National REDD+ Strategy and Action Plan

REDD+ Readiness ProgrammeMinistry of Water and EnvironmentPlot 21/28 Port Bell Road, LuziraP.O Box 20026, Tel:+256-414-220229Fax: +256-414-505941 Kampala, UGANDA UGANDA’S NATIONAL REDD+ PROGRAMME-MWE/CONS/14-15/00439 Draft Final REDD+ National Strategy October 2017 2 Table of contents Abbreviations.....................................................................................................................................6 Foreword .............................................................................................................................................8 Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................9 1. Introduction................................................................................................................................ 18 2. Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation........................................................... 19 3. Analysis of the final strategic options................................................................................ 24 3.1. General overview............................................................................................................... 24 3.2 Strategic option 1: Climate-smart agriculture ......................................................... 253.2.1 Approach............................................................................................................................................. 253.2.2 Potential locations for implementation ............................................................................... 263.2.3 Appraisal ............................................................................................................................................. 263.2.4 Non-carbon benefits...................................................................................................................... 303.2.5 Policy and legal appraisal ........................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Strategic options 2: Sustainable fuelwood and (commercial) charcoal production ............................................................................................................................. 333.3.1 Approach............................................................................................................................................. 333.3.2 Potential locations for implementation ............................................................................... 343.3.3 Appraisal ............................................................................................................................................. 343.3.4 Non-carbon benefits...................................................................................................................... 393.3.5 Policy and legal appraisal ........................................................................................................... 39 3.4 Strategic options 3: Large-scale commercial timber plantations ..................... 443.4.1 Approach............................................................................................................................................. 443.4.2 Potential locations for implementation ............................................................................... 443.4.3 Appraisal ............................................................................................................................................. 443.4.4 Non-carbon benefits...................................................................................................................... 483.4.5 Policy and legal appraisal ........................................................................................................... 48 3.5 Strategic option 4: Restoration of natural forests in the landscape................. 493.5.1 Approach............................................................................................................................................. 493.5.2 Potential locations for implementation ............................................................................... 503.5.3 Appraisal ............................................................................................................................................. 503.5.4 Non-carbon benefits...................................................................................................................... 543.5.5 Policy and legal appraisal ........................................................................................................... 54 3.6 Strategy Option 5: Energy efficient cooking stoves ................................................ 563.6.1 Approach............................................................................................................................................. 563.6.2 Potential locations for implementation ............................................................................... 573.6.3 Appraisal ............................................................................................................................................. 573.6.4 Non-carbon benefits...................................................................................................................... 603.6.5 Policy and legal appraisal ........................................................................................................... 61 3.7 Strategic option 6: Integrated wildfire management ............................................ 623.7.1 Approach............................................................................................................................................. 623.7.2 Potential locations for implementation ............................................................................... 633.7.3 Appraisal ............................................................................................................................................. 633.7.4 Non-carbon benefits...................................................................................................................... 65 3 3.7.5 Policy and legal appraisal ........................................................................................................... 65 3.8. Strategic options 7: Livestock rearing in the Cattle Corridor............................ 673.8.1. Approach............................................................................................................................................ 673.8.2. Potential locations for implementation .............................................................................. 693.8.3. Appraisal............................................................................................................................................ 693.8.4 Non-carbon benefits...................................................................................................................... 743.8.5 Policy and legal appraisal ........................................................................................................... 74 3.9 Strategic Option 8: Strengthen Policy Implementation for REDD+ .................. 753.9.1 Approach............................................................................................................................................. 753.9.2 Potential locations for implementation ............................................................................... 773.9.3. Appraisal............................................................................................................................................ 773.9.4 Non-carbon benefits...................................................................................................................... 783.9.5 Policy and legal appraisal ........................................................................................................... 78 3.10 Discussion on strategic options .................................................................................. 78 4. Institutional arrangements for REDD+ programme implementation ................... 82 4.1 Overall implementation strategy.................................................................................. 82 4.2 National level arrangements for REDD+ implementation ................................... 824.2.1 Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE).................................................................. 834.2.2 Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) .................... 834.2.3 Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) .......................................... 834.2.4 The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) .............................................................................. 844.2.5 Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MoGLSD) ............................ 844.2.6 Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities (MTWA) .............................................. 844.2.7 Ministry of Local Governance (MOLG) ................................................................................. 844.2.8 State service provider bodies ................................................................................................... 854.2.9 Mechanisms for supervision, coordination and stakeholder participation ....... 944.2.10 Monitoring, reporting, communication and feedback on REDD+ NationalStrategy Implementation ............................................................................................................ 964.2.11 Risk management ......................................................................................................................101 4.3 Subnational arrangements ...........................................................................................1024.3.1. Lead implementer, participating institutions, roles and responsibilities ........1024.3.2. Mechanisms for supervision, coordination and stakeholder participation ....1064.3.3 Linkages with districts/local governments .....................................................................1064.3.4 Monitoring & Evaluation, reporting, communication and feedback on REDD+National Strategy Implementation.......................................................................................1064.3.5 Risk management .........................................................................................................................1074.3.6 District and local level administrative structure by strategic options ...............108 5. Financing Arrangement for REDD+ Implementation.................................................114 5.1 Financing REDD+ implementation within the current planning and budgeting framework ......................................................................................................114 5.2 National arrangements for financial management ..............................................1165.2.1 Five-Year Costed Action Plan for the REDD+ implementation...............................1165.2.2 Budget for the following 20 years of REDD+ implementation ...............................1195.2.3 Mechanisms for supervision, coordination and stakeholder participation .....1215.2.4 Linkages with districts/local governments .....................................................................1215.2.5 Financial monitoring, reporting, communication and feedback on REDD+financial implementation..........................................................................................................1225.2.6 Risk management .........................................................................................................................122 4 5.3 Subnational arrangements for financial management .......................................1235.3.1 Overview of sub-national financial management .........................................................1235.3.2 Distribution of funding to sub-national partner institutions ..................................1235.3.3 Mechanisms for supervision, Coordination and Stakeholder participation ....1235.3.4 Linkages with districts/local governments .....................................................................1245.3.5 Monitoring & Evaluation, reporting, communication and feedback on REDD+financial management ................................................................................................................1245.3.6 Risk management .........................................................................................................................124 5.4 Financial Arrangement for each of the Strategic Options ..................................125 5.5 How carbon financing impacts on the administrative set-up...........................1295.5.1 Overview...........................................................................................................................................1295.5.2 Carbon trading from large-scale timber plantations (Strategic Option 3) .......1325.5.3 The nested approach FIP Project carbon trading activities in certain districts ofUganda ...............................................................................................................................................1335.5.4 Other carbon trading opportunities directly within the national REDD+programme ......................................................................................................................................1335.5.5 Various programmes and projects that incorporate carbon trading ..................1345.5.6 Benefit sharing arrangements from REDD+ carbon trading ...................................134 6. Integration of REDD+ National Strategy with other REDD+ Processes................136 6.1 REDD+ Readiness Preparation and Implementation Frameworks................136 6.2 A tool for REDD+ strategy integration in the context of Uganda .....................139 7.Cross-cutting issues: Land tenure, capacity-building and gender integration ..144 7.1 Land tenure arrangements as a pre-requisite for REDD+ implementation 144 7.2 Capacity needs and capacity building arrangements ..........................................1447.2.1 Capacity gaps ..................................................................................................................................1447.2.2 Capacity building needs and capacity building arrangements ...............................1457.2.3 Capacity building strategies and actions...........................................................................146 7.3 Gender integration...........................................................................................................146 References......................................................................................................................................148 Annexes...........................................................................................................................................165Annex 1. Hectare based financial assessment of proposed interventions ........................165Annex 2: Legal and policy framework: Key strengths, weaknesses andrecommendations /observations ...................................................................................186Annex 3. Identified environmental and social impacts ..............................................................195Annex 4. Risks associated with implementation of the Strategic Options, withcomments ......................................................................................................................................203 5 LIST OF TABLESTable 1. Amounts of carbon and CO2-eq emissions per land area type and by driver in Uganda in2015 and the proposed strategic options to tackle them. .............................................................. 22Table 2. Summary for Strategic Option 1: Climate smart agriculture .......................................................28Table 3. Summary for Strategic Option 2: Sustainable fuelwood and charcoal production ............35Table 4. Summary for Strategic Option 3: Large-scale commercial timber plantations....................46Table 5. Summary for Strategic Option 4: Restoration of natural forests in the landscape.............52Table 6. Summary for Strategic Option 5: Energy efficient cooking stoves............................................59Table 7. Summary for Strategic Option 6: Integrated wildfire management .........................................64Table 8. Summary for Strategic Option 7: Livestock management ............................................................ 73Table 9. Financial analysis results for the 8 strategic options .....................................................................80Table 10. Lead institutions and collaborator for the strategic option implementation. ...................86Table 11. Roles and responsibilities of the core implementing organizations......................................88Table 12. National institutional responsibilities explicitly for the REDD+ National Strategyactivities. ............................................................................................................................................................. 90Table 13. Risks and mitigation measures related to national level institution set-ups of REDD+.............................................................................................................................................................................. 101Table 14. Institutional responsibilities explicitly for REDD Strategy at district level ..................... 103Table 15. Risks and their mitigation measures at sub-national level .................................................... 107Table 16. The 5-Year Costed Action Plan for Uganda national REDD+ programme establishmentphase.................................................................................................................................................................. 117Table 17. 20-year budget for Uganda national REDD+ programme establishment phase............ 120Table 18. Some sub-national level financial risks and their mitigation measures. ......................... 122Table 19. Some sub-national level financial risks and their mitigation measures. ......................... 125Table 20. Illustrative examples of benefits derived by stakeholders for the forthcoming nationalREDD+ programme in Uganda. ............................................................................................................... 126Table 21. Some potential local financing mechanisms that can be used by individual households,communities and private entities in their respective investments of Strategic Optionactivities. .......................................................................................................................................................... 127Table 22. Foreseen transaction costs for each proposed strategic sub-option.................................. 130Table 23. The REDD+ National Strategy integration with FRL, NFMS/MRV, SIS, GHG-I, NC, FGRM,BSA, and ESFM processes.......................................................................................................................... 141 LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1. Overview of how underlying causes leads into actual observed drivers of DD in Uganda...........................................................................................................................................................................20Figure 2. Population distribution in Uganda. ......................................................................................................57Figure 3. Overview of how livestock management issues are incorporated into the REDD+programme. .................................................................................................................................................68Figure 4. National level organogram for Ugandan REDD+ programme...................................................95Figure 5. Framework for linking policies and strategies to budgeting.................................................. 115 6 Abbreviations ACODE Advocates Coalition for Development and EnvironmentBAU Business-as-UsualBMCT Bwindi Mgahinga Conservation TrustBSA Benefit Sharing ArrangementCDM Clean Development MechanismCF Community ForestCFM Collaborative Forest ManagementCFRs Central Forest ReservesCNDPF Comprehensive National Development Planning FrameworkCSO Civil Society OrganizationDD Deforestation and Forest DegradationDLG District Local GovernmentDRR Disaster Risk ReductionDWD Directorate of Water DevelopmentDWRM Directorate of Water Resources ManagementEA Environmental AlertEES Energy Efficient StovesENR Environment and Natural ResourcesFAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United NationsFCPF Forest Carbon Partnership FacilityFGRM Feedback and Grievances Redress MechanismsFIP Forest Investment ProgrammeFREL/RL Forest Reference Emissions Levels/ Reference LevelsFSSD Forestry Sector Support DepartmentGEF Global Environment FacilityICS Improved Cooking StovesINDC Intended Nationally Determined ContributionLG Local GovernmentLGDP Local Government Development PlansMAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and FisheriesMAC Marginal Abatement CostM&E Monitoring & EvaluationMEAs Multilateral Environmental AgreementsMEMD Ministry of Energy and Mineral DevelopmentMDA Ministry, Department and/or AgencyMFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic DevelopmentMGLSD Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social DevelopmentMLHUD Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban DevelopmentMoFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic DevelopmentMOLG Ministry of Local GovernmentMRV Measurement, Reporting and VerificationMTEF Medium-Term Expenditure FrameworkMTIC Ministry of Trade, Industry and CooperativesMTWH Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and HeritageMWE Ministry of Water and EnvironmentNAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services 7 NAFORRI National Forest Research InstituteNARO National Agricultural Research OrganisationNBSAP National Biodiversity Strategy and Action PlanNDP National Development PlanNDPII The National Forest PlanNEA National Environmental ActNEMA National Environment Management AuthorityNCCAC National Climate Change Advisory CommitteeNFA National Forest AuthorityNFI National Forest InventoryNFMS National Forest Monitoring SystemNGO Non-governmental organizationNPA National Planning AuthorityNPV Net Present ValueOBB Output-Based BudgetingPES Payment for Ecosystem ServicesPFM Participatory Forest managementPLRs Policies, Laws & RegulationsPS Permanent SecretariesREDD+ Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and therole of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancementof forest carbon stocksR-PP Readiness Preparation ProposalSACCO Savings and Credit Cooperative OrganizationsSDG Sustainable Development GoalsSESA Strategic Environmental and Social AssessmentSIP Sector Investment PlansSIS Safeguards Information SystemSLM Sustainable Land ManagementSWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and ThreatsTCU The REDD+ Technical Coordination UnitUBOS Uganda Bureau of StatisticsUNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat DesertificationUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentUTGA Uganda Timber Growers’ AssociationUWA Uganda Wildlife AuthorityWB World Bank 8 Foreword REDD+ is an international mechanism for providing result-based payments for reducingemissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+). It offers an opportunityfor Uganda to serve the common interest in managing its forests in a balanced way forlong-term sustainable economic growth; to support the livelihoods of local, rural andforest dependent communities; and to ensure that its important natural heritage isconserved. REDD+ Process in Uganda started in 2008, when Uganda became a participant of theFCPF after approval of the Forest Carbon Partnership Readiness Plan Idea Note (R-PIN).The R-PIN provided initial overview of land use patterns and causes of deforestation, thestakeholder consultation process, and potential institutional arrangements foraddressing REDD+. Uganda embarked on the R-PP preparation phase in March 2010,submitted an acceptable R-PP in May 2012 and commenced implementation of the R-PPin July 2013.In Uganda, the REDD+ process is a national undertaking, well positioned within theover-policy framework and is one of the national climate change initiatives. Further,Uganda is among those few FCPF and UN-REDD participating countries in Africa withdedicated budget funds to support REDD+ activities, as REDD+ has been accommodatedin her Macro-Economic Investment Plan, Mid-Term Expenditure Framework and Waterand Environment Sector Investment Plan. Uganda aspires to have a socially and environmentally viable national strategy forreducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, enhancing the role ofconservation of biodiversity, promoting sustainable management of forests andenhancing carbon stocks. This REDD+ National Strategy document guides developmentof the nationally agreed set of policies and programs for addressing the drivers ofdeforestation and forest degradation. 9 Executive Summary Current situationFor 2015, the forest cover of Uganda was estimated at 12 % of the total land area, or2.42 million ha. Woodlands are the dominant forest type, accounting for about 62 % ofthe forest area, tropical high forests for 21 % and plantations for 17 % (MWE 2017).Remaining high forests and woodlands in Uganda Source: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring CentreUganda is among the two countries with the highest deforestation rate globally. Thenatural forest cover has experienced a strong decline in area in the past decades. In2000, forests are estimated to have covered 3.12 million hectares, and declined to 2.42million hectares in 2015, about 11.8 % of the total land area. In 1990, forest cover hadbeen estimated at 24 % of total land area (MWE 2017). 10 Deforestation rate in Uganda Source: MWE 2017 Drivers of deforestation and forest degradationThe underlying causes for deforestation and degradation are numerous and the nationalsetting is quite complex. The high human population growth is the overarching startingpoint and the main underlying cause in Uganda. Both “poverty” and “culture” factors aresecondary underlying causes together with “urbanization”, which stems from populationgrowth. Further, numerous concrete underlying causes being linked to institutions,social and human resources, natural resources, energy, land and farming as well as legalregulations type of factors have been listed. (See Figure 1, Chapter 2). For the actual observed drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, the size andimpact have been assessed in terms of carbon and carbon dioxide emissions (see Table1, Chapter 2). A key finding is the huge amount of carbon emissions resulting fromwildfires1 in Uganda, making it the biggest driver of deforestation and forestdegradation in forest areas of Uganda. Natural forest wood extraction for energy(fuelwood and charcoal) is the second largest individual drivers of DD identified,followed by round wood extraction for construction material. Smallholder agriculturalexpansion is the fourth biggest driver and the Large-scale commercial farmlandexpansion fifth biggest driver. Livestock free-grazing seems to cause huge emissionsboth in forest and non-forest areas, but separating its harmful and non-harmfulelements for deforestation and degradation poses a challenge. 1 Wildfires is used to mean both fires due to natural causes of ignitions (e.g. lightning sparks from rockfalls, spontaneous combustion, volcanic eruption) and human-induced (e.g. arson, discarded cigarettes,hunters and grazers, power-line arcs) 11 Source: Tradingeconomics.com/World Bank 2017Assuming that wildfire incidences would remain constant until year 2042, the overallannual carbon emission would increase from an annual 154 million tons of carbon in2015 to 200.7 million tons of carbon in 2042 (excluding livestock free crazing) whenapplying 3 % annual increase based on human population growth for other drivers. Theoverall carbon emission during the next 25 years would then be 4,434 Mt of carbon,which means overall 16,273 MtCO2eq over the same time period.Biomass carbon density and fire occurrences in Uganda 2013 12 Source: UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre Strategic options The aim of the REDD+ strategic options is to turn current wood and biomass extractioninto sustainable abatement activities (i.e. strategic option activities). Each strategicoption will add to the mitigation capacity in its own manner, but the main idea is togradually stop the use of wood coming from natural forests and to replace it with woodcoming from planted forests, improve the efficiency of wood use and prevent wildfires. Many of the proposed strategic options have strong links to watershed management andopportunities for gender activities, involvement of forest dependent and marginalizedvulnerable people. Further, numbering the strategic options does not relate toprioritization of the options, which was considered not important due to various cross-linkages between the options implementation. Validated final strategic options with their sub-options for Uganda are listed asfollowing.Strategic option 1. Climate smart agriculture2 has three sub-options, which all aim toreduce the need for agricultural expansion to forest areas by intensifying and increasingagricultural production on existing agricultural land, include  SLM and agroforestry practices;  Rainwater harvesting with collection tank and drip irrigation;  Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables; Strategic option 2. Sustainable fuelwood and (commercial) charcoal production has threesub-options, which aim to reduce need of use of wood sourced from natural forest byproviding energy wood, charcoal and construction materials from forest plantation,include  Commercial small-holder and community bioenergy woodlots;  Commercial small-holder and community poles and timber plantations;  Improved charcoal kilns linked to bioenergy woodlots; Strategic option 3. Large-scale commercial timber plantations has three sub-options,which aim to reduce the need of wood sourced from natural forest by providingconstruction materials and charcoal from forest plantation, include  Commercial transmission pole and timber plantation;  Commercial pole and sawlog plantation;  Improved charcoal kilns linked to plantation sites; 2 Deforestation-free agricultural supply chains sub-option was considered to be relevant in future, current options concentrate on small holders. 13 Strategic option 4. Restoration of natural forests in the landscape3 has three sub-options,which aim to restore and maintain the still existing forested areas. Aim is also to involvelocal people and the forest dependent communities with the activities including  Designated areas for natural forest regeneration;  Restoration of degraded protected natural forest (i.e. national parks andforest reserves and forests on privately owned land);  Devolution of forest management through PFM and similar set-ups;  Traditional/customary forest management practices; Strategic option 5. Energy efficient cooking stoves has two sub-options aiming at makinguse of wood more efficient and that way reduce the pressure on natural forests.  For fuelwood;  For charcoal; Strategic option 6. Integrated wildfire management aims to reduce the destructiveimpacts of wildfires on forests. Strategic option 7. Livestock rearing in the Cattle Corridor has three sub-options aimingat improving and intensifying livestock management to reduce the need for clearing upforests for pasture lands.  Livestock breeding programme;  Establishment of drinking water dams for livestock;  Establishment of fodder agroforestry plantations; Strategic option 8. Strengthening of policy implementation for REDD+ is an over-archingoptions, which aims to facilitate the implementation of the other options. The first six of the final strategic options were developed so that they all have negativemarginal abatement cost coefficients, which means that they are cost efficient (see Table9 in Chapter 3). Ultimately the amount of carbon that will be abated uponimplementation of each of the strategic option, for a period of 25 years range from 3.6 to16,049 MtCO2eq tons. The maximal abatement potential of the proposed strategicoptions is 31,284 MtCO2eq, which is an average 341 Mt carbon per year and/or 1,251MtCO2eq per year. This is above the expected BAU scenario for the national carbonemissions. Cost efficient means that these activities will be financially viable and theirbeneficiaries will generate surplus income from their investment, even in the absence ofcarbon financing in the investment plans.Strategic option 7 does not have a set carbon mitigation target as the carbon mitigationtarget for livestock management has been included in scope of other strategic options. 3 Forest certification and responsible management (to address leakage) was analyzed as sub-option, butconsidered not relevant options at the moment. 14 Even the strategic sub-option 7.3 Establishment of agroforestry fodder plantationsfocuses on annual fodder production, which means that most carbon sequestration willbe used as fodder for livestock and is therefore not available for carbon trading.Strategic Option 8 is an over-arching option as it strives to increase the efficiency of theothers, while it is not bringing additional carbon emission reduction impacts by itself.Additionally, some of the sub-options have low initial investment needs of below USD100 per households as indicated in the third column of Table 9, Chapter 3. A few moreactivities need initial investments between USD 100–1,000, while the most expensiveactivities would require up to USD 1,500 to establish. Strategically, the activities with thelowest initial investments could potentially be targeted for all rural households,although in some cases also peri-urban and urban households could benefit from them,as is the case with Energy Efficient Stoves (EES) and Improved Cooking Stoves (ICS).Government of Uganda (GoU) considers these options as a visionary ladder where cheapoptions are for the poorest households who, as they become wealthier (towards Vision2040), and move up the ladder are able to afford more expensive investment optionsand thereby become less reliant on the natural forest for wood and biomass extraction. Institutional arrangement for REDD+ implementationThe Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) is the lead institution for the over-allimplementation and coordination. MWE will function through the Forestry SectorSupport Department (FSSD), the National Forest Authority (NFA), the Directorate ofWater Development (DWD) and the Directorate of Water Resources Management(DWRM). FSSD will provide technical and coordination responsibility on behalf of theMWE. MWE will collaborate with the Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA; forests in wildlifeconservation areas, wildfires), the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries(MAAIF; CSA and livestock rearing), the Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development(MEMD; sustainable fuel wood utilization, Energy Efficiency technologies), Districts(Local Forest Reserves, forest outside protected areas, CSA, sustainable fuel wood and(commercial) charcoal use, energy efficient cooking stoves, integrated wildfiremanagement). The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) through department responsiblefor Disaster Preparedness will supervise the involvement of refugees. The Ministry ofGender Labour and Social Development (MoGLSD) will supervise actions that supportethnic minority and marginalized people. Details of institutional roles are presented inChapter 4 for both national and district levels. 15 Institutional arrangements and collaboration by Strategic Options. Option Activity Lead institutions Collaborating institutionsSO 1. Climate smartagriculture SLM and agroforestry practices MAAIF, Districts.NARO, NAFFORI CSO/NGORainwater harvesting withcollection tank and drip irrigation MAAIFDistricts DWDCSO/NGOGreenhouse cultivation ofvegetables MAAIFDistricts, NARO CSO/NGOSO 2. Sustainable fuelwood and(commercial) charcoalproduction Commercial small-holder andcommunity bioenergy woodlots MEMD, DistrictsPrivate Land Owners CSO/NGOCommercial small-holder andcommunity pole and timberplantations DistrictsPrivate Land Owners CSO/NGO Improved charcoal kilns linked tobioenergy woodlots MEMD, DistrictsPrivate Sector CSO/NGO SO 3. Large-scalecommercial timberplantations Commercial transmission pole andtimber plantation DistrictsPrivate Land Owners Commercial pole and saw logplantation NFAPrivate Land OwnersDistrictsImproved charcoal kilns linked toplantation sites Private SectorSO 4. Restoration ofnatural forests in thelandscape: Designated areas for natural forestregeneration NFA, UWA, Districts CSO/NGOProtected natural forestmanagement (i.e. national parksand forest reserves) NFA, UWA, Districts CSO/NGO Devolution of forest managementthrough Participatory ForestManagement and similar set-ups NFA, UWA, Districts CSO/NGO Traditional/customary forestmanagement practices DistrictCultural Institutions,Community CSO/NGO SO 5. Energy efficientcooking stoves For fuel wood MEMD, FSSD, Districts CSO/NGOFor charcoal MEMD, FSSD, Districts CSO/NGOSO 6. Integratedwildfire management In timber plantations Private Landowner/PlantationOwners, NFAOn woodlands Districts, UWA, NFAOn bush lands Districts, UWA, NFAOn grasslands Districts. UWA, NFASO 7. Livestockrearing in CattleCorridor Breeding programme DAR, NGBC, districts CSO/NGOEstablishment of fodderagroforestry plantations Districts, NFA, UgandaSeeds Ltd. CSO/NGOEstablishment of water dams DWD CWUAs 16 Financing REDD+ implementationThe REDD+ National Strategy will not be implemented as a stand-alone project but aspart of the broader national planning framework and linked to the respective financingframeworks. In 2007, government approved the Comprehensive National DevelopmentPlanning Framework (CNDPF) policy, which provides a clear perspective vision andlong-term plan to articulate the country’s strategic development objectives andpriorities against which medium and short-term plans are anchored. Based on theCNDPF the government formulates long term plans (Vision), medium term plans(National Development Plan) and short-term plans (annual plans).The budget is the main tool by which government allocates resources to implement itsplans and address emerging policy priorities, now including options that will beapproved under this strategy. The government uses the budget Framework Papers andMedium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) to translate policies into implementableplans.Table 12 of Chapter 5 provides a 5-year costed Action Plan for the REDD+ NationalStrategy with a total budget of up to 150 million USD. It was deemed necessary to makethe financing plan on the basis of each Strategic Option rather than on the basis of LeadAgencies. This is because the Lead Agency can have several departments or serviceproviders collectively implementing the same activity in different locations. Throughsuch an arrangement, the National Accounting Officer can trace the expenditure toplanned activities as they relate to REDD+ priorities. Secondly, it is in line withgovernment intention to improve front-line service delivery rather than fundinstitutions per se. The budgeted allocation for the Ministry of Finance Planning andEconomic Development (MoFPED) will support employment of staff personnel to startestablishing the Autonomous National Fund at the MoFPED as prescribed under thenational Benefit Sharing Arrangement (BSA).For the 20 years beyond this Five-Year Costed Action Plan, the budget is mainlyindicative, although it still gives a good indication on the budget allocations needed tofulfil REDD+ implementation on a national scale in Uganda when all REDD+ operationsare integrated in respective sector financing. The 20-year budget for the REDD+implementation totals over 420 Million USD and is outlined in Table 13 of Chapter 5. Integration of National REDD+ & Communication ProcessesThere are several REDD+ readiness processes, such as forest reference emission levels,the national forest monitoring system, and social and environmental safeguardassessment and information systems development that are integral to the REDD+National Strategy. Table 15 of Chapter 7 serves as a tool and describes the direct meansof integration with these readiness process outcomes, greenhouse gas inventory andnational processes with the REDD+ National Strategy in a more elaborated manner. 17 Some key considerations for REDD+ implementationLand ownership and shared utilization rights are likely to have a serious impact on thespeed and progress of REDD+ implementation. MWE will continue and intensify the on-going and new activities that will be relevant to the REDD+ implementation, including:  Giving communal land certificates in areas where communal land ownership ispractised, free of charge to the communities as already done in parts of Kasese,Karamoja, and Northern Uganda.  Intensify the project Systematic Land Adjudication and Certification, giving landcertificates in all parts of the country. A focus should be on areas where land hasnot been registered before, accompanied by activities to sensitize people on theneed for land registration. So far, Shema, Apac and Lango districts have benefitedfrom this project.  Carrying out boundary demarcation and land registration, possibly land titling, ofall CFRs where this has not been done, in cooperation between the NFA andMLHUD.Inadequate implementation of existing policies and enforcement of laws is one of thefactors that will negatively impact REDD+ implementation. In order to promote policyimplementation in all the sectors that are relevant to REDD+ implementation, it isnecessary for the Government to ensure that institutions responsible for REDD+implementation including local governments are adequately resourced both financiallyand with skilled manpower. 18 1. Introduction Uganda’s preparation for REDD+ mechanism started with the R-PP preparation phase inMarch 2010. Uganda submitted an acceptable and updated R-PP in May 2012. As part ofits R-PP process, Uganda prepared an indicative list of strategy options for the NationalREDD+ National Strategy, which were aimed at addressing the initial direct drivers ofdeforestation and forest degradation; and these were expected to serve as the basis forfurther dialogue during the REDD+ National Strategy formulation. The final selection ofstrategy options and the eventual formulation of the REDD+ National Strategy documentrequired further analytical work, consensus building, prioritization andoperationalization. A number of existing Policies, Laws, Regulations (PLRs) and Plansrelated to REDD+ also provided inputs for the development of the REDD+ NationalStrategy.The preparation of REDD+ National Strategy process was linked to:a. SESA and assessment of REDD+ National Strategy optionsb. Benefit Sharing Mechanism(BSA)c. Feedback and Grievances Redress Mechanisms (FGRM)d. Forest Reference Emissions Levels/Reference Levelse. Monitoring Systems for Forests and Safeguardsf. Strengthening Participatory Structures, Capacity Building and Communicationtools for Uganda’s National REDD+ programme. 19 2. Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation The underlying causes for deforestation and degradation are many and the nationalsetting therefore, becomes quite complex. The figure 1 below presents the whole set-upin relation to deforestation and degradation taking place on forests and non-forest landswith the underlying causes shown in full complexity. The underlying causes analysisbegan by considering the high human population growth as the overarching startingpoint in Uganda. Both “poverty” and “culture” factors have been placed as secondaryunderlying causes together with “urbanization”, which stems from population growth. Moving from the left towards the right of the outlined underlying causes, a clear patternof concrete underlying causes being linked to institutions, social and human resources,natural resources, energy, land and farming as well as legal regulations type of factors isobserved. The actual reasons behind wood/biomass use are based on human needs. In the last column are the actual observed drivers of deforestation and forestdegradation, the size/impact of which have been assessed in terms of carbon and carbondioxides emissions (see Table 1). In order to understand the level of carbon emissions and later to develop appropriateabatement options, the above drivers were categorised into five main land cover types,namely; forests, non-forest lands, forest plantations, farm lands (covering both small-holder and large-scale commercial farms) as well as areas called ‘rivers and small landareas’ (to be used for renewable energy power stations).A key finding from the analysis of these drivers as presented in Table 1 is the hugeamount of carbon emissions resulting from wildfires in Uganda. When livestock free-grazing is excluded (due the challenge posed when separating its harmful versus non-harmful elements for deforestation and degradation) from the carbon calculations,wildfires constitute around 72% of the annual carbon emissions for 2015.Natural forest wood and energy extraction are the third and fourth largest individualdrivers of DD identified, followed by smallholder agricultural or large-scale commercialfarmland expansion.Assuming that wildfire incidences would remain constant until year 2042, then theoverall annual carbon emission would increase from an annual 154 million tons ofcarbon in 2015 to 200.7 million tons of carbon in 2042 (with a 3 % annual increasebased on human population growth for other drivers). Figure 1. Overview of how underlying causes leads into actually observed drivers of DD in Uganda P o p u l a t i o n G r o w t h U r b a n i z a t i o n P o v e r t y C u l t u r e Economic growth Governance Infrastructure needs Low educa on Lack of funding Lack of job opportuni es Lack of or unavailable lands Demand from towns Refugees Land tenure Ethnic tradi ons Conflic ng laws/policies Livestock Need for natural resources Industries & businesses Other ins tu ons Administra on (incl. corrup on) Technical skills Roads & ins tu onal buildings Private infra & household houses Wood, NTFPs & other nat. resources Wood energy & water needs No visions & low technical skills Low investment capacity – no change Desperate & illegal ac ons Forest & other land encroachment Legal & illegal paid opportuni es to fil l demand Almost no own resources or incomes Ac vi es in protected areas Private lands and similar land use Community & tradi onal lands Usufruct rights given by authori es Tradi onal ethnic customs Overlapping, old & unclear regula ons Degrada on due to overuse & climate change Livestock fodder needs Livestock produc on needs Roads and infrastructure Ins tu onal construc on Domes c construc on Refugee construc on Ins tu onal energy needs Domes c energy needs Refugee energy needs Various household needs Smallholder subsistence farming Commercial farming Other land clearing Livelihood prac ces and accidents Livestock rearing needs Infrastructure development Timber logging Construc on poles harves ng Fuelwood extrac on Charcoal produc on Non-wood forest products Smallholder agriculture expansion Large-scale commercial farms Oil extrac on and mining Wildfires Livestock free-grazing & fodder Underlaying causes of deforesta on & degrada on Concrete underlaying causes Actual reason for wood/biomass use Actual observed drivers of DD The overall carbon emission during the next 25 years would then be 4,434 MT carbon,which means overall 16,273 MTCO2eq over the same time period. The maximalabatement potential of the proposed strategic options is 31,284 MTCO2eq, which is anaverage 341 MT carbon per year and/or 1,251 MTCO2eq per year. This is above theexpected BAU scenario for the national carbon emissions.The last column in Table 1 indicate the strategic options proposed to tackle each of thedrivers. Each strategic option will add to the mitigation capacity in its own manner, butthe main idea is to stop the use of wood coming from natural forests and to replace itwith wood coming from plantations, improve the efficiency of the wood use and preventwildfires. Table 1. Amounts of carbon and CO2-eq emissions per land area type and by driver in Uganda in 2015 and the proposed strategic optionsto tackle them. Land cover type Driver of DD Reason for wood use Current annual emissions C in Mt (X”000,000”) Current annual MtCO2 eq. Emission (X”000,000”) Strategic option No. Forest (including both well-stocked and low stocked tropical high forests) Infrastructure Roads & infrastructure n.a. Wildfires Wildfire 111.35 408.65 6 Large-scale farms Commercial farming 0,026 0.096 Agriculture expansion Smallholder farming 1.33 4.87 1 Round wood Domestic construction 1.10 4.05 1 & 2 Institutional construct. 1.12 4.13 1 & 2 Refugee construction 0.004 0.013 1 & 2 Fuelwood Domestic energy 3.74 13.72 1,2,4 & 5 Institutional energy 1.64 6.01 1,2,4 & 5 Refugee energy 0.078 0.285 1 & 2 Charcoal Domestic energy 4.95 18.16 1,2,4 & 5 Institutional energy 8.20 30.10 1,2,4 & 5 Non-wood products Household needs n.a. n.a. 4 Other land clearing Oil extraction Low (ca 10 ha/year) Low (ca 10 ha/year) Infrastructure Roads & infrastructure n.a. n.a. Non-forest land Wildfires Wildfire 3.60 13.23 6 Large-scale farms Commercial farming n.a. n.a. Agriculture expansion Smallholder farming 1.04 3.82 Logging HH & institution constr. 1.10 4.05 1 & 2 Institutional construct. 1.12 4.13 1 & 2 Pole extraction Refugee construction 0.004 0.013 1 & 2 Fuelwood Domestic energy 1.02 3.74 1, 2 & 5 Institutional energy 0.25 0.91 Refugee energy 0.078 0.285 1 & 2 Charcoal Domestic energy 1.05 3.85 1,2,4 & 5 Institutional energy 1.74 6.38 1,2,4 & 5 Non-wood products Household NWFPs n.a. n.a. 4 Other land clearing Oil extraction Low (ca 5 ha/year) Low (ca 5 ha/year) Livestock Livestock free-grazing 3,614.06 13,263.62 1, 2 & 7 23 Note: Land cover types do not correspond to FREL classification due to lack of available information on wood use in Uganda. When new information comesavailable the table is to be updated. Land cover type Driver of DD Reason for wood use Current annual Emissions C in Mtons Current annual MtCO2 eq. Emission Strategic option No Forest plantation Roundwood etc. Roundwood 1.92 7.06 3 Fuelwood Wood energy 0.10 0.35 3 Farm land More intense farm. Commercial farming n.a. n.a. 1 (smallholder & Livestock Livestock fodder n.a. n.a. 1, 2 & 7 large scale) Logging HH & institution constr. 0.33 1.20 1 & 2 Pole extraction Domestic construction 0.51 1.87 1 & 2 Fuelwood Domestic energy 2.04 7.48 1, 2 & 5 Institutional energy 0.60 2.18 Charcoal Domestic energy 1.50 5.50 1, 2 & 5 Institutional energy 2.48 9.12 1, 2 & 5 TOTAL 4 land categories above (excl. livestock and oil extract.) 154.02 565.25 Total C (Mt) and MTCO2eq in 2042 with BAU scenario 200.69 736.54 (annual increase 3% for all drivers except wildfires that remain stable) 3. Analysis of the final strategic options 3.1 General overview Seven final strategic options and one over-arching option are proposed and validated asfollowing for Uganda. Many of the SOs have strong links to watershed management andopportunities for gender activities, involvement of forest dependent and marginalizedvulnerable people. Validated final strategic options with their sub-option for Uganda are listed as following. Strategic option 1. Climate smart agriculture4 has three sub-options, which all aim toreduce the need for agricultural expansion to forest areas by intensifying and increasingagricultural production on existing agricultural land, including  SLM and agroforestry practices;  Rainwater harvesting with collection tank and drip irrigation;  Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables; Strategic option 2. Sustainable fuelwood and (commercial) charcoal production has threesub-options, which aim to reduce need of use of wood sourced from natural forest byproviding energy wood, charcoal and construction materials from forest plantation,including  Commercial small-holder and community bioenergy woodlots;  Commercial small-holder and community poles and timber plantations;  Improved charcoal kilns linked to bioenergy woodlots; Strategic option 3. Large-scale commercial timber plantations has three sub-options,which aim to reduce the need of wood sourced from natural forest by providingconstruction materials and charcoal from forest plantation, including  Commercial transmission pole and timber plantation;  Commercial pole and sawlog plantation;  Improved charcoal kilns linked to plantation sites; Strategic option 4. Restoration of natural forests in the landscape5 has three sub-options,which aim to restore and maintain the still existing forested areas. Aim is also to involvelocal people and the forest dependent communities to these activities.  