progress of implementation of - Environmental Management for ...

PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL ADAPTATION PROGRAMMES OF ACTION (NAPA) FOR UGANDA REPORT

December, 2015

PROGRESS OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL ADAPTATION PROGRAMMES OF ACTION (NAPA) FOR UGANDA REPORT

December, 2015

1

This report was prepared by: 1. 2. 3.

Justine Namaalwa Jjumba (PhD), Team Leader Allan Bomuhangi 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

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................I LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................................II ACKNOWLEGEMENTS ........................................................................................III LIST OF ACRONYMS ....................................................................................................IV EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................V 1. INTRODUCTION

.....................................................................................................1

1.1. General Overview of Uganda’s Climate Change Circumstances....................................................................1 1.2 Development Of The Uganda Napa...................................................................................................................1 1.3 The NAPA Implementation Framework...........................................................................................................2 1.4 The Concept of a Resilient Community............................................................................................................3

2.0 THE TASK.....................................................................................................................4 2.1 The Approach.........................................................................................................................................................4

3.0 SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN AND THE FINDINGS...............................5 3.1 SUB-COMPONENT 1: MAPPING THE ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS IN UGANDA, WITH A SPECIAL FOCUS ON THE NAPA .........................................................................................................5 3.1.1 Gathering the Information................................................................................................................................5 3.1.2 The Adaptation interventions and lead Implementers..................................................................................5 3.1.3 The Funding Agencies ...................................................................................................................................7 3.1.4 Alignment of the adaptation interventions to the Uganda NAPA...............................................................8 3.1.5 Distribution of adaptation interventions.......................................................................................................11

3.2 SUB-COMPONENT 2: ASSESSING THE PROGRESS, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF SOME NAPA INTERVENTIONS....................................................................................14 3.2.1 Gathering the Information.................................................................................................................................14 3.2.2 The Drought Early Warning System by ACTED in Nakapiripirit..............................................................17 3.2.3: The Soil and Water Conservation Project under TACC in Manafwa District........................................23 3.2.4 The Clean Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Project in Buikwe District......................................................26 3.2.5 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..................................................................................36 3.3.1 Information Gathering.....................................................................................................................................36 3.3.2 The Gaps in NAPA Implementation..............................................................................................................36 3.3.3 The Challenges in NAPA Implementation....................................................................................................36 3.3.4 The opportunities in NAPA implementation.................................................................................................37

3

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...............................................40

4.1 The Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................40 4.2 The Recommendations........................................................................................................................................41

READING LIST.................................................................................................................43 LIST OF APPENDICES.....................................................................................................44 APPENDIX 1: MEMBERS OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION EXPERT TEAM..........................................................................................................................................................44 APPENDIX 2: MAPPING OF ADAPTATION INTERVIEWS IN UGANDA.................................................45 APPENDIX 3: CHECKLIST FOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS.........................................................55

4

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF THE DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS IN CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION PROJECTS.....................................................................................................................7 FIGURE 2: TOTAL LDCF FUNDING TO UGANDA AS OF 2014 COMPARED WITH OTHER LDCS......8 FIGURE 3: WHETHER OR NOT THE PROJECT DESIGN WAS LINKED TO NAPA DOCUMENT...........9 FIGURE 4: NAPA PRIORITY AREAS ADDRESSED BY THE DIFFERENT INTERVENTIONS..................9 FIGURE 5: NAPA PRIORITY AREAS ADDRESSED BY THE DIFFERENT IMPLEMENTERS.................10 FIGURE 6: DISTRIBUTION OF ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS ACROSS CLIMATIC ZONES............11 FIGURE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS ACROSS GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS ............................................................................................................................................................12 FIGURE 8: DISTRIBUTION OF ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY................13 FIGURE 9: APPROACH FOR ASSESSING IMPLEMENTATION OF UGANDA NAPA INTERVENTIONS ..............................................................................................................................................15 FIGURE 10: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION WITH NAKAPIRIPIRIT DEWS SENTINELS AND FOCAL HOUSEHOLDS.................................................................................................................................17 FIGURE 11: AN EXAMPLE OF THE DROUGHT BULLETIN SUMMARY...................................................18 FIGURE 12: A DRAMA GROUP DISSEMINATING DEWS KEY MESSAGES IN ACHOLI-INN VILLAGE, MOROTO DISTRICT.................................................................................................19 FIGURE 13: SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION TECHNOLOGIES UNDER THE TACC PROJECT ............................................................................................................................................................24 FIGURE 14: A DRAINABLE PIT LATRINE CONSTRUCTED FOR A PRIMARY SCHOOL UNDER THE WASH PROGRAMME....................................................................................................................28 FIGURE 15: AN UNDERGROUND WATER TANK CONSTRUCTED TO SUPPORT THE SCHOOL AND COMMUNITIES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY RELYING ON FLOWING WATER............28 FIGURE 16: A BOREHOLE AND BOX SPRING PROTECTED AND MANAGED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES...................................................................................................................29 FIGURE 17: THE GIZ ADAPTATION PROJECTS IN KARAMOJA................................................................33 FIGURE 18: THE AKWAPUA SILTATION BASIN AND VALLEY TANK.......................................................34 FIGURE 19: ARECHET VALLEY DAM AND THE WATERING TROUGHS................................................35 FIGURE 20: USING THE WATER FROM ARECHET VALLEY DAM FOR IRRIGATION AND DOMESTIC USE.............................................................................................................................................35

