THE CHALLENGES OF WETLAND MANAGEMENT IN DIVISION

BY

NAGGAYI HASIFAH

BEM143709/1431DU

A RESEARCH REPORTSUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

AND APPLIED SCIENCES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF A BACHELORS DEGREE

OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

OF KAMPALA INTERNATIONALUNIVERSITY

AUGUST, 2017 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .13 4.1 Human activities and their effects in and Kyetinda wetlands 13 4.2 Management of Kansanga and Kyetinda wetlands 15 CHAPTER FIVE 17 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 5.1 CONCLUSIONS 17 5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 17 REFERENCES 18 APPENDICES 21 APPENDIX I: WORKPLANANDTIMEFp~ME 21 APPENDIX II: BUDGET 22 APPENDIX III: QUESTJONi~JAIRE GUIDE 20 APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW GUIDE 21 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: The human activities and how they affect Kansanga and Kyetinda wetlands 13 Table 2: The management concerns in the studied wetlands 15 DECLARATION I Naggayi Hasifahdo hereby declare to the best of my knowledge that this research report is my original material and has never been presented to any other institution of learning for any award.

NAGGAYJ HASIFAH

Sign ...‘‘~‘‘ Date...~J.<~/~2~C) APPROVAL

This research report has been under my supervision and is now ready for submission to Kampala International University.

Supervisor: MS. LUYIGA SUZAN

Sign ~ Date DEDICATION I dedicate this research report to my Father and Mother for the tremendous contribution towards my education and also to my entire family. To KIU for instilling in me values that have made me a whole person, and finally my fellow classmates with whom we started this together with love and guidance that they have showed me.

vi ACKOWLEDGEMENT I wish to extend my gratitude to all those who contributed to the success of my research. Special thanks to my parents for the financial support. I am deeply indebted to my supervisor for the guidance during the study and ensuring submission of my report.My sincere gratitude to the staff of the Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences for a contribution in my life. I finally thank God for bringing me this far.

VII LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

GDP : Gross Domestic Product

NFA : National Forestry Authority

NEMA : National Environment Management Authority

NMK : National Museum of Kenya

NASA : National Aeronautics and Space Administration

VIM ABSTRACT

The study examined the challenges in the management of Kasanga and Kyetinda Wetlands in Kampala district. The study aimed to establish human activities in Kasanga and Kyetinda wetlands in Makindye division Kampala district and identify the management issues. Using a semi-structured questionnaire, interview guide and direct observations, 48 respondents including NEMA officials, community leaders and residents were interviewed. Results majorly show three activities including plant harvesting, recreation activities and construction that clearly destroyed the two wetlands. Waste disposal and agricultural activitiesalso contributed significantly. The identified management issues in these wetlands included: waste dumping, rainfall intensity, political interference, population increase, limited infonnation, land ownership and policies and regulations in order of decreasing importance.The activities and management issues in the two wetlands clearly indicate a general lack of awareness on the multivariate values of wetlandsamong the users. The establishment of efficient and effective management mechanisms is, therefore, crucial for the co-ordination and collaboration of all stakeholders.

ix CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Wetlands cover about 6% of the earth’s surface (Kirsten, 2005). The Ramsar convention on wetlands of international importance defines wetlands as “areas of marsh, fen or water whether natural or artificial, permanent or seasonal with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salty, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres” (Ramsar, 2007).Wetlands occur at all latitudes, from the polar areas to the tropics, and occur in most countries. Wetlands perform a number of ecosystem services, some of which are well recognized, others less so, and are internationally recognized as one of the most important ecosystems for the conservation of biodiversity (Carp, 1980). Wetlands also have important primary functions in the regulation of hydrology, water puritication and flood control, and coastal wetlands can help to alleviate the impacts of storm surges(Kirsten,2005) Further, wetlands have aesthetic values and significant eco-tourism potential (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005).

Wetlands are estimated to store more than twice the amount of carbon as all global forest biomass combined(Creswell, 2003). Drained and disturbed wetlands emit a massive amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (Anonymous, 2008).According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment report, wetlands are the habitat that has been most affected by development and are being lost more rapidly than any other habitat in the world. However, 80% of the global wetland area is still pristine and not severely modified by human activities. Globally, natural wetlands are destroyed at a rate of 4000 square kilometers per year, with 50% attributed to agriculture, 30% to forestry and 10% to peat extraction (Creswell, 2003).

