Imp - Irrigation Master Plan 2010-2035

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT
A NATIONAL IRRIGATION
MASTER PLAN FOR UGANDA
(2010-2035)
FINAL REPORT
NOVEMBER 2011
Executive Summary
This document is being issued as the Final Deliverable of a study targeted at the preparation
of an Framework Master Plan for a reinvigorated, expanded and upgraded irrigation subsector in Uganda (hereafter called the FMP). This Executive Summary provides an overview
of the FMP in terms of:
The Current Drivers of Irrigation Development in Uganda

Objectives of Irrigation Development in Uganda
Irrigation Potential
An Enabling Policy
The Framework Master Plan
Water Availability
Financial and Economic Analysis, and the FMP Financing Plan
Next Steps
Thus:
i
Drivers of Irrigation Development

There are at least four current drivers of irrigation development in Uganda.
First among them is the National Development Plan, which calls for a transformed
Uganda society from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country within 30 years.
With this in mind, the FMP, is predicated on three kinds of irrigator:
-
Traditional Farmers which are those practicing subsistence cropping with

minimal to nil cash crops;
Emerging Farmers which are those with farming systems combining

subsistence with significant commercial cropping, and who hence are already
participating in the economy at large;
Commercial Farmers which are those for whom the greater part, if not all of
their farming systems comprises cash crops these include farmers of all size,
including those within public schemes that operate commercially oriented
farming systems.
Irrigation development enables increasing numbers of traditional farmers to become

emerging farmers; emerging farmers to increase the proportion of their commercial
production and for the numbers and scale of commercial operations to increase. Figure
i illustrates this, and identifies the changing policy thrusts necessary.
The second driver of irrigation development in Uganda is climate change. Irrigation
mitigates against decreased or intensified precipitation, while appurtenant drainage
works mitigate against increased flooding. Not only does this secure production, it also
reduces perceived risks associated with crop diversification and higher input production
systems.
Thirdly, there are the new markets in which Uganda, given an expanded irrigation subsector, can begin to compete in terms of both volume and quality. These markets
moreover are not limited to the immediate region, but include (or will include sooner,
rather than later) South Asia and indeed the entire world which is facing a looming food
security crisis caused by growing populations, land-use change in traditional producing
areas and sea level rise. Yield gap closure in the traditional producing areas that remain
ii
is not expected to fill the gap between demand and supply, so new build is going to be
essential, and many countries in Sub-Saharan Africa - Uganda included - are well
placed for this in terms of the three key factors of production (land, labour and water).
Figure i
Socio-economic Transformation in the Agricultural Sector
Finally, and closely related to the third is the increasing number of major international
investors looking to establish commercial agricultural assets in the region. Although
such investments need careful regulation if they are to have social benefits and minimal
environmental impact, an appropriate irrigation policy and FMP such as this one can
catalyse such investments by establishment an investment environmental that potential
investors consider enabling.
ii
Objectives of Irrigation Development in Uganda

Irrigation has the potential to contribute to food security, poverty alleviation and
economic growth, but given the immense potential that improved rainfed agriculture
has for food security in Uganda, the high investment costs associated with irrigation
development suggest that the sub-sector should be more oriented towards economic
growth and poverty alleviation i) at the schemes in terms of improved yields and
higher value production; and elsewhere ii) added value activities and livelihood
differentiation accruing to increased trade goods and market activity. The Overall
Objective of irrigation development in Uganda, in line with the NDP is therefore:
Poverty Alleviation and Economic Growth as a result of the sustainable
realisation of the countrys irrigation potential mitigating the effects of
climate change and contributing to the transformation of Uganda society
from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country
This Overall Objective is supported by two Subsidiary Objectives and four Immediate
Objectives as shown in Figure ii:
iii
Figure ii
The Nested Objectives of the FMP
OVERALL
OBJECTIVE
SUBSIDIARY
OBJECTIVES
IMMEDIATE
OBJECTIVES
iii
Poverty Alleviation and Economic Growth as a result of the sustainable realisation of the countrys irrigation potential
contributing to the transformation of Uganda society from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country
Irrigated agriculture contributing to poverty alleviation in
Uganda as a result of farmer managed, small scale
schemes and best practice service delivery
Increasing household incomes

and social equity
Enhanced human capital

development and
increased availability and
quality of gainful
employment
Irrigated agriculture contributing to economic growth

in Uganda as a result of an enabling investment
environment and the profitable investment in irrigated
crop production, value addition and/or service
provision
Productive use of
expanded irrigation
service infrastructure as
a result of new build and
enabling economic
instruments and
incentives
High economic water

use efficiency at basin
level
Irrigation Potential
The FMP is predicated on three land types, namely:
iv
Type A land which lies close to surface water resources on which agricultural
water can be managed without the need for storage. For the purpose of this
policy, Type A potential has been estimated to total some 295,000 ha of which
243,500 ha is intended for publicly funded development under this policy
(approximately 24,000 ha of which will be upland, and the balance managed
wetlands):
Type B land which does not lie close to surface water resources or which
cannot be fully developed in the absence of storage facilities and/or feeder
systems. For the purpose of this policy, Type B land has been estimated to total
some 272,000 ha of which approximately 9,750 ha is intended for publicly funded
development under this policy.
Off-plan land which could be either Type A or Type B, commercially

developed but with bulk service infrastructure selectively financed by
government on a demand driven basis.
An Enabling Policy
It is clearly crucial that any FMP, especially a radical and innovative one such as that
proposed herein is legitimised at policy level. A Draft Irrigation Policy, having the
same objectives as the FMP itself has therefore been articulated as an integral part of
the FMP preparation process and includes:
Guiding principles as regards:
-
The allocation and use of water resources
Investment planning and decision making
Facilitation and regulation of commercial investments
The provision of effective irrigation services
The Implementation Strategy for the FMP in:
iv
an Immediate Term lasting 4 years, and characterised by capacity building and

various studies targeted at both institutional and investment challenges and
opportunities;
a Short Term lasting 5 years, and characterised by a much needed reinvigoration

of the irrigation sub-sector;
a Medium Term lasting 5 years, and characterised by both spatial and market
expansion; and
a Long Term lasting 12 years, and characterised by increasing integration into

regional markets and beyond, coupled with increasing commercialisation of
production models.
The next section of this executive summary provide more information with respect to
the scope and nature of the implementation strategy, but it is important to note that the
draft policy also makes clear the assumptions and preconditions essential for successful
FMP implementation. These cover:
political commitment, especially as regards institutional changes (including water

rights, economic pricing of water, the need for an apex body for the sub-sector
etc.)
the need for supply and market chain infrastructure, including the provision of
facilities to add value to agricultural production, especially that produced by the
small farmers
effective operation of the countrys food reserve.
improved rural access and communications infrastructure.
crop diversification and improved soil management practices
The FMP Itself

As indicated by the scope of the draft policy, the FMP comprises a four stage strategy.
The stages themselves are intentionally consistent with the time frame adopted for the
current and future NDPs and are summarised in Figure iii. It is important to note that
although i) the capacity building, institutional measures and various studies should be
considered crucial to the success of the FMP; and ii) an increasing role for the
commercial sector (both domestic and international) is essential to the achievement of
the FMPs overall objective, the greater part of the public investments (around 75% in
fact, see section vii) are targeted at the traditional emerging farmer. These are the
building blocks not only of the agricultural sector, but of the overall economy, and will
remain so for at least the lifetime of the NDP. Also, they are clearly the prime targets
of the socio-economic shift called for by the NDP.
Accordingly, the FMP is intended to increase irrigation service delivery to such farmers
by an average of around 6.25% year over the 25 year lifetime of the plan (ie from a
baseline of just under 57,000 ha to over 253,000 ha), as compared with a business as
usual rate of under 2.7%.
The benefits moreover will not be limited to spatial expansion. The FMP also provides
for an increasing shift from simple surface irrigation to more precise methods: sprinkler
and drip. These will not only reduce pumping costs where applicable, they will also
increase savings in water rights-in-use, which could be monetised, they will also reduce
v
the sub-sectors overall demand in the context of the countrys shift to an IWRM
paradigm.
Figure iii
The Four Stages of the FMP
TIME SLICE
YEARS
KEY CHARACTERISTIC
Immediate
2011 - 2012
Capacity Building and Studies:
Short Term
2013 - 2017
Reinvigoration of the Sector:
Medium
Term
2018 - 2022
2023 - 2035
continuing demand driven development of Type A irrigation potential with new build
becoming rapidly more significant than rehabilitation;
increasing development of Type B potential; and,
the development of bulk service infrastructure.
Integration and Commercialisation:
vi
institutional measures identified and studied in the Immediate Term;

successfully appraised investments;
a fresh round of studies (investments, markets and Public Private Partnerships); and,
awareness raising and closer coordination/cooperation with the private sector (which
will include the emerging farmers as defined earlier).
Spatial and Market Expansion:
Long Term
feasibility studies for the rehabilitation of existing government schemes

scoping studies for new smallholder and bulk service schemes
demonstrations and awareness raising
institutional capacity building
scoping of options for Public Private Partnerships
reformulation of the policy legal and regulatory frameworks
deeper integration with regional and global markets

ongoing spatial expansion of both Type A and B potential;
increasing commercialisation of the sector (recall Figure 3.2) - this may involve
radical farming system diversification;
private investment in bulk service infrastructure and service delivery; and,
more Public Private Partnerships.
Institutional Arrangements
Although a detailed design for a full scale institutional restructuring and capacity
building programme is obviously beyond the scope of this FMP. It is nonetheless
necessary to understand that successful implementation of the proposed FMP will
depend on i) a strategic reformulation of institutional mandates and linkages; and ii) a
well-focussed and comprehensive capacity building programme. On the basis of a
series of stakeholder consultations, an institutional architecture has been suggested as
illustrated by Figure iv below, where it can be seen that the proposed architecture calls
for four cluster of service institution:
there are four clusters of institutions:

-
research and information

agriculture and extension
regulation
investment, infrastructure, operation and maintenance
vi
Figure iv
Indicative Institutional Arrangements Assumed by the FMP
vii
Of particular interest is the proposed Apex Body, currently thought of in terms

of a Secretariat, although the possibilities of establishing a Commission for the
purpose has been considered. The benefits of an Apex Body will include:
efficient and effective coordination and representation of the diverse
stakeholders that make up the irrigation sub-sector: These include line and
non-line ministries, each with different priorities and agendae; regulators;
farmers and farmer groups; agribusiness interests, banks and investors.
A significant reduction in the transaction costs involved in facilitating,
regulating and monitoring activities in the sub-sector, and a corresponding
increase in the efficiency of sub-sector service provision and regulation.
Increased confidence among the farming community.
A single institution to oversee implementation of the FMP characterised by
a strong understanding of and commitment to its objectives.
The opportunity to concentrate necessarily diverse subject matter
specialisation in a single body, with a single objective.
The provision of one-stop-shop services to incoming international
investors.
A highly focussed clearing house for new knowledge and the specification
of demand driven research.
vii
Water Availability
The FMP has been subjected to a detailed water audit agglomerated at basin
level, but based on district specific hydrology, agro-climatology and indicator
crops (which were recommended by MAAIF). As indicated by Table i,
implementation of the FMP is highly affordable in terms of water availability:
although trans-seasonal storage may be necessary at specific locations, and a
transparent rights based allocation mechanism will be necessary for reasons of
both equity and environmental management.
In addition to the internal water audit, the FMPs Transboundary impact has also
been assessed and found to be insignificant in terms of downstream demand, and
even so will be easily accommodated by expected increases in irrigation water
use efficiency in Sudans vastly greater irrigation sector to the North.
Table i
Water Audit for the eight main Catchments
Catchment
Total amount available for
Total gross crop water
Water demand/available
abstraction (106 m3/yr)
demand (106 m3/yr)
water (%)
2,358
46
2.0
Aswa
606
14
2.3
Lake Albert
684
1.1
Lake Edward
1,306
63
4.9
Lake Kyoga
4,621
302
6.5
Lake Victoria
2,192
89
4.1
Victoria Nile
1,181
45
3.8
116
1.2
Albert Nile
Kidepo
viii
viii
Financial and Economic Analysis and the FMP Financing Plan

The overall costs and benefits of the proposed FMP are set out in Table ii and
illustrated by Figure v, where shows that over 75% of the expected budget is
dedicated to publicly funded investments which the FMP targets mainly at the
traditional and emerging farmer.
The table is largely self-explanatory except for the Private Sector Leverage
Fund. Experience in other countries suggests that large commercial investments
are more likely to take place when government itself is prepared to cover or
share the costs of enabling service infrastructure such as dams or feeder canals
systems in order to attract commercial investment. For instance Tanzanias
National Irrigation Development Fund is predicated on the principle that an
investment in such infrastructure catalyses a commercial investment of around
three times that of Government, hence leverage. Such infrastructure is
potentially wide ranging in nature and could include dams; bulk irrigation
service infrastructure; grid connections and cold chains etc.
Table ii
Summary of Costs and Benefits

TERM
ITEM
immediate
short
medium
long
continuation
TOTAL
19,212.50
8,562.50
1,822.50
2,500.00
32,097.50
public cost of infrastructure
2,407.56
33,450.82
103,445.66
1,146,669.71
850,027.99
2,136,001.74
private sector leverage fund
17,224.74
86,123.72
86,123.72
206,696.92
96,169.09
total Government
38,844.81
128,137.03
191,391.88
1,355,866.62
850,027.99
2,564,268.33
farmers cost contribution
1,753.80
4,292.11
39,330.44
27,877.93
73,254.28
operation and maintenance
3,557.75
19,882.59
490,306.52
1,208,269.45
1,722,016.32
production costs
32,883.76
162,531.03
2,664,195.15
6,262,575.28
9,122,185.22
total producers
38,195.31
186,705.73
3,193,832.11
7,498,722.66
10,917,455.82
OVERALL TOTAL COSTS
38,844.81
166,332.34
378,097.61
4,549,698.74
8,348,750.65
13,481,724.15
115,566.85
584,302.12
10,195,906.51
24,165,230.82
35,061,006.30
-38,844.81
-50,765.50
206,204.51
5,646,207.78
15,816,480.17
21,579,282.15
Government costs
Producers' costs
Revenues
CASH FLOW
The cashflow set out in Table ii was subjected to a financial and macroeconomic analysis. Its Financial Internal Rate of Return was fixed at 30% (and
achieved as such by setting the annual leverage fund allocations accordingly),
which corresponds to an Economic Rate of Return of 45%. The large jump from
financial to economic RR is explained by the shadow prices associated with the
high proportion of exports and/or import substitution expected to accrue to the
FMP.
FMP sensitivity to increased costs (plus 10% and 20%), decreased revenues
(minus 10% and 20%) and delayed revenues (income stream delayed in relation
to costs by 1 year and two years). The risks, which are illustrated in Figure vi
ix
are well within acceptable limits, and in any case can be manipulated by
changing the scale of the Private Sector leverage Fund.
Figure v
Distribution of Public FMP Costs by Budget Class
1.87%
institutional capacity
building
23.11%
public cost of
infrastructure
private sector
leverage fund
75.02%
Figure vi
Reduction Percentages of Base Case EIRRs Resulting from Reduced Revenues, Increased Costs
and Delayed Revenues
The FMP financing plan is illustrated by Table iii and Figure vii which indicates
a gradual reduction in public commitment in favour of user financing, especially
in terms of recurring costs.
Table iii
The FMP Financing Plan

TERM
ITEM
immediate
short
medium
long
capacity building
4,803
1,713
365
208
infrastructure (new)
602
6,690
20,689
93,857
infrastructure (replacement)
1,699
private sector leverage
17,224.7
17,224.7
17,224.7
17,224.7
continuation
Financed by Government
-
56,669
-
Table iii
The FMP Financing Plan

TERM
ITEM
immediate
short
medium
long
continuation
capital cost contribution (new)
351
858
3,219
capital cost contribution (replacement)
58
1,859
712
3,977
40,859
92,944
Financed by Beneficiaries
Figure vii
ix
Annual Financing Requirements of the FMP (Ugx106)
Next Steps
The key next steps themselves fall into two categories. First are those that will
have to be taken at Ministerial level, there are two of these. Most pressing is
finalisation and promulgation of the Irrigation Policy presented as a draft in
Annex 1, after which the decision to proceed with the FMP implementation can
be made. Both of these tasks require early buy-in by the Minister, hence a
detailed and comprehensive briefing process may be necessary.
Second are the transitional studies which will help the FMP to get off to a good
start. There are four, three of which will add value to the sub-sector even if it is
decided not to proceed with the FMP while the fourth is essential to its success:
xi
1.
concerns streamlining of the Analytical which is not a deliverable of the

FMP study, but rather a tool developed by the consultant as a means by
which to organise and process the vast and complex data necessary to
model and analyse the sub-sector;
2.
is an institutional design for the proposed Apex Body
3.
is preparation of a position paper on Public Private Partnerships in

irrigated production and service delivery: Annex 5 provides a generic
discussion of the essential issues, but does not transform these into serious
opportunities for investors in Uganda
4.
Is the preparation of a detailed implementation plan for the FMP, this will
largely involve the preparation of contracts for the first round of FMP
activities which will include scoping for new schemes; various capacity
building initiatives; studies addressing the soft institutions; awareness
raising; design and procurement of the proposed remote sensing networks;
detailed design of the Private Sector Leverage Fund and the establishment
of the FMP implementation monitoring framework.
xii
Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii
List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xvii
Key Definitions and Caveats ........................................................................................................ xix
PART 1
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ........................................................................... 1
1 IRRIGATION, POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH IN UGANDA ... 2

2 THE IRRIGATION FRAMEWORK MASTER PLAN ............................................................. 3
3 THIS DOCUMENT .................................................................................................................... 5
PART 2
UNLOCKING UGANDAS IRRIGATION POTENTIAL ........................................ 7
4 CURRENT STATUS OF THEIRRIGATION SUB-SECTOR SECTOR ................................. 8

4.1 Currently Irrigated Crops ........................................................................................................ 8
4.2 Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Stakeholders and Institutions ................................................................................................ 10
4.3.1
At the Centre ............................................................................................................. 10
4.3.2
At the Decentralised Level ........................................................................................ 11
4.3.3
At the Farm Level ...................................................................................................... 11
4.4 Markets.................................................................................................................................. 11
4.5 Contribution of the Sub-Sector ............................................................................................. 15
4.6 Constraints............................................................................................................................. 16
4.7 Current Initiatives.................................................................................................................. 17
4.7.1 Integration of Climate Change Issues Into Sustainable Agricultural Advisory
Services ............................................................................................................................. 17
4.7.2
Karamoja Livelihoods Programme (KALIP) ............................................................ 17
4.7.3
Agri-Business Initiative: The U-Growth Programme ............................................... 18
4.7.4
Farm Income Enhancement and Forestry Conservation Project.............................. 18
5 THE STRATEGIC RELEVANCE OF IRRIGATION TO UGANDA .................................... 19

5.1 The National Development Plan ........................................................................................... 19
5.2 Irrigation and Socio-Economic Transformation.................................................................... 23
5.3 Possible Objectives for Reinvigorated Irrigation in Uganda ................................................. 24
5.3.1
Why Irrigation is Needed? ........................................................................................ 24
5.3.2
Poverty Alleviation .................................................................................................... 26
5.3.3
Economic Growth...................................................................................................... 27
5.4 Climate Change ..................................................................................................................... 28

5.5 Key Issues for Ugandas Irrigation Development Strategy ................................................... 30
5.5.1
Physical Investments ................................................................................................. 30
5.5.1.1
Sweating the Assets ............................................................................................... 30
5.5.1.2
New Build .............................................................................................................. 30

xiii
5.5.1.3
Bulk Service Infrastructure ................................................................................... 31
5.5.1.4
Ancillary Investments ............................................................................................ 32
5.5.1.5
Investment Strategy ............................................................................................... 32
5.5.2
Water Resources Management .................................................................................. 33
5.5.3
Institutions ................................................................................................................. 35
6 UGANDA'S IRRIGATION POTENTIAL ............................................................................... 37

6.1 Land....................................................................................................................................... 37
6.2 Water ..................................................................................................................................... 40
6.2.1
ET0/Pe Ratios ............................................................................................................. 40
6.2.2
Surface Water ............................................................................................................ 41
6.2.2.1
In-Stream ............................................................................................................... 41
6.2.2.2
Wetlands ................................................................................................................ 42
6.2.3
Groundwater ............................................................................................................. 43
6.2.4
Total Water................................................................................................................ 43
6.2.4
The Nile Basin ........................................................................................................... 44
6.3 Markets.................................................................................................................................. 45
6.4 Crops ..................................................................................................................................... 45
7 A FRAMEWORK MASTERPLAN FOR IRRIGATION IN UGANDA ................................. 47
7.1 The Framework Approach .................................................................................................... 47
7.2 The Objectives Axis .............................................................................................................. 48
7.3 The Sub-sector Axis .............................................................................................................. 48
7.4 The Time Axis....................................................................................................................... 48
PART 3
THE FRAMEWORK MASTER PLAN.................................................................... 51
8 THE NEED FOR A FRAMEWORK MASTER PLAN AND A LEGITIMISING POLICY .. 52

9 UGANDAS IRRIGATION FRAMEWORK MASTER PLAN .............................................. 56
9.1 The Analytical Tool and Sector Expansion Model ............................................................... 56
9.2 Institutional Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................ 61
9.2.1
Principles .................................................................................................................. 61
9.2.2
Arrangements ............................................................................................................ 62
9.3 The Framework Itself ............................................................................................................ 64

9.3.1
Immediate Capacity Building, Studies and Investigations ..................................... 64
9.3.2
Short Term Reinvigoration of the Sector ................................................................ 69
9.3.3
Medium Term - Spatial and Market Expansion ........................................................ 70
9.3.4
Long Term Integration and Commercialisation ..................................................... 72
9.3.5
The Completed Framework ....................................................................................... 73
10 DETAILED ANALYSIS BY CATCHMENT .......................................................................... 78

11 WATER AUDIT ....................................................................................................................... 95
xiv
12 SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ........................................... 100

13 COSTS AND BENEFITS ....................................................................................................... 104
13.1
Rationale and Methodology ........................................................................................ 104
13.1.1
Institutional Capacity Building ........................................................................... 104
13.1.2
Cost Elements of Publicly Funded Irrigation Development................................ 108
13.1.3
Irrigation Investment and Recurring Costs ......................................................... 110
13.1.4
Operation and Maintenance of Publicly Funded Irrigation ............................... 110
13.1.5
Private Sector Schemes: the Leverage Fund ....................................................... 110
13.1.6
Crop Budgets ....................................................................................................... 111
13.2
Consolidated Costs and Benefits ................................................................................. 115
14 MACRO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 116

14.1
Methodology ............................................................................................................... 116
14.1.1
The Difference Between Financial and Economic Rates of Return .................... 116
14.1.2
Derivation of the Shadow Pricing Factors.......................................................... 116
14.2
Results ......................................................................................................................... 119
14.2.1
Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................. 119
14.2.2
Incremental Benefits ............................................................................................ 119
15 MOVING FORWARD ........................................................................................................... 122

15.1
Recapitulation of Main Arguments ............................................................................. 122
15.2
Implementation, Financing and Cost Recovery Plans................................................. 123
15.2.1
Logframe and Implementation Plan .................................................................... 123
15.2.2
Financing and Cost Recovery ............................................................................. 136
15.3
Maintaining Momentum .............................................................................................. 136
15.3.1
Necessary Ministerial Action .............................................................................. 136
15.3.2
Transitional Studies............................................................................................. 137
15.3.2.1
Refinement of the Analytical Tool ....................................................................... 137
15.3.2.2
Legal Framework Review.................................................................................... 138
15.3.2.3
Institutional Design for the Apex Secretariat ...................................................... 138
15.3.2.4
Position Paper on Public Private Partnerships in Irrigation ............................. 139
15.3.2.5
Detailed Implementation Plan for the FMP ........................................................ 139
15.4
Closing Comments ...................................................................................................... 142
ANNEX 1
DRAFT IRRIGATION POLICY ............................................................................ 144
A1.1
Context ........................................................................................................................ 144
A1.2
Policy Objectives......................................................................................................... 146
A1.3
Fundamental Guiding Principles ................................................................................. 147
A1.3.1
Allocation and Use of Water Resources.............................................................. 147
A1.3.2
Investment Planning and Decision Making......................................................... 148

xv
A1.3.3
Facilitation and Regulation of Commercial Investments .................................... 149
A1.3.4
The Provision of Effective Irrigation Services .................................................... 150
A1.4
Implementation Strategy ............................................................................................. 151
A1.4.1
Immediate Term: 4 years..................................................................................... 151
A1.4.2
Short Term: 5 years ............................................................................................. 152
A1.4.3
Medium Term: 5 years ........................................................................................ 153
A1.4.4
Long Term. 12 years ........................................................................................... 154
A1.5
Assumptions and Preconditions .................................................................................. 155
ANNEX 2
THE SAMPLE AREA APPROACH ...................................................................... 157
ANNEX 3
THE WATER AUDIT ............................................................................................ 181
ANNEX 4
DETAILED COSTS AND BENEFITS .................................................................. 185
ANNEX 5
IRRIGATION SECTOR PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS .......................... 191
xvi
List of Abbreviations
AfDB
African Development Bank
CAADP
Common African Agricultural Development Programme
CICS
Competitive and Investment Climate Strategy
DNIMP
Draft National Irrigation Master Plan
DoWfP
Department of Water for Production
DRC
Democratic Republic of Congo
DSIP
Development Strategy and Investment Plan
EIRR
Economic Internal Rate of Return
FAO
Food and Agriculture Organisation (of the United Nations)
FDI
Foreign Direct Investment
FIRR
Financial Internal Rate of Return
FMP
Framework Master Plan
FOREX
Foreign Exchange
GDP
Gross Domestic Product
ICT
Information and Communications Technology
IFAD
International Fund for Agricultural Development
IPCC
Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change
ISFG
Integrated Support to Farmers' Groups
IWMI
International Water Management Institute
IWRM
Integrated Water Resources Management
MAAIF
Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
MFPED
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development
MIS
Management Information System
MWE
Ministry of Water and the Environment
NAPA
National Plan of Action
NBI
Nile Basin Initiative
NDP
National Development Plan
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
OPM
Office of the Prime Minister
PPP
Public Private Partnership
ToR
Terms of Reference
UBOS
Uganda Bureau of Statistics
WfP
Water for Production

xvii
WfPSIP
Water for Production Sector Investment Plan
WS&S
Water Supply and Sanitation
xviii
Key Definitions and Caveats

It is likely that nomenclature used in this document might mean different things to
different stakeholders. In order to avoid ambiguity or misunderstandings therefore,
the following definitions apply herein.
The Government uses the term sector when referring to recognised components of
the economy, ie transport sector, agriculture sector etc. There is however, no official
meaning attached to the term sub-sector. Nonetheless, in the absence of a suitable
alternative Government has authorised its use in this document to define the portion of
the agricultural sector that benefits from irrigation infrastructure and services.
Agricultural Water Management refers to all man-made measures taken to
maintain root zone moisture at the optimal conditions for crop growth. In general,
these measures vary with service level as do those responsible for providing them as
illustrated by Figure ii where:
Irrigation is the practice of maintaining root zone moisture at levels

necessary to ensure optimal growth conditions for a given crop at a particular
stage of growth when soil moisture would otherwise be inadequate. Irrigation
Infrastructure comprises the physical works necessary to abstract water from
its natural location to the root zone of the crop. However, storage works are
only defined as Irrigation Infrastructure in the unlikely event they are built
exclusively to store irrigation water.
Supplementary Irrigation is a somewhat loosely applied term that refers to

irrigation practised in areas with reasonable but inadequate or unreliable rainfall,
and can be thought of as a means by which to add value to whatever rainfall is
received.
Drainage is the practice of maintaining root zone moisture at levels

necessary to ensure optimal growth conditions for a given crop at a particular
stage of growth when soil moisture would otherwise be excessive. Drainage
Infrastructure comprises the physical works necessary to convey excess water
from the root zone to the natural drainage system and can involve the use of
natural or artificial wetlands to purify water that is polluted with farm chemicals
and the like.
Terracing describes physical measures taken to divide rolling topography into

step-like layers in order to slow down or intercept surface run-off thereby
increasing percolation rates and reducing the risk of soil erosion.
Water harvesting describes simple physical and operational measures to

divert and/or store water for the purpose of irrigation (and other uses) and is
usually characterised by its highly localised nature, low costs and suitability for
community based implementation.
Agro-forestry is the practice of incorporating trees into a farming system in

order to reduce advective energy (and depending on the variety of tree, to
provide timber, fuel, fodder, fertiliser and fibre etc)
Farming system diversification in the context of this document refers to a

shift away from crops and/or husbandry regimes that do not represent the most
productive use of natural resources, infrastructure and services to ones that do.
xix
Such shifts are unlikely in the absence of enabling measures that convince risk
averse farmers that the shift does not expose them to more risks than they
currently perceive.
For convenience hereafter, and unless the context calls for specificity, the term
Irrigation is used to describe the full gamut of agricultural water management
measures that lie within the scope of this Framework Master Plan1. These are
identified by blue text in Figure I, where drainage includes works necessary to manage
wetlands.
Figure ii
Irrigation Measures and Service Provision
Evapotranspiration denotes the total amount of water physically evaporating from

the soil and physiologically evaporated (transpired) by the crop. Reference Crop
Evapotranspiration (ET0) is defined as the evapotranspiration rate from a reference
surface that is not short of water. Usually the reference surface is assumed to be a
hypothetical grass crop. Crop Evapotranspiration (ETc) is the evapotranspiration
1
This does not compromise however, the significance of the items identified by brown. As will be argued in the Main
Text (sub-section 5.3), irrigation should be targeted primarily at localized poverty alleviation and general economic
growth, leaving food security gains to be achieved largely in the rainfed sector, which has declined in productivity in
recent years due largely to poor soil management and low-input farming systems. It will be clear that i) restoration
of organic material in the root zone; agro-forestry; farming system diversification and terracing etc, are not only
crucial for increasing the returns of irrigated agriculture but also for improving rainfed yields.
xx
from a specific disease-free, adequately fertilised crop grown in a large field under
conditions of optimum soil moisture and achieving full production under the given
climatic conditions. Crop evaporation, which is growth stage dependent is estimated
from the reference crop evapotranspiration using Crop Factors that are specific
both to the crop in question and its stage of growth.
Effective Rainfall (Pe) is the portion of rainfall that remains available to a plants
root zone during or after a precipitation event and Irrigation Water Requirement is
the difference between the amount of water needed to maintain optimal soil moisture
conditions and the amount represented by effective rainfall.
In common with similar studies in Uganda and elsewhere, this framework Master Plan
is predicated on:
three kinds of farmer

-
Traditional Farmers which are those practicing subsistence cropping

with minimal to nil cash crops;

subsistence with significant commercial cropping, and who hence are
already participating in the economy at large;
Commercial Farmers which are those for whom the greater part, of not
all of their farming systems comprises cash crops these include farmers
of all size, including those within public schemes that operate
commercially oriented farming systems.
two kinds of investor:
the public sector (comprising government and to whatever extent is considered

expedient, its development partners) and
a well regulated commercial sector (comprising both national and international
players).
Two kinds of institution:

-
Hard institutions which include public sector institutions in the form of

relevant official stakeholders at every level of the civil administrative
hierarchy, plus where water is managed on a basin basis, at every level of
the hydrocracy. They will also include farmer organisations and private
sector service providers and investors in service infrastructure.
Soft institutions which are the policies, laws, regulations and incentives
that ensure the smooth and equitable running of the sector, attract new
players into it and guarantee the sustainability of the natural resource base
on which it depends.
Three land types, namely:

-
Type A land which lies close to surface water resources on which

agricultural water can be managed without the need for storage. For the
purpose of this policy, Type A potential has been estimated to total some
295,000 ha of which 243,500 ha is intended for publicly funded
development under this policy (approximately 24,000 ha of which will be
upland, and the balance managed wetlands):
xxi
Type B land which does not lie close to surface water resources or
which cannot be fully developed in the absence of storage facilities and/or
feeder systems. For the purpose of this policy, Type B land has been
estimated to total some 272,000 ha of which approximately 9,750 ha is
intended for publicly funded development under this policy.

five types of infrastructure:

-
Small Scale schemes which will be simple gravity fed schemes, usually
beginning close to the water source. Sprinkler and drip technology on
these schemes will typically be low tech, and in the case of drip for
instance, mainly charged by treadle pumps.
Formal Government Type A schemes which will be similar in concept to

small scale schemes in that they will be situated close to the water sources,
but will require pumped withdrawal facilities at the water source and be
generally, will be larger. Any irrigation technology such as sprinkler and
drip will also be more sophisticated.
Government Type B schemes which will be similar in concept to Type A

except that they will be situated further from the water sources, and will
require not only pumped abstraction systems but also feeder systems and
possibly storage. Irrigation technology such as sprinkler and drip will also
be more sophisticated.
Managed (seasonal) wetlands which will generally be used only for rice,
although, there will be some local opportunities for a quick short season
legume crop taken off the residual moisture.
Private Sector schemes which will comprise schemes which are entirely
financed by purely commercial interests and as a result are beyond the
scope of the FMP except that, in order to attract such investments,
Government may decide to invest in bulk service infrastructure (dams and
large feeder systems for instance).
And finally, this Framework Master Plan assumes
two kinds of funding allocation:

-
On-plan which covers publicly funded investments, planned and

prepared in advance (at the demand of and with the participation of the
stakeholders)
and
-
Leverage which is an unallocated budgetary provision that will allow

Government to fund any infrastructure considered necessary to encourage
and/or facilitate private investment in irrigated agriculture or irrigation
service provision, but which is not included in the On-plan works.
Usually, such infrastructure will be developed on the basis of expressed
demand from the potential private investor(s).
xxii
A National Irrigation Master Plan for Uganda (2010 - 2035)

Volume 1 Main Text
VOLUME 1
MAIN TEXT

Volume 1 Main Text
PART 1
BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Volume 1 Main Text
IRRIGATION, POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH

IN UGANDA
The overall vision of Ugandas Draft National Development Plan (see section 5
below) is a transformed Uganda society from a peasant to a modern and
prosperous country within 30 years. Its eight objectives have between them a
strong focus a/o on poverty alleviation and economic growth in the context of
the sustainable use of the countrys natural resources. Water for production is
among the priority interventions/investments, and although this includes industry
and power generation, agriculture (including fisheries and livestock) is the major
consumer of water for production.
Domestic agriculture remains the mainstay of Ugandas food security at both the
household and national levels, and has been a significant contributor to gross
domestic product (24%), to export revenues (estimated at 48%) as well as
providing a livelihood for over 70% of the population. The sector however, is
dominated by rainfed farming systems:
the viability of which is becoming increasingly compromised by climate

change;
the productivity of which is reducing in the case of some crops, due to a

variety of constraints both technical and institutional;
and
the ability of which to contribute to national food security is decreasing due

to one of the highest population growth rates in the world.
Yet despite the fact that improved irrigation can mitigate climate change risk;
facilitate the concentration of support services (and hence reduce the unit costs of
improved service provision); and obviate the perceived risks of diversified or
intensified farming, only some 14,420 ha is understood to have been equipped for
formal irrigation and with another 53,000 ha or so of managed wetlands. And
this is despite Ugandas plentiful water resources at least at the national level.
Estimates of Ugandas spatial potential for improved irrigation vary from 170,000
ha to over 560,000 (see sub-section 6.1 below), whereas the total potential arable
area is some 4,400,000 ha. The difference between the two represents, of course,
the rainfed potential. It will be obvious therefore that the irrigated portion of the
agriculture sector is always going to be small in relation to rainfed farming with
or without climate change but that is more relevant to food security strategies
than poverty alleviation and economic growth (this is discussed in detail in
Chapter 5). For poverty alleviation and economic growth, an invigorated,
intensified and expanded irrigated sub-sector represents very significant potential.

Volume 1 Main Text
THE IRRIGATION FRAMEWORK MASTER PLAN

Accordingly the Government has prepared a National Irrigation Framework
Master Plan with consultancy support. The study had four formal deliverables:
The first was a Preliminary Report intended to include results of a rapid
assessment of the draft Irrigation Master Plan (draft 2 at the commencement of
the consultancy) and other reports provided to the Consultant. The Preliminary
Report was also required to address - a/o details of the pertinent key technical,
institutional, socio economic and environmental issues to be taken into
consideration during the study, in addition to detailed an explicit methodology,
work plan, staff organisation and schedules. The final version of this report was
delivered in early June 2010 and covered:
an analytical description of the current status of the Ugandan irrigation sub

sector in terms of the physical infrastructure, the institutional landscape and
prevailing constraints;
a review of the National Development Plan paying particular regard to its

pronouncements with respect to irrigation;
a detailed assessment of the countrys irrigation potential and its relevance

to the objectives of the National Development Plan: inter-alia, this
assessment discussed serious questions i) about why expanded irrigation is
necessary and ii) about the nature of an appropriate development strategy
for the sector;
an outline investment framework that mapped development objectives onto

a sector typology over the immediate, short, medium and long terms;
and
an assessment of key issues arising from the baseline literature review.
The second deliverable comprised a First Draft National Irrigation Master Plan
and was initially issued in September 2010 and as per the study ToR comprised
an elaboration of the preliminary report including:
a more detailed commentary on the current status of the sector as regards

crops, infrastructure, stakeholders and institutions, markets, economic
contribution, constrains and current initiatives in progress;
the strategic relevance of irrigation in terms of the National Development

Plan, socio-economic transformation, sectoral objectives and key strategic
issues as they concern physical investments, water resources management
and institutions;
a more detailed assessment of the countrys irrigation potential in terms of

land, water, climate, the Nile Basin, markets and crops;
and
a more detailed version of the proposed investment framework.

Volume 1 Main Text
An updated version of this report was then issued in December 2010 once
stakeholder comments and suggestions had been received, at which point key
stakeholders defined the sectors expansion parameters (see section 9.1)
The third deliverable comprised the Draft Final Master Plan and was issued in
June 2011.
This document and its supporting Annexes is the fourth deliverable and
comprises the actual final master plan.

Volume 1 Main Text
THIS DOCUMENT
This document is the final deliverable and although largely based on the third it
includes a lot of new material and expanded discussions of issues of particular
interest. The Main Text has three parts, of which this Chapter ends the first.
PART 2 comprises a revised version of the second deliverable and presents an
analysis of Ugandas irrigation potential in terms of its relevance to the
Objectives of the current National development Plan and the markets for irrigated
produce. In so doing, it suggests answers to several important institutional
questions and closes by proposing and explaining an Investment Framework
approach to plan formulation. There are four chapters as follows:
Chapter 4 examines the current status of Ugandas irrigated sub-sector in

terms of the current baseline; its infrastructure and stakeholders; the market
for irrigated produce; the sub-sectors contribution to the national economy;
constraints and current initiatives relevant to the sector.
Chapter 5 assesses the strategic relevance of irrigation in Uganda using

criteria suggested by the National Development Plan: it then goes on to
propose objectives for an invigorated sub-sector before closing with a
section introducing the key issues that would need to be addressed in order
for those objectives to be achieved.
Chapter 6 quantifies Ugandas irrigation potential in terms of land, water,

markets and crops.
Chapter 7 ends Part 2 by explaining the Investment Framework approach

before defining the frameworks axes as agreed by the key stakeholders.
PART 3 presents Ugandas irrigation sector Framework Master Plan (FMP) and
has 8 chapters as follows:
Chapter 8 provides a bridge from the analytical material comprising Part 2

to the FMP itself. It begins by setting out why a plan is needed in the first
place before presenting an assessment of the institutional challenges and
opportunities that need to be faced during and as part of FMP
implementation.
Chapter 9 begins with a discussion of the Analytical Tool developed for the
purpose of this study and of the sub-sector expansion model used to drive
the tool. It then proceeds to enunciate certain key institutional principles
before proposing institutional arrangements that respond to the institutional
challenges and opportunities identified in Chapter 8 and does so in a way
that is consistent with those principles. Finally the investment framework
defined in Chapter 7 is applied to the Ugandan irrigation sub-sector.
Chapter 10 presents summaries of key parameters (areas and costs by type

of irrigation) that illustrate the results of the irrigation expansion at district
level but consolidated into catchments as is consistent with the principles of
IWRM.
Chapter 11 in like manner presents the results of a catchment by catchment

water audit to which the FMP was subjected.
5

Volume 1 Main Text
Chapter 12 then describes the rigorous and mandatory social and

environmental impact assessments that should be carried out when
developing and operating irrigation infrastructure. It closes by suggesting
an assessment matrix that could be used for this purpose.
Chapter 13 summarises the implementation costs of the FMP and the

benefits expected to accrue as a result. It has two sections. The first sets
out the rationale and methodology used when developing the costs and
benefits which are presented in consolidated form in the second.
Chapter 14 provides an indication of the expected economic performance

of the FMP and does on the basis of a macro-economic and sensitivity
analyses which itself is described in the chapter.
Chapter 15 ends the Main Text by recapitulating the reasons why an FMP
is needed. It then goes on to present the FMP in the form of a logical
framework and implementation programme, along with a financing and cost
recovery plan before closing with a clear statements of i) the immediate
steps to be taken at Ministerial level to generate and maintain momentum
and ii) specifications for transitional studies that could usefully be
undertaken during validation and approval of the FMP by Government..
The Main Text is supported by 5 Annexes.
Annex 1 comprises a Draft Irrigation Policy for the consideration of

Government.
Annex 2. supports Chapters 9 and 13 by describing in detail the sample area

costing methodology used for the study.
Annex 3 supports Chapter 11 by providing the detailed results of the water

audit, also by catchment
Annex 4 presents the detailed cash flow derivation for the entire FMP
Annex 5 provides a generic discussion of Public Private Partnerships in

irrigated production and service delivery and does so in a way that raises
important questions for Uganda.

