Water Security Action and Investment Plan for Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area

2020 // 2040 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION & INVESTMENT PLAN FOR GREATER KAMPALA METROPOLITAN AREA Ensuring Water Security For Inclusive Urban Growth MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT KAMPALA CITY GREATER KAMPALA METROPOLITAN AREA GREATER KAMPALA METROPOLITAN AREA 2020 // 2040 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION & INVESTMENT PLAN FOR GREATER KAMPALA METROPOLITAN AREA Ensuring Water Security For Inclusive Urban Growth MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT Implemented by: MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT ii THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN FOREWORD Water and environmental resources play an integral role in Uganda’s economic growth and development. Hence, the potential of realising national ambitions enshrined in Vision 2040 will largely depend on our ability to invest in integrated and holistic solutions that address multiple water security threats including effects of climate change. Rapid urbani sation, industrialisation and population growth pose severe water and environmental risks for the population which could compromise existing and future economic growth oppor tunities. Water security is therefore a pertinent concern in urban areas, particularly in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area, one of the fastest growing metropolises in the world, and Uganda’s economic hub. In September 2018, the Ministry of Water and Environment in collaboration with Kampa la Capital City Authority (KCCA), National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) and Uganda Manufacturers Association (UMA), with support from Uganda Water and Sanita tion NGO Network (UWASNET), and Environment and Natural Resource Civil Society Organisation (ENR-CSO) Network, spear headed the development of the WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN (WSAIP) for Greater Kampala Metropol itan Area. We employed a multi-sectoral participatory and consultative approach to engage various government ministries, departments and line agencies, local governments and municipalities, civil society organisations, private sector actors, the academia and urban residents. The WSAIP is designed to provide a comprehensive approach to collective planning for water security. It relies on evidence and multi-stakeholder collaboration to mitigate current and future water security threats with a goal to enhance urban resil ience, inclusive growth and wealth creation. The plan considers water security not just as adequate quantities of acceptable quality of water for current and future generations but rather in its entirety as a cross-cutting and multi-dimensional concept that can catalyse socio-economic development; improve public health; reduce water related pollution and disasters; and ensure preservation of ecosystems. It presents approaches and decision support tools to guide stakeholders in planning and prioritisation of water security in the short, medium and long-term; and a portfolio of investment opportunities as a stimulus for stakeholders to start investing in water security now rather than later. The WSAIP is aligned to the objectives and ambitions of the third National Development Plan (NDP III) for the period 2020/21– 2025/26 and is guided by government policies and frameworks with linkages to multi-sectoral and institutional strategic and development plans that cut across integrated urban planning and land-use; water supply and sanitation; water and natural resource management; pollution control; and climate change, to create an integrated approach to understanding and improv ing water security. The development and implementation of the WSAIP is based on the stewardship approach that supports multi-stakeholder (private, government and civil society sectors) collaboration to collectively work towards achieving water security through continuous coordination and monitoring of the changing water security landscape, identification of threats and implemen tation of integrated actions to mitigate those threats. I therefore, call upon all stakeholders from both public and private sectors, development partners, civil society, the academia and urban residents through their local leaders, to align their operations to the water security paradigm and support the implementation of the WSAIP to achieve inclusive growth and development of Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. The Ministry of Water and Environment commits to spearhead the championing of water security in Uganda and implemen tation of WSAIP in collaboration with all stakeholders. For God and My Country. Hon. Cheptoris Sam Minister of Water and Environment The Republic of Uganda iiiFOREWORD / PREFACE / ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS / TEAM PREFACE Water security, economic growth and sustainable development are closely interconnect ed, and it is essential to consider all of these concurrently when planning for the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA). A major concern for the metropolitan area is ensur ing a high rate of economic growth that is both sustainable and equitable. For economic growth to be sustainable, urban water security threats resulting from rapid urbanisation need to be the focus of the region’s development agenda. Whilst the current urbanisation rate presents vast opportunities for social economic transformation, it also causes various complexities due to its informal and uncoordinated nature which is evident in the informal settlements within the GKMA where a large percentage of the population live. Informal settlements are hotspots for water security challenges such as inadequate access to water and sanitation infrastructure and basic services, vulnerability to floods, public health risks and degradation of wetland and forest landscapes. For GKMA to realise its full potential, we must integrate water and environmental resource management in urban development planning processes, implement strategic action for resilience to water security threats, and promote green livelihood opportunities. The Water Security Action and Investment Plan (WSAIP) provides the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area city authorities; municipal and town councils; and policy makers with a comprehensive analysis of the water security risks, and recommends an approach toward achieving water security. Considering that water security is a multi-faceted issue, it calls for coordinat ed multi-sectoral collaboration and strategic investment where all GKMA authorities work closely with central government, private sector, civil society, academia and international development partners, for the successful implementation of water security investments and the WSAIP as a whole. This calls for each stakeholder to own the WSAIP and continually plan and budget for water security. In relation to this, I extend my gratitude to the Mayors Forum for their political support during the development of the WSAIP. I likewise commit to support its implementation; and urge all actors in Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area to embrace the WSAIP and commit to partner with us as we work towards a water secure and prosperous GKMA. For God and My Country. Hon. Hajjati Minsa Kabanda Minister of Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs The Republic of Uganda iv THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I extend my sincere gratitude to the Water Security Action and Investment Plan (WSAIP) Steering Committee, the project coordination team and the entire technical team for sup porting the completion of this plan. Our gratitude goes to GIZ International Water Stewardship Programme for coordinating and providing technical support towards development of the plan; as well as to DFID’s Cit ies and Infrastructure for Growth (CIG) programme, and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), for the funding. Sincere appreciation also goes to Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) for the technical support provided during the development of the plan and its accompanying tools. Special thanks to our lead partners; Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC), Uganda Manufacturers Association (UMA), the Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Net work (UWASNET) and the Environment Natural Resource (ENR) CSO Secretariat. Invaluable technical support was also provided by various ministries, departments and authorities including; National Envi ronment Management Authority, Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Indus try and Fisheries, National Forestry Authority, National Planning Authority, Uganda Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Prime Minister, Uganda National Meteorological Authority, Uganda Cleaner Production Centre, District Local Governments (Wakiso and Mukono), Municipal authorities (Entebbe, Kira, Nansana, Makindye Ssabagabo and Mukono) and the academia (Maker ere University Kampala). I commend the exemplary collective action and stewardship exhibited in developing this plan and hope that the WSAIP be comes a guiding tool for future sector initiatives. I commend you all and look forward to this continued collaboration for the successful Implementation of the Water Security Action and Investment Plan for Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. For God and My Country. Alfred Okot Okidi Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Water and Environment The Republic of Uganda EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION The Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA) is stra tegically positioned as the economic engine set to drive Uganda’s transformation to middle income status by 2040 (Uganda Vision 2040). Located along the northern shores of Lake Victoria, the GKMA is characterised by low lying hills and wide wetland valleys and river systems which have enabled a conducive environment for the region’s urbani sation through provision of water, wastewater treatment, flood control, stormwater drainage services, and livelihood opportunities to over 4.5 million people; facilitating the es tablishment of expansive settlements, road networks and commercial centres (NPA, 2018). However, the rapid urbanisation and industrial develop ment that established GKMA as an economic engine has sig nificantly contributed to the degradation of environmental assets and ecological services, threatening the future health of the economic, social and environmental systems that are currently driving the growth of Kampala city and surround ing metropolitan areas. Wetland coverage has reduced by 48% from 194 square kilometres in 1996 to just over 100 square kilometres in 2019/2020; over 1.4 million people have no access to adequate clean safe water and sanitation; and between 40 to 60 percent of the population reside in informal settlements (KCCA, 2018). Of significant concern is the continued deterioration of water quality in the Inner Murchison Bay, the main source of drinking water for Kam pala Capital City, with Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) levels averaging around 7.62 mg/l, representing significant levels of pollution (Akurut, 2017). Higher levels of investment in water supply and sanitation are needed to keep up with the rising population numbers; growth in industrial and economic activities; and the effects of climate change. Currently, over 1.4 million people have no access to adequate clean safe water and sanitation, and between 40% to 60% of the population reside in informal settlements (KCCA, 2018). In 20 years, the consequences of inaction are predicted to include: further deterioration of water quality resulting in a 142% increase in BOD levels across metropolitan river catchment systems, rendering In ner Murchison Bay hypoxic; further reduction in wetland coverage to 64 square kilometres, only one third of the 1996 coverage; 180% average increase in flood risk and sub sequent economic costs associated to flooding; and 11,000 tonnes of solid waste will end up in the environment, exac erbating surface water pollution and flooding. The Water Security Action and Investment Plan (WSAIP) is a blueprint response to mitigate water security threats arising from increased urbanisation. It provides: a framework of ap proaches and tools to support short and long-term planning for water security; evidence to catalyse investments; and a prioritised pipeline of investment opportunities to address water security challenges facing Greater Kampala Metropol itan Area (GKMA) in the short-term. Projections indicate that investing in water security in GKMA would yield cumulative benefits of US$ 22 billion (US 2018$)1 from 2018 to 2040, in terms of GDP at a cumulative cost of US$ 4.3 billion (US 2018$). By 2040, this investment would have increased GDP per capita in GKMA by US$ 195 annually, which is a 4.2% in crease in GDP over a scenario with more limited water se curity investments. These benefits would extend to the rest of the country, providing a national benefit of US$ 52 GDP per capita each year. PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE Planning for a water-secure future is a continuous adaptive process that requires stakeholders to continuously monitor the changing water security landscape and make decisions based on the magnitude of risks present at a given time. Sim ilarly, investing in water security is not a one-off expenditure but rather an ongoing commitment requiring stakeholders to continuously identify and prioritise investments based on the level and magnitude of water security risks. This re quires evidence to inform decision-making. One of the out puts of the WSAIP is an evidence-based decision support framework that consists of the Scenario Planning Tool (SPT) and the Water Security Investment Model (WaSIM). The SPT is a visual spatial tool designed to provide screening-level in formation to decision-makers on key water security threats. The WaSIM is a Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Screening Tool that utilises an Excel-based platform to present infor mation available in the Scenario Planning Tool, along with information on the characteristics of selected investment actions (projects) to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions about prioritisation of investment projects. 1 This financial projection is based on the USD value of the year 2018. viiEXECUTIVE SUMMARY SOCIOECONOMIC/ UNCERTAINTY SCENARIOS SPATIAL AND SECTOR WATER SECURITY PRIORITIES REGIONAL WATER SECURITY INDICES AND THREATS LONG LIST OF PROJECTS SHORT LIST OF PROJECTS INITIAL PACKAGES High Priority List of Integrative Projects DECISION MAKERS Additional Elements SCENARIO PLANNING TOOL WaSIM TOOL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT DECISION MAKING Water Security Sectoral and Spatial Priorities and Threats Feasibility Data (e.g. timing, financing, enabling environment, costs) Preferences & Weights MCA USER INTERFACE Water Security Interventions Water Security Threats Expert Screening Water Security Indicators, Indices S T E P 1 : LO N G LIS T TO S H O R T LIS T S T E P 2 : D E V E LO P H IG H P R IO R IT Y LIS T DATA • Geospatial • Demographic • Literature ANALYTICAL ENGINE • Water Quality • Flooding • Public Health • Wetlands Grouping on Outcomes, Complementarity Soft/Hard Aspects Figure ES-1: SPT and WaSIM Decision Support Framework viii THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR A WATER SECURE FUTURE The WSAIP sets six (6) strategic goals to support the realisation of a water-secure future in the short (2025), medium (2030) and long (2040) term. These are: Goal 01 To institutionalise water security and decision support tools in order to translate the concept of water security into practice. Goal 02 To reduce the amount of pollution loadings entering Inner Murchison Bay in order to increase Dissolved Oxygen by 85% by 2040. Goal 03 To reduce the volume of solid waste entering the environment by increasing the current rate of solid waste collection and recycling by 50% by 2030. Goal 04 To dampen flood peak flows in flood hotspot areas by 40% by 2040 through sustained conservation and rehabilitation of natural ecosystems as well as investment in blue-green infrastructure. Goal 05 To increase water supply and sanitation coverage in poorly served areas by 50% by 2030. Goal 06 To strengthen the institutional framework to enable multi-sectoral inter-institutional collaboration to address water security risks at the hydrologic/environmental systems scale. The WSAIP has six focus areas through which the six strategic goals will be achieved. The strategic focus areas are described in TABLE ES-01. ixEXECUTIVE SUMMARY EVIDENCE-BASED INTEGRATED PLANNING The WSAIP aims to facilitate movement of water and environ ment security investment planning from an ad hoc siloed ap proach towards a more integrated one. As stakeholder goals and interests differ, the realisation of a water-secure future necessitates strengthening evidence to inform integrated plan ning and action. Promoting evidence-based integrated planning for water security will involve institutionalising water security and its decision support tools as well as investing in data and infor mation gathering. SURFACE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL )INNER MURCHISON BAY( Industrial and domestic pollution loadings account for the larg est percentage of pollution sources contributing to the dete rioration of surface water quality in GKMA especially in areas of high population density, where developments have replaced natural buffer systems. As industrialisation and urbanisation continue in the GKMA, it is extremely important to reduce the amount of domestic and industrial loadings entering Inner Murchison Bay by 30% and 80% respectively. Reducing domestic loadings requires doubling sewer network connections and increasing access to faecal sludge treatment services for onsite systems. Investment in satellite as well as secondary wastewater treatment facilities will reduce indus trial loadings. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Solid waste management is a significant threat to both water quality and flooding. Currently only 50% of the 4000 tonnes of waste generated per day is collected and disposed of safely. The indiscriminate disposal of solid waste on roadsides and in drainage canals, streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands threatens natural water ecosystem functions and public health. Reducing the amount of waste generated, improving collec tion and disposal services by 50%, and doubling recycling efforts will reduce the amount of waste in drainage canals, wetlands, and water bodies. This should go hand in hand with promoting behavioural change. INTEGRATED FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT The continued establishment of informal settlements in wet land areas as well as the increase in impervious surfaces, wors en the potential for flooding. Developed land in productive wetland areas around GKMA has more than doubled in the last 20 years and lowland forests have almost been eliminated, re ducing the capacity of natural ecosystems to regulate floods. Reducing the extent of urban flooding necessitates invest ment in blue-green flood management infrastructure that would include conversion of at least 12% of urban land into forest and rehabilitating 70% of the degraded wetlands. WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION Nearly 1.2 million people in GMKA have no access to safe wa ter and about 300,000 have no access to basic sanitation. Safe water supply is threatened by water quality concerns and in adequate access infrastructure. A growing population requires increasing investment first to maintain and then grow current levels of safe water supply and sanitation. Increasing sanitation coverage by 50% would create access for over 142,048 and 394,702 unserved urban dwellers in 2019 and 2040 respectively; while increasing water supply access by 50% would create access for about 580,501 and 709,021 unserved urban dwellers in 2019 and 2040 respectively. INSTITUTIONAL STRENGTHENING The hydrological system of river catchments and wetlands that cross existing administrative boundaries presents a water se curity risk such as bringing pollution from upstream to down stream populations. Additionally, the disconnect between the geographic nature of wetlands and river catchments, adminis trative units and institutions, provides a very complex regula tory framework. To realise a water-secure future, it is necessary to institute a multi-stakeholder platform on water security and to empow er a set of catchment organisations to implement change on the hydrological scale. Specific actions include establishing an Inner Murchison Bay Catchment Organisation to address pol lution control and creating multi-stakeholder partnerships to address water security threats in specific catchments. 01 03 05 02 04 06 Table ES-1: Strategic Action Areas x THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The WSAIP adopts a project-based approach to investment planning using an evidence-based decision support framework. A pipeline of 13 investment projects is listed in Table 2; these have been selected to kickstart the investment process. TABLE ES-02: A Pipeline of Investment Projects CORE PROJECTS Years US$ Million Greater Kampala integrated urban catchment management 5 23.20 Scaling up solid waste management options in Greater Kampala 5 70.23 Accelerating access to adequate and equitable water supply 10 151.8 Greater Kampala urban forest ecosystem management 5 12.43 Public private partnerships for faecal sludge management 10 98.77 Greater Kampala wastewater management project 5 50.00 Sustainable management of urban wetland systems 5 81.96 Strengthening industrial compliance to laws, regulations and standards 5 8.51 Retrofitting informal settlements to enhance water security 5 30.14 Integrated urban flood risk management 5 84.12 ENABLING PROJECTS Greater Kampala water security observatory 5 12.40 Citizens environmental monitoring and reporting app – Spot it? Say it! 5 6.23 Operationalising payment for ecosystem services in urban setting 5 15.61 TOTAL 645.4 CONCLUSION Urbanisation, economic development and industrialisation need not result in a decline of water security in the Greater Kam pala Metropolitan Area if policymakers can implement appropriate policies and suitable strategies to prevent their undesir able consequences. It is possible for GKMA to have an appropriate response and the blueprint for that response is the Water Security Action and Investment Plan. xiEXECUTIVE SUMMARY RECOMMENDATIONS 01. Explore the formation of a permanent inter-governmental secretariat dedicated to ensuring a water-secure Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. 02. Invest in research and data acquisition to support evidence-based planning. The research should aim to understand the rate of change of and demand for urban natural resources and services, and the effects of urbanisation on water security beyond 2040. 03. Establish a Water Security Observatory to: • Serve as a data centre and analysis unit for open-access to information related to water security • Provide guidance for monitoring and data collection • Develop the infrastructure and human resources to function as a centre of excellence to support evidence based water security planning NEXT STEPS 01. Operationalise the proposed multi-sectoral water security governance structure, that is, the secretariat consisting of the following committees: Water Security Task Force, Water Security Investment Committee, ad hoc Water Security Technical Unit, ad hoc Water Security Data Centre that will later become a Water Se curity Observatory, and two multi-sectoral multi-disciplinary technical expert committees on Water Security and Urban Natural Resources, and Water Security and Urban Services. 02. Establish a framework for the funding and implementation for multi-stakeholder water security investment actions and projects. 03. Invest in the enhancement and expansion of the Water Security Decision-Support Tools under the coordi nation of the Water Security Technical Unit. 04. Invest in capacity building for the Water Security Technical Unit and local analysts. This shall include an intensive six-month training on the water security and Water Security Decision Support Tools. 