Mapping a Better Future

8/9/2019 Mapping a Better Future

1/51

Mapping a Better Future

How Spatial Analysis Can Benefit Wetlandsand Reduce Poverty in Uganda

The Republic of Uganda

Wetlands Management DepartmentMINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT, UGANDA

Uganda Bureau of Statistics


2/51


3/51

Mapping a Better FutureHow Spatial Analysis Can Bene

Wetlands and Reduce Poverty i

Wetlands Management Department, Ministry o Water and Environment, Uganda

Uganda Bureau o Statistics

International Livestock Research Institute

World Resources Institute

World Resources Institute: Washington DC and Kampala


4/51

PHOTO CREDITS

Front cover Woman preparing papyrus mat, Lugazi Subcounty, Mukono District.

Henry Bongyereirwe

Page i Fishing boats at Gaba landing site, Lake Victoria, Mukono District. 2006, fickr user sarah_mccans (http://www.fickr.com/photos/sarah_mccans)

Page vii Man harvesting papyrus in Lubigi Wetland, Kampala.

Henry Bongyereirwe

Page viii Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) in Mabamba Bay wetland system, Wakiso District.

2006, fickr user sarah_mccans (http://www.fickr.com/photos/sarah_mccans)

Page 7 Brickmaker in wetland o Mabalala, Mukono District.

Henry Bongyereirwe

Page 15 Young boys watering a herd o Ankole cattle in a wetland along the Mbarara Road.

2006, fickr user sarah_mccans (http://www.fickr.com/photos/sarah_mccans)

Page 25 Gaba 1 water intake point at Lake Victoria providing drinking water or Kampala.

Henry Bongyereirwe

Page 31 Woman rolling up papyrus mat, Lugazi Subcounty, Mukono District.

Henry Bongyereirwe

Page 31 Man sitting on newly built chair, the seat made out o rattan grown in a wetland, Kawo

Henry Bongyereirwe

Page 32 Children exploring wetland close to Dr. Opuda-Asibos arm.

2008, fickr user clstal (http://www.fickr.com/photos/clstal)

Page 36 Man holding tilapia at Kasenyi Landing Site, Entebbe.

Henry Bongyereirwe

Page 38 Boys transporting pineapples in Mabamba Bay wetland system, one o Ugandas new

Wakiso District.

Florence Landsberg

Back cover Tourists and guide crossing bridge at Sezibwa Falls, Mukono District.

Regina Namakula

Family crossing Lake Bunyonyi, Kabale District in traditional canoe.

Henry BongyereirweWater treatment acility at Masaka Town and Nabajuzzi wetland system, a Ramsar site

Lucy Ivango

Cite as: Wetlands Management Department, Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda;I t ti l Li t k R h I tit t d W ld R I tit t 2009 M ppi


5/51

ContentsForeword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

Background: A Brief History of Wetlands Management in Uganda . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Balancing Human and Ecosystem Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Filling the Data Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Audience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Managing Wetlands and Reducing Poverty: Issues and Challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Wetland Benefits to People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Poverty Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Wetlands and Poverty Links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Wetland Characteristics and Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Wetland Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Wetland Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Spatial Analysis of Wetland and Poverty Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Diversity of Wetland Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Measuring the Combined Impacts of Wetland Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Adding Value: Combining Wetland and Poverty Maps with Economic Analysis . . . . 27

Moving Forward: Lessons Learned and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

LIST OF BOXES

1. Poverty Measures Used in the 2005 Poverty Maps

2. Ugandas National Wetlands Inormation System

3. Mapping Case Study: Coordinating Wetlands Management and Health

Interventions to Improve Sanitation, Drinking Water, and Health

4 Constructing an Index o Combined Impacts oWetland Uses

LIST OF MAPS

1. Poverty Rate: Percentage o Rural Subc

Line, 2005

2. Distribution o Permanent and Seasona

3. Wetland Area Per Capita by Subcounty

4 Spatial Distribution o Selected Wetlan


6/51

i v

Foreword

ment Department and the Ulink wetlands and poverty is a

Mapping a Better Future: HowWetlands and Reduce Poverty iforward in our efforts to reconopment.It presents an innovintegrating efforts to reduce p

systems, such as wetlands, whcant potential for improving and pro-poor outcomes both

We value the lessons learnedand we intend to act on themand build on the knowledge gtion and leverage them into fcesses on how individual wet

will further develop a more syinventory and assessment of wopportunities they offer to proptimizing the services they o

We hope and believe that thin these pages will indeed heUganda.

Finally, we would like to ext

international partners in thiLivestock Research InstituteInstitute.

Wetlands affect the lives of every one of Ugandas citi-zens. We depend on wetlands for food and clean water,for building materials and fuels, for livestock grazing andmedicines, and for water flow regulation. They providea powerful engine for our countrys development, withwetland services and products contributing hundreds ofmillions of dollars a year to the national economy.

The critical importance of Ugandas wetlands has alreadybeen acknowledged by the government, and Uganda iswidely recognized for taking a lead in Africa on wetlandsmanagement policy. Over the past decade, $2 million hasbeen invested in building a database unique in Africa tosupport efforts to protect and sustainably use wetlands.The National Wetlands Information System inventories13 main uses of wetlands in 30 districts around the countryand records their impacts on each individual site.

The Ugandan government is also very committed to itspoverty reduction strategy. To support poverty reduc-tion efforts, the Uganda Bureau of Statistics has recentlypublished detailed, high resolution poverty maps whichprovide information on household income at a local (sub-county) level.

This publication combines and analyzes these two sets ofdataon wetlands use and poverty levelsto generate

information that can be used to strengthen national andlocal anti-poverty strategies and resource managementplans. The collaboration between the Wetlands Manage-


7/51

Preace

The high quality datasets andtion is based were developed government. The Wetlands Mof the Ministry of Water and comprehensive wetlands dataInformation System, which isUganda Bureau of Statistics, istry of Finance, Planning an

produced the detailed and higBoth the World Resources InLivestock Research Institute derive new maps and analyseof authors from all four instituand one on which we plan to

This publication encapsulatetance at the interface of peop

builds on pioneering poverty undertaken in Kenya and poiwork in East Africa aimed at and plans to reduce poverty.

We hope that the poverty-wepolicy pathways illuminated beffectively applied by governmaudiences, both in Uganda an

PAUL MAFABICOMMISSIONERWETLANDS MANAGEMENT DEPAR

MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRON

JOHN B MALE MUKASA

Mapping a Better Future: How Spatial Analysis can BenefitWetlands and Reduce Poverty in Uganda represents an excit-ing step forward in both combating poverty and protectingvital ecosystems in Uganda.

The pioneering spatial analysis contained in the reportprovides valuable insights aimed at helping decision-makers across government target and prioritize anti-

poverty efforts and wetland protection interventions. Thisreport is the product of an ongoing partnership betweennational and international organizations to develop andcombine maps of poverty incidence and ecosystems use.Its approach has potential application in other developingcountries which share high poverty levels and an abun-dance of natural resources.

The geographic approach inherent in the report canenable Ugandan decision-makers to literally see andvalue the nations ubiquitous wetlands in a new light.We hope that decision-makers will use the maps andanalytical examples to develop further analyses and applytheir findings to policies and interventions in the field.

To this end, the reports target audiences include the fol-lowing: The Ministry of Finance, Planning and EconomicDevelopment; the Budget Monitoring and Accountabil-ity Unit; the Uganda Bureau of Statistics; the Wetlands

Management Department; planning experts; andto holddecision-makers accountable for wetland conservation andpoverty reduction effortscivil society representativesand nongovernmental organizations.

In particular, we hope that the Ministry of Finance, Plan-ning and Economic Development will use the wetland


8/51

v i E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

Executive Summary

The publication is aimed at hand has two key purposes:

To show decision-makers rwetlands where sustainablhave the greatest impacts how community profiles dcan facilitate wetland inte

the poor. Maps of poverty serve as a bridge between as they consider opportunsocioeconomic and enviro

To show decision-makers ihow maps derived from UInformation System can hdegradation risks or econothese areas coincide with dknowledge can improve efissues into poverty reducti

Mapping a Better Future: HowWetlands and Reduce Poverty i

approach to integrate spatial lands use. Drawing on Uganddata and poverty mapping, thexamination of the links betw

the location of poor communlessons for policy-makers acrocovers the following issues:

Background: A Brief History ofUganda gives an overview of efforts to date on wetlands m

INTRODUCTION

Uganda has abundant natural wealth. Its varied wetlands,including grass swamps, mountain bogs, seasonal flood-plains, and swamp forests, provide services and productsworth hundreds of millions of dollars per year, makingthem a vital contributor to the national economy. Ugan-dans use wetlandsoften called the countrys granariesfor waterto sustain their lives and livelihoods. Theyrely on them for water, construction material, and fuel,and use them for farming, fishing, and to graze livestock.Wetlands supply direct or subsistence employment for 2.7million people, almost 10 percent of the population. Inmany parts of the country, wetland products and servicesare the sole source for livelihoods and the main safety netfor the poorest households. Sustainable management ofUgandas wetlands is thus not only sound economic policy,

it is also a potent strategy for poverty reduction.Recognizing this, Ugandas Government was the first tocreate a national wetlands policy in Africa. Over the pastdecade, Uganda has also instituted the National WetlandsInformation System, a rich database on the use and healthof Ugandas wetlands which in its coverage and detail isunique in Africa.