Designated areas for natural forest regeneration; 4 Deforestation-free agricultural supply chains sub-option was considered to be relevant in future, current options concentrate on small holders.5 Forest certification and responsible management (to address leakage) was analyzed as sub-option, butconsidered not relevant options at the moment. 25  Restoration of degraded protected natural forest (i.e. national parks andforest reserves and forests on privately owned land);  Devolution of forest management through PFM and similar set-ups;  Traditional/customary forest management practices; Strategic option 5. Energy efficient cooking stoves has two sub-options aiming at makinguse of wood more efficient and that way reduce the pressure on natural forests.  For fuelwood;  For charcoal; Strategic option 6. Integrated wildfire management aims to reduce the destructiveimpacts of wildfires on forests. Strategic option 7. Livestock rearing in the Cattle Corridor has three sub-options aimingat improving and intensifying livestock management to reduce the need for clearing upforests for pasture lands.  Livestock breeding programme;  Establishment of drinking water dams for livestock;  Establishment of fodder agroforestry plantations; Strategic option 8. Strengthening of policy implementation for REDD+ is an over-archingoptions, which aims to facilitate the implementation of the other options. 3.2 Strategic option 1: Climate-smart agriculture 3.2.1 Approach The large quantities of carbon in forests per hectare far surpass the carbon stocks thatcan be sequestered in croplands, hence from the standpoint of quantity of carbonsequestered, avoided deforestation achieves the maximum mitigation per hectarecompared to any other intervention in the landscape. The intention of the proposedstrategic option is to reduce agricultural expansion to forest through sustainableintensification on already cultivated land and thereby to produce a major mitigationeffect. Land productivity will also increase and activities can be implemented byeverybody (individuals, families, communities, private sector and even the poorestpeople jointly by joining their forces). The three major approaches are as follows:  Sustainable Land Management/Use and Agroforestry Practices  Rainwater harvesting with collection tank and drip irrigation 26  Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables6 The Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) has developedGuidelines for Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in AgriculturalSector Policies and Plans (MAAIF 2015). MAAIF and the Ministry of Water andEnvironment (MWE) have jointly produced a Uganda Climate Smart AgricultureProgramme 2015-2025 (ROU 2015a). The Vision of the Uganda CSA Program is a‘Climate resilient and low carbon agricultural and food systems contributing toincreased food security, wealth creation and sustainable economic growth in line withthe National Vision 2040.’ 3.2.2 Potential locations for implementation The whole country can be considered as potential location for implementation, and dripirrigation is an appropriate option especially for drylands. 3.2.3 Appraisal7 The Sustainable Land Management/Use and Agroforestry Practices Sub-option is thecheapest option of all the recommended one and should be adopted by all rural farminghouseholds in Uganda. The latest information from Uganda is that approximately 45 %of all farming households are already adopting these practices, which means that thissub-option targets the remaining 65 % of farming households in the country. This meansin practice that some 2,382,357 farming households should be incorporated in thisactivity within this programme. For this work, data and information found in thefollowing reference articles and reports MAAIF (2010), UBOS (2014), Dalipagic andElepu (2014), EPRC, 2014, MFPED, 2014, UBOS, 2015, UBOS (2016a), and UBOS (2016b)have been incorporated (See Table 2).According to the assessment of current (i.e. 2015) situation there would be, on average,about 1.12 ha of farmland for each farming household in Uganda and, therefore, targetshould also be 2,382,357 ha of farmland with this first sub-option. The investment needis small (USD 5 for the purchase of 60 tree seedlings for each farm household). Thepoorest household should be supported with subsidized seedlings or even free of chargeseedlings, so that all households have tree seedlings on their lands.The tree seedlings should be for fruit trees, fodder trees, fuelwood and constructionwood species in order to cover sustainably for all kinds of tree product needs for the 6 Promoting deforestation free agricultural supply chains and certified agricultural productswere also considered, but left out from final options at this point. Anyhow, these might becomeviable options in the future. 7 Shilling vs USD (May 2016, $ 3,580) 27 households, so that these would not need to be collected from either forests or non-forest areas. Fruit trees will support the food situation of the households, while foddertrees will enable the household to keep their cow(s) in stall-feeding on their own landparcel. There are fodder trees (e.g. Leuceana, Sesbania and Calliandra) which can beharvested annually for 25 years if cut at one metre stump height (pollarding). Thesetrees will re-sprout annually to provide sufficient fodder for 1-2 cows or other smalllivestock. The thicker branches can at the same time be used as fuelwood and if the treesare nitrogen fixing these will fertilize the cropland simultaneously. For example,eucalyptus trees are fast growing and can provide sufficient fuelwood and poles for thehousehold’s needs. Agroforestry practices will further enable farmer households topractice apiculture (i.e. beekeeping), which could be an additional source of income notincorporated in the current financial analysis. Sustainable land management is set in the financial analysis at a value of USD 50 peryear in in-kind own labour opportunity cost. The aim is here that each farmer shouldgradually build up proper sustainable land management practices on their land. Thefinancial analyses conclude that this kind of activities would benefit the household withan additional income of USD 2,817 per hectare at 10 % Net Present Value (NPV) over 25years. More information is included in the Process Report on how each of the financialanalyses has been performed with information on prices and other data used in thecalculations. A summary table for all three CSA strategic options can be found on thenext page (See table 2.). Rainwater harvesting with collection tank and drip irrigation sub-option is targetingthose 50 % of the wealthier households which this sub-option is affordable for sincehigher upfront investments are needed. The aim of this sub-option is to enable theutilization of rainwater to prolong the two crop cultivation seasons in Uganda (inNorthern Uganda only one long rainy season) by storing rainwater for times whenrainfall is not sufficient in crop cultivation season. Rainwater will be collected from thehouse roof from where it will be piped into a closed storage tank in the ground fromwhere drip irrigation water can be distributed on the crop fields and the vegetablegardens or for providing drinking water for livestock. The expectation is that crop yieldscan be at least doubled with this arrangement.The investment needs in sub-option 2 are fairly high (i.e. USD 1,485), but can besomewhat reduced by using own labour (digging of the hole for the tank in the groundand assistance to a mason), providing construction wood and sand for the water tankconstruction. A mason is needed to construct the water tank and other investment costinclude the cost of water pumping and piping systems, a water pump and cement. To anextent the cost can be stretched over three years, if the farmer prepares the water tankhole site and cuts the construction wood beforehand and then constructs the actual tankin the second year, while purchasing the water pump and the field drip irrigationequipment in the third year. In this manner investments can be kept low in each year. On 28 the other hand, the income generation would increase faster if the whole rainwater tankand drip irrigation can be installed in a short time.One can expect that the crop income will rise by some USD 1,922 (NPV at 10%) over 25years and thus the total annual crop income would be around USD 3800. Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables sub-option is expected to be established by about 15% of the wealthiest farming households. This kind of greenhouse requires or 160 m2 (20x 8 metres) of space, which means that this investment can still be added to the previoustwo CSA sub-options. The investment cost is also here USD 1,449 if plastic sheaths areused as cover of the greenhouse. A slightly cheaper option is to use shade nets instead ofplastic sheaths. In both cases will the greenhouses need to be renewed every fourthyear. However, part of the cover material and iron poles can be used for a much longerperiod. For this work, data and information has been incorporated from the sourcessuch as The Nation (2013), UBOS (2014), and EPRC (2014).In all three CSA, sub-options one can expect that these options will reduce farmlandexpansion as farmer families can intensify their crop cultivation on their own land. Table 2. Summary for Strategic Option 1: Climate smart agriculture Indicators/ Components Sustainable land management & agroforestry practices Rainwater harvesting with collection tank and drip irrigation Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables Area (ha) 2,382,357 ha fromstart. Each householdhas got 1/3 ha of their1 ha land withagroforestry (60 treeseedlings). 1,949,053 ha. Thiscovers the 50 % aboveaverage wealthier farmhouseholds exceptthose 5 % that alreadyhave installed this RWHsystem & irrigation. 20x8 metres pergreenhouse and withreplication totally10.4 ha of greenhouses. Potential no. of beneficiaries (households) 2,382,357 HHs fromstart or the current 55% of remaining farmhouseholds withoutagroforestry practices. 1,949,053 HHs. Thiscovers the 50 % aboveaverage wealthier farmhouseholds exceptthose 5 % that alreadyhave installed this RWHsystem & irrigation. 649,684 HHs. Thiscovers the 15 %wealthiest farmerhouseholds. Average yield increase per hectare 50 % 200 % as compared tothe basic pureagricultural cultivationscenario. 500 % from the basescenario withtraditionalagriculture. 29 Indicators/ Components Sustainable land management & agroforestry practices Rainwater harvesting with collection tank and drip irrigation Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables Farm-level investments per hectare Investments USD 5additional in years 1,10 and 20 ascompared to pureagriculture with USD76/year. USD 1,485 in first yearplus USD 30 each yearfor maintenance. Withown constructiontimber and own labourdown to USD 931. Costscan be stretched over 3years also. USD 1,449 withplastic sheaths orapprox. USD 1121with shade nets only.The greenhouseneeds partly to berenewed everyfourth year. Farm-level in kind labour cost per hectare Each year labouropportunity cost ofUSD 550 foragroforestry & SLM ascompared to USD 500in pure agriculture. USD 227 own labour inpresent value USD 400 own labouropportunity costduring constructionand USD 338 annualoperational costs. Overall investment and programmatic level costs (MUSD) covered by the farmers USD 6.97 / householdor totally MUSD 16.6over 25 years coveredby farmers (labouropportunity costexcluded). USD 1,258/HH and hawhen own labouropportunity costexcluded. Totally MUSD2,451 USD 4,592/HH withplastic sheaths andUSD 4,212/HH withshade nets over 25years. Totally MUSD2,983 Total project costs Additional agriculturalsector extension andorganization costs Additional agriculturalsector extension andorganization cost Additionalagricultural sectorextension andorganization cost Estimated emission abatement potential (tCO2) per ha over 25 years 94 69 & an estimated 25 %impact on reduction inannual new farmlandexpansion whichbecome 82 = total 151tCO2/ha An estimated 10 %reduction in annualfarm land expansionwhich become 82tCO2/ha Estimated emission abatement potential (MtCO2) overall 224 294 on top of theprevious sub-strategy(i.e. if both SSO 1.1 and1.2 implemented fullscale then total is 518). 53 30 Indicators/ Components Sustainable land management & agroforestry practices Rainwater harvesting with collection tank and drip irrigation Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables Hectare-level benefits NPV (USD) (10% discount over 20 years) USD 2,818/ha when1.12 ha on averageper household. ManyHHs have over 2 hastill. Pure agricultureNPV is USD 667/ha. USD 1,922 (at NPV 10%)/ha. This figure is ontop of the previous sub-strategy for the samehousehold (i.e. the totalincome would be USD4,740 or USD 2,589with pure agriculture) USD 15,861/HH over25 years (at NPV10%). Average annual employment generated (full time equivalents) Similar to traditionalfarming, but muchbetter incomegeneration perhousehold allowingmore family membersto work Mainly farmers ownlabour contribution andRWH tank excavationand skilled labour workopportunities Farmers becomefamily enterprisesproviding workopportunities formany familymembers or severalrelated families. MAC (10% inflation) USD/tCO2 30 -12.7 -193.4 The negative MAC-values for this sub-option and all other investigated strategic optionsmeans that they are efficient use of money and are over time going to save money for thehouseholds or business entities. 3.2.4 Non-carbon benefits Non-carbon benefits related to the environment include higher biodiversity, reducedsoil erosion, improved water holding capacity and microclimate. Increased soil organiccarbon and soil fertility promotes increased crop yields (fertilizer trees). Appropriatefeed improves ruminant health and reduces methane per unit yield (fodder trees).Avoided deforestation conserves safety foods that local populations collect during thedrought periods. Co-benefits related to well-being of population include improvedlivelihoods, increased income, health and nutrition among rural population. Co-benefitsrelated to gender represent an opportunity to promote gender equality inimplementation of agroforestry and other climate-smart agricultural practices; andbetter education opportunities and wealth among farmer households. 31 3.2.5 Policy and legal appraisal Uganda has in place an adequate policy and legal framework to support theimplementation of strategic option 1. To increase agricultural production andproductivity, Section 6.2 of the National Development Plan II (2015-2020) provides thatSustainable Land Management Practices (SLM) will be enhanced. Furthermore, Section9.2 of the National Development Plan II (2015-2020) provides for the scaling up ofagroforestry-based alternative livelihood systems.Under Section 3.2 Objective 5 paragraphs 26 (iv) and 26 (vii) of the Agriculture Policy(2013), the Government will promote sustainable land management and conservationagriculture as well as develop capacity to harvest and utilize rain water for agriculturalproduction. Under Section 4.4, paragraph 33 of the Agriculture Policy (2013), theGovernment notes that there is availability of bulk water supply, which is currentlyunder-developed, and calls upon the responsible ministries to plan jointly for provisionof adequate water for agricultural production to cover irrigation for improved cropproduction, livestock production needs, and aquaculture. The policy provides that theMinistry responsible for water, shall increase investment in off-farm bulk waterdevelopment, including larger reservoir dam construction, bulk water transfer systems,water diversion systems, and aquifer exploration, in collaboration with the ministryresponsible for agriculture.Uganda has in place the Uganda Strategic Investment Framework for Sustainable LandManagement (2010-2020) whose development objective is “to strengthen sectorcooperation in order to halt, reverse and prevent land degradation and desertificationand mitigate the effects of climate change and variability”. Under Section 3.3, theframework outlines various activities for implementation under five main themes:supporting on – the ground activities for scaling up SLM including the promotion ofagro-forestry; strengthening the enabling institutional and policy environment for SLM;strengthening commercial and advisory services and alternative livelihood options;supporting SLM research and dissemination; improving and strengthening SLMknowledge management, monitoring and evaluation; and information dissemination.Policy statement number 6 of the Uganda Forestry Policy (2001) provides that thegovernment will promote and support farm forestry in order to boost land productivity,increase farm incomes, alleviate pressures on natural forests and improve food security.Furthermore, it is provided that the government will provide extension and advisoryservices that support farmers, communities, organizations and entrepreneurs in theconservation and sustainable management of forests and in the development of farmforestry.Under policy statement number 4.1.4 of the Draft Rangeland Management andPastoralism Policy (2014), rangeland communities will be assisted to adopt rangemanagement, pastoral practices and strategies that increase resilience to impacts of 32 climate variability and change. Specific strategies to achieve the above policy statementinclude:  Ensure that communities implement strategies to alleviate effects of landdegradation and climate change;  Ensure that the government prioritizes environment protection and sustainablenatural resource management;  Establish and train rangeland management committees at local government level;  Conserve wetlands;  Improve the quality of weather and climate information to rangelandcommunities;  Maintain a national early warning system;  Have a clear contingency emergency drought plan;  Develop mechanisms to allow rangeland regeneration through fallowing over along time; designate vital watersheds in the rangelands;  Conserve water reservoirs as nature and biosphere reserves;  Establish a Rangeland Management and Training Centre (RMTC) to undertakeclimate change research and develop adaptation strategies;  Ensure that NEMA conducts project environmental impact assessments to reducenegative impacts on the rangeland communities;  Strengthen collaboration with the Climate Change Department and districts; and  Explore avenues through which the rangeland community can benefit fromcarbon emissions trading.Section 7.5.2 of the National Forest Plan (2011-2021) provides that tree growing onfarms will be encouraged to optimise the flow of economic, social and environmentalbenefits from forests and trees to the local communities as well as contribute toimproved conservation of forest resources.Section 26 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003) provides that theGovernment, NFA or the local government may provide technical services to any personinvolved in forestry activities including agroforestry and the growing of fruit species.Under Section 6 of the National Physical Planning Act (2010), the National PhysicalPlanning Board has power to advise Government on all aspects relating to physicalplanning in the country including viability of any proposed sub-division of agriculturalland.Under Section 6 of the National Agricultural Advisory Services Act (2001), NAADS, hasthe mandate to develop a demand driven, farmer-led agricultural service deliverysystem targeting the poor subsistence farmers, with emphasis on women, youth andpeople with disabilities. The role of NAADS is to provide support for advisory andinformation services to farmers; develop agricultural technologies and link farmers tomarkets; ensure quality by regulation and technical auditing of service providers; 33 strengthen private sector institutions to provide quality extension services; andestablish a programme management and monitoring system.Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 of the National Agricultural Advisory Services Act(2001), provide for the establishment of farmers groups and associations at the village,parish, sub-county and district levels. Section 21 provides for the establishment of theNational Farmers Forum with the following key functions: to participate in monitoringand evaluation of the progress of advisory services; to participate in the review of localgovernment plans for agricultural development; to play an advocacy role in the generalagricultural development and organisation; and provide feedback at all levels.Uganda has recently adopted the Agricultural Extension Policy (2016) to furtherstrengthen the existing agricultural extension system in the country.In order for this strategic option to be effectively implemented, there is a need toimplement the following specific measures under the existing policy and legalframework:  Strengthen implementation and coordination of policy measures for CSA;  Develop and enforce bylaws and other measures for SLM (by LoG);  Promote rainwater harvesting technologies for small scale farm holder irrigation;  Increase access to agriculture financing from different sources both state /government owned / operated and no-state sources;  Strengthen support to the dairy and meat cooperatives to promote livestockrearing changes. 3.3 Strategic options 2: Sustainable fuelwood and (commercial) charcoal production 3.3.1 Approach This strategic option aims to address the energy poverty in the context of climate changeby promoting sustainable fuelwood and charcoal production. The option provides one ofthe greatest opportunities to reduce emissions while fostering significant sustainabledevelopment benefits. Access to clean energy is an important indicator when analysingpoverty as it has a critical and immediate impact on the health and nutrition ofhouseholds. Scarcity of fuelwood drives people to opt to less nutritious fast cookingfoods, instead of beans and peas, for example and drives people to over-exploit biomassincluding in protected forests. Activities proposed can be implemented by everybody(individuals, families, communities, private sector and even the poorest people jointly byjoining their forces). 34 Three interlinked interventions are proposed8:  Commercial small-holder and community bioenergy woodlots  Commercial small-holder and community pole and timber plantations (withcoffee agroforestry)  Improved charcoal kilns linked to bioenergy woodlots 3.3.2 Potential locations for implementation In general, this strategic option can be implemented all over the country in locationswhere there is sufficient access to water and possibly also elsewhere. Integrating treeplanting in farming systems and boundary planting are feasible among the low-incomeearners and in cases where there is land scarcity, especially in the densely populatedLake Victoria crescent and south-western Uganda. The small-holder and communitywoodlots have an important role as a source of woodfuel and poles. Tree planting forcharcoal requires that tree growers are in fairly close geographical locations in order toshare the costs and increase the availability of optimal commercial quantities of rawmaterials, without having to transport the feedstock over very long distances. 3.3.3 Appraisal In the first sub-option on Commercial small-holder and community bioenergy woodlots;the aim is to foremost produce woodfuel in tree-based bioenergy woodlots all overUganda. The focus here is on 20 % of the farmer households, which makes 866,246households and equals with one-hectare size of woodlots to 866,246 hectares. Thisoption will allow use of the one hectare of each household for both energy wood, fodderand crop cultivation, being one of the best strategic sub-options assessed. (See Table 3) If one uses nitrogen-fixing agroforestry tree species like Leuceana leucocephala(selecting genetically non-invasive variety), Sesbania sesban, Markhamia lutea, Acacia polycantha or Calliandra callothyrsus, these can be grown in rows or alleys and they willfix nitrogen for the whole one hectare fertilizing also crops such as maize that can begrown between the alleys. Already during the second year one can cut the trees at onemetre stump height and harvest between 15-20 tonnes of woody energy wood onannual basis (Christensen 2013). 8 Biogas option was also analyzed. This technology is still new and potential for reduced emissions rather minimal at national level. Anyhow individual institutions (hospitals, schools, jails etc) could look into this option and it might become viable option in the future also in large scale. 35 Table 3. Summary for Strategic Option 2: Sustainable fuelwood and charcoal production. Indicators/ Components Commercial small holder and community bioenergy woodlots Commercial small holder and community poles and timber plantations (with coffee agroforestry) Improved charcoal burning kilns Area (ha) 866,246 ha 108,281 ha Totally some 100,000charcoal kilns forUganda Potential no. of beneficiaries (households) 866,246 HHs or 20 %of farminghouseholds. A goodalternative for poorhouseholds. 108,281 HH or 2.5 %of all farming HHs. A Casamance, AdamRetort or similarretort charcoal kilnshould be based witha cluster of ca 6 small-holder bioenergywoodlots. Average yield increase per hectare Approx. 350 % ascompared totraditional agriculture. Approx. 1600 %income increase over25 years With Casamance kiln18-25 % and withAdam Retort up to 35% charcoal efficiency,when traditional earthkiln only 11 %maximum. Farm-level investments per hectare Initial 1st year treeplantation investmentUSD 162 plus annualUSD 60 farmingexpenses USD 1,235/ha over 25years An Adam or Sam 1retort may cost ca.USD 1,400 while aCasamance may costUSD 160. Charcoalproduction tax permitUSD 60. These costscan be shared amongcluster members. Farm-level labour opportunity cost per hectare Annually USD 389-847for bioenergy and USD400 for farmingoperations USD 5,617 over 25years or 68.9 % of allfarm-level costs Annually USD 333 forcharcoal kilnoperation (2 persons). Overall investment and programmatic USD 6,723/HH inenergy plantationsand USD 4,175/HH forcrops. Totally MUSD USD 6,852.5/ha ortotallyMUSD 742 Totally USD 150million for payment ofimproved charcoalkilns and permits 36 Indicators/ Components Commercial small holder and community bioenergy woodlots Commercial small holder and community poles and timber plantations (with coffee agroforestry) Improved charcoal burning kilns level costs (MUSD) covered by the farmers 9,440.5 overall ofwhich 84 % relates tolabour opportunitycosts. Total project costs Additional energy &agricultural sectorextension andorganization costs Additional energy &agricultural sectorextension andorganization costs Governmental super-vision and registrationto make thissustainable Estimated emission abatement potential (tCO2) per ha over 25 years In itself it constitutes700.6 tCO2, but whenit is substitutingtraditional charcoalmaking from naturalforests it become1504 tCO2/ha 443 from tree croponly With Adam or Sam 1Retort kilns theefficiency is 2.86 kgfuelwood to 1 kgcharcoal instead of 9:1with traditional kiln.One Adam kiln thatburn 415 ton ofwood/25 years (asbased on SSO 2.1.)thus produce 99 tmore char-coal thantraditional kiln. Estimated emission abatement potential (MtCO2) overall 606 MtCO2 (See also its impact ascharcoal in SSO 2.3. 47 MtCO2 The SSO 2.1. wood willas charcoaladditionally save 695MtCO2 when it isproduced sustainablywith an improved kiln Hectare-level benefits NPV (USD) (10% discount over 25 years) Simultaneousbioenergy USD7,165/ha and cropUSD 3,086/ha ortotallyUSD 10,252/ha Simultaneous treecrop USD 4,832/haand crop USD9,815/ha and totallyUSD 14,647/ha 6,820 USD/ha at 10%discount rate. 37 Indicators/ Components Commercial small holder and community bioenergy woodlots Commercial small holder and community poles and timber plantations (with coffee agroforestry) Improved charcoal burning kilns Average annual employment generated (full time equivalents) Approx. 4workers/ha/yr, soincrease fromtraditional agricultureis 2, so in total1,732,492 persons. Approx. 2.5workers/ha/yr andthus increase fromtraditional agricultureis 1.5, so in total162,421 persons. Two labourers tooperate each kiln.Thus 200,000persons/year. MAC (10% inflation) USD/tCO2 16.9 -33.1 -277.8 per kiln From the annually harvested bioenergy trees (i.e. S. sesban, M. lutea, A. polycantha or C.callothyrsus) one can also get 2-4 tonnes of fodder each year, which can either be usedfor own livestock or sold on the local market. The market price for the fodder could bearound USD 50 per ton of fodder biomass (i.e. leafs and smaller branches) despite thefact that higher prices up to USD 100 may be achieved in some areas (Baltenweck et al.2007 and Technoserve-Uganda 2008).The initial investment need is around USD 162 for tree seedlings in the first year, whilethe normal agricultural investment of USD 60 would be invested annually in cropcultivation. The operations can be performed with own farm labour or unskilled paidlabour from the neighbourhood. Calculated return on investment for NPV is USD 7,165for the bioenergy and fodder component over 25 years at 10 % interest rate andinvestment benefit in NPV of USD 3,086 for the crop component at the same 10 %interest rate. Totally the investment benefit would be around USD 10252 over 25 years.The bioenergy arrangement has got many very useful co-benefits, which will furtherincrease the overall benefits substantially.The second sub-option on Commercial small-holder and community pole and timber plantations (with coffee agroforestry) also has a high focus on trees, although theinvesting farmer household can choose by itself whether to focus on the pole or timberincomes or on agricultural crops growing in the shade of the trees. It is envisaged thatfor the first three years, the focus is on planting of tree seedlings such as Maesopsis eminii or other similar fast-growing timber trees in a taungya system with agriculturalcrops, which enables the household to get an income while the trees are small(Buchauchholz et al. 2004). Besides the main agricultural crop under these three yearsthere should then also be planted coffee bushes, cocoa, papaya or some shade thrivingspices which will start producing coffee beans or other yields in the fifth or sixth year, 38 while the other agricultural crop cultivation would end in the third year (Ecotrustpersonal communication in 2016). In between in year 4 or 5 there should take the firstharvesting of tree poles place from the plantation. Another pole or timber harvestingshould be performed in year 10 after which the tree stand is ready to grow volume untilfinal clear felling. This can happen in year 20-25, but it is then up to the farmer whetherto choose timber rather than coffee or vice versa.In the financial analysis for this report it was chosen to grow coffee under the trees andkeep the trees longer (i.e. until 25 years) in which case the trees act as shade for thecoffee production. In this manner, the pole or timber income over 25 years wascalculated to be at NPV of 10 % a USD 4,832.4/ha, while the coffee production yieldedover 25 years USD 9,815/ha simultaneously. What is more the coffee production bringsin income annually, while the timber income comes only in years 4, 10 and 25. Theoverall NPV investment benefit for the household was thus USD 14,648/ha over 25years. This option is one of the cheapest to establish and although there are severalinvestments to make over the years there is income during almost all years, whichshould be very attractive for farming households. Also, the MAC-value is highly negative,which means that the investment is highly economical in order to reduce carbonemissions while getting good return on investments. The third sub-option on Improved charcoal kilns linked to bioenergy woodlots is even abetter investment, but one of the two previous sub-options (particularly the energywoodlot in sub-option 1) is needed to supply the improved charcoal kiln with asufficient amount of sustainable wood to make this efficient and sustainable. It isestimated that in principle there could be one improved charcoal kiln per each energywood woodlot if the farmer chose charcoal instead of just fuelwood production. Animproved charcoal kiln would either be a Casemance kiln purchased at USD 160 or anAdam retort or a Sam 1 retort kiln purchased at USD 1,400 per kiln. The good thing withall of these three kiln types is that one can construct them of locally available materials(i.e. bricks, cement in the retort case and an iron chimney in the Casemance case). Whenit comes to wood use efficiency and charcoal quality the two retort kilns are much betterthan the Casemance, although also the latter one doubles the efficiency as compared totraditional earth mounds (Kakuru 2014, SPGS 2014, Bagabo et al. 2014, CIRCDU 2014). It is calculated that an Adam or Sam 1 retort kiln would benefit the charcoal-maker by aNPV USD 5821 to USD 6914 over 25 years. The range is dependent on what tree speciesone uses in the energy woodlot. It was calculated that one would get annually onaverage 17 tonnes of energy wood from one woodlot hectare starting from end of year 2or 3 (i.e. extend the overall plantation cycle to 26 years if the first harvest is late). 39 3.3.4 Non-carbon benefits Sustainable wood fuel production improves household energy supply, which has a largehealth and nutritional impact. Community woodlots and tree planting in farm forestryprovide livelihood and income benefits in the form of food, fibre and energy. Highercharcoal volumes with an improved pricing structure will allow better financial returnsto the producers of charcoal. Diversification of livelihood options improves theresilience of households. Tree planting contributes to landscape restoration in degradedareas. This strategic option has got a huge impact on women’s and children’s dailyworkload as these family members would no longer need to walk long distances tocollect fuelwood from forests and thereby would save some hours of work time on adaily or weekly basis. 3.3.5 Policy and legal appraisal Under this strategic option, three interlinked interventions are proposed: commercialsmall-holder tree planting and community bioenergy woodlots; commercial small-holder and community pole and timber plantations; and improved charcoal kilns linkedto bioenergy woodlots.Section 5.5 paragraph 269 of Uganda Vision 2040 notes that 95 % of households inUganda still use wood fuels (wood and charcoal) as a main source of energy, with 86 percent of the rural households using firewood while 70 % of urban households usecharcoal. Despite this, Uganda Vision 2040 does not articulate strategies for ensuringsustainable charcoal production.Under Section 2.2.2.1 of National Development Plan II (2015-2020), it is noted thatUganda’s current energy balance comprises 92 %t biomass, 7 % fossil fuels and 1 %electricity, with most of the biomass energy coming from wood, which is consumed inthe form of charcoal and firewood. Under paragraph 82 Section 2.2.2.1 of NDP II, amongothers, the Government’s strategy is to promote the use of renewable energy, includingthe strengthening of the institutional, policy and legal framework.Section 2.2.1 of the Renewable Energy Policy for Uganda (2007) notes that biomasscontributes over 90 % of the total energy consumed in the country and provides almostall the energy used to meet basic energy needs for cooking and water heating in ruralareas, most urban households, institutions, and commercial buildings. The most of thetraditional biomass energy technologies such as wood and charcoal stoves, ovens andkilns used in Uganda are inefficient.Section 2.3 of the Renewable Energy Policy for Uganda (2007) notes that among thebarriers to renewable energy development is inadequate legal and institutionalframework such as lack of a standard procedure and legal instruments for new 40 renewable energy investments as well as several scattered institutions involved inrenewable energy and ambiguous procedural requirements. Section 3.5.1 outlinesseveral strategies for dealing with the legal and institutional barriers to renewableenergy development including putting in place legislation and regulations to promotethe use of renewable energy.Section 3.5.6 of the Renewable Energy Policy for Uganda (2007) outlines variousstrategies for ensuring sustainable management of the biomass resource base includingthe following: in collaboration with NFA and MAAIF, promote the growing of energycrops; provide incentives for farmers to establish commercial woodlot plantations;integrate biomass energy production and efficient utilization and its impact on climateand health, into the formal education system; license charcoal production andtransportation and encourage its commercial production in an efficient and sustainablemanner; increase the rate of adoption of efficient charcoal stoves from 20,000 in 2007 to2,500,000 by 2017 in urban areas; increase the rate of adoption of efficient fuel woodstoves from 170,000 in 2007, to 500,000 by 2012 and 4,000,000 by 2017; promoteinter-fuel substitution in households and industry by creating and maintainingappropriate taxation system; promote efficiency in the intensive wood burningindustries, such as tea factories, brick kilns, bakeries; promote biomass firedcogeneration in industries and institutions; offer training opportunities for local artisansat the village level for the manufacture, installation and maintenance of efficient cookingstoves.Section 1.2.3 of the Uganda Forestry Policy (2001) provides that over 90 % of thenational energy demand is met from wood fuels, with about 18 million tonnes offirewood, and nearly 500,000 tonnes of charcoal consumed annually.Policy statement number 6 of the Uganda Forestry Policy (2001) provides that theGovernment will promote on farm forestry to among other things, meet the demand forfirewood and charcoal.Recognizing that the biomass energy sector in Uganda is generally flawed, Section 3.2 ofthe Biomass Energy Strategy (2013) outlines several strategies for reversing the currentnegative trend including those relevant to fuel wood and charcoal use: develop acommunication strategy tailored to various audiences such as end users, policy makersand technocrats; create an interlinked biomass resource database and informationcentre with representatives from key line Government agencies; adopt laws andregulations to govern the harvesting of wood from private and public land; ensure that apercentage of royalties and taxes collected from the industry are remitted to the districtsto facilitate sustainable biomass management; provide technical assistance for bothwoodlots and natural wood formations on private land; develop a better charcoaltransportation and distribution system; increase awareness of indoor pollution andassociated health risks; increase awareness of benefits in using energy saving stoves andcooking appliances in urban areas; develop a nationwide plan for multipurpose trees 41 and shrubs; implement government plans to invest in energy crops; and aggressivelypromote use of improved charcoal kilns.Section 14 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003) prohibits certainactivities in forest reserves – in this section, it is provided that – ‘no person shall, in aforest reserve, cut, disturb, damage, burn or destroy any forest produce, or remove orreceive any forest produce except in accordance with regulations or guidelines made forthe proper management of the forest reserve; in the course of the management of theforest reserve by the responsible body; in terms of the exercise of a right or interest inthe forest reserve; or in accordance with a licence issued under this Act.’Section 28 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003) empowers theGovernment authorities to prepare management plans for forests, to regulate aspectssuch as type of activities to be carried out in the forest; and measures to be taken for thesustainable management of the forest. Under Section 28(4) of the said Act, amanagement plan made under this section is binding on all persons having dealings withor interests in the forest.Section 32(1) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003), regulates activitieson forests, and provides that no person shall, except, for forestry purposes and inaccordance with a management plan, or in accordance with a licence granted under thisAct, cut, take, work or remove forest produce; clear, use or occupy any land; collectbiotic and abiotic specimens; or construct or re-open a road, track, bridge, airstrip, orlanding site. Under Section 32(2) of the Act, a person who contravenes this sectioncommits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding thirty currencypoints or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act(2003) regulate forests on private lands. The legal framework is largely supportive ofestablishment of private forests (including bioenergy woodlots). In particular, Section26 of the said Act specifies various technical services that the Central government orlocal government may extend to private forest owners, including the following:providing information, training and advice on the management of forests; theestablishment and maintenance of nurseries and other facilities necessary for seeds andplants; material or financial assistance; the collection and dissemination of information,the provision of technical guidance and promotion of public awareness about forestryand the conservation and utilisation of forestry resources; the promotion of seedproduction, agroforestry and tree growing, and in particular, growing of fruit species;assisting local councils in conservation and management of local forest reserves;promoting conservation of forest biological diversity and ecosystems; and co-operatingand liaising with other lead agencies in the management of forests and forest produce.It should however, be noted that under the current legal framework, the Governmentand local governments have very limited control of activities on private forests, and yetabout 70 % of forests is on private land. 42 While Sections 21(3), 22(3) and 27(2) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act(2003) give power to a District Forest Officer to issue directions to the owner of aprivate forest to manage the forest in a professional and sustainable manner, this is notstrong enough to enable Government or local governments control activities on privateforests in a manner that would effectively realize this strategic option. Moreover, underSections 21(2) and 22(2) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003), allforest produce in a private forest belongs to the owner of the forest and may be used inany manner that the owner may determine. It is further emphasized that under Section27(1) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003), the Government or a localgovernment has no ownership over trees or forest produce situated on private land.Regarding to the proposal to prohibit charcoal or fuel wood production from indigenoustree species, and produce it from exotic tree species, a review of the following legalprovisions is necessary. Section 30(1) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act(2003) provides that ‘the Minister may, in the case of a tree species of international ornational importance that is endangered, rare or threatened, declare, by statutory order,that tree species to be a reserved species which shall be subject to such controls as theMinister may specify in the order.’ Further under Section 30(2) of the said Act, a ‘DistrictCouncil may, in the case of a tree species of local importance that is endangered, rare orthreatened, declare, by statutory order, that tree species to be a reserved species whichshall be subject to such controls as the District Council may specify in the order.’Furthermore, Section 31(1) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003)empowers the Government (Minister) or local government (District Council) to declare aparticular tree, or group of trees on private land to be a protected through a StatutoryOrder.Under Section 31(4) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003), any personwho, without the written consent of the Minister or the District Council, cuts, damages,destroys, disturbs or removes any protected tree; or collects, removes, transports,exports, purchases, sells, donates or in any other manner acquires or disposes of anypart of a protected tree, commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonmentfor a term not exceeding three years or a fine not exceeding thirty currency points orboth.Regulation 3 of the Forests Rules S.I No. 146-2 (saved by Section 92(2) of the NationalForestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003) sets out a list of reserved tree species under PartB of the First Schedule to the Rules, including Mvule, Mugavu, African blackwood,Mahogany, etc.Regulation 30(2) of the Draft Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2013) sets out alist of reserved tree species (Schedule 6 to the Regulations), including – Mvule,Mahogany, Elgon Olive, Musizi, Abura, etc.). Under Regulation 30(3), NFA and localgovernments are empowered to generate new lists of reserved tree species and underRegulation 31, the list of reserved tree species may be reviewed after every 5 years or 43 even shorter period as the Minister may determine. Regulation 34 empowers theDistrict Forestry Officer to use his or her discretion to temporarily declare a tree orgroup of trees to be protected, which may later be confirmed by the District Council.Regulation 35 prohibits harvesting protected or reserved tree species without a licenceissued by the Minister or District Council.Regulation 37(1) of the Draft Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2013) prohibitsthe introduction of alien or exotic tree species into Uganda unless he or she has a licenseissued by the Minister, and under Regulation 37(3). A person who contravenes thisRegulation commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceedingthirty currency points or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both.Overall, it is noted that to large extent, the current legal framework empowers theGovernment or local government, to prohibit the production of charcoal/fuel wood fromindigenous tree species. With regard to the proposal to switch to exotic tree species forthe production of charcoal/fuel wood, it is observed that Regulation 37(1) of theForestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014) appears to be counter-productive to thepromotion of the growing of exotic tree species as a substitute to indigenous tree speciesin the production of charcoal/fuel wood, to the extent that it prohibits the introductionof alien or exotic tree species into Uganda unless the person has a license issued by theMinister.In order realize this strategic option the following measures under the existing law(National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003 and Forestry and Tree PlantingRegulations, 2014) should be implemented:  Promote fast-growing exotic tree energy woodlots  Strengthen regulation of commercial production of charcoal from indigenoustrees/ natural forests  Increase opportunities for financing (accessing finance/incentives) forestablished of energy woodlots and plantations 44 3.4 Strategic options 3: Large-scale commercial timber plantations 3.4.1 Approach This strategic option contributes to an Inclusive Green Economy (IGE) throughpromoting responsible investments in large-scale commercial transmission pole andtimber plantations. The option for commercial pole and timber growers and has got noagroforestry practices incorporated. The activities can be implemented by many kinds ofentities (i.e. private sector, communities, households and by individuals alone or byjoining their forces). The three sub-options are the following:  Commercial transmission pole and timber plantation;  Commercial pole and sawlog plantation;  Improved charcoal kilns linked to plantation sites; The Rio+20 summit’s (2012) outcome document ‘The Future We Want’ recognizedGreen Economy (GE) as an important tool for achieving sustainable development andpoverty eradication. An Inclusive Green Economy (IGE) is based on sharing, circularity,collaboration, solidarity, resilience, opportunity, and interdependence (UNEP 2015). AnInclusive Green Economy sees that there is a need for more equitable income andemployment benefits from investments that reduce carbon emissions and pollution. The strategic option is in tune with the Uganda National Green Growth Strategy (UGGS),which describes how the country can promote the use of natural resources in asustainable manner to achieve economic growth, and development, while at the sametime combating climate change. 3.4.2 Potential locations for implementation Potential locations for responsible investments in large-scale tree plantations can befound nation-wide, but the activity depends on availability of land (e.g. NFA lands) andsuitability of soils and climate. Large-scale tree plantations provide raw material fornearby industries. Smaller tree plantations should be in clusters in consideration offuture sawmills and other wood industries. 3.4.3 Appraisal The first sub-option concerns the Commercial transmission pole and timber plantation,which actually have during the tree rotation cycle of 25 years several wood products tosell that are fuelwood, charcoal, small poles, transmission poles and sawn timber. Incurrent timber plantations, owned by Uganda Timber Growers’ Association (UTGA)members, NFA and other individual plantation owners, there are normally only smallpoles, transmission poles and timber sold, but from 2016 the first agreements forindustrial fuelwood production are also done (UTGA News 2016). This can be developed 45 even further (in all three sub-options of Strategic Option 4) by selling out all small piecesof harvested wood as either fuelwood or charcoal if not even poles. Information hasbeen incorporated from the following main sources: AFF (2011), SPGS (2016), UTGA(2016), UTGA News (2016). One can estimate an expansion of commercial transmission pole/timber plantations of40,000 ha and the initial investment in year 1 to be around USD 892/ha, which isfollowed by some further investments over the first 5 years. The overall investment andharvesting costs would be NPV USD 4,819/ha over the 25-year period, while the NPVincome benefit is 10,890/ha at 10 % interest over 25 years (See Table 4). The second sub-option for Commercial pole and sawlog plantations will also producemore wood products than is current practice in Uganda. The new products will againstem from selling even small pieces of wood as small poles, fuelwood or charcoal. It isforeseen that this sub-option could be carried out on around 30,000 ha besides alreadyestablished sawlog timber plantations. In this manner both the previous sub-optionswould cover totally around 150,000 ha of private commercial timber plantations. Ontop of this will then be the timber plantations owned by the government and those bysmall-holder farmers, which means that there would totally be 300,000 ha of timberplantations in Uganda besides small-holder farmers’ other small home garden woodlots.Information has been incorporated from the following main sources: AFF (2011), SPGS(2016), UTGA (2016), UTGA News (2016). The first-year investment needed to establish a plantation is around USD 934/ha withsome more investments over 5 first years. Total investment need is around NPV USD6,470/ha over 25 years at 10 % interest rate. The foreseen income over 25 years NPV isUSD 13,201/ha. The MAC-value of this sub-option is almost -30 USD/tCO2, which meansthat it is efficient use of money and able to reduce carbon emissions substantially bysequestering carbon into the large standing wood volume per each hectare. The third sub-option on Improved charcoal kilns linked to timber plantation sites issimilar to the small-holder farmers’ improved charcoal kiln sub-option under theStrategic Option 3 above. The main difference is that in this case there will not be annualwood supply, which means that each improved charcoal kiln would serve about 10 ha ofplantations. With already existing timber plantations there could be 15,000 improvedkilns for 150,000 ha of timber plantations and one should strive to harvest timberplantations each year instead of large amounts of hectares in one go. The kiln types topurchase would be either Adam or Sam 1 retort kilns at USD 1,400 per kiln plus a USD60 for the charcoal production permit and about USD 333 as salary for two kilnoperators. The NPV benefitting income could be estimated either USD 17,000 if all woodhas to be purchased by the charcoal kiln owner or if the wood is available free of chargefrom the timber plantations the NPV income benefit would be even USD 32,000/kiln.The MAC-value is high for this sub-option, which means that this is an extremely good 46 investment for a businessman. Information for calculations has been incorporated fromthe following main sources: Kakuru (2014), SPGS (2014), Bagabo et al. (2014), andCIRCDU (2014). If one further wants to balance production of sufficient wood for each charcoal kiln nearto timber plantations, it would be possible to establish a sawmill close where one couldget waste wood of the sawing process from. Currently, only about 45 % of the timber isincluded in the ready sawn wood material reaching the market, while the rest is eithersold as fuelwood or rot in the sawmill yard. All this waste wood needs be taken into fulluse as raw material for charcoal, fuelwood or briquettes (i.e. saw dust).Table 4. Summary for Strategic Option 3: Large-scale commercial timber plantations Indicators/ Components Commercial transmission pole and timber plantation Commercial pole and sawlog plantation Improved charcoal kiln working next to timber plantations Area (ha) Additional 40,000 ha Additional 30,000 ha 15,000 kilns per150,000 ha ofplantations Potential no. of beneficiaries (households) Uganda TimberGrowers’ Associationmembers andother private landowners (not membersof SPGS) Uganda TimberGrowers’ Associationmembers andother private landowners (not membersof SPGS) Uganda TimberGrowers’ Associationmembers & sub-contractors andother private landowners (notmembers of SPGS) Forest-level investments per hectare USD 892 is the initialinvestment in the firstyear USD 934 is the initialinvestment in the firstyear An Adam or Sam 1retort may cost ca.USD 1,400, while aCasamance may costUSD 160. Charcoalproduction taxpermit USD 60. Forest-level operation & harvesting cost per hectare USD 4,820 over 25years in NPV 10%. USD 5,536 over 25years in NPV 10%. Annually USD 333for charcoal kilnoperation (2persons). Overall USD 5,711/ha and USD 6,470/ha and Totally MUSD 22.5 47 Indicators/ Components Commercial transmission pole and timber plantation Commercial pole and sawlog plantation Improved charcoal kiln working next to timber plantations investment and programmatic level costs (MUSD) covered by the UTGA members totally MUSD 228 totallyMUSD 194 for payment ofimproved charcoalkilns and permits Total project costs UTGA and NFAadministrationexpenses & potentialinfrastructures UTGA and NFAadministrationexpenses & potentialinfrastructures UTGA and NFAadministrationexpenses & potentialinfrastructures Estimated emission abatement potential (tCO2) per ha over 25 years 729 445 Annual averagefuelwood amountper ha estimated to17 t and thus 5.9 tcharcoal/ha/yr. Asfuelwood has beenunused so far 548tCO2eq/ha over 24yrs. Estimated emission abatement potential (MtCO2) overall 18.2 13.4 8.2The Sub-option 4.3 isalternative solutionto Sub-option 4.1.and 4.2. visavifuelwood sales/consumption Hectare-level benefits NPV (USD) (10% discount over 25 years) USD 10,890/ha USD 13,201/ha Each kiln for about10 ha of plantationsand annual netincome of USD12,516 or USD23,236 depending oncharcoal sales price(USD 147.6 - USD227.1 per ton)charcoal) Average Approximately 4,848 Approximately 5,135 Two labourers to 48 Indicators/ Components Commercial transmission pole and timber plantation Commercial pole and sawlog plantation Improved charcoal kiln working next to timber plantations annual employment generated (full time equivalents) days/ha over 25 yearsor 17.12 man-years(at 300days/ha/year). Thustotally 646,397 manyears. days/ha over 25 yearsor 16.16 man-years (at300 days/ha/year).Thus totally 513,528man years. operate each kiln.Thus 30000persons/year. MAC (10% inflation) USD/tCO2 14.9 -29.6 -12.3 to -22.8Depending oncharcoal price. 