Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL ADAPTATION PROGRAMMES OF ACTION (NAPA) FOR UGANDA REPORT
December, 2015
1
PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE NATIONAL ADAPTATION PROGRAMMES OF ACTION (NAPA) FOR UGANDA REPORT
December, 2015
2
This report was prepared by:
1. Justine Namaalwa Jjumba (PhD), Team Leader2. Allan Bomuhangi3. Kenneth Balikoowa
Citation:
EMLI (2015). Progress of Implementation of the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA) for Uganda Report. Environmental Management for Livelihood Improvement Bwaise Facility. Kampala, Uganda.
Copyright © 2015, Environmental Management for
Livelihood Improvement Bwaise Facility.
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part
and in any form for educational or non-profit services
without special permission from the copyright holder,
provided acknowledgement of the source is made.
The views in this publication do not imply the
expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of
Australian Aid, Action Aid Uganda and EMLI.
EMLI Bwaise Facility
Plot 1725 bwaise-Nabweru road
Kampala - Uganda
Tel: 0414 692 153
Email: [email protected]
www.bwaisefacility.org
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................ILIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................................IIACKNOWLEGEMENTS ........................................................................................IIILIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................IVEXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................V
1. INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................11.1. General Overview of Uganda’s Climate Change Circumstances....................................................................11.2 Development Of The Uganda Napa...................................................................................................................11.3 The NAPA Implementation Framework...........................................................................................................21.4 The Concept of a Resilient Community............................................................................................................3
2.0 THE TASK.....................................................................................................................42.1 The Approach.........................................................................................................................................................4
3.0 SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN AND THE FINDINGS...............................53.1 SUB-COMPONENT 1: MAPPING THE ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS IN UGANDA, WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON THE NAPA .........................................................................................................53.1.1 Gathering the Information................................................................................................................................53.1.2 The Adaptation interventions and lead Implementers..................................................................................53.1.3 The Funding Agencies ...................................................................................................................................73.1.4 Alignment of the adaptation interventions to the Uganda NAPA...............................................................83.1.5 Distribution of adaptation interventions.......................................................................................................11
3.2 SUB-COMPONENT 2: ASSESSING THE PROGRESS, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SOME NAPA INTERVENTIONS....................................................................................143.2.1 Gathering the Information.................................................................................................................................143.2.2 The Drought Early Warning System by ACTED in Nakapiripirit..............................................................173.2.3: The Soil and Water Conservation Project under TACC in Manafwa District........................................233.2.4 The Clean Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Project in Buikwe District......................................................263.2.5 Highlights of other adaptation interventions in the Karamoja region......................................................31 The Disaster Risk Reduction Project..........................................................................................................31 The Climate Proof Disaster Risk Reduction Project in Nakapiripirit District.....................................32 The Climate Smart and Sustainable Agriculture Project in Nakapiripirit............................................33 The Climate Change Adaptation Projects by GIZ....................................................................................33 Adaptation interventions by the Ministry of Water and Environment.................................................34
3.3 SUB-COMPONENT 3: IDENTIFYING THE GAPS, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NAPA IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................363.3.1 Information Gathering.....................................................................................................................................363.3.2 The Gaps in NAPA Implementation..............................................................................................................36
3.3.3 The Challenges in NAPA Implementation....................................................................................................36
3.3.4 The opportunities in NAPA implementation.................................................................................................37
4
3.4 SUB-COMPONENT 4: COMPARING AND CONTRASTING EXPERIENCES, GOOD PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF UGANDA NAPA WITH THAT IN OTHER COUNTRIES...............................................................................................................38
4.0 THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................404.1 The Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................404.2 The Recommendations........................................................................................................................................41
READING LIST.................................................................................................................43
LIST OF APPENDICES.....................................................................................................44
APPENDIX 1: MEMBERS OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION EXPERT TEAM..........................................................................................................................................................44APPENDIX 2: MAPPING OF ADAPTATION INTERVIEWS IN UGANDA.................................................45APPENDIX 3: CHECKLIST FOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS.........................................................55
I
List of Figures
FIGURE 1: PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS IN CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PROJECTS.....................................................................................................................7FIGURE 2: TOTAL LDCF FUNDING TO UGANDA AS OF 2014 COMPARED WITH OTHER LDCS......8FIGURE 3: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROJECT DESIGN WAS LINKED TO NAPA DOCUMENT...........9FIGURE 4: NAPA PRIORITY AREAS ADDRESSED BY THE DIFFERENT INTERVENTIONS..................9FIGURE 5: NAPA PRIORITY AREAS ADDRESSED BY THE DIFFERENT IMPLEMENTERS.................10FIGURE 6: DISTRIBUTION OF ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS ACROSS CLIMATIC ZONES............11FIGURE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS ACROSS GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS ............................................................................................................................................................12FIGURE 8: DISTRIBUTION OF ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY................13FIGURE 9: APPROACH FOR ASSESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF UGANDA NAPA INTERVENTIONS ..............................................................................................................................................15FIGURE 10: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION WITH NAKAPIRIPIRIT DEWS SENTINELS AND FOCAL HOUSEHOLDS.................................................................................................................................17FIGURE 11: AN EXAMPLE OF THE DROUGHT BULLETIN SUMMARY...................................................18FIGURE 12: A DRAMA GROUP DISSEMINATING DEWS KEY MESSAGES IN ACHOLI-INN VILLAGE, MOROTO DISTRICT.................................................................................................19FIGURE 13: SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES UNDER THE TACC PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................24FIGURE 14: A DRAINABLE PIT LATRINE CONSTRUCTED FOR A PRIMARY SCHOOL UNDER THE WASH PROGRAMME....................................................................................................................28FIGURE 15: AN UNDERGROUND WATER TANK CONSTRUCTED TO SUPPORT THE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITIES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY RELYING ON FLOWING WATER............28FIGURE 16: A BOREHOLE AND BOX SPRING PROTECTED AND MANAGED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES...................................................................................................................29FIGURE 17: THE GIZ ADAPTATION PROJECTS IN KARAMOJA................................................................33FIGURE 18: THE AKWAPUA SILTATION BASIN AND VALLEY TANK.......................................................34FIGURE 19: ARECHET VALLEY DAM AND THE WATERING TROUGHS................................................35FIGURE 20: USING THE WATER FROM ARECHET VALLEY DAM FOR IRRIGATION AND DOMESTIC USE.............................................................................................................................................35
II
List of Tables
TABLE 1: ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS IMPLEMENTED BY DIFFERENT PLAYERS.......................6TABLE 2 : CRITERIA FOR SELECTING NAPA INTERVENTIONS FOR IN-DEPTH ASSESSMENT............14TABLE 3: PARAMETERS INVESTIGATED DURING THE RAPID APPRAISAL OF THE NAPA IMPLEMENTATION IN SELECTED SITES.........................................................................................................16TABLE 4: A COMPARISON OF THE ACTIVITIES OF DEWS AGAINST THE ACTIVITIES FOR STRENGTHENING METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES .............................................................................19TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF THE RAPID APPRAISAL FOR THE DEWS IN NAKAPIRIPIRIT.....................21TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF THE RAPID APPRAISAL FOR THE SOIL CONSERVATION PROJECTUNDER TACC...........................................................................................................................................................25TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF THE RAPID APPRAISAL FOR THE WASH.........................................................30
III
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This assignment was completed with the financial support from Australian Aid, through Environmental Management for Livelihood Improvement Bwaise Facility (EMLI) in partnership with Action Aid Uganda.
The authors acknowledge the support received from the Expert and the Review team of the evaluation study who continuously monitored and reviewed the progress of the work.
Much appreciation is extended to the different actors (funders and implementers) who voluntarily shared information about their interventions. The authors are greatly indebted to the implementers and target communities of the DEWS programme in Karamoja region, the Soil and Water Conservation Project under TACC (Manafwa District) and the WASH project in Buikwe district, who provided the opportunity for the rapid appraisals that greatly enriched this work.
IV
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AfDB African Development BankADP Area Development ProgramsCBO Community-Based OrganisationCC Climate ChangeCCD Climate Change Department CPDRR Climate Proof Disaster Risk ReductionCLTS Community-Led Total SanitationCOP Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCCCSO Civil Society OrganisationDANIDA Danish International Development AgencyDEWS Drought Early Warning SystemEMLI Environmental Management for Livelihood Improvement Bwaise FacilityFAO Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United NationsFGDs Focus Group DiscussionsGEF Global Environment FacilityLDCF Least Developed Countries FundIK Indigenous KnowledgeLC Local CouncilLDC Least Developed CountriesLEG LDC Expert GroupLGs Local GovernmentsMAAIF Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and FisheriesMDGs Millennium Development Goals.MWE Ministry of Water and EnvironmentMEAs Multilateral Environmental AgreementsMTTI Ministry of Trade, Tourism and IndustryNAPA National Adaptation Programs of ActionNARO National Agricultural Research OrganisationNAFRRI National Forestry Resources and Research Institute NALIRI National Livestock Information and Research InstituteNCCSCS National Climate Change Steering Committee SecretariatNEMA National Environment Management AuthorityNFA National Forestry AuthorityNGO Non-Governmental OrganisationPAST Participatory hygiene And Sanitation TransformationPEAP Poverty Eradication Action PlanPMA Plan for Modernisation of AgriculturePMU Project Management UnitPRA Participatory Rural AppraisalPSC Project Steering CommitteeTACC Territorial Approach to Climate ChangeTORs Terms of referenceUNDP United Nations Development ProgrammeUNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate ChangeUNEP United Nations Environment ProgrammeUNMA Uganda National Meteorological AuthorityUSAID United States Agency for International DevelopmentUWA Uganda Wildlife AuthorityVHT Village Health TeamWASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
V
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is based on an assignment that aimed to assess the progress of implementation of the Uganda NAPA. The overall objective of the assignment was to evaluate the implementation of adaptation interventions in Uganda with special focus on implementation of the NAPA in order to assess progress, efficiency and effectiveness in creating resilient communities. The specific tasks of the study included mapping the adaptation interventions in the country, assessment of some NAPA interventions to unveil their progress and effectiveness in delivering the NAPA goal, and documenting the gaps, challenges and opportunities in the NAPA implementation. In order to generate the information, the team undertook document reviews, discussions with stakeholders and field-based rapid appraisals of the identified NAPA activities.
It was evident that adaptation interventions involve a myriad of players ranging from multilateral organisations (mainly as project funders), Government agencies (line ministries and local governments), NGOs, CSOs, CBOs and local communities. With specific reference to the NAPA, it was evident that both the NAPA document and the NAPA implementation framework were not popularised and hence, less than half of the mapped interventions were designed and implemented in line with the NAPA. However, it is important to note that whereas the other interventions were designed basing on institutional mandates, donor requirements and/or community needs, they can well be aligned to the various NAPA priority areas and are thus contributing to the goal of the NAPA. It was also noted that the prioritising the 9 NAPA areas was probably inappropriate given that the implemented activities do not reflect more interventions in the top priority areas. This could to some extent be due to thedisconnect between donor priorities and ranking of the adaptation priority areas. Further, the implemented activities are more skewed to the drought prone areasand this clearlysignals that drought is the most pronounced climate change effect in the country.
Some of the major gaps in the implementation included the fact that while the NAPA implementation framework envisioned an approach where the adaptation interventions/projects were to be implemented as components of the adaptation programme in order to attain a resilient community, the activities on ground were to a great extent segmented and non-complementary, and in some instances duplicated. One of the core challenges in the NAPA implementation has been the weak coordination of cross-sectoral adaptation interventions and the challenges in accessing GEF-LDC Fund for adaptation activities. There are however several opportunities that implementation of adaptation activities could take advantage of including the existence of any GEF agencies in the country like UNDP that have been active elsewhere in writing PIF for adaptation projects funding and the existence of several actors which provides potential for synergies to deliver the desired NAPA goal of a resilient community.
In general, the country has made tremendous achievements in terms of climate change adaptation, and these achievements could be augmented by enhancing the identified opportunities and addressing the challenges that have so far been encountered in the implementation of the NAPA. Further, the key lessons learnt and best practices should to a great extent be considered in the formulation and implementation of future adaptation interventions in response to decision 1/COP.16 including the process for the formulation of the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) for Uganda.
1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF UGANDA’S CLIMATE CHANGE CIRCUMSTANCES
Natural resources especially arable land, forests, wetlands etc. constitute the primary source of livelihood for the majority of the people. The natural resources and the rich biodiversity therein is supported by a favourable climate; arguably Uganda’s most valuable resource. The climate of Uganda is not only a natural resource, but a key determinant of the status and productivity of other natural resources, such as water resources, forest, agriculture and wildlife. However, Uganda is experiencing climate change, manifested through increased frequency of extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and landslides (Magrath, 2008). Weather, climate variability and change are the single greatest threat to socio-economic development in Uganda because the economy of Uganda depends on exploiting its natural resources and will remain so for the foreseeable future (MWE, 2007). Over 80% of Uganda’s population is rural, depending on rain fed agriculture (Sibiko et al., 2013), which is prone to impacts of climate variability and change. Other natural resource based sectors like forestry, energy and tourism are also highly sensitive to climate change. For instance, for the financial year 2007/2008, the cost of damage or resource waste due to climate change was more than annual budget allocation for some sectors of the economy like agriculture, social development, water and environment while accounting for about a half of the allocation to the health sector(Kabesiime, Owuor, Barihaihi, & Kajumba, 2015). According to UNDP/NEMA/UNEP Poverty Environment Initiative Uganda (2009) a decrease in economic growth from 6.6 % to 5.3 % in the period 2004/2005 to 2005/2006 was attributed to falling water levels in Lake Victoria as a result of climate change. Therefore addressing climate change was important in Uganda’s pursuit for sustainable development, meeting the MDG and objectives of the National Development Plan (MWE, 2007; UNDP, 2007).
1.2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE UGANDA NAPA
According to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) , Least Developed Countries (LDCs) are the most vulnerable states to the adverse effects of climate change. In order to address the adverse effects of climate change in these states, the Conference of the Parties (COP7) to the UNFCCC operationalized paragraph 9 of Article 4 through its decisions on LDC issues. These included the adoption of the National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) and the establishment of the LDC Fund to support preparation of NAPAs in LDCs. Further, delegates of COP7 requested the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) to support the process. The NAPAs are means to identify and communicate priority interventions addressing a country’s urgent and immediate (short-term) needs and concerns in regard to climate change adaptation. It must be emphasized that the NAPAs are community led actions, area specific oriented and are therefore not national adaptation plans to mitigate medium and long-term impacts of climate change (MWE, 2008).
