EURECCCA

PROJECT
“Enhancing Resilience of Communities to Climate Change through Catchment
Based Integrated Management of Water and Related Resources in Uganda
(2017-2021)”

AO/OSS/EURECCCA/190710]

MIDTERM EVALUATION REPORT

November 2019
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This evaluation report was developed through wide consultation with OSS, MWE, mandated MDAs
and relevant stakeholders of EURECCCA project at national, regional and catchment levels. The
evaluation team is grateful to OSS for the opportunity they gave to Adroit Consult International, the
information that they provided to Adroit and the regular communication that made the work to
move faster.

In addition, we thank the PSC of EURECCCA project for creating an enabling environment for the
consultants who undertook the MTE. Special thanks go to the PCT lead by the PM for introducing the
MTE programme to all relevant stakeholders especially the EURECCCA project structures at National
and Regional level.

We thank the TLs of the WMZs who welcomed the MTE team/programme in their respective
regions. The TLs took an initiative to introduce the evaluation team to their staff in the zones. They
also mobilized the stakeholders in the respective catchments. This made the work of the evaluation
team smooth.

We also thank the CMC/SCMCs for supporting our evaluation teams during field visits. They were
available to be interviewed, to mobilize their catchment members and to escort the evaluation
teams for site visits at grass root level especially to the most degraded catchments and the
surrounding/affected communities.

Finally, we thank all the respondents who gave us very useful information while in the zones and at
catchment level.

i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................... i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................................................................................... ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................ iii
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Information ............................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description (brief) ..................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Progress Summary .................................................................... 1
1.4 Summary of MTE Ratings and Achievement ......................................... 3
1.5 Summary of conclusions ....................................................................... 5
2.1 Purpose of the MTE and objectives ...................................................... 7
2.2 Methodology: ........................................................................................ 7
2.3 Structure of the MTE report .................................................................. 8
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND .............................................. 8
3.1. Development Context .......................................................................... 8
3.2. Problems that the project is addressing .............................................. 9
3.3 Project Description and Strategy ........................................................ 10
3.4 Project Implementation Arrangements .............................................. 11
3.5 Main stakeholders. .......................................................................... 11
4.1 Project Strategy ................................................................................... 12
4.2 Progress towards Results .................................................................... 17
4.3 Project Implementation and Adaptive Management ......................... 27
4.4 Sustainability ....................................................................................... 31
5.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................... 35
5.2 Recommendations .............................................................................. 35
ANNEXES ................................................................................................... 38

ii
 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AF Adaptation Fund
AWE Air Water Earth
CBWRMP Community-Based Wetland Restoration Management Plan
CC Climate Change.
CCD Climate Change Department
CMCs Catchment Management Committees
CMO Catchment Management Organization
CMPs Catchment Management Plans
CSOs Civil Society Organizations
DPs Development Partners
DWRM Directorate of Water Resources Management
EA Executing Agency
EE Executing Entity
EURECCCA Enhancing Resilience of Communities to Climate Change through
Catchment-Based Integrated Management of Water and Related
Resources
GA Grant Agreement
GCF Green Climate Change
GoU Government of Uganda
GWPEA Global Water Partnership Eastern Africa
HS High School.
IA Implementing Agency
IE Implementing Entity
IEC Information Education Communication
IGAs Income Generating Activities
IPs Implementing Partners
IRWM Integrated Regional Water Management
IWRM Integrated Water Resource Management.
LG Local Government
LVEMP Lake Victoria Environment Management Project
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries.
MCM Million Cubic Meters
MDAs Ministries, Departments and Agencies
MoFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
MoLG Ministry of Local Government
MoU Memoranda of Understanding
MTIC Ministry of Trade, Industry and Commerce

iii
 MWE Ministry of Water and Environment
NARO National Agricultural Research Organization
NEMA National Environmental Management Authority
NFA National Forestry Authority
NGOs Non-Governmental Organizations
OSS Sahara and Sahel Observatory
PCT Project Coordination Team
PD Project Document
PDU Procurement and Disposal Unit.
PET Project Execution Team
PIM Project Implementation Manual
PM Project Manager
PMT Project Management Team
PP Procurement Plan
PPDA Public Procurement and Disposal of Assets
PS Permanent Secretary
PSC Project Steering Committee.
SACCOs Savings and Credit Cooperatives
SG Solicitor General
TLs Team Leaders
ToT Trainer of Trainees.
UNMA Uganda National Metrological Authority.
USD United States Dollars
WMD Wetland Management Department
WMZs Water Management Zones

iv
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Project Information

Country: Republic of Uganda

Project Title: Enhancing Resilience of Communities to Climate Change through
Catchment Based Integrated Management of Water and Related
Resources in Uganda - (EURECCCA)
Donor: Adaptation Fund - AF
Implanting Entity Sahara and Sahel Observatory (OSS)
Executing Entity: Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda
Budget: USD 7,751,000
Duration: 2017-2021
MTE Period Considered: May 2017-September 2019

1.2 Project Description (brief)

The “Enhancing Resilience of Communities to Climate Change through Catchment Based Integrated
Management of Water and Related Resources in Uganda” (EURECCCA) Project was designed to support
Uganda’s Government efforts to implement Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) through
Catchment Management Planning and implementation to increase the resilience of communities to the
risk of floods and landslides in Maziba, Aswa, and Awoja Catchments. The overall goal of the project is to
increase the resilience of communities to floods and landslides in Awoja, Maziba, and Aswa Catchments
through promoting catchment based integrated, equitable and sustainable management of water and
related resources. The Specific objectives are to;
1. Increase the resilience of ecosystems by supporting the sustainable management of natural
ecosystems including forests, wetlands, and riverbanks;
2. Increase the resilience of agricultural landscapes by supporting communities to develop and
implement sustainable water harvesting, soil biophysical, and flood control structures;
3. Increase the resilience of other community livelihood systems by supporting income generating
activities through facilitating credit and market access;
4. Build the capacity of extension services and institutions at local, catchment, water management
zone and national level to better support local stakeholders.

These objectives are intended to be achieved through compliance with the following key components:
- Component 1: Establishing Frameworks for Climate Resilient Catchment Management in Awoja,
Aswa, and Maziba catchments:
- Component 2: Implementing concrete adaptation actions for resilient and sustained
ecosystems, agricultural landscapes and diversification of livelihood systems
- Component 3: Building capacities of extension services and institutions at sub-catchment,
catchment and WMZ level to support local communities and knowledge management.

1.3 Project Progress Summary

The overall progress towards results is currently 33%. At midterm, most of the documentation
especially the updated CMPs, CBWRMPs, restoration plans, and various terms of references and
specifications were in place. There has also been significant stakeholder engagement and capacity

1
building in Awoja, Maziba and Aswa catchments. The findings reveal that stakeholders in all the three
catchments are very enthusiastic about the EURECCCA interventions and are willing to participate in
the project activities. Preparations for physical implementation are almost complete; as most of the
service providers for the activities dedicated to restoration have been already procured and are active.
EURECCCA project team is very committed to fast track the execution of the physical restoration
activities of natural resources in the riverbanks, forests, agricultural landscapes and wetlands for which
there has been recorded a smooth delay of about 6 months. The low disbursement level (16%) is
attributed to the delays in executing the project activities. The project is credited for establishing
SCMCs to coordinate, supervise and implement activities at the grassroots level. Nine (9) fully
functional SCMCs for the 3 target catchments are in place. The SCMCs have appointment letters and
are already working in the catchments and willing to support the physical implementation of this
project. The MTE recommends that they continue to produce minutes of their meetings and reports of
their involvement in the project to take stock of their performance.
Regarding the resilience of livelihood systems to climate change impacts, this project has carried out
significant capacity building and awareness raising in the Catchments and the community perceptions
towards restoration activities have been significantly improved. To fast track the progress, there is a
need for timely provision of the alternative IGAs to the target beneficiaries. This should be enhanced
through the execution of the revolving fund.
To accelerate the adaptive capacity of communities and other stakeholders to climate change, the
project has set up three (3) demonstration centers. It is envisioned that this will strengthen the
capacities of extension services and institutions at catchment level to undertake climate change
adaptation activities which have already began with a TOT training in Maziba catchment. The ToT
trainings of Awoja and Aswa catchments are scheduled to be held within November 2019.
Whereas the project development was ambitious, the demand for alternative livelihood options is high
among affected households. The budget of USD 699,000 may cover fewer households in the degraded
hotspots. This calls for the prioritization of the most vulnerable households. Furthermore, this should
inform the design of similar projects in the near future to scale up the interventions. The consultancy-
based methodology used by the project is a good approach for knowledge transfer to the communities
and project staff, despite a few shortcomings identified during the MTE as elaborated later in the report.
The team should also document this methodology for learning purposes.
Despite challenges related to disbursement delays expected to finance activities within the targeted
catchment which is linked to procurement problems, it has to be highlighted that the project has
recorded progress succeeding onto putting in place capacity building and preparatory activities prior to
the realistic and heavy scheduled action plan of the project during the next period. This calls for
continued dialogue between OSS, MWE, and MoFPED to agree on how best to address the challenges
so far faced in order to facilitate timely disbursement of funds. In addition, MWE should discuss with
MoFPED on how best to improve internal disbursement procedures.

2
1.4 Summary of MTE Ratings and Achievement
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
Objective: To 16% ▪
Integrity of The overall progress Training reports,
increase the targeted natural towards results is at 33%.
Quarterly reports,
resilience against resources Preparations for physicalAnnual Technical
the risk of flood improved by at implementation are under Report, Supervision
and landslides of least 50% way and most of the Reports, Capacity
Awoja, Maziba and 16% ▪ 50% of targeted service providers for thebuilding reports, Field
Aswa Catchments households restoration activities have
reports, MOUs,
through promoting develop climate already been procured Attendance lists,
catchment based resilience to and are already working. Workshop Reports,
integrated, climate change Baseline reports and
equitable and impacts by 2020 field interviews
sustainable 1% ▪ Natural
management of resources
land and water restored by 10%
resources in the project
areas by 2020
Component 1: Establishing Frameworks for Climate Resilient Catchment Management in Awoja, Aswa and
Maziba catchments
Outcome 1.1 65% ▪ Three (3) fully ▪ The SCMC minutes of ▪ Copies of the
Comprehensive functional their meetings are CMPs
catchment Catchment available ▪ 500 copies
planning system management verified
that integrates structures for the ▪ Workshop
issues of climate 3 target reports
change established catchments are in
and tested in place.
Awoja, Aswa and
Maziba
Outcome 1.2 Awoja, 70% ▪ Fully functioning ▪ The SCMCs were ▪ Minutes of
Aswa and Maziba structures by end formed in 2018, they meetings
catchments 2017 have met twice so far ▪ Lists of SCMC
managed by members
appropriate water ▪ Appointment
and climate letters of SCMCs
governance
structures
Component 2 Implementing concrete adaptation actions for resilient and sustained ecosystems, agriculture and
other livelihood systems
Outcome 2.1 32% ▪ At least two ▪ The Hectares that are ▪ Capacity building
Resilience of ecological systems in for restoration are reports
ecosystems improved their not specified in the ▪ Attendance lists
services of forests, resilience by 2020 results matrix for the trainings
wetlands and ▪ These were supposed ▪ Field interviews
riverbanks to to be improved after with stakeholders
climate undertaking physical ▪ Baseline reports
change impacts restoration activities for EURECCCA
enhanced which have not taken project
place ▪ CBWRMP

3
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
▪ Quarterly reports
▪ Annual Technical
report
Outcome 2.2 18% ▪ At least 400ha of ▪ Some draft costed ▪ Training reports
Resilience of land of plans are in place ▪ Quarterly reports
agricultural agricultural land ▪ Community ▪ Annual Technical
landscapes to with biophysical engagement in the Report
climate change and water planning process is
▪ Supervision
impacts enhanced harvesting on-going until end of
Reports
structures in project
place.
Outcome 2.3 3% ▪ The percentage ▪ The CBWMP ▪ Capacity
Resilience of of food process has building reports
livelihood systems insecure identified some ▪ Field reports
to climate change households is livelihood options
impacts enhanced reduced to 10% ▪ The identified
by providing 0 ▪ 2400 livelihood options
alternative income vulnerable will be the basis for
generating households preparing the
opportunities have improved livelihood report
livelihoods
0 ▪ At least
incomes of 70%
of participating
farmers have
improved
Component 3: Building climate change adaptive capacities of institutions and communities and knowledge
management
Outcome 3.1 24% ▪ Adaptive capacities ▪ The livelihood ▪ Training reports
Adaptive capacity of of at least 60% options and all ▪ MOUs
communities and target communities other physical ▪ Quarterly
other stakeholders to climate change interventions have reports
to climate change impacts have been not yet been ▪ Attendance lists
impacts strengthened. implemented in for trainings
strengthened the identified
hotspots
Outcome 3.2 16% ▪ By the end of the ▪ Annual
Demonstrating and project lessons and Technical
developing best practices are Reports
mechanisms to documented, ▪ Quarterly
integrate climate shared and reports
change adaptation influence local and
and central government
implementation planning and policy.
0 ▪ At least 2 study ▪ Study tours are
tours per yet to be
catchment undertaken
organized

