Utilisation of Ecosystem-Based Drought Adaptation Options Among Smallholder Farmers in Kiboga District, Uganda

Utilisation of ecosystem-based drought adaptation options among smallholder farmers in Kiboga District, Uganda

Nanfuka Susan

2015/HD02/565U

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE TRAINING IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF A DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF MAKERERE UNIVERSITY KAMPALA

DECEMBER 2018

Declaration and Approval

Tills study titled "Utilisation of ecosystem-based drought adaptation options among smallholder farmers in Kiboga District, Uganda" is my original work and has nc\cr been presented for a degree award in any University or an y other institution of higher learning.

'.\anfuka Susan

Date: .. l~/J~/~~ -- -· ···········

This dissertation has been submitted for examination with the approval of the following supcr\'lsors:

.... ~~·························· Dr. Da,·id Mtitumuki7a

Date .. %if~ f?~ . .( .• ·• ......

LJr. Anthony E,1cru f

Date..... J~f),{ (l.i)~

Dedication

To The Almighty God, My Heavenly Father, Without Whom I Am Nothing

Acknowledgement

I acknowledge my academic mentors Dr. Mfitumukiza David and Dr. Egeru Anthony for the guidance they offered me during this research. I am grateful to the USAID/Uganda Education and Research to Improve Climate Change and Adaptation Activity (ERICCA) project implemented by FHI360 for funding this research. I appreciate Makerere University Centre for Climate Change Research and Innovations (MUCCRI) for the opportunity to contribute climate change adaptation knowledge to enhance the accomplishment of its mission. I also extend my sincere appreciation to my parents and siblings (the Museruka family), my colleagues and friends for their moral, financial and spiritual support. I would like to thank Mrs. Wasswa Rose, Mrs. Muwanga Harriet, Mr and Mrs. Kajura Jude, Aryampika Edmand, Mr. Shiferaw Marcos Bitew, Dianah Nnakayima, Peter Ssekajja and Nakato Teddy for their tremendous moral support. I am thankful to God for allowing our paths to meet. May God truly reward you for your efforts. I acknowledge Mr. Byarugaba Henry, the veterinary officer for Ddwaniro subcounty; Mr. Musisi Kabiswa John and Mr. Mawejje Robert, the agricultural officers for Dwaniro and Lwamata sub counties respectively; Madam Nampela, the District Environment Officer of Kiboga district; Mr. Maseruka the Lwamata-Nsala parish chairperson and Kiboga farmers for their indispensable roles in data collection. I acknowledge Deogratius Opolot for his econometric guidance and skills in data analysis. Mr. Wasswa Joseph, it’s undeniably satisfying to have a husband in you let alone an intelligent and humorous friend that God blessed me with. I am forever grateful for your assistance and supervision in publishing my research papers, not forgetting your encouragement to get the whole research done. Finally, I am forever indebted to the Almighty God who enabled me start and finish this research. Thank you my LORD.

iii

Table of Contents Declaration and Approval ...... i Dedication ...... ii Acknowledgement ...... iii Acronyms ...... viii Abstract ...... ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...... 3 1.3 OBJECTIVES ...... 4 1.3.1 General objective ...... 4 1.3.2 Specific objectives ...... 4 1.3.3 Research questions ...... 5 1.4 JUSTIFICATION OF THE STUDY ...... 5 1.5 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ...... 6 1.6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY ...... 8 1.7 THESIS ORGANISATION ...... 8 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 9 2.1 UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE AND DROUGHT CONCEPTS ...... 9 2.2 OVERVIEW OF UGANDA’S SMALLHOLDER FARMING ...... 10 2.3 ECOSYSTEMS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ...... 11 2.4 WHAT IS ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION (EBA)? ...... 11 2.5 ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION OPTIONS USED IN SMALLHOLDER FARMING SYSTEMS ...... 13 2.6 DETERMINANTS THAT COULD INFLUENCE EBA UTILISED BY SMALLHOLDER FARMERS ...... 14 CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 16

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ...... 16 3.2 POPULATION AND LIVELIHOODS ...... 17 3.3 ECOSYSTEMS ...... 18 3.4 CLIMATE, TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE OF STUDY AREA ...... 18 3.5 STUDY DESIGNS ...... 19 3.6 STUDY TOOLS AND PRETEST ...... 19 3.7 SAMPLING SIZE AND SAMPLING PROCESS ...... 19 3.8 DATA COLLECTION ...... 20 3.9 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 21 3.9.1 Perceived drought impacts and indicators...... 22 3.9.2 Characterisation of EbA options used in response to perceived drought impacts in Kiboga district ...... 23 3.9.3 Independent variables used in obtaining determinants of EbA choice ...... 25 3.9.4 Determinants of EbA options utilised by smallholder farmers in Kiboga district ...... 26 CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...... 30

4.1 PERCEIVED DROUGHT IMPACTS AND INDICATORS ...... 30 4.2. ECOSYSTEM-BASED DROUGHT ADAPTATION OPTIONS UTILISED BY SMALLHOLDER FARMERS ...... 32 4.3 THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES USED IN MNL ANALYSIS TO OBTAIN DETERMINANTS OF EBA OPTIONS ...... 37 4.4 DETERMINANTS OF EBA OPTIONS UTILISED BY SMALLHOLDER FAMERS ...... 37

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...... 42

5.1. PERCEIVED DROUGHT IMPACTS AND INDICATORS ...... 42 5.2 ECOSYSTEM-BASED DROUGHT ADAPTATION OPTIONS UTILISED BY SMALLHOLDER FARMERS ...... 42 5.3 CHARACTERISATION OF THE EBA OPTIONS USED IN RESPONSE TO PERCEIVED DROUGHT IMPACTS ...... 43 5.4 INTERCONNECTION OF THE EBA OPTIONS ...... 45 5.5 DETERMINANTS OF EBA OPTIONS UTILISED BY SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN KIBOGA DISTRICT ...... 46 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 49

6.1 CONCLUSION ...... 49 6.2 RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 49 REFERENCES ...... 51 Appendices ...... 60

APPENDIX 1: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 60 APPENDIX 2: FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ...... 72 APPENDIX 3: INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR KEY INFORMANTS ...... 73

List of Tables

Table 1: Sample proportions for the different administrative strata ...... 20 Table 2: Summary of a priori expectations and data type characteristics ...... 21 Table 3: Characterisation of perceived drought impacts and indicators ...... 22 Table 4: Summary of the three categories and underlying criteria that EbA options needed to satisfy to be considered EbA practices that are suitable for smallholder farmers (Modified from Vignola et al., 2015)...... 24 Table 5: Table showing VIF test for multicollinearity among variables included in the MNL analysis .... 26 Table 6: Description of independent variables as used in the MNL analysis ...... 27 Table 7: Perceived indicators of drought impacts, their mean and standard deviation (SD) ...... 31 Table 8: Ecosystem-based drought Adaptation options utilised by smallholder farmers ...... 32 Table 9: Chi square test showing association between EbA options and three EbA categories (ecosystem services, adaptation benefits and livelihood improvement) ...... 36 Table 10: The independent variables used in MNL analysis to obtain determinants of EbA options ...... 37 Table 11: MNL model run with livelihood improvement as the base outcome (Model 1) ...... 38 Table 12: MNL model run with ecosystem services as the base outcome (Model 2) ...... 39 Table 13: MNL model run with Adaptation benefits to drought as the base outcome (Model 3) ...... 40

List of Figures

Figure 1: General framework of potential EbA and how it enhances climate change resilience and livelihoods of smallholder farmers (modified from Rossing T, 2014 and Leuderitz C, 2014) 7 Figure 2: Map of Kiboga showing sub counties ...... 17 Figure 3: Perceived drought impacts experienced by the smallholder farmers ...... 30 Figure 4: Dendogram showing the clustering of the EbA options ...... 36

vii

Acronyms EbA Ecosystem-based Adaptation CBD Convention of Biological Diversity CIGI Centre for International Governance FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FGD Focus Group Discussions IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature MNL Multinomial Logit NEMA National Environment Management Authority NDP National Development Plan SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences UBOS Uganda Bureau of Statistics UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNDAC United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination UNFCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification

viii

Abstract

There is growing interest in promoting the use of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) to help smallholder farmers adapt to climate change; however there is limited understanding of the characteristics of the EbA options available and used by smallholder farmers and what factors influence their choice. Using a cross sectional survey, this study sought to characterise EbA options used to respond to perceived drought impacts and established the determinants of EbA choice among smallholder farmers in Kiboga district. The EbA options were characterised basing on ecosystem services, adaptation benefits and livelihood improvement categories which unveiled the different proportions of each EbA option under each category. A Chi square test to determine if there was an association between the EbA options and the categorical variables (ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement) was conducted. An agglomerative hierarchical clustering (AHC) test to obtain the relationship among the EbA options was also conducted. A multinomial logit model (MNL) was used to analyze the determinants of farmers’ choice of EbA options. The most prevalent perceived drought impacts were water, food and forage shortages, increased temperatures, crop withering and increased prevalence of pests and diseases. Although, there were majorly ten EbA options, the smallholder farmers coped and/or adapted to these impacts majorly using agroforestry, water conservation and management, and alternative EbA livelihoods. Agroforestry and alternative EbA livelihoods were the most used EbA options based on ecosystem services and adaptation benefits to drought while alternative EbA livelihoods and water conservation and management were the most used EbA options based on livelihood improvement. The chi square test results showed that there was a significant relationship between the EbA options and the categorical variables. Agroforestry, water conservation and management and alternative EbA livelihoods showed a close relationship following the AHC test. The major determinants of EbA choice were access to extension services, hours spent on farm daily, acreage occupied by crops, major agricultural activity, average annual income, membership to farmer organisation and use of indigenous knowledge. This study suggests conservation of ecosystems because they provide multiple benefits to smallholder farmers. The determinants of EbA choice should be considered in policy formulation, implementation and in monitoring climate change trends. Basing on the findings that agroforestry was closely related to water conservation and management and alternative EbA livelihoods, further studies should be undertaken to explain relatedness of these closely related EbA options among smallholder farmers. In addition, climate change adaptation initiatives should put this close relatedness into consideration during their planning and implementation. This study revealed that EbA improves livelihoods of smallholder farmers, further studies should be undertaken to show the extent to which EbA has done so.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Rural communities in developing countries especially in sub-Saharan Africa have limited alternative sources of livelihoods and income opportunities, and are highly dependent on natural resources for subsistence (Westerman et al., 2012). On the other hand, natural resources availability is highly variable in space and time, which has become more pronounced in the era of increased climate variability and change (NatureUganda, 2015). Climate change, which is manifesting itself through intense and frequent extreme weather events, is posing a serious threat to natural resources, social and economic development in developing countries (Westerman et al., 2012; IPCC, 2012). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that parts of Africa may experience longer and more intense droughts, with other areas experiencing more erratic rainfall (IPCC, 2012). Such climate change hazards have implications and effects on both food security and household income in the short- and in the long-term (Zake, 2015). In Africa, the most dominant and widespread climate change hazard is drought, whose frequency is observed to be on the increase (FAO, 2014). Drought has severely affected the agricultural sector leading to impacts and risks such as malnutrition, low production and productivity of crops and animals (Hisali et al., 2011).

Uganda is ranked as one of the most unprepared and vulnerable countries in the world in respect to drought impacts (CIGI, 2007). Uganda´s smallholder farmers who are the main base for agricultural production are even more vulnerable to such climate variability because they are unable to access information and respond in a timely and appropriate manner including planning and using technologies that may be available (Zaake et al., 2015). In addition, the presence of several policies and programs does not provide an effective safety net for smallholder farmers against drought risks which is a result of inadequate policy implementation due to limited resources allocation and logistics to support effective service delivery at different levels (UNDAC, 2008; NDP, 2010). Despite this, smallholder farming communities try out various actions and innovations to enhance their resilience to drought (Adger et al., 2003). However, most of these are not known because they are not assessed and documented (Zaake, 2015).

The strategies to enhance adaptation to drought in smallholder farming communities like Kiboga district whose mainstay is livestock farming may focus primarily on livestock. Yet, apart from enhancing livestock farming, other adaptation strategies could be derived from existing ecosystems (Osano et al., 2013). Ecosystems provide ecosystem services which are cost effective, ecological processes or functions having monetary or non-monetary value to individuals or society at large (IPCC, 2014). Ecosystem services are already the foundation of many successful adaptation and resilience strategies especially for smallholder farmers (Rao et al., 2013). The smallholder farmers utilise ecosystem services as well as biodiversity as part of an overall adaptation strategy to negative impacts of climate change including drought. This adaptation strategy, known as Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) has proved to be one of the most effective and sustainable adaptation option for smallholder farmers (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009). EbA involves sustainable utilisation of ecosystems and biodiversity to help smallholder farmers adapt to climate change effects including drought (Munang et al., 2014).

In Kenyan Masailand, for example, the sustainable management of grasslands and rangelands to enhance pastoral livelihoods and the conservation of wildlife habitats is one example of EbA reported to be utilised in the rangeland that can provide multiple benefits. These multiple benefits include socio-cultural (recreation and tourism), economic (income for local communities), and biodiversity (forage for grazing animals and wildlife habitats) (CBD, 2009; Osano et al., 2013). In Nakasongola, an agro pastoral region in Uganda similar to Kiboga, some of the EbA practices reported during drought are fresh water ecosystem management and grassland management. The former provides alternative livelihood sources for farmers through provisioning ecosystem services like water, fish and craft raw materials while the later enhances pasture availability for the livestock (Mfitumukiza et al., 2017a). The sustainable availability of ecosystem services from different ecosystems reduces on time and cost of living among smallholder households. Some of the constraints of EbA utilisation reported in Nakasongola were limited awareness of ecosystem significance in drought adaptation and weak implementation of environmental safety policies. The preceding examples of EbA not only reveal the relevance of EbA to climate change adaptation but also the utilisation of the ecosystem services as well as livelihood improvement. The examples also show multiple benefits of EbA,

the interconnection of EbA options and some of the factors that influence EbA utilisation among smallholder farmers.

EbA practice does not only entail utilisation of ecosystem services; it also includes the management, restoration and/or conservation of biodiversity, ecological functions and processes (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Vignola et al., 2015). The few studies on EbA that are available have proved it to be an effectual and sustainable climate change adaptation strategy for smallholder farmers (Vignola et al., 2015; Munang et al., 2014; Munang et al., 2013; Mfitumukiza et al., 2017a). Results from these studies reveal the opportunities of EbA use which include biodiversity conservation, improvement and or maintenance of farm production, buffering of biophysical impacts of climate change, increase of food security and livelihood diversification. More importantly, it is best that EbA practices are based on ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and improvement of livelihoods of smallholder farmers (Vignola et al., 2015). Despite all this significance, there is an important constraint in the smallholder farmers’ utilisation of EbA options, which is dictated by factors like access to extension services, farmers’ social capital, experiences, awareness of policy to mention but a few. The knowledge and understanding of these factors is critical for policy and practice aimed at strengthening climate change adaptation through investing in these factors.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

The s ma l l holder farmers in Uganda are greatly affected by drought which is majorly characterised by prolonged moisture deficiency (Zaake et al., 2010). Kiboga district is one of the predominantly rural, agricultural and natural resources dependent districts in Uganda (Kasente, 2002). It is reported to be among those areas in central Uganda with the most stressed agricultural landscapes and already affected by climate change impacts including prolonged droughts (The National Environment Management Authority, 2010). According to the five year district development plan of Kiboga (Kiboga District Local Government, 2012), drought in Kiboga affects crop yields by decreasing water available for crop growth and animal production through increased movements of cattle in search for water thus increasing spread of livestock diseases. In addition, more land has been opened up for agriculture to increase food security in forested and wetland areas leading to vegetation loss and land degradation. Land degradation has

been exacerbated by uncontrolled and deliberate bush burning which is believed to stimulate luxurious growth of new vegetation or pasture and keep away tsetse flies. Opening up more land for agriculture and bush burning seem to be relatively fine options to the smallholder farmers but they decrease their adaptive capacity to drought and are not sustainable in terms of conservation, ma nagement and restoration of ecosystems and biodiversity.

Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) is increasingly considered to be an effective adaptation strategy to increase smallholder farmers adaptation to climate change hazards like drought as well as increase their resilience because it is cost effective, sustainable and readily available (Jones et al., 2012; Sovacool, 2011). Despite EbA involving ecosystem services utilisation and deriving adaptation benefits to drought, it is also acknowledged for improving livelihoods of smallholder farmers (Luderitz, 2014; Vignola et al., 2015). However, there is insufficient knowledge about EbA to get it incorporated in relevant policies and practice (Doswald et al. 2014). Moreover, there is no or very limited location specific information on EbA in Uganda (Hisali et al., 2011) particularly focused on utilisation of EbA by smallholder farmers in agro- pastoral regions like Kiboga, determinants of their use, their interconnection and relationship with ecosystem services, adaptation and livelihood improvement. Such information is important in understanding EbA and its focus on sustainable natural resource management in such agro- pastoral regions as well advocating for its recognition in climate change related policies and programmes.

