|1. Project Data:
ICR Review Date Posted:
|Protected Areas Management And Sustainable Use Project
Project Costs(US $M)
Loan/Credit (US $M)
Cofinancing (US $M)
Board Approval Date
|General agriculture fishing and forestry sector (50%), Central government administration (45%), Other social services (5%)|
|Environmental policies and institutions (33% - P)
Biodiversity (33% - P)
Land administration and management (17% - S)
Rural non-farm income generation (17% - S)|
||ICR Review Coordinator:
|2. Project Objectives and Components:|
a. Objectives:This Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use Project was a follow-on to the Institutional Capacity Building for Protected Areas Management and Sustainable Use Project (1998-2002). The project financing included an IDA credit of US$27 million and a GEF grant of US$8 million.
The statement of the project objectives in the Project Appraisal Document (page 4) is:
"The sustainable and cost-effective management of Uganda's wildlife and cultural resources".
The Loan Agreement’s (page 20) statement is identical:
“to achieve sustainable and cost-effective management of the Borrower’s wildlife and cultural resources through: (a) improving the Borrower’s ability to attract tourists to its wildlife and cultural heritage sites; and (b)developing and implementing cost-effective management strategies in managing these resources.
The Global Environment Objective that is cited in the Project Appraisal Document (page 5) is:
"to ensure the effective, long-term conservation of Uganda's biodiversity in the face of competing economic pressures".
b. Were the project objectives/key associated outcome targets revised during implementation?
The project components were:
1. Sustainable Wildlife Management (Appraisal estimate US$30.60 million; Actual cost at closing US$33.2 million of which GEF 4.10 million Grant).
This was expected to assist Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) in implementing the Protected Areas System Plan to rationalize and demarcate the boundaries of the national asset, and support cost-effective management of these assets at the field level through logistical support, equipment and modest targeted civil works for the Parks and Reserves. Specifically, activities targeted were: (a) capacity-building for UWA to implement its Strategic Plan; (b) development and implementation of the Authority’s community management program to enhance wildlife management outside the Protected Areas; (c) enhancement of park patrols, park management planning; and monitoring of the Protected Areas; (d) rehabilitation and maintenance of Protected Areas’ facilities and infrastructure; and (e) studies on the Protected Areas’ resources. In addition, involuntary resettlement could be a consequence of redefining park/reserve boundaries in the Mt. Elgon National Park, Katonga Game Reserve, and Pian Upe Wildlife Reserve. Thus this component included support for a team of consultants to review and design appropriate plans to address the specific issues of people resident in the protected areas, or using the protected area resources. This activity was to be limited to the design of options and did not include implementation of the plans that would be financed separately.
2. Environmental Conservation Education (Appraisal estimate US$ 4.00 million; Actual cost at closing US$3.44 million of GEF Grant).
The project aimed to establish new programs at the Uganda Wildlife Education Center (UWEC) for visitor education, especially school children. It was expected that UWEC would reach out to school children around Uganda by funding both daytime visits for nearby schools and an overnight residency program for children living more distantly. New exhibits construction and maintenance highlighting Ugandan wildlife would be funded by the project to increase the range of educational messages of interest. Specifically, financing would be provided for (a) an educational campaign; (b) construction of new facilities, including open air exhibits, access roads; accommodation for staff; and a child discovery center; (c) an animal welfare and rehabilitation program; and (d) an institutional strengthening plan of the Center.
3. Tourism Framework (Appraisal estimate US$1.70 million; Actual cost at closing US$1.21 million).
This component aimed at providing funding for logistics and equipment that would: (a) establish a sustainable tourism framework based on policy development and enabling legislation; (b) provide for licensing and registration of operators within the sector to ensure quality; (c) develop accurate statistics on the sector; and, (d) facilitate the improvement in human resource training. In addition to funding these activities the project aimed at providing substantial funds for construction of a building for the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry (MTTI). Under this component, support was to be provided for the Wildlife Department in the MTTI. This support was to include training, equipment, management support and technical capacity building to enable the Wildlife Department to carry out Uganda's responsibilities under relevant international treaties, and in particular to function effectively as the Management Authority for the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