In Uganda, wetlands are one of the most valuable ecosystems and cover about 30,105 square kilometers, representing 13% of the country’s total area (National Environment Management Authority, 2000). The national environment act of Uganda defines wetlands as “areas which are permanently or seasonally flooded by water and where plants and animals have become adapted’. There are two broad categories of wetlands in Uganda, namely. those which are associated with lakes (lacustrine) and rivers (riverine) (National Environment Act, 1995).

1 Thishasresultedinthedegradation and modification ofihesevaluablestocks ofnaturaicapital. Thissituatjon arisesoutofthefacfthat wetlandsare perceived to have little or no economic value (Kirsten, 2005), coupled with the fact that no formal markets exist for their services to humanity (Jodi,2005),Consequently this makes wetland conservation not to be seen as a serious alternative compared to other uses that seem to yield more tangible and iimnediate economic benefits. As a r e s u it inadequate resources are fed into their management which breeds environmental degradation through in appropriate commercial use o f wetlands (Oglethoipe and M iliadou, 2000), which consequently affect human welfare.

Despite the important ecosystems services wetlands deliver, Ugandan wetlands have been greatly altered by human activities. The Government of Uganda made significant progress in establishing a comprehensive policy, legal and institutional framework for wetlands management(NEMA 2002). Nonetheless, there are numerous challenges that undermine the sustainable utilization and management of wetlands in Uganda (NEMA, 2000). It is therefore important to establish the challenges of their management in Uganda.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Wetlands in Makindyc division have decreased by 50 percent, in the twenty years between 1995 and 2016;(NEMA, 2006). According to NEMA (2011), managemeiit is challenged by complex land ownership issues, political interference, and population explosion among others. Currently, both Kasangaand Kyetinda are heavily encroached upon for residentj al(NEMA 2 0 1 2). It has been surrounded by buildings and businesses and as a result the wetland area has shrunk a great deal(NEMA(20l2)Th~5 leaves little space for the storm waters that normally collects in the wetland.As a result severe flooding of the wetland and surrounding area can take place during the rainy season. This is particularly problematic because the weather patterns have become more severe and during long periods of drought many people think the wetland is gone for good and begin cultivating the land. When the rains do return all this work is lost to the floods.These wetlands should be conserved in order to serve their puipose that is to say several measures should be taken into consideration.For example cancellation of all land leases and titles in wetlands so that the NEMA and the Wetlands management Depai~ment can work with the Ministry responsible for Lands, Justice and Constitutional Affairs to identify, isolate and hold the peipetrators individually accountable, as well as, withdraw these titles and leases from their holders. This could also help in eviction of all wetland encroachers. However, it

2 appears like NEMA is failing to exercise its duties and responsibilities. This study, therefore, aimed at establishing the challenges in the management of Kasanga and Kyetinda Wetlands inMakindye division Kampala district.

1.3 Objectives of the study

1.3.1 Main objective

The main objective of this study was to examine the challenges of wetland management in Makindye division Kampala district

1.3.2 Specific objectives

i) To establish the activities carried out inKasanga and Kyetinda wetlands which may hinder their proper management. ii) To identify the management concernsin Kansanga and Kyetinda.

1.4 Research questions

i) Are there management challenges in Kasanga and Kyetinda wetlands? ii) What arc the human activities within Kansanga and Kyetindawcjlai1~5’~

1.5 Significance of the study

Provide baseline data on the human encroachment and management challenges of Kansanga and Kyetinda \vetlancls.

3 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Wetlands

The Ramsar Convention has defined wetlands as “areas where water is the primary factor controlling the environment and the associated plant and animal life, wetlands can be “areas of marsh, fen, peat land or water, whether nafliral or ai~ificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine water, the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six meters” (Heidanpaa,2002),

2.2 Values and activities done in Wetlands

~‘Wetlands are generally thought to be among the most fertile and productive ecosystems of the worlds” (Mulamotti, Warner and McBean, 1996:1). Clearly, humankind has to first understand the value that wetlands hold for human as well as environmental stability before wetland

management and conservation is initiated in any community. This will ensure proper wetland management and conservation techniques. The section will discuss the benefits and values wetlands provide and how this information can be used by developing countries to educate communities on the importance of wetlands as natural ecosystems. This section will discuss and examine different values wetlands provide in both developed aiid developing countries.