1.3 Objectives

1.3.1 General objective The general objective of this study was;

To contribute to the understanding of the application and role of EbA options in enhancing smallholder farmers’ resilience to climate change impacts.

1.3.2 Specific objectives The specific objectives of the study were;

1. To characterise EbA options used in response to perceived drought impacts in Kiboga district.

2. To establish determinants of EbA options utilised by smallholder farmers in Kiboga district.

1.3.3 Research questions 1. What are the perceived impacts of drought on smallholder farmer households in Kiboga district? 2. What are the EbA options in use by a given household? 3. Is there a relationship between the EbA options and ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement of smallholder farmers? 4. Are those EbA options interconnected? 5. What are the major factors that influence EbA choice by smallholder farmers in Kiboga district?

1.4 Justification of the study

This study contributes to the pool of knowledge about EbA through documenting indigenous knowledge and drought response actions. Such information is important in providing a basis for harnessing and enhancing the capacity of smallholder farms to respond to the impacts of climate change through the sustainable utilisation of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Consequently, it contributes to the farmers’ knowledge and awareness on the need and ways of adapting to adverse effects of climate change through EbA approaches.

The research contributes to the development objective of the Environment and Natural Resources (ENR) sub-sector of the Second National Development Plan for Uganda 2015/16-2019/20, which is “to promote and ensure the rational and sustainable utilisation, development and effective management of environment and natural resources for socio-economic development of the country”

According to Uganda Vision2040, agricultural production in Uganda is mainly dominated by smallholder farmers who are constrained by inadequate adaptation measures to the changing climate in the country. This study therefore contributes to Uganda Vision2040 by characterising the EbA measures which are readily available and cost effective that sma l l holder famers could

adopt and/or improve in their farming systems so as to increase their resilience and adaptation to climate change effects.

In addition, this research addresses aspects of the Uganda Climate Change Policy (2015) that supports development of a framework aimed at optimisation of mitigation, adaptation and sustainable development potentials of the agricultural sector. The study contributes to the policy’s second specific objective which is to identify and promote adaptation policy responses for Uganda. It addresses one of the policy responses of that second specific objective by promoting climate change adaptation strategies that enhance resilient, productive and sustainable agricultural systems. The information from this study will highlight the EbA options that farmers could use to enhance their resilience and adaptive capacity to drought impacts so as to optimise sustainable production in their agricultural farming systems.

1.5 Conceptual Framework

The concept of EbA in this study is embedded on ecosystem services which smallholder farmers depend to adapt to impacts of climate change hazards, in this case drought, as well as foster livelihood improvement (Chong, 2014; Uy and Shaw, 2012). The availability of ecosystem services is affected by the different climate change (including drought) impacts. The impacts or risks caused by drought may include decreased water availability, deterioration in vegetation cover, loss of arable land among others (Mahvura et al., 2015). Such risks could compromise availability of basic needs like water, food thus triggering the smallholder farmers to resort to existing ecosystems and biodiversity. Since smallholder farmers in Kiboga depend on rainfed agriculture, the available ecosystems could be an immediate source of cost effective ecosystem services to help them adapt and also increase their resilience. The ecosystem services use is influenced by variables like household size, access to extension services, alternative income source, gender, policies, labour on and or off farm, major agricultural activity carried out by the smallholder farmers, household income, indigenous knowledge among others.

Ecosystem services are cost effective ecological processes or functions having monetary or non- monetary value and are already the foundation of many successful adaptation strategies, especially for the smallholder farmers, and they deliver livelihood and climate change

adaptation (IPCC, 2014; Rao et al., 2013). The use of ecosystems services and biodiversity forms a part of an integral strategy to climate change adaptation known as Ecosystem based adaptation (EbA). EbA approaches for adaptation may include sustainable management, conservation and restoration of ecosystems, as part of an overall adaptation strategy that takes into account the multiple social, economic and cultural co-benefits for local communities, including smallholder farmers (CBD, 2009). In this study’s conceptual framework, EbA options have to fulfill at least one criterion in three categories to be considered an EbA appropriate for smallholder farmers. EbA options should be based on ecosystem services, deliver climate change (drought) adaptation benefits and also improve smallholder farmer livelihoods (Vignola et al., 2015).

EbA options: Based on ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement of smallholder farmers

Impacts: e.g. Ecosystem-based Adaptation: Climate Decreased Change Water Hazard: availability,  Sustainable Drought decreased Utilisation of ecosystems and

vegetation biodiversity cover

 Sustainable

management, Determinants of EbA conservation and use: e.g. restoration of Household size, policies, ecosystems Extension services, labour, major agricultural activity.

Figure 1: General framework of potential EbA and how it enhances climate change resilience and livelihoods of smallholder farmers (modified from Rossing T, 2014 and Leuderitz C, 2014)

1.6 Limitations of the study

The study assessed the utilisation of ecosystem-based drought adaptation options among smallholder farmers in Kiboga district. The present study was conducted in a region majorly occupied by pastoralists, majority of whom were always on the move with their cattle in search for water especially in Ddwaniro. Therefore, substantial amount of time was lost while moving randomly among the sparse households to collect data from those willing to participate in the study. In addition, more time was spent while explaining EbA to those farmers that would express their willingness to participate in the study. A faster means of transport (motorcycle) was hired to quicken movements among the scattered households and at least minimise the time spent on move.

1.7 Thesis organisation

This thesis is organised into six chapters, following a monograph format i.e. introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion and recommendations. The references and appendices are presented at the end of all the six chapters.

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Understanding climate change and drought concepts

Climate change is any long-term change in the statistics of weather over periods of time that range from decades to millions of years. (IPCC, 2014). It can express itself as a change in the mean weather conditions, the probability of extreme conditions, or in any other part of the statistical distribution of weather. Climate change ma y occur in a specific region, or across the whole earth. In accordance with United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2013), climate change refers to direct or indirect activities of humans, leading to change in global atmosphere components and create changes of natural climate variability observed over comparable time. Regarding climate change views by Phuong, (2011) and as well as in this study, climate change is defined as changes through increase in frequency and intensity of extremes weather events including storm, flood, drought and irregular rain over time and irregular climate signal. Extreme weather events include spells of very high temperature, torrential rains and droughts.

Drought is a climate change hazard (Phuong, 2011). It can occur in high as well as low rainfall areas; therefore its definitions ought to be realistically region and impact specific. It differs from other natural hazards such as floods, earthquakes, cyclones, in a way that it often accumulates slowly over a considerable period of ti me , seldom results in structural damage, and does not really have a specific definition (Wilhite, 1993). Drought, according to Panu and Sharma (2002), means scarcity of water which adversely affects various sectors of human society. Ra ma ma s y et al. (2007) defined drought as a temporary reduction in moisture availability significantly below the normal for a specified period. The deficiency of precipitation over an extended period of time, usually a season or more is also called drought. Therefore, drought is considered as imbalance between precipitation and evapo-transpiration in a particular area in a period. It is also related to the timing, as delays in the start of the rainy season and the effectiveness of the rains, such as precipitation intensity or number of precipitation events. According to technical aspects, drought is the decrease of water availability, which might qualify when precipitation falls below about 80% of the average availability of the preceding 30 (or more) years. According to smallholder farmers, drought is change in precipitation patterns, so lack of sufficient water or sufficient precipitation for cultivation is regarded as drought (Rajib Shaw, 2008).

Drought, according to conventional literature, is considered to be of four major types i.e. me t e orological, hydrological, agricultural, and socio-economic (Mishra and Singh, 2010; Yuan Wen-ping, 2004; Keyantash and Dracup, 2002). Agricultural and socio-economic drought types are usually a consequence of meteorological and hydrological droughts. Meteorological drought usually results from precipitation shortage while deficiency in the volume of water supply, which includes stream flow, reservoir storage, and or/groundwater heights describes hydrological drought. Agricultural drought is associated with water shortage available for plant growth while socio economic drought is usually a consequence of the other three types and usually occurs when societal demands exceed natural supply (Mishra and Singh, 2010; Yuan Wen-ping, 2004; Keyantash and Dracup, 2002; Rasmussen et al., 1993; Wilhite and Glantz, 1985).

2.2 Overview of Uganda’s smallholder farming

Over 72% of Uganda’s population are smallholder farmers, whose socio-economic condition varies according to their geographic location and production (World Bank, 2013; Hallensleben, 2012). They farm small pieces of land usually less than 5 acres, depend on nature for agricultural production, and use rudimentary tools and techniques. Small scale livestock production form a key source of their financial security, but are characterised by low output per animal and unit area, slow growth rates and small sized mature animals. Women heads of households constitute a significant percentage of smallholder farmers (30%) while youths 15 – 24 years of age comprise 21.2% (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2011).

Agricultural production and productivity among smallholder farmers is very low, averaging 30% of its potential. They try to achieve agricultural growth through expansion in acreage rather than productivity - ending up encroaching on more fragile ecosystems in a changing climate; hence, sowing an inherent risk in their source of livelihood since ecosystem goods and services from these ecosystems become more unpredictable and scarce. According to the IPCC (2012), rain is projected to decrease by 33% by 2020, and rain-fed crop yields will reduce by half by 2030. Given that smallholder farmers rely on rain-fed agriculture; the variability in rain sometimes means the difference between starvation and survival.

2.3 Ecosystems and ecosystem services

An ecosystem is a dynamic complex system of plant, animal, and microorganism communities and the non-living environment interacting with each other as a functional unit (Amedie, 2013). Ecosystems occur at different spatial (geographical area) and temporal (time) scales. There are small "communities" such as the living and nonliving components interacting in a pond, and larger communities, such as lakes. At the global level, all the living and nonliving elements of the planet are interacting. Ecosystems exist wherever plants, animals, and people have an interdependent relationship within the context of their physical environment. However, small ecosystems are nested within larger ecosystems. This means that what happens at one scale affects what happens at every other scale, with varying degrees of impact. The overexploitation of ecosystems may temporarily improve livelihoods, yet it may prove unsustainable, and over the long term, may increase vulnerability of the people that depend on them (Centre for Resource analysis Limited, 2006).

According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), ecosystem services are majorly in four categories i.e. provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services. Provisioning services include food, fresh water, medicines, fibre, and poles among others. Regulating services include climate regulation, air quality regulation, water regulation, pest and disease regulation and natural hazard regulation. Cultural services include aesthetic values, recreation, ecotourism and religious services while supporting services include nutrient preservation and recycling, soil formation and primary production (photosynthesis).

2.4 What is Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA)?

The recognition of adaptation as an essential tool in the face of climate change is relatively new (Dodman and Mitlin, 2013). In the early 1990s, adaptation was still understood as the lazy alternative to mitigation efforts (Gore, 1992). This perception has clearly changed in recent years. Adaptation entered the mainstream stage latest in December 2007. Here, it was announced as one of the four central elements in the global fight against climate change during the thirteenth Conference of the Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali (Dodman and Mitlin, 2013).

Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) to climate change arose as part of this growing realm of adaptation. It constitutes a relatively new approach (UNCCD, 2012), which is more embraced by international developmental and environmental institutions (Girot et al., 2012). This is due to the fact that EbA is applicable in both developed and developing countries and is highly cost- effective and adjustable to climatic impacts that are sometimes hard to predict (Colls et al., 2009). The literature particularly emphasizes these abilities in comparisons with technical, engineered adaptation solutions.

Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) has generally been defined by the Convention of Biological Diversity (2009) as the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help people adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. EbA also entails the management, restoration or conservation of ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). While there is a rapidly growing interest in EbA for its potential social, environmental and economic benefits (Jones et al., 2012; Munang et al., 2013; Campos et al., 2014 and Doswald et al., 2014), almost all of this literature has focused on the adaptation benefits that accrue from the conservation and/or restoration of natural habitats. By making and keeping an ecosystem more resilient, it can continuously provide for ecosystem services, which in turn are needed to increase resilience and allow for more sustainable adaptation and development among populations affected by climate change (Naumann et al., 2013).

EbA takes into account multiple social, economic and cultural co-benefits for local communities (Vignola et al., 2015). It encompasses adaptation policies and measures that take into account the role of ecosystem services in reducing societal vulnerability, through multi-sectoral and multi-level approaches. Relevant literature by Andrade et al. (2011) and Hills (2015), documents the eight core principles of EbA which include: 1) promoting the resilience of both ecosystems and societies; 2) promoting multi-sectoral approaches; 3) operating at multiple geographical scales; 4) integrating flexible management structures that enable adaptive management; 5) minimising tradeoffs and maximising benefits with development and conservation goals to avoid unintended negative social and environmental impacts; 6) based on best available science and local knowledge, and fosters knowledge generation and diffusion; 7) is about resilient ecosystems, and using nature-based solutions at the service of people, especially the most

vulnerable; 8) is participatory, transparent, accountable, and culturally appropriate and actively e mb races equity and gender issues.

2.5 Ecosystem-based Adaptation options used in smallholder farming systems

A study by Vignola et al. (2015) refers to EbA in smallholder farming systems as the implementation of agricultural management practices that use or take advantage of biodiversity, ecosystem services or ecological processes (either at the plot, farm or landscape level) to help increase the ability of crops or livestock to adapt to climate variability. In this respect, EbA can be seen as a process that promotes the maintenance or further adoption of ecologically-based management practices that can provide adaptation benefits. In addition, EbA can be seen both as the process of using ecologically-based management practices that provide adaptation benefits, as well as a characteristic of diverse agro ecosystems that are based on the use of biodiversity and ecosystem services and which are resilient to the impacts of climate change (Jackson et al., 2010).

Furthermore Vignola et al. (2015) argues, along with other authors (Altieri and Koohafkan, 2008; Harvey et al., 2013; Lavorel et al., 2015, Munang et al., 2013 and Munang et al., 2014), that the use of ecosystem-based management practices in agricultural systems and landscapes can help smallholder farmers improve their livelihoods. At the plot or farm level, regular EbA practices include agro forestry to buffer high temperatures, windbreaks to resist strong winds, soil conservation practices like use of cover crops, terracing to control soil erosion and maintain soil fertility, establishment of live fences to provide fodder for livestock during dry periods and prevent soil erosion, crop diversification to minimise production losses due to climate change (Harvey et al., 2017). Conservation or restoration of forests near water resources to maintain stream flow, and conservation of forests in upland areas to prevent erosion and landslides during change in rainfall conditions are examples of EbA practices at landscape levels (Locatelli et al., 2011).

A recent study by Harvey et al. (2017) reveals that utilisation of EbA practices reflects the fact that they can enable smallholder farmers adapt to climate change effects. Some of EbA practices in use include terraces, contour planting, use of cover crops, use of dispersed tree shades and live fences. These are widely promoted by agricultural extension services, farmer cooperatives and

nongovernmental organisations because they can improve agricultural production, boost farm sustainability and improve livelihoods of smallholder farmers

In Uganda, a gravity flow scheme (GFS) was constructed for Sanzara Parish, Kapchorwa District to highlight the importance of critical ecosystem services provided by the River Sipi catchment and to provide a sustainable flow of water for the local population (IUCN, 2012) The gravity flow scheme, which feeds a 200 cubic metre storage tank, has provided a secure water source for over 1,000 people in Sanzara. This has allowed community members to develop irrigated agriculture and provide for livestock and domestic use during prolonged dry spells. The population in Sanzara (formed of three villages) is very poor and has in the past relied on food aid from the district local government. From the GFS, farmers are able to produce more food in a s ma l ler area over a shorter period. There is less reliance on food aid as farmers are able to produce their own food using drought resistant, quick maturing crops. Farmers who used to incur losses due to crop failure caused by drought can now access water even during the dry season. The clean water will likely improve the health of local people, especially children, and thus improve their resilience. Local community group leaders explained how water for domestic use has greatly improved living conditions in some households as they no longer have to travel long distances to fetch water, even in dry periods. Women and children have thus been spared the dangers associated with this. Restoration measures have been agreed upon in the most degraded areas of the catchment. Tree nurseries have been established for catchment restoration and using appropriate indigenous tree and grass species which are drought-tolerant for restoration will improve the resilience of the overall system to climate change.

2.6 Determinants that could influence EbA utilised by smallholder farmers

According to Obayelu et al. (2017), there is vast literature on determinants of agricultural practices which makes it rather intricate to summmarise closely. Findings from that study show that show a range of factors including human specific, social, cultural and economic factors, characteristics of the practice itself, education, capital, income, cost of inputs, size of farmland, access to information and social network.

Many of the most relevant determining aspects of choosing adaptation measures by farmers depend on location and socio-economic surrounding, in which they live (Hallensleben, 2012). This does not exclude EbA practices because they involve utilising ecosystems that surround the farmers. Different ago-ecological and socio-economic factors like the terrain, climate (especially the rain patterns), access to services and markets, land availability influence farm management and production (Hallensleben, 2012; Deressa et al., 2009). Farmer income and labour availability could influence EbA utilisation (Harvey et al., 2017).