This publication builds on those initiatives by combining

information from the wetlands database with pioneeringpoverty location maps developed by the Uganda Bureauof Statistics. The new maps and accompanying analyseswill help policy-makers classify wetlands by their mainuses, conditions, and poverty profile and identify areaswith the greatest need of pro-poor wetland managementi t ti Th i f ti t d l b f d


9/51

Spatial Analysis of Wetland an

strates how combining spatiacan improve the informationsion-making. These comparisof wetland products and the i

Adding Value: Combining WetEconomic Analysis illustrates hof these analyses can be furthwetland and poverty maps wi

valuation studies. A case studpotential to reduce poverty is

Moving Forward: Lessons Lear

looks ahead, describes lessonsmendations for stakeholders iand the sustainable use of wethe world.

K E Y F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S

Findings

The maps and analyses in this publication are primarily illustrative, but do

support the ollowing conclusions:

Detailed mapping o previously unused data confrms that wetlands pro-

vide multiple benefts in every district, and to every citizen o Uganda.

The diversity o products obtained rom wetlands in specifc locations

ranges widely, rom a handul to up to 24 products; levels o harmul im-

pacts on wetlands by people also var y greatly across the country.

Spatial analyses o selected poverty-wetland indicators reveal no clear

pattern at the subcounty level--despite popular belie that the poorest

areas are always the most degraded.

The overlay analyses o poverty and wetland maps are most useul or

identiying subcounties that share similar poverty and wetland charac-

teristics, and thus may lend themselves to similar wetland managementapproaches and intervention strategies. Economic studies that quantiy

the value o wetland products and services can be linked to poverty and

wetland maps to gauge the economic potential o specifc wetland uses

in reducing poverty.

Recommendations

Further strengthening Ugandas supply o data and analytical capacity will

provide major returns or the countrys people and natural resource base by

improving wetland management planning and prioritization eorts, espe-

cially in these two areas:

Complete data entry and collection or the National Wetlands Inorma-

tion System, improve data consistency, and update wetland and land

cover inormation.

Strengthen analysis, mapping, and economic valuation eorts within the

Wetlands Management Department.

Improvements in lives, livelihoods, and wetland health could result di-rectly rom this supply o new maps and analyses. Specifcally, government

agencies could use the inormation to act on decision-making opportunities

in these our areas:

Incorporate poverty inormation into the existing system or selecting

wetlands or priority management interventions.


10/51


11/51

Background: A Brief History ofWetlands Management in Uganda

The economic and ecological wealth represented byUgandas wetlands, which cover 15 percent (31,406sq km) o its land area and are ound in almost everysubcounty, is well recognized by both its people and itsleaders. Wetlands provide no less than 37 valuable servicesand products, and contribute hundreds o millions odollars per year to the national economy (WID, 2001).Over 70 percent o all wetlands in Uganda are used or

three purposes simultaneously: water collection, livestockgrazing, and natural tree harvesting. In addition, they playa key role in ltering pollutants and in regulating waterfows, which in turn infuence groundwater recharge, foodimpacts, and water availability during the dry season.

Ugandas policy-makers have acknowledged the impor-tance o wetlands in the countrys Constitution (1995),which commits the government to hold them, along with

other natural resources, in trust or the common good oall citizens. Over the past 15 years, innovations includ-ing Ugandas Wetland Policy and decentralized wetlandsmanagement have established a rm oundation or moresustainable wetland management. Environmental andwetland concerns are also integrated into several o thegovernments other primary policies, including the PovertyEradication Action Plan, Plan or Modernization o Ag-riculture, and District Development Plans. The ten-year

Wetlands Sector Strategic Plan, launched in 2001, identi-es eight key strategies to achieve sustainable wetlandsmanagement.

Between 1995 and 2005, the Wetlands Inspection Divi-sion spent about $US 2 million to carry out wetland in-ventories or 30 Districts and build the National Wetlands

The result is a rich baseline ocoverage and detail is uniquethe Uganda Bureau o Statistexpertise to produce poverty tive areas, which in turn reliehigh quality and geographicahousehold surveys.

Balancing Human and Ecos

Poor people, especially those directly on the benets o natservicesor subsistence andor to obtain water and medicable alternatives. Wetlands ao cash income, especially in dence on ecosystem services c

capabilities makes poor peoplecosystem degradation. Conswetlands and the way they arportionate impact on the wel

Both Ugandas Poverty EradicWetlands Sector Strategic Plaing poverty reduction eorts interventions.

However, requent media reprom human activities such aindicate that implementing tis ar rom easy. Achieving thwill, considerable human andlant monitoring, and detailed

l d


12/51

2 B a c k g r o u n d

a study of the rural wetlands in Pallisa District (Karanja

et al., 2001) and another on the urban Nakivubo wetlandin Kampala District (Emerton et al., 1999). However,knowledge about the intricate inter-relationships betweenwetlands and poverty is still limited. Only a few local casestudies, such as one focusing on wetlands around LakeBunyonyi in Kabale District (Maclean et al., 2003), haveexamined this relationship. Moreover, information thatprovides a national view of poverty levels and wetland usehas been absent. Specifically, decision-makers have faced

two key barriers: a lack of subnational data about povertyand wetlands; and a lack of analytical approaches to inte-grate these datasets.

FILLING THE DATA GAP

Over the past years, two relevant but uncoordinated ef-forts have begun to fill this data gap. The first has beenthe production of poverty maps by the Uganda Bureau of

Statistics and its collaborators. The second has been thecollection of wetland data by the Wetlands InspectionDivision (upgraded to the Wetlands Management Depart-ment in 2007). Since 1997, the Department has led the ef-forts to compile detailed data on wetlands, including theirecological attributes, main uses, human-induced threats,and land tenure regimes. Information from approximately5,000 sample points covering most of Ugandas districtshas been integrated into a single, geographically refer-

enced database, the National Wetlands Information Sys-tem. To date, these data have not been analyzed to supportnational and local wetland planning efforts.

This publication, for the first time, combines these twodatasets and demonstrates how to produce maps andinterpret spatial overlays of the information they contain.The goal is to motivate analysts and planners to developtheir own maps to fill an analytical gap with new informa-

tion in order to align wetland management and povertyreduction strategies. By integrating more detailed wetlandand poverty data, planners can then design and targetwetland management interventions so that the benefitsreach a greater proportion of poor communities and thecosts associated with land-use changes or new restrictions

l d d d l h

AUDIENCE

The geographic approach useUgandan decision-makers selight, and visualize ways to moptimally to alleviate povertydetailed spatial analyses of pocan then be used to scrutinizeties and examine whether curtarget crucial issues and local

The maps, analytical examplses are intended to be of valuthe following purposes:

Ministry of Finance, Planniment and decision-makers achange budgeting and planimportance of wetlands ineconomy, and to support i

benefits of wetlands such acontrol.

Budget Monitoring and Accthe important role wetlanpoor households and to mmenting the Poverty Eradthe upcoming National Desustainable use of wetland

Uganda Bureau of Statisticsproducts and services provenvironmental data collec

Wetlands Management Depment involved in wetland maAdvisory Group, Environmtor Working Group, wetlandcommunity-based wetland re

plan more sustainable use poverty reduction, and to that targets subcounties wland use profiles.

Analysts and planning expermakers with more integrat


13/51

M a n a g i n g W e t l a n d s a n

Managing Wetlands and Reducing PovIssues and Challenges

WETLAND BENEFITS TO PEOPLE

Wetlands provide a large array of ecosystem servicesdefined as the benefits people derive from naturetoUgandans in urban and rural areas (see Table 1). Theyare used for farming, fishing, and livestock grazing. Theysupply families with basic needs such as water, construc-tion material, and fuel. In addition to these local uses,the system of interconnected wetlands plays a crucial

role at a regional level by filtering pollutants and regulat-ing water flows (influencing groundwater recharge, floodimpacts, and water availability during the dry season). Ofa total population of 28 million Ugandans, it is estimatedthat wetlands provide about 320,000 workers with directemployment and provide subsistence employment for over2.4 million (MFPED, 2004).

Ugandas wetlands also provide important ecological

benefits that reach beyond the region. They are the homeof globally endangered species including birds such asthe Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) and Foxs weaver (Ploceusspekeoides), and fish species of the Cichlidae family. Manywetlands are an important stopover for large congregationsof migratory water birds. Wetlands can act as a reservoir tostore carbon dioxide, mitigating climate change impacts.National and international visitors seek out wetlands astourist attractions and educational opportunities to learnabout their unique animals and plants.