3.4.4 Non-carbon benefits Plantation forestry contributes to improvement of rural livelihoods by creatingemployment through fuelwood, charcoal, pole and sawn timber production business. Itwill reduce erosion on large areas and support biodiversity restoration. Many benefitsdepend on the large-scale rural electrification initiatives, i.e. need of electricity poles.More skilled labour and technicians are needed in the future forest industry. 3.4.5 Policy and legal appraisal Under this strategic option, three sub-options are proposed: commercial transmissionpole and timber plantation; commercial pole and sawlog plantation; and improvedcharcoal kilns linked to plantation sites.Under Section 9.2 of the National Development Plan II (2015-2020), Government willpromote sustainable development of commercial forest plantations and industryincluding value addition.The current legal framework in Uganda is largely supportive to the establishment oflarge-scale commercial timber plantations – Sections 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 of theNational Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003). Furthermore, under Section 39(1) of thesaid Act, the Government/local governments are empowered to issue directions for theplanting and growing of trees. Section 40 of the said Act establishes a Tree Fund, andunder Section 40(4) of the Act, the Tree Fund may be used to, promote tree planting andgrowing at national and local level; and support tree planting and growing efforts of anon-commercial nature but which are of benefit to the public. Under Section 41(1) of thesaid Act, Government/local governments are empowered to grant licences to anyinterested persons for harvest of forest produce; and the sustainable utilization andmanagement of a forest reserve or community forest. Under Section 44 of the said Act, 49 authorized persons may export timber. Under Section 49(1) of the said Act, the centralGovernment is obligated to prepare a National Forest Plan – a public document with aframework for the implementation of the forestry policy and programmes byGovernment and stakeholders in the forest sector.Large-scale commercial timber plantations are further enabled under Regulations 61 to75; and 80 to 87 of the Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014).Furthermore, Government’s policy is largely supportive of large-scale commercialtimber plantations. Under policy statement number 3 of the Uganda Forestry Policy(2001), it is the Government’s policy to promote profitable and productive forestplantation businesses. Policy statement number 3 provides that the private sector willplay a major role in developing and managing commercial forest plantations, eitherthrough large-scale industrial plantations on government or private land, or throughsmall-scale plantations on farms.It is possible to implement strategic option 3 under the current legal framework throughimplementing various measures that promote large-scale commercial timberplantations. 3.5 Strategic option 4: Restoration of natural forests in the landscape 3.5.1 Approach Numerous initiatives are recognizing that the landscape scale is appropriate forbalancing the multiple interests of people with diverse livelihoods and interests insequestering carbon and adapting to climate change (Minang 2015). The aim of theproposed strategic option is to restore or rehabilitate natural forests within the contextof climate-smart landscape. The interventions also contribute directly to the Uganda’scommitment of 2.5 million ha forests by 2020. The means are as follows:  Designated areas for natural forest regeneration;  Restoration of degraded protected natural forest (i.e. national parks and forestreserves and forests on privately owned land);  Devolution of forest management through PFM and similar set-ups;  Traditional/customary forest management practices; The restoration does not necessarily aim to return forest landscapes to their originalstate but rather to optimize their carbon sequestration capacity and the delivery of otherforest-related goods and services at the landscape level. The approach is communitydriven (bottom-up) with appropriate technologies and land management practices. The 50 communities are encouraged to share their knowledge about practices that can improvelivelihoods and income generation whilst conserving and protecting natural resources. 3.5.2 Potential locations for implementation The interventions need to be targeted to:  All the natural forests managed as CFR and LFRs;  All the natural forests managed under the Wildlife sector (Forested NPs andWildlife Reserves);  Priority locations for forest restoration (IUCN/MWE Publication on Forests andlandscape restoration) on public and private lands;  Other areas if locally well justified. 3.5.3 Appraisal The first sub-option on Designated areas for natural forest regeneration, focuses onforest areas that may be possible to rehabilitate back into almost primary forests andtherefore very important to rehabilitate. It was estimated that some 100,000 ha of suchforests should be included under this sub-option. The idea is to rehabilitate these forestswith the assistance of forest adjacent communities and therefore 100,000 householdsare incorporated in this sub-option. The sub-option should be combined with the PFMsub-option. In order for these households to be included they should all have theirprivate woodlots on their own lands from where they can harvest their wood products.The households should be allowed to harvest NTFPs so that each household has gottheir one hectare of forest to harvest from. In this manner, the households can get forestincome, while the natural forests are able to grow back to full forest cover over time.Some few poor landless households, should be given opportunity to extract a few cubicmetres of fuelwood annually from forest and this should be written into CFM/PFMagreements. Information has been incorporated from the following main sources: Jagger(2012), FAO (2013), Jiren 2013, Tugume et al. (2014) and NFA (2016). The investment costs relate to boundary demarcation, annual supervision (by NFA) andfire protection expenses and over 25 years the NPV for these expenses may reach USD133/ha with a 10 % inflation. The economic benefit for the NTFPs for the individualhouseholds would be USD 4785 per household (Tugume et al. 2015 and FAO 2013) over25 years. This is an important sub-option for forest adjacent communities and their fullparticipation in the tree protection is vital for the success of rehabilitating naturalforests (See Table 5). The second sub-option on Restoration of degraded protected natural forest (i.e. nationalparks and forest reserves and forests on privately owned land) would allow naturalforest to evolve over time in forest areas in forest reserves and protected areas that have 51 already lost most of their forest cover. It is foreseen that there would be 100,000 ha ofthese lands, which need enrichment planting with indigenous tree species to mimicnatural forests. The planting work should be conducted by adjacent communities, whichis a way to allow forest adjacent communities some forest income as payment forenrichment planting, some sustainable wood and NTFPs. The investment costs intropical high forests (THFs) is initially USD 51/ha and totally over 25 years USD 236/ha.On woodlands, the initial investment cost would be USD 33/ha and totally over 25 yearsUSD 214/ha. The forest level harvesting costs of NTFPs and some small amounts offuelwood (3m3/ha/year) and poles (3m3/ha/year) on THFs after a few initial yearswhen the enrichment planted seedlings have grown to harvestable size. On woodlands,no wood would be harvested, but NTFPS would be allowed to harvest at a little lowerlevel than in THFs. The estimated benefits for the households would be about USD6067/household in THFs and USD 1892/household on woodlands. This kind of sub-option has got many valuable co-benefits, which are listed in the strategic option tablebelow. The third sub-option concerns Devolution of forest management through PFM and similar set-ups, which should be linked to either or both the previously presented sub-options.The aim should be here that almost all wood products should come from small-holderwoodlots or plantations, while the forest adjacent communities should be able to collectnon-timber forest products (NTFPs) from forest areas near their homes. In this mannercommunities will take care of the forests near their villages, while simultaneously bemandated to protect those natural forests near their homes. The arrangement needs tobe supervised by the NFA, Local Governments and UWA Wardens/Rangers and steeredso that each household harvest their needed NTFPs from different hectares in the PFMor Collaborative managed forests. The rural households in such a PFM arrangementwould benefit tremendously from it (Jagger 2012, FAO 2013, Jiren 2013, Tugume et al.2014 and NFA 2016. The fourth sub-option focusing on Traditional/customary forest management practicesshould be turned into similar arrangements as the PFM and Collaborative ForestManagement arrangements discussed in previous sub-option. This will need somerevision of legislation and policies and mutual understanding between governmentofficial and concerned communities. The aim should again be that the natural forests arehandled sustainably with only minor exploitation of wood and sustainable use of NTFPs.In order to settle for these kinds of new-signed agreements there must be as pre-condition existing or newly established woodlots in the partner communities fromwhere all wood products are derived (Jiren 2013, and FAO 2013). 52 Table 5. Summary for Strategic Option 4: Restoration of natural forests in the landscape Indicators/ Components Designated areas for natural forest regeneration Restoration of degraded protected natural forest (i.e. national parks and forest reserves) Devolution of forest management through PFM and similar set-ups & Traditional/ customary forest management practices Area (ha) 100,000 ha 100,000 ha PFM andtraditional/customaryforest managementonly implementedtogether with treeplantations or small-holder/ communitywoodlots. Potential no. of beneficiaries (households) Approx. 100,000 HHsliving closely adjacentto these forest areas Approx. 100,000 HHsliving closely adjacentto these forest areas Size of PFM andtraditional forestmanagement mustbalance with localplantations/woodlots. Forest-level investments per hectare Initially USD 7 forboundary lineation, &annual supervisionand fire protectionUSD 14. Totally USD132.53 over 25 yearsat NPV 10 %. To becombined with PFMor traditional for. mgt. Initially USD 51 on THFforest and USD 33 onwoodlands. TotallyUSD 236 in THF andUSD 214 on woodlandsover 25 years at NPV10 %. To be combinedwith PFM or traditionalfor. mgt. Cost accruingmainly to NFA. Ideally forest adjacentHHs could get theirNTFPs from forestland, while timber,poles and fuelwoodfrom woodlot orplantation. Forest-level harvesting cost per hectare USD 7 annually forNFTP harvesting – nofuelwood and totallyUSD 64 over 25 yearsNPV at 10% USD 434 fromharvesting NFTPs andsome fuelwood andpoles in THF. USD 51.4from harvesting NFTPson woodlands. Thefigures in NPV over 25years at 10% Only NTFPs and smallamounts of woodfrom natural forest.The rest fromplantations andwoodlots. Overall investment USD 196 over 25years at 10%. Totally NPV USD 676 in THFover 25 years at 10 %. Mainly covered by theother two sub 53 Indicators/ Components Designated areas for natural forest regeneration Restoration of degraded protected natural forest (i.e. national parks and forest reserves) Devolution of forest management through PFM and similar set-ups & Traditional/ customary forest management practices and programmatic level costs (MUSD) covered by the farmers MUSD 19.6 Totally for THF inMUSD 67.5NPV USD 266 onwoodlands over 25years at 10 %. Totallyfor woodlands in MUSD26.5 strategic options. Total project costs Additional forestsector extension andorganization costs Additional forest sectorextension andorganization costs Additional forestsector extension andorganization costs Estimated emission abatement potential (tCO2) per ha over 25 years 300 581 in tropical highforests and 26.2 onwoodlands Almost none ifimplemented asdescribed above. Estimated emission abatement potential (MtCO2) overall 3 58.2 in tropical highforests and 2.6 onwoodlands Almost none ifimplemented asdescribed above. Hectare-level benefits NPV USD (10% discount over 25 years) USD 4,785/ha USD 6,067 in tropicalhigh forests and USD1,892 on woodlands Incorporated in thetwo other sub-strategic options. Average annual employment generated (full time equivalents) The arrangementwould allow onehousehold/haannually a chance tocollect NFTPs fromforest land. Thus, it The arrangementswould allow onehousehold/ha annuallya chance to collectNFTPs from forestland. Thus, it would The main impact is tosupport poor forestadjacentcommunities/households withNTFPs 54 Indicators/ Components Designated areas for natural forest regeneration Restoration of degraded protected natural forest (i.e. national parks and forest reserves) Devolution of forest management through PFM and similar set-ups & Traditional/ customary forest management practiceswould fully support100,000 forestadjacent HHs overall. fully support 200,000forest adjacent HHsoverall. MAC (10% inflation) USD/tCO2 15.9 -10.4 (for THFs) and -722.3 (for woodlands) Calculated as part ofthe two other sub-strategic options 3.5.4 Non-carbon benefits Landscapes yield multiple benefits, they support biodiversity, mitigate natural disasters,reduce soil erosion, sequester carbon, and provide other environmental services such asNTFPs and clean water as wells as opportunities for responsible commercial activity(Minang 2015). The landscape approach considers how interconnected components ofthe landscape can be managed to reap multiple benefits (ecotourism and medical plants)and balance commercial, social and environmental concerns. 3.5.5 Policy and legal appraisal Under strategic option 4, various measures will be implemented including: designatedareas for natural forest regeneration; protected natural forest management (i.e. nationalparks and forest reserves); devolution of forest management through participatory firemanagement and similar set-ups; and traditional/customary forest managementpractices.Under Section 9.2 of the National Development Plan II (2015-2020), the Governmentwill promote implementation of sustainable management of forests through restorationof natural forests on protected and private land.Section 15 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003) provides forcollaborative forest management – NFA and the local government may enter into acollaborative forest management arrangement with a forest user group for the purposeof managing a central or local forest reserve or part of it in accordance with regulationsor guidelines issued by the Minister. 55 Regulations 16 to 29 of the Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014) set outdetailed guidelines under which a collaborative forest management agreement may beconcluded between NFA/local governments and forest adjacent communities.Section 28 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003) empowers theGovernment authorities to prepare management plans for forests, to regulate aspectssuch as type of activities to be carried out in the forest; and measures to be taken for thesustainable management of the forest. Under Section 28(4) of the said Act, amanagement plan made under this section is binding on all persons having dealings withor interests in the forest.Section 32(1) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003), regulates activitieson forests, and provides that no person shall, except, for forestry purposes and inaccordance with a management plan, or in accordance with a licence granted under thisAct, cut, take, work or remove forest produce; clear, use or occupy any land; collectbiotic and abiotic specimens; or construct or re-open a road, track, bridge, airstrip, orlanding site. Under Section 32(2) of the Act, a person who contravenes this sectioncommits an offence and is liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding thirty currencypoints or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both.In addition, policy statement number 5 of the Uganda Forestry Policy (2001) providesfor collaborative forest management under which collaborative partnerships with ruralcommunities can be developed for the sustainable management of forests. The saidpolicy statement further provides that the development of collaborative forestmanagement will define the rights, roles and responsibilities of partners and the basisfor sharing benefits from improved forest management, with a specific focus on widestakeholder participation, collective responsibility and equity, and on improving thelivelihoods of forest-dependent communities.The current legal framework (National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003; theForestry and Tree Planting Regulations, 2014; and the Uganda Forestry Policy, 2001;Wildlife Policy and Act; Local Government Act; and Land Act) have adequate provisionsto enable the implementation of measures to realize strategic option 4. 56 3.6 Strategy Option 5: Energy efficient cooking stoves 3.6.1 Approach This strategic option promotes clean cooking solutions. The means are as follows9:  Energy efficient fuelwood stoves (EES)  Improved charcoal stoves (ICS) The Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, a public-private partnership hosted by theUnited Nations (UN) Foundation, addresses the global problems associated withtraditional cooking methods. The Alliance advocates for the prioritization of cleancooking as an effective intervention that delivers cross-cutting gains and boostsprogress on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Agreement tocombat climate change. Inefficient cookstoves and biomass burning produces a highamount of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and other short-lived climateforcing agents such as methane, and black carbon (BC) aerosols. World Health Organization (WHO) has reported that the exposure to household airpollution (HAP) from cooking contributes to 4.3 million premature deaths in the Worldannually, and 13,000 deaths in Uganda (GACC 2016). Women and young childrenreceive the highest exposure because they spend the most time in or near the kitchenwhen the stove is alight. More than 30 million people in Uganda still rely on traditionalbiomass fuels and stoves for their cooking. 9 The biogas stoves were also analysed, but not included to the proposed options. The reason is that biogasstoves are rather difficult in operation and require frequent maintenance. Those entities that are bestsuited for using biogas stoves are cattle and pig farms (with lots of cow dung and pig manure), municipaldumping sites (with lots of organic household waste), jails and schools. The operator of larger biogaspower stations should be well-educated technicians with good professional knowledge on how to handlethe biogas unit. MEMD (2014) estimates that these kinds of biogas stoves will even in the future be lessthan 1 % in total household cooking energy solutions. Municipal dumping sites, however, are good placesfor establishing biogas power stations as these are large and can be operated professionally. . 57 3.6.2 Potential locations for implementation Figure 2. Population distribution in Uganda.Source: Robertson et al. 2014. Rural areas: The use of energy efficient fuelwood stoves is feasible for all ruralhouseholds. Urban and peri-urban areas: Improved charcoal stoves and in specific cases also biogasinstallations should be promoted. 3.6.3 Appraisal The first sub-option concerns Energy efficient fuelwood stoves and targets bothhouseholds and so-called institutions, which means educational institutions, restaurantsand cafeterias, hospitals, prisons, industries and other similar entities. When starting tolook into this matter it turns out that despite a fairly well-developed supply and marketfor such stoves, the demand for the stoves is far below the logical demand level. Thelogical demand level is where households or institutions start to pay more for purchasedfuelwood (with a traditional three-stone stove) than the overall investment of EES stoveand the annually efficient reduced purchase of fuelwood would cost. As the EES stovesaves around 58 % of fuelwood as compared to the three-stone stove it means that thelogical demand level for an EES stove for a household should be at 40 % of the annualfuelwood purchased. For institutions, this logical demand level is always at 40 %, as 58 almost all institutions purchase all their annual fuelwood with some exceptions (i.e.some tea processing factories that own their own energy wood plantations). According to MEMD (2016) 40-42 % of all fuelwood-using households in Ugandapurchase at least half of their annually consumed amount of fuelwood. In the next fiveyears additional 10 % of households are likely to have to start to purchase fuelwood dueto scarcity of un-purchased fuelwood, which makes a total of 2,807,882 households. Ontop of this come the new households established within the following 25 years(1,195,486 households for 12 years), which are also included in the calculations. Thesimilar figures for institutions are; starting point is 15,586 institutions and lateradditional 6,636 institutions (for 12 years). The information for the actual financialanalyses comes from the following main sources: GVEP International (2012),FirstClimate (2013), WWF (2015), and MEMD (2016) (See Table 6). The household level investment need would be USD 22.4 every third year for an EESstove or totally NPV at 10 % is USD 75.64 for 25 years. The corresponding NPV savingswould be USD 1,085.8 over 25 years at 10% inflation as traditional stove use (stove andfuelwood purchased) costs are annually USD 2002/household, while with an EES stovethey would have paid only USD 916.6 over 25 years. The institutions now pay with atraditional stove USD 30,615/institution over 25 years, while they would pay only USD10,320/institution with an EES stove so a saving of USD 20,296/institution would bepossible. An EES stove for institutions costs only around USD 150 on average, whichmeans that it would not make sense to save on the purchase cost for such an EES stove.The marginal abatement cost is also highly negative or -48.9 for households and -134.8for institutions, which means that purchasing EES stoves is a very economical solution.An EES stove is not making any saving only for the very poor households, which collectall their fuelwood. The second sub-option focusing on Improved charcoal stoves is very similar to the EESstoves for fuelwood. In this case it makes almost always sense to purchase ICS stoves asalmost all end-user households purchase their charcoal. The ICS stoves are even cheaperthan EES stoves (USD 10 for households), which need to be purchased again every thirdyear. For institutions, the ICS stoves cost on average around USD 150 and last also aboutthree years. It has been calculated that a traditional stove and its needed charcoalamount over 25 years would cost USD 1,123, while an ICS for households would cost forthe same period USD 758.4 (a saving of USD 374/household). For institutions thetraditional scenario costs USD 16,848, while ICS would cost USD 9,773/institution (asaving of USD 7,075). Here the marginal abatement cost (MAC) is -10.4 for householdsand -10.6 for institutions. In both sub-option 1 and 2 the reduced use of wood fuel is alsoseen in co-benefits such as better indoor air quality in kitchens. The biogas stoves are not emphasized. The reason is that biogas stoves are ratherdifficult in operation and require frequent maintenance. Those entities that are best 59 suited for using biogas stoves are cattle and pig farms (with lots of cow dung and pigmanure) and municipal dumping sites (with lots of organic household waste). Theoperator of larger biogas power stations should be well-educated technicians with goodprofessional knowledge on how to handle the biogas unit. MEMD (2014) estimates thatthese kinds of biogas stoves will even in the future be less than 1 % in total householdcooking energy solutions. Municipal dumping sites, however, are good places forestablishing biogas power stations as these are large and can be operated professionally.Table 6. Summary for Strategic Option 5: Energy efficient cooking stoves Indicators/ Components Energy efficient fuelwood stoves Improved charcoal stoves Actual wood use reduction potential Some 58 % savings inhouseholds and approx. 45 %savings in institutions Some 36 % savings in householdsand approx. 45 % savings ininstitutions Potential no. of beneficiaries (households) From start potentially2,807,882 households andfurther 1,195,486 HHs for 12years on average. From start potentially 1,867,096households and further 794,936HHs for 12 years on average. Potential no. of institutional beneficiaries From start potentially 15,586institutions and later 6,636institutions for 12 years onaverage From start potentially 33,866institutions and later 14,419institutions for 12 years onaverage Household-level investment needs USD 22.4 every third year ortotally NPV at 10 % is USD 76for 25 years USD 10 every third year or totallyNPV at 10 % is USD 34 for 25 years Institution-level investment needs USD 200 every third year ortotally NPV at 10 % is USD675.35 for 25 years USD 150 every third year or totallyNPV at 10 % is USD 506.51 for 25years Overall investment and programmatic level costs (MUSD) covered by the HHs MUSD 253.6 for householdsand MUSD 12.6 for institutions MUSD 253.6 for households andMUSD 12.6 for institutions Total project costs 115 energy experts at nationaland district levels at USD119,748/expert or MUSD 13.8 The same energy experts as forfuelwood EES stoves can be sharedhere. Estimated emission abatement potential (tCO2) per HH and institution over 22.2 for each HH and 150.6 foreach institution 35.8 for each HH and 668.1 foreach institution 60 Indicators/ Components Energy efficient fuelwood stoves Improved charcoal stoves 25 years Estimated emission abatement potential for HHs and institutions (MtCO2) overall 11,405 for HHs and 403 forinstitutions 1,324 for HHs and 448 forinstitutions Household-level benefits NPV (USD) (10% discount over 25 years) Traditional wood stovefuelwood expense is USD2,002 while EES stove has USD917 or a saving of USD1,086/HH Traditional wood stove fuelwoodexpense is USD 1,132 while EESstove has USD 758 or a saving ofUSD 374/HH Institution-level benefits NPV (USD) (10% discount over 25 years) Traditional wood stovefuelwood expense is USD30,615 while EES stove hasUSD 10,320 or a saving of USD20,296/Institution Traditional wood stove fuelwoodexpense is USD 16,848 while EESstove has USD 9,773 or a saving ofUSD 7,075/Institution Average annual employment generated (full time equivalents) EES stove production businessof MUSD 735 over 25 years orMUSD 29.4 per year ICS stove production business ofMUSD 264.3 over 25 years orMUSD 10.6 per year MAC (10% inflation) USD/tCO2 48.9 (for HHs) and-134.7 (for institutions) -10.4 (for HHs) and-10.5 (for institutions) 3.6.4 Non-carbon benefits A wider access to clean, safe and efficient household energy secure additional benefits tosociety, which are related to health, gender and livelihood. Health benefits are hugesince household air pollution (HAP) from traditional cooking is a major problemcontributing to premature deaths. Improved firewood and charcoal stoves save time,which is used in fuelwood gathering, and thereby allows more time for productiveactivities and schooling. Accordingly, the risk for injury and violence during fuelcollection, especially among women and children, is reduced. 61 3.6.5 Policy and legal appraisal Strategic option 5 will promote clean cooking solutions through improved fuel woodstoves and charcoal stoves. Under Section 2.2.3.8 of National Development Plan II(2015-2020), it is noted that 95 per cent of households still use wood fuels – wood andcharcoal – as a main source of fuel. Section 2.2.2.1 of NDP II, underscores the need forthe reform of the institutional, policy and legal framework to promote the use ofrenewable and clean energy. Under Section 3.5.6 of the Renewable Energy Policy for Uganda (2007), theGovernment’s policy is to promote the use of energy efficient cooking stoves throughvarious measures including; increasing the rate of adoption of efficient charcoal stovesfrom 20,000 in 2007 to 2,500,000 by 2017 in urban areas; increasing the rate ofadoption of efficient fuel wood stoves from 170,000 in 2007, to 500,000 by 2012 and4,000,000 by 2017; and offering training opportunities for local artisans at the villagelevel for the manufacture, installation and maintenance of energy efficient cookingstoves. Section 3.5.6 of the Renewable Energy Policy for Uganda (2007) provides for thepromotion of biogas production and use for small and large-scale applications, with atarget of increasing the number of household/institutional biogas plants from around500 in 2007 to 100,000 by 2017. Uganda does not have a law to facilitate the adoption of improved fuel wood stoves andcharcoal stoves. There is need for an enabling legislation to support the implementationof policy statements under the Renewable Energy Policy for Uganda (2007), inparticular, those relating to improved fuel wood stoves and charcoal stoves. Therefore, in order to realize strategic option 5, some monetary and non-monetaryincentives will be required to support the implementation of the following measures: 1. Mandatory switch by the public to energy efficient fuel wood stoves and charcoalstoves;2. The sales prohibition of inefficient fuel wood stoves and charcoal stoves;3. The provision of incentives by the Government for switching to energy efficientstoves;4. The standardization of upfront investment for energy efficient stoves with banksand SACCOs etc., to make it easy to install such stoves in all households with cashincomes;5. The prohibition of three stone stoves with a limited grace period for poor andmarginalized households; and 62 6. The promotion of biogas solutions, although this is unlikely to become themainstream type of energy efficient stove in Uganda due inherent technologicalchallenges. 3.7 Strategic option 6: Integrated wildfire management 3.7.1 Approach This strategic option aims to address wildfires10 through integrated community-basedfire management. The option is also supported by the Ugandan policy and legislation,including the Second National Development Plan (NDPII) and the National BiodiversityStrategy and Action Plan (NBSAP) 2015-2025. Many of the other SOs contribute toreduce wildfires (Climate smart agriculture, Restoration of natural forests in thelandscape, etc.) and SOs should be implemented together to reduce wildfires mosteffectively. Wildfire is a general term for any unplanned and uncontrolled fire in vegetation, whichmay require suppression response, or other action. Integrated fire management (IFM)includes the integration of science and fire management approaches with socio-economic elements at multiple level (FAO 2016). As such, it implies a holistic approachto addressing fire issues that consider biological, environmental, cultural, social,economic and political interactions. The role of fire in the World’s vegetation is ambivalent (FAO 2016). In some ecosystems,natural fires are essential to maintain ecosystem dynamics, biodiversity andproductivity. Fire is also an important and widely used tool to meet land managementgoals. However, every year, wildfires destroy millions of hectares of forest woodlandsand other vegetation, causing the loss of many human and animal lives and an immenseeconomic damage, both in terms of resources destroyed and the costs of suppression.There are also impacts on society and the environment – for example, damage to humanhealth from smoke, loss of biological diversity, release of carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gasses, damage to recreational values and much more. The land degradationcaused by wildfires affects forage availability and has implications for the viability oflivestock production and therefore the overall security of livelihoods of pastoralcommunities (IGAD 2015). The current and projected impacts of climate change,including rising temperatures and increasingly unpredictable precipitation patterns,further increase the risks of uncontrolled wildfires (WBG 2016). 10 Wildfires is used to mean both fires due to natural causes of ignitions (e.g. lightning sparks from rockfalls, spontaneous combustion, volcanic eruption) and human-induced (e.g. arson, discarded cigarettes,hunters and grazers, power-line arcs) 63 3.7.2 Potential locations for implementation  Drylands in the Northern region: fire management to improve pastures.  Tree plantations in CFRs and on private land: fire protection.  Traditional communities: traditional use of fire may remain but needs continuousmonitoring. 3.7.3 Appraisal The Strategic Option 6 comprises only one option, which is Integrated wildfiremanagement. This calculation is conducted as a national level assessment that is focusedon state and private timber and pole plantations, woodlands and bushlands. Grasslandshave been omitted from the calculations as the financial analysis is conducted for thewoody biomass only. Wood-related income figures are taken from strategic options 2, 3and 4 assessed above (See Tables 6 and 7). The timber plantations figures used are based on AFF (2011), NFA (2016), UTGA (2016)forest land inventory results on young forest stands where the average above groundbiomass is 47.9 tons per hectare in hardwood plantations and 65 tons per hectare insoftwood plantations. It was estimated that an average tree stand is about five years ofage and it is likely that in case of wildfire around 80 % of the wood volume will eitherdie or be burnt to ash. The investment costs and income were then assessed and it wasconcluded that given the loss in investments and the time period in the tree rotation theeconomic loss from wild fire would be between about USD 5,000-10,000/ha dependingon the wood volume standing and whether the first thinning already had beenperformed. As an average figure for the financial calculations USD 7,000/ha loss wasused for timber plantations. For woodlands and bushlands (compiled by MAAIF 2015) the grass biomass was firstsubtracted away before conducting the financial calculations. For the tree volume onwoodlands a value of USD 2,000/ha was calculated for the timber and poles lost. Here itwas further calculated that 80 % of the trees would be dead, destroyed or even burnt toash. For bushlands, the wood value was calculated based on a USD 70 per each fuelwoodcubic meter and that 80 % would have been burnt to ash. For all forest lands, it wasfurther calculated that this strategic option could have prevented 70 % of all wildfireson these forest and non-forest lands.The district level investment needs would according to this financial analysis be aroundUSD 119,748 while the national level programmatic cost for 25 years would be aroundUSD 12 million. These sums are very low compared to the financial benefit of integratedwildfire management, which according to this analysis would be around USD 170.3Billion. The marginal abatement costs for reducing wildfires by 70 % in Uganda are -27.2 64 and the MAC value when including also grasslands would be -24.9, which means highlyefficient use of funds.Table 7. Summary for Strategic Option 6: Integrated wildfire management Indicators/ Components Integrated wildfire management sub-option Area (ha) 11,864,873 ha of plantations, woodlands and bushlandsPotential no. ofbeneficiaries Calculation is for national levelDistrict-levelinvestments over 25years USD 119,747 Overall investment andprogrammatic levelcosts (MUSD) coveredby the farmers MUSD 13.8 Total project costs Additionally, MWE and sectoral organization administrationcostEstimated emissionabatement potential(tCO2) per ha over 25years 368.6/ha (on average) over 25 years Estimated emissionabatement potential(MtCO2) overall 16,049 MtCO2 Hectare-level benefitsNPV (USD)(10% discount over 25years) Approx. USD 7,000/ha in timber plantations; USD 2,200/ha onwoodlands and some USD 70/m3 of wood destroyed on variousbushlands. Total benefit over 25 years USD Billion 170.3 for 70% reduction of plantation fires, woodlands and bushlands where80 % of woody vegetation is burnt. Grasslands excluded fromcalculation.Average annualemployment generated(full time equivalents) 115 wildfire experts on national and district level MAC (10% inflation)USD/tCO2 -27.2 (when grasslands are excluded) and-24.9 (when grasslands also included) 65 3.7.4 Non-carbon benefits Integrated wildfire management contributes to social benefits such as pastorallivelihood resilience, public respiratory health and security, and employment. Economicbenefits are related to protection of assets, including properties, natural forests and treeplantations. Multiple environmental benefits, including contribution to biodiversity, aredelivered and risks reduced. 3.7.5 Policy and legal appraisal This strategic option aims to address wildfires through integrated community-based firemanagement. Section 2.2.5.1 paragraph 164 and Section 2.4.3 paragraph 292 of theNational Development Plan II (2015-2020) single out wild fires as one of the majornatural and human-induced disasters. Under Section 9.2 of the National DevelopmentPlan II (2015-2020) one of the Government strategies in dealing with wild fires is tosupport the decentralized environment management function at the Local Governmentlevel including enforcement of the bye-laws on wild fires. Sections 35(1) and (2) of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003) providethat no person shall light or cause to be lit a fire in a forest, and that a person whocontravenes this subsection commits an offence and is liable, on conviction, toimprisonment for a term not exceeding seven years. Under Section 92 of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003), the Ministermay make regulations for, among other things, the prohibition, control and managementof fires. Regulation 40(1) of the Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014) prohibit thebringing into a forest, any articles or materials of inflammable or combustible nature.Under Regulation 40(3), a person shall not light a fire which may spread, damage ordestroy a forest or part of it, and a person who contravenes this regulation commits anoffence and is liable, on conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding sevenyears. Under Regulation 41(1) & (2) of the Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014), theDistrict Council is responsible for management of forest fires in the district, and shallappoint a District Forest Fire Management Committee for management of forest fires. Under Regulation 42(1) of the Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014), thefunctions of the District Forest Fire Management Committee, include the following:preventing and fighting forest fires; mobilising the people to fight a forest fire; 66 developing and implementing a fire drill exercise and sensitization; compilation of a listof potential fire fighters; and budgeting for prevention and fighting of forest fires. Under Regulation 42(2) of the Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014), theDistrict Forest Fire Management Committee shall each year calculate forest fire indicesand by notice declare a state of danger on the basis of the index in respect of an areawithin its jurisdiction and where there is a likelihood of a forest fire. Under Regulation 42(5) of the Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014), agenciesin charge of managing forest reserves are still obligated to control and manage fireoutbreaks. Regulation 43(2) of the Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014) provide for theestablishment of forest fire management committee by a lower local government, withan obligation of each council to develop a forest fire management plan and budget. Under Regulation 44 of the Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014), District FireManagement Committee is mandated to regulate the burning of grass season. Under Regulation 73(b) of the Forestry and Tree Planting Regulations (2014), owners ofprivate forests are required to carry out fire-prevention plans as well as inform theDistrict Fire Management Committee about forest fires. The other relevant law in wildfire management is the Prohibition of Burning of Grass Act(Cap 33 Laws of Uganda). The Act prohibits the burning of grass by any person in allareas of Uganda. Under Section 3(1) of the Act, the burning of grass can only be carriedout with the permission of a sub-county chief, and under the supervision of a parish orsub-parish chief. Under Section 3(2) of the Act in the case of the burning of grass in aforest reserve, the burning shall be carried out, or authorised in writing, by an officer ofthe forest authority not below the rank of a forest ranger. Section 5 of the Act createsexceptions to the general prohibition by allowing the burning of grass for purposes of:clearing a compound; clearing land for farming; cleaning a town or city; or making a firebreak for protecting life or property. In order for this strategic option to be realized, Government must implement thefollowing measures under the current policy and legal framework:  The strict enforcement of legal provisions relating to wildfire management, as setout in National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003); Forestry and Tree PlantingRegulations (2014); and Prohibition of Burning of Grass Act (Cap 33 Laws ofUganda); 67  Relevant government authorities in each district, county and sub-county musthave required fire-fighting skills training and these persons must train as part oftheir work their lower level personnel and community members for fire-fighting;  Fire towers and fire-fighting equipment must be established or located in coreareas for fast access when needed;  Penalties and fines must be enforced all over Uganda to raise awareness ofwildfire hazards. 3.8. Strategic options 7: Livestock rearing in the Cattle Corridor 3.8.1. Approach Figure 3 presents a picture for how livestock management has been incorporated intothis national REDD+ programme. Five of the eight strategic options tackle issues relatedto livestock management in one way or another. The Strategic Option 7 Livestock rearing in the Cattle Corridor includes three sub-options:  Sub-option 7.1. Change to exotic cattle varieties and crossbreeding  Sub-option 7.2. Establishment of drinking water dams for livestock;  Sub-option 7.3. Establishment of fodder agroforestry plantations. The approach is cross-sectoral and contributes to several objectives of the NationalAgricultural Policy (2013). Figure 3. Overview of how livestock management issues are incorporated into the REDD+ programme. 3.8.2. Potential locations for implementation The Strategic Option 7 on Livestock can be deployed all over in rural Uganda and to acertain degree also in peri-urban areas, but it has been decided to focus in this strategicoption to the Cattle Corridor. Introducing fodder trees and stall-feeding practicesrequires that suitable tree species are selected according to the agro-ecological zones,considering issues such as altitude, mean annual rainfall, tolerance to frost, drainage andacidity of soil and feed quality. Central and South-Western milk sheds together contribute 50 % of the total nationalproduction (DDA 2016). The other milk sheds or regions (particularly Eastern andNorthern) experience a deficit of marketable milk almost throughout the year and arereferred to as milk deficit areas while South-Western and Central regions continue toexperience a surplus of marketable milk particularly in the wet season. Milk surplus anddeficit milk sheds present differences in market opportunities for poor dairy farmers aswell as service delivery to dairy farmers. Reduction of extensive free-grazing of traditional livestock is needed in semi-humid andsemi-arid areas. This area is commonly referred to as Cattle Corridor, which stretchesacross the country from the South-West (Ankole sub-region) to the northeast (Karamojasub-region) encompassing 8.4 million ha (Stark 2011, p. 8). The characteristics of theCattle Corridor include i) high rainfall variability; ii) periodic late onset rains/droughts;and iii) historical reliance on mobile pastoralism as an important strategy to cope withresource variability. The reduced availability of leguminous forage plants in therangelands is limiting livestock growth, meat and milk yield from cattle. In Karamoja sub-region, the ongoing conversion of rangelands to croplands hascontributed to the shortage of forage (Egeru et al. 2014) which has caused a decliningpastoral production system in addition to a complex range of other problems. Theseinclude historical injustices and marginalization, three and half decades of civil unrest,poor infrastructure, and a high climate variability with frequent drought periods (Egeruet al. 2015). Karamoja sub-region is estimated to have up to 2.7 million cattlerepresenting one fifth of the national cattle herd. 3.8.3. Appraisal Two of the three sub-options chosen for Strategic Option 7 Livestock rearing in the Cattle Corridor are completely non-carbon based and the third sub-option based onestablishment of fodder agroforestry plantations which have by definition got hugeleakage (i.e. most of it will be used immediately as fodder) and thus carbon emissionreduction targets for Strategic Option 7 are not advisable. Further, as the envisionedoperations are not targeting specific household’s own lands specifically would 70 household financial analysis calculations be somewhat theoretical and therefore haveonly the budget costs accumulating from this strategic option been estimated (See Table8). The livestock population in Uganda is on one hand divided into a more modern livestockrearing system with stall-feeding or organized grazing in fenced in compounds, exoticbreeds for milk and meat production (found in more developed districts in all regions ofUganda). On the other hand, there is also traditional free-grazing and pastoralism (themain livestock rearing system in the Cattle Corridor in all regions of Uganda and inKaramoja area of Northern Region). The main challenges for Uganda are excessivecarbon and nitrogen emissions from cattle that stem from the traditional free-grazinglivestock population in the Cattle Corridor including Karamoja. Strategic Sub-option 7.1. “Change to exotic cattle varieties and cross-breeding: The changeof traditional cattle to exotics and cross-breeding cattle is important as such cattle willproduce substantially more milk and meat per animal, which makes a huge differencefor the owners’ own economy, while smaller herds may produce more than the previoustraditional herds. With less animals, also the carrying capacity of the landscape willimprove (Raymond 2013). For the Strategic sub-option 7.1. there is a need to start up the programme with 40,000indigenous cows and 775 improved bulls. As there already exists a population of exotichalf-breed cows and exotic bulls in Uganda it should be explored whether these can beused first in the breeding operations before MAAIF start to import new ones. What thiswill cost depends on the quality of exotic bull semen, costs of importing exotic bulls andthe artificial insemination costs that occur in Uganda. An estimate could perhaps bearound 12 MUSD. Strategic Sub-option 7.2. Establishment of drinking water dams: A major problem in theCattle Corridor is the availability of drinking water for the livestock population duringthe dry season. Several rivers running through the Cattle Corridor are seasonal. In orderto arrange better availability of water for livestock and partly also for humanconsumption interventions such as building dams to trap surface water and drilling toutilize underground water are recommended. Through the years there have beeninappropriate engineering and hydrological investigations which have led to badlydesigned dams and this has resulted in dam failures and excessive silting problems. Alarge majority of the over 900 dams and valley tanks which were built in the 1940s-1970s have outlived their usefulness mainly due to lack of maintenance (characteristicof the period of civil unrest of 1976-86). Destruction of the old livestock wateringfacilities has also been enhanced by the over-dense livestock populations at the fewremaining facilities, which aggravates local soil erosion and eventual unwarrantedsilting of reservoirs. 