water development and irrigation in · pdf filedca water & irrigation review for karamoja...

WATER DEVELOPMENT AND IRRIGATION IN

KARAMOJA, UGANDA

A review prepared by Eng. Dr. Sean Avery February 2014

DCA Water & Irrigation Review for Karamoja February 2014

i

REVIEW OF WATER DEVELOPMENT AND IRRIGATION IN KARAMOJA, UGANDA

CONTENTS

Chapter Description Page

1! EXECUTIVE)SUMMARY.................................................................................................. 1!

2! BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 6!

2.1! Terms)of)Reference)and)previous)REGLAP)studies ...................................................................................6!

2.2! Karamoja)–)A)general)profile ............................................................................................................................7!

2.3! Karamoja)C)Protected)areas............................................................................................................................ 13!

2.4! Water)supply)in)Karamoja.............................................................................................................................. 15!

2.5! Karamoja)C)Water)resources)management)planning............................................................................. 17!

2.6! Crop)agriculture)and)the)Karamoja)Livelihoods)Programme)(KALIP)............................................ 18!

3! POLICIES)AND)PLANNING ........................................................................................... 21!

3.1! Water)and)Sanitation)SubCSector)Gender)Strategy)(2010C15) ........................................................... 21!

3.2! The)National)Development)Plan)2011C2015 ............................................................................................ 21!

3.3! Uganda’s)Water)Policy)evolution.................................................................................................................. 22!3.3.1! The!Water!Act,!1997 .......................................................................................................................................................22!3.3.2! Water!Sector!Reform,!1998 .........................................................................................................................................22!3.3.3! The!National!Water!Policy,!1999...............................................................................................................................23!3.3.4! Strategic!Investment!Plan,!2009................................................................................................................................23!3.3.5! National!Water!Resources!Assessment,!2011 .....................................................................................................24!3.3.6! The!National!Water!Policy!amendment!process,!2012 ...................................................................................25!3.3.7! The!draft!Water!(Amendment)!Act,!2013 .............................................................................................................25!3.3.8! Water!and!Environment!Sector!Performance!Report,!2013.........................................................................25!

3.4! Crop)agriculture)sector)policy)environment ............................................................................................ 26!3.4.1! Karamoja!Action!Plan!for!Food!Security,!2009 ...................................................................................................26!3.4.2! National!Development!Plan,!2010 ............................................................................................................................26!3.4.3! National!Irrigation!Master!Plan!and!the!Framework!Master!Plan,!2011 ................................................27!

3.5! IGAD)–)Uganda)Country)Programming)Paper........................................................................................... 29!

4! FINDINGS)FROM)LITERATURE,)KEY)INFORMANT)INTERVIEWS,)AND)CRITICAL)EXAMINATION)OF)TECHNOLOGIES ................................................................................... 30!

4.1! Policy...................................................................................................................................................................... 30!

4.2! Karamoja)climate)and)livelihoods ............................................................................................................... 30!


ii

4.3! Interventions)–)An)impression)of)the)Technologies .............................................................................. 31!

4.4! Rangeland)management)that)embraces)wildlife..................................................................................... 33!

5! CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................ 35!

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Karamoja Sub-Region, District and Sub-County boundaries...................................................8!Figure 2: Pastoral and other livelihood zones of Uganda .....................................................................11!Figure 3: Land usage in parts of Karamoja ...........................................................................................12!

LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1: Karamoja, Uganda..................................................................................................................14!Photo 2: Examples of water supply interventions in Karamoja .............................................................16!Photo 3: GIZ-funded Climate Adaptation Learning Centre at Nakichumet, Napak ...............................20!Photo 4: Problems with various recent water supply interventions .......................................................38!Photo 5: Drip irrigation projects .............................................................................................................39!Photo 6: Livestock watering ..................................................................................................................40!

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Protected areas.......................................................................................................................13!Table 2: Water supply summary for Karamoja......................................................................................16!Table 3: Water demand compared to water resource in the Okok sub-catchment ...............................20!Table 4: Land areas in Karamoja with irrigation potential .....................................................................28!Table 5: Wetland areas that could be developed..................................................................................28!Table 6: Water Audit for Karamoja........................................................................................................28!

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1: List of Key Informants ............................................................................................................41!


iii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ACDO Assistant Community Development Officer ACF Action Contre la Faim (Action Against Hunger) ACTED Agence d´Aide à la Coopération Technique et au Développement ADRA Adventist Development and Relief Agency ASB Arbeiter Samariter Bund, Deutschland e.V. ASALs Arid and Semi-Arid Lands ASL Above Sea Level AU African Union BH Borehole CAADP Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program CAEP Community Environment Action Plan CAO Chief Administrative Officer CBMS Community Based Management System CBO Community Based Organisation CCA Climate change adaptation CDO Community Development Officer C&D Institute for International Co-operation and Development CPP Country Programming Paper DDP District Development Plan DCA DanChurchAid, Denmark DEA Directorate of Environment and Agriculture DEM Digital Elevation Model DEO District Education Officer DFID Department for International Development (UK) DFO District Forest Officer DHI District Health Inspector DHO District Health Officer DLG District Local Government DP Development Partner DRR Disaster Risk Reduction DSIP Development Strategy and Investment Plan (for the Agriculture Sector) DTM Digital Terrain Model DWD Directorate of Water Development DWO District Water Officer DWRM Directorate of Water Resources Management ECHO European Commission for Humanitarian Aid EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EU European Union FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FCL Fels Consultants Ltd GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GmbH) GoU Government of Uganda Ha Hectares IDDRSI IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative IGAD Intergovernmental Authority on Development IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency KADP Karamoja Agro-pastoral Development Programme KALIP Karamoja Livelihoods Programme MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries MCM Million Cubic Metres MDG Millennium Development Goal MKA Ministry of Karamoja Affairs M&E Monitoring and Evaluation


iv

MWE Ministry of Water and Environment NAADS National Agricultural Advisory Services NARO National Agricultural Research Organization NDP National Development Plan NEMA National Environment Management Authority NGO Non0Governmental Organization NGWDB National Groundwater Data Base NUSAF II Second Northern Uganda Social Action Fund O&M Operation and Maintenance OPM Office of the Prime Minister REGLAP Regional Learning and Advocacy Programme RWH Rain Water Harvesting SIP Strategic Investment Plan TA Technical Adviser TLU Tropical Livestock Unit TSU Technical Support Unit UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics UN United Nations UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund UNOCHA United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs UO Umbrella Organisations WfC Water for Consumption WfP Water for Production WFP World Food Programme of the United Nations WHO World Health Organisation WMZ Water Management Zone WPC Water Policy Committee


v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Consultant is very grateful to Vanessa Tilstone at REGLAP for the introduction to DanChurchAid Uganda. The Consultant is grateful to DanChurchAid for their invitation to undertake this brief consultancy, and for arranging an enlightening visit to Karamoja, an interesting area of Uganda that the Consultant has not visited for many years. Particular thanks are due to Lisa Baumgartner in Kampala for efficiently making all arrangements, and for Jasper Okello for his cheerful company and insights, and for effectively managing the short field visit. Thanks are also due to the many officials, NGOs and community members who kindly shared their time to discuss matters relating to the challenges of food security, catchment management, and water and crop development in Karamoja. Eng. Dr. Sean Avery, P.O. Box 24135-00502, Nairobi, Kenya. An international Consultant in African Water Resources, Water Supply and the Environment [email protected] www.watres.com

DISCLAIMERS

Whereas the Consultant has used his best endeavours throughout the assignment, this report has been based on the information availed or gleaned in the short time provided for the consultancy. The opinions expressed in this report may not represent the views of DCA, or ECHO, or REGLAP, or other consortium partners, and liabilities are neither acquired nor accepted by the Consultant through undertaking this consultancy.


1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. This report is based on a short consultancy that included a visit to Kampala, Entebbe, and

Karamoja in NE Uganda, and presents a review of development policy and interventions in water, and especially irrigated crop agriculture in Karamoja (for map, see Figure 1).

2. The Uganda Government is producing excellent policy documents, and these are openly disclosing the challenges faced, but the lack of capacity to implement and enforce, especially in areas like Karamoja, is a major constraint that frustrates policy implementation.

3. The IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative’s Country Programming Paper for Uganda presents a comprehensive vision, but it is uncertain whether there is financial capacity to achieve the vision.7

4. The process of integrated water resources management in Uganda is well documented with guidelines. The development of water and water resources management plans is a requirement, and these will guide all water related interventions. The development of these plans depends on historic water resource databases, which are fragmented, but are being infilled with modern hydrological modelling techniques. The plans require continuous water resource monitoring, which is challenging, and require commitment, investment, and persistence. Water resources and climate data monitoring lapsed throughout the region many years ago, and steps are being taken to rectify this in Uganda, and this process deserves support, as the data need is fundamental.

5. Karamoja Sub-Region is the poorest region of Uganda, and literacy levels are far below the national average. In Abim, Kaabong, and Kotido Districts, literacy levels are 40%, 12%, and 15% respectively.25 In Moroto and Napak Districts, the literacy levels are not quantified in district development plans, but are reported “very low”.25 With youth over the age of ten included, the national literacy level is 73%.32

6. The geographical area of Karamoja is 27,200 km2, and about 1.4 million people live there today (3.4% of the national population). Population was only 50,000 less than 100 years ago. The population has since increased 28-times, and continues to rise. Meanwhile, the natural resources are finite, which means that the livelihoods that exploit natural resources also have finite capacity. Poverty will tend to escalate, albeit resisted through external support mechanisms such as food aid.

7. For years there have been efforts at livelihood diversification, but, whereas these help, it is a temporary solution until the population can compete with equal opportunity elsewhere within the national economy. Achieving this will provide opportunity to migrate to other better-resourced parts of the country where there is capacity to absorb. Investment and education remains key to this transition. More importantly, with education comes income security, and associated with this are family ambitions that naturally incline towards smaller family sizes.

8. More controversially, one study suggested that population pressures might be eased through re-settlement to more suitable locations.9

9. Whereas government statistics consider over 80% of the Karamoja population to be below the poverty line, a study by FAO / ECHO found that levels of extreme poverty are exaggerated, and a more measured approach to reactive food aid was recommended.27

10. Karamoja is the only solely “pastoral” livelihood zone illustrated in Figure 2. It lies within the cattle corridor extending from SW Uganda to Karamoja, and beyond through northern Kenya to Somalia and the Horn of Africa. In the pastoral areas, livestock remain very important livelihoods that are known to be compatible with pastures within the semi-arid lands. Pastoralism produces 10 to 40% of agricultural GDP in African countries, and its economic contribution is often overlooked.1 This is true for many African nations including Uganda,

1 IRIN Humanitarian News and Analysis, Nairobi, 16th May 2013: Pastoralism’s economic contributions are

significant but overlooked.


2

where the livestock contribution is believed by IGAD to be 87% larger than reflected in Uganda’s official statistics.2

11. Land tenure remains a contentious issue throughout the region’s marginalised drylands, with land tenure generally vested in national governments. Uganda is no exception. However, Uganda gazetted its long overdue National Land Policy in August 2013 and “…it is hoped that the policy will be able to address the disparities in ownership, access and control of land”.46 Lack of secure land tenure in the marginalised drylands has exacerbated conflict and increased the vulnerability of the communities.46

12. The pastoral livelihoods in Karamoja are traditionally supplemented by scattered rainfed cultivation of crops. Over 70% of the cultivated areas will comprise the cereal crop sorghum.9 Other cereal crops include millet, maize, and wheat showed promise in some areas.9 Three oil seed crops are planted, groundnuts, sunflowers, and simsim (sesame seed). Rain dependence in semi-arid lands has always been risky and crop failures frequent. The solution might seem to be the application of technology through supplementary water in the form of irrigation, but even if this was feasible, studies have shown that the irrigation requirement is huge and would exhaust and exceed the available water resource25 (even if it was economically and technically possible to abstract and store the water).

13. In some few areas where there is perennial water, there is some small-scale irrigated agriculture in Karamoja, and in some cases these water sources are being exploited with donor investment support in small drip irrigation schemes. But, limited numbers of people benefit, and the communities lack the necessary farming skills at present, and natural pests are a challenge. Drip irrigation systems are not robust and require maintenance.

14. The rivers of Karamoja are largely seasonal, and runoff tends to be flashy and difficult to manage. Reliable water supply requires storage systems, and these are widespread in the form of valley tanks and dams, and government is actively promoting these structures. Storage structures that capture runoff are however vulnerable to sedimentation and destruction by floods.

15. Escalating floods and sediment runoff are the natural consequence of catchment degradation, which is a function of population pressure and sedentarisation. The donor funded interventions in “contour bunding” and “micro-catchments” are positive interventions to slow catchment degradation, but these are often not located within the all-important riparian zones that contribute the major proportion of flood and sediment runoff.

