exchange uganda 2016 - join for water · exchange uganda 2016 action research & integrated...

Protos Exchange IWRM & AR Uganda_report 1 / 28

Exchange Uganda 2016

Action Research & Integrated Water Resources Management

Report & pictures: Dries Moorthamers

Participants and community of Kazingo Hills


1. List of abbreviatons .................................................................................................... 4

2. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 5

3. Objectives .................................................................................................................. 5

4. Day 1 – April 11th 2016 ............................................................................................... 5

4.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 5

4.2. IWRM: some characteristics – Stefan Van Damme ................................................................. 5

4.3. Presentations on advances in IWRM and AR by representatives of different Protos intervention countries ......................................................................................................................... 6

4.3.1. AR case Burundi – Carinie Masumbuko .......................................................................... 6

4.3.2. AR case Rwanda – Carinie Masumbuko .......................................................................... 7

4.3.3. Committees in micro-catchments in Ecuador – Helder Solis .......................................... 7

4.3.4. IWRM and the Moustique Catchment Comittee, Haiti – Julien Deroy ........................... 7

4.3.5. Local IWRM and artesian boreholes, Benin – Armel Ahossi ........................................... 8

4.3.6. IWRM in Mali – Alioune Diarra ........................................................................................ 8

4.4. IWRM program of the Mpanga Catchment – Lieven Peeters ................................................. 8

4.5. Group assignment – Dirk Glas ................................................................................................. 9

5. Day 2 – April 12th 2016 ............................................................................................. 10

5.1. Kazingo hills ........................................................................................................................... 10

5.2. National Water and Sewerage Corporation .......................................................................... 11

5.3. Bigodi village & wetland ........................................................................................................ 12

6. Day 3 – April 13th 2016 ............................................................................................. 13

6.1. Mpanga Falls: cycad conservation program .......................................................................... 13

6.2. Mpanga Falls: hydroelectric power plant .............................................................................. 13

6.3. Kayinja landing site ................................................................................................................ 14

7. Day 4 – April 14th 2016 ............................................................................................. 16

7.1. Mountains of the Moon University ....................................................................................... 16

7.2. Group assignments (A) .......................................................................................................... 17

7.2.1. Akiiki: gender roles in IWRM in the Mpanga Catchment .............................................. 17

7.2.2. Ateenyi: environment (drivers and responses) of the Mpanga Catchment .................. 17

7.3. Action Research in Uganda – Hannelore Martens ................................................................ 18

7.4. Partial restitution of AR evaluation (GRET) – Dirk Glas ......................................................... 18

8. Day 5 – April 15th 2016 ............................................................................................. 19

8.1. Group Assignments (B) .......................................................................................................... 19

8.1.1. Amooti: ecological and legal aspects of the Mpanga Catchment ................................. 19

8.1.2. Araali: actors & environmental aspects of the Mpanga Catchment ............................. 19

8.2. Functional ecosystem analysis of the Mpanga River – Stefan Van Damme ......................... 20


8.3. Ecuadorian law on water uses and exploitations – Alexis Sánchez....................................... 21

8.4. Final conclusions .................................................................................................................... 21

8.5. Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 23

8.5.1. General appreciation ..................................................................................................... 23

8.5.2. Logistical arrangements ................................................................................................ 23

8.5.3. Site visits ........................................................................................................................ 23

8.5.4. Meetings and knowledge exchange .............................................................................. 23

8.5.5. How the exchange met the expectations ...................................................................... 24

8.5.6. Other suggestions and recommendations .................................................................... 24

9. Financial report ........................................................................................................ 24

10. Appendix ................................................................................................................. 25

10.1. List of participants ............................................................................................................. 25

10.2. Program of the seminar ..................................................................................................... 26


1. List of abbreviatons AR: Action Research CBO: community-based organization CCA: climate change adaptation CLTS: Community Led Total Sanitation CSO: civil society organizations EcoSan: Ecological Sanitation IWRM: Integrated Water Resources Management JESE: Joint Effort to Save the Environment KAFRED: Kibale Association for Rural and Environmental Development LORHUA: Ley Orgánica de Recursos Hídricos, Usos y Aprovechamientos del Agua MMU: Mountains of the Moon University NGO: non-governmental organization NWSC: National Water and Sewerage Corporation Senagua: Secretaría Nacional del Agua


2. Introduction From April 11th until April 15th 2016, Protos facilitated a seminar on Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Action Research (AR) in Fort Portal, Uganda. Participants originated from all Protos countries (Belgium, Benin, Burundi, DR Congo, Ecuador, Haiti, Mali, Madagascar, Rwanda and Uganda) and consisted of Protos employees and representatives of partners and stakeholders. The program of the seminar comprised presentations on characteristics and implementation of IWRM strategies (day 1), field visits with group assignments (day 2-3-4) and presentations on approach and evaluation of AR (day 4). At the end of the week (day 5), the seminar was opened for a broader audience, with presentations on (a.o.) the ecosystem of Mpanga River (functional analysis), a new progressive water law in Ecuador and final conclusions.

3. Objectives The objectives of this exchange are: broadening knowledge of IWRM and AR, in different contexts, but also specifically through the

implementation and good practices in Uganda (Mpanga River Catchment); evaluating the involvement of local communities in IWRM. (participants’ expectations were asked prior to the event)

Goal is to improve the quality of our work in IWRM, and to strengthen our AR methodology.

4. Day 1 – April 11th 2016 After an official opening of the seminar, IWRM was discussed in a scientific context. Next on the agenda were different presentations on IWRM and AR as applied in Protos intervention countries. Then, an overview of the IWRM program in the Mpanga Catchment was given and to conclude, participants were given a group assignment (to be carried out during field visits).

4.1. Introduction After a brief introduction and short presentation of the program and objectives by Lieven Peeters (representative for Uganda and DR Congo), all participants concisely presented themselves. According to Ugandan tradition the seminar was then opened officially by someone with cultural standing, in this case Kabarole LCV Vice Chairman, Moses Ikagobya. He expressed his concerns about challenges like climate change, disasters like earth quakes that lower the water table, and pollution and destruction of the environment through industrial activities and urbanization. The LCV Vice Chairman stated that there used to be a lot of water in the region, but nowadays there’s a lot less. He hopes there will still be enough water in 1000 years from now. Mr. Ikagobya paid tribute to Protos and JESE1 for their measures towards preserving the environment. He jokingly warned that we should not take with us what we didn’t come with and declared the meeting opened.