Wetlands in Africa are some of the most productive ecosystems in the world and in many cases they are sources of natural resources upon which many rural communities depend. These ecosystems provide food and energy, medicine, building material, dry season grazing and transportation for large human populations (Kabii, 1996). The following are examples of the uses of biodiversity and productivity in African wetlands:

a) In Uganda people harvest C)perlis papyrus to make mats and baskets. b) In Rwanda ~yperus papyuits is compressed into fuel briquettes with a high calorific Content. c) In the Okavango Delta roots, palm Hyphae, Phragmites, and palm heai~s are harvested

for subsistence food and wine. d) In the Inner Niger Delta rice, millet, maize and wheat are cultivated in the highly productive soils of wetlands areas.

4 Over 600 local people are employed in tourist camps in the Okavango Delta (Kabii, 1996). Clearly, wetlands in Africa provide numerous products that are essential for the wellbeing Africans: for example food, fresh water and building materials to name a few. In addition, wetlands are valued for their cultural or religious significance. For instance, some wetlands are sacred entities especially to the Buddhists of Tibet. These wetlands are identified as objects of worship hence conserved and protected against degradation. The wetlands hold deep religious value, which cannot be easily substituted (http://ramsar.org). Religious values can therefore be a contributing factor in managing and conserving wetlands.

Mulamottiet al (1996) state that the value of wetlands varies from community to community. A preliminary survey of Ramsar sites found that approximately 30 percent of the sample had archaeological, religious, historical or cultural significance at both local and national level. For instance, the construction of the Coa Dam was abandoned in Portugal despite the investment of approximately 150 million US dollars. This was due to the archaeological value of the site after unearthing Paleolithic engravings. In addition, Starvns Fjord Ramsar site holds a significant archaeological value to the people of Denmark as it is a Bronze Age site (http://ramsar.org) In these examples wetlands are valued for the historical element they hold for the surrounding community, which promotes efforts for their preservation

The value of wetlands also includes the products that are derived from these natural resources, including rice and fish. Rice is a very important staple diet feeding approximately three billion people. Fish on the other hand, is a source of protein and a generator of income for many fishing communities. Of the eighty- two fish species in the Okavango River and Delta wetlands of Botswana nineteen species are commercially exploited for human consumption, twenty-five species for aquarium and sixteen are for fishing sports. Further, a mangrove, which is a wetland product, grows in most tropical areas. Its uses include: thatch for roofing, fibres for textile and paper making, timber for construction, fuel wood and medicines from leaves to name a few (http ://rarnsar. org).

2.3 Wetland Management and Conservation

Wetland management is the only practice that can mitigate wetland degradation in developed and developing countries. However, this does not preclude wetlands from being utilized; on the contrary, wetland management promotes the partial conversion of wetlands in order to meet

5 economic needs of societies. A balance has to be struck between the environmental functioning of wetlands and their use for livelihood purposes thus promoting sustainable wetland management. Many communities and international organizations have found a way of encouraging wetlands management. For example the Ramsar Convention promotes the sustainable utilization of wetlands. As mentioned earlier, this is evident from the Ramsar strategic plan for 2O03~2008; the Convention argues that the wise use of wetlands is one of the techniques that can be used in developed and developing countries. Ramsar Convention describes the wise use of wetlands as the sustainable utilization of wetlands for the benefit of human kind in a way that is compatible with the maintenance of the natural properties of the ecosystem. Sustainable utilization is defined by the Convention as the human use of a wetland so that it may yield the greatest continuous benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations. Thus, the Ramsar Convention uses the wise use concept as a wetland management tool for the member states and wetlands of international importance (Africa Environmental Outlook, 2002).

2.4 Management and State of Wetlands in Uganda.

Uganda is endowed with wetlands, covering approximately 13% of theland surface (NEMA, 2006; UNDP, 2009) representing one of the most vital ecological and economic resources (Amaniga et. al., 2010; Bakama, 2010). They are associated with important functions that provide goods and services which have economic value and therefore satisfy human wants, directly /or indirectly (Kirsten, 2005; Brander et. al., 2006). Directly, wetlands are sources of water supply and other products such as fish and plant resources, clay, papyrus, sand and they are also centres of recreation whilst indirectly, they perform environmental functions vital in the maintenance and protection of human ~ preservatjonofwatei’ quality, flood attenuation, nutrientretention,gi~oundwater recharge and climatic regulation (Barbier. 1993; Gayatri. 2000;Oglethorpeet.al ..2000).