In 2007, Uganda responded to the decision by COP7 and developed the NAPA whose main objective is to address the urgent and immediate national needs and concerns relating to adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change. According to MWE (2007), the development of the Uganda’s NAPA followed guidelines for preparation of NAPAs (UNITR, 2003) and annotated guidelines of the Least Developed Countries Expert Group (LEG, 2002). Uganda’s NAPA development process was further guided by two considerations: the
2
need for Uganda to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the country’s development objectives as enshrined in the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (MWE, 2007). Of particular concern with regards to the MDGs were commitments to address the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, ensuring environmental sustainability, gender equity and combating major diseases.
In the formulation process, five major ecological zones were considered from which twelve districts were selected on the basis of their vulnerability to adverse impacts of climate change related disasters. Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) methods were used to collect data on climate variability, associated shocks and possible adaptation interventions. The identified adaptation interventions were then screened using a three tier criteria: National level, community level and urgency and immediacy. From this screening, a priority list of 9 adaptation intervention projects were developed notably: (i) Community tree growing project, (ii) land degradation management project, (iii) strengthening meteorological services project, (iv) community water and sanitation project, (v) water for product project, (vi) drought adaptation project, (vii) vectors, pest and disease control project, (viii) Indigenous knowledge and Natural resources management project, and (ix) climate change and development planning project. A budget estimate of US$ 39.8 million and a time frame of 3- 5 years were estimated for the implementation of the projects given the urgent need for adaptation to climate change.
Project profiles were developed based on the prioritized and ranked intervention strategies, and these were not area specific. The selection of a project area was supposed to be based on findings of the PRA. For instance priority was to be given to:
(a) Community tree growing in the highland areas, which are prone to landslides (b) Adaptation to drought in the semi-arid areas
Notwithstanding the urgent need to implement the Ugandan NAPA, several barriers were identified which were likely to hinder effective implementation of the identified and prioritised interventions. Therefore, special attention was expected to be given to these barriers in the design of the NAPA projects. Successful and immediate implementation of the first set of NAPA projects was expected to demonstrate the need to integrate climate change issues into the development planning process at both central and local government levels. This would reduce the cost of adaptation, particularly for long term measures. It was further clearly noted in the NAPA document that the success of NAPAs would depend on the actions taken to meet the expectations of the vulnerable communities to whom NAPAs have raised a ray of hope.
1.3 THE NAPA IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK
In order to implement the above NAPA projects, an implementation framework was developed where the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment assisted by the National Climate Change Steering Committee Secretariat (NCCSCS) were identified to coordinate the implementation of the NAPA projects. The implementation of these projects was a mandate of local institutions (local governments, NGOs and CBOs), and thus expected to be executed at field level and directly supervised by line institutions at the district. The NCCSCS was also mandated to liaise with the UNFCCC Secretariat and report to the Conference of the Parties on the implementation of the NAPA.
3
The implementation framework was to help coordinate the implementation of the NAPAs in such manner that would ensure effective utilisation of available resources, while avoiding duplication and stifling bureaucracy (MWE, 2008). In the framework, it was clearly stated that addressing one or more of the 9 priority interventions would only make a community less vulnerable but not climate change resilient. Therefore a programmatic approach is being followed at implementation as opposed to the strictly project approach as the NAPA document would suppose.
1.4 THE CONCEPT OF A RESILIENT COMMUNITY
Resilience is withstanding negative impacts of an event or minimizing vulnerability to negative impacts of an event. According to the NAPA Implementation framework (MWE, 2008), a resilient community, in the context of climate change, is ability to minimize its vulnerability to impacts of adverse effects of climate change. A resilient community with regards to NAPA must be able to effectively adapt to impacts of droughts, floods, landslides and high temperatures and associated problems such as health and water stress. Improving resilience of a community is therefore improving access to basic needs (water, food, health and educational services) and facilitating production and diversifying livelihoods of its people. Degraded physical features and soils, poor land-use planning, poor infrastructure design and poor agricultural practices will increase vulnerability of communities living in such surroundings and therefore the implementation of the NAPA must reverse and improve the state of the above factors.
4
2.0 THE TASK
Due to the recognition that climate change is real in Uganda and that adaptation to the impacts of climate change is needed, the Government of Uganda (GoU) endorsed Uganda’s NAPA and is committed to its implementation. This assignment was a response to the call by the Environmental Management for Livelihood Improvement Bwaise Facility (EMLI) in partnership with Action Aid Uganda and with financial assistance from Australian Aid, to assess the progress of implementation of the Uganda NAPA. The overall objective of the assignment was to evaluate the implementation of adaptation interventions in Uganda with special focus on implementation of the NAPA in order to assess progress, efficiency and effectiveness in creating resilient communities.
In view of this objective, the following specific tasks were carried out:
1. Mapping the adaptation interventions in the country, with a special focus on the NAPA;2. Tracking progress of 3 NAPA interventions in 3 climatic zones;
2.1. Assessing the operational efficiency in implementing priority interventions in 2 climatic zones;2.2. Assessing the effectiveness of the implemented interventions in creating climate resilient communities;2.3. Documenting the experiences including challenges, good practices and lessons learned from implementation of adaptation interventions;
3. Identifying gaps, obstacles and opportunities in the NAPA implementation process;4. Comparing and contrasting experiences, good practices and lessons learned from implementation of
Uganda NAPA with those in other countries.
2.1 THE APPROACH
In order to accomplish the above tasks, review of available documents, stakeholder engagements and Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs) of some NAPA interventions were done. These approaches were used differently in the three sub-components of the assignment. The database that was generated by the Climate Change Department CCD under the actors’ landscape mapping exercise was the basis for identifying the different actors. In addition, the team interacted with the members of the Expert team of the NAPA evaluation study and the reviewers (Appendix 1) to focus and inform the study. The findings of this assignment are expected to inform future adaptation interventions in response to decision 1/COP16 including the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) formulation process.
5
3.0 SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN AND THE FINDINGS
3.1 SUB-COMPONENT 1: MAPPING THE ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS IN UGANDA, WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON THE NAPA
3.1.1 GATHERING THE INFORMATION
The guiding questions for mapping the adaptation intervention was guided by two questions ;( i) Who is doing what?(ii) Where are the activities implemented, and (iii) How is the activity linked to NAPA Uganda? Spatial mapping of stakeholders and their engagements in the 5 climatic zones was done through document reviews, consultations with funding agencies and consultations with institutions, organisations and individuals implementing various interventions. The stakeholder engagements were through various means including face to face interactions, telephone conversation and email communications. In the process, the challenges encountered in project implementation, good practices and lessons learnt were captured.
The document review was initiated based on the actors’ landscape mapping exercise undertaken by the Climate Change Department (CCD), where fact sheets for different players in the climate change landscape were compiled. This information was used to identify the key players in climate change adaptation, who were later contacted to validate the information and also to document any other interventions that were not captured in the database. This was also critical given that the CCD database was last updated in2014.During the profiling, the areas of interest included:
a) The theme/focus of the interventionb) A brief description of the activitiesc) Current status of the intervention d) The stakeholders/partners involved in the project activities e) Existing/anticipated challengesf) Available opportunitiesg) Best Practices/Lessons learnth) Whether the project design is linked to the Uganda NAPA i) Whether the project implementers are aware of the NAPA and the importance to link their activities to the NAPA
3.1.2 THE ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS AND LEAD IMPLEMENTERS
A number of climate change adaptation interventions have been implemented in Uganda. These interventions involve a myriad of players ranging from multilateral organisations (mainly as project funders), Government agencies (as implementers), Non-Governmental organisations (NGOs), Civil Society Organisations (CSO), Community Based Organisations (CBOs) and local communities.
A total of 99 adaptation interventions (programmes, projects and activities) were mapped highlighting the focus/theme, the lead implementer, collaborating partners and target area (district). During the profiling, it was critical to investigate whether (or not) the design of the project was informed by the NAPA document. It was discovered that several interventions had been implemented without any reference to NAPA document but nevertheless delivering on the NAPA priority areas. Such projects were found to have been designed based on institutional/organisational mandate, donor requirements or as a response to community needs. For such cases, the assessment focussed on whether such interventions delivered the desired goal of the
6
Uganda NAPA, of, creating resilient communities able to withstand the negative impacts of climate change by addressing the urgent and immediate national needs and concerns relating to adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change. A detailed project profiling is attached (Appendix 2).
The lead implementers have been categorised as government institution/agency, CBO/NGO, or academic/research institution (Table 1). It is important to note that the count of interventions does not necessarily correlate with the extent or content of the interventions. This is mainly because, while some interventions listed here are programs with 3 or 4 result areas, others could be just one of the result areas of a specific program or an intervention designed as a project with specific activities. The purpose of the tallying was to provide an overall picture of the lead players in enhancing communities’ resilience to the effects of climate change. It is also important to note that the list below is not exhaustive but indicates onlythose players that the team was able to liaise with during the data collection process. The team was however aware of other players, as indicated in the database generated by CCD based on the fact sheets that were submitted by different players in the climate change landscape.
Table 1: Adaptation interventions implemented by different players
National Govern-
ment institution
No. of inter-
ventions
Multilateral through
Government/NGOs
No. of interven-
tions
NGOs/CSOs No. of inter-
ventionsMAAIF 9 AfDB/MWE 2 ACCRA 8
MWE (CCD) 5 FAO 6 ACTED 5
MWE (DWRM) 4 GIZ/OPM 1 ACDI 1
MWE (FSSD) 1
MWE—Water for
production
3 GIZ/MWE 2 CARE-Uganda 5
Nakasongola LG 1 UNDP (5 Ministries) 7 Deniva 1
UNMA 3 UNDP (UNMA,
DWRM, MAKERERE)
2 Ecological Christian
Organization (ECO)
2
UWA 7 UNDP (WWF) 1 EMLI 2
Office of the Prime
Minister
1 UNDP/Mbale LG 1 Environmental Alert 2
UNIDO (LGs) 1 World Vision 10
UNDP/ECOTRUST 1 NAPE 4
Research Institutions
AfrII (Africa Innova-
tions Institute)
1
Uganda Chartered
Health Net
1
TOTAL 34 24 41
7
Note:
• UNDP implements its activities through line ministries including MTTI, MEMD, MAAIF, MWE and MLHUD
• FAO implements its activities through partners including Academia and Research institutions (e.g. NARO, NALIRRI, MUZARI); Local NGOs (e.g. NADIFA-Nakasongola, CARITAS, HRNS-Africa, SPGS, Community CARE-Mubende, Hunger Project-Kiboga, SEDIFA- Ssembabule, Letheran Federation) and District Local Government with well-established focal points
Given the distribution of interventions across the different lead implementers, it was evident that the NGOs/CBOs have the largest proportionate share of interventions followed by the Government (Figure 1). This clearly highlights the role NGOs and CBOs play in enhancing the community’s resilience to the effects of climate change. It was also discovered that government also plays an important role as a co-financer (in-kind contribution) for several adaptation projects especially when the funds were received through multilateral institutions. In addition, government agencies and technical people at the districts provide technical backstopping to CBOs during project implementation.
2%
33%
24%40%
GOVERNMENT
NGO’S / CBOs
Multilaterals through Government Institutions
Academic Institutions
Figure 1: Proportionate share of the different stakeholders in climate change adaptation projects.
The main collaborating partners include district local governments, NGOs (regional, national and local), CBOs, academic and research institutions such as Busitema University, Gulu University, Makerere University, Ngeta Agricultural Research Institute, NARO, NAFRRI, NALIRI; and the private sector.
3.1.3 THE FUNDING AGENCIES
Most of the climate adaptation funds have been mobilised through bilateral and multilateral arrangements including but not limited to;LDCF, European Union, USAID, World Bank, DFID, DANIDA, Rockefeller Foundation, GIZ, Austria Government, Belgian Government. There are two other major players, i.e. FAO and UNDP who serve as funding agencies or implementing partners but also provide technical guidance to the implementation of the adaptation interventions.
As expected, in line with GEF-LDCF guidelines, the GEF has provided funds to implement NAPA interventions through the GEF agencies including UNDP, FAO, UNIDO and African Development Bank (AfDB). According to the GEF report, “As at 30th April 2014, Uganda had accessed up to $17.13 million for 3 approved projects, which included child projects under programmatic approaches as well as regional projects for which country-specific grant amounts had been defined” (GEF, 2014). These projects have been co-financed by the Government of Uganda (mainly in-kind), the private sector and other agencies. This kind of funding compares favourably with other LDCs under the LDCF portfolio (Figure 2).
8
Figure 2: Total LDCF funding to Uganda as of 2014 compared with other LDCs
Several adaptation interventions (not necessarily NAPA activities) have also been funded by the Government of Uganda through the line ministries such as the Ministry of Water and Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal industries and Fisheries and Ministry of Health.
3.1.4 ALIGNMENT OF THE ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS TO THE UGANDA NAPA
The adaptation interventions investigated were categorised based on whether or not the project design was based on the Uganda NAPA. That is, aligned to at least one of the priority areas (Box 1). This was based entirely on the information provided by the project implementers. It was discovered that about 47% of the mapped interventions were designed with reference to the NAPA document. The objectives and activities of the interventions were aligned to one or several of the 9 priority areas.
Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs)/Community Based Organisations and multilateral organisations working through government or CSOs hold the highest portfolio of NAPA projects (Figure 3).
Box 1: UGANDA NAPA PRIORITY AREAS
1. Community tree growing 2. Land degradation management 3. Strengthening meteorological services 4. Community water and sanitation 5. Water for production6. Drought adaptation 7. Vectors, pest and disease control 8. Indigenous knowledge and Natural re sources management 9. Climate change and development planning
Ango
laTi
mor
Las
te
Gam
bia
Mala
wi
Beni
n
Rwan
da
Suda
nAf
ghan
istan
Lao
PDR
Djib
uti
Uga
nda
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
30.4327.11
27.08 26.9525.49 24.51 24.34 23.67 23.48
22.24
17.13
35
COUNTRY
Tota
l LD
C fu
ndin
g re
ciev
ed (
$ m
ilion
)
9
Figure 3: Whether or Not the Project Design was linked to NAPA document
According to the GEF Independent Evaluation Office (GEF, 2014), alignment of projects to NAPA is measured by the degree with which the implemented projects respond to the priority adaptation needs listed in the NAPA. While some interventions focused on one priority area, some interventions addressed more than one priority area. In order to align the interventions to the priority areas, the interventions that were addressing more than one priority area were disbanded and tallied in all the related priority areas and the listing of interventions increased from 99 to 141.
Given that the NAPA prioritized and ranked intervention strategies were presented in the order of priority, which was supposed to be consistent with the objectives and guidelines of NAPA, the designed interventions would be expected to be more for the top 3 priority areas. That is, more interventions in the areas of community tree planting, land degradation management and strengthening meteorological services. However, this was not the case. Only 54 out the 141interventions (38.3%) focused on the top four priority areas identified by the Uganda NAPA (Figure 4). Moreover, only half of these had their project designs informed by the NAPA document. The most addressed priority areas were Drought adaptation, Climate change and development planningand Water for production, while the least number of interventions were Vectors, pest and disease control and Indigenous knowledge and Natural resources management.