16. Groundwater resources are reported to be more plentiful, being roughly 1.7 times the surface water resource in the Okok sub-catchment of Karamoja.25 Some reservation has been expressed about these figures, and the water resource in general needs to be better understood.25 An excellent start has been made in the Okok sub-catchment by ACF / IUCN / FCL under the ECHO funded KALIP programme,25 and the water resource monitoring established there now needs to be sustained by government and extended throughout the area. With current government staffing capacity constraints, this is unlikely to be achievable.

17. Boreholes are the predominant water source in Karamoja (see Table 2). There are reports of aquifer depletion and it has been recommended that water abstraction licence requirements under the Water Act be extended to include hand-pumped wells, as these are currently exempted from legislation.25 This is a sensible recommendation, as there is otherwise no control over abstraction, and over-abstraction has damaging knock-on effects. The Consultant would also suggest the licensing be applicable to all engineered abstractions, irrespective of daily abstraction amounts.

18. The resilience of the livestock livelihood in semi-arid lands is attributable to the mobility of herds and the ability to readily relocate in pursuit of new water and forage pastures. These attributes rely on security, which has been lacking in recent years, with cattle rustling rife and traditional. Whereas government sought to redress conflicts arising from insecurity through disarmament of Karimojong warriors, and through the attachment of military guards to cattle kraals, this has created its own problems,17 and herd mobility has been restricted, and this is

2 IGAD Center for Pastoral Areas and Livestock Development, Policy Brief Series, The Contribution of livestock

to the economies of Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda and Sudan, August 2013.


3

leading to social problems, depletion of resources near the kraals, and proliferation of livestock disease.

19. Regional insecurity remains a challenge, with armed civil unrest in South Sudan today and heavily armed large-scale rustling still taking place in northern Kenya. Regional security problems directly affect Karamoja, which borders these two countries, and regional security resolution is obviously a priority for all countries.

20. Irrigated crop agriculture is being promoted regionally to address food security. Pilot schemes in Karamoja include manyatta vegetable gardens and drip feed irrigation systems. Whereas diversity of food production is sensible (where appropriate), the pilot schemes are in early stages, and there are no results to report, and feasibility has not yet been established. Initial feedback is discouraging as the schemes are seen as replacing rather than supplementing livestock livelihoods, and this is not popular, and in some cases is being ridiculed as patronising. All irrigation projects depend on suitable soils and topography, and adequate reliable water supply, and as yet there is no water development master plan for Karamoja. Until the water resources master planning is undertaken, all interventions will continue to be haphazard and driven by political goals rather than sound technical reasoning.

21. It is noted that whereas there is a national irrigation master plan, this is in early stages of implementation. The “immediate phase” from 2011-2012 was one of “capacity building and studies”, including feasibility studies of existing Government schemes, and scoping studies for new smallholder and bulk service schemes.43

22. The potential irrigable areas listed in the national irrigation master plan amount to the following areas in Kaabong, Kotido, Moroto, Nakapiripirit, and Abim Districts:43

a. 11,170 hectares of Type ‘A’ land (land close to surface water resources and not requiring storage).

b. 5,972 hectares of Type ‘B’ land (land close to surface water and requiring storage).

c. 791 hectares of permanent wetland.

d. 49,784 hectares of seasonal wetland.

23. The water balancing presented in the national irrigation master plan suggests a huge surface water surplus (Table 6). This resource would need to be harnessed, which requires major capital and operational investment.

24. The potential irrigated land areas identified within Karamoja in the national irrigation master plan are principally wetland areas (see Para. 22 above). These areas will also be prime grazing areas and their development for irrigated crop agriculture will invite conflict. The benefit of crop agriculture needs to be balanced against the loss to livestock. Whereas integrated crop and livestock development is often promoted these days, there are no detailed studies yet done for Karamoja.

25. It is also pertinent that Uganda’s National Water Resources Assessment concludes as follows in regard to areas like Karamoja that: “…In general these areas are more suited as range lands…”

26. The absence of a wetland policy has been mentioned in a recent water and environmental sector review.39 The wetland policy is an urgent requirement to guide and control proposed development of wetland areas for crop agriculture in Karamoja.

27. It has also been reported that the value of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process in Uganda is being undermined and bypassed.39 The EIA is an essential regulatory process to ensure appropriate development. If the process is subject to manipulation, it is worthless, and leads to frustration and conflict, and loss of respect for enforcement officials. Inevitably, poorer people are further marginalised as they lack capacity to resist.

28. It has been reported that the national meteorological services are being revived.39 This is very important as without reliable data, water resources management planning cannot be effective, and there is no basis for monitoring climate change.

29. The Consultant’s field inspection looked at some recently commissioned water supply interventions including a rock catchment with handpump, a sand dam with handpump, a recently desilted valley tank, a valley tank in need of siltation, and two valley dams each


4

feeding cattle troughs and a drip irrigation area. These water supply technologies are common and have been used throughout East Africa for many years, and are appropriate. The smaller schemes were already showing problems attributable to theft, poor construction quality, and poor design. The valley dams had been constructed by higher calibre contractors, as would be expected, and appeared fully functional. The drip irrigation projects were poorly attended by communities and were in need of extension service support. It was noted that plastic material was widely adopted for water supply infrastructure, and that these structures are very vulnerable to destruction by bush fires. This is a design oversight as bush fires are commonly adopted as a range management tool in Karamoja. Above ground plastic pipes, tanks and reservoir linings melt when exposed to fire, and it is risky to leave these exposed (see examples in Photo 4). All plastic equipment must either be protected from sunlight or UV stabilised.

30. Whereas an objective of the consultancy was to assess irrigated crop agriculture in Karamoja and guide advocacy, the Consultant did not obtain technical evidence on the performance of irrigated crop agriculture pilot projects in Karamoja, nor any indication of the envisaged prototype scale, nor any indication of the potential number of people that will potentially benefit. Unfortunately, the National Irrigation Master Plan is in the early stages of implementation, as note above.

31. The Consultant believes in enhancing resilient traditional rainfed systems, and in this regard ongoing crop research into drought and pest resilient crop varieties in Karamoja is an ongoing priority.3 The national target for expenditure on agricultural research is 6% of agricultural GDP, and actual expenditure was as low as 0.71% in 2000.15 It is worth repeating the following comments from Uganda’s National Irrigation Master Plan that demonstrate the importance of rainfed crop agriculture:

“…it is helpful to understand that any reduction in dependency on rainfed agriculture accruing to a reinvigorated and expanded irrigation sector is likely to be small in relation to gains known to be possible in the rainfed sector…”43

“…there are many options for increasing rainfed productivity…”43

32. The Consultant has previously sought examples of success stories of large-scale irrigated crop agriculture interventions in the region’s arid and semi-arid lands. Schemes are underway in Ethiopia, albeit far behind programme, and amidst considerable controversy, and there are plans to hugely increase irrigated agricultural areas in Kenya too, with much of the targeted areas being in drylands.3 These irrigated crop agriculture schemes are often promoted in the drylands based on the misconception that the drylands are “unutilised”,3 and often no supporting comprehensive feasibility studies are released, and local people are being displaced from their traditional grazing areas.3 Ironically, there are researchers arguing that commercial agriculture in the drylands is less economic than pastoralism.4 Hence, the whole topic of dryland crop agricultural development needs to be thoroughly studied before embarking on potentially futile ventures that create another set of problems and social conflict. The World Bank is meanwhile calling for more large-scale irrigation in the Sahel,5 and the findings of these efforts need to be accessed to understand the reasons for expected success.

33. In final conclusion, the feasibility of irrigated crop development and the impacts have not yet been established for Karamoja:

34. Existing rainfed crop areas amount to 166,000 hectares in Kaabong, Kotido, Moroto, Nakapiripirit and Abim Districts.

35. The supplementary water required to irrigate existing crop areas exceeds the total available surface and groundwater resource (Table 3).

36. The irrigation water required to supplement rainfall in existing cropped areas is 40-times the combined domestic and crop water demand (Table 3).

3 Avery, Sean, Irrigating Kenya’s drylands: food for thought, a REGLAP perspective, December 2013. 4 Behnke, Roy, and Carol Kerven, Counting the costs: replacing pastoralism with irrigated agriculture in the

Awash valley, north-eastern Ethiopia, Climate Change Working Paper No.4, International Institure for Environment and Development, 2013.

5 World Bank Press Release dated 27th October 2013, “the Sahel: New push to transform agriculture with more support for pastoralism and irrigation”.


5

37. The available water resources, and the engineering interventions required to harness the water will be economically prohibitive.

38. Hence, whereas irrigated crop agriculture has a role to play in parts of Karamoja where soil, climate and water considerations are favourable, planners should not be deceived into assuming that this is a substitute for “backward” traditional livelihoods. Rather, a cautious approach is recommended, guided by robust technical studies that tap into all available experience, including indigenous knowledge, and including learning from past unsuccessful ventures into dryland irrigated agriculture in the Horn of Africa. It should also be remembered that the success records of dry countries like Israel should be viewed with caution, as they are heavily subsidised.


6

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Terms of Reference and previous REGLAP studies

DanChurchAid (DCA) commissioned this consultancy through the Regional Learning and Advocacy Programme for Vulnerable Dryland Communities (REGLAP). DCA is the Country Lead for REGLAP in Uganda. REGLAP is a regional consortium that aimed to promote resilience among vulnerable dryland communities in Uganda, Ethiopia and Kenya through policy change and practice.6 The following summary from the Terms of Reference provides a concise background to the Consultancy brief: 1 “…The 2010/11 drought led to increased attention on resilience building and DRR in the region. It is clear that pastoralism cannot sustain the increasing populations in the drylands, particularly given: land fragmentation and degradation, the breakdown of the traditional systems of mobility and natural resource management. However, livelihood diversification options are limited for poor people due to the low human capital resource base, remoteness of the region and lack of infrastructure. Some potential for livelihood diversification exists in increasing benefit from eco-tourism, government employment, dryland and animal products and emerging mineral wealth, and some crop agriculture, however these and other options need major investments in education, communications and business service development to benefit the most vulnerable and absorb large numbers of the people…” “…In discussions on alternative livelihoods among both governments and development partners, most attention is given to crop agriculture. Many studies show that rainfall in the arid lands is too variable for sustainable rain-fed crop production, and that many ASAL areas are already water deficient and irrigated agriculture can negatively affect water availability for other uses and cause negative environmental and social impacts. It is likely that crop production will take place in less arid areas of the drylands including dry season grazing areas which may negatively affect the resilience of large numbers of livestock producers who use these areas as their major management strategy during drought, unless significant mitigation measures are put in place…” “…In Uganda, the Ministry for Karamoja Affairs (MKA), the Ministry for Water and Environment (MWE), and the Ministry for Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries (MAAIF), are all promoting, albeit at differing levels of intensity, the need for large water investment projects that can support irrigated crop agriculture...” “…Within this context, arguments for carefully planned crop production that benefit the poorest, alongside support to livestock based livelihoods, need to be made stronger to prevent investments and well intentioned responses in development interventions, times of crisis and DRR from further damaging the resilience of dryland populations…” In 2013, REGLAP published the findings of its study into crop agriculture in the drylands of the Horn of Africa.7 The study reported three policy pathways available to governments and development agencies, listed below, and concluded that a mix of all three options offer the best course to reduce the dependence on mobile pastoralism:7

1. Promotion of crop agriculture, especially small-scale irrigation; 2. Continued support for pastoralism, albeit in new forms; 3. Facilitating income diversification (including migration).

6 Extracted direct from Terms of Reference prepared by DanChurchAid in November 2013. 7 Mortimer, Mike, The place of crop agriculture for resilience building in the drylands of the Horn of Africa: an

opportunity or a threat?, REGLAP, June 2013.


7

The Mortimer study included the following conclusion:

“…Policies for dryland livelihoods should therefore seek to integrate mobile and agro-pastoralism with small-scale irrigation and livelihood diversification, and interventions should take account of the dynamics of the multi-sectoral, human-ecological systems. Continuation of pastoralism in some form is too important to be made a hostage to fortune either through neglect or by forcing a transition to untried model. Whatever the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of crop farming (rain-fed, irrigated, large or small-scale), the drivers of irrigated farming (macro-economic policy at the large scale and market-driven autonomous small-scale initiatives) are already established features of the economic landscape and cannot be ignored or reversed…”7

The Mortimer study reviewed Uganda’s Country Programming Planning Paper44 and described the vision to be so comprehensive that it raises questions about financing “which are acknowledged but not solved”.7 The study noted that the various regional country papers recognise that “…development is seen as the ultimate answer to dryland poverty, climate risk, and pastoral transition7…but issues of local ownership, participation and empowerment have to be addressed in implementation plans8…” Underpinning the challenges to departments of government is that “…past policies have often misjudged mobile pastoralism”.7 As an extension of the above study, REGLAP commissioned this review of the Government of Uganda’s (GoU) strategy for water development and for irrigated crop agriculture in Karamoja. The review will aim to provide REGLAP with information to inform its advocacy position on water development and irrigated crop agriculture promotion in the drylands of Karamoja. The review will also inform current and future planning for sustainable water development and water for production strategies by the Government of Uganda. The Consultancy period was brief and the review relied on the Consultant’s experience, including in adjacent northern areas of Kenya and southern Ethiopia, and is based on review of availed literature (which is extensive), as well as meetings in Kampala and Entebbe, and a short field trip to Karamoja for meetings in Moroto and to look at accessible pilot projects in water harvesting and crop agriculture throughout Karamoja.

