Performance Report for FY 2009/10 - UWASNET

NGOs in the Ugandan 

Water and Sanitation Sector 

Performance Report 

for FY 2009/10 

Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network 

October 2010 

Performance Report for FY 2009/10 

1 | NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector


NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector | 2

NGOs in the Ugandan 


Performance Report 

for FY 2009/10 


October 2010 




Cover photo 

School children from Kawempe Division, Kampala City Council, joining the World Longest 

Queue Campaign demanding that their leaders make sanitation and hygiene priority in 

planning and resource allocation. 

NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector | 4 

Photo by WaterAid (U)/James Kiyimba)

About UWASNET 


Established in 2000, UWASNET is the national umbrella organisation of NGOs/CBOs in the 

Water and Environment Sector of Uganda. UWASNET is crucial in helping government realise 

its targets of alleviating poverty and achieving the MDGs through universal access to safe water 

and improved sanitation. UWASNET plays this vital role in partnership with other key sector 

players such as Government, Development Partners and the Private Sector. 

The overarching objective of the UWASNET strategic plan for the period 2008 to 2012 is “To 

scale up the contribution by UWASNET to WATSAN sector performance and development.” In 

this regard the plan redefined UWASNET roles to maximise its contribution to the operation, 

management and development of the water and sanitation sector. It particularly addresses the 

roles of NGOs and CBOs, and how they can best relate to and collaborate with each other and 

with other stakeholders in the sector. UWASNET key areas of strategic focus include co-ordination 

(including collaboration, networking, information sharing), advocacy and lobbying, capacity 

building, research and development, resource mobilisation, governance and management. Ten 

Regional Coordinators were appointed, initially, to coordinate and lead the implementation of 

the capacity building programme, and later to coordinate the UWASNET activities at regional 

level. With the proposed expansion of the roles of the regional coordinators, members at 

regional level shall be able to meet frequently to deliberate on a variety of issues, and to feed 

these to the national level. 

One of the UWASNET strategies is channelling its efforts through Working Groups focusing on 

thematic areas. These include: 

• The Urban Water and Sanitation Working Group (focuses mainly on urban related issues). 

• Policy and Advocacy Working Group (focuses on policy analysis, policy monitoring, lobbying 

and advocacy). 

• The Hygiene and Sanitation Working Group (focuses on sanitation and hygiene 

promotion). 

• The Women and Children Working Group (focuses on women and children issues). 

• The Water and Sanitation Technologies Working Group (focuses on operation and 

maintenance and on appropriate technology applications). 

• Integrated Water Resources Management working group (focuses on the effective 

management of the water resources). 

The groups are expected to identify areas for training, meet on a quarterly basis and also 

organise exchange visits. They are also expected to identify and document best practices and 

share them widely with other stake holders. In the past, Working Groups were very active and 

quite successful. But of late these working groups are for the most part unable to meet growing 

expectations largely as a result of lack of funds to implement activities. In order to reverse 

this undesirable trend, plans are underway to re-define the Working Groups terms of reference 

(TOR), disseminate the updated TOR to all members, enlist members to the Working Groups, 

elect committees, and develop work plans. 



Foreword 

The right to Water and sanitation is a fundamental one and requires constant vigilance as well 

as the concerted efforts of different stakeholders to promote and protect it. 

To achieve this, consistent focus coupled with adequate investments have to be directed 

towards providing safe water and ensuring access to safe sanitation to the un served and 

underserved communities. This entails promoting affordable and appropriate technologies and 

implementing strategic interventions as per the needs and requirements of the communities. 

Therefore, due attention must be paid to involving community participation at each stage, 

providing opportunities to vulnerable groups and Civil Society Organisations (CSO) for their 

purposeful involvement in water and sanitation service delivery. 

It is in this context, that the Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network (UWASNET) through the 

water and environment sector continues to compliment Government efforts and mandate of 

providing sustainable safe water and adequate hygiene and sanitation facilities to the people 

of Uganda. 

Commendable investments have been made by development partners, CSOs/NGOs and the 

Private sector in the provision of water and sanitation facilities in the rural and urban communities 

of Uganda, as well as ensuring proper operation and maintenance of the facilities by users. 

The laudable contribution by UWASNET and WASH Cluster members to the sector for the period 

2009/2010 is documented in this report which feeds into the annual water and environment 

sector performance report (SPR). 

This report examines the performance of NGOs in the water and sanitation sub-sector, identifies 

pertinent gaps that require action, and highlights proposed CSO undertakings for the sector. 

Efforts have been made to reflect the performance of NGOs in relation to the golden indicators 

as well as the implementation of sector under takings for the previous year. 

It is my conviction that this report presents an insight of critical sector issues that justify 

our collective attention, and should be addressed together with other stakeholders at the 

forthcoming Joint Water and Environment Sector Review. 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ministry of Water and Environment staff, 

Development partners, UWASNET members, and all sector stakeholders for their invaluable 

support and co-operation. 

Looking forward to a strengthened collaboration and stronger partnerships in the sector. 

Doreen Kabasindi Wandera 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 



Table of Contents 


About UWASNET 3 

Foreword 4 

List of Tables 8 

List of Figures 8 

List of Boxes 9 

List of Case Studies 9 

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 11 

Glossary and definitions 13 

Executive Summary 16 

1 Introduction 21 

1.1 Context 21 

1.2 Structure of the Report 21 

1.3 Methodology 21 

1.3.1 Data Collection 21 

1.3.2 Responses 22 

1.3.3 Challenges 23 

2 Water and Sanitation Sector Overview 24 

2.1 Introduction 24 

2.2 Sector Overview 24 

2.2.1 Sector objectives 24 

2.2.2 Institutional Framework 25 

2.2.3 Water and sanitation Subsector Strategies 26 

2.2.4 Emerging Strategic challenges 27 

2.3 Towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 29 

3 NGO and CBO investment in the Water and Sanitation Sector 30 


3.2 Investment in Water Supply 32 

3.3 Investments in Sanitation and Hygiene promotion 33 

3.4 Investment in Community management 34 

3.5 Unit costs 35 

4 Performance of NGO and CBOs against the WASH Subsector 

Golden Indicators 36 


4.2 CSO Contribution to Increased Access to Water Supplies 37 

4.3 CSO contribution to functionality of Water Supplies 40 

4.4 Per Capita Costs 41 

4.4.1 Per capita cost for Water Supply technologies 41 

4.4.2 Per capita cost for Sanitation technologies 42 

4.5 CSO Contribution towards Improved Sanitation and Hygiene 43 



4.5.1 Contribution towards sanitation improvement 43 

4.5.2 Improving the pupil-stance ratio at schools. 45 

4.5.3 Handwashing facilities 46 

4.6 Contribution to ensuring water quality 47 

4.7 Contribution to water quantity (Water for Production) 48 

4.8 Contributing towards Equity 48 

4.9 Contributing to increased access to and using handwashing facilities 49 

4.10 Contribution to Management of Improved Water Supplies 50 

4.11 Contribution to gender promotion 54 

4.12 Contributing to improving water supply to the urban poor 54 

4.13 Contributing to good Governance in the WASH subsector 56 

4.14 Activities, outputs, and key result areas 61 

5 NGO and CBO Contribution to implementation of the of the 2009 

Joint Sector Undertakings 70 


5.1.1 Undertaking No. 4: Water Resource Management 70 

5.1.2 Undertaking No. 7: Sanitation 72 

5.1.3 Undertaking No. 8: Rural water supply 72 

6 Challenges and recommendations 73 


6.2 Challenges 73 

6.2.1 Inadequate household income and the CBMS 73 

6.2.2 Supply chain for construction equipment and materials 73 

6.2.3 Vulnerable household and the ‘no subsidy’ policy 74 

6.2.4 Low priority for sanitation 74 

6.2.5 Financing rainwater harvesting 74 

6.2.6 Framework for cooperation between CSO and MoWE not operationalised 74 

6.2.7 Inadequate reporting by CSO 74 

6.3 Recommendations 80 

Annex 1 Key sub-sector Institutions and Responsibilities 82 

Annex 2 Water and Sanitation NGOs and CBOs 85 


List of Tables 


Table 2.1 Water and Sanitation Subsectors and their respective Strategies 25 

Table 3.1 Unit costs for water supply technologies 33 

Table 4.1 Water sources developed and population served 36 

Table 4.2 Assumed populations served against water supply technologies 37 

Table 4.3 Per Capita Investment Costs: Water supply technologies 39 

Table 4.4 Trend per capita cost; Water supply* 40 

Table 4.5 Sanitation and hygiene contribution 42 

Table 4.6 Activities, outputs and results: Water Supply Sub-sector 59 

Table 4.7 Activities, outputs and results: Sanitation and Hygiene promotion Sub-sector 61 

Table 4.8 Activities, outputs and results: Community Management 65 

Table 4.9 Activities, outputs and results: IWRM and HIV/AIDS mainstreaming. 66 

NGO and CBO WASH Investment and population served 2009/10 84 

List of Figures 

Figure 1.1 Reporting NGOs areas of operation 20 

Figure 1.2 Classification of reporting NGOs 20 

Figure 3.1 Trends in NGO and CBO investments (UGX billion) 28 

Figure 3.2 Investment by CSOs (UGX billion) 29 

Figure 3.3 Difference in Investment (UGX billion) between FY 2008/9 and 2009/10 29 

Figure 3.4 NGO and CBO Investments in the Water Supply (UGX billion) 30 

Figure 3.5 Investments in Sanitation and Hygiene promotion (UGX million) 31 

Figure 3.6 Investments made under Community Management 31 

Figure 4.1 Population served against water supply technologies 36 

Figure 4.2 Reported functionality of water source technologies 38 

List of Boxes 

Box 4.1: The Golden Indicators 34 

Box 4.2 Opportunity for CSO-Public Sector synergy for instituting dialogue 

and accountability. Source: National Learning Forum 2010/SAWA 53 

Box 4.3 Practicing what we preach’: Plan Uganda certified as credible 

and Accountable organisation 57 

Box 4.4: IWRM; spring protection in Karamoja region: Source IICD 66 

Box 6.1: Reflecting on sustainability of rural water services: Source Triple –S Uganda 73 



List of Case Studies 

Case Study 4.1 New borehole contributes to resettlement in Apeleun Village; 

Katakwi: Source LWF 37 

Case Study 4.2 Ecosan cost reduction: Source PROTOS 39 

Case Study 4.3 Improving Hygiene and Sanitation in Lubaga Division; KCC. 

Source Ndeba Parish Youth Association (NPYA) 41 

Case Study 4.4 Piloting the Fossa alterna latrine technology in schools. 

Source FORUD 42 

Case Study 4.5 Handwashing in schools. Source NKKD WATSAN Programme 43 

Case Study 4.6 Hygiene in Schools. Source Paidha Water and Sanitation Association 44 

Case Study 4.7 Water Testing in Moroto town: Source IICD 45 

Case Study 4.8 Hand Washing Practices in Western Uganda. 

Source Rwenzori Youth Concern Association (RYCA) 47 

Case Study 4.9 Kibaale Handpump Mechanics Association: 

Source National Learning Forum 2010/SAWA Uganda 48 

Case Study 4.10 Supporting CBMS: Amuria District: Source: WEDA 49 

Case Study 4.11 Capacity Building of Management Committees. 

Source: Fontes Foundation Uganda 50 

Case Study 4.12 Pre-paid water meter system in Kisenyi III Parish. Source CIDI 52 

Case Study 4.13 Wash Governance through Dialogue and Concerted Action. 

Source CEFORD/NETWAS (U) (National Learning Forum 2010/SAWA 54 

Case Study 4.14 Enhanced Community Governance. Source JESE 55 

Case Study 4.15 Improving governance: Mukunyu Gravity Flow Scheme. 

Source HEWASA 56 

Case Study 4.16 Peace in the homes and in community with improved access to 

safe water sources. Source JOY Drilling 59 

Case Study 4.17 Sanitation as a Business. Source HEWASA. 62 

Case Study 4.18 Ecosan: Farmer’s experience. Source: NETWAS ( U) 63 

Case Study 4.19 Modern public latrine Construction in Jinja camp; Lira Municipality. 

Source Divine Waters Uganda (DWU) 64 

Case Study 4.20 HIV/AIDS mainstreaming. 

Source :Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme 67 

Case Study 5.1 IWRM steps and Pilot projects River Mpanga. Source PROTOS 68 

Case Study 6.1 Cost tracking of rural water projects. 

Source Fontes Foundation Uganda 75 

Case Study 6.2 Targeting the vulnerable. Source VAD 76 

Case Study 6.3 Sanitation promotion through campaigns. Source WaterAid Uganda 77 

NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector | 10

List of Abbreviations 

and Acronyms 


ACF Action Against Hunger 

ACORD Agency For cooperation and Research in Development 

ASD Action for Slum Health and Development 

ADB African Development Bank 

ASB Arbeiter-Samariter Bund 

AEE African Evangelistic Enterprise 

AFARD Agency for Accelerated Regional Development 

ASD Action for Slum Health and Development 

ASURED Allied Support for Rural Empowerment and Development 

BUCADEF Buganda Cultural and Development Organization 

CBHC Community Based Health Care 

CBO Community Based Organization 

CDO Community Development Officer 

CHC Community Health Clubs 

CIDI Community Integrated Development Initiatives 

CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation 

CPAR Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief 

CSO Civil Society Organization 

DHI District Health Inspector 

Dev’t Development 

DWD Directorate of Water Development 

DWO District Water Office(r ) 

DWRM Directorate of Water Resources Management 

DWSCC District Water and Sanitation Coordination Committee 

DWSDCG District Water and Sanitation Development Conditional Grant 

EHD Environment Health Division (of Ministry of Health) 

FORUD Foundation for Rural Development 

FY Financial year 

GFS Gravity Flow Scheme 

GoU Government of Uganda 

HEWASA Health Through Water and Sanitation 

HH Household 

HIP Hygiene Improvement Programme 

HPM Hand Pump Mechanic 

HSSP Health Sector Strategic Plan 

IDP Internally Displaced Persons 

IICD Institute For International Cooperation and Development 

JESE Joint Efforts to Save the Environment 

JSR Joint Sector Review 

KACODEF Kamuli Community Development Foundation 

KACHEPA Kamwokya Community Health and Environmental Association 

KDF Kyakulumbye Development Foundation 

KICHWA Kisenyi Community Health Workers Association 

LG Local Government 



LeaPPs Learning for Practice and Policy in Hygiene and Sanitation in Primary 

Schools and households 

LGDP Local Government Development Programme 

LLG Lower Local Government 

LTP Link To Progress 

LWF Lutheran World Federation Uganda Program 

M&E Monitoring and evaluation 

MAAIF Ministry of Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries 

MDG Millennium Development Goal 

MIS Management Information System 

MoES Ministry of Education and Sports 

MoFPED Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development 

MoGLSD Ministry of Gender Labour and Social Development 

MoH Ministry of Health 

MoLG Ministry of Local Government 

MoU Memorandum of Understanding 

MoWE Ministry of Water and Environment 

NDP National Development Plan 

NAYODEP Nagongera Youth Dev’t Programme 

NPYA Ndeeba Parish Youth Association 

NEMA National Environmental Management Authority 

NETWAS U Network for Water And Sanitation 

NGOs Non-Government Organizations 

NKKD North Kigezi and Kinkizi Dioceses Watsan Programme 

NPYA Ndeeba Parish Youth Association 

NSWG National Sanitation Working Group 

NWSC National Water and Sewerage Cooperation 

O&M Operation and Maintenance 

PHC Primary Health Care 

PPP Public Private Partnership 

PTA Parent Teachers’ Association 

RGC Rural Growth Centers 

QuAM Quality Assurance Mechanism 

SAWA Sanitation and Water Alliance Uganda 

SIP Sector Investment Plan 

SNV Netherlands Development Organisation 

SOCADIDO Soroti Catholic Diocese Integrated Development Organization 

SPR Sector Performance Report 

TA Technical Assistance 

ToR Terms of Reference 

TOT Training of Trainers 

TSU Technical Support Unit 

UGX Uganda Shillings 

UMURDA Uganda Muslim Rural Development Association 

UNICEF United Nations International Children’s Fund 

UPE Universal Primary Education 

UWASNET Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network 

VAD Voluntary Action for Development 

WAU WaterAid Uganda 

WATSAN Water and Sanitation 

WEDA Wera Development Association 

YODEO Youth Development Organisation 


Glossary and definitions 


Basket funding Aid finance flowing from a joint development partners’ account, kept 

separate from other funding for the same (sub-) sectors. Transfers are 

not made through the government systems and in effect the basket 

funding is a collection of projects. The Joint Partnership Fund (JPF) is an 

example in the water sector of basket funding using on-budget project 

modalities. 

Development 

Partner (DP) 

Bilateral, multilateral and international organizations and agencies 

providing support to Government of Uganda or CSOs. 

The Arborloo The Arboloo (also known as Eco-pit) is a form of ecological sanitation 

technology for human excreta disposal. The technology involves a slab 

mounted on a ring beam of bricks or concrete and a shallow pit is dug 

down inside the beam. A simple structure for privacy, made from locally 

available materials, is then built around the slab. Flies and odours are 

controlled by regularly adding soil, wood ash and leaves into the shallow 

pit. By adding the soil, ash and leaves, the excreta in the pit turns 

into compost. Once full, the slab and superstructure are moved to a 

new place. It is then possible to grow a fruit tree or banana on this 

compost. 

The Fossa 

Alterna 

Ecological 

Sanitation 

(EcoSan) 

Fossa Alterna is another form of ecological sanitation. This is a simple 

alternating twin pit system designed specifically to recycle humus for 

use in agriculture. The pits are managed in such a way that excreta is 

changed into humus after six to nine months of decomposition, when the 

humus may be dug out and taken to gardens. This is facilitated by the 

regular and generous addition of soil, wood ash and leaves during use. 

The pits of a fossa alterna are shallow, about 1.2 m deep, maximum of 

1.5 m deep. 

Ecological sanitation often referred to as “ecosan” is a holistic approach 

to sanitation and water management based on the systematic closure 

of local material flow-cycles. It introduces the concept of sustainability 

to sanitation by its basic principle of closing the (nutrient) loop between 

sanitation and agriculture. The main objectives are (i) to reduce the 

health risks related to sanitation, contaminated water and waste, (ii) 

to prevent the pollution of surface and ground water, (iii) to prevent 

the degradation of soil fertility and, (iv) to optimize the management 

of nutrients and water resources. The concept can be implemented 

through a great variety of technologies; the Arboloo, the fossa Alterna, 

and Urine Diverting Dry Toilet (UDDT). 



Household 

Sanitation 

Public 

sanitation 

Sanitation 

marketing 

Urine Diversion 

Dry Toilet 

(UDDT) 

Sector Wide 

Approach 

(SWAP) 

Household sanitation refers to private/domestic facilities that are 

installed and managed by the households. 

Public Sanitation refers to communal toilet facilities installed in public 

places like markets, health centres, taxi/bus parks or any other public 

places. In Small Towns, the common facilities used are water borne 

toilets (where there is a piped water supply system) and VIP latrines. 

Often the public sanitation facilities are privatised for effective operation 

and maintenance. 

Sanitation marketing (SanMark) is a viable mechanism for increasing 

sanitation coverage by supporting efforts to enhance the capacity of 

the private sector to supply desirable sanitation products, encouraging 

the public sector to develop a supportive enabling environment, and 

increasing the capacity of NGOs and local governments to stimulate 

demand. Sanitation marketing also focuses on demand creation through 

media and communications campaigns. 

This is the most common form of ecological toilet known in Uganda. 

This toilet consists of two (faecal) vaults, built above ground and a toilet 

superstructure. Urine and faeces are collected separately, the faeces are 

collected in the faecal vault under the slab; and the urine is collected in 

a container, e.g., a tank or jerry can, but sometimes, it can be infiltrated 

into the ground. 

This is a mechanism whereby Government, Civil Society and Development 

Partners support a single policy, development plan and expenditure 

programme, which is under Government leadership and follows a 

common approach. It de-emphasizes donor-specific project approaches 

but promotes funding for the sector through general, sector earmarked 

budget support or through basket funding. Rural water and sanitation is 

the most advanced in terms of SWAP implementation in Uganda’s Water 

and Environment sector. 

Software An umbrella term used to cover the activities of awareness creation, 

community sensitisation mobilisation and post-construction followup 

with respect to water supply and sanitation. These activities are 

undertaken to change behaviour and attitudes towards hygiene and 

sanitation and to ensure community management of improved water 

supply facilities. 

Undertaking Strategic actions agreed on in the Joint Sector Review (JSR) to be 

undertaken by the sector. The status of the undertakings is reported on 

in the subsequent JSR. 

Urban 

and Rural 

population: 

In Uganda, the city of Kampala, all municipalities and town councils 

are classified as urban areas. All other areas are classified as rural. All 

district headquarters are classified as town councils. The formation of 

new districts has resulted in the creation of new town councils, where 

they were not classified as such previously. 


Water and 

Sanitation 

Development 

Facility 

(WSDF) 


WSDF is a mechanism for supporting water supply and sanitation 

facilities for rural growth centres, small towns and large gravity flow 

schemes. The WSDF is a facilitating mechanism as it will provide funding 

as well as technical support to the water authorities/ town councils for 

implementation management, capacity building and quality assurance. 

WASH Cluster Group of mainly humanitarian NGOs working in North and North-eastern 

Uganda, coordinated by UNICEF 



Executive Summary 

Background 

NGOs and CBOs have over the years made significant contributions to increasing people’s 

access to safe water and better sanitation. This has been done through mobilizing and building 

the capacity of communities to demand, use and sustain efficient water and sanitation services 

and through, the provision of physical infrastructure, and supporting both relief/emergency and 

long-term water and sanitation programmes. The national umbrella organisation of NGOs and 

CBOs in water and sanitation sector, the Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network (UWASNET), 

reports annually on the NGO performance and contribution to Uganda’s Water and Sanitation 

Sector and feeds to the overall annual Water and Environment Sector Performance Report of 

the Ministry of Water and Environment. The report is based on data submitted by NGOs and 

CBOs in the Water and Sanitation Sector. 

A total of 104 NGOS and CBOs constituting 57 % of UWASNET members submitted data. This 

indicates progressive increase in NGO and CBO reporting from 41% and 53% in 2007/8 and 

2008/9 respectively. In order to capture contributions from all NGOs and CBOs in the sector, 

UWASNET is encourage reporting by all NGOs and CBOs irrespective of registration status as 

a member organisation. Annex 1 presents all NGOs and CBOs who have submitted data for 

this report. To encourage report, other CSOs that have not submitted data have also been 

indicated. 

As observed in the 2009 report, most NGOs who were operating under emergency humanitarian 

response have now moved to mainstream CSO developmental work. Consequently, whereas in 

the past UWASNET and the WASH Cluster reported separately, this year the UWASNET reports 

incorporated data from 13 out of 24 (54%) WASH Cluster members operating in Northern 

Uganda. 

Investments 

During FY 2009/10. a total of UGX 18.5 billion was in invested by UWASNET and WASH cluster 

member, reflecting a decrease of UGX 0.7 billion from last years total investment of UGX 19.2 

billion. The was a decrease in investment by WASH Cluster members from UGX 3.2 billion in 

FY 2008/9 to UGX 3 billion. The decrease is associated with reduction of total investment in 

the WASH cluster following the return of IDPs to their villages. 

Despite the increase in number of NGOs reporting there is decrease in the UWASNET investment 

from UGX 16 billion during the FY 2008/9 to UGX 15.5 billion during the FY 2009/10. One of 

the reasons for the decrease in total investment by the UWASNET members is the global credit 

crunch.The other is that many donors have since changed strategy from supporting individual 

NGOs to preferring to support consortiums of organisations. 

However it must also be noted that not all reporting NGOs/CBOs indicated their investments. 

Gaps in reporting therefore continue to be a major bottleneck in defining NGO investment into 

the subsector. Investment in water supply was UGX 13.8 billion (74%); Sanitation and hygiene 



promotion UGX 2.7 billion (15%); Community management UGX 1.7 billion (9%); IWRM UGX 0.2 

billion (1%) and Water for production UGX 0.1 billion (1%) of the total investment. 

As is often the case, most of the investment went into water supply sub-sector (often as a result 

of high costs associated with construction or rehabilitation of water facilities) with sanitation 

and hygiene accounting for only 12% (often associated with software promotion activities). 

Under the water supply subsector, high investments were made in the construction of piped 

water schemes (UGX 4.479 billion) and construction of boreholes (UGX 4.05 billion). Under 

Sanitation, high investments were made in the construction of school toilets (for boys, girls 

and teachers; UGX 1.215 billion) and installation of hand washing facilities. There was high 

investment in household toilet construction as a form of demonstration of technologies (UDDT 

ecosan, sky-loos, fossa alterna, arbo loo) or outright support to disadvantaged families as in 

the very poor elderly, people living with HIV/AIDS, and Child-headed households thus putting 

exceptions to the government policy of no subsidy for household sanitation. Under Community 

management, high investments have been made towards functionality and sustainability of 

water supply facilities reflected through training of WUCs (UGX 354.67 million). UGX 271.65 

million was spent on Community meetings that discuss among others issues of community 

participation, ownership of facilities as well as improved sanitation and hygiene behaviour. 

The strategy of improving sanitation through School health clubs and community health clubs 

is increasingly being adapted constituting 18% (UGX 311.62 million) of the investment in 

Community Management. Other major expenditures under community management include 

follow-up support activities (UGX 118.21 million); training artisans for construction of water 

supply facilities (UGX 67.86million) and artisan for construction of sanitation facilities (UGX 

30.95 million) and training of Handpump mechanics (UGX 25.09 million). Based on sector 

guidelines for computing populations served, 472,894 persons were served under the water 

supply sub sector. 

Unit costs 

There has been an increase in unit cost for borehole construction by UGX 2.076 million largely 

as a result of rising costs of materials for borehole construction. For other technology options, 

other than the expected variations, there are no major differences in unit cost between FY 

2008/9 and FY 2009/10. Comparing unit cost for borehole construction between GoU and 

CSO, The GoU Unit Cost is more by UGX 1.504. This is a slight difference considering amounts 

involved. 

Functionality 

Functionality of water sources continues to be one of the core focus areas on NGOs and 

CBOs for both existing water sources and new sources being developed. In order to improve 

functionality, NGOs have sensitised the communities, encouraged them to participate in the 

water projects and own the new water sources. The ownership is hoped to be achieved by 

having communities, contribute towards capital costs (outside IDP camps). 

Other efforts by the NGOs will include; formation and training of water source management 

committees, training and equipping of Hand pump mechanics, formation of Hand pump mechanics’ 

associations as well as holding dialogue meetings that bring together service providers and 

beneficiary communities. In urban areas, the Citizens’ Report Card and the Community Score 

Card process have not only improved governance, transparency and communication within the 

water service system but also access and service delivery. 

Contributing to improved sanitation and hygiene 

In order to improve sanitation, 21,329 traditional latrines, 130 VIP latrines, 86 Ecosan toilets 



(UDDT), seven skyloos, 11 arboo loos, and 20 fossa alterna toilets were constructed. Arboo 

loos and fossa alterna are relatively new technologies in the country being introduced to schools 

and households. The construction of toilet facilities to households has been discussed under 

sub-section 3.3 (Investments in Sanitation and Hygiene promotion), explained by construction 

of demonstration of technologies and meeting demands of vulnerable and disadvantaged 

households. It is estimated that a population of 906,300 people were served through the 

CSOs’ intervention. A number of software activities have been carried out to create demand for 

sanitation. For instance, people have been encouraged to participate in hygiene and sanitation 

competitions, Sanitation marketing, Community Led Total Sanitation; extending credit for 

sanitation facility development, training of masons, Village Health Teams and Local Information 

Facilitators are the other activities that have been undertaken, all aimed at increasing access 

to improved sanitation. 

In schools, 799 latrine stances were constructed. Of these, 395 stances are for boys while 352 

stances are for girls. The fossa alterna latrine technology is being introduced in Schools. It is 

still too early to say how successful the technology uptake has been. 

Handwashing 

A total of 26,752 household hand washing facilities have been installed. These are often 

low cost simple technologies (tippy tap) affordable by households. At schools 506 hand 

washing facilities have been installed. The installation is often coupled with sensitisation on 

the importance of washing hands with soap as a way that will help the community reduce the 

incidence of diarrhoea and other sanitation related illness. Several reports actually show that 

communities that have improved sanitation and hygiene behaviours suffer less incidences of 

diarrhea and sanitation related illnesses, but the credibility of these reports has been brought 

into question for lack of documentary evidence. 

Water Quality 

The majority of NGOs do not own water testing kits but have continued to work with district 

authorities to ensure high quality of water through water testing. A number of NGOs however 

conduct water testing to ensure that they supply safe water to communities and to monitor the 

safety of the water. International Life Line Fund (ILF) has invested UGX 3.9 million in water quality 

monitoring, conducting bacteriological testing while sending samples to Entebbe laboratory for 

chemical analysis. The installation of water bio-sand filters (Katosi Women Development Trust), 

chlorination of water sources (Concern Worldwide) are some of the activities NGOs undertake 

to ensure water quality. 

Water quantity 

Traditionally, NGOs have not been involved in the Water for Production sub-sector largely due 

to the high investment cost associated with construction of Water for Production facilities such 

as valley dams and valley tanks. However, Christian Engineers in Development a local NGO 

operating in Kabale District has invested UGX 119.8 million in construction of a valley tank. 

Contributing to achieving equity 

Active participation in the planning and budgeting process is one way that NGOs contribute 

to equitable distribution of the available resources. The NGOs are active members of District 

Water and Sanitation Coordination Committees where decisions of resource allocation are 

made presenting opportunities for lobbying and advocacy for the underserved. A number of 

NGOs conduct Water source Mapping, locating all improved water points and reporting on their 

status while others are involved in capacity building. 


Supporting Community Based Management System (CBMS) 


Maintenance of rural water sources is done through the Community Based Maintenance System 

with communities taking charge of the maintenance aspects of their water sources through 

participating in the water source activities like cleaning and contributing funds for acquisition of 

spares. NGOs involved in development of water sources train Water and Sanitation Committees 

to take on the responsibility of developing capacity among the beneficiary population to be able 

to operate and maintain their water sources. Follow-up support has been provided and retraining 

carried out to keep the community based water source management committees and 

resource persons (like Hand Pump Mechanics, Scheme attendants) active. During FY 2009/10, 

an estimated total of 2,500 committees have been trained and re-trained. Eleven Piped Water 

Scheme Attendants and 119 Handpump Mechanics have been trained to take responsibility 

of O&M, sanitation and hygiene. Some 76 hand pump mechanics were supplied with tools for 

handpump maintenance purposes. 

Gender promotion 

Of the Water and Sanitation Committees formed and trained, 5,870 (49%) were male; 6,065 

(51%) were female. Data received was silent on the number of women holding key position. 

However NGOs recognize the important role women play in the O&M of water sources given that 

it’s the women and children who are charged with the collection of water. As part of their gender 

promotion, CSOs conduct a number of gender specific activities such as in training of women 

groups in income generating activities, gender training and sensitization groups, and training of 

both men and women as masons. 

Recommendations. 

Based on challenges met and issues observed, the following recommendations have been 

made. 

• Review the CBMS strategy in light of levels of functionality of rural water sources and the 

problems associated with CBMS. Consider a conditional grant for maintenance of rural 

water sources and the management of rural water supply through management contracts 

with private sector organisations with communities playing a monitoring role. As a further 

step towards improving functionality, there should be support for hand pump mechanics 

and advocacy for formation of hand pump mechanics associations as well as case 

documentation of successful O&M stories and strategies 

• Consider a review of the government ‘no subsidy’ for households’ policy to cater for the 

needy and vulnerable families. 

• There is need to increase sector financing to ensure realisation of the MDG goal of ensuring 

universal accessibility to water and improved sanitation by 2015. It is critical to expedite 

the process of refining the procurement policy such that NGOs/CBOs can participate in 

bidding for contracts and consultancies at the district and lower local government levels. 

• Government ought to provide direct funding for NGOs and CBOs in the Water and Sanitation 

Sector and utilise the CSOs’ technical knowledge and resources in areas where NGOs 

have demonstrated proficiency (as in software activities). Conversely however, the CSOs 

ought to complement government efforts to attain sector goals and targets. The approach 

advocated for is akin to the one under Ministry of Health where Government of Uganda 

makes direct funding to CSOs to provide health services through health units and outreach 

service. Such resources for CSOs in Water and Sanitation Sector would be channelled 

through UWASNET. 



• It is critical to develop a financing system for domestic rainwater harvesting (micro finance) 

to further popularise the rainwater harvesting technology and make it more affordable. 

• Capacity building for CSOs in the area of documentation, reporting, transparency and 

accountability as well as continuous QUAM must be ensured. UWASNET is tasked with 

operationalising the accountability and transparency code of conduct. 

• The Framework of Cooperation between CSOs in the Water and Sanitation subsector and 

Local Governments should be disseminated and operationalised. Targets and indicators for 

purposes of monitoring should be set. 

• There ought to be more emphasis on equity in resources allocation and service delivery, 

recognizing the most vulnerable. Conditional grants should target ensuring equity within 

the districts. 

• Indicators to monitor NGO and CBO participation in District Water and Sanitation Coordination 

meetings (DWSCC) and other activities should be developed. CSO participation in DWSCC 

should be part of the CSO reporting. 

• There should be capacity building on IWRM among NGO/CBO through training and 

sharing. 


1 Introduction 

1.1 Context 


NGOs and CBOs have over the years made significant contributions to increasing people’s 

access to safe water and better sanitation. This has been done through mobilizing and building 

the capacity of communities to demand, use and sustain efficient water and sanitation services 

and through the provision of physical infrastructure, and supporting both relief/emergency and 

long-term water and sanitation programmes. The national umbrella organisation of NGOs and 

CBOs in water and sanitation sector, the Uganda Water and Sanitation NGO Network (UWASNET), 

reports annually on the NGO performance and contribution to Uganda’s Water and Sanitation 

Sector and feeds to the overall annual Water and Environment Sector Performance Report of 

the Ministry of Water and Environment. The report is based on data submitted by NGOs and 

CBOs in the Water and Sanitation Sector. 

As of last year, NGO reporting has been aligned with the Government of Uganda Financial 

Year. For the reporting period in question CSOs (see subsection 1.3.2) provided services in 82 

districts, constituting 74% of Uganda administrative districts. In these districts the CSOs have 

reached out and provided services to an estimated population of 2.7 million people 1 . 

1.2 Structure of the Report 

This 2010 report basically follows the structure of the 2009 report with minor variations. The 

report is structured as follows: Chapter One provides the background to the report, outlines 

the methodology used in the data collection and analysis, and provides information about 

UWASNET. Chapter Two presents an overview of the Water and Sanitation Sector in Uganda in 

terms of policy and institutional framework. Chapter Three presents the investments made by 

NGOs and CBOs in the Water and sanitation sector. Chapter Four describes the way in which the 

NGOs have contributed towards achieving the sector’s Golden Indicators. Chapter Five presents 

the way in which the NGOs have contributed to the implementation of the 2009 Sector Review 

Undertakings. Chapter Six outlines and discusses the challenges met, key lessons learnt and 

recommendations. 

1.3 Methodology 

1.3.1 Data Collection 

Building on the last year’s reporting format, a standard format for data collection was designed 

and distributed to CSOs in the WASH Sector. Part one of the formats was related to quantitative 

data, physical and financial reports including budgets and expenditures and unit costs. It also 

covers the population served as well as the qualitative data and the major results or outcome 

1 This is a conservative figure as some NGOs did not indicate population served. 



of the interventions taken. Part two of the format generated qualitative data on a number 

of water and sanitation variables that include gender, equity, operation and maintenance 

(O&M).It also captured water quality and promotion of sanitation and hygiene practices and 

technologies in households, institutions and public places. It also covered; Integrated Water 

Resources Management (IWRM) and HIV/AIDS mainstreaming among others. As part of sharing 

experiences and best practices, NGOs have been encouraged to contribute case studies and 

other documentations of real life experiences- stories that show how lives have been changed 

as a result of their interventions. Many of these have included in the report. 

1.3.2 Responses 

A total of 104 NGOS and CBOs constituting 57 % of UWASNET members submitted data. This 

indicates a progressive increase in NGO and CBO reporting from 41% and 53% in 2007/8 and 

2008/9 respectively. In order to capture contributions from all NGOs and CBOs in the sector, 

UWASNET is encouraging reporting by all NGOs and CBOs irrespective of registration status 

as a member organisation. Annex 1 presents all NGOs and CBOs who have submitted data for 

this report. To encourage reporting, other CSOs that have not submitted data have also been 

indicated. 

As observed in the 2009 report, most NGOs who were operating under emergency humanitarian 

response have now moved to mainstream CSO developmental work. Consequently, whereas in 

the past UWASNET and the WASH Cluster reported separately, this year the UWASNET reports 

incorporated data from 13 out of 24 (54%) WASH Cluster members operating in Northern 

Uganda. Figure 1 reflects the distribution of NGOs reporting by area of operation 

Figure 1.1: Reporting NGOs areas of operation 

Rural and urban 

28% 

Urban 

8% 


Rural 

64% 

From Figure 1, the majority of the NGOs (64%) work in rural area reflecting a rural bias of 

most NGOs and CBOs. Only 8% of the reporting NGOs work in urban area while 28% work 

in both rural and urban areas. A classification of reporting NGO is as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 1.2: Classification of reporting NGOs 

Local NGOs 

57% 


From Figure 2, the majority of the reporting CSOs were local NGOs (57%). International NGOs 

constituted 22%; CBOs 14%, and Faith based organisations 7%. 

1.3.3 Challenges 

International 

NGOs 

22% 

Faith Based 

NGOs 

7% 

The need for a high degree of transparency and accountability on part of NGOs needs not be 

overemphasised. UWASNET Secretariat has progressively sought to improve reporting. However 

challenges to reporting still exist. As observed in the previous years, response rate for data 

submission is still unsatisfactory. Report formats need to be received in good time and the 

NGOs need to provide appropriate data where required. Incomplete reporting gives a distorted 

picture at data analysis stage. Complete NGO investment and contribution to the sector will 

remain unknown till all CSOs appreciate the need and are committed to complete reporting. It 

has been suggested that reporting formats be received early by the NGOs who would then be 

encouraged to keep a data base based on the reporting requirement. 

CBOs 

14% 



2 Water and Sanitation 

Sector Overview 

2.1 Introduction 

NGOs do not operate within a vacuum but are guided by Uganda Water and Sanitation subsector 

policies, guidelines and regulatory framework instituted by the Government of Uganda. This 

Chapter presents an overview of Uganda Water and Sanitation subsector 2 

2.2 Sector Overview 

The water and environment sector is divided into two main parts. One is the Water and Sanitation 

subsector and the second is the Environment subsector. 

2.2.1 Sector objectives 

The policy objectives of the Government for water and sanitation subsector are as follows: 

• The water resources sub-sector objective is “To manage and develop the water resources 

of Uganda in an integrated and sustainable manner, so as to secure and provide water of 

adequate quantity and quality for all social and economic needs of the present and future 

generations and with the full participation of all stakeholders.” 

• The rural water supply sub-sector objectives is “Sustainable safe water supply and sanitation 

facilities, based on management responsibility and ownership by the users, within easy 

reach of 65% of the rural population by the year 2005 with an 80%-90% effective use and 

functionality of facilities - then eventually to100% of the urban population by 2010 and 

100% of the rural population by the year 2015.” 

• The urban sub-sector objective is derived from the overall policy objectives of the GoU for 

water supply and sanitation in line with the PEAP are “To achieve sustainable provision 

of safe water within easy reach and hygienic sanitation facilities, based on management 

responsibility and ownership by the users, to 77% of the population in rural areas and 100% 

of the urban population by the year 2015 with an 80-90% effective use and functionality of 

facilities.” 

• The WfP sub-sector objectives, based on the vision for development of the WfP Sub-sector 

is: “Water for production services provided for increased production in order to reduce 

poverty on a sustainable basis”. 

• The sanitation sub-sector objective (Health Sector Strategic Plan II) is to: “contribute to 

the reduction of morbidity, mortality, and disability among the people of Uganda through 

improvement of housing, use of safe water, food hygiene promotion, waste management, 

and control of vectors and vermin”. 

2 Source of data: GoU; MoWE (2009). Consolidated Strategy for the Water Supply and Sanitation Sector 


2.2.2 Institutional Framework 


The institutional framework for the water and sanitation sector comprises a number of 

organisations and stakeholders at community, district and national levels. The Directorate of 

Water Development (DWD) and the Directorate of Water Resources Management (DWRM) under 

the Ministry of Water, Lands and Environment (MoWLE) are the lead Central Government agency 

for rural and small towns water supply while the National Water and Sewerage Corporation 

(NWSC) is responsible for water supply and sewerage in large urban centres. DWD is responsible 

for providing overall technical oversight for the planning, implementation and supervision of the 

delivery of rural and urban water services across the country as well as ensuring water for 

production. DWD is responsible for regulation of provision of water supply and sanitation services 

and the provision of capacity development and other support services to Local Governments, 

Private Operators and other service providers while the DWRM is responsible for management 

of the nation’s water resources. 

The Sanitation Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Ministry of Water, Land 

and Environment (MoWLE), Ministry of Education and Sports (MoES) and Ministry of Health 

(MoH) in 2001 split up institutional responsibilities for sanitation. The MoU though it clarified 

institutional responsibilities, had limitations and limited impact in prioritising sanitation. The 

Water and Sanitation Sector Performance Report 2008 recommends that the review of the 

MoU should be part of the package of guidelines for the implementation of the integrated 

budget line. 

According to the MoU: 

• The Ministry of Water, Land and Environment would be responsible for planning investment 

in sewerage services and public facilities in towns and rural growth centres; 

• The Ministry of Health would be responsible for household hygiene and sanitation 

• The Ministry of Education and Sports take responsibility for school latrine construction and 

hygiene education 

Other key institutions at national level include: 

• The Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) is responsible for capacity building in local 

governance and policy supervision of local authorities. 

• The Ministry of Gender, Labour and Social Development (MoGLSD) is responsible for 

development of gender responsiveness policy development, and supports districts to build 

staff capacity to implement sector programmes; 

• The Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development (MoFPED) mobilises funds, 

and coordinates development partner inputs; and the Ministry of Local Government 

responsible for capacity development and support to local governments. 

• The National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) operates and provides water and 

sewerage services for large urban centres across the country. 

• The Ministry of lands, housing and urban development (MLHUD) is responsible for providing 

policy direction, national standards and coordination of all matters concerning lands, 

housing and urban development. 

• UWASNET co-ordinates the activities of NGOs at national level. 

At Local Government levels, (districts, municipal councils. town councils and subcounties) are 



empowered by the Local Governments Act (2000) for the provision of water and sanitation 

services. They receive funding from the centre in the form of a conditional grant and can also 

mobilise additional local resources for water and sanitation programmes. 

Communities take responsibility for demanding, planning, and contributing to Operation 

and Maintenance (O & M) of public facilities through user fees as well as construction of 

household toilet facilities. NGOS and CBOs compliment government efforts to deliver Water 

and Sanitation services. There are over 200 NGOs and CBOs currently undertaking water and 

sanitation activities in Uganda. Most of the NGOs are represented UWASNET. Annex 1 reflects 

key institutions and their responsibilities under the Water and Sanitation Subsector 

2.2.3 Water and sanitation Subsector Strategies 

The Water and Sanitation Sub-sector has developed strategies for delivering WASH services to 

the people. Some strategies however remain unknown to service providers requiring strategic 

dissemination of subsector strategies. Table 2.1 reflects the strategies against the subsector. 

Table 2.1: Water and Sanitation Subsectors and their respective Strategies 

Sub-Sector Strategies 

Water Resources 

Management 

(WRM) 

Rural Water 

Supply (RWS) 

Urban Water 

Supply and 

Sewerage (UWSS) 

• Strengthening regulation. 

• Catchment-based approaches to IWRM. 

• Trans-boundary WRM cooperation. 

• Monitoring of quantity and quality of water resources data. 

Strengthening stakeholder participation and Public-Private 

Partnerships for WRM. 

• Adaptation to climate change. 

• A demand responsive approach. 

• A decentralized approach Targeted Programs. 

• A “Package” approach financial viability. 

• Community based O&M 

• Capacity building of local governments. 

• Pro-poor funding and expansion of supply to low income urban 

dwellers. 

• Private-Public Partnerships including the Output Based Aid 

approach. 

• Effective mechanism for supporting investments in small 

towns. 

• Effective mechanism for O&M back-up support. 

• Transparent, affordable and viable tariffs. 

• Separation of operations and assets management. 

• Commercializing Services. 


Sub-Sector Strategies 

Water for 

Production (WfP) 


• Poverty Reduction Focus 

• Demand-Responsive Approaches 

• Sustainability. 

• Cost-efficiency. 

• Decentralisation and Management at the Lowest Appropriate 

Level. 

• Privatisation and Private Sector Involvement. 

• Gender Responsive Approach. 

• Environment and Health concerns. 

Sanitation • A demand responsive approach 

• A “Package” approach: 

• Adoption of appropriate Capacity building for local governments 

• Enabling Environment 

Sector 

Coordination and 

Management 

• Use of Sector-wide approach (SWAp) as means of integrating 

sector efforts across administrative and ministerial boundaries 

• Temporary role of TSUs to build capacity 

• Umbrella organisations for small scale urban systems 

• The WSDF as a means of channelling investment 

NGOs are expected to operate within the national strategic framework. 

2.2.4 Emerging Strategic challenges 

A number of strategic challenges have been identified. 3 

Water Resource Management 

There are a number of challenges related to Water Resource Management. These include, limited 

capacity for Water Resources Management, absence of an overall water resource management 

plans for the catchments in Uganda and pressures and threats on water resources due to climate 

change and variability. Other challenges are poor land use practices and catchment degradation 

have led to declining water levels, drying up of water sources and pollution of water resources. 

Furthermore, there are unregulated activities in catchments leading to increasing pollution levels 

of freshwater resources due to poor catchment management leading to rapid deterioration of 

the water quality in the major water bodies in Uganda. While the struggle for economic and 

social development in Uganda is increasingly related to water resources, the concept of IWRM 

is not well understood at the political and technical levels outside the water sector. Efforts 

have been made to improve the understanding and appreciation of the concept of IWRM but 

there remains a huge challenge to raise awareness within the country and to engage national 

development planning processes so that it is given due priority. Among NGOs, efforts have 

been made to create awareness and educate NGOs on IWRM issues. More sensitisation and 

education is necessary to get more NGOs to implement targeted IWRM activities. The policy 

on disaster management, especially in relation to water resources (floods, droughts, dam 

safety and accidental pollution e.g. oil spill pollution) is inadequate. Many institutions exist with 

overlapping mandates, and on the whole there is, inadequate coordination at both national and 

regional levels. 

3 MoWE 2009: Consolidated Sector Strategies for Water supply and Sanitation 



Rural water supply 

Provision of water services for post conflict areas presents a challenge. Also quite challenging is 

provision of safe water in emergency situations, such as cholera epidemics, refugee situations 

as well as times of floods and droughts. This particular sub sector suffers inadequate funding 

and is therefore often unable to meet the needs of a constantly growing population and to 

reach sector coverage targets. The increasing costs in areas where water is scarce do not help 

matters at all. 

Furthermore, there is increasing per capita investment costs due to: low economies of scale 

characteristics of local government contracts, the fact that the remaining water sources are 

more difficult and expensive to develop than those already implemented, high construction cost 

inflation and fiduciary risks. Sustainability of rural water supply facilities also continues to be a 

challenge. The low sustainability of the installed infrastructure is due to, among other; inadequate 

O&M provisions put in place by the user communities, poor quality of construction supervision 

and inadequate involvement of communities in the planning, financing and implementation of 

the water supply projects. Critically too, the private sector does not have sufficient capacity to 

cope with the increased water supply activities both for implementation and for provision of cost 

effective operation and maintenance support. 

Urban water supply 

Need for support to replacement, renewals and major expansions: 

The water tariffs in urban areas are tailored to meet O&M costs and funding is needed for 

replacement of components that have outlived the design lifespan as well as expansions to 

cover the growth of the towns. Owing to the inadequate capacity of Town Water Authorities to 

plan and implement investments in new water and sewerage schemes, DWD still supports 

investments in the towns. This is important and necessary in the short term because Unit 

costs for implementation are ever increasing for various reasons and the sector needs to 

continue working towards cost effective implementation. Cost recovery is hampered by arrears 

and Value Added Tax (VAT) on water revenue as well as limited sewerage coverage. 

Water for Production 

Challenges include inadequate capacity of District Local Governments involved in the sub-sector; 

inadequate funding and high unit costs, low sustainability of installed infrastructure. 

Sanitation 

The budget allocations and the financing mechanisms for the sanitation sector have been 

inadequate. The implementation of the MoU has been limited by the unclear funding mechanism 

whereby each of the ministries involved expected the others to prioritise funds for sanitation 

within their own sector ceilings. Enforcement of sanitation bye-laws by local governments is still 

inadequate and not widespread in all districts. Furthermore, there is a low level of awareness 

of the existing laws pertaining to Sanitation and Hygiene enforcement. The capacity of the 

local governments to plan and implement sanitation activities remains low due to inadequate 

staffing, skills and logistical support for the Health Inspectorate; co-ordination of sanitation 

stakeholders at district level is still weak resulting in ineffective planning and utilisation of the 

limited resources. In schools, provision of sanitation and hygiene services remains inadequate 

as a result of increased enrolment, inappropriate technology choice and unclear institutional 

mandates. Systematic collection of information and reporting with respect to excreta related 

sanitation and hygiene remain a big challenge. In urban areas, the mandates for solid waste 

management and drainage at national level are clear, however, the capacity of the urban 

authorities to implement remains inadequate. 



2.3 Towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals 

(MDGs) 

Progress towards achieving the MDGs has been made but progress on key development 

outcomes has been woefully inadequate. Notably, on maternal, newborn and child health the 

rate of progress is unacceptable especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Contributing to the slow 

progress on these development outcomes is the neglect of key sectors and interventions. The 

MDGs are interconnected and interdependent, and integrated development is a precondition for 

accelerated and sustainable development. The sanitation MDG target highlights this deficit and 

the risks that lie in prioritizing one sector or intervention over another. The target is seriously 

off-track: at current rates, it will not be met globally until 2049; and in sub-Saharan Africa it will 

not be met until the 23rd century (WHO Joint Monitoring Programme 2010). 

Between 20 and 22 September 2010 the heads of state meeting in New York was held to 

discuss progress, with ten years on and five years to go, towards meeting the MDGs. The 

summit is an accountability moment on the MDGs. The summit focused on maternal mortality 

and (to a lesser extent) child mortality - quite right given how off-track the maternal mortality 

MDG is but the role that sanitation plays in health was not effectively discussed. 

In Uganda the sanitation MDG is off-track (JMP 2009). There has been concern that discussions 

leading up to MDG summit in the UN and in some of our most supportive governments barely 

mentioned sanitation or even water – and the contribution that investment in these sectors 

makes to the achievement of the other MDGs, particularly on education and health. 

July 26, 2010, UWASNET in collaboration With WaterAid and the Ministry of Water and 

Environment organized a press conference at Munyonyo the venue for the AU summit where 

Mrs. Janet Museveni - the Sanitation Ambassador in Uganda, on behalf of other First Ladies 

urge African leaders to take action and ensure that the integration of sanitation, hygiene and 

water an integral part of national health strategies and are adequately financed. She noted that 

diarrhoea the biggest killer of African children under five (5) can only be prevented by having 

safe sanitation, safe water and hygiene. Access to these basic rights can also significantly 

reduce other leading causes of child deaths, such as pneumonia and under-nutrition 

Mrs Janet Museveni 

– the Sanitation 

Ambassador in Uganda 

advocating for WASH 

during the AU Summit 

at Munyonyo, Uganda 



3 NGO and CBO investment in the 



Presented in this chapter are NGO and CBO investments in delivering WASH services to 

the communities. They include investments in water supply (borehole construction and 

rehabilitation, shallow well construction and rehabilitation, spring protection and rehabilitation, 

piped water scheme construction, rainwater harveting, valley dams construction, investments 

in water purification, water quality testing, and Integrated Water Resourse Management); 

Sanitation and Hygiene promotion (household latrine construction and improvement, public 

latrine construction and improvement, school latrine construction, installation of handwashing 

facilities, installation of waste disposal facilities, construction of drying racks, production 

and distribution of sanplats and slabs, construction and rehabilitation of drainage channels, 

provision of tools for latrine construction); community management activities (formation and 

training of Water User Committees (WUCs)/Water and Sanitation Committees (WSC)/Water 

Sanitation and Hygiene WASH Committees, training of handpump mechanics, training of school 

science teacher, support to O&M activities, formation and training of School Health Clubs 

and Community Health Clubs, training of masons and artisans, conducting of exposure visits/ 

learning journeys/learning events, community meetings, provision of follow-up support to 

community structures/groups/committees/resource perso. Figure 3.1 reflects trends in NGOs 

and CBOs investments in the Water and Sanitatation Sector since 2006. 

Figure 3.1 Trends in NGO and CBO investments (UGX billion) 

24.4 

9.7 

34.1 

30 

13.7 

43.7 


3.2 

19.2 18.5 

16 

2006 2007 2008/9 2009/10 

WASH Cluster 

UWASNET 

Total


During FY 2009/10. a total of UGX 18.5 billion was in invested by UWASNET and WASH cluster 

member, reflecting a decrease of UGX 0.7 billion from last years total investment of UGX 19.2 

billion. The was a decrease in investment by WASH Cluster members from UGX 3.2 billion in 

FY 2008/9 to UGX 3 billion. The decrease is associated with reduction of total investment in 

the WASH cluster following the return of IDPs to their villages. Despite the increase in number 

of NGOs reporting there is decrease in the UWASNET investment from UGX 16 billion during 

the FY 2008/9 to UGX 15.5 billion during the FY 2009/10. Reasons for the decrease in total 

investment by the UWASNET members include the credit crunch and change of donor strategy 

from supporting individual NGOs to supporting consortiums of organisations. However it must 

also be noted that not all reporting NGOs/CBOs indicated their investments. Gaps in reporting 

continue to be a major bottleneck in defining NGO investment into the subsector. 

A breakdown of the CSOs investment is reflected in Figure 3.2 

Figure 3.2 Investment by CSOs (UGX billion) 

Water Supply; 13.8 

Investment UGX billions 

Water for production; 

0.1 

Sanitation and 

Hygiene promotion; 

2.7 

IWRM; 0.2 

Community 

Management; 1.7 

From Figure 3.2, investment in Water supply was UGX 13.8 billion (74%); Sanitation and hygiene 

promotion UGX 2.7 billion (15%); Community management UGX 1.7 billion (9%); IWRM UGX 

0.2 billion (1%) and Water for production UGX 0.1 billion (1%) of the total investment. As is 

often the case, most of the investment went into water supply sub-sector (often as a result of 

high costs associated with construction/rehabilitation of water facilities) with sanitation and 

hygiene accounting for only 12% (often associated with software promotion activities). Figure 

3.3 reflects difference in investments for the various sub-sectors between FY 2008/9 and 

2009/10 



Figure 3.3 Difference in Investment (UGX billion) between FY 2008/9 and 2009/10 

2.5 

2 

1.5 

1 

0.5 

0 

-0.5 

-1 

2.05 

Overall there has been increased investment in all sub sectors; an increase of UGX 2.05 billion 

under water supply subsector; UGX 0.1 billion under Water for Production; UGX 1.16 billion 

under community management services and UGX 0.2 billion under IWRM. Sanitation however 

had a reduction of UGX 0.9 billion. Most of the sanitation and hygiene promotion software 

(creating demand, improving supply and crating a conducive environment for service delivery) 

making it difficult to ascertain how much of the community management investment related to 

sanitation as well. 

3.2 Investment in Water Supply 

Investment in water supply subsector is as shown in Figure 3.4 

Figure 3.4 NGO and CBO Investments in the Water Supply (UGX billion) 

Water testing 

Spring rehabilitation 

Water filters constructed/provided 

Shallow well rehabilitation 

Spring protection 

Fan Pumps and solar pumps 

Borehole rehabilitation/repair 

Rainwater harvesting 

Shallow well construction 

Borehole Construction 

Piped water schemes 

0.004 

0.004 

0.008 

0.1 

0.122 

0.181 

0.273 

0.436 

-0.9 


1.16 

0.2 

1.819 

2.451 

Water Supply 

Water for production 

Sanitation and Hygiene promotion 

Community Management 

IWRM 

4.05 

4.479


Under the water supply subsector, high investments were registered in construction of piped 

water schemes (UGX 4.479 billion) and construction of boreholes (UGX 4.05 billion). Section 4.10 

looks at measures being taken to ensure functionality of the new supplies under construction. 

There are low levels of investment in ensuring water quality through water testing and water 

filtering as well as investment in rehabilitation of springs. 

3.3 Investments in Sanitation and Hygiene promotion 

The sanitation and Hygiene promotion subsector provides a wide range of areas for investment. 

Figure 3.5 presents investments made under the Sanitation and Hygiene subsector 

Figure 3.5 Investments in Sanitation and Hygiene promotion (UGX million) 

Drainage channels (Kms) 

Household Arboloo construction 

Public latrine (traditional) 

Household F/alterna (ecosan) latrine 

Household skyloo latrine construction 

Public Waterborne system 

Waste disposal facilities construction 

Drying racks construction 

HH Ecosan (UDDT ) construction 

School handwashing facilities 

Sanplats production and distribution 

Tools for toilet construction 

School toilets for teachers 


Public latrines VIP 

Public Ecosan toilets 

Sanitation and hygiene promotion 

Household VIP latrines construction 

HH traditional latrine construction 

Household handwashing facilities 

School toilets for girls 

School toilets for boys 

0.08 

2.82 

4.90 

9.86 

9.86 

27.00 

31.16 

31.75 

32.23 

62.59 

71.44 

74.12 

77.17 

79.40 

93.15 

128.39 

151.63 

169.69 

229.85 

316.38 

559.42 

578.49 

From Figure 3.5, high investments were made in the construction of school toilets (for boys, 

girls and teachers; UGX 1.215 billion) and installation of hand washing facilities. There was high 

investment in household toilet construction as a form of demonstration of technologies (UDDT 

ecosan, sky-loos, fossa alterna, arbo loo) or outright support to disadvantaged families, which 

includes the very poor, the elderly, people living with HIV/AIDS, and Child-headed households 

thus putting exceptions to the government policy of no subsidy for household sanitation. 

33 | NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector 

UGX millions


3.4 Investment in Community management 

Presented in Figure 3.6 are investments made under community management. 

Figure 3.6 Investments made under Community Management 

Facilitate spare parts acquisition 10.62 

Improving service delivery 

Tools for Handpump Mechanics 

Best practices promotion 

Drama/radio talk shows 

Training of Handpump Mechanics 

Training of artisans for sanitation 

Training of Schience Teachers 

Training of artisans for WS*** 

Community Mgt. (unspecified) 

Follow-up support activities 

Training of CHCs** 

Training of SHCs* 

Learning events 

Community meetings 

Training of WUCs 

12.02 

19.11 

20.81 

21.22 

25.09 

30.95 

56.70 

67.86 

103.44 

118.21 

122.62 

High investments have been made towards functionality and sustainability of water supply 

facilities a fact reflected through training of WUCs (UGX 354.67 million). UGX 271.65 million was 

spent on Community meetings that discuss among others issues of community participation, 

ownership of facilities as well as improved sanitation and hygiene behaviour. 

The strategy of improving sanitation through school health clubs and community health clubs 

is increasingly being adapted constituting 18% (UGX 311.62 million) of the investment in 

Community Management. Other major expenditures under community management include 

follow-up support activities (UGX 118.21 million), training artisans for construction of water 

supply facilities (UGX 67.86million) and training artisans for construction of sanitation facilities 

(UGX 30.95 million). Training of Hand pump mechanics takes up(UGX 25.09 million). 


189.00 

241.38 

271.65 

UGX Millions 

345.67

3.5 Unit costs 


Table 3.1 presents the units costs for various water technologies for FY 2009/10 and compares 

with units cost as reported by CSO during for FY 2008/9. 

Table 3.1 Unit costs for water supply technologies 

CSO 

Average unit costs (UGX ' 000) 

GoU 

Technology 

FY 2008/9 FY 2009/10 FY 2008/9 FY 2009/10 

Borehole Construction 

12,544 14,620 

15,728 

16,124 

Borehole rehabilitation/repair 

2,530 

1,009 

- 

- 

Fan Pumps and solar pumps 12,400 

- 

- 

Shallow well construction* 

4,333 

4,912 

- 

- 

Shallow well rehabilitation 1,168 

1,025 

- 

- 

Spring protection** 

2,429 

1,775 

- 

- 


2,421 

2,294 

- 

- 

Jars constructed 

Rainwater harvesting 

Tanks*** 

180 

1,079 

276 

1,148 

- 

1,842 

- 

1,299 

Water filters constructed/provided**** 

46,180 32,078 

- 

- 

* No distinction made on methodology of construction (hand-dug, hand-augured, motorised) 

** No distinction made on type of spring (small, medium, large) 

*** No distinction made on size of tank 

**** No distinction made on type of filter 

From the table, there has been an increase of unit cost for borehole construction by UGX 2.076 

million largely as a result of rising costs of materials for borehole construction. For other 

technology options, other than the expected variations, there are no major differences in Unit 

Cost between FY 2008/9 and FY 2009/10. Comparing Unit cost for borehole construction 

between GoU and CSO, The GoU Unit cost is more by UGX 1.504. This is a slight difference 

considering amounts involved. Furthermore, under the GoU, there is involvement of the private 

sector who have to make profit margin as opposed to some CSO who own borehole construction 

equipment thus limited involved of the private sector (Joy Drilling for example operates its own 

borehole drilling rig and has own technical expertise). 

It’s easier to compare unit costs for the construction of rainwater tanks and boreholes that 

other technologies because of the differences in reporting between CSOs and GoU or district 

local government. Under GoU, springs are further classified as small, medium, and large thus 

reflecting the varied investment costs for spring protection based on the spring classification. 

Further classification is made for shallow wells based on technology applied during construction, 

whether hand-dug; hand-augured, or motorised. This calls for harmonised reporting between 

district Local Governments and CSOs. 



4 Performance of NGO and CBOs 

against the WASH Subsector 

Golden Indicators 


As actors in the WASH subsector, NGOs and CBOs have a responsibility to contribute to 

monitoring of sector performance. This can only be effectively achieved by active contribution 

to district reporting to enable government progressively capture the contribution of NGOs and 

CBOs through reports from districts. The Subsector performance measurement framework 

provides eleven “Golden Indicators”against which the performance of the Water and Sanitation 

sub-sector is measured. As in the 2009 NGO Group Performance Report, this chapter is 

structured to allow for reporting of NGOs and CBOs contribution against the Golden Indicators. 

Box 4.1 presents a summary of the Golden Indicators. 

Box 4.1: The Golden Indicators 

SN Measurement 

Theme 

Golden Indicator 

1. Access % of people within 1 km (rural) and 0.2 km (urban) of an 

improved water source 

2. Functionality % of improved water sources that are functional at time of 

spot-check (rural and Water for Production). Ratio of the actual 

hours of water supply to the required hours of supply (urban) 

3. Per Capita 

Investment Cost 

Average cost per beneficiary of new water and sanitation 

schemes (US$) 

4.1 Sanitation % of people with access to improved sanitation 

(Households). 

4.2 School 

Sanitation: 

Pupil to latrine/toilet stance ratio in schools 

5. Water Quality % of water samples taken at the point of water collection, 

waste discharge point that comply with national standards 

6. Quantity of 

Water 

Cumulative water for production storage capacity (million 

m3) 


SN Measurement 

Theme 

Golden Indicator 


7. Equity Mean Sub-County deviation from the district average number 

of persons per improved water point. (Mean Sub-County 

deviation from the National average number of persons per 

improved water point presented here) 

8. Handwashing % of people with access to hand-washing facilities. 

9. Management % of water points with actively functioning Water & Sanitation 

Committees/ Water Supply and Sewerage Boards. 

10. Gender % of Water User committees/Water Boards with women 

holding key positions. 

11. Water 

Resources 

Management 

Compliance 

% of water abstraction and discharge permits holders 

complying with permit conditions 

4.2 CSO Contribution to Increased Access to Water 

Supplies 

NGOs and CBOs have continued to develop improved water sources in both rural and urban 

areas thus contributing to improving access 4 to improved water sources. 

Table 4.1 presents the number of water sources constructed/rehabilitated and population 

served based on the reported estimates of populations served. 

Table 4.1 Water sources developed and population served 

Activity 

Output (No.) 

Borehole Constructed 

374 

Borehole rehabilitated/repaired 

285 

Shallow well constructed 

573 

Shallow well rehabilitation 145 

Springs protected 

155 

Spring rehabilitated 

55 

Piped water schemes constructed 130 

Piped water 

Tap stands/Kiosks installed 951 

House Connections 479 

Rainwater Jars constructed 1,216 

harvesting Tanks constructed 1,437 

Water filters constructed/provided 

512 

Rural 

No of people served* 

Urban IDP 

174,000 

695,000 

160,000 

26,000 

17,000 

11,000 

156,000 

17,000 

4,000 

17,000 

43,000 

3,000 

1,323,000 

- 

4,000 

2,000 

5,000 

- 

- 

18,000 

106,000 

500,000 

2,000 

19,000 

- 

656,000 

From Table 4.1 an estimated population of 1.323 million people in rural areas, 0.656 million 

from urban areas and 0.002 million from IDP camps were served through CSOs’ interventions. 

Of the population served, the rural population constituted 67% while the urban population 

4 Access to an improved water supply in rural areas is based on data and calculated at Subcounty level. To calculate 

the access figure, the total number of people served by all the improved sources is divided by the total population 

- 

2,000 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

2,000 

* Population served estimated to the nearest 100th 


Total 

174,000 

701,000 

162,000 

31,000 

17,000 

11,000 

174,000 

123,000 

504,000 

19,000 

62,000 

3,000 

1,981,000


constituted 33% reflecting the rural bias of most NGOs. The less than 1% intervention in IDP 

camps is a reflection of the return of IDPSs to their villages. Figure 4.1 reflects population 

served against the water technologies. 

Figure 4.1 Population served against water supply technologies 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

- 

From Figure 4.1 more people were served through borehole rehabilitation. This however does 

not contribute to the overall improved access to safe water source, a figure computed from 

new water sources developed. Piped water schemes (mainly gravity water schemes) borehole 

construction and shallow well construction constituted the major technologies for rural water 

supply. In urban areas, construction and extension of piped water systems to unserved and 

underserved areas constituted the major technology option to improving access to safe water 

in urban areas. 

It should however be noted that based on the sector guidelines populations served against 

varying water supply technologies would be as reflected in Table 4.2 . 

Table 4.2 Assumed populations served against water supply technologies 


Population served ('000) 

Rural 

Population served ('000) 

Urban 

No Assumed no. of Number of persons 

Source 

developed persons per source 

served. 

Borehole 374 

300 

112,200 

Shallow well 573 

300 

171,900 

Protected Spring 155 

200 

31,000 

Tap stands/kiosks 951 

150 

142,650 

Household connections 479 

6 

2,874 

Rainwater Jars 1,216 

3 

3,648 

Rainwater tanks 1,437 

6 

8,622 

Total 472,894


There is need to re-define the concept of populations served and to harmonise reporting in this 

regard. 

There are a number of result areas from improving access to safe water. Women and children 

from targeted homes spend less time fetching water. More time is spent on other productive 

work. Accidents, abductions, rape and other associated dangers of going to fetching water 

from long distances are minimised. Reports from beneficiaries indicate a reduction of 

diarrheal diseases and other water and hygiene related infections. At household level, there 

was an improvement in domestic relations especially between spouses. Availability of water 

ensured a reduction in domestic conflicts that had their genesis in water scarcity. Development 

of new water sources has facilitated resettlement in areas where households have moved from 

IDP camps back to villages (see Case Study 4.1) 

Case Study 4.1 

New borehole contributes to resettlement in Apeleun Village; Katakwi: 

Source LWF 

“Most of the people 

chose to stay back in 

the camp instead of 

returning home due 

to the difficulty in 

accessing water for the 

construction of huts”. 

Says Aciila David, a 

37 year old resident 

of Apeleun village, 

Katakwi District. He 

is married to Among 

Betty 30, and has two 

daughters; Amongin 

Joyce 12 and Among 

Betty 03. 

“I lived in Olupe camp for 15 years due to the insurgency caused by armed Karimojong 

warriors. When relative calm returned, I hesitated returning home due to lack of 

a reliable water source. The difficulties of having no land to plough and frequent 

quarrels with neighbours forced me home in 2009. Life was not easy! We had to walk 

back to the camp for water, and other neighbouring villages of Anyipa and Adipala 

which are about 3kms away. Garden work in most cases was interrupted when the 

drinking water that we carried to the gardens got finished. We would stop digging and 

go back home. Bathing and cooking depended on water from an unprotected spring. 

Diarrhoea was common in the village.” 

“When Lutheran World Federation (LWF) identified and drilled a bore hole in my 

village, life changed for the better and within one week, I was able to put up a 

latrine after making the required bricks within just a day using water from the newly 

drilled borehole. Other 25 households have permanently returned to the village from 

the camp making a total of 35 households now. We are no longer isolated.” David 

declares. 



Some Other 28 households in the village have also constructed latrines contributing 

to improving latrine coverage to 82%. The new water source has changed lives of 

the community in David’s village. David celebrates saying, ‘This has tremendously 

reduced incidences of diarrhoea. I no longer need a bicycle to collect water since 

I am just 50 metres away from the borehole. My wife and children collect water 

needed for other domestic uses; between six to seven jerricans daily.” 

4.3 CSO contribution to functionality of Water Supplies 

Functionality of water sources remains one of the core focus areas on NGOs and CBOs for both 

existing water sources and new sources being developed. In order to improve functionality, NGOs 

have sensitized the communities, encouraging them to participate in the water projects and 

own the new water sources. The ownership is hoped to be achieved by having the communities 

contribute towards capital costs (outside IDP camps). 

Average figures of functionality for boreholes, shallow wells and rainwater harvesting systems 

as reported by NGOs and CBOs are as in Figure 4.2 below. 

Figure 4.2 Reported functionality of water source technologies 

94 

Rainwater 

harvesting 

tanks/jars 

Functionality (%) 

89 

The data however did not indicate whether reported figures were of water sources surveyed or numbers represented. However 

the average functionality figures is indicative of functionality of water supply facilities developed by CSOs. 

From Figure 4.2, rainwater harvesting tanks had the highest levels of functionality. Rainwater 

tanks are often non-community water supply facilities at household level or at schools and are 

most likely to be cared for than communal water supply systems. The rainwater harvesting 

tanks also has less need of spares and technical expertise to maintain as is the case is for 

hand-pumps. This among other qualities make rainwater harvesting an attractive technology 

for rural water supply. 


88 

Boreholes Shallow 

wells 

Functionality (%)

4.4 Per Capita Costs 

4.4.1 Per capita cost for Water Supply technologies 

Table 4.3 presents per capita investment costs for water technologies. 

Table 4.3: Per Capita Investment Costs: Water supply technologies 

Water supply technology Investment (UGX) 

Spring protection 181,059,582 

Rainwater harvesting Jars 242,800,574 

Piped water scheme construction 4,479,186,031 

Shallow well construction 2,451,137,576 

Borehole construction 4,049,690,830 

Rainwater harvesting Tanks 1,575,719,021 

*Beneficiaries estmated to the nearest 100th. 


Protected springs, and rainwater harvesting jars present a low per capita cost of UGX 10,588 

and UGX 12,325 respectively. Rainwater harvesting tanks depict the highest per capita cost 

of UGX 24,932. Possible explanation is that a large investment serves a single house hold 

as opposed to communal facilities that serve a large population. Of the public water supply 

facilities the borehole presents the highest per capita cost of UGX 23,352. 

A comparison with the FY 2008/9 per capita figures from CSO reporting is as in Table 4.4 

Table 4.4 Trend per capita cost; Water supply* 

41,813 

23,355 

14,443 

23,355 

12,143 

10,588 

14,951 

12,325 

No. of 

Beneficiaries* 

17,100 

19,700 

299,600 


173,400 

63,200 

Per capita 

cost (UGX) 


12,325 

14,951 

15,121 

23,355 

24,932 

* Estimating the number of beneficiaries and incomplete data from NGOs and CBOs continue to be a challenge. For FY 

2008/9, no reporting was made on the per capita cost for piped water schemes, and rainwater harvesting. The difference in 

per capita cost for boreholes from UGX 41.813 in FY 2008/9 to UGX 23,352 for FY 2009/10 may be attributed to data gaps 

rather than actual decrease in per capita cost. 

24,932 

Per capita cost FY 2008/9 

(UGX) 

Per capita cost FY 2009/10 

(UGX) 



4.4.2 Per capita cost for Sanitation technologies 

Per capita costs for sanitation technologies has not been presented largely due to gaps in the 

data received, gaps include, among others, number of stances to a toilet facility and materials 

used ( permanent or temporary). Case Study 4.2 reflects how costs for construction of sanitation 

facilities (in this case the Ecosan toilet) can be reduced. 

Case Study 4.2: 

Ecosan cost reduction: Source PROTOS 

Background 

The first Ecosan toilet constructed was expensive compared to the financial status 

of our target beneficiaries. Using modern materials for construction, the Ecosan was 

valued at UGX 800,000. People could not replicate Ecosan toilets owing to the high 

costs. The field technicians had to design a low cost Ecosan out of available local 

materials at the cost of UGX230, 000. 

Intervention 

The main aim of cost reduction on Ecosan toilets was to balance between costs and 

sustainability in the construction of Ecosan facilities. PROTOS contributed 78% while 

the beneficiary 22% for the demonstration Ecosan. Still the beneficiaries could not 

afford that percentage. To replicate the model, beneficiaries had to construct an 

Ecosan with no support from PROTOS. More efforts are being put into designing a 

low cost Ecosan of below UGX100,000. 

The innovations used for the low cost Ecosan are: 

� Mud used instead of sand and cement (mortar) to join the bricks on the 

substructure. 

� Moulded squatting pans (urine and faeces holes) on site rather than already 

made ones from shops using cement and sand. 

� Timber panels used on the slab. 

� Ventilation pipe not included in the design. 

� Substituted iron sheets for Polythene and grass on the roof. 

� Used one sliding timber piece on the steps instead of bricks and mortar. 

Findings 

� Local materials like sand and timber pieces are not readily available; they are 

usually imported from neighbouring sub counties which increases the cost. 

� Compared to cement and mortar mud takes long to set as a result therefore, 

construction lasted a whole month because the mud had to be given at least 5 

days to set and dry before the next work day. 

Successes 

� A low cost Ecosan toilet of UGX 230,000 was designed and constructed using 

cheap local materials. 

� People are taking interest in the low cost Ecosan. This has increased the 

replication rate in the communities. 

Lesson learnt 

� In cases where mud is used instead of mortar, cow dung is to be included in the 

mixture to make the substructure stronger. 



4.5 CSO Contribution towards Improved Sanitation and 

Hygiene 

4.5.1 Contribution towards sanitation improvement 

Promotion of improved sanitation and hygiene, introduction of non-traditional sanitation facilities 

and construction of new toilet facilities for vulnerable groups continue to be a major activity of 

NGOS and CBO. Table 4.5 Reflects CSOs outputs towards improved sanitation and hygiene. 

Table 4.5 Sanitation and hygiene contribution 

Population served* 

Total population 

Activity Output (No.) Rural Urban IDP 

served 

Household traditional latrine construction 

21,329 169,000 100 - 


Household VIP latrines construction 

130 500 4,000 - 

4,500 

Household Ecosan UDDT latrine construction 

86 600 

- 

- 

600 

Household Ecosan Arbo loo latrine constructed 

11 100 

- 

- 


Household skyloo latrine construction 


- 

- 


Household F/alterna (ecosan) latrine constructed 


- 

- 


Public latrine traditional stances constructed 

9 2,700 

- 

- 

2,700 

Public VIP latrine stances constructed 

49 30,500 4,000 - 

34,500 

Public latrine Ecosan stances constructed 

40 3,300 

- 

- 

3,300 

Public Water closet (stances) constructed 

3 

- 

2,000 - 

2,000 

Household handwashing facilities installed 

26,752 187,000 7,000 8,000 

202,000 

School handwashing facilities installed 

506 59,000 6,000 - 

65,000 

School latrine stances for boys constructed 

395 12,000 7,000 - 

19,000 

School latrine stances for girls constructed 

352 10,000 15,000 - 

25,000 

School latrine stances for teachers constructed 

52 100 200 - 

300 

Waste disposal facilities constructed 

5,203 87,000 34,000 2,000 

123,000 

Drying racks constructed 

25,297 107,000 18,000 

125,000 

Sanplats distributed 

3,379 14,000 

- 

- 

14,000 


7 7,000 3,000 - 


No. of tools provided 

9,716 76,000 30,000 - 

106,000 

Total 

766,000 130,300 10,000 

906,300 

* Population served estimated to the nearest 100th 

In order to increase access to improved sanitation, 21,329 traditional latrines, 130 VIP latrines, 

86 Ecosan toilets (UDDT), seven skyloos, 11 arboo loos, and 20 fossa alterna toilets were 

constructed. Arboo loos and fossa alterna are relatively new technologies in the country being 

introduced to schools and households (see Case Study 4.3). The construction of toilet facilities 

to households has been discussed under sub-section 3.3 (Investments in Sanitation and 

Hygiene promotion), explained by construction of demonstration of technologies and meeting 

demands of vulnerable and disadvantaged households. It is estimated that a population of 

906,300 people were served through the CSOs’ intervention. 

A number of software activities have been carried out to create demand for sanitation. For instance, 

people have been encouraged to participate in competitions in hygiene and sanitation(see 

Case Study 4.3) . Sanitation marketing; Community Led Total Sanitation; extending credit 

for sanitation facility development; training of masons; training of Village Health Teams and 

Local Information Facilitators, are the other activities that have been undertaken, all aimed at 

increasing access to improved sanitation. 




Improving Hygiene and Sanitation in Lubaga Division; KCC. Source Ndeba 

Parish Youth Association (NPYA) 

Background 

In the months of March to May 2009 Kampala City Council organized a Hygiene and 

Sanitation competition among the 5 division of Kawempe, Makindye, Central, Nakawa 

and Lubaga. In each of these divisions one parish was chosen as the focus parish to 

base on the awarding of the cleanest division in Kampala District. 

Being the best CBO in implementing Hygiene and Sanitation Activities in Lubaga 

Division Ndeeba Parish Youth Association (NPYA) was chosen to spear head this 

exercise of cleaning up Ndeeba in the preparations for the competition. Among the 

activities implemented during the exercise included mobilization and sensitization 

of communities and households; sweeping of roads and de-silting of drains; and 

beautification and planting of grass, trees and flowers along the roadside and in front 

of buildings which increased the beauty of Ndeeba. 

Achievements 

• Lubaga division emerged the winner of the Competitions and was awarded 

with a bull, a trophy and a certificate. It was NPYA’s efforts that all this was 

achieved. 

• Many land lords adapted the method of refuse sorting which they are now using. 

• There is decrease in numbers of mechanics pouring oils in drainage systems. 

• Ndeeba town looks more beautiful than it was before. 

Challenges 

Despite the achievements registered there were some challenges encountered during 

the implementation of this exercise which included among others: low participation of 

local leaders due to the fact that KCC did not provide any facilitation for mobilization; 

mixing of politics in development activities as many people attached the exercise to 

the campaigns which were due in Lubaga; lack of enforcement of laws/ordinances; 

lack of a maintenance plan from KCC. 

Solutions and Recommendations 

To overcome some of the challenges 

concerning the community participation 

NPYA continued to sensitize the local 

leaders and the community about their 

roles and responsibilities in cleaning their 

places. There is need for government 

to strengthen its law enforcement so 

that the community can abide by the 

laws/ordinances concerning sanitation. 

Furthermore, the Division leaders should 

consider funding CBOs to efficiently and 

effectively implement sanitation activities 

as it has been proved that they create 

impact and are less costly compared to 

the current KCC system of cleaning the city. 


4.5.2 Improving the pupil-stance ratio at schools. 


In schools, 799 latrine stances constructed: 395 stances for boys, 352 stances for girls. 

The fossa alterna latrine technology is being introduced in schools. It is too still early to say 

how successful the technology uptake has been. However reports from participating schools 

indicate that the students appreciate the fossa alterna toilets and use them. (see Case Study 

4.4) 


Piloting the Fossa alterna latrine technology in schools. Source FORUD 

Background 

Fossa alterna is one of the technologies that recycle human excreta. The technology 

was piloted in Kamayenje primary school to a see if it could be a success and to also 

learn if pupils can adopt using the fossa alterna with all the practices that go with 

using the fossa alterna like adding ash, dust and dry leaves. After the demonstration 

was constructed it was given to boys of P.5 and P.6 since it was only one stance. 

Basing on the findings and lessons learnt from the demonstration. A lot of adjustments 

had to be made since it was a test of technology and there were a lot of suggestions 

on how to make it better. With lessons learnt from the demonstration, a four-stance 

Fossa Alterna latrine was constructed. 

After completion of the structure the administration and pupils had an assembly 

and agreed that only boys should use the new latrine facility while the teachers use 

the demonstration latrine. The pupils picked interest in the fossa alterna latrine and 

named it “izu” meaning ash latrine. This constantly reminds them that they should 

pour ash into the toilet after using it. The ash is got from homes and the school 

kitchen. Pupils requested that latrines be locked so that the surrounding communities 

don’t use the latrine since they are not trained to us it. 

FORUD has continued to sensitize the SMC, SHC, and PTA on the benefits of the 

fossa alterna technology. An active 

School Health and Environmental 

Club and Child to Child Clubs have 

been formed. These do the day to 

day monitoring on the use of the 

fossa alterna, and sensitising the 

whole school community on hygiene 

and sanitation. Existing talking 

compounds remind the pupils on 

issues of WASH in the school, at 

home and in the community. FORUD 

anticipates that with lessons learnt, 

fossa alterna will be scaled up in 

community and other schools. 

Fossa Alterna under construction: Kamayenje PS 



4.5.3 Handwashing facilities 

A total of 26,752 household hand washing facilities have been installed. These are often 

low cost simple technologies (tippy tap) affordable by households. At schools 506 hand 

washing facilities have been installed. The installation is often coupled with sensitisation on 

the importance of washing hands with soap as one way that will help the community reduce the 

incidence of diarrhoea and other sanitation-related illness. Several reports actually show that 

communities that have improved sanitation and hygiene behaviour suffer less incidences of 

diarrhoea and sanitation-related illnesses, but the credibility of these reports has been brought 

into question for lack of documentary evidence. 


Handwashing in schools. Source NKKD WATSAN Programme 

Background 

During the hygiene and sanitation implementation in the areas served by Nyambizi 

GFS, it was noted that at Winna Standard Primary School the hygiene and sanitation 

situation was poor and the pupils’ health status was not good characterised by 

frequent missing of classes due to sanitation related illness. The school is located 

in Kambuga Sub-county Kanungu District and has a population of 370 pupils and 15 

teachers. 

Intervention 

NKKD WATSAN software team carried out a hand washing with soap campaign on 

how to wash hands with soap. This was accompanied by installation of hand washing 

facilities at the school. The pupils were guided on how to hands with water and soap 

at critical times that is before eating, after visiting the latrine, after a journey and after 

cleaning babies or disposing of excreta. 

The outcomes: 

A survey of the hygiene practices at the school indicate that 90% of the pupils wash 

hands with soap at critical times especially after visiting the latrine. Children reported 

that handwashing facilities had been set up in the homes as well. A survey of the 

homes in the school catchment area indicated that 75% hand washing facilities close 

to the latrine and 50% of these facilities had soap and were being used properly. 

Furthermore there was a reduction in hygiene & sanitation related diseases and a 

corresponding increase in the daily class attendance of the pupils. 

Lesson learnt: 

Children are key carriers of sanitation and hygiene messages and should always be 

involved in hygiene and sanitation activities. 




Hygiene in Schools. Source Paidha Water and Sanitation Association 

Background 

Hygiene improvement was done in Jupomwocho Primary School in March 2010. The 

School is located in Oryeo village, Chana Parish Paidha Sub - county Zombo district. 

School sanitation facilities like latrines were not properly maintained. Door shutters 

had been vandalised; the existing handwashing facilities were not put to use. The 

borehole within the school compound had no WSC. The community seemed to have 

no ownership of the existing school facilities. Paidha Water and Sanitation Association 

(PWASA) identified the school as needing assistance and facilitation on issues of 

WASH. 

Intervention 

The following activities were carried out 

• Collection of data on sanitation and hygiene in every home within the school 

catchment area. 

• Community education and sensitisation on WASH and the importance of 

handwashing. 

• Election of WSC and drawing out action plan of what needed to be done. These 

included, among others, institutionalising a user fee, fencing off the borehole. 

• The WSC was trained in financial management. 

Challenge 

It was recognised that communities had limited knowledge of the effects of poor 

sanitation and hygiene practices, a challenge to WASH service providers. 

Achievements 

An O&M fund has been established, records of meetings are being kept, the borehole 

has been fenced, and simple by-laws to manage the operations of the borehole have 

been instituted. The school administration established a security system to minimise 

and control vandalism. Latrines are cleaned daily. Children are making good use of 

handwashing facilities. The standard of cleanliness at the school is high. 

4.6 Contribution to ensuring water quality 

The majority of NGOs do not own water testing kits but have continued to work with district 

authorities to ensure good quality of water through water testing. A number of NGOs however 

conduct water testing to ensure that they supply safe water to communities and to monitor the 

safety of the water sources (see Case Study 4.7 Water Testing in Moroto Town). International 

Life Line Fund (ILF) have invested UGX 3.9 million in water quality monitoring, conducting 

bacteriological testing while sending samples to Entebbe laboratory for chemical analysis. 

The installation of water bio-sand filters (Katosi Women Development Trust), chlorination of 

water sources (Concern Worldwide) are some of the activities NGOs undertake to ensure water 

quality. 




Water Testing in Moroto town: Source IICD 

Following the outbreak of cholera in Moroto municipality, a few months ago the 

International Institute for Cooperation and Development, carried out several chemical 

and biological analyses to test the protected water sources in the area. To some 

extent, the inadvertent outcome was that although the majority of the boreholes were 

free from biological contamination a few tested positive with a number of coliforms 

per unit volume of water. 

Since ground water, because of the means in which it moves, is filtrated of any 

form of microbes and then, is not 

prone, at least most of the time, 

to contamination, it was found that 

the environment of a town, in which 

the sources of pollution are many 

and widespread, can affect heavily 

the quality of water. 

To prevent contamination, the land 

around the water source should be 

clear for at least 50 metres radius, if 

not of the human presence, at least 

of the most dangerous sources of 

biological contamination, like toilets 

and human activities producing 

polluting wastes. Care should be 

taken in implementing correctly the 

sanitary seal and the backfilling. 

4.7 Contribution to water quantity (Water for Production) 

Traditionally, NGOs have not been involved in Water for Production sub-sector largely due to 

the high investment cost associated with construction of water for production facilities such 

as valley dams and valley tanks. However, Christian Engineers in Development a local NGO 

operating in Kabale District has invested UGX 119.8 million in construction of a valley tank. 

4.8 Contributing towards Equity 

Active participation in the planning and budgeting process is one way that NGO contribute 

to equitable distribution of the available resources. NGOs are active members of District 

Water and Sanitation Coordination Committees where decisions of resource allocation are 

made. This presents opportunities for lobbying and advocacy for institutions like (International 

Aid Services, JESE, International Life Fund, Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation Programme, 

NETWAS (U), PAG, PAMO Volunteers and Good Hope Foundation for Rural Development among 


Vendors draw water from a pond in Masaka district. 

Many people in rural areas don’t have access to safe 

water sources.


others). A number of NGOs conduct Water source mapping, locating all improved water points 

and reporting on their status, for example, Goal supported Pader District conduct mapping of 

all district water sources. ACORD has supported and participated in Water mapping exercise 

in the districts of Mbarara, Kisoro and Rukungiri in collaboration with the area TSU. ACORD 

has further purchased software (ARC GIS) to facilitate mapping of ACORD South Western 

Programme and has trained district official in Gulu District Water Office on data management. 

The organisation further supports radio talk-shows to facilitate discussion between water users 

and service providers. SNV has developed capacity of 16 District Local Governments on data 

analysis, reporting and dissemination. 

4.9 Contributing to increased access to and using 

handwashing facilities 

Most of the NGOs and CBOs in the WASH subsector promote access to and washing of hands 

with soap. A total of 26,752 household hand washing facilities have been installed with an 

investment of UGX 316.3 million. These are often low cost simple technologies (tippy tap) 

affordable by households. 

At schools 506 hand washing facilities have been installed at an investment cost of UGX 

62.5million. The installation is often coupled with sensitisation on the importance of washing 

hands with soap as one way that will help the community reduce the incidence of diarrhoea 

and other sanitation-related illness. Several reports actually show that communities that have 

improved sanitation and hygiene behaviour suffer less incidence of diarrhoea and sanitationrelated 

illnesses, but the credibility of these reports has been brought into question for lack of 

documentary evidence. 