Figure 4: NAPA Priority areas addressed by the different interventions
23
1717
21
12
2
0
25
20
15
10
5
Academia (n=2)
Government(n=33)
NGO’s/SCOs(n=40)
Multilateralwith
Government(n=24)
7
IMPLEMENTERS
Linked to NAPA
Not Linked to NAPA
No.
of i
nter
vent
ions
0
30
25
20
15
10
5
All Intervantions
Project Design Linked to NAPA
No.
of A
dapt
atio
n In
terv
entio
n
12 12
1715 15
52
9
3
11 10
37 6 7
20
2924
tree
pla
ntin
g
Land
Deg
r.Mng
’t
Met
Ser
vice
s
H20
& S
anita
tion
H20
for p
rodu
ctio
n
Dro
ught
Ada
ptat
ion
Pest
s and
dise
ases
IK &
NRM
CC
& D
evt p
lann
ing
NAPA Priority areas
10
The high number of interventions addressing drought adaptation could be attributed to the fact that this priority area was focusing on the drought prone parts of country, especially those in the arid and semiarid cattle corridor zone. These areas cover a great expanse of the country, are greatly affected by climate change and hence likely to attract several interventions. According to the vulnerability assessment carried out during the NAPA preparation, Uganda is most affected by droughts. Drought was reported to affect a larger part of Uganda including the semi-arid areas (the cattle corridor) the low lands and even the Lake Victoria basin. Due to this, the impacts related to droughts represented about 36% of the responses from the PRA exercise. It is emphasised in the NAPA document that implementation of NAPA activities should take into account the major disasters identified and their impacts. Therefore the prominence of drought adaptation in the identified adaptation interventions is no coincidence, especially for the interventions that were designed based on the NAPA document. The high number of interventions under Climate change and development planning could be attributed to the need for capacity building and development planning at the national and sub national levels which was required to implement several adaptation projects.
Further, in the Uganda NAPA, it is acknowledged that the impacts of climate variability and climate change can be significantly reduced through wide use of weather and climate information. The development, production and dissemination of weather and climate information, including promotion of its utilization at various levels is of particular importance. This could explain why several NAPAinterventions are linked to strengthening meteorological services.
Disaggregation was done to unveil the engagement of the different categories of players across the NAPA priority areas (Figure 5). Government engagement was more in the areas of water for production and climate change and development planning. On the other hand, multilaterals working through government institutions and CSOs were more engaged in activities focusing on drought adaptation and land degradation management, while NGOs/CSOs focussed their efforts more on drought adaptation, climate change and development planning and improvement of meteorological services.
Figure 5: NAPA Priority areas addressed by the different Implementers
Met
Ser
vice
s
H20
& S
anita
tion
H20
for p
rodu
ctio
n
Dro
ught
Ada
ptat
ion
Pests
and
dise
ases
IK &
NRM
CC &
Dev
t pla
nnin
g
NAPA Priority Area
Research InstitutionsNGO’s / CSO GovernmentMultilateral Gov’t & CSO’s
No.
of I
nter
vent
ions
tree p
lantin
gLa
nd D
egr.M
ng’t
0
5
10
15
20
2530
11
The high level of engagement by Government in interventions addressing water for production could be related to the fact that these interventions (including valley dams and valley tanks) involve high investment and high technical ventures for which government is best placed to implement. However, NGOs and CSOs have also been involved in implementing the low investment micro irrigation schemes mainly for crop production.
3.1.5 DISTRIBUTION OF ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS
While interventions were mapped basing on the lead implementer, it was found that some interventions were being implemented in more than one district or even in different climatic zones. This was mainly for the case of programs especially by multilaterals as well as government interventions. Therefore, when the interventions were split in the different climatic zones (indicated in the Uganda NAPA), the number of interventions seemed to increase from 99 to 122. Of these, 31% (n=38) were implemented almost across the country and thus categorised as National.With due consideration of the 5 climatic zones, the mapping revealed that the majority (about 54%) of the interventions were implemented in the semi-arid zone, while the least number of interventions (about 1%) were reported for Aquatic zone (Figure 6).
Figure 6: Distribution of Adaptation Interventions across climatic zones
The observed skewedness of the adaptation interventions could be explained by the differentiated vulnerability across ecological zones. For instance the semi- arid and lowland ecological zones are very vulnerable to the impacts of droughts, and as such have a high concentration of adaptation interventions with most of the priority areas represented in these zones. Another reason for the skewed distribution of adaptation interventions could be related to the donor priorities especially for projects whose design was not based on the NAPA document. The semi-arid region which has the biggest number of adaptation interventions covers a large area stretching the whole cattle corridor particularly including the Karamoja area. The Karamoja area is one of the least developed and also highly vulnerable areas to climate change. It is a priority area for the government of Uganda but also for so many relief-related aid agencies, and therefore most likely to feature as a project site in any projects being implemented by these agencies.
The low lands that are second to the semi-arid ecological zone, cover another high interest area in Uganda, particularly Northern Uganda and are an attraction to very many aid and development agencies due to the civil turmoil that rocked the region for the past 20 years. Since climate change has been identified as one
0
30
25
20
15
10
5
No
of in
terv
entio
ns
Climatic Zones (NAPA) Document
Semi-Arid(n=45)
Lowlands(n=21)
Highlands(n=13)
Lake Basin(n=4)
Aquatic(n=1)
National(n=38)
Project Design based on NAPA Project Design not based on NAPA
12
of the biggest constraints to economic development in Uganda, many aid and development agencies have included a component of climate change adaptation in their development work. There were also several adaptation interventions that were implemented almost across the country and thus categorised as National. These were mainly in the climate change and development planning (priority area 9)
The interventions were further mapped with regards to the geographical regions and it was observed that most of the interventions are implemented in the central region, but most especially the cattle corridor districts of Nakasongola, Luwero, Ssembabule, Kiboga, Mubende and Nakaseke. The least number of interventions were mapped in the West Nile and Western regions (Figure 7).
Figure 7: Distribution of adaptation interventions across geographical regions
The reason for this observation is that the central region also contains a big part of the cattle corridor (semi-arid) which is a focus for all drought and water for production related adaptation projects. The regions of West Nile, Western and South Western have relatively fewer adaptation interventions probably due to the possibility of less vulnerability to climate change. Further, it is important to note that even within the specified geographical regions; there is an uneven distribution of the interventions (Figure 8).
0
25
20
24%
14% 13%12%
8%7% 6%
5%
13%15
10
5
Prop
ortio
n of
int
erve
ntio
ns
Cent
ral
East
ern
Nor
ther
n
Kara
moj
a
Teso
Wes
tern
Wes
t Nile
Nat
iona
lRegion
Sout
h-W
este
rn
13
Figure 8: Distribution of Adaptation interventions across the countr
14
3.2 SUB-COMPONENT 2: ASSESSING THE PROGRESS, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SOME NAPA INTERVENTIONS
This sub-component sought to evaluate the extent to which the objectives of NAPA have been realized, as well as the extent to which NAPA interventions have led to the desired outcomes i.e. building community resilience. In order to undertake this task, the following assessment criteria were adopted;
– Progress: The extent to which the intervention has been implemented. That is, roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders from project design, implementation, through evaluation.– Effectiveness: This criterion is designed to determine the achievement of project objectives as a whole, and provides a general birds-eye view of results. It is based on an analysis of planned objective, outputs and outcomes, as described by the project implementers.
– Efficiency: Focused on operational efficiency rather than financial efficiency. i.e. whether the strengths and potentials of the relevant structures (institutions) have been optimized and the extent to which synergies been created to ensure operational efficiency and the proportion of work completed visa-avis the time the project had been operational.
– Sustainability: The likelihood of maintaining project outcomes and other benefits in the long-term. The evaluation also sought to identify and assess the degree to which capacity was created or strengthened in the project area in relation to adaptation.
3.2.1 GATHERING THE INFORMATION
In order to select the specific interventions that could be assessed, results of the mapping process were used to set the criteria for selecting specificinterventions (Table 2).
Table 2: Criteria for selecting NAPA interventions for in-depth assessment
Criteria Description
Climatic Zone Semi-arid and Highlands(pre-selected in the ToRs)
Link to NAPA The project design had a clear link with the Uganda NAPA
Source of funding Avoid interventions from the same funding source
Stage of implementation Preferably completed or almost completed
Implementers Interventions selected should have different implementers (Government Ministry/Agency,
Local Government, CSOs)
Accessibility of the
Information
Information about the project design, implementation and evaluation(where appropriate)
should be readily accessible
Density of interventions The location (District) of the intervention should have other adaptation interventions to
learn from
No completed or ongoing assess-
ments
There should be no completed or ongoing assessments or project evaluations by the imple-
menters to avoid duplication of efforts
15
Based on the criteria above, the Drought Early Warning System (DEWS) programme in Nakapiripirit and Moroto Districts, the soil and water conservation project under TACC inManafwa district, and the Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) project in Buikwe district were selected in the semi-arid, highland and Lake Basin climatic zones respectively.
For the three selected interventions, rapid appraisals were undertaken following theframework presented inFigure 9 and a guided checklist (Appendix 3). This was a stepwise process, and the specific considerations for each parameter are presented in Table 2.At the field-level, discussions were held with project implementers and some members of the target communities. In Nakapiripirit, discussions were held with 2 sentinels and 5 representatives of the focal households in a Focus Group Discussion (FGD) (Figure 10), but also with ACTED staff. The team also interacted with the ACTED staff in Moroto and also witnessed an information dissemination session by a drama group. For the TACC project, discussions were held with some of the core members at the districts (Mbale and Manafwa) as well as some members of one CBO (beneficiary of TACC) in Manafwa district.
A comparison site was required in order to ascertain the contribution of the NAPA interventions to enhancing resilience in the communities. For the case of DEWS, it was not possible to get a credible comparison site for the DEWS program because it is sub-national program covering all the 7 districts in the Karamoja region. However, experiences were sought from the beneficiaries of the DEWS projects to compare their welfare status now and what it was prior to the implementation of the projects. TACC was majorly a policy-related project with less focus on the local level interventions. Nonetheless, experiences were also sought from sites with and without the interventions.
UGANDA NAPA
9 NAPA Interventions
Interventions in Specific Geographical Lo-
catios?
Ongoing/Planned Activites
NO YES
Implementing Agent(s)?EfficiencySynergies,
Co-ordination
Supportive Factors:Economic, social, cultural, political,
previous initiatives
Challengesexperienced
Impediments/
Bottlenecks
Implemented Activities(Guidelines/Implementatonframe-
work )
Realised/Expected
Outcome: Build Resilience? Milestones & Verifiableindicators;
M & E
Compare
Compare
Ou tpu t sPhys i ca l changesCapaci ty
building
Progress Effectiveness
Best Practices
Comparison
with Non-Project Site
Activities
Objectives
Goal(s)
If Addressed, can the planned activities be
implemented?
Outcome: EnhanceCommuni ty
Resilience
Figure 9: Approach for assessing implementation of Uganda NAPA Interventions
16
Table 3: Parameters investigated during the rapid appraisal of the NAPA implementation in selected sites
Parameter under Investiga-
tion
Key Variables/Categories to be considered
Progress • Ongoing interventions:• At what stage is the intervention against the stipulated work plan or what proportion of
the work plan has been implemented• New Projects• What was planned?
Operational Efficiency • Prior consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of the participat ing partners to create synergies
• Design and structure of the activities (in lieu of the participating partners- the contribu-tions that each partner had to make –manpower, technical capacity, other resources)
• Appropriate identification of existing institutions and actors in relation to adaptation to climate change
• Indigenous Knowledge and practices and their incorporation in the interventions
Financial Efficiency • Prioritization during budgetary allocations• The anticipated cost of the intervention: low-cost community-based strategies versus
high/medium cost
Effectiveness • Whether the implemented activities focus on adaptation• Link with the NAPA implementation framework. Whether activities were imple ment-
ed in an integrated manner• How the outputs contribute to enhancing resilience• Whether the interventions are adding value to livelihood improvement (given that most
of the activities have traditionally been done in community, with no technical guidance)• Influence on decision making at the District level • Whether there are any short-term benefits designed for the farmers
Enhancing Resilience • Levels and nature (areas of emphasis) of capacity building• The impacts of climate change to which the community is likely to be resilient to• The strategies that have been integrated into the existing activities and institutions
(formal and informal)• The resources, multiple response paths, and safety nets that have been created• Whether the community has been able to survive (smoothly go through) a situation of
an extreme climatic event• Sustainability of the implemented intervention(s): To what extent can the communities
continue without external support?
Supporting Factors/
Environment• Economic • Socio-Cultural
• Political (Leadership aspects at District and village levels)
• The Policy environment
• Earlier interventions
17
Figure 10: Focus Group Discussion with Nakapiripirit DEWS sentinels and focal households
3.2.2 THE DROUGHT EARLY WARNING SYSTEM BY ACTED IN NAKAPIRIPIRIT
The Drought Early Warning System (DEWS) is addressing NAPA priority area No. 3 which focuses on Strengthening meteorological services. Its major aim is to provide a timely alert to the communities, relevant district departments and development partners, whenever the risk of drought is rising, and to allow stakeholders to initiate the implementation of preparedness measures before an emergency unfolds. TheDEWS is a two phased activity with the first phase (2008-2013) having focused on Identification of local indicators for early warning and vulnerability assessment. The main output for this phase was the development of the DEWS software. This phase was funded by ECHO and the implementation was in collaboration with Dan Church Aid, Caritas, Co-operation and Development, and the Local governments. The second phase (Dec 2013-Jan 2016) is apart of the FAO programme focussing on “Strengthening the adaptive capacities of agro-pastoral communities and local governments to reduce the impacts of climate risks to livelihoods in Karamoja” This programme has 3 result areas, of which result area No.1 is the Karamoja Drought Early Warning Systems (DEWS). This phase is funded by FAO/DFID and the main collaborators are OPM, MAAIF and Local governments; and the phase is focusing on the implementation of DEWS in the 7 districts of Karamoja (Text Box 2).
18
The process of data collection, analysis and dissemination is hinged on the DEWS monthly timeline. In this phase, the DEWS consists of collecting and analyzing the information relevant to predicting drought, through the systematic monitoring of a pre-selected list of indicators. There are currently 33 preselected indicators of which 6 are hazard monitoring indicators (mainly from UNMA) and the rest are vulnerability/coping mechanisms indicators in the sectors of livestock, crop, water, livelihoods and health and nutrition. Most of this information is collected from 10 focal households per parish, local council leaders and Kraal heads by the Sentinels. Other information is provided by the district technical persons/officers including agriculture, veterinary, natural resources, water and nutrition.