Studies have shown that household decisions to adapt to weather variability are influenced by a wide range of household and community level factors such as farm size, land tenure, education level of household members, access to extension services, credit availability, water availability and social capital (Deressa et al., 2009; Maddison, 2006; Bandyopadhyay et al., 2011). A recent study done by Harvey et al. (2017) reveals that farmer’s age and experience, the farm type and landscape in which a given farm was located greatly influenced EbA utilisation by smallholder farmers in Central America. A farmer’s age and experience greatly influenced utilisation of farming practices in response to climate change. For instance, farmers with higher education were more likely to utilise terraces compared to those with lower education. Land tenure greatly influenced adoption of EbA options like cover crops, tree planting and forest conservation. Secure land tenure greatly influenced establishment of shade trees on farm, terracing and contour planting which are long-term and high yielding EbA options. Forest patches, fallows or windbreaks are infrequently used because of the probable cost associated with their establishment especially to those farmers with small land sizes. Harvey et al. (2017) recommends further detailed studies on how smallholder farmers make decisions about utilisation of EbA practices so that they can be replicated in future.

CHAPTER 3: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Description of study area

The study was conducted in Kiboga, a rural district in the central cattle corridor region of Uganda about 120 KM from Kampala by road. Kiboga is bordered by Nakaseke District to the northeast and east, Mityana District to the south, Mubende District to the southeast, and Kyankwanzi District to the northwest. The coordinates of the district are: 01 00N, 31 46E (Latitude: 1.0000; Longitude: 31.7667). Kiboga district was purposely selected because it is predominantly rural with majority (95%) of the people living in rural areas and highly dependent on rain-fed agriculture (Kiboga District Local Government, 2012; Kasente, 2002). Kiboga is also among those areas in central cattle corridor of Uganda with the most stressed agricultural landscapes and already affected by climate change impacts such as prolonged droughts and unreliable rainfall patterns (NEMA, 2010). There is low ground water supply in Kiboga which is exacerbated by drought thus affecting agricultural production (Centre for Resource analysis Limited, 2006). In addition, Kiboga has a high population growth rate of 4.1% per year. This high rate of growth, is coupled with high poverty levels and migration (especially during dry spells from neighbouring districts of Nakaseke and Mubende), making it difficult for Kiboga to cope with adverse climate change effects. An increasing population leads to insecurity as people struggle for land, affects Kiboga culture, increases spread of both human and livestock diseases as well as putting pressure on existing ecosystems thereby increasing vulnerability of Kiboga to climate change (Kiboga District Local Government, 2012).

Kiboga district has two Town Councils (Kiboga and Bukomero) and six sub counties which are Kibiga, Kapeke, Lwamata, Ddwaniro, Bukomero and Muwanga (The Hunger Project, 2014). Ddwaniro and Lwamata sub counties, situated in the cattle corridor, were the mostly drought stricken areas and were purposively selected because they were predominantly occupied by livestock and crop farmers respectively. The prolonged droughts are frequent in these areas, affecting livestock and crop production because of water and pasture scarcity (Kiboga District Local Government, 2012).

Figure 2: Map of Kiboga showing sub counties

3.2 Population and livelihoods

According to the Uganda Bureau of Standards (UBOS, 2016), the district has a population of 148,218 people and 24,664 households. The district is naturally divided into two (2) geographical areas that respectively support pastoral and crop cultivation (Kiboga District Local Government Five-Year Development Plan, 2012). The basic source of livelihood is agriculture with over 85% of the population engaged in farming. The main crops grown include bananas, maize, cassava, beans, potatoes, and coffee, among others. The main livestock types reared are cows, goats, sheep, pigs and poultry. Cattle and goat rearing is a common practice with small herds/flocks, ranging from 10–50 animals per household with an average of 19 cattle, as well as large herds/flocks over 50 animals kept under communal grazing and paddocking systems (Tumwine et al., 2015). According to a report by the Hunger project (2014), utmost 61% of Kiboga households were implementing agricultural practices to improve resilience to climate change such as crop rotation and planting improved seeds.

3.3 Ecosystems

Reference is made from Kiboga District Local Government Five-Year Development Plan, (2012), that the district has plenty of ecosystems, which include; forests, woodlands, open waters, wetlands, rangeland and arable land. However, there is increasing concern about the deteriorating state of these ecosystems, which is attributed to increase in population hence demand for the ecosystem services and lack of basic knowledge for sustainable management and utilisation of these resources. For example, the rangelands are critical ecosystems supporting the livelihoods of many people through livestock production in Kiboga. However, these rangelands have been subjected to severe degradation due to overstocking, a situation made worse during drought. Most of the wetlands in the district are seasonally flooded herbaceous wetlands dominated by Echinodiola Sp. and Cyperus Sp. Others are seasonally flooded wood lands and grasslands with Acacia Sp and Phoenix dominant. However, due to increased demand for arable land, wetlands have been converted into crop and livestock farms. The Natural Resources Sector is continually addressing the pressure on ecosystems, through sensitisation and promotion of community and private participation in environmental protection activities. The sector is charged with the duty of protecting and conserving ecosystems in the district.

3.4 Climate, topography and drainage of study area

The climate of study area is tropical/se mi -arid. The dry season is usually experienced in the months of June to July and December to February of each year. Kiboga district, which is located in the cattle corridor, suffers from climate variations manifested in extended dry spells, cyclic droughts and erratic rainfall patterns which have affected crop and livestock production (Mfitumukiza et al., 2017b).

Kiboga district is dominated by gently undulating topography in the southern areas with wide flat areas (plateau) in the northern part. The studied sub counties have low to medium groundwater potential with the yields generally low and differing from place to place. The major interventions in the studied sub counties are Deep boreholes, Shallow wells (hand dug), Protected springs, Gravity flow schemes, Valley tanks, Rainwater harvesting tanks, Pumped piped water supply systems (Kiboga District Local Government, 2012).

3.5 Study designs

A mixed methods approach was used for the study, involving both qualitative and quantitative approaches. This study was a cross sectional survey involving randomized household sampling, focus group discussions and interviewing key informants.

3.6 Study tools and pretest

Semi structured questionnaires were used to collect data from the randomly selected households. Key informant and focus group discussion checklists were also used to obtain supplementary data. A preliminary visit to the study area was made to pretest the data collection tools (questionnaire and checklists) before the real data collection to test their suitability. During the same visit, consultations were made with the District Environment officer’s office to obtain information about which sub counties in Kiboga were the most affected by drought and were predominantly occupied by either crop or livestock farmers. The household numbers per Sub County were also obtained to assist in sampling. Field guides were then identified and field data collection schedules arranged during the same visit.

3.7 Sampling size and sampling process

The sample size of this study was derived based on the approach of Roscoe (1975) that provides a proportionate sample size to that of the overall population in a location. Using this approach, a sample of 183 households was derived and proportionately allocated to the selected sub counties (Ddwaniro and Lwamata) as indicated in the table 1.

The sampling frame consisted of randomly selected respondents of smallholder households from the purposively selected two sub counties, Ddwaniro and Lwamata. These were purposively selected with an intention of capturing livestock and crop predominance respectively. Since Ddwaniro Sub County has more households, two parishes were randomly selected from it while one parish from Lwamata Sub County. Seven villages were randomly selected from Ddwaniro Sub County with three from Kalokola parish and four from Lwankonge parish. Nsala parish was randomly selected from Lwamata sub county and two villages randomly selected from it.

Table 1: Sample proportions for the different administrative strata

Sub- Parish Villages Household Household Sample Percentage Percentage county Number number size contributio contributio per sub sampled n of each n per county per village sub county village (%) (%) Dwaniro Kalokola Kyantamba 847 13 122 67 7.1 Kalokola 17 9.3 Kibisi 18 9.8 Lwankonge Bakijulula 22 12 Dwaniro 13 7.1 Muyenje 16 8.7 Mutooma 23 12.6 Lwamata Nsala Nsala 278 31 61 33 16.9 Nakaziba 30 16.4 Total 1125 183 183 100 100

3.8 Data collection

Data was collected in February 2017. A cross-sectional survey was used to collect data among the randomly selected households using semi-structured questionnaires. The use of s e mi - structured interviews allowed for some discretion about the order in which questions were asked, hence obtaining detailed information in a somewhat conversational style (Zaake, 2015). Additionally, the cross-sectional survey was conducted among communities with relatively low literacy levels thus guided and structured interviews were undertaken to provide opportunities for validation of responses (Morton, 2007).

The respondents were informed about the research and that the study would be for academic purposes only. It was made clear that the participation was voluntary and that the respondents were free to decline or withdraw any time during the research period. The respondents were informed to make the choice of participation without coercion with a guarantee of protecting their privacy by strict standard of anonymity.

To ensure data collection and quality control check, four focus group discussions and five key informant interviews were conducted. Two gender specific group discussions were conducted among smallholder farmers in each sub county i.e. one male and one female group per sub

county. The key informants interviewed were the District Environment officer, veterinary officer (Ddwaniro), agricultural officers of Ddwaniro and Lwamata, Local council one chairman (Kalokola, Ddwaniro) and the District Woman Councilor.

In this study, data on characterisation of EbA options in use and the determinants of their utilisation was collected. The a priori expectations and data type characteristics are presented in Table 2 below. Table 2: Summary of a priori expectations and data type characteristics

Variable A priori expectation Description Gender of Household head + Discrete Age of Household head + Continuous Final decision maker + Discrete Residence location + Discrete Number of HH members - Continuous (Household size) Educational level + Continuous Farming Experience + Continuous Average annual Income + Continuous Farm size (acres) + Continuous Number of family members - Continuous working on farm Number of Hired farm - Continuous laborers Area in crops (acres) + Continuous Area occupied with livestock + Continuous (acres) Management factors + Discrete • Management time • Labour • Knowledge/skill • Membership to farmer organisations • Extension services • Policy interventions

3.9 Data analysis

Data from the field was edited and the questionnaire pre-coded to ensure accuracy, validity, uniformity, consistency and completeness. The perceived drought impacts and indicators, and EbA characterisation were done through descriptive statistics. As part and parcel of EbA

characterisation, a chi square test was also conducted to assess whether there was an association between the EbA options and the categorical EbA variables (ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement). Further still, an Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) test was conducted to establish the relationship among the EbA options. A multinomial logit (MNL) model was used to obtain the determinants of EbA utilisation.

3.9.1 Perceived drought impacts and indicators The frequency of each drought impact was expressed as a percentage of the overall total of all response frequencies. The perceived drought impacts and indicators were presented according to the drought types. This was based on studies done by Mishra and Singh, (2010); Yuan Wen-ping, (2004); Keyantash and Dracup, (2002), which suggest four different drought types i.e. meteorological, agricultural, hydrological and socio economic with the examples of respective indicators as high temperatures (metrological), rainfall shortages (agricultural), drying of water bodies like wetlands (hydrological) and fluctuation of food prices (socio-economic). The description is provided in Table 3.

Table 3: Characterisation of perceived drought impacts and indicators

Drought type Description Indicator-measure Source Metrological A lack of Dry weather Mishra and Singh drought precipitation over a conditions, high (2010); Yuan Wen- region for a period temperatures ping (2004); of time. Precipitation Keyantash and has been commonly Dracup (2002) used for meteorological drought analysis Agricultural Links characteristics Rainfall shortages, Mishra and Singh drought of metrological ( or soil water deficits, (2010); Keyantash hydrological) reduced ground and Dracup (2002); drought to water or reservoir Yuan Wen-ping agricultural impact levels needed for (2004) irrigation etc. Hydrological Associated with low Drying of water Mishra and Singh drought water supply evident bodies e.g. (2010); Keyantash in water reservoirs wetlands and Dracup (2002); Yuan Wen-ping (2004)

Socio-economic is associated with Fluctuation of food Mishra and Singh drought supply and demand prices, shortage of (2010); Yuan Wen- of some economic forage, and water ping (2004) good with elements of metrological, hydrological and agricultural

3.9.2 Characterisation of EbA options used in response to perceived drought impacts in Kiboga district The EbA options were characterised according to the model documented by Vignola et al. (2015). Based on this model, each of the EbA options were classified based on three categories: 1). Ecosystem services, 2). Adaptation benefits to drought, and 3). Livelihood improvement of s ma l l holder farmers. In the ecosystem services category, there were two criteria that were considered i.e. an EbA practice is based on conservation, restoration and sustainable management of biodiversity (e.g. genetic, species and ecosystem diversity), or it is based on conservation, restoration and sustainable management of ecological functions and processes.

Under the second category, an EbA option should provide adaptation benefits to drought impacts, three criteria were followed: An EbA option should maintain or improve crop, animal or farm productivity in drought, reduce the biophysical impacts of extreme drought events and, or reduce pest and disease outbreaks due to drought and high temperatures for crops, animals or farming systems.

Under the third category, an EbA practice should contribute to the livelihood improvement of smallholder farmers through either increasing their food security, diversifying their income, taking advantage of traditional knowledge, utilising locally available and renewable inputs and/ or having affordable labour and implementation costs.

The EbA option frequencies of one or more of each criterion in every category were obtained and expressed as a percentage of the overall total of each EbA option. The categories and their subsequent criteria have been summarised in Table 4.

Table 4: Summary of the three categories and underlying criteria that EbA options needed to satisfy to be considered EbA practices that are suitable for smallholder farmers (Modified from Vignola et al., 2015).

Category1:Based on Category2:Provides Category 3:Improves the Ecosystem Services Adaptation Benefits to livelihoods of small holder perceived drought impacts farmers Criterion 1:Is based on the Criterion 1:Maintains or Criterion 1:Increases food conservation, restoration improves crop, animal or farm security of smallholder and sustainable management productivity in drought households of biodiversity (e.g. genetic, Criterion 2:Reduces the Criterion 2:Increases or species and ecosystem biophysical impacts of diversifies income generation diversity) extreme drought events and Criterion 3:Takes advantage Criterion 2:Is based on the high temperatures on crops, of local or traditional conservation, restoration animals or farming systems knowledge of smallholder and sustainable management Criterion 3:Reduces pest and farmers of ecological functions and disease outbreaks due to Criterion 4:Uses local, processes drought available and renewable inputs Criterion 5:Have affordable labor and implementation costs

As part of EbA characterisation, a chi-square test was carried out to determine if there was an association between the EbA options and the categorical variables (ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement). The essence was to test whether they were related or not, but not to provide inferences about causation.

The test statistic for the Chi-Square Test is denoted Χ2, and is computed as.-

Chi square, X²= summation (Oij-Eij)² / Eij Where

Oij is the observed cell total count in the ith row of a given EbA category (either based on ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement) and corresponding cell total count in the jth column of each EbA option in the table

Eij is the expected cell total count in the ith row of a given EbA category and jth column of each EbA option in the table, computed as

Eij = row i (total in each EbA category) column j (total of each EbA option)

Grand total of all EbA categories and EbA∗ options

The quantity (Oij - Eij) is sometimes referred to as the residual of cell (i, j), denoted r ij.

The calculated chi square (Χ2) value is then compared to the critical value from the chi square (Χ2) distribution table with degrees of freedom df = (R – 1) (C - 1) and chosen confidence level. The R stands for number of rows while C stands for number of columns in the EbA category and EbA options chi-square table. This study used 0.05 as the confidence interval.

If the calculated chi-square value is greater than the critical chi-square value, then it implies that there is an association between the ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement.

In order to establish the relationship among the EbA options, an Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) test was conducted. The AHC test is an explorative analysis that identifies structures and homogeneity of groups of observations. Understanding the relationship among the EbA options is paramount because ecosystems do not only provide a given set of services but rather are providers of a number of interconnected services. It is this interconnection that reveals which ecosystems need to be given prime attention in order to ensure sustainable supply of ecosystem services (Reid and Alam, 2014).

In hierarchical clustering, initially each EbA option was considered as a separate cluster (group). Then two closest EbA options are joined as a cluster and this process is continued in a stepwise manner for joining an option with another option, an option with a cluster, or a cluster with another cluster until all options are combined into one single cluster. This hierarchical clustering was then displayed pictorially as a tree (Figure 4) referred to as a dendogram (Wilkinson et al., 2011).

3.9.3 Independent variables used in obtaining determinants of EbA utilisation The percentages of qualitative variables, and the mean and standard deviation of the quantitative characteristics of the respondents were obtained and presented in table 11. These were the independent variables used in obtaining determinants of EbA utilisation.

3.9.4 Determinants of EbA options utilised by smallholder farmers in Kiboga district This study utilised a multinomial logit (MNL) model to analyse the determinants of EbA options utilised by smallholder farmers in Kiboga district. Prior to the MNL analysis, the independent variables were tested for multicollinearity. The test for multicollinearity is a prerequisite for determining that there are no two or more independent variables that are highly correlated with each other, which causes erratic changes in the coefficients resulting in reduction of their significance. The empirical MNL models were therefore corrected for possible multicollinearity problems between the independent variables, using the estimated Variance Inflation Factors test (VIF). The VIF estimates (Table 5) were less than 10 for all the variables indicating that the level of multicollinearity was not severe (Gujarati & Porter, 2009).