Hand Washing Practices in Western Uganda. Source Rwenzori Youth 

Concern Association (RYCA) 

Rwenzori Youth Concern Association (RYCA) a Community Based Non for profit/ 

partisan, Organization (CBO/NGO), operating in Western province of Uganda 

(districts of Bundibugyo, Ntoroko, Kamwenge, Kasese, kyenjojo, Kyaka and Kabarole) 

conducted a Knowledge Attitude and Practices (KAP) study on handwashing. Results 

indicated that a small proportion of the sampled population (30%) washed hands 

after visiting latrines or places of conveniences. Only 60% of the sampled population 

knew well the importance of hand washing. About 55% of the population washed 

hands with clean water before eating food and only 12% washed fruits and raw edible 

foods before eating. There was few hand washing facilities near latrines and within 

the compounds. Those who washed hands had to pour water directly from drinking 

containers after using the latrines with their dirty hands hence exposing the entire 

members of households to germs. 

Failures of routine hand washing in the region was associated with high level of 

illiteracy and lack of knowledge and poor attitude that hand washing is waste of 

time and it is seen as western culture and lack of adequate hand washing facilities 

and clean water. As a way forward, RYCA has continued to educate communities 

on handwashing using simple handwashing equipment made from local recycled 

materials. 



4.10 Contribution to Management of Improved Water 

Supplies 

Maintenance of rural water sources is through the Community Based Maintenance system 

with communities taking charge for maintenance aspects of their water sources through 

participating in the water source activities and contributing funds for acquisition of spares. 

NGOs involved in development of water sources train Water and Sanitation Committee 5 to take 

on the responsibility of developing capacity among the beneficiary population to be able to 

operate and maintain their water sources. Provision of follow-up support and re-training has 

been demonstrated to keep the community based water source management committees and 

resource persons (HPM, Scheme attendants) active. During FY 2009/10, an estimated total of 

2,500 committees 6 have been trained and re-trained. Eleven piped water Scheme Attendants, 

and 119 Handpump Mechanics have been trained to take responsibility of O&M, sanitation 

and hygiene. Seventy Six handpumps were supplied with tools for handpump maintenance 

purposes. 

Many NGOs and district Local Governments (Moyo, Amuria, and Kabale among others) are 

encouraging use of O&M funds as resolving funds (small loans) among user communities. The 

practice has been demonstrated to yield positive results in terms of raising funds (through 

interest paid) and further promoting community participation in the O&M of the water source. 

SNV is promoting the formation of Handpump mechanics association in the districts of 

Adjuman, Kabarole, Kasese and Yumbe. In Kibaale district, the Kibaale District Hand pump 

Mechanics Association is being supported by the District Local Government as it plays a key 

role in maintaining the handpumps in the district. 

A number of case studies are here presented to reflect some of the contributions in management 

of water sources. Case Study 4.9 presents the case of Kibaale Handpump Mechanics 

Association and their contribution to the maintenance of water sources in Kibaale district; 

Case Study 4.10: Supporting CBMS: Amuria District: reflects how the WEDA has supported 

CBMS and the experience of the community in maintaining their handpump. Case Study 4.11 

presents capacity building of management committees and reflects on problems association 

with management of water supply facilities. 


Kibaale Handpump Mechanics Association: Source National Learning Forum 

2010/SAWA Uganda 

The Associations 

Kibaale Hand Pump Mechanics Association was formed in 1996 and has a membership 

of 42 mechanics drawn from the subcounties. It is a registered Association at the 

district with a democratically elected committee. The Association has a stock of 

spares that they sell. Income is made from selling spare parts to communities as 

from payments from community for repair services provided. 

5 WEDA (operating in Amuria District) is adopting the concept of a water source WASH committee to reflect the sanitation and 

hygiene responsibilities of the Committee. 

6 This is an estimate figure based on new water sources developed and rehabilitated and indications of follow-up training 

activities for water source committees. There is a likelihood that some NGOs interpreted No. of Committees trained to mean 

number of individuals on the committees who undertook training. 



Collaboration with the district administration 

The association members receive refresher training in new skills organized by the 

District Water Office. The further support is received from the district in terms of a 

motorcycle and a monthly ration of 30 litres of petrol to ease transport. The motorcycle 

is used by the mobile team that provides backup support to other HPMs. The toolkits 

used by the members are provided by the district government since they are expensive 

to procure. Periodic restocking is done to ensure they are equipped with the right set 

of tools to rehabilitate the boreholes. The Association has fabricated fishing tools for 

fishing out dropped-in pipes rather than rely on drilling rigs. The Association is now 

planning to raise UGX 18m to purchase cleaning equipment for de-silting boreholes. 

As a civil society organization, the Kibaale HPMs participates in the District Water 

and Sanitation Coordination Meetings where reports of the association activities 

are presented; for example, they provide information on how many boreholes are 

working, how many are not working and which ones are beyond repair. This enables 

the DWO prepare plans for rehabilitation and write off based on field information. 

In order to be able to win contracts from the district administration, the association 

registered a company the Kibaale District Pump Mechanics and Water Supply Limited. 

The company has been able to secure contracts from the District at least once a year. 

The DWO has continued to award the Association contracts to rehabilitate boreholes, 

something which strengthens their financial base. For example in 2001 – 2003, they 

were awarded contracts to enable the Association to acquire start up funds, which 

included repairs of tanks and gutters; repairs of springs and hand pumps. 

Lessons learnt 

• It is good to transform from a mere association to a registered company. 

• It is important to provide a mobile plant and fuel to monitor the work of mechanics 

in the different sub-counties. 

• It is wiser to start with analysing functionality in the context of those hand-pumps 

worth repairing than spend large sums of money on frequent repair works. 

• Committed leadership is essential for community service 

Success factors 

• Support from the district in securing contracts. 

• Regular meetings 

• Refresher training – updated in new skills. 

• World Vision continued training of new Pump Mechanics. This means creating 

lower structures and bringing in new members. 

Future plans for the association 

• Mobilising pump mechanics in other districts like Kyenjonjo, Kasese, Kamwenge, 

Arua, Adjumani, Yumbe to establish similar associations and companies with 

support from SNV 

• Establishing a regional organization. 

• Acquiring a de-silting machine. 



Case Study 4.10 

Supporting CBMS: Amuria District: Source: WEDA 

Background 

Obur East village is located in the Eastern part of Acowa Sub County in Amuria District 

having 90 households with a population of 550 people. It’s one of the villages which 

have suffered insecurity caused by the Karimojong raids and the wrath of the Lord’s 

Resistance Army (LRA) insurgency in 2003. Following the return of people from IDP 

camps to their villages in 2005, the community in Obur East village faced a lot of 

challenges accessing safe water as the nearest safe water source was over 5km 

walking distance. The only alternative was open wells within their village that were 

shared with animals. The hygiene and sanitation situation was also very bad as 

baseline figures indicated 0% sanitation coverage with hygiene promotion almost 

impossible with no safe water available in the village. According to the LC1 chairperson 

Obur East village, children below 5 years were dying almost weekly of WASH related 

diseases with two children dying in a month.Furthermore skin diseases were common 

among both the young and old. In 2005, Wera Development Agency (WEDA) an NGO 

which promotes improvement of rural community livelihoods through provision of safe 

water and promotion of hygiene and sanitation funded by WaterAid Uganda started 

working together with the community of this village to promote WASH 

What was done? 

WEDA was able to engage the community in sharing solutions. During the community 

dialogue, the community requested for WEDAs intervention especially in the provision 

of water and promotion of hygiene and sanitation improvements. The community 

leadership committed to working together with WEDA staff to improve their WASH 

situation. Sensitisation meetings were then conducted by WEDA on good hygiene and 

Sanitation practices. This led to community developed action plans with designated 

roles on how to improve their sanitation status. Water and Sanitation Committees 

(WSCs) and Hygiene Educators were selected in the community to provide leadership 

and guidance on WASH issues to the community members. WEDA with funding from 

WaterAid Uganda provided the community with a borehole to address the need for 

safe water that the community had been lacking many years. 

Community members formulated bye-laws to ensure that the borehole drilled would 

be kept well and maintained to avoid breaking down. The community then started 

collecting UGX 1000 per household as O&M fees. The idea of revolving the money 

collected by the community as a loan scheme was suggested as a means to raise 

funds for O&M among many ideas. With the leadership of the Hygiene Educator, 

the committee started loaning out money with as little as UGX 45,000 to whoever 

needed it to be paid back with interest. Failure of payment would attract penalties 

indicated by the bye-laws endorsed at the Sub County and personally specified by the 

borrower. 

The situation now 

The community of Obur East since 2006 when the borehole was drilled to date has been 

able to maintain their water source using their own funds for the fourth year running without 



breaking down. They are very happy and besides minor repairs and preventive maintenance 

they use the O&M fees to start up income generating activities. The women brew ‘ajon’ in 

Teso while the men use the money to start up small businesses like buying and reselling of 

goats, fish and produce. To date the village is proud to have UGX 1million on their account, 

one cow, four goats and two cassava gardens in the names of O&M fund. 

One of the two cassava gardens, goats and cow are: property of the Water and Sanitation Committee. 


Capacity Building of Management Committees. Source: Fontes 

Foundation Uganda 

Since 2007, Fontes Foundation (www.fontes.no) organises yearly water seminars 

to build capacity of water committees. The last seminar was carried out in August 

2009, with more than 50 participants. Water committees including technicians and 

caretakers or tap-attendants, local leaders and stakeholders from four water projects 

in Bushenyi (now Rubirizi) and Kanungu District attended the seminar which was 

organised in Kazinga, a fishing village in Queen Elizabeth National Park. 

Fontes Foundation implemented the first small piped water system in Queen Elizabeth 

National Park in 2004, and now has four operational systems. Since the ground water 

is salty, surface water is treated using simple pressurised filter technology, and water 

is distributed at public taps in the villages. The systems are managed by elected 

water committees and the technical operation is done by local technicians trained by 

Fontes Foundation, who receive remuneration at the end of the month. 

The water systems have encountered many problems and challenges over the years, and 

only a small part of them have been technical. The most frequent causes of problems 

are lack of capacity in the water committees, lack of transparency in the financial 

management, lack of awareness in the community and government institutions about 

the benefits of safe water and lack of community engagement. These challenges 

are best overcome through continuous follow up, mobilisation and capacity building, 

which is done by Fontes Foundation and its counterpart Fontes Foundation Uganda 

on a regular basis. One of the most popular events is the water seminar. During the 

seminar, participants study subjects such as basic accounting methods, roles and 



responsibilities of committee members and good hygiene and sanitation practices. In 

addition to the capacity building element, the committees also benefit from sharing 

experiences between the sites, which makes them realise that they can seek advice 

from neighbouring committees in case they have a problem. Bringing stakeholders 

such as the Police, the Sub 

county, District and Uganda 

Wildlife Authority together with 

the committees also solves 

problems that may arise due 

to lack of communication. The 

participants also appreciate 

the opportunity to visit a 

different community, get to 

know their water system, their 

qualities and experiences. 

Fontes Foundation has found 

that the seminars build 

capacity of committees in an 

efficient way, as well as being 

important for their motivation 

and engagement. 

4.11 Contribution to gender promotion 

Of the Water and Sanitation Committees formed and trained, 5,870 (49%) were male; 6,065 

(51%) were female. The data received was silent on the number of women holding key positions. 

However NGOs recognize the important role women play in the O&M of water source given that 

it’s the women and children who are charged with the collection of water. As part of their gender 

promotion, CSOs conduct a number of gender specific activities. These include;training of 

women groups in income generating activities (VAD, MEMEDU), gender training and sensitization 

groups (Kyetume CBHC) and training of both men and women as masons (Multi Community 

Based Initiative, Agency for Community Welfare, FORUD). Targeting gender balance at meetings 

(Multi Community Based Initiative, VAD, TONGOF, URMUDA, and Katosi Women Development 

Trust among others). 

4.12 Contributing to improving water supply to the urban poor 

CIDI and its partner organisation KICHWA have facilitated the introduction of the pre-paid 

water meters in Kisenyi III Parish of Kampala City Council. The pre-paid meter facilitated poor 

households obtain water at a cheaper rate, buying water at UGX 20 where they used to pay UGX 

100 for the same volume of water. The pre-paid meters have proved to be effective for mobile 

populations since they can move with their tokens and use them to pay for water services in 

other locations. The pre-paid meter system has eliminated middlemen (water vendors) who sell 

water above the recommended price and whose source of water is often unknown and further 

addressed the non payment for water services (see Case Study 4.12) 


Participants inspect the water intake in Kazinga, Rubirizi District during a 

water seminar ( August 2009)


Pre-paid water meter system in Kisenyi III Parish. Source CIDI 


Over the years, shanties have sprung up in Kampala providing accommodation to more 

than 60% of the city’s population. However, Government planning and funding has 

denied them public utilities like water since they are regarded as illegal settlements. 

As a result, the poor people have ended up being exploited by the middlemen who 

sell water at 100/= per 20 jerry can compared to the recommended NWSC price of 

20/= per which is five times more than what the rich people pay for the same amount 

of water. 

Tumulamye peace, aged 25 is a tailor renting a one roomed house on the community 

hall of Kisenyi III parish, Kampala central division. Kisenyi III parish is just a stone’s 

throw from the city centre and because of this proximity to the city centre, the parish 

is a popular destination for the urban communities many of whom are in the informal 

sector. Before the prepaid meter systems were introduced in Kisenyi III, Peace used to 

buy water for her household from a nearby standpipe at a price of UGX 100 per jerrican. 

With the introduction of the pre-paid meter, Peace get five jerrican with the same 

amount of UGX 100 “I used to bath half a basin but ever since the prepaid water meter 

was brought here, I have enough water for bathing. The UGX 300 that my husband 

leaves me with for water is more than enough for the whole family.” says Peace. 

The prepaid meter system was installed to Kisenyi III as a result of KICHWA intervention, 

one of CIDI’s partners in the Governance and Transparency Project. KICHWA had 

invited the Mr. John Bosco Otema, to one of the dialogue meeting that discussed the 

issue of the high cost of water and were trying to find solutions to the problem. Mr. 

Otema who is the manager of the Integrated Project of Water Supply and Sanitation 

Services for the Urban Poor (a project supported by a grant to the Government of 

Uganda from the World Bank Global 

Partnership) was concerned by the 

Kisenyi III community need for cheap 

and affordable water. He decided 

to give the community five prepaid 

meters which were originally planned 

for Kisenyi II. The communities of 

Kisenyi III were so happy about 

this cheap cost technology and 

in one of their dialogue meetings, 

they decided to have a peaceful 

match demonstration to show 

their appreciating for the five 

prepaid meters that they had got 

and requesting for more. As a 

result of their efforts, they got six 

more prepaid meter systems. The 

community is eagerly waiting for the 

time the project would reach their 

area. 

Drawing water from a pre-paid metered standpipe 



Fatuma Kagolo, 36 years a member of the advocacy committee and a resident of 

Kisenyi III parish says that bringing prepaid water system in Kisenyi III has enabled 

her community members have easy access to safe and affordable water for their 

hygiene and sanitation needs. “The most community members in Kisenyi III are 

Muslims, consequently they need more water to cleanse themselves each time they 

visit a toilet or before going for their prayers which is a mandatory requirement by 

the Muslim faith. She says, ‘buying a jerry can of water at UGX 20 is like getting free 

water, we always have enough to fulfil our religious obligations.” 

The communities of Kisenyi III are requesting NWSC to scale up the project of pre 

paid water meters to cover all urban poor settlements of the city. It should also open 

up a number of community based point centres where community members can 

easily buy water tokens for the pre-paid meter 

4.13 Contributing to good Governance in the WASH 

subsector 

CSO have undertaken a number of initiatives to promote good governance in the Water and 

Sanitation subsector. Good governance approaches have include, WASH Dialogue in the Districts 

of Moyo, Adjumani, Nebbi under a NETWAS, CEFORD and IRC partnership); Community Score 

Cards (under a NETWAS project in Town Councils of Wobulenzi, Busia and Rukungiri); Learning 

for Practice and Policy in Hygiene and Sanitation in Primary Schools and households (LeaPPS) 

in the districts of Kyenjojo, Kamwenge, Arua and Koboko under NETWAS in partnership with 

HEWASA, FORUD, and Karitas Arua); Community empowerment (JESE, CIDI). The approaches 

facilitate discussions between service providers, local policy makers and the beneficiary 

communities to bring mutual understanding among them in search for lasting solutions to WASH 

related problems and issues improving service delivery, (see Box 4.2 on Opportunity for CSO- 

Public Sector synergy for instituting dialogue and accountability and Case studies 4.13 

on WASH Governance; 4.14 on enhancing community governance and Case Study 4.15 on 

improving governance of a gravity flow scheme. 

Box 4.2 Opportunity for CSO-Public Sector synergy for instituting dialogue 

and accountability. Source: National Learning Forum 2010/SAWA 

The Uganda Water Integrity Network was founded in September 2009 with support 

from WIN-Germany after the integrity workshop held in Uganda in 2009. NETWAS was 

selected as the host organisation for the network after a selection process. UWIN is 

a coalition of Ugandan based organisations that strive to contribute to WASH good 

governance through different activities centred on learning, sharing and capacity 

development. National and local government officials, politicians, agencies such as 

NWSC, CSOs (incl. NGOs in water, transparency, anti-corruption), NGO associations, 

private sector associations, academia, and Development Partners use UWIN as a 

platform to share and scale up pockets of success in the country; advocate for good 

governance and bridge gaps between the different organizations. 



At every level, there are opportunities for CSO-public sector synergy in instituting 

dialogue and accountability. At national level is the National NGO Board, UWASNET 

(Policy and Advocacy Working Group), MoWE-Policy/ TSU (Good Governance Working 

Group), and the Uganda Water Integrity Network (UWIN). At district level are the 

Technical Support Units, WASH Clusters, and UWASNET Regional Coordinating NGOs. 

Also at the district level is the District Water Department, District NGO Forum, District 

Water and Sanitation Coordination Committees, District Based learning/dialogue 

initiatives (LeaPPS, “Kimezas”) and the District Technical Planning Committees. At 

the Subcounty level are the Subcounty Water and Sanitation Committee, Subcounty 

Technical Planning Committee, and the Local Council III. At parish levels are the 

Parish Development Committees, Local Council II, Water User Committees, Local 

Council I, Village Health Teams and community Based organizations. 


Wash Governance through Dialogue and Concerted Action. Source 

CEFORD/NETWAS (U) (National Learning Forum 2010/SAWA 

Introduction 

The overall objective of the WASH Governance through Dialogue and Concerted Action 

project is improved health and productivity in communities, and improved school 

attendance and educational results arising from more accountability and responsive 

WASH service provision. The project is being implemented in the West Nile Region 

in the districts of Adjumani, Moyo, and Nebbi with two subcounties participating 

in each district. Target groups include at district level; councillors, district heads, 

technocrats, local CSOs and NGOs, private sector, and the media; at Subcounty level, 

councillors, subcounty chiefs, technocrats, CSOs, CBOs, associations, groups, and 

private sector. 

Methodology 

The methodology include mapping situation and visioning at districts and subcounties; 

assessment planning, service delivery, performance monitoring, present 

accountability; creation of dialogue (coupled with capacity building); identification of 

best practices; action research for innovation; documenting and sharing (reports/ 

newsletters, publications on learning and process; publications on good practices, 

action research guideline; baseline-monitoring). 

There are four focus areas of accountability (Action tool research kit); 

i. Water at district ( using the District Planning & Monitoring Map District Gantt Chart); 

ii. Sanitation at district ( using the District Planning & Monitoring Map District Gantt 

Chart); Water at sub-county and system level (using the Consumers Score Card, 

WSSC Self Assessment Card. Joint Score Card and Action Plan); Sanitation at subcounty 

level / WASH in primary schools (using the School Children Perception Card, 

School Debate). 



Some Project Achievements (at district, subcounty, system level) 

• Open discussions/dialogues on accountability between WASH users, providers 

and local leaders. 

• In Nebbi, revival of DWSCC and of all subcounty WSCCs, and establishment of 

two Parish WSCCs. 

• Some people started holding leaders and/or district accountable (e.g. in 

Mayo). 

• Stimulation of local government staff to report/follow up on specific 

responsibilities within their mandates. 

• WASH has gone onto the local political agenda. 

• In Nebbi, subcounties identified and supported a private service provider for 

stocking water system spare parts. 


Enhanced Community Governance. Source JESE 

Introduction 

In a bid to enhance community governance and transparency Joint Effort to Save the 

Environment (JESE) has registered a best practice in promoting sustainable access 

to water and Ecosan for livelihood improvement. Beneficiaries are given Bills of 

quantities and oriented on mixture ratios before beginning construction. Water user 

committees and school management committees have been formed and empowered 

to govern and control the utilization of construction materials. Construction materials 

are delivered, stored and signed for by the community in order to monitor their 

utilization during water source construction. 

JESE has worked through the existing structures like the Village Health Teams and 

LC1 committees and community based groups to formulate and enforce by-laws to 

ensure proper management of water facilities. JESE engaged district & Sub county 

local government officials and beneficiaries in midterm participatory monitoring and 

evaluation of the project. 

Experience/testimonies 

Vigilant members of Mugega, Kabagara and Nyabuliko villages informed JESE that 

some of the materials for construction of six shallow wells had been stolen. At 

consultative meetings which were promptly organised at village level, it was alleged 

by community members that, the Watsan committee vice chair person who was in 

charge of storing construction materials had been involved in the misappropriation 

of 15 bags of cement. During the meetings members testified how the unused 15 

bags of cement and 128 blocks had been misappropriated. They documented all the 

processes that led to the recovery of the misappropriated materials. Their minutes 

endorsed by village chairpersons and copies were given to the sub county and JESE 




During the process beneficiaries exhibited high level of empowerment by holding 

their leaders and service providers (masons) accountable. Community involvement 

in all levels of implementation increases beneficiary transparency, control and 

accountability during implementation. 


Improving governance: Mukunyu Gravity Flow Scheme. Source HEWASA 

Mukunyu GFS 

Mukunyu GFS was constructed in 2004 and has an 8Km pipeline and a total of 40 

gravity flow scheme taps. The scheme serves the two Parishes of Mukunyu and 

Butiiti located in Butiiti Sub County, Kyenjojo District. Estimated population of served 

is 2,600 people, in 714 households and an additional population of 1,774 people 

from six institutions that include a secondary school, a primary school, a teacher’s 

college, a health unit, a Parish Church and a prison. 

Shortly after it was constructed, the scheme broke down due to technical reasons 

and did not work well for the subsequent two years. In 2007, the scheme was 

rehabilitated by the District Local Government and started operating normally. 

Intervention 

HEWASA Programme, in partnership with SNV, WaterAid, the Mid Western Umbrella 

Organization, Kyenjojo District Local Government and Butiiti Subcounty local 

government undertook the task of strengthening the local management of the scheme. 

