UGANDA COUNTRY REPORT

G-77/PGTF PROJECT ON SUSTAINABLE RAINWATER HARVESTING AND

GROUND WATER RECHARGE IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES – HRD AND
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

River Kagera in Uganda filled with silt after

Prepared by: rainfall

Water Governance Institute (WGI)

National Coordinator of the G-77/PGTF Project

On Sustainable Rainwater Harvesting and Ground

Water Recharge in Developing Countries-HRD

And Technology Transfer

P. O. Box 23704 Kampala, Uganda

Email: watergovinst@gmail.com

2009
Page 1 of 49
 CHAPTER – I: SURVEY AND SITUATIONS
1.1: Country Profile
1.1.1. General Information
Uganda is a land locked country with Kenya to the east, Sudan to the north, Democratic
Republic of Congo (former Zaire) to the west, Tanzania to the south and Rwanda to the
south-western borders (Map 1).

Map 1: Topography Map of Uganda

Uganda occupies an area of 241,038 km2 of which 43,941 km2 is open water and swamps and
197,097km2, is land. It is located 1.00N and 32.0E. It is traversed by the Equator. The altitude

Page 2 of 49
of the country ranges between 620m.a.s.l (Lake Albert Nile) to 5,111m.a.s.l (Mt. Rwenzori
peak)1.

1.1.2. Demographic Characteristics

The country currently has population of about 32.4 million people (CIA: The World Fact
Book, 2009) and a growth rate of about 2.7% per annum (UBOS, 2002)2. The country has a
diversity of ethnic groups (Table 1) with varying languages, cultures and traditions (Kurian,
1992; Byrnes, 1992). The tribes of Uganda are classified in five major language groups;
Bantu, Nilotics, Madi - Muro, Highland Nilotics and Nilo - Hermits. The country is one with
many languages, but one people. The Bantu constitute the largest proportion (56%) of the
population. The different cultures and traditions have a bearing on the way people behave
towards social, political and environmental changes. This is further influenced by the climatic
and vegetation characteristics in which these ethnic groups (tribes) are commonly found to
live in the country. The traditional distribution of these ethnic groups in the country is
presented in Map 2 below. Other ethnic (tribal) groups in the country include Nubians from
the Nuba Mount in Sudan and Asians.

Table 1: Major Ethnic Groups of Uganda

GROUP % GROUP %
Baganda 16.7 Bagisu 5.1
Iteso 8.1 Acholi 4.4
Basoga 7.7 Lugbara 3.6
Banyankore 8.0 Banyoro 2.9
Banyaruanda 5.8 Batoro 3.2
Bakiga 7.1 Karamojong 2.0
Lango 5.6 Others (est.) 20.3

Sex ratio
At birth the sex ratio (male: female) is 1.03, implying that there usually more female at birth.
This ratio gradually narrows through 1.01 for the 15-64 age group and finally settles at 0.71
the 64 and above age group. This suggests that as the young population grows from birth,
more females die before the age of 64, probably because of antenatal and postnatal related
deaths. After 64 years, more male die-off, because of the more risks they suffer.

Age Structure
The young (0-14 age group) constitute 50% of the population. While the 15-64 age group
comprise 47.9% and those 64 and above consist 2.1% of the population. The older age groups
are generally fewer than the younger generation, which is in-line with a healthily growing
population.
1
. Margherita Peak on Mount Stanley of the Rwenzori Range.
2
. Other reports (e.g. CIA The World fact book, 2009) suggest a population growth rate of 3.0 per annum

Page 3 of 49
 Key
Bantu
Luo
Luo/ Nilotics
Madi Moru
Nilo

Map 2: Traditional location of the ethnic groups (tribes) in Uganda

1.1.3. Geography, Topography and Vegetation

Much of Uganda can be classified as plateau, with numerous small hills and valleys and
extensive savanna plains. The country lies above 900m.a.s.l generally sloping from south to
north. The country lies in a cradle of Mountains on its East Border with Kenya, Mt. Elgon,
and Mt Moroto in the North East, and the South-Western Rwenzori Ranges rising to altitudes
over 2000m. Uganda is a well watered country. The country lies in the 'Inter-lacustrine
Region' (Between the lakes) of Africa. This region receives abundant rainfall, and is rich in
tillable land, a major determining factor in settlement of the area.

Vegetation in Uganda is extremely diverse a result of the different micro-climates of the

country. Vegetation zones can be roughly classified according to the rainfall zones (i.e. Lake
Region, Northern Region, & the Highlands of the South-East) or catchment zones (i.e. Upper
Nile, Lake Kyoga, Lake Victoria, Lake Edward, Lake George, Lake Albert) (Map 5). In
addition, other climatic factors (e.g. temperature, wind currents, etc) contribute to the
characterization of these vegetation zones.

The northern and eastern parts of the country are characterized by savannah, grasslands, bush
and woodland vegetation and semi-arid climate, while the central, south and western parts of
the country are characterized by forest, savannah, grasslands, bush and woodland vegetation
and tropical rainforest type of climate.

Page 4 of 49
1.2. Geology, Soil Characteristics, Distribution and Land-use in Uganda
A simplified representation of Uganda‟s geology is shown in Map 3 below. Generally, the
country‟s geology is comprised of Tertiary-Quaternary sediments, Tertiary-Quaternary
Volcanics, Cretaceous-tertiary Carbonatite (Alkali intrusive) centres, Precambrian-Palaeozoic
Sedimentary cover sequence, and Crystalline Precambrian basement (World Bank, 2009).
This is the foundation from which the country‟s soils have originated. The soil types and
geological characteristics have a direct bearing on the quality of the underground water in the
estuaries (aquifers) that frequently intersperse the base-rock.

Map 3: Shows Simplified Geology of Uganda (Source: World Bank)

Page 5 of 49
Map 4: Soil Characteristics and distribution in Uganda (with expanded legend)
Uganda has a diversity of soil types that are classified as weakly developed (Lithosols,
Vertisols, Eutrophic, Humic Ferrallitic, organic) and moderately weathered (Non-
Hydromorphic) and highly weathered (old) soils Ferruginous, Ferrisols or Oxisols with
varying fertility (Map 4) (Soil Maps of Africa, 2001).
Uganda‟s arable land is 21.6% of the total 197,097km2 land area (The World Fact Book,
2009). Nine percent (9.0%) of the total land is under permanent crop and the remaining
(69.0%) is under other land use (annual cropping, ranching, forest, gazetted estates,
settlements, etc). By 2003, only 90 km2 of land was under irrigation.
Page 6 of 49
1.3. Climate, Rainfall and Drainage (Catchment) in Uganda
1.3.1. Climate, Altitude and Rainfall
Uganda‟s climate is tropical, with basically two seasons i.e. the dry and wet seasons. The dry
seasons traditionally occurred during the June - August and December - February, while the
wet seasons usually occurred during March-May and September – November periods.
Although the climate has been classified as tropical, it cannot be categorised into any single
climatic zone. It is only the north-eastern part of the country (i.e. Karamoja area) that
experiences semiarid climatic conditions. Otherwise, the rest of the country has for a long
time received bi-modal rainfall that averages 1375mm of rainfall annually (UBOS, 2002).
Sometimes, it can be as much as 2000mm of rainfall (UBOS, 2002), resulting in flood
conditions that have affected farms, human settlements, water and road infrastructure and
livelihoods of people. Its central location on the East African Plateau is a major determining
factor to the local climate.
In reality, Uganda can roughly be categorized into three sub-climatic zones differentiated
mainly by altitude and rainfall. Weather data from the following towns are representative of
the three regions:

 Entebbe town (Latitude 00o.03‟N & Longitude 32o27‟E) and Altitude 1,146m.a.s.l,
receiving 1100 mm average annual rainfall, represents the Lakes‟ basin sub-climatic
zone;

 Gulu town (Latitude 02o.45‟N & Longitude 32o.20‟E) and Altitude 1,109m.a.s.l,
receiving 800 mm average rainfall, represents the Northern Savanna sub-climatic zone;

 Kabale Town (latitude 01o.15‟S & longitude 29o.59‟E) and Altitude 1,871m, receiving
1300 mm average rainfall, represents the Southern Highlands sub-climatic zone; and

 Kampala town (latitude 00o20‟N & Longitude 32o.30‟E) and Elevation 1,310m.a.s.l,
receiving 1174mm of rainfall, which represents the urban Lakes‟ sub-climatic system.
The country is mainly affected by the South-East Monsoon winds associated with four wind
systems, namely;

 The Northerly Dry Current, which runs across Egypt and Sudan is characterized with dry
conditions

 North-Easterly Moist Current, which is characterized with relative rainfall

 Westerly currents that varies from North-West to the South-West tend to associated with
moderate rainfall; and

 The South-East Monsoons (characterized with the highest amounts of rainfall) and the
North-Easterly Moist Current, both associated with the annual movement of the Inter-
Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ).

Page 7 of 49
 1.3.2. Drainage and Catchment Zones in Uganda
The country consists of four rainwater catchment (drainage) zones (Map 5). Zone N drains
into the upper Nile region and flows towards the Sudan border. It receives up to 1400mm
rainfall and an average of 800mm rainfall annually3. Zone E drains into the Lake Kyoga that
finally drains into the Kyoga Nile. Historically, this region has usually received a peak
rainfall of 1800mm and an average of 1000mm of rainfall annually. But recently (in 2007/8),
the region suffered floods conditions of up to 2000mm of rainfall, which was a deviation
from the normal attributed to climate change4. Zone C drains into Lake Victoria region and
has historically received rainfall that is similar to that in Zone E 5. A study conducted by the
NELSAP project of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) revealed that as climate changes
(temperature increases), the amount of rainfall received in Zone E and N shall increase
(NELSAP-SSEA, 2004). It may, therefore, not be surprising that recently in 2007 region E
experienced floods. However, the NELSAP claim of increasing rainfall as temperature
increases in region E is contrary to many other studies (e.g. EAC/LVBC, 2006; IPCC, 2007b
& Maarten et-al., 2007).

N: Drains into the upper Nile and towards the

Sudan

E: Drains into the Lake Kyoga

C: Drains into Lake Victoria

W: Drains in the Lakes Albert, Edward and

George basins

Map 5: Water drainage (Catchment) Zones of Uganda

Zone W drains into the Lakes Albert, Edward and George basins. Based on the Mbarara
weather station, zone W is expected to receive a maximum of 900mm and an average of

3
. Gulu metrological station data (UBOS, 2002)
4
. Based on the Jinja weather Station
5
. Based on the Kampala Weather station

Page 8 of 49
500mm rainfall annually. This rainfall information is based on only four weather stations,
namely; Kampala, Jinja, Gulu and Mbarara.
However, with the changing climate (increasing temperature), rainfall is increasingly
becoming scarce, unpredictable and the pattern has been altered, making planning for
agriculture production very difficult. Similar findings have been reported by the Lake
Victoria Environment Management Programme (LVEMP) studies that indicate that there was
a significant decline (22% reduction) in catchment inflows in the Lake‟s basin over a 5 year
period 2000-2006 (EAC/LVBC, 2006). Nevertheless, there is need for more detailed and up-
to-date countrywide meteorological data for planning purposes. The presumption that climate
change risks will be taken care of in routine planning and project design is increasingly losing
credibility (Maarten, et-al., 2007).

1.3.3. Temperature
Region C (Map 5) has day temperatures ranging between 24oC and 28oC throughout the year.
The night temperatures are slightly lower. This region is highly humid (75% annual average),
due to its vicinity to Lake Victoria, and the effects of temperature on humidity are more
pronounced being highest in the morning and lowest in the afternoon. Similarly, region E and
sections close to water bodies in region W are humid and experience temperatures ranging
from 22oC at night and 28oC during day time (Map 5). Region N experiences relatively
higher temperatures ranging from 24oC to 35oC; and it is drier than the rest of the country.
The temperatures vary seasonally i.e. it is cooler in the rain seasons and hotter in the dry
seasons.
The daily sunshine hours across the country range on average from 5.7 hours per day in July
to 7.7 hours per day in January, (i.e. a mean of 6.5 hours/day). This, however, reduces in the
mountainous (hilly) areas.

