forest and timber trade flows to and countries uganda study

ForestGovernanceandTimberTradeFlowswithin,toandfromEasternandSouthernAfrican

Countries

UgandaStudy

February 2014

Timber Trade flows within, to and from East African Countries – Uganda Country Report 2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................................................ 4

BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................... 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 7

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 10

2. THE FORESTRY SECTOR ............................................................................................................................. 10

3. CITES ........................................................................................................................................................ 11

4. THE FOREST ADMINISTRATION ................................................................................................................. 11

5. THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK FOR TIMBER PRODUCTION AND HARVESTING, PROCESSING, TRANSPORT AND MARKETING .............................................................................................................................................. 12

5.1 POLICY FRAMEWORK .......................................................................................................................................... 12 5.2 JURISPRUDENCE AND ADJUDICATION FOR FORESTRY IN UGANDA ................................................................................. 12 5.3 STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................................................................................. 13 5.4 LICENSING PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................................................... 16 5.5 TIMBER TRACING SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................... 17 5.6 LAW ENFORCEMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 18 5.7 DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS .................................................................................................................................... 19 5.8 REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPORT OF FOREST PRODUCTS .................................................................................................. 19 5.9 CERTIFICATION SYSTEMS ...................................................................................................................................... 19 5.10 TRANSPARENCY IN THE SECTOR ........................................................................................................................ 20 5.11 INFORMATION AND MONITORING SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 20

6. THE FUELWOOD MARKET ......................................................................................................................... 20

7. FOREST UTILISATION ................................................................................................................................ 21

8. THE FOREST INDUSTRY SECTOR AND DOMESTIC TIMBER MARKET ............................................................ 22

9. TIMBER TRADE ......................................................................................................................................... 22

9.1 OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................................ 22 9.2 IMPORTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 22 9.3 EXPORTS ........................................................................................................................................................... 23 9.4 CUSTOMS PROCEDURES ....................................................................................................................................... 32

10. TRENDS AND KEY ISSUES .......................................................................................................................... 32

11. ANECDOTAL INFORMATION AND STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS ON ILLEGAL LOGGING AND TRADE ........... 32

11.1 ILLEGAL TRADE IN TIMBER FROM DRC TO UGANDA .............................................................................................. 32 11.2 SMUGGLING ACROSS BORDERS ......................................................................................................................... 33 11.3 UNDER DECLARATIONS OF VOLUMES ................................................................................................................. 33 11.4 MIXING DRC TIMBER WITH LOCAL TIMBER ........................................................................................................ 34 11.5 MIXING SPECIES AND SIZES .............................................................................................................................. 34 11.6 MIXING TIMBER WITH OTHER COMMODITIES ..................................................................................................... 34 11.7 COUNTERFEITS .............................................................................................................................................. 34 11.8 UNAUTHORISED SAWING ................................................................................................................................ 34

12. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................ 35

12.1 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................... 35 12.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................................................... 35

National .............................................................................................................................................................. 35 POLITICAL SUPPORT ..................................................................................................................................................... 35


PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................................................................................................ 35 PRIVATE FORESTRY ....................................................................................................................................................... 36

Regional ............................................................................................................................................................. 36 INTEGRITY AND TRANSPARENCY ...................................................................................................................................... 36 CROSS‐BORDER FLEGT MECHANISMS ............................................................................................................................. 36

International ...................................................................................................................................................... 36 FUNDING FLEGT ......................................................................................................................................................... 36 NEED FOR A VPA ......................................................................................................................................................... 36

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 37

ANNEXES .......................................................................................................................................................... 38

ANNEX 1 ‐ LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED ......................................................................................................................... 38 ANNEX 2 ‐ LICENSE FOR FOREST HARVESTING .................................................................................................................... 39 ANNEX 3 ‐ FOREST PRODUCE DECLARATION FORM ............................................................................................................ 40 ANNEX 4 ‐ FOREST PRODUCE MOVEMENT PERMIT ............................................................................................................. 41 ANNEX 5 –TABLES OF THE UN COMTRADE DATA USED ........................................................................................................ 41

List of Tables

TABLE 1 TRENDS IN FOREST COVER (1990‐2005).................................................................................................................. 10 TABLE 2 MAIN ACTORS IN FORESTRY SECTOR AND FOREST LAW ENFORCEMENT ........................................................................... 14 TABLE 3 DESTINATION MARKETS FOR EASTERN DRC LOGS ....................................................................................................... 33 TABLE 4 URA DATA ON IMPORTS FROM DRC (USA DOLLARS) ................................................................................................. 34

List of Figures

FIGURE 1 UGANDA’S TRADE IN WOOD‐BASED PRODUCTS ........................................................................................................ 24 FIGURE 2 MAP SHOWING UGANDA’S TRADE IN WOOD‐BASED PRODUCTS (2011) ......................................................................... 25 FIGURE 3 UGANDA’S IMPORTS OF VPA CORE PRODUCTS ......................................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 4: UGANDA’S IMPORTS OF PAPER SECTOR PRODUCTS ................................................................................................... 27 FIGURE 5 UGANDA’S IMPORTS OF SAWN‐WOOD .................................................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 6 UGANDA’S EXPORTS OF VPA CORE PRODUCTS ......................................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 7 UGANDA’S EXPORTS PAPER SECTOR PRODUCTS ......................................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 8 UGANDA’S EXPORTS OF LOGS ................................................................................................................................ 31


List of acronyms

AAC Annual Allowable Cut

CBD

CBO

CDM

Convention for Biodiversity Conservation

Community Based Organization

Clean Development Mechanism

CFR Central Forest Reserve

COC Chain of Custody

CSO Civil Society Organisation

DFO District Forestry Officer

DFS District Forestry Service

DLG District Local Government

DRC Democratic Republic of Congo

EAC East African Community

EI Exploratory Inventory

EPPU Environmental Protection Police Unit

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation

FD Forestry Department

FLEGT Forest Law Enforcement and Governance and Trade

FMP Forest Management Plan

FPDF Forest Produce Declaration Form

FR Forest Reserve

FSSD Forest Service Support Division

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GoU Government of Uganda

ISSMI Integrated Stock survey and Management Inventory

LFR Local Forest Reserve

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MWE Ministry of Water and Environment

NDP National Development Plan

NEMA National Environment Management Authority

NFA National Forestry Authority

NFP National Forestry Plan


NFTPA National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003

NGO Non‐Governmental Organisation

NTFP Non‐timber Forest Products

PA Protected Area

Pers. Com. Personal Communication

PFE Permanent Forest Estate

REDD

SFM

Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

Sustainable Forest Management

SLM Sustainable Land Management

UBOS Uganda Bureau of Standards

UFA

UGX

Uganda Forestry Association

Uganda Shillings

UNCCD United Nations Convention for Combating Desertification

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change

URA Uganda Revenue Authority

UWA Uganda Wildlife Authority

VAT Value Added Tax

WCA Wildlife Conservation Area


Background This study of timber flows within, to and from Uganda has been prepared as a part of a wider study that

covered nine countries in Eastern and Southern Africa, with an identical objective in each to these

countries that consisted of two main parts:

1. To provide a baseline of the wood based trade flow information

2. To provide an overview and analysis of the regulatory framework for timber production,

processing and trade.

The study is quite timely considering that widespread illegal logging in recent years has had a

devastating effect on the valuable forest resources in the countries in this part of Africa, which has had

not only environmental consequences but also economic and social ones. The response by the European

Commission has been the introduction of FLEGT, the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade

Action Plan, to provide a set of measures to prevent illegally harvested timber from reaching the

European markets. With the European Union Timber Regulation, EUTR, the placing of illegal timber on

the European market has been prohibited starting from 3 March 2013.

Against this background, it becomes important to understand the dynamics of the timber trade flows

not only in Uganda but also in Eastern and Southern Africa, including the volume and value of the trade,

within, to and from these countries, and the potential interest that individual countries might have in

improving forest management and entering into VPAs. This study has therefore identified many burning

issues that need to be addressed to prevent illegal logging and trade in illegally harvested products, in

Kenya as well as in the other countries of the study.

The study has produced nine comprehensive country reports, each of 50‐60 pages, covering Burundi,

Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Rwanda, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia, in addition to

one Summary Report. This particular country report, on Uganda, was prepared by Jones Ruhombe.


Executive Summary Uganda has a forest cover of some 3.6 million ha, which is 18% of the land area. The natural forests

include both tropical forests and woodlands. Tropical forests cover 924,000 ha while the area of tree

plantations is around 33,500 ha. Tree planting by the private sector and local communities is being

promoted in Uganda on both private and government lands as a means of reducing pressure on natural

forests.

Uganda has 506 gazetted forest reserves, covering 1,265,742 ha of protected areas, in the form of

Central Forest Reserves managed by the National Forestry Authority or Local Forest Reserves managed

by District Local Governments. Wildlife Conservation Areas are managed by the Uganda Wildlife

Authority. Although Uganda is considered forest rich, a major problem faced is the rapid decline in

forest cover. The annual rate of deforestation has averaged over 1.8% in recent years. Uncontrolled

harvesting and encroachment for agriculture and human settlement are the main causes of

deforestation and forest degradation.

Uganda is a net importer of wood based products, and the gap between imports and exports is

widening. Most of timber that is exported from Uganda comprises logs (illegally exported), plywood and

other panels, destined predominately for Kenya and Rwanda On the other hand, timber is imported

from DRC, South Sudan and Tanzania. This is subject to the normal customs requirements and a fee of

1% of the value of the timber is paid.

Uganda has little trade in wood‐based products and paper imports account for the bulk of that trade.

Paper is supplied mainly from the European Union, India, Kenya, South Africa, and the United Arab

Emirates. The country imports more timber products than it exports. Exports and imports have

increased during recent years due to sustained growth in the construction sector. South Africa, DRC and

China supply most of the timber and wood products imports. Most of the timber that is exported from

Uganda comprises logs, plywood and other panels (destined predominantly for Kenya and Rwanda).

