Independent Evaluation - Home > Search

Implementation Completion Report (ICR) Review - Environmental Management And Capacity Building

1. Project Data:   
ES Date Posted:
Project Name:
Environmental Management And Capacity Building
Project Costs(US $M)
 15.2  9.14
Loan/Credit (US $M)
 11.8  11.12
Sector, Major Sect.:
Environmental Institutions,
Cofinancing (US $M)
 0  0
L/C Number:
C2777; CP848      
Board Approval (FY)
Partners involved
Closing Date
06/30/2001 06/30/2001
Prepared by: Reviewed by: Group Manager: Group:  
Kavita Mathur
Andres Liebenthal Alain A. Barbu OEDST

2. Project Objectives and Components:

a. Objectives
The objectives of the project were to:

(a) build a capacity for environment management at national, district, and community levels through the establishment of the National Environmental Management Authority (NEMA); and
(ii) strengthen selected districts (oriented towards support for the community component on natural resource management) and initiate a process for communities to address natural resource degradation problems of local concern.

b. Components
The project had two main components:
(i) Institutional component to build environmental management capacity at national level. The component would support: (a) establishment of NEMA with financing for vehicles, equipment and staff; (b) establishment of District Coordination Unit to link NEMA to districts; (c) establishment of Policy, Planning and Legal Division; (d) establishment of Education, Awareness and Training Division; and (e) environmental and resource degradation studies.
(ii) Environmental capacity building at district and community level - capacity building in six focal districts on environment management specifically in initiating a process for communities to address natural resource degradation problems; provision of training to districts and communities; and development of parish level environmental action plans which will identify priorities and specific activities relating to sustainable environmental management which in turn would generate community micro-projects.

c. Comments on Project Cost, Financing and Dates
The total credit amount was US$11.8 million of which US$9.3 million was disbursed and US$0.68 million was cancelled. The discrepancies between actual and appraisal estimates of the total loan amounts of US$1.8 million can be attributed to exchange rate fluctuations. In terms of SDR amounts, the loan was SDR 7.5 million, SDR 6.9 million was disbursed and SDR 0.63 million was cancelled.

3. Achievement of Relevant Objectives:

The project achieved its objectives of building the capacity for environment management at national, district, and community levels and strengthening the capacity of selected districts to address the natural resource degradation problems at local level.
  1. At national level, NEMA was established and institutional capacity of NEMA was strengthened through: (a) training, including training on information management and training on Environmental Impact Assessment procedures; (b) development and operationalization of management information system; (c) development of environment policy, regulations and standards. Promotion of environment awareness led to the mainstreaming of environmental concerns into sectoral policy, planning and actions in Uganda. As a result, environmental inspection and audits have become an integral part of NEMA's work program.
  2. At district and sub-district levels, environment management structures including District Environment offices and District and Local Environment Committees were established. District Environment Committees, District Technical Planning Committees and Local Environment Committees were trained to assist in environmental management. District environment action planning and implementation of the District Environmental Action Plans (DEAP's) to address priority environmental issues was successfully undertaken.
  3. To mobilize and train communities, NGO's and households, National Strategy for Non-Formal Environmental Education and Community Training was developed.

4. Significant Outcomes/Impacts:

Finalization and approval of Environmental Impact Assessment guidelines and regulations.
  • Preparation of the draft standards on water quality, effluent discharge, air quality and noise pollution.
  • Development and operationalization of management information system to enable NEMA to access timely and up-to-date information.
  • Development and launching of National Environmental Education Strategy to ensure that environmental education is integrated in all policies, plans and subjects across all levels and institutions of the formal education sector.
  • Development of National Strategy for Non Formal Environmental Education and Community Training to promote participatory environmental practices by mobilizing and training communities, government, private sector, NGOs, CBOs and households.

5. Significant Shortcomings (include non-compliance with safeguard features):

The responsibilities for NEMA and key stakeholders were not clearly defined. This resulted in considerable strain on the technical and logistical capacity within NEMA.
  • The development of environmental compliance tools including EIA regulations and guidelines was not matched with capacity building effort to ensure their usefulness. A number of tools were, therefore, developed but were not fully utilized due to lack of interpretation capacity among the target users.
  • The establishment of Environment Liaison Units (ELUs) for informing and engaging lead agencies did not work. ELUs were established within the lead agencies and were viewed as an "imposition" rather than "opportunity" for capacity building initiatives.
  • The project did not develop the mechanism and framework for expanding the revenue base for the National Environmental Fund.
  • 6. Ratings:ICROED ReviewReason for Disagreement/Comments
    Institutional Dev.:
    HighSubstantialAvailable evidence does not support a "High" rating for Institutional Development Impact as the development of environmental compliance tools including EIA regulations and guidelines was not matched with capacity building effort to ensure their usefulness. Also the establishment of ELUs for informing and engaging lead agencies did not work.
    Bank Performance:
    Borrower Perf.:
    Quality of ICR:

    7. Lessons of Broad Applicablity:

    Development of environment management capacity at district and local level is a very slow process. The roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders needs to be clearly defined. Also, a public education campaign is critical for creating awareness of the value of environmental management. The development and implementation of a sound environmental program needs adequate and sustainable funding.

    8. Audit Recommended?  No


    9. Comments on Quality of ICR:

    The quality of the ICR could have been substantially improved with a specific discussion of any "results on the ground" that could be attributed to the project, e.g., in terms of (i) preliminary responses to the gazetting of environmental assessment guidelines, (ii) a discussion of the microprojects that were funded, including their types, issues associated with their implementation, and preliminary indication of their environmental impacts, and (iii) an indication of the environmental indicators and the impacts that they show, as they emerge from the environmental reporting system that was set up during the latter part of the project.

    © 2012 The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions