1. PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF CATCHMENT MANAGEMENT IN THE LESOTHO HIGHLANDS WATER PROJECT Presenter: G. Mokone Senior Officer Catchment Management APRIL 2011 LESOTHO WATER WEEK

2. Overview Objective 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.

3. 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

4. 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

5. ESTABLISHED INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES Objective: Establishment of institutional structures to sustain catchment management Achievements STANDING 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

6. 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)

7. 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%)

8. Land Use Planning Objective: 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 30,109m 2 of wetland

10. Soil and Water Conservation Plan Objectives: To reduce the rate of soil erosion in the LHWP catchments Tangible outputs PCANo. 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) 111,25543102951647Generally good except for few spots

12. 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 m 2 reseeded with 70% of sites grassed germinated

13. LHDA officer talking to the community about range management issues

14. Fruits Objectives: To increase the quantity and improve the quality of fruits for home consumption and for sale. Fruit production demonstrations in the PCAs PCANo. of homes No. fruit trees per home Total apple trees Total pear trees Total peach trees Grape vinesPercent with fencing (% of homes) No.% survival No.% surviv al No.% surviv al No. % surviv al Total / Average* (5 PCAs) 4215148981459514596614176

15. Vegetables Number of homes with ICM keyhole gardens in the PCAs

16. Field Crops Number of conservation agriculture demonstrations in the PCAs

17. Members of the community participating in soil fertilisation and conservation agriculture

18. 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 / SiteNo. of Seedlings Planted* Total Area (m 2 ) 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? LSRP Total / Average** (5 PCAs) L = 1,606 S = 2,000 RP = 700 5,091 m 2 parcels and 2,738 m along streams/ gullies/ roads 938882Slow to Fast Growth 20 % of sites well protected

19. Communities participating in tree planting (indigenous trees )

20. Environmental Awareness Program Objective: 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 PCASchoolMembershipGrade Levels Total (5 PCAs)5 primary schools and 1 high school 299Standard 5&6; and Form A, B, D

22. 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