ADAPTATION FUND BOARD SECRETARIAT TECHNICAL REVIEW OF PROJECT/PROGRAMME PROPOSAL PROJECT/PROGRAMME CATEGORY Regular Size Full Proposal _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Country/Region: Uganda Project Title: Enhancing Resilience of Communities and Fragile Ecosystems to Climate Change in Katonga Catchment, Uganda Thematic Focal Area: Water management Implementing Entity: Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) Executing Entities: Directorate of Water Resources (MWE) and Global Water Partnership Eastern Africa AF Project ID: UGA/NIE/Water/2019/1 IE Project ID: Requested Financing from Adaptation Fund (US Dollars): 2,249,000 Reviewer and contact person: Dirk Lamberts Co-reviewer(s): Claudia Maria Lasprilla Pina IE Contact Person: Technical The project “Enhancing Resilience of Communities and Fragile Ecosystems to Climate Change in Katonga Summary Catchment, Uganda” aims to strengthen the resilience of communities and fragile ecosystems to climate change impacts through promoting appropriate water infrastructure investments and nature-based solutions. This will be done through the four components below: Component 1: Strengthening the capacity of key grass root stakeholders for climate change adaptation (USD 301,826). Component 2: Promoting appropriate water storage technologies for increased water and food security (USD 603,196). Component 3: Supporting nature-based enterprises for sustainable socio-economic development (USD 775,540). Component 4: Knowledge management and information sharing (USD 238,000). Requested financing overview: Project/Programme Execution Cost: USD 181,064 Total Project/Programme Cost: USD 2,086,996 Implementing Fee: USD 162,004 Financing Requested: USD 2,249,000 The initial technical review raises several issues, such as limited information on project activities and the use of Unidentified Sub-Projects, compliance with the Fund’s Environmental and Social Policy and Gender Policy, the budgets and the role of the Implementing Entity in project execution, as is discussed in the Clarification Requests (CRs) and Corrective Action Request (CAR) raised in the review. Date: 13 May 2021 Comments Responses to AF Yes. Yes. Communities in the target area experience a range of climate change risks including drought, flooding and soil erosion. Yes. A duly signed Endorsement Letter dated 22 April 2021 has been provided. No. The proposal is 95 pages long and has 195 Corrected. pages of annexes. Much information in the proposal The number of pages of the proposal have been reduced to include 99 pages for proposal document is presented more than once, and in body and 98 pages for the Annexes. some cases several times. CAR 1: Please adjust the proposal (length of annexes) to meet the page limitations. Unclear. Most of the project interventions are Clarified described in rather generic and unspecific terms Paragraph 64: included IWRM approach to enable the conservation of the fragile that do not allow to appreciate if or to which extent ecosystems, and communities to access adequate and sufficient water to ably engage in they will build climate change adaptive capacity and productive agricultural activities resilience. Apart from the training activities, none of Activities: the project activities or target communities or Activity 2.1.1.1 edited …address the challenges of water scarcity organisations have been identified. Some of the Activity 2.1.1.2 edited …soil and water conservation activities appear to have an inherent risk of Activity 2.1.1.3 edited …in line with the national water policy (1999) chapter 4: water exacerbating the problems they are intended to resources management, that provides management arrangements right from the national address e.g. by diverting water from wetlands. to local level where under sub section 4.5 (v) highlights that water user groups will manage operate and maintain point water sources, and that community associations may CR 1: Please provide specific information on the also be formed for the purpose of managing resources such as wetland area, a fishpond envisaged activities to demonstrate how relevant or an irrigation scheme when such need arises. The existing Local councils and local adaptive capacity will be built for climate change government chiefs will play a role in setting local priorities and enforcing byelaws, adaptation and resilience and how they will not lead monitoring and mediating in water management; The National Irrigation Policy (2017) that promotes sustainable irrigation development to enhance food and livelihood security and to maladaptation. reduction of poverty. Under sub section 1.6 of this policy, it is clearly stated that the irrigation policy serves as an overarching instrument for regulation of irrigation The description of the components and the activities development in the country. It’s mission is promotion of irrigation development and is strongly focused on community resilience rather management to enhance water use efficiency for increased and sustainable agricultural than that of fragile ecosystems as stated in the production and productivity and profitability to ensure food security and wealth creation project goals. Section 2.6 of the policy provides the guiding principles to be followed amongst which is supporting Integrated water resources management (IWRM); the water resources CR 2: Please clarify the mechanism by which the regulations (1998) that provide for application for a water permit by someone who wishes proposed interventions will contribute to achieving to construct, own, occupy or control any works on or adjacent to which there is a the goal of enhancing the resilience of the fragile motorized pump that pumps water from a borehole or water way, there is weir, dam, tank or other capable of diverting or impounding an inflow of more than 400 cubic meters in ecosystems in or near which they will take place. any period of 24 hours, there are works for non-consumptive uses; and other related regulatory frameworks to address aspects of water scarcity/stress in a sustainable way. The ‘nature-based’ activities of component 3 are 2.1.1.4 edited… and degradation of the landscape essentially agriculture activities “bee keeping, commercial fruits and tree nurseries, mushroom 3.1.1.1 Edited… Establish nature-based enterprises such as bee keeping, commercial growing, incense sticks production, bamboo and fruits and tree nurseries, mushroom growing, incense sticks production, bamboo and agri- agri-waste biomass” with little or no described base waste biomass through collaborative natural resources management approaches. Such in nature and specifically the protection, nature-based enterprises aim at promoting both ecosystems and communities’ resilience management or restoration of ecosystems (as per to the impacts of climate change. In bee keeping conservation of natural bee habitats that the definition of nature-based solutions). provide bee forage comprising of natural vegetation will be promoted. Commercial fruits and tree nurseries, mushroom growing, incense sticks production, bamboo and agri- waste biomass will focus on promoting restoration hence resilience of catchment CR 3: Please clarify how these activities meet the ecosystems, whilst improving community livelihoods. definition of nature-based solutions, how they are . different from “business-as-usual” agricultural development activities and how they will specifically Activity 3.2.1.1. Edited….Through Collaborative Natural Resources Management addressing climate change impacts. Approaches such as Integrated Water Resources Management, Collaborative Forest Management, Forest Landscape Restoration, Farm Managed Natural Regeneration, to enhance the resilience of the ecosystems and communities. The proposal contains unidentified sub-projects (USPs) throughout, e.g. the activities of Outcome 3.2 “Enhanced ecosystem health” have not been identified, and those of Component 4 are only described in generic terms. Paragraphs 74-76 provide the criteria for the selection of beneficiaries for the activities of Component 3. However, the justification for the use of the USP approach is lacking; the information on which the identification of the USPs will be based is currently available. The particular importance of identifying the project activities only during project implementation is not demonstrated. CR 4: Please clarify why it is not possible and what the specific benefits are from not fully identifying the project activities during project formulation to the extent that adequate ESP risks identification is possible. Corrected. All project activities have been fully identified. Unclear. While the activities that the project considers engaging in have an inherent potential to generate benefits, the economic and environmental benefits are unproven and the likelihood of such benefits materializing is not demonstrated. Further, these are dependent on a large number of external conditions not described in the project context (such as availability and accessibility of land, which is one of the problems described for the project area). The environmental benefits claimed are dependent The activities proposed on ecosystem health restoration have been modified and on activities that are not included in the project. redefined to provide direct and tangible benefits especially through wetlands and E.g., the activities of Outcome 3.2 on enhanced riverbank restoration, reforestation, enrichment planting, opening of boundaries of fragile ecosystem