I

List of Tables

TABLE 1: ADAPTATION INTERVENTIONS IMPLEMENTED BY DIFFERENT PLAYERS.......................6 TABLE 2 : CRITERIA FOR SELECTING NAPA INTERVENTIONS FOR IN-DEPTH ASSESSMENT............14 TABLE 3: PARAMETERS INVESTIGATED DURING THE RAPID APPRAISAL OF THE NAPA IMPLEMENTATION IN SELECTED SITES.........................................................................................................16 TABLE 4: A COMPARISON OF THE ACTIVITIES OF DEWS AGAINST THE ACTIVITIES FOR STRENGTHENING METEOROLOGICAL SERVICES

.............................................................................19

TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF THE RAPID APPRAISAL FOR THE DEWS IN NAKAPIRIPIRIT.....................21 TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF THE RAPID APPRAISAL FOR THE SOIL CONSERVATION PROJECT UNDER TACC...........................................................................................................................................................25 TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF THE RAPID APPRAISAL FOR THE WASH.........................................................30  

II

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.

III

LIST OF ACRONYMS AfDB ADP CBO CC CCD CPDRR CLTS COP CSO DANIDA DEWS EMLI FAO FGDs GEF LDCF IK LC LDC LEG LGs MAAIF MDGs MWE MEAs MTTI NAPA NARO NAFRRI NALIRI NCCSCS NEMA NFA NGO PAST PEAP PMA PMU PRA PSC TACC TORs UNDP UNFCCC UNEP UNMA USAID UWA VHT WASH  

African Development Bank Area Development Programs Community-Based Organisation Climate Change Climate Change Department Climate Proof Disaster Risk Reduction Community-Led Total Sanitation Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC Civil Society Organisation Danish International Development Agency Drought Early Warning System Environmental Management for Livelihood Improvement Bwaise Facility Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations Focus Group Discussions Global Environment Facility Least Developed Countries Fund Indigenous Knowledge Local Council Least Developed Countries LDC Expert Group Local Governments Ministry of Agriculture Animal Industry and Fisheries Millennium Development Goals. Ministry of Water and Environment Multilateral Environmental Agreements Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industry National Adaptation Programs of Action National Agricultural Research Organisation National Forestry Resources and Research Institute National Livestock Information and Research Institute National Climate Change Steering Committee Secretariat National Environment Management Authority National Forestry Authority Non-Governmental Organisation Participatory hygiene And Sanitation Transformation Poverty Eradication Action Plan Plan for Modernisation of Agriculture Project Management Unit Participatory Rural Appraisal Project Steering Committee Territorial Approach to Climate Change Terms of reference United Nations Development Programme United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change United Nations Environment Programme Uganda National Meteorological Authority United States Agency for International Development Uganda Wildlife Authority Village Health Team Water Sanitation and Hygiene IV

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.

V

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 1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

4

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) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i)

The theme/focus of the intervention A brief description of the activities Current status of the intervention The stakeholders/partners involved in the project activities Existing/anticipated challenges Available opportunities Best Practices/Lessons learnt Whether the project design is linked to the Uganda NAPA 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 5

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-

No. of inter-

Multilateral through

No. of interven-

ment institution

ventions

Government/NGOs

tions

NGOs/CSOs

No. of interventions

MAAIF

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

3

GIZ/MWE

2

CARE-Uganda

5

Nakasongola LG

1

UNDP (5 Ministries)

7

Deniva

1

UNMA

3

UNDP (UNMA,

2

Ecological Christian

2

production

DWRM, MAKERERE)

Organization (ECO)

UWA

7

UNDP (WWF)

1

EMLI

2

Office of the Prime

1

UNDP/Mbale LG

1

Environmental Alert

2

UNIDO (LGs)

1

World Vision

10

UNDP/ECOTRUST

1

NAPE

4

Minister

Research Institutions AfrII (Africa Innova-

1

tions Institute) Uganda Chartered

1

Health Net TOTAL

34

24

6

41

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% 24%

40% GOVERNMENT NGO’S / CBOs 33%

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). 7

30.43

27.11

30

27.08

26.95

25.49

24.51

25

24.34

23.67

23.48

20

22.24 17.13

15 10 5

Djib uti Ugan da

Lao PDR

Afg han istan

COUNTRY

Sud an

Rw and a

Ben in

Ma law i

Ga mb ia

Tim or L

ast e

0

An gol a

Total LDC funding recieved ($ milion)

35

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 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 production 6. Drought adaptation 7. Vectors, pest and disease control 8. Indigenous knowledge and Natural re sources management 9. Climate change and development planning

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).