4.2. IWRM: some characteristics – Stefan Van Damme Prof. Stefan Van Damme (University of Antwerp) walked us through some characteristics of IWRM. Referring to scalability, he began his plea stating that in the whole world there’s not one example of IWRM that is successful for an entire catchment. Complexity of a catchment forces IWRM to scale down to more local measures. (Although is not advised to merely have a local focus: local and more ‘global’ IWRM should be complementing each other, quote Dirk Glas.) To explain the complexity of a catchment, prof. Van Damme referred to the different ingredients of a salmon mousse. A salmon itself needs a lot of different prey species for each stage in its life: plankton,

1 Joint Effort to Save the Environment – a Ugandan NGO and partner of Protos


mussels, clams… Most of these species (as well as the habitats they occur in) have no direct economic value, but need to be taken into account in an IWRM context, as they all have specific requirements to the environment they live in: e.g. clams need a specific river flow to be able to pick food out of the water. Before ecosystem services can be benefitted from, different processes occur. The processes of an aquatic ecosystem rely mostly on the availability of air (oxygen), light, nitrogen and phosphate. Two examples of processes: (1) bacteria consume waste (organic pollution), need oxygen in this process and produce carbon dioxide. Eutrophication takes place when an overload of nutrients (e.g. phosphates, bacteria ‘food’) is available: more oxygen is consumed, but this implicates there is less oxygen for fish, resulting in fish death; (2) as a result of this overload of nutrients, algae will bloom. The ratio between silicon and other nutrients determine the flow of algae into the food web. Dissolved silicon is an important nutrient for diatoms (phytoplankton), a specific group of algae that are in their turn the primary food source for zooplankton. IWRM measures can bring more oxygen into the water: through water treatment, by preventing organic waste to come into the river (which is cheaper) and/or by diminishing erosion (which makes the water turbid). Ecosystem services are productive (directly marketable: e.g. food, drinking water, energy, fishing, transport), regulating (e.g. flood plains, water purification, climate regulation) and cultural (e.g. sports, social interaction, spiritual values). Prof. Van Damme quoted a definition of IWRM: “Coordinated and integrated development, management and restoration of the water system taking into account the ecosystem quality objectives, multifunctional use, today and in the future and based on knowledge of the water system and its natural preconditions”. Note: when managing a water system we cannot expect to be able to rehabilitate it to the way it was. Non-natural measures are allowed to turn a bad system into a new, artificial one, e.g. by planting trees or making terraces in an eroded area. The more local you work, the easier the management. The closer to the sea, the less management that can be done. As a framework for IWRM, prof. Van Damme proposed the DPSIR approach. Driving forces: social aspects or groups that put pressure on the system (e.g. cities, industry) Pressures: emissions and use of sources, e.g. installing a tobacco plantation implicates loss of

land for food production; number of habitants; waste per inhabitant… State: diagnosis of e.g. water quality, soil fertility... Impact: consequences for humans, nature, economy, e.g. climate change, biodiversity loss… Responses: which measures can be taken to respond to all 4 domains, e.g. cleaner production

techniques, more regulation…

Prof. Van Damme ended his presentation by emphasizing that the carrying capacity of the earth will soon be met (rapid population growth). Objective is to reduce water demand and to enlarge water supply.

4.3. Presentations on advances in IWRM and AR by representatives of different Protos intervention countries

4.3.1. AR case Burundi – Carinie Masumbuko Carinie Masumbuko (Protos Burundi) elaborated on Burundi’s AR question “What is the impact of the local IWRM on the vulnerable population and in particular on their socio-economic and food conditions?" In Burundi, vulnerable women received an IWRM ‘pack’, meaning they got an EcoSan latrine, composter, rain harvesting tank, improved cooking stove and ‘kitchen garden’. As women are responsible for housekeeping and for taking care of the children, they were the most appropriate target group for the program. Economically, their situation improved: they maintained or increased


their income, got time for an extra job or leisure, lowered their spending on firewood thanks to the improved cooking stove and got free fertilizer thanks to the EcoSan. Health wise there were also remarkable improvements: almost all women now have two meals per day, they changed their customs in hygiene and sanitation and there are less diseases. All improvements resulted in higher self-esteem and respect from neighboring households. IWRM is also expected to be useful in fighting erosion. 4.3.2. AR case Rwanda – Carinie Masumbuko Carinie Masumbuko also presented Rwanda’s AR case: “How can the local IWRM approach have an impact on the adaption capability of the population of the water basins of Ruterana with regard to the effects of climate change?” People in Ruterana received an IWRM pack, consisting of an EcoSan latrine, rain harvesting tank, improved cooking stove, kitchen garden and composter. Also, radical terraces were installed to keep water in the soil, activities in agroforestry took place and there was a lot of sensitizing on climate change. IWRM measures valorize rain water, are useful in fighting erosion, resulted in a higher flow rate in Ruterana and in reforestation, and diminished the use of firewood on household level. The IWRM program does not collide with administrative boundaries, as it is not district based, but catchment based IWRM (as is the Mpanga IWRM program in Uganda). 4.3.3. Committees in micro-catchments in Ecuador – Helder Solis Helder Solis (Protos Ecuador) explained how committees in micro-catchments play an important role in defining the different water uses, in execution and evaluation of micro-catchment plans, in protecting water sources and in formulating agreements on water use and management. Although committees play a key role, they are not legally recognized, as the law only regulates big catchments on a national level. Furthermore, committees have to deal with impacts of climate change: water quality reduces and prices increase. As a consequence, people in lower regions move up hill, which puts pressure on the regions that are located higher up. Protos Ecuador is therefore looking for a way to map climate change – its evolutions, threats, impacts, vulnerability and adaptation measures – to assure the human right to water and sanitation (as recognized by the Constitution of Ecuador). A 6-step action plan has been developed. Protos Ecuador also works hard on strengthening associations and committees, and on developing a legal framework for water management by the micro-catchment committees. Committees already work together, but at the moment there are no associations that represent the committees on a national level. 4.3.4. IWRM and the Moustique Catchment Comittee, Haiti – Julien Deroy After briefly presenting the characteristics of the Moustique Catchment, Julien Deroy (Protos Haiti) explained how IWRM started somewhere around 2005, although at that time there was no interaction between the different actors. Later on, in 2010, the different regional actors formed the Comité Bassin Versant Rivière Moustique (Moustique Catchment Committee). An action plan was put in place, expectations were very high, but actors eventually lost interest. In 2013 there was a new dynamic for organizing the actors; water usage (irrigation water vs. drinking water) was highly discussed, which urged the need for a proper IWRM strategy. In 2010 the Comité Bassin Versant Rivière Moustique became a partner of Protos and identified a sub-basin as a pilot for IWRM try-outs: a sub-committee was formed, a tree/plant nursery was installed, anti-erosion measures were taken and composting and agriculture took place. The new dynamic also led to a transformation of the different actors in the catchment: more dedication, transparency, professionalism, and integration of IWRM in daily operations.


Protos Haiti acknowledged the importance of user committees, which are seen as key players in IWRM. Therefore, a bottom-up approach is essential in IWRM. Lastly, Protos Haiti’s AR case was shortly discussed: “Which are the practical methods for the application of IWRM principles locally?” Agroforestry is one of the principles. E.g., peasants at first were not in favor of digging 5m wide irrigation canals, but now see the advantages. 4.3.5. Local IWRM and artesian boreholes, Benin – Armel Ahossi Armel Hossi (PNE-Bénin2) illustrated the challenges of artesian boreholes (an artesian water source contains groundwater which emerges spontaneously because of the hydraulic pressure in an underground basin). 11 artesian boreholes were drilled in the South of Benin. Initially they all faced more or less the same problems: poor set-up, poor valorization of the emerging water, poor maintenance, lack of management. Since 2014, PNE-Bénin and Protos are promoting local IWRM: valorization of water (drinking water, water for agriculture, irrigation canals), construction of storage tanks and water towers, capacity building of local actors, assessment of water quality. There are still challenges in maintenance and management, but user committees are in charge of the durability of the water systems (municipality delegates management of the systems to the committees). They are responsible for pricing, selling, maintenance and profitability. (Note: land is privately owned in Benin. Landowners sign a contract with the municipality to authorize water works on their piece of land.) 4.3.6. IWRM in Mali – Alioune Diarra Alioune Diarra (Protos Mali) first presented the intervention zones and activities in Mali, then elaborated on an important local instrument in IWRM, the local ‘management convention’, a framework for consulting and for reaching consensus between different local actors on the management of local multiple usage water resources. To illustrate, the case of the pond of Beitaka was presented. The pond was used for cattle farming, agriculture and fishing and was, because of its multiple usage, a source of conflict (e.g. cattle often destroyed farming fields). After mapping different land uses, water sources and animal passages, a local convention was formulated, then signed. Regulation for animal passages and fishing was installed (Note: not entirely clear how animals were prevented from passing through the pond). Follow-up of the application of the convention is needed, as is translation to local language and informing public through radio messages. It’s also necessary to think about adaptation to climate change (although not clear how this can be part of the convention). Protos Mali also presented AR themes for MYP4: “How to operationalize IWRM to prevent and manage potential conflicts in multiple usage of water?”; “How to apply the IWRM concept and principles for a better prevention and durable management of conflicts linked to multiple usage of water in our intervention zones?”; “What type of management is necessary for SHVA, AES and PMH3?”