71 It is estimated that the majority of the pastoral households are lacking water fordomestic and livestock use. As a result, livestock have to cover long distances in searchof water with all the associated health and productivity risks. The thirsty and weakanimals therefore often even die without producing milk or meat for the livestockowner. To alleviate the water shortage, it is envisaged that the REDD+ programme couldsupport the construction and restoration of 12 drinking water dams and 60 valley tanksto hold a total of 2 million m3 of water. It is envisaged that water dams are the firstpriority to construct in locations where there is seasonal water available, while watertanks will be constructed in places without potential for water dams. Additionally, thereis a need to provide 150 animal scoops for dam and tank maintenance and to trainlivestock keeping community persons how to manufacture and operate such animalscoops. The total costs for these operations are estimated to be around 14 MUSD. Strategic Sub-option 7.3. Establishment of fodder agroforestry plantations. Zero-grazingand stall-feeding is an appropriate management system especially in Uganda wherefarmers own very small plots of land. Stall-feeding is especially suitable for dairy cattle.Milk may be used at home or dairy products are sold. Zero-grazing farms are reported tofeed dairy cattle on elephant grass, forage legumes, fodder trees and agro-industrial by-products. Potential fodder tree species include several indigenous acacia species, Faidherbia albida and introduced species such as Calliandra calothyrsus, Gliricidia sepium and Sesbania sesban. Many of the fodder species are multipurpose trees like Borassus aethiopum which is reported also to increase the grain yield of finger millet(Egeru et al. 2015). Another appropriate tree species is Leucaena leucocephala, native to meso-America butnow naturalized throughout the tropics (Dinesh 2016a). Care must be taken not tochoose an invasive and obscure variety of the species, though. The leaves of Leucaenaare highly nutritious, and when fed as a supplement can increase meat and milk yieldsubstantially, when compared with a low-quality baseline diet. Leucaena can increaseproductivity per animal considerably as well as resilience, with substantial impacts onincome. At the same time, because the leaves improve the diet of ruminant livestock, theamount of methane produced by the animal per kg of meat and milk produced issubstantially reduced. In addition, having trees such as Leucaena on the farm increasescarbon sequestration in the soil.Besides fodder trees there are tens of species of other woody or non-woody plantsdistributed in 31 genera that are commonly fed on by cattle in Kaliro District. Themajority of these fodder species are grasses (19), but also herbs (10), shrubs includinglianas (6), and one sedge are often being foraged on.During the last years there have been seasonal variations in fodder availability in theCattle Corridor. Fodder is abundant in the wet season, while it becomes scarce in the dry 72 season. The cattle can obtain a healthy look and gain weight in the wet season, while inthe dry season, farmers have to herd their cattle, goats, and sheep to distant communalgrazing fields or to lakeshore swamps. Even those farmers who normally rear animalsby tethering turn to herding, while others feed their livestock on browse, i.e. branchesand leaves of trees and shrubs, notably of the Ficus spp. Overall, it has become hard tofind fodder for cattle because of reductions in grazing areas. Farmers have attributed thedecline in pastoral area to several causes: (1) conversion of communal grazing lands toagricultural use, (2) shortening of fallow periods or absence of fallowing, and (3) weedinvasion. The allocation of more land to crop agriculture to increase agriculturalproduction and the shortening of fallow periods by farmers has made animal herdingdifficult, because animals stray into crop fields to eat cultivated grass crops, and thisresults in prosecution of the animal owners. During the last years cows have been tethered by most cattle owners, and the otherfarmers herd their livestock in communal grazing fields or practice both tethering andgrazing. In the past, cattle almost exclusively grazed. Tethering is a new phenomenonthat has arisen as a response to pasture scarcity. Cattle are kept in fenced enclosures atnight. The common grazing routine is to take cattle out to pasture early in the morningaround 6 a.m. and bring them in at about 10 a.m. for milking, while theherdsman/farmer eats breakfast. Two hours later, they are returned to pasture until lateevening around 7 p.m. They are milked once more in the evening. This REDD+ sub-option aims at the establishment of agroforestry plantations withfodder tree species (in rows or in clusters) and seeding of the above-mentioned foddergrasses in between. It is foreseen that at least some 100,000 ha of such fodderagroforestry plantations should be established in the Cattle Corridor. The area can laterbe expanded as is seen needed. In order to keep the costs low it is recommended thatMAAIF, DAR, NFA and other government authority organizations involved wouldprovide various fodder grass seeds and fodder tree seedlings to livestock herdinghouseholds in the Cattle Corridor. They would eventually plant and seed in those fodderplantations for their own benefit. The established agroforestry plantations can be bothon state lands and on private farmer lands. Some kinds of grazing agreements forcommunities will be needed to secure that those who plant and seed the plantations willbenefit from the grazing opportunity. As 200 fast-growing fodder tree seedlings would cost maximum around 20 USD and aportion of grass seeds sufficient for one hectare would cost perhaps 5 USD or less thetotal establishment cost could be around 25 USD/ha with additional labour cost of theinvolved livestock herding households. Thereby, the overall concrete cost involvedwould be 2.5 MUSD in seeds and seedling costs, some supervision, training andtransportation costs combined with livestock owner households’ own labour inputs anda total of 3 MUSD could possibly be sufficient (see Table 28). 73 The established fodder agroforestry plantations must be closed from livestock free-grazing during at least two years, but the livestock herders can harvest it as hay after thegrasses have matured (i.e. after the grasses have matured and reseeded themselves),which can be then collected for the livestock in dry season. Also, some branches offodder trees may be cut and used as stall-feeding fodder. It is further worth to remember that other fodder production opportunities areenvisaged to be integrated with Strategic Option 1 (Climate Smart Agriculture) andStrategic Option 2 (Sustainable Fuelwood and Charcoal Use) which both haveincorporated livestock fodder cultivation alongside both crop cultivation and bioenergytree plantations. There can also be fodder production also under Strategic Option 4. Dataand information has been incorporated for the analysis from the following main sources:ADF, 2002, USAID (2011), Raymond (2013), and MAAIF (2015).Table 8. Summary for Strategic Option 7: Livestock management Indicators/ Components Change to exotic cattle varieties and crossbreeding Establishment of fodder agroforestry plantations Establishment of drinking water dams Production efficiency increase in livestock rearing Milk production may be300-1000 % higher thanwith local cattle races.Meat production 200-300 % higher as well. Large number of livestockwould be starving in thedry season without suchplantations Large number oflivestock are inserious thirst in thedry season withoutsuch dams Farm-level investments per cow Cost of artificialinsemination in Kenya isaround USD 104. Approximately 25 USDper hectare plus ownlabour cost The water dams willserve larger areas Overall investment and programmatic level costs (MUSD) covered by the farmers Initial investment inartificial insemination of40,000 cows would bearound 4.2 MUSD Approximately 2.5 MUSDfor 75,000 ha if livestockowners conduct seedingand planting as ownlabour cost. The costs will mainlybe covered bygovernmentauthorityorganizations. Total project costs Initial investment inartificial inseminationprogramme will be 12MUSD over 10 years, butthe programme shouldbe expanded later. Approximately 3 MUSDover ten years Approximately 14MUSD over ten years Estimated emission abatement potential (tCO2) per ha over 25 years Good cattle races havealso efficient digestivefunctions and producestherefore also loweremissions per feedintake. As both seeded grassesand planted fodder treeseedlings will be used asfodder almost instantly iscarbon not calculated. Difficult to calculateas there are no directcarbon emissionreduction aims withthis sub-option. 74 Household level benefits NPV (USD) (10% discount over 25 years) Several 100% higher. High importance fordrought affectedhouseholds. High importance fordrought affectedhouseholds. Average annual employment generated (full time equivalents) New jobs around 1,000or so in AI business. InKenya this mainlyprivate business is aUSD 11 million annualturnover. This sub-option will boostlivestock meat and milkproduction thusexpanding the sectorcreating new jobs. This sub-option willboost livestock meatand milk productionthus expanding thesector creating newjobs. MAC (10% inflation) USD/tCO2 not calculated not calculated not calculated 3.8.4 Non-carbon benefits The livestock intensification improves grazing, feed and manure management (Dinesh2016). Improving efficiency through direct breeding for better performance is also a co-benefit opportunity. Increasing the number of trees on farms and in the landscape notonly provides important ecosystem services but also leads to a direct increase in incomethrough diversification of products and greater resilience to climate shocks. Foddertrees not only increase soil carbon pool, but also improve soil fertility and contribute tohigher biodiversity. In drylands, increased tree canopy protects crops from harshsunshine and winds. Zero-grazing and stall-feeding decreases crop damage of livestock,and lowers the potential for conflicts. Compared to extensive free grazing, stall-feedingallows more youth to engage in schooling, which is crucial when transforming theUgandan society from a peasant society to a modern and prosperous country. 3.8.5 Policy and legal appraisal The National Development Plan II (2015-2020) (NDP II) recognizes the importance oflivestock farming to agricultural production. In order to promote livestock farming, NDPII makes provision for several investments, including; water systems for livestockconsumption; livestock diseases control; improvement in the quality and stock ofstorage facilities for livestock; and value addition for livestock products (milk, yogurt,and cheese) (see Section 6.2).Under Section 3.2 Objective 2 paragraphs 23 (v) of the Agriculture Policy (2013), theGovernment will encourage and promote dry season livestock feeding through pasturepreservation and other feeding practices. Under Section 3.2 Objective 4 paragraphs 25(ii) of the Agriculture Policy (2013), the Government will ensure the development, 75 maintenance and improvement of physical agricultural market infrastructure atstrategic locations, including livestock markets and abattoirs.Under policy statement number 4.1.1 of the Draft Rangeland Management andPastoralism Policy (2014), several strategies for improving livestock feed and waterresources development are set out, including: identifying livestock corridors to facilitatethe right of entry to designated pastoral resources especially where access wouldsupport optimal stocking rates and prevent conflicts; regulating cross-border pastoralmigration by supervising international corridors; allowing livestock access to grazing inseasonal wetlands in rangelands without conflicts with the users and communityauthorities; introducing technologies to enable agro-pastoralists produce and store rain-fed fodder; popularizing the utilization of alternative feed resources; supporting studiesto understand pastoralists’ breeding and selection strategies; and documenting andincreasing the awareness about indigenous knowledge related to human and ethno-vetmedicinal plants. Under policy statement number 4.1.9 of the Draft RangelandManagement and Pastoralism Policy (2014), the Government will encourage pastoralistand agro-pastoralist livestock keepers to rear genetically adapted but better yieldinganimals to reduce overstocking.Under Section 3.3.1 1 of the Uganda Strategic Investment Framework for SustainableLand Management (2010-2020), the Government will promote water supply to pastoralcommunities by promoting construction of rainwater harvesting ferro-cement tanks forhomes and institutions. Valley tanks and check dams will be constructed to harvestrunoff from roads, large rocks, etc. to provide water for domestic and livestock use.Small scale irrigation practices will be promoted through demonstrations on water /run-off harvested and harnessing of water from permanent and semi-permanentsources.Since this strategic option is closely linked to ‘Strategic Option 1: Climate-smartagriculture’, the implementation measures outlined in SO1 are adopted for its effectiveimplementation. In addition to the measures outlined in SO1, it will be necessary for theGovernment to adopt the Draft Rangeland Management and Pastoralism Policy (2014)and implement strategies therein. The policies and strategies outlined in the abovepolicies and laws must be enforced in order for this strategic option to be realized. 3.9 Strategic Option 8: Strengthen Policy Implementation for REDD+ 3.9.1 Approach Inadequate implementation of policies and enforcement of laws are some of the factorsthat will negatively impact REDD+ implementation. This strategic option outlines anumber of activities through which REDD+ policy implementation can be improved. Inorder to promote policy implementation in all the sectors that are relevant to REDD+ 76 implementation, it will be necessary for Government to adopt the following keymeasures:  The Policy Implementation Monitoring Unit under the Office of the PrimeMinister (OPM) shall identify REDD+ implementation as one of the focus areas,and ensure that REDD+ related policies and laws are implemented by theresponsible Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) including the localgovernments. To this end, the Unit shall put in place a monitoring and evaluationstrategy tailored for REDD+ implementation through which relevant policies andlaws will be periodically monitored, and implementation bottlenecks regularlyaddressed;  The Policy Implementation Monitoring Unit under the Office of the PrimeMinister (OPM) shall ensure that all Ministries, Departments and Agencies(MDAs) and local governments draft implementation plans of the various REDD+policies and laws. Such plans shall identify priority programmes and theirbudgets as well as the sources of funding to facilitate the implementation ofREDD+ policies and laws (Tumushabe, G., Muhumuza, T., Natamba, E., Bird, N.,Welham, B., and Jones, L., 2013). These plans shall also identify the requiredsubsidiary legislation such as ordinances and by-laws and plan for theirformulation to facilitate implementation of REDD+ policies and laws at the locallevel;  The Government through the Ministry of Finance, Planning and EconomicDevelopment shall provide financing for REDD+ policy implementation. Most ofthe REDD+ policies and laws are not implemented due to lack of adequatefinance. The starting point is to ensure that adequate finance is provided toenable REDD+ policy implementation across all the relevant sectors by theresponsible Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) including localgovernments. The already existing sector working groups (SWGs) shall identifyand cost REDD+ policy implementation as an expenditure priority. In order toensure that this done, there must be concerted advocacy to this effect, from awide range of actors including the line Ministry, civil society, and the privatesector. Since REDD+ implementation must compete for resources with othernational priorities and plans, there must be a clear articulation why theGovernment should inject financial resources into REDD+ implementation; and  The Government shall ensure that institutions responsible for REDD+implementation including local governments are adequately staffed.  To strengthen the implementation of relevant policies it is further recommendedthat each civil servant in the government authorities involved in REDD+implementation will attend some training courses. For the training events at the 77 national level, the teachers/trainers of the courses could preferably be externalor even international specialists, while for subnational levels theteachers/trainers could be civil servants from the national level, who have firstattended these training events themselves. Recommended topics for training areat least the following ones: o Good governance and efficient anti-corruption practices; o Administration skills needed in enhancing competences of civil servants; o Monitoring and evaluation of government operated projects andprogrammes; o Social skills in dealing with rural communities and various other externalstakeholders.  Government shall further strengthen and support civil society organizations andengage private sector to promote responsible forest management, develop newforest investment opportunities. Even though a part of SO8 is best coordinated by OPM it is still recommended that theleader organization for this strategic option is FSSD as this strategic option concerns thestrengthening of all strategic options through capacity building and best practices to beused throughout the REDD+ programme. To ensure best possible outcome in SO8 it is proposed that outside consultants(international or national) would be contracted to train core ministerial personnel andlocal and/or intra-ministerial trainers on some of the core topics (i.e. anti-corruptionmeasures and enforcement, good governance and policy enforcement). This could beincorporated in the provided budget. 3.9.2 Potential locations for implementation Cross the country from the national to the county level including all relevant ministriesand institutions. 3.9.3. Appraisal Budget: 2 Million USD for first 5 years and 3 Million USD for the following 20 years. 78 3.9.4 Non-carbon benefits Reduced poverty, improved livelihoods, good health and well-being, gender equality,clean water, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, sustainableindustrialization, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities and communities, sustainableproduction and consumption patterns, prevented desertification, reversed landdegradation, stopped diversity losses, effective, accountable and inclusive institutions,and stronger global partnerships for sustainable development. 3.9.5 Policy and legal appraisal The complete list of analysed policies and laws with proposals for changes can be foundin Annex2. 3.10 Discussion on strategic options All the final strategic options with their respective sub-options have been summarizedin Table 9 below. The first six of the final strategic options were developed so that theyall have negative marginal carbon abatement cost coefficients, which means that theyare cost efficient. Ultimately the amount of carbon that will be abated uponimplementation of the respective strategic option, for the period of 25 years rangedfrom 3.6 to 16,049 MtCO2eq tons depending on the content and aim of each strategicoption. Cost efficiency means that these activities will be financially viable and theirbeneficiaries will generate surplus income from their investment, even in the absence ofcarbon financing in the investment plans.Strategic option 7 does not have a set carbon mitigation target as the carbon mitigationtarget for livestock management has been included in scope of other strategic options.Even the strategic sub-option 7.3 Establishment of agroforestry fodder plantations focuson annual fodder production, which means that most carbon sequestration will be usedas fodder for livestock and is therefore not available for carbon trading. The StrategicOption 8 is an over-arching option as it strives to increase the efficiency of the others,while it is not bringing additional direct carbon emission reduction impacts by itself.The respective beneficiaries for each strategic option and its sub-options are describedin the text for each strategic option separately, but the governmental bodies involved in 79 these strategic options may not directly benefit from their investments in cash.However, indirectly they will get forest lands and their biodiversity restored, higheryields from agriculture, reduced energy demand gap, and so forth.Some of the sub-options have low initial investment needs of below USD 100 perhouseholds as indicated in the third column of Table 9. A few more activities need initialinvestments between USD 100 –1,000 while the most expensive activities would requireup to USD 1,500. Strategically, the activities with the lowest initial investments couldpotentially be targeted by all rural households, although in some cases also peri-urbanand urban households could benefit from them, as is the case with Energy EfficientStoves (EES) and Improved Cooking Stoves (ICS). Government of Uganda (GoU) shallconsider these options as a visionary ladder where cheap options are for the pooresthouseholds which, as they become wealthier (towards Vision 2040) and move up theladder, are able to afford more expensive investment options and thereby less reliant onthe natural forest for wood/biomass extraction.To ensure that implementation of the strategic options and activities does not triggerany negative environmental or social impacts or consequences, SESA has recommendedthe measures for integrating social and environmental issues in the design andimplementation of the REDD+ Strategy action. The environmental- and social impacts,and related risks of the proposed strategic options have been presented in Annexes 3and 4. These tables can be applied during the appraisal of strategic option relatedproject design and during monitoring the implementation of the projects. 80 Table 9. Financial analysis results for the 8 strategic options NPV gain 10% Cash upfront tCO2/ha Total no. Total Ha Total MAC 10% Strategic option action: for 25 yrs/unit investment need tCO2/hh of HHs or units MtCO2 USD/tCO2e Strategic option 1: Climate smart agriculture:SSO 1.1: SLM & agroforestry practices USD 2,817.7 USD 5(+76/yr) 94 2,382,357 2,382,357 224 -30* traditional agriculture USD 667.2 USD 76/yearSSO 1.2: RWH with collection tank USD 4,740 USD 1,485 or 151 1,949,053 1,949,053 294 on top -25.2& drip irrigation USD 931 of previousSSO1.3: Green house cult. Plastic sheet USD 15,861.3 USD 1,449 100,000HHs 649,684 53 -193.4* or with shade net USD 1,121 to benefit Strategic option 2: Sust. Fuelwood & charcoal prod.SSO 2.1: Commercial small-holder &community USD 10,252 USD 162+60 700 866,246 866,246 607 -16.9bioenergy woodlotsSSO2.2: Commercial small-holder andcommunity USD 14,648 USD 1,235.9 443 108,281 108,281 479 -33.1poles and timber plantationsSSO 2.3: Improved charcoal kilns linked USD 10,000 USD 1,400 or 802 100,000kilns 695 -277.8to bioenergy woodlots USD 160 Strategic option 3: Large-scale commercial plantationsSSO 3.1: Pole/timber plantation USD 10,890 USD 892 729.3 40,000 18.2 -14.9SSO3.2: Pole/sawlog plantation USD 13,201 USD 934 445.7 30,000 13.4 -29.6SSO3.3: Improved charcoal kiln linked USD 17,000 or USD 1,400 548.7 15,000 kilns 8.2 -31.0to plantation sites USD 32,000 -58.3 Strategic option 4: 81 Restoration of nat. Forest landscapeSSO 4.1: Designated areas for USD 4,784.5 USD 7 &over- 300.0 100,000HHs 100,000 3,0 -16.0natural forest regeneration all USD 132.5 to benefitSSO4.2: Restoration of degraded protected USD 6,067.3 USD 51 &over 581.6 100,000HHs 100,000 58,1 THFs at -10.4natural forest all USD 214.3 26.2 to benefit 2,6 Woodlandsat -722SSO4.3: Devolution through PFM andsimilar Linked to above optionsSSO 4.4: Traditional for. Mgt. Practices Linked to above options Strategic option 5: Energy efficient cooking stovesSSO 5.1: Fuelwood energy eff. stoves USD 1,086 USD22,4/3yrs 22.2 3,405,625 11,405 -48.9and per institutions USD 20,296 USD200/3yrs 150.6 18,904 inst. 403 -134.8SSO 5.2: Improved charcoal stoves USD 374 USD 10/3yrs 35.8 2,264,564 1,324 -10.4and per institutions USD 7,075 USD150/3yrs 668.1 41,076 inst. 448 -106 Strategic option 6: Integrated wildfire managementSSO 6.1: Integrated wildfire mgt. Overall USD 170Billion MUSD 12 368.6 11,864,873 16,049 -24.9and without grasslands -27.3 Strategic option 7: Livestock rearing in the Cattle CorridorSSO 7.1. to 7.3. n.a. MUSD 29 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Strategic option 8: Strengthening policy enforcement for REDD+ n.a. MUSD 2 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Total CO2eq emissions in MTCO2eq in 25 years 31,654 82 4. Institutional arrangements for REDD+ programme implementation 4.1 Overall implementation strategy The REDD+ Strategy implementation is a multiyear undertaking with long-termcommitments to programmes and investments at national and subnational levels,within and outside protected areas. The over-all implementation strategy for the Uganda’s REDD+ Strategy emphasizesinstitutionalizing the implementation into national institutions responsible for therespective options of tackling drivers and underlying causes of deforestation and forestdegradation, and other arrangements that render the implementation integrated intoother conservation and land use policies and practices encompassing, agriculture,energy, livestock, rural development programmes and activities within the country.One additional strategic component is emphasizing capacity and skills transfer toensure sustainability of the REDD+ investments. Uganda’s implementation strategiestake into account the international guidelines and best practices that are suitable toUganda’s policy environment and other national circumstances such as institutionalarrangements for decentralization, natural resources management and socio-economicdevelopment. International as well national policies and safeguards will be fullycomplied and measures for mitigating possible social, economic negative impacts willbe designed and implemented concurrently (See Annexes 3 and 4). Lastly,implementation will promote cost-effective measures to realize optimal and equitablebenefits from the REDD+ investments (refer to BSA study 2017 by Indufor). 4.2 National level arrangements for REDD+ implementation The Strategic Options 1-8 cut across several economic sectors (forestry, environment,energy, agriculture, wildlife, land), and therefore a strong mechanism of sectoralcoordination and provision of incentives need to be put in place. MWE is the leadinstitution for the overall implementation and coordination. MWE will function throughFSSD, NFA, DWD and DWRM. FSSD will provide technical and coordinationresponsibility on behalf of MWE. MWE will collaborate with UWA (forests in wildlifeconservation areas, wildfires), MAAIF (CSA and livestock rearing), MEMD (Sustainablefuel wood utilization, Energy Efficiency technologies), the MOLG District Departments(Local Forest Reserves, Forest outside protected areas, CSA, Sustainable fuel wood andcommercial charcoal production, Energy efficient cooking stoves, Integrated wildfiremanagement). 83 The detailed institutional roles are outlined in Table 10. In accordance with thisinstitutional outline the Lead implementer for the Ugandan national REDD+ programmewill be the Ministry for Water and Environment (MWE) and more specifically its ForestSector Support Department (FSSD). The REDD+ Technical Coordination Unit will behosted at MWE/FSSD and the overall implementation responsibility for all eightstrategic options will be held there. The general national institution responsibilities areoutlined in Table 11. Table 12 further elaborates involvement of the core organizationsin the Ugandan REDD+ programme and each over-arching coordination role for thestrategic options is highlighted. 4.2.1 Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) The overall mandate of MWE/FSSD is management of forest resources in thecountry. In the REDD+ implementation its role will be to be responsible forsustainable forest and woodland management interventions and activities;implementation of National Forestry Policy and National Forest Plan; provide adviceand support to define policies, standards and regulations for the forestry sector;oversees NFA andNEMAactivities. 4.2.2 Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) The overall mandate of MAAIF is to support, promote and guide the production ofcrops, livestock and fish, while ensuring sustainable use of ecosystem services. In theREDD+ context its role will be to lead the implementation of national policies onagriculture, livestock and rangeland management; provide technical assistance todistricts on sustainable agricultural management; promote sustainable utilization ofNRs for agricultural production; National Focal Point for UN Convention to CombatDesertification (UNCCD); collaborate with other sector institutions and programs inimplementation of NAP to combat desertification; oversee NAADS and NARO - semiautonomous bodies. 4.2.3 Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development (MEMD) The overall mandate of MEMD will be to establish, promote the development,strategically manage and safeguard the rational and sustainable exploitation andutilization of energy and mineral resources for social and economic development. In theREDD+ context its role will be to implement a National Energy Policy; and formulateappropriate energy policies; develop and disseminate energy conservationtechnologies; provide technical support in activities related to renewable energy;provide data in renewable energy development, use and trends; coordination of plansand activities of LGs in relation to energy; and provide necessary technical assistance. 84 4.2.4 The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) In a REDD+ context the OPM’s role will be to supervise the implementation of theeight main REDD+ strategic options involving refugees in REDD+ activities with aspecial grant funded budget earmarked for this purpose. However, the actual fieldoperations will be conducted by the respective national strategic option coordinatorsand the districts. 4.2.5 Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MoGLSD) In the REDD+ context the MOGLSD’s role will supervise the implementation of theeight main REDD+ strategic options vis-à-vis gender issues and ethnic minority groupinvolvement in REDD+ activities at national level while the actual field operations willbe conducted by the respective national strategic option coordinators and the districts. 4.2.6 Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities (MTWA) This Ministry is supervising Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) that is responsible for themanagement and ecotourism of national parks and protected areas. In the REDD+context the UWA will be responsible for implementation of Strategic Option 4(Restoration of natural forests) and Strategic Option 6 (Integrated wildfiremanagement) in national parks and protected areas under its mandate. 4.2.7 Ministry of Local Governance (MOLG) This Ministry operates only at district and lower levels of government administration.There are several departments of importance at lower governance levels: Departmentof Forest Services/Department of Natural Resources; Department of Production;Department of Animal Resources; and Department of Social Development. In the REDD+ context MOLG and its districts are of crucial importance in all theStrategic Options 1-8. The districts manage local Forest Reserves, supervises forests onprivate land and conduct both forest and renewable energy extension. The Departmentof Production coordinates all agricultural operations while the Department of AnimalResources coordinates livestock issues. The Department of Social Development with itscounty level Community Development Officers are particularly important incoordinating the involvement of refugees, ethnic minorities and marginalized people inStrategic Options 1-8. 85 4.2.8 State service provider bodies Besides the above mentioned main REDD+ strategic option coordination bodies, thereare five state service provider bodies in the national scope. One of these is a carbontrading body to be identified, which will be trying to develop and support carbontrading operations based on Strategic Option 3 (on large-scale pole and timberplantations). The other governmental service provider is the Uganda Bureau ofStatistics (UBOS), which should be up-scaling its national survey operations to supportthe annual monitoring of the strategic options and, in particular, the non-carbon relatedoperations of the strategic option activities. All the three remaining bodies are research related bodies – namely the NationalAgriculture Research Organization (NARO), the National Forestry Research Institute(NAFORRI) as its special entity and lastly the Ugandan academia. Their research topicsare indicated in Table 12. Additionally, these three research bodies can also supportREDD+ operations at ground level but without earmarked funding. However, fundingcan be found/taken, for instance, in/from the service provider budget. 86 Table 10. Lead institutions and collaborator for the strategic option implementation. Option Activity Lead institutions Collaborating institutions SO1. Climate smart agriculture SLM and agroforestry practices MAAIF, Districts (DP, DFS/DNR & DSD). NARO, NAFFORI CSO/NGO Rainwater harvesting with collection tank and drip irrigation MAAIF, Districts (DP & DSD) DWD CSO/NGO Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables MAAIF, Districts (DP & DSD), NARO CSO/NGO SO 2. Sustainable fuel wood and (commercial) charcoal production Commercial small-holder and community bioenergy woodlots MEMD, Districts (DP, DFS/DNR & DSD), Private Land Owners CSO/NGO Commercial small-holder and community pole and timber plantations Districts (DP, DFS/DNR & DSD), Private Land Owners CSO/NGO Improved charcoal kilns linked to bioenergy woodlots MEMD, Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD), Private Sector CSO/NGO SO 3. Large-scale commercial timber plantations Commercial fast-growing transmission pole and timber plantation NFA, Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD), Private Land Owners Commercial fast-growing pole and saw log plantation NFA, Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD), Private Land Owners Improved charcoal kilns linked to plantation sites Private Sector SO 4. Restoration of natural forests in the landscape: Designated areas for natural forest regeneration NFA, UWA, Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD), Private large land owners CSO/NGO Protected natural forest management (i.e. national parks and forest reserves) NFA, UWA, Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD) CSO/NGO Devolution of forest management through Participatory Forest Management and similar set-ups NFA, UWA, Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD) CSO/NGO 87 Traditional/customary forest management practices District (DFS/DNR & DSD) Cultural Institutions, Community CSO/NGO SO 5. Energy efficient cooking stoves For fuel wood MEMD, FSSD, Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD) CSO/NGO For charcoal MEMD, FSSD, Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD) CSO/NGO SO 6. Integrated wildfire management In timber plantations Private Land owner/Plantation Owners, NFA On woodlands Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD), UWA, NFA On bush lands Districts (DFS/DNR & CDO), UWA, NFA On grasslands Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD). UWA, NFA SO 7. Livestock rearing in Cattle Corridor Breeding programme MAAIF/DAR, NGBC,districtsCommercial livestockfarmers CSO/NGO Establishment of fodder agroforestry plantations Districts (DFS/DNR & DSD), NFA, UgandaSeeds Ltd. Commerciallivestock farmers CSO/NGO Establishment of water dams DWD CWUAs SO 8. Strengthening of policy implementation for REDD+: Strengthening of policy enforcement in REDD+ implementation MWE, NFA, UWA, FSSD, Districts CSO/NGO, Private Sector Strengthening civil society organizations and engage private sector to promote responsible forest management, develop new forest investment opportunities NFA, UWA, FSSD, Districts Good governance of natural resources/ forests (community based institutions and strengthening of government agencies MWE, NFA, UWA, FSSD, Districts CSO/NGO 88 Table 11. Roles and responsibilities of the core implementing organizations. Organizations Responsibility NCCAC (National ClimateChange AdvisoryCommittee) Policy Coordination and Harmonisation WESWG (Water andEnvironment SectorWorking Group) Coordination within the Sector Budgeting and resources allocation Reporting and information sharing Mobilizing donor support MWE Over-all implementation and coordination Budgeting and resource mobilization Monitoring and Evaluation Reporting Policy standards, regulation NFA Management of Central Forest Reserves Forest monitoring and data management GHG monitoring and reporting Technical support to Districts Plantation development Provision of quality seed and planting materials UWA Management of Wildlife Conservation Areas Wild fire management Promote scientific research and knowledge of wildlife and wildlife conservation areas FSSD REDD+ Strategy implementation coordination Mobilizing technical support Monitoring forest policy implementation Forest regulation and standards setting Stakeholder coordination Technical support to Districts MAAIF Agriculture and land use Irrigation Trees on Farm Livestock development MEMD Energy development Energy efficient technologies OPM (Office of the Prime Minister) Coordination of refugee involvement in all strategic option activities at national level MoGLSD (Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development) Coordination of ethnic minority and marginalized group involvement in all strategic option activities at national level NARO/NaFFORI/Academia Research Technology Development and dissemination MOLG/ District Local Governance Local Forest Reserves protection Climate Smart Agriculture Irrigation 89 Energy development Energy efficient technologies Wild fire management Extension services Community development / mobilisation Gender Formulation of bylaws CSO Stakeholder mobilization and engagement CSA extension and activities Community agroforestry extension and activities Energy development and energy use efficiency Participatory forestry management Livestock management Policy implementation (watch dog) and reporting Private Sector Forest utilization, value addition Plantation development Restoration of natural forest (land owners) 90 Table 12. National institutional responsibilities explicitly for the REDD+ National Strategy activities. Institution StrategicOption 1 Strategic Option 2 Strategic Option 3 Strategic Option 4 Strategic Option 5 Strategic Option 6 Strategic Option 7 Strategic Option 8 Overall and national coordinators of REDD+ strategic option activities MWE /FSSD Overall nat. coordination & communicatio n = crosscutting issues Overall nat. coordination & communicatio n Overall nat. coordination & communicatio n;Nationalforestry policyformulation &development;OverseeingNFA, NEMA andDistrict ForestDepartmentsReporting toUNFCCC andotherinternationalobligations Overall nat. coordination & communicatio n;Nationalforestry policyformulation &development;Overseeing NFA,FSSD, DistrictForestDepartments Overall nat. coordination & communicatio n Overall nat. coordination & communicatio n;Nationalforestry policyformulation &development;OverseeingNFA, NEMA andDistrict ForestDepartments +Districts/localgovernments Overall nat. coordination & communicatio n Overall nat. coordination & communicatio n National coordination of SO 8; NFA District treenurserysupervision andmgt.;Distribution ofquality treeseeds andseedlings; District treenurserysupervision andmgt.;Distribution ofquality treeseeds andseedlings;Supervision ofpole and timbermarkets; National coordination of SO 3;Use of nationalforest data &inventories invalidatingstrategicoptions injunction withFREL over 25yearsNational seed National coordination of SO 4;Use of nationalforest data &inventories invalidatingstrategicoptions injunction withFREL over 25yearsCFM & PFM National coordination &district andlocalcoordination of SO 6Nationalsatellite surveyof wildfires tovalidatestrategic option6 in junction LawenforcementMonitoringPrivate sectorengagement 91 Institution StrategicOption 1 Strategic Option 2 Strategic Option 3 Strategic Option 4 Strategic Option 5 Strategic Option 6 Strategic Option 7 Strategic Option 8imports;National &district andprivate treenurserysupervision andmgt.;Supervision ofpole and timbermarkets; agree-ments,theirsupervision andboundariesdemarcation with FREL.More extensivethan currentlyconducted UWA Management ofnatural forest inwildlifeconservationareas In nationalparks andprotected areasunder itsmandate Enforcement inforests inWildlifeconservationareas Districts District level coordination /implementati on District level coordination /implementati on District level coordination /implementati on Local ForestReserve andnatural forestonprivate/communal land District level coordination /implementati on District level coordination /implementati on District level coordination /implementati on District level coordination /implementati on MAAIF (and DAR) National coordination of SO 1;Distribution ofquality cropseeds andseedlings; National coordination of SO 2;Distribution ofquality cropseeds andseedlings; National coordination of SO 7;Nationalbreedingprogramme MEMD Supervision ofenergy woodcommercialproduction and Supervision ofenergy woodcommercialproduction and National coordination of SO 3;Partner at 92 Institution StrategicOption 1 Strategic Option 2 Strategic Option 3 Strategic Option 4 Strategic Option 5 Strategic Option 6 Strategic Option 7 Strategic Option 8markets;Supervision ofcharcoalproducers’association; markets;Supervision ofcharcoalproducers’association; District andlocal leveloperations; Other national level service providers A carbon trading partner organizati on (to beidentified) Partner in SO 3at national,district andlocal levels;Expertise oncarbon tradingissues;Supervision ofSO 3 carbontrading; UBOS Annual nationalsurveys of SO 1– SO 7 Annual nationalsurveys of SO 1– SO 7 Annual nationalsurveys of SO 1– SO 7 Annual nationalsurveys of SO 1– SO 7 Annual nationalsurveys of SO 1– SO 7 Annual nationalsurveys of SO 1– SO 7 Annual nationalsurveys of SO 1– SO 7 NARO Research onCSA andsuitable CSAcrop varieties,SLM,agroforestryand policies Research onsuitable CSAcrop varieties,SLM, andagroforestryand policies Research onwildfire impacton farming andwildfiremanagementand policies Research onlivestockrearing issues NAFORRI Research onagroforestry Research onagroforestry,energy woodand fast-growing Research onplantationforestry, poleand timberproduction, Research onnatural forests,non-timberforest products,carbon Research onwildfire impacton forests andtree plantations Research onfodderagroforestryplantations 93 Institution StrategicOption 1 Strategic Option 2 Strategic Option 3 Strategic Option 4 Strategic Option 5 Strategic Option 6 Strategic Option 7 Strategic Option 8indigenous treespecies andpolicies harvesting,carbonsequestration,trading &policies sequestration,forestrestoration &policies and policies Academia Research onsame topics asNARO andNAFORRI above Research onsame topics asNARO andNAFORRI above Research onsame topics asNAFORRI above Research onsame topics areNARO and asNAFORRI above Research onrelevantrenewableenergy topics Research onsame topics areNARO andNAFORRI above Research onsame topics areNARO andNAFORRI above 94 4.2.9 Mechanisms for supervision, coordination and stakeholder participation The National REDD+ programme has got the National Climate Change AdvisoryCommittee (NCCAC) that comprises representatives of all ministries with climatechange related issues on their respective mandates. NCCAC is the national coordinatingand advisory body to MWE in REDD+ implementation. Furthermore, NCCAC istechnically overseeing a National Technical Committee (NTC), which has a moretechnical coordinative and supporting role in REDD+ implementation. Closely linked toNTC there are further Taskforces for MRV, FRGM, BSA, SESA/Safeguards and REDD+Policy/Strategy. The overall national level organogram is presented in Figure 4.NCCAC will provide the platform for policy coordination and harmonization among thetargeted sectors, while the NTC will leverage the linkage between REDD+ options andthe sector development priorities and programmes. REDD+ implementation willprioritize generating and disseminating forestry data that informs other sectors on therelationship between the drivers of deforestation and sector mandates and actions. TheWater and Environment Sector Working Group will provide platforms for variousstakeholders to enhance coordination and synergies within the sector, includingproviding platforms for engagement with Civil Society and Private Sector. MWE/FSSD is coordinating the National REDD+ Technical Coordination Unit (TCU) andwill have its own two technical persons (i.e. head of the unit and assistant) dealing withforest-based REDD+ issues and the TCU secretary. FSSD further supports districts inforest policy implementation, and law enforcement and regulation of forest utilization. NFA will coordinate the strategic options (i.e. SO 3, 6 and 4 jointly with UWA) at thenational level and within central forest reserves and wildlife conservation areasrespectively, as well as it will be in charge of the annual national satellite surveillance ofwildfires all over Uganda. NFA will also provide technical advisory services at thedistrict and lower levels. FSSD will support districts in forest policy implementation,and law enforcement and regulation of forest utilization. MAAIF and MEMD have been allocated with sectoral support funding, which is meant tobe used for establishment of some relevant sectoral projects to support the fourstrategic options (i.e. SO 1, 2, 5 and 7), which these two ministries will be coordinating.The funds can be used for reforming of the Ministries to be able to adopt REDD+activities, for promoting the adoption of REDD+ activities in districts, or some otherrelevant use. However, before any funds can be used for this support there must beprepared a proper project plan and document for these activities. 95 Figure 4. National level organogram for Ugandan REDD+ programme. 96 Neither MAAIF nor MEMD are operating at district or lower levels, but these twoministries will have one person seconded to the National REDD+ Coordination Unit withexpertise in agriculture and livestock rearing (i.e. MAAIF) and wood energy issues(MEMD). Besides these REDD+ personnel, TCU could also have a Carbon Trading Expertseconded from some suitable carbon trading organization and a Refugee and EthnicMinority Specialist seconded from the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM). These twolatter experts do not have to be located at the REDD+ TCU, but can be placed at theirown organizations. OPM will supervise the involvement of refugees at the national level, while the actualwork will be conducted in the districts under MOLG’s Community Development Officejointly with various UN organizations and CSOs active with refugees. MoGLSD willsupervise integrating and mainstreaming gender issues, ethnic minority andmarginalized group involvement in all the strategic option activities at national level,while the actual implementation will be conducted in the districts under MOLG’sCommunity Development Office. MTWA oversees the operations of UWA in REDD+implementation, while MoJCA will further be involved in relevant and needed legal andpolicy development work. Furthermore, MIA will oversee involvement of the policeforces and fire brigades particularly in relation to wildfires and the former one also inrelation to national parks and protected areas supervision. Linkages with all categories of local government (i.e. MOLG and its variousdepartments) will be maintained through both formal and statutory platforms forplanning, budgeting and monitoring. For the activities, which the respective Ministriesand agencies have comparative advantages to lead (e.g. standards setting, updatinginventory, etc.), they will engage CSOs, private sector and traditional/culturalinstitutions and faith-based organization at local level. 4.2.10 Monitoring, reporting, communication and feedback on REDD+ National Strategy Implementation It will become highly important to have annually updated statistical data information onhow each of the REDD+ strategic options are being implemented in each region anddistrict of Uganda. This information will of course be especially important for carbontrading purposes, but even without carbon trading it will be crucial for the nationalREDD+ programme operations. The reporting shall involve stakeholders includingrelevant government agencies, formal and informal forest users, private sector entities,civil societies, indigenous people and other forest-dependent communities. 97 Besides the overarching monitoring and evaluation set-up there are also some nationallevel organizations, which can well contribute with annual national surveys onperformance in various regions of Uganda. These are at least the Ugandan Bureau ofStatistics(UBOS), Forest Sector Support Department (FSSD), UTGA, NAFORRI and UWA.This other collected data and statistical information is highly suitable for monitoringnon-carbon activities, outputs and outcomes. In the REDD+ Strategic Option ProcessReport there is listed what kind of data would be particularly needed to be produced bythe mentioned organizationsThe FCPF of the World Bank has designed an M&E Framework planning andmanagement tool to help collection, analysis and reporting of information against keyreadiness milestones and deliverables 1) reporting country progress 2) identifying gapsand 3) enabling redirection of operations. Countries are free to use and adapt anexisting monitoring and evaluation framework if it can be used to collect and reportprogress on REDD+ operations on-going in the country (FCPF 2013 and 2017). The FCPF M&E Framework consists of a standard Results chain, Logical Framework andPerformance Measurement Framework (PMF). The PMF could be the tool to use to planmilestones, set indicators, collect and maintain information. This information shouldthen be reported to the FCPF (using the FCPF standard reporting template) or to otherpartners in other requested formats. A lesson learnt from previous country cases is notto get too ambitious with too many milestones and indicators but choose theserealistically (FCPF 2013 and 2017). The established M&E Framework should preferably build on existing data collectionmonitoring arrangements as feasible. The used monitoring indicators should be realisticand ‘SMART’ (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound) for monitoringconcrete results in terms of carbon reduction impacts. The annual REDD+ results will bebroken down into two levels for ease of monitoring. One should start with lower orderof results in order to get to the final results and at the same time ensuring that onekeeps focus on making corrections as required. In context of the FCPF M&E the lowerorder results are called OUTPUTS (intermediate results) to be achieved in order to getto OUTCOMES (i.e. key national results). It is recommended that the following kinds of monitoring indicators based on theselected strategic options should be used: Strategic Option 1 (CSA):Target Outcome: Reduction in natural forest-based carbon emissions from CSA.Guiding questions for assessing Output Results: 98  How many ha of forest lands are encroached upon annually from startof REDD+ to assessment date;  How many ha of farmlands have annually been established on forestlands from start to assessment date. Strategic Option 2 (Sustainable fuelwood and charcoal):Target Outcome: Reduction in natural forest-based carbon emissions due to small-holder and commercial energy wood plantations.Guiding questions for assessing Output Results:  How much of the total annual fuelwood is produced on farm in thestudied county;  How much of the total annual charcoal is produced on farm in thestudied county;  How much of the total annual small-holder timber and pole wood isproduced on farm in the studied county;  How many improved charcoal kilns are annually registered to small-holder farmers in the studied county. Strategic option 3 (Large-scale timber plantations):Target Outcome: Reduction in natural forest-based carbon emissions due to Large-scaletimber plantations and improved charcoal kilns linked to these.Guiding questions for assessing Output Results:  How many hectares of which introduced species have beenestablished annually;  How many hectares of annually established plantations havefunctioning forest management and fire management plans;  How many improved charcoal kilns are annually registered with large-scale plantations;  How much of the total annual charcoal amount stems from introducedtree species? Strategic option 4 (Restoration of natural forests in the landscape):Target Outcome: Reduction in natural forest-based carbon emissions due to theestablishment of CFM/PFM agreements, which require that communities/householdstake all their wood needs from planted farmland wood sources (i.e. agroforestry andwoodlots); andTarget Outcome: Annual number of hectares that shift from degraded Tropical HighForests or Woodlands into restored 1) THFs or 2) Woodlands.Guiding questions for assessing Output Results:  How many new CFM/PFM agreements signed annually in the studiedcounty; 99  How many hectares covered by the annually new CFM/PFMagreements in the studied county;  How many hectares have annually been 1) enrichment planted or 2)left alone for restoration in the studied county;  How many hectares of 1) dense tropical high forests or 2) degradedTHFs exist annually in the studied county;  How many hectares of 1) dense woodlands or 2) degraded woodlandsexist annually in the studied county. Strategic option 5 (Energy efficient cooking stoves):Target Outcome: Annual amount of saved carbon emissions due to Energy EfficientStoves in HHs and institutions; andTarget Outcome: Annual amount of saved carbon emissions due to Improved CharcoalStoves in HHs and institutions.Guiding questions for assessing Output Results:  How many 1) HHs and 2) institutions have annually installed EESstoves;  How many 1) HHs and 2) institutions have annually installedimproved charcoal stoves;  How much of the total annually sold charcoal amount stems fromintroduced tree species? Strategic option 6 (Integrated wildfire management):Target Outcome: Annual amount of carbon emissions from wildfires in Uganda –(declining annual amounts are foreseen)Guiding questions for assessing Output Results:  How many hectares of each main land use type have annually beenburnt by wildfires in the studied county (carbon amounts for eachland use type are known by NFA). Strategic option 7 (Livestock rearing in Cattle Corridor):Target Outcome: Annual amounts of artificial inseminations, hectares of fodderplantations and established/rehabilitated water dams and water tanks.Guiding questions for assessing Output Results:  How many artificial inseminations, hectares of fodder plantations andestablished/ rehabilitated water dams and water tanks in the studiedcounty. Strategic option 8 (Strengthening of policy implementation for REDD+:):Target Outcome: How many of the top 20 REDD+ required policies have been wellenforced in Uganda.Guiding questions for assessing Output Results: 100  How many of the top 20 REDD+ required policies have been wellenforced in the studied county. The guidance questions listed above can be used to set milestones at OUTPUT LEVEL(or intermediate results). Each level of result is accompanied by an indicator, which is aform of information collected periodically to tell the national REDD+ strategic optionactivities are progressing well or not. One must start building the national M&E Framework that can report the core REDD+activities and add reporting the other REDD+ activities (e.g. pilot activities) over time asfeasible. Setting up a clear and realistic M&E Framework will take substantial upfronteffort, but later the systematic efforts spent on the framework design will result inefficiency in the long-term. The FCPF has designed standard progress reporting forms, which can be adjusted andadopted in Uganda. The National REDD+ TCU Coordinator or the respective NationalStrategic Option Coordinators can also prepare their own standard reporting forms fortheir subsidiary organizations depending on the needs in each strategic option. The M&E Framework can also be used to promote or force district and countyauthorities to speed up their reporting performance and it also functions as anassessment point for how the REDD+ strategic Option activities are progressing indifferent areas of Uganda. By publishing the districts and counties statistics related tothe progress achieved in various parts of the country there may be also help setting up acompetition between districts. However, this will require that at least one district isperforming very well. If adoption is slow in all districts they will not be most likelysufficiently challenged to perform better than previously. Therefore, it may be wise toensure that at least one district is always performing very well. Standard annual and semi-annual reporting help to accumulate the information neededat the mid-term and evaluation stages. If one designs and monitors indicatorssystematically, both effectiveness and efficiency of the operations will be easier toreach. Some countries such as Nepal and Liberia, which have already established theirnational M&E framework, can act as model cases. Relevant materials are also availableon the FCPF website (https://forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcpf-monitoring-evaluation).There are also FMT and M&E specialists at the FCPF to support Uganda in the designprocess of its national M&E Frameworks and using the country reporting template. 