These officers are convened by the CAO to analyse the data and produce recommendations and warning stages for each sector, after which the drought Early Warning Persons (2), who are often from the natural resources department and the Capacity Building Officer work together to finalise the Drought Bulletin. The information is then disseminated through published bulletins (Figure 11), radio spot messages and drama (Figure 12). The information is disseminated at community, district and national level, to facilitate cohesive early action planning.
Figure 11: An Example of the Drought Bulletin Summary
Text Box 2: A brief on Implementing DEWS
Data is collected at household, market, kraal and district level. Once collected, it is input into the DEWS software by ACTED staff using mobile technology. The information is then converted through the DEWS software to create a monthly basic representation of the situation of the livestock, crop, water and livelihood in each of the districts. Once the information has been compiled, the district heads of department (including veterinary, agricultural, production and water, amongst others) meet to analyze the data and produce recommendations and warning stages for each district. These recommendations are then reviewed and approved at national level. Once approved, the bulletins are disseminated at community, district, national and international level (DEWS Brochure 2014).
19
Figure 12: A Drama Group Disseminating DEWS key messages in Acholi-inn village, Moroto District
Assessment of the effectiveness of the DEWS in relation to the Uganda NAPA
In order to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the DEWS, the implemented activities of DEWS were compared against the project profile for strengthening meteorological services as stipulated in the Uganda NAPA (Table 3). In reference to this, the activities implemented under DEWS were found to be well in line with the activities stipulated in the project profile for strengthening meteorological services. Although the outputs in the Uganda NAPA were not clearly tagged to specific activities, the outputs delivered under DEWS were easily identifiable with the outputs expected for strengthening meteorological services. Further, some observations and recommendations made during the assessment.
Table 4. A comparison of the activities of DEWS against the activities for strengthening meteorological services
Activities Actor Output Indicators Comment/Observations
Recommen-dation
• Strengthen data collection, processing, analysis and interpretationoMulti-sectorial approach in data collection (Water, Live-stock, Crop and Livelihoods)oRefresher Training sessions (Data gathering)oLogistical support for Data collectors (bicycles, gum boots, T-shirts)o Data Collection Control Tools (Mobile Phone data collectors)oBuild synergies with other agencies collecting similar/supportive data (e.g. Coop-eration and Development, UNICEF, FAO) to enrich the Bulletin
• ACTED Office (District and Country level)o Capacity Building Officer (ACTED)• Heads of Relevant District Departments: Veterinary, Agriculture, Nutrition Focal person, and Natural Resourceo Water• Drought Early Warning Focal persons (2)• Sentinels• Target Households (10 per parish)• Kraal Heads (5 per Parish)• LCs I, II & III • UNMA&FEWSNET
• Field based data•Monthly Drought Bulletins (Detailed-12 pages and a 2 page summa-ry)
• A bulletin published per month
• Indigenous indicators are not captured and utilized in the software• The Focal HH expressed fatigue as a result of monthly data collection
• Collect in-formation on indigenous indicators over timeo Observe consistency in use o Accuracy in forecasto Correlation with scientific indicators
20
• Strengthen human capac-ity in weather observing & forecasting
UNMA, FEWSNET • Monthly weather fore-casts• Seasonal forecasts
A bulletin with indi-cators from UNMA
• Strengthen early warning system and its coordination mechanism
• ACTED Office Field and National level)
•A well-co-ordinated system of events
Timely and informative Monthly Bulletins
Develop and package weath-er and climate information for vulnerable communities
• ACTED Office (District and Country level)o Capacity Building Officer (ACTED) Heads of Relevant Depart-ments• Drought Early Warning Focal persons (2)
•Monthly Drought Bulletins (Detailed-12 pages and a 2 page Summa-ry)• Radio spot messages•Drama skits
•Monthly Bulletins• Drama scripts•Radio message scripts
• Disseminate and promote use of weather and climate informationo Sensitize communities on weather and climate infor-mation useo Provision of media facili-ties (radios) to focal HH
• ACTED Office Field and National level)o Capacity Building Officer (ACTED)• Heads of Relevant District Departments• Drought Early Warning Focal persons (2)• Community outreach offi-cers (Field level)• Sentinels• Target Households (10 per parish)• Kraal Heads (5 per Parish)• Local Drama Groups
•Monthly Drought Bulletins (Detailed-12 pages and a 2 page Summa-ry)• Radio spot messages (announce-ments)•Staged Dra-ma perfor-mance•DEWS community meetings
•Monthly Drought Bulletins•No of radio announce-ments per month•No of Dra-ma perfor-mances• No of community meetings held
Dissemina-tion is quite irregularo Community level meet-ings to be convened by ACTEDo Requires facilitation
•Use of IEC materials in local languag-es •Explore use of commu-nity loud-speakers on Market days to increase coverage•Explore use of Indige-nous indica-tors to give it a local perspective
• Monitor and evaluate utili-zation of weather and climate informationo Community meetings held after awareness sessionso In Plan: M & E of the whole chain Data collection, analysis and timely dissemination Case studies of actions initiated by community members following the bulle-tin recommendations
• ACTED Office (District and Country level)o Capacity Building Officer (ACTED)• Heads of Relevant District Departments• Drought Early Warning Focal persons (2)• Community outreach officers• Sentinels• Target Households (10 per parish)• Kraal Heads (5 per Parish)
Report of Sectorial (Crops, livestock, Water & Livelihoods) responses based on recommen-dations of the previous month bul-letin
•No. of responses recorded for the different sectors•No. of Bulletin requests by other Agen-cies
• There was no proof that the local commu-nities make use of the information in bulletins•Improved de-cision making•Currently, there are no evaluation on the use of the information
(Upcoming Pilot Project)
21
• Develop partnerships and
synergies with media and
other stakeholders
• Local Radio stations
• Schools
•Radio spot
messages
(announce-
ments)
•Staged Dra-
ma perfor-
mance
•No. of
radio
announce-
ments per
month
•No of Dra-
ma perfor-
mances
• ACTED has
not harnessed
the potential
for synergies
with other
stakeholders
within the
Environment
sector (ECO,
GIZ, Welter
Hunger
•ACTED has not harnessed the potential for synergies with other stakeholders other stake-holders in the district to improve the operational-ization of the DEWS
As part of the assessment, it was of interest to investigate as to whether there were any activities prior planned but not implemented and reasons for that. It was mentioned that according to the project plan, dissemination was to be through various means including; (1) radio spot messages, (ii) drama groups (Figure 9), (iii) detailed bulletins, (iv) bulletin summaries (pinned on notice boards), (v) SMS alerts (Key persons), (vi) the Karamojagoogle group, and (vii) Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Website (Hosted by FAO). However, during the implementation, only the first four means of dissemination have so far been utilised. In addition, ACTED had initiated School outreach programmes (Early Warning Clubs introduced in 7 schools so far) and interactive radio programmes. There is a plan to start using illustrators which were planned to be displayed at schools. A summary presentation of the other core variables considered in the assessment framework are presented in Table 4.
Parameter Investigated The Status
Progress DEWS has progressed relatively well, having successfully completed the first phase and progressing well with the second phase
Operational Efficiency • The collaborating partners were well chosen with due consideration of complementarity and rele-vance• During the first phase, there was appropriate identification of existing institutions and actors in relation to strengthening meteorological services in the area• The Choice of different actors and the roles they play was appropriate and greatly contribute to the operational efficiency of DEWSo ACTED staff at the National field level: Co-ordinate the activitieso The Sentinels /Chiefs: Collect data from 10 Focal Households per Parish and local council leaderso The Kraal Heads (5 per Parish): Provide information on livestocko Heads of relevant departments i.e Veterinary, Agriculture, Nutrition Focal person, Natural Re-source, Water and Security are convened by the CAO to analyze the data and produce recommenda-tions and drought warnings for each district.o Drought Early Warning Persons (2) and the Capacity Building Officer: Finalize the Drought bulletino Community outreach officers, Sentinels and Drama groups: Disseminate information to the local communities• ACTED is aiming at building synergies with other agencies collecting similar/supportive data (e.g. Cooperation and Development, UNICEF, FAO) to enrich the Bulletin and improve on the dissemi-nation and usability of the bulletin
Table 5: Summery of the rapid appraisal for the DES in Nakapiripiti
22
Financial Efficiency The DEWS was designed to use existing structures, where individuals participate with minimal facil-itation while others carry out the roles within their institutional mandates e.g. o Data collection is done by sentinels (Parish chiefs)voluntarily with minimal facilitation to moti-vate them o Households and Kraal heads also provide the information voluntarilyo UNMA and FEWSNET provide monthly information at no costo Heads of Relevant Departments participate in the analysis of the bulletino District local governments call for the meetings to review the projections and recommendations (Responsible for organization)o Dissemination is mostly through the district local government relevant departments and sentinels at no cost
Effectiveness • For those individuals that are able to pick the information for the early warning phase, they have worked against the likely occurrences, thus enhancing their resilience
• Majority of the target community have not greatly benefited given the prevailing challenges in the dissemination and ability of the communities to take action.
o ACTED is to pilot a contingency fund for early action in order to assess the impact of the monthly bulletins in increasing resilience.
Enhancing Resilience • Capacity building: There are several aspects of capacity building of the different players e.g. the district technical staff and the focal households who are expected to record information on agricultural practices
• Status of the community: DEWS focuses on six sectors including livestock, crop, water, health/nutrition, Hazards and livelihoods. If the communities were to utilize the information in a timely and appropriate manner, they could then be in better position to insulate their liveli-hoods from the effects of drought.
• Sustainability of the intervention(s): The project requires low skill for most of the activities apart from data analysis. Therefore the local government disaster risk management team can be trained to run the process after cessation of the project. Also, since the process is embedded within the local government disaster risk management systems, there is great opportunity for sustainability of the intervention beyond the duration of the project.
Supporting Factors/En-
vironment
The engagement of the local governance including the CAO, District technical staff, Sub-county staff and local leaders Willingness to provide climate information by UNMA and FEWSNET
Major challenges The local people’s attitude and expectations to receive support (financial and technical) in order to implement the monthly recommendations.Indigenous indicators are not captured and utilized and yet the local people are still heavily reliant on these indicatorsThere were District Disaster Management Committee meetings held every month and attended by different agencies to share information. These meetings are no longer held and yet they could be a forum for creating synergies and improve on the use of the bulletin recommendations
23
Key lessons learnt from DEWS project
1. Involving local people in project activities like data collection which is a major activity in strengthening meteorological services has the advantage of lowering the cost of data collection and crating local ownership of the project. However, it has one setback, in that routine data collection causes fatigue within the local people engaged in data collection which may negatively affect the quality of the data collected.
2. Adaptation interventions implemented in areas with a big number of aid projects like Karamoja will always have a challenge of the local people expecting monetary incentives to participate in project activities.
3. Project costs can be substantially lowered by making strategic partnerships with other players (both government and private) that are involved in similar sectors.
4. Whereas scientific weather indicators are the best for use in early warning systems, it is important to incorporate local weather indicators to increase local acceptability
3.2.3: THE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION PROJECT UNDER TACC IN MANAFWA DISTRICT
The Territorial Approach to Climate Change (TACC) project is one of the NAPA interventions which was implemented by UNDP in collaboration with Mbale Local government. Other key stakeholders were the local government of Bududa and Manafwa districts and NGOs who together formed the Mbale Coalition Against Poverty (PAC). The overall objective of the project, namely supporting low-carbon and climate change-resilient local development in Uganda, was to be achieved by supporting local decision-makers and planners to design integrated climate change (adaptation and mitigation) policies, strategies and formulate concrete actions and investment plans that promote long-term sustainability and poverty reduction in the context of local /regional development.
The project had several outputs including:
Output 1: Partnership, coordination and participation platforms for climate change planning and programming establishedOutput 2: Capacity to integrate climate change issues into regional development plans and actions BuiltOutput 3: Integrated Territorial Climate Plan (ITCP) formulatedOutput 4: Climate change policy and investment package developedOutput 5: Lessons learned and best practices disseminated
As one of the project activities, CBOs were encouraged to prepare and submit proposal for funding adaptation and mitigation activities, as a way of fast tracking climate change response. A total of 20 CBOs were facilitated addressing several areas including tree planting, agroforestry, soil and water conservation, integrated health, improved cook stoves and renewable energy. After consultations with some of the TACC members of Mbale District, interventions in soil and water conservation were chosen for consideration, given the core challenge of land degradation in the steep areas. While two CBOs had engaged in the initiative, one of them had adopted the landscape approach with due consideration of the most prone areas.
24
Kaato Farmers’ Marketing Initiatives (KAFAMI) in Manafwa District
Kaato Farmers’ Marketing Initiative (KAFAMI) is a CBO in Kaatosub county, Bunabuzaale Parish, Masinzi village, Manafwadistrict. Before the TACC project, KAFAMI was engaged in bulk marketing of famers produce (especially coffee and beans) and tree nursery with a membership of about 39 individuals from several parishes in Kaatosub-county. Under the TACC project, KAFAMI submitted a proposal focusing on soil conservation and land management activities. The motivation of engaging in soil and water conservation structures was to increase the productivity of famers in the CBO’s produce catchment area since the group was involved in bulking and marketing agricultural produce. It was realized before that the area suffered from severe land degradation attributed to soil erosion which was affecting productivity. Further soil conservation and land management were one of the focal areas for TACC projects.
KAFAMI submitted a funding proposal to establish 15,000 meters of contour bands and produce 40000 tree seedlings mainly Grevellia for distribution to its members. Total funding to the group was $5,000 that was used to support tree growing and soil and water conservation activities. A landscape approach was used to establish the soil and water conservation trenches whereby both members and non-members benefited from the highly subsidized service of setting up soil and water control trenches. Bunabuzale parish was selected given the terrain and the intervention was constructing trenches for soil and water conservation. Funding from TACC was used for procurement of tree nursery equipment like watering cans, seeds, plastic bags etc., other money was used to pay service providers who trained group members in the citing and establishment of water and soil control trenches. Money was also used to give a modest daily allowance to the members who carried out the actual digging of trenches. Beneficiaries were expected to offer a small motivation (in terms of a modest meal to the team) at time when trenches were constructed in their land. The citing of the trenches varied based on the terrain using the Elgon level citing technology. But generally, the trenches were 5 m wide, 3 ft deep and about 10 m apart along the contours.
At the end of the TACC project, 15,000 meters of trenches (Figure 13) had been set up and 40,000 tree seedlings produced and distributed. In order to stabilize the contour bands, they are covered with napier grass (Pennisetumpurpureum) commonly known as elephant grass which is also fodder for the animals and an additional benefit in areas with a high number of livestock under zero grazing system. Whereas the project only covered 40% of all the households on the steep slopes within Bunabuzaale parish mainly in Masinzi, Bunaaloota, Nabihwahwa, Shirobo, it was anticipated that other people could learn from the beneficiaries and adopt the technology.