4.4. IWRM program of the Mpanga Catchment – Lieven Peeters As field visits would take place in the Mpanga Catchment, a presentation of the basin was given by Lieven Peeters. The Mpanga Catchment stretches over a distance of 150 km, from the northern region of the Rwenzori Mountains to Lake George. Upstream, the Mpanga River flows through Fort Portal, where the National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) abstracts water from the river to produce drinking water for the city. The NWSC also treats the wastewater and composts organic waste, but Fort Portal is

2 PNE-Bénin = Partenariat National de l’Eau du Benin 3 SHVA = Système Hydraulique Villageoise Amélioré; AES = Adduction d'Eau Sommaire; PMH = Pompe à Motricité Humaine


nevertheless directly polluting the Mpanga River with a.o. blood (slaughterhouses near the river) and oil and detergents (washing of vehicles). When it rains, sediments come into the river, which results in even higher purification costs. (Note: a French engineering office analyzed rainfall in the region and developed a prediction model: hydrological changes are expected, but not in rainfall.) Midstream, the Mpanga River runs through Kibale Forest, and through a series of wetlands. The fertility of these wetlands results in high pressure on the region: many people are looking to cultivate the land for agricultural produce. The southern region of the catchment – downstream – is lower in altitude, is characterized by a warmer climate and is less suitable for agriculture. In this part, people are poorer and living conditions are worse than the upstream region. Before Mpanga River runs into Lake George, it passes through a gorge – partly conserved for the protected cycads – where a hydroelectric power plant generates electricity. Mpanga River ultimately flows in Lake George, which is (over)exploited for fishing. To pilot decentralized IWRM and to address the most urgent challenges in the basin (i.e. pollution and riverbank / wetland protection), a steering committee was formed, and later a Catchment Management Organization was put in place, with actors of the private sector, local government, water user groups, NGOs, CBO’s and CSO’s4. Protos partnered up with Joint effort to Save the Environment, Mountains of the moon University, Tooro Botanical Gardens, Kabarole Research Centre, District NR Departments. A Catchment Management Plan with priority pilots was formulated and Protos and its partners started working in three model sites in the downstream catchment: Karambi (wetland restoration): demarcation, tree planting, soil and water conservation

structures, land management; Mpanga Falls (ecosystem conservation): replanting and conservation of cycads, demarcated area,

alternative water supply; Kayinja (fishing village): (sensitization on) hygiene and sanitation, fish handling and selling units,

demarcated area (fence), soil and water conservation structures.

4.5. Group assignment – Dirk Glas At the end of the day an assignment was explained by Dirk Glas (Protos Belgium). Participants were divided into 4 groups. Members in each group originated from different countries and had different specializations (e.g. engineering, legal, AR, sensitization…). As IWRM is a framework for integrated management, it implicates different aspects of a catchment that need to be taken into account. Each group was responsible for 1 or 2 aspects of IWRM (free choice) and information needed to be collected during the field visits in the Mpanga Catchment and analyzed afterwards. The 4 groups and their topics: Akiiki (‘traveler’): gender roles in IWRM in the Mpanga Catchment Ateenyi (‘snake’): environment (drivers and responses) of the Mpanga Catchment Amooti (‘chef’): ecological and legal aspects of the Mpanga Catchment Araali (‘lightning’): actors & environmental aspects of the Mpanga Catchment

4 NGO = non-governmental organization; CBO = community-based organization; CSO = civil society organizations


5. Day 2 – April 12th 2016 On the second day, different field visits were planned: Kazingo hills and the National Water and Sewerage Corporation in the morning, and Bigodi village and wetland in the afternoon. The night was spent in Kamwenge.

5.1. Kazingo hills The Kazingo hills are located upstream in the catchment, west of Fort Portal, in the foothills of the Rwenzori Mountains. One of the challenges this region is facing, is soil erosion. This issue has been indicated as a priority by the different stakeholders of the catchment management plan. Journalist/comedian Nutirirula Ntagoba is chairman of a sensitizing group of 120 people (70 women/girls; 50 men/boys). Initially they were 50 farmers, of different tribes and speaking different languages. They all received training sessions on anti-erosion measures by the Ministry of Water and Environment. The farmers constructed terraces (uphill) and dug trenches (downhill). They received the tools (shovels etc.) for free to get them motivated. The trenches are perpendicular to the direction of the erosion and have grass planted on top of their ‘lower wall’ for extra strength.

When it rains5, water doesn’t just run off the hills, but is collected in the trenches. This way, it has more time to infiltrate into the soil. The trenches are divided into different compartments to control and minimize maintenance (washed-in soil needs to be removed from time to time). These techniques make sure the soil has more time to absorb water when it rains. They also appeared to be good climate change adaptation measures as they help bridging periods of drought. Tackling erosion resulted in better and more diverse yields. With support from the Albert Water Management Zone6, 2300 eucalyptus trees were planted, as well as 2 other tree species. Farmer Beatreci Baitwa: “I would like to thank the Ministry and parish for coming to our community, because my land was very degraded. When it rained, the water just flowed down the hill. Since the intervention the water is better absorbed in the soil which makes it more fertile. I learnt how to dig trenches and still dig them on my land. There used to be nothing here, but now the hill is green, and my crops grow well. We first planted matoke, but we now grow coffee, as it is more resistant to wind and it can grow in a rocky soil.” Through song and dance, the group sensitizes the community in trading centers to fight soil erosion and to improve sanitary habits. One of the songs for example mentions to “first plant 5 trees before cutting 1”. Unfortunately, the sensitizing group lacks descent equipment, like cameras (for sensitization through video), means of transport (farmers carry bananas on bicycles to the market, over a road that is in terrible condition, and buyers don’t come to the community, also because of the road filled with potholes7), and pumps.

5 Somebody mentioned annual precipitation of 2000 mm/year, but according to climate-data.org it comes down to 1490 mm. 6 Centralized management of water resources proved to be inefficient. Therefore, the Directorate of Water Resources Management divided the country in 4 Water Management Zones. 7 Fort Portal is jokingly referred to as ‘Fort Pothole’.

Anti-erosion trench


L1: the exchange showed techniques in fighting erosion In Kazingo hills: digging trenches and constructing terraces. L2: the exchange showed that participation and mobilization of the community are at the heart of the changes in fighting erosion and improving sanitary habits.