Uganda’s wetlands range from those fringing the Equatorial lakes at an altitude of l,134m above sea level to those in the Afromontane regions of Mt. Elgon and the Rwenzori range which may be found as high as at 4,000m above sea level. This large wetland resource is explained by a climate of high rainfall and the general topography of the country. The wetlands are spread throughout the country.

6 In 1964, the total area of wetlands was estimated at 32,000 km2 but by 1999, it had decreased to 30,000 km2, or about 13 percent of the total area of Uganda. Preliminary data from the National Biomass Study Unit of the National Forestry Authority (NFA) (2008) suggest that Uganda’s wetlands cover, as estimated in 2005, has now been reduced to 26,308 km2, or 11 percent of total land area. The key underlying causes of this decline is the insatiable desire for the population both the rich and the poor to derive livelihoods from the wetlands such as reclamation for agriculture (rice in

Eastern Uganda and Vegetables in South Western) and other industrial and commercial purposes (Central region); over harvesting of water for domestic and commercial use; over harvesting of materials mainly for construction and handicraft and over fishing. Poor use of wetland catchrnents leading to siltation of wetlands and rivers and also people are forced to cultivate the now fertile wetlands. This is exacerbated by the high annual population growth rate of 3.2%

Lake Victoria and Kyoga are among to the most critical ecosystems in Uganda. The wetland catchmeni areas around Lake Victoria alone has shrunk by more than half its size in 20years from 7, 1 67.6sq.km in 1 994 to 3,3 10 sq.km in 2008. The wetland catchment of Lake Kyoga has also reduced in size from l5,008.3sqkm in 1994 to ll,028.5sq,kni in 2008. The Global Water Partnership in East Africa states that Uganda losses approximately 15% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) due to the destruction of its natural resources such as wetlands. Wetlands destruction alone costs Uganda nearly 2billions shillings annually and contamination of water resources which is partly caused by i-educed buffering capacity of open water bodies costs Uganda nearly 3 8billion annually.

2.5 Challenges in managing wetlands.

“Wetland ecosystems account for about 6 percent of the global land area and are among the most threatened of all environmental resources” (Turner, 1991: 59).The over-utilization and exploitation of wetlands in both c1ev.~loped and developing countries have led to loss and degradation of these precious ecosystems. Ramsar Convention states that wetland loss is the degradation of a wetland due to conversion to a non-wetland area. For example an agricultural area, while wetland degradation is the damage of wetland functions due to human activity, for instance pollution. Wetland loss and degradation are different in that the latter can be managed

7 and controlled using suitable wetland management techniques while wetland loss needs restoration and mitigation measures, which are expensive and complicated in terms of capital and engineering expertise, an issue that can be a greater challenge for developing countries. Mitsch and Gosselink (2000) argue that wetland loss is due to hydrological modification, agricultural and urban development, and this can be through drainage for agriculture, forestry and mosquito control, mining of peat, filling for residential, commercial and industrial development and finally filling for solid waste disposal. However, intense wetland degradation occurs due to human activities, the impact of which is: reduction of water supply directly to people, to an aquifer or another wetland; impaired water flow regulation and flood control; less recreation and tourism opportunity and decrease in socio-cultural significance (Mitsch and Gosselink, 2000).

The underlying causes of wetland loss and degradation in developing countries are: poverty, economic inequality, population increase, immigration, mass tourism, social and political conflicts and finally demands on water resources. Turner and Jones (1991) analyze wetland degradation by stating that the risk of degradation has been increased by the open-system nature of wetland resources. Wetlands are also prone to damage caused by activities located in a considerable distance away from the wetland site. Wetland loss and degradation have been accelerated by the following factors: improved access to wetland zones, pressure of population growth and impacts of economic development.