05. Establish a bi-annual Water Security Forum which seeks to foster dialogue among GKMA stakeholders, de cision-makers, and development partners. xii THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD ii PREFACE iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 1 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Background 2 1.2 Objectives of the Plan 2 1.3 Preparation of the Plan 3 2 THE STATUS OF WATER SECURITY 5 2.1 The Water Security Concept 6 2.2 Geopolitical Description of Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area 6 2.3 Rapid Situation Assessment 7 2.4 Water Security Risks Facing Industry and Business Sectors 14 3 THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF IMPROVED WATER SECURITY 15 3.1 Water Security and Economic Growth 16 3.2 The Macroeconomic Impact of Water Security for Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area 17 4 PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 21 4.1 Legal and Institutional Setting 22 4.2 Transformative Institutions for a Water-secure Future 27 4.3 Multi-sectoral Collaboration for a Water-secure Future 28 4.4 Drivers of Future Water Security Threats 33 4.5 Evidence-based Decision Support Framework 37 5 INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 41 5.1 Strategic Intervention Areas and Scenarios 42 5.2 Benefits of Intervening at Present 45 5.3 Policy Options (Evidence-based) 46 5.4 Strategic Goals and Objectives 48 6 IMPLEMENTATION 51 6.1 Recap – The Water Security Action and Investment Plan 52 6.2 Pipeline of Investment Opportunities 52 6.3 Governance Structure for WSAIP Implementation 68 6.4 Resource Needs and Financing Mechanisms 70 6.5 Monitoring and Evaluation 71 6.6 Lessons Learned 71 7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 73 8 REFERENCES 75 TEAM 78 xiiiCONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES-1: SPT and WaSIM Decision Support Framework vii Figure 1-1: WSAIP Development Process 3 Figure 2-1: Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area 6 Figure 2-2: GKMA Catchments 7 Figure 2-3: The Water Security Dashboard for GKMA (a); PSIR Indices (b); Category Level (c) 8 Figure 2-4: Current Water Supply Coverage 9 Figure 2-5: Domestic and Industrial Loadings by Sub-catchment 11 Figure 2-6: Status of Water Quality Across GKMA 11 Figure 2-7: Current Status of (a) Peak Flow and (b) Wetland Extent Across GKMA 12 Figure 2-8: Flooding Due to Encroachment on Lubigi Wetland 12 Figure 2-9: KCCA Waste Generation Forecast 22 Figure 2-10: Solid Waste in Drainage Systems and the Environment 22 Figure 3-1: Channels Between Water Security Activities and Economic Sectors 16 Figure 3-2: GKMA Economic Growth 2010 – 2040 18 Figure 3-3: GDP Impact of Water Secure Investments in GKMA 19 Figure 4-1: Institutional Set-up of the Ugandan Water Sector 25 Figure 4-2: Overlay of Administrative and Hydrological Boundaries 27 Figure 4-3: Key Stakeholders Involved in Developing the WSAIP 28 Figure 4-4: Current and Future Population Patterns in GKMA 33 Figure 4-5: Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area Economic Growth, 2010 - 2040 34 Figure 4-6: Projected Climate in Uganda by 2040 35 Figure 4-7: Projected Climate in GKMA by 2040 Across a Range of Models 36 Figure 4-8: SPT and WaSIM Decision Support Framework 37 Figure 4-9: Example of Scenario Planning Tool User Interface 38 Figure 4-10: Example of Water Security Investment Model Excel Platform 39 Figure 5-1: Future Pollution Hotspots (BAU Scenario) 43 Figure 5-2: Future Flood Hotspots (BAU Scenario) 43 Figure 5-3: Future Wetland Extent - Loss Hotspots (BAU Scenario) 44 Figure 5-4: Future Unserved Populations - Hotspots (BAU Scenario) 45 Figure 5-5: Economic Benefits of Reducing Domestic and Industrial Loadings into IMB 45 Figure 6-1: Ideation Process – Long List of Project Ideas 53 Figure 6-2: Scoring Array for Investment Ideas 54 Figure 6-3: Proposed GKMA Water Security Governance Structure 69 xiv THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN LIST OF BOXES Box 1.1: Structure of the Document 12 Box 2.1: Summary on the Status of Water Security 23 Box 3.1: Summary of Economic Benefits of Water Security 29 Box 4.1: Planning for a Water-secure Future 50 Box 5.1: Summary on Investment Options for a Water-secure Future 61 Box 6.1: Proposals on Implementation of the WSAIP 84 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1: Strategic Action Areas ix Table ES-2: A Pipeline of Investment Projects x Table 2-1: Status of Water Supply and Sanitation in GKMA 10 Table 3-1: Disaggregation of National Economy and Water Security Investments from National Level to Region (GKMA) Level 17 Table 3-2: Impact of Other Government Investments on National GDP 19 Table 4-1: Gap and Barrier Analysis for the Legal and Institutional Framework 22 Table 4-2: Other Legal Instruments and Policy Instruments Anchoring the WSAIP 24 Table 4-3: Stakeholder Interests, Challenges and Opportunities 29 Table 5-1: Economic Benefits of Intervention (US$ Million Per Year) at Metropolitan Scale 46 Table 5-2: Policy Option 1 - Reaching 85% DO in 2040 (Under Climate Change) 46 Table 5-3: Policy Option 2 - Reaching 85% DO with no more than 20% Wetland Restoration (Under Climate Change) 47 Table 5-4: Reaching 40% Peak Flow Reduction 47 Table 5-5: Reducing Avoidable Healthcare Spending by 50% by 2030 47 Table 6-1: Importance Attached to Each Evaluation Criterion 54 Table 6-2: Pipeline of Water Security Investment Projects 55 xvCONTENTS LIST OF ACRONYMS AFDB African Development Bank Group BAU Business as Usual BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CSO Civil Society Organisation CGE Computable General Equilibrium DEA Directorate of Environmental Affairs DO Dissolved Oxygen DWD Directorate of Water Development DWRM Directorate of Water Resources Management FS Faecal Sludge FSM Faecal Sludge Management FSC&T Faecal Sludge Collection and Transport ENR-CSO Environment and Natural Resources Civil Society Organisation Network GKMA Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area GDP Gross Domestic Product GoU Government of Uganda IEc Industrial Economics, Incorporated IPF Infrastructure Prioritisation Framework IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change KIIP Kampala Institutional and Infrastructure Development Project MCDA Multi-criteria Decision Analysis PTF Kampala Pollution Control Task Force NDP National Development Plan NPA National Planning Authority PES Payment for Ecosystem Services PPP Public Private Partnership SPT Scenario Planning Tool TC Town Council UWASNET Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network MC Municipal Council WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene WSAIP Water Security Action and Investment Plan WaSIM Water Security Investment Model WSLUNR Water Security Land and Urban Natural Resources WSUS Water Security and Urban Services WSTF Water Security Task Force WSTU Water Security Technical Unit WSDC Water Security Data Centre WSIC Water Security Investment Committee WSO Water Security Observatory WMZ Water Management Zone xvi THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) The amount of dissolved oxygen needed (i.e., demanded) by aerobic biological organisms to break down organic material present in a given water sample at a certain temperature over a specific period. Dissolved Oxygen (DO) A measure of how much oxygen is dissolved in the water and available to living aquatic organisms. Circular Economy A circular economy model aims to close the gap between the production and the natural ecosystems’ cycles on which humans ultimately depend. Evaluation Criteria Set of criteria used to measure proposed projects. These criteria represent the primary goals of the stakeholders in terms of enhanced water security. Prioritisation The final step in the project selection process. This step utilises the WaSIM to develop a list of final actions and investments (the prioritised list of projects). Scenario Planning Tool (SPT) A visual spatial tool designed to provide screening-level information to decision-makers on key water security threats. Screening The second step of the project selection process. The long list of projects is distilled to a short list by applying the evaluation criteria in a qualitative manner. Additional institutional criteria may also be applied. Short List of Projects The result of the screening step; this list of projects meets initial screening criteria and will be modelled in the WaSIM to produce the final prioritised list of projects. Total Nitrogen (TN) The sum of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N), nitrite-nitrogen (NO2-N), ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N) and organically bonded nitrogen. Total Phosphorus (TP) This is a measure of both inorganic and organic forms of phosphorus. Phosphorus can be present as dissolved or particulate matter. Urban Resilience The measurable ability of any urban system, with its inhabitants, to maintain continuity through all shocks and stresses, while positively adapting and transforming toward sustain ability. Water Security The capacity of a population to safeguard sustainable access to adequate quantities of ac ceptable quality water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic development, for ensuring protection against water-borne pollution and water-related di sasters, and for preserving ecosystems in a climate of peace and political stability (UN 2013). Water Security Investment Model (WaSIM) An Excel-based Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Screening Tool used in the prioritisation step to evaluate the costs and benefits of water security actions and investments. 1. INTRODUCTION 2 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 1.1 Background Over the last decade, Uganda has made great strides in pro viding water to its population with nearly 79% of its urban population having access to safe water (MWE, 2019). Nev ertheless, the high rate of population growth (3% per an num), economic development - 6.3% in 2019 (AFDB, 2020) and rapid urbanisation, pose severe water and environment risks for the urban population and national economy, partic ularly in Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA), Ugan da’s economic engine (NPA, 2018). The multiple water security challenges that threaten GM KA’s economic growth are apparent. Clean drinking water is increasingly unavailable as the quality of natural water continues to deteriorate, making water production and supply more costly (NWSC, 2019). Rapid urbanisation and industrialisation have contributed to the degradation of the natural support systems as settlements and industrial parks expand into productive ecosystem areas (WB, 2015). The capacity to treat industrial effluent remains low with most industries discharging raw and/or partially treated effluent directly into storm water channels, ultimately polluting Lake Victoria, Kampala’s main freshwater source (MWE, 2018). On the other hand, more than 90% of the population con tinues to rely on local sanitation solutions with limited ca pacity and infrastructure to manage faecal sludge, resulting in widespread contamination of the environment and water resource systems (Gibson et al., 2018). Likewise, solid waste management remains a challenge with 50% of the gener ated waste winding up in drainage channels, wetlands and waterbodies (NPA, 2017). Last but not least, flooding has become a major risk to livelihoods with a rise in cases of widespread disruption of economic activities, destruction of property, loss of lives, and outbreak of waterborne diseases following each flooding event (KCCA, 2019). The third National Development Plan (NDP III) 2020/21 2024/25 recognises the relevance of water for econom ic growth under its objective to enhance the population’s productivity and social wellbeing by “ensuring availability of adequate and reliable quality freshwater resources for all uses”. The realisation of this NDP III objective and Uganda’s Vision 2040 economic growth targets, requires a tripling of reliable water supply relative to today’s levels, and heavy investment in environmental and water resources manage ment (WB, 2015). However, with competing demands and limited financial resources, investments in water security must be specifically targeted to maximise impact. This un derscores the need for a Water Security Action and Invest ment Plan (WSAIP). 1.2 Objectives of the Plan The WSAIP aims to set the water security agenda for GKMA by providing a common understanding of the current and an ticipated water security threats, and a list of investment actions (projects) to mitigate those threats, enhance resilience and support inclusive socio-economic development. The three overarching objectives of the plan are: (a) To empower stakeholders through the use of decision support tools, to understand, prioritise, and monitor environmental threats and the changing landscape of water security. (b) To provide evidence to catalyse actions and investments that systematically reduce water security risks and increase resil ience to water security threats. (c) To set the agenda for water security to inform environment and water resource goals, actions and strategies at local and metropolitan level. 3CONTENTS 1.3 Preparation of the Plan The WSAIP was developed through a collaboration between the Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE), Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC), Uganda Manufacturing Association (UMA), and members of the Kampala Pollution Task Force (PTF), a multi-stakeholder platform that aims to strengthen collective action for a pollution-free GKMA by safeguarding water and environmental resources while fostering inclusive growth and prosperity. Financial support was provided by DFID’s Cities and Infrastructure for Growth Program (CIG) and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through GIZ’s International Water Stewardship Program (GIZ IWaSP). The process of developing the WSAIP included four stages summarised in Figure 1-1. • Stage I involved the mobilisation of stakeholders and development of a stakeholder engagement plan fol lowed by a situational analysis to identify past and cur rent water security threats • Stage II had results from the situational assessment used in selecting priority water security action areas which formed the basis for further water security as sessment, scenario development and socio-economic analysis • Stage III involved the identification and selection of in vestment actions • Stage IV concluded in the formulation of the WSAIP and accompanying implementation arrangements Stakeholder consultation, engagement and empowerment occurred throughout the plan preparation process. Over 1,500 stakeholders representing the public sphere (.gov), private sector, (.com) and civil society (.org) were involved in the process (WSAIP Technical Report, 2019). STAGE II 1. Water Security Assessment (modelling physical and non physical factors) 2. Scenario Development 3. Socio-economic Analysis (benefits of water secure future and benefits of investment and action) STAGE IV 1. Strategic Goals 2. Project concept note development 3. Governance structure 4. Resource needs 5. Monitoring & evaluation STAGE III Identification, Selection and Prioritisation of Investment Opportunities (Water Secutity Investment Model Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Screening Tool) SCENARIOS & DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS (Scenario Planning Tool) STAGE I 1. Stakeholder Mobilistation (.com, .org & .gov) 2. Stakeholder Engagement Plan 3. Situation Analysis (past and present water security risks and legal and institutional framework) STAKEHOLDER VALUES & PRIORITIES 1. Stakeholder engagements 2. Steering committee 3. Technical team CRITERIA 1. Environment Quality 2. Public Health 3. Economic Benefits 4. Governance INDICATORS Figure 1-1: WSAIP Development Process 4 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN BOX 1-1. STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT The WSAIP consists of six sections: 1. The Introduction summarises the purpose and objectives of the WSAIP and shades light on its development process. 2. The Status of Water Security introduces the concept of water security and sum marises the current status of water security in GKMA. 3. The Economic Benefits of Improved Water Security analyses the merits of en hanced water security in GKMA. 4. Planning for a Water-Secure Future presents key components of the planning pro cess. 5. Investment Options for a Water-Secure Future summarises the strategic interven tion areas, scenarios and policy options, and presents strategic goals of the WSAIP. 6. Implementation summarises the execution arrangements of the WSAIP. This in cludes a pipeline of investment actions, proposed governance structure, financing, and monitoring and evaluation processes. A final subsection summarises the key conclusions and recommendations for next steps. 2. THE STATUS OF WATER SECURITY 6 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN This section introduces the concept of water security and summarises its current status in Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. 2.1 The Water Security Concept The United Nations (UN) defines water security as “the ca pacity of a population to safeguard sustainable access to ad equate quantities of acceptable quality water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic devel opment, for ensuring protection against water-borne pollu tion and water-related disasters, and for preserving ecosys tems in a climate of peace and political stability (UN, 2013)”. The four core elements of the UN definition are: (a) Access to safe adequate quantities of acceptable quality drinking water for sustaining livelihoods, human well-being, and socio-economic development. (b) Availability of adequate amounts of water for econom ic activities and development, energy production, industry and transport. (c) Preservation of ecosystems to deliver water-related ecosystem services. This includes protection of freshwater resources, and the aesthetic and recreational opportuni ties associated with aquatic ecosystems and human-made reservoirs. (d) Effective management of climate-related water hazards such as floods and droughts, and associated risks. To achieve a water-secure future, the World Bank identifies five thematic areas of action: building sustainable services to ensure current resources continue delivering benefits into the future, inclusiveness, institutional strengthening, lever aging commercial and non-state financing mechanisms, and building resilient water-related services (WB, 2018). Successful water security programmes provide for an in tegrated set of solutions that are neither supply nor de mand-driven but are a result of dialogue between local communities in need of water and environment services, in dividuals/institutions contributing to water security threats, government, the private sector, and financial institutions that provide the much-needed investments. 2.2 Geopolitical Description of Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area The WSAIP covers the GKMA which includes the whole of Kampala district (city), along with parts of Mukono and Wakiso as shown in Figure 2-1. The metropolitan area covers over 30 sub-counties/divisions inclusive of municipalities of Entebbe, Nansana, Kira, Mukono and Makindye-Ssabagabo. The area is earmarked as Uganda’s industrial centre and eco nomic engine as it contributes to 65% of Uganda’s non-agri cultural GDP and accounts for 10% of the country’s popula tion by day (NPA, 2017). The rapid growth in population and urban sprawl has however contributed to several structural and socio-economic challenges including a rise in informal settlements, poor infrastructure and service delivery, and environmental degradation among other things. Targeting GKMA as a key investment area is envisaged to bring about high positive multiplier effects on the economy and contrib ute to overall poverty reduction (NPA, 2018). Wakiso Kampala Lake Victoria Mukono Figure 2-1: Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area 7THE STATUS OF WATER SECURITY The GKMA is drained by 15 sub-catchments2 shown in Figure 2-2. Kampala City is drained by Kinawataka (6), Nakivubo (1), Kansanga (4), and Nalukolongo (3). The Mukono area is partly drained by Namanve/Bumbubumbu River (12) and Nakalere (11). Lubigi (2) and Mayanja (5) drain parts of Kampala and Wakiso while Nalubega (7), Walufumbe (8), Mayanja North (9), Katonga (10), Kajjansi (13), Namatambala (14) and Nakati (15) drain the Wakiso area. The catchments fall under three water management zones (WMZ), namely; Victoria, Kyoga and Albert. Nearly 70% of the GKMA land area falls within the Lake Victoria Basin WMZ. 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 9 MAYANJA NORTH 10 KATONGA 11 NAKALERE 12 NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU 13 KAJJANSI 14 NAMATAMBALA 15 NAKATI / KANYOGOGA 1 NAKIVUBO 2 LUBIGI 3 NALUKOLONGO 4 KANSANGA 5 MAYANJA 6 KINAWATAKA 7 NALUBEGA 8 WALUFUMBE 2.3 Rapid Situation Assessment This subsection summarises the status of water security in GKMA in accordance to the UN definition. The assessment considered: (a) access to adequate amounts of safe water to sustain human wellbeing, domestic and socio-economic development and industry (water supply and sanitation), (b) protection against waterborne pollution (water quality management), (c) preservation of ecosystems and (d) effec tive management of climate-related hazards and risks (such as floods and droughts). The rapid assessment utilised several methods: (a) Analysis of existing literature backed by discussions with stakeholders to identify key water security threats and data gaps. (b) Analysis of identified threats using the Pres sure-State-Impact-Response (PSIR) analysis framework to determine cause-and-effect relations that lead to a cer tain water security level. This resulted in the creation of a water security dashboard and index (of 32%) for Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area as shown in Figure 2-3 below. (c) Gap and barrier analysis to identify interventions most critical to GKMA’s water security. (d) Use of models to virtualise the status of key water se curity threats. The summarised outcomes of the Pressure-State-Im pact-Response analysis at pressure level shows the relative ly high socio-economic pressures (insecure) in terms of high population growth, low GDP, large slums, polluting indus try and deteriorating conditions. With regards to the state of the urban water and sanitation systems, only the water quantity is secure whereas water supply and flood protec tion infrastructure is inadequate; sanitation infrastructure is very insecure; and water quality is highly deteriorated. On the impact level, none of the water system functions are sufficiently fulfilled, with a poor response to major threats to water security from both institutional, planning and op erational management perspectives. Subsection 2.3.1 on wards further elaborate the status of these key water se curity threats. Figure 2-2: GKMA Catchments 2 Not all sub-catchments have official names. Where no official name exists, the WSAIP generated provisional names based on the longest river systems in a given sub-catchment. 8 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN WS - index P - index S - index I - index R - index 32 56 30 23 18 WATER QUANTITY WTR SUPPLY INFRA. FLOOD PROT. INFRA. SANITATION INFRA. WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE SCARCITY ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE FLOODING SOCIO-ECONOMIC PRESSURES INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK PLANNING OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT P S I R DEPENDENCIES WATER SUPPLY FLOODING SANITATION ECOLOGY AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE SCARCITY Annual precipitation & variability Freshwater scarcity around city ENVIRONMENTAL PRESSURE FLOODING Rainfall intensity & variability Storm surge hazard Tsunami hazard* Expected SLR by 2100* Area below SL & subsidence* WATER QUANTITY Supply continuity reservoirs & lakes Dependency overexploited aquifers Local groundwater drawdown DEPENDENCIES Conflicts over water supply Sustainability of urban water footprint AESTHETIC Water image of city WATER SUPPLY INFRASTRUCTURE Coverage and leakage of water supply system Continuity and quality of water supply WATER SUPPLY People with adequate water supply FLOOD PROTECTION INFRASTRUCTURE Coastal flood protection infrastructure* River flood protection infrastructure Stormwater drainage infrastructure FLOODING Coastal flooding* River flooding Stormwater flooding WATER QUALITY Surface water quality Polluted sediments Garbage in water Groundwater quality Saltwater intrusion* INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK Clarity of roles & responsibilities Horizontal coordination Vertical coordination Corruption Accountability PLANNING Access to data and information Financial resources Effectiveness disaster management Adequacy strategic planning Degree of public participation OPERATIONAL MANAGEMENT Effectiveness water supply management Effectiveness sanitation management Effectiveness flood protection managment Effectiveness environmental and ecological management ECOLOGY Ecological quality of urban water SANITATION INFRASTRUCTURE Coverage and leakage of sewer system Adequacy of wastewater treatment SANITATION People with adequate sanitation Water-associated diseases SOCIO-ECONOMIC PRESSURES City population Domestic water use Population growth Water footprint consumption GDP (PPP) Water-intensive industries Slums Condition upstream watershed P R E S S U R E S TA T E IM P A C T R E S P O N S E A B C LEGEND SCORE 1 Very insecure 2 Insecure 3 Around acceptable threshold 4 Secure 5 Very secure Figure 2-3: The Water Security Dashboard for GKMA (a); PSIR Indices (b): Category Level (c) 9THE STATUS OF WATER SECURITY 2.3.1 Water Supply and Sanitation The most recent hydrological assessments for GKMA esti mate that surface water draining into Lake Victoria Basin is about 109MCM/Yr (DWRM, 2013). Different studies esti mate that groundwater recharge rates averagely range from 90-220mm/yr accounting for 7-20% of the average annual rainfall. Spatially interpolated data for groundwater indi cates yields ranging from 4–11m³/hr, enough to support wa ter supply for peri-urban and rural households within GKMA (Nsubuga et al., 2014). Although available water resources surpass current water demand, cases of insufficient water supply as a result of inadequate infrastructure exist across the metropolitan area, with Mukono and Wakiso being the most affected as shown in Figure 2-4. Current water supply coverage ranges from 85% in central Kampala (Nakivubo sub-catchment) to 23% in the western parts of the metropolitan (Nakati sub-catchment). Four sub-catchments namely: Nakati (15), Katonga (10), Nakalere (11) and Lubigi (2) draining Kajjansi TC, Wakiso TC and Kyengera TC, Kira MC, Kasangati TC, Bweyogerere, Namugongo and Wakiso division, are home to populations of more than one hundred thousand people without access to adequate amounts of safe water. 