1) The document reviews Uganda's policy framework for belowground biodiversity conservation and identifies gaps in coverage of belowground biodiversity. 2) Key findings include that while several policies address environmental conservation, coverage of belowground biodiversity is minimal. Four policy briefs were developed to address this. 3) Challenges to effective belowground biodiversity conservation in Uganda include lack of awareness, political interference, delays in policy ratification, and inadequate research and infrastructure. Recommendations focus on strengthening the policy framework and increasing capacity for belowground biodiversity management.

1. 5/27/2010
BGBD POLICY CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Human welfare
Soliciting for prominence of belowground
biodiversity conservation and management BGBD
ESs BGBD REGULATORY
ROLE
in the national policy framework Threats
M. C. Rwakaikara-Silver, Lwakuba A, Okwakol M.J.N., Kalule ssewaali , J and Muwanga. S
BGBD Uganda
Mitigation
Adaptability
POLICIES
INTERVENTIONS
Policy efforts in Uganda: Review Policy efforts---
• There are several policies, legislations &
• What is a Policy? plans for environmental conservation but
BGBD coverage is minimal!
Govt statement (s) with clear aims goals
aims, goals,
objectives & strategies to address current • Influencing policy requires thorough review
concern (s) (e.g. BGBD threats)
of current policies, plans & other
instruments
Methodology
Objective
• Participatory meetings, consultations, surveys, interviews( self /
consultant administered), focus group discussions, workshops to
corroborate the findings (Consultant & Project team).
• Establish extent BGBD concerns/ threats • Respondents ?
had been captured, identify gaps / • National level e.g. P/Ss & Commissioners in Gvt. line ministries,
NGOs
synergies & make recommendations
through policy briefs • Local level: e.g. Chairpersons LC1, Secretary for production at both
levels(3 & 5) National & local NGOs & CBOs
• Produced policy briefs for targeted policy level player, NPA, ENR
sector ( Consultant & Project team)
1

2. 5/27/2010
Results
Data analysis
Ranked policy
Policy
Rank
Policies categorized based on Relevancy
National Environment Management
scored using liekard scale from 1-5; Policy
5
The National Land Use Policy (2008)
5
1= not relevant. 2= less relevant, 3= relevant, 4 fairly
relevant & 5= very relevant
The National Bio-technology and Bio-
safety Policy (2008)
5
Ranked plans Results cont’d
Plan Rank • Eleven (11) policies reviewed & ranked
The Draft Uganda National Biodiversity 5
Strategy and Action Plan NBSAP • None of policies or plans specifically
The National Environment Action Plan 5 targeted BGBD
t t d
for Uganda, 1995 NEAP
Plan for Modernization of Agriculture- 5
PMA (2000) PMA • Four policy briefs prepared awaiting
The National Agricultural Advisory printing
5
Services Program (2000) NAADS
Challenges
Results cont’d • Information & capacity on soils & particularly
soil biology still inadequate
• None plans specifically targeted BGBD
• Inadequate infrastructure e.g. human,
• Thus BGBD had low priority ranking, institutional & administrative capacities limited
hence poorly provided f i resource
h l id d for in
allocation, e.g. funding • Lack of awareness; most stakeholders are not
aware of the policies besides the impact their
activities have on the components of the
environment
2

3. 5/27/2010
Challenges cont’d Policy Briefs
• Livelihoods mostly derived from natural • From policy review findings plus scientific
resources subjecting them to undue data from BGBD studies; it was necessary
pressures to communicate to policy level
stakeholders
• Political interference
• Policy brief one the communication
• Delays in policy ratification e.g. Soils channel to precisely convey message to
Policy, since Year 2000! policy makers
Policy Briefs Policy briefs cont’d
1. Invasive Alien species; 2009 happened 1. Sector Committee on ENR, in 2003 set
to be year of biodiversity, in Uganda up committee for NR issues
mainly focused on Plants
2. Academia (mainly tertiary education
2 A d i ( i l t ti d ti
2. National Planning Authority institutions) Mak had 0-5% BGBD in
Uganda completed Devp plan 2009-2018 their degree programmes
Launched 2010, wanted BGBD captured,
200m UGSh for BGBD coming budget,
Conclusions Some recommendation
• Regular reviews of policies & plans to
capture CSM-BGBD • Commit a strong NGO or civil society
• Take Advantages of non-concluded (Uganda National Farmers Federation,
policies to include BGBD. Environmental Alert, NOGUM)
organization/s to lobby for effective
• Need for supportive and enabling strategies for CSM- BGBD conservation.
international and national l
i t ti l d ti l legal f
l framework
k
on issues of BGBD • Streamline implementation of conservation
• Capacity building and Research into CSM-BGBD activities in the country.
BGBD issues
• Set up a conservation fund for CSM –
BGBD.
3

4. 5/27/2010
Recomm cont’d Way Forward
• Government should develop a policy • Course on Biological Management of
specifically on CSM – BGBD at national Tropical soils
and (bylaws) at district levels.
• C f
Conference on soil bi di
il biodiversity July
it J l
• For lasting impact, target specific 2011
awareness programs and activities on
BGBD. • Soil Quality Institute of Uganda
acknowledgement
• Consultants who worked on policy review & briefs END
• Stakeholders at workshops for their input
• Collaborators & respondents
THANK YOU
• Mak, CIAT-TSBF, UNEP, GEF
4