Volume 1 Main Text
PART 2
UNLOCKING UGANDAS IRRIGATION POTENTIAL

Volume 1 Main Text
CURRENT STATUS OF THEIRRIGATION SUB-SECTOR SECTOR
4.1
Currently Irrigated Crops

Reliable data on irrigated cropping in Uganda is not readily available; but
according to field work carried out under the auspices of FAOs programme
Project GCP/INT/945/ITA: Information Products for Nile Basin Water
Resources Management crops currently known to be irrigated in Uganda include
fruits, maize, rice sesame, sugar-cane and vegetables.
Table 4.1 lists the irrigated crops for

which yield data has proved readily
YIELDS (tonnes/ha)
available; the range of reported yields; and
RANGE REPORTED
In
an estimate of potential yields.
CROP
lower
upper
ACHIEVABLE
addition, it is known (as per Figure 4.1
Fruit
19.0
not known
>20
below) that other high value crops such
maize
2.0
2.0
8 as flowers and horticultural crops are
rice
1.0
5.0/1
>5 being grown under irrigation by the
sesame
2.4
2.8 this is already high private sector for export, bringing in
foreign exchange: but no productivity data
sugar cane
18.0
18.5/2
>25
is to hand at the time of writing. What is
vegetables
8.5
15.6
>30
clear however, even from this cursory data
Notes :
if reliable, is that most of the crops
1
The FAO data suggests 3.5, but field work carried out during irrigated on the public schemes are underthe study confirmed that higher yields are being achieved on
performing at least on the existing
both public and private schemes
2
It is assumed that this is sucrose, not cut cane weight, and public schemes. In addition to limited
can be regarded as already high, despite the achievable serviceability at typical irrigation schemes
level..
(see next sub-section) and climate change,
other important reasons for this include loss of organic materials, low input
farming and sub-optimal farming systems. If the FMP is to perform optimally
these other reasons will have to be addressed.
Table 4.1
4.2
Irrigated Yields in Uganda Compared with Potential
Infrastructure
Figure 4.1 shows where Ugandas irrigation currently takes place (obtained from
the NBI Trans-boundary Project 2008 data). According to the 2nd Draft
Irrigation Master Plan (DNIMP) only 5% of the irrigation potential areas have
been developed comprising: five government irrigation schemes and small scale
irrigation of paddy rice.
According to the same source, the land under formal irrigation is 14,418 ha as
shown in Table 4.2 below. This does not include the rice which is grown under
an estimated 53,000 ha of informal irrigation on managed wetlands in Tororo,
Buteleja, Pallisa, Budaka and Iganga where swamps around streams flowing into
lake Kyoga have been developed for irrigation by local groups of farmers or
commercial interests. With this in mind it should be noted that managed wetland
is acknowledged to be a form of irrigation in the Common African Agricultural
Development Programme and as such is appropriate for inclusion in a planning
exercise such as this.
It is clear from these sources that the formal public schemes are performing suboptimally. Reasons for this will be explored below in Section 4.6.
8

Volume 1 Main Text
Figure 4.1
Table 4.2
Location of Ugandas Irrigation Schemes
Summary of Existing Irrigation in Uganda
TYPE OF IRRIGATION SCHEME
AREA
(ha)
Small-scale irrigation
COMMENTS
300
Govt. Irrigation Schemes

Mubuku Irrigation Settlement Scheme
Doho Rice Scheme
Olweny Swamp Irrigation Scheme
Agoro
Kiige
Commercial plantations
516
830
500
130
60
Cultivation methods, flooding, water logging.
To be rehabilitated under Farm Income Project funded by ADB
Flooding. Siltation of canals, deterioration of headworks,
Flooding system
Pumping costs. Water control and available.
Only half operational.
Not yet operational
5,282

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 4.2
Summary of Existing Irrigation in Uganda
TYPE OF IRRIGATION SCHEME
AREA
(ha)
Sub-total
7,618
Commercial, partial irrigation (Kakira)
6,800
GRAND TOTAL
4.3
COMMENTS
14,418
Stakeholders and Institutions

Before
proceeding
to Figure 4.2 On-farm and Off-farm Irrigation Works
discuss
the
current
institutional arrangements
in the irrigation sub-sector
it is necessary to establish a
distinction between offfarm and on-farm irrigation
infrastructure.
Thus for
the purposes of the
DNIMP, off-farm referred
to
the
bulk
service
infrastructure comprising
the river works (which
could be a dam, a weir or a
pump
station
or
a
combination
of
these
possibilities)
and
the
delivery
system
that
conveys water from the
source to the edge of the scheme. On-farm refers to the distribution system
within the scheme itself Figure 4.2 refers.
4.3.1
At the Centre
The Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) is the lead agency
responsible for development, regulation and overall management of Ugandas
water for production; as far as irrigation is concerned however, its role is limited
to the off-farm functions which include:
assessments of water resources availability and economic analysis of water

usage;
design/construction of off-farm infrastructure (dams, weirs, pump stations

and delivery canals/pipelines and all ancillary infrastructure within the
delivery system);
support to the Operation and Maintenance of off-farm hydraulic works,

major water infrastructure and reservoirs
On-farm works are the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Animal

Industry and Fisheries (MAAIF) and include:-
10

Volume 1 Main Text
4.3.2
4.3.3
4.4
the provision of technical assistance with respect to the design and

construction of on-farm irrigation systems (including tertiary canals,
distribution/field channels, control structures and drainage channels);
the promotion of appropriate technologies for efficient and effective use in

irrigation;
the establishment of efficient and effective management structures;
support to the operation and maintenance of the on-farm systems;
the provision of extension services and provision of advice to farmers on

irrigation systems and promotion of efficient water use;
the provision of support to/ for the supervision and monitoring of water use
and management.
At the Decentralised Level

As currently anticipated by the DNIMP, Local Governments will be responsible
for:
scheme planning and site selection,
project monitoring,
establishment of appropriate management structures,
providing availing land for the facilities and
participating in capacity building related activities2.
At the Farm Level

At farm level, the service beneficiaries are expected to take up responsibility for:
forming, joining and participating in water user associations
contributing to the capital costs of the on-farm works: to assist with this,
NAADS is able to provide funds from Integrated Support to Farmers
Groups (ISFG) for development of water for agriculture production systems
on the condition that farmers are organized in groups of 20 to 30 members
and where analysis confirms that the investment will be profitable for the
farmers
operation and maintenance of the on-farm works; and
payment of the recurring costs, including the water service tariff.
Markets
In this sub-section we examine the markets for Uganda agricultural produce; but
since the market does not generally differentiate between irrigated and rainfed
crops, no distinction is made between them here - the intention being merely to
It is noted however, that a role in WfP project cycle management and financing is anticipated for the Water Sector
Development Facility: but this will not become relevant for some time.
11

Volume 1 Main Text
identify trends and opportunities that could be secured better if the crops involved
were irrigated.
The changing local market is characterized especially by the supermarkets and
other new markets, some of which are largely supplied with fruits and vegetable
imported from Kenya and South Africa, which itself confirms the potential
demand that exists locally.
The most important export crop historically, namely coffee, remains the most
important income earner for rural households in addition to cotton, tea and
tobacco. But, as a result of increasing diversification, a number of other crops are
emerging as key export commodities and consequently as potential sources of
increased household income. Included among these non-traditional crops are cutflowers, cocoa, vanilla pods and vegetables and these are being grown by both
small scale farmers and the large scale commercial farmers. Table 4.3 provides
statistics with respect to selected export crops.
The prime destination of all fresh produce exported from Uganda is reportedly
the United Kingdom (UK); but other important international markets include
Holland, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, and the United Arab Emirates, among
others. Produce for such markets tends to be dominated by high value
horticultural commodities such as hot pepper, chillies, bananas (Ugandas largest
crop by area and which does especially well in niche markets particularly in the
UK), beans, avocado and pineapples. About 60 small and medium companies are
active exporters in this sector (especially fresh fruits, vegetables and cut flowers).
Table 4.3
Exports of selected crops (values expressed in US$ million actual)
CROP
PARAMETER
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Maize
tonnes
90.58
92.79
115.26
101.23
66.67
value
17.90
21.26
24.11
23.82
18.25
tonnes
26.23
28.33
27.09
22.53
37.21
value
8.97
8.69
8.16
10.10
17.63
tonnes
0.47
0.57
3.05
5.80
3.25
value
0.12
0.13
0.61
1.33
1.54
tonnes
0.00
0.02
0.06
0.10
0.03
value
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.15
0.03
tonnes
1.79
2.20
0.49
1.15
0.40
value
0.85
0.81
0.13
0.43
0.21
tonnes
0.39
0.82
0.22
0.19
0.30
value
0.37
0.59
0.19
0.26
0.58
tonnes
0.07
0.23
0.20
0.42
0.19
value
6.12
6.14
4.81
6.26
3.04
tonnes
1.30
3.06
7.82
7.36
3.11
value
0.92
1.16
1.17
1.98
5.33
35.24
38.8
39.18
44.32
46.61
Beans & other legumes
Soya beans
Groundnuts
Bananas
Bell Pepper
Vanilla
Fruits
TOTAL VALUE ('000 $US)

Source: Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS)
12

Volume 1 Main Text
However, data from the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) concerning formal
trade also shows that Ugandas agricultural exports are destined for the East
African Community markets (Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Burundi) and other
COMESA member countries. In addition, Uganda is becoming a transit point for
food commodities destined for Sudan and the DRC: although many are grown
elsewhere in the region and increasing quantity is already grown in Uganda. But
the sector engages in very little value addition as yet and most fruits are exported
fresh and unprocessed. Nonetheless some fruits are dried - apples, bananas,
pineapples, papaya and mangoes being the most significant.
Informal cross border trade statistics confirm that Kenya is the major market for
Ugandas informal agricultural exports. So far maize and beans have been the
most important of these exports, although the opening up of the East African
market has seen some farmers take advantage of new niches, especially for fresh
fruit and fruit juices. Most of the informal cross border trade of agricultural
commodities to Kenya passes through the Malaba & Busia border posts, Table
4.4 refers.
All this confirms that local and regional markets are not only clearly in place and
understood already, but they are also expanding and diversifying.
Table 4.4
Informal cross border trade by value (US$ million) at Busia and Mutukula customs points
BUSIA
MUTUKULA
TOTALS
CROP
2005
2006
2007
2005
2006
2007
2005
2006
2007
Beans
29.36
16.35
6.63
0.08
0.80
1.40
29.44
17.15
8.03
Maize
22.74
14.97
6.51
0.64
5.77
1.23
23.38
20.74
7.74
Others
3.95
2.87
6.02
0.01
0.05
0.09
3.96
2.92
6.11
Groundnuts
2.79
4.54
4.45
0.15
0.05
2.79
4.69
4.50
Millet
3.23
2.22
3.57
0.01
0.13
3.23
2.23
3.70
Tomatoes
0.01
2.05
1.85
0.01
2.05
1.85
Water Melons
0.29
1.37
0.29
1.37
Bananas
0.04
0.34
0.04
0.34
Coffee
0.06
0.04
0.06
0.04
Sorghum
0.06
0.06
TOTALS
62.37
43.00
30.40
0.73
3.34
63.10
49.88
33.74
6.88
Regional markets are expected to expand moreover as a result i) of the new

opportunities for trade as represented by the East African (and other) economic
communities; and ii) the expected participation of new countries such as South
Sudan in the regional economic block. In addition, according to one component
carried out in the context of a major study recently completed by a consortium
comprising the AfDB, FAO, IFAD, IWMI and the World Bank3, by 2015, the
regional market for irrigated produce could be equivalent to production at a level
requiring some 700,000 ha of equipped irrigation added to which is the
3
Investment in Agricultural Water for Poverty Reduction and Economic Growth in Sub-Saharan Africa synthesis report
published in July 2007: the component study, which was published by FAO as N 31 in its Water Report series, was Demand
for the Products of Irrigated Agriculture in Sub-Saharan Africa.
13

Volume 1 Main Text
expected emergence of countries around the Western Indian Ocean rim as a

market for East African produce!
Many commentators believe moreover, that the route to global food security
passes through Sub-Saharan Africa. Traditional global food suppliers are
beginning to reach resource limits (Vietnam for instance); others (such as
Australia) are declining in importance due to the local effects of climate change;
while others still (China and India) are undergoing major economic and land use
changes. Add to this, the land loss due to increasing salinity and rising sea levels
and not only will other producing areas decline in relevance, but also an estimated
1 billion people who have traditionally depended on marine food chains for their
subsistence will have to be fed from new terrestrial sources. There is also overall
population growth at the global level which suggests that at least 2 billion more
people will need feeding within the lifetime of this FMP.
Since traditional producer bases are declining, this all means that new areas will
have to be brought into production. Sub-Saharan Africa given its surplus of land,
water and (usually) labour4 is particularly well placed to fill the looming gap in
global food supply. This likelihood has already been seen by members of the
investment community in North America, Europe and parts of S/SE Asia. Funds
and other investment instruments targeted at commercial investment in African
agriculture are right now being established or mobilised as appropriate, with
potentially billions of dollars lining up for investment, even in staple food
production (because of the high prices that are expected to continue more or less
indefinitely5).
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this, is that a tremendous agricultural
commodity market is developing at the local, regional and global level for any
Sub-Saharan country intending to intensify and expand production, especially if
the development strategy anticipates both public and private participation, as this
one does.
The success of Ugandan exports is not always good news for the local market
however. As a result of the high regional demand and the associated rising food
prices, crops that were mainly for household consumption are now being sold or
exported to regional markets such as Southern Sudan, DRC, Kenya and Rwanda.
Even so, a better organised, larger and more productive irrigation sector has high
potential to contribute to poverty alleviation through income generation activities
in both rural and urban areas (not least because of the highly lucrative potential of
peri-urban production of high value horticulture). In fact, income from high
value fruits and vegetables is already being realized by small holder farmers in
the rural areas as a result of their high value crops being sold in the local, regional
and international markets.
It will be obvious that if it is to have the greatest effect on both poverty
alleviation and economic growth (as per section 5.2), the FMP should:
4
5
increase the supply of produce in local markets
Often taken as the three determinants of investment success in agriculture

Warner, Kahan and Lehel: Market-oriented Agricultural Infrastructure: appraisal of public-private partnerships FAO, 2008
14

Volume 1 Main Text
4.5
take advantage of the rapidly changing markets at the regional and global
levels.
include crops with added value potential for Uganda.
Contribution of the Sub-Sector

As already stated, it has not proved possible to isolate data concerning the
specifics of irrigated agriculture. This section is accordingly concerned with the
contribution to the Ugandan economy of the agricultural sector as a whole.
The Ugandan economy is predominantly supported by agriculture, which
contributes almost 24 % of the National Gross Domestic Product (GDP see
table 4.5) and accounts for over 73 % of exports, (MFPED, 2010). The sector is
central to economic growth, food security, income enhancement and employment
in Uganda. And although the sectors share of total GDP has declined from over
50 % in the early 1990s to about 23.9 % in 2008/09, (UBOS, 2010)6 because of
faster growth in the services and industrial sectors, agriculture nonetheless
remains the most important sector in social terms because it is where most
Ugandans derive their livelihoods. The 2005/06 Uganda National Household
Survey estimated that there were 4.2 million agricultural households, constituting
78.8 % of all households in the country and representing over 70% of the labour
force (UBOS, 2007)7.
Table 4.5
GDP by economic activity at current prices, percentage share
Sector
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
Agriculture
24.1
22.3
21.4
23.1
23.9
Industry
22.8
25.1
25.8
24.7
24.6
Services
47.2
47.0
46.9
46.4
45.4
Source: UBOS 2010, Statistical Abstract
Basic food crop production dominates the agriculture sector contributing over
55% of the agricultural GDP, while cash crops contribute 17%, livestock subsector 15%, fisheries 10% and forestry 4%. (MFPED, 2007). But as indicated in
table 4.6, shares of both monetary and non-monetary agriculture in GDP have
been trending downwards, although the decrease in the non-monetary sub-sector
is higher than that in the monetary category. The increased monetization of
agriculture indicates a shift from subsistence to commercial agriculture with more
households producing for the market: this is a clear indicator of early structural
change in the sector.
Table 4.6
Agriculture Sector contribution to GDP (%)

2001/02
2002/03
2003/4
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
20.7
20.6
19.7
18.7
17.6
16.8
Cash Crops
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.6
3.0
2.8
Food Crops
11.3
11.2
10.8
10.1
9.6
9.2
3.0
3.0
2.7
2.6
2.6
2.5
Monetary Agriculture
Livestock
6
7
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS), 2008. 2009 Statistical Abstract.

Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2010. Uganda National Household Survey 2005/2006. Report on the Agricultural Module. April
2007.
15

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 4.6
Agriculture Sector contribution to GDP (%)

2001/02
2002/03
2003/4
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
Forestry
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Fisheries
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.7
Non-Monetary Agriculture
15.8
15.1
14.4
13.3
12.7
12.2
Food Crops
12.9
12.2
11.7
10.8
10.1
9.7
Livestock
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.3
Forestry
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
Fisheries
0.2
02
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
Source: UBOS Statistical Abstract 2007 and Background to the Budget 2008/2009
The decline in the agricultural share of GDP is also attributed to changes in the
terms of trade between agriculture and other sectors of the economy. Since 1999,
the agricultural terms of trade have declined relative to other goods and services
such as manufacturers and services (Deinenger and Okidi, 2003).
Another factor explaining the poor agricultural performance is the continued
dominance of a few agricultural products as the main income earners (Bahigwa et
al, 2005). For example cash crops are dominated by coffee while bananas
account for the bulk of the food crops. Consequently, in cases where these
specific products perform poorly, this has adverse effects on the overall
production sector.
Additionally, productivity has been affected by various factors such as weather
conditions, pests and diseases, low access to production inputs, low prices
offered, declining soil fertility among others
BUT, the decline in the agricultural sectors contribution to GDP has not
reduced the overall importance of the sector given that the sector still
represents the largest employer in the economy (UNDP, 2007).
4.6
Constraints
We have already noted that Ugandas public irrigation schemes tend to be in poor
condition and in most cases characterized by sub-optimal crop yields. Reasons
given in the baseline literature for this are indicated in Table 4.7.
Table 4.7
Constraints on Agricultural Production in General and Irrigated Production in Particular
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
IRRIGATED PRODUCTION
weak policy and legal framework
uncoordinated planning and links between water

facilities and production
high risk and cost of investment

high cost and limited availability of farm inputs
limited human resource capacity
weak institutions and structures
traditional cultural attitudes
poor management of natural resources
inadequate physical infrastructure
absence of data and information
land tenure and access to farmland
inappropriate institutional arrangements

inadequate capacity of District Local Governments
involved in the sub-sector
poor service delivery
high unit development costs and inadequate funding
(capital and recurring)
unclear land ownership arrangements
inadequate attention to sustainability issues during
scheme formulation
16

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 4.7
Constraints on Agricultural Production in General and Irrigated Production in Particular
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
IRRIGATED PRODUCTION
standards, food safety and quality assurance

infrastructure
inadequate operation and maintenance capacity at the

grass roots.
inadequate meteorological services

inadequate pest and disease control
inadequate production and post harvest facilities
weak extension support
weak value chain linkages
4.7
Current Initiatives
The Consultant identified the following initiatives as being underway during the
course of this study.
4.7.1
Integration of Climate Change Issues Into Sustainable Agricultural Advisory

Services
The objective of this Project is to provide adequate, sustainable water supplies to
enhance agricultural productivity and reduce poverty thereby enabling the
farmers to adapt better to climatic variability of rainfall. To this end, the Project
supports the National Agricultural Advisory Services (NAADS) and local
governments in building institutional capacity with respect to sustainable farming
and is aimed at a balanced, beneficial impact on poverty and water use to adapt to
climate variability. The Project, with a focus on poverty reduction and the
establishment of local capacity, will test and amend methodologies and
procedures to reduce the impact of climate variability and develop sustainable
farming systems.
The Project will i) enable farmers to develop structures to help them manage
scarce water resources in an appropriate fashion, and ii) develop the capacity of
Farmer Groups in the management, operation and maintenance of communal
equipment and water facilities. Existing run-off dams are under renovation, and
new ones are being constructed by Government, but so far, the poor farmers have
yet to benefit because of their lack of organizational capacity to manage
communal facilities and their lack awareness of and access to simple pro-poor
irrigation techniques and technologies. In addition, practical management
initiatives will be tested along with participatory methods for local planning and
decision-making. Individual - and more efficient- water resource management
will concurrently be strengthened, and general methods developed for national
application. Tools for water harvesting, small-scale irrigation and efficient water
resource management will likewise be tested in the demonstration sites. Through
this support, the capability of local farmers and interest groups to develop and
manage efficient water use will be strengthened.
The Project began in late 2010 and will be implemented over two years by
NAADS, with a total budget of 1.9 million
4.7.2
Karamoja Livelihoods Programme (KALIP)

The Karamoja Livelihoods Programme, which was still in the preparatory phase
at the start of this study, but with a four year development perspective funded by
17

Volume 1 Main Text
the European Commission, is intended to promote development as a peace

incentive by supporting livelihoods, including agro-pastoral production and
alternative income generation opportunities for the people of Karamoja. The
specific objective of KALIP is to protect and enhance incomes and food security
of the agro-pastoral communities and support them while building up their
productive asset base. This is the first recent attempt to bring support to
Karamoja onto a development footing by looking constructively at the potential
to move away from reactive provision of emergency services and food aid.
The programme is aligned with - and contributes to - the implementation of the
Karamoja Integrated Disarmament and Development Plan (KIDDP), launched by
government in April 2008. It also addresses issues highlighted in the Karamoja
Action Plan for Food Security (KAPFS) prepared by OPM in March 2009 for the
period 2009 to 2014.
4.7.3
Agri-Business Initiative: The U-Growth Programme

The Agri-Business programme, which started up in April 2010, will support the
private sector in achieving the objectives of the government of Ugandas
Competitive and Investment Climate Strategy (CICS), thereby contributing to
economic growth, wealth and employment creation, and poverty reduction. The
goal of the support is to strengthen the competitiveness of Ugandas agricultural
and agro-processing sectors. The programme is supported by Denmark, Sweden,
Belgium and the EU with a total contribution of 42 million.
4.7.4
Farm Income Enhancement and Forestry Conservation Project

This Projects objective is to improve farm incomes, rural livelihoods and food
security through sustainable natural resources management and agricultural
enterprise development. Its total cost is estimated to be around 61.4 million and
its irrigation component is implemented by MWE. Included in a number of major
results expected to accrue to the project, the most relevant to the irrigation subsector are the following:
the establishment of a watershed management culture among community

groups and households;
and
rehabilitation of four irrigation schemes.
18

Volume 1 Main Text
THE STRATEGIC RELEVANCE OF IRRIGATION TO UGANDA
5.1
The National Development Plan

The Vision of the National Development Plan (NDP) is a transformed Uganda
society from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country within 30 years.
Figure 5.1 identifies the attributes of this Vision along with key binding
constraints on development in Uganda, the objectives of the NDP and thematic
indicators.
Figure 5.1
Vision, Key Binding Constraints, Theme and Objectives : the Strategic Direction of the National Development Plan
VISION ATTRIBUTES
KEY BINDING CONSTRAINTS
Independent and sovereign
Weak public sector management and administration
Democratic and law abiding
Inadequate financing and financial services
Stable and peaceful
Inadequate quantity and quality of human resources
Knowledge based, informed and skilled
Inadequate physical infrastructure
Able to exploit and use its resources gainfully and sustainably
In a strong federated East Africa with an effective African

common market and a strong African defense mechanism
Gender issues, negative attitude, mind sets, cultural practices

and perception
Low application of science and technology
Inadequate supply and limited access to critical production

facilities
OBJECTIVES
THEME: growth, employment

transformation for prosperity
and
socio-economic
Specific development indicators
Increasing household incomes and promoting equity
Per capita income
Enhancing the availability and quality of gainful employment
Employment levels
Improving stock and quality of economic infrastructure
Share of labour force distribution in line with sectoral GDPs
Increasing access to quality social services
Life expectancy
Promoting science, technology, innovation and ICT to

enhance competitiveness
Skilled manpower levels
Proportion of manufactured goods to total exports
Enhancing human capital development
Level of development of the industrial sector
Strengthening good governance, defence and security
Level of urbanization
Promoting sustainable population

environmental and natural resources
Countrys competitiveness position
and
the
use
of
The Plan itself is consistent with the National Vision Framework which calls for
six such plans, each lasting for five years: the current Plan is the first of these and
runs until 2015.
As far as agriculture in general is concerned, the sector has a potential nexus with
all three themes: growth, employment and socio-economic transformation. The
NDP therefore includes agriculture as a primary growth sector, with its own
objectives and component strategies as illustrated in Table 5.1, where objectives
and component strategies having a direct nexus with this irrigation FMP are
identified by bold blue text, while relevant external issues are identified by bold
brown.
19

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 5.1
The NDPs Agricultural Objectives and Component Strategies
AGRICULTURAL OBJECTIVE
COMPONENT STRATEGY
improve agricultural technology development
Ensure effective delivery of advisory services and

improved technology
Control pests, diseases and vectors
Enhance productivity of land through sustainable land

use and management of soil and water resources
Increase supply of water for agricultural production

(irrigation, water for livestock and aquaculture)
Promote labour saving technologies and 4mechanisms
Improve access to high quality inputs, planting and

stocking material
Improve agricultural livelihoods in NE Uganda
Accelerate the development of selected strategic

commodities (these include coffee, maize, beans,
bananas and cassava)
10
Implement the Hunger Project epicentre strategy
Increase Public Private Partnerships in agriculture

with emphasis on strategic commodities
Increase the number of functioning and sustainable

farmer organisations involved in collective marketing
Improve the capacity for quality assurance, regulation,

food and safety standards for outputs across the crops,
livestock and fisheries sub-sectors
Enhance sector policy formulation, planning and

coordination
Enhance intra and inter-sectoral coordination
Build capacity to respond to climate change
Strengthen MAAIF and other public agricultural

agencies
Increase human resource capacity
Enhance agricultural production and productivity
Improve access to and sustainability of markets
Create an Enabling Environment for competitive

investment in agriculture
Enhance institutional development in the agriculture

sector
As far as irrigation is specifically concerned, the NDP establishes irrigation is as

the third of eight priorities and as such requires the two central institutions (MWE
and MAAIF) to support the reduction of dependency on rainfed agriculture
through rehabilitation and construction of large and small scale irrigation
schemes.
This raises several interesting issues:
given that the potentially irrigable area may be less than 600,000 ha (see
next section), as compared with a total potential arable area of around
4,400,000 ha it is helpful to understand that any reduction in dependency
on rainfed agriculture accruing to a reinvigorated and expanded irrigation
sector is likely to be small in relation to gains known to be possible in the
rainfed sector: and this is especially so because economically advantageous
use of irrigation water and infrastructural investments may involve crops
that are not grown under rainfed conditions in Uganda
20

Volume 1 Main Text
Ditto, Ugandas climate change resilience
The NDP specifically calls for the encouragement of sectors with

potential competitive advantage rather than relying on current
sectors. As it currently stands, the under-developed, marginalized,
irrigation sub-sector with generally (but not entirely) low productivity and
run down, underperforming infrastructure hardly exemplifies competitive
advantage. It is very much intended therefore that the FMP restores the
sector to competitive advantage, not only with respect to local markets, but
also the markets that are expected to emerge or expand at the regional and
global levels during the lifetime of the FMP, and as identified in subsection 4.4 above.
Nonetheless, a reinvigorated, intensified and expanded formal irrigation

sector is both possible and desirable in Uganda despite the fact that it will always
be significantly smaller than the rainfed sector, especially as there are many
options for increasing rainfed productivity. But as far as competitive advantage is
concerned, it is interesting to recall that with trade opening up in the East African
Community, Ugandan producers of high value horticulture are already supplying
niche markets in neighbouring Kenya, a confirming indicator of potential
competitive advantage.
The NDP itself calls for reinvigoration of the irrigation sub-sector; and does so in
two contexts.
In the context of Enhanced Agricultural Production (NDP 5.1 Agriculture
Development), Objective 18, Strategy 59 involves irrigation for which it specifies
six relevant component activities:
8
9
rehabilitation of five government irrigation schemes (Mobuku, Kibimba,

Kiige, Olweny and Agoro)
management reorganisation of irrigation schemes and transfer of

management to the lowest appropriate level and systems to ensure their
sustainability;
establishment of new irrigation schemes (informal, small scale and

commercial);
provision of support: including promotional activities, guidelines,

regulations, standards, designs and manuals and technical assistance to
small scale and commercial private irrigation developers;
establishment of demonstrations on small scale irrigation technologies and

water harvesting and management to ensure transfer of irrigation
knowledge and skills;
establishment of a monitoring framework for supply, utilisation and

management of water for crops.
Enhance agricultural productivity

Increase supply of water for agricultural production
21

Volume 1 Main Text
Similarly, in the context of Water for Production (NDP 6.4), Objective 110 has 5
Strategies addressing irrigation in terms not only of infrastructure, but also
institutions and services.
Strategy 111 has two activities:
establishment of 5 new large irrigation schemes and ensure their

functionality through regular maintenance;
put in place and operationalise a management and maintenance system for

the irrigation schemes.
establish of (50) model micro-irrigation schemes at sub-county level;
promotion of smallholder investment in micro-irrigation scheme through

facilitation of farmers to access micro-credit.
promotion of research and development into and support application of

appropriate technology on a pilot basis;
dissemination of appropriate technologies by use of a designed

dissemination strategy and effect community mobilisation.
Strategy 414 has four activities:
training of private sector players in the operation and maintenance of

irrigation schemes;
involvement of the private sector in the operation and maintenance if

irrigation schemes;
establishment and operationalisation of a PPP framework for consultancy,

construction and O & M of irrigation schemes;
implement the framework for O & M of water for production facilities with
the involvement of the private sector.
Finally, Strategy 515 has one activity:
rehabilitation of functionality of the five existing schemes of Kibimba,

Doho, Mubuku, Olweny and Agoro.
The NDP therefore clearly calls for and legitimises a robust new commitment
both to the improvement and/or expansion of the countrys irrigated area, and to
the institutional measures necessary to achieve and maintain significantly higher
levels of productivity.
10
11
12
13
14
15
Increase acreage under irrigation from the current level of 14,418 ha to 22,000 ha
Develop Public Irrigation Schemes
Promote micro-level irrigation
Promote appropriate technology for household level irrigation
Strengthen the PPP in construction and maintenance of irrigation schemes
Rehabilitate existing irrigation schemes
22

Volume 1 Main Text
5.2
Irrigation and Socio-Economic Transformation

We recall from above that in overall terms, the National Development Plan is
intended to transform Uganda .. from a peasant to a modern and prosperous
country within 30 years. This suggests an opportunity for the irriagtion subsector to transform peasant, subsistence farmers into participants of the economy
at large, by:
reducing the number of them that practice only subsistence farming
transforming an increasing portion of their production into commercial

cropping
increasing the number of small farmers practicing both subsistence and

commercial production
increasing the number of purely commercial producers (either by socioeconomic transformation or by catalyzing greater private investment).
Figure 5.2 below refers, where it can be seen that these objectives require a policy
thrust that begins by emphasizing the need to remove constraints, but shifts
gradually towards the increasing realisation of potential as the constraints are
removed (the farmer types were defined above).
Figure 5.2
Socio-economic Transformation in the Agricultural Sector
This figure is substantive to the challenge laid down by the NDP because the
Ugandan socio-economy is dominated by agriculture as we saw in section 4.5
above especially in terms of employment and exports. Accordingly, the figure
illustrates the typological change that will take place across the agricultural sector
if the National Vision is to be realised: and it applies as much to rainfed
agriculture as it does to irrigated.
However, essential for the transformation are measures that:
23

Volume 1 Main Text
allow farmers to adapt to against changing climate conditions such as

changing rainfall patterns, actual droughts and floods,
facilitate the intensification of production, thereby i) increasing the
effectiveness of extension and similar services16; and ii) increasing the
returns on labour, land and water
reduce the perceived financial risks associated with high input/high output
farming systems
and facilitate greater farming systems choice.
Among these measures, in fact dominant among them is the need for greater
control over root zone moisture.
The socio-economic transformation called for in the National Vision and initiated
by the current five year NDP is therefore a great driver for capacity building in
the irrigation sub-sector and for accelerated, but well regulated investment in its
infrastructure.
Another message conveyed by the figure concerns the importance of the small
farmer.
Although the enabling environment called for as part of the
transformation will make agriculture an increasingly attractive sector for
commercial investment by both local and international players, the overall
strategy must have the smaller farmer at its centre. As the figure shows, the
transformation places greater emphasis on change to the traditional farmers, and
to a lesser extent the emerging farmers. It is these farmers that the NDP means
when it talks of a transformed Uganda society from a peasant to a modern and
prosperous country within 30 years.
For them, a framework plan for improved irrigation must represent a ladder of
opportunity that gives them access to a manageable, step wise process of upgradation in terms of control over climatic variables; access to improved
technology and incentives to invest etc see Figure 5.3.
5.3
Possible Objectives for Reinvigorated Irrigation in Uganda
5.3.1
Why Irrigation is Needed?

The benefits of irrigation are obvious, and include the following:
16
it reduces the risk of climate shock (drought and flood) and allows
adaptation against climate change and hence not only renders risk averse
farmers willing to invest in seasonal inputs and longer term productivity
and sustainability measures, it also reduces the perceived risks of farming
system diversification;
it increases productivity and can increase quality of crops;
subject to certain caveats, publicly funded irrigation has significant poverty

alleviation potential;
appropriate irrigation development planning, by facilitating intensified

production, can reduce the unit costs of input, extension and post-harvest
services.
Because greater geographical concentration of farmer means that such services do not have to be spread so thin.
24

Volume 1 Main Text
But irrigation also introduces challenges of its own, and these include:
Figure 5.3
the need for appropriate, functional and efficient institutional arrangements;
the need for new skills, such as irrigation water management;
the need for reliable, accountable and effective service delivery;
environmental and social impact mitigation;
sustainable operation and maintenance, and
full recurring cost recovery.
The Ladder of Opportunity that Improved Irrigation Provides
Given these challenges, and the limited extent of Ugandas irrigation potential
(when compared with rainfed upland agriculture), there has to be a good reason to
invest. The Terms of Reference justify expanded irrigation in terms of climate
25

Volume 1 Main Text
change adaptation and poverty alleviation, which is fine so long as it is

understood that these benefits will only kick-in at and close by the irrigation
schemes. Given the technical, and indeed investment challenges that typically
characterise irrigation development, and given also the small percentage in spatial
terms that irrigation represents, the obvious recommendation that this then raises
is to include the possibility of high value production at the schemes, and hence
target the investments also at economic growth. To do so, would in fact be
consistent with the National Development Plan, which we recall from the
preceding sub-section is intended to produce a transformed Uganda society
from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country within 30 years. We
recall also that included among its subsidiary objectives are:
increasing household incomes and promoting equity
enhancing the availability and quality of gainful employment
improving stock and quality of economic infrastructure
enhancing human capital development
promoting sustainable population and the use of environmental and natural

resources
Based on the foregoing, it is suggested therefore, that the answer to the question
Why irrigate? would be for poverty alleviation and economic growth. This is
highly consistent with the National Development Plan which specifically speaks
of the need to balance wealth creation with poverty alleviation17. An
appropriate Overall Objective for the countrys irrigation sector is therefore as
follows:
5.3.2
17
18
Poverty Alleviation
There have been many studies on irrigations poverty alleviation potential. A
common emerging theme is that publicly funded irrigation works best at
alleviating poverty if:
There is grass roots demand for it
Individual schemes are small in size18 and easy to operate
beneficiaries are well

management groups
organized into cohesive, functional
water
Draft National Development Plan, paragraph 118

It is stressed that the use of the term small here should not be taken to mean that the entire Master Plan will comprise small
schemes. Notwithstanding the difficulties defining investment types in terms of small, medium and large scale, the term
small here really refers to its manageability by farmer groups. The strategic investment framework will be able to
accommodate investments of any size or level of sophistication. Some of these might be large amalgamations of small,
easily managed smallholder schemes depending on shared service infrastructure. Alternatively, a large scheme could be a
Public Private Partnership whereby, for example, government finances the service infrastructure while the private player
finances the distribution works, the O&M and production costs. In other words, small is used specifically in the context of
emerging conditionalities with respect to irrigation and poverty alleviation in Sub-Saharan Africa. It does not define the
overall flavour of the Master Plan.
26

Volume 1 Main Text
beneficiaries are adequately involved throughout the full project cycle,

including making contributions to capital costs
beneficiaries take full responsibility for the operation and maintenance of

the on-farm works, and are willing to contribute to service delivery costs on
the other works
irrigation service delivery is cost effective, accountable and reliable.
With this in mind it is possible to suggest the following draft Immediate

Objective for the countrys irrigation sub-sector:
Improved and expanded irrigation infrastructure and
practices contributing to poverty alleviation in Uganda as a
result of farmer managed, small scale schemes and best
practice service delivery
5.3.3
Economic Growth
It is generally acknowledged that a strong, diverse economy usually requires an
equally strong agricultural sector as part of its foundation. This is especially true
of Sub-Saharan Africa where emerging regional markets are expected to generate
demand for primary agricultural produce and hence lead to market based
livelihood differentiation and hence economic diversification and growth in turn.
By mitigating the risk of climate shock, irrigation has the potential to encourage
the production of higher value and/or commercially oriented crops, some of
which will have significant added value potential.
Crops can be grown commercially by any size or kind of farmer regardless of
whether or not those crops are high value or basic foods: even so, commercial
farming is generally associated with private investors on their own schemes. But
to take full opportunity of the economic potential of the irrigated agriculture subsector, crops with high value-added and/or export potential should be encouraged
across the board.
At the time of writing, the international investment community is looking closely
at commercial farming opportunities in Sub-Saharan Africa, with significant
investment funds being set up or mobilized in the USA, UK, the Middle East and
other financial centres. Right now their managers are actively looking for
opportunities all over the Sub-Saharan region. However, any country hoping to
attract such resources must establish the necessary incentives and enabling
environments. These usually include:
fiscal incentives such as tax breaks both corporate and import, and the
ability to repatriate profits and forex financing costs
government membership of international investment/contract protection
agreements
leverage bulk service infrastructure in the form of dams and feeder canals
etc
affordable and accessible local finance
good communications infrastructure and possibly cold chains and, where
exports are involved, reliable, transparent export procedures, services and
reliable facilities.
27

Volume 1 Main Text
They can also include opportunities for public private partnerships in both
production and service delivery (for which there is already a precedent in
Ugandas WS&S sector). In line therefore with the National Development Plan it
is proposed that the Irrigation Master Plan is targeted at economic growth as well
as poverty alleviation.
An appropriate Immediate Objective is therefore:
practices contributing to economic growth in Uganda as a
result of an enabling investment environment and the
profitable investment in irrigated crop production, value
addition and/or service provision.
5.4
Climate Change
The need for measures that allow farmers (of all types) to adapt to climate change
has been mentioned repeatedly throughout the preceding text. As such it is a
substantive cross cutting issue in the context of the FMP and a second major
driver of it. To this end it has already been incorporated in the FMPs overall
objective (and as will be seen in Annex 1, it is also in the overall objective of the
draft Irrigation Policy).
However, it will be obvious that climate change adaptation will be necessary
across the entire agricultural sector, not just the irrigated sub-sector addressed by
this FMP.
Available measures include:
shorter season varieties, because less days means less water demand;
agro-forestry, because of the reduced advective energy, and additional

revenue streams that spread a farmers risks;
irrigation, the need for which is self-evident;
drainage, ditto;
terracing, because reduced run-off rates mean increased intake opportunity

time;
soil management, because the maintenance of high levels of organic matter

in the soil increases its moisture holding capacity, and better soil increases
productivity and hence returns on inputs;
crop diversification, because some crops make better use of scarce

resources than others, while also spreading a farmers risk;
intensification, because intensification increases the returns on water

invested;
water harvesting, because it is a low cost approach to increasing water

availability that is usually within a farmers or a farming communitys
ability to finance, implement, operate and maintain;
recycling of urban waste water, because it increases the re-use of scarce

water and being usually associated with high value horticultural production,
28

Volume 1 Main Text
represents a very high return on water invested (but depending on what

crops are grown, this can be very capital intensive because of the water
treatment measures that are necessary)
The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC) Assessment Report
from 2007 indicates that extreme weather events notably floods and droughts are
to increase considerably in intensity and frequency. Floods and droughts have a
negative impact on crop production. The large population of the rural poor and
their livestock is most vulnerable to these effects given the fact that they are faced
with inadequate access to water.
Climate Change is expected to impact negatively on food security since the
almost total dependence on rain-fed agriculture will be seriously affected by the
anticipated more erratic rainfall patterns. Therefore, we find among the priorities
for intervention in the National Plan of Action (NAPA):
1.
To promote community best practices of collaborative water resource

management;
2.
To develop and promote drought-tolerant and early maturing plant varieties

and animal breeds; and
3.
To promote appropriate and sustainable water harvesting, storage and

utilization technologies.
However, a large number of water harvesting and water for production facilities
have been constructed by central government, local governments, nongovernmental organizations and the private sector. Operation and management
structures have been instituted on many of the completed facilities but reports on
functionality of the systems indicate dismal performance. The Water Sector
Performance Report from 2009 estimates the functionality of WfP facilities at an
appalling 23%. This was attributed mainly to poor operation and maintenance of
water harvesting facilities and frequent breakdown of the abstraction systems and
the sector management is urging accelerated action to improve functionality of
water for production facilities.
So, despite run-off conserving infrastructure that has been renovated or newly
constructed by Government, in general terms the farmers are not benefiting
because of inadequate organizational set-up for management of the facilities
resulting in operating difficulties and lack of maintenance. The farmers also lack
knowledge about and access to simple irrigation techniques and technologies.
Runoff farming systems provide affordable water supply in arid and semi-arid
areas, where other water resources are not available or are uneconomical to
develop, hence water harvesting can contribute to cope with climate change,
increased farming productivity and improved food security.
Finally on climate change, it is necessary to note that any measures that are
incorporated into an FMP such as this, should ensure in particular that womens
lives and livelihoods are not compromised by it but rather, enhanced. In
particular, infrastructure implemented primarily for the purposes of improved
irrigation should also include provisions that make it easier for women (and
children) to collect water for household use; to do their laundry and to establish
and maintain household gardens (which are beneficial for both household
incomes and nutrition).
29

Volume 1 Main Text
5.5
Key Issues for Ugandas Irrigation Development Strategy

In line with the National Development Plan and as argued above, the proposed
strategy for the expansion of irrigation infrastructure and services will be one that
achieves a convincing socio-economic transformation by addressing poverty
alleviation and economic growth in a balanced fashion. According to the
DNIMP, the strategy is required moreover to address the challenges suggested by
the following headings:
a poverty reduction focus;

a demand responsive approach;
sustainability;
cost-efficiency;
a decentralized approach;
privatisation and private sector involvement;
a gender responsive approach;
environment and health concerns;
an integrated approach to planning.
The Consultant fully concurs with these themes and based on them, suggests that
the Plan itself should have two themes:
1
2
physical investments
institutions
They are addressed, along with a discussion of the water resource implications in
the following sub-sections.
5.5.1
Physical Investments
Noting that The National Water Policy promotes an integrated approach to the
management of the water resources in ways that are sustainable and most
beneficial to the country, physical investments will fall into four categories:
5.5.1.1
Sweating the Assets

The poor condition and constrained productivity of existing public irrigation
schemes has already been noted. In-line with the NDP, an essential part of the
strategy will be to restore these to good order and build capacity of both users and
service providers to make best use of them. The usually high rates of return
associated with the rehabilitation of sunk cost assets and improved use of them
ex-post, means that the approach will have both poverty alleviation and economic
benefits. This will not only include an assessment of the measures necessary to
restore functionally to the physical works, it will also be necessary to identify all
the reasons for low yields and include ameliorative measures in the plan.
5.5.1.2
New Build
Public investment in demand driven irrigation schemes implemented especially
where smallholders are involved on a participatory basis - will focus on the
potential areas identified described in the next Chapter. It is expected that some
of them will require storage facilities. Wherever possible, these should be multi30