Illegal logging and trade in timber were at a high level in Uganda during the 1970s and 1980s. From

1995, the country implemented rigorous law enforcement activities that were largely successful. The top

executive of the then Forest Department was at that time changed five times and six senior staff was

interdicted for their involvement in illegal forest harvesting. This unleashed a spate of uncertainty and

corruption that rolled back previous achievements. However, policy, legal and institutional reforms were

carried out in the early 2000s and effective law enforcement was again restored and the country

witnessed compliance that surpassed previous levels. Thereafter, however, corruption and negative

political interference struck again. The “Law Enforcement Unit” was disbanded and currently being

witnessed is unprecedented degradation of the forest resources due to all kinds of illegal activities,

including harvesting without any license. To cope with this rather disturbing situation, the so‐called

“Environment Protection Police Unit” was established in December 2011 to support, inter alia, forest

law enforcement. This was followed by a ban on logging, ostensibly to reorganise the forest industry.

Both these measures have been of marginal effect as the political will to implement them is still lacking.

The foregoing situation has been exacerbated by pressures from District Local Governments for more

licenses to generate revenue, which they retain to run local programmes. Quite often, local government

officials allocate licenses to themselves to gain from not only doing the business but also from under‐

declaration of the timber produced and defaulting on payment of dues.


The responsibility to manage Local Forest Reserves and oversee development of private and customary

forests outside of protected areas, deliver extension service and expedite management of trees on

farms is decentralised to District Local Governments. The National Forestry Authority (a semi‐

autonomous self‐financing body that retains revenues from license fees, stumpage and royalty charges

and consultancies) was established in 2003 to manage the 506 Central Forest Reserves. The National

Forestry Authority also supports District Local Governments, private sector and activities that benefit

“public good” through technical assistance, financial allocations and law enforcement.

Uganda has a new Forest Policy from 2001 and a National Forestry and Tree Planting Act from 2003,

which has replaced the Forest Act of 1964. A National Forest Plan, initiated in 2000 and revised in 2010,

has restructured governance of the sector to enable decentralization and attract private sector

investments and stakeholder participation.

In general, Uganda is not short of good policies, plans, laws and systems. The main weakness is poor

implementation. The main causes of this include political manipulations, poor funding and limited

institutional and human capacity to patrol forests and markets. Negative political interference has had

adverse effects on management of forests in Uganda over the last three decades. Usually this manifests

in political pressure on forest managers to ignore Forest Management Plan prescriptions. The National

Forestry Authority maintains a Law Enforcement Unit to control the movement of, and trade in, timber.

Most of Uganda’s policies and laws relating to the management of forests are relative recent and

contain much of the contemporary thinking on forestry, aiming at good governance and sustainable

forest management. All these instruments are available on the internet. A database for legal and illegal

timber was established in 1995 but it seems to have been abandoned.

Uganda has only 2 certified forests, the Kibale and Mt. Elgon National Parks, but only for CO2

sequestration as no harvesting is allowed. None of the country’s production forests are certified.

The forest industry of Uganda is largely artisanal, characterized by old equipment and low technology,

being wholly owned by the private sector. Timber is produced through pit sawing, mobile sawmills and

one stationary sawmill. Pit‐sawyers provide the bulk of sawn wood. The sawmill industry comprises

cheap mobile sawmills operated by low skill personnel, resulting in wasteful harvesting techniques, low

recovery rates and low quality timber. There are five pole treating plants and one wood‐based factory,

manufacturing plywood, block‐board and flush doors for the domestic market and export to South

Sudan, Eastern DRC, Rwanda, Burundi and Northern Tanzania.

It was estimated that about 44 million m³ RWE of fuelwood and 2 million m3 RWE industrial round‐

wood were produced and consumed in Uganda during 2008. A steady increase in total round‐wood

production and consumption has taken place since, driven largely by a booming construction industry.

Currently, timber production from the productive natural forests has declined significantly, with the

annual allowable cut from the central forest reserves standing at only 50,000 m3. And the softwood

plantations established in the 1960s have all been harvested with little replanting.

Currently, timber production from natural forests has declined significantly and the older softwood

plantations that were established in the 1960–70s have almost all been harvested while most of the new

plantations are less than 10 years old. The timber market is still dominated by hardwood timbers from

natural forests and woodlands, with pine and eucalypts being harvested from the few remaining mature

trees in forest reserves. Pine and cypress are imported from Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa and

mahogany (Entandrophragma spp and Khaya anthoceca), mvule (Melicia excelsa) and nkalati (Aningeria

spp) are imported from the DRC.


Unsustainable harvesting has led to qualitative forest degradation through creaming off valuable tree

species, especially mahogany. The combined effect of deforestation and high consumption rates has

resulted in an imbalance between domestic demand and supply of wood based products.

The Customs services in the East African Community are being modernised as part of a trade facilitation

programme among the member countries which includes collaboration between the different customs

services and the exchange of data. This process includes improvement of customs infrastructure,

adoption of computerised systems and adoption of standards used internationally for the coding of

commodities traded. This has greatly improved the quality of information being collected by customs

authorities across the East African countries.

It is recommended that the government of Uganda undertakes institutional reforms and learns from

what has been achieved in Kenya and Tanzania.


1. Introduction Forestry is a major contributor to the livelihoods of a large part of the population in Uganda, forming an

important part of the informal sector through the sale of timber, fuelwood, furniture, building poles,

crafts, fruits, seedlings, honey and other non‐timber forest products. The contribution of the forestry

sector to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Uganda averaged 3.5% per year during 2004 – 2009. In

general, it is believed that the contribution is regularly underestimated. Although Uganda is considered

forest rich, a major problem that it faces is the rapid decline in forest cover. During 1990 – 2005, the

annual rate of deforestation was on average over 1.8%. The reasons for this degradation are mainly

uncontrolled harvesting and encroachment for agriculture and human settlement.

2. The Forestry Sector Uganda’s forest cover, including both natural forests and man‐made plantations, is estimated at

3,604,174 hectares (3,570,649 million hectares for natural forest and 33,527 for plantations), which is

18% of the total dry land area. Natural forests include both closed canopy tropical rain forests and open

canopy savannah woodlands (low density forests with limited shade). Tropical forests cover 924,000ha

while savannah woodlands cover almost 2.7 million ha. About 70% of the cover is on private land

(registered and customary tenure). The remaining 30% is owned by the state and found in “Protected

Areas” (PAs), as “Central Forest Reserves” (CFR) managed by the National Forestry Authority (NFA),

”Local Forest Reserves” (LFR) managed by District Local Governments (DLGs) and ”Wildlife Conservation

Areas” (WCAs) managed by Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA). Forest Reserves (FRs) cover 1,265,742 ha

and together with forests on private land are the main sources of timber. NFA is the “lead agency” on

forestry in Uganda.

Table 1 Trends in Forest Cover (1990‐2005)

Management Responsibility Forest area 1990 (ha) Forest area 2005 (ha) Loss (ha) Loss as %

LFRs (DLGs) 1,628 1,211 417 25.6

CFRs (DLGs) 752,143 627,951 124,192 16.5

WCA (UWA) 679,724 643,148 36,576 5.4

Joint NFA and UWA 37,560 30,747 6,813 18.1

Private land 3,462,923 2,301,117 1,161,806 33.5

Total 4,933,978 3,604,174 1,329,804 27

%age of Total Land Area 24% 18%

Source: National Forest Plan (NFP), (2011)(No reliable figures available for later than 2005)

Mean yield rates for the tropical forests stand at about 1.5 m3/ha/year and for the plantations at 13

m3/ha/year (Pine) and 16 m3/ha/year (eucalypts). No figures are available on savannah woodlands as

generally there is no technical management of woodlands beyond protection from fire and

encroachment. Woodlands on private land are a main source of fuelwood.

Tree planting by the private sector and local communities is being promoted in Uganda on both private

and government lands as a means of reducing pressure on natural forests for timber and other forest

products. This is being done by the government of Uganda (GoU) with additional support from the

European Union and the government of Norway and international and local non‐governmental


organisations (NGOs) through provision of funds, relevant material inputs, awareness campaigns and

Technical Assistance. The effort is contributing to the restoration of the degraded forests.

3. CITES Uganda participated in the 1992 Earth Summit organised by the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. It is signatory to all the three

conventions (CBD, UNCCD and UNFCCC) that emerged from the Summit. It “paid attention” to them and

the ‘Non‐Legally Binding Authoritative Forest Principles”, that were also agreed at in Rio, as it reformed

forest sector governance. The country was active in the subsequent dialogues under the Inter‐

governmental Panel on Forests (IPF), Inter‐governmental Forum on Forests (IFF) and the United Nations

Forum on Forests (UNFF). The UNFF adopted the Non‐Legally Binding Instrument on Forests (NLBI) at its

7th Session in 2007. Following realisation that illegal logging robs governments and forest owners of

significant revenues and benefits, damages forest ecosystems, distorts timber markets and forest

resource assessments and acts as a disincentive to sustainable forest management (SFM), paragraphs

6(n) and 7(f) – 7(j) of the NLBI are specific instructions on FLEGT and are well reflected in relevant

national instruments, especially the NFP.

Uganda is also signatory to the many other forestry‐related international and regional agreements

including Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and East Africa Community (EAC) Protocol

and associates with FAO’s Committee on Forestry (COFO) and African Forestry and Wildlife Commission

(AFWC), World Forestry Congress and Economic Commission for Africa (ECA).

In terms of implementation of these conventions only CITES appears to garner more active attention

than all the other instruments put together. NFA, UWA and the various law enforcement agencies,

especially police and customs officials, are keenly aware of the situation and have often impounded

items banned for export under CITES. There is no CITES timber in Uganda. Only Prunus africana is listed

but even then, only the bark is traded.