4. Cultural Heritage (Appraisal estimate US$0.80 million; Actual cost at closing US$1.12 million).
The component provided moderate operational funds, some equipment and civil works to continue the establishment of Uganda Museums and Monuments Agency. This support was intended to finalize the former Department's transition to a sustainable semi-autonomous agency and facilitate expansion of the offerings at the Museum and the identification and development of remote antiquarian sites of significant importance to Uganda's cultural heritage. Specifically, the project supported institutional strengthening of the Department of Antiquities and Museums (DAM), including: (a) renovation and maintenance of its buildings and museums; (b) establishment of a heritage trail in Fort Portal; (d) construction of a cultural center in Kabale; (e) development of a national cultural historic sites database; (f) development of pilot cultural sites; and (g) training of DAM’s staff in visitor management and museum operations.
5. Project Coordination Unit (Appraisal estimate US$0.80 million; Actual cost at closing US$1.12 million).This was to support the Project Coordination Unit for two and a half years. It was expected that the Unit would build the capacity of the implementing agencies to take over the responsibility for project management including procurement and reporting.
d. Comments on Project Cost, Financing, Borrower Contribution, and Dates
At closing, the project total cost was US$39.90 million, only slightly more than the appraisal forecast (US$38.00 million). The resettlement activities of the Uganda Wildlife Authority component were cancelled. The funds related to the resettlement sub-component were reallocated to support acquisition of communication and other equipment to support operation and management of the Protected Areas across the country.
The project financing consisted of IDA credit (estimated cost of US$27.00 million at appraisal and actual cost of US$32.02 million) and GEF Grant (appraisal and actual cost of US$8.00 million). The IDA Credit appreciated in value because the US$ depreciated against Special Drawing Rights, the currency of the Credit.
The Borrower's contribution at appraisal was expected to be US$3.00 million; actual contribution was zero. The ICR (page 8) notes that the counterpart contribution was reduced to zero percent across all categories around the time of the Mid-term Review. This adjustment was common to many projects in the World Bank Uganda portfolio and stemmed from the country‘s general inability to meet counterpart funding requirements for its World Bank project portfolio.
The project was closed 3.2 years later than the original closing date due to delays caused by:
(i) a lack of counterpart funding;
(ii) animal disease outbreaks during project implementation (ebola, anthrax, SARS, Avian Flu);
(iii) security threats at Murchison Falls National Park,
(iv) political interference in project implementation; and
(v) a decline in parallel activities by development partners in Uganda that supported protected areas.
The project closing date was extended twice: from December 31, 2007 to June 30, 2010, and then to March 31, 2011.
|3. Relevance of Objectives & Design:|
a. Relevance of Objectives:Substantial
- The project responded to national strategic priorities and its development objective was relevant at appraisal and currently. Project objectives were relevant to the Government’s strategy to reduce poverty through sustainable economic growth and development, within the framework of protection of environment and natural resources, and the goals of the current National Development Plan for the period of 2011-2015. The latter called for restoring degraded ecosystems, ensuring sustainable management of environmental resources, increasing public awareness, and enforcing environmental laws and regulations. Project objectives were highly relevant also to the government’s strategy for the Wildlife and Tourism sector, which emphasizes rehabilitation and management of the wildlife and conservation areas, revitalization of the tourism industry, and empowerment of local governments and communities in sustainable management of natural resources. As part of the strategy, the government’s institutional reforms focused on establishing a number of semi-autonomous entities responsible for different facets of the conservation and tourism sectors, including the Uganda Wildlife Authority, the Wildlife Education Center, the Uganda Tourist Board, and the Department of Antiquities and Museums.
- Project objectives remained consistent with the objectives of the Bank’s 2011-2015 Country Assistance Strategy for Uganda that stated that development and growth in the country must occur in an environmentally sustainable manner, given that 90% of the population is directly dependent on the country's natural resource base.