8

23

25

21

No. of interventions

20

17

15

17

12

10

7

5

2

Linked to NAPA

0 Academia (n=2)

Government (n=33)

Multilateral with Government (n=24)

NGO’s/SCOs (n=40)

Not Linked to NAPA

IMPLEMENTERS 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.

30

29

25

11 10 6

7

7

3

5

3

H20 for production

H20 & Sanitation

Met Services

Land Degr.Mng’t

2

NAPA Priority areas

Pests and diseases

5

12

9

Drought Adaptation

10

0

15

15

CC & Devt planning

17 12

IK & NRM

20 15

24

20

tree planting

No. of Adaptation Intervention

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.

All Intervantions Project Design Linked to NAPA

Figure 4: NAPA Priority areas addressed by the different interventions 9

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.

25 20 15 10 5

plann ing Devt CC &

NRM IK &

es Pest s an d di seas

Ada ptat ion Dro ugh t

rodu ctio n f or p H20

H20

&S anit atio

n

s ice Me t Se rv

Lan dD

tree

egr .Mn g’t

0

pla ntin g

No. of Interventions

30

NAPA Priority Area NGO’s / CSO

Research Institutions

Multilateral Gov’t & CSO’s

Government

Figure 5: NAPA Priority areas addressed by the different Implementers 10

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).

No of interventions

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Semi-Arid (n=45)

Lowlands (n=21)

Highlands (n=13)

Lake Basin (n=4)

Aquatic (n=1)

National (n=38)

Climatic Zones (NAPA) Document Project Design based on NAPA

Project Design not based on NAPA

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 11

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). 24%

20 14%

15

13%

13%

12%

10

8%

7%

6%

5%

5

nal Na tio

We st N ile

We ste rn

Sou th-W este rn

Tes o

Ka ram oja

No r th ern

Ce ntr a

Eas tern

0

l

Proportion of interventions

25

Region 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 (semiarid) 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).

12

Figure 8: Distribution of Adaptation interventions across the countr

13

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 about the project design, implementation and evaluation(where appropriate)

Information

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- There should be no completed or ongoing assessments or project evaluations by the implements

menters to avoid duplication of efforts

14

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

Goal(s)

Interventions in Specific Geographical Lo-

Objectives

catios? Activities Ongoing/Planned Activites

NO Implementing Agent(s)?EfficiencySynergies, Co-ordination Supportive Factors:Economic, social, cultural, political, previous initiatives Challengesexperienced

YES Compare Implemented Activities (Guidelines/Implementatonframework ) Realised/Expected

Outcome: Build Resilience? Milestones & Verifiableindicators; M&E

Impediments/

If Addressed, can the planned activities be

Bottlenecks

implemented?

Compare

OutputsPhysical changesCapacity building Outcome: EnhanceCommunity Resilience

Progress Effectiveness Best Practices Comparison with Non-Project Site

Figure 9: Approach for assessing implementation of Uganda NAPA Interventions 15

Table 3: Parameters investigated during the rapid appraisal of the NAPA implementation in selected sites Parameter under Investiga-

Key Variables/Categories to be considered

tion Progress

• • • •

Operational Efficiency

• • • •

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? 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 contributions 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 mented 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/

•

Economic

Environment

•

Socio-Cultural

•

Political (Leadership aspects at District and village levels)

•

The Policy environment

•

Earlier interventions

16

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).

17

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).