4. The Forest Administration GoU is responsible for the formulation of national forestry policy, enacting relevant legislation,

establishing forest management standards and monitoring and evaluating (M&E) of performance by the

various actors in the sector. It also undertakes resource mobilisation for coordination of investments in,

and regulation of, the sector. On daily basis, these responsibilities are exercised through the Forestry

Sector Support Division (FSSD) of the Ministry of Water and Environment, where the forestry mandate

falls.

Responsibility to manage LFRs and oversee development of private and customary forests outside of

PAs, deliver extension service and expedite management of trees on farms is decentralised to DLG. The

NFA, (a semi‐autonomous self‐financing body that retains revenues from license fees, stumpage and

royalty charges and consultancies) was established in 2003 to manage the 506 CFRs. Under contract

from GoU, NFA also supports DLGs, private sector and activities that benefit “public good” through

technical assistance, financial allocations and law enforcement. No extractive utilisation of forests in

WCAs is allowed.

Uganda has an excellent system for administrative, management and technical decision making. Its

experience in technical management of its forests dates back to 1898 and by independence in 1962,

forest management in the country had already earned international acclaim. Management then was,


and still is, supposed to be based on demarcated FRs with “Forest Management Plans” (FMPs) and other

official guidelines (“Government Standing Orders”, “Forest Guidelines” and “Forest Manual”). However,

the system is not working very well, largely because of low human capacity in the institutions with the

implementation mandate, inadequate funding, poor coordination and lack of political will.

5. The Regulatory Framework for Timber Production and Harvesting, Processing, Transport and Marketing

5.1 Policy Framework The Constitution of Uganda (1995) gives ownership of natural resources to the people while government

holds them in trust for all citizens. The Government of Uganda (GoU) recognises the value of forests in

sustainable and progressive national development. The Sixth Schedule of the Constitution gives the

government the responsibility to manage forests.

The Forest Policy (2001) is a government‐approved document that stipulates the broad objectives and

strategies for managing forests in Uganda. It aims to enhance governance of the forest through

“partnerships”, with a pointer to having new institutional relationships, enhanced efficiency,

transparency, accountability and professionalism and building confidence in all stakeholders.

Specifically, the policy proposes to maintain a “permanent forest estate” and outlines what it takes to

manage this sustainably, reform the central and local governments’ roles with a view that more forest

resources should be managed through devolving responsibility, wherever practical and advisable, to

DLGs, the private sector and local communities. It emphasises public involvement in sustainable forest

management (SFM) with a focus on equity and defined rights, roles and responsibilities of partners. The

policy commits Government to the goal of an integrated forest sector that can achieve steady increases

in the economic, social and environmental benefits from forests and trees outside forests for all the

people of Uganda.

As a step towards the implementation of the policy, a sector‐wide 10‐year NFP (2002) identified a

number of priority strategies and set out a new institutional framework for the sector. The revised NFP

(2012‐2022) has 13 programmes. In the revised NFP, “forest law enforcement” is one of these

programmes. Preparation of the NFP in 2002 and its revision in 2011 were done through wide ranging

stakeholder mobilisation, consultation and participation. The National Development Plan (NDP) (2010)

placed forestry at the centre of Uganda’s development agenda by categorizing it as a “primary growth

sector”.

5.2 Jurisprudence and Adjudication for Forestry in Uganda A new legal framework, developed to implement the policy and NFP, is set out in the National Forestry

and Tree Planting Act (NFTPA) of 2003, which repealed the Forest Act of 1964. The new law is an

enabling law that provides new opportunities for better management of the forestry sector, balancing

the traditional “regulatory” and “normative” functions of government. The NFTPA clarifies institutional

roles and responsibilities, including those for forest ownership and respective management, forestry

extension, forest inventory, management planning and law enforcement. The Minister remains with the

overall responsibility to ensure that forests in the country are managed responsibly. The NFTPA clearly

spells out the manner in which acquisition, conveyance and trade in timber should be managed under

the law.


While the NFTPA (2003) provides the law regarding forestry in Uganda, there are a number of other laws

relevant to entire gamut of FLEGT, including, inter alia:

(i) National Environment Act (Cap. 53);

(ii) Uganda Wildlife Act (Cap. 200);

(iii) Land Act (Cap. 227);

(iv) Local Governments Act (Cap. 243);

(v) Inspector General of Government Act (Cap. 167);

(vi) Leadership Code (Cap. 168);

(vii) Magistrates Act (Cap. 16);

(viii) Police Act (Cap. 303);

(ix) Evidence Act (Cap. 6);

(x) Business Name Registration Act (Cap. 109);

(xi) Trade Licensing Act (Cap. 101);

(xii) Customs and Excise Act (Cap. 335);

(xiii) East African Community Customs Management Act, 2004;

(xiv) Customs Tariff Act (Cap. 337);

(xv) Uganda National Bureau of Standards Act (Cap. 327); and

(xvi) Income Tax and Value Added Tax acts;

These are the main laws related to forests in Uganda. Together with NFTPA, where sections (i)–(iv) deal

with management, tenurial, jurisdictional and environmental issues, sections (v)–(ix) relate to

prosecution and court proceedings while sections (x) – (xvi) deal with trade. There is a tendency for the

majority in the timber trade and industry to comply more with the latter cluster. This is perhaps because

Uganda Revenue Authority (URA), with its more robust law enforcement system and stronger political

support since it collects money for the government, has closer interface with these laws than with the

other two clusters.

5.3 Stakeholders Table 2 shows the main stakeholders responsible for forest management, adjudication and forest law

enforcement and their respective roles.


Table 2 Main Actors in Forestry Sector and Forest Law Enforcement

Institution Responsibilities in the forest sector

Ministry of Water and Environment/Forestry Sector Support Division (FSSD)

Formulation/oversight of policies, standards and legislation

Co‐ordination of technical support and training of DLGs

Inspection and monitoring of DLGs and the NFA performance

Co‐ordination of NFP implementation and cross‐sectorial links

Mobilisation of funds and other resources for the forest sector

Promotion, public information and advocacy

Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development

Guiding sectorial planning, budgeting and fiscal support

Oversee the NFA performance contract

Mobilisation funds and other resources

Provision of economic instruments for forestry development

Ministry of Wildlife and Tourism Promote tourism, including eco‐tourism

Host to “International Convention on Trade in Endangered Species” (CITES) in Uganda

Regulations, guidelines, standards for management of wildlife including for forests

Ministry of Energy and Mineral Development

Policies, laws, regulations, standards and guidelines for energy from various sources

Biomass energy conservation technologies

Promotion of energy substitution (solar, hydro, petroleum)

Environmental global funding relating to energy sector

Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries

Agriculture and forestry interface

Promotion of agro‐forestry

Delivery of advisory services

Enabling policies, laws, regulations and standards on sustainable land management (SLM)

Contribute forestry advice in the implementation of United Nations Convention for Combating Desertification (UNCCD)

Ministry of Education and Sports Integration of forestry management in formal education

Demonstration of forestry management in schools

Promotion of forestry‐focussed school programmes

National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)

Control of forestry activities in relation to environment

Supports District Local Governments (DLGs) in the development and implementation of the District Environment Action Plans (DEAPs)

Provides guidance on forestry‐related Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)

Ministry of Local Government Ensures coherence of forestry policy and practice by DLGs and monitors their performance including in the forestry sector

DLGs establish and operationalise District Forestry Services (DFS), monitor compliance with the law, hear certain types of local offences which may include imposing fines in line with the local tradition or referring the offender to a police or a court of law, mainstream forestry in District Development Plans (DDPs), mobilise funds and allocate budget, apply for “Conditional” and “Equalisation” grants from GoU, issue permits and licences and collect forestry fees and taxes for forest products from LFRs and areas outside of PAs, develop and enforce bye‐laws, undertake forestry extension, brokering between farmers and service providers, providing market information. manage LFRs and approve “Community Forests”

Ministry of Public Service Public sector reforms

Strengthening staffing levels of FSSD and DFS

Monitoring sector institutional performance

Ministry of Internal Affairs (Police, Prisons)

Local or central government police officers can make arrests but they also investigate offences reported

Build capacity for enforcement of environmental laws and regulations both within Justice Law and Order Sector and within civil society for community management of ecosystems

Enforcement of forest laws

Detain and imprison those sentenced to a prison term by a court of law


Institution Responsibilities in the forest sector

Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs

Proposes both principal and subsidiary legislation on forestry and amendments thereof

State Attorneys prosecute cases on forestry offences in Courts of Law on behalf of GoU. They are also stationed within the districts and, therefore, most forestry offences, which are prosecuted, go through this level

Judges and Magistrates try cases presented to them and pass sentences

Private legal practitioners represent clients in court or in any other dispute resolution

Ministry of Defence Supporting forest law enforcement

Uganda Revenue Authority Taxes on forest products, businesses and trading and assists implementation of “Chain of Custody” (CoC)

Uganda Investment Authority Investment promotion in forestry‐based businesses

National Forestry Authority Management of CFRs

Advisory, research or commercial services on contract

Seed supply ‐ National Tree Seed Centre (NTSC)

Forest inventory/related technical services ‐ NBS

Established staff or hired patrol persons arrest suspected offenders or those whom they suspect are about to commit offence. They report offences to police and inform the NFA Legal Counsel about the cases. Resolves issues administratively through fines. Prosecutes case in Courts of Law

Uganda Wildlife Authority Manages forest resources in NPs and WRs/sanctuaries and DMAs with NFA

Protects keystone tropical forest ecosystems

Lead agency on tourism

National Forestry Resources Research Institute (NaFORRI)

Research and development

Promotion of forestry technologies

Research liaison

Universities and Colleges Forestry training and research

Private Sector Forest management and tree farming on private land

Forest investments in CFRs on rented land

Trade in forest products

Operators of the forest industry

Civic Society Organisations (CSOs)

Advocacy on role of forests in development

Promotion of accountability and delivery of services

Participating in partnerships for management of forests Public education, information dissemination,

Training communities, private sector and resource managers

Implementation of agro‐forestry activities

The Public Report offences to NFA staff, the police and/or local council officials

Can be called to make statements at police and/or give evidence in a Court of Law

Source: NFP (2011)

Until 1987, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) was the only non‐governmental organisation (NGO)

operating in the forestry sector in Uganda. Since then, the country has witnessed the mushrooming of

national NGOs and a plethora of community‐based organisations (CBOs) and the entry of other

international NGOs interested in forestry. Notable among the NGOs is Uganda Forestry Association

(UFA), Uganda Forestry Working Group (UFWG), Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment

(ACODE), Uganda Forest Governance Learning Group (UFGLG), Uganda Timber Growers Association

(UTGA), Environmental Alert (EA), World Conservation Union (IUCN), Jane Goodal Institute (JGI), Nature

Uganda (NU), Uganda Wildlife Society (UWLS), Environment Conservation Trust (ECOTRUST) and


Mgahinga Bwindi Impenetrable Forest Conservation Trust (MBIFCT). The NGOs and CBOs implement a

full range of forestry activities as indicated in Table 2 above.