1.4. Water Supply and Demand

Clean and safe water supply (“Water shortages”), quality deterioration and flood impacts are
among the major problems that Ugandans experience that requires greater attention and
action. The challenges are related to balancing water for livelihoods 6 and water as a
resource7.
Poor water management hurts the poor most. Both rural and urban poor and marginal
communities are particularly vulnerable to floods and droughts due to their limited options
that compel them to live in marginal and vulnerable areas such as degraded watersheds and
floodplains; and have access to poor quality water from polluted and degraded catchment
areas.
The UN Millennium Development Goal (MDG) No.7 targets at reducing by half the
proportion of people without sustainable access to clean and safe drinking water and basic
sanitation by 2015. It focuses on improved water sources and sanitation facilities. Whether
Uganda is approaching (has already attained) this target remains to be verified.

6
. i.e. Water and sanitation for people, rainfall and irrigation water for food and water for economic functions of
ecosystems
7
. i.e. Maintaining the resource-base both for surface and ground water and biodiversity.

Page 9 of 49
There are reports in the country that suggest that Uganda has already invested in water
infrastructure that now serves about 50% of the population. According to the Uganda Bureau
of Statistics Report (2002), government has already constructed several kilometres of piped-
water (4,058taps), boreholes (17,915), gravitation flow systems (134), shallow wells (4,734)
and protected springs (19,029) that only serves 50% of the population. The Directorate of
Water Development (DWD) of the Ministry of Water and Environment reports (2002-2007)
show impressive figures of achievement in the water sector (Annex 1). They report that
Government has now attained 63% population coverage in terms of water access, supply and
sanitation. By 2004, DWD anticipated that once the planned rural water and sanitation
projects were completed, a total of 80,010 people would be served. However, it is important
to note that several planned outputs in the 2002-2004 strategic plans had not been completed
by the end of 2004. Whether these targeted outputs have now been achieved, remains to be
verified. It is also important to note that the coverage of many water projects is still small and
several proposed reforms have not yet been implemented. Delayed implementation of plans,
reforms and attainment of outputs is blamed on continued delay in funding of the water sector
by both the donor community and government and that is responsible for only 53% of the
water funding being spent in the sector (WaterAid, 2005). As a result, since 1990, progress
towards attainment of the MDG and PEAP water targets in urban areas continued to decline
from 90% in 1990 to about 60% access to water and sanitation services by 2005 (Figure 1).
The steepest decline occurred during the 2000-2005 period for both urban and rural access to
water and sanitation services, probably due to delays and inadequate disbursement of funds
by donors and government to projects. In rural areas, access to water and sanitation services
significantly increased during the 1990 to 2002 period, probably because government was
keener to implementing the Rural Water and Sanitation Projects. The data available was up to
2005, the year the report was produced. Thereafter, WaterAid made extrapolations on the
assumption that there would be a general increase in access to water and sanitation services
by Ugandans and the realisation of the MDG and PEAP targets by 2015. However, whether
this is happening needs to be verified.
The PEAP in its original nature is continuously losing its guiding mandate, because of its
increasing failure to lead to the attainment of targets, including MDG targets. Consequently, a
policy review and development of priority programmes has become necessary to redress
persistent imbalances that have occurred in the system (UNDP, 2007).
While the current investment (effort) in the water sector is appreciated, there is still a
significant population that does not have access to clean and safe water. Also, there is
disparity in access to safe and clean water across districts in the country. For example,
whereas Kabale, Kanungu, Luwero, Nakaseke, Kaberamaido and Kibale districts have
coverage of over 80%, Kaabong and Yumbe districts have only 10% and 24%, respectively
(UNDP, 2007). Therefore, additional investment and equitable distribution of water services
across the country is imperative. This water problem is not only the preserve of people in
rural areas, but also affects urban residents. It is not uncommon to find residents of Kampala
without water or seeing raw sewage flowing across many streets in Kampala and its suburbs,
a reason why DWD has for a long time been implementing Rural and Urban Water and
Sanitation projects to try to improve the situation. However, the reality on the ground needs
to be ascertained. It is one thing to install the water infrastructure and it is another to have the
infrastructure working properly to serve the intended community.

Page 10 of 49
Figure 1: Progress towards urban and rural water Supply MDG and PEAP targets in
Uganda (Source: WaterAid, 2005)
Uganda is endowed with plenty of freshwater that can be obtained from open-water bodies
(lakes, rivers, streams, springs, etc.) and underground aquifers. The open-water bodies cover
18.2% (35,872km2) of the total land area. In this area, there are 162 lakes that an important
source of water, but because the water is often polluted and unclean, it is not safe for drinking
without prior treatment (purification).
On average, the country receives 1375mm of bimodal rainfall annually, which should be a
good source of clean and safe water. It is estimated that the open-water bodies, aquifers and
rainfall systems provide Uganda a per capita water availability of 3,600m3 (UNEP, 1999),
which although impressive, is not attained in reality. As mentioned earlier, many people still
have limited access to sufficient, clean and safe water. Compared to many countries in North
Africa and Middle East, Uganda cannot claim to lack water or to be “water stressed” in the
real terms.
Due to the apparent abundance of water in Uganda, water is often taken for granted with the
conviction that it will always be available. However, with changing climate, declining water
bodies (rivers, lakes, swamps & aquifers), and changing and unpredictable rainfall patterns;
this conviction is slowly, but surely becoming a myth. The United Nations Economic
Commission for Africa (UNECA) report (UNEP, 1999) predicts that Uganda‟s water
availability per capita would decline from 3,600m3 to 1,500m3 water stress by 2025. This is
increasingly becoming a reality sooner than predicted with many of the catchments in the
country experiencing 10-22% decline in water inflows (EAC/LVBC, 2006).
Taking water for granted and the inadequate appreciation and understanding of the central
role of water to human life and the economy in Uganda are the sole reasons why water is
frequently under-funded and the institutions responsible for managing water and its
associated resources are apparently weakened. It is, therefore, no-longer excusable to take the
current water abundance for granted and continue to delay the funding in the water sector.
1.5. Integrated Water Resources Management
Uganda has been reported to have registered good progress in planning for Integrated Water
Resources Management -IWRM (GWP, 2003; GWP, 2004; GWP 2005). However, the extent
Page 11 of 49
to which the plans have been implemented in the country has not been thoroughly ascertained
and documented. The performance of key sectors of the economy i.e. agriculture,
manufacturing, fisheries, livestock, tourism and the environment are directly dependent on a
reliable and adequate supply of good quality water (water security). For example, the food
processing (manufacturing) industry is vulnerable to drought due to its dependence on energy
supply mainly from hydropower, agricultural inputs and water supply. Similarly, the absence
of water would bring the livestock, fisheries and tourism industry to a standstill. It is also
recognized that access to water supply and sanitation is essential for human health and social
wellbeing. However, this is frequently constrained by poverty and delayed or limited funding
of the water sector.
Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is a process which can assist countries in
their quest to deal with water issues in a cost-effective and sustainable way. It is important to
manage water, because all life and sectors of the economy depend on water and water is
continuously being recharged, used, returned and reused. However, there are some places/
habitats/ environments where this cycle is constrained, interrupted or completely absent.
There is, therefore, need for balancing land and water use, surface- and ground-water, quality
and quantity, upstream and downstream, and integration in the human system by
mainstreaming water in the national economy, ensuring coordination between sectors and
involving everybody. This can be achieved through IWRM.

Government is committed to:

 Promote and ensure the rational and sustainable utilisation, development and effective
management and safeguarding of water resources for social and economic welfare and
development.
 Ensure the equitable sharing and adequate protection of trans-boundary water
resources.

While this seems to be well-thought-out, the realisation of the commitment and goals is
debateable under the current policy, legal and institutional frameworks that are characterised
with gaps and duplication of roles and responsibilities at the institutional level. In this regard,
a Water Resources Management reform study was conducted in 2003-2004 with the specific
objective of drawing long-term and effective framework for water resources management in
an integrated and sustainable manner. This involved developing national strategy for the
management of trans-boundary water resources; review, harmonise and update the existing
legal framework for water resources management; strategy and action plan for the active
involvement of all stakeholders, especially women, the private sector and NGOs/CBOs in
water resources management; providing an enabling environment for policy-making,
planning and co-ordination of water resources management at all levels, with emphasis on the
decentralisation of WRM; prepare capacity building programmes for WRM at all levels and
WRM strategic investment plan with a 15 year planning horizon; and determine the
implications of other sub-sector reform studies, strategies and related developments in WRM.
However, currently there is no clear information on the level of achievement of these action
plans by government. An in-depth analysis of the impact the study and action plans have had
needs to be conducted to ascertain the outcomes.

There are six key issues that have been identified that present both important challenges and
opportunities for water resources management. While they are not necessarily exhaustive,
Page 12 of 49
they offer a clue that, if serious errors are made in these areas, management of water
resources becomes very difficult.

1.5.1. Communication
Often, there is a challenge of communicating “what water resources management means in
practice” and “Why it is important.” The introduction of IWRM in global intergovernmental
water target has up-scaled policy attention to water-resources management. But, this also has
a downside that IWRM has become a “fashionable phrase” which may end up meaning “all
things to all people and nothing in particular”. There is a risk that “integration” pays lip-
service to environmental and social correctness, without real attention to how improved
environmental and social outcomes will be achieved in practice.

The concept of “integrated” management of natural resources is well-understood by

environmental managers, and sets an important technical standard for combined management
of land, soils, forests, water and other natural resources at catchment level. But when taken
into a wider policy realm, involving governance issues at a large river basin and/or national
level, its message becomes blurred and simple. There is an inadequate appreciation of the gap
between rhetoric and implementation and the need to overhaul laws, policies and practices
that are demanded when IWRM is accepted (GWP, 2003). The term “integration”, therefore,
tends to mask trade-offs by suggesting that competing interests shall always be reconciled,
yet a choice may often be needed between precautionary approach to climate change related
effects and development pressures.

Some people are sceptical about the feasibility of IWRM in developing countries (Allan,
2003). It is argued that IWRM requires unmatched political cooperation and that IWRM is
being pushed by countries of the north into countries of the south, yet they are at different
levels of economic development. Global Water Partnership (GWP) proposes that in order to
avoid being mired in complexity, an inter-sectoral coordination approach, which sets a less
demanding governance standard than true integration, would be the solution (GWP, 2005).
The World Bank (2003) echoes this proposal arguing that it would be suitable for both
developing and industrialized countries where the water sector is fragmented with multiple
agencies working on water issues (water supply, sanitation, irrigation, energy, transport,
tourism, fisheries, etc) and having overlapping responsibilities.

The second part of the challenge is communicating to stakeholders in a given river or lake
basin of a country “why” they should implement a better coordinated water resources
management approach, including allocating funding to the effort in light of severe economic
limitations in developing countries. The “why” of IWRM is linked to the “what” in the sense
that IWRM must first succeed in attracting motivation and commitment of stakeholders in
government and beyond, private-sector, civil society and among people working on water
issues and those who do not.

The UN (2005) report provides useful insights on the “why” to communicate challenge. The
report covers Water and Sanitation (WSS) and Water Resources Management (WRM),
including the challenges of meeting the WSS and WRM targets. The report observed that:-
 The sanitation target is an integral part of target 10 under MDG 7, but that the IWRM
target is not;
 The link between the WSS target and poverty reduction is clear and immediate, whereas
the IWRM target is considered complex;
Page 13 of 49
 IWRM is an enabling framework that is fundamental to any national strategy to achieve
the MDGs, but it seems to be more a means to an end and a larger hydrological and
sustainable context than would easily be attained;
 IWRM is a long-term process.

Therefore, while the validity of IWRM per se is not disputed, the underlying message is that
IWRM is a long-term process which must be started, but the more urgent priority is to fill
gaps in basic water needs and resolve problems of food security and hunger as an immediate
objective; and deal with environmental sustainability as a longer term objective.

Often, international donors tend to support short- to medium-term programmes (3-5years)

that can yield results more rapidly with lower risks, especially in low income sub-Saharan
Africa where institutional capacities are low e.g. Uganda. Therefore, longer-term objectives
like IWRM seem to be outcompeted for funding by social sectors that tend to require urgent
attention and offer quick results like health, education, etc. Yet, the importance of addressing
water resource availability could turn-out to be critical, for example in a drought with severe
consequences for vulnerable populations.

1.5.2. Sustainability

Recent studies (Schuyt, 2004) have shown that water stressed communities and those living
close to water and other natural resources were often the first to recognize that rainwater
harvesting and improved freshwater management were essential to improve livelihoods and
that sustainable freshwater resources management and livelihoods improvements were
integral to each other and should be approached in a holistic manner.

The IWRM definition contains an important ingredient “the sustainability of vital

ecosystems”. An important message to be communicated is that securing economic and social
benefits is dependent on environmental sustainability. In rural settings in developing
countries, environmental and social or economic sustainability are closely linked and local
resource-users are aware of the benefits according equal priority to them. The mistake of
water governance is to draw artificial institutional or administrative lines between them. A
question could be asked; how then can the realities of linking water management for domestic
and productive uses at local level be translated into policies and plans for coordinated water
management at national and basin levels? The answer lies in creating closer links between
IWRM and WSS initiatives of governments, civil society and private sector water service
providers.

When WSS experts address issues of sustainability, they think of it as sustainable access to
new or improved water supply points e.g. stand-pipes, boreholes and wells. They consider
how water facilities may be sustained in physical and economic/ financial terms, but often
overlook the whole environmental component. It is important to avoid such separations made
by water administrators. The recent (2002-2003) review of Uganda‟s water-sector offers
useful lessons to avoiding this kind separation or distortion. The review avoided that habitual
sub-sectors and organized itself around themes that no one sub-sector could assert its
dominance. The consequence was a dynamic process that set monitoring and evaluation
performance indicators (Republic of Uganda, 2003).

Page 14 of 49
IWRM should be applied at catchment level. This is the smallest complete hydrological unit
of analysis and management. Integrated Catchment Management (ICM), therefore, becomes
the practical operating approach. Although this approach is obviously sound and finds wide
acceptance, too narrow an interpretation should be avoided. It is critical to integrate water and
environmental management through the integration of Environmental Impact Assessments
(EIA‟s), water resources modelling and land use planning. It should also be understood that a
catchment or watershed approach implies that water should be managed alongside the
management of co-dependent natural resources, namely soils, forests, air, wetlands, rivers,
lakes and biota. A systems approach is necessary. A true systems approach recognizes the
individual components as well as the linkages between them, and that a disturbance at one
point in the system will be translated to other parts of the system. Sometimes, the effect on
another part of the system may be indirect, and may be damped-out due to natural resilience
and disturbance. Other times, the effect will be direct, significant and may increase in degree
as it moves through the system. While systems analysis is appropriate, analyses and models
that are too complex to be translated into useful knowledge should be avoided.

1.5.3. Participation

IWRM cannot succeed in the absence of genuine and effective participation of „water
stakeholders‟, especially local resource-users. The challenge is to create workable
institutional mechanisms (e.g. river-basin councils, commissions and committees) that offer
opportunities to promote deeper and wider participation. The degree of motivation felt by
representatives of all stakeholders regarding the meetings of water-management institutions
will be reflected in attendance levels. This will in turn depend on how such meetings are
planned and conducted and is likely to influence strongly whether and how institutional
policies and decisions are actually supported and implemented on the ground.

1.5.4. Decentralisation

One of the common principles of lake- or river-basin management is to decentralise decision-

making to the lowest appropriate level. While this concept could be translated into laws and
regulations relatively easily, its actual application often encounters obstacles. According to
the World Bank, decentralisation potentially opens new opportunities, provided that the
following conditions for more effective water and natural resources management are met:-
 There is genuine devolution of powers, with authority and autonomy transferred to
decentralised agencies (e.g. river basin or sub-basin agencies);
 Local water-user associations and stakeholder groups are established and empowered via
capacity-building measures to interact effectively with decentralised public agencies;
 The public officials of decentralised water management agencies are visible and
accountable;
 Locally elected community leaders participate in the agencies‟ decision-making
processes,
 opportunities („spaces‟) are created for participation of grassroots community
representatives, and emphasis is placed on enhancing self-identity and worth of local
communities;
 As a result of the above, decisions on water-resource management are more responsive to
local socio-economic conditions/needs, and are more likely to contribute to an
improvement in rural resource management and livelihoods.
Page 15 of 49
However, experience in Sub-Saharan Africa is that the river basin initiatives (e.g. Kagera
Basin and the Nile Basin Initiatives) have failed to deliver the desired objectives and
outcomes. In regard to water-user associations, these have been slow in developing up to the
decentralised level, due to lack of civil society initiative and capacity to start them. Visibility
and accountability of public official is still a challenge. Representation of local leaders and
grass-roots communities in agencies‟ decision-making processes is weak or non-existent
altogether. Often, decisions on water-resource management are not responsive to local socio-
economic conditions or needs and rarely contribute to improvement in rural resource
management and livelihoods. Therefore, these conditions seem to be too good to be true (too
ideal to be realised) (GWP, 2005)

An important principle of WRM is user participation in management at basin or catchment

level. However, challenges remain, including how the new institutional structures (basin
councils or committees) function as inclusive decision-making systems, which help arbitrate
in disputes and promote more equitable resource allocation. This is an on-going challenge in
developing countries, Uganda inclusive. It is, therefore, premature to assess or state whether
this approach is succeeding. Often, civil society representation at policy meetings tends to be
dominated by larger national NGOs, with local grassroots organisations inadequately
represented. This tends to undermine the perceived legitimacy of civil society representation,
makes civil society involvement not genuine and hijacks the process of consultations (GWP,
2005).

Full participation by all stakeholders, including the poor, marginalised, workers and the
community will require new institutional arrangements with a high level of autonomy,
transparency and accountability for all decisions. It was observed that “the real breakthrough
came when the agencies all recognized that the most effective action came from the energy of
people themselves”. “Care should be taken to ensure that those participating in any
catchment management structure do indeed represent a designated group or sector of
society”. “It is also important to ensure that representatives provide feedback to the
constituencies they represent. IWRM seeks to combine interests, priorities and disciplines as
a multi-stakeholder planning and management process for natural resources within the
catchment ecosystem, centred on water”. “Driven bottom-up by local needs and priorities,
and top-down by regulatory responsibilities, it must be adaptive, evolving dynamically with
changing conditions” (IWA, 2007).

Attention to social dimensions requires focus on, amongst other things, the use of social
impact assessments, workplace indicators and other tools to ensure that the social dimension
of a sustainable water policy is implemented. This will include the promotion of equitable
access, enhanced role of women, and the employment and income implications of change. A
review by the World Bank of 121 water projects showed that ensuring women‟s participation
in decision-making positively affects both project quality and sustainability (IWA, 2007).

In many countries, the way in which water supply and sanitation services are managed is
changing. After a decade of mixed results from private involvement, formal regulation, and
decentralization, most water services in developing countries are provided by poorly
regulated municipally owned service providers, whose performance often leaves a lot to be
desired. But, some of those utilities are now seeking to provide better services by adopting
new styles of management and administration. While considerable attention is placed on the
Page 16 of 49
financial and technical governance of utilities, the voice of users is often muted. One
consequence is that service providers do not take account of users‟ priorities and preferences.
The utilities, in turn, loose the trust and cooperation of the community that it is supposed to
serve. The result is often service deterioration, further alienating users.

Traditionally, users rely on politicians to maintain oversight of budgets and compliance with
rules and to intervene on their behalf when services fail. This institutionalized a “long route”
of accountability from user to political representative to service provider. Modern approaches
to public management seek to hold service providers more directly accountable to their users
for the outcomes of their work. Providers are expected to ensure that water flows safely and
reliably from taps; that blocked drains are cleared; and that services are accessible and
affordable to all. Accountability in this context is about establishing a direct “short route”
between users and service providers.

The World Bank (2005) also provides insight into the things to avoid in decentralisation of
water management responsible for the many pitfalls. These include:-
 Partial decentralisation: devolvement of responsibility without parallel devolvement of
authority and autonomy, especially in financial perspective, means that decentralised
agencies are unable to function effectively; real power remains vested in national/
regional bodies and causes disillusionment and cynicism among local stakeholders
 Shifts in power balance: the establishment of decentralised and participatory decision-
making structures/processes inevitably involves shifts of power. Existing decision-makers
may be unwilling to share or transfer responsibility and authority, local elites may
dominate the process and capture additional powers, so that local inequalities are
maintained or reinforced. The World Bank report comments that: “Even in settings where
there is a desire for decentralised basin management, the political dimensions of public
policy play a key role.”
 Inadequate information-sharing: in most river basins information flows have
traditionally been sector-based, with low levels of information exchange between sectors
and poor-to-non-existent access for public/community stakeholders, especially in rural
areas of developing countries. This is a deviation from the conditions favouring
successful IWRM. Decentralised water/river-basin management agencies must therefore
develop a key role as information brokers. This, in turn, requires significant and long-
term investment.
 Over-emphasis on the whole-basin scale: the World Bank studies highlight that,
although river basins are of crucial importance hydrologically and ecologically, not all
aspects of stakeholder participation, and not all decisions and activities that contribute to
WRM – need necessarily be organised at the whole-basin scale. A case in point is the
East Africa Lake Victoria Environment Management project (LVEMP), which is failing
to effectively deliver results on regional sustainable management of the Lake and its
resources. The „lowest appropriate level‟ for some water-resource management functions
may be a sub-basin, a local or regional unit of government, or a hybrid unit. In other
cases, it may make sense for certain consultations or decisions to be at a supra-basin
level, e.g. nationally. Selective delegation of functions may help to reduce the possibility
that municipalities and other conventional administrative units contest or impede the
functioning of new river basin agencies.

1.5.5. Defining what “Integration” means in practice

Page 17 of 49
National and basin-level plans for “integrated” water resource management need to define
clearly how the concept of IWRM is to be operationalised. The “what” and the “why” of
IWRM needs to be clearly explained. Failure to address these questions in a country context
means that tensions between differing interpretations of “integrated” water resources
management are likely to be masked, thus potentially leading to implementation failure. It is
important that these tensions are recognised and openly debated, instead of being ignored or
left blurred (administratively convenient as this may be). For example:-

 Formalisation of water rights is increasingly presented as an essential means of

“integrating” competing claims for access to water resources, including in contexts of
scarcity. From a poverty-reduction perspective, there is a real concern that water rights
reform often ignores or excludes small users, thus reinforcing existing power inequalities,
which consequently is opposed to the tenets of IWRM. Fast-tracking the formalisation of
water rights results in the laws being well articulated on paper, but difficult to implement
in practice. This often results in concentrating of water rights in a few hands at the
expense of the poor, bringing into question whether social, as well as economic,
efficiency objectives of “integration” are being realised in practice.

1.5.6. Leadership

Strong leadership is required for successful IWRM. Given that IWRM is a complex and
relatively new approach that may be perceived by existing water power-brokers as
threatening the status quo, strong leadership (whether at national, river-basin or sub-basin
levels) is needed to maximise the opportunities for success. This was echoed by WWF‟s
analysis of river basin management project (WWF, 2003), which concluded that successful
projects tended to have clear leaders or „champions‟. These champions came from a variety
of stakeholder types (i.e. both governmental and non-governmental, including community
groups), but were crucial in driving the process forward, even if, acting alone, they were
unable to actually implement the actions needed to implement IWRM.

The ideal catalyst needs to be an NGO, since they tend to have greater freedom and flexibility
than either governments or business and therefore- under certain circumstances-greater
potential to act as an honest broker. Key activities by the NGO champion include raising
awareness among key decision-makers, landowners and the wider public; lobbying other
stakeholders in government and business; and generally enthusing, initiating, guiding,
encouraging, and advising. In other instances, such as a trans-boundary situation involving
intergovernmental consultations, a more formal approach may be needed, for example a river
basin or lake commission, providing a platform for international leadership.

The flip side of the opportunities offered by leadership is that lack of clear and effective
leadership is unlikely to see the translation of IWRM principles into effective action. The
forces of bureaucratic and political inertia will tend to favour “business as usual”.

Full-cost pricing complemented by targeted subsidies is necessary in IWRM. This principle

was strongly urged by the World Water Council at The Hague - the rationales being that users
do not value water provided free or almost free and have no incentives to conserve it. Wide
support for this principle was engendered by its promoters. However, significant opposition
was provoked, especially from those who felt that the interests of the poor might not be
sufficiently protected, even under an associated subsidy system, no matter how well
Page 18 of 49
designed. Opposing views held that full-cost pricing, when applied in its narrowest sense,
offends the principle that water is a public good, a human right, and not simply an economic
good. Conversely, it is also argued that the economic sustainability of water and sanitation
services depends largely and appropriately on the recovery of costs through user fees or
tariffs that are equitably assigned based on ability-to-pay. Under-served or unserved,
marginalized users in many places already pay high financial costs of not having safe piped
water, for example, because they are forced to pay for water trucked-in by suppliers or from
privately managed boreholes. This water may be of dubious quality, yet is expensive.

In order to ensure successful implementation of IWRM approaches, there should be a clear

and long-term commitment from government to provide reliable financial and human
resources support. This is complemented by income from a healthy water and sanitation
market, especially when local providers of goods and services that support the water sector
are active players, and when there is active reinvestment in the sector. It also requires
adoption of best existing technologies and practices that include management instruments,
professional associations as primary sources of knowledge on best management practices
(BMPs) and Best Appropriate Affordable Technologies (BAATs). Multi-stakeholder
consensus-oriented forums for IWRM should avoid lowest-common-denominator solutions
through adherence to BMPs and BAATs that are adaptive to local needs

There is need for equitable allocation of water resources. This helps improved decision-
making that is technically and scientifically informed and can facilitate the resolution of
conflicts over contentious issues. Multi-criteria analysis tools that are tested and proved
should be applied to help balancing social, ecological and economic considerations.

There is also need to recognize water as an economic good. This is central to achieving
equitable allocation and sustainable usage of water. Water allocations should be optimized
based on benefit and cost i.e. it should aim at maximizing water-benefits to society per unit
cost. For example, low value uses could be reallocated to higher value uses such as basic
drinking water supplies, if the quality of water is good. Similarly, lower quality water should
be allocated to agricultural or industrial use. This applies to rainwater harvesting and
underground water abstraction and recharge. However, there is need for caution regarding
privatisation of water, because this could have significant social, economic and
environmental impacts. A case in point is Peru where privatisation of water has cause severe
social and environmental impacts and negated equitable allocation of water among the
population.

Although many people may appreciate the importance of water in their lives, many in both
public and private sector do not thoroughly understand the concept of IWRM or water
resources management or catchment management (IWA, 2007), corporate governance and
their roles in all this. It is often confused with water supply and sanitation (World Bank,
2004). The water stakeholders in Uganda must, therefore, collaborate in designing and
implementing strategic elements of capacity building as part of the evolving IWRM process.
Capacity building categories include education and awareness raising about water;
information resources for policy making; regulations and compliance; basic infrastructure;
and market stability. Early and ongoing stakeholder collaboration and communication in
capacity building is also important from the viewpoint of “levelling the playing field” in
anticipation of disputes that may arise. Filling strategic skills/capacity gaps supports IWRM,

Page 19 of 49
facilitates dispute resolution, and builds practical understanding of the scope of sustainable
natural resource development challenges and opportunities.

Availability of information and the capacity to use it to make policy and predict responses is
still a challenge. This requires, first, sufficient information on hydrological, bio-physical,
economic, social and environmental characteristics of a catchment to allow informed policy
choices to be made; and second, some ability to predict the most important responses of the
catchment system to factors such as effluent discharges, diffuse pollution, changes in
agricultural or other land use practices and the building of water retaining structures. The
latter hinges on the adequacy of scientific models: Models should be as complex as the
problem requires and no more so. It is recognized that predicting ecosystem response to
perturbation with reasonable confidence is severely taxing current scientific capabilities, and
stimulating ongoing research.

Despite the existence of enabling policy and some legal and institution provisions, often there
is limited commitment of the central government on integrated water management in terms of
leadership aimed at facilitating and coordinating the development and transfer of skills and
assistance with technical advice and financial support to local groups and individuals (IWA,
2007). Emphasis has often been placed on the development of hydropower infrastructure at
the expense of other water sectors (Donkor & Wolde, 2002; Schmitz, 2008). Often, water
activities are split among a number of ministries and departments at the national level. This
fragmentation of responsibilities among sectoral ministries and administrative agencies
hinders coordination and impedes attempts to integrate water management activities (Donkor
& Wolde, 2002). This is the case in Uganda, which may explain the slow progress in
achieving effective and efficient integrated water resources management in the country. In
cases where specific areas of responsibility fall outside the mandate of a single government
department, appropriate institutional arrangements are necessary to ensure effective and
efficient inter-departmental collaboration. There is also need to build institutional capacity to
develop financially viable systems to design policy structures that can respond to economic
situations and avoid duplication of roles and responsibilities. Effective water resources
management is where a top-down meets bottom-up process.
There is, therefore, need to raise awareness and build capacity among policymakers, within
institutions, the communities and the general public on the importance of efficient water and
associated resources use, and IWRM principles/practices and how best to apply them for
Uganda at local community and national level.
The 9th Conference of Parties (COP9) Ramsar Convention meeting held in Uganda in 2005
provided an opportunity to assess the extent to which governments were committed to water
resources management. It was observed that adoption and implementation of IWRM
principles by government authorities responsible for Ramsar Implementation is patchy. Less
than a quarter of the contracting parties reported having developed projects that promoted and
demonstrated good practice in water allocation and management for maintaining ecological
functions of wetlands.

Page 20 of 49
CHAPTER – II: RAINWATER HARVESTING PRACTICES
Rainwater harvesting is commonly practiced by the rural communities relying on
domestically available household utensils (saucepans, buckets, basins, etc) and harvesting
tanks collecting rainwater from the roofs of houses. Examples of the infrastructure used in
rain (flood) and underground water harvesting in Uganda is shown in Plate 1 below.

A1 B1 C1

A2 B2 C2

Plate 1: Rain (flood) or underground water harvesting tanks used in Uganda

 “A1” and “A2” are cylindrical surface tanks that collect rainwater from the roof. They
may be constructed using locally available bricks or manufactured blocks and cemented
on the outside for reinforcement and beautification (A1) or left bare (A2). These are the
most common rainwater harvesting tanks at homesteads in Uganda;

 “B1” is a partially underground water tank can be used to collect rainwater from roofs and
underground water using manual or automated pumps. “B2” is an essentially underground
tank with its done shaped top above ground surface. It is used to collect runoff flood or
rainwater. They are cylindrical in nature and are usually constructed using concrete
cement material. These are usually more expensive than surface tanks (“A”).

 “C1” is a surface valley tank usually dugout of the ground and modified to retain water
and prevent downwards percolation of water into the ground. They collect runoff
rainwater from the hill slopes in the vicinity. These are commonly used in cattle rearing
areas to watering animals. Its water is usually not safe for human consumption, although
some people drink it and use it for domestic purposes. Most of the valley tanks in Uganda

Page 21 of 49
 are rarely used as sources of irrigation water, because they often of small capacity to
support irrigation and usually dry-out during prolonged dry spells.

 Terraces (“C2”) are commonly applied in hilly and mountainous areas of the country.
They were initially intended to control soil erosion and not necessarily for water
catchment or groundwater recharge, although this benefit is accrued as a “knock-on
effect” of their establishment. Terraces were first established in the 1920s by the British
Colonialist, mainly in Kigezi and Mt. Elgon areas of the country. But after independence
in 1962, many people neglected the terraces, because they associated them with
Colonialism, a past they were trying to break-away from. The consequence of this was the
dilapidation and breakdown of terraces in several hilly areas, resulting in increased soil
erosion, landslides and loss of lives and property. But, currently, people are slowly
appreciating the role of terraces in water retention, watering of crops, erosion & landslide
prevention and recharge of aquifer and spring systems. However, the damage has already
been done. There is need for government and community intervention to revive and
refurbish terraces in the country.
It is important to note that some practices applied in the neighbouring countries (Kenya and
Tanzania) that have proved useful have not been adopted in Uganda.
People in urban areas rarely harvest rainwater, because they have become accustomed to
fetching water from taps provided by the National Water and Sewerage Corporation
(NWSC). It is those not supplied (connected) to the NWSC grid system, or those
disconnected from the system or whose supply has been interrupted by the shortage of water
that tends to harvest rainwater. Otherwise, the main source in urban areas is tap water. There
are a few residential households in urban areas that made deliberate effort to construct water
tanks adjacent to the buildings to collect rainwater from the roof tops of the houses, however,
these are few.

The Paradox is that because many Ugandans are accustomed to obtaining water through
pipes, taps, boreholes, valley tanks, gravitational flow infrastructure, wells and protected
spring systems, they do not seem to bother about rainwater harvesting. They allow rainwater
to runoff after a major torrent and the next hour or day they purchase water at exorbitant
prices (i.e. shs500 per jerrican)8 or travel long distances, sometimes, on rough terrain to fetch
clean water. People also buy bottled drinking water at costs ranging from shs380 to shs1000
for 500ml and 1000ml bottles. In addition, they are so dependent on rain-fed agriculture that
they do not bother to harvest and store rainwater for human and animal consumption and to
produce crops during the dry seasons.

This calls for a paradigm shift in the way people access and manage water in the Country. It
does not seem logical to watch rainwater flow away untapped and, within a short period
complain for lack of water or, buy water exorbitantly. Ugandans can no-longer continue to
rely on rain-fed agriculture and complain for declining food stocks during traditional rainfall
and dry seasons, because it never rained.
Why should Ugandans remain entrapped in a culture of buying water at increasingly high
prices/tariffs? Should they continue putting the blame on government for the poverty they

8
. The exchange rate is US$ 1.0 = Ug.shs 2240 as of May 28, 2009.

Page 22 of 49
suffer after spending their meagre incomes on a product that they could easily have for little
or “no cost at all”? An approach that ensures water use efficiency, equitable allocation of
water and following a development path that minimizes social, economic and political risks
and one that supports economic frameworks that promote water-resilient behaviours by
villages, towns, cities, industries, farm and pastoral families should be inculcated.
Viewed from another perspective, it may be argued that this drive of promoting rainwater
harvesting is unpatriotic in that it may take away money from the water supply and other
water bottling companies that provide employment to Ugandans and pay taxes to
government. But rather than compete, this drive is intended to reinforce efforts to ensure
water accessibility and quality assurance for all Ugandans regardless of social setting. This
also applies to ground or underground water.
Put in another way, this drive is not to negate the need for continued investment in the water
sector by government and the private sector, but rather to contribute to household savings,
poverty reduction and promote the use of the saving for other household economic activities.
Both rural and urban communities should inculcate the practice of rainwater harvesting as a
means of reducing water costs and supporting irrigation-based and “off-rainfall-season” crop
production. Rainwater harvesting systems could range from a few thousand shillings-based
on buckets/ basins/ jerricans or water tanks that cost shs1.0-5.0million and 30million
irrigation tanks/ reservoirs. These costs incurred in construction of rainwater harvesting
infrastructure can be off-set over time, thus minimising household or community expenditure
on water. It is also possible to have household-based low-cost water purification systems.
Over the last ten years, Government through the Directorate of Water Development (DWD)
has been promoting rainwater harvesting tanks in rural areas, especially those in semi-arid
areas. However, the coverage is still low. Likewise, Non-Governmental Organisations
(NGOs/CBOs) are promoting rainwater harvesting mainly in the rural areas based on roof
tops, rocks, constructed cement domes and/or ground (valley tanks) harvests, but the
coverage is also small.
Significant public investment has been committed in the construction of valley tanks
(especially in the cattle corridor for animal consumption) and gravitational flow systems in
hilly/mountainous areas for human and animal consumption. But most of the valley tanks and
gravitational systems failed to work at the onset or have since dried up and/or become
dysfunctional. Valley tanks that have remained functional are mainly those established by the
local communities, because there is an element of sustainability and ownership enshrined in
the community approach. Many of the publicly established Valley Tanks that failed to
function were either wrongly sited or lacked sustainability, monitoring or supervision. There
was also a general absence of ownership among the community over the publicly established
Valley tanks, a reason why they collapsed.
The National Water Policy (2000) sets out a policy of user, ownership and management of
rural water facilities. Operation and maintenance guidelines stipulate responsibilities for all
stakeholders in the provision of rural water and sanitation services. The responsibility to
maintain water sources lies with the community. The Government has been providing a small
budget for operation and maintenance, while some local governments have been supporting
major repairs where this requires large resources beyond the capacity of the community. But
ownership by users is still low in practice. Users are not willing or able to contribute funds

Page 23 of 49
for operation and maintenance. Multiple technology types and a variety of brands further
complicate the supply of spares.

Usually, all water sources have a management committee with responsibility to ensure that it
is functioning well and that the users meet their obligations for its maintenance. In addition,
districts used to have a free hand in their spending and many took on all responsibility for
water points, encouraging communities to absolve themselves of any responsibility. But now,
districts are restricted to using only 10% of their budget for major repairs to existing water
schemes that are beyond the community‟s capacity handle. This has proved to be a great
challenge to many water schemes.

A few valley tanks have been established for irrigation mainly by research institutions and
have little or no contribution to local community production needs. Government needs to
revise its approach to the establishment of rain (flood) water harvesting infrastructure with a
view of incorporating wider aspects of agriculture production (animal, fisheries & irrigation)
in the designs where applicable and encourage the participation of the communities they
intend to serve in decision-making related to the infrastructure.

Page 24 of 49
CHAPTER- III: R&D IN RWH EXERCISING MECHANISMS

3.1. Research and Development

In Uganda, there is limited research and technological development. Most of the research is
often social or economic based. Apart from recognising that there is indeed a water problem
in the country and that rainwater could contribute to water access, most studies do not
specifically focus on rainwater harvesting and development. This is worsened by the
country‟s Policy on Water that only makes passing remarks on rainwater harvesting and is
neither explicit nor comprehensive in this regard. Rainwater harvesting infrastructure in
Uganda has relied heavily on old (traditional) systems, namely; roof top and ground run-off
harvests. There is no research that has been committed to developing new techniques
(technologies) in rainwater harvesting and supply both for domestic and production purposes,
probably because the traditional approaches still seem to be effective and/or that there is a
general lack of interest among Ugandans in research and development in this area.

3.2. Institutional Arrangements in Rainwater Harvesting

3.2.1. Roles and Responsibilities in the Water Sector

Responsibility for the water sector is shared between different ministries and is coordinated
nationally by the Water and Sanitation Sector Working Group. The Ministry of Water and
Environment (MWE) is responsible for formulating policy, setting standards, monitoring,
research and capacity building. It includes the Directorate of Water Development (DWD), the
lead agency responsible for rural areas and 46 small towns, as well as the National Water and
Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) which is responsible for water and sewerage services in 15
small and 19 large towns. MWE plans investment in sewerage and public facilities in urban
areas. Meanwhile the Environmental Health Division (EHD) of the Ministry of Health is
leading the development of an integrated sanitation strategy for Uganda. EHD promotes
household hygiene and sanitation, while the Ministry of Education and Sports plans health
programmes, sanitation facilities and hygiene in schools. Communities retain full
responsibility for household sanitation and for the operation and maintenance of water
facilities, particularly in rural areas. It is important to note at the onset that there is a general
silence on rainwater harvesting, although it is assumed to be a component of the water sector.

The MWE coordinates all sector activities through the various departments within DWD,
which include: water resources management, rural water and sanitation, urban water and
sanitation and water for production. Coordination is done with guidance from the MFPED on
financial matters and Ministry of Local Government (MLG) on local government issues. The
Sector Working Group, whose membership includes line ministries, donors and NGOs plays
an advisory role to the MWE. There are also monthly donor coordination meetings to update
one another about ongoing activities.

There is a public accounts committee both in parliament and at the district level to ensure that
funds are used according to guidelines. Sectoral committees of parliament vet and approve
investment plans, budgets and accountabilities. Donors carry out independent monitoring and
offer advice on pertinent issues. The IMF and World Bank also monitor the sector and how
budgets are developed and managed.

Page 25 of 49
There are over 200 NGOs and CBOs working in the water sector which are members of the
Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network (UWASNET). UWASNET is represented on
the sector working group and therefore the NGOs can access and influence policies at the
national level. Some International NGOs, such as WaterAid and SNV, are represented on
several working groups in the sector at national and regional or district levels. However, the
involvement and coordination of NGOs in the sector is still inadequate. Many NGOs have not
been very keen to provide information, especially on finances and the operational plans. In
some cases, this has resulted in friction, duplication of services and uncoordinated service
delivery.

3.2.2. Planning

Government put in place the Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), which is equivalent to
the Poverty Reduction Strategy paper objectives and targets that are expected to be monitored
by donors, government, civil society and the communities. In line with these objectives, the
MWE draws up an investment plan and the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic
Development (MFPED) sets up a medium-term framework budget within which the budgets
are developed. Donors base their funding decisions on PEAP objectives and use funding
mechanisms preferred and set by government. These mechanisms are prioritized as general
budget support earmarked for the Poverty Action Fund, sector budget support, and basket
funding and project aid.

This poverty reduction planning process has significantly increased resources for the water
and sanitation sector, but the sector still receives by far the lowest share of national resources.
Water and Sanitation take the smallest percentage (>5%) of the total social sector budget. The
government through its Medium Term Expenditure Framework sets ceilings for funding to
sectors of the economy.

The impact of hard ceilings is that donors become wary of putting in more money, even when
additional funding may be available. It is important that government closes the remaining
water sector finance gaps by raising budget ceilings or making them flexible and improving
equity in budget allocations between different social service sectors, including rainwater
harvesting.

According to MFPED, the total flow of resources to the water sector approximately doubled
from Ush 47bn in 1996/97 to Ush 94bn in 2001/02. These funds include the MWE9
programmes as well as conditional grants and operating and maintenance grants for local
governments. There was, however, additional funding through the Ministry of Education for
school sanitation, and the Ministry of Health for hygiene and sanitation, as well as local
government development programme funds used for water and sanitation. It is not clear what
fraction of this funding was allocated to rainwater harvesting in communities or schools.

Every September there is a joint sector review. The members of the Sector Working Group
participate in the assessment of performance according to eight golden indicators10, prepare
sector performance reports, conduct field visits and hold a workshop during which the reports
9
. Then called the Ministry of Water Lands and Environment (MWLE)
10
. The eight golden indicators are (i) access/use of water, (ii) functionality, (iii) investment cost, (iv)
access/use & Sanitation, (v) quantity of water, (vi) quality of water, (vii) equity, and (viii) access/use hygiene
Page 26 of 49
are presented and discussed. An annual sector review report is compiled and published to all
stakeholders. The Government should institutionalize this process by assigning roles,
responsibilities and resources so that the exercise is consistently done so that the work
continues throughout the year rather than just once in September.

A technical review is conducted in April each year and is attended by some of the members
of the Sector Working Group, the district water officers and DWD. This forum mainly
considers the technical issues and other aspects pertinent to implementation. Coordination of
the flow of resources into the water and sanitation sector still needs attention, especially those
that go through NGOs and the private sector. Attention is also needed on rainwater harvesting
and underground recharge.

In the late 1990s, government conducted a Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Reform study
that resulted in a Sector Investment Plan (SIP 15) for 2000-2015 that is the main long-term
guidance for the sector. The reform studies identified several constraints in the sector such as:

 Sector activities are project oriented;

 Low technical and functional capacities at district level;
 Planning and budgets for water and sanitation are being done in isolation;
 Limited technical and functional capacities at sub-county level i.e. most sub counties lack
a technical officer responsible for water, buildings and roads;
 Community mobilisation, capacity building and gender mainstreaming is weak;
 Full private sector participation is yet to be realised, especially in regard to simple
technologies. Spare part distribution through the private sector is problematic. Although
private sector borehole drilling capacity is limited, it is growing.
 The district tendering, contract management, financial management and reporting are
under developed, thus leading to substantial programme implementation delays and
under-utilisation of allocated funds in the sector;
 Operations and maintenance structures are weak or non-existent and most districts lack
backup support from community-based Operation and Maintenance (O&M), especially
for boreholes and gravitation flow schemes.
It is important to note that focus on rainwater harvesting is frequently lost in the overall water
supply approach.

3.2.3. Water Sector Funding

From 1998, funding in the water sector has continued to increase, albeit being small. While
the Government has maintained a small, but steady increase in its budget, donor funds have
been fluctuating more across the years. Also, there have been fluctuations in amounts
budgeted, released and spent in the sector over the years. Usually, the funds are released late,
because of delays by either government or donors to meet budget commitments or delays by
the districts in providing accountability.

Such delays lead to poor quality work. MFPED and donors should jointly address delays in
the disbursement of funds to enhance quality of work, provide adequate supervision and
improve value for money. The MFPED provides no specific budget line for rainwater
harvesting. In order to improve water access and achieve MDG targets, the Government
should revisit the Water Policy and purge the gaps linked to rainwater harvesting and
Page 27 of 49
underground water recharge and provide a separate budget line as well as allocation and
disbursement mechanisms for rain water harvesting and underground water recharge.

3.2.4. Intervention by Private Sector and NGOs in the Water Sector

Additional resources are usually invested directly in the water sector by bilateral agencies, the
private sector and NGOs without necessarily going through central government. The
NGO/CBO sector contributed approximately Ush 1.2 billion to the sector in 2003/04.
Although there is evidence of the NGO-private sector intervention in rainwater harvesting in
the communities, there is no clear information on how the funds from NGOs and private
sector were spent, because there are many NGOs and private sector operating independently
and MFPED, MWE and the districts do not have any tracking mechanism for them.

In 1998, with the introduction of the privatisation policy, the roles of state bodies were
reduced while private sector involvement increased. This commitment to privatisation is
integral to a water reform policy which is meant to increase performance and cost
effectiveness and decrease the Government‟s burden while maintaining commitment to
sustainability and equitable development. As a result, an additional number of people have
been connected to water supply systems increasing the coverage from 39% in 1997/98 to
63% in 2007 (DWD, 2007). It is important to note that the coverage rate varies from report to
report and from district to district. Despite the disparity in reporting and district coverage,
what is clear is that there is an increasing coverage (Map 6). The current water coverage
situation needs to be accurately ascertained.

Map 6: Status of Rural Water coverage (2002)

Page 28 of 49
In rural areas, many village-level water supply and sanitation projects were awarded by
district governments to private contractors through hundreds of tenders throughout the
country. However, a limited emphasis on rainwater harvesting and community participation,
along with a lack of transparency in contracting procedures, undermined the process and
sustainability.

In small towns, the private sector played a significant role. Before 1998, there was gross
inefficiency in the 15 large towns under NWSC management. But since the changes were
effected bringing to board the private sector, there has been a tremendous turnaround.

3.2.5. Transparency

The sector has invested in a management information system, which is still being improved
to provide reliable data. It is reported that most of the information relating to budget
allocations and disbursement, especially for poverty alleviation funds, is published in the
media; that it is available on request from the MFPED; and that this information is also
supposed to be publicly displayed at district and sub-county levels.

Other approaches used to promote transparency and accountability includes annual public
expenditure reviews, tracking and value for money studies. It is reported that since 2004,
there has been a commitment for districts to carry out annual value for money and technical
audits, and this has been done in all the districts.

However, in reality, it is never easy to access all finance-related information whether at the
centre, the MWE or the lower local government levels, bring into question Government‟s
transparency and accountability.

3.3 Decentralization

In line with the Constitution of Uganda 1995 and the Local Government Act 1997,
governance and service delivery functions have been decentralized to local governments, city
divisions or municipal authorities.

In the 2003/04 financial year, 72% of the sub-sector expenditure was managed by local
governments through the conditional grant. An estimated 72% of the total sector funds and
80% of the conditional grant was spent on constructing and monitoring new water points.
Capacity building is estimated at 22% of spending in 2003/04.

A retrospective study of the district water and sanitation conditional grants (the main source
of funding for district water and sanitation activities) revealed that the value of grant transfers
per capita of rural population varied from Ush 422 in Mbale District to Ush 15,937 in
Nakosongola with a mean of Ush 4,403 over all districts (shaded area in Figure 2).

Page 29 of 49
Figure 2: Total district water and sanitation conditional grants transfers per capita
(Source: DWD Coverage Figures, 2003)

The pattern of these variations might be thought to reflect different proportions of unserved
people in the population, but in fact, similar – though not identical –variations are observed
when the breakdown is per capita of the unserved population (columns in Figure 2).

At the regional level, districts in the west received close to twice that of those in the east. On
the basis of DWD‟s 2003 figures, there does not seem to have been any logical link between
per capita transfers and the number of people without access to safe water.

3.4. Equity

Allocation in the water and sanitation sector is not equitable, with intra-sectoral distribution
of resources still disproportionately favouring urban areas. For example, in the 2003/04
budget, 29% was allocated to the rural subsector, 51% to the urban sub-sector (small and
large towns) and 20% to water resource management, water for production and institutional
development.

It was a requirement of the Rural Water and Sanitation 5-year Operational Plan (2002-2007)
of the Ministry of Water and Environment that “Districts and Sub-counties shall show
evidence that they are putting in place health and sanitation ordinances, where applicable,
and enforcing them in the community concerned”. The extent as to which districts are abiding
to this criteria is debatable. It is important to note that, if this criterion is to be applied as a
condition for the provision of water supply and other water facilities, it must then be accepted
by the District Health Office (DHO) in light of their responsibility for household sanitation.
Government developed a Fiscal Decentralization Strategy that seems not to be properly
Page 30 of 49
harmonized with all sectoral arrangements. However, if the above criterion is to have greater
impact at the decentralized level, there is need to harmonize its coordination with the Fiscal
Decentralization Strategy (FDS), whether it is legitimate or not. In addition, it is clear that the
District Water Office (DWO) does have mandate to promote sanitation to households in
communities receiving water supply infrastructure at least up to the point that construction is
completed and the water comes online. It is, therefore, important to clarify the extent to
which the DWO programmes/projects should include promoting hygiene practices and
latrines for households in addition to its traditional role of “safe water chain”. This should be
coordinated with the DHO and clearly reflected in the sector guidelines.

Page 31 of 49
CHAPTER- IV: SOCIO-ECONOMIC & TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND
PEOPLE PARTICIPATION

4.1. Socio-economic Aspects of Rainwater Harvesting

Uganda‟s economy is essentially agriculture-based, where agriculture is mainly rain-fed and

contributes 42% of the GDP and employs over 80% of the population. Most of the industries
and services are dependent on the agriculture sector (UBOS, 2002).

The Country‟s freshwater is a key strategic resource for sustaining life, promoting economic
development and maintaining the environment. Although Uganda is well endowed with water
resources, their seasonal and spatial variability are problematic and present a challenge to
agricultural production, due to the variability in the onset of wet and dry seasons. Therefore,
food and water security and financial benefits to farmers and the general public are
continually being threatened by the dependence on rain-fed agriculture. The potential for
irrigation is estimated to be over 400,000 Ha, but only approximately 5 per cent has been
fully developed. Small-scale irrigation is practiced only in the east and northeast areas of the
country and is generally confined to paddy rice. High value crops, such as flowers and
horticulture crops are being grown under irrigation for export, but only to a limited extent and
within a restricted area close to export gateways.

Livestock production is spread throughout the country, but in many areas, surface water
resources are generally seasonal and exploitable groundwater is limited. As mentioned
earlier, Government has constructed dams and valley tanks in some areas to alleviate the
water shortage, but these dams and tanks are often dry during prolonged dry spells and more
than 80 per cent are beyond service life. Scarcity of water not only limits livestock
production, but encourages nomadism, which in turn, leads to the spread of livestock
diseases, overgrazing, land degradation, negative impacts on the environment and social
conflicts over water access.

It was estimated that in order to come close to achievement of the MDGs in respect to water,
government needed to invest at least US$110m annually in the water sector (WaterAid,
2005). In addition to the input increases, the water sector needs to deliver huge improvements
in its own performance, because the numbers of households that must get access to water and
sanitation for the first time are between 2 and 7 times greater than what has so far been
achieved.

4.2. Technological Development of Rainwater Harvesting

Technologically, Uganda is dependent on very old and sometimes obsolete machinery and
equipment in the manufacturing and processing sector. The sector that seems to have more
modern technology is that of information and communication technology (ICT).

Irrigation technology has not advanced greatly, except in greenhouses where hydroponics are
utilised to grown flowers and vegetables for export.

Wind and solar powered ground water harvesting infrastructure has been installed in Abim
Karamonja and semi-arid Karamoja, in Kumi, etc. This can also be use for flood harvesting
Page 32 of 49
irrigation systems.

4.3. People Participation

In 2003, the Gender Strategy was launched. The goal of this strategy is to enhance gender
equity, participation, access and control of resources in the water sector. At national level, the
sector is highly technical and male dominated.

Usually, the burden of water collection falls mainly on women and children. So, it is these
categories of individuals that are expected to harvest rainwater. Where rainwater harvesting is
not practiced, the women and children must fetch the water. Owing to the long distances they
often travel to collect water, the average water use per capita is half the minimum
recommended amount required for drinking, cooking and adequate hygiene. Inadequate use
of services also limits the achievement of intended health benefits. Water handling and
storage is often unhygienic, resulting in water from a safe source becoming contaminated by
the time it is consumed.

Sanitation awareness remains low and the construction of excreta management and disposal
facilities at household and institutions (schools, health centres, offices etc.), public places
(markets, eating places, parks etc.) is not accorded the deserved priority, often considered an
additional expense in money and time. In some cases, proper utilisation of the latrine where it
exists is not universal by all members of the household due to various taboos and beliefs.

It is expected that the use of gender indicators that will be used in the measurement of the
annual sector performance will help to bring gender considerations down into the lower
district administration levels.

Full participation by all stakeholders, including the poor, marginalised, workers and the
community will require new institutional arrangements with a high level of autonomy,
transparency and accountability for all decisions. It was observed that “the real breakthrough
came when government and all other agencies recognized that the most effective action came
from the energy of people themselves”. “Care should be taken to ensure that those
participating in any rainwater catchment management structure do indeed represent a
designated group or sector of society”. “It is also important to ensure that representatives
provide feedback to the constituencies they represent. Water resources management seeks to
combine interests, priorities and disciplines as a multi-stakeholder planning and
management process for natural resources within the catchment ecosystem, centred on
water”. “Driven bottom-up by local needs and priorities, and top-down by regulatory
responsibilities, it must be adaptive, evolving dynamically with changing conditions” (IWA,
2007).

Attention to social dimensions requires focus on, amongst other things, the use of social
impact assessments, workplace indicators and other tools to ensure that the social dimension
of a sustainable water policy is implemented. This will include the promotion of equitable
access, enhanced role of women, and the employment and income implications of change. A
review by the World Bank of 121 water projects showed that ensuring women‟s participation
in decision-making positively affects both project quality and sustainability (IWA, 2007).

Page 33 of 49
4.4. Community Mobilisation, Awareness-raising and Education on Rainwater
Harvesting

Civil society organisations often represent the voices of those that are unable to express
themselves to the authorities. Although the national policies tend to recognise the role of civil
society organisations, their involvement by government in planning and decision-making is
often negligible.

On the recognition of the roles of civil society organizations, government has expressed
commitment to engage NGOs/CBOs in the implementation of some aspects of institutional
and social development related to rural and urban water and sanitation activities at district
and lower levels. In this regard, national policies tend to reflect the need for involvement of
civil society organizations in planning and decision-making. Despite this, the involvement of
civil society organizations in reality is often negligible.

Government-private sector partnerships in the sector seem to have been well established,
albeit the intrinsic shortcomings that have negated service delivery to communities.
Experience has shown that building social infrastructure and incorporating community voices
in the planning and decision-making processes in any social development programme is a
generally accepted strength of NGOs/CBOs. NGO/CBOs are also more effective in
influencing service delivery to the poorest of the poor. Other NGO/CBO strengths include the
use of participatory community training tools and having flexible organizational set-ups that
are able to quickly respond to various community needs. NGOs/CBOs are better placed to
effectively mobilize, raise awareness and educate the communities on several social
development aspects, including rainwater harvesting.

It is, therefore, necessary that guidelines are put in place for districts to engage NGOs and
CBOs in the implementation of some social development aspects, especially those related to
water, sanitation, health, energy, production and climate change mitigation and adaptation,
etc.

4.4. Feasibility of Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) systems

The current common conviction that water will always be available in Uganda is increasingly
becoming a myth, with the changing climate and unpredictable and unreliable rainfall in the country.
Rain (flood) water harvesting is increasingly becoming important.

According DWD, people have access to safe and clean, if the water source is within a distance of
500m and 1500 m away from the homestead in rural and urban areas, respectively. Although this is
better than in places where people have to move longer distances to fetch water, it cannot in reality be
classified as the best access to water. The 500-1500m distance is still an inconvenience to many
households. As mentioned earlier, Ugandans are accustomed to fetching water from taps, boreholes,
and protected springs that they do not bother harvesting rainwater. They allow rainwater to runoff
after a major torrent and the next hour or day they purchase water at exorbitant prices or move long
distances, sometimes on rough terrain, to fetch clean water. In addition, Ugandans are so
dependent on rain-fed agriculture that they do not bother to capture and store rain (flood)
water for watering animals and plants during droughts.

Page 34 of 49
There is a growing argument that water should cease being treated as a “human right”, but
rather as an economic or tradable commodity with “user rights”, if equitable allocation and
efficient and sustainable use is to be tenable (AWA, 2009). No matter how controversial this
argument may be, it is a clear indication that traditional water sources (rivers, swamps,
streams, springs & lakes) are becoming insufficient to meet growing demand. This calls for a
paradigm shift in the way water is sourced or accessed. The water issue raises ethical,
political, technological, managerial and scientific questions that need answers.

Reliance on rain-fed agriculture is increasing becoming untenable. The use of river, stream,
swamp and lake water sources for irrigation, although viable, is not sustainable due to
shrinking volumes. Therefore, rain (flood) water sources for irrigation will continue to prove
more viable to ensure current and future food security.

The costs of rainwater harvesting infrastructure could range from a few shillings to 30million
shilling irrigation tanks or reservoirs, which could be discounted over time. Therefore,
rainwater harvesting helps overcome water costs from commercial sources.

There is a human resource capacity in the country necessary for the development of rainwater
harvesting infrastructure.

Despite all this, there is no evidence so far that cost-benefit, opportunity-cost, cost-effectiveness,
affordability and loan and subsidy analyses have been conducted to confirm the feasibility of rain
(flood) water harvesting systems. Most systems have been established with the conviction (not based
on research information) that they are viable or necessary. There is need to conduct feasibility
assessment of all planned rain (flood) water harvesting systems in the country.

Page 35 of 49
 CHAPTER- V: POLICIES FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIO-
CULTURAL ADAPTATION FOR LOCAL AND REGIONAL SOCIAL
DEVELOPMENT

5.1. Policy and Legal Framework

The National Water Policy (1999)11 was developed based on two distinct categories, namely;
i).Water Resources Management: covering the policy, objectives, principles and strategies
for monitoring, assessment, allocation and protection of the resources and management
framework. Water is a public resource held in trust by the government in accordance to the
Constitution (1995) and local Government Act (1997). The necessary legislation is the Water
Statute (1995) and Water Resources Regulations (1998).
ii). Water Development and use: covering the policy, objectives, principles, and strategies
for the development and use of water for:
a) Domestic water supply as defined in the Water Statute 1995
b) Water for agricultural production;
c) Other water uses including industry, hydropower, recreation, and ecosystem needs
Other additional policy and legal provisions governing the water sector include the Uganda
Water Action Plan (1995); Waste Discharge Regulations (1998), the Water Supply
Regulations (1999); Sewerage Regulations (1999); the Environment Management Statute
(1995); the Children Statute (1996); the Land Act (1998), the National Health Policy and
Health Sector Strategic Plan (1999), and the National Gender Policy (1997).
These policy and legal provisions are considered comprehensive and the best on the African
continent. But in reality, gaps have been encountered when dealing with water resources
management.
The policy is deliberately designed to be of a broad-based charter, to allow for wider
interpretation and adoption as the need arises. However, it pronounces a set of specific
policies and strategies for domestic water supply and water for production due to their
priority status in the broader context of water resources management. But, it does not offer
any specific policies and strategies for rain (flood) water harvesting.
Rainwater harvesting is rightly assumed to be part of the whole water supply chain.
Unfortunately, it is often overlooked or ignored altogether in favour of development of the
conventional water supply chain. The policy assumes that by addressing water supply, water
abstraction and sanitation, rainwater harvesting and underground water recharge will
automatically be covered. However, this is not the case. There is need for a deliberate policy
on rainwater harvesting and underground recharge, especially now that the traditional sources

11
. All policies drafted during and after 1995 were upgraded to 2000 policies.

Page 36 of 49
of water i.e. rivers, streams, wetlands, springs and underground aquifers are drying, receding
or becoming non-accessible.
The policy is, among others, intended to promote separation of powers from user interests;
integrated and sustainable development, management and use of water resources with full
participation of all stakeholders; regulated use of all public, private or groundwater for
purposes other than domestic; sustainable provision of clean safe water within easy reach and
good hygienic sanitation practices and facilities based on management responsibility and
ownership by users in a decentralised arrangement; development and efficient use of water in
agriculture in order to increase productivity and mitigate effects of climate change on rain-fed
agriculture.
Traditionally, debates and decisions regarding policy occur within formal spaces (Cornwall,
2002; Gaventa, 2003). This is the case in Uganda, although government often claims the
involvement of all stakeholders. A mere sitting in a meeting, workshop or conference on
policy by stakeholders does not necessarily equate genuine stakeholder participation. A
different approach from “business as usual” stakeholder involvement needs to be established
to ensure genuine participation of a wide range of stakeholders, particularly civil society and
the general public. This will require the inclusion of the poor and marginalized populations,
so that their voices may be expressed and heard on many matters, including water access, use
and governance. It is often argued that involving all stakeholders and/or the poor and
marginalized in policy discussions and decision-making is difficult or impossible. Although
this may be true, it is an essential means (and end) to equity in allocation of water resources
and a key condition for efficient water resources management to be successful and play its
role in poverty reduction.

In 1997, Government decided to reform the Water Sector to ensure that the sector services are
provided and managed efficiently, cost-effectively and with increased performance, while at
the same time decreasing government‟s burden, but maintaining commitment to sustainability
and equitable development. The sector reform required in-depth study or analysis of the
situation, experiences on the African continent, investment needs and development of
appropriate policies and strategic action plans to implement the reforms. Four water sector
reform areas were identified that included; (i) Rural Water Supply and Sanitation (RWSS);
(ii) Urban Water Supply and Sanitation (UWSS); (iii) Water for Production (WP); and (iv)
Water Resources Management (WRM).

The Rural WSS and Urban WSS reform studies were completed in 2000, while the Water for
Production reform study was expected to be completed in 200312. The Water Resources
Management (WRM) Reform study was conducted during the 2003-2005 period. The WRM
reform study found out that, if IWRM is to have an impact in water resources development
and planning, it should go beyond water resources monitoring to broad recognition by the
public, water resource developers, the leadership (national and district) and civil society. The
WRM Strategy was designed to assist the country to achieve its poverty reduction and
economic development goals. It was also designed to enable WRM authorities to cope with
the current and future water resources challenges. In general, it is intended to ensure
sustainable planning, management and equitable allocation of the water resource aimed at
protection from droughts and floods, produce renewable energy and provide water supply for
urban and rural areas and water for production.
12
. By time writing, no information was readily available to confirm this completion
Page 37 of 49
5.2. Rainwater Harvesting and Culture

In the past when piped water, boreholes, protected spring systems, etc were absent, rainwater
harvesting was the norm. But currently, it is considered an archaic practice, especially in
urban areas. It is associated with the rural poor that do not have access to various water
infrastructures.
In addition, in the past and currently in rural areas, rainwater harvesting was coupled with
fetching water from springs, stream, ponds, rivers and lakes in the community. Fetching
water from these sources was and still is an important social event where people (especially
women & children) in the community meet to talk about issues affecting them or meet during
courtship.

5.2.1. Rain and Art

Rain has a direct influence on the kind of art that different communities tend to depict. In
Uganda, apart from the art that is associated with rivers, springs, swamps and lakes, there is
little that is associated with rain.

5.2.2. Rain and Language

The words used to describe rain in different tribes have different meanings. For example, the
Baganda call rain Enkuba, while the Banyakitara (i.e. Banyoro, Batoro, Banyankole &
Bakiga) call it Enjura. While the Baganda do not have the word Enjura in their language,
among the Banyakitara, the word Enkuba means lightening. Similar situations frequently
occur across the tribes in the country where a word in one language means some else
altogether.

5.2.3. Myths and Legends

When rain falls while the sun is shining, it is widely believed in many cultures in Uganda that
a leopard is giving birth. There is no evidence as to whether harvesting rain during such an
event is taboo.
When lightning strikes during a drizzle and destroys trees or kills animals or human beings
the spirit of “Lado” as it is traditionally known in Buganda, is annoyed. It is also associated
with witchcraft. As above, there is no evidence whether rainwater harvested during such an
event is taboo. Among the Buganda, the rainbow is called “Musoke”. It is known to “drink
rain”, thus preventing it to fall. Experience has shown that each time a rainbow is seen, rain
does not fall in the area. Similar beliefs are held among other tribes. However, it should be
recalled that a rainbow is formed when there is moisture in the air.
In some cultures in the country, the absence of rain in a traditional rainfall season, is a direct
indication that the “gods are annoyed” calling for a sacrifice to appease the gods to release
rain. With the changing climate and frequent scarcity of rainfall in the traditional rainfall
seasons, it becomes obvious that for such cultures, sacrifice will become more pronounced.
Page 38 of 49
5.3. Commercial, Industrial and Institutional Case Studies on Rainwater harvesting
There are several institutional case studies and reports on rainwater harvesting in the country
and international arena that offer rich source of information. However, there are little or no
deliberate commercial and industrial case studies in Uganda on the feasibility, effectiveness
and impact of rainwater harvesting on society, the economy and the environment. There is,
therefore, need for further studies to provide such important information.

Page 39 of 49
6.0. CONCLUSIONS
Uganda‟s population is highly dependent on natural resources for survival. The country also
has a diversity of people with different ethnicity and cultures, which if not properly
harnessed, are a potential source of differences and conflict related to natural resources use
and management, particularly now at a time when resources are increasing becoming scarce
as the population grows. For example, the scarcity of rainfall (water) is threatening food
security and is becoming a major source of conflict. The country‟s population growth rate
will continue to exert significant pressure on natural resources.

The productivity of the country‟s soils is declining as the soils age, are over exploited and
managed poorly.

Climate is globally changing and its effects are already being felt in the country with areas
that were traditionally well rain-fed becoming arid, river, and Lake Basin inflows declining
and average daily temperatures increase.

Significant investment has already been committed by government in the water sector, but its
actual impact (effectiveness) in serving the intended communities is still debatable. There is
need to conduct assessments to ascertain the effectiveness of the infrastructure already
installed in order to provide insight in national planning and decision-making processes.

Although integrated water resources management (IWRM) is a well accepted concept within
government, its adoption and application is still limited. Several IWRM reforms have been
proposed, but the level to which they have been implemented in the country is not well
known. There is still a challenge of communicating to technocrats and the general public
what IWRM is in reality; its contribution to sustainability; how people can participate; how it
should be adopted in a decentralised governance structure; and the different leadership roles
each stakeholder should play.

Rainwater harvesting has received little attention from government, yet it would contribute
significantly to poverty reduction by reducing the costs people incur in purchasing water
from conventional water supply systems and would help save time usually lost fetching water
from faraway and rough terrain places. There is already well established rainwater harvesting
systems in the country that could be improved or replicated widely in the country. The over-
dependency on conventional water supply systems should be curtailed, if rainwater
harvesting is going to have meaning to majority of the population.

The apparent duplication of roles and responsibilities across and within different government
ministries, departments and agencies is complicating the implementation of national action
plans, challenging the attainment of the desired goals and targets. Although a number of
committee have been put in place to oversee and make follow-up on action plans, reporting,
monitoring and evaluation of the investment or action plan effectiveness is still constrained.

Government is already in partnership with a number of local civil society organisation (CSO)
networks/ coalitions (e.g. UWASNET & URWA) to involve them in the implementation of
certain aspects of the action plans at the community level. Despite this, the involvement of
CSO is still limited. There is a lot of government emphasis on reliance on the private sector to
provide services to the communities. But, this is limited by the inherent profit-oriented

Page 40 of 49
characteristic of private sector that tends to render service delivery inadequate. There is need
to involve CSOs more, since they have proved to have greater comparative advantage in
service delivery to the poor; and involving the communities in planning and decision-making
concerning development.

Although government seems committed to transparency and accountability, in practice it is

often lacking and applied selectively and to a limited scale. The decentralisation system poses
a significant challenge to the attainment of water sector targets due to limited capacity
(human, financial & material). Nevertheless, there is opportunity for improvement and
strengthening of the system.

Water is an important strategic resource for sustenance of life and promotion of the country‟s
economy. The country has had an impressive track record of delivering water supply and
sanitation services in recent years, but it has had limited progress on issues of water for
production and integrated water resources management. In addition, foundations have also
been laid for further progress with the establishment of joint planning and monitoring
arrangements. However the operation of these systems needs to be embedded with deeper
participation of civil society. There is no deliberate and explicit focus on rainwater harvesting
and groundwater recharge as an avenue for improving access to water, especially in the rural
areas. There is a lot of emphasis on conventional water infrastructure development.

The country has impressive policy, legal and institutional frameworks, which if implemented
could significantly contribute to national development. Despite this, there a few
implementation challenges that needs to be resolved.

Page 41 of 49
7.0. RECOMMENDATIONS
It is important to recognise and appreciate that Uganda is a multi-ethnic and multi-racial
community that must live harmoniously. It is, therefore, important to inculcate democratic
principles and practice in the planning and decision-making process concerning natural
resources use and management. Any infringement by one group of society against the other
will cause problems.

Since water is an important strategic resource, more investment is necessary in the sector.
There is need for a deliberate focus on promoting rainwater harvesting and underground
recharge as an alternative source of water. Likewise, greater attention is needed in the
promotion of IWRM approaches in the country.
A policy requiring that all buildings have rainwater harvesting systems should be put in
place. In this way, government would in reality significantly contribute to household poverty
reduction, the Millennium Development Goal on water No. 7 and climate change adaptation.
There is need to promote water use efficiency, equitable allocation of water following a
development path that minimises social, economic and political risks and one that supports
economic frameworks that promote water-resilient behaviours by villages, towns, cities,
industries, farms and pastoral families. There is also need for an explicit policy on rainwater
harvest in the country.
Improved or superior land management approaches should be promoted in the country. There
is need to streamline governance at the central, decentralised and community levels in the
country.

There is need to strengthen government – CSO partnerships to include greater CSO

participation in planning and decision-making concerning development matters in the
country.

Proposals for water to be considered a tradable commodity allocated based on market pricing
(supply & demand) should be approached cautiously, because they can have significant
social, economic and environmental negative ramifications.

Better monitoring of performance should enable greater utilisation of available funds, more
equity in their allocation and increased sustainability of the systems that are installed. The
Government should close the remaining water sector finance gaps by raising budget ceilings
and improving equity in budget allocations between different social service sectors. The
Government‟s Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development and donors should
jointly address delays in the disbursement of funds to enhance quality of work, provide
adequate supervision and improve value for money. The Government should provide a
separate budget line for sanitation as well as allocation and disbursement mechanisms

Page 42 of 49
REFERENCES

1 Africa Water Association (AWA) (2009). Improving District Level Leadership on

sanitation and hygiene in Uganda. SourceBulletin 56 pdf. IRC. www.irc.ni/source.
accessed 18/06/2009

2 Byrnes, Rita M. (ed.) 1992. Uganda A Country Study, Library of Congress:

Washington D.C. pp. 49-51

3 Cornwall, A. (2002). Making Spaces, Changing Places: Situating Participation in

Development, IDS Working Paper 170.

4 EAC/LVBC (2006) Special report on the declining water levels of Lake Victoria.EAC
Secretariat, Arusha.

5 Gaventa, J. (2003). Towards Participatory Local Governance: Assessing the

Transformative Possibilities,
www.sed.manchester.ac.uk/events/participation03/Gaventa.

6 GWP (2005). „IWRM Plans: training manual and operational guide‟, GWP, Capnet
and UNDP, March 2005.
7 GWP. (2004). „Catalysing Change: a handbook for developing IWRM and water
efficiency strategies‟, GWP Technical Committee.

8 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007b) Climate Change 2007:

Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Eds)
(Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York.

9 IWA (2007). Integrated Urban Water Management. Industry Sector Report for WSSD
prepared by IWA. www.worldbank.org
10 Kurian, George Thomas (1992). Encyclopedia of the Third World, fourth edition,
volume III, Facts on File: New York, N.Y., pp. 2009-2010.

11 Millennium Project (2005): UN Task Force on Water and Sanitation

12 NELSAP-SSEA (Nile Equatorial Lakes Strategic Assessment Programme – Sectoral
Strategic Environmental Assessment) (2004). ……

13 Republic of Uganda (2003). „Water and Sanitation in Uganda: Measuring

Performance for Improved Service Delivery, Ministry of Water, Lands and
Environment, September 2003.
14 S.M.K. Donkor and Yilma E. Wolde. (2002). Integrated Water Resources
Management: Issues and Options. United Nations Economic Commission for Africa.
P20.
Page 43 of 49
15 Schuyt, K (2004). „Freshwater and Poverty Reduction: Serving People, Saving
Nature‟ WWF International, Gland, December 2004.

16 The Soil Maps of Africa. European Digital Archive of Soil (EuDASM).

http://eusoils.jrc.ec.europa.eu/esdb_archive/EuDASM/africa/images/maps/download/a
fr_ug2001so.jpg accessed 29/05/2009

17 Tobias Schmitz (2008). Is Africa under dammed? Analysing current trends in African
water infrastructure development. Both ENDS. 12p.

18 Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). (2002). Statistical Abstract. The Republic of

Uganda. 226p. www.ubos.org
19 UNDP (2007) Millennium Developing Goals: Uganda‟s Progress Report 2007. 84p.

20 United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Addis Ababa; Global
Environmental Outlook (GEO) 2000; and UNEP, Earthscan, London 1999.
21 van Aalst. M, Hellmuth. M, and Ponzi. D., (2007). Come Rain or Shine: Integrating
Climate Risk Management into African Development Bank Operations. Working
Paper No. 89. African Development Bank, Tunis.

22 WaterAid (2005). National Water Assessment. Uganda. May 2005.

www.wateraid.org. accessed 29/05/2009

23 World Bank
http://www.fdi.net/documents/WorldBank/conferences/mining2000/Africadata/Ugand
a/WB/Uganda.pdf accessed on 28/05/2009

24 World Bank, (2004). The Republic of Kenya towards water-secure Kenya. Water
Resources Sector Memorandum. Water and Urban I. Africa Region. Report No.
28398-KE. P70. www.worldbank.org
25 World Bank,. (2005). „Institutional and Policy Analysis of River Basin Management
Decentralization: The Principle of Managing Water Resources at the Lowest
Appropriate Level – When and Why Does It (Not) Work in Practice?‟, Edited by
Karim Kemper, Ariel Dinar and William Blomquist, World Bank, May 2005
26 World Bank. (2003). Water Resources Sector Strategy.
www.worldbank.org/topics/water/...
27 WWF. (2003). Managing Rivers Wisely, www.wwf.org

Page 44 of 49
Annexes

Annex 1: Key DWD projects and achievements (2002-2004) in the Water Sector

Project description, Some of the Major Planned Outputs

Goals and Objectives Achievements

Urban water and  18 Ecological Sanitation 

Sanitation (ECOSAN) toilets installed.
SWTWSP/Austria,
STWSP/ADB,  28,134m out of 31,060m
MWTWSP/EU, distribution and transmission
MSTWSP/French/AFD, mains laid in Katakwi,
SSTWSP, NETWSP Kyenjojo, Ibanda
and ERT Projects
 Water supply systems for
Masindi, Lukaya, Kalungu,
Bukomansimbi, Kyanzanga,
Mbirizi and Kinoni
constructed

 8 boreholes with hand pumps

constructed in Hoima and
Masindi

 38 production boreholes in
Hoima and Mubende

 1.705km of power lines

constructed in Nansana,
Wakiso and Kakiri

Sector Wide Approach  Management Information 

to Policy System in local governments
has been updated.
 Equipment for Wide Area
Network (WAN) and
computerization of system for
National Water Sector
Corporation (NWSC)
installed and commissioned.
 132 DWD staff attended
training workshops in various
areas.
 Five (5) planned workshops
were conducted.
 22 graduate trainees are
undergoing training with
various departments within

Page 45 of 49
 DWD.
 26 staff attended a tailor-
made course on supervision
of drilling contracts for
District Water Officers.
 31 staff attended short
courses in East, Central and
Southern Africa Region.
Five (5) new private
operators in small towns were
introduced.
 Strategy for development and
management of water and
sanitation systems in small
towns were developed and
adopted.
 NWSC staff from accounts
and commercial divisions
trained in special accounting
and reporting software.
Rural Water and  Eight (8) Technical Support
Sanitation* Units conducted Inter District
Meetings (IDMs)
 To provide basic  Ten (10) district staffs were
water supply and trained in Ecosan technology.
sanitation facilities  25 district water office staffs
to 65 per cent of the were trained in RGS planning
rural population by and design and 55 districts
the year 2005 with were supported in planning,
an 80 to 90 per cent budgeting and reporting.
effective use and  55 districts were monitored
functionality of and offered technical
facilities. The assistance.
minimum target is  250 District Water Office
to supply 20 litres (DWO) staffs were trained in
of safe and clean GIS mapping and data
water per person per collection.
day within easy  225 DWO staffs were trained
reach. in water quality sampling and
 The objective is to analysis.
reduce the walking  Construction of 10
distance to the demonstration ecological
water supply sanitation toilets commenced.
sources to 1.5 km to Two toilets are complete and
allow the eight are at various stages of
population a chance completion.
to devote the time  Construction of piped water
saved into schemes in 5 RGCs under the
increasing their capacity building programme
 Conduct hydro-geological
and geophysical assessment
for ground water potential in
49 communities in Masaka.
 Conduct site meeting and
seminars in 49 communities
 Rehabilitation, flashing and
purchase of spare parts for
the rehabilitation of 10
boreholes
 Provide technical assistance
to eight (8) districts.
 Engage and supervise six (6)
NGOs for the software pilot
program.
 Conduct training in financial
management in 10 districts
and train 250 district water
officers in general.
 Complete three (3) Rural
Growth Centre (RGC)
schemes and conduct
sanitation and hygiene
promotion workshops in five
(5) RGCs.
 Produce and disseminate
water sector extension
workers handbook in 12
districts.
Page 46 of 49
 incomes as well as for district water officers
improving the commenced and will be
quality of their lives completed in March 2004.
and enhance good  Six (6) vehicles were
governance procured to support TSU
activities in various districts.
 235 staffs were trained in
different software.
Water for Production  55 stations were monitored
for daily flood data on L.
"To promote Kyoga.
development of water  Three (3) station month for
supply for agricultural rainfall data were collected
production in order to for L. Kyoga.
modernize agriculture  Three channel restoration
and mitigate effects of studies were conducted and
climatic variations on reports produced
rain-fed agriculture".  Three (3) flood mobilization
and basin management
Specifically these studies were conducted and
include provision of reports produced
Water for Livestock,  13 new water permits were
Irrigation, aquaculture issued.
and water supply for  22 permits were monitored
rural industry. for legality.
 2,114 surface water,
groundwater and water
quality guidelines were
provided to users.
 293 samples of water supplies
were tested for human and
animal consumption.
 69 surface water stations, 13
groundwater stations and 35
water quality stations were
monitored.
 Water Resources  Working on going (no
Management tangible outcomes yet)
 To promote and
ensure the rational
and sustainable
utilization,
development and
effective
management and
safeguard of water
 Build one (1) Ecosan
demonstration toilet for
public centres.
 Completion of construction
of 51 valley tanks in six
districts under Phase I of the
parish level tanks
programme.
 Commission and hand over
to Local Governments 11
completed surface reservoirs
in Karamoja.
 Completion of refurbishment
works on windmill
installations at sites planned
for commissioning in
Karamoja.
 Initiate the construction of 9
dams/valley tanks under
former LSP.
 Construction of a concrete
spillway at Lodoon dam in
Karamoja.
 Drilling and installation of
production well as
replacement for failed Poroo
dam in Moroto district of
Karamoja.
 Routine flood data collection
and re-calibration of inflow
stations.
 Finalise water balance study.
 Conduct awareness
campaign for local leaders
on settlements in flood plain.
 Training of two staff in
Denmark in Bathymetric
survey.
Page 47 of 49
 resources, for social  Review and expand water
and economic quality monitoring networks.
welfare and  Collect and analyse water
development. quality and sediment
 To ensure the samples from network
equitable sharing stations.
and adequate  Identify more stations and
protection of trans- set up monitoring units.
boundary water  Hold public awareness
resources. workshops//bazaars in the
lake basin.
The immediate  Develop and install
objectives are: catchment modes.
 Update water quality model
 To develop an by collecting, analysing,
effective national input data into model.
strategy for the  Collect, process and analyse
management of discharge rainfall and hydro-
trans-boundary climatic data.
water resources.  Install two river stations with
 To review, gauge pillars and expand
harmonize and their network.
update the existing  Printing of surface water
legal framework for users manual.
water resources  Assess permit applications,
management. monitor compliance to
 To develop permit conditions and
strategies and an identify illegal users.
action plan to  Finalise development and
promote the active implementation guidelines
participation of all and procedures with
stakeholders National Environment
including women, Management Authority
the private sector (NEMA).
and NGOs/CBO in
 Disseminate results of
water resources
preliminary assessment
management.
studies.
 To develop an
 Train field observers, in-
enabling
house training of
environment for
departmental staff and
policy making,
district staff.
planning and co-
 Expand surface water,
ordination of water
groundwater and water
resources
quality monitoring networks
management at all
to north and north-western.
levels, with
emphasis on the  Establish more wetland
decentralisation of monitoring stations.
WRM.  Register polluter, monitor
Page 48 of 49
 To prepare a compliance to permit
capacity building conditions and assess
programme for pollution permit
water resources applications.
management at all  Upgrade Geo-referenced
levels. database for the Nile Basin
 To determine the regional water resources
implications of the management.
other sub-sector  Development of Digital
reform studies and Elevation Model at 1:50,000
other related scale.
developments on  Maintain and upgrade
water resources equipment at monitoring
management. stations.
 To prepare a water
resources
management
strategic investment
plan with a 15 year
planning horizon.

It is anticipated that a total of 80,010 people will be served when the rural water and
sanitation systems are completed

Page 49 of 49