In Uganda, there are no recent, exact countrywide statis-tics on changes in wetland areathe latest national landcover map with detailed wetland information was pro-duced in 1996 (NFA, 1996). However, local observationsit d i U d t St t f th E i t t

E C O S Y S T E MB Y O R D E R

Services Examples

PROVISIONING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Products obtained rom ecosystems

Food Production o

Fresh Water Storage and r

and agricultu

Fiber and Fuel Production o

Bioch emic als Extraction o

Genetic Materials Genes or res

species, etc.

REGULATING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Benefts obtained rom regulation o ecClimate Regulation Source o and

and regional

climatic proce

Water Regulation

(Hydrological Flows)

Groundwater

Water Purifcation and

Waste Treatment

Retention, re

and other pol

Erosion Regulation Retention o s

Natural Hazard

Regulation

Flood control

Pollination Habitat or po

CULTURAL ECOSYSTEM SERVICES

Nonmaterial benefts obtained rom eco

Table 1


14/51

4 M a n a g in g W e t l a n d s a n d R ed u c i n g P o ve r t y

not fully accounted for because some ecosystem servicesmostly regulating services such as groundwater recharge,water purification, waste treatment, or flood controlarenot factored into conventional economic analysis. Insteadthey are considered as non-monetary bounties of naturethat are free-of-charge. They are what economists callpublic goods, which have virtually no agreed value inthe market place.

As a result, the financial incentives driving land use are

often not aligned with the goal of managing and con-serving these services for the broader public good. Theeconomic benefits from marketed products of convertedwetlands are often greater than returns from subsistenceuse and small-scale resource extraction in the unconvertedwetlands. However, when both the marketed and non-marketed values of ecosystem services are accounted for,the total economic value of unconverted wetlands can

be greater than that of converted wetlands. For example,conservative economic valuation estimates put the directannual productive value of wetlands at 450,000-900,000Uganda Shillings (US$ 300-600) per hectare (MFPED,2004).

Economic valuation studies t

non-marketed regulating servtion and carbon sequestrationas high as 15 million Uganda(MFPED, 2004). Unfortunateconomic value, wetlands areronmental capital, worthy of In the Nakivubo wetland, anthe value of water treatment a fully used and intact wetlan

million Uganda Shillings (USper year (Emerton et al., 1999decade, the potential of the wand pollutants has been greatman settlements, industrial echannels for crop productionhalf of the wetland has been mparts remaining in fair conditquality in the discharge area oLake Victoria has steadily dettreatment costs for Kampalasthis area. The environmentalof the planned expansion of tgramme has proposed a two-pwater quality in Lake Victoriby expanding sewage treatmerehabilitate Nakivubo wetlan

crease of the active wetland atreatment capabilities (NEM

POVERTY MAPS

The 2005-2006 Uganda Natiwhich estimated the nationaor 8.4 million Ugandans, propoverty maps used in this pub

The Uganda Bureau of Statisous Uganda National Househto produce two versions of po2002in order to address thesmall administrative areas in

The 1999 poverty maps (UBO

U G A N D A S D E F I N I T I O N O F W E T L A N D S

Ugandas National Policy or the Conservation and Management o

Wetland Resources (1995) defnes wetlands as areas where plants and

animals have become adapted to temporary or permanent ooding.

It includes permanently ooded areas with papyrus or grass swamps,

swamp orests or high-altitude mountain bogs, as well as seasonal

oodplains and grasslands. While all wetlands are characterized by im-

peded drainage, the length o their ooding period, depth o water, soilertility, and other environmental actors vary with dierent wetland

types. Wetlands are home to distinctive plant and animal communities

that are well adapted to the presence o water and ooding regimes.

Source: MNR, 1995.


15/51


rics and wetland indicators. Such spatial comparisons canhelp target poverty reduction and wetland conservationefforts and provide first insights into relationships betweenpoverty, wetland status, and use of wetland resources.

Map 1 (page 6) displays the 2005 poverty rates for ruralsubcounties. Other poverty measures such as the povertydensity (number of poor per square kilometer), povertygap, and poverty severity are also available for these sub-counties, as are estimates of inequality related to house-hold expenditures.

Rural poverty rates in Ugandas subcounties range fromless than 15 percent to more than 60 percent of thepopulation, with brown areas indicating higher and greenareas representing lower poverty levels. Map 1 shows ahigh geographic concentration of poverty in northerndistricts (e.g., Gulu, Amuru, Kitgum, Pader, Moroto, andNakapiripirit Districts) and low poverty in the southwestand central part of the country (e.g., in parts of Mbarara,Bushenyi, Isingiro, Kibaale, and Wakiso Districts). The

reasons for this spatial pattern are complex, and includefactors such as rainfall and soil quality (which determineagricultural potential), land and labor availability, degreeof economic diversification, level of market integration,and issues of security and instability (the latter is espe-cially relevant for the northern parts of Uganda).

High dependence on ecosyste

few assets and capabilities mavulnerable to ecosystem degrsequently, the condition of ware managed can have a disprwell-being of poor families (M1997, Uganda set up the Pov(PEAP) to guide public actioPED, 2004). This national plin 2000, acknowledges the ro

poverty and in preventing peinto poverty. Recognizing thisupports priority actions in simanagement:

Assess the economic and eferent wetland uses more c

Further develop and dissemable use of wetland resourc

Improve community skillsproducts obtained from werevenues;

W E T L A N D S A N D F I S H E R I E S

In the very early morning, fsherolk return rom their nights work.

Their catch will not only be sold in the market but also eed their amily.

Fisherolk know frsthand that they will fnd more fsh where a healthy

wetland provides a nursery and sae haven or young fsh. Local people

are aware o the linkages among the dierent benefts they derive rom

nature. In Lake Bunyonyi, most people interviewed (64 percent) recog-

nized that the swamps sustain fsheries. Consequently, fshers rarelyharvest papyrus or cultivate near to where they fsh.

Source: Maclean et al., 2003.

E C O S Y S T E M S E R V I C E SA R E I N T E R D E P E N D E N T

Papyrus is a common plant in perm

bination o provisioning services

material, and crat material), regu

wastewater treatment, soil erosion

its dense network o roots), and aes

tiul landscapes). The overharvest o

endanger its other services in that

its root network and its unction as

N A K I V U B O W E T L A N D :


16/51

6 M a n a g in g W e t l a n d s a n d R ed u c i n g P o ve r t y

POVERTY RATE: PERCENTAGE OF RURAL SUBCOUNTY POPULATION BELOWMap 1


17/51


Enforce appropriate policies, laws, procedures, and

regulations to curtail degradation of wetland resources; Assess wetland resources to determine resource avail-

ability and trends; and

Support community initiatives that promote sustain-able use of wetlands.

The ten-year Wetlands Sector Strategic Plan, adopted in2001, commits the country to implement eight key strate-

gies to achieve sustainable wetlands management. Cog-nizant of the importance of wetlands to the well-being ofpoor people, the Wetland Sector Strategic Plans missionstates that the wise exploitation of wetlands shall con-tribute to economic development and poverty alleviation(WID, 2001).

Human well-being has many dimensions. Su cient income to obtain ad-

equate ood and shelter is certainly important, but other dimensions o

well-being are crucial as well. These include good health, security, social ac-

ceptance, access to opportunities, and reedom o choice. Poverty is defned

as the lack o these dimensions o well-being (MA, 2005).

The poverty indicators produced by the Uganda Bureau o Statistics (UBOS)are based on household consumption and cover some but not all dimensions

o poverty. Consumption expenditures include both ood and a range o non-

ood items such as education, transport, health, and rent. Households are

defned as poor when their total expenditures all below Ugandas rural or

urban national poverty lines. These lines equate to a basket o goods and

services that meets basic monthly requirements (UBOS and ILRI, 2007).

In 2005, the national poverty line (an average o the poverty lines in

Ugandas our regions) was 20,789 Uganda Shillings (US$ 12) per month in

rural areas and 22,175 Uganda Shillings (US$ 13) per month in urban set-

tings. With these poverty lines, the 2005 poverty rate (percentage o the

population below the poverty line) was 31.1 percent at the national level,

translating to about 8.4 million Ugandans in poverty (UBOS, 2006b). Rural

d b di d i if l 34 2 l

P O V E R T Y M E A S U R E S U S E DI N T H E 2 0 0 5 P O V E R T Y M A P S

Box 1


18/51

8 W e t l a n d C h a r ac te r is t ic s a nd U se s

Wetland Characteristics and Uses

found in other areas such as SKiruhura Districts. Large seasin various extensive floodplaipiripirit, and Moroto Districtthe southern end of Lake AlbRakai District, bordering Tan

Permanent wetlands are mosbodies such as lakes and riverwetlands are directly connectVictoria. Others follow the bLake Albert to the Sudanese

Wetlands in Uganda are covetypes and occur in all of Ugantropical high forest, woodlandpyrus (including other sedgesand small and large-scale farm

the most common wetlands iwet grasslands, covering 49 pkilometers) of Ugandas totalwoodlands are the second mo(5,136 square kilometers). Peing of papyrus and other sedgare the third most common w15 percent (4,840 square kiloarea. A significant share of secrops, with 7 percent (2,322 das wetland area covered by

The economic and subsistencland cover and whether they The type and level of use in tbl h l d b

Wetlands cover about 15 percent (31,406 square kilome-ters) of Ugandas total land area (205,212 square kilome-ters) and can be found in almost every subcounty. Mostindividual wetlands are linked to other wetlands througha complex network of permanent and seasonal streams,rivers, and lakes (Map 2), making them an essential partof the entire drainage system in Uganda (UN-WWAP andDWD, 2005).