NFA and FSSD agree on the problem of FLEGT and have the willingness to control illegalities, largely

because it is in their best of interests. They are frustrated by the lack of resources do so, poor co‐

operation from DLGs and inadequate political support at many levels. DLGs are ambivalent. In the open,

of course they claim they want more effective FLEGT, especially those DLGs to whom forestry accounts

for a significant proportion of their would be revenue. Behind the doors, however, they do everything

possible to undermine effective FLEGT for reasons alluded to earlier. The press and CSOs are more

interested in issues related to forest degradation and not directly with matters relating directly to

timber trade. They have been effective in preventing negative political interference in the physical

integrity of especially CFRs (note the case of allocating Mabira CFR to a sugar company). Donors would

like to support NFA and FSSD but they see negative political interference in the sector as a disincentive

for them. They insist GoU must first show its total and positive commitment to the sector.

5.4 Licensing Procedures Regulation of forest harvesting begins with the award of a harvesting license (Annex 2). In the license,

the volume, species and physical location of the trees to be harvested and dues to be paid are specified.

Licensing is preceded by the determination of the “Annual Allowable Cut” (AAC) following an inventory

that is sponsored and paid for by government, in the case of FRs, and the forest/tree owner in the case

of privately owned forests/trees. This is for the purpose of implementing the FMP prepared by various

forest owners as required by law. Harvesting is not supposed to exceed the AAC. Technically sound and

enabling “Guidelines” for both natural forests and plantations have been developed to regulate

harvesting and conversion of timber. According to the NFTPA (2003), all forests in Uganda are supposed

to be harvested following this procedure irrespective of ownership status. Uganda has had a tradition of

using FMPs as a tool for governing decision making in forest management dating back to 1931 when the

first FMP in the country was developed. The procedure of preparing FMPs is near perfect.

For timber from outside FRs, the FSSD of the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) has been

issuing licenses to pit‐sawyers to harvest trees based on estimated biomass in each district. For FRs,

each or a group of them, are by law supposed to be managed in accordance with a 10‐year FMP. FRs

with natural forests are “zoned” under the principle of “Man and Biosphere” where the zones constitute

“management circles” and harvesting is done only in “production” and “buffer zones”, following an

inventory and “stock‐mapping”. Private harvesting companies are hired to undertake the felling and

crosscutting. The logs are then graded, put in lots and openly auctioned in the forest through

competitive offers. Plantations are harvested by clear‐felling of mature crops through a system of

standing volume felling “coupes” and licenses granted through competitive bidding, again following an

inventory. Details of the auctioning/bidding process involve the steps outlined below.

For tropical forests;

Exploratory inventory (EI) to establish the total standing timber volume and the AAC;

Integrated Stock Survey and Management Inventory (ISSMI) followed by stock‐mapping to identify

trees to be harvested in accordance with the FMP;

Logging and log grading by a trained logging crews ;

Establishment of reserve prices for various species on basis cost recovery and a 10% profit;


Advertising the “auction lots” through the media;

Auctioning and sale of the logs; and

Award of license to buy the logs.

For forest plantations;

Inventory (“total enumeration);

Demarcation of “felling coupes”;

Establishment of reserve prices for various species on basis cost recovery and a 10% profit;

Preparation of the bidding document and approval by the NFA top management team;

Advertising in the media in accordance with the “Public Procurement and Disposal Act”;

Receiving sealed bids;

Public opening of the bids and announcing those that meet the minimum criteria;

Evaluating bids using technical and financial criteria;

Awarding licenses with conditions to ensure responsible harvesting;

Harvesting is controlled using technical guidelines, licence conditions and field inspections. Monitoring

of the performance of the harvesting licenses (payment, technical conditions) is done by officers in

charge of the given forest and/or district. A “Law Enforcement Unit” of NFA has the mandate, inter alia,

to inspect, carry out surveillance and to stop transportation and trade in illegal timber nationwide. It can

work with or without the knowledge of field officers to ensure there are checks and balances. Until

2009, the unit used to maintain a database for licenses and legally and illegally acquired timber. The

licensing procedures used to be reviewed annually in consultation with the clients themselves.

Up to until end of 2008 (Etwodu, L., pers. com), all these procedures were being followed to the letter

and the main result of this was restoration of the legal and physical integrity of all forests in the country

and increased income for all stakeholders. Following political interference that occurred towards the

end of that year in connection with the attempt by the GoU to allocate a large part the Mabira CFR to a

private company to clear the forest and establish a sugarcane plantation, all top senior staff (five of

them) resigned at the same time in protest and this unleashed a spate of illegalities of all kind and

manner in the sector. Today, therefore, all these fine policies, laws and procedures are not being

followed. Political manipulations and inability by relevant law enforcement agencies to detect, deter

and/or prosecute forest offences are getting entrenched fast.

5.5 Timber Tracing System A system of tracing and monitoring timber from the forest (stump) to the market (vendor) has been in

place since 1995. The system is based on the licensing system outlined above. Traced and monitored is

in compliance with the steps prescribed for licensing. Timber from a legal source must be loaded on a

truck and accompanied by a “Forest Produce Declaration Form” (see Annex 3) between the stump and

the office where dues will be paid, receipts issued and a “Forest Produce Movement Permit” (see Annex

4) given. Using metallic hammers, marks are then engraved in each piece of timber on the end facing

backwards on the truck to ease inspection while in transit to the market. The marks show codes for the


forest and district of origin. The documentation and marking of the timber from outside of FRs is the

same as for that from FRs.

The system has been refined over time to comply with internationally accepted standards for

independent verification of legal sources of timber and “chain of custody” (CoC). It should be noted that

while details of the licensing system and CoC are not specified in the law, they are issued under Section

92 of the NFTPA, (2003), which gives the Minister responsible for forestry “enabling powers” to issue

these guidelines by “Statutory Instruments”. The guidelines have the same legal force as the main

sections of the NFTPA (2003) in courts of law.

5.6 Law Enforcement Illegal logging and trade in timber increased sharply during the 1970‐80’s. From 1995, the country

implemented rigorous law enforcement activities and had achieved almost 80% compliance by 2000

(NFA, 2005). Policy, legal and institutional reforms that were carried out during 2000‐2004 created a

transition period during which executive authority was nearly absent. During 1999‐2004, the top

executive of the then Forest Department (FD) was changed five times and over six senior staff was

indicted for their alleged involvement in illegal forest harvesting. This unleashed a spate of uncertainty

and corruption that rolled back previous achievements. During 2004‐2008 effective law enforcement

was again restored and the country witnessed compliance that surpassed previous levels. Thereafter,

however, corruption and negative political interference struck again. The “Law Enforcement Unit” was

disbanded and currently being witnessed is an unprecedented degradation of the forest resources due

to all kinds of illegal activities, including harvesting without any license. To cope with this rather

disturbing situation, the GoU established the so‐called “Environment Protection Police Unit” (EPPU) in

December 2011 to support, inter alia, forest law enforcement. In March 2012, GoU put a ban on logging,

ostensibly to re‐organise the forestry industry. Both these measures are of marginal effect as the

political will to implement them is still lacking.

The foregoing situation has been exacerbated by the pressure from DLGs for more licenses to generate

more revenue, which they retain to run local programmes. As they prepare their own documents they

have full control. Quite often, DLG officials allocate the licenses to themselves to gain from not only

doing the business but also from under declaration of the timber produced and defaulting payment of

dues. This is in spite of existence of strong laws on “conflict of interest”.

In general, Uganda is not short of good policies, plans, laws and systems. The main weakness is poor

implementation. The main causes of this include political manipulations, poor funding and limited

institutional and human capacity to patrol forests and markets, detect and deter offences, prosecute

cases and/or educate stakeholders. Negative political interference has had adverse effects on

management of forests in Uganda over the last three decades. Usually this manifests itself in political

pressure on forest managers to ignore FMP prescriptions. Another problem is that many law

enforcement officers (police, magistrates, prison staff and customs officials) lack practical ability to

identify legal documents (licenses and receipts) and marks on timber. As a result, the more savvy

offenders easily elude these officers in the absence of technical staff and this is common with

movement of illegal timber. The law enforcement agencies do not coordinate well and they are

inadequately funded, despite the fact that intense FLEGT results in increased income for all those that

are legally involved in the business.


When the FD improved law enforcement in 1995, the volume of impounded timber was reduced and

revenue collection rose by nearly 300% within one year and continued to rise. When NFA started

operations, it had both financial (from retained revenue) and human resources to ensure compliance.

The increases in revenue were dramatic. From the total revenue of UGX 1 billion (approx. USD 398,000)

estimated in the NFA “Business Plan” for the Financial Year 2004/ 2005, UGX 5 billion (approx. USD

1,990,000) was collected from the selling of standing volumes in the plantations alone. Prices jumped

from UGX 28,000 (USD 11.14) per m3 to stabilise at an average of UGX 60,000 (USD 23.9) per m3 of

roundwood. It was a win‐win situation for all those involved in the business. The new system specifically

curtailed corruption among GoU. Once this was achieved, the other stakeholders simply complied.