Figure 13: Soil and Water Conservation Technologies under the TACC project
25
According to one of the beneficiaries, “Before KAFAMI we used to ‘export’ our soil to Bunyole, but now our soil remains here and as a result, last year I managed to harvest 3 bags of groundnuts up from 1.5 bags previously. Also from my plot I now get banana bunches that I sell at more than 20,000 because they are big.” A summary presentation of the other core variables considered during the assessment are presented in Table 6.
Table 6 Summary of the rapid appraisal for the Soil Conservation Project under TACC.
Parameter Investigated The Status
Progress The project ended in 2013
Operational Efficiency • Under the TACC, reputable CBOs were granted the funds to implement the activities
• KAFAMI had earlier engaged in marketing of agricultural produce and tree nursery activities
• KAFAMI is a consortium of 13 smaller groups from the various parishes in Kaato sub-county
Financial Efficiency • The intervention could be regarded as a low-cost community-based strategy as compared to what
the cost would have been if another implementation path was followed.
o The cost of 1 km is about 1.5 million shillings if the district had implemented.
o KAFAMI was allocated USD 5,000 and constructed 15km as well as raising 4,000 tree seedlings
Effectiveness • The project achieved the set objective
• For the people that benefited, there was reported livelihood improvement as indicated by the im-
proved yields, and a lot more is expected in the coming seasons
Enhancing Resilience • The project was implemented at a landscape level
• Community members have been given field training on setting up soil conservation bands
•The soils are more protected from being washed away by erosion
Supporting Factors/
Environment
• Economic (availability of market for agricultural produce)
• Socio-Cultural (willingness of the communities to accept change)
Major Challenges • There is a continued expectation for a free service by the communities. Only 20% of the individuals
who did not benefit from the project adopted the technology
Best Practices • Local CBOs can be used to identify and implement farmer- driven interventions more efficiently
than centralized actors like local government.
• Activities implemented by local partners could be more cost-effective
• Pre-existing CBOs with other engaging activities perform better than those CBOs that are set up
strategically to get access to a particular funding stream. There is need to assess the eligibility of CBOs
before partnering with them
26
Key lessons learnt about the TACC project
1. TACC was designed as a high level project with only $100,000 earmarked for community interventions, the major output of TACC, i.e. the Integrated Territorial Climate Plan (ITCP) has remained on paper due to lack of funds for implementation.
2. Some of the successful community projects (like KIFANGO, BUDWALE and KAFAMI) have significantly
increased the adaptation capacity of the communities and thus improved livelihoods despite the little funds that were accessed. This is largely attributed to the fact the design of the projects ensured a very close link between the project activities/outputs with the local people’s livelihood activities. Further, the use of existing institutional structures (existing community based CBOs) created a sense of ownership by the communities.
3. Climate change projects should always have a practical link to local livelihoods in order to increase their relevance to the local people, increase effectiveness and hence achieve the intended goal.
3.2.4 THE CLEAN WATER, SANITATION AND HYGIENE PROJECT IN BUIKWE DISTRICT
Access to safe water and adequate sanitation is a basic human right and an essential first step to protect human health and social economic developments. Community water and sanitation is NAPA priority area No. 4. The Uganda Water and Sanitation Project is under implementation by World Vision in collaboration with Ministry of Water and Environment and Ministry of Health. Other partners include the District Local Governments and Communities. World Vision’s WASH programmes encompass safe water provision and improved sanitation provision, education on water-related diseases and good hygiene, and capacity building for sustainability of improved public health. World Vision’s strategy involved promoting water management and fostering partnerships for water, sanitation and hygiene development, as well as creating awareness and promoting advocacy. This includes a focus on reaching children through communities, schools and health centres. The project is a five-year period (Oct 2010-Sept 2016) targeting the Northern, Western and Central regions. The specific focal districts include Gulu, Oyam, Buliisa, Hoima, Amuru ,Nakasongola, Buhimba and Mukono/Buikwe. The main objectives of the project include:
• Increased access to sustainable and safe water supply for poor and vulnerable communities and school children
• Increased access to improved sanitation for poor and vulnerable communities and school children,
• Improved hygiene knowledge and practices for poor and vulnerable communities and school children
• Communities empowered to facilitate sustainable WASH interventions
The WASH Project in Buikwe District
Lack of safe water, pit latrines and hygiene education is a big problem in rural communities around Lake Victoria shores, some schools and trading centres in Buikwe District. At the district level, World Vision works through Area Development Programmes (ADPs) which are generated at by the communities sub county level, which are updated every year. The communities in partnership with world vision and the district technical staff also develop Community Disaster Risk Reduction Plans.
27
In the ADP for NgogweSub County for the period 2010-2015, access to clean/safe water and sanitation was highlighted as a major concern for the communities.
During the implementation of the WASH project 2010-2015, World Vision Uganda sought supplementary funding from World Vision New Zealand (project period 2012-2013) and World Vision US (project period 2013-2015). The funds were to be used to construct/rehabilitate water infrastructure and capacity building for the community members. During the planning phase, consultative participatory meetings are conducted using the demand response approach as per Ministry of Water and Environment district implementation manual to ensure communities analyse current status, desired future, approaches, strategy, M&E milestones and schedules. This is done from lower level to sub county with joint technical guidance from district and World Vision.
The priority areas identified for the period 2012-2015 included water and sanitation, and improved livelihoods. Under improved livelihoods, the specific focus included conservation of the environment, value addition and marketing, storage and post-harvest handling and horticultural development. Sanitation and Hygiene
The Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach in conjunction with the Participatory Hygiene And Sanitation Transformation (PHAST) approach is used in identifying and addressing the problems relating to sanitation and hygiene. The CLTS approach includes;
• Identification of the specific problems relating to sanitation and hygiene through community sessions and village mapping such as lack of toilet facilities
• Transect walks (in sub-groups) to physically identify some of the WASH problems e.g. open defecations
• The likely health effects of the identified WASH problem are illustrated to the communities e.g. contamination of water supply systems
• People are motivated/triggered to address some of the identified sanitation problems e.g. putting up sanitation facilities
World vision adopted the CLTS approach to avoid the dependency syndrome that arises when free things (subsidies) are provided at the household level. The community members would often expect to receive bricks and sand to construct the latrines. Under the CLTS approach, the households are often encouraged to use the materials similar to the ones they used to construct their houses for construction of sanitation facilities. Further the CLTS approach promotes community policing whereby an individual ensure that his/her neighbour adopts the appropriate sanitation and hygiene level given that the problems that rise due to poor sanitation and hygiene are not location specific. This is implemented together with home improvement campaigns.
In the case of schools, sanitation facilities have been provided including construction of drainable latrines (Figure 14), initiation of health clubs (comprising 25 girls and 25 boys) that responsible for promoting hygiene in the schools and training of school management committees to ensure appropriate levels of sanitation and hygiene in schools.
28
Before After
Figure 14: A drainable pit latrine constructed for Ngogwe Primary School under the WASH programme
Access to Safe Water
Regarding access to safe water, the community members undertake the assessments to identify the core problems and most critical areas/communities. The identified issues are forwarded to the district through a formal communication. A joint validation exercise is undertaken, which guides World Vision in terms of the problem to be addressed and the location. In several instances, water facilities have been provided including boreholes, underground tanks, box springs and hand dug wells. The achievements in the 2014-2015 period include 3 bore holes, 6 hand dug wells, 21 box springs, 4 underground water tanks and 5 standing water tanks. In addition to the provision of the water facilities, the communities are guided through development of a safe water plan which highlights the roles and responsibilities of the different parties to ensure water is kept safe from water source to consumption. The community also forms a 10-member WASH committee which in addition to other members has representatives for the women, youth and the disabled.
One of the establishments is an underground water tank with a capacity of 50,000 litres (Figure 15) constructed in the year 2014 at St. Paul Primary school to serve the school community and the surrounding community (approximately 50 households). The tank was constructed to improve access to safe water and thus reduce the vulnerability of the people.
Running water from the rocks Additional water structure
Figure 15: An underground water tank constructed to support the school and communities that were previously relying on flowing water
29
It is important to note that given the land tenure system in the Buikwe district, the land belongs to individuals. Therefore prior construction of any water facility, the community identifies an individual who is willing to donate a piece of land where for example a borehole can be drilled. The individual then signs an agreement clearly indicating that he/she has offered the land for construction of a community facility. For the case of a borehole to be drilled in a given community, 3 possible sites are identified and surveyed of which one is selected dependent on the availability of an appropriate water quantity. Further, in the case of a borehole to be constructed, the community is expected to raise a base maintenance fund of at least 200,000/=, to which community members can continue to contribute to either annually or monthly. The community members are also expected to fence off the water facility and maintain the surrounding areas e.g. through planting grass and construction of a soak pit (Figure 16). It is also important to note that the water interventions are greatly linked to sanitation, in that before a community receives a water structure, they should attain a sanitation level of at least 80%. This is done in order to have broad-based approach in addressing related problems.
Figure 16: A borehole and box spring protected and managed according to the guidelines
Further, in order to ensure sustainability of the intervention, World Vision closely collaborates with the local government structures in all the process of planning, implementation and monitoring. The World Vision team works closely with the VHTs and health assistants, Assistant Community Development Officers, District Water Officers who can provide continuous updates and technical assistance on WASH issues in the communities. This is mainly due to the linkage between access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene with the health of the communities. A summary presentation of the other core variables considered during the assessment are presented in Table 7 .
30
Table 7: Summary of the rapid appraisal for the WASH
Parameter Investigated
The Status
Progress The project has been under implementation for in 2 funding phases: 2012-2013 and 2013-2015
Operational
Efficiency
• World Vision closely collaborates with the local government structures and the target communities in all aspects of planning, implementation and monitoring
• The VHTs and Health assistants are greatly involved in monitoring and providing feedback to the WASH team. This is easily achievable given their day to day involvement in community health work, in which case some of the health problems arise from unsafe water and poor sanitation and hygiene
• For the Sanitation interventions at household level the CLTS approach triggers engagement and ownership of the interventions and can easily achieve implementation of an intervention as a landscape level
Financial
Efficiency
• The interventions could be regarded as a low-cost community-based strategy as compared to what the cost would have been if another implementation path was followed.
o hrough the CLTS approach, the households are triggered an motivated to construction sanitation facilities at low cost o There is great involvement of existing structures in implementation and monitoring o For the community-level water structures e.g. boreholes, the communities contribute a maintenance fund
Effectiveness • The project achieved the set objectives which were in tandem with the expected outputs of the NAPA area on community water and sanitation
• For the households surrounding the constructed water structures, there is a great relief regarding access to safe water and improved health
• For the schools that have benefited from the sanitation interventions, the expectation is improved sanitation and hygiene for the school.
Enhancing
Resilience
• One of the objectives for the NAPA priority area on Community Water and Sanitation was to “Increase access to safe water supply and improved sanitation among vulnerable communities in disaster prone areas”. Some of the activities expected include; “Scale up hygiene & sanitation activities” and “Improve on safe water supply through construction of more protected water sources and gravity flow schemes”
• The achievements recorded includeo Strengthening and development the structures in WASHo Advocacy in the areas of WASH• During the development of the Community Disaster Risk Reduction Management plan for Ngogwe
district in 2015, Water and Sanitation was not a top priority area. This implies that the WASH project has gone along away in achieving the set objectives for the target community and thus greatly contributed to the achievement of the NAPA priority area on Community Water and Sanitation.
Supporting
Factors/
Environment
• Supportive local government structures and strong partnerships• Some communities are committed to maintaining the constructed water structures• At household level, the communities appreciate the importance of constructing sanitation and hygiene
facilities by every member of the community “the health problems that arise due to poor sanitation and hygiene are not location specific. Even if I construct my latrine and my neighbour does open defecation, the water I go to fetch may be contaminated”
31
Major
Challenges
• Maintenance of the water structureso Maintenance of the box springs is a challenge in some communities, who claim that the improvements made on the formerly freely flowing water source reduces the intensity of water flow. In some of these communities, the facilities have been vandalized.o Some of the hand dug well for the 2012/13 period are no longer functional o Given that the infrastructure is constructed by World Vision, some of the community members are hesitant to contribute to the maintenance fund, claiming that “it is a facility for World Vision and they should maintain it”.• Citing/Drilling of boreholeso In some cases, the land willingly offered for the construction of a borehole may not be appropriate given the water table. Another piece of land may in this case be identified as appropriate (after surveying) but the land owner may not be willing to offer his/her land for community projects. Such a community therefore is at risk of missing the intervention
Best Practices • Preparing the community for Operation and Maintenance of the water structures• Intensive follow up of triggered villages until the village becomes an Open Defecation Free community
prior construction of a water structure
The Key Lessons Learnt from the WASH project
1. While the CLTS is an appropriate approach for community interventions relating to sanitation and hygiene, it is important to note that the communities are not homogenous. Variations in adoption and/or implementation of the proposed interventions should be related to specific characteristics of the people or households and these need to be addressed in order to attain a resilient community
2. Prior implementation of a given intervention, it is important to have a thorough investigation of the problem at hand as well as all the associated effects or linkages. For example, provision of safe water is linked to sanitation. Therefore, rushing to provide water structures such as hand dug wells or box springs, without due consideration of the availability of latrines in the community may be counter-productive, given that the water contamination may be promoted.
3. Land Agreements: Community-level developments that involve land are very sensitive. They require a lot of awareness regarding the potential benefits to the development and the potential loss if land is not obtained. During the land negotiations between the community members and the land owner, it is important to involve the other administrators at the district and community level
4. Selection and functioning of committees: It is important for the communities to select individuals who are willing to serve on a voluntary basis. Further, the committee should be linked to other community-based structures such as the VHTs and LCs, as these are often more respected structures in the communities
3.2.5 HIGHLIGHTS OF OTHER ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS IN THE KARAMOJA REGION
THE DISASTER RISK REDUCTION PROJECT
In addition to the DEWS project, ACTED with support from UNDP implemented a six months Disaster risk reduction project in Karamoja by supporting smallholder farmers and pastoralists in building productive assets, diversifying livelihoods and reducing vulnerability to drought through participatory, community-driven approaches. The project had three result areas. Result area 1: Improving household purchasing power through cash for work (191 latrines were constructed and also safe water points were constructed). Result area 2: Restocking goats for the most vulnerable individuals (Ten households each receiving one goat were
32
supported per village: a total of 150 most vulnerable women were supported) Result area 3: Disaster risk reduction (supported 15 groups each composed of the most vulnerable members of society to implement a project of their interest such as goat rearing, poultry, cereal banking etc.). ACTED’s programmes focused primarily on supporting pastoralist livelihoods by enhancing their resilience to drought.