5.2. National Water and Sewerage Corporation The National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) is responsible for the water treatment and sewerage of the Fort Portal area. NWSC claims to serve 75% of the population’s water needs, and 2% of its sewerage needs. 2400 m³ water is produced every day, but during the rainy season this can increase to 3000 m³. In case of interruption, there are 2 storage facilities. John Paul Onencan is one of the 30 NWSC-employees and is in charge of control of water quality. He explained that water is taken from Mpanga River, using 3 pumps. It first passes through grids to prevent twigs and rocks from coming into the plant. The water is then pumped to higher up on the NWSC-site, where it is processed in 4 phases: flocculation8 (through aluminum sulfate), sedimentation, aeration, and chlorination. Water hardness – one of the biggest challenges of Mpanga River water – is regulated with chemicals. In the 90s, pollution was limited, but nowadays industry, garages, agriculture, slaughterhouses and car washing facilities are all polluting Mpanga River, downstream from the from the NWSC site (so this doesn’t really affect the purification). Upstream from the NWSC site there is a lot of exploitation of the river banks (rocks, sand), which makes it necessary to remove suspended solids. Drinking water production is not cost efficient. The plant was designed without a proper forecast of the town’s development, as it now uses contaminated downstream water, which is cleaned and then pumped back up. Result: electricity consumption and chemical use are high, and are highly affecting the economic efficiency of the plant. A cost efficient solution could be to build a plant upstream, in the hills, using quite clean water as intake and feeding the area by natural gravitation.

Treatment of the wastewater happens elsewhere. Marabu birds are feasting on piles of waste, when we enter the site. Here, sewerage water first passes through a grid to filter out bigger objects like condoms. The water then flows to 2 ponds (1 aerobic, 1 anaerobic), where the sludge sinks to the bottom. The water then flows back into the river. The ponds are emptied every 3 years, to remove the sludge which is then laid to dry. After a couple of months it can be used as a fertilizer.

8 Flocculation = process by which particles adhere to each other.

Flocculation and sedimentation tank

Pond (aerobic or anaerobic processing)


Everybody in Fort Portal living close to a sewer is obliged to connect and to pay for this service (double the rate of those only using water, but who are not connected to the sewerage system). However, the sewerage system is still very limited and consists of a piped network of only 1.3 km. There are ideas/aspirations to enlarge the system with a new part close to Buhinga hospital.

L3: the exchange showed that Mpanga River is polluted (suspended solids) and its water needs to be treated in 4 phases. L4: drinking water production is not cost efficient. L5: the exchange showed that Fort Portal has a small facility to treat wastewater, but environmental standards (e.g. piles of waste at the entrance gates) are not always met.

5.3. Bigodi village & wetland Bigodi village and its wetland are situated southeast of Fort Portal and can be seen as a midstream location in the catchment. Since 1992, the Kibale Association for Rural and Environmental Development (KAFRED) – a community based organization with over 80 fee-paying members – actively pursues a double mission: protecting the environment, and supporting education, health and economic development within the community of Bigodi. Tourists can take guided nature walks in the wetland (which neighbors Kibale Forest), and buy crafts made by the local women’s group. Income from these activities is used to support community projects in Bigodi. After a walk in the wetland – primary and secondary swampy forest with different primates, birds and plant species – Akampulira Oddy showed the water source of the community, which is also a KAFRED-project. The system is now 15 years in place, cost 25 million UGX (7500 USD), serves more than 400 families, but is rather primitive: a large open area9 (a ‘pool’) filled with rocks and gravel collects and filters water that flows from the hills. (Water quantities vary per season, but are higher in the rainy season. So far, there has always been a constant supply.)

9 The land was given voluntarily by one of the community members. A memorandum of understanding has been signed.

Pool in which the water is collected for the Bigodi drinking water system


The pool is surrounded by a small wall of rocks, to prevent mud from flowing into the pool. Supposedly, animals are not accessing the pool10, thanks to ownership of the community. Either way, water quality is controlled by KAFRED and local government every 2-3 months, and when not sufficient, the water supply is temporarily halted. After filtration through gravel and rocks, the water is collected in a reservoir tank. A generator pumps the water to higher up, and from there the water reaches the houses through gravitation. When the generator breaks down, the whole community pays for its repair. 9 community members (7 men / 2 women) are part of the drinking water committee. They represent different groups of the community and all participate in decision-making.

L6: the exchange showed that KAFRED is a community organization, preserving nature and contributing to development of Bigodi. L7: the exchange showed that Bigodi has a water source with primitive filtration system, managed by 9 community members.

6. Day 3 – April 13th 2016 Day 3 was also a day of field visits: the cycad conservation program and hydroelectric power plant – both near Mpanga Falls – in the morning, and Kayinja landing site in the afternoon. After a boat ride on Lake George and Kazinga Channel, we drove back to Fort Portal, through Queen Elizabeth National Park.

6.1. Mpanga Falls: cycad conservation program Downstream in the catchment Protos and Save Our Species have initiated a program to protect the endangered Encephalartos whitelockii cycad in the Mpanga gorge. These cycads already existed in the dinosaur era and have a double function in the region: they counter erosion and offer fruit for the baboons11. Ignorant of the importance of the cycad, and in their struggle for livelihood, farmers burn down the prehistoric plants to cultivate the land. To protect the cycads an 8 km zone in the gorge near Mpanga Falls is demarcated with white pillars and locals have been sensitized on the importance of the cycads. Also, a RAM-pump12 will be installed to bring water higher up, outside of the gorge. This will prevent farmers from bringing their cattle (via the cycad area) down to the river, and it will hopefully reduce cultivation on the river banks. Furthermore, cycads are inventoried and new seedlings have been planted.

L8: the exchange showed that measures have been taken to preserve cycads, native to the region and important to counter erosion.

6.2. Mpanga Falls: hydroelectric power plant Before flowing into Lake George, Mpanga River passes through a hydroelectric power plant with an 18 MW capacity, making it the biggest of the smaller plants of Uganda. Its dam is 90 m wide, overflows at 10.4 m height, but has a pipe located lower in the dam to make sure (weir) water can keep flowing to

10 This is questionable, as the pool is open and not covered with a layer of concrete, and animals are not caged. 11 Queen Elizabeth National Nark (QENP) used to be bigger and the cycad-gorge used to be part of it. For some reason, the boundaries of the park were reduced, the gorge got excluded from QENP, and people started clearing cycads for cultivation. The baboons now also feed on the crops that are cultivated. 12 RAM-pump = a water pump powered by hydropower.


the valley, even when the water level in the basin is low. A sluice regulates the amount of water going to the intake channel13, which leads to three 270 m penstocks. The water is first filtered to make sure it contains no solids that can interfere with the turbines, then drops from great height in each penstock and goes through a turbine, which generates electricity (3 turbines generating 6 MW each14). Water is then discharged back into the Mpanga River. The 30 million USD project was operational mid-2011. Project coordinator Charles Mugisha clarifies that the hydroelectric power plant is constructed and owned by an American company15. They regularly receive reports on production status and when reparations are needed, they transfer the money and ship the necessary parts. The owner of the plant initially hired a lot of Sri Lankan staff because they had a particular expertise in hydropower. Today, most of the staff is Ugandan. The hydro plant employs 34 people.

The electricity generated by the Mpanga Falls plant is sold to the Ugandan government at 0.09 USD/kWh16. A substantial amount of electricity is produced in Uganda, but lots of people still cannot afford it. Therefore, Uganda exports some of its electricity to Kenya and DR Congo, says one of the environmental officers of the plant, John Talemwa. Due to more future water abstractions and possibly due to climate change, there will be less water flowing in the Mpanga River, which may result in less electricity generated by the plant.

L9: the exchange showed a productive ecosystem service of Mpanga River: production of electricity.