5.7 Development Partners Several bilateral and multilateral development partners have for a long time been supporting Uganda in

its forests’ management. These are, inter alia, Norwegian Agency for Development (NORAD), European

Union (EU), Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom, Africa

Development Bank (ADB), FAO, Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA), United States Agency for

International Development (USAID) and the World Bank. Most donors have suspended support to the

forestry sector in Uganda due to governance and accountability problems currently afflicting the sector.

5.8 Requirements for Export of Forest Products “Part VI” of the NFTPA (2003) provides for “Trade in Forest Products”, which includes timber and export

thereof. However, the provisions therein have not been operationalized, perhaps because of the severe

shortage of timber in the country. This law repealed the Timber Export Act (Cap. 247) but did not save

all its provisions in detail. Save for the provisions in the laws relating to trade in general, currently there

is no formal regional mechanism to regulate cross‐border trade and movement of timber. Consequently,

timber illegally acquired from one country is normally considered legal once it is in the receiving

country. This makes it difficult to regulate the trade. In addition, there are different, often conflicting

policies and procedures, regarding entry and exit of timber into and from neighbouring countries. The

case in point is the manner in which the East African countries handle timber from the Democratic

Republic of Congo (DRC) and South Sudan. The unwritten policy seems to be that timber from a

neighbouring country should be allowed irrespective of its legality at source as this will alleviate

domestic shortage of timber and help alleviate pressure on the national forest resources. For instance,

when Uganda established more transparent and competitive “open bidding” processes and auctions,

prices for round‐wood increased while the profitability for some plummeted. In response, many

sawmillers and traders easily shifted to neighbouring countries, especially to the DRC where they could

get timber almost for free and sell it at high Ugandan prices.

5.9 Certification Systems Uganda has only 2 certified forests (Kibale and Mt. Elgon National Parks were certified under SGS) and

these are only for CO2 sequestration and no harvesting is allowed. None of the country’s production

forests are certified and the COC, though quite well developed, is poorly implemented. Therefore,

Uganda would find it difficult to sell any of its forest products on the international niche markets.

According to the revised NFP, the GoU will invest in and manage forests to produce internationally

certified forest products. Forest production certified emissions reductions (CER) standards will be

adopted for natural forests, afforestation and reforestation projects under CDM and REDD+. Uganda will


undertake forest certification using the phased approach within the framework of the Forest

Stewardship Council. Starting with selected forests, lessons will be generated that will guide further

expansion of the certification programme.

5.10 Transparency in the Sector Uganda’s policies and laws related to the management of forests provide for effective governance and

forest utilisation. Most of these are relatively recent and, therefore, contain much of the contemporary

thinking on forestry. All these instruments are available on the internet. Section 91(1) of the NFTPA also

provides for free access by all citizens of Uganda to information related to the implementation of this

law at all levels of government. In theory, therefore, there exists in Uganda an excellent legal and

management system to ensure transparency and accountability and it is freely and readily accessible.

However, while existing administrative and management structures and instruments provide for most of

the requirements of good forest governance, implementation is poor. Activities are not funded well,

institutions lack the required technical capacities, and some of the provisions are not prioritised in

implementation. At organisational level, there is a need to continue building the capacities of the

institutions responsible for forestry and those which provide relevant support services so that they are

able to fully implement the National Forestry Plan.

5.11 Information and Monitoring System A database for both legal and illegal timber was established in 1995 and was well maintained until 2008

when it seems to have been abandoned. It used to be analysed on a monthly basis to inform

management on trends in overall timber production and impounded illegal timber but this has since

stopped. According to this data base, about 20,130 m3 was impounded as being illegally acquired during

2004‐2012. There is no other systematic timber trade information or monitoring system except

information that can be gleaned from trade and Customs records. Uganda established “Permanent

Sample Plots” in major CFRs at the beginning of the last century to monitor growth of timber trees and

therefore regular measurements were taken and records maintained. Periodic analyses were done and

AAC was based on the results of the inventory. This is no longer happening. In the mid‐1990s, a

“Biodiversity Database” was established with EU and FAO support, and indicators for monitoring

changes were established. No follow‐up has taken place. With support from the Government of Norway,

a “Biomass Land Cover” database has been maintained since 1988. Field plots were established and are

still monitored, data analysed and an “Annual Report” is produced. The foregoing indicates that

ingredients of the integrated information and monitoring system already exist, albeit in a disjointed

manner that does not service all the nodes in the sector.

6. The Fuelwood Market

According to FD, charcoal consumption in urban centres was estimated at 270,000 tonnes annually in

1995. This grew to 463,437 tonne in 2006, indicating a growing production in volume. Aggregate annual

consumption of biomass energy in the form of charcoal increased from 6 million m3 in 1995 to 11

million m3 in 2007 while the corresponding estimate for firewood stood at 32.8 million m3 in 2010

(NDP, 2010). By 2002, about 73% of all the districts in Uganda were already experiencing a deficit of

accessible woody biomass for fuel‐wood (NFA, 2009). Wood‐fuel is the dominant use of wood in Uganda

and generally, biomass is the dominant energy source in Uganda (92% for households and small and


medium scale industries ‐ bakeries, brick‐making, breweries, hotels, schools, sauna clubs, tiles, tea and

lime factories and hospitals) (GoU, 2010). In 2009, Uganda Bureau of Standards (UBOS) indicated that

the nominal value of household expenditure on wood‐fuel (in both monetary and non‐monetary terms),

increased from 18 million tonnes in 1996/97 to 32.8 million tonnes in 2005/06, an 82 percent increase

over a period of 9 years. The value of charcoal consumption more than doubled, while the value of

firewood consumption for the same period increased by 68 percent. In general, the total value for all

wood‐fuel uses and other wood uses in Uganda has grown dramatically with the highest value

registered for firewood use at household level, followed by sawn timber.

It is the increasing urbanisation, prohibitively high cost of cooking gas and electricity and the appliances

thereof that drives the fuelwood demand. Regulation of production and trade in wood‐fuel is a

responsibility of local governments. In view of the limited financial and human capacity at their disposal

and the systemic corruption in Uganda, the bulk of wood‐fuel production and transportation is illegal. It

should be noted that firewood for commercial purposes is more destructive than that which is being

collected for domestic use by people living near forests. In Forest Reserves close to the capital city

Kampala, illegal firewood harvesting is particularly destructive.

7. Forest Utilisation

It was estimated that about 44 m³ millions of wood‐fuel and 2 million m3 of industrial round‐wood were

produced in Uganda during 2008 (FAO, 2008). Uganda registered a steady increase in the total round‐

wood production and consumption over the period 2003 ‐ 2007 and this trend is likely to continue due

to population growth and the booming construction industry given inadequate supply of alternatives to

wood. It is worth noting that the volume of recorded timber produced and moved by licensed operators

in industrial forest plantations was 100,000 m3 during FY 2005/06 (NFA Annual Report, 2005/06) while

AAC from tropical rain forests stood at 53,000 m3. When the timber that went unrecorded was factored

in, consumption in the country during 2005/06 was estimated at around 500,000m3, equivalent to

approximately 1,500,000 m3 of roundwood annually generating about US$ 50 million. These are in fact

old figures because according to NFA (personal communication), no accurate data on forestry in Uganda

has been available since 2008, when the systematic data gathering and processing came to a halt due to

lack of financial resources and corruption.

Currently, timber production from natural forests has declined significantly and the older softwood

plantations that were established in the 1960–70s have almost all been harvested while most of the new

plantations are less than 10 years old. The timber market is, however, still dominated by hardwood

timbers from natural forests and woodlands, pine and eucalypts harvested from the few remaining

mature forests in CFRs, pine and cypress imported from Kenya, Tanzania and Mahogany

(Entandrophragma spp and Khaya anthoceca), mvule (Melicia excelsa) and nkalati (Aningeria spp)

imported from the DRC. The country will face a significant gap in timber supply until 2025 when recently

established plantations will reach harvestable sizes.

Demand for treated transmission poles is increasing in response to government intensification of the

rural electrification programmes. Annual consumption of transmission poles (wet poles) rose from 7,500

in 1999 to 25,000 in 2008. Round‐wood production in 2007 was used mainly as wood‐fuel, timber and

poles. Wood‐fuel (firewood and charcoal) accounted for the lion’s share (94%), while sawn timber and

poles each accounted for 3% of the total wood used.


The unsustainable harvesting of trees has led to qualitative forest degradation through “creaming” of

tree species such mahogany (Entandrophragma and Khaya spp), mvule (Melicia excelsa) and musizi

(Maesopsis eminii). The trend shows that more than 50 species are harvested or traded illegally and the

top 10 are natural forest species. The first two top species harvested illegally (Antiaris toxicaria and

Fantumia latifolia) are low quality rough construction timbers, a symptom of a vibrant construction

industry and, therefore, the prices are worth risking engagement in illegal activity. Since these species

are common in all parts of Uganda, most likely this timber comes predominantly from central Uganda

where the construction industry is most vibrant and the economic transport distances make it profitable

for an illegal operator. The combined effect of deforestation and high consumption is resulting in

accelerated imbalance between national demand and supply of forest wood‐based products. Forest

products from licensed and unlicensed sources finally end up in the same market. Because illegally

acquired forest products are obtained without paying for the raw material and invariably avoid dues,

they are cheap and thus distort the market.

8. The Forest Industry Sector and Domestic Timber Market

Forest‐based industries in Uganda are dominated by timber production. They are largely artisanal,

characterised of low technology, dominated by informal business management and are wholly owned

by the private sector. Timber is produced through pit‐sawing, mobile sawmills and one stationary

sawmill. Timber is used mainly for making artisanal household furniture, house construction and curios.

