government, farmer organisations, private sector, NGOs, Research institutions including universities and civil society of about 50 people in total. The specific objectives of the National policy dialogue were to:
i. Increase understanding of the climate change challenges for agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa at national levels;
2
ii. Discuss mechanisms for mainstreaming climate change knowledge into domestic agricultural research; and
iii. Discuss mechanisms for sustainable domestic financing of CSA The expected outputs included:
1. capacity gaps and needs, challenges, opportunities, delivery mechanisms offered for climate financing identified;
2. Domestic Climate Financing policy recommendations documents. This report is a representation of what transpired during the National Policy dialogue held on 7th August 2015. The report is divided into four sections. The first section focuses on the opening session while section two is on presentations. The third section outlines the group discussions and presentations. The report ends with the closing remarks.
1
ABBREVIATIONS
CAES College of Agricultural &Environmental Sciences CSA Climate Smart Agriculture CSO Civil Society Organisations ECO Ecological Christian organisation FANRPAN The Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Policy Analysis Network FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation GDP Gross Domestic Product IEC Information education communication IDRC International Research Development Centre MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries MAK Makerere University MITTI Ministry of Trade and Tourism Industry MLG Ministry of Local Government MLHUD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development MoFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development MOH Ministry of Health MoWT Ministry of Water and Transport MTWA Ministry of Tourism Wild Life Antiquities MWE Ministry of Water and Environment NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services NDP National Development Plan OPM Office of the Prime Minister PAYE Pay as You Earn SFTNB School of Food Technology, Nutrition and Bio engineering UMA Uganda Manufacturers Association ZARDIs Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institutes
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 1
ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................................ 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 1
SECTION 1.0: THE OPENING .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.1: PRAYER ............................................................................................................................................... 2
1.2: ATTENDANCE ..................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3: WELCOME REMARKS AND OVERVIEW OF THE DAYS PROGRAM ...................................................... 4
1.4: OPENING REMARKS BY THE DEAN SFTNB .......................................................................................... 5
SECTION 2.0: PRESENTATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1: AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMESA PROJECT AND DOMESTIC CLIMATE FINANCING BY THE
FANRPAN REPRESENTATIVE ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.2: QUESTION AND COMMENTS ON THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE FANRPAN REPRESENTATIVE
................................................................................................................................................................ 14
Participants: ............................................................................................................................................ 14
2.1.3: Responses ..................................................................................................................................... 15
2.2: PRESENTATION BY THE CONSULTANT ............................................................................................. 17
2.2.1 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE CONSULTANT .................. 35
Questions/Comments ............................................................................................................................. 35
2.2.2: Responses by the Consultant ........................................................................................................ 36
SECTION 3.0: GROUP DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................................................ 38
3.1: GROUP PRESENTATIONS .................................................................................................................. 38
3.1.1: Group I .......................................................................................................................................... 38
3.1.2: Group II: ........................................................................................................................................ 39
3.1.3: Group III ........................................................................................................................................ 40
4.0 : CLOSING REMARKS ............................................................................................................................. 41
4.1: Closing remarks by the FANRPAN Representative .............................................................................. 41
4.2: Closing remarks by the Coordinator Uganda Node ......................................................................... 42
2
SECTION 1.0: THE OPENING
1.1: PRAYER
The function was opened at 9:45 am with a prayer led by the Policy Analyst and Advocacy Officer UMA, Mr. Ssali Godfrey.
1.2: ATTENDANCE
The National Policy Dialogue was attended by representative from government, farmer organisations, private sector, NGOs, Research Institutions including universities and civil society. Self introductions were carried out as indicated in the attendance list
No Name Organization Gender Email Address
1. Akankwasa Ronald TAK-Resources ltd M [email protected]
2. Ahumuza Alfred Makerere university M [email protected]
3. Galyake Cyrus MAK-Agric Eng M [email protected]
4. Sara Kaweesa Arocha Uganda F [email protected]
5. Fredrick Olinga Deniva M [email protected]
6. Ssali Godfrey U.M.A M [email protected]
7. Katusiime Juliet Ecological Christian org (ECO)