2.2 Karamoja – A general profile

Karamoja Sub-Region is the north-east corner of Uganda, encompassing an area of 27,200 square kilometres9, which is 11.3% of the total surface area of Uganda. Karamoja comprises Kaabong, Kotido, Abim, Moroto, Napak, Nakapiripirit, and Amudat Districts – see Figure 1. Karamoja’s human population today could be as much as 1.4 million people, which is 3.4% of the national Uganda population of 35.4 million.10 Less than 100 years ago in 1920, the Karamoja population numbered only 50,000 people, and in the year 2000 it numbered 400,000 people.9 These figures represent a 3.5-fold population increase since the year 2000. By comparison, bordering Karamoja in the adjacent Turkana District in Kenya the population today is about 1 million people in an area of about 36,000 square kilometres.11 28 In 1999, the Turkana District population was less than 387,000 people.12 The population density is higher in Karamoja, and the population growth rate is higher.

8 Reference 7 citing Izzy Birch of NDMA, Kenya. 9 Wilson, John and Kim Rowland, Land and Agriculture in Uganda, funded by European Union, ISBN 0-

9540093-0-4. 10 Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2013 Statistical Abstract. 11 Avery, Sean, The Turkana aquifer discoveries and development proposals: A discussion perspective,

Regional Learning and Advocacy Programme for Vulnerable Dryland Communities, November 2013: http://www.disasterriskreduction.net/east-central-africa/reglap/documents/detail/en/c/3254/

12 Watson, David J, Joep van Binsbergen, Livestock market access and opportunities in Turkana, Kenya. ILRI Research Report 3, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya, 2008.


8

Figure 1: Karamoja Sub-Region, District and Sub-County boundaries

Map Source: Indicated on the map “…The Karamoja region of north-eastern Uganda is a land of contrasts. Hot dry savannas in the east and central parts of the region provide seasonal grazing for cattle, small stock and game, and farming is precarious. To the west more fertile conditions prevail, with good land for maize, millet, sorghum, groundnuts and pigeon peas, and valuable dry season grazing. But for most of the farmers in Karamoja, drought and famine are frequent realities…”9

The Karamoja region is the driest in Uganda, much of it being semi-arid, with the dry season prevailing winds originating from the very dry areas of northern Kenya.9 Over 80% of Kenya is arid or semi-arid.13 18

Karamoja lies within the “cattle corridor” of eastern Africa and the majority of the population follows a pastoral or agro-pastoral lifestyle, relying on livestock as the main source of

13 Avery, Sean, What future Lake Turkana? The impact of hydropower and irrigation development on the world’s

largest lake, African Studies Centre, University of Oxford, December 2013.

Note: Data, designations and boundariescontained on this map are not warranted to beerror-free and do not imply acceptance by the

Data SourcesAdministrative boundaries: UBOS (2010)Background imagery: ESRICoordinate System: WGS 1984 UTM Zone 36NContact: [email protected]

KOTIDOKOTIDO

NAKAPIRIPIRITNAKAPIRIPIRIT

ABIMABIM

KAABONGKAABONG

AMUDATAMUDAT

MOROTOMOROTO

NAPAKNAPAK

Kacheri

Kotido

Kotido TcNakapelimoru

Panyangara

Rengen

Kakomongole

MoruitaNamalu

Lolachat

Lorengedwat

Nabilatuk

Loregae

Abim

Alerek

Lotukei

Morulem Nyakwae

Kaabong Tc

Kalapata

Kapedo

Karenga

Kathile

LoleliaLoyoro

Sidok

Kaabong

Amudat

Karita

Loroo

Katikekile

Nadunget

Rupa

SouthernDivision

Tapac

Iriiri

Lokopo

Lopei

Lotome

Matany

Ngoleriet

0 10 20 30 40Kilometers

Administrative Boundaries of Karamoja District

$

Sudan

Kenya

Tanzania

Congo, DRC

Pat

h: D

:\28F

eb20

12\_

Uga

nda\

Pro

ject

s\R

efer

ence

\Kar

amoj

a\M

XD

s\R

ef_K

aram

ojaA

dmin

istr

ativ

eBou

ndar

ies_

A4L

.mxd

Map Scale for A4: 1:1,500,000

KaramojaRegion

South

Uganda

Map KeyDistrict Boundary (2010)

Sub-County Boundary (2010)

Production date: 13 Mar 2012For Humanitarian Relief Purposes Only


9

subsistence.25 The eastern part of Karamoja is the only exclusively “pastoral livelihood” area recognised in Figure 2 (the upper map).15 The “cattle corridor” from SW to NE Uganda can be traced by following the high-density cattle zones in the lower map in Figure 2, and pastoralism is practised along this corridor.15 The accuracy of the upper map does not extend to showing the extent of protected areas in Karamoja. For instance, the Kidepo National Park is missed out altogether, as are other protected areas. The main crops grown in Karamoja are sorghum, maize, finger millet, cowpeas, and groundnuts, supplemented by wild fruits, vegetables, and hunting.25 A very useful land use map for parts of Karamoja is reproduced in Figure 3, in which the small-scale rainfed farming areas are shaded red in amongst the predominant grasslands (shaded green), and the scattered bush (shaded blue), and scattered woodlands (shaded grey). The land use “varieties” have been described to be “quite poor”.25 Nationally, agriculture employs 73% of the labour force,34 and contributes 22.5% to Uganda’s GDP.19 The food crop sub-sector nationally contributed 13% and livestock only 1.7%.19 The livestock proportion at 11% of the agricultural GDP portion is low. Studies by IGAD suggest that the livestock contribution to GDP is under-estimated in many African nations, including Uganda (by 87%).2 In neighbouring Kenya the livestock contribution estimates have been adjusted to 43% of that country’s agricultural GDP.14 Based on Uganda’s national statistics, there is danger that government policy will be inclined to favour crop sub-sector developments, and it can be forgotten that national statistics are not applicable to Karamoja’s exceptional and particular climate conditions. Food calorific intake in Uganda is reported to be lowest in the Karamoja and Acholi Sub-Regions. 54% of children aged five years and below in Karamoja were reported stunted.15 Over 80% of the population was reported “moderately food insecure”.16 However, an earlier study has challenged the “dominant perception” of extreme poverty, providing “empirical evidence” to show this is not true.27 A visitor to Karamoja today will be struck by the diverse range of UN agencies and NGOs present in the area engaged in humanitarian relief and development activities. DCA is amongst these, and the Karamoja relief and development inputs have become a permanent feature. In fact, “…Karamoja has been receiving humanitarian aid (food aid) for the past 3 decades at least”.27 Attitudes have been changing though, thankfully, with a shift from food aid to development. Whereas there was once an automatic reaction of giving food aid whenever rains were poor, this was unnecessary and had “powerful negative consequences”.27 The human population continues to rise throughout the region, with ever-increasing pressure on the finite natural resources, and with ever-increasing restrictions on mobility. The humanitarian relief and development activities are intended to support Government responsibilities, but they are also creating dependence, which supplants the role of government and undermines local livelihood economies, and is not sustainable. There is similar population pressure everywhere in the arid and semi-arid lands of the region, exacerbated by civil unrest and insecurity, lack of secure land tenure, and encroachments into the arid and semi-arid areas by outsiders bringing superior skills in pursuit of lands and valuable natural resources. These resources include minerals and wildlife, and in nearby northern Kenya and NW Uganda they include underground oil resources. The traditional movement of people in response to drought is becoming progressively more restricted. Former unutilised lands are today occupied and utilised. The Government of Uganda wishes people to settle. This contradicts traditional knowledge that mobility is the critical coping mechanism governing successful productive pastoralism. Confinement of livestock herds leads to range degradation and livestock disease proliferation. Whereas in the

14 New ILRI study News, Nov 29th 2011. 15 Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry & Fisheries, Agriculture for food and income security, Agriculture

Sector Development Strategy & Investment Plan: 2010/11 – 2014-15, March 2010. 16 DFID, Final Report by IOD PARC, Formative evaluation of World Food Programme’s Livelihoods Programme,

Karamoja, Uganda, July 2012.


10

past, pastoralists would cope by moving elsewhere, and still do, this is now discouraged, with attempts to restrict movements to within districts. Pastoralists in neighbouring Kenya also traditionally move in pursuit of pastures, including into Karamoja, which generally receives more abundant rainfall and is attractive. Pastoralists in northern Kenya and South Sudan still openly carry automatic weapons for protection, and the same was once the case in Karamoja. Whereas official claims are that the Karimojong have been “effectively disarmed”, a 2012 study reported that: “small arms are still present in the communities…and are being used by warriors to steal livestock from other tribes”.17 The situation remains uneasy. In the first place, possession of weapons made Karimojong youths more powerful than their elders, with disrespect for elders emerging. Subsequent disarmament has disempowered the men and undermined their customary roles. Meanwhile, livestock rustling remains rife in adjacent northern Kenya, with Kenyan security forces struggling to effectively contain such activities. Rustling in Karamoja was once “a traditionally sanctioned activity”.17 With disarmament, it has diminished to a smaller-scale, and has become an independent “increasingly commercialised” livestock theft activity, in which very young warriors engage.17 The arid and semi-arid region of Turkana in Kenya faces similar challenges of burgeoning population sustained by humanitarian food relief. In some areas of Turkana, 75% of the food input is food relief.18 To the north lies South Sudan, a country once again suffering civil unrest. In southern Ethiopia in the Lower Omo valley to the east of Karamoja, there are similar challenges arising as the Ethiopian Government seeks to effect socio-economic transformation amidst international accusations of human rights abuses. The Lower Omo is similarly semi-arid, bordering South Sudan and Kenya, and is also occupied by traditional agro-pastoralists of Nilotic origin. Ethiopian Government policy is to move people into villages and introduce commercial irrigated agriculture dominated by outsiders. The reaction of local people is understandably negative, and the manner of project execution does not help.13 The pastoral ranges are increasingly becoming fragmented, and movements are being restricted to the detriment of traditional livelihood coping mechanisms. Throughout the semi-arid and arid lands, from Karamoja through northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia and into Somalia and the Horn of Africa, there are similar challenges. These areas have been marginalised through lack of investment. They are consequently insecure. The people are traditionally mobile, and they lack secure land tenure, and are poorly educated. Literacy levels in Karamoja are as low as 12%.25 These climatically challenged areas are suited to pastoralism, and wildlife populations will also proliferate alongside livestock if allowed to do so. The climate cannot ensure reliable rainfed crop agriculture, except on the limited mountain blocks that attract higher rainfall and thus generate perennial water sources. Global warming associated with increased unreliability of rainfall patterns is exacerbating the situation. Uganda as a whole generally enjoys plentiful rainfall to sustain traditional rainfed crop agriculture, and irrigation development has not in the past been high on the country’s development agenda, least of all in the drylands of Karamoja. Contrary to popular perception, crop agriculture has long been practised even in these driest areas alongside pastoral activities that were well suited to the drylands (see Figure 3). The same applies in other drylands of the Horn of Africa. However, these crop systems depend solely on rainfall, which is limited and erratic in semi-arid zones, and frequent crop failures do occur. Until 1972, the nearest agricultural research station had been in Soroti, a sub-humid zone.9 The Church of Uganda thus set up the Karamoja Agricultural Project (KAP) in Kacheri and spent four years collecting and testing thousands of varieties of crops that might be suitable to the semi-arid zones.9 From 1981-85, the Karamoja Agricultural Project carried out more trials on sorghum varieties, but “despite this, a great deal more research is needed”.9 That situation remains applicable today.

17 Kingma et al, Security Provision and Small Arms in Karamoja, A Survey of Perceptions, Special Report by

Danish Demining Group, September 2012. 18 Avery, Sean T., Lake Turkana and the Lower Omo: Hydrological Impacts of Gibe III & Lower Omo Irrigation

Development, Vols I and II, African Studies Centre, University of Oxford, 2012.


11

Figure 2: Pastoral and other livelihood zones of Uganda19 Map Source: See Footnote 19.

19 Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries, Statistical Abstract 2011.


12

Figure 3: Land usage in parts of Karamoja

Source: ACF / IUCN / FCL Figure 1.26 (from MWE – NFA Section)

Key to colour shaded zones: Dark Blue = Bush Green = Grassland Red = Small-scale rainfed cultivation Grey = Woodland Note: The above map excludes Nakapiripirit and Amudat Districts that are part of Karamoja Sub-Region in Figure 1, and includes Amuria, which is beyond Karamoja Sub-Region in Figure 1.