Pit‐sawyers provide the bulk of sawn wood on the market. The sawmilling industry comprises cheap

mobile sawmills operated by low‐skill personnel, resulting in wasteful harvesting techniques, low

recovery rates (20‐35%) and low quality timber. There is poor storage and no quality grading of sawn

timber resulting in low value products. Only six drying kilns are in operation by industrial furniture

manufacturers. There are five pole treatment plants in the country and only one wood‐based factory,

manufacturing panel products (ply‐wood, block‐board and flush doors) for the domestic market and

export to South Sudan, Eastern DRC, Rwanda, Burundi and Northern Tanzania. A considerable amount of

furniture is nowadays imported from South East Asia (Malaysia, China, Thailand, Singapore and

Indonesia).

9. Timber Trade

9.1 Overview Uganda imports more wood‐based products than it exports and is a net importer in this respect. Export of

logs was banned in the 1970s while export of sawn‐wood was banned during the early 1980s. The main

reason for the ban was dwindling saw‐log resources in the face of growing demand. The ban was observed

although some smuggling still occurs. Today processed and semi‐processed timber products, mainly

furniture and doors may be exported. The country has little external trade in wood‐based products and

paper imports account for the bulk of that trade (see Figure 1).

9.2 Imports Timber is imported from DRC, South Sudan and Northern Tanzania. This is subject to the normal

customs requirements and a fee of 1% of the value of the timber is paid. This is in form of sawn timber

and cants (a square‐faced log from which only 4 slabs have been removed) and a few logs, the latter


mainly from South Sudan. Paper is supplied mainly from the European Union, India, Kenya, South Africa,

and the United Arab Emirates. Generally, import of wood‐based products has increased during recent

years due to sustained growth in the construction sector. South Africa, DRC and China supply most of

the timber and wood products that are imported.

9.3 Exports Most of the timber exported from Uganda comprises cants and panel products (respectively destined

mainly to Kenya and Rwanda). It is thus likely that most sawn wood imported into Uganda is used in the

country. In 2007, about 40,000 m3 entered Uganda from DRC and half of this volume was in transit to

Kenya (Forests Monitor, 2007). In so far as government is absent from those parts of DRC which supply

that sawn wood, these supplies are likely to be illegal. Figures 1 and 2 show overall external trade in key

wood based products while Figures 3‐8 give details in terms of sources of imports and destination of

exports for assorted wood products. Whether DRC timber is used in Uganda or re‐exported depends on

which option is more profitable and not as a commitment to supply as done under normal trade.

Figure 1 Uganda’s Trade in Wood‐based Products

Timber Trade flows within, to and from East African Countries – Uganda Study 25 | P a g e

Figure 2 Map showing Uganda’s trade in wood‐based products (2011)

Source: based on UN Comtrade

Key to products:Key to quantities:

20,000 m3

50,000 m3

100,000 m3

(arrow width proportional to roundwood equivalent volume)

Sawn wood

Other wood

Logs

Paper

Fuel woodminimum shown: 15,000 m3


Figure 3 Uganda’s Imports of VPA Core Products

Source: UN Comtrade, 2012


Figure 4: Uganda’s imports of Paper Sector Products



Figure 5 Uganda’s Imports of Sawn‐wood



Figure 6 Uganda’s Exports of VPA Core Products



Figure 7 Uganda’s exports Paper Sector Products



Figure 8 Uganda’s Exports of Logs



9.4 Customs Procedures The Customs services in the EAC countries have been significantly improved and modernised in the past 5 years

as part of a EAC‐wide trade facilitation programme which includes collaboration between Customs services, data

exchange and one‐stop border posts. This and other measures such as improvement of Customs infrastructure,

adoption of computerised systems (such as Asycuda), adoption of the 2009 Customs Management Act and the

Common External Tariff and use of standard the international “Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding

System” (HS) codes for commodities traded have greatly improved the quality of information being collected by

Customs authorities across the EAC countries. In general, timber is handled like any other commodity that crosses

the Uganda borders. Customs officials are not trained on the uniqueness of this commodity nor are they exposed

to technical terms for measurements, authenticity of documentation, species recognition and valuation. At the

border, therefore, timber is just declared, valued according to what has been declared, then verified, following

dues are paid and the goods released.

10. Trends and Key Issues Corruption of all kinds and negative political interference currently characterise forestry governance in Uganda

and therefore being witnessed is unprecedented degradation of the forest resources due to all types of illegal

activities, including harvesting forests without any license. It has been seen that it is not only effective policing of

the forests, roads and markets but also the transparent, even‐handed and professional manner in which

responsible agencies handle the business that builds confidence among all stakeholders and increases

compliance at all levels. Any policies and laws are as good as those implementing them and thus the human

quality and quantity for FLEGT must always be considered. Experience indicates that there is not a single forest

offence in which there is no connivance of one sort or another by one or more government officials.

While existing administrative and management structures and instruments provide for most of the requirements

of good forest governance, implementation is dismally poor. There is simply a failure to implement what is

prescribed. In the mid‐1990s, FD implemented a policy dating back to 1928 and laws and regulations dating from

1968 and back. An estimated 50% compliance with those policies and laws yielded extremely positive results that

in turn indicated where and how to reform the sector. Thus, it is not shortage of policies, laws and regulations

but rather lack of implementation of existing instruments that is the issue. Legal reforms should, therefore, be

undertaken on the basis of pointers emerging from implementation of existing policies and laws.

11. Anecdotal Information and Stakeholder Perceptions on Illegal Logging and Trade

11.1 Illegal Trade in Timber from DRC to Uganda Timber from DRC is significant in the East African markets. Its acquisition usually follows locally established

procedures rather than those of the official provincial administration. Data from North Kivu showed that less than

one sixth of the timber exported through Mpondwe had paid the official taxes and, therefore, should be

considered technically illegal trade. However, local procedures normally take precedence over official procedures

and are followed when timber is being procured within DRC. So whether it should be considered illegal is

debatable. Once the timber is imported into or transiting through Uganda, if it complies with official Ugandan

procedures it is regarded as legal. Table 3 shows the volumes involved (White, S., et al, 2012)


Table 3 Destination Markets for Eastern DRC Logs

Country Volume m3

Uganda 7,820

Rwanda 7,120

Burundi 1,100

South Sudan 10,750

Kenya 32,100

Other 1,000

Source: White, S., et al (2012)

11.2 Smuggling across Borders In general, timber is a difficult commodity to smuggle. It is heavy and bulky, needs loading equipment, requires

logistics capacity, and is difficult to hide. The quantities smuggled are considered small and mainly confined to

small scale smuggling with bicycles. URA comprehensive coverage of customs posts along its borders provides it

with the capacity to prevent large scale timber smuggling. In addition, it has strategically placed internal

checkpoints that can intercept smuggled goods, and URA has active mobile security units using networks of

informers and surveillance teams on roads. URA Customs also uses client profiling to help identify smugglers and

focuses on those who are most likely to be smuggling. There are some sections of border that are porous

including in the north – eastern section close to South Sudan where there is a modest amount of smuggling using

bicycles. Other locations where there are some opportunities for smuggling are across L. Albert or R. Semliki at

Busunga and Rwebisengo but the volumes are considered to be small.

At Mpondwe, transit trucks that carry goods to DRC were observed carrying small quantities (about 10 pieces of

12x2x18 inches) on their return and selling it on the Uganda side. The volume of this timber is not recorded on

the DRC side but the Uganda customs sometimes takes it to its timber yard and levies taxes on it. Checks in local

timber markets in towns near the border (Arua, Fort Portal, Bundibugyo, Kasese) all indicated that DRC timber

prices were high indicating that there is relatively little smuggled timber available. Overall it is considered that

the quantities of timber smuggled are modest.

11.3 Under Declarations of Volumes Under declaration of the quantity of timber is one way of reducing the amount of tax to be paid. Given the high

rates of tax and the competitive market there is a strong incentive to under‐declare volumes. Where timber loads

consisting of mixed sizes are involved, the volume can be difficult to calculate and the under declaration may be

difficult to detect. This is a significant problem for both domestic and imported timber. For the latter, the

problem gets worse when quantity is expressed as weight on the Customs forms as is normally the case instead

of volume expressed as numbers of pieces, dimensions and cubic meters.

For instance, the official statistics provided by URA Customs on imports for 2010‐11 shows 6,554 tonnes in 2010

and 5,461 tonnes in 2011 (Table 4). Assuming 1m3 mahogany weights 0.7 tonnes, this is equivalent to 9,364 m3 in

2010 and 7,802 m3 in 2011. However, the value of the timber provided by URA (assuming a value of $180/m3 for

mahogany as per the URA 2009 guidelines), indicate a volume of 5,400 m3 in 2010 and 3902 m3 in 2011. In other

words, for 2011 the weights indicate a volume of 7,802 m3 but duty and taxes were collected on 3,902 m3.

Discussions with timber dealers both in Kampala and at border posts indicated that under‐declaration of volumes

is common practice and that it is done in collusion with Customs officials (ibid).


Table 4 URA Data on Imports From DRC (USA dollars)

Year Net Weight (kgs) Value Duty 10%) Excise VAT (18%) Witholding Tax (6%)

2010 6,554,787 972,005 97,130 0 192,444 58,320

2011 5,461,620 702,528 70,214 0 139,093 42,152

Source: URA Customs (2012)

11.4 Mixing DRC Timber with Local Timber Another category of illegal trade is export of Ugandan timber or adding Ugandan timber to transit loads from DRC

and South Sudan and passing it off as DRC or South Sudan timber. Export of Uganda timber is forbidden by law.

At Paidha, where timber is re‐sawn to smaller sizes for the South Sudan market, the bonded yard is not secure

and there is a possibility of Ugandan timber being added and entering the supply chain for export to South Sudan.

URA staff pointed out that it is difficult to distinguish timber sourced in Uganda from timber sourced in DRC. For

example, there is a lot of Eucalyptus timber in the area around Paidha and Zeu and also coming from Uganda, and

it is difficult for Customs officials to know if it is locally sourced eucalyptus or smuggled mahogany from DRC.

