Approaches

Catchment Based Integrated Water Resources Management [Uganda]

Okurinda ebyobuhangwa

approaches_724 - Uganda

Completeness: 94%

1. General information

1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Key resource person(s)

SLM specialist:

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)
Book project: where people and their land are safer - A Compendium of Good Practices in Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) (where people and their land are safer) {'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 947, 'label': 'Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': 'Tear Fund Switzerland (Tear Fund Switzerland) - Switzerland', 'template': 'raw'}

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

1.4 Reference(s) to Questionnaire(s) on SLM Technologies

Percolation pits
technologies

Percolation pits [Uganda]

A percolation pit is an excavation in the ground in the pathway of water runoff to intercept the flow of the water and thereby reduce erosion and destruction of crops, settlements and other infrastructure downstream

  • Compiler: Philip Tibenderana
Bench Terracing
technologies

Bench Terracing [Uganda]

A bench terrace is an artificial horizontal strip dug across a steep landscape, with a riser ranging between 30 and 45 degrees. Bench terraces are constructed in series and help to minimize land degradation by rainwater runoff

  • Compiler: Philip Tibenderana
Soil and Water Conservation Channels
technologies

Soil and Water Conservation Channels [Uganda]

A soil and water conservation channel is an excavated trench along the contour with tie bands after an interval to trap water and soil which are being washed down the slopes by a downpour

  • Compiler: Philip Tibenderana
Farming God's Way
technologies

Farming God's Way [Uganda]

Farming Gods Way is a method of farming which aims to preserve soil structure through minimum tillage, mulching with grass or plant stalks and use of organic manure for improved crop yields.

  • Compiler: Philip Tibenderana

2. Description of the SLM Approach

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Catchment based integrated water resources management is a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in order to maximise economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital eco systems

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

This approach brings together all the people who are using the land resources within a defined area
This approach entails community mobilisation, organisation and empowerment to jointly harness and manage their resources sustainably for optimum benefits

The process begins when a request from a community is received. This is followed by an assessment to ascertain the needs and the level of involvement of the community.

The community is then mobilised through the religious and local leaders. The leaders then facilitate formation of local environment committees which are trained

The local environment committees convene community meetings and the community does the hazard and vulnerability assessments, and identifies the adaptation strategies. The community then identifies resource user groups which are trained and supported to implement the technologies

The stakeholders involved were the church and local leaders who do the mobilisation, government technical staff for technical backup and supports enforcement of by-laws, community members who attend meetings and trainings and participate in applying the technologies, Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme (KDWSP) which provides technical expertise and subsidises implementation of the technologies, development partners who provide funding and capacity building for implementation staff, other development agencies who share experiences

The land users appreciate the approach because it puts them at the forefront of the planning and implementation to address their problems. However, the approach is demanding in terms of time

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

Country:

Uganda

Region/ State/ Province:

South Western Region

Further specification of location:

Rubaya Sub County, Kabale District

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

If precise year is not known, indicate approximate date when the Approach was initiated:

less than 10 years ago (recently)

2.7 Type of Approach

  • project/ programme based

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The main aim of the approach is to ensure that the water and related resources provide a source of livelihood to the people while being preserved for use by future generations and reducing resources based conflicts

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

social/ cultural/ religious norms and values
  • enabling

There are social groups in the communities which all community members highly conform to. Community members also are very religious and therefore the church is a very effective convener

availability/ access to financial resources and services
  • hindering

People are poor because they depend on susbsistence farming, and with limited land, there is low productivity and much of what is produced is consumed

institutional setting
  • enabling

Government and church structures are well established to the grass root and they are in support of development programmes

  • hindering

Although good laws exist, the level of enforcement is low

collaboration/ coordination of actors
  • enabling

Collaboration with other development agencies fosters learning and sharing of experiences and knowledge

legal framework (land tenure, land and water use rights)
  • enabling

People own land in a manner that they are free to use it the way they want

  • hindering

On the contrary, some people may not easily adopt th technology since it is at their will

policies
  • enabling

Relevant policies are in place

land governance (decision-making, implementation and enforcement)
  • hindering

Although policies are in place, they are not easily enforced

knowledge about SLM, access to technical support
  • enabling

This approach builds on already existing local knowledge and existence of government technical teams

markets (to purchase inputs, sell products) and prices
  • hindering

The farmers have low purchasing power due to poor incomes

workload, availability of manpower
  • hindering

The youth and men who are the most energetic are not active and spend most their time gambling and drinking and much of the work is being done by women

3. Participation and roles of stakeholders involved

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

  • local land users/ local communities

Attending meetings and trainings and participating in applying the technologies. Mostly women aged between 16 and 60