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 18

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

• Strengthen data collection, processing, analysis and interpretation oMulti-sectorial approach in data collection (Water, Livestock, 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. Cooperation 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 Resource o 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 • A bulletin data published •Monthly per month Drought Bulletins (Detailed-12 pages and a 2 page summary)

19

Indicators Comment/

Observations • Indigenous indicators are not captured and utilized in the software • The Focal HH expressed fatigue as a result of monthly data collection

Recommendation • Collect information on indigenous indicators over time o Observe consistency in use o Accuracy in forecast o Correlation with scientific indicators

• Strengthen human capacity in weather observing & forecasting

UNMA, FEWSNET

• Monthly weather forecasts • Seasonal forecasts

A bulletin with indicators from UNMA

• Strengthen early warning system and its coordination mechanism

• ACTED Office Field and National level)

•A well-coordinated system of events

Timely and informative Monthly Bulletins

Develop and package weather and climate information for vulnerable communities

• ACTED Office (District and Country level) o Capacity Building Officer (ACTED) Heads of Relevant Departments • Drought Early Warning Focal persons (2)

•Monthly Drought Bulletins (Detailed-12 pages and a 2 page Summary) • Radio spot messages •Drama skits

•Monthly Bulletins • Drama scripts •Radio message scripts

• Disseminate and promote use of weather and climate information o Sensitize communities on weather and climate information use o Provision of media facilities (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 officers (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 Summary) • Radio spot messages (announcements) •Staged Drama performance •DEWS community meetings

•Monthly Drought Bulletins •No of radio announcements per month •No of Drama performances • No of community meetings held

Dissemination is quite irregular o Community level meetings to be convened by ACTED o Requires facilitation

• Monitor and evaluate utilization of weather and climate information o Community meetings held after awareness sessions o In Plan: M & E of the whole chain  Data collection, analysis and timely dissemination  Case studies of actions initiated by community members following the bulletin 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 recommendations of the previous month bulletin

•No. of responses recorded for the different sectors •No. of Bulletin requests by other Agencies

• There was no (Upcoming proof that the Pilot Project) local communities make use of the information in bulletins •Improved decision making •Currently, there are no evaluation on the use of the information

20

•Use of IEC materials in local languages •Explore use of community loudspeakers on Market days to increase coverage •Explore use of Indigenous indicators to give it a local perspective

• Develop partnerships and

• Local Radio stations

•Radio spot

•No. of

• ACTED has

synergies with media and

• Schools

messages

radio

not harnessed

(announce-

announce-

the potential

ments)

ments per

for synergies

•Staged Dra-

month

with other

ma perfor-

•No of Dra-

stakeholders

mance

ma perfor-

within the

mances

Environment

other stakeholders

sector (ECO, GIZ, Welter Hunger

•ACTED has not harnessed the potential for synergies with other stakeholders other stakeholders in the district to improve the operationalization 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. Table 5: Summery of the rapid appraisal for the DES in Nakapiripiti 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 relevance • 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 DEWS o ACTED staff at the National field level: Co-ordinate the activities o The Sentinels /Chiefs: Collect data from 10 Focal Households per Parish and local council leaders o The Kraal Heads (5 per Parish): Provide information on livestock o Heads of relevant departments i.e Veterinary, Agriculture, Nutrition Focal person, Natural Resource, Water and Security are convened by the CAO to analyze the data and produce recommendations and drought warnings for each district. o Drought Early Warning Persons (2) and the Capacity Building Officer: Finalize the Drought bulletin o 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 dissemination and usability of the bulletin

21

Financial Efficiency

The DEWS was designed to use existing structures, where individuals participate with minimal facilitation 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 motivate them o Households and Kraal heads also provide the information voluntarily o UNMA and FEWSNET provide monthly information at no cost o Heads of Relevant Departments participate in the analysis of the bulletin o 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

•

Enhancing Resilience

•

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.

•

•

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 livelihoods 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- The engagement of the local governance including the CAO, District technical staff, Sub-county staff and local leaders vironment 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 indicators There 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

22

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 established Output 2: Capacity to integrate climate change issues into regional development plans and actions Built Output 3: Integrated Territorial Climate Plan (ITCP) formulated Output 4: Climate change policy and investment package developed Output 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. 23

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 24

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 improved 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/ • Economic (availability of market for agricultural produce)

Environment

• 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

25

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. 26

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. 27

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

28

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 . 29

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

•

•

Financial Efficiency

Effectiveness

•

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

• • •

Enhancing

•

Resilience • o o •

Supporting Factors/ Environment

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

• • •

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. 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 include Strengthening and development the structures in WASH 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. 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”

30

Major Challenges

Best Practices

• Maintenance of the water structures o 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 boreholes o 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 • •

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 counterproductive, 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, communitydriven 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 31

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.

32

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

33

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

34

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

35

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 36

• 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. 37

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

38

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 information 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. 39

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/integrated 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 areas c. 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 regional 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 Uganda b. Adaptation interventions are implemented to reflect areas that are most vulnerable to the ef fects of climate change c. 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 40

b. c.

Community engagement in the implementation of the activities delivers low-cost options 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. a. b.

Co-ordination of the NAPA activities: Strengthen co-ordination of NAPA activities through; 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 Operationalizing the provision of the National climate change policy 2015 regarding the roles and responsibilities of the different actors.