Table 5: Table showing VIF test for multicollinearity among variables included in the MNL analysis

Variable name Variable label VIF 1/VIF Number of family members working on farm Familyonfarm 2.08 0.481021 Household number HH_No 2.04 0.489793 Major agricultural activity Agric 1.3 0.767428 Policy awareness related to farmers Policyaware 1.24 0.804505 Acreage occupied by livestock Livestkacre 1.22 0.817132 Membership to farmer organisation farmer_org 1.22 0.820623 Number of hired farm labourers Hiredlabour 1.21 0.829168 Gender of respondent Gender 1.19 0.843614 Acreage occupied by crops Cropacreage 1.18 0.847886 Use of indigenous knowledge as major source of farming knowledge Ik 1.18 0.848007 Number of farming years farming_yrs 1.17 0.853763 Average annual income Annualincom 1.16 0.863615 Hours spent on farm daily Mgttime 1.12 0.895894 Access to extension services Extservices 1.12 0.896243 Having an alternative income Altincome 1.09 0.918699 Mean VIF 1.3

The MNL involves analysis of categorical placement on a dependent variable based on multiple independent variables. In addition, it easily calculates the choice probabilities that are expressed in analytical form with no need of multivariate integration. It is computationally simple and widely used in studies involving multiple choices (Tse, 1987; Deressa et al., 2009). The MNL

analysis, specifically in this study estimated binary logits for all the comparisons among dependent categories (Long and Freese, 2001).

For the present study, the dependent variable denotes choice of EbA options based on three EbA categories i.e. ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought, and livelihood improvement. In the MNL models run in STATA software during data analysis, a dependent variable was abbreviated as CAT_3. The three categories that make up CAT_3 were one at a time made a base category by the MNL analysis.

From the review of relevant literature, a set of independent variables were identified which might be important in explaining the choice of EbA options to adapt to drought by smallholder households. These included gender, major agricultural activity, extension services, policy awareness about EbA, household number, number of farming years, hours spent on farm daily, average annual income, acreage occupied by crops, acreage occupied by livestock, number of family members working on farm, number of hired farm labourers, membership to farmer organization, use of indigenous knowledge as major farming knowledge and alternative source of income. These have been summarized in Table 6.

Table 6: Description of independent variables as used in the MNL analysis

Variable label Variable Name Description Measurement Gender Gender Discrete, dummy takes the value 1=Male 2= Female of 1 if male and 2 if female Agric Major agricultural activity Discrete, Dummy takes the value 1= Crop farming 1= Crop farming 2= Livestock farming 2= Livestock farming 3= Both crop and livestock 3= Both crop and livestock farming farming Extservices Extension services Discrete , Dummy takes the value 1= Yes 0= No 1 if yes and 0 if otherwise Policyaware Policy awareness related to Discrete, Dummy takes the value 1= Yes 0= No farmers 1 if yes and 0 if otherwise HH_No Household number Continuous People farming_yrs Number of farming years Continuous Years Mgttime Hours spent on farm daily Continuous Hours Annualincom Average annual Income Continuous Uganda shillings converted to USD Cropacreage Acreage occupied by crops Continuous Acres Livestkacre Acreage occupied by Continuous Acres livestock

Familyonfarm Number of family members Continuous People working on farm Hiredlabour Number of hired farm Continuous People labourers farmer_org membership to farmer Discrete, Dummy takes the value 1= Yes 0= No organisation 1 if yes and 0 if otherwise

Ik Use of Indigenous 1= Yes 0= No 1= Yes 0= No Knowledge as major source of farming knowledge Altincome Having an alternative source Continuous Uganda shillings to USD of income

To describe the MNL model, let CAT_3 denote a nominal outcome representing a given EbA option chosen by any farming household and has three categories that is, based on ecosystem services E, adaptation benefits to drought, A and livelihood improvement, L. Each farmer is assumed to face a set of discrete, mutually exclusive choices of EbA options. These EbA options are assumed to depend on a number of factors (in this study are explained in table 6). Assume that there is a single independent variable ik me a suring indigenous knowledge, examining the effect of ik on CAT_3 by estimating three binary logits,

Where the subscripts to the ’s indicate which comparison is being made (e.g., is the coefficient for the first independent variable for the comparison of L and E).

The three binary logits include redundant information. Since ln x/y =ln x − ln y, the following equality must hold:

This implies that

(1)

In general, with J outcomes, only J − 1 binary logits need to be estimated. Estimates for the remaining coefficients can be computed using equalities of the sort shown in Equation (1).

The MNL analysis, estimates binary logits of two categories while dropping the third (Long and Freese, 2001). For example if comparing ecosystem services, E and adaptation benefits to drought, A, then Livelihood improvement, L is dropped. The dropped category, L becomes the base category and the comparison category. In such a scenario, the first comparison is made between coefficients from binary logit for E and L, then the second between A and L.

Formally, the MNL can be written as

ln Ωm│b (x) = = x β m│b for m = 1 to J where b is the base category, which is also referred to as the comparison group. Since ln Ω b│b (x) = ln 1=0, it must hold that β b│b = 0. That is, the log odds of an outcome compared to itself is always 0, and thus the effects of any independent variables must also be 0. These J equations can be solved to compute the predicted probabilities:

(2)

The MNL assumes the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) property. This IIA property, specifically, states that the probability of choosing a given EbA option by a given household should be independent of choosing another. This IIA property helps to minimise biases and ensures consistent parameter estimates of the MNL model in equation (2).

The parameter estimates of the MNL model give only the direction of the effect of the independent variables on the dependent variable, but estimates do not represent either the actual degree of change nor probabilities (Deressa et al., 2008). For instance, if the estimated values of these variables are positive and significant (p< 0.05), it infers that the farmers are more likely to choose EbA. To determine the effect of a unit change in any of the variables in table 6 on the probability that a given household will choose a particular EbA option is given by the marginal effect equation below (Greene, 2003):

(3)

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

4.1 Perceived drought impacts and indicators

Figure 3 shows the perceived drought impacts while table 7, the indicators. The major perceived meteorological drought impact reported by the farmers was increase in temperature (13.7%). The average number of meals taken during drought was 1.4 ± 0.6 per day as compared to the 2.4 ± 0.6 meals during the wet season. The average time taken in hours to obtain water for both domestic and irrigation was 1.1 ± 0.8 for an average of 2.2 ± 4.4 kilometers.

Figure 3: Perceived drought impacts experienced by the smallholder farmers

Table 7: Perceived indicators of drought impacts, their mean and standard deviation (SD)

Perceived drought indicators Mean ± SD Meteorological: Increased Number of Bush fires 2.5 ± 2.8 Agricultural: Food shortage (Humans): Number of meals per day: During drought 1.4 ± 0.6 During wet season 2.4 ± 0.6 Water shortage: Distance covered while fetching water(Km) During drought 2.2 ± 4.4 During wet season 0.7 ± 1.7 Duration (Hrs) while fetching water for both domestic and irrigation during 1.1 ± 0.8 drought Land area (acres) of crops lost due to drought 1.6 ± 1.5 Land area (acres) covered by crops that declined in growth due to drought 5.0 ± 17.7 Number of crop pests and diseases that have increased due to drought 1.7 ± 1.5 Number of decreased pasture land (acreage) 30.4 ± 74.8 Socio-economic: Income loss: Monthly income loss from farm (converted to USD) During drought 883.11 ± 1572.97 During wet season 251.35 ± 418.63 Fluctuating food prices (converted to USD) During wet season Maize (Kg) 0.18 ± 0.07 Milk (Litre) 0.16 ± 0.03 Coffee (Kg) 0.70 ± 0 Cow 283.05 ± 80.06 Irish potatoes (per sack) 25.47 ± 4.00 During dry season Maize (Kg) 0.28 ± 0.06 Milk (Litre) 0.19 ± 0.08 Coffee (Kg) 0.48 ± 0.20 Cow 240.59 ± 60.04 Irish potatoes (per sack) 282.53 ± 16.01 Distance (Km) covered while Looking for livestock forage during drought 1.4± 2.2 Migrating to rangelands to obtain forage 1.7± 2.2 Amount of time (Hrs) spent while Searching for forage 1.6 ± 0.9

Number of animals dead due to drought annually 5.6 ± 9.5 Total distance covered while Searching for water for animals during drought 3.0 ± 1.9 Fetching water for animals during drought 1.9 ± 1.5 Number of livestock pests and diseases rampant during drought 1.3± 0.5 Hydrological: Area in acres of drained wetlands 1.1 ± 0.3 Number of dried water sources 3.4 ± 3.5

4.2. Ecosystem-based drought adaptation options utilised by smallholder farmers

The results reveal that the smallholder farmers majorly utilised ten ecosystem based adaptation options during drought periods. These were enhanced livestock farming, agroforestry, water conservation and management, restoring grasslands, rotational grazing within grazing lands, preservation of farm products, plant and animal husbandry, soil nutrient management, alternative EbA livelihoods and enhanced crop farming. The mostly utilised EbA options included agroforestry (20%), water conservation and management (19%) and alternative EbA livelihoods (18%) (Table 8).

Table 8: Ecosystem-based drought Adaptation options utilised by smallholder farme r s

EbA options Percentage (%) Mean ±SD Enhanced livestock farming 2 0.08 ± 0.275 Agroforestry 20 0.90 ± 0.306 Water conservation and management 19 0.85± 0.361 Restoring grasslands 6 0.27± 0.444 Rotational grazing within grazing lands 3 0.13 ± 0.338 Preservation of farm products 8 0.37 ± 0.483 Plant and animal husbandry 13 0.58 ± 0.495 Soil nutrient management 4 0.19 ± 0.390 Alternative EbA livelihoods 18 0.80 ±0.403 Enhanced crop farming 9 0.39 ± 0.489 Total 100

The ten EbA options were characterised basing on three categories i.e. ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement and they all had different proportions of each category (Table 9). Agroforestry (35.1%) and alternative EbA livelihoods (27.6%) were the most used EbA options based on ecosystem services. Agroforestry (35.7%) and alternative EbA livelihoods (21.3%) were the most used EbA options based on adaptation benefits to drought. Alternative EbA livelihoods (42.2%) and water conservation and management (23.0%) were the most used EbA options based on livelihood improvement.

Table 9: Characterisation of EbA options in response to perceived drought impacts based on ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement Perceived Drained wetlands Livestock Livestock Forage Forage shortage Income loss Increased Food shortage Pests and Decline in crop drought deaths deaths shortage temperatures diseases growth Total impacts Drying of water sources Livestock % Forage deaths Increased bush Withering of shortage fires crops

Pests and diseases

Forage shortage EbA option Water conservation and Enhanced Enhanced Restoring Rotational grazing Alternative Agroforestry Preservation of Plant and Soil nutrient used management crop farming livestock grasslands within grazing EbA farm products animal management farming lands livelihoods husbandry Based on Water harvesting during Establish Conserves Herd and Rotational grazing Harvest of only Afforestation and Preservation of Use of mature Establishing soil 100 Ecosystem rainy seasons and storing grass hedges livestock paddock and migration to ready food; reforestation e.g. resistant crops plant and fertility services in underground tanks. to provide through splitting, and distant grazing involve wom e n establishing and from animal improvement m u l c h selective use of lands allow and youth; multipurpose predators like products. plants on far m Use water from dams breeding. alternative regeneration of domestication plants on farm e.g. monkeys Domestication which knowledge majorly constructed in 9.4% forage sources grassland of wild plants Olukoni. of plants on is obtained from high table regions of Free grazing like couch to readily avail Restraining from 1% which they farmer field Ddwaniro; establish in open grass 2% ecosystem tree cutting. attach schools water user committees at rangeland established on services Harvest only aesthetic dams that collect fees for farm ensures mature trees. (spiritual) 2.3% maintenance of dams, regeneration 27.6% Make durable value e.g. ensure pumps are used to of grassland products (like night rose fetch water to avoid 1.2% species herding sticks, believed to contamination at dams, poles to build keep away provide voluntary 5.8% huts). Trees also snakes from security at dams to reduce provide shade, farm misuse, and mobilise medicine, voluntary cleaning of beautiful scenery, 6% water dams. natural habitat for biodiversity, 9.6% spiritual purposes, biological pest and disease control and live fencing.

35.1%

Based on Maintains or improves Improves Increase of Maintaining Maintains and Integrate crops Increases tree Maintains farm Reduces Improvement of 100 adaptation crop production through crop resistance to of livestock improves livestock or livestock on cover thus productivity incidences of crop production benefits to drip irrigation using production pests and production production by farm improves providing cooled pests and through drought pierced plastic bottles disease during availing fodder at farm microclimate 12.1% diseases e.g. improved soil impacts (which information is 3.9% outbreaks drought different times production in during hot breeding dogs fertility obtained from farmer through periods during dry spells face of dry weather, grass on farm that field schools) and castration, spells thatched huts chase 6.3% providing water for herbal 2% 5% constructed with monkeys off livestock during dry medicine use 21.3% tree poles and farm spells and breeding grasses. resistant Maintains farm 9.7% 8.1% livestock productivity as only some trees are alternative food 4.0% (fruit) sources which supplement meals during food scarcity

35.7%

Based on Water availability for Involves use Household Affordable Requires less Diversification Huts for shelter; Increases food Involves use Use of locally 100 livelihood domestic use maintained of affordable Income practice to labour of income live fences for security of local available inputs improvement during dry spells inputs and through sale those with few though demarcation of knowledge, like dung crop labour e.g. of livestock animals; 2.8% handcrafts farmland using 6.9% available and residues; 23.0% mulching. (although at source of making, brick Olukoni to keep renewable involves Early lower prices) additional making, off stray animals inputs and affordable maturing and income for charcoal and fires and used labour labour; and drought youth who production, as medical remedy entails use of resistant 0.5% search for herbal for warts. Trees 0.3% indigenous breeds alternative production, cut for fuel and knowledge increase food forage sources agribusiness, charcoal security building grass production 11.1% 0.8% thatched huts 7.4% for migrating 5.0% pastoralists. Increase food security through crop/livestock integration, establishing kitchen gardens which knowledge is obtained from farmer field schools and

cultivate near wetlands, game hunting. Herbal medicine is affordable and boosts health Involves use of local knowledge

42.2%

As part and parcel of the characterisation of the EbA options, an association without causation among the EbA options and the three categories was assessed. Results of chi-square test showed that there was a significant association between the EbA options and the three EbA categories (Table 10). Further, the results from the agglomerative hierarchical clustering test showed how the different EbA options were interconnected. A tree dendogram (Figure 4) shows the closeness among the EbA options, with more closely related options clustered together. The results reveal that the EbA options formed majorly two clusters. Agroforestry, water conservation and management, and alternative livelihoods formed one of the major clusters.

Table 9: Chi square test showing association between EbA options and three EbA categories (ecosystem services, adaptation benefits and livelihood improvement)

Chi square ( Calculated value) 677.381 Chi square ( Critical value) 28.869 Degrees of freedom (DF) 18 p-value (p) <0.0001 Alpha (α) 0.05

Figure 4: Dendogram showing the clustering of the EbA options

4.3 The independent variables used in MNL analysis to obtain determinants of EbA options

The independent variables that were used in explaining the major factors that determine choice of EbA options to adapt to drought by smallholder households are presented in Table 11 below. Sixty percent (60.1%) of the respondents were female. The majority (63.4%) of the respondents practiced both crop and livestock farming, a practice 83.2% of them learned through indigenous knowledge transfer. On average, a household had 6.0 ± 3.3 persons with an average crop and livestock acreage of 3.63±8.51and 5.91 ± 18.29 respectively.

Table 10: The independent variables used in MNL analysis to obtain determinants of EbA options

Variable Mean Percentage (%) Gender of household head Female 60.1% Male 39.9% Major agricultural activity of household Livestock farming only 2.7 % Crop farming only 33.9 % Both crop and Livestock farming 63.4 % Use of Indigenous Knowledge as major 83.2 % source of farming knowledge Alternative source of income 44.8% Access to Extension services 21.3 % Awareness of policy related to farmers 8.2 % Membership to farmer organisation 24% Household number 6.02 ± 3.31 Number of farming years of household 25.37 ± 17.88 Hours spent on farm daily 4.69 ± 2.16 Average annual Income *UG 1,445,658.39 ± 2,871,007.967 Acreage occupied by crops 3.63±8.51 Acreage occupied by livestock 5.91 ± 18.29 Number of family members working on 3.16 ± 2.836 farm Number of hired farm labourers 2.04 ± 1.18 *USD rate 3655 (USD 396 ± 786)

4.4 Determinants of EbA options utilised by smallholder famers in Kiboga

The results from the MNL analysis are presented in the subsequent tables below. The first MNL model was run with livelihood improvement category as the base category (Model 1) and the results are shown in Table 12. The results of the second MNL (Model 2) with ecosystem services category as the base outcome are shown in Table 13 while the third model (Model 3) was run with adaptation benefits to drought as the base category and results are shown in Table 14. The

likelihood ratio test for all the MNL models (x²= 79.21, p=0.0000, pseudo R² =0.258) were statistically significant below 5%, implying that the MNL proved the data fit for analysis.