This involved developing criteria for selection of the water board; the selection of the 

tap-stand committees, and a scheme attendant; Training of the Water Boards and 

representatives of tap stand Committees, Issuance of ‘seed’ record books and books 

of accounts that included household registers, receipt books, payment vouchers and 

cash books 

Outcome 

• Three signatories were identified and a bank account for the scheme was 

opened. 

• All taps on the scheme have been metered by the Mid Western Umbrella 

organization User fees are regularly collected from the users and deposited on 

the account. Each household is charged depending on the monthly consumption. 

One cubic meter is charged UGX 1,250 i.e. UGX 25 per 20 litre Jerry can for 

public and private taps. Institutions are charged UGX 500 per cubic meter of 

water consumed 

• Regular and timely repairs are carried out by the scheme attendant who is paid 

by the board. 



• The board holds regular quarterly meetings and conducts annual general 

meetings with the users. 

• The board registered with the Mid Western Umbrella Organization and 

regularly pays its annual subscription fees. 

Improved governance 

• Users are issued with receipts upon payment of the user fees. 

• The funds collected are banked on the Gfs account. 

• Use is made of payment vouchers for all cash expenditures. 

• Use is made of the cash book to track income and expenditure of the scheme. 

• There is an operational bank account with three signatories. 

• Regular quarterly meetings of the board are held to review performance. 

• Annual general meetings are held with all the community members to review the 

performance of the scheme. 

• Public tap stands have been tendered out to private operators to improve on 

their management. 

Box 4.3 ‘Practicing what we preach’: Plan Uganda certified as credible and 

Accountable organisation 

On Tuesday 13 th July, 2010 at a function organised by the NGO Forum, Plan Uganda 

was honored to be the first and only INGO to receive an ADVANCED Quality Assurance 

Mechanism (QuAM) Certificate. Having gone through a self assessment exercise, 

Plan Uganda was found to be one of the International NGOs in the country with good 

policies thus making it one of the credible and accountable international organisations 

in the country. 

While handing over the Certificate to Subhadra Belbase, the Country Director Plan 

Uganda, the Chairperson of the QuAM Council, Professor Grace K. Bantebya noted 

that the recognition signified the maturity and good governance characterised by the 

high quality standards exhibited in Plan Uganda’s work. 

Plan Uganda went through a rigorous one year exercise that involved examining our 

policies, procedures and systems 

and more to that interviewing 

the communities and partners in 

the areas where we work. “While 

examining plan procedures, systems 

and policies, and having gotten 

the feedback that we got from your 

partners, it clearly demonstrated that 

plan is a transparent, accountable and 

professional organization. No wonder 

today they are the only organisation 

receiving the Advanced Certificate” 

Professor Bantebya further noted. 

Plan Uganda is a child centred organisation and has been operating in Uganda since 

1992. Currently we have progammes in the districts 


Country Director Plan (on the right) receives Advanced 

QuaM Certificate

4.14 Activities, outputs, and key result areas 


This subsection presents a summary of key activities, outputs and result areas arising from 

the CSO intervention. 

Table 4.6 Activities, outputs and results: Water Supply Sub-sector 

Activity Output Results 

Borehole construction 374 • Improved access to safe water by 

Borehole rehabilitation 

and repair 

Shallow well 

construction 

Shallow well 

rehabilitation 

Spring protection 


Piped water scheme 

kiosks/standpipes 

Piped water scheme 

House connections 

RWH Water jars 

RWH Water tanks 

Installation of water 

filters 

285 

573 

145 

155 

55 

951 

479 

1216 

1437 

512 

a population of 1.98 million; 1.32 

million from the rural areas, 0.66 

from the urban areas and 0.002 

million IDPs. 

• Women and children from targeted 

homes spend less time fetching 

water. More time is spent on 

other productive work. Accidents, 

abductions, rape and other 

associated dangers of going to 

fetching water from long distances 

are minimized. 

• Reduction of diarrheal diseases 

and other water and hygiene 

related infections as reported by 

beneficiary communities. 

• At household level, there was an 

improvement in domestic relations 

especially between spouses. 

Availability of water ensured a 

reduction in domestic conflicts that 

had their genesis in water scarcity 

(see Case Study 4.16) 




Peace in the homes and in community with improved access to safe water 

sources. Source JOY Drilling 

Brief background; 

WASH project has been implemented in Ayer sub county by J.O.Y Drilling in partnership 

with Lifewater International funded by Charity Water. One of the villages where the 

intervention took place was Abolonyero in Telela parish that had 171 households with 

856 people (241 men, 297 women & 318 children). Before intervention, the village 

had one functional water point, two 

broken wells and an open dry well. 

Women and children used to take 

six to eight hours queuing for water. 

Quarrels and fights often broke out 

at the water source. Within homes, 

long hours to collect water resulted 

into domestic violence and break 

ups of families. Furthermore, there 

was limited water for domestic 

usage, high rates of skin infections 

and absenteeism of children from 

school. To make matters worse 

women had little or no time for 

women to engage in other economic 

Stella and her friend at the borehole 

activities. 

Intervention 

WASH intervention in 2009 transformed the community through rehabilitation of 

two boreholes in the village. JOY Drilling undertook mobilisation and sensitisation 

of water users on best hygiene and sanitation practices and trained them on how 

to effectively operate and maintain their water and sanitation facilities. Water and 

sanitation committees were also elected and trained to operate and maintain the 

water sources. 

Outcome 

Appreciating the outcome of the rehabilitation of the boreholes, Mrs. Stella Oming, a 

member of water users in the village observed, “There were three boreholes in the 

whole parish but two had broken down. People would wait for a very long time; if you 

went at around 8:30 am, you could return late by may be about 4:00pm. Stella and 

her friend added that, “at least there is peace in the homes, no struggling for water, 

we have enough water now”. The two ladies happily talk about the joy they have in the 

village, now that the times when they were dirty and shabby without clean, adequate 

and safe water supply in the village are firmly behind them. 



Table 4.7 Activities, outputs and results: Sanitation and Hygiene promotion Sub-sector 

Activities Outputs Results 

Household 

sanitation 

and hygiene 

promoted 

Construction 

of public 

toilets 

Improving 

sanitation and 

hygiene in 

schools 

• Household toilet facilities 

constructed (21329 traditional 

latrines, 130 (No) VIPs,) 

• Communities plan for Freedefecation 

areas 

• New sanitation technologies 

11(No.) arbo loos; 20 (No,) 

Fossa alternas adopted 

• 26,752 (No.) Handwashing 

facilities installed 

• 101 (No.) toilet facilities (9 

traditional, 49 VIPs, 40 Ecosan, 

3 water closets) constructed. 

• 506 (No.) handwashing 

facilities installed 

• IEC kit produced 

• Increased demand for 

safe sanitation and 

hygiene behaviour. 

• Access to sanitation 

facilities improved 

in participating 

communities. 

• Increased sanitation and 

hygiene facilities in target 

communities have led to 

the reduction of morbidity 

and mortality rates 

from sanitation related 

illnesses. 

• Sanitation is being uptaken 

as a business. 

Farmers are being taught 

how to use ecosan 

products to improve 

agriculture inputs for the 

market (see Case Study 

4.17: Sanitation as a 

Business). 

• Ecosan products are 

being applied to gardens 

and appreciated as 

fertilisers (see Case 

Study 4.18 Ecosan: 

farmers experience) 

• Access to public toilet 

facilities improved (see 

Case Study 4.19 Public 

latrine construction) 

• Improved sanitation and 

hygiene practices in 

schools 

• School children have 

managed to pass the 

science subjects much 

more than other subjects 

due to their practical 

participation in the 

sanitation clubs 



Improving 

solid waste 

management 

Improving 

drainage 


• 5,203 (No.) waste disposal 

facilities constructed 

• 34 Km of drainage channels 

constructed/repaired 

Sanitation as a Business. Source HEWASA. 


• Clean and sanitary 

environment for target 

communities 

Water for People has worked with HEWASA in collaboration with Kyarusozi Sub-county 

in Kyenjojo District to introduce the experimental ecosan latrines leading to “Sanitation 

as a Business” concept. A similar initiative is being implemented in Nama Subcounty 

Mukono district. 

“Sanitation as a Business” was a strategy to encourage sustainable household 

sanitation interventions by creating lasting relationships between households and 

sanitation businesses. An association was formed to bring together stakeholders 

in the field of sanitation to promote and develop a programme to advance the use 

of “Sanitation as a Business.” The beginning of the ‘’Sanitation as a Business 

programme was to encourage ecosan latrines, as they provide households with an 

income-creating opportunity through the sale of their manure back to the sanitation 

business. 

Households that agreed to take on the conditions of the experiment are being taught 

how to effectively use their ecosan latrines. Households were given the choice of 

several ecosan options and their latrine choice will provide answers to some of the 

‘Sanitation Business Development Association’ (SaBDA) questions. The choices they 

make will encourage and inspire learning, adoption, and replication, and will help 

sanitation businesses understand the market for their products so they can create 

effective business plans. 

Twelve ecosan latrine demos have been constructed while sensitisation of communities 

on the new latrine technologies is on-going. The cultural stigma of associating with 

human excreta will be outcompeted but gradually. The existing financial institutions and 

leadership structures lay a good foundation for the business to kick off effectively. The 

challenge is the supply of construction materials, limited skills in latrine construction 

and the initial investment cost that seems unaffordable to some communities. 

As a way forward, the communities must be sensitized and market research and 

analysis must be carried out. Small entrepreneurial groups must be identified and 

trained and good business plans developed.


Ecosan: Farmer’s experience. Source: NETWAS ( U) 


Background 

Kasayi village is found in kyampisi Sub-county, Mukono district about 10km from 

Mukono town. Coming from a family of nine children, Miss Kairu Agnes was introduced 

to farming by her parents at an early age. Her parents had a farm from which they 

upheld the family. They used to grow beans, cassava and coffee which they consumed 

at home as well as distributed to the local schools for an income. 

As a child, Agnes recalls that food was not bought but supplied from the family garden. 

By then her parents initially used expensive fertilizers that were sprayed on the crops 

and the ground. She however recalls that they later started using animal waste as 

fertilizer in their cassava and maize plantations. Now as a grownup, inspired by her 

parents, she has her own garden from which she gets an independent income to 

provide for her own family. She has been farming for two years now since September 

2007. 

EcoSan experience, The introduction of EcoSan to Agnes’ Family 

The farmer first encountered EcoSan toilets in her childhood. Her auntie who is 

married in Ibanda district broke the news of an EcoSan Toilet to Agnes’ mother, 

having come accross a banana plantation that was doing well because of using 

urine from an Ecosan latrine. An EcoSan mason was introduced to the family and he 

constructed the first EcoSan in the home. After seeing this EcoSan at home with her 

parent, Agnes thought it was a good idea and she had one constructed for herself. 

She learnt from her mum how to collect and mix the urine with water at a ratio of 

either 1:4 or 1:3, and how to spray the urine on the crops. In addition she also 

learnt how to make compost manure by decomposing faeces and green matter. She 

is currently practicing small scale farming but with great hope of going commercial 

with a pineapple project. 

Access and Application of urine 

Urine is got from Biina Primary School in Luzira and from the faculty of technology, 

Makerere University, where she purchases a 20litre jerrican of urine at UGX 500 

each. For now, she is using urine only but has plans of using the human faecal matter 

in the future after her Ecosan Latrine opens for business. The urine is applied three 

times before planting as a way of sanitising the ground. 

The urine is applied using a knap sack pump to spray it on the garden. Before 

application the urine is stored in containers for about a week. The farmer also uses 

the animal feacal matter as a supplement to the urine. The urine has been sprayed 

on pineapple, cassava, Matooke, and fruits including avocadoes and oranges, which 

have all had good yields. 




Modern public latrine Construction in Jinja camp; Lira Municipality. Source 

Divine Waters Uganda (DWU) 

Background 

Jinja Camp market in Lira Municipality had no pit latrine. For good measure, there 

was no land for continuous pit latrine construction. When DWU asked the market 

people where they relieve themselves when nature calls, they replied that they usually 

depend on the benevolence of the neighbors -usually at a fee or make sure they relieve 

themselves at home before they come to the market. According to data collected, 

most market vendors simply relieved themselves in a ‘kavera’ (plastic bags) each 

which they would simply toss onto the huge garbage dump just nearby. 

Divine Waters intervention 

DWU through Ojwina Division leaders mobilised people who are served by the Jinja 

camp market. Community sensitization was carried within the community working 

with local leaders. A project management committee was selected and with funding 

support from WaterAid, DWU was able to construct a modern waterborne public 

toilet facility. The Division leaders selected vulnerable persons that included disabled 

persons, widows and orphans and the very poor in four villages to further benefit from 

construction of 2500litre water jars to ease the burden of accessing safe water. It is 

anticipated that the project will improve the livelihood of the beneficiaries. 

Table 4.8 Activities, outputs and results: Community Management 

Activities Outputs (No.) Results 

Training of 

community 

resource persons/ 

committees 

• 2,500 (No.) WUCs; 11 

(No.) Piped Water Scheme 

Attendants; 119 (No.) 

Hand-pump mechanics; 

809 (No.) School teachers 

trained 

• 1,344 (No.) School 

health clubs; 2002 (No.) 

Community health clubs 

formed and trained 

• 382 (No.) artisans for 

water facility construction 

and 365 (No.) artisan 

for sanitation facilities 

construction trained 


• Improved performance 

of the groups leading to 

improved O&M 

• Improved hygiene and 

pupil-stance ratio in 

schools. Old practice of 

hygiene parades revived. 

• Science teachers 

equipped with skills to 

enable them follow up 

hygiene and sanitation 

issues in the school. 

• Technology and skills 

transfer to communities.

Community 

mobilisation/ 

Sensitisation/ 

learning 

• 3,257 (No.) community 

meetings conducted 

• 224 (No.) learning events 

organised 

• Radio talk shows 

• Dialogue meetings 

Table 4.9 Activities, outputs and results: IWRM and HIV/AIDS mainstreaming. 

Activities Outputs Results 

IWRM • Supported District 

Water and Sanitation 

Coordination 

Committees (DWSCC) 

meetings to include 

IWRM awareness as an 

agenda item 


• Stakeholders agreed on 

the different roles to be 

played during the project 

implementation. 

• Increased community 

participation and 

involvement. 

• Progress review meetings; 

to review the project and 

address the identified 

gaps. 

• Development of 

community score cards 

• Improved governance and 

service delivery in the 

WASH sector (see Case 

Study 4.15). 

• Talk shows as an effective 

and interactive platform of 

communication. 

• Information sharing 

leads to efficiency and 

effectiveness in service 

delivery. 

• Improved application of the 

IWRM principles to protect 

water sources for both schools 

and communities (see Box 4.4 

Spring protection in Karamoja 

region) 

• District local governments and 

NGOs appreciating the IWRM 

principles and integrating them 

into their projects. 

• Activities identified and 

executed in line with the 

resources conservation 

resulting in catchment 

protection 



HIV/AIDS 

mainstreaming 

• HIV/AIDS sensitization 

workshops 

• Facilitate voluntary 

HIV/AIDS counselling 

and testing 

• Conduct training 

on HIV/AIDS 

mainstreaming. 

• Trained community 

volunteers to 

spearhead the 

campaign on the 

usefulness of staying 

in a clean environment 

as one way 

supplementing on the 

effectiveness of ARVs 


• Reduce the impact of HIV/AIDS 

(see Case Study 4.20). 

• Developed group guideline 

on taking affirmative action 

for the affected and infected, 

and sensitising members on 

prevention and stigmatization. 

• Improved competency in HIV/ 

AIDS mainstreaming. 

• A comprehensive set of 

guidelines, toolkit and training 

resources for trainers, homebased 

care providers and 

programmers were developed 

to support WASH integration 

in HIV/AIDS home-based care 

programming. 

Box 4.4: IWRM; spring protection in Karamoja region: Source IICD 

Protecting a spring is a very delicate work. For ages springs have watered wild life, 

domestic animals, and human beings. Free access to springs makes the difference 

between life and death, especially in arid environments and in extremely dry seasons. 

Complete diversion of spring water to taps and far from the original place (like is the 

case in gravity flow schemes) may create sufferance to animals and human beings 

who depend on that spring. 

During spring construction, the following must be taken into consideration. 

• Since time immemorial, herdsmen, water their animals freely to the spring. 

Diverting its water to taps in a far village could cause immediate damage to 

everybody concerned and in extreme case may even create conflict. 

• Seasonally herdsmen meet near springs not only to water their animals but even 

for social and cultural reasons. They cannot do it around the taps in a strange 

village: this can create conflict between cultivators and herdsmen. 

• In case of unscrupulous assessment of existing social dynamics,, planners can 

create conflict among villages, diverting water to one and neglecting the others. 

• Denial of access to water can create stress and death to wildlife that for ages, 

have relied on that source of water. 

Action points 

If possible shift to a protected hand dug well, tapping from the same aquifer and 

do not touch the spring. If not, plan suitable cattle troughs and human distribution 

outlets near the spring if you cannot shift to solutions other than capping and diverting 

the spring. Protect the environment upstream of springs and wells to increase their 

permanence and yield. 

Plan well for wildlife, herdsmen and humans bearing in mind the needs and interests 

of each category.



HIV/AIDS mainstreaming. Source :Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation 

Programme 

This is a story on how the programme has improved the livelihood of Bakembera John 

who is living with HIV. 

Bakambera John (30 years) served in the Uganda Armed forces but had to retire 

rather early when, in 2009,he tested positive for HIV. John is one of the HIV infected 

persons who has benefited from the Programme by having a ferro-cement tank of 

4000 litre capacity constructed at his house. John, who is not yet married, lives 

with his parents who have unique problems of their own. His father at 74 suffers 

from elephantiasis. His mother 65 years is lame in the left arm. John has one sister, 

Beatrice who also stays with the family. 

The nearest water source was down a steep hill, 3km away, round trip. That in itself 

presented a crisis whenever John and Beatrice were away for the simple reason that 

while John’s father who could not walk without great difficulty, his mother who could 

walk had unfortunate limitation of not being able to ferry water, being lame in one 

hand. Johns’ father recalls that, there were times when they completely lacked water 

to use at home when John and Beatrice are away. But because of his condition, John 

was not much useful both whenever he returned, and he himself admits that he used 

to find it difficult to fetch water. 

John has been supported by the Programme by getting a referral to Joint Clinical 

Research Centre, Kabale, for further counselling and medication. He is now on ARVs 

and his health has greatly improved. He is no longer stigmatized. He is able to talk 

about his HIV status before his family members. 

In his words, John says, 

“God loves us, he has given 

us water. My parents can 

now have enough water. I 

am no longer bothered by 

the task of water hauling 

it up the hill as before!’ He 

confesses that he is now 

a regular Church attendant 

which was not the case 

before. 

John (with parents) drawing water from tank 



5 NGO and CBO Contribution to 

implementation of the of the 2009 

Joint Sector Undertakings 


The Joint Sector Review is an annual event that brings together actors in the Water and 

Environment Sector. CSOs are active participants on this forum. One of outputs of the JSR are 

the Undertakings; recommendation or actions to be implemented in the following financial year. 

Where appropriate, civil society organisations in the Water and Sanitation Sector contribute to 

the implementation of the Undertakings. This chapter therefore presents the contribution of 

CSOs in the implementation of the Undertakings by outlining activities undertaken and providing 

case studies that reflect NGO contribution. 

5.1.1 Undertaking No. 4: Water Resource Management 

Catchment based IWRM is operationalised (2009/10) and funds mobilised for the 

establishment of all Water Management Zones by 2010/11 while building synergies 

with other regionally based or decentralised sector support structures. 

IWRM is often not a focus of most NGOs. Deliberate interventions are required to build the 

capacity of NGOs and CBOs to perform WRM functions. However, there has been a pocket of 

IWRM related activities by CSOs. These include, community sensitisation on IWRM, translation 

of IWRM policy briefs to local language, and radio programmes on IWRM policy (Joy Drilling). 

Also included is; IWRM decentralisation at basin level (PROTOS; see Case Study 5.1); Mpanga 

River catchment management plan endorsed by the catchment management organisation, as 

well as improved application of the IWRM principles to protect water sources for both schools 

and communities (SNV).It also features; protection of water supplies maintaining grass cover 

around the catchment, advising on farming activities around or near water sources, advising on 

upstream pollution of protected springs, construction of cattle troughs to reduce human and 

animal conflict to access water (JESE, FORUD) as well as soil conservation education and tree 

planting (SOCADIDO). 


IWRM steps and Pilot projects River Mpanga. Source PROTOS 

Background 

In the year 2006 PROTOS, an international NGO with headquarters in Belgium 

started the roll out of an IWRM program in the Lake George basin. This program 

was initiated by the gathering of data in and around this basin that was useful to 



inform the situation of the catchment. At that time the DWRM was in the process of 

rolling out pilots on the IWRM in the country; PROTOS then came into partnership 

with them for coordination and steering the IWRM process. PROTOS further made 

partnerships with SNV and LAGBIMO as organisations that were already active in 

the region. From these partnerships key stake holders were brought on board to 

form a steering committee that sat to choose rivers within the whole catchment that 

needed intervention. At that point River Mpanga was selected and a water situation 

analysis for the whole river basin carried out. A stakeholder forum that included most 

of the sectors of the districts of Kamwenge, Kabarole and Kyenjojo and civil society 

were then invited. The stakeholders came up with four critical problems that needed 

intervention, these are: soil erosion, wetland degradation, hydrological monitoring, 

and pollution. In this meeting a Catchment Management Committee (CMC) and a 

Technical Team (TT) were formed to take up these issues. The TT has been involved 

in the drafting of a River Management Plan (RMP) where consultations of different 

sectors pertaining activities related to River Mpanga were done. The final RMP will be 

endorsed by the CMC for intervention and reviewed annually. 

Pilot projects on IWRM 

Besides playing the technical and capacity building role, PROTOS started to roll out 

pilots projects of the gaps that remained at the basin level and planning for up 

scaling. For a year now, PROTOS has carried out school sensitisation with drawing 

competitions and a river Mpanga protection launch with the aim of awareness 

creation among children in schools neighbouring Mpanga. These efforts were then 

consolidated in Kahunga Bunyonyi primary school where Primary six(P.6) pupils were 

asked to write short essays, poems and dialogues about the situation of River Mpaga 

on the same selected issues. From these compilations a school IWRM hand book 

is being worked on to be disseminated in the schools of Kyenjojo, Kamwenge and 

Kabarole districts as an English training tool. This activity is being up scaled in the 

Subcounty of Bukuuku Kabarole District where a lot of erosion has been identified 

and little is being done to mitigate it. Sensitization in schools in Kazingo has been 

combined with tree growing in the 20 metres from the river banks of willing landlords 

as an intervention to address the severe river bank erosion. 