8. Peninah Atwine EMLY F [email protected]
9. Kayiira Cissy VI-AGRO F [email protected]
10. Nakitto Olive MAK-FORESTERY F [email protected]
11. Namwanga Betty Environment officer(MMC)
12. Jane Anyango PRO-CAES F [email protected]
13. Kyazze Percy MAK -SFTNB F [email protected]
14 Balimunsi Hussein MAK-SFTNB M [email protected]
15 Sarah Kisakye MAK-SFTNB F [email protected]
16 Tiishekwa Dennis MAK-CAES M [email protected]
17 Albert Muhumuza MAK-CAES M [email protected]
No Name Organization Gender Email Address
18 Racheal Musoke Former FSSD commissioner
19 David Walugembe Uganda Forestry M [email protected]
3
Association 0772312992
20 Aribo Lawrence UNMA/MWE M [email protected] 0701832926
21 Alice Tibazalika Association of Uganda Professional women in Agric and Environment
F [email protected] 0772501331
22 Sagala Fahad FARAD M [email protected]
23 Nakanwagi Rose MAK F [email protected] 0788546959
24 Namala Fiona MAK F 0771023723
25 Grace Kabonesa MAK -CAES F 0783555271
26 Miito Gilbert MAK- Agric Eng M [email protected] 0784997798
27 Byakagaba Edward NFA M [email protected] 0703810638
28 Godfrey Oluka Environmental Officer Rubaga Division
M [email protected] 0782735365
29 Allan Luwagga PA/PA MEAGA M [email protected]
30 Kule Birenesyo Eriya Graduate Researcher MAK M [email protected] 0776376640
31 Joel M Wako Nature Uganda M [email protected] 0759059695
32 Susan Nanduddu African Centre for Trade and Development
M [email protected] 0772302753
21 Alice Tibazalika Association of Uganda Professional women in Agric and Environment
F [email protected] 0772501331
33 Luzinda Zeddy Partnership for Development of Agric and Biosystems Engineering/Equator Technology
M [email protected] 0779111422
34 Lukwago Fred Brany MAK-SFTNB M [email protected] 0782399753
No Name Organization Gender Email Address
35 Joseph Mulindwa MAK -SFTNB M [email protected] 0774148858
36 Nkuubi Charles Mpigi District M 0782711487
37 Ruthie Mutyaba FANRPAN Node Admin F [email protected]
38 Chelimo Robert OC- MAK M [email protected]
4
39 Moses Aisu Okurut SAFE M [email protected]
40 Talentus Mthunzi FANRPAN Secretariate M [email protected]
41 Judith Naluyima KCCA F [email protected]
42 Archileo Kaaya MAK M [email protected]
43 Isabirye Cohen EAC M [email protected]
44 Daneil Lukwago Nonner Consults M [email protected]
45 Auma Vicky MAK F 0700829962
46 Kiberu J. MAK M
47 Seguya E MAK M [email protected]
48 Mbonye Darius MAK M 0755452994
49 Tenywa Ivan MAK M [email protected]
50 Terry Namusoke MAK F [email protected]
51 Eva Ssonko Baliraine MAK F [email protected]
1.3: WELCOME REMARKS AND OVERVIEW OF THE DAYS PROGRAM
The FANRPAN Uganda Node Coordinator Prof. Archileo Kaaya welcomed participants and thanked them for sparing their valuable time to attend this workshop. He gave an overview of the days programme.
Program for the Day COMESA Domestic Climate Financing National Policy Dialogue 7th August, 2015 Held at the Conference School of Food Technology Nutrition and Bioengineering
TIME ACTIVITY PRESENTER/FACILITATOR
8.00
Registration
Secretariate
5
9.00 -10.00 Welcome and overview of the day
Official Opening
An overview of the COMESA project and domestic climate financing
Prof. Archileo Kaaya Dean STFNB FANRPAN Representative
10.00-10.30
Group photograph and Tea Break
All
10.30 - 11.00 11.00 - 11.30 11.30- 12.00 12.00- 1.00 1.00-1.30
Presentation by the Consultant
Question and Answer Session
Group Discussions
Group Presentations
Closing Remarks
Mr. Lukwago Daniel Mr. Lukwago Daniel FANRPAN Representative FANRPAN Representative Prof. Archileo Kaaya
1.30 – 2.30
Lunch Break and Departure
All
1.4: OPENING REMARKS BY THE DEAN SFTNB
On behalf of the Dean, School of Food Technology, Nutrition and Bio engineering Prof. Archileo Kaaya gave brief remarks on the Uganda FANRPAN Node as below:
i) The Node was established during the FANRPAN 2011 Annual Food Security Regional Policy Dialogue in Swaziland and was launched in Uganda on 24th May 2012;
ii) Hosted by Makerere University College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (CAES) whose mission is to advance training, knowledge generation and service delivery in order to enhance agricultural development, sustainable natural resource utilisation and environmental management;
iii) The Node is part of the Makerere University Centre of Climate Change Research and Innovation;
iv) Several Climate Smart Agriculture training programmes have been held by CAES and the Node has participated fully;
v) The Node has coordinated a number of activities in the country. Last year, the Climate Smart Agriculture National Dialogue was held. The consultant Prof. Osiru came from CAES;
6
vi) Recently, the Node also participated in the FAO –supported Sub Regional CSA Workshop (July 26-27, 2015) and discussed CSA in six countries including Uganda;
vii) As a Node hosting institution in Uganda, CAES has convened a national policy dialogue on domestic climate financing in Uganda;
viii) CSA financing has a number of challenges that need to be addressed;
ix) Thanked all organisations financing CSA and FANRPAN for selecting Uganda’s concept note;
x) Thanked participants for honouring the invitation to attend;
xi) Pledged the Node continued support in all FANRPAN activities and climate change initiatives;
xii) Expressed happiness to organise the dialogue concerning CSA financing and overall natural resources management programmes in the country.
SECTION 2.0: PRESENTATIONS
2.1.1: AN OVERVIEW OF THE COMESA PROJECT AND DOMESTIC CLIMATE FINANCING BY THE
FANRPAN REPRESENTATIVE
The Program Assistant, Talentus Mthunzi presented as follows: Presentation Lay-out
1. About FANRPAN 2. The CSA Programme Portfolio 3. Objectives of the National Policy Dialogue
About FANRPAN FANRPAN Origins and legitimacy Origins
• Call by Ministers of Agriculture and Environment in Eastern and Southern Africa in 1994
Uganda Node Coordinator Prof. Archileo Kaaya giving the Dean’s welcome remarks
7
• Created in 1997, and registered in 2003 in Zimbabwe
• FANRPAN secretariat accredited with diplomatic status by the Government of the Republic of South Africa in 2005 Legitimacy and convening power
• FANRPAN has convening power at national and regional levels
• Membership and stakeholder categories- governments, private sectors, research institutions, women’s organisations, youth organisations, farmer organisations and other civil society bodies.