According to Model 1 (Table 12), the major agricultural activity, average annual income, and membership to farmer organisation are less likely to influence choice of EbA options based on ecosystem services compared to livelihood improvement. Access to extension services has significant positive influence on EbA utilisation based on ecosystem services compared to livelihood improvement. Acreage occupied by crops is less likely to influence EbA utilisation based on adaptation benefits to drought compared to livelihood improvement.

Table 11: MNL model run with livelihood improvement as the base outcome (Model 1)

Standard [95% CATEGORY Coefficient Error. Z P>z Conf. Interval] Based on ecosystem services Gender of household head -0.69 0.46 -1.52 0.127 -1.59 0.20 Household number 0.17 0.09 1.89 0.059 -0.01 0.35 Major agricultural activity of household -0.79 * 0.25 -3.18 0.001 -1.28 -0.30 Acreage occupied by crops 0.04 0.04 0.95 0.343 -0.04 0.12 Acreage occupied by livestock -0.05 0.07 -0.69 0.491 -0.18 0.08 Average annual income 0.00 * 0.00 -2.2 0.028 0.00 0.00 Hours spent on farm daily -0.09 0.11 -0.82 0.412 -0.31 0.13 Number of family members working on farm -0.22 0.13 -1.72 0.086 -0.47 0.03 Access to extension services 1.06 * 0.55 1.93 0.054 -0.02 2.13 Alternative source of income 0.53 0.43 1.22 0.223 -0.32 1.38 Membership to farmer organisation -1.46 * 0.67 -2.17 0.03 -2.78 -0.14 Awareness of policy related to farmers -0.97 1.15 -0.84 0.402 -3.23 1.29 Number of hired farm labourers 0.15 0.19 0.77 0.44 -0.22 0.51 Use of indigenous knowledge as major source of farming knowledge 1.00 0.64 1.58 0.115 -0.24 2.25 Number of farming years of household -0.01 0.01 -0.96 0.335 -0.04 0.01 Constant 1.25 1.25 1 0.316 -1.19 3.70

Based on adaptation benefits Gender of household head -0.44 0.67 -0.66 0.512 -1.74 0.87 Household number 0.37 0.12 3.02 0.003 0.13 0.61 Major agricultural activity of household -0.34 0.33 -1.01 0.312 -0.99 0.32 Acreage occupied by crops -0.4 1* 0.19 -2.21 0.027 -0.77 -0.05 Acreage occupied by livestock -0.03 0.05 -0.66 0.511 -0.12 0.06 Average annual income 0.00 0.00 -1.04 0.298 0.00 0.00 Hours spent on farm daily 0.54 0.16 3.5 0 0.24 0.85 Number of family members working on farm -0.24 0.13 -1.82 0.069 -0.50 0.02 Access to extension services -0.38 0.94 -0.41 0.683 -2.22 1.45

Alternative source of income -0.51 0.66 -0.78 0.436 -1.80 0.78 Membership to farmer organisation -0.72 0.81 -0.89 0.371 -2.31 0.86 Awareness of policy related to farmers -0.38 1.32 -0.29 0.775 -2.97 2.21 Number of hired farm labourers -0.05 0.27 -0.2 0.843 -0.58 0.47 Use of indigenous knowledge as major source of farming knowledge -1.31 0.87 -1.51 0.132 -3.01 0.39 Number of farming years of household 0.02 0.02 1.2 0.231 -0.02 0.06 Constant -2.90 1.86 -1.56 0.119 -6.55 0.75 Based on livelihood improvement (base outcome) Multinomial logistic regression Number of obs = 183 LR chi2(30)=79.21 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -113.88037 Pseudo R2= 0.258 *indicate statistical significance at 5%

With reference to Model 2 (Table 13), the hours spent on farm daily were more likely to influence EbA choice based on adaptation benefits compared to ecosystem services. Acreage occupied by crops and use of indigenous knowledge as major source of farming knowledge were less likely to influence EbA utilisation based on adaptation compared to ecosystem services. Major agricultural activity, average annual income and membership to farmer organisation are more likely to influence EbA utilisation based on livelihood improvement compared to ecosystem services. Access to extension services are less likely to influence EbA utilisation based on livelihood improvement compared to ecosystem services.

Table 12: MNL model run with ecosystem services as the base outcome (Model 2)

Standard [95% CATEGORY Coefficient Error Z P>z Conf. Interval] Based on ecosystem services (base outcome) Based on adaptation benefits Gender of household head 0.26 0.72 0.36 0.722 -1.16 1.67 Household number 0.20 0.14 1.44 0.15 -0.07 0.46 Major agricultural activity of household 0.46 0.37 1.23 0.218 -0.27 1.18 Acreage occupied by crops -0.45* 0.19 -2.38 0.017 -0.81 -0.08 Acreage occupied by livestock 0.02 0.08 0.2 0.841 -0.14 0.17 Average annual income 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.822 0.00 0.00 Hours spent on farm daily 0.64* 0.17 3.67 0 0.30 0.97 Number of family members working on farm -0.02 0.17 -0.13 0.898 -0.35 0.31 Access to extension services -1.44 0.99 -1.45 0.147 -3.39 0.51 Alternative source of income -1.04 0.72 -1.45 0.147 -2.44 0.37 Membership to farmer organisation 0.74 1.00 0.74 0.459 -1.22 2.70 Awareness of policy related to farmers 0.59 1.67 0.35 0.724 -2.68 3.86 Number of hired farm labourers -0.20 0.30 -0.66 0.507 -0.79 0.39 Use of indigenous knowledge as major source of farming knowledge -2.31* 0.99 -2.34 0.019 -4.25 -0.37

Number of farming years of household 0.04 0.02 1.67 0.094 -0.01 0.08 Constant -4.15 2.05 -2.03 0.042 -8.16 -0.15

Based on livelihood improvement Gender of household head 0.69 0.46 1.52 0.127 -0.20 1.59 Household number -0.17 0.09 -1.89 0.059 -0.35 0.01 Major agricultural activity of household 0.79* 0.25 3.18 0.001 0.30 1.28 Acreage occupied by crops -0.04 0.04 -0.95 0.343 -0.12 0.04 Acreage occupied by livestock 0.05 0.07 0.69 0.491 -0.08 0.18 Average annual income 0.00* 0.00 2.2 0.028 0.00 0.00 Hours spent on farm daily 0.09 0.11 0.82 0.412 -0.13 0.31 Number of family members working on farm 0.22 0.13 1.72 0.086 -0.03 0.47 Access to extension services -1.06* 0.55 -1.93 0.054 -2.13 0.02 Alternative source of income -0.53 0.43 -1.22 0.223 -1.38 0.32 Membership to farmer organisation 1.46* 0.67 2.17 0.03 0.14 2.78 Awareness of policy related to farmers 0.97 1.15 0.84 0.402 -1.29 3.23 Number of hired farm labourers -0.15 0.19 -0.77 0.44 -0.51 0.22 Use of indigenous knowledge as major source of farming knowledge -1.00 0.64 -1.58 0.115 -2.25 0.24 Number of farming years of household 0.01 0.01 0.96 0.335 -0.01 0.04 Constant -1.25 1.25 -1 0.316 -3.70 1.19 Multinomial logistic regression Number of obs = 183 LR chi2(30)=79.21 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -113.88037 Pseudo R2= 0.258 *indicate statistical significance at 5%

In Model 3 (Table 14), acreage occupied by crops and use of indigenous knowledge as major source of farming knowledge are more likely to influence EbA utilisation based on ecosystem services compared to adaptation benefits to drought. The hours spent on farm daily were likely to influence EbA utilisation based on ecosystem services compared to adaptation benefits to drought. Acreage occupied by crops was more likely to influence EbA utilisation based on livelihood improvement compared to adaptation benefits. The hours spent on farm daily were less likely to influence EbA utilisation based on livelihood improvement compared to adaptation benefits to drought.

Table 13: MNL model run with Adaptation benefits to drought as the base outcome (Model 3)

Standard [95% CATEGORY Coefficient Error Z P>z Conf. Interval] Based on ecosystem services Gender of household head -0.26 0.72 -0.36 0.722 -1.67 1.16 Household number -0.20 0.14 -1.44 0.15 -0.46 0.07 Major agricultural activity of household -0.46 0.37 -1.23 0.218 -1.18 0.27 Acreage occupied by crops 0.45* 0.19 2.38 0.017 0.08 0.81

Acreage occupied by livestock -0.02 0.08 -0.2 0.841 -0.17 0.14 -1 Average annual income 0.00 0.00 -0.23 0.822 .03E-06 0.00 Hours spent on farm daily -0.64* 0.17 -3.67 0 -0.97 -0.30 Number of family members working on farm 0.02 0.17 0.13 0.898 -0.31 0.35 Access to extension services 1.44 0.99 1.45 0.147 -0.51 3.39 Alternative source of income 1.04 0.72 1.45 0.147 -0.37 2.44 Membership to farmer organisation -0.74 1.00 -0.74 0.459 -2.70 1.22 Awareness of policy related to farmers -0.59 1.67 -0.35 0.724 -3.86 2.68 Number of hired farm labourers 0.20 0.30 0.66 0.507 -0.39 0.79 Use of indigenous knowledge as major source of farming knowledge 2.31* 0.99 2.34 0.019 0.37 4.25 Number of farming years of household -0.04 0.02 -1.67 0.094 -0.08 0.01 Constant 4.15 2.05 2.03 0.042 0.15 8.16

Based on adaptation benefits (base outcome)

Based on livelihood improvement Gender of household head 0.44 0.67 0.66 0.512 -0.87 1.74 Household number -0.37 0.12 -3.02 0.003 -0.61 -0.13 Major agricultural activity of household 0.34 0.33 1.01 0.312 -0.32 0.99 Acreage occupied by crops 0.41* 0.19 2.21 0.027 0.05 0.77 Acreage occupied by livestock 0.03 0.05 0.66 0.511 -0.06 0.12 Average annual income 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.298 0.00 0.00 Hours spent on farm daily -0.54* 0.16 -3.5 0 -0.85 -0.24 Number of family members working on farm 0.24 0.13 1.82 0.069 -0.02 0.50 Access to extension services 0.38 0.94 0.41 0.683 -1.45 2.22 Alternative source of income 0.51 0.66 0.78 0.436 -0.78 1.80 Membership to farmer organisation 0.72 0.81 0.89 0.371 -0.86 2.31 Awareness of policy related to farmers 0.38 1.32 0.29 0.775 -2.21 2.97 Number of hired farm labourers 0.05 0.27 0.2 0.843 -0.47 0.58 Use of indigenous knowledge as major source of farming knowledge 1.31 0.87 1.51 0.132 -0.39 3.01 Number of farming years of household -0.02 0.02 -1.2 0.231 -0.06 0.02 Constant 2.90 1.86 1.56 0.119 -0.75 6.55 Multinomial logistic regression Number of obs = 183 LR chi2(30)=79.21 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000 Log likelihood = -113.88037 Pseudo R2= 0.258 *indicate statistical significance at 5%

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

5.1. Perceived drought impacts and indicators

The major perceived drought impacts according to the present study were water shortage, increased temperatures, drying of water sources, food and forage shortage, crop withering and increased prevalence of pests and diseases; with the most prevalent meteorological drought impact being increased temperatures affecting the farmers themselves. The farmer respondents complained of very hot weather which made them sweat profusely and reduced their workability on their farms. Similar perceptions on impacts have also been reported in Nakasongola, Uganda (Mfitumukiza et al., 2017a) and Zambezi valley, Zimbabwe (Mahvura et al., 2015), which are also agro-pastoral regions. It is noticeable that all the major drought impacts perceived by the respondents could be associated with meteorological drought. Meteorological drought impacts usually result from precipitation (rainfall) shortage that lead to other drought impacts, hence usually difficult to manage (Enfors and Gordon, 2008). The increased number of bush fires was perceived as the major indicator of increased temperatures in the study area. In the event of temperature increment, there is higher evapo-transpiration which increases desiccation of vegetation cover. Dried vegetation is easily burnt by the smallholder farmers so that its regeneration is accelerated. During long dry spells, the livestock farmers in Kiboga, especially those in Ddwaniro Sub County set fire to the dry grasses in their grazing lands so that fresh and nutritious vegetation growth will emerge. Bush burning is an anthropogenic activity that encourages forage re-growth and is believed to keep off tsetse flies. However, it can sometimes become disastrous when the fire is not controlled.

5.2 Ecosystem-based drought adaptation options utilised by smallholder farmers

There were majorly ten ecosystem-based drought adaptation options used in response to the perceived drought impacts. These were enhanced livestock farming, agroforestry, water conservation and management, restoring grasslands, rotational grazing within grazing lands, preservation of farm products, plant and animal husbandry, soil nutrient management, alternative EbA livelihoods and enhanced crop farming. The mostly utilised EbA options included agroforestry, water conservation and management and alternative EbA livelihoods. Agroforestry, for instance, was utilised to adapt to increased temperatures, increased bush fires, pests and

diseases and forage shortage. When water sources and wetlands dry up causing water shortage, farmers adopted water conservation and management me asures; and in the event of low income and livestock deaths, the smallholder farmers chose alternative EbA livelihoods. The alternative EbA livelihoods included handcraft making, brick making, charcoal production, herbal medicine production, agribusiness, build grass thatched huts for migrating pastoralists, game hunting and establishing kitchen gardens. These, on addition to boosting household income, require affordable labour and implementation costs, involve use of locally available and renewable inputs, and make use of traditional indigenous knowledge (Vignola et al., 2015).

5.3 Characterisation of the EbA options used in response to perceived drought impacts

The characterisation of the ten EbA options was based on three categories i.e. ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement and they all had different proportions of each category. For instance, agroforestry and alternative EbA livelihoods were the most used EbA options based on ecosystem services. Agro-forestry was a highly adopted EbA option in the study area for a range of ecosystem services such as shade, poles, herding sticks, medicine, beautiful scenery, natural habitat for biodiversity, spiritual purposes, biological pest and disease control and live fencing. Live fences, majorly comprising Eurporbia tirucalli L. locally known as ‘olukoni/nkoni’ was established on farms as demarcations to deter livestock from straying to other farms and prevent overgrazing. Eurporbia tirucalli L. is not only used for demarcation, but also as a medical remedy against warts (Tugume et al., 2016) and poisonous bites. The plant can withstand extreme drought conditions therefore provides good soil cover; possesses irritating properties that keep off invading animals; has pesticidal features against aphids, mosquitoes, bacteria and molluscs, and has potential for biodiesel production (Mwine and Van Damme, 2011). A recent study by Harvey et al., (2017) reports that the use of live fences was a common EbA practice among smallholder farms in Central America. Live fences were found to have low species richness, high tree densities and consisted of trees with small diameters. Their establishment was encouraged as a cost-effective means of dividing farm fields, creating barriers to animal movement, and providing animal fodder, firewood, timber and fruits. The conservation of such multipurpose plants is therefore of great importance to smallholder farmers and could be a significant source of diversified EbA for natural resource dependent communities in changing climatic conditions.

Drought adaptation benefits based options were mainly agroforestry and alternative EbA livelihoods. The respondent farmers reported that agroforestry maintains farm productivity during dry spells as some trees provide alternative food (fruit) sources which supplement meals during food scarcity. Agroforestry increases tree cover which creates a microclimate cooling effect during hot weather by providing shade for the whole household. The use of tree shades has been reported to buffer extreme temperatures, diversify farm production and income generation, maintain ecosystem services, conserve biodiversity and enhance farm resilience (Harvey et al., 2017). The smallholder farmers integrate crops or livestock on farm as an alternative livelihood, which improves farm production in the face of dry spells. Despite being an additional source of food, the integration involves use of locally available knowledge, and minimises risk of production losses due to changing climatic conditions or climate driven pest or disease outbreaks (Harvey et al., 2017).

Alternative EbA livelihoods and water conservation and management were the most used EbA options based on livelihood improvement characterisation category. During long dry spells, the distance covered to fetch water is more than during the wet season. In response to this water shortage, farmers store water in underground tanks during rainy seasons to be used during dry spells and also utilise water from communal water reservoirs/dams established in high water table regions. The smallholder farmers establish water user committees that manage the water reservoirs/dams, collect fees for their maintenance, ensure use of pumps to fetch water to avoid contamination, provide voluntary security to minimise misuse, and mobilise farmers to get involved in voluntary cleaning of the reservoirs. The water reservoirs/dams are also used for crop irrigation; livestock and individual households during dry spells. The smallholder farmers that irrigate crops during drought use majorly a technique learned from farmer field schools called drip irrigation which involves dripping water onto the soil at very low rates from pierced plastic bottles. Water is applied close to plants so that only the part of soil in which the roots grow is wet. Drip irrigation is a cost effective, precision agricultural technique for smallholder farmers, which achieves higher returns on yield, water and labour (IFAD and UNEP, 2013).

