Compilation of the GHG Inventory – Uganda’s experience

Magezi-AkiikiDepartment of Meteorology

P. O. Box 7025Kampala, Uganda

Email: mageziakiiki@yahoo.com

CGE Hands-on Training Workshop on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories for the

African Region – Pretoria, South Africa18 – 22 September 2006

Introduction

• Land locked Country with in the East Africa Region

• Economy depends on agriculture which accounts for about 40% of GDP

• Industrial base comprises mainly light industries characterized by processing of raw materials from agriculture, forestry and water bodies (10% of GDP)

• Transport and Communication is on of the service industries which is growing fast

Introduction (contd)

• Uganda signed the UNFCCC on 13th June 1992 and ratified it on 8th September 1993

• Uganda compiled its GHG Inventory in 1994 with GEF/UNEP funding

• Inventory was updated in 1995 under the U.S. Country Studies Programme

• Covered: Energy, Industrial Processes, Solvents, Agriculture and Savannah Burning, Land Use Change and Forestry, and wastes

Industrial Processes

• Cement production (Two Factories)

• Lime Production

• Foam Mattress Production

• Solvents (Paint and Dry Cleaning industries)

Problems Encountered

• Insufficient Data (Many small lime producers- efficiency not known, Gaps, Not digitized)

• Lack of Transparency in Data release (Awareness, Weak inter-institutional collaboration)

• Lack of National Emission Factors – IPCC Default Factors used

• Lack of relevant Policies (Collection and storage of relevant data)

• Lack of follow-up activities (Limited Funds)

Recommendations

• Awareness raising for key Stakeholders (data collection and storage)

• Government to develop climate policy• Sensitization of relevant bodies on data

collection (Uganda Manufacturers Association, Uganda Investment Authority, Uganda National Bureau of Standards)

Recommendations (contd)

• Determination of Local Emission Factors under the Enabling Activities Phase II

• Up-dating the Inventory as part of compilation of the 2nd National Communication

• GEF and other donors should provide funding for follow-up activities