6.3. Kayinja landing site Last and most downstream visit in the catchment was at Kayinja, one of the many fishing villages around Lake George. When Protos assessed the village in 2013, overall hygiene and sanitation was far from satisfying: latrines were in bad shape, hands were washed directly in the lake, lake water was

13 In case there is too much water, the sluice is put down, because the penstocks and turbines can only process a certain volume of water. 14 At the time of the visit, the plant only produced half of its capacity (9 MW instead of 18 MW): only 1 turbine was fully working. Another one experienced problems, and could only deliver half of its potential capacity. The third turbine was broken and needed to be replaced. All turbines are custom made. 15 South Asia Energy Management Systems (SAEMS), a US-based renewable power developer (http://www.pidg.org/impact/case-studies/mpanga-falls-hydro-power). 16 This would implicate the investment is earned back after approximately 2 years, provided that the plant runs on full capacity.

Intake channel of the hydro plant, with cycads growing next to it. Burnt cycads in the background.

http://www.pidg.org/impact/case-studies/mpanga-falls-hydro-power


used for cooking and drinking… Needless to say there was a high occurrence of water borne diseases and open defecation also led to serious problems. In 2015, Protos focused on the village to make it a model site for other villages. Some of the interventions included construction of EcoSans (+ conception of construction manual) on household level and one public EcoSan at the shore of Lake George. The high water table in the fishing village caused a problem for the traditional pit latrines. As a consequence they were in really bad shape, or out of use. The EcoSans proved to be a good alternative and the community contributed 30% in the construction of these new latrines. Recently they were given a ‘brand name’ (Flower Toilets), because of the fact that it is now seen as a product which people can buy (with cash). It is part of an early social marketing – experiment. Other interventions: installation of a tree nursery, anti-erosion wall (under construction), rain harvesting tanks, support and training of the CLTS17-committee, beautification of surroundings (trees, benches), installation of a fence around the landing site (supervision within the fenced area resulted in less children skipping school)… and because Kayinja is a fishing village, fish slabs were also installed at the shore of Lake George. Chairman of the CLTS-team Mawejje Acleo, CLTS-secretary Alleluya Didas and JESE-animator Kajoina Lukiya gave a brief report on progress in hygiene and sanitation. They stated that today less people practice open defecation, as 85% of the community has a toilet. Those who don’t have one, use the toilet of their neighbour. The CLTS-committee does a lot of sensitization, e.g. before the intervention people didn’t know about the dangers of open defecation, but now awareness of the advantages is so high that the community demands extra support to reach 100% latrine coverage. Thanks to their sensitization efforts - through song and theater play - and to the weekly monitoring visits, there are a lot less diseases in the village. The committee is composed of 30 people (20 men / 10 women) subdivided in 3 groups sensitizing on hygiene and sanitation on the landing site (10 people), hygiene and sanitation on household level (10 people), and environmental protection (10 people). In smaller groups of 5 people (one person handling a microphone), they each sensitize a different zone, and then discuss progress together. Before leaving Kayinja, a stage play was performed in the village. The plot: a husband leaves his wife, because she doesn’t clean the house and maintain the water point properly and because he ate food she prepared, which was contaminated with feces. A representative of the CLTS-committee then explains to the woman what she should do to live in a more hygienic way. The husband left his wife for another – more upper class – woman, but eventually returns to his wife when she improved her hygienic habits. Spectators of the play were really into the story, and there was a lot of laughter and empathy. At the end of the play (+- 40 minutes) there were an estimated 200 spectators.

17 CLTS = Community Led Total Sanitation.

Flower toilet (EcoSan latrine)


L10: the exchange showed that participation and mobilization of the community are at the heart of the changes in improving sanitary habits.

L11: the exchange showed that EcoSan latrines are best chosen over pit latrines in case of a high water table.

7. Day 4 – April 14th 2016 On the 4th day, a visit was paid to Mountains of the Moon University. In the afternoon there was time to work on the group assignment, after which two of the groups presented their findings. Next up was a presentation on AR in Uganda and a partial restitution of the AR evaluation. The AR presentations were only followed by Protos employees.

7.1. Mountains of the Moon University The Mountains of the Moon University (MMU) is located in Fort Portal and is a Protos partner since 2008. Professor Clovis Kabaseke explained that as a community university, they provide education based on what the community needs and demands. He showed us around and introduced us to some students and co-workers. Violet Kisakye is doing a PhD at KULeuven and is investigating if wax, dissolved in water and sprayed on land, can enhance the rain harvesting capacity of a hill. The wax remains on the soil up to 8 years and is not produced locally, but she first wants to examine whether her experiment leads to satisfying results, before examining economic viability. Dean Diantha Hodghes of the School of Health Sciences clarified that ‘her’ department was one of the first at MMU, as public health was (and is) a very important issue in the region so the need for education in that field is rather high. Students come from the region around Fort Portal, but also from Nigeria, Kenya and South-Sudan. Most of the students are distance-learners.

A scene of the stage play


Mr. Kabaseke also showed a nursery garden, mostly managed by the agriculture students. Different species are grown here: fruit trees, medicinal plants, plants that make the soil more fertile, plants for wood production… Also the (much-discussed) eucalyptus tree is grown here: these trees dry out the wetlands so farmers18 are sensitized to not plant them just anywhere. The project is now funded by

the Ministry of Water and Environment but it aims to be self-financing: whereas now, seedlings from the nursery are given for free to local farmers, in the future they will be sold to them. For now, the objective is to map demands of the community/famers. In an attempt to convince farmers not to dry out the wetlands by planting eucalyptus, the MMU is experimenting with a fish production project (fish are bred artificially), so the farmers can sell fish instead of eucalyptus.

Mary Ekyaligonza – former employee of local ngo JESE and also a MMU student – is researching the impact of different harvesting methods on the availability of micronutrients in the soil. She will measure calcium, phosphor, potassium and nitrogen levels of soil with plant roots that are burnt, removed or still present after harvesting the crops. Goal is to find out if one of the harvesting methods can offer an alternative for using fertilizer.

L12: the exchange showed MMU is a community university, providing education and research based on demands of the community.

7.2. Group assignments (A) 7.2.1. Akiiki: gender roles in IWRM in the Mpanga Catchment Group Akiiki did a brief analysis of gender roles in the Mpanga Catchment. Women are definitely implicated in IWRM in the region and are represented in drinking water committees, but although most spokespersons stated that men and women do not have different roles, there certainly are differences. For instance: the spokesperson is always (not one exception) a man, which may have implications on implementation of IWRM, policy making, prioritizing etc. Women are mostly active in sensitization through song and dance and are responsible for fetching water. Gender roles are generally not different upstream, midstream or downstream in the catchment. Possible differences must be attributed to the nature of the region (e.g. in a rather developed city like Fort Portal, an important role – dean of the School of Health Sciences – was for a woman), and on the nature of economic activity (agriculture: men and women; fishing: only men vs. women doing housekeeping and taking care of children). 7.2.2. Ateenyi: environment (drivers and responses) of the Mpanga Catchment Group Ateenyi made a drivers and responses analysis of the catchment’s environment. Upstream, drivers (social aspects or groups that put pressure on the system) are the fertile soil that results in denser population; use of eucalyptus; uncontrolled exploitation of resources (mining of sand, soil, gravel, rock). Possible responses to these drivers are techniques to protect the soil, application of the research by MMU, waste(water) management on a larger scale and protection of the river banks of the Mpanga River.