• Coordination and partnerships bring many stakeholders together in the 

accomplishment of a common task and leads to a first step in setting a common 

focus and integrating interventions. 



• The communities know the situations of their environment and the relevance of 

protecting the river. 

• Law enforcement in the water and environment sector is leading to degradation 

of natural resources. It is only through sustainable management of the water 

resource that sustainable WASH services can be provided. 

5.1.2 Undertaking No. 7: Sanitation 

Finalise the guidelines for the conditional grant on sanitation and continue with 

enforcement of sanitation ordinances and bye-laws (2009/10), and allocate and 

disburse funds for the sanitation grant to the Local Governments (2010/11). 

NGOs are not mandated to enforce ordinances and bye-laws. However they have continued to 

link with community management structures (such as Water and Sanitation Committees, and 

Village Health Committees), Sanitation and Hygiene promotion structures (such as Community 

Health Workers), and the local authorities usually at village (LC 1) and Subcounty (LC III) levels 

to generate and enforce ordinances and by-laws. A number of campaigns have been conducted 

to get political leaders to support sanitation. 

5.1.3 Undertaking No. 8: Rural water supply 

A revitalized Community Based Maintenance System (CBMS) leading to an improved 

functionality rate of water points in 50% of the districts by at least 3 percentage 

points by improving the management at community level and at the district level 

through; 

• Review and update the O&M Framework, & finalize the up-date of the MIS with 

respect to functionality ( 2009/10) 

• Implementation of the revised O&M framework ( 2010/11) 

CSOs have continued to undertake various activities towards increased functionality of rural 

water sources. The activities include; community mobilisation meetings; formation, training and 

re-training of Water Source Committees, facilitating development and endorsement by higher 

authorities of water source bye-laws. The CSOs have also carried out; training and equipping 

Hand pump Mechanics and; facilitated the formation of Handpump Mechanics’ Associations. 

However lack of government support, poverty among communities, and access to spare parts, 

remain huge challenges to functionality of rural water sources. 


6 Challenges and 

recommendations 



In the course of implementing their programmes and projects, NGOs and CBOs meet a number 

of challenges. Some are unique to particular organisations (like high staff turn-over forexample) 

while others cut across the board within the sub-sector or within a particular region. This chapter 

presents major challenges that, in some cases, need a review of the existing related policy 

provision. Also presented in the chapter are some key lessons learnt and recommendations. 

6.2 Challenges 

A number of challenges have either been met or observed during the FY 2009/10. 

6.2.1 Inadequate household income and the CBMS 

In Northern Uganda in particular and other areas of country in general, the family income is 

still very low for the majority of Ugandan families. This raises the challenges for CBMS for 

rural water sources that demands that communities make contribution to buy spares parts, 

to replace broken or worn-off parts as well as pay the HPM who conducts repairs. Although 

there is no empirical data to back up the argument, field reports indicate that lack of ability to 

pay compromises the effectiveness of the CBMS with the result that functionality of developed 

water supply sources is still below acceptable levels. The challenge of lack of ability to pay is 

compounded by the reduction in the drive to offer voluntary work (See Box 6.1 on sustainability 

issues). For rural piped water systems, a cost tracking study indicated that although the 

communities may meet the cost of operating the systems, additional cost are necessary to 

covers replacements and renovation that are necessary after a few years of operation, and 

that are often beyond the capacity of the community and to cover the costs related to direct 

support as in follow up visits, community mobilisation, capacity building of committees and 

water seminars/training of management committees (see Case Study 6.1 Costs tracking of 

rural water projects) 

6.2.2 Supply chain for construction equipment and materials 

Accessing construction equipment and materials poses a challenge while delivering WASH 

services especially under the self-supply initiative. In Bugiri for example, communities would 

wish to construct rainwater tanks but they are hampered by lack of basic construction materials 

like gutters that can only be accessed from relatively large towns. As is the case in stocking 

of the spare parts for handpumps, business entrepreneurs are hesitant to stock materials 

that are likely to stay in stock for a long time. The challenge is creating enough demand 

for such materials and to interest businesses to stock the relevant materials. An associated 

challenge is accessing materials to set up demonstrations as a way of generating demand for 

the technology uptake. 



6.2.3 Vulnerable household and the ‘no subsidy’ policy 

In many communities across the country, there exist vulnerable households characterised by 

the very low or no household income, the elderly, single parent families and families where 

children are heads of households as a result of the AIDS scourge or as a result of having lost 

their parents during the insurgency or any other tragedies. Often these households have no 

capacity to construct sanitation facilities as in a traditional pit latrine, the lowest acceptable 

level of human excreta disposal facility. This presents a major problem given the GoU policy of 

zero subsidy for household sanitation. This is an area which needs to be examined critically 

by MWE, MoH, District Local Governments and NGOS. It should be tabled as an issue for the 

National Sanitation Working Group (see Case Study 6.2; Targeting the vulnerable) 

6.2.4 Low priority for sanitation 

Sanitation continues to receive low priority at all levels with inadequate budget allocations 

and financing mechanisms. Development of sanitation related ordinances and by-laws and 

enforcement of existing laws and regulations is still inadequate at all levels. Existing laws and 

regulation remain largely unknown. Campaigns have been conducted urging political leaders to 

place sanitation and hygiene improvement on the priority list (see Case Study 6.3). 

6.2.5 Financing rainwater harvesting 

Domestic rainwater harvesting requires a hard roof, and finance. This has been a major 

challenge in the roll out of these technologies, specially reaching the poor. There are no micro 

finance options available to households to purchase a RWH tank (other than Crestank- Finca). 

As in agriculture where farmers receive soft loans to conduct farming activities, households 

should be able to access soft loans to improve their access safe water and sanitation facilities 

given the economic benefits that accrue there from. 

6.2.6 Framework for cooperation between CSO and MoWE not 

operationalised 

A framework for cooperation between CSO and MoWE was developed by the MoWE in consultation 

with CSOs. The framework set out modalities of cooperation between CSO and the MoWE and 

clarifies on how CSO may work with local governments to deliver Water and sanitation services. 

This framework however has not been operationalised as much as it has not been widely 

disseminated among stakeholders (district local governments and CSOs) leaving ambiguities 

in CSOs and LG relationships. 

6.2.7 Inadequate reporting by CSO 

Inadequate reporting and the associated lack of transparency and accountability remain a 

challenge. Research-based reporting by most CSOs remains a challenge. This calls for capacity 

building of CSOs and to interest CSOs to invest in research work. CSOs should strive for Quality 

Assurance Mechanism (QuAM) to be credible and accountable (see Box 6.2). NGOs and CBOs 

play the role of watchdog, monitoring the services of government and calling for transparency 

and accountability. To effectively play this role CSOs need to be accountable and transparent. 



Box 6.1: Reflecting on sustainability of rural water services: Source Triple 

–S Uganda 

On 4 th August 2010, it was reported in The New Vision that over 140 boreholes 

worth over UGX2.8 billion had been abandoned in Arua District after they broke 

down. Quoting the district Chief Administrative Officer, the report said that out of 

the 706 boreholes in the district, 146 were non-functional, while about 562 were 

operational but on their last legs. It’s inconceivable the number of people affected by 

the breakdown of 146 boreholes. 

Cases of non-functional rural water facilities abound. Statistics of Water and 

Environment Sector Performance Report 2008/2009 indicate that functionality of 

rural water sources has stagnated at 80%-83% for the last five years. Meanwhile 

investment in new water sources continues. The Water and Environment sector 

performance report indicates that in 2008/2009 alone, a total of 2,604 water points 

were constructed under the District Water and Sanitation Development Conditional 

Grant. In the same year, NGOs and CBOs collectively constructed 2238 rural water 

sources. This ensured access to safe water for an additional 900,000 people in 

rural areas. By 2009, the rate of access to safe water in rural areas was at 65%, an 

increase from 63% in 2008. 

But with the non-functionality rate nearly 15%, there is a number of people who 

continuously lose access to safe water. Unfortunately, these are mostly in the rural 

areas. If not reversed, this trend is likely to result into the reversal of the gains 

that have been made in terms of access to safe water in rural areas. In its golden 

indicator No.2, the Ministry of Water and Environment commits to reach a target of 

90% functionality rate by financial year 2014/15. What strategies are in place to 

achieve, even over shoot that target? 

The challenge is not so much about raising the functionality rate to 100% as it is 

about addressing the impediments to sustainable functionality of water services. 

What are the impediments to sustainable rural water services? 

Sustainability is largely about community ownership of the water service. Communities 

have become disengaged from the process and ownership of the systems may be very 

low; politicians and local elites interfere, promising free water for all and undermining 

community efforts. In addition, there is the issue of user fees, which are hard to 

collect and are often abused by the collectors. Moreover the water user committees 

are voluntary which often demoralizes the members. 

Sustainability is also about technology choice. Technologies keep changing. 

Some may be modified to suit prevailing times while others may be overtaken by 

development and rendered obsolete. There is a whole host of problems associated 

with functionality of technologies including systems on their last legs; inappropriate 

technologies used; laxity in construction supervision; failing spare part chains; low 

quality of construction; inadequate operations and maintenance provisions; and 

vandalism. These all have a bearing on sustainability of water supply. 

Sometimes sustainability may be affected by the cost of production. For example, 

some areas have poor quality water and therefore, for every source developed 

treatment will be required. This makes the investment too high and simple technology 

is thus made complicated, which creates a sustainability problem. 



Exogenous factors including seasonal and long-term changes in local water availability 

may also create a sustainability problem. A scoping study for the inception of the 

Triple-S Initiative conducted by NETWAS indicated that in many rural areas functionality 

of systems is contingent upon the season. Many water sources are functional during 

the rainy season but not in the dry season. The breakdown of water sources is more 

frequent during the dry season because of overuse. 

Limited institutional capacity is manifested by the staffing gaps at district level, 

and this is made worse by the limited capacity of the private sector to cope with 

increased water supply activities. The ever soaring number of districts increases the 

capacity challenge. Coupled with inadequate funding for the rural water sub-sector, 

these challenges have incapacitated rural water efforts and made sustainability of 

water services ever more elusive. The 2009 sector Performance Report shows that 

the national budgetary allocation for funding for the Water and Sanitation sub-sector 

has declined over the last five years from 4.9% in 2004/05 to 2.4% in 2008/09. 

Another challenge arises from the inadequate harmonisation and coordination. There 

are many players in the sector, both government and non government. Once these 

are not properly coordinated, sustainability will be affected. Thankfully, Uganda 

has developed a relatively strong service delivery framework for the provision of 

new services and strong coordination and synchronisation structures. The process 

of decentralisation and transfer of responsibility for service provision to district 

authorities is well structured and relatively advanced, despite suffering from a number 

of challenges. 

It is worth noting that what lies at the heart of these challenges are attitudes and 

behaviours. Reliable and functional rural water supply services can be provided at 

scale in Uganda, if a change in capacities and attitudes, at different levels in the 

sector can be engineered. This calls for new thinking on where and how to invest 

resources. This can be done through a process of learning and research. Learning 

is about sharing information and knowledge and is a fundamental pre-requisite of 

performance improvement. Learning also contributes to better use of resources and 

this is vital in the current context of static or shrinking sector investments. 

It is this rigorous learning process that the Triple-S Initiative sets out to pursue. 

Triple-S is a research and learning initiative of the International Water and Sanitation 

Centre (IRC). It aims to pilot and test new ways of working for the delivery of rural 

water services in Uganda. The initiative is structured around a consortium comprising 

DWD/Rural Water Department, NETWAS Uganda, UWASNET and SNV. 




Cost tracking of rural water projects. Source Fontes Foundation Uganda 

Background 

Fontes Foundation (www.fontes.no) is a small, Norwegian NGO that together with 

its counterpart in Uganda, Fontes Foundation Uganda, has been supporting water, 

sanitation, education and environment projects in Western Uganda since 2004. 

Working with the districts and local communities, Fontes Foundation has installed 

piped water supply systems in Katunguru, Kazinga and Kisenyi fishing villages Rubirizi 

District. The water systems are small piped water systems that extract surface water 

which is treated using simple treatment plants. The systems are operated through 

a modality of the community management approach, where water committees are 

paid sitting allowance. The local technicians and caretakers/tap-attendants are given 

a small remuneration at the end of the month. A jerrycan costs between UGX50 

and UGX100. Fontes Foundation has a local employee that gives technical support, 

and follows up the projects regularly with capacity building of water committees. 

Based on the categories set out by WASHCost (see www.washcost.info, Fonseca 

et al 2010 7 ), the organisation recently carried out a cost-tracking exercise to gain 

a better understanding of the Life-Cycle Costs (LCC) of rural water projects. The 

data was collected from the organisation’s accountability, budgets, local transfer 

documents, monthly reports filled out by the water committees, travel reports and 

some estimates. Four basic expenditures were monitored 

i. Operational Expenditure (OpEx). 

ii. Capital expenses (CapEx) covers expenditures on new investments such as new 

taps, expansions. 

iii. Capital Maintenance Expenditure (CapManEx) covers costs such as replacements 

and renovation that are necessary after a few years of operation, and that are 

often beyond the capacity of the community. 

iv. Expenditure on Direct Support (ExpDS) covers administration and salaries in 

Norway and Uganda, as well as follow up visits, community mobilisation, capacity 

building of committees and water seminars. 

Findings 

The graph shows the costs broken down in the categories set out by WASHCost. 

Only operational expenditures 

(OpEx) are entirely covered by the 

community; the other categories 

are mostly paid by the NGO, local 

government and other partners 

such as Uganda Wildlife Authority. 

The Expenditure on Direct Support 

(ExpDS) is relatively high; however 

the organisation has found this 

to be crucial for functionality. 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

Expenditure in UGX 

(Million) 

0 

7 Fonseca, C., Franceys, R., Batchelor, C., McIntyre, P., Klutse, A., Komives, K., Moriarty, P., Naafs, A., Nyaro, K., Pezon, C., Potter, 

A., Reddy, R. And Snehalatha, M. (2010) Life-cycle costs approach Katunguru – glossary and components, Kazinga WASHCost KisenyiBriefing 

note 1, IRC 

International Water and Sanitation Centre 

CapEx 

CapManEx 

OpEx 

ExpDS 



Even if communities are able to cover operation and maintenance costs, they still 

need continuous training, follow up and motivation in order to keep the financial 

management sound and transparent. In addition, they need financial support to cover 

Capital Maintenance Expenditure (CapManEx). 

The cost-tracking exercise shows that even though the communities are able to cover 

operation and maintenance costs, they still need continuous support in form of 

capacity building (ExpDS) and financial means (CapManEx) in order for the systems 

to keep running. On average, each of the three projects needed 32 million UGX 

in the financial year 2009-10 for Capital Maintenance Expenditure (CapManEx) and 

Expenditure on Direct Support (ExpDS). In the case of Fontes Foundation, the NGO 

is taking over most of these costs, with small contributions from the community, 

local government and other partners. However, in most rural water systems there 

are no support mechanisms to cover these costs. This should be taken into account 

when considering if the community management model is the most efficient way of 

managing rural water supplies, or if there are more cost-effective alternatives through 

government or the private sector. At the same time, the resources spent on mobilising 

and training community members also have a number of positive side-effects on 

development, health and community organisation. Only when these externalities 

are fully considered and included in the cost-benefit analysis, the real effectiveness 

of community management can be understood. The complete results of the costtracking 

study will be presented at a Symposium in the Hague, the Netherlands, in 

November 2010. 


Targeting the vulnerable. Source VAD 

Background 

‘Your Donation brings good life to my family’. Ms Nantulo Deborah of Mulume village, 

Kanzize parish in Masuliita Sub county is certainly in good moods as she narrates the 

story to one of the VAD project staff. Ms Nantulo aged 87 is one of the elderly women 

in Mulume village of Masuliita Subcounty who were supported by VAD with funds from 

Aidlink Ireland to acquire a water jar and an improved pit latrine in her home. 

Deborah tells her story 

“I am such an elderly person who had lost hope of living in a good health environment 

and have access to clean safe water at my door step”. She begins, “I stay with nine 

grand children; five girls and four boys. 

“Out of the nine grand children, five are orphans whose parents died of HIV/AIDS 

many years back. I am such a helpless person with a poor un-safe latrine. It is not 

my pride at all to have such a poor latrine and to be in a poor sanitation situation but 

I have nothing to do because my children died long ago and left me with no help at 

all”. 



‘In such a worrying situation, there came good Samaritan people Voluntary Action for 

Development (VAD) and supported me with two stance VIP latrine with a wash room 

and a rain harvesting water jar of 2,500 liters. It was indeed a miracle to me. Iam 

very happy to say that there is no more shame in my family”. 

“ I have an excellent VIP latrine where you can even go and have no worry. I get 

visitors and I no longer have shame for my latrine if at all they want to use it. I access 

clean water as well. We drink boiled water and my grand children no longer trek long 

distances for clean water for domestic use. We live happily, we enjoy every bit of life 

and though 87 years I still have hope of living longer. Water is Life”. 

“I want to take this very opportunity to appreciate everyone who has ensured this 

happen to bring about hope in my home; LC 1 Chair person-Mr. Ssempijja Vincent of 

Mulume village and the Mulume community who elected me to be a beneficiary. For 

VAD am just speechless because they have done a lot to me which I can never forget, 

lastly but not least to thank; Aidlink who gave me this donation. 

Long live all my Good Samaritan. May God reward you abundantly. 


Sanitation promotion through campaigns. Source WaterAid Uganda 

Introduction 

WaterAid in Uganda is using campaigns to put water, sanitation and hygiene on the 

political and public agenda. On March 22, 2010 – a day commemorated world wide 

as the World Water Day and climax of the National Sanitation Week here in Uganda, 

Water Aid working together with the Kawempe Division local government and partner 

NGOs in the area mobilised close to 3000 pupils from the informal settlements of 

the Division to queue up in solidarity with the 2.6 billion people across the world that 

still lack access to a safe and dignified toilet. 

This was part of the World’s Longest Toilet Queue – a global campaign bringing 

together thousands of people from across the world to raise attention to the sanitation 

and water crisis. 

Campaign activities 

For the whole month, WaterAid in Uganda partners carried out house to house 

community sensitisation, conducted clean ups and also mobilised school to join in 

the world record-breaking symbolic toilet queue to urge the Uganda government to 

tackle the national hygiene and sanitation crisis. 

In Kawempe and Wakiso district, campaigners queued with placards before marching 

through the city suburbs and market areas urging their local leaders and government 

to make sanitation and hygiene a priority in planning and resource allocation at all 

levels. 




Public campaigns are very helpful in attracting the media. The event was covered by a 

number of media houses ,which helps in putting WASH issues high on public agenda 

and at the same time making the sanitation message resonate deep into the hearts 

of the general public. 

Involving children in sanitation promotion campaigns make them appreciate the need 

for good hygiene and sanitation in their lives. They become good sanitation and 

hygiene ambassadors with lifelong skills to bring about behavioural change in their 

communities. 

6.3 Recommendations 

The following recommendations are based on the challenges and issues highlighted in this 

report. 

SN Issue Recommendation 

1. CBMS • Review the CBMS strategy in light of levels of 

functionality of rural water sources and the 

problems associated with CBMS. Consider a 

conditional grant for maintenance of rural water 

sources and the management of rural water supply 

through management contracts with private sector 

organisations with communities playing a monitoring 

role. As a further step towards improving functionality, 

there should be support of handpump mechanics 

and advocacy for formation of Handpump mechanics 

associations as well as case documentation of 

successful O&M stories/strategies 

2. No subsidy policy 

for sanitation 

• Consider a review of the government ‘no subsidy’ for 

household policy to cater for the needy and vulnerable 

families/households. 

3. Financing • There is need to increase sector financing to 

ensure realisation of the MDG goal of ensuring the 

achievement of MDG target on access to water and 

improved sanitation by 2015. Expedite the process 

of refining the procurement policy such that NGOs/ 

CBOs can participate in bidding for contracts 

and consultancies at the district and lower local 

government levels. 



• Need for the government to have direct funding for 

NGOs and CBOs in the Water and Sanitation Sector for, 

utilising the CSOs technical knowledge and resources 

in areas where NGOs have demonstrated proficiency 

(as in software activities) while complementing 

government effort to attain sector goals and targets. 

The approach advocated for is as under Ministry of 

Health where Government of Uganda makes direct 

funding to CSOs to provide health services through 

health units and outreach service. Such resources 

for CSOs in Water and Sanitation Sector would be 

channelled through UWASNET. 

• Develop financing system for domestic rainwater 

harvesting (micro finance) to further popularise the 

rainwater harvesting technology and make it more 

affordable. 

4. Quality Assurance • Capacity building for CSOs in the area of 

documentation, reporting, transparency and 

accountability as well as continuous QuAM. UWASNET 

to operationalise the accountability and transparency 

code of conduct. 

5. Operationalising 

the framework for 

cooperation 

• Disseminate the Framework of Cooperation between 

CSO in the Water and Sanitation subsector and Local 

Governments and operationalise the framework, 

setting targets and indicators for its monitoring. 

6. Equity • More emphasis on equity in resources allocation 

and service delivery recognizing the most vulnerable. 

Conditional grants should target ensuring equity within 

the districts. 

7. NGO/CBO 

participation in 

district planning 

meetings. 

• Develop indicators to monitor NGO and CBO 

participation in District Water and Sanitation 

Coordination meetings/activities. CSO participation in 

DWSCC to be part of the CSO reporting. 

8. IWRM • Capacity building on IWRM among NGO/CBO through 

training and sharing 



Annex 1 Key sub-sector Institutions 

and Responsibilities 

Institution Key responsibility 

Community 

based 

structures. 

NGOs, CBOs. 

Local 

Government. 

Private 

operators. 

Directorate 

of Water 

Resources 

Management. 

DWRM 

Responsible for demanding, planning, contributing a cash contribution 

to capital cost, and O&M of rural water supply and water for production 

facilities. A community management committee is established at each 

water point. A similar committee is established for each Water for 

Production facility. 

and the private sector are active in the provision of water and sanitation 

services (construction of facilities, community mobilisation, providing 

operational and maintenance services, training of communities and local 

Governments, hygiene promotion as well as advocacy and lobbying) 

Districts and Sub-Counties are empowered by the Local Governments 

Act (2000) for the provision of water and sanitation services. They 

receive funding from the centre in the form of a conditional grant and 

can also mobilise additional local resources for water and sanitation 

programmes. Rural water supply and small scale water for production 

planning, implementation management and monitoring is delegated to 

the district water offices and the DWSCC. 