Vision, mission and mandate Vision: A food secure Africa free from hunger and poverty Mission: To promote effective Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources (FANR) policies by • Facilitating linkages and partnerships between government and civil society, • Building the capacity for policy analysis and policy dialogue in southern Africa, and • Supporting demand-driven policy research and analysis Mandate: An Africa-wide with presence in 17 African countries Angola, Benin, Botswana, DRC, Kenya, Lesotho,
Namibia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
FANRPAN representative, Talentus Mthunzi presenting
8
FANRPAN: Network of Networks
FANRPAN
Regional
Secretariat
Malawi
Namibia
Mozambique
Tanzania
Mauritius
South Africa
Swaziland
Lesotho
Angola
Botswana
Zimbabwe
Zambia
Government
Researchers
CSOs
Madagascar
Farmers
Private Sector
Commercial Farmers
Small-scale farmers associations
Commodity Associations
DRC
Benin
Uganda
Kenya
9
FANRPAN’s Thematic Thrust
Social Protection & Livelihoods
Food Systems
Agricultural Productivity – Markets
Natural Resources and Environment
Institutional Strengthening
10
CSA Programme Portfolio Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)
• Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) is agriculture that sustainably – increases productivity, resilience (adaptation), – reduces/removes greenhouse gases (mitigation), and – enhances achievement of national food security and development goals.
• CSA promotes agricultural best practices, particularly: – integrated crop management, – conservation agriculture, – intercropping, – improved seeds and fertilizer management practices, as well as
supporting increased investment in agricultural research FANRPAN CSA Programmes Seek to:
– Generate CSA research- based evidence and address knowledge gaps; – Strengthen CSA institutional capacity and support capacity building of young
professional on CSA and food security research; – Support advocacy campaigns for the development and implementation of
responsive CSA policies; – Supporting the uptake of CSA best practices.
11
FANRPAN Climate Change Programmes 2009 -2015
Africa-wide Civil Society Climate Change Initiative for Policy Dialogues (ACCID) 2009
Learning, Communicating and Advocating for Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA)
2011
Strengthening Evidence-Based Climate Change Adaptation Policies (SECCAP)
2011
From Policy to Practice: Advocating for aligned Climate Smart Agriculture initiatives in Africa 2013
AfricaInteract Project
2012
The AfriCAN Climate Project
2011
COMESA-EAC-SADC Climate Change Tripartite Programme
2014
12
Funders
Strategies for Adapting to Climate Change in Rural Sub-Saharan Africa: Targeting the Most Vulnerable
2008
13
COMESA-EAC-SADC Climate Change Tripartite Programme
Donor
Duration August 2014 to September 2015
Contract amount USD 550 658
Project objectives Consistent with the COMESA-EAC-SADC Programme objective, the overall goal of the project is to ensure that the 'impacts of climate change in the COMESA-EAC-SADC region are addressed through successful adaptation and mitigation actions which will also build economic and social resilience for present and future generations
Focus countries Supported by
Africa-wide
COMESA-EAC-SADC Climate Change Tripartite Programme Specific Project Objectives:
1. To ensure that the African Climate Solution is accepted by the global community and Climate Change mainstreamed in national planning,
2. To support member states to access adaptation funds and other climate change financing sources and mechanisms through national investment frameworks for climate adaptation in agriculture, forestry and other land uses, and
3. To strengthen capacity for national research and training institutions and implementation of research programmes.
Objectives of the National Policy Dialogue Why a National Dialogue
• FANRPAN will be convening and promoting policy dialogues to influence sustainable domestic climate financing processes for CSA in five countries (Ethiopia, Tanzania, Zambia, Uganda and Kenya).
14
• The national policy dialogues are meant to facilitate and influence a unified position on agriculture and domestic climate financing among key stakeholders including decision makers.
Objectives of the National Dialogue
iv. Increase understanding of the climate change challenges for agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa at national levels;
v. Discuss mechanisms for mainstreaming climate change knowledge into domestic agricultural research; and
vi. Discuss mechanisms for sustainable domestic financing of CSA.
2.1.2: QUESTION AND COMMENTS ON THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE FANRPAN
REPRESENTATIVE
Participants:
1) Wanted to know the direct strategy towards the CSA Vision of a food secure Africa vis a vis the increasing high population and given the fact that African governments focus on raw materials for building industries.
2) Asked for FANRPAN’s view on the issue of sustainable Agriculture vis a vis GMOs and organic foods and how indigenous varieties can be promoted.
3) FANRPAN’s view on the issue of improved seed. They noted that there are lots of pests and diseases, increasing commercialisation of the seed industry and fake seeds on the market.
4) FANRPAN’s view on Africa’s position and approach on emissions and mitigation. 5) Noted that from the presentations FANRPAN does not properly bring out the issue of
the private sector yet we are in the era of private sector led mindset in the cause of fighting poverty and promoting value addition.
One of the participants asking a question after the presentation
15
6) Recalled that from Idi Amin’s era, to increase agricultural productivity there is speedy deforestation. Urged that increasing productivity should aim at increasing production per unit area and this should come out clearly.
7) Wondered how FANRPAN was linking up with successful entrepreneurs to intensify agricultural productivity. They noted that successful entrepreneurs have demonstrated the capacity to increase yields even in rented premises. Inquired if universities like Makerere can lead towards that direction.