- Project objectives were also consistent with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands ratified by the Government of Uganda. They contribute to the GEF Operational Strategy for Biodiversity, focusing on a range of ecosystems representative of Uganda's biodiversity (savannas, mountains and forests), and are consistent with GEF Operational Programs for Arid and Semi-arid Ecosystems (OP1), Mountain Ecosystems (OP4) and Forest Ecosystems (OP3).
b. Relevance of Design: Substantial
The composition of project components and activities was relevant to the expected project outcomes of sustainable and cost-effective management of Uganda’s wildlife and cultural resources objective. The proposed boundary fixing of protected areas (PAs) aimed at increasing security, reducing poaching and conserving wildlife. Awareness raising was to improve the knowledge of local communities on the value of the reserve areas and prepared them for collaboration in PAs' sustainable management. Support for building the capacity and outreach of the park ranger service was to improve its ability to better manage and increase PA security and reduce poaching, thus making the parks more sustainable. Better run parks would be expected to be more attractive to tourists through a more efficient and better regulated tourism establishment. Increased tourism, allied with the provision of new facilities and buildings, was expected to reduce rental overhead costs and, with more efficient planning and staff deployment, lead to reduced costs and increased revenues. Thus in aggregate, project activities would contribute to the sustainability and cost-effectiveness outcomes. The project design could have included measures to improve governance of the project funds and develop institutional capacity in project management.
|4. Achievement of Objectives (Efficacy) :|
“To achieve sustainable and cost-effective management of Uganda’s wildlife and cultural resources”
The statement of project objectives has two sub-objectives: (a) to achieve sustainable management of Uganda’s wildlife and cultural resources, and (b) to achieve cost-effective management of Uganda’s wildlife and cultural resources.
(a) To achieve sustainable management of Uganda’s wildlife and cultural resources: Rated Substantial
- In pursuit of the development objective, the project financed the development of protected areas (PA) infrastructure. Its deterioration threatened wildlife and ecosystems of the national parks and PA-based tourism. 160 new housing structures were made available to approximately 50 percent of staff working in PAs. Office infrastructure was rehabilitated in 90 percent of the protected areas. However initial project targets for PA infrastructure were achieved by only 50% due to the five year delay in start of the infrastructure investments and the associated increase in construction costs (ICR, page 15).
- The Protected Areas Sustainability Plan was approved by Parliament and 22 PA were officially gazetted as new park systems.
- As part of implementation of the Protected Areas Sustainability Plan, the project supported rationalization and demarcation of PA boundaries. About 600 kilometers of park boundaries were surveyed and over 1,150 kilometers of park boundaries were marked. This constituted about 80% of the planned target of 1,436 km.
- A number of activities were implemented under the project to win community support for the parks and convince communities that the PAs were an economic benefit to them. Extensive consultations were carried out with local communities to stop livestock grazing inside PA boundaries and avoid further degradation of the PA habitat. 20 percent of gate revenues were shared with communities.
- According to the project team, training programs were provided to communities and the Uganda's People Defense Force on the importance of wildlife conservation in the PA areas.
- The project provided support to the Department of Antiquities and Museums that included: (i) upgrading the Uganda National Museum in Kampala (re-roofing, building of on-site cafe, update of information displays, purchase of vehicles for site inspections); (ii) gazetting of 10 archaeological and other cultural sites and developing a full cultural site registry (the project target was 40 gazetted cultural sites); (iii) developing the Fort Portal and Kabarole heritage trails; and (iv) developing advertising materials to further promote Uganda as a destination of cultural and natural interest. Tours to the Uganda National Museum and regional sites were included in tourist package tours.
- The ICR reports that populations of key animal species – buffalo, waterbuck, elephant, Ugandan cobb, hippo and lion, increased in all project targeted protected areas (PAs) (ICR, page 15). It attributes the increase to natural animal regeneration due to higher efficiency of ranger services, including better control of poaching and encroachment in PAs. Although the ICR provides no absolute numbers of the animal population increase to judge the significance of the animal population growth, IEG was able to find data on the internet that indicated that there was a significant resurgence in most species In Uganda's PAs since around the year 2000. This trend continued with some variation by park and species up until at least 2010. (For example, buffalo increased in Murchison Park from 3,889 in 1999 to 11,004 in 2010 and giraffes from 347 to 904. Elephant age distributions support a hypothesis of recent population growth.) IEG accepts that some of this resurgence in the more recent period can plausibly be attributed to the better protection resulted from the project, alongside broader security changes across the country.