4
1.5 Summary of conclusions
Overall, EURECCCA Project was well thought out and responds to the needs of the beneficiaries because
flooding and landslides are common challenges in Maziba, Awoja and Aswa catchments. The project is
credited for forming gender-inclusive SCMCs in all the three catchments. The EURECCCA project has
undertaken a good level of stakeholder engagement, capacity building and sensitization aimed at
building climate change adaptive capacities of institutions and communities and knowledge
management. The project is credited for innovating a multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral and multi-
institutional approach in undertaking key interventions such as forestry, livelihood systems, wetlands
restoration, agricultural landscapes and soil bio-physical structures. This is justified by the MOUs signed
with various institutions such as NARO, GWPEA, MTIC and other PPPs with nursery operators.
1.6 Summary of Recommendation
To successfully realize the intended results of the project interventions, the following recommendations
should be put into consideration;
No RECOMMENDATIONS
TECHNICAL
1. Consider more involvement of the MDAs that have expertise in forestry, livelihood systems, wetlands
restoration, agricultural landscapes and soil bio-physical structures to take advantage of their capacity and
experience
2. Explore the option of opening new SACCOs/cooperatives with full membership of the beneficiary
communities in the degraded catchments
3. Since the funds for the IGAs will be able to cover fewer number of households as compared to the total
number of households that will be affected by the interventions, there is need to prioritize the most
vulnerable households in the hotspots
4. Develop a gender equality action plan
5. Prepare a livelihood assessment report based on the available information from the consultants
6. Ensure that affected communities in degraded hotpots are prioritized by women groups, tree nursery
operators and the consultants while implementing various interventions
7. Increase the involvement of the CMCs and the SCMCs in work planning, budgeting and accountability
monitoring, to strengthen transparency in decision making on this project
8. Capture and document input of the CMCs and SCMCs in the planning process of the EURECCCA project
9. Fast track development of a communication plan for the project and recruit a communications officer to
support its implementation
10. Ensure faster execution of the activities in order to reduce the delay. OSS should consider more frequent
supervision missions (for instance twice a year) accordingly
ADMINISTRATION
1. Fast track the legalization of SCMCs to create an enabling environment for them to be supported to
undertake their roles
2. Continuously utilize regional PDUs where possible that can be easily accessed for follow-up to minimize
unnecessary procurement delays
3. Introduce “NAVISION” accounting software in the regional offices
4. According to the Grant Agreement between GoU and OSS, EURECCCA Project can withdraw any amount of
money without exceeding the cap of USD 750,000 at any time during the project execution by providing all
the required documents. This disbursement procedure should be utilized in accordance to the grant
agreement
5. Seek no objection for the recommendation made by the PSC to hold meetings after every 4 months but not
every 3 months.
6. Continue to use the approved Procurement Plan (PP) to avoid further delays. In addition, there is need to

5
No RECOMMENDATIONS
give one “no objection” that applies to the entire procurement process so that the EA does not seek more
than one “no objection” on the same process
7. Consider applying for a no cost extension in the event that there is indication that the project
implementation will not be completed within the remaining period given that the project delayed for about
6 months
8. OSS, MWE and MoFPED should continue to dialogue and agree on how best to address the disbursements
challenges so far faced in order to facilitate timely disbursement of funds

MONITORING AND EVALUATION

1. Ensure regular work plan reviews (at least monthly) which make tracking of results easier
2. Come up with a rigorous knowledge management and documentation system to capture all the
achievements of the project to take stock of the cumulative effect of the interventions that will support
evaluation of the project results. Knowledge management and documentation function should therefore
be given priority through either assigning it to an existing staff where possible or engaging a new person.
3. Revise the results matrix to include further break down of some of the project indicators in order to
measure level of progress
4. Develop more accountability tools that get feedback from the communities on project implementation.
Pre-tested Each tool on the target stakeholders
5. Build the capacities of the project staff to support in taking stock and documenting processes, progress,
challenges, lessons and feedback from the stakeholders especially beneficiaries. Notwithstanding, the
project should come up with a flexible routine of undertaking monitoring visits to each of the respective
catchments
6. Recruit at least one M&E officer per region or assign the function to existing staff where possible

6
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose of the MTE and objectives
The objective of the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) was to assess progress towards the achievement of the
project objectives and outcomes as specified in the Project Document. It assessed early signs of project
success or challenges in order to identify adjustments to achieve its intended results. The Mid-term
evaluation assessed:
- The initial outputs and results of the project;
- The quality of implementation, including financial management;
- The assumptions made during the preparation phase, in particular, objectives and agreed
upon indicators, against current conditions;
- The factors affecting the achievement of objectives, and;
- The M&E systems and their implementation.

The MTE findings highlight issues requiring decisions and actions, present initial lessons learned about
project design, implementation, and management and incorporates recommendations for the second
half of the project’s term.

2.2 Methodology:
Study Design: We employed a descriptive cross-sectional study design using highly participatory and
credible methods/approaches of data collection. The approach was supported by qualitative methods of
data collection (i.e. document review, face-to-face interviews, key informant interviews and Observation
checklist).
Scope of the Evaluation: The project assignment is located in Uganda and the Midterm evaluation
specifically covered four (4) geographic sites of; Kampala at the Directorate of Water Resources
Management, Awoja catchment located in Kyoga Basin in the Eastern, Aswa catchment located in Aswa
basin in the Northern and Maziba catchment located in Kagera Basin in the South western. The MTE
considered the May 2017-September 2019 project implementation period.
The Targeted Respondents: The Midterm evaluation specifically sought to capture responses from the
following stakeholders/respondents. This list of persons interviewed is presented in annex 2.
Level Category
- Central - Project Steering Committee Members
Level - Coordination Team
- Ministry of Finance Officials
- Representative from GWPEA
- Maziba - LC V Chairperson Kabale and Ntungamo
Catchment - The SCMC Chairpersons and secretaries
- Women groups
- KaZARDI
- VWMZ/EURECCCA Staff
- Wetlands
- Tree Nursery

7
 - Consultants on ground
- Aswa - Consultants on ground (IUCN, WAM Inc., Devine Waters, JEEP)
Catchment - The SCMC /CMC Chairpersons and secretaries.
- Directorate of Environmental Affairs staff (Wetlands, Forestry, Environmental
officers)
- UNWMZ/EURECCCA Staff
- Women groups
- District local Government technical staff (Natural Resources Officer, CDO)
- Ngetta
- Karenga Wetland
- Selected Tree Nursery Operator
- Awoja - KWMZ/EURECCCA Staff
Catchment - LC5 for Soroti District/Chairperson of Awoja CMC and Secretary of CMC
- The SCMC Chairpersons and secretaries
- Women Groups
- Serere Demonstrational Center
- Selected Tree Nursery Operator
- Consultants (Segamu 14 and AWE)

Data Collection: In order to address the objectives and indicators of this midterm evaluation, a highly
participatory and consultative techniques were used, involving document review, key informant
interviews and field observation. Both primary and secondary data were collected using qualitative
techniques so that all the task questions can be answered.
Limitations: The study had no major limitations only that some sites in the project area was inaccessible
during the MTE period due to bad road network.
2.3 Structure of the MTE report
This report has four sections namely:
1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Project Description and Background Context
4. Findings
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
3. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
3.1. Development Context
About 50% of Uganda’s1 working population is engaged in subsistence agriculture as the main
occupation. Currently, agriculture employs approximately 66% of the working population and
contributes about 22% to total GDP. Between 2009 and 2010, Uganda’s human population grew by 3.7%
to (32 million people) and is projected to 103.2 million in 2050. Furthermore, in spite of rapid
urbanization, 85% of the population remains predominantly rural. Although Uganda’s Vision 2040

11 The 2016/17 household survey

8
targets 60% urban population by 2040, it is more likely that, 79% of Uganda’s population will still live in
rural areas by 2030. The total demand for water is expected to increase from 408 MCM/y in 2010 to
3963 MCM/y in 2050. Under different climate change scenarios, the total unmet water demand in 2050
could rise from 3 to 10 MCM/y. Therefore, Uganda’s economy and local communities, especially in rural
areas, are vulnerable to climate change and variability due to:
• Heavy reliance on natural resources in the agricultural sector and dependence on rain-fed
agriculture
• Agricultural performance is linked to climatic changes and rainfall variability e.g. seasonal
rainfall patterns
• High human population growth rates of ~3.2% per year coupled with high poverty levels
• Reducing the capacity of communities to cope with climate hazards
• Low per capita income of ~ US$506;
• Limited financial capacity to fund adaptation measures
• Weak and inadequate infrastructure
• Inadequate supply of clean water and sanitation facilities; and
• Inadequate availability of health and medical services.

3.2. Problems that the project is addressing

Although Uganda’s climate is naturally variable, the major symptoms of climate change include: an
increase in temperatures; an increase in variability and unpredictability of rainfall patterns leading to
increased frequency and intensity of disasters e.g. floods and landslides. The poor and vulnerable feel
these impacts the hardest. Exacerbating poverty, triggers migration and heightens competition for
water resources, and leads to regional insecurity. Many ecosystems, including forests, wetlands,
streams, rivers and riverbanks as well as farmlands are under increasing threat of degradation or
modification in the face of population increase and climate change. Regulatory services of these
ecosystems for instance flood control through water infiltration, landslide regulation and soil erosion
control or water purification are decreasing due to unsustainable cropping practices in Uganda’s farming
systems. These have led to declining land productivity with reduction in food supply; expansion of
agricultural frontiers to fragile parts of ecosystems e.g. riverbanks, swamps and steep slopes. Inevitably,
interference with slope stability has led to increased magnitude of various hazards e.g. soil erosion,
landslides, siltation and flooding.
As a means of promoting integrated planning, development and management of water and related
resources to address the various impacts including climate change, Uganda has embarked on the
preparation of Catchment Management Plans (CMPs).
However, the current CMPs neither sufficiently consider the inter-linkages between water and land
management nor take climate change fully into consideration. The involvement of sub-regional and local
management structures as well as extension service workers in management of water and related
resources have been limited. Farmers in the catchment areas have limited capacity to sustainably
manage water and land resources to decrease the risk of floods, landslides and siltation.
They are limited in the form of technical know-how on implementation of various adaptation
technologies and lack the tools in form of guidance documents and equipment to enable them
effectively plan and implement measures to reduce these risks. There is high prevalence of wetland,
forest and riverbanks degradation due to insufficient incentives for conservation. Lack of access to credit
facilities further impedes efforts of the local populations to engage in alternative sources of livelihoods.
Therefore, the EURECCCA project, which is a 4 years project (2017-2021) focuses on strengthening the
capacity of sub-regional and local management structures and extension services to promote integrated
management approaches; promoting the organization of communities in interest groups to facilitate

9
stakeholders’ driven catchment-based planning, development and management of water and related
resources; establishing cooperation with partners and stakeholders in planning, development and
management of water and related resources as well as undertaking actions to ensure sustainable
management of water resources and agricultural landscapes to increase their resilience to floods and
landslides.

3.3 Project Description and Strategy

3.3.1 Goal
The overall goal of the project is to increase the resilience of communities to the risk of floods and
landslides in Awoja, Maziba and Aswa Catchments through promoting catchment based integrated,
equitable and sustainable management of water and related resources.

3.3.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives are to:
1. Increase the resilience of ecosystems by supporting the sustainable management of forests,
wetlands and riverbanks
2. Increase the resilience of agricultural landscapes by supporting communities to develop and
implement sustainable water harvesting, soil bio-physical and flood control structures.
3. Increase the resilience of other community livelihood systems by supporting income-generating
activities with credit and market access
4. Build the capacity of extension services and institutions at local, catchment, water
management zone and national level to better support local stakeholders.

3.3.3 Description of field sites

This project is being implemented in three (3) catchments namely: Awoja found in Kyoga Basin in Kyoga
WMZ; Aswa found in Aswa Basin in Upper Nile WMZ and Maziba found in Kagera Basin in Victoria WMZ.
The three catchments have been selected out of four water management zones of Uganda based on:
1. Relative degree of vulnerability to climate change risks of landslides and floods due to
challenges of land degradation, water scarcity, population pressure and poverty.
2. Broader representation of climatic zones of Uganda in order to adapt to changing climate in
different climatic zones and local contexts.
3. Representation of diverse livelihood and social systems ranging from high population density
around high slope and degraded areas dominated by crop farming to semi-arid mixed
agriculture.
4. Opportunity for building synergies with on-going programs/interventions to demonstrate
management of water resources and climate change adaptation measures that are responding
to the local specific contexts and situations. The three catchment areas were also prioritized by
the Government when it started implementing catchment management approach.
5. Sensitivity of ecological systems such as degraded highlands and wetlands.

The three catchments are exposed to the climate change-related risk of flood and landslides. Occurrence
of landslides in these areas is concentrated in the highland ecosystems, while flooding occurs in lowland
ecosystems.