1 NAKIVUBO 2 LUBIGI 3 NALUKOLONGO 4 KANSANGA 5 MAYANJA 6 KINAWATAKA 7 NALUBEGA 8 WALUFUMBE 9 MAYANJA NORTH 10 KATONGA 11 NAKALERE 12 NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU 13 KAJJANSI 14 NAMATAMBALA 15 NAKATI / KANYOGOGA 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 UNCOVERED PERSONS >100,000 90,001 - 100,000 50,001 - 90,000 15,000 - 50,000 Whilst coverage is highest in catchments draining Kampala district, pockets of unserved persons exist especially in di visions with high slum populations such as Kawempe and Nakawa. Overall, safe water supply is threatened largely by inade quate access infrastructure and poor water quality (MWE, 2019). Over 92% of the population have access to basic san itation – a toilet. However, safe handling and treatment of faecal sludge re mains a challenge for the future particularly in low-income areas. Table 2-1 summarises the status of water supply and sanitation across Greater Kampala. Limited access to water supply and sanitation impacts household health care expen diture with households spending about US$ 5 million on the treatment of diarrhoeal diseases per annum (WSAIP Techni cal Report, 2019). Figure 2-4: Current Water Supply Coverage 10 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN SUB-CATCHMENT % COVERAGE )2018( UNCOVERED PERSONS )2018( REPORTED DIARRHOEAL CASES )PER YEAR( Water Supply Sanitation Water Supply Sanitation NAKIVUBO 85.5% 91.7% 38,206 20,495 19,875 LUBIGI 74.3% 91.8% 158,289 53,031 73,416 NALUKOLONGO 70.2% 93.4% 70,528 18,577 31,298 KANSANGA 85.4% 87.8% 19,480 11,036 10,298 MAYANJA 71.7% 92.3% 90,334 22,951 39,849 KINAWATAKA 84.1% 91.4% 33,472 14,168 16,352 NALUBEGA 84.7% 91.6% 22,813 9,778 11,179 WALUFUMBE 74.7% 92.3% 30,036 10,404 14,026 MAYANJA NORTH 71.4% 91.2% 57,370 15,363 25,529 KATONGA 48.2% 91.4% 147,840 23,551 61,295 NAKALERE 63.6% 92.8% 129,405 27,423 55,558 NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU 67.4% 93.3% 37,984 9,993 16,852 KAJJANSI 57.0% 92.1% 43,923 8,571 18,652 NAMATAMBALA 60.0% 91.7% 42,325 12,879 19,266 NAKATI / KANYOGOGA 23.0% 92.2% 238,994 25,875 95,673 68.1% 91.8% 1,160,999 284,095 509,118 2.3.2 Water Quality Management With a population density of 8,800 people per square ki lometre, only about 10% of the population in Kampala is served by the public sewer system. The rest of the popu lation within the GKMA rely on on-site sanitation facilities with limited capacity and infrastructure to manage faecal sludge (Gibson et al., 2018). This results in pollution load ings expressed in terms of Total Nitrogen (TN) and Total Phosphorus (TP). They range between 2770 TN and 454 TP in Lubigi, and 460 TN and 75 TP in Kajjansi sub-catchments. Limited industrial compliance to wastewater discharge stan dards further exacerbates the problem as most industries continue to unload untreated and/or partially treated efflu ent directly into surface water bodies and wetlands (MWE, 2018). 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 K A JJ A N S I N A M A TA M B A LA N A M A N V E / B U M B U B U M B U W A LU F U M B E K A N S A N G A N A LU B E G A M A YA N JA N O R T H K IN A W A TA K A N A LU K O LO N G O N A K IV U B O K A TO N G A N A K A T I / K A N Y O G O G A M A YA N JA N A K A LE R E LU B IG I D O M E S T IC L O A D IN G ) T N a n d T P ( CATCHMENT DOMESTIC LOADINGS BY SUB-CATCHMENT TOTAL NITROGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 K A N S A N G A N A LU B E G A N A K A T I / K A N Y O G O G A W A LU F U M B E K A TO N G A N A M A TA M B A LA M A YA N JA M A YA N JA N O R T H N A K A LE R E LU B IG I K A JJ A N S I N A LU K O LO N G O K IN A W A TA K A N A K IV U B O N A M A N V E / B U M B U B U M B U IN D U S T R IA L LO A D IN G ) T N a n d T P ( CATCHMENT INDUSTRIAL LOADINGS BY SUB-CATCHMENT TOTAL NITROGEN TOTAL PHOSPHORUS Figure 2-5: Domestic and Industrial Loadings by Sub-catchment Table 2-1: Status of Water Supply and Sanitation in GKMA 11THE STATUS OF WATER SECURITY 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 101-130 71-100 50-70 11-49 0-10 5-10 11-30 31-59 60-80 81-95 BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND BOD )mg/l( DO )%( DISSOLVED OXYGEN Figure 2-6: Status of Water Quality across GKMA 1 NAKIVUBO 2 LUBIGI 3 NALUKOLONGO 4 KANSANGA 5 MAYANJA 6 KINAWATAKA 7 NALUBEGA 8 WALUFUMBE 9 MAYANJA NORTH 10 KATONGA 11 NAKALERE 12 NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU 13 KAJJANSI 14 NAMATAMBALA 15 NAKATI / KANYOGOGA 2.3.3 Ecosystems and Land Use Change Land use change is largely driven by rapid urbanisation; de veloped land has more than doubled in the last 20 years, predominantly in productive wetland areas. Wetland cov erage has reduced by 48% from 194 square kilometres in 1996, to just over 100 square kilometres (WSAIP Technical Report, 2019). Lowland forest coverage in Kampala has re duced from 7.6% to 0.4% of the total land area (MWE, 2015) as informal settlements continue to be established in low lying areas (KCCA, 2018). Figure 2-5 summarises domestic and industrial loadings en tering the environment by sub-catchment. Highest industri al loadings are observed in Namanve followed by Nakivubo, Kinawataka and Nalukolongo sub-catchments. The Inner Murchison Bay (IMB) is the main source of drink ing water for Kampala City. The IMB catchment (circled red) covers an area of 282 square kilometres and overlaps GKMA as shown in Figure 2-6. It consists of five sub-catch ments namely Nakivubo (1) which drains Kitante and Lugo go, Kansanga (4) drains Gaba shoreline (a source of signif icant pollution), Kinawataka (6) drains Nakawa industrial area, Mayanja (5) drains Masajja and Makindye area, and Namanve/Bumbubumbu (12) drains Namanve area. The IMB is currently classified as eutrophic with Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) levels averaging around 7.62 mg/l and Dissolved Oxygen (DO) levels averaging 71.6%. BOD measurements at sub-catchment level range between 103 mg/l in Nakivubo and 52mg/l in Mayanja sub-catchments. The relatively high BOD levels in Nakivubo sub-catchment are partly attributed to the severe degradation of the Na kivubo wetland system as nearly 50% of the wetland area is modified for industrial and settlement purposes (MWE, 2015; WB, 2015). Groundwater quality is mainly threatened by micro-biological contamination especially in areas where there is considerable interaction between surface water and groundwater. 12 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 2.3.4 Climate-related Hazards In GKMA the key climate-related hazard is flooding. Flash floods are a serious recurring water security threat in Kam pala and neighbouring town councils (KCCA, 2019). They arise as a result of a combination of factors: intensive rain fall, high rates of surface run-off influenced by Kampala’s topography that consists of a series of developed hills and low-lying wetland areas, and inadequate stormwater drain age infrastructure (UN Habitat, 2013). Comparing wetland 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 1 NAKIVUBO 2 LUBIGI 3 NALUKOLONGO 4 KANSANGA 5 MAYANJA 6 KINAWATAKA 7 NALUBEGA 8 WALUFUMBE 9 MAYANJA NORTH 10 KATONGA 11 NAKALERE 12 NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU 13 KAJJANSI 14 NAMATAMBALA 15 NAKATI / KANYOGOGA >200 90-199 60-89 40-69 30-39 00-29 11-35 7-10 3-6 1-2 PEAK FLOOD FLOWS )cfs( Peak flow )cfs( Wetland extent )km²( WETLAND EXTENT )km²( extent and flood peak flows, it is evident that flood risk is highest in catchments facing severe wetland loss, render ing natural ecosystem buffers ineffective as shown in Figure 2-7. The most at-risk sub-catchments include Nalubega (7), Nakivubo (1), Mayanja (5), Lubigi (2) and Nalukolongo (3) which drain areas of Nakawa, Makindye, Kawempe, Nansa na, Kyengera Town Council, Nabweru, Central Business Dis trict and Masajja. Figure 2-8 provides evidence of flooding due to encroachment on Lubigi wetland that buffers areas of Bwaise, Namugoona and Busega (Namagembe, 2019). Figure 2-7: Current Status of (a) Peak Flow and (b) Wetland Extent Across GKMA Figure 2-8: Flooding due to Encroachment on Lubigi Wetland 13THE STATUS OF WATER SECURITY 900,000 0.45 800,000 0.4 700,000 0.35 600,000 0.3 500,000 0.25 400,000 0.2 300,000 0.15 200,000 0.1 100,000 0.05 0 0 443,071 0.34 0.38 0.45 493,209 820,688 to n s/ a n n u m kg /p e rs o n /d ay 2014 2018 2037 Per unit generation Waste generation )tons/annum( Figure 2-9: KCCA Waste Generation Forecast Flood risk is exacerbated by urbanisation which creates impervious surfaces and poor solid waste management practic es. Per capita and total waste generation have increased over the past several years as shown in Figure 2-9, a trend that is likely to continue (KCCA, 2017). At present only about 50% of the gener ated waste is collected and disposed of properly (KCCA, 2017). The rest is open ly dumped and washed into drainage channels, streams, lakes, rivers and wet lands, threatening natural water ecosys tem functions, flood control and public health. a cb d Figure 2-10 shows solid waste in drainage canals: culverts are filled with garbage in 2-10b and 2-10d; KCCA employees remove waste from drainage canals in 2-10a; and absence of proper solid waste collection and disposal facilities in informal settle ments – Bwaise and Namuwongo – in 2-10c (Habonimana, 2014; KCCA, 2018). Figure 2-10: Solid Waste in Drainage Systems and the Environment 14 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 2.4 Water Security Risks Facing Industry and Business Sectors The industrial and services sectors are central in driving Uganda’s economic path to middle income status with growth of both sectors averaging 6.2% and 7.6% respectively in 2019 (AFDB, 2020). A survey of 500 large and medium industries and enter prises within GKMA highlighted the following water security risks facing the industrial sector (WSAIP Technical Report, 2019): (a) Several industries are located close to key ecosystems namely Lake Victoria, Inner Murchison Bay, wetlands, forest reserves, rivers, and streams/channels. (b) Over 10% depend on more than one water source due to intermittent supply and variability in the quality of water. (c) More than half of the companies generating wastewater either perform minimal or no on-site treatment of wastewater prior to discharge. (d) Almost all Industrial parks lack designated solid waste treatment and recycling facilities, and neither is industrial sym biosis practiced on a substantial scale. BOX 2-1. SUMMARY ON THE STATUS OF WATER SECURITY Water security threats facing Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area are interlinked and require integrative action. • Safe water supply is threatened to a large extent by inadequate access infrastruc ture and water quality (pollution) • There is a heavy dependence on on-site sanitation facilities with limited capacity and infrastructure to treat faecal sludge • Risk to surface water quality is highest in catchments with high population den sity, where domestic and industrial loadings are highest and haphazard land use has removed natural flood buffers and filtration • Wetland coverage has reduced by 48% from 194 square kilometres in 1996 to just over 100 square kilometres • Flood risk is highest in catchments facing severe wetland loss rendering natural ecosystem buffers ineffective • Inadequate solid waste management exacerbates surface water pollution and flood risk Call for action: Multi-stakeholder integrative planning and action. 3. THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF IMPROVED WATER SECURITY 16 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN The threats introduced in the preceding section come with associated costs, economic and otherwise. This section analyses the benefits of enhanced water security in Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. Computable General Equilibrium models3, developed for the Ministry of Water and Environment study on The Contribution of Water Development and Environment Resources to Uganda’s Economy, were used to measure the economywide benefits and impact of water security investments on net GDP growth in GKMA and nationally (IEc, 2016). 3.1 Water Security and Economic Growth Water and environmental investments impact the economy via a complex interconnection of the economic production factors of labour, capital, and natural resources. Investments that enhance these factors of production ripple through all sectors of the economy. For example, investments in urban and rural water supply and sanitation increase the supply and quality of labour which is the major productive factor of the commercial and manufacturing sectors. Investments in environmental management improve ecosystem services such as reduced flooding, improved water quality and im proved public health. These services reduce government expenditure on infrastructure repairs and health care, en hancing the GDP. This linkage between water security ac tivities and the national economy was modelled based on “channels” of water and environmental development and management to a range of economic sectors as illustrated in Figure 3-1. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Arable Land Runoff and Lakes Quality and Quantity Wetlands / Forests MANAGEMENT Irrigation Water Supply / Wastewater Flood Control Wetland, Forest Management ECONOMIC SECTORS Agriculture • Crops • Forestry • Livestock • Fisheries Services Mining Electricity Water Supply Transport Manufacturing Irrigation Channels Flood Control Channels Water Supply / Wastewater Channels Wetland, Forest Management Channels crops floods Figure 3-1: Channels Between Water Security Activities and Economic Sectors 3 Computable general equilibrium (CGE) models are a class of economic models that estimate how an economy might react to changes in policy, technology, development of water resources, investment in water supply and sanitation, and the like. 17THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF IMPROVED WATER SECURITY 3.2 The Macroeconomic Impact of Water Security for Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area There are very clear links between economic growth and water security, but this relationship changes over time as economies and countries become more developed. As wa ter-related risk decreases, investment in economic activity increases and economies grow. Investments in water secu rity are complementary to investments in education and health, reducing illness and associated costs. In turn, this has a positive feedback on income. Under these conditions, the economic value of enhancing water security increases. Nevertheless, stakeholders need to determine the appropri ate levels of investment in water security in relation to other key priorities such as energy, health care and other non-wa ter-related infrastructure development programmes. Biophysical models were used to estimate the interaction of natural systems and water security interventions. The re sults of these models were then fed into an Economy-wide (Computable General Equilibrium) Model to estimate a va riety of economic indicators related to the specified man agement regime. The goal was to determine the multiplier effect, i.e. the impact that change in one economic sector would have on other sectors and the economy in terms of contribution to GDP, and other economic indicators. A de tailed description of the economic analysis is found in the Ministry of Water and Environment study on The Contri bution of Water Development and Environment Resources to Uganda’s Economy (IEc, 2016) and the WSAIP Technical Report (2019). Results from this study were disaggregated to generate water security investment for GKMA and impact of invest ments at metropolitan (GKMA) and national level as shown in Table 3-1, which also provides CGE national water securi ty results gleaned from CGE model results. (a) National study benefits by channel are multiplied by the expected share of benefits of investing only in the GKMA. (b) Nationwide GDP benefits of nationwide investment [2] are adjusted to GKMA-only investment results [3] using the ratio of total benefits between the two studies. (c) National GDP benefits of GKMA investment [3] are ad justed to GKMA GDP benefits [4] using the GKMA share of GDP by sector [1]. Sector [1]GKMA GDP Share [2] National Investment / National GDP Benefits [3] GKMA Investment / National GDP Benefits [4] GKMA Investment / GKMA GDP Benefits All sectors 67.14 31.56 14.19 Agriculture 5.65 2.65 0.86 Rainfed crops 20% (5.05) (2.37) (0.47) Irrigated crops 0% 4.10 1.93 Livestock 0% 0.94 0.44 Forestry (incl. firewood) 40% (0.13) (0.06) (0.02) Fishing 50% 5.79 2.72 1.36 Industry 23.26 10.94 4.69 Mining 55% 1.42 0.67 0.37 Manufacturing 13.75 6.47 3.52 Food processing 45% 0.48 0.23 0.10 Textiles, clothing and leather 55% (0.08) (0.04) (0.02) Wood and paper products 55% 2.20 1.03 0.57 Chemicals 55% 7.56 3.55 1.95 Non-metal minerals 55% 1.39 0.65 0.36 Metal products 55% 1.03 0.48 0.27 Machinery 55% 0.29 0.14 0.07 Other manufacturing 55% 0.85 0.40 0.22 Electricity 50% 3.12 1.47 0.73 Water purification and distribution 0.22 0.10 0.06 Distributed 50% 0.16 0.07 0.04 Self-sourced 80% 0.06 0.03 0.02 Construction 87% 4.75 2.23 1.94 Services 38.23 17.97 8.65 Private services 51% 28.18 13.25 6.76 Government 40% 10.05 4.72 1.89 Table 3-1: Disaggregation of National Economy and Water Security Investments from National Level to Region (GKMA) Level 18 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN Extracting the results specifically related to the cost and benefits of water security investments in GKMA showed that the cumulative benefits from 2018 to 2040, in terms of GDP from increased investment in water security, were US$ 22 billion (US 2018$) while the cumulative costs were US$ 4.3 billion (WSAIP Technical Report, 2019) as shown in Fig ure 3-2. By 2040, this investment would have increased GDP per capita by US$ 195 annually in GKMA, which is a 4.2% increase in GDP even in a scenario with limited water secu 4,000 5,000 6,000 2035 2040 1,000 2,000 3,000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Water SecureBAU G D P p e r ca p it a ) U S $ in 2 0 1 0 p ri ce s( rity investments. Without any investment in water security, GDP will remain as observed in the business-as-usual (BAU) scenario. The benefits of a GKMA investment programme extend to Uganda as a whole. This analysis shows a national benefit in 2040 of US$ 52 GDP per capita each year from the GKMA investments. About half of the total GDP benefits of GKMA investment stay in GKMA and the rest flow through the economy and lead to GDP growth in other regions. Figure 3-2: GKMA Economic Growth 2010 – 2040 Figure 3-3 shows that investment in safe water and sanitation in GKMA mostly benefits the private services sector, manufac turing and government. GDP from crops and livestock drops in a water-secure future as the GKMA regional economy moves to a service industry base. 19THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF IMPROVED WATER SECURITY Government Private services Construction Water purification & distribution Electricity Manufacturing Mining Fishing Forestry Crops and livestock $1 $0 $1 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8$3$2 Benefits )billions, $2015 USD( 3.2.1 Comparison of Water Security Investments to other Government Investments The analysis above shows that investments in water security provide positive GDP benefits and exhibit strong benefit-cost ratios. Table 3-2 provides a comparison of the impact of investments in oil production, climate change and malaria preven tion on Uganda’s national GDP. It is evident that investment in water security provides similar if not greater returns than oil, climate change adaptation and malaria prevention over the same period. Investments in water security in Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area not only provide significant local environmental, social, financial and micro-economic benefits; but also, positive macro-economic benefits (GDP) that are on par with investments in oil production and superior to climate change adaptation and malaria prevention. PROJECT PHASE IMPACT ON GDP PER ANNUM OIL PRODUCTION Construction phase – 2018 1.6% Operational phase – peak by 2028 7.2% Operational phase – end by 2044 1% CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION National Benefits by 2047 1.9% MALARIA PREVENTION National Benefits by 2020 0.8% WATER SECURITY National Benefit by 2040 4.2% Figure 3-3: GDP Impact of Water Secure Investments in GKMA Table 3-2: Impact of Other Government Investments on National GDP 20 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN BOX 3-1. SUMMARY OF THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF WATER SECURITY • Most of the benefits of investment in safe water and sanitation in GKMA are in the private services sector • GDP gains from water and environment interventions are more than eight times the investment costs • Assumptions: GDP and channel attribution relies on imprecise data and GKMA’s share of GDP is assumed constant over time Share of Benefits by Investment Channel Firewood 28% WASH 46% (Livestock and Distributed Water <1%) Forestry 7% Flood Risk 13% Fishing 2% Tourism 4% $195 GDP per capita in GKMA annually This represents a 4.2% increase from the BAU scenario. About half of the total benefits of investment in GKMA stay in GKMA as GDP benefits. $52 GDP per capita on average nationally each year This represents a 4.1% increase from the BAU scenario. The rest of the benefits flow through the economy and lead to GDP growth in other regions. 4.PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 22 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN Planning for a water-secure future is an adaptive process that requires stakeholders to continuously monitor the changing water security landscape and make decisions based on the magnitude of risks present at a given time. Similarly, investing in water security is not a one-off expenditure but rather an ongoing commitment to identify and prioritise investments based on the scale of water security risks. This section presents key components of the planning process. 4.1 Legal and Institutional Setting Addressing water security requires a coherent approach between water polices and other sectoral or environmental policies (OECD, 2012). Employing a gap and barrier analysis, and a stakeholder consultation approach, various compo THEME SUB-THEME CRITERION CONTEXT GAP INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK )WSS( Policy and legal arrangements Existence of legislation Legislative framework in place 1 0 Implementation of legislation Level of implementation 0 -1 Institutional arrangements Existence and functioning of institutions Institutions in place to implement legislation 0 -1 Sectorial collaboration Cooperation mechanisms among water users Foster cooperation between stakeholders and various levels of government 0 -1 Capacity of stakeholders Mechanisms to deal with capacity gaps of stakeholders Effectiveness of stakeholders to address challenges on water security (supply and sanitation) 1 -1 Gap = any water security issue or threat not addressed; Barrier = policy or structure that prevents implementation Green: Criteria met. Yellow: Criteria partially met. Orange: Significant gap or absent This subsection summarises the legal and institutional context underlying the preparation and implementation of the WSAIP. nents of the legal and institutional framework were anal ysed as shown in Table 4-1. Preparation of the WSAIP and its implementation aimed to address some of the institutional barriers presented in the gap and barrier analysis. Table 4-1: Gap and Barrier Analysis for the Legal and Institutional Framework 23PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 4.1.1 Policy and Legal Environment Preparation of the WSAIP is guided by a wide-ranging poli cy and legal framework. The constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995) provides fundamental principles to govern the country’s water and natural resources. These principles align with the water security concept and set the scene for government to implement water security actions. The Con stitution obligates the State: • To ensure that all Ugandans enjoy access to safe water • To protect important natural resources, including land, water and wetlands on behalf of the people of Uganda • To take all practical measures to promote a good water management system at all levels • Take all possible measures to prevent or minimise damage and destruction to land, air and water resources resulting from pollution or other causes • To promote sustainable development and public awareness of the need to manage water resources in a balanced and sustainable manner for the present and future generations The provisions of the constitution are operationalised through several water and environment sector legal and policy instruments namely; the Water Act, Cap. 152 (1997), the National Environment Act (2019), National Environment Management Policy (1994) and the National Water Policy (1999). The Water Act, Cap 152 (1997) The Water Act (1997) provides the legal framework for wa ter management in Uganda. It provides for the use, protec tion and management of water resources and supply; the constitution of water and sewerage authorities; and facili tates the devolution of water and sanitation management services. The Water Act is operationalised through several regulations namely; the Water (Waste Discharge) Regula tions (1998) to mitigate pollution, and the Water Resources Regulation (1998) to ensure the sustainable use and man agement of water resources. The National Environment Act (2019) The National Environment Act (2019) provides the legal framework for the sustainable management of the envi ronment in Uganda to enhance water and environment se curity with focus on pollution control, waste management, environmental planning, biological diversity management, environmental standards, environmental and social assess ment, environmental compliance, and enforcement. The Act is operationalised through various regulations including The National Environment (Standards for Discharge of Efflu ent into Water or on Land) Regulations, S.I. No 5/1999; The National Environment (Waste Management) Regulations, S.I. No 52/1999; and The National Environment (Wetlands, Riverbanks and Lake Shores Management) Regulations, No. 3/2000. The National Environment Management Policy (1994) The overall goal of this policy is “to promote sustainable economic and social development that enhances environ mental quality without compromising the ability of future generations to meet own needs”. The policy provides strat egies on integration of environmental issues in national de velopment planning processes, inter-sectoral cooperation and coordinated environment management. The National Water Policy (1999) The National Water Policy (1999) provides the overall policy framework for water resources management and develop ment in Uganda. This includes guiding principles and strat egies for water resources management, domestic water supply, water for agricultural production, and other water resource uses. This is aimed at achieving the overarching objective of the policy which is to “manage and develop the water resources of Uganda in an integrated and sustainable manner to secure and provide water of adequate quantity and quality for all social and economic needs of the pres ent and future generations with the full participation of the stakeholders” (GOU, 1999). The National Water Policy pro motes an integrated approach to water resources manage ment and provides a legal framework for operationalisation of catchment-based water resources management (MWE, 2019b; MWE, 2019c). Table 4-2 summarises other key in struments that provide legal standing and principles within which the WSAIP will be implemented. 