5.4 Interconnection of the EbA options

Agroforestry, water conservation and management, and alternative EbA livelihoods formed one of the major clusters which were rather intriguing. The clustering of the EbA options is central to the EbA concept of going beyond the role of ecosystems as providers of a set of natural resources and instead as providers of a number of interconnected ecosystem services such as water provision, climate regulation, disaster risk reduction and genetic diversity. According to Reid and Alam (2014), a holistic approach to maintaining ecosystem structure, functioning and ecosystem service provision could support adaptation to climate change. Recognising that ecosystems have limits, undergo change (due to climate change) and are interconnected is central to this holistic approach. Such interrelatedness of EbA options is characteristic of EbA which takes into account multiple social, economic and cultural co-benefits for local communities (Andrade et al., 2011).

Considering the close clustering of alternative EbA livelihoods, agroforestry and water conservation and management, there could be a possibility of utilisation of these EbA options in a very closely related manner for not only provisioning ecosystem services but also for other mutual benefits. For instance, water harvesting during rainy seasons and storing in underground tanks/reservoirs reduces on cost of searching for water during dry spells. A study done by Munang et al. (2014) reports that water stored in dams and reservoirs raises the ground water table through seepage which fosters vegetation re-growth. Vegetation includes trees established on farm (agroforestry) which provide food sources and nesting materials and or sites for pollinators. In addition, water availability on agro ecosystems reduces time and cost to search for water leaving more time available for diversification. While the delivery of ecosystem services is highly dependent on the structure of a smallholder farm itself, many services originate in the larger landscape in which that smallholder farm is embedded (IFAD and UNEP, 2013). This implies that farm scale management and the scale at which ecological processes operate are often different. Therefore, decisions by individuals affecting diverse ecosystems will have consequences for farmers in the wider landscape. Focusing too narrowly on the farm will not necessarily secure the delivery of the ecosystem services on which smallholder farmers themselves depend. Management of ecosystems at landscape level is also essential because

ecosystems provide suitable habitat for beneficial organisms that may arise from an aggregation of smaller farms.

5.5 Determinants of EbA options utilised by smallholder farmers in Kiboga District

The access to extension services has significant positive influence on EbA utilisation based on ecosystem services compared to livelihood improvement. This means that farmers that have access to extension services are more likely to conserve ecosystems compared to having an improved lifestyle at the expense of the ecosystems. Access to extension services increases the farmers’ knowledge and information concerning sustainable utilisation of ecosystems which are a sole source of services that boost their agricultural productivity. In addition, a study by Ndamani and Watanabe (2016) reported that access to extension services increases the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers to climatic change. Farmers’ access to information related to climate change through extension could help the smallholder farmers to prepare for any changes that may arise thus ability to anticipate and plan for climate risks well in advance. According to Bandyopadhyay et al. (2011), detailed temporal and spatial weather related information at the local level is very essential in understanding smallholder farmers’ climate change adaptation strategies, particularly EbA. In addition, similar studies by Tiwari et al. (2014), and Ndamani and Watanabe (2016) report that, smallholder farmers with access to timely weather information are more likely to adapt to climate change. Since EbA involves use of biodiversity and ecosystem services, understanding weather changes would enable smallholder farmers predict their availability and or seasons of scarcity thus devise conservation measures.

Average annual income is more likely to influence EbA utilisation based on livelihood improvement compared to ecosystem services. Increase in annual income widens the opportunities for farmers as they will opt for other livelihood improvement options unlike those on farm. The smallholder farmers have diversified off-farm economic activities which they carry out through utilisation of existing natural resources e.g. charcoal production, offering labour on larger farms, and building huts for migrating pastoralists. Tiwari et al. (2014), reports that off- farm income plays a significant role in livelihood diversification among smallholder farmers. However, some of the aforementioned activities may cause ecosystem degradation. Much as farmers may be aware of this, they will tend to overlook it as long as they seem to be adapting to

drought. This calls for knowledge capacity building as regarding empowerment and revealing to them their vulnerability in case ecosystems are not utilised in a conservative manner.

The major agricultural activity is more likely to influence EbA utilisation based on livelihood improvement compared to ecosystem services. Similarly, acreage occupied by crops was more likely to influence EbA utilisation based on livelihood improvement compared to adaptation benefits. With reference to the aforementioned results, the major agricultural activity and crop acreage provide a livelihood improvement strategy during dry spells. Despite that the majority of the smallholder farmers practice both crop and livestock farming, the original major agricultural activity in Kiboga is livestock farming. This presents a shift from pastrolism to agropastoralism in Kiboga. According to Ruhangawebare (2010), pastoralists’ culture and economic status is oriented towards livestock. Households depend on livestock for a significant part of their basic needs. Large herds guarantee subsistence, income, status and insurance against drought impacts on agriculture. Further, given that Kiboga is a rangeland area where livestock production particularly grazing follows a seasonal dimension and dependent on opportunistic grazing owing to landscape heterogeneity; allocation of generally large land to livestock production becomes an inevitable reality. The shift to agropastoralism could be that smallholder farmers could not attain self-sufficiency through livestock production alone so as a response they tended to diversify to crop production so as to provide a variety of food for their households (Bebe et al., 2012).

The smallholder farmers that spend more time on farm are more likely to utilise EbA options based on their adaptation benefits to drought compared to ecosystem services. The hours spent on farm daily were less likely to influence EbA use based on livelihood improvement compared to adaptation benefits to drought. In the event of drought, scarcity of some raw materials like water provokes the farmers to strive harder to maintain farm productivity in order to meet their basic needs especially food for their households. Therefore, smallholder farmers may spend more time on EbA practices that could provide them with adaptation benefits as well as improved livelihoods in the event of climate change. A study by Vignola et al. (2015) reveals that EbA maintains or improves crop, animal or farm productivity in drought, reduces the biophysical impacts of extreme drought events and high temperatures on crops, animals or farming systems and reduces pest and disease outbreaks due to drought. Therefore, there is need for extension

service providers and climate change project developers to disseminate such vital EbA information prior to potential climate related risks and hazards so that farmers are able to adjust early enough and not wait for the climate change impacts to occur.

The use of indigenous knowledge as major source of farming knowledge is more likely to influence EbA utilisation based on ecosystem services compared to adaptation benefits to drought. Indigenous knowledge has been depicted as simple, static and primitive yet it is essential for provision of ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation e.g. protection of biological communities like forests, particular fodder tree species and organisms (Nyong et al., 2007). In Kiboga, the results reveal that ecosystem services provide a basis for the use of indigenous knowledge. According to a study done by Egeru (2012), in an agro pastoral region similar to Kiboga, indigenous knowledge played a significant role in climate change adaptation for example in harvesting wild food, thereby reducing food insecurity during drought. Since EbA entails sustainable management of biodiversity and ecological functions, the smallholder farmers that posses and utilise traditional knowledge will more likely conserve those ecosystems on which they are traditionally dependent (Phuong, 2011).

Smallholder farmers that belong to farmer organisations are more likely to use EbA options based on livelihood benefits compared to ecosystem services. Such farmers are more likely to have improved livelihoods. Farmer organisations could be cooperatives, partnerships or farmer field schools. These increase farmers’ social capital as they could obtain knowledge about EbA from each other. A recent study by Mfitumukiza et al. (2017b) revealed that when farmers regularly gather together, they learn new adaptation strategies through discovery learning and sharing their own experiences involving existing ecosystems and biodiversity. Through such avenues, the uptake of EbA could be accelerated.

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Conclusion

Understanding smallholder farmers’ perception about drought presents a significant basis on how they utilise existing ecosystems and biodiversity to adapt to climate change. The major perceived drought impacts were increased temperatures, which intensified water, food, forage shortage, crop withering and increased prevalence of pests and diseases. Agroforestry and water conservation and management dominate the ecosystem based drought adaptation options utilised by the smallholder farmers in Kiboga. The options were being utilised based on the expected ecosystem services, adaptation benefits to drought and livelihood improvement. In addition to utilisation of ecosystem services and biodiversity for agriculture based adaptation to drought, farmers were also engaged in other EbA based alternative livelihoods. The utilsed EbA options and the derived ecosystems services, benefits and livelihood improvement categories were interlinked. The utilisation of the EbA options was majorly determined by access to extension services, hours spent on farm daily, acreage occupied by crops, major agricultural activity, average annual income, membership to farmer organisation and use of indigenous knowledge.

6.2 Recommendations

There is need for integrated management of the natural resources in ways that preserve the integrity of the systemic functioning of the ecosystems and the associated benefits.

Of particular importance is need to design and implement policies and interventions to enhance management of ecosystems at not only farm scale but also landscape levels.

Information on key determinants of EbA utilisation should be used by decision makers to strengthen climate change adaptation in EbA policy formulation and implementation and they may also be transformed into indicators to monitor climate change adaptation trends.

Basing on the findings that agroforestry, water conservation and management and alternative EbA livelihoods were most used EbA options, climate change adaptation initiatives in Kiboga and other similar smallholder farming communities should put these into consideration during their planning and implementation.

Basing on the findings that agroforestry, water conservation and management and alternative EbA livelihoods were closely related, further studies should be undertaken to explain this relatedness.

Basing on the findings that EbA improves livelihoods of smallholder farmers, further studies should be undertaken to show the extent to which they have done so.

REFERENCES

Adger, W. N., Huq, S., Katrina, B., Conway, D., Hulme, M. (2003). Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, London. Retrieved from http://pdj.sagepub.com/content/3/3/179

Altieri, M.A., Koohafkan, P. (2008). Enduring Farms: Climate Change, Smallholders and Traditional Farming Communities Third World Network (TWN), Penang, Malasya.

Amedie, F.A. (2013). Impacts of Climate Change on Plant Growth, Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity, and Potential Adaptation Measure. Master thesis in Atmospheric Science with orientation towards Environmental Science (60 HEC). Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg. pp 1-16

Andrade Pérez, A., Herrera Fernandez, B., Cazzolla Gatti, R. (2010). Building Resilience to Climate Change: Ecosystem-based adaptation and lessons from the field. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 164pp.

Andrade, A., Córdoba, R., Dave, R., Girot, P., Herrera-F, B., Munroe. R., R., Oglethorpe.J, Pramova. E., Watson. J., Vergara, W. (2011). Draft Principles and Guidelines for Integrating Ecosystem-based Approaches to Adaptation in Project and Policy Design: A discussion document. CEM/IUCN, CATIE. Kenya.

Avelino, J., Ten Hoopen, G., deClerck, F.A.J. (2011). Ecological mechanisms for pest and disease control in coffee and cacao agroecosystems of the Neotropics. In: Rapidel, B., deClerck, F.A.J., Le Coq, J., Beer, J. (Eds.), Ecosystem Services from Agriculture and Agroforestry: Measurement and Payment. Earthscan Publications, London, UK, pp. 91– 117.

Bandyopadhyay, S., Wang, L., Wijnen, M. (2011). Improving Household Survey Instruments for Understanding Agricultural Household Adaptation to Climate Change: Water Stress and Variability, 1–68.

Bebe, B.O., Langat, J.K., Magembe, E.M. (2012). Evaluation of the Factors Associated with Shift from Pastoral to Agro-pastoral Farming Systems in Trans-Mara West District of Narok County-Kenya. Asian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 4, 403-410.

Campos, M., Velazquez, A., McCall, M. (2014). Adaptation strategies to climatic variability: a case study of small-scale farmers in rural Mexico. Land Use Policy, 38, 533–540.

Centre for Resource analysis Limited. (2006). Ecosystems, ecosystem services and their linkages to poverty reduction in Uganda. Ecosystems. pp 1-70

Chong, J. (2014). Ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation: progress and challenges. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10784-014-9242-9

Colls, A., Ash, N., Ikkala, N. (2009). Ecosystem-based Adaptation: a natural response to climate change. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 16pp.

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2009). Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. Technical Series No. 41. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Montreal, Canada. 126 pp.

Centre for International Governance (CIGI). (2007). International risk report. Canada: Waterloo.

Deressa, T.T., Hassan, R. M., Ringler, C., Alemu, T., Yusuf, M. (2009). Determinants of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.01.002

Dodman D., Mitlin D. (2013). Challenges for community-based adaptation/ discovering the potential for transformation. Journal of International Development, 25 (5), 640-659

Doswald, N., Munroe, R., Roe, D., Giuliani, A., Castelli, I., Stephens, J., Möller, I., Spencer, T., Vira, B., Reid, H. (2014). Effectiveness of ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation: review of the evidence-base.

Egeru, A. (2012). Role of indigenous knowledge in climate change adaptation: A case study of the Teso sub-region, Eastern Uganda. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 11(2), 217– 224.

Enfors, E. I., Gordon, L. J. (2008). Dealing with drought: The challenge of using water system technologies to break dryland poverty traps. Global Environmental Change, 18(4), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.07.006 FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (2014). Family Farmers: Feeding the World, Caring for the Earth. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Greene, W, H. (2003). Econometric analysis. Fifth edition. Prentice Hall, New Jersey.

Gore, A. (1992). Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Girot, P., Ehrhart, C., Oglethorpe, J., Reid, H., Rossing, T., Gambarelli, G., Jeans, H., Barrow, E., Martin, S., Ikkala, N., Phillips, J. (2012). Integrating community and ecosystem- Based approaches in climate change adaptation responses. ELAN, unpublished.

Gujarati, D.N., Porter, D.C. (2009). Basic econometrics. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Hallensleben, N. (2012). Characterising Poor Smallholder Farmers in Nicaragua: Factors influencing the success or failure of micro-irrigation users. University of St. Gallen (HSG).

Harvey, C.A., Chacón, M., Donatti, C.I., Garen, E., Hannah, L., Andrade, A., Bede, L., Brown, D., Calle, A., Chará, J., Clement, C., Gray, E., Hoang, M.H., Minang, P., Rodríguez, A.M., Seeberg-Elverfeldt, C., Semroc, B., Shames, S., Smukler, S., Somarriba, E., Torquebiau, E., van Etten, J.,Wollenberg, E. (2013). Climate-smart landscapes: opportunities and challenges for integrating adaptation and mitigation in tropical agriculture. Conservation Letters, 7, 77– 90.

Harvey, C. A., Martínez-Rodríguez, M. R., Cárdenas’, J. M., Avelino, J., Rapidel, B., Vignola, R.,Donatti, C.I., Vilchez-Mendoza, S. (2017). The use of Ecosystem-based Adaptation practices by smallholder farmers in Central America. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 246(November 2016), 279–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.04.018 Hills, T. (2015). The State of Ecosystem-based Adaptation (EbA) to Climate Change in 2015. EbA Policy Analysis. Conservation International

Hisali, E., Birungi, P., Buyinza, F. (2011). Adaptation to Climate Change in Uganda: Evidence from micro level data. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1245-1261.

Holt-Gimenez, E. (2002). Measuring farmers’ agro ecological resistance after Hurricane Mitch in Nicaragua: a case study in participatory, sustainable land management impact monitoring Agriculture Ecosystem and Environment, 93 (2002), 87–105.

IFAD., UNEP. (2013). Smallholders, food security and the environment. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development, 54. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Smallholders,+food+secu rity,+and+the+environment#0 Ikkala, N. (2011). Ecosystem-based adaptation in mountain ecosystems: Challenges and Opportunities in Nepal, Peru and Uganda, IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Ikkala, N. (2014). Generating multiple benefits from Ecosytem-based Adaptation in mountain ecosystems. UNDP.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation (SREX). Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (Eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 151 pp.

IPPC. (2007): Summary for Policy makers. In: Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [(B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave, L.A.Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,USA.

IUCN. (2012). Restoration of the River Sipi Micro-Catchment as an Ecosystem-Based Solution to Build Social and Ecological Resilience of the Sanzara Community to Climate Change Impacts. IUCN, Kampala

Jackson, L., Van Noordwijk, M., Bengtsson, J., Foster, W., Lipper, L., Pullema, M., Said, M., Snaddon, J., Vodouhe, R. (2010). Biodiversity and agricultural sustainagility: from assessment to adaptive management. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2 (2010), 80–87.

Jones, H.P., Hole, D.G., Zavaleta, E.S. (2012). Harnessing nature to help people adapt to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2, 504-509.

Kasente, D.H. (2002). Poverty Analysis from a Gender Perspective: A Case Study of Kiboga District NURRU Publications.

Keyantash, J., Dracup, J. A. (2002). The quantification of drought: An Evaluation of Drought Indices.

Kiboga District Local Government. (2012). Kiboga District Local Government Five-Y e a r Development Plan, (2010/11-2014/15). Planning Unit

Lavorel, S., Colloff, M.J., McIntyre, S., Doherty, M.D., Murphy, H.T., Metcalfe, D.J., Dunlop, M., Williams, R.J., Wise, R.M., Williams, K.J. (2015). Ecological mechanisms underpinning climate adaptation services. Global Change Biology, 21, 12–31.

Luederitz C. (2014). Mainstreaming ecosystem-based adaptation into municipal planning to foster sustainability transitions.

Locatelli, B., Evans, V., Wardell, A., Andrade., Vignola, R. (2011). Forests and Climate change in Latin America: Linking adaptation and mitigation. Forests, 2, 431-450.

Long, J. S., Freese, J. (2001). Regression Models for Categorical Dependent VariablesUsing Stata. Texas: Stata Press.