10
3.4 Project Implementation Arrangements
The project is implemented by the Sahara and Sahel Observatory (OSS) and executed by the Ministry of
Water and Environment (MWE) through the Directorate of Water Resources Management (DWRM)
(Uganda). OSS is:
• Supervising the Monitoring & Evaluation activities
• Participating in joint supervision missions with MWE/DWRM
• Auditing the completion of the evaluation and preparing the annual reports to the AF
• Auditing Quarterly Reporting and Validation
• Auditing and Approving Certified Periodic Financial Statements
• Reviewing the work plan and half-yearly and annual budgets of the project
• Approving the annual technical and financial reports
• Supervising Environment and Social Management Plan
The overall management of the project is ensured by the Permanent Secretary /Ministry of Water and
Environment (PS/MWE). The PS has the overall responsibility for the execution of the project. The day to
day management of the project is ensured by the Project Manager and Team Leaders of the Water
Management Zones (WMZs). Existing structures such as the Water Management Zone Advisory
Committees, the Catchment Management Organization (CMO) in collaboration with key stakeholders
such as the Global Water Partnership Eastern Africa (GWPEA), National Environment Management
Authority (NEMA), Climate Change Department (CCD) and the participating local governments in the
three catchments of Awoja, Aswa and Maziba are also used to support project implementation.
DWRM through the various WMZs has already established governance structures (Stakeholders Forums
and Catchment Management structures in the 3 catchments that are being strengthened and used for
coordination of project implementation. At the local level, project execution offices are based at the
MWE eastern regional offices based in Mbale (for Awoja catchment), the MWE northern regional offices
based in Lira (for Aswa catchment) and the MWE south-western regional offices located in Kabale (for
Maziba catchment). The project execution offices are closely collaborating with local government
structures in the execution of the project in line with the Catchment Planning Guidelines. A project
manager was appointed and stationed at the Directorate of Water Resources and ensures liaison on
project activities among and between the MWE, the WMZs, the field offices, local governance structures
and other stakeholders.
The project is guided by various committees including the Project Steering Committee, Project
Coordination Team, Project Execution Team, Focal Points at WMZs, and Support Team at the MWE. In
addition, existing structures such as the Water Management Zone Advisory Committees, the Catchment
Management Organization (CMO) structure and GWPEA provides the necessary guidance to the project
and ensure that the needs of the local communities are met. GWPEA performs the advisory role and is
responsible for providing technical guidance and support to the project.

3.5 Main stakeholders.

- Sahara and Sahel Observatory.
- Ministry of Water and Environment.
- Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
- Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
- Ministry of Trade Industry and Cooperatives
- National Environment Management Authority
- National Forestry Authority

11
 - Climate Change Department
- Directorate of Water Resources Management
- Directorate of Environmental Affairs
- Global Water Partnership
- Catchment Management Committees
- Sub-Catchment Management Committees
- Local Governments

4. FINDINGS
4.1 Project Strategy

4.1.1 Project Design

Issues addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions

The EURECCCA project set out to increase the resilience of communities to the risk of floods and
landslides in Awoja, Maziba and Aswa Catchments through promoting catchment-based integrated,
equitable and sustainable management of water and related resources through its three components.
Overall the issues addressed by the project were relevant to the needs of the communities affected by
flooding and landslides. The project design was guided by several assumptions as reviewed below:

Under outcome 1.1 Comprehensive catchment planning system that integrates issues of climate change
established and tested in Awoja, Aswa and Maziba, the project assumed that decision-makers at all
levels are willing to mainstream climate change considerations into planning and programming in a
timely manner. This assumption is still valid and indeed the MTE observed various efforts by the key
decision-makers and stakeholders to mainstream issues of climate change at all levels of decision
making. The LGs in the project areas acknowledge the importance of mitigating the challenges
addressed by this project. Furthermore, the assumption that no major disputes and conflicts occur
within communities is still valid.

Outcome 2.1: Resilience of ecosystems services of forests, wetlands and riverbanks to climate change
impacts enhanced. The assumption that local and regional planners, landowners, farmers, and local
communities understand the value of combining conventional and traditional flood control systems to
reduce risk is not entirely valid. Statistics show that up to 70% of the land degradation in the project
areas occurs on private land and is perpetuated by landowners, farmers, and local communities. This
explains the project’s high investment on stakeholder engagement and sensitization.

The second assumption on Outcome 2.1 was that Environmental authorities and local communities work
together to incorporate ecosystem conservation measures into risk reduction. This assumption is valid,
although additional efforts are needed to facilitate local government authorities to spearhead this
initiative. This would create the cohesion and synergy required to sustain the project interventions. In
addition, it should be noted that communities do not easily adopt some of the proposed conservation
measures especially those whose livelihoods will be affected by the project interventions.

Output 3.1.2: Three (3) demonstration centers to facilitate experience sharing activities regarding
ecosystems conservation control of floods and landslides and Alternative Income Generating Activities
established. The underlying assumption that Government is willing to provide land and other facilities

12
necessary for a demonstration center is valid. Indeed, the project has partnered and signed MoUs with
National Agricultural Research Institute (NARO) through its Zonal Agricultural Research centers, to
provide demonstration centers and plots in a bid to enhance learning and adoption of climate change
adaptation activities within the communities in the catchment.

Output 3.2.2: Government officials integrate IWRM and CC in national and sectoral development plans.
Under this output, the assumption was that key sector heads and ministries are willing to integrate
IWRM and CC issues in development plans. This MTE observed that key sector heads have demonstrated
their willingness by committing to incorporate IWRM and CC issues in the national and sectoral
development plans. During an interaction with the LCV Chairman in one of the catchments, he alluded
to the fact that climate change issues are key in their planning. “Climate Change and environmental
issues are some of the things I am trying to adapt within the district budget, set up and planning,” said
the LCV Chairman, adding that he wants to streamline it in their management and development
framework.

Overall approach in relation to the Project's objectives

The stakeholder-driven and owned approach adopted in implementation of the project is linked to the
project’s objectives. For enhanced resilience of communities to Climate Change through Catchment
Based Integrated Management of Water and Related Resources, the project has ensured stakeholder
participation and engagement from the onset. The baseline surveys carried out in Aswa, Maziba and
Awoja catchments involved the communities in identifying their needs and developing action plans. In
addition, the formation of the SCMCs with a composition of stakeholders from different sectors and
platforms of government at lower levels enabled collective planning, engagement and active
participation of local communities. This is key in ensuring ownership and sustainability of project
interventions.

The objectives of this project are diverse and require immense expertise, skills, and knowledge in its
execution. The adoption of the consultancy-based methodology guided by in-house development of
concept notes has helped in meeting this required technical expertise. This also facilitated the
engagement of a number of stakeholders from various fields to address the broad nature of the
activities in the project design. The MTE calls on the execution team to note the following while
engaging the consultants;
▪ The effectiveness of the consultancy-based method is usually hindered by delays in the
procurement process. This should be fast-tracked for successful delivery of project outputs.
▪ Consultancy services are provided in a multi-phased approach and this should be taken care of
during planning for timeliness in delivery.
▪ Consultancy services are tagged to agree payment schedules for the execution of deliverables
i.e. in the event of delayed financial releases, the execution is equally delayed.
▪ The consultancy periods for implementation should match the scope of work to ensure quality
of deliverables.
▪ With this approach, there is need for effective mechanisms on knowledge transfer to the project
staff as well.
▪ The quality of some staff fronted by some of the consultancy firms are at times below the
technical specifications of some of the deliverables.
The EURECCCA team is encouraged to document this methodology for learning and to inform the
design of similar projects in the near future.

13
Design of the Project and the coherence of its strategies and activities
Climate change is a cross-cutting issue. To respond to this, the EURECCCA project is implemented in a
multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral and multi-institutional design and incorporates issues pertaining to
restoration of forests, wetlands and riverbanks; sustainable water harvesting, soil bio-physical and flood
control structures; community livelihood systems through supporting income generating activities with
credit and market access and capacity building.
EURECCCA project was designed to work closely with key sector stakeholders especially WMD, NFA,
MTIC, CC Department, LG, NEMA, MAAIF, MoFPED and NARO as illustrated in the organogram
presented in the Project Document. The MTE recognizes the significant role the project has played in
coordinating these MDAs to work together in fulfilling the project objectives for example the ongoing
collaboration with MTIC for the implementation of the revolving fund, the Public Private Partnership
with the Nursery Operators and the signing of MOUs with institutions such as NARO. For EURECCCA
project to adequately benefit from this unique arrangement, there is need for continuous active
involvement of these MDAs in project activities. In addition, the project is also credited with establishing
SCMCs to coordinate supervise and implement activities at the grassroots level. These structures have
facilitated the creation of awareness and ownership of project interventions by stakeholders from
different fields. (Political leaders, media, LGs, religious leaders, cultural leaders, among others).
Strengthening of these structures is key in ensuring sustainability of the project at grassroots level.
Incorporation of lessons from other relevant projects into EURECCCA
The lessons learnt from existing projects were adequately used in the design and implementation of
EURECCCA Project. For example, there has been very significant sharing of lessons by the EURECCCA,
and the project entitled “Building Resilient Communities, Wetlands Ecosystems and Associated
Catchments in Uganda” funded by Green Climate Fund (GCF), which activities are partly being
implemented in the same area. This has ensured sharing between project management teams and
building of other synergies.

The EURECCCA project philosophy is unique as it follows a catchment-based approach and is driven by
stakeholders at national level through to the community involvement. It is therefore changing the way
existing projects in the ministry have been implemented. EURECCCA has tried to address the shortfalls in
existing projects that used a similar multi-sectoral approach such as Lake Victoria Environment
Management Project (LVEMP); Community Conservation Initiatives (COBWEB) project but continues to
learn from the mistakes as well and the success of these projects that did not follow a catchment based
implementation arrangement.

Coherence of EURECCCA project with the needs and expectations of the beneficiaries
EURECCCA Project is in line with the needs and expectations of the beneficiaries. The project set out to
increase the resilience of ecosystems by supporting sustainable management of forests, wetlands and
riverbanks; increase the resilience of agricultural landscapes by supporting communities to develop and
implement sustainable water harvesting, soil bio-physical and flood control structures; increase
resilience of other community livelihood systems by supporting income generating activities with credit
and market access and build the capacity of extension services and institutions at local, catchment,
water management zone and national level to better support local stakeholders.
Awoja, Aswa and Maziba CMPs, had highlighted challenges of the beneficiaries to include flooding,
deforestation, wetland degradation, poor agricultural productivity in the landscapes, degradation of
riverbanks, landslides, lack of alternative IGAs, poor market access, lack of credit and weak institutional

14
framework. To effectively address these needs, the project implementation requires continuous
alignment of interventions with the management objectives of the CMPs.

Coherence of EURECCCA project with country priorities and country ownership

Uganda has the following country priorities that EURECCCA project is currently addressing: Uganda
National Climate Change Policy; Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) framework, Uganda
Catchment Management Planning guidelines, CMPs for Awoja, Aswa, Maziba; Vision 2040, Wetland
management policy, forestry sector guidelines, Poverty eradication programmes and the National
Adaptation Plan for the Agricultural Sector among others. The project is contributing to the country
planning to ensure country ownership through integration of climate change issues in Awoja, Aswa and
Maziba CMPs. These guidelines are very useful in decision making at national, regional and local levels.

Overall, the concept is in line with the National sector development priorities and plans. The project is in
line with the commitments of the executive arm of the Government2.
Extent to which relevant gender issues were raised in the project design
The EURECCCA project was designed to incorporate gender-related issues in stakeholder consultations
and other participatory forums through the development of a gender equality action plan. The
participatory forums and structures were to be constituted through representatives of different groups,
including women, poor, youth, elderly and persons with disability as these are the most vulnerable
groups.
As set out during the design, the project is credited for forming nine (9) gender inclusive SCMCs in
Awoja, Aswa and Maziba Catchments. It is aimed to allow active engagement and participation of both
women and men in the project activities. During this MTE, it was noted that the representation of
women in these committees was good as it is above the National Standard of 1/3 representation of
females. The 50:50 ratio proposed by the PSC was not achieved due to the limited representation of
women especially in the political and sectoral leadership positions. The project team has however put in
place deliberate efforts to increase women representation in the committees.

Additionally, the turn up of women during community sensitizations and meetings is approximately 37%
due to among others, socio-cultural challenges women face in these catchment areas. The project is
however credited for exceeding the national standard of 33%.

Notwithstanding, efforts have been made to ensure that gender sensitivity is followed through
mobilization and community awareness meetings conducted by both consultants and project staff. The
project also practices gender disaggregation in reporting. For continuous representation of gender
issues, and to meet the gender requirements in the project design, EURECCCA should develop and
implement a gender equality action plan. Furthermore, the project is encouraged to increase the
representation of women among project staff.

2
https://opm.go.ug/2019/02/04/uganda-celebrates-world-wetlands-day-2019/

15
Incorporation of various stakeholders’ perspectives and opinions in Decision-making processes
According to the project document, decision making is to be guided by various committees including the
Project Steering Committee, and Project Coordination Team, Project Execution Team, Focal Points at
WMZ and Support Team at the Ministry among others. In addition, several lead agencies were foreseen
to actively participate in decision making on the project such as; NEMA, MAAIF, Ministry of Finance,
GWPEA, staff of the participating agencies, Catchment Management Committees, relevant technical
staff of the participating local governments, NGOs and private sector among others.
The project is credited for creating good decision-making support platforms through PSC, PTC, CMCs,
SCMCs, resource user groups and women groups in the project area. These have provided input into
informed decision making through sharing their perspectives and opinions about the project outputs.
There is also a validation system that involves all stakeholders at National, regional and
catchment/project area level.
To strengthen the decision making processes, the PSC needs to meet regularly as stipulated in the PIM
to enable timely approval of project document such as; the quarterly reports, review of work plans and
budgets among others and to discuss emerging issues raised during meetings held by the lower
structures (the PCT, PET, WMZs and CMCs and SCMCs).
Major areas of concern
1. Although the project has involved other agencies at national and district levels through the
Project Steering Committee, Contract Management Teams and during specific project activities
the technical lead agencies (MDAs) have various roles and obligations in their respective
agencies, which sometimes limits their contribution and involvement in the project.
2. The project Scope; given the context and needs of target groups, the funds and time allocated
for the project are limited.
3. The consultancy-based methodology; this demonstrated a few shortcomings in timeliness and
effectiveness among others as elaborated earlier in the report.
4. Approach for implementation of the revolving fund; for effectiveness, the affected
communities should form SACCOs/ Cooperatives that will be linked to this fund.
Whereas the concept of channeling the money through already established SACCOs is good, the
MTE draws attention to the following shortcomings:
▪ SACCOs lend to their members and have strict membership requirements that the low-
income communities in the degraded hotspots might not be able to fulfill
▪ Distance between the targeted households and the SACCOs is far
▪ The interest rates of some SACCOs are very high with some charging as much as 10%

EURECCCA Project is working with MTIC to offer technical guidance about implementation of the
revolving fund.