101 4.2.11 Risk management The perceived risks and their respective mitigation measures for institutionalarrangements at the national scale have been listed and summarised in Table 13. Otherinstitutional and financial risks are presented in their respective sub-chapters.Table 13. Risks and mitigation measures related to national level institution set-ups ofREDD+ Risk type Mitigation measuresAs a multi-sector nationaloperation REDD+ will bedifficult to coordinate properlybetween various main andsub-sector partners Good measures for REDD+ implementation coordination,supervision and monitoring and evaluation (based on theFCPF M&E tool) included in the REDD+ programme design,together with commensurate financial resources for eachstrategic option to ensure good performance of its functionsand activities. Linkages with national development prioritiesand institutional mandates have been entrenched in thedesign and implementation plans. Measures for donor andsector programmes/projects coordination have been providedor recommended.Reforming policies is a slowprocess and enforcement isstill slower Some funds are allocated for each strategic option (1 to 7) fordevelopment of the needed sector capacity and policies tosupport each strategic option. Strategic Option 8 includesactivities to strengthen the capacity for technical,administrative and financial management of the REDD+programme at all levels of governance. The implementation ofSO8 is envisioned to strengthen the implementation of all SOs.Natural forest may bedisappearing before REDD+strategic option activities takeup speed in implementation More funding and technical efforts of NFA, DFS and UWA areneeded immediately to stop deforestation. This includes alsopolicy changes concerning private forest ownership, so thatforest authorities can supervise better private forest owners(e.g. clear-cutting of forests should need permission and ifland is not converted to legally registered other land use thenext generation of forest trees must be ensured).The strategic options of the REDD+ programme are designedso that carbon trading is mainly a bonus income, while allactions are economically feasible even without carbonfunding. A large number of CFM/PFM must be prepared andagreed on as soon as possible to get good mandate forcommunities to protect their nearby forests against intruders,which are at high risk without this CFM mandate.Implementation of the REDD+ programme should start assoon as possible in order to stop the disappearance of forests. 102 Risk type Mitigation measuresToo high expectations ofvarious stakeholders onREDD+ and the ambition willdrop before the process startmoving Good information sharing, training and extension to prepareall stakeholders about REDD+ process and progress must bein place from start, so that people know how results areaccumulating in their own and other areas of Uganda. Some emissions reduction projects (including FIP) under FCPFand other financing agencies are expected to start soon andthese will further act as pilots of the REDD+ strategic options.The ongoing and new work by several CSOs in different partsof the country can serve as building blocks.Shortage of competent trainedstaff personnel in variousgovernmental organizations tosuccessfully get REDD+ ontrack Capacity building through training and demonstration actionsat all levels of REDD+ implementation. The perceived trainingwill be in the form of hands-on training at DLGs andworkshops at all levels.New REDD+ experts are to be employed for all districts andthe REDD+ National Coordination Unit. This has beenbudgeted in the REDD+ programme budget and the actionplan contains descriptions of the staff training activities. 4.3 Subnational arrangements 4.3.1. Lead implementer, participating institutions, roles and responsibilities The REDD+ institutional set-ups for each strategic option at district and lower levels aresummarized in Table 14. These sub-national level implementers are carrying out theirtasks under the national level strategic option coordinators in sector-wisegovernmental authority structures. It is mainly NAFORRI, which can be entitled toconduct some of its research tasks more broadly than their line ministry (i.e. MAAIF).All the other government organization bodies will be involved only in their ownministry’s strategic option activities. 103 Table 14. Institutional responsibilities explicitly for REDD Strategy at district level. Institution Strategic Opti 1 Strategic Opt 2 Strategic Opt 3 Strategic Opt 4 Strategic Opt 5 Strategic Opt 6 Strategic Opt 7 Strategic Opt 8 MWE/NFA District tree nurserysupervision and mgt.;Distribution of quality treeseeds and seedlings; District treenurserysupervision andmgt.;Distribution ofquality treeseeds andseedlings;Supervision ofpole and timbermarkets; District treenurserysupervision andmgt.;Supervision ofpole and timbermarkets;Establishmentof someplantations; CFM & PFMagreements,theirsupervision andboundariesdemarcation Nationalcoordination &district andlocalcoordination ofSO 6 NAADS Guidelines for SLM andextension services;Extension services; Guidelines forSLM andextensionservices;Extensionservices; Partner in SO 7at district andlocal levels MOLG District and localcoordination/implement-tor of SO 1 District andlocalcoordination/implementer ofSO 2 District andlocalcoordination/implementer ofSO 5 Partner in SO 6at district andlocal level fornon-forestlands Partner in SO 7at district andlocal levels UWA Partner in SO 4at district andlocal level Partner in SO 6at district andlocal level A carbon trading body(to be Partner in SO 3district and locallevels; 104 Institution Strategic Opti 1 Strategic Opt 2 Strategic Opt 3 Strategic Opt 4 Strategic Opt 5 Strategic Opt 6 Strategic Opt 7 Strategic Opt 8selected) Expertise oncarbon tradingissues; Supervision ofSO 3 carbontrading; UBOS Annual district surveys ofSO 1 Annual districtsurveys of SO 2 Annual districtsurveys of SO 5 NARO Research on CSA andsuitable CSA crop varieties,SLM, agroforestry andpolicies Research onsuitable CSAcrop varieties,SLM, andagroforestryand policies Research onwildfire impacton farming andwildfiremanagementand policies Research onlivestockrearing NAFORRI Research on agroforestry Research onagroforestry,energy woodand fast-growingindigenous treespecies andpolicies Research onplantationforestry, poleand timberproduction,harvesting,carbonsequestration,trading &policies Research onnatural forests,non-timberforest products,carbonsequestration,forestrestoration &policies Research onwildfire impacton forests andtree plantationsand policies Research onfodderagroforestryplantations andrange Police/Fire Dept. Partner in SO6at district andlocal level County tree Production of required tree Production of Production of Production of Production of 105 Institution Strategic Opti 1 Strategic Opt 2 Strategic Opt 3 Strategic Opt 4 Strategic Opt 5 Strategic Opt 6 Strategic Opt 7 Strategic Opt 8 nurseries seedlings and seeddistribution locally required treeseedlings andseeddistributionlocally required treeseedlings andseeddistributionlocally required treeseedlings andseeddistributionlocally required treeseedlings andseeddistributionlocally Energy wood plantation and charcoal producer associations (new) Establishmentof new &revised energywood plantationand charcoalproducerassociations;Guidelines andregistration etc. Establishmentof new & revisedcharcoalproducerassociation;Guidelines andregistration etc. Service providers * Various extension andservice provision byCSO/NGOs, private andstate organizations forrural communities Variousextension andserviceprovision byCSO/NGOs,private andstateorganizationsfor ruralcommunities Variousextension andserviceprovision byCSO/NGOs,private andstateorganizationsfor ruralcommunities Variousextension andserviceprovision byCSO/NGOs,private andstateorganizationsfor ruralcommunities Variousextension andserviceprovision byCSO/NGOs,private andstateorganizationsfor ruralcommunities Variousextension andserviceprovision byCSO/NGOs,private andstateorganizationsfor ruralcommunities Variousextension andserviceprovision byCSO/NGOs,private andstateorganizationsfor ruralcommunities 106 4.3.2. Mechanisms for supervision, coordination and stakeholder participation The sub-national level supervision and coordination will be handled by the respectiveministerial bodies operating at the sub-national level, once they also have linkagesdirectly to the national level. The platforms used for stakeholder engagement will beadopted, including the Sector Working Groups and joint sector reviews at nationallevel and local government technical committees at local government level, where theparticipation of the private sector and civil society organizations is encouraged. 4.3.3 Linkages with districts/local governments The linkages with all categories of local government will be maintained through bothformal and statutory platforms for planning, budgeting and monitoring. For theactivities, which the Ministries and agencies have comparative advantage to lead (e.g.standards setting, updating inventory etc.), they will ensure the participation ofactive CSOs, private sector and traditional/cultural institutions and faith-basedorganization at local level. 4.3.4 Monitoring & Evaluation, reporting, communication and feedback on REDD+ National Strategy Implementation The sub-national level M&E activities will be performed under each national levelstrategic option coordination organization and follow the same format as alreadyoutlined at the national level earlier. The REDD+ operations are embedded in sectoralministries and their national subsidiaries, and the field activities are first reported oncounty level. After that a compiled county progress report is submitted to the districtlevel authority and then a district progress report is compiled. The county progressreports could be prepared on monthly basis following a simple standard format,which should contain summary information of achievements in implementing astrategic option in the county, monthly progress and plans for the coming month. The district level progress report is prepared once annually or twice annually, andthen forwarded to the national strategic option coordinator, who compiles a nationallevel progress report of strategic option operations to the overall REDD+ TechnicalCoordination Unit at MWE in Kampala. The district level progress reports, thenational level progress report should be placed after acceptance on the district andnational strategic option coordinators’ website with public access or at least withrestricted access under password so that all level REDD+ implementers in the chainof command for the respective strategic option can access the reports. The Ugandan REDD+ TCU will also as soon as possible prepare an annual REDD+progress report, which also should be published on the REDD+ TCU website as soonas it has been accepted. In this manner the lower level implementers of REDD+strategic option activities can see progress by themselves within a relatively short 107 time frame after their own progress reports have been submitted and they cancompare the results with their neighbouring counties, districts and nationalachievements. The international M&E progress reporting will be conducted from the nationalREDD+ TCU. The higher level strategic option coordinators need to monitor theirlower level line REDD+ strategic option coordinators quite closely so that a) progressreports are prepared on time, and b) strategic option activities are being activelypromoted and outputs achieved. The same also relates to the national REDD+ TCUCoordinator, his/her TCU assisting coordinators and the seven strategic option linecoordinators (i.e. including also OPM’s operations with refugees and ethnicminorities). 4.3.5 Risk management The perceived risks and their respective mitigation measures at the sub-national levelare presented in Table 15.Table 15. Risks and their mitigation measures at sub-national level Risk type Mitigation measuresEnforcement of policies isineffective National sector authorities must start follow up how variousREDD+ sector policies are enforced and enforcement mustbecome the highest priority all levels. This should be severaltimes per year followed up from the national level down toeach county level and reported back in progress reports.Strategic Option 8 includes activities to strengthen thecapacities for technical, administrative and financialmanagement of the REDD+ programme at all levels ofgovernance.Old land disputes areunsettled Old land disputes, for instance, with ethnic minorities mustbe made priority issues to solve. In most cases the solutionsdo not cost the state that much in terms of land or resources,while the settlement will save a lot of money for localauthorities and the involved ethnic minorities once landtenure is organized.Unregistered and unclear landtenure issues in remote ruralareas adjacent to remainingnatural forests The land tenure registration is lagging severely behind inrural areas and the unclear situation is often a hindrance foradopting REDD+ strategic option activities that involves treeplanting. Speed in sorting out national land and tree tenureissues must be set priority.A changing climate is reducingcrop yields and enhancing Linkages between mitigation and resilience strengthen theappreciation of role of forestry. Climate change adaptation 108 land degradation strategies e.g., smart agriculture addresses likely effect ofclimate on forestry. The negative role of wildfires to climatechange must be stressed to rural people. The so calledtraditional type of farming practices provide neithersufficient income nor sustainable production and should beceased in favour of CSA and other more income generatingfarming practices.In most rural settings,governmental authorities donot have sufficiently closecontact with communities This fact must be realized by governmental authorities at alllevels and the underlying causes must be identified andremoved (most of these are described in these risks andmitigation measures table of this document). StrategicOption 8 includes activities to strengthen the capacity fortechnical, administrative and financial management of theREDD+ programme at all levels of governance.There are shortage ofknowledge and extensionsupport for making changes infarming practices Besides DLGs stepping up their performance there shouldalso be promotion of district and local farmers’ associationsand cooperatives that can also themselves contact DLGs.Outside service providers can support in many cases.Political interference in localforest management and forestland tenure One way of dealing with this issue is to start up a massivework of preparing CFM/PFM agreements with communitiesand thereby protect forest reserves from political land take-overs.Too few incentives formaintaining forests on privatelands Incentives for policy reforms and implementation targetingprivate land owners are being embedded in the design andinvestments of FIP. FIP intends to: i) provide incentives toprivate land owners to maintain forest on their land or toutilize their land for forestry purposes; ii) strengthen tenureof community and private forests.Ethnic minorities, refugeesand marginalized people lackland and resources toparticipate in normal manner MOGLSD’s role will supervise the implementation of theeight main REDD+ strategic options vis-a-vis genderissues and ethnic minority group involvement in REDD+activities at national level while the actual field operationswill be conducted by the respective national strategic optioncoordinators and the districts. For this work grant budgetallocations have been earmarked. 4.3.6 District and local level administrative structure by strategic options Despite the REDD+ programme is national in scale all the concrete REDD+ operationsand concrete planning exercises are going to happen at district or lowergovernmental levels. Each of the REDD+ strategic options will require legal and policyreformation support, which has been described in Chapter 3 of this report. For some 109 strategic options, this legal and policy support will even be of paradigmaticimportance. Such important legal and policy changes will be needed, for instance, forsustainable commercial wood energy, pole and timber production from plantations,while instead there should be a ban on commercially exploiting of these commoditiesfrom natural forests. Another strategic option that will need policy support concernsthe large-scale adoption of energy efficient fuelwood stoves and improved charcoalkilns. Structuring and administrating the national REDD+ operations for the district andlocal level administration of each strategic option should be done as follows. Strategic Option 1: Climate smart agriculture Institutional arrangements:The institutional set-up for Strategic Option 1 will be handled under MAAIF withdistrict and lower level support from mainly NAADS and MOLG local governmentdepartments. There seems to be a certain gap between district and local governmentstructures and rural farming communities, which will both need closing directly bythe local governmental bodies as well as by NAADS and possibly by outside serviceproviders to some extent. Service providers and Partnerships with private sector:In all rural districts of Uganda there is a need to see first what NAADS and MOLG localgovernment departments can carry out by themselves. Only thereafter they shallconsider contracting external service providers and form partnerships to strengthenand support the proper adoption of climate smart agricultural practices. For bothNAADS and MOLG more funding is allocated for REDD+ implementation as its ownservice provision. Besides the above-mentioned organizations, additional serviceprovider partnerships could be formed with Ugandan or international NGOs, and insome cases with Ugandan private sector companies, e.g. district farmers associations,all kinds of crop and livestock commodity cooperatives, faith-based organizations(including their international connections and financing), local state and private treenurseries and local agricultural industrial companies. In case outside serviceproviders are contracted it is better that local governance bodies mainly focus onplanning, supervising and managing the contracting of service providers and providean enabling environment for the strategic option activity implementation. In someoccasions, also NARO could act as a service provider. Demonstration areas and extension activities needed:In almost any county in Uganda there should be a few private smallholder farmsacting as demonstration sites on good agroforestry and sustainable land managementpractices. Some other smallholder farms or the same ones could then further act asdemonstrators for rainwater harvesting from house roof with collection tank anddrip irrigation of farm land while some other farms could establish greenhouses for 110 food crop production. Furthermore, it would be useful to have an additionaldemonstration site for these activities on some larger private land in order to attractmore business-oriented farmers into this kind of agricultural production. Strategic Option 2: Sustainable fuelwood and charcoal production Institutional arrangements:The involved government institutions are well structured but have limited capacity.There is a need of new kinds of energy wood plantation associations and charcoalproducers’ associations, which use only improved charcoal kilns. Service providers and Partnerships:Similarly, with Strategic Option 1 (i.e. Climate smart agriculture) there is a need to letfirst NAADS and MOLG’s local government department build up sufficient extensioncapacity by themselves. If this is not sufficient they can contract outside serviceproviders and form partnerships to strengthen and support the proper adoption ofsustainable wood energy practices on farms. The desired profile of non-governmentalservice providers and partnerships should be the foremost Ugandan or branches ofinternational NGOs, and in some cases Ugandan private sector companies. Theseshould be linked to district farmers’ associations, some crop and livestock commoditycooperatives (e.g. coffee, cocoa, papaya, species and dairy if cows are fed with leaffodder), local state and private tree nurseries and wood industries as well asagricultural industrial companies. In case of non-governmental service provision, itwould be better that local governance bodies would focus on planning, registering,supervising and managing the contracting service providers, and providing anenabling environment for the strategic option activity implementation. Researchorganizations like NAFORRI, NARO and universities could support the activities withsector analyses. Demonstration areas and extension activities needed:Demonstration areas and extension services will be crucial in order to get thestrategic option activities replicated in the large scale. NGOs, NAFORRI and DFS couldbe good supporters of demonstration sites and extension services. The same appliesto internationally funded projects. Strategic Option 3: Large-scale timber plantations Institutional arrangements:Most institutions are in place, but still in many cases private plantation owners lackforest management knowledge and many plantations lack fire management planswith no fire protection on the ground. For this strategic option the national REDD+programme should employ a carbon trading expert to UTGA or the national REDD+technical Coordination Unit to provide carbon trading expertise for private forestplantation owners. 111 Service providers and Partnerships:DFS and NFA foresters should provide relevant services for the private plantationowners. Also, NAFORRI and academic foresters could be involved in these activities.There will be further both internationally and nationally funded donor and NGOprojects, which can and should be involved in plantation forestry. Even thesawmilling and other wood industry will be motivated to be involved as they can thenimpact on how transmission pole and sawn timber trees are grown and thus ontimber and pole standards and wood quality. Strategic Option 4: Restoration of natural forests in the landscape Institutional arrangements:In all the regions, structured institutions are available (mainly NFA, UWA and DFS),but these are not well facilitated (lack funds and staff resources), which may be areason for some corruption (i.e. illegal logging may provide some otherwise missingfinancial resources). In many districts and counties there are also some state orprivate tree nurseries and in most districts forest extension is insufficient. Service providers and Partnerships:Rural community persons feel insecure with their land tenure rights and particularlytree planting on their land makes them suspicious of losing their farmlands. NGOsinvolvement in activities seems to reduce this fear. Anyway, the services providers should be first NFA, UWA and DFS, but in someconflict cases international and national NGOs, district farmers’ associations, andinternational/national projects with relevant kinds of natural forest managementactivities on their agenda could join the activities. In and around national parks andprotected areas UWA would be the natural choice of partner in CFM/PFMagreements. Demonstration areas and extension activities needed:There are several NGOs/CSOs involved in CFM/PFM activities, which could act asdemonstration sites. For example, We Agroforestry (an international NGO) and theMpigi District Farmers’ Association village with CFM has got a good visiting site forlocal communities and international guests. 112 Strategic Option 5: Energy efficient stoves Institutional arrangements:MEMD does not have proper presence at district level and below. At district andcounty levels improved stoves have been promoted by various NGOs private businesscompanies and internationally funded projects. One energy expert for the national REDD+ technical Coordination Unit has beenbudgeted as well as one for each district of Uganda for the first five years. Thisadministrative set-up together with the budget support of around 1 million USD couldprovide MEMD with some better opportunities than currently operating with projectfunding at district and county levels in Uganda. Service providers and Partnerships:At district and county levels the main outside service providers and partners couldcontinue to be NGOs, private business companies and some projects, but now withsome better support from MEMD and MOLG in each district. Strategic Option 6: Integrated wildfire management Institutional arrangements:The lead agencies for wildfire management on forestlands are NFA, Districts/LocalGovernment, UWA and the Ugandan police forces. A few private forest owners andforest farming associations may also have their own private fire management system. Service providers and Partnerships:A potential main service provider could be the Uganda fire brigade and variousprivate companies with own forest plantations that have proper fire managementplans. Also, NFA and UWA should have sufficient experience and may need someincentive to activate themselves in these operations. Demonstration areas and extension activities needed:All CFR, LFR and wildlife protected areas should have acceptable fire managementplans. Additionally, all national parks and protected areas should have theirrespective wildlife management plans, which could further be coordinated in districtwildlife management plans. Further private forest plantation owners and other largerprivate landowners should have fire management plans for their respective landproperty. The relevant government authorities should set a standard for firemanagement plans and some good ones in each district and county could act asdemonstration sites for others. Fire-fighting training and implementation of fire management plans should beenforced. The national REDD+ programme should provide training events for at least 113 one expert for each district to be trained in fire-fighting of wildfire. The expert willthen act as trainer of other persons in the respective districts. Strategic Option 7: Livestock rearing in Cattle Corridor Institutional arrangements:The Minister of State for Livestock is supporting livestock management issues in theregions. Further District Veterinary Services, NARO Zonal Offices and -programs, andPrivate livestock farmers association are active. Commercial livestock farmersincluding the President are devoting time, effort and authority to the topic in thedistricts. Service providers and Partnerships:The main services should be provided by MAAIF and its Directorate of AnimalResources (DAR) and the district local governments. Another important institutionfor livestock breeding is the National Genetic Breeding Centre and its various localpartners. Regarding fodder tree seedlings and grass seeds will NFA, DFS and theUganda Seeds Ltd. be important to involve. Regards to water dam excavation andrestoration will local Community Water Users Associations and the District WaterDepartments be important. Demonstration areas and extension activities needed:For cattle breeding activities, there should be some demonstrations of artificialinsemination organized in each county and all districts of the Cattle Corridor as theguiding principle, but reality may slightly alter this standpoint. Regarding fodderagroforestry plantations the guiding principle should again be that there would be atleast one demonstration site in each county of the Cattle Corridor. Later anysuccessful establishment of fodder agroforestry plantations can act as demonstrationsite for others. When it comes to water dams and water tanks for drinking water forlivestock it is best to identify the most needed locations as all water dams and watertanks established with this strategic option funding must be considered asdemonstration sites. The need is likely to be much larger than possible to fulfil withthis strategic option. 114 5. Financing Arrangement for REDD+ Implementation 5.1 Financing REDD+ implementation within the current planning and budgeting framework The REDD+ National Strategy will not be implemented as a stand-alone project but aspart of the broader national planning framework and linked to the respectivefinancing frameworks. In 2007, government approved the Comprehensive NationalDevelopment Planning Framework (CNDPF) policy which provides a clearperspective vision and long-term plan to articulate the country’s strategicdevelopment objectives and priorities against which medium and short-term plansare anchored. The planning instruments which the CNDPF policy has beenimplemented through during the period of this review (2011-2016) are the 30-yearnational vision, 10-year national development plan, 5-year national developmentplans, sector investment plans and Local Government Development Plans. Forconformity with priorities set out in these plans, the budget agencies prepare annualplans and budgets. At the time of completion of the National Development Plan II2015/16-2019/20, the Government has already committed to the REDD+ processesincluding developing a REDD+ National Strategy and costed action plan. This strategythus operationalizes the implementation of the second National Development Plan. Itsets the targets to increase forest cover as percentage of land area from 14 %(2012/2013) to 18 % by 2020, 21 % by 2030 and 24 % by 2040. NDPII gives effect on the implementation of Vision 2040. The NDPII is an overarching government plan, which stipulates the medium termstrategic direction, development priorities and implementation strategies. Sectors areresponsible for developing policies and plans, which must be aligned with the NDP.On the other hand, the Local Government Development Plans (LGDP) are mainlylinked to the NDP through the Sector Investment Plans (SIP) and strategies.Accordingly, the finalization of the REDD+ National Strategy provides an opportunityto different sectors to integrate the options and activities that have been identified. The SIP/SDPs and LGDPs are periodically reviewed and aligned to NDPII priorities and other commitments, e.g. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), while ensuring that cross cutting issues are well addressed (e.g. population, social protection, human rights, gender, culture and national values, environment etc.). The budget is the main tool for the Government to allocate resources to implement itsplans and address emerging policy priorities, now including options that will beapproved under REDD+ National Strategy. The Government uses the BudgetFramework Papers and Medium-Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) to translatepolicies into implementable plans. The framework for linking policies and plans tothe budget is demonstrated in Figure 5. The MTEF is the framework linking policies 115 and plans to the budget, and it rationalizes plans with financing in an integratedmanner. It plays another key role to reduce the imbalance between what isaffordable, available and the expenditure requirement. The medium FiscalFramework or resource Envelope sets fiscal policy and macro-economic targets andthe hard budget constraints. The government uses the Budget Framework Papers tolink its overall policies and the budget. The budget is an estimate of governmentrevenue and expenditure prepared annually. Figure 5. Framework for linking policies and strategies to budgeting Similarly, agencies and ministries submit detailed and costed plans and theircorresponding budgets to MFPED. Since the 2007/08 Financial Year, the Governmentadopted and implemented a budgeting structure based on vote functions. A votefunction represents a set of services or outputs, which a spending institution isresponsible for. The reform was augmented with implementation of output-basedbudgeting (OBB), a form of performance budgeting. Output based budgeting wasintroduced to switch focus from activity budgeting to output focus (GoU 2010). The annual budget allocations are done by MFPED together with sectors and consideration is made of public expenditure reviews submitted annually by sectors and MTEF, the final budget approved by the cabinet of government ministers is then submitted to the parliament in June. The government implementation strategy takes cognizance to enhance theimplementation of the REDD+ Strategy and Action Plan through strengthening andmaximizing institutional synergies amongst the stakeholders to achieve efficiency inresource use. It therefore emphasizes the need to have a well-coordinated andstrategic partnership within the Government and the private sector, developmentpartners, the civil society and other non-state actors as implementation of the REDD+National Strategy and Action Plan is a shared responsibility of all stakeholders. Two N ational Sector NDP MTEF +NATIONAL BFP ANNUAL BUDGET Long Term Medium Term Short Term/ Annual Sector Strategic Plans Sector BFP Detailed Spending Agency Budgets 116 key structures to allow for their participation are a Private Sector/Civil SocietyForum and sector working groups. A key strategy therefore will be that the leadagencies for implementation of the identified strategic options use their respectiveworking groups to put REDD+ in annual plans and budgets. A key consideration isthat all activities under options have to be submitted by the appointed AccountingOfficer who is responsible for controlling and accounting for the allocations. TheAccounting Officer makes the sector’s plans and budgets in consultation withdepartmental technical committees. They solicit for the financial resources from theMinistry of Finance, Planning and Economic Planning.Sub-chapter 5.4 describes how the supporting investment financing for any non-carbon REDD+ activities under the Strategic Options 1 to 8 can be arranged inUganda. It is to be expected that a large share of the REDD+ programme will beoperated without actual carbon trading arrangements. These operations can still haveboth non-monetary direct and indirect benefits attached to them with neededbenefit-sharing arrangements. Sub-chapter 5.5 outlines how carbon tradingarrangements should be operated with both monetary and non-monetary BSAarrangements. 5.2 National arrangements for financial management 5.2.1 Five-Year Costed Action Plan for the REDD+ implementation Table 16 provides a multi-year costed REDD+ National Strategy. To note, it has beenfound necessary to make the financing plan on the basis of each strategic optionrather than the lead agencies or vote holders. This is because the lead agency canhave several departments or service providers collectively implementing the sameactivity in different locations. Through such an arrangement, the Accounting Officercan trace the expenditure to planned activities as they relate to REDD+ priorities.Secondly, it aligns well with the government intention to improve front-line servicedelivery rather than fund institutions per se. The budgeted allocation for the Ministry of Finance Planning and EconomicDevelopment (MoFPED) will support employment of staff personnel to startestablishing the Autonomous National Fund at MoFPED. All crosscutting financialflows related to overall coordination and monitoring have been budgeted toMWE/FSSD, MAAIF, MEMD, MTWA/UWA, OPM and MoGLSD respectively. It would beuseful and secure better contact between these three ministries if MAAIF and MEMDwould second one senior staff member to the national REDD+ Technical CoordinationUnit directly. 117 Other national level state services providers such as UBOS, NARO, NAFORRI andacademic institutions should be funded through the national Technical CoordinationUnit (TCU) either directly (in case of UBOS) or in the case of NARO and NAFORRIbased on proper research plans with budgets or still further, in the case of academicinstitutions via an application process between competing academic institutions.Table 16. The 5-Year Costed Action Plan for Uganda national REDD+ programmeestablishment phase. Budget item 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Total in USD USD USD USD USD USD MoFPED MoFPED and staff 38,400 38,400 38,400 38,400 38,400 192,000 REDD+ Technical CU/crosscutting MWE/MAAIF/MEMD/MTWA/UWA, secondments & TCU office & sector support 1,937,466 1,311,834 1,311,834 1,311,834 2,155,834 8,028,802 OPM service support 730,688 281,942 384,442 268,442 268,442 1,933,956 MoGLSD service support 2,274,975 441,248 543,748 427,748 427,748 4,115,470 UBOS support 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 NAFORRI research 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 200,000 1,200,000 NARO research 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 200,000 1,200,000 Academia research 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 200,000 600,000 Strategic Option 1 (CSA) 5,858,233 3,677,050 3,760,383 3,659,050 3,657,050 20,611,766 Refugee grant support 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Marginal and Forest dependent communities 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Strategic Option 2 (Wood energy) 5,614,900 3,433,717 3,517,050 3,415,717 3,413,717 19,395,100 Refugee grant support 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Marginal and Forest dependent communities 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Strategic Option 3 (Plantations) 234,000 267,600 267,600 267,600 417,600 1,454,400 Refugee grant support 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Marginal and Forest- 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 118 dependent communities Strategic Option 4 (CFMs etc) 5,171,625 5,171,625 5,261,925 5,171,625 5,171,625 25,948,426 Refugee grant support 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Marginal and Forest dependent communities 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 750,000 Strategic Option 5 (EES Stoves) 5,611,567 3,430,383 3,513,717 3,412,383 3,410,383 19,378,433 Refugee grant support 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Marginal and Forest dependent communities 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Strategic Option 6 (Wildfires) 546,380 507,180 1,660,513 1,636,433 1,636,433 5,986,940 Refugee grant support 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Marginal and Forest dependent communities 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Strategic Option 7 (Livestock mgt) 4,600,000 6,600,000 6,600,000 5,600,000 5,600,000 29,000,000 Refugee grant support 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Marginal and Forest dependent communities 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 Strategic Option 8 (Policies) 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 2,000,000 TOTAL Establishment phase USD 35,318,234 27,860,979 29,559,612 27,909,232 28,897,232 149,545,293 For MWE/FSSD, MWE/NFA, MAAIF, MEMD, UWA, Districts and NAADS there shouldbe a separate internal short project document to show how these institutions intendto use their respective funding support in the REDD+ operations. Each of them havebeen allocated a minimum of one million US dollars for the Costed Action Planimplementation for which they need to have a concrete plan for technical activitiesand financial matters in implementing the respective sector support projects. 119 The funding provision for the Ministry of Local Governance is provided both forstrengthening of MOLG and its departments’ own structures and staffing, but also forthis ministry’s service provision for communities. MOLG and its departments have animportant role to fill as extension providers to rural communities and in contractingexternal service providers such as civil society organizations, private entities,industrial companies to support rural communities and individual households andbusinessmen with extension and other services needed. OPM will supervise the involvement of refugees at the national level, while the actualwork will be conducted in the districts with most of the budget allocations directedvia MOLG’s Community Development Office with some technical support fromvarious UN organizations and CSOs active with refugees. MoGLSD will supervise theinvolvement of gender issues, ethnic minority and marginalized group involvement inall strategic option activities at national level, while the actual work with most of thebudget resources will be conducted in the districts under MOLG’s CommunityDevelopment Office Thereby, the aim is to ensure the possibilities for the refugees, ethnic minorities andmarginalized households to be fully involved in the REDD+ activities. It is paramountto have these separate budget allocations to secure the environmental and socialsafeguards and ESMF framework. Finally, there are allocations to some external service providers for provision ofservices for REDD+ operations in the field. In cases of the police and fire department,UBOS and county tree nurseries these allocations can be provided fairly directlyagainst a plan for implementation and as long as funding is available within thebudget line for each Strategic Option. The support to service providers could beagainst application or even tendering if there is sufficient competition for the serviceprovision. 5.2.2 Budget for the following 20 years of REDD+ implementation The budget (Table 17) for the 20 years that follow after the first five years (i.e. theFive-Year Costed Action Plan) is mainly indicative, but it still gives good indication onthe budget allocations needed to fulfil REDD+ implementation at the national scale inUganda when all the REDD+ operations are integrated in respective sector financing.The 20-year budgeting format is following the 5-year budgeting. However, the aimhas been to gradually reduce the budget over the years as less support is neededtowards the end of the REDD+ programme. The reason for this is that more resourcesare needed to establish and develop capacity during the first years. Towards the endof the REDD+ programme duration all activities are already up and running and 120 various investments are already made. Therefore, the last years are mainly focusedon reaping the benefits of the investments made during the early years. Table 17. 20-year budget for Uganda national REDD+ programme establishmentphase. Budget item 2023- 2028- 2033- 2038- Total in 2027 2032 2037 2042 USD USD USD USD USD MoFPED MoFPED and staff 192,000 200,000 220,000 240,000 852,000 REDD+ Technical CU/crosscutting MWE/MAAIF/MEMD/ MTWA/UWA secondments & TCU office & support 8,028,800 8,028,800 8,028,800 8,028,800 32,115,200 OPM service support 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 5,000,000 MoGLSD service support 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 16,000,000 UBOS support 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 4,000,000 NAFORRI research 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 4,800,000 NARO research 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 4,800,000 Academia research 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 2,400,000 Strategic Option 1 (CSA) 19,900,000 18,400,000 16,900,000 14,400,000 69,600,000 Refugee grant support 500,000 500,000 500,000 350,000 1,850,000 Marginal and Forest-dependent communities 500,000 500,000 500,000 350,000 1,850,000 Strategic Option 2 (Wood energy) 20,350,000 18,600,000 16,950,000 14,300,000 70,200,000 Refugee grant support 500,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 1,700,000 Marginal and Forest-dependent communities 500,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 1,700,000 Strategic Option 3 (Plantations) 900,000 950,000 950,000 950,000 3,750,000 Refugee grant support 500,000 500,000 Marginal and Forest-dependent communities 500,000 500,000 Strategic Option 4 (CFMs etc) 23,200,000 16,600,000 15,100,000 13,600,000 68,500,000 Refugee grant support 500,000 500,000 400,000 350,000 1,750,000 Marginal and Forest-dependent communities 500,000 500,000 400,000 350,000 1,750,000 Strategic Option 5 (EES Stoves) 16,700,000 15,500,000 14,000,000 13,000,000 59,200,000 Refugee grant support 500,000 500,000 400,000 350,000 1,750,000 121 Marginal and Forest-dependent communities 500,000 500,000 400,000 350,000 1,750,000 Strategic Option 6 (Wildfires) 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 20,000,000 Refugee grant support 500,000 500,000 400,000 350,000 1,750,000 Marginal and Forest-dependent communities 500,000 500,000 400,000 350,000 1,750,000 Strategic Option 7 (Livestock mgt.) 13,000,000 10,000,000 8,000,000 6,000,000 37,000,000 Refugee grant support 500,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 1,700,000 Marginal and Forest-dependent communities 500,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 1,700,000 Strategic option 8 (Policies) 1,000,000 850,000 650,000 500,000 3,000,000 TOTAL REDD+ programme USD 125,270,800 109,128,800 99,798,800 89,018,800 423,217,200 5.2.3 Mechanisms for supervision, coordination and stakeholder participation The Ministries and Local Governments will mainly have to rely on the existingaccounting systems, procedures, decision making platforms and monitoring systemsto advance the implementation of the REDD+ National Strategy. A monitoring andevaluation system and a SESA implementation structure will be added, though. ThoseAccounting Officers failing to account for the previous budget releases stand with therisk to delay additional releases in time and/or to be replaced by the PermanentSecretary, MFPED. A key activity envisaged under this strategy is to build thecapacities of the existing and new staffs in using government planning, budgeting andreporting systems.On the other hand, the civil society organizations and private sector can also accessthe resources based on Memorandum of Understanding with Strategic Option leadagencies for activities under the REDD+ National Strategy and/or as service providerswith contracts, who can only be paid based on successful delivery. Thus, the MoUs orcontracts become instruments for articulation of outputs and outcomes that have tobe delivered within the specified period and the budget. 5.2.4 Linkages with districts/local governments Local governments receive their conditional grants for their identified activitiesthrough the respective line ministries. For example, the conditional grants forforestry to local governments are released by the Ministry of Water and Environment,while those for agriculture are released by the Ministry of Agriculture, AnimalIndustry and Fisheries. 122 5.2.5 Financial monitoring, reporting, communication and feedback on REDD+ financial implementation The financial monitoring, reporting, communication and feedback on financialimplementation should be established in a similar manner as the M&E Frameworkplanning and management presented in Chapter 4.2.10. The actual civil servants, whocarry this out, will be in most cases different from the technical follow-up M&EFramework, but organizations involved will be the same ones. It is further advisablethat some core management staff personnel at the national level check jointlythrough both technical and financial management before this information issubmitted forward to the national REDD+ Technical Coordination Unit. In thismanner any mistakes can be detected already at district, national and REDD+Technical Coordination Unit level (FCPF 2013 and 2017). 5.2.6 Risk management Some sub-national level financial risks and their mitigation measures listed in Table18.Table 18. Some sub-national level financial risks and their mitigation measures. Risk type Mitigation measuresToo high expectations ofvarious stakeholders onREDD+ and the ambition willdrop before the process startmoving Good information sharing, training and extension to prepareall kinds of stakeholders in about REDD+ process andprogress must be in place from start, so that people knowhow results are accumulating in their own and other areasof Uganda. Please see also some additional comments undernational level risk management.Shortage or inadequacy oftrained staff personnel invarious governmentalorganizations to successfullyget REDD+ on track Capacity building through training and demonstrationactions at all levels of REDD+ implementation. Theperceived training will be in the form of hands-on training atDLGs and workshops at all levels. New REDD+ experts to beemployed for all districts and the REDD+ NationalCoordination Unit. This has been budgeted in the REDD+programme budget and the action plan contains adescription of the manner of staff personnel training.Identifying of sufficientfunding for REDD+implementation is likely to besomewhat challenging All manners of fund-raising must be explored besides actualcarbon trading options. This will mean all kinds ofinternational and national programme and project fundingmust be geared towards REDD+ strategic option activities.Exploring all kinds of nationally, district and locally 123 available funding from investors, cooperatives, industries,and rural households.Fiduciary challenges Prudent financial management systems and controls will bedeveloped at the onset of the project implementation.Strategic Option 8 is designed to deal with this problem tostrengthen the implementation of all strategic options.Corruption Compulsory, all national and sub-national implementationplans must contain an anti-corruption plan. Strategic Option8 is designed to deal with this problem to strengthen theimplementation of all strategic options. 