2. a. b.

Adaptation Priority areas: The urgent and immediate needs for Uganda are dynamic and changing with location and time. Therefore, Future climate change programme documents such as the NAPA should have a provision for periodic updates to capture new and emerging climatic shocks. Governance institutions need to be adaptive to adjust to response measures as new information on climate impact develops

3. a. b.

Implementation of adaptation activities: Within each operational area (district, region) the adaptation interventions should be consoli dated to create synergies and increase impact. 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.

41

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. 6.

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. 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.

42

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.napapana.org/private/modules/knowledgebox/external/index.php?kbid=3

43

List of Appendices Appendix 1: Members of the Climate Change Adaptation Expert Team Expert team on the NAPA Evaluation study 1. Ministry of Water and Environment - Climate Change Department (CCD) a) Mr. Chebet Maikut b) Mr. Muhammad Semambo 2.

Uganda National Meterological Authority (UNMA) Mr. Paul Isabirye

3. a)

National Planning Authority (NPA) Ms. Edith Kasajja

4. a)

National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) Mr. Ronald Kaggwa

5. Academia a) Prof. John Kaddu 6. a) b) c)

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) Mr. Phillip Gwage Ms. Rebecca Nabatanzi Mr. Ceaser Kimbugwe

7. Others a) Ms. Christine Nantongo – Independent consultant b) Ms. Suzan Nanduddu – Independent consultant c) Mr. Godfrey Ssali – Private sector, Uganda Manufacturers Association d) Mr. Onesmus Muhwezi – UNDP Reviewers 1. Anna Amumpiire ACODE 2. Joshua Zake (PhD) Environmental Alert 3. Shuaib Lwasa (PhD) MUK 4. Tony Muhumuza (PhD) UNDP

44

Appendix 2: Mapping of Adaptation Interventions in Uganda Organisation Project Title/Theme/Focus (Lead Implementer)

Implementation Period

Collaborating Partners

Target Districts

Link to NAPA (Project Design)

ACCRA

2012-2013

Bundibugyo LG, MWE & ACCRA

Bundibugyo

Linked

UNMA

National

Linked

22 Districts

Linked

National

Linked

National

Linked

Linked

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

ACCRA

Translation and Dissemination of Weather and Climate information

2009-2012

ACCRA

Study on use of IK on weather forecasts

2014/15

ACCRA

Developing indicators (Outcomebased) for Climate Change Adaptation and Resilience

2014/15

ACCRA

Capacity Building for Local Governments to use Weather and climate information for planning

2009-2012

ACTED

DEWS: Strengthening adaptive capacity 2008-2013; of agro pastoral communities and the local government to reduce impacts of climate change: (Phase 1)

Dan Church

7 Karamoja

Aid; Karitas C

Districts

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

MAAIF, OPM,

7 Karamoja

2016

LGs

Districts

ACTED

Early Action pilot project

2015-2016

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

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

ACTED

ADSI

IIED/ UNMA

&D

C&D (Italian

Linked

Napak

Linked

Nakapiripirit

Linked

Apac

Linked

NGO, ZOA)

45

CAREUganda

Northern Uganda Women Empowerment Program (NUWEP) with 3 subcomponents (Climate Proof Disaster Risk Reduction, Water-smart agriculture, Ecosystem restoration and Management

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)

2012-2017

Local Otuke Government, Partners for Resilience (PFR) consortium, CCD, OPM, UNMA

Linked

2012-2013

Pallisa

Linked

FAO

GCCA Program: Adaptation to Climate 2012-2016 Change in Uganda: Agricultural Adaptation to Climate Change in the central cattle corridor

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,

Nakasongola,

Linked

ILRI, C&D,

Ssembabule,

ACTED

Kiboga,

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

Integrating climate resilience in Agricultural and pastoral production in Uganda through a farmer/ Agro Pastoral Field Schools

2015 -2018

MAAIF

Soil Conservation and Management

MAAIF

Aquaculture projects

Luwero, Nakaseke, Mubende

FAO

FAO

GOAL, IUCN,

Karamoja

Linked

Nakasongola, ssembabule, Kiboga, Luwero, Nakaseke, Mubende

Linked

2015….

Mbale

Not

2014…

National

ILRI, C&D, ACTED

Makerere University

Linked Not Linked MAAIF

MAAIF

FIEFOC III = Rehabilitation of 5 big irrigation schemes and construction of small-scale irrigation projects

2013…

Pests and Diseases control through Vaccination Programs

2012…

MWE, WFP

National

Not Linked

National

Not Linked

46

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

2008..

National

Linked

National

Linked

2006-2012

National

Linked

2004….