While such a dispersed geographic coverage provideswetland benefits to a greater number of people, it alsoincreases the likelihood of overexploitation and degrada-tion. Ugandas high level of political and administrativedecentralization adds to this risk. Most wetland systemscross administrative boundaries, which, because of com-partmentalization of decision-making at the local level,makes it more difficult to manage wetlands in an integra-

tive manner.With 11 sites designated as Wetlands of InternationalImportance, Uganda is internationally recognized forleading the effort in Africa to conserve wetlands thatare regionally and globally important for migratory birdspecies and biodiversity (Ramsar, 2006). Nonetheless,besides those wetlands that have international or nationalprotection status, the great majority of wetlands lie outsidethe national protected area system (Map 2). Establishing asolid information base on wetland resources, their use, andcondition is therefore essential to identifying successfulwetland management approaches for the future.

WETLAND CHARACTERISTICS

d b d h l d


19/51

W e t l a n d C h a r a

M A P 2 D I S T R I B U T I O N O F P E R M A N E N T A N D S E A S O N A L W E T L A N D S , 1 9 9Map 2


20/51

1 0 W e tl an d C ha r a c t er i s t i c s a n d U s e s

D I S T R I B U T I O N O F M A I N L A N D

C O V E R T Y P E S I N U G A N D A SP E R M A N E N T A N D S E A S O N A LW E T L A N D S , 1 9 9 6

Figure 1

Source: Authors calculation based on NFA, 1996.

Note: Percentage share o Ugandas total wetland area.

While Map 2 provides a view of the national wetlands dis-tribution and shows their location in every district, localgovernments and community-based resource user groupsneed more specific information. First and foremost, local

decision-makers need to know what wetland resourcesthey have and the pressure these resources are under.

A simple indicator for a local decision-maker, for example,would measure wetland area per capita, which is the totalwetland area of an administrative unit divided by its totalpopulation. Such an indicator assumes the following: themore numerous the population in an administrative area,the higher the potential demand on wetland resources,

which can lead to a greater number of people fishing,withdrawing water, collecting vegetation, growing crops,extracting clay, constructing houses, or releasing pollut-ants. Wetland area per capita can therefore be interpretedas a first proxy to measure potential resource usage, andthus pressure on wetlands.

Subcounties with high wetlan

bars) are in Kapchorwa, Kata(northeastern Uganda). Theysubcounties lying within the Kiboga, and Nakasongola DisKyoga. In general, most subcoarea per capita are distinguishspecific type of wetlandsealower population densities (N

Map 3 clearly indicates that ton wetlands varies across thelow pressure (long red bars). Mtially high demand pressure o

A decision-maker in a subcouper capita can formulate the fon this map:

Pressure on these wetland

likely to be lower than the These wetlands should be

ita contribution both withand non-marketable wetla

On the other hand, a decisionsubcounty with low wetland afrom a very large number of psmall wetland areacan gain

this map: Competition between diff

carefully managed.

Special attention has to bthe capacity of the wetlanservices.

There is a more urgent neing management plans and

of the potential for high d

These wetlands will need for their resource use.

Economic returns from resable products potentially hl b f l


21/51


W E T L A N D A R E A P E R C A P I T A B Y S U B C O U N T Y Map 3


22/51


sufficient additional income to each household to justify

the heightened risk of overharvesting.Maintaining these wetlands so that they can continue tofilter pollutants for a large number of people living in closeproximity may be a more optimal use for such wetlands.This may require prohibiting extractive uses of wetlandresources that undermine filtering functions, such asexcavation of clay for bricks. Similarly, such wetlands maybe most valuable for their role as a temporary reservoirfor flood water. The total value of avoided flood damageto nearby establishments with high property values maybe considerably greater than the economic returns fromconsumptive use of a few wetland products.

WETLAND USES

A more advanced understanding of wetland conditionsand benefits requires detailed information on the waypeople use and impact wetlands. Such information is

available in geographically referenced format from theNational Wetlands Information System (see Box 2).

Ugandas National Wetlands Information System is track-ing 13 main wetland uses. They can be ranked accordingto their increasing potential to undermine the capacity ofa wetland to provide its ecosystem services (Table 2).

The least damaging uses for a wetland imply no or very

minor modification of its plants, animals, or hydrology.These include tourism and beekeeping.

The National Wetlands Inormation

Management Department, contains d

the level o use, and the impact o the

on a standardized inventory o wetlan

wetland sample points between 1997

the uses and impacts observed in th

teams inventoried 37 dierent wetlan13 dierent main uses (Table 2).

It is important to point out that mo

or the National Wetlands Inormation

tem services o wetlands (see Table 1)

to measure and observe, and provide

sistence and commercial livelihood st

On the other hand, the importan

such as erosion control, fsh breedin

storage were not assessed comprehe

lection. Regulating services were c

contribution to water purifcation,

the wetlands were specifcally desi

wastewater treatment acility. Or th

example water collection and use,

services (the quantity o resh water

fcation and timing o hydrological

U G A N D A S

I N F O R M A TBox 2

M A I N W E T L A N D U S E S I N V E N T O R I E D I N U G A N D A S N A T I O N A L W ES Y S T E M

wetland

Main Wetland Uses Examples o Products and Services

Tourism Bird watching, nature walks, education

Beekeeping Honey and wax; pollination

Water Col lection and Use Rural domesti c water, urban domesti c water, water or l ivestock, in dustr

Wastewater Treatment* Sewage treatment

Table 2


23/51


The next uses listed in Table 2water extraction andharvesting of native animals and vegetation (fishing, hunt-ing, livestock grazing, harvesting of natural herbaceousvegetation, and harvesting of trees)are all activities thatcould potentially have greater negative wetland impacts atvery high use levels. On the other hand, these uses can besustainable if harvesting does not exceed natural regenera-

tion rates, water withdrawals are adequately replenished,and no other changes occur such as pollution and diseases.Under such a scenario, most other ecosystem services suchas water filtration and flood control can be maintained.

The next two wetland uses involve replacing naturaltl d t ti ith f d fib t S h

As expected, the impact of thto the magnitude of the use. Ooutstrips the capacity of the wcan be destructive and perma

These 13 main wetland uses othroughout Ugandas wetland

Based on the 13 categories ofthe National Wetlands Informfew wetlands that are not usetreatment and tourism have bless than 1 percent of Ugandrelated to wastewater treatme

F R E Q U E N C Y O F M A I N W E T L A N D U S E S I N V E N T O R I E D I N U G A

W E T L A N D S I N F O R M A T I O N S Y S T E M , 1 9 9 7 2 0 0 1Figure 2

Source: Authors calculation based on WID, 1996.

Note: For ranking criteria, see text, p. 12. Percentage represents share o Ugandas wetlands.

* The percentage related to wastewater treatment only reers to those wetlands that are part o an established human waste


24/51


S P A T I A L D I S T R I B U T I O N O F S E L E C T E D W E T L A N D U S E S , 1 9 9 7 2 0Map 4

Beekeeping Fish

Cultivation o FHunting


25/51


Mineral (mostly clay) excavation, with its high nega-

tive impact on other wetland functions, occurs in almosta third of Ugandas wetlands (31 percent). Destructivehuman settlements, even though less widespread (12percent), usually occur close to urban agglomerations. De-mand for land and high property values are typically thedrivers for the conversion to human settlement. However,many of these conversions do not take into account theeconomic contribution that wetlands make in treatingwastewater from these population centers.

National maps of each use can be produced, becauseeach sample point in the National Wetlands Informa-tion System is geographically referenced. Such maps caninform decision-makers where specific uses take place andhelp them determine where these uses should be furtherexpanded or stopped. These maps can also be comparedto those showing other economic activities (such as oilexploration) or levels of legal protection (such as a forest

reserve or a national park). This could improve environ-mental impact assessments and land-use planning. Map 4highlights four different usesbeekeeping, fishing, hunt-ing, and cultivationwhich occur in less than 50 percentof Ugandas wetlands.

Beekeeping (which occurs in

is a localized activity. It is conLuwero Districts and in partsFor the past seven years, beekwidely than shown in this mafrom 19972001), mainly beccess (WMD, 2007).

Fishing (occurs in 35 percenttion of food and fiber (occurshave very similar spatial pattthe triangle formed by the disKamuli. Both uses are extensBushenyi and Ntungamo Disand in communities northeas

Hunting is more widespread wetlands) and spatially less cothree uses. It occurs simultanfishing (such as in Jinja, Kayu

but is also highly concentratearound Lake Kyoga.


26/51

1 6 S p a t i a l A n a l y s i s o W e t l a n d a n d P o v e r t y I n d i c a t o r s

Spatial Analysis o Wetland and Pover

wetlands. Typically, options tresources are limited:

Harvest larger quantities of

Harvest a new marketable

Increase the returns from aexample by converting rawor improving the quality: f

processing of honey; Introduce payment for eco

tion removal or water regu

Decision-makers can use indidiversity of wetland products further product diversificationopportunities and where divereached an upper limit.

The number of different prodobtained from a wetland is clof vegetation cover and levelwetlands in grasslands can suproducts than shrublands (Wthe following analysis compaproducts to the level of povermunities is focused on such g

the most common wetland tyhalf of all wetlands in Ugandthese grassland wetlands are lLake Kyoga. A smaller numbin Rakai, Kiruhura, and Lyan

Analysis of the number of pro

In order to sustainably manage wetland resources, deci-sion-makers need to know how they are being used andhow these uses affect their capacity to provide productsand services now and in the future. In addition, managingwetlands for the purposes of poverty reduction requires in-formation on the location of wetland resources (and theiruse and condition) in relation to the location of peopleand poor communities.

This section explores how maps of poverty distributioncan be combined with maps of selected wetland indicatorsto improve the information and analytical base for suchdecision-making. It relies on two indicators capturing dif-ferent aspects of wetland use, namely: diversity of wetlandproducts and combined impacts of wetland uses.

Even though the analysis was limited mostly to provision-ing services (regulating services are not well accounted for

in the National Wetlands Information System, see Box 2),the importance of spatial analysis of wetland regulatingservices is introduced in Box 3.

DIVERSITY OF WETLAND PRODUCTS

Over 70 percent of all wetlands in Uganda are used forthree purposes: water collection, livestock grazing, andnatural tree harvesting. This and other analyses of the 13

main uses provided a first broad overview of the varied ben-efits Ugandans obtain from their wetlands and highlightednational use patterns. However, more detailed wetlanduse data from the National Wetlands Information Systemcan advance these analyses and contribute additionalinsights for wetlands management and poverty reduction


27/51

S p a t i a l A n a l y s i s o W e t l a n d a n d

P O V E R T Y R A T E S I N G R A S S L A N D W E T L A N D S W I T H L O W P R O D U C TMap 5


28/51


6 P O V E R T Y R A T E S I N G R A S S L A N D W E T L A N D S W I T H H I G H P R O D UMap 6


29/51


Emerging Patterns

Comparing both maps, a number of patterns emerge:

Wetlands with low product diversity (blue points)spread across all regions where grassland wetlands have

been documented in the National Wetlands Informa-tion System.

Grassland wetlands with highest product diversity (redpoints), however, are almost exclusively located northand south of Lake Kyoga.

Poverty rates in the surrounding communities for bothsubsets of wetlands cover the full range of values fromthe lowest to the highest poverty levels.

However, those wetlands with the highest product di-versity (red points) are mostly in the poorest subcoun-ties (shaded in brown) northeast and southeast of LakeKyoga.

Figures 3 and 4 summarize the relationship between levels

observed upper limits of prit a less viable option to rehigh product diversity neetheir sustainable use. Thissubcounties with very high

number of different produbeyond the capacity of weand services, decision-makfind alternatives to overexcould involve training in mor facilitating efforts to pro(e.g., organizing papyrus hnology to produce papyrus

Coincidence of high poverty with low wetland product divSustainable product diversfor poverty reduction in thaway from Lake Kyoga, moUganda in Amuria and Ka

Source: Authors calculation based on WID, 2006 and UBOS and ILRI, 2008.

P O V E R T Y D I S T R I B U T I O N F O RG R A S S L A N D W E T L A N D S W I T HL O W P R O D U C T D I V E R S I T Y

Figure 3P O V E R T Y DG R A S S L A NH I G H P R O D

Figure 4

Source: Authors calculation based on W


30/51


An important contribution o wetlands to human

well-being is their ability to unction as a natural

wastewater treatment acility. Due to a combina-

tion o substrate, plants, litter, and a variety o

micro-organisms, wetlands can help treat human

waste (Langergraber and Haberl, 2004). Given

that in 2006-07, 41 percent o rural households in

Uganda lacked adequate sanitation acilities and

37 percent o rural Ugandans did not have access

to a sae water source within 1.5 kilometers (MWE,

2007), the contribution o wetlands in fltering pol-

lutants is crucial to public health. For example, the

consumption o contaminated water oten leads to

outbreaks o water-related diseases, resulting in ill-

ness and deaths. Water-related diseases accounted

directly or eight percent o deaths in 2002 (WHO,

2006), and unclean water can be especially deadly

or inants and young children. Diarrheal diseases

are a major killer o children, and were responsible

or 17 percent o all deaths o children under 5 years

in Uganda (WHO, 2006).

Lack o proper sanitation acilities i ntroduces hu-man pollutants into the vicinity o a households liv-

ing space. It increases the risk o disease, especially

i contaminants are transported via hydrological

ows to nearby households relying on open sources

o drinking water such as lakes, streams, or shallow

uncovered wells. I households do not have access

to water treatment acilities, they have to rely ex-

clusively on ecosystems to clean their water, eitherthrough dilution or fltering o pollutants.

In many cases, a wetland can mitigate the risk

o contamination. The capacity o a wetland to flter

human pathogens and improve drinking water sup-

li d d b i l di h

o the wetland. These relationships are generally ex-

amined in specifc studies that incorporate detailed

inormation on pollutant sources, drinking water

withdrawals, and hydrological models reecting

water ows and fltering unctions o wetlands.

The Ministry o Health and the Wetlands Man-

agement Department can combine their respective

data to identiy communities at risks o water-

borne diseases because o unsae drinking water

sources and lack o proper sanitation. Together they

can locate wetlands neighboring such communities

and explore the contribution o these wetlands in

fltering human pollutants. The ollowing example

showcases such data integration and analysis.

The Sezibwa wetland system is one o the our

proposed sites to monitor long-term ecological and

socioeconomic trends in Ugandas wetlands. Map

7A shows the location and extent o this system. It

is located south o Lake Kyoga and composed o two

permanent wetlands (shown in orange) ollowing

the Victoria Nile River and the Sezibwa River and

a multitude o smaller seasonal wetlands (shownin purple), the latter representing two-thirds o

the total area o the system. The map also displays

where people collect or use water rom their wet-

land (based on data rom the National Wetlands

Inormation System). Similar to the national pic-

ture, both seasonal and permanent wetlands are

used or water provision but that source o water is

defned as unsae (MWE, 2007).Map 7B shows the density o households with-

out sanitation acilities (based on data rom the

2002 Uganda Population and Housing Census) or

each parish neighboring this wetland system. This

d i i di b i d

o the Sezib

o Kayunga,

highest dens

acilities (sha

Map 7C c

simple overla

People re

cinity o h

risk o co

points on

est in the

The flter

valuable

loads and

drawal so

logical stu

only selec

It is impo

agement alo

adequate san

ing water, a

behavior. Howetland ma

intervention

able commu

Wetland

to priorit

their wate

and thus

fght agai

On the ot

tor may w

structure

the pollu

M A P P I N G C A S E S T U D Y : C O O R D I N A T I N G W E T L A N D S M A N A G E M E N

I N T E R V E N T I O N S T O I M P R O V E S A N I T A T I O N , D R I N K I N G W A T E R , ABox 3


31/51


L I N K I N G W E T L A N D S A N D S A N I T A T I O N I N T H E S E Z I B W A W E T L A NMap 7

A Sezibwa wetland system

and water collection and use

C

an

B - Lack o

sanitation acilities


32/51


The standardized wetlands inventory for the NationalWetlands Information System can provide these databecause it classifies each wetland use according to its levelof impact on the wetland system. This information can beconverted into an index to classify each wetland accordingto the combined impacts of all wetland uses (see Box 4).

This index can help to manage wetland resources moreoptimally. Wetlands with an index reflecting no or low im-pacts from their use are closer to a sustainable use patternand more likely to continue to provide benefits to Ugan-

dans, now and in the future. In contrast, wetlands classi-fied as being highly impacted by use are at greater risk ofundermining their future supply of wetland products andservices. Depending on the range of different wetland usesand the level of associated impacts, wetland degradationcan lead to decreased water quality, depleted fuel sources,curtailed crop yields, or diminished fish catches.

Map 8 highlights the wetlands with a combined impact

from all uses of no or low impact. Almost 8 percent of thewetlands inventoried in the National Wetlands Infor-mation System show no impacts from current use andare shown as dark blue points in Map 8. These used butnon-impacted wetlands are concentrated in Amuria, Kat-akwi, Soroti, and Kaberamaido Districts, areas with moretraditional land use and lower population densities (NFA,1996; UBOS, 2002b).