18 Farmers like eucalyptus: it grows fast and is excellent for production of poles.

MMU and 15 plots for the wax research project


Midstream, drivers are among others the wetlands (fertile zones) and the touristic opportunities. Possible responses are better source capitation, demarcation of the wetland and the introduction of other tree species to attract animals and birds in the wetlands. Downstream, there is some considerable infrastructure (e.g. hydroelectric power plant) and strong social mobilization. Responses to protect the environment are the introduction of the EcoSan latrines and the general sanitary improvement of the landing site.

7.3. Action Research in Uganda – Hannelore Martens Hannelore Martens, program officer Monitoring & Evaluation in Uganda, reported on advances in AR in Uganda, more specifically on the development of an instrument to measure the effectiveness of the IWRM program on climate change adaptation (CCA). AR’s 4 iterative and non-linear phases – as determined by Protos’ methodologic guide – were explained and application for Uganda’s AR question was clarified. All steps were logged in detail19. (1) Determination of problem and research question. Protos lacks proof that its IWRM program

is contributing to CCA. CCA refers to how people and systems adjust to the actual or expected effects of climate change.

(2) Development and implementation research plan. This phase consists of study: literature, reflection, consultation… The theory of change (‘how and why will a certain change succeed?’) and contribution analysis (‘what is the contribution of the Protos programs to come to this change?’) were chosen as frameworks for development of the monitoring tool.

(3) Implementation of intervention of AR. This phase consists of an iterative sub-process of 4 phases: planning, action, reflection and learning. At this point the community of Kayinja became involved (Participatory Community Meetings) and key sectors of impacts of CC were identified and prioritized. Indicators were identified for the top 3 sectors (income, sensitized community, farming methods). Monitoring agents then did transect walks in the village and landing site to score each of the indicators. Afterwards, participants reflected on the AR process, which was enrolled up to that moment.

(4) Dissemination of acquired knowledge. How and to who do we communicate the knowledge gained? This phase is yet to come.

All participants agreed that at least a 0.5 FTE (Full-time equivalent) is needed to properly integrate AR in daily operations.

7.4. Partial restitution of AR evaluation (GRET) – Dirk Glas Dirk Glas presented some of the findings of the evaluation (demanded by DGD and carried out by GRET) of AR cases in Benin, Ecuador and Uganda. GRET seemed to be pleasantly surprised by Protos’ AR, especially by the approach in Uganda which they referred to as ‘exemplary’. Positive in Uganda’s AR case were among others the very organized approach, the detailed log, the implication of the community and capacity building of JESE. But we need to bear in mind that local authorities were not involved, that lack of expertise may have led to choosing non-pertinent indicators, and that adequate human resources are necessary to assure follow-up (the actual use of the CCA measuring tool). Also, climate change manifests itself over a very long period of time, which made it difficult to evaluate the CCA measuring tool. GRET also concluded that AR questions ranged from operational to social, and that communities were never involved in formulating the AR questions. A short debate led to following arguments (and not to actual conclusions):

19 See appendix.


Operational vs. social AR questions? This led to a debate on practical vs. theoretical AR questions. – The more practical, the better for the partners; theoretical questions lead us too far from

Protos’ field of interest. – Even after a period of 5 years, one doesn’t come to answers to theoretical questions that can

be shared. Operational (practical) questions quicker lead to concrete answers. – A lot depends on what importance is given to Research. E.g., a scientific framework is

necessary in Benin because the AR method may lead to different results when choosing 5 other villages.

Involvement of communities: – Communities might prioritize issues, but don’t always have the required expertise. – Unbalanced representation (e.g. men vs. women) may lead to other priorities, not

benefitting the community as a whole. – When the community is an important agent for change, it needs to be involved from the

start. – Communities need to be involved in the process, but not necessarily in formulation of the AR

question. Other suggestions or remarks made by GRET: Timeframe of AR does not always coincide with timeframe of the program (in case of complex

AR questions, timeframe will exceed the period of the program). AR experts need to be involved Interpretations of AR vary per country and need to be aligned (improvement of methodologic

guide).

8. Day 5 – April 15th 2016 Last day of the seminar started with presentations of the two remaining groups, followed by a highly appreciated functional ecosystem analysis of the Mpanga River catchment and a presentation on the Ecuadorian law on water uses and exploitations. In the afternoon there was a presentation on progress in IWRM in the Mpanga catchment. Then, three general outcomes of the seminar were discussed in groups, after which the results were presented in final conclusions. The seminar was closed and followed by a cultural evening of Ugandan music and dance.

8.1. Group Assignments (B) 8.1.1. Amooti: ecological and legal aspects of the Mpanga Catchment Group Amooti found out that in the upstream area of the catchment there’s a lot of rainfall, resulting in erosion (response: anti-erosion measures); midstream there’s a lot of organic material allowing the water to penetrate in the soil (response: regulation of the ecosystem); downstream there’s a lot of sedimentation, resulting in lowering of the water level in Lake George over a longer period of time (response: river bank protection). Upstream, midstream and downstream are characterized by organic and chemical pollution of the river. Responses are treatment and purification of (waste)water and improving hygiene and sanitation. Amooti also took note of different legal instruments in the catchment: water law, policies on water, forest law, environmental law, an IWRM guide and local law. These laws need to be translated to local language and popularized. 8.1.2. Araali: actors & environmental aspects of the Mpanga Catchment Group Araali reported there are a lot of different actors in the catchment: communities, committees, local government, private enterprises, NGOs, universities… There are different relations between the


actors, but most are linked to the Ministry of Water and Environment. The decision making process was not entirely clear, neither was control and regulation of the actors. They also made some notes of environmental aspects. Upstream they noticed a lot of erosion, caused by agriculture (agriculture high in the Kazingo hills), deforestation and fragmentation of land (responses are protection measures and reforestation with native vegetation). Somewhat lower they noticed a lot of pollution in the catchment (the treatment station is only a modest response). Midstream there is also a lot of agriculture, creeping up to the wetlands. Although they are the heart of the river, only the smaller wetlands are protected, not the larger ones. Planting of eucalyptus needs to be regulated. The downstream region bears the consequences of the upstream pollution, erosion, deforestation and shrinking of the wetlands.

8.2. Functional ecosystem analysis of the Mpanga River – Stefan Van Damme

Stefan Van Damme gave a scientific framework for his observations on IWRM of the Mpanga catchment. He emphasized it would not be a complete report, e.g. hygiene and health are not elaborated. Uphill (upstream), there can be more runoff20 because of the fine soil and steep slopes (reducing infiltration capacity). Organic material (hay, grass…) can increase infiltration capacity of the soil. The trenches are a good idea to capture runoff, but can also be dangerous as they can cause landslides. Possible extra measures are planting the grass also in front of the trenches, building a wall with sandbags under the trenches and increasing interception21 rate, e.g. by using pine trees22. Fast flowing mountain rivers like Mpanga River show good aeration: there’s a lot of contact with the air and the short residence time23 results in less phytoplankton. But as the uphill catchment is characterized by a lot of rainfall, this results in a large water volume, leading to more sedimentation. From a chemical point of view, Mpanga River will most likely contain nitrates rather than ammonium, as the river is fast flowing. Ammonium will be found in places where urine or feces flow into the river. Input of phosphorus is linked with sedimentation (enhanced by plants and high discharges); washing powders bring phosphates into the river. Silicon is linked with sediment erosion and deforestation. The Mpanga River has too much oxygen for denitrification, so nitrates are transported and taken out of the river midstream, by the wetlands. The wetlands also turn phosphates into organic phosphorus, which is then stored within the wetland. In Lake George, downstream in the catchment, sediments are dropped near the river mouth of the Mpanga. In this process, the volume of the lake gradually decreases. The shallow parts are good for growth of algae (good light conditions), which results in a greenish lake. Stefan Van Damme also gave some responses to some of the challenges: Phosphates accumulate in the lake, and need to be reduced: by avoiding washing powders

getting into the river, and by recycling domestic sewage to agriculture (EcoSan latrines are a good solution).

