PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT IN THE LESOTHO HIGHLANDS WATER PROJECT

Presenter: G. Mokone

Senior Officer Catchment Management

APRIL 2011

LESOTHO WATER WEEK

OverviewObjective of Presentation

Share information on practical examples of Catchment Management in the Lesotho Highlands Water Project.

ICM Project

• Overall Aim: “Promoting dialogue with communities on resource management and long-term social and economic development through active community involvement.”

• Strategy: A ‘win win’ strategy to reduce rate of soil erosion in the highlands while benefiting local communities through in crop yield by means of improved agric technologies, range mgt, etc

• Overall Objective: “To benefit local communities by improving the sustainability of resource use within LHWP catchments”

• How? By applying the Integrated Catchment Management (ICM) approach.

What is ICM?

• The major features of the ICM approach are involvement of those most affected by the decisions (i.e. the stakeholders) in all phases of the development of their watershed and holistic planning that addresses issues which extend across subject disciplines (biophysical, social, and economic) and political boundaries (district, community, village, etc.).

Key features of ICM include:

1. Interdisciplinary – diverse specialists working in coordination

2. Holistic – examines the catchment as a whole (as a unit)

3. Participatory – involves the land users and all stakeholders

4. Adaptive/Flexible – plans and activities updated/revised as lessons are learnt and as biophysical/economic/social conditions change

ICM Project

Purpose of Contract 1044 (2005-2010):

• Initiated in the 3 LHWP Phase I catchments and setup structures which in the long-term could eventually implement ICM.

How?

• Piloted ICM approach in 5 sub-catchment areas including going through a full cycle (initiation with communities/stakeholders, base studies, planning, implementing demonstrations, monitoring/review/evaluation)

• Established ICM institutions which will gradually take on full responsibility for ICM

ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURESObjective: Establishment of institutional structures to sustain catchment management

AchievementsSTANDING COMMITTIES ON NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

• 11 Community Councils in the LHWP

• Composition

• Functions

CATCHMENT LIAISON FORUMS (CLF)

• 2 CLFs covering 3 catchments

• Katse + ‘Muela established in December 2008

• Mohale established December 2008

• Sittings far so far 3 at each

ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES

Members from the 11 EP/NRM Standing Committees covering Katse, Mohale, and ‘Muela catchments (photo taken at 2nd round training workshop in Oct 2009)

AGRICULTURE

Objective: Adaptation of agric practices that minimise soil disturbance thus reducing soil erosion

Conservation Agriculture /Minimum Tillage ( Sociometric survey results - % of farmers in the PCAs)

• Potholes ( 6%)

• Mechanised/ox-drawn Magoye rippers ( 1%’)

• Overall adaptation of new farming methods (32%)

Land Use PlanningObjective: To encourage and empower communities to use and

manage their land optimally, sustainably and in harmony with the natural resource base.

Tangible outputs

• Land use planning map available as for current use and as benchmark for other projects.

• Ha Ts’iu is protecting 30,109m2 of wetland

Soil and Water Conservation Plan

Objectives:To reduce the rate of soil erosion in the LHWP catchments

Tangible outputs

PCA No. of water-ways

Total length of water-ways (m)

No. of gab-ions

No. of loose rock dams

No. of trees plant-ed*

Rock lining total length (m)

Grass planted on banks / sides

(% of waterways)

Condition of grass

Total / Average (5 PCAs)

11 1,255 43 10 29 516 47 Generally good except for few spots

Rangeland Management Plan

Objectives: To improve rangeland management and range condition in order to enhance livestock outputs and reduce erosion in the catchment.

Tangible outputs (in 5 PCAs)

Grazing management plans adopted

4,000 permits provided

29,328 m2 reseeded with 70% of sites grassed germinated

LHDA officer talking to the community about range management issues

FruitsObjectives: To increase the quantity and improve the quality of fruits for home consumption and for sale.

Fruit production demonstrations in the PCAs

PCA No. of homes

No. fruit trees per home

Total apple trees

Total pear trees

Total peach trees

Grape vines Percent with fencing (% of homes)

No. % survival

No. % survival

No. % survival

No.

% survival

Total / Average* (5 PCAs)

42 15 148 98 145 95 145 96 61 41 76

Vegetables

Number of homes with ICM keyhole gardens in the PCAs

Field Crops

Number of conservation agriculture demonstrations in the PCAs

Members of the community participating in soil fertilisation and conservation agriculture

Forestry Plan

Objectives: To alleviate the need of using crop residues and manure for fuel materials by establishing more woodlots and to stabilize gullies, waterways and terraces/ buffers by planting trees in strategic locations/ arrangements.

PCA / Site No. of Seedlings Planted*

Total Area (m2) or Length (m) if along Stream or Road

Estimated Survival Rate (% at site)*

General Condition of Trees at Site

Are trees well protected from livestock?

L S RP

Total / Average** (5 PCAs)

L = 1,606S = 2,000RP = 700

5,091 m2 parcels and 2,738 m along streams/ gullies/ roads

93 88 82 Slow to Fast Growth

20 % of sites well protected

Communities participating in tree planting (indigenous trees )

Environmental Awareness ProgramObjective: To empower local communities to make informed

decisions on the use and management of natural resources through environmental education and awareness campaigns

Environment clubs in schools

PCA School Membership Grade Levels

Total (5 PCAs) 5 primary schools and 1 high school

299 Standard 5&6; andForm A, B, D

Challenges Encountered

• Historical and Ongoing Experiences and Issues between LHDA and the Communities/Chiefs:

• Requirement of Funds for Demonstration Activities

• Ongoing Decentralization and Development of Local Government

• Consultations at the Highest Levels

Lessens learned

• Harmonizing Community Priorities and Project Objectives

• Reluctance of Farmers to Test Practices on their “Better” Land

• Expectancy of Handouts and / or Payments to Implement Communal Activities