2.1.3: Responses
Participants were informed that: 1) In terms of strategy, FANRPAN focuses on five themes, which contribute to food
security. Though faced with challenges, FANRPAN contributes to a food secure Africa basing on countries’ resources and capacities.
2) In terms of GMOs and organic foods, the matter is still under discussion i.e. there is no conclusive position by FANRPAN at the moment.
3) On the issue of improved seed, the commercialisation of the seed sector is all foreign, disadvantaging the farmers. There is no indigenous seed production. FANRPAN is engaging farmer groups at community levels for example in Zimbabwe where it came up with seed companies to promote national commercialisation of seed for both farming and export. FANRPAN is also looking at harmonisation of policy with farmer seed enterprises in terms of exportation.
4) FANRPAN is saying that Africans need to adapt and that the countries contributing to emissions need to reduce. Africa has the lowest adaptation strategy and therefore need to focus on adaptation and mitigation.
5) On the issue of the private sector involvement, FANRPAN Nodes include the private sector. For instance COMESA is engaging the private sector to help farmers due to inadequate capacity and support from African governments towards food security.
6) Agreed on increased sustainable productivity. CSA includes three pillars namely productivity, adaptation and mitigation. CSA also covers the issue of resource management.
7) On the issue of involving successful entrepreneurs, the private sector has been brought on board. FANRPAN has identified farmers who can be champions and invited them to
Nonner consultant, Daniel Lukwago(front left) sitting alongside other participants during the workshop
16
dialogues to present what they are doing and interact with other entrepreneurs to disseminate information. However, the challenge is to identify stakeholders with the best practices. Participants were called upon to send in names of successful entrepreneurs they know.
8) On the issue of the improved seed it was agreed that there is need to preserve indigenous seed, which has proven to be more resilient to climate change.
Participants broke off for a group photograph and Tea Break as shown below:
Participants posing for a group photograph in front of the Conference Hall
17
2.2: PRESENTATION BY THE CONSULTANT
Mr. Daniel Lukwago from Nonner Consults presented the Uganda National Climate Change Finance Analysis 2008/09-2011/12 as follows:
Introduction
Participants (L) listening to the presentation by the Nonner Consultant, Daniel Lukwago (R) during the National Policy Dialogue
Participants take to their break tea after the group photograph
18
The Ugandan Government and the international community do not have good ways of measuring public flows of climate finance, nor of promoting effective practice in the delivery of financial support for climate change-related actions.
National policy narratives on funding with regard to the volume, sources and the delivery mechanisms for climate finance are yet to mature.
This study aimed to address both of these constraints, by identifying relevant public expenditure and measuring the effectiveness of such spending against an explicit assessment framework.
The methodological approach combined a qualitative analysis of the policy context and institutional arrangements with a quantitative review of public spending on climate change relevant actions.
The study provides a first estimate of climate change relevant expenditures that appear in the national budget of Uganda over the period 2008/9 -2011/12.
Objectives of the study
The main objective of this study was to review public spending on activities that are related to climate change, and to assess the extent to which this expenditure responds to existing policy and institutional demands.
The objective was met by examining three interlinked elements: a. the policy context;
build a picture of the overall policy environment for climate change expenditure, from the formulation of climate change policy to its linkages to spending through national strategies and action plans.
b. the institutional architecture; unpacked the role and responsibilities of institutions involved in
managing the response to climate change and their interaction. c. public expenditure analysis.
quantified climate change relevant expenditures in the national budget, as well as through other funding channels.
Study Methodology
The study’s methodological approach combined both qualitative and quantitative analysis of public spending on climate change actions.
The first step in identifying how government is responding to climate change was to identify which Ministries are actively engaged on this issue.
The Government of Uganda Chart of Accounts does not contain a marker for ‘climate change relevant’ spending, so the study team had to identify these programmes and projects manually.
The study team developed a categorization of these expenditures based on the degree of their relevance to climate change, following a protocol developed by the same team elsewhere.
The methodology enabled two main climate change strategies (adaptation and mitigation) to be distinguished.
19
Policy & Institutional Framework It was established that climate change is a new policy concern that has matured in the last five years. Policy Development
The first major articulation of climate change policy is contained within the National Development Plan (NDP), which devotes a separate chapter to climate change and its potential impacts on national development. The NDP makes a central claim that Uganda’s development agenda must address the issue of climate change. The Vision 2040 document equates climate finance with financing from international sources. However, no reference is made to allocating funding for climate change interventions through the national budget process, which is at odds with the present reliance on domestically sourced financing. A significant innovation of the national climate change policy is its adoption of a sector approach to articulating objectives and strategies that address the climate change challenges within each sector. However, the policy is silent on how to manage the delivery of climate finance and what financial instruments should be utilised. The national climate change policy is supported by an implementation strategy. A first estimate of the costs of responding to climate change is put at Sh. 664 billion per year. This approximates to 1.6% GDP – a very considerable amount compared to present spending.
20
The Institutional Architecture
The national climate change policy proposes the creation of several new institutional structures:
a ministerial committee on climate change a national climate change advisory committee a new climate change department within the Ministry of Water and Environment
However, the roles and responsibilities of these new institutional structures are not fully described in the policy, leading to uncertainty as to how they will interact with existing ministries, departments and agencies - securing effective coordination will be a major challenge.