24 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN CATEGORY INSTRUMENT PROVISION LE G A L F R A M E W O R K The Local Government Act (1997, Cap 243) Defines roles for different levels of government in provision and management of water, sanitation and environmental activities including: management of forests, wetlands, sanitation facilities, water facilities, and protection of river banks and lake shores. The Land Act (1998 Cap 227) Provides for the tenure, ownership and management of land, and requires a person who owns/occupies land to manage and utilise the land in accordance with the environmental and other laws. The Physical Planning Act (2010) Provides for the establishment of physical planning structures at national, district, urban and local levels for the development and approval of physical development plans. The National Forestry and Tree Planting Act (2003) Provides for the conservation; sustainable management and development; and the use of forests for the benefit of the people of Uganda. The Public Health Act (1935, Cap 281) Consolidates the law in respect to public health, and places duties on the urban and local authorities in matters pertaining to public health, including sanitation management. The National Water and Sewerage Corporation Act (1995, Cap 317) Establishes the National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) as a Water and Sewerage Authority responsible for operating and providing water and sewerage services in areas entrusted to it on a sound commercially viable basis. The KCCA Act (2010) Establishes the Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) as the governing body of the city and lays out its roles and responsibilities which include: managing public health, sanitation, environment protection, drainage and physical planning for the capital city. The Act also provides for the role of the envisaged Metropolitan Physical Planning Authority (Greater Kampala). P O LI C Y D O C U M E N T S The National Climate Change Policy (2015) Ensures a harmonised and coordinated approach towards a climate-resilient and low-carbon development path by supporting actions that promote a green economy and sustainable development. National Policy for the Conservation and Management of Wetland Resources (1995) Promotes conservation of Uganda’s wetlands in order to sustain their ecological and socio-economic functions for the present and future wellbeing of the people. The National Forestry Policy (2001) Promotes establishment of an integrated forest sector to harness economic, social and environmental benefits of forests and trees. The National Health Policy (2010) Advances the delivery of promotive health services including addressing the increasing burden of diseases associated with access to sanitation and safe water. The Uganda National Land Policy (2013) Promotes the efficient, equitable and optimal utilisation and management of Uganda’s land resources for poverty reduction, wealth creation and overall socio economic development. The Uganda Gender Policy (2007) Anchors gender mainstreaming for water, environment and sanitation management. Table 4-2: Other Legal Instruments and Policy Instruments Anchoring the WSAIP 25PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE MoTI MFPED MGLSDMoLG Water Policy Committees • MWE • NEMA • MAAIF • MoTI • MoEMD • MoLG • NWSC Agencies • NEMA • NWSC • NFA Sub-groups • ENR • WSS WESWG NGOs PRIVATE SECTOR Environment Policy Committees • OPM • MWE • MAAIF • MoES • MLHUD • MoFPED • MoH • MoLG • MITT • MGGD De-concentrated Regional Institutions • Technical Support Units (TSUs) • Umbrella Organisations (UOs) • Water Management Zones (WMZs) • Water and Sanitation Development Facility (WSDF) National Level • Monitoring and Assessment • Planning and Regulation • Advice and Facilitation • Laws and Policies • Quality Assurance and Guidance • Capacity Development • Financial Assistance and Funding Regional Level • Monitoring and Assessment • Planning and Regulation • Advice and Facilitation • Laws and Policies • Quality Assurance and Guidance • Capacity Development • Financial Assistance and Funding Community Level • Coordination of management and development activities • Implementation of infrastructure projects and programmes • Operation and Maintenance • Community mobilisation and stakeholder participation ensuring demand-driven implementation • Communications and awareness raising District Local Government • District Water Office (DWO) • District Environment Office (DEO) • District Forestry Office (DFO) • District Directorate of Health Services • District Wetlands Officer • District Education Officer (DEO) Community Based Organisations )CBOs( • Catchment-based Management Organisations (CMOs) • Water User Associations (WUAs) • District Water and Sanitation Coordination Committees (DWSCCs) MWEMAAIF MoH OPMMoEMD MoES DWDDWRM DEA Overall coordination between government, development partners and NGOs Contractors and consultants providing services at national, regional and community level. Represented by UWASNET x 112 Districts Numerous CBOs are required Accountability Advice and facilitation 4.1.2 Institutional Setting The water security institutional framework is the multi-ju risdictional aspect of water resource management and development. The institutional landscape governing the management of water security in Greater Kampala Metro politan Area constitutes of collaborations between various ministries, district local governments, municipal authorities, civil society organisations and the private sector. This fol lows the national institutional set up of the Uganda water sector presented in Figure 4-1. The existing institutional set ting demonstrates that realisation of urban water security requires collaboration across multiple fields (including nat ural resources management, water supply and sanitation, and urban planning), sectors and actors. The Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE) sets the pol icies, standards and priorities for water development and management, whilst monitoring and evaluating sector de velopment programmes to keep track of performance, effi ciency and effectiveness in service delivery. The Ministry of Water and Environment works closely with four national agencies namely; National Water and Sewer age Corporation (NWSC) responsible for the delivery of wa ter supply and sewerage services in urban areas; National Environment Management Authority (NEMA) responsible for coordinating, monitoring, regulating and supervising environment management; National Forest Authority (NFA) with a mandate to manage forest reserves for economic and sustainable development; and Uganda National Me teorological Authority (UNMA) responsible for providing climate-related information to support preparedness and mitigation of associated hazards and risks. The Ministry also provides technical backstopping to lo cal governments through Technical Support Units (TSU), Umbrella Organisations (UO), Water Management Zones (WMZ), and Water and Sanitation Development Facilities (WSDF) at regional level. Local government authorities/mu nicipalities namely; Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA), Entebbe, Mukono, Kira, Nansana and Makindye Ssabagabo are responsible for service delivery except for water supply in designated NWSC areas. Figure 4-1: Institutional Set-up of the Ugandan Water Sector 26 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 4.1.3 National ambitions and Strategic Goals The National Development Vision 2040 (GoU, 2015) sets Uganda’s development strategies as aimed at “Transform ing the Ugandan Society from a Peasant to a Modern and Prosperous Country within 30 years”. These aspirations are implemented through the third Na tional Development Plan (NDP III 2020/21- 2024/25) which emphasises the need to break silos within the government actors and have coordinated planning and implementation to achieve national goals. This aligns with the need for col laboration for a water-secure GKMA. NDP III also supports investment in water security for the economic development of Uganda through its programmes on: climate change; nat ural resources; environment; water management; sustain able urbanisation and housing; private sector development; and community mobilisation and mindset change. Other national ambitions relevant to the WSAIP include the Uganda Green Growth Development Strategy 2017/18 – 2030/31 which aims to operationalise green growth prin ciples to accelerate implementation of the Uganda Vision 2040; Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 6 (UN, 2015); and the Water and Environment Strategic In vestment Plan 2018-2030 (MWE, 2018). 4.1.4 Legal and Institutional Gaps Important changes to the overriding legal and policy frame work have occurred over the last several years. The deliv ery of water and environment resources has been decen tralised to local governments with support and guidance from central government agencies. The management of water resources has shifted to a catchment-based system, with Uganda being divided into water management zones. The institutional setting has also shifted, enabling involve ment of a wider set of stakeholders through initiatives such as the Public Private Partnerships (PPP) Act of 2015 which backs private sector participation in key service delivery sec tors of government. Nevertheless, several gaps still exist, for example: (a) The concept of water security is not recognised in any of the existing water and environment legislative and poli cy frameworks (GOU, 1999). Specific components of water security are construed under various laws and regulations. (b) The existing legal framework does not mandate any one actor to oversee sanitation management. Strategic and policy roles are shared among three ministries name ly; Ministry of Health, Ministry of Water and Environment (MWE), and Ministry of Education and Sports, while ser vice delivery is a mandate of local governments/urban authorities with guidance from the respective ministries. This has created overlaps in institutional mandates and roles, making vertical and horizontal coordination across these various actors a challenge (Komuhangi, 2019; Ekane et al., 2016). (c) Social inclusiveness and attraction of private sector in water and sanitation service delivery remain a challenge, as does the monitoring and enforcement of environmental regulations (WSAIP Technical Report, 2019; Akello, 2007). (d) There is no coordinated strategic planning and invest ment across the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area de spite the gazettement of the GKMA as a special planning area by the government of Uganda in 2013 (GOU, 2017a). The inadequate and ineffective silo approach to planning and overlapping mandates complicates natural resource planning, and management in GKMA (GOU, 2017b; World Bank, 2015). Ongoing efforts to address these gaps include: (a) Updating the National Water Act (1997) and the Na tional Water Policy (1999) to highlight water security as a key issue, reflect the water stewardship approach, and provide legal backing for enhanced private sector partici pation (Tindimugaya, 2020). (b) Development of the Greater Kampala Economic Devel opment Strategy (2017/2025) – currently in draft form – to provide a roadmap for investment to strengthen GKMA’s position as the economic powerhouse to steer Uganda towards middle income status (NPA, 2017). The strategy has prioritised five programme areas namely: investment in competitive economic infrastructure; conservation and protection of environmental assets; transformation of the informal business sector; boosting tourism; and strength ening city and local government service delivery. Nevertheless, to ensure a water-secure future for urban dwellers, there is need to invest in transformative institu tions. 27PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 4.2 Transformative Institutions for a Water-Secure Future These are organisations created to support the effective planning for and management of water and environment risks as the lowest appropriate hydrological unit – catch ment. Operationalisation of catchment organisations is a prerequisite for ensuring a water-secure future given the geopolitical nature of water security threats facing the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. Figure 4-2 illus trates the spatial inconsistency between adminis trative (political) boundaries and the geographical nature of the water and environmental systems at risk in the GKMA. The challenge of managing water security risks based on administrative boundaries is the failure to regulate hydrologic systems of streams and wetlands conveying risks such as pollution and floodwaters from upstream sources to downstream impacted population across administrative units. In many cases municipality/city authorities, divi sion/sub-counties, parish and village leaders have no authority to address water security threats such as pollu tion at a source outside their areas of jurisdiction. The disconnect between the geographic nature of wetlands and river catchments, and adminis trative units and institutions, provides a very difficult regulatory environment to make major improvements in water security. To realise a water-secure future, it is necessary to institute and empower a set of catchment management organisa tions with the authority to implement change on the hy drological and/or environmental system scale in order to improve water security in the upstream and downstream metropolitan area. For example, establishment of a Water Quality Management Organisation to regulate, monitor and invest in pollution control activities across the Inner Mur chison Bay catchment is critical for its healthy functioning. GKMA Rivers GKMA Catchment Boundaries Kampala GKMA Sub-county Boundaries Wakiso District Lake Victoria Mukono District GKMA DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Figure 4-2: Overlay of Administrative and Hydrological Boundaries 28 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 4.3 Multi-sectoral Collaboration for a Water-Secure Future Water security threats are interconnected; they prevail in a complex urban system where individual actors have differ ent goals and interests. Confronting these threats effectively requires collective action from all actors. Therefore, devel opment of the WSAIP followed a multi-stakeholder process to deliver a jointly owned plan that all stakeholders could commit to implement. Over 1500 stakeholders participated in the plan develop ment process (WSAIP Technical Report, 2019). Stakeholder engagement followed the stewardship approach which fos ters dialogue between the private sector (.com), the public/ government (.gov) and civil society/local communities (.org) to: (a) Encourage multi-stakeholder and inter-institutional working relations while aligning individual strategic goals, mandates and responsibilities under one overarching um brella – water security. (b) Foster better appreciation of the water security concept and the need for collective planning and action. (c) Stimulate collective action to address common locally identified water risks and threats. (d) Facilitate greater commitment and “buy-in” from all stakeholders at local, metropolitan and national levels. Public entities such as Ministry of Water and the Environ ment (MWE), National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) and Kampala Capital City Authority (KCCA) support ed the institutionalisation of WSAIP approaches in addition to mainstreaming water security and the stewardship ap proach into policies, strategies and action plans. Civil Soci ety Organisations (ENR-CSO and UWASNET) created aware ness amongst local communities, enabling them to identify household-level water security risks to ensure investment actions suit local needs; and engaged political leaders to garner legislative commitment to the plan. Identification of water security risks facing the industrial and business sec tors was spearheaded by the Uganda Manufacturers Asso ciation (UMA) who also empowered industrialists and busi ness owners to address water security threats at their level. Figure 4-3 summarises key stakeholder groups and institu tions involved in the WSAIP development process. • Ministry of Water and Environment • National Water and Sewerage Corporation • Kampala Capital City Authority • Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development • National Environment Management Authority • National Forest Authority • Office of the Prime Minister (Disaster Preparedness and Management) • National Planning Authority • Uganda Investment Authority • Uganda National Meteorological Authority • Uganda Cleaner Production Centre • Uganda Industrial Research Institute • Local Governments (Town Councils and Municipalities) • Politicians (Mayors and Chief Administrative Officers) • Uganda Bureau of Statistics • Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries • Ministry of Trade, Industry and Cooperatives • Ministry of Tourism, Wildlife and Antiquities • Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development • Private sector associations e.g. UMA, UHOA • Private sector companies (manufacturing industries, hotels, trading enterprises) • Small and Medium Enterprises • Non Governmental Organisations • Community Based Organisations • Networks e.g. UWASNET and ENR CSO • Development partners • Academia (Makerere University) • Research organisations Civil Society Other Private SectorPublic Sector Figure 4-3: Key Stakeholders Involved in Developing the WSAIP 29PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE STAKEHOLDER 1: MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT )DWRM, DWD, DEA, and Climate Change Department( INTERESTS  Sustainable development and management of urban water and environment resources for inclusive growth, employment and wealth creation  Increasing multi-sectoral collaboration between various actors including the private sector  Fostering better understanding of the interrelationship between water, environment and economic growth  Building strong partnerships to enhance water supply and sanitation services in underserved peri-urban areas outside NWSC jurisdiction; restoring and conserving degraded urban ecosystems (wetlands and buffer zones); improving compliance to environ mental regulations; and promoting mitigation and adaption to climate change related risks like floods  Creating transformative institutions to foster multi-stakeholder engagement in planning and implementation CHALLENGES  Insufficient inter-sectoral and interdisciplinary collaboration to leverage human and financial resources for increased impact  Limited investment in social and technological solutions to address various environmental- problems OPPORTUNITIES  Recognition of the role of water and environment in economic development (NDP III & Vision 2040)  Ongoing review of the Water Act and Policy  Success stories and lessons from the application of the stewardship approach in catchment management  Multiple avenues and opportunities for stakeholder engagement  Existing platforms (e.g., PTF) on which to engage private sector and CSOs STAKEHOLDER 2: MINISTRY OF LANDS, HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT INTERESTS  Transforming informal settlements  Integrated urban planning that enables existence of vital ecosystems and fosters inclusiveness CHALLENGES  Uncoordinated planning and development OPPORTUNITIES  Planning at GKMA level fosters inclusiveness STAKEHOLDER 3: NATIONAL WATER AND SEWERAGE CORPORATION )NWSC( INTERESTS  Securing water resources from the effects of urbanisation (pollution) and climate change (drought) to meet current and future demand  Extensive creation of awareness on water security and embedding its agenda in daily operations at sectoral and institutional levels  Ensuring the sustainability of investments through evidenced-based planning and building partnerships to implement mitigation actions  Making water security a national agenda with legal and policy support  Institutionalising water security across the water and environment sector CHALLENGES  Lengthy process of institutionalising water security and WSAIP project outputs  Complexities of making water security a national agenda  Intermittent political support to drive the water security agenda OPPORTUNITIES  Planning tools, pipeline of investments, knowledge and evidence from WSAIP project to support institutionalising water security  Ongoing investment action e.g., Katosi (new water works for NWSC in Mukono) to act as a pilot  Institutional capacity and political interest developed under the WSAIP Table 4-3: Stakeholder Interests, Challenges and Opportunities 30 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN STAKEHOLDER 4: KAMPALA CAPITAL CITY AUTHORITY )KCCA( INTERESTS  Promoting systematic and consistent planning and collaboration for a water-secure future  Reducing public health threats emanating from inadequate access to safe water and sanitation services  Leveraging private sector investments  Preserving urban ecosystems and strengthening governance structures CHALLENGES  Lack of a unitary governance structure to implement GKMA-wide strategies and actions OPPORTUNITIES  WSAIP provides a framework for coordinated planning to achieve SDGs  Platforms e.g., PTF and Mayors Forum that foster collaboration  GKMA Economic Development Strategy Delivery Unit STAKEHOLDER 5: NATIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITY )NPA( INTERESTS  Multi-sectoral planning and action  Operationalising NDP III  Focusing on GKMA to attract investments and enable operationalisation of the Greater Kampala Economic Development Strategy CHALLENGES  Silo approach to planning  Intricacies of forming governance structures at Greater Kampala level OPPORTUNITIES  Operationalisation of NDP III to promote multi-sectoral planning and action  Recognition of GKMA as a single planning unit so as to leverage investments STAKEHOLDER 6: NATIONAL ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY )NEMA( INTERESTS  Reducing pollution loadings entering the environment  Conserving urban ecosystems (wetlands)  Innovating solutions to environmental challenges in urban settings  Fostering integrated land use planning in urban settings CHALLENGES  Unsatisfactory compliance to environment regulations  Societal inclination to maintain the status quo  Conflicting mandates OPPORTUNITIES  Reducing wetland loss is a priority in the national agenda (NDP III)  Opportunities to prioritise the environment as provided by the revised National Environment Act (2019) 31PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE STAKEHOLDER 7: NATIONAL FOREST AUTHORITY )NFA( INTERESTS  Increasing forest and tree cover across the GKMA landscape  Protecting urban forest reserves e.g. Namanve  Harnessing economic benefits of forest resources management and conservation CHALLENGES  Degazetting forest reserves for industrial and infrastructure development OPPORTUNITIES  Increasing forest coverage is a priority in the national agenda (NDP III)  Multi-sectoral interest in tree planting as a climate change mitigation measure STAKEHOLDER 8: MUNICIPAL COUNCILS )KIRA, MAKINDYE, NANSANA, ENTEBBE, MUKONO( INTERESTS  Increasing access to affordable safe water and sanitation services  Incentivising urban ecosystems to promote conservation  Reducing flood risks CHALLENGES  Inadequate information on water security in GKMA OPPORTUNITIES  WSAIP provides a holistic approach to water resources management STAKEHOLDER 9: LOCAL GOVERNMENTS )WAKISO, MUKONO( INTERESTS  Increasing access to safe water and sanitation services  Improving solid waste management by creating wealth from waste  Fostering integrated urban planning  Reducing ecosystem loss to rapid urbanisation  Mobilising concerted efforts to achieve a common goal  Enhancing technical capacities to address water security threats CHALLENGES  Conflicting mandates  Failure to operationalise physical development plans  Inadequate resources OPPORTUNITIES  WSAIP is a good guiding tool to enable stakeholders mobilise resources and operationalise other plans  WSAIP provides a platform on which to mobilise concerted efforts towards a common goal 32 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN STAKEHOLDER 10: UGANDA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION )UMA( INTERESTS  Empowering the private sector to address water security risks using innovative solutions  Strengthening private sector engagement  Promoting collaboration between private sector and the research institutions to enhance innovation for water security CHALLENGES  Fewer avenues for collaboration  Limited investment in innovation OPPORTUNITIES  Expanding the scope of water security beyond GKMA STAKEHOLDER 11: CIVIL SOCIETY )UWASNET & ENR( INTERESTS  Building synergies between politicians, private sector, government, civil society, and communities  Steering individual action towards collective action CHALLENGES  Single, scattered and siloed actions OPPORTUNITIES  Water security issues are well aligned to sector goals STAKEHOLDER 12: ACADEMIA AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH CENTRES INTERESTS  Promoting evidence-based planning to inform policy (investing in information systems and data)  Innovating solutions to water security threats CHALLENGES  Scanty data and information (evidence) OPPORTUNITIES  Multiple universities and research institutions to offer interdisciplinary collaboration 33PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 4.4 Drivers of Future Water Security Threats Water security threats are driven by several external factors. On their own, these drivers do not necessarily diminish water security, however, they do require careful consideration in management decisions to ensure policies developed address these growing pressures. 4.4.1 Population growth and urbanisation Population growth and urbanisation are the most important drivers of water insecurity. As the country’s chief industrial centre and economic zone, the Greater Kampala Metropoli tan Area has one of the world’s fastest growing populations with a combined annual growth rate of 3.9% (NPA, 2017) with the largest growth happening in areas of Mukono and Wakiso as shown in Figure 4-4. The population of Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area is projected to grow from 4 million people in 2019 to 13 mil lion people by 2040 (KCCA, 2012). Higher levels of invest ment in water supply and sanitation are needed to keep up with this population growth. Ecosystems are equally threat ened by encroachment to accommodate growing towns and other land use changes. Current development patterns sug gest both formal and informal settlements will continue to encroach on valuable natural systems, particularly wetlands (World Bank, 2015). 3 3 10 10 6 6 14 14 1 1 9 9 5 5 13 13 4 4 12 12 8 8 2 2 11 11 7 7 15 15 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 1 NAKIVUBO 2 LUBIGI 3 NALUKOLONGO 4 KANSANGA 5 MAYANJA 6 KINAWATAKA 7 NALUBEGA 8 WALUFUMBE 9 MAYANJA NORTH 10 KATONGA 11 NAKALERE 12 NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU 13 KAJJANSI 14 NAMATAMBALA 15 NAKATI / KANYOGOGA >600,000 300,001 - 600,000 200,001-300,000 100,000 - 200,000 >1,000,000 900,001 - 1,000,000 800,001 - 900,000 400,001 - 800,000 300,001 - 400,000 250,000 - 300,000 >20,000 15,001 - 20,000 10,001 - 15,000 5,001 - 10,000 2,000 - 10,000 POPULATION DISTRIBUTION )2019( POPULATION DISTRIBUTION )2040( Population( Population Population Density POPULATION DENSITY )2040( Figure 4-4: Current and Future Population Patterns in GKMA 34 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 4.4.2 Economic Growth Economic growth will put more pressure on water security due to increased industrial activity, increased waste produc tion and water demand. The negative impacts of this can be mitigated if households and industries invest their increased wealth in water security measures. For example, wealthier 4.4.3 Climate Change Climate change exacerbates water security threats by add ing to the variability in natural systems. Uganda’s climate is predicted to be hotter on average in the next 20 to 30 years with more uncertain precipitation, as seen in Figure 4-6, which shows a range of possible future climate change outcomes from the latest output of the In tergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) model. Changes in precipitation over the same period are less cer tain, with some projections indicating a wetter future and others indicating a drier future. However, extreme events are likely to become more frequent. While some of the impacts of these changes may be seen in the near term, it is also possible that the larger impacts will only be seen after 2040. Water security solutions will need to account for potential changes in climate that could 4000 5000 2035 2040 1000 2000 3000 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 )G D P p e r ca p it a ) U S $ in 2 0 1 0 p ri ce s households should be able to pay fees and connect to a sew er system, and industries should invest in on-site secondary water treatment facilities. Figure 4-5 shows the projected economic growth patterns for Greater Kampala Metropol itan Area. intensify existing vulnerabilities. In Greater Kampala Met ropolitan Area, temperatures are projected to increase be tween 0.5 and 3°C, and projected changes in precipitation range from -11% to +34% (Figure 4-7). This indicates that any investment planning needs to be prepared for a hotter and wetter future. Figure 4-5: Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area Economic Growth, 2010 - 2040 35PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE PRECIPITATION TEMPERATURE W E T S C E N A R IO W E T S C E N A R IO D R Y S C E N A R IO D R Y S C E N A R IO 2030 - 2039 2030 - 2039 2020 - 2029 2020 - 2029 0.2 0.5 0.36 0.6 0.52 0.7 0.68 0.8 0.84 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.3 1.6 1.4 1.8 1.5 Figure 4-6: Projected Climate in Uganda by 2040 36 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN A V E R A G E A N N U A L T E M P E R A T U R E ) °C ( 22 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 23 24 25 22.5 23.5 24.5 25.5 AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION )mm( Note: the black point is observed historical data from 1950 to 1999 in Greater Kampala, and blue/green points are average projected temperature and precipitation through the 2035-2045 period in Greater Kampala, where each point represents the projection of a different GCM-RCP combination. The blue and green points are from the RCP8.5 and RCP4.5 emissions pathways, respectively. Source: Cervigni et al. (2015) The combination of projected changes (more heat, more rain) and anticipated increased frequency of severe floods and droughts, generates a range of likely impacts, namely: (a) Flooding: more severe and frequent flood events will negatively affect the poorer populations that live in flood plains and reclaimed wetlands. Increased flood risk will threaten infrastructure throughout Kampala, leading to both repair and disruption costs, and financial losses to in dustries and businesses located in floodplains (Cervigni et al. 2015; Markandya et al., 2015). (b) Sanitation: shallow pit latrines placed in floodplains be come inaccessible during flood events – if these occur more regularly, further contamination of water sources will occur. (c) Water quality: increasing temperatures will cause more rapid growth of bacteria in water sources, leading to harm ful algal blooms and other water quality challenges as cer tain pollutants thrive in warmer waters. (d) Health: waterborne diseases like cholera will occur with more frequency due to increase in occurrence and severity of floods (UN, 2011). (e) Water supply: in northern regions of Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area that already have water availability chal lenges, increasingly frequent droughts will place greater stress on groundwater pumping. Figure 4-7: Projected Climate in GKMA by 2040 Across a Range of Models 37PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 4.5 Evidence-based Decision Support Framework To facilitate planning for a water-secure future, an evi dence-based decision support framework was developed to help stakeholders make transparent informed decisions regarding investments in water security. The decision sup port framework consists of two tools: The Scenario Plan ning Tool (SPT) and the Water Security Investment Model (WaSIM) Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Screening Tool shown in Figure 4-8. The outputs of this framework are not only the list of high priority integrative projects, but also a set of tools that facilitate inter-stakeholder, inter-institution al, and cross-spatial evidence-based integrated investment decisions on water security. SOCIOECONOMIC/ UNCERTAINTY SCENARIOS SPATIAL AND SECTOR WATER SECURITY PRIORITIES REGIONAL WATER SECURITY INDICES AND THREATS LONG LIST OF PROJECTS SHORT LIST OF PROJECTS INITIAL PACKAGES High Priority List of Integrative Projects DECISION MAKERS Additional Elements SCENARIO PLANNING TOOL WaSIM TOOL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT DECISION MAKING Water Security Sectoral and Spatial Priorities and Threats Feasibility Data (e.g. timing, financing, enabling environment, costs) Preferences & Weights MCA USER INTERFACE Water Security Interventions Water Security Threats Expert Screening Water Security Indicators, Indices S T E P 1 : LO N G LIS T TO S H O R T LIS T S T E P 2 : D E V E LO P H IG H P R IO R IT Y LIS T DATA • Geospatial • Demographic • Literature ANALYTICAL ENGINE • Water Quality • Flooding • Public Health • Wetlands Grouping on Outcomes, Complementarity Soft/Hard Aspects Figure 4-8: SPT and WaSIM Decision Support Framework 38 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 4.5.1 The Scenario Planning Tool The SPT is a visual spatial tool designed to provide deci sion-makers with screening-level information on key water security threats like pollution (water quality), flooding, pub lic health and ecosystem loss (e.g., wetlands) at catchment level, for the 15 catchments draining Greater Kampala Met ropolitan Area. The tool presents information on the drivers of water security threats and uses those drivers to project the future status of water security. The SPT also allows stakeholders to explore current and future water security hotspots and select interventions at various levels. This way, they can locate and scale water security interventions and explore how the current and future status would change under different levels of intervention. Figure 4-9 provides an example of the SPT interface which is built in Power BI, a freely available software package from Microsoft. The SPT stores outputs of five model interactions: (a) The Flooding Model translates precipitation and land use information (wetlands and forest coverage) into expect ed peak flow. (b) The Wetland Model uses historical rates of wetland deg radation in Greater Kampala to forecast the likely wetland coverage in 2040. (c) The Water Quality Model estimates biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations in rivers within each catchment and for Inner Murchison Bay, based on expected loadings, land cover and stream flow, and temperature. (d) The Public Health Model relies on literature on the ef fectiveness of clean water supply and improved sanitation to reduce illness and improve labour productivity. (e) The Socio-economic Model uses the outputs of the above four models to estimate three types of economic benefits: (i) GDP measures using macroeconomics obtained from MWE studies on “The Contribution of Water Development and Environment Resources to Uganda’s Economy” disag gregated to Greater Kampala Metropolitan level. (ii) Econometric measures using microeconomics ob tained from local Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area studies and literature. (iii) Social welfare; derived benefits that are reported in non-monetary terms such as employment and access to water or sanitation. Figure 4-9: Example of Scenario Planning Tool User Interface 39PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 4.5.2 The Water Security Investment Model The WaSIM is a Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) tool that utilises an excel-based platform to present infor mation available in the Scenario Planning Tool, along with information on the characteristics of selected investment actions such as project costs, location and benefits, to allow stakeholders make informed decisions about prioritisation of investment projects. Information on threats and poten tial benefits of an action from the Scenario Planning Tool is translated into the WaSIM as potential benefits of each proposed action. Results of the analysis are summarised in tabular and graphical form. Figure 4-10 provides an example of the WaSIM graphical user interface. The Scenario Planning Tool and the WaSIM Multi-criteria Decision Analysis tool on their own do not select high prior ity projects; project selection requires stakeholders and de cision-makers to interact with the evidence so as to choose the best investment actions. Information on user applica tion of the SPT and WaSIM is contained in the WSAIP Tech nical Report (2019). Figure 4-10: Example of Water Security Investment Model Excel Platform 40 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN BOX 4-1. PLANNING FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE Solving interconnected water security challenges in complex urban systems requires collective action by different actors with specific responsibilities towards attaining wa ter security for all. Public Sector MULTI STAKEHOLDER OWNED PLAN (.gov) (.com) (.org)(.gov, .com, .org) Private Sector Civil SocietyTechnical Team 5. INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 42 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 5.1 Strategic Intervention Areas and Scenarios The areas of water security interventions include: water supply and sanitation, urban drainage and flood management, wet land and forest rehabilitation, and institutional strengthening. The main short to medium-term benefits that are provided by water security interventions include: (a) Improved public health due to better sanitation and reduced water pollution. (b) Increased productivity because of reduced flood risk and/or reliable supply of water to households and businesses. (c) Reduced cost of water supply owing to reduced pollution of raw water quality. (d) Improved supply of ecosystem services as a result of restoring and securing the health of aquatic ecosystems, including provision of natural resources (e.g., fisheries), cultural services (e.g., recreation) and regulating services (e.g., water purifica tion, flood mitigation). (e) Improved governance of water and environment resources. This subsection elaborates on the selected intervention areas; demonstrates the consequences of inaction, that is, if invest ment remains at the same level in the future (2040) as it is today (2019) under changing social, economic and climatic condi tions; and highlights potential intervention scenarios. 5.1.1 Strengthening Integrated Evidence-based Planning for a Water-Secure Future 5.1.2 Prevention, Control and Reduction of Surface Water Pollution The WSAIP aims to move investment planning related to water and environment security from an ad hoc siloed approach towards a more transparent evidence-driven in tegrated planning approach. Planning and implementation of water and environment programmes and/or projects remains largely confined within departments along institu tional and sectoral mandates. Subsequently, the synergies and complementarities that could be derived from a more By 2040, surface water quality is projected to deteriorate further as BOD levels increase on average by 142% across the metropolitan river system. Rising BOD levels will lead to a reduction in Dissolved Oxygen resulting in the hypoxia of five river systems (Nakivubo, Nalukolongo, Mayanja North, Namanve and Lubigi), if immediate action is not taken. Increase in BOD will be exacerbated by further reduction in wetland cover; increase in industrial and domestic load ings due to rise in urban population and industrial growth; and climate change. Highest deterioration is projected to occur in sub-catchments draining Kampala city and sur rounding areas namely Nakivubo, Kinawataka, Nalukolongo, Lubigi, Nalubega, Mayanja, Kansanga, Mayanja North and Namanve, as shown in Figure 5-1. Without intervention, the Inner Murchison Bay (IMB) sys tem will not be able to support any form of life as DO is expected to decrease from 72% to 7% by 2040 as BOD levels rise. holistic evidence-based approach are often forfeited, reduc ing project and/or programme impact. According to NPA (2020), uncoordinated approaches to implementation plan ning are unsustainable and counterproductive since isolat ed projects produce minimal to no impact. As stakeholder goals and interests differ, the realisation of a water-secure future necessitates concerted efforts and strengthening ev idence to inform action. Evaluation of pollution control intervention scenarios for the IMB using the SPT indicates that: (a) Reduction of domestic and industrial loadings have very similar impacts on BOD in terms of benefit per percentage reduction; however, the benefit is slightly higher per per centage reduction of industrial loadings. (b) Reduction in industrial and domestic loadings can quick ly improve DO in the IMB. (c) 30% domestic loading reduction or 60% industrial load ing reduction would result in 100% (or near 100%) increase in DO in IMB. (d) The impact of wetland restoration on BOD and DO in In ner Murchison Bay is minimal compared to that of reducing loadings. 5.1.3 Integrated Flood Risk Management Flood peak flows are projected to rise by 180% on average across the metropolitan by 2040. Increase in peak flows is driven by changes in land use i.e., declining wetland and for est cover as a result of increased urbanisation and climate change. Sub-counties likely to be most affected are Naka wa, Central Business District, Makindye, Rubaga, Kawempe, Wakiso TC, Kira MC, Kasangati TC, Bweyogerere, Nansana, and Namugongo as shown in Figure 5-2. 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 250-300 170-249 100-169 50-99 0-49 0-4 5-10 11-45 46-75 80-95 BIOLOGICAL OXYGEN DEMAND )mg/l( BOD )mg/l( DO )%( DISSOLVED OXYGEN )%( ERA IMB BOD )mg/l( 2019 7.62 2040 64.43 ERA IMB DO )%( 2019 71.62 2040 6.84 1 NAKIVUBO 2 LUBIGI 3 NALUKOLONGO 4 KANSANGA 5 MAYANJA 6 KINAWATAKA 7 NALUBEGA 8 WALUFUMBE 9 MAYANJA NORTH 10 KATONGA 11 NAKALERE 12 NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU 13 KAJJANSI 14 NAMATAMBALA 15 NAKATI / KANYOGOGA 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 9.0-10.0 8.0-8.99 6.0-7.99 5.0-5.99 3.0-4.99 2.0-2.18 >400 150-400 100-149 50-99 0-50 RATIO TO NATURAL FLOW Ratio Peak Flow )cfs( PEAK FLOW )cfs( 1 NAKIVUBO 2 LUBIGI 3 NALUKOLONGO 4 KANSANGA 5 MAYANJA 6 KINAWATAKA 7 NALUBEGA 8 WALUFUMBE 9 MAYANJA NORTH 10 KATONGA 11 NAKALERE 12 NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU 13 KAJJANSI 14 NAMATAMBALA 15 NAKATI / KANYOGOGA Evaluation of flood mitigation intervention scenarios using the SPT indicates that: (a) Wetland restoration would result in about 30% reduction in peak flows. (b) Forest conversion and/or restoration would reduce peak flows by nearly 10%. Figure 5-1: Future Pollution Hotspots (BAU Scenario) Figure 5-2: Future Flood Hotspots (BAU Scenario) 44 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 5.1.4 Solid Waste Reduction Current estimates indicate that on average urban dwellers in Greater Kampala generate about 1kg of waste per person per day. Approximating a population of 4 million people sug gests that 4,000 tonnes of waste is generated per day, 50% of which is collected and disposed of (NPA, 2017). The projected population growth of 13 million people by 2040 would increase the amount of waste generated per day to 13,000 tonnes. Without intervention (reducing the amount of waste generated and improving collection and recycling rates), about 11000 tonnes of solid waste will end up in drainage channels, wetlands, and water bodies, exac erbating surface water pollution and flooding. 5.1.6 Water Supply and Sanitation By 2040, 1.5 million people will have no access to safe water, and about 800,000 people will not have essential sanitation services across the metropolitan if investment in water sup ply and sanitation services remains at current levels. As the population grows, most of the sanitation and water supply needs will be experienced in peri-urban areas such as Kira, Kasangati, Gombe, Nabweru, Mende, Wakiso TC, Kyengera TC, Namugongo, Ndejje, Masajja and Goma as settlements 5.1.5 Ecosystem Change The region-wide wetland total is expected to drop to 64 square kilometres in 2040, only a third of the 1996 cov erage. High wetland loss is expected in the northern and southern parts of the metropolitan in areas of Kira, Kasanga ti, Gombe, Mende, Wakiso, Nansana, Kyengera, Bweyoger ere, Bunamwaya, Masajja, Makindye, Ndejje, among others as shown in Figure 5-3. 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 10.1-30.0 6.1-10.0 2.8-6.0 2.0-2.7 0.1-1.9 80-86 70-79 50-69 40-49 2-39 WETLAND AREA )km2( Wetland Area )km2( % Area from 1996 PERCENTAGE WETLAND AREA FROM 1996 1 NAKIVUBO 2 LUBIGI 3 NALUKOLONGO 4 KANSANGA 5 MAYANJA 6 KINAWATAKA 7 NALUBEGA 8 WALUFUMBE 9 MAYANJA NORTH 10 KATONGA 11 NAKALERE 12 NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU 13 KAJJANSI 14 NAMATAMBALA 15 NAKATI / KANYOGOGA expand to areas further away from the city as shown in Fig ure 5-4. Under the business-as-usual scenario (0% of the coverage gap closed) there are about four times as many diarrhoeal cases from inadequate water supply than inadequate sani tation. Figure 5-3: Future Wetland Extent - Loss Hotspots (BAU Scenario) 45INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 3 10 6 14 1 9 5 13 4 12 8 2 11 7 15 SANITATION - UNCOVERED PERSONS WATER SUPPLY - UNCOVERED PERSONS 1 NAKIVUBO 2 LUBIGI 3 NALUKOLONGO 4 KANSANGA 5 MAYANJA 6 KINAWATAKA 7 NALUBEGA 8 WALUFUMBE 9 MAYANJA NORTH 10 KATONGA 11 NAKALERE 12 NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU 13 KAJJANSI 14 NAMATAMBALA 15 NAKATI / KANYOGOGA UNCOVERED PERSONS )SANITATION( 70,001 - 120,000 41,000 - 70,000 <41,000 100,001 - 250,000 70,000 - 100,000 <70,000 UNCOVERED PERSONS )WATER SUPPLY( 5.2 Benefits of Intervening at Present Reducing 50% domestic loadings and 100% industrial load ings entering Inner Murchison Bay would return US$ 1.3 million and US$ 2.64 million respectively, per year, in water quality benefits on investment even without considering cli mate change (current scenario). When the effects of climate change are considered (future scenario), reducing pollution loadings would generate economic benefits amounting to US$ 1.33 million dollars and US$ 4.17 million dollars per year, at 50% and 100% intervention levels respectively. Fig ure 5-5 summarises the economic benefits derived from re ducing pollution loadings entering IMB by catchment. NAKIVUBO KANSANGA MAYANJA KINAWATAKA NAMANVE / BUMBUBUMBU M IL LI O N U S D P E R A N N U M 0.0 2.0 0.5 2.5 1.0 3.0 1.5 Current 50% )No Climate Change( Future 50% )Climate Change(Current 100% )No Climate Change( Future 100% )Climate Change( Figure 5-4: Future Unserved Populations - Hotspots (BAU Scenario) Figure 5-5: Economic Benefits of Reducing Domestic and Industrial Loadings into IMB 46 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN Table 5-1 summarises total economic benefits (Million US$ per annum) derived from reducing flood risks, increasing water supply and sanitation, reducing industrial and domes tic loadings and rehabilitating ecosystems (wetlands and forests) in the metropolitan. The SPT shows the economic benefits for intervention by catchment and allows stakeholders to formulate various intervention scenarios and corresponding benefits. In a nutshell, investing now delivers more benefits than in the future. Table 5-1: Economic Benefits of Intervention (US$ Million Per Year) at Metropolitan Scale INTERVENTION LEVEL ERA FLOOD REDUCTION WETLANDS VALUE WASH WATER QUALITY TOTAL BENEFITS 50% CURRENT )No Climate Change( 11.3 131 717 3.8 864 FUTURE )Climate Change( 13.4 184 1,098 4.0 1,298 100% CURRENT )No Climate Change( 16.3 262 1,434 7.7 1,721 FUTURE )Climate Change( 13.4 184 1,098 4.0 1,298 5.3 Policy Options )Evidence-based( This subsection presents various intervention options to enable stakeholders address key water security threats facing Great er Kampala Metropolitan Area. The SPT provides different combinations of actions from which stakeholders can choose to achieve a certain goal. The targets and selected combinations reflect stakeholder choices. 