Maddison, D. (2006). The perception of and adaptation to climate change in Africa. CEEPA. Discussion Paper No. 10. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.

Mavhura, E., Manatsa, D., Mushore,T. (2015). Adaptation to drought in arid and semi-arid environments: Case of the Zambezi Valley, Zimbabwe. Journal of Disaster and risk studies, 7(1), 1-7.

Mfitumukiza, D., Barasa, B., Ntale, E. (2017 a). Ecosystem-based adaptation to drought among agro-pastoral farmers: Opportunities and constraints in Nakasongola District, central Uganda. Journal of Environmental Management and Sustainable Development, 246, 279- 290. Mfitumukiza, D., Barasa, B., Nankya, A. M., Nabwire, D., Owasa, A. H., Babu, S., Kato, G. (2017 b). Assessing the farmer field schools diffusion of knowledge and adaptation to climate change by smallholder farmers in Kiboga District, Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 9(5), 74-83. https://doi.org/10.5897/JAERD2016.0832 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

Mishra, A.K., Singh, V.P. (2010). A review of drought concepts. Journal of Hydrology, 391, 1-2, 202-216.

Morton J.F. (2007). The impact of climate change on smallholder and subsistence agriculture Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104, 19680–19685.

Munang, R., Thiaw, I., Alverson, K., Liu, J., Han, Z. (2013). The role of ecosystem services in climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2013.02.002

Munang, R., Andrews, J., Alverson, K., Mebratu, D. (2014). Harnessing Ecosystem-Based Adaptation To Address the Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 56(1), 18-24, DOI:10.1080/00139157.2014.861676

Mwine, J., Van Damme, P. (2013). Euphorbia tirucalli L. (euphorbiaceae) -The miracle tree: Current status of knowledge. ACS Symposium Series, 1127(23), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2013-1127.ch001 National Environment Management Authority (NEMA). (2010). State of Environment Report, 2009/2010. Retrieved from http://www.nemaug.org/district_reports/mpigi_2010_reports.pdf

NatureUganda, (2015). Ecosystem-based approaches to Climate Change Adaptation, Local guidance. NatureUganda, Kampala, Uganda.

Naumann, S., Anzaldua, G., Berry, P., Burch, S., McKenna D., Frelih-Larsen, A., Gerdes, H., Sanders, M. (2011). Assessment of the potential of ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation in Europe. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment, Contract no. 070307/2010/580412/SER/B2, Ecologic institute and Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Centre for the Environment

Naumann, S., Davis, M., Munang, R., Andrews, J., Thiaw, I., Alverson, K., Mumba, M., Kavagi, L., Han, Z. (2013). The Social Dimension of Ecosystem-based Adaptation. UNEP, Nairobi, Kenya.

National Development Plan for Uganda (NDP). (2010). National Planning Authority, Kampala, Uganda. http://npa.ug/wp-content/themes/npatheme/documents/NDP2.pdf

Ndamani, F., Watanabe, T. (2016). Determinants of farmers’ adaptation to climate change: A micro level analysis in Ghana. Scientia Agricola, 73(3), 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-9016-2015-0163 Neurbert, S., Komm, M., Krumsiel, A., Schule, A., Tatge, N., Zeppenfeld, L. (2011). Agricultural development in a changing climate in Zambia. Increasing resilience to climate change and economic shocks in crop production. German Development Institute. Bonn Nyamwamu, B., Okello, J. J., Kironchi, G. (2012). Drivers of the transition from pastoralism to vegetable farming in Africa’s arid and semi arid areas and implications for soil fertility management: The case of Kenyan pastoralists. African Journal of Agricultural Reseearch, 7(15), 2273–2282. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJAR11.1176 Nyong, A., Adesina, F.,Osman Elasha, B. (2007). The value of indigenous knowledge in climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies in the African Sahel. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(5), 787–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9099-0

Obayelu, A., Ajayi, O., Oluwalana, E., Ogunmola, O. (2017). What Does Literature Say About the Determinants of Adoption of Agricultural Technologies by Smallholders Farmers? Agricultural Research & Technology: Open Access Journal, 6(1), 555–676. https://doi.org/10.19080/ARTOAJ.2017.06.555676

Ojo, M.A., Nmadu, J.N., Tanko, L., Olaleye, R.S. (2013). Multinomial Logit Analysis of Factors Affecting the Choice of Enterprise among S ma l l -holder Yam and Cassava Farmers in Niger State, Nigeria. Journal of Agriculture, Science and Technology, 4(1), 7-12.

Osano, P. M., Said, M. Y., de Leeuw, J., Moiko, S. S., Kaelo, D. O., Schomers, S., Ogutu, J. O. (2013). Pastoralism and ecosystem-based adaptation in Kenyan Masailand. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 5(2), 198-214. https://doi.org/10.1108/17568691311327596

Panu, U.S., Sharma, T.C. (2002). Challenges in drought research: some perspectives and future directions. Hydrological Sciences 47 (Towards Integrated Water Resources Management for Sustainable Development), 19-30.

Phuong, L. (2011). Climate Change and farmers’ adaptation: A case study of mixed-farming systems in the coastal area in Trieu Van commune, Trieu Phong district, Quang Tri province, Vietnam. Master’s Thesis in Rural development with specialization in Livelihood and natural resource management. Uppsala, Sweden. http://stud.epsilon.slu.se

Rasmussen, E.M., Dickinson, R.E., Kutzbach, J.E., Cleaveland, M.K. (1993). Climatology. Handbook of Hydrology, D. R. Maidment, Ed., McGraw-Hill, 2, 1– 2.44.

Ra ma ma s y , S., Baas, S., Pathumthani. (2007). Climate variability and change: adaptation to drought in Bangladesh - A resource book and training guide. Institutions for Rural development. Rome, Italy FAO.

Rajib Shaw, S.V.R.K.P.H.N. (2008). Drought Management Considerations for Climate Change Adaptation: Focus on the Mekong Region (Cambodia report)

Rao, K. P. C., Verchot, V. L., Laarman, J. (2007). Adaptation to climate change through sustainable management and development of agro-forestry systems. World Agroforestry Centre, Nairobi.

Reid, H., Alam, S. S. (2014). Ecosystem-based Approaches to Adaptation: Evidence from two sites in Bangladesh. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2016.1167663

Rossing, T., Ikkala, N. (2014). Generating multiple benefits from Ecosystem-based Adaptation in mountain ecosystems. UNDP.

Roscoe, J.T. (1975). Fundamental research statistics for the behavioural sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston

Ruhangawebare, G. K. (2010). Factors Affecting The Level Of Commercialization Among Cattle Keepers In The Pastoral Areas Of Uganda. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEc, (November). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.puc.cl/docview/1697473897?accountid=16788%0Ahttp://todosibuc.uc.cl/ope nurl/56PUC_INST/56PUC_INST_SP?url_ver=Z39.88- 2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&genre=preprint&sid=ProQ:ProQ%3Aabig lobal&atitle=Factors+Affecting+The+Level+Of+

Second National Development Plan 2015/16-2019/20. (2015).

Sovacool, B. K. (2011). Hard and soft paths for climate change adaptation. Climate Policy, 11(4), 1177–1183. doi:10.1080/14693062.2011.579315.

The Hunger Project. (2014).Outcome Evaluation Report. Uganda- Kiboga Epicenter. The Republic of Uganda. (2015). Uganda National Climate Change Policy, 1-67.

The Republic of Uganda. (2012). Uganda Vision2040, 1-120.

Tiwari, K. R., Rayamajhi, S., Pokharel, R. K., Balla, M. K. (2014). Determinants of the Climate Change Adaptation in Rural Farming in Nepal Himalaya. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Current Research, 2(March-April), 234–240.

Tse, Y.K., (1987). A diagnostic test for the multinomial logit model. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 5 (2), 283–86.

Tugume, P., Kakudidi, E. K., Buyinza, M., Namaalwa, J., Kamatenesi, M., Mucunguzi, P., Kalema, J. (2016). Ethnobotanical survey of medicinal plant species used by communities around Mabira Central Forest Reserve, Uganda. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethno medicine, 12 (1), 1-28.

Tumwine, G., Matovu, E., Kabasa, J.D., Owiny, D.O., Majalija, S. (2015). Human brucellosis: sero-prevalence and associated risk factors in agro-pastoral communities of Kiboga District, Central Uganda. BMC Public Health.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2016). The National Population and Housing Census- Main Report, Kampala Uganda.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Uganda National Household Survey 2009/2010 (Social economic module abridged report). Kampala: Author.

United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). (2012). Zero net land degradation, a sustainable development goal for RIO 20+ to secure the contribution of our planet’s land and soil to sustainable development, including food security and poverty eradication.pp17. UNCCD Secretariat. Bonn. Access date. 2012-05-01. URL http://www.unccd.int/Lists/SiteDocumentLibrary/Rio+20/UNCCD_PolicyBrief_ZeroNet LandDegradation.pdf

United Nations Assessment and Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNDAC). (2008). Disaster response and preparedness mission in Uganda. New York: Author

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). (2013) Report on the technical workshop on ecosystem-based approaches for adaptation to climate change. Bonn

Uy, N., Shaw, R., eds., (2012). Ecosystem-Based Adaptation (Vol. 12). Emerald Group Publishing.

Vignola, R., Harvey, C.A., Bautista-Solis, P., Avelino, J., Rapidel, B., Donatti, C., Martinez, R. (2015). Ecosystem-based adaptation for smallholder farmers: Definitions, opportunities and constraints. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 211, 126-132.

Westerman, K., Oleson, K.L.L. Harris, A.R. (2012). Building Socio-ecological Resilience to Climate change through Community-Based Coastal Conservation and Development: Experiences in Southern Madagascar. Western Indian Ocean Journal, 11, 1, 87-97.

Wilhite, D. (1993). The Enigma of Drought

Wilhite, D., Glantz, M. H. (1985). Understanding the drought phenomenon: The role of definitions. Water International, 10, 111–120.

Wilkinson, L., Engleman, L., Corter, J., Coward, M. (2011). Cluster Analysis. SYSTAT Cluster Manual, 65–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154794

World Bank. (2010). Economics of Coastal Adaptation to Climate Change http://www- wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2010/10/27/00033303 8_20101027000904/Rendered/PDF/574750Revised01stal0Zone0Adaptation.pdf

World Bank. (2013). Policy Brief : Opportunities and Challenges for Climate-Smart Agriculture in Africa (p. 8). Washington D C.

Yuan, Wen-ping. (2004). Theoretical Study and Research Prospect on Drought Indices. Advance in Earth sciences, 2004-06.

Zake, J. (2015). Smallholder Banana Farming Systems and Climate Variability: Understanding the Impacts, Adaptation and Mitigation in Mpigi District Uganda. Vienna Austria.

Zake, J., Pietsch, S. A., Friedel J. K., Zechmeister-Boltenstern, S. (2015). Can Agroforestry Improve Soil Fertility and Carbon Storage in Smallholder Banana Farming Systems? Published in the Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science. doi: 10.1002/jpln.201400281.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Survey questionnaire

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ON UTILISATION OF ECOSYSTEM-BASED ADAPTATION (EBA) OPTIONS AMONG SMALL HOLDER FARMERS IN KIBOGA DISTRICT, UGANDA This questionnaire is designed to obtain your responses on characterisation of ecosystem based adaptation options in Kiboga District. Your responses will be used for academic purposes only and are highly appreciated. A: IDENTIFICATION A1. Date of Interview A5. County A2. Start time of interview: End time of A6. Sub- County A3.interview: Interviewer Name: A7. Parish A4. Respondent/Household number: A8. Village B. RESPONDENT AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS (Tick Where Applicable) B1. Gender 1. Male 2. Female B2i) What is your Age? B2ii) Tribe: B3. What is your marital status? (Tick B4. How many years did you spend in formal education? Where Applicable) ______1. Single Please specify which level (Tick appropriate response ) 2. Married 1. None 3. Divorced 2. Nursery 4. Widowed 3. Primary 5. Others (Specify) 4. Secondary 5. Tertiary 6. University 7. Other (specify) B5. How many people are in this household? B6. Who is the final decision maker in this household? (Tick appropriate response) 1. Father 2. Mother 3. Aunt 4. Uncle 5. Other (specify) B7. What is your main Agricultural activity? B8. How long has this household been involved in farming? 1. Crop production (Number of years) 2. Livestock production 3. Both crop and livestock production 4. Others (specify) B9. Which crops do you grow and how much B10. Which animals do you rear? (Tick all that apply and do you harvest annually in Kg? (Tick all include their number) that apply) Type Number Annual crops Quantity harvested 1. Dairy Cows ______(Kg) 2. Other Cows ______1. Maize ______3. Oxen ______

2. Beans ______4. Bulls ______3. Peas ______5. Heifers ______4. Pumpkin ______6. Goats ______5. Others (specify) ______7. Sheep/lamb ______6. ______8. Pigs ______Perennial crops 9. Chicken ______1. Bananas ______10. Bees ______2. Coffee ______11. Camels ______3. Cotton ______12. Others(specify type and number) 4. Cassava ______13. 5. Mango ______6. Jackfruit ______7. Others (specify) B11. Do you ever sell any of your farm B12. If yes, what is your average annual income from your farm produce? in UGX? 1. Yes 2. No B13. What is the size of your farm? (Acres) B14. How many acres are occupied by crops/ animals? Crops Animals MANAGEMENT FACTORS Management Time: B16. Do you keep records? 1. Yes 2. No B15. How much time do you spend in a day B17. Which records do you keep?(Tick all that apply) working on your farm?(Hours) 1. Organic Fertiliser production and application 2. Labour costs 3. Budgets 4. Weather changes 5. Other (specify) Labour: B19i). How many hired farm labourers work on your B18. How many family members work on fa r m? (Number of people) your farm?(Number of people) B19ii). How much do you pay your labourers per day? (Amount in UG shillings) Knowledge/skill: Extension services: B20. How did you start acquiring B21. Do you get extension/veterinary services? 1. Yes 2. No information about farming?(Tick all that B22. If yes, which services do you get? And who is the service apply) provider of each (Tick all that apply) 1. Indigenous knowledge Service. Service 2. Family provider 3. School 1. On farm biodiversity conservation 4. Extension officers ______5. NGOs 2. Soil and water conservation 6. Other (specify) ______3. Conservation agriculture ______4. Organic farming ______5. Biological pest and disease control ______

6. Other (specify)

Source of finances: B24. Do you have an alternative source of income to supplement B23.What is the main source of finances for farming? your farming inputs?(Tick all that apply) 1. Yes 2. No B25. If yes, which one? (Tick all that apply in order of 1. None importance using roman numerals eg i, ii, iii,) Please 2. Savings specify how much you earn in UG shillings monthly 3. Family members Alternative source Importance Income 4. Fellow farmers monthly (UGX) 5. Farmer Cooperatives 1. Hand crafts e.g. mats for sale _____ 6. Other (specify) ______2. Broom making ______3. Non-baked brick making ______4. Honey production ______5. Ecotourism ______6. Recreation ______7. Herbal medicine production ______8. Making fuel efficient cook stoves ______9. Other (specify)

Membership to farmer organisations: B28. Which activities do you carry out in that B26. Do you have membership to any farmer group/organisation?(Tick all that apply) group or organisation? 1. Training on use of weather and seasonal forecasts 1. Yes 2. No 2. EbA specific information sharing 3. Training of livestock husbandry B27. If yes, which ones?(Tick all that 4. Innovative participatory farming using existing ecosystems apply) 5. Market identification (If possible, specify Name) 6. Advocacy for EbA incorporation in existing policies 1. Farmer Cooperatives 7. Women and youth involvement in ecosystem management 2. Farmer Partnerships 8. Other (specify) 3. Other (specify) B29. How often do you meet in the named B30. How many times have you participated in the named organisation (in B27) in a month? organization’s activities (in B28) this year?