20 Runoff = excess water flowing over the earth, when the soil has absorbed rainfall to full capacity. 21 Interception = rainfall intercepted by leaves and branches and thus not reaching the soil. 22 Pine trees are highly interceptive. Needles that have fallen in the trenches, still keep their interceptive characteristics. 23 Residence time = the average amount of time that a particle spends in a particular system


The treatment plant in Fort Portal could be more cost efficient; pumping water upstream should be replaced by gravitational input of water; only 10% of the water is treated; sediment sludge should not be returned to the river.

The sewage ponds were better appreciated than the treatment plant: the wastewater is collected through gravitational force; bacteria can process carbon and can take advantage of a long residence time; sludge is laid to dry and then given to the farmers.

Slaughterhouses should avoid spilling blood into the river and should use the blood for food production or as a fertilizer.

Future risks for the ecosystem are climate change, population growth (more input in river) and shrinking of Lake George (because of sedimentation). A smaller lake with more nutrients for phytoplankton will result in low oxygen levels, which will endanger the food web. Eutrophication may also take place in the wetlands.

8.3. Ecuadorian law on water uses and exploitations – Alexis Sánchez Ecuadorian Vice Minister of Water Supply and Sanitation, Alexis Sánchez24, talked about a progressive new water law. In Ecuador, the constitution of 2008 states that humans have the right to water (and so has nature). This principle has been worked out in the LORHUA25, with articles on e.g. conservation, water use priorities, citizen participation, tariffs and public water management. There are a lot of different institutions on a national level, planning, regulating, controlling and executing the national water law. There are 9 main basins, and 34 sub-basins with 34 committees. For the moment, 4 of the committees work on IWRM, but by the end of 2016 they should be 34. There are 8.000 drinking water committees in Ecuador, and all of them are screened, as water is linked to public health. Water can never be managed privately, only publicly, so a water source can never be owned. Authorizations (given by Senagua26) for human consumption expire after 20 years, but are renewable. Authorizations are also needed for irrigation and productive activities, but they expire after 10 years. There is a national plan of water resources, but it is not yet translated to a local level. Local governments are autonomous, but they want to execute their own local water plan, which is in conflict with the generality of the national law. Applicability of this law to a micro-catchment is an even bigger challenge. Ecuador needs 8 billion dollars to assure its population of access to drinking water. The law is still being implemented, with help of different community organizations, NGOs, local governments and other stakeholders.

8.4. Final conclusions Lieven Peeters gave a brief oversight on progress in IWRM in the Mpanga catchment, which was a long and slow process. What started out in 2006 as IWRM in the Lake George Catchment (8 districts) evolved to IWRM on level of the Mpanga Catchment (3 districts). At first, activities were limited to water and sanitation, but later on, environmental pilot programs were introduced, as well as formation of Water User Associations, public awareness campaigns and local management plans. Year after year, more partners and stakeholders were involved and participation increased. In 2014, the Mpanga Catchment Management Plan was introduced: the first legal framework for implementing IWRM.

24 Now Minister of Water Supply and Sanitation. 25 LORHUA = Ley Orgánica de Recursos Hídricos, Usos y Aprovechamientos del Agua. 26 Secretaría Nacional del Agua


After this overview on progress in IWRM, three groups of participants were formed. Each group would discuss questions of scale, participation and expertise in 15 minutes. Answers were then brought together and the moderators of the groups (respectively, Lieven Peeters, Hannelore Martens and Dirk Glas) presented the results as final conclusions of the seminar. Questions of scale. IWRM takes place on different administrative levels: in villages, catchments, sub basins, water management zones. Links can be found between regional and very local IWRM, e.g. a micro-catchment approach is relevant when there is no upstream management. There are committees, sub-committees, etc… On micro-level

– there is direct intervention potential – but: if you work in very small areas, you only focus on effects – concrete local projects can feature in lobbying on a higher level – a micro-approach may be good for NGOs, but knowledge needs to be capitalized

Meso-level (= catchment level) – an eagle view is better to avoid conflict in issues/approach – a government may find it easier to be implicated when the intervention zone is not too local – there is a higher potential for cause based interventions (e.g. relevance of Fort Portal for

Queen Elizabeth National Park) – less fragmentation of projects

Questions of participation. A lot can be said on participation: the level of participation, which information should be shared, the decision making process, efficiency, and interest. First step in participation is informing the stakeholders and trying to motivate them to participate A bottom-up approach should be used at every level Participation levels can vary from passive to active (e.g. in the beginning, participation level of

the community members is low, while high for NGOs; later on, NGOs withdraw to the background and community members are more active)

Participants of the seminar did not reach consensus on the question if all stakeholders should be involved in decision making – although IWRM requires so – but everybody agreed that the government takes the final decision. If communities are taking the final decision, it might be in conflict with regulations on a higher level

Integration between local knowledge and technical expertise is needed at every level Representation of different groups is necessary (criteria to represent a group: being accepted by

community, reliable, capable…) Complementarity of all representatives (should be able to work together) “Participation can kill”, so it is important to give feedback to avoid participation tiredness

Question of expertise. Expertise can be indigenous or external, qualitative or quantitative. There are different levels of intensity and of interaction. Scientists consider local knowledge as potentially valuable Importance of external expertise in IWRM is confirmed Points of attention:

– Local knowledge needs to be usable (e.g. validation) – When involving local actors, it is important to speak the same language. – Work through people with influence, but avoid to only talk to leaders (as all of them are men) - Attention for socially desirable answers - Teams of different disciplines: social sciences are equally important - Make it practical: research + action (what, when, with/ to whom etc) - Distribution of information: not everything is important for all stakeholders - Importance of restitution: not only after study but also during action - Collecting and treating data can be a long process. Start action before ending data collection


- Initiative does not always come from local actors, but that is not a real problem, as long as the government is involved (knowledge of legislation is needed)

- External expertise can avoid conflicts: need of sensitizing and restitution - Results of studies can stimulate commitment

8.5. Evaluation After final, an evaluation was carried out. Participants were asked to answer questions, giving a score ranging from 1 (‘very bad’) to 5 (‘excellent’). There was also the possibility to give remarks or suggestions.