29 Districts

Not

Agricultural Program for Uganda (2nd Draft) MAAIF

Action on Research on drought tolerant 2013… varieties under NARO

MAAIF

Farm Income Enhancement and Forest Conservation Project (FIEFOC)Agricultural enterprise development

MAAIF

National Livestock Productivity Project (NALPP): Excavation of Dams

MWE (FSSD) Water and Sanitation Program (AfDB): 4 components: Component 4: Tree planting MWE

Linked 2015

National

Not Linked

The Climate Change Policy and Climate 2015

National

Linked

National

Linked

Change Mainstreaming Guidelines MWE (CCD)

GCCA Program: Adaptation to Climate 2012-2016 Change in Uganda

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

Water and Sanitation Program : Component 3: Water for sanitation

2014

District Local Governments and Communities, NGOs

Soroti, Bukedia, Budaka, Parisa, Kumi, Butaleja

Linked

AfDB/

Water and Sanitation Program (AfDB):

2014

Local

Otuke, Apac,

Linked

MWE—

Component 2: Water for Production

governments

Katakwi

GCCA Program: Adaptation to Climate 2012-2016 Change in Uganda: Component 2: Access to water for animals and water for Production

FAO, District local governments

Nakasongola, Luwero, Nakaseke, Kiboga, Mubende and Sembabule

& Ministry of Health

Water for production MWE— Water for production

47

Linked

Nakasogola LG

UNDP (UNMA)

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 PilotNakasongola)

2012-2013

Strengthening climate information and early warning systems (SCIEWS)

2014-2017

UNDP/Mbale TACC – Territorial Approach To 2012-2013 Climate Change in Mbale: Supporting LG low-carbon and climate change-resilient local development in Uganda

Nakasongola

Linked

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

Manafwa and

Mbale

Linked

Bududa LGs, and NGOs

UNDP

Ecosystem Based Adaptation in Mt. Elgon

2014-2015

Sironko and Bulambuli

Linked

UNDP

Enhancing climate smart agriculture in

2012

Linked

(MAAIF)

Uganda

Busia, Bugiri, Namutumba, Budaka and Buyende

UNDP

Promotion of alternative energy

2014

Luwero and

Linked

(MEMD)

technologies

UNDP (5

Uganda Strategic Investment framework for Sustainable land management (Implementing Ministries: Water and Environment, Agriculture, Lands, Trade, Energy)

Ministries)

UNDP

Nakasongola. 2009

WWF-Project in Karamoja

Kamuli, Nakasongola, Lyantonde, Nakaseke, Sembabule, Kaliro

Not

7 Karamoja

Not

(WWF)

Linked

UNDP (5 Ministries)

Climate risk transfer (work in progress to pilot the project)

UNDP (5

Integrated Climate Change Reduction and Disaster Risk Reduction

Ministries) UNIDO (LGs)

Linked

Reducing Vulnerability of Banana Producing Communities to Climate Change Through Banana Value Added Activities - Enhancing Food Security And Employment Generation

2014

Insurance firms

Kamuli, Nakasongola

Linked Linked

2014-2016

48

Southwest

Linked

UNDP

Strengthening climate information and

2014

UNMA, DWRM 28 Districts:

(UNMA,

early warning systems in Eastern and

Kyoga water

DWRM,

Southern Africa for climate resilient

management

MAKERERE) development and adaptation to climate

Linked

zone (Teso,

change – Uganda

Mt Elgon, Karamoja and Lango subregion, Bukedi, Busoga and Acholi sub region)

UNMA

Joint Water and Environment Sector

National

Linked

Kitgum,

Linked

Program Support UNMA

Translation and dissemination of the

2012-2014

seasonal forecasts

Otuke, Bundibugyo, Kotido, Gulu and Soroti

World Vision

Disaster risk reduction & climate

2012-2017

change

Australian

Kibaale,

Not

government,

Nakasongola,

Linked

world

Abim, Kotido

agroforestry centre/ICRAF World Vision

Northern Uganda Social Action Fund 2

2013-2014

WFP, World kotido district Not Vision Linked support offices (Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan, UK and USA).

World Vision

Fortifying families in Kaabong

2012-2016

World Vision Australia, district local government

kaboong

UNMA, NARO.