  • community-based organizations

KDWSP and existing community groups like stretcher groups, local savings and credit groups

Help to convene community members for meetings and trainings and enforcing by-laws

  • SLM specialists/ agricultural advisers

Training and providing technical knowledge and overseeing and supervision of technologies

  • researchers

Provide resource materials

  • teachers/ school children/ students

Teachers disseminate information, school children (age 8 - 15) engage in music, dance and drama with messages relating to SLM

  • NGO

Sharing experiences

  • private sector

Supplying inputs and provide market for the produce

  • local government

Mobilisation, enforcement of policies and provide technical support

  • national government (planners, decision-makers)

Make policies and guidelines and provide an enabling environment

  • international organization

Provide funding and capacity building for implementing agencies

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach
Involvement of local land users/ local communities Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation self-mobilization When disasters hit the communities, they organised themselves, through their leaders, and approached KDWSP to support them overcome these and similar disasters
planning interactive Following the hazard and vulnerability assessments, KDWSP in partnership with the Ministry of Water and Environment, explained to communities the different technologies and their benefits and the community decided on which technologies to adopt
implementation interactive The SLM specialists guided the land users on how to implement the technologies
monitoring/ evaluation interactive The SLM specialists, together with community elected representatives carried out the monitoring of the technologies

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:
  • mainly SLM specialists, following consultation with land users
Specify on what basis decisions were made:
  • evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)

4. Technical support, capacity building, and knowledge management

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:
  • land users
  • field staff/ advisers
Form of training:
  • on-the-job
  • farmer-to-farmer
  • demonstration areas
  • public meetings
Subjects covered:

Water resources management policies, regulations and guidelines, community based catchment planning, principles of IWRM, IWRM implementation approaches, roles and responsibilities, soil and water conservation practices and conservation farming, soil and water conservation practices and conservation farming, setting out and construction of soil and water conservation channels (use of the A-frame), construction of percolation pits, construction of bench terraces

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:
  • on land users' fields
  • at permanent centres
Describe/ comments:

There is a National Agricultural Research Organisation located within the District where land users can go for advisory services. There are also agricultural extension workers at sub county level and project staff who regularly follow up the land users

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?
  • yes, moderately
Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:
  • local
Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

The formed local environment committees are comprised of community representatives, local council leaders, sub county leadership and church leaders. They are responsible for mobilising communities, planning, implementation and monitoring of the technologies

Specify type of support:
  • capacity building/ training
  • equipment

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

There is routine field follow up made by KDWSP and the local environment

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

Yes

Comments:

This information will be used as a baseline for tracking progress and measuring impact

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

No

5. Financing and external material support

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

Indicate the annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach in US$:

150000.00

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Tearfund Switzerland

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

Yes

If yes, specify type(s) of support, conditions, and provider(s):

Tools for construction of the technologies, seedlings, setting up demonstration sites, training

5.3 Subsidies for specific inputs (including labour)

  • labour
To which extent Specify subsidies
partly financed Wages to people who construct the demonstration bench terraces. The beneficiary land user provides food for the laborers
  • equipment
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
tools fully financed For excavation of conservation channels and percolation pits
  • agricultural
Specify which inputs were subsidised To which extent Specify subsidies
seeds fully financed For establishment of hedge rows
If labour by land users was a substantial input, was it:
  • voluntary
Comments:

Labour for excavation of conservation channels and percolation pits was voluntary while labour for construction of demonstration bench terraces was paid in cash

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

No

6. Impact analysis and concluding statements

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

Did the Approach empower local land users, improve stakeholder participation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Land users can now do the technologies by themselves, conduct meetings, enforce their own by-laws

Did the Approach enable evidence-based decision-making?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Management structures are now able to meet regularly to make decisions based on observations and lessons learnt during the implementation of the technologies

Did the Approach help land users to implement and maintain SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Subsidy as part of the approach was a major support in helping to implement the technologies

Did the Approach improve coordination and cost-effective implementation of SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The established community management structures are linked to sub county technical staff for technical support and other service providers like other agencies

Did the Approach mobilize/ improve access to financial resources for SLM implementation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach focussed more on adoption of the technologies and did not go to the extent of training land users to mobilise financial resources

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of land users to implement SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Trained land users are now able to replicate the technologies with little or no external support

Did the Approach improve knowledge and capacities of other stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Local government leaders, churches, CSOs and community leaders were equipped with knowledge on SLM and exposed to best practices

Did the Approach build/ strengthen institutions, collaboration between stakeholders?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The stakeholders occasionally meet to discuss SLM matters and other issues are discussed in that forum