5. Involvement of targeted communities; formation of the women groups for promotion of

improved cook stoves and selection of the nursery operators should prioritize the affected
communities in the degraded catchments.
6. Functionality of SCMCs; the committees are not legally mandated by any policy document to
enforce the conservation measures. However, the SCMCs have been provided for in the ongoing
review of the National Water Policy and Water Act and will soon become legal structures. The

16
 project is utilizing the recently launched CMO manual to provide guidance on the roles and
responsibilities of the SCMCs.
7. Procurement Delays; There is need to closely and consistently follow up with the Contracts
Committee for timely approval of procurements.
8. Documentation; the absence of a project communication plan has affected learning, knowledge
management and sharing.
9. M&E; Limited project monitoring and evaluation affects results tracking and dissemination of
project outputs.

4.1.2 Results Framework/Log-frame

Clarity, practicality and feasibility of EURECCCA project’s objectives and outcomes within its time
frame
Some of the project targets and funds are limited compared to the needs on the ground. The target
area/hectares of restoration is small and this calls for scaling up of the project interventions.
For example, on:
1. Outcome 2.3; Resilience of livelihood systems to climate change impacts enhanced. The demand
for Alternative livelihood options is high among affected households. The budget of USD
699,000 may cover fewer households in the degraded hotspots. This calls for prioritization of
the most vulnerable households.
2. Outcome 2.1: Concrete output 2.1.4; Communities in 3 catchments supported to rehabilitate
degraded wetlands was expected to cost USD 1,071,000 but the Costed CBWRMPs have
revealed a higher cost of restoring the hotspots.
3. Outcome 2.2: Concrete output 2.2.1; Communities in 3 catchments supported to harvest water
and control floods. Emerging cost projections of establishing biophysical structures and flood
control structures may exceed the budget of USD 1,044,000.

The budget constraints call for prioritizing the most degraded areas in the identified hotspots.

4.2 Progress towards Results

4.2.1 Progress towards outcomes analysis

The overall progress towards results is at 33%. At midterm, most of the documentation especially the
updated CMPs; CBWRMPs, restoration plans, and various Terms of References and specifications were
in place. There has also been significant stakeholder engagement and capacity building in Awoja, Maziba
and Aswa catchments. The findings reveal that stakeholders in all three catchments are very enthusiastic
about the EURECCCA interventions and are willing to participate in the project activities. Preparations
for physical implementation are almost complete, most of the service providers for the restoration
activities have already been procured and are already working. Table 1 presents detailed progress
towards results.

17
Table 1: Detailed presentation of progress towards EURECCCA Project results
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
Objective: To increase the 16% ▪ Integrity of targeted natural resources The overall progress Training reports, Quarterly
resilience against the risk of improved by at least 50% towards results is at 33%. reports, Annual Technical
flood and landslides of 16% ▪ 50% of targeted households develop Preparations for physical Report, Supervision Reports,
Awoja, Maziba and Aswa climate resilience to climate change implementation are under Capacity building reports,
Catchments through impacts by 2020 way and most of the service Field reports, MOUs,
promoting catchment based 1% ▪ Natural resources restored by 10% in the providers for the restoration Attendance lists, Workshop
integrated, equitable and project areas by 2020 activities have already been Reports, Baseline reports
sustainable management of procured and are already and field interviews
land and water resources working.
Component 1: Establishing Frameworks for Climate Resilient Catchment Management in Awoja, Aswa and Maziba catchments
Outcome 1.1 65% ▪ Three (3) fully functional Catchment ▪ The SCMC minutes of
Comprehensive catchment management structures for the 3 target their meetings are
planning system that catchments are in place. available
integrates issues of climate
change established and tested
in Awoja, Aswa and
Maziba
Output 1.1.1 The existing 100% ▪ Revised CMP guidelines in place ▪ The revised CMP ▪ Copies of the CMPs
catchment management 100% ▪ 500 copies of revised guidelines guidelines are in place ▪ 500 copies verified
planning guidelines revised to and they have been
50% ▪ 8 workshops ▪ Workshop reports
include aspects of climate printed and ready for
change dissemination
▪ 4 workshops have been
held
▪ Copies not yet
disseminated
Output 1.1.2 The 75% ▪ 3 CMPs for Awoja, Aswa, Maziba revised ▪ The CMPs are being ▪ Draft CMPs
Catchment Management revised to incorporate
Plans (CMPs) of Awoja, Maziba 0 ▪ 700 copies of revised CMPs climate change issues
and Aswa revised to address but not yet finished
climate change issues 67% ▪ 6 workshops held ▪ For Maziba the ▪ Workshop reports
consultant is on
deliverable 4 (water

18
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
resources assessment
under climate change
report) out of 7
deliverables whereas
for Awoja and Aswa,
the consultant is on
deliverable 6- Draft
CMPs.
▪ There was a challenge
with Maziba, the water
resources assessment is
being redone
▪ Two workshops held in
Maziba, 1 Awoja 1
Aswa

Outcome 1.2 Awoja, Aswa and 70% ▪ Fully functioning structures by end 2017 ▪ The SCMCs were
Maziba catchments managed formed in 2018, they
by appropriate water and have met twice so far
climate governance structures
Output 1.2.1 Nine (9) sub- 70% ▪ All the Catchment committees, Fora and ▪ The SCMCs are • Minutes of the
catchment level Secretariats established/strengthened in supposed to hold meetings
community management the three catchments and the 9 target regular meetings and
structures, established and sub-catchments and Micro-catchments implement up to the
supported, in the 3 catchments within the sub-catchments end of the project
(3 for Awoja, 3 for Maziba & 3 ▪ The SCMCS should be
for Aswa). meeting at least twice a
year.
▪ 54 meetings are
planned for the SCMCs
Component 2 Implementing concrete adaptation actions for resilient and sustained ecosystems, agriculture and other livelihood systems.
Outcome 2.1 Resilience of 32% ▪ At least two ecological systems improved ▪ The Hectares that are in
ecosystems services of their resilience by 2020 for restoration are not
forests, wetlands and specified in the results
riverbanks to climate matrix
change impacts enhanced

19
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
▪ These were supposed
to be improved after
undertaking physical
restoration activities
which have not taken
place
Output 2.1.1 The most 100% ▪ In each catchment an area of forest, This output was completed. Assessment Reports
degraded areas vulnerable wetland and riverbank defined as most
to intensive rainfall confirmed vulnerable to intensive rainfall, risk of
flooding and landslides.
100% ▪ A detailed baseline report ▪ Baseline reports
Output 2.1.2 Communities in 3 30% ▪ At least 9 tree nurseries supported to ▪ The nurseries have ▪ Copies of contracts
catchments supported to produce 1450,000 seedlings been procured; the ▪ Field interviews with
restore deforested and contracts are being Nursery operators
degraded land through 30% ▪ At least 180 (72 Women and 98 Men) finalized. ▪ Attendance lists for the
afforestation people trained ▪ The trainings have training
0 ▪ At least 10,000 households trained started in Maziba and
are continuing in other
5% ▪ 1000 ha restored ▪ Capacity building
catchments
reports
▪ The training for the
households will target
household
representatives
▪ There was training for
some of the
beneficiaries where
pilot tree planting
activities were
conducted
▪ The tree planting that
was carried out was
after identification of
most deforested land
by the EURECCCA staff
Output 2.1.3 Improved 25% ▪ 18 groups are supported to produce 8000 ▪ The 18 groups are in ▪ Groups lists

20
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
cooking stoves promoted in stoves place
the 3 catchments to reduce 7% ▪ At least 3600 households trained in the ▪ The consultants (3) ▪ Training reports
levels of forest degradation installation and use of improved cooking have been procured ▪ Attendance lists
stoves. and have started the
0 ▪ At least 3600 households have acquired training of women
and are using improved cook stoves groups
▪ TOT trainings were
conducted in Maziba
▪ The trainings are
scheduled in other
locations.
Output 2.1.4 Communities in 3 15% ▪ 300 ha restored ▪ Physical rehabilitation is ▪ Capacity Building
catchments supported to scheduled. reports
rehabilitate degraded wetlands 83% ▪ 1800 households trained of which 50% are ▪ 6 CBWRMP submitted ▪ Training reports
women ▪ The turn up of women ▪ Attendance lists
40% ▪ At least 12 individual wetland restoration is 37%. This is largely ▪ CBWRMP
action plans (4 per catchment) developed attributed to cultural
issues where land is
and implemented for 12 wetlands in the 3
mostly owned by men
catchments.
Output 2.1.5 Communities in 3 15% ▪ 320ha stabilized and restored ▪ 6 river bank restoration ▪ Activity reports
catchments supported to plans have been ▪ Quarterly reports
restore degraded river banks submitted has ▪ Annual Technical report
and protect buffer zones 0 ▪ 200 Km boundary put in place submitted
30% ▪ At least 540 community members 50% of ▪ 162 community ▪ Training reports
which are women trained members trained so far
▪ The number of
community members
engaged along the river
banks is low (in some
communities the
population is sparse)
▪ In some communities’
discussions are still on-
going on the size of the

21
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
buffer
Outcome 2.2 Resilience of 18% ▪ At least 400 ha of land of agricultural land ▪ Some of the draft
agricultural landscapes to with biophysical and water harvesting costed plans are in
climate change impacts structures in place. place
enhanced ▪ Community
engagement in the
planning process is on-
going until end of
project
Output 2.2.4 Communities in 3 43% ▪ At least 2,000 households trained ▪ Approximately 850 ▪ Training reports
catchments supported to households have been ▪ Quarterly reports
harvest water and control 0.07% ▪ 1000 Km of biophysical structures in place sensitized/engaged ▪ Quarterly reports
floods ▪ Approximately 0.7km of ▪ Annual Technical
biophysical structures Report
covered
▪ Supervision Reports
30% ▪ At least 18 Community workshops and 36 ▪ Physical ▪ Training reports
implementation is yet
training meetings
to begin
0 ▪ At least 6 radio talk shows to sensitize
communities on biophysical structures ▪ There is significant
held training and awareness
in the respective
catchments
▪ A communication
officer is required to
support media
communication
▪ Communication and
knowledge
management need to
be given more priority
Outcome 2.3 Resilience of 3% ▪ The percentage of food insecure ▪ The CBWMP process
livelihood systems to climate households is reduced to 10% has identified some
change impacts enhanced by 0 ▪ 2400 vulnerable households have livelihood options
providing alternative income improved livelihoods ▪ The identified

22
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
generating opportunities 0 ▪ At least incomes of 70% of participating livelihood options
farmers have improved will be the basis for
preparing the
livelihood report
Output 2.3.1 20% ▪ Each catchment identifies HH to be ▪ The consultants are ▪ Capacity building
targeted through livelihoods capturing the reports
improvement activities of the project. livelihood options.
0 ▪ About 90% of the HHs affected by This could support
project interventions supported for IGAs the production of the
livelihood analysis
report
▪ One training for TOTs
in Maziba involving 7
modules has been
conducted
Output 2.3.2 Revolving fund 5% ▪ At least 9 community groups (3 per ▪ EURECCCA is working ▪ Field reports
schemes introduced to catchment) trained 27community with MTIC to devise
diversify sources of income in trainings the means of
3 catchments 0 ▪ At least 3,000 HH are accessing the managing the
revolving fund revolving fund
0 ▪ About 80% rates of return on investment ▪ The existing SACCOs
were also assessed
Output 2.3.3 Alternative 0 ▪ At least 2,400 HH trained (20 trainings ▪ No trainings
income generating activities- each of 30 participants per year with at undertaken yet
IGAs (bee keeping, tourism, least 2 trainings per sub catchment)
Hand crafts etc.) supported
Component 3: Building climate change adaptive capacities of institutions and communities and knowledge management
Outcome 3.1 Adaptive capacity 24% ▪ Adaptive capacity of at least 60% target ▪ The livelihood options
of communities and other communities to climate change impacts and all other physical
stakeholders to climate change have been strengthened. interventions have not
impacts strengthened yet been implemented
in the identified
hotspots
Output 3.1.1 Capacities of 20% ▪ At least- 14 TOT workshops conducted ▪ 7 training modules ▪ Training reports
extension services and 90 micro catchment level dissemination have been developed