Volume 1 Main Text
purpose, especially with respect to livestock watering which is known to be a big

challenge in Uganda. As we have already seen, responsibility for off-farm works
is currently that of the MWE while on farm works is the responsibility of
MAAIF/Local Governments/Users for the latter of which it is understood that
suitable funding instruments and advisory services are already in place 19 or
planned. As far as the off-farm works are concerned, there would seem to be a
fuzzy boundary between where these end and the on-farm works begin. As was
shown in Figure 4.2, under current arrangements, this fuzzy boundary comprises
the physical edge of the scheme.
However, it is common
elsewhere for the offfarm or bulk service to
include the secondary
distribution system, with
the on-farm works limited
to the tertiary offtakes and
below as shown by the
extended blue area in
figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4 Alternative On-farm and Off-farm Irrigation Works
The private sector will be

encouraged to invest in
both irrigated production
and irrigation service
delivery (either directly, or
as part of a Public Private
Partnership). Nonetheless,
it is important to note that
as
well
as
the
establishment of a suitable incentivizing enabling environment, the private sector
will also require regulation in terms of social and environmental impact.
In principle, the private sector investors should be free to invest in irrigation
anywhere in the country where they see potential, subject of course to adequate
social and environmental impact mitigation hence the off-plan concept
defined in the preliminaries to this document.
5.5.1.3
19
Bulk Service Infrastructure

In this context, bulk service infrastructure comprises the works necessary to store
and convey water to the off-farm/on-farm boundary. It can serve single or
multiple schemes and in each case can provide a service to public or private
schemes as well as other users such as livestock watering, domestic water supply
and fisheries. Where private investors plug-into bulk service infrastructure,
there will be additional opportunities for public private partnerships.
The NAADS facility mentioned in sub-section 4.7.1 for instance.
31

Volume 1 Main Text
5.5.1.4
Ancillary Investments
It is assumed that ancillary investments comprising such items as improved road
(even rail) access, markets, go-downs, cold chains and export facilities etc will be
made by the concerned authorities. Not only do they contribute to the enabling
environment for the private investor, they also have the potential to add value to
public sector schemes and are crucial if the sub-sectors contribution to economic
growth is to be maximized.
5.5.1.5
Investment Strategy
According to the DNIMP, investment will be carried out in phases and will be
demand-driven and/or farmer initiated activities. In order to create a demand for
these activities, it will be necessary to provide demonstrations and/or pilot
projects in which the role of central, district and lower local governments will be
more proactive. For example, it will be necessary to:
Identify suitable project areas based on the following order of priorities:

rehabilitation of existing public assets
implementation of schemes with gravity water and river intakes to
irrigate the plains will take precedence; potential for such schemes will
be found on Type A land (see section 6.1 below);
implementation of selected larger well-designed multi-purpose
schemes: potential for which will be largely found on Type B land with
a clear link between the investments in water facilities and the
productive use of the water;
capacity building at district level to implement the pilot projects
targeting smaller facilities
Select Districts based on their representation of strategically important WfP

- management systems. This will also mean that the districts will cover
some of the main agro-ecological, socio-economic, and food scarce zones
in the country.
Articulated in this way, the currently assumed approach is somewhat top-down

and prescriptive in that it pays lip-service only to the concept of demand driven,
participatory irrigation development. Although the NDP specifically states that
Communities are responsible for demanding, planning, contributing to capital
cost, and operating and maintaining rural water supply and water for
production facilities. A Water User Association (WUA) is established at each
Irrigation scheme, there is little commentary on how this is to be achieved,
similarly with respect to how demand and the creation of WUAs are actually
taken up and/or involved in scheme cycles. The emphasis would seem therefore
to be concentrate more on product than process.
In addition, while there is nothing intrinsically wrong with prioritizing some
areas/districts over others, in the order of priorities given for scheme selection
there is no convincing mention of user participation in the selection of schemes
within the priority zones. Equally, although there is clear justification in
allocating whatever resources are needed to raise awareness and empower
communities/commercial players to request irrigation or bulk water services etc
primarily to high priority areas, there is no reason why the sector should not
32

Volume 1 Main Text
respond to demand expressed elsewhere, (whether from the peasants or from

potential commercial investors). Accordingly, in addition to allocating resources
for the above investments, which are clearly on-plan (again sub-section 1.2
referred); at the same time, funding allocations into the FMP should also include
a provision that allows government to leverage off-plan ventures which will
largely be identified by the private sector and the more sophisticated
farmers/farmer groups.
5.5.2
Water Resources Management

Next is the matter of water resources management which raises some very
interesting questions because at the national level, Uganda has plenty of water.
However, this luxury dissipates rapidly the closer one gets to the point of use, and
in much of the country see Figure 5.5.
This introduces a need for several adaptation measures that will have to be
reflected in the FMP.
The first is the need for a meaningful water allocation mechanism. Ideally,
under an Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) paradigm, this
requires the economic pricing of water, and transparent water rights and/or
permits.
It also requires that at basin Figure 5.5 Districts Expected to be Water Scarce in 2035
or sector level, irrigation
water use efficiency is
expressed in economic, not
physical terms. Nonetheless,
high economic efficiency at
sector level, which a/o is
an indicator of how well
water is allocated, requires
high physical water use
efficiency at scheme level.
The key challenge is to make
sure that water saved as a
result of high scheme level
physical
efficiencies,
is
advantageously allocated to
other uses (within or outside
of the agricultural sector).
As the example of Vietnams
coffee sector illustrates, it is
possible to have very high
physical efficiencies with
practically zero economic
benefit.
This is because
excessive plantings of coffee
during the second half of the 1990s resulted in a collapse of global coffee prices.
The coffee itself was generally planted at the upper end of the catchments where
the opportunity cost of water was close to its highest. Although the coffee was
irrigated with very high physical efficiencies, there was so much of it planted that
33

Volume 1 Main Text
i) it severely compromised the hydrology of entire catchments and ii) the

resulting collapse of the market meant that coffee rotted unsold at the farm gates.
The net result can be summarised as follows:
very high physical water use efficiencies, but with all the water saved being
used to expand the local coffee plantings;
economic disaster, not only because the coffee did not sell, but also because
the water that was over-allocated to coffee had very high opportunity costs;
and
socio-economic catastrophe, because many of the farmers stuck with
unsellable coffee were poor, highly indebted households, while subsistence
farmers who had hitherto been dependent on water for their crops, had their
supplies severely compromised by the over abstraction of water for the
coffee.
The lesson is clear, physical water use efficiencies without land use regulation
and economic allocation measures for the water saved can constrain poverty
alleviation and the sustainable, advantageous use of water. On the other hand,
various studies confirm that when water is properly allocated to economic
advantage, both the poor and the environment benefit.
The second measure follows on from the first and concerns the economic pricing
of water. This should not be considered too radical in Uganda however, because
the concept is hinted at in the 2nd DNIMP which actually calls for the social and
economic pricing of water. Nonetheless, the concept of economic pricing is not
always well understood and is often confused with service costs. The service cost
of water is the cost of getting it from source to user and includes both capital and
recurring elements, whereas the economic price of water is the price that a willing
buyer is prepared to pay a willing seller for a given quantity of water at a specific
point in space and time. If there is no competition for water at such a point in
space and time, there is by definition no price, whereas if there is, the price is as
defined above. For example if an entrepreneur discovered a highly profitable
industrial operation that only made sense if it were established in the middle of
Saudi Arabia and absolutely depended on large quantities of water having a
quality that is only found in the North Sea, the service costs would be colossal
while the economic price would be nil. Alternatively, if instead the industrial
operation depended on water from a neighbours well that already had a very high
value use, then the service costs would be negligible and the economic price very
high.
Next is the question of conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water. This
would be highly advantageous where groundwater potential is adequate. And
where it is not, there may be possibilities for groundwater recharge dams (and
other technologies), which introduces the whole question of storage. There is
also potential in the re-cycling of urban waste water which makes particular sense
in the context of high value peri-urban irrigation.
The DNIMP is already predicated in part on the need for storage and correctly so,
especially as multi-purpose use is prioritised. But in addition to its social and
environmental implication, storage also introduces the need for operating rules
that adequately address potentially competing uses and evaporation losses which
34

Volume 1 Main Text
can be excessive where water is stored but not used. The question of evaporation
also means that dams located at sites where low area/storage ratios are possible
may be prioritised over sites where that is not the case.
Another possibility mentioned in the baseline literature concerns inter-basin
transfers. These are usually costly in economic and environmental terms and can
be costly in social terms also, to the extent in the Consultants view, that they
should not be considered the default solution where less expensive alternatives
are available. In other words inter-basin transfers, should be the solutions of last
resort and only adopted where the need is pressing and alternatives are nonexistent.
Although generally less costly in financial terms, wetland management can incur
significant environmental costs not only in terms of biodiversity and
environmental stream flow, but also in terms of water quality, flood attenuation
and even micro-climatic deterioration. In addition, studies often show that the
economic costs of excessive allocation of wetlands to agriculture are greater than
the economic benefits. Nonetheless under appropriate management models
most likely recession farming20 - they do represent a resource with considerable
potential for both poverty alleviation and economic growth.
As will be seen below, the sector expansion assumptions are heavily predicated
on managed wetland; but allocation of wetlands to the plan has been highly
selective with respect to the kind of wetland involved, and in strict conformity to
Ugandas stringent wetland regulations (see Section 10).
5.5.3
Institutions
Recalling the constraints on the successful development and practice of irrigation
in Uganda, we note that most are of an institutional nature. Although this is a
common problem, it does mean that in the absence of a robust institutional
component the sustainability of the created or rehabilitated assets will remain
constrained and the sub-sector will contribute little to the Overall Objective of the
National Development Plan.
At this point it is necessary to recall that institutions can be both hard and soft and
the irrigation sub-sector includes both includes both categories, and it is both
categories that the Plan must address: this is likely to require action on three
fronts:
20
Institutional Reformulation: which will involve a/o the establishment

of an apex secretariat: but this immediately begs the question of where the
TSUs, the nascent WSD branch offices, the catchment committees and
Water Management Zones fit in, a question which is addressed in Chapter 8
and sub-sections 9.2 and 13.3.1 below;
Institutional Capacity Building: which will be necessary to ensure that

hard institutions are both competent and adequately equipped to fulfil their
new mandates.
Innovation: which will be particularly necessary for soft institutions, with

obvious issues including:
The planting of crops behind the receding water as the wet season transforms to the dry season.
35

Volume 1 Main Text
clarification of the different roles and responsibilities of MWE and

MAAIF and the establishment of an apex secretariat within a non-line
ministry,
recurring cost recovery
empowering legal frameworks for water user associations
land rights
water permits
the legal personality of water
the economic characteristics of water and water markets
fiscal incentives (as already mentioned)
regulatory frameworks, especially for multi-purpose infrastructure.
36

Volume 1 Main Text
UGANDA'S IRRIGATION POTENTIAL
6.1
Land
The location of Ugandas irrigation potential is shown in Figure 6.1 various
estimates of the scale of which have been made over the years. In order of
magnitude they include:
Figure 6.1
170,000 ha estimated in the 1960s by Halcrows
202,000 ha revised estimate in 1994 by the FAO
240,000 ha estimated in the 1980s by Hydromet
410,000 ha estimated in the 1989 by the FAO
410,000 ha stated in the Terms of Reference for this study
410,000 ha 2nd Draft Irrigation Master Plan page 25
547,690 ha used on the 2009 revised Water For Production SIP
560,000 ha 2nd Draft Irrigation Master Plan page viii
566,466 ha 2nd Draft Irrigation Master Plan page x
Location of Ugandas Irrigation Potential
This wide range of estimates is

problematic
because
the
DNIMP Plan is predicated on
annual increments expressed as
a % of the total potential. But
this is of questionable value if
the potential is not known, not
least because it will constrain
reliable medium term work
planning and budgeting until
reliable
estimates
of
undeveloped potential are to
hand. However, this would not
be a problem if the total
potential area was large in
comparison
to
expected
implementation capacity over a
given planning period. But is
that the case in Uganda?
Regardless of the various

estimates of potential, the
Terms of Reference imply that
the Consultant bases the study on the irrigation potential as suggested by the revised
Water for Production Sector Investment Plan (WfPSIP)21, which itself is based on
the 1995 Water Action Plan, and is actually predicated on the two types of potential
as defined in sub-section 1.2. For these the WfPSIP estimates that Type A equals
21
PEMconsult: Revision of the Water for Production Strategy and Investment Plan, Aug-09. The specific wording of the TOR is
Potential Irrigable Area. Review the irrigation potential zones/districts in the WfP Sector Investment Plan.
37

Volume 1 Main Text
294,919 ha and that Type B potential, based on a percentage (actually 10%) of the
existing cultivated area, equals 271,546 Table 6.1 refers.
Table 6.1
Region
Central
Eastern
Irrigation Potential (ha)

District
Type A
Type B
Region
Northern
District
Type A
Type B
Kalangala
140
Adjuman
429
960
Kampala
1,313
Apac
16,040
291
Kiboga
725
2,901
Arua
17,225
2,163
Luwero
4,770
Gulu
750
1,277
Masaka
4,273
16,325
Kitgum
1,775
1,067
Mpigi
3,006
3,163
Kotido
3,764
1,314
Mubende
3,006
8,769
Lira
4,596
2,616
Mukono
2,381
7,217
Moroto
1,600
1,745
Nakasongola
13,805
144
Moyo
2,814
1,101
Rakai
8,696
Nebbi
7,031
4,098
Ssembabule
3,273
Nakapiprit
1,972
761
Kayunga
13,703
1,090
Pader
1,200
2,542
Wakiso
5,510
Yumbe
2,179
Lyantonde
1,403
Abim
1,317
1,136
Mityana
2,834
Amolatar
10,902
331
Nakaseke
2,175
1,827
Amuru
1,352
Totals
43,074
69,376
Dokolo
9,486
369
Bugiri
13,374
712
Kaabong
2,517
1,016
Busia
1,629
Koboko
1,554
Iganga
600
6,062
Maracha/Terego
2,332
Jinja
50
3,581
Oyam
1,421
Kamuli
3,370
9,615
Totals
83418
31624
Kapchorwa
2,367
Bundigboyo
2,574
Katakwi
17,243
Bushenyi
13,919
Western
Kumi
7,655
505
Hoima
2,814
Mbale
7,522
Kabale
6,920
Palisa
10,800
567
Kabarole
5,878
Soroti
8,585
690
Kasese
9,465
4,987
Tororo
7,350
3,785
Kibaale
5,903
Kabermaido
6,844
254
Kisoro
3,972
Mayuge
9,306
2,150
Masindi
3,625
2,083
Sironko
7,663
9,749
Mbarara
4,211
Amuria
10,392
78
Ntungamo
00
8,553
Budaka
11,263
109
Rukungiri
7,819
Bududa
5,642
Kamwenge
4,450
Bukedea
1,271
Kanungu
7,067
3,782
Bukwa
1,015
Kyenjojo
5,553
Butaleja
4,913
1,446
Bulisa
611
Kaliro
7,014
5,421
Ibanda
3,158
Manafwa
13,713
4,271
Isingiro
2,082
5,055
Namutumba
5,593
1,490
Kiruhura
462
8,375
38

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 6.1
Region
Irrigation Potential (ha)

District
Totals
Type A
Type B
145,726
69,930
Region
District
Totals
Type A
Type B
22,701
100617
Source: Revision of the Water for Production Strategy and Investment Plan, Final Report PEMconsult August 2009
As far as the current baseline is Figure 6.2 Average Slopes in Uganda

concerned, the DNIMP quotes
the existing area as 14,418 ha
and as currently articulated, it
and the revised WfPSIP,
assume that by 2035, 70% of
the Type A potential and 20%
of the Type B potential will
have been developed, a total of
approximately 233,170 ha.
This would require an annual
expansion rate of over 12%. A
study carried out by the FAO
in 200522 shows that only four
African countries (Ghana,
Zambia, Mali and Chad) have
had irrigation expansion rates
over 10% in the previous
decade.
The same study
estimated
in
fact,
that Figure 6.3 Erosion Hazard in Uganda
Ugandas expansion rate over
the same period was less than
0.05%. The point of this is not
to say that Uganda will always
be characterized by slow
irrigation expansion rates. On
the contrary, it is a reasonable
expectation that a well-crafted
development and investment
strategy, especially one which
enables
private
sector
participation, will catalyse an
acceleration of the expansion
rate. But even so, realism
suggests that even under the
best conditions, expansion
rates are very unlikely to be
high enough to realise the expected percentage of potential within the given time
frame. In addition, it should be understood that a significant proportion of the
Type A potential comprises seasonal wetlands of which only 25% is allowed for
22
Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Program (CAADP): Water Control and Rural Infrastructure
Development, Joint Report of the African Development Bank and FAO, Riddell 2005
39

Volume 1 Main Text
development.
In addition,
several parts of the country are
characterized by excessive
slopes, or significant erosion
hazard (Figures 6.2 and 6.3
refer). Wisely, there is only
limited overlap between the
potentially
irrigable
areas
(Figure 6.1), and steeply
sloping or easily eroded land;
but where irrigation is justified
in such areas, adequate
ameliorating measures will
have to be included.
For all these reasons, the firm
definition of potential is
therefore neither practical nor
necessary as a determinant of
target areas hence, rather than
think in terms of %s of
potential that should be
developed in a given period: It
will be shown below therefore
(sub-section 7.2) that the FMP
is based on incremental %
expansions of the baseline, at
least for the purpose of work
planning and budgeting.
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.5
Precipitation Minus Evaporation in Uganda
Ugandas Main Drainage Catchments
That being said, it is also good

to
understand
that
to
concentrate too much on
undeveloped potential would
miss the crucial point that
expanded irrigation is not the
only way that the irrigated sub-sector can contribute to the objectives of the
National Development Plan there are also yield gap closures at, and improved
performance of existing irrigation assets as was discussed earlier in Section
5.5.
6.2
Water
6.2.1
ET0/Pe Ratios
Evaporation/Precipitation ratios are a good indicator of where irrigation is going
to have the best impact, which assists in turn with prioritization investments.
Figure 6.4 shows differences between Evaporation and Precipitation as they are
distributed around the country. It shows clearly, that the most water stressed area
are found in the North East, and to a lesser extent in the North West. Elsewhere
in the country, irrigation is likely to have less early impact unless i) it is necessary
40

Volume 1 Main Text
by way of supplementation to secure a high value crop; or ii) it would take

advantage of a particularly attractive resource endowment, such as in the case of a
seasonal wetland.
6.2.2
Surface Water
6.2.2.1
In-Stream
Uganda's freshwater resources are considered a key strategic resource, which is
vital for sustaining life, promoting development and maintaining the
environment. Rapid population growth, increased agricultural production,
urbanisation and industrialisation are leading to depletion and degradation of the
available water resources. Surface water resources include rivers and lakes.
Uganda has major water bodies that include lakes Victoria (the worlds second
largest freshwater lake), Kyoga, Albert, George and Edward while major rivers
include the Nile (the worlds longest river), Ruizi, Katonga, Kafu, Mpologoma
and Aswa covering up to 15% of the total land area. Surface water is unevenly
distributed, especially in the dry (cattle) corridor that stretches from the southwest
to the northeast. Uganda has eight major catchments which drain to major water
receiving bodies within and outside the country see Figure 6.5. These vary in
size from the very large catchment discharging into Lake Victoria with an area of
59,858 km2, including the Ugandan part of Lake Victoria to the very small
Kidepo Basin at the extreme north-eastern part of the country with an area of
3,129 km2. The country is divided into eight sub-basins all of which drain into
different reaches of the Nile inside Uganda or the Equatorial Lakes. These are: 1L.Victoria, 2-L. Kyoga, 3-Victoria Nile, 4-L.Edward, 5-L. Albert, 6-Aswa, 7Albert Nile and 8-Kidepo(Uganda National Water Development Report, 2005).
Figure 6.6
Ugandas Surface Water Monitoring Network
Much of the freshwater resources

originate from rainfall and to a small
extent snow from the Mt. Rwenzori
Mountains. The annual rainfall is in the
range of 600 2500 mm. With open
water covering close to 12% of total land
area, Uganda is considered fairly well
endowed with water resources (estimated
at approximately 66x109 m3 of available
water as per the 2005 WRM Reform
Study and 12,596 Mill m3/year from
WfP-SIP 2009). There are variations in
estimates of the available water due to
limited baseline data as a result of
incomplete surface water monitoring.
Figure 6.6 shows the existing gauging
stations some of which are currently nonfunctional.
Surface water resources are affected by wet and dry seasons and also exhibit
spatial variability. Uganda has both humid and semi-arid areas and mismatch
between the location of the water and the location of demand, together with
highly fluctuating seasons makes water security a priority of the country. The dry
41

Volume 1 Main Text
parts of Uganda stretch from the South Western to the North Eastern parts of the
country, a stretch referred to as the dry corridor. In addition, the plains of Lake
Edward and Lake Albert receive less than 1000 mm per annum thus making them
vulnerable to droughts. These areas are predominantly rangelands with very low
groundwater potential.
6.2.2.2
Table 6.2
Wetlands
About fifteen percent of Uganda is covered by wetlands or open water and it is
therefore one of the countrys most prominent land cover type. Ugandas
wetlands moreover, are important ecosystems with high biodiversity values and
ecological and economic benefits. They are a source of source of water for
domestic and industrial supply, a source of raw materials of handcrafts, fishing
grounds, support rice irrigation schemes and also as a source of water for
livestock especially in the water stressed areas. Table 6.2 shows the coverage
(km2) of the permanent and seasonal wetlands.
Permanent and Seasonal Wetlands in Uganda by Region

PERMANENT
bush,
palms
and
thicket
farmland
floating
vegetation
central
eastern
northern
western
REGION
Totals
SEASONAL
grassland
papyrus
and
sedges
bush,
palms
and
thicket
farmland
grassland
woodland
64,406
133,979
1,568,283
10,768
361,323
1,284,695
3,423,455
115
97,028
9,885,387
10,600
136,371
288,111
39,685
10,457,297
1,963
50,665
50,418
14,773
12,260
479,365
161,090
770,533
2,865
7,582
99,456
19,594
11,497
8,880,351
206,300
9,227,646
1,963
2,865
115
219,681
10,169,240
1,613,249
170,896
10,009,151
1,691,768
23,878,930
TOTALS
Table 6.3 shows the wetland classification and table 6.4 shows the wetland
category and cover class by the National biomass study 2000. The National
Environmental management Authority estimates that at least 7% of the original
wetland area of Uganda has been converted to agriculture and human settlement.
In addition, wetlands close to urban centres have experienced negative impacts
due to pollution from point sources.
Table 6.3
Wetlands Classification System for Uganda
High altitude wetland

<3,000 m
Swamps
bogs and
mires in mountainous
regions
1,900 3000 m
Valley swamps
upland swamp
papyrus swamps
sedge dominated
syzygium swamp forest
Table 6.4
Wetland Category and Cover Class
Category
Cover Class
Seasonal
broad leaved woodlots

swamp forests
bushes and thickets
grassland
pastures
farmland
commercial farmland
built-up area
42

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 6.3
Wetlands Classification System for Uganda
Permanent
Rift Valley/Lake Victoria Basin
Permanent
Seasonal edaphic grasslands

and sedges
6.2.3
Table 6.4
cyperus papyrus and

c.papyrus raphia
phragmites
sedges
typha
swamp grass
miscanthidium
permanent swamp forest
floodplains
dambos
Wetland Category and Cover Class
woodlots
swamp forest
bushes and thickets
grassland
pasture
cyperus and typha
reeds
floats
farmland
commercial farmland
built-up area
permanent
open water
Groundwater
Groundwater represents the main source of domestic water supply for the rural
population, and is also important for livestock use. Groundwater is abstracted
from springs, boreholes, and shallow wells. Groundwater is stored in aquifers and
the geology of an area determines the groundwater potential. The geology affects
the storage and transmission of water which is important for both recharge and
exploitation. The geology of Uganda is dominated by crystalline Basement
Complex rocks of pre-Cambrian age that underlie over 90% of the country. These
consist of predominantly granites, granitoid gneisses and gneisses, which are
sometimes magmatised. The occurrence of aquifers in different parts of Uganda is
related to the respective geological characteristics of the areas. The productive
aquifers are mainly found in in-situ weathered bedrock, the regolith overlying the
bedrock and in faults and fractures in the basement. The highest yielding wells
are found in the weathered/fractured bedrock where the permeability is rather
high and where the storage can be provided by the overlying regolith. There are
still ongoing studies to map out ground water resources under the national survey
carried out by the Directorate of Water Resources Management.
Increasing water stress and vulnerability are the main concerns in sustainable
utilization of ground water resources in Uganda. Areas in the south-western and
central districts like Mbarara, Rakai, Masaka, Mpigi, Mubende, Luwero, Kiboga,
Nakasongola, and Sembabule, and areas in the northeast and the plains of Lake
Edward and Lake Albert receive less than 1000 mm per annum thus making them
very vulnerable to droughts. These areas are predominantly rangelands with very
low groundwater potential. In contrast, areas around L. Victoria basin and
highlands receive more than 1000 mm of rainfall per annum and are usually
affected by seasonal floods in the wet season. The average depth of boreholes
range from 50 to106 m and the average yield 0.7 6.1 m3/hr. The average yield
varies from region to region and also within a region. The amount of water that
can be pumped from the aquifers depends on the safe yields for a certain area or
location.
6.2.4
Total Water
The potential of the amount of water from both ground water and surface water
sources is shown in table 6.5.
43

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 6.5
Ugandas Water Resources Potential (WfP-SIP 2009)

Water availability (mill m3/year)
6.2.4
Region
Rivers
Lakes
Ground water
Runoff
Central
2,504
10,600
588
9,365
Eastern
1,956
15,200
303
7,775
Northern
4,926
4,600
1,265
12,075
Western
3,210
7,700
1,189
11,753
The Nile Basin

Almost the entire country of Uganda is situated in the Nile Basin. It is therefore
necessary to consider the basin level implications of a major allocation of water to the
agricultural sector in Uganda, in the likelihood that upstream riparians (Sudan and Egypt)
have concerns.
According to analyses carried out in the context of a recently completed FAO

Study23, the average annual gross irrigation water use in Uganda is around 7,500
m3/ha/year. If the full irrigation potential (taken to be, say 550,000 ha) were to be
developed, and with no increase in physical water use efficiency (assumed in the
FAO study to average 30%), then the total annual withdrawal would be some
4.125 km3.
From the same study, total irrigation water abstractions in Sudan equal some
27.511 km3, and in Egypt, some 68.795 (including some re-use).
Comparing Uganda with the two riparians directly, we see that full development
of Ugandas irrigation potential would require withdrawals of just over 4% of
Sudan and Egypts combined. But in fact, very little of the water flowing out of
Uganda into Sudan, actually makes it to the major irrigation areas of Sudan and
Egypt, north of the Sudd Swamps. In fact, studies 24 suggest that in a typical year,
some 31 km3 of water crosses the border into the Sudan and flows into the Sudd
Swamps from which an annual average of only 16 km3 emerges into the White
Nile. In fact, as can be seen from Figure 6.725, most of the water used for
irrigation in the Sudanese and Egyptian bread basket originates in the Ethiopian
Highlands.
This means that the increased withdrawals in Uganda correspond to a reduction of
flows north from the Sudd of around 2.13 km3 per year26. In theory, this amount
could be saved by an increase in physical water use efficiency in Sudan27 from a
baseline of 40% to approximately 43.5%. It is interesting therefore, to note that
the same FAO study assumes that average irrigation water use efficiencies in
Sudan will have increased to 46% during the lifetime of the FMP. This, along
with similar increases in Ugandas average irrigation water use efficiency
suggests that Ugandas proposed irrigation expansion is affordable in water terms
at basin level.
23
24
25
26
27
Project GCP/INT/945/ITA: Information Products for Nile Basin Water Resources Management
Conceptual Design of the Nile Basin Decision Support System: Inception Report Annex A Situation Assessment Report,
Nile Basin Initiative 2007.
Source: FAO ibid
16-((31-4.125)*(16/31))
To include Egypt in this discussion would be meaningless, as it already has very high irrigation water use efficiencies.
44

Volume 1 Main Text
6.3
Markets
Figure 6.7
Flows in the Nile Basin
As will be clear from the

reasons given in sub-section
4.4 above, the potential
market for irrigated produce
from Uganda is effectively
limitless in relation to the
potentially irrigable area.
Nonetheless, it is important
that the FMP reflects both the
extent of the market (local,
regional and global) and the
range of crops that it requires,
as they both change over
time. As will be seen below
in sub-sections 7.4 and 9.3,
the labelling of the vertical
axis of the investment
framework is predicated on
such changes.
6.4
Crops
In principle; any of the crops
listed in sub-section 4.1, and
indeed many other could
thrive under improved and expanded irrigation in Uganda. However, to craft a
framework master plan on the basis of every potentially irrigable crop that the
market could absorb would be far too complicated. Accordingly, for the purposes
of macro planning and analysis at this level, it is expedient to select generic, or
representative farming systems for the purpose of assessing water allocation, farm
budgets and the economic performance of the plan.
It is important nonetheless that the generic systems selected adequately capture
the variability of the sub-sector in terms of:
seasonal crops and perennial crops;
staple food crops and high value crops
upland and lowland crops;
and
industrial and food crops.
The FAO study mentioned earlier was based in part on field work carried out in
Uganda and intended to identify all the irrigated farming systems at district level.
Although doubts have been expressed with respect to the quality of this work
(which is somewhat inconsistent with other sources), it is useful as a point of
departure in the search for generic systems. Table 6.6 Therefore lists the
irrigated crops as identified by the FAO.
45

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 6.6
Irrigated Farming Systems in Uganda

SEASON
CROPS
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
Fruit
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
Perennial crop
Maize
Season 1
Rice
Season 1
Oil Seed
Season 1
Season 2
Season 2
Season 2
Sugar Cane
Perennial Crop
Vegetables
Season 1
Season 2
Season 3
Between them, these six farming systems adequately capture the variables
bulleted above, as confirmed by table 6.7. However, as will be seen below in
sub-section 13.1.6 which presents indicative farm budgets for the crops selected,
this somewhat generic specification has been expanded in consultation with
MAAIF, to include a wider range of crops. But the final selection does not
compromise the specification implicit in Table 6.7.
Table 6.7
Coverage of the Generic Farming Systems
CROP TYPE
Food
FARMING SYSTEM
Fruit
Maize
Rice
Industrial
Upland
High Value
Vegetables
Staple Food
Lowland
Sugar Cane
Seasonal
Perennial
Oil Seed
46

Volume 1 Main Text
A FRAMEWORK MASTERPLAN FOR IRRIGATION IN UGANDA
7.1
The Framework Approach

Simply stated, an Investment Framework is merely a method for combining
sectoral typologies, development objectives and time slices in a way that
facilitates planning and the establishment of cost envelopes. Such frameworks
can be applied at any:
stage or level in the planning process (ie strategic, through programmatic to

project);
hierarchical level within a sector (ie regional, river basin, district, catchment
or community etc);
and,
level of detail.
As such, well-crafted investment frameworks are nestable and can be thought of

as providing the space within which investment decision making is both
responsive to local needs and subject to cross-sectoral regulation, including
natural resource management and environmental impact.
Investment Frameworks require three
axes (see Figure 7.1):
Figure 7.1
The Three Axes of an Investment

Framework
one defines objectives that are

appropriate to the sector and
level in question;
a second defines the sector,

usually in terms of a typology
that captures all the elements to
be addressed by the planning
process: these might be socioeconomic, infrastructural or
institutional, or a combination of
each;
in
addition,
where
frameworks are nested, the typologies might change with level;
and
the third sets out the time slices associated with the strategic measures
Explained another way, an investment framework maps national and/or sector

objectives onto each component of the sector thereby creating a space in which
time specific policy measures can be described and prioritised in terms of
programmes, projects and budgets. In theory there is no limit to how many
entries a particular cell has, equally the cell can contain institutional, regulatory
and legal as well as infrastructural measures, all of which can be clustered in
terms of civil administrative or hydrological entities. Furthermore, such
frameworks can be nested, in other words a national framework can itself
comprise a suite of regional or catchment frameworks, which in turn could be
made up of a suite of district frameworks etc.
47

Volume 1 Main Text
For the investment framework to be effective, the cells define in general terms
what needs to be done to a particular component of the typology in order to
achieve the objective in question. Guided or (where appropriate) constrained by
the framework, Government, beneficiaries and the development partners can then
identify, select, prepare, finance and implement specific interventions that
respond to those needs in a policy compliant fashion. It should therefore be selfevident, that conversely any proposed intervention that does not fit in a cell is
unlikely to be policy compliant, hence the regulatory aspect claimed for the
investment framework approach.
Using this approach and in consultation with the stakeholders, an investment
framework for Ugandas irrigation sub-sector as explained in the following subsections.
7.2
The Objectives Axis

This axis can be somewhat difficult to craft, because it requires the melding of
sub-sector objectives onto the national development objectives Figure 7.2
refers. It can be seen that the Frameworks Overall Objective is simply a
combination of the National and Sub-sectors Overall Objectives (Sub-section
5.3.1). Subsidiary Objectives are simply those of the sub-sector has suggested in
sub-sections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3, while the Immediate Objectives are those Subsidiary
Objectives of the National Development Plan which were identified as being
relevant to irrigation development in Section 5.1 above.
Figure 7.2
The Objectives Cascade
OVERALL
OBJECTIVE
7.3
Poverty Alleviation and Economic Growth as a result of the sustainable realisation of the countrys
irrigation potential mitigating the effects of climate change and contributing to the transformation of
Uganda society from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country
SUBSIDIARY
OBJECTIVES
Irrigated agriculture contributing to poverty

alleviation in Uganda as a result of farmer
managed, small scale schemes and best practice
service delivery
IMMEDIATE
OBJECTIVES
Enhanced human
capital development
and increased
availability and quality
of gainful employment
Increasing household
incomes and social
equity
Irrigated agriculture contributing to economic

growth in Uganda as a result of an enabling
investment environment and the profitable
investment in irrigated crop production, value
addition and/or service provision
Productive use of
expanded irrigation
service infrastructure
as a result of new build
and enabling economic
instruments and
incentives
High economic water

use efficiency at basin
level
The Sub-sector Axis

A combination of study and consultation has suggested a Sub-sector Axis
capturing: the type of irrigating farmer, the nature of the irrigation potential and
the hard and soft institutions involved. This suggests the following definition for
the sector axis as shown in Figure 7.3.
7.4
The Time Axis

Given that there is current activity in the sub-sector, it is proposed that the
vertical, or time axis has four increments: Immediate (so that the framework can
take up the current activity) followed by Short, Medium and Long term phases.
48

Volume 1 Main Text
With this in mind, it is understood that no public sector schemes are under
physical implementation at the time of writing, with all current initiatives
comprising scoping and feasibility studies.
Figure 7.3
The Sector Typology

INVESTMENTS
TYPE A POTENTIAL
traditional
farmers
emerging
farmers
INSTITUTIONS
TYPE B POTENTIAL
commercial
farmers
traditional
farmers
emerging
farmers
HARD
commercial
farmers
central
regional
SOFT
local
field
policies, laws
and
regulations
A four year Immediate Term, ie from end 2011 to end 2015, is an appropriate
time frame for the completion and appraisal of these; others considered necessary
and parallel programmes of capacity building and awareness raising.
Thereafter, it is proposed that the Short Term - characterised by a reinvigoration
of the sector will concentrate on the implementation of:
institutional measures identified and studied in the Immediate Term;
implementation of schemes successfully appraised during the Immediate

Term;
a fresh round of studies (investments, markets and Public Private

Partnerships); and,
awareness raising and closer coordination/cooperation with the private

sector (which will include the emerging farmers as defined earlier).
Actual time frames have been discussed and agreed with the stakeholders thus a
time span of five years is suggested, ie from start 2016 to end 2020.
The Medium Term will be characterised by expansion both in terms of service
area and markets supplied, and based on:
continuing demand driven development of Type A irrigation potential with

new build becoming rapidly more significant than rehabilitation;
increasing development of Type B potential; and,
the development of bulk service infrastructure.
Based on the studies initiated in the Short Term, the Medium Term will also see
increased attention being paid to the identification and penetration of new
markets; to the provision of bulk service infrastructure and to the possibilities of
Public Private Partnerships in both service delivery and production. Five years is
also proposed for this phase, ie from end 2020 to end 2025.
The Long Term, from 2025 to 2037, will be characterised by:
deeper integration with regional and global markets
ongoing spatial expansion of both Type A and B potential;
increasing commercialisation of the sector (recall Figure 3.2) - this may

involve radical farming system diversification;
49

Volume 1 Main Text
private investment in bulk service infrastructure and service delivery; and,
more Public Private Partnerships.
50

Volume 1 Main Text
PART 3
THE FRAMEWORK MASTER PLAN
51

Volume 1 Main Text
THE NEED FOR A FRAMEWORK MASTER PLAN AND A

LEGITIMISING POLICY
Identified in Part A were two major drivers for a reinvigorated irrigation subsector socio-economic transformation and climate change. Both were
predicated on the major contribution that the agricultural sector already makes
with respect to livelihoods and exports - a contribution that would be greatly
increased if Uganda seizes the unprecedented opportunities with respect to new
markets and potential FDI that it currently faces.
The first of the two drivers concerns the socio-economic transformation called for
by the National Vision and the first of the five year plans as represented by the
current National Development Plan. The dominance of the agriculture sector in
terms of exports and livelihoods, and the dominance within the sector of small,
traditional farmers, clearly identifies it as a major building block of the
transformation strategy. These farmers need a ladder of opportunity that
transforms them into emerging or even commercial farmers. Equally, the sectors
contribution to economic growth could be greatly increased as a result of
commercial investment. But commercial investors will need to see an enabling
environment before they can be persuaded to invest in Uganda rather than one of
the many other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa that are actively chasing the same
money.
Against this backdrop of opportunity, it was argued in Chapter 6, Uganda has
significant undeveloped agricultural potential. And this potential can be
quantified not only in terms of as yet undeveloped natural resources, but also in
terms of underperforming assets the use of which could be made much more
productive; and yield gaps which could be closed with better support services and
husbandry.
Even so, the challenge is becoming increasingly intensified by the unremitting
effects of climate change, and this is the second driver. Holistic and integrated
measures are available for adapting to climate change; but as with the socioeconomic transformation, investment is needed in both appropriate infrastructure
and in increased technical capacity throughout the institutional cascade from the
centre to the field.
In fact, it is clear that the constraints on agricultural production summarised from
the literature in Table 4.6 are heavily tilted towards institutional problems. So
much so in fact, that any investments in much needed but expensive infrastructure
would run the risk of underperformance at best and total failure at worse in the
absence of a robust, but much cheaper programme of institutional reform and
capacity building. Accordingly, it is helpful at this stage to take closer look at the
institutional challenges and opportunities in more detail hence Table 8.1.
Given all this, and also the desirability of responding to the two drivers with
financial and technical resources that are marshalled in a well-coordinated,
structured and logical fashion, it is clear that a high level integrated master plan is
justified. It is equally desirable that such a plan is based on a thorough diagnosis
of the challenges and opportunities without being a top-down shopping list of big
capital projects.
52

Volume 1 Main Text
To avoid this risk, Chapter 7 proposed an Investment Framework approach and

applied it directly to the Uganda situation. Such frameworks provide a useful
diagnostic took while providing space in which demand-driven investments can
be planned in way that is consistent with the broader policy objectives in this
case as articulated by the current five year, National Development Plan.
Table 8.1
Clusters, Challenges and Opportunities for the Hard Institutions
CLUSTER
CHALLENGE
OPPORTUNITIES
Awareness
Raising
training is needed with respect to the design and

implementation of awareness raising campaigns
prepare and implement a training programme in

awareness raising
awareness of the potential benefits of irrigation, and

the rights and obligations of irrigators needs to be
raised at several levels
local governments,
farmer groups,
the media,
private sector players in irrigated production,
irrigation service delivery and added value
design and implement a broad fronted awareness

raising campaign
awareness needs to be raised with respect to small

scale but highly efficient irrigation technologies
establish demonstrations on small scale irrigation

technologies and water harvesting and management to
ensure transfer of irrigation knowledge and skills;
disseminate appropriate technologies by use of a welldesigned dissemination strategy and effect community
mobilisation.
Establishment
and
Institutional
Arrangements
Existing institutional arrangements are dysfunctional

and could be improved
Monitoring
and Evaluation
review and enhance the membership profile of the

Water and Environment Sector Working Group
Water Policy Committee needs to be resurrected and
provided with a dedicated officer
WPC should be shifted to the MWE Water Liaison Unit
a capacity building monitoring group should be
established
a monitoring and evaluation committee should be
established
Poor Coordination between MWE and MAAIF
agree and sign an appropriate MoU and/or

establish an Irrigation Secretariat (see section 13.1.2)
Quality assurance for dams is inadequate due to due

the need for better institutional arrangements, manuals
and regulations
strengthened dam safely institutions

update manuals and regulations
The advantages of decentralisation are somewhat

compromised by low technical capacity among the
districts, LGs and farmer groups
design and implement a capacity building programme

focussing on off-farm water for production (on-farm
being the responsibility of MAAIF)
Unclear mandates re: multi-purpose storage and

trans-district schemes
Clarification of roles re multi-purpose storage and

trans-district schemes
Need for Improved Information and Communication

Technology and a Management Information System
establish and equip an ICT and MIS unit

data collection, collation and entry
Limited capacity for monitoring and evaluation of the

irrigation sector
design a monitoring and evaluation process/framework

including suitable indicators and means of verification
integrate the M&E system into the MIS
establish and equip an M&E unit
53

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 8.1
CLUSTER
CHALLENGE
OPPORTUNITIES
Operation and
Maintenance
Poor operation and maintenance leading to reduced

productivity and scheme un-serviceability
Training of
Service
Providers
Public Sector service provider capacity remains low

with respect to the challenges represented by a the
intended re-invigoration and expansion of the irrigation
sector (the literature draws attention to an excessive
capacity concentration on WS&S, especially among
the TSUs), particular needs have been identified as
follows:
user group formation

financial management
environmental and social impact assessment
communications and awareness raising
project document preparation
integrated water resources management
water harvesting
demand driven development
participatory processes in water for production
gender
economic pricing of water
water tariff setting
adaptive extension service delivery
project cycle management
economic analysis
procurement
poor contract oversight
Limited participation of the Private Sector in water for

production service delivery
Limited research and development
review and update existing capacity building

assessments and programme designs
implement a major, but highly focussed capacity
building programme which addresses not only
technical skill levels and mixes, but also establishment
needs and conditions of employment
Allocate these tasks to the WSDF branch offices
assess and monitor opportunities for the private sector

awareness raising of potential private sector players
(of all sizes, and of all kinds of service, including
extension service delivery)
capacity building of local consultants and contractors
identify and study options for Public Private
Partnerships
Other
undertake a detailed study of the constraints on

sustainable operation and maintenance, including an
assessment of options for improved recurring cost
recovery
sensitise users with respect to the need for service
tariffs and train farmer groups on the setting of such
tariffs
prepare guidelines, regulations, standards, designs
and manuals for improved operation and maintenance
provide technical assistance to small scale and
commercial private irrigation developers;
train private sector players in the operation and
maintenance of irrigation schemes
consider options for Public Private Partnerships for
irrigation service delivery
Strengthen research and development capacity (and

this may represent an opportunity for the private
sector)
Identify key areas of research (these are likely to
include irrigation technology, well adapted crop factors,
markets, crop diversification etc
Increased use of pilot demonstrations for new irrigation
technology or farming systems
54

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 8.1
CLUSTER

CHALLENGE
OPPORTUNITIES
Limited abilities with respect to farming systems

diversification options that would allow the best
response to decreasing water availability and/or
increasing market opportunities
Strengthen capacity for adaptive extension service

delivery, which may have particular relevance to
potential private sector extension service providers
(there will a close nexus between this and improved
R&D capacity)
Poor awareness of an access to credit, especially for

micro-irrigation investments
promote smallholder investment in micro-irrigation

schemes through facilitation of farmers to access
micro-credit.
Training in credit risk assessment for potential
financiers
Evaluate options for mobile banking and innovative
collateral arrangements
Involve the WSDF in credit service delivery
From this point on, the document is concerned with design of a highly focussed
Framework Master Plan that is intended to respond to the two drivers by
reinvigorating the irrigation sub-sector by means of a two pronged approach:
infrastructural and institutional, that can be implemented in synchronicity with
the five year planning cycle mentioned earlier.
It will be seen that the FMP as proposed is innovative and comprehensive. As
such, the steps that will have to be taken in moving from the real baseline to the
ideal future need to be legitimised at the highest, ie policy level. Hence Annex 1.
55

Volume 1 Main Text
UGANDAS IRRIGATION FRAMEWORK MASTER PLAN
9.1
The Analytical Tool and Sector Expansion Model

Decision makers and planners need reliable information before decision can be
made, and plans can be implemented. In this case, the key information concerns
the costs, benefits and impacts of the proposed FMP. However, the FMP
represents a complex combination of:
1. crop type
7. Institutional arrangements
2. types of agricultural water user

3. types of agricultural water use
technology
4. type of land potential
5. agro-climatic conditions
6. scheme location
Variables 1 - 6 are all interlinked, but to carry out a manual calculation of the
costs and benefits associated with every relevant combination of them would be
very time consuming and of limited utility. Accordingly, an excel based
analytical tool has been developed for the purpose of this study see Figure 9.1.
56

Volume 1 Main Text
It has three distinct elements.