13

2.3 Karamoja - Protected areas

In 1963, almost 94.6% of Karamoja was “protected”, whereas today the protected areas amount to roughly 25%, with many of the former protected areas having been de-gazetted. The extent of these protected areas is unfortunately not reflected in the upper map of Figure 2. In the absence of effective catchment management, the reduction in protected areas will inevitably have caused land degradation, and thus increased catchment runoff and erosion, and reduced groundwater recharge. This process includes the reduction of woodlands through conversion to charcoal, a poverty coping response adopted by many people. Catchment damage is recognised through the various mitigation micro-catchment project interventions being implemented in Karamoja (for instance donor-funded NGO-motivated trapezoidal bunds and semi-circular catchments). The newly gazetted National Land Policy tries to address imbalances of land access and ownership,46 and within this context, the communities in Karamoja should be consulted in regard to resources that they depend upon within protected areas, and should in future be consulted on the sustainable management of such resources in and around protected areas, “particularly in relation to grazing”.46 The National Land Policy also includes provision to develop criteria for compensation of “foregone opportunities”.

Table 1: Protected areas Protection category Area

km2 % of

Karamoja Restrictions on human activity

Wildlife (Game) Reserve 5,840 19% Grazing permitted. Cultivation not permitted

Kidepo National Park 1,436 5.2% Grazing permitted exceptionally. Cultivation not permitted.

Central Forest Reserve 28 0.1% Wetlands 1% Water can be utilised

Data Source: ACF / IUCN / FCL25


14

Karimojong manyatta – an aerial view Karimojong cattle

Hand pump and manyatta Moroto town

Highway development Moroto airstrip

Photo 1: Karamoja, Uganda ©Sean Avery Photo Archive


15

2.4 Water supply in Karamoja

There is no significant water body in Karamoja. Traditional water sources in Karamoja comprised the few perennial mountain streams, springs, and wells dug into the seasonal sandy riverbeds. “The main characteristic of traditional water catchments is that they traditionally do not last very long at any one place, and therefore prevent over grazing as the cattle have to be moved from one waterhole to another”.20 “Modern” water supplies include all of the following: • Boreholes (with hand, or motorised, or wind-driven pumps). • Rainwater tanks (fed from roof and rock catchments). • Valley tanks (man-made depressions that collect and store runoff). • Valley dams within rivers (impoundments engineered to safely store runoff). • Piped distribution systems (within towns; from dams to livestock watering troughs; from

dams to nearby irrigation schemes; within irrigation schemes). Table 2 summarises water supply facilities in Karamoja in 2010.21 The predominant water supply sources were “deep boreholes”, and Kaabong was the district with the lowest proportion of people served with water, at only 21% (in 2010). This contrasts very poorly with the national rural area average of 63%.32 The number of WfP structures is reported to be relatively small compared to the (water) demand from the large numbers of livestock, and water reservoirs are especially needed in the green belt, in the western part of the region, where livestock concentrates during the dry periods”.22 Research publications are not complimentary about past water supply interventions. They have been “considered as failures, and were characterised as misguided both for their huge size and for where they were built, but also the means employed in their construction”.20 The criticisms often hinge on ineffective mobilisation of the communities throughout the process.23 There has been a tendency throughout the region for schemes to be imposed through a top-down patronising approach that assumes that the communities are too ignorant to know what is good for them or what is appropriate. The “majority” of boreholes have been reported non-functional, attributed to “reduced pastoral mobility” that leads to overloading of existing pastures and biodiversity loss, with frequent breakdown of borehole water sources due to extended usage, all of which generates conflict.25 Under KALIP, various water supply interventions were planned, and in January 2012, a preliminary evaluation study was presented to the Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development.22 This evaluation study acknowledged the “political sensitivity” of interventions due to past project failures, and that the Karamoja region especially has many such examples “due to inadequate pre-study, design and lack of social support within the community”, with interventions washed away, silted up, or drying up, or being vandalised.22 The evaluation report presented the site evaluation to prepare for the technical design. The proposed interventions were “in principle rainwater harvesting through runoff catchment systems”, with the “feasible technologies” including “valley tanks and valley dams….Other options may be considered including groundwater recharge systems like sand/subsurface dams and production boreholes” with boreholes only considered in areas with high potential for

20 Kagan, Sacha, Liv Pedersen, Sally Ollech, David Knaute, The Karamoja Syndrome: Transdisciplinary system

research informing policy and advocacy, Institute for Theory and Research on Culture and Arts, Leuphana University, Luneburg, in association with ACTED.

21 Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda Water Supply Atlas 2010. 22 Cardno & WE Consult, Karamoja Livelihoods Programme and Northern Uganda Agriculture Livelihoods

Recovery Programme, Short Term Technical Assistance to validate KALIP Water for Production interventions within the Karamoja Region, Preliminary Validation Report for Ministry of Finance, Planning & Economic Development, January 2012.

23 Gitonga, Michael, Good practice principles, Water Development in the Drylands of the Horn of Africa, REGLAP, November 2011.


16

groundwater and / or areas with no potential for other interventions.22 Based on budget availability and a target of 20 to 30 interventions, the most cost efficient systems were valley tanks, sand/subsurface dams and optionally boreholes.22 The capacity of water storage tanks possible for the budget was in the range 5,000 to 20,000m3, and these medium-scale interventions were reported to comply with the target of the Directorate of Water Development to achieve a medium-scale dam in every sub-county, and a valley tank in every parish.22 Twenty-one sites were selected for further study, and by February 2012, nineteen sites had been investigated in detail. The recommendations stated that the available budgets were insufficient to finance the proposed interventions, and that it might be more “efficient” to “construct one larger facility instead of 2 or 3 smaller facilities in some districts”.22 Hence, the project lacks the levels of investment finance needed to meet the objectives, and instead compromises are being proposed. Like other such studies, the necessary basis in the form of a guiding regional water resources development master plan is lacking. Hence the proposals are haphazard. Table 2: Water supply summary for Karamoja

District Point water sources WfP Piped WS Pop. %

Protected Spring

Shallow Well

Deep Borehole

Rain Tanks

Dams Valley Tanks

PSP/Kiosk Tap Stand

Water Access

Nakapiripirit 6 32 224 9 2 7 21 244,900 33 Moroto 1 3 435 46 6 0 0 297,800 42 Kotido 0 1 224 37 33 4 4 204,600 33 Kaabong 0 18 227 0 1 1 1 345,300 21 Abim 3 13 143 29 4 0 0 47,490 86 Totals 10 67 1,253 121 46 12 26 1,140,090

Notes: Data from Uganda Water Supply Atlas, Ministry of Water & Environment, 2010.21 WfP = Water for Production.

Valley tank Valley dam near Kaabong Rock catchment and hand-pump

Photo 2: Examples of water supply interventions in Karamoja

©Sean Avery Photo Archive


17

2.5 Karamoja - Water resources management planning

Uganda is graced with perennial rivers including Africa’s longest, the River Nile, which discharges from Lake Victoria within Uganda. Uganda also includes Lakes Kyoga and Albert, and many wetlands, all part of the drainage contributing to the Victoria Nile that feeds into South Sudan and the Sudd swamps, the world’s largest wetlands. Uganda is divided into four water management zones all linked to the Nile drainage, with management responsibility vested with the Directorate of Water Resources Management of the Ministry of Water and Environment. The Government’s 2009 Joint Sector Review of the Water and Environment Sector agreed that an integrated water resources management plan be “operationalised” in all water management zones.24 Karamoja is located in NE Uganda, bordering South Sudan and Kenya. The northern and eastern areas are mountainous, and Karamoja’s eastern boundary is a catchment divide from which water flows west to Teso within Uganda, and east into Kenya’s Turkana District. There is no significant water body in Karamoja. As water runs off so rapidly, it is necessary to store water if a reliable surface water supply is required. Water is stored naturally in natural depressions and through recharge to groundwater stores. It otherwise evaporates or runs off and out of the area. Interventions in the form of boreholes to tap groundwater, and storage reservoirs to harvest runoff, are widespread in Karamoja. Surface water storage is achieved either through “valley tanks”, which are man-made depressions that collect and hold water (usually off stream), or through impounding reservoirs created by dams constructed in stream. Both are prone to siltation, and the waters are prone to contamination. Dams are vulnerable to floods where there is inadequate spillway provision. Karamoja lacks its own regional water resources management plan.25 This means that water resources interventions are not being implemented within the regulated framework of an overall plan whose feasibility is established and will ensure sustainable exploitation.25 In 2011, a six-month project was undertaken by ACF / IUCN / FCL in the Okok sub-catchment in Karamoja to collect natural resources data, mainly related to hydrogeology, with the overall aim of developing a framework for water management for this sub-catchment (22% percent falls within Upper Nile Water Management Zone, 78% falls within Kyoga Water Management Zone).25 The sub-catchment includes Kaabong, Kotido, Abim, Moroto and Napak Districts. Nakapiripirit and Amudat Districts were not assessed “due to different limiting factors”.25 The Okok sub-catchment area is 5,512 km2, which is 20% of entire Karamoja drainage area. The above project described Karamoja as having a dense but seasonal river network, and that the region is “subject to chronic and brutal climatological disasters such as floods and drought”.25 The ACF / IUCN / FCL study concludes that water demand in the Okok sub-catchment will exceed the available water resource in 2015 and 2017, with irrigation potentially accounting for 97% of the water demand, and that a “drastic water management plan is needed”. This is an under statement with which the Consultant whole-heartedly agrees.

24 The 2009 Joint Sector Review, Water and Environment Sector, Minutes dated 16th October 2009, signed by

the PS Ministry of Water and Environment, the Ambassador of Denmark, and the World Bank. 25 ACF, IUCN, FCL, draft Hydrogeological Study on Improvement of Water Resource Knowledge and

Management in the Karamoja Region, Uganda, July to December 2011 (ECHO funded project, undertaken with support from the University of Avignon).


18

2.6 Crop agriculture and the Karamoja Livelihoods Programme (KALIP)

The KALIP motto is “Farming and Peace, Food and Security”. The work of Wilson and Rowland9 was published with European Union (EU) funding and its principles have assisted aspects of KALIP, also funded by EU, and this EU programme is currently winding down from its current funding phase. The NGO interventions seen during the field visit to Karamoja were all either implemented under the KALIP programme, or were closely linked. Karimojong farmers “are aware of relatively few types of crops” and to minimise risk, “diversification of farm enterprises is very important”.9 People are however willing to adopt new ideas “if they are seen to help them”, and over the past century, maize and some other crops have been successfully adopted on a small scale.9 Ox-cultivation was adopted, as was cattle vaccination, education of children, sale of cattle...9 Not all changes were for the better however, for instance the widespread access to modern weapons and the consequences of this.9 Modern weaponry has facilitated conflict and livestock theft, and has led to wildlife decimation. In their land and agriculture publication, Wilson and Rowland interestingly commented on the self-reliance of the people.9 They concluded that “in the past too much development has been done for the Karimojong, rather than by them”.9 They commented that development is “help from outsiders”, and that “real development comes when the people learn to change things themselves”. The extent of international donor and NGO activity in Karamoja today would suggest the above comments remain relevant. In an attempt to add diversification, KALIP included a component to develop “manyatta gardens” where vegetable crops can be grown. Unfortunately, this initiative will barely scratch the surface insofar as food security needs are concerned. An article published by IRIN News on 23rd January 2014 opened by saying that “Uganda’s latest plan to improve food security in the mainly arid Karamoja region - make everyone cultivate a garden - has been described as short-sighted and patronising.”26 The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation “believes that the production of agricultural crops alone would not be enough to make a difference in the food insecurity situation in Karamoja”.26 Whereas these gardens potentially help, a local NGO reported to the Consultant that the gardens serve to stimulate the local rodent population, although the people will also harvest the rodents for food. The IRIN article makes the following notable statements, amongst others: “…Starting this year, all households in Karamoja…will have to grow cassava and potatoes to improve food production and ensure that people have food to eat even during the dry season (IRIN News is quoting the State Minister for Karamoja Affairs)…”26 “…The gardens scheme is yet another example of ill informed government policy…”26 “…Although experts have been making this point for years (see FAO / ECHO Report referenced in Footnote 27), the government’s policies in Karamoja remain rooted, according to many who work in development there, in the misconception that cattle-raising is unsustainable and that growing crops there is a viable way to avert hunger and reduce poverty…”26 Based on irrigation potential studies in comparable climatic regimes in Kenya,28 the Consultant share’s the FAO consultants’ concerns about misconceptions about the sustainability of

26 IRIN News, Kampala, “Alarm over mandatory gardens in Karamoja”, 23 January 2014,

http://www.irinnews.org/report/99523/alarm-over-mandatory-gardens-in-karamoja 27 Levine, Simon, “What to do about Karamoja?” Why pastoralism is not the problem but the solution. A food

security analysis of Karamoja, report for FAO/ECHO, September 2010. 28 Avery, Sean, “Irrigating Kenya’s Drylands – Food for thought”, Discussion Brief, December 2013, REGLAP /

DLCI, Disaster Reduction, http://www.disasterriskreduction.net/east-central-africa/reglap/documents/detail/en/c/3704/