23
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
institutions at catchment level workshops in 3 years (10 community ▪ 7 TOT workshops
are strengthened to support meetings per sub catchment) carried out in Maziba
communities in Awoja, Aswa catchment only
and Maziba to undertake ▪ The beneficiaries of
climate the TOT on tree
change adaptation activities planting are already
conducting training in
some schools
▪ There have been
more trainings
undertaken during the
planning process by
the consultants
▪ At the time of the
MTE trainings had
been planned for
TOTs in Awoja and
Aswa
Output 3.1.2 Three (3) 40% ▪ One Demonstration center set up in each ▪ Locations for the ▪ MOUs
Demonstration centers to of the 3 catchments demonstration centers
facilitate experience sharing 20% ▪ At least 5 trainings in key interventions have been identified
activities regarding ecosystems conducted at each center and an MOU signed
conservation, control of floods 15% ▪ At least 4 plots established at each with NARO to set and ▪ Quarterly reports
and landslides and alternative demonstration center operate the centers
income generating activities ▪ 1 training was
established conducted
▪ The requirements for
rehabilitation and
furnishing the centers
identified and agreed
with NARO
▪ Procurement for
rehabilitation and
furnishing has just
started
▪ The TOR for the

24
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
demonstration plots
are being discussed
with the three centers
(Kacwekano, Ngetta
and Serere ZARDIs)
Outcome 3.2 Demonstrating 16% ▪ By the end of the project lessons and
and developing mechanisms to best practices are documented, shared
integrate climate change and influence local and central
adaptation and government planning and policy.
implementation
Output 3.2.1 Good practices 30% ▪ At least 3 documents with lessons ▪ EURECCCA project ▪ Annual Technical
and lessons that influence learned and best practices from the has developed Reports
policies and practices project documented (i.e. policy briefs, brochures, ▪ Quarterly reports
documented brochures, media articles etc) (This conducted school
Output captures the best practices as awareness
well) campaigns,
distributed T-Shirts,
participated in water
week, media articles
among others
▪ Consolidation of
lessons learnt on the
project is ongoing
but no consolidated
documentation has
been produced yet
0 ▪ At least 2 study tours per catchment ▪ Study tours are yet
organized to be undertaken
Output 3.2.2 Key Government 33% ▪ At least 150 Officials from Districts and ▪ There have been ▪ Training reports
officials integrate IWRM and CC Sub county levels trained on IWRM trainings on IWRM ▪ Attendance
in national and sectoral and CC and climate change
development plans 0 ▪ At least 90% of Development plans at this targeted a
district, Sub county and National levels number of officials
integrate climate change resilience and from the catchment
adaptation issues ▪ Approximately 50

25
Evaluation Criteria Midterm End of Project Targets Explanation of Midterm Means of Verification
Value Value
- ▪ A scaling up strategy developed and is officials have been
being used to scale up project trained
Project Management and M&E
Number of Project launching 100% ▪ 4 Project launching workshops (1 ▪ The 4 workshops have Workshop Reports
workshops held in the national and 3 catchment levels) been implemented
catchments.
▪ Baseline undertaken 66% Final evaluation is scheduled Baseline reports
▪ Mid-term evaluation at the end of the project MTE report
▪ Final evaluation

26
4.3 Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

4.3.1 Management Arrangements

The EURECCCA Project is financed by the Adaptation Fund (AF); implemented by the OSS and executed
by the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) in Uganda.There were no major changes in the
Project management as outlined in the Project Document. The notable changes include;
▪ The inclusion of Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) and Ministry of Trade and Cooperatives
on the Project Steering Committee
▪ The transfer of Team Leaders (TLs) of the Water Management Zones (WMZs), for example,
Upper Nile and Victoria and introduction of a new TL for Kyoga.
▪ The signing of framework contracts with service providers.
▪ Establishment of Stakeholder Coordination Committees from the community levels to the
Catchment levels and setting up of Contract Management Committees.
▪ Recruitment of additional staff for technical, administrative and financial support.
▪ The PSC revised the frequency of their meetings from quarterly to every four (4) months due to
challenges in the availability of its members
According to the PCT and PET, these changes were necessary in improving budget performance at
implementation; ensuring active involvement of all key stakeholders; and timely delivery of good quality
services.
The responsibilities and reporting lines are clear based on the organogram in the PD. Whereas the
decision-making is transparent, there are some challenges in timeliness for example the procurement of
consultants to prepare Wetland Management and Restoration Plans (WMRPs); Riverbank restoration
and protection of buffer zones; water harvesting and flood control structures and biophysical
conservation structures which had 6 months delay.

4.3.2 Work planning

The actual implementation vis-à-vis the planned activities indicates that overall, most of the project
deliverables have delayed. The following points stand out:
• At the time of the MTE, the project activities are approximately 6 months behind schedule.
• With regards to the preparatory studies under Outputs 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.2.1, the call for tenders
launched by the PCT following the OSS No-objection on May 18, 2018, was unsuccessful due to
market price inflation. As a result, and in order to reduce the delays, an integrated approach of
entrusting to consulting firms (3 in each catchment = one per sub-catchment): the development
of the action plans, the consultation of the stakeholders and the supervision of the execution of
the work was agreed and adopted to ensure the achievement of these outputs.
• In regards to the development of a revolving fund and to the support of alternative Income
Generating Activities (IGAs) under Output 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, the actions to be taken in order to
achieve this output were not clear in the project document and required extensive discussions
and experience sharing with key players such as MTIC and District Commercial Officers. Pursuant
to this direction, MTIC was engaged and contributed to development of a concept note that is
guiding the ongoing assessment of SACCOs at the time of the MTE.
Generally, the causes of the delays included;
• The rigorous clearance processes of the project activities, especially on the procurement of
Consultants to help in carrying out of the concrete adaption actions.
• Delays in the release of funds.
• The challenge of under staffing in the initial processes.

27
 • Strict guidelines and regulations in place which delay decision making.
• Delay in recruitment, induction and assimilation of project staff.
• Lack of clear candidate sites for restoration resulting in cancellation of some already identified
sites
• Delays in finalization of some deliverables by consultants due to their inadequate quality that
led to extensive discussions and engagements with DWRM.
• The internal audit of the project, which delayed disbursement
• Overwhelming roles of the MWE staff (DWRM staff have wide scope of work covering other
Catchments).
• Irregular meetings of the PSC and SCMCs.
It has to be noted that actions have been undertaken to mitigate the above-identified causes, namely
through:
• Recruitment of the support staff (11 people)
• Utilization of other staff in MWE to handle the tasks of the project accountant who resigned.
• Bi-weekly staff meetings being held by Project Teams to track on progress and to internalize the
project document and expected deliverables.
• Close follow-ups with OSS on no-objections
• Follow up on consultants’ deliverables
• Up scaling procurement of service providers and signing framework contracts with them
• Establishment of Contract Management Teams involving representatives’ various MDAs
The work planning process is coordinated at the central level. The process starts at the center where the
PCT develops the template for the work plan. The template is sent to the WMZs for input. After
receiving various inputs from the WMZs, the PM invites a planning meeting that is attended by all
project staff at the center. The Project Document is the basis for work planning processes and the
tracking of the results is based on progress reports. The directives and recommendations of PSC also
inform the planning process.
This evaluation further noted that the Results Framework of the project sufficiently defines success
indicators for project implementation and the respective means of verification, with no major changes
to it. The PCT was able to undertake baseline surveys and prepared a detailed M&E plan that
streamlines project objectives, indicators and methodologies of data collection. Two joint review
missions to the project sites have been conducted by OSS in a span of two years which was inconsistent
with the Project Document which calls for twice in a year review missions.
In addition, Quarterly Progress Reports were prepared by the Project team. Annual Project Reports were
equally prepared and reported on progress made towards project objectives and project outcomes –
each with indicators, baseline data and end-of-project targets (cumulative); and annual Project outputs
delivered per project outcome, among others.
The PCT recruited the M&E officer based at Head Office to ensure that field monitoring visits are
conducted; quarterly M&E reports are prepared with the involvement of all relevant stakeholders. This
evaluation also confirms that the Project launch workshops were conducted at national and regional
levels to build ownership for project results amongst stakeholders. The Project Team also deploys what
it calls “critical path approach” in using the results framework by having a focal point person on different
activities since most of them are running concurrently.
Despite the fact that no major changes have been made to the log frame, this evaluation proposes the
further breakdown of some of the project indicators in order to level of progress. For example, level of

28
awareness of communities on the importance of conserving the ecosystems, frequency of
flooding/landslides, number of self-driven initiatives by the CMCs or SCMCs.

4.3.3 Finance
The EURECCCA project has made considerable steps in using innovative financial mechanisms to
establish PPPs with tree nursery operators and Research Institutions in a bid to increase the resilience of
community livelihood systems by supporting IGAs. Considering that approximately only 16% of the
project budget was disbursed by the project mid-term, at the present stage, progress toward the project
objective is limited.
On the other hand, the PET noted that the project budget didn’t cater for project administration at the
Catchment level, for example the biweekly meetings, vehicle repairs and maintenance, stationery, etc.
There is an aspect of Government co-funding, but may not be sufficient.
Furthermore, in accordance with the Grant Agreement and the contractual documents (PIM), the PCT is
responsible for quarterly technical and financial reporting. In addition, an overall annual report template
provided was by OSS. The financial monitoring of the project is ensured using the “NAVISION”
accounting software with a public accounting approach. Agreeable accounting interventions were
adopted into the system. However, there is a need to decentralize this accounting system to the Project
Execution Units at the WMZs. Additionally, the timely submission of documents like internal and
external audit reports, quarterly reports, and technical reports is not yet well observed. The quarterly
reporting including technical and financial aspects should be submitted according to the agreed
deadlines to help in fast tracking the financial implications of Project interventions. This evaluation notes
that the delays in both financial and technical reporting may have affected timely flow of funds. This is
because, the disbursement percentage remains way below what was expected two years after the start
of the project.

This evaluation recommends further the need for MWE, OSS and the MoFPED to have a discussion on
how to facilitate timely disbursement of funds.

4.4.4 Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems

This evaluation observed that the M&E tool is informed by the results matrix, and its structure follows
the key components in the results matrix. The M&E system of the project involves stakeholders through
monitoring visits, although they don’t usually use M&E tools during field visits. In addition, the project
targets to improve the integrity of natural resources, and household resilience to climate change are in
line with the integrated water resource management system. The tools also leverage on the water
sector information such as the CMPs, IRWM framework, CC Policy, Uganda Catchment Management
Planning Guidelines, Wetland Management Policy, Forestry Sector Guidelines, and the National
Adaptation Plan for Agriculture Sector.
However, the monitoring tools are insufficient and there is need to have; quality benchmark tools for
activities, distribution lists, feedback gathering tools, pre and post evaluation tools, and beneficiary and
stakeholder tools among others. Currently, the M&E reporting tool used by the project does not involve
a lot of costs as reporting relies on information from officers from the WMZs. The project should
develop more accountability tools that get feedback from the communities on implementation. Each
tool should be pre-tested on the target stakeholders.
Whereas the budget allocated for M&E is sufficient for the PCT monitoring activities, this evaluation
revealed the need for increased monitoring, supervision of activities and quality assurance especially at
catchment and sub catchment levels through;

29
 • Recruitment of additional M&E staff especially at WMZs
• Periodic mission trips at least every month to each of the catchments to take stock of the
processes, progress, challenges, lessons, and feedback from the stakeholders especially
beneficiaries.

4.3.5 Stakeholder Engagement

The EURECCCA project is designed to be implemented based on stakeholder driven and issue-based
approach. There is no doubt that the project has leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships.
This evaluation observed that joint reviews were conducted with representation from executing
stakeholders, LGs and communities. There was also an effort to coordinate and harmonize the support
that is to be provided by Research Institutions. In addition, there was an attempt to streamline the
activities of the different stakeholders especially the SCMCs by defining their roles and responsibilities.
For effectiveness, this is required for all project stakeholders.
Nevertheless, the MTE observed that the SCMCs have not been functioning as expected. This has led to
inadequate coordination and limited information sharing among the key project stakeholders.
Therefore, there is need to streamline and adequately facilitate the activities of all project stakeholders
to allow for synergy and effective project implementation.
This evaluation also observed that EURECCCA project enjoys the support of both the local and national
stakeholders as provided for in the PD. At national level, the key stakeholders continue to have an active
role in decision making especially at the PSC and PCT. At LG level, the involvement of stakeholders is
envisioned in the CMCs, SCMCs and community level structures. These structures are assumed to be a
true representation of both the political and technical involvement of LGs in the project
implementation. As noted earlier, the functionality of these structures needs to be strengthened. This
therefore means that the sustainability of the project interventions will be at stake if CMCs, SCMCs and
community level structures are not made fully functional to coordinate stakeholder engagements and
participation in the EURECCCA project activities especially at community levels.
Notwithstanding, this evaluation found it difficult to measure the extent to which stakeholder
involvement and public awareness has contributed to the progress towards the achievement of project
objectives considering the fact that the actual implementation of the project activities is yet to start.

4.3.6 Reporting
In accordance with the Grant Agreement and the contractual documents such as the Project
Implementation Manual PIM), this evaluation noted that the Project coordination Team partly complied
with the OSS reporting requirements for quarterly technical and financial reporting. For example, at the
beginning of the project and given the delays in project start, PCT submitted to OSS one progress report
covering the entire period from May 2017 to April 2018. Actually, the report covered the effective
executing period which is about 4 months in the first year. At the beginning of this year the PCT was
finalizing some documents that conditioned the entry into force of the agreement and was stabilizing
the Project team, this has delayed the activities execution. During the second year, the required reports
were submitted by the PCT to OSS in due time and according to the agreed frequency, although the
resubmission of the reviewed documents according to comments and inputs took some time.
This evaluation also noted that although the documentation of lessons learnt and best practices in
climate change adaptation is being done, it is not consolidated in a single report. However, at the time
of this evaluation, the consultant had been procured and expected to document good practices of IWRM
and climate change adaptation innovations implemented under the project.