8.5.1. General appreciation « I am a better IWRM-expert thanks to Protos and the team organizing. Great job! » « The seminar was well organized, the IWRM was really interesting, maybe some extra time was needed for the exchanges in the meeting room. » « Regarding the organization: greatest distinction with felicitations of the jury. About the program: well-balanced, to the point and deliciously intensive. » 8.5.2. Logistical arrangements « Translation English-French wasn’t always on point. » « Not all rooms of the Jacaranda Hotel had a small table & there was too much noise. » « Food was ok, especially at KoiKoi and TBG. » 8.5.3. Site visits « Time was very limited (the program was filled to the maximum). » « The site visits were suitable to the event as they aided all participants to explore the ideal situation. I have been able to learn more on what is taking place in the entire catchment area. » « Something should have been done to guarantee sunshine on the boat ;) Warning to bring proper shoes to go up the hills would have been useful. » 8.5.4. Meetings and knowledge exchange « There should have been more time for the exchanges (questions – answers). » « It was good involving academic point of view of IWRM, cfr. Prof. Stefan. » « Very good program, level of participation. Very interesting to have a stakeholder meeting. » « The presentations were interesting, but there should have been more time for discussion. Power point was great. » « The AR aspect wasn’t really discussed with the whole group of participants, although in an IWRM context this is a good starting point for all partners, who struggle sometimes finding the appropriate method or strategy. »

4,44,0

4,5 4,5 4,54,0

4,6 4,74,4 4,5 4,4

1

2

3

4

5

Average


8.5.5. How the exchange met the expectations « At least 95% of my expectations were met. The theories of IWRM were made practical. A comparative understanding of legal & policy frameworks from the two different countries. » « The exchanges were fruitful but short, there wasn’t enough time. » 8.5.6. Other suggestions and recommendations « We could choose another country next time and maybe do the exchange in Ecuador or Haiti, where there is already some progress in IWRM. » « We should also handle the AR topic. » « How to bring the findings and conclusions of this seminar to Protos HQ? » « 1) Share recommendations on AR with all participants. 2) Lighten the program to better combine business with pleasure (more than two hours to discover the city). » « Increase exchanges not only in AR and IWRM but also in other fields of construction of hydraulic structures, hygiene and sanitation. »

9. Financial report The exchange on IWRM & AR was financed by the program MYP 2014-2016, partly by the rubrics per country, but also with available funds from Belgium. As Protos wants to be transparent in how funds are used, this report provides a summary of the costs. Total cost of the seminar was 38.796 euro. As there were 21 participants, this comes down to an average cost of 1.850 euro per participant for the 5-day seminar. Almost halve of this cost (49%) are flight costs. ‘Accommodation’ includes hotels, meeting rooms, breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Most of the costs are made in Uganda: 17.374 euro. Other costs are shared by the other countries, as shown in the figure below. Costs for Haiti and Ecuador are higher because of more expensive airplane tickets.

441

5.471

2.075

4.339

1.705

67

1.555

517

3.188

273

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Total in euro (flight costs excluded)

2.157 2.096

4.875

6.961

1.152

4.180

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

M3 51a M3 61a M3 71a M3 81a M3 91a M3 N50 a

Cost per country


10. Appendix 10.1. List of participants Country Name Organisation / Role E-mail address

Haiti Julien Deroy Protos [email protected]

Yférand Marc Chairman Comité Bassin Versant Moustique

Ecuador Helder Solis Protos [email protected]

Alexis Sanchez SENAGUA [email protected]

Benin Armel Ahossi PNE [email protected]

Mali Alioune Bagou Diarra Protos [email protected]

Bocary Traore PNE [email protected]

Uganda

Lieven Peeters Protos / Organisation [email protected]

Hannelore Martens Protos [email protected]

Marion Iceduna JESE [email protected]

Rebecca Angumye JESE [email protected]

DRC Ayiki Mussa CIDRI [email protected]

Sylvie Lossy CIDRI [email protected]

Burundi

Carinie Masumbuko Protos [email protected]

Jérémie Nkinahatemba MEEATU [email protected]

Léopold Simbarakiye AVEDEC [email protected]

Rwanda Védaste Mpagaritswenimana District Muhanga [email protected]

Madagascar Dirk Dirix Protos [email protected]

Belgium

Stefan Van Damme University of Antwerp [email protected]

Dirk Glas Protos [email protected]

Dries Moorthamers Protos [email protected]

Translators

Sara Van den Eynde Translator ESP-EN-FR [email protected]

Eloïse Bertrand Translator FR-EN [email protected]

Alessandro Totoro Translator FR-EN [email protected]

Organisation Francis Kadaplackal Organisation [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]
























10.2. Program of the seminar Day Start End Activity In charge Time Report

11/04/2016, Fort Portal

9h 9h30 Welcome - objectives and results Lieven

Armel & Carinie

Dries & Rebecca

9h30 10h30 Presentation IWRM - caracteristics Stefan

10h30 11h Coffee break Francis

11h 11h30 Case Burundi RA-GIRE (5 slides - max 15 words/slide) Carinie, Léopold

11h30 12h Case Rwanda RA-GIRE (5 slides - max 15 words/slide) Carinie, Léopold

12h 12h30 Case Ecuador RA-GIRE (5 slides - max 15 words/slide) Helder, Alexis

12h30 13h00 Lunch Francis

Ayiki & Hannelore

Jérémie & Eloi

13h00 13h30 Case Haiti RA-GIRE (5 slides - max 15 words/slide) Julien

13h30 14h Case Benin RA-GIRE (5 slides - max 15 words/slide) Armel

14h 14h30 Case Mali RA-GIRE (5 slides - max 15 words/slide) Alioune

14h30 15h Coffee break Francis

15h 16h Presentatie Mpanga catchment: background Lieven

16h 17h Identification of themes and caracteristics of IWRM, identifcation of small groups/ themes, identification of crucial questions per theme per group

Dirk Glas

17h 18h Mpanga film Lieven

18h Dinner Francis

12/04/2016, Fort Portal/Kamwenge

8h 10h Kazingo Hills Somebody from District Alexis &

Yférand Armel & Helder 10h 12h Guided Tour of NWSC NWSC

12h 13h Leaving Fort Portal to Bigodi Francis

13h 14h Lunch at bigodi - Eco burritos Francis Bocary & Léopold

Julien & Marion 14h 17h Visit and guided tour to wetland + community (in 3 groupes) KAFRED


17h 18h Travel to Kamwenge Francis

19h30 Dinner - buffet Francis

13/04/2016, Kamwenge/Fort Portal

8h 12h Mpanga falls and Hydropower plant Lieven/Hydropower Alioune & Stefan

Armel & Yférand 12h 13h Travel to Kayinja Francis

13h 14h Lunch Francis

Vedaste & Dirk Glas

Carinie & Hannelore

14h 17h Visit of Kayinja fishing village: Beach Management Unit, visit field work Protos + JESE field team

JESE

17h 21h Boat Lake George + travel back to Fort Portal through Queen Elisabeth National Park

Francis

21h Dinner in town/hotel, Fort Portal Francis


9h30 12h Mountains of the Moon University Clovis (MMU) Dries & Helder

Ayiki & Bocary 12h 13h Group assignments Dirk Glas

13h 14h Lunch Francis

Rebecca & Julien

Léopold & Alexis

14h 15h Group assignments - presentations Dirk Glas

15h 16h00 Case RA - Uganda, presentation of the case with links to RA mthodologie

Hannelore

16h 18h Partial restitution of RA in relation with case in Uganda and in context of the seminar + debate

Dirk Glas

19h30 Dinner Francis


9h45 10h30 Group assignments - presentations Dirk Glas

Marion & Eloi

Dries & Alexis

10h30 10h45 Coffee break Francis

10h45 12h15 Functional analysis Mpanga for IWRM progress Stefan

12h15 13h00 IWRM Equator: participation civil society Alexis

13h00 14h00 Lunch Francis Jérémie & Eloi

Dries & Vedaste 14h00 14h30 IWRM progress Uganda Lieven


14h30 15h00 Group debates Lieven, Dirk, Hannelore

15h00 15h30 Break Francis

15h30 17h00 Analysis debates and discussions Lieven, Dirk, Hannelore

17h00 Closing Francis

exchange uganda 2016 - join for water · exchange uganda 2016 action research & integrated...

Documents