The private sector, e.g. consultants, contractors, water operators, 

suppliers, etc. contribute to the development and performance of the 

sector by providing services on demand. Water operators have formed 

an Association for Private Water Operators. Consultants and contractors 

are registered with professional bodies that regulate industry and 

commerce. At the informal level artisans provide essential building 

and maintenance services. 

Responsible for management of the nation’s water resources and 

undertakes the following key functions: i)monitoring and assessing 

the quality and quantity of water resources; ii) storing, processing 

and disseminating water resources data and information to users; iii) 

providing advice and guidance to water development programmes; iv) 

providing advice on management of trans-boundary water resources 

relating to Lake Victoria and the River Nile under the auspices of the 

East African Community, Nile Basin Initiatives and the African Ministers’ 

Council on Water ; and, v) regulating water use through issuing of water 

permits and providing water quality analytical services. 



Directorate 

of Water 

Development. 

National Water 

and Sewerage 

Cooperation. 

Ministry of 

Finance, 

Planning and 

Economic 

Development 

Ministry of 

Health. 

Ministry of 

Water and 

Environment. 

Ministry 

of Local 

Government. 

Ministry of 

Education and 

Sport. 


DWD is responsible for providing overall technical oversight for the 

planning, implementation and supervision of the delivery of rural and 

urban water services across the country as well as ensuring water for 

production. DWD is responsible for regulation of provision of water supply 

and sanitation services and the provision of capacity development and 

other support services to Local Governments, Private Operators and 

other service providers. 

NWSC is an autonomous para-state entity established in 1972, 

responsible for the delivery of water supply and sewerage services in 19 

large urban centres with a total population of over 2.1 million. NWSC’s 

activities are aimed at expanding service coverage, improving efficiency 

in service delivery and increasing labour productivity 

MFPED mobilises funds, allocates them to sectors and coordinates 

donor inputs. MFPED reviews sector plans as a basis for releasing 

allocated funds, and reports on compliance with sector objectives. 

MFPED provides a rolling Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF) 

to allow systematic and consistent multiyear planning at sector level. 

MoH is responsible for hygiene promotion and household sanitation. 

The Environmental Health Division (EHD) is the main part of the MoH 

responsible for the development / initiation of sanitation and hygiene 

promotion strategies and approaches and for the provision of support 

to the decentralised structures. 

MWE has overall responsibility for initiating national policies and for 

setting national standards and priorities for W&S development and 

management. The MWE is responsible for integrated planning with 

other relevant line ministries in the water sector (e.g. via the MoU on 

Sanitation and the MoU on WfP). 

MoLG is responsible for regulating and ensuring a transparent and 

effective governance environment for local government. It is also 

responsible for supporting the districts and sub-district units to build up 

their capacity and it offers support in the form of training courses and 

on-site coaching. MoLG regularly monitors local government as part of 

its decentralisation strategy. 

MoES is responsible for hygiene promotion and sanitation in primary 

schools, to ensure that schools have the required sanitation facilities 

and provide hygiene education to the pupils. It also promotes harvesting 

of rainwater for hand washing after latrine use. 




Ministry of 

Agriculture, 

Animal Industry 

and Fisheries. 

Ministry of 

Gender, Labour 

and Social 

Development. 

Water, 

Sanitation and 

Environment 

Sector Working 

Group. 

Water Policy 

Committee. 

Annual 

GOU/Donor 

Joint Sector 

Reviews. 

MAAIF spearheads agricultural development through its Plan for 

Modernisation of Agriculture and holds the responsibility for water 

use management in relation to Water for Production including the onfarm 

use and management of water for production (irrigation, animal 

production and aquaculture). The MoU between the MWE and MAAIF 

defines the shared and separated responsibilities in the field of Water 

for Production (WfP). 

MoGLSD is responsible for gender responsiveness and community 

development/mobilisation. It assists the sector in gender responsive 

policy development, and supports Districts to build staff capacity to 

implement sector programmes. 

The overall coordination of the sector is undertaken by the Water and 

Sanitation Sector Working Group. The group is chaired by the Permanent 

Secretary of MWE meets at least every quarter and provides policy and 

technical guidance for sector development in the country. It comprises 

representatives from MWE, NWSC, MoH, MoES, MoFPED, DPs and 

NGOs (represented by UWASNET). Two sub-sector working groups have 

been established for Water for Production (WfP) and Sanitation . These 

sub-sector working groups report to the WSSWG 

The WPC is stipulated in the Water Statute (1995). The membership 

includes government ministries, and representatives from district local 

governments, private sector and NGOs. The WPC advises on water 

policy, standards for service delivery, and priorities for water resources 

management. The WPC also advises on revisions to legislation and 

regulations for water resources and also coordinates formulation of 

international water resources policy. 

The JSRs are held and have the following objectives: i) Progress and 

performance of the sector is assessed in relation to 10 key sector 

performance golden indicators, ii) Agreement is reached on key strategic 

policy issues, and iii) Guidance is provided for resource allocation and 

use with particular emphasis on accountability and transparency. JSRs 

will continue to been held annually with annual Joint Technical Reviews 

(JTRs) held midway. 


Annex 2 Water and Sanitation 

NGOs and CBOs 


The table below presents Water and Sanitation NGOs that submitted data, specifying 

their investment in water and sanitation services and the populations served as well as 

organisations from which no data was received. This format was introduced in the 2009 Water 

and Environmental Sector Performance Report to acknowledge the need for NGOs to be more 

transparent and accountable, and encourage organisations to submit data. 


NGO and CBO WASH Investment and population served 2009/10 


Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 

NGO/CBO District Budget 

(UGX) 

Abarilela community Dev’t Organisation Amuria 21,600,000 13,080,000 6,000 

Action Against Hunger (ACF) Lira 12,550,000 24,259,000 24,700 

No data reported 

Action for Slum Health and Development 

(ASD) 

African Evangelistic Enterprise (AEE) Kampala 58,100,000 84,240,000 2,900 

66,000,000 494,400,000 Not indicated 

Africare Uganda Ntungamo, Isingiro, Kabarole, Buliisa, 

Bundibugyo, Hoima, Kamwenge, Kasese, 

Kibaale, Kyenjojo, Masindi, Soroti, 

Amuria, Kaberamaido, Budaka, Wakiso, 

Kawempe, Kabale, Isingiro, Mbarara, 

Masaka, Mpigi, Kiboga, Mubende, 

Bushenyi, Mukono, Kamuli, Iganga, 

Tororo, Mbale, Kumi, Pallisa, Arua, 

Nebbi, Lira, Dokolo, Katakwi, Abim 



Agency for Accelerated Regional 

Development (AFARD) 

Agency For Capacity Building Kampala 33,833,900 31,629,084 63,300 

Kabarole 28,200,000 15,700,000 1,900 

Agency For Community Development and 

welfare 

439,230,661 419,523,006 36,700 

Mbarara, Isingiro, Kiruhura, Rakai, 

Rukungiri, Kisoro, Kanungu, Gulu 

Agency For cooperation and Research in 

Development (ACORD)

Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 

Aktion Afrika Hilfe e.v. No data reported 

All Nations Christian Care Lira 227,840,000 187,142,000 4,900 


Allied Support for Rural Empowerment 

and Development (ASURED) 

Ankole Diocese Mbarara 909,000,000 909,000,000 15,600 

Apac Town Community Association No data reported 

Aquafund International (U)LTD Gulu, Amuru 103,500,000 97,100,000 Not indicated 

Arbeiter-Samariter Bund (ASB) No data reported 

ARISE Ntugamo 38,800,000 27,200,000 100 


Arua Rural Community Development 

(ARCOD) 


Association for Social Economic 

Development 



Association of Ugandan Professional 

Women in Agriculture and Environment 

(AUPWAE) 

AVSI Foundation Kitgum, Pader 508,000,000 575,250,000 87,900 

Ayiv Youth Effort for Development Arua 5,000,000 5,000,000 Not indicated 

Arua 4,200,000 9,175,000 3,600 

Bileafe Rural Development Association 

(BLRU.DE.AS) 

Bororiet Tap Kaa Riwo No data reported 



Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 


Buganda Cultural and Development 

Organisation (BUCADEF) 

Build Africa Uganda No data reported 

Bukedea Development Foundation No data reported 

Buso Foundation No data reported 

487,853,000 483,308,950 32,800 

Busoga Trust Jinja , Kamuli, Buyende, Kaliro, Mpigi, 

Luwero, Masindi, Buliisa, Mayuge 


Buvuma Islands L V & Community 

Protection Association (BULVECPA) 


Canadian Physicians for Aid and Relief 

(CPAR) 

CARE International - Lira Lira 175,500,000 164,520,000 14,200 

CARITAS Arua Arua Not indicated Not indicated Not indicated 


CARITAS Gulu No data reported 

CARITAS Lira No data reported 

CARITAS MADDO Masaka, Rakai, Ssembabule 174,682,000 143,600,720 20,200 

27,300,000 24,300,000 22,700 

CARITAS Mbarara Mbarara, Bushenyi, Isingiro, Ibanda, 

Ntungamo, Kiruhura 

CARITAS Mityana SDD No data reported 

Otuke 175,293,478 179,805,978 1,600 

Catholic Relief Services/Uganda 

Program

Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 

CESVI International Pader 596,908,000 596,908,000 126,100 

CESVI UGANDA (Kaabong Field Office) Kaabong 33,600,000 5,000,000 Not indicated 

CHILDREN VISION UGANDA (CVU) Rakai. Kampala Not indicated 34,000,000 Not indicated 


Christ the King Health and Support Care 

Centre for the Needy 

Christian Children Fund No data reported 

Christian Engineers in Development Kabale 281,824,546 288,009,500 Not indicated 


Christian Women and Youth (CWAY) 

Development Alliance 

Sironko, Mbale, Pallisa, Manafa 82,600,000 10,000,000 15,100 

Christian Women And Youth Development 

Alliance 

Ciforo Womens Association Adjumani 4,725,000 3,734,000 700 

Community Development Action (CDA) No data reported 


Community Health Concern Kampala 150,000 150,000 - 


Community Initiative for the 

Empowerment of Vulnerable People 

(CIVOFVP) 

Kampala 343,200,000 239,920,000 89,400 

Community Intergrated Development 

Initiatives (CIDI) 

Compassion International (CI) No data reported 

CONCERN Worldwide No data 827,756,960 Not indicated 280,300 



Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 


Conservation and Development of 

Peoples Initiative (CODEPI) 

Cooperazione Internationale (COOPI) No data reported 


Conservation Effort for Community 

Development (CECOD) 

Lira, Otuke, Apach, Kapchorwa 207,872,000 165,429,340 18,600 

Deliverance Church Uganda - J.O.Y 

Drilling Program 


Development Foundation for Rural Areas 

(DEFORA) 

Divine waters Uganda Lira 382,895,000 457,689,650 125,200 

Ecological Christian Organisation (ECO) No data reported 


Efforts Integrated Development 

Foundation (EINTEDEF) 

Emesco Development Foundation No data reported 



Environmental Teachers Association 

(ENVITA) 

Fairland Foundation No data reported 

FIRD Kotido No data reported 

Kabarole, Kamwenge 173,876,109 171,683,209 4,300 

Foundation For Rural Development ( 

FORUD ) 

Gabula Attude Women’s Group No data reported 


Gisorora Twubake Association (GTA)

Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 

GOAL UGANDA Abim, Pader 709,746,000 1,071,616,000 59,000 

Kasese 10,400,000 6,569,000 Not indicated 

Good Hope Foundation For Rural 

Development 

Kisoro Not indicated Not indicated Not indicated 

Good Samaritan Community 

Development Programme (GOSAP) 

Grassland Foundation Wakiso 105,700,000 79,000,000 Not indicated 

Healthy Environment For All (HEFA) No data reported 

624,995,887 622,285,087 14,700 

Kamwenge, Kyenjojo, Kyegegwa. 

Kabarole, Bundibugyo, Ntoroko 

Health Through Water and Sanitation 

(HEWASA) 

Hope for Orphans (HOFO) [Kanungu] No data reported 

Hope for Youth – Uganda No data reported 

Karamoja Region 2,540,362,500 2,524,362,500 444,100 

Institute For International Cooperation 

And Dev’t 



Integrated Family Development Initiatives 

(IFDI) 


Integrated Health and Development 

Organisation 

Integrated Rural Development Initiative No data reported 

International Aid Services Pader 390,500,000 388,000,000 10,000 

International Life Line Fund Lira, Oyam, Otuke - 289,497,100 - 

International Rescue Committee No data reported 



Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 


International Water and Sanitation 

Centre 


Jinja Diocese Development Organisation 

(JIDDECO) 

Kamwenge, Kyenjojo, Kyegegwa 230,787,000 173,102,000 11,700 

Joint Effort To Save The Environment 

(JESE) 


Kagadi Women and Development 

Association (KWDA) 


Kagando Rural Development 

Organisation 


Kamuli Community Development 

Foundation (KACODEF) 


Kamwokya Community Health and 

Environmental Association (KACHEPA) 

Kaproron PHC Programme Kween 3,106,000 23,950,000 4,500 


Kasese Not indicated Not indicated Not indicated 

Karambi Action For Life improvement( 

KALI) 

Karamoja, Nakapiripirit, 62,400,000 45,200,000 132,700 

Karamoja Agro-pastoral development 

Programme (KADP) 

45,500,000 9,200,000 508,300 

Karamoja Diocess Dev’t Services Kotido, Abim, Kaabong, Moroto, Napak, 

Nakapiripiriti, Amudat 

Kasanga PHC/CBHC No data reported 

Katosi Women Development Trust Mukono 74,172,000 151,320,000 2,100

Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 


Kibaale Youth and Women Development 

Agency 

Kibuku Rural Development Initiative Kibuku 12,750,000 2,175,000 Not indicated 

Kabale 808,345,243 768,537,735 15,900 

Kigezi Diocese Water and Sanitation 

Programme 

Kanungu 495,880,000 511,094,000 Not indicated 

Kinkizi Intergrated Rural Dev’t 

Programme 

Kampala 1,600,000 1,600,000 Not indicated 

Kisenyi Community Health Workers 

Association (KICHWA) 


Kisomoro Tweyombeke Farmers 

Association 

Kitovu Mobile AIDS Organisation Masaka, Rakai, Ssembabule, Lyantonde 6,720,000 6,720,000 6,800 

Kumi Human Rights Initiative (KHRI) Kumi, Bukedea, Ngora 7,250,000 5,300,000 Not indicated 


Kumi, Bukedea, Ngora 39,840,000 17,490,000 700 

Kumi Pentecostal Assemblies Of God 

Planning And Dev’t Secretariat 

Mpigi 54,540,000 59,441,260 Not indicated 

Kyakulumbye Development (Foundation 

KDF) 

Kyera Farm Training Centre Isingiro, Mbarara Not indicated Not indicated Not indicated 

Mukono 350,250,000 135,806,000 4,000 

Kyetume Community Based Health Care 

Programme 


Kyosiga Community Christian Association 

for Development 


Link To Progress (LTP) Lira 1,519,188,000 1,339,000,000 35,600


Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 

125,500,000 353,500,000 189,600 

LIPRO Uganda Bushenyo, Mbarara, Ishingiro, Ibanda, 

Kiruhuura, Kasese, Ntugamo, Rukungiri, 

Kyenjojo, Masindi, Arua, Yumbe, 

Masaka, Terego, Moroto, Bududa 


Literacy Action and Development Agency 

(LADA) 

Rukungiri 141,405,000 77,552,000 1,100 

Literacy Action And Development Agency 

(LADA) 


Literacy Action And Development Agency 

(LADA) 

Living Water International Uganda (LWI) No data reported 

Lodoi Development Fund Mbale Not indicated Not indicated Not indicated 

Katakwi 75,125,680 75,125,680 6,300 

Lutheran World Federation(LWF) Uganda 

Program, Katakwi/Amuria sub program 

Makondo Health Centre Lwenge, Rakai Not indicated 22,568,800 2,400 


Mariam Foundation Centre Kampala, Mpigi, Mubende, Kisoro 35,600,000 15,400,000 2,000 

91,120,000 40,460,000 24,900 

Sironko, Bundibugyo, Bududa, Mt.Elgon 

Region 

Masiyompo Elgon Movement For Integral 

Dev’t Uganda (MEMEDU) 

Mbarara 10,270,000 10,325,000 5,200 

Mbarara District Farmers Association 

(MBADIFA) 

Medair No data reported 


Medecins Sans Frontieres Holland 

(MSF-H)

Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 

Sironko 100,000 90,000 Not indicated 

Mount Elgon Christian Dev’t 

foundation[MECDEF] 

Mpolyabigere RC – Riced Center No data reported 

Mubende Rural Development Association No data reported 

Mukono 2,000,000 1,500,000 Not indicated 

Mukono Multi-purpose Youth 

Organisation (mumyo) 

Bugiri, Butaleja, Budaka, Pallisa, Mayuge 27,450,000 18,275,000 500 

Multi-Community Based Development 

Innitiative 

Tororo 34,825,000 12,075,000 1,200 

Nagongera Youth Dev’t 

Programme(NAYODEP) 

Ndeeba Parish Youth Association (NPYA) Kabale 5,353,200 3,790,000 Not indicated 

Needy Kids Uganda Yumbe 150,000,000 5,237,000 1,200 

Rakai 199,000,000 180,000,000 

15,900 

Network for holistic Community 

Development (NEFHCOD) 


Kampala 338,607,360 337,967,360 5,000 

Network for Water And Sanitation( 

NETWAS-UGANDA) 

Ngonge Devt Foundation NDF Kapchorwa 87,500,000 34,560,000 1,100 


Noah’s Ark Children’s Ministry Uganda 

(NACMU) 


North Ankole Diocese Rainwater Harvest 

(NADS) 



North Kigezi & Kinkizi Diocess Watsan 

Programme


Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 

Off Tu Mission No data reported 


Orungo Youth Integrated Development 

Organisation 

Oxfam GB – Uganda No data reported 

Packwach Development Forum Nebbbi 240,485,000 7,207,500 39,400 

Soroti 72,799,000 45,982,000 Not indicated 

Pentecostal Assemblies of God-Soroti 

Mission Development Department 

Paidha Water and Sanitation Association Nebbi, Zombo 14,500,000 8,000,000 Not indicated 

Pakele Women’s Association Adjumani 2,800,000 41,670,000 Not indicated 

PAMO Volunteers Kumi 66,360,000 50,320,000 Not indicated 


Participatory Rural Development 

Organization (PRDO) 


Pentecostal Assemblies of God – Kumi 

(PAG-Kumi) 


Not indicated Not indicated 50,400 

Plan Uganda Kampala, Lira, Luwero, Kamuli and 

Tororo 


Programme for Accessible health, 

Communication and Education (PACE - 

Formerly PSI Uganda) 

PROTOS Kamwenge, Kabarole, Kyenjojo Not indicated 32,910,769 Not indicated 

Rakai CBHP No data reported 

Rakai Counsellors’ Association (RACA) No data reported

Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 


Rukungiri Gender and Development 

Association 


Rural Community Strategy for 

Development (RUCOSDE) 


Rural Country Development Organisation 

(RUCODE) 


Rural Country Integrated Development 

Association (RUCIDA) 

Rural Health Care Foundation No data reported 

Arua, Maracha, Terego Not indicated Not indicated Not indicated 

Rural Initiative For Community 

Empowerment WEST NILE 


Rural Welfare Improvement for 

Development (RWIDE) 

Rwenzori African Dev’t Foundation( RADF) Kasese 10,370,000 10,080,000 Not indicated 


Kabarole 1,201,125,000 19,415,000 100 

Rwenzori Youth Concern association 

(RYCA) 

Safer World International No data reported 

Bugiri 7,400,000 2,540,000 Not indicated 

Save the vulnerable and orphaned 

children initiative 

85,000,000 99,000,000 Not indicated 

Mbale, Kapchorwa, Soroti, Kumi, Rakai, 

Mpigi, Kiboga, Yumbe, Adjuman, Koboko, 

Arua, Bundibugyo, Kasese, Kabarole, 

Kamwenge, Kyenjojo, Bugembe Town 

Council, Nyendo Senyange Division, 

Mutukula Town Council, Kyotera Town 

council 

SNV Netherlands Development 

Organisation 



Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 

Amuria, Katakwi 13,831,200 61,658,500 Not indicated 

Soroti Catholic Diocese Intergrated Dev’t 

Organisation (SOCADIDO) 

St. James Kibbuse Foundation No data reported 


Sustainable Sanitation and Water 

Renewal Systems (SSWARS) 


Temele Development Organisation 

(TEMEDO) 


The Environment and Community 

Development Organisation 

Tooro Development Agency [Kabarole] No data reported 

Tororo District NGO Forum (TONGOF) Tororo 77,000,000 26,100,000 9,800 

Two Wings Agroforestry Network (TWAN) No data reported 


Uganda Association for Social Economic 

Progress (USEP) 


Uganda Cooperative Consultancy Firm No data reported 


Uganda Domestic Sanitation Services 

(UGADOSS) 

Mukono 10,550,000 6,581,250 Not indicated 

Uganda Environmental Education 

Foundation 

Uganda Japan Association (UJA) No data reported 

Bugiri 526,200,000 438,440,000 11,000 

Uganda Muslim Rural Development 

Association (UMURDA ) 

Uganda Rain Water Association Kampala 58,500,000 11,408,900 100

Population 

served 

Expenditure 

(UGX) 


(UGX) 

Uganda Red Cross Society No data reported 

Uganda Society of Hidden Talents No data reported 

UWESO Masaka/Rakai Masaka, Rakai 63,000,000 44,000,000 200 

Voluntary Action for Development Wakiso 627,778,000 627,778,000 26,300 

478,000,000 461,208,333 3,800 

Water Aid Wakiso, Mpigi, Masindi, Amuria, Katakwi, 

Kampala (Kawempe Division) 

Water For People Uganda Kyenjojo and Mukono 25,625,200 22,031,950 100 

Water for Production Relief No data reported 

Welthungerhilfe Lira, Katakwi, Moroto. Nakapiripirit. Not indicated 315,705,650 Not indicated 

Wera Development Association (WEDA) Amuria, Katakwi 141,581,787 22,384,713 24,600 

World Vision No data reported 

Youth Alive No data reported 


Arua Not indicated Not indicated Not indicated 

Youth Development Organisation 

(YODEO) 

Youth Environment Services (YES) Busia 3,100,000 3,800,000 Not indicated 


Youth Initiative for Development 

Association (YIFODA) 

ZOA Uganda Pader 100,000 572,861,558 15,900 

Total 19,902,985,211 18,452,663,123 2,697,200 


Key 


UWASNET members 

WASH Cluster members 

Members of UWASNET and WASH Cluster 

NGOs in the Ugandan Water and Sanitation Sector | 100

Performance Report for FY 2009/10 - UWASNET

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?