The first allows the user to input:
key FMP variables concerning the expansion rates assumed for the total
areas the uptake of each type of irrigation technology under different kinds
of scheme in the short, medium and long term: this is done using the subsector expansion model as shown in Figure 9.2, where the white fields
indicate the input variables (the values indicated are those agreed by
stakeholder for analytical purposes).
up to three indicative crops for each district
indicative28 current production costs and revenue expectations for every

crop included in the tool.
It can be seen that the sector expansion model assumes five kinds of irrigation
scheme. It is the intention that four of these, namely: Small Scale; Formal
Government Type A; Formal Government Type B and Managed Wetlands will be
funded directly from the FMP budget, while the fifth, ie the Private Sector
schemes, will benefit indirectly from a leverage fund (see below and Section
28
Because, with the agreement of DWD, they are not district specific.
57

Volume 1 Main Text
13.1.5). They were defined at the beginning of this document, but it is useful to
revisit them here in order to assess their strategic relevance especially the small
scale schemes.
29
As currently specified29 the sector expansion model expects Small Scale

schemes to enjoy by far the greatest expansion rate during the course of the
plan. This is strategic because it is the small schemes (along with the
managed wetlands) that are expected to have the greatest impact with
respect to transforming the traditional (or peasant farmers) into modern
and prosperous participants in the economy at large. With this point
firmly in mind it should be understood that small does not necessarily mean
simple, as the uptake of improved technology shows. Rather, small is
intended to refer to schemes that are of a scale most suitable for farmer
management and that have minimal requirements for external service
delivery. As such they will be especially close to their water sources and
will have minimal to nil offtake and delivery systems requiring external
service delivery.
Formal Government Type A schemes will be similar in concept to small

scale schemes and will also be targeted at the traditional but will require
more sophisticated abstraction works (perhaps pumped) or delivery work
that will need more external support than the so-called small schemes. It
may be decided that economies of scale, when applied to the more
sophisticated abstraction and delivery system may suggest a need for larger
serviced areas. But even so, the caveats made clear in section 5.3.2 most
definitely apply. The on-farm works must be of a scale manageable by the
farmer groups, all must be demand driven and the support services must be
accountable and cost effective.
Government Type B schemes will be similar in concept to Type A except

that they will be situated further from the water sources, and may require
not only pumped abstraction systems but also storage.
Irrigation
technology such as sprinkler and drip will also be more sophisticated in
order to reduce pumping and storage costs wherever incurred. Such
schemes will not necessarily be ideal for the traditional farmers; but would
be ideal for emerging farmers wanting to expand their holding or their
sophistication: But once again demand and the quality of service delivery
will be key determinants of success.
Managed Wetlands for which costs would be commensurate with simple

drainage costs, but with an allowance for water control structures, and of
course adequate outfall provisions represent huge potential. There will be
no sprinkler or drip on the managed wetlands, which the FMP assumes will
only be used for rice (although, there will be some opportunities for a quick
short season legume crop taken off the residual moisture). Managed
wetlands represent potential for all three types of farmer (in fact significant
commercial sector players are already doing very well in them), but the
simple nature of the works and their operation, plus the high gross margins
expected to pertain for rice over the foreseeable future, make them
The input variables can of course be changed as required but see Chapter 15 for more on how this might be done.
58

Volume 1 Main Text
particularly appropriate for the traditional farmer. But once again the
demand and service delivery caveats still apply. Along with one more!
And this concerns the need to enforce strict environmental guidelines with
respect not only to the exploitation of the wetland resource but also the
quality of farm run-off.
Private Sector schemes will comprise schemes which are entirely financed
by purely commercial interests and as a result are beyond the scope of the
FMP except that, in order to attract such investments, Government may
decide to invest in bulk service infrastructure (dams and large feeder
systems for instance). As will be seen in Section 5, such infrastructure will
be financed from a special fund intended to lever a certain amount of
private investment against a smaller investment on the part of Government.
As will be seen however, the scale of this leverage fund will depend on
the performance of the FMP against a hurdle Financial International Rate of
Return. As made clear at the beginning of this document expenditure
from the is leverage fund will largely concern the off-plan investments.
Figure 9.3 provides an indication of the percentages of the total potential area
allocated to each of the land type/scheme type combinations:
Figure 9.3
Land Type/Scheme Type Allocations as Percentages of Total Potential Area
At this stage, it is necessary to pause for a moment and consider the expansion
rates themselves because by regional standards they are high! They are
nonetheless defensible for several reasons. First, the baseline areas are small, so
even a small additional scheme represents a significant percentage expansion.
Secondly, the higher expansion rates do not kick-in for almost 10 years ten
years that are characterised by robust capacity building that should accelerate
59

Volume 1 Main Text
progress along the local learning curve. Thirdly, the highest expansion rates are
specifically targeted at the traditional farmer where the greatest socio-economic
transformative benefits will be seen, but with the most simple approaches
provided for by the FMP. Fourthly, high trending prices for agricultural
commodities and new markets (especially as represented by the EAC) are
essentially game changers with respect to the demand for investments in
improved irrigation that delivers! Finally, there is the broader learning curve
along which the development community at large is progressing. The concrete
maps of the post-colonial era are now historic and the new demand-driven, scalesensitive paradigms are far better suited to the socio-economic realities and the
aspirations and capacities of the stakeholders.
The second element of the Analytical Tool comprises the number crunching that
processes the input data into the inputs. This includes both internal and external
components. Taking each in turn:
30
the internal expansion distribution model allocates the overall sub-sector

expansion rates, by scheme technology type to the districts30. It also
provides the data necessary to estimate the unit irrigation water
requirements for each cropping calendar/district combination assumed by
the FMP.
These are calculated by external software prepared by the FAO during

implementation of the study Information Products for Nile Basin Water
Resources Management. In principle, this software is able to calculate the
irrigation water requirements of any cropping calendar/district combination
anywhere in the Nile Basin, taking full account not only of
evapotranspiration rates but also prevailing withdrawal ratios and effective
rainfall. In this case the software is accessed by the Analytical Tool to
extract the irrigation water requirements necessary for investment cost
estimation - also a number crunching function - and the water audit, which
as will be seen, is an output function.
The second of the external functions concerns the unit rates used for cost
estimation purposes. Since these vary with location, the Analytical Tool
uses the Unit Cost Estimation Tool (UCET) which was developed for an
earlier study on water supply and sanitation, and water for production. It
has been upgraded during this study to reflect irrigation costs using the
sample area approach described in Annex 2. The UCET irrigation
investment costs as modelled in the UCET, vary with irrigation water
requirements, hence the link with the FAO model as illustrated in Figure
9.1.
Using outputs from the FAO and UCET models and from the crop budgets
the tools final number crunching components calculate the benefits and
costs (including institutional and other non-investment costs) expected to
accrue to the FMP.
80 N for the moment, for consistency with the UCET software. It is nonetheless acknowledged that district fragmentation has
proceeded beyond this number since. However, for analytical purposes, 80 districts gives the precision necessary in terms of
cropping systems and local investment costs. And furthermore, the Analytical Tool can be adapted to whatever number of
districts are desirable if or when the need arises.
60

Volume 1 Main Text
The third element of the Analytical Tool takes outputs:
directly from the FAO model, district by district and assesses the water
resource allocation implications by way of a detailed water audit but this
is described in detail in Chapter 11.
And from the district costs and gross margins to calculate the Financial and
Economic Rates of Return (FIRR and EIRR respectively) of the entire
FMP.
9.2
Institutional Roles and Responsibilities
9.2.1
Principles
Before moving on to consider the framework itself, and given the institutional
constraints listed in table 8.1, it is first helpful to review key principles for
effective, sustainable service delivery that have emerged from lessons learned
around the world in recent years.
Transparency and Accountability: it is important that service providers,

whether during scheme implementation cycles or operation and
maintenance after commissioning, are accountable to those to whom the
service is given and that there is no hidden agenda that rewards hidden
vested interests (and these could concern influence peddling or be political
or as well as financial etc). In other words the off-farm service provider
(see below) is accountable to the water user association, or commercial
farmer depending on the service. We will see below that such services
could be provided by either the public or private sectors. In the case of
private sector service providers directly dependant on tariff based revenues
there is a reasonable expectation that they would indeed be accountable to
the farmers, otherwise they would not get paid. But public sector providers
may be tempted to be more accountable to institutions situated higher up
the institutional hierarchy. This is also possible where private service
providers are contracted by government to provide the service, and are not
directly dependent on farmer satisfaction.
Subsidiarity: is the extent to which decisions are made in relation to those

most affected by them: the closer that is, the higher is the level of
subsidiarity. High levels of subsidiarity are associated with a greater sense
of ownership among scheme beneficiaries and a greater commitment on
their part, to operate and maintain those parts of the works under their direct
control and to pay service tariffs for those that are not.
Cost effectiveness: is self-evidently a key factor with respect to whether or

not a service receiver is prepared to pay for the service. If they feel they are
getting value for money, they are more likely to pay. This has two
important implications. First is that the service beneficiary must be fully
aware of why the charge is necessary and what it is mean to cover.
Secondly, experience shows that well sensitised users see their water tariff
as an empowerment mechanism. If they do not have to pay anything, then
there is no responsibility to deliver on the part of the service provider. On
the other hand, if they do pay, then they are empowered to demand a certain
standard of service.
61

Volume 1 Main Text
9.2.2
Participation in tariff setting and collection: experience confirms that, at

least as far as water user associations are concerned, the more involved its
members are in the setting and collection of water tariffs, the higher the
collection rates tend to be31.
Arrangements
A detailed design for a full scale institutional restructuring and capacity building
programme is obviously beyond the scope of this FMP. It is nonetheless
necessary to suggest a broad specification of the kind of institutional
arrangements assumed by the FMP. Figure 9.4 refers below but it is stressed
that the figure is less concerned with the allocation of responsibilities to specific
institutions (at this stage), but rather the type of service or function necessary at
each level of the civil-administrative hierarchy. Where actual institutions are
named in the Figure (MAAIF for instance), it is only because they are already
providing such services, or could obviously do so. Where institutions are generic
(Off-farm Service Provider for instance) it is because options are less obvious, or
there is range of institutional solutions. It is equally stressed that the Apex
Secretariats location above the two line ministries does not imply hierarchical
superiority. After all, irrigation comprises only a part of each ministrys
portfolio rather, the location speaks to the Secretariats functionality in terms of
coordinating the two ministries best interests for the sub-sector. No component
of the figure is intended to be prescriptive at this stage; instead, as will be seen
below, this FMP calls for a detailed institutional needs gap assessment and design
study at the start of the Immediate Phase before such prescriptions could be
justified. The figure itself is largely self-explanatory, but given the sensitive
nature of any institutional proposals of a preliminary nature, there are some
details that would benefit from a degree of explanation. These are as follows:
there are four clusters of institutions:

-
31
research and information

agriculture and extension
regulation
investment, infrastructure, operation and maintenance
The figure does not suggest any direct research links from either MAAIF or
MWE to the research institutions, this is because one of the Apex
Secretariats functions would be to coordinate research, hence the link from
it, to the research institutions.
The term technical support units should be interpreted generically: it is

not intended to refer to the existing TSUs, but rather is intended to draw
attention to the (possible) need for regional institutions that are able to
undertake the planning and implementation of irrigation projects and if
necessary, to manage the financial flows involved. In theory, there is no
reason why these should not be the existing TSUs but this is matter for
determination during the institutional needs gap study recommended for the
short term. Equally, the service could be out-sourced to the private sector
on a case by case basis.
An excellent legal treatment of this principle can be found in Bangladeshs Guidelines for Participatory Water Management.
62

Volume 1 Main Text
Figure 9.4
Indicative Institutional Arrangements Assumed by the FMP
63

Volume 1 Main Text
9.3
Similarly, it is understood that the agreed Road Map for the Water Sector
Development Facility anticipates a future role for the Facility with respect to
the financing of investments in Water for Production. The figure is intended
to acknowledge this possibility, but not necessarily to prescribe it in the
absence of further study.
Off-farm service provision (in terms of both scheme cycle management or

operation and maintenance) could be de-concentrated functions of the
Ministry of Water and the Environment; but equally it may be decided that
districts could offer such services; or that a Public Private Partnership would
be appropriate: in which case there would be a range of potential transaction
models.
Finally, the figure shows a dashed line linking the regional and district
investment, infrastructure and operation and maintenance institutions. This
is intended to reflect the fact that actual linkages will be decided based on
how the institutions are eventually defined and specified and this is not
possible until after the needs gap study
The Framework Itself

Chapter 7 was concerned with the specification of an investment framework that:
provides an objectives cascade appropriate to the irrigation sector in the

context of the National Development Plan/National Vision;
provides a sub-sector typology that adequately captures the kind of farmers
targeted by the FMP, and the institutions that serve their needs while
regulating their activities; and
is predicated on time slices that are consistent with Ugandas five year
planning cycle.
Section 9.1 defined the various types of irrigation measures covered by the FMP
and specified the expansion rates assumed for each of them by the FMP.
This section presents the results obtained first by applying the investment
frameworks diagnostic capability to the sub-sector in a way that is consistent
with the draft policy presented in section 8.2, and then by applying the sector
expansion model to the results using the analytical tool.
9.3.1
Immediate Capacity Building, Studies and Investigations

As far as public sector investment is concerned, the Immediate phase will be
concern feasibility studies of the five Government schemes scheduled for
rehabilitation as per the requirements of the National Development Plan which
in this respect is consistent with the strategic thrust recommended in sub-section
5.4.1.132.
In addition however, in order to provide a rational basis for demand driven
implementation in the short and medium terms of the new irrigation schemes
called for in the NDP (informal, small scale and commercial; 5 new large
irrigation schemes; and 50 model micro-irrigation schemes at sub-county level) it
32
There would seem to be a slight degree of confusion over which schemes these should be. In one location the NDP lists
Mobuku, Kibimba, Kiige, Olweny and Agoro, while in another it lists Mubuku, Kibimba, Doho, Olweny and Agoro. It is
possible that Kiige and Doho might be different names for the same scheme. The Consultant awaits clarification on this.
64

Volume 1 Main Text
will be desirable to undertake a scoping study targeted not at a prioritised

shopping list of top-down initiatives; but rather at the establishment of a database
of potential investments that can be used i) for targeted awareness raising
campaigns and ii) when discussing development options with those demanding
irrigation services, regardless of what type of farmer they might be. This scoping
study should not however, be limited to irrigation service per-se, but should also
be targeted at the establishment of a portfolio of bulk water infrastructure to
improve MWEs ability to respond to private sector enquiries33.
Private sector investment can of course proceed at its own pace (subject to
satisfactory social and environmental impact assessment); but it is hoped that the
awareness raising component of the institutional measures (see sections 13.1.1
and 2) will accelerate private sector participation in both irrigated production and
service delivery. That being said, it will also be necessary to improve the
enabling environment if private sector participation is to increase; but this is
expected to be one of the outcomes of the institutional strategies recommended.
The Immediate Term emphasis on institutional issues will be very clear to the
reader. This emphasis is intentional as a sound institutional foundation is
essential for the successful and sustainable physical development of the sector.
Early success in addressing the institutional challenges and opportunities will
ensure later success when the investments are made and commissioned.
Moving on now to the hard institutions, for which a wide range of needs were
identified in Table 8.1. These needs will be addressed by means of the
programmes set out in Table 9.1. Cross cutting to all of the sub-sector objectives
will be the establishment of an sub-sector apex body in the form of a secretariat.
The advantages of an apex body will be:
33
efficient and effective coordination and representation of the diverse

stakeholders that make up the irrigation sub-sector: These include line and
non-line ministries, each with different priorities and agendae; regulators;
farmers and farmer groups; agribusiness interests, banks and investors.
A significant reduction in the transaction costs involved in facilitating,
regulating and monitoring activities in the sub-sector, and a corresponding
increase in the efficiency of sub-sector service provision and regulation.
Increased confidence among the farming community.
A single institution to oversee implementation of the FMP characterised by
a strong understanding of and commitment to its objectives.
The opportunity to concentrate necessarily diverse subject matter
specialisation in a single body, with a single objective.
The provision of one-stop-shop services to incoming international
investors.
A highly focussed clearing house for new knowledge and the specification
of demand driven research.
With this in mind, it is both interesting and relevant to note the frustration of The Tanzania Investment Centre in a verbal
briefing to this writer. Tanzania enjoys fairly frequent visits by potential investors looking to develop large areas of equipped
irrigation for production purposes. However, when TIC staff take the potential investors to see the possible expanses of
available land, they are usually asked where the Governments contribution is in terms of storage and feeder canals. To solve
this problem, Tanzania has recently established the National Irrigation Development Fund targeted in part at such leverage
infrastructure. Inclusion of such potential infrastructure in the scoping study anticipated a similar demand from investors in
Uganda and would be a precursor to a similar funding arrangement.
65

Volume 1 Main Text
Initiatives targeted at the soft institutions will include the following; all of which
should commence in the Immediate Term, although some imply the need for a
longer term monitoring and adaptation function. Thus:
Irrigation water rights right now run for 5 years. This short duration is likely to be
perceived as risky in the eyes of an investor in irrigated production (and indeed
service provision, if that too is predicated on a service providers right rather on a
concept which involves managing water on behalf of Government in a PPP for
instance). It is noted that as of now, such rights are renewable, but as basins begin
to close and trans-sectoral demand increases, the potential may be perceived
(perhaps wisely) that Government would wish to retire irrigation water rights in
favour of higher value uses. But this is not the only water rights issue that needs
clarification or modification.
The Consultant understands that water rights are indeed transferable, at least as
part of land title, but could they be collateralised? If so, they may represent a
valuable economic asset to a poor household, although transferring water rights
away from the land in question is likely to have a detrimental effect on the value
of all land having an attached water right. The question must therefore be
approached with care. But if not the right, what about the right-in-use, ie water,
the use of which is protected by the right? Can that be traded when a willing
seller has a surplus that could be made available to a willing buyer, and if so, at
what price? For this to work in a pro-poor sense requires that current use,
especially by the poor, is registered as a customary use (as all have recently been
done in Tanzania).
For all these reasons, a thorough and innovative study of the whole water rights
system is called for, and should be supported by appropriate capacity building in
terms of economic water use efficiency and rights based water markets. The latter
of course could be piloted in catchments already closing or expected to do so (see
Short and Medium Terms).
Next is the question of tariff barriers. These were stated as being counterincentives by representatives of the private sector met with or interviewed during
the study. It will necessary to undertake a review of the entire tariff barrier
systems (domestic and international), to make recommendations concerning
options for removing any that constrain investment and production, and to
establish a long term monitoring and advisory function.
Ugandas increasing commitment to Integrated Water Resources Management is
well noted by the Consultant, as is the concomitant shift to multi-purpose storage.
However, smart, dynamic, information intensive operating rules are required if the
optimum performance is to be achieved across the using sectors. Modern
upstream remote sensing technology makes this much easier however, by
allowing dam managers to operate their dams on the basis of what is flowing
towards the dam rather than what is in it at any point in time. Accordingly, a
study on operating rules for multi-purpose dams is recommended, along with a
design study for pilot remote sensing projects (which in the context of this
Framework is classed as an institutional measure because it is targeted at
improved information, as compared with production).
66

Volume 1 Main Text
Finally, with respect to soft institutions may be the need for tax breaks and other
incentives to attract investment, particularly FDI, into the sector34.
The institutional measures intended for the Immediate Phase are described in
Table 9.1.
Table 9.1
Hard
or
Soft?
34
Institutional Capacity Building Foci and Rationale for the Immediate Term
Component
Focus/
Level
hard
Establish a sub-sector Apex Body in the form

of a Secretariat
sub-sector
apex
hard
Institutional needs gap assessment and

detailed design for sustainable service deliver
in the irrigation sub-sector
Entire subsector
hard
Establish demonstrations of small scale

irrigation technology and water harvesting etc
and dissemination of appropriate WfP
technologies
field
Farmers are more easily persuaded by

exampled than ideas, especially when
those examples are disseminated by their
peers
hard
Prepare capacity building programme for

awareness raising and participatory
development
central and
regional
hard
Implement awareness raising programme
field
Farmers need to know more about how

irrigation can enhance their livelihoods; but
they also need to be made aware of their
responsibility as irrigators.
Equally, government officials need to
awareness raising wrt participatory
irrigation management and the formation of
water user organisations
hard
Design, establish and operate an ICT/MIS

unit, and an associated Monitoring and
Evaluation Unit
central
Planning and management data is

extremely limited in Uganda, this hampers
not only planning but also monitoring and
evaluation.
This programme is intended to establish
and maintain capacity for a thoroughly
modernised approach to the compilation,
analysis, utilisation and dissemination of
essential data
hard
Prepare and begin implementation of a

comprehensive capacity building and training
for service delivery at all levels (including the
P/S)
central,
regional and
local
Sustainable publicly funded irrigation

depends in part on accountable, cost
effective and adaptable service delivery
hard
Clarification of roles regarding multi-purpose

storage and trans-district schemes
central and
regional
This is a simple but self-evidently

necessary exercise, relevant now, not least
because of the shift to IWRM
hard
Design and implement a capacity building

programme for the quality assurance of
storage infrastructure
central
The need for this programme is self-evident
hard
Prepare and implement a comprehensive

capacity building programme for improved,
decentralised O&M, including recurring cost
recovery
central,
regional and
local
Although the objective of this programme is

both simple and self-evident, achievement
of this objective nonetheless represents a
significant and complex challenge with
political ramifications (in the context of
Rationale
As explained in the text
Mali for instance offers tax breaks of up to 40 years (in the case of high value production and added value in rural areas).
67

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 9.1
Hard
or
Soft?
Component
Focus/
Level
Rationale
participatory and decentralist paradigms).
The need for a significant study is therefore
anticipated
hard
Prepare capacity building programme re:

rights based water markets/ economic
efficiency
central
This Framework Plan is predicated on the

introduction of water rights and markets as
a pro-poor water allocation mechanism as
competition for water increases.
This programme is therefore to build
awareness and design pilot schemes to
evaluate and demonstrate the principles
involved
hard
Design remote sensing networks, and the

appurtenant institutional requirements, in
selected pilot catchments
regional
This comprises part of the solution to the

problem of data inadequacies outlined
above
hard
Strengthen research and development

capacity
central
Research is needed on a wide range of

issues if the irrigation sector is to perform
optimally. These include:
climate trends
farming system diversification
on farm water management
markets
modalities for Public Private Partnerships
knowledge, attitude and perception of
irrigating farmers
soft
Tariff barrier review and design of a long term

tariff monitoring and advisory service
policy
Tariff barriers constrain added value

opportunities and can deny profitable
access to some offshore markets. The
state advisory services need to monitor
changes in the various tariff regimes in
order to make the best information
available to irrigating farmers intended to
target the export markets
soft
Study of possible tax breaks and other

incentives for private investment
policy
Uganda is not the only country trying to

attract private investors to its irrigation
sector. Investors, both domestic and
foreign, are looking for incentives
soft
Study of current water rights system &

potential water market modalities
policy
Covered above
68

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 9.1
Hard
or
Soft?
Component
Focus/
Level
Rationale
soft
Study of operating rules for multi-purpose

dams
regulations
Multi-purpose dams are consistent with the

principles of IWRM and are easier to justify
on economic grounds. However, there is
potential competition between various
water using sectors, especially between
energy and irrigation. The use of remote
sensing technology for instance (see
above) allows smarter operating rules, that
minimise the likelihood or intensity of such
competition. This study is intended to
address all aspects and possibilities implicit
in multi-purpose dam operation.
soft
Agree and promulgate the draft irrigation

policy
policy
Policy legitimises the steps needed to move

from the status quo to an ideal future.
.
The resulting framework for the Immediate Term is shown in Figure 9.4 at the end
of this section, where it will be seen that budget estimates have been included.
The derivation of these budget estimates is discussed in Chapter 13.
9.3.2
Short Term Reinvigoration of the Sector

The Short Term will be characterised by i) the continuation or commencement of
the institutional measures began or planned in the Immediate Term see Table 9.2;
ii) the commencement of infrastructure development based on the studies and
appraisals started in the Immediate Term, and iii) with the preparation of more
such investments. At the same time greater attention will be paid to possible new
markets for the produce of irrigated agriculture in Uganda, and the results
disseminated on the back of the awareness raising capacity established in the
Immediate Term.
Table 9.2
Hard
or
Soft?
Institutional Capacity Building Foci and Rationale for the Short Term
Component
Focus/
Level
Rationale
hard
Ongoing and expanded demonstrations,

including farmer to farmer visits, of small
scale irrigation technology and water
harvesting etc and dissemination of
appropriate WfP technologies
field
Explained above
hard
Implement capacity building programme for

awareness raising
central and
regional
Explained above
hard
Maintain and expand awareness
field
Explained above
hard
Establish a tariff monitoring group
central
Explained above
69

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 9.2
Hard
or
Soft?
Institutional Capacity Building Foci and Rationale for the Short Term
Component
Focus/
Level
Rationale
hard
Ongoing ICT/MIS based monitoring and

evaluation
central
Explained above
hard
Continue comprehensive capacity building

and training for service delivery at all levels
(including the PS)
central,
regional and
local
Explained above
hard
Ongoing quality assurance of water storage

infrastructure
central
Explained above
hard
Continue a comprehensive capacity building

programme for improved, decentralised O&M,
including recurring cost recovery
central
regional and
local
Explained above
hard
Implement capacity building programme re:

efficiency
central
Explained above, except to note that not

only government officials, but also irrigating
farmers and other water users will require
capacity building
hard
Install remote sensing networks, and establish

the appurtenant institutional requirements, in
regional
Explained above
hard
Training in the application of IWRM principles

to irrigation development and the role of
strategic water allocations
central
IWRM is likely to be a new concept for

typical water planners and managers in the
public sector, including those with
regulatory responsibilities
hard
Ongoing research and development
central
Explained above
soft
Change tariff laws as appropriate
laws
Explained above
soft
Revise law as necessary and implement tax

breaks
laws
Explained above
soft
Register customary irrigation water used as a

customary right
policy and
law
Explained above
soft
Implement operating rules for multi-purpose

dams
regulations
Explained above
It will also be necessary to focus closer attention to potential commercial sector

needs for enabling service infrastructure and the possibilities of Public Private
Partnerships.
The resulting framework for the Short Term is shown in Figure 9.5 at the end of
this section, where it will be seen that for reasons given earlier, the expansion plan
is based not on development of a percentage of potential, but rather percentage
increments from the indicated baseline the rates used are ambitious but are
justified with certain caveats.
9.3.3
Medium Term - Spatial and Market Expansion

The medium term is expected to see a significant increase in the rate of
development of all types of irrigation. This will be inspired in part by expanding
regional and global markets; new opportunities for added-value and increasing
70

Volume 1 Main Text
awareness of the commercial possibilities of irrigated agriculture. And it will

facilitated by the benefits accruing to the earlier institutional measures and
improved service delivery while being characterised by increasing sophistication
in terms of the irrigation technology involved. More farmers will be using drip or
sprinkler equipment across the board. For some of them, this will comprise entry
point technology, while for others it will represent an upgrading financed in part
by Government grants and/or subsidies.
Government investments in bulk service infrastructure will be taken advantage of
by private players of all sizes while earlier studies into opportunities for Public
Private Partnerships, and strengthened recurring cost recovery will by now be
bearing fruit in terms of various modalities including:
privatised service delivery, perhaps using bulk service infrastructure leased

back from government or financed by the private entity itself, both of which
would require some sort of affermage arrangement on the part of
government to indemnify the private entity against climate shock or revenue
risks. This will require some sort of policy decision on risk allocation and
where in such arrangements should the water right be vested in the service
provider or the service user; or
partnerships in production, which may comprise equity positions for the

long term35 or seasonal production contracts where Government has in
interest in increasing food security.
Other forms of private participation will include an improved and expanded

network of farm equipment and supply outlets which will grow organically as the
sector grows; and even privatised extension services supplied by the retailers or
freight consolidators both of which will have a vested interest in increased
irrigated production and high quality products.
Ongoing institutional measures are set out in Table 9.6 and the overall resulting
Framework for the Medium Term is presented below in Figure 9.6.
Table 9.3
Hard
or
Soft?
35
Institutional Capacity Building Foci and Rationale for the Medium Term
Component
Focus/
Level
Rationale
hard

including farmer to farmer visits, of
increasingly sophisticated small scale
technologies
field
Explained above
hard
Maintain and expand awareness to include

new markets and added value opportunities
field
Explained above, except for the additional

subject matter, the need for which is selfevident given the 2nd of the Subsidiary
Objectives in Figure 7.1
hard
Ongoing tariff monitoring
central
Explained above
As exemplified by the Sudans highly successful 33,333 ha Kenana Sugar Project.
71

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 9.3
Hard
or
Soft?
9.3.4
Institutional Capacity Building Foci and Rationale for the Medium Term
Component
Focus/
Level
hard
Ongoing career enhancement and on the job

training
central and
regional
Attractive career packages are not limited

to remuneration. The dedicated
professional will also want access to new
training and skill expansion opportunities
hard

evaluation
central
Explained above
hard

(including the P/S)
central,
regional and
local
Explained above
hard

infrastructure
central
Explained above
hard

central,
regional and
local
Explained above
hard
Implement pilot water markets in selected

sub-basins
regional
Explained above
hard
Ongoing and expanded remote sensing in

regional
Explained above
hard
central
Explained above
soft
Develop a policy framework for risk and water

right allocation in the case of public private
partnerships
policy
It is essential risks and resource allocation

in the case of PPPs results in a fair deal for
government and the tax payers, while
allowing the private operator the right to a
fair profits and only reasonable risks
Rationale
Long Term Integration and Commercialisation

It is difficult to forecast trends with any degree of certitude so far into the future.
However, the strategy implicit in this FMP is predicating on increasing integration
of the Ugandan irrigation sector into regional and global markets and on
increasing levels of confidence in irrigation investment and the services necessary
to support it. These have the potential to inspire a major increase in the rate of
uptake of small scale irrigation, especially of high value crops. Equally, stronger
public sector capacity, in terms of both technical issues and the size of capital
budgets that can be handled, will be translated into a significant increase in the
expansion rate of formal government schemes.
The technology mix at both small scale and formal government schemes will
continue to trend towards drip and sprinkler, and towards so far unforeseen
technologies that might emerge from the ongoing research and development in the
country. This trend will be accelerated where nascent water markets at the subbasin level reward savings in a dynamic and transparent fashion.
72

Volume 1 Main Text
The same factors will also inspire increasing private sector investment at different
scales and for different crops, with Public Private Partnerships of increasing
sophistication becoming more common.
Ongoing institutional measures are set out in Table 9.4 and the overall resulting
Framework for the Medium Term is presented below in Figure 9.7.
Table 9.4
Hard
or
Soft?
9.3.5
Institutional Capacity Building Foci and Rationale for the Long Term
Component
Focus/
Level
Rationale
hard

including farmer to farmer visits, of
increasingly sophisticated small scale
technologies
field
Explained above
hard
Maintain and expand awareness to include

new markets and added value opportunities
field
Explained above
hard
central
Explained above
hard
Ongoing career enhancement and on the job

training
central and
regional
Explained above
hard

evaluation
central
Explained above
hard

(including the PS)
central,
regional and
local
Explained above
hard

infrastructure
central
Explained above
hard

central,
regional and
local
Explained above
hard
Expand water markets in selected sub-basins
regional
Explained above
hard
Expand as required remote sensing in

regional
Explained above
hard
central
Explained above
The Completed Framework

Investment frameworks for the Immediate, Short, Medium and Long Terms are
set out in Figures 9.5 to 9.8. Their contents were developed in consultation with
stakeholders meeting.
73

Volume 1 Main Text
74

Volume 1 Main Text
75

Volume 1 Main Text
76

Volume 1 Main Text
77

Volume 1 Main Text
10
DETAILED ANALYSIS BY CATCHMENT

Detailed catchment by catchment outputs of the analytical tool are presented in
Table 10.3 below. They are of course indicative at this framework planning
stage, because in its current configuration, the Analytical Tool assumes that all
spatial expansion is distributed pro-rata between all districts having potential (the
districts and their indicative cropping systems comprise sub-sets of the
catchments because cropping systems, and hence irrigation water requirements,
have been assumed as varying by district not by catchment see next paragraph).
This is adequate for guiding detailed planning and for the purposes of macroeconomic analysis, it does not yet reflect political or other prioritisation of
specific districts or regions. But this can be accommodated at any stage by a
simple manipulation of the Analytical Tool36. In reality expansion will take place
according to demand and local socio-economic priorities. Correctly primed, the
Analytical Tool will indicate the costs and benefits of any course of action.
Also, although crop selection is not substantive to this analysis until the next
chapter, it does have a bearing on the typology of expansion. The crops that
have been assumed for each of the districts reflect the recommendations kindly
provided by representatives of MAAIF. As such, the crops, and the areas
allocated to them (they are listed by district below in Table 11.1), can be
considered adequate for analytical purposes since these concern affordability
from a water resources perspective, and costs/benefits from an economic
perspective. It should also be noted that crop types, their seasonality and the
areas allocated to them are all input variables for the Analytical Tool that can be
changed as required (Figure 9.1 and its supporting text referred).
That being said, rice remains more problematic due to inconsistencies i) between
the crops recommended by MAAIF and the potential for wetland development,
which itself is not clear in the source literature and data; and ii) between the WfP
SIP data which suggests no Type A potential in districts that apparently have
wetlands. To solve the problem and based on the recommendation from DWD
that the Analytical Tool should assume for modelling purposes that only rice will
be grown where the irrigation of wetlands is permissible37 and that elsewhere
only upland crops will be grown, the following approach has been adopted.
First, an assessment was made of the area of wetland that has development
potential. In Uganda wetlands fall into several categories as follows:
permanent wetlands comprising

- bush, palms and thickets
- farmland
- floating vegetation
- grassland
36
37
It is understood that the Ministry intends to develop the current version of the tool into a streamlined user friendly version for
its own future use
This does not preclude the possibility that short season high value catch crops might be produced on residual moisture in the
managed wetlands
78

Volume 1 Main Text
- papyrus and sedges

and
seasonal wetlands comprising:
- bush, palms and thickets

- farmland
- grassland
- woodland
Clearly, not all of these wetland types would be appropriate for development.
Accordingly, only the wetland types listed in Table 10.1 have been retained for
analytical purposes.
Table 10.1
Wetland Types Assumed Appropriate for Irrigation
PERMANENT WETLANDS
SEASONAL WETLANDS
farmlands
farmlands
grasslands
grasslands
papyrus and sedges
And of these, it is assumed that no more that 25% can be developed on a

sustainable basis (but again this is a variable, reductions of this percentage can be
accommodated by the Tool).
The results are listed below in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2
Wetland Areas that Could be Developed, By Region

AREA (ha)
DISTRICT
AREA (ha)
permanent
seasonal
permanent
seasonal
2,383
Kisoro
145
171
Adjumani
2,446
2,508
Kitgum
9,161
Amolatar
1,181
3,060
Kotido
98
3,519
Amuria
5,758
16,377
Kumi
5,257
10,533
Amuru
2,302
9,911
Kyenjojo
2,522
8,477
Apac
2,825
16,350
Lira
5,074
13,274
Arua
2,599
4,603
Luwero
3,296
12,056
995
2,216
Lyantunde
27
1,039
2,167
3,979
Manafwa
267
653
6,379
Maracha/Terega
20
161
Bulisa
2,131
3,063
Masaka
8,348
11,407
Bundibugyo
1,027
14,259
Masindi
3,875
20,845
Bushenyi
2,265
2,346
Mayuge
780
2,669
774
1,165
Mbale
187
1,986
Butaleja
3,590
6,207
Mbarara
786
1,117
Dokolo
2,816
3,995
Mityana
1,711
1,973
Abim
Budaka
Bugiri
Bukedea
Busia
DISTRICT
79

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.2
Wetland Areas that Could be Developed, By Region

AREA (ha)
DISTRICT
AREA (ha)
permanent
seasonal
permanent
seasonal
75
3,813
Moroto
27,492
Hoima
3,310
3,990
Moyo
2,427
7,778
Ibanda
136
315
Mpigi
6,059
9,894
Iganga
514
7,671
Mubende
1,745
5,962
1,725
2,170,250
Mukono
6,583
7,323
141
1,823
Nakapipirit
693
14,084
2,036
Nakaseke
4,492
20,323
1,474
2,978
Nakasongola
3,407
18,125
449
576
Namutumba
3,444
6,220
Kaberamaido
2,655
5,215
Nebbi
559
2,813
Kaliro
3,591
5,902
Ntungamo
1,267
1,893
397
429
Oyam
1,894
10,372
2,441,350
2,455,091
Pader
261
9,342
Kamwengi
566
947
Pallisa
7,184
12,748
Kanungu
436
734
Rakai
2,503
12,823
Kapchorwa
326
820
Rukungiri
392
1,387
Kasese
790
1,554
Sironko
679
3,244
Katakwi
4,400
25,288
Soroti
9,714
19,411
Kayunga
4,518
12,267
Ssembabule
88
7,427
Kibaale
2,816
7,492
Tororo
1,446
6,513
Kiboga
4,382
18,972
Wakiso
2,041
2,599
Kiruhura
1,364
8,044
Yumbe
1,523
Gulu
Isingiro
Jinja
Kaabong
Kabale
Kabarole
Kampala
Kamuli
DISTRICT
Having established the extent of useable wetland in each district, it was then
necessary to decide how much of the available wetlands could be included in the
Master Plan. It will be recalled from sub-section 7.2 that the agreed Sector
Expansion model specifies target for managed wetlands as follows.
From a baseline area of 53,346 ha:
a total of 60,356 ha should be developed by the end of the Short Term
a total of 77,031 ha should be developed by the end of the Medium Term;
and
a total of 219,780 ha should be development by the end of the Long Term.
The increments suggested by these target figures were therefore distributed prorata between the districts according to their share of the total seasonal potential,
and the results used for analytical purposes, as reflected in Table 10.3. But as
with other key parameters already mentioned, this approach too, can be changed.
80

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3
Detailed Expansion by Catchment

AREA BY KIND OF IRRIGATION (ha)
PLANTED AREA (ha)
CATCHMENT
TERM
Albert Nile
short
CROP
upland
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
banana
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
citrus
8.41
6.33%
1.31
6.00
0.71
0.35
0.03
0.00
0.00
coffee
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
maize
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
palm oil
8.32
6.26%
1.15
5.26
0.62
0.31
0.83
0.10
0.05
sweet potatoes
12.58
9.47%
1.92
8.76
1.03
0.52
0.30
0.04
0.02
pulses
12.54
9.44%
1.66
7.58
0.89
0.45
1.66
0.20
0.10
rice
medium
managed
wetland
Type A
51.08
38.45%
51.08
sesame
4.65
3.50%
0.46
2.11
0.25
0.12
1.46
0.17
0.09
soybean
22.08
16.62%
3.22
14.72
1.73
0.87
1.31
0.15
0.08
tea
0.52
0.39%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.05
0.03
vegetables
12.66
9.53%
1.91
8.72
1.03
0.51
0.42
0.05
0.02
Totals
81.76
5.59
53.15
6.25
3.13
6.46
0.76
0.38
banana
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
citrus
21.92
26.82%
4.85
11.82
3.38
1.69
0.13
0.04
0.02
coffee
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
maize
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
palm oil
24.39
29.83%
4.25
10.36
2.96
1.48
3.73
1.07
0.53
sweet potatoes
33.66
41.17%
7.08
17.26
4.93
2.47
1.34
0.38
0.19
pulses
38.12
46.63%
6.13
14.94
4.27
2.13
7.46
2.13
1.07
rice
51.08
121.50
0.00%
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
51.08
121.50
81

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

AREA BY KIND OF IRRIGATION (ha)
PLANTED AREA (ha)
CATCHMENT
TERM
Albert Nile
contd
medium
contd
long
CROP
upland
managed
wetland
Type A
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
sesame
16.96
20.74%
1.70
4.15
1.18
0.59
6.53
1.87
0.93
soybean
61.73
75.50%
11.90
28.99
8.28
4.14
5.89
1.68
0.84
tea
2.84
3.47%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.99
0.57
0.28
vegetables
34.26
41.90%
7.05
17.17
4.91
2.45
1.88
0.54
0.27
Total Areas
233.87
20.65
104.68
29.91
14.95
28.95
8.27
4.14
banana
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
citrus
263.18
321.91%
109.07
75.86
45.52
30.35
1.19
0.72
0.48
coffee
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
maize
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
palm oil
295.78
361.78%
95.62
66.51
39.91
26.60
33.57
20.14
13.43
sweet potatoes
404.99
495.35%
159.29
110.80
66.48
44.32
12.05
7.23
4.82
pulses
463.71
567.18%
137.86
95.89
57.53
38.35
67.04
40.22
26.82
rice
121.50
1040.08
0.00%
121.50
1040.08
sesame
208.91
255.53%
38.27
26.62
15.97
10.65
58.70
35.22
23.48
soybean
745.61
911.98%
267.53
186.08
111.65
74.43
52.96
31.77
21.18
tea
35.70
43.67%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.85
10.71
7.14
vegetables
412.66
504.74%
158.46
110.22
66.13
44.09
16.88
10.13
6.75
Total Areas
2830.53
464.26
671.97
403.18
268.79
260.25
156.15
104.10
1040.08
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
1040.08
82