19

livestock production in the drylands. Irrigation development in semi-arid zones has technical challenges that must first be carefully evaluated before raising expectations, and meanwhile support to the livestock sector should remain a foremost priority, and this would mean seeking to facilitate rather stifle livestock mobility. In December 2013 an inter-ministerial team undertook an assessment of potential irrigation sites in Karamoja sub-region.29 In the foreword to the report, the Office of the Prime Minister stated: “The unpredictable weather pattern has made it difficult for farmers to grow food crops…” and “…has encouraged food production by households instead of relying on hand outs by World Food Programme and other partners”.29 The report notes in its overview of irrigation systems that the progress of formal irrigation “has been very slow and with limited success” and attributes this to “limited experience and exposure of communities in the region on aspects of irrigation technologies and improved farming systems.” The aim of the study was “to identify potential sites in Karamoja region for irrigation to promote food production”. Fourteen pilot sites were recommended. A total irrigated area between 131 and 338 hectares with drip / sprinkler systems was envisaged. This is a tiny area compared to the existing rainfed cultivation area today amounting to 166,000 hectares in six sub-counties. It would have been useful to present an overall master plan including an analysis of the total food production needed in the region, and the proportion that might be met through the envisaged irrigation interventions that might result from the pilot projects, and the amount of water this would require, and whether the scale of water harvesting is technically feasible and sustainable. Perhaps the most useful study seen by the Consultant was the hydrological study and irrigation water demand assessment by ACF / IUCN / KCL in their draft study of the Okok sub-catchment of Karamoja.25 This sub-catchment drains 20% of Karamoja and holds 37% of the population, and hence the findings are very relevant.30 ACF et al determined the total cultivated area in the Okok sub-catchment to be 50,155 hectares in 2010, and they then computed the supplementary water that would fully satisfy the crop water needs, based on standard FAO irrigation guidelines. The results are summarised in Table 3 below. Whereas domestic and livestock water needs are easily met by the available water resource, the computed irrigation water need is a staggering 40-times the combined domestic/livestock water requirement, and is greater than the combined total available surface and groundwater resource. ACF assumed an irrigation efficiency of 80%, which is optimistic. The ACF et al irrigation requirement in Table 3 exceeds the surface water runoff by a factor 2.8 times. The calculations show very clearly that supplementing existing rainfed crop areas is not feasible from the surface water resource, and that irrigation demand equates to the entire surface plus groundwater resource. This is without any consideration of water source development, storage and conveyance costs, nor the challenges of soil salination with irrigation in semi-arid lands. Whereas such interventions would be an integral part of any water development plan, they are not the solution. There is need for an overall water development master plan for the Karamoja sub-region, which would take into account food needs. The challenges are very different from the rest of Uganda. This master plan would form the basis for co-ordinated interventions, and should include ongoing research into appropriate improvements to agricultural practices. Recent attempts to educate local people include the GIZ funded Climate Adaptation Learning Centre, which is serving to provide facilities to demonstrate the various water and crop growing technologies being promoted in Karamoja, as well as aquaculture, brick making

29 Assessment Report for Potential Irrigation Sites in Karamoja Sub Region, Office of the Prime Minister,

Uganda, December 2013. 30 Note that the ACF / IUCN / KCL “Karamoja” area is catchment-based and thus differs from the Karamoja Sub-

Region administrative boundary area, Nakapiripirit and Amudat being excluded, and Amuria included.


20

technology, and tree nurseries31 - see Photo 3. These activities all depend on reliable water. When the site was visited, there was little activity. Table 3: Water demand compared to water resource in the Okok sub-catchment

Water Resource Water Demand in Year 2010 and 2017 Water

Source Available

Water MCM/yr

Water Demand Category

2010 Demand MCM/yr

2017 Demand MCM/yr

Surface water 180 Domestic 4.83 6.35 Groundwater 306 Livestock 8.12 9.99

- - Irrigation 505 665 - - Industrial 0.0024 0.0048

TOTAL 486 TOTAL 518 671

31 Project: Adaptation of the Karimojong Agricultural Methods to Climate Change (CCA) in Karamoja Sub-

Region, implemented by GIZ on behalf of the German Government.

Brick making Tree nursery Climate controlled nursery

Photo 3: GIZ-funded Climate Adaptation Learning Centre at Nakichumet, Napak



21

3 POLICIES AND PLANNING

3.1 Water and Sanitation Sub-Sector Gender Strategy (2010-15)

In Uganda, water collection and use of water in the homes is the role of women. Whereas, women bear the brunt of inadequate, deficient or inappropriate water and sanitation services, their views are often under-represented as men still dominate the planning and decision making.25 In Karimojong communities, the women keep the homesteads (manyattas), and tend to crops and some livestock, especially calving cows and their calves.25 The young men are responsible for livestock movements and security.25 Decision-making is through an assembly of elders.25 Customary decision-making roles have however been upset by post-conflict security measures that include local government structures and the imposition of military protection of livestock herds.25 The water and sanitation sub-sector gender strategy provides guidelines to ensure gender mainstreaming. This is a very important activity.

3.2 The National Development Plan 2011-2015

The “Vision” of the National Development Plan (NDP) is “ A transformed Ugandan Society from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country within 30 years”.32 The “Theme” of the National Development Plan is “Growth, employment and socio-economic transformation and prosperity”.32 The national GDP growth rate is forecast to average 7.2 percent. Nominal per capita income is projected to increase from US$ 506 in 2008/09 to US$ 850 by 2014/15, and during the same period, the proportion of the population living below the poverty line is expected to decline from the national average level of 31 percent in 2005/06 to about 24.5 percent in 2014/2015. The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) target is 28 percent, so goals are not being met in Uganda.32 In northern areas, the situation is far worse. In Karamoja, over 80% of the population is below the poverty line. This contrasts to many areas of southern and south-western Uganda where less than 20% of the population is below the poverty line. The mean consumption of the richest area (Kampala) is 2.5 times that of the poorest area (northern region).32

The National Development Plan notes that agriculture is at the core of Uganda’s economy, in 2005 employing 73 percent of the labour force. In 2008/09 the sector contributed 23.7 percent of GDP. Women contributed 70-75 percent of agricultural production.32 The National Development Plan states: “…investing more in agriculture to achieve greater sector growth rates is the surest way to effectively reducing poverty. It is for these reasons agriculture is being given a lot of attention in national development…”32 The National Development Plan notes however, that the sector performance in recent years has not been impressive, with growth in agricultural production declining and falling far below the annual growth target of 6 percent set by the African Union’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP). The reasons cited included weather changes (mainly drought), crop pests and poor soil management, disease epidemics, and changes in domestic and international commodity prices.32

32 Republic of Uganda, National Development Plan (2010/11 – 2014/15), April 2010.


22

The Uganda livestock sub-sector in 2008 was as follows, and the proportion within Karamoja is indicated in brackets: • 11.4 million cattle (20% in Karamoja); • 12.5 million goats (16% in Karamoja); • 3.4 million sheep (49% in Karamoja); • 3.2 million pigs (1.8% in Karamoja); • 39.4 million poultry birds (3.7% in Karamoja).

To put the above percentages into perspective, Karamoja comprises 13.6% of the country’s area, yet holds 20% of cattle, 16% of goats, and 49% of sheep.33 The export market potential is seen as “huge”. There has been growth in the dairy sector due to a favourable macro-economic climate, policy and institutional reforms including privatisation of the Dairy Corporation in 2006, and better pasture and farm management practices. The beef industry is however not well developed.

3.3 Uganda’s Water Policy evolution

3.3.1 The Water Act, 1997

Uganda’s Water Act “commenced” on 7th April 1997, and provides for: “…the use, protection and management of water resources and supply; to provide for the constitution of water and sewerage authorities; and to facilitate the devolution of water supply and sewerage undertakings…”. The Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) “plans and coordinates all the water sector activities, and has the overall responsibility for setting national policies and standards, managing and regulating water resources and determining priorities for water development and management. MWE also monitors and evaluates sector development programmes to keep track of their performance, efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery”. The Ministry of Water and Environment has three directorates, as follows: • Directorate of Water Resources Management (DWRM); • Directorate of Water Development (DWD); • Directorate of Environmental Affairs (DEA).

3.3.2 Water Sector Reform, 1998

In 1998, the Government of Uganda started a reform process for the water sector with support from the country’s development partners. Sub-sector reform studies were undertaken, the major outcome being discrete strategy and investment plans in each of the following sub-sectors: • Rural Water and Sanitation; • Urban Water Supply; • Water for Production; • Water Resources Management.

The following regulations and standards were issued under the Water Act: a) The Water Resources Regulations (1998); b) The Water Supply Regulations (1998);

33 Uganda’s total area is 236,040 km2. Water covers 26,330 km2. The land area is 199,170 km2. The area of

Karamoja is 27,200 km2.


23

c) The Water (Waste discharge) Regulations (1998); d) The Sewerage Regulations (1999); e) The Waste Management Regulations (1999); f) Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations (1998); g) National Environment (Standards for Discharge of Effluent into Water or on Land)

Regulations (1999); h) National Environment (Waste Management) Regulations (1999).

3.3.3 The National Water Policy, 1999 Uganda’s National Water Policy was published in 1999 by the then Ministry of Water, Land and the Environment. 34 The applicable legislation comprised the Water Statute (1995), the NEMA Statute (1995), and the National Water and Sewerage Corporation Statute (1995). The Water Statute was “the fundamental code from which all aspects of water resources management derive…” (National Water Policy, 1999, p.31).

3.3.4 Strategic Investment Plan, 2009 In 2009, the sub-sector plans were reviewed, updated and consolidated into one single document entitled the Strategic Investment Plan (SIP), with the aim to “ensure consistency and alignment to the current sector policy priorities and institutional set-up”.35 The Water and Sanitation SIP “sets out sector priorities and the respective investment requirements for achievement of the revised targets for water and sanitation”. This SIP is based on the targets and objectives of the proposed National Development Plan (NDP) and links to the national planning framework with 5-year and 10-year development plans and the Vision 2035 targets by providing investment estimates with target setting for the years 2015, 2020 and 2035. The Water for Production (WfP) sub-sector is defined as follows: “…WfP refers to development and utilisation of water resources for productive use in crop irrigation, livestock, aquaculture, rural industries, wildlife, recreation, hydropower generation, transport, commercial uses, and security. It is a shared responsibility between the MWE and other relevant line ministries. The MWE is responsible for “off-farm” activities whilst the MAAIF is responsible for “on-farm” activities in respect of irrigation, livestock and aquaculture, and Ministry of Trade, Tourism and Industries (MTTI) is responsible for in-house facilities for rural industries, wildlife, recreation...” (SIP, Section 5.1). Water Resources Management is a discrete sub-sector with the mandate to “…manage and develop the water resources of Uganda in an integrated and sustainable manner, so as to secure and provide water of adequate quantity and quality for all social and economic needs of the present and future generations and with the full participation of all stakeholders…” (SIP, Section 2.1.1, p.24). There are two specific mentions of Karamoja in this SIP: • The insecurity is noted, and it is stated: “…the Government also embarked on

implementation of large water for production schemes aimed at providing easily accessible water supply and thereby limit movement of people and livestock. Because the insecurity revolves around movement of people and their animals, limiting movement will have positive impact on security…” (SIP, p.33).

• In regard to “Allocation priorities”, Karamoja is mentioned thus: “...the plans for development of agriculture in the Karamoja area following the reduction in unrest in the area. The investments will be accompanied with well designed planning and capacity

34 Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment, Government of Uganda, A National Water Policy, 1999. 35 Ministry of Water and Environment, Government of Uganda, Strategic Investment Plan for the Water and

Sanitation Sub Sector, Final, July 2009.


24

building programmes for the affected districts and water users and integrated with catchment management activities in cooperation with the DWRM (Directorate of Water Resources Management)…” (SIP, Section 5.6.2, p.121).

The SIP listed the following “emerging issues and challenges” within the sub-sector “Water Resources Management” (SIP, Section 03, p.vi): • Limited capacity for water resources management and enforcement of regulations or

permit conditions; • Absence of national / regional or catchment level plans for water utilization; • Pressure due to climate change and climate variability, and catchment degradation; • Unregulated activities in catchments; • Limited water resources monitoring; • Inadequate dam safety management and regulatory framework; • Need for promoting effective and sustainable IWRM through water management zones; • Timely response to water related emergencies.

The SIP listed the following “emerging issues and challenges” within the sub-sector “Water Production” (SIP, Section 03, p.vi): • Lack of co-ordinated planning and link between water facilities and production; • Challenges related to user based operation and maintenance system; • Inadequate funding and increasing unit costs; • Low sustainability of installed infrastructure.