5.3 Subnational arrangements for financial management 5.3.1 Overview of sub-national financial management The Five-Year Costed Action Plan (i.e. 2018 – 2022) including the proposed nationalREDD+ programme budget and the indicative 20-Year REDD+ ImplementationBudget for the years (2023 – 2042) have been presented earlier (Chapter 5.2.1 and5.2.2). It is proposed that all financial flows are coordinated by the respectivestrategic option line ministries without circumvention. MOLG is in this respect seenas a line ministry of its own. 5.3.2 Distribution of funding to sub-national partner institutions All the governmental civil servant organizations operating as partner institutions atthe national and sub-national levels will get their annual REDD+ implementationfunding from their respective sector line ministries. As all the budget information istransparently and publicly known will each of the partner institutions know howmuch financial support they should receive annually, and thus the sector line ministrycannot subtract any funding from this annual allocation. On the other hand, allpartner institutions will be financially accountable to their sector line ministries. All the other sub-national level partner institutions, which are not governmentalbodies will get their funding against annual work plan and budgets or even against acompetitive technical and financial proposal in the case of service providers. Nofunding should be distributed to the sub-national level without a clear technical andfinancial plan prepared, which will then be incorporated in the sub-national levelMonitoring and Evaluation Framework. 5.3.3 Mechanisms for supervision, Coordination and Stakeholder participation 124 The sub-national level supervision and coordination will be handled by the respectiveministerial bodies operating at the sub-national level and who also have linkagesdirectly to the national level. The platforms used for stakeholder engagement will betaken advantage of, including the Sector Working Groups and joint sector reviews atnational level and local government technical committees at local government level,where the participation of the private sector and civil society organizations isencouraged. 5.3.4 Linkages with districts/local governments The linkages with all categories of local government will be maintained through bothformal and statutory platforms for planning, budgeting and monitoring. For theactivities, which the Ministries and agencies have comparative advantage to lead(such as in standard setting, updating inventory etc.), they will have to ensure theparticipation of active CSOs, private sector and traditional/cultural institutions andfaith-based organization at local level. 5.3.5 Monitoring & Evaluation, reporting, communication and feedback on REDD+ financial management The financial monitoring, reporting, communication and feedback on financialimplementation should be established in a similar manner as the M&E Frameworkplanning and management at the national level. The actual civil servants, who carrythis out will be in most of cases different from the technical follow-up M&EFramework but organizations involved will be the same ones. It is further advisablethat some core management personnel at the district level check jointly through bothtechnical and financial management before this information is submitted further inhierarchy to the national level to the respective national strategic optioncoordinators. In this manner can any mistakes be detected already at district, nationaland REDD+ Technical Co-ordination Unit level (FCPF 2013 and 2017). 5.3.6 Risk management Some sub-national level financial risks and their mitigation measures listed in Table19. 125 Table 19. Some sub-national level financial risks and their mitigation measures. Risk type Mitigation measuresRural households lack fundsfor pre-investments Several of the REDD+ strategic options can be achieved bya step-wise moving from cheaper REDD+ option activitiestowards more expensive ones. Many national, district,county, community and household type of financialsupport mechanisms can be developed.Local government authoritiesinsufficient resources forREDD+ implementation oreven current mandateoperations The national sector funding priorities must be changed sothat more funding is devoted towards agriculture, forestryand household energy sectors in the national economy.This REDD+ National Strategy has earmarked morefunding for DLGs for their operations. Another source isinternational programme/project funding. Once REDD+operation starts to function will also rural households andforest owners accumulate more funding by themselves,which is then starting to circulate in the Ugandan ruraland national economy.Fiduciary challenges Prudent financial management systems and controls willbe developed at the onset of the project implementation atdistrict and local levels. 5.4 Financial Arrangement for each of the Strategic Options In the specific benefit-sharing arrangement study conducted in parallel with theREDD+ National Strategy formulation process the consultants came up with thebelow Table 20, which covers both monetary and non-monetary benefits thataccumulate from the REDD+ Strategic Option activities. The non-monetary direct and indirect benefits listed in Table 20 will accumulate forthe REDD+ Strategic Option activities disregarding these activities are linked to acarbon trading arrangement or not. Therefore, there is a need to incorporate thesenon-monetary benefits also in the non-carbon trading part of the national REDD+programme. The non-monetary benefits should be categorized and assigned by therespective National Strategic Option Leaders to each and every government and otherinstitution as well as grass-root stakeholder involved in the implementation ofStrategic Option activities in Uganda. In this manner the National Strategic OptionLeaders can in progress reports report to the national REDD+ ProgrammeCoordinator how the non-monetary benefits flow in the Ugandan society vis-à-vis aspecific REDD+ Strategic Option. 126 Table 20. Illustrative examples of benefits derived by stakeholders for theforthcoming national REDD+ programme in Uganda. Monetary Non-monetary Direct Non-monetary Indirect  Cash  Economic flow ofbenefits from tourism  Tax incentives  Access to credit onpreferential terms  Salaries andallowances  Capacity building, training, extension(governance, bookkeeping, nursery andplantation management, environmentalmanagement plans)  Community infrastructure likeschools,clinics  Legal access to fuel wood and non-timberforest products  Rent-free land for commercialplantations  Alternative livelihoods (communitynurseries, shea nuts, beekeeping,coffee,timber, fuel wood, fruit, carbon credits)  Support for acquiring communalandfreehold land title  Community nurseries  Ecological restoration and monitoringofpriority habitat  Land-use plan; improvedland/forest-tenure  Improved market access andbusinessnetworks  Sense of ownership (especiallycommunities neighbouring orsurroundingforests)  Reduced conflicts in forestmanagement  Reforestation of degradedareas, reduced flood, droughtand landslide risk  Improved resilienceto seasonal variations  Health benefits, cleaner airfrom more efficient cook stoves  Improved water qualityand quantity  Decreasedhuman/wildlife conflict  Increased support forbiodiversityconservation  Improved workingrelationships (including trans-boundary)  Improved workingconditions for employees  Travel opportunities toshare knowledge andexperiences  Pride, prestige social statusSource: MWE Benefit Sharing Arrangement study Final Report 2017.The main budget funding for the forthcoming national REDD+ programmeimplementation phases will not be secured in one single contract with anyinternational or national financing agency and instead it will be accumulated fromseveral financing agencies. MWE has already managed to secure part of this budget inthe form of the Forest Investment Programme (FIP), which is about to start up in2017/2018. It is unknown whether other sector line ministries have any similarproject initiatives forthcoming. All kinds of financing options from international,national and sub-national sources must be explored. From now on each Ugandanministry involved in climate change mitigation should (in their on-going projects withforthcoming new phases of financing and in all new projects) support the REDD+Strategic Option activities to some extent or probably even completely through somekind of project or programme interventions.Outside the main donor funded budget outlined above there are huge investmentneeds that are required to be covered by the involved rural and urban privatehouseholds, communities and private business entities themselves. The aim here is toderive large amounts of funding for REDD+ activities from the grass-root level andeach investor will reap the financial profit him/herself from the activity results.REDD+ Strategic Options 1 to 5 are completely depending on such individual smallinvestments. Table 21 presents some potential local financing mechanisms for theREDD+ National Strategy Options, which can support the individual households, the 127 communities or the private business entities in their respective investment needs forStrategic Option activities. The ideas presented in Table 21 are not fullycomprehensible, but give an indication on how the stakeholders see the potentialfunding situation in their respective regions in the near future.Table 21. Some potential local financing mechanisms that can be used by individualhouseholds, communities and private entities in their respective investments ofStrategic Option activities. Eastern Region Northern Region Central Region Fort Portal W. Region Mbarara SW Region Strategic Option: SO1: Climate smart agricultureGoU (KCCAUrban farmingproject, YLP,UWEP), SACCOs,VSLs, CentenaryBank, WorldVision, Caritas,BUCADEF,religiousinstitutions,USAID, SNV, WB,and personalsavings Operation WealthCreation (OWC),NUSAF 3,SACCOs,MWE/REDD+,Village SavingLoan Groups(VSLGs),cooperatives,saving culturepromoted, farmercost sharing, jointcontract farming SACCOS, NGOS,MWE Commercialbanks, SACCOs,cooperatives,own financing,GoU subsidies Conditionalgrants,cooperatives,SACCOs, directivefunding to farmergroups throughproposals, ownfinancing Strategic Option: SO2: Sustainable wood energy productionDDED, OWC, GIZ,IUCN, NFA DistrictDiscretionalEqualizationGrants (DDEG),OWC, GIZ, IUCN,NFA InternationalNGOs, banks,local government,CBOS, institutionssuch as UWA,NEMA, UWA No fundingopportunity No fundingopportunity Strategic Option: SO3: Commercial timber plantationsLocalgovernmentthough limitedand some NGOs Localgovernmentthough limitedand some NGOs FIEFOC, SAWLOG,TIST (carboncredit), OWC,NFA (Seedlingsand land), MAAIF(Sustainable LandManagement),CDOs Grants by SPGS,lease mechanismby NFA, UgandaDevelopmentBank loans (<10interest rate),grants fromMWE, MAAIFunder FIEFOC2,Nat. communityTree PlantingProgramme byNFA, Pearl FIEFOC(MWE/MAAIF),SPGS, TIST (donorincentives forcarbon credit?),OWC, NFA(seedlings andland provision),MAAIF (sust. landmanage-ment),CDOs, 128 Eastern Region Northern Region Central Region Fort Portal W. Region Mbarara SW RegionCapital (invest.financiers) forfruit growers,own investmentgroups Strategic Option: SO4: Natural forest restorationNFA Tree Fund,intern. donors,PES systems By HHs,Government,Developmentpartners (NGOsand projects) No local fundingopportunities,SPGS and GlobalEnvironmentfund No local fundingopportunities,SPGS and GlobalEnvironmentfund No local fundingopportunities,SPGS and GlobalEnvironment fund Strategic Option: SO5: Energy efficient stovesGIZ, Communityconnect underUSAID, SACCOs,VSLAs, Localgovernmentsupport throughdepartments,Own savings NGOs (ACORDetc.), GIZ, USAIDproj. VSLAs,SACCOs, LGsthroughdepartments,own savings,cooperatives Africa 2000Network wassupporting thestoves Eco trustsupport Africa 2000Network wassupporting thestoves, Eco trustsupport Africa 2000Network wassupporting thestoves in Kisoroand Kabale, Eco-Trust support inMitooma SO6: Integrated wildfire managementNo fundingknown No fundingknown UWA & NFA,Private treefarmers, ForestFarmingAssociations None knownexcept fines &penalties Lead agenciesUWA & NFA,Private treefarmers, ForestFarmingAssociations Additionally, there are numerous on-going and planned international and nationaldonor projects on topics related to climate change and even carbon financing in manysectors. Many of these on-going projects could be designed differently in their nextphases to better take into account the REDD+ strategic option activities and to enabledirect financing support for the above mentioned grass-root level households,communities, CBOs and private business entities. Further there are many CSOs (e.g. Vi Agroforestry, EcoTrust, Planvision) and faith-based organization (e.g. various international and national churches and otherreligious communities) funded projects in many districts that deal with climatechange and have carbon trading activities for the mentioned grass-root levelstakeholders. 129 Locally, the issue of establishing cooperatives and conservation trust funds may nothave full been explored and organized in all districts. Several agricultural commercialcommodities have their own national and local cooperatives, which will need to bebranched out to new districts or new cooperatives will need to be established. The Ugandan banking and micro-finance sectors will need drastic reforms so thatthese really can support rural households much better than they have done so far.The Government may have to provide some guarantee in order for these financinginstitutions to reduce their (very high) credit loan interests. On the other hand, woodenergy and timber producers have to reform also themselves, so that thecommodities sold on the market are fully legal and sustainable. It should further be explored whether agricultural, wood-based, and renewableenergy industries and companies could provide investment support for farming andforest-adjacent households. These will later in the commodity value-chains benefiteven themselves as better quality products are produced (in standard format that theindustries can use optimally in their industrial value-addition production processes).The Government shall assess this and support these processes to take place. It mayrequire some subsidies with the raw material production, but can be turned intorevenues and taxes in the other end of the industrial value addition process. 5.5 How carbon financing impacts on the administrative set-up 5.5.1 Overview The national REDD+ programme will be too large for incorporating carbon financingset-ups for all the REDD+ Strategic Options at full scale. In this sub-chapter, the aim isto describe the carbon trading administrative set-ups that will be needed in thenational REDD+ programme. The foreseen transaction costs that are likely to beaccumulating from the proposed REDD+ Strategic Option activities are summarizedin Table 22. 130 Table 22. Foreseen transaction costs for each proposed strategic sub-option. Strategic sub-option Transaction costs foreseenSSO 1.1. Agroforestry and SLMpractices TCs will be very high on large-scale in particular. SO1.1will always be a pro-poor alternative as a carbon tradingarrangement.SSO1.2. Rainwater harvestingwith tank and drip irrigation TCs will be high, but less so than SSO1.1.SSO 1.3. Greenhouse cultivationof vegetables TCs could be affordable if some new MRV method for thisis developed to assess the actual impact of carbonemission reduction in neighbourhood of greenhouses.SSO 2.1. Sustainable energywood plantations withagroforestry TCs can be affordable, but this kind of carbon tradingshould first start in project scale and then later expand ifstill feasible.SSO2.2. Small-holder timberplantation with coffeeagroforestry TCs can be affordable. SSO 2.3. Improved charcoalkilns linked to energy woodplantation sites TCs should be affordable with a good centralized MRVsystem in place. SSO 3.1. Transmission pole andtimber plantations TCs should be affordable with a good MRV system inplace. Carbon auditing costs and other TCs will be reducedper ha when there are larger amounts of centralizedplantations involved.SSO3.2. Commercial saw-logplantations TCs should be affordable with a good MRV system inplace. Carbon auditing costs and other TCs will be reducedper ha when there are larger amounts of plantations.SSO 2.3. Improved charcoalkilns linked to timberplantation sites TCs should be affordable with a good centralized MRVsystem in place. SSO 4.1. Designated areas fornatural forest regeneration Difficult to upscale to a national programme scale. TCs canbe affordable.SSO 4.2. Protected naturalforest management (i.e.national parks and forestreserves) Difficult to upscale to a national programme scale. TCs canbe affordable. SSO 4.3. Devolution of forestmanagement through PFM and This SSO is linked to the SSO 4.1. and 4.2. 131 similar set-upsSSO 4.4. Traditional/ customaryforest management practices This SSO is linked to the SSO 4.1. and 4.2.SSO 5.1. Energy efficientfuelwood stoves TCs will be high on large-scale in particular. Difficult toup-scale with affordable TCs. May remain a pro-pooralternative as carbon trading arrangement.SSO 5.2. Improved charcoalstoves TCs will be high on large-scale in particular. Difficult toup-scale with affordable TCs. May remain a pro-pooralternative as carbon trading arrangement.SSO 6.1. Integrated wildfiremanagement TCs may be affordable as this carbon trading can beoperated for entire districts and MRV assessed withsatellite images annually. Technical assistance needs andcapacity building efforts can be targeted based onproblem areas identified from satellite images.SSO 7.1. Livestock breedingprogramme TCs for carbon trading is non-relevant here as this actionhas only some indirect relevance to carbon emissions.SSO 7.2. Establishment ofdrinking water dams forlivestock TCs for carbon trading is non-relevant here as this actionhas only some indirect relevance to carbon emissions. SSO 7.3. Establishment offodder agroforestry plantations As the agroforestry plantations specifically are to be usedfor annual fodder production for livestock will the carbonsequestered into fodder trees and grasses beuninteresting from carbon trading viewpoint. As theagroforestry plantations aim to provide additional fodderin a fodder scarce environment is not even the indirectcarbon sequestration of importance from carbon tradingview.SSO 8.1. Strengthening of policyenforcement in REDD+implementation This activity is kind of overlapping with the otherstrategic option activities in that it strengthens toimplementation of the other ones and therefore it has nocarbon sequestration or emissions by itself. It can be concluded that all the Strategic Options and their respective sub-optionscould be possibly operated to some extent as REDD+ carbon trading arrangements,but some sub-options are better in this respect than others. However, the proposedStrategic Options are also feasible without carbon trading, which means that anycarbon trading is just an extra income source on top of the main income from privateand public investment in these strategic option activities. 132 It is foreseen that at least four types of carbon trading set-ups are feasible to beconducted within the national REDD+ programme:a) Carbon trading from large-scale timber plantations (Strategic Option 3)b) The nested approach FIP Project carbon trading, pilot scale REDD+ strategicoption activities in certain districts of Uganda;c) Other carbon trading opportunities directly within the national REDD+programme;d) Various separate small-scale programmes and projects that incorporatecarbon trading. 5.5.2 Carbon trading from large-scale timber plantations (Strategic Option 3) To arrange carbon trading from large-scale timber plantations is foreseen as theeasiest alternative for carbon trading within the national REDD+ programme ofUganda. This carbon trading arrangement will require a proper monitoring, reportingand verification (MRV) process to be established, which incorporates all those largetimber plantations that are intended to be involved in the carbon tradingarrangement. These plantations will need establishment of good inventorydemarcation and auditing structures in and around the plantations as well as relevantplantation and fire management plans in place. There should also be goodregistration archives at UTGA and the REDD+ Technical Coordination Unit for allinvolved timber plantations. The national REDD+ programme budget need to have provision for the needed salary,social costs and equipment for the employment of a carbon trading expert to UTGA orto the National REDD+ Technical Coordination Unit, who will oversee the actualcarbon auditing supervision from the Ugandan government side as well as for theactual carbon trading operations. The respective participating timber plantationowners should have the opportunity to choose whether they want to purchase theUTGA carbon trading expert’s services or whether they want to conduct the carbontrading themselves. In the latter case, the timber plantations owners would operatetheir carbon trading operations as a kind of separate carbon project. There will beboth pros and cons for such a separate carbon trading project set-up, which are atleast the following:  One would have to pay annual salary to a person who handles the carbon tradingand auditing arrangements instead of just paying for needed services every fiveyears or so;  The carbon trading transaction costs will be covered by the plantation owner inboth cases, but in the national REDD+ programme participation case there couldbe some financial support for transaction costs. On the other hand, any receivedcarbon funding would have to be shared between several benefitting stakeholders 133 (i.e. the plantation owner and the national REDD+ programme governmentalorganizations). 5.5.3 The nested approach FIP Project carbon trading activities in certain districts of Uganda This nested approach FIP carbon trading project operations will be started up in theLake Albert, Lake Kyoga and Upper Nile Water Management Zones, which togetherconstitute over three fourths of the whole Ugandan land area. FIP is mainly funded bythe World Bank and there are close links to the WB Forest Carbon PartnershipFacility, which have already indicated the will to finance the carbon emissionreduction operations within FIP. The FIP project document further states theintention to gradually replicate and expand the carbon emission reduction programactivities from the referred water management zones to other ones in Ugandaperhaps in accordance with a REDD+ zonal management model. The designing of thecarbon emission reduction program operations may be concretized at later stage. TheFIP project will be a separate entity, although it will be in practice closely affiliatedwith the national REDD+ programme operations. 5.5.4 Other carbon trading opportunities directly within the national REDD+ programme Regarding direct carbon trading within the national REDD+ programme, firstly, it willbe an advantage to carefully follow how the FIP ERP operations are taking shape andthen follow suit. It will be wise to start up such carbon trading operations initially asprojects with clear administrative boundaries of sub-county, county or district sizes.For some strategic options, it will be difficult to conduct MRV and auditingoperations, while others are more easily managed. From the MRV point of view theeasier type of strategic option activities could, for instance, be the following ones:  Establishment of greenhouses (SO 1.3);  Establishment of energy wood plantations (SO 2.1);  Establishment of improved charcoal kilns (SO 2.3 and SO 3.3);  Installation of EES stoves in some administrative location with clear boundaries(SO 5.1);  Installation of ICS stoves in some administrative location with clear boundaries(SO 5.2);  Integrated wildfire management operations in some clearly demarcated areas (SO6.1). For the other strategic option activities it would be best to observe how the FIP ERPoperation and some of the “We Agroforestry”-project operations succeed in their 134 carbon trading activities before starting any similar activities directly within thenational REDD+ programme. 5.5.5 Various programmes and projects that incorporate carbon trading There are already quite a few individually operating carbon trading projects andprogrammes on-going in Uganda and it would be unwise to either force these tointegrate completely under the national REDD+ programme or to ban any new suchprojects from starting up in the future. These existing projects and programmesalready have their carbon trading structures and benefit sharing arrangements inplace and these could be hampered considerably if these projects are forced tooperate directly as parts of the national REDD+ programme. Their manner ofoperation may also have been designed to function on a small scale and their sourceof carbon funding may function better if they are left alone. These projects may alsosubstantially contribute to the overall REDD+ operations in Uganda, e.g.demonstrating the carbon funding and livelihood improvement potential of REDD+. 5.5.6 Benefit sharing arrangements from REDD+ carbon tradingThe ways how carbon trading transaction costs are likely to accumulate in eachrespective REDD+ Strategic Sub-option activity were analysed above (in Sub-chapter5.5.1). Table 20 (in Sub-chapter 5.4) presented what kinds of monetary and non-monetary benefits there can be expected from the forthcoming national REDD+programme of Uganda and it was concluded in the same sub-chapter that non-monetary benefits will also accumulate from non-carbon trading REDD+ activities.This sub-chapter presents how the sharing monetary benefits can be arranged.There are four types of carbon trading arrangements (as stated earlier), which arethe most likely ones to become realized in the National REDD+ Programme. As thesefour kinds of carbon trading arrangements are different in their scope andperformance, different monetary benefit sharing arrangements are needed to bedeveloped for each arrangement: a) Carbon trading from large-scale timber plantations (Strategic Option 3):The Strategic Option 3 has got as a line ministry responsible for it can be organized asa project or programme operated by this line ministry involving only those entities(government, other institutions and private sector business or community), whichare directly involved in the actual Strategic Option 3 operations connected to thecarbon trading contract with one or several carbon trading organizations (voluntaryor financing institution based). The involved parties should be particularly mentionedin the carbon trading contract. Entities can also be involved in carbon tradingarrangements, which are covering only parts of this strategic option and will then behandled under points b) and d) below. 135 b) The nested approach FIP Project carbon trading pilot scale REDD+ strategic option activities in certain districts of Uganda:In this case the carbon trading arrangements cover one or several (even all) strategicoption activities of the national REDD+ programme in some pilot areas of Uganda (i.e.four areas have been specified in FIP). It is recommended that BSA is then organizedas a local project or programme under MOLG in the specified pilot area. However, theFIP pilot areas are not following closely the administrative boundaries in the selectedwatershed ecozones, which means that there may be several projects where eachproject follows the respective administrative (i.e. county or sub-county) boundaries.Other government bodies operating in the project area such as NFA, UWA, and othersimilar bodies that are not under the ministerial mandate of MOLG should beassigned shares in the BSA in accordance with the performance under theseorganizations out of the total carbon trading income that accumulates in the carbontrading project. MOLG will also coordinate that other locally directly involvedstakeholders are given their share as outlined in the BSA study (please see MWE BSAReport 2017). c) Other carbon trading opportunities directly within the national REDD+ programme:There may be also other national or district level REDD+ strategic options besidesthose concerning SO3, which can be carbon trading arrangements. In this case thereshould be each strategic option contracted for carbon trading separately from otherstrategic options and the respective national SO leader should be in charge of thecarbon trading arrangement coordination as in point a) above. d) Various small-scale separate programmes and projects that incorporate carbon trading:These kinds of carbon trading arrangements can be organized by CSOs orinternational or national projects funded by international or national financingagencies or organizations (such as e.g. church aid or voluntary groups). All of thesecarbon trading arrangements will target specified smaller areas or specific individualhouseholds or communities and will be coordinated by a non-government body suchas a project or CSO. In this case will only those directly involved parties be involved inthe monetary BSA in accordance to rules set by the project coordinating body or theCSO themselves. 136 6. Integration of REDD+ National Strategy with other REDD+ Processes 6.1 REDD+ Readiness Preparation and Implementation Frameworks UNFCCC COP Decision 1/CP.16 (paragraph 71) requests developing country Partiesaiming to undertake the REDD+ activities in accordance with national circumstancesand respective capabilities, to develop the following elements: (a) A national strategy or action plan;(b) A national forest reference emission level and/or forest reference level (or sub-national one as an interim measure);(c) A robust and transparent national forest monitoring system for the monitoringand reporting of the activities;(d) A system for providing information on how the safeguards referred to inAppendix I to Decision 1/CP.16 are being addressed and respected throughout theimplementation of the activities. According to this Warsaw Framework for REDD+ forest reference emission levelsand/or forest reference levels (FREL/FRL) expressed in tonnes of carbon dioxideequivalent per year are benchmarks for assessing each country’s performance inimplementing the activities (Decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70). The referred forestsector activities include :(a) Reducing emissions from deforestation;(b) Reducing emissions from forest degradation;(c) Conservation of forest carbon stocks;(d) Sustainable management of forests; and(e) Enhancement of forest carbon stocks. FREL/FRL shall be established taking into account methodological guidance providedin Decision 4/CP.15, paragraph 7, and maintaining consistency with anthropogenicforest related greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks ascontained in each country’s greenhouse gas inventories. A qualified FREL/FRLsubmission is expected to specify a forest definition, scale, reference period, scope ofactivities, carbon pools and greenhouse gases, and adjustment needs considered(Annexes of Decision 12/CP.17 and Decision 13/CP.19). The FREL/FRL submissionmust present information that is transparent, complete consistent with guidanceagreed by the Conference of the Parties (COP) and accurate for the purpose ofallowing a technical assessment of the data, methodologies and procedures used. The 137 information provided should be guided by the most recent Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change guidance and guidelines, as adopted or encouraged by the COP. Decision 11/CP.19 outlines the modalities for national forest monitoring systems. Therobust national forest monitoring systems should provide data and information thatare transparent, consistent over time, and are suitable for measuring, reporting andverifying anthropogenic forest-related emissions by sources and removals by sinks,forest carbon stocks, and forest carbon stock and forest-area changes resulting fromthe implementation of the activities. They are to be consistent with guidance onmeasuring, reporting and verifying nationally appropriate mitigation actions bydeveloping country Parties agreed by the Conference of the Parties, taking intoaccount methodological guidance in accordance with decision 4/CP.15. Decision 4/CP.15 outlines methodological guidance for activities relating to reducingemissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation,sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks indeveloping countries. It requests developing country Parties (a) to identify drivers of deforestation and forest degradation resulting in emissionsand also the means to address these;(b) to identify activities within the country that result in reduced emissions andincreased removals, and stabilization of forest carbon stocks;(c) to use the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change guidance andguidelines, as adopted or encouraged by the Conference of the Parties, asappropriate, as a basis for estimating anthropogenic forest-related greenhousegas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, forest carbon stocks and forestarea changes;(d) to establish, according to national circumstances and capabilities, robust andtransparent national (and sub-national) forest monitoring systems that (i) use a combination of remote sensing and ground-based forest carbon inventory approaches for estimating, as appropriate, anthropogenic forest-related greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, forest carbon stocks and forest area changes; (ii) provide estimates that are transparent, consistent, as far as possible accurate, and that reduce uncertainties, taking into account national capabilities and capacities; and (iii) are transparent and their results are available and suitable for review as agreed by the Conference of the Parties. Appendix I to Decision 1/CP.16 provides guidance and safeguards for policyapproaches and positive incentives on issues relating to REDD+ activities. The 138 following (Cancun) safeguards should be promoted and supported in scope of REDD+implementation: (a) Actions that complement or are consistent with the objectives of national forestprogrammes and relevant international conventions and agreements;(b) Transparent and effective national forest governance structures, taking intoaccount national legislation and sovereignty;(c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of localcommunities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, nationalcircumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly hasadopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;(d) The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particularindigenous peoples and local communities(e) Actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biologicaldiversity, ensuring that the actions are not used for the conversion of natural forests,but are instead used to incentivize the protection and conservation of natural forestsand their ecosystem services, and to enhance other social and environmentalbenefits;(f) Actions to address the risks of reversals;(g) Actions to reduce displacement of emissions. In order to comply with both the Cancun safeguards and World Bank’s OperationalPolicies and Procedures, the REDD+ countries are required to carry out a StrategicEnvironmental and Social Assessment (SESA). That process results to anEnvironmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF) that sets out theprinciples, rules, guidelines, and procedures to assess potential environmental andsocial impacts and risks, and contains measures to reduce, mitigate, and/or offsetadverse environmental and social impacts and enhance positive impacts andopportunities of the REDD+ projects, activities, or policies/regulations. The national forest monitoring systems (NFMS) may provide data and informationthat is relevant for other components of the REDD+ information system, such as theSafeguards Information System (SIS) (UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.16). SIS provides asystematic approach for collecting and providing information on how REDD+safeguards are being addressed and respected throughout REDD+ implementation,which are to be submitted periodically in national communications to the UNFCCC.The SIS design covers indicators for determining whether a policy or intervention isbeing effectively implemented; methodologies for information collection; andframework for provision of information (storing and sharing). SIS is also expected tobe country-driven, built preferably upon existing or new relevant informationsystems, and created through policies, laws and regulations to gather and managesafeguard information at the national level. 139 The REDD+ implementation framework defines institutional, economic, legal andgovernance arrangements necessary to implement REDD+ strategy options(FCPF/UN-REDD 2015). Country-specific solutions need to define the role ofgovernment, landowners, and other participants in REDD+ transactions, to share anddeliver REDD+ benefits, to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples and forest-dependent communities, to clarify land tenure to the extent possible and mediateassociated conflicts, and to manage carbon transactions through a transparentprocess. The success of REDD+ is expected to depend on the design and implementation ofbenefit-sharing mechanisms and arrangements, which are operational at multiplelevels of governance (Thuy 2013). They can allow affected communities to becomepartners in REDD+ activities, governments to achieve greater social inclusiveness,and investors to reduce risks associated with a project. If benefits are equitablyshared with local stakeholders, it will also reduce the likelihood of reversals ofemission reductions, which could be caused by local populations that lack economicalternatives. To facilitate transparent monitoring a national REDD+ informationsystem or registry should be in place to provide public access to geo-referencedinformation on the location, ownership, carbon accounting and financial flows forsub-national and national REDD+ programs and projects (FCPF/UN-REDD 2015). Feedback and Grievance Redress Mechanisms (FRGM) are based on an assessment ofexisting national institutional capacity for feedback and grievance redress, includingto identify existing and potential conflict and grievances that could arise duringREDD+ readiness, and implementation of REDD+ National Strategy activities; toidentify mechanisms that can detect, prevent and minimize the escalation of, andresolve conflicts and grievances; to strengthen policy, legal and institutionalframework for managing grievances and; to strengthen institutional capacity andpresence of an active mechanism to receive feedback and handle conflict in a timelymanner and at all levels; and to build the capacity on REDD+ Readiness and FCPF forkey stakeholders and personnel on the presence of a clear FGRM. 6.2 A tool for REDD+ strategy integration in the context of Uganda The preliminary forest reference level (FRL) was submitted to UNFCCC in January2017, but the revised contents were elaborated in June 2017 (MWE 2017). Thisdocument has been developed by the Ministry of Water and Environment, through apartnership between the Forestry Sector Support Department and the NationalForestry Authority. The building blocks of this FRL were developed by the MRV TaskForce, technically reviewed by NTC and endorsed by NCCAC. They include forestdefinition (minimum tree cover of 30 per cents, minimum area of 1 hectare attainingminimum height of 4 meter), determination of scale (national), reference period 140 (2000-2015), scope of activities (forest remaining as forest, forest to non-forest, non-forest to forest), gases (CO2) and pools (AGB, BGB). The produced activity data andemission factors distinguish tropical high forests, woodlands and forest plantations. Development of the Uganda’s National Forest Monitoring System and Measurement,Reporting and Verification (MRV) System supported by the UN-REDD NationalProgramme component is still at its early stages. The process and discussions forinstitutional arrangements for the NFMS development and functionalities havestarted. NFMS is intended to meet all its monitoring functions of the NFMS and MRVunder national, regional and international requirements and obligations. Ugandalooks forward to additional resources to improve estimation of emissions from forestdegradation, update data series and implement NFI in 2018. Uganda’s functional safeguards and safeguards information system (SIS) is intendedto provide the most modern and integrated approach for monitoring social andenvironmental risks and benefits that may arise from the implementation of REDD+activities in consistency and compliance with national, regional, international anddevelopment partners safeguard frameworks. Safeguards reports are expected tocontain information how safeguards are respected and addressed. They can begenerated through SIS building on linkages between safeguards and other aspects ofthe national REDD+ action plan. The construction process of a functional SIS inUganda includes i) development of the national REDD+ safeguard standards (criteriaand indicators), ii) the completed participatory SESA of REDD+ National Strategyoptions, iii) identifying and mapping prioritized biodiversity and ecosystem-basedmultiple benefits of REDD+, and iv) preparing an integrated SIS architecture thatbrings different safeguards together including potential linkages with NFMS. Uganda submitted its initial national communication in 2002 and the second nationalcommunication in 2014 to UNFCCC. The second communication includes respectivechapters for the national circumstances; national greenhouse inventory (2000);impact, vulnerability and adaptation measures; measures to mitigate climate change;constraints, gaps, and related financial, technical and capacity-building needs; andother relevant information for reaching convention objectives. The REDD+ NationalStrategy feeds into the 3rd national communications process with the mitigationaction plan including potentially the agriculture, land use change and forestry, andenergy sectors.The national greenhouse gas inventory framework provides the reference to designinterventions that address the most significant emission sources at national level. TheUNFCCC COP Decision17/CP.8 and IPCC guidelines (1996, 2003 and, 2006) andpublicly available data have been applied for the second national greenhouse gasinventory, which applies year 2000 as the base year. The emission estimates coverfive inventory sectors: energy, industrial processes, agriculture, land use, land usechange and forestry, and waste. The greenhouse gases reported include carbon 141 dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide (CO), methane, (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), nitrogenoxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and non-methane volatile organic compounds(NMVOC). LULUCF is a key component of the GHG inventory. CO2 and non-CO2 GHGemissions and removals have been estimated in the six LULUCF land categories,forests, grassland, cropland, wetlands, settlements, other lands.Table 23 serves as a supporting tool and describes the direct means of integration theREDD+ Strategy and Action Plan and implementation framework elements and otherrelevant processes including greenhouse gas inventory.Table 23. The REDD+ National Strategy integration with FRL, NFMS/MRV, SIS, GHG-I,NC, FGRM, BSA, and ESFM processes. Process Means of integration for implementationForest Reference Levels  Setting up a business-as-usual baseline benchmark valueto assess the impacts of the REDD+ National Strategymeasures, actions and interventions that result toreduced emissions and/or increased removals, and forestcarbon stocks  Stepwise approach to improve methodologies and toextend scope of activities, carbon pools and gases whenFRL is updated with 5-year intervals.National ForestMonitoring System /Measurement,Reporting andVerification  Measuring, reporting and verifying anthropogenic forest-related emissions by drivers, sources and removals bysinks, forest carbon stocks, and forest carbon stock andforest-area changes resulting from implementation of theREDD+ activities  Monitoring the performance of implementation ofnational REDD+ related policies and measures andnational strategies or action plans that could includemonitoring of capacity-building technology developmentand transfer and results-based demonstration activities,to be able to provide recommendations for new policiesand measures  Monitoring the performance of policies and measuresfrom other sectors which have implications for REDD+, tobe able to provide recommendations for new policies andmeasuresSafeguard InformationSystem for promotingand respecting Cancunsafeguards  Monitoring for managing social and environmental risksand benefits that will arise from implementation of theREDD+ activities  Monitoring that REDD+ National Strategy addressesenvironmental and social priorities associated withchanging patterns of land use and forest management  Indicators, methodologies and framework of informationprovision are specified as part of the SIS design  REDD+ National Strategy revision and prioritisation 142 process to consider the co-benefits when assessing thesocio-economic impacts National greenhouse gasinventory REDD+ National Strategy interventions may need to berevised to address the most significant emission sourcesreported in the national greenhouse gas inventories.NationalCommunication The REDD+ National Strategy contributes with the contentson the Nation Communication chapters regarding  the drivers of forest degradation and deforestation,  the national strategy and action plan on mitigationinterventions and reference scenarios concerning theenergy, agriculture and LULUCF sectors.Benefit SharingArrangements (BSA)  refers to the institutional set-up and the financingarrangements of the REDD+ National Strategy  REDD+ National Strategy provides frameworks withrobust indicators for each strategic option to assessintervention performance funds according to the verifiedperformance  proportional distribution of funds to the different actorsalong the chain of intervention defined for each StrategicOption  verified benefits generated by the strategic interventionsare channelled down by the BSA system.Feedback and GrievanceRedress Mechanism(FGRM)  The major sources for the existing conflicts and grievanceissues are as following: o unclear boundaries of the forest protected areas; o exclusion of local governments from the managementof central forest reserves; o exclusion of forest adjacent communities from themanagement of forests; o failure by institutions to fulfil their mandate andlandlessness resulting from unplanned populationgrowth  The major causes of the existing conflicts and grievancesissues have been already taken into consideration indeveloping the different strategic options and theirimplementation arrangements  Continuous attention needs to be paid when planning andimplementation of REDD+ strategic options to avoid theidentified causes of the existing conflicts and grievances. 143 Environmental andSocial ManagementFramework (ESMF)  Pointing out the residual risks identified in scope of SESA,but to be handled outside the REDD+ National Strategyimplementation: land tenure and resettlement issues  Resourcing the Ministry of Lands for continue andintensify its activities in the areas of the REDD+ NationalStrategy implementation, including: o Giving communal land certificates in areas wherecommunal land ownership is practiced, free of chargeto the communities o Intensification of giving land certificates in all parts ofthe country, accompanied by activities to sensitizepeople on the need for land registration o Carrying out boundary demarcation, landregistration and land titling  Implementation of the Resettlement Framework forIndigenous Marginalized People, Forest-DependentCommunities and Informal Occupants of Gazetted Forests 144 7. Cross-cutting issues: Land tenure, capacity-building and gender integration 7.1 Land tenure arrangements as a pre-requisite for REDD+ implementation Land ownership and shared utilization rights are likely to have a serious impact onthe speed and progress of REDD+ implementation. To support the REDD+ process, itis strongly recommended that the Government allocates a substantial budget andother resources so that the Ministry of Lands can continue and intensify the on-goingand new activities that would be relevant to the REDD+ implementation, including:  Giving communal land certificates in areas where communal land ownership ispracticed, free of charge to the communities as already done in parts of Kasese,Karamoja, and Northern Uganda.  Intensifying the Systematic Land Adjudication and Certification project, givingland certificates in all parts of the country. A focus should be on areas whereland has not been registered before, accompanied by activities to sensitizepeople on the need for land registration. So far, Shema, Apac and Langodistricts have benefited from this project.  Carry out boundary demarcation and land registration, possibly land titling ofall CFRs where this has not been done, in cooperation between NFA andMLHUD. 7.2 Capacity needs and capacity building arrangements 7.2.1 Capacity gaps There are people in the core ministries, private sector, research bodies and in NGOs,who have been for a long time involved in REDD+ preparation work and have in-depth knowledge of many aspects of REDD+ work. Also districts and lower levelshave technical experts, who have field experience with several of the proposedselected strategic option activities although these activities have not earlier beenrealized as strategic option activities. All the capacity gaps are not known at the moment, but the major ones relate to theactual REDD+ implementation. The list of capacity gaps could be presented asfollows:  An overview of REDD+ set-up for Uganda; 145  Presentation of each strategic option and sub-options as these will beimplemented under the respective line ministries;  Various REDD+ concepts and their meaning;  Mechanisms for supervision, coordination and stakeholder participation;  Linkages with districts/local governments;  Monitoring, reporting, communication and feedback on the REDD+ NationalStrategy Implementation;  Risks and their mitigation measures;  Financial management structures at national and sub-national levels;  Financing mechanisms for implementation of the selected REDD+ strategicoption activities;  Means and tools for integrating international and national projects with theREDD+ strategic option activities;  Building up of extension services for REDD+ implementation;  Establishment of various producer associations and cooperatives needed forREDD+ implementation;  Policy enforcement and anti-corruption issues. The Forestry Investment Programme under MWE will also start soon and implementthe selected REDD+ strategic options in three large watershed management zones ofUganda. The FIP process will identify many gaps and develop many trainingmaterials, which can be used in the National REDD+ training events later. 7.2.2 Capacity building needs and capacity building arrangements The REDD+ Technical Coordination Unit and the respective Strategic OptionCoordinators should make a study tour to some other African country, which hasalready started up the REDD+ implementation with all administrative andmanagement set-ups in place. The FCPF and the UN-REDD Programme could alsopotentially assist in arranging a training session for these persons in Uganda. Therelevant training needs will also evolve in the process once the first training sessionshave been held and the participants have been able to comment on capacity gaps theyperceive. The above-mentioned core REDD+ management staff persons would in the next stageof training and capacity building be the trainers of other senior civil servants in theministries and other governmental bodies that will be crucial for REDD+implementation, including senior district technical experts, who have core roles in thedistrict level management of REDD+ programme operations. These persons will thenin their turn train other district level experts, so that eventually there will besufficient REDD+ expertise in each district of Uganda (in forest, agriculture, livestockand wood energy issues). 146 The district REDD+ experts will be in charge of REDD+ operations in their respectivedistricts and their first task is then to train their other colleagues in the districts, asREDD+ operations which eventually will become the mainstream work of all sub-national level civil servants in agriculture, livestock, forestry and energy sectors. TheREDD+ capacity building should eventually reach down to the county and sub-countylevel, so that all the line civil servants understand REDD+ process andimplementation issues. 