30
4.3.7 Communications
The EURECCCA project has adopted a number of channels for internal communication and feedback
mechanisms, including but not limited to emails, social media (WhatsApp), telecommunications, and
internal meetings, and letters, physical visits, among others. It was agreeable to most of the
stakeholders interviewed that these channels are effective in informing on the various interventions
undertaken by the project. However, these internal communications are undertaken in ad hoc manner.
The absence of a communication plan and a dedicated communications officer at both Central and
WMZs is a major contributing factor.

This evaluation noted that there was a communication gap among the PET, CMCs, and SCMCs. As a
matter of fact, some members of the CMCs and SCMCs interviewed revealed that some of the project
activities had implemented in their jurisdictions without their knowledge and participation.
This evaluation noted that a number of awareness raising programs like stakeholder workshops,
newspaper articles, IEC materials and Radio talk shows, community sensitization meetings, transect
walks with community members, joint planning workshops with targeted beneficiaries, among others,
had been used to express the project progress and intended impact to the public. In addition, the
project launching workshops, stakeholder forum meetings and PSC meetings have been deployed to
allow for participation by key stakeholders in project implementation.
Most of the external communications on the project are embedded on the MWE website. There is,
therefore, urgent need to develop the communication plan for the project as it moves into full scale
implementation. This will reduce chances of poor coordination, misunderstandings, and lack of
information sharing among the key project stakeholders.
Summary of the project’s progress towards results in terms of contribution to sustainable
development benefits, as well as global environmental benefits.
The EURECCCA project is contributing to the SDGs, and in particular to Goal 6 (target 5 on implementing
integrated water resources management at all levels and target 6 on protection and restoration of
water-related ecosystems including forests and wetlands). The SDGs 7 and 13 which front universal
access to affordable, reliable, and modern energy services; and taking of urgent action to combat
climate change and its impacts, respectively are also being contributed to. Therefore, the strengthening
of national institutions and structures related to water and environment management under the
EURECCCA project in Uganda is a step in the right direction. This will go a long way in promoting
sustainable ecosystem management, including forest management, and conservation and sustainable
use of wetland resources, and protection of riverbanks and lakeshores. Furthermore, alternative IGAs
for livelihoods and the revolving fund will reduce pressure on natural resources.

4.4 Sustainability
Appropriateness of risks identified in the Project Document
To some extent, the risks identified in the project document are up to date and valid. The risk of sectoral
bias is however not up to date. The project endeavored to form SCMC and CMC as a strategy for
sustainability. This has greatly minimized this risk, since these committees encompass leaders from all
crosscutting sectors; water, natural resource, environment, media, politics, L.G, among others.
Furthermore, there is high community participation, when mobilized for activities.
For instance, much as the vision of conservation and restoration sits with all stakeholders, there is a
need for more harmony across the instructions of especially leaders, technical agencies and politicians
concerning resource use. Furthermore, the community also shares different interests and within the

31
identified catchment zones. This risk is low but may have high impact on project objectives. Local
Government and the people still have high expectations and fairly understand that the project benefits
will be long term.
Communities have a tendency to prefer short term investments which would not go well with some
interventions like tree planting. In fact, tangible benefits are not directly realized in environment
interventions, which slow response from communities.
Low technology adoption rate by communities still remains a valid risk. These activities have been part
of these communities for years, and adoption of new practices may take time. Majority of the
households are more interested in working with interventions that have proven to be successful in other
areas.
Delay in project implementation due to bureaucracy and long procurement processes still remains a
valid risk, and has been a contributing factor to some of the project implementation delays. The valid
risks as identified during this MTE are discussed below.

4.4.1 Financial risks to sustainability

The evaluation revealed that the SCMC structures were formed to ensure the continuity of the project.
These structures require additional support that holds them together, outside the project, and
guarantees that they will continue to execute their roles as outlined in their Terms of Reference. This
has been evidenced by the limited enforcement they have so far displayed within their obligation to
ensure that project components are achieved; example the wetland restoration.
There is a possibility that the proposed livelihoods Income Generating Activities (IGAs) will generate
additional financial and economic resources within the communities. Despite the fact that the project
has not yet set up IGAs within the community, a comprehensive livelihoods analysis was conducted to
inform the acceptability of livelihood options as feasible within the areas of implementation.
Furthermore, there is also local market available for proposed IGAs. The IGAs may not take people
completely away from the wetlands but it will certainly reduce the rate of degradation of natural
resources.
There are opportunities available for Private, Public Partnerships (PPP), that the project is valorizing and
this could contribute to the sustainability. In fact, the project is aimed at enhancing the capacity of local
nursery bed operators, through partnerships. The Project has prepared a number of studies and
CBWRMPs which provide opportunities for PPP. It is also building capacities of relevant stakeholders
across the board which can be taken advantage of through PPP.

4.4.2 Socio-economic risks to sustainability

The political will for the Project has been evidenced by the involvement of Local Government (LG)
structures from the District to the LCIs (The Heads of Catchment Management Committees (CMCs) and
the Sub Catchment Management Committees (SCMCs) are politicians). This Project complements the
aspirations of the various Development Plans of the Districts and Sub Counties in ensuring resilience of
communities to Climate Change. The analysis of political involvement within the project revealed the
following findings:
1. Politicians played and continue to play a key role in the dissemination of conservation
messages targeting the wider population. The community entrusts their leaders, and their
views are valid to the decision-making process. Furthermore, these leaders have been a key
arm in advocacy, awareness raising and regularly communicate the project objectives and
achievement through radio talk shows, meetings, newspaper articles, among others.

32
 2. The capacity building initiatives by the project have placed these leaders in a good position
to act as Trainers of their subsidiaries, and communities. The knowledge on project aspects
will be shared across the structures, for a wider coverage.
3. The concept of Catchment operations of the Project needs rethinking because the scale of
implementation is too big vis-a-vis the available resources. There is need to focus on micro-
catchment implementation of Project interventions.
For sustainability of the project, the aspect of community awareness and engagement as emphasized by
the project design requires a lot of time and resources. Currently, the possibility of social collaboration is
still low, given the remaining years of project execution. It is advised that additional time and resources
are allocated to this intervention, especially due to the nature of project methodology of “voluntary
stakeholder action.” The levels of women emancipation and youth involvement also put the social
participation at risk for particularly two reasons:
1) Women, who are at the forefront of livelihood, agriculture and ecosystem interventions, are not
culturally recognized as valuable representatives during meetings, decision making, as well as
strategic planning processes. Analysis revealed that the project target to ensure a 50:50
representation during mobilization is currently about 37%. Thus, additional efforts should be
deployed to ensure continuous awareness and involvement of women groups even at CMC
level.
2) Sustainability aspect is geared towards the future generation that will be spearheaded by the
current youth. Additionally, the aspects of this project will be sustained if the community has a
concrete understanding of the relevance of the objectives and activities. The project is ensuring
a rigorous involvement of youths, through activities such as constant awareness of youth
through schools, youth led campaigns among others. The mission recommends to strengthen
this approach.
There is need to purposefully cater for documentation of lessons learnt as well as the best practices of
this Project. Much as the lessons of the Project are being documented on a continual basis in project
progress reports, it is recommended that this must be done in a systematic manner and template, with a
final point within the project structure that receives and accumulates these lessons in a database for
dissemination. Additionally, a discussion with the PCT revealed a consultancy, has been tasked to
document lessons learnt in an ongoing partnership. The risk this has on sustainability is the
dispatchment of the lessons captured with actual experiences on ground, due to limited understanding
of project aspects as compared to actual executing staff, as well as a strain on knowledge transfer within
the project components.
The project has embraced sharing of lessons learnt with stakeholders during engagement to inform
subsequent planning and execution processes. The lessons learnt are majorly disseminated to relevant
stakeholders through internal weekly meetings and weekly reporting, CMCs meetings, Annual
Stakeholders Catchment Forum, validation workshops, as well as site visits. There is however a need to
reinforce learning/ communications workshops organized by the project purposely for sharing of best
practices, lessons and success stories. There is also need for recognition of the high relevance of
advocacy, awareness raising and communication, especially with regards to the areas of focus of the
EURECCCA project.
4.4.3 Institutional Framework and Governance risks to sustainability
The project methodology of bringing together leaders and governance structures form different sectors
has greatly aided the harmonization of policies, frameworks and plans. At catchment and sub catchment
levels, leaders across different sectors have been brought together on a platform to share ideas beyond
EURECCCA project. This has greatly minimized the risks pertaining to institutions and framework.

33
However, the assumption that the structures and personnel will ensure sustainability of the project
results beyond project lifecycle because institutions are permanent and will continue to execute their
mandates after the project and their capacities would have been built by the project, is questionable,
since these structures are challenged with resources. The Project is also engaged in knowledge transfer
through capacity development. The LG staffs are the major Trainer of Trainees, and it is a guarantee that
this knowledge will be passed on within their structures.
There project has mechanisms for accountability, transparency and technical knowledge transfer,
especially with high level stakeholders within these catchments. This is carried out through reporting,
meetings and validation workshops. The project has Social development Officers, whose roles are to
bridge any gaps with the community and stakeholders. It is advised that the level of direct community
feedback and accountability is scaled up.

4.4.5 Environmental risks to sustainability

There is a likelihood of community demobilization due to the perceived environmental risks of some of
the project activities, through an increased effect on public health. Whereas this risk remains low, there
are possibilities of increased cases of malaria outbreak in communities surrounding locations of
implementation. As identified in the project document, water harvesting, storage and irrigation facilities
may aggravate some diseases such as malaria. This MTE also identified fears by communities
neighboring wetland hotspots mapped for restoration, of increment in number of mosquitoes due to
the bushes that may spring up, given the wetlands are near community settlements.
The afforestation of degraded land has started with a high involvement of communities. Field visits were
conducted in each of the catchments and the stakeholders owning the land on which the tree planting
will be conducted were asked what tree species they wanted and whether they were willing to restore
their degraded areas through afforestation. Based on the list of tree species requested for by the
stakeholders and those proposed by the National Forestry Authority (NFA), a list of the agreed tree
species to be planted in each of the catchments has been set up. The selection of tree species was also
based on seedlings that are likely to be raised in the nursery bed for distribution to community
members. The project is advised to work with nursery tree operators to raise up tree species that not
only provide environmental benefits, but also support the livelihoods of the households.
To mitigate the identified risks, the project has carried out a number of activities which among others
include: i) Awareness creation through sensitization meeting, radio talk shows, and posters; ii)
Involvement of leaders and iii) Involvement of technical experts like the forestry, wetlands, and
environmentalists in the selection of tree species as well as conducting EIAs.

34
5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
Overall, EURECCCA Project was well thought and responds to the needs of the beneficiaries because
flooding and landslides are common challenges in Maziba, Awoja and Aswa catchments. The project is
credited for forming gender inclusive SCMCs in all the three catchments. The EURECCCA project has
undertaken a good level of stakeholder engagement, capacity building and sensitization aimed at
building climate change adaptive capacities of institutions and communities and knowledge
management. The project is credited for innovating a multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral and multi-
institutional approach in undertaking key interventions such as forestry, livelihood systems, wetlands
restoration, agricultural landscapes and soil bio-physical structures.