Wetlands International, a nongovernmental organization and a partner of Ramsar Convention, states that wetland degradation in most parts of the world is due to improper management of natural resources thus leading to the destruction of wetlands services and products (www.wetlands.org). The continued degradation and loss of wetlands in many countries has been acknowledged by Ramsar Convention when it argues that “In spite of important progress made in recent decades, wetlands continue to be among the world’s most threatened ecosystems. owing mainly to ongoing drainage, conversion, pollution. and over- exploitation of these resources” (The Ramsar Convention Manual, 4thEd,www.ramsar,org). The majority of tropical wetlands are lost as a direct result of conversion to intensive agriculture, aquaculture or industrial use and through more gradual qualitative changes caused by hydrological perturbation, pollution and unsustainable levels of grazing and fishing activities (Turner and Jones, 1991).

8 The increasein wetlandloss and degradation has been caused by human impacts from a range of activities including floodplain reclamation, poldering, construction of flood control structures, drainage for agriculture, excavation of peat for fuel and finally the modification and straightening of river channels in favor of navigation. Thus approximately fifty percent of the world’s wetlands have been lost. In densely populated areas the problem is more severe: the densely populated regions of Europe, Asia and North America have lost or severely degraded more than eighty percent of their natural wetlands (Bobbinket al,2006). China’s natural wetlands have been severely degraded; the country has lost approximately 23% of freshwater swamps, 16.1% of lakes, 15.3% of rivers and 51.2 % of coastal wetlands. Over one hundred years, China’s total wetland loss has led to the extinction of many species including the big- head fish, estuary crocodile. Phoenix-head, sheldrake and the wild david deer (Li et al, 2007). Wetland loss and degradation can ofien have multiple effects including the loss of habitat for species that depend on wetlands for sui~ival. Thus, many countries have realized the rate at which wetland loss and degradation is increasing leading to a range of environmental impacts.

9 CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.0 Description of the study area

Makindye division is one of the five administrative , the capitalcity of Uganda. This division is in the southeastern corner of the city, bordering to the south and west. The eastern boundary of the division is Murchison Bay,of Lake Victoria. Makindye, where the divisional headquarters are located, sits approximately 6 km by road, southeast of Kampala’s central business district. According to Census (2014) there are approximately 409,500 people in the informal settlements of Makindye division.

3.2 Research Design

In this study, the researcher used both quantitative and qualitative design. Qualitative design of data collection involved exploratory designs which includedthe review of literature and pilot studics. Under quantitative design, the researchcr used frequencies and percentages in describing and summarizing the present data so as to make good conclusion.

3.3 Sample size

A sample size of 48 residents comprising of NEMA officcrs, community leaders and people residing in Makindye division from the population of 55 took part in the study.

3.4.2 Sampling techniques

Selection of respondentsinvolvecl a simple random sampling since they are likely to be many. The main benefit of the simple random sample was that each member of the population had an equal chance of being chosen and it guaranteed that the sample chosen was arepresentative of the population and is an effective way of avoiding bias of respondents according to (Sekaran 2000).

10 3.6 Data Collection Methods

3.6.1 Questionnaire

Semi-structured questionnairewas designed and administered to the NEMA officers, community leaders and people (community members) especially those who stay in Makindye division. The questionnaire was based on the four Alikert scale of 1 strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 disagree, and 4 strongly disagree.Questionnaj~e5 were preferred because the tool helped to cover a large number of respondents in a relatively short time.

3.6.2 Interview guide

The interview guide was designed using open-ended and pre-corded questions to ease data collection. For the key infonnation (management), respondents normally have busy schedules to fill in questionnaires. These were interviewed one at a time to maximize benefits of face- to-face interaction.

3.6.3 Direct observations

This was used to collect primary data through viewing what exactly has happened on the ground in regards to wetland management. It enabled the researcher to crosscheck for validity and accuracy of information that that was gathered using other methods. It also enabled the researcher to obtain more direct answers by studying the economic activities clone in wetlands.

3.7 Reliability of research methods

The questionnaires werecross examined for approval by the supervisor, to ensure that the information they generated was appropriate for the study questions.

3.9 Data analysis and presentation

Data was analyzed using frequencies of the Alikert scale by the respondents. Percentages werecomputed to put a measure of impact by the considered activity in the wetlands and presented inform of a table.Upon retrieval, each questionnaire returned was checked for completeness. If any questionnaire is found incomplete, the respondents were contacted with a request to supply the missing information. Otherwise, the questionnaires were assigned with an identification number, which helped to track the respondents views during data entry.