In contrast, Map 9 (page 24) displays all those wetlandswhose index value indicates medium to very high impactsresulting from wetland use. Lira District has the greatest

number of wetlands with veryA large number of these wetlaDokolo, Amolatar, and Jinja impacts can also be found in tKisoro, Kyenjojo, Kamwenge,

Comparing Map 8 and Map 9ity of wetlands in the districtand the eastern parts of Kamuimpacts (turquoise points, Mfewer wetlands with medium

and yellow points, Map 9). Owetlands in Luwero District apoints, Map 9) with very fewand turquoise points, Map 8)Nakasongola Districts are repquoise, yellow, and green poinand high level impact.

While these maps showing th

uses can help planners to locaes at risk and identify those ththey can also be combined wto illuminate the linkages betwetland degradation. Map 10of this approach. Here, all thof degradation are selected (s9) and overlaid with the poveing subcounties. It displays thsample points and the povertrural subcounties.

C O N S T R U C T I N G A N I N D E X O F C O M B I N E D I M P A C T S O F W E T L A N D

The feld surveys or Ugandas National Wetlands In-

ormation System assigned or each o the possible37 wetland products an impact level (defned as

high, moderate, low, or no impact on the wetland

system). This inormation provides the oundation

or an index that measures the combined impacts

o all wetland uses

value between 6 and 10), high impact (index value

between 11 and 20), and very high impact (indexvalue between 21 and 41). For a wetland to all in

the no impact category (index value o 0), wet-

land inspectors had to assign the no impact on the

wetland system to all documented products.

Each impact category can reect various use

mineral extr

ect ecosysteirreversibly,

system servic

apply diere

greater impa

products and

Box 4


33/51


W E T L A N D S W I T H N O O R L O W I M P A C T S F R O M A L L W E T L A N D U S EMap 8


34/51


W E T L A N D S W I T H M E D I U M T O V E R Y H I G H I M P A C T S F R O M A L L W E T LMap 9

l l l d d


35/51


As Map 10 shows, highly impacted wetlands are spreadwidely across Uganda, and the proportion of the subcountypopulation falling below the rural poverty line includesall poverty levels. Wetlands with very high impacts fromuse are located in subcounties with lower poverty levels(shaded in green) mainly in the southwestern part of thecountry. But highly impacted wetlands are also situatedwithin poorer subcounties, mostly north of Lake Kyoga inLira, Amuria, Dokolo, and Amolatar Districts (shades ofbrown and yellow), but also in Jinja District, where farm-

ers grow rice in wetlands.This means that based on the existing data from the Na-tional Wetlands Information System and the most recentpoverty map, there is no straightforward relationshipbetween poverty levels and potential wetland degradation.High impact from wetland use occurs in both poor andbetter-off subcounties.

Nevertheless, Map 10 can be useful to flag certain sub-

counties where close coordination between wetlands man-agement and poverty reduction efforts could be beneficialfor both wetlands and human well-being. For example,in subcounties with high poverty rates of 40-60 percent(shaded in light brown) and a great number of highlyimpacted wetlands, additional or more intensive use couldthreaten the future supply of benefits. This in turn couldnegatively impact poor families who depend on wetlands

for their livelihoods or fall baemergencies. Improved wetlain a more optimal combinatio(one that lowers the overall iwhile maximizing the revenuresource degradation and negfor poor households. Conversopportunities outside of the wsome families to reduce depention with low returns and hig

improvements in well-being aon wetlands.

In subcounties with highly impoverty rates, the presence ofating activities and livelihoodThis suggests that any strategcombination of wetland uses build on greater assets and cathese subcounties.

Map 10 represents just one extionship between wetland useuseful analyses are also possibmap overlay could pinpoint wno or low impacts coincide wcould lead to further investigthis pattern.

2 6 S t i l A l i W t l d d P t I d i t


36/51


P O V E R T Y R A T E S I N S U B C O U N T I E S W I T H V E R Y H I G H W E T L A N D UMap 10


37/51

Adding Value: Combining Wetland andMaps with Economic Analysis

The main purpose is to show of poverty and wetland indicawith information from econoanalysis will estimate the quabe sustainably harvested in eaarea and location of papyrus wtential economic value that iand compare the potential paamount of money needed to msubcounty above the povertytion of poverty used in this pu

The theoretical total annual all subcounties was calculatedrus wetlands (NFA, 1996). Tsubcounty was multiplied by could be sustainably harvestehectare of papyrus wetland ba

It was assumed that all papyruthe subcounty and that their and high enough to be harve

Map 11 (page 28) presents thcould be obtained from harveeach subcounty. The potentiawas obtained by multiplying tby its average sales price. The

nomic study of papyrus harve(Karanja et al., 2001) which price of 500 Uganda Shillingpapyrus. (This translates to anof 200,000 Uganda Shillings papyrus wetland equivalent t

The map overlays highlighted in the previous chapterrepresent only the first step in analyzing the benefitswetlands provide to people in general and to poor com-munities more specifically. Additional analyses are neededto manage wetlands in a more sustainable manner, identifyand plan development interventions better, and targetpoverty reduction efforts more precisely. Combining threetypes of data can greatly enhance these analyses: locationof specific wetland uses, extent of use, and economic valueof use.

To manage wetlands sustainably, it is important to knownot only the type and location of each use, but alsoto track the exact quantity of each product or serviceobtained from a wetland. This could include the quantityof papyrus harvested, fish caught, water withdrawn, woodcollected, fodder obtained, or wastewater filtered. Thesedata can then be compared to the capacity of a wetland

to provide these products and services (e.g., regenerationrate of plants, or the total filtering and waste assimilationcapacity) to determine a sustainable use pattern.

To identify and plan development interventions better, ananalysis of wetland uses needs to identify the beneficiaries(socioeconomic profile of wetland users) and incorporatelivelihood perspectives, economic costs, and economicbenefits of different wetland uses. Knowing the economic

value of these uses enables analysts to calculate the eco-nomic returns per area or labor input and to assess theircontribution to household incomes. For a wetland productwith an existing market, an economist will multiply thequantity of a harvested product by its market price. For awetland service without an existing market such as water

2 8 A d d i n g V a l u e


38/51


T H E O R E T I C A L A N N U A L R E V E N U E F R O M P A P Y R U S H A R V E S T B Y SMap 11


39/51

Soroti. All of these districts have large papyrus wetlandsneighboring Lake Victoria, Lake Albert, Lake Kyoga, andother smaller open water bodies.

To determine what contribution papyrus wetlands canmake to poverty reduction, the revenue from papyrus har-vest can be compared to the amount of money needed tomove all poor persons in that subcounty above the poverty

line. Box 5 provides an example of how to calculate thisamount.

Of the 514 subcounties with papyrus wetlands, 210 couldharvest and sell enough raw papyrus to theoretically closethe poverty gap within their administrative unit. Map 12

Shillings a piece (calculation2001). The poverty reducingeven greater if communities cfrom other marketable wetlankets that provide payment fo

Maps 11 and 12 support the f

Papyrus harvesting, a morefor poor families with fewesive and has low economicenough income in the agggap. The potential revenuin Uganda (based on a sus

C A L C U L AT I N G T H E T H E O R E T I C A L A M O U N T O F C A S H N E E D E D T O C L

To calculate the theoretical cash transers needed to raise the entire poor population in a subcounty above the poverty line, e

ber o poor in an administrative area, poverty line, and poverty gap. The ollowing example showcases the calculation using

Poverty data or the Northern Region

Total rural population: 5.4 million

Rural poverty line: 20,872 Uganda Shillings per month (US$ 12 per month)

Rural poverty rate (percentage o people alling below the poverty line): 66 percent o population

Poverty gap in percent o poverty line (how ar below the poverty line the poor in a given area are): 27 percent o poverty lCalculation

Total rural poor population = Total rural population Poverty rate

= 3.5 million

Poverty gap in Uganda Shillings = Poverty gap in percent o poverty line Rural poverty line

= 7,723 Uganda Shillings per poor person per month (US$ 4.50 per poor person per month)

Theoretical amount o cash needed monthly to close the poverty gap or the region

= Total rural poor population Poverty gap

= 19.7 billion Uganda Shillings per month (US$ 11.6 million per month)

Theoretical amount o cash needed annually to close th e poverty gap or the region

= Theoretical amount o cash needed monthly to close the poverty gap 12

= 237 billion Uganda Shillings per year (US$ 139 million per year)

This estimate is a minimum based on assumptions o perect targeting, no corruption, and no program costs. In practice, m

will be required because perectly targeted cash transers are neither easible nor the best intervention to move the entire p

Source: UBOS and ILRI, 2007.

Box 5



40/51

P O V E R T Y R A T E F O R T H E 2 1 0 S U B C O U N T I E S W H E R E T H E O R E T I C A

F R O M P A P Y R U S H A R V E S T E X C E E D P O V E R T Y G A P

Map 12


41/51

of the subcounty (based on the most optimistic as-sumptions). All of these subcounties have large papyrus

wetlands. The great majority of them have comparablylow poverty rates of 1530 percent, requiring veryspecific targeting of poor households to realize povertyreduction impacts. Only a dozen subcounties aroundLake Kyoga have high poverty levels of 4060 percentrequiring less precise targeting of poor households. Fur-ther investigation at more local and household levels isneeded to explore where papyrus harvest could help to

reduce poverty, where it may represent a trap that keepspeople in poverty, and where new efforts are needed tocapture greater revenues from other wetland productsand services.

This preliminary analysis demfrom economic valuation stud

opportunity to gauge more pruse could contribute to poverlocation. Future studies shouland map the economic valueboth those with a market (beetc.) and those that do not hservices such as water filtratioSuch maps and analyses woul

sive economic evaluation of dwould provide wetland manafor encouraging a specific wetreturns from a comprehensiveand services.


42/51


43/51

Moving Forward:Lessons Learned and Recommendatio

LESSONS LEARNEDThe primary goal of this publage readers to carry out their of poverty and wetland mapstion of national and internatduce this report provides somof more specific conclusions cspatial analyses of the maps p

atory nature of these example

Observations

Based on the process of compmaps, and analyzing map ovetions can be made:

Analysts working with theDepartment and the Natio

integrate land cover data fBiomass Study and the NaSystem in a geographic infnational maps that show tarray of benefits local comand the level of impacts thland systems.

National and local decisio

time, access these wetlandmaps to inform future wetl

These wetland use and imbined with maps of povertcreate new wetland-pover

l ti hi tl

This publication is based on innovative mapping tech-niques and analyses with potentially far-reaching implica-tions for sustainable wetland management and povertyreduction in Uganda and around the world.

It demonstrates how poverty and wetland maps canbe combined to generate new information relevant todesigning and implementing poverty reduction strategies,wetland management efforts, and national development

plans. These new maps and analyses can in turn helpto classify wetlands by their main uses, conditions, andpoverty profile in order to identify regions or communi-ties with greater need for pro-poor wetland managementinterventions.

Such analyses are only possible because of the substantialand consistent investments the Uganda government hasmade to collect wetland and poverty data. By advancing

the integration and spatial analyses of these data, Ugan-dan analysts can take advantage of this investment tostrengthen wetland management and poverty reductionefforts. The examples presented illustrate how an exami-nation of the spatial relationships among poverty, wetlanduse, and wetland conditions can provide new informa-tion to assist in more effective wetland management andpoverty reduction efforts.

Mapping a Better Future also highlights the need for Ugan-dan decision-makers to demand additional analytical re-turns for their data investments. Examples show that mapsand spatial analyses can contribute to the understandingof poverty-wetland interactions in specific locations andprovide the foundation for more evidence-based wetlands

d d

3 4 M o v i n g F o r w a r d


44/51

Conclusions

While the maps and analyses are primarily illustrative in na-ture, they support the following more specific conclusions:

Maps of wetlands show that they provide multiplebenefits throughout Uganda.

Wetlands exist in every district of Uganda, and allUgandans benefit from the products and services theyprovide. Over 70 percent of all wetlands in Uganda areused for three simultaneous purposes: water collection

and use, livestock grazing, and harvesting of wood (forfuel and other purposes). Some uses such as hunting,fishing, and beekeeping are geographically more con-centrated.

The diversity of products obtained from wetlands

and the levels of wetland impacts vary greatly across

Uganda.

Grassland wetlands where users obtain few different

wetland products (low product diversity) are spreadacross all regions of the country. However, grasslandwetlands with the highest product diversity are almostexclusively located south and north of Lake Kyoga.

Wetlands with low impacts from local use are concen-trated in Amuria, Katakwi, Kaberamaido, and SorotiDistricts. On the other hand, Lira District has thegreatest number of wetlands with very high impacts

from local use. Clusters of wetlands in the Districts ofJinja, Dokolo, Amolatar, Keyenjojo, and Kamwengealso show very high impacts. Very highly impactedwetlands occur in other Districts as well, but are lessconcentrated.

Spatial analyses of selected poverty-wetland indicators

reveal no clear pattern at the subcounty level.

The map overlays show no clear spatial pattern for

the two selected indicators (namely, the diversity ofwetland products and the combined impacts of wet-land uses). Both poor and better-off subcounties can befound that exhibit high diversity of wetland products;likewise, both poor and better-off subcounties can befound that exhibit low diversity of wetland products

The overlay analyses of p

are most useful for identif

similar poverty and wetlamay lend themselves to si

approaches.

While these examples of ostrong spatial associations,be used for formulating qucreate intervention strategstance, to identify areas wh

of wetland products wouldnities or where preventingcould be beneficial to a larFor example, they highlighing wetland and poverty p

Lira District has the greimpacted wetlands and erty rates.

High diversity of grasslahigh poverty coincide inLira Districts.

Katakwi District includwith low product diversties with high poverty l

Economic valuation studi

and wetland maps to enhbenefits.

Information from economtrack the quantity and valuobtained from a wetland cgauge the potential economwetland uses on poverty lepublication relies on the mic data of a wetland benefiIt is an activity that is genpoor but has low financial that selling the raw materirevenue in the aggregate toabove the poverty line for


45/51

RECOMMENDATIONS

While the primary objective of this report is to highlightideas on how wetland-poverty maps can be developed andanalyzed, it also seeks to catalyze greater use of this type ofinformation in decision-making. Central and local govern-ment agencies can increase the likelihood of this happen-ing by intervening on the supply side of information andon the demand side for these kinds of maps and analyses.

Strengthening the supply of data and analytical capacitywill provide large returns to future planning and prioritiza-

tion of wetland management efforts. Improvements in thefollowing two areas are the most promising:

Complete data entry and collection for the National

Wetlands Information System, improve data consis-

tency, and update wetland and land cover informa-

tion.

Maintaining up-to-date wetland inventories is es-

sential to ensure the policy relevance of the dataand subsequent analyses. The Wetlands Manage-ment Department needs to finalize all data entryfor the National Wetlands Information System forthe Districts with completed wetland inventories.New wetland inventories need to be carried out fornorthern Districts that were not inventoried be-cause of security issues. The Wetlands ManagementDepartment needs to secure funding and develop a

long-term plan with regularly scheduled updates forthe National Wetlands Information System.

Information on the location and extent of specificwetlands in the National Wetlands InformationSystem still relies on a 1996 land cover map. TheWetlands Management Department in collaborationwith other national institutions (National ForestAuthority, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban

Development, etc.) need to promote and invest innew land cover information to improve planningfor wetland management, support gazetting of vitalwetlands, and aid in analyzing potential pressuresfrom land-use change.

A t h i l t i ti f tl d ffi d

vide information on a wvide desired ecosystem

such as the capacity to of fish, or the ability to lutants. The Departmenbetter account for and mwetlands.

Strengthen analysis, map

tion efforts.

Compared to the financcollection and entry, fewmarked to analyze and cthe National Wetlands in-house technical and the Wetlands Managemmap, interpret, and comstrengthening.

The indicators describe

sent only a subset of posplanning, policy formulrelevance. The Wetlandcan lead efforts to creatfor example by incorporland ownership or pressinto future maps.

There is a clear need to

all major wetland produtheir importance in filteand regulating hydrolognomic value of wetlandcan provide decision-mpicture of the relative vvices in that location. Timportant ecosystem semanagement decisions

another land use).

Promoting the demand for suanalyses will require leadershagencies (discussed below). Aareas will help in linking the

3 6 M o v i n g F o r w a r d


46/51

the Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic De-velopment to identify all critically important wetlands

that are located within the poorest subcounties. Thesewetlands could then become priority areas for develop-ing management plans that reflect the needs of poorcommunities. Resources from the Poverty Action Fundcould support these planning efforts to ensure that thedependence of poor households on current and futurewetland benefits is given adequate consideration.

Consider wetland management in poverty reduction

efforts.

Wetland management interventions can be designedto prevent families from falling further into poverty, orto create new economic opportunities. For example,the Ministry of Finance, Planning, and EconomicDevelopment could collaborate with the WetlandsManagement Department to systematically evaluatethe potential of wetlands to reduce poverty. Such an

evaluation may include the following activities: Identify all wetlands in the poorest communities

(subcounties).

Identify all wetlands that are highly impacted by cur-rent use.

Identify all wetlands that have the potential forgreater product diversification.

Carry out an economic valuation of the products andservices from these different wetlands.

Based on this analysis, districts and local communi-ties could work with Central Government to lobby forchanges in recurrent and development budgets (bothfrom Central Government and District Local Govern-ment). Depending on the specific wetland profile, thesenew funds could support one or more of the following:

Boost product diversification in certain wetlands. Restore or enhance the supply of wetlands products

and services.

Establish new markets for ecosystem services to cap-ture new wetland revenues.