5.3.1 Reaching Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations of 85% by 2040 in IMB Policy options for improving water quality by increasing Dissolved Oxygen in the Inner Murchison Bay (action area) by 85% in 2040 (under climate change) are presented in Tables 5-2 and 5-3. Table 5-2: Policy Option 1 - Reaching 85% Dissolved Oxygen in 2040 (Under Climate Change) LOADING REDUCTION WETLANDS RESTORATION INNER MURCHISON BAY DISSOLVED OXYGEN Domestic Industrial 30% 80% 60% 85.6% 60% 40% 60% 85.3% 90% 0% 60% 85.2% 90% 0% 70% 85.9% 47INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE The recommended policy goal for improving water quality in the IMB based on multi-stakeholder choice is reducing domestic and industrial loading by 30% and 80% respectively, and restoring 20% of the degraded wetlands in the IMB catchment. Table 5-3: Policy Option 2 - Reaching ~85% Dissolved Oxygen with no more than 20% Wetland Restoration in 2040 (Under Climate Change) LOADING REDUCTION WETLANDS RESTORATION INNER MURCHISON BAY DISSOLVED OXYGEN Domestic Industrial 90% 0% 20% 82.4% 60% 40% 20% 82.4% 30% 80% 20% 82.7% 70% 30% 20% 88.2% 40% 70% 20% 88.8% 80% 20% 20% 94.1% 50% 60% 20% 94.9% 20% 100% 20% 95.0% 5.3.2 Reducing Peak Flows by about 40% in 2040 Table 5-4 presents policy options for reducing flooding by about 40% in 2040. Further reduction in flood peaks would require investment in blue-green infrastructure. Table 5-4: Reaching 40% Peak Flow Reduction FOREST CONVERSION & RESTORATION WETLAND RESTORATION PEAK FLOW REDUCTION 0% 80% 38% 9% 70% 39% 9% 80% 42% 12% 60% 36% 12% 70% 40% 15% 60% 37% 15% 70% 42% 18% 60% 38% The recommended policy goal for reducing flooding based on multi-stakeholder choice is converting 12% of developed land into forests (tree cover) and rehabilitating and/or re storing 70% of the degraded wetland ecosystems. 5.3.3 Reduce WASH-related healthcare spend ing by 50% by 2030 Policy options for reducing avoidable health care spending on Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) related diseases by 50% by 2030 are presented in Table 5-5. Table 5-5: Reducing Avoidable Healthcare Spending by 50% by 2030 CLOSURE OF SANITATION COVERAGE GAP CLOSURE OF WATER SUPPLY COVERAGE GAP % REDUCTION 3-High (75%) 1-Low (25%) 41.4% 1-Low (25%) 2-Med (50%) 41.8% 4-Full (100%) 1-Low (25%) 49.5% 2-Med (50%) 2-Med (50%) 50.0% 0-None (0%) 3-High (75%) 50.5% 3-High (75%) 2-Med (50%) 58.2% 1-Low (25%) 3-High (75%) 58.6% The recommended policy goal for reducing healthcare spending on WASH-related diseases based on multi-stake holder choice is closing the sanitation coverage gap and wa ter supply coverage gap by 50% each by 2030. 48 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 5.4 Strategic Goals and Objectives The journey to a more water-secure state requires incremental, reflective and adaptive developments which in turn call for clear goals and priorities while conceiving and establishing infrastructural investments and projects. During implementation, the priorities ought to be reassessed and revised against the overarching objectives. The WSAIP sets six (6) strategic goals to support the realisation of a water-secure future in the short (2030) to medium (2040) term. These six goals should be included in national and sector development plans, and used to inform subsequent financing and budget allocation. The goals are based on stakeholder consensus aligned to sector, institutional and political goals, and backed by evidence generated in the scenario planning tool. 5.4.1 Strategic Goal 1 TO INSTITUTIONALISE WATER SECURITY AND ITS DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS This involves embedding the concept and processes of water security into institutions at local and national level; sec tor-wide goals, strategies and policies; and into the society. The objective of institutionalisation is to transform water security from a concept into practice. Specific actions (2020 – 2025): (a) Formulate a Water Security Task Force/Working Group (WSTF/WG) to oversee the formation of an inter-govern mental structure to support implementation of the WSAIP as well as facilitate dialogue on water security at national level. (b) Establish an ad hoc inter-institutional Water Security Technical Unit (WSTU) of about 10 personnel across GKMA stakeholders to coordinate implementation of WSAIP actions at institutional level and to develop proficiency in the use and application of the decision support tools. (c) Invest in capacity building for the WSTU and local analysts through a six-month training on water security and its decision-support tools. (d) Establish a bi-annual Water Security Forum which seeks to foster dialogue among GKMA stakeholders, deci sion-makers, and development partners. (e) Establish a multi-stakeholder Water Security Investment Committee (WSIC), to work with the WSTU, and support ed by the Water Security Investment Model (WaSIM) to facilitate the design, funding and implementation of a set of priority projects from the thirteen projects identified in the WSAIP process. (f) Empower stakeholders to collect data and information on water security risks as well as the application and utilisa tion of decision support tools to inform investment decisions. 5.4.2 Strategic Goal 2 TO REDUCE POLLUTION LOADINGS ENTERING INNER MURCHISON BAY While the primary objective of this goal is to reduce the amount of pollution loadings entering Inner Murchison Bay (IMB), this in turn prompts the goal to increase Dissolved Oxygen concentrations in the bay by 85% by 2040. Specific actions: (a) 30% reduction in domestic pollution loadings into IMB. Reducing domestic loadings would require doubling sewer network connections, extending the sewer network, and increasing access to faecal sludge treatment services for on-site systems. (b) 80% reduction in industrial pollution loadings into IMB. (c) 20% increase in wetland extent in the IMB catchment. 49INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR A WATER-SECURE FUTURE 5.4.3 Strategic Goal 3 TO INCREASE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL AND RECYCLING BY 50% BY 2030 The objective of this goal is to reduce the volume of unsafe solid waste entering the environment. Specific actions: (a) 50% increase in solid waste collection and disposal services in the metropolitan. (b) Doubling existing solid waste recycling efforts. 5.4.4 Strategic Goal 4 TO DAMPEN FLOOD PEAK FLOWS IN HOTSPOT AREAS BY 40% BY 2040 THROUGH SUSTAINED INVEST MENT IN BLUE-GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE The objective of this goal is to reduce the frequency and impact of urban flooding across the metropolitan. Specific actions: (a) Conservation of existing wetland ecosystems and rehabilitation of 70% of the degraded wetland hotspots to re claim wetland extent relative to that of 1996. (b) Conversion of 12% of urban land into forest land – increase tree/forest coverage across the metropolitan. (c) Investment in blue-green infrastructure to increase storm water capture and retention. (d) Promotion of integrated urban planning and development to control growth of informal settlements. 5.4.5 Strategic Goal 5 TO INCREASE WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION COVERAGE IN POORLY SERVED AREAS BY 50% BY 2030 The objective of this goal is to improve the quality of public health by providing adequate supply of safe water and access to essential sanitation services particularly in poorly served areas. Specific actions: (a) 50% increase in sanitation coverage to enable access to over 142,048 and 394,702 unserved urban dwellers in 2019 and 2040 respectively. This would reduce healthcare costs on diarrhoeal diseases by about US$ 1.1 million per annum in 2040. (b) 50% increase in water supply services across the metropolitan to provide access to about 580,501 and 709,021 unserved urban dwellers in 2019 and 2040 respectively. This would reduce healthcare costs on diarrhoeal diseases by about US$ 2.2 million per annum in 2040. 5.4.6 Strategic Goal 6 TO STRENGTHEN THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK TO ENABLE MULTI-SECTORAL INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATION TO ADDRESS WATER SECURITY RISKS AT THE HYDROLOGIC/ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS SCALE. The objective of this goal is to promote the integrated management of land, water and ecosystems across the metro politan area. Specific actions: (a) Establish and operationalise the Inner Murchison Bay Catchment Water Quality Management Organisation by 2025. (b) Establish at least one multi-stakeholder partnership each year to address water security threats (.org, .gov & .com). 50 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN BOX 5-1. SUMMARY ON INVESTMENT OPTIONS FOR A WATER SECURE FUTURE Investing in water security is not a one-off expenditure but rather an ongoing commit ment requiring stakeholders to continuously identify and prioritise investments based on the magnitude of water security risks. The Scenario Planning Tool provides different combinations of actions from which stakeholders can choose to achieve a certain goal/ target. The six investment goals identified by stakeholders include: Goal 01 To institutionalise water security and its decision support tools. Goal 02 To reduce pollution loadings entering Inner Murchison Bay, so as to increase Dissolved Oxygen concentrations by 85% by 2040. Goal 03 To increase solid waste collection and recycling by 50% by 2030. Goal 04 To dampen peak flows in flood hotspot areas by 40% by 2040, through sustained investment in blue-green infrastructure. Goal 05 To increase water supply and sanitation coverage in poorly served areas by 50% by 2030. Goal 06 To strengthen the institutional framework to enable multi sectoral inter-institutional collaboration to address water security risks at the hydrologic/environmental systems scale. 6. IMPLEMENTATION 52 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN This section summarises the implementation of the WSAIP. This includes a pipeline of investment actions, proposed gover nance structure, financing, monitoring and evaluation strategies. 6.1 Recap – The Water Security Action and Investment Plan The Water Security Action and Investment Plan (WSAIP) provides a framework of approaches and tools to support short and long-term planning for water security, the evi dence to catalyse investments, and a prioritised pipeline of well-developed water security investment opportunities to address water security challenges facing Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area (GKMA). It comprises a series of actions and investments to enable stakeholders collectively address and monitor water secu rity risks at local and metropolitan scale. Focus is on water risks and opportunities, and specific actions meant to miti gate their negative effects and/or realise their positive ef fects. The WSAIP is not intended to replace other planning docu ments or initiatives of the Government of Uganda such as NDP III, sub national district or urban plans in the GKMA. Neither is it meant to stand alone as ‘another plan’. Rather, it is intended to feed established plans with well-grounded and stakeholder-led diagnostics and analysis; specific goals and strategies; prioritised actions; and tools to help guide decision-making. It has adopted a participatory approach given the complexity, uncertainties, diverse stakeholder groups, multiple objectives, and combinations of solutions needed. It provides Decision Support Tools (SPT and the WaSIM) to help define and visualise the potential conse quences of combined actions over many plausible scenarios (Section 5). The successful institutionalisation of the WSAIP into an established planning process will require the coordination and leadership of an array of Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDA) at national and local levels, as well as the support of the private sector and civil society. This will be essential to align policies, actions and investments. Coordination and governance around water security and related social needs in GKMA have been a challenge in the past with disjointed investments and programmes that do not harness and optimise economic, environment and wa ter synergies. To resolve this, the WSAIP proposes a coordi nation mechanism which should be incorporated into the NDP process. However, whilst good coordination will bet ter enable the WSAIP to be institutionalised and integrated into existing national and regional planning processes, the ambitions laid out will not be achieved unless they are ad equately funded. There is a variety of financial instruments available to better link water security investments to the projected socio-eco nomic benefits but it is the development of financial man agement capacity at multiple levels of government that will play a key role in responding to these opportunities. The WSAIP outlines the multiple socio-economic benefits of water security (Section 3) and provides a framework to enable decision-makers understand the opportunities and trade-offs of investing in one area versus another (Section 4). However, allocating adequate resources to the priorities outlined in the WSAIP under the existing national financing and budgeting framework may not be possible, therefore harnessing private sector investment will be central to its implementation. 6.2 Pipeline of Investment Opportunities To realise a water-secure future in the GKMA requires in vestment estimated to amount to US$ 4.3 billion. However, investing in water security is not a once-off expenditure but an ongoing commitment. The WSAIP adopts a project-based approach to investment planning using the Water Security Action and Investment Framework. The selection of high priority projects from numerous op tions should be evidence-driven, efficient and streamlined. The World Bank has developed one such approach, called the Infrastructure Prioritisation Framework (IPF), to support governments select investment projects using minimum relevant information given the limited institutional and/or technical capacity to undertake full social and economic benefit assessments (Marcelo et al., 2016). The process uti lises partial project-level information; known project costs; and information on social, environmental and other risks. In order to move investment planning for water security from the ad hoc approach currently used at institutional and sec tor levels, towards a more evidence-driven, integrative ap proach, the IPF was adopted. The following subsection sum marises the selection process and presents a consolidated list of investment actions. 53IMPLEMENTATION 6.2.1 Screening and Selection of Investment Actions To select holistic, socially acceptable, economically via ble and impactful solutions that address multiple threats to water security, a systematic process was followed. This involved formulation of a long list of project ideas, screen ing of the long list to form a short list using multi-criteria analysis, and consolidation of the short list. Figure 6-1 sum marises how the long list of investment ideas was generated through multiple stakeholder ideation meetings and review of institutional plans and strategies. Project ideas were rat ed by stakeholders and independent experts assigned to each of the four criteria. 21st June 2019 CSO IDEATION WORKSHOP 20th May to 15th July 2019 BILATERAL ENGAGEMENTS Development Partners )EU( 1st May to 25th July 2019 BILATERAL FOLLOW-UP MEETINGS & LITERATURE ANALYSIS 28th May 2019 TECHNICAL TEAM IDEATION WORKSHOP 29th May 2019 & 4th July 2019 PRIVATE SECTOR IDEATION WORKSHOP 30th July 2019 25th June to 10th July 2019 INTERNAL IDEATION MEETINGS Lead Partners & Line Agencies Figure 6-1: Ideation Process – Long List of Project Ideas 54 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN The evaluation criteria utilised consisted of four main fac tors: environmental quality improvement, socio-economic benefits, public health improvement and project character istics and sustainability. Generated project scores were subjected to average weights to obtain weighted scores. Table 6-1 summarises the criteria weights used, that is, the measure of importance stakehold ers attached to each criterion. Table 6-1: Importance Attached to each Evaluation Criterion CRITERION INDIVIDUAL STAKEHOLDER WEIGHTS MULTI-STAKEHOLDER WEIGHTS CSOS MWE )MDAS( KCCA )LGS( UMA NWSC OVERALL Environmental Quality Improvement 37% 32% 27% 32% 40% 33% 32% Socio-economic Benefits 16% 23% 25% 28% 15% 22% 36% Public Health Improvement 19% 25% 37% 21% 23% 25% 12% Project Characteristics and Sustainability 28% 20% 12% 20% 22% 20% 19% The results of the scoring exercise were combined and used to select a short list of 20 investment ideas. For each project, both an impact score and feasibility score were generated. Projects with “high impact and high practi cality” were considered as most effective selections (circled in orange in Figure 6-2). However, often in decision-making, there are additional fac tors beyond highest expected benefits or feasibility scores, F E A S IB IL IT Y S CO R E 1 1 2 3 4 5 3 5 2 4 IMPACT SCORE All Projects Top 20 Scored Priority Area Constrained Figure 6-2: Scoring Array for Investment Ideas that constrain project choice. Stakeholders in some cases desired a project or portfolio of projects that addressed spe cific threats in identified hydrological hotspots, for example, pollution control in Inner Murchison Bay (IMB). The list of 20 highest-scoring projects was further consoli dated using feedback from stakeholders; taking into consid eration complementarity and intended outcomes to maxi mise impact and encourage multi-stakeholder partnerships in project planning and implementation. Table 6-2 presents the final list of 13 consolidated projects. These constitute the pipeline of investment actions. The projects cut across water supply and sanitation, water resources management, catchment and ecosystem man agement, pollution control, community empowerment and land use planning. Together, they promote an integrated ap proach to address water security threats at a metropolitan scale, and contribute towards the achievement of the six strategic goals of the WSAIP. Further refinement – prioritisation (STEP 2) – using the Water Security Investment Model (WaSIM) to generate a priority list of integrated actions enabling stakeholders to implement the most impactful projects first, will be under taken during the first phase of implementation. Further de scription of the project selection and prioritisation process using WaSIM, and full project concept notes, are found in the WSAIP Technical Report (2019). 55IMPLEMENTATION GREATER KAMPALA INTEGRATED URBAN CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT PROJECT PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER Ministry of Water and Environment in collaboration with with all stakeholders. LOCATION Catchments: Nakivubo, Lubigi, Nalukolongo, Kansanga, Mayanja, Kinawataka, Nalubega, Walu fumbe and Mayanja North. Lake fronts: Sissa and Ggaba. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To promote integrated planning for management of urban water and environment resources at a catchment scale. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE The degradation of urban catchments around Lake Victoria has contributed to deterioration of surface water quality in the Inner Murchison Bay, a main abstraction point for Kampala and sur rounding areas. This is exacerbated by silo planning that has contributed to the uncoordinated development of land and water resources in Greater Kampala. Hence there is need for promotion of an integrated approach for sustainable planning and resource use, if a water-secure future is to be achieved in GKMA. THEORY OF CHANGE Promotion of evidence-based integrated water resource management and planning approach as opposed to ad hoc and silo planning. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Development of eight catchment management plans and operationalisation of catchment management institutions in at least two catchments. 2 Livelihood enhancement through development and management of urban water resourc es: Developing lakefront tourism and management of lake buffer zones; revamping Kaba ka’s lake as an eco-tourism site; establishment of agricultural zones around urban munic ipalities; promoting aquaculture innovations and improving fish landing sites; and setting up a revolving fund to support alternative livelihood opportunities for the urban poor. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to directly and indirectly benefit 4.8 million people in and around the selected 8 catch ments with: 1 Improved knowledge base for ecosystem asset management in GKMA. 2 Increased investments in natural resources e.g., for tourism. 3 Increased income from identified priority investment projects. 4 Creation of approximately 2,129 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION LAND USE AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 23,153,781 )+/-( 78,380,000 )+/-( 5.49 : 1 Table 6-2: Pipeline of Water Security Investment Projects 56 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN SCALING UP SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS IN GREATER KAMPALA PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER National Environment Management Authority in collaboration with Kampala Capital City Au thority and Local Governments. LOCATION Kitezi, Nkumba,Entebbe, Makindye-Ssabagabo, Menvu, Nansana, Kira, Kasangati, Kakoola, Kawempe, Nakawa, Makindye, Wakiso TC, Mukono, Kyengera and Kajjansi. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To reduce the volume of solid waste permeating the environment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE Currently only 50% of the 4000 tonnes of waste generated per day is collected and disposed of safely. Uncollected solid waste ends up in drainage channels, streams, lakes, rivers and wetlands of GKMA; becoming detrimental to public health and causing flooding. Thus, improving solid waste management is of significant benefit to both water quality and flood control in GKMA. THEORY OF CHANGE Upscaling of circular economy solutions through public-private partnerships, to improve efficien cy and effectiveness of municipal solid waste management systems in GKMA. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Cultivating the efficiency and effectiveness of municipal solid waste management systems in GKMA through; constructing and operationalising four satellite sites as primary stations for collection, sorting and transfer of organised waste; equipping the municipalities with collection and transportation tools while supporting effective management of collection centres; and implementing behavioural change campaigns. 2 Strengthening an enabling environment for public-private partnerships through; devel opment of legal and institutional instruments to deliver sustainable solid waste manage ment services under the private, public and civil society partnerships; and developing of a GKMA-wide solid waste management strategy. 3 Upscaling implementation of circular economy solutions by: developing innovation hubs for plastics and organic recycling; piloting and promotion of community waste banks in cluding models managed by Community-Based organisations (CBOs); championing pub lic-private business models for waste reuse and recycling for particularly e-waste and plastics; and promoting industrial symbiosis. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to directly and indirectly benefit 2 million people around GKMA with: 1 Improved enabling environment for private sector participation in solid waste management. 2 Reduced flooding and environmental pollution from solid waste. 3 Creation of approximately 6,444 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 70,224,657 )+/-( 5,800,000 )+/-( 1.16 : 1 02 57IMPLEMENTATION ACCELERATING ACCESS TO ADEQUATE AND EQUITABLE WATER SUPPLY PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER National Water and Sewerage Corporation in collaboration with the Ministry of Water and Envi ronment and Local Governments. LOCATION Geo-political boundaries: Kasanje Subcounty, Kyengera TC, Kajjansi TC, Bunamwaya, Ndejje, Kat abi, Wakiso TC, Mukono Municipality, Nama Subcounty, Nabweru, Gombe, Kawempe, Lubaga, Nansana, Kira, Kasangati, Makindye Ssabagabo and Nakawa. Intakes: Entebbe, Katosi and/or Gabba. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To increase access to safe water in GKMA. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE Nearly 1.2 million people have no access to clean and safe water in different areas around GKMA. Safe water supply is threatened by water quality concerns and limited access to infrastructure. Increasing investment in integrated water supply is critical to ensuring adequate quantities and acceptable quality of water to the growing population and economy of GKMA. THEORY OF CHANGE Promotion of integrated water supply systems together with coordinated ventures between NWSC and Central Umbrella of Water and Sanitation (CUWS). PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Increasing access to potable water by: laying 180 Km of distribution pipes and installing 1500 new connections in unserved areas of 13 sub-counties/divisions of GKMA; laying 220 km of transmission and distribution pipe network with installation of 700 new con nections in 11 poorly served areas of GKMA (especially informal settlements); and estab lishment of a phone-based payment system to increase affordable access. 2 Increasing reliability of water supply in dry zones by: boosting water production at Ggaba by 35,000 m³/day and Entebbe by 10,000 m³/day; retooling Central Umbrella of Water and Sanitation (CUWS) with water-loss detection equipment, basic equipment for plumbing, ICT enhancement, network mapping, and spare-parts management. 3 Enhancing catchment management and source protection for reliable water supply through development and implementation of plans to conserve and protect at least two (2) intakes. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to directly and indirectly benefit 2.1 million people around GKMA with: 1 Reduced cost of water; from UGX 300 – 1000 to UGX 50 per jerrican. 2 Less prevalence of water-related illness and down time. 3 Increased safe water supply from an average of 8-12 hours to 24 hours per day. 4 Creation of approximately 17,864 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 10 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 151,789,054 )+/-( 869,944,536 )+/-( 2.7 : 1 03 58 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN GREATER KAMPALA URBAN FOREST ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER National Forestry Authority in collaboration with Ministry of Water and Environment, and Local Governments. LOCATION Busukuma, Mpanga, Kampiringisa, Kira, Kasanje, Koome, Bweyogerere Division A, Goma Division, Kajjansi TC, Katabi TC, Kiringente, Kyengera TC, Nama, Ndejje, Mukono, Nansana, Bunamwaya, Kasangati, and Makindye Ssabagabo. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To promote sustainable utilisation of forest resources while reducing storm water and surface runoff. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE Destabilised soil and increased runoff, erosion, siltation and flooding in the low-lying areas result majorly from massive deforestation and the emergence of impervious surfaces on hill tops and slopes due to expanding urban developments in GKMA. Over the years, forested land area in Kampala has reduced from 7.6% to 0.4%, which has reduced its ecological functioning for runoff control. Thus, increasing urban forested land to at least 12% will significantly reduce runoff and, eventually, urban flooding. THEORY OF CHANGE Promotion of blue-green investments to minimise flooding. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Promotion of holistic sustainable management of forest landscapes at the catchment and sub-catchment levels by: demarcating 115 km of forest boundary; conserving 1000 Ha of forest; earmarking 200 Ha for forest development; and implementation of new forest management approaches such as promotion of eco-tourism in government forest reserves. 2 Promoting urban forest eco-tourism through development of forest parks and recreation centres in three selected forest reserves. 3 Promoting private forest management through: establishment of 1000 Ha of private for est; designing an incentive mechanism and contract to attract private sector investment in tree planting; and establishment of 29 green avenue road reserves totalling 250km. PROJECT BENEFITS The impact of this project will include: 1 15% tree cover of urban land. 2 Increased sustainable urban drainage land cover and at least 20% reduction in drainage silting, dredging and runoff. 3 Creation of approximately 1,806 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION LAND AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 12,430,573 )+/-( 83,272,000 )+/-( 10.61 04 59IMPLEMENTATION PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS FOR FAECAL SLUDGE MANAGEMENT )FSM( PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER National Water and Sewerage Corporation in collaboration with Kampala Capital City Authority, Municipal Councils and private emptiers’ associations. LOCATION Mukono, Entebbe, Kira, Makindye-Ssabagabo, Kasangati, Nansana and Wakiso Division. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To promote inclusive Faecal Sludge Management (FSM) for reduced domestic faecal pollution loadings and associated public health risks. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE Over 92% of the population in GKMA have access to basic sanitation (a toilet). However, safe handling and treatment of faecal sludge remains a challenge particularly in low-income areas. In Kampala, only 53% of faecal sludge generated daily is emptied and safely managed; the rest ends up in open drains, contaminating water sources. The municipalities in the GKMA cannot meet the FSM needs of their residents due to insufficient resources and technical capacity signifying the need for private sector involvement. THEORY OF CHANGE Faecal Sludge Management at or closest to the point of generation, while improving livelihoods through creating and safeguarding jobs, and stimulating private sector investments. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Leveraging private sector investments in scaling up FSM services and promoting liveli hood opportunities across the FSM value chain by: formalising and regulating 60% of the existing faecal sludge collection and transport (FSC&T) service providers in GKMA; increasing the current asset base for eligible private emptiers by 50% using a low interest credit facility; setting up two (2) transfer stations for every 6 municipalities of GKMA; ag gregating the market through scheduled emptying programmes to leverage the resultant economies of scale for lower emptying costs and confirmed market; and scaling up three (3) full cost recovery business models for FSM. 2 Developing a functioning decentralised FSM system for treatment and disposal that will include: constructing a support network of three (3) small decentralised treatment plants in Kira, Nansana and Seeta; and constructing 12 model public sanitation facilities in the identified municipalities to demonstrate solid waste and grey water treatment and dis posal in addition to proper FSM and sanitation behaviour. 3 Strengthening the institutional and legal framework for enhanced compliance to on-site sanitation standards and awareness of FSM through development of ordinances to regu late FSM services in the municipalities of Mukono, Entebbe, Kira, Makindye and Nansana; and community sensitisation and training in FSM. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to benefit 3 million people in the low-income/slum areas relying on unsewered sanita tion services, with: 1 Reduced incidence of diarrhoeal diseases and related healthcare costs, and reduced fae cal pollution loading. 2 Increased private sector involvement and investments in FSM; approximately 9,064 jobs will be created. THEMATIC AREA DURATION WATER SUPPLY AND SANITATION 10 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 98,774,011 )+/-( 869,944,536 )+/-( 2.7 : 1 05 60 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN GREATER KAMPALA WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PROJECT PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER National Water and Sewerage Corporation in collaboration with Kampala Capital City Authority, Mukono and Kira town councils. LOCATION Geo-political boundaries: Kira Municipality, Kamwokya, Mulago, Katanga, Bwaise, Mukono, Nansana, Entebbe and Namanve. Catchments: Nakivubo, Lubigi, Kinawataka and Bumbubumbu (Namanve). PROJECT OBJECTIVE To increase the volume of treated effluent for reduced surface water pollution. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE Only about 10% of the population in Kampala is served by the existing public sewer system; the rest depend on on-site sanitation facilities with limited capacity and infrastructure to manage faecal sludge. On the other hand, most industries have low compliance to wastewater discharge standards; they discharge untreated and partially treated effluent directly into surface water bod ies especially within the IMB. All this contributes to the decreasing water quality in the IMB; thus reducing domestic and industrial loading is critical to improving water quality for GKMA. THEORY OF CHANGE Promotion of decentralised wastewater treatment while upgrading existing plants. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Improvement of sanitation facilities in congested and densely populated informal settle ments by laying 40 km of communal sewer network to serve 40,000 residents; and estab lishment of 1500 sewer connections to serve about 8,000 households. 2 Expansion of wastewater treatment plants and construction of combined sewers in se lected regions. This will involve: upgrading the Entebbe wastewater treatment plant to serve about 70,000 people; and construction of a combined wastewater and faecal sludge treatment plant at Mukono and Kira municipalities to serve about 700,000 people. 3 Extension of the sewer network and increasing community connections. This will encom pass: densification of the sewer mains, laying 25 km of sewers, and creating demand for and/or enforcing sewer connection services through awareness campaigns with a target of reaching out to about 1,500,000 people. 4 Promotion of satellite wastewater treatment systems to support industrial parks and housing estates, and development of wastewater guidelines for satellite systems. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to benefit about 2.3 million people in low and unsewered areas of Kampala, and urban centres of Entebbe, Mukono, Nansana and Kira municipality, with: 1 Reduction of wastewater by over 3 tonnes per day of industrial pollution loading, and reducing incidents of diarrhoeal diseases and related healthcare costs. 2 Creation of approximately 5,877 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 50,000,000 )+/-( 99,860,317 )+/-( 1.54:1 06 61IMPLEMENTATION SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF URBAN WETLAND SYSTEMS PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER Ministry of Water and Environment in collaboration with National Environment Management Authority and Local Governments. LOCATION Geo-political boundaries: Makindye-Ssabagabo, Lufuuka, Kajjansi TC, Makindye Division, Naka wa Division, Kawooya, Kasokoso, Butabiika and Kasanje TC. Wetlands: Lubigi, Mabamba, Lutembe, Sezibwa, Butabika, Kyetinda Kaliddubi and Namanve. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To enhance ecological health of wetlands for flood control and pollutant assimilation while im proving livelihoods. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE As a result of urban developments, wetland coverage in GKMA has reduced by 48% to just over 100 square kilometres from 194 square kilometres in 1996. This has reduced natural wetland eco system buffers that support flood control and pollution assimilation ecological functions. Thus, flooding is common in catchments with severe wetland loss such as Nalubega, Nakivubo, Mayan ja, Lubigi and Nalukolongo draining areas of Nakawa, Makindye, Kawempe, Nansana, Kyengera TC, Nabweru, Central Business District and Masajja. Investment in rehabilitation of wetlands in these flooding hotspots is critical to reducing related public health and economic losses. THEORY OF CHANGE Promotion of nature-based solutions to flood management. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Conservation and restoration of degraded wetlands (critical) in Kampala, Mukono and Wakiso districts, through: demarcation, restoration and conservation of 19,611 Ha cover ing seven (7) wetlands; and development and implementation of five (5) Wetland Man agement Plans while building capacity for their operationalisation at different levels. 2 Promotion and support of prudent use of wetlands through establishment of sustainable livelihood initiatives in and around four (4) selected wetlands. This will also include devel opment of eco-tourism sites for recreation and aesthetics. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to directly and indirectly benefit about 2.8 million people around GKMA with: 1 Improved urban wetland coverage by 4000 Ha across the GKMA, in terms of expanse and biodiversity. 2 Reduced flood risk and vulnerability of people and investments to the impact of flooding. 3 Improved ecosystem functioning as a result of flood control. 4 Creation of approximately 5,097 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION LAND AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 81,961,081 )+/-( 49,061,815 )+/-( 1.68:1 07 62 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN STRENGTHENING INDUSTRIAL COMPLIANCE TO SET LAWS, REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER Ministry of Water and Environment in collaboration with the Kampala Pollution Control Task Force (institutions), Mukono and Kira town councils. LOCATION Catchments: Nakivubo, Kinawataka, and Namanve. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To reduce surface water pollution related to industrial loading. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE Inadequate enforcement support and lack of technical capacity for the private sector to invest in cleaner production and compliance, has undermined compliance to laws, regulations and stand ards within GKMA industrial zones. This has led to increased industrial pollution loads that subse quently pose a bigger threat to water quality within the IMB. It is thus imperative to strengthen compliance within the industrial zones for a water-secure future. THEORY OF CHANGE Bottom-up/top-down collaborative approach to industrial compliance. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Developing an integrated industry-specific pollution monitoring system including: an evaluation and rating system; pollution load and monitoring system; and a permit and license tracking system. 2 Increasing resource use and productivity in industries through: implementing resource efficient and cleaner production; promoting industrial symbiosis; developing an online application to facilitate the symbiotic practices; and facilitating relationship agreements among industries. 3 Promoting learning and knowledge exchange initiatives which shall include: development of a communication strategy and materials together with information dissemination and awareness campaigns to promote dialogue, industrial compliance and cleaner produc tion; development of a tailor-made curriculum on pollution prevention and control, and a programme to deliver it; establishment of a rewards and recognition plan; and reforma tion and/or support to existing pollution control task forces. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to benefit about 2 million people and 150 industries directly and indirectly around GKMA, with: 1 A reduction of more than 80% in pollution load of at least 50 industries. 2 Reduced cost of water production and increased profit margin on water sales. 3 Creation of approximately 343 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION EFFLUENT MANAGEMENT 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 8,504,555 )+/-( 145,587,456 )+/-( 20:01 08 63IMPLEMENTATION RETROFITTING INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS TO ENHANCE WATER SECURITY PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development - Directorate of Urban Development. LOCATION Kazo-Angola, Kitintale and Kasenyi (Mukono Municipality). PROJECT OBJECTIVE To transform selected informal settlements for enhanced livelihoods and resilience to water se curity threats. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE Over 70% of the urban population in GKMA reside in informal settlements with inadequate ac cess to safe water and improved sanitation services. This largely results from a combination of poverty and poor planning within these settlements. Additionally, most of them are located in fragile ecosystems, which most slum improvement projects have not had the capacity to manage. Thus, slum transformation mechanisms are needed if these settlements in GKMA are to be water secure. THEORY OF CHANGE Integrated transformation of informal settlements. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Undertaking integrated physical development planning and enhancing access to water supply and sanitation services. This includes: developing plans for three selected infor mal settlements; constructing 150 low-cost housing units in one informal settlement; and establishing communal initiatives for improved housing (upgrading), water supply and sanitation services. 2 Improving livelihoods for slum dwellers in three informal settlements through: establish ment of saving cooperatives; provision of training and mentorship in enterprise develop ment and management; establishment of a revolving fund to support community enter prises; and promotion of solid waste management business opportunities. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to benefit about 250,000 people mainly living in select informal settlements and 1,000,000 indirect beneficiaries extending beyond the metropolitan area with: 1 Improved public health and livelihood for slum dwellers. 2 Reduced domestic pollution loading from informal settlements. 3 Creation of approximately 1,731 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION LAND AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 30,140,000 )+/-( 9,936,432 )+/-( 1.43:1 09 64 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN INTEGRATED URBAN FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER Ministry of Water and Environment in collaboration with Local Governments. LOCATION Geo-political boundaries: Nakawa, Makindye, Kawempe, Nansana, Kyengera Town Council, Nabweru, Central Business District and Masajja. Catchments: Nalubega, Nakivubo, Mayanja, Lubigi and Nalukolongo. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To enhance flood resilience and control in urban communities. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE Flooding typically leads to loss of property and life; it causes physical damage to vehicles and disruption to traffic around various flooding hotspots in GKMA. The increased flooding frequency can be attributed to drainage networks being often blocked with solid waste, structures devel oped in productive wetlands, and sediments or collapsed drainage channels. Therefore, investing in blue-green infrastructure to minimise the impact of flooding and improve livelihoods, is key if a water-secure future is to be attained. THEORY OF CHANGE Blue-green infrastructure for flood management. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Improving flood forecasting; developing an online tool for flood risk assessment and real time forecasting. 2 Establishing structural and non-structural measures for flood risk reduction and integra tion of flood management into sustainable urban development principles. This includes investing in sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDs) and blue-green infrastructure; re vising existing codes of practice for mainstream urban flood management; and develop ing a flood risk management strategy for GKMA. 3 Promoting community-led integrated urban flood management initiatives such as: estab lishing a rapid response team that unclogs inlets and clears garbage screens on a routine basis; organising community drainage clean up campaigns; and enlightening communities on resilience to flood shocks and stresses. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to benefit about 1.5 million people both directly and indirectly, extending beyond the metropolitan area, with: 1 Reduction in property and economic losses resulting from flooding. 2 Increased income and business employment opportunities through community-led ini tiatives. 3 Improved sanitation for ~300,000 urban poor communities currently living in flood-prone areas in GKMA. 4 Creation of approximately 2,385 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION LAND AND WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 84,121,983 )+/-( 365,180,000 )+/-( 7.1:1 10 65IMPLEMENTATION GREATER KAMPALA WATER SECURITY OBSERVATORY PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER Makerere University in collaboration with the Ministry of Water and Environment, and other government agencies. LOCATION Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To strengthen evidence base for water security at local, city and metropolitan scale. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE GKMA is characterised with limited coordination in the collection and use of water security in formation to guide integrated investments; the requisite infrastructure to collect water security data is lacking, just as there are no tools to enable institutions assess the impact of investment initiatives. Also, there are no mechanisms for pursuing joint research that would enhance data and knowledge sharing and improve decision-making on water security investments. This lack of scientifically backed information to guide investments is a detriment towards water security; it has led to haphazard developments and duplication of efforts. Thus, the need to establish a one stop centre to collect water security-related data, analyse it and provide guidance on investment decisions. THEORY OF CHANGE Integrated evidence-based decision-making. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Designing and establishing a water security observatory structure; equipping and opera tionalising core functional units; developing a water security dashboard; upgrading and updating the WSAIP-Scenario planning tool and water security investment framework; and developing a functional supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system for real time information collection. 2 Promoting joint research and data sharing by establishing a knowledge management cen tre. PROJECT BENEFITS The impact of this project will include: 1 Improved research capacity for up to 50 Masters’ students, five PhD students and 30 staff from 10 public universities. 2 Improved collaboration between water security stakeholders. 3 An enabling environment for institutionalisation of water security risks. 4 Creation of approximately 1,351 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION CROSS-CUTTING )ENABLING PROJECTS( 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 12,404,323 )+/-( 45,514,807 )+/-( 4.89:1 11 66 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN CITIZENS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND REPORTING APP – SPOT IT? SAY IT! PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER National Environment Management Authority in collaboration with Ministry of Water and Envi ronment, and other relevant government agencies. LOCATION Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To improve environmental monitoring and compliance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE Despite increasing industrialisation and urbanisation in GKMA, its urban dwellers are faced with various water-related public health risks and socio-economic losses, ultimately affecting the quality of life and welfare of residents within the metropolitan area. The various water security threats are aggravated by a non-inclusive and inefficient environment management and surveil lance system; there is minimal involvement of residents and the private sector in environmental monitoring and compliance. Thus, the relevance for investing in a monitoring system. THEORY OF CHANGE Combined bottom-up/ top-down approach to environmental monitoring. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Development and operationalisation of an information system/app to enhance citizens engagement in environmental monitoring and enforcement that shall involve: creation and operationalisation of a cross-platform app; crowdsourced approach to generation of data and information through instant messaging and relaying information on a platform report to relevant authorities and the community; and empowering urban residents to embrace the application. 2 Strengthening institutional structures to ensure real time action towards environmental monitoring, compliance and enforcement through engagements and capacity-building arrangements to ensure system uptake and usage. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to benefit at least 2 million people in the GKMA. However, there is high potential for influencing decision-making and rolling out to national level. Its impact will include: 1 Reduction in instances of environmentally damaging activities. 2 Reduction in the cost of generating information for monitoring of environmental degra dation in GKMA. 3 Creation of approximately 572 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION CROSS-CUTTING )ENABLING PROJECTS( 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 6,224,315 )+/-( 10,233,006 )+/-( 3.171:1 12 67IMPLEMENTATION OPERATIONALISING PAYMENT FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN URBAN SETTINGS PROPOSED LEAD PARTNER National Environment Management Authority in collaboration with Ministry of Water and Envi ronment and Local Governments. LOCATION Catchments: Nakivubo as a pilot. PROJECT OBJECTIVE To enhance mainstreaming of ecosystem benefits in urban development. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: WATER SECURITY CHALLENGE The cumulative effects of urbanisation have increased the magnitude of loss in quality of the ecosystem and subsequently increased inequality across vulnerable groups. This calls for holistic action to engage all stakeholders and create sustainable means of financing ecosystem conserva tion and creating ways for responsible enjoyment of the ecosystem services. Operationalisation of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) delivers a market–based approach for internalisation of externalities or spill over impacts resulting from different developments within ecosystems, hence providing an enabling environment for protecting further degradation of the remaining ecosystem, reducing major drivers for water security threats in GKMA. THEORY OF CHANGE Promotion of market-based approaches to internalisation of water security risks in addition to the existing command and control mechanism. PROJECT COMPONENTS 1 Development and operationalising of specific PES options (supply side) for one catchment as a pilot. 