Getting the process going Annex 14A. Sample supplemental terms of reference

approach, farmers and agricultural or water organizations undertake complementary measures around the road infrastructure. Implementation of adaptive approaches involves a range of coordinated activities. some examples include sensitization of related authorities in agriculture, water resources, environment, and disaster risk reduction; training for farmers and others involved in implementation; special additional funding arrangements; and memoranda of understanding between road authorities and others.

The Kenya Roads Board and Water sector Trust fund have signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to formalize their roles in implementing an adaptive resilience approach; the MoU is a funding arrangement whereby the Trust fund will pay the costs associated with storage ponds.

In a proactive resilience approach (resilience plus 2), the different sectors work together even more closely. Because proactive resilience conceptualizes road projects as multifunctional assets, road development is not the responsibility only of road authorities but is shared and discussed with many others. This approach requires new working methods that can account for different considerations early in the road development process. (Annex 14A provides recommended terms of reference for teams working on this approach.) over time, new practices are tested and captured in new guidelines and new design recommendations. The interministerial committee on roads for water established in Uganda is an example of this wider cooperation.

GETTING THE PROCESS GOING

The roads-for-water management concept has been introduced in a variety of countries. Although interest is widespread, the speed of uptake varies, partly because of the different overall governance systems in different countries, as discussed in the section “Governance for Roads for Water.” Key divergences include the management culture of the organizations most motivated to implement roads for water and the level of decentralization or centralization of the critical institutions.

Uptake in Ethiopia, for instance, was fast. A large lever existed and could be used—the Watershed Programs, orchestrated by the Regional Bureaus of Agriculture. These programs mobilized large numbers of people every year in the lean season (see the section titled “Examples of Community Engagement at scale” in chapter 15). Water-harvesting measures were systematically integrated into this program and large-scale adaptive resilience measures were quickly implemented. Moreover, there is a strong “can do” mentality in Ethiopia. The regional governments quickly took ownership of the concept of roads for water and incorporated it into their five-year plans.

This scenario may be compared with Kenya, where decentralization under the 2013 constitutional amendment placed substantial budgetary resources under the control of the 47 counties, including the responsibility to build and maintain rural roads. Under decentralization, the Kenya Rural Roads Authority made the transition from a commanding role to an advisory one. Introducing a new practice across Kenya now requires a larger number of decisions to be made in each county. Kenya does not have campaigns equivalent to the watershed programs found in Ethiopia, so there is no single mechanism for introducing the additional water-harvesting measures, even at the county level.