21
Coordination is not everything – implementation also matters. Sector implementation will be strongly influenced by institutional capacity, particularly for those climate vulnerable sectors (agriculture, energy, transport, health). Identifying Climate Relevant Spending Methodology
Using on-budget information, expenditure was classified according to three categories: a. Whether related or not related to climate change; b. whether climate-related expenditure was of high, medium or low relevance to
climate change; c. whether the high, medium or low relevance expenditure was focused on
adaptation or mitigation impacts. Step-by-step process to isolate climate change relevant spending within the national budget was done as follows:
1. Identify ministries where expenditure may be found Uganda National Climate Change Costed Implementation Strategy Proposed spending by Ministry over next 5 years on climate change related actions
Ministry Adaptation $ millions
Mitigation $ millions
Total CC Additional $ millions
MoWT 211 85 296
MEMD 160 56.6 216.6
MAAIF 115 27 142
MoH 128 128
MWE 43 17 60
MoTWH 5 5
MLHUD 3 0.6 3.6
22
OPM 3 3
MoTIC 2 2
Note the ‘big five’: Works & Transport; Energy & Minerals; Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries; Health; and Water & Environment
2. Review programme-level labels within budget data base FOCUS: 2008/09 2011/12 - First classification in High, Medium, Low relevant spending
Climate change relevance
Definition Weighting given to gross expenditure
High Clear primary objective of delivering specific outcomes that improve climate resilience or contribute to mitigation
Greater than 75%
Medium Either (i) secondary objectives related to building climate resilience or contributing to mitigation, or (ii) mixed programmes with a range of activities that are not easily separated but include at least some that promote climate resilience or mitigation
25 – 74%
Low Activities that display attributes where indirect adaptation and mitigation benefits may arise
Less than 25%
Not relevant Activities that are undertaken without any regard for climate change
0
Example
Year Ministry Admin 3 Admin 4 CC Expenditure
2010/11 010 Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
010.00 Development
0081 Development of National Early Warning System 1 150,000
23
2010/11 010 Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
010.00 Development
0081 Development of National Early Warning System 1 27,000
2010/11 010 Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
010.00 Development
0081 Development of National Early Warning System 1 5,000
2010/11 010 Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
010.00 Development
0081 Development of National Early Warning System 1 15,000
Number of CC Relevant Programmes by Ministry
Ministry High Medium Low Total
MAAIF 4 4 20 28
MWE 1 7 20 28
MoWT 1 2 20 23
MEMD 1 3 10 14
OPM 0 1 3 4
MoTIC 0 0 1 1
MoH 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 7 17 74 98
3. Review programme-level objectives and outputs within budget documentation Revise classification in high, medium, low relevant spending Identification of responsible officer for each programme for potential follow-up
24
Example: MAAIF
CC Relevance Initial
CC Relevance Revised
Admin 4
Programme Label
Responsible Officer
Programme Description
Programme Outputs
M/A %
High Medium 0081 Development Of National Early Warning System
Ms Annunciata Hakuza
Provide timely information on crop production, livestock, fisheries and national food security, to policy makers, farmers and other stakeholders
80 District Staff skilled in climate change and adaptation
A 50
High Medium 1082 Sustainable Irrigated Rice Production
Mr Frank Akena
To promote the efficient use of natural resources
Improved rice-based cropping systems to reduce risk
A 30
High Medium 1011 Dissemination of NERICA & Improved Rice
Mr Okaasai Opolot
To promote the efficient use of natural resources
Improved rice-based cropping systems to reduce risk
A 30
High Low 1118 Regional NERICA Research and Training Centre
Mr Okaasai Opolot
Training and research being conducted at the centre
Quality services provided for rice production
A 10
25
Stylised view of the process
26
Key Findings Climate change-related expenditure grew relatively strongly: 71% over the four years
Total climate expenditure (bn Shs)
Increase from previous year (%)
Non climate-related expenditure (bn Shs)
Increase from previous year (%)
2008/09 41.5 3,859
2009/10 53.6 28.0 5,389 39.6
2010/11 66.5 25.1 8,146
51.1
2011/12 71.8 8.0 8,179
0.4
But: Overall, non-climate-related expenditure has grown relatively more quickly However, total expenditure on climate related public expenditure as a percentage of GDP was very low, at less than one per cent of GDP Climate change-related expenditure accounted for about 1% of total government expenditure
Total expenditure (bn shs)
Total climate expenditure (bn shs)
% of government expenditure
2008/09 3,901 41.5
1.06
2009/10 5,443 53.6
0.98
2010/11 8,213 66.5
0.81
2011/12 8,251 71.8
0.87
27
Climate change expenditure were concentrated in relatively few Ministries
2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
MWE 27 28 29
28
MAAIF 15 19 18
17
MEMD 5 12 12
12
MoWT 12 16 17
8
OPM 2 3 4
4
MTIC 0 0 0
1
NPA 1 1 1
1
MoH 0 0 0
0
MTTI 1 1 1
0
MTWA 0 0 0
0
Total 63 80 82
71
Over 50% relevant programmes by number were contained in MAAIF and the MWE Smaller numbers of climate relevant programmes were found in the MWT and MEMD Expenditure on climate-related activities represented a small part of the relevant Ministries’ budgets
28
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
Total spend
CC-related spend
CC-related as % total
Total spend
CC-related spend
CC-related as % total
Total spend
CC-related spend
CC-related as % total
Total spend
CC-related spend
CC-related as % total
MAAIF
120.9 5.6 4.6 111.5 1.6 1.5 120.7 6.5 5.4 143.4 2.3 1.6
MoH 111.1 0.0 0.0 66.0 0.0 0.0 58.1 0.0 0.0 59.1 0.0 0.0
MWE 55.6 6.4 11.5 61.0 5.8 9.5 72.8 7.1 9.7 87.6 13.7 15.7
MoWT
899.5 13.4 1.5 554.6 12.4 2.2 652.5 30.9 4.7 794.9 28.2 3.5
MLHUD
12.7 0.6 4.8 25.2 0.8 3.1 19.9 0.6 3.2 24.6 0.6 2.5
OPM 57.5 2.2 3.9 100.7 0.9 0.9 102.9 2.0 2.0 8044.4
4.0 0.0
MTTI 11.9 0.0 0.4 22.2 0.1 0.3 14.9 0.0 0.3
MTIC - - - - - - - - - 13.6 0.0 0.3
MTWA
- - - - - - - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0
MEMD
203.6 13.1 6.5 480.2 31.0 6.5 245.9 18.5 7.5 1014.1
22.1 2.2
NPA 6.1 0.2 3.6 6.5 0.6 8.8 7.9 0.7 9.4 9.5 0.9 9.5
Total 1,478.8
41.5 2.8 1,427.9
53.15
3.7 1,295.6
66.5 0.1 10,191.1
71.8 1.0
Expenditure decreased from a high of 2.8% in 2008/9 to 1.0% 2011/12 Only for the MAAIF, MWE, NPA and MEMD climate related expenditure accounted for 5% or more of their actual expenditure.
Most expenditure items are of low relevance with relatively few of high and medium relevance
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
High
Medium
Low
29
MAAIF
0 2 13 5 14 0 5 13 0 5 12
MoH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
MWE 0 2 25 1 2 25 1 2 26 1 2
25
MoWT
0 0 12 0 0 16 0 0 17 0 0
8
OPM 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 0 4 0 1
3
MTTI 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 - -
-
MTWA
- - - - - - - - - - -
-
MTIC - - - - - - - - - 0 0
1
MEMD
1 3 1 1 9 2 1 9 2 1 9
2
NPA 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
1
Total 1 7 55 2 16 62 2 16 64 2
17
52
Only : The CCU housed in MWE and the development project promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency in MEMD. Almost all expenditure by value is concentrated in low relevance programmes
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12
High
Medium
Low
Total
High
Med
Low
Total
High
Med
Low
Total
High
Med
Low
Total
MAAIF
0.0 0.2 5.4
5.6 0.0 0.2 1.4
1.6 0.0 0.5 6.0
6.5 0.0 0.3 2.0
2.3
MoH 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
MWE 0.0 0.3 6. 6.4 0.4 0.3 5. 5.8 0.2 0.4 6. 7.1 0.9 0.5 12 13.
30
0 1 5 .3 7
MoWT
0.0 0.0 13.4
13.4
0.0 0.0 12.4
12.4
0.0 0.0 30.9
30.9
0.0 0.0 28.2
28.2
MLHUD
0.0 0.0 0.6
0.6 0.0 0.0 0.8
0.8 0.0 0.0 0.6
0.6 0.6
0.6
OPM 0.0 0.0 2.2
2.2 0.0 0.0 0.9
0.9 0.0 0.0 2.0
2.0 0.0 2.0 1.9
4.0
MTTI 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 - - - 0.0
MTIC - - - 0.0 - - - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
MTWA
- - - 0.0 - - - 0.0 - - - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
MEMD
0.1 4.4 8.6
13.1
0.2 20.8
10.0
31.0
0.2 16.8
1.5
18.5
0.4 21.5
0.1
22.1
NPA 0.0 0.0 0.2
0.2 0.0 0.0 0.6
0.6 0.0 0.0 0.7
0.7 0.0 0.0 0.9
0.9
Total 0.1 5.0 36.4
41.5
0.5 21.3
31.3
53.2
0.4 17.8
48.2
66.5
1.4 24.3
46.1
71.8
With the exception of the MEMD
• Overall, more is spent on Adaptation than Mitigation activities
Adaptation spending (bn Shs)
% of total climate expenditure
Mitigation spending (bn Shs)
% of total climate expenditure
2008/09 27.64 66.55 13.89 33.45
2009/10 21.23 39.95 31.92 60.05
2010/11 46.64 70.17 19.82 29.82
2011/12 46.86 65.29 24.92 34.71
Public Financial Management and Climate-related spending The effectiveness of public spending on climate-related depends on the strength of public financial management
31
Budget for
climate related activity
Public financial management systems
Impact on the ground
Impact can be undermined if PFM systems
cannot manage funding
Around one per cent of
government expenditure
2008/9-2011/12
PFM systems a crucial
‘transmission’ mechanism
from budget to impact
32
Challenges of Public Financial Management in Uganda Weak budget credibility:
− Annual basis: weak link between approved budget and actual expenditure − Medium-term basis: multi-year plans are not respected in terms of guiding
future expenditure Ministries struggle to implement public climate change-related expenditure
programmes: − Erratic cash management − Volatile inflation − Uncertain donor funding
Other aspects of the PFM cycle stronger (e.g. oversight, classification) but critical weaknesses in executing planned budgets
Some Public Finance Management Reforms
Integrated Finance Management System (IFMS) Straight Through Processing of Salaries and Pensions (STP) and Electronic Funds
Transfer (EFT) Output Budgeting Tool (OBT) Quarterly Cash limits and Release/Procurement Information on MDAs websites (i.e. www.budget.go.ug) and Notice Boards Decentralization of the payroll
Future prospects for financing climate change are more positive: Slow growth and budget deficits limit fiscal space for climate change-related expenditure … but return to steady growth and prospect of oil and gas revenue might significantly raise scope for climate change-related expenditure
33
Policy Recommendations Fall into three categories:
a. Securing information on climate finance b. Revising the National climate change policy c. Planning climate finance delivery d. Supporting actions for effective climate finance delivery
Securing information on climate finance
Priority Action Lead institution(s)
The possibility of actively tracking the most relevant and high value climate change programmes within the national budget should be explored.