Policy interventions: B32. If yes, which issues do they address?(Tick all that apply) B31. Are there any local regulations or 1. Weather and seasonal forecasts interventions concerning farmers in this 2. EbA specific information dissemination village? 3. Livestock husbandry

1. Yes 2. No 4. Participatory EbA research or innovations for farmers 5. Demographic concerns in ecosystem management e.g. youth or women participation 6. Identification of opportunities for incorporating EbA approaches into existing policies 7. Other (specify)

C. CHARACTERISATION OF EBA OPTIONS AND DETERMINANTS OF THEIR ADOPTION C1. What is the effect of drought on your household? (Tick all that apply). Humans Crops Livestock Natural resources

1. Food shortage 1.Water shortage 1. Lack of forage 1. Drying of water 2. Water Shortage 2. Death of crops 2. Livestock deaths resources 3. Loss of income 3. Decline in crop growth 3. Water shortage 2. Bush fires 4. Diseases and poor health 4. Increase incidence of 4. Increased temperatures 3. Draining of wetlands 5. Increased temperatures pests and diseases 5. Pests and diseases 4. Grazing land 6. Other (specify) 5. Increase in food prices 6. Other (specify) degradation 6. Increased temperatures 5. Other (specify) 7. Other (specify)

C2. For each of the effects ticked in C1 above, please ask the subsequent questions below:- Humans Crops Livestock Natural resources Food shortage: Water shortage: Lack of forage: Drying of water How many meals do you How long does it take for What is the total distance resources: have per day during you to fetch water? (in (in Km) that you cover How many water drought? Hours/minutes) while :- resources dry during ______drought? ______How many meals do you Death of crops: 1. looking for forage have per day when there is How many acres covered for animals during Which of these water no drought ( wet season)? by crops do you lose drought? resources below dry ______during drought? ______during drought? ______2. migrating to 1. Springs ______Water shortage: Decline in crop growth: natural resources? 2. Wells______What is the total distance How many acres covered ______3. Lakes ______(in Km or metres) that you by crops have declined in 4. Rivers ______cover while fetching water growth? How much time (Hours/ 5. Wetlands _____ during drought? ______minutes) do you spend 6. Ponds ______while searching for forage 7. Other (specify) What is the total distance for animals? ______8. (in Km or metres) that you Increase incidence of Bush fires: cover while fetching water pests and diseases: How much time (Hours/ How many bush fires do during wet season? How many crop pests or minutes) do you spend you experience during ______diseases increase during while migrating to natural drought in a year? _ drought? (Please specify resources? ______which ones) ______

Loss of income: ______Draining of wetlands: How much income (in ______How many wetlands are UGX) do you lose __ Livestock deaths: drained during drought? monthly from your farm How many animals have ______during drought? Increase in food prices: you lost due to drought? Which ones? Please ______Have you experienced (specify types) specify their names? ___ increase in food prices? 1. ______How much income (in Yes 2. No ______UGX) do you lose Water shortage: ______monthly from your farm What are the food prices What is the total distance ______when there is no drought in wet season?(per (in Km) that you cover ______(wet season)? kg/litre/bunch) while searching/fetching ______Maize______for water for animals Grazing land __ Beans______during drought? degradation: Bananas_____ Milk 1. Searching______How many grazing lands Diseases and poor ______are degraded during health: Beef______2. Fetching drought? Which diseases or Coffee______conditions are rampant in Peas______Pests and diseases: Which ones? Please your household during Others (specify) How many livestock specify their names? drought? (Specify them) diseases or pests are ______What are the food prices rampant among your ______in dry season? (per livestock during drought? ______kg/litre/bunch) (Please specify which ______Maize______ones) ______Which people are mostly Beans______affected by these diseases Bananas_____ Milk ___ in your household during ______drought? Beef______Which animals are ______Coffee______mostly affected by these ____ Peas______diseases during drought? Others (specify) ______Increased temperatures: ___ Have you experienced Have you lost any animals increase in temperatures Increased temperatures: due to these diseases? 1. this year? Have your crops Yes 2. No 1. Yes 2. No experienced increase in temperatures this year? What are the indicators of 1. Yes 2. No How many? And which increased temperatures in type? your household? What are the indicators of ______increased temperatures to ______your crops? ______

C3. For each of the following effects of drought on humans, crops and animals, what do you do to sustain your livelihood?(Tick all that apply) Effect on Food shortage Water Increased Low Income Diseases Other Humans Shortage temperatures (specify) EbA Fishing Obtain Fetch Use shades Livelihood Use Herbal Options alternative water diversification Medicine food sources Which 1.Use 1.Climbin 1. 1. Make 1. Hand crafts 1. Debarking Technique fishing g trees Pumping using natural e.g. mats for 2. Cutting s/ practices rods 2. Picking 2. resource sale 3. Uprooting do you use 2. Use 3. Hunting Fetching products like 2. Broom 4. Hunting or carry Spears 4. 3. Other papyrus, making 5. Other out for 3. Use Slaughter (specify) poles etc 3. Non-baked (specify) these fishing livestock 2. Use brick making options? nets animals already 4. Honey 4. Other 5.Grow established production (specify) food crops trees on farm 5. Ecotourism near water 3.Other 6. Board sources (specify) games like (recreation) wetlands 7. Herbal 6. medicine Livestock production lending 8. Making fuel 7. Other efficient cook (specify) stoves 9. Educate about ecosystems 10. Religious practices 11. Other (specify) Source of 1. 1. Forests 1. 1. Wetlands 1. Wetlands 1. Forests product/se Wetlands 2. Wetlands 2. Forests 2. Forests 2. Wetlands rvice/resou 2. Lakes Rangeland 2. Lakes 3. 3. Rangelands 3. rce 3. Rivers s 3. Rivers Rangelands 4.Other Rangelands 4. Springs 3. 4. Springs 4. Farmland (specify) 4. Other 5. Man Wetlands 5. Other 5. Other (specify) made fish 4. Farm (specify) (specify) ponds land 6. Other 5. Other (specify) (Specify) Practices 1.None 1. None 1.None 1. None 1. None 1. None

you do to 2. Fish 2. Harvest 2. Use 2. Avoid 2. Harvest 2. Harvest maintain only only ripe water cutting trees mature natural mature supply of mature food sparingly 3. Harvest resource natural the goods fish 3. 3. Other only mature products only resource and 3. Follow Establish (specify) resource 3. products only services harvest harvest products Domestication 3. from the regulation regulation 4. Make product Preservation above s s durable sources of the ecosystems 4. Use 4. shades 4. Involve medicine appropriat Domestica 5. Plant more women and 4. e tools te plants trees youths Domesticate 5. Other 5. 6. Other 5. Other medicine (specify) Slaughter (specify) (specify) sources only 5. Other weak/old (specify) animals 6. Lend surplus milking stock only 7. Other (specify)

What do 1. 1. 1. 1. Presence 1. Availability 1. Distance you base Distance Distance Distance of shade of raw of household on to of of of sources materials to medicinal choose the household household household 2. 2. Market resource EbAoption to to to water Availability availability of 2. Disease s? resource resource source of labour to the made type 2. 2. 2. make shades products 3. Lack of Presence Availabilit Availabilit 3. Intensity 3. Other finances of fish y of food y of labor of (specify) 4. 3. in a to fetch temperature Knowledge Knowledg resource the water increase of medicinal e of fish 3. 3. Other 4. Other sources type Knowledg (specify) (specify) 5. 4. e of food Knowledge Knowledg source of medicine e of 4. preparation fishing Knowledg methods methods e of food 6. Other 5. Other preparatio (specify) (specify) n methods 5. Other (specify)

Effect on Water shortage Death of Decline in Increase Increase Increased Other crops crops crop d Pests in food Temperature (specify) growth and prices diseases EbA Irrigatio Mulching Shift to Use of Biologica Preserve Use shades Options n ecosystem organic l pest and the food based manure disease alternative control livelihoods Which 1.Use 1. Using 1. Make 1.Use of 1. 1. Drying 1. Make sheds techniqu irrigatio grasses handcrafts fallen Do me s tic it in the using natural es/ n 2. Use of 2. Wetland leaves ate pests fa r m resource practices sprinkle leaves or cultivation from trees and without products like do you rs tree 3. Shift to 2. disease harvesting papyrus, poles use or 2. Use branches animal Decompos repellant it etc carry Waterin 3. Other farming e animal plants on 2. Drying 2. Use already out? g cans (specify) 4. dung farm it after established 3. Use Ecotourism 3. Mix 2. harvest tree shades Perforat 5. crop and Establish 2. 3. Other ed Recreation animal crops Roasting (specify) plastic 6. Other residues near pest it on fire bottles (specify) 4. Other repellant 3. Storing 4. Use (specify) plant it in Jerry sources granaries cans 5. 3.Other 4. Use (specify) Pounding Basins it with 6. Other sticks (specify 5. Other ) (specify) What is 1. 1. 1. Forests 1. 1. Forests 1. 1. Wetlands the Wetland Rangelan 2. Animals 2. Farmland 2. Forests source of s ds Wetlands on farm Rangelan 2. Forest 3. Rangelands product/ 2. Wells 2.Wetlan 3. 2. Crops ds 3. 4. Farmland service/r 3. ds Rangelands 3. Forests 3. Rangeland 5. Other esource Springs 3. Forests 4. Lakes 4. Wetlands s (specify) carry out 4. 4. Other 5. Rivers Wetlands 4. Lakes 4. this Borehol (specify) 6. Other 5. Other 5.Other Wetlands practice? es (specify) (specify) (specify) 5. Other 5. Lakes (specify) 6. Other (specify ) What 1. None 1. None 1. None 1. None 1. None 1. None 1. None practices 2. 2. Use 2. Harvest 2. Feed 2. 2. Plant 2. Avoid do you Minimal only dry only ready the Harvest drought cutting trees

do to use materials materials animals mature resistant 3. Plant more maintain 3. Avoid 3. Other 3. Protect regularly natural seeds trees supply of contami (specify) tourist 3.Other resource 3. Plant 4. Harvest goods nation attractions (specify) products early mature and of water fr o m only maturing materials for services sources degradation 3. breeds shades from the 4. 4. Other Preservat 4.Plant 5. Other above Establis (specify) ion of the more trees (specify) ecosyste h water medicine 5. Other ms use 4. (specify) regulati Domestic ons ate 5. medicine Constru sources ct water 5. Other collectio (specify) n points like ponds 6. Other (specify ) What do 1. 1. Type 1. Lack of 1. 1. 1. 1. Availability you base Distance of crops finances Availabilit Distance Availabilit of trees to on to of water 2. for basic y of raw of y of food give shade choose source Availabili needs materials househol to be 2.Labour to the EbA to ty of 2. 2.Labour d to preserved establish options? farmlan mulch Experience for medicinal 2. Type of sheds d materials of organic resource breeds 3. Type of 2. Type 3. Labour alternative manure 2. 3. crops to be of crop to obtain option production Disease Intensity given shade 3. Cost mulch 3. 3. Size of type of drought 4. Other of materials Availabilit land 3. Lack 4. Other (specify) irrigatio 4. Size of y of raw 4. Type of of (specify) n land materials crops finances 4. Size 5. Other 4. 5. Other 4. of land (specify) Availabilit (specify) Knowled 5. Other y of ge of (specify tourists medicinal ) 5. sources Availabilit 5. y of market Knowled for made ge of products medicine 6. Other preparati (specify) on

methods 6. Other (specify)

Effec Lack of forage Livestoc Water shortage Increased Pests and Diseases Othe t on k deaths temperatu r anim res (spe als cify) EbA Migratio Rotation Obtain Shift to Water Migrati Use Use Selectiv Optio n to al alternati ecosyste animals on to shades herbal e ns natural grazing ve m based fr o m water medicin breeding resource within forage alternati water sources e from s rangelan sources ve resourc natural ds livelihoo es resourc ds es Whic 1. 1.Graze 1.Collec 1. 1. Take 1. 1. Make 1. 1. Breed h Whole at t forage Honey them to Whole sheds Graze resistant Tech Family different and producti water Family using in areas animals nique Moves intervals bring to on sources Moves natural with only s/pra with 2. Herd animals 2. 2. Fetch with resource medicin 2. Cross ctices animals splitting 2. Take Making water animals products al breed do 2. Part 3.Establi animals handicra fr o m 2. Part like resourc healthy you of sh herd to fts water of papyrus, es animals use family camps foraged 3. sources family poles 2. with or moves 4. natural Harvesti and moves 2. Use Do me s t unhealth carry with Establis resource ng wild give to with already icate y ones out? animals h s food for animals animals establishe medicin 3. Other 3.Separa settleme 3. sale 3. 3.Separ d tree al (specify) tion of nt herds Livestoc 4. Shift Other ation of shades on resourc family 5. Other k to crop (specify family farm es 4.Other (specify) lending farming ) 4.Other 3. Other 3. (specify) in 5. (specif (specify) Other exchang Recreati y ) (specify e for on ) herding 6. labour Ecotouri 4. Other sm 7. (specify) Other (specify) What 1. 1.Rangel 1.Forest 1. 1. Well 1. 1. 1. 1. is the Rangela ands s Rangela 2. Wetlan Wetlands Forests Private sourc nds 2. 2.Rangel nds Spring ds 2. Forests 2. fa r ms e of 2. Forests ands 2. 3. Lake 2. 3. Rangel 2.Model prod Forests 3. Other 3.Wetla Forests 4.River Lakes Rangeland ands farmers’ uct/se 3. Other (specify) nd 3. Other 5. 3. s 3. animals rvice/ (specify) 4. Other (specify) Wetlan Rivers 4. Other Wetlan 3.Other

resou (specify) d 4. (specify) ds (specify) rce to 6. Springs 4. carry Other 5. Other out (specify Wells (specify this ) 6. ) pract Other ice? (specif y) Pract 1. None 1. None 1. None 1. None 1. None 1. None 1. None 1. None 1. None ices 2.Allow 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. 2. Avoid 2.Dome 2. you regenera Monitor Monitor Harvest Avoid Avoid cutting sticate Ensure do to tion or use of use of mature contami contam trees 3. balanced maint rangelan natural foraged natural nation ination 3. Plant Preserv diet for ain ds resource resource resource 3. 3. more trees e the animals suppl 3.Herd s s products Protect Protect 4. Harvest herbal 3.Castrat y of splitting 3. Use 3. Use only natural natural mature medicin e goods 4. indigeno indigeno 3. resourc resourc materials e unhealth and Protect us us Do me s t i es from es from for shades 4. y breeds servic natural indicator indicator cation of degrada degrada 5. Other Other 4. Sell es resource s s product tion tion (specify) (specify some from s from 4. Herd 4. resource 4. 4. ) animals the degradat splitting Do me s t i s Other Other 5. Rear a above ion 5. cation 4. (specify (specif variety ecosy 5. Other Protect 5. Avoid Involve ) y) of stems (specify) natural over women breeds resource harvesti and 6. s from ng youths Giving degradat 6. Other 5. Other tradition ion (specify) (specify) al names 6.Other to (specify) animals to trace lineage 7. Other (specify)

What 1. 1. 1. 1. Lack 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. do Distance Forage Forage of Distanc Distanc Availabilit Distanc Knowle you fr o m availabil availabil finances e from e from y of trees e of dge of base househo ity ity for basic househ househ to give househ characte on to ld 2.Numb 2.Numb needs old old shade old to ristics of choos 2.Numb er of er of 2. 2.Num 2.Num 2.Labour medicin resistant e the er of animals animals Experie ber of ber of to al breeds EbA animals 3. Type 3. Type nce of animals animals establish resourc 2. optio 3. of of alternati 3.Type 3. sheds e Presence ns? Owners animals forage ve of Labour 3. Type of 2. of hip of 4. Other availabl option animals 4. animals to Disease resistant natural (specify) e 3. 4.Owne Other be given type breeds. resource 4. Other Availabi rship of (specif shade 3. Lack 3. Other s (specify) lity of water y) 4. Other of (specify) 4. Other raw resourc (specify finance (specify) material es s for s 5.Other basic 4. (specify needs Availabi 4. lity of Knowle tourists dge of 5. medicin Availabi al lity of sources market 5. for made Knowle products dge of 6. Other medicin (specify) e prepara tion method s 6. Other (specify )

Thank you for your cooperation

Appendix 2: Focus Group Discussion Questions

FDGs Questions Name of Village: ______Parish: ______Sub County: ______Date: ______Type of Group (Tick appropriate group) a) Women farmers (Both crop and livestock) b) Men farmers ( Both crop and livestock)

1. What are the impacts of drought in this community to i) Humans

ii) Crops

iii) Livestock

iv) Natural resources

2. What ecosystem adaptation options (use of ecosystems and biodiversity) do you use to sustain your livelihoods amidst the effects of drought you have mentioned above i) For impacts on humans

ii) For impacts on crops

iii) For impacts on livestock

3. What considerations do you make while choosing those ecosystem based adaptation options mentioned above. i) Humans ii) Crops iii) Livestock 4. What are the names of the ecosystems in this community?

5. Are there any management programs for those ecosystems in this community?

6. Do you have user rights over the different ecosystems and biodiversity in this community? If yes, please specify them.

7. What Ecosystem based adaptation services/trainings/information do you get in this community?

Appendix 3: Interview guide for key informants

Interview guide for key informant Name of Key Informant: ______Title: ______Date: ______Village: ______Parish: ______Sub County: ______1. What are the effects of drought to small holder farmers in this community to:- i) Humans

ii) Crops

iii) Livestock

iv) Natural resources

2. What ecosystem adaptation options (use of ecosystems and biodiversity) do small holder farmers use to sustain their livelihoods amidst the effects of drought you have mentioned above? i) For effects on humans

ii) For effects on crops

iii) For effects on livestock

3. What considerations do these farmers make while choosing those ecosystem based adaptation options you have mentioned above? i) Humans ii) Crops iii) Livestock 4. What are the different ecosystems found in this community?

5. Are there any management programs for those ecosystems in this community? If yes, please specify them.

6. Are there any local ecosystem based adaptation regulations or policy interventions in this community? If yes, please specify them.

8. What Ecosystem based adaptation extension services/information dissemination/trainings are offered in this community?