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

{'additional_translations': {}, 'value': 2, 'label': 'Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)', 'text': '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)', 'template': 'raw'} {'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

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

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

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

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

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)

4.1 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

5.1 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

• equipment

• agricultural

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

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

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

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

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