THE CLIMATE PROOF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION PROJECT IN NAKAPIRIPIRIT DISTRICT
Ecological Christian Organization (ECO) is implementing a Climate proof Disaster Risk Reduction (CPDRR) Project focusing on “Building adaptive capacity and pilot adaptation activities at community level through integrated community managed disaster risk reduction (DRR/CCA/EMR) approaches. The project is implemented in Nabulatuk and Lolachat sub counties (2012-2015). A total of 9 villages were selected after in-depth discussions with the local government officials in order to select some of the villages that had not been recipient of any adaptation interventions. The project activities included participatory disaster risk assessment during which 2 key risks were identified including drought and animal diseases. The communities identified the desired interventions such as drought tolerant crops, provision of animal drugs and training of community-based animal health workers.
The project is being implemented by the field office in Nakapiripirit. The local office has established disaster risk reduction committees at sub county level which act as entry points to the villages. The established disaster risk reduction committees are composed of the local community members. Technical backstopping for the adaptation interventions is provided by NARO, UMNA and the natural resources department at the district.
The interventions promoted in the two sub counties included:
a) Support to ecosystem-based livelihood options: like promotion of drought tolerant crops (green gram, maize, sorghum, garden peas). The community members were encouraged to form groups, and each village has 5-6 groups, with about 15 individuals per group. The inputs (e.g. seed) are given to a group rather than individuals. Other activities include support to animal health services through the training of community-based animal health workers; demonstrations of irrigation schemes and community support financing and encouragement of group activities such as marketing.
b) Developing early warning systems: A 9-person early warning committee was established which uses indigenous indicators to forecast weather. The information generated is synthesized with inputs from UNMA (weather forecasts) and the synthesized information is disseminated to the communities through the use of megaphones. A total of 8 climate centers were constructed, often used as meeting points for the early warning committees.
c) Ecosystem management and restoration: Training and facilitation of communities in land use planning and marking off conservation areas; and tree planting activities (including fruit trees). Incentivizing restoration activities through the provision of goats and bee hives to participating members. ECO has also supported exchange learning visits for the community members and supported the development of ordinances on natural resource management with specific emphasis on bush burning and tree cutting.
33
d) Village Saving and Loan Associations: ECO trained communities on the operationalization of VSLAs and the communities formed VSLAs of about 30 members each.The major challenge highlighted by ECO was the short-term funding which greatly affects the implementation of several activities that are required in order to enhance resilience.
THE CLIMATE SMART AND SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PROJECT IN NAKAPIRIPIRIT
ECO is implementing farming systems and practices that are adaptive to climate change and variability in partnership with PELUM and the activities include training in water harvesting, organic farming using liquid manure (chicken droppings), conservation agriculture such planting in rows as opposed to broadcasting, irrigation demonstration in 2 villages and the growing of fruit trees using simple bottled-drip irrigation.
While the two projects implemented by ECO did not follow the NAPA document during their design, the project interventions being implemented fall within the nine priority areas of the NAPA and therefore contribute to the NAPA overall aim of enhancing resilience to climate change.
Some of the best practices learnt from the ECO climate proof Disaster risk reduction project included:
The need to collaborate with relevant partners such as UNMA in order to provide communities with relevant and scientifically proven data.
Formation of disaster risk reduction committees at the local level created ownership of the project by the community and would greatly contribute to its sustainability.
Projects need to create an exit strategy for project actions, for instance, ECO has been financing the local community association development plans, through the provision of seed capital that they use to design and implement some of the drought resilience interventions.
THE CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PROJECTS BY GIZ
Other climate change adaptation projects identified in Karamoja region were the GIZ implemented projects (in collaboration with OPM) mainly focusing on establishment of climate change adaptation learning centres. These were identified in Nakapiripirit (Figure 17), Moroto and Napak districts, where learning centres and tree nurseries have been established.
Figure 17: The GIZ Adaptation projects in Karamoja
34
ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS BY THE MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT
The Ministry of Water and Environment through the Department of Water for Production is implementing several activities to increase water storage for agricultural and multipurpose use throughout the country by constructing and rehabilitating valley dams and valley tanks especially in the cattle corridor districts. Some of these activities have been funded by the World Bank and were not necessarily linked to the Uganda NAPA. Construction of both valley tanks and valley dams around the country has been completed in various districts and in others the process is still ongoing, creating additional storage capacity of over 10 million cubic meters. Some of the districts covered include Ntugamo, Apac, Ssembabule, Isingiro, Lira districts, and the districts of Karamoja. In Karamoja region specifically, some of the dams include Longoromit, Kobebe and Arechet, while the valley tanks include Rodon and Akwapua.
With regard to the NAPA, the Department is implementing an EU funded project in collaboration with FAO focusing on the GCCA Programme: Adaptation to Climate Change in Uganda: Component 2: Better access of livestock and crops to water through water for production investments; Under this programme, valley tanks and valley dams are to be constructed in each of the 6 cattle corridor districts of Nakasongola, Luwero, Nakaseke, Kiboga, Mubende and Sembabule. Further, the Department is expected to implement a GEF- project funded through AfDB: “Water Supply and Sanitation Programme: Component 2: Water for Production”. During the visit to Karamoja region, Akwapua valley tank (Figure 18) and Arechet valley Dam were visited. The Akwapua Valley tank
Akwapua valley tank is a 51 by 80 meter facility in Moroto district located about 9 km from Moroto town that was rehabilitated in 2014 with a full storage capacity of 10,000 cubic metres (Figure 18). The valley tank serves about 3000 cattle per day at the peak of the dry period. The valley tank also provides water for domestic use. Further, despite the fact that animals are expected to access water from the valley tank, it was evident that some animals access water from the siltation basin.
Figure 18: The Akwapua siltation Basin and Valley tank
35
The Arechet Valley Dam
The Arechet Valley dam is located along the Moroto-Soroti road with the dam constructed on the left hand side and about 8 feeding troughs on the right hand side of the road (Figure 19).
Figure 19: Arechet Valley Dam and the Watering Troughs
Interactions with the community members revealed that the facility is very critical in their livelihoods which is often indicated by the large numbers of livestock that water at this point both in the afternoon and evenings. The numbers were reported to often escalate during the dry season.
The dam is also a source of water for a community irrigation scheme donated by Balton Uganda, and as a source of water for domestic consumption (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Using the Water from Arechet Valley Dam for Irrigation and Domestic Use
36
3.3 SUB-COMPONENT 3: IDENTIFYING THE GAPS, CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NAPA IMPLEMENTATION
3.3.1 INFORMATION GATHERING
The information for this subcomponent was gathered through stakeholder consultations during the activities of sub-components 1 and 2. Specific questions were posed to both the implementers and recipients (in some cases) for the interventions in order to identify the challenges and opportunities in the implementation of the NAPA activities. Further, discussions were held with key persons especially those who were involved in the development of the NAPA to identify the gaps, challenges and opportunities at the National/sub national level.
3.3.2 THE GAPS IN NAPA IMPLEMENTATION
The Ugandan NAPA was from inception expected to take a programmatic/integrated approach where the adaptation interventions were to be implemented as components of the adaptation programme. However during the formulation phase, the programmatic/integrated approach was not considered given that the adaptation interventions were ranked and prioritized, thus expected to be implemented in a chronological order. Upon realizing this gap, an implementation framework was developed which envisioned that in order to enhance the resilience of a community, there was need to address all the prioritized areas (by different players) at a given time. That is, a NAPA resilient community must be able to effectively adapt to impacts of droughts, floods, landslides and high temperatures and associated problems such as health and water stress. However, the implementation framework was not popularised and thus not adopted by majority of the implementers thereby not achieving the purpose for which it was developed.
It should be noted that while the NAPA was adopted by the government of Uganda as a national document to guide adaptation to climate change, the document was not adopted by several sectors of government and therefore was largely seen as an environment sector- specific guideline. Other players other than government agencies were also not compelled to implement the NAPA.
3.3.3 THE CHALLENGES IN NAPA IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation of the NAPA was/is constrained by a number of factors ranging from policy issues to financial and capacity building, observed at the national, sub-national and project level.
• The NAPA document was not popularised amongst the different players (government institutions/agencies, CBOs/NGOs). While the NAPA document was written more than 5 years ago, there were players who had not referred to it in the design of the different project activities.
• While the existing policies (i.e. Disaster preparedness policy and the climate change policy) clarify the institutional roles of the respective institutions (i.e. UNMA, OPM and CCD), there is weak coordination of cross-sectoral adaptation interventions
• Lack of sector-specific frameworks for implementing climate change adaptation interventions. Climate change costs are still not considered as incremental costs at the national level, as such they are not considered within the sector ceilings
• There is an evident disconnect between donor priorities and ranking of the priority areas with regard to adaptation
• Difficulties in accessing GEF-LDCF for adaptation activities due to the bureaucracy involved in GEF funding procedures
37
• Inadequate technical capacity to design, implement and monitor adaptation interventions
• The close link between adaptation and development needs could lead to duplication between the NAPA and other development programs. Whereas NAPA was supposed to communicate the immediate adaptation needs of Uganda, it is difficult to distinguish between a NAPA project and other “traditional” development projects targeting a similar sector
3.3.4 THE OPPORTUNITIES IN NAPA IMPLEMENTATION
Despite the above challenges, several opportunities exist that could be harnessed in order to build a community that is resilient against the climate shocks.
• The new government guidelines requiring all sectors to mainstream climate change into sector plans and budgets
• The recent climate change policy can be used to guide on the institutional framework for climate change issues in the country
• CCD is developing a National Climate Change Performance Measurement Framework (NCCP-PMF) which can also guide as an M&E of NAPA interventions
• The Climate Change Actors Landscape being generated by CCD in collaboration with GIZ to act as a first step in tracking all adaptation interventions in the country
• Cabinet is considering a proposal by CCD to have a requirement for all climate change adaptation funding proposals to be vetted by CCD and obtain a letter of no objection. This would contribute to ensuring that the funded activities deliver the expected national goals
• Presence of many GEF agencies like UNDP that have been active elsewhere in writing PIF for adaptation projects funding
• Presence of national and international institutions that provide timely weather information, including UNMA and FEWSNET
• Presence of several actors in the climate adaptation arena which provides potential for synergies
• Existence of indigenous knowledge and practices which adaptation interventions could leverage on to achieve cost-effective and sustainable activities
• There are institutional structures (district technical officers) at the sub national level which could support the programmatic/integrated approach of enhancing resilience.
• Ministries like MAAIF are setting up taskforces for implementing climate change adaptation projects within their sectors. Other Ministries could emulate the approach
• The potential for synergies between climate change adaptation and general development objectives is significant as seen from the close alignment between NAPA interventions and general development goals of Uganda. Indeed the very elaborate project prioritization exercise reflects how much the NAPA team went to capture national development priorities (Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP) and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and other multilateral agreements e.g Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) in the selected interventions.
38
3.4 SUB-COMPONENT 4: COMPARING AND CONTRASTING EXPERIENCES, GOOD PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEARNED FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF UGANDA NAPA WITH THAT IN OTHER COUNTRIES
The implementation of Uganda NAPA is very much hinged on the 9 identified priority areas of interventions. These NAPA priority projects were intended to communicate the immediate (3-5 years’ time frame) needs of Uganda with regard to adaptation and would provide the starting point towards the formulation of the more long term adaptation plan. Therefore the NAPA projects needed to (a) be activity, budget and area specific; (b) provide a framework for monitoring and evaluation; (c) provide an implementation framework.
As a case study, the Lesotho NAPA gives the activities, budgets and area specification of all the intervention projects. The Uganda NAPA outlines the activities to be carried out under each project but only gives an aggregate budget implication for the whole project. There is no mention of the project sites and the intended beneficiaries from the intervention. Further, evaluations of other NAPAs have shown that clarity of project sites and numbers of vulnerable people positively or otherwise affected are very good evaluation indicators for NAPA projects. The Uganda NAPA does not clearly state how monitoring and evaluation of the projects are to be done. This leaves a lot of ambiguity as to how monitoring of NAPA implementation is to be done. That is, no further guidelines have been made on how NAPA implementation monitoring is to be done.
Climate change needs to be mainstreamed into national development planning to ensure sustainability of NAPA achievements. In many LDCs, there is a general commitment to mainstream climate change into development planning and processes – including, for instance, the Solomon Islands, where one of the eight objectives of the National Development Strategy (2011–2021) is to mainstream climate change; Rwanda,
which seeks to mainstream climate change into its Vision 2020, Economic Development and Poverty
Reduction Strategy 2013-2017 and sector strategies. Uganda is in advanced stages of mainstreaming climate
change in all sector planning processes and this would go a long way in ensuring sustainability and continuity of adaptation activities.
Despite the successes in the design phase, challenges remain and much work lies ahead. Adaptation plans in many of the assessed countries suffer from inadequate finance and poor funding(Mungai et al., 2014). This is often a result of impact assessments that are purely along sectoral lines with little attention to opportunities for coordination across sectors. Some assessments also miss opportunities to link adaptation strategies to current development programs to benefit from integrated/sustained funding and safeguard development investments. Other challenges, apart from the sectoral approach to risk assessment, include lack of institutional framework and governance structures to effectively coordinate and implement adaptation plans; a notable absence of the private sector in planning and implementation, and adaptation plans that did not assess the economic implications of climate risks and therefore compromise the integrity of the design and measures
39
4.0 THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 THE CONCLUSIONS
In 2007, Uganda responded to the decision by COP7 and developed the NAPA whose main objective was to address the urgent and immediate national needs and concerns relating to adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change. During the development process, a priority list of 9 adaptation intervention areas was developed with a budget estimate of US$ 39.8 million and a time frame of 3- 5 years. In order to implement the NAPA intervention areas, an implementation framework was developed where the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment assisted by the National Climate Change Steering Committee Secretariat (NCCSCS) were identified to coordinate the implementation. The implementation of these interventions was a mandate of local institutions (local governments, NGOs and CBOs), and thus expected to be executed at field level and directly supervised by line institutions at the district. Not withstanding the urgent need to implement the Ugandan NAPA, several barriers were identified which were likely to hinder effective implementation of the identified and prioritised interventions. Therefore, special attention was expected to be given to these barriers in the design of the NAPA interventions.
The assignment leading to this report aimed at assessing the implementation of adaptation interventions in Uganda with special focus on implementation of the NAPA. Based on the methods used to gather the infor-mation used in this report, conclusions are drawn based on the discussions held with the different project/programme funders and implementers, field-based investigations for DEWS, WASH and the soil and water project under TACC, as well as discussions with the adaptation expert team.
The conclusions drawn include:
1. Funding of adaptation interventions: Funding for adaptation interventions is available from the various sources including multilateral and bi-lateral agencies and government of Uganda. The government plays an important role as a co-financer (in-kind contribution) for several adaptation projects especially when the funds were received through multilateral institutions. However, although the NAPA envisions that government would be at the forefront of financing adaptation projects, the mapping exercise revealed limited government funding for NAPA activities. This was also highlighted at the sub national level where it was reported that financing for climate change adaptation is often considered a donor’s concern and thus given low priority during sub-national planning.