7.2.3 Capacity building strategies and actions The core REDD+ national management group should produce REDD+ national andsectoral guidelines, which can be used as standardized training materials particularlyfor the district level training. At the lower level trainings should be conducted both inworkshops and in the field (practical training with communities). The training material produced should be standardized so that all trained persons inUganda would have the same standard training package on REDD+ issues. When itcomes to local capacity building needs there can be some differentiation on trainingmaterials, for instance, on extension services and local agricultural practices. The FIPprogramme could also contribute to development of the REDD+ training materialsand -activities. 7.3 Gender integration A Gender and REDD+ workshop held in Kampala in April 2015 (IUCN 2015)concluded the following issues to be incorporation in REDD+ process and work:  The Gender and REDD Action Plan for Uganda 2015 and 2016 indicatingdeliverables for Uganda Gender Mainstreaming Actions;  Gender and REDD+ Taskforce functioning as a key stakeholder of the nationalREDD+ process in Uganda, by Dec 2015;  Briefing paper on the process and contribution of the gender Sub-Workinggroup to a pro-poor and gender-balanced REDD+ National Strategy design;  Uganda's REDD+ National Strategy design process is pro-poor and gender-balanced;  Increased understanding of REDD+ and Gender issues, clarification andprotection of natural resource rights of women, equal access of men andwomen to multiple benefits associated with forest and tree managementguaranteed, reduced gender discrimination in collaborative forestmanagement arrangements. Other issues that the Gender Road Map for REDD+ discussed was that one should saywomen instead of a neutral word gender, which also include men. It has been 147 recognized in many instances that women have often been marginalized from all theprocesses of access, control, and decision making. For such initiatives as REDD+ tocreate a gender balance, positive discrimination for women has to be brought onboard. However, for the finally developed Roadmap at the workshop the participantsstill settled for an inclusive approach for cover both men and women and therebycontinue to use the word gender (IUCN 2015). The developed road map is a living document where a number of policies wereanalysed to identify entry points for enhancing gender mainstreaming just as otherrelevant policies that have come up such as the Oil and Gas policies will be included inthe updated analysis. Some other critical issues identified in the Gender and REDD+ Action Plan included:  The involvement of Youth  The involvement of indigenous people and people with HIV/AIDS  Sharing of responsibilities among stakeholders  Building synergies with all relevant and related Ministries and Policies  Popularizing REDD+ and its benefits/ incentives  Creating more awareness on REDD+ The Gender Road map will be followed in the REDD+ implementation process. 148 References ABS, 2015. Artificial Insemination and Vaccine Production Value Chains in Kenya.Report prepared by ABS TCM Ltd. and authors Makoni N., HamudiKuwanda H.,and Chatikobo P. 44 pages;Adeyemi, K.O. & Asere, A.A. 2014. A review of the energy situation in Uganda.International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 4(1): 1-4.;ADF, 2002. National livestock productivity improvement project. Agriculturaland Rural Department, North, East And South Regions, ONAR, October 2002.UGA/PAAL/2002/01; AFF, 2011. Forest plantations and woodlots in Uganda. Author is Prof. JohnKaboggoza, December 2011. African Forest Forum Working Paper Series,Volume 1, Issue 17, 2011. 58 pages;Agrawal et al. 2013. Background paper prepared for the United Nations Forum ofForests. Tenth Session, 8-19 April 2013; AIM Hills Program on Governance, 2011. Anti-corruption Manual for SMEs. AsianInstitute of Management Hills Program on Governance. ISBN 978-971-679-088-7. 256 pages;Ainembabazi, J.H. & Angelsen, A. 2014. Do commercial forest plantations reducepressure on natural forests? Evidence from forest policy reforms in Uganda.Forest Policy and Economics 40: 48–56.;Antinori C, Sathaye J (2007) Assessing transaction costs of project-basedgreenhouse gas emissions trading. Ernest Orglando Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory. LBNL-57315. pp. 134;ARRA, 2011. Climate change adaptation programme. Administration for Refugeeand Returnee Affairs (ARRA). July 2011. Addis Abeba, Ethiopia. 50 p.;Ayani, 2013. Uganda Housing Market Mapping and Value Chain Analysis.Prepared by Ayani Inclusive Financial Sector Consultants for Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI) with support from MasterCard Foundation. 88 pages;Bagabo, S., Kaluya, G., Balitta, P. & Mukose, M. 2014. Assessing the feasibility ofcommercial charcoal production systems in Uganda. Integrated RuralDevelopment Initiatives (IRDI) & Sawlog Production Grant Scheme (SPGS). Finalreport. Kampala. 85 p.;Bagabo, S., Kaluya, G., Balitta, P. & Mukose, M. 2014. Assessing the feasibility ofcommercial charcoal production systems in Uganda. Integrated Rural 149 Development Initiatives (IRDI) & Sawlog Production Grant Scheme (SPGS). Finalreport. Kampala. 85 p.;Baker & McKenzie, 2004. Legal Issues Guidebook to the Clean DevelopmentMechanism. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)Baltenweck I., Mubiru S., Nanyeenya W., Njoroge L., Halberg N., Romney D. andStaal S. 2007. Dairy farming in Uganda – Production efficiency and soil nutrientsunder different farming systems. ILRI Research Report 1. International LivestockResearch Institute;Barrow, E., Fisher, R. & Gordon, J. 2012. Improving ecosystem functionality andlivelihoods: Experiences in forest landscape restoration and management. Gland,Switzerland: IUCN. ;Barrow, E., Kamugisha-Ruhombe, J., Nhantumbo, I., Oyono, R. & Savadogo, M.2016. Who owns Africa’s forests? Exploring the impacts of forest tenure reformon forest ecosystems and livelihoods. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods 25(2): 132-156.;Bauhr M. & Grimes M. 2012. What Is Government Transparency?. New Measuresand Relevance for Quality of Government. University of Gothenburg. QoGWorking Paper Series. ISSN 1653-8919. 27 pages.Bekker, C., Rance, W. & Monteuuis, O. 2004. Teak in Tanzania: II. The KilomberoValley Teak Company. Bois et Fôrets des Tropiques 279: 11-21.Belder, P., Rohrbach, D., Twomlow, S. & Senzanje, A. 2007. Can drip irrigationimprove the livelihoods of smallholders? Lessons learned from Zimbabwe.Global Theme on Agroecosystems Report 33. Bulawayo, Zimbabwe: InternationalCrops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 32 p.;Benin s., Thurlow J., Diao X., Kebba A., and Ofwono N., 2008. Agricultural Growthand Investment Options;Bloomberg New Energy Finance, 2015. Climate Scope 2015: The Clean EnergyCountry Competitiveness Index;BMAU, 2014. Rainwater harvesting: A possible solution to water shortage. BMAUBriefing Paper 5/14. 4 pages;Buchholz T., Da Silva I., and Furtado J., 2012. Electricity from wood-firedgasification in Uganda – A 250 and 10kW case study. Conference paper.Downloaded from Internet on June 2016. 12 pages;Buchholz T., Weinreich A., and Tenningkeit T. 2010. Modeling heliotropic treegrowth in hardwood tree species—A case study on Maesopsis eminii. ForestEcology and Management 260 (2010) 1656–1663.;Bush G., Hanley N., Moro M., and Rondeau D., 2010. A Powerpoint presentation.Later same authors published Measuring the Local Opportunity Costs ofConservation: A Provision Point Mechanism for Willingness-to-Accept. Stirling 150 Economics Discussion Paper 2012-14, June 2012. Online athttp://www.management.stir.ac.uk/research/economics/workingpapers;Bush G., Hanley N., Moro M., and Rondeau D., 2013. Measuring the Local Costs ofConservation: A Provision Point Mechanism for Eliciting Willingness to AcceptCompensation. Land Economics, August 2013, 89 (3): 490–513 ISSN 0023-7639;E-ISSN 1543-8325;CCAFS, 2012. Institutional innovations in African smallholder carbon projects.Case Study: Trees for Global Benefit Program: Environmental Conservation Trust(ECOTRUST) of Uganda. Prepared by Moses Masiga with Polycarp Mwima andLillian Kiguli for CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture andFood Security (CCAFS);Chirwa, P.W., Larwanou, M., Syampungani, S. & Babalola, F.D. 2015. Managementand restoration practices in degraded landscapes of Eastern Africa andrequirements for up-scaling. International Forestry Review Vol.17(S3).;Christensen S., 2012. Comparing the sustainability of biomass fuel supply optionsfor a small scale gasification project in rural Uganda. M.Sc. thesis in theInnovative and Sustainable Energy Engineering (ISEE) Nordic Master DegreeProgramme, 2010-2012. Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg,Sweden. 90 pages;Christensen, J. & Jensen, S.S. 2011. The tragedy of private forestry:Understanding deforestation of private natural forests in Kibaale District,Uganda. MSc thesis, Aalborg University Denmark. 90 p.;CIRCDU (Centre for Integrated Research and Community Development Uganda).2014. A review of existing improved kiln technologies and other alternativeefficient charcoal production systems in Uganda. Sawlog Production GrantScheme (SPGS). Final report. Kampala. 37 p.;CIRCDU (Centre for Integrated Research and Community Development Uganda).2014. A review of existing improved kiln technologies and other alternativeefficient charcoal production systems in Uganda. Sawlog Production GrantScheme (SPGS). Final report. Kampala. 37 p.;Dalipagic I. and Elepu G., 2014. Agricultural value chain analysis in NorthernUganda: Maize, rice, groundnuts, sunflower and sesame. Action against Hunger,ACF International, March 2014. 50 pages;DDA (Dairy Development Authortiy). 2016. Website. Accessed 4 June 2016,http://www.dda.or.ug.;Dinesh, D. (Ed.). 2016a. Agricultural practices and technologies to enhance foodsecurity, resilience and productivity in a sustainable manner: Messages forSBSTA 44 agriculture workshops. CCAFS Working Paper no. 146. Copenhagen,Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and FoodSecurity (CCAFS). Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org; 151 Dinesh, D. (Ed). 2016b. Adaptation measures in agricultural systems: Messagesto SBSTA 44 agriculture workshops. CCAFS Working Paper no. 145. Copenhagen,Denmark: CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and FoodSecurity (CCAFS). Available online at: www.ccafs.cgiar.org.;Dinesh, D. & Vermeulen, S. 2016. Climate change adaptation in agriculture:Practices and technologies. Messages to the SBSTA 44 agriculture workshops.Info Note. CSIAR. ;Drigo, R. 2006. WISDOM – East Africa: Woodfuel Integrated Supply/DemandOverview Mapping (WISDOM) Methodology. Spatial woodfuel production andconsumption analysis of selected African countries. FAO. 78 p.;Egeru A., Kateregga E., and Majaliwa G. J. M., 2014. Coping with firewood scarcityin Soroti District of Eastern Uganda. Open Journal of Forestry, 2014, Vol.4, No.1,70-74;Egeru, A., Okia, C. & Leeuw, J. 2015. Trees and livelihoods in Karamoja, Uganda.World Agroforestry Centre for Evidence on Demand. ;Egeru, A., Wasonga, O., Kyagulanyi, J., Majaliwa, M.G.J., MacOpiyo, L. & Mburu, J.2014. Spatio-temporal dynamics of forage and land cover changes in Karamojasub-region, Uganda. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice 4:6. ;Electricity Regulatory Authority (ERA), 2015. Strategic Plan (2014/15 –2023/24);ENR CSO Network. 2014. Environment and Natural Resources Sub-Sector: CivilSociety Organizations Performance Report FYR 2013/2014 and Positions forFYR 2014/2015. 52 p.;EPRC, 2014. Enhancing agricultural production and productivity in Ugandathrough irrigation. Policy Brief No. 49. 4 pages;ERA (Electricity Regulatory Authority). Strategic Plan 2014/15-2023/24. 48 p.;Ezra M.F., Lakuma C.P., and Guloba M., 2014. Uganda’s tea sub-sector: acomparative review of trends, challenges and coordination failures. EPRC,Research Series No. 119, September 2014. 24 pages;Face-the-Future, 2015. Natural High Forest Rehabilitation Project on degradedland of Kibale National Park, Uganda. CCB Project Implementation Report;FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations). 2006. Firemanagement: Voluntary guidelines. Principles and strategic actions. FireManagement Working Paper 17. Rome. 63 p.;FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations). 2013. Climate-Smart Agriculture: Sourcebook. 557 p. ;FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations). 2016. Website.Accessed 22 June 2016, http://www.fao.org/forestry/firemanagement/en.; 152 FAO 2013. Forests, livelihoods and poverty alleviation: the case of Uganda.Prepared by Shepherd G., Kazoora C. and Mueller D. 2013. Food and AgricultureOrganization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.;FCPF and UN-REDD 2012. Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement in REDD+Readiness with a Focus on the Participation of Indigenous Peoples and OtherForest-Dependent Communities. April 20, 2012 (revision of March 25th version).FCPF, 2013. Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the FCPF 7 June 2013. 63pages;FCPF/UN-REDD 2015. Joint FCPF/UN-REDD Programme Guidance Note forREDD+ Countries. 22 p.FCPF 2017. Overview: Designing an M&E system. A Powerpoint presentationdownloaded from the FCPF website on 18.5.2017. 5 slides.Fermont A. and Benson T., 2011. Estimating Yield of Food Crops Grown bySmallholder Farmers - A Review in the Uganda Context. IFPRI Discussion Paper01097, June 2011. Development Strategy and Governance. 68 pages;Firstclimate, 2013. Uganda: Reducing deforestation with improved cook stoves.Firstclimate – Climate neutral & water services. A pamphlet downloaded fromwww.firstclimate-climateneutral.com. 4 pages;FoE- Uganda, 2012. A study on land grabbing cases in Uganda. Compiled byNational Association of Professional Environmentalists (FoE – Uganda).Supported by Friends of the Earth International. 27 pages;For Poverty Reduction in Uganda. IFPRI Discussion Paper 00790, September2008. Development Strategy and Governance Division. 61 pages.;GACC (Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves). 2014. Clean cookstoves and fuels: Acatalog of carbon offset projects and advisory service providers. 2nd edition. 84p.;GACC (Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves). 2016. Website. Accessed 14 June2016, http://cleancookstoves.org.;Global Mechanism (2009); The challenges of Mobilising Forest Finance inHeavily Indebted Poor Country: Case Study of Uganda; Goff S., 2013. Efficiency & Effectiveness in Project Management. Article found onInternet by keynote speaker from Project Management Research Committee(PMRC, IPMA-China) Congress held August 24-25 2013, in Wuhan China.GoU, Goverment of Uganda (2010); Vision 2040 ;GoU, Goverment of Uganda (2014); National Development Plan II ; 153 GVEP International, 2012. Global alliance for clean cookstoves – Uganda marketassessment – Sector Mapping. The study was prepared by Global Village EnergyPartnerships (GVEP) International in March 2012. Powerpoint slidepresentation. 70 pages;Hansen U.E., Pedersen M.B., and Nygaard I., 2014. Review of Solar PV marketdevelopment in East Africa. UNEP Risoe Centre Working Paper Series No. 12,March 2014. UNEP Risoe Centre, Technical University of Denmark. 22 pages;Hilson, G. 2016. Farming, small-scale mining and rural livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: A critical overview. The Extractive Industries and Society 3: 547–563.;IDMC (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre). 2016. GRID 2016: GlobalReport on Internal Displacement. Geneva. 103 p.;IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development). 2015. Resilience ContextAnalysis: Resilience to food insecurity and malnutrition in Karamoja, Uganda.Djibouti. 109 p. Accessed 22 June 2016,http://resilience.igad.int/attachments/article/273/RCA%20Karamoja%2006.07.2015.pdf.;IRENA, 2012. Renewable Energy Technologies: Cost Analysis of Hydropower.Cost Analysis Series, Vol.1: Power Sector, Issue 3/5. June 2012. InternationalRenewable Energy Agency. Downloaded from www.irena.org/Publications;IRRI, 2015. South Sudanese refugees in Adjumani District, Uganda: Telling astory. The Internaitonal Refugees Rights Initiative, July 2015. 24 pages;Indufor, 2016. Developing Benefit Sharing Arrangements for Uganda's NationalREDD+ National Strategy. Baseline Report. Ministry of Water and Environment,Republic of Uganda;Indufor 2017. Developing Benefit Sharing Arrangements for Uganda's NationalREDD+ National Strategy. Options Assessment. Ministry of Water andEnvironment, Republic of Uganda; Indufor, 2017. Benefit Sharing Arrangements for Uganda's National REDD+National Strategy. Executive Summary to BSA Options Assessment. Final Report.Ministry of Water and Environment, Republic of Uganda;IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2012. Benefit sharing inUganda’s forestry sector: Issues and options for REDD implementation inUganda. IUCN. 45 p.;IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2013. Consultation andParticipation plan for REDD process for Uganda(www.forestcarbonpartnership.org); 154 IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature). 2014. A rangelandsmanagement framework for Karamoja, 2014-2018: A handbook for localgovernments and partners. 10 p.;IUCN, 2013. Consultation and Participation plan for REDD process for Uganda.Retrieved from (www.forestcarbonpartnership.org);IUCN, 2015. Gender and REDD+ Workshop. Workshop Proceedings Reportcompiled by Doreen Ruta - Workshop Rapportuer. Report prepared withsupport from the IUCN Global Gender Office team and Government of Ugandathrough the Ministry of Water & Environment (The National REDD+ Secretariat),and Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development. 49 pages;Jagger P., 2012. Environmental income, rural livelihoods, and income inequalityin western Uganda. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 21:2, 70-84;Jiren T. S., 2013. Analysis of institutional inducement in collaborative forestmanagement: A case study from Masindi District, Uganda. International Journalof Agriculture and Forestry 2013 3(4) 162-169;Kaboggoza, J. 2011. Forest plantations and woodlots in Uganda. African ForestForum. 58. p.;Kabunga, N., Ghosh, S. & Griffiths, J.K. 2014. Can smallholder fruit and vegetableproduction systems improve household food security and nutritional status ofwomen? Evidence from Rural Uganda. IFPRI Discussion Paper 01346. 31 p.;Kafayat, A. & Abraham, A. 2014. Improved cook stoves and green house gasreduction in Uganda. International Journal of Scientific and ResearchPublications 4(1): 92-94.;Kakuru, W. 2014. Study to assess the local fuel wood demand and the feasibilityof supplying fuel wood from dedicated bio-energy plantations. SawlogProduction Grant Scheme (SPGS), Ministry of Water and Environment. 95 p.;Kambugu, R.K., Banana, A.Y. & Odokonyero, G. 2010. Chainsaw milling in Uganda.In: Wit, M. & van Dam, J. (Eds.). Chainsaw milling: supplier to local markets.ETFRN News 52. Wageningen. pp. 192-202.;Kamugisha-Ruhombe, J. 2007. Forest Law Enforcement and Governance: UgandaCountry Assessment and Issues Paper. AFORNET. 59 p.;Kazoora 2017. Calculations based on FAO.2013. Forests, Livelihoods and Poverty alleviation: the case of Uganda, by, G. Shepherd, C. Kazora;Kazoora 2017. Reviewing forestry expenditure and investment in Uganda ,2011-2016: A consultancy Report to the Ministry of Water and Environment;KFS (Kenya Forest Service). 2009. A guide to on-farm Eucalyptus growing inKenya. 36 p.; 155 Khundi F., Jagger P., Shively G. and Sserunkuuma D., 2011. Income, poverty andcharcoal production in Uganda. Forest Policy and Economics 13 (2011) 199-205;Kiggundu, M., Kabi, F., Mette, V., Nalubwama, S. & Odhong, C. 2014. Managementand use of dairy cattle feed resources on smallholder certified organic pineapplefarms in Central Uganda. Journal of Agriculture and Environment forInternational Development 108(2): 207–225. ;Kissinger, G. Herold, M. & De Sy., V. 2012. Drivers of Deforestation and ForestDegradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers. Lexeme Consulting,Vancouver. 46 p.;Kiyingi, A., Edriss, A., Phiri, M., Buyinza, M. & Agaba, H. 2016. The impact of farmforestry on poverty alleviation and food security in Uganda. Journal ofSustainable Development 9(1): 150-163.;Langat, D.K., Cheboiwo, J.K. & Muchiri, M.N. 2015. Financial analysis of growing Eucalyptus grandis for production of medium size power transmission poles andfirewood in Kenya. African Journal of Agriculture and Utilisation of NaturalResources for Sustainable Development 1(1): 38-45.;MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries). 2010. AgricultureSector Development Strategy and Investment Plan: 2010/11-2014/15. ;MAAIF (Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries). 2015. Guidelinesfor Mainstreaming Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation in AgriculturalSector Policies and Plans. ;MAAIF, 2015. Agriculture sector scoping study – assessment of greenhouse gasemissions and carbon stocks to facilitate preparation of climate changemitigation measures, including NAMAs. Consultancy report prepared by BTCUganda. 117 pages;Mabikke, S.B. 2016. Historical continuum of land rights in Uganda: A review ofland tenure systems and approaches for improving tenure security. Journal ofLand and Rural Studies 4(2): 1-19.;MAIIF 2010. Uganda strategic investment framework for sustainable landmanagement 2010-2020. A report prepared with direct support of manyinternational donors such as UNDP, GEF, WB, FAO, Norway, NEPAD, CAADP andother TerrAfrica Partners. 98 pages;Malende, Y.H. & Temu, A.B. 1990. Site-index curves and volume growth of teak(Tectona grandis) at Mtibwa, Tanzania. Forest Ecology and Management 31(1-2):91-99.;Malimbwi, R.E., Eid, T. & Chamshama, S.A.O. (Ed.). 2016. Allometric tree biomassand volume models in Tanzania. Sokoine University of Agriculture. Morogoro.129 p.; 156 Mbazzira, C., 2009. Uganda: Constitutional, legislative and administrativeprovisions concerning indigenous peoples. International Labour Organizationand African Commission on Human & Peoples’ Rights;MEMD (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development). 2007. The RenewableEnergy Policy for Uganda. 128 p.;MEMD (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development). 2014. Biomass EnergyStrategy (BEST) Uganda, 2013. Kampala. 112 p.;MEMD (Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development). 2015. Uganda’sSustainable Energy for All (SE4ALL) Initiative: Action Agenda. 76 p.;MEMD, 2016. National Charcoal Survey for Uganda 2015. Addressing barriers toadoption of improved charcaol production technologies and sustainable landmanagement practices through an integrated approach. Prepared byRebelGroup. Final Report Draft from May 2016. 249 pages;MFPED (Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development). 2015.National Budget Framework Paper FY 2016/17 – FY 2020/21. December 2015.The Republic of Uganda. 435 p.;MFPED, 2014. Poverty status report 2014 – Structural change and povertyreduction in Uganda. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development,Department of Development Policy and Research Department. 118 pages;Miceli, Marcia P. and Janet P. Near. 2002. Blowing The Whistle;Minang, P. A., van Noordwijk, M., Freeman, O. E., Mbow, C., de Leeuw, J., &Catacutan, D. (Eds.). 2015. Climate-Smart Landscapes: Multifunctionality inpractice. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF). ;MLHUD (Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development). 2006. TheNational Land Use Policy. The Republic of Uganda. 81 p.;MLHUD (Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development). 2013. The UgandaNational Land Policy. Kampala. 55 p.;MOLG, 2015. Ministry of Local Government. FINANCIAL YEAR 2015/2016.Ministerial Policy Statement for VOTE 011 –Ministry of Local Government, VOTE147 –Local Government Finance Commission, and VOTE 501-778 –All LocalGovernments;Mukasa, C., et al, 2012. Gender and forestry in Uganda: Policy, legal andinstitutional frameworks. Working Paper 89. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia;Muramira T.E., 2011. Valuing the Losses Caused to Mabira Forest byHydropower Development in Uganda. Innovation – Special Issue on Valuation ofForest Resources in East Africa;Mwavu, E.N. & Witkowski, E.T.F. 2008. Sprouting of woody species followingcutting and tree-fall in a lowland semi-deciduous tropical rainforest, North-Western Uganda. Forest Ecology and Management 255: 982–992.; 157 Mwebaza, R and Kotzé, L J., 2009. Environmental governance and climate changein Africa: Legal perspectives;MWE (Ministry of Water and Environment). 2013. The National Forest Plan2011/12 – 2021/22. Kampala. 97 p.;MWE (Ministry of Water and Environment) 2014. Uganda Second NationalCommunication to the United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange. Kampala. 174 p.;MWE (Ministry of Water and Environment). 2015a. State of Uganda’s Forestry2015. Kampala. 133 p.;MWE, (Ministry of Water and Environment). 2015b. Uganda’s IntendedNationally Determined Contribution (INDC). Ministry of Water and Environment,Kampala, Uganda. 18 pages.MWE (Ministry of Water and Environment). 2015c. Economic Assessment of theImpacts of Climate Change in Uganda: Final Study Report.;MWE (Ministry of Water and Environment). 2015d. Water and EnvironmentSector Performance Report 2015.;MWE (Ministry of Water and Environment). 2017.www.mwe.go.ug/projects/reddMWLE (Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment). 2001. The Uganda ForestryPolicy. 29 p.;Naluwairo, R., Mugyenyi, O. & Amumpiire, A. 2015. Greening Uganda’s 2016General Elections: Key issues for political parties and political leaders to addressin their manifestoes. ACODE Policy Briefing Paper Series 31. Kampala. 18 p.;Namirembe S., 2011. Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) – ReadinessPreparation Proposal. Component 2a: Assessment of land use, forest policy andgovernance; Component 2b: REDD Strategy options; 2c: REDD implementationframework. 53 pages;NAPA (National Adaptation Programme). 2007. Climate change Uganda NationalAdaptation Programmes of Action. The Republic of Uganda. 69 p.;NatureUganda 2011. The Economic Valuation of the proposed degazettement ofMabira Central Forest Reserve. NatureUganda Kampala.Naughton-Treves L., Kammen D.M. and Chapman C., 2007. Burning biodiversity:Woody biomass use by commercial and subsistence groups in western Uganda’sforests. Biological Conservation 134 (2007) 232-241;Negash M. 2013. The indigenous agroforestry systems of the south-eastern RiftValley escarpment, Ethiopia: Their biodiversity, carbon stocks, and litterfall.Doctoral thesis. University of Helsinki. ; 158 NEMA (National Environment Management Authority). 2010. State of theEnvironment Report for Uganda 2010. Kampala. 177 p.;NEMA (National Environment Management Authority). 2015. NationalBiodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2015-2025). ;NFA (National Forestry Authority). 2011. Assessment of trends of evictions fromprotected areas during the period 2005-2010, and their implications for REDD+.Final draft – enhanced, March 2011. Kampala. 85 p.;NFA (National Forestry Authority). 2016. Summary of forest status in Uganda asof 2015. Memorandum, Ref: NFA/CA/39/15, 31 March 2016, Kampala. 3 p.; NFA 2016. Progress report. Project on Implementation of a National ReferenceScenario and Inventory of Forest Resources for REDD + Readiness in Uganda.Annex IV.1. Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (FAO). April2015 – January 2016. 13 p.;Ngaga, Y.M. 2011. Forest plantations and woodlots in Tanzania. African ForestForum. 76. p.;Nicol, A., Langan, S., Victor, M. & Gonsalves, J. (Eds.). 2015. Water-smartagriculture in East Africa. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water ManagementInstitute (IWMI). CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems(WLE); Kampala, Uganda: Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere(CARE). 352 p.;NPA (National Planning Authority). 2013. Uganda Vision 2040. Kampala. 120 p.;Nsita, S., 2010. In search for forest governance in Uganda: a background Paperfor the workshop on forest governance in Uganda;Nunnenkamp et al. (2015); Aid Fragmentation and Donor Coordination inUganda: A District-level analysisOAG (Office of the Auditor General). 2010. Environmental audit report onforestry activities in Uganda. 29 p.;OCHA (United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs).2016. ReliefWeb. Uganda: Registered refugees and asylum-seekers, UN HighCommissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Accessed 13 July 2016,http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/UGA REFASR 2015 12.pdfOjambo, H., 2012. Decentralisation in Africa: A Critical Review of Uganda’sExperience;Okello, C., Pindozzi, S., Faugno, S. & Boccia, L. 2013. Development of bioenergytechnologies in Uganda: A review of progress. Renewable and SustainableEnergy Reviews 18: 55–63.; 159 Orlando, B., Baldock, D., Canger, S., Mackensen, J., Maginnis, S., Socorro, M.,Rietbergen, S., Robledo, C. & Schneider, N. 2002. Carbon, Forests and People:Towards the integrated management of carbon sequestration, the environmentand sustainable livelihoods. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge: IUCN. vi + 42 p. ;Otieno, A.C. 2014. Milicia excelsa timber species for wood works in easternUganda: Perspectives from Nabitende Township, Iganga District. InternationalJournal of Research 1(3).;Pagiola and Bosquet 2009. Estimating the cost of REDD at a country level.Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA). 18062:1-22;Pearson T.R.H., Brown S., Sohngen B., Henman J., and Ohrel S., 2013. Transactioncosts for carbon sequestration projects in the tropical forest sector. Mitig AdaptStrateg Glob Change DOI 10.1007/s11027-013-9469-8;Pirard, R., Secco, L.D. & Warman, R. 2015. Do tree plantations support forestconservation? Environmental Science & Policy 57: 122–130.;R-PP (REDD Readiness Preparation Proposal for Uganda). 2011. Submitted tothe Forest Carbon Partnership Fund, June 2011.;Raymond A.F., 2013. Investigating the carbon footprint of cattle grazing in theLac du Bois grasslands. A M.Sc. thesis of Thompson River University, Canada. 127pages;Republic of Uganda, 2009 (b). Strategic Sector Investment Plan for the Water andSanitation Sector in Uganda;Republic of Uganda, 2013 (a). Rural Electrification Strategy and Plan (2013-2022). Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development;Rey, D., Roberts, J., Korwin, S., Rivera, L., and Ribet, U. (2013) A Guide toUnderstanding and Implementing the UNFCCC REDD+ Safeguards. ClientEarth,London, United Kingdom.Rina Services, 2015. Final Validation Report. Natural High Forest RehabilitationProject on Degraded Land of Kibale National Park, Uganda;Robertson, T., Mendelsohn, J. & Jarvis, A. 2014. Uganda: The measure of a land.Vital Signs. 46 p.;Roschinsky, R. 2013. Dairy cattle crossbreeding as development path forsmallholders? A case study at farm level in south-western Uganda. Submission tothe „Österreichische Preise für Entwicklungsforschung”. ;ROU (The Republic of Uganda). 2015a. Uganda Climate Smart AgricultureProgramme 2015-2025 jointly implemented by the Ministry of Agriculture,Animal Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) and the Ministry of Water andEnvironment (MWE). Draft report, accessed 31 May 2016,http://canafrica.com/publication/uganda-climate-smart-agriculture-country-program-2015-2025.; 160 ROU (The Republic of Uganda). 2015b. Second National Development Plan(NDPII) 2015/16-2019/20. 315 p.;Shepherd G., Kazoora C. with Mueller D., 2013. Forests, livelihoods and povertyalleviation: the case of Uganda. Publication of Food and Agricultural Organizationof the United Nations, Rome, 2013;SPGS, 2016. Feasibility analyses for eucalypt transmission pole and pine sawlogproduction within SPGS scheme. Sawlog Production Grant Scheme/ Ministry ofWater and Environment. 6 pages;Sreejesh K.K., Thomas T.P., Rugmini P., Prasanth K.M. & Kripa P.K. 2013. Carbonsequestration potential of teak (Tectona grandis) plantations in Kerala. ResearchJournal of Recent Sciences 2: 167-170.;Stark, J. 2011. Climate change and conflict in Uganda: The Cattle Corridor andKaramoja. CMM Discussion Paper No. 3. Washington, DC.: USAID. 55 p. ;Thuy, P.T., Brockhaus, M., WOong, G., Dung, L.N., Tjajadi, J.S., Loft, L., Luttrell, C. &Assembe Mvondo, S. (2013) Approaches to benefit sharing: a preliminarycomparative analysis of 13 REDD+ countries. Working Paper 108. CIFOR, Bogor,Indonesia. Availableat: http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf files/WPapers/WP108Pham.pdfTabuti J.R.S. and Lye K.A., 2009. Fodder plants for cattle in Kaliro District,Uganda. African Study Monographs, 30(3): 161-170, September 2009;Techel, G. 2011. Feasibility study for the use of improved charcoal kilns: KasagalaCentral Forest Reserve. Draft feasibility report. UNIQUE, Client: NationalForestry Authority.;TechnoServe Uganda 2008. The Dairy Value Chain in Uganda. A report by theTechnoServe Uganda for the East Africa Diary Development Program, October2008. 30 pages;The Nation, 2013. Greenhouses give him better yields and more cash. An articleposted on 27 March 2013. ;Tijjani, K.I. & and Yetişemiyen, A. 2015. Dairy cattle and dairy industry inUganda: Trends and challenges. Research Journal of Agriculture and ForestrySciences. Vol. 3(10): 14-18. ;Tradingeconomics.com/World Bank. 2017. https://tradingeconomics.comTugume P., Buyinza M., Namaalwa J., Kakudidi E.K., Mucunguzi P., Kalema J., andKamatenesi M., 2015. Socio-economic predictors of dependence on non-timberforest products: Lessons from Mabira Central Forest Reserve communities.Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, December 2015, Vol. 4, No.2, pp. 195-214; 161 Tugume P. et al. 2015. Socio-economic predictors on Non-timber forest products:lessons from Mabira Central Forest Reserve Communities. Journal of Agriculturaland Environmental Sciences. December 2015. Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 195-214. ISSN:2334-2404.Tumushabe, G., et al, 2013. Uganda National Climate Change Finance Analysis.Overseas Development Institute, London and the Advocates Coalition forDevelopment and Environment, Kampala;Tumwebaze, S.B. & Byakagaba, P. 2016. Soil organic carbon stocks under coffeeagroforestry systems and coffee monoculture in Uganda. Agriculture, Ecosystemsand Environment 216 (2016) 188–193.;Turyahabwe, N., Agea, J.G., Tweheyo, M. & Tumwebaze, S.B. 2012. CollaborativeForest Management in Uganda: Benefits, implementation challenges and futuredirections. In Diez, J.J. (Ed.). Sustainable Forest Management - Case Studies.Accessed 22 June 2016, http://www.intechopen.com/books/sustainable-forest-management-case-studies/collaborative-forest-management-in-uganda-benefits-implementation-challenges-and-future-directions.;Twaha, S., Ramli, M.A.M, Murphy, P.M., Mukhtiar, M.U,. & Nsamba, H.K. 2016.Renewable based distributed generation in Uganda: Resource potential andstatus of exploitation. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57: 786–798.;Twongyirwe, R., Sheil, D., Sandbrook, C. G., and Sandbrook, L. C. (2014). “REDD atthe crossroads? The Opportunities and Challenges of REDD for Conservation andHuman Welfare in South West Uganda” Int. J. of Environment and SustainableDevelopment;UBOS, 2016. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. The National Population and HousingCensus 2014 – Main Report, Kampala.;UBOS, 2016b. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Consumer price index – February2016. 11 pages;UBOS, 2015. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. National population and housingcensus 2014. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. 65 pages;UBOS, 2015. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Statistical abstract. Kampala. 330 p.;UBOS, 2014. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Uganda National Household Survey2012/2013. Kampala, Uganda;UBOS, 2014. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Statistical abstract;UBOS, 2008. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. The National Livestock Census Report2008. Kampala. 256 p.;UBOS, 2006. Uganda Bureau of Statistics. Statistical abstract. Kampala. 250 p.;UCDA (Uganda Coffee Development Authorty). 2016. Website. Accessed 11 June2016, http://www.ugandacoffee.go.ug.; 162 UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). 2013. Nationally AppropriateMitigation Action (NAMA): Study on Sustainable Charcoal in Uganda. New York.83 p.;UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). 2015. Uncovering pathwaystowards an inclusive green economy: A summary for leaders. 38 p.;UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre. https://www.unep-wcmc.orgUNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees). 2016. Uganda – Monthly RefugeeStatistics Update [31st May 2016]. Kampala. 3 p.;UNHCR, 2015. Uganda Global appeal 2015 update. 7 pages;UN-REDD Programme, 2013. Guidelines on Free, Prior and Informed Consent. 60pages;URWA, 2013. Uganda Rainwater Association (URWA). A constructiondocumentation for the promotion of 3R (Recharge, Retention and Re-Use). 30pages;USAID 2011. Climate Change and Conflict in Uganda: The Cattle Corridor andKaramoja. This publication was produced for review by the United States Agencyfor International Development. It was prepared by Jeffrey Stark, Director ofResearch and Studies, Foundation for Environmental Security and Sustainability.44 pages;USAID, 2012. Measuring resoponses of wildlife to oil operations in MurchinsonFalls National Park. Extract from: Prinsloo, S., Mulondo, P., Mugiru, G. andPlumtree, A.J. (2012). Measuring responses of wildlife to oil explorationoperations in Murchinson Falls National Park. Report of USAID WILD Program.www.albertinerift.org;UTGA 2016. Annual Report 2015. Uganda Tree Growers’ Association. 24 pages;UTGA News 2016a. Uganda Tree Growers’ Association. 29th February 2016, No.40. 5 pages;UTGA News 2016b. UTGA News. May 2016 No. 42. 12 pages;UWA (Uganda Wildlife Authority). 2014. Operational guidelines for oil and gasexploration and protection in wildlife protected areas. 23 p.; Vatn A., Vedeld P., Petursson J.G., and Stenslie E., . THE REDD DIRECTION. Thepotential for reduced carbon emissions, biodiversity protection and increaseddevelopment. A desk study with special focus on Uganda and Tanzania. APowerpoint presentation;Verchot, L.V., van Noordwijk, M., Kandji, S., Tomich, T., Ong, C., Albrecht, A.,Mackensen, J., Bantilan, C., Anupama, K.V. & Palm, C. 2007. Climate change: 163 linking adaptation and mitigation through agroforestry. Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies for Global Change 12: 901-918.;Väänänen, E., Runsten, L., Blyth, S., Mugumya, X., Mwebesa, M. and Mant, R. 2014.Supporting planning for multiple benefits from REDD+ in Uganda: Exploringsynergies with the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. 31p.;Waiswa, D., Stern, M.J. & Prisley, S.P. 2015. Drivers of deforestation in the LakeVictoria Crescent, Uganda. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 34: 259–275.;Washtech, 2013. Recommendations for the sustainability and scalability offerrocement tanks in Mukono District, Uganda. 4 pages;WB (The World Bank). 2012. Uganda Country Environmental Analysis (CEA).183 p.;WB (The World Bank). 2016. Website. Uganda: Economic overview. Lastupdated: 15 April 2016. Accessed 5 July 2016,http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/uganda/overview.;WBG (World Bank Group). 2016. Forest Action Plan FY16-20: The WBGContribution to the Forest Agenda. Draft report, 6 April 2016. 70 p.;We Agroforestry, 2017. Kilmatkompensation (i.e. Compensation for Climate). APowerpoint presentation in mixed Swedish and English language;WFP (Word Food Programme). 2015. Food security & nutrition assessment:Karamoja region, Uganda. 86 p.;WFP (Word Food Programme). 2016. Website. Accessed 22 June 2016,https://www.wfp.org/countries/uganda.;WHO (World Health Organization). 2014. WHO guidelines for indoor air quality:Household fuel combustion. Geneva. 152 p.;World Bank 2012. Uganda Country Environmental Analysis;World Bank 2015. Search for the Grail. Can Uganda’s Land Support its ProsperityDrive Uganda Economic Update, Sixth Edition, September 2015, Report no.99060. 68 pages;World Bank 2017. Forest Investment Program (FIP). Project Document;WWF (World Wide Fund For Nature). 2012. National timber trade and FLEGTsolutions for Uganda: A summary report. 24.;WWF 2015. Energy Report for Uganda. Published in October 2015 by WWF –Uganda Office, Kampala, Uganda. 89 pages; 164 Yosef B.A. and Asmamaw D.A. 2015. Rainwater harvesting: An option for dryland agriculture in arid and semi-arid Ethiopia. International Journal of WaterResources and Environmental Engineering, Vol. 7(2) pp. 17-28, February 2015;Zanchi, G., Frieden, D., Pucker, J., Bird, D.N., Buchholz, T. & Windhorst, K. 2013.Climate benefits from alternative energy uses of biomass plantations in Uganda.Biomass and Bioenergy 59: 128-136. 165 Annexes Annex 1. Hectare based financial assessment of proposed interventions Strategic option 1: Climate smart agriculture: Sub-option 1. Sustainable land management (SLM) and agroforestry practices Production Unit value in Uganda SourceAverage total adjusted baselinehousehold income in 2015 USD 560 as average of allrural farming households UBOS 2014 Average total adjustedagriculture income in 2015 USD 335 FAO 2013% increase in farm income dueto envisioned climate smartagriculture 50% Benin et al.2008 and EPRC2014Baseline carbon stock 8,7 tCO2/ha/year MWE/NFA2016Average annual carbon stockenhancement on main openfarmlands 3 tCO2/ha/year Estimate fromSLMP II projectAverage annual carbonenhancement in home gardens finally 72,5 tC/ha and thus7 tC/ha/year Negash 2013Proposed share of homegardensfrom total farmlands 30% of available hhfarmland Expert estimate Recurrent management costLabour opportunity cost (landclearing, ploughing,planting/sowing, weeding,harvesting, bagging per 1.12ha/year)Own labour for SLMimprovements USD 668/ha/year USD 50/ha/year Dalipagic &Elepu 2014 Estimate basedon UNDP 2014 Seed cost: annual USD 36/ha/year Dalipagic &Elepu 2014Fertilizers + own cattle manure USD 20/ha/year Same source as 166 (50 kg/ha/year): annual aboveImplements/tools: annual USD 20/ha/year Same sourceAgroforestry seedlings (60seedlings): year 1 USD 5/ha Ecotrust info inMasingi District2016 RevenuesAverage total crop income inBAU scenario USD 902/1.12 ha 50% from BAU scenario ofwhich 30% improved cropyield from nitrogen fixingtrees and additional ownfruits, fuel wood, fodderand SLM improvements Dalipagic &Elepu 2014Estimated average incomeincrease for average farmerfrom agroforestry, SLM Co-benefitsImproved livelihoods and well-being of population All these calculations would need some firstpriority calculations, which could then bereplicated and adjusted over larger areas offarm landsReduce deforestation & landpressure in rural areasImproved/varied nutritionamong rural populationImproved health effects amongpopulationBetter education opportunitiesand wealth among farmerhouseholds Strategic option 1: Climate smart agriculture: Sub-option 2. Rainwater harvesting with collection tank and drip irrigation Production Unit value in Uganda SourceAverage total adjusted netbaseline household income in2015 USD 800 UBOS 2015 forwealthier HHsAverage total adjustedagriculture income in 2015 USD 480 UBOS 2015 forwealthier HHs 167 % increase in farm income dueto envisioned climate smartagriculture 200% Fermont &Benson2011/Benin etal. 2008, EPRC2014Baseline carbon stock 8,7 tCO2/ha/year MWE/NFA 2016Average annual carbon stockenhancement on main openfarmlands 3 tCO2/ha/year Estimate fromSLMP II projectAverage annual carbonenhancement in home gardens Same as in Table 1, butreached perhaps faster andwith certainty Expert estimateProposed share of homegardensfrom total farmlands 30% of available hhfarmland Expert estimate Recurrent management costFor a 60m3 watertankcollection systemLabour opportunity cost (ownlabour)Skilled and unskilled labour(external) USD 177/own in-kindlabourUSD 275 All cost figureshere are fromURWA 2013 Construction materials USD 559Timber for construction USD 174Watertank equipment and dripirrigation kit USD 250Treadle pumpSmaller tanks can reduce price USD 124 RevenuesAverage total crop income inBAU scenario USD 480/1.12 ha At least 200% from BAUscenario (both reduceddrought loss and yieldincrease) Fermont &Benson2011/Benin etal. 2008, EPRC2014Estimated average incomeincrease for average farmerfrom RWH system Co-benefits 168 Reduce deforestation & landpressure in rural areasImproved/varied nutritionamong rural populationImproved health effects amongpopulationBetter education opportunitiesand wealth among farmerhouseholds All these calculations would need some firstpriority calculations, which could then bereplicated and adjusted over larger areas offarm lands Strategic option 1: Climate smart agriculture: Sub-option 3. Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables Production Unit value in Uganda SourceAverage total adjusted baselinehousehold income in 2015 USD 1000 UBOS 2014 forwealthier HHs Average total adjustedagriculture income in 2015 USD 600 UBOS 2014 forwealthier HHs% increase in farm income dueto envisioned greenhousecultivation 500% The Nation2013Proposed share of homegardensfrom total farmlands Only 20 by 8 metres isneeded for the greenhouse Recurrent management costLabour opportunity cost forgreenhouse cultivation USD 400/ha/year Expert estimate Greenhouse plastic sheets andkit USD 744/greenhouse All cost figuresfrom The Nation201310 labourer for installation USD 237/installationFertilizers, pesticides and seedsetc. USD 338/operation costWater pump systemWith shade net instead ofplastic sheet costs can be USD 100Alternatively, greenhousewith net at USD 446. 169 reduced by 40% RevenuesAverage total crop income inBAU scenario The main farmland canproduce as shown in Tables1 and 2. Table 3 focuses ona 160 m2 area. The tomatoes can be soldfor market price betweenUSD 0.60 to USD 1.20 perkilogram. Income can beUSD 1838 to 2757 at cost ofUSD 1419 => net USD 419to 919. Second and thirdyear is 80% profit asgreenhouse can be used insame spot for 3 yrs. Thengreenhouse must be movedor plant crop changedcompletely to somethingnot related to tomato. The data andfigures are fromarticle in TheNation 2013Estimated average incomeincrease for average farmerfrom greenhouse cultivation oftomatoes. On 160 m2 there canbe 600-650 tomato plants andone get after 2.5 months 10-15kg of tomatoes during 4-6months. Other crops like hotchili, sweet pepper andcucumber etc. can be alsogrown. These vegetables mayeven produce higher profitsthan tomato. Co-benefits  Improved livelihoods and well-being of population  Reduce deforestation & land pressure in rural areas  Salinization (a potential negative co-benefit)  Improved/varied nutrition among rural population  Improved health effects among population  Better education opportunities due to more wealth among rural population 170 Strategic Option 2: Sustainable fuelwood and (commercial) charcoal production Sub-option 1. Commercial small-holder and community bioenergy woodlots Production Unit Uganda SourceIf established on 1 ha of farmfield it is possible to havetaungua agroforestrycultivation with a food crop(e.g. maize) USD 800/ha year UBOS 2015 forwealthier HHs With Sesbania or Calliandrawood can be harvestedannually (vigorous coppicingannually) 15-30 tons/ha/year Christensen 2012 CO2eq increment per year mean 44 tonCO2eq/ha/year Christensen 2012The trees are nitrogen fixersand can at least double cropyieldAnnual fodder during years 2-5 tons offodder/average year Christensen 2012 Investment costLabour opportunity cost forcrop cultivation USD 400 Christensen 2012Labour opportunity cost forbioenergy plantation USD 389 Christensen 2012Input cost for crops USD 60 Christensen 2012andDalipagic & Elepu2014Input cost for treeseedlings/trees USD 162/ha in year 1 Ecotrust info fromMasingi District Recurrent costHarvesting cost of fuelwood Own HH labour at USD5/m3 Expert estimate Revenues 171 Crop revenues as stated aboveAverage fuelwood price paidby rural and small-town urbanhouseholdsUsing/selling of leaf fodder of2-5 tons/year for stall-feedingcows USD 65/ton of fuelwood Set at USD 50. In scientificreports calculated asincreased milk productionper cow at USD 100/year Christensen 2012 Conservativeestimate based onEkou 2014 andILRI 2007 Potential Co-benefits  Improved livelihoods and well-being of population  Sustainable fuelwood, charcoal, pole and timber production;  Organized bioenergy value chains and better taxation opportunities;  Reduced erosion and soil management on large areas;  Nitrogen fixing in soils (with nitrogen-fixing trees);  Better penetration of rain into soils;  Some agroforestry income opportunities. Strategic Option 2: Sustainable fuelwood and (commercial) charcoal production Sub-option 2: Commercial small-holder and community pole and timber plantations Production Unit Uganda SourceIf established on 1 ha of farmfield it is possible to havetaungya agroforestrycultivation with groundnut orother crop Coffee harvesting from year 6to 20 USD 600/ha 1st year, USD450 2nd year and USD 3503rd year UBOS 2015 forrelevant HHs Coffee, cocoa or passion fruitcan be grown under trees withharvest from year 5 to end oftree rotation. 4000kg/year/ha undershade Mean yield 2 kg ofcoffee/tree Kiyingi and Gwali2012 Maesopsis eminii MAI for 20yearsCO2eq increment per year MAI 12 m3/ha/year20.3 CO2eq/ha/year Buchholz et al.2012 Investment cost 172 Labour opportunity cost forcrop cultivation USD 400 Expert estimate Labour opportunity cost fortimber plantation 1st year USD 389 Christensen 2012Annual input cost for crops 1-3yrsInput costs for 1000 coffeeseedlingsAnnual inputs of 1215 kgmanure/ha USD 60USD 135USD 158/year from year 6 Christensen 2012Kiyingi and Gwali2012Kiyingi and Gwali2012 Input cost for treeseedlings/trees USD 162 Ecotrust info fromMasingi District2016 Recurrent costHarvesting cost of fuelwood Own HH labour at USD5/m3 Expert estimateThinning at 5, 10 years8.75 m3 timber + 5 m3fuelwood35 timber + 15 fuelwood Own HH labour at USD17/m3 UTGA 2016 RevenuesCrop revenues as stated aboveAnnual coffee yield should sellforAverage fuelwood price paidby rural and small-town urbanhouseholdsThinning incomes given as1st thinning 8.75 m3 + 5 m3fuelwood2nd thinning 35 m3 + 15 m3fuelwoodFinal cutting 250 m3One big tree may fetch price ofOverall income generation USD 2706/ha/year onaverageUSD 65/ton of fuelwood 8cmx2m pole= USD 4.2A tree with 2 logs of 12fteach (2X366 cm length)sold for USD 14.7 to 29.4USD 265 to 295/maturetreeover whole rotation thenUSD 59,000 + USD 2900for 1 ha Kiyingi and Gwali2012Christensen 2012 Ecotrust info fromMasingi District2016 173 from 400 Maesopis trees givenas Potential Co-benefits  Improved livelihoods and well-being of population  Sustainable fuelwood, charcoal, pole and timber production;  Organized bioenergy value chains and better taxation opportunities;  Reduced erosion and soil management on large areas;  Nitrogen fixing in soils (with nitrogen-fixing trees);  Better penetration of rain into soils;  Some agroforestry income opportunities. Strategic Option 2: Sustainable fuelwood and (commercial) charcoal production  Sub-option 3: Improved charcoal kilns linked to plantation sites:This sub-option has been analyzed in the main report directly based onBagabo et al. (2014) and Kikuru (2014) and information from sub-options2.1 the strategic option. The price of average charcoal sack sold in Ugandawas found in MEMD (2016) National Charcoal Survey. 174 Strategic option 3: Large-scale commercial timber plantations Sub-option 1: Commercial transmission pole and timber plantation Production Unit Uganda SourceEstablishment of stand with1333 seedlings/ha at spacing3x2.5 m MAI expected to be25m3/ha/yr All figures fromUTGA 2016Thinning at years 4, 8 and 9Pruning at years 2, 4, 7 and 13 CO2eq increment in stand 0 (14), 48 and 113 m3 inpoles/logs, respectively.Plus 40% fuelwood1111, 700, 500 & 300stems, respectively.42.2 tons/ha/yearClear-felling at age 25 360 m3/ha Investment costLand lease and surveying USD 272/ha All figures fromUTGA 2016Supervision USD 20/ha/yearRoad construction &maintenanceEstablishment operations USD 15/ha and USD10/ha/yearUSD 381Seedling managementoperationsWeeding in years 4-5 USD 204 in years 1-3USD 45/ha/yr Recurrent costPruning at 3, 7, 9 and 13 USD 29, 34, 37 & 50respect./ha All figures fromUTGAThinning at 2, 4 and 9 USD 100, 662 (+95) and4986 (+170)/ha 2016Clear-felling cost at 25 years USD 15884 (+360)/ha RevenuesThinning at 2, 4 and 9 yearsClear-felling USD 0, 2382 and 15953resp.USD 50823+ fuelwood revenues in Modified fromUTGA 2016 175 thinning and clear-cut980, 896, 1400 and 5040(20% fuelwood) Potential Co-benefits  Increase income generation of commercial transmission pole and timberplantation owners;  Organized fuelwood, charcoal, pole and sawn timber business;  Reduced erosion on large areas;  Support for biodiversity restoration;  Restored aquifers and water-based PES;  Mitigation of climatic change (locally & globally). Strategic option 3: Large-scale commercial timber plantations Sub-option 2: Commercial pole and sawlog plantation Production Unit Uganda SourceEstablishment of stand with1111 seedlings/ha at spacing3x2.5 m MAI expected to be26m3/ha/yr All figures fromUTGA 2016Thinning at years 2, 4, 8 Pruning at years 2, 4, 7 and 9 CO2eq increment in stand 0 (20), 40 and 50m3 inpoles/logs, respectively.Plus 40%fuelwood/thinning.1111, 700, 500 & 300stems, respectively.43.9 tons/ha/year Clear felling at age 25 440 m3/ha Investment costLand lease and surveying USD 272/ha All figures fromUTGASupervision USD 27/ha/year 2016Road construction &maintenanceEstablishment operations USD 15/ha and USD17/ha/yearUSD 381Seedling management USD 204 in years 1-3 176 operationsWeeding in years 4-5Fire protection years 1-25Open area mgt USD 45/ha/yrUSD 10/ha/yearUSD 25/ha/year Recurrent costPruning at 2, 4, and 7 USD 29, 34, 37 & 50respect./ha Modified fromUTGAThinning at 2, 4 and 9 USD 125, 2572 and6000/ha 2016Clear felling cost at 25 years USD 12867/ha RevenuesThinning at 2, 4 and 9 yearsClear-felling USD 0, 2779 and 16942resp.USD 62121+ fuelwood in thinning andclear-cut: USD 1750, 1960,3360 and 6160. Modified fromUTGA 2016 Potential Co-benefits  Increase income generation of commercial transmission pole and timberplantation owners;  Organized fuelwood, charcoal, pole and sawn timber business;  Reduced erosion on large areas;  Support for biodiversity restoration;  Restored aquifers and water-based PES;  Mitigation of climatic change (locally & globally). Strategic option 3: Large-scale commercial timber plantations  Sub-option 3: Improved charcoal kilns linked to plantation sites:This sub-option has been analyzed in the main report directly based onBagabo et al. (2014) and Kikuru (2014) and information from sub-options1 and 2 of the strategic option. The price of average charcoal sack sold inUganda was found in MEMD (2016) National Charcoal Survey. 