5.2 Recommendations

5.2.1 Corrective actions for designing, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the project
To successfully realize the intended results of the project interventions, the following recommendations
should be put into consideration:

NO RECOMMENDATIONS RESPONSIBLE TIMELINES

PARTY
TECHNICAL
1 Consider more involvement of the MDAs that have MWE/DWRM Throughout the project
expertise in forestry, livelihood systems, wetlands
restoration, agricultural landscapes and soil bio-physical
structures to take advantage of their capacity and
experience
2 Explore the option of opening new SACCOs/cooperatives MWE/DWRM By 15th December 2019
with full membership of the beneficiary communities in
the degraded catchments
3 Prioritize the most vulnerable households in the hotspots MWE/DWRM By close of project
in attributing the revolving fund since the available funds
will not be able to cover all the affected households upon
its implementation
4 Develop a gender equality action plan MWE/DWRM By 28th February 2020
5 Prepare a livelihood assessment report based on the MWE/DWRM By 31st December 2019
available information from the consultants in charge of the
restoration action plans
6 Ensure that the affected communities in degraded hotpots MWE/DWRM Throughout the project
are prioritized by women groups, tree nursery operators
and the consultants while implementing various
interventions
7 Increase the involvement of the CMCs and the SCMCs in MWE/DWRM Throughout the project
work planning, budgeting and accountability monitoring,
to strengthen transparency in decision making on this
project
8 Capture and document input of the CMCs and SCMCs in MWE/DWRM Throughout the project
the planning process of the EURECCCA project

35
9 Develop more accountability tools that get feedback from MWE/DWRM By 15th December 2019
the communities on project implementation. Pre-tested
Each tool on the target stakeholders
10 Fast track development of a communication plan for the MWE/DWRM By 31st March 2020
project and recruit a communications officer to support its
implementation
11 Ensure faster execution of the activities in order to reduce OSS/ At least twice every year
the delay. OSS should consider more frequent supervision MWE/DWRM
missions (for instance twice a year) accordingly
ADMINISTRATION
1. Fast track the legalization of SCMCs to create an enabling MWE/DWRM By 30th March 2020
environment for them to be supported to undertake their
roles
2. Continuously utilize regional PDUs where possible that can MWE/DWRM Throughout the project
be easily accessed for follow-up to minimize unnecessary period
procurement delays
3. Introduce “NAVISION” accounting software in the regional MWE/DWRM 30th November 2019
offices
4. According to the Grant Agreement between GoU and OSS, MWE/DWRM Immediately
EURECCCA Project can withdraw any amount of money
without exceeding the cap of USD 750,000 at any time
during the project execution by providing all the required
documents. This disbursement procedure should be
utilized in accordance to the grant agreement
5. Seek no objection for the recommendation made by the MWE/DWRM Throughout the project
PSC to hold meetings after every 4 months but not every 3
months.
6. Continue to use the approved Procurement Plan (PP) to OSS/ Immediately
avoid further delays. MWE/DWRM
7. Consider applying for a no cost extension in the event that MWE/ DWRM/ 6 months to end of project
there is indication that the project implementation will not OSS/ MoFPED
be completed within the remaining period given that the
project delayed for about 6 months
8. OSS, MWE and MoFPED should continue to dialogue and MWE/ DWRM/ Immediately
agree on how best to address the disbursements OSS/ MoFPED
challenges so far faced in order to facilitate timely
disbursement of funds
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
9. Come up with a rigorous knowledge management and MWE/ DWRM 15th November 2019
documentation system to capture all the achievements of
the project to take stock of the cumulative effect of the
interventions that will support evaluation of the project
results Knowledge management and documentation
function should therefore be given priority through either
assigning it to an existing staff where possible or engaging
a new person.
10. Ensure regular work plan reviews (at least monthly) which MWE/DWRM Throughout the project
make tracking of results easier
11. Revise the results matrix to include further break down of MWE/ DWRM 30th November 2019
some of the project indicators in order to measure level of
progress

36
12. Build the capacities of the project staff to support in taking MWE/ DWRM 15th November 2019
stock of the processes, progress, challenges, lessons and
feedback and document from the stakeholders especially
beneficiaries. Notwithstanding, the project should come
up with a flexible routine of undertaking monitoring visits
to each of the respective catchments
13. Recruit or assign at least one M&E officer per region or MWE/ DWRM 31st December 2019
assign the function to existing staff where possible

5.2.2. Actions to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the project

The project has created the following initial benefits:
No Initial benefits Enhancement measures Responsibility Time lines
1 Formation of CMCs and SCMCs Facilitate (Where possible) the MWE/ DWRM Throughout
SCMs to perform their duties the project
as specified in their TOR
2 Knowledge transfer to the community Continuous capacity building MWE/ DWRM Throughout
through capacity building especially through SCMC the project
structures
3 Direct benefits the nursery operators Provide them with inputs to MWE/ DWRM By 30th
meet the 1,200,000-seedling November
target of the project 2019
4 Formation of wetland and river bank Capacity building on their MWE/ DWRM By 15th
user committees roles and responsibilities as January 2019
well as facilitation to do their
work
5 Establishment of pilot biophysical Scale up the structures to all MWE/ DWRM By 30th
structures in Maziba hotspots January 2019
6 Pilot tree planting in Maziba, Awoja Scale up the tree planting to MWE/ DWRM By 31st May
and Aswa catchment all identified deforested areas, 2019
increase post tree planting
care
7 Consultancies have enhanced Continuously refresh the local, MWE/ DWRM Throughout
knowledge transfer to local, political political and technical persons the project
and technical persons in the WMZs to mainstream the issues
and the catchments trained about into district
development plans

37
Annexes
Annex 1: MTE assessment guide
Category Sub-category Issues/questions to be discussed Target respondents3

1. Overall Project Steering 1. We have noted low level of disbursement of funds for the project as the disbursement percentage remains PSC Chairperson or
way below what was expected two years after the start of the project and this has resulted in significant delay delegated member
in carrying out activities
a. Why is this so?
b. Have you put any measure in place to mitigate this significant delay?
c. If so, what measures are these?
d. In your opinion will the measures work?
2. OSS has noted in their previous missions an encounter of failures in both quality and frequency of the
reporting, have you taken any actions to mitigate this gap?
3. If yes, what actions have you taken?
4. From the review of the PSC meetings, we have noted that the PSC has met 4 times since the project begun, for
example we have noted that from 27th November 2018 (3rd PSC meeting) you met again on 7th August 2019,
doesn’t this affect approval of critical actions and outputs necessary for the project coordination team to move
faster?
5. From the terms of reference, the Steering Committee is supposed to meet quarterly through face to face,
video or Skype, why isn’t this so?
6. From the review of minutes of the meetings, several recommendations for action are often made, but how do
you ensure that the Project Coordination team implements these recommendations?

Budgets and Finance

In your TOR, the Steering Committee is required to discuss and approve (where appropriate) recommendations
made for Budget and budget constraints:

1. What challenges are you facing in your collaboration between MWE and ministry of finance concerning budget
financing?
2. Have you requested for extensions in disbursement and or expenditure? If yes how much and what was the
extension for?
3. Are there some amounts that you have re-allocated based on the approved budget? If so how much is it?
4. Are there expenses that you have incurred outside the approved budget? If so what is the amount and why?
5. Do you have any cancelled amounts so far? If yes, how much?

3
PSC=Project Steering Committee; MoFPED=Ministry of Finance Planning and Economic Development; TL= Team Leader; WMZ=Water Management Zone;
PM=Project Manager; RWM=Regional Wetland Manager; PTO=Project Technical Officer; CDO=Capacity Development Officer; CO=Communication officer;
SDO=Social Development Officer; M&E=Monitoring and Evaluation officer

38
Category Sub-category Issues/questions to be discussed Target respondents3

6. What were the original disbursement deadlines?

7. Have you asked for any supplementary financing yet? If yes, how much?
Project Financing 1. We have noted low level of disbursement of funds for the project as the disbursement percentage remains MoFPED officials
way below what was expected two years after the start of the project and this has resulted in significant delay
in carrying out activities
a. Why is this so?
b. Have you put any measure in place to mitigate this significant delay?
c. If so, what measures are these?
d. In your opinion will the measures work?
2. What challenges/gaps are you facing in your collaboration between MWE and ministry of finance concerning
budget financing
3. What are you doing to ensure respect to the deadlines of the Grant agreement especially the disbursement
aspects and all the other related documents signed by the Government in this regard?
4. Have you received requests for extensions in disbursement and or expenditure? If yes how much and what
was the extension for?
5. Are there some amounts that MWE has requested you to re-allocate based on the approved budget? If so how
much is it?
6. Are there expenses that MWE has incurred outside the approved budge? If so what is the amount and why?
7. Do you have any cancelled amounts sofa? If yes, how much?
8. What were the original disbursement deadlines?
9. Has MWE asked for any supplementary financing yet? If yes, how much?
2. Project a. Project Design 1. What key issues did the project set out to address? • TL WMZs
Strategy and Relevance 2. How do you link these issues to your results matrix? • PM
3. What implementation approach are you applying to achieve the project objectives? • RWM
4. According to you, what are the merits of the implementation approach? • PTO
5. What are the shortcomings of the approach?
6. Do you think that the implementation approach was best suited for the objectives?
7. What are the project components being implemented?
8. How are these components linked to the activities that the project is undertaking?
9. Overall, do you see this project to be strategically aligned to achieve its objectives and context?
10. Were the beneficiary needs assessed at the beginning of the project?
11. How were the needs of the beneficiaries identified?
12. According to you, what were the key beneficiary needs that the project set out to mitigate?
13. What country priorities are you currently addressing through this project?
14. Do you think that these are in line with the national sector development priorities and plans?
15. What is the gender composition of the Sub-Catchment Management Committee (SCMC) and Catchment
Management Committee (CMC)?
16. Did the project incorporate the gender in the interventions at community level?
17. If so, how do you mainstream gender at project area level as you implement various components?
18. What is the representation of relevant stakeholders on the coordination committee?

39
Category Sub-category Issues/questions to be discussed Target respondents3

19. Are interventions validated by the beneficiaries before being implemented?

20. During implementation in the specific project areas, are relevant stakeholders involved in role of activities?
21. Do you have any specific areas in the project design that you feel should be improved?
3. Progress b. Results 1. Are there any barriers to achieving the project objectives? • M&E
towards Results Framework/Log 2. If so, what are they? • CDO
frame 3. How do you intend to overcome them?
4. Are there any aspects of the project which have already been successful?
5. How can the project further expand these benefits?
4. Project a. Management 1. Were there any changes made in the project document? If so, which ones were they? • PM
Implementation Arrangements 2. Do you have any challenges implementing the structures proposed on the organogram? • TL WMZs
and Adaptive 3. If so, what are the challenges? • M&E
Management 4. Does every staff take part in the budget development process? • PTO
5. The last time a major decision was being made involving major spending on the project or policy issues on the
project were you consulted or did you consult?
6. Where can the project improve in terms of management as outlined in the project document?
b. Work planning 1. We have noted several delays in executing most of the planned activities, what could have caused this? (Note: • TL WMZs
Probe on each outcome area as the delays could vary) • PM
2. What steps have you taken to address the challenges and to prevent recurrence? • M&E
3. What informs your work planning process? • PTO
4. How do you take care of overlapping activities and those activities that do not get completed within a given
planning period?

40
Category Sub-category Issues/questions to be discussed Target respondents3

c. Finance 1. There is a Low level of disbursement, the disbursement percentage remains way below what was expected • Finance
two years after the start of the project leading to the significant delay in carrying out activities, why is this so? • TL WMZ
2. What challenges are you facing in your collaboration between MWE and ministry of finance? • PM
3. What are you doing to ensure respect to the Grant agreement especially the financial reporting aspects and all
the other financial documents signed by the Government?
4. What measures are you taking to ensure prompt execution of the project in the given deadlines?
5. Have you requested for extensions in disbursement and or expenditure? If yes, how much and what was the
extension for?
6. Are there some amounts that you have re-allocated based on the approved budget? If so, how much was it
and which budget line?
7. Are there expenses that you have incurred outside the approved budge? If so, what is the amount and why?
8. Do you have any cancelled amounts so far? If yes, how much?
9. What were the original disbursement deadlines?
10. Have you asked for any supplementary financing yet? If yes, how much and what was it for?
11. What approval process do you follow before getting disbursements from Ministry of finance?
12. When funds reach the MWE account, how are they disbursed for activities?
13. How do you ensure that the requests match the planned activities?
14. Are the recipients required to account for the funds received?
15. Is the accountability adequate and effective?

d. Project-level The monitoring tools currently being used • M&E

Monitoring and • PTO
Evaluation 1. What monitoring tools are being used on the project?
Systems 2. Do the tools provide the necessary information?
3. Are the key technical partners involved in preparation of tools
4. If yes, which ones are they?
5. Is the tool informed by existing information?
6. How efficient are the tools in gathering required information?
7. Is the M&E budget adequate? If not which areas need additional budget?
e. Stakeholder 1. Who are the major stakeholders/partners on your project from grass root level? • CDO
engagement 2. Do you have a written stakeholder engagement strategy? • SDO
3. How do you engage the stakeholders?
4. How do you get and or give feedback from the stakeholders?
5. What is the level of participation and enthusiasm on the project?
6. How do you engage local government structures?
7. Do you receive recommendations for improvement from stakeholders?
8. If so how do you integrate them into project implementation
9. Do you undertake validation workshops at project area level? If yes, how often?

41
Category Sub-category Issues/questions to be discussed Target respondents3

f. Reporting 1. How are adaptive management changes handled and reported by the project management and shared with • PM
the PSC? • M&E
2. What reporting requirements and formats do you follow? • PTO
3. Please rate the quality of reporting on this project? Rate it on a scale of 0-10 and give reasons why? • TL WMZs
4. Are there any lessons learnt so far?
5. How do you keep record of these lessons learnt?
6. How do you ensure that these inform the subsequent planning and execution processes?

g. Communication Internal project communication with stakeholders • CO

• SDO
1. How often do you communicate?
• CDO
2. It is effective?
3. Who are the key stakeholders?
4. How do you receive and give feedback to stakeholders?
5. Does the communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities
and investment in the sustainability of project results?
6. What communication tools and channels are you currently using to reach out to all stakeholders on the project
7. What documentation tools are you currently using on the project?
8. What exactly do you document?
9. Do you have a communication strategy for this project? Is it followed/implemented?
10. What challenges are you facing in undertaking your roles on the project?
11. Have you documented any success stories on this project?
12. Kindly inform us about any success stories that you have documented
13. Have you identified any lessons from implementation activities?
14. If yes, which ones are they? Did you document them?
15. Have you communicated the lessons to the relevant stakeholders?
5. Sustainability a. Financial risks 1. What opportunities are available for Private, Public Partnership (PPP) after the project closure? • M&E
to sustainability 2. According to you, do you think that the proposed IGAs will continue after the project? • PTO
3. Will these IGAs prevent communities from retuning into degradation of their resources? • SDO
• RWM
• TL WMZs
b. Socio-economic 1. Do you have political will for the project? What is the level of involvement by the local authorities at the • M&E
risk to project area level? • SDO
sustainability 2. Do you involve politicians in project activities? • RWM
3. Do local government staff see this restoration as their own initiative? What is their level of self-drive when • PTO
invited or undertaking any activities in the project area? • TL WMZs
4. Are there any lessons learnt so far?
5. How do you keep record of these lessons learnt?
6. How do you ensure that these inform the subsequent planning and execution processes?
7. How are lessons learnt disseminated to the relevant stakeholders?