MoFPED, CCU
Climate change finance information, focusing initially on high and medium relevant government programmes, should be made readily available.
MoFPED, CCU
34
Internationally supported off-budget projects related to climate change should be identified and recorded (including those carried out by government agencies, NGOs and other project implementers.)
MoFPED, CCU, Donors
Revising the National climate change policy
Priority Action Lead institution(s)
The national climate change policy should ensure clarity of funding modalities for climate change actions, mostly focusing on mechanisms of generating funding within the national budget architecture.
MWE, MoFPED
Clarify the mandates of all the institutions named in the national climate change policy, with particular emphasis on the need for effective coordination
MWE
Planning climate finance delivery
Priority Action
Lead institution(s)
The climate change implementation strategy needs to rigorously prioritize its planned delivery schedule of investment projects to take account of existing (and likely future) funding levels.
CCU
The Vision 2040 ambition to use international climate funds to finance planned climate related actions should be reviewed in light of disappointing disbursement to date; and consider (i) other funding sources (including through the national budget), (ii) the rigorous prioritisation of expenditure plans, or (iii) securing better access to existing funds
NPA
35
Supporting actions required for effective climate finance delivery
Priority Action Lead institution(s)
Sector planning needs to take account of the national climate change policy and strategy and build the necessary capacity to allow implementation of priority actions (e.g. Ministry of Health’s expected additional spending on account of climate change)
Line ministries
Budget credibility should be strengthened through ongoing national efforts (e.g. the joint government/donor FINMAP programme)
MoFPED
2.2.1 QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE CONSULTANT
Questions/Comments
Participants wanted to know: 1) How much money in the
budget was sent to Local Government for Mitigation and Adaptation since districts have agricultural officers on ground.
2) How environmental bodies like NEMA are brought on board.
3) Whether the studies reviewed the actual activities on the ground at district level since the report indicates that funds do not reach the target groups.
A section of partipants listening during the dialogue
36
4) What FANRPAN was doing to help governments implement programmes and policies on climate change and help people adapt since the report points out that there were implementation challenges.
5) How best funding can trickle down to the farmers on the ground given the fact that a lot of donors claim to be investing on the ground yet the report says little has been done.
6) Whether financing mechanism on NGOs was captured. 7) What activities were carried out in the ministry of finance and whether it is necessary to
allocate this ministry finances for climate change. Noted that the presentation: 1) Focused mainly on budget analysis and missed out an explanation on many ongoing
multilateral activities in the region and hence their money not accounted for. 2) Does not mention anything on agricultural extension services for example NAADS,
Operation Wealth Creation (OWC). Asked whether NAADS is Climate Smart and FANRPAN’s view on funding mechanism for NAADS and OWC.
3) Could be out of date given the fact that most of the data is of 2008-20012 yet there are a number of current developments hence the need to compare with the present events.
Recommended that the 2014/2015 analysis be integrated in the analysis including local and international funding to make it more comprehensive. 4) On recommendations, the report indicates that money was spent on non priority areas and thus it was agreed that there is the need to come up with a complete review of the financing mechanism. 5) Identifies shortcomings in financial releases and implementation. How and what are the recommendations the researchers came up with to ensure that the NDP is implemented to meet its objectives?. 6) There is need to come up with a smaller version of the study that is easy to comprehend.
2.2.2: Responses by the Consultant
Mr. Daniel Lukwago clarified as follows:
1) Agreed that Uganda is advanced in political decentralisation but is very slow in terms of financial implementation for the local governments and when it comes to climate change the amount of money received is very
The Consultant, Daniel Lukwago responds to participants’ questions and comments
37
small; 2) Technically, NAADS was decentralised at Local Government. Government came up with
a single spine service system and there are no extension services at local government and no one follows up. No activity on climate change is done at local government.
3) Policies explain the roles of agencies but there are conflicts especially with donour money. It is the private sector that implements standards. not government due to lack of funds.
4) There are still challenges with money getting to the ground. There is need for establishment of mechanisms for tracking funds and empower governments to demand. The other challenge is lack of awareness hence the need to ensure that communities are empowered to monitor.
5) There is lack of an implementation strategy. The policy is supposed to guide local governments but there is a missing link to feed Local Government at the national level.
6) There is a challenge with budget in terms of access to information and this is worse with NGOs. It is easy to find out how much a country receives but information on how that money is spent is not easily available. There is need for government to create its own unit where people carrying out activities on climate change can declare their expenditures.
7) Agreed that the creation of the climate change unit was a good move but the institutional policy is not doing the needful. If the budget for this unit is not increased, the unit will become more inefficient.
8) Pledged to produce a smaller version of the study. 9) On whether the study is still relevant will be thought about and may require another
level of engagement. 10) The Ministry of Finance is responsible for the budget as a financial controller. No one
can implement any activity without the involvement of the Ministry of Finance, the rest can only facilitate.
11) To increase the budget for climate change to ensure that activities are implemented, it has to be looked at as a political question. There is need for stakeholders to convince political superiors with evidence that climate change is real, and that it is a common good whose impact can be felt as an immediate threat.