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

AREA BY KIND OF IRRIGATION
PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
TERM
Aswa
short
CROP
upland
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
banana
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
citrus
5.43
4.09%
0.85
3.89
0.46
0.23
0.01
0.00
0.00
coffee
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
maize
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
0.72
0.54%
0.08
0.37
0.04
0.02
0.17
0.02
0.01
pulses
12.33
9.28%
1.77
8.08
0.95
0.48
0.90
0.11
0.05
rice
medium
managed
wetland
Type A
45.36
34.15%
45.36
sesame
7.00
5.27%
0.93
4.24
0.50
0.25
0.91
0.11
0.05
soybean
2.62
1.97%
0.32
1.47
0.17
0.09
0.48
0.06
0.03
tea
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
vegetables
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Totals
28.10
1.25
18.05
2.12
1.06
2.48
0.29
0.15
banana
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
citrus
14.13
17.29%
3.14
7.66
2.19
1.09
0.04
0.01
0.01
coffee
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
maize
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
2.44
2.98%
0.30
0.73
0.21
0.10
0.77
0.22
0.11
pulses
35.02
42.83%
6.53
15.91
4.55
2.27
4.04
1.15
0.58
rice
45.36
107.91
0.00%
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
45.36
107.91
83

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
TERM
Aswa contd
medium
contd
long
CROP
upland
managed
wetland
Type A
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
sesame
21.22
25.95%
3.43
8.36
2.39
1.19
4.09
1.17
0.58
soybean
8.42
10.30%
1.19
2.89
0.83
0.41
2.17
0.62
0.31
tea
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
vegetables
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Areas
81.23
4.62
35.55
10.16
5.08
11.10
3.17
1.59
banana
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
citrus
169.60
207.45%
70.66
49.15
29.49
19.66
0.32
0.19
0.13
coffee
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
maize
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
29.91
36.58%
6.73
4.68
2.81
1.87
6.90
4.14
2.76
pulses
423.60
518.12%
146.81
102.11
61.27
40.85
36.28
21.77
14.51
rice
107.91
923.74
0.00%
107.91
923.74
sesame
258.01
315.59%
77.16
53.67
32.20
21.47
36.76
22.06
14.70
soybean
102.87
125.83%
26.70
18.57
11.14
7.43
19.51
11.71
7.81
tea
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
vegetables
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Total Areas
983.99
103.86
228.19
136.91
91.28
99.78
59.87
39.91
923.74
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
923.74
84

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
TERM
Lake Albert
short
CROP
upland
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
banana
0.61
0.46%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.06
0.03
citrus
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
coffee
0.42
0.32%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.04
0.02
maize
1.28
0.96%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.08
0.13
0.06
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
1.71
1.29%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.45
0.17
0.09
pulses
1.50
1.13%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
0.15
0.08
rice
medium
managed
wetland
Type A
44.28
33.34%
44.28
sesame
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
soybean
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
tea
0.63
0.48%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.54
0.06
0.03
vegetables
0.55
0.42%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.47
0.06
0.03
Totals
6.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.70
0.67
0.34
banana
3.34
4.09%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.34
0.67
0.33
citrus
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
coffee
2.28
2.79%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.60
0.46
0.23
maize
6.94
8.49%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.86
1.39
0.69
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
9.31
11.39%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.52
1.86
0.93
pulses
8.18
10.01%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.73
1.64
0.82
rice
44.28
105.34
0.00%
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
44.28
105.34
85

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
TERM
Lake Albert
contd
medium
contd
long
CROP
upland
managed
wetland
Type A
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
sesame
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
soybean
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
tea
3.44
4.21%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.41
0.69
0.34
vegetables
3.01
3.68%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.11
0.60
0.30
Total Areas
36.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.55
7.30
3.65
banana
42.03
51.41%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.02
12.61
8.41
citrus
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
coffee
28.68
35.08%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.34
8.60
5.74
maize
87.40
106.90%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
43.70
26.22
17.48
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
117.14
143.28%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
58.57
35.14
23.43
pulses
102.94
125.91%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51.47
30.88
20.59
rice
105.34
901.78
0.00%
105.34
901.78
sesame
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
soybean
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
tea
43.31
52.97%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.65
12.99
8.66
vegetables
37.84
46.29%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
18.92
11.35
7.57
Total Areas
459.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
229.67
137.80
91.87
901.78
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
901.78
86

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
Lake Edward
TERM
short
CROP
upland
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
banana
18.67
14.06%
1.79
8.16
0.96
0.48
6.19
0.73
0.36
citrus
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
coffee
4.75
3.58%
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.01
3.90
0.46
0.23
maize
11.31
8.51%
1.34
6.15
0.72
0.36
2.32
0.27
0.14
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
3.04
2.29%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.59
0.30
0.15
pulses
4.42
3.33%
0.02
0.11
0.01
0.01
3.62
0.43
0.21
rice
medium
managed
wetland
Type A
39.19
29.51%
39.19
sesame
2.14
1.61%
0.30
1.36
0.16
0.08
0.21
0.02
0.01
soybean
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
tea
5.90
4.44%
0.79
3.60
0.42
0.21
0.75
0.09
0.04
vegetables
17.30
13.02%
1.82
8.31
0.98
0.49
4.85
0.57
0.29
Totals
67.53
2.90
27.80
3.27
1.64
24.44
2.88
1.44
banana
69.19
84.63%
6.60
16.08
4.59
2.30
27.74
7.92
3.96
citrus
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
coffee
25.40
31.07%
0.09
0.22
0.06
0.03
17.49
5.00
2.50
maize
37.12
45.41%
4.97
12.11
3.46
1.73
10.40
2.97
1.49
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
16.56
20.25%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.59
3.31
1.66
pulses
23.61
28.88%
0.09
0.22
0.06
0.03
16.24
4.64
2.32
rice
39.19
93.23
0.00%
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
39.19
93.23
87

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
Lake Edward
contd
TERM
Medium
contd
long
CROP
upland
managed
wetland
Type A
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
sesame
6.27
7.67%
1.10
2.67
0.76
0.38
0.95
0.27
0.14
soybean
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
tea
17.85
21.83%
2.91
7.08
2.02
1.01
3.38
0.96
0.48
vegetables
61.14
74.79%
6.71
16.36
4.67
2.34
21.74
6.21
3.11
Total Areas
257.14
10.72
54.75
15.64
7.82
109.53
31.29
15.65
banana
853.45
1043.89%
148.39
103.21
61.93
41.28
249.32
149.59
99.73
citrus
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
coffee
319.45
390.73%
2.07
1.44
0.87
0.58
157.24
94.35
62.90
maize
454.14
555.47%
111.74
77.72
46.63
31.09
93.47
56.08
37.39
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
208.38
254.88%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
104.19
62.51
41.68
pulses
296.88
363.13%
2.07
1.44
0.87
0.58
145.96
87.58
58.38
rice
93.23
798.09
0.00%
93.23
798.09
sesame
76.00
92.96%
24.65
17.15
10.29
6.86
8.53
5.12
3.41
soybean
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
tea
216.96
265.38%
65.35
45.46
27.27
18.18
30.35
18.21
12.14
vegetables
751.86
919.63%
150.96
105.00
63.00
42.00
195.45
117.27
78.18
Total Areas
3177.12
240.97
351.42
210.85
140.57
984.51
590.71
393.81
798.09
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
798.09
88

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
TERM
Lake Kyoga
short
CROP
upland
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
banana
26.92
20.27%
3.37
15.41
1.81
0.91
4.61
0.54
0.27
citrus
61.51
46.30%
9.48
43.36
5.10
2.55
0.86
0.10
0.05
coffee
38.99
29.35%
4.96
22.65
2.66
1.33
6.28
0.74
0.37
maize
49.93
37.59%
6.85
31.33
3.69
1.84
5.28
0.62
0.31
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
12.50
9.41%
1.59
7.25
0.85
0.43
2.03
0.24
0.12
pulses
73.34
55.21%
10.94
50.00
5.88
2.94
3.04
0.36
0.18
rice
medium
managed
wetland
Type A
3647.51
2745.93%
3647.51
sesame
63.46
47.77%
9.14
41.79
4.92
2.46
4.37
0.51
0.26
soybean
24.10
18.14%
3.64
16.66
1.96
0.98
0.73
0.09
0.04
tea
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
vegetables
47.09
35.45%
6.81
31.12
3.66
1.83
3.12
0.37
0.18
Totals
397.84
19.59
259.58
30.54
15.27
30.32
3.57
1.78
banana
85.34
104.39%
12.45
30.35
8.67
4.34
20.68
5.91
2.95
citrus
162.55
198.82%
35.05
85.40
24.40
12.20
3.85
1.10
0.55
coffee
122.25
149.53%
18.31
44.61
12.75
6.37
28.15
8.04
4.02
maize
147.31
180.18%
25.33
61.71
17.63
8.82
23.67
6.76
3.38
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
39.23
47.98%
5.86
14.28
4.08
2.04
9.08
2.59
1.30
pulses
200.58
245.33%
40.42
98.49
28.14
14.07
13.63
3.89
1.95
rice
3647.51
8676.50
0.00%
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
3647.51
8676.50
89

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
TERM
Lake Kyoga
contd
medium
contd
long
CROP
upland
managed
wetland
Type A
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
sesame
179.38
219.40%
33.78
82.32
23.52
11.76
19.60
5.60
2.80
soybean
64.99
79.49%
13.47
32.81
9.38
4.69
3.25
0.93
0.46
tea
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
vegetables
132.69
162.30%
25.15
61.29
17.51
8.76
13.98
4.00
2.00
Total Areas
1134.32
72.40
511.26
146.07
73.04
135.89
38.83
19.41
banana
1041.35
1273.72%
280.06
194.80
116.88
77.92
185.85
111.51
74.34
citrus
1953.77
2389.74%
788.14
548.19
328.92
219.28
34.63
20.78
13.85
coffee
1490.52
1823.11%
411.73
286.39
171.83
114.55
253.01
151.80
101.20
maize
1787.43
2186.27%
569.54
396.15
237.69
158.46
212.79
127.67
85.12
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
478.34
585.07%
131.80
91.67
55.00
36.67
81.60
48.96
32.64
pulses
2418.23
2957.83%
908.89
632.19
379.31
252.87
122.48
73.49
48.99
rice
8676.50
74274.89
0.00%
8676.50
74274.89
sesame
2168.83
2652.78%
759.66
528.39
317.03
211.36
176.20
105.72
70.48
soybean
782.59
957.22%
302.82
210.63
126.38
84.25
29.25
17.55
11.70
tea
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
vegetables
1603.89
1961.79%
565.64
393.43
236.06
157.37
125.69
75.42
50.28
Total Areas
13724.94
1628.12
3281.84
1969.10
1312.73
1221.49
732.90
488.60
74274.89
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
74274.89
90

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
Lake Victoria
TERM
short
CROP
upland
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
banana
18.26
13.74%
1.30
5.94
0.70
0.35
8.47
1.00
0.50
citrus
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
coffee
24.03
18.09%
2.30
10.51
1.24
0.62
7.96
0.94
0.47
maize
16.21
12.21%
1.72
7.85
0.92
0.46
4.48
0.53
0.26
palm oil
1.37
1.03%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.17
0.14
0.07
sweet potatoes
8.56
6.45%
0.57
2.59
0.31
0.15
4.20
0.49
0.25
pulses
22.58
17.00%
2.08
9.52
1.12
0.56
7.89
0.93
0.46
rice
medium
managed
wetland
Type A
3058.32
2302.38%
3058.32
sesame
0.13
0.10%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.01
0.01
soybean
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
tea
0.23
0.17%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.02
0.01
vegetables
2.13
1.61%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.81
0.21
0.11
Totals
93.50
0.00
36.41
4.28
2.14
36.29
4.27
2.13
banana
75.76
92.66%
4.80
11.70
3.34
1.67
37.96
10.85
5.42
citrus
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
coffee
89.04
108.91%
8.49
20.70
5.91
2.96
35.69
10.20
5.10
maize
57.08
69.82%
6.34
15.45
4.42
2.21
20.07
5.73
2.87
palm oil
7.47
9.14%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.23
1.49
0.75
sweet potatoes
36.29
44.39%
2.10
5.11
1.46
0.73
18.83
5.38
2.69
pulses
85.04
104.02%
7.70
18.76
5.36
2.68
35.38
10.11
5.05
rice
3058.32
7274.98
0.00%
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
3058.32
7274.98
91

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
Lake Victoria
contd
TERM
medium
contd
long
CROP
upland
managed
wetland
Type A
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
sesame
0.70
0.86%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.49
0.14
0.07
soybean
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
tea
1.25
1.53%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.25
0.13
vegetables
11.60
14.19%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.12
2.32
1.16
Total Areas
364.25
0.00
71.72
20.49
10.25
162.65
46.47
23.24
banana
940.77
1150.70%
108.02
75.13
45.08
30.05
341.24
204.74
136.50
citrus
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
coffee
1098.29
1343.37%
191.00
132.85
79.71
53.14
320.80
192.48
128.32
maize
701.76
858.35%
142.61
99.19
59.51
39.68
180.39
108.23
72.15
palm oil
94.05
115.03%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
47.02
28.21
18.81
sweet potatoes
451.21
551.89%
47.15
32.79
19.68
13.12
169.24
101.54
67.69
pulses
1050.06
1284.37%
173.13
120.42
72.25
48.17
318.05
190.83
127.22
rice
7274.98
62277.24
0.00%
7274.98
62277.24
sesame
8.81
10.77%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.40
2.64
1.76
soybean
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
tea
15.79
19.31%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.89
4.74
3.16
vegetables
146.04
178.63%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
73.02
43.81
29.21
Total Areas
4506.78
0.00
460.39
276.23
184.15
1462.06
877.23
584.82
62277.24
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
62277.24
92

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
Victoria Nile
TERM
short
CROP
upland
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
banana
0.23
0.17%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.02
0.01
citrus
8.41
6.33%
1.31
6.00
0.71
0.35
0.03
0.00
0.00
coffee
2.24
1.68%
0.23
1.07
0.13
0.06
0.63
0.07
0.04
maize
12.00
9.03%
1.68
7.66
0.90
0.45
1.11
0.13
0.07
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
1.18
0.89%
0.08
0.36
0.04
0.02
0.58
0.07
0.03
pulses
12.58
9.47%
1.74
7.97
0.94
0.47
1.24
0.15
0.07
rice
medium
managed
wetland
Type A
124.36
93.62%
124.36
sesame
18.36
13.82%
2.75
12.58
1.48
0.74
0.69
0.08
0.04
soybean
8.41
6.33%
1.31
6.00
0.71
0.35
0.03
0.00
0.00
tea
0.23
0.17%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.02
0.01
vegetables
6.59
4.96%
1.02
4.68
0.55
0.28
0.05
0.01
0.00
Totals
70.22
5.09
46.33
5.45
2.73
4.75
0.56
0.28
banana
1.23
1.50%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.25
0.12
citrus
21.92
26.82%
4.85
11.82
3.38
1.69
0.13
0.04
0.02
coffee
7.91
9.67%
0.87
2.12
0.60
0.30
2.81
0.80
0.40
maize
34.87
42.65%
6.19
15.08
4.31
2.15
4.99
1.43
0.71
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
5.01
6.13%
0.29
0.71
0.20
0.10
2.60
0.74
0.37
pulses
36.83
45.05%
6.44
15.70
4.49
2.24
5.57
1.59
0.80
rice
124.36
295.81
0.00%
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
124.36
295.81
93

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 10.3

PLANTED AREA
CATCHMENT
Victoria Nile
contd
TERM
medium
contd
long
CROP
upland
managed
wetland
Type A
% of total
area
simple
open
channel
sprinkler
Type B open channel

drip
open
channel
sprinkler
drip
sesame
49.95
61.10%
10.17
24.78
7.08
3.54
3.07
0.88
0.44
soybean
21.92
26.82%
4.85
11.82
3.38
1.69
0.13
0.04
0.02
tea
1.25
1.53%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.88
0.25
0.13
vegetables
17.28
21.14%
3.79
9.23
2.64
1.32
0.22
0.06
0.03
Total Areas
198.19
18.81
91.25
26.07
13.04
21.27
6.08
3.04
banana
15.47
18.93%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.74
4.64
3.09
citrus
263.18
321.91%
109.07
75.86
45.52
30.35
1.19
0.72
0.48
coffee
97.23
118.93%
19.52
13.58
8.15
5.43
25.28
15.17
10.11
maize
422.62
516.92%
139.19
96.82
58.09
38.73
44.90
26.94
17.96
palm oil
0.00
0.00%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
sweet potatoes
62.30
76.20%
6.51
4.53
2.72
1.81
23.37
14.02
9.35
pulses
446.62
546.27%
144.90
100.79
60.47
40.32
50.07
30.04
20.03
rice
295.81
2532.31
0.00%
295.81
2532.31
sesame
601.98
736.30%
228.67
159.05
95.43
63.62
27.60
16.56
11.04
soybean
263.18
321.91%
109.07
75.86
45.52
30.35
1.19
0.72
0.48
tea
15.79
19.31%
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.89
4.74
3.16
vegetables
207.58
253.90%
85.14
59.22
35.53
23.69
2.00
1.20
0.80
Total Areas
2395.94
422.88
585.71
351.43
234.28
191.22
114.73
76.49
2532.31
managed
wetlands
(rice
only)
2532.31
94

Volume 1 Main Text
11
WATER AUDIT
Before proceeding to estimating the overall costs of the Framework Master Plan,
it was necessary to carry out a water audit to ensure that the expansion model is
consistent with sustainable water resources availability. As far as rice is
concerned, since it is to be grown on a small percentage of managed wetlands it
can be safely assumed that water will be available. But for upland crops it is
necessary of course to decide what crops are grown in which district and hence in
which catchment. Since many of the districts could support a wide range of
crops, it was decided to select no more than three indicative crops in each. This
was done in full consultation and with the kind assistance of experts at MAAIF.
The results are shown in Table 11.1. Cases where less than three indicative crops
are listed arise where farming systems tend to be limited in the districts
concerned; but the Analytical Tool can accommodate changes as appropriate.
The process followed by the water audit is illustrated in Figure 11.1 and the
results shown in Annex 3.
The water resources availability includes the following components:
Available surface water in rivers and lakes dependant on base flow and
change in storage respectively
Ground water that depends on the average aquifer yield and drilling success
Runoff dependant of rainfall and runoff coefficient that varies for different
catchments and areas
The available water was estimated based on the following:
5 % of total flow available for abstraction

25% of run-off available for abstraction.
Ground water availability is dependent on average success rate that varies
with districts or regions (30-80%)
In Consultations with the relevant ministries and Directorates, the water audit was
carried out for catchments with the districts acting as building blocks since some
district were in two catchments. The eight catchments and district per catchment
were identified with the assistance of the Directorate of Water Resources
Managements. The water balance in the eight catchments is shown in Table 11.2
while Figure 6.5 showed the location of the catchments.
Storage without inflow was be provided for a maximum of 5 months to meet the
water demand in water stressed areas with less water but high crop water demand.
The storage requirements depended on a number of factors that include:
A threshold value of 70mm rain fall, the number of months in a year less
than the threshold value and the number of consecutive months less the
threshold.
The water availability and whether there is enough run-off/ river water at
80% probability or not
The Crop water demand requirement.

95

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 11.1
Crops Selected for Analytical Purposes
96

Volume 1 Main Text
Figure 11.1
Water Audit Process Diagram
97

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 11.2
Water Balance for the Catchments

Total
Area
Catchment
Lake Victoria
Change in
Rainfall Runoff lake storage
2
(Km ) (mm) (mm)
(mm)
263,590
1,264 128.2
Actual Evapotran-spiration
(mm)
Potential Evapotranspiration (mm)
Runoff
coefficient
Runoff (10
Ea / Ep
m /year)
10.8
1,125
1,453
0.1
0.77
33.8
Lake Kyoga
57,940
1,132
21.6
4.5
1,106
1,698
0.02
0.65
1.25
Victoria Nile
Lake Edward
27,960
26,719
1,253 51.5
1,144 152.5
0
-0.5
1,202
992
1,547
1,281
0.04
0.13
0.78
0.77
1.44
4.07
Lake Albert
31,496
1,231 -117.2
12.4
1,336
1,452
-0.1
0.92
-3.69
Aswa
27,637
1,212
63.9
1,148
1,715
0.05
0.67
1.77
Albert Nile
20,727
1,274
21.9
1,252
1,572
0.02
0.8
0.45
3,229
1,112
63.9
Kidepo
1,750
0.21
Results from the water audit show that there is adequate water catchment wise to
meet the crop water demand. However, it is important to stress that there is big
variation within the catchment since some areas are far away from surface water
bodies and the runoff coefficient is low. Less than 7% of the water available for
abstraction is required for crop production in all catchments as shown in Table
11.3. The Total water available for abstraction includes surface water, ground
water and run-off after applying previously explained in the methodology.
Table 11.3: Water Audit for the eight main Catchments
Total amount available for
Catchment
abstraction (10 m /year)
Albert Nile
Aswa
Lake Albert
Lake Edward
Lake Kyoga
Lake Victoria
Victoria Nile
Kidepo
2,358
606
684
1,306
4,621
2,192
1,181
116
Total Crop water

6
demand ( 10 m /year)
46
14
8
63
302
89
45
1
water demand/available water

(%)
2.0%
2.3%
1.1%
4.9%
6.5%
4.1%
3.8%
1.2%
Considering the variability of the water sources available, 33% of the districts
located in different catchments especially those in water stressed areas do not
have adequate surface water to meet the crop water demand. This means that the
98

Volume 1 Main Text
alternatives are i) ground water abstraction (although the drilling success rate in
some districts is as low as 30%) and ii) tapping from run-off after a rainfall event
in the rainy seasons. In such cases, the concept of bulk water transfer from far
away surface water sources can be an option after the economic feasibility has
been carried out. The conclusion is that the total amount of water available for
abstraction in each catchment is adequate to meet crop water demand but that
distribution of the water resources within a catchment is not even. It is also
important to mention that that other categories of water demand that include wet
manufacturing processes and commercial establishments that will be established
in these areas will also exert a water demand on the available water resources.
99

Volume 1 Main Text
12
SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT

While few expert commentators disagree that good irrigation, especially
irrigation, has tangible environmental and social benefits, it is nonetheless vital to
acknowledge that any activity that exploits natural resources or disrupts ecosystem services can be potentially harmful. It is equally vital to acknowledge the
parallel risk that infrastructure developed for what might be called the common
good, has the potential to disadvantage specific members of the socio-economy in
or around the location of the proposed infrastructure.
In this chapter we therefore examine the processes necessary to assess
environmental and social risk, during both scheme implementation and operation.
In the absence of any formal regulations, the text borrows heavily from the
environmental and social management plan for rehabilitation of Mubuku, Doho,
Olweny and Agoro irrigation schemes38, which has been reviewed and found
convincing by the Consultant39.
The impact assessment process, whether for social or environmental impact,
basically has two stages. The first is to identify the risks, and secondly to assess
their potential impact in terms of a suite of criteria. Likely social and
environmental risks are identified in Table 12.1 and the suite of criteria is
presented and discussed in Table 12.2. The ideal assessment criterion will be one
that can be applied as subjectively as possible. To the greatest extent possible
therefore, each criterion should be associated with a range of qualities the value
of which can be easily scored on a case by case basis. Suggestions for these are
therefore included in Table 12.2.
Table 12.1
Social and Environmental Risks Associated with Irrigation
Social Risks
Environmental Risks
During scheme implementation

injury and other occupational hazard
disrupted streamflows and hydrological cycles
impact of camp establishment and operations
soil erosion and sedimentation
impacts on broader public health
water quality degradation
noise
dust pollution
increased traffic
point pollution from fuel spills and leakages
dust and other airborne hazard
point pollution from disposal of desilted material, construction

soils and solid wastes
increased worker population, and related social impacts

including STDs
degradation at material source points
loss of access to natural resources/assets
involuntary resettlement
disrupted streamflows and hydrological cycles (flood and

turbidity)
During Scheme Operations
38
39
Water conflict
Farm Income Enhancement and Forestry Conservation Project (FIEFOC) Consultancy services to carry out the
environmental and social management plan for rehabilitation of Mubuku, Doho, Olweny and Agoro irrigation schemes under
farm income enhancement and forestry conservation project: Doho irrigation scheme: Development Consultants International
Limited (DCI), in association with FINTECS (EGYPT) and Enviro-Impact and Management Consults Ltd (Uganda), May
2011
Even so, the reader should be aware that, in the event that the need for development partner support is anticipated, that each
such partner is very likely to have its own social and environmental impact assessment process, which will also have to be
followed and satisfied.
100

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 12.1
Social and Environmental Risks Associated with Irrigation
Social Risks
Environmental Risks
Loss of access to natural resources (wetlands, fishery,

woodfuel, papyrus etc)
soil erosion and sedimentation
Strain on social infrastructure roads, health and education
water quality degradation
Public health (increased

schistosomiasis, bilharzia etc)
biodiversity loss, including root zone microbial biodiversity
Land use conflict (arable farmers vs pastoralists etc)
ecological imbalances
Social disruption, changes to traditional lifestyles
fluctuations in water table
Loss of land to irrigation scheme and infrastructure
soil degradation (leaching, salinization, waterlogging, soil

acidification, fertilizer application, pesticides)
Loss of access to natural resources/assets
emergence of dominant alien species
loss of culturally significant locations
loss of habitat
loss of amenity
compromised flood plain function
Table 12.2
incidence
of
malaria,
Assessment Criteria and their Value Systems
Criterion
Function
Values
Extent
assesses the spatial

influence that a given
risk might have
limited, ie less than 1 km
Explanation (where necessary)
local, ie between 1 and 5 kms

widespread ie district or catchment wide
national
trans-boundary
Persistence
assesses the duration

that the impact will
affect the subject
environment or
community
temporary, ie less than 1 year

short term, ie between 1 and 3 years
medium term, ie 3 to 10 years
long term,
ie greater than 10 years but not permanent
permanent
Magnitude
Probability
Confidence
assesses the
quantifiable effects of
impacts, measured
where possible,
against the
appropriate standard
for each respective
environmental
component.
low
where the impact affects the environment in

such a way that natural, cultural and social
functions and processes are not affected
medium
where the affected environment is altered, but

natural, cultural and social functions and
processes continue, albeit in a modified way
high
where natural, cultural and social functions or

processes are altered to the extent that it will
temporarily or permanently cease
assesses the
likelihood of
occurrence of
predicted impact on
the subject
environment or
community
low, ie less than 25%
indicates the degree

of confidence in the
impact predictions
based on the
high
greater than say, 75% sure of a particular

outcome
medium
between sys 35% and 70% of a particular

outcome
medium, ie between 25% and 75%

high, ie between 25% and 100%
definite, ie 100%
101

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 12.2
Criterion
Overall

Function
Values
availability of data and

subject matter
expertise
low
less than 35% sure of a particular outcome
attempts to assess the

overall importance of
a particular risk
negligible
no noticeable or limited local effect upon the

environment, rapidly returning to original state
by natural action
unlikely to affect resources to noticeable
degree
no noticeable effects on globally or regionally
endangered species
no significant contribution to global air pollution
problem
minor elevation in ambient water/air pollutant
levels well below guidelines
no reported nuisance effects
minor
noticeable effects on the environment, but

returning naturally to original state in the
medium term
slight local degradation of resources but not
jeopardising further usage
disruption/disturbance to normal behaviour of a
globally or regionally endangered species
returning to normal in the short term
small contribution to global air problem through
unavoidable releases
elevation in ambient water/air pollutant levels
greater than 50% of guidelines
infrequent localised nuisance
moderate
noticeable effects on the environment,

reversible over the long term
localised degradation of resources restricting
potential for further usage
sub-lethal effects upon a globally or regionally
endangered species with no effect on
reproductive fitness and/or resulting in
disruption/disturbance to normal behaviour but
returning to normal in the medium term
elevated contribution to global air pollution
problem partly due to preventable releases
frequent breaches of water/air quality and
noise guidelines
causing localised nuisance both on and off site
102

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 12.2
Criterion

Function
Values
substantial
highly noticeable effects on the environment,

difficult to reverse
widespread degradation of resources
restricting potential for further usage
significant contribution to a known global
environmental problem when compared with
the industry world-wide
sub-lethal effects upon a globally or regionally
endangered species compromising
reproductive fitness and/or resulting in longterm disruption/disturbance to normal
behaviour
air quality/noise approaching occupational
exposure limits. water quality parameters
approaching maximum stipulated values
periodic widespread nuisance both on and off
site
severe
highly noticeable, irreparable effect upon the

environment
significant, widespread and permanent loss of
resource
major contribution to a known global
environmental problem with demonstrable
effects
causing mortality to individuals of a species
classified as globally or regionally endangered
major exceedence of water/air quality and
noise guidelines representing threat to human
health in long and short term
causing widespread nuisance both on and off
site
Together, the risks and the criteria should be combined in an impact matrix as
shown in table 12.3, where it will be seen that some of the criteria are actually
sub-sets of the others.
Table 12.3
Impact Matrix for Social and Environmental Risk Assessment

CRITERIA
RISK
extent
Risk 1
value
value
value
probability
probability
probability
confidence
confidence
confidence
value
value
value
probability
probability
probability
confidence
confidence
confidence
value
value
value
probability
probability
probability
confidence
confidence
confidence
Risk 2
etc
persistence
magnitude
overall
value
value
value
103

Volume 1 Main Text
13
COSTS AND BENEFITS
13.1
Rationale and Methodology
13.1.1
Institutional Capacity Building

Clearly a shift from the institutional status quo, with all its challenges as
summarised in Table 8.1 to the ideal described in section 9.2 requires a robust
programme of institutional reform and capacity building. Tables 9.1 to 9.4 set out
such a programme while providing explanations of why the various components
are being proposed. The estimated costs of these various components are set out
in Table 13.140.
It can be seen that the budget for full range of the institutional measures not
including demonstration schemes, but including state of art research facilities
totals some Ugx 32,097.50 million. This may seem excessive; but if thought of in
terms of costs/ha it is just over Ugx 0.160 million/ha!
Table 13.1
Estimated Costs for the Proposed Institutional Measures
Term
Hard
or
Soft?
Immediate
hard
Component
Cost basis
Establish a sub-sector Apex Body in

the form of a Secretariat
Lump sum for an institutional design

study including both local and
foreign experts
Establishment costs (office and
transportation etc)
running costs should be covered
from a combination of normative
Government budgets; a % levied
from the service tariffs and fees
charged for specific services
provided by the Secretariat
40
Estimated
Cost
(Ugx*10^6)
165.00
1,250.00
none
Immediate
hard
Institutional needs gap assessment

and detailed design for sustainable
service deliver in the irrigation subsector
Lump sum for an institutional design

study including both local and
foreign experts
600.00
Immediate
hard
Establish demonstrations of small

scale irrigation technology and
water harvesting etc and
dissemination of appropriate WfP
technologies
1X 2.5 ha demo per 20 high priority

districts: costs as per simple
irrigated
466.00
Immediate
hard
Prepare capacity building

programme for awareness raising
and participatory development
Lump sum provision for local

experts supported by 2 work months
from an international expert
237.50
Immediate
hard
Implement awareness raising

programme
Lump sum provision for an NGO to

do this.
250.00
Immediate
hard
Design, establish and operate an

ICT/MIS unit, and an associated
Monitoring and Evaluation Unit
Lump sum for foreign and local

consultants,
300.00
Which are based on the Consultants experience
104

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 13.1
Term
Immediate

Hard
or
Soft?
hard
Component
Cost basis
Estimated
Cost
(Ugx*10^6)
Plus estimated capital costs of the

equipment necessary
875.00
Prepare and begin implementation

of a comprehensive capacity
building and training for service
delivery at all levels (including the
P/S)
Lump sum for foreign and local

consultants
181.25
Lump sum for study tours
375.00
Immediate
hard
Clarification of roles regarding multipurpose storage and trans-district

schemes
In-house government inputs

covered from normative budgets,
with a small amount of support from
a foreign institutional specialist
62.50
Immediate
hard
Design and implement a capacity

building programme for the quality
assurance of storage infrastructure
In-house government inputs

covered from normative budgets,
with a small amount of support from
a foreign dam safety expert
62.50
Immediate
hard
Prepare and implement a

comprehensive capacity building
programme for improved,
decentralised O&M, including
Lump sum provision for a major

study involving local and foreign
experts
600.00
Study tours
375.00
Prepare capacity building

programme re: rights based water
markets/ economic efficiency
Lump sum for the provision of

foreign and local consultants
162.50
Study tours
125.00
Immediate
hard
Immediate
hard
Design remote sensing networks,

and the appurtenant institutional
requirements, in selected pilot
catchments

243.75
Immediate
hard
Strengthen research and

development capacity
Lump sum for a study of research

needs, and the design of a research
agenda - local and foreign expert
412.50
Lump sum for the establishment of

state of the art research facilities at
the centre and regions
12,500.00
Immediate
soft
Tariff barrier review and design of a

long term tariff monitoring and
advisory service
Normative government budget
none
Immediate
soft
Study of possible tax breaks and

other incentives for private
investment
none
Immediate
soft
Study of current water rights system

& potential water market modalities
Included above
Included
above
105

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 13.1
Term
Hard
or
Soft?
Immediate
soft
Immediate
soft
Estimated
Cost
(Ugx*10^6)
Component
Cost basis
Study of operating rules for multipurpose dams

162.50
Study Tours
125.00
Agree and promulgate the draft

irrigation policy
Lump sum for a widespread

consultation re: the draft and a
formal stakeholder workshop
62.50
Total for the Immediate term
19,593.50
1,398.00
Short
hard
Ongoing and expanded

demonstrations, including farmer to
farmer visits, of small scale irrigation
technology and water harvesting etc
and dissemination of appropriate
WfP technologies
1 x2.5 ha demo per remaining

district: costs as per simple irrigated
Short
hard
Implement capacity building

programme for awareness raising
Continuation of programme costed

above, NGO implementation
assumed
250.00
Short
hard
Maintain and expand awareness

assumed
250.00
Short
hard
none
Short
hard
Ongoing ICT/MIS based monitoring

and evaluation
none
Short
hard
Continue comprehensive capacity

PS)
As above
Short
hard
Ongoing quality assurance of water

Short
hard
Continue a comprehensive capacity

building programme for improved,
As above
625.00
Short
hard
Implement capacity building

programme re: rights based water
Lump sum provision for the

specialist trainers and rural
facilitators that will be required.
375.00
Short
hard
Install remote sensing networks,

and establish the appurtenant
institutional requirements, in
Capital costs of the networks

none
625.00
none
6,250.00
Short
hard
Training in the application of IWRM

principles to irrigation development
and the role of strategic water
allocations
It is assumed that this will be the

responsibility of those responsible
for implementing IWRM.
Nonetheless the need for regular
consultant and the occasional
workshop, hence this indicative
budget allocated to the sub-sector
62.50
Short
hard
none
Short
soft
Change tariff laws as appropriate
none
106

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 13.1
Term
Hard
or
Soft?
Short
Estimated
Cost
(Ugx*10^6)
Component
Cost basis
soft
Revise law as necessary and

implement tax breaks
none
Short
soft
Register customary irrigation water

used as a customary right
none
Short
soft
Implement operating rules for multipurpose dams
none
Total for the Short Term
9,835.50
Medium
hard

farmer visits, of increasingly
sophisticated small scale irrigation
WfP technologies
Reduced costs on the assumption

that all demo plots now in place.
Ongoing NGO implementation
250.00
Medium
hard
Maintain and expand awareness to

include new markets and added
value opportunities

assumed
250.00
Medium
hard
none
Medium
hard
Ongoing career enhancement and

on the job training
none
Medium
hard

and evaluation
none
Medium
hard

P/S)
As above, but slowly reducing

needs for this, hence reduced
budget
250.00
Medium
hard

none
Medium
hard

none
Medium
hard
Implement pilot water markets in

selected sub-basins
NGO support essential, budget

therefore reflects both orientation
and operational costs
Medium
hard
Ongoing and expanded remote

sensing in selected pilot catchments
None
Medium
hard
None
Medium
soft
Develop a policy framework for risk

and water right allocation in the
case of public private partnerships
Lump sum for foreign consultants
128.33
Study Tours
125.00
Total for the Medium term
375.00
1,378.33
107

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 13.1
Term
Hard
or
Soft?
Long
Component
Cost basis
hard

farmer visits, of increasingly
sophisticated small scale irrigation
WfP technologies
Reduced costs on the assumption

that all demo plots now in place.
Ongoing NGO implementation but
gradually reducing over time
625.00
Long
hard
Maintain and expand awareness to

include new markets and added
value opportunities

assumed, gradually reducing over
time
625.00
Long
hard
none
Long
hard
Ongoing career enhancement and

on the job training
none
Long
hard

and evaluation
none
Long
hard

PS)
As above, but slowly reducing

needs for this over the long term
Long
hard

none
Long
hard

none
Long
hard
Expand water markets in selected

sub-basins
NGO and rural facilitation will be

necessary hence lump sum
provision
Long
hard
Expand as required remote sensing

in selected pilot catchments
none
Long
hard
none
Total for the Long Term
13.1.2
Estimated
Cost
(Ugx*10^6)
625.00
625.00
2,500.00
Cost Elements of Publicly Funded Irrigation Development

Publicly funded irrigation will comprise four cost elements:
1.
off-farm costs, taken here to mean the cost of works necessary to convey
water from source to edge of the scheme;
2.
on-farm distribution system costs, taken here to mean the cost of all
distribution system works within a schemes boundary;
3.
improved irrigation technology (sprinkler and drip);
4.
drainage.
Figure 13.1 refers.

108

Volume 1 Main Text
Elements 1 and 3 are already covered by the Unit Cost Estimating Tool (UCET)
developed for the WfPSIM study41. But since there is no indicative data with
respect to elements 2 and 4 it has been necessary to develop unit costs from first
principles based on a sample area approach (see Annex 2) and to incorporate the
these into the UCET thereby increasing its utility for the DWD. Table 13.2
indicates the derivation of each cost element for each type of publicly funded
scheme.
Figure 13.1 Schematic Showing Off-Farm and On-Farm Works
Table 13.2
Scheme Type and Cost Element

COST ELEMENT
SCHEME TYPE
Off-Farm
Simple
Adapted from the sample area estimate
Formal Type A open channel

From UCET
Formal Type A pressurised
41
On-Farm
Adapted from the

sample area
estimate
Irrigation Technology
Drainage
This is likely to be
limited to low tech drip
and treadle pump
technology and as such
would be funded by the
farmer either
independently or with
NGO support
Included in the adapted

sample area estimate
From UCET
Included in the adapted

sample area estimate
UCET
Revision of the Water for Production Strategy and Investment Plan PEMconsult August 2009
109

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 13.2
Scheme Type and Cost Element

COST ELEMENT
SCHEME TYPE
Off-Farm
Formal Type B open channel
Formal Type B pressurised
On-Farm
Irrigation Technology
Adapted from the

sample area
estimate
From UCET
Drainage
UCET
Managed Wetlands
Sample area estimate
Not applicable
Not applicable as the

managed wetland
concept essentially
comprises drainage
In accordance with best practise in sustainable participatory irrigation, it is recommended

that the farmers themselves take responsibility for constructing the field channels, at their
expense, as their contribution to scheme costs.
13.1.3
Irrigation Investment and Recurring Costs

The detailed year by year investment costs of the Framework Master Plan are
included in the Analytical Tool, based on the unit costs developed as described in
Annex 2. Annex 4 presents the results in detail; but for convenience they are
summarised in Table 13.4 below and include the costs of capacity building and
scheme cycle management.
13.1.4
Operation and Maintenance of Publicly Funded Irrigation

It has been agreed with key stakeholders that the operation and maintenance of
irrigation scheme civil works is taken at 5% of accumulated investment costs
Consistent with the principles of full recurring cost recovery, the recurring costs
of operation and maintenance are included in the farmers cost contribution. But
even with the best operation and maintenance practices, full scheme rehabilitation
and/or upgrading will eventually become necessary. It has been assumed that
rehabilitation of civil works will be necessary every 20 years, and electromechanical/pressurised works every 12 years.
Therefore, although the FMP itself runs for only 25 years, the financial and
economic analysis have been run over an additional 15 years, in order to pick up a
meaningful replacement/rehabilitation cycle.
13.1.5
Private Sector Schemes: the Leverage Fund

All of the foregoing material has been concerned with publicly funded irrigation;
and this is appropriate given the responsibility, incumbent on government, to
raise socio-economic baselines in the rural areas, in line with the National
Development Plan. In fact, as has been made clear in this and earlier study
deliverables, this entire Framework Master Plan is a direct, sub-sector response to
the NDP. Nonetheless, since the NDP is also intended to catalyse and accelerate
economic growth, it is essential to recognise that the private sector has a great
role to play: and especially so given the opportunities represented by high food
prices and new regional markets.
It should already be clear that many of the institutional measures and studies
included in the framework will contribute to enabling the environment for private
investment (tax breaks, water markets, tariff monitoring etc). However, there is
110

Volume 1 Main Text
another role that government can and should play. And that is to provide basic
irrigation service infrastructure in the form of dams, pump stations and feeder
systems42. Such infrastructure moreover, can be operated under several kinds of
Public Private Partnerships.
Accordingly, this Framework Master Plan provides for a fund set aside to build
such infrastructure, in the hopes of engendering increased private sector
investment (very much akin to Tanzanias National Irrigation Development
Fund). Its size depends however, on the performance of the Framework Plan as a
whole. In other words, the financial and economic analysis can be used to
estimate how large such a fund would be for a given Internal Rate of Return. The
leverage fund provision suggested in Table 13.4 is based on a Financial Internal
Rate of Return (FIRR see section 14.1.1) of 30%. However, it should be noted
that the FIRR calculation carried out for the purpose of estimating the size of an
affordable leverage fund was based on all costs and all benefits, whereas in reality
the FIRR as far as Government is concerned would not strictly include the
farmers cost contributions, but then neither would all the benefits accrue to the
Governments investment. At this level of study, it would simply not be practical
to try and break this down instead, the matter can be studied in detail by the
Apex Secretariat during the immediate term before the leverage fund is expected
to become operational.
Table 13.4
Investment and Recurring Costs of Irrigation Development (million Ugx)

TERM
TYPE OF INVESTMENT
Immediate
Short
Medium
Long
continuation
TOTALS
19,212.50
8,562.50
1,822.50
2,500.00
2,407.56
33,450.82
103,445.66
1,146,669.71
17,224.74
86,123.72
86,123.72
206,696.92
total Government
38,844.81
128,137.03
191,391.88
1,355,866.62
850,027.99
2,564,268.33
Government
850,027.99
-
32,097.50
2,136,001.74
396,169.09
Producers
capital cost contribution
1,753.80
4,292.11
39,330.44
27,877.93
73,254.28
3,557.75
19,882.59
490,306.52
1,208,269.45
1,722,016.32
total producers
5,311.55
24,174.70
529,636.96
1,236,147.38
1,795,270.60
133,448.59
215,566.58
1,885,503.59
2,086,175.37
4,359,538.93
OVERALL TOTAL
13.1.6
42
38,844.81
Crop Budgets
Ugandas agricultural sector is characterised by a wide range of crops and a large
number of districts. For any particular crop, the production costs and prices vary
with district. It will be ascertained from Table 11.1, that the Analytical Tool
deals with almost 280 different crop/district combinations. To establish crop
budgets for each of these would clearly have been impractical, especially as i)
Cf the service infrastructure recently installed close to the mouth of the Fleuve Senegal in Senegal itself. There, government
has installed pumped service over an area of some 2000 ha and has let 20 ha blocks to private producers on a leasehold and
service charge basis.
111

Volume 1 Main Text
such data proved difficult to locate; and ii) would have provided a level of detail
unnecessary for a macro-economic analysis.
Accordingly, it was agreed with Key Stakeholders that generic crop budgets, one
for each of the crops included in the Analytical Tool, would suffice. The results
are summarised in Table 13.5.
Table 13.5
Production and Revenue Budgets for the Indicator Crops (Ugx)
CROP
ITEM
bananas
production cost/ha
irrigated yield (kg/ha)
price/kg
citrus
Year 1
1,894,080
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
30,000
450
13,500,000
13,500,000
13,500,000
13,500,000
13,500,000
13,500,000
13,500,000
Nett revenue/ha
11,605,920
11,605,920
11,605,920
11,605,920
11,605,920
11,605,920
11,605,920
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
42
83
125
167
1,250,000
2,500,000
3,750,000
5,000,000
(1,392,000)
(142,000)
1,108,000
2,358,000
3,608,000
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
625,000
1,250,000
1,875,000
2,500,000
3,125,000
production cost/ha
price/120 kg bag
1,392,000
30,000
revenue/ha
Nett revenue/ha
production cost/ha
(1,392,000)
price/kg
Robusta assumed
1,250
revenue/ha
Nett revenue/ha
production cost/ha
price/kg
(1,968,000)
(1,968,000)
(1,343,000)
(718,000)
(93,000)
532,000
1,157,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
888,800
888,800
888,800
888,800
888,800
888,800
888,800
500
750
1,000
2,000
3,000
750,000
1,125,000
1,500,000
3,000,000
4,500,000
(1,262,309)
(887,309)
(512,309)
987,691
2,487,691
1,111,200
4,000
500
revenue/ha
Nett revenue/ha
production cost/ha
(1,392,000)
1,968,000
palm oil
2,012,309

price/kg
1,500
revenue/ha
Nett revenue/ha
sweet
potatoes
production cost/ha
price/kg
pulses
Year 7
revenue/ha
N of 120/kg bags
maize
Year 6
average annual cost of a five year planting and production cycle
coffee
Year 5
1,236,000
15,000
333
revenue/ha
4,995,000
4,995,000
4,995,000
4,995,000
4,995,000
4,995,000
4,995,000
Nett revenue/ha
3,759,000
3,759,000
3,759,000
3,759,000
3,759,000
3,759,000
3,759,000
production cost/ha
928,800
112

Volume 1 Main Text
Table 13.5
CROP
Production and Revenue Budgets for the Indicator Crops (Ugx)

ITEM
1,250
price/kg
1,200
revenue/ha
Nett revenue/ha
rice
production cost/ha
sesame
3,250
price/kg
2,000
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
Year 7
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
571,200
571,200
571,200
571,200
571,200
571,200
571,200
milled
6,500,000
6,500,000
6,500,000
6,500,000
6,500,000
6,500,000
6,500,000
Nett revenue/ha
4,376,000
4,376,000
4,376,000
4,376,000
4,376,000
4,376,000
4,376,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
2,500,000
716,800
716,800
716,800
716,800
716,800
716,800
716,800
3,500,000
3,500,000
3,500,000
3,500,000
3,500,000
1,716,800
1,716,800
1,716,800
1,716,800
production cost/ha
1,783,200
1,250
price/kg
2,000
production cost/ha
milled
1,783,200
1,750
price/kg
2,000
milled
revenue/ha
3,500,000
3,500,000
Nett revenue/ha
1,716,800
1,716,800
production cost/ha
vegetables
Year 3
revenue/ha
Nett revenue/ha
tea
Year 2
2,124,000
revenue/ha
soybean
Year 1
1,716,800
3,340,000
2,000
price/kg
3,500
milled
revenue/ha
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
7,000,000
Nett revenue/ha
3,660,000
3,660,000
3,660,000
3,660,000
3,660,000
3,660,000
3,660,000
revenue/ha
55,500,000
55,500,000
55,500,000
55,500,000
55,500,000
55,500,000
55,500,000
Nett revenue/ha
54,484,800
54,484,800
54,484,800
54,484,800
54,484,800
54,484,800
54,484,800
production cost/ha
price/kg
1,015,200
30,000
1,850
Notable by its absence from this list because of a lack of pricing data is sugar
cane, and this is regrettable because of its increasing importance as an irrigated
crop, not least because of sugar prices which are trending high in the country. It is
also regrettable because a study into the agricultural productivity of water in the
Nile Basin about to be published by the FAO shows that Uganda, although no
means the largest (Figure 13.2) is the most successful irrigated sugar producer in
the Nile Basin (Figure 13.3).43
43
Agricultural Water Use Projections in the Nile Basin to 2030: Comparison with the Food for Thought Scenarios,
Riddell/FAO 2011
113

Volume 1 Main Text
Figure 13.3, where it should be noted that the use of agricultural water
productivity in terms of cal/m3 captures not only cane yield but also sucrose
extraction ratios, suggests that the combination of high productivity and prices, it
should be considered a priority for Ugandas irrigation sub-sector.
Accordingly, it is strongly recommended that the financial and macro-economic
analyses, which so far do not include the crop, should be made to do so as soon as
data becomes available.
Figure 13.2
Ugandas Percentage Share of the Area Planted to Irrigated Sugar Cane in the Nile basin
Figure 13.3
Weighted Mean Agricultural Water Productivity (cal/m 3) for Producer Countries in the Nile Basin
as %s of the overall mean.
114

Volume 1 Main Text
13.2
Consolidated Costs and Benefits

Detailed consolidated costs and benefits are presented in Annex 4 and
summarised below in Table 13.6. It is based on the following assumptions.
Table 13.6
Consistent with the principles of participatory irrigation management and

sustainability, the costs of in-field channels are assumed to be the
responsibility of the farmers.
Although the costs of pressurised delivery systems,

source to field edge, are included in the investment costs,
the costs of the actual field equipment (sprinkler or drip)
is assumed to be the responsibility of the farmer
involved. However, government may decide as a matter
of policy to provide grants or subsidies in order to
encourage the uptake of such technology, in which case
it would be appropriate to finance this from the private
sector leverage fund.
Capacity
m3/day
Annual
Cost in
Mill Ugx
10
1.4
48
1.6
95
1.8
475
3.6
1,900
10.1
9,500
45.2
47,500
223.1
As already mentioned, general operation and

maintenance of civil works is taken at 5% of
accumulated investment costs.
Pumping costs have been taken from the WS Unit Rates Uganda June
2011 software as shown in the side table above.
Summary of Costs and Benefits (million Ugx)

TERM
ITEM
immediate
short
medium
long
continuation
TOTAL
19,212.50
8,562.50
1,822.50
2,500.00
32,097.50
2,407.56
33,450.82
103,445.66
1,146,669.71
850,027.99
2,136,001.74
17,224.74
86,123.72
86,123.72
206,696.92
96,169.09
total Government
38,844.81
128,137.03
191,391.88
1,355,866.62
850,027.99
2,564,268.33
farmers cost contribution
1,753.80
4,292.11
39,330.44
27,877.93
73,254.28
3,557.75
19,882.59
490,306.52
1,208,269.45
1,722,016.32
production costs
32,883.76
162,531.03
2,664,195.15
6,262,575.28
9,122,185.22
total producers
38,195.31
186,705.73
3,193,832.11
7,498,722.66
10,917,455.82
OVERALL TOTAL COSTS
38,844.81
166,332.34
378,097.61
4,549,698.74
8,348,750.65
13,481,724.15
115,566.85
584,302.12
10,195,906.51
24,165,230.82
35,061,006.30
-38,844.81
-50,765.50
206,204.51
5,646,207.78
15,816,480.17
21,579,282.15
Government costs
Producers' costs
Revenues
CASH FLOW
115

Volume 1 Main Text
14
MACRO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
14.1
Methodology
14.1.1
The Difference Between Financial and Economic Rates of Return

An Internal Rate of Return (IRR) is the discount rate at which the Net Present
Value of a cashflow equals zero. It is equal to the interest rate at which money
necessary to finance the same cashflow results in a break even result, ie no costs,
but no profits either. It is a commonly used indicator of investment viability or
attractiveness.
A Financial Internal Rate of Return (FIRR) refers to the financial performance of
a particular investment, while an Economic Internal Rate of Return (EIRR) is a
measure of the impact that the same investment has in economic terms. The
difference is crucial because in overall terms a given amount of money invested
can be expected to have different returns depending on the sector it is invested in:
For a Government wishing to commit public funds wisely, subject to any
externalities in terms of social or environmental benefits, it is essential to make
sure that any investment achieves at least an acceptable minimum EIRR. For
example, a publicly funded workday invested in a study of how paint dries is less
likely to contribute as much to GDP as one that is invested in cutting and
polishing 400 carat diamonds for export (unless perhaps the entire economy hs
cornered the global market in fast drying paint!).
Of course it is not as simple as that, because a particular investment will comprise
a diversity of different costs and in the case of a FMP such as this, different
benefits because it they are based on a range of crops, each of which has different
added value opportunities. Thus, it should be clear that the value of each
financial cost and benefit making up a cashflow is associated with economic costs
or benefit that shadow its financial counterpart hence the term Shadow
Price. And what is more, it is possible that a financial benefit might represent an
economic cost. A good example of this could be a subsidy because a highly
subsidised venture could be highly attractive to its operator in financial terms, yet
represent a cost to the economy at large a transportation contract in the case of
large scale feeding programme perhaps. In such cases the economy would bear
the cost because of higher social or environmental priorities.
For a macro-economic analysis such as that described below it usually adequate
to establish shadow prices not of individual items, but rather disaggregated
budget classes. The next section describes how this has been done for the macroeconomic analysis of the FMP.
14.1.2
Derivation of the Shadow Pricing Factors

The first column of Table 14.1 defines the Budget Classes that have been adopted
for the purposes of this study there are five. Column two then breaks them
down into sub-classes that are likely to have different shadow values. With the
exception of two budget classes, a single disaggregation is enough to differentiate
the shadow values in a meaningful way. These are:
Farmers contribution to capital costs: this captures the value of labour,

cash or kind provided by traditional or emerging farmers as their
contributions to the cost of their irrigation schemes. In theory, it would be
116

Volume 1 Main Text
necessary to account for the investment costs of the commercial farmers,

which should be something like three times the value of the leverage fund
(section 13.1.5 referred). But without knowing how much of the fund is
actually disbursed and against what investment and revenue stream is
impossible to forecast at this stage. Accordingly although the leverage fund
has been assessed with respect to its financial affordability as a sunk cost
(section 13.2) it has been ignored for economic purposes on the reasonable
assumption that each disbursement will be subjected to due diligence
analyses and only made if the venture in question creates an adequate
EIRR.
Production costs: are the seasonal costs of crop production, these will have
local and foreign elements because of the assumed need to import certain
inputs such as fertilisers and pesticides and even certified seeds in the case
of say, high value horticulture.
Revenues: in financial terms are simply what the producer gets at the farm
gate plus what might accrue to added value. However, in economic terms
export revenues are likely to differ from domestic and of all revenues
received by producers and processors, a portion will have to be paid out in
taxes and revenues, which have a different economic value. Added value is
admittedly problematic at this level of study. Accordingly, as will be seen
below, the shadow pricing factor is simply based on a best guess as to how
much the financial revenues (which do not allow for added value) could
generate added value.
The exceptions are
the public costs of capacity building, which has three sub-classes two of
which are likely to have both local and foreign cost elements44.
the public cost of infrastructure which also has three sub-classes of which
all but one need further sub-division:
- scheme cycle costs are the human resource costs of the implementation
cycle (scheme identification, pre-investment studies, detailed design,
implementation etc45); the forex sub-class acknowledges the likelihood
that international expertise will considered necessary from time to time.
- earthworks46 involve machinery and fuel costs, which themselves are
likely to have local and foreign cost elements; and labour which this
analysis assumes will all be local
- structures require concrete (or masonry) and steel, both of which may
involve foreign cost elements and labour, which once again is assumed
to be local.
The third column refers where it can be seen that for three sub-sub-classes
further disaggregation is needed.
The total disaggregation factors for a given budget class (penultimate column)
will obviously total 100% whereas the same totals for the shadow pricing factors
could be greater or less that 100%.
44
45
46
Actually, so might the 3rd establishment, but that would be going considerably beyond the level of detail needed for macroeconomic analysis.
Depreciation and replacement costs of equipment and consumable can be safely ignored for this level of study
For shadow pricing purposes, lining is assumed to be a kind of structure.
117

Volume 1 Main Text
The final column indicates the percentage changes necessary to the budget classes
and, as necessary their components/sub-components, to convert their financial
values into economic ones.
Table 14.1
Derivation of the Shadow Pricing Factors
DISAGGREGATION FACTORS FOR SHADOW PRICING

Budget Class
1st
Disaggregation
2nd
Disaggregation
3rd
Disaggregation
disaggregation
factors
shadow
pricing factors
Public costs of Institutional

Capacity Building
technical
assistance
local costs
none
45%
184%/1
forex costs
none
20%
100%/1
local costs
none
15%
79%/1
forex costs
none
5%
50%
establishment
none
none
15%
83%/1
Scheme cycle
management
local costs
none
15%
100%
forex costs
none
5%
50%
earthworks
Machinery
local costs
20%
79%/1
forex costs
10%
50%
local costs
8%
100%
forex costs
4%
100%
10%
184%/1
equipment
Public Costs of Infrastructure
Fuel
structures
labour
none
concrete
local costs
8%
83%
forex costs
2%
50%/1
local costs
5%
100%
forex costs
steel
3%
100%
labour
none
10%
184%/1
Farmers capital cost contributions
local costs
none
none
100%
98%
Production costs
local costs
none
none
83%
100%
forex costs
none
none
17%
50%
local sales
none
none
21%
100%
exports
none
none
60%
150%
taxes and tariffs
none
none
19%
87%
Revenues
Notes:
1
Results quoted from study carried out by Taylor and Bekabye (1999) when comparison of labour based and equipment based roads
construction/rehabilitations in Uganda.
2
Since Uganda has an open system of foreign exchange dealing, the assumption made in this project plan is that the exchange rate is
a fair reflection of the market rate for foreign exchange. Hence, no adjustment of prices has been made for this. This is a simplification
that favours the more import-intensive equipment-based methods. This is because, where the balance of payments is vulnerable as in
Uganda, and all other things being equal, there is a tendency to prefer investments with a low proportion of foreign costs.
3
Guesses on disaggregated factors were estimated using the general contribution of anticipated foreign expenditure in the Ugandas
national budget ranging between 27.8% 30%.
4
Foreign exchange have a great deal on most forex costs in Table above and thus why some of these costs may seem to be constant
considering Ugandas inflation rates ranging between 28%/30% (UBOS, October-November 2011).
118

Volume 1 Main Text
14.2
Results
14.2.1
Sensitivity Analysis
Figure 14.1 shows the results of the sensitivity analysis which tested the cashflow
for increased costs, reduced revenues and delayed revenues. Unlike the financial
analysis which was used i) to estimate the size of leverage fund that government
could afford to finance, against a target FIRR; and ii) to predict the financial
returns on government investment, as already made clear the EIRR calculations
did not include the financing of the leverage fund. There is no realistic way to
disaggregate disbursements from the leverage fund with more details of the types
of investment that will be financed from the fund. But this is safe because every
disbursement from the leverage fund will be subject to separate feasibility studies.
Unless there is a broader political or socio-economic objective, every leverage
fund disbursement will be therefore invested in schemes with high feasibility.
The results of the EIRR/sensitivity analyses, which indicates that the FMP has an
base EIRR of around 45%, are expressed as a star chart which confirms that the
FMP is most sensitive to delays in revenues, and least sensitive to increased costs.
But none of the variables suggests killer scenarios, in other words the FMP is
economically robust Figure 14.1 refers.
Figure 14
14.2.2
Reduction Percentages of Base Case EIRRs Resulting from Reduced Revenues, Increased Costs
and Delayed Revenues
Incremental Benefits
This section represents an attempt to compare the with-Plan and without-plan
scenarios to the best extent possible in the absence of any formal indication of
exactly what the without-plan scenario actually is. Accordingly it was decided to
use the global agricultural projections data maintained by the FAO for use in
various analyses and publications. It is understood i) that the data contained in
the files is maintained in full consultation with the countries concerned; ii) that a
particular countrys no-objection is a necessary pre-requisite before its specific
projections data can be used and iii) that MAAIF has no objection in this case.
119

Volume 1 Main Text
The FAO projections data covers both rainfed and irrigated agriculture and is
based on a suite of 35 crops. As far as irrigation in Uganda is concerned it
suggests that, not including any commercial production, the following crops were
irrigated in 2005 (the projections data current baseline):
Maize
rice
sesame
sugar cane
vegetables
0.20 ha
10.00 ha
2.17 ha
1.00 ha
4.16 ha
Clearly this data is not entirely correct. For instance, it is known that the current
baseline totals some 2,336 ha of public sector irrigation, not including the
managed wetlands (Figure 9.2 referred), yet if it is assumed that the rice included
in the FAO data is produced on the managed wetlands, it leaves only 4.53 of
upland irrigation a mere 0.3 % of what is known to be there !
This is clearly nonsense, but that being said, the projections data nonetheless has
an interesting story to tell in terms of what it assumes with respect to expansion
rates of the irrigation sub-sector, which in turn has implications for food security,
public finances and employment.
The FAO projections used for this purpose are available for the baseline year
(2005), 2030 and 2050. Interpolating this data to give values for the end of the
FMPs Short, Medium and Long terms allows expansion rates during those
periods to be compared as shown in figure 14.1.
Figure 14.1
Business As Usual Sub-sector Annual Expansion Rates Compared with those of the FMP
It shows a gradual decline in commitment to the sector for Business-as-Usual as

compared to the FMP.
120

Volume 1 Main Text
Even if the BAU expansion rates were applied to the known baseline, including
the managed wetlands, it is clear that the FMP is likely to have a very significant
impact on three key indicators for poverty alleviation and economic growth:
income and livelihoods: the FMP will create jobs not only at the irrigation
schemes (including construction jobs during implementation); but also
along the input and market/added value chains. Also, by increasing the
supply of good for marketing, market activities will cause differentiation of
labour, also creating thereby new livelihood opportunities.
public revenues: a reinvigorated irrigation sub-sector will contribute to
increased GDP and government revenues from taxation.
foreign exchange: increasing the supply of export commodities will
increase in turn Ugandas foreign exchange reserves.
121

Volume 1 Main Text
15
MOVING FORWARD
15.1
Recapitulation of Main Arguments

The preceding text began with an examination of the role that a reinvigorated
irrigation sub-sector could play first as regards the achievement of the current
National Development Plan and eventually of the National Vision. It was argued
that the sub-sector will have the most impact in terms of poverty alleviation and
economic growth and as such will be particularly relevant to the socio-economic
transformation called for in the NDP.
Having established demand, the analysis went on to confirm that there is great
natural resource potential for expanded irrigation service in the county. It also
confirmed that there is a rapidly expanding potential market for agricultural
produce of Ugandan provenance, and furthermore that the market expansion is
fuelled by economic integration in the East African region; by economic
diversification around the Western Indian Ocean rim; and by the need for
sustainable solutions to global food security.
However, despite its strategic importance, the sub-sector is constrained by a lack
of finance and by institutional shortcomings. In addition the sub-sector is
characterised by highly diverse stakeholders in both a vertical and horizontal
sense.
All this very much confirmed what Government already knew.
There is a great need for a structured, integrated master plan for the reinvigoration
of the sector, a plan that addresses not only the need for infrastructural
investment, but also for reform and capacity building of the hard institutions, and
for a reformulation or a better understanding of the soft institutions relevant to the
sub-sector. Such a plan furthermore should be consistent with the principles of
demand driven development, de-concentrated service delivery while creating the
enabling environment for commercial investment.
Accordingly it was decided to develop a master plan using the investment
framework approach, an approach which basically provides a policy bound space
which first facilitates a rigorous diagnosis of a sub-sectors baseline, and
thereafter guides the formulation and scheduling of responsive programmatic
responses that directly link stakeholders to sub-sector and national objectives.
This of course, called for the articulation of a draft policy for the sub-sector that
when finalised would embed the FMPs objectives at policy level and thereby
legitimise its implementation.
The resulting plan, which is highly response to the need for socio-economic
transformation, is targeted at traditional, emerging and commercial farmers and
their supporting, enabling, or regulatory institutions. It is scheduled for
implementation over some 26 years spanning four distinct terms, Immediate,
Short, Medium and Long, each with their own strategic emphasis, and its
estimated total public cost will be Ugx106 2,564,268.3347 comprising Ugx106
2,136,001.74 for infrastructure; Ugx106 32,097.50 for institutional reform and
capacity building; and Ugx106 396,169.09 for a private sector leverage fund see
Figure 15.1.
47
Of the plan itself, ie to 2037 and not including the continuation costs thereafter of replacement, rehabilitation and upgrading.
122

Volume 1 Main Text
Figure 15.1
Distribution of Public FMP Costs by Budget Class
1.87%
institutional capacity
building
23.11%
public cost of
infrastructure
75.02%
private sector
leverage fund
With an estimated EIRR of 46% and

its wide reaching impact, the FMP
can be considered pivotal to the
achievement of Ugandas National
Vision while being highly affordable.
This final chapter of the Main Text is
concerned with the practicalities of
implementing,
financing
and
monitoring the FMP.
Particular
emphasis is made with respect to the
immediate key steps necessary to
maintain momentum, not least as
regards the steps that have to be taken
at the Ministerial level.
15.2
Implementation, Financing and Cost Recovery Plans
15.2.1
Logframe and Implementation Plan

Figure 15.2 sets out an indicative FMP Logframe while Figure 15.2 sets out the
corresponding Implementation Plan. At present, activities have been specified
only at the level of detail suggested directly by the Investment Framework48, and
both cascade down only to the level of Outputs that support the Intermediate
Objectives. But as will be seen below in section 15.3.1, one of the studies
proposed among the Key Next Steps will concern the finalisation of this
Logframe and Implementation Plan in terms of i) the specification of activities to
support each of the outputs and ii) the addition of a suite of activity and impact
indicators for FMP monitoring purposes.
Figure 15.2
Draft FMP Logframe
TARGETS
INDICATOR
MEANS OF VERIFICATION
ASSUMPTIONS AND PRE-CONDITIONS
Ratio of traditional to
emerging farmers
Socio-economic surveys
Enough farming families understand the market and

are able to make the transition from traditional
subsistence to more commercial farming systems
and participation in the economy at large
Increase in N of farmers
above the poverty line
Socio-economic survey
National Vision:
A transformed Uganda society from a
peasant to a modern and prosperous
country within 30 years
National statistics
Overall Objective (of the FMP):

Poverty Alleviation and Economic
Growth as a result of the sustainable
realisation of the countrys irrigation
potential mitigating the effects of climate
change and contributing to the
transformation of Uganda society from a
peasant to a modern and prosperous
country.
Growth in irrigated
agricultural GDP
National statistics
Increase in N of irrigating
farmers above the poverty
line
Costs of deferred
maintenance of the on-farm
works
WUA records
Agriculture continues to provide livelihoods to the

majority of Ugandan families
Agriculture continues to represent a significant
percentage of GDP
Adequate added value opportunities become
available
Intermediate Objectives (of the FMP)

1
48
Irrigated agriculture contributing

to poverty alleviation in Uganda
as a result of farmer managed,
small scale schemes and best
Emerging Market trends continue.

Political stability is maintained
East African Community maintains or expands
functionality
For instance Establish demonstration of smalls scale irrigation technology and water harvesting and dissemination of
appropriate WfP technologies in reality would be the last of a series of activities the include the selection of demonstration
sites, discussions with local communities, design of the demonstration etc.
123

Volume 1 Main Text
Figure 15.2
Draft FMP Logframe
TARGETS
INDICATOR
Growth of irrigated
agriculture GDP
National Statistics
Amount of private
investment in irrigated crop
production
National Statistics
Added value
National statistics
Irrigated agriculture contributing

to economic growth in Uganda
as a result of an enabling
investment environment and
the profitable investment in
irrigated crop production, value
addition and/or service
provision
surveys
Immediate Objectives (of the FMP):
1.1
1.2
2.1
2.2
PRE-CONDITIONS
household income levels
Government is ready to make the necessary

institutional changes
Conflicts over access to

water for irrigation purposes
Local government records
Government is ready to incorporate economic

elements into water allocation mechanisms
Enhanced human capital

development and increased
availability and quality of gainful
employment
N of sub-sector employees
with specific relevant
qualifications
Employment records
Productive use of expanded

irrigation service infrastructure
as a result of new build and
enabling economic instruments
and incentives
Area served by irrigation

infrastructure
As built drawings
Returns/unit irrigated area
WUA or commercial
operators annual accounts
High economic water use

efficiency at catchment level
Returns/unit of water
National Statistics
Increasing household incomes

and social equity
Police records
Availability of adequate funding resources
Outputs:
1.1.1
1.1.2
High Awareness of the benefits

of irrigation; of the rights and
responsibilities of irrigators and
of new markets and added
value opportunities
12,794 ha of small scale

irrigation
Government is ready to improve the enabling

environment for commercial investment
Activities:
Actual awareness levels
Area served
Knowledge, Attitude and

Perception (KAP) surveys
As built drawings
1.1.1.1
Design a national wide awareness raising

programme
1.1.1.2
Implement a nationwide awareness raising

programme
1.1.1.3
Establish demonstration of smalls scale

irrigation technology and water harvesting
technologies
1.1.2.1
Scoping study for new schemes intended

for traditional farmers
1.1.2.2
Scoping mission for study for schemes,

including the possibilities of urban waste
treatment works for irrigation, intended for
emerging farmers
Additional activities as required
1.1.3
15,285 ha of formal
government schemes
Area served
As built drawings
1.1.2.?
Commission schemes
1.1.3.1
As for 1.1.2.1
1.1.3.2
As for 1.1.2.2
1.1.4
142,749 ha of managed
wetlands according to
regulations
Area served
As built drawings
1.1.3.?
As for 1.1.2.?
1.1.4.1
As for 1.1.2.1
1.1.4.2
As for 1.1.2.2
1.1.5
5 Government schemes
rehabilitated
Area served
As built drawings
1.1.4.?
As for 1.1.2.?
1.1.5.1
Feasibility studies for the rehabilitation of

five government irrigation schemes
124

Volume 1 Main Text
Figure 15.2
Draft FMP Logframe
TARGETS
INDICATOR

1.2.1
1.2.2
1.2.3
1.2.4
1.2.5
A functional Irrigation
Secretariat monitoring
implementation of the FMP;
providing an
advisory/advocacy service to
irrigating farmers and a onestop shop for international
investors in commercial
irrigation.
Irrigating farmers able to take

timely advantage of
opportunities represented by
changing tariff frameworks in
Uganda and elsewhere
Existence of the Secretariat
Implement the rehabilitation
1.2.1.1
Design the Secretariat
Secretariat accounts
Level to which farmers feel
adequately served by the
Secretariat
Evaluation questionnaires
1.2.1.2
Establish the Secretariat
Level to which investors feel

adequately served by the
Secretariat
Evaluation questionnaires
1.2.1.3
Operate the Secretariat
FDI levels
Records of the Secretariat
Farming systems
adaptability
Farm surveys
1.2.2.1
Undertake a tariff barrier review
Expanded export
opportunities
Secretariat records
1.2.2.2
Design a long term tariff monitoring and

advisory service
1.2.2.3
1.2.2.4
1.2.2.5
Change local tariff laws as appropriate
1.2.3.1
Knowledge, Attitude and

Perception (KAP) surveys
among the community of
irrigators
Prepare capacity building programme for

awareness raising and participatory
development
1.2.3.1
Implement capacity building programme

for awareness raising and participatory
development
Staffing records
1.2.4.1
Design the Unit
Units output
1.2.4.2
Specify equipment and software
1.2.4.3
Establish the Unit
1.2.4.4

evaluation
1.2.5.1
Evaluate current levels of service delivers

and identify skills, human resource and
establishment gaps
1.2.5.2
Design a programme to strengthen service

delivery at all levels
1.2.5.3
Implement a programme to strengthen

service delivery at all levels
1.2.5.4
Regular monitoring of service delivery

standards
1.2.5.6
Regular upgrading of service delivery skills

at all levels
Government staff competent in

awareness raising and
participatory processes in
irrigation development and
management
N of staff trained
A functional ICT/MIS unit

equipped with state of the art
equipment and software
Existence of the Unit
Transparent, accountable cost

effective and adaptable service
delivery at all levels within the
sub-sector
Secretariat reports
1.1.5.?
Water service charge

collection ratios
National statistics
Training and other personal

records
WUA and Secretariat

records
1.2.6
Clearly demarcated roles and

responsibilities with respect to
the operation of multi-purpose
dams and multi-district
irrigation schemes
Completed institutional and

operational design for the
operation of multi-purpose
storage
Ratification of the designs

by the MoWE
1.2.6.1
Preparation of an institutional design for

the operation of multi-purpose dams and
multi-district irrigation schemes
1.2.7
Highly motivated, service

oriented sub-sector staff and
service providers
Staff job satisfaction
Staff consultations
1.2.7.1
Establish an ongoing career enhancement

and mid-career training programme
1.2.7.2
Establish attractive remuneration schemes
1.2.7.3
Operate ongoing career enhancement,

mid-career training and attractive
remuneration schemes
Duration of typical
employment contracts
collection ratios
WUA and Secretariat

records
125

Volume 1 Main Text
Figure 15.2
Draft FMP Logframe
TARGETS
INDICATOR
2.1.1
N of service infrastructure
schemes
As built drawings
2.1.1
Assemble a dossier of undeveloped

opportunities for bulk service
infrastructure, with particular emphasis on
opportunities for Public Private
Partnerships
Benefitting areas
Surveys and as built

drawings
2.1.2
Study of possible tax breaks and other

2.1.3
Revise the policy, legal and regulatory

frameworks for Public Private Partnerships
and implement tax break regime
2.1.4
Ongoing implementation of bulk service

infrastructure and Public Private
Partnerships
2.1.5
Service delivery by Public Private

Partnerships
2.1.2.1
Design a capacity building programme for

the quality assurance of storage
infrastructure
2.1.2.2

2.1.3.1
Prepare a comprehensive capacity

building programme for improved
decentralized operation and maintenance
2.1.3.2
Develop a transparent and participatory

framework for recurring cost recovery
2.1.3.3
Implement the framework for recurring cost

recovery
2.1.3.4
Ongoing capacity building for

decentralized operation and maintenance
2.1.3.5
Participatory monitoring and evaluation of

infrastructure operation and maintenance
2.2.1.1
Undertake a study into the current system

of water permits and rights based market
modalities
2.2.1.2
Register current water use
2.2.1.3
Establish a sub-sector wide water permit

system
2.2.1.4
Prepare capacity building programme re:

efficiency
2.2.1.5
Implement capacity building programme

re: rights based water markets/ economic
efficiency
2.2.1.6
Implement pilot water markets in selected

sub-basins
2.2.1.7
Expand water markets in selected subbasins
2.2.2.1
Undertake a study of innovative,

information based operating rules for multipurpose dams
2.2.2.2
Design remote sensing networks and the

appurtenance institutional requirements in
2.2.2.3
Install remote sensing networks, and

establish the appurtenant institutional
requirements, in selected pilot catchments
2.2.2.4
Ongoing and expanded remote sensing in

2.2.3.1
Strengthen research and development

capacity
2.1.2
2.1.3
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
Bulk service infrastructure

serving multiple schemes in
the public and private sectors
and attracting commercial
investments for production and
Public Private Partnerships in
service delivery
Quality and safety of water

storage infrastructure assured
Well maintained and

productive irrigation sub-sector
infrastructure
Water allocated according to

economic but nonetheless
socially equitable advantage
(Multi-purpose) dam
operations based on real-time
remote sensing data
State of art research

contributing to the optimal
N of structures passing QA
tests

collection ratios
Economic efficiency of water

at catchment level
Financial productivity of
storage facilities operated
on the basis of real time
data
N of quality research
themes, papers and results
QA reports
WUA and Secretariat

records
Water Management Zonal

office records
Water Management Zonal

office records
Peer reviews
126

Volume 1 Main Text
Figure 15.2
Draft FMP Logframe
TARGETS
performance of the irrigation
sub-sector
INDICATOR
disseminated

2.2.3.2
Establish an agenda for both pure and

adaptive research
2.2.3.3
Ongoing pure and adaptive research
127

Volume 1 Main Text
Draft FMP Implementation Schedule
2037
2036
2035
2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
LONG TERM
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
MEDIUM TERM
2020
2019
2018
2016
SHORT TERM
2015
2014
LOGFRAME LEVEL
2013
2012
IMMEDIATE
2017
Figure 15.2
INTERMEDIATE OBJECTIVE 1
Irrigated agriculture contributing to poverty alleviation in Uganda as a result of farmer managed, small scale schemes and best practice service delivery
IMMEDIATE OBJECTIVE 1.1
Increasing household incomes and social equity
OUTPUT 1.1.1
High Awareness of the benefits of irrigation; of the rights and responsibilities of irrigators and of new markets and added value opportunities
supporting activities
1
Design a national wide awareness raising programme
Implement a nationwide awareness raising programme
Establish demonstration of smalls scale irrigation technology

and water harvesting and dissemination of appropriate WfP
technologies
OUTPUT 1.1.2
3
12,794 ha of small scale irrigation

1
Scoping study for new schemes intended for traditional

farmers
Scoping mission for study for schemes, including the

possibilities of urban waste treatment works for irrigation,
intended for emerging farmers
Commission schemes
OUTPUT 1.1.3
15,285 ha of formal government schemes
128

Volume 1 Main Text
As for 1.1.2.1
As for 1.1.2.2
2037
2036
2035
2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
LONG TERM
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
MEDIUM TERM
2020
2019
2018
2016
SHORT TERM
2015
2014
LOGFRAME LEVEL
2013
2012
IMMEDIATE
2017
Figure 15.2

?
As for 1.1.2.?
OUTPUT 1.1.4
142,749 ha of managed wetlands according to regulations
1
As for 1.1.2.1
As for 1.1.2.2
As for 1.1.2.?
OUTPUT 1.1.5
5 Government schemes rehabilitated
1
Feasibility studies for the rehabilitation of five government

irrigation schemes
129

Volume 1 Main Text
2037
2036
2035
2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
LONG TERM
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
MEDIUM TERM
2020
2019
2018
2016
SHORT TERM
2015
2014
LOGFRAME LEVEL
2013
2012
IMMEDIATE
2017
Figure 15.2
Implement the rehabilitation

Enhanced human capital development and increased availability and quality of gainful employment
OUTPUT 1.2.1
A functional Irrigation Secretariat monitoring implementation of the FMP; providing an advisory/advocacy service to irrigating farmers and a one-stop shop for international investors in commercial irrigation.
1
Design the Secretariat
Establish the Secretariat
Operate the Secretariat
OUTPUT 1.2.2
Irrigating farmers able to take timely advantage of opportunities represented by changing tariff frameworks in Uganda and elsewhere
1
Undertake a tariff barrier review
Design a long term tariff monitoring and advisory service
Change local tariff laws as appropriate
OUTPUT 1.2.3
Government staff competent in awareness raising and participatory processes in irrigation development and management
130

Volume 1 Main Text
2037
2036
2035
2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
LONG TERM
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
MEDIUM TERM
2020
2019
2018
2016
SHORT TERM
2015
2014
LOGFRAME LEVEL
2013
2012
IMMEDIATE
2017
Figure 15.2
1
Prepare capacity building programme for awareness raising

and participatory development
Implement capacity building programme for awareness

raising and participatory development
OUTPUT 1.2.4
A functional ICT/MIS unit equipped with state of the art equipment and software
1
Design the Unit
Specify equipment and software
Establish the Unit
Ongoing ICT/MIS based monitoring and evaluation
OUTPUT 1.2.5
Transparent, accountable cost effective and adaptable service delivery at all levels within the sub-sector
1
Evaluate current levels of service delivery and identify skills,

human resource and establishment gaps
Design a programme to strengthen service delivery at all

levels
Implement a programme to strengthen service delivery at all

levels
Regular monitoring of service delivery standards
131

Volume 1 Main Text
2037
2036
2035
2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
LONG TERM
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
MEDIUM TERM
2020
2019
2018
2016
SHORT TERM
2015
2014
LOGFRAME LEVEL
2013
2012
IMMEDIATE
2017
Figure 15.2
Regular upgrading of service delivery skills at all levels
OUTPUT 1.2.6
Clearly demarcated roles and responsibilities with respect to the operation of multi-purpose dams and multi-district irrigation schemes
supporting activity
1
Preparation of an institutional design for the operation of

multi-purpose dams and multi-district irrigation schemes
OUTPUT 1.2.7
Highly motivated, service oriented sub-sector staff and service providers
1
Establish an ongoing career enhancement and mid-career

training programme
Establish attractive remuneration schemes
Operate ongoing career enhancement, mid-career training

and attractive remuneration schemes
INTERMEDIATE OBJECTIVE 2
Irrigated agriculture contributing to economic growth in Uganda as a result of an enabling investment environment and the profitable investment in irrigated crop production, value addition and/or service provision
Productive use of expanded irrigation service infrastructure as a result of new build and enabling economic instruments and incentives
OUTPUT 2.1.1
Bulk service infrastructure serving multiple schemes in the public and
private sectors and attracting commercial investments for production
and Public Private Partnerships in service delivery
Assemble a dossier of undeveloped opportunities for bulk
1 service infrastructure, with particular emphasis on
opportunities for Public Private Partnerships
2
Study of possible tax breaks and other incentives for private

investment
132

Volume 1 Main Text
Revise the policy, legal and regulatory frameworks for Public

Private Partnerships and implement tax break regime
Ongoing implementation of bulk service infrastructure and

Public Private Partnerships
Service delivery by Public Private Partnerships
2037
2036
2035
2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
LONG TERM
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
MEDIUM TERM
2020
2019
2018
2016
SHORT TERM
2015
2014
LOGFRAME LEVEL
2013
2012
IMMEDIATE
2017
Figure 15.2
OUTPUT 2.1.2
Quality and safety of water storage infrastructure assured
1
Design a capacity building programme for the quality

Ongoing quality assurance of water storage infrastructure
OUTPUT 2.1.3
Well maintained and productive irrigation sub-sector infrastructure
1
Prepare a comprehensive capacity building programme for

improved decentralized operation and maintenance
Develop a transparent and participatory framework for

Implement the framework for recurring cost recovery
Ongoing capacity building for decentralized operation and

maintenance
Participatory monitoring and evaluation of infrastructure

133

Volume 1 Main Text
2037
2036
2035
2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
LONG TERM
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
MEDIUM TERM
2020
2019
2018
2016
SHORT TERM
2015
2014
LOGFRAME LEVEL
2013
2012
IMMEDIATE
2017
Figure 15.2
High economic water use efficiency at catchment level

OUTPUT 2.2.1
Water allocated according to economic but nonetheless socially equitable advantage
1
Undertake a study into the current system of water permits

and rights based market modalities
Register current water use
Establish a sub-sector wide water permit system
Prepare capacity building programme re: rights based water

Implement capacity building programme re: rights based

water markets/ economic efficiency
Implement pilot water markets in selected sub-basins
Expand water markets in selected sub-basins
OUTPUT 2.2.2
(Multi-purpose) dam operations based on real-time remote sensing data
1
Undertake a study of innovative, information based operating

rules for multi-purpose dams
Design remote sensing networks and the appurtenance

institutional requirements in selected pilot catchments
Install remote sensing networks, and establish the

appurtenant institutional requirements, in selected pilot
catchments
134

Volume 1 Main Text
2037
2036
2035
2034
2033
2032
2031
2030
2029
2028
2027
2026
LONG TERM
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
MEDIUM TERM
2020
2019
2018
2016
SHORT TERM
2015
2014
LOGFRAME LEVEL
2013
2012
IMMEDIATE
2017
Figure 15.2
Ongoing and expanded remote sensing in selected pilot

catchments
OUTPUT 2.2.3
State of art research contributing to the optimal performance of the irrigation sub-sector
1
Strengthen research and development capacity
Establish an agenda for both pure and adaptive research
Ongoing pure and adaptive research
135

Volume 1 Main Text
15.2.2
Table 15.2
Financing and Cost Recovery

Table 13.4 above assumed seven different kinds of funding. They are specified in
Table 15.2 and represented graphically in Figure 15.4 where the blue fields
indicate costs to be recovered from the users for operation, maintenance and
replacement.
Annual Financing Requirements for the FMP (Ugx106)
TERM
SOURCE/PURPOSE OF FINANCING
immediate
short
medium
long
Continuatn
4,803
1,713
365
208
602
6,690
20,689
93,857
1,699
56,669
17,225/1
17,225
17,225
17,225
Beneficiaries' capital cost contribution (new)
351
858
3,219
Beneficiaries' capital cost contribution (replacement)
58
1,859
Beneficiaries operation and maintenance
712
3,977
40,859
92,944
Government: capacity building

Government: infrastructure (new)
Government: infrastructure (replacement)
Government: private sector leverage
TOTAL GOVERNMENT COSTS/yr
Notes:
1 this does not apply until the last year of the Immediate Term
15.3
Maintaining Momentum
Finalisation of this document is not the end of the story, but rather the beginning.
In this section we therefore look at the steps necessary to initiate implementation
of the FMP and at the studies which could usefully be undertaken while those
steps are being taken.
15.3.1
Necessary Ministerial Action

Clearly, the first step that must be taken will be the acceptance of the final FMP
by key stakeholders at the MWE and MAAIF49; but thereafter it becomes a
political matter and hence the business of the Minister of Water. This is because
of the need to finalise and promulgate the draft policy presented herein as Annex
1.
It is suggested therefore that the Minister is first of all thoroughly briefed with
respect to the FMP and the need for a legitimising policy.
The policy itself can then be finalised, and for this a facilitated workshop for high
level planners and decision makers from all stakeholder institutions is
recommended. Ideally such a workshop should be chaired by the Minister.
Once finalised in this way, it can then be scheduled into the Parliamentary
schedule, supported by a cabinet note which again will be the responsibility of
the Minister.
49
General stakeholder acceptance was declared at a consultation workshop convened on the 9 th of September 2011
136

Volume 1 Main Text
Figure 15.4
Relative Share of Financing by Source
15.3.2
Transitional Studies
Four transitional studies have been identified and discussed with key
representatives of both the MWE and MAAIF. The first three are relevant to the
needs of the sub-sector even if it is decided not to proceed with policy
promulgation; but the fourth is relevant only if it is decided to proceed.
15.3.2.1
Refinement of the Analytical Tool

The Analytical Tool is not a formal deliverable of the FMP study. Rather, it was
developed by the Consultant simply as a way by which to integrate and process
the many items of data necessary to proceed from a sub-sector expansion concept
to detailed water audit and macro-economic/sensitivity analyses. No attempt has
been made as yet to remove the inevitable redundancies; streamline the tool and
provide an easily navigated interface supported by a users manual all of which
would be necessary to render the Tool more suitable for others to use.
137

Volume 1 Main Text
But it would be a straightforward matter to do so, as well as to provide training

for the first generation of users.
15.3.2.2
Legal Framework Review

It will be clear to the reader that many of the initiatives included in the FMP have
legal implications. These include, but are not limited to:
the proposed Apex Secretariat

the proposed Private Sector Leverage Fund
economic pricing of water and tradable water rights-in-use
water user association legislation
operating rules of multi-story dams.
It is equally clear therefore that a detailed legal framework review is carried out
in order to identify:
15.3.2.3
what kind of legal and regulatory changes will be necessary as part of FMP
implementation
explain why such changes are needed and to justify them in the eyes of the
legislators
the steps needed to effect the changes and an estimation of the time
necessary to do so; and
the parties that should be responsible for each of the steps.
Institutional Design for the Apex Secretariat

Discussions, both formal and informal, have confirmed that there is general
agreement with the case for an Apex Secretariat. By way of response, a
preliminary justification and indicative mandate have been suggested earlier in
this document. However; a lot of important questions remain unanswered.
What is the Secretariats actual operational mandate?