2. Accessing Adaptation Funds: The Country is greatly limited in technical capacity and knowledge of accessing adaptation funds e.g. the GEF Funds
3. The key players in adaptation interventions
a. Adaptation interventions involve a myriad of players ranging from multilateral organisations (mainly as project funders), Government agencies (line ministries and local governments), NGOs, CSOs, CBOs and local communities
b. NGOs/CBOs (as lead implementers) have the largest proportionate share of the implemented interventions followed by the Government. This clearly highlights the role NGOs and CBOs play in enhancing the community’s resilience to the effects of climate change.
40
4. Implementers’ awareness about the NAPA: It was evident that the NAPA document was not popularised to several of the players in the adaptation work. Further still, the NAPA implementation framework was not known to almost all the implementers that were interacted with and thus was never adopted.
a. Consequently, less than half of the mapped interventions (programmes, projects and activities) were designed with reference to the NAPA document. b. Whereas the other interventions were designed basing on institutional mandates, donor re quirements and/or community needs, they can be aligned to the various NAPA priority areas and are thus contributing to the goal of the NAPA.
5. Implementation of the NAPA: The NAPA implementation framework envisioned a programmatic/in-tegrated approach where the adaptation interventions/projects were to be implemented as components of the adaptation programme in order to attain a resilient community. However the activities were to a great extent segmented and non-complementary, and in some instances duplicated
a. This is attributed to the fact that the activities of the different implementers were often guided by their institutional mandates, donor requirements and/or community needs rather than the NAPA.
6. The NAPA priority areas: Given that the 9 NAPA priority areas were presented in the order of priority, the implemented NAPA interventions would be expected to feature more in the top 3 priority areas. The most addressed priority areas were drought adaptation (priority area No. 6), Climate change and development planning (priority area No. 9), and strengthening meteorological services (priority area No. 3). This points to some likely facts deriving conclusions including
a. The ranking and the subsequent order of the NAPA intervention areas did not represent the most urgent adaptation needs for Uganda b. There is a disconnect between donor priorities and ranking of the adaptation priority areasc. The urgent and immediate needs for Uganda are dynamic changing with location and time. For example, the recent events and occurrences of floods, for instance in Kasese district indicate a change in the urgent and immediate needs for some parts of the country
7. Distribution of the adaptation interventions: With the exception of the national-level NAPA activities, there was skewedness in the distribution of the NAPA interventions across the NAPA climatic zones and the regions. The majority of the NAPA interventions were concentrated in the semi-arid climatic zone, while the lake basin had only 2 interventions and none in the aquatic climatic zone. At the re-gional level, the Central region (mainly the cattle corridor districts dominated) while the Western and West Nile regions were less targeted. This points to some likely facts deriving conclusions including;
a. Drought and the associated effects are probably one of the most urgent and immediate con cerns for Ugandab. Adaptation interventions are implemented to reflect areas that are most vulnerable to the ef fects of climate changec. Some of the regions (e.g. Karamoja) have benefited from the adaptation interventions because they are as well priority areas for development interventions
8. Progress and effectiveness of the NAPA interventions:a. While the different project interventions have registered achievements in the target areas, building a resilient community requires that project interventions are complimentary on both the temporal and spatial scales
41
b. Community engagement in the implementation of the activities delivers low-cost optionsc. Engagement of the different actors in the NAPA implementation: Interventions that have duly considered the strengths and weaknesses of the participating partners (including the local communities) and thus created synergies have greatly attained efficient and effective operations
9. Co-ordination of adaptation interventions: There is lack of coordination among actors involved in similar activities at the national and sub national levels. Without coordination, none of the projects can benefit from synergy and partnership building in attaining the goal of a resilient community. Strategic and operational partnerships among players, are important to achieve the resilient community concept as envisioned in the NAPA implementation framework
10. Gaps: While the Uganda NAPA provides project profiles (specifying objectives, activities, outputs) for the nine priority areas, there was no effort to link the activities to the expected outputs. Further, there are no specified indicators to measure the achievement of the deliverables. This makes it difficult to assess the level of progress in achieving the desired goal.
4.2 THE RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of all the above, the country has made tremendous achievements in terms of climate change adaptation. However these achievements could be augmented by taking advantage of the identified opportunities and addressing the challenges that have so far been encountered in the implementation of the NAPA. The other specific recommendations include:
1. Co-ordination of the NAPA activities: Strengthen co-ordination of NAPA activities through;a. Fast tracking the proposed requirement of obtaining a letter of no objection from CCD prior accessing of funds for the implementation of any climate change adaptation activity b. Operationalizing the provision of the National climate change policy 2015 regarding the roles and responsibilities of the different actors.
2. Adaptation Priority areas: The urgent and immediate needs for Uganda are dynamic and changing with location and time. Therefore, a. Future climate change programme documents such as the NAPA should have a provision for periodic updates to capture new and emerging climatic shocks. b. Governance institutions need to be adaptive to adjust to response measures as new information on climate impact develops
3. Implementation of adaptation activities: a. Within each operational area (district, region) the adaptation interventions should be consoli dated to create synergies and increase impact.b. Increased capacity for integrated approaches to adaptation planning is needed.
That is, strengthen bottom-up planning of the intervention to ensure community appreciation. and ownership of the project.
42
c. Community engagement should be adopted in implementation of activities that require minimal technical expertise other than procuring experts from either the government structures or other areas. This would deliver low-cost options, empower the communities and ensure sustainability.d. Initiate strategic partnerships within the players (both government and private)involved in similar sectors or adaptation activities in order to substantially lower project costs. e. In the target intervention areas, Disaster Risk Reduction Committees or the equivalent should be formed to create community ownership and contribute to its sustainability. f. Projects need to create an exit strategy to avoid causing shock and increased vulnerability to the communities after the project period.
4. Capacity building: There is need to enhance the knowledge and technical capacity of the actors in the climate change adaptation arena especially in the areas of proposal develop ment targeting specific climate financing, project implementation in order to have efficient and effective operations, as well as monitoring and evaluation. The role of academic institutions of generating knowledge and imparting it to society should be optimised.
5. Pro-active Climate change Adaptation roundtables: There is need for the major players to consider formation of pro-active climate change adaptation discussion and action forum. This forum should not only discuss matters relating to adaptation, but ensure practical utilisation of the information generated through project reports and research work. 6. More research: In order to generate more elaborate experiences and key lessons to inform the NAP, there should be a more detailed evaluation of at least half of the NAPA interventions undertaken with a representation of the different lead implementers, NAPA priority areas and geographical regions.
43
READING LIST
ACTED 2014.The DEWS Brochure 2014.
GEF 2014, Progress Report on the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Special Climate Change Fund. 16th LDCF/SCCF Council Meeting. GEF/LDCF.SCCF.16/04 May 1, 2014
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). Impacts, adaptations and vulnerability. Fourth Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Kabesiime, E., Owuor, C., Barihaihi, M., & Kajumba, T. (2015). Monitoring and evaluating climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in Uganda: TAMD appraisal study IIED Country Report. London: IIED.
Least Developed Countries Expert Group (2002). Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programmes of action. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change © 2002 UNFCCC, BonnMace, M. J. (2005). Funding for Adaptation to Climate Change: UNFCCC and GEF Developments since COP.7. Review of European Community & International Environmental Law, 14(3), 225-246.
Magrath, J. (2008). Turning up the Heat: Climate change and poverty in Uganda. Oxfam Policy and Practice: Agriculture, Food and Land, 8(3), 96-125.
Ministry of Water and Environment. (2007). Climate Change: Uganda National Adaptation Programmes of Action. Kampala.
Mungai, C., Kilungu, S. and Nyasimi, M., 2014. Addressing priority adaptation measures in Uganda. CGIAR Research Programme on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security.
MWE (2007). Climate Change: Uganda National Adaptation Programmes of Action. Ministry of Water and Environment Kampala.
MWE (2008). Climate Change. NAPA Implementation Framework. Ministry of Water and Environment Kampala.
Sibiko, K. W., Ayuya, O. I., Gido, E. O., & Mwangi, J. K. (2013). An Analysis of Economic Efficiency in Bean Production: Evidence from Eastern Uganda. Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 4(13), 1-9.
UNDP. (2007). Human development report 2007/2008: Fighting climate change, Human solidarity in a divided world: UNDP.
UNDP/NEMA/UNEP Poverty Environment Initiative Uganda. (2009). Enhancing the Contribution of Weather, Climate and Climate Change to Growth, Employment and prosperity. Kampala.
UNITR (2003). Developing Human and Institutional Capacity to Address Climate Change Issues in LDCs: Preparing for NAPAs. United Nations Institute for Training and Research Available at http://www.napa-pana.org/private/modules/knowledgebox/external/index.php?kbid=3
44
List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Members of the Climate Change Adaptation Expert Team
Expert team on the NAPA Evaluation study1. Ministry of Water and Environment - Climate Change Department (CCD)a) Mr. Chebet Maikutb) Mr. Muhammad Semambo
2. Uganda National Meterological Authority (UNMA) Mr. Paul Isabirye
3. National Planning Authority (NPA)a) Ms. Edith Kasajja
4. National Environment Management Authority (NEMA)a) Mr. Ronald Kaggwa
5. Academiaa) Prof. John Kaddu
6. Civil Society Organizations (CSOs)a) Mr. Phillip Gwageb) Ms. Rebecca Nabatanzic) Mr. Ceaser Kimbugwe
7. Othersa) Ms. Christine Nantongo – Independent consultantb) Ms. Suzan Nanduddu – Independent consultantc) Mr. Godfrey Ssali – Private sector, Uganda Manufacturers Associationd) Mr. Onesmus Muhwezi – UNDP
Reviewers
1. Anna Amumpiire ACODE 2. Joshua Zake (PhD) Environmental Alert3. Shuaib Lwasa (PhD) MUK4. Tony Muhumuza (PhD) UNDP
45
Organisation (Lead Implementer)
Project Title/Theme/Focus Implementation Period
Collaborating Partners
Target Districts
Link to NAPA (Project Design)
ACCRA Support to Mainstreaming of Climate Change Adaptation: Supports integration of climate change programming in development planning and implementation of the NAPAs: Prevention of soil erosion and
deforestation
2012-2013 Bundibugyo LG, MWE & ACCRA
Bundibugyo Linked
ACCRA Translation and Dissemination of Weather and Climate information
2009-2012 UNMA National Linked
ACCRA Study on use of IK on weather forecasts 2014/15 22 Districts Linked
ACCRA Developing indicators (Outcome-based) for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience
2014/15 IIED/ UNMA National Linked
ACCRA Capacity Building for Local Governments to use Weather and climate information for planning
2009-2012 National Linked
ACTED DEWS: Strengthening adaptive capacity of agro pastoral communities and the local government to reduce impacts of climate change: (Phase 1)
2008-2013; Dan Church
Aid; Karitas C
& D
7 Karamoja
Districts
Linked
ACTED Strengthening the adaptive capacities of agro-pastoral communities and local government to reduce the impacts of climate risks to livelihoods in Karamoja (3 Result Areas): Result Area 1: Karamoja Drought Early Warning Systems (DEWS): In partnership with FAO
Dec 2013- Jan
2016
MAAIF, OPM,
LGs
7 Karamoja
Districts
Linked
ACTED Early Action pilot project 2015-2016 Napak Linked
ACTED Strengthening Capacity for Disaster risk Management (3 Result Areas): I. Improve Household purchasing power through cash for work; (II) Restocking of Goats; (III) Disaster Risk Reduction
2014/2015 C&D (Italian
NGO, ZOA)
Nakapiripirit Linked
ADSI Support to Mainstreaming of Climate Change Adaptation: Supports integration of climate change programming in development planning and implementation of the NAPAs: Provision of clean drinking water, improved sanitation and prevention of deforestation (NAPA Pilot-Apac)
2012-2013 Apac Linked
Appendix 2: Mapping of Adaptation Interventions in Uganda
46
CARE-
Uganda
Northern Uganda Women Empowerment Program (NUWEP) with 3 subcomponents (Climate Proof Disaster Risk Reduction, Water-smart agriculture, Ecosystem restoration and Management
2012-2017 Local Government, Partners for Resilience (PFR) consortium, CCD, OPM, UNMA
Otuke Linked
Deniva (CSO) Support to Mainstreaming of Climate Change Adaptation: Supports integration of climate change programming in development planning and implementation of the NAPAs: Prevention of Soil degradation, Pests & Diseases management and drought management (NAPA Pilot-Pallisa)
2012-2013 Pallisa Linked
FAO GCCA Program: Adaptation to Climate Change in Uganda: Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change in the central cattle corridor
2012-2016 NADIPA, CARITAS, SPGS, Hunger project, NARO/MURZADI
Nakasongola, Ssembabule, Kiboga, Luwero, Nakaseke, Mubende
Linked
FAO Strengthening the adaptive capacities of agro-pastoral communities and local goverment to reduce the impacts of climate risks to livelihoods in Karamoja (3 Result Areas): Result Area 2: Livestock disease surveillance
2013-2015 GOAL, IUCN,
ILRI, C&D,
ACTED
Nakasongola,
Ssembabule,
Kiboga,
Luwero,
Nakaseke,
Mubende
Linked
FAO Strengthening the adaptive capacities of agro-pastoral communities and local government to reduce the impacts of climate risks to livelihoods in Karamoja (3 Result Areas): Result Area 3: Agro pastoral production systems
2013-2015 GOAL, IUCN,
ILRI, C&D,
ACTED
Karamoja Linked
FAO Integrating climate resilience in Agricultural and pastoral production in Uganda through a farmer/ Agro Pastoral Field Schools
2015 -2018 Makerere
University
Nakasongola, ssembabule, Kiboga, Luwero, Nakaseke, Mubende
Linked
MAAIF Soil Conservation and Management 2015…. Mbale Not
LinkedMAAIF Aquaculture projects 2014… National Not
LinkedMAAIF FIEFOC III = Rehabilitation of 5 big
irrigation schemes and construction of small-scale irrigation projects
2013… MWE, WFP National Not
Linked
MAAIF Pests and Diseases control through Vaccination Programs
2012… National Not
Linked
47
MAAIF Development of the climate change adaptation action plan for MAAIF to implement the climate change policy
2008… National Linked
MAAIF Development of the Climate-Smart
Agricultural Program for Uganda (2nd
Draft)
2008.. National Linked
MAAIF Action on Research on drought tolerant
varieties under NARO
2013… National Linked
MAAIF Farm Income Enhancement and Forest
Conservation Project (FIEFOC)-
Agricultural enterprise development
2006-2012 National Linked
MAAIF National Livestock Productivity Project
(NALPP): Excavation of Dams
2004…. 29 Districts Not
LinkedMWE (FSSD) Water and Sanitation Program (AfDB):
4 components: Component 4: Tree planting
2015 National Not
Linked
MWE The Climate Change Policy and Climate
Change Mainstreaming Guidelines
2015 National Linked
MWE (CCD) GCCA Program: Adaptation to Climate
Change in Uganda
2012-2016 National Linked
MWE (CCD) Support to Mainstreaming of Climate Change Adaptation: Supports integration of climate change programming in development planning
2009-2012 ACCRA National Linked
MWE (CCD) Support to pilot implementation of the NAPAs
2009-2012 ACCRA, Local governments, DENIVA
Apac, Palisa, Bundibudyo, Nakasongola
Linked
AfDB/MWE
& Ministry of
Health
Water and Sanitation Program : Component 3: Water for sanitation
2014 District Local Governments and Communities, NGOs
Soroti, Bukedia, Budaka, Parisa, Kumi, Butaleja
Linked
AfDB/
MWE—
Water for
production
Water and Sanitation Program (AfDB):
Component 2: Water for Production
2014 Local
governments
Otuke, Apac,
Katakwi
Linked
MWE—Water for production
GCCA Program: Adaptation to Climate Change in Uganda: Component 2: Access to water for animals and water for Production
2012-2016 FAO, District local governments
Nakasongola, Luwero, Nakaseke, Kiboga, Mubende and Sembabule
Linked
48
Nakasogola
LG
Support to Mainstreaming of Climate Change Adaptation: Supports integration of climate change programming in development planning and implementation of the NAPAs: Food Insecurity and drought management (NAPA Pilot- Nakasongola)
2012-2013 Nakasongola Linked
UNDP
(UNMA)
Strengthening climate information and early warning systems (SCIEWS)
2014-2017 UNMA, OPM (NECOC), DWRM, MoLG, UCC, MAAIF
Kyoga water management zone (Teso, Mt Elgon, Karamoja and Lango subregion, Bukedi, Busoga and Acholi sub region)
Linked
UNDP/Mbale
LG
TACC – Territorial Approach To Climate Change in Mbale: Supporting low-carbon and climate change-resilient local development in Uganda
2012-2013 Manafwa and
Bududa LGs,
and NGOs
Mbale Linked
UNDP Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Mt. Elgon
2014-2015 Sironko and Bulambuli
Linked
UNDP
(MAAIF)
Enhancing climate smart agriculture in
Uganda
2012 Busia, Bugiri, Namutumba, Budaka and Buyende
Linked
UNDP
(MEMD)
Promotion of alternative energy
technologies
2014 Luwero and
Nakasongola.