3.3.5 National Water Resources Assessment, 2011

Uganda lies within the western branch of the Great Rift Valley, and borders Lake Victoria, a huge inland water body whose riparian owners include Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda. Whereas Uganda is well endowed with rivers, lakes and wetlands, there is nonetheless a rainfall deficit in much of the country insofar as annual potential evapotranspiration is concerned, as follows:36 37 • Average rain deficit < 200 mm/yr in 20% of Uganda. • Average rain deficit = 200 to 400 mm/yr in 35% of Uganda. • Average rain deficit > 400 mm/yr in NE Uganda. Crop production in these marginal lands

requires special emphasis on water conservation and soil management techniques, as well as selection of drought resistant crops with low water foot-print. The National Water Resources Assessment concludes as follows: “…In general these areas are more suited as range lands…”

Crop water needs in the semi-arid lands are huge, a response to the hot, dry and windy climatic conditions prevailing. When these drylands descended into aridity 6,500 years ago, the predominant settled crop-based agriculture was replaced by nomadic pastoralism, and with good reason. This was an adaptive mechanism whose reasoning remains valid today, in spite of technological advances. Adequate good quality water is scarce, surface water storage systems suffer high evaporation losses, and the high evapotranspiration rates increase the risk of irreversible soil damage through salination. With evolving climate change, temperatures are rising, which means evaporative losses are also rising.

36 Cowi / DHI, National Water Resources Assessment, Draft Final Report prepared for Directorate of Water

Development, Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda, July 2011. 37 “Rainfall deficit” is the amount of supplementary water to be added to annual rainfall to meet the annual

potential evapotranspiration needs.


25

3.3.6 The National Water Policy amendment process, 2012

In March 2012, the process to review and amend the National Water Policy and Legislation (Laws and Regulations) commenced, and consultants were engaged.38 The overall objectives of the review were to identify gaps, redundancies, conflicts and inconsistencies, and propose amendments.

3.3.7 The draft Water (Amendment) Act, 2013 As part of the National Water Policy Review, the Water (Amendment) Act, 2013, was drafted, with the following aims: “…to provide for the Director of Water Resources Management, to provide for de-concentration of water resources management, to provide for dam safety and flood management, to regulate the use of ground water and the use of trans-boundary waters, to repeal the Rivers Act, Cap 357, and other connected matters.” The Water Act Section 8(1) states as follows: ”…No person shall extract water unless authorised”. The draft Water (Amendment) Act, 2013, allows rainwater harvesting without approval other than in a river or stream and allows abstraction of that water for domestic purposes without approval. The Water Resources Regulations state that Section 10 “Registrations etc.” is applicable to persons occupying land or adjacent to which there is a motorised pump, weir, dam, tank or other work capable of diverting or impounding an inflow of more than 400 cubic metres in any period of 24 hours. It has been suggested by one NGO that the legislation be extended to embrace the smaller abstractions including hand-pumped wells, as the groundwater table is falling in areas of Karamoja.25 The Consultant is inclined to agree, as smaller schemes proliferate, and one hand-pumped well visited by the Consultant was also being used to provide water for brick-making purposes, which is an industrial rather than domestic use. The legislation requires that motorised boreholes be registered, whereas in Karamoja, boreholes typically yield only about 3.5m3/hr. This falls far short of the legislation’s 400m3 in 24 hours limit, so it would make sense to register all wells and boreholes, irrespective of the abstraction method, and this might perhaps ensure higher standards of construction quality too.

3.3.8 Water and Environment Sector Performance Report, 2013

The Ministry of Water and Environment issues informative annual sector performance reports. In the final chapter of the 2013 report, MWE usefully reported on “key issues for sector dialogue”. The following general issues were amongst those reported: 39 • “…Following the OPM scam, the Ugandan Government refunded more than US$ 18

million to the affected Development Partners. DPs40 suspended funding to government of about US$ 260 million for 6 months…” (ibid., p.209).

• MWE plans a fully operational umbrella organisation (UO) in Karamoja by FY 2013/14, thereby achieving coverage of the whole country (ibid., p.iv).

• The main problem is the limited funding of these organisations (UOs) in relation to the O&M issues in the member schemes, and the high percentage (>50%) of schemes not collecting fees for water service provision in the eastern and northern regions of Uganda (ibid.).

• “…There is minimal technical backstopping and support supervision by the MWE to District Natural Resource Offices amidst emerging and new environment management challenges, as there are no clear reporting and feedback mechanisms between MWE and local government staff…” (ibid., p.211).

38 Ministry of Water and Environment, Presentation to Joint Technical Review of the Water and Environment

Sector, “Draft Amended National Water Policy, Laws and Regulations”, 18th April 2013. 39 Ministry of Water and Environment, Water and Environment Sector Performance Report 2013, October 2013. 40 DP = Development Partner


26

• In regard to MDG 7B, “…the number of approved EIAs is steadily declining and there is general non-compliance and resulting environmental degradation with impunity by the affluent and powerful people in society…” (ibid.).

• In regard to “safe access to water”, “…national targets for water and sanitation will definitely not be met, and more specifically because the present funds allocated for rural water can only be used to cope up with the annual population growth…” (ibid., p.212).

• “…only 35% of the Uganda population has access to improved sanitation”, and Uganda can only meet the MDG target on sanitation after the year 2100…” (ibid., p.212).

• “…The funding available every year for water for production is very small compared to the demand for livestock and irrigation…Currently, funds from the Office of the Prime Minister and from MAAIF are being used to supplement the sub-sector needs, but more is needed…” (ibid., p.214).

• “…The increased frequency of flooding events in the country necessitates the upgrading of the surface water monitoring network. Damaged gauging stations need to be repaired, while the non-gauged rivers have crest gauges installed for recording flood levels; in addition, real-time observation and relaying of river flow data is to be introduced…” (ibid., p.214).

• “…A specific Wetland Law needs to be drafted…” (ibid., p.215). • “…Constrained human and financial resources for forestry services constrain surveillance

thus facilitating escalation of illegal activities resulting in forest degradation…” (ibid.,p.215).

• The Meteorology Department is in the process of transforming into a Meteorological Authority. A 15-year development plan on modernisation of meteorological services, and the Uganda National Meteorological Authority Act 2012 were prepared in the previous financial year, and now needs to be implemented…” (ibid., p.215).

3.4 Crop agriculture sector policy environment

3.4.1 Karamoja Action Plan for Food Security, 2009

The Government of Uganda’s official policy on pastoralism is still being drafted.41 In 2009 a 5-year food security programme costing US$ 40 million was unveiled for Karamoja.42 27 A report to FAO / ECHO analysed the budget breakdown and noted that half the budget was targeted at crop agriculture in the form of farm implements, tractors, farm inputs, settlements, windmill / solar driven irrigation schemes from major dams, and small scale irrigation from boreholes.27 It was noted that “95% of the budget goes to ‘settling’ semi-nomadic people”, with a tiny budget allocated to livestock support.27 It was concluded: “the programme clearly reveals how unfavourable Government policy is towards pastoralism”.27 Contrary to the budget allocations which provided very little support for the livestock sector, the FAO / ECHO report provided “very clear evidence for the economic viability of pastoralism, for its comparative advantage over crop farming in Karamoja and for its drought resilience as a livelihood system”.27

3.4.2 National Development Plan, 2010 The National Development Plan (dated 2010) states that the policy environment for the agriculture sector “…has in the last eight years been shaped by the Plan for Modernization of Agriculture (PMA) which is a multi-sectoral policy framework for agriculture and rural development...” 32 This multi-sectoral approach was designed to provide the breadth that agriculture needs to move forward.

41 National Policy for Rangeland Management and Pastoralism (being drafted). 42 Office of the Prime Minister, Government of Uganda, Karamoja Action Plan for Food Security (2009-2014),

March 2009.


27

3.4.3 National Irrigation Master Plan and the Framework Master Plan, 2011 The National Irrigation Master Plan (dated 2011) was targeted at preparing “a Framework Master Plan for a re-invigorated, expanded and upgraded irrigation sub-sector in Uganda”.43

The Framework Master Plan (FMP) cited four “drivers of irrigation development in Uganda”: (1) The National Development Plan (NDP), whose Vision presented above calls for “a

transformed Uganda society from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country within 30 years”. 43 Irrigation development will enable “traditional farmers” (those practising subsistence cropping) to become “emerging farmers” (those practising farming systems that combine subsistence and commercial cropping).

(2) The second “driver” of irrigation development is climate change as “irrigation mitigates against decreased or intensified precipitation, while appurtenant drainage structures mitigate against increased flooding”.

(3) The third “driver” is finding new markets, and (4) The final “driver” is major international investment. The FMP aims not only to expand the area under irrigation, but also to shift from simple surface irrigation to more precise irrigation systems, sprinkler and drip irrigation systems being named.43 To legitimise the FMP at policy level, a Draft Irrigation Policy with the same objectives as the FMP has been articulated.43 Uganda’s arable land area is 4,400,000 hectares. The proportion under irrigation is very small. Only 14,420 hectares is “equipped for formal irrigation and with another 53,000 hectares or so of managed wetlands”.43 The countrywide irrigation potential has over the years been variously assessed. In the 1960s, the potential area was assessed to be 170,000 hectares, whereas today’s FMP talks of up to 560,000 hectares. It is interesting to note the following cautionary note in the FMP: “…it is helpful to understand that any reduction in dependency on rainfed agriculture accruing to a reinvigorated and expanded irrigation sector is likely to be small in relation to gains known to be possible in the rainfed sector…” (p.20). The FMP further states: “…there are many options for increasing rainfed productivity...” (p.21), but these are not addressed in the FMP. There are four stages to the implementation of the FMP. The immediate phase from 2011-2012 is one of “capacity building and studies”, including feasibility studies of existing Government schemes, and scoping studies for new smallholder and bulk service schemes.43 Areas with irrigation potential are tabulated in the FMP along with wetland areas that could be sustainably developed – results for Karamoja area have been abstracted in Table 4 and Table 5, and a potential total of about 60,000 hectares has been identified. The “Type A” land figures are interesting, as during the short visit, the Consultant did not encounter such examples. Type A is defined in the FMP as land close to adequate surface water resources and not needing storage provision. The FMP concluded that: “implementation of the FMP is highly affordable in terms of water availability, although trans-seasonal storage may be necessary at specific locations”. The FMP could include mention bulk water transfers from wet to water deficient areas, but such schemes are very costly to contemplate. An “internal water audit” from the FMP is reproduced in Table 6. The water audit indicated that the available water exceeds the “total crop water demand” by large margins.

43 A National Irrigation Master Plan For Uganda (2010-2035), Final Report, PEM Consult, November 2011.


28

Note that recent ACF studies in the Okok sub-catchment of Karamoja calculated that the water demand exceeds water availability, which is the opposite of the expectation raised by the FMP. This is because the ACF studies computed the supplementary water requirements for the existing rainfed cultivation areas, whereas the FMP is looking at opening new land areas for irrigation, and these are largely within wetlands. Thus, there is an immediate conflict in prospect as the wetland areas are important grazing lands, and this is in addition to the important ecosystem service function they provide. The value of wetlands to the nation has been flagged in 2013 Water and Environment Sector Review Report, which stated “…A specific Wetland Law needs to be drafted…”.39

Table 4: Land areas in Karamoja with irrigation potential District 1 Irrigation potential area (hectares) Type A land 2 Type B land 3 Kaabong 2,517 1,016 Kotido 3,764 1,314 Moroto 1,600 1,745 Nakapiripirit 1,972 761 Abim 1,317 1,136 Totals 11,170 5,972

Notes: 1. Napak and Amudat are not listed in the FMP tabulation. 2. “Type A land” lies close surface water resources and storage is not required. 3. “Type B land” is not close to surface water resources and requires storage / conveyance. Table 5: Wetland areas that could be developed District 1 Area (hectares) 2 Permanent Seasonal Kaabong 0 2,306 Kotido 98 3,519 Moroto 0 27,492 Nakapiripirit 693 14,084 Abim 0 2,383 Totals 791 49,784

Notes: 1. Napak and Amudat are not listed in FMP tabulation. 2. Computed on the basis that 25% of wetland areas can be developed on a sustainable basis. Table 6: Water Audit for Karamoja District 1 Catchment Surface

Water 2

MCM/yr

Ground Water

MCM/yr

Run-off

MCM/yr

Crop Water

Demand MCM/yr

Kaabong 3 Aswa (50%) - 27 205 0.67 Kaabong 3 L.Kyoga (50%) - 27 205 0.67 Kotido 3 Aswa (50%) - 36 678 1.76 Kotido 3 L.Kyoga (50%) - 36 678 1.76 Moroto L.Kyoga 2,387 34 313 10.43 Nakapiripirit L.Kyoga 1,512 26 675 13.03 Abim L.Kyoga - 54 270 2.74

Notes: 1. Napak and Amudat are not listed in FMP tabulation. 2. “Surface water” relates to lake / wetland resources. 3. The District spans the two catchments in equal proportions.