Does the Secretariat need a host institution or will it be independent? And
if the former, which institution should it be?
Regardless of its institutional location, to which institution(s) should it be
accountable to50?
How will the Secretariat be financed (footnote 52 refers once again)?
How should the Secretariat be staffed and what would be its relationships to
the de-concentrated functions of government?
What or who are the Secretariats stakeholders and what sort of functional
relationships would apply?
These and other such questions as may arise could be deliberated in a facilitated
workshop of planners and decision makers, after which a simple institutional
design study could transform the answers into a realistic proposal for
consideration in the context of the more general policy deliberations.
However, given that radical institutional innovations take time almost anywhere,
it must be assumed that establishment of the Apex Secretariat will take a matter
of some years before such a body can be legally established with an adequate and
50
Ghanas Department of Irrigation for instance, is operationally located in the Ministry of Agriculture, but it is answerable to
and funded directly by the Prime Ministers Office.
138

Volume 1 Main Text
agreeable mandate. Yet it is equally clear that significant advantage would

accrue to its early establishment.
One way to achieve this concerns the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Water for
Production, established in 2011 under Cabinet Decision 281 of that year. Funds
permitting, this Committee could appoint a secretariat. The Apex Secretariat
design could then take the form of a road map which facilitates the evolution of
the initial secretariat into the full blown Apex Body with its own legal status and
charter.
15.3.2.4
Position Paper on Public Private Partnerships in Irrigation

We recall from section 5.1 that the NDP calls for a PPP framework for private
sector participation in consultancy, construction and O & M of irrigation
schemes. There is a widespread tendency to assume that because PPPs appear to
work for water supply and sanitation, they will also work for irrigation. But this
is not necessarily the case, at least not for revenue based models, because
revenues in an irrigation PPP are subject not only to a service users willingness
to pay, but also to externalities such as market shock, climate shock, pests and
diseases. And this is true of PPPs in both production and service delivery.
Nonetheless as we have seen above, there are several kinds of PPP that have great
potential for the Ugandan irrigation sub-sector (and after all the NDP calls for
them). But the opportunity raises several issues not least as regards the
allocation of risk between the public and private sides of the partnerships.
A generic discussion of the key issues and the questions that they raise is
presented as Annex 5. Considerable value could be foreseen however in a more
focussed discussion of those questions as they concern Uganda especially as
NDPs first objective for Water for Production, Strategy 4 includes a demand for
the establishment and operationalisation of a PPP framework for consultancy,
construction and O & M of irrigation schemes. Such a study should include, an
assessment of potential demand from the commercial sector. This is very
important because regardless of how eager Government is, and how enabling
the environment might be, there will be no PPPs if there are no investors. It is
also important because the number of potential investors is finite, and every
other country in the region is trying to attract them.
15.3.2.5
Detailed Implementation Plan for the FMP

The resources available for the preparation of this FMP and its draft supporting
policy were totally inadequate for detailed planning purposes and indeed any
attempts at the detailed planning of the opening stages of the FMP would have
been premature until the policy has been promulgated and a formal decision to
implement the FMP has been made by government.
Once the decision has been made however, the Apex Secretariat will be
established and detailed planning can begin. Work will fall into six clusters and
ideally will be implemented either directly by the Secretariat or outsourced as
appropriate. In no particular order
Cluster 1 Scoping Studies
Scoping studies are required for the first round of investments in
simple, formal and managed wetland schemes as well as for bulk
139

Volume 1 Main Text
service infrastructure, especially where opportunities for commercial

investment might be involved.
On the assumption that these scoping studies will be implemented by
consultants, transaction costs would be significantly reduced if all the
work is consolidated into single technical assistance contract. But
either way, budgets will have to be firmed up, terms of reference
prepared and a bidding process undertaken.
Cluster 2 Capacity Building
Unlike the scoping studies, the capacity building programmes called
for in the FMP are probably too diverse to be implemented by means
of a single contract. But once again in order to keep transaction costs
to a minimum, it may be considered desirable to package them into a
limited number of packages, each tailored to a different kind of
capacity building entity and these could be in the public, private or
NGO sectors.
Once packages have been established in this way, terms of reference
and where appropriate, bidding documents can be prepared and the
programmes initiated.
Cluster 3 Studies of the Soft Institutions
It will be recalled from above that four such studies are called for by
the FMP, one each covering tariffs, investment incentives, water
rights/use permits and operating rules for multipurpose storage
facilities.
As with the capacity building components, it is difficult to see how
these could be consolidated except perhaps the tariff and investment
incentives studies, which government may in any case prefer to carry
out in-house. Also, it would be worthwhile including the operating
rules study in the design of the remote sensing network and its
supporting institutional arrangements because the remote sensing
network is intended to facilitate finer tuning of such operating rules
based on real time data.
This leaves the water permit/water market study which by its very
nature calls for international experience. Terms of reference etc
therefore need to be prepared prior to recruitment of international
expertise and selection of study tour destinations. Although this
particular study may seem to be too exotic to be scheduled so early
in the FMP, it will be politically advantageous to have a slowly
evolving solution to increasing competition for water than to retro-fit
a more draconian solution to a basin that is already closed!
Cluster 4 Awareness Raising
Awareness raising will have three components: i) capacity building
among public officials and possibly the NGO community; ii) and
awareness raising campaign; and iii) demonstration sites. It is
difficult to see how the communications skills necessary for the first
two components, which could be combined, can be combined with
140

Volume 1 Main Text
the planning and engineering skills needed, along with social skills,
for the third. Even so, the selection and implementation of the
demonstration schemes will have to be closely coordinated with those
responsible for the actual awareness raising programme.
This suggests an important coordinating role for the Secretariat which
may also consider it necessary to begin the capacity building
component with a needs gap assessment.
Cluster 5 Remote Sensing and Operating Rules for Multi-purpose Dams
As suggested above, it would make sense if the study of operating
rules for multi-purpose dams were carried out in coordination with
the studies necessary to select pilot catchments and design suitable
remote sensing networks for them. This is not least because the
operating rules themselves will contribute to the specification of the
remote sensing requirements. A study like this is best suited to a
specialist consulting company. Accordingly, Terms of Reference will
be necessary prior to commencement of an international bidding
process. However, it is recommended that Government itself is
heavily involved in selection of the pilot catchments because of the
broader political and economic issues that will be involved.
Cluster 6 Design of the Private Sector Leverage Fund
This is not really a cluster as it comprises a single exercise, but it is
dealt with separately here because there is no obvious way to include
it in any of the other clusters. It will nonetheless involve several steps
and experience with other fund concepts in Uganda confirms that
these will take time, hence the recommendation here that an early
start should be made if the fund will be in place and operational by
the end of the Immediate Term. Four separate aspects of the Fund
will have to be specified and/or acted upon.
The legality of the concept will have to be assessed and any

legal steps specified and initiated prior to commencement of the
Fund.
Although this document suggests a certain level of funding, it is
based on an arbitrary FIRR target. This is legitimate at this
level of analysis, but the actual amount will have to be fixed
based on a thorough study of the matter which will inevitably
have political implications.
The institutional set-up will have to be designed; and
An Operating Manual for the fund will have to be written.
Finally, there is the matter of FMP implementation monitoring. It is strongly

recommended that the Secretariat establishes a monitoring framework as soon as
the FMP is formally approved. The Investment Framework approach used herein
for designing the FMP can also be used as the basis of a monitoring framework,
and indeed is being used as such in several SE Asian countries. Whether or not it
is used for monitoring the FMP is a matter of choice for GoU - but it would seem
sensible to use the same structure for monitoring as was used for designing the
FMP.
141

Volume 1 Main Text
15.4
Closing Comments
This document has set out a comprehensive Framework Master Plan for Ugandas
irrigation sub-sector that responds directly to the objectives of the National
Development Plan in terms of poverty alleviation, socio-economic transformation
and economic growth and which indicates areas of potential expansion; a range of
indicative crops; the water resource implications and expected economic
performance of the sub-sector to 2050. It also recognises the enormous role that
could, and indeed should be played by the private sector, by suggesting the
establishment of a leverage fund to attract private investment. And although the
drivers of irrigation sector reinvigoration were identified and discussed above in
Chapter 5 it may turn out that in reality, the most potent driver of change might
be the large and expanding interest in commercial agricultural investment in SubSaharan Africa. In fact, Uganda is known to be on the specific radar of several
very large investors. A formal process to attract, facilitate and regulate such
investors would be timely, not least because of the competition represented by
neighbouring countries.
This FMP is an ideal vehicle therefore, not only for the socio-economic
transformation explicit in the National Vision but also to make Uganda the target
country for the international Impact Investor.
It remains now for Government to consider, modify to what extent is considered
necessary and to move quickly to proceed to FMP implementation opening
sequences for which were suggested immediately above.
142

Volume 2 Annexes
VOLUME 2
ANNEXES
143

Volume 2 Annexes
ANNEX 1 DRAFT IRRIGATION POLICY
A1.1
Context
Inter-alia the current National Development Plan is intended to transform
Ugandan society from a peasant to a modern and prosperous country by 2040, and
to do so in a way that balances wealth creation with poverty alleviation.
Government acknowledges the fundamental role that a thriving agricultural sector
can play with respect to establishment of a strong national economy.
Transformation of the countrys agricultural sector, which already represents a
significant proportion of the overall national economy, is therefore expected to
play a major role with respect to the broader socio-economic transformation called
for by the NDP.
Yet despite vast undeveloped land and water resources, the sector remains
characterised by sub-optimal yields, poorly equipped institutions and a lack of
focussed investment from either the public or private sectors.
The Government also acknowledges the rapidly changing situation beyond
Ugandas borders. Participation in an expanding East African Community for
instance means that self-sufficiency is not the only solution to food security. This
is because production set-backs in one part of the community can be off-set by
surplus production in another. Equally, by selecting crops that are most
appropriate to a local resource endowment means that natural resources are used
in the most productive way. The increased marketing activities that result
increase in turn, labour differentiation and hence poverty alleviation and broader
economic growth, exactly in line with the NDP, especially where added value
becomes a possibility.
But the new markets are not limited to the East African Community. There is a
looming global food security crisis and many expert commentators believe that
Africa has a major potential role to play in solving it. Some 2 billion new mouths
will need feeding by the middle of the 21st Century, while climate change and
rising sea levels are expected seriously to compromise the ability of another 1
billion people to be fed from traditional food producing areas. Add to this the fact
that some of the worlds traditional food producing areas are also reducing due to
land use change and Ugandas opportunity becomes even more clear. In fact, it
will become increasingly obvious that Ugandas regional market will become not
the East Africa Community, but rather the Western Indian Ocean rim, made
accessible to Ugandan exporters by the massive expansion of the transport and
communications network intended for the Community.
Africas potential role as regards global food security is already recognised by the
international investment community whose high net worth family offices,
institutional investors and fund managers, aware of the unremitting trend towards
higher food prices and robust domestic and regional markets are eagerly looking
for commercial investment opportunities in African agriculture - for both food
and industrial crops. Uganda is also facing therefore, an unprecedented
confluence of investment interest and market opportunity.
144

Volume 2 Annexes
However, drought and flood incidence are increasing in both frequency and
intensity as a result of climate change and these problems will need to be
mitigated if the countrys production potential is to be realised in a sustainable and
profitable fashion by a combination of public and private investment.
The need for an inclusive demand driven irrigation policy, that addresses not only
the need for expanded and intensified production but also institutional
shortcomings and need for an enabling investment environment is therefore
obvious.
Against this background, the following policy is predicated on:
Two kinds of investor, namely:
Two kinds of institution:
Hard institutions which include public sector institutions in the

form of relevant official stakeholders at every level of the civil
administrative hierarchy, plus where water is managed on a basin
basis, at every level of the hydrocracy. They will also include farmer
organisations and private sector service providers and investors in
service infrastructure.
Soft institutions which are the policies, laws, regulations and
incentives that ensure the smooth and equitable running of the sector,
attract new players into it and guarantee the sustainability of the
natural resource base on which it depends.
Three land types, namely:
the public sector (comprising government and to whatever extent is

considered expedient, its development partners) and
a well regulated commercial sector (comprising both national and
international players).
Type A land which lies close to surface water resources on which

agricultural water can be managed without the need for storage. For
the purpose of this policy, Type A potential has been estimated to total
some 295,000 ha of which 243,500 ha is intended for publicly funded
development under this policy (approximately 24,000 ha of which will
be upland, and the balance managed wetlands):
Type B land which does not lie close to surface water resources or
which cannot be fully developed in the absence of storage facilities
and/or feeder systems. For the purpose of this policy, Type B land has
been estimated to total some 272,000 ha of which approximately
9,750 ha is intended for publicly funded development under this
policy.
Three kinds of farmer:
Traditional Farmers which are those practicing subsistence cropping

with minimal to nil cash crops;
145

Volume 2 Annexes

subsistence with significant commercial cropping, and who hence are
already participating in the economy at large;
Commercial Farmers which are those for whom the greater part, of
not all of their farming systems comprises cash crops these include
farmers of all size, including those within public schemes that operate
commercially oriented farming systems.
And
Five types of infrastructure:
A1.2
Small Scale schemes which will be simple gravity fed schemes,

usually beginning close to the water source. Sprinkler and drip
technology on these schemes will typically be low tech, and in the
case of drip for instance, entirely charged by treadle pumps.
Formal Government Type A schemes which will be similar in
concept to small scale schemes in that they will be situated close to
the water sources, but will require pumped withdrawal facilities at the
water source and be generally, will be larger. Any irrigation
technology such as sprinkler and drip will also be more sophisticated.
Government Type B schemes which will be similar in concept to
Type A except that they will be situated further from the water
sources, and will require not only pumped abstraction systems but also
storage and feeder systems. Irrigation technology such as sprinkler
and drip will also be more sophisticated.
Managed (seasonal) wetlands which will generally be used only for
rice, although, there will be some local opportunities for a quick short
season legume crop taken off the residual moisture.
Private Sector schemes which will comprise schemes which are
entirely financed by purely commercial interests and as a result are
beyond the scope of the FMP except that, in order to attract such
investments, Government may decide to invest in bulk service
infrastructure (dams and large feeder systems for instance).
Policy Objectives
The overall policy objective for irrigation is:
It is supported by two subsidiary objectives as follows:
practices contributing to poverty alleviation in Uganda as a
result of farmer managed, small scale schemes and best
and
146

Volume 2 Annexes

practices contributing to economic growth in Uganda as a
result of an enabling investment environment and the
profitable investment in irrigated crop production, value
addition and/or service provision.
These objectives will be realised by a strategic approach combining investment,
institutional and regulatory measures intended to:
A1.3
increase household incomes and promote equitable access to the benefits of

sustainable poverty alleviation and economic growth
enhance the availability and quality of gainful employment
enhance human capital development
improve the coverage and quality of appropriate economic infrastructure in
the public and private sectors;
and
promote sustainable populations and the use of environmental and natural
resources.
Fundamental Guiding Principles

The fundamental guiding principles with respect to the allocation and use of water
resources; for guiding investment planning and decision making; for facilitating
and regulating commercial investments and for providing effective public and
private services in irrigation will be as follows:
A1.3.1
Allocation and Use of Water Resources
a.
The provision of water to meet the domestic demands for basic human
needs such as the irrigation of subsistence gardens; watering subsistence
livestock and for subsistence aquaculture will not require prior authorisation
under the Water Statute 1995. These domestic demands will be given first
priority when allocating water resources.
Allocation of water for commercial agriculture (including livestock and
aqua-culture) will be subject to the regulation of the Water Management
Zones and based on the economic, social and environmental values of the
water involved. All water users requiring more than 400 m3/day , including
water made available through the management of wetland recession or from
motorised boreholes, for their agricultural activities require a permit for
water abstraction as per the terms of the Water Statute 1995.
b.
Water allocations are more likely to be authorised for holistic and integrated
approaches to the development of services for households, irrigation,
wetland management, aquaculture and livestock use subject to the overarching requirement that the approaches do not compromise the equitable
use and protection of the water source(s) concerned.
c.
All irrigation proposals will be subject to social, public health and

environmental impact assessments to be carried out in strict conformity to
the pertaining regulations for the approval of the due authority. Proposals
failing to meet the relevant standards may be revised to include suitable and
acceptable mitigating measures and re-subjected to the same strict
147

Volume 2 Annexes
assessments. Proposals failing thereafter to satisfy the relevant standards

will be denied permission to proceed.
d.
Noting that high economic water use efficiency at catchment and basin level
is associated with increased environmental stream flows and socially
equitable access to water for household and productive purposes, water
allocation decisions will be based on economic efficiency applied at
catchment or basin level. However, since physical efficiencies are a
building block of economic efficiency, physical measures that reduce
abstraction rates or increase return flows will be encouraged by both
financial and capacity building measures. And in the case of increased
return flows, water quality standards will be established and enforced.
e.
A system of water use permits and the ability to trade water, the use of
which is protected by the permit, has the potential to increase the economic
mobility of water and hence economic water use efficiency. But in order for
such a system to benefit the poor, any water resource pricing (which is not
to be confused with service charging) will be applied only to savings within
the amount permitted or in excess of the amount permitted.
In the case of Water User Associations using publicly funded water
management infrastructure (see below) water permits will be granted to the
Association, rather than its individual members who have shares in that
water permit, thereby allowing individual savings to be consolidated at
group level, thereby reaching levels that are meaningful in the event of
water trades or transfers.
A1.3.2
f.
In order to avoid problems that could arise where a productive enterprise

requiring irrigation has an economic lead time in excess of a standard water
permits duration, the duration will be consistent with the use for which it is
sought. However, all water permit holders will be required to implement
the enterprise according to a pre-agreed timetable. Failure to do so will
result in withdrawal of the permit, subject to appeal.
g.
All water allocation decisions will fully reflect Ugandas international

obligations to downstream riparian states.
Investment Planning and Decision Making
a.
Investments, in the context of this policy, are either i) publicly funded

irrigation infrastructure intended to benefit smallholders or ii) bulk service
infrastructure such as small dams and feeder canal systems that are
considered necessary to attract commercial investment in irrigation
distribution and field systems (and/or their equivalents in drainage).
b.
All public investments in irrigation will be demand driven, including the

rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. However, it is intended to generate
demand by means of campaigns that raise awareness of the benefits of such
investments among potential beneficiaries, with priority given to the
rehabilitation of existing infrastructure. In this respect it is noted that
beneficiaries will not be limited to the peasant farmers that the NDP is
intended to transform. They will also include commercial investors
attracted to the agricultural sector for reasons noted in section 1 of this
policy, and at whom the bulk service infrastructure is targeted.
148

Volume 2 Annexes
A1.3.3
c.
In line with best practice, the scale of investments targeted at small farmers
will be consistent with their ability to plan and manage them. This does not
however, preclude the possibility of large capital programmes comprising
multiples of small, community managed schemes. Neither does it preclude
large commercial schemes invested at the developers own risk, or large
bulk service infrastructure intended to attract them.
d.
All investments implemented on behalf of small farmers will be identified,

planned and implemented with their full participation. This participation
will include a contribution to capital costs, ideally at 30% of the total.
However, discretionary investment subsidies will be made available to
vulnerable groups (such as female headed households, youth, the poor and
the disabled especially in drought prone areas). Community contributions
can be made in cash or in kind, and ideally will be defined by the level of
the works meaning that publicly funded infrastructure brings the service in
question to a certain level, beyond which the beneficiaries themselves are
responsible for implementing the works examples of which would be
tertiary canals or field drains etc.
e.
Irrigation technology levels in public investments will be consistent with the

beneficiaries ability to use it. However, ongoing capacity building will be
provided in order that their ability to use increasingly sophisticated
technology is raised over time. Furthermore, as abilities are raised in this
respect, Government will provide subsidies and other financial instruments
to assist small farmers to avail themselves of new technology. But any such
financial instruments will be justified on the basis of the economic and/or
environmental value of any water saved.
f.
Bulk service infrastructure to attract commercial investment will be

financed from a leverage fund, so-called because a given investment by
government is intended to lever up a larger investment from the commercial
sector. The target leverage ratio for this will be 1:3 or more. In other
words, an investment of Ugx 1 million from the leverage fund is expected to
attract an investment of at least Ugx 3 million from the commercial sector.
Facilitation and Regulation of Commercial Investments
a.
Commercial players will be more likely to invest in irrigation services if

they perceive the investment environment as enabling, and they will assess
this key characteristic in terms of:
the ease of doing business in Uganda;
the ability to amortise any hard currency debt and to repatriate profits
(ex-tax and other statutory payments due);
bureaucratic transparency and efficiency,
Ugandas participation in international contract protection

mechanisms and insurance schemes, and
incentives such as tax breaks, import permits and (in the case of
foreign investors) work permits.
A transparent land and water allocation mechanism is needed in order to
ensure that all stakeholders are involved in and benefit from any investment
b.
149

Volume 2 Annexes
that is made. This will mean that land is not forcibly expropriated in favour
of the commercial investor from those legally using without due
compensation or other benefits being agreed and settled. These benefits
could include partnerships in the commercial venture. Similarly, the
dangers inherent in implicit water permits and the like will be obviated by
making them explicit and subject to the prevailing regulatory framework.
c.
A1.3.4
Several kinds of Public, Private Partnerships are appropriate for irrigation.

These include: pure investments whereby the commercial investor simply
invests in infrastructure; service delivery using publicly or commercially
funded infrastructure and actual production: All will be actively encouraged
by this policy. However, unlike water supply and sanitation, revenue based
PPP models in irrigation are subject to a greater degree of risk. But
allocation of risk between the public and private sides of the participation
should represent an acceptable compromise between the best interests of
both parties. In other words, the government should not take all of the risk
and the commercial investor should not take all of the profits. Similarly, it
will be necessary to develop guidelines with regard to which party is the
beneficiary of a water permit.
The Provision of Effective Irrigation Services
a.
Equitable, wise and productive use of natural resources is facilitated by the

availability of accountable, adaptable and cost effective support services.
This has both institutional and financial implications.
b.
Direct recurring costs will be fully recovered in the form of service charges.
But best practice shows that collection rates are highest when the users
themselves are involved in both setting and collecting them. Indirect
recurring costs, such as those accruing to the operation of basin level
infrastructure, or bulk service infrastructure may however be deemed the
responsibility of government, and hence financed from the increased tax
revenues accruing to the productive use of the larger infrastructure.
c.
At the grass roots on publicly funded service infrastructure, the principle

service institution will be the water user association. These should be
financed by member subscriptions and led by committees characterised by
adequate levels of female participation (and where relevant, youth). Service
fees for external service delivery will be paid to the service provider by the
Water User Association, rather than individually by their members, thereby
reducing transaction costs between service provider and service user.
Where necessary or relevant, such Water User Associations will be
represented on catchment committees, or will participate in pan-sectoral
water using federations to whatever extent is considered necessary or
appropriate.
d.
In order to help all users of irrigation services to make best use of those
services and the new marketing opportunities that Uganda faces, it is
essential that all services are adaptive to users needs. This calls for a strong
and dynamic research capability.
e.
In particular, there is a pressing need for comprehensive, regularly updated

and accessible information and data services concerning crops, markets (and
150

Volume 2 Annexes
any associated tariff and non-tariff barriers in the case of exports), prices,
added value opportunities and climate etc.
f.
Because of the varied and diverse nature of irrigation stakeholders, an apex

institution will be required in the form of a dedicated Irrigation Secretariat
to:
A1.4
coordinate and protect the interests of all such stakeholders;

monitor implementation of this policy and the strategy legitimised by
it;
provide a one-stop-shop for commercial investors;
be a clearing house for research and capacity building activities; and
be the principal repository for the information and data services.
Implementation Strategy
The implementation strategy is intended to address each of the fundamental
guiding principles. To do so it requires four stages, one each for the Immediate,
Short, Medium and Long Terms.
A1.4.1
Immediate Term: 4 years
The Immediate Term is intended to capture ongoing work in the sector and
incorporate it into the overall strategy while establishing a strong institutional and
knowledge based foundation for the future. Accordingly in addition to continuing
the work in progress with respect to the rehabilitation and upgrading of five
government schemes, the Immediate Term will be characterised by capacity
building, studies and investigations. More specifically:
With respect to infrastructure
Government will undertake or commission:
scoping missions for new schemes intended for traditional farmers
scoping missions for new schemes and bulk service infrastructure, including
the possibilities of urban waste treatment works for irrigation, intended
either for emerging farmers or to encourage private investment in irrigation
production and service delivery
feasibility studies for the rehabilitation of five government irrigation

schemes.
With respect to hard institutions

Government will:
design and establish an Apex Irrigation Secretariat
establish demonstrations of small scale irrigation technology and water

harvesting and the like and will begin to disseminate appropriate WfP
technologies
prepare a capacity building programme with respect to awareness raising

about the benefits of irrigation
151

Volume 2 Annexes
implement an awareness raising programme with respect to the benefits of

irrigation
design, establish and operate an ICT/IS unit, and an associated Monitoring

and Evaluation Unit
prepare and begin implementation of a comprehensive capacity building and

training for service delivery at all levels (including the private sector)
clarify roles regarding multi-purpose storage and trans-district schemes
design and implement a capacity building programme for the quality

prepare and implement a comprehensive capacity building programme for

improved, decentralised O&M, including recurring cost recovery
prepare a capacity building programme re: rights based water markets and
the nature of economic efficiency
design remote sensing networks, and the appurtenant institutional

requirements, in selected pilot catchments
strengthen in-country research capacity
With respect to soft institutions

Government will:
A1.4.2
undertake or commission an export tariff barrier review and design a long

term tariff monitoring and advisory service to be included in the Apex
Secretariat
undertake or commission a study of possible tax breaks and other

undertake or commission a study of current water rights system & potential

water market modalities
undertake or commission a study of operating rules for multi-purpose dams
Short Term: 5 years
Building on the foundation established by the end of the Immediate Term, the
Short Term is intended to reinvigorate the sector by means of combination of
infrastructural and institutional measures. More specifically:
Government will
rehabilitate 5 government schemes
construct up to 200 ha of small scale irrigation
construct up to 560 ha of formal government irrigation
develop up to 7,000 ha of managed wetlands according to regulations

Government will:
152

Volume 2 Annexes
continue supporting ongoing and expanded demonstrations, including

farmer to farmer visits, of small scale irrigation technology and water
harvesting etc while continuing to disseminate of appropriate WfP
technologies
maintain and expand awareness of the benefits of irrigation
establish the tariff monitoring group designed during the Immediate Term
expand the capacity building programme for awareness raising begun in the
Immediate Term
undertake ICT/MIS based monitoring and evaluation of sector performance
continue comprehensive capacity building and training for service delivery

at all levels (including the private sector)
maintain ongoing quality assurance of water storage infrastructure
continue the comprehensive capacity building programme for improved,

decentralised O&M, including recurring cost recovery
implement capacity building programmes with respect to rights based water

markets and economic efficiency monitoring
install remote sensing networks, and establish the appurtenant institutional

requirements in selected pilot catchments
provide training in the application of IWRM principles to irrigation and the

role of strategic water allocations
undertake or commission an expanding programme of demand driven

research and development

Government will:
A1.4.3
change tariff laws as appropriate
revise the laws as necessary to allow financial incentives for commercial

investment
register customary irrigation water used as a customary right
implement operating rules for multi-purpose dams
Medium Term: 5 years
With wide awareness established with respect to the potential benefits of

irrigation, the Medium Term will be characterised by a spatial expansion of
irrigation services; penetration into new markets in the East African region and
beyond; and the introduction of increasingly sophisticated institutional measures.
More specifically:
Government will:
construct up to 720 ha of small scale irrigation

153

Volume 2 Annexes
construct up to 1600 ha of formal government irrigation
undertake or commission studies into possibilities for bulk service

infrastructure and Public Private Partnerships
construct bulk service infrastructure studied during the Immediate Term and
implement PPPs on a case by case basis.

Government will:

technologies
maintain and expand awareness to include new markets and added value
opportunities
continue tariff monitoring
provide ongoing career enhancement and on the job training for government
staff
continue ICT/MIS based monitoring and evaluation

continue a comprehensive capacity building programme for improved,

implement pilot water markets in selected sub-basins
continue and expand remote sensing in selected pilot catchments
continue or commission an expanding programme of demand driven


Government will:
A1.4.4
develop a policy framework for risk and water right allocation in the case of
public private partnerships
Long Term. 12 years
In line with the National Development Plan, the Long Term will be characterised
by accelerating integration of the small producer into the economy at large and an
increasing ratio of commercial to subsistence cropping as a result of continually
improving irrigation service. More specifically:
Government will:
154

Volume 2 Annexes
construct up to 13,000 ha of small scale irrigation
construct up to 15,300 ha of formal government irrigation
expand implementation of bulk service infrastructure and PPPs

Government will:

technologies
maintain and expand awareness raising to include new markets and added
value opportunities
continue tariff monitoring
provide ongoing career enhancement and on the job training for government
staff
continue ICT/MIS based monitoring and evaluation

continue a comprehensive capacity building programme for improved,

expand water markets into selected sub-basins
expand as required remote sensing in selected pilot catchments
continue or commission an expanding programme of demand driven

No activities are anticipated with respect to soft institutions in the Long Term.
A1.5
Assumptions and Preconditions

Irrigation is not an end in itself, it is merely a means by which to deliver or
manage the soil moisture available to the growing crops in a timely fashion and at
suitable quality levels. Consequently the initiatives anticipated by this Policy (i.e.
the rehabilitation, upgrading and development of sustainable irrigation
infrastructure, the establishment of an enabling environment and strong service
oriented and adaptive institutions; and the crafting and enforcement of an
appropriate regulatory framework) will not of themselves guarantee the required
growth of the agricultural sector in the absence of successful parallel factors or
initiatives.
These are likely to include bit not be limited to:
political commitment, especially as regards institutional changes

155

Volume 2 Annexes
supply and market chain infrastructure, including the provision of facilities

to add value to agricultural production, especially that produced by the
small farmers
effective operation of the Countrys food reserve.
improved rural access and communications infrastructure.
crop diversification and improved soil management practices
as discussed elsewhere in the NAP

This policy therefore assumes that the same factors that have inspired its
formulation, will also inspire the formulation and implementation of the necessary
parallel initiatives at policy, strategy and programme levels.
156

Volume 2 Annexes
ANNEX 2 THE SAMPLE AREA APPROACH

It is self-evident that total scheme51 costs increase with area. However, total
scheme unit costs generally decrease somewhat with area due to the decreasing
influence that the feeder systems have on the overall costs52. This effect can be
ignored here, as we are only concerned with on-farm costs.
There are usually four determinants of on-farm unit costs, one concerns the
physical characteristics of the scheme location, the rest various aspects of water
management:
1.
Topography because the number of structures such as drops, cross

regulators, siphons, conveyance flumes and cross drainage facilities
increases with slope and slope variability. But for sample area purpose here,
this relationship can be ignored since i) the plan is dominated by managed
wetlands, which are by definition flat and ii) it can be assumed that
elsewhere, surface schemes will be limited to flat areas (with pressurised
systems used elsewhere).
2.
Crop Water Requirements (CWRs) which are location specific and

influence the size of the various delivery system components. The
analytical tool developed for this study calculates CWRs at district level,
which means that it is possible to fine tune the unit costs to the same level.
3.
Irrigation Regime, which concerns:

a. the number of hours/day that the scheme is operated for, thus a 24 hour
delivery regime requires delivery system facilities half the size than those
for a 12 hour regime;
b. whether the irrigation supply is rotated or continuous flow;
c. whether or not there is in-stream night storage.
Since the purpose here is to carry out a macro-economic analysis at sector level,
rather than detailed feasibility studies to support pre-investment appraisal, a
degree of simplification can be justified as follows.
First, it is assumed that all canals except the tertiary and field channels operate on
a 12 hour basis. It is further assumed that block flows will be operated on a 7 day
rotation. It has already been noted that these will be constructed at the expense of
the benefitting farmers; but for the purpose of economic analyses it is nonetheless
necessary to make some estimate of what the costs might be as there can be
assumed to be an opportunity cost associated with the resources involved.
4.
51
52
53
Water Use Requirement Ratio ()53 which varies according location within
the delivery system. This sample area analysis only applies to surface
irrigation overall baseline values for which have been taken to be 35%.
But overall values are made up of several components, for which the
subsidiary values are as illustrated in Table A2.1
Ie both Off and On-farm costs

Costs of a cross river structure for instance, are going to much the same regardless of scheme size.
A term which is increasingly replacing irrigation efficiency
157

Volume 2 Annexes
Table A2.1
Water Use Requirement Ratios
Level
Application
value/1
Cumulative
value/2
root zone
This is the CWR and depends on plant type, growth stage and climatic conditions.
But this level of study requires consolidated farming system CWRs. These are
calculated directly by the Analytical Tool for each district/3.
100%
100%
field
This accounts for the losses in the field such as deep percolation or management
losses
65%
65%
field channel
This accounts for losses between the field channel offtake and the field edge
80%
50%
distribution
system
This accounts for the losses between the off-farm works and the on-farm works
75%
40%
feeder system
This accounts for the low between the source and the on-farm works
90%
35%
Gross offtake demand/3
CWR/
35%
Notes
1
2
3
Adapted from Table 37, FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper N 24

rounded
See table 4.3 for design values of these for each district
From this, it is possible to formulate the following specifications:
It is assumed that the average area served by each field channel is 10 ha and
that total field channel length assumes a canal density of 32 m/ha: since they
are required to convey 7 days supply within 12 hours at any point along
their length, their design discharge is as follows:
10*hydromodule field channel*7*2/50%
The length of each tertiary is provided by the sample area ( see below), and
since they also are required to convey 7 days supply within 12 hours at any
point along their length, their design discharge is as follows:
D/S area*hydromodule tertiary canal*7*2/50%
The length of each secondary is also given by the sample area, but supplies
will not be rotated and so the design discharge for each reach is as follows:
D/S area*hydromodule secondary canal*2/40%
The length of the main canal is provided by the sample area, but supplies
will not be rotated and so the design discharge for each reach is as follows:
D/S area*hydromodule main canal*2/35%

This table, along with the design district CWRs calculated by the Irrigation Sector
Model, provides all the information needed to specify hydromodules for each
point in a scheme for any district. Table A3.2 refers.
158

Volume 2 Annexes
Table A2.2
District Specific Design Hydromodules (l/s/ha)
DISTRICT
7 day rotations at
Root Zone
Field Offtake
Field channel
/Tertiary Offtake
Distributary
System
Off-farm Works
Main Offtake
Abim
0.63
13.57
16.96
3.23
3.59
3.59
Adjumani
0.39
8.40
10.50
2.00
2.22
2.22
Amolatar
0.46
9.84
12.30
2.34
2.60
2.60
Amuria
0.47
10.02
12.53
2.39
2.65
2.65
Amuru
0.28
5.96
7.45
1.42
1.58
1.58
Apac
0.45
9.60
12.00
2.29
2.54
2.54
Arua
0.39
8.34
10.42
1.99
2.21
2.21
Budaka
0.47
10.14
12.67
2.41
2.68
2.68
Bududa
0.53
11.52
14.40
2.74
3.05
3.05
Bugiri
0.41
8.76
10.95
2.09
2.32
2.32
Bukedea
0.41
8.84
11.05
2.10
2.34
2.34
Bukwa
0.39
8.31
10.39
1.98
2.20
2.20
Bulisa
0.47
10.11
12.64
2.41
2.68
2.68
Bundibugyo
0.40
8.70
10.87
2.07
2.30
2.30
Bushenyi
0.44
9.57
11.96
2.28
2.53
2.53
Busia
0.32
6.83
8.54
1.63
1.81
1.81
Butaleja
0.46
10.00
12.50
2.38
2.64
2.64
Dokolo
0.38
8.24
10.30
1.96
2.18
2.18
Gulu
0.41
8.85
11.06
2.11
2.34
2.34
Hoima
0.31
6.60
8.25
1.57
1.75
1.75
Ibanda
0.37
8.01
10.01
1.91
2.12
2.12
Iganga
0.43
9.28
11.61
2.21
2.46
2.46
Isingiro
0.38
8.23
10.28
1.96
2.18
2.18
Jinja
0.51
10.98
13.73
2.62
2.91
2.91
Kaabong
0.17
3.62
4.53
0.86
0.96
0.96
Kabale
0.28
6.10
7.62
1.45
1.61
1.61
Kabarole
0.37
8.05
10.06
1.92
2.13
2.13
Kaberamaido
0.45
9.72
12.15
2.31
2.57
2.57
Kalangala
0.45
9.73
12.16
2.32
2.57
2.57
Kaliro
0.41
8.76
10.95
2.09
2.32
2.32
Kampala
0.46
9.80
12.25
2.33
2.59
2.59
Kamuli
0.50
10.81
13.51
2.57
2.86
2.86
Kamwengi
0.27
5.79
7.24
1.38
1.53
1.53
Kanungu
0.45
9.70
12.13
2.31
2.57
2.57
Kapchorwa
0.49
10.55
13.18
2.51
2.79
2.79
Kasese
0.39
8.37
10.46
1.99
2.21
2.21
159

Volume 2 Annexes
Table A2.2
DISTRICT
7 day rotations at
Root Zone
Field Offtake
Field channel
/Tertiary Offtake
Distributary
System
Off-farm Works
Main Offtake
Katakwi
0.50
10.79
13.49
2.57
2.86
2.86
Kayunga
0.50
10.68
13.36
2.54
2.83
2.83
Kibaale
0.30
6.49
8.11
1.54
1.72
1.72
Kiboga
0.31
6.61
8.26
1.57
1.75
1.75
Kiruhura
0.31
6.64
8.30
1.58
1.76
1.76
Kisoro
0.33
7.14
8.93
1.70
1.89
1.89
Kitgum
0.29
6.15
7.69
1.46
1.63
1.63
Koboko
0.22
4.82
6.02
1.15
1.27
1.27
Kotido
0.29
6.23
7.78
1.48
1.65
1.65
Kumi
0.35
7.44
9.30
1.77
1.97
1.97
Kyenjojo
0.42
9.07
11.34
2.16
2.40
2.40
Lira
0.41
8.76
10.95
2.09
2.32
2.32
Luwero
0.47
10.14
12.68
2.42
2.68
2.68
Lyantunde
0.38
8.22
10.28
1.96
2.18
2.18
Manafwa
0.51
11.02
13.78
2.62
2.92
2.92
Maracha
0.25
5.43
6.79
1.29
1.44
1.44
Masaka
0.49
10.45
13.06
2.49
2.76
2.76
Masindi
0.37
7.87
9.83
1.87
2.08
2.08
Mayuge
0.39
8.44
10.55
2.01
2.23
2.23
Mbale
0.50
10.77
13.47
2.57
2.85
2.85
Mbarara
0.37
7.91
9.89
1.88
2.09
2.09
Mityana
0.45
9.69
12.11
2.31
2.56
2.56
Moroto
0.28
6.07
7.59
1.45
1.61
1.61
Moyo
0.29
6.21
7.77
1.48
1.64
1.64
Mpigi
0.51
10.96
13.70
2.61
2.90
2.90
Mubende
0.29
6.27
7.84
1.49
1.66
1.66
Mukono
0.42
9.06
11.32
2.16
2.40
2.40
Nakapipirit
0.25
5.38
6.73
1.28
1.42
1.42
Nakaseke
0.39
8.34
10.43
1.99
2.21
2.21
Nakasongola
0.29
6.15
7.69
1.47
1.63
1.63
Namutumba
0.25
5.28
6.60
1.26
1.40
1.40
Nebbi
0.48
10.30
12.87
2.45
2.72
2.72
Ntungamo
0.43
9.25
11.57
2.20
2.45
2.45
Oyam
0.31
6.63
8.29
1.58
1.75
1.75
Pader
0.29
6.24
7.80
1.49
1.65
1.65
Pallisa
0.37
8.01
10.01
1.91
2.12
2.12
160

Volume 2 Annexes
Table A2.2
DISTRICT
7 day rotations at
Root Zone
Field Offtake
Field channel
/Tertiary Offtake
Distributary
System
Off-farm Works
Main Offtake
Rakai
0.53
11.47
14.34
2.73
3.04
3.04
Rukungiri
0.39
8.44
10.54
2.01
2.23
2.23
Sironko
0.42
9.06
11.33
2.16
2.40
2.40
Soroti
0.31
6.70
8.37
1.59
1.77
1.77
Ssembabule
0.24
5.20
6.50
1.24
1.37
1.37
Tororo
0.40
8.67
10.84
2.06
2.29
2.29
Wakiso
0.56
11.99
14.99
2.85
3.17
3.17
Yumbe
0.40
8.72
10.90
2.08
2.31
2.31
Having dealt with the determinants of on-farm unit costs, flow regime and
point/district specific hydromodules, it is now necessary to define the sample area
itself.
The best way to do this is to use a representative layout Figure A3.1 refers. It is
based on a real scheme in the region and can be used to make an estimate of all
canalisation works necessary to irrigate the area under gravity from a riverine
source Table A3.3, and Figures A3.2 to A3.11refer, (all of which, due to size
can be found at the end of this Annex).
Time and resources have not permitted a similar exercise to the carried out on the
tertiary canals and field channels; but given adequate time and resources, unit
costs for the entire sample area could be estimated for each district by means of an
expanded UCET.
Until if or when such resources are made available it is necessary to limit the unit
cost estimation to a simpler approach based on average or assumed values as
follows:
design velocity of flow in the canals in 0.7 m/s
free board contributes an additional cross-element equal to 70% of Q/V
average area supplied by a secondary canal = 200 ha
average area supplied by a tertiary canal = 24 ha
structures on the main canal require 10 m3 of reinforced concrete, the cost of

which is equalled by that of the gateworks required
structures on the secondary canal require 5 m3 of reinforced concrete, the

cost of which is equalled by that of the gateworks required
Using average values for tertiary, secondary and main canal flows (10.55 l/s/ha,
2.05 l/s/ha and 2.33 l/s/ha respectively - obtained from table A3.3), preliminary
algorithms entered into UCT suggest an overall cost/ha of $900/ha with structures
and $750/ha without.
This result is actually very significant and helpful for two reasons:
161