Linked
UNDP (5
Ministries)
Uganda Strategic Investment framework for Sustainable land management (Implementing Ministries: Water and Environment, Agriculture, Lands, Trade, Energy)
2009 Kamuli, Nakasongola, Lyantonde, Nakaseke, Sembabule, Kaliro
Not
Linked
UNDP
(WWF)
WWF-Project in Karamoja 7 Karamoja Not
LinkedUNDP (5 Ministries)
Climate risk transfer (work in progress to pilot the project)
2014 Insurance firms Kamuli, Nakasongola
Linked
UNDP (5
Ministries)
Integrated Climate Change Reduction and Disaster Risk Reduction
Linked
UNIDO
(LGs)
Reducing Vulnerability of Banana Producing Communities to Climate Change Through Banana Value Added Activities - Enhancing Food Security And Employment Generation
2014-2016 Southwest Linked
49
UNDP
(UNMA,
DWRM,
MAKERERE)
Strengthening climate information and
early warning systems in Eastern and
Southern Africa for climate resilient
development and adaptation to climate
change – Uganda
2014 UNMA, DWRM 28 Districts:
Kyoga water
management
zone (Teso,
Mt Elgon,
Karamoja
and Lango
subregion,
Bukedi,
Busoga and
Acholi sub
region)
Linked
UNMA Joint Water and Environment Sector
Program Support
National Linked
UNMA Translation and dissemination of the
seasonal forecasts
2012-2014 Kitgum,
Otuke,
Bundibugyo,
Kotido, Gulu
and Soroti
Linked
World Vision Disaster risk reduction & climate
change
2012-2017 Australian
government,
world
agroforestry
centre/ICRAF
Kibaale,
Nakasongola,
Abim, Kotido
Not
Linked
World Vision Northern Uganda Social Action Fund 2 2013-2014 WFP, World Vision support offices (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan, UK and USA).
kotido district Not
Linked
World Vision Fortifying families in Kaabong 2012-2016 World Vision Australia, district local government
kaboong Not
Linked
World Vision Integrated use of modern and traditional approaches in climate forecasting to help rural communities in anticipating weather changes that affect their livelihoods (IMTAC)
2012-2015 UNMA, NARO. Soroti and
Kaabong
Districts
Linked
50
World Vision Long term Investment for Food and
Economic empowerment project
2013-2017 Australian Department of Foreign affairs and Trade(DFAT) and World Vision Australia support office NARO, DLGs
Amuria,
Nakasongola,
Mpigi,
Kiboga and
Kamwenge
Not
Linked
World Vision Livelihoods, Food Security, Agriculture
and Economic Empowerment Projects
2013-2015 Selected Institutions in respective Local Governments where projects are being implemented
Butaleja, Hoima, Busia, Soroti, Kaabong, Mpigi, Kiboga, Tororo, Kitgum, Gulu, Oyam, Arua, Rakai, Agago
Linked
World Vision Northern Uganda Social Action Plan Two (NUSAF 2 Phase 3)
2012-2014 District Local Governments and Communities
Kotido
District
Not linked
World Vision Uganda Water and Sanitation Project 2010-2016 District Local
Governments
and
Communities,
MWE, MoH
Gulu, Oyam, Buliisa, Hoima, Amuru , Nakasongola, Buhimba,
Mukono
Linked
World Vision Sustainable disaster risks reduction 2014-2015 Local
government
Kibale Linked
World Vision Kaabong Climate Change Adaptation
Project (KACCAP)
2014-2015 Local
government
Kaabong
District
Linked
GIZ/MWE
(DWRM)
Reform of the Urban Water and
Sanitation Sector in Uganda: Approach
to Flood Risk Management (FRM)
Phase 1: 2009-
2013 Phase 2:
2014-2017
National Linked
GIZ/MWE
(DWRM)
Strengthening Meteorological Products,
Services and Use in the Agriculture and
Water Sectors
2014-2017 UNMA, MWE,
MAAIF, NARO
National Linked
GIZ/OM Climate Change Adaptation Project in
Karamoja
LGs Nakapiripirit,
Moroto
Not
LinkedACCRA Research in adaptation with a focus on
Flexible and Forward Looking decision
making and governance
2012-2013 Several
Districts
Not
Linked
ACCRA Support to ACCRA alliance members
to Integrate climate change adaptation
in planning
2009-2012 National Not
Linked
51
ACCRA Advocacy 2009-2012 National Not
LinkedAfrII (Africa
Innovations
Institute)
Adaptation to the impact of climate
variability on food and health security
in the cattle corridor of Uganda
Local
governments
Nakasongola
and Nakaseke
Not
Linked
CARE-
Uganda
Women and Youth Financial initiatives (Banking linkages and agricultural insurance)
National Not
Linked
CARE-
Uganda
Global water initiative- East Africa: Action research on water management technologies for improving smallholder farm productivity & Demonstrating innovative technologies and practices that increase access to and efficient use of water on smallholder farms
2012-2017 Gulu University,
Busitema
University,
Private sector,
Media
Otuke Not
Linked
CARE-
Uganda
Northern Uganda Women Empowerment Program (NUWEP) with 3 subcomponents (Climate Proof Disaster Risk Reduction, Water-smart agriculture, Ecosystem and restoration management
Partners for
Resilience (PFR)
Consortium
West Nile,
Otuke, Lango
and Acholi (5
Districts)
Not
Linked
CARE-
Uganda
Women empowerment in natural resource governance (WENG)-FOREST
FSSD, NFA,
NEMA
National Not
LinkedEcological
Christian
Organization
(ECO)
Advocacy National Not
Linked
EMLI Deepening Citizen Climate Change
Policy Advocacy
2013-2014 NEMA, MWE/
CCD
Kumi,
Bukedea and
Ngora
Not
Linked
EMLI Raising awareness on Climate
change,the policy and advocating
for climate financing at the local
government level
2013 ACODE, MWE/
CCD
Kumi and
Gulu
Not
Linked
Environme
ntal Alert
Strengthening community climate change adaptation in agriculture and natural resource management in the West Nile region
2009-2012 District Local
governments
Adjumani,
Yumbe, Moyo
Not
Linked
Environme
ntal Alert
Enhancing food security and climate
change adaptation
2014-2017 District local
governments
Yumbe, Moyo Not
LinkedFAO SPGS Phase III 2015-2020 SPGS National Not
Linked
52
FAO Trans boundary Ecosystem
Management Program for the Kagera
River Basin
2011-2015 District local
governments
Rakai,
Kiruhura,
Mbarara,
Isingiro,
Ntungamo
and Kabale
district
Not
Linked
Uganda
Chartered
Health Net
The Climate change Adaptation and
ICT (CHAI) project- Phase 1 & Phase 2
2012-2014 FHI360, MWE/
UNMA,
Makerere
University
(College of
Health Sciences)
Soroti,
Nakasongola
and
Sembabule.
Rakai
(Control site)
Not
Linked
MWE (CCD) Bridging support to CCD establishment National
Curriculum
Development
Centre
National Not
Linked
MWE- Directorate of Water Resources Management
Catchment-based integrated water resource management for climate change adaptation in Uganda: Rwizi, Upper Aswa, Lokok (Kyoga), Rwambu, Rubaya, and Mpanga Catchments
2010… Not
Linked
MWE- Directorate of Water Resources Management
Water source protection plans National Not
Linked
MWE- Directorate of Water Resources Management
Water Safety Plans National Not
Linked
MWE—
Water for
production
Rehabilitation of Government
irrigation schemes
Kasese,
Butalejja
Not
Linked
MWE—
Water for
production
Improving access to water for production through construction of valley tanks and valley dams (Government funds)
2013-2015 Ntungamo, Apac, Ssembabule, Apac, Isingiro, Lira, Kaabong, Kiruhura, Lyantonde & Moroto
Not
Linked
NAPE Advocacy National Not
Linked
53
NAPE Knowledge searching and community
awareness raising on climate adaptation
and mitigation
201302014 Local
communities in
Kashari
Mbarara Not
Linked
NAPE Community Ecological Governance
Project
2012-2014 Kasese,
Kamwenge
and FortPortal
Not
Linked
OPM Karamoja Livelihood Program (KALIP): Improving Food Security and Diversification of Livelihood Opportunities for Communities in Karamoja
2011-2014 FAO Kaabong, Kotido, Abim, Napak, Moroto,Nakapiriprit, Amudat
Not
Linked
UNDP Uganda Strategic Investment
framework for Sustainable land
management
2009 MWE, MAAIF,
MTTI, MEMD
Kamuli,
Nakasongola,
Lyantonde,
Nakaseke,
Sembabule,
Kaliro
Not
Linked
UNDP WWF-Project in Karamoja Karamoja Not
LinkedUWA Targeted Animal species translocation
(Assisted Migration): From L/. Mburo
to Katonga wildlife reserve
Mbarara Not
Linked
UWA Adaptive Management: Removal of
exotics and invasive plants
National Not
LinkedUWA Redesigning tourism infrastructure
(a) on the Rwenzoris (b) river crossing
points (bridges) and ferry crossing
point, (c) re-routing tourism trails
National Not
Linked
UWA Incorporation of climate change
issues into Strategic plan and General
management plans of UWA
National Not
Linked
UWA Ecological Monitoring: Long-Term
data collection and analysis using
phenological observations
National Not
Linked
UWA Wildlife Disease Management National Not
LinkedUWA Excavation and management of water
dams in Kidepo
Karamoja Not
Linked
54
Ecological
Christian
Organization
(ECO)
Climate proof Disaster Risk Reduction
Project: Integrating CCA and
EcosystemManagement and Restoration
into Disaster Risk Reduction Practices
2012-2015 NARO,
District local
government,
UNMA,
Makerere
Uiversity
Nakapiripirti Not
Linked
NAPE Afforestation project Hoima, Bulisa,
Kalangala,
Jinja,Karuma,
Kasese
Not
Linked
ACTED Purchase for Progress - Agricultural
project: improving the profitability of
Agriculture (4 phases
Gulu, Nwoya,
Amuru
UNMA Strengthening Meteorological Products,
Services and Use in the Agriculture and
Water Sectors
MWE, MAAIF,
NARO
National
55
Appendix 3: Checklist for Stakeholder Consultations
PLANNING AND DESIGNING STAGE
1. What guided the design this interventioni. Uganda NAPAii. MDGsiii. Goals of the National Development Plan
2. If the Uganda NAPA was one of the key considerations, which Priority Areas were of major concern?i. Community tree growing projectii. Land degradation management projectiii. Strengthening meteorological services projectiv. Community water and sanitation projectv. Water for production projectvi. Drought adaptation projectvii. Vectors, pest and disease control projectviii. Indigenous knowledge and Natural resources management projectix. Climate change and development planning project
3. What was the basis for choosing the above specified priority area(s)?4. What was the basis for choosing the project area(s)?5. What were the specific objectives6. The stipulated specific tasks7. The Expected outputs 8. Indicators that were set for the realization of the different outputs9. What specific indicators were linked to “Community resilience built”10. What time did you anticipate to achieve the overall goal of Building Resilience?11. How was the project to be implementedi. Steps to follow ii. Stakeholders to be engagediii. Roles and Responsibilities of the different stakeholders (Be keen on the local communities and local leaders?iv. What was the consideration for assigning different roles and responsibilities? (Operational efficiency?)
12. Did you at any one time consider the NAPA implementation framework? (Explain)13. Did you have a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan? (Request to share)
56
B. IMPLEMENTATION
1. At what stage is the intervention as per today?
2. How has the Intervention/project been implemented?a. Steps followedb. Stakeholders involvedc. Roles and Responsibilities of the different stakeholdersd. Were the objectives for assigning different roles and responsibilities to the different stake holders achieved? Explain (Operational efficiency?)
3. Out of all the planned activities which ones were implemented?4. If some of the activities were not implemented, what are the reasons?5. What outputs/milestones were achieved and in what time frame?6. What specific indicators were considered as a realization of the specific outputs?7. To what extent was the implementation framework followed?
8. Was the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan implemented as planned? a. How many evaluation/progress reports were done? (Can they be shared?)
9. How would you rate the performance of this intervention (with regards to realization of the target outputs) –High, Medium or Low10. What supportive factors prevailed that enabled the achievement of the specific objectives11. What challenges did you face in implementing the activities (that affected the achievement of the desired results = efficiency)12. What could have been done/could be done to address the above challenges (Please specify the action, actor and time frame)13. What is the rating of this intervention in relation in achieving the overall goal of the NAPA (Building Resilience)? Explain - High, Medium or Low14. What is the likelihood of the community continuing with the activities when the project period expires (Sustainability)?
This publication has been made possible with support from Australian Aid