11 Thereafter, these weretypewrjtten and used to generate frequencies and percentages that were presented in form of tables.

3.10 Limitations of the study

Limited funds constrained field activities.

Bureaucracy delayed the study.

12 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Human activities and their effects inKansanga and Kyetinda wetlands

Table 1: Human activities inKansanga and Kyetinda wetlands

Recreational activities

Table 1 indicates that all the five investigated human activities considerably affected the Kansanga and Kyetinda wetlands. Plant harvesting (100%) and recreation activities (98%) were identi lied as the most destructive activities in the two wetlands. Construction activities (94%). waste disposal(83%) and agricultural activities (79.2%) also affected the wetlands. Other activities like fishing and lumbering were also commonly noted in these two wetlands during the study.

Plant harvesting has beenconsidered as one of the sustainable uses of wetlands (Karanja et. al., 2001), and would provide multiplier effects. In addition, it provides direct income to the hai~esters and processers (Ernei~on et. al., 1999). However, in the two studied wetlands, there 13 is over hai~esting of wetland plants due to high demand for several pui~oses, including craft weaving, mulch and thatching materials. It was quiet evident that wetland plants were used as mulch in the banana plantations within these wetlands, and the residents valued it for increased banana productivitythrough moisture retention, erosion control and organic manure. A good number of residents engaged in the craft industry within the two wetlands, and these were involved as either hai~esters or processers, and their livelihood completely depended on the wetlands, pausing a risk on sustainable utilization.

Located close to Lake Victoria, Kansanga and Kyetinda wetlands attract a lot of recreation activities. These, according to the respondents, contribute greatly to the disruption of the two wetlands. Recreation comes with a lot of sti~ctural construction that significantly disrupt the wetland and its natural functions. It was strongly agreed (94%) that construction activities led to disruption of the two wetlands. In addition, the generated waste from the recreation areas were directed into the wetlands without treatment, overloading the wetlands with high biological oxygen demand (BOD), disrupting the ecological integrity of the wetland.

14 4.2 Management of Kansanga and Kyetinda wetlands Table 2: The management concerns in the studied wetlands

Questions Scale ~ Al Land ownership 1 2 ______15 31.2 3 __ 2 1

______4___ 1 1 A2 1 ______45 94 Political ownership 2 ___ o 0 3 ___ 3 6 4 ___ o 0 A3 1 _____ 13 27.1 Policies and regulations 2 25 52.1 3 10.4 4 5 10.4 A4 1~___ 3 62.5 Waste dumping 2 18 37.5 3 0 4 0 ______AS 5 94 Population increase 2 0 0 3 3 6 4 0 0 _____ A6 62.5 Rainfall intensity 2 18 37.5 0 4 0 A7 30 66.5 Limited information 2 15 31.5 3

Table 2 indicates that the seven investigated issues in Kansanga and Kyetinda wetlands considerably affected the management of the two wetlands. Waste dumping and rainfall intensity are the main problems since 100% of the respondents strongly agreed, Political interference and population increase came in next with 94% followed by limited information and land ownership and policies and regulations in order of decreasing importance.

Waste dumping in most urban wetlands of Uganda has always been a problem (Karanja et. al., 2001).. This is mainly due to unplanned settlement. In Kansanga and Kyetinda, a lot of people both the rich and poor have settled there without any formal waste disposal facility.

15 The high rainfall intensity in the studied area has worsened the waste management. All the waste from the upper lying areas ends up in the wetlands, blocking the waterways and causing a lot of floods and water contamination (Sekaran, 2000).

The poor sensitization of the locals concerning sustainable use of these wetlands has also caused extensive destruction of the two wetlands.About 94% of the respondents strongly agreed that poor information is the main cause of wetland disruption. The observed signs of limited information included haphazard dumping of wastes and failure to separate organic and inorganic wastes.

In the two wetlands, several niansions of rich people were observed, This could be the issue of land ownership and co-operations of the KCCA Land policy.

The communities are still not aware that wetlands are legally owned by government for the good of all Ugandan citizens.

16 CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

The findings revealed that a number of limitations and challenges of Kansanga and Kyetinde wetlands management for example recreation activities, waste dumping and lack of general awareness on how to use these wetlands sustainably still need serious attention. As a result severe flooding of these wetlands and surrounding areas can take place during rainy season. This is pai~icularly problematic because the weather patterns are non-predictable, with more severe rains. During drought, many people think the wetlands are gone for good and begin cultivating the land. When the rains do return all their work is lost to the floods.