Volume 2 Annexes
1.
because a layout similar to the one analyses, but with say 50% of the
structural requirements would be very much what would be required for
managed wetlands; and furthermore that the cost $825/ha is very
comparable to the development costs for managed wetlands recommended
for planning purposes in East Africa by the CAADP54.
2.
The ratio of structural to canal earthworks costs of around 20% is consistent

with the reasonable assumption that: including headworks, structures
comprise something like 30% of canal earthworks costs. Since headworks
costs would not normally be associated with managed wetlands, 20% is
reasonable.
Accordingly, the unit costing rationale adopted for the purposes of this macroeconomic analysis for each district is as follows:
For managed wetlands the unit costs will be as estimated by the current
version of the UCET (ie the $ 825/ha in the example above);
For simple schemes the unit costs will the rate for managed wetlands
multiplied by the ratio of such schemes to managed wetland schemes in the
CAADP recommendations for East Africa. This ratio is 500%, so for the
example given above, this would be $4,125/ha.
For formal Type A and B schemes, the on-farm costs would be as for simple
schemes, and the off-farm costs would be as estimated by the UCET.
All other costs will also be as forecast by the UCET.
Adoption of these assumptions leads to the unit costs as indicated in Table A3.4.
Although the Consultant is suggesting that these unit costs can be considered
adequate for the purposes of macro-economic analysis at sector, it is nonetheless
recommended that Government seriously considers allocating resources to allow
the UCET to be further developed such that it can deal with a detailed sample area
analysis, based on BoQs developed from the material already prepared by the
Consultant.
Finally, it should be noted that scheme cycle costs (identification, design and
construction supervision have been taken at Ugx 55,000/ha (approximately
$25/ha).
Table A2.3 Schedule of District Specific Unit Costs (Ugx x 10^6)
Type A
Open channel
Simple
54
Onfarm
Offfarm
Type B
Pressurised
Onfarm
Offfarm
Open channel
Onfarm
Offfarm
Pressurised
Onfarm
Offfarm
Managed
wetlands
District
per ha
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
Abim
14.483
14.483
0.348
13.858
0.348
14.483
2.908
13.858
2.908
2.897
Adjuman
9.283
9.283
0.345
13.858
0.345
9.283
1.777
13.858
1.777
1.857
Amolatar
10.729
10.729
0.338
13.858
0.338
10.729
1.760
13.858
1.760
2.146
Amuria
10.916
10.916
0.318
13.858
0.318
10.916
1.713
13.858
1.713
2.183
Comprehensive African Agricultural Development Programme
162

Volume 2 Annexes

Type A
Open channel
Simple
Onfarm
Offfarm
Type B
Pressurised
Onfarm
Offfarm
Open channel
Onfarm
Offfarm
Pressurised
Onfarm
Offfarm
Managed
wetlands
District
per ha
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
Amuru
6.827
6.827
0.325
13.858
0.325
6.827
1.728
13.858
1.728
1.365
Apac
10.493
10.493
0.355
13.858
0.355
10.493
1.789
13.858
1.789
2.099
Arua
9.218
9.218
0.332
13.858
0.332
9.218
1.733
13.858
1.733
1.844
Budaka
11.031
11.031
0.299
13.858
0.299
11.031
1.665
13.858
1.665
2.206
Bududa
12.425
12.425
0.302
13.858
0.302
12.425
1.634
13.858
1.634
2.485
Bugiri
9.645
9.645
0.292
13.858
0.292
9.645
1.242
13.858
1.242
1.929
Bukedea
9.724
9.724
0.302
13.858
0.302
9.724
1.660
13.858
1.660
1.945
Bukwa
9.194
9.194
0.311
13.858
0.311
9.194
2.091
13.858
2.091
1.839
Bulisa
11.008
11.008
0.317
13.858
0.317
11.008
2.158
13.858
2.158
2.202
9.580
9.580
0.324
13.858
0.324
9.580
1.685
13.858
1.685
1.916
10.454
10.454
0.310
13.858
0.310
10.454
1.653
13.858
1.653
2.091
7.701
7.701
0.294
13.858
0.294
7.701
0.900
13.858
0.900
1.540
Butaleja
10.889
10.889
0.297
13.858
0.297
10.889
1.633
13.858
1.633
2.178
Dokolo
9.121
9.121
0.330
13.858
0.330
9.121
1.741
13.858
1.741
1.824
Gulu
9.736
9.736
0.312
13.858
0.312
9.736
1.683
13.858
1.683
1.947
Hoima
7.470
7.470
0.297
13.858
0.297
7.470
1.622
13.858
1.622
1.494
Ibanda
8.887
8.887
0.312
13.858
0.312
8.887
1.658
13.858
1.658
1.777
Iganga
10.171
10.171
0.289
13.858
0.289
10.171
1.627
13.858
1.627
2.034
Isingiro
9.106
9.106
0.315
13.858
0.315
9.106
2.078
13.858
2.078
1.821
11.882
11.882
0.283
13.858
0.283
11.882
1.220
13.858
1.220
2.376
Kaabong
4.471
4.471
0.393
13.858
0.393
4.471
6.510
13.858
6.510
0.894
Kabale
6.960
6.960
0.321
13.858
0.321
6.960
1.654
13.858
1.654
1.392
Kabarole
8.927
8.927
0.307
13.858
0.307
8.927
1.632
13.858
1.632
1.785
Kaberamaido
10.611
10.611
0.332
13.858
0.332
10.611
1.746
13.858
1.746
2.122
Kalangala
10.616
10.616
0.518
13.858
0.518
10.616
1.207
13.858
1.207
2.123
9.644
9.644
0.293
13.858
0.293
9.644
1.638
13.858
1.638
1.929
Kampala
10.694
10.694
0.279
13.858
0.279
10.694
0.876
13.858
0.876
2.139
Kamuli
11.708
11.708
0.302
13.858
0.302
11.708
1.256
13.858
1.256
2.342
6.657
6.657
0.324
13.858
0.324
6.657
1.685
13.858
1.685
1.331
Kanungu
10.591
10.591
0.334
13.858
0.334
10.591
1.696
13.858
1.696
2.118
Kapchorwa
11.441
11.441
0.311
13.858
0.311
11.441
1.681
13.858
1.681
2.288
Kasese
9.252
9.252
0.359
13.858
0.359
9.252
1.770
13.858
1.770
1.850
Katakwi
11.691
11.691
0.331
13.858
0.331
11.691
2.790
13.858
2.790
2.338
Kayunga
11.581
11.581
0.294
13.858
0.294
11.581
1.627
13.858
1.627
2.316
Bundibugyo
Bushenyi
Busia
Jinja
Kaliro
Kamwenge
163

Volume 2 Annexes

Type A
Open channel
Simple
Onfarm
Offfarm
Type B
Pressurised
Onfarm
Offfarm
Open channel
Onfarm
Offfarm
Pressurised
Onfarm
Offfarm
Managed
wetlands
District
per ha
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
Kibaale
7.354
7.354
0.288
13.858
0.288
7.354
1.599
13.858
1.599
1.471
Kiboga
7.477
7.477
0.288
13.858
0.288
7.477
1.224
13.858
1.224
1.495
Kiruhura
7.508
7.508
0.310
13.858
0.310
7.508
1.652
13.858
1.652
1.502
Kisoro
8.017
8.017
0.282
13.858
0.282
8.017
1.562
13.858
1.562
1.603
Kitgum
7.016
7.016
0.338
13.858
0.338
7.016
2.869
13.858
2.869
1.403
Koboko
5.673
5.673
0.350
13.858
0.350
5.673
1.776
13.858
1.776
1.135
Kotido
7.094
7.094
0.365
13.858
0.365
7.094
6.283
13.858
6.283
1.419
Kumi
8.312
8.312
0.308
13.858
0.308
8.312
1.687
13.858
1.687
1.662
Kyenjonjo
9.955
9.955
0.299
13.858
0.299
9.955
1.626
13.858
1.626
1.991
Lira
9.641
9.641
0.317
13.858
0.317
9.641
1.710
13.858
1.710
1.928
11.037
11.037
0.282
13.858
0.282
11.037
1.598
13.858
1.598
2.207
Lyantonde
9.104
9.104
0.298
13.858
0.298
9.104
2.051
13.858
2.051
1.821
Manafwa
11.923
11.923
0.299
13.858
0.299
11.923
1.625
13.858
1.625
2.385
6.296
6.296
0.344
13.858
0.344
6.296
1.761
13.858
1.761
1.259
Masaka
11.346
11.346
0.289
13.858
0.289
11.346
1.602
13.858
1.602
2.269
Masindi
8.745
8.745
0.302
13.858
0.302
8.745
1.634
13.858
1.634
1.749
Mayuge
9.321
9.321
0.293
13.858
0.293
9.321
1.239
13.858
1.239
1.864
11.672
11.672
0.302
13.858
0.302
11.672
1.634
13.858
1.634
2.334
Mbarara
8.792
8.792
0.304
13.858
0.304
8.792
1.627
13.858
1.627
1.758
Mityana
10.581
10.581
0.283
13.858
0.283
10.581
1.215
13.858
1.215
2.116
Moroto
6.937
6.937
0.360
13.858
0.360
6.937
2.347
13.858
2.347
1.387
Moyo
7.079
7.079
0.359
13.858
0.359
7.079
1.798
13.858
1.798
1.416
Mpigi
11.862
11.862
0.279
13.858
0.279
11.862
0.876
13.858
0.876
2.372
Mubende
7.137
7.137
0.291
13.858
0.291
7.137
1.230
13.858
1.230
1.427
Mukono
9.942
9.942
0.279
13.858
0.279
9.942
0.875
13.858
0.875
1.988
Nakapipirit
9.605
9.605
0.353
13.858
0.353
9.605
2.267
13.858
2.267
1.921
Nakaseke
9.222
9.222
0.295
13.858
0.295
9.222
1.630
13.858
1.630
1.844
Nakasongola
7.020
7.020
0.288
13.858
0.288
7.020
1.624
13.858
1.624
1.404
Namutumba
6.138
6.138
0.294
13.858
0.294
6.138
1.641
13.858
1.641
1.228
Nebbi
11.191
11.191
0.323
13.858
0.323
11.191
2.177
13.858
2.177
2.238
Ntungamo
10.141
10.141
0.312
13.858
0.312
10.141
1.633
13.858
1.633
2.028
Oyam
7.499
7.499
0.312
13.858
0.312
7.499
1.684
13.858
1.684
1.500
Pader
6.241
6.241
0.329
13.858
0.329
6.241
5.862
13.858
5.862
1.248
Pallisa
8.890
8.890
0.301
13.858
0.301
8.890
1.670
13.858
1.670
1.778
Luweero
Maracha/Terego
Mbale
164

Volume 2 Annexes

Type A
Open channel
Simple
Onfarm
Offfarm
Type B
Pressurised
Onfarm
Offfarm
Open channel
Onfarm
Offfarm
Pressurised
Onfarm
Offfarm
Managed
wetlands
District
per ha
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
per
m3/day
per ha
Rakai
12.375
12.375
0.298
13.858
0.298
12.375
1.623
13.858
1.623
2.475
Rukungiri
9.317
9.317
0.318
13.858
0.318
9.317
1.672
13.858
1.672
1.863
Sironko
9.949
9.949
0.302
13.858
0.302
9.949
1.647
13.858
1.647
1.990
Soroti
7.568
7.568
0.313
13.858
0.313
7.568
1.700
13.858
1.700
1.514
Ssembabule
6.056
6.056
0.300
13.858
0.300
6.056
2.057
13.858
2.057
1.211
Tororo
9.555
9.555
0.298
13.858
0.298
9.555
0.903
13.858
0.903
1.911
Wakiso
12.895
12.895
0.278
13.858
0.278
12.895
0.874
13.858
0.874
2.579
Yumbe
7.105
7.105
0.346
13.858
0.346
7.105
2.902
13.858
2.902
1.421
165

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.1 Schematic Layout of the Sample Area
166

Volume 2 Annexes
167

Volume 2 Annexes
168

Volume 2 Annexes
169

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.2
Main Canal Longitudinal Section
170

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.3
Secondary Canal SCR1 Longitudinal Section
171

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.4
172

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.5
Secondary Canal SCL1 Longitudinal Section
173

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.6
174

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.7
175

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.8
176

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.9
Secondary Canal SCL 4 Longitudinal Section
177

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.10
178

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.11
179

Volume 2 Annexes
Figure A2.12
180

Volume 2 Annexes
ANNEX 3 THE WATER AUDIT

Table A3.1 provides details of the water audit as applied to each district, but
consolidated by catchment.
District
Surface Water
(106 m3/year)
Ground Water
(106 m3/year)
Run-off (106
m3/year)
Crop water
Demand (106
m3/year)
Catchment
Adjumani
Albert Nile
996
60
73
0.93
Amuru
Albert Nile
1,125
118
902
0.12
Albert Nile
1,542.58
10.72
359.47
9.73
Arua
Albert Nile
56
24
2,385
17.92
Koboko
Albert Nile
10
1,891
0.48
Maracha
Albert Nile
10
15
1,424
0.79
Moyo
Albert Nile
106
89
427
1.86
Nebbi
Albert Nile
1,512
26
277
13.02
Yumbe
Albert Nile
10
22
546
1.23
267.88
18.69
2,071.15
46.08
Aswa
18
562.09
7.16
Aswa
54
118
318
1.50
Apac (Albert)
Amuria (Aswa)
50%
50%
Gulu
Kaabong (Aswa)
50%
Aswa
27
205
0.67
Kitgum
60%
Aswa
26
118
351
1.05
Kotido (Aswa)
50%
Aswa
36
678
1.76
Aswa
34
94
205
1.89
21
580
14.03
Pader
Bulisa
Lake Albert
1,500
43
741
0.49
Bundibugyo
Lake Albert
1,750
43
59
1.69
Hoima
Lake Albert
1,518
210
254
1.03
Kibaale (Albert)
70%
Lake Albert
13.80
42.31
155
1.49
Kyenjojo (Albert)
70%
Lake Albert
2.59
60.42
489
2.94
239.19
19.98
424.70
7.64
Bushenyi
Lake Edward
1,514
84
487
11.24
Ibanda
Lake Edward
26
948
2.26
Lake Edward
64.52
17.85
40
1.24
Kabarole
Lake Edward
130
39
365
3.58
Kamwengi
Lake Edward
23
59
203
1.46
Kanungu
Lake Edward
21
27
172
14.89
Kasese
Lake Edward
1,562
74
142
12.72
Kabale (Edward)
50%
Total Amount
for
abstraction
(106 m3/year)
2,357.72
606.13
683.87
181

Volume 2 Annexes
District
Surface Water
(106 m3/year)
Ground Water
(106 m3/year)
Run-off (106
m3/year)
Crop water
Demand (106
m3/year)
Catchment
Kibaale (Edward)
30%
Lake Edward
5.91
18.13
67
0.64
Kiruhura (Edward)
50%
Lake Edward
34
327
2.41
Lake Edward
17
314
2.14
Kisoro
Kyenjojo (Edward)
30%
Lake Edward
1.11
25.89
210
1.26
Masindi (Edward)
50%
Lake Edward
1,601.41
101.85
205
4.06
Lake Edward
31
651
5.55
246.25
27.78
1,032.45
63.44
Rukungiri
Abim
Lake Kyoga
54
270
2.74
Amolatar
Lake Kyoga
24
141
13.64
Lake Kyoga
18
562.09
7.16
Budaka
Lake Kyoga
1,295
16.46
Bududa
Lake Kyoga
98
5.13
Bugiri
Lake Kyoga
1,500
455
17.80
Bukedea
Lake Kyoga
11
138
0.76
Bukwa
Lake Kyoga
426
0.58
Lake Kyoga
759.23
3.16
25.81
0.32
Butaleja
Lake Kyoga
226
8.05
Iganga
Lake Kyoga
1,500
13
1,320
4.79
Kaberamaido
Lake Kyoga
1,500
19
186
9.54
Kaliro
Lake Kyoga
11
315
12.76
Kamuli
Lake Kyoga
2,386
30
356
14.79
Kapchorwa
Lake Kyoga
11
161
2.05
Katakwi
Lake Kyoga
144
36
141
26.85
Kayunga
Lake Kyoga
886
15
320
22.85
Lake Kyoga
36
678
1.76
Lake Kyoga
1,526
11
112
8.95
Amuria (Kyoga)
Busia (Kyoga)
Kotido (Kyoga)
50%
50%
50%
Kumi
Lira (Kyoga)
60%
Lake Kyoga
902.01
35.16
177
4.72
Luwero (Kyoga)
70%
Lake Kyoga
9.30
68.13
348
2.84
Manafwa
Lake Kyoga
617
28.38
Mbale
Lake Kyoga
695
7.00
Moroto
Lake Kyoga
2,387
34
313
10.43
Nakapipirit
Lake Kyoga
1,512
26
675
13.02
Lake Kyoga
756.43
39.71
434
4.93
Namutumba
Lake Kyoga
15
1,776
4.71
Pallisa
Lake Kyoga
1,515
218
12.08
Sironko
Lake Kyoga
122
10
342
16.58
Nakasongola (Kyo)
50%
Total Amount
for
abstraction
(106 m3/year)
1,306.48
182

Volume 2 Annexes
District
Surface Water
(106 m3/year)
Ground Water
(106 m3/year)
Run-off (106
m3/year)
Crop water
Demand (106
m3/year)
Catchment
Soroti
Lake Kyoga
1,502
38
1,608
9.71
Tororo
Lake Kyoga
32
10
142
10.73
948.29
29.82
3,642.73
302.08
Lake Victoria
759.23
3.16
25.81
0.32
Isingiro
Lake Victoria
43
240
6.40
Jinja
Lake Victoria
2,384
177
3.26
Lake Victoria
64.52
17.85
40
1.24
Kalangala
Lake Victoria
1,500
176
0.10
Kampala
Lake Victoria
1,500
490
0.95
Lake Victoria
34
327
2.41
Lyantonde
Lake Victoria
520
0.92
Masaka
Lake Victoria
1,502
34
90
19.06
Mayuge
Lake Victoria
1,500
11
256
13.65
Mbarara
Lake Victoria
23
34
299
2.92
Lake Victoria
10
158
1.36
Mpigi
Lake Victoria
42
302
3.78
Mubende
Lake Victoria
1,513
79
749
9.85
Mukono
Lake Victoria
15
913
4.71
Ntungamo
Lake Victoria
35
292
6.62
Rakai
Lake Victoria
2,198
43
387
6.39
Ssembabule
Lake Victoria
0.425
17
153
0.28
Wakiso
Lake Victoria
1,500
43
186
4.58
722.99
23.84
1,445.66
88.80
Victoria Nile
1,542.58
10.72
359.47
9.73
Dokolo
Victoria Nile
25
233
10.24
Kiboga
Victoria Nile
43
319
1.62
Busia (L Victoria)
Kabale (L Victoria)
Kiruhura (L Vic)
Mityana (L Victoria)
Apac (Victoria)
50%
50%
50%
50%
50%
Lira (Victoria)
40%
Victoria Nile
601.34
23.44
118
3.15
Luwero (Victoria)
30%
Victoria Nile
9.30
68.13
149
2.84
Masindi (Victoria)
50%
Victoria Nile
1,601.41
101.85
205
4.06
Mityana (Victoria)
50%
Victoria Nile
10
158
1.36
Victoria Nile
35
699
6.62
Victoria Nile
756.43
39.71
434
4.93
Victoria Nile
36
1,068
0.54
225.55
19.60
935.65
45.08
Nakaseke
Nakasongola (Vic)
Oyam
50%
Total Amount
for
abstraction
(106 m3/year)
4,620.83
2,192.48
1180.80
183

Volume 2 Annexes
Surface Water
(106 m3/year)
Ground Water
(106 m3/year)
Run-off (106
m3/year)
Crop water
Demand (106
m3/year)
District
Catchment
Kitgum
40%
Kidepo
17
79
234
0.70
Kaabong (Kyoga)
50%
Kidepo
27
205
0.67
110
1.37
Total Amount
for
abstraction
(106 m3/year)
116.00
184

Volume 2 Annexes
ANNEX 4 DETAILED COSTS AND BENEFITS

Tables A4.1 to A4.5 on the following sheets sets out details of the FMP disaggregated
financial cashflow. The disaggregation factors are defined and quantified in Table 14.1
of the Main Text.
185

Volume 2 Annexes
Table A4.1
Disaggregated Cashflow of the FMP in the Immediate Term
BUDGET CLASSES
Overall
Capacity Building
IMMEDIATE TERM
1st Disaggregation
technical assistance
equipment
2nd Disaggregation
local costs
3rd Disaggregation
not applicable
2012
1,362
2013
2,568
2014
2,303
2015
2413
forex costs
local costs
not applicable
605
1,141
1,024
1,072
not applicable
454
856
768
804
forex costs
not applicable
151
285
256
268
establishment
none
not applicable
454
856
768
804
Scheme Cycle
Management
local costs
not applicable
157
157
17
30
forex costs
not applicable
52
52
10
Earthworks
Machinery
local costs
209
209
23
40
forex costs
104
104
12
20
local costs
84
84
16
forex costs
42
42
104
104
12
20
Fuel
Structures
labour
not applicable
concrete
local costs
84
84
16
forex costs
21
21
local costs
52
52
10
forex costs
31
31
104
104
12
steel
labour
Private Sector Leverage Fund
not applicable
not applicable
20
17,225
Farmer cap cost contributions
local costs
none
not applicable
Production costs
local costs
none
not applicable
forex costs
none
not applicable
local sales
none
not applicable
exports
none
not applicable
taxes and tariffs
none
not applicable
-4,071
-6,750
-5,234
-5,563
Revenues
CASHFLOW
186

Volume 2 Annexes
Table A4.2
Disaggregated Cashflow of the FMP in the Short Term
BUDGET CLASSES
Overall
Capacity Building
SHORT TERM
1st Disaggregation
equipment
2nd Disaggregation
3rd Disaggregation
2016
2, 17
2018
2019
2020
local costs
not applicable
1,191
1,163
1,163
169
169
forex costs
not applicable
529
517
517
75
75
local costs
not applicable
397
388
388
56
56
forex costs
not applicable
132
129
129
19
19
establishment
none
not applicable
397
388
388
56
56
Scheme Cycle
Management
local costs
not applicable
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,000
1,018
forex costs
not applicable
333
333
333
333
339
Earthworks
Machinery
local costs
1,333
1,333
1,333
1,333
1,358
forex costs
667
667
667
667
679
local costs
533
533
533
533
543
forex costs
267
267
267
267
272
labour
not applicable
667
667
667
667
679
concrete
local costs
533
533
533
533
543
forex costs
133
133
133
133
136
local costs
333
333
333
333
339
forex costs
200
200
200
200
204
not applicable
667
667
667
667
679
not applicable
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
Fuel
Structures
steel
labour
local costs
none
not applicable
351
351
351
351
351
Production costs
local costs
none
not applicable
2,729
5,459
8,188
10,917
forex costs
none
not applicable
559
1,118
1,677
2,236
local sales
none
not applicable
2,426
4,851
7,279
9713
exports
none
not applicable
6,930
13,861
20,797
27752
taxes and tariffs
none
not applicable
2,195
4,389
6,586
8788
-9,662
-1,337
6,924
174,05
255,85
Revenues
CASHFLOW
187

Volume 2 Annexes
Table A4.3
Disaggregated Cashflow of the FMP in the Medium Term
BUDGET CLASSES
MEDIUM TERM
Overall
1st Disaggregation
2nd Disaggregation
3rd Disaggregation

Capacity Building
local costs
equipment
establishment
Scheme Cycle
Management
Earthworks
not applicable
2021
272
2022
137
2023
137
2024
137
2025
137
forex costs
not applicable
121
61
61
61
61
local costs
not applicable
91
46
46
46
46
forex costs
not applicable
30
15
15
15
15
none
not applicable
91
46
46
46
46
local costs
not applicable
3,086
3,086
3,086
3,086
3,172
forex costs
not applicable
1,029
1,029
1,029
1,029
1,057
local costs
4,115
4,115
4,115
4,115
4,230
forex costs
2,057
2,057
2,057
2,057
2,115
local costs
1,646
1,646
1,646
1,646
1,692
Machinery
Fuel
forex costs
Structures
Revenues
823
846
2,057
2,115
not applicable
local costs
1,646
1,646
1,646
1,646
1,692
forex costs
411
411
411
411
423
local costs
1,029
1,029
1,029
1,029
1,057
forex costs
617
617
617
617
634

Production costs
823
2,057
concrete
labour
local costs
823
2,057
labour
steel
823
2,057
none
not applicable
2,057
2,057
2,057
2,057
2,115
not applicable
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
not applicable
858
858
858
858
858
13,647
20,313
26,980
33,647
40,314
local costs
none
not applicable
forex costs
none
not applicable
2,795
4,161
5,526
6,892
8,257
18,335
24,537
30,738
36,940
local sales
none
not applicable
12,154
exports
none
not applicable
34,725
52,386
70,105
87,823
105,542
not applicable
CASHFLOW
10,996
16,589
22,200
27,811
33,422
19,395
41,099
62,598
84,096
105,021
taxes and tariffs
none
188

Volume 2 Annexes
Table A4.4
Disaggregated Cashflow of the FMP in the Long Term

LONG TERM
BUDGET CLASSES
Overall
1st Disaggregation
2nd Disaggregation
3rd Disaggregation

Capacity Building
local costs
equipment
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
not applicable
375
375
375
forex costs
not applicable
167
167
167
local costs
not applicable
125
125
125
forex costs
not applicable
42
42
42
establishment
none
not applicable
125
125
125
Scheme Cycle
Management
local costs
not applicable
14,087
14,087
14,144
14,144
14,144
14,144
14,144
14,264
14,264
14,264
15,209
15,104
forex costs
not applicable
4,696
4,696
4,715
4,715
4,715
4,715
4,715
4,755
4,755
4,755
5,070
5,035
Earthworks
Machinery
local costs
18,783
18,783
18,859
18,859
18,859
18,859
18,859
19,018
19,018
19,018
20,278
20,139
forex costs
9,391
9,391
9,430
9,430
9,430
9,430
9,430
9,509
9,509
9,509
10,139
10,069
local costs
7,513
7,513
7,544
7,544
7,544
7,544
7,544
7,607
7,607
7,607
8,111
8,056
forex costs
3,757
3,757
3,772
3,772
3,772
3,772
3,772
3,804
3,804
3,804
4,056
4,028
labour
not applicable
9,391
9,391
9,430
9,430
9,430
9,430
9,430
9,509
9,509
9,509
10,139
10,069
concrete
local costs
7,513
7,513
7,544
7,544
7,544
7,544
7,544
7,607
7,607
7,607
8,111
8,056
forex costs
1,878
1,878
1,886
1,886
1,886
1,886
1,886
1,902
1,902
1,902
2,028
2,014
local costs
4,696
4,696
4,715
4,715
4,715
4,715
4,715
4,755
4,755
4,755
5,070
5,035
forex costs
2,817
2,817
2,829
2,829
2,829
2,829
2,829
2,853
2,853
2,853
3,042
3,021
not applicable
9,391
9,391
9,430
9,430
9,430
9,430
9,430
9,509
9,509
9,509
10,139
10,069
Fuel
Structures
steel
labour
not applicable
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
17,225
local costs
none
not applicable
3,219
3,219
3,219
3,219
3,219
3,219
3,219
3,219
3,219
3,219
3,570
3,570
Production costs
local costs
none
not applicable
46,980
71,943
96,905
121,867
146,830
171,792
196,755
221,717
246,680
271,642
296,604
321,567
forex costs
none
not applicable
9,622
14,735
19,848
24,961
30,074
35,186
40,299
45,412
50,525
55,638
60,750
65,863
local sales
none
not applicable
43141
67,739
92,337
116,934
141,532
166,130
190,727
215,325
239,923
264,520
289,118
313,716
exports
none
not applicable
123,260
193,540
263,819
334,098
404,377
474,656
544,935
615,214
685,493
755,772
826,051
896,330
taxes and tariffs
none
not applicable
CASHFLOW
Revenues
17,225
39,032
61,288
83,543
105,798
128,053
150,308
172,563
194,818
217,073
239,328
261,583
283,838
50,864
137,920
224,596
312,486
399,542
486,599
573,655
659,916
746,973
834,030
914,435
1,002,199
189

Volume 2 Annexes
Table A4.5
Disaggregated Cashflow of the FMP in the Continuation Phase

CONTINUATION PHASE (runs to 2052 in the financial and economic analyses but truncated here due to lack of space)
Overall
1st Disaggregation
2nd Disaggregation
3rd Disaggregation

Capacity Building
local costs
forex costs
equipment
not applicable
2,038
0
2,039
0
2,040
0
2,041
0
2,042
0
2,043
0
2,044
0
2,045
0
2,046
0
2,047
0
not applicable
local costs
not applicable
forex costs
not applicable
establishment
none
not applicable
Scheme Cycle
Management
local costs
not applicable
1,593
1,593
1,650
3,760
3,778
3,778
3,778
3,898
14,813
14,899
forex costs
not applicable
531
531
550
1,253
1,259
1,259
1,259
1,299
4,938
4,966
Earthworks
Machinery
local costs
2,124
2,124
2,200
5,013
5,038
5,038
5,038
5,197
19,750
19,865
forex costs
1,062
1,062
1,100
2,507
2,519
2,519
2,519
2,598
9,875
9,933
local costs
850
850
880
2,005
2,015
2,015
2,015
2,079
7,900
7,946
forex costs
425
425
440
1,003
1,008
1,008
1,008
1,039
3,950
3,973
1,062
1,062
1,100
2,507
2,519
2,519
2,519
2,598
9,875
9,933
local costs
850
850
880
2,005
2,015
2,015
2,015
2,079
7,900
7,946
forex costs
212
212
220
501
504
504
504
520
1,975
1,987
local costs
531
531
550
1,253
1,259
1,259
1,259
1,299
4,938
4,966
Fuel
labour
Structures
concrete
steel
not applicable
forex costs
labour
not applicable
319
319
330
752
756
756
756
780
2,963
2,980
1,062
1,062
1,100
2,507
2,519
2,519
2,519
2,598
9,875
9,933
not applicable
local costs
none
not applicable
351
351
351
858
858
858
858
858
3,219
3,219
Production costs
local costs
none
not applicable
346,529
346,529
346,529
346,529
346,529
346,529
346,529
346,529
346,529
346,529
70,976
70,976
70,976
70,976
70,976
70,976
70,976
70,976
70,976
Revenues
forex costs
none
not applicable
70,976
local sales
none
not applicable
338,313
338,313
338,313
338313
338,313
338,313
338,313
338,313
338,313
338,313
966,609
966,609
966,609
966,609
966,609
966,609
966,609
966,609
966,609
exports
none
not applicable
966,609
taxes and tariffs
none
not applicable
CASHFLOW
306,093
306,093
306,093
306,093
306,093
306,093
306,093
306,093
306,093
306,093
1,182,540
1,182,540
1182159
1167586
1,167,462
1,167,462
1,167,462
1,166,667
1,091,540
1,090,966
190

Volume 2 Annexes
ANNEX 5 IRRIGATION SECTOR PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

For reasons that will become clear in the following text, a simple
recommendation with respect to the advantages of PPPs would be premature
without due consideration by government of what is meant by an irrigation sector
PPP. This Annex is therefore intended only to alert government to the various
nuances implicit in an irrigation PPP.
Increasing success in various countries55 with PPPs in water supply and sanitation
has generated widespread discussion with respect to the possibilities of
establishing PPPs for irrigation. Across the developing world, the private sector
has been active in investing and managing on-farm water management through
large scale commercial enterprises, traditional small-scale irrigation systems and
the rapid expansion of privately owned and operated boreholes. However, the
mix of public and private investment in irrigated production and/or irrigation
service delivery is less clear because most of the public private partnership
experience in any sort of water service provision has been focused on the water
supply and sanitation sector. And even though experience in WS&S has been
mixed, there is a temptation to assume that such success as might have been
achieved in WS&S suggests that similar successes might be achieved in irrigation
especially by cash strapped governments looking to expand equipped areas or to
reduce recurring costs. However, it should be firmly noted that successes in
water supply and sanitation are not necessarily replicable in but before
proceeding to see why this is so, it is first necessary to establish a typology of
agricultural PPPs.
In fact, there is a range of possible financial or transaction models for financing
PPPs in I&D, they fall into three broad categories: Public Contracts, Public
Service Delegation and Co-Investment in Production.
Public contracts comprise:
Service Contracts: which are usually short term arrangements under which
the public sector engages the services of a private entity to undertake tasks
such as system maintenance, fee collecting etc, that are difficult to
undertake with the administrative means available to the relevant public
sector institutions.
Management Contracts: are similar to service contracts but transfer

responsibility to the service provider for a fixed term. Such arrangements
vary in complexity and sometimes involve the secondment to, or
management by, the private entity 65of public employees.
Public Service Delegation (PSD) comprises:
55
Leasing: which is an arrangement whereby the service provider is

responsible for operating and maintaining a scheme, but is not responsible
for its capital financing (although this is a somewhat blurred distinction in
the case of rehabilitation and upgrading). Under lease arrangements, the
Both developed and emerging.
191

Volume 2 Annexes
contracting authority is paid a fixed rent by the service provider meaning

that the service provider therefore carries all the commercial risk.
Affermage: which is an arrangement similar to a lease, but the rent payable

depends on the revenues collected by the service provider, meaning that the
commercial risk is shared in some way between the service provider and
contracting authority.
Concession: which gives the service provider full responsibility not only
for O&M of the scheme, but also its financing. Under a concession,
ultimate ownership of the assets is vested in the Government and full use of
the assets reverts to Government when the contract ends. As such
concession arrangements represent considerable risk to the private interest.
BOT: although apparently similar to concession, is actually quite different

because the service provider receives a fixed amount from the contracting
authority regardless of what actually happens in terms of water availability
and use. In this respect a BOT is similar to a service contract than a PSD:
but there are several variations on the BOT theme:
- BOO (Build-Operate-Own), under which the assets remain indefinitely
with the private interest
- DBO (Design-Build-Operate), under which public and private sectors
share responsibility for capital investments
- ROT (Rehabilitate-Operate-Transfer), which is sometimes favoured
where infrastructure needs major work.
- Divestiture: is basically the sale of a public asset to a private entity and
can hence be thought of as privatisation.
Co-Investment in Production,
which - although in some ways can be thought of as a subset of DBO whereby the
public and private sectors co-invest not only in infrastructure and service
delivery, but also production - is listed separately here however, because the
revenue risks are shared between the two players according to equity, rather than
contractual formulation.
Before looking at the differences between PPPs in WS&S and I&D it is also
necessary to understand that a typical I&D scheme as having three components:
Water Management: which concerns the interception and

management/timely release of the water in a regulated fashion. Sometimes
this component involves storage.
Water Conveyance: which concerns the movement of water from its source
to the border of the scheme along with the infrastructure and applicable
operating rules. Sometimes this will involve a main/feeder canal or
pipeline, other times it may involve the natural river itself if a dam is
involved and dam releases are conveyed by means of the river.
Water Distribution: which concerns the delivery of water to the fields and
includes the secondary, tertiary and sub-tertiary systems. This may involve
192

Volume 2 Annexes
rotating the supplies and should be carried out in accordance with any rights
system that may apply.
Similarly, it is possible to identify four categories of function that engage I&D
stakeholders:
Investment: included within this category are scheme identification,

planning, appraisal, financing, design and implementation.
Regulation and Control: water allocation, bailiff functions, maintenance

audit and price setting/regulation.
Operation, Management and Maintenance (OMM): water allocations,

water delivery (system operation) and system management (accounts,
customer liaison etc) and system maintenance.
Agricultural Production: which is self-explanatory.
All this being said, it is now possible to compare the differences between PPPs in
WS&S and I&D Figure A6.1 refers, where red highlights identify differences
and green, similarities.
Figure A6.1
Similarities and Differences Between WS&S and I&D PPPs
It is also necessary to note that the potential private investor is not looking for the
same benefit as the public sector. The latter, especially in Uganda given the
National Vision, is usually looking for some sort of socio-economic
transformation56 and cost reduction in service delivery (both capex and recurring)
whereas the private investor will be looking primarily to maximise revenue or
production based profits while minimising risks.
With this in mind it should be noted and understood that revenue risks in WS&S
relate simply to whether or not users will pay. For irrigation service delivery
56
In that beneficiaries become clients.
193

Volume 2 Annexes
however, because the risk factor is hugely increased by the fact that due to
externalities such as climate shock, disease or pest incidence or indeed market
shock and other externalities (the question of risks is developed in more detail
below), the issue not only concerns whether or not the users will pay, but also
whether they can!
In fact, considering risk more closely we find that there are always at least three
risk taking entities in privatised/part-privatised irrigation service delivery:
1
government agencies
private service providers
and
3
the farmers
and possibly two others:

4
public agencies (ie public sector agencies that operate on a commercial

basis and depend entirely on service revenues)
and
5
insurers (who could take or share the risk at least of certain types crop
failure).
The relationship between

risk and service for entities
1-4 has been very well
illustrated by Dargouth
(2005), Figure A6.2 refers:
however, it has been
modified by to include
insurers.
FigureA6.2
Relationship between Entity, Risk and Service Type
Risks themselves fall into

three categories.
The first are externalities
that arise from broader
challenges faced by or
arising in the country
concerned. These include i)
political
instability;
ii)
inadequate political capital
for the enforcement of the
regulations necessary to Source: Dargouth, modified Riddell
guarantee the payments of
service charges; iii) institutional lag on the part of public institutions that are
unwilling to devolve responsibility; iv) devaluation (which reduces the value of
local revenues to internationally funded PPPs); and v) revenue risks arising to
changing terms of trade (especially where domestic markets are not protected).
Second can be thought of as commercial risks. These include i) farmers ability
to pay, and this may arise from insolvency or crop failure (which, where
194

Volume 2 Annexes
applicable, becomes the insurers risk); ii) willingness to pay - factors influencing
this can include the acceptability of the service as well socio-political issues; iii
perverse accountability in the case of public agencies and inadequately sensitised
users; iv) difficulties on the part of all stakeholders to adapt to new models, and
these may have profound cultural provenance; and v) risks concerning economies
of scale, competition, unhelpful (or pehaps absent!) subsidy structures and
incompatibility between the theoretical business model and realities on the
ground.
Third are those risks arising from the fact that everything revolves around the
supply of water: i) the availability of which may become compromised; ii) which
may prove too difficult to supply at prices affordable even from higher value
farming systems (which in turn may not be well understood or trusted by the
farmers, who of course share a portion of the risk when adopting them); and iii)
may prove difficult to supply if inherited infrastructure proves to be of poor
quality and hence more expensive to maintain than expected.
Thus, the real question is not whether or not there is a role for PPPs, rather it
concerns how serious Government is and how far it is prepared to go. In fact,
more or less all of the forms of PPP outlined above may be found to have
potential in Uganda; but Government will have to consider the options carefully,
decide what it wants and promulgate whatever policy and regulatory decisions are
considered necessary. In so doing, in addition to important questions of risk
allocation, it will also have to face the questions of the water rights and
regulations as they apply to PPPs. In other words, which entity has the water
right in the case of a PPP, and which is responsible for ensuring that the right,
when used, is delivered according to law? Put another way, if a private sector
service provider is contracted by goverment to provide a service to the farmers,
who has the water use permit? The farmers, the farmer groups, the service
provider or government?
And does that change if the private player risks capital by constructing an
irrigation delivery system at its own initiative?
Until these questions are answered at the policy level, all that can be done, is to
make clear to government that PPPs in irrigation are not a silver bullet and are
very much unproven. Also, and most important to remember, is that regardless
of how enthusiastically government might embrace the concept, the decision to
invest will be entirely that of the private player hence even the best legal and
policy framework may not result in any PPPS if the private sector is not
convinced as to profitability and risk, and it would be naive to think otherwise.
195

Imp - Irrigation Master Plan 2010-2035

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Imp - Irrigation Master Plan 2010-2035

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REPUBLIC OF UGANDA

MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT

The Current Drivers of Irrigation Development in Uganda

Drivers of Irrigation Development

Traditional Farmers which are those practicing subsistence cropping with

Emerging Farmers which are those with farming systems combining

Irrigation development enables increasing numbers of traditional farmers to become

Socio-economic Transformation in the Agricultural Sector

Objectives of Irrigation Development in Uganda

The Nested Objectives of the FMP

Increasing household incomes

Enhanced human capital

Irrigated agriculture contributing to economic growth

High economic water

Off-plan land which could be either Type A or Type B, commercially

The allocation and use of water resources

Investment planning and decision making

Facilitation and regulation of commercial investments

The provision of effective irrigation services

The Implementation Strategy for the FMP in:

an Immediate Term lasting 4 years, and characterised by capacity building and

a Short Term lasting 5 years, and characterised by a much needed reinvigoration

a Long Term lasting 12 years, and characterised by increasing integration into

political commitment, especially as regards institutional changes (including water

effective operation of the countrys food reserve.

improved rural access and communications infrastructure.

crop diversification and improved soil management practices

The FMP Itself

The Four Stages of the FMP

Capacity Building and Studies:

Reinvigoration of the Sector:

Integration and Commercialisation:

institutional measures identified and studied in the Immediate Term;

Spatial and Market Expansion:

feasibility studies for the rehabilitation of existing government schemes

deeper integration with regional and global markets

there are four clusters of institutions:

research and information

Indicative Institutional Arrangements Assumed by the FMP

Of particular interest is the proposed Apex Body, currently thought of in terms

Water Audit for the eight main Catchments

Total amount available for

Total gross crop water

abstraction (106 m3/yr)

demand (106 m3/yr)

Financial and Economic Analysis and the FMP Financing Plan

Summary of Costs and Benefits

institutional capacity building

public cost of infrastructure

private sector leverage fund

farmers cost contribution

operation and maintenance

OVERALL TOTAL COSTS

Distribution of Public FMP Costs by Budget Class

The FMP Financing Plan

private sector leverage

The FMP Financing Plan

capital cost contribution (new)

capital cost contribution (replacement)

operation and maintenance

Annual Financing Requirements of the FMP (Ugx106)

concerns streamlining of the Analytical which is not a deliverable of the