12) On the issue of the National development plan the consultant explained that all sectors have a cost on climate change in their plans but nothing is done. This is because every sector has its priorities. Climate change is cross cutting and this abrogates responsibility. Climate change on Local Government is not a key priority and in the system, it is classified as “others”. The challenge is how to work with government to ensure that “others” become a priority.
13) The study looked at financing generally and not agriculture specifically. 14) The study did not look outside government budget but other studies can be done. if you
go to OECD you can get how much money comes in. All donors indicate how much aid has been given but the problem is how that money is spent.
38
SECTION 3.0: GROUP DISCUSSIONS
Participants were divided into three groups and assigned to discuss questions basing on the Objectives of the National Dialogue as follows:
i. How to increase understanding of the climate change challenges for agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa at national levels;
ii. Discuss mechanisms for mainstreaming climate change knowledge into domestic agricultural research; and
iii. Discuss mechanisms for sustainable domestic financing of CSA.
3.1: GROUP PRESENTATIONS
3.1.1: Group I
Question: How to increase understanding of climate change challenges for agriculture in Uganda at national level
Answer:
Employing extension workers for mass community outreaches (extension staff at sub counties; a single spine system). Community workers live with the communities.
Capacity building of communities for a community specializing in particular practices
Running of commercials on mass-media (radios, televisions)
A participant presenting on behalf of Group 1
Group I Members discussing
39
Compile a cross-cutting database and updating it in various agricultural levels that an extension worker can pick and interpret for the local farmers.
Climate change oriented clubs in schools to create awareness amongst even the youngsters. (pictorial messages and publications should be used in schools, churches, hospitals among others)
Establish more sharing platforms. These will assist in smooth flow of information up to the lowest levels of agriculture.
Formulation of a programme to enable information dissemination from platform participants to the farmers.
Farmer organizations can be used to disseminate information to the farmers
Result demonstrations (for example, energy stoves)
Dramas to animate climate change (mobile units)
POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Mainstreaming national regulations so that they fit in the local government work plans (national level and district level)
Implement regulations against environmental vandalism.
Enforcing implementations that are already in place
Designing of awards for key players in climate change adaption and mitigation
3.1.2: Group II:
Question: Discuss mechanisms for mainstreaming climate change knowledge into domestic agricultural research (evidence in Uganda) Answer:
Group II members during their discussion
40
1. Simplify the information on climate change. e.g. documenting trends of rain, forest loss, temperatures, etc. to demystify and raise the awareness on climate change so that it becomes every ones responsibility. Popularise the research findings
2. Improve the ZARDIs 3. Update the curriculum 4. Mainstream agricultural funding
with the focus of improving food security
5. Strengthen climate change data infrastructure and timely dissemination
6. Result oriented approach i.e. Track the rate of climate change impacts in Uganda e.g. rain and translate it into monetary terms
7. All stakeholders should make a budget for climate change 8. Mechanisms of getting political buy in should be sought 9. Creating awareness and disseminating information on climate change Ssuch as solar,
energy savers, water harvesting 10. Identify and bridge knowledge gaps e.g. indigenous knowledge should be preserved like
seeds and planting materials, weather forecasts, 11. Regulate seed sector e.g. create a website/ data base of credible seed producers 12. Build capacity and awareness of local governments 13. Develop simple IEC materials of climate change for disseminating information 14. Community participation should be encouraged
NB: Point 4 and 5 (in red colour) were also classified as policy recommendations
3.1.3: Group III
Question: Discuss mechanisms for sustainable domestic financing of Climate Smart
Mr. Ssali Godfrey presenting on behalf of group II
Group III members holding their discussion
41
Agriculture (CSA) Answer:
Creating a vote specific for CSA from finance department. We need a national fund for Climate change. Advocacy for allocation of environment tax to Climate Change (CSA). Deduction of PAYE into CSA fund Agricultural loans to farmers with low interest for CSA (incentives) Develop standard indicators (local & National) for climate change in the agricultural sector.
Farmers should be encouraged to invest in climate smart agriculture.
4.0 : CLOSING REMARKS
4.1: Closing remarks by the FANRPAN Representative
The FANRPAN Program Assistant, Talentus Mthunzi: 1) Thanked participants for taking time to discuss the
issues saying, it was demonstration of how pertinent they were about Climate Smart Agriculture. He added that it takes passion to be an advocate of climate change. He urged participants to take it as a serious issue of implementation.
2) Advised participants that it was high time all stakeholders stopped talking and implement CSA to ensure that the coming generation will be in a safer environment in terms of climate change.
3) Thanked Makerere University for hosting the FANRPAN Node and organising the dialogue expressing hope that the discussions will get to the policy makers.
Mr. Miito Gilbert presenting on behalf of Group III
FANRPAN Representative Talentus Mthunzi giving the closing remarks
42
4) Pledged to come up with a policy brief and liaise with Makerere University and discuss how to reach out to the concerned authorities
4.2: Closing remarks by the Coordinator Uganda Node
The Coordinator Uganda Node, Prof. Archileo Kaaya: -Thanked participants for honouring the invitation to attend the dialogue.
-He also thanked FANRPAN for organising the function. -Told participants that the Node was updating its database for members. -Invited members for lunch at the School food canteen before their departure and wished the participants a safe journey back. The workshop ended at 2.33 pm. Participants went for lunch and departed at leisure.
Uganda Node Coordinator, Prof. Archileo Kaaya giving his closing remarks