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is most important that increase in awareness and availability of public education on pertinent issues regarding wetlands utilization and management are initiated. Creation of livelihood alternatives could also be an option.

17 REFERENCES

AfricaEnvironmentOutloolç2002 :Past,presentandfiiturepe,~pectjves ~

Arnaniga IR, Lucy L, Mafumbo J, Nabulumbi J, Mwesigye J, Madanda S (2010). A Socio Economic Baseline Survey of Communities Adjacent to lake Bisina / Opeta and lake Mburo / Nakivali wetland systems: Providing Baseline Information for the Implementation of The Cobweb Project in Western and EasternfNorth-Easten~ Uganda. Uganda Wild Life Authority.

Bakarna B (2010) Contemporary Geography of Uganda: Water and Wetland Resources in Uganda. NkukinaNyota ltd, Nyerere road, Tanzania.

Barbier EB, Acreman MC, Knowler D (1993). Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A Guide for Policy Makers and Planners. Ramsar Convention Bureau, Gland, Switzerland.

Bobbink,R.,BeltmanB .,Verhoeven, J.T.A.,andWbjgham,DF ,(eds)2006: Wetlands; Function lag, Biodiver~ity Conservation, and Restoration. Springer Verlag,Berlin,Hejdelberg

Brander LM, Vermaat 3, Florax JG (2006). The Empirics of Wetland Valuation: A Comprehensive Survey and a Meta-Analysis of Literature. Environ. Resour. Econ. 33: 223-250.

Carp, Eric.1980, Directory of Wetlands of International Importance in the Western Paleartic. IUCN-UNEP, Gland, Switzerland.

Creswell, J.W., 2003: ResearchDesign: Qualitative, Quantitativeand Mixed

Methods,ThousandQaks,Caljfoi.nia: SagePublications.

Dixon, A. and Wood, A., 2001, “Sustainable Wetland Management for Food Security and Rural Livelihoods in South-west Ethiopia: the interaction of local knowledge and institutions, government policies and globalization. Paper prepared for

18 presentation at the “Serninairesurl ‘amenagement des zonesmarecageaus dii Rwanda”, 5-8 June at the National University of Rwanda.”

Emerton, L. lyango, P. Luwum, and A. Malinga, The Economic Value of Nakivubo Urban Wetland, Uganda, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Eastern African Region Office Nairobi and National Wetlands Programme, Wetlands Inspectorate Division, Ministry of Water Lands and Environment, Kampala, Uganda, 1999.

Gayatri A (2000). The Value of Wetlands: Landscape and Institutional Perspectives. Approaches To Valuing The Hidden Hydrological Services Of Wetland Ecosystems, Ecological economics (35) 63-74, P11: S0921-8009(O0)001683.

Heidanpaa,J.,2002: European-wide ~ reception ofthe Natura2000 Reserve Network in Karvia, SW-Finland,

Lands’capeandLJrhanpfannjng,o 1, 11 3— 123.

Kabii, T., 1996: An Overview of African Wetlands. http://iocleweb 1 .v/ 12 .be/odinlhandle/ 1834/457? 1anguage~fr (30 April 2008) Karanja F, Emerton L, Mafumbo J, Kakuru W (2001): Assessment of the Economic Value of Pallisa District Wetlands. Kampala, Uganda: Biodiversity Economics Programme for Eastern Africa, IUCN -The World Conservation Union and Uganda National Wetlands Programme; 2001. ~ Populations. Ecol. Econ 53: 177-190,

Li C, Jiang Z, Tang 5, Zeng Y, 2007. Evidence of effects of humandisturbance on alert responses in Pére David’s deer Elaphurusdavidianus. Zoo. Biol. 26: 461—470 Mbereko, A.. Chimbari, M.J., and Mukamuri, B., (2007), An analysis of institutions associated with wetland use, access and management in communal areas of Zimbabwe. A Case study of Zungwivlei, Zvishavane, Physics andChemistry of the Earth, 32, 1-29.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Wetlands and Water Synthesis. A report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. 19 Mitsch, W.J., Gosselink, J.G., 2000. Wetlands, 3rd ed. JohnWiley, New York

Mulamotti, G., Warner, G.B., and Mc Bean, E.A., (Eds.) 1996: Wetlands:Environmental gradients, boundaries and bi~ffers, Boca Raton, FTC: CRC Press.