According to the District Forest Officer (DFO) of Masindi District, there are quantities of timber originating in the

area that are being exported to South Sudan via Nimule but the scale and extent of this trade is difficult to

evaluate (ibid). It is also common that timber is declared as “in transit”, in which case it will attract less tax, but

ends up on the local market.

11.5 Mixing Species and Sizes By their nature, tropical forests are made up of very many different tree species and their respective timber fetch

different prices on the market and hence attract different rates of tax. Also, different sizes fetch different prices

and attract different rates of tax. Traders will normally mix the timber in such way that the species and sizes that

attract the lowest tax are more easily accessible and seen on the truck.

11.6 Mixing Timber with Other Commodities It is not uncommon to find trucks in Uganda carrying a load of timber and bananas, charcoal or other

commodities on top of or behind the timber, away from a casual eye. In the majority of cases, such timber has no

documentation and has been acquired illegally.

11.7 Counterfeits There is a common tendency for timber traders and transporters to counterfeit hammers that are used to mark

the timber and also forge timber movement permits. This crime has been so perfected that it takes an

experienced person to tell the difference between the authentic marks and documents from forgeries. At times

the culprits are assisted by government officials in this practise.

11.8 Unauthorised Sawing Many illegal operators produce and transport a few pieces of timber on small 1‐tonne trucks instead of the

common 7‐tonne trucks, often mixed with other goods, to avoid detection. Also, illegal operators have started

cutting 7 feet long pieces, as opposed to 14 feet in order to be able use pick‐up trucks which can transport

smaller loads and can be used in difficult village roads. It has also become common practice for illegal operators

to cut young trees, cut them into short logs or thick slabs, mix them with firewood and are re‐sawn either in their


gardens using pit‐saws or in carpentries using re‐saws. The timber produced is rough construction timber and is

transported at night straight to building sites and not to the market.

12. Conclusions and Recommendations

12.1 Conclusions Most illegalities occur in the forest through failure to follow the law and established licensing procedures largely

by government officials collaborating with operators. Inadequate surveillance also encourages crafty people that

want to make quick profit to engage in illegal harvesting and transportation. Introduction of chainsaws in late

1980s has worsened the problem as it has quickened the process of conversion.

FD/NFA have demonstrated that policies, laws and regulations must be based on and should eventually be

translated and linked to basic and solid forestry science if they are to have a positive impact on the forests. In this

regard inventory and stock‐mapping (where applicable) have been found to be central to FLEGT and no amount

of policing and regulating will be a substitute for these. Also, FLEGT must be carried out not only to ensure the

legal and physical integrity of forests but also to guarantee profitability on investment and hence secure revenue.

The tendency to criminalise efforts by investors to maximise profits must change as profit is a sine qua non for

any business to be sustainable. Forest operators must be assisted to make legitimate and legal profit through

effective FLEGT. Uganda’s experience over the past two decades clearly demonstrates the central role that FLEGT

plays in SFM. In view the foregoing, it is no longer tenable for governments and donors to shy away from it since

it is the bottom‐line for attaining SFM.

12.2 Recommendations

National

Political Support

Political manipulation is a major issue in persistent illegal activities. This often leads to breakdown of law and

order and hampers private investments in the sector. Activities of forest offenders cause serious ecological, social

and economic impacts spanning the whole country. To enable effective FLEG, GoU should provide strong,

consistent and open political support to the forest management authorities and the law enforcement agencies.

This is not new. In 1988, GoU made a decision, took a firm stand and provided the resources to evict over 40,000

encroachers from PAs.

Partnerships

NFA has shown that partnerships among law‐enforcement agencies can be developed successfully and this

achieves results quickly in a cost‐effective manner. Therefore, institutions responsible for forestry, trade and

export should forge strong partnerships with law enforcement agencies at local, national and regional levels. The

reasons being the importance of joint planning, sharing of information and intelligence, raising awareness,

harmonizing activities and optimizing use of resources. Incentives, such as easing access to benefits from the

forests by local communities, also play an important role in enhancing compliance with the law among local

communities and should be provided to foster support for FLEGT.


Private Forestry

Tree planting by the private sector and local communities is being promoted in Uganda on both private and

government land as a means of reducing pressure on the natural forests. This is also contributing to restoration

of the degraded natural forests. Once these are ready for harvesting, it will be possible to establish a new regime

hinged on largely self‐regulation and hence reduce the need for more intrusive surveillance, enforcement and

sanctions. Incentives and technical support should continue to be given by GoU and development partners to

consolidate and enhance the nascent private sector interest in the forestry sector.

Regional

Integrity and Transparency

Experience has shown that sometimes alternative GoU interests lead to non‐compliance with established laws. It

may require regional cooperation to legislate for the protection of natural resources. To this end, the East African

Community should enact a regional legally‐binding law providing for respect of the rule of law to uphold

transparency, integrity and professionalism in FLEGT by national governments.

Cross‐border FLEGT Mechanisms

Currently, there are no mechanisms to regulate transboundary FLEGT. This has led to an unregulated trade and

the movement of forest produce across borders. Therefore, the East African Community should enact a regional

agreement to regulate cross‐border trade and movement of forest products. The regional agreement should take

into account relevant recommendations of the East African Legislative Assembly made in 2004.

International

Funding FLEGT

For a very long time, financing FLEGT has not been very popular with both GoU and development partners.

Popular themes that appeal to the innermost sentiments of many such as “biodiversity conservation” and

combating “climate change” tend to attract more focused attention and commitment than law enforcement.

Even autonomous bodies like NFA and UWA do not provide adequate budgetary support to meet the challenges

of FLEGT. Effective FLEGT can promote generation of revenue by securing business interests of law‐abiding

operators, and hence enabling them to make profit and pay fees and taxes, and eliminating internal “leakages”.

Thus, investing in FLEGT is a sine qua non for achievement of SFM.

Need for a VPA

As noted before, Uganda is a net importer of wood‐based products and exports insignificant quantities of the

same deriving from Ugandan wood. The bulk of what is exported is from wood imported from DRC and S. Sudan,

except for panel products exported to N. Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, DRC and S. Sudan. Uganda’s trade in wood‐

based products, particularly with the EU and China is indeed very small. Thus the resources needed to negotiate a

VPA might outweigh any benefit from the VPA. Hence, while EU may assign low priority to negotiating a VPA with

Uganda on basis of relevant parametric criteria, the country’s geo‐political position may dictate implementation

of other parts of the EU FLEGT Action Plan.


References 1. GOU (2004). POVERTY ERADICATION ACTION PLAN.

2. GOU (2005). CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA.

3. GOU (2007). REPORT OF THE INTER‐MINISTERIAL TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON ASSESSING THE REQUEST BY MEHTA

GROUP TO GROW SUGARCANE ON PART OF MABIRA FOREST RESERVE LAND.

4. MINISTRY OF WATER, LANDS AND ENVIRONMENT (2001). FORESTRY SECTOR REVIEW.

5. MINISTRY OF WATER, LANDS AND ENVIRONMENT (2001): THE UGANDA FORESTRY POLICY.

6. MINISTRY OF WATER, LANDS AND ENVIRONMENT (2002). THE NATIONAL FORESTRY PLAN

7. MINISTRY OF WATER, LANDS AND ENVIRONMENT (2003). THE NATIONAL FORESTRY AND TREE PLANTING ACT.

8. MINISTRY OF WATER, LANDS, AND ENVIRONMENT (2004). FOREST PRODUCE MARKETING AND TRANSPORTATION;

PUBLIC NOTICE.

9. NATIONAL FORESTRY AUTHORITY & WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY. (2004). THE VALUE OF UGANDA’S FORESTS –

A LIVELIHOODS AND ECOSYSTEMS APPROACH; A CONSULTANCY REPORT.

10. NATIONAL FORESTRY AUTHORITY (2004). A DRAFT CONSULTANCY REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE NATIONAL FORESTRY

AUTHORITY.

11. NATIONAL FORESTRY AUTHORITY (2005). REPORT ON ENCROACHMENT IN CENTRAL FOREST RESERVES ‐ TEN

MONTHS OF TOUGH CHALLENGES AND HARD CHOICES.

12. NATIONAL FORESTRY AUTHORITY (2005). BRIEF TO HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT ON ENCROACHMENT AND

FUNCTIONS OF CENTRAL FOREST RESERVES IN UGANDA.

13. NATIONAL FORESTRY AUTHORITY (2006). A GUIDELINE ON INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION OF LEGAL SOURCES OF

TIMBER (DRAFT).

14. NATIONAL FORESTRY AUTHORITY (2006). A GUIDELINE ON LOGGING IN NATURAL FORESTS – THE SUPERVISOR’S

TOOLKIT.

15. NATIONAL FORESTRY AUTHORITY (2006). ANNUAL REPORT.

16. NATIONAL FORESTRY AUTHORITY (2006). PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL WORKSHOP ON STRENGTHENING

PARTNERSHIPS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT.

17. NATIONAL FORESTRY AUTHORITY (2007). FOREST PRODUCE DATABASES.

18. SIMON GROVE (1995). A NATURE CONSERVATION RESOURCE BOOK FOR FORESTRY PROFESSIONALS. COMMONWEALTH

SECRETARIAT, MARLBOROUGH HOUSE, PALL MALL, LONDON.

19. SPGS (2005). REDUCING UNCERTAINTY FOR FOREST INVESTORS IN UGANDA – KAMPALA, UGANDA.

20. SPGS (2010). TIMBER MARKET STUDY – KAMPALA, UGANDA.

21. STEVE AMOOTI NSITA (2004). DECENTRALIZATION AND FOREST MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA ‐ REPORT OF A

WORKSHOP CO‐ORGANIZED BY THE GOVERNMENTS OF INDONESIA AND SWITZERLAND.