Soroti and

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

Linked

Kaabong Districts

49

Not

Linked

World Vision

Long term Investment for Food and

2013-2017

Australian Department of Foreign affairs and Trade(DFAT) and World Vision Australia support office NARO, DLGs

Amuria,

Not

Nakasongola,

Linked

2013-2015

Selected Institutions in respective Local Governments where projects are being implemented

Butaleja, Linked Hoima, Busia, Soroti, Kaabong, Mpigi, Kiboga, Tororo, Kitgum, Gulu, Oyam, Arua, Rakai, Agago

Northern Uganda Social Action Plan Two (NUSAF 2 Phase 3)

2012-2014

District Local Governments and Communities

Kotido

Uganda Water and Sanitation Project

2010-2016

District Local

Gulu, Oyam, Buliisa, Hoima, Amuru , Nakasongola, Buhimba,

Economic empowerment project

World Vision

Livelihoods, Food Security, Agriculture and Economic Empowerment Projects

World Vision

World Vision

Governments and Communities, MWE, MoH

Mpigi, Kiboga and Kamwenge

Not linked

District

Linked

Mukono World Vision

Sustainable disaster risks reduction

2014-2015

World Vision

Kaabong Climate Change Adaptation

2014-2015

Local

Kibale

Linked

Local

Kaabong

Linked

government

District

government Project (KACCAP) GIZ/MWE

Reform of the Urban Water and

Phase 1: 2009-

(DWRM)

Sanitation Sector in Uganda: Approach

2013 Phase 2:

to Flood Risk Management (FRM)

2014-2017

GIZ/MWE

Strengthening Meteorological Products, 2014-2017

UNMA, MWE,

(DWRM)

Services and Use in the Agriculture and

MAAIF, NARO

National

Linked

National

Linked

Nakapiripirit,

Not

Moroto

Linked

Several

Not

Districts

Linked

National

Not

Water Sectors GIZ/OM

Climate Change Adaptation Project in

LGs

Karamoja ACCRA

Research in adaptation with a focus on

2012-2013

Flexible and Forward Looking decision making and governance ACCRA

Support to ACCRA alliance members

2009-2012

to Integrate climate change adaptation

Linked

in planning

50

ACCRA

Advocacy

2009-2012

National

Not

AfrII (Africa

Adaptation to the impact of climate

Local

Nakasongola

Not

Innovations

variability on food and health security

governments

and Nakaseke

Linked

Institute)

in the cattle corridor of Uganda

CARE-

Women and Youth Financial initiatives (Banking linkages and agricultural insurance)

National

Not

Linked

Uganda CARE-

Linked

Global water initiative- East Africa: 2012-2017 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

Gulu University,

Northern Uganda Women Empowerment Program (NUWEP) with 3 subcomponents (Climate Proof Disaster Risk Reduction, Water-smart agriculture, Ecosystem and restoration management

Partners for

FSSD, NFA,

Uganda

Women empowerment in natural resource governance (WENG)-FOREST

Ecological

Advocacy

Uganda

CAREUganda

CARE-

Otuke

Busitema

Not Linked

University, Private sector, Media West Nile,

Resilience (PFR) Otuke, Lango Consortium

Not Linked

and Acholi (5 Districts) National

NEMA

Not Linked

National

Christian

Not Linked

Organization (ECO) EMLI

Deepening Citizen Climate Change

2013-2014

Policy Advocacy

NEMA, MWE/

Kumi,

Not

CCD

Bukedea and

Linked

Ngora EMLI

Raising awareness on Climate

2013

change,the policy and advocating

ACODE, MWE/

Kumi and

Not

CCD

Gulu

Linked

District Local

Adjumani,

Not

governments

Yumbe, Moyo

Linked

District local

Yumbe, Moyo

Not

for climate financing at the local government level Environme

2009-2012

ntal Alert

Strengthening community climate change adaptation in agriculture and natural resource management in the West Nile region

Environme

Enhancing food security and climate

2014-2017

ntal Alert

change adaptation

FAO

SPGS Phase III

governments 2015-2020

SPGS

Linked National

Not Linked

51

FAO

Trans boundary Ecosystem

2011-2015

Management Program for the Kagera

District local

Rakai,

Not

governments

Kiruhura,

Linked

River Basin

Mbarara, Isingiro, Ntungamo and Kabale district

Uganda

The Climate change Adaptation and

Chartered

ICT (CHAI) project- Phase 1 & Phase 2

2012-2014

Health Net

FHI360, MWE/

Soroti,

Not

UNMA,

Nakasongola

Linked

Makerere

and

University

Sembabule.