Uganda National Environment ACT (1995)

NEMA( 1996) .TheStateofEnvironmental ReportforUganda.Kampala, Uganda.

NEMA (2006). The State of Environmental Report for Uganda. Kampala, Uganda.

NEMA(2002) .DistrictStateofEnvironmental ReportforMukono. Kampala, Uganda.

Oglethorpe D. R. and Miliadou D. (2000). Economic Valuation of the Non-use Attributes of a Wetland: A Case-study for Lake Kerkini, J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 43: 755- 767.

Ramsar Convention (2007) National Wetland Policies Handbook 3rd Edition, Gland Switzerland

Robertson, H.A. and McGee, T.K. 2003: Applying local knowledge: the contribution of oral history to wetland rehabilitation at Kanyampella Basin, Australia. Journal of

Environmental Management, 69, (3) 275-287. Turner, K., and Jones, T., 1991: Wetlands: Market Interventions Failures, EarthScan Publications, London.

TJNDP (2009). Sustainable Land Management to Combat Desertification and Land Management. Extending Wetland Protected Areas through Community Conservation and Initiatives (COBWEB), Kampala, Uganda.

20 APPENDICES APPENDIX I: WORKPLANANDTIMEFPAME

~E~SINTHERESEARCHpLAN DEADLINEFORC ~ Submission of the proposal February 2017 _Design of aresearch plan

Gaining access / getting permission to work in a February 2017 particulararea / have access to data

Defining of auniverse, a sample frame, sampling ~ March 2017 settingup ofselection criteria

Designand testingof questionnaire, i fappropri ate March 2017

March 2017 Design of ailnal questionnaire! schedules

Interviews / postingo fquestionnaires March 2017

MAY 2017 Editingofcompleted questionnaires, grouping and codingof data, entering data into a computer

JUNE 2017 Designand testingof acomputer program

JUNE 2017 Raw tabulations / draft analysis oCqualitative data

Analysis ofdata JUNE 2017 JULY 2017 Report up oftindings

Presentation o ffinal research product(s) JULY 2017

21 APPENDIX II: BUDGET

22 APPENDIX III: QUESTIONNAIj~ GUIDE

Dear respondent

I am NaggayiHasifah a student of Kampala international University pursuing a bachelor of science in environment management conducting a researcher on “the challenges of wetland management in Makindye division” You have been requested to participate in this study of training and employee performance. The main aim of this study is purely academic. Thus any information will be treated with utmost confidentiality.

Section A and B the questions are rated on a five point likert scale of Strongly Disagree (SD), Disagree (D), Not Sure (N), Agree (A) and Strongly Agree (SA). For each question, you are expected to tick only one option (representing the appropriate choice/judgment).

SECTION A: ACTIVITIES DONE WETLANDS IN MAKINDYE DIVISION Please indicate the extent to which the following human activities are clone in Kansanga and Kyetinda Wetlands S/no Questions! Statements Response options SD DNSA SD Al Recreational activities A2 ~Plant harvest. ~ ~ic~iltL11alactjVj[je~~_ A4 Waste disposal A5_C~stniction

SECTION B: MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND CHALLENGES OF MANAGING WETLANDS Please indentify the ticking the extent to the following management issues and challenges are

______existing in Kansanga and Kyetinda wetlands S/no Questions! Statements Response options SDD NSA SD

- B2 Political Interference

B3 ~ — —

B4 Waste dumping — — — B5 Population increase B6 Rainfall intensity B7 -~--Limited information ~ Thank you f~r your cooperation

20 APPENDIX II: INTERVIEW GUIDE

Dear respondent

I am Naggayi Hasifah a student of Kampala international University pursuing a bachelor of science in environment management conducting a researcher on “the challenges of wetland management in Makindye division” You have been requested to participate in this study of training and employee performance. The main aim of this study is purely academic. Thus any information will be treated with utmost confidentiality.

i) Are there management challenges happening in Kasanga and Kyetinda Wetlands? ii) What are the activities carried out in wetlands in Makindye division Kampala district? iii) How land is owned in Kasanga and Kyetinda wetlands?

Thank you for your cooperation

I14,