- The ICR cites the increase in tourism visits from a baseline of 40,000 visits a year to 170,000 visits at project closing, with the vast majority of them to the Protected Areas, as well as to Museums and Cultural Heritage sites. The 170,000 tourist visits to the country generated total tourist revenue of US$662 million for 2010, or more than US$ 3,894 per tourist. The project targets on PA visits increase was achieved to 71% (ICR, page 15, 37). However how much of this increase in tourist visits can be attributed to the project activities is not clear. Other factors that were likely to significantly contribute to the tourism increase in Uganda over the project period were improved tourism security and better diversification of tourism activities (boating, water sports, hiking, climbing, etc.).
- The number of Protected Areas showing conflict with communities decreased from a baseline of 19 to 2 at project closing, constituting about 90 percent achievement of the project target (ICR, page 19).
(b) To achieve cost-effective management of Uganda’s wildlife and cultural resources: Rated Substantial
- The project supported institutional strengthening of Uganda Wildlife Authority , Uganda Wildlife Education Center and the Department of Antiquities and Museums. More than 1,500 rangers and 200 senior staff in protected areas management were trained. Field staff morale improved through the introduction of competitive pay packages, provision of uniforms and equipment such as tents, radios, and vehicles.
- The project supported capacity building of Uganda Wildlife Authority in financial control and management, specifically, in financial records maintenance and reduction of financial leakages, and introduction of the Financial Procedures Manual.
- Improved financial control procedures at Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) resulted in enhanced accountability in expenditure and revenue reporting and increased revenue collection. The revenue collection increased by up to 40 percent without a corresponding increase in visitation, while expenditure on fuel and vehicle maintenance fell by about 30 percent. To ensure financial sustainability of its operations, UWA was successful in building up its reserve funds. At project closing it had a reserve fund of approximately US$ 5.7 million accumulated.
- Financial sustainability of Uganda Wildlife Education Center (UWEC) was improved, achieving 95 percent of recurrent cost coverage (86 percent of the project target). UWEC also established an endowment fund of US$920,000 enhancing financial sustainability of its operations. UWA’s internally generated revenues increased by over 350 percent over the 8 year period 2002-2011. The ICR attributes the increase in the revenues to the improved financial control and management, and to increase in wildlife numbers in protected areas, which has attracted higher numbers of tourists (ICR, page 17).
No project ERR or FRR were estimated at appraisal. An attempt was made in the ICR to estimate an economic rate of return on the project investments. The analysis assumed that the project contributed to 3-5% of the increase in tourist visits to the country over the implementation period. The calculated ERRs ranged from 8% to 17%, respectively. The ICR does not substantiate why this level of project contribution to the national tourism increase was assumed. No details of other assumptions used in the analysis (discount rate, stream of investment cost, etc.) are provided in the report.
- While there were some improvements in financial control procedures, overall administrative efficiency of the project was poor. The project closed 3.3 years later than planned at appraisal. Major contributing factors were inadequate Board oversight that led to poor performance on procurement, political interference, inadequate counterpart funding, high staff turnover and corruption in the use of project funds routed via the Ministry of Tourism, Trade and Industry (ICR page 27).The five year delay in the start of the infrastructure investments increased construction costs due to inflation and led to the reduction of project scope – for example, only 50% of the staff housing was completed. Thus, while the total project cost was about the same, the project did not fully achieve its intended output targets. In addition, this led to an increase in project management costs from the planned US$0.80 million to US$1.2 million.
Efficiency is rated Modest.
a. If available, enter the Economic Rate of Return (ERR)/Financial Rate of Return at appraisal and the re-estimated value at evaluation:
* Refers to percent of total project cost for which ERR/FRR was calculated