42
Category Sub-category Issues/questions to be discussed Target respondents3

8. How do you ensure that the lessons are adopted in the subsequent programming of various stakeholders on
the project?
c. Institutional 1. What underlying negative forces/demobilization efforts are you faced with? How do you intend to manage this • SDO
Framework and by close of project to attain sustainability? • RWM
Governance risks 2. Do you think that the risk of demobilization in the project area is high and could threaten project outcomes • TL WMZs
to sustainability after closure? • CO
3. Are you engaged in any knowledge transfer to local government technical and political leaders? • PTO

d. Environmental 1. What are the environmental risks that could jeopardize the sustenance of project outcomes? • SDO
risks to 2. What are the social risks that could jeopardize the sustenance of project outcomes? • RWM
sustainability 3. What mitigation actions are undertaken by your project?

Catchment Level Catchment, Sub- 1. How have you been involved on EURECCCA project activities? All catchment, Sub-
catchment and 2. What activities have you been involved in EURECCCA project? catchment and micro-
micro-catchment 3. At the start of this project, what were your expectations? catchment level
level Stakeholder 4. Have you been involved with any consultants on the project? identified
engagement 5. Did the consultants involve you in the planning process/activities and execution (where applicable) for stakeholders in
rehabilitation of degraded wetlands, restoration of degraded riverbanks and protection of buffer zones, Maziba, Aswa and
construction of water harvest and flood control structures, and capacity building and knowledge Awoja such as Local
management? If yes, what were the firms involved and how were you involved? Councils, District
6. Are you updated on the overview of EURECCCA project and progress of implementation of EURECCCA technical persons,
activities? If yes, how often? MDAs, nursery
7. During the inception of this project, were you told about your roles and responsibilities on the project as well operators, women
as generally the conservation of the sub catchments? groups, CMCs,
8. What is the representation of females and males on the SCMC? SCMCs, Resource
9. What medium of communication does MWE use to reach out to project area stakeholders? According to you User groups and
are they effective? committees,
10. What kind of support do you need from WMZ to perform your duties? Households in
11. What kind of support were you promised by the WMZ? degraded hotspots
12. What support has WMZ given to you so far to perform your roles? among others
13. In the project activities undertaken by consultants, did you receive any training from any consultancy firm that
was/is involved in project activities?
14. What steps have you taken as a committee or as a stakeholder against encroachment in the selected areas for
restoration of forest cover, river banks, and wetlands?
15. Since the EURECCCA project started, what restoration activities have been implemented in your catchment?
16. Do you see any improvement/increase in forest cover, wetland cover and regeneration vegetation along the
riverbanks? Or is the situation getting worse?
17. Are you aware of any dissemination methods for conservation messages targeting the wider population
depending on these natural resources? If yes, according to you, are they effective?
18. Have you ever heard about the plans for the revolving fund meant to implement alternative income

43
Category Sub-category Issues/questions to be discussed Target respondents3

generating activities (IGAs) for the communities whose livelihoods will be affected by the restoration
activities? If yes, going by the current level of stakeholder engagement, do you think that the fund will reach
the right beneficiaries?
Consultants Technical support/ 1. What assignments have you undertaken on the project? WSS, AWE,
Consultancy 2. What is the completion status of your deliverables? SEGAMU14
services IUCN,WAM Inc.,
3. What stakeholders did you engage during execution of the assignment?
Devine Waters, JEEP
4. Did you conduct capacity building especially for the CMC and SCMC?
5. What challenges did you face in undertaking your assignment?
6. How did you overcome the challenges?
7. What recommendations do you have for future improvement?
Advisory Technical adviser 1. In the project documents, you were mentioned as a technical adviser on the project and therefore you are GWPEA
included in the project organogram at the national level.
2. What kind of technical advice are you currently giving to EURECCA project?
3. According to the project documents, you are supposed to support capacity building and knowledge
management component.
4. What kind of capacity building are you offering to the project?
5. What tools are you currently using on capacity building?
6. What communication methods are you using to mobilize the trainees and other stakeholders?
7. What training methods are using in implementing capacity building on the project?
8. During your capacity building activities, which kind of stakeholders do you engage?
9. How is the response by the stakeholders?
10. We have recently noted that you have been undertaking ToT trainings in Maziba catchments but this was not
possible in Awoja and you cancelled the training that had been scheduled this week. Why is it so?
11. We have noted in the annual technical report that the executing agency was complaining about your delay in
preparing capacity building tools and execution of trainings of women concerning the component of cook
stoves. What do you have to say about this complaint by the project executing agency?
12. We have noted that the GWP is on the P.S.C. What has been your note on the P.S.C and why doesn’t the P.S.C
meet regularly as specified on the ToR which requires them to meet quarterly (after 3months)
13. Do you have any other observation/recommendations to capture to inform this MTE?

44
Annex 2: List of persons interviewed

Name Position Location Contact

1. Maximo Twionomuhangi Team Leader MWE/KWMZ +256772659001

2. Akia Martha Communications officer MWE/KWMZ +256787459023

3. Enwaku E Smith Social development MWE/KWMZ +256781863030

officer

4. Opolot Augustine Capacity development MWE/KWMZ +256773183073

officer

5. Dr Callist Tindimugaya Project Manager MWE/DWRM +256772521413

6. Enenyr Johnson Project technical officer MWE/KWMZ +256772890221

7. Anguria Albert District water officer Kween District +256772646460

8. Tony Henry L CIII C/P kwanyiy S/C /C/p Kween District +256773336680
Kelim-Tabkoki SCMC

9. Nakabi Ceaser Kisc Civil Engineer AWE +256700570090

10. Atukunda Anita Engineer AWE +256700415548

11. Nankya Eseri Soil scientist/SLM expert AWE +256774423458

12. Muddukaki Solomon Sociologist AWE +256701761531

13. Egunyu Gorge Michael LCIV Soroti District +256772408341

14. Ocen Bonnie LC III C/P Kapir-Ngora +256782805042

15. Aisu Stephen Director of studies Ongino SS +256783225566

16. Iredwat Patrick Neighbor to the wetland Ogino-Osera

17. Daphine Ainebyona M&E officer MWE/DWRM +256779423791

18. Omonuk Stella Rose Neighbor to the wetland Ogino-Osera +256783896313

19. Obonipe Peter Neighbor to the wetland Ogino-Osera +256786540731

20. Opio Moses District Environment/ Kumi District +256784362055

forest officer

21. Omonding John LCIII C/p Ogino +256782015260

22. Apolot Christine LC IV Kumi District +256787814760

23. Kabalu Deo Regional Wetlands KWMZ +256782729140

Coordinator

24. Acipa Lucy C/p Tididiek Asianut Ngora s/c,Tididiek Villiage

Women’s Group

25. Akello Grace Secretatery Tididiek Ngora s/c,Tididiek Villiage +256781515464

Asianut Women’s Group

45
26. Auma Betty Member Tididiek Asianut Ngora s/c,Tididiek Villiage +256777723483
Women’s Group

27. Akello Immaculate Member Tididiek Asianut Ngora s/c,Tididiek Villiage +256789125411
Women’s Group

28. Annette Turyamureeba Project Coordinator MWE/DWRM +256414323531

29. Aayu Grace Member Tididiek Asianut Ngora s/c,Tididiek Villiage +256771526150
Women’s Group

30. Aguti Regina Member Tididiek Asianut Ngora s/c,Tididiek village

Women's Group

31. Ikiring Immaculate Member Tididiek Asianut Ngora S/c, Tididiek village +256781532861
Women's Group

32. Adongo Selina Member Tididiek Asianut Ngora S/c,Tididiek village

Women's Group

33. Akiror Berna Member Tididiek Asianut Ngora S/c,Tididiek village +256779736131
women's Group

34. Acheko Margret Member Tididiek Asianut Ngora S/c,Tididiek village

Women's Group

35. Apio Margret Member Tididiek Asianut Ngora S/c,Tididiek village

Women's Group

36. Anyumel Grace Member Tididiek Asianut Ngora S/c,Tididiek village

Women's Group

37. Ogwok Gertrude Programe Assistant IUCN

38. Achan Anna Social Development UNWMZ

Officer.

39. Dr. Laban F. Turyagyenda Director of Research Ngetta Zardi +256 772473123

40. Dr. Ahmed K. Eldaw Regional Coordinator GWPEA +256 757680896

41. Olal David Churchill District Natural Resource UNWMZ (Agago)

Officer

42. Lokiria Ben Anjello SCMC Chairperson UNWMZ (Pageri-Matidi)

43. Okullo Robert SCMC Chairperson UNWMZ

(Aswa 1)

44. Okolli Richard SCMC Chairperson UNWMZ (Agago)

45. Sylvano Afai Regional Wetlands UNWMZ +256780808448

Coordinator

46. Richard Musota Team Leader UNWMZ +256772520966

46
47. Denis Ownai Director Gum Blessings Technical +256782439559
Consult and Supplies

48. Ogena Henry Project Technical Officer UNWMZ +256772687622

EURECCCA

49. Chairperson CMC UNWMZ

50. Secretary CMC UNWMZ

51. Mwebesa Beda District Production Officer VWMZ +256772358052/

+256759358052

52. Bernard Byagageire CDO VWMZ +256772620719

53. Annet SDO VWMZ +256782656393

54. Patrick Besigye Keihwa Chairman LCV, Kabaale VWMZ

55. Rogers Akatwijuka District Natural Resources VWMZ +256772670508

Officer/ Secretary Maziba
CMC

56. Jennifer Tuwezi District Fisheries Officer VWMZ +256772593312

57. Mutayamba Amos Justus Focal Person, EURECCCA VWMZ +256774964007/

Matunguru KAZARDI (Research officer +256754964007
at NARO KAZARDI)

58. Women group Mukirwa Women’s Group VWMZ

59. Rukundo Hadad Upper Maziba fruitful VWMZ

seedlings co-owner.

60. Musasizi allan Engineering assistant VWMZ +256776993820

61. Ramuel Ahabwe Consultant. NACOPAT-Fitz VWMZ

62. Sarah Kasande Consultant, NACOPAT-Fitz VWMZ

63. Singa Singa Hache Denis Chairman Maziba CMC VWMZ +256772569831/
+256701569831

64. Evan Karingu Chairman SCMC/ LV3 VWMZ +256772545808/

+256756415949

65. Vivian Safari Consultant, Kigezi Diocese VWMZ +256788833889

66. Mugisha Louis Team Leader VWMZ +256772421608

47
Annex 3: List of documents reviewed

No. Reference Name Project Document

1 Project Document Project Proposal to the Adaptation Fund - PUBLISHED

2 Grant Agreement GoU- Grant Agreement Between OSS& The Republic Of Uganda
OSS

3 Project TOR Job Description for Capacity Development Officer- EURECCCA-Final

Job Description for Project Technical Officer- EURECCCA
Job Description for Social Development Officer- EURECCCA-Final
Job description of M&E OFFICER- EURECCCA
Job Description Project Financial Accountant- EURECCCA
Job Description Project Financial Accountant- EURECCCA
Terms Of Reference For The Project Coordination Team
Terms Of Reference For The Project Steering Committee- AF Project
4 Conditions precedent to EURECCA Project Implementation Manual (PIM) - Final-Oct2017
entry into force EURECCCA Financial Performance Planning - Final-Oct2017
EURECCCA Procurement Plan - Final-Oct2017
EURECCCA Project Work plan - Final-Oct2017
Members Of The Project Coordination Team - EURECCCA
Members Of The Project Steering Committee- EURECCCA
Opening of Bank Account
Project Audit Team - EURECCCA
Statement of Account 1
Statement of Account 2
5 Project Progress First EURECCCA Annual Technical-Report-MAY17-MAY18- 29-6-2018-
commentaires-03072018
First EURECCCA Financial Statement 30th April 2018
2nd EURECCCA 2nd Annual Technical Report April 18-April-04-07-2019
2nd EURECCCA Annual Financial Report pdf
2nd EURECCCA Financial Statement 30th April 2019
2nd Quarter Technical Report – October 2019
6 PSC Minutes of the 1st Project Steering Comittee of the EURECCCA Project – 12th
March 2018_Final
Minutes of the Second Project Steering Comittee of the EURECCCA Project – 31
July 2018 (1)
Minutes of the Third Project Steering Comittee of the EURECCCA Project – 27
Nov 2018-Final
EURECCCA SCM Action Points Fourth Meeting Kabale
7 Project Supervision OSS EURECCCA-Project Aide Memoire –June 2018
EURECCCA-Project Aide Memoire-Second Year 2019

8 Baseline Studies EURCCCA Aswa Baseline Report Final Draft

48
 Maziba baseline report
Revised Baseline Study Report_Awoja
9 MTE/MTR Taking Adaptation to the Ground: A Small Grants Facility for Enabling Local Level
Responses to Climate Change – Small Grants Facility
Addressing Climate Change Impacts on Marginalized Agricultural Communities
Living in the Mahaweli River Basin of Sri Lanka – MTR UNFCCC Adaptation Fund
Increasing Climate Resilience Through an Integrated Water Resource
Management Programme – MTE - United Nations Development Programme
Executing Agency: Ministry of Environment and Energy

49
50