2 Development of incentives for the private sector to increase investment in ecosystem conservation projects including development of payment agreements and enabling envi ronment/regulations/guidelines for PES; and creation of transaction infrastructure (bro ker/marketplace) and support to ecosystem providers upstream. PROJECT BENEFITS Targeted to initially benefit 1 million people both directly and indirectly, with: 1 Development of a legal framework for the payment of ecosystem services in GKMA and countrywide. 2 Reduction in cost of treating water in Kampala due to better ecosystem health. 3 Assurance that providers and beneficiaries equally share benefits from ecosystem ser vices. 4 Creation of approximately 1,680 jobs. THEMATIC AREA DURATION CROSS-CUTTING )ENABLING PROJECTS( 5 YRS PROJECT COST )USD( NET PRESENT VALUE )USD( NON DISCOUNTED BENEFIT-COST RATIO 15,613,900 )+/-( 351,000,000 )+/-( 30.15:1 13 68 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN Governance and coordination of the WSAIP will take a multi-sectoral approach recognising the need to transform planning for and implementation of water security interven tions from administrative boundaries to hydrological/envi ronmental system boundaries; and considering the current and future Greater Kampala-wide strategic development plans, such as the Greater Kampala Economic Develop ment Strategy (2017/2025). Implementation of the plan will take a catchment approach because of the understanding that water security threats do not strictly align to administrative boundaries. Deci sions to establish catchment structures shall be informed by the Scenario Planning Tool (SPT) that sums up the cur rent and future state of water security risks in each catch ment. The SPT defines 15 catchments. Priority will be given to sub-catchments flowing into the Inner Murchison Bay (IMB). Establishment and operationalisation of catchment structures will follow existing guidelines namely the Ugan da Catchment Management Guidelines (MWE, 2019a) and Catchment Organisation Procedures Manual (MWE, 2019b), taking into consideration the need for modifications to suit the urban context and challenges. Whilst, all stakeholders will be represented at sub-catchment level, a strong com munication mechanism will be established to ensure that goals and plans of various administrative institutions align to the water security agenda promoted at catchment level. Functions of catchment organisations shall include among others: acting as a platform to rally multi-stakeholder action for water security at catchment level; and ensuring that planning, development and implementation of water secu rity actions takes into consideration upstream/downstream interactions and effects. To ensure continued investment in water security, a multi-stakeholder Water Security Investment Committee (WSIC) on project incubation is proposed. The WSIC shall be responsible for identifying potential financing sources, provision of strategic guidance on development of bankable projects, as well as ensuring existence of projects. Support ed by the Water Security Technical Unit (WSTU) and the Water Security Investment Model (WaSIM), the WSIC will facilitate the design, funding and implementation of priori tised investment projects. Recognising challenges posed by inadequate data and in formation, and the absence of information systems to support stakeholders in monitoring the changing water security landscape, a Water Security Observatory (WSO) is proposed. The WSO will serve as a data centre and anal ysis unit to provide open access to information related to water security; provide guidance for monitoring and data 6.3 Governance Structure for WSAIP Implementation collection; and develop the infrastructure and human capi tal resource to function as a centre of excellence to support evidence-based Water Security Planning. The observatory would draw from the water security analysis expertise that exists in government, academia, private sector and civil so ciety organisations. The WSO shall not replace but rather strengthen existing efforts at institutional level. However, since the development of a WSO is a long process, it is proposed that an ad hoc Water Security Data Centre (WSDC) is set up to start the process of gathering existing data, establishing inter-stakeholder data-sharing protocols, and identifying information gaps and data needs. Operationalising the water security observatory will be sup ported by an ad hoc Water Security Technical Unit (WSTU) consisting of 5-10 experts (drawn from institutions involved in the development of the WSAIP decision support tool) that will develop proficiency in the use and application of the SPT and WaSIM, to serve the needs of the stakeholders. The WSTU shall participate in an intensive six-month training ac tivity to have mastery over the concepts and tools of the SPT and WaSIM as well as interaction with decision-makers to inform key investment questions and data needs. The Water Security Taskforce (WSTF) will provide the over all strategic oversight and policy guidance on the implemen tation of the plan. The mandate of the WSTF shall include: operationalise the Water Security Investment Plan and pro posed governance structures; serve as a liaison at national level on all matters regarding the WSAIP and the water se curity agenda for Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area and convey recommendations from WSAIP flagship projects to facilitate policy change; and explore the formation of a permanent inter-governmental governance secretariat ded icated to ensuring a water-secure Greater Kampala Metro politan Area. The WSTF shall comprise at least 10 members drawn from: (a) Government ministries, departments and agencies, namely, Ministry of Water and Environment, Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development, National Environ ment Management Authority, and National Forest Authority among others. (b) Government Parastatals, namely, National Water and Sewerage Cooperation. (c) Local Governments, City Authorities and Municipal Councils, namely, Kampala Capital City Authority, Wakiso District Local Government, and Mukono District Local Gov ernment. 69IMPLEMENTATION (d) The Academia represented by Makerere University Kam pala. (e) Private Sector represented by Uganda Manufacturers Association and/or Private Sector Foundation Uganda. (f) Non-governmental Organisations and/or CSO Networks, such as UWASNET and ENR-CSO Network. The WSTF will be chaired by the Directorate of Water Re sources Management on behalf of the Ministry of Water and Environment. It will be supported by two multi-disci plinary multi-sectoral technical expert committees on Wa ter Security, Land and Urban Natural Resources (WSLUNR) and Water Security and Urban Services (WSUS) from GKMA institutions engaged in planning and implementation of wa ter security actions. Figure 6-3 provides a structural overview of the proposed governance and coordination structure. A WSAIP action document to operationalise the proposed governance structure and the WSAIP including terms of reference for each committee, shall be developed by WSTF upon launch ing of the plan. GREATER KAMPALA WATER SECURITY TASK FORCE Strategic direction,policy and governance GREATER KAMPALA INSTITUTIONS ).gov, .com, .org( Planning and implementation CATCHMENT ORGANISATIONS ).gov, .com, .org( Support, planning and implementation TECHNICAL SUB-COMMITTEE WATER SECURITY, LAND AND URBAN NATURAL RESOURCES (a) Land use and integrated urban planning (b) Flood risk management (c) Catchment and ecosystems management TECHNICAL SUB-COMMITTEE WATER SECURITY AND URBAN SERVICES (a) Water supply and sanitation (b) Effluent management and pollution control (c) Solid waste management WATER SECURITY TECHNICAL UNIT (ad hoc WSTU) WATER SECURITY OBSERVATORY Evidence and knowledge (ad hoc WSTU) WATER SECURITY INVESTMENTS COMMITTEE )WSIC( Projects portfolio GREATER KAMPALA ECONOMIC STRATEGY DELIVERY UNIT Figure 6-3: Proposed GKMA Water Security Governance Structure 70 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN 6.4 Resource Needs and Financing Mechanisms 6.5 Monitoring and Evaluation Operationalising the plan requires approximately US$ 3 mil lion over a period of 1-2 years to facilitate setting up a per manent inter-governmental governance structure and the ad hoc water security data centre; and build the capacity of proposed committees and the water security technical unit. Implementation of the selected investment actions necessi tates about US$ 645.3 million. One of the underlying reasons for developing the WSAIP is to optimise limited financial, physical and human resource available in the GKMA to achieve water security alongside more sustainable and resilient development. The WSAIP and investment actions identified need to mature to a level where there is no disconnect between the plan and its fi nancing needs. There are three principal areas of financing required for the implementation of the WSAIP: infrastruc ture, non-infrastructure activities and management actions of the proposed governance structure. Funding of projects will rely primarily on public sector fi nancing although stimulating private sector investment will be a crucial component in realising water security in GKMA. International funding will also be an important source of fi nance, especially with regards to pilots and scaling the tar geted actions identified in the WSAIP. Finances and resources for the WSAIP will come from four broad sources: Government/public spending (i.e., income, property, sales, and corporate taxes paid by the public): These can be capi tal investments for infrastructure construction or subsidies such as governmental budget allocations to water utilities or agencies, as well as tax relief (waived taxes from credits and deductions). User tariffs and fees: These are paid by customers to service providers for delivery of water and sewerage services (con nection and meter charges); and charges for abstraction, effluent release, or recreational permits (e.g., boating and fishing). International aid transfers (e.g., loans, grants, and dona tions from multilateral and bilateral donor organisations): These are often used as capital for large construction proj ects. Private (commercial and philanthropic) investments: These can be a significant source of funding for infrastructure, technology, and services, but investors will expect returns on investment (e.g., profits or branding benefits). It is envisaged that financing may face the following risks and challenges: (a) Limited allocation of national budget to investments in water and environmental resources, (b) Inadequate financial management capacity at multiple levels of government, and (c) Limited capacity to implement multi-sectoral inter-insti tutional collaborative projects. To mitigate the above risks, it is necessary to establish a framework for the funding as well as develop the financial management capacities in various stakeholder institutions. The WSAIP will be evaluated every five years to enable con sistent planning and alignment to sectoral and national level planning cycles. The outputs of the WSAIP planning process shall be integrated into the sectoral and national planning documents and a specific Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Plan will be developed to monitor the progress of its imple mentation. The M&E Plan will also include a schedule for reporting on the progress of specific pipeline projects. It will consider the monitoring and evaluation requirements from the different stakeholders engaged in the implementation of the WSAIP as well as identify inherent risks and opportu nities. The M&E Plan will also identify the criteria by which success, progress, quality and value-for-money is monitored and evaluated for each action and project included in the WSAIP. 71IMPLEMENTATION 6.6 Lessons Learned The stewardship approach employed during the development of the plan resulted in innova tive thinking; promoted a culture of collective responsibility; encouraged collective planning and action as advocated for in the NPD III; created common understanding of water security risks; and brought about co-generation of holistic solutions. Political economy and water resource governance requires institutional transformation, a long-term process. Brokers of water stewardship multi-sectoral partnerships ought to have solution-oriented mindsets. Engagement of top executives/management eases streamlining of programmes into institu tional activities and allows engagement of more people within the institution. 01 03 02 04 72 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN BOX 6-1. PROPOSALS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WSAIP Governance and implementation of the WSAIP will take on a multi-sectoral and catch ment approach as water security threats do not strictly align to administrative bound aries. This calls for the establishment of committees and units that will work across such boundaries. The WSAIP proposes: 01 A Water Security Investment Committee that will be responsible for identifying potential financing sources, provision of strategic guidance on development of bankable projects and ensuring existence of projects. 02 A Water Security Observatory to collect, store, analyse and provide open access to information on water security. 03 An ad hoc Water Security Data Centre to start the process of gathering existing data and identifying information gaps and data needs. 04 An ad hoc Water Security Technical Unit of experts that will support stakeholders in the use and application of the SPT and WaSIM. 05 A Water Security Task Force that will provide the overall strategic oversight and policy guidance on the implementation of the plan. 7. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 74 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN Urbanisation, economic development and industrialisation do not have to result in a decline of water security in the Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area if policymakers can implement appropriate policies and suitable strategies to prevent any un desirable consequences. It is possible for GKMA to have an appropriate response and the blueprint for that response is the Water Security Action and Investment Plan. A set of recommendations and immediate next steps have been developed based on the findings of the WSAIP along with the knowledge gained during the comprehensive WSAIP process. This synthesis is presented as follows: 01. Explore the formation of a permanent inter-governmental governance secretariat dedicated to ensuring a wa-ter-secure Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area. 02. Establish a Water Security Observatory to serve as a data centre and analysis unit to provide open-access to information related to water security; provide guidance for monitoring and data collection; as well as develop the infrastructure and human capital resources to function as a centre of excellence to support evidence-based water security planning. 03. Invest in research and data acquisition to understand the rate of change of and demand for urban natural re-sources and services, and effects of urbanisation on water security beyond 2040, to support evidence-based planning. The implementation of these recommendations will require extensive dialogue among stakeholders and potential changes in institutional and policy frameworks. Five actionable steps to act as starting points in operationalising the WSAIP (as stakehold ers negotiate and formulate structures to support the long-term implementation of the WSAIP) include: 01. Operationalise the proposed multi-sectoral water security governance structure consisting of the following com-mittees: Water Security Task Force, Water Security Investment Committee, ad hoc Water Security Technical Unit, ad hoc Water Security Data Centre that will later become a Water Security Observatory, and two multi-sectoral multi-disciplinary technical expert committees on Water Security and Urban Natural Resources and Water Se curity and Urban Services. 02. Establish a framework for the funding and implementation of multi-stakeholder water security investment ac-tions and projects. 03. Invest in the enhancement and expansion of the Water Security Decision Support Tools under the coordination of the Water Security Technical Unit. 04. Invest in capacity building for the Water Security Technical Unit and local analysts in an intensive six-month training on water security and Water Security Decision Support Tools. 05. Establish a bi-annual Water Security Forum which seeks to foster dialogue among GKMA stakeholders, deci-sion-makers, and development partners. 8. REFERENCES 76 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN AFDB. (2020). Uganda’s Economic Outlook: Macro-economic Performance and Outlook. African Development Bank Group. https://www.afdb.org/en/countries/east-africa/uganda/uganda-economic-outlook. Akello. C.E. (2007). “Environmental Regulation in Uganda: Successes and challenges.” Law Environment and Development Journal. Vol 3, p.20. Akurut, M., Niwagaba, C.B. and Willems, P. (2017). “Long-term variations of water quality in the Inner Murchison Bay, Lake Victoria.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 189(1), p.22. Cervigni, R., Liden, R., Neumann, J.E. and Strzepek, K.M. (2015). Enhancing the Climate Resilience of Africa’s Infrastructure: The Power and Water Sectors.: World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21875. GOU. (1999). A National Water Policy. Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment. Government of Uganda. Kampala, Uganda. GOU. (2017a). Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area Economic Development Strategy. Government of Uganda. Kampala, Ugan da. GOU. (2017b). The Uganda Green Growth Development Strategy 2017/18 – 2030/31. Government of Uganda. Kampala, Ugan da. Gibson, J., Eales, K. and Nsubuga-Mugga, C. (2018). Reviewing Sanitation in Uganda to Reach Sustainable Development Goals. World Bank, Washington, DC. Ekane, N., Weitz, N., Nykvist, B., Nordqvist, P. and Noel, S. (2016.) Comparative Assessment of Sanitation and Hygiene Policies and Institutional Frameworks in Rwanda, Uganda and Tanzania. Stockholm Environment Institute, Working Paper No. 2016 05. IEc. (2016). The Contribution of Water Resources Development and Environmental Management to Uganda’s Economy. Report to the Ministry of Water and Environment, Government of Uganda. https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/library/Eco nomic%20Study%202018-Contribution%20of%20Water%20Development%20and%20Environment%20Resources%20to%20 Ugandas%20Economy 0.pdf. Habonimana, H.V. (2014). Integrated Flood Modeling in Lubigi Catchment Kampala. University of Twente Faculty of Geo-Infor mation and Earth Observation (ITC). Enschede, The Netherlands. KCCA. (2012). Kampala Physical Development Plan: Updating Kampala Structure Plan and Upgrading the Kampala GIS Unit. Draft Final Report. Kampala, Uganda. KCCA. (2017). Project Teaser: Kampala Waste Treatment and Disposal PPP. Kampala Water Management and International Finance Corporation. Kampala, Uganda. KCCA. (2018). Kampala Institutional and Infrastructure Development Projects (KIIDP). https://www.kcca.go.ug/kiidp. KCCA. (2019). Information Paper on The State of Flooding in Kampala State of Flooding in Kampala. Statement by the Minister of Kampala Capital City and Metropolitan Affairs. 18th June 2019. https://www.parliament.go.ug. Komuhangi, J. (2019). WSAIP Ideation Meeting held at the Ministry of Health, 9th July 2020. Marcelo, D., Mandri-perrott, C., House, S. and Schwartz, J. Z. (2016). An Alternative Approach to Project Selection: The Infra structure Prioritization Framework. World Bank PPP Group. MWE. (2015). Development of a Pollution Management Strategy to Improve Long Term Water Quality Status in the Inner Murchison Bay, Lake Victoria and Initiate Implementation of its Initiatives: Situation Analysis Report. Ministry of Water and Environment. Kampala, Uganda. Markandya, A., Cabot-Venton, C. and Beucher, O. (2015). Economic Assessment of the Impacts of Climate Change in Uganda. Ministry of Water and Environment, Climate Change Department. https://cdkn.org. MWE. (2018). Water and Environment Strategic Investment Plan 2018-2030. Ministry of Water and Environment. Kampala, Uganda. MWE. (2019a). Government of Uganda Ministry of Water and Environment Sector Performance Report. Kampala, Uganda. MWE. (2019b). Uganda Catchment Management Planning Guidelines. Directorate of Water Resources Management. Kampa la, Uganda. https://www.afdb.org/en/countries/east-africa/uganda/uganda-economic-outlook. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/21875. https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/library/Economic%20Study%202018-Contribution%20of%20Water%20Development%20and%20Environment%20Resources%20to%20Ugandas%20Economy 0.pdf. https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/library/Economic%20Study%202018-Contribution%20of%20Water%20Development%20and%20Environment%20Resources%20to%20Ugandas%20Economy 0.pdf. https://www.mwe.go.ug/sites/default/files/library/Economic%20Study%202018-Contribution%20of%20Water%20Development%20and%20Environment%20Resources%20to%20Ugandas%20Economy 0.pdf. https://www.kcca.go.ug/kiidp https://www.parliament.go.ug 77REFERENCES MWE. (2019c). Catchment Management Organization Procedures Manual. Directorate of Water Resources Management. Kampala, Uganda. Namagembe, L. (2019). “Kampala at Risk of Flooding as Investor Takes Over Lubigi.” The Daily Monitor Online, 15 July. https:// www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Kampala-flooding-investor-Lubigi-KCCA-Dr-Tom-Okurut/688334-5195974-pnsdz/index. html. NPA. (2020). Third National Development Plan (NDPIII) 2020/21 – 2024/25. Kampala, Uganda. NPA. (2017). Greater Kampala Economic Development Strategy (2017 -2025): United Towards Job Creation, Improved Liveabil ity and Sustainable Development in Greater Kampala. First Draft, September 2017. Kampala, Uganda. NPA. (2018). Unlocking the Economic Potential of Greater Kampala for Increased Productivity and Growth. NPA Policy Brief No. 05, Quarter 1: 2018/19. National Planning Authority. http://www.npa.go.ug. Nsubuga, F.N.W., Namutebi, E.N. and Nsubuga-Ssenfuma. M. (2014). “Water Resources of Uganda: An Assessment and Re view.” Journal of Water Resource and Protection. 6, pp1297-1315. OECD. (2012). OECD Studies on Water Meeting the Water Reform Challenge. OECD Publishing. Soto Rios, P.C., Deen, T.A., Nagabhatla, N. and Ayala, G. (2018). “Explaining Water Pricing through a Water Security Lens.” Water. 10(9), 1173. Tindimugaya, C. (2020). Interview by Rehema Aanyu for “The Engagement of Political and Technical Leaders in Greater Kam pala Metropolitan Areas (GKMA) in the Development of the Water Security Action and Investment Plan”, 29 January 2020. UBOS. (2018). The National Labour Force Survey 2016/17 – Main Report, Kampala, Uganda. UN. (2011). “Climate Change Assessment for Kampala, Uganda: A Summary.” https://unfccc.int. Accessed December 10 2019. UN. (2013). What is Water Security? Infographic. http://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-infographic World Bank. (2015). Promoting Green Urban Development in African Cities Kampala: Uganda Urban Environmental Profile. https://doi.org/10.1596/22941. WSAIP Technical Report. (2019). “Evidence to Support Integrated Planning for Water Security to Enhance Socio-economic Development in Greater Kampala Metropolitan Area.” Ministry of Water and Environment. Kampala, Uganda. https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Kampala-flooding-investor-Lubigi-KCCA-Dr-Tom-Okurut/688334-5195974-pnsdz/index.html. https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Kampala-flooding-investor-Lubigi-KCCA-Dr-Tom-Okurut/688334-5195974-pnsdz/index.html. https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/Kampala-flooding-investor-Lubigi-KCCA-Dr-Tom-Okurut/688334-5195974-pnsdz/index.html. http://www.npa.go.ug. https://unfccc.int. http://www.unwater.org/publications/water-security-infographic https://doi.org/10.1596/22941 78 THE WATER SECURITY ACTION AND INVESTMENT PLAN TEAM Steering Committee Dr Callist Tindimugaya MWE Dr Rose Kaggwa NWSC Dr Najib Lukooya KCCA Mr. Daniel Birungi UMA Technical Advisory Committee Mr. Mathew Parr GIZ NATURES Ms. Lydia Ngonzi GIZ NATURES Ms. Vanessa Tyaba GIZ NATURES Mr. Benard Nsubuga GIZ NATURES Ms. Rosemary Nakaggwa GIZ IWASP Mr. Anthelem Iragena MWE Mr. Christopher Kanyesigye NWSC Mr. Moses Atwine KCCA Mr. Joseph Kyalimpa UMA Mr. Ronald Kaggwa NPA Mr. Jerome Lugumira NEMA Ms. Martha Mugarura MLHUD CSO Coordination Committee Ms. Yunia Musaazi UWASNET Dr. Joshua Zaake ENR-CSO Technical Team Ms. Namanda Claire KCCA Ms. Alur Lilian KCCA Mr. Isaac Mugumbule KCCA Mr. Patrick Ojirot KCCA Ms. Angela Nshiime KCCA Mr. Hassan Wasswa KCCA Ms. Nankya Harriet WDLG Mr. Galabuzi Isaac WDLG Mr. Mujuni William MDLG Mr. Kalule James MDLG Ms. Patience Nsereko NEMA Mr. Timothy Izimba NEMA Mr. Tomson Akankwasa UCPC Mr. Ebbu Emmanuel MWE Mr. Babi Gerald MWE Mr. Arwat Patrick MWE Mr. Godfrey Hashakimana MWE Ms. Afaima Aimo MWE Mr. Ndibarema Dadinoh MWE Mr. Barnabas Mubangizi MWE Mr. Amanyire Solomon MWE Mr. Enos Malambala NWSC Mr. Job Ssazi NWSC Mr. Ceaser Kimbugwe WaterAid Mr. Charles Kizito ENR-CSO Ms. Judith Mbabazi MAK MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT CONTACT INFORMATION Ministry of Water and Environment Directorate of Water Resources Management P.O. BOX 20026 Kampala-Uganda National Water and Sewerage Corporation Directorate of Business and Scientific Services P.O.BOX 7053 Kampala-Uganda Kampala Capital City Authority Directorate of Public Health Services and Environment PO BOX 7010 Kampala-Uganda Implemented by: MINISTRY OF WATER AND ENVIRONMENT