(College of

Rakai

Health Sciences) (Control site) MWE (CCD)

Bridging support to CCD establishment

National

National

Curriculum

Not Linked

Development Centre MWEDirectorate 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

MWEDirectorate of Water Resources Management

Water source protection plans

MWEDirectorate of Water Resources Management

Water Safety Plans

MWE—

Rehabilitation of Government

Kasese,

Not

Water for

irrigation schemes

Butalejja

Linked

Linked

National

Not Linked

National

Not Linked

production MWE— Water for production

NAPE

Improving access to water for production through construction of valley tanks and valley dams (Government funds)

2013-2015

Advocacy

Ntungamo, Not Apac, Linked Ssembabule, Apac, Isingiro, Lira, Kaabong, Kiruhura, Lyantonde & Moroto National

Not Linked

52

NAPE

NAPE

Knowledge searching and community

201302014

Local

awareness raising on climate adaptation

communities in

and mitigation

Kashari

Community Ecological Governance

2012-2014

Project

Mbarara

Not Linked

Kasese,

Not

Kamwenge

Linked

and FortPortal OPM

UNDP

Karamoja Livelihood Program (KALIP): Improving Food Security and Diversification of Livelihood Opportunities for Communities in Karamoja

2011-2014

Uganda Strategic Investment

2009

framework for Sustainable land management

FAO

Kaabong, Kotido, Abim, Napak, Moroto, Nakapiriprit, Amudat

Not

MWE, MAAIF,

Kamuli,

Not

MTTI, MEMD

Nakasongola,

Linked

Linked

Lyantonde, Nakaseke, Sembabule, Kaliro

UNDP

WWF-Project in Karamoja

Karamoja

Not Linked

UWA

Targeted Animal species translocation

Mbarara

(Assisted Migration): From L/. Mburo

Not Linked

to Katonga wildlife reserve UWA

National

Adaptive Management: Removal of

Linked

exotics and invasive plants UWA

Not

Redesigning tourism infrastructure

National

(a) on the Rwenzoris (b) river crossing

Not Linked

points (bridges) and ferry crossing point, (c) re-routing tourism trails UWA

Incorporation of climate change

National

issues into Strategic plan and General

Not Linked

management plans of UWA UWA

Ecological Monitoring: Long-Term

National

data collection and analysis using

Not Linked

phenological observations UWA

Wildlife Disease Management

National

Not Linked

UWA

Excavation and management of water

Karamoja

dams in Kidepo

Not Linked

53

Ecological

Climate proof Disaster Risk Reduction

2012-2015

NARO,

Christian

Project: Integrating CCA and

District local

Organization

EcosystemManagement and Restoration

government,

(ECO)

into Disaster Risk Reduction Practices

UNMA,

Nakapiripirti

Not Linked

Makerere Uiversity NAPE

Afforestation project

Hoima, Bulisa, Not Kalangala, Jinja,Karuma, Kasese

ACTED

Purchase for Progress - Agricultural

Gulu, Nwoya,

project: improving the profitability of

Amuru

Agriculture (4 phases UNMA

Strengthening Meteorological Products,

MWE, MAAIF,

Services and Use in the Agriculture and

NARO

Water Sectors

54

National

Linked

Appendix 3: Checklist for Stakeholder Consultations PLANNING AND DESIGNING STAGE 1. What guided the design this intervention i. Uganda NAPA ii. MDGs iii. 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 project ii. Land degradation management project iii. Strengthening meteorological services project iv. Community water and sanitation project v. Water for production project vi. Drought adaptation project vii. Vectors, pest and disease control project viii. Indigenous knowledge and Natural resources management project ix. 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 objectives 6. The stipulated specific tasks 7. The Expected outputs 8. Indicators that were set for the realization of the different outputs 9. 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 implemented i. Steps to follow ii. Stakeholders to be engaged iii. 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. 13.

Did you at any one time consider the NAPA implementation framework? (Explain) Did you have a Monitoring and Evaluation Plan? (Request to share)

55

B. IMPLEMENTATION 1.

At what stage is the intervention as per today?

2. a. b. c. d.

How has the Intervention/project been implemented? Steps followed Stakeholders involved Roles and Responsibilities of the different stakeholders Were the objectives for assigning different roles and responsibilities to the different stake holders achieved? Explain (Operational efficiency?)

3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Out of all the planned activities which ones were implemented? If some of the activities were not implemented, what are the reasons? What outputs/milestones were achieved and in what time frame? What specific indicators were considered as a realization of the specific outputs? To what extent was the implementation framework followed?

8. a.

Was the Monitoring and Evaluation Plan implemented as planned? How many evaluation/progress reports were done? (Can they be shared?)

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

How would you rate the performance of this intervention (with regards to realization of the target outputs) –High, Medium or Low What supportive factors prevailed that enabled the achievement of the specific objectives What challenges did you face in implementing the activities (that affected the achievement of the desired results = efficiency) What could have been done/could be done to address the above challenges (Please specify the action, actor and time frame) What is the rating of this intervention in relation in achieving the overall goal of the NAPA (Building Resilience)? Explain - High, Medium or Low What is the likelihood of the community continuing with the activities when the project period expires (Sustainability)?

56

This publication has been made possible with support from Australian Aid