Aid and the Environment: Uganda Eseza Katerega Makerere University

Presentation outline Background: Environmental concerns and responses by sector; Major donors aid flows Objective of the study Donor aid focus areas Distribution of aid across environmental sectors Findings

Background Aid flows to Africa have been increasing over time The actual share of resources allocated to environmental activities including climate change is lacking Little information on the relative importance of environmental activities undertaken by donors as well as their areas of focus A study covering six countries (Ghana, Senegal, Kenya, Tanzania, Botswana, Uganda)

Objective of the study To establish the areas in which aid from the major donors is concentrated. To examine how donor aid has been allocated to the environmental sectors: Agriculture, Livestock and fisheries, Wetlands, forestry, transport infrastructure, water, general environmental protection and climate change support. Establish factors behind the success/failure of environmental projects

Major donors Multilateral include: IDA, EU, UNDP Bilateral: –US, UK, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden

Total Commitments: Multilateral Donors

Total Commitments (Bilateral donors)

Preliminary findings Major focus areas: Multilateral More than 50% of the total commitments of the World Bank were directed to the energy (electricity projects), health, and agriculture sectors, and the recovery of northern Uganda The EU allocated over 60% to Humanitarian aid

Findings GEF funds were allocated to enabling activities for the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) and the conservation of biodiversity in the Albertine Rift forest areas On average 60% of aid from UNDP was allocated to Economic growth and poverty reduction; and democratic and accountable governance

Results Major focus areas: Bilateral US: Food aid and health support, governance peace and reconciliation efforts UK: health sector, recovery of northern Uganda, food aid and social protection, and budget support Sweden: poverty reduction and strengthening civil society organizations, women and child rights

Findings Denmark: capacity building support in the private and public sectors, health management and poverty alleviation Norway: rural electrification, development and management of the oil and gas sector, capacity building, human rights and governance, gender and child rights Ireland: non-government organizations, social care and mitigation of HIV/AIDS, peace recovery and development programs

Distribution of Aid across sectors AgricultureWaterFisheries &Livestock ForestryNat. Resource& Biodiversity USEUDenmarkNorwayUS Denmark NorwayDenmarkUNDP NorwaySwedenIrelandEUDenmark World BankUS Norway UK World Bank IrelandNorway

Factors behind success (recipients) Strong involvement of local communities in projects strong commitment by Government Involvement of donors in monitoring/supervision of implementation process the creation of awareness of project goals

Conclusion The US, UK, Ireland, Sweden, Netherlands and WB did not commit any funds to the forestry sector ( ). Ireland, Sweden, and the Netherlands did not commit any funds to Natural resource mgt & Biodiversity conservation ( ). The percentage of total commitments from donors allocated to the environmental sectors considered have on average been less than 10%.

Conclusion Over the period Sweden and the Netherlands did not allocated funds to the agriculture sector Over the period WB and the Netherlands did not allocated funds to the Water and sanitation sector The EU, WB, Sweden, Netherlands did not commit funds to the livestock and fisheries sector ( ).

THANK YOU