Promote cross-sectoral eff

wetland, and sectoral goa

The short example in Boxcollaboration between theand environment sector comental health and wetlandManagement Departmentsory Group could explore example between wetlandbetween general biomass s

in wetlands.

Incorporate poverty and w

analyses into local decisio

The underlying data and mtion are, in most cases, at enough to inform local demany local decision-makeing these data, conducting

rating the findings into thManagement Departmentanalytical support to a fewwould concentrate on imption Plans and making thecomponent of District Dev


47/51

ReerencesNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGE2008. Summary Environmental SociaKampala Sanitation Program, July 20

(Online at http://www.afdb.org/fiEnvironmental-and-Social-AssesUGANDA-ESIA-KAMPALA-SAN

last access 07/30/08)

NATIONAL FOREST AUTHORITY (NFDatabase. Kampala, Uganda: Gov

NATIONAL FOREST AUTHORITY (NFDatabase. Kampala, Uganda: Gov

NATIONAL IMAGERYAND MAPPINGMap Level 0 (Digital Chart of the W

NIMA.

RAMSAR CONVENTIONON WETLANRamsar List: Uganda. Gland, Switzhttp://www.ramsar.org/profile/profile

RANGANATHAN, J., C. RAUDSEPP-HZUREK, K. BENNETT, N. ASH, AND

A Guide for Decision Makers . WashResources Institute.

UGANDA BUREAUOF STATISTICS (UAdministrative Boundaries GIS Data

Government of Uganda.

UGANDA BUREAUOF STATISTICS (UPopulation and Housing Census GIS


UGANDA BUREAUOF STATISTICS (UHousehold Survey 2002/3, Report on

Uganda: Government of Ugandaindex.php?st=pagerelations2&id=2:National%20Household%20Su

UGANDA BUREAUOF STATISTICS (UAdministrative Boundaries GIS Data


UGANDA BUREAUOF STATISTICS (UHousehold Survey 2005/2006 Repo

BRAKENRIDGE, G.R., E. ANDERSON, AND S. CAQUARD. 2006. GlobalActive Archive of Large Flood Events. Data selected for Lake Victoria.Hanover, New Hampshire, USA: Dartmouth Flood Observatory.(Online at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~floods, last access07/22/08)

EMERTON, L., L. IYANGO, P. LUWUM, AND A. MALINGA. 1999. The

Present Economic Value of Nakivubo Urban Wetland, Uganda. Kampala,Uganda: IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Eastern AfricaRegional Office, Nairobi, and National Wetlands Programme,Wetlands Inspectorate Division, Ministry of Water, Land andEnvironment, Kampala. (Online at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/casestudy07nakivubo.pdf, last access 07/18/08)

KARANJA, F., L. EMERTON, J. MAFUMBO, AND W. KAKURU. 2001.Assessment of the Economic Value of Pallisa District Wetlands. Kampala,Uganda: Biodiversity Economics Programme for Eastern Africa,

IUCN-The World Conservation Union and Uganda NationalWetlands Programme.

LANGERGRABER, G. AND R. HABERL. 2004.Application of ConstructedWetland Technology in EcoSan Systems. (Paper No. 116541.)Marrakech, Morocco: Proceedings of the 4th IWA World WaterCongress 2004.

MACLEAN, I., R. TINCH, M. HASSALL, AND R. BOAR. 2003. Social andEconomic Use of Wetland Resources: A Case Study from Lake Bunyonyi,

Uganda. CSERGE Working Paper ECM 03-09. Norwich, United

Kingdom: University of East Anglia, Centre for Social andEconomic Research on the Global Environment. (Online athttp://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/wp/ecm/ecm_2003_09.pdf,last access 07/21/08)

MILLENNIUM ECOSYSTEM ASSESSMENT (MA). 2005. Ecosystems andHuman Well-Being: Wetlands and Water, Synthesis. Washington, DC,USA: World Resources Institute. (Online athttp://www.maweb.org/en/Synthesis.aspx, last access 07/21/08)

MINISTRYOF FINANCE, PLANNINGAND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT(MFPED). 2004. Poverty Eradication Action Plan (2004/5-2007/8).Kampala, Uganda: Government of Uganda. (Online athttp://www.finance.go.ug/docs/PEAP%202005%20Apr.pdf,last access 02/11/08)

MINISTRYOF NATURAL RESOURCES (MNR). 1995. National Policy

3 8


48/51

UGANDA BUREAUOF STATISTICS (UBOS) AND INTERNATIONALLIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ILRI). 2007. Nature, Distribution

and Evolution of Poverty and Inequality in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda:UBOS and ILRI. (Online at http://www.ilri.org/ILRIPubAware/ShowDetail.asp?CategoryID=TS&ProductReferenceNo=TS_071224_001, last access 02/11/08)

UGANDA BUREAUOF STATISTICS (UBOS) AND INTERNATIONALLIVESTOCK RESEARCH INSTITUTE (ILRI). 2008. 2005Poverty GISDatabase. Kampala, Uganda: Government of Uganda.

UN-WORLD WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAMME (UN-WWAP) ANDDIRECTORATEOF WATER DEVELOPMENT (DWD), UGANDA. 2005.

National Water Development Report: Uganda, Second UN WorldWater Development Report. Paris, France: United NationsEducational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (Online athttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001467/146760e.pdf, lastaccess 08/21/08)

WETLANDS INSPECTION DIVISION (WID). 2001. Wetlands SectorStrategic Plan 2001-2010. Kampala, Uganda: Government of Uganda.(Online at http://www.foodnet.cgiar.org/SCRIP/docs&databases/ifpriStudies_UG_nonScrip/pdfs/Nationa_Wetlands_Programme/

Uganda%20Wetland%20Sector%20Strategic%20Plan%202001-10.pdf, last access 07/18/08)

WETLANDS INSPECTION DIVISION (WWetlands Information System Calcu

statistics based on data from 199720of Water and Environment.

WETLANDS INSPECTION DIVISION (WUNION (IUCN). 2005. From ConvYears of Managing Wetlands for Peop

Kampala, Uganda: IUCN-The WEastern Africa Regional Office, NProgramme, Wetlands InspectoraLand and Environment, Kampala

WETLANDS MANAGEMENT DEPARTMcommunication.

WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION (WAFRICA. 2006. Country Health Syste(Online at http://www.afro.who.iuganda.pdf, last access 07/21/08)


49/51

AcknowledgmentsA special thank you goes to Mextracted spatial indicators frWetlands Information SystemThomas Emwanu, and Bernaing and sharing the latest povMuhwezi for preparing admin

Their efforts provided the spaderived the final maps.

The report has greatly benefitediting skills of the followinghis consistent editing from thGhazi for crucial writing and the executive summary, prefaBillings for copyediting and g

process; and Nelson Mango, AKristjanson for guiding the puproduction stage in Nairobi.

We greatly appreciate the effand Regina Namakula to obtthank the individuals who aghas been a pleasure to work wand production. We thank th

timely and efficient printing pWe would like to thank Jennganathan for organizing a smohave greatly benefited from otimely and detailed commentand the maps: Panta Kasoma Uganda; John Owuor, InterInstitute; Thomas Emwanu a

the Uganda Bureau of StatistTrevor Wickham at WetlandPaul Mafabi, Moses Musinguzthe Wetlands Management DWater and Environment, UgaBank (formerly at the Interna

Mapping a Better Future: How Spatial Analysis Can BenefitWetlands and Reduce Poverty in Uganda was possible be-cause of financial support from the Swedish InternationalDevelopment Cooperation Agency; the NetherlandsMinistry of Foreign Affairs; Irish Aid at the Departmentof Foreign Affairs; the United States Agency for Inter-

national Development; the Rockefeller Foundation; theInternational Livestock Research Institute; and the Dan-ish International Development Agency at the Ministryof Foreign Affairs. We deeply appreciate their support. Aspecial thank you goes to Mats Segnestam, Michael Colby,and Carrie Stokes for their early interest in poverty andecosystem mapping and their consistent support for thiswork in East Africa.

We wish to express our gratitude to the following institu-tions which contributed generously with data, maps, staff,or expert advice: the Wetlands Management Departmentat the Ministry of Water and Environment, Uganda; theUganda Bureau of Statistics; the National Forest Author-ity, Uganda; and the International Livestock ResearchInstitute.

This publication is the result of many effortslarge andsmallof a larger team. We would like to express our

appreciation to: Dan Tunstall for his ideas, guidance, andencouragement throughout the project; Patti Kristjansonfor her early support and advice from the launch to thecompletion of the publication; Nelson Mango for ensur-ing administrative and institutional support when thisproject was in a transition period; Paul Okwi for his ideas,technical advice, persistence, and diplomatic skills thathelped to overcome many obstacles; John B. Male-Mukasa

for his guidance and institutional support; Paul Mafabi forbeing an early champion and advisor; Lucy Iyango andNorah Namakambo for their technical support throughoutmultiple drafts and their respective presentation of resultsto the National Wetlands Advisory Group in Kampala andto the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties of


50/51

Wet

Documents

Mapping a Better Future