29

3.5 IGAD – Uganda Country Programming Paper

In September 2011, the Heads of State and government of IGAD together with international development partners convened a summit in Nairobi to discuss the drought crisis. Member states agreed to implement the decision to end drought emergencies through sustainable development. 44 The IGAD Secretariat led a consultative process in the development of the IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative (IDDRSI) to guide the process of ending drought emergencies in the region. Informed by the IGAD Drought Disaster Resilience and Sustainability Initiative, each member state would develop their Country Programming Paper (CPP), a 15-year strategy indentifying priority areas for intervention to undertake at both national and the regional level. The Country Programming Paper would also serve as a planning, coordination and resource mobilisation tool for projects and investments required to contribute to ending drought emergencies. The IDDRSI Country Programming Paper for Uganda is developed within the context of the Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme framework and is aligned to the National Development Plan and relevant Sector Strategies and Investment Plans. The Country Programming Paper thus builds on existing initiatives. The vision is described as comprehensive but the financial basis challenging.7

44 Uganda Country Programming Paper to End Drought Emergencies in the Horn Of Africa, Final Draft, March

2013.


30

4 FINDINGS FROM LITERATURE, KEY INFORMANT

INTERVIEWS, AND CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF TECHNOLOGIES

4.1 Policy

The Uganda Government has produced some excellent policy documents, and there is an ongoing process of improving these. However, notwithstanding policy, where there is community disagreement with the Government intentions, implementation is bound to falter. The Government policies are intent on settling the people of Karamoja,27 and it is believed that the introduction of crop agriculture will contribute to achieving food security. There is resistance to this policy. For instance, the introduction of “manyatta gardens” has been ridiculed in the media.26 Government policies have ambitious targets, and these in turn require considerable investment in infrastructure and capacity development. This is an ongoing challenge, and mobilising adequate capacity is an especial challenge insofar as resourcing government positions in more remote and impoverished areas like Karamoja. Many Government posts were reported to be unfilled in this region. This is a common challenge throughout the world, as the urban centres are perceived as providing more attractive opportunities. The capacity challenges are mentioned in the MWE’s 2013 Water and Environment Sector Report. The regional plans envisaged by the national policy are urgently needed. In the case of Karamoja, reliable water is crucial to food security, and a regional water resources development master plan is needed above all else. Otherwise, the water sector interventions will continue in a haphazard and reactive fashion, and this will continue to frustrate and impoverish people. There is also need to consider extending legislation to all abstraction schemes. This will help ensure water resource monitoring, and will help achieve better quality of construction through ensuring approved designs are adopted. And finally, an effective EIA process is essential.

4.2 Karamoja climate and livelihoods

Karamoja is a semi-arid area with limited water resources, and the global climate is warming, which will increase evapotranspiration rates, and will thence increase the supplementary water needed to sustain crops. The arid and semi-arid lands of the Horn of Africa have been proved best suited to pastoral and agro-pastoral systems, yet these systems are widely dismissed by policy makers as backward. It is not sufficiently recognised that the “backwardness” is actually a remarkable human adaptation to the harsh and unattractive climatic conditions, and that the disinterest and lack of investment in these dry areas by regional governments has done nothing to help. Priority was always given to the more fertile higher rainfall zones that support reliable rainfed crop agriculture. The high rainfall areas are now increasingly over-populated, so attention is shifting to the drylands. It is often simplistically assumed that the semi-arid rangelands are “unutilised” and should instead be converted to crop fields. Pastoralists object, but their voice is weak, yet perhaps they do know best? The semi-arid lands also harbour valuable mineral and oil resources, and this is attracting unwelcome attention from outsiders whose interests are in commercial exploitation of those resources, and not necessarily the wellbeing of the local people. The semi-arid lands have long been “sustained” by external support mechanisms in aid, and the population has burgeoned far beyond the capacity of traditional livelihoods. It has been


31

said in neighbouring Kenya that food aid has become “an institutionalised drought coping mechanism”. It is a disastrous situation, and there is no easy way out. Karamoja has been “tampered with” for many years, dating back to colonial times, and this process continues today. The Consultant was taken to Karamoja to meet people working in the area, and to inspect some selected recent interventions in water supply and crop agriculture. The visit was too short, and whereas the Consultant could not fault the enthusiasm of people working in Karamoja, the quality of the interventions and lack of local commitment were very discouraging indicators. The Consultant was unable to pinpoint an overall plan for the area that quantifies the food needs of the area, and which clearly shows how the various proposed policy interventions will meet the people’s needs, and the visit confirmed that there is no water resources management plan with which to guide interventions in Karamoja. The French NGO ACF teamed with IUCN and KCL is to be highly commended for having correctly recognised this need, and for having initiated the development of a water resources management plan in the Okok sub-catchment. Without such a plan for Karamoja, the many water-related interventions are haphazard and potentially do more harm than good.

4.3 Interventions – An impression of the Technologies

The proliferation of NGO and UN agencies in Moroto clearly sets the tone for the “endangered” status of the Karamoja area. The water, crop and catchment management interventions that were shown to the Consultant were disappointing. Although recently commissioned, the majority of water supply interventions seen had been poorly designed and constructed and had already been rendered inoperable. Two rock catchments with hand-pumps were visited, and both had already been abandoned, and the rock catchment’s water outlet filter arrangements were far too restrictive. One sand river dam with hand pump was visited and the pump had been vandalised with most of the nuts and bolts “taken for an ox-cart”. An abandoned windpump water project was seen nearby from a much earlier intervention. The lack of commitment or initiative of this particular community to rectify the missing bolts clearly shows that the community mobilisation process had not been successful. The responsible NGO was equally concerned, but the project had no financial provision for maintenance follow-up, something that should always be an integral part of any physical intervention. This was the fault of the project, and several NGOs bemoaned the restricted timescale within which they had been forced to work. A manyatta was not visited, so the Consultant was not shown an example of a “manyatta garden”. However, where there is adequate water provision close by, any food production diversification is a good idea. These gardens are close to the manyattas, which is convenient for the women, but it is important to dispel any perception that the gardens are to displace the all-important livestock (and also thereby diminish the role of men). The gardens attract pests. Rodent nuisance was noted in discussions, and disease transmission is a risk. Physical means of discouraging rodent access were reported being encouraged through innovative fencing. Poisoning was reported not be an option as the people harvest the rodents for food. Three community drip irrigation projects were visited (see Photo 5). In each case, there was hardly a single community member to be seen attending the crops. One community said the scheme was too far from the village. The location of such schemes is dictated by the source of gravity fed water that these schemes need to function. Meanwhile, aphids were devastating the cabbages, and pools of water were stagnating due to poorly drained irrigation ditches (see the second image in Photo 5). The community was unaware of the insect infestation, presumably due to a lack of awareness through extension services. This community will rapidly become disillusioned. The aphid infestation was spotted by a passing official from the Ministry of Water and Environment from Kampala, who jointly visited the scheme with the DCA visitors. The drip irrigation technology requires filtered water and maintenance, and the adopted plastic water supply infrastructure is unfortunately very vulnerable to bush fires, which happen every


32

year in Karamoja as part of local range management practices. The plastic lining of water reservoirs, the plastic pipes, and the plastic storage tanks are all readily destroyed by fire. Two examples were seen by the Consultant in one day, and are illustrated in Photo 4. The drip irrigation pipes are easily physically damaged through trampling, and the drip orifices readily clog with salts deposited through the characteristic high evaporation rates. People were reported resorting to unclogging the drip orifices through rudimentary methods that permanently enlarge the drip orifices, and thereby upset the water distribution. One NGO talked of numerous drip kits being provided without any thought for the necessary water supply provision (traditional thatched roofs are not well suited to rainwater harvesting). On one irrigation scheme, the water is supplied to huge plastic water tanks positioned on elevated steel platforms, which are sinking into the ground due to the insufficiency of foundations for the steel columns. The water inlet pipes to the tanks are meanwhile buckling as the tank foundations sink. The pipes will eventually fracture, and will disrupt water supply which will in turn cause local flooding, erosion and crop damage – see Photo 4. Two valley tanks were visited, and these are sensible and simple technologies, being a development of traditional waterholes formed in natural depressions. Periodic de-silting is required, and the process is labour intensive, but this is readily achievable by motivated communities. However, in the one example seen by the Consultant, the community is not moving the silt far enough away, and it may instead wash back into the basin. Hand-pumped wells proliferate, and whereas the technology is well established, it is a pity that the pumphead fixing bolts are so easy to pilfer. The pump stand designs are standard looking, and have the usual challenge of achieving effective drainage of the areas surrounding the pump stands. The facilities include a drain to convey water into livestock troughs. The quality of construction was generally poor, a common problem. One sand river dam was seen, and this is a non-intrusive and sensible intervention. Sand river dams have long been adopted in dry parts of Kenya with Basement System geology. Whereas impoundment dams are vulnerable to storage loss through sedimentation, sand river dams exploit the sediments as a storage medium, although the water storage volume is diminished compared to an open reservoir, and depends on the porosity. Sand river dams do not present open water surfaces that evaporate water, and hence are very appropriate in drylands. However, they are limited to areas with suitable geology that provides deep, sandy and mobile riverbeds replenished through floods. Two valley dams were visited at Arechet and Longoromit, and these were currently in good condition, and were probably constructed by a higher calibre civil engineering contractor. The Consultant would be interested to see the designs including the hydrology, water demand, and environmental impact assessment for these dams. The surface area / volume ratios of the impounding reservoirs are very high, which means the annual evaporation losses will be considerable. The reservoirs will accumulate sediment, and this can restrict the lifetime of the impounding reservoirs. The Environmental Management Plans for these interventions will be useful to see. The Consultant was shown two micro-catchments projects. The principles of land management and erosion control cannot be faulted, but the Consultant was struck by the small scale of the interventions, and would be interested to know the basis for the adoption of the Cassia tree species in the micro-catchment woodlot that was visited. The DCA team visited Kangole Girls Boarding School whose woodlot was growing prolifically with self-seeded local tree varieties. The Head Teacher referred to one Acacia looking tree in the school compound as a “magic tree” on account of its rapid growth rate. The Consultant was interested to note that although sanitation is a consideration to be associated with every water-related intervention, this was not a topic that was brought up during the field visit.


33

4.4 Rangeland management that embraces wildlife

Although the Consultant’s time in the field was necessarily restricted, this did include travel from Moroto to Namalu in the south, and as far as Kaabong to the north, passing Kotido on the way. The Consultant was struck by the contrasting land conditions in the areas visited. Some splendid savannah woodlands were seen north of Namalu, and some well-bushed zones in other areas, and in contrast, there were savannas degraded through cultivation and charcoal production. Very little wildlife was expected outside of the national park, so it was a pleasant surprise to see a family herd of Greater Kudu in woodland not far from Namalu. Elsewhere, the only wildlife encountered was sparse, and comprised one or two pairs of Dik Dik gazelle, two small groups of Patas monkeys, one group of baboons, and two jackal. The Consultant was interested that Karamoja was once almost entirely a “protected” area, and that the protected areas have been progressively de-gazetted in response to population pressure. Of course, this is a process that is restoring ancestral land rights. The Consultant was struck that people in Karamoja are not familiar with the successful community-driven models of integrated rangeland management being successfully applied in neighbouring Kenya. These have developed because over 80% of Kenya comprises either arid or semi-arid rangelands utilised by pastoralist and wildlife, and these areas are also under pressure. Whereas Uganda is generally blessed with abundant water, Karamoja is exceptional and has much in common with the drylands in neighbouring Kenya. Pastoral communities in Kenya are pooling land resources, as they have recognised that land fragmentation is undermining effective functioning of their pastoral ecosystems. In Kenya, wildlife is a national asset long protected by the state, and under new legislation, wildlife is instead being generally vested in the communities that host the wildlife. Wildlife is a marketable asset that should be nurtured and developed, and not destroyed. It has long been recognised that the majority of Kenya’s wildlife is found outside the national parks, and that the national parks cannot be sustained as protected islands of diversity divorced from the surrounding habitats. The buffer community areas play a crucial role in sustaining the wildlife ecology through allowing essential animal mobility. Integrated ecosystem developments are far more likely to survive, and many pastoral communities are developing wildlife-based ecotourism alongside their traditional livestock livelihoods. People and livestock need not be excluded from protected areas. The two can be mutually beneficial, and livestock / wildlife conflicts can be managed through disciplined traditional herding and secure bomas. Even human crop production / wildlife conflicts are being effectively managed. A very good regional example is the Aberdare Conservation Area in Kenya, which is today encircled by over 400 kilometres of electrified game fence.45 This is the longest game fence in Africa, and one can see large wild herbivores like elephant on one side of the fence, whilst smallholder farmers successfully grow maize the other side. In fact, the restoration of large wild herbivores is actively encouraged in some of Kenya’s rangelands, as these animals provide an effective bush clearance service that contributes to the preservation of grasslands. The Consultant would like to emphasise that the above suggestions relate to community driven initiatives that integrate community-owned rangelands. It is not being suggested that lands be consolidated and handed to private individuals, as such initiatives invariably exclude communities from their traditional lands, and lead to conflict and impoverishment. The Consultant is envisaging an environment where community ownership is secured, and that land consolidation is achieved through community agreements responsive to the needs of the pastoral livelihoods, and that wildlife might be integrated within this, and crop production also, as appropriate. Livestock and wildlife have the common need for large rangelands within which to roam. In Kenya this is being achieved by Group Ranches agreeing to work together to share their lands to form a greater ecosystem that seeks to reverse the problems being

45 See www.rhinoark.org, the website of Kenya’s Rhino Ark Charitable Trust.


34

created through fragmentation through unmanaged individual land tenure. It involves re-opening game and livestock movement corridors that have been closed off, especially linking into national parks and protected areas. It also means looking into trans-boundary movement corridors that have been interrupted by inappropriately located international borders. It is not an easy goal to achieve, but it is worth considering. Wildlife management is a challenge and an opportunity, and perhaps the first important task lies in redressing historical land injustices and benefit sharing, and this is now possible thanks to the recently gazetted National Land Policy.46 Communities became alienated from wildlife through their ancestral lands being annexed by national governments for “conservation” purposes. Communities were thereby prevented from pursuing traditional livelihoods within national parks, and wildlife poaching is an escalating problem throughout Africa. A first step is to vest ownership of wildlife instead in the communities, as is now happening in Kenya. If there is direct financial benefit in preserving wildlife, the communities will cherish and protect that resource as they do livestock. “…In August 2013, the Government of Uganda gazetted the National Land Policy after having initiated the process over three decades ago”.46 With the passing of the above policy, now is an opportune time to cater for customary and communal land titling.47

46 Baumgartner, Lisa, Uganda’s National Land Policy: What it means for pastoral areas, policy brief prepared for

REGLAP, January 2014. 47 Personal Communication, Lisa Baumgartner, February 2014.


35

5 CONCLUSIONS

Karamoja’s population is escalating with the majority living below the poverty line, and with low levels of literacy persisting. This is similarly happening to communities throughout the band of arid and semi-arid lands into the Horn of Africa. This band extends from Uganda’s cattle corridor into Karamoja, and beyond through northern Kenya and southern Ethiopia, into Somalia, thereby linking Karamoja with the “Horn of Africa”. A very large population is affected, perhaps 13 million people living within an area 1.35 million square kilometres, at a population density <16/km2, and including an estimated 4.4 million poor livestock keepers (World Bank definition: ‘rural poverty’ = < 1US$/day).7 External interventions in the form of food aid are now permanent, albeit for a smaller proportion of the population in Karamoja. These interventions are unsustainable, and they have diluted Government responsibility, and have undermined traditional livelihood markets, and need to be more carefully managed in the future, ideally phased being out altogether. The drylands are typically marginalised and are less densely populated due to the naturally harsh climate, a factor beyond local control. The drylands have been marginalised due to government disinterest, or incapacity, and the marginalisation has been manifested through inadequate Government investment in either infrastructure or education. There are visible efforts to improve roads infrastructure, throughout the East African region, and these are largely motivated by security needs and economic opportunities arising locally and regionally. These opportunities include the need to improve international trade links, and to improve access to mineral, oil and other resources in these areas. The new roads will also provide much-needed links to potential markets, and this will add economic value to products in these remote areas, and will provide access and outlets for the predominant livestock, wildlife and other natural resources that feature in the drylands. Hence, interventions that support sustainable infrastructure development are to be encouraged, and these should be accompanied by investment in inputs and outputs that enhance the market value of traditional livelihood products. Land tenure in the semi-arid lands is contentious and largely remains vested in national governments. Karamoja is no exception. Customary land ownership rights are however recognised, but they are not yet legally effected, and disputes are inevitable. It is a tortuous and difficult process. Meanwhile the communities depend on the goodwill of government, which cannot always be relied upon, and their lands remain vulnerable to land speculators and predators intent on exploiting the region’s valuable natural resources. Hence interventions that support the resolution of land rights and legal ownership are to be encouraged, as cementing ownership will hopefully result in committed land stewardship. The recently gazetted National Land Policy is a step towards achieving this. Education is key to the development future of the drylands, and any interventions that accelerate this process are to be encouraged. Education also develops a Diaspora with capacity to support and invest back into the homelands. It takes time though. The poor literacy levels in Karamoja are unacceptable, by any standards, and are far below national levels. Poor literacy means the communities are unable to effectively articulate and promote their own needs, and they remain vulnerable, being unable to compete on equal terms either within the national economy, or internationally. The low education levels and insecurity limit mobility and tend to result in mushrooming population levels that cannot be supported by traditional livelihoods. The regional insecurity and proliferation of weapons is also unacceptable, and this remains a challenge high on the regional and international agenda. Although the disarming of the Karimojong, and the intervention of the Ugandan military to guard Karimojong livestock, has “settled” Karamoja, it is unsustainable and has created yet another form of dependence that has undermined the local leadership and role of men within their communities. Unfortunately, military protection cannot easily be withdrawn as long as weapons proliferate in neighbouring


36

countries, and Karamoja immediately borders two countries, Kenya and South Sudan. Whereas there have been attempts to disarm warriors in neighbouring Kenya, the attempts are being resisted because the security forces have not shown capacity to contain livestock rustling. The recent civil unrest in South Sudan is adding to difficulties. Thus, the Karamoja area is vulnerable to the consequences of international conflict and terrorism. The promotion of new irrigated crop agriculture initiatives to Karamoja should recognise the unique challenges of the drylands, in so many respects, and should first build on traditional knowledge, and reinforce existing systems. Agricultural research has in the past focussed on humid zones that enjoy much higher rainfall. These humid farmlands are also becoming increasingly fragmented through sub-division, and there is need to set optimal farm sizes, and if possible consolidate.28 If crop agricultural production is to be seriously contemplated in the drylands, it must be supported by appropriate research before raising expectations, and this is an ongoing process that requires long-term investment commitment, and cannot depend on the sporadic inputs characteristic of the NGO sector. It will also require the government to prioritise meeting its staffing capacity expectations in Karamoja. Based on documents seen by the Consultant, there is no technical basis in favour of large-scale irrigated crop production in Karamoja, and this should certainly not be at the expense of the livestock sector which is far better suited to the area. Whereas national statistics show food crop agriculture contributing far more to agricultural GDP than livestock, the statistics undervalue the livestock contribution, and it would be unwise to extend the high crop agriculture expectation to Karamoja where climate is in stark contrast to the rest of Uganda. There is nothing wrong with seeking diversity of food production, but the traditional sub-sectors should not be neglected further in the process as they have a much more important role to play than is reflected by statistics.2 Great care must also be taken with alien species introductions. Where exotic species are introduced, this should be based on sound knowledge. As an example, the Consultant has in mind the example of Prosopis juliflora, an exotic plant introduced into the Afar Region of Ethiopia many years ago, and later by a well-intentioned NGO to “green the deserts” of Turkana, and which is today fast encroaching through Kenya’s semi-arid pastures, thereby rendering them less and less accessible to livestock.18

Interventions in the water sector in Karamoja have mixed success records. In the drylands in particular, there is usually no hydrological data, and such data is hard and costly to collect. Where data is lacking, interventions can prove haphazard, and the consequences unpredictable and unknown. There is often insufficient follow-up provision to monitor water sources, in order to assess impacts on water quality and quantity. Without this, there is no way to ensure appropriate mitigation measures. Uganda’s legislation is comprehensive and includes the necessary provisions for management of water. Similar legislation exists in neighbouring countries, and a common challenge is the achievement of capacity for consistent competent and persistent monitoring and enforcement. Regional water development plans are specified in Uganda’s national planning documentation, and such planning is amongst the cornerstones for sustainable water sector development. These plans will quantify the distribution of water resources in relation to the natural resources from which they derive, and will take account of climate consequences. The development plans should thereby provide a basis for sustainable water exploitation that is regulated through competent licensing. This development planning process is ongoing, and requires sustained investment in data collection, principally hydrological, hydrogeological and climate data. The commendable ECHO-funded ACF/IUCN/KCL studies in the Okok sub-catchment of Karamoja should be given momentum by government, and should be extended throughout Karamoja, and water and natural resource monitoring should become a permanent feature of catchment management, as intended in the legislation. The hydrometeorological data collection systems became totally neglected in recent years, and generally in East Africa since the 1980s, as governments attached little value to the data. In Uganda, data collection was also disrupted by war, with hydrological records looted during


37

the Amin era and being used in market places to fabricate containers for the sale of peanuts.48 Data collection has been restored in recent years, but semi-arid lands are always the last to be considered. The exciting remote sensing technologies being developed today provide many new opportunities to streamline natural resource monitoring. A regional water development master plan for Karamoja is a top priority, and to achieve this, government capacity needs to be supported, as indicated in the 2013 Water and Environment Sector Status Report.39 This water master planning must be supported by the necessary crop studies that define the potential for irrigated crop production based on soil, topographical, climate and water availability considerations, and which evaluate the costs and benefits, and which compares these with alternative land uses. Such studies should form the platform for irrigated crop production and other interventions, and would include the new wetland policy and would take into account the importance of current wetland utilisation by pastoralists. Engineered water interventions must be based on competent proven designs, with minimal operation and maintenance needs, requiring minimal energy consumption, and should be undesirable or difficult to vandalise, or be adequately secured. The designs should optimise on the use of local materials, and should fulfil all legal requirements in terms of approvals, and environmental and social impacts. The designs seen by the Consultant in Karamoja suggest there would be benefit taking into account lessons learned in neighbouring countries that have decades of experience in similar technologies.

48 Sub-Saharan Hydrological Assessment (Group 1 Countries), Final Report, Uganda, 1989, prepared by Sir

Alexander Gibb & Partners in association with British Geological Survey and Institute of Hydrology for the World Bank – UNDP. The DCA Consultant was the hydrologist who undertook the above study, and prepared a hydrological yearbook for Uganda.


38

Drip feed tank (note salt staining) Water reservoir plastic lining melted by fire

Plastic pipe scorched by bush fire Pipeline buckled by bush fire

Hand-pump missing key bolts (note hand-pump head separating from pump body)

Buckling feed pipes due Collapsed concrete foundation to hand-pump to sinking column foundations

Photo 4: Problems with various recent water supply interventions !Sean Avery Photo Archive


39

Source of Water: Mount Moroto (scheme located near Nadiket)

Source of Water: Gravity feed from nearby Arechet Dam (in background, beyond)

Source of water: Gravity feed from nearby Longoromit Dam, Kaabong

Photo 5: Drip irrigation projects



41

ANNEXES

Annex 1: List of Key Informants

Kampala / Entebbe:

Dr Kennedy N. Ibokwe, Project Manager – Climate Change Adaptation, FAO Representation in Uganda, Kampala Office.

Wosenu Asfaw, FAO Office, Kampala.

Mr. Abaho Joshua, Senior Assistant Secretary / Personal Assistant to the Minister for Karamoja, Office of the Prime Minister, Kampala, Uganda.

Mr Johnson Owaro, Coordinator Food Security Programmes, Office of the Prime Minister, Kampala, Uganda.

Eng John M.V. Twinomujuni, Assistant Commissioner, Directorate of Water Development, Ministry of Water and Environment, Kampala, Uganda.

Eng. Kizito Henry Lwaguga, Principal Engineer, Water for Production, Ministry for Water and Environment, Kampala, Uganda.

Mr. Zakayo Muyaka, Principal Agricultural Officer, Soil and Water Conservation, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industries and Fisheries, Entebbe, Uganda. Karamoja:

Eng. Patrick Okotel, Senior Engineer, Ministry of Water and Environment, Kampala (jointly visited Arechet dam).

Ms Sila Karungi, Sociologist, Directorate of Water Development, Department for Water Production, Kampala (jointly visited Arechet dam).

Mr. Jimmy Ochien, Programme Co-ordinator, Karamoja Livelihoods Programme, Office of the Prime Minister, Moroto.

Mr. Tom Ahimbisibwe, Head of Office – WFP Moroto, United Nations World Food Programme, Uganda Country Office.

Mr. Thomas Ameny, Programme Officer – Land and Water Management (Head of Moroto Office), FAO Uganda.

Mr. Federico Soranzo, Institute for International Cooperation and Development (C&D), Moroto.

Ms Zuzana Filipova, Institute for International Cooperation and Development (C&D), Moroto.

Sister Angellina, Kangole Girls Day and Boarding School.

Mr. Charles Wando, Director of Programs and Operations, ASB Uganda.

Mr. Joao Martins, Head of Region – Karamoja, ACF (Action Contre Faim).

Mr. Ang’ella Ernest Lokong, Programme Manager, Disaster Risk Management, ACF.

Mr. Alastair Taylor, Technical Advisor, Karamoja Livelihoods Programme, Office of the Prime Minister, Moroto.

DCA Staff:

Caroline Sekweya, DCA Programme Co-ordinator and Acting Regional Representative. Lisa Baumgartner, DCA Kampala Office, Consortium Coordinator for Drought Preparedness in Karamoja, Uganda Country Lead for REGLAP. Jasper Okello, DCA Programme Officer, Kampala Office. Benedict Lokiru and Benken Aleper, both from the DCA Moroto Office.

water development and irrigation in · pdf filedca water & irrigation review for karamoja...

Documents