22. WWF (2012). NATIONAL TIMBER TRADE AND FLEGT SOLUTIONS IN UGANDA – KAMPALA, UGANDA.

WWF (2012). TIMBER MOVEMENT AND TRADE IN EASTERN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO AND DESTINATION

MARKETS IN THE REGION – KAMPALA, UGANDA


Annexes

Annex 1 ‐ List of Persons Contacted

Name Institution

1. J. Ndimukulaga National Forestry Authority

2. L. Etwodu National Forestry Authority

3. S. White LTS International

4. S. Rwabwogo Formerly with NFA & URA

5. E. Nyakato ERIMU Timber Works Ltd.


Annex 2 ‐ License for Forest Harvesting

The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003

(Act 8, Section 41‐Laws of Uganda)

LICENSE TO CUT OR TAKE PRODUCE IN A CENTRAL FOREST RESERVE (Not Transferable)

No 2 Date Management Range

Subject to the conditions of the National Forestry and Tree Planting Act, 2003 and any Regulations

made under the Act and to the terms and conditions stated in this Form:

M/s. of

is authorised to cut, take and remove the under mentioned forest produce from

Plantation/Central Forest Reserve for the period to

Forest Produce Allowed

Sector

Description of

Produce

Allowable cut Species Rate Amount

Payable

VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT)

TOTAL

Received the sum of Uganda Shillings

Receipt No

APPROVAL (CO‐ORDINATOR‐FOREST UTILISATION)

Signature............................................................................ Name

AUTHORISATION (DIRECTOR‐FIELD OPERATIONS)

Signature............................................................................ Name

Additional special conditions are attached.

Copies: Original to Licensee; Finance Department; Range Manager; Plantation Manager

E ti


Annex 3 ‐ Forest Produce Declaration Form

FOREST PRODUCE DECLARATION FORM

FPDF No…..…

Date: ……………………….

TO THE SECTOR MANAGER/DISTRICT FOREST OFFICER

P.O. Box ……………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………………………

1. M/s …………………………………………………………………………………

of …………………………………………………………………………………

permit / trading licence (#) …………………………………………………………

Has legally acquired the following forest products:

(i) Timber

Size Species (#) of Pieces

…………………………………………………………………………….

……………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………….

(ii) Charcoal ………………………………………………bags (#)

(iii) Firewood ……………………………….…… … pieces / bundles (#)

(iv) Billets…………………………………………………………….. pieces (#)

2. Approximate Royalty Value …………………………………………………………..

3. Forest Reserve / County ………………………………………………………….

4. Name of Officer i/c ……………………………… Designation …………………

5. Signature …………………………………………………………………………

Declaration: I DECLARE THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.

Original to Licensee

Duplicate to Uganda Revenue Authority

Triplicate to remain in Book


Annex 4 ‐ Forest Produce Movement Permit

FOREST PRODUCE MOVEMENT PERMIT (PERMIT VALID FOR ONE TRIP ONLY WITHIN TWO DAYS OF DATE OF ISSUE)

Important: Transport, storage and dealing in timber that is not appropriately coded by official hammer and

accompanied by this form make the timber liable for confiscation with possible fines and prosecution.

FPMP No………….. Date: …………………………….. District of Origin Code # ………… Field Hammer # …………………… M/S (Vehicle Driver) …………………………. ID Card No: ……………………… Vehicle Reg. # ………… Make ……………… Capacity ……………………………

Is hereby authorized to move the following forest produce From: …………………………………………. To: ………………………………… Belonging to M/s …………………………….. of: ………………………………… License No. …………………………………... VAT No. …………………………… FPDF No. …………………………………….. General Receipt No. ……………… Type of Produce Species Size No. of pieces ……………………….. ………………… ………………… ………………. ……………………….. ………………… ………………… ……….…….. Estimated value of produce in UGX. ……………………………………………………… Estimated VAT value in UGX. ……………………………………….………… (even if NOT registered) The said produce has been legally obtained from ……………………………………….…. (Forest Station) Name of Issuing Officer ……………………………… Signature of Issuing Officer ………………………….. Designation …………………………………………… Distribution: Original: Customer at destination Duplicate: Uganda Revenue Authority Triplicate: Remain in Book

Annex 5 –Tables of the UN Comtrade data used


Note: All data were assessed in 2012

a) Uganda’s imports of VPA Core products

Source Estimated RWE Volume Import value

(thousand cubic metres) (US$ million, cif, nominal)

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total 3 3 4 3 2 5 10 13 31 32 29 34 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 8 5 3 2

Study countries: 2 2 4 2 2 3 9 12 20 8 5 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 4 2 7 2 1 0

Kenya 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 6 7 4 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 Rwanda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South Africa 0 1 2 0 0 0 7 3 10 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 4 1 1 0 Tanzania 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of Africa: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 17 22 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

DR Congo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 15 17 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Sudan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EU‐27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of World

0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0


b) Uganda’s imports of Timber Sector products minus VPA Core products



2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total 7 6 7 15 13 12 16 22 30 29 38 48 3 3 3 6 8 7 8 14 12 12 12 12

Study countries: 5 4 5 5 6 5 4 4 4 5 6 10 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2

Kenya 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 South Africa 1 1 2 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0 1 2

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Rest of Africa: 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Mauritius 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

China 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 7 11 14 21 26 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 4 5 5 5

EU‐27 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 1

Rest of World: 1 1 1 8 4 5 7 9 12 9 10 11 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 3 3 4

India 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Malaysia 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 4 6 3 4 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

United Arab Emirates 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 5 4 5 6 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 Others 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 2


c) Uganda’s imports of paper sector products



2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total 117

116

115

153

195

199

234

247

309

327

335

388

29 33 29 38 49 51 63 70 101

99 99 124

Study countries: 84 84 74 92

122

112

118

125

146

123

106

115 18 22 18 21 28 27 28 29 40 35 31 41


Tanzania 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 4 5 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of Africa: 0 0 0 4 4 2 3 4 6 6 7 17 0 0 0 2 2 2 3 5 8 13 11 14

Egypt 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 4 6 5 6 16 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 5 8 13 10 13 Mauritius 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1

Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

China 1 3 4 4 6 4 7 10 11 18 27 39 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 6 9

EU‐27: 20 16 21 27 32 29 44 40 53 64 75 69 7 6 6 7 8 7 13 12 20 16 19 20

France 4 2 1 3 2 3 2 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 1 1 1 2 6 6 3 1 2 4 6 13 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 3

Spain 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 3 1 2 Sweden 6 5 9 12 15 13 29 31 41 40 55 37 1 1 2 3 3 2 6 7 13 8 11 8 Others 8 6 9 9 8 7 10 6 6 11 12 17 4 3 3 4 3 3 5 3 4 4 4 6

Rest of World: 12 12 16 25 31 51 62 69 93 116

120

148 4 4 5 7 10 14 17 21 30 31 31 40

India 1 2 3 4 9 13 23 27 36 49 37 54 0 0 1 1 2 4 7 8 12 14 11 16 Indonesia 1 2 2 5 4 3 11 5 8 6 9 9 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 2 2

Kuwait 1 1 2 5 3 5 2 0 4 4 6 4 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 Russia 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 10 15 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 5

Singapore 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 7 9 11 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 3 Thailand 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

United Arab Emirates 3 3 4 4 10 24 12 18 20 19 20 16 1 1 1 2 4 6 4 6 7 5 5 4

USA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 9 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 Others 6 3 5 5 3 4 10 13 8 14 11 17 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 3 4 3 5


d) Uganda’s imports of sawnwood

Source Estimated volume Import value


2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 10 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Study countries 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of Africa: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 10 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

DR Congo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 8 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EU‐27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of World

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

e) Uganda’s imports of logs

Source Estimated volume Import value


2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total 1 1 3 1 1 2 7 4 13 6 5 13 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 2 6 3 1 1

Study countries: 1 1 3 1 1 2 7 4 13 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 2 6 1 1 0


Tanzania 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of Africa: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Sudan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EU‐27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of World 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Volume (thousand cubic metres) Import value (US$ million, cif, nominal)

Counterpart data: 2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Exports from South Africa 0 1 0 0 0 2 11 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0

f) Uganda’s exports of VPA Core Products

Destination Estimated RWE Volume Export value


(thousand cubic metres) (US$ million, fob, nominal)

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total 0 2 3 3 6 7 7 11 20 9 13 23 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 3 4

Study countries: 0 1 3 3 4 6 6 10 19 9 9 6 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2

Burundi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Kenya 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 19 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Rwanda 0 1 3 3 4 5 5 4 0 0 4 3 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 1 1 Tanzania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of Africa: 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1

DR Congo 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sudan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Others 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EU‐27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of World: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

India 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

g) Uganda’s exports of Timber Sector products minus Core VPA products



2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 7 6 14 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 2 4 4

Study countries: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 6 11 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 3

Kenya 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 5 10 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 Rwanda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of Africa: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 1

Sudan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EU‐27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of World

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0


h) Uganda’s exports of paper sector products



2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total 1 2 5 4 5 9 5 11 15 17 28 39 0 1 1 1 2 3 2 5 6 8 11 14

Study countries: 1 2 5 4 4 7 4 8 10 12 17 24 0 1 1 1 2 3 2 4 4 6 8 10

Burundi 0 0 1 1 2 4 2 4 3 4 5 6 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 4 Kenya 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 4 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Rwanda 1 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 4 5 7 10 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 Tanzania 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of Africa: 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 5 5 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 3 4

Congo (Brazzaville) 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 2 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Sudan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 2 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EU‐27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of World

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

i) Uganda’s expert of sawnwood

Destination

Volume Export value


2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


j) Uganda’s experts of logs

Destination Volume Export value


2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 19 9 5 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 2

Study countries: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 19 8 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1

Kenya 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 19 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Rwanda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tanzania 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

EU‐27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rest of World 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

India 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Others 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Volume (thousand cubic metres) Import value (US$ million, cif, nominal) Counterpart data:

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Imports by Kenya 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 11 3 1

#REF! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0

#REF!

Imports by India 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Imports by Rwanda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

forest and timber trade flows to and countries uganda study

Documents