177 Strategic Option 4. Restoration of natural forests in the landscape Sub-option 1. Designated areas for natural forest regeneration Production Unit Uganda SourceBaseline carbon stock in highnatural forest reserve areas inUgandaCarbon stock in severelydegraded high natural forests Approx. 388 tonCO2eq/ha in aboveground biomass;Approx. 138 tonCO2eq/ha in aboveground biomass. NFA 2016 Annual biomass increment 12 tCO2eq/ha/year Investment costBoundary delineation 1st year USD 7/ha Based on UTGA2016 Recurrent costBoundary maintenance(annual) USD 7/ha/year Based on UTGA2016 and expertestimatePatrol/monitoring and fireprotection USD 14/ha/yearAverage NTFP harvest cost(households) USD 7/year RevenuesAverage NTFP income perhousehold USD 548.7/hh/year Tugume et al.2015 Potential Co-benefitsRestoration of biodiversity (flora and fauna);Reduced erosion on large areas;Various ecotourism income;Medicinal and aromatic plants etc.;Restored aquifers and water-based PES opportunities;Mitigation of local micro climate change; 178 Strategic Option 4. Restoration of natural forests in the landscape Sub-option 2: Restoration of degraded protected natural forest (i.e. national parks and forest reserves) Production Unit Uganda SourceBaseline carbon stock in highnatural forest reserve areas inUgandaCarbon stock in severelydegraded high natural forests Approx. 388 tonCO2eq/ha in aboveground biomass;Approx. 138 tonCO2eq/ha in aboveground biomass. All data based onNFA 2016 Annual biomass increment 13m3/ha/yr or 22tCO2/ha/yrAnnual wood removal(roundwood) starting fromyear 4 forwardAnnual removal of fuelwood On woodlands baselinebiomass (AGB)Annual sustainable incrementis 3m3/ha or 8.4tCO2/ha/year 3m3 or 8.4 tCO2/ha/year 26.2 t/ha0.7 t/ha Investment costBoundary delineation 1st yearPlanting cost (labour andtransport)Seedling cost on high forestland - 400 seedlings (UGX 300)/seedling)Only 200 seedlings planted onwoodlands USD 7/haUSD 8/haUSD 36/ha USD 18 Based on UTGA2016 Recurrent costBoundary maintenance(annual) USD 7/ha/year Based on UTGA2016Patrol/monitoring and fireprotection USD 14/ha/year 179 Thinning Average NTFP harvest cost inhigh forests (households) fromyear 3 forwardOnly NTFP harvest allowed onwoodlands annually from start USD 17/m3 for poles andUSD 6/m3 for fuelwoodUSD 7/year RevenuesAverage NTFP income perhousehold in high forestAverage NTFP income/hh onwoodlands is Harvested poles Harvested fuelwood from year4 USD 548.7/hh (beforeyear 6 only 40% of total);40% of NTFP income inhigh forest or USD208,48/HH/ha USD 140/m3 after year 6 USD 70/m3 Based on Tugumeet al. 2015 Ecotrust info fromMasindi District2016 Potential Co-benefitsRestoration of biodiversity (flora and fauna);Reduced erosion on large areas;Various ecotourism income;Medicinal and aromatic plants etc.;Restored aquifers and water-based PES opportunities;Mitigation of local micro climate change; Strategic Option 4. Restoration of natural forests in the landscape:  Sub-option 3: Devolution of forest management through PFM and similar set-ups:  Sub-option 4: Traditional/customary forest management practices:These two sub-options are intertwined with sub-options 4.1. and 4.2. and dotherefore not need separate financial analysis. 180 Strategic option 5: Energy efficient cooking stoves: Sub-option 1: Energy efficient fuelwood cooking stoves in rural households and institutions Production Unit SourceFuelwood is main energy source forcooking forrural and small town urbanhouseholds (i.e. 4563436 HHs in early2016) and in 948 institutions On average 3323kg/HH/yearamong withtraditional stovein Uganda Further calculatedbased on MEMD,2016 (NationalCharcoal Survey2015) Average fuelwood savings with anEnergy Efficient Cook (EES) stove inHHs and The number of households thatcurrently use energy efficient woodstoves are The average fuelwood savings withEES in institutions is 58% savedfuelwood/HH/yr HHs or 6% oftotal No.fuelwood HHs. 45% savedfuelwood/Inst./yr Traditional institutional fuelwood use And the number of institutions are 29100kg/unit/year 36.1% of 15586institutions useEES Investment costAverage cost to USD 22.4/unit Locally quotedpriceAverage cost to institutions forimproved charcoal stove ininstitutions USD 200/unit/yr Unique 2014 priceinformation Recurrent cost 181 Average fuelwood price paid by ruraland small-town urban households USD 220.6/yearUSD 70/ton offuelwood MEMD 2016(National CharcoalSurvey 2015)UTGA 2016Average cost for fuelwood intraditional institutions Average savings in annual fuelwoodcost once EES stove is in use inhouseholds and savings in institutionson average USD 1931.8/unit/year USD 127.9/unit/yr USD869.3/unit/yr Based on financialanalysis with theabove provideddataBased on financialanalysis with theabove provideddata Potential Co-benefitsLonger life expectance for women All these calculations would need some first priority calculations, which could then be replicated and adjusted over larger areas of irrigated farm lands Better health among the UgandanpopulationBetter livelihood and wealth situationin householdsReduced smoke particle amounts inhouses 182 Strategic option 5: Energy efficient cooking stoves: Sub-option 2: Improved charcoal cooking stoves in rural households and institutions Production Unit SourceCharcoal is main energy source forcooking forurban and wealthier rural households(i.e. 2291210 HHs in early 2016) and33866 institutions On average 962kg/HH/yearamong statedHHs in Uganda All data is got orcalculated based onMEMD 2016(National CharcoalSurvey 2015) These institutions use on average Average charcoal savings with animproved cook stove in householdsAverage charcoal in traditional stoveinstitutions One kilogram charcoal requires 26.2 kg/day or9563 kg 36% savedcharcoal/HH/yr14345kg/unit/year 9 kg of fuelwood The number of households thatcurrently use improved charcoal stovesare Approx. HHs or21.4% of totalNo. charcoalHHs.The number of institutions that use ICSare currently totally 33866 32.9% of allinstitutions useICS Investment costAssumed price paid by household foreach improved cook stoveAssumed price paid by institution foreach improved cook stove USD 10/unit USD 150/unit WWF 2011, UNDP2014 WWF 2011, UNDP2014A stove will last for three years afterwhich a new one is needed. Unique 2014 priceinformation 183 Recurrent costAverage annual charcoal expense paidby urban and wealthier ruralhouseholds when one charcoal bag is HHs’ average savings in annualcharcoal cost once improved charcoalstove is in use USD124.74/year USD 8.1/bag ofcharcoal (+ USD111.89 in someother energyform)USD 44.9/year All figures got orcalculated fromMEMD 2016(National CharcoalSurvey 2015) Trad. institutions pay annually USD forpurchase of charcoal Average weight of charcoal sack inUganda USD1856.1/unit/yr 62.6 kg/charcoalbag on averageduring wet anddry seasonscombined = 15.4sacks/HH/ year Based on financialanalysis with theabove provideddata Potential Co-benefitsLonger life expectance for women All these calculations would need some first priority calculations, which could then be replicated and adjusted over larger areas of irrigated farm lands Better health among the EthiopianpopulationBetter livelihood and wealth situationin householdsReduced smoke particle amounts inhouses 184 Strategic Option 6: Integrated fire management Production Units in Uganda SourceAim of Strategic Option is toreduce wildfires by 70% from2015 situation on each woodyland type in Uganda Target set by theExpert Team Investment cost10 persons in in Uganda getfull integrated wildfiremanagement training in Kenya USD 1200/person Expert estimate100 DFO get full IWF trainingin Uganda USD 250/person(including training,accommodation, traveland food) Expert estimatebased on UTAMUwebsite 2016 Half annual salary expenses of10 specialists USD 12354 Uganda salaryexplorer website2016Half annual salary expenses of100 DFOs USD 11470 Uganda salaryexplorer website2016 Recurrent costAnnual average field budgets(travel expenses, trainingcourses & awarenesscampaigns etc.) of DFOs ineach district for IWF Mgt. USD 1000/district Expert estimate RevenuesReduction in carbon emissionsfrom wildfires in plantationsReduction in carbon emissionsfrom wildfires on woodlandsReduction in carbon emissions USD 7000/ha saved woodexpensesUSD 2200/ha saved woodexpensesUSD 70/m3 of wood saved These figures arebased oncalculations forStrategic Option 4and 5 in thisreport 185 on shrublands, bushlands andgrasslands from burning to ashes Potential Co-benefitsDamages to other people’s property reduced;Increment in AGB and BGB and carbon resources; 186 Annex 2. Legal and policy framework: Key strengths, weaknesses and recommendations /observations Policy/legal instrument Provisions/content relevant to REDD+ Related REDD+ strategic option Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations /observations The EastAfricanClimateChange Policy(2010) Section 3.2 calls uponPartner States toexploit emergingenvironmentalmarkets such asREDD+ through thedesign of favourablepolicy instruments Ruralelectrificationandrenewableenergysolutions Uganda’s currentefforts todevelop aREDD+ NationalStrategy areconsistent withEAC regionalpolicy priorities The policy isnon-legallybinding, andPartner Statesare not obligedto implementthe policy The policy should befollowed bylegislation passedby the regionalparliament to putinto effect theidentified prioritiesand strategiesUgandaForestryPolicy (2001)  Section 3 outlinesvarious policypriorities andstrategies,including theprotection andsustainablemanagement of allgovernment forestreserves.  Section 4 calls forclarifying the roleof districts in forestsector development Sustainablefuelwood and(commercial)charcoal useLarge-scalecommercialtimberplantationsRestorationof naturalforests in thelandscapeEnergyefficientcookingstovesIntegratedwildfiremanagement Except for a fewshortcomings,the forestrypolicy is acomprehensiveinstrument forensuringsustainablemanagement offorest reserveswhich is criticalto REDD+implementation  Inadequateimplementation of thepolicy  Lack ofstrategies onhow to dealwith carbonrightsownership  Devisestrategies toimproveimplementationof the policy  Revise forestrypolicy toprovide policydirections ondealing withcarbon rightsownership UgandaNational LandPolicy (2013)  Under Section 39of the policy, theGovernmentintends to amendthe Land Act andother relevant lawsso as to provideclarity on thenature of landrights.  Under Section 42of the policy, thegovernment willstrengthentraditional landmanagement andadministrationinstitutions  Under Section 46of the policy, thegovernmentintends to resolvethe impassebetween bonafide/lawfuloccupants andregistered owners  Under Section 97of the policy, thegovernment will Large-scalecommercialtimberplantationsRestorationof naturalforests in thelandscape If the strategiesoutlined in thepolicy are fullyimplemented, aconduciveenvironment forREDD+ will becreated  The policy isyet to beoperationalized.  Inadequatefunding forpolicyimplementation  Many of therelevant landlaws such asthe 1995Constitution,the Land Act(Cap 227),and the LandAcquisitionAct (Cap 226)were enactedprior to theadoption ofthe landpolicy, andmay needrevision toaddress someof the issuescovered bythe policy.  Fullyoperationalizethe National LandPolicy, 2013.  In particular,Land Tribunalsshould be quicklyoperationalizedas proposed bythe policy, to helpdeal withdisputes relatedto REDD+.  Recognize andenforce decisionsof traditional landmanagement andadministrationinstitutions asproposed by thepolicy. 187 Policy/legal instrument Provisions/content relevant to REDD+ Related REDD+ strategic option Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations /observations enhance promotionand protection ofland rights  Under Section 115of the policy, thegovernment willrevive theoperations of theland tribunalsThe NationalClimateChange Policy(2015) Under Section 4.3.1of the policy, thecountry’s policypriority on REDD+ isarticulated RuralelectrificationandrenewableenergysolutionsEnergyefficientcookingstoves  Section 5.1.1of the policydescribesinstitutionalarrangementsforimplementation  The policy isaccompaniedby a costedimplementation strategy thatdefines themanner inwhich policypriorities andstrategies willbeimplemented  The effectiveimplementation of thepolicy willrequiresignificantfundingwhose sourceis not clear  Uganda’saccessibilityto the GreenClimate Fundmay behampered bylack ofappropriateinstitutionalframework  The policydoes not setout specifictimelines andsources offinance fortheimplementation of theidentifiedREDD+strategies  Lack ofeffectivecoordinationamongst thevariousimplementinginstitutions  Lack of aclearmandate andresponsibilities of thevariousinstitutionsmay createconflict overthe control ofREDD+ funds  Thenecessarylegal andinstitutionalframeworkforimplementingthe variouspolicypriorities andstrategies is  Clarify the sourceof finances forimplementing thepolicy  Put in place thenecessary toenable thecountry’s accessto the GreenClimate Fund  Clarify themandate of thevariousinstitutions toavoid conflictover control ofREDD+ funds  Put in place thenecessary legalframework tofacilitateimplementationof the policy 188 Policy/legal instrument Provisions/content relevant to REDD+ Related REDD+ strategic option Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations /observations yet to be putin placeThe NationalEnvironmentManagementPolicy forUganda(1994) The goal of the policyis sustainable socialand economicdevelopment whichmaintains orenhancesenvironmentalquality and resourceproductivity Sustainablefuelwood and(commercial)charcoal use The policycontains somerelevantprovisions forthe sustainablemanagement offorests The policy wasadopted whenthe extent of theclimate changeproblem was yetto be fullyunderstood, andas a result itdoes not containelaboratestrategies fordealing with thechallenges ofclimate change,including REDD+ Expedite theapproval of theDraft NationalEnvironmentManagement Policyfor Uganda (2014) UgandaNationalPolicy onConservationandSustainableDevelopmentof WildlifeResources(2014) Section 2.5 of thepolicy outlinesseveral priorities andstrategies includingthose relating to thesustainablemanagement ofwildlife populationsin and outsidewildlife protectedareas Integratedwildfiremanagement The policydescribesstrategies forpartnering withforestry andwetlandmanagementinstitutions andlocalgovernments toeffectivelymanage wildlifein wetlands,forest reservesand private land  The relevantenabling law –the UgandaWildlife Act(Cap 200) –was enacted in1996 beforethe adoption ofthe policy in2014  The policydoes not haveadequatestrategies fordealing withforest reservesunder themanagementof UWA  Revise theUganda WildlifeAct (Cap 200) toprovide for theimplementationof strategieselaborated in thepolicy  Revise policy todescribe adequatestrategies fordealing withforest reservesunder themanagement ofUWA The EnergyPolicy forUganda, 2002& theRenewableEnergy Policyfor Uganda,2007 Both policies outlineUganda’s strategiesaimed at promotingsustainablemanagement of thebiomass resource aswell as renewableenergy sources ofpower (such as solarpower) that relievethe pressure off theforests (Section 4.2.3of the Energy Policy;Section 3.5 of theRenewable EnergyPolicy) Sustainablefuelwood and(commercial)charcoal useRuralelectrificationandrenewableenergysolutionsEnergyefficientcookingstoves Policyinstrumentscontain adequatestrategies forpromotingrenewableenergy andsustainable useof biomass  Limited uptakeof renewableenergy by thepopulation  Inadequateimplementation of the policy  Duplication ofstrategies byadopting 2(RenewableEnergy, 2007and the EnergyPolicy, 2002)  The enablinglaw – theElectricity Act– was enactedin 1999 beforeboth policieswere enacted  Undertakingstudies toevaluate theeffectiveness ofthe two energypolicies  Review bothpolicyinstruments anddevelop oneharmonizedenergy policyinstrument NationalAgriculturePolicy, 2013 The policy describesstrategies to achievefood and nutritionsecurity and improvehousehold incomesthrough coordinatedinterventions thatfocus on enhancingsustainable Climate-smartagricultureLivestockmanagement The policy isheavily focusedon theagriculturalsector The policy doesnot outline anystrategies for thepromotion ofagro-forestrywhich wouldhelp to reducethe rate ofdeforestation Revise the policy todescribe strategiesto curbdeforestation andforest degradationthat are occurring asa result ofagriculturalexpansion 189 Policy/legal instrument Provisions/content relevant to REDD+ Related REDD+ strategic option Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations /observations agriculturalproductivity andvalue addition;providingemploymentopportunities, andpromoting domesticand internationaltrade. and forestdegradation Revise policy toinclude strategiesfor promoting agro-forestryFormulate irrigationpolicyUgandaGender Policy,2005 The policy is a guideto all stakeholders inplanning, resourceallocation,implementation andmonitoring andevaluation ofprogrammes with agender perspective Theimplementationof gender policyhas importantimplications forREDD+considering thatthe actions ofboth men andwomen affect thetrends ofdeforestationand forestdegradation inUganda  Policyprovisions forgendermainstreaming in Ugandaare notbacked up byrelevant legalprovisions  Theenvironmentsub-sectorhas not takendeliberatesteps toensure gendermainstreaming in itsprogrammesand activities The environmentsub-sector needs totake deliberateactions to promotegendermainstreaming inforest management The NationalBiotechnologyand BiosafetyPolicy, 2008 Section 4.3 requiresstrong emphasis tobe placed in priorityareas of agriculture,health, industry,environment, andnatural resourcesdevelopment The policycontainsstrategies for thesafe applicationof biotechnology An enablinglegislation is yetto be enactedalthough Ugandahas developedNationalBiotechnologyand BiosafetyBill, 2012 Expedite theenactment of theNationalBiotechnology andBiosafety Bill, 2012 The NationalWater Policy,1999 The policy underpinsthe importance offorests in theprotection ofcatchments and thewater quality andgeneral survival ofthe water systems The policycontainsadequatestrategies toensurecoordination ofall waterstakeholdersincludingagriculturalproduction,energy, andforestry Poor regulationof waterresources useand complianceto water lawsand regulations Strengthencompliance to waterlaws and regulations UnitedNationsFrameworkConvention onClimateChange(UNFCCC),1992 Article 4 of theUNFCCC sets outcommitments for allparties includingcommitments thatrelate to promotingsustainablemanagement, andconservation andenhancement of sinksand reservoirs of allGHGs Theinternationallegal frameworkprovides a firmfoundation forREDD+implementation Theinternationallegal frameworkis still underdevelopment,and the rules areconstantlychanging.Uganda is yet todomesticate theUNFCCC Uganda shoulddomesticate theUNFCCC so that itsprovisions are partof Uganda’s laws ParisAgreement,2015 Article 5(2) of theParis Agreementprovides for REDD+ The ParisAgreementprovides astronginternationallegal foundationfor countries to Uganda is yet toratify the ParisAgreement. Once ratified,Uganda should takesteps to ratify theParis Agreement 190 Policy/legal instrument Provisions/content relevant to REDD+ Related REDD+ strategic option Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations /observations continue withREDD+ effortsDecision1/CP.16:Cancunagreements Paragraph 71(d) ofDecision 1/CP.16requires that REDD+safeguards should berespected andpromoted by thecountry’s legalframework. TheCancun safeguardsare aimed atprotecting theintegrity of theREDD+ programme,and protecting therights of indigenouspeoples and localcommunities Uganda has inplace severalforestprogrammes andpolicies, and issubject toseveralinternationalagreements, allof which aim atreducingdeforestationand forestdegradation aswell asprotecting therights ofindigenouspeoples and localcommunities The country’spoor record inenforcement oflaws andregulations mayaffect the extentto which theCancunsafeguards arepromoted andrespected Strengthenenforcement ofrelevant laws andregulations toensure promotionand respect forCancun safeguards The ILOConvention169 onIndigenousand TribalPeoples, 1989 Article 2 providesthat indigenouspeoples shall not beforcibly removedfrom their lands orterritories Containsadequateprovisions forthe protection ofthe rights ofindigenouspeoples and localcommunities The conventionis yet to beratified byUganda The conventionshould be ratified byUganda Treaty for theEstablishmentof the EastAfricanCommunity(1999) Article 114 (2) (a)sets out actions thatStates shall take toensure conservationand management offorests Lays thefoundation forthe legalframework onsustainablemanagement offorests. REDD+initiatives areconsistent withthe Treatyprovisions Lack ofcomprehensivelegal frameworkfor thesustainablemanagement offorests at theregional level There is need for aspecific regionallegislation onforests managementin the EAC. In thisrespect, the processfor enacting the EACForest ManagementBill, 2015 should beexpeditedNationalForestry andTree PlantingAct, 2013  Section 4 classifiesforests into variouscategories  Section 15 of theAct gives legalrecognition tocollaborative forestmanagement Sustainablefuelwood and(commercial)charcoal useLarge-scalecommercialtimberplantationsRestorationof naturalforests in thelandscapeEnergyefficientcookingstovesIntegratedwildfiremanagement Containsadequateprovisions forsustainablemanagement offorests includingREDD+implementation  Absence ofprovisions onthe legalownership ofcarbon rights.  Absence oflegalprovisionsproviding forthe role oflocalgovernmentsin themanagementof CentralForestReserves  Absence of alaw on REDD+benefitsharing, whichmay be atrigger forconflicts andgrievances  The Actrestricts theapplication ofCFM to only  Introduce specificlegal provisionsthat define carbonrights; andprovide elaborateprocedures fortheir registration  The Act should beamended tointroduce legalprovisionsproviding for therole of localgovernments inthe managementof forestryresources  Introduce legalprovisions onREDD+ benefitsharing  The Act should beamended toprovide for theapplication of CFMto all forest typesincluding privateand communityforests 191 Policy/legal instrument Provisions/content relevant to REDD+ Related REDD+ strategic option Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations /observations central andlocal forestreserves  Somestructuressuch asForestryCommitteesestablishedunder the Actare notoperational  ForestryCommitteesshould be quicklyoperationalized atthe local level Draft NationalForestry andTree PlantingRegulations,2013 Regulation 107defines carbon sellers  Facilitateimplementation of the Act The attempt todefine carbonsellers andbuyers underthe Regulationsis ambiguousand contradictsthe provisions ofthe NationalForestry andTree PlantingAct, 2013.  ReviseRegulationsand removeambiguousprovisions thatcontradict theNationalForestry andTree PlantingAct, 2013.  The issue ofcarbon rightsownershipshould be dealtwith throughan amendmentof the NationalForestry andTree PlantingAct, 2013 orthrough acompletelynew Act ofParliamentaltogether. The NationalEnvironmentAct (Cap 153Laws ofUganda)  Section 45 of theAct requiresNEMA to issueguidelines andprescribemeasures for themanagement of allforests in Uganda  Section 46 of theAct requiresNEMA to promotethe use ofrenewable sources Sustainablefuelwood and(commercial)charcoal use The ActempowersNEMA tocompliment theefforts of NFA insustainableforestrymanagement  Limitedmanpower andfinancialcapacities havehampered theeffectiveimplementation of the Act  Institutionsestablished bythe Act such asdistrict andlocalenvironmentcommitteesare not fullyoperationaldue resourceand capacityconstraints  The Act wasenacted in1995 and doesnot coverissues related  Provide financialresources tofacilitateimplementation ofthe Act  Establishinstitutions underthe Act such asdistrict and localenvironment  Revise Act tocover currentissues such asREDD+ and otherincentive basedmechanisms  Revise Act andprovide disputeresolutionmechanism forREDD+ and othersenvironmentaldisputes 192 Policy/legal instrument Provisions/content relevant to REDD+ Related REDD+ strategic option Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations /observations to climatechangemitigationsuch as REDD+  The Act doesnot adequatelyprovide for keyenvironmentalmanagementprinciples suchas the use ofeconomicinstruments toenhanceenvironmentalmanagementLand Act (Cap227)  Section 2 of theAct provides forfour main landtenure systems  Section 34 of theAct provides that aperson who ownsland should utilizeit in accordancewith governingenvironment andforestry sectors Large-scalecommercialtimberplantationsRestorationof naturalforests in thelandscape  Despite itsshortcomings,the Act hasprovisionsthat enablethesustainableuse andutilization ofland  The Actrecognisescompetinginterests oflawful/bonafide occupantsand registeredland ownerson the samepiece of landwhich is atrigger ofconflicts andgrievances  Gaps in thecurrent lawpermitinstitutions tode-gazetteforest reserves  Gaps in thecurrent lawpermitgovernment tocompulsorilyacquire landincludingforestsreserveswithoutpromptpayment of afair andadequatecompensation  Amend the Act toremove therecognition ofcompetinginterests over thesame piece of land  Developguidelinesprescribing termsand conditions formanagement of allland held byDistrict LandBoards in trust forthe citizens ofUganda  Revise law toensure thatgovernmentpromptly paysadequatecompensation incases ofcompulsoryacquisition of land  Revise law andspecify terms andconditions underwhich institutionscan de-gazetteforest reserves  Revive operationsof land tribunalsunder the Act toenhance conflictresolutionThe LocalGovernmentsAct (Cap 243Laws ofUganda) Section 2 of the Actgives effect to thedecentralisation offunctions, powers,responsibilities andservices at all levelsof local governments The localgovernmentsystem can be animportantavenue throughwhichsustainablemanagement offorests can beachieved  Inadequateimplementation of Act has ledto a weak localgovernmentsystem  Diminishingsources ofrevenue forlocalgovernments,with theabolition ofgraduated tax Amend the Act toenhance the role oflocal governmentsin the managementcentral forestreserves The UgandaWildlife Act(Cap 200Laws of Section 2 of the Actprovides for thepromotion andconservation of The Act hasadequateprovisions forthe conservation  The Act doesnot containany specificprovisions  Amend Act tospecify theresponsibilities ofUWA in managing 193 Policy/legal instrument Provisions/content relevant to REDD+ Related REDD+ strategic option Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations /observations Uganda) wildlife throughoutUganda of wildlife inUganda regulating themanagementof forestsunder thecontrol ofUWA  The Act doesnot haveRegulations tofacilitateimplementation forests undertheir control  DevelopRegulations underthe Act tofacilitateimplementation The PublicFinanceManagementAct, 2015 The Act regulatesvarious aspects ofpublic financemanagement inUganda Section 75(1) ofthe Act providesthat the centralgovernmentshall retain 94percent of therevenue fromroyalties arisingfrom petroleumproduction andthe remaining 6percent shall beshared amongthe localgovernmentslocated withinthe petroleumexploration andproduction areasof Uganda. Thisis an example ofhow REDD+financial benefitscan be shared There are nospecificprovisions onthe sharing ofREDD+ financialbenefits Legal provisionscould beincorporated toenable localgovernments retaina percentage of thefinancial benefitsaccruing fromREDD+ projects. The ElectricityAct, 1999 Section 63 providesthat the Governmentshall promote,support and providerural electrificationprogrammes throughpublic and privatesector participation Ruralelectrificationandrenewableenergysolutions The Act providesthe necessaryregulatoryframework toenable thepopulation toincrease accessto electricity,thus helping toreduce pressureon forests as asource of energy  The Act lacksadequatesanctions fornon-compliancewithregulatoryrequirements  The Act doesnot providefor thedevelopmentof trans-boundaryelectricityprojects  The Act doesnot providefor theestablishmentof the RuralElectrificationAgency as anautonomousagency thusaffecting itsability todeliver  The Actimposes a 5%ruralelectrificationlevy whichdiscourages  The Act should beamended toreconstitute theRuralElectrificationFund as an integralpart of the RuralElectrificationAgency as anautonomousauthority of theGovernment  The Act shouldalso be amendedto strengthensanctions for non-compliance withregulatoryrequirements 194 Policy/legal instrument Provisions/content relevant to REDD+ Related REDD+ strategic option Strengths Weaknesses Recommendations /observations the privatesector to takeon projects inrural areas 195 Annex 3. Identified environmental and social impacts Strategic Option and sub option Environmental impacts Social impacts Positive Negative Positive Negative Strategic option 1: Climate smart agriculture 196 SLM and agroforestry practices; Rainwater harvesting with collection tank and drip irrigation; Greenhouse cultivation of vegetables; Reduced GHG emissionsReduced clearance offorestland for agricultureReduced encroachment onwetlands and otherprotected areasIncreased crop yield andfood production on smallerparcels of landWidespread/increasedadoption of multipurposeproduction of crops, fodder,wood, medicinal plants, etc.,on the same piece of landIncreased tree cover fromagroforestryImproved CC resilience ofagricultureImproved microclimateReduction of water-stress ofcrops or even reducedwilting or death of cropsImproved ecosystemstabilityReduced soil erosion andlandslidesImproved soil structureIncreased water holdingcapacity of soilIncreased water availability Increased nutrient load fromfertilizers leading toeutrophication of waterbodiesCultivation of somevegetables that are morepest prone, such as tomatoes Improved incomes andlivelihoods, also for poorhouseholdsReduced workload withimproved technologiesIncreased water availabilityImproved food securityImproved employmentopportunitiesBusiness-oriented andcommercial operationsmade possible through thevalue chainIncreased adaptation toclimate change, therebyreduced risks.Marginalized households canparticipate and benefit (ifgrants provided)Improved water security andconservationIncreased revenues for taxcollectionImproved service deliveryReduced domestic violenceand child-trafficking(children are nowsometimes moved whenfamilies can’t feed them)Reduced land-related Loss of traditionalagricultural practicesInequitable participationand benefiting from thetechnologies of CSA. 197 from rainwater harvestingEnhanced biodiversity inagroforestry systems conflictsEnhanced social capitalIncreased knowledge andskillsIncreased tax-payingcapacity Strategic option 2: Sustainable fuelwood and (commercial) charcoal production Commercial mall-holder and community bioenergy woodlots; Commercial mall-holder and community poles and timber plantations; Improved charcoal kilns linked to bioenergy woodlots Reduced GHG emissionsReduced pressure on naturalforestsIncreased tree cover andcarbon stocksSustainable supply of woodfor fuel and charcoalIncreased efficiency incharcoal productionReduced soil erosion andlandslidesImproved soil structure (inrelation to fuel woodlots)Positive nutrient fertilizereffects from integratedmulti-storey agroforestryproductionIncreased moisture in fieldmicro-climateSustainable and nutritiousfodder production thatenables stall-feeding andcow milk production Reduced groundwaterquantity by some treespecies 4-6 times higher householdincome generationBusiness-oriented andcommercial operationsmade possibleOrganised and increasedcharcoal production whichattracts fundingEmployment opportunitiesReduced conflicts overaccess to fuel wood andcharcoalImproved energy securityImproved tenure securityImproved food securityReduced time and burdensof collecting firewoodespecially on women andchildren.Women can use charcoalresidues for makingbriquettesEnhanced skills in making, Displacement of foodproductionReduced traditionalecological knowledge 198 installing, maintaining andselling of energy stovesIncreased sustainable supplyof wood for energyIncreased tax-payingcapacity Strategic option 3: Large-scale commercial timber plantations Commercial transmission pole and timber plantation; Commercial pole and sawlog plantation Improved charcoal kilns linked to plantation sites Reduced GHG emissionsReduced pressure on naturalforests for timber, enablingnatural forests to regeneratehence biodiversity will berestored and conservedEnhanced ecologicalfunctions e.g. microclimaticregulations, nutrient cycling,erosion controlHigh recovery rates ofharvested trees fromplantations (charcoalproduction) Loss of natural ecosystemsIncreased nutrient load fromfertilizers leading toeutrophication of waterbodiesPollution from chemicalswith effects on biodiversity,e.g. loss of pollinatorsReduced groundwaterquantity by some treespecies(disturbance/reduction offlow to water springs) Increased income forplantation ownersEmployment opportunitiesfor local workersSocial services (CSR) fromplantations ownersIncreased profitability ofplantation forestry fromdiversified productsTax income for authoritiesKnowledge and skills fromplantation development,management, MRV, etcTechnology transfer towardscommercialization ofplantation, andindustrializationImproved tenure securityImproved social cohesionamongst plantation workersAccess to wood leading toenergy securityIncome and revenue from Competition for land withfood productionHuman-wildlife conflictsRisk of eviction of illegalsettlers in forest reserves(included in table of risksbelow). 199 commercial exports Strategic option 4: Restoration of natural forests in the landscape Designated areas for natural forest regeneration; Protected natural forest management (i.e. national parks and forest reserves); Devolution of forest management through PFM and similar set-ups; Traditional/customary forest management practices Reduced GHG emissionsImproved condition of therehabilitated natural forestsIncreased forest biodiversityconservation, includingimproved habitat for wildlifeand increased wildlifepopulationHalted forest degradationthrough enrichment plantingand reforestation withindigenous speciesImproved ecosystemservices, including waterresources No serious environmentalproblem identified Organized and increasedforest-based incomegeneration for forest-adjacent communities,including from value addedactivities e.g. handicraft;honey; nurseries; boundarypatrols, etc.Improved contribution offorest to other sectors of theeconomyContinuation of forest-basedcultural servicesOrganized forestmanagement for bothselective timber and NTFPcollection as agreed inCFM/PFM.Improved institutionalcollaboration betweencommunities.Continued cultural andeducational practices,including Conservation ofhigh cultural and heritagevaluesIncreased tourism potentialand revenue for bothcommunity and national Continued or increasedhuman-wildlife conflictsDistortion of social normsand systems 200 level playersTenure security for privateand communal areasReduced conflict arisingfrom clearly demarcatedboundaries Strategic option 5: Energy efficient cooking stoves For fuelwood; For charcoal Substantially reduced fuelwood and charcoalconsumptionSubstantial reduction incarbon emissionsSubstantially reducedpressure on natural forestfor fuel and charcoal No serious environmentalproblem identified Improved health throughreduction of respiratoryproblems associated withexposure to air pollutantsfrom burning woodReduced burn injuries,especially among childrenTime freed to attend otheractivities, especially forwomen and girlsIncome savings due toreduced expenditure oncharcoal and firewoodEmployment in stoveproductionIncreased small-scalebusiness knowledgeReduced violence againstgirls and women collectingwood far away.Increased awareness amongboth urban and ruralhouseholds Loss of social constructsassociated with traditionalcooking methods andcuisines 201 Strategic option 6: Integrated wildfire management Reduction of GHG emissionsEnhanced nutrient retention,nutrient recycling andorganic matter in soilsleading to higher crop yieldsin the long runImproved management ofgrassland and woodlands(for grazers and browsers)Enhanced habitatheterogeneityIncreased forage fordomestic and wildlife fromtree leaves and bushes (butnot grasses)Reduced air temperaturesand drynessReduced air pollutionIncreased naturalregeneration of some speciesIncreased protection ofbiodiversity (includingnesting sites, plants and slowmoving above ground andunder the ground fauna) Loss or displacement ofbiodiversityIncreases in susceptibility toinvasivenessReduced regeneration ofspecies that need fire/heatto germinate Reduced loss of propertyand life (humans, livestockand crops) due to fireWeed and pest controlIncreased land productivity(reduced weeds, reducedcosts for land preparation,reduced pests, forageimprovement, etc.)Increased probabilities forhunting successReduced respiratoryproblems in wildfire season Disrupts/interferes with thecultural values and practicesassociated with wildfires Strategic option 7: Livestock rearing in Cattle Corridor Livestock breeding improvements Fodder agroforestry plantations Reduced GHG emissionintensityReduced pressure on Displacement or loss ofbiodiversity (vegetationmanipulation, acaricides Increased communityresilience to livelihoodshocks Land use conflicts betweenlivestock, crops and wildlifeDisrupted culturalvalues/attachments and 202 Water dams and tanks as livestock drinking water rangeland ecosystems/improved rangelandconditionsEnhanced rangelandenvironmental servicesIncreased rangelandsresilience to climate changeIncreased land-use efficiencyReduced farmland expansionImproved milk & meatproduction per hectareReduced pressure on naturalhabitatsImproved microclimateImproved soil fertility andproductivityReduction of water stress oflivestock and peopleIncreased tree cover fromagroforestry disposals, vermin/problemanimal management)Trampling of vegetationaround water dams andtanks Increased access to waterIncreased household incomeImproved employmentsituationImprovement of humannutritional needsIncreased social esteemwhen livestock rearing ispossible traditional systems Strategic option 8: Strengthening of policy implementation for REDD+Strengthened capacity of theREDD+ strategic options toreach their target levelsthrough updated, revisedand enforced policies, withboth carbon emissionreduction andenvironmental benefitsStringent enforcement and Great benefits to majority ofUgandan households fromenforced and updatedpoliciesSocial and climate changegoals of Uganda reachedthrough enforcement ofpolicies and laws, withimproved national income 203 new and better anti-corruption policies andguidelines, necessary toreach REDD+ goals generation and tax-payingability Annex 4. Risks associated with implementation of the Strategic Options, with comments Environmental Risks Social Risks Comments Strategic option 1: Climate smart agriculture 204 Environmental Risks Social Risks CommentsPollution from improper disposal of plasticcoverings of greenhouses.Aquatic and ecotoxicology and humantoxicology from pesticides. Land tenure issues not addressed and solvedenough.Low adoption of technologies by poorcommunities due to high initial costs.Forest dependent communities like the Batwaexcluded since they are not agriculturalists anddon’t own land. Eutrophication of water bodies possible with badmanagement of agro-inputs (fertilizers, pesticides,etc.)Introduced species might interfere with the foodweb.Need of careful screening of agroforestry tree speciesto prioritise e.g. fruit and nitrogen fixing trees.Clear tenure situation is a prerequisite for people’swillingness to invest in improved land productivity.Special interventions will be necessary for forestdependent communities.Extension services neededSome labour-intensive CSA activities could lead tochild labour and increased costs.Risk of increased inequalities: the rich will be able toincrease their production and the poor remainlagging behind.The technologies are unaffordable for landless, thosewith very small pieces of land and indigenousmarginalised groups.Women should have right to take part in family landuse decisions.Poor infrastructure such as grass roofed housesmeans that one cannot harvest water.Being exposed to climate change, there might beincreased food insecurity for communities who 205 Environmental Risks Social Risks Commentscannot afford irrigation or greenhouses.Greenhouse must be moved to a new soil area afterevery 3 years in order not to increase harmful soilmicrobes too muchThe same vegetables or closely related ones shouldnot be cultivated in the same greenhouse for morethan 3 years in a row before rotating crop Strategic option 2: Sustainable fuel wood and (commercial) charcoal productionImbalance between native species and exoticsresulting into dominance of monocultures withtheir effects.Cutting down of private natural forests to planthigh value plantation wood species.Improper site-species matching.Reduced natural and indigenous tree andherbaceous species if degraded forestsconverted to woodlots. Land tenure issues not addressed and solvedenough.Food insecurity at household level because oftrees grown on agricultural land.Loss of biodiversity and ecological resilience (ifbioenergy woodlots displace/substitutenatural ecosystems).Improper or inadequate market survey for thecharcoal value chain, leading to localcommunities not benefitting from the charcoalbusiness.Increased woodlot boundary conflicts. Important to ensure that woodlot establishment ison degraded or bare land where it is unlikely thatnatural forests will ever return.Existing land laws need be enforced. Clear tenuresituation is a prerequisite for people’s willingness toinvest in private woodlots.Competing land uses amidst the limited landholdings might lead to fragile ecosystems likewetlands and natural forests being converted.Commercial charcoal making based on naturalforests must be stopped to reduce illegalcompetition.Extension services needed.Banking sector should develop lending and servicesto small-scale operations (woodlots, kilns).Increased income gaps between men and women, asthe later hardly engage in commercial tree growingon family land. 206 Environmental Risks Social Risks CommentsIncentives needed for rural poor to participate inprofitable charcoal business.Long-term land and tree tenure security need besolved for indigenous people for them to participate.Flexibility in stove design needed in relation tocooking pots, size of kitchens and households. Strategic option 3: Large-scale commercial timber plantationsImbalance between native species and exoticsresulting into dominance of monocultures withtheir effects.Damage to soil from mechanized operations oflarge scale commercial forestry.Loss of natural forest if natural forests are cutdown to plant timber value species.Improper site-species matching with risk ofdiseases and low yields.Siltation of water bodies unless mitigationmeasures against erosion are put in place.Encroachment for food production on fragileecosystems like wetlands and natural forestswhen land is taken for plantationsPlantation damage by wildfires and pests (suchas termites) with reduced positive effects.Habitat fragmentation. Land tenure issues not addressed to goodenough solution, with risks of land grabbing,leaving communities more impoverished, thusincreasing their dependence on naturalresourcesLack of or limited knowledge among localcommunities on incentives and BSAarrangements leading to people not getting thebenefits and/or being exploited by the privatesector.Food insecurity if turning productiveagricultural land to wood production.Increased tenure insecurity.Eviction of illegal settlers in forest reserves.Vermin from the plantations causing conflictsbetween plantation owners and communities.Historically established customary access toland denied local communities. Important to ensure that forest plantationestablishment is on degraded or bare land where it isunlikely that natural forests will ever return.Most timber from natural forest need be proclaimedillegal, with the exception of sustainably managedwood from PFM/CFM.With bad or no land-use planning plantations mayfragment pervious contiguous natural systems,displacing natural forests and woodlands.In-migrated plantation workers may cause trouble.There might be fuel wood scarcity for the rural pooras most wood residues used for charcoal.Increased income inequality, the rich will benefitmore from large scale tree growing than the poorcommunities.Large plantations may serve as hide-outs forcriminals.Charcoal making/trading often dominated byoutsiders, making the option less beneficial to the 207 Environmental Risks Social Risks Commentslocal communities.Local livelihoods should be integrated into forestplantation management plans. Strategic option 4: Restoration of natural forests in the landscapeForest closure and restricted access might leadto depletion of natural forests on private land,and growing food in the wetlands [assumingthe current wetlands strategy remainsunimplemented].Failed PFM and similar set-ups may result intoopen access scenarios resulting into continuedforest loss and degradationLack of enforcement of CFM agreementsresulting in continued forest degradation. Land tenure issues not addressed and solvedenough.Forest boundaries not well established whichmeans that evictions of illegal settlers,cancelling of illegal titles, and closure to ensureregeneration will not be effective and there willbe recurrent encroachment activities and highcosts of enforcement.Issues of the indigenous forest dependentcommunities who have a history of eviction notbeing solved, plus increased population, maylead to increased use of forests.Benefits from CFM too small to refraincommunities from forest degradation.Elite capture and continued poor forestmanagement if governance issues not takencare of e.g. accountability and transparency,institutional coordination and capacity buildingfor relevant institutions, including LG, and clearimplementation arrangements.Political will too low to ensure tangibleinvestment, avoid interference in forestmanagement, poor strategy implementation Close collaboration between NFA/UWA/DFS andlocal communities, plus SFM plans, needed to makedevolution of forest management a success, avoidinge.g. over-harvesting of NTFPs.A large number of CFM/PFM must be prepared andagreed early on to get good mandate forcommunities to protect their nearby forests againstintruders of various kind.New legislation needed for management of privatenatural forests.Closures or restricted entry to protected areas maylead to communities depleting forests on privateland for agricultural and forest dependency needs.Vermin from the forests may destroy food crops.Risk for CFM agreements leaving out women andchildren. Better CFM arrangements needed.Some people hold land titles in target areas.Risk for increased scarcity of forest resourcesneeded by communities when in crisis.Clear mandate needed for adjacent communities tokeep out people from outside. 208 Environmental Risks Social Risks Commentsand forestry land grabbing. Strategic option 5: Energy efficient cooking stovesIntroduction of and increased environmentalwaste at the end of stoves’ lifespan. Lack of diverse, context-fit cook-stoves to suitedifferent communities, leading to low adoptionof the technologies.Poor gender considerations in technologydevelopment leading to low adoption rate.Inadequate Extension Services to ensure wideradoption of technologies.Inhibitive prices of technologies making itdifficult for very poor indigenous, marginalisedand forest dependent communities. Some types of stoves are faster than traditionalstoves and people need to get used to this.The stoves need to be renewed every three years.Traditional methods still used unless issues relatedto size of cooking pots, cooking time, and initial costsare addressed.Risk of insect problems since less smoke to penetratethatched roofs. Strategic option 6: Integrated wildfire managementUncontrollable fires: wild fires will be hard tocontrol in areas where there are absenteelandlords with big tracts of land neighbouringlandless and poor people. Traditional free-grazing cattle herdersopposing fighting wildfiresNo or limited wish by local communities tochange practices and behaviour to manage fireappropriately.Little interest in fire management amongstakeholders (public, semi-public, associativeand private).Accidents using fire to manage woodlands,grasslands and seasonal wetlands. No or little funding when Government not havingresources and donors not interested funding theactivities.Some decision-makers at national, regional and locallevel may be reluctant to a project that could changetheir habits.Using fire to manage woodlands, grasslands andseasonal wetlands affect biodiversity forms (bothplants and animals) with low resilience to fires.Some invasive plant and grass species tend to bemore resilient to fires and use of fire would/couldfavour their flourishing thereby taking over 209 Environmental Risks Social Risks Comments/displacing the non-resilient plants/grasses.Land tenure issues and clear ownership rights mustbe settled to reduce wildfires.National level trans-boundary burning practices e.g.by the Turkana in Karamoja region will be hard tocontrol. Strategic option 7: Livestock rearing in Cattle CorridorIncreasing human population and a therebyincreasing cattle population causeenvironmental risks not possible to mitigate.Poor animal health support.Conversion of rangelands to croplands leadingto shortage of forage (referring to Karamoja).Prolonged drought spellsInvasive grass species (not palatable ones) thattake over pasture lands in some places Land tenure issues not addressed and solvedenough, including land conflicts withneighbours over grazing.Credit facilities not available, needed forrestocking and infrastructural development.Slow development of water ponds leading topoor watering facilities for livestock.Limited extension support, needed for geneticpotential, providing proper nutrition andensuring animal health.Slow uptake of crossbreeds.Animal thefts. Some households may expand their herd and thusincrease environmental pressure.Need to sort out unclear and unsecure land tenure.Need for land use planning and related conflictresolution.Planning need to take account of the multiple rolesand functions of livestock for resource poor farmers:food source, farm input supplier (manure, traction),insurance and an entry point towards a moremarket-oriented production.Many drugs provided by veterinary services may beuseless in curing the livestock. Strategic option 8: Strengthening of policy implementation for REDD+Skills and capacities for environmental policymaking and enforcement not strengthenedenough.Remaining corruption destroys large parts ofany environmental and climate changemitigation efforts Skills and capacities for social policy makingand enforcement not strengthened enough.Remaining corruption may still createobstacles to social policy enforcement.Opposition to more stringent policyenforcement from some policy makers who Nothing negative found in this as whole Ugandansociety and economy will benefit from good policyenforcement.This Strategic Option is a priority option before anyother option as otherwise already achieved goals willbe wasted. 210 Environmental Risks Social Risks CommentsMuch achievements lost or distorted unlessgood fiscal rules and regulations are followedproperly. themselves have been involved in corruption.Much achievements lost or distorted unlessgood fiscal rules and regulations are followedproperly. Good capacity building and training programmesneeded.Anti-corruption measures must be compulsory at allstages of national REDD+ programme.