Did the Approach mitigate conflicts?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Land users work together in implementation of SLM technologies which promotes cohesion

Did the Approach empower socially and economically disadvantaged groups?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach did not specifically target disadvantaged groups

Did the Approach improve gender equality and empower women and girls?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Women have been targeted and considered to be part of the management committees or host demonstrations

Did the Approach encourage young people/ the next generation of land users to engage in SLM?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

SLM messages were disseminated through music, dance and drama by school children and youth who are next generation of land users

Did the Approach improve issues of land tenure/ user rights that hindered implementation of SLM Technologies?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

By-laws formed and guidelines which were provided to the land users have helped in the implementation of the technologies

Did the Approach lead to improved food security/ improved nutrition?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The SLM have helped to reduce fertile soil loss due to erosion, increase soil moisture content and reduce destruction of crops by surface runoff hence improved productivity

Did the Approach improve access to markets?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach did not focus on this aspect

Did the Approach lead to improved access to water and sanitation?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The technologies under this approach protect existing water sources and sanitation facilities from destruction by surface runoff and landslides and replenish sub-surface water sources

Did the Approach lead to more sustainable use/ sources of energy?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

Under this approach other technologies are integrated including energy saving stoves, agro-forestry which aim at sustainable use of the land resources

Did the Approach improve the capacity of the land users to adapt to climate changes/ extremes and mitigate climate related disasters?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach has led to increased adoption of the structures that minimise the impact of surface run offs on the farms of land users

Did the Approach lead to employment, income opportunities?
  • No
  • Yes, little
  • Yes, moderately
  • Yes, greatly

The approach has resulted in providing training for skilled labour. Beneficiaries are able to sell their labour and the technologies introduced create room for increased productivity from the farms of the land users

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

  • increased production

The approach delivers multiple technologies which enhance production

  • reduced land degradation

Leads to reduction of soil erosion, destruction of infrastructure, improved green cover

  • reduced risk of disasters

There is reduced risk of mudslides and valley bottom flooding which destroy lives, crops, livestock and infrastructure

  • reduced workload

The terraced areas are easier to work on than slanting slopes

  • payments/ subsidies

The subsidies reduce the initial investment costs

  • rules and regulations (fines)/ enforcement

Some of the land users fear to be fined and thus resort to implement the SLM

  • prestige, social pressure/ social cohesion

Some of the land users agree on what should be done and adhere to group set regulations

  • environmental consciousness

Depends on the historical climate trends and creates a sense of appreciating the realities in the occurrences which motivates them to work to curb them down

  • enhanced SLM knowledge and skills

Land users trained get motivated to put into practice what has been taught

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?
  • yes
If yes, describe how:

After learning from the demonstration technologies a number of land users have already adopted the technologies without any external support. It is hoped that this practice will continue after realising the benefits

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The approach strengthens the ability of land users coming together and working together
Increases land users capacity to put resources, which were thought to be useless, to better use
Creates more opportunities (knock-on effect), for example brick making arising from water retained in the dug percolation pits, silt in percolation pits can be used as manure and construction material like sand, goat rearing from planting hedge rows, manure from goat rearing
Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
The approach addresses a wide range of concerns at once for example the social economic and the environmental issues
It incorporates social and environmental considerations directly into policy and decision making
It directly involves all stakeholders
The approach creates a balance between water being used as a resource and at the same time being preserved

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view How can they be overcome?
The approach requires a lot of effort in terms of understanding it and implementing it Continuous sensitization and training
Some of the benefits of this approach are long term Continuous encouragement and exposure to successful areas and incorporating initiatives that realise short term benefits to keep the land users going
Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view How can they be overcome?
The approach is complex in the sense that it is multi-sectoral (cuts across agriculture, health, environment, engineering and governance Creating sharing platforms from the lowest to the highest level which enable continuous learning
Requires a lot of effort from diverse stakeholders - policy makers, policy enforcers, facilitators and implementers Exposure of the stakeholders to successful areas helps them to appreciate the approach and adopt it

7. References and links

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

  • field visits, field surveys
  • interviews with land users
  • interviews with SLM specialists/ experts
  • compilation from reports and other existing documentation

Periodic programme reports

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme, IWRM Annual Report (April 2015 - March 2016)

Available from where? Costs?

www.kigezi-watsan.ug

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Integrated Water resources Management

URL:

www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/iwrm.shtml

Title/ description:

Integrated Water Resources Management in Uganda

URL:

www.mwe.go.ug

Links and modules

Expand all Collapse all

Modules